Science and religion are two completely different concepts that cause conflicts in theories and ideas. However, the conflicts between religious theories and scientific theories do not occur as much as they did in Galileo’s time. In Galileo’s time, the world was extremely religious, and scientific theories were just starting to be proven. Any idea or theory that differed from the Bible was shunned, causing numerous conflicts between religion and science.
This can be seen from a passage in Galileo’s Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina. He stated, “The reason produced for condemning the opinion that the earth moves and the sun stands still is that in many places in the Bible one may read that the sun moves and the earth stands still. Since the Bible cannot err, it follows as a necessary consequence that anyone takes an erroneous and heretical position who maintains that the sun in inherently motionless and the earth moveable.”
Today, this is no longer a problem. All scientific theories have been proven, and even the Catholic church has admitted that the earth is not the center of the universe. The only conflict that remains is if you choose to believe what science has proven or what the Bible says. It was only a larger conflict back in Galileo’s time because the Bible was the supreme rule, and you were considered un-religious if you strayed from what the Bible stated.

Science's Restraining Order

Science and religion will always clash as they are conflicting philosophies, at least if one takes religion seriously enough. When I think of this argument it reminds me of Santa Claus. On one end you have the advocates that say there is a slightly obese man with hundreds of elvish slaves who makes toys and delivers them to every child in the world on a single night. On the other side you have the people who say "Grow up, your parents put the toys under the tree." Guess which side is religion. While the Santa Claus myth is fine for a little child who needs something magical and fun to believe in, a 36 year old man who believes in Santa is just creepy. The same goes for religion. Using God and all his powers was well and good for early humanity to answer the difficult questions like why is the sky blue or why does it thunder, but we have progressed as a people to an advancement in thought and technology to where we can discover why the sky is REALLY blue. In essence, we are now mature enough to understand that our parents put the presents under the tree. But a conflict remains as there are still the full grown adults who believe in Santa spreading their opinion. This is the conflict we find ourselves in today. Religion thought to explain the entire world and every aspect of it a long time ago and is now being proven wrong at every turn. This makes it defensive and conflict oriented when dealing with science. Because if the Bible is wrong about the Earth being the center of the universe, perhaps it is wrong about this God character. There have been attempts made to tie science and religion together and I believe this is perfectly feesible, as long as either side is open minded. This is the dilemma Galileo presented and why he was placed under house arrest (and why he founded the Illumnati, but that is a different story), because religion was afraid and still is to this day. It took the Catholic church until the 1990's to admit the earth is not the center of the universe. Overall, it is the conflict of understanding based on human development and the loverly defensive nature of religion that brings this conflict about and I fear it will remain unsolved until one of the subjects is done away with.

Note: I do not mean to offend any religious advocates with this post, I merely state the nature of conflict in my humble opinion

Galileo vs. the Church

After going to a school where there was no religious affiliation, to a Catholic school where there was no questioning of anything, I understand what Galileo is going through with the church in his Letter to the Grand Duchess. Galileo cites a few examples of where there is conflict between religion and science.

Theoretically, there should be no conflict between these two forms of thinking because they are separate schools of thinking. Yet the church, in Galileo’s time, was thoroughly convinced that he was a heretic. The issue here lies in interpretation. The Bible is a difficult thing to interpret, and easy to interpret in a childish way. From the way Galileo explained it, the church officials interpreted the Bible in an “Amelia Badelia” sort of way: too literally. An example if this is when the church officials say the Bible can never err, and it says the earth is the center of the universe, therefore it must be right. But the issue here is that the Bible never claimed to be infallible on historical or scientific things; only on things of the spirit and with God. For if this claim were correct (that the earth is the center and therefore the Bible is never wrong), snakes would have to be talking creatures and even the officials in Galileo’s time knew snakes do not talk, and never did talk.

The other issue of interpretation lies in the fact that church officials take certain passages out of context for “their deceitful purposes” (Galileo, 179). This just jumbles the Bible up and makes no sense of it. Galileo refers to it as hypocritical and I believe he is right. The Bible is a holy book which is not to be used in vain, yet the very officials who preach that are doing what they preach against. Nowhere in the Bible does God command his people to not use their talents of discovery or experimentation. I believe He actually encourages it. Galileo was not trying to disprove thousands of years of knowledge; he was simply stating a new discovery to be examined. But the church shut down all of this with a simple “No, the Bible says you’re wrong.”

Blog Assn #21: Galileo, Science and Religion

Please post on the following by 8 PM Thursday night.

