Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Defending Copernicus and Galileo pp 291–314Cite as

Galileo as a Symbol of Science Versus Religion?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1787 Accesses

Part of the book series: Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science ((BSPS,volume 280))

Abstract

Ever since the condemnation of Galileo in 1633, his trial has commonly been viewed as epitomizing the conflict between science and religion. In the twentieth century, some Catholic officials have gone to the other extreme of claiming that instead the trial really exemplifies the harmony between science and religion. Each view yields both pro-Galilean and anti-Galilean conclusions, when combined with other appropriate assumptions. For example, from the conflict thesis one can easily derive the conclusion that Galileo is one of the supremely instructive examples in the struggle for individual freedom and civil liberties against religious oppression, as well as the conclusion that Galileo is one of the major figures to be blamed for the disastrous separation in modern Western culture between scientific knowledge and cultural values, or more generally, between facts and values. Similarly, the harmony thesis could be used to infer that Galileo is first and foremost a religious hero, who understood theoretically and practiced in his actual life the proper harmonious relationship between science and religion; and also to infer that Galileo’s religiosity and piety constitute just one more example of his many scientific, philosophical, and practical errors. Obviously such theses and conclusions presuppose different conceptions of science, religion, and their interaction, and they are based on different limited portions of the available historical evidence and documentation. This chapter aims primarily to bring some order into this tangle of issues, and secondarily to lay the foundations for an approach that would give Galileo neither undue blame nor undeserved praise.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The views stated in this paragraph are gleaned from these authors: Brooke (1991; 1996; 1998), Brooke and Cantor (1998), Lindberg and Numbers (1986; 1987), Livingstone (1997), Moore (1992), Numbers (2009), Osler (1998), Rudwick (1981), Wilson (1996; 2000), Wykstra (1996a,b).

  2. 2.

    Besides the authors mentioned in the previous note, this variety of relationships has also been discussed by Ruse (1997).

  3. 3.

    Osler (1998), Wilson (1996; 1999).

  4. 4.

    For a flavor of such problems, see for example Finocchiaro (1988; 1990).

  5. 5.

    Cantor (1995), Brooke and Cantor (1998, 106-138), Lindberg (2003), and Shea and Artigas (2006) have also carried out such an exercise. My account can thus be read in conjunction with theirs. I believe, however, that despite our overlapping topic, aim, and approach, there are some differences. By and large, their main concern seems to be to give a statement and criticism of the conflict thesis; whereas here my main concern is evaluation (both constructive and critical), and my targets are the harmony thesis as well as the conflict thesis, and anti-clerical as well as apologetic accounts.

  6. 6.

    See, for example, Draper (1875), White (1896, 130-152; 1965); because of their explicitness and militancy, Draper and White can be regarded as important sources of the conflict thesis, and they have been the main targets of the above mentioned recent criticism. However, the conflict thesis may be gleaned from other more significant authors, for example, Einstein (1953), Milton (1644, 35), Popper (1963, 97-119). Moreover, Draper and White have explicit precursors, such as Voltaire’s 1728 letter on Descartes and Newton and D’Alembert’s 1751 preliminary discourse to the Encyclopedia; cf. Finocchiaro (2005b, 115-125), and Section 8.6 above.

  7. 7.

    See Drake (1976; 1978; 1980). Drake’s account is only a recent version of a type of interpretation that goes back at least to L’Epinois (1867, 143-145; 1877; 1878).

  8. 8.

    Feldhay (1995). The progressiveness of the Jesuits, as well as their influence on Galileo, has been documented by Wallace (1984a). The non-monolithic character of the Catholic Church has been explicitly stressed in various ways by other authors, such as Segre (1991b, 30).

  9. 9.

    Gormam (1996); see also Blackwell (2006, 65-92). On Inchofer, see Blackwell (2006, 45-64, 105-206), Cerbu (2001), Shea (1984).

  10. 10.

