Why was the church so scared by Astronomy?

>Thats why the outlawed heliocentrism and put all books promoting it on the index then?
They absolutely did not

>If there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the centre of the
world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not
circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, 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. But this is not a thing to be done in haste,
and as for myself I shall not believe that there are such proofs until
they are shown to me

this

even his closest companions thought that Galileo was a raging cunt.

If you go around badmouthing the man who signs your paychecks don't act like such a victim when he makes you shut the hell up

>Why did the do that, they where flat out wrong and he was right!
He wasn't right, his heliocentric model was wrong. He had no proof because the scientific instruments of the time weren't able to provide the proof he needed.

>The Church was also quite open to the ideas of Copernicus. Copernicus himself was aware that there were several strong objections to his model, as noted above, and hesitated publishing his work as a result. But he was strongly encouraged by Bishop Giese of Culm and so initially circulated a summary of his ideas in 1530. This got him widespread attention and in 1533 Pope Clement VII asked Johann Widmanstadt to deliver a private lecture on Copernicus' theories in the Vatican Gardens. He was so intrigued and delighted by the lecture that he rewarded Widmanstadt with the gift of a valuable manuscript.

>Galileo himself was lauded and revered for his learning and the Jesuit Order, in particular, claimed him as one of their own, since he was Jesuit-educated. Initial objections to his telescopic observations were overturned when Jesuit astronomers of the Collegium Romanum made their own telescopes and repeated his results.

>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.

>he didn't
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems
???

The Pope asked him to write a book on it with some of the Pope's comments and he purposely wrote the Pope in as a retard.

Who are you quoting?

You're a fucking moron, he was allowed and obtained personal permission from the Pope to write about heliocentrism, just like Copernicus had done, he did so in a way that blatantly insulted the Pope so he was locked up for being a bitch

>and he purposely wrote the Pope in as a retard.
Yes, he didn't comply with their wishes, instead dicked the Pope. Well played!

If I want to read wikipedia I'll do it myself. Thanks for your quality input.

>personal permission from the Pope to write about heliocentrism
So why again do you need permission from the Pope to write about natural science?

>sperg out and insult your benefactor and friend
>he reacts poorly to this
wtf I hate the Pope now

because he's the one signing your paycheck

>do some astronomy
>get inquisition-ed

A decree had been passed in 1616 saying heliocentrism could only be discussed as a theory

Galileo asked for this to be revoked, the Pope said no, but gave Galileo permission to write a book discussing heliocentrism as a theory

Galileo sperged out and wrote a book claiming heliocentrism as fact despite having no proof, in which he portrayed the Pope as a retard

>Is Christianity anti-science?

It became so, but in its earlier stages it was very pro-knowledge. The medieval "Schoolmen" combined Greek philosophy with Christian theology and concluded that God has made the universe in such a way that we can come to understand it. Naturally, they expected that future discoveries would line up with Christian eschatology, so when Copernicus came along and BTFO of heliocentrism, the church suddenly found that the scholarship she had nurtured had bitten her on the ass. Thus began the long, slow, decline of Christian support for science, which ended in Europe with WW1 and the death of religion, and in America with the full-autism of Young Earth Creationism.

He was working for Cosimo de Medici as a court mathematician. The Pope didn't sign his paycheck.
And they outlawed all scriptures promoting and teaching the heliocentric view. A clear sign that they where afraid of the idea and tried to supress it.

>heliocentric
No, they did not. They outlawed books stating that Copernican heliocentrism was true without any evidence for it.

>No, they did not.
Yes the did: arxiv.org/abs/1402.6168
Cardinal Bellarmin was originally on the line you tell, but the Dominicans took care of it and so the Church outlawed the entire heliocentric world view.

Except Galileo was specifically told in his first inquisition that he could write about heliocentrism, but he couldn't assert it was true without evident, you lying faggot.

>The medieval "Schoolmen" combined Greek philosophy with Christian theology and concluded that God has made the universe in such a way that we can come to understand it.
Do you know some resources where I can learn about this time? It sounds interesting.

>why do you need permission from the most powerful man in the world to do something revolutionary in his city
Hmmmm

The movement is called "Scholasticism", the "schools" it references are the early European Universities, particularly Paris, where Scholastic ideas were developed.

Also the BEST resource for this period is the novel "Baudolino" by Umberto Eco.

Source please then, because this source tells the exact oposite.

this desu

for some reason people think galileo was a young innocent pepe that came to Rome when he was 16, told the pope maybe there's heliocentrism and then the evil pope burnt him at the stake

Small G was looking for trouble and he got it

The Helliocentric view was ruled as heresy and hence outlawed by the catholic church. Now thats a fact.
So why does the Church outlaw scientific models again?

>that came to Rome
He didn't came to Rome, he was working in Pisa and Florence. And he had nothing to do with the Pope or the Church until the Inquisition summoned him. Kinda understandable that you are pissed, just working on your science and then some bible thumpers call the Inquisition on you because they don't like your science.

>How much further would science be without the church slowing it down?
More like, how much farther back would we be, without monks saving and translating Roman and Greek manuscripts, as well as writing their own.

>And he had nothing to do with the Pope
???

Yes, thats was after they put him on the spot. They summoned him, remember?

Are you the guy quoting from wikipedia? If so, do yourself a favor and check why Galileo had to debate the Church in the first place.

>Why was the church so scared by Astronomy?
It didn't though. Church sponsored many astronomers. It invented better calendar that you use today. Not to mention work of titans like Copernicus or Galileo. Or even Jesuits.
>Is Christianity anti-science?
No. It is however anti-"let's make science religion and purpose in itself rather than way to find and study Truth". It's basis of its teaching and Latin civilisation.
> Like those creationism nutcases you hear about?
>Protestants
>Linked to Church
>in any way
>Besides steak
Origen want to have word with you.
>How much further would science be without the church slowing it down?
You would be on pre-British India level. China maybe.
He had priestly ordination for if he didn't he wouldn't be canon.
And he was in Index only becouse Galleo was a complete retard.

>He had priestly ordination
No, he didn't. He studied the seven liberal arts and then got a doctor of both rights. He was never an ordained priest.
And he was on the index because his model proofed that the bible is erroneous and they hated this.

>He was never an ordained priest.
He was canon of Warmia. He had ordination. Lower one, sure. But still an ordination.
>And he was on the index because his model proofed that the bible is erroneous and they hated this.
No. He didn't get on the index because he "disprove" Bible (for fuck sake, Kepler use Bible to support his heliocentrism). It, and other works, was on index for several reasons (all of wich were Galileo fault):
>It wasn't proven (Galileo, being a retard, out of all of his evidence used only one that was false)
>It could spawn heresies (Galileo claimed that universe is eternal or soemthing like that, so Church, rembering what heresies can lead to i.e. bloodshet and degeneration, baned it untill there was good evidence/amendments)
So, sorry for breaking your bubbel but "Evil anti-science Church" is a meme spawned by faggots like Voilter in XVIII century.

>He was canon of Warmia. He had ordination. Lower one, sure. But still an ordination.
He was a secular doctor and secular Domherr. Otherwise please state place and date of ordination.

Also, the church banned a complete scientific model, the branded the Copernican model and heliocentric heresy. And your only argument is
>muh Galileo was a dick to the pope

Fuck the Church, they have no right to rig anything with astronomy. And if their bible or their interpretation of it is faulty, then fuck them again.

If anyone wants to really learn about science in the Middle Ages (amazon.com/Gods-Philosophers-James-Hannam/dp/1848311508) is a good resource, it also comes with suggestions for further reading

>He was a secular doctor and secular Domherr. Otherwise please state place and date of ordination.
He was canon since 26 VIII 1495. Then he resigned, probably due the opposition, but was again canon since 20 X 1497. Canon is lesser than priest but he has ordination nonetheless for if he didn't had one, he couldn't be canon of Warmia.

For the rest of your assumptions, you are illiterate faggot, who don't know history in the slightest. Even fucking wikipedia article says why Galileo lost his cause - he was a fucking retard who choose only one argument. Wrong argument it was. Read a book you feor tipping nigger. "God's Philoshopers"(another user even gives you link ) would be neat start. And until then, shut the fuck up for you have no idea what are you talking about.

>Christianity

How could you veer away from Catholicism being the entire point of your thread in one sentence?

>creationism nutcases

You mean people who take God seriously?

And yet, it doesn't. At all.