“Where the senses fail us, reason must step in.”
“Doubt is the father of invention.”
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.
[Letter to Christina of Tuscany]
I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments, and demonstrations.
[The Authority of Scripture in Philosophical Controversies]
It is surely harmful to souls to make it a heresy to believe what is proved.
[The Authority of Scripture in Philosophical Controversies]
“It vexes me when they would constrain science by the authority of the Scriptures, and yet do not consider themselves bound to answer reason and experiment.”
[The Authority of Scripture in Philosophical Controversies]
“Having been admonished by this Holy Office [the Inquisition] entirely to abandon the false opinion that the Sun was the center of the universe and immovable, and that the Earth was not the center of the same and that it moved… I curse and detest the said errors and heresies, and generally all and every error and sect contrary to the Holy Catholic Church.”
[Recantation, 22 June 1633]
Nothing physical which sense-experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called into question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages.
[Blind Watchers of the Sky, p. 101]
The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically false, and at the least an error of faith.
[Catholic Church's decision against Galileo Galilei]
Tags: Absurd, Astronomy, Atheism, Atheist, Bible, Catholic, Christianity, Church, Faith, False, Inquisitions, Quotation, Quote, Quotes, Roman, Science, Skeptic
August 26, 2009 at 3:22 am |
I can see why the catholic church would do what they did to him. If he had been allowed to teach his views, think where we might be today. We could be living life without the influence of the many different churches.
August 26, 2009 at 11:17 am |
I wonder what you think the Catholic Church did to Galileo?
August 27, 2009 at 8:08 am |
“I wonder what you think the Catholic Church did to Galileo?”
Censored his book and placed it on the their Index Librorum Prohibitorum (“List of Prohibited Books”)*
Put him on trial and convicted him for heresy
Put him under lengthy house arrest
Threatened him with torture.
Oh, I know they didn’t actually carry through and torture him, how big-hearted of them.
Issued a Papal Bull declaring that heliocentrism was a matter of faith and morals, and was wrong.
* It is shameful that such a list even existed, as it did for centuries.
E pur si muove
September 1, 2009 at 9:51 am |
The Church did worse to Bruno.
August 27, 2009 at 4:27 am |
Mind you, the ancient Catholic Church nearly halted the entire progress of astronomy. I believe the late former Pope, John Paul, publicly apologized on behalf of the religion for these atrocities fairly recently.
September 15, 2009 at 3:50 am |
NBa9Tx kjitmgtyvhez, [url=http://gltxecmfpgcx.com/]gltxecmfpgcx[/url], [link=http://kzzdxuiehfcm.com/]kzzdxuiehfcm[/link], http://jmvxiohsivid.com/
August 26, 2009 at 8:39 am |
Apropos to this, and to be sure the Protestants get their fair share of condemnation for being just as idiotic about the Copernicus/Galileo “controversy”, here is Martin Luther in response to the publication of Commentariolus (a brief work of Copernicus’ which appeared a decade before De Revolutionibus). It comes from Luther’s Tablebook (Tischreden), or record of dinner-table conversations:
“There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth.”
Elsewhere Luther refers to Copernicus as “a fool who went against Holy Writ”.
August 26, 2009 at 8:53 am |
Luther, like all Christians of the time did not question scripture. Today it is quickly explained away as allegories, metaphors and parables. No matter how ridiculous, Christian appologetics will find a way to justify every Biblical absurdity.
Here is another quote from Luther’s “Table Talks” where he refers to Copernicus as a fool:
August 26, 2009 at 8:48 am |
Oh, and I don’t want to leave out Luther’s protege, Philip Melancthon.
In his “Principles of the Science of Physics,” [Yes, creationists were writing books even back then. Amazing how things don't change.] “The eyes testify that the heavens revolve every twenty-four hours; and nevertheless some men, either from love of novelty or to parade their genius, insist that the earth moves, and that the eighth sphere and the sun do not revolve. Every true believer is obliged to accept the truth as revealed by God, and to be contented with it.”
August 26, 2009 at 10:56 am |
Luther and Melancthon also missed the effect of the sun’s mass on the space-time continuum and the fact that light acts as both a particle and a wave.
No wonder their theology was bad.
Or could it be that physics and astronomy have nothing to do with it?
August 27, 2009 at 4:31 am |
I dunno, but back in more medieval Cathoics seem a bit apprehensive about the Earth not being the center of the Solar System. >_>
(I bet humans thought it was some sort of divine right that we’re smack dab in the center, so nobody wanted to hear anything about God not giving us that gift after all.)
August 27, 2009 at 12:24 pm |
The point is not that their theology was bad due to ignorance of physics and astronomy (regardless of the extent to which that might have been so).
The point is that when certain previously unknown facts became evident as a result of new information about physics and astronomy, their ability to adapt to the new objective knowledge was impaired by believing that reality (the nature of physical objects) is defined by theology.
August 27, 2009 at 12:38 pm |
But that is only part of the equation, as their theology was married with Aristotelian physics, which itself is premised on an Earth-centered solar system. They were thus mutually re-enforcing.
Furthermore, many of the observations and some of the evidence could be interpreted either way. For example, Galileo’s observation of the phases of Venus proved that Venus revolved around the Sun – but this was also consistent with the geocentric system proposed earlier by Tycho Brahe in which all of the other planets revolved around the Sun which itself revolved around the central Earth.
In Cardinal Bellarmine’s letter to the Catholic theologian and Copernican Antonio Foscarini, he wrote:
“To demonstrate that the assumption that the sun is located in the center of the earth in the heavens saves the appearances [ie, explains observations and allows for predictions of planetary movements] is not the same thing as to demonstrate that in truth the sun is located in the center and the earth in the heavens. The first demonstration, I believe, can be given’ but I have the greatest doubts about the second. And in the case of doubt one should not abandon the Sacred Scriptures as interpreted by the Holy Fathers.”
So, you see, the Cardinal was not just impaired by his theology but also impaired by the common philosophy of the day. Bellarmine seems to place even greater weight on the latter.
September 1, 2009 at 9:55 am |
The fotòn is not a mote but a wave.
August 26, 2009 at 11:21 am |
I wonder what your point of all this is? The Catholic Church is and always has been in the business of religion and theology, not science. They supported the sciences, in fact during a large portion of the 2000 years, were the only Christian support of the sciences. But they are always very careful to separate science and religion. Galileo, a good Catholic, attempted to cross science and religion. That’s when the Church stepped in. Galileo did not have the proof necessary to show the Church that he was right. They asked him to stop, he refused, and disobeyed. This is a nutshell version of the events.
August 26, 2009 at 12:20 pm |
The Catholic church wasn’t mad that Galileo was trying to mix science and religion. They were mad because his findings contradicted what they believed was in the Bible, that it was the sun that moved and not the earth.
