12

Galileo and Alien Life: The Story of Galileo Galilei

It appears a devastating fact of history that the church took poor Galileo into a Vatican jail and beat him by ten for every public comment he’d made that the earth moved around the sun. It is such a devastating fact that every young person seems to know the tale like they know about Santa Claus. They’re not sure when or who told them the story; it’s just something they’ve always known. The problem is that just like Santa Claus, the tale of Galileo’s jailing and torture is make-believe. Galileo was never jailed, and not once beaten. He did find himself in some tense moments, and was indeed pushing the church into a new way of seeing the heavens above.[1] But never did Galileo see himself as anything other than a committed Catholic philosopher.[2] As a matter of fact, he gave one of his daughters to the church as a nun, and she devoted her life to prayer—particularly for her father.

Becoming a natural philosopher and arguably the first modern scientist was never the goal for young Galileo. His father was a music teacher and Galileo himself a skilled musician. His father had actually written a book about musical theory. Recently, studies have shown a connection between musical aptitude and skills in math. There seems to be some connection between the mysterious structure of music and the mathematical order of nature.[3] So looking back, it is not surprising that one of the greatest mathematical minds of the seventeenth century was the son of a musical theorist.

For Galileo’s family, money was an issue. When it became clear that the boy had an aptitude for numbers, he was encouraged to become a doctor. But like Luther, who just seventy-six years earlier had turned Europe on its head when he denied his father and became a monk instead of a lawyer, Galileo would deny  his  own  father’s  wishes  and  chose  philosophy  over medicine.

Galileo ended up both studying and teaching at the university in Pisa, the place where the tower leans. The story is that Galileo would climb that tower to drop things from it, intrigued by the speed of their descent. This is probably part of the fairy tale. It is true that Galileo thought a lot about dropping things from heights, and about motion more generally, but it was probably more of a thought experiment, like Einstein’s riding on a light beam, than an actual occurrence.[4]

Nevertheless, Galileo was out to show that the revered philosopher Aristotle was wrong. Poor Aristotle had not fared well of late. He had been rediscovered in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and with the help of Thomas Aquinas, his thought became the foundation of late-medieval theology. To be a Western Christian, in no small part, was to be in dialogue with Aristotle. Since the days of Aquinas, Aristotle was a rock star, but by the early 1500s his scientific brilliance was being questioned.

Luther, that crass monk in Germany, had already taken his shots at Aristotle, landing devastating blows using Paul’s epistles and justification by faith alone. But now one of the Catholic Church’s own was questioning Aristotle’s assertion that heavier items fall faster to earth because material always returns to its source. So because a rock is more densely bound to the ground than a feather, it will more quickly return to its source.

Yet, Galileo realized that this wasn’t accurate. A cannonball and feather actually drop at the same rate, his experiments showed;  the  pull  to  the  earth  affects  them  equally.  The  only difference, Galileo showed, was wind resistance. The pull of gravity was equally universal—and equations could prove it. Galileo’s point was that if a feather and cannonball were dropped in a vacuum they would fall at the same rate.[5] In a spooky symmetry of history, the very year Galileo died, a baby in England was born who would crack this code, showing the universal constant law of gravity. That baby was Isaac Newton.

The Sun at the Center

Truth be told, Galileo never really liked Pisa, so when a chance came to move to the Republic of Venice and teach in the university at Padua, he jumped at the opportunity. It was not only a bigger and better university, but, more importantly to Galileo, it offered more money. His father had died, and Galileo’s only inheritance was debt. Padua promised more money and time to work on his calculations. But it also provided more freedom. As a republic it had its distance from the Vatican and the impositions of the pope. In Padua, Galileo could take his swings at Aristotle without much fear of repercussion.

Aristotle had asserted that the earth, and the heaven it sat in, were eternal. The earth was at the center and the stars, moon, and sun moved around it. To Galileo’s contemporaries, this seemed not only logical but also biblical. But a devout Christian from Poland named Nicolaus Copernicus followed Augustine, and he recognized that the scriptures must not be confused for a treatise on the natural world. The Bible speaks the truth with certainty about who God is and how God acts, but it is no cosmological textbook, and says little about the actual movements of the heavenly bodies. So this devoted Christian theorized that it was the sun, not the earth, that rested at the center of the universe.[6] That meant it is the earth that moves around the sun, and not the other way around—which Aristotle had believed.

