Religion and Science 1450-1900

I finished reading a book entitled Science and Religion 1450-1900 by Richard Olson, it's a great read. It frustrates the trite narratives which describe religion in great conflict with science, or that the two are antipodal, or even that the Church has been characteristically oppressive of science. You know the type, I'm sure, it's freaking annoying.

Here, I'll give you some information on each chapter, though I won't include everything, since, well, life calls. Also: the information presented is in my own words, and presented with my own silliness and attitude--it's a style thing.

Chapter 1

Shut up about Galileo Already! (My title-hah!)

Copernicus' book, On the Revolutions, appeared without much of  a fuss from the Church until about 75 years later in 1615, his book was prohibited. Galileo was tried for heresy for supporting the Copernican system of astronomy in his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (1632).  Religious oppression?!? An intrinsic conflict between science and religion? Not exactly.

These books were out and about during the Church's Counter Reformation. There was a great debate, motivated no less the great Reformation itself, about whether scriptures concerning the natural world needed to be kept inflexible and literally true or flexible to the knowledge of the day and perhaps not literally true.

Galileo stepped into the middle of that debate, he took the more flexible interpretation, and he argued that a sun-centered system could and should be considered consistent with Scripture. From there, almost immediately, a conservative thinker and churchman, and a Dominican no less, complained that Galileo broke a prohibition given in the Council of Trent.

From there, Galileo was exonerated of wrongdoing in 1616, since the Council of Trent said no such thing. However, in a written letter, Galileo was warned by Cardinal Bellarmine not to argue that the Copernican theory was physically true (as opposed to just a useful way to predict Easter without regard to the truth of its physical reality) because it was inconsistent with the norm of epistemological nominalism within the science of the day and because it would undermine the faith of Catholics who were not philosophically inclined. For similar reasons, On Revolutions was banned, but only for four years. The passages of the book suggesting the physical reality of the theory were edited so that they do not suggest such a thing, though it was still taught as a hypothesis.

There are two versions of letters of what Bellarmine told Galileo.  The first dated March 16, 1616, and it was signed by Belllarmine. The letter told Galileo that the doctrine of Copernicus cannot be defended or held. The second letter is contended to be inauthentic ( See The Crime of Galileo, p. 125-131), though it is presented within the minutes of the Inquisition without signature, it is dated February 25, 1616. The second letter reads that Galileo cannot teach, defend or even discuss it (the idea that the sun is in the center).  Obviously, the two letters are very different: the first allows Galileo to teach it as a hypothesis and to discuss it, the second allows neither.

Do we have a war against science here? Is religion at some sort of intrinsic conflict against science? Not at all. What we have here is a Church concerned with two things: the faith of the lay audience while under siege from the forces of the Reformation and the prevalent epistemological concerns of science. The Church was open to it as a discussion, but only as a hypothesis. Nothing Bellarmine said was theological in character. His concerns were strictly with the epistemological norms of the day and the pragmatics of faith among lay Catholics.

Okay, but what about Galileo's later trial, the one with the conviction?

In around 1624, Galileo met up with the Pope to discuss a book which would discuss the virtues of both the Ptolemaic and Copernican systems in a balanced way. The work was supposed to keep the two theories as mere hypotheses, and Galileo was to express the of the Church in theological matters, as per agreement between the Pope and Galileo.

Galileo was a bit of a dink here. His published book was not balanced--it was heavily in favor of the Copernicus theory. It was clearly meant to support the physical reality of the latter. Galileo also wrote in Italian (the vernacular) rather than Latin (the language of intellectuals) so that his book can have an impact on a lay Catholic audience. What is more, Galileo inserted the arguments of the Pope into the mouth of a character named Simplicio--that's Italian for simpleton.

The Pope was far from thrilled, and he brought Galileo up on charges of violating the injunction set upon him. The Pope argued that Galileo argued for the physical truth of the Copernican theory; and hence Galileo was subsequently found guilty.

But notice here that nothing suggests that there is some fundamental, intrinsic conflict between science and religion. What we have here is a vendetta of a sort; and it is a misuse of power, perhaps. But nothing here suggests that religion, the Church or Catholicism itself is at odds with science. This is more about a story of   men acting foolishly.

Chapter 2 will follow shortly.