Copernicus Persecuted?

[WJL]

Hey there,

I’ve been debating someone who claims Copernicus and Galileo were persecuted by the Church for their discoveries. I’m more familiar with the Galileo affair so, I was able to answer the claims regarding that. I briefly touched on the alleged persecution of Copernicus but, he responded by claiming that Copernicus delayed publication of his book, through fear of criticism, and this fear is expressed in the subsequent Dedication of his book to Pope Paul III. Basically the claim is that Copernicus had to play a lot of politics, to be allowed to publish his book, including staying loyal to the Catholic church, after the establishment of the Protestant state, and make nice dedications, and donations.

How should this be answered?

 

[MarySon]

If you have a chance try to get your hands on a book written by Simon Singh titled “Big Bang”. There is a chapter in it where he discusses why the publication of the revolutionary paper by Copernicus was delayed. What are the sources that claim that Copernicus was persecuted?

 

[Timothysis]

Also, the book How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization has a very good chapter on the Galileo affair and explains how the facts are totally different from what passes today. Galileo was not persecuted for his discoveries but for teaching theory as fact, even though he signed an agreement stating that he would not do so. It really is eye opening.

 

[chaunceygardner]

I read a bio of Copernicus a year or two ago and, as I recall, there was no persecution of Copernicus during his lifetime. The publication of the book containing his theories did not occur until a short time before he died. But a shorter treatise had been circulated and another associate had written about Copernicus’ ideas as well. So his theory about the earth not being the center of the universe was well known amongst the scientific world.

It was only many years later that the Church attacked his theory, and famously so in connection with Galileo, when the idea of the earth revolving around the sun was attacked as opposed to scripture and the teachings of the Church. Since Copernicus was a Canon of the Church and had clerics in his family, he may have delayed formal publication due to the reception his beliefs would receive in the church. Or he may have had other reasons; it was not unusual for scientists of the past to delay publishing their ideas as they further refined them, tested them, and had them reviewed by others.

So the short answer is No, Copernicus was never “persecuted” by the Church. But Galileo was, years later, for adding to and promoting those ideas.

 

[Joe_5859]

When it comes to these sorts of things, my first question would be: What are the sources? Can the person produce primary sources to verify his claims that Copernicus was persectued? Don’t let him put the burden of proof on you. If he is making these claims, he should be able to substantiate them if he wishes you to take them seriously.

Besides, it is nearly impossible to adequatley respond to something like this without seeing the original source material, with which you can then put everything in context.

 

[Joe_5859]

I just looked at trusty old Wikipedia to see what they had to say about Copernicus. There’s nothing that indicates any sort of persecution. That he delayed publishing his book, possibly because of fear of criticism, should in no way be taken as evidence of persecution. Those two things are miles apart. One would need much more evidence than that.

 

[chaunceygardner]

Also, the book How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization has a very good chapter on the Galileo affair and explains how the facts are totally different from what passes today. Galileo was not persecuted for his discoveries but for teaching theory as fact, even though he signed an agreement stating that he would not do so. It really is eye opening.

I believe you are correct that Galileo was perscuted for teaching, but I would disagree that it had to do with theory over fact. What Galileo taught WAS fact, or at least as close to fact as anyone had come to that point. The issue was that what Galileo taught was considered to be in opposition to the Church, even though it was fact.

This is why Galileo’s story has “legs” through all these centuries, because it focused on the dichotomy of scientifically derived knowledge vs. unsubstantiated beliefs. The Church got burned on that one and, as we know, had to back down.

 

[rpp]

It is, of course, important to note that Galileo was not prosecuted or “persecuted” for his ideas. Rahter for the profound disrespect he had shown the Church including attempting to interpret the Bible and use the Bible as a scientific text.

Copernicus was not, to the best I can recall, ever persecuted. One must also not forget the Nicolai Copernicus may well have been a priest (the historical records are unclear, but his name did appear on a list of candidates for a bishopric).

