Science in Christian Perspective
Galileo and the Church: Tensions with a
Message for Today Part Ill
T. H. LEITH
Atkinson College,
York University Toronto, Ontario, Canada
From: JASA 25 (September 1973): 111-113.
The year of 1973 has been designated Copernican Year in honor of the
500th anniversary
of the birth of Copernicus in 1473. In keeping with this
commemoration, the Journal
ASA offers a four-pan publication of a paper presented by T. H. Leith
at the 1972
Convention of the American Scientific Affiliation at York University.
Part I appeared
in journal ASA 25, 21-24, March 1973. Part H appeared in journal ASA 25, 64-66,
June, 1973.
Galileo (1564-1642)
In 1609, the year when Kepler's elliptical orbits were presented to the public,
Galileo Galilei was a respected but rather obscure professor in Padua actively
seeking, after 17 years in the post an improvement in his position.
In that summer
he first heard of a Dutch device being exhibited there (it was likely modelled
upon an Italian instrument of 1590 about which he had been equally uninformed)
and in haste experimented until he had discovered its secret.
Constructing a telescope
of some ten diameters magnification he proceeded to employ it both intensively
for astronomical purposes and to help him secure the position of
Chief Mathematician
at the University of Pisa (though he agreed that this would be without teaching
duties and that he would not settle there) and Philosopher to Cosimo
Medici, the
Duke of Tuscany, in Florence. This move from Padua, under the protection of the
independent Venetian state, he was later to regret for it probably placed him
more readily into the hands of the Inquisition.
In 1597, on receiving a copy of the Cosmographic Mystery, Galileo had informed
Kepler that "many years ago I became a convert to the Copernican
theory".
In 1610 his little hook on his telescopic studies, the Sidereal Message first
publicly announced his position. It contained evidence of irregularities on the
Moon, thus denying the traditional perfection of the heavenly bodies; evidence
of many previously invisible stars, indicating that the import of the heavens
could scarcely rest upon what the naked eye had observed throughout
history; evidence
of a lack of noticeable stellar magnification which suggested that
the stars were
farther
away than indicated by past opinion; and evidence of the presence of
moons orbiting
Jupiter, which discredited the uniqueness of the Earth and
strengthened the possibility
that it orbited the Sun among the other planets. Later, in 1613, the Academy of
the Lynx-eyed in Rome and of which he was a member, published his discoveries
at Florence of the phases of Venus, which demonstrated its movement about the
Sun, and of sunspots, which suggested imperfections on that body and
whose paths
also indicated its rotation.
None of these, however, was difficult to reconcile with a Tychonic model as his
friends among the Jesuits at once recognized. But Galileo refused to
countenance
that. Then, between 1613 and 1615, Galileo wrote a series of letters attempting
to show that the Bible could he interpreted in a Copernican manner. This evoked
speedy reaction because it was his first clear challenge to
traditional Biblical
scholarship. Why did he take this risky step? Partly, it would seem,
from a desire
to see the church firmly supportive of the new truths about the world revealed
to the careful observer. Partly it was because of his firm conviction that he
was right in calling for a new foundation to the philosophy of nature, one with
a Copernican outlook and one based upon a proper physics and the quantitative
method on which he had been laboring for many years.
Galileo is sometimes seen as a scientist challenging the authority or
correctness
of Scripture. He was nothing of the kind for he never questioned the harmony of
God's revelation in nature and in the Bible; what he did doubt, like
Kepler, was
the correctness of certain interpretations of what the Bible meant, expounded
when other world views and astronomical attitudes were still plausible, and the
propriety in many cases of reading any technical meaning into it at all. What
was disconcerting to his opponents was the basic attitude toward the Bible and
the Church which lay behind this, for it seemed to imply that Biblical teaching
was never competent to challenge science and it eroded the authority
of the church
in matters of Biblical interpretation. If Galileo plead that there
could be no
conflict between well-founded science and the non(or pre-) scientific language
of Scripture, they could reply that no science was so secure as to be
beyond question
and that, as a scientist, he was incompetent to judge whether
passages long used
to defend the immobility of the Earth were, in the Hebrew, technical or not. If
Galileo wished to tell the Church how to interpret Scripture simply to fit what
he took to be a solidly-corroborated scientific doctrine, they could argue that
this took ultimate authority from the Church and placed it in the hands of an
individual, an approach suited to heretical Protestantism and anathema to the
position so clearly taken in reaction by the Council of Trent.
