Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Galileo’s Ordeal
June 22, 1633 was not a day from which the western world will recover soon. For on that fateful day the famous scientist, Galileo Galilei, was forced by the Inquisition to recant. We have been living with the aftermath ever since.
What was Galileo's great offence? He had advocated the view of Nicolaus Copernicus that the earth revolves around the sun. This, of course, means that the earth moves. The problem is that several passages of Scripture, when taken literally, seem to say something quite different. The earth stands still (Ps. 93:1; 96:10; 104:5) and the sun moves across the sky (Ps. 19:4-6; cf. Josh 10:13). There was an apparent clash between science and Scripture.
The problem has vexed the western mind ever since. Does Scripture really contradict science? And if so, which is to be believed? Galileo's own view of the matter was stated in a letter he had written in 1615 "Methinks that in the discussion of natural problems, we ought not to begin at the authority of places of Scripture, but at sensible experiments and necessary demonstrations . . ." God does not "less admirably discover himself to us in Nature's actions, than in the Scripture's sacred dictions." (Concerning the Use of Biblical Quotations in Science). What Galileo did, in effect, was to assert the autonomy of human reason in the study of the natural sciences, although he was, in fact, following Thomas Aquinas' distinction between nature and grace.
But is there a real clash between science and Scripture? Much of it depends on how one interprets Scripture. It must be borne in mind that when the Bible describes natural phenomena, it usually does so in terms of the common sense perception of the ordinary observer on the ground. As a general rule it is the aim of Scripture to make a statement about our relationship with God, and not to give a detailed technical explanation of how nature works. Thus a bit of hermeneutical sensitivity could have spared Galileo his ordeal. We perceive the earth to stand still and the sun to move across the sky, and for the purposes of Scripture that is perfectly adequate. The Bibl is indeed infallible – in all that it asserts. But is it really asserting that the earth is the center of the universe? The concern of Scripture is to demonstrate that God is the Creator of the universe, and that His wisdom and power are displayed in all that He has made.
The Bible does purport, however, to teach real history. From the opening words of Genesis ("In the beginning . . .") to the closing verses of Revelation ("Truly I am coming quickly . . ." – Rev. 22:20), the biblical narrative is an account of what God has done in history. The history of redemption moves in a chronological sequence from creation to fall to incarnation to crucifixion to resurrection and finally to the Second Coming. All of these events occur in real history, in space and time. The Bible is not mythology. Real history is an essential part of Christian theism.
The Christian is not obliged to ignore the proven facts of science. Galileo is right. If God is the author of nature, there can be no real conflict between science and Scripture. We must be careful, however, to interpret both aright. The error is with our interpretation, not with the facts of either nature or Scripture.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Oh, good grief. You want it both ways and think it is simply a matter of some middle ground of interpretation: the bible is true and inerrant on the one hand but reflects the local knowledge of its writers who were factually wrong. And this middle ground is where?
ReplyDeleteFact: the universe as a whole and the earth in particular was not created in six days, nor established in the order given, nor populated by the critters listed, nor was our species begun with two humans, nor was the earth flooded, nor various rescued life dispersed by an ark, and so on. It's all historically wrong... as in 'incorrect', 'false', 'mistaken', 'in error'. Other than these minor (ahem) factually wrong historical claims upon which christianity has been built to explain and justify the need for an historical redeemer, I'm sure there's a handy middle ground that interprets our genetic evidence to allow for a bottleneck of two rather than about 10,000, a global flood that left no evidence, a dispersant of life that never happened, and so on. With enough theology, I'm sure the dozen branches of mutually supportive science can be 'interpreted' in just the right way to be respectful of this utter historical nonsense scripture presents as correct and inerrant.
The only way biblical scripture can be held to be true is by rejecting the method of science altogether, a method we know works for everyone everywhere all the time. There is no middle ground to be found and those who argue that there is are as factually wrong as the scripture they believe is true in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. What lies beneath Damocles' sword is what's true and you can't have it by halves.
It is a matter of understanding what exactly the Bible is saying on a given matter. Next week I will probably post something on the interpretation of Genesis I and the age of the earth, that will give us an opportunity to examine a case in point.
DeleteThe process of inspiration involved human authors who retained their personalities and educational backgrounds. They wrote in known human languages (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek). Some passages are obviously giving poetic descriptions of nature, but those are usually found in poetical books, such as the Book of Psalms. You are right in stating that the Bible makes assertions about historical events in order to explain and justify the need for an historical redeemer. This is why the Bible does not present is with mythology. Redemption is intended to be a real solution to a real life (historical) problem. And whatever you may make of the Genesis account, we have to live with the problem of human evil every day, and that raises the serious moral question as to whether or not ultimate justice exists.
