19 ms·

Science and Religion Have Never Been Enemies

20 points by cosymoments 3y ago

lgvln 3y ago
The author conveniently fails to mention Galileo was found guilty of heresy by the Church, forced to retract his Dialogues and lived the rest of his life under house arrest for advocating the Copernican heliocentric model over the doctrinal geocentric model.[0] When one cherry picks evidence like that... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
- cosymoments 3y ago
  [dead]
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  Well, that's not really how it happened. Don't forget that Galileo spilled a lot of ink in order to deliberately mock and humiliate the Holy Father at the time. His trial and sentence were not so much about his science than about his lousy attitude toward legitimate authority. There were other scientists who adhered to the Copernican perspective (Copernicus himself is a Roman Catholic priest) without so much trouble.
  - lgvln 3y ago
    > His trial and sentence were not so much about his science than about his lousy attitude toward legitimate authority References? The charge of heresy is for heretic views, such as the Copernican heliocentric model in his case. It threatens to upend the authority of the Church; if the Church can be wrong about the nature of the universe then surely they can be wrong about other matters as well. His Dialogues remain banned by the Church till 1835, ~200 years later. To say that Galileo was convicted of heresy for "bad behaviour" is simply disingenuous.
    - tnecniv 3y ago
      The Wikipedia article [0] has a detailed discussion of the political elements as well as valid scientific criticisms of his work. Ironically, what you are arguing is much like the chief scientific error Galileo made: offering a sufficient condition for an occurrence does not prove that this condition caused the event. Him being tried and convicted of heresy doesn’t mean that his trial wasn’t politically motivated. Despots make up charges for political enemies constantly throughout history and heresy was an obvious choice The Pope had been a fan and political ally of his within the church even before his ascension, and Galileo didn’t just disregard his request for a discussion of geocentric theory but did so in a way that specifically called him an idiot and undermined his authority. The Pope, who was essentially the ruler of central Italy, couldn’t let that public ridicule slide whether or not Galileo intended it (historians think the slights were unintentional). This led to his second trial for heresy for which he was convicted. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
      - lgvln 3y ago
        > The Wikipedia article [0] has a detailed discussion of the political elements I am not denying that there were political factors in play. I am saying that the main factor in play was his dissent against the Church. > valid scientific criticisms of his work. Ironically, what you are arguing is much like the chief scientific error Galileo made There is a distinction between 'evidence that refutes the geocentric model' and 'evidence that supports the Copernican heliocentric model'. While the technology available did not allow him conclusively proof the Copernican heliocentric model (there were also issues with the model), the evidence he had strongly refuted the central thesis of the geocentric model - that Earth is the center of the universe and everything in the sky resolves around Earth. That lead him to advocate for the Copernican heliocentric model, inference to the best explanation. Galileo observed that Venus had phases despite remaining near the Sun in Earth's sky, which proves that Venus revolves the Sun, not the Earth, hence refutes the geocentric model. His discovery of the moons revolving Jupiter further refutes the geocentric model, that not everything in the sky revolves around Earth. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Copernican_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Copernican_sy...
- jowea 3y ago
