Did the Church really set Western society back hundreds of years?

[kama3]

Then, as today, the Church took the stance that new ideas were to be looked at slowly and carefully before being adopted. Gallileo was correct (and not particularly original) in his conclusion that the earth orbited the sun. He was blatantly INcorrect in his assertion that the sun was the center of the universe AND was incorrect in his theological assertions that his observations proved that Scripture was man-made and not infallibly inspired by God. It was the hasty conclusion like Gallileo’s that the Church has alwasy been wary of.

That’s a fair amount of revisionism. First of all, the trial is not the real problem here. The trial could be easily dismissed as a one-off blunder. To understand the real problem, we must have a look at the chronology.

Galileo had observational evidence that the geocentrism was wrong back in 1610, and published it in 1613. His evidence was telescopic observation of phases of Venus. He noted that he can observe full Venus, which is impossible under a geocentric system. To understand why, here’s a handy Youtube video of a Ptolemeic Venus: youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=OlnlbZHP-jk What he saw instead was consistent with the heliocentric system: youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&feature=related&hl=en-GB&v=0Z_v7Tag4fg . In the same year, he observed the moons of Jupiter, and noted that they obviously orbit Jupiter, thus providing counterexample to the commonly held notion that everything in the Universe orbits the Earth. Both observations could be easily repeated. (In fact, today that’s something every backyard astonomer does after getting his first telescope. And looking at Jupiter for the first time yourself is one of these rare moments where you realize that a very simple discovery can trigger a massive paradigm change. But I digress…)

The Inquisition started investigation of Galileo’s claim in 1616, i.e. 3 years after Galileo published the evidence about phases of Venus, and formed a commision of theologians. The investigators did not bother to have a look at Venus themselves, or conduct a simple experiment involving a candle and apples. Unfortunately, both of these things require the intellectual capabilities of a 5-year-old, and these 11 learned men knew better. So they labored hard, and produced a statement which said that this proposition is foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture, according to the literal meaning of the words and according to the common interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology.. It is clearly evident from this statement that they did not attempt any verification of Galileo’s claims, but instead limited themselves to studying books. Big mistake, but understandable if you consider that these finest minds were trained in scholastic worldview…

And from that point on, it only gets worse. Galileo (following Copernicus) was in error because he assumed circular orbits, so his predictions of planetary motion were way off. But, a German guy named Kepler has figured out in 1621 that the orbits are, in fact, elliptical. (That posed another major problem even for Kepler himself, as departure from perfect, circular orbits meant that the Creator’s work is in fact imperfect). Besides that, he figured out two other laws of planetary motion (for the total of three) and, when he applied these, his planetary predictions were on the mark. So heliocentrism has been pretty much validated by 1630.

That’s another crucial point here; Galileo was charged with breaking the 1616 injuction, which said that it’s OK to entertain the hypothesis of heliocentrism, but stating that heliocentrism is a fact was forbidden. So, in 1632 Galileo publishes his book. The 1633 tribunal ignores 17 years of revolutionary development in astronomy and focuses on a legal matter: whether Galileo’s book teaches heliocentrism, thus violating the 1616 injunction. That’s the Church’s fundamental error here, repeated for the second time. Failure to do due diligence in investigating the matter (to put it charitably), or downright refusal to familiarize with the scientific developments.

As bad as the trial was, the Church still managed to go downhill from there. In 1664, Pope Alexander VII publishes a new edition of the Index of forbidden books – which includes proscriptions of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and anything related to teaching heliocentrism as a fact. Never mind another 30 years of scientific progress, the faith of the Church’s officials in the judgement of their predecessors remained unshaken.

In 1687, Issac Newton publishes Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica which contains a mathematical formulation of the law of gravity. Application of that law to planetary motion clearly demonstrates that it is the Sun which must sit it in the center of the Solar System, for the simple reason that the Sun is the biggest and the most massive object up there. The Congregation of Index is still unimpressed; books teaching heliocentrism remain forbidden from the Church’s faithful and the declaration of heliocentrism as a formal heresy remains in force. Never mind that the Catholic universities everywhere teach Newton’s laws and heliocentrism as a fact, technically getting the staff excommunicated latae sententiae.

The Church officials finally get a clue in… 1758 and drop the prohibition on heliocentrism. Gee, thanks; it was already irrelevant anyway.

