Letter
to Castelli (excerpt)
December 21, 1613
....As therefore, the Holy Scriptures in many places not
only admit but actually require a different explanation for what seems
to be the literal one, it seems to me that they ought to be reserved
for the last place in mathematical discussions. For they, like
nature, owe their origin to the Divine Word; the former is inspired by
the Holy Spirit, the latter as the fulfillment of the Divine commands;
it was necessary, however in Holy Scripture, in order to accomodate
itself to the understanding of the majority, to say many things which
apparently differ from the precise meaning. Nature, on the
contrary, is inexorable and unchangeable, and cares not whether her
hidden causes and modes of working are intelligible to the human
understanding or not, and never deviates on that account from her
prescribed laws. It appears to me therefore that no effect of
nature, which experience places before our eyes, or is the necessary
conclusion derived from evidence, should be rendered doubtful by
passages of Scripture which contain thousands of words admitting of
various interpretations, for every sentence of Scripture is not bound
by such rigid laws as is every effect of nature....
Since two truths can obviously never contradict each other, it is the
part of wise interpreters of Holy Scripture to take the pains to find
out the real meaning of its statemments, in accordance wtih the
conclusions regarding nature which are quite certain, either from the
clear evidence of sense or from necessary demonstration. As
therefore the Bible, although dictated by the Holy Spirit, admits, from
the reasons given above, in many passages of an interpretation other
than the literal one; and as, moreover, we cannot maintain with
certainty that all
interpreters are inspired by God, I think it would be the part of
wisdom not to allow any one to apply passages of Scripture in such a
way as to force them to support, as true, conclusions concerning nature
the contrary of which may afterwards be revealed by the evidence of our
senses or by necessary demonstration. Who will set bounds to
man's understanding? Who can assure us that everything that can
be known in the world is already known? It would therefore
perhaps be best not to add, without necessity, to the articles of faith
which refer to salvation and the defence of holy religion, and which
are so strong that they are in no danger of having at any time cogent
reasons brought against them, especially when the desire to add to them
proceeds from persons who, although quite enlightened when they speak
under Divine guidance, are obviously destitute of those faculties which
are needed, I will not say for the refutation, but even for the
understanding of the demonstrations by which the higher sciences
enforce their conclusions.
I am inclined to think that the authority of Holy Scripture is intended
to convince men of those truths which are necessary for their
salvation, and which being far above man's understanding cannot be made
credible by any learning, or any other means than revelation by the
Holy Spirit. But that the same God has endowed us with senses,
reason, and understanding, does not permit us to use them, and desires
to acquaint us in any other way with such knowledge as we are in a
position to acquire for ourselves by means of those faculties, that it seems to me I am not bound
to believe, especially concerning those sciences about which the Holy
Scriptures contain only small fragments and varying conclusions; and
this is precisely the case with astronomy, of which there is so little
that the planet are not even all enumerated....
Galileo Galilei
Source: Karl Von Gebler, Galileo
Galilei, p. 46-48
(1879).