After reading Copernicus’s book years after his death, Galileo was convinced, mainly because it fit so well with his own experiments and equations on motion. But it wasn’t actually Copernicus’s math that convinced Galileo; it was the person on Sasha’s T-shirt: Johannes Kepler, the same guy after whom NASA named the planet-hunter. He’d written his own book providing the mathematical backing for Copernicus’s theory. Kepler, a pious Lutheran, was teaching at a seminary when he wrote his book.[7] And when Galileo read it he was convinced that the earth was in orbit around the sun—and not in the circles that Copernicus had assumed, but in an oval-like movement.[8] This was just the conclusion of speculative equations until Galileo got his hands on a child’s toy.

Italy’s Steve Jobs

The same year that Kepler’s book came out, Galileo got ahold of his first telescope. His first thoughts were not necessarily scientific. Rather, Galileo had “his mind on his money and his money on his mind.” Like a hip-hop artist, Galileo was a genius on the hustle. He was always looking for a way to up his salary and win more freedom for himself. In a republic like Venice, quick financial gain was possible, and Galileo had already sampled it when he had found a rudimentary way to calculate longitude. The implications for trade and defense were enough for this rich port city to pay. So when Galileo held a telescope for the first time, he saw possibilities no one else had before—both for proving Copernicus’s theory, but also, importantly, for making some quick cash.

Just as Steve Jobs didn’t create the personal computer but exponentially improved it, so Galileo didn’t invent the telescope but turned it into an important instrument. For about three hundred years before Galileo, people all over Europe had been making lenses for spectacles. But only recently had a Dutch lens maker put them into a tube. He imagined it as a plaything for children, a way to make a few coins at carnivals. But Galileo was not only an imaginative businessman with concern for design, use, and capital (Steve Jobs), but also a hands-on, dirty, technical engineer (Steve Wozniak).[9] Galileo realized that he could radically improve this tube, upping its magnification by twenty times, by grinding his own lenses. Soon enough he was standing on top of a building with all Venice’s important men, showing them boats at a distance that would need hours of travel before becoming visible to the naked eye. The military defense use was so clear that Galileo was now a secure man with an agreement to take a very high salary from the Republic for the rest of his life.

The Space Traveler

Galileo also had his own ideas of what to do with this tube, so one night he turned it on the moon and was the first human being to see it magnified.[10] There was so much more to see! Soon Galileo had discovered satellites (moons) around Jupiter. This observation, as well as others, along with more accurate calculations, proved that Copernicus was right. Galileo’s next move was to publish a book.

With literary flare, The Starry Messenger positioned Galileo as a space traveler, beaming himself across the heavens, describing his discoveries. Unlike Han Solo in the Millennium Falcon, Galileo’s vehicle of transportation was the telescope. Galileo was the first person to see himself as spaceman![11]

The book made Galileo’s name one of the greatest in all of Italy. Princes and bishops now called him a treasure. But, of course, at the same time that it intrigued people, it disturbed them. For instance, it had been assumed that the moon was a perfect sphere, flat and smooth like a marble. But when Galileo discovered its surface was rocky and pocked, people where thrown into cognitive dissonance. Many assumed that if there were mountains on the moon like here on earth, then surely it was logical to assume that there were moonmen—aliens![12]

Like Sasha, they wondered what the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus (and the taking of the Eucharist) would mean if the moon were inhabited. What makes the Christian imagination able to produce scientific findings and geniuses like Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo is also what makes it susceptible to aliens. Because it is within creation, at a particular place in spacetime that God encounters us in Jesus Christ, we’re forced to ask, What happens if this location is relativized by the expanse of space? And if God comes to us in human form, what happens if intelligent life comes in many forms, like Tatooine’s Mos Eisley Cantina? At one level this makes sense; if the fullness of God takes on human form, then what does this have to do with aliens? But the particularity of the incarnation means that there is always identification and differentiation. Jesus lives as a Jewish man in the first century, so what does this have to do with a woman in Africa in the twenty-first? I’m not sure that alien encounters would undercut the Christian imagination of a personal universe, but rather, could witness to it. But we’ll have to explore this more below.

