NICOLAUS COPERNICUS; DIED 24th MAY 1543.
NICOLAUS COPERNICUS
DIED 24th MAY 1543.
NICOLAUS COPERNICUS
DIED 24th MAY 1543.
Nicolaus Copernicus died on 24th May 1543. As his theories on heliocentrism are intertwined with the theories postulated by Galileo and, as both scientists have been opportunistically represented as signifying attitudes and events that did not occur, I have set out posts on both scientists, with a separate post on Galileo.
A recurring theme in modern discourse is the sweeping dismissal of the Catholic position on rational thought by way of statements such as “the Catholic Church is anti-science”. The example of Galileo and Copernicus is frequently thrown in as evidence of the backwardness of evil Catholic clergy and the authoritarian nature of the Catholic Church, importing additional assumptions as to the gullibility of the Catholic faithful, incapable of thinking on their own initiative and waiting to be told what to think by the Pope.
Response to such sweeping statements by reference to actual lived experience of the Church, perhaps combined with knowledge of the Church’s emphasis on the requirements of rational thought to reach an understanding of God, self and God’s creation, or together with examples of the many hundreds of Catholic scientists, are peremptorily dismissed - the facts are subordinated to caricature; Catholics are equated with the most backward of people, ironically frequently infused with exaggerated characteristics of the most righteous of the American fundamentalist (protestant) Christians, with no care about doctrinal or spiritual differences, complexities or historical accuracy.
This exercise cannot be tackled by an individual example, because the inclusion of Galileo and Copernicus, and the allegation that the Catholic Church is anti-science, is part of a larger story that encompasses the myth perpetrated by the protestant ‘reformers’ that the Reformation was the liberation of mankind from the preceding superstition and oppression by the Catholic Church. This myth is an integral one – if the myriad of criticisms of a political and historical nature do not exist or did not occur, there is no reason for the existence of protestantism: protestantism exists, after all, on analysis, because it ‘protests’ against the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church (as bad) defines protestantism. If there is no criticism, then the Catholic Church stands as the Church created by Christ.
In this regard, the characterisation of the Catholic Church as “anti-science” is one that is much larger than a mere misunderstanding. It builds on a plethora of assumptions whose basic foundation is necessary to justify the rejection of Rome by the reformers.
The characterisation of the Medieval Period as the Dark Ages, incorporating the portrayal of the culture as one which was primitive and superstitious, is part of a reconstruction of our history by which we were redeemed from a repressive and anti-intellectual prison, directly as a consequence of the protestant reformation. This interpretation was seized upon and expanded by the secular, atheist proponents of the Enlightenment. Indeed, it was as a consequence of the protestant mentality and the liberation of the world from the tyranny of God that the "Enlightenment" was able to occur - the Enlightenment being a moment in history when the world awoke. Rodney Stark discussed the road to the Scientific Revolution, as follows:
“Just as there were no Dark Ages, there was no scientific revolution. Rather, the notion of a scientific revolution was invented to discredit the medieval Church by claiming that science burst forth in full bloom (thus owing no debts to prior Scholastic scholars) only when a weakened Christianity could no longer suppress it. But, as will be seen, the great scientific achievements of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were produced by a group of scholars noted for their piety, who were based in Catholic universities and whose brilliant achievements were carefully built upon in an invaluable legacy of centuries of brilliant Scholastic scholarship. Since the start of the so-called Scientific Revolution is usually attributed to Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543), it is appropriate to examine him and his intellectual predecessors to demonstrate that his work was a work of ‘normal’ science.’ (1)
Stark observed that “[a]ccording to the fashionable account, Copernicus was an obscure Catholic canon in far-off Poland, an isolated genius who somehow discovered that, contrary to what everyone believed, the earth revolved around the sun. Moreover, the story goes, the Church made unrelenting efforts to suppress this view.” (2)
In fact, as Donald de Marco stated, “Contrary to the legend, the Church did not initially oppose the heliocentric theory. In fact, the opposite was true. Without the patronage and encouragement of the clergy-from the local bishop to the clergymen who occupied influential positions within the Vatican, Copernicus’ book would never have been published. “(3).
Copernicus was born on 19th February 1473 in Prussia, a region that was part of Poland. Rather than being some obscure person, as Stark says, “Copernicus received a superb education at the best Italian Universities of the time: Bologna, Padua and Ferrara. The idea that the earth circles around the sun did not come to him out of the blue; he was taught the essential fundamentals leading to the heliocentric model of the solar system by his Scholastic professors. What Copernicus added was not a leap but was the implicit next step in a long line of discovery and innovation stretching back centuries.” (4).
