"Except for the point, the still point, there would be no dance, and there is only the dance." ~ T.S. Eliot in "Burnt Norton"

Saturday, February 16, 2013

Galileo, Angels & Demons, Science and the Church



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?

20 comments:

  1. I don't think Galileo was seeking a "new God". Instead, he felt a need to share his research of the universe, and the way it works. I don't think his intentions were to fight with the Church or anything like that. However, once the Church put down his ideas, he did become defensive towards them; which makes me agree with Barbour's categorization of this as a conflict.
    A question that stood out to me from the clip was "Who is more ignorant, the man who cannot define lightening, or that man who does not respect its natural, awesome power?" I cannot put Galileo in either category because he highly was knowledgeable of science, among other things, and knew the power of science. But, also, he was able to explain many of the questions that people of that time had. Therefore, I do not see him as ignorant at all.
    To answer the question "has your view changed from the beginning of the year to now based on the readings and discussions we've had?", I definitely think it has because I was completely uneducated on the topic of religion and science prior to taking this course. Now, I can identify how certain readings or discussions relate to independence, conflict, integration, and dialogue.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Personally and unfortunately, I think it was about a lack in judgement from the standpoint of the Church more than any overarching view about a "new God" or Galileo being overly concerned with taking down the Church. Galileo was a scientist and as the blog post states, though perhaps a much better theological background then many scientists today, he was a scientist not a theologian. He was searching for truth from a scientific perspective, searching for answers to questions which can tangibly be found through the reasoning and tests that he eventually performed. However, during this time the Church was being attacked from many sides. They began to adopt a more authoritarian stance on many issues so as to solidify their positions and as Barbour states "exclude heretical views." It's almost as if they take the issue of Fides et Ratio to an extreme level from a Faith standpoint without being literalist but without acknowledging the possibility of the scientific evidence being true. Because of this, and their newfound authoritarian and censorship policies, the Church in my opinion more than Galileo's own initiative to create a new God or start some sort of coup more then anything else caused the aforementioned events. I think in many ways, my own opinion is similar to the development of the Church. I probably have relied in the past too much on my faith and not enough on it's integration or at least dialogue with reason and I feel like this course has thus far been integral in my development as well as awareness to these issues.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In my opinion, I don’t believe Galileo sought to create a “new god” through his scientific work. While some of his works may have emerged in opposition to certain claims of the Catholic Church, I don’t believe they were created specifically to do so. Galileo’s research was conducted in efforts to further scientific advancement and not theological advancement. As Brendan stated, he was looking for answers to questions which can tangibly be found through the reasoning and tests or empirical data. The Catholic Church at this time saw this research as personally threatening, and therefore declared it as heretical. Instead of attempting to consider, reconcile, or incorporate growing scientific claims, the church instead chose to an authoritarian position, encouraging many others that science and religion could lie in conflict to each other. This is a position I believe I fell into within the past few years, but instead from a position of science. I struggled to understand how one could live as a student of science and yet still accept seemingly ignorant religious concepts. However, within the past few weeks, I have become more open to the positions of dialogue, and integration between the two fields.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The posts above seem to have a conscience that Galileo and modern day science are not trying to create a new God but they are trying to figure out the questions that have shrouded our universe. I think Galileo was in a unique position where in that he was good friends with Cardinal Baberini who became Pope Urban VIII (whom he undoubtedly respected) but also a strong believer in his own discoveries. My view is that Galileo did not want to create a conflict he merely wanted to have his ideas and findings considered as "fact". The problem for me was that the Church had established itself so far into the culture, it had answers for every question a person could have- even the origins and progressions of man. For Galileo to have created a "true" conflict is not to create a new God, this has always happened throughout time but to attack the culture and philosophy of the church to be based on empiricism. The likes of Descartes and Hume would begin this process several years after and we begin to see a progression towards modern thinkers like Satre. So for me while Galileo did not try to destroy the Catholic Church or attack the church scripture or Eucharist, he did question its integrity on having every answer in society- and its role as the central institution for culture. Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  5. After the readings, discussions, and the clip from "Angels and Deamons," I definitely don't think that Galileo was trying to create a "new God." I believe that Galileo was simply studying and advancing towards certain truths in his professional field, science. As we know, some of these ideas conflicted with the churches beliefs at the time. However, I don't see a motive for Galileo to seek out contradictions to the Catholic Church simply to prove it's ideas wrong. I of course dislike the view on religion and science that was held during Galileo's time, and great advancements have been made to mend the relationship between these two realms. Since the beginning of this course, I have changed my opinions on the relationship between science and religion. I used to regard the two as having a relationship similar to that which we saw in "The Big Bang Theory" at the beginning of the semester. Now, I see that the two can communicate through dialogue to arrive at greater truths, despite the conflict that still exists around the two.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I do not think Galileo was seeking a "new God". The intention of his scientific discoveries was not to overthrow the Church but to find answers and facts not provided in the Scripture. However, the Church felt threatened when these scientific findings appeared and immediately positioned these findings as an enemy which led to the conflict relationship between religion and science.

