Religion and science have been at odds since time immemorial. On December 21, 1613, history saw one of the first true debates between religion and science. Galileo Galilei’s letter to Reverend Father Benedetto Castelli outlined and shaped many of the values and thoughts held in modern Western culture. Religion and science are about as opposite as two things can be, however Galileo makes the argument that science and religion are both right in their own sense, dealing with absolutes and variables. Neither is wrong, instead they each provide answers to what the other cannot. One of the very first points that Galileo brings up in his letter is that it would be “very prudent” in assuming “that the Holy Scripture can never lie or err, and that There is no room for error and contradiction, “nature is inexorable and immutable, and she does not care at all whether or not her recondite reasons and modes of operations are revealed to human understanding, and so she never transgresses the terms of the laws imposed on her;” Because of this low tolerance we know that its rules are absolute and can be relied on. Whereas Scripture is subject to various interpretations depending on the reader, “since not every statement of the Scripture is bound to obligations as severely as each effect of nature.” When proposed with an absolute and a variable and know that they cannot equal each other it is only logical to assume that the variable will bend itself to change to fit the absolute, as it is “obvious that two truths can never contradict each other.” This is the relationship that science and religion have. Galileo reasons that “if said and put forth in their naked and unadorned truth” the Holy Scriptures “would more likely harm its primary intention and make people more resistant to persuasion about the articles pertaining to salvation.” The original writers of the Scriptures were focused on convincing the people of the lord, too much information can lead to a disinterest of the subject. They had to get their point across while still appealing to the masses, thus why it was left to the wise interpreters. They could not include everything Religion is used to fill the gaps of which science cannot explain. One must analyze the Holy Scriptures to discover their true meaning before being able to ascertain what is true and what is false. Galileo presents several arguments with which he flawlessly executes to get his point across. The points which Galileo brings up have held fast through the centuries. When tackling the subjects of both science and religion one must keep an open mind, as it is not always clear at first. That which requires faith cannot be proved by science and vice versa, this undisputable truth is upheld even today in modern western
In 1936 a sixth-grade student by the name of Phyllis Wright wondered if scientists pray, and if so, what for. She decided to ask one of the greatest scientists of all time, Albert Einstein. A while later he wrote a letter back to Phyllis with his response. Understanding the context and purpose of his response assist in analyzing its effectiveness. After receiving a letter from such a young student, Einstein aimed to provide Phyllis with a comprehensible answer. He intended for his response not to sway her in one way or another, but to explain science and religion do not necessarily contradict each other completely. By using appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos, Einstein achieved his purpose by articulating a response suitable for a sixth grade
Galileo had heard about the theories that the previous scientists had stated. Galileo wanted to see if what they were saying was accurate. To prove the heliocentric theory he invented the telescope in the year 1609 that help to confirm that it was in fact the heliocentric model instead of what everyone believed which was the geocentric model. Galileo started to share his discoveries to the public, but stopped after the Church told him not to share the information. (Doc ) However, the timeline indicates that Galileo waited seventeen years before sharing the information again publicly, so he actually obeyed the Church’s request for a very long time. Galileo was a devoted Catholic and strongly believed in the words of the Bible. In a letter written in 1615 written by Galileo to the duchess of Tuscany Galileo he stated how the Bible can sometime be misunderstood,“ But [he] believe that nobody will deny that the Bible is often very complex, and may say things which are quite different from what its bare words signify…”(document A). Galileo wanted to convince the Duchess that perhaps the evidence he gathered could be used to interpret the sun’s placement as the Bible was difficult to understand at times. The fact that Galileo was so religious validated his reliability, because he would have favored the Bible over his theory. He only argued about this one concept from the Bible and he had physical evidence and support from other scientists to prove his
During the Scientific Revolution, the struggle between faith and reason was exhibited through Galileo and his discoveries. The Catholic Church during the time period of the Scientific Revolution did not approve of any outside scientists who came up with new theories and observations. The Church believed that all information about how the world worked was in the bible and that was the only right source. In an excerpt from “What is Scientific Authority?” written by Galileo in 1615, it states, “Showing a greater fondness for their [Catholic Church’s] own opinions than for truth, they sought to deny & disprove the new things which, if they had cared to look for themselves, their own senses would have demonstrated to them…” Galileo Galilei himself knew that the Church was not willing to approve of new ideas from other scientists, but only from the teachings in the Bible. Later on in the excerpt, Galileo writes, “They [Catholic Church] hurled various charges &…made the grave mistake of sprinkling these with passages taken from places in the Bible which they had failed to understand properl...
It is through science and its use that Galileo claimed one could better find and understand the truths of the Scriptures. If science is used correctly, as a tool to support claims, rather than blindly accepting the claims made by authoritative figures, Galileo claimed one would be able to fulfill the truths mentioned in the bible; to use one’s sense of reason. Religious people can find their solace through science, and scientist can find reason for their science through religion. This is evident in the fact that Galileo was a scientist but also had strongly rooted scriptural beliefs. Through a sense of balance he was able to use his religion to advance his scientific findings, and his science to justify his religion. With the right balance between the two one will be able to live an enlightened and enriched life.
Galileo’s contributions to the science of Physics and Astronomy were many. His conviction was legendary. His willingness to suffer for his beliefs exemplify true courage in the name of truth, and has inspired others to venture intellectual independence from the Church‘s creeds, edicts, and proclamations. Perhaps these contributions led to the call for an investigation into Galileo's conviction, eventually calling for its reversal, in 1979 by Pope John Paul II. But regardless of his standing in the annals of the Catholic church he will always be the man who began the separation of science and religion.
