Galileo is an enigmatic guy from what I have been reading. You might be interested in this:
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Heliocentric.html
I wanted to add a quote from that article (which comes from a highly creditable source):
"Both
theological and scientific arguments were put by all concerned. Galileo
himself began to put forward theological as well as scientific
arguments, including use of the Holy Scripture to support the
Copernican theory, something he had strongly argued against earlier
when he stated that the Holy Scripture was intended only for moral
teaching, not to teach physics. Having now discovered arguments by
Augustine in De Genesi ad Litteram to support his case, Galileo wrote
the Letter to the Grand Duchess which vigorously attacked the followers
of Aristotle. In this work, which he addressed to the Grand Duchess
Christina of Lorraine, he used some of Augustine's arguments, which he
developed much further, to argue strongly for a non-literal
interpretation of Holy Scripture when the literal interpretation would
contradict facts about the physical world proved by mathematical
science.
Galileo
certainly started with the assumption that the Holy Scriptures are true
so there must be interpretations which agree with all scientifically
proved theories. It is important to realise that Galileo was not
opposing Christianity, quite the opposite in fact, for he felt that he
was a devout Christian doing his very best to save Christianity from
serious error. He points out that theologians cannot tell a
mathematician what mathematics he must believe to be true (see for
example [21]):- "... there is a great difference between giving
orders to a mathematician or a natural philosopher and giving them to a
merchant or a lawyer; and that proved conclusions about natural and
celestial phenomena cannot be changed with the same ease as opinions
about what is or is not legitimate in a contract.
Shortly
after publication of Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the
World - Ptolemaic and Copernican the Inquisition banned its sale and
order Galileo to appear in Rome before them. Illness prevented Galileo
from travelling to Rome until 1633. When he did so he was confronted
with the alternative version of the ruling of 1616, which was an
unsigned document. Galileo still had in his possession the certificate
Bellarmine had signed and given him in 1616, although Bellarmine had
died in 1621 so could not clarify the difficulty of the two versions.
By the legal standards of today one would expect the alternative
version stating that Galileo was forbidden to teach the Copernican
theory to be overruled. Galileo's accusation at the trial which
followed was exactly that he had breached the conditions of this
unsigned alternative version. The truth of the Copernican theory was
not an issue therefore; it was taken as a fact at the trial that this
theory was false. This was logical, of course, since the judgement of
1616 had declared it totally false.
Found
guilty, Galileo was condemned to lifelong imprisonment, but the
sentence was carried out somewhat sympathetically and it amounted to
house
arrest
rather than a prison sentence. He was able to return to his home but
had to spend the rest of his life watched over by officers from the
Inquisition.
Galileo
may have suffered at the hands of the Church, but he remained totally
committed the Christianity. He wrote near the end of his life (see for
example [1]):- "I have two sources of perpetual comfort - first, that
in my writings there cannot be found the faintest shadow of irreverence
towards the Holy Church;
and
second, the testimony of my own conscience, which only I and God in
heaven thoroughly know. And He knows that in this cause in which I
suffer, though many might have spoken with more learning, none, not
even the ancient Fathers, have spoken with more piety or with greater
zeal for the Church
than I.
* * * *
Just
my reading today of The Day The Universe Changed puts many of these
individuals in perspective. There was a very big revolution in thinking
going on, and Galileo would have been much better off had he been born
100 years later. It was a dangerous combination to be a devout
Christian and a
thinker.
Julie in San Diego
"God wrote the universe in the language of mathematics." - Galileo
From: "Chris Brock" <CLBrock@prodigy.net>
>
I think, from what little I've read, it was his personality that got
him in trouble with some of the church officials more so than perhaps
his position (there were Church astronomers who essentially agreed with
Copernicus - who only published on his deathbed to avoid confronting
the church<smile>). Galileo could be pretty confrontational but
that's not necessarily a bad thing. It just gets one in trouble. >
Exactly,
that quote from my first post shows that he felt mathematics and
science belonged to mathematicians and scientists, not the church, and
that
belief
in and of itself was heretical, even if Copernicus' model was coming
into acceptance. Copernicus may have thought it, but didn't flaunt it.
(The
Jesuits,
Reston, page 273) : "If Galileo had only known how to retain the favor
of the fathers of this college, he would have stood in renown before
the
world; he would have been spared all his misfortunes, and could have
written about everything, even about the motion of the earth."
There
seems to be some differences as to how widely accepted Copernicus'
ideas were, however:
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/galtel.htm
"Despite these problems, Pope Clement VII approved of a summary of
Copernicus' work
in
1530, and asked for a copy of the full work when it was available. this
was not until 1543, the year Copernicus died. As Copernicus' new
picture of
the
universe became more widely known, misgivings arose. The universe had
after all been created for mankind, so why wasn't mankind at the
center? An
intellectual
revolutionary called Giordano Bruno accepted Copernicus' view, and went
further, claiming that the stars were spread through an infinite
space, not just on an outer sphere, and there were infinitely many inhabited worlds. Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600. "
It
could be dangerous to be bold in expressing unconventional ideas! From
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/gal_life.htm:
"Of
course,
Galileo's belief that his discoveries with the telescope strongly
favored the Copernican world view meant he was headed for trouble with
the
Church. In fact, his Venetian friends warned him that it might be dangerous to leave the protection of the Venetian state.
In
1611, Galileo went to Rome and met with the Jesuit astronomers.
Probably he felt that if he could win them over, he would smooth his
path in any
future
problems with the Church. Father Clavius, author of Gregorian Calendar
and undisputed leader of Jesuit astronomy had a hard time believing
there were mountains on the moon, but he surrendered with good grace on looking through the telescope (Sant., pages 18, 20)
One
archbishop wrote (p 20): "Bellarmine asked the Jesuits for an opinion
on Galileo, and the learned fathers sent the most favorable letter you
can
think
of . " Bellarmine was chief theologian of the Church, and a Jesuit
himself. Bellarmine wrote in a letter to A. Foscarini, 12 April 1615:
"Third,
I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the
center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun
does
not
circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to
proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear
contrary,
and
say rather that we do not understand them than that what is
demonstrated is false. But I will not believe that there is such a
demonstration, until
it is shown me."
Galileo's
attitude was contemptuous, however, at times he was downright
insulting, and you are right, that got him in trouble. But it seems it
wasn't so much Copernicus' general view that was a problem as much as
the "perfection" of heavenly bodies that the telescope now provided
challenging views.
"Galileo's
Commandment" printed three of Galileo's original writings. The first
shows a great deal of humility (On Looking Through the Telescope),
wonder,
excitement at pure observation. "Where Is The Center Of The Universe
from The Two Chief World Systems (1632)". He writes a dialogue
between
Simplicio, who defends the traditional wisdom of Aristotle; Salviati,
who speaks for Galileo; and Sagredo, the intelligent layman whom
the
other two hope to convince. In this it is how his observations should
be interpreted that is in dispute. I did find the text online:
http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Galileo.html
but the translation is so different I can't find the excerpt in my
book. When you see what he
was capable of foreseeing, including Newtonian physics, well, I guess I can understand the contempt. It just was a CLM*.
* CLM - (career limiting move).
"The
good Christian should beware of mathematicians and all those who make
empty prophecies. The danger already exists that mathematicians have
made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and confine man in
the bonds of Hell." -- St. Augustine