Transcript GALILEO, SCIENCE & THE CHURCH

“The future of civilization depends upon the way
the two most powerful forces in history—science
and religion—settle into relationship with each
other.”
-Alfred North Whitehead
“In the news”
Assign article, brief paper, or podcast on a
contemporary issue in science that is relevant to
Christianity and/or religion more generally
Ideally, it is relevant to recent or current topics in the
class
Provide a link for students and Prof Z … and
give instructions, when needed
Ideally, it’s not TOO lengthy
Example: Polkinghorne paper
Give SHORT list of questions for students to
consider in relationship to the paper or podcast
2
“In the news”
Grading:
Chose an issue that did touch on science and faith (25
points)
List of questions for class was succinct and thoughtprovoking (25 points)
Group was prepared to lead discussion and all
members were familiar with the issues raised in the
podcast/article (25 points)
The class discussion was lively and interesting (25
points)
3
Group Presentation/Project
See examples in syllabus
Organized by module
But, with Prof approval, you can explore a
different topic altogether – doesn’t HAVE to be
from the list in the syllabus
I will work with you to schedule a date for your
presentation in class
4
GALILEO, SCIENCE &
THE CHURCH
Conflict Between Science and
Christianity?
In their Introductory chapters, Falk and Nichols
both allude to the Galileo affair – what did they
write or imply about it?
Galileo Review
The Main Characters
NICHOLAUS COPERNICUS
1473-1543, Rom
Catholic
Commissioned to “fix”
the calendar
Employed mathematics
to solve the problem
“The Copernican
Revolution” …
(scripture verses)
8
COPERNICAN COSMOLOGY
9
NICHOLAUS COPERNICUS
Aesthetically superior
system
Mercury
Retrograde motion of
planets
But his system was not
widely seen by scientists
as providing convincing
evidence for a heliocentric
universe (vs. geocentric)
10
Retrograde motion – “anomaly”
Thomas Kuhn: paradigms
Provide framework for science to move
forward … only rejected when very significant
evidence provided to disprove
Aphorism: people can rationalize
significant evidence against their belief
systems, as long as it’s not overwhelming,
or as long as they don’t know how
overwhelming it is
11
THE TYCHONIC SYSTEM
Tycho Brahe (15461601)
Kepler’s teacher
Earth still the center
Other planets orbit the
sun, which orbits the
earth
Retains circular orbits
(#8)
13
THE TYCHONIC SYSTEM
14
Johannes Kepler
?
1571 - 1630
Galileo’s Protestant
counterpart
Heliocentric universe
reflects the Holy
Trinity
Major work:
Astronomia nova
Comments on Psalm
104 (next slide)
15
Johannes Kepler on Psalm 104
I implore my reader not to forget the divine goodness conferred on
mankind, and which the Psalmist urges him especially to consider …
Let him not only extol the bounty of God in the preservation of living
creatures of all kinds by the strength and stability of the earth, but let
him acknowledge the wisdom of the Creator in its motion, so abstruse,
so admirable.
Whoever is so weak that he cannot believe Copernicus without offending
his piety, and who damns whatever philosophical opinions he pleases,
I advise him to mind his own business and to stay at home and
fertilize his own garden, and when he turns his eyes toward the visible
heavens (the only way he sees them), let him pour forth praise and
gratitude to God the Creator. Let him assure himself that he is serving
God no less than the astronomer to whom God has granted the
privilege of seeing more clearly with the eyes of the mind.
(Quoted from Gingerich, 2002, p. 101)
16
Johannes Kepler on Authority
In Theology:
Scripture
In Science [called “natural philosophy” at the time]:
Reason
17
GALILEO GALILEI
1564-1642
Promoted new
Cosmology
Scientific method
Key Works:
Letter to the Grand
Duchess Christina (1615)
Dialogues on 2 World
Systems (1632)
18
Cardinal Bellarmine
1. Pope’s “Hit Man”
2. Some reasonable
Objections to
Galileo, even if not
“progressive” in his
understanding –
concerned about
authority of scripture
20
Pope Urban VIII
1. “Friend” of Galileo
2. Represented by
“Simplicio” in Galileo’s
fictional Dialogue on 2
World Systems
concerning the new
Copernican cosmology
(oops!)
21
Historical Background
1. The Reformation (1517) and
the Counter-Reformation and
Council of Trent (1540s)
2. Modern science just starting to
come into its own
Act I: Galileo’s Early
Discoveries
(and the mixed reactions)
Galileo’s Observations of Jupiter
24
Rejection of Ptolemaic
Cosmology
Method of Falsification:
1. If P then Q
2. Not Q
Thus, Not P
1. If Ptolemy were right, then there would be no
Jovian satellites. (e.t. revolves around earth)
2. But there are Jovian satellites
Thus, Ptolemy was wrong.
