De Revolutionibus

Nicolaus Copernicus, Mathematician, Astrophysicist, Canon.
(c) Wikimedia Commons

   People today are often forced to draw a line between faith and science. Where does one end and the other begin? Are the two exclusive? The history of physics and mathematics would suggest almost the opposite, that the functional development of the physical sciences and organized faith required each other. No where is this more apparent than in the life of one Nicolaus Copernicus.

   Copernicus began his life as a the son of a wealthy merchant in Poland  where his connections to the upper class allowed him to attend the prestigious Krakow University where he got his introduction to both astronomy, physics, and mathematics, and began to take an interest in the heavens, both in a cosmological and spiritual sense. After graduating his uncle landed him a Canon's position which he would proceed to hold for the rest of his life. He managed to day to day fulfill his ecclesiastical duties but keep studying his beloved subject of astronomy. It was during this time spent as a Catholic Canon that Copernicus would come up with an idea that would turn the 16th century on it's head. Copernicus proposed that perhaps it was not the earth that was the center of the universe and the solar system as everyone to this point had assumed, but instead the sun. This however did not sit right with the Roman Catholic Church. They already officially supported what was known as the Ptolemaic system of the solar system which held that the earth was the center of the universe. Such a view went very well with a special and divine humanity created in god's image.

   And to tolerate such a view from one of their own Canons could have been nearly too much.

   Copernicus wasn't cowed by the potential obstacles he would face from the higher authorities of Catholicism however, and he set about proving his claims true. Using the time and studying that being a church administrator had afforded to him, Copernicus began using a small makeshift observatory to begin staring at the stars at night. The result was first a paper of 40 pages or so "Commentariolus" (which rather ironically means small commentary) that established his claims and passed among his colleagues. After more work, and substantial mathematical proof, was De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium ("On the Revolutions of the Celestial Orbs").

   It was even dedicated to Pope Paul III

   Initially it caused little controversy, everybody dismissed or laughed it away, but as the astronomers began to be swayed by the compelling arguments, in what must have been the premier example of mathematical-physics of its time, De Revolutionibus found itself smack in the middle of another revolution. Protestants had just appeared on the scene and had provided some of the earliest push back against Copernicus's ideas calling little more than mathematical guess work, and stating that pondering the cosmos was the realm of philosophers. Protestants ironically would also be the first to convert to the new ideas, given the emphasis on bearing some of the hierarchical views of Catholicism and bringing some of new freedom of thought to the church, heliocentric was easier to believe, especially for the educated. Catholics, of which Copernicus had counted himself (remember that whole "canon to the day he died" thing?) were much more staunchly against it. Catholics were already somewhat upset to be losing hold on the beliefs of Europe given Martin Luther's recent revolution, to lose their place in the universe would understandably be upsetting. The Catholic educated would continue to argue out against this idea (even the mathematically inclined) well past his death into the 17th century when Galileo would prove once and for all just where we stood, and just where we orbited.

   Sounds classic on the surface doesn't it? A revolutionary idea with mixed negative reception from the church? How was this good for physics and math, and the church?

   Copernicus never could have studied and looked skyward were it not for the education he had received from being of the clergy. Had he not spent his life dedicated to the church, who can say if he would have had the motivation to contemplate the heavens he could see? Were it not the time that being a church administrator afforded him, who could say if he could have ever written his small papers on big revolutions? And really who can argue that the church today would be any healthier, any more "sacred" if we still believed that the earth sat still and the sun wound its way around us? It should also be noted and remembered that then, Geocentrism versus Copernicus's Heliocentrism was as much a moral issue as are/were many other scientific issues, if the church could be taught to rationalize their faith with the world around them and roll with the punches while still being faithful, who's to say it couldn't happen again?

Sources:

1. "Nicolaus Copernicus Biography." Bio.com. A&E Networks Television, n.d. Web. 22 Jan. 2013.

2. Helden, Al Van. "The Galileo Project | Science | Copernican System." The Galileo Project | Science | Copernican System. Rice University, 1995. Web. 22 Jan. 2013.