The Essential Galileo (24 page)

[§4.2.4] Let us now examine their other argument: that physical propositions concerning which Scripture always says the same thing, and which all the Fathers unanimously accept in the same sense, should be understood in accordance with the literal meaning of the words, without glosses or interpretations, and should be accepted and held as most true; and that, since the sun's motion and earth's rest is a proposition of this sort, consequently it is an article of faith to hold it as true, and the contrary opinion is erroneous. Here it should be noticed, first, that some physical propositions are of a type such that by any human speculation and reasoning one can only attain a probable opinion and a verisimilar conjecture about them, rather than a certain and demonstrated science; an example is whether the stars are animate. Others are of a type such that either one has or one may firmly believe that it is possible to have, complete certainty on the basis of experiments, long observations, and necessary demonstrations; examples are whether or not the earth and the sun move, and whether or not the earth is spherical. As for the first type, I have no doubt at all that, where human reason cannot reach, and where consequently one cannot have a science, but only opinion and faith, it is appropriate piously to conform absolutely to the literal meaning of Scripture. In regard to the others, however, I should think, as stated above, that it would be proper to ascertain the facts first, so that they could guide us in finding the true meaning of Scripture; these would be found to agree absolutely with demonstrated facts, even though prima facie the words would sound otherwise, since two truths can never contradict each other. This doctrine seems to me very [331] correct and certain, inasmuch as I find it exactly written in St. Augustine. At one point he discusses the shape of heaven and what one should believe it to be, given that what astronomers affirm seems to be contrary to Scripture, since the former consider it round while the latter calls it stretched out like hide.
²⁶
He decides one should not have the slightest worry that Scripture may contradict astronomers: one should accept its authority if what they say is false and based only on conjecture typical of human weakness; however, if what they say is proved with indubitable reasons, this Holy Father does not say that astronomers themselves be ordered to refute their demonstrations and declare their conclusion false, but he says one must show that what Scripture asserts about the hide is not contrary to those true demonstrations. Here are his words (
On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis
, book 2, chapter 9): “However, someone asks how what is written in our books, ‘Who stretchest out the heavens like a hide,'
²⁷
does not contradict those who attribute to heaven the shape of a sphere. Now, if what they say is false, let it contradict them by all means, for the truth lies in what is said by divine authority rather than what is conjectured by human weakness. But if, by chance, they can support it with such evidence that one cannot doubt it, then we have to demonstrate that what our books say about the hide is not contrary to those true reasons.” Then he goes on to warn us that we must not be less careful in reconciling a scriptural passage with a demonstrated physical proposition than with another scriptural passage that may appear contrary. Indeed I think the caution of this saint deserves to be admired and emulated; for even in the case of obscure conclusions concerning which one cannot be sure whether they can be the subject of a science based on human demonstrations, he is very careful in declaring what one should believe. This can be seen from what he writes at the end of the second book of
On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis
, when discussing whether stars should be considered animate: “Although at present this cannot be easily known, nevertheless I think that in the course of examining Scripture one may find more appropriate passages whereby we would be entitled, if not to prove something for certain, at least to believe something on this topic based on the words of the sacred authority. Now then, always practicing a pious and serious moderation, we ought not to believe anything lightly about an obscure subject, lest [332] we reject (out of love for our error) something which later may be truly shown not to be in any way contrary to the holy books of either the Old or New Testament.”

From this and other places it seems to me, if I am not mistaken, the intention of the Holy Fathers is that in questions about natural phenomena which do not involve articles of faith one must first consider whether they are demonstrated with certainty or known by sense experience, or whether it is possible to have such knowledge and demonstration. When one is in possession of this, since it too is a gift from God, one must apply it to the investigation of the true meanings of the Holy Writ at those places which apparently seem to read differently. These meanings will undoubtedly be grasped by wise theologians, along with the reasons why the Holy Spirit has sometimes wanted to hide them under words with a different literal meaning, whether in order to test us or for some other reason unknown to me.

