5 ms·

This isn't the only childish myth that refuses to die. The so-called Galileo affair and Copernicus' alleged fear and trembling over publishing "his" heliocentri

This isn't the only childish myth that refuses to die. The so-called Galileo affair and Copernicus' alleged fear and trembling over publishing "his" heliocentric theory are two notorious and by now classical examples. In both cases, the supposedly grand Manichean battle between Religion and Science was nothing but the fallout of the provincial squabbling of petty men. Copernicus -- who was a classically educated cleric -- was reluctant to publish De Revolutionibus on account of hostility from rival astronomers (and though the Church had no doctrinal interest in something as theologically irrelevant as which rock orbits which other rock, Paul III and Cardinal von Schoenberg did take interest in his work). Furthermore, Copernicus' original contribution was not the idea of a heliocentric "universe", but the mathematization he produced that "saved the appearances" accounted for in the geocentric model. The Galileo "affair", which stretched for some 30 years IIRC, culminated in house arrest in the papal apartments overlooking the papal gardens, a fate far better than that of many in the 15th century or the 21st century for that matter. Ultimately, his house arrest was largely the result of Galileo's habit of harassing people and making enemies, some of whom were clerics, and nothing to do with doctrine (the story goes that Galileo was arrested and forced to abjure the very same heliocentrism Paul III and others encouraged and found so fascinating under pain of death, but anyone free of prejudice and acquainted with the history knows this account to be comically stupid as it is presented). There are many more such fabrications and misconceptions. At least some of these myths are known to have their origins in the 19th century and in the slanderous writings of fanatical Enlightenment and Protestant writers whose rabid hatred for Rome seems to have, in their minds, given them license to resort to libel or corrupted their thinking. The author credits two men in the article who certainly had an axe to grind.

transfire 10y ago
Uh, no. You are the one reading too much revisionist history. On the morning of June 22, 1633, Galileo, dressed in the white shirt of penitence, entered the large hall of the Inquisition building. He knelt and listened to his sentence: "Whereas you, Galileo, the son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine....." The reading continued for seventeen paragraphs... "And, so that you will be more cautious in future, and an example for others to abstain from delinquencies of this sort, we order that the book Dialogue of Galileo Galilei be prohibited by public edict. We condemn you to formal imprisonment in this Holy Office at our pleasure." "As a salutary penance we impose on you to recite the seven penitential psalms once a week for the next three years. And we reserve to ourselves the power of moderating, commuting, or taking off, the whole or part of the said penalties and penances." "This we say, pronounce, sentence, declare, order and reserve by this or any other better manner or form that we reasonably can or shall think of. So we the undersigned Cardinals pronounce." Seven of the ten cardinals signed the sentence. Following the reading of the sentence, Galileo knelt to recite his abjuration: "Desiring to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and of all faithful Christians, this strong suspicion, reasonably conceived against me, with sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies, and generally every other error and sect whatsoever contrary to the said Holy Church; and I swear that in the future I will never again say or assert, verbally or in writing, anything that might furnish occasion for a similar suspicion regarding me...." "I, the said Galileo Galilei, have abjured, sworn, promised, and bound myself as above; and in witness of the truth thereof I have with my own hand subscribed the present document of my abjuration, and recited it word for word at Rome, in the Convent of Minerva, this twenty-second day of June, 1633." "I, Galileo Galilei, have abjured as above with my own hand."
- benbreen 10y ago
  You're both right. No one who studies Galileo disputes that he ran afoul of the Inquisition. The question is whether the specifics of his case justify framing it as part of an epic battle between science and religion (or reason and ignorance, or any other binary opposition really), and I think the parent comment is correct in suggesting that most historians today would answer "no" to that. Mario Biagioli's book Galileo Courtier is a really excellent work of history that I recommend to anyone interested in the details - it's more about the role of patronage in supporting Galileo's work, but gives a lot of insight into the systems of authority at the time, and Galileo's unique personality.
  - cygx 10y ago
    Be that as it may, but the fact remains that his sentencing explicitly stated that the heresy he was officially censored for was supporting an opinion as probable after it had been declared contrary to Holy Scripture.
  - carlob 10y ago
    There was also a third camp at the time: Jesuits. Apparently Galileo met with Jesuit astronomers at the Vatican Observatory, and they suggested he might save both scientific evidence and theological correctness by adopting the Tychonic system, where the center of the universe is still the earth, but all the planets revolve around the sun, which revolves around the earth. As it turns out, we now know that both the Copernican and the Tychonic are exactly equally wrong.
    - gpderetta 10y ago
      "As it turns out, we now know that both the Copernican and the Tychonic are exactly equally wrong. " It seems to me that one is less wrong than the other. In particular one was a significantly better fit for the evidence available at that time. edit: typo
    - qb45 10y ago
      I don't think they were exactly equally wrong. The Tychonic system doesn't quite predict stellar parallax, for example. I'd say it's the worse model of those two. And it looks less pretty on pictures, too. EDIT: Ironically, the lack of observable (at the time) parallax was reportedly used by Tycho Brahe to argue against heliocentrism, because "stars obviously can't be far enough to make prallax unobservable". Now, that's clearly wrong.
cygx 10y ago
Nevertheless, the Galileo affair is indicative of a conflict between secular science and the church, as the latter claimed final say on the findings of the former. From the final sentencing of Galileo: We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo [...] have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine [...] that an opinion can be held and supported as probable, after it has been declared and finally decreed contrary to the Holy Scripture [...]
- huxley 10y ago
  That's a bit of an anachronistic view, there really wasn't much secular science at the time, the vast majority of science was done under the patronage and support church officials (Catholic or Protestant). Copernicus was a canon of the Catholic church. Kepler, a Lutheran, did his foundational work at Graz under Catholic patronage. Galileo did his work under the patronage of cardinals and popes. There were exceptions, Tycho Brahe had noble and royal sponsors but it was as much for his alchemical and astrological studies as it was for his astronomy.
  - cygx 10y ago
    Secular not in the sense of patronage, but secular in the sense of independence from theological considerations. Think Fr. Lemaître telling Pope Pius XII to refrain from making proclamations about the Big Bang validating Catholic creationist doctrine.