Aliens and a Personal Existence

What seems clear, both today and in Galileo’s time, is that the possibility of life elsewhere is slim. Most of the infinite space beyond us is absent of, and even opposed to, life. Galileo saw it that way, telling his anxious readers, first, that he saw no clouds or water on the moon, therefore organic life was impossible. Plus, to add to the impossibility, the divergent temperatures were too great to support life. It was too hot when the sun hit it and far too cold when dark. Galileo was already pointing to a fact we’ll explore in the next chapter. Life is a tricky riddle that needs the most precise conditions to be sustained.[13]

This is exactly what the Kepler planet-hunter is searching for. It is looking for those odd planets that just may be at the right temperature to have water for life—and these planets are out there, making intelligent alien life possible. But as Trent had mentioned, there is a biological timing issue that makes it anything but a certainty. Not only do we need very finely tuned conditions for life, but also we need huge amounts of time to create the kind of intelligent life that could fashion civilizations, and invent communication technologies, and hyper-speed drives. It has taken our planet 4 billion years to do so, and only in the last 100,000 years (which is just a drop in the ocean of time on this planet) has there been intelligent life (and only 10,000 years of that has had civilization). Only in the last hundred years have we had the ability to send signals into space.[14] Not only would another planet need to have these very fine-tuned conditions to get life, but in turn, its evolving would have to match our own with enough harmony that we could make contact.

To play out the scenario, it is possible that on another planet intelligent life is now just creating basic writing, and by the time they’re ready for radio-wave communication (not to mention a spacecraft able to travel a million light-years), our civilization would have imploded as we face a mass extinction and ecological disaster. Or they could be ahead of us, and if not already extinct themselves, would have to be enlightened enough to avoid moral corruption or self-destruction and seek contact with other intelligent life in the universe as aggressively as we are. So, oddly, Martin’s concern for mass extinctions and Sasha’s questions about aliens are linked, most directly in their opposition (this shows that again science is no unified thing, but a loose container).[15] So, while the size of the universe and sheer numbers of planets moving around stars make it seem logical that just one other planet has intelligent life on it, the necessities of time and contact make this seem a very thin possibility.

Nevertheless, through Galileo’s telescope our vision was for the first time expanded to show the size of the universe and open to imagine aliens.[16] What shook Galileo’s readers, and shakes Sasha too, is how the existence of aliens would challenge the soteriological goal of faith. How would the incarnation, Eucharist, and forgiveness of sins work with extraterrestrials? Would it make faith’s soteriological goal meaningless? Yet, from within the epistemic goal of faith, the existence of aliens may give witness to how deep the personal (and even hypostatic) nature of the universe might be. If these aliens were the kind of personal beings who gave and received ministry (and the evolutionary theory of our species seems to assume that they would have to be to get the kind of shared-mind innovation necessary for advancement—these are what some theorists call the “ratchet effect”), then they too could reflect the image of the personal ministering God that is revealed in the face of Jesus Christ. To encounter aliens with personal faces, then, would point to the depth of a personal order, upending the assumption that our personal being is just an improbable oddity in a cold, impersonal existence.

And this is where Sasha is stuck. She is pulled in both directions. If there are aliens, she questions faith’s soteriological goal. But even if Jared or Trent can help her reconcile this, if she’s honest, her deeper issue is the divergent epistemic assertions of faith when it comes to space. She wonders if our personal minds are just a mishap of the universe (maybe even more so if there isn’t alien life). In other words, she wonders if it is possible that faith’s assertion that the universe is personal is only an illusion of our subjectivity. The more Jared talks with Sasha the more he realizes that Sasha’s issue isn’t really whether there are aliens, but how it is possible to see the mind of God and the importance of personhood in a universe where there are not only big infinites (galaxies, massive black holes, and supernovas) but also the smallest infinity (Higgs particles, dark matter, and quarks).

