What is the most misunderstood historical event?

[TimONeill]

Oh look. It is the person who concocted some "myths" hardly anybody actually believes under the nonsensical guise that "most do", and then shot them down knowing full well they were already full of holes.

Again - your replies have been big on weak scorn and general incompetence but light on ... anything remotely resembling substance. Feel free to try to remedy that now if you like. Let's see who is the "blowhard" here.

Try again. This time, try to actually make a detailed argument about history, rather than just hooting and sneering like an irrational person.

Edit: Oh, he appears to have run away.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Enough details to show your article plays fast and loose with the facts is contained in this single wiki article:

Galileo's contributions caused difficulties for theologians and natural philosophers of the time, as they contradicted scientific and philosophical ideas based on those of Aristotle and Ptolemy and closely associated with the Catholic Church. In particular, Galileo's observations of the phases of Venus, which showed it to circle the sun, and the observation of moons orbiting Jupiter, contradicted the geocentric model of Ptolemy and supported the Copernican model advanced by Galileo.[4]

Jesuit astronomers, experts both in Church teachings, science, and in natural philosophy, were at first skeptical and hostile to the new ideas; however, within a year or two the availability of good telescopes enabled them to repeat the observations. In 1611, Galileo visited the Collegium Romanum in Rome, where the Jesuit astronomers by that time had repeated his observations. Christoph Grienberger, one of the Jesuit scholars on the faculty, sympathized with Galileo’s theories, but was asked to defend the Aristotelian viewpoint by Claudio Acquaviva, the Father General of the Jesuits. Not all of Galileo's claims were completely accepted: Christopher Clavius, the most distinguished astronomer of his age, never was reconciled to the idea of mountains on the Moon, and outside the collegium many still disputed the reality of the observations. In a letter to Kepler of August 1610,[5] Galileo complained that some of the philosophers who opposed his discoveries had refused even to look through a telescope:[6]

My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth.[7]

At this time, Galileo also engaged in a dispute over the reasons that objects float or sink in water, siding with Archimedes against Aristotle. The debate was unfriendly, and Galileo's blunt and sometimes sarcastic style, though not extraordinary in academic debates of the time, made him enemies. During this controversy one of Galileo's friends, the painter, Lodovico Cardi da Cigoli, informed him that a group of malicious opponents, which Cigoli subsequently referred to derisively as "the Pigeon league,"[9] was plotting to cause him trouble over the motion of the earth, or anything else that would serve the purpose.[10] According to Cigoli, one of the plotters had asked a priest to denounce Galileo's views from the pulpit, but the latter had refused. Nevertheless, three years later another priest, Tommaso Caccini, did in fact do precisely that, as described below.

Geostaticism agreed with a literal interpretation of Scripture in several places, such as 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, Ecclesiastes 1:5 (in contrast with Job 26:7). Heliocentrism, the theory that the Earth was a planet, which along with all the others revolved around the Sun, contradicted both geocentrism and the prevailing theological support of the theory.[citation needed]

One of the first suggestions of heresy that Galileo had to deal with came in 1613 from a professor of philosophy, poet and specialist in Greek literature, Cosimo Boscaglia.[13][14] In conversation with Galileo's patron Cosimo II de' Medici and Cosimo's mother Christina of Lorraine, Boscaglia said that the telescopic discoveries were valid, but that the motion of the Earth was obviously contrary to Scripture:

Dr. Boscaglia had talked to Madame [Christina] for a while, and though he conceded all the things you have discovered in the sky, he said that the motion of the earth was incredible and could not be, particularly since Holy Scripture obviously was contrary to such motion.[15]

Galileo was defended on the spot by his former student Benedetto Castelli, now a professor of mathematics and Benedictine abbot. The exchange having been reported to Galileo by Castelli, Galileo decided to write a letter to Castelli,[16] expounding his views on what he considered the most appropriate way of treating scriptural passages which made assertions about natural phenomena.[17] Later, in 1615, he expanded this into his much longer Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina.[18]

Tommaso Caccini, a Dominican friar, appears to have made the first dangerous attack on Galileo. Preaching a sermon in Florence at the end of 1614, he denounced Galileo, his associates, and mathematicians in general (a category that included astronomers).[19] The biblical text for the sermon on that day was Joshua 10, in which Joshua makes the Sun stand still;[19][20] this was the story that Castelli had to interpret for the Medici family the year before.[21] It is said, though it is not verifiable, that Caccini also used the passage from Acts 1:11, "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?".