transfire 10y ago

Uh, no. You are the one reading too much revisionist history. On the morning of June 22, 1633, Galileo, dressed in the white shirt of penitence, entered the large hall of the Inquisition building. He knelt and listened to his sentence: "Whereas you, Galileo, the son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine....." The reading continued for seventeen paragraphs... "And, so that you will be more cautious in future, and an example for others to abstain from delinquencies of this sort, we order that the book Dialogue of Galileo Galilei be prohibited by public edict. We condemn you to formal imprisonment in this Holy Office at our pleasure." "As a salutary penance we impose on you to recite the seven penitential psalms once a week for the next three years. And we reserve to ourselves the power of moderating, commuting, or taking off, the whole or part of the said penalties and penances." "This we say, pronounce, sentence, declare, order and reserve by this or any other better manner or form that we reasonably can or shall think of. So we the undersigned Cardinals pronounce." Seven of the ten cardinals signed the sentence. Following the reading of the sentence, Galileo knelt to recite his abjuration: "Desiring to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and of all faithful Christians, this strong suspicion, reasonably conceived against me, with sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies, and generally every other error and sect whatsoever contrary to the said Holy Church; and I swear that in the future I will never again say or assert, verbally or in writing, anything that might furnish occasion for a similar suspicion regarding me...." "I, the said Galileo Galilei, have abjured, sworn, promised, and bound myself as above; and in witness of the truth thereof I have with my own hand subscribed the present document of my abjuration, and recited it word for word at Rome, in the Convent of Minerva, this twenty-second day of June, 1633." "I, Galileo Galilei, have abjured as above with my own hand."

benbreen 10y ago
You're both right. No one who studies Galileo disputes that he ran afoul of the Inquisition. The question is whether the specifics of his case justify framing it as part of an epic battle between science and religion (or reason and ignorance, or any other binary opposition really), and I think the parent comment is correct in suggesting that most historians today would answer "no" to that. Mario Biagioli's book Galileo Courtier is a really excellent work of history that I recommend to anyone interested in the details - it's more about the role of patronage in supporting Galileo's work, but gives a lot of insight into the systems of authority at the time, and Galileo's unique personality.
- cygx 10y ago
  Be that as it may, but the fact remains that his sentencing explicitly stated that the heresy he was officially censored for was supporting an opinion as probable after it had been declared contrary to Holy Scripture.
- carlob 10y ago
  There was also a third camp at the time: Jesuits. Apparently Galileo met with Jesuit astronomers at the Vatican Observatory, and they suggested he might save both scientific evidence and theological correctness by adopting the Tychonic system, where the center of the universe is still the earth, but all the planets revolve around the sun, which revolves around the earth. As it turns out, we now know that both the Copernican and the Tychonic are exactly equally wrong.
  - gpderetta 10y ago
    "As it turns out, we now know that both the Copernican and the Tychonic are exactly equally wrong. " It seems to me that one is less wrong than the other. In particular one was a significantly better fit for the evidence available at that time. edit: typo
  - qb45 10y ago
    I don't think they were exactly equally wrong. The Tychonic system doesn't quite predict stellar parallax, for example. I'd say it's the worse model of those two. And it looks less pretty on pictures, too. EDIT: Ironically, the lack of observable (at the time) parallax was reportedly used by Tycho Brahe to argue against heliocentrism, because "stars obviously can't be far enough to make prallax unobservable". Now, that's clearly wrong.

cygx 10y ago

Nevertheless, the Galileo affair is indicative of a conflict between secular science and the church, as the latter claimed final say on the findings of the former. From the final sentencing of Galileo: We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo [...] have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine [...] that an opinion can be held and supported as probable, after it has been declared and finally decreed contrary to the Holy Scripture [...]

huxley 10y ago
That's a bit of an anachronistic view, there really wasn't much secular science at the time, the vast majority of science was done under the patronage and support church officials (Catholic or Protestant). Copernicus was a canon of the Catholic church. Kepler, a Lutheran, did his foundational work at Graz under Catholic patronage. Galileo did his work under the patronage of cardinals and popes. There were exceptions, Tycho Brahe had noble and royal sponsors but it was as much for his alchemical and astrological studies as it was for his astronomy.
- cygx 10y ago
  Secular not in the sense of patronage, but secular in the sense of independence from theological considerations. Think Fr. Lemaître telling Pope Pius XII to refrain from making proclamations about the Big Bang validating Catholic creationist doctrine.