On Mon, 22 May 2006 13:06:18 -0400 Ted Davis wrote:
"...I write as follows:
To hold the earth's motion as a mere mathematical hypothesis was
fine, said Bellermine, but "to affirm that in reality the sun is at
the center of the world and only turns on itself [i.e., revolves on
its axis] without moving from east to west, and the earth is in the
third heaven and revolves with great speed around the sun; this is a
very dangerous thing," likely "to harm the Holy Faith by rendering
Holy Scripture false." The Holy Fathers and the modern commentators
alike agreed with "the literal interpretation that the sun is in
heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the
earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of
the world." The Church could not tolerate a contrary
interpretation. More than this, Nor can one answer that it is not a
matter of faith, since if it is not a matter of faith "as regards the
topic," it is a matter of faith "as regards the speaker"; and so it
would be heretical to say that Abraham did not have two children and
Jacob twelve, as well as to say that Christ was not born of a virgin,
because both are said by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of the
prophets and the apostles.
What would it take to convince Bellarmine to reconsider the accepted
interpretations of Biblical texts on the sun's motion? Nothing short
of "a true demonstration" that does more than just "save the
appearances." Without such a demonstrative argument, "in case of
doubt one must not abandon the Holy Scripture as interpreted by the
Holy Fathers." Solomon himself, the wisest of all men and writing
under divine inspiration, had written, "The sun also ariseth, and the
sun goeth down." Bellarmine thought it "not likely that he was
affirming something that was contrary to truth already demonstrated
or capable of being demonstrated."
[adding commentary on my own comments] The most significant part here
is the paragraph in the middle, where Bellarmine links "inerrancy"
(as we would call it today) with geocentrism on the one hand (that
part inspired not only by Aristotle but also by the plain meaning of
several biblical passages) and with attacks on the virgin birth on
the other hand. Modern creationists are also very, very concerned
about Galileo's general attitude and approach, both of which they
flatly reject. My essay goes into that also.
Overall, I would agree that there are striking parallels between the
church's response to heliocentrism and the modern creationist
response to evolution; this is not to say anything new, of
course. But I would not agree that it boils down simply to an
overtrust in Aristotle on the part of the Roman Church in the early
17th century, even though that element was very clearly present. I
would say much more, that a belief in the scientific accuracy of the
Bible was at least as important as a belief in the truth of
Aristotelian science. This is very easily seen if we consider
Luther's comments about Joshua and the sun's motion. Luther, who
hated Aristotle and loved the literal Bible, rejected Copernicanism
b/c it clearly contradicted the plain words of scripture. To be
sure, we can fairly discuss the context of Luther's comments
(informal dinner remarks written down by someone else, no naming of
Copernicus or the details of his views, etc), but we can't dismiss
the significance of his overall attitude and approach as an example
of a Protestant view very similar to Bellarmine's RC view. Biblical
literalism in science was the basic issue at stake here, not
Aristotle, though Aristotle's science certainly influenced the
interpretation that was accepted. (Even without Aristotle, I suspect
that the interpretations would have been the same.)
This is a very important issue, and the creationists understand just
how important it is. Either the Bible is scientifically reliable or
it is not. Bellarmine, Luther, and the YECs agree that it is
scientifically reliable; Galileo and the TEs agree that it is
not. Their differing hermeneutical conclusions are driven by
different views of both science and the Bible.
~ Ted
@ You may find this of interest (Sorry for the differences in the
size of type, but that's the way it copied from the web site and I
couldn't change it without ruining the indented paragraphs):
The Bogus Quote Parade A Survey of Displaced Soundbites - James
Patrick Holding http://www.tektonics.org/af/bogusq.html
One of the diseases of modern culture is the idea that complex issues
can be settled and debated on the merits of "sound bites". A symptom
of this mentality is the repeated use in Skeptical quarters (though
yes, others do this too) of displaced "scary quotes" -- as if, for
example, a single, offhand quote by a medieval pope were sufficient
to overturn the work of hundreds of credentialed historians; even if
it were real. Which is another problem: Some of these quotes just
aren't genuine. Some are taken out of context. Our project here, set
up at the suggestion of Venerable Bede (and he even contributed some
of these), will take a look at some of these quotes being thrown
around and report on their accuracy in terms of authenticity and use.
We have set up a classification system for these quotes: TD
(Thoroughly Debunked) -- we have found that the quote is without
question forged or not genuine. OWD (On the Way to Debunked) -- we
have not absolutely been able to conclude that the quote is not
genuine, but every scrap of evidence so far suggests that it is. UI
(Under Investigation) -- we're still checking into it. OC (Out of
Context) -- quote is accurate to some degree, but misused G (Genuine)
-- it's the real McCoy
Quotes are offered in alphabetical order by the last name of the
person to whom they are attributed.
[snip]
Bellarmine, Cardinal
To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as
to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin....To affirm that the
Sun...is at the centre of the universe and only rotates on its axis
without going from east to west, is a very dangerous attitude and one
calculated not only to arouse all Scholastic philosophers and
theologians but also to injure our holy faith by contradicting the Scriptures.
* OC. This very suspicious quote always appears either without
attribution, or with just a date (1615), or a claim that it was said
"at the trial" of Galileo. It is certainly not in the spirit of what
is reported of Bellarmine by reliable sources, which do not report
this or other quotes by him; for example,
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02411d.htm>The Catholic Encyclopedia
says of Bellarmine: Bellarmine did not live to deal with the later
and more serious stage of the Galileo case, but in 1615 he took part
in its earlier stage. He had always shown great interest in the
discoveries of that investigator, and was on terms of friendly
correspondence with him. He took up too--as is witnessed by his
letter to Galileo's friend Foscarini--exactly the right attitude
towards scientific theories in seeming contradiction with Scripture.
If, as was undoubtedly the case then with Galileo's heliocentric
theory, a scientific theory is insufficiently proved, it should be
advanced only as an hypothesis; but if, as is the case with this
theory now, it is solidly demonstrated, care must be taken to
interpret Scripture only in accordance with it. When the Holy Office
condemned the heliocentric theory, by an excess in the opposite
direction, it became Bellarmine's official duty to signify the
condemnation to Galileo, and receive his submission. However, it does
turn out to have some genuine backing:
* Origins? The origins are likely found in a letter by Bellarmine
noted
<http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1615bellarmine-letter.html>here
which says things that are quite close:
First. I say that it seems to me that Your Reverence and Galileo
did prudently to content yourself with speaking hypothetically, and
not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke. For
to say that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, all
the appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and epicycles,
is to speak well; there is no danger in this, and it is sufficient
for mathematicians. But to want to affirm that the sun really is
fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself
(i. e., turns upon its axis ) without traveling from east to west,
and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with
great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by
irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also
by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false.
For Your Reverence has demonstrated many ways of explaining Holy
Scripture, but you have not applied them in particular, and without a
doubt you would have found it most difficult if you had attempted to
explain all the passages which you yourself have cited.
Note that critical parts here are left out when the quote is
used. Bellarmine appeals to scientific authority (mathematicians) and
also appeals to the need to exegete passages properly (more in section 3).
Second. I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits
expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the
holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers
but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms,
Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining
literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves
swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens
and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider
whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to
Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and
Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter
of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view
of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken.
It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and
Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for
both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the
prophets and apostles.
Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun
was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere,
and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth
circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great
caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed
contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand
them than to say that something was false which has been
demonstrated. But I do not believe that there is any such
demonstration; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to
show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun really
is in the center and the earth in the heavens. I believe that the
first demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the
second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the
Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers. I add that the words '
the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the
place where he ariseth, etc.' were those of Solomon, who not only
spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and
most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created
things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that
he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either
already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated. And if you tell
me that Solomon spoke only according to the appearances, and that it
seems to us that the sun goes around when actually it is the earth
which moves, as it seems to one on a ship that the beach moves away
from the ship, I shall answer that one who departs from the beach,
though it looks to him as though the beach moves away, he knows that
he is in error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves
and not the beach. But with regard to the sun and the earth, no wise
man is needed to correct the error, since he clearly experiences that
the earth stands still and that his eye is not deceived when it
judges that the moon and stars move. And that is enough for the
present. I salute Your Reverence and ask God to grant you every happiness."
The third point is the most critical, because it reveals that
contrary to how the quotes are used, Bellarmine was ready to submit
to the possibility that heliocentrism was true and interpret the text
accordingly, and that he also appealed to scientific authority (of
Solomon, however misplaced we may think this is) as well as to
observation. In his view, this was a case of "extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence" -- and surely Skeptics can respect
that (especially since so many astronomers of the day accepted geocentrism).
Calvin, John
"Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus over that of
the Holy Spirit?"
* TD. Debunked, Hooykaas Religion and the Rise of Modern Science,
121. Bede comments in his journal: Calvin is often quoted as saying
"Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus over that of
the Holy Spirit?". This appears in White (see last post), Russell's
History of Western Philosophy and many other anti-Christian tracts.
But it seems that Calvin never said it or anything else about
Copernicus. His theory of accommodation between nature and scripture,
outlined in the Commentary on Genesis, insisted that the Bible was
not a text to be read scientifically so it is doubtful he would have
said much on the subject anyway. It turns out the famous quote first
appeared in FW Farrar's History of Interpretation (1886). Oddly
enough, the quotation is given in the forward and it flatly
contradicts Farrar's otherwise masterful analysis of Calvin's
thought. The whole thing is most odd.
* Origins? Russell's History of Western Philosophy, 515 seems to
be a main source.
[snip]
Luther, Martin
This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of
astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into
disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun
to stand still and not the earth [Jos. 10:12].
* OWD/OC This has been used to portray Luther as a dogmatic
geocentrist. But far from a sustained strong opposition, this is
Luther's only recorded comment on the issue. And the source is Table
Talk, published by Luther's students twenty years after his death,
and it was an off-hand comment purportedly in 1539 (four years before
the publication of Copernicus' book). Further, before this passage is
"Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others
esteem. He must do something of his own." This shows that a major
reason for Luther's objection was Copernicus' challenging the
establishment and common sense for its own sake (as Luther saw it).
* Also, at the time, there was no hard evidence for
geokineticism, and Copernicus's model had almost as many epicycles as
Ptolemy's. The epicycles were only thrown out later by Kepler's
discovery that the orbits were elliptical. Furthermore, Kepler was a
devout Lutheran who thought he was "thinking God's thoughts after
him", and saw no conflict between the Bible and Lutheran theology. He
showed how Joshua 10:12 could be explained as phenomenological
language, using Luther's own principles of Biblical interpretation!
* Origins: Who else but the discredited bigot Andrew Dickson
White in the History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in
Christendom (1896)? Later writers such as the Christadelphian Alan
Hayward (Creation and Evolution: The Facts and Fallacies) have also
irresponsibly cited this.
[snip]
More names here: http://www.tektonics.org/af/bogusq.html
~ Janice
Received on Mon May 22 13:50:58 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 22 2006 - 13:50:58 EDT