In late 1614 or early 1615, one of Caccini's fellow Dominicans, Niccolò Lorini, acquired a copy of Galileo's letter to Castelli. Lorini and other Dominicans at the Convent of San Marco considered the letter of doubtful orthodoxy, in part because it may have violated the decrees of the Council of Trent:

...to check unbridled spirits, [the Holy Council] decrees that no one relying on his own judgement shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which the holy mother Church... has held or holds...
— Decree of the Council of Trent (1545–1563). Quoted in Langford, 1992.[23]

Lorini and his colleagues decided to bring Galileo's letter to the attention of the Inquisition. In February 1615 Lorini accordingly sent a copy to the Secretary of the Inquisition, Cardinal Paolo Emilio Sfondrati, with a covering letter critical of Galileo's supporters:[24]

All our Fathers of the devout Convent of St. Mark feel that the letter contains many statements which seem presumptuous or suspect, as when it states that the words of Holy Scripture do not mean what they say; that in discussions about natural phenomena the authority of Scripture should rank last... [the followers of Galileo] were taking it upon themselves to expound the Holy Scripture according to their private lights and in a manner different from the common interpretation of the Fathers of the Church...

— Letter from Lorini to Cardinal Sfrondato, Inquisitor in Rome, 1615. Quoted in Langford, 1992[23]

On March 19, Caccini arrived at the Inquisition's offices in Rome to denounce Galileo for his Copernicanism and various other alleged heresies supposedly being spread by his pupils.[25]

Galileo soon heard reports that Lorini had obtained a copy of his letter to Castelli and was claiming that it contained many heresies. He also heard that Caccini had gone to Rome and suspected him of trying to stir up trouble with Lorini's copy of the letter.[26] As 1615 wore on he became more concerned, and eventually determined to go to Rome as soon as his health permitted, which it did at the end of the year. By presenting his case there, he hoped to clear his name of any suspicion of heresy, and to persuade the Church authorities not to suppress heliocentric ideas.

In going to Rome Galileo was acting against the advice of friends and allies, and of the Tuscan ambassador to Rome, Piero Guicciardini.[27

Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, one of the most respected Catholic theologians of the time, was called on to adjudicate the dispute between Galileo and his opponents. The question of heliocentrism had first been raised with Cardinal Bellarmine, in the case of Paolo Antonio Foscarini, a Carmelite father; Foscarini had published a book, Lettera ... sopra l'opinione ... del Copernico, which attempted to reconcile Copernicus with the biblical passages that seemed to be in contradiction. Bellarmine at first expressed the opinion that Copernicus's book would not be banned, but would at most require some editing so as to present the theory purely as a calculating device for "saving the appearances" (i.e. preserving the observable evidence).[28]

Foscarini sent a copy of his book to Bellarmine, who replied in a letter of April 12, 1615.[29] Galileo is mentioned by name in the letter, and a copy was soon sent to him. After some preliminary salutations and acknowledgements, Bellarmine begins by telling Foscarini that it is prudent for him and Galileo to limit themselves to treating heliocentrism as a merely hypothetical phenomenon and not a physically real one. Further on he says that interpreting heliocentrism as physically real would be "a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture as false." Moreover, while the topic was not inherently a matter of faith, the statements about it in Scripture were so by virtue of who said them—namely, the Holy Spirit. He conceded that if there were conclusive proof, "then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary; and say rather that we do not understand them, than that what is demonstrated is false." However, demonstrating that heliocentrism merely "saved the appearances" could not be regarded as sufficient to establish that it was physically real. Although he believed that the former may well have been possible, he had "very great doubts" that the latter would be, and in case of doubt it was not permissible to depart from the traditional interpretation of Scriptures. His final argument was a rebuttal of an analogy that Foscarini had made between a moving Earth and a ship on which the passengers perceive themselves as apparently stationary and the receding shore as apparently moving. Bellarmine replied that in the case of the ship the passengers know that their perceptions are erroneous and can mentally correct them, whereas the scientist on the Earth clearly experiences that it is stationary and therefore the perception that the Sun, moon and stars are moving is not in error and does not need to be corrected.

Bellarmine found no problem with heliocentrism so long as it was treated as a purely hypothetical calculating device and not as a physically real phenomenon, but he did not regard it as permissible to advocate the latter unless it could be conclusively proved through current scientific standards. This put Galileo in a difficult position, because he believed that the available evidence strongly favoured heliocentrism, and he wished to be able to publish his arguments.[30]

In addition to Bellarmine, Monsignor Francesco Ingoli initiated a debate with Galileo, sending him in January 1616 an essay disputing the Copernican system. Galileo later stated that he believed this essay to have been instrumental in the action against Copernicanism that followed in February. [31] According to Maurice Finocchiaro, Ingoli had probably been commissioned by the Inquisition to write an expert opinion on the controversy, and the essay provided the "chief direct basis" for the ban.[32] The essay focused on eighteen physical and mathematical arguments against heliocentrism. It borrowed primarily from the arguments of Tycho Brahe, and it notedly mentioned Brahe's argument that heliocentrism required the stars to be much larger than the sun. Ingoli wrote that the great distance to the stars in the heliocentric theory "clearly proves ... the fixed stars to be of such size, as they may surpass or equal the size of the orbit circle of the Earth itself."[33] Ingoli included four theological arguments in the essay, but suggested to Galileo that he focus on the physical and mathematical arguments. Galileo did not write a response to Ingoli until 1624, in which, among other arguments and evidence, he listed the results of experiments such as dropping a rock from the mast of a moving ship.[34]