It is significant that these universities were Catholic and taught by Catholic religious – priests in the majority. That is, Copernicus based his ideas on theories taught to him by Catholic clergy. Copernicus himself was an Augustinian canon.
The prevailing theory governing astronomy was Ptolemaic: Published by Ptolemy in 150AD, his theory stated that the earth was stationary and in the centre of the universe, with planets and stars embedded in their own separate spheres. Copernicus developed his theories based upon a competing view – that of Pythagorus, which was flawed in many respects in its reasoning and conclusions, but which contained truths that were expressed in an elegant mathematical formula. At the time, there was no compelling reason to accept Copernicus’ view, aside from the mathematical simplicity and avoidance of the necessity of using equations required by Ptolemy in determining planetary positions.
By 1532 Copernicus had effectively completed his work on his manuscript but despite urging by his closest friends, he resisted publishing his views, not wishing—as he confessed—to risk the scorn "to which he would expose himself on account of the novelty and incomprehensibility of his theses." (5)
In 1533, a series of lectures in Rome were given in which Copernicus's theory was outlined. Pope Clement VII and several Catholic Cardinals heard the lectures and were interested in the theory. Contrary to the received story, he received strong support and encouragement from the Church. On 1 November 1536, Cardinal Von Schonberg, Archbishop of Capua, wrote to Copernicus from Rome:
“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, having created a new theory of the universe. In it you maintain that the earth moves; that the sun occupies the basic, 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.” (6).
Copernicus held that a sphere moves in a circular pattern because the motion of a body naturally and spontaneously flows from its geometric form. ‘For the motion of a sphere,’ he wrote, ‘is to turn in a circle; by this very act expressing its form.’ ‘The mind shudders,’ at the alternative, he added, ‘because it would be unworthy to suppose such a thing in a Creation constituted in the best possible way.’ (7).
The theory was criticised, not by the Church but by scholars. Scholars accused Copernicus of constructing a heliocentric system based on aesthetic judgment. Francis Bacon firmly rejected the Copernican method when he said, 'I shall not stand upon that piece of mathematical elegance.’ Copernicus’ faith in Pythagoras led him to believe that his theory was not merely an abstract model of mathematical simplicity and elegance but a true physical system. "(7A).
He presented a new picture of the universe in which he attributed to the earth a diurnal motion on its axis and an annual revolution around the sun because such a model was of greater mathematical simplicity than the one provided by Ptolemy. He could accept the metaphysical implications of his theory because of the Pythagorean conception of the universe suggested by preceding developments in mathematics. (9)
He finally published his work De Revolutionis Orbium Coelstium, (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres), just before his death in 1543. In the preface of his book, he acknowledged his indebtedness to his many friends and colleagues who encouraged him to publish his revolutionary findings, including Tiedman Giese, Bishop of Culm who ‘spurred me on by added reproaches into publishing this book and letting come to light a work which I had kept hidden among my things for not merely nine years, but for almost four times nine years.’ Further, Copernicus dedicated his work to Pope Paul III, Clement VII’s successor. (10).
After his death, in 1545, Giovanni Maria Tolosani wrote a criticism of De Revolutionibus in an appendix to an unpublished work, where he sought to refute Copernicus’ theories because, he claimed, it was scientifically unproven.
The protestant view on the scientific development relied upon a literal interpretation of the Bible, John Calvin stating in his Commentary on Genesis: “We indeed are not ignorant that the circle of the heavens is finite and that the earth, like a little globe, is placed in the centre.” And further that: “The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion….How could the earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God’s hand? By what means could it maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it.”
Luther was critical of Copernicus, saying: ‘Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fool does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. In those things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to be still and not the earth. “
Luther’s ally, Melanchthon, writing to Mithobius on 16th October 1541, condemning the theory and calling for its repression by government force, stated: “Certain people believe it is a marvellous achievement to extol so crazy a thing, like that Polish astronomer who makes the earth move and the sun stand still. Really, wise governments ought to repress impudence of mind.” (11).
Catholic criticism did not arise until quite some time after Copernicus’ death, when German Jesuit Nicolaus Serarius wrote against Copernicus’ theories on theological bases.
Wikipedia provides that, in 1615, Cardinal Bellarmine "condemned" the heliocentric theory, stating"...not only the Holy Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the centre of the world...Nor can one answer that this is not a matter of faith, since if it is not a matter of faith 'as regards the topic,' it is a matter of faith 'as regards the speaker': and so it would be heretical to say that Abraham did not have two children and Jacob twelve, as well as to say that Christ was not born of a virgin, because both are said by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of prophets and apostles.” (11).
