Did Galileo's findings contradict scripture?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, they contradicted an interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures. Furthermore, the Scriptures are not a book on natural philosophy.
 
There are books written on the subject. But, here’s a tract about this:
“In 1614, Galileo felt compelled to answer the charge that this “new science” was contrary to certain Scripture passages. His opponents pointed to Bible passages with statements like, “And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed . . .” (Josh. 10:13). This is not an isolated occurrence. Psalms 93 and 104 and Ecclesiastes 1:5 also speak of celestial motion and terrestrial stability. A literalistic reading of these passages would have to be abandoned if the heliocentric theory were adopted. Yet this should not have posed a problem. As Augustine put it, “One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: ‘I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians.” Following Augustine’s example, Galileo urged caution in not interpreting these biblical statements too literally.”


The Cath. Enc. has an article about G. Galilei, too: Galileo Galilei | Catholic Answers
 
No, because the Bible is not a science textbook.

Galileo is one of the “big three” as I call them. The big three aspects of Church history about which there is a lot of misinformation and which many people today think somehow “disproves” the Catholic faith. The other two are the Crusades and the Inquisition.

A really helpful site I have found is the Catholic Education Resource Center. Here is a link to their articles on Galileo:


Reading through some of those will help give you a clearer idea of what actually took place and what it actually means.
 
Joe1 said:
Did Galileo have any proof that his theory was true
Click to expand...
That guestion can’t be answered without clarification because some aspects of his theory were flat-out wrong; for example, he thought that orbits had to be circular.

He had a model that could predict the motion of the heavenly bodies, but there were geocentric models that could do that too, and at the time he had insufficient proof that his model reflected reality better that the existing models. One of the objections to his position was that it would result in parallax shifts, but none were observed; the technology available wasn’t good enough.
 
Last edited:
neophyte said:
the technology available wasn’t good enough.
Click to expand...
And so when he was asked to give proof he couldn’t give the sufficient amount needed to prove he was somewhat right? I guess that would make sense, considering both theologians and scientists, who firmly believed in the Ptolemaic theory, wanted viable proof of this theory, and when they didn’t get it they couldn’t accept such a theory as truth.
 
Last edited:
I’ve heard the whole situation summed up succinctly as certain clergy in the Church were calling on Galileo to be a better scientist (i.e. he needed more concrete proof before teaching his theories as fact) and Galileo was calling on certain clergy to be better theologians (i.e. recognizing that these theories posed no danger to the interpretation of Scripture or Catholic teaching).

That’s a bit of an oversimplification, but I feel it conveys some important truth about what the dispute was over.
 
Joe1 said:
both theologians and scientists, who firmly believed in the Ptolemaic theory, wanted viable proof of this theory
Click to expand...
Not all scientists and theologians believed in the Ptolemaic theory. Several alternative models were also popular subjects of academic discussion, including the models proposed by Martianus Capella and Tycho Brahe.

(In case you’re interested, Martianus Capella’s theory was partially heliocentric: he asserted that Venus and Mercury orbit the sun, but the sun and all the other planets orbit the earth. Mr. Capella had introduced his theory during the age of the Church Fathers, and some of them, such as St. Bede the Venerable, apparently accepted this partially heliocentric theory in preference to Ptolemy’s theory. Tycho Brahe was a bit closer to heliocentrism – he asserted that almost everything orbits the sun – but not the earth, the earth is instead the thing that the sun orbits. He introduced his model during the Copernicus controversy, and was popular among people who liked the mathematical precision of heliocentrism but who had other reasons for doubting its complete truth.)
 
Last edited:
Even Einstein criticized Galileo over not teaching that his theory was merely a hypothesis instead of proven fact as he claimed.

The Church really didn’t have a problem with Galileo’s findings per se. Put Galileo wanted to push the envelope and get his hypothesis to be taken for proven fact. The Church, who basically invented science in Europe was skeptical and told him so.
 
St. Robert Bellarmine apparently took the position that in doubt, we should go with how the Fathers interpreted Scripture. If Galileo’s theory were demonstrated to be true, then the inerpretation would need to be re-examined as to how the Scriptures could still be true (ie, they only described appearances). He simply believed it hadn’t been sufficiently demonstrated:

St. Robert Bellarmine:
I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated.But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun really is in the center and the earth in the heavens. I believe that the first demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers.
Click to expand...
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1615bellarmine-letter.asp
 
But why punish him even if wrong if science is not the domain of the Church?
 
Well, he insulted the Pope. And when the Pope runs a country and you insult the ruler in a book about the science that you were told not to say is proven fact, you might get in trouble in the Middle Ages. Note that he was only put under House Arrest. He wasn’t tortured or anything like many folks think. Maybe weird in our eyes but we live in a different time. Galileo got off super easy for his time period.
 
Church authorities at the time condemned his writings because the consensus was that if what he said was true then Scripture could not be considered reliable or inerrant - amounting to a denial of inerrancy.

There is no doubt about that.

However, as the posthumous apology by JPII states, the Church authorities of the time are now considered mistaken in the way in which they too rigidly interpreted the Bible. Biblical inerrancy was never under threat at all.

This signals the beginning of a seismic shift in the way the Church interprets Scripture…only finally accepted formally at official level in recent decades.

Protestants made this leap well before us Catholics.
Many lay Catholics still haven’t caught up - as interminable discussions on the historicity of OT tall and unlikely stories here on CAF continually testify.

That is not to say Galileo wasn’t scientifically wrong on some points, or that some of his points were not fully proven. He made scientific errors also. But that is not the point re this iconic clash with Church authorities.
 
Last edited:
Galileo got into trouble because of the book he wrote, the ‘Dialogio’ in it he had two characters discuss his world view (sun centered heliocentrism vs earth centered geocentrism) One of the characters was very obvious meant to be the pope (Urban the VIII). The inquisition arrested and tried him for that. the sun centered model was not much more than a side show…and isn’t addressed anywhere in scripture!

It’s funny, his punishment was house arrest - getting to experiment with his telescope for the rest of his life, and making some of the most important astronomical observations ever!
 
No, but sedition against the State is.
In those times the Church wielded temporal power.
Galileo was upsetting the “faith” of many people which, regardless of the truth, was considered destabilising of the State.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top