The myth of Galileo’s jailing seems believable because the ramifications of his telescope were profound. After Galileo, we are no longer at the center of the universe, and therefore we can question whether we are the center of attention at all. Galileo’s discoveries show that indeed space is massively larger than could be imagined. This profoundly starts us on the path of contemplating the actuality that these big and small infinites do indeed exist. And we are led to wrestle with how they witness (or not) to a personal God.

The Trouble

As Galileo’s star was rising in Italy, so was his trouble. The leaders of Venice realized that Galileo had not been completely truthful about the telescope—the hustler was exposed—but don’t hate the player, hate the game! Galileo had assured leaders of the Republic that he alone possessed the ability to make magnified lenses for the telescope. But soon others were figuring out his engineering trick. The cushy lifetime salary was stripped from him. With hurt feelings, Galileo decided to depart the Republic of Venice for his hometown of Florence. Many wondered why, and in retrospect, it may have been a bad decision.[17] The money and free time in Florence wasn’t much greater, and the freedom was much less. Venice was mostly free of papal power, but not Florence; it was deeply entrenched in Vatican oversight. However, the prince of Florence admired Galileo so deeply that an opportunity to head home as a court mathematician was too good to pass up.

As time passed, appreciation for Galileo only increased. He was invited on trips to Rome, to private audiences with the pope, toting along his telescope. But rumblings were starting. They came first within the Florence court itself, some wondering how this assumption that earth moved around the sun could fit with scripture. The book of Joshua says the sun, not the earth, stood still (Joshua 10). Maybe overestimating his own abilities, Galileo responded, committing himself to scripture on all matters but cosmological.

For  most,  this  made  sense.  But  the  fracture  that  tore  the Western church in two was still throbbing after the Protestant Reformation. Not only were many looking to protect the church from any new heresies, but they’d also taken it on the chin for not upholding the truth of scripture. So some, particularly the Dominicans, would be damned if they would allow a genius mathematician to speak about scripture and put the church further at risk.[18]

The heat was turned up on Galileo—it wasn’t just zealous Dominicans now, but also fellow philosophers. Galileo’s radical support for Copernicus, as we said above, opposed Aristotle. And there are few creatures more vindictive than scholars whose theories have been opposed. So when Galileo took on Aristotle, he was, in turn, taking on the philosophical establishment (and it would be his fellow philosophers,  even more than clergy, that would  make  sure  Galileo  was  silenced).[19]  Historian  John Hedley Brooke says it this way: “Galileo seems to have felt that his difficulties with the Catholic Church had their origin in the resentment of academic philosophers who had put pressure on ecclesiastical authorities to denounce him.”[20] These, particularly Jesuit, philosophers were not willing to stand by and let Aristotle be disparaged. And it is they who Galileo attacked (again, in retrospect, probably not a good move).[21]

But Galileo’s hubris may have been spurred forward by what he saw as a serendipitous occurrence. A bishop from Florence who admired and supported Galileo had been named pope.[22] It now seemed time for Galileo to publish his book in support of Copernicanism and silence those opposing philosophers. But what Galileo didn’t realize is that Pope Urban’s mantle of authority was now much heavier than when he was simply the bishop of Florence. Urban was now concerned about the political fallout of such a book.

During this time, all books needed the permission of the church to be published. Somewhat tentatively, Pope Urban agreed to Galileo’s pro-Copernicus book, with one stipulation: Galileo must be clear that Copernicanism and its belief that the earth moved around the sun was just a theory. At no point did the church ever suppress Galileo’s ideas. He was only asked to do the pope a favor by labeling them “speculative.”

But for whatever reason—probably because of competition with those Jesuit philosophers—Galileo refused, and the book appeared with a splash, asserting as fact that the earth moved around the sun. Pope Urban was furious. And while Galileo was given a cold shoulder and much unwelcome treatment on trips to Rome, he was neither jailed nor tortured.

