Earth, Sun and Galileo

[Steven_Merten]

Hello History Teacher,

Scripture indicates that creation comes into existance from the creation of the earth. Time is the measure of change between mass, energy and empty space, all of which flowed out into existance at the creation of the world. It was no doubt hard for non-scientific Church leaders of the year 1 through 1500 something to understand how God is not under the constraints of physical time. Time is a function of what God created at creation. In our modern age, and after watching Star Trek the Next Generation for many episodes, it is easy to see how God is uneffected by physical time. God is Omni-Present to the whole of physical time which He created.

God’s focus is on the creation of a free willed being (man) who has the capacity to choose to love Him. Certianly God does not need to sit around for hundreds of trillions on years or infinite years to bring His creation of man into exisistance. From God’s Omni Powerful Hand, creation, both infinite physical past and infinite physical future time, flow out around God’s, love for God capable, man. In other words some ten thousand years ago there was nothing. From God’s Omni Powerful Hand, billions of years, if not infinite years of physical past and billions of years, if not infinite years of physical future, flowed out around the creation of Adam and Adam’s home earth.

The people of Galileo’s time who mocked the belief of our world as the center of creation because of Galileo’s discovery, simply did not understand our, Omni-Present to the whole of physical time, God.

Please visit Jesus Loves God and Creation to see biblical verses which indicate the difference between Spiritual Omni Presence to all physical time and those of the flesh constrained to physical time.

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[HistoryTeacher]

Just wanted to thank all of you for your helpful replies. Although I know science and theology are two distinct entities, they still tend to wind up intertwined now and then in conversations. . .especially conversations with atheists. I appreciate all the insightful replies!

Brandon

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

It irks me when I see Catholics, resorting to several pitiful apologetics teacts on the subject, try to make excuses for the Church regarding her conduct during the Galileo affair.

The Church was wrong, folks. No, not just “individuals,” but the authoritative Church herself. (Yes, in a mystical sense the Church cannot err; on a practical level, her Magisterium can, when there is no question of dogma.)

First off, bringing up Luther and Calvin’s objections to heliocentrism serves no purpose whatsoever. Protestants have never vested the Reformers with the authority, let alone infallibility, with which Catholics invest their Magisterium. So the point is moot.

The truh is, Copernicus’s ideas faired much better off in Protestant countries and institutions than it did in Catholic ones, though there were a few exceptions to this.

Even in the 19th century, Copernicus’s theories were widely disputed in many Catholic universities, whereas Protestants for the most part had accepted a modified heliocentrism as a given fact.

Galileo never “demanded” than anyone submit to his theories. He simply believed that he had proved them true, so any man should accept them as such. It is completely within the rights of a scientist to think and act this way.

And even if Galileo had made such “demands,” it wasn’t the Church’s business to interfere anyway, and she truly did err in doing so. The condemnation of Galileo and Copernicus was not merely the stance of a few theologians, but an authoritative decree of the Holy Office, which is binding on Catholics, even when not infallible (and so possibly wrong). There are many beliefs which bind Catholics by virtue of the fact that they are upheld by a branch of the Vatican, with papal approval. The Church’s condemnation of heliocentrism was, at one point in history, one of these. (Though Catholic scientists were free to treat the question merely hypothetically.)

No, the Galileo incident does not prove that the dogma of papal and ecclesiastical infallibility is false. Nor does it demonstrate that the Church has historically been anti-science.

But this is what is so frustrating and embarrasing about this incident; it is the one and only exception to the Church’s being the patron of science and natural learning. Had Galileo lived but a few decades earlier or later, the condemnation probably would never have come. It was made during a time when the Church, suffering from the Protestant revolt, went off on the other end of the spectrum and nearly embraced a sort of untraditional quasi-fundamentalism.

We Catholics should be ashamed of this whole incident, to a certain degree.

And we should stop trying to make apologetics for it except when one asserts the incidence proves 1) the Church is not true and infallible, or 2) the Church is anti-science.

Otherwise, we should accept the incident for what it is, and quit trying to white-wash it. The Church was wrong. Live with it.

 

[Grolsch]

DominvsVobiscvm:

Galileo never “demanded” than anyone submit to his theories. He simply believed that he had proved them true, so any man should accept them as such. It is completely within the rights of a scientist to think and act this way.

Actually he all but demanded it. Cardinal Bellarmine told him keep it as theory until he had uneqivocal proof. What got Galileo in trouble is that he only had evidence and not proof. His telescope showed moons revolving around jupiter so to him this was proof that not everything revolved around the earth. But then tycho brahe’s model was brought out with the moons going around jupiter but then then jupiter with moons going around the earth as well. Galileo was asked to prove this theory wrong which he obviously couldn’t at the time.

http://www-astro.physics.uiowa.edu/~ri/modern_spr01/lect_figs/tycho.jpg

What got Galileo in trouble was that he tried to engage in theology to get his views accepted at a time when the council of Trent expressly forbade laymen from engaging in it, especially during the thirty years war. Incredibly dangerous on Galileo’s part but since he had many friends in high positions within the Church he thought he could get away with it. That was the crux of the problem. Galileo resorted to using theology to get his theory accepted when he lacked conclusive scientific proof.

Why he did so is best explained by Biagoli’s excellent book “Galileo the Courtier”.

No one is trying to whitewash history but to just put things into perspective. Both Galileo and the Church were in the wrong. As you say, if Galileo had done is work just a few decades earlier then we probably wouldn’t even be talking about him now. If he had been less caustic and the Church less reactionary during a time of extreme political unrest then things may have been different.