    It is interesting that, for the case of Darwinism, a similar phenomenon has been found by Moore (1979, 102-103); this point has been stressed by Lindberg and Numbers (1987, 147).

  11. 11.

    Blackwell (2006, 103). See also Blackwell (1991; 1998a; 1998b).

  12. 12.

    Although Pera does not mention Giordano Bruno here, it is interesting to note that such claims played a key role in Bruno’s eventual condemnation and execution, and so the situation discussed by Pera has more than mere hypothetical interest; cf. Fiorani (1993), and Finocchiaro (2002). Beretta (1998, 103; 2005b, 239) has stressed the historical connection between Galileo’s trial and the condemnation of the thesis of the mortality of the soul in 1513 at the Fifth Lateran Council.

  13. 13.

    John Paul II (1979), section 6, paragraph 1.

  14. 14.

    John Paul II (1979), section 6, paragraph 2.

  15. 15.

    John Paul II (1979), section 7, paragraph 1.

  16. 16.

    Brooke (1991), Brooke and Cantor (1998), Lindberg and Numbers (2003), Numbers (2009).

  17. 17.

    The interpretation I am criticizing can be gleaned from such works as Carroll (1997; 1999; 2001), Brooke (1991, 77-80), Koestler (1959), Langford (1971), McMullin (1967c; 1995; 1998; 2005c), Moss (1983; 1986; 1993, 181-211). Of course, the views of all these authors do not coincide in every respect, but they do contain a common strand. For more details on the alternative interpretation I advance here, see Chapters 4 and 9 above; cf. Fantoli (2003b), Howell (1996), Pesce (1987; 1991a; 2005).

  18. 18.

    In Finocchiaro (1989, 96), or Galilei (2008, 119); cf. Favaro 5: 319.

  19. 19.

    For more details on this account, see, Finocchiaro (2005b, 338-357; 2008a), and Section 8.17 above. For accounts that are more negative, see Reston (1994, 139-144, 283-286), DiCanzio (1996, 321-330), Segre (1997), Beltrán Marí (1998), Finocchiaro (1986; 1999a), Benitez (1999, 85-110), Fantoli (2001), Coyne (2005), McMullin (2005a, 7). For the best documentation and a relatively well-balanced account, see Artigas and Sánchez de Toca (2008).

  20. 20.

    Morpurgo-Tagliabue (1947-1948; 1981, 60-61, 64, 68-69, 70, 85-87, 88, 167, 189-90).

  21. 21.

    Wallace (1981b; 1984a; 1992a,b).

  22. 22.

    Finocchiaro (1980; 1997a), Gingerich (1995; 2000), Pitt (1992).

  23. 23.

    An analogous version of such a thesis, but at a more general level, may be gleaned from Heilbron (1999, 202-207); although Heilbron’s main purpose lies elsewhere, and although his intention is not an apologia of the Catholic Church, he does suggest that the lip service to the hypothetical status of Copernicanism required by the anti-Copernican decree of 1616 and by Galileo’s condemnation of 1633 fostered an attitude of instrumentalism that was sound.

  24. 24.

    Feyerabend (1985; 1987, 247-264).

  25. 25.

    Feyerabend (1988, 129). Cf. Ratzinger (1994, 98), which has a slightly different wording since he is translating from a German edition of Feyerabend’s work.

  26. 26.

    See, for example, Blackwell (1998a, 355), Brandmüller (1992, 144-146), Gingerich (1995, 342), Mayaud (1997, 313).

  27. 27.

    The attribution of some such error is a recurring theme in the controversy about Galileo’s trial. See, for example, Arnauld (1775-1783, 9: 307-314), Mivart and Jackson (1885), Beretta (1998, 278; 1999a, 481-485; 2001b, 316-17; 2003a, 180-183), and Camerota (2004, 517-518).

  28. 28.

    For this conception of heresy, see Garzend (1912), Finocchiaro (2005b, 272-274), and Section 8.13 above.