The main argument which Galileo’s opponents used against his theory was that in many places in the Bible it is mentioned that the Earth stands still and that the Sun revolves around it. Galileo himself was a devout Christian and did not mean to question God’s power or the Holy Writ with his work. As a result, to support his claim, he developed three logical arguments in his letter, which he backed with the opinions of leading Christian authorities, in order to prove that science can reinforce religion rather than discredit it.
Galileo received harsh criticism for this theory since it went against the church’s beliefs and teachings. In his letter to Madame Cristina de Lorena, Galileo explains he thought the clergymen were “displaying greater affection for their own opinions than for true ones” meaning that they too intolerant to accept the truth found in science. Instead of embracing theories developed through experimentation, Galileo claimed the priests hid behind the Scripture without providing proof of its claims. Religious figureheads believed that since the bible said that the Earth revolves around the Sun, Galileo was going against the bible and God. However, Galileo maintained that the bible should be read symbolically since its claims are clearly not scientifically true. Galileo insisted that the bible was written in such a way so that everyone would be able to understand it through figurative lessons and explanations and thus should not be interpreted
The history of opposition between science and religion has been steady for about half of a century. As early as the 1500's, science and religion have been antagonistic forces working against each other. Science was originally founded by Christians to prove that humans lived in a orderly universe (Helweg, 1997). This would help to prove that the universe was created by a orderly God who could be known. Once this was done, science was considered by the church to be useless. When people began to further investigate the realm of science, the church considered them to be heretics; working for the devil. According to Easterbrook (1...
Science and Religion dialogue has been a bitter-sweet topic for many people over the years. The controversy is not only common between one sole community, but affects a variety. The beliefs held about these topics has the potential to personally effect an individual, whether it be positively or negatively. In the United States, we draw only a fine line between religion and science, often failing to realize that the two benefit each other in copious ways but are not meant to interpreted in the same way. Due to this perspective, people seem to be influenced to pick one or the other, when in reality we should treat both science and religion with the same respect and recognize that they are completely separate from one another, along with having individual purposes. John F. Haught, a distinguished research professor at Georgetown University, published a book titled, “Science & Religion: From Conflict to Conversation”. In it he evaluates each side, persuading the reader that the truth is that both realms may benefit from each other despite the differences emphasized. John F. Haught introduces his audience with four approaches on Science and Religion. Haught’s third approach, contact, is of major significance to aid in the response of: “Does Science Rule out a Personal God?”
“The lack of conflict between science and religion arises from a lack of overlap between their respective domains of professional expertise—science in the empirical constitution of the universe, and religion in the search for proper ethical values and the spiritual meaning of our lives. The attainment of wisdom in a full life requires extensive attention to both domains—for a great book tells us that the truth can make us free and that we will live in optimal harmony with our fellows when we learn to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly.”
Religion and science are complementary elements to our society. The notion that religion and science should not be merged together, does not mean neglecting to understand the parallel relation between these two concepts and will result in a better understanding of our surroundings. This will put an end to our scientific research and advancement because we will be relying on answers provided by religious books to answer our questions. If we don’t argue whether these answers are right or wrong, we would never have studied space stars or the universe or even our environment and earthly animals. These studies have always provided us with breakthroughs, inventions and discoveries that made our lives better.
...wever, in the best interest of advancing education and an enlightened society, science must be pursued outside of the realm of faith and religion. There are obvious faith-based and untestable aspects of religion, but to interfere and cross over into everyday affairs of knowledge should not occur in the informational age. This overbearing aspect of the Church’s influence was put in check with the scientific era, and the Scientific Revolution in a sense established the facet of logic in society, which allows us to not only live more efficiently, but intelligently as well. It should not take away from the faith aspect of religion, but serve to enhance it.
In Alfred North Whitehead’s “Religion and Science”, he nullifies the argument between the religious factions and scientists of the world by eliminating all grounds for the argument. Although debated to the “ends of the Earth”, Whitehead points out that these two subjects are actually based upon events that are unrelated. He states “Science is concerned with the general conditions which are observed to regulate phenomenon; whereas religion is wholly wrapped up in the contemplation of moral and aesthetic values”(Whitehead, Religion and Science). Through his definition of both viewpoints, he is able to explain one will never see the other, thus no argument exists.
Over the course of the years, society has been reformed by new ideas of science. We learn more and more about global warming, outer space, and technology. However, this pattern of gaining knowledge did not pick up significantly until the Scientific Revolution. In the sixteenth and seventeenth century, the Scientific Revolution started, which concerned the fields of astronomy, mechanics, and medicine. These new scientists used math and observations strongly contradicting religious thought at the time, which was dependent on the Aristotelian-Ptolemy theory. However, astronomers like Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton accepted the heliocentric theory. Astronomical findings of the Scientific Revolution disproved the fact that humans were the center of everything, ultimately causing people to question theology’s role in science and sparking the idea that people were capable of reasoning for themselves.
First off, it is important to realize that religion and science have to be related in some way, even if it is not the way I mentioned before. If religion and science were completely incompatible, as many people argue, then all combinations between them would be logically excluded. That would mean that no one would be able to take a religious approach to a scientific experiment or vice versa. Not only does that occur, but it occurs rather commonly. Scientists often describe their experiments and writings in religious terms, just as religious believers support combinations of belief and doubt that are “far more reminiscent of what we would generally call a scientific approach to hypotheses and uncertainty.” That just proves that even though they are not the same, religion and science have to be related somehow.