It’s just annoying that people pick on the Church for this one incident but completely ignore more vicious attacks on science by the secular movements like the French Revolution. During the revolution the Academy of Sciences was abolished and France’s leading scientist Lavoisier was exectued. But you don’t hear anyone arguing that democracy is the enemy of science.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Cardinal Bellarmine told him keep it as theory until he had uneqivocal proof.

And with all due respect, the Sainted Cardinal should have kept his trap shut and minded his own business.

What got Galileo in trouble is that he only had evidence and not proof.

Which is something that should have been debated within scientific circles. Scientists are entitled to believe that what they have is inconclusive proof, even if others feel it is not the case.

The greater wrong in this whole debacle was the Church’s. No point in denying it.

 

[buffalo]

DominvsVobiscvm:

It irks me when I see Catholics, resorting to several pitiful apologetics teacts on the subject, try to make excuses for the Church regarding her conduct during the Galileo affair.

The Church was wrong, folks. No, not just “individuals,” but the authoritative Church herself. (Yes, in a mystical sense the Church cannot err; on a practical level, her Magisterium can, when there is no question of dogma.)

First off, bringing up Luther and Calvin’s objections to heliocentrism serves no purpose whatsoever. Protestants have never vested the Reformers with the authority, let alone infallibility, with which Catholics invest their Magisterium. So the point is moot.

The truh is, Copernicus’s ideas faired much better off in Protestant countries and institutions than it did in Catholic ones, though there were a few exceptions to this.

Even in the 19th century, Copernicus’s theories were widely disputed in many Catholic universities, whereas Protestants for the most part had accepted a modified heliocentrism as a given fact.

Galileo never “demanded” than anyone submit to his theories. He simply believed that he had proved them true, so any man should accept them as such. It is completely within the rights of a scientist to think and act this way.

And even if Galileo had made such “demands,” it wasn’t the Church’s business to interfere anyway, and she truly did err in doing so. The condemnation of Galileo and Copernicus was not merely the stance of a few theologians, but an authoritative decree of the Holy Office, which is binding on Catholics, even when not infallible (and so possibly wrong). There are many beliefs which bind Catholics by virtue of the fact that they are upheld by a branch of the Vatican, with papal approval. The Church’s condemnation of heliocentrism was, at one point in history, one of these. (Though Catholic scientists were free to treat the question merely hypothetically.)

No, the Galileo incident does not prove that the dogma of papal and ecclesiastical infallibility is false. Nor does it demonstrate that the Church has historically been anti-science.

But this is what is so frustrating and embarrasing about this incident; it is the one and only exception to the Church’s being the patron of science and natural learning. Had Galileo lived but a few decades earlier or later, the condemnation probably would never have come. It was made during a time when the Church, suffering from the Protestant revolt, went off on the other end of the spectrum and nearly embraced a sort of untraditional quasi-fundamentalism.

We Catholics should be ashamed of this whole incident, to a certain degree.

And we should stop trying to make apologetics for it except when one asserts the incidence proves 1) the Church is not true and infallible, or 2) the Church is anti-science.

Otherwise, we should accept the incident for what it is, and quit trying to white-wash it. The Church was wrong. Live with it.

Galileo was condemned not for his science, but for his treading on theoligical grounds.

 

[Apologia100]

DominvsVobiscvm:

And with all due respect, the Sainted Cardinal should have kept his trap shut and minded his own business.

Which is something that should have been debated within scientific circles. Scientists are entitled to believe that what they have is inconclusive proof, even if others feel it is not the case.

The greater wrong in this whole debacle was the Church’s. No point in denying it.

Actually, Pope Urban VIII (a friend of Gallileo) offered to have his theory scrutinized by the Jesuits, headed by Cardinal Ballermine who maintained scientific studies of their own, and if it passed muster, then he would have been allowed to advance his theory. He was also allowed to write a synopsis of the heliocentric theory, both pro and con.

 

[buffalo]

The Catholic Church has always been a friend to science. History records great scientific accomplishments by Catholics. But to each his domain.

 

[Grolsch]

DominvsVobiscvm:

And with all due respect, the Sainted Cardinal should have kept his trap shut and minded his own business.

With all due respect that was the Cardinal’s business as soon as Galileo’s academic peers brought charges of heresy against him.

Which is something that should have been debated within scientific circles. Scientists are entitled to believe that what they have is inconclusive proof, even if others feel it is not the case.

It was debated in scientific circles. A few agreed with Galileo, most of whom were, surprise surprise, churchmen. But the VAST majority disagreed with Galileo, and I’m not talking about the Church here, I’m talking about academics in the universities. It was not the Church which initiated charges against Galileo but his fellow university professors. At stake were lucrative patronages; if Galileo was right then 99% of academics could possibly lose their livelyhood since the nobility only wanted the best teachers. University salaries were often a pittance, the real money lay in patronage.

The greater wrong in this whole debacle was the Church’s. No point in denying it.

The Church was wrong in drumming up false charges. Someone forged an unsigned document stating Galileo had been forbidden to teach heliocentrism. But Galileo had a signed document from Bellarmine stating he was absoutely allowed to teach it as a theory. Since bringing false charges at the Inquisition incurred the the same penalty the accused would have received, the authorities rammed the charges through but were lenient with Galileo and set him up in an opulant palace where he continued his work. That’s what JPII apologized for.

But Galileo had broken the law and he knew it. With friends in high places he thought he could get away with it. It was not because he had some absolute faith in his theories, rather that he had pushed so far that to turn back would mean losing the patronage of the Medici’s. He irritated and angered his colleagues and they looked to bring him down. Had Galileo shown just a little more tact the outcome may have been much different.

Again I urge people to read Mario Biagoli’s “Galileo, Courtier: The Practice of Science in the Culture of Absolutism”

amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226045609/qid=1100709169/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-5800181-1647224?v=glance&s=books