Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Church Opposes Science: The Myth of Catholic Irrationality
CERC ^ | February 10, 2015 | CHRISTOPHER KACZOR

Posted on 02/10/2015 2:06:38 PM PST by NYer

Many people believe that faith and reason, or religion and science, are locked in an irreconcilable war of attrition against one another.

kaczorsbm.jpg

One must choose to be a person of learning, science, and reason, or choose to embrace religion, dogma, and faith alone.  On this view, the Church opposes science, and if one embraces science, then one ought to reject the Church.

The scientific method looks to evidence to settle questions, so perhaps it would be fair to look at evidence to answer the question whether the Catholic Church is opposed to science and reason.  If the Catholic Church were opposed to science, we would expect to find no or very few Catholic scientists, no sponsorship of scientific research by Catholic institutions, and an explicit distrust of reason in general and scientific reasoning in particular taught in official Catholic teaching.  In fact, we find none of these things.

Historically, Catholics are numbered among the most important scientists of all time, including Rene Descartes, who discovered analytic geometry and the laws of refraction; Blaise Pascal, inventor of the adding machine, hydraulic press, and the mathematical theory of probabilities; Augustinian priest Gregor Mendel, who founded modern genetics; Louis Pasteur, founder of microbiology and creator of the first vaccine for rabies and anthrax; and cleric Nicolaus Copernicus, who first developed scientifically the view that the earth rotated around the sun.  Jesuit priests in particular have a long history of scientific achievement; they

contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes and microscopes, to scientific fields as various as magnetism, optics and electricity.  They observed, in some cases before anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter's surface, the Andromeda nebula and Saturn's rings.  They theorized about the circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical possibility of flight, the way the moon affected the tides, and the wave-like nature of light.  Star maps of the southern hemisphere, symbolic logic, flood-control measures on the Po and Adige rivers, introducing plus and minus signs into Italian mathematics — all were typical Jesuit achievements, and scientists as influential as Fermat, Huygens, Leibniz and Newton were not alone in counting Jesuits among their most prized correspondents. [1]

The scientist credited with proposing in the 1930s what came to be known as the "Big Bang theory" of the origin of the universe was Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest.  Alexander Fleming, the inventor of penicillin, shared his faith.  More recently, Catholics constitute a good number of Nobel Laureates in Physics, Medicine, and Physiology, including Erwin Schrodinger, John Eccles, and Alexis Carrel.  How can the achievements of so many Catholics in science be reconciled with the idea that the Catholic Church opposes scientific knowledge and progress?

One might try to explain such distinguished Catholic scientists as rare individuals who dared to rebel against the institutional Church, which opposes science.  However, the Catholic Church as an institution funds, sponsors, and supports scientific research in the Pontifical Academy of Science and in the departments of science found in every Catholic university across the world, including those governed by Roman Catholic bishops, such as The Catholic University of America.  This financial and institutional support of science by the Church began at the very birth of science in seventeenth-century Europe and continues today.  Even Church buildings themselves were not only used for religious purposes but designed in part to foster scientific knowledge.  As Thomas Woods notes:

Cathedrals in Bologna, Florence, Paris, and Rome were designed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to function as world-class solar observatories.  Nowhere in the world were there more precise instruments for the study of the sun.  Each such cathedral contained holes through which sunlight could enter and time lines (or meridian lines) on the floor.  It was by observing the path traced out by the sunlight on these lines that researchers could obtain accurate measurements of time and predict equinoxes. [2]

In the words of J. L. Heilbron of the University of California, Berkeley, the "Roman Catholic Church gave more financial aid and social support to the study of astronomy over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment, than any other, and probably, all other institutions."  [3] This financial and social support extended also to other branches of scientific inquiry.

Such support is not only consistent with official Catholic teaching but is enthusiastically endorsed.  On the Church's view, science and faith are complementary to each other and mutually beneficial.  In 1988, Pope John Paul II addressed a letter to the Director of the Vatican Astronomical Observatory, noting, "Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.  Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish."  [4] As Nobel Laureate Joseph Murray notes, "Is the Church inimical to science?  Growing up as a Catholic and a scientist — I don't see it.  One truth is revealed truth, the other is scientific truth.  If you really believe that creation is good, there can be no harm in studying science.  The more we learn about creation — the way it emerged — it just adds to the glory of God.  Personally, I've never seen a conflict."  [5] In order to understand the complementarity of faith and science, indeed faith and reason more broadly, it is important to consider their relationship in greater depth.

