The infamous case of the Church vs Gallileo leads many to assume that the Church has opposed science and scientific advancement. This is not quite true ... and I thought I'd present a view that might help balance and objectivity.
+++
Gallileo's conflict with the Church was over the theory of Heliocentrism, the thesis that the earth is not the center of the cosmos, but the sun, and that the earth revolves around the sun, not vice versa. This opposes the Aristotelian Geocentric viewpoint, which ruled the day both in Church circles, and in the Universities.
Heliocentrism had in fact been put forward some hundred years earlier, by Copernicus, with the private publication of some of his ideas in his Commentariolus (Little Commentary). In 1533, a series of lectures was delivered in Rome outlining Copernicus' theory. The lectures were heard by Pope Clement VII and several Catholic cardinals.
On 1 November 1536, Archbishop of Capua Nicholas Schönberg wrote a letter to Copernicus from Rome:
"Some years ago word reached me concerning your proficiency, of which everybody constantly spoke. At that time I began to have a very high regard for you... For I had learned that you had not merely mastered the discoveries of the ancient astronomers uncommonly well but had also formulated a new cosmology. In it you maintain that the earth moves; that the sun occupies the lowest, and thus the central, place in the universe... Therefore with the utmost earnestness I entreat you, most learned sir, unless I inconvenience you, to communicate this discovery of yours to scholars, and at the earliest possible moment to send me your writings on the sphere of the universe together with the tables and whatever else you have that is relevant to this subject..."
Copernicus delayed the publication of his major work until the very end — fear of criticism seemed to be the reason, but as historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers have written:
"If Copernicus had any genuine fear of publication, it was the reaction of scientists, not clerics, that worried him. Other churchmen before him — Nicole Oresme (a French bishop) in the fourteenth century and Nicolaus Cusanus (a German cardinal) in the fifteenth — had freely discussed the possible motion of the earth, and there was no reason to suppose that the reappearance of this idea in the sixteenth century would cause a religious stir."
Apparently not. Copernicus' book was dedicated to Pope Paul III, and thus the Copernican system advanced unchallenged through the reigns of Clement VII (1523-34), Paul III (1534-49), Julius III (1550-55), Marcellus II (1555), Paul IV (1555-59), Pius IV (1559-65), St. Pius V (1566-72), Gregory XIII (1572-85), Sixtus V (1585-90) to Urban VII (1590).
+++
Gallileo was an outstanding figure in the history of science but, unfortunately, he knew it, he made no attempt to hide his contempt for his contemporaries and was outspoken in his dismissal of their work. Nevertheless he was not infallible, and made more than one major scientific error — he opposed Kepler's hypothesis that the gravity of the moon is the origin of the tides, and he dismissed the origin of the comets of 1618 as mere optical illusions, opposing to the interpretation of the Jesuit Orazio Grassi that they were real. Another dispute (over priority in the discovery of sunspots) led to a bitter feud with the Jesuit Christoph Scheiner.
His alienation of both Scheiner and Grassi no doubt had some influence on the hostile response of the Jesuit order to his publication of "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" in 1632.
Meanwhile, in academic circles, Gallileo's assault on the Aristotelian system of science was making enemies at every turn. Aristotle was the Master, almost unassailable. Moreover, his bluntness, sarcasm and hostility towards his adversaries was paving the way for his defeat. A groundswell of resistance was rising against his work, and much of what he proposed was still not proven, but theoretical, and some of it was plain wrong. The universities knew that if they could get the Church on side, then their task would be a lot easier. There was much politicing in the corridors of the Vatican, as well as the seats of learning.
In 1616 Galileo went to Rome to try to persuade the Church authorities to support him against the universities, but if that heppened, the universities would raise the cry of heresy against the Church, which would have to rely on Gallileo's untried theories to defend itself aginst Scripture — an impossible position. In the end, Cardinal Bellarmine ordered Gallileo not to "hold or defend" the idea that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still at the centre. The decree did not prevent Galileo from discussing heliocentrism hypothetically — but he needed proof to push his arguments further. Galileo wisely stayed away from the controversy until the election of Pope Urban VIII in 1623, a friend and supporter — the book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was published in 1632, with formal authorization from the Inquisition and papal permission.
Prior to publication Pope Urban VII, aware of the delicacy of the situation, personally asked of Galileo two things:
to give a balanced argument for and against heliocentrism;
and that his own views on the matter be included in Galileo's book.
Galileo failed to do either as well as he might have done.
The book was regarded in scientific circles as an outright attack on the geocentrism of Aristotle, in favour of the Copernican theory.
