Jude raises some interesting points and sound arguments of substance, though a long, long, long way from where we began this discussion. But no matter, let's see where it takes us.
I think I agree with Jude's observation about the popular denunciation of the Church. I don't think the Church was at fault either scientifically or, for that matter, politically. They were in a difficult situation and handled it well. Indeed, the subtlety, care, and diplomacy with which the Church went about the case, and all the surrounding public exchanges suggests to me some extraordinary statecraft on the part of an establishment that must have felt under siege. A lot of effort went into trying to help Galileo avoid going before the inquisition, but in some ways it could be argued that Galileo was his own worst enemy.
As an aside, I find the exchanges and polemics of the time breathtakingly wonderful—symphonies in subtle and persuasive argumentation. These were masters of their craft, without any doubt. The Church was faced with an extremely difficult problem in Galileo's conduct. I think they handled it well and avoided what could have ended far worse for Galileo than it did. But for some last minute bungling at the trial, I am impressed by the way in which they handled a difficult matter. But that is just my interpretation of a widely disputed set of arguments and events.
However, it seems to me that the Church would not have gone to all the trouble to demonstrate the scientific flaws in Galileo's claims if there had not been a great deal more at stake, from their point of view.
Jude, I think, agrees with this view albeit begrudgingly.
> … the basis for silencing Galileo nonetheless was warranted scientifically, even if in some sense politically motivated.
While I agree, of course, that
> The "Church" is not a kind of unified voice
And there were many shades of opinion on this particular matter within the Church, both today and then. Nonetheless , the trial was between the Church and Galileo, or at least between the Inquisition on behalf of the Church and Galileo. So I think in this instance it is appropriate to talk about "The Church"
On the question of the two texts—the bible and nature—Jude rightly points out that this was not a new idea developed by Galileo. It had been considered seriously, like many ideas we associate with the renaissance, much earlier by the scholastics. But it is Galileo's use of it that we were drawn to when we were researching the material for the Communication Boundary paper.
> …I think that in discussions of physical problems we ought to begin not from the authority of scriptural passages, but from sense-experiences and necessary demonstrations; for the holy Bible and the phenomena of nature proceed alike from the divine Word, the former as the dictate of the Holy Ghost and the latter as the observant executrix of God's commands. (
> Galileo Galilei, Letter to Madame Christina of Lorraine, Grand Duchess of Tuscany: Concerning the Use of Biblical Quotations in Matters of Science (1615)
I agree completely with Jude's closing remarks:
> … [W]hat's most interesting to note is: If anything it was the confidence that ultimately these two texts issued from God that therefore gave the scholastics the confidence and desire to study nature, since it was another of God's word. So the study of nature was in some sense motivated by faith. One could say that nature was a sign-vehicle of (thus pointing to) God's truth qua significata, and the interpretant that could effect this semiosis was the belief that God created the word. It is this semiosis that ironically grounds the scientific enterprise, whereas most scientists are atheists. Yet without this theological interpretant, one would not even have the confidence to embark on the potentially pointless and futile study of physis.
This is one of the key arguments in our Communication Boundary paper. My only quibble would be on the question of scientist being mainly atheists. I don't know, and I suspect not. But it doesn't matter! The argument stands and it moves!
Well, this has been an interesting detour.
Thank you Jude.
David
|