Gentiles, And Galileo Galileo : A Comparison Of The Limition Of Reason

St. Aquinas and St. Francis both contributed heavily on the secular humanism we have now, but each did so with a holy motivation. Aquinas separated faith and reason and for this it is said that he gave rise to humanism and atheism, however, he believed in the integration of the two not a separation. He believed that faith brings a certainty that cannot be obtained by reason alone. “Sola scriptura” was one of his main beliefs which is that salvation comes by grace and through faith (Thomas Aquinas). While St. Aquinas influenced the writings of his time, St. Francis has a larger impact on the vernacular arts of his time. The arts became more vivid and realistic and portrayed the

There will always be a battle between religion and science, it is a truth universally acknowledged. Galileo attempted to make the two compatible by suggesting that the truth can only be sought out if the notion under consideration can be accurately tested and if the opposing view can be founded as false. Galileo’s goes into depth about the truth of scripture and the sciences, intertwined with the reason of man, in his letter to Christina of Lorraine, Grand Duchess of

In the letter Galileo explained that it would not matter if something in the Bible was disproven, the primary purpose of the Bible is salvation. He also believed that God gave him and others intellect. He reasoned that if God did not want people to gain knowledge, then God would not have gave them the ability to reason or the ability to make new discoveries. Galileo also believed that if the sacred scribes wanted us to have all the answers they would have written them, and that the Holy Ghost intended to only teach us how to get to heaven, not how heaven goes.

Aquinas’ understanding of the roles of faith and reason can be likened to a house. Reason provides the foundation. This foundation draws heavily from the Greek philosophers. Without special revelation from God, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle could not comprehend the fullness of wisdom only Christ provides. However, by observing general revelation, they reasoned their way to many universal truths such as the existence of a perfection outside of mankind–evidenced by Plato’s world of the forms–the benefits of the virtuous life–Socrates’ insistence that good men can never truly be harmed–and the distinction man holds from the animals–Aristotle’s recognition of the importance of logos. This use of reason compliments the teachings of Paul in Romans. He reminds the believers in Rome, “…since

His more relaxed viewpoint on the interpretations of the Bible and scripture allowed him to accept the Copernican theory. He even justified his stance through principals. The first principle was called biblical limitation. “I should judge that the authority of the Bible was designed to persuade men of these articles and propositions which, by science, or by any other means than through the very mouth of the Holy Spirit.” This principle overall explained that the bible could only be understood and interpreted correctly by the Holy Mother Mary. This gave a justification against claims from previous scholars such as St. Aquinas and St. Augustine. These two scholars took ideas for the overall argument from interpretations of the Bible made from either themselves or those before them. Therefore, Galileo believed that the interpretations were false. This allowed for science to not come in conflict with Catholicism as no one truly understood it. Another principle was the priority of physical demonstration. This principle stressed more on the empirical evidence before scriptural evidence. For this principle, Galileo focused primarily on nature and this allowed him to protect the concept of the Copernican theory from the bible. Since he used empirical evidence on nature, it allowed him to determine that the sun was at the center of the universe. Thus, observation, a major part of scientific

Furthermore, in discussing the conflict between the Church and scientists such as Galileo, it must be noted that both parties held themselves to be unquestionably correct in the argument, because they both based themselves in what they believed to be irrefutable truth. The Church viewed the holy

In this paper, I plan to give an exposition of Saint Thomas Aquinas’ five point argument. Next, I plan to state one of the five arguments that I find the most compelling and then explain why it is so compelling. Finally, I plan to state one of the five arguments that I find the least compelling and give reasons as to why it is the least compelling.

