Social Scientist. v 10, no. 112 (Sept 1982) p. 61.

Graphics file for this page

Stiltman Drake falls into this category. In his small book, titled Galileo^ the undoubted scholarship with which he deals with the salient and controversial features of Galileo's trial, his interpretation of these events, only underlines his ideological bias. The main attempt in the book is to substantiate the 'outlandish' hypothesis that "Galileo was a zealot not for the Copernican astronomy, but for the future of the Catholic Church and for the protection of religious faith against any scientific discovery that might be made" (p 2). This hypothesis is supported by the claim that it was the hostility of contemporary philosophers, and not of the Church, to Galileo's work that led to his facing Inquisition. Thus Galileo's being 'no philosopher' is utilised to assert that Galileo was not setting up science in defiance of faith, and thus to dispel the common belief that Galileo had hurled a defiant challenge to religious faith in the name of science. And the basis for counteracting this commonly held belief are the subjective intentions of both Galileo and the Church. In fact, the whole chain of argumentation is essentially subjective ih nature. Drake states: "That (challenging religious faith) was by no means his intention, though it is true that theologians proceeded to nip Galileo's science in the bud, which may not have been their intention at the outset" (p 1).

Conscious of the subjectivist nature of this approach, Drake tries to justify it on the ground that the very durability of the Catholic Church as a social phenomenon can only be understood in subjectivist terms, if at all, and therefore why not adopt the same approach to an understanding of Galileo? And further, the fact that three Cardinals of the Inquisition refused to sign the sentence against Galileo is interpreted as their being certain of Galileo's Catholicism and hence as evidence confirming the hypothesis. But, by the same logic, the many more than the three who condemned Galileo must have been equally certain that he was violating the basic principles of Catholicism. Even though he does not pursue his own logic, Drake still cannot square the two sides of his own argument.

A more substantial point, however, is that his definitive assertion that "it was not Galileo who created the breach between religion and science" is based on the assumption that Galileo created a science that could not be accepted by the philosophers. It is the supposedly mischievous role assigned to philosophers and philosophy in general that is held responsible for the breach between science and religion. Philosophers alone were responsible for introducing the Bible into their disputes with Galileo, and, according to Drake, once this category of people is banished from the face of the earth, religion and science can co-exist, supplementing each other.

To maintain his facile argument Drake has to do a lot of tightrope walking. On the one hand, he maintains that Galileo was no philosopher at all and "recent attempts to make a philosopher out of

Back to Social Scientist | Back to the DSAL Page

This page was last generated on Wednesday 12 July 2017 at 18:02 by
The URL of this page is: