The relationship between science and the Catholic Church has included both extensive institutional patronage and support as well as periods of censorship and sharp conflict. The influential theologian, philosopher and bishop St. Augustine (354-430) taught that God revealed Himself through the created world, which is like a "book" that is accessible to every human being regardless of literacy. In the Early Middle Ages, clergy were the leading scholars of natural philosophy in the Latin West. During the Middle Ages, the Church founded Europe's first universities. During the Renaissance, a high-ranking Church official - Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) - proposed that the earth circled the sun. Historians of science have documented important continuities between pre-modern Christian ideas and the birth of modern science.
During the Scientific Revolution, the Papacy and the Jesuits initially promoted the observations and studies of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) but the Roman Inquisition later forced him to recant his views and then sentenced him to house arrest. Critics point to episodes like this, where the Church has opposed scientific findings that challenged its teachings, as evidence for a conflict thesis — the idea that there is an intrinsic and inevitable intellectual conflict between religion and science. The Catholic Church, for its part, maintains that science and faith are complementary, as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which addresses this relationship.
The early Church's interest in astronomy stemmed from issues surrounding the determination of the date for Easter, which was originally tied to the Hebrew lunisolar calendar.[1] In the 4th century, due to perceived problems with the Hebrew calendar's leap month system, the Council of Nicaea prescribed that Easter would fall on the first Sunday following the first full moon after the vernal equinox.[2] This religious mandate transformed astronomy into a matter of liturgical necessity. In order for the entire Christian world to be able celebrate the Resurrection together, it became necessary that the Church have the capacity to predict the date of Easter with enough accuracy and forewarning to allow both for sufficient time to prepare for the feast as well as ensure the universal celebration of the holy day across all of the Church's dominion – a daunting logistical feat. Not only did the Church need astronomy, as the solar and lunar years diverged over centuries it needed an astronomy capable of refinement and innovation to keep the liturgical calendar in alignment with the heavens.[3]
To a significant extent, the Church's approach to the study of the natural world was part of the intellectual legacy of St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430). In his "Two Books" doctrine, Augustine maintained that God revealed truth through both the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature:
"It is the divine page that you must listen to; it is the book of the universe that you must observe. The pages of Scripture can only be read by those who know how to read and write, while everyone, even the illiterate, can read the book of the universe."[4]
"Some people, in order to discover God, read a book. But there is a great book: the very appearance of created things. Look above and below, note, read. God whom you want to discover, did not make the letters with ink; he put in front of your eyes the very things that he made. Can you ask for a louder voice than that?"[5]
In De Genesi ad litteram Augustine identified a space for the study of nature by Christians:
"In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it...Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars [...] and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil..."[6]
By acknowledging that there is "obscure" knowledge to be discovered about the world "even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture" and also framing the study of astronomy, specifically, as a way to prevent infidels from scorning Christians in a way that could interfere with their salvation, Augustine helped to keep the study of the heavens a religiously-respectable activity during the Middle Ages when the cultural influence of the Church was at its zenith.
After the Fall of Rome, the import of papyrus to Europe ceased. Since papyrus perishes easily and does not last well in the wetter European climate, any existing papyrus books that people wanted to preserve were eventually moved from papyrus to parchment.[7] Since parchment was far more expensive than papyrus, books became accessible only to the Church and the very wealthy.[8] The leading scholars of the Early Middle Ages were all clergymen[9], for whom the study of nature was but a small part of their scholarly interest but who had both opportunity and motive for the study of aspects of nature. Modern readers may find it disconcerting that sometimes the same works discuss both the technical details of natural phenomena and their symbolic significance but this mixing reflects the core conviction of the era's clergy scholars that reason should serve religious belief.[10]
Skellig Michael, Ireland. Following the Fall of Rome, monastic settlements systematically maintained knowledge of classical languages and learning.
On the fringes of western Europe, where the Roman tradition had not made a strong imprint, monks engaged in the study of Latin as a foreign language, and actively investigated the traditions of Roman learning. Ireland's most learned monks even retained knowledge of Greek. Irish missionaries like Colombanus (543-615) later founded monasteries in continental Europe, which went on to create libraries and become centers of scholarship.[11] The need for monks to determine the proper time to pray led them to study the motion of the stars;[12] the need to compute the date of Easter led them to study and teach rudimentary mathematics and the motions of the Sun and Moon.[13][14]
The most notable scholars of the Early Middle Ages in the Latin West included Bishop Isidore of Seville (c. 560-636), who compiled Etymologiae, a vast encyclopedia of human knowledge at the time, including mathematics, geometry, astronomy, medicine, animals, the physical world, geography, metals and rocks. In On the Reckoning of Time, the monk Bede of Jarrow (c. 673-735) provided churchmen with the practical astronomical knowledge needed to compute the proper date of Easter using a procedure called the computus. (This text remained an important element of the education of clergy from the 8th century until well after the rise of the universities in the 12th century.[15]) Bede described two comets over England in AD 729 as "fiery torches" that struck terror in all who saw them – for comets were heralds of bad news.[16]Alcuin of York (c. 735-804), abbot of the Abbey of Marmoutier, advised Charlemagne on scientific matters. Rabanus Maurus (c. 780-856), Archbishop of Mainz was one of the most prominent teachers of the Carolingian Age who, like Bede, wrote treatises on computus and On the Nature of Things. Abbot Ælfric of Eynsham (c. 955–c. 1010), who is known mostly for his Old English homilies, wrote a book on astronomical time reckoning in Old English based on the writings of Bede. Abbo of Fleury (c. 945-1004) wrote astronomical discussions of timekeeping and of the celestial spheres for his students, teaching for a while in England where he influenced the work of Byrhtferth of Ramsey (c. 970-c. 1020), who wrote a Manual in Old English to discuss timekeeping and the natural and mystical significance of numbers.[17]
In the Middle Ages, Cathedral schools developed as centers of education. The School of Chartres, established by the Chartres Cathedral, became an important center of French scholarship. One of the most prominent members of the School, William of Conches (c. 1090-c. 1154), wrote that "in those matters that pertain to the Catholic faith or moral instruction, it is not allowed to contradict Bede or any other holy fathers. If, however, they err in those matters that pertain to physics, it is permitted to state an opposite view."[18]
In the 12th century, the Church helped re-popularize and disseminate ancient Greek ideas and mathematical techniques across Europe by sponsoring the translation of newly available Arabic-language versions of Greek texts into Latin.[25] This was done in large part to aid in astronomical study. J.L. Heilbron in his book The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals as Solar Observatories writes that "the Roman Catholic Church gave more financial aid and support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment, than any other, and, probably, all other, institutions."[26]
God as Architect/Geometer, from the frontispiece of French Codex Vindobonensis 2554, c.1250
Closely associated with the Church[27], these medieval universities used church Latin as a lingua franca. Theology was regarded as the first among the faculties and the "queen of the sciences"[28] but within this religious framework they produced a great variety of scholars and natural philosophers, including Robert Grosseteste (1170-1253) of the University of Oxford, an early expositor of a systematic method of scientific experimentation;[29] Saint Albert the Great (1200-1280), who wrote in De Mineralibus (Book II, Tractate ii, Ch. 1) that "it is [the task] of natural science not simply to accept what we are told but to inquire into the causes of natural things";[30] and Roger Bacon (c. 1214–1292), who wrote in Opus Majus that "there are two modes of acquiring knowledge, namely, by reasoning and by experience. Reasoning draws a conclusion, but does not make the conclusion certain, nor does it remove doubt so that the mind may rest in the intuition of truth, unless the mind discovers it by the path of experience."[31] By 1500, prior to the Reformation, Catholic Europe had approximately 64 universities.[32]
In Science and the Modern World, Alfred North Whitehead argued that modern science inherited a "faith" in the power of human reason from medieval scholastics.[33] The science historian Edward Grant makes a similar argument:
Over some four centuries, medieval natural philosophers transmitted a legacy to their non-Aristotelian, and largely anti-Aristotelian, successors in the early modern period, a legacy that was unacknowledged. That legacy was a pervasive and deep-seated spirit of inquiry that was a natural consequence of the widespread and intensive emphasis on reason that began in the Middle Ages. With the exception of revealed truths, reason was the ultimate arbiter for most intellectual arguments and controversies in medieval universities.[34]
Copernicus, Brahe, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton all studied at universities founded during the Middle Ages.
