Even if true, a relatively minor one at best. As I already showed, it had little if any effect on scientific research - even within the Church. Not only that, it was a very unusual case that the Inquisition wasn't used to dealing with. The verdict on Galileo did not go uncontested within the ranks of the Church. I believe one of the Inquisitors on Galileo even refused to sign the condemnation out of protest of the judgement.
As another historian of science, David Lindberg, noted, whatever literal position the institution took was largely because of the tense situation following the Protestant Reformation concerning interpretation of scriptures, where the Reformers condemned the Church for not being true to scriptures enough. The Medieval Church was well known for its relaxed positions concerning scriptural interpretation.
Let's also keep in mind Galileo was a devout Catholic his entire life, and at least one of his daughters became a nun. He even wrote a treatise calling theology "the queen of all science".
Are there any arguments against Catholicism that go beyond 1600?
Like I said, science and faith are not mutually exclusive. I don't find it hypocrite that scientists are part of an organized religion. I will not go into the details of Galilei's case any further, but instead give you the main idea. Somebody says something that church doesn't like, church banns it, reality calls church to order, church realises it was being silly and changes stances. Appart from the Galilei affair, and more recently, this would include the shift from "God put us on this earth as we are now", aka creationism to "God created us and incorporated evolution in his building plans", aka intelligent design. And I personally think that the next big thing the catholic church will back off on, is the prohibition of the use of condoms. There is a pope who said that AIDS in Africa should be stopped, but the currently most effective (and only realistic) method, give every African easy access to cheap, reliable, condoms is being condemned. What are we supposed to do then? Stop people from having sexual relationships all together?
Also, it isn't a thing against the catholic church per sé, they're just the religion I got into contact with most, and know the most about. Muslims who believe all women should weir veils, Scientologists who believe we are souls send to earth to be imprisoned, by some sort of space-dictator called Xenu.
They are all examples of the ridiculousness of organized religion.
That can be said of anybody or any institution for that matter, religious or secular. BTW, indulgences are not part of Dogma.
Other institutions are not relevant to this thread, but yes, you are right. And yes, indulgences are not part of Dogma, but they demonstrate how the church (as an institution) resist change and is opportunistic.
And this contradicts Catholicism how exactly? In another discussion, I brought up the issue with Jennifer of how St. Thomas Aquinas speculated that a human fetus doesn't attain a soul until 40 days after conception. This was largely based on scientific data at the time(13th century). Now through subsequent scientific research we know much more about how life first begins, so many theologians now speculate that a fetus attains a soul much earlier.
If scientist #1 would subsequently say to scientist #2, "You're wrong regardless of your proof" he would be a metaphor for a religious institute, and a bad scientist.
And ah, a nice example, if a human fetus doesn't get a soul until 40 days after conception. Does this mean abortion up until that limit should be fine? I don't think I ever heard the church saying that, it's against their doctrine.
This also plays into the Galileo affair, since the Church's interpretations of scriptures was made in light of the astronomical theories of Ptolemy(which were Geocentric in nature).
So the Church does intepret scriptures in light of scientific research, not against it. This approach was outlined by St. Augustine of Hippo:
So yeah. Theology and science are not opposed, but you can't insist that theology blindly follow science, since they aim towards different ends and achieve them through different means.
I'm attacking organised religious institutions, not at all (the majority) of the individuals who are participating. I'm fairly sure the Pope is a good guy who wishes the best for everybody, I also do not hate the catholic church at all,. I think they do a lot of good humanitarian work for a lot of people.
As for interpreting scriptures from a scientific point of view. They do at first, but if they can't find a satisfying way to incorporate findings into the existing believes they merely fall back to opposing it. They 'stick their heads in the sand'. Let religion worry about helping the poor and making people feel better, and let scientists do the explaining of the world.
On another note, I do hate people and religions who aggressively seek to press their ideas on people (think cults, westboro baptist church, at least a part of all Jehovah's witnesses, Extremists of every kind etc.) They are an entire different issue al together for me.