A sign hung in Albert Einstein's office at Princeton University that read: "Not everything that can be counted counts; not everything that counts can be counted."  Faith cannot be quantified and counted, like forces in physics or elements in chemistry, but that does not mean that faith is insignificant.  Faith helps us to answer some of the most important questions facing mankind.  As important as scientific discoveries can be, such discoveries do not touch on all of the inevitable questions facing us: What should I do?  Whom should I love?  What can I hope for?  To answer questions such as these, science alone is not enough because science alone cannot answer questions that fall outside its empirical method.  Rather, we need faith and reason operating together to answer such questions and to build a truly human community.

One reason that people view faith and science as in opposition is that they often view faith and reason more generally as in opposition.  Our culture often pits faith against reason, as if the more faith-filled you are, the less reasonable you are.  Faith and reason in the minds of so many people are polar opposites, never to be combined, and never to be reconciled.  In this way, our culture often offers us false alternatives: live either by faith or by reason.  To be religious is to reject reason; to be reasonable is to reject religion.  But like other false alternatives, e.g., "Did you stop beating your wife this week, or last week?" such thinking artificially limits our freedom.  Rather than choosing between faith and reason, the Church invites us to harmonize our faith and our reason because both are vitally important to human well-being.

A sign hung in Albert Einstein's office at Princeton University that read: "Not everything that can be counted counts; not everything that counts can be counted."

Developing a long tradition of Catholic reflection on the compatibility of faith and reason, Pope Benedict XVI seeks to unite what has so often become divided, by championing the full breadth of reason (including but not limited to scientific reasoning) combined with an adult faith.  Rather than pitting faith against reason, the pope is calling for a reasonable faith and a faithful reason.  From a Catholic perspective, the truths of faith and the truths of reason (including science) cannot in principle ever be opposed, because God is the ultimate Author of the book of Grace (revelation) as well as the book of Nature (philosophy and science).  One ought not, therefore, choose between faith on the one hand and reason on the other, but rather one should seek to bring both faith and reason into a more fruitful collaboration.

In a Catholic view, since faith and reason are compatible, science — one particular kind of reasoning — and the Catholic religion are also compatible.  Nevertheless, it is a commonly held view that one must choose between science and faith.  Why is this?  There are several core issues that drive this misunderstanding.  First, Genesis claims that God created the world in seven days, but science indicates that the universe, including the earth, developed over billions of years.  Secondly, Genesis talks about the first man, Adam, and the first woman, Eve, being created by God, as well as all the animals being created by God.  Science indicates that all life — including human life — evolved over millions of years.  Third, Bible stories are rife with miracles, but science has shown that miracles are impossible.  Fourth, and most famously, the Catholic Church condemned Galileo.  Finally, the Church's opposition to stem cell research is seen as anti-science.  Each of these objections is commonly used to justify the claim that the Church opposes science.

First, let's consider the claim that in Genesis God created the world in seven days but science indicates that the universe, including the earth, developed over billions of years.  In the Catholic tradition, the creation accounts in Genesis have been interpreted in a wide variety of ways.  Both literal and figurative readings of Genesis are theologically acceptable for Catholics.  Some theologians, such as Saint Ambrose, understood the Genesis account of creation in a literal way.  But for the most part, Catholic theologians, including Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Blessed John Henry Newman, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI, have interpreted Genesis as teaching the truth about creation in a nonliteral, nonscientific way. [6] Pope John Paul II puts the point as follows:

The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe.  Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. [7]

Dr. Scott Hahn has pointed out that we might misunderstand the point of the seven days spoken about in Genesis, if we do not understand that the ancient Hebrew word for seven is the same word used for "making a covenant".  So, when it is said that God created the world in seven days, the text is communicating to its original readers that God has created the world in a covenantal relationship with the Divine. [8] Indeed, it was this idea — that the world is an orderly creation from an intelligent God — that led to the beginnings of science.  For if the world is not intelligible and orderly, there would be no point in trying to understand its laws of operation, the laws of nature which scientific investigation seeks to discover.

