Galileo and the Church, Part III

Now that we know the sequence of events that led up to Galileo's trial and conviction, we're ready to ask the question 'why.' Why did the church react so strongly to Galileo's teaching of the heliocentric theory of the cosmos? What was the big deal? And what does it mean for us today?

First, it is essential to recognize that the source of the conflict between Galileo and the Church was not Galileo's views on the solar system, but rather his views on Scripture. The church endorsed a geocentric view because a strict interpretation of scripture seemed to demand it (see Galileo and the Church, Part I for the relevant verses). Galileo might have simply accepted this as the church's view and decided to go his own way. He could have left Italy to teach in a part of Europe where the Vatican had less influence. He could have disassociated himself from Catholicism, become a Lutheran, and joined Kepler in Prague. But he didn't. Galileo's devotion to the Church was real, and he knew that though nature was telling him something that scripture seemed to refute, the two could not really be in conflict. He also realized that when scripture and science compete for the right to define physical reality, it is science that must win. This is so simply because defining physical reality is what science is all about, and because scripture contains many metaphors and much imagery that is open to interpretation (a fact that Galileo took to be a virtue of scripture, a tool used by scripture "in order to accommodate itself to the understanding of the majority"). It was Galileo's contention that the scientific story he was pushing and the teachings of scripture were not incompatible, and it was this contention that got him into trouble. "If Scripture cannot err," he wrote in his letter to Benedetto Castelli, "certain of its interpreters and commentators can and do so in many ways." In this view, Galileo was in good company. As St. Augustine wrote, "If it happens that the authority of Sacred Scripture is set in opposition to clear and certain reasoning, this must mean that the person who interprets Scripture does not understand it correctly. It is not the meaning of Scripture which is opposed to the truth but the meaning which he has wanted to give to it." (Epistula 143).

In the papal condemnation issued by the inquisition judges, the charges against Galileo were spelled out. He was condemned for holding the heliocentric view, for teaching it, and for "replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it [the theory], by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning." The condemnation also addressed the theory itself, stating that "the proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture."

Today, the Catholich Church can clearly have been said to have learned from its mistakes in the Galileo trial, and in particular the mistake of insisting on an overly literal reading of Scripture. As John Paul II stated in a 1992 speech that addressed the Galileo trial, the church now recognizes that "it is a duty for theologians to keep themselves regularly informed of scientific advances in order to examine if such be necessary, whether or not there are reasons for taking them into account in their reflection or for introducing changes in their teaching." In that same speech, the pope warned that lessons from Galileo's trial must be learned for "It is therefore not to be excluded that one day we shall find ourselves in a similar situation..."

I would argue that that day has come. The controversy surrounding Galileo and his advocacy of the heliocentric model finds striking parallels in the popular debates today that concern the theory of evolution. The theory has been around in one form or another for over 150 years and has predecessors dating back centuries farther. Its basic tenets of evolution are undeniably true, there being no other natural explanation for the similarities and distinctions between the fossils of extinct species and their modern counterparts. Yet many Christians find it impossible to accept since it would mean abandoning a literal interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis. Rather than re-examining their theological understanding, as Augustine and John Paul II suggested is necessary, they rather choose to reject evolutionary theory out of hand (in most cases without really understanding its claims).

Throwing the theory of Intelligent Design into the mix provides even more parallels. To be fair, most scientists who advocate ID would not themselves take a literal view on Genesis, and defending scripture is not their primary motivation. Rather, they are chiefly concerned with defending a direct role for God in creation, whatever that role may be. Nevertheless, the basic principle of ID - that God has directly designed creation - does at least allow for the possibility that the Genesis accounts are accurate. I think this is the reason why fundamentalist Christians have latched onto ID as an alternative to evolution. Recall that in Galileo's time, the exact same thing happened: the more widespread heliocentricism became, the more church was drawn to the Tychonian model of geocentricism. That system was designed by Tycho Brahe, the Danish scientist who tutored Kepler. The system was ugly, made some poor predictions, and clearly could not account for sunspots, but the church's allegiance to it had little to do with its scientific merit. It was merely advocated as a foil to the claims of heliocentricism. I have no doubt that this is the case with ID today. Few of its scientists, but most of its proponents advocate it simply to provide a way to ignore the claims of evolution and maintain a literal interpretation of Genesis. How else can we explain why non-scientist schoolboard members in towns across America are advocating its teaching in public schools? Today, as in Galileo's time, cries are continually heard for evolution to be treated as "merely a hypothesis" and not established truth.

Its clear that the culture of Galileo's day and the culture of modern Christian America aren't much different. True there is no Inquisition here, but in many evangelical churches there may as well be. Admitting that you take evolution to be basically true is tantamount to admitting to being an atheist. I was talking with another professor at the University here recently about designing a course on The Evolution of Language. She was clearly interested, but unsure since "evolution is such a controversial topic here [in the South]." Clearly we have some way to go.

Fortunately, this problem has been solved before. We have only to look to Galileo and the lessons the church has learned from that experience. As Pope Leo XIII said, "Truth cannot contradict truth." Therefore, when it appears that the teachings of science and the teachings of scriptures conflict, we needn't reject science or scripture. Rather, we must examine our understandings of these teachings, for that is likely where the fault lies.