This blog is a summary of Chapter Two of When Science and Christianity Meet by
David C. Lindberg.[1]
The Galileo affair has become a
tale of combat to the death between the voices of scientific freedom and the
forces of theological intolerance. This view is seriously deficient as history.
The event was not a battle between science and Christianity. Every one of the
combatants – including Galileo - was Christian. The conflict was within the church, between opposing
theories of biblical interpretation and within
science between alternative cosmologies. What was really at stake was the
certain meaning of certain biblical passages but also the larger question of
who had the right to determine cosmological truth. This event was about cosmological and
theological beliefs but also was powerfully shaped by local circumstances and
personal interests.
Galileo’s trial must be judged by
the standards and behavior of the early seventeenth century. The freedom to
express dangerous ideas was as unlikely to be defended in Protestant Geneva as
in Catholic Rome. The idea that a stable
society could be built on general principles of free speech was defended by
nobody at the time. Examined in 17th
century terms, the outcome of the Galileo trial was a product not of dogmatism
or intolerance beyond the norm, but a combination of standard bureaucratic
procedure, plausible political judgement, and a familiar array of human foibles
and failings.
Following the views of Aristotle
and then Ptolemy, Western cosmologies had been geocentric since at least the
fourth century. Heliocentric systems were merely curiosities until Copernicus
in 1543. Copernicus’ book was highly technical and written for a very small
audience of mathematically proficient astronomers, so as a result it was little
known and less read. There was almost no reaction from the Catholic church and
nobody judged Copernicus as dangerous or a threat. In other words, scientists
writing about and publishing books on heliocentrism were not the issue.
In the 16th century,
there was little evidence in support of a heliocentric model being physically
true. Putting the earth in motion represented a massive violation of common
sense. Removal of the earth from the center of the cosmos represented a
destructive attack on Aristotle’s physics – the only comprehensive system of
physics in existence. To put the earth in motion was to put it in the heavens,
thereby destroying the dichotomy between the heavens and the earth, which had
served as a fundamental cosmological premise wherever Aristotelian philosophy
prevailed for the previous 2000 years. The absence of stellar parallax also offered
powerful empirical evidence against heliocentrism. Astronomers and natural
philosophers who rejected heliocentrism did so not because of blind conservatism or religious intolerance, but because of their commitment to widely
held scientific principles and theories.
Galileo brought data and arguments
for geocentrism. Using a telescope, Galileo observed that the moon was similar
in structure to the earth; arguing that since the moon was rocky like the earth
and moved through space that the earth could also. He saw Venus passing through
a complete set of phases, just like the moon does. This observation was in
contradiction with Ptolemy, but could be explained – and actually had been
predicted - by the geocentric model of Tycho Brahe. Galileo observed that Jupiter
and Saturn had “satellites”; arguing that the moon could therefore be a
satellite of the moving earth. His observation of sunspots struck at the Aristotelian
idea of the heavens being “perfect.”
It is tempting from a modern
perspective to propose that the leading theologians of the church ought to have
modified their interpretation of the relevant biblical texts in order to get
into step with the scientific opinion. But we must keep in mind that the
position adopted by the inquisition was in step with the majority, if not the
latest, scientific opinion. And it would have been a most remarkable event had
its members taken elaborate measures to abandon their own deeply held
principles of biblical interpretation, as well as traditional cosmological
opinions of the church fathers, while simultaneously rejecting the majority
opinion of qualified astronomers.
The fact of the recent reformation
played a large part in the Galileo event.
The church had just lost half of
Europe as a result of what could be construed as a relaxed policy toward
dissent and controversy. The church
bureaucracy since the Council of Trent was more worried about controversy than
the medieval church had been. It took a
much stricter view of biblical interpretation, moving toward literalism, and
refused to embrace any interpretation not sanctioned by church tradition or the
church fathers. Ironic, since the church
fathers, Augustine and Aquinas, encouraged an interplay between science and scripture.
The reformation and
counter-reformation did serve to entrench Aristotle’s physics and cosmology
more deeply and inflexibly than ever before.
The fascinating and significant anti-Aristotelian alternatives so
enthusiastically discussed in the fourteenth century were now ignored and often
forgotten. Protestants and Catholics
alike clung tenaciously to Aristotle’s cosmology while vigorously denouncing
Copernicus. Only in the 17th
century did heliocentric supplant Aristotle’s cosmology and only then did the
physical consequences derived from the assumed daily and annual motion of the
earth destroy Aristotle’s physics as well.[2]
Galileo actually argued for the
same thing as Augustine and Aquinas; stating that the literal biblical text is
necessary for salvation and those things that surpass human reason, but when
matters are addressed that are within the reach of sensory experience and
rational knowledge, God does not expect us to abandon these abilities of
observation and rational thought.
Galileo was at first accused of
adopting rash and heretical principles of exegesis. In other words, the Church
was at first upset with Galileo interpreting scripture. When the inquisition
formally censured heliocentrism in 1616, Galileo faced no personal danger and
was not punished nor declared a heretic.
He was simply ordered to not teach or defend it in any way.
Urban VIII became pope in 1621. He was a friend of Galileo and was considered
to be an intellectual, a man of vision, and a moderate on the topic of
heliocentrism. From his discussions with the pope, Galileo came to understand
that he was now free to write about heliocentrism, so long as he treated it as
mere hypothesis.
Galileo’s Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems came out in 1632. It was a
discussion between Salviati, who gave the arguments in favor of heliocentrism,
and Simplicio, who argued for geocentrism.
Galileo’s mistake was in making Simplicio seem to be a slow-witted, Aristotelian
laughing stock that resembled Pope Urban; such flagrant insubordination could
not go unpunished. As the second trial unfolded, it proved to be only
indirectly about biblical interpretation and cosmological theories and more
about disobedience and flagrant insubordination.
Galileo’s punishment was simply
house arrest which allowed Galileo to turn to other scientific problems. Galileo’s
mechanics as described in Discourse on
Two New Sciences served to overturn the Aristotelian view of the world. We
needed an entire new system of physics before we could get rid of Aristotle and
geocentrism; one could argue that the punishment imposed by the Catholic Church
actually advanced science and heliocentrism more than if they had left Galileo
unpunished.
David C Lindberg’s conclusions are as follows:
1.
Personal interest and political ambition are as
important as ideology and observation. If Galileo had paid more attention to
diplomacy, the outcome may have been different.
2.
The Galileo affair was powerfully influenced by
local circumstances: the Reformation, the
Thirty Years’ War, the power of the papacy being threatened by the Spanish, and
the criticism of Pope Urban for favoring Protestant King Gustavus Adolphus of
Sweden all played a part in how Galileo was dealt with.
3.
This was not a battle between science and
Christianity. Every one of the combatants – including Galileo - was Christian.
The conflict was within the church,
between opposing theories of biblical interpretation and within science between alternative cosmologies.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.