Part three

The Facts of the matter

An alternate view to the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic one that the
universe was geocentric and geostatic came in 1543 with the
publication of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium by Nicolas
Copernicus, a canon 0f the cathedral of Krakow. Only astronomers of
the day mostly clerics like Copernicus appreciated and understood its
potential to overturn 2000 years of astronomical theory.

THE 1 ST PHASE of the Affair 1613 to 1616
 The affair innocently started in 1613 when the mother of Galileo’s
patron the Grand Duchess Christina asked Fr. Benedetto Castelli, an
astronomer and university colleague of Galileo, if the story in the old
testament of Joshua stopping the rotation of the sun to lengthen the
day conflicted with Copernican theory. He deferred to Galileo who then
wrote her a letter pointing out that St. Augustine’s Doctrine of
Accommodation applies and requires that biblically expressed ideas or
those of any time are subject to the limitations of the knowledge then
available and open to amendment as new knowledge is gained

2. In 1614 a Benedictine Friar Tommaso Caccini preached a
sermon in Santa Marie Novella severely criticizing Copernicus
Astronomers, Mathematicians and Galileo. Another friar Nicolo Lorini
then wrote a letter to the Inquisition claiming that he had written
evidence of heretical beliefs expressed by Galileo in a letter to Castelli.
Both friars were in search of promotions and totally unschooled in
science. Their “examples” were not in the letter and the accusations of
heresy dismissed. But the Index suspended circulation of Copernicus’
book to stave off personal interpretations of scripture advocated by
reformers. The leading and most brilliant scholar of his day Roberto
Cardinal Bellarmino, later Saint, was asked to meet with Galileo who
agreed

3. Bellarmino respected Galileo greatly and willingly wrote for him
a letter stately that he was not being reprimanded or censured. He
acknowledged the reasons obtained by observation behind Galileo’s
views of heliocentrism (very true) and earthy axial rotation as
evidenced by the tides (untrue). His view was that even though a
theory “saves the phenomena” by allowing results consistent with what
we see it may not be completely accurate. Was this not true for
Ptolomy’s geocentric view used for over a 1000 years? He knew Galileo
believed his view were more consistent with reality but asked him not
to offer them as true until supported by more evidence. A unsigned document in Bellarmino’s files produced at his trial in 1633 indicated
that Galileo agreed. This ended the 1 st phase of the Affair.

We would like to invite all students to join us after Thursday Night Mass this week, October 6th, for a science experiment night. Come to do classic science experiments such as making your own ice cream, elephant tooth paste, and the egg drop.

Part 2

​Often overlooked today are the mutually productive
enlightening discussions going on between them for a millennium and a
half since Augustine. The fundamental question between them has

been that of causation. Is it natural, supernatural or both??
Supernaturalism and Naturalism are both based on notions of primary
and secondary causation. God is everywhere the primary cause but is
he the immediate cause of all effects. Naïve supernaturalism says yes
but has never been given much weight. Nor has Occasionalism which
holds that the link between cause and effect is an artifact of our
perception Traditional Christianity says both but holds a position
more on the side of naturalism. God is omnipotent but made things to
operate within a Communis Cursus Naturae, a common natural
causation that guarantees the validity of investigation in an (almost
always) constant world. The crucial test lies in events that occur outside
of or by the suspension of the natural order. We call them miracles
when they show a disproportion between cause and effect inexplicable
by every resource that the study of the Communis Cursus Naturae can
muster. The idea originating in the reformation that the age of miracles
is over unintentionally supported more extreme views on naturalism.
The most extreme is Philosophical Naturalism that says nothing exists

beyond the material thus denying anything supernatural. It forms the
basis of current Atheism. Less strident is Methodological Naturalism
holds that divine explanations are not to be used for things not
understood but makes no claims for or against the existence of God.

The Age of Science beginning in the 17 th century was ushered
in by men of Faith. They espoused Natural Theology the belief that the
order in the natural world can be used as a source of information about
God and his attributes. Men like Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Leibnitz,
Boyle and Galileo. But a Faith that over the next 4 centuries would be
eroded by Deism and then Scientism. The Galileo Affair brought forth
Realism; the view that scientific explanations only are literally true
descriptions of the way things really are. Ever since the Affair is the
most-often cited incident in the history of science-religion interactions
most often to show the obstructive nature of the religious position.

An article written by the founder, Dr. Rossi. This article will be broken down into 6 parts, posted throughout the next few months.

The Prelude

No one of any persuasion can deny that that Science and
Religion are two of the most significant influences on human
civilization. In the west the influence of Augustine of Hippo was
predominant for a millennium and a half. He believed there is only one
source of truth and any difference in any point of time between the
rational and intellectual study of God, his activities and relationship to
his creation (Theology) and the study of the natural world (Science)
should and can be resolved. However only by intense study of the Book
of Scripture and the Book of Nature. One has Faith so that he might
understand but he also understands when he has Faith. He counsels
that in our study of the past we must accommodate our assessments to
the level of knowledge available at that time. This stands opposite to
the modern idea proposed by Steven Jay Gould that the two are
mutually exclusive and any consideration of one by the other pointless;
and today to the oft expressed idea that Science and Religion are
mutually antagonistic and constantly at war. This idea is rejected by ALL
modern historians of science. Yet It has been The predominant point of
contention since the 19 th century, largely the result of the intentions of
two men. The first is John William Draper (1811-1882) a physician and
first president of the American Chemical Society whose book “A History
of the Conflict between Science and Religion” went through 50
editions. It is a vitriolic truth distorting diatribe largely responsible for
anti- religious feeling persisting to today; still available but too
embarrassing to quote. The other the first president of Cornell Univ.
Andrew D. White whose book “A History of warfare between Science
and Religion is noted for fallacious arguments based on bogus sources.
Its lies live on.