Bruno Was A Martyr For Magic, Not Science
    By Hank Campbell | June 27th 2013 05:00 AM | 14 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Hank

    I'm the founder of Science 2.0®.

    A wise man once said Darwin had the greatest idea anyone ever had. Others may prefer Newton or Archimedes...

    View Hank's Profile
    The contrarian in me forces me to argue against sides I would ordinarily agree with when the argument is made from a flawed premise; California's Proposition 37 got a thumbs down from me because there's no reason a terrifically unhealthy Whole Foods organic cupcake should have zero ingredient labeling requirements while a cupcake mix you buy in a store should have a warning label - the Whole Foods organic cupcake is far less healthy in every way.

    But people are convinced organic food is somehow more nutritious. In culture, some myths become so entrenched that Google searches do no good in finding out the truth; the myth has overtaken reality by being repeated on lots and lots of websites. Another one of those persistent myths is that religion is anti-science in general, as are Catholics in particular.  Some tired old stories get trotted out over and over again, like the Scopes Monkey Trial (not Catholics, and science won) or the Dover, PA trial regarding Intelligent Design (not Catholics, and science won) but lots of them go even older than that.

    When atheists want to insist all religious people hate science, they often invoke Galileo - due to his place as arguably the first modern scientist, we have talked about Galileo a lot here (1) but we are not in the bag for any agenda except science so we are not carefully scrubbing reality to match cultural spin, even when it comes to legends. What gets lost in the cultural noise is that the hardest people on Galileo were fellow scientists; they had every right to doubt his work, by his method the tides only happened once a day, and at the same time every day. If you think denying climate change is bad, well, Galileo denied the existence of the Moon. Every illiterate sailor in the world knew better, as did every kid living near the water, but Galileo attacked everyone who pointed out his math was wrong - like Kepler. Catholics were not against Galileo, the Pope encouraged him to write his famous book, he wanted a good argument for Copernicus, he even helped pick the title.  But Galileo insisted on being a jerk to everyone - so he got a cushy house arrest. During the Inquisition. Yeah, sorry, but that was not Catholics being against Galileo or it would have gone a lot worse.

    Case in point: Someone who did have a bad end to his blasphemy - Giordano Bruno, the astrologer, occult worshiper, excommunicated friar, and astronomer.  He was burned at the stake by those mean old Catholics. He was a martyr for science.

    Well, no, he wasn't. His views on science never came up during his trial, he knew little of what anyone reading here would recognize as science - he only seemed to side with Copernicus because that happened to agree with his worship of the Egyptian god Thoth and Hermetism and their belief that the Earth revolved around the Sun.  Despite claims regarding Bruno's persecution due to the science of Copernicus that have persisted since his reputation purification in the late 1800s - the Church didn't even bother to ban De revolutionibus orbium coelestium until 16 years after they whacked Bruno - he clearly was not a credible proponent for any scientific earthquake that shook religious society.  The only thing he got right, that there were lots of stars with planets around them, was actually opposed by Copernicus and Kepler. Galileo was not buying it either.  It was just philosophical mumbo-jumbo he made up and happened to be right about later. Even Nostradamus probably got something right.

    He was not a martyr for science, he was instead, as English astrophysicist John Gribbin called him, a martyr for magic and the occult.(2) He actually was a heretic, and was even worse "a walking billboard for the Inquisition" and refused to recant his arianism/hermetism, though given the better part of a decade to try and take back some of his weirder nonsense.(3) Getting burned at the stake was nothing extraordinary in 1600 AD, especially for a guy who had gone out of his way to insist his beliefs were not an alternative theological hypothesis but that they were facts that the Catholic Church and Protestants needed to recognize.

    Martyr for science? For free thought? Only if you think psychics are too - but skeptics who swallow public relations revisionism of Bruno without any hesitation deride Psychic Sally without any evidence at all. Credit and link:

    Much is made by secular cultural pundits about his insider status as as a friar - as if the Catholic Church turned on anyone inside its ranks who did science - ummm, all science was done by religious people then. He was actually turned on by everyone, he was the rare trifecta - triple excommunicated, from the Catholics, the Calvinists and the Lutherans - and he once had to hide in the French embassy in England because he was a crackpot on every level and was forced to scramble every time people had enough of him. When it came to joining religions, he would take their vows, believing none of it, and then immediately start denying their precepts and talking about the occult.  That the Dominicans endured him for over a decade is testament to their belief in Grace, not his being accepted.