It’s all up there in black and white: “The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically false, and at the least an error of faith.”
That was the official decision of the Vatican. Not that Galileo attempted some kind of union between science and the Church, but rather, that his science contradicted the Church.
I honestly have no idea what drove you to your conclusion.
August 26, 2009 at 2:06 pm |
Wrong. There’s not even an attribution to that quote. Who said it?? This is not to say that the Church didn’t declare his theory to be incorrect. Most certainly they did. Why? He could not answer the strongest argument against it, which had been made nearly two thousand years earlier by Aristotle: If heliocentrism were true, then there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars’ positions as the earth moved in its orbit around the sun. However, given the technology of Galileo’s time, no such shifts in their positions could be observed. It would require more sensitive measuring equipment than was available in Galileo’s day to document the existence of these shifts, given the stars’ great distance. Until then, the available evidence suggested that the stars were fixed in their positions relative to the earth, and, thus, that the earth and the stars were not moving in space—only the sun, moon, and planets were.
Galileo claimed that the Copernican theory had the “sensible demonstrations” needed according to Aristotelian science, but most knew that such demonstrations were not yet forthcoming. Most astronomers in that day were not convinced of the great distance of the stars that the Copernican theory required to account for the absence of observable parallax shifts. This is one of the main reasons why the respected astronomer Tycho Brahe refused to adopt Copernicus fully.
Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. Even so, Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology. But, despite his friends’ warnings, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds.
Theologians were not prepared to entertain the heliocentric theory based on a layman’s interpretation. Yet Galileo insisted on moving the debate into a theological realm. There is little question that if Galileo had kept the discussion within the accepted boundaries of astronomy (i.e., predicting planetary motions) and had not claimed physical truth for the heliocentric theory, the issue would not have escalated to the point it did. After all, he had not proved the new theory beyond reasonable doubt.
August 26, 2009 at 2:31 pm
That quote was the official word from the Roman Catholic Church. It’s not attributed to any one person because it was created by a body of people, much like a press release. Please do at least some basic research before dismissing things out of hand, you completely destroy your own credibility when you do things like that.
The Church forcing Galileo to recant wasn’t based on a scientific disagreement, it was because his scientific discoveries differed from what goat herders thought was true thousands of years earlier.
Their decree, as the official statement from the Church, clearly shows that it was a philosophical and theological disagreement. There has never been any experiments or empirical scientific data that would suggest the earth was not only the center of the entire universe, but immovable, to boot. What science was the Church supporting in this case?
August 26, 2009 at 3:09 pm
I agree with what David says here. The part in the condemnation that calls heliocentrisim “philosophically false” is just as important as the theological aspect. Heliocentricism was incompatible with the prevailing philosophy of the day, derived from Aristotle and embraced by the Catholic Church. Science would need a new physics to replace Aristotle before a heliocentric cosmology could make complete physical sense. That would not be fully realized until Newton. Galileo was asking the Church to re-interpret scripture in light of philosophically questionable premises (and indeed, he did so himself, which was an affront to Church authority). Most were not willing to do that.
August 27, 2009 at 8:13 am
Even so, Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology.
David, you ignorant slut: whether the Earth circles the Sun, or the Sun circles the Earth is a matter of science, not religion. The Holy Roman Catholic Church was wrong about that, not Galileo.
August 26, 2009 at 12:45 pm |
David is driven to his conclusion by a need to defend the Catholic church and make it smell rosy no matter what. I’ve met Catholic apologists before. Like any other, they must revise history or ignore it in an effort to make fit their preconceptions.
It’s an utterly dishonest and anti-intellectual way to live, but at least it’s comforting.
August 26, 2009 at 2:08 pm |
Where am I defending? I said the Church made a wrong declaration. What’s wrong is that Gallileo was tortured or severely persecuted. He wasn’t. He wasn’t imprisoned, he wasn’t tortured, he wasn’t even forced to stop practicing science. His house arrest was in a mansion.
For your information, I know the story back and forward, was once an anti-Catholic.
August 26, 2009 at 3:11 pm |
(RE: this post) What makes you think that Galileo was a “religious skeptic”?
August 26, 2009 at 5:01 pm |
Good question! It’s historical revisionism…He was, and remainded devoutly Catholic all his life. In fact, I don’t believe he was ever denied the sacraments, even when the Church said he was wrong.
In that age, you knew you were wrong because they were sure to excommunicate you…
Here’s a link that provices much more information on what really went on.
http://www.evangelizationstation.com/htm_html/Essays%20on%20Science/galileo_legend.htm
August 26, 2009 at 7:28 pm |
Yes, Galileo was a practicing Christian. What he questioned was the religion sold by the Catholic Church. Not exactly a skeptic in the standard sense, but a skeptic none the less. His rational approach was one of the first steps in science unveiling the absurdities of the Bible.
August 26, 2009 at 7:48 pm |
I highly doubt that Galileo would agree with your assessment of him. Galileo did not question the Catholic religion. Instead he maintained that scriptural references that pass into the territory of science should be interpreted strictly in terms of science rather than deferring to the ancient Church Father’s who were ignorant of the new science. For Galileo, such scriptural references were not a matter of faith and morals and therefore irrelevant with regards to salvation. This was at its core a methodological and authority dispute.
He was certainly skeptical, however, of Aristotelian philosophy and the wisdom of the ancient authorities. His empirical observations fueled that fire of skepticism to no end.
August 27, 2009 at 8:16 am
“Galileo did not question the Catholic religion.”
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The Catholic Church declared geocentrism to be a part of their religious doctrine, essential to faith and morals. Pope Alexander VII issued a papal bull to that effect.
August 27, 2009 at 10:54 am
I meant that Galileo did not question, in general, the essential teachings and dogmas of the Catholic religion nor did he question the inerrancy or revelation of the Bible. For Galileo, the Bible was not in error. Theologians who didn’t understand the new science were in error. You can see how easily that could get him in trouble with authorities who believe it is their God-given job on Earth to interpret scripture for the masses.
August 27, 2009 at 12:34 pm
I meant that Galileo did not question, in general, the essential teachings and dogmas of the Catholic religion…
You were wrong. The Holy Roman Catholic Church declared belief in geocentricity to be essential teaching and dogma.
Theologians who didn’t understand the new science were in error.
That’s right; the theologians who decided what was, and what was not, essential teachings and dogmas of the Catholic religion. You are apparently playing both sides of the net.
August 27, 2009 at 12:49 pm
I was not wrong. I did not properly convey what I meant. The declaration to which you refer was made at Galileo’s sentencing at the end of the affair. He did not subsequently question that. Therefore, it is not fair to say that Galileo questioned ‘official’ Church dogma.