Worse, rather than present Pope Urban VII's view as requested, Gallileo chose instead to put the Pope's words into the mouth of Simplicimus, the character in the Dialogue defending the geocentric position. Gallileo's character imbued the writing, and in the book Simplicius was hardly a worthwhile opponent of heliocentrism, being often tripped up by his own errors, and made to look a fool. Most historians agree Galileo did not act out of malice, but was guilty of a massive failure of tact.
The Pope did not take the public ridicule lightly, nor the blatant bias ... his good advice had been ignored, thrown in his face even (as surely many were insisting to him) and Galileo had alienated his biggest and most powerful supporter. He was called to Rome to explain himself.
Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633, for advocating a theory that had been around for one hundred years, and supported by popes. He was required to recant his heliocentrism; the idea that the Sun is stationary in the absence of adequate proof was condemned as "formally heretical."
There is no doubt that the Pope, Church officials and the scientific community did not believe in heliocentrism, but heliocentrism itself was never formally or officially condemned by the Catholic Church, rather, "The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures".
+++
There is no doubt that the Church could and should have acted better, but there is no doubt either that had Gallileo shown a degree more humility towards his friends and charity towards his opponents, or at least more politics and tact, then he would not have been summonsed and comdemned.
The fact also stands that the secular institutions were quite adept at making a case in such a way that the Church must contradict Scripture if she were to defend Gallileo ... evidence of the fact that she did not control the universities nor, therefore, did she control science.
What we can say is that spiritual and secular authorities alike do not take kindly to being ridiculed ... men are men, and creatures of their time and place, under the clothes they wear ...
On the other hand, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1401–1464), is considered by many to be a genius ahead of his time. Copernicus, Gallileo, Bruno and Kepler all read him (Kepler called him 'divinely inspired').
Predating Kepler, Cusanus said that no perfect circle can exist in the universe (opposing the Aristotelean model, and also Copernicus' later assumption of circular orbits). He influenced Giordano Bruno by denying the finiteness of the universe and the Earth's exceptional position in it (being not the center of the universe, and in that regard equal in rank with the other stars). His ideas (which proved uncannily accurate) were based almost entirely on his own personal numerological calculations and metaphysics.
Cusanus made important contributions to the field of mathematics, of physics and of optics — he was the first to use concave lenses to correct myopia. His writings were essential for Leibniz's discovery of calculus as well as Cantor's later work on infinity.
Thomas
+++
Gallileo's conflict with the Church was over the theory of Heliocentrism, the thesis that the earth is not the center of the cosmos, but the sun, and that the earth revolves around the sun, not vice versa. This opposes the Aristotelian Geocentric viewpoint, which ruled the day both in Church circles, and in the Universities.
Heliocentrism had in fact been put forward some hundred years earlier, by Copernicus, with the private publication of some of his ideas in his Commentariolus (Little Commentary). In 1533, a series of lectures was delivered in Rome outlining Copernicus' theory. The lectures were heard by Pope Clement VII and several Catholic cardinals.
On 1 November 1536, Archbishop of Capua Nicholas Schönberg wrote a letter to Copernicus from Rome:
"Some years ago word reached me concerning your proficiency, of which everybody constantly spoke. At that time I began to have a very high regard for you... For I had learned that you had not merely mastered the discoveries of the ancient astronomers uncommonly well but had also formulated a new cosmology. In it you maintain that the earth moves; that the sun occupies the lowest, and thus the central, place in the universe... Therefore with the utmost earnestness I entreat you, most learned sir, unless I inconvenience you, to communicate this discovery of yours to scholars, and at the earliest possible moment to send me your writings on the sphere of the universe together with the tables and whatever else you have that is relevant to this subject..."
Copernicus delayed the publication of his major work until the very end — fear of criticism seemed to be the reason, but as historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers have written:
"If Copernicus had any genuine fear of publication, it was the reaction of scientists, not clerics, that worried him. Other churchmen before him — Nicole Oresme (a French bishop) in the fourteenth century and Nicolaus Cusanus (a German cardinal) in the fifteenth — had freely discussed the possible motion of the earth, and there was no reason to suppose that the reappearance of this idea in the sixteenth century would cause a religious stir."
Apparently not. Copernicus' book was dedicated to Pope Paul III, and thus the Copernican system advanced unchallenged through the reigns of Clement VII (1523-34), Paul III (1534-49), Julius III (1550-55), Marcellus II (1555), Paul IV (1555-59), Pius IV (1559-65), St. Pius V (1566-72), Gregory XIII (1572-85), Sixtus V (1585-90) to Urban VII (1590).
