By Ken Mann
The question is asked in different ways. Are religion and science compatible? Are science and faith in conflict? The answer depends on what one has properly defined as the meaning of science and faith. Critics of Christianity claim, based on history, that there is an inherent conflict between science and religion and use Galileo’s trial before the Inquisition as an “example” of the conflict. We are told that Galileo was tortured, forced to recant his belief in a heliocentric universe, and imprisoned for the rest of his life, because of the heresy of advocating heliocentrism. This paper will address how aspects of this narrative are false and others are misleading. Galileo’s conflict with the Church has been described as “…a clash of ideas—between scientific claims fervently held by a small group of reformers, on the one hand, and the opposing theological doctrines supported by centuries of church tradition, on the other.”[1] Galileo is described as a martyr of science because the Catholic Church opposed it.[2] . To explain how Christianity and science are compatible today, the Christian apologist must be able to explain how, for better or worse, they have interacted in the past. Over the course of this paper, we will see that the Galileo issue was not about science, but rather, about the authority of the Catholic Church in how to interpret the Bible. The nascent disciplines of astronomy and cosmology suffered at the hands of an entrenched and beleaguered institution, yet the conflict was not about truth per se, but about control.
This paper addresses the myths, complexities, and lessons we can learn from Galileo’s trial. As for myths, there are two aspects accepted by history that are in fact false, namely that during his trial, Galileo was tortured and that he was imprisoned for the rest of his life. As for complexity, there were many different factors at play that ultimately culminated in Galileo’s trial. It is simply a grotesque simplification to claim that this incident represents the fight between science and theological doctrines. Finally, we can learn a lot about the conflicts in our day between theological and scientific authorities.
To understand these 17th century events, it is worth taking a step back and understanding the state of cosmology.[3] At that time, the Church and much of Europe had, from about the 13th century onwards, adopted an Aristotelian cosmology. Aristotle’s works had been reintroduced into Europe, in Latin, and eventually integrated into the teaching of the Church.
Aristotle’s view of the cosmos was the source of the geocentric (earth-centered) view of the universe. The earth was motionless. The center of the earth is where all matter was drawn, where things naturally moved. The sun, moon, planets, and stars revolved around the earth in celestial spheres. The moon and beyond was a realm of eternal, unchanging perfection, while the domain of matter was subject to change and decay.[4] . Aristotle’s vision of the cosmos was integrated into Christian theology, finding agreement with the passages that indicate that the earth is stationary (Psalm 75:3; 93:1; 96:10; 119:90; 1 Chronicles 16:30).[5] ) and that the sun moves (Joshua 10). In the 2nd century, Ptolemy developed a geocentric model of the cosmos that would explain the observed motions of the planets. The combination of an explanatory model for astronomical observations and the imprint of the Church made the geocentric view the only rational and acceptable view of the universe for over 300 years.
In 1543, Copernicus’ magnum opus, De Revolutionibus Orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres) was published with the encouragement and blessing of the Catholic Church. It provoked little more than a whimper. In fact, it was Galileo’s writing and agitation, 73 years later, that resulted in Copernicus’ work being placed on the Index of Prohibited Books, where it remained until 1835.[6] . From its original publication until Galileo, heliocentrism did not provoke the ire of Church officials for the simple reason that it was a theory. Copernicus offered an alternative mathematical model for the motions of the various celestial bodies.
Neither Copernicus nor any other astronomer in the 16th century argued, at least forcefully or publicly, that Aristotelian cosmology was false. In fact, before the invention of the telescope in the early 17th century, the only argument for heliocentrism was theoretical elegance or simplicity. Predictions made by Copernicus’s model were no more accurate than those based on Ptolemy’s geocentric model.
Moving now to the early 17th century, Galileo began using the newly invented telescope to make astronomical observations. Using an eight-power instrument, he began making observations of the moon, the sun, the phases of Venus, and the moons of Jupiter. His publications Starry Messenger (1610) and Letters on Sunspots (1613) launched him into the public spotlight as a proponent of heliocentrism. As Galileo attempted to argue (in conversation and in letters) for the truth of heliocentrism, he was confronted with what he thought was an exegetical problem. Simply put, he believed that the scientific content of the Bible had to be discussed in light of observations that supported heliocentrism. According to Galileo, the Bible communicated truths about salvation that are beyond human reason. However, he also argued (as summarized by David Lindberg) that, “When the biblical text pushes these boundaries, addressing matters that are within the reach of sensory experience and rational knowledge, God does not expect these God-given capacities to be abandoned… It follows that theologians, before committing themselves to an interpretation of such passages, would do well to examine the demonstrative arguments of natural scientists and philosophers.”[7] Galileo’s ideas on exegesis in defense of heliocentrism were eventually brought to the attention of the Inquisition. In 1616, the Holy Office formally censured two key tenets of heliocentrism: the sun is at rest (labeled “formally heretical”) and the earth moves around the sun (labeled “erroneous in faith”).[8] .