Galileo was as pious and believing a Catholic as just anyone could possibly be. Like I said, he accepted the Bible as the inerrant word of God and the Pope as God’s representative on Earth. He submitted his book for approval to the Holy Office (and for possible censor or correction) and obtained that approval prior to publishing it. Etc.
August 27, 2009 at 1:36 pm
“Galileo was as pious and believing a Catholic as just anyone could possibly be.”
You repeat your error. Obviously, someone as “believing a Catholic as anyone could be” would accept the Holy Roman Catholic Church’s stated doctrine that the Sun orbits the Earth, as a matter of faith and morals.
You are still wrong, and you are obviously a person who cannot admit that.
August 27, 2009 at 3:04 pm
There is no error for me to admit to. Galileo DID accept the Catholic Church’s decisions on the matter. He may not have liked it, but he yielded to their authority as Catholics were called to do. As I explained above but you apparently ignored, the Catholic Church’s decisions resulted from events which Galileo himself help put into motion. Copernicus’ book was (mostly) ignored by the Church for the first 70 years after it was published. These decisions were not in place when Galileo began considering and writing on the question but rather were a consequence of him (and others) doing so.
August 28, 2009 at 7:47 am
There is no error for me to admit to.
Writing “Galileo did not question, in general, the essential teachings and dogmas of the Catholic religion” about a man who was convicted of heresy is not an error? I cannot agree.
Galileo DID accept the Catholic Church’s decisions on the matter. He may not have liked it, but he yielded to their authority as Catholics were called to do.
He did this out of a sense of piety, or because if he violated his house arrest he would be thrown in a dungeon and tortured? I don’t see that people compelled by threat of violence to a course of action should receive credit for a freely made decision.
“As I explained above but you apparently ignored, the Catholic Church’s decisions resulted from events which Galileo himself help put into motion.”
“Mommy, mommy, he started it first!” The Catholic church convicted Galileo of heresy, and declared that believe in geocentrism was a vital matter of faith and morals. No one coerced that decision out of them by threatening them with torture.
Copernicus’ book was (mostly) ignored by the Church for the first 70 years after it was published.
As is well-known, Copernicus didn’t publish until he was on his death-bed, thus depriving the Holy Roman Catholic Church of its “right” to terrorize him.
These decisions were not in place when Galileo began considering and writing on the question but rather were a consequence of him (and others) doing so.
What’s your bleeping point? The Holy Roman Catholic Church screwed up badly. Your point is that they screwed up after Galileo’s publication and not before? How does that in any way absolve them of responsibility for their misdeeds?
The baby Jesus hates you for your lying ways.
August 28, 2009 at 10:03 am
“I don’t see that people compelled by threat of violence to a course of action should receive credit for a freely made decision.”
Isn’t that the Christian definition of free will? We’re free to choose whatever path we want, but if we choose the one God doesn’t want, we get tortured forever with no hope of rescue.
August 28, 2009 at 10:28 am
Feel free to disagree all that you want, but Galileo did not question the essential teachings and dogmas of the Catholic Church. You have to note that I qualified my statement carefully. But I also made the point that when Galileo starting questioning geocentrism the Church had made no official declarations on the matter. It was, so far as he could discern (and others), and open question. You cannot claim that Galileo questioned official Church dogma before it was definitively declared as such (and which he himself prompted). And, regardless of the reasons or the circumstances involved, he did not publicly question it afterwards. Therefore, it is incredibly misleading to say that Galileo “questioned the Catholic religion.” The dispute about the solar system was hardly essential to the Catholic religion and Galileo did what any “good” or pious Catholic in those days would have done in that situation – he yielded to ecclesiastical authority.
What makes you think that the Catholic Church would have terrorized Copernicus? We simply cannot know that. They took little to no notice of his book – which was itself dedicated to the Pope at the time (Paul III).
Now, for some reason you seem to have the impression that I want to absolve the Catholic Church of any misdeeds. That is furthest from the truth. As is obvious from my website, I am an atheist. I have no sympathy for the Catholic Church or any religion for that matter. But I am also an historian of science and care about historical accuracy. The latter is all that I am defending, nothing more.
August 28, 2009 at 12:30 pm
“What makes you think that the Catholic Church would have terrorized Copernicus?”
Their track record, for starters.
“Now, for some reason you seem to have the impression that I want to absolve the Catholic Church of any misdeeds. That is furthest from the truth.”
“Quack quack quack. Waddle waddle waddle. Sir, how dare you mistake me for a duck!”
August 28, 2009 at 12:38 pm
“Their track record, for starters.”
Boy, there’s an impressive historical argument.
Are you going to be serious are you going to start acting like a child now?
The Catholic Church made an enormous and unfortunate mistake in making a scientific question a matter of faith and closing off subsequent investigation. They did so despite the fact that Galileo and other pious Catholics within their own ranks saw the writing on the walls and offered a way out. It certainly spelled the beginning of the end of Catholic dominance in science – for which I would say good riddance anyway. Happy now? My dislike of the Catholic Church, however, is no excuse for not attempting to properly understand a historical situation.
August 26, 2009 at 3:38 pm |
JAnus, outside of Church Councils, the Catholic Church does not make public statements that are not attributable to somebody. I searched and could not find where anything official like this was ever written. You really have no idea how the Church promulgates statements.
FYI, the heliocentric theory had been posited by Ptolmy in the 2nd century. It was nothing new to the time. It was simply unproveable. The word of God said the Earth was stationary, that was considered concrete. A theory is not concrete. And as yet unproveable. But much less unproveable back then.
Also, the Church never told him to recant. There is little question that if Galileo had kept the discussion within the accepted boundaries of astronomy (i.e., predicting planetary motions) and had not claimed physical truth for the heliocentric theory, the issue would not have escalated to the point it did. After all, he had not proved the new theory beyond reasonable doubt.
At Galileo’s request, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, a Jesuit—one of the most important Catholic theologians of the day—issued a certificate that, although it forbade Galileo to hold or defend the heliocentric theory, did not prevent him from conjecturing it.
FYI It’s not an official decree of the Church without a signature, eventually, of the Pope…
August 26, 2009 at 5:24 pm |
In Wikipedia’s entry on Galileo Galilei, footnote 92 points to a site (West Chester University) with translations of several documents related to this matter, including the
“Sentence (22 June 1633)” and also “Galileo’s Abjuration (22 June 1633)”. The sentence was apparently signed by seven of the ten cardinals who heard the case, but the translator does not list any of their names.
A couple of points from the Sentence:
It did not take me very long to find this. A dedicated researcher can presumably eventually get from this reference to the original documents.
August 26, 2009 at 4:24 pm |
The passage in question “The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable…” does not appear to me to be a direct quotation but a summary. The following was written in Galileo’s sentence in 1632:
“That the sun is the center of the world and motionless is a proposition which is philosophically absurd and false, and formally heretical, for being explicitly contrary to Holy Scripture; That the earth is neither the center of the world nor motionless but moves even with diurnal motion is philosophically equally absurd and false, and theologically at least erroneous in the Faith.” (Finocchiaro, 1989, pg. 288)
August 26, 2009 at 5:27 pm |
You seem to be quibbling about different choices of words by different translators of the Sentence — a difference without substance.