A very readable book on this and similar controversies, written by a secualar author, is Coming of Age in the Milky Way by Timothy Ferris. amazon.com/Coming-Age-Milky-Timothy-Ferris/dp/0060535954/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249585082&sr=8-1

I read this book more than a decade ago when I was an atheist. What the author turned up in his research on the Galileo affair, to which one chapter is dedicated, really opened my eyes. The Church was not the evil monolithic monster I had thought it was.

 

[Timothysis]

I believe you are correct that Galileo was perscuted for teaching, but I would disagree that it had to do with theory over fact. What Galileo taught WAS fact, or at least as close to fact as anyone had come to that point. The issue was that what Galileo taught was considered to be in opposition to the Church, even though it was fact.

What Galileo was teaching AT THE TIME would eventually be proven as fact, but in his time it was theory. Jesuit astronomers were confirming his discoveries and he was a modern-day celebrity for them but his problems arose from teaching theory as fact. As an example , Galileo maintained that the tides were proof that the earth “moved.” We know now that that isn’t true at all; it is because of the gravitational pull of the moon. Apparently, there was more academic integrity 400 years ago than today when one was not allowed to teach as fact things that were not yet proven.

 

[Timothysis]

What the author turned up in his research on the Galileo affair, to which one chapter is dedicated, really opened my eyes. The Church was not the evil monolithic monster I had thought it was.

That was the point in How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. The Church was behind the scientists of the day and encouraged them in their work. Another point made in the book is that people today think that the Church was opposed to scientific investigation. The Galileo affair, however, is the only case that they ever come up with to support their claim (and they still are mistaken about the realities of the case). There isn’t one other case that they cite to show that the Church was “opposed” to scientific investigation.

 

[quasimodo]

What Galileo was teaching AT THE TIME would eventually be proven as fact, but in his time it was theory. Jesuit astronomers were confirming his discoveries and he was a modern-day celebrity for them but his problems arose from teaching theory as fact. As an example , Galileo maintained that the tides were proof that the earth “moved.” We know now that that isn’t true at all; it is because of the gravitational pull of the moon. Apparently, there was more academic integrity 400 years ago than today when one was not allowed to teach as fact things that were not yet proven.

No, what Galileo taught was in fact wrong but it was far closer to the truth than previous theories

 

[Timothysis]

No, what Galileo taught was in fact wrong but it was far closer to the truth than previous theories

Examples?

 

[rpp]

That was the point in How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. The Church was behind the scientists of the day and encouraged them in their work. Another point made in the book is that people today think that the Church was opposed to scientific investigation. The Galileo affair, however, is the only case that they ever come up with to support their claim (and they still are mistaken about the realities of the case). There isn’t one other case that they cite to show that the Church was “opposed” to scientific investigation.

I have read both books and I agree with your assessment. It is that many people will reject a historical work if it is complementary to the Chruch and was written by a Catholic. That is why I also recommended a work by a secular, non-Catholic, because someone already critical of the Church will be less able to dismiss it based on the presumption of bias.

Timothy Ferris describes Galileo as a rather rude man, who did not even blink about stealing another man’s work (Christian Huygens invented the telescope, not Galileo as he claimed, Galileo never cited Copernicus until forced to.) who was more interested in impressing rich nobles than honest discourse. Ferris goes on to say that Galileo was one of those people who just could not keep a civil tongue and it is that character flaw, not his ideas, that got him into hot water. He was censured for teaching a then unprovable theory as fact and for insulting the dignity and person of the Pope.

Yes, you are correct that the Galileo affair is the only thing that critics can point to. They also conveniently ignore the fact that it was the Church who funded Galileo and his research. The Pope himself at the time gave him his full supprt. That is until Galileo began to publicly mock him. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!

