This past Wednesday I attended a talk with Gregory Sloan, a Senior Research Associate in the Center for Radiophysics and Space Research. He presented a very interesting talk that I was not expecting, but was very happy to attend.
His talk was about the co-existence of religion and science. There’s a common belief (which I am sometimes a part of) that religion and science don’t mix. He shared a very interesting story about Galileo who was tried by the Roman Inquisition for Hersey because he argued that the Earth was not at the center of the universe and instead revolved around the sun. To me, this is a great example of science being stifled by religion. Those who are very religious feel personally attacked when their beliefs are challenged. As a result, they refuse to listen to evidence and only accept their beliefs. I am not a very big fan of this, as I have had personal encounters who refuse to believe scientific evidence because there is no mention of it in the bible. Moreover, these people are very intelligent, but when something challenges their religion they refuse to listen to reason. For example, I’ve had conversations about global warming and black holes with religious people. Some of them refuse to accept the many scientific sources and cite only one source – the Bible. To me, that seems like a conflict of science and religion. My question is does anyone else have examples that are either for or against me.
However, he made a point that Religion is sometimes a scapegoat for these types of discussions. Therefore, In the future I plan to make sure that I am viewing all sides of the argument and not just attacking religion.
Giordano Bruno is a complicated example. He was burned at the stake for refusing to recant his assertions that there may be other worlds besides Earth, which ran contrary to Aristotelian physics. But he also got in trouble for occult-y pantheistic theories and was only turned over to the Inquisition in the first place because an aristocrat found his teaching disappointing and felt jilted when Bruno revealed that he intended to move away to Germany. Bruno was also quite emphatic that his his theories only went against Church philosophy, not their theology (although whether he was just desperate to avoid upsetting anyone is arguable). Also consider that this was all during the Reformation, when the Roman Catholic Church was super sensitive about anyone challenging their authority. That Bruno had read forbidden texts by Erasmus and even had the gall to mention the heresiarch Arius didn’t help.
Ultimately, I don’t think Sloan was arguing that science and religion don’t butt heads, but rather that the two aren’t bound by fate to oppose each other.
That’s a very neat and interesting example, thank you for sharing.
You mentioned a good point – I agree that religion and science are not forced to oppose each other, but I do feel that they get in the way of each other a fair amount.
I think it is important to question everything you hear or read. Religion has been used to justify atrocities, but likewise so has “science”. I don’t think it is impossible to be religious and also be a scientist. Its more about your spirutual connection to your deity than convincing someone that a scientific fact does not exist.
Thank you very much for your reply. I agree, both sides have problems.