Flat as flat can be..

Originally posted by ppm56 ↑

You do realise that all of your examples are relatively late middle ages, the enlightenment and later?

You ignore the role of the church in stifling information that they considered to go against the teaching of the church at the time;

Yes, I do realise that what gave their time line wasn’t exactly as you stated, that’s why I told you I couldn’t fit the whole list on the post and gave you a link to the rest of the list

The reality is that there were many in the past who put in the ground work into the foundation of what we call science of today, such as Alcuin of York (c. 735–804), Bede the Venerable (c. 673–735), Isidore of Seville (c. 560–636), John Philoponus (c. 490–570) Gundissalinus (9th century), Al-Farabi (c. 872–950) (though not Catholic, but influential in Christian Europe), if the case was that the church didn’t like science even in this early age, it would’ve crushed them as in your view, but it didn’t – yet these early scholars and thinkers laid important groundwork for the development of modern science. While their approaches and methods varied, their contributions helped shape the transition from ancient and medieval ideas to the scientific methods we use today.

*****************
As for 'Bruno” yes you correctly noted his views on catholic theology, I give you that.
From a Catholic perspective, Giordano Bruno (1548–1600) was tried and executed by the Roman Inquisition primarily for persistent, unrepentant heresy against core doctrines of the Catholic faith, not mainly for his scientific or cosmological ideas

Bruno’s advocacy of an infinite universe with many worlds, the Copernican model and pantheistic or animistic views like the stars/planets having souls, and God as the soul of the world- were part of the case. However, Catholic sources emphasize these were not the primary or decisive reasons for execution. At the time, Copernicanism was not formally heretical that came later with Galileo’s case, and the plurality of worlds was debatable but not automatically capital heresy.

His cosmology intertwined with theological errors pantheism blurring Creator/creature distinction, denying unique Incarnation by implying many Christs on other worlds, or soul doctrines conflicting with Christian anthropology. The Inquisition condemned him for the theological package as a whole, especially his refusal to separate philosophical speculation from defined faith.

In the context of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, the Church saw itself as defending revealed truth against error that could lead souls astray. Bruno was not a martyr for “science” but a lapsed priest who rejected the faith he once vowed to uphold, persisted in blasphemy after admonition, and showed no genuine repentance.

****************
With Galileo, It was primarily a conflict involving both his scientific advocacy and a personal/political fallout with Pope Urban VIII. The 1633 trial was not a straightforward "science vs. religion" clash where the Church blindly opposed empirical evidence. Instead, it combined theological, scientific, personal, and political elements.

Heliocentrism contradicted the prevailing scientific consensus at the time -Ptolemaic/Aristotelian geocentrism and certain literal interpretations of Scripture

In 1616, the Inquisition under Pope Paul V deemed the physical claim of heliocentrism "foolish and absurd in philosophy" and "formally heretical" based on the evidence then available. Galileo was warned via Cardinal Bellarmine not to hold, teach, or defend it as true, though he could discuss it hypothetically.

Galileo was a strong advocate for Copernicanism as physical reality, not just a mathematical tool. At the time, he lacked definitive proof, stellar parallax wasn't observed until later, and his tides argument was flawed. The Church sided with the broader scholarly consensus of the era.

Pope Urban VIII (Maffeo Barberini) was initially a friend and patron of Galileo. After becoming pope in 1623, he granted permission for Galileo to write about the systems, with the condition that he treat heliocentrism as a hypothesis and include arguments for God's omnipotence that God could achieve the same effects in multiple ways, beyond human models

In 1632, Galileo published Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. It strongly favored Copernicanism. Crucially, he placed the Pope's own argument in the mouth of Simplicio - the character portrayed as a foolish Aristotelian. This was widely seen as mocking the Pope.

Urban felt betrayed, misled by intermediaries, and personally ridiculed. Enemies of Galileo including some Jesuits he had alienated amplified this. The Pope initiated proceedings, overriding more lenient Inquisitors. The trial focused heavily on whether Galileo violated the 1616 injunction.

Personality and politics mattered: Galileo was brilliant but often arrogant, combative, and dismissive of opponents. This created enemies. The trial occurred amid the Thirty Years' War and Church sensitivities post-Reformation.

It was not primarily about suppressing "science." The Church supported astronomy for calendar reform and had many scientist-clerics. The issue was Galileo's theological overreach -interpreting Scripture combined with the personal insult.

Later Catholic views John Paul II in 1992 acknowledged the trial as unjust in its handling and that Galileo was right on the science.

https://heterodoxacademy.org/blog/h...islead-us-a-case-study-of-the-galileo-affair/

******************
Enlightenment thinkers and their intellectual heirs significantly amplified and reframed the Galileo affair to advance their broader critique of the Church and institutional religion.

Figures like Voltaire a leading Enlightenment philosopher portrayed Galileo as a martyr of reason persecuted by dogmatic superstition. Voltaire depicted him as groaning in Inquisition dungeons for proving Earth's motion, a dramatic exaggeration that ignored the realities of house arrest and the personal/political context. He and others used the case to symbolize the struggle between free thought, progress, and ecclesiastical authority.

This fit the Enlightenment narrative of shedding "medieval" darkness associated with the Church for rational, secular progress.

The affair became a ready-made morality tale: brave scientist vs. oppressive Church. It was invoked to undermine the Church's cultural and intellectual influence amid campaigns against Jesuit education, the Inquisition, and revealed religion.

And this is the bulk of your argument, which you are parroting, and your position, just repeating enlightenment context in order to score points

Read your history

Expand

Your typical long winded blather misses the point. Probably intentionally.

You know about the Inquisition. You know about heresy.

You should know something about the history of the Church.

So you must know what the Church did in defence of its theology.

In which case you know that the Church tried to suppress whatever brought question to its teachings, which included science. Not all science, not all philosophy, but that which threatened what is written in the bible and the teachings of the Church.

That the Church did this is on record. How many were tortured and killed by the inquisition because they dared go against the faith?

History cannot be whitewashed or casually brushed aside with poor rationale.