It is a matter of understanding what exactly the Bible is saying on a given matter.
DeleteDoes the Earth stand still?
No.
Does the Sun move across the sky?
No.
The process of inspiration involved human authors who retained their personalities and educational backgrounds.
Human authors. Very human.
They wrote in known human languages...
People usually write in languages.
Some passages are obviously giving poetic descriptions of nature, but those are usually found in poetical books, such as the Book of Psalms.
Obviously. Obviously.
Does the Earth stand still?
No.
Does the Sun move across the sky?
No.
Redemption is intended to be a real solution to a real life (historical) problem.
Does the Earth stand still?
No.
Does the Sun move across the sky?
No.
And whatever you may make of the Genesis account, we have to live with the problem of human evil every day, and that raises the serious moral question as to whether or not ultimate justice exists.
Yes. Yes, of course.
Does the Earth stand still?
No.
Does the Sun move across the sky?
No.
Galileo showed that things don't have natures but are subject to impersonal, unguided physical forces. This was an undermining of Aristotelian physics upon which the Church had built her doctrine of explanations about the 'created' world and did not take kindly to being shown to be factually wrong by compelling evidence. It was the Church's authority that was most threatened by being shown to be wrong so they had to take action not to bring their theology into line with what's true but to impound the knowledge and maintain the fiction of their belief model.
ReplyDeleteThe error was and remains that religious belief does not determine how reality operates. But the religious mistakenly keep putting their trust in an invisible peek-a-boo god at the top of the hierarchy of what's true and reality someplace much lower. This is an error in method. It is no surprise, then, that the religious continue to delude themselves about the nature of the world they inhabit and try to force their religious doctrinal delusions and misplaced respect for their god's authority in all matters to maintain their empty assertions about reality. Galileo was just another in a long line of victims in this regard but was the trail blazer - the main 'giant' upon whose shoulders Newton later stood - in creating the scientific method that sees reality rather than religious belief for the arbitrator of what's true it is.
It is interesting that you mention both Galileo and Newton -- they both believed in God! And I think they both showed how science should be done. What's wrong with that?
DeletePerhaps a small matter to point out, but neither believed in YOUR god, Bob.
Delete...they both believed in God! And I think they both showed how science should be done. What's wrong with that?
A lot. Both held belief separate from their calculations and observations - meaning that nowhere in their calculations will you find their religious beliefs. The reason for that absence is because good science doesn't need any religious consideration. In fact, religious consideration directly impedes good science. Not only does religious belief impede good science if it is of any consideration at all, but historically religious authorities would even go so far as to threaten one of these scientists with torture if he didn't recant his scientific conclusions. Is any of this ringing a bell with you, Bob? It's sort of the central issue here: religious belief historically brings about no new knowledge and actually impedes this method we call science if it produces knowledge contrary to the religious belief. So, yes Bob, respecting religion's role for any inquiry is a problem - a problem that continues to this day. And you'll note that scriptural 're-interpretation' never self-corrects; it depends wholly on science to show where some truth claim it makes is wrong. The hierarchy should be clear: what works for everyone everywhere all the time should be held in greater esteem than religious belief that acts only as a parasite on both human intellect and knowledge.
Newton believed in Alchemy too. What's wrong with that?
Delete;)
No. 96: ARGUMENT FROM EUROPEAN HISTORY
(1) Many prominent thinkers in pre-modern Europe believed in God.
(2) Let’s just forget about the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
No. 197: ARGUMENT FROM UNNAMED SCIENTISTS (I)
(1) Some famous scientists believed in God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
The problem is that several passages of Scripture, when taken literally, seem to say something quite different.
ReplyDeleteLet me fix that for you.
"The problem is that several passages of Scripture, when taken literally, says something quite different."
The earth stands still (Ps. 93:1; 96:10; 104:5) and the sun moves across the sky (Ps. 19:4-6; cf. Josh 10:13). There was an apparent clash between science and Scripture.
Let me fix that for you.
There is a clash between science and Scripture.
Does the Earth stand still?
No.
Does the Sun move across the sky?
No.
It must be borne in mind that when the Bible describes natural phenomena, it usually does so in terms of the common sense perception of the ordinary observer on the ground.
If ordinary observers on the ground wrote the bible, then that would make a great deal of sense.