 

[sedonaman]

That’s a fair amount of revisionism. First of all, the trial is not the real problem here. The trial could be easily dismissed as a one-off blunder. To understand the real problem, we must have a look at the chronology.

Galileo had observational evidence that the geocentrism was wrong back in 1610, and published it in 1613. His evidence was telescopic observation of phases of Venus. He noted that he can observe full Venus, which is impossible under a geocentric system. To understand why, here’s a handy Youtube video of a Ptolemeic Venus: youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=OlnlbZHP-jk What he saw instead was consistent with the heliocentric system: youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&feature=related&hl=en-GB&v=0Z_v7Tag4fg . In the same year, he observed the moons of Jupiter, and noted that they obviously orbit Jupiter, thus providing counterexample to the commonly held notion that everything in the Universe orbits the Earth. Both observations could be easily repeated. (In fact, today that’s something every backyard astonomer does after getting his first telescope. And looking at Jupiter for the first time yourself is one of these rare moments where you realize that a very simple discovery can trigger a massive paradigm change. But I digress…)

The Inquisition started investigation of Galileo’s claim in 1616, i.e. 3 years after Galileo published the evidence about phases of Venus, and formed a commision of theologians. The investigators did not bother to have a look at Venus themselves, or conduct a simple experiment involving a candle and apples. Unfortunately, both of these things require the intellectual capabilities of a 5-year-old, and these 11 learned men knew better. So they labored hard, and produced a statement which said that this proposition is foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture, according to the literal meaning of the words and according to the common interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology.. It is clearly evident from this statement that they did not attempt any verification of Galileo’s claims, but instead limited themselves to studying books. Big mistake, but understandable if you consider that these finest minds were trained in scholastic worldview…

And from that point on, it only gets worse. Galileo (following Copernicus) was in error because he assumed circular orbits, so his predictions of planetary motion were way off. But, a German guy named Kepler has figured out in 1621 that the orbits are, in fact, elliptical. (That posed another major problem even for Kepler himself, as departure from perfect, circular orbits meant that the Creator’s work is in fact imperfect). Besides that, he figured out two other laws of planetary motion (for the total of three) and, when he applied these, his planetary predictions were on the mark. So heliocentrism has been pretty much validated by 1630.

That’s another crucial point here; Galileo was charged with breaking the 1616 injuction, which said that it’s OK to entertain the hypothesis of heliocentrism, but stating that heliocentrism is a fact was forbidden. So, in 1632 Galileo publishes his book. The 1633 tribunal ignores 17 years of revolutionary development in astronomy and focuses on a legal matter: whether Galileo’s book teaches heliocentrism, thus violating the 1616 injunction. That’s the Church’s fundamental error here, repeated for the second time. Failure to do due diligence in investigating the matter (to put it charitably), or downright refusal to familiarize with the scientific developments.

As bad as the trial was, the Church still managed to go downhill from there. In 1664, Pope Alexander VII publishes a new edition of the Index of forbidden books – which includes proscriptions of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and anything related to teaching heliocentrism as a fact. Never mind another 30 years of scientific progress, the faith of the Church’s officials in the judgement of their predecessors remained unshaken.

In 1687, Issac Newton publishes Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica which contains a mathematical formulation of the law of gravity. Application of that law to planetary motion clearly demonstrates that it is the Sun which must sit it in the center of the Solar System, for the simple reason that the Sun is the biggest and the most massive object up there. The Congregation of Index is still unimpressed; books teaching heliocentrism remain forbidden from the Church’s faithful and the declaration of heliocentrism as a formal heresy remains in force. Never mind that the Catholic universities everywhere teach Newton’s laws and heliocentrism as a fact, technically getting the staff excommunicated latae sententiae.

The Church officials finally get a clue in… 1758 and drop the prohibition on heliocentrism. Gee, thanks; it was already irrelevant anyway.

Ergo, Catholic theology today is a bunch of bunk.

 

[manualman]

kama,

Was Galileo right? Does the entire universe revolve around the sun?


Or perhaps was the philosophy of restraint behind the adoption of revolutionary new ideas perhaps vindicated by later discoveries in astronomy?

You’ve clearly spent more time on the issue than I have, but I wonder if you stepped back often enough during the process and asked whether the stated issues were always the REAL issues or if there was a bad old fashioned pigheaded male peeing contest going on… Nobody ever claimed that catholics (authoritative ones or not) are immune to pride and stubbornness.

