As Scientific accomplishments continue to reach new heights it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue the case that a God truly exists. Arthur C. Clarke illustrates this idea to an extreme level in The Star, a short story centered around a Jesuit Chief Astrophysicist and his crew's mission to explore and reconstruct the events that lead up to the cause of the Phoenix Nebula, a star turned supernova that had erupted six thousand years prior. What he discovers challenges his religious integrity to its core.
The Jesuit is decorated with contributions in astronomy and geophysics, in his arguments with his crew he is quick to cite his three papers in the Astrophysical Journal and his five papers in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. He is proud to contribute to astronomy and geophysics as a man of religion, as religious faith is a continuously waning practice amongst scientists.
The crew found amusement in the chiefs faith in religion, for although they did not believe in a God, they lacked a concise answer and therefore were unable to confidently deny the existence of God. This discovery was their answer. For why would a God be so merciless and cruel? Hundreds of suns explode every year in our Galaxy, at any moment entire planets of beings would be reduced to nothing whether good or
…show more content…
He states “God has no need to justify His actions to man. He who built the Universe can destroy it when He chooses. It is arrogance--it is perilously near blasphemy--for us to say what He may or may not do.” (p. 10) this discovery clearly presents him with immense doubt, continuing to say “But there comes a point when even the deepest faith must falter, and now - I have reached that point at last.” (p.10) The Jesuit struggles to comprehend any reason for a merciful God to wipe away an entire planet full of intelligent and complex
...e way the world works. By saying this, the Cardinal does take responsibility for his actions, and the tone that he says this line in implies that he regrets his actions.
This book is more than just a series of explanations of current astronomical theories and research tools, however. Dr. Tyson injects a great deal of historical perspective as well as his own personality and humor throughout the narrative, which is what really makes the difference between text that would otherwise be just informative and a book that is engaging and entertaining to read. For example, when discussing how astronomers use the different regions of the electromagnetic spectrum, he writes, "Superman, with his x-ray vision, has no special advantage over modern-day scientists
begin with. This we call God, so we call God the prime mover i.e. the
In papal Rome in the early 16th century the “Good Book” was the reference book for all scientists. If a theory was supported in its holy pages, or at the very least not contradicted, then the idea had a chance of find acceptance outside the laboratory. Likewise, no theory no matter how well documented could be viewed with anything but disdain if it contradicted with the written word of, or the Church’s official interpretation of scripture. For these reasons the Church suppressed helio-centric thinking to the point of making it a hiss and a byword. However, this did not keep brave men from exploring scientific reason outside the canonical doctrine of the papal throne, sometimes at the risk of losing their own lives. While the Vatican was able to control the universities and even most of the professors, it could not control the mind of one man known to the modern world as Galileo Galilei. Despite a wide array of enemies, Galileo embarked on a quest, it seems almost from the beginning of his academic career, to defend the Copernican idea of a helio-centric universe by challenging the authority of the church in matters of science. Galileo‘s willingness to stand up for what he held to be right in the face of opposition from Bible-driven science advocates set him apart as one of the key players in the movement to separate Church authority from scientific discovery, and consequently paved the way for future scientific achievement.
In his Letter to The Grand Duchess Christina, Galileo challenged the widely accepted religious beliefs of the time, claiming that the conflict lies in their interpretation, not the context. In Galileo’s eyes science was an extremely useful tool that could and should have been used in interpreting the Scriptures. He argued that “the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven not how heaven goes” (Grand Duchess). The purpose of science was not to counter what the bible teaches; rather its purpose was to help explain the teachings of the scriptures. Furthermore, it was “prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak untruth-whenever its true meaning is understood” (Grand Duchess). However, because of the terminology in which the bible was presented the perception of what the Scripture defined as truth was skewed. The Bible was written so that the common man could understand it and follow its commandments. The people also showed a greater inte...
...cided to condemn Galileo’s work. 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.
Schwarz, Fred. “Not our Stars but Ourselves.” Naitonal Review Vol. 61, Nov 3 Feb 23 2009: 22-4.
began to question his faith. He thought, how could God destroy a civilization if he loved it so
In _____date_______, Galileo wrote a letter to the church addressing the church for throwing out evidence that the solar system is heliocentric. They did this because it contradicts the bible. He then counters with the fact that the bible often uses metaphors and symbolism to convey its message; therefore, it should not always be taken so literally. Then he goes on to explain that based on this, we should not use the bible to find scientific fact, but we should experiment and base our knowledge on that which we find through the senses. He stresses, however, the importance that the bible still has, and says that the bible should be appreciated for its messages rather than its statements.
Anum Munaf Dr. Caryn Voskuil PHIL-1301-83456 23 April 2017 Response Paper: Chapter 2 In Chapter two “God and the Origin of the Universe” of the book “Problems from Philosophy”, written by James Rachels and Stuart Rachels, a very interesting and contentious topic has been discussed. It is about the belief that God exists in this universe or not and this universe is created by God or it has been developed by chance. Rachels with the help of distinct types of arguments tried to prove that God exists in this world and the universe is created by some intelligent designer. At the beginning, he gave the results of recent Gallop poll and Pew Research Center polls to explain that how many people are religious and how many are non-religious.
His crew's reaction is a little different from the Jesuit's. Millions of stars are destroyed every day. They believe that many civilizations have been destroyed, but there is no rhyme or reason for it. It really doesn't matter in the end whether they have done good or evil. There is no divine justice, and there is no God. They accept the Jesuit's faith, but they are also amused by it. They wonder how he can believe in a higher power and in the workings of the universe. He replies that even though there are few Jesuit astrophysicists, since the eighteenth century they have made many contributions to astronomy.
...wever, in the best interest of advancing education and an enlightened society, science must be pursued outside of the realm of faith and religion. There are obvious faith-based and untestable aspects of religion, but to interfere and cross over into everyday affairs of knowledge should not occur in the informational age. This overbearing aspect of the Church’s influence was put in check with the scientific era, and the Scientific Revolution in a sense established the facet of logic in society, which allows us to not only live more efficiently, but intelligently as well. It should not take away from the faith aspect of religion, but serve to enhance it.
'A discovery so unexpected could only have singular circumstances, for it was not due to an astronomer and the marvelous telescope…was not the work of an optician; it is Mr. Herschel, a [German] musician, to whom we owe the knowledge of this seventh principal planet.' (Hunt, 35)
the Church strongly believed. In this paper I will explain the creation of the heliocentric
Sidney, Philip. "Astrophel and Stella." Online. Renascence Editions. U of Oregon P. 6 Apr. 1999. Available HTTP: darkwing.uoregon.edu.