In his book "Religion and Science", Ian Barbour states four possible relationships between "Religion" and "Science" -which we have identified and defined extensively in our coursework and online discussions. In his brief accounts of the life, discoveries, and struggles of Galileo Galilee, Barbour touches on these four possibilities again, outside his primary order of definitions, by referencing original discourses between the 16th century "father of modern science", the scientific community of his time, and religious leadership, namely of the Catholic Church. Of the four relationships between science and religion, Barbour offers evidence which narrows "The Galileo Affair" to a case of "Independence" and/or "Potential Conflict" (14). Intent is the reason for the case of the former - the nature and right method of Science aims at answering the mechanical questions of "How?" while the nature and right theological interpretation of Religion i.e. Scripture aims at discovering a Divine purpose or "Why?" Literalism is the source for the later case - Scripture uses empirical language and symbols which do not translate as accurate according to modern Scientific standards. While Barbour categorizes Galileo's "Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems" as an example of conflict due to its negative reception Catholic leadership in 1632, the content of the piece suggests that Galileo's intention was not conflict as it is commonly characterized. Rather, Galileo's allegorical work suggests what Barbour defines as the conveniently-named relationship "Dialogue" with science and religion acknowledging truth as a product of their distinct methods and common goals. Rather than seeking conflict as popular accounts depict, perhaps Galileo was searching for a mutually agreeable compromise. While his lack of study in theological practice of science does not lend itself to Barbour's definition of harmony between Science and Religion i.e. integration, Galileo's work and actions seem to accommodate a separate and supplementary relationship between Science and Religion.
Given what else we've read in class, take a minute to check out this clip from the movie "Angels and Demons" where the Camerlengo Patrick addresses the Cardinals in conclave about the actions of the Illuminati.
Was Galileo and the Illuminati seeking a 'new God' or did Galileo understand what the clip describes as an adolescence of science?
Based on the Barbour reading and the clip from "Angels and Demons" how do you feel about this view of Religion and Science?
Has your view changed from the beginning of the year to now based on the readings and discussion we've had?