Professor William R. Shea. PHOTO: Antonio Olza

William R. Shea, professor at the University of Padua (Italy) and head of the Galilean Chair History of Science, gave the I Mariano Artigas Memorial Lecture at the University of Navarra. The activity was organized by the group of research 'Science, Reason and Faith' (CRYF) of campus and financed by the John Templeton Foundation. The first edition was entitled 'The Galileo Affair. What Theology Could Learn from Scientists'.

Why has the Galileo case become the paradigm of the confrontation between science and faith?
The Galileo case has become a symbol, and the first question that arises is whether it was inevitable that science, which is based on reasoning and experimentation, clashed with religion, which is based on authority and dogma. The second question is whether it was possible to prevent Galileo, who was a scientist, from clashing with Christian authority. What Mariano Artigas used to answer is that the Galileo case is the first example of the conflict between science and religion, but also the last. It is interesting, because sample that even Rome can learn. The main lesson he learned was that it should be very careful with the statements it makes about science.

He insists on the uniqueness of the episode. What about Darwinism, wasn't it a problem in his time?
One might fear that there was a bigger problem, because when it was formulated, the Theory of Evolution was not part of the traditional Christian worldview. In 1870, during the First Vatican Council, there were calls for the Church to condemn it, but in the end this was not done. Before the proposal, an American bishop said: "Memento de Galileo" (remember Galileo), which led to a vote against it.

Did Galileo really want to take a stand against the Church?
It is difficult to find out how he saw the world, but it is certain that over the years his interest in religion grew. In any case, as current researchers recognize, he was like the vast majority of men of his time: a believer who considered himself part of the Catholic Church. This raises the question of whether his case was indeed used to damage the Church, derived from the anti-clerical movements of the Enlightenment.

So, is it merely a symbol used by those who wish to attack the Church?
In every war there is always a symbol or a flag. Galileo has become that for the detractors of the Church. Undoubtedly, the case would have been avoided if instead of him and the pope of that time two different personalities had met. Galileo was a truly brilliant man, but also very arrogant. He possessed great talent and was convinced that he had an argument to prove that the Earth moved around the sun: the existence of the tides. For him, their origin was the rotation of the Earth during the 24 hours of the day. Although he was not right, his reasoning was very intelligent. On the other hand, he was a Florentine, as was the pope. The conflict between these two personalities eventually became an intellectual conflict, between science and faith. At the same time, it was a political struggle: the pope at that time was the prince of Rome, so politics was paramount. He condemned Galileo to demonstrate his authority.

What are the main false myths surrounding the case?
He was never tortured, as has sometimes been claimed. He was housed in a suite and every day the best chef in Rome cooked for him. He was also allowed to go to mass on Sundays and to invite people to dinner -although with a limit of 20 people to prevent him from spreading his ideas-.

When did the Church rectify this?
In 1814, Galileo's book was still listed in the index of works banned by the Inquisition, but it disappeared in the 1815 reprint. The case was not mentioned again until John Paul II asked forgiveness for the unjust condemnation, because he considered it important to purify the Church. This had a very positive impact.

Has the decontextualization of the time in which it happened caused you to lose perspective?
In Europe, many sectors have the feeling that the Church supports conservative positions, due to certain historical antecedents. In particular, many scientists reject it because they see it as a brake on scientific progress. This is not true: if we think back to the time of Galileo, the best educational centers were promoted by Jesuits. This has been recognized by experts such as President of the University of California at Berkeley, who stated in a book that the educational organizations of the Catholic Church have always been at the forefront. Facts and propaganda are contradictory.

Is history partly to blame for the current status of discussion science-faith?
Sometimes the real problem is not science, but certain resentments that derive from some decisions of the Church in the past, but which do not coincide with the current reality. For example, while Benedict XVI insists strongly on freedom of conscience as an essential right, a 19th century encyclical condemned it outright. It is strange how long it takes to find solutions that are in line with the Gospel and the faith, while at the same time fitting in with the political and social development .

Is there really a civil service examination between science and faith?
For a large issue of people, no: from the Catholic point of view, the God who inspired the Bible was the same God who created the world. In this sense, there is no incompatibility: the author of the book of nature is also the author of the Sacred Scripture.