Can anyone name any scientist that Christians actually burnt?

Can anyone name any scientist that Christians actually burnt? The only person people seem to be able to name is Giordano Bruno but he was a new age mystic and was even anti-science.

> On the contrary, Bruno scorned empiricism and rejected mathematics as a way of understanding the world. As Hilary Gatti puts it, he had “a well-known and clearly expressed distaste for the new mathematics, which he saw as a schematic abstraction attempting to imprison the vital vicissitudes of matter into static formulae of universal validity.” (Hilary Gatti, Giordano Bruno and Renaissance Science, Cornell, 2002, p. 3) Far from joining his contemporaries in adopting what was to become the classic scientific method, Bruno used mystical intuition, coming to findings “reached through a process of logical-philosophical reasoning with a marked bias toward vizualization through images and symbols rather than through experiment or observation.” (Gatti, p. 3)

> This meant not only did he not join what we can call the Scientific Revolution of his period, he actively rejected its methods, even though he accepted a few of its findings. This acceptance was not based on any deep understanding of science – his treatment of Copernicanism in his Ash Wednesday Supper dialogue (1584) shows that his grasp of the actual details ranged from shaky to dead wrong – but on the fact some of them fitted his mystical cosmology. He accepted science only when it suited his non-scientific ideas.

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >was even anti-science.
    No he wasn't, he literally predicted that there are infinite planets and suns beyond earth, and he was right

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Prediction isn't scientific method

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes it is, is all about reproducibility

        He "predicted" nothing. Bruno believed in it strictlly because of obscurantist reasons.

        He held those views despite being the opposite of what was believed on his times

        He didn’t predict there were infinite planets! That idea came from a Catholic cardinal named Cusa and Bruno even admitted that he got his idea from Cusa

        > As Yates notes the surviving summary of his trial “shows how little attention was paid to philosophical or scientific questions in the interrogations” (p.355) and the whole idea of the stars as suns and multiple worlds that may even be inhabited was not even one Bruno came up with. As he himself says, just as he got the idea of heliocentrism from Copernicus and blended that into his pantheist mystical cosmology, so he tells us got the idea of multiple inhabited worlds from Cusanus

        > That was Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1454), who published his speculations about an infinite, unbounded universe with multiple worlds and possible alien inhabitants in them in his De Docta Ignorantia (Of Learned Ignorance) in 1440. Like Bruno, Cusanus’ cosmology was speculative and intuitive rather than scientific and even the Catholic Encyclopaedia doesn’t bother to try to claim otherwise, noting it was “based on symbolism of numbers, on combinations of letters, and on abstract speculations rather than observation”. But Cusanus’ writings had a clear and acknowledged impact on Bruno.

        > Cusanus was not simply a cardinal, but also a Papal Legate, second only in authority to the Pope himself. He was also a respected and renowned scholar and theologian and considered one of the great intellects of his day.

        > And he was far from the only medieval thinker to ponder at least the possibility of “other worlds”. While the scientist and philosopher Nicole Oresme (c. 1320-1382) was of the view that there is only one “corporeal world”, he insisted that God’s omnipotence meant that the possibility of other worlds could not be ruled out, noting “God can and could in his omnipotence make another world besides this one or several like or unlike it” (Orseme, Livre du ciel, I.24).

        Whatever, Thomas Digges had the same idea and he was not influenced by Cusa

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Yes it is, is all about reproducibility
          Is Siener van Rensburg a scientist then?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >it is, is all about reproducibility
          Geocentric astronomical models were more accurate/reproducible than heliocentric ones until the 17th century

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      He "predicted" nothing. Bruno believed in it strictlly because of obscurantist reasons.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      He didn’t predict there were infinite planets! That idea came from a Catholic cardinal named Cusa and Bruno even admitted that he got his idea from Cusa

      > As Yates notes the surviving summary of his trial “shows how little attention was paid to philosophical or scientific questions in the interrogations” (p.355) and the whole idea of the stars as suns and multiple worlds that may even be inhabited was not even one Bruno came up with. As he himself says, just as he got the idea of heliocentrism from Copernicus and blended that into his pantheist mystical cosmology, so he tells us got the idea of multiple inhabited worlds from Cusanus

      > That was Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1454), who published his speculations about an infinite, unbounded universe with multiple worlds and possible alien inhabitants in them in his De Docta Ignorantia (Of Learned Ignorance) in 1440. Like Bruno, Cusanus’ cosmology was speculative and intuitive rather than scientific and even the Catholic Encyclopaedia doesn’t bother to try to claim otherwise, noting it was “based on symbolism of numbers, on combinations of letters, and on abstract speculations rather than observation”. But Cusanus’ writings had a clear and acknowledged impact on Bruno.

      > Cusanus was not simply a cardinal, but also a Papal Legate, second only in authority to the Pope himself. He was also a respected and renowned scholar and theologian and considered one of the great intellects of his day.

      > And he was far from the only medieval thinker to ponder at least the possibility of “other worlds”. While the scientist and philosopher Nicole Oresme (c. 1320-1382) was of the view that there is only one “corporeal world”, he insisted that God’s omnipotence meant that the possibility of other worlds could not be ruled out, noting “God can and could in his omnipotence make another world besides this one or several like or unlike it” (Orseme, Livre du ciel, I.24).