Inquisition and first judgement, 1616

Deliberation

On February 19, 1616, the Inquisition asked a commission of theologians, known as qualifiers, about the propositions of the heliocentric view of the universe.[35] Historians of the Galileo affair have offered different accounts of why the matter was referred to the qualifiers at this time. Beretta points out that the Inquisition had taken a deposition from Gianozzi Attavanti in November, 1615,[36] as part of its investigation into the denunciations of Galileo by Lorini and Caccini. In this deposition, Attavanti confirmed that Galileo had advocated the Copernican doctrines of a stationary Sun and a mobile Earth, and as a consequence the Tribunal of the Inquisition would have eventually needed to determine the theological status of those doctrines. It is however possible, as surmised by the Tuscan ambassador, Piero Guiccardini, in a letter to the Grand Duke,[37] that the actual referral may have been precipitated by Galileo's aggressive campaign to prevent the condemnation of Copernicanism.[38]

Sentence

On February 24 the Qualifiers delivered their unanimous report: the idea that the Sun is stationary is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture..."; while the Earth's movement "receives the same judgement in philosophy and ... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith."[39] The original report document was made widely available in 2014.[40]

At a meeting of the cardinals of the Inquisition on the following day, Pope Paul V instructed Bellarmine to deliver this result to Galileo, and to order him to abandon the Copernican opinions; should Galileo resist the decree, stronger action would be taken. On February 26, Galileo was called to Bellarmine's residence and ordered,

to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.

— The Inquisition's injunction against Galileo, 1616.[3]

With no attractive alternatives, Galileo accepted the orders delivered, even sterner than those recommended by the Pope.[3][41] Galileo met again with Bellarmine, apparently on friendly terms; and on March 11 he met with the Pope, who assured him that he was safe from persecution so long as he, the Pope, should live. Nonetheless, Galileo's friends Sagredo and Castelli reported that there were rumors that Galileo had been forced to recant and do penance. To protect his good name, Galileo requested a letter from Bellarmine stating the truth of the matter. This letter assumed great importance in 1633, as did the question whether Galileo had been ordered not to "hold or defend" Copernican ideas (which would have allowed their hypothetical treatment) or not to teach them in any way. If the Inquisition had issued the order not to teach heliocentrism at all, it would have been ignoring Bellarmine's position.

In the end, Galileo did not persuade the Church to stay out of the controversy, but instead saw heliocentrism formally declared false. It was consequently termed heretical by the Qualifiers, since it contradicted the literal meaning of the Scriptures, though this position was not binding on the Church.

Copernican books banned

Following the Inquisition's injunction against Galileo, the papal Master of the Sacred Palace ordered that Foscarini's Letter be banned, and Copernicus' De revolutionibus suspended until corrected. The papal Congregation of the Index preferred a stricter prohibition, and so with the Pope's approval, on March 5 the Congregation banned all books advocating the Copernican system, which it called "the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to Holy Scripture."[3]

Francesco Ingoli, a consultor to the Holy Office, recommended that De revolutionibus be amended rather than banned due to its utility for calendrics. In 1618 the Congregation of the Index accepted his recommendation, and published their decision two years later, allowing a corrected version of Copernicus' book to be used. The uncorrected De revolutionibus remained on the Index of banned books until 1758.[42]
Galileo's works advocating Copernicanism were therefore banned, and his sentence prohibited him from "teaching, defending… or discussing" Copernicanism. In Germany, Kepler's works were also banned by the papal order.[43]

This all happened long before the supposed slight against the Pope. It also details how contradictory statements in the Bible were used during the first inquisition as part of the evidence against Galileo, as well as demanding that the Galileo completely abandon that " the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing."

There is far more here that directly contradicts the highly simplistic, and often incorrect, account of this affair in your article. But I think I have provided sufficient examples already.

Ironically, Pope John Paul II made a direct apology for this entire affair in 1992:

Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture....
— Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) - November 4, 1992

Even the Pope directly contradicted you. But I'm sure you also think he was also reacting to "myth" by doing so.

But leave it up to Pope Benedict XVI to resurrect this incredibly embarrassing episode for the Roman Catholic Church in 2008:

In January 2008, students and professors protested the planned visit of Pope Benedict XVI to La Sapienza University, stating in a letter that the pope's expressed views on Galileo "offend and humiliate us as scientists who are loyal to reason and as teachers who have dedicated our lives to the advance and dissemination of knowledge."[75] In response the pope canceled his visit.[76] The full text of the speech that would have been given was made available a few days following Pope Benedict's cancelled appearance at the university.[77] La Sapienza's rector, Renato Guarini, and former Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi opposed the protest and supported the pope's right to speak.[78] Also notable were public counter-statements by La Sapienza professors Giorgio Israel[79] and Bruno Dalla Piccola.[75]

It was indeed offensive, as the Pope also tried once again to whitewash this incredibly despicable affair in a similar fashion.