The Dominicans of course saw an additional danger in Galileo's
thinking for they
were consistently Aristotelian in their natural philosophy. Galileo had, with
his espousal of a new physics and of Copernican doctrine, hurled the gauntlet
in their direction. From their perspective Galileo was upsetting the
entire world
order and in particular he was challenging the real synthesis between
the Christian
faith and Aristotelian philosophy so firmly established since the
time of Thomas
Aquinas. To the Jesuit followers of Tycho, Galileo also seemed to be
making claims
for the truth of Copernican doctrine which were unjustified and to be
asking the
church, of which they were the defenders, to make major concessions on a flimsy
scientific basis.
Before long Galileo was hearing from Rome. In the early months of 1615 Cardinal
Barberini cautioned Galileo, through a friend, to treat Copernican
ideas as fictions.
The head of the Jesuit College, Cardinal Bellarmine, a month later
was also offering
his opinion. In response to a small book by a Carmelite priest,
Foscarini, favoring
a reconciliation of Biblical interpretation to Copernican ideas, he wrote the
author a letter making three points. The first was that the affirmation of the
truth of Copernicanism would irritate theologians and Aristotelians,
injure the
holy faith, and make Scripture
false. Secondly, the church, after the Council of Trent had prohibited Biblical
exposition which was contrary to the common agreement of the church
fathers, could
hardly support giving to certain portions of the Bible a sense contrary to that
found in its earlier teachers and to all modern scholarship; indeed, a denial
of what the church believes to be the clear meaning of Biblical revelation is
heresy. Finally, the church would revise its interpretations only if and when
the Copernican theory was proven. Within weeks Galileo saw the letter
and within
months he was in Rome to do battle.
But as the Tuscan ambassador put it,
this is not the place to come arguing about the Moon, nor in this age, to defend or introduce any novel doctrine.
And, as a friend of Galileo had remarked,
if new things are introduced . . . someone amplifies, another alters . . . Your ideas about the . . . bright and dark areas of the Moon introduce an analogy between that body and the Earth, someone amplifies this to suggest that you are putting people on the Moon, the next person begins to ask how these can be descended from Adam and how they might have come off Noah's ark.
The Church had, of course, a convenient way out, for Galileo has as yet offered
no demonstration of the Earth's motion not subject to alternative
interpretation.
Galileo now essayed to provide one, his notorious argument from the tides which
appears to violate his own physics and to be quite incorrect.
It is unlikely that even had it been valid it would have had much effect under
the circumstances. The theologians, asked by the Holy Office for an opinion on
the merit of the heliocentric doctrine, never considered it and thus
took no thought
for revising traditional Biblical exegesis. Instead, they judged the idea that
the Sun was central in the universe and immobile to be philosophically absurd
and formally heretical. The thesis that the Earth had a daily and
annual motion,
and that it was not central in the cosmos, they declared to be
incorrect in philosophy
and erroneous in theology. Within days, and less than three weeks
after Galileo's
arrival in Rome, the Congregation of the Index prohibited all
Copernican writings.
The Copernican revolution ended, it seemed, for church officialdom in March of
1616.