    Before taking this class, I had never given much thought about the relationship of religion and science. In my mind, these two are completely different ideas that could not possibly be having any relationship. However, after our reading assignments, I became much more aware of the kinds of the relationship science and religion can have.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Brendan's observations bring out an option which had not been added to the original post - that perhaps there was an aspect of 'adolescence' of Religion in the 1600's which sparked such controversy. Consider an analogous relationship between teenagers and parents during an argument. The parents challenge the teenager's position by illustrating his or her case to a great extreme using a hypothetical example. The parents' desire is that the child will identify the flaws in the extreme case and through deductive reasoning, the child will reconsider the case at hand. Identifying the parents' strategy, the child instead stands firm to his or her initial position despite reaching evermore irrational conclusions in hypothetical cases. Was the church perhaps so aggressive in its beliefs not because they perceived Science as inaccurate (or wrong), but because its acceptance would suggest fallibility in the church's theology? Rather than perceiving "new God" as a type of idolatry, consider the phrase to mean "new [identity of] God" - a God marred by inaccuracy (as defined by science). Perhaps this adolescent fear is what led to conflict and radical notions in the 1600's and only in recent history (Fides et Ratio, 1998) has the church matured to recognize the beauty of diverse intellect.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I also find that many posts have held similar views and changes in their views to what i've seen. I agree that coming into this I found it hard to think that there could have been any other kind of relationship between science and religion other than conflict. But the readings, things we've seen and things we've discussed all have made me realize this relationship is quite different from my original thought. I never knew any other possible relationships could have existed but knowing what I know now, dialogue does seem appropriate and it also seems to be what Galileo was seeking. In my opinion, the Church put itself in a tough position to get out of by being hostile or rather dismissive to science and advancement in thought. I also feel that this is the only perception and aspect the church sees. Personally I believe that if more people were able to see and know we we've discussed or even was made aware that these various perspectives and relationships between religion and science are available, than there would be a different understanding of the Church and science on both sides.

    Does anyone else feel the same or have a different take?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Galileo has a lot of contributions in science. He was called "the father of modern science". From my point of view, I do not think that Galileo was seeking for a “new God”, other he was seeking for the truth and knowledge via science. The Catholic Church felt attacked by Galileo and many scientists who exist at that time and threaten that science might overtake religion and people start to rely on scientists than the religious people from the church. From studying the four types of relationship between science and religion at the beginning of this semester, I believe that conflict always exist between religion and science.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Based on the class readings and my own personal opinion, I do not think that Galileo was trying to create a "new God," rather as a devout christian he had a deep respect for the church. I believe all he was really trying to do was develop and achieve recognition for a hypothesis that he, through science, believed was correct. Additionally, while I feel that this video is not an accurate description of what the church council saysI do agree with the church's opinion in the clip that science does not understand the establishment, tradition, and age of the church. Christianity has a lot of age and essentially wisdom that could help augment science. Also, this scenario is another in which I believe context needs to be considered. In Galileo's time the church was an all powerful being and was in control of religion, politics, and new discovery. It is fair that the questioning of this "being" would at the very least be questioned. Furthermore, from class discussion, my group discussed "Galileo goes to jail." In this reading, we determined the church didn't punish him or torture him, but merely threatened and scolded him to ensure that he was not being disrespectful to their institution and philosophical foundation. Therefore, I feel that Galileo was merely meaning to respectfully state his scientific findings rather than attempting to create a "new God" in his endorsement of the scientific method.

    ReplyDelete
  11. My views on science and religion has been the same since this course began. However, I have learned new incite due to the readings and I highly enjoy it. They have not changed my views but instead strengthened them. From the clip I really like that comment that the character that Ewan McGreggor plays says regarding lightning. It gives an interesting point to think about. I like it because it shows that neither is the right way but they work well together. I also do not believe that Galileo was looking for a "new God", he was leaning more towards on science, but I guess one can say that "science" could be his "new God".