  And pro-heliocentrism books remained in the Church's Index of banned books until 1758.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum#Changing_judgments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum#Ch...
- jjaken 3y ago
  That’s the one example anyone ever uses and it’s way oversimplified. It’s also something that occurred 400 years ago, conducted by a church that doesn’t exist anymore (the catholics have changed a lot in 400 years and the Inquisition has been dead a long time). The argument in the OP isn’t that religion hasn’t opposed or suppressed science. It’s that religion isn’t fundamentally opposed to science. While some may wield religion to whatever ends suits them, the religion itself was merely the tool of the day. We see evidence of that throughout history, to oppose science or anything else.
  - lgvln 3y ago
    What lies in the heart of the Galileo's Copernican Heliocentrism argument is the Church is and can be wrong, thus challenging the authority of the Church. It is often used as an example because it is the prime example of the beginning of The Enlightenment, also known as The Age of Reason, the triumph of reason and evidence over dogma, which gave rise to modernity. > It’s that religion isn’t fundamentally opposed to science. Take the creation narrative in Genesis: the world was created ~10,000 years ago in 6 (or 7, depending on how you count it) days. Is that narrative in fundamental conflict with modern science? Can both the genesis creation narrative and the theory of evolution be right? What and who decides which is correct? Should reason and evidence guide our beliefs or ancient texts proclaimed to be sacred?
    - jjaken 3y ago
      Depends on the dogma. For some christian sects the old testament is genuinely a fable. It isn’t necessarily the religion, or spirituality more generally, that is opposed to science or rationality, but the dogma and way the spirituality/religion is taught/practiced.
      - tnecniv 3y ago
        That’s what they taught us in Catholic school as a kid. The Old Testament was a combination of parables and oral history before eventually being recorded. Moreover, we were taught that part of the significance of the Crucifixion was that it was to establish a new pact between humans and God, hence Jesus doing away with the old rules and commandments and Jesus commanding that the faith be spread beyond ethnic Jews.
kashunstva 3y ago
Granted, the religious _practice_ I’m most familiar with is Christianity as it is practiced in North America. There, non-trivial numbers of people believe that the Earth is 6000 years old and hold to other similar falsifiable claims. I would gladly shrug my shoulders and say “To each, his own.” But there are constant battles to present some of these views (albeit less extreme) in public school curricula. Some have ended in landmark cases before the Supreme Court. One can make the argument that science and religion occupy disparate spheres of interest, as Gould did with his “non-overlapping magisteria,” but it ignores the fact that religion as it is practiced often makes claims about material reality, claims that can be put to scientific scrutiny. The historical record is interesting, and I appreciate the details presented in TFA. But I’m concerned with the practicalities of religious practice and those of science and the “constantly-overlapping magisteria” of material claims.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  Point taken, but you have to understand that American Fundamentalism is a minor pocket of Christianity in the worldwide scheme of things. There are billions of Christians who don't believe in a 6,000-year-old Earth. Billions of us. And perhaps those Fundamentalists felt that the anti-religious atheists needed an appropriate foil. Certainly some of the noisiest people have come from both camps and made their presence and beliefs known. I believe there is a silent majority on both sides that sees no conflict between science and religion, because this lack of conflict has existed for 2,000 years, and it will continue to exist, because Christianity is the source of spiritual truth, and science seeks to explain physical truths.
  - defrost 3y ago