 

[chaunceygardner]

What Galileo was teaching AT THE TIME would eventually be proven as fact, but in his time it was theory. Jesuit astronomers were confirming his discoveries and he was a modern-day celebrity for them but his problems arose from teaching theory as fact. As an example , Galileo maintained that the tides were proof that the earth “moved.” We know now that that isn’t true at all; it is because of the gravitational pull of the moon. Apparently, there was more academic integrity 400 years ago than today when one was not allowed to teach as fact things that were not yet proven.

Wow! You really need to read up on the scientific method and its terminology. We have a “theory of gravity” and an “atomic theory”, but according to your reasoning atoms may not exist and gravity is iffy. Theories can become accepted or proven through rigorous and repeated observation, experiment and testing. The “theories” of Copernicus and Galileo, while not exactly what we know today about the universe, were more accurate than what came before. Our knowledge of the universe, or atoms, or almost anything, don’t happen in one giant step. They occur through many intermediate steps that add to what was discovered earlier and refine that knowledge.

If the world waited until something was “proven” as “fact” before we taught it, no progress would occur at all.

In another response Timothysis says: “people today think that the Church was opposed to scientific investigation.” He also says that the Church encouraged scientists in their work.

The point is not that the Church opposed science, but that it denounced findings that were in opposition to Church teaching. If a scientist discovered something that would back up the beliefs of the Church, that was great. But watch out if the discovery didn’t mesh with accepted theology or doctrine of the time.

You, Timothy, appear to be very defensive over this issue, and cannot accept the fact that something the Church taught at one time was incorrect. The Church eventually admitted its error, why can’t you accept it?

 

[edwest2]

Just go to the Library on this site. Type Galileo into the search box.

Galileo was judged “vehemently suspect of heresy.” (Our Sunday Visitor, a Catholic newspaper, May 10, 2009, page 5.)

Peace,
Ed

 

[Spirithound]

If the world waited until something was “proven” as “fact” before we taught it, no progress would occur at all.

It can be taught, just not taught as if it were fact. Acknowledge that it’s not proven yet.

 

[Timothysis]

Wow! You really need to read up on the scientific method and its terminology. We have a “theory of gravity” and an “atomic theory”, but according to your reasoning atoms may not exist and gravity is iffy. Theories can become accepted or proven through rigorous and repeated observation, experiment and testing. The “theories” of Copernicus and Galileo, while not exactly what we know today about the universe, were more accurate than what came before. Our knowledge of the universe, or atoms, or almost anything, don’t happen in one giant step. They occur through many intermediate steps that add to what was discovered earlier and refine that knowledge.

And you “really need” to comprehend that the Western world in the 16th and 17th century was just coming out of the middle ages and was not at the same place scientifically as we are 400 years later. What is commonplace today was not so in the 1600’s. Those “intermediate steps” that you speak of weren’t even taken yet.

If the world waited until something was “proven” as “fact” before we taught it, no progress would occur at all.

I did not say this. I said that at the time, Copernicus was teaching things as FACT when they were not able to be substantially proven. There was no problem with teaching a heliocentric theory, as long as he maintained that it was just that, a THEORY.

The point is not that the Church opposed science, but that it denounced findings that were in opposition to Church teaching. If a scientist discovered something that would back up the beliefs of the Church, that was great. But watch out if the discovery didn’t mesh with accepted theology or doctrine of the time.

The point, my friend, is that the Church has always been portrayed as opposed to any scientific investigation because of a fear that it might undercut belief in religious dogma. If you do a little research you will see that most of the scientists of Galileo’s day were CHURCHMEN, with the Jesuits leading the way. The Church in Galileo’s day was the one supporting and pushing these men in their studies. Your above quote is the stuff that anit-Catholic rhetoric is made of.

You, Timothy, appear to be very defensive over this issue, and cannot accept the fact that something the Church taught at one time was incorrect. The Church eventually admitted its error, why can’t you accept it?

And you seem to be ignorant of the stream of conversation here. The Church deals with religious truth, not scientific. There is nothing that the Church has ever taught as dogma that has ever been incorrect. In matters of science, people are free to have their own opinions. When they cross over into the religious realm, then a conflict occurs. For example, the Church has no problem with the current theory of evolution as long as it is held as a biological means of change in organisms. When one uses the same theory as a philosophical attempt to explain the origins of life apart from the creative action of God, then we see a conflict.

