Customer Reviews

Galileo, Science and the Church (Ann Arbor Paperbacks)

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is a brief, well balanced account of the conflict between Galileo and the Church. It opens with an insightful look at the world view and astronomy of the late 1500's, including a detailed look at the role of Scripture in these views. This is followed with a thorough description of Galileo's life and how his conflict with the church unfolded. The final chapter is a fascinating overview of the relationships between faith, science and philosophy since Galileo's time. It's not overly difficult reading, though it deals with science, theology and philosophy. The book is a fair account, looking at the strengths and weaknesses of Galileo and some Church officials in how they approached the issues. It also critiques some long held cultural assumptions about the causes, events and meaning of this case (ex: Galileo was never tortured; some lower Church officials who disliked Galileo gave the Pope misleading reports, etc). Definitely worth reading!!

Langford is even-handed and doesn't withhold criticism of academia and the Catholic Church for its handling of Galileo and his books.

What I was taught by public school and the popular press:
The Catholic Church persecuted Galileo because he asserted the Earth revolved around the Sun, and was threatened with torture and death. Copernicus delayed publishing his theory for fear of persecution from the Church, finally publishing it on his deathbed in 1543.

What Langford convincingly shows from research into primary documents:
The Catholic Church was more receptive to the heliocentric theory than the universities. Pope Clement requested a hearing of Copernicus' theory in the Vatican gardens, and was "quite favorably impressed" with the theory. Copernicus was afraid of persecution from his peers, the universities, not the Catholic Church. His fears were well founded, as Galileo discovered years later. Galileo received the full weight of academic condemnation and ridicule for daring to buck the Ptolemic status quo. When professors realized peer pressure wouldn't silence Galileo, they turned to the Church for help. Fortunately, a good portion of the Church was behind Galileo. The head of one Jesuit college wrote to Galileo to say that his astronomers and mathematicians had confirmed his theory, but wanted more proof. Galileo's efforts were further encouraged by Pope Urban. His first trial resulted in being admonished not to teach it as fact, but was welcome to teach it as theory. Unfortunately, by the time of his second trial in 1633, he had managed to alienate his support, partly by insisting his theory be taught as fact. One of his proofs was tides--he believed they were cause by the Earth sloshing the oceans. He also insisted on circular orbits, and refused to consider Kepler's calculations on elliptical orbits, which would have corrected errors he and others found in his model. He was tried a second time for teaching the theory as fact, not for teaching the theory. He was never tortured or shown a dungeon. His house arrest consisted of a five-room apartment with a servant at his disposal, and was free to roam Rome while awaiting trial. After the trial, he was released. True he was threatened with imprisonment, but at his age, Langford asserts, both he and the court officials knew it would not be carried out; the sentence would have been mitigated.

No, this does not excuse the Catholics Church's behavior, but this history should considered with both sides of the argument.

In short, Galileo and Copernicus were treated by the academia in much the same way they treat new ideas today. For an explanation of why the geo-centric theory isn't Biblical in principle or origin, read Sampson's Six Modern Myths.

I'll be honest; I picked up this book used (and heavily highlighted) in a bargain bin. When I realized it was written by a Catholic priest, I wasn't expecting much; however, I learned not to judge a book by its cover - or in this case, it's author.

I happened to read it immediately after reading Dava Sobel's "Galileo's Daughter". Both books are excellent, and there are no real contradictions between them, but each has a rather different emphasis. Whereas Sobel's book covered Galileo's whole career, showcasing his human side, this book focused primarily on those things more or less directly related to his trial. What make this book unique is the author's attempt to shed light on the general mindset of the time which led to Galileo's persecution.

It's difficult for us to understand how a man could be imprisoned simply for believing a scientific theory, particularly one we now know to be true. We have a tendency to equate the Catholic Church of the time with fundamentalist Christians today, who believe the Earth is 6000 years old and the only reason there aren't dinosaurs is that they didn't fit on Noah's Ark. But this isn't really fair or accurate. The Galileo affair wasn't really between science and religion (Galileo was a very religious man); it was between rigid dogma and and science that could evolve as observations improved. The battle lines were not drawn at the church door. Indeed, some of Galileo's most passionate defenders where members of the clergy, while some of his most bitter and dogmatic rivals where his Aristotelean academic colleagues. In fact, there were great thinkers in the Church and they were trying to come up with a philosophical system that had an absolute system of morals an ethics, while allowing natural science to progress based on observation. It just happens that in Galileo's case, they drew the line in the wrong place.

The author is unequivocal in his condemnation of Galileo's conviction and imprisonment. He argues that it is not only a mistake in light of our current understanding of physics, but that is was a misapplication of canon law at the time. On the other hand, he makes a case that things might have ended differently if Galileo hadn't overplayed his hand. In particular, he argues that the church probably would have been persuaded if Galileo had adopted Kepler's far more correct cosmology over the complex and inaccurate Copernican system; however, Galileo rejected that for his own dogmatic reasons.

As a physicist, I can attest that the author's treatment of the science is impeccable, and he even makes a few important points that Sobel missed. I can't personally judge his knowledge of history, but the book is well cited.

Of course, a book written by a priest can't be without a few problems for non-believers. Like most Catholic scholars, the author feels obliged to explain the Church doctrine on papal infallibility, and explains at length how the Pope could remain "infallible" while believing the Earth was the center of the universe. Like most non-Catholics, I find the notion of an infallible human ludicrous, not to mention a bit offensive. However, there isn't much of this sort of thing and it doesn't really detract from what is, all in all, a well written and enlightening book.

I really enjoyed reading this book. This book is mainly about Galileo's theory of universe and the trial of Galileo which was caused by his conflict with the Catholic Church. This book also talks about Galileo's life briefly. I learned about theories that influenced Galileo's ideas and his opinion toward Copernicus's theory which stated that the all of the planets, including the earth, revolved around the sun.