As I mentioned earlier, it isn't surprising at all that there are those who continue to engage in revisionist history to try to paint this highly shameful and embarrassing period of Roman Catholic Church history in a more flattering light by trying to make it all seem like it was Galileo's fault, instead of directly due to the dogmatic position of the Roman Catholic Church at the time. But I don't think I've ever seen an article by claimed atheist try to do so before.

 

[TimONeill]

... this single wiki article ...

Gosh, such a mighty feat of research.

This all happened long before the supposed slight against the Pope.

It did. Your point would be ... ?

It also details how contradictory statements in the Bible were used during the first inquisition as part of the evidence against Galileo

Given that the 1616 trial was centred on the question of whether Galileo's interpretation of heliocentrism contradicted the commonly understood interpretations of certain Biblical texts, this is hardly surprising. Again, your point would be ... ?

as well as demanding that the Galileo completely abandon that " the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing."

Sure did. Your point would be ... ?

There is far more here that directly contradicts the highly simplistic, and often incorrect, account of this affair in your article. But I think I have provided sufficient examples already.

This is comical. You haven't provided any examples at all. You've cut and pasted a slab of Wiki, made some statements that don't contradict a single thing I've said and which I don't disagree with at all and then nearly broken your own arm patting yourself on the back over ...nothing.

What point are you trying to make? Have you considered this - actually making it? Give that a try.

As I mentioned earlier, it isn't surprising at all that there are those who continue to engage in revisionist history to try to paint this highly shameful and embarrassing period of Roman Catholic Church history in a more flattering light by trying to make it all seem like it was Galileo's fault, instead of directly due to the dogmatic position of the Roman Catholic Church at the time. But I don't think I've ever seen an article by claimed atheist try to do so before.

Yes, curses on those peddlers of "revisionist history" like esteemed Sarton Medal winner and agnostic expert in early science Ronald Numbers and the late former President of the History of Science Society, David C. Lindberg. Luckily we have bumbling brave incompetent keyboard warriors unbiased arbiters of unvarnished truth to cut and paste Wiki and then mash the keyboard with their heads while grunting show us the way to the sunlit uplands of righteousness.

 

[Funky]

I know how annoying it is to be misrepresented and smeared for things one hasn't said, especially by people who no nothing at all about the topic at hand. But if I can give any advice, Tim, let it go. It is commonly known here that this guy is not interested in a conversation, and your attempts to use reason and to point out his bigotry will only result in him being more bigoted and tossing out further personal attacks.


On topic, the crusades definitely present one of the most misunderstood historical events in history. As a history teacher, I am dismayed at how this topic is presented in German school books and curricula, and I assume it is similar in other countries as well. Granted, the topic must be dramatically simplified in history classes, since it is taught to the kids when they are only 12-13, much too young to understand the whole background. But nevertheless, the one-sidedness of the accounts is appalling. Our history books set out by informing the students that there were Islamic territories outside of Europe. Some books leave it there, implying that these territories were just naturally Islamic. Other books briefly refer to the "Islamic expansion", which is the most euphemistic distortion I have ever heard. What the books do not mention, is that

- the 150 years of jihad, which violently and ruthlessly spread Islam to the outskirts of the known world aside from Europe, cost an estimated 270 million lives
- in the conquered countries barbaric practises were adopted, often forcing the people to convert to Islam or be killed
- the Byzantine Empire was pretty much annihilated
- the Iberian peninsula had been completely taken over, as had parts of Southern Italy and Greece
- Muslim had attacked France to spread their religion into the heart of Europe
- Muslims had been capturing and importing millions of slaves from Europe

In light of this background, the point can be made that the crusades were completely justified. The initial reason why they started was in fact a desperate call for help by the Byzantine Emperor, after most of today's Turkey had already been conquered, and were hence sparked by a defensive motive. The reconquest of Spain was likewise an attempt to take back the land that the culturally post-Roman Visigothic Kingdom had lost to the Muslim hordes. That Christian motives became a part of the war narrative, making the attempt to control the holy sites a prime incentive for many Christians, is an understandable development, and does not undermine the basic defensive nature of the crusades.

Instead, the history school books focus almost entirely on the violence committed by the Christians. The account which mentions that allegedly were 70.000 killed in the Al-Aqsa Mosque is an integral part of all the history books I have seen, and in some cases it is even presented as a fact. Most of the books include accounts in which Christians depict Muslims as evil creatures, while omitting the reverse perspective, or even contrasting them with accounts of tolerant, open-hearted Muslims. It is up to the teachers to correct this insane perspective of "violent, bloodthirsty Christians vs good, peaceful Muslims", but in all honesty, with a full-time job and a dozen different classes, some of which are working on their final exams at the time this topic usually comes up, the 12-13 year-olds tend to rank rather low on the scale of priorities, and teachers often just go by the book.

