Newsgroups: alt.books.cs-lewis,sci.space.history,soc.history.science
Subject: Re: Ancient cosmologies and Christianity
From: Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 14:24:52 GMT

In article <5osklm$bkg@lace.colorado.edu>,
Frank Crary <fcrary@rintintin.Colorado.EDU> wrote:

>>1. Was modern cosmology (Copernicus on) troubling to Christianity...
>
>Yes, it was troubling to the Church, but the issues were largely irrelevant
>by the 1950s. The most often stated issue was that Copernican cosmology
>was contrary to the teachings of the Church (i.e. that the Earth was
>at the center of the universe.)

However, note that such situations had happened before:  the Earth being
round had been similarly contrary to the teachings of the Church, a
century or two earlier.  Church teachings did get revised, when the need
was clear.  There was no prohibition on discussing the possibility that it
might be necessary.  The Church's *early* response to Copernican cosmology
was cautious interest, not automatic rejection:  "maybe we'll have to make
some changes, if this turns out as well as it sounds".

Galileo got in trouble (partly) because he stated the new cosmology as
fact, not theory, when he lacked convincing evidence.  (Mere mathematical
elegance was not enough to justify changes in teachings; there had to be
ironclad evidence that the old version was *wrong*, not just clumsy and
messy.  It was not until the discovery of the Foucault Pendulum, quite a
while later, that geocentric cosmology became untenable rather than just
unattractive.)  Claiming that Church teachings *might* be in error would
not have been a problem, but only the Church was allowed to pronounce that
they *were* in error.

>...interpretation of the Bible is their job (as far as they are concerned)
>and someone outside the Church making interpretations upsets them...

While there may have been a certain element of proprietary feeling here,
the other side of the coin is that Galileo was unfamiliar with the
existing body of theological work on such interpretations, and it showed.
Someone outside the Church making interpretations would not have been half
so bad if they had been *competent* interpretations, by theological
standards.  Moreover, these particular interpretations were a touchy area,
where even expert theologians had recently been slapped down for making
suggestions that were deemed improper; this was the last place where an
amateur should venture public comment.  (In fact, if memory serves,
Galileo had been explicitly warned to stay out of this particular
theological minefield.)

>were not even happy when Jordono Bruno (a monk) published arguments
>about how Copernican cosmology implied the possibility of "men" living
>on other planets (since the Earth was no longer unique) and went into
>the theological implications of this...

Bruno did more than argue the possibility; he stated it as fact, and went
on from there, quite a fair ways on from there.  Kepler's summary was:
"He had asserted the vanity of all religions and had substituted circles
and points for God."  This was full-blown heresy by any definition of
the word, not just astronomical unorthodoxy.

>As a footnote, Copernicus' own work very carefully did not contradict the
>teachings of the Church. He was careful not to suggest that the Earth
>_really_ moved around the Sun. He just showed that the mathematics
>of predicting the positions of planets in the sky was simpler...

While Galileo was tactless, and bold to the point of foolhardiness,
Copernicus was the opposite.  He was so fearful of adverse reaction that
he deferred major publication of his ideas until after his death, despite
almost universally favorable reaction from those who heard about them
informally.  Copernicus's own preface includes a letter from Cardinal
Schoenberg saying roughly:  "I hear you've got a new theory in which the
Earth moves and the Sun is the center of the universe, and that it works
out well; please, please publish it as soon as possible".  Copernicus may
not himself have openly suggested that the Earth *really* moves around the
Sun, but this letter is quite explicit about it... and Schoenberg was not
just a cardinal, he was the right-hand man of three successive popes.
Presenting the concept as theory was *not* improper.
--
Committees do harm merely by existing.             |       Henry Spencer
                           -- Freeman Dyson        |   henry@zoo.toronto.edu

Newsgroups: alt.books.cs-lewis,sci.space.history,soc.history.science
Subject: Re: Ancient cosmologies and Christianity
From: fcrary@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Date: 28 Jun 1997 01:49:57 GMT

In article <ECFupG.LG6%spenford@zoo.toronto.edu>,
Henry Spencer  <henry@zoo.toronto.edu> wrote:

>>>1. Was modern cosmology (Copernicus on) troubling to Christianity...

