Galileo's Letter

I feel that the two main themes of Galileo's Letter are that scripture and observations can be rectified together and that scripture is not a factor in determining validity of science. These two points are intertwined together and go together very well.

Galileo is in firm agreement with Augustine in believing that the Bible pretty much concerns itself with matters of salvation and not of scientific inquiries. Augustine says that the Bible "did not want to teach men these things which are of no use to salvation." Obviously, whether or not the sun moved or the earth moved has nothing to do with reaching salvation, which most people acknowledge. So therefore, the bible shouldn't have a hold over whether or not Copernicus is right, since the Bible deals with something entirely different. A very witty line i like was that "the intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how one goes to heaven and not how heaven goes." It really sums up how Augustine, Galileo, and many others felt about the interpretation and purpose of the Holy Scripture. Also, the Bible was written "to accommodate the belief of the people." It would just go along with what people would naturally think, not going out of its way to state the explicit truth when not necessary. Since perception seems to show that the earth is still, the Bible might just go along with that just for the sake that it is unnecessary to explain how you are wrong.

The second main theme of Galileo's letter is the fact that science and religion really don't contradict each other and go quite well together. "And so one must search for the correct meaning of Scripture with the help of demonstrated truth, rather than taking the literal meaning of the words." The demonstrated truths being observations. Basically, observations are made and those are truth. Then, the scripture must be read and interpreted in order to agree with the recordings. Since observations and scripture are both true, neither can contradict each other, so only the interpretations must be altered.

One part I feel I disagree with is the line "whoever is supporting the truth can have many sensory experiences and many necessary demonstrations on his side, whereas the opponent cannot use anything but deceptive presentations, paralogisms, and fallacies." In many cases, false theories have perfectly reasonable evidence on their side. For example, the belief that the earth is still has evidence that is perfectly reasonable. If its moving so fast, how do we not feel it and how are we not thrown because of the speed. Also, sometimes the truth seems to have deceptive methods. For example, Galileo's telescope was used to prove his ideas and some people were not too keen on the telescope in fear of being tricked. You would see nothing with just your eye, but yet the telescope showed another image. That can seem deceptive even though it is the truth.