Some years ago word reached me concerning your proficiency, of which everybody constantly spoke. At that time I began to have a very high regard for you. ...For I had learned that you had not merely mastered the discoveries of the ancient astronomers uncommonly well but had also formulated a new cosmology. In it you maintain that the earth moves; that the sun occupies the lowest, and thus the central, place in the universe. ...Therefore with the utmost earnestness I entreat you, most learned sir, unless I inconvenience you, to communicate this discovery of yours to scholars, and at the earliest possible moment to send me your writings on the sphere of the universe together with the tables and whatever else you have that is relevant to this subject.[39]
Despite urgings from many quarters, Copernicus delayed publication of his book, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. Scholars disagree on whether Copernicus' publication delay was limited to concern about possible astronomical and philosophical objections or whether he was also concerned about religious objections.[40]
The majority of sixteenth-century astronomers who read De revolutionibus thought that eliminating the equant was Copernicus' big achievement, because it satisfied the ancient aesthetic (and, for many, theological) principle that eternal celestial motions should be uniform and circular or compounded of uniform and circular parts.[41] In the sixty years following his death in 1543, Copernicus’s proposal that the earth was a planet was primarily attacked by Protestant leaders like Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon, who used literalist interpretations of Scripture to denounce the idea as "absurd" and urged secular governments to repress it.[42] In contrast, De revolutionibus initially caused only mild controversy among Catholics. The Catholic establishment - which Copernicus was himself a part of for nearly a half century as a canon - did not shun De revolutionibus. The Church itself remained officially silent on the theory’s merits and even utilized some Copernican mathematics for the 1582 Gregorian calendar reform.[43] While a Dominican named Giovanni Maria Tolosani did denounce the theory as a contradiction of Holy Scripture in 1546,[44] his critique remained an isolated incident rather than an official stance of the Church before 1610.[45]
By the 16th century, the date of the vernal equinox on the Julian calendar had receded from March 25 to March 11.[46] The Council of Trent in 1562 authorized the pope to deal with calendar reform in order to stop the slow process in which the Church's holidays were drifting relative to the seasons. Using the Prussian Tables of Erasmus Reinhold and building on the work of Aloysius Lilius, Christopher Clavius - a Jesuit astronomer and head of mathematicians at the Collegio Romano - proposed a significant reform. The resulting Gregorian calendar is the internationally accepted civil calendar used throughout the world today.[47][48][49] It was introduced by Pope Gregory XIII, after whom the calendar was named, by a decree signed on 24 February 1582.[50]
Founded in 1540 at the end of the Renaissance and as part of the beginning of the Counter-Reformation to meet the threat of Protestantism, the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits) developed a reputation as the premier teachers and intellectuals of the Catholic Church. Beginning in the late 16th century, the Jesuits sent missionaries to China — pioneered by Father Matteo Ricci — where they were welcomed for expert knowledge of mathematical astronomy. This aided the ruling class in predicting celestial events, helping the ruling dynasty show that they retained the Mandate of Heaven. The Jesuits separated two fields of science, cosmology and cosmography, which were previously conflated by the Chinese, thus avoiding the restrictions of the Book of Changes. The missionaries took on high-ranking roles. Father Johann Adam Schall von Bell was made president of the mathematics court of the Qing dynasty and contributed significantly to the reformation of China's calendar. Father Ferdinand Verbiest rebuilt the imperial observatory for the Chinese emperor.[51] These missionaries also brought Chinese technologies and ideas back to Europe, adding fuel to the Scientific Revolution. [52]
"When natural philosophers referred to laws of nature, they were not glibly choosing that metaphor. Laws were the result of legislation by an intelligent deity."[53]
Scholars have noted a direct tie between "particular aspects of traditional Christianity" and the rise of science.[54][55] For example, historian Peter Harrison argues that Christianity contributed to the rise of the Scientific Revolution because many of its key figures had deeply held religious convictions and believed "themselves to be champions of a science that was more compatible with Christianity than the medieval ideas about the natural world that they replaced."[56] In The Origins of Modern Science, Herbert Butterfield observed that "the Christians helped the cause of modern rationalism by their jealous determination to sweep out of the world all miracles and magic except their own."[57]
According to science historian John Hedley Brooke, the medieval "search for signs of God in nature had often been based on the assumption that the two books [of Scripture and Nature] had been written in essentially the same language."[58]Kepler and Galileo, however, both believed that because the Book of Nature was created by God, it must therefore be absolutely perfect[59] but that its hidden perfection[60] could only be understood with mathematics:
"Philosophy [i.e. natural philosophy] is written in this grand book - I mean the Universe - which stands continually open to our gaze, but it cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and interpret the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics...without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it..."[61]
While St. Augustine had written, more than a millenium earlier, that “everyone, even the illiterate, can read the book of the universe,” Galileo asserted that numeracy, not just literacy, was required to read the Book of Nature so that even fewer people were able to truly "read" it than the literate able to read the Book of Scripture.[62] Galileo also argued that not only should certainties of science never be "called in question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages which may have some different meaning beneath their words"[63] but also that those same scientific certainties should be used, where appropriate, to help interpret Scripture.[64]
The Church played a pivotal role in both establishing the University of Paris around 1150 and then facilitating the acquisition and translation of lost Greek texts, including physical treatises of Aristotle, into Latin but within just a few decades (1210) a provincial synod declared that "[n]either the books of Aristotle on natural philosophy or their commentaries are to be read at Paris in public or secret, and this we forbid under penalty of excommunication."[65] In 1215, acting under the authority of Pope Innocent III, papal legate Robert of Courçon incorporated these restrictions into the University's governing documents,[66] effectively curtailing the teaching of certain Aristotelian texts and marking the opening phase of the "Condemnations". Two additional rounds of "Condemnations" were undertaken in 1270 and 1277. Approximately sixteen lists of censured theses were issued by the University of Paris during the 13th and 14th centuries.[67] Most of these lists of propositions were put together into systematic collections of prohibited articles.[67]
Following the emergence of the Protestant churches and nations of Northern Europe, the Catholic Church struggled to defend its authority in Europe. Science historian Jacob Bronowski wrote that "Catholics and Protestants were embattled in what we should now call a Cold War. The Church was a great temporal power, and in that bitter time it was fighting a political crusade in which all means were justified by the end."[68] In 1542, Pope Paul III established the Congregation of the Roman Inquisition (known later as the Holy Office[69]) to stop the spread of "heretical depravity" throughout the Christian world.[70][71] The Inquisition was empowered by the Church to use aggressive tactics, including house arrest[72] and even torture,[73] to stop heresy and enforce religious conformity. From 1571, the Inquisition had jurisdiction over books and created the Index of Forbidden Books.[74][75]
The Inquisition's system of tribunals lasted until the mid 18th century, when pre-unification Italian states began to suppress the local inquisitions, effectively eliminating the power of the church to prosecute heretical crimes but the Inquisition continued to exist into the 19th century.[76] The Index was active from 1560 to 1966.[77][78][79] While active, it banned thousands of books.[80]
Conrad Gessner's zoological work, Historiae animalium, which appeared in four volumes and was published between 1551 and 1588. Under Pope Paul IV, it was added to the Church's list of prohibited books as Gessner was a Protestant. He still maintained friendship with Catholics regardless of the religious animosities between Catholics and Protestants at that time. Gaining support for his work, Catholic booksellers in Venice protested the ban on Gessner's books but it was later on allowed for selling once it was revised and "freed" from doctrines contrary to the Catholic faith.[81]
"...in discussions of physical problems we ought to begin not from the authority of scriptural passages, but from sense-experiences and necessary demonstrations; for the holy Bible and the phenomena of nature proceed alike from the divine Word, the former as the dictate of the Holy Ghost and the latter as the observant executrix of God's commands. It is necessary for the Bible, in order to be accommodated to the understanding of every man, to speak many things which appear to differ from the absolute truth so far as the bare meaning of the words is concerned. But Nature, on the other hand, is inexorable and immutable; she never transgresses the laws imposed upon her, or cares a whit whether her abstruse reasons and methods of operation are understandable to men. For that reason it appears that nothing physical which sense-experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called in question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages which may have some different meaning beneath their words. For the Bible is not chained in every expression to conditions as strict as those which govern all physical effects; nor is God any less excellently revealed in Nature's actions than in the sacred statements of the Bible. Perhaps this is what Tertullian meant by these words: 'We conclude that God is known first through Nature, and then again, more particularly, by doctrine; by Nature in His works, and by doctrine in His revealed word.'"