Galileo was summoned by Cardinal Roberto Bellarmino and informed that heliocentrism “had been declared false and heretical, and was not to be retained or defended.”[9] Galileo was not charged with any crime, but the decision of the Inquisition put an end to his campaign in the name of heliocentrism.
By 1623, with the rise of Maffeo Barberini to the papacy as Urban VIII, the fate of heliocentrism seemed to have changed. Barberini was a close friend and admirer of Galileo, and his work in astronomy. Over the course of six meetings with the new pontiff, Galileo came to believe that he was free to write a book on heliocentrism , as long as he treated it as a mere hypothesis. By the time Galileo completed the ” Dialogue” on the Two Chief World Systems in 1629, he had in fact gone beyond simply debating competing hypotheses. Instead, what he had written was “…nothing less than a powerful argument in the name of the undoubted truth of heliocentrism; no reader could have understood it otherwise. Nor did one have to read between the lines to perceive this as Galileo’s purpose, for in the Dialogue itself he repeatedly claimed to have demonstrated the “truth” of his conclusions.”[10] , Despite having gone through the proper channels within the Church before publishing Dialogue , the reception within the Vatican was disastrous for Galileo. In addition to his general treatment of heliocentrism, Simplicio, “…a stupid Aristotelian who laughed at dialogue”[11] , expressed the same arguments that Galileo had heard during his audiences with Urban. A letter to Florence from the Florentine ambassador describes a meeting in which the pontiff “…exploded with great anger…” at the mere mention of Galileo. The Pope believed that Galileo had misled him, since he clearly did not consider heliocentrism as a hypothesis.
Furthermore, in the character of Simplicio, he made the pontiff an object of ridicule.
Alienating the Pope with such obvious insubordination was perhaps the least of Galileo’s problems. Since the Dialogue clearly advocated the truth of heliocentrism, it violated the 1616 decree of the Congregation of the Index that condemned heliocentrism as “…false and completely contrary to Scripture.” The same decree not only prohibited Copernicus’s book from being printed, but also stated that “…all other books teaching the same tendency are prohibited, since the present Decree prohibits, condemns, and suspends all of them respectively.”[12] , The Inquisition appointed a Special Commission to investigate further. In the archives of the Holy Office a memorandum was discovered[13] which stated that the General Commissioner of the Holy Office had given Galileo a specific injunction to “renounce entirely” his acceptance of heliocentrism and no longer “hold, teach or defend it in any way, either verbally or in writing.”[14] , Due to the weight of all this evidence, Galileo was put on trial in Rome in April 1633.
Having set the stage in terms of historical context, let us begin to look at the myths, complexities, and lessons of Galileo’s trial. The myths, the things once assumed to be true, now known to be false, are tied to the outcome of the trial, specifically that he was tortured and imprisoned. Galileo was found guilty of “vehement suspicion of heresy” for his advocacy of heliocentrism in “Dialogue” and for denying that the Bible is a scientific authority . [15].
In any trial, the activities of the Holy Office were kept under strict secrecy. The Cardinals and those on trial never discussed the proceedings in public. Very accurate and reliable records were kept, including transcripts of interrogations and even details of how the accused responded to torture.[16] However, in the case of Galileo’s trial, under explicit orders from Urban VIII, the sentencing document and the abjuration recited by Galileo were widely distributed and printed in books and newspapers. The Pope wanted Galileo to serve as an object lesson for all Catholics and to demonstrate his bona fides as a staunch defender of the faith.[17] Two elements of the prayer document are significant. First, it says that Galileo was subjected to a “rigorous examination” (also known as torture)[18] Second, that Galileo was to be imprisoned at the discretion of the Holy Office. This was understood to mean imprisoned in the palace of the Inquisition in Rome for an indefinite period of time.
If the sentence and abjuration had been the only known documents, the imprisonment and torture administered by the Catholic Church would have remained in the historical record.
However, letters written by Galileo and the Tuscan ambassador in Rome were made public in the late 18th century and the publication of the Inquisition records of Galileo’s trial in the late 19th century corrected both of these myths. The Holy Office records prove quite conclusively that Galileo did not experience any physical torture. From the records themselves, there is no indication that physical torture ever occurred. It seems clear that it was threatened as a possibility, but it never actually occurred. Furthermore, Galileo’s advanced age (69) would have precluded the possibility of torture.[19] As for Galileo’s imprisonment, from his arrival in Rome on February 13, 1633, until he left Rome on June 30, there were only three days left in June where Galileo could have been imprisoned. The remainder of his time in Rome was spent either at the Tuscan embassy (the ambassador’s residence) or in the 6-room apartment of the fiscal. After spending 5 months at the archbishop’s house in Siena, Galileo returned to his own villa in December 1633. He lived there until his death in 1642.
Moving away from blatant myths, we now turn to the complexities of Galileo’s conflict with the Church. These can be divided into two categories. First, there are four factors, generally misunderstood from a modern perspective, that prevented the acceptance of heliocentrism. Second, there is a fundamental misconception about the nature of Galileo’s confrontation with the Church.
The first problem that prevented the widespread acceptance of heliocentrism was that the evidence available at the time was not sufficient. The modern view of heliocentrism is in light of what we know from science, rather than what was known or could be proven during Galileo’s time. The arguments Galileo made at the time supported the heliocentric view, but were also compatible with the model put forward by Tycho Brahe.[20] Galileo was convinced that the heliocentric hypothesis was true, but there was insufficient evidence to overturn more than 300 years of adherence to Aristotelian cosmology.
Secondly, if the task of overturning Aristotle’s long-established cosmology was not Herculean enough, Galileo’s purpose was made seemingly impossible by his arrogant and impulsive behavior. He was normally far more effective at making enemies than friends. Many experts assume that, in Galileo’s trial, his fate was in some sense assured by the various enemies he had made in the years before 1633. David Lindberg concludes: “Galileo’s personality was a consistent and important factor; indeed, it seems clear that, had he played his cards differently, with more attention to diplomacy, Galileo could have conducted a significant campaign on behalf of heliocentrism without condemnation.”[21] .
A third impediment that Galileo faced was the issue of epistemological authority. Where does knowledge of the cosmos come from? Is it available through human capacities for sense and reason? Is it found only in Scripture? Is it a combination of the two? The prevailing view of Catholic and Protestant theologians was that knowledge of the heavens was, in principle, not available to the natural sciences. The nature of the heavenly realm was divine knowledge that was inaccessible to the human intellect. Thus, the work of Copernicus and Ptolemy were simply models used to predict the locations of the planets; they were mathematical instruments and were not intended to be descriptions of reality. Galileo’s argument for heliocentrism went far beyond the debate over which model was more accurate. He believed that the heliocentric model of the universe was a description of reality. Thus, he challenged conventional wisdom, not only about the inaccessibility of the heavens; he also claimed that scientific observation could attain knowledge not available in the Bible.
Fourth, the argument for another epistemic authority clashed quite violently with the post-Reformation Catholic Church’s stance on the interpretation of Scripture. One of the decrees issued by the Council of Trent (1545 – 1563) on the interpretation of Scripture said in part:
The Council decrees that, in questions of faith and morals… no one, relying on his own judgment and distorting the Holy Scriptures according to his own conceptions, shall dare to interpret them contrary to the sense to which Holy Mother Church, to which it belongs, judges its sense and meaning, sustains it and maintains it, or even contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers. [22].
The reasoning inspired by Galileo’s two books was not without the support of the Church, however, and the Decree issued in 1616 that heliocentrism was “contrary to Scripture” was a clear and convincing indication that the Church was going to defend its authority in matters related to cosmology.
In addition to the obstacles that impeded the acceptance of heliocentrism, the Galileo affair was treated simplistically as a conflict between scientific rationalism and religious doctrine. In response to this claim, consider the following: each of the participants in this debate were Christians who accepted the authority of the Bible, were theologically informed, and were able to present rational arguments for their respective views on cosmology. Furthermore, within the Church itself, there were various opinions on hermeneutics, some agreeing with Galileo, others not.
From the scientific perspective, among astronomy experts, heliocentrism was not a widespread opinion. In short, rather than a confrontation between science and religion, it might be more accurate to describe the Galileo case as a conflict within science and religion.[23] .
In light of all this, what really happened? Simply put, it was a confrontation over Church authority, not a scientific debate. Given the Church’s stance on who can interpret scripture and Galileo’s temperament advocating heliocentrism, a clash was inevitable. David Lindberg offers the following one-sentence summary: “The trial was for flagrant disobedience and insubordination: the issues raised in the 1616 decree were not reexamined; its conclusions were merely reaffirmed.”[24] The merits of Galileo’s arguments were insignificant when compared to the centuries of consensus. The authority of Aristotle’s geocentric cosmology was not going to be dismissed simply because the heliocentric view was plausible. The Church chose to stake its authority on that consensus, and science suffered as a result.