The devastating outcome is that when the children get older, they may forget about the details of the topic, but what sticks is the "bad Christians / good Muslims" stance, which is not only historically ridiculous, but also contributes to the inability that many people have to criticize the barbarism we still see committed in the name of Islam around the globe today. One of the most often heard response I have received when criticizing Islam for its obvious negative impacts, is "well, Christians did bad things too", or more concretely, "there's nothing worse than the crusades", as if such answers had anything to do with Islam today.

 

[Camikaze]

I thought it was pretty uncontroversial in historic/philosophical circles that the whole "Galileo was ruthlessly persecuted by the Catholic Church and no-one else because the Church didn't want to face up to the truth" is a gross oversimplification, and that it was in large part the proponents of older scientific models who railed against him, kinda like Hippasus.

There was a televised re-enactment of Galileo's trial a number of years ago largely to this end, featuring Julian Burnside for the defence, and appropriately, Bob Carr as a Medici. Here's a brief talk about it:

Link to video.

 

[Gucumatz]

@ Tim in general there is no real point in debating/discussing with Formaldehyde on this forum. He will just ignore the vast majority of points/subjects you raise and then call anything he disagrees with a strawman/fallacy rather than try and discuss whatever issue is at hand. I for example often disagree in opinion most of the time with abradley on this forum - but at least we can engage in civil discussion.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It did. Your point would be ... ?

So you don't even recognize how the facts I presented directly contradict what you stated in your own article?

How ironic, but not very surprising, given the criticism of your "review" of David Fitzgerald's book I posted earlier.

You stated:

As noted above, by 1616 there were no less than seven competing cosmological models under discussion in scientific circles and, as some of the leading scholars of the day, churchmen were in the thick of these debates. None of these models was without its flaws or serious objections, but the science of the day tended to continue to favour geocentrism. Galileo's position was actually in a minority amongst the scientists of the time and this was well understood by scientifically-literate churchmen. At this stage, however, heliocentrism was an entirely valid alternative idea and one thought worth consideration and study. It was not (yet) condemned, not suppressed and not declared heretical.

It wasn't so much "science of the day", which actually didn't even really exist yet (and as you even admit while throwing around the term "scientist" left and right to describe the views of the natural philosophers during this period). But that heliocentrism directly contradicted the scriptures. (More on that later). He was already being accused of heresy by 1613 on the basis of those same contradictions with the scriptures.

In 1615, Foscarini tried to reconcile those scriptures with heliocentrism, which caused both he and Galileo to be warned by Bellarmine that they restrict any discussion of heliocentrism to a "hypothetical phenomenon" instead of "a physically real one" because to do so would be to render the literally interpreted scripture as being false.

But the huge gaffe here is that in 1616 Galileo had been found guilty during the first inquisition. That he was to:

abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.

So by 1616, he had already been found "guilty" of this first nonsensical witch hunt, and he was told to no longer have anything whatsoever to do with the topic of heliocentrism in any way.

During your third "myth" rant, you gave the impression that the church was quite flexible in this regard, when they clearly were not:

The Catholic Church did not (and does not) teach that the Bible had to be interpreted literally. In fact, the idea of Biblical literalism is a very modern notion - one that arose in the USA in the Nineteenth Century and is exclusively a fundamentalist Protestant idea. The Catholic Church, then and now, taught that any given Bible verse or passage could be interpreted via no less than four levels of exegesis - the literal, the allegorical/symbolic, the moral and the eschatological. Of these, the literal meaning was generally regarded as the least important. This also meant that a verse of scripture could be interpreted via one or more of these levels and it could potentially have no literal meaning at all and be purely metaphorical or symbolic.

Therefore the Church had no problem with learning that a passage which had been interpreted literally could no longer be read that way because we now have a better understanding of the world. So many passages were originally interpreted by very early Christians as indicating the earth was flat, but by the time Christianity spread to more educated converts, it was clear this reading was contrary to the knowledge that the earth is actually a sphere, so these passages came to be read purely symbolically.

Bellarmine was no scientific ignoramus, since he had previously been a university lecturer in natural philosophy in Flanders and was well acquainted with the state of the cosmological debate. So he knew, as Galileo knew, that most scientists of the time still favoured geocentrism and heliocentrism was far from proven. As it happens, once heliocentrism was proven, the Church reconsidered and reinterpreted those scriptures precisely as Bellarmine proposed they should.

Do you even know what the word "dogmatic" means?

Even you admit that the Roman Catholic Church demanded absolute "proof" before they would change from these totally inflexible positions. That in this particular case, this "proof" didn't even occur until the 1800s, long after it was generally accepted by nearly everybody but the creationists that the earth revolves around the sun, instead of the other way around.

