In one of the more interesting Becker/ Rose Café meetings, Dr. Gregory Sloan discussed Galileo’s findings regarding the complicated relationship of science and religion. Sloan centered his discussion on the trial of Galileo and the various debates about what was at the center of our solar system. Dr. Sloan definitely has a lot of sagacity regarding the subject. Galileo discovered that the sun was in the center of our solar system and that the geocentric model that Aristotle and the church believed was anachronistic. One of the points that I thought was intriguing was when Dr. Sloan’s talked about how he thinks that people can devote themselves to science research and discovery while at the same time remaining committed to religious practices. Many people believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive, but I agree with Dr. Sloan’s opinion. Another topic discussed was climate change. Sloan related climate change to the Galileo vs Church debate when he talked about how companies effected what the public knew about harmful emissions into the atmosphere and how they are an environmental issue. This was a very interesting parallel to tie together the lecture.

Dr. Gregory Sloan, a Senior Research Associate at the Center for Radio-physics and Space Research here came to talk to us about science versus religion, a hotly debated argument when it is debated. It is always intriguing when this is contested, especially for me because I am religious to a certain extent, but I am a science major. Often times when working with other to-be-scientists, I am usually the only one who identifies strongly with a religion and I find it fascinating.

While we did not directly address questions that I wanted answers to, we did discuss Galileo’s trial, including the politics, sociology, and religious turmoil in regards to his very scientific discoveries. We focused on whether this was really a debate on science versus religion, or something much more.

We talked about the solar system and its previous models (which was nostologic, because I learned a lot about space when I was little and loved every minute of it. It’s quite unfortunate that I can’t take an astronomy class here.) Galileo came up with the heliocentric model in direct opposition of the geocentric one, aggravating the Church as well, which was very prominent at the time in everything. (It was interesting that Dr. Sloan said that monetary power and social influences gave the church its power because in my seminar on power, inequality and happiness, we touched upon the fact that sometimes “God” reinforces power and social classes due to the fact that some receive it as a sign that they’re doing well, or give them hope. It’s a great class and if you’re interested, I recommend it.)

In summary, Galileo was not attacking the Church; they just wanted the last say. The Church wanted to remain in control of the people, the money and the status. This was wrong of them, especially since Galileo was right and gave new light to what space is actually like. He was not trying to undermine the Church but rather enlighten people.

Last week Wednesday, I attended the Rose Café event with guest speaker Gregory Sloan. Sloan talked about the relationship between religion and science and how it has influenced key events throughout history. In particular, Sloan discussed the incident between Galileo and the Catholic church. The Catholic church denounced many of Galileo’s astrological findings and even put him under house arrest. Sloan stated that while it may be easy to put the all the blame on religion for the church trying to stifle Galileo’s ideas, there are other underlying factors that led the church to do what they did.
I found this talk to be very interesting. I always hear about how religion and science have always been fighting each other throughout history but Sloan says that this is not always the case. In the case of Galileo, Sloan suggests that the Catholic Church’s concern about their power was also a factor in their decision to stifle Galileo. I think that Sloan was just trying to get us to always look at problems in history from other views, as everything may not always be as black and white as they seem, especially when religion and science are involved. It is nice to know that I am not the only one who believes that science and religion can exist together.

Mr. Sloan made some pretty interesting arguments about how in the case of Galileo religion was not the enemy. I think this very much depends on what definition of religion we use. Was Galileo convicted because he was challenging the word of God? I don’t think so. But one definition of religion is “an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group.” (Merriam-Webster) Under this definition, I think his trial very much was a matter of science versus religion. Galileo was challenging the beliefs of essentially the whole world. People don’t like to be wrong, they don’t like to be told they’re wrong, and more than anything people don’t like change. Right or wrong people will cling to their way of life and refuse change until it is forced upon them. Galileo knew he was right and maybe he thought he could spark the change in people’s minds. In that regard, at least, he was wrong. Was Galileo fighting against the Catholic Church? Perhaps, perhaps not. Was Galileo fighting against religion? I believe he was.

This week’s Becker-Rose Café featured Gregory Sloan, a senior research associate working in the Department of Astronomy here at Cornell. He led a casual discussion about the relationship between science and religion, which I found to be surprisingly interesting. Mr. Sloan began by talking about the trial of Galileo in 1633. This particular case is often used as a prime example of science being stifled by religion.

However, Mr. Sloan suggested that science and religion weren’t the only factors at play. Instead, human resilience to change might have had a role in the Galileo trial. The Church likely wanted to keep its power by dissuading people from presenting new and opposing ideas. Galileo’s proposition of a heliocentric model disturbed the existing state of affairs because people had believed that the sun revolved around Earth. During the talk, Mr. Sloan implied that people probably wanted to continue feeling like they were at the center of the universe. As a result of this human tendency, Galileo was silenced for his views.