Secondly, the incompatibility of Genesis and the evolution of species causes some people to think that religious belief is incompatible with science.  If the first man, Adam, and the first woman, Eve, were created by God, as well as all the animals, then all life — including human life — did not evolve over millions of years.  If all life evolved over millions of years, then there could not be a first man, Adam, a first woman, Eve, or a creation of animals directly by God. As noted, the Catholic Church does not generally require that individual Scripture verses be interpreted in one sense rather than another.  Individual believers and theologians may come to different understandings of a particular passage but remain Catholics in good standing.  So, one could believe with Saint Ambrose that Genesis provides a play-by-play account of exactly how God did things over seven 24-hour days.  Or, one could believe with Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Blessed John Henry Newman, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI that Genesis is not properly interpreted in this literalistic way.  If one interprets Genesis in the ways suggested by the nonliteral view, then there is no contradiction in believing both in Genesis and in evolution as a way for accounting for the physical development of man provided one believes in a first man and first woman, from whom mankind descended and inherited original sin (see Humani Generis, no.  27). [9] Of course, the Catholic Church does not require that Catholics believe in evolution or any other view taught by any given scientist.  However, if one believes in evolution, then one can also — as did Pope John Paul II — remain a faithful Catholic. [10]

A third problem that gives rise to difficulties for some people is that miracles are found in the Bible, but science is incompatible with belief in miracles.  By miracle, I mean a supernatural intervention by God into the normal course of events.  Is belief in miracles incompatible with science?  To answer this question, it is important to distinguish science or the scientific method from what is called philosophical naturalism.  The scientific method looks for natural causes to explain things that have happened.  Philosophical naturalism, a philosophical theory, not a scientifically justified view, holds that there are only natural causes and no supernatural (divine) causes.  Scientists can conduct their scientific investigations with or without a belief in philosophical naturalism.  If God the Creator exists, then naturalism is false because a Creator God is a supernatural cause.  If there is a Creator with power over the entire universe, then miracles are possible, for God could intervene in his creation.  Indeed, science could only prove that miracles cannot happen, if it proved that there is no God.  But science has not and cannot prove such a claim, since the realm of science is limited to the empirically verifiable, and God — at least as understood by most believers — is not a material being but a spiritual being.

On the one hand, we have the many Catholic scientists of distinction, from the beginning of the use of the scientific method until now, who argue that there is no conflict between their faith and their pursuit of science.  We have the institutional Church sponsoring scientific endeavors of all kinds, at Catholic universities around the world, in the construction of cathedrals, and at the Vatican itself.  We also have the explicit Catholic teaching that faith and reason are not opposed but rather complementary, and that scientific reasoning and faith are mutually enriching. 

Fourth, and most famously, many people believe that the Catholic Church is antagonistic to science because of the condemnation of Galileo Galilei.  This notorious and complicated conflict — the subject of many scholarly books — is partially based on scientific disputes but also has much to do with the conflicts of personality, politics, and theology of the time.  Galileo's view that the earth rotated around the sun was not the central issue.  Heliocentrism was held by many people of the time, including Jesuit priests in good standing.  More central to the Galileo controversy was whether Galileo broke agreements he had made about in what manner to teach his views.  Through his polemical writings, Galileo alienated one-time friends and gave rivals an opportunity to undermine him.  His work Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems was widely understood to mock the pope, a onetime friend and sponsor.  Galileo did not limit himself to scientific claims on the basis of a view at the time lacking conclusive proof, but also insisted on challenging the dominant interpretations of Scripture at the time, which held that the sun rotated around the earth. [11] Thus, both influential theologians as well as scientists turned against Galileo.  If Galileo had presented his views with greater modesty about his claims, it is likely that there would have been no condemnation.