  29. 29.

    Favaro 19: 320-321, Pagano (1984, 99-100), Finocchiaro (1989, 146-147).

  30. 30.

    This point has been stressed by Beretta in many places, e.g., Beretta (1998, 97-108; 1999a, 473-474).

  31. 31.

    Finocchiaro (2005b, 26-42), and Section 8.2 above.

  32. 32.

    Favaro 19: 405, Finocchiaro (1989, 291), Galilei (2008, 292).

  33. 33.

    Masini (1621, 16-18), Garzend (1912), Giacchi (1942), Neveu and Mayaud (2002, 288), Finocchiaro (1989, 38; 2005b, 12-13), and Sections 7.2 and 8.1 above.

  34. 34.

    Finocchiaro (1989, 291), or Galilei (2008, 292); cf. Favaro 19: 405.

  35. 35.

    Favaro 19: 342-376, Pagano (1984, 139-153), Finocchiaro (1989, 262-276).

  36. 36.

    For more details about my view and a discussion of alternative interpretations, see Finocchiaro (1997a, 52-58).

  37. 37.

    Favaro 19: 348-360, Pagano (1984, 139-153), Finocchiaro (1989, 262-276).

  38. 38.

    Brooke and Cantor (1998, 106, 130, and 132) seem to advance such a suggestion in their own analysis of “the contemporary relevance of the Galileo affair.”

  39. 39.

    See also Lessl (1999), Benítez (1999, 85-110), Finocchiaro (2009a).

  40. 40.

    Brooke and Cantor (1998, 123-126) do discuss Viviani, but they focus on his general interpretation of Galileo’s science and methodology, and do not mention at all Viviani’s interpretation of the affair. Although my focus here is different, their critique is correct, as may also be seen from Biagioli (1993, 87-88) and Segre (1989; 1991a).

  41. 41.

    Cf. Section 8.5 above, which discusses other aspects of Viviani’s attempt at compromise, and other attempts by Auzout and Leibniz.

  42. 42.

    Salusbury (1661-1665, vol. 1). The foreword bears no page numbers and precedes immediately the text of the Dialogue. I have retained the spelling, punctuation, and style of Salusbury’s archaic but comprehensible and pleasant English; the only exception is that he printed the foreword in italics, with the names of persons in roman type, and I have dropped both of those conventions.

  43. 43.

    See the recent discovery, and fascinating speculations, discussed in Wilding (2008).

  44. 44.

    Magalotti to Guiducci, 7 August 1632, in Favaro 14: 368-371; Magalotti to Guiducci, 4 September 1632, in Favaro 14: 379-382; “Special Commission’s Report on the Dialogue (September 1632),” in Favaro 19: 324-327, in Pagano (1984, 105-108), in Finocchiaro (1989, 218-222), and in Galilei (2008, 272-276).

  45. 45.

    Castelli to Galileo, 22 December 1635, in Favaro 16: 363-364; cf. Pieralisi (1875, 365-366).

  46. 46.

    Fabroni (1773-1775, 1: 47 n. 1); cf. Finocchiaro (2005b, 115).

  47. 47.

    Whewell (1847). The criticism had appeared in Cooper (1838); cf. Section 10.5 above.

  48. 48.

    Cf. Riccioli (1651, 2: 290) and Section 8.4 above.

  49. 49.

    For little known factual information and important clarifications about the difference between Villa Medici and Palazzo Firenze, see Shea and Artigas (2003, 30, 74, 106-107, 134-135, 179-180, 195).

  50. 50.

    For more details, see Berggren and Sjöstedt (1996, 19-20, 145-147).

  51. 51.

    “Epigrafi ed Offese,” L’Osservatore Romano, 23 April 1887.

  52. 52.

    Einstein (1934; 1953), Popper (1963, 33-65, 97-119).

  53. 53.

    See Feyerabend (1975; 1988; 1993), and the criticism in Finocchiaro (1980). Cf. the penultimate section of the Introduction and Section 12.5 above.

