Let me give you a hint.
“…was deeply influenced by Arab astrology, Neoplatonism, Renaissance Hermeticism, and legends surrounding the Egyptian god Thoth.”
Any clue? No? Then how about this?
“…went even further than the [] Copernican model.”
Zip? Nada? Try this, then, the golden clue.
“He also insisted that the universe is in fact infinite and could have no celestial body at its ‘center’.”
…There is one reason, and one reason only that I have adored the early astronomers (Claudius Ptolemy, Abd al-Rahman al-Sufi, Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei) but it stopped there. You don’t typically find his name amongst the lists of the greats.
My modest idea is that the others were waffling under church pressure, and it was he who was the first to say that ‘hey, fuckheads, what’s the point in moving the centre of our universe from the Earth to our sun? It’s just one of many.’
The Universe has no center.
But the reason I adore all of them is that the Church at the time—the Roman Catholic Church—basically advanced a geocentric premise that was easily falsifiable, and though it took hundreds of years, it turned out to be an idea that’s time is past. Lots died putting it to rest.
So the Muslim Menace burned him at the stake in 1600. See here.
Giordano Bruno (Italian: [dʒorˈdano ˈbruno]; Latin: Iordanus Brunus Nolanus; 1548 – 17 February 1600), born Filippo Bruno, was an Italian Dominican friar, philosopher, mathematician, poet, and astrologer.[3] He is celebrated for his cosmological theories, which went even further than the then-novel Copernican model. He proposed that the stars were just distant suns surrounded by their own exoplanets and raised the possibility that these planets could even foster life of their own (a philosophical position known as cosmic pluralism). He also insisted that the universe is in fact infinite and could have no celestial body at its “center”.
Beginning in 1593, Bruno was tried for heresy by the Roman Inquisition on charges including denial of several core Catholic doctrines (including the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary, and Transubstantiation). Bruno’s pantheism was also a matter of grave concern.[4] The Inquisition found him guilty, and in 1600 he was burned at the stake in Rome’s Campo de’ Fiori. After his death he gained considerable fame, being particularly celebrated by 19th- and early 20th-century commentators who regarded him as a martyr for science,[5] although historians have debated the extent to which his heresy trial was a response to his astronomical views or to other aspects of his philosophy and theology.[6][7][8][9][10] Bruno’s case is still considered a landmark in the history of free thought and the emerging sciences.[11][12][13]
…Oh shit, sorry.
Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. That was the Catholics, 415 years ago. Not the Muslim Menace in 2016.
Sorry, time warp in my brain for a minute, there.
Please excuse. I’ll try not to allow such an “obvious” oversight to happen again.
And basically things changed since then. The Catholic Church no longer mixes science with theology other than the entire concept that God is the creator and created a beautiful universe according to his will. The Church allows any member to believe in a 4+ billion year old earth and in evolution and that such is not in conflict with the bible. Yes, really. Hard to believe but its true. No, no one is required to believe earth is created 4004bc (though they could if they wanted to, the Church doesn’t take sides either way). Would be nice if some other denominations caught up with that, but its not the same thing as having crusades and inquisitions any more. But watch out anyone that goes up to any Christian these days and give the worst possible insult to Jesus in their face – they surely will get prayed for.
Things have come a long way.
So the church “allows” you some leeway in your beliefs? How nice of them.
I’ll think for myself on all fronts without asking permission of them or any other organization.
No one told nor expected you to do otherwise. You write like some superior-minded, condescending little twat. I humbly request that you ponder, as freely as you like, whether you need to seriously go fuck yourself for as long as you choose to remain some superior-minded, condescending little twat.
Speaking of choices and thinking, I freely chose a few years ago to accept certain premises and all that entailed from a theological and spiritual point of view. I make sure to research and understand accordingly rather than blindly accept but its as free thinking as any worldview built upon postulates such as faith. I won’t bore any more since this isn’t a discussion about my religious pursuits and I am not trying to convince anyone else to make that choice. My original post I felt added additional context and contrast to Richard’s own post without adding a religious agenda to the discussion.