Returning to the preceding argument, if we keep in mind the primary aim of the Holy Writ, I do not think that its always saying the same thing should make us disregard this rule; for if to accommodate popular understanding Scripture finds it necessary once to express a proposition with words whose meaning differs from the essence of the proposition, why should it not follow the same practice for the same reason every time it has to say the same thing? On the contrary, I think that to do otherwise would increase popular confusion and diminish the propensity to believe on the part of the people. Furthermore, in regard to the rest or motion of the sun and of the earth, experience clearly shows that to accommodate popular understanding it is indeed necessary to assert what the words of Scripture say; for even in our age when people are more refined, they are kept in the same opinion by reasons which, when carefully examined and pondered, will be found to be most frivolous and by observations which are either completely false or totally irrelevant; nor can one try to move them since they are not capable of understanding the contrary reasons, which are dependent on extremely delicate observations and on subtle demonstrations [333] supported by abstractions whose understanding requires a very vivid imagination. Therefore, even if the sun's rest and the earth's motion were more than certain and demonstrated among the experts, it would still be necessary to utter the contrary in order to maintain credibility with large numbers of people; for among a thousand laymen who might be asked about these details, perhaps not even one will be found who would not answer that he firmly believes that the sun moves and the earth stands still. However, no one should take this very common popular consensus as an argument for the truth of what is being asserted; for if we ask the same men about the reasons and motives why they believe that way, and if on the other hand we listen to the observations and demonstrations which induce those other few to believe the opposite, we shall find that the latter are convinced by very solid reasons and the former by the simplest appearances and by empty and ridiculous considerations.

It is therefore clear that it was necessary to attribute motion to the sun and rest to the earth in order not to confuse the meager understanding of the people, and not to make them obstinately reluctant to give assent to the principal dogmas which are absolutely articles of faith; but if it was necessary to do this, it is no wonder that this was most prudently done in divine Scripture. Indeed I shall say further that it was not only respect for popular inability, but also the current opinion of those times, that made the sacred writers accommodate themselves to received usage rather than to the essence of the matter in regard to subjects which are not necessary for eternal bliss. In fact, speaking of this St. Jerome writes: “As if in the Holy Scriptures many things were not said in accordance with the opinion of the time when the facts are being reported, and not in accordance with the truth of the matter” (Commentary on chapter 28 of Jeremiah). Elsewhere the same saint says: “In Scripture it is customary for the historian to report many opinions as they were accepted by everyone at that time” (Commentary on chapter 13 of Matthew). Finally, on the words in chapter 27 of Job, “He stretched out the north [334] over the empty space, and hangeth the earth upon nothing,”
²⁸
St. Thomas notes that Scripture calls empty and nothing the space which embraces and surrounds the earth, and which we know is not empty but full of air; nevertheless, he says that Scripture calls it empty and nothing in order to accommodate the belief of the people, who think there is nothing in this space. Here are St. Thomas' words: “The upper hemisphere of the heavens seems to us nothing but a space full of air, though common people consider it empty; thus it speaks in accordance with the judgment of common people, as is the custom in Holy Scripture.” Now from this I think one can obviously argue that analogously the Holy Scripture had a much greater reason to call the sun moving and the earth motionless. For if we test the understanding of common people, we shall find them much more incapable of becoming convinced of the sun's rest and earth's motion than of the fact that the space surrounding us is full of air; therefore, if the sacred authors refrained from attempting to persuade the people about this point, which was not that difficult for their understanding, it seems very reasonable to think that they followed the same style in regard to other propositions which are much more recondite.