  54. 54.

    Benítez (1999, 85-110), Segre (1998).

  55. 55.

    In the sense that the science versus religion conflict is the most important aspect of the trial. But such a conflict might have to be allowed as a first approximation, as a simplification so to speak, in a context in which one distinguishes simplification from oversimplification - an eighth guideline to be added to those mentioned in the previous paragraph.

References

  • Arnauld A (1775-1783) Oeuvres de Messire Antoine Arnauld. 49 vols. Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Artigas M, Sánchez de Toca M (2008) Galileo y el Vaticano. Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Beltrán Marí A (1998) ‘Una reflexión serena y objectiva’ Arbor 160(629): 69-108

    Google Scholar 

  • Beltrán Marí A (2001b) Tratos extrajudiciales, determinismo procesal y poder. In Montesinos and Solís 2001, 463-490

    Google Scholar 

  • Benítez HH (1999) Ensayos sobre ciencia y religión. Bravo y Allende, Santiago, Chile

    Google Scholar 

  • Beretta F (1998) Galilée devant le tribumal de l’Inquisition. Doctoral Dissertation, Faculty of Theology, University of Fribourg, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  • Beretta F (1999a) Le procès de Galilée et les archives du Saint-Office. Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 83: 441-90

    Google Scholar 

  • Beretta F (2003a) L’affaire Galilée et l’impasse apologétique. Gregorianum 84:169-192

    Google Scholar 

  • Beretta F (2005b) Galileo, Urban VIII, and the prosecution of natural philosophers. In McMullin 2005a:234-261

    Google Scholar 

  • Berggren L, Sjöstedt L (1996) L’ombra dei grandi. Artemide Edizioni, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Biagioli M (1993) Galileo Courtier. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackwell RJ (1991) Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackwell RJ (ed and trans) (1998a) Could there be another Galileo case? In Machamer 1998a:348-366

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackwell RJ (ed and trans) (1998b) Science, religion and authority. Marquette University Press, Milwakee

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackwell RJ (ed and trans) (2006) Behind the scenes at Galileo’s trial. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandmüller W (1992). Galilei e la Chiesa, ossia il diritto di errare. Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooke JH (1991) Science and Religion. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooke JH (1996) Religious belief and natural science. In van der Meer 1996(1):1-26

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooke JH (1998) The historiography of religion and science interaction. Paper presented at the conference Science in theistic contexts, Pascal Centre for Advanced Studies in Faith and Science, Redeemer University College, Ancaster, Ontario, Canada, 21-25 July

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooke J, Cantor G (1998) Reconstructing Nature. T & T Clark, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown HI (1979) Perception, theory and commitment. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerota M (2004) Galileo Galilei e la cultura scientifica nell’età della Controriforma. Salerno, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantor G (1995) Science, religion and history. The University of Leeds Rev 38(1995-1996):1-19

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll WE (1997) Galileo, science, and the Bible. Acta Philosophica 6:5-37

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll WE (1999) Galileo and the interpretation of the Bible. Scie Educ 8:151-87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll WE (2001) Galileo and Biblical exegesis. In Montesinos and Solís 2001, 677-692

    Google Scholar 

  • Cerbu T (2001) Melchior Inchofer, ‘un Homme Fin et Rusé’. In Montesinos and Solís 2001:587-614

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper P (1838) Galileo - the Roman inquisition. Dublin Rev 5(9):72-116

    Google Scholar 

  • Coyne GV (1985) Conclusion. In Coyne, Heller, and Zycínski 1985:177-179

    Google Scholar 

  • Coyne GV (2005) The Church’s most recent attempt to dispel the Galileo myth. In McMullin 2005a:340-359

    Google Scholar 

  • Coyne GV, Heller M, Zycínski J (eds) (1985) The Galileo affair. Specola Vaticana, Vatican City