Galileo provided sufficient evidence based on meticulous observations with the telescopes he invented that should have been able to convince anybody that heliocentrism was a far better "scientific" theory than geocentrism. Yet he was persecuted for even trying to further that theory, even in 1616 when you nonsensically claim he as allowed to continue to do so after the church had officially ruled that it couldn't even be mentioned anymore.

You don't even mention the first Inquisition, as though it didn't even exist. Instead, you refer to "Bellarmine's ruling" in your rant:

After Bellarmine's ruling in 1616 Galileo had to agree that he had not proven heliocentrism. He agreed not to present the Copernican model as objective fact, since he could not prove it to be such. He agreed only to explore it and teach it as a calculating device for astronomical purposes. In 1632 the Pope asked Galileo to write a book presenting both the Copernican and Ptolemaic models, with arguments as to the strengths and weaknesses of both. Galileo produced The Dialogue Concerning the Two World Systems, but did so in a way that made it clear he considered the Copernican model superior. He also put some of the arguments used by the Pope into the mouth of a character in his dialogue called "Simplicio" - which in Italian meant "the fool".

Galileo never claimed that heliocentrism was "objective fact". This is a blatant strawman of his position in the matter which permeates this absurd rhetoric. As clearly shown above, Galileo could no longer officially even hold opinions about this matter. That he could no longer "hold, teach, or defend" it.

Again, I applaud you for concocting some quite obvious "myths" which were clearly false, and then demolishing them to impress those who aren't in the least bit familiar with what actually occurred. Bravo!

But the least you could do is to get the basic facts straight and present them in a manner that isn't blatant propagandizing and misrepresentations of what actually occurred. This rant is essentially blaming Galileo in this matter when he was actually the innocent victim of this witch hunt. At the same time you are trying to show that the Roman Catholic Church was supposedly being quite fair and even-handed when they quite obviously were nothing of the sort.

As Pope John Paul II pointed out in 1992, this entire affair was "The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture....

They should be ashamed of themselves, instead of continuing to try to spin this to continue to defame one of the greatest minds who ever lived in a manner, which is ironically quite similar to what you have tried to do here.

Interestingly, you also seem to google your own name quite frequently. You magically appeared here as though you were Beetlejuice.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I know how annoying it is to be misrepresented and smeared for things one hasn't said, especially by people who no nothing at all about the topic at hand. But if I can give any advice, Tim, let it go. It is commonly known here that this guy is not interested in a conversation, and your attempts to use reason and to point out his bigotry will only result in him being more bigoted and tossing out further personal attacks.

As you continue to incessantly show that the words "hypocrisy", "irony", and "strawman" apparently have no meaning at all to you. And now we can add "misrepresent", "smear", and "reason" to the list.

On topic, the crusades definitely present one of the most misunderstood historical events in history. As a history teacher, I am dismayed at how this topic is presented in German school books and curricula, and I assume it is similar in other countries as well.

And now you claim to be a "history teacher" who is trying to rationalize and defend holy wars against the evil Muslims, one of the darkest periods of Western civilization and Christianity. Gee, what a surprise.

 

[Flying Pig]

I know how annoying it is to be misrepresented and smeared for things one hasn't said, especially by people who no nothing at all about the topic at hand. But if I can give any advice, Tim, let it go. It is commonly known here that this guy is not interested in a conversation, and your attempts to use reason and to point out his bigotry will only result in him being more bigoted and tossing out further personal attacks.


On topic, the crusades definitely present one of the most misunderstood historical events in history. As a history teacher, I am dismayed at how this topic is presented in German school books and curricula, and I assume it is similar in other countries as well. Granted, the topic must be dramatically simplified in history classes, since it is taught to the kids when they are only 12-13, much too young to understand the whole background. But nevertheless, the one-sidedness of the accounts is appalling. Our history books set out by informing the students that there were Islamic territories outside of Europe. Some books leave it there, implying that these territories were just naturally Islamic. Other books briefly refer to the "Islamic expansion", which is the most euphemistic distortion I have ever heard. What the books do not mention, is that

- the 150 years of jihad, which violently and ruthlessly spread Islam to the outskirts of the known world aside from Europe, cost an estimated 270 million lives
- in the conquered countries barbaric practises were adopted, often forcing the people to convert to Islam or be killed
- the Byzantine Empire was pretty much annihilated
- the Iberian peninsula had been completely taken over, as had parts of Southern Italy and Greece
- Muslim had attacked France to spread their religion into the heart of Europe
- Muslims had been capturing and importing millions of slaves from Europe

In light of this background, the point can be made that the crusades were completely justified. The initial reason why they started was in fact a desperate call for help by the Byzantine Emperor, after most of today's Turkey had already been conquered, and were hence sparked by a defensive motive. The reconquest of Spain was likewise an attempt to take back the land that the culturally post-Roman Visigothic Kingdom had lost to the Muslim hordes. That Christian motives became a part of the war narrative, making the attempt to control the holy sites a prime incentive for many Christians, is an understandable development, and does not undermine the basic defensive nature of the crusades.

Instead, the history school books focus almost entirely on the violence committed by the Christians. The account which mentions that allegedly were 70.000 killed in the Al-Aqsa Mosque is an integral part of all the history books I have seen, and in some cases it is even presented as a fact. Most of the books include accounts in which Christians depict Muslims as evil creatures, while omitting the reverse perspective, or even contrasting them with accounts of tolerant, open-hearted Muslims. It is up to the teachers to correct this insane perspective of "violent, bloodthirsty Christians vs good, peaceful Muslims", but in all honesty, with a full-time job and a dozen different classes, some of which are working on their final exams at the time this topic usually comes up, the 12-13 year-olds tend to rank rather low on the scale of priorities, and teachers often just go by the book.

The devastating outcome is that when the children get older, they may forget about the details of the topic, but what sticks is the "bad Christians / good Muslims" stance, which is not only historically ridiculous, but also contributes to the inability that many people have to criticize the barbarism we still see committed in the name of Islam around the globe today. One of the most often heard response I have received when criticizing Islam for its obvious negative impacts, is "well, Christians did bad things too", or more concretely, "there's nothing worse than the crusades", as if such answers had anything to do with Islam today.

Given that the population of Europe in 700 AD was in the order of 210 million, that was quite an achievement.

 

[Funky]

Given that the population of Europe in 700 AD was in the order of 210 million, that was quite an achievement.

I don't understand what your point is. Perhaps you misread - I said aside from Europe (well, if you don't count Spain and parts of Greece and Italy).

 

[Flying Pig]

I didn't, I was giving you an indication of how far out that number must be. The entire population of the world at that time was no more than 1 billion. The number you gave would have made the Muslim conquest the most destructive event in human history. It's orders of magnitude wrong.

 

[Funky]

The number is of course only a rough estimate, and we will never know exactly how many died. But don't forget, we are talking about 150 years. Back then that was about 8 generations, which means we are talking about way more people. So the number is quite possible, and certainly not "orders of magnitude wrong". It is fairly well established, for example, that in India alone 80 million were killed when whole regions were wiped out.

The larger point though is that the exact number is not important. It wouldn't make a big difference if it was 100 million or 300 million when compared to the crusades, where the death toll was in the "meek" hundred thousands.
And regardless of the exact number, the Muslim conquest is indeed among the most destructive events in human history, as you put it.

 

[JollyRoger]

Let's face it - the Abrahamic cults all have a violent history and all the main branches have been historically willing to kill massive numbers of people in the name of holy rolling.

 

[warpus]

Wasn't the downfall of Byzantium mainly due to Europeans, too? Wasn't it the crusaders who weakened Byzantium considerably, leaving it ripe for plundering and takeover by the Seljuks?

 

[Formaldehyde]

I didn't, I was giving you an indication of how far out that number must be. The entire population of the world at that time was no more than 1 billion. The number you gave would have made the Muslim conquest the most destructive event in human history. It's orders of magnitude wrong.

Perhaps they reanimated many of their victims as zombies. it isn't any more preposterous than many of the other Islamophobic comments being made in this forum.

 

[sophie]

The number is of course only a rough estimate, and we will never know exactly how many died. But don't forget, we are talking about 150 years. Back then that was about 8 generations, which means we are talking about way more people. So the number is quite possible, and certainly not "orders of magnitude wrong". It is fairly well established, for example, that in India alone 80 million were killed when whole regions were wiped out.

The larger point though is that the exact number is not important. It wouldn't make a big difference if it was 100 million or 300 million when compared to the crusades, where the death toll was in the "meek" hundred thousands.
And regardless of the exact number, the Muslim conquest is indeed among the most destructive events in human history, as you put it.

That's still 1.4 million per year. The Nazis managed 6 million in 5 years with trains and guns and gas chambers and a unified state apparatus. Are you suggesting that the Muslims¹ not only matched that, but exceeded it for a period of time 30x longer and without any of the modern "amenities"?

¹Not really anything that could reasonably described as a cohesive entity at this (or really any) point in their history

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

What is the most misunderstood historical event?

Whatever's happening right now. Even the professionals still haven't identified said events for sure.

 

[Funky]

Wasn't the downfall of Byzantium mainly due to Europeans, too? Wasn't it the crusaders who weakened Byzantium considerably, leaving it ripe for plundering and takeover by the Seljuks?

Actually no. The Seljuks had already conquered most of Asia Minor before the first crusade. The crusaders and Byznatinians largely supported each other.

That's still 1.4 million per year. The Nazis managed 6 million in 5 years with trains and guns and gas chambers and a unified state apparatus.