    He believed demons caused disease. And taught it. That was not the work of a rational person, even in the 16th century. 

    Obviously some religious people did object to anything that smacked of the idea that we orbited the Sun - but that wasn't Catholics either, it was Lutherans. And today, when people talk about anti-science religious people who believe in a 6,000-year-old Earth they are still talking about Protestants, at least in America. Tarring all religious people with that 'creationist' designation is silly - and dishonest.

    In the anti-Catholic segment of Italy in the late 19th century, Bruno got his 'martyr' for science label - by people who had never read anything he wrote, they just read he was killed. Support for him began after anti-Catholic sentiment swept through Europe after the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire and someone found that the church had once actually killed someone claiming to care about science. His books were and are unreadable so modern secular humanists gloss over his pseudoscience and instead say he was a martyr for 'freethought' - the same people who debunk psychics have embraced an astrologer because he was a 'free thinker'? The people who deny religion have embraced a occult guy who insisted demons cause diseases? Yes, Italy's largest free thought organization is named after a man who embraced nonsense and who did nothing for science except make Galileo nervous by getting Copernican theory lumped in with him.  Basically, 400 years from now Bigfoot believers will be extolled as freethinkers using that rationale.

    J. M. Robertson provides a suitable example of revisionist silliness bordering on hero worship,  calling Bruno “the typical martyr of modern freethought. He may be conceived as a blending of the pantheistic and naturalistic lore of ancient Greece, assimilated through the Florentine Platonists, with the spirit of modern science (itself a revival of the Greek) as it first takes firm form in Copernicus, whose doctrine Bruno early and ardently embraced.”

    Well, he didn't, he couldn't even understand Copernicus, it just jibed with his Hermetism.

    As Robert P. Lockwood, director of communications for the Diocese of Pittsburgh, notes, the people behind the misguided pandering who used Bruno in their culture war were looking to tear Italy apart in lots of other ways - within a generation it became a fascist state.

    Oddly, while wise people have obviously cast off the similar beliefs of the period, they hang on to Bruno. People who embrace him as a martyr today - unless they are Leviticus-style wizards - are engaged in their own idolatry and lacking the basic skepticism regarding their own icons that they show about UFO abductees.


    (1) Though I pick Francisco Redi as creating the first real science experiment.
    (2) Gribbin, John. The Scientists, New York, New York, Random House, 2002, p.17
    (3) And while the Inquisition is hyped up a lot - terrible acts over hundreds of years are portrayed as ongoing, common events - what is left out is that in Venice it was darn difficult to get convicted. Most everyone was acquitted, just say 'sorry for worshipping Zool' or whatever. Bruno really outdid himself by forcing them to kill him.


    "Bruno really outdid himself by forcing them to kill him."

    You've really out done yourself in the dumb statements category.

    That sentence is for people with some grasp of nuance.
    Yes, of course it's wrong to burn people at the stake.
    But Bruno was not a martyr for science. And calling him a martyr for "free thinking" etc. is associating "free thinking" with complete crackpottery.
    Personally I think it's correct to call Bruno a martyr for free speech. But facts are facts: for many years the catholic church didn't show much work ethic in prosecuting him.
    I hope we agree that one can condemn an act and have respect for the facts as well?

    Exactly true, though I want to note they really, really tried to get him to dial it down. Despite that this was the time of the Inquisition, they were quite reasonable. It isn't like it was a Kangaroo court and they arrested him and set him on fire, we are talking about 9 years here. Repeatedly teaching that the church was wrong and he was right about Thoth and Egyptians and forged ancient texts and arianism and hermetism was going to get him in trouble in every country.

    Visiting Vienna knowing he had been excommunicated and was reviled made little sense - attempting to cuckold his employer, which got him turned into the authorities, made even less - but by then the guy was clearly nuts. He had repeatedly taken vows he did not believe in, he denied the divinity of Jesus when he was 18, so that he wouldn't lie and say he took some of it back when he knew his life was at stake means he was loony by then.

    One of the links above calls him "the greatest philosopher of the Italian Renaissance" - 100% chance those rational skeptic people never read a single thing he wrote, it is truly gibberish.  He is only designated as such a great philosopher because sticking it to religion is more important than reason.
    Yes, of course. How can one overlook such nuanced words as "forced" and "kill". Very subtle.

    Some people are martyrs for a cause.