August 26, 2009 at 5:34 pm |
I am not quibbling about anything. Clearly, it is accurate in so far as the quotation I provided. The date should read 1633, btw.
August 26, 2009 at 10:34 pm |
Normally, one would think that “religious skeptic” is not an apt description of Galileo. After all, he only thought that reality could best be understood by careful direct observations of real objects and events, and by direct inferences from those direct observations. How could that be skepticism about religion? Galileo was talking about physical events, the movements of physical objects. How could that be in any way contrary to theology?
And yet David has given us a very clear demonstration of how that came about.
David asserts (August 26, 2009 at 11:21 am):
That is, David calls Galileo’s statements about the movement of physical objects “attempt[ing] to cross science and religion“. David argues that the Church was correct in attempting to suppress the Copernican system and all data and discussion that supported it because “Galileo did not have the proof necessary to show the Church that he was right“.
How can anyone make such an argument? David gives us a clue a little later. When there is an objection about this mixing-science-and-religion categorization, David says in response (August 26, 2009 at 2:06 pm):
According to this argument, nobody is allowed to say that he or she has been convinced of the truth of a new theory until there is “conclusive proof of it“. One has to pretend it is simply an idle fancy or an arbitrary technique that just happens (by some amazing coincidence) to get good results. But it seems to me that “a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions” is, in fact, an assertion about the true nature of those motions.
What, then, is conclusive proof? Apparently it is something that will make theologians prepared to entertain a new theory because it has been expressed by another theologian. Galileo was not a layman with respect to science in general and physics specifically. So “based on a layman’s interpretation”, must mean the theologians were not prepared to consider a scientific theory that was not proposed by a theologian. It is the Church that was mixing religion and science.
In short, David tells us that nobody may openly support or openly agree with a new theory if “he ha[s] not proved the new theory beyond reasonable doubt“, perhaps with the proviso “if it conflicts with some Christian belief”. How will it ever be proved if no one can talk about it in a straightforward, open manner, present evidence, and otherwise engage in vigorous study and discussion? Indeed, if it is false, how can it ever be disproved and forgotten, rather than allowed to linger on as a whispered speculation.
These arguments seem to have a strange undercurrent, a suggestion that physical reality is simply a matter of opinion. A suggestion that if everyone had continued to believe that the Earth is the center of the universe, then it would have continued to actually be the center; so nobody should ever rock the boat by suggesting a new idea based on actual observation. Can this be right? Was this the view of the Church in 1633? If so, it would have forced Galileo or any thinking person to be a religious skeptic.
August 26, 2009 at 11:40 pm |
Similarly, James says (August 26, 2009 at 3:09 pm):
This is a little more subtle: The theologians should not be required to acknowledge any new data until the scientists have all the tools in place to deal with the new data and concepts in their entirety. But it has the same result of suppressing new discoveries. Newton benefited from the work of Galileo and others who studied these matters before him. If they had all been silenced, if their writings had all been banned as “an affront to Church authority”, then how would the new physics ever have been fully realized?
It was not Galileo asking the Church to re-interpret scripture, and not suddenly in 1633. New information was becoming available, provided by a variety of people from a variety of sources, starting at least as far back as that time when Columbus failed to fall off the edge of the world; information which demonstrated that the scriptures could no longer be taken literally as they had been for centuries. It was this new information and the new understanding of reality that came with it that required the Church to re-interpret scripture. The prosecution of Galileo for heresy was just a clumsy, futile, and cruel attempt to stem the tide. The Church gave evidence of temporal authority and not much else.
August 27, 2009 at 10:50 am |
You are confusing a historical description with a prescription for what one ought to do. I am in no way condoning the actions of the those theologians nor am I suggesting that this is the proper way to go about doing things. All that I have done is sketched out a more plausible historical interpretation of the events than what you and others have provided.
Galileo did not only ask the Church to re-interpret scripture, he also did it himself. If you recall, the Catholic Church was fighting protestantism and with it the belief that individuals could privately interpret scripture without the Church. Whatever you may think of that, it seems at least somewhat clear that Galileo was passing into that kind of territory.
August 28, 2009 at 2:20 pm
OK; description vs. prescription. There has been a lot of discussion since this exchange and I see your perspective: “rather than trying to understand the complexities of history, many people want to simplify the event to the point of caricature.” It’s an ongoing problem with politics at all levels in all times.
In the long run it is better to know something about the time-line of the events and about the personalities of the parties to the conflict. This event is tragic enough without Galileo’s own fans adding to the injury by ruining his reputation for piety (valuable to him if not to us) through misunderstanding and ignorance. We ought to be able to honor his scientific and philosophical achievements without forcing him, posthumously and against his will, to be also a political hero.
August 28, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Verbifex – I agree completely. Well said.
August 27, 2009 at 10:11 am |
NEver mind. You’re all right, and we’re wrong…except that that’s not true… Funny how hardened hearts don’t like to know the truth…
August 27, 2009 at 10:35 am |
I find the hardened heart analogy funny. My heart is soft. I’m the same man I’ve always been. I just believe in one less god than I used to.
I believe “truths” that have evidence to back them up. Not because unknown authors and unsubstantiated “witnesses” from 2,000+ years ago tells me something is true.
You can believe 70% of people on earth have hard hearts towards your god. I simply have an open mind and enjoy the mystery of why we are here rather than believing an ancient fable to explain it.
August 27, 2009 at 12:36 pm |
Funny how hardened hearts don’t like to know the truth…
Maybe you should be concerned about your hardened head.
August 27, 2009 at 1:26 pm |
Aww…man…Did you really have to spoil the fun by going that low?
I was just beginning to enjoy this little discussion of ours…:D
Here’s an idea for “salvation”: Why don’t you tackle Verbifex’s post instead of blindly accusing us of having “hardened hearts” who “don’t like to know the truth”.
August 28, 2009 at 12:16 pm |
To piggy back on Reginald’s comment, perhaps you should look to the board in your own eye.
Oh yeah, I forget: Humility is only a Christian trait in the Bible. Not in actual “christians”.
September 1, 2009 at 10:18 am |
sooth > truthe > truth
There is no “truth” anyway. Maybe you mean troth or trust.
August 27, 2009 at 1:57 pm |
I’m still waiting for the scientific data that Galileo’s findings somehow contradicted.
If any of you want to claim that the Church actually promoted science, then you probably don’t want to also say that they threatened anyone with any opposing views with torture and made them actually declare their findings as heresy. That’s not a very conducive environment for scientific advancement.