For this analogy to make sense, you would have to count the total number of people the Nazis killed, which is probably somewhere around 25 million. During the jihad, the Muslims had both vastly more time and conquered vastly more territory.

 

[abradley]

Wasn't the downfall of Byzantium mainly due to Europeans, too? Wasn't it the crusaders who weakened Byzantium considerably, leaving it ripe for plundering and takeover by the Seljuks?

IMO That's debatable, IIRC Constantine X:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_X_Doukas
Severely undercutting the training and financial support for the armed forces, Constantine X fatally weakened Byzantine defences[1] by disbanding the Armenian local militia of 50,000 men at a crucial point of time, coinciding with the westward advance of the Seljuk Turks and their Turcoman allies.[5] Undoing many of the necessary reforms of Isaac I, he bloated the military bureaucracy with highly paid court officials and crowded the Senate with his supporters.[6] leading to the disaster

, others say it was shifting from a defensive to offensive strategy:

Crisis and fragmentation[edit] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire#Crisis_and_fragmentation
The Empire soon fell into a period of difficulties, caused to a large extent by the undermining of the theme system and the neglect of the military. Nikephoros II, John Tzimiskes, and Basil II changed the military divisions (τάγματα, tagmata) from a rapid response, primarily defensive, citizen army into a professional, campaigning army, increasingly manned by mercenaries. Mercenaries were expensive, however, and as the threat of invasion receded in the 10th century, so did the need for maintaining large garrisons and expensive fortifications.[98] Basil II left a burgeoning treasury upon his death, but he neglected to plan for his succession. None of his immediate successors had any particular military or political talent and the administration of the Empire increasingly fell into the hands of the civil service. Efforts to revive the Byzantine economy only resulted in inflation and a debased gold coinage. The army was now seen as both an unnecessary expense and a political threat. Native troops were therefore cashiered and replaced by foreign mercenaries on specific contract.[99]

At the same time, the Empire was faced with new enemies. Provinces in southern Italy faced the Normans, who arrived in Italy at the beginning of the 11th century. During a period of strife between Constantinople and Rome culminating in the East-West Schism of 1054, the Normans began to advance, slowly but steadily, into Byzantine Italy.[100] Reggio, the capital of the tagma of Calabria, was captured in 1060 by Robert Guiscard, followed by Otranto in 1068. Bari, the main Byzantine stronghold in Apulia, was besieged in August 1068 and fell in April 1071.[101] The Byzantines also lost their influence over the Dalmatian coastal cities to Peter Krešimir IV of Croatia (r. 1058–1074/1075) in 1069.[102]


The seizure of Edessa (1031) by the Byzantines under George Maniakes and the counterattack by the Seljuk Turks
The greatest disaster took place in Asia Minor, however, where the Seljuq Turks made their first explorations across the Byzantine frontier into Armenia in 1065 and 1067. The emergency lent weight to the military aristocracy in Anatolia, who in 1068 secured the election of one of their own, Romanos Diogenes, as emperor. In the summer of 1071, Romanos undertook a massive eastern campaign to draw the Seljuks into a general engagement with the Byzantine army. At the Battle of Manzikert, Romanos suffered a surprise defeat by Sultan Alp Arslan, and he was captured. Alp Arslan treated him with respect and imposed no harsh terms on the Byzantines.[99] In Constantinople, however, a coup put in power Michael Doukas, who soon faced the opposition of Nikephoros Bryennios and Nikephoros Botaneiates. By 1081, the Seljuks had expanded their rule over virtually the entire Anatolian plateau from Armenia in the east to Bithynia in the west, and they had founded their capital at Nicaea, just 90 kilometres (56 miles) from Constantinople.[103]

The damage had been done long before the 4th Crusade (1202-04), it certainly didn't help, but Byzantium lasted until 1453, 300 years after the that crusade.

 

[abradley]

That's still 1.4 million per year. The Nazis managed 6 million in 5 years with trains and guns and gas chambers and a unified state apparatus. Are you suggesting that the Muslims¹ not only matched that, but exceeded it for a period of time 30x longer and without any of the modern "amenities"?

¹Not really anything that could reasonably described as a cohesive entity at this (or really any) point in their history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide
The genocide in Bangladesh began on 26 March 1971 with the launch of Operation Searchlight,[3] as West Pakistan began a military crackdown on the Eastern wing of the nation to suppress Bengali calls for self-determination.[4] During the nine-month-long Bangladesh war for independence, members of the Pakistani military and supporting militias killed an estimated 300,000[1] to 3,000,000[2] people and raped between 200,000 to 400,000 Bangladeshi women in a systematic campaign of genocidal rape.[5][6]

This was with plain military weapons, a completely unrestrained military.

This may be of interest:

STATISTICS OF DEMOCIDE:

Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900

By R.J. Rummel

Charlottesville, Virginia:
Center for National Security Law,
School of Law, University of Virginia, 1997; and Transaction Publishers, Rutgers University
(continued)
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE5.HTM