I enjoyed this talk because it didn’t pit science against religion. Mr. Sloan treated both sides fairly and never tried to sway the audience with his personal views. I left the discussion with a greater appreciation for the importance of both science and religion.

If someone had asked me before the talk with Gregory Sloan, I doubt I ever could’ve found a link between Galileo and global warming. However, after listening to the professor talk, he connects to dots between a religious persecution on science to the modern day special interest against global warming.

Centuries ago, Galileo discovered that Earth was not in fact the center of the universe. His theory was that the sun was the center and all the planets orbited it. The church didn’t respond too kindly to this because it completely contradicted scripture and challenged their ideals. Eventually, the Roman Catholic church put Galileo on trial and threatened to exile him if he didn’t take back his scientific theories. Eventually, he retracted. This was only the tip of the iceberg of people in power challenging proven scientific facts because it conflicts with their personal interest.

This brings us to global warming. Whether someone believes in it or not, global warming has (according to the professor) been completely proven. However, the country, and the world, doesn’t really seem to be doing anything about it. This is because the corporate world doesn’t like to be environmentally regulated and are throwing everything they can against the cause. I rarely give thought to global warming because I’m usually preoccupied with prelims and what I’m going to eat for dinner, but for once I sat and thought about the consequences of our actions, and why we aren’t doing too much about it.

History repeats itself, and it has been displayed over and over again that change takes time and is usually followed by a facepalm of “why didn’t we do this sooner”. I hope eventually we trust science and change our ways for the better.

I thought that Mr. Sloan’s presentation on the trial of Galileo was very well done and pretty interesting.  One reason for this is that I’m simply fascinated with how all of these different astronomers arrived at their various conclusions, which Mr. Sloan explained rather well.  I’m a physics major, so this stuff is right up my alley.  Another reason why I found the talk to be thought-provoking is that it spoke to an issue that resonates with me personally.  I come from a somewhat religious family and went to a Jesuit high school, where religion was at the center of the education.  So the idea of whether science stands opposed to religion has been somewhat answered for me through my experience–as far as I can tell, the answer is no.  My education has been something of a testament to that.

But anyway, back to Galileo.  I ultimately do agree with Mr. Sloan’s conclusion with regard to the Galileo case.  It appears to me that political and other cultural factors played a much bigger role in the opposition to Galileo’s heliocentric model than any sort of religiously substantive dispute did.

Wednesday I attended the Becker/Rose cafe. This week Gregory Sloan was the main speaker and he offered some interesting insight to how astronomy and religion have interacted over time. As someone who studies plants, it is not very often that our research or theories come in conflict with religious views. Except for maybe genetically modified foods. So it was very interesting to hear the perspectives that were presented.

I thought this was a very interesting talk, even though I thought I would be hearing a lot more about Galileo and his trial. However, our speaker offered a lot of views on how religion and science haven’t always been arguing and how in many cases there are simply misunderstandings. One thing I found interesting is the change in funding for education and science. Back in Galileo’s time, the church provided most the funding for research and education. Where as now, much funding comes from private sources or the government. So back then, almost no research that would contradict the church was conducted, and nowadays, our research is so varied that there is always something going on that isn’t received very well. It is interesting to hear about the differences between then and now.

Overall I thought our guest was a very good speaker and he gave a very interesting talk. I wish it hadn’t been during prelim season.

Prof. Sloan’s talk last Wednesday about the trial of Galileo explored the question of contradictions between religion and science. I agree that in the case of Galileo it seems as much a question about the power of the church as an institution as religion in itself (although those are deeply intertwined). One point I appreciated from the talk was Prof. Sloan’s suggestion that people can commit themselves to science and the advancement of scientific research and discovery while at the same time remaining personally religious. As Prof. Sloan noted, this position is not only respectful of individuals’ differing beliefs but also constructive of an environment that enables discussion of the divergences between scientific and religious thought among people of diverse backgrounds and beliefs. A student group on campus recently was handing out free copies of a book which (I think, I haven’t read it) explores this question – religion in a scientific age. I wonder if anyone else received or read the book – it probably could add to this discussion by providing further examples of ways in which religion might coexist with, or challenge, science.

Gregory Sloan’s talk was very different than I expected. I assumed the Café would be focused on the history of the events surrounding Galileo’s trial, but I was pleasantly surprised by how much Professor Sloan broadened the discussion. He was an engaging lecturer, and I enjoyed how he integrated astronomy with history and current events. I was also impressed by how knowledgeable he was on the subject, considering his background has almost nothing to do with what he ended up talking about.