Nevertheless, it is true that ecclesial authorities wrongly condemned Galileo's heliocentricism, which was in 1633 not yet scientifically demonstrated.  Galileo's view was condemned because of an overly literal interpretation of a certain passage in Scripture.  This erroneous condemnation could have been avoided if the theologians involved had remembered the methods of biblical interpretation propounded by Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas, who recognized that Scripture often speaks the truth about creation in a nonliteral, nonscientific way.  Pope John Paul II wrote:

Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system.  The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture. [12]

Indeed, even today people still speak, as does Scripture, about "the sun rising", even though strictly speaking it is not the sun that rises but the earth that turns, causing it to appear that the sun rises.

In any case, Pope John Paul II acknowledged that the ecclesial judicial authorities in the trial of Galileo were wrong.  These errors of a disciplinary and judicial nature were not a formal part of Catholic teaching.  Then, as now, Church officials can and do make errors — unfortunately sometimes serious errors — in terms of discipline and order within the Church community.  Church infallibility only applies to official teachings of faith and morals, not to assigning the best bishop to a particular place, nor to making wise decisions about political matters, nor to determining who can and ought to teach certain topics.  The condemnation of Galileo was an erroneous decision in a matter of judicial order in the Christian community, but it does not have to do with official teaching of faith and morals.

One final controversy is the alleged opposition to science seen by Richard Dawkins.  Dawkins writes, "He [Pope Benedict] is an enemy of science, obstructing vital stem cell research, on grounds not of morality but of pre-scientific superstition."  [13] In other words, the Church opposes science because she opposes embryonic stem cell research that involves destroying human embryos.  Stem cell research is viewed as a promising means of fighting disease and promoting human well-being, but the Church, in Dawkins' view, stands in the way of this progress.

It is important to begin responding to Dawkins' accusation with the common ground shared by all people of good will.  Indeed, everyone agrees, including Dawkins, that we should not kill innocent people, even if killing them might benefit other people or bring about an advance in scientific knowledge.  The Tuskegee experiment in which African-American males were research subjects without their consent and to their detriment is universally condemned.  Similarly, the research done by Dr. Josef Mengele on various human patients, or rather victims, in Auschwitz cannot be justified regardless of the scientific progress that was an alleged goal of the experiments.  It is a basic principle of ethics that persons should not be harmed without their consent in scientific research in order potentially to benefit other people.

It is this principle, together with modern science, that has led the Catholic Church to oppose embryo research that kills human embryos.  If human embryos have basic human rights as do other human persons, then embryonic research that involves killing human embryos is wrong.  It was actually science overcoming "pre-scientific superstition" that brought the Catholic Church to the defense of human life from conception.  In ancient times, Aristotle taught that the human person arose only 40 to 90 days after the union of the man and the woman in sexual intercourse.  Aristotle thought, and this view was a common one until the nineteenth century, that the menses of the woman was "worked on" by the fluid ejaculated by the man to form a human being, some 40 days after the sexual union in the case of a male and 90 days in the case of a female.

Contemporary biology has shown that this understanding of how human reproduction takes place is radically mistaken.  Sperm and egg are the gametes of sexual reproduction, not the menses and the entire ejaculated fluid.  There is not a different time period for the formation of male and female children, nor does the seminal fluid continue to work for weeks and weeks to inform the menses.  Rather, egg and sperm unite so as to create a new, individual, living, whole human person which passes through various stages — zygotic, fetal, infant, toddler, adolescent, adult — of human development.

Is there any reason to think that the human embryo is alive?  To live is to have self-generated activities.  The activities of proportionate growth and increase of specialization of cells contributing to the good of the whole organism indicate that the embryo is a living being.  Further, it is clear that the embryo can die, but only living things can die, so the embryo must be living.

Is the living embryo also human?  Since the embryo arises from a human mother and a human father, what species could it be other than human?  Coming as it does from a human mother and a human father, made of human genetic tissues organized as a living being, and progressing along the trajectory of human development, the newly conceived human embryo is biologically and genetically one of us.  This new living, growing being is a member of the species homo sapiens, a member of the human family.  This human being is genetically new, that is, distinct from both mother and father.  The embryo is not a part of the mother (as is obvious when the embryo is in a petri dish and not in utero), but rather is made from part of the mother (her ovum) and part of the father (his sperm).  This new person is an individual whose genetic makeup and very existence is not the same as the mother's or father's or anyone else's.  There is nothing "pre-scientific" about the Church's view that the human embryo is a human being; indeed, this view is confirmed by the findings of science which overturned the long-accepted prescientific views of Aristotle on reproduction.