If the only hangup was that he didn’t sufficiently prove his premise, then they would have allowed him to continue his research until he could. Scientists don’t get one crack at a theory and give it up if it’s critiqued. That’s never how it has worked.
If, however, the Church was more concerned with what the Bible said about how the natural world worked, come hell or high water, then they would have placed him under arrest and made him recant his theories under threat of torture.
August 27, 2009 at 2:34 pm |
Janus, got any proof? The threat of torture does not constitute the use of torture. That said, most of the scientists of the time were religious men. Mainly priests who were under obedience to the hierarchy of Rome. Do you understand what obedience means in religious terms? There’s no gray area of obedience.
There is no way for Galileo to have ever proven the theory given the instrumentation of the time. Actually, it is STILL a theory, not an established fact.
The Church is more concerned with the inerrancy of the Bible, that’s the Church’s purview. The Bible was THE reference of the day, in fact, it still is. If something contradicts the Bible, the Church wants proof. Anything that contradicts the Bible is untrue. This is as true now as it was then. But now we have better instruments which explain the perceived differences, to which an enlightened explanation can be derived.
In an age that saw a large number of “witches” subjected to torture and execution by Protestants in New England, “the worst that happened to the men of science was that Galileo suffered an honorable detention and a mild reproof.”
August 27, 2009 at 3:15 pm |
“Actually, it is STILL a theory, not an established fact.”
Huh? Of course it is a fact that the Earth is a planet in revolution around the sun.
“The Bible was THE reference of the day, in fact, it still is.”
For a select few people, perhaps, but not in any general sense.
August 27, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Then why is it called the heliocentric THEORY?? From Wikipedia: In astronomy, heliocentrism is the theory that the Sun is at the center of the Universe. Grant you it is THE accepted theory today, but it is still not totally proven.
A select few??? 1.6 Billion is a few, eh?
August 27, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Oh, I am sorry, I didn’t realize that Wikipedia was the be all and end all.
Is there really doubt among any astronomers that the Earth revolves around the sun? Of course not. It is a scientific fact. That the Earth moves on its axis is indisputable (Foucault’s pendulum). That the Earth is in orbit is indisputable (stellar parallax). That, due to the gravitational pull of the Sun, that orbit is an ellipse is indisputable (Kepler and Newton). Need I say more?
August 27, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Well – strictly speaking heliocentrism is false because the Sun is NOT at the center of the Universe but in the periphery of an average galaxy that itself is in motion. But in so far as the make up of the solar system goes…
August 28, 2009 at 7:35 am
“Then why is it called the heliocentric THEORY?? From Wikipedia: In astronomy, heliocentrism is the theory that the Sun is at the center of the Universe. Grant you it is THE accepted theory today, but it is still not totally proven.”
Thank you for sharing your ignorance with us. Nothing in science is proven. Proof is for mathematics. The National Academies of Science defines “theory” like so: “In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.“
August 28, 2009 at 7:32 am |
“Actually, it is STILL a theory, not an established fact.”
Woo! Woo! Woo! You sound like a Creationist. Another person who got their science from Sunday school, not science class.
August 28, 2009 at 10:02 am
No, actually, I believe that faith and science co-exist just fine. Creation is true. The theory of evolution meshes with it. Darwinism takes evolution too far.
James, I have no doubt, and the Church has no doubt. Given the instrumentation we have today, it’s nearly certain.
Reginald, it is a well substantiated explanation. At Galileo’s time, so was geocentrism.
At any rate, once again…
Religion and science are two separate venues. The Church does not try to establish or make statements about science, and science should not be involved in religion, other than acknowledging that God’s hand is in everything.
But the Church in the dark ages was the only venue in Christendom where science was kept alive. So to say that the Church is against science is false.
August 28, 2009 at 10:39 am
The Church only supports the science that matches the bible, or proves that God exists. It tries to undermine everything else.
How long have we had this “theory” argument directed at science? Why is it that science, and NEVER RELIGION, subjected to that question?
If unprovable facts are but theories, why do we never call The Bible being The Word Of God himself… a theory?
Is it out of fear of punishment? Or fear of moving away from God?
WHY THE DOUBLE STANDARD? Did God give religion a free pass? Did God give us discerning brains to have us, um, NOT use them at all?!
September 1, 2009 at 10:22 am
Every theory is /proven/ already. Otherwise it would be hýpothesis. And learn where words come from: proof < prove probabil, probability.
September 1, 2009 at 10:25 am |
So a round Earth is untrue? Or Earth hangs upon Sun is untrue? The Buybull contradicts itself all the time; one profèt said rainwatter doesn’t go back intom the sky, and another said it did.
August 27, 2009 at 3:11 pm |
“If any of you want to claim that the Church actually promoted science, then you probably don’t want to also say that they threatened anyone with any opposing views with torture and made them actually declare their findings as heresy.”
Well, they did both. Fortunately, we have a much more conducive environment for science today than back then. In Galileo’s day Theology was the queen of all of the ‘sciences’ (broadly construed) and considered a higher calling than rolling balls down inclined planes. Happily, that is no longer the case.
“If the only hangup was that he didn’t sufficiently prove his premise…”
It wasn’t the only hangup, of course. He was also attempting to usurp the Church’s authority in interpreting scripture in light of scientific premises that were highly contested in his day.
August 28, 2009 at 9:54 am |
Really got something going with this post TB. Interesting.
I really don’t totally get the desire of some people to defend the Catholic church as being all hunky-dory blameless in the Galileo affair. Why is it that so many people are unable to simply say, “Fucked up big time. Ecclesia culpa. Let’s move on and learn from our mistakes.” ?
But then I likewise don’t get the attitude of so many from the US south who must similarly rewrite, revise, reinterpret, or ignore history in an effort to say the South was utterly blameless and a shining example of all that is beautiful in mankind.
Humans really do amaze and puzzle. If I were a god, I might be more than inclined to toss them off.
Hmmmmmm….. maybe I’ve come up with a new way to get BibleGod off the hook.
After the Noahic flood, the Israel-as-chosen debacle, the Jesus incident, the effort to establish His Church, and so on, he finally said, “Sheesh! Did I really make such a screwed up race? Forget ‘em. I’m off to try again with a new planet….. Hope they don’t come up with space flight. That Babel thing really scared me.”
August 28, 2009 at 10:06 am |
I didn’t say the church wasn’t wrong about heliocentrism. Clearly they were. Galileo made his share of mistakes, too. What isn’t true is that Galileo was tortured and imprisoned. In fact, he went to daily Mass until his dying day, being carried when he couldn’t walk.
The rest of your comment isn’t worthy of comment.
August 28, 2009 at 10:31 am |
The Catholic Church was not blameless in the Galileo Affair. But rather than trying to understand the complexities of history, many people want to simplify the event to the point of caricature.
