Dear Jude,

Thanks for your note. We agree on more than you may realize. I wrote
two notes on Galileo, not one, and it seems to me you may not have read
them both with enough care. I’m going to agree with you on science and
history, disagree in part on philosophy, and disagree on theology.

Before responding, I want to clarify my position on the Church. You
misread my position on the trial. I do not endorse “the popular
denunciation of the Church’s action on Galileo.” What I wrote echoes
the position of two popes with many cardinals and bishops. All agree
that the Church was wrong to silence Galileo. This not a “popular
denunciation.” This is the teaching of the Church.

If you read both my posts, you will see that I note Kepler’s
contributions, distinguishing the circular Copernican model from the
elliptical model described in Kepler’s three laws. Newton built on
this model to establish modern physics. My note to the list discussed
Pope Urban’s role as a patron, protector, and friend to Galileo, and I
suggested that the pope most likely ensured Galileo’s good treatment
during his trial and protected his life.

Your account of the historical issues of this case and the historical
evolution of science in church circles concurs generally with my own. We
also agree with respect to the science of this issue.

Nevertheless, we disagree on the philosophy of science. I find it odd
to say, “Galileo was doing bad science.” Galileo was working his way
through some hypotheses, some good, and some bad. I’m going to argue
– on theological grounds – that Galileo’s arguments with the
Church did not mean that he was “doing bad science.” Kepler’s
first attempt at modeling the solar system began with a hypothesis of
nested Platonic solids. It took him many difficult years to reach his
three laws. Since science proceeds on the premise of increasingly better
hypotheses, many early proposals are sure to be wrong. Was Galileo
wrong? Yes. Was he “doing bad science”? No.

Before stating my theological position on the Galileo trial, I want to
clear up a misunderstanding regarding Church dogma. You are correct to
note that “The ‘Church’ is not a kind of unified voice; it was
composed of disagreeing and dissenting intellectuals, and still is
today.” Despite this fact, the Church speaks with dogmatic authority.
There have always been debates on what the Church should teach, but it
is the Church alone that holds the magisterium, the teaching authority
with the right to interpret dogma.

Article 85 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states the issue:
“‘The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of
God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been
entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its
authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.’
This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the
bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of
Rome.”

In Galileo’s time, violating the dogmatic authority of the church
could be punished by death. One argument against translating the Bible
into living languages was that an ordinary person might be tempted to
interpret what he or she might read in the Bible when only a priest
acting under the dogmatic authority of the magisterium had the right to
interpret God’s word.

One key issue in Galileo’s difficulties involves the magisterium.
John Paul II described silencing Galileo as a tragic error compounded by
misunderstanding from both parties. Indeed, John Paul quoted Galileo
using the metaphor of the two books on several occasions during his
pontificate. In centuries past, however, the magisterium gave the Church
dogmatic authority over both of God’s books.

Now we come to my theological disagreement with your position. You
write, “The basis for silencing Galileo nonetheless was warranted
scientifically.” To say this suggests that you grant the Church the
right to silence a scientist. I do not, and I refute such a right on
theological grounds.

Galileo was mistaken in some of the views he espoused in attempting to
interpret the book of nature. This did not warrant Church interference
with his work. The church should govern worldly science. Theology is a
long way from where this began, so I’m not going to delve the nuances
– past popes attempted on many occasions to expand the authority of
the church in the temporal realm. Modern popes take a different view. 

The current position of the Church is that scientists have nothing to
say on theology, and the church has nothing to say on responsible
scientific findings. The Church may have something to say on the ethical
uses of science and technology, since these affect human beings. 

Since the Church holds God to be the author of nature, contemporary
theology holds that the book of nature cannot contradict the church.
Since scientists must shape and debate hypotheses to interpret the book
of nature, it is theologically irresponsible to silence a scientist in
the work of interpreting God’s other book.

You are right to note that many priests agreed with the Copernican
doctrine or came to do so. The Church nevertheless silenced Galileo,
placing the writings of Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler on the Index of
Prohibited Books. In saying that this was wrong, I say no more than John
Paul or Benedict have said on the issue, and for many of the same
reasons. This has nothing to do with my personal theology. Rather, it
has to do with Catholic theology and the current position of the
Church.

Since this theology is relatively recent doctrine, I will add that this
is not a presentist imposition of modern theology on earlier thinkers.
If you were to inquire into my personal theology, I would add that the
denomination to which I belong has for several centuries argued for free
conscience and the right of disciplined scientific inquiry on
theological grounds. This concern dates back to a series of debates that
took place in 1568 in Torda, Hungary, four years after Galileo was born.
At that time, King John II Sigismund issued an edict of religious
toleration. While this protected churches and pastors rather than the
right of individual conscience, it was the beginning of a powerful
stream within the Reformation that ultimately argued for the free right
of conscience in theology and science both.

Best regards,

Ken

Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished
Professor | Dean, Faculty of Design | Swinburne University of Technology
| Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask] | Ph: +61 3 9214 6078 |
Faculty www.swinburne.edu.au/design

--

CHUA Soo Meng Jude wrote:

I’d like to disagree somewhat with the account on Galileo and the
Church in the below article, as well as Ken’s endorsement of the
popular denunciation of the Church’s action on Galileo. It’s
important to remember that by the time Gallileo hypothesized that the
earth revolved around the sun, it was based on the idea that the earth
revolved on a circular orbit. For this reason it could not save the
phenomena, and was just as implausible or plausible as the Ptolemic
account with epicycles added. It was not until Kepler came along and
suggested that the planets revolved on an elliptical orbit that the
Copernican hypothesis saved the phenomena. In other words the debate
between Galileo and the Church was one of science, and not merely of
power. Galileo suggested that his hypothesis was theory, but because it
could not save the phenomena the Church rightly suggested that it should
not be taken to be a theory but should remain a hypothesis. In other
words, Galileo was doing bad science. Of course he offended the Pope by
making a comedy of him in the Dialogues. But the basis for silencing
Galileo nonetheless was warranted scientifically, even if in some sense
politically motivated. Also it is important to know that the Pope
himself was a great fan of Galileo, and invited him often to present his
discoveries, and he had great admirers amongst the Carmelites. The
scholastics were not fools. It’s also incorrect to suggest that the
Church opposed one text the Bible with another text, nature. The idea
that there were two texts that had to be read carefully was influential
already in the 13th Century with Aquinas insisting that philosophy was
it own disciplinary domain to be taken seriously and the study of physis
(nature) became the basis for important philosophical conclusions, and
by the time of Galileo the Domincans and Thomism was very influential,
even amongst the Jesuits. And several Dominicans also defended Galileo,
Thomas Villanova being one of them, dedicating his defense even to
Cajetan! The “Church” is not a kind of unified voice; it was
composed of disagreeing and dissenting intellectuals, and still is
today. However, what’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.