GALILEO’S GALLANTRY:
Reading “[4.2.2] Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (1615),” in THE ESSENTIAL GALILEO (2008), edited and translated by Maurice A. Finocchiaro today, I was struck by certain compelling passages, which I have opted to share. When confronted with the daunting prospects of ex-communication, banishment, torture, or death, Galileo Galilei, rejected that banal invitation to self-righteous obstinacy displayed and exhibited by his priestly traducers, deftly preferring, instead, to reconcile science and religion, scripture and mathematics, with scholastic, even ecclesiastical, gallantry. Thereby, he and the truths which he discerned from reviewing the heavens, both won in the end. Galileo Galilei’s lessons are legion. Enjoy:
“It is most pious to say and prudent to take for granted that Holy Scripture can never lie, as long as its true meaning is grasped; but I do not think one can deny that this is frequently recondite and very different from what appears to be the literal meaning of the words. From this it follows that, if in interpreting it someone were to limit himself always to the pure and literal meaning, and if the latter were wrong, then he could make scripture appear to be full not only of contradictions and false propositions, but also of serious heresies and blasphemies; for one would have to attribute to God feet, hands, eyes, and bodily sensations, as well as human feelings like anger, contrition, and hatred, and such conditions as the forgetfulness of things past and the ignorance of future ones. Since these propositions dictated by the Holy Spirit were expressed by the sacred writers in such a way as to accommodate the capacities of the very unrefined and undisciplined masses, therefore for those who deserve to rise above the common people, it is necessary that wise interpreters formulate the true meaning and indicate the specific reasons why it is expressed by such words…
“Therefore, I think that in disputes about natural phenomena one must begin not with the authority of scriptural passages, but with sense experiences and necessary demonstrations. For the Holy Scripture and nature derive equally from the Godhead, the former at the dictation of the Holy Spirit and the latter as the most obedient executrix of God’s orders; moreover, to accommodate the understanding of the common people it is appropriate for the Scripture to say many things that are different (in appearance and in regard to the literal meaning of the words) from the absolute truth; on the other hand, nature is inexorable and immutable, never violates the terms of the laws imposed upon her, and does not care whether her recondite reasons and ways of operating are disclosed to human understanding; but not every scriptural assertion is bound to obligations as severe as every natural phenomenon; finally, God reveals himself to us no less excellently in the effects of nature than in the sacred words of Scripture, as Tertullian perhaps meant when he said, “We postulate that God ought first to be known by nature, and afterwards known by doctrine—by nature through His works, by doctrine through official teaching” (‘Against Marcion,’ I.18.); and so it seems that a natural phenomenon which is placed before our eyes by sense experience or proved by necessary demonstration should not be called into question, let alone condemned, on account of scriptural passages whose words appear to have a different meaning….
“Moreover, even in regard to those propositions that are not articles of faith, the authority of the same Holy Writ should have authority over any human works composed not with the demonstrative method but with either pure narration or even probable reasons; this principle should be considered appropriate and necessary inasmuch as divine wisdom surpasses all human judgment and speculation….
“But let us go back and examine the importance of necessary demonstration and sense conclusions about natural phenomena, and how much weight has been assigned to them by learned and holy theologians. Among hundreds of instances of such testimony we have the following. Near the beginning of his work ‘On Genesis’ Pererius asserts: “In treating of Moses’ doctrine, one must take diligent care to completely avoid holding and saying positively and categorically anything which contradicts the decisive observations or reasons of philosophy or other disciplines; in fact, since all truths always agree with one another, the truth of Holy Scripture cannot be contrary to the true reasons and observations of human doctrines.” And in St. Augustine (Letter to Marcellinus, #7), one read: “If, against the most manifest and reliable testimony of reason, anything be set up claiming to have the authority of Holy Scriptures, he who does this does it through a misapprehension of what he has read, and is setting up against the truth not the real meaning of Scripture, which he has failed to discover, but an opinion of his own; he alleges not what he has found in Scriptures, but what he has found in himself as their interpreter….