25
Galileo’s Observations of Venus
26
Galileo’s Method of Verification
Fallacy known as “affirming the consequent”
1. If P then Q
2. But Q
Thus, P
1. If heliocentrism is true, then we should see
phases of Venus
2. But we do see phases of Venus
Thus, heliocentrism is true (#9)
27
Act II: The Religious AND
Scientific Orthodoxy of
Galileo’s Discoveries and
Views are Questioned
Scene I: Conflict Within Science
Geocentrism was difficult to question – doesn’t it seem
obvious that the sun moves in the sky?
The Ptolemaic system had been in place for ~1400 years.
It’s predictions weren’t perfect, but they were familiar
and had some accuracy.
Galileo could not PROVE that Copernicus’ heliocentric
system was true – there were some ways in which it was
superior, but its predictions were not overwhelmingly
superior
(#10)
30
Scene II: Conflict Among Believers
Bellarmine’s Objections
1. Defies common
sense and angers the
philosophers and
theologians
2. Violates the authority
of the Fathers
3. Violates the authority
of the Scriptures
31
Conflict Among Believers
Acutely aware of the Scripture- and churchauthority based objections already described,
Galileo wrote a couple of key letters defending
his position
Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina, 1615
(he presented his hermeneutical principles,
including the Principle of Demonstration, etc.)
32
Galileo’s Hermeneutic Principles
He studied the work of St. Augustine (4th – 5th
century) very carefully
St. Augustine spent a lot of time responding to a
group called the Manichaeans, who raised various
Qs @ the Genesis account of creation (how could
there have been “days” before the sun itself was
formed?, for example)
A contemporary Christian scholar, Ernan
McMullin, has described the 6 principles used by
Augustine and borrowed by Galileo in his affair
with the church authorities
33
Principle of the Unity of Truth
“Since an all-truthful God is the author of
both the book of nature and the book of
revelation; then it is not possible in
principle for there to be a contradiction
between a religious truth and a scientific
truth when each is properly understood.”
-Ernan McMullin
34
Principle of Prudence
“When trying to discern the meaning of a
difficult Scripture passage, one should keep
in mind that different interpretations of the
text may be possible, and that, in consequence one should not rush into premature commitment to one of these,
especially since further progress in the
search for truth may later undermine this
interpretation.” McMullin
35
Principle of Priority of
Demonstration
“When there is a conflict between a proven
truth about nature and a particular reading
of Scripture, an alternative reading of
Scripture must be sought.” McMullin
36
Principle of Priority of Scripture
“When there is an apparent conflict between
a Scripture passage and an assertion about
the natural world grounded on sense or
reason, the literal reading of Scripture
should prevail as long as the latter assertion
lacks demonstration.” McMullin
37
Principle of Accommodation
“The choice of language in the Scripture is
accommodated to the capacities of the
intended audience.” McMullin. That is, the
language of scripture fits the cultural and
religious attitudes of the biblical peoples at
that time.
E.g., Joshua 10:11-13 and other passages
38
Principle of Limitation
“Since the primary concern of Scripture is
with human salvation, texts of Scripture
should not be taken to have a bearing on
technical issues of natural science.”
McMullin
“The Scriptures teach us how to go to heaven not
how the heavens go.” Cardinal Baronius
39
Which are the Most Valid
Principles?
Principle of Unity of Truth
Principle of Prudence
Principle of Demonstration
Principle of Priority of Scripture
Principle of Accommodation
Princple of Limitation
40
Valid Principles (from C. Boyd)
Principle of Unity of Truth: otherwise we
risk making the patently absurd judgment
that, “This may be true in theology but not
in astronomy.”
Principle of Accommodation: seems
corroborated by the way language actually
works. “The sun rises and sets.”
41
Valid Principles continued
Principle of Prudence: indicates that our
arguments are not about what the scripture
“says” but about our “interpretations” of
what is there.
42
Questionable Principles (Boyd)
Principle of Limitation: is there really
such a nice, clear distinction regarding what
comes under the heading of theology and
what is science?
Consider the Resurrection: Science indicates
that it is impossible, but theology judges that it
took place. Is this a matter of “How the
heavens go” or “How one goes to heaven”?
43
Questionable Principles continued
Principle of Demonstration: can we really
ever prove that something is certain in the
sciences, given Galileo’s extraordinarily
high expectation of them?
No. Science does not completely verify a
theory but it can, to a degree, falsify theories.
(But sometimes we can be reasonably sure of
the relative validity of a theory without
resorting to “absolute certainty.”)
