Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo - Essay Example

The heavens were made of 55 concentric crystalline spheres to which were attached celestial bodies orbiting the Earth at different measures of velocity. Aristotle further claimed herein that an outermost sphere existed being the domain of the ‘Prime Mover’ which brought its constant motion to be distributed among the inner spheres, including the sun. This notion was acceptable to the church because it could be affirmed by certain passages in the Bible. As such, the biblical verses of the book of Genesis in the Old Testament, particularly Gen. 19:23 and Gen. 28:11 indicate in phrases “The sun had risen on the earth ...” and “... because the sun had set” (ESV), respectively, that the sun exhibits movement, as of rising and of setting. Then since the interpretation hereafter had been widely acknowledged in the literal sense of the text, the moving sun was thought of by the church to be the one rotating as all the rest of the cosmic spheres do about a core where the Earth’s spot was. Moreover, Psalm 19:6 which reads “Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them, and there is nothing hidden from its heat” was also taken to imply a literal reference to the sun’s assumed behavior of not remaining in one place. Consequently, because Aristotle, as well as Ptolemy, occurred to have similar theories, the Catholic faith expressed an inclination to his science and philosophy since it seemed unlikely to question the inseparability between the church and its determination to keep the Aristotelian geocentric model.

         By the time the Renaissance or the Age of Enlightenment (14th – 17th c.) came and the enlightened thinkers prevailed to introduce reforms to the old system of thinking and living in several aspects, Galileo Galilei was born to challenge the traditional geocentric belief scheme. As one of the prominent figures who made ‘The Scientific Revolution possible to soar to heights of radical vision and discoveries, Galileo studied astronomy, mathematics, physics, and natural philosophy he found a great deal of significance in applying the scientific method. Through the inductive means of conducting his endeavor in astronomy which involved thorough use of math and physics for accurate computations, he managed to prove the Copernican findings that the sun is the center of the universe. The Roman Catholic Church, nevertheless, could not afford to permit the promotion of this concept since it had already perceived certainty in the gradual reconciliation of science and religion via the Earth-centered approach of Aristotle. It infuriated some theologians and church leaders to the point of severe opposition and accusation, charging the Italian astronomer of heresy upon examining Galileo’s heliocentric insights. His Copernican-based ideas appear contrary to the biblical statements concerning the movement of the sun or scriptural portions that reflected the Earth in a fixed position while the Sun keeps not a single location, just as is depicted in Ecclesiastes 1:5 – “The sun rises and the sun sets and hurries back to where it rises” (NIV).   

            Galileo, however, responded by communicating to the church that he held nothing against the teachings of the Bible and conveyed that his faith in God and spiritual knowledge was far from becoming swayed by scientific influence in a manner as to find fault in what had come to be established as law or truth worthy of general acceptance. In his letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, Galileo wrote with a grievance:  “Showing a greater fondness for their own opinions than for truth they sought to deny and disprove the new things which, if they had cared to look for themselves, their senses would have demonstrated to them ... and they made the grave mistake of sprinkling these with passages taken from places in the Bible which they had failed to understand properly” (Galileo, 1615). More than a letter written to explain himself, it aimed to summon the Catholic authorities to be open-minded and avoid interpretation based on limited context or choice of understanding. For him, instead of labeling his work as unorthodox, theologians ought to realize the soundness of his argument, having been arrived at through a natural and rational course of integrating the principles of math and science. Read More