Galileo Galilei was a Catholic scientist during the Scientific Revolution. Initially a beneficiary of Church patronage of astronomy, Galileo rose to prominence with the publication of Sidereus Nuncius, which included astronomical observations made possible by the 1608 invention of the telescope. He was feted in Rome, honoured by the Jesuits of the Roman College, and received by Pope Paul V and Church dignitaries.[83] In 1613, his Letters on Sunspots was published, which reported his 1610 telescopic observations of the full set of phases of Venus, strong evidence that geocentrism was false.[84][85] In his 1615 Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina, he argued that the language of the Bible had been accommodated to be understandable to uneducated people and should therefore not be interpreted as literal scientific descriptions[86] and the Church risked reputational damage in the long run if it officially condemned heliocentrism.[87][88] He invited the Church to follow established practice and reinterpret Scripture in light of the new scientific discoveries,[89][90] quoting Cardinal Baronius: "The Holy Ghost intended to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." The leading Jesuit theologian, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, agreed this would be an appropriate response to a true demonstration that the Sun was at the center of the universe ("heliocentrism"), but cautioned that the existing materials upon which Galileo relied did not yet constitute an established truth.[83] Cardinal Carlo Conti privately told Galileo that Scripture could potentially accommodate a moving Earth but also cautioned Galileo against publicly adopting such views "without great necessity."[91]
Galileo received staunch support from a Carmelite friar, Paolo Antonio Foscarini, who published a book defending Galileo's heliocentrism and presenting it as compatible with the Bible,[92] but also bitter opposition from some philosophers and clerics, two of whom denounced him to the Roman Inquisition early in 1615, warning "that Galileo should not go outside mathematics and physics and should avoid provoking theologians by teaching them how to read the Bible".[93] One of the philosophers who issued a complaint to the inquisition was Tommaso Caccini, who disregarded Galileo as a "mathematician" and strongly attacked him in his sermons, ordering him to withdraw from philosophy and citing Acts 1:10: "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?".[94]
The report of the Inquisition's consultants declared heliocentrism as "false and contrary to Scripture" in February 1616,[95] although Maurice Finocchiaro notes that Copernicanism was never formally declared to be heresy as the Congregation of the Holy Office did not endorse the consultant's report and refused to follow through with an official declaration.[96] On 26 February, Cardinal Bellarmine visited Galileo and informed him of the inquisition's decision, explaining that although Copernicanism could be a viable theory, it was not proven true. As such, the church could not abandon the common interpretation of scripture for a hypothesis.[97] Bellarmine argued that should a decisive proof of Earth's motion be found, the church would "admit that we do not understand them rather than say that something that has been proved is false." He then demanded Galileo to stop teaching and defending Copernican theory, to which Galileo agreed. Bellarmine met with the Pope on 3 March, and informed him of Galileo's compliance.[98] That month, the Church's Congregation of the Index issued a decree suspending De revolutionibus until it could be "corrected", because the supposedly Pythagorean doctrine[99] that the Earth moves and the Sun does not was "false and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture."[100] The edits to De revolutionibus, which omitted or altered nine sentences, were issued four years later, in 1620.[101]
In 1623, Galileo's friend Maffeo Barberini was elected as Pope Urban VIII. Urban VIII was an intellectual and patron of the arts and architecture, who had written poetry as a young man in praise of Galileo's astronomical writings. Galileo met with the new Pope, hoping to persuade him to lift the 1616 ban.[102] Urban VIII had been an ally of Galileo ever since he became a cardinal, and provided funding for Galileo's work; Pope's correspondence also reveals that he was privately sympathetic to Copernicism, but did not wish to publicly admit so.[103] Galileo was granted numerous audiences with the new Pope, with the conclusion that there "was no absolute condemnation of the Copernican theory; it did not enter the field of heretical opinions, but only those that were deemed bold".[104] On the condition that it remain an objective analysis of competing cosmologies, the Pope permitted Galileo to publish a book on the Copernican hypothesis. However, the resulting Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems explicitly endorsed the Copernican model. Because the book appeared with the Pope's endorsement on its title page,[86] it appeared that the Church officially supported heliocentrism, compromising Urban VIII’s position[105] as well as personally offending him as his own arguments were put into the mouth of the buffoon-like "Simplicio" in the dialogue.[106]
According to Finocchiaro, although Urban VIII himself sympathised with Galileo and wanted him to merely revision "Dialogue", Galileo's attacks on influential clerical figures and massive backlash forced him to act. The position of the Pope was also greatly endangered by the ongoing Thirty Years' War, which pressured him to reaffirm his authority.[107] Finocchiaro states that many contemporary physicists objected to Galileo's theory as it lacked proof, which also affected the church's decision;[108] Copernicus' argument was a hypothetical one regarding what phenomena would occur if Earth was in motion. Copernicus emphasised that he could not prove the motion of Earth, whereas Galileo strongly insisted on it being true, despite having no way to prove so.[108]William René Shea[es] argues that Galileo attracted the interest of the Inquisition by getting involved in theological matters. Galileo's stance was accepted as a conjecture that had yet to be proven, yet Galileo insisted that his theory was of "undoubted certainty" and demanded the Scripture be re-evaluated. Shea concludes that "had Galileo been able to demonstrate the truth of Copernicanism, all would have been well, but he did not have and was never to have such proof."[109]
Galileo was summoned to Rome to be tried by the Inquisition in 1633. He was accused of violating the 1616 ban that forbade him from teaching or defending his theory[110] and breaking his agreement with the Pope, as instead of following through the compromise of Urban VIII to present his theory as a hypothesis and an "instrument of prediction and calculation", Galileo presented his beliefs as "factual and unconditional".[107]Dialogue received backlash for its "rhetorical excesses and biting sarcasm", including attacking several clerical figures.[107] Finocchiaro notes that the trial was focused on philosophy, and Galileo claimed to "have spent more years studying philosophy than months studying pure mathematics".[111] Galileo was supported by several Catholic figures such as Monsignor Piero Dini, CarmelitePaolo Antonio Foscarini, and a DominicanTommaso Campanella; his trial in 1633 made him gain sympathy from more clergy like Ascanio II Piccolomini and Fulgenzio Micanzio.[112]
Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy" for "following the position of Copernicus, which is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture."[113] Galileo was forced to recant, and was sentenced to house arrest, with the sentence being commuted in December 1633.[114] While under house arrest, Galileo wrote his most influential work, Two New Sciences. Despite discussing the motion of Earth and endorsing Copernican theory, Galileo did not suffer any harm from the Inquisition for publishing this book, even though it reached Rome's bookstores in January 1639, and all available copies were quickly sold.[115] Finocchario argues that since the Inquisition allowed Galileo's Two New Sciences to later be published - despite endorsing the Copernican theory - Galileo's trial was not a condemnation of heliocentrism but rather a condemnation of Galileo's attempt to reinterpret the Bible, which was seen as especially dangerous amid the Counter-Reformation.[116]
After the Revolution
The Scientific Revolution of the 17th century was a fundamental restructuring of human civilization that included a decoupling of knowledge production from either religious sponsorship or authority. Historians of science continue to debate the magnitude of this shift: Did the Revolution merely "outshine... everything since the rise of Christianity"[117] or is the better comparison actually to the Neolithic Revolution?[118]
Galileo’s early 17th-century telescopic observations began the transformation of what had been a narrowly technical revision of classical astronomy by Copernicus - the pious Church official - into an increasingly disorienting challenge to traditional cosmology. This shift began by reimagining the Earth as an unremarkable planet in motion; it would eventually culminate in a vision of a world circulating purposelessly around an ordinary star, no different from an uncountable number of others. This transformation posed a threat not only to the long-standing synthesis of Aristotelian physics and Christian theology but also to a view of the universe whose spiritual significance had once been transparent to the faithful.[119][120] In its place, modern astronomy offered a view of the universe where the physical location of human beings appeared to lack any religious meaning or significance.[121]
The end of the human-centered cosmos was eventually part of a complete replacement of a qualitative world by a quantitative one. That replacement appeared to leave human beings alone in a silent, infinite universe where existence was no longer a reflection of divine values but merely a neutral fact of mathematics. The science historian Alexandre Koyré memorably described this unintended outcome of the Scientific Revolution - the stripping of hierarchical order, purpose and meaning from the universe — as the "utter devalorization of being."[122] In his Pensees published in 1670, the mathematician, philosopher and Catholic writer Blaise Pascal wrote that the "eternal silence of these infinite spaces frightens me."[123]
The upheaval of the Scientific Revolution extended beyond a specific problem of cosmology to a broader epistemological challenge that decisively overthrew the medieval view of natural philosophy as the servant (or "handmaiden") of theology.[124] Galileo, Kepler and others argued that the Book of Nature was separate from the Book of Scripture and that only the latter was designed to tell humans "how to go to heaven."[125]Francis Bacon went even farther to warn his 17th-century contemporaries against the "corruption of philosophy by superstition and an admixture of theology" and the "unwholesome mixture of things human and divine" which was liable to produce not only "fantastic philosophy" but also "heretical religion" too.[126] Bacon urged natural philosophers to "give to faith that only which is faith's."[127] While the era’s "scientists" were almost always highly devout as individuals[128], their day-to-day practices as scientists increasingly followed a mechanistic logic that left no room for any mixing of the measurable with the miraculous.
As natural philosophy grew in power, self-confidence and independence during the Scientific Revolution, European society around it began to undergo a tectonic shift in intellectual attitude — from fides quaerens intellectum to a new mode of understanding that was, increasingly, completely uncoupled from religion:
...let us take for a moment a typical well-educated European in 1600...He believes in witchcraft...He believes Circe really did turn Odysseus's crew into pigs. He believes mice are spontaneously generated in piles of straw...He believes that nature abhors a vacuum. He believes the rainbow is a sign from God and that comets portend evil...He believes, of course, that the earth stands still and the sun and stars turn around the earth once every twenty-four hours...But now let us jump far ahead [to 1733]...He does not know anyone (or at least not anyone educated and reasonably sophisticated) who believes in witches, magic, alchemy or astrology; he thinks the Odyssey is fiction, not fact....He knows that the rainbow is produced by refracted light and that comets have no significance for our lives on earth. He believes that the future cannot be predicted. He knows that the heart is a pump...He believes that science is going to transform the world and that the moderns have outstripped the ancients in every possible respect. He has trouble believing in miracles, even the ones in the Bible...Between 1600 and 1733...the intellectual world of the educated elite changed more rapidly than at any time in previous history...The only name we have for this great transformation is 'the Scientific Revolution'.[129]
In the 19th century, scientists/historians John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White were the most influential exponents of the conflict thesis between the Catholic Church and science. In the early 1870s, Draper was invited to write a History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1874), a book replying to contemporary papal edicts such as the doctrine of infallibility, and mostly criticizing the anti-intellectualism of Roman Catholicism,[130] yet he assessed that Islam and Protestantism had little conflict with science. Draper's preface summarises the conflict thesis: "The history of Science is not a mere record of isolated discoveries; it is a narrative of the conflict of two contending powers, the expansive force of the human intellect on one side, and the compression arising from traditionary faith and human interests on the other."[131] In 1896, White published A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, the culmination of thirty years of research and publication on the subject. In the introduction, White emphasized he arrived at his position after the difficulties of assisting Ezra Cornell in establishing a university without any official religious affiliation.
