C
Cal
Guest
Nicholas Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, and Galileo Galilei were are strong Christian scientists who felt the church was misguided in their interpretation of the bible and earth being the center of the universe. John Calvin was teaching at this time that God spoke through His word in an accomodating way to people who would understand Him in a plain and simple way. Therefore, God speaking of the sun setting or the sun standing still in the sky in Scripture was not intended to teach a science lesson by rather was another lesson using words in an accomodating way for people to understand. God, of course, would not have been expected to describe a sunset as the final phase of the Earths revolution.
Alister E. McGrath in Science & Religion wrote, The impact of these ideas upon scientific theorizing was considerable. For example, the English writer Edward Wright defended Copernicus heliocentric theory of the solar system against the Catholic Church by arguing, in the first place, that Scripture was not concerned with physics, and in the second, that its manner of speaking was 'accomodated to the understanding and way of speech of the common people, like nurses to children.' These arguments derive directly from Calvin, who may be argued to have made a fundamental contribution to the emergence of the natural sciences in this respect."
Mcgrath continues, Although the controversy centering on Galileo is often portryed as science versus religion, or libertarianism versus authoritarianism, the real issue concerned the correct interpretation of the Bible. To explore this point, we may turn to a significant work published in 1615 by a Carmelite friar Paolo Antonio Foscarini entitled Letter on the opinion of the Pythagoreans and Copernicus. Foscarini wrote, When Holy Scripture attributes something to God or to any other creature which would otherwise be improper and incommensurate, then it should be interpreted and explained in one or more of the following ways. First, it is said to pertain metaphorically and proportionally, or by similitude. Second, it is said according to our mode of consideration, apprehension, understanding, knowing etc. Thirdly, it is said according to vulgar opinion and the common way of speaking. The second and third ways which Foscarini identifies are generally regarded as types of accomodation, this approach can be traced back to the first Christian centuries, and was not regarded as controversial.
McGrath concludes Galileo adopted the biblical interpretation approach of Foscarini, Calvin and the early Church Fathers in opposition to the Catholic Church. The Catholic position was clear, as summerized by Jacques-Benigue Bossuet, one of the most formidable apologists for Roman Catholicism at this time (1688):
The teaching of the church is always the same .The gospel is never different from what it was before. Hence, if at any time someone says that the faith includes something which yesterday was not said to be of the faith, it is always heterodoxy, which is any doctrine different from orthodoxy. There is no difficulty about recognizing false doctrine; there is no argument about it. It is recognized at once, wherever it appears, simply because it is new.
So Foscarini, Calvin and Galileo were wrong because the Catholic Church thought their biblical interpretation was new. To concede Galileos interpretation, wrote McGrath would seriously undermine the Catholic Churchs criticism of Protestantism.
Alister E. McGrath in Science & Religion wrote, The impact of these ideas upon scientific theorizing was considerable. For example, the English writer Edward Wright defended Copernicus heliocentric theory of the solar system against the Catholic Church by arguing, in the first place, that Scripture was not concerned with physics, and in the second, that its manner of speaking was 'accomodated to the understanding and way of speech of the common people, like nurses to children.' These arguments derive directly from Calvin, who may be argued to have made a fundamental contribution to the emergence of the natural sciences in this respect."
Mcgrath continues, Although the controversy centering on Galileo is often portryed as science versus religion, or libertarianism versus authoritarianism, the real issue concerned the correct interpretation of the Bible. To explore this point, we may turn to a significant work published in 1615 by a Carmelite friar Paolo Antonio Foscarini entitled Letter on the opinion of the Pythagoreans and Copernicus. Foscarini wrote, When Holy Scripture attributes something to God or to any other creature which would otherwise be improper and incommensurate, then it should be interpreted and explained in one or more of the following ways. First, it is said to pertain metaphorically and proportionally, or by similitude. Second, it is said according to our mode of consideration, apprehension, understanding, knowing etc. Thirdly, it is said according to vulgar opinion and the common way of speaking. The second and third ways which Foscarini identifies are generally regarded as types of accomodation, this approach can be traced back to the first Christian centuries, and was not regarded as controversial.
McGrath concludes Galileo adopted the biblical interpretation approach of Foscarini, Calvin and the early Church Fathers in opposition to the Catholic Church. The Catholic position was clear, as summerized by Jacques-Benigue Bossuet, one of the most formidable apologists for Roman Catholicism at this time (1688):
The teaching of the church is always the same .The gospel is never different from what it was before. Hence, if at any time someone says that the faith includes something which yesterday was not said to be of the faith, it is always heterodoxy, which is any doctrine different from orthodoxy. There is no difficulty about recognizing false doctrine; there is no argument about it. It is recognized at once, wherever it appears, simply because it is new.
So Foscarini, Calvin and Galileo were wrong because the Catholic Church thought their biblical interpretation was new. To concede Galileos interpretation, wrote McGrath would seriously undermine the Catholic Churchs criticism of Protestantism.
