Galileo's condemnation: The real and complex story

That done, the Inquisitors found Galileo guilty of vehement suspicion of heresy. This mention of heresy supports Redondi's atomism theory since Copernicanism was not heretical. They ordered him to recant and to recite the penitential Psalms once a week for three years. He was also placed under house arrest, possibly at Urban's insistence. When Galileo recanted, he said that he erred due to "vain ambition." he quoted Cicero: "I am more desirous of glory than is suitable (49)." Now under house arrest, Galileo completed Two New Sciences, which was his greatest contribution to science.

Discussion

Galileo's problems were as much from going against Aristotelian science as the Church. It is always an uphill fight to overturn the old paradigm, and Galileo's science was mixed. On the plus side, he had made new telescopic discoveries and more correctly understood sunspots than did Scheiner. Nevertheless, there were some problems. First, even though he never observed any comets through his telescope or made any measurements, he wrongly argued against Grassi that they were not real. And against Brahe's measurements, he claimed comets were atmospheric phenomena. Next, Galileo promoted an outdated astronomical theory that involved epicycles, while ignoring Kepler's system that more correctly used ellipses for planetary orbits. Finally, Galileo wrongly argued that the tides proved the earth's motion, and again ignored Kepler's correct explanation that the moon caused the tides. Only under house arrest did Galileo make his greatest contribution to science, the physics of motion.

Galileo's difficulties developed from many sources. One was his advocacy of atomism, which conflicted with church dogma on the Eucharist and may have led to the suspicion of heresey verdict. Other sources of his problems were his obsession with Copernicanism, needlessly creating enemies, disobeying Bellarmine's injunction, ignoring the pope's sensitive political situation, encroaching on the Church's prerogative of Scripture interpretation, and finally, personally antagonizing the pope, who was his friend.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank Tom Africa, Charles Briggs, Kathleen Comerford, Dan and Kathy Skidmore-Hess, and anonymous reviewers for their comments, and William Shea for his translation of Document EE291. Figures 1 and 2 are from Alexandre Koyre's The Astronomical Revolution, trans. by R.E.W. Maddison (Paris: Hermann, 1973) pp 60-61.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Finocchiaro MA: Science, religion, and the historiograpnhy of the Galileo affair; on the undesirability of oversimplication. Osiris, Second Series, 16: 114-132, 2001. Wilson DB: The historiography of science and religion. In The History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition: An Encyclopedia Ferngren, Ed) New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., pp 3-11, 2000. Brooke J and Cantor G: "Reconstructing Nature, The Engagement of Science and Religion." Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 106-138, 1998. Brooke JH: Religious belief and the natural sciences: mapping the historical landscape. In Facets of Faith and Science, Volume I: Historiography and Modes of Interaction (van der Meer, Ed) New York: University Press of America, Inc., pp 1-26, 1996. Kaiser CB: Scientific Work and its Theological Dimensions: Toward a Theology of Natural Science, Ibid, pp 223-246. Lindberg DC and Numbers RL: Eds: "God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science." Los Angeles: The University of California Press, 1986.