Dr. Gregory Sloan, Senior Research Associate in the field of Astronomy at Cornell, weaved an intriguing story of the brilliance of Galileo’s discoveries, sociopolitical and religious implications and analyzed what might have been the fundamental core behind the trial of Galileo. Was it merely science versus religion as many would claim? Or is it more nuanced and different?

As expected considering his expertise, the first half of his talk delved into astronomy and the different models of the solar system proposed over time from Aristotle to Copernicus to Galileo. The Church, a bastion of social and educational life in Europe from the Dark Ages onwards, plays an integral role in science; particularly because it has an invested interest in making sure people adhere to what the Church says and proclaims is true. To contradict the Church would mean to undermine the institution and such heresy would be punished. The Church and much of Europe subscribed to the geocentric model, something Aristotle was responsible for. Copernicus kickstarted heliocentrism and paved the way for the current model of our solar system. Astutely aware of the repercussion of going against the Church, despite its plausibility, he published his work at his deathbed. Galileo advanced the heliocentric model as well, especially with the use of the telescope, but unlike Copernicus, Galileo openly “defied” the Church and was found to be a controversial figure.

Eventually the Church had to take action to silence him and people may say Galileo’s trial was a matter of science vs religion but as Sloan suggested, perhaps the Inquisitions may have been more for money and power. It could be a demonstration by the Church to keep the status quo and dissuade such “radical” thinking; this would further tie people to the Church and increase its power. Sloan proposed that religion itself may not be the direct opposition or counter to science as much as it is a scapegoat for other things that are in opposition to science. This notion was something that I never really considered so I appreciated his well-thought argument and evidence.

Religion is an establishment that won’t be going away anytime soon. At its core, it serves as a means of hope and structure with its codified beliefs and laws. However, I don’t think it is as simple as blaming the conservative nature of religions for its opposition against science as much as it is people being resistant to change and unwillingness believe in new ideas. Human’s desire for power and money could very will be the true opposition to science but it is shrouded in the misdirection towards religion.