    > because Christianity is the source of spiritual truth the source? I'll give you a source (for some) .. but there are a lot of religions across the globe and Christianity is just one of several in the Abrahamic family. Fair point about Galileo though - his trial was principally due to him being a delibrately provocative giant pain in the butt to all the wrong people.
    - 3y ago
jongalt1962 3y ago
[flagged]
- defrost 3y ago
  With the disclosure that I'm neither Christian nor religous, ie I'm not looking for fight here; how do you explain recent prominent scientists, including Nobel Laureates whao are also committed Christians? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology#21st_century_(2001%E2%80%932100) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_... These are peak scientists who have reconciled internally what you believe to be conflicting opposites.
  - onebigmob 3y ago
    Yes, I'm not sure most people realize that it was a Catholic priest (and theoretical physicist, mathematician and astronomer), Georges Lemaître, who was the first to propose the Big Bang theory.
  - m-theory 3y ago
    How do you explain flat earthers with engineering degrees? Intelligent people are not immune to dumb beliefs.
    - defrost 3y ago
      The ones that crowd source funds to build rockets to 'disprove' the round earth belief? Genius spruikers, exuberant showmen, I-can't-believe-you-fell-for-their-spiel operators. For the most part. The remainder are just plain crazy of the kind that can rote learn and regurgitate a four year ritual incantation exam course without deviation into critical thinking.
      - m-theory 3y ago
        Surely you've met people who were genuinely intelligent and accomplished who still held on to dumb beliefs?
jononomo 3y ago
This is a great piece and I have bought the book. I'm expecting that in the decades ahead we will begin to see conferences on the conflict between science and atheism. Research into the question of the origin of life has put atheism to bed as a serious hypothesis, but there are still many common uneducated people who think atheism is a scientifically viable stance, and this perspective can even be found among academics who have not kept up with the latest advancements.
- cosymoments 3y ago
  [dead]
- dickersnoodle 3y ago
  >Research into the question of the origin of life has put atheism to bed as a serious hypothesis This is almost too dumb to respond to, but here goes. Atheism isn't a hypothesis and never has been. I half-suspect you mean abiogenesis, but even there you'd be dead wrong. Recent research in abiogenesis has continued to make progress and I'd be happy to provide you with some recent citations. As for atheism being "a scientifically viable stance" you sound like you're way overstating the case in the hope that people won't know the difference and will give you really unearned credence. Per Wordnik, in their third definition atheism is "the denial of theism, that is, of the doctrine that the great first cause is a supreme, intelligent, righteous person." Put in layman's terms, that definition of atheism boils down to disbelief in stories that someone tells you about a supreme creator. Nobody is obligated to listen to or accept somebody else's words, even if they're said at high volume in over a microphone in front of a bunch of people willing to put money in a basket. Science, on the other hand, is (basically) the "Money talks, bullshit walks" way of trying to filter out the whole host of lies, special pleading, misinformation and plain nonsense that gets bandied about under the "religion" banner.
  - jononomo 3y ago
    Yes, the "money talks, bullshit walks" perspective is what is kicking atheism out the door. The existence of life is absolutely overwhelming proof of the existence of a creative God. I suggest you read the book "The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check" by Tan and Stadler. I'm well aware that you'll be able to try and snow the discussion with two dozen "citations" that will all be dead-end rabbit holes, but you can go ahead and provide them if you'd like.