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Alembert J (1751) Discours preliminaire. In Diderot and D’Alembert 1751-1780, 1: i-xlv

    Google Scholar 

  • DiCanzio A (1996) Galileo: His science and His significance for the future of man. Adasi Publishing Company, Portsmouth

    Google Scholar 

  • Drake S (1976) Galileo against the Philosophers. Zeitlin & Ver Brugge, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  • Drake S (1978) Galileo at Work. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Drake S (1980) Galileo. Hill and Wang, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Draper JW (1875) History of the conflict between religion and science. New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Einstein A (1934) On the method of theoretical physics. In idem, The world as I see it. Covici Friede Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Einstein A (1953) Foreword. In Galilei 1953, vi-xx

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabroni A (ed) (1773-1775). Lettere inedite di uomini illustri. 2 vols. Florence

    Google Scholar 

  • Fantoli A (2001) Galileo e la Chiesa cattolica. In Montesinos and Solís 2001, 733-752

    Google Scholar 

  • Fantoli A (2003b) Galileo: For Copernicanism and for the Church. 3rd edn. Coyne GV (Trans.). Vatican Observatory Publications, Vatican City

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldhay R (1995) Galileo and the Church. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend PK (1975) Against method. NLB, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend PK (1985) Galileo and the tyranny of truth. In Coyne, Heller, and Zycinski 1995:155-166

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend PK (1987) Farewell to reason. Verso, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend PK (1988) Against method. Revised edn. Verso, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend PK (1993) Against method. 3rd edn. Verso, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Finocchiaro MA (1980) Galileo and the art of reasoning: rhetorical foundations of logic and scientific method. Reidel, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Finocchiaro MA (1986) Toward a philosophical interpretation of the Galileo affair. Nuncius 1:189-202

    Google Scholar 

  • Finocchiaro MA (1988) Science and society in Newton and in Marx. Inquiry (Oslo) 31:103-121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finocchiaro MA (1990) Varieties of rhetoric in science. Hist Hum Sci 3:177-193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finocchiaro MA (1999a) The Galileo affair from John Milton to John Paul II: problems and prospects. Sci Educ 8:189-209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finocchiaro MA (2002) Philosophy versus religion and science versus religion: the trials of Bruno and Galileo. In Gatti 2002:51-96

    Google Scholar 

  • Finocchiaro MA (2005a) Arguments about arguments: systematic, critical, and historical essays in logical theory. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Finocchiaro MA (2005b) Retrying Galileo, 1633-1992. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Finocchiaro MA (2008a) The Church and Galileo. The Catholic Hist Rev 94:260-282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finocchiaro MA (2009a) Myth 8: that Galileo was imprisoned and tortured for advocating Copernicanism. In Numbers 2009:68-78, 249-252

    Google Scholar 

  • Finocchiaro MA (trans. and ed) (1989) The Galileo affair: a documentary history. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Finocchiaro MA (trans. and ed) (1997a) Galileo on the world systems: a new abridged translation and guide. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorani L (1993) Il processo di Giordano Bruno. Quaglioni D (ed) Salerno, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Galilei G (2008) The essential Galileo. Finocchiaro MA (ed and trans). Hackett Publishing Co., Indianapolis and Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Garzend L (1912). L’Inquisition et l’hérésie. Desclée de Brouwer, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Giacchi O (1942) Considerazioni giuridiche sui due processi contro Galileo. In Nel terzo centenario della morte di Galileo Galilei, 383-406

    Google Scholar 

  • Gingerich O (1995) Hypothesis, proof, and censorship. In Galileo a Padova, 4:325-344

    Google Scholar 

  • Gingerich O (2000) Copernican revolution. In Ferngren et al. 2000

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorman MJ (1996) A matter of faith? Persp Sci 4:283-320

    Google Scholar 

  • Heilbron JL (1999) The sun in the Church. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Howell KJ (1996) Galileo and the history of hermeneutics. In van der Meer 1996(4):245-260