Indeed, Copernicus himself knew how much our imagination is dominated by an old habit and by a way of conceiving things which is already familiar to us since infancy, and so he did not want to increase the confusion and difficulty of his abstraction. Thus, after first demonstrating that the motions which appear to us as belonging to the sun or the firmament [335] really belong to the earth, then, in the process of compiling their tables and applying them in practice, he speaks of them as belonging to the sun and to the part of heaven above the planets; for example, he speaks of the rising and setting of the sun and of the stars, of changes in the obliquity of the zodiac and in the equinoctial points, of the mean motion and the anomaly and the prosthaphaeresis
²⁹
of the sun, and other similar things, which really belong to the earth. We call facts these things which appear to us as facts because, being attached to the earth, we are part of all its motions, and consequently we cannot directly detect these things in it but find it useful to consider it in relation to the heavenly bodies in which they appear to us. Therefore, note how appropriate it is to accommodate our usual manner of thinking.

Next consider the principle that the collective consensus of the Fathers, when they all accept in the same sense a physical proposition from Scripture, should authenticate it in such a way that it becomes an article of faith to hold it. I should think that at most this ought to apply only to those conclusions which the Fathers discussed and inspected with great diligence and debated on both sides of the issue and for which then they all agreed to reject one side and hold the other. However, the earth's motion and sun's rest are not of this sort, given that in those times this opinion was totally forgotten and far from academic dispute, and was not examined, let alone followed, by anyone; thus one may believe that the Fathers did not even think of discussing it, since the scriptural passages, their own opinion, and popular consensus were all in agreement, and no [336] contradiction by anyone was heard. Therefore, it is not enough to say that all the Fathers accept the earth's rest, etc., and so it is an article of faith to hold it; rather one would have to prove that they condemned the contrary opinion. For I can always say that their failure to reflect upon it and to discuss it made them leave it and allow it as the current opinion, but not as something resolved and established. I think I can say this with very good reason: for either the Fathers reflected upon this conclusion as if it were controversial or they did not; if not, then they could not have decided anything about it, even in their minds, nor should their failure oblige us to accept those principles which they did not, even in intention, impose; whereas if they examined it with care, then they would have condemned it had they judged it to be erroneous; but there is no record of their having done this. Indeed, after some theologians began to examine it, one sees that they did not deem it to be erroneous, as one can read in Diego de Zúñiga's
Commentaries on Job
, in regard to the words “Who shaketh the earth out of her place, etc.” in chapter 9, verse 6; he discusses the Copernican position at length and concludes that the earth's motion is not against Scripture.

Furthermore, I would have doubts about the truth of this prescription, namely, whether it is true that the Church obliges one to hold as articles of faith such conclusions about natural phenomena, which are characterized only by the unanimous interpretation of all the Fathers. I believe it may be that those who think in this manner may want to amplify the decrees of the Councils in favor of their own opinion. For I do not see that in this regard they prohibit anything but tampering, in ways contrary to the interpretation of the Holy Church or of the collective consensus of the Fathers, with those propositions which are articles of faith, or which involve morals and pertain [337] to edification according to Christian doctrine; so speaks the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent. However, the motion or rest of the earth or the sun are not articles of faith and are not against morals; nor does anyone want to twist scriptural passages to contradict the Holy Church or the Fathers. Indeed, those who put forth this doctrine have never used scriptural passages, for it always remains the prerogative of serious and wise theologians to interpret the said passages in accordance with their true meaning. Moreover, it is very obvious that the decrees of the Councils agree with the Holy Fathers in regard to these details; for they are very far from wanting to accept as articles of faith similar physical conclusions or to reject as erroneous the contrary opinions, so much so that they prefer to pay attention to the primary intention of the Holy Church and consider it useless to spend time trying to ascertain those conclusions. Let me tell Your Most Serene Highness what St. Augustine (
On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis
, book 2, chapter 10) answers to those brethren who ask whether it is true that the heavens move or stand still: “To them I answer that these things should be examined with very subtle and demanding arguments, to determine truly whether or not it is so; but I do not have the time to undertake and to pursue these investigations, nor should such time be available to those whom we desire to instruct for their salvation and for the needs and benefit of the Holy Church.”