With Galileo pp. 173-197 in mind, write about what -- if any -- conflicts there are between science and religion.

Cassie hit me last night

In Galileo's Dialogue, Galileo is trying to prove to eveyone that the sun does not revolve around the earth, but that the earth revolves around the sun. He tires to show that it is hard to break a common understood theory. It seems that it takes even more information than just the right theory to get people to start believing the theory. No one likes to think that they have been wrong or have been lied to and so it is hard to start to make people believe in something even if they don't want to. Even if it is the right theory. The Dialogue itself is just another way to put his theory in a less obvious way. He tries to make it suttle in the way that other authors that wrote Cannibals tried to do. It is a way to get people to understand what he is saying but not trying to bash previous views.

Galileo

I believe that the point that Galileo is trying to make in his dialogue is very similar to the Socratic method of thinking. Galileo, just like Socrates, does not want us to just accept one way of thinking. We cannot accept what the majority of society thinks. Just because there is a majority does not make it right. There needs to be room for new ideas and people need to be look beyond the majority view. People need to be willing to question everything that this thrown their way, rather than simply accepting everything as fact. If we can get more people to think outside of the box then there are so many more things that we can discover. Back in Galileo’s time, some of the greatest thinkers were seen as weird or outcasts because they went against what everyone else saw as fact. These days there are too many people who accept everything as fact and don’t really search to find their own truths. Galileo is trying to get people to ask themselves how they really know things are true. There are so many things in our world that can seem like they are one way but are actually another, and if we just question things sometimes we can find what is really true, rather than following everyone else’s ways of thinking.

In his Dialogue, Galileo is trying to prove the same point he wrote about in Assayer. He wants people to stop and take a second look at the theories currently being used to explain phenomena. By posing a hypothetical argument, Galileo brings in strong arguments against his cause and proceeds to refute them. Just in the first day, he has the one character bring up both arguments for the Earth being the center of the universe with the sun revolving around it and vice versa. While this may not seem like a good idea, providing instant answers to strong questions prevents more people from attacking his theories without first thinking through their arguments. Galileo’s goal in the Dialogue was essentially two fold then. First, he wants people to consider his theory as plausible. Even if the best evidence is not there yet, he wants people to consider what he is proposing and not to instantly shut down and call God as their evidence for their arguments. Second, Galileo wants people to consider their arguments more carefully. By having the men pose trying questions of one another’s theories in the piece, Galileo is pointing out to the reader that he will most likely be able to refute most of their first claims to the contrary. Even if they do not agree with him, Galileo wants the people to provide proper arguments when they confront him and to make their decisions based on well thought-out ideas.

In Galileo’s “Dialogue” he is trying to prove two things. The first is that he is trying to prove his theory that was brought up in the Assayer. Galileo is attempting to have the reader understand his theory and what makes it correct. However, that is not the only thing Galileo is up to in the “Dialogue.” I agree with Josh Henry in the belief that Galileo was trying to get people to realize that you cannot just accept a fact, but instead question it and discover your own answer and conclusion to the question. This is exemplified by what Sagredo said about Aristotle’s text that nerves originate from the heart. “You have made me see this matter so plainly and palpably that if Aristotle’s text were not contrary to it, stating clearly that the nerves originate to the heart, I should be forced to admit it to be true,” (2). Sagredo is saying that Aristotle gave such valid arguments and proof that no person ever tried to find the truth for themselves, they believed his findings that were incorrect.

That statement made by Sagredo is what Galileo wanted people to realize about his theory. Galileo wanted people to realize that even though his theory on the earth revolving around the sun is not the popular view, it can very much be true. He wanted people to try and discover their own conclusion on his theory to try and add validity to it. Galileo was basically trying to say, you cannot say a theory is wrong just because of known fact, you can only say a theory is wrong if you tested it and proved it incorrect.

Don't be a follower, be a leader

In today's society, people are told things and told not to question them. With a lot of the facts of today, this is an easy way for people to learn and absorb information. This was the same back in Galileo's time except the facts were a lot more controversial. The people of that time were told that certain theories were correct. In Galileo's "Dialogue", Galileo tries to get people to understand the concept that they should not just accept the answers that they are given at face value. They should question the answer and then should look deeper into the situation and reach the conclusion by themselves. In the "Dialogue", Sagredo explains a situation of a philosopher and nerves. “You have made me see this matter so plainly and palpably that if Aristotle’s text …I should be forced to admit it to be true” (2). Then Galileo questions Simplicio until he admits that he has never tested any of the theories that he has been told but believes them because he was told that they were fact. By forcing Simplicio to admit that he blindly accepted what he was told, Galileo proved his point that people just accept what they are told and don't seek truth for themselves. Galileo portrayed his point in what seemed to be a calm manner which would express his overall mastery and belief in his position. It also would allow him to look like the "bigger man" in his discussions which often leads more people to believe what he said. Ironically this would be against what his point was trying to make. Therefore while some people would actually get the point and search for truth, others would simply think exactly what Galileo was saying and not search for their own truth.