    Google Scholar 

  • John Paul II (1979) Deep harmony which unites the truths of science with the truths of faith. L’Osservatore Romano, weekly edition in English, 26 November:9-10

    Google Scholar 

  • Koestler A (1959) The sleepwalkers. Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn TS (1977). The essential tension. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • L’Epinois H de (1867) Galilée: Son Procès, Sa Condamnation d’après des Documents Inédits. Revue des questions historiques, year 2, vol. 3, 68-171

    Google Scholar 

  • L’Epinois H de (1877) Les pièces du procès de Galilée précédées d’un avant-propos. Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • L’Epinois H de (1878) La question de Galilée. Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Langford JJ (1971) Galileo, science and the Church, Revisedth edn. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

    Google Scholar 

  • Lessl TS (1999) The Galileo legend as scientific folklore. Q J Speech 85:146-168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindberg DC (2003) Galileo, the Church, and the Cosmos. In Lindberg and Numbers 2003:33-60

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindberg DC, Numbers RL (eds) (1986) God and nature. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindberg DC, Numbers RL (1987) Beyond war and peace. Persp Sci Christian Faith 39:140-149

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindberg DC, Numbers RL (eds) (2003) When science & Christianity meet. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone DN (1997) Science and religion. Christian Scholar’s Rev 26:270-292

    Google Scholar 

  • Masini E (1621) Sacro arsenale overo prattica dell’officio della Santa Inquisizione. Genoa

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayaud P-N (1997) La condamnation des livres coperniciens et sa révocation à la lumière de documents inédits des Congrégations de l’Index et de l’Inquisition. Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • McMullin E (1967c) Introduction. In McMullin 1967b:3-51

    Google Scholar 

  • McMullin E (1995) Scientific classics and their fates. In Hull, Forbes, and Burian 1995:2: 266-274

    Google Scholar 

  • McMullin E (1998) Galileo on science and scripture. In Machamer 1998a:271-347

    Google Scholar 

  • McMullin E (ed) (2005a). The Church and Galileo. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame

    Google Scholar 

  • McMullin E (2005c) Galileo’s theological venture. In McMullin 2005a:88-116

    Google Scholar 

  • Milton J (1644) Areopagitica. In Milton 1953-1982, 2: 485-570

    Google Scholar 

  • Mivart St, Jackson G (1885) Modern catholics and scientific freedom. Nineteenth Cent 18:30-47

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore JR (1979) The Post-Darwinian controversies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Moore JR (1992) Speaking of ‘Science’ and ‘Religion’ - then and now. Hist Sci 30:311-323

    Google Scholar 

  • Morpurgo-Tagliabue G (1947-1948) I processi di Galileo e l’epistemologia. Rivista di storia della filosofia, vol. 2, nos 2-3; vol. 3, no. 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss JD (1983) Galileo’s letter to Christina. Renaissance Q 36:547-576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss JD (1986) The rhetoric of proof in Galileo’s writings on the Copernican system. In Wallace 1986:179-204

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss JD (1993) Novelties in the Heavens. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Neveu B, Mayaud P-N (2002) L’affaire Galilée et la tentation inflationniste. Gregorianum 82:287-311

    Google Scholar 

  • Numbers RL (2009) Galileo goes to jail and other myths about science and religion. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Osler MJ (1998) Mixing Metaphors. Hist Sci 36:91-113

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagano SM (ed) (1984) I documenti del processo di Galileo Galilei. Pontificia Academia Scientiarum, Vatican City

    Google Scholar 

  • Pera M (1998) The God of the theologians and the God of the astronomers. In Machamer 1998a:367-388

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesce M (1987) L’interpretazione della Bibbia nella Lettera di Galileo a Cristina di Lorena e la sua ricezione. Annali di storia dell’esegesi 4:239-284

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesce M (1991a) Momenti della ricezione dell’ermeneutica biblica galileiana e della Lettera a Cristina nel XVII secolo. Annali di storia dell’esegesi 8:55-104