The Church did not have a problem with the heliocentric theory of the solar system; as rrp mentioned, Galileo’s problems arose from his betrayal of those who supported him, and that included the pope.

 

[chaunceygardner]

It can be taught, just not taught as if it were fact. Acknowledge that it’s not proven yet.

WHO decides what and when something is fact rather than still “not proven”?

Certain aspects of Einstein’s theories were not “proven” for decades, but other scientists still used them in their investigations, experiments, and subsequent theories. By your reasoning, if we say that the entire Theory of Relativity was not “proven” until the 1980’s, then the atomic bomb could not have existed in 1945.

 

[Spirithound]

WHO decides what and when something is fact rather than still “not proven”?

Certain aspects of Einstein’s theories were not “proven” for decades, but other scientists still used them in their investigations, experiments, and subsequent theories. By your reasoning, if we say that the entire Theory of Relativity was not “proven” until the 1980’s, then the atomic bomb could not have existed in 1945.

Pardon? I don’t think that follows…I didn’t say that we can’t use theories that haven’t been proven, but it is simple academic honesty to acknowledge that your evidence is not conclusive.

Also, there is a system of peer review. Not sure how far that stretches back…

 

[rpp]

Wow! You really need to read up on the scientific method and its terminology. We have a “theory of gravity” and an “atomic theory”, but according to your reasoning atoms may not exist and gravity is iffy. Theories can become accepted or proven through rigorous and repeated observation, experiment and testing. The “theories” of Copernicus and Galileo, while not exactly what we know today about the universe, were more accurate than what came before. Our knowledge of the universe, or atoms, or almost anything, don’t happen in one giant step. They occur through many intermediate steps that add to what was discovered earlier and refine that knowledge.

If the world waited until something was “proven” as “fact” before we taught it, no progress would occur at all.

You are, in fact wrong. It has not been the “theory of gravity” for quite sometime. People today talk about the “law of gravity”. In addition, aspects of gravity have still not been worked out and these specific area, such as the existance of gravitons and the propagation speed of a gravitation field, have not been proven and thus are theories. Orbital mechanics, an application of gravity mathematics, is well understood and worked out.

The phrase “atomic theory” is a red herring and not a valid scientific term or idea. It comes rather from the non-scientific world. Please follow your own advice and learn about what you are posting before you post.

In another response Timothysis says: “people today think that the Church was opposed to scientific investigation.” He also says that the Church encouraged scientists in their work.

The point is not that the Church opposed science, but that it denounced findings that were in opposition to Church teaching. If a scientist discovered something that would back up the beliefs of the Church, that was great. But watch out if the discovery didn’t mesh with accepted theology or doctrine of the time.

Please cite an instance, other than Galileo, when the Church denounced a scientific discovery. Also, please cite a scientific discovery that is at odds with Catholic teaching or the Catholic faith. If you are going to make such an assertion, please back up your statements.

You, Timothy, appear to be very defensive over this issue, and cannot accept the fact that something the Church taught at one time was incorrect. The Church eventually admitted its error, why can’t you accept it?

Please cite where the Church tught something that has been contradicted by science. And when I say cite, you must cite a Church teaching, not some baseless assertion from a fellow anti-Cahtolic.

Pretty much your statements and your postion appears to be unsupportable as the Church never teaches about science, the Church teaches that faith and science are not opposed but are, instead, complimentary, that the Church has never persecuted a scientist for that person’s discoveries. In short, nothing that assert ever actually occured. That includes the Church “admitting its error” in the case of Galileo. What Pope John Paul said was that Galileo was treated a bit badly and officials at the time were not clear enough to the public about what Galileo’s triel was about.

Why don’t you actually take your own advice, see that your postition is baseless and admit your mistake. You seem very defensive about this.