I truly believe that in, “The Dialogue”, Galileo is trying to portray the truth and distribute the truth to its rightful owner. I also believe that he is trying to simplify things. The way I interpreted it, in the beginning of the dialogue, it seems there is some sort of argument or disagreement over the truth and who came up with the truth. On the second page, the characters seem to disagree with the claims of Aristotle. While, Simplicio is praising the works of Aristotle-Sagredo and Salviatui are questioning his works, saying that he will praise Virgil and Ovid while he does not really acknowledge the great works of Aristotle and also saying that Aristotle is getting undeserved desire for his authority. Also, I believe Galileo is trying to persuade the reader that is not particularly difficult to understand how the universe and all of the stars, etcetera work. Also, to prove my point about distributing the truth to its rightful owner, Simplcio seems to just strip Aristotle of the guide of Philosophy and force a new owner to the guide of philosophy. I think one cannot just have the guide of philosophy be one person one minute, and then just proclaim another guide of philosophy.
I cannot say Galileo completely succeeded despite his best efforts. I would say he did not succeed because I classify myself and I still do not completely understand the universe. Also, I do not believe Galileo succeeded in distributing the truth to its rightful owner because I believe there was some uncertainty and confusion about who was the guide for philosophy.

Teaching in a normal way

In “the Dialogue” by Galileo, Galileo was attempting to explain his recent findings, in a manner that could be understood by the common people of the time. His findings were unheard of and never even thought of before he announced his ideas to the world. He was obviously a very intelligent man having developed the ideas of the earth being in motion and since he was an intelligent man he was smart enough to realize not everyone would be able to understand the science behind it. Not only not everyone but a majority of people would have great difficulty understanding his findings in other forms of presentation such as lecture or paper.
Galileo knew his findings were mind boggling and deeply troublesome to understand yet he wanted to spread his knowledge to the world. His idea was one that he knew was extremely likely to get rebuttal as well so his form of handling his was to put possible rebuttals and explanations for why they don’t work in a dialogue form which yet again is easier to understand.
Another easy way to display why Galileo chose to explain his new discovery in a dialogue manner is with teaching styles. Many students complain when their teachers simply lecture for an entire period and do not include them in discussion. Interaction while learning helps to make it less stressful and easier to comprehend due to the more normal, familiar setting, and Galileo wanted his students to learn the best way possible.

Blind Acceptance

In the Dialogue Galileo is trying to prove that people accept what has been told to them without asking for any proof, which leads to incorrect conclusions. When Sagredo uses his example of the philosopher and the nerves, the philosopher replies with “’You have made me see this matter so plainly and palpably that if Aristotle’s text were not contrary to it …I should be forced to admit it to be true.’” (2). This quote is the pivotal point in what Galileo is trying to do. He gets Simplicio to admit that he has never actually tested any of the theories, but goes believes them solely because he has been told they are true. Salviati says “You yourself are sufficient evidence that that these authorities have offered it without having preformed it, for you take it as certain without having done it, and commit yourself to the good faith of their dictum. Similarly it not only may be, but must be that they did the same thing too – I mean, put faith in their predecessors, right on back without ever arriving at anyone who had preformed it.” (11). With this Galileo is effectively proving that everyone accepts what has been told to them, and do not bother to check for themselves to see if there is any truth to the so-called facts. Galileo wants people to question what has been told to them, to try and find out for themselves if there is truth to the what is commonly accepted as such, and to look for a better explanation if there is one. Galileo wants people to think for themselves, and be open to new ideas if they are supported by fact, such as the Copernican theory. Galileo is proving the Copernican theory is correct by showing that people blindly accept what has been told to them, when they should be questioning to see if it is truth.

I think that Galileo’s Dialogue is a cleverly crafted argument. I think he was trying to prove the point that all this stuff about the earth, planet, and stars isn’t that complicated and that people who aren’t scientists should be able to understand it. To get his point across, Galileo makes has argument in the form of a dialogue. By doing this, he is able to be completely in control of how his facts and arguments are presented. He makes the arguments, the defenses, and the oppositions.

