Re: RATE Vol. II

Janice,

Your response to my long post about biblical literalism in the Copernican
issue (and in YECism) was a series of quotations from various URLs, all of
them appropriate to the specific topic--and all of them familiar to me.
That is, either I know the original printed sources already (both the
primary sources such as both versions of Luther's Table Talk, Bellarmine's
letter to Foscarini, and AD White's outrageous "history" of science and
Christiantiy) or the modern scholars cited in those URLs (such as Hooykaas),
or both. Everything I wrote in my post and in the article from which I took
it, is consistent with my knowledge of those sources--esp the primary
sources, which always take precedence when doing history.

All of the sources you cite get the facts right, as far as I can tell in a
quick perusal. Nothing that I said contradicts them. The fact that many
things influenced Bellermine's determination that heliocentrism was
unbiblical, is exactly that: a fact. I mentioned some of those things in my
post, esp the influence of the Council of Trent. My point is simply that B
was very concerned about a "slippery slope" argument, relative to accepting
a heliocentric interpretation of a few verses in the Old Testament. He
voiced this very clearly in the Foscarini letter, and my comments in no way
misrepresent his concerns. Yes, there were many reasons why B opposed
heliocentrism, including the fact that the best astronomers he knew (the
Jesuits in Rome) were not convinced that Galileo's interpretation of the
evidence was sufficiently well supported. Galileo in fact was arguing
uphill at that time, nearly all qualified commentators thought Copernicanism
had not yet been established at the time when B wrote that letter (in 1615).
 Nevertheless, B said what he said, concerning his reluctance to reinterpret
the Bible based only on a scientific conclusion. He was willing to do so if
he had to, yes; but he saw the great danger that such a precedent would set.
 As one of your sites has it:

"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."

This is remarkably similar to passages in modern YEC authors, concerning
the "days" in Genesis. Remarkably similar. For a nice example, see the
section on the "24 Hour View" in The G3N3S1S Debate, ed David Hagopian.

Luther's comment (and please reread my post to see the clear reference I
made there to the difficulties of making too much of it) was offhand,
informal, and may well have been directed mainly at the arrogance of those
who would defy common sense *and the Bible* by putting the earth in motion.
It isn't much to go on. Yet we know this was the general view among
Lutherans at that time, and we know that Luther is said to have made this
comment. Melanchthon was more sympathetic to Copernicanism, and as a result
it was actually taught *as a hypothesis* (ie, as a useful fiction, which is
what a hypothesis was in astronomy at that time) but not as actual truth at
Lutheran universities in the 16th century. But M also agreed that
Copernicanism was not literally true (ie, the earth does not really move),
and he was very concerned himself that if it were true, it might imply that
there are other inhabited worlds in the universe, worlds on which the cosmic
drama of sin/redemption might have been repeated, thus undermining the
uniqueness of Jesus' crucifixion. But I digress.

Your post seems to suggest either that I do not know the larger history
surrounding B very well, or that I am picking out one aspect of B's position
in such a way that it distorts it by ignoring the larger history (ie, the
context). There are certainly scholars who know the larger history better
than I do--I am not a Galileo specialist myself--but I very much doubt that
the first part applies. Nor does the second part. B wrote what he wrote,
and amidst all of the larger history he meant what he said about the
slippery slope that would begin if he were to accept heliocentrism. It is
hardly the only reason why he rejected it, as the next paragraph shows (a
reference to http://www.tektonics.org/af/bogusq.html), but it was a clearly
articulated concern that is not dismissed simply by pointing to other
aspects of this complex historical situation.

Incidentally, just for the record: if I had been part of the Vatican
council that B chaired, I would probably have come to the same conclusion.
B's position is very reasonable, given what was then known both about the
Bible and about astronomy. No shame on him at all. I'm less sympathetic,
however, with those modern exegetes who haven't learned anything from B's
overreliance on authority and tradition, in the face of ideas that turned
out to be true.

I have no more to say about this, here and now.

Ted
Received on Wed May 24 12:44:10 2006