Moving this where it belongs...
The Catholic Church only had any degree of "anti-science" in that time to the extent that they just lost half of their population to Protestantism and grew paranoid about any new ideas that were sufficiently radical, but even then they only attacked Galileo because Galileo wrote a spiteful dialogue mocking the pope as an ignoramus for not understanding the brilliance of his theories despite the Pope being only the most supportive of Galileo beforehand.
Galileo was based because he acted
exactly like a modern internet shitposter when getting into a heated argument on /sci/. His attitude certainly wasn't the clever way to go about things (Kepler had that one down
much better), but I appreciate it greatly since I can relate to it a great deal.
And credit where credit is due. Galilei is often reduced to "Helicentrism, but the church hated him because he told them the truth" or the modern revisionist "Heliocentrism, but the church hated him because he couldn't support the model". But he did a lot more than that, had significant contributions to mechanics and applying mathematics to natural philosophy, and was the tip of the spear when it came to disassociating philosophy & faith from science (as in, before Galilei, there is no science, only natural philosophy). He also paid a great deal of attention to making his work available to everyone, neglecting Latin in favor of Italian.
He was by no means a saint. He was argumentative and spiteful and he oftentimes got into arguments he couldn't support. He also used to be overrated (though nowadays I'd say he's underrated), since Kepler accomplished more for astronomy, and the major concept he is remembered for was established by Copernicus.
But as a personality, he was fucking great and I love him.