Doing this made such information available to the more common person, because it was presented as a dialogue, not a fancy scientific paper. It’s not like he hasn’t presented ideas about astronomy before. He just reforms his way of presenting it, and thus succeeds in making his point. Because a vast majority of the people of the time were convinced the Earth was not in motion, he had to appeal to more than just the few highly educated. By using the characters in his dialogue, he is able to convince more people that just because a theory is seen as true, that doesn’t make it unchangeable. Galileo was opening people’s minds to the possibility that their well accepted truths were incorrect.

No Exemptions

Galileo’s “Dialogue” discusses in great detail the factual basis of Aristotle’s texts, and other texts including Copernicus and Ptolemaic. However, even though scientific arguments dominate most of the Dialogue, I believe the point of the text is found almost immediately after Sagredo quotes a philosopher in the beginning of the exchange. “You have made me see this matter so plainly and palpably that if Aristotle’s text were not contrary to it…I should be forced to admit it to be true”(2). After this, Simplicio comments that Aristotle’s texts are so widely accepted do to “the strength of his proofs and the profundity of his arguments”(2). However, Sagredo and Salviati proceed to explain that just because a text is widely accepted does not mean that throughout the course of time, logic and reason can expand and even correct the initial theories, and in this case involving Aristotle’s hypothesis on the motion of the Earth. Salviati even proposes that had Aristotle been presented with the new theories that contradict his own texts, then Aristotle, assuming he be the logical man his texts suggest, would accept what is now being proven as truth. In effect, I believe that Galileo’s point that widely accepted doctrines are not exempt from correction is very clearly made, especially in the end of the Dialogue in which Simplicio accepts that the Earth is in motion, despite the contradiction to Aristotle.

Proving his Point

The dialogue of Galileo seemed to be entirely constructed to illustrate the point that he is trying to make in the rebuttal that we read over the weekend. However, that writing in the book is somewhat convoluted and very difficult to just pick up and read. It seems as though Galileo felt the same way and constructed this dialogue to explain his point, the objections to his point, and his explanation for those objections. The dialogue simply serves as a refined and more craftily created explanation of his theory in a method that can be easily read and interpreted. I feel Galileo does succeed in his effort to provide an articulate scientific argument through his creation of a narrative, as he is able to control the battle field. He is also able to appear more humble in his discovery and not as opinionated, as he claims when he states it as impossible for him to know exactly how the world works and simply ignorant to assume he does, but he can get closer. This also serves as a message to those who turned to God for all of their and explanations, seeming to cut off their argument. He also makes a grand statement about those hopelessly devoted to any scientist or philosopher, using Aristotle in this case, to state that anyone who follows a doctrine so blindly that they don't believe their own senses is a complete fool. He believes that if Aristotle had the evidence Galileo had, he would revise his books completely. It is subtleties like this that make Galileo's dialogue effective. He almost approaches the situation with a calmness shown by Socrates and does not insult or belittle his opponent's philosophy, but gradully brings about new evidence or points out flaws to prove his own point.

Blog Assn #20: Galileo

Please post on the following by 8 PM Tuesday night.

What is Galileo trying to do in the "Dialogue?" Does he succeed?

Galileo and His Tricks

Throughout the text of Galileo’s Dialogue on the Two World Systems, he attempts to denounce one of the systems, while promoting the other system. Yet he makes this attempt in a humorous way, trying to safeguard himself from his enemies who were trying to crush him.

Galileo has two main characters debating between a Geocentric and a Heliocentric universe. The man debating on the Geocentric side’s name is Simplicio. This name was not an accident; Galileo had a point to his name. His point was that the people in favor of a Geocentric universe were simple minded and unwilling to even consider any change to what they had known for many, many years. The other character, who is a substitute for Galileo himself, is named Salviati. This man argues that the universe is set up in a Heliocentric way. This man uses reason and science to defend his answers, while simultaneously refuting Simplicio.

What Galileo attempts to do, is show both sides of the raging debate of his time. He shows the accepted point of view, that of Simplicio’s, and of the new view, his own, which is coming under extreme criticism. By showing these different views in a funny, light-hearted way, Galileo hopes to sway some people his direction, or at least open their minds to the possibility that the old idea might be wrong. While succeeding is making a light, yet fact-ridden dialogue, Galileo gives himself away as the author by clearly promoting a Heliocentric universe. The fact that he named the Geocentric debater ‘Simplicio’ says a lot for itself.