|
As the great Danish
astronomer, Tycho Brahe, would say in the next generation, Copernicus’ theory
nowhere offends mathematics, yet it throws the earth, a lazy, sluggish body
unfit for motion, into a motion as fast as the ethereal stars themselves. And when laying out the specifics, he
repeatedly said that Copernicus’ theory goes against physics and against Holy
Scripture - always in that order.
The scriptural objections to
a moving earth were quick to emerge.
Georg Joachim Rheticus, the young Lutheran who came to visit the
Catholic Copernicus at the cathedral in Frauenburg, who in 1540 published a
“first report” on the new cosmology, and who persuaded Copernicus to let him
take a copy of the manuscript back to Germany for publication, was reputed to
have written a “second report” dealing with additional questions about the new
system. His report was long believed to
be lost, but two decades ago it was brilliantly rediscovered by the Dutch
historian of science Reijer Hooykaas.
In it Rheticus examines five scriptural passages that seem to speak
against the mobility of the earth and several against the immobility of the
sun. For example, Psalm 104 says that
the Lord God laid the foundation of the earth that it not be moved
forever. What the Psalmist means,
Rheticus declares, is that the earth maintains its established course and
attains its prescribed positions. “Therefore, he who assumes its mobility in
order to bring about a reliable calculation of times and motions is not acting
against Holy Scripture.” The book of
Joshua describes how, at the battle of Gibeon, Joshua commanded the sun, not
the earth, to stand still. As for this
battle in the valley of Ajalon, Rheticus asks his reader to distinguish between
appearance and reality. “When right
reason concludes that the sun is immobile, even though our eyes lead us to
think it moves, we do not abandon the accepted way of speaking. We say that the sun rises and sets, even
though we hold this to be true only in appearance.”
It is interesting that
Johannes Kepler, without knowing of Rheticus’ still-unpublished report, picked
up on the same two scriptural objections.
Concerning Joshua, he wrote, “If someone had suggested that the sun was
not really moving toward the valley of Ajalon, would not Joshua have exclaimed
that he was seeking to extend the daylight by any means whatsoever? He would have reacted the same way,
therefore, if anyone had taken issue with him over the sun’s permanent
immobility and the earth’s motion.” Concerning Psalm 104, Kepler wrote, “The
Psalmist is very far from speculating on physical causes. He rejoices entirely in the greatness of God
who has made all things. If you pay
close attention, this is actually a commentary on the first six days of
creation of Genesis.” After an
extensive analysis of the Psalm, Kepler urges his reader to “extol the bounty
of God in the preservation of living creatures of all kinds by the strength and
stability of the earth,” and also to “acknowledge the wisdom of the creator in
its motion, so abstruse, so admirable.”
Contributed by: Dr. Owen Gingerich
|
