Galileo cited Cardinal Baronius (1598) for the statement, "The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." (Drake, p. 186; Rohr, p. 13 )
"...Ironically, the traditional beliefs that Galileo opposed ultimately belonged to Aristotle, not to biblical exegesis. Pagan philosophy had become interwoven with traditional Catholic teachings during the time of Augustine. Therefore, the Church's dogmatic retention of tradition was the major seat of controversy, not the Bible. It may also be noted that Pope Urban VIII was himself sympathetic to Galileo but was not willing to stand against the tide of controversy. In reality, the majority of persecution seemed to come from intellectual scientists whose monopoly of educational authority had been threatened. During Galileo's time, education was primarily dominated by Jesuit and Dominican priests.
One of the most important aspects of Galileo's "threat" to education is that he published his writings in Italian, rather than Latin, which was the official language of scholarship. Galileo was attempting to have his ideas accepted by common people, hoping that they would eventually filter into the educational institutions. Thus, Galileo was regarded as an enemy of the established scientific authorities and experienced the full weight of their influence and persecution.
In many ways, the historic controversy of creation vs. evolution has been similar to Galileo's conflict, only with a reversal of roles.
In the sixteenth century, Christian theism was the prevailing philosophy and the Catholic Church dominated the educational system. Those, like Galileo, who dedicated themselves to diligently search for truth found themselves at the unmerciful hands of the authorities whose theories they threatened.
In the twentieth century, however, the philosophy of naturalism has become dominant, and science occupies the position of influence. Again, we note that the majority (regardless of whether it is right or wrong) will persecute those who dare to dispute their "traditional" theories; today the questionable theory of evolution is being challenged. The lesson to be learned from Galileo, it appears, is not that the Church held too tightly to biblical truths; but rather that it did not hold tightly enough. It allowed Greek philosophy to influence its theology and held to tradition rather than to the teachings of the Bible. We must hold strongly to Biblical doctrine which has been achieved through sure methods of exegesis. We must never be satisfied with dogmas built upon philosophic traditions.
The Bible is the only infallible, inspired revelation of God. Motivated by a love for the Creator and His word, the believer must carefully weigh his every thought against the standard of the Bible. Those ideas which oppose sound biblical teachings must be abandoned. This is the Believer's goal. Had this been achieved during the days of Galileo, a peaceful and reasonable solution would have helped to strip the Catholic Church of traditional, non-Christian philosophies which proved to hinder its effectiveness." MORE
Tell me about the global flood and why it is necessary to twist geology, sedimentology, archaeology and half a dozen other sciences all out of shape to try to make it fit with observed fact and established theory.
Wrong. First, leading "biblical exegetes" like Luther and Melanchthon denounced Copernicus' theory of heliocentrism.
Martin Luther called Copernicus an "upstart astrologer" and a "fool who wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy." Calvin thundered: "Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?" Do not Scriptures say that Joshua commanded the sun and not the earth to stand still? That the sun runs from one end of the heavens to the other?Similarly, the Church, citing common sense and biblical passages that seemed to indicate that the earth does not move, warned Galileo that he could not teach that these biblical passages are erroneous. Rather, as Cardinal Bellarmine stated:
I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated.In fact, Galileo did not have a valid scientific proof for his theory at the time.
Pagan philosophy had become interwoven with traditional Catholic teachings during the time of Augustine.
Plato with Augustine; Aristotle with Aquinas. These were the greatest philosophical syntheses in history.
Therefore, the Church's dogmatic retention of tradition was the major seat of controversy, not the Bible.
The Church's teaching and tradition allowed the reinterpretation of biblical passages in seeming contradiction to heliocentrism, as Cardinal Bellarmine's comment exemplifies.
The so-called reformers, like Luther, Melanchthon, and Calvin, were locked into biblical literalism.
Joshua 10:12-13Again:On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel:
"O sun, stand still over Gibeon,
O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon."
So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.
Martin Luther called Copernicus an "upstart astrologer" and a "fool who wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy." Calvin thundered: "Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?"One of the most important aspects of Galileo's "threat" to education is that he published his writings in Italian, rather than Latin, which was the official language of scholarship. Galileo was attempting to have his ideas accepted by common people, hoping that they would eventually filter into the educational institutions.
This is a classic example of reinterpreting history. The common man rejected heliocentrism as an eccentric theory, since the idea defied common sense. In fact, Copernicus dedicated his book to the pope, hoping that the pope's endorsement would help him to avoid ridicule.
Thus, Galileo was regarded as an enemy of the established scientific authorities and experienced the full weight of their influence and persecution.
"Persecution" like a bishop and cardinal funding Copernicus' research? Or Galileo's personal friendship with the pope?
Again, it was Galileo's demand that the Church teach the errancy of Joshua 10 that got him into trouble. His research went on through several papacies. Copernicus' research was funded by a bishop and cardinal. The Church objected only when Galileo overstepped the bounds of science and ventured into dogmatic teaching regarding the inerrancy of scripture.
In many ways, the historic controversy of creation vs. evolution has been similar to Galileo's conflict, only with a reversal of roles.
In the sixteenth century, Christian theism was the prevailing philosophy and the Catholic Church dominated the educational system. Those, like Galileo, who dedicated themselves to diligently search for truth found themselves at the unmerciful hands of the authorities whose theories they threatened.
Pure historical revisionism. Bishops were funding Copernicus. Galileo was only censured when he criticized the authority of scripture
Galileo drew the greatest criticism from the so-called reformers and biblical literalists, like Luther, Calvin and Melanchthon.
People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon . . . This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy, but sacred Scripture tells us (Joshua 10:13) that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.The lesson to be learned from Galileo, it appears, is not that the Church held too tightly to biblical truths; but rather that it did not hold tightly enough.--Luther
Some think it a distinguished achievement to construct such a crazy thing as that Prussian astronomer who moves the earth and fixes the sun. Verily, wise rulers should tame the unrestraint of men's minds.
Certain men, either from the love of novelty, or to make a display of ingenuity, have concluded that the earth moves . . . Now, it is a want of honesty and decency to assert such notions publicly and the example is pernicious. It is the part of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God and to acquiesce in it . . . The earth can be nowhere if not in the centre of the universe.
--Melanchthon
The Church didn't hold tightly enough to biblical literalism, like Luther?
It allowed Greek philosophy to influence its theology
Resulting in such towering achievements as the Summa Theologica.
...and held to tradition rather than to the teachings of the Bible.
Compare the statements of Cardinal Bellarmine with those of Luther, Calvin and Melanchthon.
We must hold strongly to Biblical doctrine which has been achieved through sure methods of exegesis. We must never be satisfied with dogmas built upon philosophic traditions.
We must stop reading history through Protestant preconceptions.
The Bible is the only infallible, inspired revelation of God.
Inerrant and inspired. This non-biblical, Protestant doctrine of biblical literalism led Luther, Melanchthon and Calvin into their errors regarding heliocentrism. It was the Church's non-literalistic approach to biblical exegesis that allowed the funding of and toleration for a theory that seemed to contradict the bible and common sense.
You may have the last word.