 

[Hubertus]

In any case, the Pope is a human as well, and not everything he does is out of ex cathedra infallibility, nor can he extend this infallibility to a Roman Congregation. So I’m not sure why you would come to that conclusion, sedonaman.

 

[sedonaman]

In any case, the Pope is a human as well, and not everything he does is out of ex cathedra infallibility, nor can he extend this infallibility to a Roman Congregation. So I’m not sure why you would come to that conclusion, sedonaman.

Kama3’s long and laborious dissertation, which I have doubts about, is not the longest nor the most laborious I’ve read on this issue that is over 400 years old. Why do some persist? Who cares? Because they want to convince the gullible that the Church is against science. And why would they want to do that? So what even if it were true? Because they want, by extension or implication, to discredit the Church’s theology in general. Hence my patronizing conclusion.

 

[manualman]

It’s hard to do facetious in text.

 

[kama3]

kama,
Was Galileo right? Does the entire universe revolve around the sun?

Not sure if you are joking here, but I will address this for completeness: no scientist is ever right, but if they are lucky, they may be less wrong than those before them. Galileo’s model was adequate for his time.

The ancients (Ptolemy) have imagined the Universe as follows. The Earth sits in the center. (By the way: the Greeks have discovered that the Earth was round, and that was commonly accepted in Galileo’s time. The claim that the Church taught that the Earth is flat is a fabrication from 1800s. Yep, another historian with an agenda…) The planets (including the Moon and the Sun; in fact, astrologers still treat the Moon and Sun as planets) move around the Earth in circular orbits. Beyond the planets, there is a sphere of fixed stars. That follows directly from observation: the planets move, the stars do not, hence - fixed points light pinned to a sphere far, far away.

What Copernicus did was, basically, switch the places of the Sun and Earth. But the rest was identical.

What Galileo did, was provide observational support that the Copernicus’ arrangement was right. Galileo still believed that Sun is the center of the Universe, because he did not have any better idea about what the stars are.

What Kepler did was change circular orbits for elliptical orbits and write down the laws of planetary motion. Again, no idea on stars, so he kept them pinned on a sphere.

Now, we accept that the Sun is not in the center of the Universe, because we know that the Sun is a star; and we see stars everywhere. That idea, however, was never popular.

The first guy to suggest this was a guy named Anaxogoras back in 450BC in Greece. He went to prison for that. He probably got the idea, because the Greeks have noticed that the Moon only reflects solar light, so he reasoned that the only object which emits light is the Sun. Hence, stars are distant suns.

The next one was Galileo’s contemporary, Giordano Bruno. Bruno reasoned as follows: The Sun is a star. The Sun has planets. So other stars must also have planets. (We had to wait until 1993 to find any). If they have planets they must have inhabitants. (We have yet to find any). If they have inhabitants… Well, the Inquisition could stomach Galileo’s ideas (as long as they remained hypotheses), but Bruno suggesting aliens was too much – and he promptly was burned alive.

The next scientist to consider this was Christian Huygens (who happened to live in a Protestant country, which is probably why he did not follow Bruno). Huygens made some progress. He assumed that Sirius is a star similar to the Sun, and he would use brass plates with drilled holes to reduce the brightness of the Sun to be comparable with that of Sirius; and from that, he calculated the distance to Sirius. His result in today’s units was 0.5 light years – the current estimate is 9 light years, but Huygens did not know that Sirius is brighter than the Sun is. Anyway, he demonstrated that Anaxogoras guessed right – the stars are like Sun, and they are far.

Back to the point, though. Only the initial switch away from geocentric perspective has theological implications, because if the Earth is not in the center of the Universe, then the claim of special relationship between the Creator and the Man is called into question. I mean, if we are so special, then why are we in some pretty unremarkable place? If Earth is not the center, then it does not matter if the center is Sun, our Galactic core or there is no center at all (as modern cosmology says).

Or perhaps was the philosophy of restraint behind the adoption of revolutionary new ideas perhaps vindicated by later discoveries in astronomy?

Well, the topic of the thread is if the Church is anti-science, isn’t it?

So, first, I believe that the OP’s claim that the Church has held us back by several hundred years is way off. Nevertheless, the Church is conservative; in Marxist terms, it is not progressive, but reactionary. It strives to maintain the status quo. I would still argue that if it wasn’t for Luther, the Church would have probably succeeded in suppressing Copernicus’ idea, but fortunately for everyone, at the era the Church got sidelined.