The Pope now instructed Cardinal Bellarmine to inform Galileo that the belief
that the Earth moves about a stationary and central Sun was unscriptural and thus
could not be defended or held. If Galileo refused to abandon his error he was
also to be told that he could not even teach the Copernican scheme. A
long debate
has centered around whether Galileo did, in fact, refuse. A purported minute
of the meeting indicates that he had received the prohibition, while a letter
from Bellarmine to Galileo is quite clear that Galileo had not
abjured any opinion
on the matter. In any event, Galileo appeared to be defeated for he
could no longer
defend the doctrine in which he so firmly believed.
Galileo was publicly silent for several years after the disturbing
events of 1616
but his private opinion was likely that which he expressed sometime later.
Can anyone question that, when minds given theft freedom by God are placed in abject submission to the will of others, serious unrest will follow? When we are instructed to reject our senses and place them under
the fancies of others? When total incompetents are permitted to judge experts and handle them as they wish? It is these novelties which may well result in ruining commonwealths and subverting the state.
Melanchthon would have been astounded at that final twist! To acquaintances he
could he subtly ironic, commenting that he understood how necessary it was to
accept the decisions of his superiors, of those led by a higher knowledge than
this poor mind could achieve, and then asking them to read his works as poetry
or a dream because "I esteem somewhat this vanity of mine."
In 1623 the Academy of the Lynx-Eyed published a
brilliant essay on scientific method, entitled The As
sayer, and dedicated to Urban VIII the former Cardinal Barberini14. Hearing of
Urban's favorable response, Galileo travelled to Rome the following spring to
see if he could obtain from the Pope greater freedom to discuss his Copernican
thesis. He was told to go ahead but to treat it only as a useful
hypothesis because
God need not do things in the way which we imagine. Now 60, Galileo began the
preparation of his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems15
and completed
it early in 1630, some six years later. It came from the press in 1632 and was
soon suppressed after an ecclesiastical commission, activated by
Galileo's opponents,
reported that it was really a defence of Copernican doctrine. Its
author was called
to Rome, charged with violating the injunction of 1616.
Galileo's defence lay in Bellarmine's letter, and the Pope's
conversations, allowing
him freedom to discuss the doctrine. His opponents brought forward
the purported
minute indicating that he had been restricted more severely. Galileo
replied that
he could recall no restraint on his discussing Copernican ideas and
that the Dialogue was not a defence of these ideas but instead treated them as
hypothesis. However, even if his first plea might be successful the
second could
hardly he taken as credible. After all, the Dialogue was clearly intended to be
a convincing argument for a new world-view and it was aimed at converting the
intelligent reader, by reporting the wonders to be learned from
nature, to a revision
of traditional outlooks. As a result he was found suspect of heresy, required
to abjure sincerely and to curse and to detest what the church considered to be
error and unscriptnral, and sentenced to house arrest for an unstated term. He
was still under this formal imprisonment at his death in 1642's.16
(To be concluded)
FOOTNOTES
14This and other shorter writings by Galileo are to be found in Discoveries and
Opinions of Golileo, S. Drake (ed.), New York, 1957. See also the
review of this
by E. Rosen in Journal of the History of Ideas, 1957, pp. 439-448.
15Diologoe Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Berkeley, 1953 or Dialogue
n the Great World Systems, Chicago, 1953.
16Galileo's methods, life and trial are discussed in Galileo Galilei,
L. Geymonat,
New York, 1965; Galileo Re-Appraised, C. L. Golino, Berkeley, 1966;
La Revolution
Astronomiqae, A. Koyre, Paris 1961; The Crime of Galileo, G. de
Santillana, Chicago,
1955; Galileo Galilei, R. I. Seager, Oxford, 1966; Galileo, Man of
Science, E.
MeMullin (ed), New York, 1967; Galileo, Science and the Church, J. J. Langford,
Ann Arbor, 1971; Galileo Studies, S. Drake, Ann Arbor, 1970; Etudes
Galileenues,
A. Koyrc, Paris, 1966; Metaphysics and measurement, A. Koyre, London, 1968; and
La Philosophie Naturelle de Galilee, M. Clavelio, Paris, 1968.