The Sleepwalkers (210 page)

Let
us
grant
then
that
theology
is
conversant
with
the
loftiest
divine
contemplation,
and
occupies
the
regal
throne
among
the
sciences
by
this
dignity.
But
acquiring
the
highest
authority
in
this
way,
if
she
does
not
descend
to
the
lower
and
humbler
speculations
of
the
subordinate
sciences
and
has
no
regard
for
them
because
they
are
not
concerned
with
blessedness,
then
her
professors
should
not
arrogate
to
themselves
the
authority
to
decide
on
controversies
in
professions
which
they
have
neither
studied
nor
practised.
Why,
this
would
be
as
if
an
absolute
despot,
being
neither
a
physician
nor
an
architect,
but
knowing
himself
free
to
command,
should
undertake
to
administer
medicines
and
erect
buildings
according
to
his
whim
–
at
grave
peril
of
his
poor
patients'
lives,
and
the
speedy
collapse
of
his
edifices..."
¹⁵

While
reading
this
superb
manifesto
of
the
freedom
of
thought,
one
tends
to
forgive
Galileo
his
human
failings.
These,
however,
become
only
too
apparent
in
the
piece
of
special
pleading
which
follows
the
passage
I
have
quoted,
and
which
was
to
have
disastrous
consequences.

After
invoking
Augustine's
authority
once
more,
Galileo
draws
a
distinction
between
scientific
propositions
which
are
"soundly
demonstrated"
(i.e.
proven)
and
others
which
are
"merely
stated".
If
propositions
of
the
first
kind
contradict
the
apparent
meaning
of
passages
in
the
Bible,
then,
according
to
theological
practice,
the
meaning
of
these
passages
must
be
reinterpreted
–
as
was
done,
for
instance,
with
regard
to
the
spherical
shape
of
the
earth.
So
far
he
has
stated
the
attitude
of
the
Church
correctly;
but
he
continues:

"And
as
to
the
propositions
which
are
stated
but
not
rigorously
demonstrated,
anything
contrary
to
the
Bible
involved
by
them
must
be
held
undoubtedly
false
and
should
be
proved
so
by
every
possible
means."
¹⁶

Now
this
was
demonstrably
not
the
attitude
of
the
Church.
"Propositions
which
are
stated
but
not
rigorously
demonstrated,"
such
as
the
Copernican
system
itself
,
were
not
condemned
outright
if
they
seemed
to
contradict
Holy
Scripture;
they
were
merely
relegated
to
the
rank
of
"working
hypotheses"
(where
they
rightly
belong),
with
an
implied:
"wait
and
see;
if
you
bring
proof,
then,
but
only
then,
we
shall
have
to
reinterpret
Scripture
in
the
light
of
this
necessity."
But
Galileo
did
not
want
to
bear
the
burden
of
proof;
for
the
crux
of
the
matter
is,
as
will
be
seen,
that
he
had
no
proof.
Therefore,
firstly,
he
conjured
up
an
artificial
black-or-white
alternative,
by
pretending
that
a
proposition
must
either
be
accepted
or
outright
condemned.
The
purpose
of
this
sleight
of
hand
becomes
evident
from
the
next
sentence:

"Now
if
truly
demonstrated
physical
conclusions
need
not
be
subordinated
to
biblical
passages,
but
the
latter
must
rather
be
shown
not
to
interfere
with
the
former,
then
before
a
physical
proposition
is
condemned
it
must
be
shown
to
be
not
rigorously
demonstrated
–
and
this
is
to
be
done
not
by
those
who
hold
the
proposition
to
be
true,
but
by
those
who
judge
it
to
be
false.
This
seems
very
reasonable
and
natural,
for
those
who
believe
an
argument
to
be
false
may
much
more
easily
find
the
fallacies
in
it
than
men
who
consider
it
to
be
true
and
conclusive..."
¹⁷

The
burden of proof has been shifted. The crucial words are those in (my)
italics. It is no longer Galileo's task to prove the Copernican
system, but the theologians' task to disprove it. If they don't,
their case will go by default, and Scripture must be reinterpreted.

In
fact,
however,
there
had
never
been
any
question
of
condemning
the
Copernican
system
as
a
working
hypothesis.
The
biblical
objections
were
only
raised
against
the
claim
that
it
was
more
than
a
hypothesis,
that
it
was
rigorously
proven,
that
it
was
in
fact
equivalent
to
gospel
truth.
The
subtlety
in
Galileo's
manoeuvre
is
that
he
does
not
explicitly
raise
this
claim.
He
cannot
do
so,
for
he
had
not
produced
a
single
argument
in
support
of
it.
Now
we
understand
why
he
needed
his
black-or-white
alternative
as
a
first
move:
to
distract
attention
from
the
true
status
of
the
Copernican
system
as
an
officially
tolerated
working
hypothesis
awaiting
proof.
Instead,
by
slipping
in
the
ambiguous
words
"physical
proposition"
at
the
beginning
of
the
italicized
passage,
followed
by
the
demand
that
"it
must
be
shown
to
be
not
rigorously
demonstrated",
he
implied
(though
he
did
not
dare
to
state
it
explicitly)
that
the
truth
of
the
system
was
rigorously
demonstrated.
It
is
all
so
subtly
done
that
the
trick
is
almost
imperceptible
to
the
reader
and,
as
far
as
I
know,
has
escaped
the
attention
of
students
to
this
day.
Yet
it
decided
the
strategy
he
was
to
follow
in
coming
years.