This article by Richard Bastien is essentially a fantasy. I might find it more convincing if I hadn’t been raised a Catholic. Richard Bastien quotes the Pope who said “the history of the humanism that has developed on the basis of the Christian faith is proof of the truth of this faith in its essential core, making it something that public reason needs.” This is simply not so. Humanism can trace its roots to the Pagan Greeks and, to a lesser extent, the Romans. The Pope’s argument only works if the ancient world never existed. The Renaissance, and the resurgence of learning, was a reaction against the stifling oppression of the Church.

The students were angry because the Pope had made a speech in 1990 defending the heresy trial and conviction of Galileo. He referred to the verdict as reasonable and just. Having said that, the students at La Sapienza University should not have kept the Pope from speaking. He should have been allowed the courtesy that the Church denied to so many for so long.

As usual, David Page is over his head. If Mr Page thinks he knows what was in the minds of all the ‘angry’ students to whom he refers, as if they were a monolith, he knows more than most of us who have been reading, writing, and studying all our lives. Bastien’s article is masterful. It is a privilege to read him.

“The protesting academics asserted that in 1990 the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict in 2005, had described as “rational and just” a 17th century church trial against Galileo Galilei for championing the view that the sun, and not the earth, is the centre of the universe”

Ms Moore, it took me two minutes to find that quote.

Congratulations on finding the quote, David - but rather fewer on relying on it.  You quote not what Cardinal Ratzinger said, but what ‘the protesting academics’ claim that he said.  It would have been better to give a more direct source - for example http://ncrcafe.org/node/1541 .  From this (and I supppose other equivalent accessible sources) one discovers that the ‘rational and just’ statement does not originate with the Cardinal himself, but that he is quoting Feyerabend.  You may say this is splitting hairs.  I would suggest, however, to anyone who agrees with that, that they read the original article.  To my mind, the Cardinal was not giving his unqualified endorsement to Feyerabend’s position (any more than that of the Marxist Bloch, whom he also quotes) but saying that the matter was not quite so black and white as is often suggested.

David, I think your search engine dumped the relevant quotation marks regarding the Galileo comment. Ratzinger was actually citing the agnostic-skeptic philosopher P. Feyerabend. Here is the quote: 

“Once you understand how scientists and theologians have different areas of competence, that they should stay within their rightful boundaries and follow their proper ways of working, each recognizing their own limits and rights, then an even more dramatic conclusion about this whole matter does begin to make some sense. This is the conclusion of Paul Feyerabend - an agnostic and sceptical Austrian/American writer (1924 – 1994) about the Galileo episode. He said that the Church had a reasonable and valid point to make in the Galieo affair, because the wider implications of Galileo’s position went far beyond astronomy. According to Feyerabend it was really about the social and ethical effects of ceasing to regard human beings as the central value in the world. Feyerabend said that those who have rewritten history to ignore this point have done so for their own political motives rather than from any truly objective view.”

It can be found at http://ncrcafe.org/node/1542

Internet address correction.

The above citation is at http://ncrcafe.org/node/1541 under the heading “For what it’s worth, here is...” It is NOT at 1542.

It is a plain English translation/rendition of Ratzinger’s address.

The original rendition is also at this address.

In my view the pertinent point is:

“If both the spheres of conscience are once again clearly distinguished among themselves under their respective methodological profiles, recognizing both their limits and their respective rights, then the synthetic judgment of the agnostic-skeptic philosopher P. Feyerabend appears much more drastic. He writes: “The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo’s doctrine. Its verdict against Gaileo was rational and just, and revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of political opportunism.”

Note that Benedict uses the word ‘drastic’ to describe the the view he cites.

My apologies to those who went to the wrong site and wasted their time.

Tim and John, you are both splitting hairs. Cardinal Ratzinger presented these quotes in defense of the Church in the Galileo affair. Even to the point of torturing Relativity Theory to ‘prove’ Galileo was wrong.(The observer is always at the center of the universe.) What is not accepted by the Cardinal is that the Inquisition had no right to question Galileo, ‘under menace of torture’ and threat of the stake. Galileo could have been postulating the Easter Bunny. It was none of their business.

My point in bringing this up is that the omission of this information from the article seems to be gratuitous. Richard Bastien also fails to mention that it was the Vatican that canceled the speech. Had he included this information, he would have had to write a different article.

David,
To borrow a line from Brideshead’s Lord Marchmain, “Why do people always accuse one of hair-splitting when one is merely setting out to be precise.”

Actually there is much more to this debate - my primary reference is an article in ‘Scientific American’ of about 15 years ago, but it is at work and I am at home, so I will post the exact, hairless point tomorrow. An appetizer? The journal article considers that Galileo was scientifically wrong in his reasoning; hence his conclusion was open to error. Issues of hypotho-deductive reasoning and syllogisms spring to mind, but more tomorrow.

Buona notte

Again David Page allows his dislike for the church get in the way of clear reasoning, like many over the years have done. First of all to your claim that “Humanism can trace its roots to the Pagan Greeks and, to a lesser extent, the Romans” is true of course but in your annoyance that the church especially through the scholastics took that which was true in these philosophies using it to get to a deeper understanding of her faith. A clear manifestation of the fact that the church has always emphasized the ability of human reason to come to truth

I cannot find the original Scientific American (SA)at the moment, but the following articles are consistent with it. The last paper is by a Owen Gingerich, a senior astronomer emeritus at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and a research professor of astronomy AND of history of science at Harvard.

As I recall the center points of the SA article, the problems for Galileo were (1) that his proof was predicated on false logic (he switched the observation and the conclusion regarding the heliocentric nature of the the Universe and the Venus showing phases) and (2) his observations could be explained by the theory of Tycho which did NOT challenge scripture.

Articles of increasing refinement and complexity can be found at: 

http://www.encyclopedia.com/printable.aspx?id=1G1:77757768

http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/ReligGalileoMyth95.htm

http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/2003/PSCF6-03Gingerich.pdf

Padding TS Eliot into an article that seeks to cream the relevance of christianity into our consciousness is rather lazy. What else would high-chuch Eliot have said about the importance of chritianity to Western civilisation if not such pontifical hyperbole? Eliot’s whole career was built on cribbing passages verbatim from christian scripture. Why should David Page be subjected to such vicious broadsides by churchians just because he holds a different view? I, as an other-thinking person, will never stop bucking the tyranny of overweening religionists. Of course, christianity contributes to the sum of western civilisation - even then this is only in a qualified way. With or without christianity western civilisation would have flourished. I wonder why the Japanese are not thanking shintoism for their meteoric advances.

A Oriku said: “With or without christianity western civilisation would have flourished. I wonder why the Japanese are not thanking shintoism for their meteoric advances.”

I agree completely.

Ikenna said: “A clear manifestation of the fact that the church has always emphasized the ability of human reason to come to truth”

Ikenna, is ‘Truth’ different from ‘The Truth’? Christians don’t always use words the same way I do.

John Wilks, the discussion, for me, isn’t about whether Galileo was right or wrong. The question is whether the Church has the right to torture and kill those with contrary views.

Dear David,
I am distressed to read that Galileo was tortured and killed by the Church because of his - Galileo’s - view’s. This is certainly contrary to the views contained in the article by Timothy Moy, who said:

“ In 1633, Galileo was called back to Rome to answer these charges. His trial was a see-saw battle that turned on all manner of technical points in church law, theology, and mathematics, and nearly ended in the equivalent of a hung jury. In the ensuing plea bargain, Galileo admitted that he had gone a bit too far in promoting heliocentrism as truth without sufficient proof and promised not to do it again; all sides then prepared to conclude the face-saving compromise. Then, almost at the last moment (and for reasons that are still quite mysterious), the Inquisition overruled the plea bargain and handed down a verdict and sentence that was unexpectedly harsh: Galileo was found guilty of a “vehement suspicion of heresy” (which was not nearly as bad as heresy itself but still worse than disobedience and teachings contrary to Scripture) and forced to abjure and recant his belief in heliocentrism. Galileo signed a recantation in June of 1633. (I should also point out that Galileo was never imprisoned in a dungeon or tortured during the inquest, as is also sometimes believed. By all accounts, his surroundings were quite enviable.)

See http://www.encyclopedia.com/printable.aspx?id=1G1:77757768

I would be most appreciative of a citation or two so I can read about this most atrocious treatment of Galileo.

Felicitous salutations.

John Wilkes said: “I am distressed to read that Galileo was tortured and killed by the Church because of his - Galileo’s - view’s.”

John Wilkes, I’m disappointed In your post. I said Galileo was questioned under ‘threat of torture’. Others certainly were tortured at that time. Death, including the stake, was one of the penalties for heresy. You’ll remember what happened to Bruno some 30 years earlier. Galileo recanted. If he had not done so you can imagine how it all would have progressed. So, I repeat, the discussion, for me isn’t about whether Galileo was right or wrong. The question is whether the Church has the right to torture and kill those with contrary views.

With the greatest of respect to Mr Page and his Dorothy Dixer* question, no-one is trying to defend the so-called right of the Church to kill those with contrary views. The article under comment had to do with the paradox of students and professors at a University, refusing to hear the Pope speak. Do the “professors” refuse to lecture on contentious propositions or arguments with which they disagree? Are students at that University not exposed to opposite viewpoints, or encouraged to contemplate challenging ideas? Perhaps not, if the way to deal with the argument that faith and reason are inseparable, is to refuse to listen! *In Australia, we refer to arguments which sidetrack from the essential point of debate, as Dorothy Dixers, in honour of a politician who converted this method of debate into an art form.