    ReplyDelete
  12. At the beginning of the course I felt that the Church and Science were always in constant tension. That neither one wanted to budge on their beliefs. As the course has progressed I have begun to see that their are people that try to make both work together. I do not believe that Galileo was looking for a new god or turning his back on the church or religion, but I feel that the Church was afraid of having others question what they believe. As a scientist they are searching for how things work and that may not always result in the same beliefs as the church , but that is what science is all about, searching for an explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  13. In my point of view, I do not think Galileo and Illuminati was seeking a "new God". On the side of Galileo, what he was trying to do was proving what he thought true. Unfortunately, what he was doing was going back to what the Church had been put their belief on. And this is what Barbour defined about conflict way between religion and science. I like the clip when the man says:" science and religion are not enemy... the science is too young to understand". Thinking about it and I found that it is the best way to benefit each others. Before taking this course, I always think science and religion will never be on the same way. I am Catholic, but I am doing engineering. So, sometimes I am confused about what my parents told me about God and what I am studying at school. The discussions and reading has changed my view of that. It helped me a lot in integrating them.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I agree with Sperry and Phan, for whatever reason it just did not click in my mind that science and religion do NOT need to be at odds with one another prior to taking the course. Galileo was simply researching and analyzing what he thought was the truth, in the realm of "what" and not so much "why." It's an interesting idea though, Galileo creating a "new God," however I do not see this to be the case given he did not harbor a seething hatred towards the Church, or even religion in general. And I don't even think he meant for his findings to be contradictory to what the Church believed.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I personally do not believe that Galileo was in search for a "new God." All he was trying to do was further his beliefs through science. However, the problem with this was that the church did not approve or like it at all. They found it as a threat and took it almost as an insult to their beliefs. I say this because during this time period, one could say that the church was all powerful in the sense that people used it and it's word to make sense of their daily actions. I also believe that Galileo was not intentionally trying to disprove the church or anything they had to say, but merely to just give tangible evidence that his beliefs were correct. My opinion of religion and science has not necessarily changed since the beginning of this course, however I do see a new light about it in which i never have had before. I can honestly say I never have put science and religion on the same scale to compare them, however now am able to see how they are related.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I don't think Galileo was seeking a "new God" because although what he found opposed beliefs of the church, I don't think his intent was to do so. The relationship between science and religion is much stronger than I originally thought. The more questions and open discussion we have about science and religion are helping me understand ideas through a new perspective. Science is constantly trying to discover new ways to explain religion but there are certain things science will never be able to explain. This is where the integration between the two is most important. I think there needs to be that patch of uncertainty because (for me) it makes believing in God easier. I like that I'm learning to accept scientific explanations in accordance with religious explanations. This goes back to the discussion we had about not taking biblical scriptures literally. I think that as science finds new discoveries, we don't have to reject God's word but we can look at it more closely to find the hidden meanings and grasp a truer understanding of God's revelation.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I do not think that Galileo intended to discover a "new god". I do not think that he wanted to replace his religion with science, but just further his understanding of the world. I like the idea of science and religion working together. I used to think that science and religion could only be in conflict. However my time in this class had lead me to discover that religion and science do not contradict each other. From the clip "Angels and Demons" I like the idea that science is an adolescent and requires support or guidance from the church. I think that it is best for religion and science to achieve their goal of discovering truth by working together.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I do not think that Galileo intended to discover a "new god". I do not think that he wanted to replace his religion with science, but just further his understanding of the world. I like the idea of science and religion working together. I used to think that science and religion could only be in conflict. However my time in this class had lead me to discover that religion and science do not contradict each other. From the clip "Angels and Demons" I like the idea that science is an adolescent and requires support or guidance from the church. I think that it is best for religion and science to achieve their goal of discovering truth by working together.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Although Galileo is seen as "the father of modern science" I don't think he was completely disagreeing with the Church and it's views. He did not intend to seek a 'new God' he just wanted answers and to come to the truth. He was being critized for something that millions of people do every day, seek truth through already existing ideas/theories. The video gives a really good description, showing that science and religion can work together. Religion gives a basis and foundation. Science helps to answer and clarify questions that religion cannot, even if it is "adolescent"

    ReplyDelete
  20. As voiced by several people already I tend to agree that Galileo was not trying to find a "new God" or to discredit any teaching of the Church but was instead out for answers. As seen in the different texts we had to read Galileo was not condemned unanimously by the Church there were 3 cardinals who were on his side. This fact shows that even some members of the church at the time realized he was not out to discredit them. In the video it shows that science and religion can work together but dont always. The best example for this I can use is that of a relationship between an older man and a teenage boy. The adolescent doesn't respect his elders yet the older man doesn't like the younger boy for this arrogance. However there is much they could teach each other like the teenage boy showing anything technological to the older man and the older man could show the younger boy the older ways which he may not have learned.

    ReplyDelete