August 29, 2009 at 2:52 am |
You know what this entire Galileo Deserves It And The Chruch Is Innocent thing sounds like? It sounds like people trying to say that the Holocaust of World War II didn’t happen. <_<
August 28, 2009 at 12:03 pm |
Chicken,The Church only backs science that can be reconciled with God’s inerrant word. God would not be God if he could be wrong. God’s written word is established as inerrant. Man’s understanding of God’s word can be flawed. Witness the number of Protestant denominations all claiming they have the correct interpretation.
Where did you ever get the idea that religion is never questioned? It is endlessly questioned! There is no question with questioning God, there are characters in the Bible that do so a lot. The problem comes in when you ignore God in the process of trying to figure out how something works.
August 29, 2009 at 12:25 am |
“Man’s understanding of God’s word can be flawed. Witness the number of Protestant denominations all claiming they have the correct interpretation.”
Now now, it’s not just the protestants doing this, mind you. Given the number of denominations who profess worship of God, can you rightfully say that YOUR denomination is telling the CORRECT truth… and by whose authority?
How can you be sure that your denomination is more correct than, say, the Jewish and Islamic faiths, who have been bowing down to God long before the Roman Catholic branch was founded?
On whose reliable testimony are the Protestants, Presbyterians, 7th Day Adventists etc WRONG, and your division is correct? Even a CULT would claim itself sanctioned by God…
“There is no question with questioning God, there are characters in the Bible that do so a lot. The problem comes in when you ignore God in the process of trying to figure out how something works.”
Personally, the REAL problem is when people simply direct all questions, queries and responsibility to God. Or worse, back to the seeker.
Now, I know you’d attribute this to non-believers, but the believers are just as guilty of this behavior as well. Look at your reply. Read it again.
IF I truly ignored God I would never ask of his intentions – or if his servants really are carrying out his will, or passing his message correctly. Much less question them.
In fact, I would regard him as having not existed, and that he won’t matter, and that this entire deal is nonsense, and I would not even bother to participate in this discussion at all.
If you can’t answer or don’t have an answer, be honest. If you want people to find their own answers, or if you prayed for God to reveal an answer to them, don’t contest them when you find they have a different answer than what you expect. Simple as that.
August 31, 2009 at 10:24 am |
Yes we can. Our faith dates to Jesus Himself and has been passed down with the health of the Holy Spirit. I’m not saying that Protestants are wrong. They do have some of the truth, after all, they have the Bible. But they don’t have all the truth. The Catholic Church has it all, because we follow Jesus, who passed his teaching to his apostles, who passed it down through the ages. The Holy Spriit kept it on track.
Regarding questioning God, you say there’s a problem directing all questions to God, but ultimately, that’s where all questions do go. But truly, all answers do come from God. Every moment of your existence comes from Him. Every thought in your brain comes from him.
August 31, 2009 at 11:18 am
“..has been passed down with the health of the Holy Spirit…..Jesus, who passed his teaching to his apostles, who passed it down through the ages. The Holy Spriit kept it on track.”
Mere assertions.
August 31, 2009 at 11:30 am
James, if you examine the teachings of Christ, and examine how they were implemented through the ages, you will see that they are not ‘mere assertions’. If you aren’t willing to do that, then go the way you want.
August 31, 2009 at 11:40 am
Done that. Realized after reading Bart Ehrman’s “Lost Christianities” that the early Christian religion was a mess of disputed doctrines and teachings, not a pleasant little scenic drive from Jesus to the Catholic Church.
August 31, 2009 at 11:55 am
David: God. … Every thought in your brain comes from him.
I bet you also believe in free will.
What do you make of the fact that god has put different thoughts in some brains than in others? And why are you trying to convince us that we should have thoughts different from what god put in our brains?
August 31, 2009 at 3:23 pm
James, that’s fine, except that we believe Christ directly, not what people tried to say about him. We take God at his word, and nothing more. That scenic drive you speak of was very, very short. About 50 days after his death. Ten after his ascencion.
Verbifex, I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I’m here to straighten out people’s misconceptions and false beliefs.
Free will is just that. You can say, think and do whatever you want. God doesn’t put anything into your brain, except the evidence. It’s up to you to decipher it. It’s sort of like a computer. It used to be that a computer came with just an operating system. That carries the basics, what we call natural law. The Ten Commandments. After that, it’s up to you whether you live them or not. Then, when you die, it’s up to Him to decide if you lived them the way he wants you to…
August 31, 2009 at 3:27 pm
“We take God at his word, and nothing more.”
That’s precisely the problem. Different groups of people claiming to know what God says. That’s why that ‘scenic drive’ was more like a winding up-hill dirt path for the first 300-400 years or so. You don’t suppose that the Catholic Church won the day by politely correcting other people’s ‘incorrect’ interpretations? Of course not. Political power + the sword.
August 31, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Except that nobody else was around during the time of Christ. There were no Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians or Baptists. There were Christians and everyone else. James, you seem to easily discount the first 300-400 years when Christianity was illegal and people professing Christ were killed So who was the political power + sword then? Next you’re going to say something about all the wars fought over religion. I will tell you that there have been very few. Most wars fought over Christianity were defensive. Including the Crusades. Even you should see that, while people are saying that poor Galileo was being threatened with torture by the mean ole Catholics, Protestants were burning ‘witches’ at the stake in the name of religious freedom. Catholic priests, bishops and popes rarely were involved in any violence themselves. Sometimes they used others to do their dirty work, but mostly it’s because they were not violent.
No, the Catholic Church didn’t force itself on people. You either were Catholic, or you weren’t. Them they called heretics.
August 31, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Nope. I will quote from the opening pages of Ehrman’s “Lost Christianities” (note the plural title):
“The wide diversity of early Chritianity may be seen above all in the theological beliefs embraced by people who understood themselves to be followers of Jesus…In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that Jesus was both divine and human, God and man. There were other Christians who argued that he was completely divine and not human at all. There were others who insisted that Jesus was a full flesh-and-blood human, adopted by God to be his son but no himself divine. There were yet other Christians who claimed that Jesus Christ was two things: a full flesh-and-blood-human, Jesus, and a fully divine being, Christ, who had temporarily inhabited Jesus’ body during his ministry and left him prior to his death, inspiring his teachings and miracles but avoiding the suffering in its aftermath. (pg. 2)”
And that is just with regards to who Jesus was. The varied “lost Christianities” might have remained forever lost if not for a few of their writings surviving all those centuries intact. To pretend that they didn’t exist or didn’t matter is woefully ignorant at best and maliciously obscurantist at worst.
August 31, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Not authoritative to Catholics. He’s not a Catholic.
The only Christians believed that Christ was 100% man and 100% God. Those that professed any other formula were teaching heresy. This is not lost to Catholics. I can name the heresies backwards and forwards. They are not Chrisitans, plain and simple. Protestants are heretical too.