“Indeed, who wants the human mind put to death? Who is going to claim that everything in the world that is observable and knowable has already been seen and discovered? Perhaps those who on other occasions admit, quite correctly, that the things we know are a very small part of the thing we don’t know. Indeed, we also have it from the mouth of the Holy Spirit that God “hath delivered the world to their consideration, so that man cannot find out the work that God has made from the beginning to the end” (Ecclesiastes 3:11); so one must not, in my opinion, contradict this statement and block the way of freedom of philosophizing about things of the world and of nature as though they had all already been discovered and disclosed with certainty.”
pp. 115-121
Saturday, June 6, 2015
GALILEO'S GALLANTRY
GALILEO’S GALLANTRY:
Reading “[4.2.2] Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (1615),” in THE ESSENTIAL GALILEO (2008), edited and translated by Maurice A. Finocchiaro today, I was struck by certain compelling passages, which I have opted to share. When confronted with the daunting prospects of ex-communication, banishment, torture, or death, Galileo Galilei, rejected that banal invitation to self-righteous obstinacy displayed and exhibited by his priestly traducers, deftly preferring, instead, to reconcile science and religion, scripture and mathematics, with scholastic, even ecclesiastical, gallantry. Thereby, he and the truths which he discerned from reviewing the heavens, both won in the end. Galileo Galilei’s lessons are legion. Enjoy:
“It is most pious to say and prudent to take for granted that Holy Scripture can never lie, as long as its true meaning is grasped; but I do not think one can deny that this is frequently recondite and very different from what appears to be the literal meaning of the words. From this it follows that, if in interpreting it someone were to limit himself always to the pure and literal meaning, and if the latter were wrong, then he could make scripture appear to be full not only of contradictions and false propositions, but also of serious heresies and blasphemies; for one would have to attribute to God feet, hands, eyes, and bodily sensations, as well as human feelings like anger, contrition, and hatred, and such conditions as the forgetfulness of things past and the ignorance of future ones. Since these propositions dictated by the Holy Spirit were expressed by the sacred writers in such a way as to accommodate the capacities of the very unrefined and undisciplined masses, therefore for those who deserve to rise above the common people, it is necessary that wise interpreters formulate the true meaning and indicate the specific reasons why it is expressed by such words…
“Therefore, I think that in disputes about natural phenomena one must begin not with the authority of scriptural passages, but with sense experiences and necessary demonstrations. For the Holy Scripture and nature derive equally from the Godhead, the former at the dictation of the Holy Spirit and the latter as the most obedient executrix of God’s orders; moreover, to accommodate the understanding of the common people it is appropriate for the Scripture to say many things that are different (in appearance and in regard to the literal meaning of the words) from the absolute truth; on the other hand, nature is inexorable and immutable, never violates the terms of the laws imposed upon her, and does not care whether her recondite reasons and ways of operating are disclosed to human understanding; but not every scriptural assertion is bound to obligations as severe as every natural phenomenon; finally, God reveals himself to us no less excellently in the effects of nature than in the sacred words of Scripture, as Tertullian perhaps meant when he said, “We postulate that God ought first to be known by nature, and afterwards known by doctrine—by nature through His works, by doctrine through official teaching” (‘Against Marcion,’ I.18.); and so it seems that a natural phenomenon which is placed before our eyes by sense experience or proved by necessary demonstration should not be called into question, let alone condemned, on account of scriptural passages whose words appear to have a different meaning….
“Moreover, even in regard to those propositions that are not articles of faith, the authority of the same Holy Writ should have authority over any human works composed not with the demonstrative method but with either pure narration or even probable reasons; this principle should be considered appropriate and necessary inasmuch as divine wisdom surpasses all human judgment and speculation….
“But let us go back and examine the importance of necessary demonstration and sense conclusions about natural phenomena, and how much weight has been assigned to them by learned and holy theologians. Among hundreds of instances of such testimony we have the following. Near the beginning of his work ‘On Genesis’ Pererius asserts: “In treating of Moses’ doctrine, one must take diligent care to completely avoid holding and saying positively and categorically anything which contradicts the decisive observations or reasons of philosophy or other disciplines; in fact, since all truths always agree with one another, the truth of Holy Scripture cannot be contrary to the true reasons and observations of human doctrines.” And in St. Augustine (Letter to Marcellinus, #7), one read: “If, against the most manifest and reliable testimony of reason, anything be set up claiming to have the authority of Holy Scriptures, he who does this does it through a misapprehension of what he has read, and is setting up against the truth not the real meaning of Scripture, which he has failed to discover, but an opinion of his own; he alleges not what he has found in Scriptures, but what he has found in himself as their interpreter….
“Indeed, who wants the human mind put to death? Who is going to claim that everything in the world that is observable and knowable has already been seen and discovered? Perhaps those who on other occasions admit, quite correctly, that the things we know are a very small part of the thing we don’t know. Indeed, we also have it from the mouth of the Holy Spirit that God “hath delivered the world to their consideration, so that man cannot find out the work that God has made from the beginning to the end” (Ecclesiastes 3:11); so one must not, in my opinion, contradict this statement and block the way of freedom of philosophizing about things of the world and of nature as though they had all already been discovered and disclosed with certainty.”
pp. 115-121