TOPICS: Catholic; History; Religion & Culture; Religion & Science
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last

1 posted on 02/10/2015 2:06:38 PM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick; GregB; SumProVita; narses; bboop; SevenofNine; Ronaldus Magnus; tiki; Salvation; ...

Observatory of the Roman College
In its historical roots and traditions the Vatican Observatory is one of the oldest astronomical institutes in the world. For the first foreshadowing of the Observatory can be traced to the constitution by Pope Gregory XIII of a committee to study the scientific data and implications involved in the reform of the calendar which occurred in 1582. The committee included Father Christoph Clavius, a Jesuit mathematician from the Roman College, who expounded and explained the reform. From that time and with some degree of continuity the Papacy has manifested an interest in and support for astronomical research. In fact, three early observatories were founded by the Papacy: the Observatory of the Roman College (1774-1878) (illustrated), the Observatory of the Capitol (1827-1870), and the Specula Vaticana (1789-1821) in the Tower of the Winds within the Vatican. These early traditions of the Observatory reached their climax in the mid-nineteenth century with the researches at the Roman College of the famous Jesuit, Father Angelo Secchi, the first to classify stars according to their spectra. With these rich traditions as a basis and in order to counteract the longstanding accusations of a hostility of the Church towards science, Pope Leo XIII in 1891 formally re-founded the Specola Vaticana (Vatican Observatory) and located it on a hillside behind the dome of St. Peter's Basilica.

Several religious orders contributed personnel and directors to the Observatory. These included Barnabites, Oratorians, Augustinians, and Jesuits.

Learn More - VATICAN OBSERVATORY

Ping!


2 posted on 02/10/2015 2:07:10 PM PST by NYer (Without justice - what else is the State but a great band of robbers? - St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

The Physical Sciences were invented by the Catholic priests who were devoted to the study of nature and the universe as a way of seeking the nature of the Lord.

It was though the study of the divine order was the best way to infer the the divine nature.

The entire Scientific Method was developed by various orders of the Catholic Church as a tool to eliminate human prejudice and error from their quest for the truth in their search for the nature of the Lord.

Many of the most influential early scientists were religious zealots, chief among them Sir Issac Newton.


3 posted on 02/10/2015 2:17:34 PM PST by rdcbn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rdcbn
 photo reason_is_the_greatest_enemy.jpg
4 posted on 02/10/2015 2:20:47 PM PST by sparklite2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Reason and faith were understood as two sides to one coin, as Aquinas pondered it.

Reason is the intellectual understanding of the mind best observed in traditional philosophy, and Faith is the soul's understanding of God who is a mystery.

Reason and faith have their particular strengths and when correctly studied do not oppose each other.

To separate them makes a person's thinking schizophrenic.

Martin Luther believed that you didn't need reason. David Hume believed you didn't need faith.

They were both wrong. We need both Reason and Faith in order to think cohesively.

5 posted on 02/10/2015 2:30:12 PM PST by Slyfox (To put on the mind of George Washington read ALL of Deuteronomy 28, then read his Farewell Address)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Erwin Schrödinger was NOT Catholic.

His father was Roman Catholic. His mother was Lutheran. He described himself as an ATHEIST, and wrote one of the most influential atheist popular science texts of the 20th century, What is Life?

6 posted on 02/10/2015 2:30:18 PM PST by FredZarguna (O, Reason not the need.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdcbn
The Physical Sciences were invented by the Catholic priests

That will come as a surprise to the Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians and Greeks. One of the greatest physicists of all time, Archimedes, died two and half centuries before anything remotely resembling a Catholic priest.

The entire Scientific Method was developed by various orders of the Catholic Church

Ironic in a post about the Church "not being hostile to science" that you'd say this. There was no really sensible version of the scientific method until Galileo Galilei. He was not a priest. Had he not been a personal friend of the Pope's, he probably would have been burned alive.

More primitive versions predate Christianity, and in other cultures less complete versions than Galileo grew up completely without any Christian influence.

Many of the most influential early scientists were religious zealots, chief among them Sir Issac Newton.

Newton believed in the Arian heresy. He called Trinitarianism: "the greatest of all apostasy."

7 posted on 02/10/2015 2:43:39 PM PST by FredZarguna (O, Reason not the need.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer

We all know Mulsims have the monopoly on all things scientific. Liberals and Mulsim apologists say so.


8 posted on 02/10/2015 2:55:23 PM PST by Organic Panic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Oh, the Roman church would never oppose science...

The Trial of Galileo

"On the first day of October in 1632, the dreaded Inquisitor of Florence, Italy knocked on the door of the famous astronomer, Galileo Galilei and served him with a summons to appear before the Inquisition in Rome within 30 days. The noted scientist was being forced to answer charges that he had promoted heresy in his latest book. Galileo was 68 years old, and these charges were extremely serious. Anyone found guilty of heresy could be sentenced to death."

What was Galileo's crime, according to the Catholic Church? Galileo had taken a stand against traditional views about the nature of the universe. He presented startling new evidence that our planet is not at the center of the universe. Galileo's own work, plus that of other scholars, had clearly convinced him that Earth and other planets moved around the Sun. These ideas seemed strange at the time. When people looked out from Earth, it certainly seemed that Earth was stationary and at the center of things, as if all bodies in the sky moved around us. The slow and difficult progress of Galileo's ideas shows how science works, sometimes in the face of opposition. Also, this new thinking was part of a famous revolution that affected the way all humans thought about their place in the universe.

After he received the summons to appear before the Inquisition, Galileo surrendered himself in Rome. The trial began in 1633. The surviving transcript shows the dilemma Galileo faced. At the beginning, Galileo was sure he could clear himself. One of the first questions from the Inquisitors was about what had happened during the cardinal's visit in 1616. Galileo described the visit and presented as evidence a 1615 letter from the Cardinal commending him for "speaking [only] hypothetically and not with certainty" about these issues. A second letter from the Cardinal, written in 1616, gave the order that "the Copernican opinion may neither be held nor defended, as it is opposed to Holy Scripture." Based on these letters, Galileo argued that his book debating the sides of the argument was within the spirit of the instructions he had been given.

Galileo faced an impossible moral dilemma. Should he risk death to defend his scientific observations in front of the secret Inquisition court, or should he recite a confession that would satisfy the judges and live to fight another day? He gave his answer. Even under the threat of death, he told them, he would never say that he was not a good Catholic or that he had tried to deceive anyone. However, under duress he would be willing to and say that he did not believe the new Copernican idea. In the end, he trusted that copies of his book would get out and that the scientific evidence would speak for itself. He begged the judges to "take into account my pitiable state of bodily illness, to which, at the age of 70 years, I have been reduced by ten months of constant mental anxiety." The trial came to a climax on June 22, 1633, when Galileo was summoned to kneel before the judges to hear his sentence and to recite a confession of error. The judges read a lengthy condemnation that included the Church's strong opposition to the Copernican revolution. Galileo was sentenced to house arrest for life.

The Inquisitors ordered his book banned. He had to repeat his confession in public, saying that he would "abandon the false opinion that the Sun is the center... and that the Earth is not the center and moves," and vowing to "abjure, curse, and detest the aforementioned errors and heresies...."

http://m.teachastronomy.com/astropedia/article/The-Trial-of-Galileo


9 posted on 02/10/2015 2:57:01 PM PST by aMorePerfectUnion ( "Forward lies the crown, and onward is the goal.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Reformation —> Age of Enlightenment, Scientific and Industrial Revolutions.

Cause, effect.


10 posted on 02/10/2015 3:02:30 PM PST by Born to Conserve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

Don’t forget the Crusades! Christians did awful things to Moslems during the Crusades.


11 posted on 02/10/2015 3:20:23 PM PST by Tax-chick ("Where's Dark Betrayal when you really need it?!?" ~James)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion
Letters to Father by Dava Sobel

Suor Maria Celeste to Galileo 1623-1633.

Her letters survived. His letters did not survive but she reveals their contents,, in part, in her letters.

12 posted on 02/10/2015 3:24:39 PM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

“Don’t forget the Crusades! Christians did awful things to Moslems during the Crusades.”

They beat back a militaristic Islam.

Giving the death penalty to scientists who publish is another thing...


13 posted on 02/10/2015 3:26:58 PM PST by aMorePerfectUnion ( "Forward lies the crown, and onward is the goal.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna
The Physical Sciences were invented by the Catholic priests
That will come as a surprise to the Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians and Greeks. One of the greatest physicists of all time, Archimedes, died two and half centuries before anything remotely resembling a Catholic priest.

It's true in the same sense that it's true that Columbus discovered America (others came earlier, but their discovery didn't "take"!) or that western drama arose from the miracle and mystery plays of the Middle Ages (classical drama had been lost and not rediscovered until the Renaissance The entire Scientific Method was developed by various orders of the Catholic Church. Likewise, the ancient scientists' work had been lost.

The entire Scientific Method was developed by various orders of the Catholic Church
Ironic in a post about the Church "not being hostile to science" that you'd say this. There was no really sensible version of the scientific method until Galileo Galilei. He was not a priest. Had he not been a personal friend of the Pope's, he probably would have been burned alive.

Galileo ran into trouble because he claimed heliocentricity as a fact when the tools necessary for proving it were as yet unavailable. (Sort of the same thing the AGW proponents are doing.) Copernicus a century before had no problems because he put it forth as a theory. Galileo claimed other things as fact, like his belief that the sun was the primary cause of tides on earth.

He also wrote a play portraying the Pope who had supported him in his work as a gibbering fool, biting the hand, so to speak.

14 posted on 02/10/2015 3:32:42 PM PST by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: maryz
You claims are factually untrue.

The work of Archimedes was not lost. It continued to exist in the Eastern Empire and throughout the muslim world; it was simply less well known in the West because of a general deterioration of knowledge there. Just because a few well educated people -- many of them religious -- still knew the knowledge of antiquity that doesn't mean they invented it, any more than the muslims [who've also tried to claim credit for it.]

Heliocentricity was perfectly provable with the observations available to anyone. The Ptolemaic system was untenable; only ignormausses who wanted to believe humans were the center of the universe were determined to hang onto it.

The claim that Galileo got himself into trouble because he mocked the pope is both false and silly. Galileo got himself into trouble because when he was put to the question, he refused to back down. He took the correct position against an ignorant and evil group of men.

Even if his mockery of the pope had been the cause of his troubles, so what? The pope is a man and NOTHING MORE. He isn't entitled to any special respect by anyone, least of all someone who had the truth on his side while the pope and his flunkies were trying to suppress it.

15 posted on 02/10/2015 4:14:15 PM PST by FredZarguna (O, Reason not the need.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

Most of the knowledge for which Islam is given credit for preserving was actually kept alive by the Jews in their midst.


16 posted on 02/10/2015 4:21:06 PM PST by hlmencken3 (“I paid for an argument, but you’re just contradicting!”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion
as Galileo rose from kneeling before his inquisitors, he murmured, "e pur, si muove" -- "even so, it does move."

A giant for all times. His "Inquisitors" were pygmies and savages compared to him.

17 posted on 02/10/2015 4:23:18 PM PST by FredZarguna (O, Reason not the need.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: hlmencken3
However it was preserved, the point is: Catholic priests no more invented the scientific method than they discovered the theory of relativity.

Isaac Newton was not a Christian in any sense recognized by mainstream Christianity, and Erwin Schroedinger was an atheist. So many objective errors in an article purporting to show the "enlightenment" of Rome.

18 posted on 02/10/2015 4:25:57 PM PST by FredZarguna (O, Reason not the need.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

A lot of that kind of Catholic triumphalism stuff is no longer insisted up by the Church itself. But that doesn’t stop the restorationist pseudointellectuals from chest-thumping.


19 posted on 02/10/2015 4:46:03 PM PST by hlmencken3 (“I paid for an argument, but you’re just contradicting!”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: maryz

Copernicus still had problems. Some of his biggest critics of his ideas were protestants. True though, he was brilliant and had close ties to the Church.


20 posted on 02/10/2015 5:36:23 PM PST by virgil (The evil that men do lives after them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson