Hi, Dan —

Answer to the first question:

• Is this argument legitimate?

<No.>

Look at:

• The Galileo Controversy from Catholic Answers.

Answer to the second question:

It wasn't considered a heresy as such, but it was condemned as bordering on heresy. The problem wasn't the heliocentrism — a lot of Catholics agreed with Galileo.

The problem was that Galileo tried to use his conclusions in order to question the inerrancy of Scripture. He had every right to propose the theory, but he had no right to use that theory in an attempt to destroy the authority of Scripture. The heresy for which Galileo was condemned revolved around his forays into theology, not his science as such.

As an aside, any Sola Scriptura adherent who wants to hold up Galileo as an example of Church failure to address a problem correctly, has to explain why they accept Galileo's position in contradiction to what Scripture says about geocentrism.

The Church says Scripture is not meant to be a science text, and any attempt to treat it as one, like Galileo, is heresy, but Sola Scriptura advocates are creationists.

• They think Scripture is a science text, so, why do they think the sun is the center of the universe?

A further aside: Galileo taught a radical form of heliocentrism — the entire created universe revolved around the sun, in his cosmology. This is incorrect, of course. Further, even the limited heliocentrism, which was eventually demonstrated by astrophysicists, was not something which could be proved conclusively by science until the early 1800's.

In Him,

Steve Kellmeyer

Dan —

It was taken that heliocentrism contradicted Scripture. However, St. Robert Bellarmine, who was in charge of the Galileo case, explicitly said that Galileo's theories were not proved — but were they proved, then the relevant passages of Scripture would have to be interpreted in a non-literal way. Hence, St. Robert did not consider the possibility of a change of interpretation impossible. The only doctrinal issue in question was the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. St. Robert knew, however, that a non-literal interpretation saving this inerrancy was possible.

Without Galileo having proved his theory, (and Galileo had not proved his theory, for instance, take his erroneous explanation for the tides in terms of the rotation of the earth sloshing the oceans around!), the literal interpretation was to be preferred. Certainly, geocentrism was not definitively taught. If it were, St. Robert wouldn't have made his remark.

Note, too, that if general relativity is correct, then the question is moot.

According to general relativity, there is no absolute reference frame. It is literally just as true to say that the earth goes around the sun, as to say that the sun goes around the earth. It just depends on whether you use the reference frame of the sun or of the earth. For many (though not all) purposes, calculations and theories are simpler if you use the reference frame of the sun, and thus suppose that the earth goes around the sun, but this is only for convenience in calculation.

The Church had absolutely no problem with someone saying that it is more convenient for calculation to suppose that the earth goes around the sun. Indeed, the Church wanted Galileo to say precisely this, that this was a mere supposition for convenience of calculation (a hypothesis in the parlance of the time).

Galileo refused to say this — he thought it was a literal and absolute truth. General relativity says Galileo was wrong, (but it likewise says that it is wrong to say that the sun, literally and absolutely, goes around the earth.)

Alexander R. Pruss

Hello Mike. 

I am not at all a Catholic or even a theist, but my curiosity was spurred by what your site had to say about the Galileo case, especially the statement from the Catholic philosopher Alexander Pruss. So here are a few of my thoughts on the matter.

The Galileo controversy has often been presented as a simple conflict between scientific reason and religious authority, with Galileo representing progress and the Church representing resistance to science. However, philosophers and historians such as Philipp Frank and Paul Feyerabend have made compelling arguments that the reality was considerably more complex. Contemporary defenders of Cardinal Bellarmine, such as Alexander Pruss, have emphasized some of the same historical points, although from a very different philosophical perspective.

A central issue was not simply religion versus science, but rather a disagreement about the status of scientific theories. Galileo tended toward what we would now call scientific realism: he believed that the Copernican system was not merely a mathematical tool for predicting planetary positions but a true description of the physical world. The Earth really moved around the Sun, and astronomy was capable of revealing the actual structure of the cosmos.

Bellarmine, by contrast, took a much more cautious position. He did not necessarily deny that heliocentrism could be true, but he argued that it had not yet been demonstrated. Until there was decisive evidence, he believed it was legitimate to treat Copernican astronomy as a useful mathematical hypothesis rather than an established physical reality. In this respect, his position had similarities to instrumentalism: scientific models could be valuable without necessarily being literal descriptions of reality.

Philipp Frank, a member of the Vienna Circle of logical positivists and a philosopher of science, used the Galileo affair to illustrate broader lessons about scientific methodology. He argued that Galileo did not possess the kind of conclusive proof that would have settled the matter in 1616.
Galileo's argument from the tides, for example, was incorrect. Frank did not conclude that Bellarmine was right and Galileo wrong; rather, he saw the dispute as showing that scientific revolutions involve disagreements over standards of evidence, interpretation, and the relationship between theories and reality.

Paul Feyerabend pushed this argument further in his book Against Method. He rejected the idea that scientific progress always follows a fixed rational method and argued that Galileo's victory depended partly on rhetorical skill, political circumstances, and a willingness to challenge prevailing methodological rules. Feyerabend suggested that, by the standards of the evidence available at the time, Bellarmine's caution was not irrational. His point was not that heliocentrism was false, but that Galileo had not achieved the kind of proof that later generations sometimes imagine he possessed.

Alexander Pruss's defense of Bellarmine follows a similar historical line but with a different purpose. As a contemporary philosopher of religion, Pruss argues that Bellarmine's position was intellectually respectable: he was not simply opposing science out of dogmatism but asking for adequate evidence before revising established views. Pruss does not argue that the Church was ultimately correct about the motion of the Earth; rather, he argues that Bellarmine's skepticism was reasonable given the scientific knowledge of the seventeenth century.

The irony of the Galileo affair is that Galileo was ultimately correct about the physical reality of heliocentrism, while Bellarmine was correct that Galileo had not yet provided a decisive demonstration. The dispute was therefore not merely between reason and irrationality, but between different philosophies of science: realism versus a more cautious, instrumentalist approach; bold theoretical commitment versus epistemic restraint.

This is precisely why the Galileo affair continues to intrigue philosophers of science. It raises enduring questions:

• When should scientists regard a theory as a description of reality rather than a useful model?
• How much evidence is required before overturning established frameworks? and,
• Does scientific progress depend only on evidence, or also on imagination, persuasion, and social factors?

Jim F.

Hi Jim,

I’m not an expert in this area and I don’t think my colleagues would consider themselves experts, but I'll share this with them.

I didn't see a question that addressed the (original questioner’s) question so they may or may not reply. (Questions we don’t answer: 4?)

That said, thanks for sharing your views with us.

Mike

Mike,

I was mainly making an observation.

I was struck by Alexander Pruss's comment on the Galileo case. He presumably does have some claim to being an expert on the issue. And what struck my interest was the similarities between his position and those of Frank or Feyerabend, who were decidedly secular thinkers. So, it's interesting to me how they and Pruss, who is a religious philosopher, all wind up on basically the same page.

Another observation, it seems to me that concerning the theological issues that were raised, both Galileo and Bellarmine broadly shared an Augustinian understanding concerning the relationship between science and Scripture.

For both men, the default position would be that Scripture was to be regarded as being literally true.

• In cases where there were apparent conflicts between science and Scripture, if the science in question was not well established, then the literal truth of Scripture was to be asserted.
• But it the science in question was well established then the theologians might then be obligated to propose non-literal interpretations of Scripture so it's inerrancy might be safeguarded.

Since Galileo was insistent that he had conclusively demonstrated the truth of the Copernican model, he was also insistent on the necessity of reinterpreting the relevant passages of Scripture. Since Bellarmine was much cautious about accepting the physical truth of heliocentrism he saw no need for reinterpreting Scripture.

Jim Farmelant

Jim,

The issue or condemnation of Galileo was primarily about his conduct.

Galileo, as I remember, was dealing with Science and tried to justify his claims theologically or using Scripture.

So first and foremost, the Church is only infallible in defined matters of faith and morals, not in matters of science.  Psalm 113, verse 3 states

That's not a dogmatic statement about cosmology. It's saying that at every time and place, the Lord's name is worthy to be praised. It represents the best "scientific observation" of the day when the Psalm was written.  But it doesn't intend to teach a geocentric universe. 

Now the Church did hold to a geocentric view of the universe at the time. But it was never a defined matter of faith and morals.  It's what is known as "Commonly Admitted" belief, based on what the Scriptures implied.  No Church Council ever defined or mentioned a geocentric universe either as science or doctrine.  The only time an Ecumenical Council dealt with Cosmology was in 553 A.D. at the Second Council of Constantinople.  It condemned the Origenistic heresy, that heavenly bodies, such as the sun, planets, and stars, were rational beings.  And in fact, is not only Cosmology, but a matter of Faith.

So for this and other reasons, the Galileo controversy doesn't disprove Church Infallibility. Again, Infallibility only impacts matters of faith and morals, to the extent to which they've been defined. 

So, for example, for centuries the Church held to the Doctrine of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. It was universally held in the Church and was considered infallible.  However, the how, what, and when surrounding this mystery was still open to discussion.  As these questions arose, the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D. defined the Real Presence as Transubstantiation. This made it an irreformable and irreversible Dogma. 

The Geocentric Universe had nothing close to being fully processed and defined. It really wasn't ever discussed until Galileo tried to prove his theories with his scriptural interpretations.  So, he practically tried to make his theories as a matter of faith, by using Scriptures.

Augustine, 1,000 years before Galileo, taught that the Bible does not teach us the course of the sun and moon. He said God wanted to create Christians, not mathematicians.

I hope this answers your question

Under His Mercy,

John DiMascio 

John,

Thank you for your response.

Although l had not raised the issue as to whether the Church had claimed infallibility when it endorsed geocentrism, apparently, many people have had that misconception. John provides a pretty solid history as to why that's not the case and could not be the case. On the other hand, I think there are one or two points that I would take issue with . I think that John perhaps understates the extent to which Galileo and  Bellarmine shared an Augustinian framework for understanding the relationship .between science and Scripture. Bellarmine conceded that if heliocentrism could be conclusively proven to be true then certain passages would have to be reinterpreted. Since he didn't think that Galileo had made his case, he saw no need for reinterpreting Scripture.

As I understand it, Galileo only waded into theology in the first place because some theologians had objected to his heliocentrism on the grounds that it conflicted with Scripture. Galileo had offered what was essentially an Augustinian answer to those objections. His wading into theology raised the ire of some of the theologians because they saw him as overstepping his boundaries.

For the interpretation of Scripture was best left to the theologians and the Church itself. In their view, a mere professor of mathematics lacked that kind of authority 

Thank you,

Jim Farmelant

Jim —

As I noted, I'm not very well versed in the particulars.

Your question appeared to be asking if the incident disproved infallibility. 

And again, the short answer is, no, because infallibility covers Doctrine (Faith and Morals). It doesn't cover science or history, etc.

The other particulars aren't really germane.

Augustine understood or at least opined that much of Genesis was figurative and symbolic.  Indeed, if one gets bogged down in either trying to prove or disprove the historicity of the creation accounts in Genesis, you're asking the wrong questions and you'll likely miss the incredibly profound theology and revelation about the nature of God and the nature of man.

John