From this quotation, one would certainly assume that the Church had assumed a stance on theological grounds by which the heliocentric view was opposed. However, Cardinal Bellarmine seems to have expressed a very different view of the Church to that presented by the Wikipedia article in another quote from the same letter to Foscarini. At the time, Cardinal Bellarmine, a noted Jesuit theologian, was the highest theological authority. Donald de Marco provides the quote from the same letter regarding the heliocentric theory, where he wrote:
"I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the centre of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not go round the earth but the earth went around the sun, then it would be necessary to use careful consideration in explaining the Scriptures that seemed contrary, and we should rather have to say that we do not understand them than to say that something is false which had been proven." (11A).
That is, Cardinal Bellarmine set out the prevailing theological position, (that taken by the Church Fathers), articulated difficulties that would result if a countervailing position was advocated without proof, but stated that, if the theory was shown to be correct, then the interpretation of Scripture put forward by current theologians and posited by the Church should be reinterpreted. This was all because, at that time the theory was not yet proved.
Again, at a later time, during the time of Galileo, Cardinal Bellarmine demanded of Galileo the omission or alteration of nine sentences, these being confined to sentences which described heliocentrism as an established fact rather than an hypothesis. (11B)
Could Cardinal Bellarmine have written two completely opposing views in the one letter? Or perhaps, could his letter have been selectively quoted? The letter is set out in full in the footnotes.
Copernicus' calculations did incite dispute and disagreement, some scientific and some theological. As observed by Cardinal Bellarmine, a reinterpretation of the planetary positions was no small thing - it deserved to be taken seriously before adopted as a novel idea for it brought with it both scientific repercussions and Scriptural consequences. In such circumstances, the absence of empirical or scientifically tested proof mattered, otherwise, the exercise was both idle and one of potential vandalism. However, as Stark observed, Copernicus' calculations were no more accurate than the preceding calculations based upon the Ptolemaic system dating from the second century AD because he had failed to realise that the orbits were elliptical, not circular. To accommodate the discrepancies Copernicus postulated loops in the orbits, a postulation that lacked observable support. Therefore, his theories were incorrect, with the exception of the heliocentric position of the sun. It was not until Johannes Keppler (1571-1639), a German protestant, that it was established that ellipses occurred instead of Copernicus’ circles.
The explanation as to why the solar system remained as it does was not reached until Isaac Newton (1642-1727), but, Stark said, “over several centuries, many essential pieces of … the theory had been assembled: that the universe was a vacuum; that no pushers were needed because once in motion, the heavenly bodies would continue in motion; that the earth turned; that the sun was the centre of the solar system; that the orbits were elliptical. As Newton himself said: ‘If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.’ (13).
This record of systematic progress is why the distinguished historian of science, Bernard Cohen (1914-2003) noted that ‘the idea that a Copernican revolution in science occurred goes counter to the evidence … and is the invention of later historians.’ (14).
"Copernicus allowed a step forward in a long process of normal science, albeit one having enormous polemical and philosophical implications. It should be noted too, that the scholars involved in this long process were not rebel secularists. Not only were they devout Catholics, they were priests or monks and four were bishops and one a cardinal. (15).
Starke observed:
“Just as a group of eighteenth century philosophers invented the notion of the Dark Ages to discredit Catholicism, they labelled their own era the Enlightenment on the grounds that religious darkness had been displaced by secular humanism;
’’Voltaire, Rousseau, Locke, Hume and others wrapped themselves in the achievements of the ‘Scientific Revolution’ as they celebrated the victory of secularism, eventuating in the Marquis Laplace’s claim that God was now an unnecessary hypothesis. Of course, not one of these ‘enlightened’ figures had played any part in the scientific enterprise. What about those who had? Were they a bunch of sceptics? Hardly. … Science arose in Catholic Europe because … medieval Europeans believed that science was possible and desirable. And the basis for their belief was their image of God and His Creation – a belief that was directly derived from medieval theology.” (16).
"Rene Descartes justified his search for the ‘laws of nature on the ground that such laws must exist because God is perfect and therefore ‘acts in a manner as constant and immutable as possible.’ That is, the universe functions according to rational rules or laws. Furthermore, because God has given humans the power to reason it should be possible for us to discover God’s laws, the rules established by God. “
Starke concluded: “Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the rise of science is that the early scientists not only searched for natural laws, confident that they existed, but that they found them.” (17).
(1) Rodney Starke, “Bearing False Witness,” Templeton Press, PA 2016, at p. 144.
(2) Ibid., at p. 145.
(3) (3) Donald de Marco, The Dispute Between Galileo and the Catholic Church”, in “Catholic Controversies,” Stephen Gabriel (Ed), Moorings Press, Virginia, 2010, at pp. 160-161.
(4) Starke, opcit, at p. 145; The Scholastics set out by Starke included Robert Grosseteste, (1168-1253), who developed the “Scientific Method” and who became Bishop of London; Albertus Magnus (1200-1280), professor of St Thomas Aquinas and Bishop of Regensburg, who made significant contributions to biology, astronomy chemistry and geology as well as theology and whose underlying foundations were inspirational for the scientific discourse in that he encouraged colleagues and students to “not merely accept classical scholarship but to challenge the received wisdom and seek reliable observations.” (opcit, at p. 146); Roger Bacon (1214-1294), a scientist who embraced Grosseteste’s commitment to the experimental method and expanded upon it; (opcit, at pp. 146-7). He was a Franciscan and was ordered by his superiors not to publish. Pope Clement IV, however, overrode that order and ordered him to write for him, as a result of which Bacon sent him his Opus Majus, an incredible work of nearly 2,000 pages which covered a vast store of scientific development, including study of the position of the planets and the sizes of the celestial bodies. Also deriving his method from Grosseteste, he “emphasized empiricism – that theories must be put to further tests of their implications and predictions before they could be regarded as valid.” (opcit, at p. 147); The empirical method was a departure from the Greeks, who had believed in the superiority of ideas and abstract reasoning as the test of any philosophical claim; it followed that to make an experimental or observational test of an idea was to accept the superiority of the imperfect to the perfect – it is only because of the Scholastics overcoming the thought rationale of the ancient Greeks and applying empirical experimentation that the rise of science was able to occur.
The Oxford historian John Henry Bridges (1832-1906) noted that Bacon’s ‘scientific imagination’ made forecasts by him possible of such things as microscopes, telescopes and flying machines, saying: “What may be said is that he set the world on the right track towards their discovery; experimentation and observation combined with mathematics, when mathematics were available; and when they were not available, then experimentation and observation pursued alone.’” (Opcit, at p. 148); Further scientists included William of Ockham (1295-1349), “Ockham’s Razor”, a Franciscan friar; Nicole d’Oresme (1325-1382), bishop of Lisieux, who took the next scientific step towards the heliocentric model of the universe, establishing that the earth turned on its axis, giving the illusion that the heavenly bodies revolved around it; Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464) Bishop of Brixen, Germany and later elevated to Cardinal, who noted that humans need not trust their perceptions that the earth was stationary in space. According to Nicholas of Cusa, the earth moved through space.
(5) Wikipedia – Copernicus.
(6) Ibid.
(7) de Marco, opcit., at p. 159.
(7A) Ibid., at p. 160.
(9) Ibid.
(10) Ibid; one account presented his dedication to the Pope as the timorous pleadings of a poor soul hoping to deflect punishment.
(11) Wikipedia
(11A) de Marco, opcit., at p. 167.
(11B) Letter from Cardinal Bellarmine to Paolo Antonio Foscarini
April 12, 1615
"My Very Reverend Father,
I have read with interest the letter in Italian and the essay in Latin with Your [Reverence] sent me; I thank you for the one and for the other and confess that they are full of intelligence and erudition. You ask for my opinion and so I shall give it to you, but very briefly, since now you have little time for reading and I for writing.
First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the centre of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false. For your [Reverence] has well shown many ways of interpreting Holy Scripture, but has not applied them to particular cases; without a doubt you would have encountered very great difficulties if you had wanted to interpret all those passages you yourself cited.
Second, I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits interpreting Scripture against the common consensus of the Holy Fathers; and if Your [Reverence] wants to read not only the Holy Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the centre of the world. Consider now, with your sense of prudence, whether the Church can tolerate giving Scripture a meaning contrary to the Holy Fathers and to all the Greek and Latin commentators. Nor can one answer that this is not a matter of faith, since if it is not a matter of faith "as regards the topic," it is a matter of faith "as regards the speaker"; and so it would be heretical to say that Abraham did not have two children and Jacob twelve, as well as to say that Christ was not born of a virgin, because both are said by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of the prophets and the apostles.
Third, I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the centre of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than what is demonstrated is false. But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown to me . . . . and in case of doubt one must not abandon the Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Fathers. I add that the one who wrote, "The sun also riseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose," was Solomon, who not only spoke inspired by God, but was a man above all others wise and learned in the human sciences and in the knowledge of created things; he received all this wisdom from God; therefore it is not likely that he was affirming something that was contrary to truth already demonstrated or capable of being demonstrated." (history guide. org).
(12) Starke, opcit, at p. 151.
(13) Starke, opcit., at p. 152.
(14) Starke, opcit., at p. 151.
(15) Starke, opcit., at p. 152.
(16) Ibid., at p. 153.
(17) ibid., at pp. 160-161.
Comments
Post a Comment