However, Galileo was tried, and after bending a knee to church authority, he was given his verdict. It was decided that he would face no punishment but house arrest, returning to a country villa outside Florence. He was even free to go to mass and visit his mistress. The plagues that ravaged Italy made him feel more caged in than he was. But there was no restriction on visitors, and his daughter, the nun, visited him often. Galileo even gave her convent financial support (not the actions of someone furious with the church). No doubt the church is guilty for suppressing Galileo’s ideas for the good of their own political gain, but there is no truth in the rumors that Galileo was abused, or that Galileo, even in his exile, chose science over faith.

Never did Galileo see himself as anything other than a committed Catholic. It is a misunderstanding for Sasha and her friends to imagine that faith fears the size of the cosmos. The reason that the myth of Galileo’s imprisonment seems to stick is because it is from his legacy that we are forced to confront how infinitely big this universe is. Facing the infinity of space is no doubt a struggle for all minds to comprehend, but Galileo’s vision of its size never led him to be jailed or to personally give up his faith. Nevertheless, it leads many of our young people like Sasha to wonder, How can this big infinity of space allow us to still believe that the universe is bound in a personal order, minded by a personal God?

The scientific discovery of the big infinity of space no doubt raises this challenge for our young people. And within a few hundred years of Galileo, those following in his legacy would discover that the universe was not only infinitely big, but growing by the minute. It would be another man, a world away in California, who would reveal that, indeed, the seemingly infinitely big universe was expanding. He too, using a telescope, revealed  Einstein’s  greatest  blunder.  This  man  was  Edwin Hubble.


