To answer the first question, I truthfully believe that both sides of this argument would have plenty of evidence to soundly back up their claims. On one hand, the longstanding beliefs of the church were being challenged more and more, so it should be easy to understand why the religious establishment would be shaking in their proverbial boots. On the other hand, it could be argued that the church should have been (or should be) more accepting of new revelations and scientific facts rather than viewing those new ideas and discoveries as threats. For the sake of choosing a side, however, I will cast my lot with the church on this issue and argue that their feelings of being under attack were indeed justified.
Like it or not, religion in general
…show more content…
He was really going for the jugular when he proposed and pushed his idea that, although God did exist in some form or another, he had little or nothing to do with the world other than having created it. Essentially, Voltaire believed that God spun the universe into existence and then took a giant step back to watch it unfold without ever offering any sort of assistance or interference. To take his claims a step further – and to add insult to injury – Voltaire also didn’t accept Jesus as the essential religious figure that the church had made him out to be. For him, Jesus was nothing more than a “good fellow.” As I said, unlike the claims and ideas of Pierre Bayle, what Voltaire was suggesting was a slap in the face of the religious establishment, because he was challenging some of the very core beliefs of the church. To call this an attack on the religious establishment is to say the very …show more content…
As we have read in past weeks, the church didn’t like the idea of Galileo and other astronomers endorsing the idea of a heliocentric universe, because this went against the belief that God placed the earth at the center of everything. Even when scientific knowledge progressed through legitimate, fact-based evidence, the church was often more inclined to disregard those findings in favor of what they were used to. When something brought their beliefs into question, it would have almost been something of a knee-jerk reaction to assume that the church was being attacked. In a way, it’s as if the mindset of the church could have been summed up with the old adage, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” In the minds of many of the religious leaders and other adherents, their beliefs had been working for generation after generation, so changing things now would have seemed ludicrous at best. Why make changes if it’s worked so
The Bible was one of the most important pieces of text during Galileo’s lifetime. If you went against what the Bible stated then you were considered to be a heretic. The Bible indicated that the earth was in the center of the universe and the sun and the other planets revolve around it. a theory known as the geocentric model. Many scientists argued against this theory by stating that actually the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth and the other planets revolved around the sun, this theory was known as the heliocentric model. Nicolas Copernicus was one of the first out of many scientists who publically shared this theory. Later Giordano Bruno also supported this theory and because of this the Church ordered him to be burned
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...
The Catholic Church stated, “The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures’(Doc.2). This shows the hindrance that the church creates to impede the advancement of science. As known today, the sun is the center of the solar system. Even while Galileo and Copernicus knew that this was the correct arrangement of the solar system and even had evidence, the church still dismissed them and stopped them from sharing their thoughts and
The experiences he went through in his lifetime helped him develop his views on religion. He believed that everyone had the right to choose their religion and be free to practice that religion where they want. There would be conflicts between religious citizens and the government if there wasn’t freedom of religion. This choice should be available in England, according to Voltaire, to prevent problems from arising. “If one religion only were allowed in England, the government would very possibly become arbitrary; if there were two, the people would cut one another's throats; but as there are such multitude, they all live happy and in peace.”
The world, through different means, will always try to degrade people’s existence, but it’s up to us to rise up and act. For Nietzsche, Beauvoir and Voltaire, people should act and take the responsibilities. According to Nietzsche, people give meaning to their life by growing spontaneously, seeking out to say ‘yes’ to life to saturate it with happiness and passion. For Beauvoir, people, especially women, give their life meaning by not condemning to immanence, instead affirming their independence and transcending themselves to justify their existence. As per Voltaire, excessive optimism fades one’s sense of responsibility, taking away his or her freedom to take productive action. For Voltaire, optimism is good only when it compels people to take action, and bad when it forces people into believing that failure is inevitable.
...cided to condemn Galileo’s work. While it does not discredit God’s power or the Bible, the overall tone of the scientist’s letter is quite sarcastic towards the clergy. While defending his first argument, Galileo appears to undermine the intellectual capabilities of his opponents. He implies that those who interpret the Holy Writ word for word belong to the “common people” whom he describes as “rude and unlearned”, and that other “wise expositors” should be the ones who search for the true meaning of the Bible. Galileo makes a similar implication while presenting his second argument, when he writes that the purpose of the Holy Scriptures is “infinitely beyond the comprehension of the common people”. The Catholic Church likely viewed these claims as an attempt to weaken its authority, which would explain why Galileo’s discoveries were condemned for nearly 300 years.