The conflict thesis has little support among contemporary science historians.[132][133][134] Later uses of the term may instead refer to more subtle and/or episodic conflicts, including disagreements over the demarcations between science and religion, struggles for influence over government policy, confrontations over new technologies or clashes over particular scientific discoveries that appear to challenge the authority and power of religious institutions. The historian and philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn, for example, observes that modern science's claim to authority over cosmology creates a built-in friction with all religious cosmologies.[135] An example of this sort of criticism is that the Church opposes particular scientific discoveries that it feels challenges its authority and power. These "softer" versions of conflict theory shift the emphasis away from a crude assertion of a fundamental incompatibility of religion per se and science-in-general to a critique of the structural reasons for the resistance of the Church as a political organization.[136]
In Religion in an Age of Science, the physicist and philosopher Ian Barbour writes that while the "conflict" model can be a reasonable lens to describe the most visible and obvious clashes involving extremist positions of scientific materialism and biblical literalism, there are other kinds of interactions between science and religion that are better described in terms of dialogue or integration. Barbour also describes a fourth "independence" mode.[137] In Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives, the science historian John Hedley Brooke notes that a strategy that successfully harmonized religion and science in one era (at least for some) broke down in a later era:
"The diversification of the sciences and the theoretical changes within them make it extremely difficult to locate a unique set of principles by which harmony [with religion] could be guaranteed. Among the physical scientists of the seventeenth century it was achieved by stressing the harmony of the universe itself - a divinely conceived harmony, expressible in mathematical terms, and which, Copernicus had declared, it was the duty of the astronomer to display. By the nineteenth century, however, and especially in the life sciences, the metaphysics that had underpinned the work of Copernicus, Kepler and Newton had become obstructive...A metaphysics stressing the invariance of divine ideas created dissonance where it had once created harmony."[138]
The Catholic architects of modern geology, astrophysics, genetics and cosmology
While the Scientific Revolution effectively untethered natural philosophy from religion, the Church did not adopt a reflexively hostile attitude toward the accelerating research, invention, and discoveries of an increasingly self-confident "science." The careers of four clergy scientists, each of whom made foundational contributions to modern science, illustrate the Church's continued interest in and engagement with modern efforts to read the Book of Nature.
In October 1666, fishermen caught a huge shark near the town of Livorno. Ferdinando II de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany, ordered its head to be sent to Nicolas Steno, a Danish anatomist who had moved to Italy. Steno noted that the shark's teeth bore a striking resemblance to objects found embedded within rock formations that his contemporaries called glossopetrae or "tongue stones". Ancient authorities, such as the Roman author Pliny the Elder, in his Naturalis Historia, had suggested that these stones fell from the sky or from the Moon.[139]Fabio Colonna, however, had already shown by burning the material that glossopetrae were actually organic matter (limestone) rather than soil minerals.[140][141][142] Building on Colonna's work by using the contemporary corpuscular theory of matter, Steno argued that the chemical composition of fossils could be altered without changing their form.
Steno's work on shark teeth led him to the question of how any solid object could come to be found inside another solid object, such as a rock or a layer of rock. The "solid bodies within solids" that attracted Steensen's interest included not only fossils, as we would define them today, but minerals, crystals, encrustations, veins, and even entire rock layers or strata. His seminal 1669 work, De solido intra solidum naturaliter contento dissertationis prodromus, introduced the fundamental principles of stratigraphy that remain the bedrock of modern geological surveying[143] and make Steno one of the founders of modern geology. The law of superposition, the principle of original horizontality, the principle of lateral continuity and the principle of cross-cutting relationships were all originally proposed by Steno.
Originally a Lutheran, Steno moved to Catholic Italy and, in 1667, converted. Denied office in the Protestant north, he continued his geological studies but in 1675 became a priest and soon after was appointed a bishop, writing 16 major theological works.[144]
A new astronomy, soon to be called astrophysics, began to emerge when William Hyde Wollaston and Joseph von Fraunhofer independently discovered that, when decomposing the light from the Sun, a multitude of dark lines (regions where there was less or no light) were observed in the spectrum.[145] By 1860 the physicist, Gustav Kirchhoff, and the chemist, Robert Bunsen, had demonstrated that the dark lines in the solar spectrum corresponded to bright lines in the spectra of known gases, specific lines corresponding to unique chemical elements.[146] Kirchhoff deduced that the dark lines in the solar spectrum are caused by absorption by chemical elements in the Solar atmosphere.[147] In this way it was proved that the chemical elements found in the Sun and stars were also found on Earth.
Starting in 1863 and using instruments of his own invention, including the heliospectrograph, star spectrograph, and telespectroscope, Fr. Angelo Secchi, an ItalianCatholic priest and director of the observatory at the Pontifical Gregorian University (then called the Roman College), began collecting the spectra of stars, accumulating some 4,000 stellar spectrograms. Through analysis of this data, he discovered that the stars come in a limited number of distinct types and subtypes, which could be distinguished by their different spectral patterns.[148] From this concept, he developed the first system of stellar classification: the five Secchi classes. While his system was superseded by the Harvard system, he still stands as discoverer of the principle of stellar classification, which is a fundamental element of astrophysics. His recognition of molecular bands of carbonradicals in the spectra of some stars made him the discoverer of carbon stars, which made one of his spectral classes. He also demonstrated that certain absorption lines in the spectrum of the Sun were caused by absorption in the Earth's atmosphere.
Gregor Mendel was an Austrian scientist and Augustinian friar who began experimenting with peas around 1856. Observing the processes of pollination at his monastery in what is now the Czech Republic, Mendel studied and developed theories about the field of science now called genetics. Mendel published his results in 1866 in the Journal of the Brno Natural History Society. The paper was not widely read nor understood, and soon after its publication Mendel was elected abbot of his monastery. He continued experimenting with bees but his work went unrecognized until various scientists resurrected his theories around 1900, after his death.[150] Mendel had joined the Brno Augustinian monastery in 1843, but also trained as a scientist at the Olmutz Philosophical Institute and the University of Vienna. The Brno Monastery was a center of scholarship, with an extensive library and a tradition of scientific research.[151]
Where Charles Darwin's theories suggested a mechanism for improvement of species over generations, Mendel's observations explained how new species could emerge. Though Darwin and Mendel never collaborated, they were aware of each other's work (Darwin read a paper by Wilhelm Olbers Focke which extensively referenced Mendel). Bill Bryson wrote that "without realizing it, Darwin and Mendel laid the groundwork for all of the life sciences in the twentieth century. Darwin saw that all living things are connected, that ultimately they trace their ancestry to a single, common source; Mendel's work provided the mechanism to explain how that could happen."[152] Biologist J. B. S. Haldane and others brought together the principles of Mendelian inheritance with Darwinian principles of evolution to form the field of genetics known as Modern evolutionary synthesis.[153]
The Big Bang model, or theory, is now the prevailing cosmological theory of the early development of the universe and was first proposed by Belgian priest Georges Lemaître, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven, with a Ph.D. from MIT. Lemaître was a pioneer in applying Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity to cosmology. Bill Bryson wrote that the idea was decades ahead of its time and that Lemaître was the first to bring together Einstein's theory of relativity with Edwin Hubble's cosmological observations, combining them in his own "fire-works theory". Lemaître theorized in the 1920s that the universe began as a geometrical point which he called a "primeval atom", which exploded out and has been moving apart ever since. The idea became established theory only decades later with the discovery of cosmic background radiation by American scientists.[154]
Lemaître viewed his work as a scientist as neither supporting nor contradicting the truths of faith[155] and he was strongly opposed to making any arguments that mixed science with religion[156] (an effort sometimes referred to as concordism), although he held that the two were not in conflict.[157] In a 1933 New York Times article, he asserted, "There is no conflict between religion and science to reconcile." He was always anxious that his work on cosmology should be judged on purely scientific criteria.[158] Lemaître's concern that interactions between religion and science could hinder scientific acceptance as well as leave faith vulnerable to future shifts in scientific theory led historian of science Dominique Lambert to single him out as perhaps modern Catholicism's most prominent "discordist" and leading intellectual opponent of concordism.[159]
Lemaître was reportedly horrified when, in 1951, Pope Pius XII gave an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences - with Lemaître in the audience - in which he drew a parallel between the new "Big Bang" cosmology and the Christian doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. Lemaître appealed directly to the Pope to avoid making any further public statements on religious or philosophical interpretations of matters concerning physical cosmology.[160]
Between 1650 and 1750, four observatories run by the Catholic Church were among the best solar observatories in the world. Built largely to fix an unquestionable date for Easter, they also housed instruments that threw light on the disputed geometry of the Solar System.[161]
Perhaps one of the greatest contributions made by the Jesuits to science is the large network of observatories they founded across the world. Jesuits devised modern lunar nomenclature and stellar classification and some 35 craters of the moon are named after Jesuits. Historian Jonathan Wright writes that Jesuits "observed, in some cases before anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter's surface, the Andromeda nebula, and Saturn's rings."[164] Between 1824 and 1957, 75 observatories were founded by the Jesuits. In some countries in Asia and Africa, these observatories were the first scientific institutions they had ever had.[165]
Under the protection of the reigning Pope, the Academy aims to promote the progress of the mathematical, physical, and natural sciences and the study of related epistemological problems. The Academy has its origins in the Accademia Pontificia dei Nuovi Lincei ("Pontifical Academy of the New Lynxes"), founded in 1847 and intended as a more closely supervised successor to the Accademia dei Lincei ("Academy of Lynxes") established in Rome in 1603 by the learned Roman Prince Federico Cesi (1585–1630) who was a young botanist and naturalist, and which claimed Galileo Galilei as a member.