His opinion on the traditional “battle” of science versus religion made a lot of sense to me. While I don’t think that the conflict between science and religion can be written off in all cases, it does seem to be a simplification of deeper issues that mostly go ignored. In a time when science increasingly plays a role in the average person’s life, the idea that science and religion don’t have to be mutually exclusive is important. I appreciated Professor Sloan sharing his perspective with us, and he definitely made me consider possibilities that I hadn’t before.

On Wednesday’s Becker-Rose Café, Professor Gregory Sloan of Cornell’s Department of Astronomy came to give an interesting talk about science versus religion. His example was none other than Galileo with his famous model of the solar system. Before Galileo, people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and stars and extraneous planets orbited around the planet. However, there was a phenomenon, in where Venus would move forward and back in the sky, which could not be explained by the existing geocentric model of the solar system.

And Galileo sought to understand this phenomenon in detail, which later led to proposal of the heliocentric model. But unfortunately, the heliocentric model was not well accepted since it was seen as a direct attack on religious beliefs. The bible and other religious literature emphasized the Earth as the center of all creation, and the Church thought it to be risky to have scientific evidence ruin this claim. But as stubborn as he was, Galileo refused to refute his studies and continued to publish and work for science. He was ultimately put on trial for his work.

I think it’s interesting to see how the debate between science and religion has developed over time. Back in Galileo’s time, the Church was responsible for funding most of the education and I can clearly see why the Church would be worried to fund studies that went against their beliefs. That being said, I tend to put my trust in scientific evidence because it shows that there has been research and documents trends that have been observed over time. Though I do not doubt religious beliefs, I personally, tend to prefer solid date and Professor Sloan’s talk definitely recapped and reinforced some of these ideas.

I’ve always loved science and mathematics and I was very excited when I heard the topic for the next Becker/Rose cafe series discussion was going to be about science vs. religion. The speaker was Dr. Gregory Sloan who works in the Astronomy department. We started off with learning about some major contributors to astronomy starting with Ptolomy. The discussion then turned towards the time of Galileo and his relationship with the Catholic church at the time he was publishing his ideas. Before Galileo everyone in Europe believed that the earth was the center of the universe. In fact, I’m not sure that they understood they had a concept of the universe. It was more of the fact that to them, everything revolved around the earth. It is interesting that astronomers in the ancient times went along with the geocentric theory even though they found compelling data that poked holes at the theory. One of the major reasons that the geocentric  theory was believed to be true for such a long time was because the Catholic church was a major contributor to research in science. In addition, the church believed that the earth was the center of all creation, because that was the story that fit perfectly with the Bible. If the astronomers came up with a theory that contradicted the church’s beliefs their lives would be at risk. Galileo entered this world with his telescope and he had compelling reasons why the earth was not the center of everything. Although it contradicted with the Catholic church’s teachings Galileo went on to publish his theories. I was already aware of most of the things that were discussed so I did not find the discussion particularly interesting. I had hoped we would delve more into modern science and religion.

The discussion today involved the seemingly historical battle between science and religion. Although the Church today may be very progressive in terms of the sciences, there seemed to be a flaw in the argument that religion has not always historically opposed scientific progress; the first ten minutes of the talk was listing historical situations in which the Church was directly opposed to scientific progress. Although the Church itself may have changed, there is still a significant portion of the religious community that opposes some scientific progress, just as there is a significant portion of the scientific community that does not believe in religion. To say that they are mutually exclusive would be a disservice to religion; however, there does seem to be a disconnect between these two groups. It is possible, as mentioned by a few students, that people’s denial of certain scientific findings could be more of a personal wish for consistency rather than a religious reason. Either way, I believe that saying there is no opposition between religious and scientific communities in our society would be incorrect and a disservice to both.

The Becker-Rose Cafe Series event with Gregory Sloan was very fascinating. The event began with a mini history lesson in regards to Galileo, who of course was forced to recant many of his scientific discoveries because they ran counter to the teachings and beliefs of the church. This set the stage for a more general discussion in regards to science vs. religion. As a non-religious person myself, I have always been bothered when people try to discredit scientific discovery and data on the grounds of the words in a religious text or the tenets of a religion. In fact, Gregory Sloan spent quite some time emphasizing the importance of data; science’s credibility is derived from data, and data, if collected in a non-biased and appropriate manner, is often indisputable.