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >being right
      >being a scientist
      If I predict correctly the weather of tomorrow by looking at a goat guts, that doesn't make me a scientist.
      The idea that a scientist is a revolutionary genius being right, opposed to the dumb and obscurantist multitude is a midwit take.
      Science is a reformist and collective activity.
      Also, there isn't any modern scientific consensus on the infinity of the universe.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Bruno spent seven years in prison while the Church sought to get him to recant his beliefs, principally that the stars were distant suns. When he still refused to recant, he was executed by being burnt at the stake.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > there are infinite planets and suns beyond earth, and he was right
      Proof?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >there are infinite planets and suns beyond earth
      That's wrong

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Everytime they burned a homosexual, they held back the Gay Science.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He wasn't even killed for scientific reason. He was killed for being a non trinitarian Christian.
    Basically, if Calvin hadn't killed him, Catholics, Lutherans, all would have pointed fingers at him. He had to kill Bruno to prove this new sect called Calvinists weren't Antitrinitarian heretics. He did it more to save his reputation than to punish Bruno.

    I'm not justifying it. But it was purely a religious affair, nothing against science.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Do you often make up stuff?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/aG54DKn.jpg

        Can anyone name any scientist that Christians actually burnt? The only person people seem to be able to name is Giordano Bruno but he was a new age mystic and was even anti-science.

        > On the contrary, Bruno scorned empiricism and rejected mathematics as a way of understanding the world. As Hilary Gatti puts it, he had “a well-known and clearly expressed distaste for the new mathematics, which he saw as a schematic abstraction attempting to imprison the vital vicissitudes of matter into static formulae of universal validity.” (Hilary Gatti, Giordano Bruno and Renaissance Science, Cornell, 2002, p. 3) Far from joining his contemporaries in adopting what was to become the classic scientific method, Bruno used mystical intuition, coming to findings “reached through a process of logical-philosophical reasoning with a marked bias toward vizualization through images and symbols rather than through experiment or observation.” (Gatti, p. 3)

        > This meant not only did he not join what we can call the Scientific Revolution of his period, he actively rejected its methods, even though he accepted a few of its findings. This acceptance was not based on any deep understanding of science – his treatment of Copernicanism in his Ash Wednesday Supper dialogue (1584) shows that his grasp of the actual details ranged from shaky to dead wrong – but on the fact some of them fitted his mystical cosmology. He accepted science only when it suited his non-scientific ideas.

        I don't make up stuff, but I completely confused Giordano Bruno with Miguel de Servet

        I'm sorry. Servet was a scientist, but not a particularly important one. He was killed by Calvin in Geneve.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You got your names mixed up. It was Michael Servetus who has executed by Calvin due to his antitrinitarianism, not Bruno.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Bruno used mystical intuition, coming to findings “reached through a process of logical-philosophical reasoning with a marked bias toward vizualization through images and symbols rather than through experiment or observation.” (Gatti, p. 3)
    damn thats based, why were people like this burned at the stake again?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Despite the post hoc excuses you see on this board, the Bible was taken literally by Christians and they moved the goalposts only when they absolutely could not hold their position anymore, and persecuted/tortured/killed people who disagreed with their lies

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        > Despite the post hoc excuses you see on this board, the Bible was taken literally by Christians

        No it wasn’t

        https://historyforatheists.com/2021/03/the-great-myths-11-biblical-literalism/

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          there are evangelicals running around america who think the world is 6000 years old still and that billions of dollars need to be given to israel every year in defense aid

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >21st century American evangelicals are the same as 16th century italian Catholics
            Neck yourself

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              if they can believe in biblical bullshit today, they certainly could in an ignorant age like the XVIth century.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              To see views of 16th century Catholics, you would look at what Sedevacantists believe since they are the ones wanting to return to this.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                nope. sedevacantists only try to drop part of the XXth century from history. all previous concessions made by the dogholic church are still made. and the church authorities were always uneasy about some of the retardation their holy text so clearly advances, it's just that they had no way of fixing it without the flock noticing. the flock was/is flatearther, creationist literalist.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Do you honestly think people back then weren't as gullible and uneducated as most morons today?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                no, man, they were True Christians(tm), how could they have been that ignorant?
                iow it's christard cope all the way down.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah anon like all rebuttals to this it’s just a chain of people in the past at some point after they initially took it seriously saying “well obviously this didn’t happen, it must be a metaphor” but in the first real example they give their correction is wrong, indicating no actual contact of input from the creator of the universe. And in Bruno’s case they were actively denying his true statements because their cosmology did not include the universe being that large and full.

          They believe a thing from the Bible, then when it gets proven wrong they move the goalposts and they put up aggressive resistance before they concede they were wrong, then pretend they were right the whole time.

          It’s really a tradition of being the worst people.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          it still is.
          fuck off with all the theologians. christians == the flock.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Is the stuff about a magic israelite going around 1st century Palestine doing magic powers literal?

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There's Hypatia, but she wasn't burnt, and I don't even know if it was due Christianity.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      She was a minor commentator.

Your email address will not be published.