20 points by cosymoments 3y ago

The author conveniently fails to mention Galileo was found guilty of heresy by the Church, forced to retract his Dialogues and lived the rest of his life under house arrest for advocating the Copernican heliocentric model over the doctrinal geocentric model.[0] When one cherry picks evidence like that... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

cosymoments 3y ago
[dead]
NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
Well, that's not really how it happened. Don't forget that Galileo spilled a lot of ink in order to deliberately mock and humiliate the Holy Father at the time. His trial and sentence were not so much about his science than about his lousy attitude toward legitimate authority. There were other scientists who adhered to the Copernican perspective (Copernicus himself is a Roman Catholic priest) without so much trouble.
- lgvln 3y ago
  > His trial and sentence were not so much about his science than about his lousy attitude toward legitimate authority References? The charge of heresy is for heretic views, such as the Copernican heliocentric model in his case. It threatens to upend the authority of the Church; if the Church can be wrong about the nature of the universe then surely they can be wrong about other matters as well. His Dialogues remain banned by the Church till 1835, ~200 years later. To say that Galileo was convicted of heresy for "bad behaviour" is simply disingenuous.
  - tnecniv 3y ago
    The Wikipedia article [0] has a detailed discussion of the political elements as well as valid scientific criticisms of his work. Ironically, what you are arguing is much like the chief scientific error Galileo made: offering a sufficient condition for an occurrence does not prove that this condition caused the event. Him being tried and convicted of heresy doesn’t mean that his trial wasn’t politically motivated. Despots make up charges for political enemies constantly throughout history and heresy was an obvious choice The Pope had been a fan and political ally of his within the church even before his ascension, and Galileo didn’t just disregard his request for a discussion of geocentric theory but did so in a way that specifically called him an idiot and undermined his authority. The Pope, who was essentially the ruler of central Italy, couldn’t let that public ridicule slide whether or not Galileo intended it (historians think the slights were unintentional). This led to his second trial for heresy for which he was convicted. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
    - lgvln 3y ago
      > The Wikipedia article [0] has a detailed discussion of the political elements I am not denying that there were political factors in play. I am saying that the main factor in play was his dissent against the Church. > valid scientific criticisms of his work. Ironically, what you are arguing is much like the chief scientific error Galileo made There is a distinction between 'evidence that refutes the geocentric model' and 'evidence that supports the Copernican heliocentric model'. While the technology available did not allow him conclusively proof the Copernican heliocentric model (there were also issues with the model), the evidence he had strongly refuted the central thesis of the geocentric model - that Earth is the center of the universe and everything in the sky resolves around Earth. That lead him to advocate for the Copernican heliocentric model, inference to the best explanation. Galileo observed that Venus had phases despite remaining near the Sun in Earth's sky, which proves that Venus revolves the Sun, not the Earth, hence refutes the geocentric model. His discovery of the moons revolving Jupiter further refutes the geocentric model, that not everything in the sky revolves around Earth. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Copernican_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Copernican_sy...
jowea 3y ago
And pro-heliocentrism books remained in the Church's Index of banned books until 1758.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum#Changing_judgments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum#Ch...
jjaken 3y ago
That’s the one example anyone ever uses and it’s way oversimplified. It’s also something that occurred 400 years ago, conducted by a church that doesn’t exist anymore (the catholics have changed a lot in 400 years and the Inquisition has been dead a long time). The argument in the OP isn’t that religion hasn’t opposed or suppressed science. It’s that religion isn’t fundamentally opposed to science. While some may wield religion to whatever ends suits them, the religion itself was merely the tool of the day. We see evidence of that throughout history, to oppose science or anything else.
- lgvln 3y ago
  What lies in the heart of the Galileo's Copernican Heliocentrism argument is the Church is and can be wrong, thus challenging the authority of the Church. It is often used as an example because it is the prime example of the beginning of The Enlightenment, also known as The Age of Reason, the triumph of reason and evidence over dogma, which gave rise to modernity. > It’s that religion isn’t fundamentally opposed to science. Take the creation narrative in Genesis: the world was created ~10,000 years ago in 6 (or 7, depending on how you count it) days. Is that narrative in fundamental conflict with modern science? Can both the genesis creation narrative and the theory of evolution be right? What and who decides which is correct? Should reason and evidence guide our beliefs or ancient texts proclaimed to be sacred?
  - jjaken 3y ago
    Depends on the dogma. For some christian sects the old testament is genuinely a fable. It isn’t necessarily the religion, or spirituality more generally, that is opposed to science or rationality, but the dogma and way the spirituality/religion is taught/practiced.
    - tnecniv 3y ago
      That’s what they taught us in Catholic school as a kid. The Old Testament was a combination of parables and oral history before eventually being recorded. Moreover, we were taught that part of the significance of the Crucifixion was that it was to establish a new pact between humans and God, hence Jesus doing away with the old rules and commandments and Jesus commanding that the faith be spread beyond ethnic Jews.

kashunstva 3y ago

Granted, the religious _practice_ I’m most familiar with is Christianity as it is practiced in North America. There, non-trivial numbers of people believe that the Earth is 6000 years old and hold to other similar falsifiable claims. I would gladly shrug my shoulders and say “To each, his own.” But there are constant battles to present some of these views (albeit less extreme) in public school curricula. Some have ended in landmark cases before the Supreme Court. One can make the argument that science and religion occupy disparate spheres of interest, as Gould did with his “non-overlapping magisteria,” but it ignores the fact that religion as it is practiced often makes claims about material reality, claims that can be put to scientific scrutiny. The historical record is interesting, and I appreciate the details presented in TFA. But I’m concerned with the practicalities of religious practice and those of science and the “constantly-overlapping magisteria” of material claims.