I humbly apologize in advance if you are not, in fact, little.
I didn’t hurl any insults at you, but you started your reply to me with them. Not sure how that contributed to the discussion.
It was an offhand comment, not a novel on the state of religion today with references and footnotes.
Your humble request was pondered. I fucked off for 2 hours today.
Hegemon, you say you didn’t intend to hurl any insult. I will accept that at face value and apologize to you for having gone directly to the punch. I could explain why what you wrote rubbed me the wrong way, but there is no point to justify and continue. Wish you the best.
I sincerely was not aiming at you with my original comment. I have baggage in the “church” department (Church, not religion), and I took part of what you said and ran with it on my own tangent.
Your comment of superior minded and condescending was a true punch to the gut, as it is something I often do and absolutely hate about myself. But again that’s my own baggage. :)
Honestly interested in your take if you ever want to post it. Best wishes to you as well.
Hegemon I took your comment of thinking for yourself without anyone else’s permission a subtle implication of contrast to me, further implying it was a superior position. Because one thing that is true, is that the Church *does* tell us what we *should* think/do in a number of things. One actually can disagree or question in their minds, but a conscientious person of faith must then resolve the cognitive dissonance somehow if they want be sure they don’t fall into sin as a result. I guess thats what they mean by Catholic guilt. And I entered into it willingly. Is that inferior to the alternative of completely and utterly making up my own mind? The answer is probably different for depending on the person – in my case I feel I got something in return that didn’t hurt me intellectually.
I may have reacted the way I did perhaps due to my own baggage rather than what I thought I heard you saying. Guess I will have to ponder whether I need to seriously fuck off.
You sound like you are decent person, regardless of any baggage you think you have.
For the record, I pretty well understood where Dd was coming from.
That said, don’t let me atand in anyone’s way.
It was a shitty comment on my part, and it was a bit superior-minded. It was aimed at no one in particular, which further demonstrates it’s uselessness.
I grew up in a very restrictive church upbringing where there’s one way to read the Bible, and everything was “don’t do this”, “don’t do that.” It’s a rabbit hole for me and easy for me to have my button pushed.
Richard, you have been a model for me to try and be less emotionally driven when reading and discussing things with others. While abrasive to some, your “fuck off” replies to people made me see just how often people filter what they hear and read. As humans it is how we function, but by the same token the filter doesn’t have to be in charge 100% of the time. Take my 1st comment to the post. Fail!
So how many Catholics would support that same decision now? None? How many muslims still support killing Americans right now? This us the issue at hand you dick. Straw men should be burnt.
I think Richard was satirizing people who think something that happened 415 years and has essentially been a discontinued practice that was evolved away from, somehow presents a moral equivalence of the current faith in the modern day to… Islam.
I’ll admit to being a tad lost on Richards point.
Today, if someone in America wanted to say the earth is flat, he wouldn’t be burned at the stake, or shot, or mamed in any way. Say a bad word about Mohammed in a Muslim country and you may well wake up dead. I don’t think anyone would argue either of those points.
I would see potential hope from the comparison. A religious group 400 years ago did some things that weren’t the most enlightened, but they have since evolved and gained a bit more civility. We can hope that other groups that use violence will also move away from it to a better, more open minded place.
Richard, can you clarify your point for the slow kids in the class?
Yep, that’s about it.
Of course, Christians and Jews tend to dismiss their own atrocities, as though to say well, it was a long time ago. Well then what the hell sort of religion or faith is that then, one withe such a savage foudation.
And they ignore easily citable evil in their own holy books.
But, for better or worse, we’re here now and neither do that stuff on an institutional level and in general you can say what you wish about either without fear of violent reprisals.
But note how both deal with that very same savagry in Islam. They come more from a “false God” or false Word perstective, rather than saying hey, this is pretty much exactly like we were centuries ago, so perhaps the whole thing is complete desert sheepherder bullshit.