On Sun, 24 Sep 1995 23:23:43 -0400 Glenn wrote:
>Stephen Jones wrote:
SJ>As I understand it, "the Galileo affair" had very little to do with
>the Bible and more to do with Roman Catholic philosophical theology.
>The Protestant Reformers were much more Biblical and they had no
>problem with Galileo.<<
GM>I am sure that some historian or philosopher of science could do a
>better job of this, but what you state is not the case. The Galileo
>affair was all about the experimental data for the Copernican system.
>The protestant church was no less vociferous against Copernicus and
>his followers than the Catholic.
We were discussing Galileo, not Copernicus! :-)
GM>Martin Luther stated, "People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who
>strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the
>firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever
>must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the
>very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of
>astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the
>sun to stand still, and not the earth." Andrew White, A History of
>the Warfare of Science with Theology," George Braziller, 1955, p.
126.
Glenn is right about Luther having a problem with Copernicus. I
discovered this independently the very next day reading Alan Hayward's
"Creation and Evolution", p71. But it is unlikely that Luther or the
other Protestant refeormers had a problem with Galileo . After all,
Galileo was born in 1564 and died in 1642. Luther was born in 1483
and died 1546, ie. Luther died 18 years before Galileo was born!
Besides, just because Luther and a handful of other theologians
disagreed with Copernicus, does not prove that "the Church" (as a
whole) had a problem with Galileo. The Reformation had in fact been
going 118 years when Galileo made his last recantation in 1633.
GM>Melanchton...
Naturally agreed with Luther.
GM>Calvin wrote:"Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus
>above that of the Holy Spirit?" White, p. 127
On the other hand, Calvin also wrote his Commentary on Genesis:
"[1:]6...For, to my mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing is
here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn
astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere." (Calvin
J., "A Commentary on Genesis", 1554, Banner of Truth, pp78-79)
GM>John Owen...John Wesley...
Uncle Tom Cobley and all! :-) All this has little to do with Galileo.
GM>White even tells of a Lutheren book published in 1873 in St.
>Louis, which had this in the introduction. "It would be very simple
>to me which is right, if it were only a question of human import.
>But the wise and truthful God has expressed himself on this matter in
>the Bible. The entire Holy Scripture settles the question that the
>earth is the priniciple body of the universe, that is stands fixed,
>and that the sun and moon only serve to light it." p. 151
Big deal! :-) Sounds to me like White was determined to search around
until he found some writers who agreed with his thesis.
GM>Even today there are some YEC's who hold to geocentrism...
Who are they? None of the major YEC books that I have read
embrace geocentricism. For example, Morris:
"It is true, no doubt, that the dominant point of view in Christendom
during these years was in support of literal creation. At the same
time, it was not true as often charged that the concept of a
stationary earth and geocentric universe, as held by many of these
writers, originated in the Bible. The Bible teaches neither of these
things, but the church of those centuries was also largely dominated
by the philosophy of Aristotle, and these ideas were part of his
system, as well as that of Ptolemy." (Morris H.M., "The Troubled
Waters of Evolution", Creation-Life Publishers: San Diego, 1974,
p63).
[..]
GM>Jim Hoffman missed my point about White's book depressing me. What
>depressed me is that these types of statements above are quite
>similar in form to statements I have seen concerning evolution,
>geology, and the age of the earth. I know that Christianity has not
>invariably been an enemy of science, but there is a strong streak
>which runs through, which discounts observational data and distrusts
>the scientist.
No doubt, there is an anti-intellectual streak in the Church, but IMHO
this is a survival mechanism, based on the attacks on the Church by
evolutionists, starting with Darwin.
But this is a long way from our original dispute that "the Galileo
affair had very little to do with the Bible and more to do with
Roman Catholic philosophical theology". The Encyclopaedia says:
"Galileo...proved Copernicus was right and Ptolemy wrong. His great
expository gifts and his choice of Italian, in which he was an
acknowledged master of style, made his thoughts popular beyond the
confines of the universities and created a powerful movement of
opinion. The Aristotelian professors, seeing their vested interests
threatened, united against him. They strove to cast suspicion upon
him in the eyes of ecclesiastical authorities because of
contradictions between the Copernican theory and the Scriptures."
("Encyclopaedia Britannica", 15th edition, Benton: Chicago, 1984,
7:852)
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------