As a general rule it is the aim of Scripture to make a statement about our relationship with God, and not to give a detailed technical explanation of how nature works.
Detailed technical explanation?
DETAILED TECHNICAL EXPLANATION??????
What's so difficult about "The Earth appeared to stand still"?
Or "The sun appeared to move across the sky"?
Or "Hey, listen up! God here. Just trust me on this. To you people way down there, it looks like the sun moves across the sky. It's an illusion. However, I'm God and I have a different and better view of things. The sun doesn't move. It's the Earth that moves. No, really. It does. Just go with it. It will all work out later. You are my chosen people. I wouldn't lie to you."
Even bronze-age goat herders should be able to go along fine with that. And look how fantastic it will look when science comes along centuries later and goes "Wow, the Jews were spot on, after all."
We perceive the earth to stand still and the sun to move across the sky,...
The key word here is "we".
As in "we perceive the Earth" or as in "ordinary observers".
...and for the purposes of Scripture that is perfectly adequate.
Let's try this again:
Does the Earth stand still?
No.
Does the Sun move across the sky?
No.
But is it really asserting that the earth is the center of the universe?
Read it out loud slowly.
The Bible does purport, however, to teach real history.
So somehow science missed the boat? Hmm.
The Christian is not obliged to ignore the proven facts of science.
Okey-dokey. Item One (May 10, 2012 5:57 PM) :
There is no mention, that I can find, of the moon it.
"Ok, before you go digging any deeper on that one, let me ask you a question.
Those craters on the moon. What caused them?
(No peeking. Just come up with what you think a rational, mild-mannered person such as yourself would conclude. What caused those round holes that litter the face of the moon?)
Seriously, please give an answer. I suspect that your answer and mine will be the same."
Real history is an essential part of Christian theism.
Oh really? This is news.
Let's go back a few posts
Item Two (May 1, 2012 1:30 PM) :
The life of Jesus is probably just as well documented as the life of Julius Caesar or any other figure from the First Century.
"I ask you again. Based on a trivially quick google search, who is better documented?
(the key word here being "documented" as opposed to something else)"
Where did "Item One" come from? My blog post for that day was entitled "Should Same Sex Marriage Be Made Legal?" (3:05 p.m.). I also posted a comment on "Science and Religion - III" that same day (3:19 p.m.). In neither place did I say anything about the moon. Item Two is definitely mine, and I still stand by the comment.
Delete"The Christian is not obliged to ignore the proven facts of science. Galileo is right. If God is the author of nature, there can be no real conflict between science and Scripture. We must be careful, however, to interpret both aright. The error is with our interpretation, not with the facts of either nature or Scripture."
ReplyDeleteWhere did "Item One" come from?
ReplyDelete(Science and Religion – III) May 9, 2012 5:14 PM
(And the point of Henry Morris, the father of modern Creationism).
"Henry Morris is another dead kook. He believed in genuinely weird things. Science was not his strong point.
Ask yourself how the craters of the moon were formed.
That one is a hoot.
(No, really! Stop what you are doing and look it up. I dare you to read it with a straight face.)
Not even you are prepared to accept a 6000 year-old Earth.
How much do you know about the history of Young Earth Creationism? It's not as old as you might think."
I have The Genesis Flood, which Henry Morris coauthored with John C. whitcomb. Morris was a civil engineer who taught hydraulic engineering at Virginia Polytechnic Institute. "The Genesis Flood" was first published in 1961. There is no mention, that I can find, of the moon it. His main interest was in how the Genesis flood would have affected the earth's geology.
"Ok, before you go digging any deeper on that one, let me ask you a question.
Those craters on the moon. What caused them?
(No peeking. Just come up with what you think a rational, mild-mannered person such as yourself would conclude. What caused those round holes that litter the face of the moon?)
Seriously, please give an answer. I suspect that your answer and mine will be the same."
(Adultery) May 26, 2012 12:40 PM
"Oh...and speaking of Morris...
How do you think those big holes on the moon got there?
No peeking.
Just think about it.
As a rational and reasonable man, what do you think caused them?"
Item Two is definitely mine, and I still stand by the comment.
Then do so!
Here is what you said...
The life of Jesus is probably just as well documented as the life of Julius Caesar or any other figure from the First Century.
I ask you again. Based on a trivially quick google search, who is better documented?
(the key word here being "documented" as opposed to something else).
"The problem has vexed the western mind ever since. Does Scripture really contradict science?"
ReplyDelete