Retrying Galilieo - Article Example

On Retrying Galileo The sentencing of Galileo in 1633 by the Inquisition was actually a culmination of a process of trying Galileo over several years of his lifetime. The sentencing of 1633 can also be seen as the beginning of centuries of retrying Galileo, an ongoing process that has become known as the Galileo Affair. In 1632, one year before Galileo’s sentence by the Inquisition, he published “Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems, Ptolemaic and Copernican.” This book defended the Earth’s motion and violated an earlier prescription in 1615 against Galileo discussing this geokinetic doctrine. Years before Galileo received his sentence, he ran into trouble with the branch of the Inquisition known as the Index, which was in charge of banning books. In 1615 the Index prohibited Galileo from publishing books on certain doctrines. One of the cardinals of the Inquisition, Bellarmine, gave Galileo a warning not to discuss the defense of the Earth’s motion. The sentencing of Galileo shows that the Inquisition gave Galileo a “rigorous examination,” which means torture or the threat of torture, in order to find out his intention in publishing the Dialogue. Although there is much debate about the nature or degree of actual torture that Galileo underwent by the Inquisition, there is no doubt that the term “rigorous examination” appears in written accounts of Galileo’s sentencing. Galileo was found guilty of two heresies; in his official sentence they are described as “vehement suspicion of heresy” (Finocchiaro 11). The first heresy was propounding heliocentric and geokinetic doctrines that were found to be false and against Scripture. The other heresy of Galileo’s sentence was defending doctrine deemed contrary to Scripture. Suspicion of heresy was a lesser charge than formal heresy. And vehement suspicion was also a characterization of the degree of the heresy. The first heresy Galileo was charged with was not followed up with a censure of the doctrines involved. It is this point that has caused many misunderstandings, and contributed to myths surrounding the Galileo Affair. The second heresy consisted of implying that Scripture had no authority over the natural sciences. These charges were a continuation of the charges leveled against him in 1615. Galileo’s penalties included an abjuration, where he was forced to recant his views; indefinite imprisonment (although it was later diminished to house arrest); banning of the Dialogue; and forced recitation of psalms. News of Galileo’s condemnation was sent out in a promulgation, in order to warn other scientists. This resulted in Descartes refusing to publish his “World,” although it was published posthumously. The promulgation was a deliberate and successful attempt by the Inquisition to suppress further works similar to Galileo’s. What was the rise of Galilean mythology, and why was it needed? Myths often occurred surrounding the Galileo Affair, because of misinterpretations of the sentence, which was widely publicized. One myth occurred because people made the mistake of interpreting Galileo’s sentence implied Copernicanism was heresy, instead of the milder accusation made by the Index 1616 decree and the 1633 Inquisition’s assertion that this doctrine was merely “contrary against Scripture.” Another reason for the rise of Galilean mythology throughout the years following Galileo’s sentence has been a need to reflect the relevance of the Galileo Affair to current issues. An example of this is a recent criticism of Sobel’s book “Galileo’s Daughter” in relation to the current cultural concern of feminism (Finocchiaro 365). Interpreting the Galileo Affair in light of cultural concerns of the period is a major cause of the Galilean mythology surrounding the actual historical events. Part of Galileo’s condemnation was based on his violation of the special injunction. People that read the promulgations of the sentence often mistakenly took the sentence to mean that Galileo should not “hold or defend the geokinetic opinion” (Finocchiaro 41), instead of the order not to discuss the Earth’s motion. Responses to the Galileo Affair came in waves; the secularist response by nation-states and political powers began directly after Galileos sentence. This secularist response created a division between pro-Galilean anti-clerical liberals on one side and anti-Galilean pro-clerical conservatives on the other. People during this period also became divided over whether science and Scripture were in conflict. Possibly the most recent creation of a myth surrounding the Galileo Affair is the alleged rehabilitation of Galileo by the Church during the rehabilitation process made by Pope John Paul II from 1979 to 1992. The Church has not finished its work of admitting it was wrong or unjust in the Galileo Affair. This is related to its doctrine of the infallibility of the Church. The Church is likely to undergo further actions in its rehabilitation of Galileo, which is one reason for the continued importance of the Galileo Affair. The importance of the Galileo Affair can be seen in the way that the issues surrounding it are still debated today. For instance, many people still debate whether science and religion can be compatible, and what the relation is between scientific study and faith. Another important effect of the Galileo Affair was the issue of intellectual freedom. Religion is always a potential adversary to science as long as Scripture is taken literally; there is always a potential for the discovery of new scientific evidence that contradicts it. Religion is also a potential adversary of science as long as religious leaders, such as those of the Inquisition, hold so much power over people that knowledge can be suppressed. Likewise, science is a potential adversary to religion when its practitioners proclaim that scientific facts and the scientific method are the only ways of knowing in the universe, and faith plays no part. But for many modern day scientists, the Galileo Affair serves as more of a warning of how religion and science must be kept in balance, rather than a sign that they are incompatible. There are scientists today who see religious faith and scientific theory as two complementary channels of knowledge. For instance, a scientist today may believe in current scientific theory, but hold that faith and spirituality are needed to know anything about issues beyond what those scientific theories can explain. An example of this is believing in the theoretical and experimental correctness of quantum mechanics and general relativity, but holding that only faith and religious traditions at this time can teach us something about what lies beyond our universe. And in fact, this comes very close to one of Galileo’s arguments, although it didn’t save him from condemnation; Galileo argued in his defense that religious doctrine did not hold authority in scientific matters, but he also argued that he saw no contradiction between the Copernican views and Scripture. Galileo spent the rest of his life under house arrest. His condemnation was not as strong as Bruno’s, who was burned at the stake. If Galileo had been accused of heresy after his abjuration, then presumably burning at the stake would have been the only recourse for the Inquisition (Naess 177). This is the reason the Inquisition was able to silence Galileo, even though he did not meet a violent end. Galileo’s work “Two New Sciences,” written towards the end of his life did not mention Copernicanism (Shea & Artigas 198). But maybe because Galileo is often seen as the Father of Modern Science, his condemnation and lack of intellectual freedom still have the potential to strongly affect people today. Works Cited Finocchiaro, Maurice A. Retrying Galileo, 1633-1992. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005. Naess, Atle. Galileo Galilei: When the World Stood Still. Shea, William R. & Mariano Artigas. Galileo in Rome: The Rise and Fall of a Troublesome Genius. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Read More