    However, others seem to have a self-destruct button.  One might think of Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin.  As for those with a cause, consider Theo van Gogh — his particular form of protest against the treatment of women in Islam seems to have been calculated to enrage, rather than persuade.

    As for Oscar Wilde, he seems to have wanted to feed his own vanity.  And note, it was not the church but the 9th Marquess of Queensbury, who scandalized society by his outspoken atheism, that brought about the downfall of the great playwrite.

    Such people seem to have a mental form of Toxoplasmosis, which makes them behave like mice taunting a mangy cat, and few of them reach the happy outcome of the mouse in James Thurber’s fable.  Giordano Bruno was certainly one such.

    Robert H. Olley / Quondam Physics Department / University of Reading / England
    This has nothing to do with Bruno. This has to do with schoolboy philosophy that attempts to rationalize a murder by an organization that professes a belief that "Thou shalt not kill".

    It's pretty easy. Bruno did not deserve be to executed regardless of whether he was a heretic or howling at the full moon. That was a religious organization that committed the murder and no amount of tap-dancing is going to change that fact.

    The issue of whether he was a 'martyr' is irrelevant, except as a minor correction to those that would credit him thus. However the rest of the article is the worst sort of rationalization based on the flawed premise that "getting burned at the stake was nothing extraordinary in 1600 AD".

    If the purpose is to discuss history or to provide an accurate historical context, then do so. If the purpose is to justify an act that is unjustifiable, then a significantly better and more qualified argument needs to be put forth.

    No, it's not a minor correction. The first time I heard about Bruno, he was described as a martyr for science and/or free thinking. I doubt I'm the only one.
    And nobody is justifying anything. The OP is offering facts and historical context, and comes to the - correct - conclusion that Bruno was not the martyr for science and rationality he's usually supposed to be.
    Understanding something is not the same as justifying it. Mixing up understanding and justification is actually pretty irrational. Bruno was a difficult character and the OP points this out. That's not a justification for the catholic church. In an odd way, you create the impression that it's you who think difficult characters deserve to be burned at the stake.

    The entire discussion is focused on how being burned at the stake was quite normal, and that he "forced" the church to kill him, and he was a crackpot anyway, so the entire premise is based on the notion that he essentially got what he deserved. Everyone was tired of him anyway, so he pushed it until the church killed him.

    So, the fact that a few atheists may refer to him as a martyr for science is enough to justify this discussion, but the fact that the church executed him makes it an anti-catholic persecution when that's pointed out.

    It is a minor correction, since there is nothing that he said or did, nor that anyone says about him now that warrants him having been put to death for it. The irony is that it appears no one thinks that killing him was a big deal, but the fact that he was annoying somehow makes his death understandable.

    This is just another of those tiring rationalizing discussions of where it isn't the catholics, it's those annoying protestants, or it's the atheists.

    "people are convinced organic food is somehow more nutritious"
    Well, from chemistry standpoint it's pretty much true. Most food consists of complex carbon-based compounds and is, therefore, "organic"... Unless someone's diet includes nothing other than salt and water, that it...

    Sure, organic farmers obviously never took organic chemistry - though I wonder if I can get some Whole Foods shoppers to picket an inorganic chemistry class, that would be terrific.

    Like String Theory is not a theory, but a proper name, organic food in this sense means the proper name for the process they use.

    However, since you mentioned a mineral, you will be tickled to know that the Non-GMO Project has put its label of approval on rock salt. So we can all buy this healthier, more ethical rock salt now.

    It's hard to blame them: this salt is definitely not genetically modified. Just like any other salt. For the very reason of total absense of genes in it. So, technically, they are correct. Also, some brilliant marketing there, since most of girls prefer anything in pink...

    Well, don't spoil it. My bottles of organic, non-GMO dihydrogen monoxide are selling like crazy.
    Everyone is entitled to their own way of thinking, whether it's closed off from the absolute truth or otherwise. This article I was thinking this article would, in the name of science show some type of proof or evidence of the title you presented us with. I was wrong. All you managed to do was express your opinion. Which is totally fine.
    Although I would like to ask one question before I go. Is light and the flow of energy within our bodies not a description of scientific understanding? Because one of the main teaching points of Bruno was the fact that we are all made up of an energy. Of course to piss off the church he continued to explain this energy within us is God itself. Lets all keep an open mind when reading this or other articles we might assume would present scientific evidence. As it stands I have yet to see any that would argue against the fact of science martyrdom.
    I still Love you all.