>>Yes, it was troubling to the Church, but the issues were largely irrelevant
>>by the 1950s. The most often stated issue was that Copernican cosmology
>>was contrary to the teachings of the Church (i.e. that the Earth was
>>at the center of the universe.)

>However, note that such situations had happened before:  the Earth being
>round had been similarly contrary to the teachings of the Church, a
>century or two earlier.

If memory serves, that was in the 800s, rather more than a century or
two earlier. There are probably two reasons why this was a less
painful change than the Copernican cosmology. First, the change wasn't
forced on the Church suddenly (theologians had been quietly debating
the subject for centuries, before the Church changed its official
position) and didn't occur at a time when the Church's authority
was being challenged (by other christians...) Second, the change
was the product of a rather brilliant theologian, working within
the Church and basing his arguments as much on theology (no real
contradiction to important, theological issues existed) as on
the fact that the Earth really is round. That's very different
from outsiders forcing the issue on the Church, at a time when
the Church was already having problems retaining its authority,
and without any comforting theological arguments about how the
Church hadn't been wrong about "important" things.

>...The Church's *early* response to Copernican cosmology
>was cautious interest, not automatic rejection:  "maybe we'll have to make
>some changes, if this turns out as well as it sounds".

Part of that was because Copernicus phrased his idea in a very
minimal way: He was careful to say it was just a mathematical
construct, to make determining the location of planets simpler,
not that this was what the universe was really like.

>...(In fact, if memory serves,
>Galileo had been explicitly warned to stay out of this particular
>theological minefield.)

He was, and that was part of his later problems. He took the warning
to mean that he could still write about Copernican cosmology, as
long as he remained reasonably impartial and absolutely did not
get into theology. The actual language of the warning is and was
uncertain (if memory serves, Galileo never saw the written text
of it, and was relying on what one of the priests involved told him.)
In his second trial, the Church said the original warning had been
much stricter than what Galileo had understood, and that was one
of the major issues (i.e. not that Galileo had done something the
Church didn't like, but that he'd done it again after they had
ordered him to stop.)

>...Copernicus's own preface includes a letter from Cardinal
>Schoenberg saying roughly:  "I hear you've got a new theory in which the
>Earth moves and the Sun is the center of the universe, and that it works
>out well; please, please publish it as soon as possible".  Copernicus may
>not himself have openly suggested that the Earth *really* moves around the
>Sun, but this letter is quite explicit about it... and Schoenberg was not
>just a cardinal, he was the right-hand man of three successive popes.
>Presenting the concept as theory was *not* improper.

Agreed, however this brings up an interesting detail I once saw. After
the Church became concerned about the theory (i.e. when others started
treating it as more than just a theory), they ordered certain passages
removed from later printings of _Revolutionibus_ (sp?) and that
all owners of earlier printings ink out these passages. The passages
in question were the ones that implied that a Sun-centered universe
was anything more than a mathematical construct, and I believe the
comment by Cardinal Schoenberg was one of them. In any case, I
happen to have seen to such copies of the book (both in the rare
books collection of the University of California's Bancroft Library.)
But were owned by members of the Church, on in Italy and one in
Spain. The one in Spain completely inked out the passages, so that
they were unreadable. The one in Italy simply drew a narrow line
through them, leaving them clearly readable. It seems there was
quite a bit of politics and personal opinion involved in how
seriously to take such an order from the Church.

                                                     Frank Crary
                                                     CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.books.cs-lewis,sci.space.history,soc.history.science
Subject: Re: Ancient cosmologies and Christianity
From: Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu>
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 06:22:16 GMT

In article <5p1qk5$eoc@lace.colorado.edu>,
Frank Crary <fcrary@rintintin.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>...they ordered certain passages
>removed from later printings of _Revolutionibus_ (sp?) and that
>all owners of earlier printings ink out these passages. The passages
>in question were the ones that implied that a Sun-centered universe
>was anything more than a mathematical construct, and I believe the
>comment by Cardinal Schoenberg was one of them...

