Re: Commentary: Galileo redux

Joe Cummings <joecummings@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 06:50:26 -0400, Jason Spaceman
> <notreally@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >From the article:
> >---------------------------------
> >Steve Kellmeyer
> >August 15, 2005
> >
> >
> >It's eerie, really. Five centuries ago, lay university professors invoked
> >Scripture and religion in order to attack and destroy an opponent whose views
> >threatened to topple academia. Today, they are doing it again. The only
> >difference is the targets ? in the early 1600's, the university professors we
re
> >trying to destroy Galileo. Today, they're trying to destroy the theory behind
> >intelligent design, using very nearly the same techniques they used against
> >Galileo.
> >---------------------------------
> >
> >Read it at http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/kellmeyer/050815
>
>
> Kellmeyer seemms to be trying to draw a parallel where there
> isn't one.
>
> He attempts to draw a difference between "Aristotelians" and
> the Church. But Aristotelianism at the time of Copernicus and Galileo
> was the official "scientific" outlook of both the Catholic Church and
> the Protestant churches.
>
> There would be opposition from both side of the religious
> divide to Copernicus:
>
> Luther: "This fool (Copernicus) wishes to reverse the entire
> science of astronomy, but Sacred Scripture tells us [Joshua 10 : 13]
> that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth."
>
> Bellarmine; "If there were a real proof that the sun is in the
> centre of the universe, and that the earth is in the third heaven, and
> tha the sun does not go round the earth but the earth round the sun,
> the we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining
> passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather
> admit that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be
> false which is proved to be true. But, as for myself, I shall not
> believe that there are such proofs until they are shown to me."

You shouldn't compare the two.
Luther was a fool.
He was saved only from making a fool of himself in public
(unlike the pope) by lacking the worldly power to do so.

Cardinal Bellarmine however was an educated man
who really understood the scientific issues.
And moreover, Bellarmine was right:
there was no 'real proof' at the time.

Best,

Jan

.

Loading