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.  

http://youtu.be/Fqvz7Mu16Jk

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?

"God is not a White Man" by Gungor

A friend posted this to my Facebook page the other day. It made me think about our conversation about the anthropomorphism of God, which was such a great conversation in class the other day. So, I thought I would post this for you guys. Several of you asked if we could take that conversation up again. There will be space for it throughout the semester, but we can begin class on Tuesday talking about this video in order to have another place to discuss it.

The Causes of Being

Aristotle in his day presented the causes of being in part due to an effort to address the reasons for which existence has come about. Aristotle's suggestions entailed four causes: the material cause, the formal cause, the efficient cause, and the final cause. The material cause represents that from which a thing is created. The formal cause refers to the pattern by which a thing is created. An example of the formal cause could be the stencil used to create a work of art or the stitching pattern used to knit an article of clothing. The efficient cause is the source or creator of a thing. Lastly is the final cause, which refers to the final cause, considered the purpose of the created thing or the reason for which it was created. 

During our discussion of John Henry Newman's "The Philosophical Temper First Enjoined by the Gospel," we approached a text which was written during a transitional period for the Catholic Church. Newman was one of many Catholic philosophers who accepted the task of studying this concept of evolution in order to better address it and the Catholic approach to it. Newman simultaneously criticized the literalism of some theologians as well as the lack of humility on the part of scientists. Does science fulfill any of the aforementioned causes of being? Does religion?

Devilution?

Last class we learned about the 4 ways you can divide the argument between religion and science. They are grouped into conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. In the video clip below all four are easily seen. Lisa clearly views the two in conflict, and that neither can be accepted. She even says that "two different ideas cannot coexist'. Lisa's mom Marge disputes this by saying "two incompatible things are both true" which takes the view of integration. This is because they both work together as one. The school starts teaching the children that "God did it". In class we learned is also called "God of the gaps" which is categorized under dialogue. Lastly when the Reverend is confronted by Ned he replies saying, "Ned you have to take these things with a grain of salt" by saying this he is inferring that the bible should be taken seriously but not literally. This falls into the group called independence. 

Video: Simpsons Evolution vs. Creationism 

http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/45786/detail/


Questions:
1) Should creationism be taught in our schools?
2) Do we need to be more open to the possibility that both creationism and evolution are true?
3) Is it possible for creationists to accept evolution and vice versa? Should they?


Lauren M, Stephanie P, Tiba T

NPR: Losing Our Religion

Each morning this week, NPR has discussed various aspects of the fact that many young Americans (1 in 3) are abandoning organized religion in a series called "Losing our Religion." As we have been discussing the definitions of words like ”religious” and “spiritual” and “devout” in class, I wanted to link you to this serial radio discussion in order to further enhance that conversation. It is not a class requirement that you listen to this, but I thought you might all find it interesting, so perhaps you’ll listen to it while you fold your laundry or some such thing. As a scholar of religious studies, particularly in the American context, this is incredibly interesting especially in what it might mean for the future of American religion. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this, whether here, where you are welcome to post in the comments section, or in class. You'll have an official blog assignment this weekend as well and that discussion will be lead by your classmates. This is just something that I found interesting and relevant and hope that you will as well.

For years movies have been depicting robots with artificial intelligence. Some AI robots are depicted with human characteristics. The video below depicts "The Uncanny Valley", a spot where robot features become too close to human ones. 

1. Why do people get scared of robots that have AI with human features but like the AI robots with non-human features?
2. Do you believe this is true? 
3. Cartoon AI robots are considered "cute" but scientists strive to make AI robots that look very much like humans. Does this mean that we are trying to create them "in our image" like God created us?
4. Is this arrogant of us to believe we can recreate humans? 
5. Also do you believe that we will ever be able to have a fully automated robot that thinks and acts like a human would? 
6. What are the repercussions of this happening?

Please watch the video below that explains more about "The Uncanny Valley" and have fun discussing.

-Carrie W, Patrick C, and Chris S

Sins Against the Planet: Is Theology Responsible for the Consequences of Science?

Photo: An abandoned church in a mining town

 in Oregon that was deserted after the mine closed.

According to Lynn White in her article, “The Historical Roots of the Ecological Crisis,” the word ecology did not appear in the English language until 1873.  This was during the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, which introduced a litany of new issues and questions into society that are still being addressed today.  At the core of these issues, we must challenge the conception that humanity has sovereignty over the Earth. According to both of the class readings, theological belief may have part in humanity’s lackadaisical attitude toward the environment. While Christianity may have encouraged a dominion of humanity on Earth I don’t think it’s accurate at say, as White does that Christianity is at the helm of the ecological crisis.  I don’t deny either that there is something to the attitude of entitlement that surrounds the ecological crisis that seems latent in some aspects of religion.  As White points out, Pagan traditions were more outright considerate of the environment while Christianity seems to put the Earth completely at man’s disposal.  That said, I think it’s important to raise the following question: Is the attitude of human dominion that theological belief (consider Catholicism especially) has encouraged responsible for the ecological crisis?  To what extent has science teamed with this aspect of theological belief in its pursuit of industrial and technological advancement?  Also consider the opposite—are scientists who are searching for ways to help the environment operating under theological ideals or are they following a moral compass devoid of religious influence? Does science need some aspects of theological belief be motivated to save the planet?