44
Questionable Principles continued
Principle of the Priority of Scripture: is scripture
always to be read literally unless it comes into
conflict with a scientific theory that conflicts with
it? No. (Bellarmine was wrong on this…)
Song of Songs … religious allegory – God’s love for
Israel (Hebrews), God’s love for the Church
(Christians) … & wedding song (layers of meaning)
Jeremiah 1 ex: “the Lord put out his hand and touched
my mouth” (v. 9)
Etc.
45
Back to the Galileo Affair –
Act II, Scene 2
46
Bellarmine: what it comes down to
Granted, if could prove
heliocentrism true,
Scripture would be
reinterpreted
But heliocentrism not
completely proven, so
prudent thing to do is to
retain traditional view of
earth at center of universe
Copernican system can be
considered hypothetically
only
47
In 1616 Pope Paul V …
After receiving counsel from several
theologians on the orthodoxy of
heliocentrism, officially condemned
Copernicanism as “false and as completely
contradictory to Divine Scriptures.”
An injunction was (supposedly) issued,
telling Galileo not to publicly promote
Copernicanism as an alternative cosmology
48
Act III: Galileo’s Trial
Scene I: Galileo steers clear of
Copernicanism for 7 years
50
Scene II: Galileo’s Friend Becomes
Pope
Series of 6 conversations between Galileo and
Pope Urban VIII
Pope concluded, as had Bellarmine (under the
previous Pope), that it was permissible to consider
Copernicanism hypothetically, for the purposes of
making calculations, etc.
Galileo took this to mean he could write a fictional
dialogue about Copernicanism in which the Pope
was made to look like an idiot!
51
Scene II: Galileo’s Friend Becomes
Pope
Galileo’s Dialogue Concerning the Two
Chief World Systems (1632)
Salviati (Galileo)
Simplicio (Pope)
Sagredo (3rd party observer and judge, of sorts)
Pope not pleased! … Special Commission
52
Scene III: Galileo is convicted of
disobeying Rome
In the trial there were two primary legal
questions:
Did Galileo act improperly in the years before the
“Dialogue…” appeared?
Did Galileo violate the injunction supposedly delivered
to him by Bellarmine in 1616?
Most dramatic moment in the trial!
(#11)
But Galileo was convicted on both counts
53
Scene III: Galileo is convicted…
No matters of substance concerning
Galileo’s science/cosmology, nor matters
pertaining to scripture interpretation arose
in the trial
Galileo consigned to
“house arrest” for the
rest of his life…
54
Galileo Paper Assignment
– due Sept 22
Recommended sources (library front desk):
*Ernan McMullin, “Galileo on Science
and Scripture”
*Richard Blackwell, “Galileo Galilei”
Fri 9/12 … and next week
9/12 - Quiz over Galileo
Multiple Choice and maybe some T/F
9/12 - Barbour’s 4 models of relating science and
religion – Conflict, Independence, Dialogue and
Integration
9/15 (Mon.) – discussion of ch 2 in Falk & chs
2&3 Nichols (assigned during this module)
9/17 (Wed.) is the All College Hike (Woo hoo!)
9/19 (Fri) Quiz, and we will get into the Creation
and Evolution module – Start reading Falk, Chs.
3-6 next week
56
Group Assignments
See Excel spreadsheet posted in Course
Documents folder on Blackboard
Please notify me if you are not yet in a
group
Your group can sign up for an In the News
date or a Group Project/Presentation date
anytime…I will then modify and re-post the
Excel spreadsheet
57
Studying the Galileo Affair –
worth it?
Do you see in the Galileo Affair
any dynamics that are relevant
today?
Is there anything different about
the contemporary context in
which science-faith issues are
discussed?
Conflict in Science and Religion
Ian Barbour identifies 4 general models in examining the
relationship between religion and science:

Independence


Integration
Dialogue
Conflict
60
Conflict Model
Religious persons and scientists are “at war” with each other and
criticize each other’s views and intentions.
The assumption is that the views espoused by each side are
competing with each other to provide the most meaningful
explanations of nature and of truth.
Galileo’s hermeneutic principles aim to reduce unnecessary conflict.
I think his principles assume two things:
 There is no inherent conflict between science and Scripture
 But people will be in conflict – and, there is a need for guidance in
how to negotiate apparent conflict or avoid unnecessary conflict
61
Conflict Model
*Why do people often assume the conflict model?
Makes for good media coverage!
Don’t understand the different questions addressed by
science and by religion –
64
Conflict Model
There is an important distinction between
1) describing what happens when people discuss issues
related to science and faith
2) A belief that science and faith are inherently
incompatible
Your professor acknowledges #1 above, but
rejects #2
65
Creationist website
Taken on July 6, 2004 from:
http://www.creationists.org/warning1.html
Evolution is bad for children: “The high priests of
evolutionism who are teachers, school board members,
members of the media, etc. will one day have to face the
Creator they mocked and ridiculed. When they finally meet
Him on judgment day and have to give an account to Him for
why they forced the lies of evolution on children, it is
unfortunate that only then will realize that the creationists who
tried to show them the truth were possibly the best friends
they ever had.”
