philosophy?

Question

Discuss Galileo's " letter to the grand Duchess Christina". What are the arguments?

Answer 1

Galileo repeats himself a lot, and tends to intertwine his various points, but basically his arguments are thus:

GALILEO IS NOT GOD. Galileo points out that he is trying to make OBSERVATIONS. In other words, he has discovered things that were already there. He cannot put new things in the skies (only God can), nor will criticizing him cause those things to stop existing. Quite the contrary - he would think that those who wished to understand God would appreciate him for finding new parts of Creation to appreciate, rather than complaining that they don't like what he has found.

SHOULDERS OF GIANTS. Galileo points out that his so-called controversial ideas are not his alone. Much of his work, for example, is built up from the work of Copernicus (a priest, no less). St Augustine can be found to have said that it is possible the Earth moved and the Sun was still. And Plato was apparently so convinced that the Sun was unmoving that he said it was absurd to think otherwise. None of these men have been accused of heresy - quite the converse... they are sometimes used as a benchmark of piety!

PURPOSE OF REASON. One thing that seems to get Galileo's goat is that his critics seem to suggest that the answer to everything is in the Bible. If this were so, Galileo argues, there would be no reason for any person to think about anything - the faculty of reason would be superfluous, since all the answers are already provided. This position is bolstered both by famous dead people (see above) and by evidence (the Bible is not used as a music textbook, or for medical lessons, etc).

IMPOSSIBILITY OF THE TASK. Galileo will be happy to concede that the Bible is always correct. He also argues, however, that good scientific research is also correct (after all, reason has a purpose... see above). Therefore good research MUST agree with the Bible. If there is an appearance of contradiction, it can only be that someone has either misunderstood the Bible or misunderstood the science. Galileo suggests that there is no short supply of misunderstanders - the learned are few and the Bible can be obscure sometimes (see below). Indeed, the fact that critics are attacking him instead of his idea suggests that the idea itself is unassailable.

APPLICABILITY OF THE BIBLE. Let's face it - if the Bible were crystal clear, nobody would ever argue about what it says about things. Indeed, if you take everything in it literally, it would lead you to any number of contradictions and heresies. Because so much of the Bible is allegory, and also because the subject of the Bible is religion and the spiritual world, it seems quite disingenuous to Galileo to use phrases therein to try and argue against things outside that purview (see also the argument of reason, above).

POPULAR VOTE. Though he grants that his views caused a general uproar at first, Galileo thinks that most of it (or at least the parts he cares about) has died down. He says that those who knew what he was talking about were persuaded almost as soon as they heard about it. Even the most skeptical of the open-minded has conceded that Galileo has a point. The remainder of the uproar consists largely of those who have no idea what they're talking about and those who can be stirred up by vicious rumors.

CRITICS SUCK. Rather than accusing Galileo of heresy, he thinks they should look a little closer at what they are doing: contradicting saints, spreading rumors, misquoting the Bible, and slandering the originator of an idea instead of arguing against the idea itself. The way in which they are trying to destroy every part of his work suggests that they with not just to stop an idea, but destroy its creator and eliminate any possibility of dissent from others. This kind of odious suppression is certainly not conducive to God-given reason (see above).

Answer 2

Really tough reading.
Galileo basically distinguished matters of science from matters of faith. Although he was religious himself he believed that there could be common ground between Science and Religion and that the Religious shouldn't be so afraid of Science reinterpreting what they believe.
Look up Copernicanism for more information. Should give you a better understanding. Much better then reading that letter.
Best of Luck

Answer 3

bleh, it's so medieval