In 1615, Galileo wrote a letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (read: the Church) “to accommodate Copernicanism with the doctrines of the Catholic Church … [by] arguing that the Copernican theory was not just a mathematical calculating tool, but a physical reality” (source). In his letter, Galileo claimed – among other things – the following:
- The Book of Nature [science] and Book of Scripture [religion] are complementary, not contradictory.
- There is only one truth [about the universe, and it is suggested by both Books if we read them correctly].
- Science is a legitimate way to truth, independent of Revelation.
- Holy Scripture cannot be used against scientific statements once these are proven beyond doubt by scientific methods.
(David Weintraub, “Galileo Part 2: Religious Response through the Inquisition Hearings of 1616: Galileo’s Letter to Madame Christina, Part 2” (Nashville, TN, 2020).)
In other words, the Church argued that Copernicanism was wrong: Scripture should come before science, and because Scripture seemed to argue for geocentrism and geostatism, heliocentrism must be wrong. Galileo pushed back: science should come before Scripture and guide our interpretation of Scripture (i.e., we should use the Book of Nature to interpret the Book of Scripture), so because science argued for heliocentrism, the Church needed to change its understanding of Scripture. In short, the question facing the Church and Galileo was one of order, one asking if Scripture should elucidate science (the Church’s argument) or vice versa (Galileo’s argument).
Ultimately, heliocentrism proved to be correct, yet that doesn’t diminish the conundrum we faced at this moment of astronomical history – when faced with conflicting “evidence” (Scripture versus “Galileo’s discoveries about the Moon, Jupiter’s moons, Venus, and sunspots” (source)), we had to choose between science and religion; we had to choose to let science guide our interpretation of religion.
Though we have settled the heliocentrism-versus-geocentrism-and-geostatism debate, the need to balance science and religion remains relevant today. Do you believe in Genesis 1’s creation story, or do you believe in the Big Bang? Do you believe in there being a god (an explicit claim from religion), or do you believe there is no god because science cannot find evidence of one (note that this is an indirect extension of science; science does not explicitly claim there is no god)?
Or, do you think these are bad questions to ask? Like Galileo, do you believe that Nature and Scripture are not mutually exclusive? Can we understand Genesis 1 in the context of the Big Bang? Can we understand the existence of a god in the context of science being unable to find evidence for it?
In situations like these, we’re faced with two questions: should we use science to understand religion (like Galileo), and how do we do it? Though the battle to reconcile science and religion might not end anytime soon, that doesn’t mean it isn’t a battle worth fighting.
Cover of Galileo’s Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (courtesy of Wikipedia).