Finally, let us consider what lessons can be drawn from the Galileo affair. When studying history, one must always be careful not to fall into the trap of anachronism, judging past events through the lens of present-day knowledge and sensibilities. When considering the heliocentric debate in context, the available evidence and the consensus of the time, it was reasonable to support the geocentric view. Another form of temporal snobbery that we should avoid is condemning the Church for the way it exercised its authority. Lindberg makes the following observation about that period:
“The beginning of the 17th century was a time of increasing absolutism in Europe, both in religious and political terms. Freedom to express dangerous ideas was not so easy, as they would not be defended in the same way in Protestant Geneva as in Catholic Rome. The idea that a stable society could be built on the general principles of freedom of expression was not defended by anyone at the time, and police and judicial restrictions were therefore unavoidable realities.”[25] .
Another important lesson is to avoid rigid and simplistic contrasts regarding such broad categories as “science” and “religion.” Such conflicts are rarely as simple as the contrast between truth and error; rather they are substitutes for more subtle discussions. In this case, the issue of epistemological authority was at stake. It was not simply a question of how things are known (mere epistemology) but what would be regarded as a source of knowledge (authority). The Church sought to defend its interpretation of the Bible as true and correct in all “matters of faith and morals.” The error we perceive in looking back is to extend that control over matters of cosmology.
In our modern age, it is widely believed that we have developed a stage where true or false dictates what is considered knowledge. We believe that we are no longer at the mercy of any human bureaucracy or institution for knowledge. In the 17th century, the Bible was the dominant source of knowledge about reality. What we have seen in this paper is that Galileo was put on trial not for rejecting the Bible but for challenging the only authority (the Church) to interpret the Bible. Today, the Church (Protestant and Catholic) has been eclipsed by science as the primary (or perhaps only) source of knowledge for humanity. In reality, however, the Church and institutional science have simply switched roles over the past 350 years. Today, the fields of science that attempt to explain the origins and development of life are caught in a dogmatic devotion to an idea imagined over 150 years ago. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Neo-Darwinism is dogmatically adhered to as the sole explanation for the development of life. As discussed in the film “Expelled” and numerous intelligent design blogs, those who advocate dangerous ideas that contradict the reigning consensus are punished, not by torture or imprisonment, but by the destruction of academic careers. Perhaps that is the strongest lesson we can learn from history; it always repeats itself.
Literature
Blackwell, Richard J. Behind the Scenes at Galileo’s Trial: Including the First English Translation of Melchior Inchofer’s Tractatus Syllepticus. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008.
Ferngren, Gary B., ed. Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002.
Lindberg, David C., and Ronald L. Numbers, eds. When Science and Christianity Meet. 1st ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.
Numbers, Ronald L. Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion. 1st ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009.
Grades
[1] David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, eds., When Science and Christianity Meet, 1st ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 33.
[2] Gary B. Ferngren, ed., Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), 105.Galileo and the Catholic Church Ken Mann.
[3] Cosmology is the study of the nature or composition of the universe, the attempt to understand how the universe works.
[4] It is beyond the scope of this paper to address the “Copernican Principle” that supposedly demoted humanity from the center of the universe. In short, it would be accurate to say that, in ancient Greek cosmology, the Earth was the sink of the universe. This is amply, and metaphysically, expressed in Dante’s Inferno.
[5] Richard J. Blackwell, Behind the Scenes at the Galileo Trial: Including the First English Translation of Melchior Inchofer’s Tractatus Sylleptic (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008), 115.
[6] Lindberg and Numbers, When Science and Christianity Meet, 47.
[7] Ibid., 46.
[8] Ibid., 47.
[9] Ibid., 49.
[10] Ibid., 51.
[11] Ibid., 52.
[12] Blackwell, Behind the Scenes at the Galileo Trial, 4.
[13] Blackwell (Behind the Scenes at Galileo’s Trial, page 6) claims that the specific memo was fraudulent in some way. That it was derived from a letter Galileo received from Cardinal Bellarmini, but that it was altered to write Dialogue a clear example of insubordination.
[14] Blackwell, Behind the Scenes at the Galileo Trial, 5.
[15] Ronald L. Numbers, Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion, 1st ed. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), Kindle Location 757–760.
[16] Blackwell, Behind the Scenes at the Galileo Trial, 7.
[17] Numbers, Galileo Goes to Jail, and Other Myths About Science and Religion, Kindle Location 766.
[18] Ibid., Kindle Locations 768–775.
[19] Ibid., Kindle Location 795–843.
[20] In Brahe’s model of the solar system, the earth was still at rest with the sun moving around the earth, however all the planets orbited the sun.
[21] Lindberg and Numbers, When Science and Christianity Meet, 57.
[22] Ibid., 45.
[23] Ibid., 58.
[24] Ibid., 54.
[25] Ibid., 59.
Original Blog: http://bit.ly/2AK2b30