Galileo continued in his father’s rebellion against contemporary views with his support of a helio-centric-universe, a view previously argued by Copernicus, but for the most part ignored by scientists for its contradiction with the established, church-endorsed system of Ptolemy. Despite his reputation for being an enemy of the church, Galileo was... ... middle of paper ... ... these all would have been dismissed without experimentation. Instead these ideas have found acceptance regardless of Papal disdain on the basic idea that church endorsement is not a necessary step in the scientific method. Galileo’s contributions to the science of Physics and Astronomy were many. His conviction was legendary.
It was difficult for society to grasp as they have only been taught that the Earth is the center and man cannot question it. Galileo completely went against the belief of the church, and proved them wrong. He could have been seen as a nemesis or as a hero. He didn't wish to be either, but he instead just wanted the truth to be known.
However, when Galileo tried to prove his findings by giving the Church officials an opportunity to look for themselves through a telescope, the officials proclaimed the telescope as an instrument of Satan. Although Galileo did not fear the Church, it seemed as if the Church feared the possibility that it could be wrong, resulting in the Church to refuse any possible new ideas, such as coexisting with science. Galileo’s ideas represented a threat to the Catholic Church because Galileo’s ideas had the ability to cause the Church to downfall and lose its power. However, worst of all, Galileo’s ideas would have proved that the teachings the Church followed were erroneous and the faith that people strongly had in God would crumble down, resulting in the Church to lose its power.
Science and morality are conflicting and detractive (detracting? Or opposing), not additive and complementary. There is reason enough to fear the effect of evolution upon the minds of mankind. Morality is at war with science, because science menaces the world’s morals and eliminates all senses of responsibility. “God may be a matter of indifference to the evolutionists, and a life beyond may have no charm for them, but the mass of mankind will continue to worship their Creator and continue to find comfort in the promise of their Saviour that he has gone to prepare a place for them.” Amen!
While it does not discredit God’s power or the Bible, the overall tone of the scientist’s letter is quite sarcastic towards the clergy. While defending his first argument, Galileo appears to undermine the intellectual capabilities of his opponents. He implies that those who interpret the Holy Writ word for word belong to the “common people” whom he describes as “rude and unlearned”, and that other “wise expositors” should be the ones who search for the true meaning of the Bible. Galileo makes a similar implication while presenting his second argument, when he writes that the purpose of the Holy Scriptures is “infinitely beyond the comprehension of the common people”. The Catholic Church likely viewed these claims as an attempt to weaken its authority, which would explain why Galileo’s discoveries were condemned for nearly 300 years.
He did this in order to show his work of the universe. Galileo was quite bold in his challenging of the church, but does respect it as well. This does differ from Dawkins. In Obscurantism to the Rescue, Dawkins has little substance in his reasoning, and all it seems to do is dismiss religion. His dismissal doesn’t really show any new information, he dismisses religion because he enjoys it.
Scientists need to eliminate the possibility of the unexplainable in order to maintain and control group by which to measure other groups. The unexplainable I refer to are the miracles that are commonplace in all supernatural religions. Galileo lived in a time where church was state. The land was ruled according to the words of the bible, and anyone in opposition would be in contempt. Galileo's scientific findings were therefore strongly shunned by the church.
Dawkins (4), like many other proponents of science, simply believes that religion is obsolete. Learning and knowledge, he argues, will clear the cobwebs in our minds that gave rise to religion in the first place. Others have proposed science as a new agnostic religion (5) and moral system (6), praising its commitment to evidence and philosophy of deduction. Those in agreement have raised their own Big Questions (7) from within the ranks of the natural and social sciences, as well as the humanities. Discussions in the World Question Centre (8), for example, range from democracy and complexity to sustainability and fear.
To the extent that evolution is similar to other "morality policies," the battle has symbolic meaning for the mass public as well as strong implications for the power of science as a "social institution" (486). The trouble with the battle between secularists and creationists today is that it is often seen as a divide between religion and science. Failing to acknowledge any validity in the creationist argument reveals ignorance and further polarizes the nation. At the surface level, separation of church and state is simple enough: remove creationism entirely from public schools to avoid conflict. However, the moral implications are far deeper.
The theory that Galileo was advocating was considered by the Church to be heretical, and he was told several times that publishing the book would have dire consequences. His pride, his impulsive nature, his arrogance, and his love for science influenced Galileo's decision. Galileo was a scientific genius, but he was also a human. He was too proud to compromise his beliefs under any circumstances. Before we can analyze this decision, we must understand exactly what the book contained.