However, I thought Gregory Sloan’s approach to the topic of science vs. religion was interesting and in all likelihood, the best approach. He stated that as human beings, we too often attempt to pit science and religion against one another, when in reality, they can absolutely coexist. Some very brilliant scientists on this earth are highly religious, and we shouldn’t view that as problematic. It is definitely plausible that religion provides one with a spiritual connection with an or some entities, and perhaps this can lead to a healthier existence. Science provides a structured and data-driven way to explain much of the phenomena on this planet and beyond, but I suppose certain questions are answered better through religion.

When I went to hear Professor Sloan talk about whether the trial of Galileo was of science or religion was expecting to hear much more about this specific case. Instead he presented us with a very brief history in order to set up for a discussion. I found what he presented about Galileo to be quite interesting, for example his theories about the world not being geocentric but rather being heliocentric and the data that Galileo had to back this statement. I also found it interesting that Galileo was placed on house arrest even though he recanted what he had previously said. I think I would have liked to hear a bit more about how this case was science or religion and the ideas that others have presented in this. I usually do not enjoy history as I am more of a science person, however this is one aspect of history that I have always found interesting due to its revolutionary nature.

I find it interesting how we as humans are so apt to believe whatever the newest theory or idea is or whatever makes humans seem the most important. With the earth being geocentric, people believed it and it made us look important. When Galileo presented the idea that the Earth instead revolved around the sun, people thought it was ridiculous and absurd, however it is right. But if the world revolved around the Earth, humans were not that important, or at least not as important as people thought we were. this idea, I believe was a trial by a government highly influenced by religion that had little to do with science.

Professor Sloan’s talk about the trial of Galileo Galilei and whether it may be considered evidence for a conflict between religion and science may not have been the most groundbreaking look at the subject, but it was interesting nonetheless. Providing animations were quite helpful in demonstrating how retrograde movement was key to the debate between the geocentric and heliocentric theories.

But I was was pleasantly surprised to find that his opinions on the supposed religion-science divide mirrored my own. Yes, religion is typically conservative and dogmatic, but it acts more as fuel for the fire of social movements rather than the actual kindling at its heart. Rarely do believers follow all the precepts of a faith in its original form to the letter. Reinterpretation and selective attention are legion. And it is when new eyes look upon old material that a new species of logs are thrown in the hearth. The nature of the fire will be determined by these logs, yet without the lighter fluid of faith, the fire would never burn as passionately, persistently, or fiercely.

In a time where I believe that religion is coming under fire more frequently for supposedly inhibiting scientific progress I believe Professor Gregory Sloan’s discussion on the trial of Galileo was a refreshing change of pace. For me he brought to light many facts about that trial and the era that are not well publicized and not considered by critics of religion. Foremost among these was perhaps that the Church of the Medieval era was not, as many seem to believe, an institution that held back intellectual progress. To the contrary, as Professor Sloan stated, the Church was essentially the source of all intellectual progress at the time, as it funded almost all educational institutions and libraries. Another important point I thought he made was that the idea that the earth was the center of the universe did not have its origin in the Bible or the Church. In fact, it had been the idea of one of the most respected Ancient Greek philosophers Aristotle, and had only been applied to the Bible by a Christian philosopher centuries later. I also thought that his commentary on the recent scientific debates was particular insightful. Despite direct evidence of the harmfulness of Tobacco, CFC’s, and CO2 emissions, it has taken years for the public to accept them and Professor Sloan pointed out that this was due to not only those corporations that had a vested interest, but also human nature’s natural desire to not want their worldviews disrupted. Overall, I think that this talk brought up ideas that are important to recognize for both the religious and nonreligious when discussing the theme of Science vs. Religion.

Last Wednesday, Dr. Gregory Sloan joined us for our weekly Becker-Rose Cafe series. Dr. Sloan is a senior Research Associate at the Center for Radiophysics and Space Research at Cornell University. He focused on the history of struggles between science and religion. I found this discussion very interesting, and he talked about the well known case of Galileo and his theory of the sun being the center of the solar system.   However, one theme that caught my attention, and that has come up over and over again in our Becker Rose Cafe discussions is climate change. This time, we discussed the reasons why action is slow.

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.

I’ve always been fascinated with the vast unknown beyond the planet Earth.  As a kid, I loved it when my science classes occasionally took a trip to the school planetarium because I would get to look at the stars and planets and I especially enjoyed the Greek mythology behind the constellations.  One particular visit, we learned about the geocentric and heliocentric models of the solar system and how those theories evolved.  Galileo lived during a religiously strict period and he was often shamed for his ideas.  At the Becker café this week, we had a chance to learn more about the science-religion debate between Copernicus, Galileo and the Church from Dr. Gregory Sloan.

The struggle between science and religion has existed for a long time.  Scientific research was often ignored by the Church and each party tried to explain their beliefs to the other.  Dr. Gregory Sloan took on a different perspective and suggested that perhaps religion did not counter science, but rather it acted as a scape goat for the unexplainable aspects of science.  People may have been skeptical to adopt a scientific view of the world if they had lingering questions that could not be answered.  Religion was able to address these questions because everything was attributed to God.

Furthermore, people were afraid of change.  They had believed Copernicus’s theory that the planets revolved around the Earth for their whole lives and were very hesitant to accept Galileo’s suggestion that the planets actually revolve around the sun.  It was a completely different theory that they one they had come to know as fact.

While religion and science are often pitted against each other, it is more the human tendency to resist change that causes these conflicts.  People like familiar things and are uneasy when everything they had ever known is put into question.  Religion and science should be able to co-exist because while science can explain many natural phenomena, religion provides the structure of hope and security that some individuals need.

I thought the Becker-Rose Cafe this past Wednesday was very interesting. I could only stay for about half the time, but I’m glad I did because I feel like I learned a lot from what Professor Sloan had to say. Strangely enough, though, the thing that resonated with me the most about what Professor Sloan shared about Galileo wasn’t particularly related to astrology or theology at all. In fact, it had to do with sheer resilience and sticking with something one believes in. Obviously a very intelligent man, Galileo tried something that others hadn’t ever thought to try before: “taking a telescope and looking up,” as the professor put it. By doing so, this 17th-century man made the discovery that the Earth was indeed round and wasn’t the center of the universe after all, thus challenging everything people of his time believed in. This fact that Galileo didn’t let what others thought of him snuff out his beliefs was the thing that stuck out the most to me. He had an idea, he supported it, and he ran with it, which I think is a lesson that can be applied to anyone, especially people at a place like Cornell.

And, for the record, I did learn some pretty cool facts about space that I hadn’t previously known, such as the fact that Venus is never more than 47 degrees away from the sun and that retrograde movement of the planets is just a matter of perspective. I really enjoyed this cafe, and I’m glad I could get a life lesson out of it, too!

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.

I attended Gregory Sloan’s cafe chat regarding religion and planetary models/the solar system. And while this was all very interesting to me, as I am a huge fan of the sky and exploring what’s out there, the most fascinating this to me was the planetary orbitals. I have not taken a science class that covers the solar system since about 7th grade. Therefore, learning more about the orbitals and what thinkers such as Copernicus believed and discovered was incredibly fascinating to me. For example, the graphics that Sloan shared with us which he called simple I found to be incredibly interesting. Specifically, I don’t think I ever knew that the reason that the planets look like they are tracing back in the sky over the course of a year is because of our perspective on earth. I did know that all the planets orbited but I truly never made the connection between how different orbiting planets interacting and how that would shape our perspective on earth.

Thus, this simple, yet to me very complex idea, really taught me something I never considered before. Next time I look up, I will definitely be considering our perspective and how where we are on the moving earth and where the planets are in their orbitals is shaping our viewpoint.

The debate of science versus religion has been one heavily discussed and debated for centuries, going back to the days where science was just beginning and the Pope reigned supreme.  The idea has always been that the two clash and that religion is anti-science and vice versa.  Dr. Gregory Sloan however took a fresh take on this age old conflict.  The basis of his argument was that religion does not counter science but instead is a scape goat for the real things opposing science.  It was interesting to hear this talk as it is not something I think about often.  I am a science major from a religious family and yet I have never though about the irony and history of science and religion.  It was refreshing to hear an argument that did not pit science and religion against each other, but instead chose to look at other possible oppositions.  While many religions tend to be on the conservative side it is not fair to claim that that conservativeness is the reason religious people oppose science.  According to the most religious documents, plastic, pork, and other commodities are sins.  So how can someone eating a hot dog and sipping soda out of a plastic cup claim that they don’t believe in a scientific theory because of religion?

Simply put, there are many other reasons people do not want to believe in a scientific theory.  As Sloan suggested, the Galileo’s famous Inquisitions may have been more for money and power than for religion.  Psychologically, it has been found that people do not like change, they like things to stay consistent.  This means that if there is a new scientific study that completely undermines everything they have known, they are less likely to instantly believe it and are more likely to claim it is false.

Many people are always going to want to believe in something so they turn to religion, but there is no denying that science has an important role in modern society.  I believe the two do not add or take away from each other.  Religion gives people something to believe in about what is beyond us and what comes after this world while science provides answers and truths about the world around us.