In a 1996 address to the Academy, Pope John Paul II updated the Church's position to accept evolution of the human body:
"In his encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points. ... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."[169]
In 2012 Pope Benedict XVI addressed members of the Academy on the relationship between religion and science:
"Dialogue and cooperation between faith and science are urgently needed for building a culture that respects people and the planet.... Without faith and science informing each other, the great questions of humanity leave the domain of reason and truth, and are abandoned to the irrational, to myth, or to indifference, with great damage to humanity itself, to world peace and to our ultimate destiny.... (As people strive to) unlock the mysteries of man and the universe, I am convinced of the urgent need for continued dialogue and cooperation between the worlds of science and of faith in building a culture of respect for man, for human dignity and freedom, for the future of our human family, and for the long-term sustainable development of our planet."[170]
The modern Book of Nature
"Philosophy [i.e. natural philosophy] is written in this grand book - I mean the Universe - which stands continually open to our gaze..."
Providentissimus Deus, "On the Study of Holy Scripture", was an encyclical issued by Pope Leo XIII on 18 November 1893. In it, he addressed the issues of apparent contradictions between the Bible and science and specifically responded to two 19th century scientific developments, the theory of evolution and geology's theory of a very old Earth, which appeared to challenge the traditional Biblical account of creation taking place 6,000 years ago. Pope Leo XIII wrote that true science cannot contradict scripture when it is properly explained, that errors the Church Fathers made do not demonstrate error in Scripture, that what seems to be proved by science can turn out to be wrong, and (echoing Galileo's arguments more than two centuries earlier) that sacred writing inevitably used "figurative" language:
"...no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. ...If nevertheless there is a disagreement ... it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly 'the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation'; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people."[172]
The Catholic Church holds no official position on the theory of creation or evolution, leaving the specifics of either theistic evolution or literal creationism to the individual within certain parameters established by the Church. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, any believer may accept either literal or special creation within the period of an actual six-day, twenty-four-hour period, or they may accept the belief that the earth evolved over time under the guidance of God. Catholicism holds that God initiated and continued the process of his creation, that Adam and Eve were real people,[173][174] and that all humans, whether specially created or evolved, have and have always had specially created souls for each individual.[175][176][177]
The Catechism of the Catholic Church asserts: "Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God despite himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."[178]
After sentencing one of the fathers of modern science, Galileo Galilei, to house arrest in 1633 for his attempts to reinterpret the Bible, the Church took several centuries
"..the new science, with its methods and the freedom of research which they implied, obliged theologians to examine their own criteria of scriptural interpretation ... Galileo, a sincere believer, showed himself to be more perceptive in this regard than the theologians who opposed him."
1642: Plans for Galileo to be buried in the main body of the Basilica of Santa Croce, next to the tombs of the ruling family of Tuscany, are abandoned when Pope Urban VIII objects due to Galileo's 1633 conviction by the Church.[180][181][182]
1718: The Inquisition lifts the ban on reprinting Galileo's works (excluding the condemned Dialogue).[183]
1741: Pope Benedict XIV authorizes the publication of Galileo's complete scientific works,[184] including a mildly censored version of the Dialogue.[185]
1758: The general prohibition against works advocating heliocentrism is removed from the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, though the specific ban on uncensored versions of the Dialogue and Copernicus's De Revolutionibus remains.[186]
1835: All official opposition to heliocentrism by the Church effectively ends as these works are finally dropped from the Index.[187]
1939: In his first speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope Pius XII describes Galileo as being among the "most audacious heroes of research."[188]
1992: Pope John Paul II expresses formal regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, acknowledges the errors committed by the Church tribunal, and formally acquits Galileo.[191]
2008: The Vatican proposes to complete the rehabilitation of Galileo by announcing plans to erect a statue of him inside the Vatican walls.[192]
before forthrightly acknowledging that Galileo was correct, not just about science but also about scripture. In 1992, Pope John Paul II wrote that Galileo was "more perceptive" about "scriptural interpretation...than the theologians who opposed him."[193]
Fides et ratio is a Papal encyclical that Pope John Paul IIpromulgated on 14 September 1998, "On the Relationship between Faith and Reason". In the encyclical, Pope John Paul II addressed the relationship between faith and reason, the first to do so since Pope Leo XIII in 1879, with his encyclical Aeterni Patris. Pope John Paul II described the relationship between faith and reason as 'two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth'.[194]
'This is why I make this strong and insistent appeal—not, I trust, untimely—that faith and philosophy recover the profound unity which allows them to stand in harmony with their nature without compromising their mutual autonomy. The parrhesia of faith must be matched by the boldness of reason.'[194]
In his 1998 encyclical, Pope John Paul II gave an example to the faithful of how to defend faith, without shunning reason. Following and supporting the long tradition of Christian Theology and Philosophy. The Catholic Church has always purported a thesis of harmony between Science and Religion, despite the growing trend of conflict being purported between the two. Through Fides et ratio Pope John Paul II reinforced the Church's stance upon the relationship between Science and The Catholic Church. 'The Church remains profoundly convinced that faith and reason "mutually support each other"; each influences the other, as they offer to each other a purifying critique and a stimulus to pursue the search for deeper understanding.' [194]
'Similarly, fundamental theology should demonstrate the profound compatibility that exists between faith and its need to find expression by way of human reason fully free to give its assent. Faith will thus be able "to show fully the path to reason in a sincere search for the truth. Although faith, a gift of God, is not based on reason, it can certainly not dispense with it. At the same time, it becomes apparent that reason needs to be reinforced by faith, to discover horizons it cannot reach on its own".' [194]
↑Augustine. "On the Book of Nature". Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science (INTERS) (Excerpt from Enarrationes in Psalmos, 45, 7; PL 36, 518). Advanced School for Interdisciplinary Research, Pontifical University of the Holy Cross.
↑Augustine. "On the Book of Nature". Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science (INTERS) (Excerpt from Sermones, 68, 6 [= MAI 126, in PLS 2,501-512]). Advanced School for Interdisciplinary Research, Pontifical University of the Holy Cross.
↑Faith Wallis, "'Number Mystique' in Early Medieval Computus Texts", pp. 179–99 in T. Koetsier and L. Bergmans, eds. Mathematics and the Divine: A Historical Study (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2005).
↑Blainey, Geoffrey (2011), A Short History of Christianity, Camberwell, Vic.: Penguin Group Australia, p.103, ISBN9780670075249
↑Stephen C. McCluskey, "Gregory of Tours, Monastic Timekeeping, and Early Christian Attitudes to Astronomy", Isis, 81(1990):9–22; reprinted in M. H. Shank, ed., The Scientific Enterprise in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Pr., 2000).
↑Stephen C. McCluskey, Astronomies and Cultures in Early Medieval Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr., 1998), pp. 149–57.
↑Faith Wallis, "'Number Mystique' in Early Medieval Computus Texts", pp. 179-99 in T. Koetsier and L. Bergmans, eds. Mathematics and the Divine: A Historical Study, (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2005).
↑Faith Wallis, ed. and trans, Bede: The Reckoning of Time, (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2004), pp. xviii–xxxiv ISBN0-85323-693-3
↑Blainey, Geoffrey (2011), A Short History of Christianity, Camberwell, Vic.: Penguin Group Australia, p.106, ISBN9780670075249
↑McCluskey, Stephen (1998). Astronomies and Cultures in Early Medieval Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.152–154. ISBN978-0-521-77852-7.
↑Grant, Edward (2007). "Natural Philosophy before the Latin Translations". A History of Natural Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press. p.127. ISBN978-052-1-68957-1.
↑Kenneth Clark; Civilisation, BBC, SBN 563 10279 9; first published 1969
↑Grant, Edward (1996). The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages: Their Religious, Institutional, and Intellectual Contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-56762-6. ...the emergence of universities was intimately associated with the new learning that had been translated into Latin during the course of the twelfth century. Indeed, the university was the institutional means by which Western Europe organized, absorbed, and expanded the great volume of new knowledge, the instrument through which it molded and disseminated a common intellectual heritage for generations to come.
↑"The key event that made the new intellectual life of Western Europe different than anything that had gone before is the emergence of the university as a unique and vital institution. Not only was it unique in the history of Western Europe, but it also was unique in the history of the world." Grant, Edward (2007). "Natural Philosophy after the Translations". A History of Natural Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press. p.144. ISBN978-052-1-68957-1.
↑Volz, Carl (1997). The Medieval Church: From the Dawn of the Middle Ages to the Eve of the Reformation. Nashville: Abingdon Press. pp.119–125. ISBN9780687006045.