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
Point taken, but you have to understand that American Fundamentalism is a minor pocket of Christianity in the worldwide scheme of things. There are billions of Christians who don't believe in a 6,000-year-old Earth. Billions of us. And perhaps those Fundamentalists felt that the anti-religious atheists needed an appropriate foil. Certainly some of the noisiest people have come from both camps and made their presence and beliefs known. I believe there is a silent majority on both sides that sees no conflict between science and religion, because this lack of conflict has existed for 2,000 years, and it will continue to exist, because Christianity is the source of spiritual truth, and science seeks to explain physical truths.
- defrost 3y ago
  > because Christianity is the source of spiritual truth the source? I'll give you a source (for some) .. but there are a lot of religions across the globe and Christianity is just one of several in the Abrahamic family. Fair point about Galileo though - his trial was principally due to him being a delibrately provocative giant pain in the butt to all the wrong people.
  - 3y ago

jongalt1962 3y ago

[flagged]

defrost 3y ago
With the disclosure that I'm neither Christian nor religous, ie I'm not looking for fight here; how do you explain recent prominent scientists, including Nobel Laureates whao are also committed Christians? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology#21st_century_(2001%E2%80%932100) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_... These are peak scientists who have reconciled internally what you believe to be conflicting opposites.
- onebigmob 3y ago
  Yes, I'm not sure most people realize that it was a Catholic priest (and theoretical physicist, mathematician and astronomer), Georges Lemaître, who was the first to propose the Big Bang theory.
- m-theory 3y ago
  How do you explain flat earthers with engineering degrees? Intelligent people are not immune to dumb beliefs.
  - defrost 3y ago
    The ones that crowd source funds to build rockets to 'disprove' the round earth belief? Genius spruikers, exuberant showmen, I-can't-believe-you-fell-for-their-spiel operators. For the most part. The remainder are just plain crazy of the kind that can rote learn and regurgitate a four year ritual incantation exam course without deviation into critical thinking.
    - m-theory 3y ago
      Surely you've met people who were genuinely intelligent and accomplished who still held on to dumb beliefs?

jononomo 3y ago

This is a great piece and I have bought the book. I'm expecting that in the decades ahead we will begin to see conferences on the conflict between science and atheism. Research into the question of the origin of life has put atheism to bed as a serious hypothesis, but there are still many common uneducated people who think atheism is a scientifically viable stance, and this perspective can even be found among academics who have not kept up with the latest advancements.

cosymoments 3y ago
[dead]
dickersnoodle 3y ago
>Research into the question of the origin of life has put atheism to bed as a serious hypothesis This is almost too dumb to respond to, but here goes. Atheism isn't a hypothesis and never has been. I half-suspect you mean abiogenesis, but even there you'd be dead wrong. Recent research in abiogenesis has continued to make progress and I'd be happy to provide you with some recent citations. As for atheism being "a scientifically viable stance" you sound like you're way overstating the case in the hope that people won't know the difference and will give you really unearned credence. Per Wordnik, in their third definition atheism is "the denial of theism, that is, of the doctrine that the great first cause is a supreme, intelligent, righteous person." Put in layman's terms, that definition of atheism boils down to disbelief in stories that someone tells you about a supreme creator. Nobody is obligated to listen to or accept somebody else's words, even if they're said at high volume in over a microphone in front of a bunch of people willing to put money in a basket. Science, on the other hand, is (basically) the "Money talks, bullshit walks" way of trying to filter out the whole host of lies, special pleading, misinformation and plain nonsense that gets bandied about under the "religion" banner.
- jononomo 3y ago
  Yes, the "money talks, bullshit walks" perspective is what is kicking atheism out the door. The existence of life is absolutely overwhelming proof of the existence of a creative God. I suggest you read the book "The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check" by Tan and Stadler. I'm well aware that you'll be able to try and snow the discussion with two dozen "citations" that will all be dead-end rabbit holes, but you can go ahead and provide them if you'd like.