According to Galileo, nature is “immutable”, unchanging over time, and she “cares not a whit whether her abstruse reasons and methods are understandable to men”. Alternatively, the Bible, in order to “accommodate the understanding of everyman” is subject to interpretation “so as the bare meaning of the words is concerned”. Puzzling as both can be, new discoveries in nature may refute the theories of the Bible. It is dangerous to apply Bible scriptures to science because that would then limit the meanings of the scriptures. The Bible is based on limited and often theoretical conjecture and using passages taken from it to which are, perhaps not understood properly, are inappropriate and “ill-suited to their purposes”, as it is possible for the “Bible [to]…speak untruth”. Irrefutable evidence of the Sun and Earth’s movements was not available when the Bible was originally composed. Galileo thought it was self-serving of those in the church to condemn his findings, by “showing a great fondness for their own

However, Galileo did begin to mount a body of evidence that supported Copernican theory and contradicted Aristotle and Church doctrine. In 1612, he published his Discourse on Bodies in Water, this refuted the Aristotelian explanation of why objects float in water, he said it wasn’t because of their flat shape but the weight of the object in relation to the water it displaced. In 1613 He published his observations of sunspots, which further refuted Aristotelian doctrine that the sun was perfect. According to biography.com, this same year, Galileo wrote a letter o a student to explain how Copernican theory did not contradict Biblical passages, stating that scripture was written from an earthly perspective and implied that science provided a different, more accurate perspective. The letter was made public and Church Inquisition consultants pronounced Copernican theory heretical.

The church wrongfully branded Galileo as a heretic. His contradictory scientific discoveries challenged the doctrine of the church, but was simply a different interpretation of the Bible. In his letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany in 1615, Galileo presented strong arguments on why he wasn’t a heretic. “Hence in expounding the Bible if one were always to confine oneself to the unadorned grammatical meaning, one might fall into error.” Galileo argues that simply taking the Bible at face value, and not reading in between the lines, may cause one to misinterpret the meaning of the text.

The purpose of this letter was to show that the Catholic Church’s condemnation of Conpernicanism is inappropriate since Galileo claims that arguments about the physical world have no bearing on church authority, as it was properly understood. I will argue that the Catholic Church’s rejection of Galileo’s ideas was because of the Church’s desire for control. As a religious man, Galileo concluded that for the physical conclusions of celestial motions (in astronomical and geometrical aspects), the Bible alone cannot explain the physical meanings, “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason and

Galileo believes that knowledge about the natural world should come from observations and physical evidence, not solely from the words of the Bible. He proves this point by saying “I think that in discussions of physical problems we ought to begin not from the authority of scriptural passages, but from sense-experiences and the necessary demonstrations;”. Galileo clearly believed that the Holy Scripture was meant to be read and understood, not for what the actual words say, but for the meaning that lies beneath the words. Galileo suggests that his opponents should seek the understand the true meaning of the Scripture, this is because he believes that the Bible was written in such a way as for the common person to be able to comprehend it. Galileo shows that he thinks that his idea that the Earth moves around the Sun is not contradicting the Bible because he believes that the Bible is meant to explain other meanings in a way that even an unlearned person can understand, so while his idea varies to the ideas of the time the Bible was written, it does not try to prove the Bible as false.

In the history of the Catholic Church, no episode is so contested by so many viewpoints as the condemnation of Galileo. The Galileo case, for many, proves the Church abhors science, refuses to abandon outdated teachings, and is clearly not infallible. For staunch Catholics the episode is often a source of embarrassment and frustration. Either way it is undeniable that Galileo’s life sparked a definite change in scientific thought all across Europe and symbolised the struggle between science and the Catholic Church.

Furthermore, Galileo dictates that “the holy Bible and nature proceed alike from the divine word…but nature…never transgresses the laws imposed upon her.” Through this argument, Galileo suggests that his professional analysis of nature is an art more divine than previously considered and should be treated with due respect rather than attacks by those who do not practice or understand it. The tension that exists between this and his self-portrayal as a humble victim are a result of his unique personality that drew mostly all questions and methods of research not from what was considered scientifically relevant but from what could deliver him the highest social

Galileo, a Catholic, believed in God and the authority of Scripture, but as a philosopher understood the significance of the natural world accessible through experimentation and observation through senses and reasoning (Moss, 1983). He demonstrated this within his passage “God who endowed us with senses, would not require use to deny sense and reason in physical matter as set before our eye by direct experience or necessary demonstration” (Halsall, 1997, p. 4). He sees God as an entity whose purpose is to allow us to grow closer to him by means of religion and the Bible (McMullin, 2013). As demonstrated in the passage “that the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven not how heaven goes” (Halsall, 1997, p. 6). He