66
Creationist web site
Taken on July 6, 2004 from:
http://www.creationists.org/warning1.html
Evolution is foretold and decried in the bible: “God
gave us several clear warnings in the Bible that in the last days,
evolutionism would be a worldwide problem. The words
evolution, evolutionism and uniformitarianism don't appear in
the Bible because they didn't exist at the time the Bible was
written. Instead, God describes these concepts in the Bible
using terminology that a) those who lived during the time the
Bible was written would understand and b) we would
understand today.”
67
But some atheistic scientists are
even more combative:
Richard Dawkins: “Is Science a Religion?”
(in the Humanist, Jan/Feb, 1997)
Religion is bad for children: “Religion is the one field in our culture
about which it is absolutely accepted, without question — without
even noticing how bizarre it is — that parents have a total and
absolute say in what their children are going to be, how their children
are going to be raised, what opinions their children are going to have
about the cosmos, about life, about existence. Do you see what I
mean about mental child abuse?”
68
Richard Dawkins: “Is Science a Religion?”
Science is “superior:” “One reason I receive the comment about
science being a religion is because I believe in the fact of evolution. I
even believe in it with passionate conviction. To some, this may
superficially look like faith. But the evidence that makes me believe in
evolution is not only overwhelmingly strong; it is freely available to
anyone who takes the trouble to read up on it ... But if you have a belief
that is based solely on faith, I can't examine your reasons. You can
retreat behind the private wall of faith where I can't reach you.”
Is that a fair charge? -- that we “retreat behind the private
wall of faith”
69
Richard Dawkins: “Is Science a Religion?”
Religion and Science Attempt to Answer the Same Questions:
“Don't fall for the argument that religion and science operate on
separate dimensions and are concerned with quite separate
sorts of questions. Religions have historically always
attempted to answer the questions that properly belong to
science. Thus religions should not be allowed now to retreat
away from the ground upon which they have traditionally
attempted to fight. They do offer both a cosmology and a biology;
however, in both cases it is false.”
The natural, material world is all that is real: “The fact that the
supernatural has no place in our explanations, in our
understanding of so much about the universe and life, doesn't
diminish the awe. Quite the contrary.”
70
What is going on here?
Barbour suggests that science attempts to answer
questions of ___ and religion addresses questions of ___.
1) Some atheists start out within the confines of science
but leave them to make broad philosophical claims
(“practicing philosophy or theology without a license”),
whereas
2) some religious people move from theological/biblical
positions to making claims about what science should
and can only find
71
Barbour suggest that “conflict model”
people are often…
Scientific Materialists, on the one hand, OR
Biblical Literalists, on the other hand
Again, both start out doing legitimate work in their
respective areas, but then drift into territory of which
they often know little or have a shaky basis for making
broad claims
The irony is that both seek a certain foundation for
their beliefs – the scientific method, on the one hand,
or infallibility of a literal interpretation of scripture, on
the other hand
72
Scientific Materialists (from
Barbour)
Their Epistemology – the scientific method is the only
reliable path to knowledge (known as scientism)
Their Metaphysics – matter is the only fundamental reality
in the universe (it’s the only thing that matters  )
Reductionism- laws of science eventually based on the
properties of the most elemental components of matter
…. Both powerful … and problematic
Logical Positivism – scientific discourse provides the
norm for all meaningful language
73
Biblical Literalists
Often, start out doing legitimate biblical analysis, but then
drift (inappropriately) into the scientific realm
“’Creation science’ is a threat to both scientific and
religious freedom”
*Intolerance
*Imposing of views
75
Bibliography
Blackwell, Richard (1990). Galileo, Bellarmine,
and the Bible. Notre Dame: Univ. of Notre Dame
Press.
Blackwell, Richard (1997). Science, Religion and
Authority: Lessons from the Galileo Affair. Milwaukee: Marquette Univ.
Drake, Stillman (2001). Galileo: A Very Short
Introduction. NY: Oxford Univ. Press.
76
Bibliography
Fantoli, Annibale (1996). Galileo: For Copernicanism and the Church. Notre Dame: Univ. of
Notre Dame Press.
McMullin, Ernan (1998). “Galileo on Science and
Scripture” in The Cambridge Companion to
Galileo. NY: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Shea, William R. (1986). “Galileo and the
Church” in God and Nature: Historical Essays on
the Encounter between Christianity and Science.
Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
77