  1. Ian Barbour discusses the origins of this myth: “Such instances of the conflict between science and religion were the theme of two influential historical accounts written in the aftermath of the Darwinian controversy, J. W. Draper’s History of the Conflict between Religion and Science [1874] and A. D. White’s A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom [1896]. Both of them portrayed a protracted ‘warfare’ in which the conservative forces of theological dogmatism opposed the progressive forces of scientific rationality and were defeated in successive engagements. Both studies gave the Galileo affair as a prime example.” Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997), 25.
  2. David Wooton in his biography Galileo: Watcher of the Skies argues that Galileo was much less than a devoted Catholic. Yet, Wooton’s argument seems to rest on absence, explaining what’s not seen in Galileo’s correspondence (though he knows that much of Galileo’s writing was lost after his death). For instance, Wooton contrasts Galileo with Castelli, saying, “But Galileo is not Castelli. Galileo never praises preachers, prays to saints or purchases indulgences, and only rarely does he ask that others pray for him (never, to the best of my knowledge, before he loses his sight). Now and again there is a glimpse of him going to church, even listening to a sermon—but his thoughts are elsewhere. All this, you may say, is argument from silence. I agree. It would be wrong to base any conclusion on a profoundly cynical letter sent to Galileo describing a girl who had the stigmata. Equally, no conclusions can be drawn from the fact that Galileo once visited Loreto, where there was a famous shrine: he was following in the footsteps of Cosimo II, who had made the pilgrimage fashionable. But in the end Galileo’s silence becomes so remarkable that we simply cannot ignore it. For ‘Galileo never spoke of Jesus. There is simply no direct testimony to what he thought of Christ.’” (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010), 141. This is a classic argument from silence. I personally acknowledge Wooton’s point and recognize he could be right. But in this short story I’m following more the likes of Shea who says, “Galileo may not have been a conventionally devout Catholic, but he was deeply convinced that God had singled him out to make not only some but all the new celestial discoveries.” William Shea and Marino Artigas, Galileo in Rome: The Rise and Fall of a Troublesome Genius (London: Oxford University Press, 2003), 32.
  3. Einstein’s own mathematical mind was honed around music, just as Galileo’s was. Isaacson said, “What Einstein appreciated in Mozart and Bach was the clear architectural structure that made their music seem ‘deterministic’ and, like his own favorite scientific theories, plucked from the universe rather than composed. ‘Beethoven created his music,’ Einstein once said, but ‘Mozart’s music is so pure it seems to have been ever-present in the universe.’” Walter Isaacson, Einstein: His Life and Universe (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2007), 38.
  4. J. L. Heilbron explains, “We have it on Viviani’s authority that Galileo dropped different weights of the same material from Pisa’s Leaning Tower to show, ‘to the dismay of the philosophers,’ that, contrary to Aristotle, they all fell at the same speed. And he did it not once, or secretly, but ‘with repeated trials . . . in the presence of other teachers and philosophers, and the whole assembly of students.’ Iconoclasts have thrown doubt on this vignette although the tower’s tilt made it a perfect platform for the experiment. They objected that no one among the literate throng supposedly present, not even the peripatetic philosophers of motion who went away grinding their teeth, recorded the event.” Galileo (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 59.
  5. Wooton summarizes Aristotle’s position and Galileo moving beyond it. He says, “According to Aristotle there are two types of movement: natural movement, which is directed towards an end, and halts when an object arrives at its natural resting place; and forced movement, which continues only for so long as there is a mover acting on the moving object. As others had done before him, Galileo modifies the account of forced movement to include the idea of an impressed force. But he also invents a quite new type of movement, which he calls intermediate movement. Imagine a perfectly round ball standing on a perfectly smooth sheet of ice. The slightest touch will start it moving, and it will continue to move indefinitely. If this seems too much like an impractical abstraction, think of a river: it flows constantly, and yet the gradient is often minute. It seems that flowing water has almost no resistance to movement; otherwise one would be able to identify a slope that was not steep enough for a river to run down it. Aristotle held that the natural condition of all sublunary things is to be stationary, and that all movement naturally ends in the cessation of movement; Galileo was now suggesting that movement (if it is neither upwards nor downwards but sideways) might have no natural end.” Galileo, 43.
  6. “The great Copernicus (1473–1543) was an ecclesiastic, being a canon of Frauenberg Cathedral. He was probably an ordained priest at the time of his death.” Stephen Barr, Modern Physics and Ancient Faith (South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2003), 9.
  7. “Kepler, a German Lutheran and deeply spiritual Christian who once had to interrupt his research to defend his mother against charges of witchcraft, showed that the planets did not move in the perfect circles long assigned to them. Their orbits were ellipses. And they sped up when they got closer to the sun and slowed down when they were farther away, puzzling behavior for heavenly bodies not allowed to change in any way.” Karl Giberson, The Wonder of the Universe: Hints of God in Our Fine-Tuned World (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2012), 30.