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesce M (2005) L’ermeneutica biblica di Galileo e le due strade della teologia cristiana. Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Pieralisi S (1875) Urbano VIII e Galileo Galilei. Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitt J (1992) Galileo, human knowledge, and the book of nature. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper KR (1963) Conjectures and refutations. Harper, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratzinger J (1994) A turning point for Europe? McNeil B (trans). Ignatius Press, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Reston J Jr (1994) Galileo: a life. HarperCollins, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Riccioli GB (1651) Almagestum novum. 2 vols. Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudwick M (1981) Senses of the natural world and senses of God. In Peacocke 1981:241-261

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse M (1997) Introduction. In Russell 1997

    Google Scholar 

  • Salusbury T (ed and trans) (1661-1665) Mathematical collections and translations. 2 vols. London

    Google Scholar 

  • Segre M (1989) Viviani’s life of Galileo. Isis 80:207-232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segre M (1991a) In the Wake of Galileo. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick

    Google Scholar 

  • Segre M (1991b) Science at the Tuscan Court, 1642-1667. In Physics, Cosmology and Astronomy, 1300-1700, Unguru S (ed). Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 295-308

    Google Scholar 

  • Segre M (1997) Light on the Galileo case? Isis 88:484-504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segre M (1998) The never ending Galileo story. In Machamer 1998a:388-416

    Google Scholar 

  • Shea WR (1984) Melchior Inchofer’s ‘Tractatus Syllepticus’. In Galluzzi 1984:283-292

    Google Scholar 

  • Shea WR, Artigas M (2003) Galileo in Rome. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Shea WR, Artigas M (2006) Galileo observed. Science History Publications, Sagamore Beach

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace WA (1981b) Prelude to Galileo. Reidel, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace WA (1984a) Galileo and His sources. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace WA (1992a) Galileo’s logical treatises. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace WA (1992b) Galileo’s logic of discovery and proof. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Whewell W (1837) The Copernican system opposed on theological grounds. In idem, History of the inductive sciences, 1st edn, 1:397-404. 3 vols. London

    Google Scholar 

  • Whewell W (1847) Case of Galileo. In idem, Philosophy of the inductive sciences founded upon their history, 2nd edn, 1:696-700. 2 vols. London

    Google Scholar 

  • Whewell W (1857a).“The Copernican system opposed on theological grounds. In idem, History of the inductive sciences, 3rd edn, 1:303-312. 3 vols. London

    Google Scholar 

  • Whewell W (1857b) Were the Papal edicts against the Copernican system repealed?” In idem, History of the inductive sciences, 3rd edn, Additions to the third edition, 1:393-394. 3 vols. London

    Google Scholar 

  • White AD (1896) A history of the warfare of science with theology in Christendom. 2 vols. New York

    Google Scholar 

  • White AD (1965) A history of the warfare of science with theology in Christendom. Abridged Mazlish B (ed). Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilding N (2008) The Returm of Thomas Salusbury’s Life of Galileo (1664). Br J Hist Sci 41:241-265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson DB (1996) On the importance of eliminating Science and Religion from the history of science and religion. In van der Meer 1996(1):27-48

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson DB (1999 Galileo’s religion versus the Church’s science? Phys Persp 1:65-84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson DB (2000) The historiography of science and religion. In Ferngren et al. 2000

    Google Scholar 

  • Wykstra SJ (1996a) Have worldviews shaped science? In van der Meer 1996(1):91-114

    Google Scholar 

  • Wykstra SJ (1996b) Should worldviews shape science? In van der Meer 1996, 2:123-171

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA

    Maurice A. Finocchiaro

Authors
  1. Maurice A. Finocchiaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maurice A. Finocchiaro .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Finocchiaro, M.A. (2010). Galileo as a Symbol of Science Versus Religion?. In: Defending Copernicus and Galileo. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 280. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3201-0_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation