Re: RATE Vol. II

At 12:42 PM 5/24/2006, Ted Davis wrote:

>....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. .."

@ Another take:

"....The complex tale that is the Galileo affair
cautions us not to make simplistic judgements.
Nevertheless, it remains the case that the
question of whether or not Galileo had any proof
for Copernicanism was never at issue­in 1616 or
in 1633. The very possibility of any
demonstration was excluded in principle by
Bellarmine's doctrinal position and its adoption
by an authoritarian Church. The trial and
abjuration of Galileo thus represented an
"institutionalised abuse of power which can never
be sufficiently deprecated" (ibid), in which the
societal position of the Church was used to
dictate the correct understanding of an issue
that was never considered on its own terms.
Allowing the enmity of some philosophers to
provoke a theological confrontation when there
was only a physical argument at issue, the
machinery of the Holy Office was turned against
Galileo and fell into the very error he and
Augustine before him had warned against.
..." Paul Newall - The Galileo Affair
(2005) http://www.galilean-library.org/galileo5.html

~ Janice
Received on Wed May 24 12:58:29 2006