A great philosopher Liebnitz once said that this is the best possible of all worlds. Voltaire disagrees. In Voltaire's Candide, the impartial narrator travels to distant lands and experiences a range of extremes. After having spent a great deal of time away from his homeland, and having seen more than most people see in a lifetime, the narrator is forced to conclude that this may not be the best possible world because of the reality of evil. Voltaire relates this point very effectively through his mastery of language and the choices he makes, both gramatically and content-related.
Overall Voltaire is successful in promoting his ideas and beliefs. It is clear he wants to see a drastic change in religion, politics and morals in the pre-modern period. Throughout his novel Candide he is able to criticise society with a light hearted mockery but also with a seriousness using extreme examples to address his points and concerns. It is arguable that his ambitions were far too high at a time of hope and debate in the 18th century.
... to make you commit injustices.” Voltaire studied natural sciences and reason because he was against supestition. Although he advocated religious tolerance, he believed that any one church should not have absolute power. By the time he was executed, he had already brought about the end of the power and right of the church to torture France. People in France still are not as faithful to the Catholic Church as they had been before Voltaire had introduced them to the idea of “reasoning”.
Voltaire's Candide seems to display a world of horror, one filled with floggings, rapes, robberies, unjust executions, disease, natural disasters, betrayals and cannibalism. Pangloss, the philosopher, has a constant optimistic view throughout the entire novel even despite all of the cruelty in the world. While looking back on the book I couldn't think of many characters that displayed admirable qualities. Even though Pangloss stuck to his views that everything is for the best in this best of all possible worlds, which is admirable, he is stupid and naive to still believe this after everything he and his family goes through. It was quite hard for me to find admirable characters within Voltaire's Candide, all of the characters seemed to do harm to one another in some way. Although as soon as James or Jacques, the Anabaptist, is introduced to us he seems different then any other character so far.
To speak out against the Church in this time was strictly taboo. If one spoke against the Church, it was considered heresy, which is exactly what happened to Galileo. Galileo invented the telescope and began studying the heavens above and noticed changes within the stars and planets. He observed that the "stars" that surrounded Jupiter moved. He came to the conclusion through rational thinking that Copernicus' heliocentric theory was correct.
...oking at the society today, one can tell that people go to the church for prayers and they still have the same loyalty to the Church that Copernicus once had. The only thing changed is that the Church does not have control to put someone into prison or even sentence to death just because someone disagrees with the Church. Today we have the Freedom of Speech, Assembly, Petition, Press and Freedom of Religion. As Copernicus once quoted “So far as hypotheses are concerned, let no one expect anything certain from astronomy….” Scientists still wonder about questions such as are there more stars or planets in the universe? Is there life other then on Earth and much more? Simply because there are no boundaries to knowledge because when one still looks at the galaxies the mystery that God had created is still there because no one knows better then the one who created it.
The conflict between religion and science was one of the major issues of the enlightenment. New theories were being developed (like Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation) which went against the teachings of the c...
The modern science view as well as the Scientific Revolution can be argued that it began with Copernicus’ heliocentric theory; his staunch questioning of the prior geocentric worldview led to the proposal of a new idea that the Earth is not in fact the center of the solar system, but simply revolving around the Sun. Although this is accepted as common sense today, the period in which Copernicus proposed this idea was ground-breaking, controversial, and frankly, world-changing. The Church had an immense amount of power, and was a force to be reckoned with; in the beginning of the Scientific Revolution, new scientific proposals and ideas were discouraged in many cases by the Church. A quote from Galileo’s Children does an excellent job summing up the conflict: “The struggle of Galileo against Church dogma concerning the nature of the cosmos epitomized the great, inevitable and continuing clash between religion and reason.” If evidence goes against scripture, the scientist is considered a heretic and is, like in Galileo’s case, forbidden to discuss the ideas any further. Galileo Galilei, who proposed solid evidence and theory supporting the heliocentric model, was forced to go back on his beliefs in front of several high officials, and distance himself from the Copernican model. This, luckily, allowed him to not be killed as a heretic, which was the next level of punishment for the crimes he was charged with, had he not went back on his beliefs. Incredible support was given through the young developing academies with a sense of community for scientists and academics; “Renaissance science academies represent a late manifestation of the humanist academy movement.” Since the Church was grounded traditionally evidence that went agains...
The Catholic church was losing ground physically and in the hearts of the people. While there were still a great many who remained loyal to Catholicism, there were still people like Calvin, King Henry VIII and Luther who felt the need to call the Catholics out on the problems within their faith, and how it was affecting everyone else.