If memory serves, there were a total of nine sentences that had to be
altered, all of them because they appeared to present the heliocentric
universe as a fact rather than a theory.  (I don't know, offhand, whether
the one in the Cardinal's letter was among them; could be, its wording is
pretty firm.)
--
Committees do harm merely by existing.             |       Henry Spencer
                           -- Freeman Dyson        |   henry@zoo.toronto.edu

Newsgroups: alt.books.cs-lewis,sci.space.history,soc.history.science
Subject: Re: Ancient cosmologies and Christianity
From: Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 20:21:20 GMT

In article <33B5F486.7A89@dragontree.com>,
Mary Ezzell  <mary@dragontree.com> wrote:

>> >However, note that such situations had happened before:  the Earth being
>> >round had been similarly contrary to the teachings of the Church...
>
>Mm. How definite did the Church consider its own views on such
>unimportant matters? Was the attitude, "The Bible hints at Theory A, so
>we know it must be true"? Or, "This is the sort of question about which
>no one knows for sure, because the scientists are always changing their
>minds, so they shouldn't claim their latest theory is graven in stone."

Kind of in between.  The Church had a fairly definite official opinion,
based on what was known about the world and what the Bible had to say
about the issue, and did not generally waffle or admit to uncertainty.
On the other hand, on such lesser matters it was willing to admit error
and change the official opinion, if there was *clear* and *conclusive*
evidence that the change was necessary.  Until such a decision was made,
opinions contrary to the official one should be stated as possibilities
rather than as facts -- only the Church itself was allowed to definitely
pronounce an official Church opinion to be wrong.  (If you were feeling
brave and thought your evidence was really good, you might say openly that
the Church was wrong, but this was risky; it was safer to say that the
evidence suggested that the Church might be wrong.)

Of course, much depended on who you were and which way the political winds
were blowing at the time.  As Frank has pointed out, the Church was rather
more relaxed about such things when it felt strong and secure.
--
Committees do harm merely by existing.             |       Henry Spencer
                           -- Freeman Dyson        |   henry@zoo.toronto.edu

Newsgroups: alt.culture.outerspace,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,
	alt.alien.research,sci.space.history,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.conspiracy.area51,
	alt.ufo.reports,alt.paranormal.crop-circles
From: henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: When did the ghosts first become aliens?
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 03:33:22 GMT

In article <7l6lk8$78a@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Frank Crary <fcrary@rintintin.colorado.edu> wrote:
>...Although Copernicus phrased his theory
>as a mathematical convenience, rather than something which was physically
>real, people started thinking about this a few decades before Galileo
>started proving that it was, in fact, real...

Copernicus was a very timid sort.  Although *he* phrased it in terms of
mathematical convenience, in case he offended someone, most everybody else
ignored that and treated the heliocentric idea as a new theory of physical
reality.

Copernicus also had the planets revolving *not* around the center of the
Sun, but around a hypothetical point quite near it, because that gave the
cleanest mathematical solution.  That is little-known today because
everybody else brushed that aside and went for the "physical reality"
interpretation, in which the center of the Sun was the obvious center for
the solar system.

>Jordano Bruno is one such
>example, and quite relevant to this discussion. He not only assumed
>that ``there were worlds in space other than our own'' but also assumed
>that there would be life on them...

Bruno had only the vaguest grasp of the heliocentric theory; his writings
show that he didn't really understand it, but was just citing it fuzzily
as supporting evidence.  His agenda was human society -- religion and
politics -- not astronomy.  Which is why he got himself executed; the
Church had no great antipathy to the heliocentric theory (then), but
Bruno's notions on religion and politics were considered heresy of the
worst and most dangerous sort.  (For one thing, there was no place in them
for a centralized Church...)

This also helped make life difficult for Galileo later.  There was an
incorrect but widespread belief that Galileo was another Bruno, and with
various forms of political and religious unrest occurring at the time, the
Pope was under considerable political pressure to make an example of him.
Which the Pope, to give him credit, resisted until Galileo was so stupid
as to personally insult him (the finale of Galileo's "Dialogue" puts the
Pope's own argument in the mouth of an obvious fool, and the other
characters, tongues firmly in cheek, meekly acquiesce to it).
--
The good old days                   |  Henry Spencer   henry@spsystems.net
weren't.                            |      (aka henry@zoo.toronto.edu)