Galileo Galilei and the Interpretation of Sacred Scripture: A Clash of Laws and Theologies, Study notes of Cultural History of Europe

Galileo galilei's approach to the bible's claims about the earth's immobility and his disagreement with the church's interpretation. It also delves into aquinas' conceptions of law, natural law, and the role of reason and revelation. Additionally, it discusses luther's criticism of the romanists' claims to spiritual authority and their interpretation of scripture.

Typology: Study notes

Pre 2010

Uploaded on 12/15/2010

bambam2737
bambam2737 🇺🇸

2 documents

1 / 3

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Important Issues and Themes to Know:
1. How Galileo deals with the claim in the Bible that the earth does not move.
Western Christian biblical references Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include
(depending on translation) text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be
moved." In the same tradition, Psalm 104:5 says, "the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it
can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and
returns to its place" etc.
Galileo defended heliocentrism, and claimed it was not contrary to those Scripture passages. He
took Augustine's position on Scripture: not to take every passage literally, particularly when the
scripture in question is a book of poetry and songs, not a book of instructions or history. The
writers of the Scripture wrote from the perspective of the terrestrial world, and from that
vantage point the sun does rise and set.
Galileo declared that scriptural literalism had no place in scientific inquiry. "Inasmuch as the
Bible calls for an interpretation differing from the immediate sense of the words," he wrote, "it
seems to me that as an authority in mathematical controversy it has very little standing... I
believe that natural processes which we perceive by careful observation or deduce by cogent
demonstration cannot be refuted by passages from the Bible." Had he halted there, all might
have been well, but he went on to offer his own positions on matters of theology: "The primary
purpose of the Holy Writ is to worship God and save souls," he argued; his imperious, lecturing
tone ruffled feathers and, in its apparent contempt for the teaching authority of the Church,
smacked of Protestantism. The issue for Galileo was: how is sacred Scripture to be interpreted
when it speaks of natural phenomena?
He wrote to Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, hoping for support from the Medici, and
declaring that "nothing physical which sense-experience sets before out eyes, or which
necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called into question (much less condemned)
upon the testimony of Biblical passages which may have some different meaning beneath their
words."
God’s primary purpose in giving us the bible is to lead humans to salvation, but he has given us
reason and our senses to gain knowledge of nature. Since both reason and revelation come
from God, they cannot conflict when rightly used and understood. Galileo appeals, with some
justification, to Aquinas, who held the same views at an earlier stage of scientific knowledge.
The inspired writers of the bible, including the author for the Book of Joshua, adapted their
language to the understanding of ordinary people of their tie when they were referencing to
nature. To our ordinary observation the sun does rise and set and move across the heavens.
pf3

Partial preview of the text

Download Galileo Galilei and the Interpretation of Sacred Scripture: A Clash of Laws and Theologies and more Study notes Cultural History of Europe in PDF only on Docsity!

Important Issues and Themes to Know:

  1. How Galileo deals with the claim in the Bible that the earth does not move. Western Christian biblical references Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include (depending on translation) text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same tradition, Psalm 104:5 says, "the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place" etc.

Galileo defended heliocentrism, and claimed it was not contrary to those Scripture passages. He took Augustine's position on Scripture: not to take every passage literally, particularly when the scripture in question is a book of poetry and songs, not a book of instructions or history. The writers of the Scripture wrote from the perspective of the terrestrial world, and from that vantage point the sun does rise and set.

Galileo declared that scriptural literalism had no place in scientific inquiry. "Inasmuch as the Bible calls for an interpretation differing from the immediate sense of the words," he wrote, "it seems to me that as an authority in mathematical controversy it has very little standing... I believe that natural processes which we perceive by careful observation or deduce by cogent demonstration cannot be refuted by passages from the Bible." Had he halted there, all might have been well, but he went on to offer his own positions on matters of theology: "The primary purpose of the Holy Writ is to worship God and save souls," he argued; his imperious, lecturing tone ruffled feathers and, in its apparent contempt for the teaching authority of the Church, smacked of Protestantism. The issue for Galileo was: how is sacred Scripture to be interpreted when it speaks of natural phenomena?

He wrote to Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, hoping for support from the Medici, and declaring that "nothing physical which sense-experience sets before out eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called into question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of Biblical passages which may have some different meaning beneath their words."

God’s primary purpose in giving us the bible is to lead humans to salvation, but he has given us reason and our senses to gain knowledge of nature. Since both reason and revelation come from God, they cannot conflict when rightly used and understood. Galileo appeals, with some justification, to Aquinas, who held the same views at an earlier stage of scientific knowledge. The inspired writers of the bible, including the author for the Book of Joshua, adapted their language to the understanding of ordinary people of their tie when they were referencing to nature. To our ordinary observation the sun does rise and set and move across the heavens.

2. Aquinas’ different conceptions of law (p.46)

Aquinas distinguished four kinds of law: eternal, natural, human, and divine. Eternal law is the decree of God that governs all creation. Natural law is the human "participation" in the eternal law and is discovered by reason. Natural law, of course, is based on "first principles":

... this is the first precept of the law, that good is to be done and promoted, and evil is to be avoided. All other precepts of the natural law are based on this...

Human law is positive law: the natural law applied by governments to societies. Divine law is the specially revealed law in the scriptures.

The eternal law is “the rational plan of divine wisdom considered as directing all actions and movements,” (p 46, 88) The eternal law, for Aquinas, is that rational plan by which all creation is ordered; the natural law is the way that the human being “participates” in the eternal law.

There are human beings who have “the natural light of the intellect” (p 33). They can discover their ends and act or not act accordingly

Natural Law- (p. 48-52) For Aquinas, there are two key features of the natural law. The first is that, when we focus on God's role as the giver of the natural law, the natural law is just one aspect of divine providence; and so the theory of natural law is from that perspective just one part among others of the theory of divine providence. The second is that, when we focus on the human's role as recipient of the natural law, the natural law constitutes the principles of practical rationality, those principles by which human action is to be judged as reasonable or unreasonable; and so the theory of natural law is from that perspective the preeminent part of the theory of practical rationality. The notion that the natural law constitutes the basic principles of practical rationality implies, for Aquinas, both that the precepts of the natural law are universally binding by nature (ST IaIIae 94, 4) and that the precepts of the natural law are universally knowable by nature. Botkin- The first precept of Natural Law is to do good and avoid evil. The moral truth is First Principle and Self Evident. Aquinas compares it to a non-moral 1st principle, the Law of Non-Contradiction. “Something cannot be confirmed and denied at the same time” (p. 49)

BOTKIN - Aquinas was no moral relativist. “…there is a single standard of truth and right for everyone which is known by everyone.”

Human Law may or may not conform to eternal law, but is necessary because some people do not have the right values.

The order of precepts of natural laws follow the order of natural inclinations. P.

Descriptive/Facts Prescriptive/Values Natural Inclinations Natural Law Demands