↑Heilbron, J.L. The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals as Solar Observatories. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999. (p. 3)
↑"The new universities were associated with the Roman church and with its cultural agenda. As a result, at universities such as Paris or Oxford, theology was the first among their higher faculties (those granting the doctorate); theology was routinely known as 'queen of the sciences.' Scholarly prestige tended as a result to accrue to abstract philosophizing intended to serve the establishment of truth; this was the rational counterpart of religious belief, and it sought intellectual conviction rather than practical know-how." Dear, Peter (2019) Revolutionizing the Sciences. Princeton University Press. ISBN1-352-00313-9. pp. viii-ix.
↑Urquhart, Francis (1910), "Robert Grosseteste", Catholic Encyclopedia, vol.13, New York: Robert Appleton Company, retrieved 16 April 2013
↑Wyckoff, Dorothy (1967). Book of Minerals. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp.Preface.
↑Bacon, Roger (1928). The Opus Majus of Roger Bacon. Vol.2. Translated by Burke, Robert Belle. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. p.583. For there are two modes of acquiring knowledge, namely, by reasoning and by experience. Reasoning draws a conclusion, but does not make the conclusion certain, nor does it remove doubt so that the mind may rest in the intuition of truth, unless the mind discovers it by the path of experience.
↑Grant, Edward (2007). "Conclusion". A History of Natural Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press. p.324. ISBN978-052-1-68957-1. With the establishment of the universities of Paris, Oxford and Bologna by 1200, the institutional foundation was laid within which the essential attributes for the development of modern science could take root...By 1500, there were approximately sixty-four active universities spread across Europe from Cracow in the East to Lisbon in the West; from Uppsala in the North to Catania in the South...For the first time in history, a large number of scholars with similar training in natural philosophy, and therefore with a reasonable level of contemporary scientific knowledge, were absorbed into the broader reaches of European society.
↑Whitehead, Alfred North (1925). Science and the Modern World. New York: Macmillan. p.19. Faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology.
↑Jones, Daniel (2003) [1917], Roach, Peter; Hartmann, James; Setter, Jane (eds.), English Pronouncing Dictionary, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN978-3-12-539683-8
↑Koyré (1973, pp. 27, 90) and Rosen (1995, pp. 64,184) take the view that Copernicus was indeed concerned about possible objections from theologians, while Lindberg and Numbers (1986) argue against it. Koestler (1963) also denies it. Indirect evidence that Copernicus was concerned about objections from theologians comes from a letter written to him by Andreas Osiander in 1541, in which Osiander advises Copernicus to adopt a proposal by which he says "you will be able to appease the Peripatetics and theologians whose opposition you fear". Perhaps as an attempt to preempt criticism, Copernicus dedicated De revolutionibus to Pope Paul III. (Koyré, 1973, pp. 35, 90)
↑"Reinhold and his many followers admired Copernicus for a quite different aesthetic idea, the elimination of the equant. Copernicus devoted the great majority of De revolutionibus to showing how this could be done. While he had eliminated all of Ptolemy's major epicycles, merging them all into the Earth's orbit, he then introduced a series of little epicycles to replace the equant, one per planet. Because this made the motion uniform in each Copernican circle, the anti-equant aesthetic was satisfied. My Copernican census eventually helped to establish that the majority of sixteenth-century astronomers thought eliminating the equant was Copernicus' big achievement, because it satisfied the ancient aesthetic principle that eternal celestial motions should be uniform and circular or compounded of uniform and circular parts." Gingerich, Owen. The Book Nobody Read (Walker & Company, 2004). pp.54-55. ISBN0-8027-1415-3
↑Melanchthon, Philipp (1549). Initia doctrinae physicae (in Latin). Wittenberg: Johannes Lufft. p.19. Et sapientes gubernatores deberent coercere talem petulantiam ingeniorum. (And wise rulers should restrain such petulance of mind.)
↑Kuhn, Thomas S. (1992). The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. p.191. ISBN978-0-674-17103-9. For sixty years after Copernicus' death there was little Catholic counterpart for the Protestant opposition to Copernicanism. Individual Catholic clergymen expressed their incredulity or abhorrence of the new conception of the earth, but the Church itself was silent...Reinhold's Prutenic Tables, based on Copernicus' mathematical system, were used in the reformation of the calendar promulgated for the Catholic world in 1582 by Gregory XIII...The De Revolutionibus was itself a product of the latitude allowed to Churchmen in matters of science and secular philosophy...
↑Applebaum, Wilbur (2005). The Scientific Revolution and the Foundations of Modern Science. Greenwood Guides to Historic Events, 1500–1900. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. p.110. ISBN978-0-313-32314-0. Copernicus was a devout Catholic and a member of the governing body of his cathedral. His radical ideas on the structure of the universe raised no objections from his Church, and in 1536 he was even urged by a cardinal aware of those ideas to publish his results. There were some negative comments by a Church official immediately after the publication...but the Church took no official position.
↑Elman, Benjamin (2005). On Their Own Terms: Science in China 1550-1900. Harvard University Press. p.80.
↑Alfaro, Alfonso (June 2003). "Jesuit Missions". Artes de Mexico (65): 81–112. JSTOR24315396.
↑Hobson, John M. (2004). The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization. Cambridge University Press. p.199. ISBN0521547245.
↑Brooke, John Hedley (2014). Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Canto Classics. Cambridge University Press. p.26. ISBN978-1-107-66446-3.
↑Lindberg, David C.; Numbers, Ronald L. (1986), "Introduction", God & Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter Between Christianity and Science, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp.5, 12, ISBN978-0-520-05538-4, It would be indefensible to maintain, with Hooykaas and Jaki, that Christianity was fundamentally responsible for the successes of seventeenth-century science. It would be a mistake of equal magnitude, however, to overlook the intricate interlocking of scientific and religious concerns throughout the century.
↑"...historians of science have long known that religious factors played a significantly positive role in the emergence and persistence of modern science in the West. Not only were many of the key figures in the rise of science individuals with sincere religious commitments, but the new approaches to nature that they pioneered were underpinned in various ways by religious assumptions. ... Yet, many of the leading figures in the scientific revolution imagined themselves to be champions of a science that was more compatible with Christianity than the medieval ideas about the natural world that they replaced." Harrison, Peter (8 May 2012). "Christianity and the rise of western science". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Archived from the original on 9 August 2018. Retrieved 28 August 2014.
↑Butterfield, Herbert. The Origins of Modern Science (The Free Press, 1957). p.85.
↑Brooke, John Hedley (2014). Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Canto Classics. Cambridge University Press. p.104. ISBN978-1-107-66446-3.
↑Agassi, Joseph (1968). The Continuing Revolution: A History of Physics From The Greeks to Einstein. New York: McGraw-Hill. p.51. Galileo and Kepler said that even though no person is perfect, the "book of nature" was written not by man but by God, and God is perfect. Therefore nature must be perfect, and if we find the smallest mistake in our theories, we should make a great effort to correct it, to improve our theories so that they fit the facts perfectly.
↑Applebaum, Wilbur (2005). The Scientific Revolution and the Foundations of Modern Science. Greenwood Guides to Historic Events, 1500–1900. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. p.110. ISBN978-0-313-32314-0. Johannes Kepler' first book, his Mysterium cosmographicum (The Cosmographic Mystery) of 1596 opens with his assertion that his aim is to reveal the hidden pattern in God's creation of the universe.
↑Galilei, G. (1960) [1623]. "Il Saggiatore" [The Assayer]. In Stillman Drake; C. D. O'Malley (eds.). The Controversy on the Comets of 1618 (in Italian). University of Pennsylvania Press.
↑Tanzella-Nitti, Giuseppe (2005). "The Two Books Prior to the Scientific Revolution"(PDF). Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. 57: 243. It is worthwhile pointing out that since the epoch of the early Fathers of the Church, the meaning of the metaphor is now surprisingly overturned. If St. Augustine could state that "everyone, even the illiterate, can read the book of the universe," in Galileo's view, people who are qualified to read it belong to a much narrower circle.
↑Brooke, John Hedley (2014). Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Canto Classics. Cambridge University Press. p.105. ISBN978-1-107-66446-3. ...instead of being content to rest his case on the distinction between commonsense and scientific language, he insisted that certainties in science, having once been established, should be regarded as aids in biblical exegesis.
↑Mayer, Thomas F. (2014). "The Roman Inquisition: A Papal Bureaucracy and Its Laws in the Age of Galileo reviewed by Paula Findlen". Isis. 105 (3): 644–645. doi:10.1086/679148.
↑Fosi, Irene (1 January 2013). "Conversion and Autobiography: Telling Tales before the Roman Inquisition". Journal of Early Modern History. 17 (5–6): 437–456. doi:10.1163/15700658-12342376. ISSN1385-3783.
↑Adriányi, Gabriel; Dolan, John; Jedin, Hubert (1981). The Church in the Modern Age. History of the Church. Vol.10. New York: Crossroad. p.168. ISBN978-0-8245-0013-9.
↑Lenard, Max (2006). "On the origin, development and demise of the Index librorum prohibitorum". Journal of Access Services. 3 (4): 51–63. doi:10.1300/J204v03n04_05. S2CID144325885.
↑Scott, Michon (26 March 2017). "Conrad Gesner". Strange Science: The rocky road to modern paleontology and biology. Retrieved 1 May 2020.
↑Sokal, Alan D.; Bricmont, J. (Jean) (1998). Fashionable nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science. Internet Archive. New York: Picador USA. pp.76 n.91. ISBN9780312195458. Ever since antiquity, it was observed that Venus is never very far from the Sun in the sky. In Ptolemy's geocentric cosmology, this was explained by supposing ad hoc that Venus and the Sun revolve more or less synchronously around the Earth (Venus being closer). It follows that Venus should be seen always as a thin crescent, like the "new moon". On the other hand, the heliocentric theory accounts naturally for the observations by supposing that Venus orbits the Sun at a smaller radius than the Earth. It follows that the Venus should, like the Moon, exhibit phases ranging from "new" (when Venus is on the same side of the Sun as the Earth) to almost "full" (when Venus is on the far side of the Sun). Since Venus appears to the naked eye as a point, it was not possible to distinguish empirically between these two predictions until telescopic observation by Galileo and his successors clearly established the existence of the phases of Venus. While this did not prove the heliocentric model (other theories were also able to explain the phases), it did give significant evidence in its favor, as well as strong evidence against the Ptolemaic model.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link)
↑Wootton, David (2015). The Invention of Science: A New History of the Scientific Revolution. Penguin. p.152. ISBN978-0-06-175952-9. It is easy to show that conventional Ptolemaic astronomy was thriving until 1610 [when Galileo observed the phases of Venus with a telescope] and went into crisis immediately afterwards...The evidence is clear: Ptolemaic astronomy was unaffected by Copernicus; it went into crisis briefly with the new star of 1572, but by the end of the sixteenth century it had fully recovered. The telescope, on the other hand, brought about its immediate and irreversible collapse.
↑Applebaum, Wilbur (2005). The Scientific Revolution and the Foundations of Modern Science. Greenwood Guides to Historic Events, 1500–1900. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. p.111. ISBN978-0-313-32314-0. In the letter to the Grand Duchess, Galileo pointed out that there are passages in the Bible that clearly cannot be taken literally, as in references to God having feet and hands, forgetting past events, and feeling repentance...Galileo, with prescience, warned that once heliocentrism was decisively and indisputably proven, its condemnation by the Church would reflect badly on it. Theologians, ignorant of astronomy, should stick to what they know.
↑Brooke, John Hedley (2014). Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Canto Classics. Cambridge University Press. p.107. ISBN978-1-107-66446-3. ...Galileo was trying to protect his Church from condemning a theory that, by its evident truth, would prove an embarrassment if not embraced.
↑Brooke, John Hedley (2014). Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Canto Classics. Cambridge University Press. p.105. ISBN978-1-107-66446-3. ...instead of being content to rest his case on the distinction between commonsense and scientific language, he insisted that certainties in science, having once been established, should be regarded as aids in biblical exegesis.
↑Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (2009). Cohen, Rober S.; Renn, Jürgen; Gavroglu, Kostas; Glick, Thomas F.; Grünbaum, Adolf; Schweber, Sylvan S.; Stachel, John J.; Wartofsky, Marx W. (eds.). Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the Two Affairs. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol.280. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: Springer Science+Business Media. p.70. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-3201-0. ISBN9789048132003.
↑Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (2009). Cohen, Rober S.; Renn, Jürgen; Gavroglu, Kostas; Glick, Thomas F.; Grünbaum, Adolf; Schweber, Sylvan S.; Stachel, John J.; Wartofsky, Marx W. (eds.). Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the Two Affairs. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol.280. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: Springer Science+Business Media. p.140. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-3201-0. ISBN9789048132003.
↑Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (2009). Cohen, Rober S.; Renn, Jürgen; Gavroglu, Kostas; Glick, Thomas F.; Grünbaum, Adolf; Schweber, Sylvan S.; Stachel, John J.; Wartofsky, Marx W. (eds.). Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the Two Affairs. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol.280. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: Springer Science+Business Media. p.71. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-3201-0. ISBN9789048132003.
↑Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (2009). Cohen, Rober S.; Renn, Jürgen; Gavroglu, Kostas; Glick, Thomas F.; Grünbaum, Adolf; Schweber, Sylvan S.; Stachel, John J.; Wartofsky, Marx W. (eds.). Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the Two Affairs. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol.280. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: Springer Science+Business Media. p.302. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-3201-0. ISBN9789048132003.
↑In fact, in the Pythagorean cosmological system the Sun was not motionless.[citation needed]
↑Decree of the General Congregation of the Index, March 5, 1616, translated from the Latin by Finocchiaro (1989, pp.148-149). An on-line copy of Finocchiaro's translation has been made available by Gagné (2005).
↑Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (2009). Cohen, Rober S.; Renn, Jürgen; Gavroglu, Kostas; Glick, Thomas F.; Grünbaum, Adolf; Schweber, Sylvan S.; Stachel, John J.; Wartofsky, Marx W. (eds.). Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the Two Affairs. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol.280. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: Springer Science+Business Media. p.142. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-3201-0. ISBN9789048132003.
↑Jacob Bronowski; The Ascent of Man; Angus & Robertson, 1973 ISBN0-563-17064-6; pp.207-208
↑Jacob Bronowski; The Ascent of Man; Angus & Robertson, 1973 ISBN0-563-17064-6; pp.212
123Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (2019). On Trial for Reason: Science, Religion and Culture in the Galileo Affair. Oxford University Press. p.157. ISBN9780198797920.
12Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (2014). Trial of Galileo: Essential Documents. Hackett Publishing Company. pp.21–36. ISBN9781624661327.
↑Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (2019). On Trial for Reason: Science, Religion and Culture in the Galileo Affair. Oxford University Press. p.156. ISBN9780198797920.
↑Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (2009). Cohen, Rober S.; Renn, Jürgen; Gavroglu, Kostas; Glick, Thomas F.; Grünbaum, Adolf; Schweber, Sylvan S.; Stachel, John J.; Wartofsky, Marx W. (eds.). Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the Two Affairs. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol.280. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: Springer Science+Business Media. p.294. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-3201-0. ISBN9789048132003.
↑Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (2009). Cohen, Rober S.; Renn, Jürgen; Gavroglu, Kostas; Glick, Thomas F.; Grünbaum, Adolf; Schweber, Sylvan S.; Stachel, John J.; Wartofsky, Marx W. (eds.). Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the Two Affairs. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol.280. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: Springer Science+Business Media. p.293. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-3201-0. ISBN9789048132003.
↑Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (2009). Cohen, Rober S.; Renn, Jürgen; Gavroglu, Kostas; Glick, Thomas F.; Grünbaum, Adolf; Schweber, Sylvan S.; Stachel, John J.; Wartofsky, Marx W. (eds.). Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the Two Affairs. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol.280. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: Springer Science+Business Media. p.307. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-3201-0. ISBN9789048132003.
↑Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (2009). Cohen, Rober S.; Renn, Jürgen; Gavroglu, Kostas; Glick, Thomas F.; Grünbaum, Adolf; Schweber, Sylvan S.; Stachel, John J.; Wartofsky, Marx W. (eds.). Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the Two Affairs. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol.280. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: Springer Science+Business Media. p.270. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-3201-0. ISBN9789048132003.
↑"Since that revolution turned the authority in English not only of the Middle Ages but of the ancient world—since it started not only in the eclipse of scholastic philosophy but in the destruction of Aristotelian physics—it outshines everything since the rise of Christianity and reduces the Renaissance and Reformation to the rank of mere episodes, mere internal displacements within the system of medieval Christendom.... [It] looms so large as the real origin both of the modern world and of the modern mentality that our customary periodization of European history has become an anachronism and an encumbrance." Herbert Butterfield, The Origins of Modern Science, 1300–1800, (New York: Macmillan Co., 1959) p. viii.
↑Calvin, John (2001) [First published 1554]. McGrath, Alister; Packer, J. I. (eds.). Genesis. Crossway Classic Commentaries. Vol.25. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books. After the world was created, man was placed in it as a theater that he, beholding above him and beneath him the wonderful works of God, might reverently adore their author.
↑Kuhn, Thomas S. (1992). The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. p.113. ISBN978-0-674-17103-9. Man's location, too, is intermediate: the earth's surface is close to its debased and corporeal center but within sight of the celestial periphery which surrounds it symmetrically. Man lives in squalor and uncertainty, and he is very close to Hell. But his central location is strategic, for he is everywhere under the eye of God.
↑Copernicus' "planetary theory and his associated conception of a sun-centered universe were instrumental in the transition from medieval to Western society, because they seemed to affect man's relation to the universe and to God. Initiated as a narrowly technical, highly mathematical revision of classical astronomy, the Copernican theory became one focus for the tremendous controversies in religion, in philosophy, and in social theory, which, during the two centuries following the discovery of America, set the tenor of the modern mind. Men who believed that their terrestrial home was only a planet circulating blindly about one of an infinity of stars evaluated their place in the comic scheme quite differently than had their predecessors who saw the earth as the unique and focal center of God's creation. The Copernican Revolution was therefore also part of a transition in Western man's sense of values." Kuhn, Thomas. The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought. (Harvard University Press, 1957). p.2. ISBN0-674-17103-9
↑Koyré, Alexander (1957). From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Press. p.29. ISBN978-0801803475. This scientific and philosophical revolution...can be described roughly as bringing forth the destruction of the Cosmos, that is the disappearance, from philosophically and scientifically valid concepts, of the conception of the world as a finite, closed and hierarchically ordered whole (a whole in which the hierarchy of value determined the hierarchy and structure of being, rising from the dark, heavy and imperfect earth to the higher and higher perfection of the stars and heavenly spheres), and its replacement by an indefinite and even infinite universe...and the discarding by scientific thought of all considerations based upon value concepts, such as perfection, harmony, meaning and aim, and finally the utter devalorization of being, the divorce of the world of value and the world of facts.{{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)
↑Pascal, Blaise (27 May 2006) [1670]. Pensées. Translated by Trotter, W. F. Project Gutenberg. §206.
↑Grant, Edward (2007). "The Relations between Natural Philosophy and Theology". A History of Natural Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press. p.241. ISBN978-052-1-68957-1. ...Christians developed the concept that philosophy and science are 'handmaids to theology'... Augustine strongly urged Christians not to seek secular knowledge for its own sake but to take only what is useful for a better understanding of scripture...The handmaiden theory of secular knowledge also tended to emphasize the role of authorities, from the divine Scriptures themselves to the church fathers who had interpreted Scripture. The handmaiden tradition remained strong in Western Europe up to the eleventh and twelfth centuries, during the period when natural philosophy was relatively weak.
↑Applebaum, Wilbur (2005). The Scientific Revolution and the Foundations of Modern Science. Greenwood Guides to Historic Events, 1500–1900. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. pp.7, 113–114. ISBN978-0-313-32314-0. Natural philosophy had long been perceived as a handmaiden to theology, which was called the "queen of the sciences." It was now coming to be thought as independent of theological constraints, with its own methods, functions, and purposes different from those of religion...Traditional conceptions of natural philosophy as a handmaid to religion were transformed in the course of the seventeenth century. Some challenged the new scientific outlooks for...denying the truth of Scripture. The new natural philosophers answered by denying the validity of literal interpretations of certain passages in the Bible, which were written to appeal to the common understanding of ordinary people...Centuries earlier St. Augustine had said the function of the Bible was not to teach us about nature. Galileo, Kepler, and others held that the Book of Nature was not designed to prepare us for salvation. They urged that natural philosophy and theology should be seen as distinct areas with their own methods and criteria, and that their practitioners should not intervene in one another's provinces.
↑Applebaum, Wilbur (2005). The Scientific Revolution and the Foundations of Modern Science. Greenwood Guides to Historic Events, 1500–1900. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. p.110. ISBN978-0-313-32314-0. All natural philosophers during the Scientific Revolution saw their efforts as exhibiting formerly hidden details of God's creation.
↑Wootton, David (2015). The Invention of Science: A New History of the Scientific Revolution. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. pp.6–11. ISBN978-0-06-175952-9.
↑Alexander, D (2001), Rebuilding the Matrix, Lion Publishing, ISBN0-7459-5116-3 (pg. 217)
↑John William Draper, History of the Conflict Religion, D. Appleton and Co. (1881)
↑Brooke, J. H. (1991). Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge University Press. p.42. In its traditional forms, the conflict thesis has been largely discredited.
↑"Historians of science have known for years that White's and Draper's accounts are more propaganda than history. …Yet the message has rarely escaped the ivory tower." Numbers, Ronald L. “Introduction” in Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion. Ed. Ronald Numbers. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2009. Page 6.
↑Russel, C. A. (2002). Ferngren, G. B. (ed.). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Johns Hopkins University Press. p.7. ISBN978-0-8018-7038-5. The conflict thesis, at least in its simple form, is now widely perceived as a wholly inadequate intellectual framework within which to construct a sensible and realistic historiography of Western science.
↑Delegating "the construction of cosmologies to specialists, primarily to astronomers...can be devastating. The astronomer may on occasions destroy, for reasons lying entirely within his specialty, a world-view that had previously made the universe meaningful for the members of a whole civilization, specialist and nonspecialist alike." Kuhn, Thomas. The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought. (Harvard University Press, 1957). p.7. ISBN0-674-17103-9
↑Barbour, Ian G. (1990). "Chapter 1: Ways of Relating Science and Religion". Religion in an Age of Science. The Gifford Lectures 1989–1991. HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN978-0060603830. Science and religion do totally different jobs, and neither should be judged by the standards of the other. Scientific language is used primarily for prediction and control. A theory is a useful tool for summarizing data, correlating regularities in observable phenomena, and producing technological applications. Science asks carefully delimited questions about natural phenomena. We must not expect it to do jobs for which it was not intended, such as providing an overall world view, a philosophy of life, or a set of ethical norms. Scientists are no wiser than anyone else when they step out of their laboratories and speculate beyond strictly scientific work.
↑Brooke, John Hedley (2014). Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Canto Classics. Cambridge University Press. p.63. ISBN978-1-107-66446-3.
↑Breve storia della paleontologia, internet site of Centro dei Musei di Scienze Naturali, university of Naples Retrieved 10 January 2012.
↑Abbona (2002), Geologia: Colonna had been schooled in the collection of Ferrante Imperato, apothecary and virtuoso of Naples, who published his natural history notes in 1599.
↑Romano, Marco (2014). "'The vain speculation disillusioned by the sense': The Italian painter Agostino Scilla (1629–1700) called 'The Discoloured', and the correct interpretation of fossils as 'lithified organisms' that once lived in the sea". Historical Biology. 26 (5): 631–651. Bibcode:2014HBio...26..631R. doi:10.1080/08912963.2013.825257. S2CID129381561.
↑Bill Bryson; A Short History of Nearly Everything; Black Swan, 2004, p. 29 & 173
↑Lemaître, Georges (1937). "La culture catholique et les sciences positives". Actes du VIe congrès catholique de Malines (in French). Vol.5. Brussels. p.70. But the Christian researcher knows that his faith supernaturalises both the highest and the lowest of his activities! He remains God's child when he peers through his microscope and, in his morning prayers, he puts every daily activity under his Heavenly Father's protection. Reflecting on the truths of faith, he realises that his knowledge of microbes, atoms or stars will never help nor impede him from adhering to the inaccessible light, and that, like any fellow human, he will still have to achieve the heart of a little child to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
↑Lambert 1997, pp.28–53. sfn error: no target: CITEREFLambert1997 (help)
↑Lambert, Dominique (1999). Sciences et théologie: Les figures d'un dialogue (in French). Namur: Presses universitaires de Namur. pp.97f. ISBN978-2-87299-074-0.
↑Holder, Rodney; Mitton, Simon, eds. (2013). Georges Lemaître: Life, Science and Legacy. Astrophysics and Space Science Library. Vol.395. Springer. p.71. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-32254-9. ISBN978-3-642-32253-2.
↑John Paul II, Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences: On Evolution; the speech was made in French - for a dispute over whether the correct English translation of "la theorie de l'evolution plus qu'une hypothese" is "more than a hypothesis" or "more than one hypothesis", see Eugenie Scott, NCSE online version of Creationists and the Pope's Statement, which originally appeared in The Quarterly Review of Biology, 72.4, December 1997
↑"The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter – for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God." "Humani Generis (1950)", Faith and Science, The Vatican Observatory Foundation.
↑Two of his non-scientific works, the letters to Castelli and the Grand Duchess Christina, were explicitly not allowed to be included (Coyne 2005, p.347).
↑Heilbron (2005, p.307); Coyne (2005, p.347) The practical effect of the ban in its later years seems to have been that clergy could publish discussions of heliocentric physics with a formal disclaimer assuring its hypothetical character and their obedience to the Church decrees against the motion of the earth: see for example the commented edition (1742) of Newton's 'Principia' by Fathers Le Seur and Jacquier, which contains such a disclaimer ('Declaratio') before the third book (Propositions 25 onwards) dealing with the lunar theory.
↑McMullin (2005, p.6); Coyne (2005, p.346). The Church's opposition had effectively ended in 1820 when a Catholic canon, Giuseppe Settele, was permitted to publish a work that treated heliocentrism as a physical fact rather than a mathematical fiction. The 1835 edition of the Index was the first to be issued after that year.
↑Discourse of His Holiness Pope Pius XII given on 3 December 1939 at the Solemn Audience granted to the Plenary Session of the Academy, Discourses of the Popes from Pius XI to John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of the Sciences 1939-1986, Vatican City, p.34
Abbona, Francesco (2002). "Geologia". In Strumia, Alberto; Tanzella-Nitti, Giuseppe (eds.). Dizionario Interdisciplinare di Scienza e Fede: Cultura Scientifica, Filosofia e Teologia. Città del Vaticano: Urbaniana University Press. ISBN978-88-311-9265-1. Retrieved 12 January 2012.
Appleby, R. Scott. Between Americanism and Modernism; John Zahm and Theistic Evolution, in Critical Issues in American Religious History: A Reader, Ed. by Robert R. Mathisen, 2nd revised edn., Baylor University Press, 2006, ISBN1-932792-39-2, ISBN978-1-932792-39-3. Google books
Artigas, Mariano; Glick, Thomas F., Martínez, Rafael A.; Negotiating Darwin: the Vatican confronts evolution, 1877-1902, JHU Press, 2006, ISBN0-8018-8389-X, 9780801883897, Google books
Shea, William R.; Artigas, Mariano (2004). Galileo in Rome: The Rise and Fall of a Troublesome Genius. Oxford University Press. ISBN9780195177589.
Thompson, Phillip M (2009). Between science and religion. The engagement of Catholic intellectuals with science and technology in the twentieth century. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books. ISBN978-0-7391-4020-8. OCLC659563600.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
Catholic Churchportal 