Now, we quickly notice that the scientific developments which the Church opposes (or has opposed in the past) are the ones which have theological implications. The Church doesn’t care about the rest. For example, the Church did not call for restraint in 1930s, where people started working on atomic theory – even though the potential of this work was obvious. Today, the Church does not protest nanotech research, even though there are some potential dangers; but since nanotech involves inanimate agents, it’s a non-issue. Instead, the Church protests genetic research, because it involves living matter and life has some serious theological implications.

Now, it is sometimes claimed that Galileo got in trouble for doing theology, not science. This is an oversimplification. If everyone believes that the Sun moves around the Earth, because the Bible says so, and you discover that it’s the other way round – well, you’ve got the problem. Because you have just demonstrated that part of theology is wrong. A scientist in such case will either convert to atheism or try to bend theology to suit what he has discovered. A religious institution, on the other hand, will see a danger to its own authority and try to suppress the discovery. If it fails to suppress it, it will persist in denial. Which is pretty much what happened with heliocentrism.

 

[manualman]

… Nevertheless, the Church is conservative; in Marxist terms, it is not progressive, but reactionary. It strives to maintain the status quo. I would still argue that if it wasn’t for Luther, the Church would have probably succeeded in suppressing Copernicus’ idea, but fortunately for everyone, at the era the Church got sidelined.
…
Now, it is sometimes claimed that Galileo got in trouble for doing theology, not science. This is an oversimplification. If everyone believes that the Sun moves around the Earth, because the Bible says so, and you discover that it’s the other way round – well, you’ve got the problem. Because you have just demonstrated that part of theology is wrong. A scientist in such case will either convert to atheism or try to bend theology to suit what he has discovered. A religious institution, on the other hand, will see a danger to its own authority and try to suppress the discovery. If it fails to suppress it, it will persist in denial. Which is pretty much what happened with heliocentrism.

Jaded interpretation on your part. A more reasonable explanation is that when someone publishes findings that appear to contradict prior theological speculation BASED on Scripture or Tradition, there is a very real restraint and cautious approach taken. You paint it as a nefarious attempt to preserve status quo, but a more level headed characterization would be that MOST new ideas ARE crackpot stuff that falls apart upon prolonged scrutiny. Thus the proper course of action is to put significant onus on new claimants and require them to sustain their proofs over time. In the case of heliocentrism, it did indeed take time for scholars to recognize that Scripture doesn’t necessarily literally describe astrophysics in its explanation of Creation and man’s relationship with his Creator. That’s not necessarily a bad thing.

We’ve got more than a few examples in our own day of people claiming the mantle of science, but really advancing their own nutty fantasies. Paul Ehrlich’s “Population Bomb” being a conscpicuous example! I wonder how much influence Malthuseans like him had on China’s barbarous one-child enforcements and how many are dead because no one required a more rigorous examination of his ideas for veracity before they were widely adopted?

Btw, you are tipping your hand with the first paragraph I quoted above. Protestantism is, in essense, less friendly to science than catholicism. Look up the prevalence of witch hunts in the 16th century or if you prefer the 21st century consider where the center of gravity of 7 day creationism lies…

 

[kama3]

Btw, you are tipping your hand with the first paragraph I quoted above. Protestantism is, in essense, less friendly to science than catholicism. Look up the prevalence of witch hunts in the 16th century or if you prefer the 21st century consider where the center of gravity of 7 day creationism lies…

You have largely missed the point I made in #29. Luther’s contribution was not that he was pro-science. Far from it; his take on Copernicus is so amusing that I cannot resist the urge to quote it:

There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must . . . invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth.

Luther’s contribution was indirect. He started the Protestant Revolution, which resulted in many countries severing ties with Rome. One result was that, in a Protestant country, one did not need to apply for Church’s imprimatur before publishing anything; thus the censorship has been eliminated and that has greatly contributed to the free exchange of ideas. Another result was that the Protestant countries did not prosecute heresy (obviously…), so scientific work with theological implications stopped being dangerous. Luther initiated a chain reaction which has sidelined the Catholic Church and allowed the scientific revolution and later the Enlightenment to happen. There’s some delightful irony in here.