+++
Gallileo was an outstanding figure in the history of science but, unfortunately, he knew it, he made no attempt to hide his contempt for his contemporaries and was outspoken in his dismissal of their work. Nevertheless he was not infallible, and made more than one major scientific error — he opposed Kepler's hypothesis that the gravity of the moon is the origin of the tides, and he dismissed the origin of the comets of 1618 as mere optical illusions, opposing to the interpretation of the Jesuit Orazio Grassi that they were real. Another dispute (over priority in the discovery of sunspots) led to a bitter feud with the Jesuit Christoph Scheiner.
His alienation of both Scheiner and Grassi no doubt had some influence on the hostile response of the Jesuit order to his publication of "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" in 1632.
Meanwhile, in academic circles, Gallileo's assault on the Aristotelian system of science was making enemies at every turn. Aristotle was the Master, almost unassailable. Moreover, his bluntness, sarcasm and hostility towards his adversaries was paving the way for his defeat. A groundswell of resistance was rising against his work, and much of what he proposed was still not proven, but theoretical, and some of it was plain wrong. The universities knew that if they could get the Church on side, then their task would be a lot easier. There was much politicing in the corridors of the Vatican, as well as the seats of learning.
In 1616 Galileo went to Rome to try to persuade the Church authorities to support him against the universities, but if that heppened, the universities would raise the cry of heresy against the Church, which would have to rely on Gallileo's untried theories to defend itself aginst Scripture — an impossible position. In the end, Cardinal Bellarmine ordered Gallileo not to "hold or defend" the idea that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still at the centre. The decree did not prevent Galileo from discussing heliocentrism hypothetically — but he needed proof to push his arguments further. Galileo wisely stayed away from the controversy until the election of Pope Urban VIII in 1623, a friend and supporter — the book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was published in 1632, with formal authorization from the Inquisition and papal permission.
Prior to publication Pope Urban VII, aware of the delicacy of the situation, personally asked of Galileo two things:
to give a balanced argument for and against heliocentrism;
and that his own views on the matter be included in Galileo's book.
Galileo failed to do either as well as he might have done.
The book was regarded in scientific circles as an outright attack on the geocentrism of Aristotle, in favour of the Copernican theory.
Worse, rather than present Pope Urban VII's view as requested, Gallileo chose instead to put the Pope's words into the mouth of Simplicimus, the character in the Dialogue defending the geocentric position. Gallileo's character imbued the writing, and in the book Simplicius was hardly a worthwhile opponent of heliocentrism, being often tripped up by his own errors, and made to look a fool. Most historians agree Galileo did not act out of malice, but was guilty of a massive failure of tact.
The Pope did not take the public ridicule lightly, nor the blatant bias ... his good advice had been ignored, thrown in his face even (as surely many were insisting to him) and Galileo had alienated his biggest and most powerful supporter. He was called to Rome to explain himself.
Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633, for advocating a theory that had been around for one hundred years, and supported by popes. He was required to recant his heliocentrism; the idea that the Sun is stationary in the absence of adequate proof was condemned as "formally heretical."
There is no doubt that the Pope, Church officials and the scientific community did not believe in heliocentrism, but heliocentrism itself was never formally or officially condemned by the Catholic Church, rather, "The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures".
+++
There is no doubt that the Church could and should have acted better, but there is no doubt either that had Gallileo shown a degree more humility towards his friends and charity towards his opponents, or at least more politics and tact, then he would not have been summonsed and comdemned.
The fact also stands that the secular institutions were quite adept at making a case in such a way that the Church must contradict Scripture if she were to defend Gallileo ... evidence of the fact that she did not control the universities nor, therefore, did she control science.
What we can say is that spiritual and secular authorities alike do not take kindly to being ridiculed ... men are men, and creatures of their time and place, under the clothes they wear ...
On the other hand, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1401–1464), is considered by many to be a genius ahead of his time. Copernicus, Gallileo, Bruno and Kepler all read him (Kepler called him 'divinely inspired').
Predating Kepler, Cusanus said that no perfect circle can exist in the universe (opposing the Aristotelean model, and also Copernicus' later assumption of circular orbits). He influenced Giordano Bruno by denying the finiteness of the universe and the Earth's exceptional position in it (being not the center of the universe, and in that regard equal in rank with the other stars). His ideas (which proved uncannily accurate) were based almost entirely on his own personal numerological calculations and metaphysics.
Cusanus made important contributions to the field of mathematics, of physics and of optics — he was the first to use concave lenses to correct myopia. His writings were essential for Leibniz's discovery of calculus as well as Cantor's later work on infinity.
Thomas
