Church vs. Science, yet another thread on

[Bubba_Switzler]

I’ve been reading a book, Ideas: A History of Thought and Invention, by Peter Watson.

amazon.com/Ideas-History-Thought-Invention-Freud/dp/006621064X

It’s interesting in many ways but naturally it touches on many issues of relevance to Catholicism. (I may post some other issues in separate threads.)

We’re all familiar with the “Galileo Affair”. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair)

The simplistic, anti-Catholic view is that Galileo was persecuted for contradicting Aristotle, Ptolemy, the literal interpretation of the Bible with respect to cosmology (e.g. helocentricity).

The more nuanced interpretation is that Galileo was persecuted for his forays into theology, not his scientific views.

According to some Catholics, the Church has never obstructed scientific progress and the literal interpretation of the Bible was a protestant, not a Catholic issue.

The author of Ideas claims something in between: that the Church tolerated the new scientific ideas until they started seeping into popular opinion (about a hundred years after Copernicus) and only then began to challenge science, ban scientific books, etc. Ironically, this occurred precisely as the new scientific views became better settled.

The impression that the author gives is of a Church that is on a war footing due to the Protestant Reformation and which then strikes at the scientific revolution not so much for its heresies as for their impact on society and popular views of religion.

How accurate is this?

 

[promethius]

I’ve been reading a book, Ideas: A History of Thought and Invention, by Peter Watson.

amazon.com/Ideas-History-Thought-Invention-Freud/dp/006621064X

It’s interesting in many ways but naturally it touches on many issues of relevance to Catholicism. (I may post some other issues in separate threads.)

We’re all familiar with the “Galileo Affair”. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair)

The simplistic, anti-Catholic view is that Galileo was persecuted for contradicting Aristotle, Ptolemy, the literal interpretation of the Bible with respect to cosmology (e.g. helocentricity).

The more nuanced interpretation is that Galileo was persecuted for his forays into theology, not his scientific views.

According to some Catholics, the Church has never obstructed scientific progress and the literal interpretation of the Bible was a protestant, not a Catholic issue.

The author of Ideas claims something in between: that the Church tolerated the new scientific ideas until they started seeping into popular opinion (about a hundred years after Copernicus) and only then began to challenge science, ban scientific books, etc. Ironically, this occurred precisely as the new scientific views became better settled.

The impression that the author gives is of a Church that is on a war footing due to the Protestant Reformation and which then strikes at the scientific revolution not so much for its heresies as for their impact on society and popular views of religion.

How accurate is this?

It’s an interesting theory which can’t be proven without producing a source to back it. I personally think it’s just a historian’s invention to write a book and sell some copies.

As to Galileo, he was censured for two reasons: other scientists employed by the church (Galileo was employed by the church) rejected Galileo’s heliocentric work because they (correctly) surmised that his “proofs” for heliocentrism were false. Second, he was censured because the church had the consensus of scientists (who were right) and instructed Galileo on how he could put forth his theory through their publishing resources (because he was an employee of the church). Galileo rebuffed this authority and used church publishing resources to produce his flawed document which then mocked the very church whose resources he hijacked.

In the modern world, Galileo would have been put on trial for fraud (telling the church’s publishers that he had authority to print what he did). He would probably have been sued for millions and thrown in jail… but he gets a free pass because of the mythical story that atheists have created around him, which, in this physics major’s opinion, actually dishonor his REAL contributions to science.

 

[akasseb]

I’ve been reading a book, Ideas: A History of Thought and Invention, by Peter Watson.

amazon.com/Ideas-History-Thought-Invention-Freud/dp/006621064X

It’s interesting in many ways but naturally it touches on many issues of relevance to Catholicism. (I may post some other issues in separate threads.)

We’re all familiar with the “Galileo Affair”. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair)

The simplistic, anti-Catholic view is that Galileo was persecuted for contradicting Aristotle, Ptolemy, the literal interpretation of the Bible with respect to cosmology (e.g. helocentricity).

The more nuanced interpretation is that Galileo was persecuted for his forays into theology, not his scientific views.

According to some Catholics, the Church has never obstructed scientific progress and the literal interpretation of the Bible was a protestant, not a Catholic issue.

The author of Ideas claims something in between: that the Church tolerated the new scientific ideas until they started seeping into popular opinion (about a hundred years after Copernicus) and only then began to challenge science, ban scientific books, etc. Ironically, this occurred precisely as the new scientific views became better settled.

The impression that the author gives is of a Church that is on a war footing due to the Protestant Reformation and which then strikes at the scientific revolution not so much for its heresies as for their impact on society and popular views of religion.

How accurate is this?

I think this is a rather fair interpretation. The first important point is that the author attempted to take a nuanced view of the Galileo affair. While Galileo was essentially correct, he lacked the necessary proofs to overturn long-standing science. For example, he thought that the rotation of the earth caused the tides. Furthermore, he could not explain the apparent lack of stellar parallax (something that was understood much later).

As mentioned, the Church had no problem with treating heliocentrism as theory. Indeed, after the condemnations at Paris in the 13th century, churchmen had put forward hundreds of counterfactuals dealing with the nature of reality. This philosophical and scientific speculation created the intellectual framework in which modern science could eventually develop.

I also think it is true that the Protestant Reformation put the Church in a defensive position in which it had to uphold the inerrancy of Scripture. Heliocentrism was flatly rejected by the early Protestant reformers.

Galileo also burned many bridges. For example, members of the Jesuits had personally verified many of his observations and had written to Galileo showing their support of his theories. Galileo also received strong papal support. He later turned on the pope and many of the Jesuits.

So I think this is a four-pronged problem: 1) he didn’t have the proof to overturn long-standing science, 2) from his unproven theories he entered into the world of theological speculation and Biblical interpretation, 3) he burned the bridges of support through his acerbic personality, and 4) the Church was on the defensive from the Protestant Reformation and over-reacted

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It’s an interesting theory which can’t be proven without producing a source to back it. I personally think it’s just a historian’s invention to write a book and sell some copies.

The author cites Thomas Khun for his claims of Church obstruction of scientific advances in the period discussed. I only know Khun’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions, but apparently he’s written on the history of science in this period.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Heliocentrism was flatly rejected by the early Protestant reformers.

And the author does cover this. Whatever the Church did, Luther and Calvin were worse in their treatment of scientific challenges to orthodoxy. But the author clearly suggests that Catholic authorities did not have clean hands in this.

In the modern world, by contrast, the Church does not condemn every scientific claim that lacks sound proof.

 

[promethius]

The author cites Thomas Khun for his claims of Church obstruction of scientific advances in the period discussed. I only know Khun’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions, but apparently he’s written on the history of science in this period.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn

I’m not saying that he doesn’t offer some backing for his theory. What I’m saying is that the motivation he posits for the church’s actions can’t be verified. We can GUESS at what certain cardinals and popes were thinking at the time, but without the discovery of a new source… say a journal discussing motivations, we can’t absolutely KNOW why the church took certain actions. Hence why I say it’s a valid theory, but unverifiable… because there is no emperical evidence to support it (in the form of a primary or secondary source document)

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I’m not saying that he doesn’t offer some backing for his theory. What I’m saying is that the motivation he posits for the church’s actions can’t be verified. We can GUESS at what certain cardinals and popes were thinking at the time, but without the discovery of a new source… say a journal discussing motivations, we can’t absolutely KNOW why the church took certain actions. Hence why I say it’s a valid theory, but unverifiable… because there is no emperical evidence to support it (in the form of a primary or secondary source document)

Fair enough.