Posted on 12/04/2003 11:18:40 AM PST by Mr. Silverback
The Galileo AffairPerhaps the most notable conflict between Christianity and science, and by this we mean the Roman church's hierarchy and the devloping humanistic pursuit of knowledge, came to a climax in 1633, at the trial of Galileo Galilei in Rome. Much has been written about this afair, and doubtless more is to come; Bronowski (1973, 214) maintains that the Vatican archives still hold unrevealed documents. In Galileo's day the orthodox view of the cosmos was established according to the science of Aristotle, which had been incorporated into theological doctrine by Aquinas. However, an intervening hand from Egypt had played a part in constructing the medieval portrait of the heavens.
Ptolemy of Alexandria (A.D. 85-165), not to be confused with Egyptian kings of the same name, was a follower of Aristotle and believed that the stationary earth stood at the center of the universe while the moon, planets, sun and all the stars revolved about the earth in a series of inter-nesting spheres. He visualized each hollow sphere as being made of transparent crystal into which was fixed the heavenly bodies; thus, as the spheres revolved, these bodies were transported in thier respective circuits. Ptolemy's works were among those inherited from the Arabs and his views came to be adopted by the Latin fathers. Although the Bible is not specific about which revolves about what, they found Scriptures such as, "(The Sun) His going forth is from the end of heaven and his circuit unto the ends of it" (Psalm 19:6), which seemed to offer support for the notion.15 Eventually, the geocentric or earth-centered view became crystallized into dogma and was held to be as sacred as the Scriptures it was seen to support (Campanella 1639). However, churchmen of that age were not as ignorant as we have sometimes been led to believe. In his criticism of this attitude, C.S. Lewis makes the staement, "You will read in some books that men of the Middle Ages thought the earth was flat and the stars near but that is a lie" (Lewis 1948, 3). Strong talk, but then A.D. White's classic putdown, A History of the Warfare of Science With Theology in Christendom, would certainly have inspired Lewis' reaction. Nevertheless, the great crystal spheres were seriously considered by scientists of such stature as Johannes Kepler, who actually wrote music based upon the calculated ratios of the motions of the heavenly bodies. (A more musically successful and lasting attempt survives today in the beautiful Josef Strauss waltz "Music of the Spheres".)
While the notion of Ptolemy's spheres had been ingeniously blended with theology by the poet Dante,16 others, such as Polish Latin scholar Nicholas Copernicus, were having serious doubts (Milano 1981). Copernicus had no telescope, but from his observations he concluded that it made more sense to place the sun rather than the earth at the center of our planetary system. He was careful to keep thsese ideas to himself, but in 1543, near the age of seventy, he published his mathematical description of the heliocentric system -and conveniently died the same year.
Galileo Galilei was a short, active, and very practical man employed as a professor of mathematics in Venice, which at that time was not a romantic tourist spot but a center of the world's arts and commerce. Galileo had read the published work of Copernicus and had built his own small telescope, which had only recently been developed in Holland.17 In 1610 he was the first man to see the theoretical work of a great scientist of half a century earlier -Copernicus- confirmed by observation, and he naturally wanted to tell the world about it. Unfortunately the world, or rather a few men of the Roman church hierarchy, were not prepared to accept the news. He was told to keep quiet. Keeping quiet he did. He was no doubt influenced by the memory of his fellow scientist Giordano Bruno's condemnation by the Inquisition to burn at the stake on the Campo dei Fiori in Rome. Orthodox history has made Bruno a martyr for science. The truth of the matter is that he was not condemned for science but rather for occult practices, a common though infrequent reported activity among illustrious names of science (Yates 1964). Galileo waited patiently another twenty-three years before publishing his findings. The infamous trial took place the following year in 1633. After making a written recantation of his work, he was confined to house arrest for the remainder of his days.
Details of the trial can easily be found in other texts. It would seem fairly evident on the whole that it was a contrived affair, with the prosecutors fully aware that what the accused was saying was probably true. The real issue was rather who was making the statement and how. It is a matter of historical record that additions or deletions to Roman church doctrine are carefully executed over several generations, the changes being thus less notable than if made quickly. The Roman church, by adopting Ptolemy, made Aristotle's geocentric system part of its dogma, but it was becoming evident that geocentricity was in error (Galileo 1960, 151). However, a layman such as Galileo could not be allowed to tamper with the public belief in a way that would seriously undermine priestly credibility. Galileo, therefore, had to be silenced, not at the stake where history would make him a martyr -which it has anyway- but in the quietness of house arrest. The public mind has since been conditioned to tar the whole of Christianity with a bigot's brush for this incident and leave with the lesson that theologians should not resist the advances of science. However, it would not do violence to the facts to reverse the moral and point out that if the theologians had not listened to the scientist Ptolemy, they would not have been led astray in the first place.
-from In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the New World Order by Ian T. Taylor (TFE Publishing, Minneapolis, 1999, 22-25)
Jean
Tendentious, anti-Catholic, biased ... oh, and incorrect.
Nothing about geocentrism was ever dogmatised. I don't know how trustworthy the rest of the piece is, but if it's bad as this passage, it's worthless.
Your instincts were correct. The entire thing is an elaboration of the false premise that Ptolemy and Aristotle were proclaimed as Church doctrine.
I wish some of these folks would take the time to do a bit more careful research. The real history is quite a bit more interesting than the junk that attempts to distort it.
Or is good enough just to say, "incorrect" if you are Roman Catholic? It seems the proof you might require for this author you do not require for your Church's regarding its doctrine.
My point, however, was to emphasize the last sentence, not to bash Roman Catholicism. If I cannot do one without the other, then "oh-well".
Jean
Where, and to whom? Not in what you posted, certainly, where his claim that Ptolemaic geocentrism was "Roman dogma" rests on the claim that it was part of the worldviews of Dante and Aquinas. It may come as a shock to both you and the author, but dogma can only be defined by Popes and Ecumenical Councils, which neither Dante nor Aquinas were.
If geocentrism had been dogma, Galileo would have been condemned as a heretic, as would Copernicus. Galileo's writings were found to have heretical elements, for example his claim that Scripture might be wrong; Copernicus was never tried at all.
Nor did the author back up his tendentious assertion that Catholic dogma is ever "deleted", a claim that has never been substantiated to even the slightest degree except with regard to usury. (And it's most debatable whether it's been done there.)
"...Eventually, the geocentric or earth-centered view became crystallized into dogma and was held to be as sacred as the Scriptures it was seen to support (Campanella 1639)..."
Jean
Too funny! He was your garden variety wayward soul.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.