Copernicus heliocentric theory was deemed theologically heretical by the church. De revolusionibus was prohibitied and Galilei was deemed a heretic
for defending Copernican heliocientric model, he lived out the rest of his life under house arrest.
This is what I mean by its complicated. Its easy to think that because Copernicus believed the planets revolved around the sun, that his theory should have just been accepted. But thats not how it works, especially in science. Copernicus was right that the planets revolved around the sun, but his theory as a whole had issues. It wasnt much more predictably accurate than the current model of the time, and there were issues he couldnt explain. There wasnt enough evidence that the Earth was actually in motion, and it wouldnt be until a hundred of years later that Keppler would figure out the orbits being elliptical as opposed to circular, which solved several of the inconsistencies in both Coppernicus' and Galileos theory.
As for Galileo, it was a lot of the same issues. He was right that the planets revolved around the sun, but his theory as a whole was wrong (that the Sun was the center of the universe). Galileo was also punished but not because of his theory, but because he church said he couldnt go around telling people this until he could prove it, but he didnt listen and would say the sun was the center of the universe and he'd insult the pope and the church, which was basically playing with fire at that time. So his punishment was for his actions, not for his theory. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine was a guy who literally burned people at the stake for heresy, so he took shit pretty seriously, and he was the guy overseeing the whole Galileo situation. The official position of the church was that heliocentrism contradicted scripture, and it wouldn't be accepted without overwhelming proof but, and this is very important, the position was that if such proof could be scientifically proven then scripture would have to be re-interpreted. This is an extremely important point thats mostly unknown aboutn the whole Galileo situation. The official position of the church was "If you prove it, then we re-interpret scripture", which means that what they could prove scientifically took precedent over biblical interpretations. This is the exact opposite position of being anti-science. Both Galileo and Copernicus were right that the Earth was not the center of the universe, but this was not the extent of their theories, and not everything they believed was correct or scientifically verifiable as they had several discrepancies they couldnt account for.
You're thinking that because they were right about planets orbiting the sun, and were proven right over history, that it was somehow anti-science not to accept their theories immediately. But that doesnt account for the entire story. For a contemporary example, look at the big bang. Its not like it was just readily accepted and the entire scientific community changed their way of thinking about the universe overnight. It took decades for it to be accepted, and evidence had to mount over time. Einstein himself wouldnt accept the big bang theory for most of his life, but that doesnt make him anti-science, does it?
There is no refuting these specific men (or any early scientist) were religious or superstitious in primitive times, the same way Thales of Greece or Ahmes of Egypt subscribed to their cultures mythologies, but this doesnt refute the anti-thetical nature of religion/superstition vs. science.
The people who firmly believe religion are generally anti-science/human progress and aligned to very specifically narrow view on reality.
Just saw right here in another thread the highly religious Bryce Mitchell break down how the earth is flat because of the tales in the bible. I've heard other religious folk ie. Rampage express the same view due to his.
If I had to bet cash. thinkers like Mitchel align themselves with a specific demographic present here, and deem science "woke"
You make bold claims that I dont think you support very well. You already pointed to the Joe Rogan thread and said people were arguing that the big bang didnt happen because Jesus invented the universe, which isnt true at all and its emblematic of what Im saying.
You can find all sorts of examples of people saying all sorts of things, but this isnt an argument that historically any single religion has been anti-science as a whole. Like Ive already said, the church has been instrumental in establishing universities, shaping modern academia and the scientific pursuits. Nothing Rampage says is going to change that.