  8. Annibale Fantoli explains that Kepler’s book and Galileo’s observation actually followed each other, coming together to make clear that the earth moved: “For two reasons the year 1609 marks a decisive turn of events in the history of astronomy. The first consists in the publication of the Astronomia Nova of Kepler. The second is the beginning of observational astronomy with Galileo’s use of the telescope. These two events, completely independent from one another, will be of fundamental importance for eliminating the world view of the world.” Galileo: For Copernicanism and for the Church (Vatican: Vatican Obervatory Foundation, 1996), 107.
  9. “We live in a world where manufacturers are constantly offering us improved versions of products, so if you or I had been shown a primitive telescope we would have asked immediately what scope there was for improvement. Galileo’s world was not like this. Even new technologies—guns, printing presses, compasses—were improved slowly and over very long periods of time. By the summer of 1609 there were thousands of people—many of them mathematicians, scientists, engineers—who had seen and used the new telescopes. But Galileo was the only person who immediately saw in the telescope a challenge: how could one improve it?” Wooton, Galileo, 90.
  10. “He pointed the telescope to the heavens in November 1609, and, for the first time in history, the human eye had a close-up view of the Moon.” Shea and Artigas, Galileo in Rome, 21.
  11. “In his final choice of title, Galileo presented himself as a traveller returning from a voyage through the heavens with strange and wonderful things to report. If the book was the message about the stars, then Galileo was the messenger who had come from the stars. He was, thanks to the telescope, the first spaceman—indeed this is how Viviani describes him on the monument he erected to record his achievements.” Wooton, Galileo, 99.
  12. David Wooton explains how the thought of life on other planets goes back to Bruno. He discusses this through Donne. He says, mentioning Galileo and Kepler, “Donne would have learnt from Hill about the possibility of life on other planets, and of planets circling other stars; he would also have learnt that these strange ideas derived from Giordano Bruno. If he read Galileo’s Starry Messenger, with its account of the moon as having mountains and valleys, Donne would surely have responded exactly as the great German astronomer Johannes Kepler did that spring when he read one of the first copies to arrive in Germany—he saw a remarkable vindication of Bruno’s perverse theory that there might be life elsewhere in the universe. If Donne read Kepler’s Conversation he would have found the link with Bruno spelled out.” The Invention of Science: A New History of the Scientific Revolution (New York: Harper, 2015), 9. “Thus Bruno imagined an infinite universe, with numberless stars and planets, all possibly inhabited by extraterrestrial life forms. Since Bruno did not believe that Christ was the savior of mankind (he was a sort of pantheist), he did not have to worry about how the Christian drama of sin and salvation was played out in this infinity of worlds.” The Invention of Science, 147. He continues: “Bruno was not the first to imagine an infinite universe with extraterrestrial life. Nicholas of Cusa, in his On Learned Ignorance (1440), had argued that only an infinite universe was appropriate for an infinite God. Nicholas thought the earth was a heavenly body which from a distance would shine like a star, an idea which caught Montaigne’s attention. But Nicholas assumed that the earth and the sun were similar bodies. A habitable world was, Nicholas thought, hidden behind the shining visible surface of the sun; as for the earth, it, like the sun, was surrounded by a fiery mantle which was invisible to us, and which you would see only if you viewed the earth from outer space. Thus Nicholas made the earth into a heavenly body, but simultaneously he made the sun into a terrestrial one. Bruno, by contrast, was the first to distinguish stars and planets as we do now, making the sun a star and the planets, including the Earth, dark bodies shining by reflected light.” The Invention of Science, 148.
  13. Shea explains further: “Our source is a letter that he wrote on 28 February to Carlo Muti, the nephew of Cardinal Tiberio Muti, in whose house Galileo had debated the nature of the moon with someone who claimed that if it resembled the Earth because it had mountains, then it should also have living creatures like those we find on Earth. The argument may appear innocuous, but it opened a Pandora’s box: If human beings are found on the moon how can they descend from Adam? And if they do not, what about original sin and the significance of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ? It is in order to avoid having these questions raised that Galileo promptly put down his reply on paper. There can be no organic life on the moon because there is no water there. This he inferred from the absence of clouds, but even if it were granted that water occurs on the moon, Galileo points out that this could not be used as an argument that there is life there. The reason is that the variation in temperature is too great, since a lunar day or a lunar night lasts fifteen of our terrestrial days or nights. This means that the surface of the moon is scorched for 360 hours and subjected to incredibly low temperatures during the next 360 hours. Galileo did not have to say more to feel confident that he had scalded or frozen a potentially dangerous implication of lunar mountains.” Shea and Artigas, Galileo in Rome, 92.