Now, it is true that AD 2012 the Protestant denominations (particularly ones in the US) are openly anti-science, while the Catholic Church is not, so in a sense we have done a 180 turn over the last 400 years. But, as I noted back in #29, being pro- or anti-science has more to do with prevailing intelluctual trend within the organization (or the society at large) and no organization is inherently pro- or anti-science. An organization may then go either way as the time flies, especially on the timescale of centuries, which is basically what the Catholic Church did with heliocentrism.

To further elaborate on the point that the Church is not inherently pro- or anti-science, consider the following. On one hand you have the Vatican observatory, and clerical scientists doing bleeding edge cosmology world, but on the other hand, we have my 6th grade teacher of cathehesis (licensed by the local bishop, of course) who firmly believed that the world was created 4004BC, as bishop Usher calculated. The fact that Usher was an Anglican (and thus a heretic), did not bother this guy at all. And, he would say the Darwin’s work has been demonically inspired. The reason that such situation is possible is that the Church teaches that one may believe in the Big Bang, and one may believe in evolution (with some caveats, which I will not go into here); but such approach naturally implies that a Catholic may be a Young Earth Creationist.

More on this, I have observed that there are some groups in the Catholic Church, who have bought the Evangelical anti-science, anti-evolution, Young Earth thinking and they are trying to push it. Should these groups get in power, the Catholic Church may as well switch back to being a major anti-scientific force. The problem is made worse because many priests – at least in my experience – have serious deficiencies in science education, so they are easily susceptible to such, carefully engineered, propaganda.

 

[sedonaman]

Look, folks, if the CC was anti-science, it would have declared a mortal sin to study science, to teach science, to go into a career in science, and to use anything made as a result of scientific discoveries. I don’t recall Sr. Mary mentioning any of these sins in my first year catechism class in 1948. :nope:

 

[stevegravy]

Another result was that the Protestant countries did not prosecute heresy (obviously…), .

Maybe a minor point in your hypothesis but need some fact checking. Calvin offed Jacques Gruet
Zwingli persecuted the Anabaptist, Luther went crazy after Storch and Muntzer, the CoE killed more Puritans and Separatist than Catholics. History of the reformation ain’t so pretty either.

 

[kama3]

Zwingli persecuted the Anabaptist,…]

Which is why I said PROsecute the heresy, not PERsecute.

ETA: Which is to say, that the Protestants were too busy fighting regular wars with Catholics (and each other) to worry about some guy with a telescope and his crazy ideas.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Galileo had no way of proving his heliocentric theory. He did not get into conflict with the Church until he wanted it to change its doctrine to conform with his unproven theory. It looks like there is a little bit of that going on with Teilhard.

Teilhard tried to change Church Theory?

I have studied him deeply and found nothing wrong. I even did a paper on the comparison between and St. Paul which is quite remarkable.

Would you mind to quote his heresy theories?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Thanks.
Amazing.

 

[sedonaman]

Teilhard tried to change Church Theory?

I have studied him deeply and found nothing wrong. …

Why was he “promptly censored”? Because the Church hates science?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Why was he “promptly censored”? Because the Church hates science?

Look, many of the great saints were persecuted … by Catholics. Many founders of orders were persecuted for wanted to change for the better and no one listened to them for they wanted to remain in their lax customs.

Teilhard is no problem any more…

 

[sedonaman]

Look, many of the great saints were persecuted … by Catholics. Many founders of orders were persecuted for wanted to change for the better and no one listened to them for they wanted to remain in their lax customs.

Teilhard is no problem any more…

What does “changing for the better” have to do with science? Besides, I’m not asking about others; I’m asking why Teilhard was “promptly censored”, as you claim he was.

 

[Ranp]

Atheists love to proclaim…

Atheists have not grounds to proclaim any truth about God or the Church. Atheistism is the total rejection of truth.

Ran

 

[Ranp]

A very good recent book, How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization , would be an easy read to recommend. Author Thomas E.Woods. Ph.D.
Peace, Carlan

Agree! A reading of this one book will show how false is any statements about the Holy Catholic Church setting back European society.

Ran Pleasant

 

[Hubertus]

kama3,

Thank you for the effort you have put into this thread and all the information you provided, especially for emphasizing the point that the Church as an institution is not inherently pro-science or anti-science. Christ did not come to advance our society in a scientific and worldly sense (otherwise He would have told us all kinds of things, like to boil water before we drink it), so it does indeed follow that the Church’s explicit purpose also lies outside that realm.