All of them had the partial truth. The Catholic Church has and always has had the fullness of the truth-100% truth.
You write as if Ehrman discovered something. They’re known facts. But when I was a Protestant, I didn’t know them either…but you would think that a Master of Divinity would…
August 31, 2009 at 4:56 pm
“Not authoritative to Catholics. He’s not a Catholic.”
That would be funny if the comment wasn’t so sad. Ehrman is describing historical reality. His relationship to Catholicism is irrelevant.
“The only Christians believed that Christ was 100% man and 100% God.”
Now you are just making a classic use of the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy. The point, which you seemed to miss, was that they all believed themselves to be true Christians and all the others to be wrong. Big deal. What is “Christian” was precisely what was completely up for grabs for the first several hundred years until one sect gained enough political power and influence to snuff out dissenting views through book burnings or bullying.
August 31, 2009 at 5:44 pm
It’s funny that, in a society where people will hold up Nancy Pelosi and say “See? She says abortion is ok, and SHE’s a Catholic!”, you would say that Ehrman is an authority on the Catholic Church of the first 300-400 years.
Let me walk you through it. Jesus founded one church. He gave Peter the keys to the kingdom. At this time he was known as 100% man to those closest to him. After his crucifixion, death and resurrection, he was recognized as 100% God. Those closest to him professed him to be 100% man and 100% God. These were the first Christians, the Apostles. They passed on their faith to successors, exactly as they had learned it. They spread this faith. Some questioned how Jesus could be 100% God and 100% man. Some held that he was 50/50. Some said he was 100% one way or the other. These went off and started their own sects. They called themselves Christians but didn’t maintain the whole truth.
All the heresies went against specific biblical teaching. And proof was given from the bible on every one of them. There was about 1 every hundred years or so. Wasn’t the free-for-all you’re making it out to be. So the heresies that were around contradicted the written word of God. Including all the major protestant sects. As I said above, which you seem to be missing, is that all of them had some of the truth but only the Catholic Church had and has it all. It’s biblical, not political. And none of them were ever snuffed out. In fact, there’s Gnostics, Arians and Montanists to this day. Their books still exist. By the way, most book burnings weren’t by the Catholic Church, they were by the Franks, Turks, Muslims and other barbarians from Northern Europe and the eastern Mediterranean as they laid siege to Christendom. Most, not all. Protestants did a lot of burning as well…mostly witches, but lots of books, too.
August 31, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Ehrman is an authority on ancient Christianity, Jesus, and the New Testament – not just the early Catholic Church.
If only it was as simple as the party line you tow. All of them had some of the truth which the Catholic Church conveniently defines. However, I don’t wish to get into an extended discussion in the comment section of a post that is unrelated to this topic, with respect to theBEattitude, so this will be my last reply.
August 31, 2009 at 9:25 pm
“Yes we can. Our faith dates to Jesus Himself and has been passed down with the health of the Holy Spirit. I’m not saying that Protestants are wrong. They do have some of the truth, after all, they have the Bible. But they don’t have all the truth. The Catholic Church has it all, because we follow Jesus, who passed his teaching to his apostles, who passed it down through the ages. The Holy Spriit kept it on track.”
SO DOES EVERYONE ELSE’S. Which part of that do you not understand? You’re not answering my question.
You’re just making claims that can’t be verified, just like every other branch of Christianity.
Ah, heck, it’s not my fight anyway. I’ve passed you a message from other testimonies. If God doesn’t want to sort this out and wants to have his servants repeat the party line like robots, so be it. <_<
September 1, 2009 at 10:35 am
There is no “Holy Breath”, for your Roman Church could not understand the Hellènic for a proper translation. If your Church, or you, has all the answers, why can it, or you, not speak or say any of the scriptural names wrihtly? Why has its Latin been corrupted for Italian? And why do Catholics call their priest Fa’ther when Krist said not to call anyone but the one in heaven? Where are rosaries and repetitive prayers in Scripture?
September 1, 2009 at 10:48 am
Which verses say he was fully God? or even any God?
“son of God” != “God”
“Lord and my God” != same person or subject
He said God dwelt fully in him, as opposed to his believers for whom God also dwelt in them as the temple analogh. Yet he hade to pray to God, didn’t know everything God knew, and did not share the same tasks. The Son’s name in trinity was Emmanuel; it was not Jèsu. The former was a God; the latter was a man. Thus, the former dwelt in the latter, and they were not the same person.
August 28, 2009 at 12:05 pm |
Meant there is no problem with questioning God…
August 29, 2009 at 12:29 am |
Somehow, I doubt it. Only because when one questions God, there are many believers swarming around the seeker, with the intention of leading him back to the path they think is right.
And mind you, there’s more than one right answer.
If there really isn’t a problem questioning God, then why do believers condemn the seeker at first glance?
The road to tyranny is paved with good intentions.
August 31, 2009 at 10:29 am |
Actually, there usually is only one absolutely right answer. As I stated above, there might be different points of view of that answer, but the real answer is the only right one. Remember the case of the three blind men and the elephant…they had three points of view, all partially true. But the truth was there was only one elephant.
I have no doubt that some believers do exactly what you’re saying, but they aren’t right either. It’s not our job to condemn them, but to help them find the truth.
August 31, 2009 at 12:15 pm
The point of the story about the blind men and the elephant is that none of the blind men knew the true nature of the elephant; they were not even close. If you want to apply this as an analogy to religion, then the insight is that no religion knows the true nature of whatever it is that they are all groping; not even yours. And the reality is likely to be different from the concepts of every religion.
August 31, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Your point would be valid if God had not come to earth and established his faith. Mankind was blind about the true nature of God until He walked the earth. What other faith claims that God was incarnated to explain how we should live?
That’s alright, go on being a skeptic.
At least you stopped publicly making false claims about something you know nothing about.
August 31, 2009 at 9:17 pm
No actually, it will still be valid. God may have told many men, but no man understands his true intentions: thus you have many men telling people their own interpretation of things – not necessarily God’s.
The Bible itself is already made of accounts from “many men”. It’s different interpretations are what led to the formations of multiple branches of God worship in the first place.
Remember: Mankind is BLIND about the true nature of God.
August 31, 2009 at 11:02 pm
David: I do not know what false claims you are talking about.
I was doubtful from the outset that “religious skeptic” is an apt description of Galileo.
James pointed out that Galileo’s work and statements that appear to be religious skepticism predate the Church’s opinion that the Copernican system was “theologically false, and at the least an error of faith”; that after that declaration, Galileo said no more on the subject publicly; that therefore it is unfair to call Galileo a religious skeptic. Fair enough. I recognized that.
But there is ongoing confusion about this event precisely because the Church (not Galileo) mixed religion and science when it declared Copernicus “theologically false”. Before that declaration, in addition to advocating heliocentrism, Galileo had also argued that scripture should not be used to question matters of science (apparently this had never come up before). The Church declaration effectively made all this scientific and philosophical work into religious skepticism retroactively. The fact that Galileo did not intend to be a skeptic and that he did not afterward comment, does not change the fact that his published views became contrary to Church teaching, through no fault of his own, as a result of the Church’s action. And that is why people continue to think Galileo was a skeptic.
My criticism stands of your comments to the effect that Galileo should not have said the Copernican system is true because he had not proved the new theory beyond reasonable doubt.
If the Church needed to re-interpret scripture in 1633 (which I frankly do not know), it was not that Copernicus or Kepler or Galileo was asking for this to be done, but that the interpretation needed to be made consistent with the new information and the new understanding of reality that had become evident through their work.
September 1, 2009 at 10:52 am
Why, many pagan men had called themselves or their hèros God incarnate.
August 31, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
[...] take the most recent example from an exchange with somebody named David in which I am involved on theBEattitude (slightly [...]
September 1, 2009 at 10:04 am |
Verbvifex, it is documented that Galileo tried to claim truth of his theory when he had not sufficient evidence.
In many ways the initial cautious ambivalence of Catholic authorities is unsurprising. Copernicus was a loyal Catholic and a canon of Frauenberg Cathedral, making him a relatively minor member of the Catholic hierarchy. He had followed all of the proper procedures required to secure formal permission from Church authorities to publish his book, and he even dedicated it to the reigning Pope at the time (Paul III). That their response was ambivalent is not to say that the Church did not take the matter seriously, or fail to study it. By all accounts the Church did both. However, in the 16th century the Catholic Church found itself beset by many radical ideas, a number of which were direct and unambiguous frontal assaults upon its spiritual and political authority in Europe. So long as Copernicus’ ideas remained a mathematical argument (in Latin) among scholars and did nothing to threaten either the beliefs of the common man or the Church’s ultimate authority in such matters, the Church had no need to respond
It was Galileo who requested permission to print his thesis and was rejected, then Galileo who disobeyed the authority which he sought.
They were making assertions that contradicted scripture, assertions that could not be proven. If you look at how the Church handled the Copernican writing, you will see how Galileo pushed it into the theological realm.
Gallileo’spublished views did not ‘become’ contrary to the Church’s teaching, they were cotrary the moment he put them on paper. He suggested that theologians were wrong. They took offense and asked him to prove it. He could not.
Through no fault of his own?? He wrote the book. He knew it was contrary to church teaching He presented it as truth. All that was required was for him to back off.
Your criticism is weak. Galileo had proof toward what he was showing, the Church simply said they needed more.
It alo should be noted that it was all Christianity which questioned his theory. Not just the dumb ole’ Catholic Church.
September 1, 2009 at 10:57 am |
Who were “all Christianity”?
September 1, 2009 at 11:21 am |
Now, I don’t know the circumstances, but then again, I’m no historian. But I think you’re telling a rather re-written side of the story.
Here’s what I learnt really happened. Seems that the Pope did support heliocentrism at first. And did indeed allow Galileo to print his views – because the book was published with the blessings of the Pope himself.
BUT… there was a problem.
His book was basically a dialogue. Stating pros and cons, something like that. His points were put forth in the pro’s side. The cons side contained arguments from intellectuals against the idea, as well as the Pope’s arguments.
In the book, the fictional scholar arguing for the older ideas was given a rather unfortunate name. Seems that it can loosely translate to “simpleton”.
So in the end, Galileo’s book sounded more like a confrontational piece of work – and the Pope at the time didn’t take that very nicely.
He didn’t get away scott free, as you seem to be claiming. At the most, he had his sentence commuted. At least the men of the Church during that era had some measure of self-control.
Now, from whatever I’ve gathered, Galileo may have blundered in the brazen way he put forth his points – that I’ll agree. BUT by no means does it absolve the Catholic Church of any nonsense – in the entire affair they have displayed very un-Christian, knee-jerk reactions.
Oh, and by the way, your previous highest human authority, the late Pope John Paul II – already apologized for the way the Galileo affair was handled. By his own admission in 1992 the Church has accepted responsibility.
There is no longer need to twist any truth in an attempt to make the Church look squeaky clean. I implore you to at least respect the humility of God’s representative.
Let the argument end here.
September 1, 2009 at 12:13 pm |
“It was Galileo who requested permission to print his thesis and was rejected, then Galileo who disobeyed the authority which he sought.”
He was not rejected. The Dialog on the Two Chief World Systems was printed with the permission of the Church and was even submitted to its Censor for ‘correction’. It was printed under Rome’s imprimatur. Then two things happened. First, some theologians complained that the book seemed to argue in favor of the physical truth of heliocentrism. Second, the Pope discovered the written mandate from 1616 which demanded that Galileo does not hold, teach, or defend Copernicanism. The later was especially infuriating because Galileo had not told the Pope about this written order when the Pope gave Galileo his blessing to write his book.
Most of the 1633 trial turned on whether or not Galileo had violated the 1616 injunction. There was a discrepancy which threw a slight wrench into the proceedings – the copy that Galileo obtained from Bellarmine said do not “hold or defend” and left out the word “teach”, which appeared in the Vatican’s copy. Galileo insisted that he did not hold or defend the view, but was merely teaching it.
Anyway, about this question of proof. At least two kinds of proof were spoken with regards to Copernicus. Mathematical proof and philosophical proof. A mathematical proof merely demonstrated that the geometry of the system could accurately describe and predict the position of the planets – regardless of whether or not it was physically true. A philosophical proof would supposedly demonstrate, in the manner of Aristotle, the physical truth of the system. Such proofs were based on logical deductions from axioms, etc. Many Catholics, including Cardinal Bellarmine, accepted the mathematical proof of Copernicus but rejected it as philosophically unproven. Galileo was approaching the question from a new angle – namely, he was gathering physical or empirical evidence supporting the theory. Galileo was convinced that this was satisfactory proof of the theory but many others were skeptical that the empirical evidence really demonstrated the truth of the theory as strongly as Galileo supposed. And in many cases alternative explanations could be proposed to incorporate that new empirical evidence.
So it is not really fair to say that Galileo shouldn’t have said this or shouldn’t have said that. The fact of the matter is that there was a legitimate dispute over the nature of evidence and the meaning of proof in the natural sciences at this time. Galileo was paving a new path through largely unexplored territory, for which we should be thankful.
September 1, 2009 at 12:47 pm |
We’re getting down to minor details, and I should back off. I jumped on here because there’s a lot of myth and misstatement regarding the Catholic Chyurch and Gallileo. You actually did a pretty good job showing the truth. There’s no doubt the Church made a mistake. There were a lot of weightier problems at the time.