  14. Giberson has some skepticism about aliens. “All this fussing and fretting about aliens might lead one to believe that some sort of signal had been received—an unmistakably intelligent message like what Jodie Foster’s character, astronomer Ellie Arroway, deciphered in the movie Contact. The great distance to the planet rules out the possibility of actual alien Zarminians being among us, but a mere twenty light years is no barrier to radio transmission. If the Zarminians started twenty years ago broadcasting messages to earth, or even generically in all directions, we would be receiving them by now. Radio waves have, in fact, been emanating from earth in all directions for almost a century and could be detected by any extraterrestrial civilization with the appropriate technology. But we are receiving no radio messages from 581g or any other planet in the universe. So why all the excitement about the Zarminians?” Giberson, The Wonder of the Universe, 88.
  15. Of course, there is more hope for life if the aliens are actually advanced beyond us. Maybe they evolved to extended consciousness and communication thousands of years before us, and even found ways of protecting themselves from mass extinctions. But this all gets into Sci-Fi.
  16. Copernicus actually started this, and it was Bruno who, drawn to Copernicus’s theory, asserted that ours was just one of many worlds. Bruno was burnt at the stake in part (but only part) for this assertion. He had made a number of other heretical assertions that doomed him.
  17. Wooton adds, “Why leave Venice? In order to be welcomed not just in Florence, but more importantly in Rome. . . . When we think of Venice we think of a bustling port, a cosmopolitan city—the most cosmopolitan city in Europe, just as Padua was the most cosmopolitan university. Galileo saw things differently. Venice was on the periphery, its only allies the far distant English, the French and the German Protestants. If you wanted to convince the people who counted, if you wanted to be heard throughout the educated world, it was to Rome that you must go. Why on earth did he think this? In the end there is perhaps only one answer: because he was a Florentine, and that is how Florentines thought.” Galileo, 115.
  18. “The popular conception of Galileo as a martyr for freedom of thought is an oversimplification. That his views were different from those of the majority of the academic establishment did not make him a liberal. He cherished the hope that the Church would endorse his opinions and, with many of his contemporaries, looked to an enlightened papacy as an effective instrument of scientific progress. But what Galileo does not seem to have understood is that the Catholic Church, attacked by Protestants for neglecting the Bible, found itself compelled, in self-defense, to harden its position. Whatever appeared to contradict Holy Writ had to be treated with the utmost caution.” Shea and Artigas, Galileo in Rome, 51.
  19. Peter Harrison adds more texture, taking this point deeper: “There is no doubt, for instance, that Galileo was tried by the Inquisition and forced to recant the Copernican hypothesis. But to cite this as an instance of science-religion conflict is to misconstrue the context. For a start, the Catholic Church endorsed the scientific consensus of the period, which, on the basis of the available evidence, held that the earth was stationary in the middle of the cosmos. To this extent it might be better to characterize the episode as a conflict within science (or, more strictly, within astronomy and natural philosophy) rather than between science and religion. Second, the first use of the Galileo affair for propaganda purposes was by Protestants seeking to discredit Catholics, so that it was initially given a role in conflicts within religion. Related to this is the fact that the Copernican hypothesis had first been postulated some eighty years before the trial of Galileo, and hence the context of the Protestant Reformation is a key to understanding why the papacy took steps at this particular time. Finally, even if it could be constructed as a science-religion conflict, the condemnation of Galileo was not typical of the Catholic Church’s attitude toward the study of nature, since at the time the church was the single most prominent supporter of astronomical research.” Peter Harrison, The Territories of Science and Religion (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015), 173.
  20. John Hedley Brooke, Science and Religion (London: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 50. Brooke adds, “To wrench the earth from the sublunar region and to place it among the planets was to violate the entire cosmos. Certainly the Catholic Church had a vested interest in Aristotelian philosophy, but much of the conflict ostensibly between science and religion turns out to have been between new science and the sanctified science of the previous generation.” Science and Religion, 50.
  21. “But Galileo was certainly right to focus on the Jesuits, who were rapidly establishing themselves as the educators of the elite throughout Catholic Europe: there were 245 Jesuit colleges by the end of the sixteenth century. In Rome they ran what amounted to a research university, but one which trained educators who were sent out across the world. And he was right to think of the Jesuits as potential allies for the new science, for much of the early experimental science was done within the order. But there was a profound tension within the Jesuit enterprise. On the one hand, Jesuits were at the cutting edge of the new science; on the other, the order was committed to upholding the traditional learning of the Church as represented, above all, by St Thomas Aquinas.” Wooton, Galileo, 115.
  22. “Just when Galileo was feeling lonely and isolated, Maffeo Barberini, a Florentine, was elected pope on 6 August 1623, taking the name Urban VIII. He and Galileo had been on friendly terms since 1611, when Barberini had supported Galileo in a debate, conducted over the grand duke’s dinner table: about why bodies float or sink.” Wooton, Galileo, 176.