Galileo didn't start out to revise the interpretation of scripture. And even if he did, it was wrong to punish him. Certainly by our standards it was wrong. Anyway, he didn't start the fight. The first thing was that his work was criticized on theological grounds. It was only then, in defense of his work, that he suggested the current understanding of scripture could be wrong. That was in this famous letter:
Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany. Excerpt:
The reason produced for condemning the opinion that the earth moves and the sun stands still [is that] in many places in the Bible one may read that the sun moves and the earth stands still. Since the Bible cannot err; it follows as a necessary consequence that anyone takes a erroneous and heretical position who maintains that the sun is inherently motionless and the earth movable.The next paragraph must have been controversial in its day, but it is currently the position of the Church, which is why they don't oppose evolution:With regard to this argument, I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak untruth-whenever its true meaning is understood. But I believe nobody will deny that it is often very abstruse, and may say things which are quite different from what its bare words signify. Hence in expounding the Bible if one were always to confine oneself to the unadorned grammatical meaning, one might; fall into error. Not only contradictions and propositions far from true might thus be made to appear in the Bible, but even grave heresies and follies. Thus it would be necessary to assign to God feet, hands ...
[snip]
Now the Bible, merely to condescend to popular capacity, has not hesitated to obscure some very important pronouncements, attributing to God himself some qualities extremely remote from (and even contrary to) His essence. Who, then, would positively declare that this principle has been set aside, and the Bible has confined itself rigorously to the bare and restricted sense of its words, when speaking but casually of the earth, of water, of the sun, or of any other created thing? Especially in view of the fact that these things in no way concern the primary purpose of the sacred writings, which is the service of God and the salvation of souls - matters infinitely beyond the comprehension of the common people.
This being granted, I think that in discussions of physical problems we ought to begin not from the authority of scriptural passages but from sense experiences and necessary demonstrations ...In this way, Galileo was offering the Church a way to reconcile scripture with the new discoveries. They didn't go for it. But to blame Galileo -- even in part -- for the troubles he encountered is bizarre. What happened to him was outrageous.
Doesn't naturalistic evolution explain what happened to him? For what happened to him was all too human.
In this way, Galileo was offering the Church a way to reconcile scripture with the new discoveries. They didn't go for it. But to blame Galileo -- even in part -- for the troubles he encountered is bizarre. What happened to him was outrageous.
Exactly.
And as I said before, fortunately the stewards of the Church have a different attitude these days.
No, but it was this, along with his insistance that geocentrism was disproved, that got the attention of the Holy Office. Before he started spouting off on scriptural exegesis, the Vatican pretty much ignored him.
And even if he did, it was wrong to punish him. Certainly by our standards it was wrong.
I agree.
Anyway, he didn't start the fight. The first thing was that his work was criticized on theological grounds. It was only then, in defense of his work, that he suggested the current understanding of scripture could be wrong.
It's true that he didn't start the fight over theology, but it wasn't Church authorities who started the fight either. A few priests started preaching sermons against the Copernican system. The Holy Office and the rest of the Vatican ignored him UNTIL he started writing about theology. It was his writings on the need to revise scripture that raised the ire of the inquisition, specifically his letter to Castelli, written in 1613 and forwarded to the inquisition in 1615.
If Galileo had been content to stick with science and ignored the idiot priests, leaving them to the theologicans, the Holy Office would never have touched him. If after his 1616 trial he had contented himself with accurately discribing his evidence for Copernicanism as suggestive but definitive, he also would have been fine.
But no, instead he chooses to draw erroneous conclusions from his evidence, pontificate on theology and scriptural exegesis, an area outside his expertise, and insult the pope to boot. That's not smart.
None of this excuses what happened to him, but it does put the events in proper perspective.
In history, things are seldom black and white, and the case of Galileo is no exception. This case is more about egos and personal grudges than anything else.