...

So, in this case, the church was on the side of the scientific method.

I find it hard to believe that the Catholic Church then was a proponent of scientific method and would have accepted Galileo's theories if only he'd had evidence.

Even now the Catholic Church (and other religions) do not follow empirical experimentalism. They ignore what the scientific method tells them if it disagrees with their beliefs and dogma. Creationism is a common example amount protestant churches, but the Catholic Church still maintains that a healthy sexuality is unhealthy, that homosexual sexual activity is unhealthy, and that condoms don't work in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

To a scientists, "proof" means 'an experiment that I can repeat that confirms this data', to the catholic church (and many other religions), "proof" can include things you read in your holy book. How could Galileo "proof" his theories to their satisfaction?

Pope Urban VIII had at one point actually encouraged Galileo's teachings, but Galileo himself was known to be arrogant and headstrong, having little patience for bureaucracy, and virtually no tact when dealing with others, especially if they disagreed with him.

There are a number of ways Galileo could have approached things:

1. Present both the Ptolemy and Copernicus models, along with the arguments for each.

2. Delay publication until he could build a fully working model, rather than a series of observations and assertions.

3. Defy authority, fraudulently publish, and damn the ignorant fools in power.

Option 1 would have been the best approach, as it would be the least jarring to established knowledge and would provide a wedge for new ideas.

Option 2 would likely stir up controversy at a later date, but would not involve insubordination.

Option 3 was pretty much guaranteed to blow up, much like an employee directly disobeying his boss to his face. Even if he and the pope had been the bestest of buds, there would have been no way politically for the pope to ignore his behavior. (As it was, the pope flew into a rage when he found out that Galileo had published behind his back)

Presenting both theories just sounds like modern creationist "Teach both theories", i.e. a load of rubbish.

The existing authority will not accept new theories replacing the old until VERY compelling evidence has been brought forth (this happens even today in the secular world, and that's a GOOD thing).

Creationism will have a very hard time displacing the existing accepted scientific body of theory and evidence, as has been seen by their constant failures in the past. But sneaking it in under the radar by "presenting both theories" has gained them more traction than any other strategy they've attempted so far.

What the pope was telling Galileo to do was, in effect, the same thing. Sneak the idea in on the coattails of established "truth", and then it'll be a lot easier to embellish it to fullness later.

So I retract my previous statement that the church was on the side of scientific inquiry. In fact, both cases involve intellectual fraud, in that an idea is not allowed to stand on its own merits, but rather requires political machinations in order to be injected into society at large (but then again, when was that ever not the case?). The only difference is that Galileo's teachings were actually true, and creationism is actually false, but we only have that knowledge with the benefit of hindsight.

For what it's worth, Galileo made two critical observations with his telescope - specifically, his discoveries of the Jovian moons and the phases of Venus. The former demonstrated that the universe contained more than one center of gravity. This served as a fundamental contradiction of the Aristotelian metaphysics that anchored the Ptolemaic scheme, and which the Church had, by then, adopted as canonical. The latter phenomena made no sense in the context of a terracentric cosmos, but was perfectly consistent with a heliocentric model.

In other words, Galileo was not "saying that he was right and everyone else was wrong and they should just believe him because he was right." Rather, he was offering observational proof of the Copernican theory. His own theories about gravity, and specifically, WHY there could be multiple centers were - at this stage - irrelevant. The mere fact of these other centers' existence was enough to upset the intellectual status quo.

Indeed, the real bone of contention had nothing to do with the Church insisting on evidence in support of theory. The evidence was right in front of them. The problem was the inconsistency formed between the the revelation that Earth is a orbiting planet, and the (repeated) Biblical assertions that it wasn't. For instance, “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.” (1 Chronicles 16:30), “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...” (Psalm 93:1), “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...” (Psalm 96:10), “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...” (Isaiah 45:18), etc. The obvious solution - a concession that the Bible made heavy use of metaphor, and should not be taken literally - presented intractable political problems for an institution that had amassed formidable power around interpretations that treated large amounts of the Bible as actual history.

Really, the notion that "the church was on the side of the scientific method" could not be further from the truth - not least of all because the scientific method depends on the freedom of consciousness, and the ability to change one's mind based on observable reality - regardless of contrary views based on scripture, fiat, or tradition. This degree of liberty was - quite literally - anathema to an institution that claimed something approaching a property right in the laity's souls. To say they were supporting it is flatly absurd.

I don't say that as an apologist. I really feel like there is nothing to defend here. Mankind's belief system impeded and advanced the acquisition of scientific knowledge in various ways. For instance, I'd argue that the reformation was the biggest thing to happen to science, encouraging individuals to see and prove things for themselves.

I was just taking issue with not having enough context. Yes, the big picture is Galileo had a hard time of it. But all the little details -- the personality issues, the issues of evidence, the way his work was constructed, the way knowledge was generally gathered and advancements made at the time, etc. -- to me those are the juiciest parts of the story. Gives it a wonderful 3-D feel. To tell it like a comic book from the 21st century where the church is evil and Galileo was some kind of uber-hero is to commit a crime against the joy of history, in my opinion. It's a much more enjoyable story than that, and I'm not sure the listener of the comic book version really understands what was going on from this version of the telling. To be more blunt, and speaking as an agnostic and non-religious person, it sounds a bit more like anti-church propaganda instead of an honest look at how people lived. Listening to the apologist doesn't put me on the church's side by any means, but it sure makes the whole thing into a hell of a better story.

One might be inclined to believe that Louis XIV was acting as a benefactor when he invited Cassini to France, but in reality he was using it as yet another wedge against the papacy (along with other things such as the Declaration of the Clergy of France) in order to secure more power for himself in France.

Freedom of expression is all about the political climate you find yourself in, and the successful disruptor is he who takes this into account when planning his campaign.

There is a time and place for defiance. Get it wrong, and your cause can be set back years, decades, perhaps even centuries.

Galileo's defiance and life under house arrest would have been but a footnote in history had king Louis not extended his invitation to Cassini, and that would not have happened had Louis not considered himself strong enough to defy Rome, and he would not have even cared to defy Rome had Rome not held such a stranglehold on the appointment of priests in Europe. So even though Galileo was foolhardy and naive, it turned out alright due to political circumstances that he never even considered. It was a massive risk to the future of science that Galileo didn't even consider, but had he taken a more temperate approach and bided his time for a better opportunity, none of this would even have been necessary. There are many more cases of idealists who were not so lucky.

This is not about how the world "ought to be", but rather the way things are (and, in fact, always have been).