Galileo: an inconvenient truth?

Posted on February 5, 2008 by me

A couple of weeks ago we had a rousing discussion about the foolishness of the NAS (the National Academy of Sciences). My friend Mike responded:

In movies the old guard looks foolish. In Disney kid movies the grownups are always wrong. The “old guard” is not science, it is religion. It was religion which resisted Copernicus, not science. It was religion which resisted Bruno, not science. It was religion which resisted Galileo, not science.

This is, of course, the popular version of the story. However, today I came across an interesting retelling at The Evangelical Outpost that challenges the popular notion of the Roman Catholic Church’s resistance to science. With regard to the Copernicus story, he writes:

Although Copernicus’ fellow churchmen encouraged him to publish his work, he delayed the publication of On the Revolution for several years for fear of being mocked by the scientific community. At the time, the academy belonged to Aristotelians who weren’t about to let such nonsense slip through the “peer review” process.

This does put a slightly different spin on things so far. Then Galileo enters the picture, a smart guy, but not necessarily the first on his block to abandon Aristotle. However, to his credit he made several discoveries which challenged the Aristotelian approach, that “were warmly received by the Vatican and by Pope Paul V.” However, our friend Galileo apparently was not satisfied by mere open minds:

The Church graciously offered to consider Copernicanism a reasonable hypothesis, albeit a superior one to the Ptolemaic system, until further proof could be gathered. Galileo, however, never came up with more evidence to support the theory. Instead, he continued to pick fights with his fellow scientists even though many of his conclusions were being proven wrong (e.g., that the planets orbit the sun in perfect circles).

In fact, it seems Galileo did everything possible to get himself in trouble, finally doing so – however, not by arguing science, but theology.

Now, of course we can’t take this information at face value, because after all, it comes from an evangelical Christian blog. I mean, I questioned it myself. But, the author points to a source as none other than the International Planetarium Society. The article at their site begins:

One of the little fictions that planetarium lecturers like to tell is that of Galileo confronting the Inquisition. Accused of holding the heretical belief that the Earth moves around the sun, Galileo stands defiantly—the enlightened man of science—facing the entrenched dogma of the Church. It is a story told so often that we have come to believe it ourselves.

Unfortunately, history does not support such a picture. Galileo may not have been guilty of heresy, but he was guilty of several other things: (l) some of his scientific “facts” were wrong; (2) he claimed to have proof when no proof existed; (3) he was unaware of Kepler’s exposition of planetary motion, though Kepler’s book was in his own bookcase; and (4) he had made enemies—bitter enemies—quite needlessly.

Nor was the Roman Church the main villain in the piece. Galileo’s real enemies were the university professors.

Galileo, according to the IPS article, was “pugnacious, argumentative, and vain. He refused to believe that any of his contemporaries could be as enlightened as he.” It sounds like he would have fit right in with many of today’s pop scientists.

It’s all very interesting. According to the IPS article, Galileo, whose thinking was foundational to our modern scientific method, completely failed as a scientist, refusing to accept or even consider discoveries of others who would have confirmed his own opinions.

History is often inconvenient, which is probably why it is so heavily edited. As long as we choose to ignore history, Sting was correct: History will teach us nothing. It is convenient to paint the Church as the perennial bad guys of science; however, as the character Palmer Joss says in the movie Contact, science and religion share the goal of truth. Or, at least they should.

Posted in Faith, Science & Doubt | 3 Comments

Martin Luther’s Definition of Faith

Posted on February 5, 2008 by me

An excerpt from
“An Introduction to St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans,”
Luther’s German Bible of 1522
by Martin Luther, 1483-1546
Translated by Rev. Robert E. Smith
from DR. MARTIN LUTHER’S VERMISCHTE DEUTSCHE SCHRIFTEN.
Johann K. Irmischer, ed. Vol. 63(Erlangen: Heyder and Zimmer, 1854), pp.124-125. [EA 63:124-125]

Faith is not what some people think it is. Their human dream is a delusion. Because they observe that faith is not followed by good works or a better life, they fall into error, even though they speak and hear much about faith. “Faith is not enough,” they say, “You must do good works, you must be pious to be saved.” They think that, when you hear the gospel, you start working, creating by your own strength a thankful heart which says, “I believe.” That is what they think true faith is. But, because this is a human idea, a dream, the heart never learns anything from it, so it does nothing and reform doesn’t come from this `faith,’ either.

Instead, faith is God’s work in us, that changes us and gives new birth from God. (John 1:13). It kills the Old Adam and makes us completely different people. It changes our hearts, our spirits, our thoughts and all our powers. It brings the Holy Spirit with it. Yes, it is a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever. He stumbles around and looks for faith and good works, even though he does not know what faith or good works are. Yet he gossips and chatters about faith and good works with many words.

Faith is a living, bold trust in God’s grace, so certain of God’s favor that it would risk death a thousand times trusting in it. Such confidence and knowledge of God’s grace makes you happy, joyful and bold in your relationship to God and all creatures. The Holy Spirit makes this happen through faith. Because of it, you freely, willingly and joyfully do good to everyone, serve everyone, suffer all kinds of things, love and praise the God who has shown you such grace. Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! Therefore, watch out for your own false ideas and guard against good-for-nothing gossips, who think they’re smart enough to define faith and works, but really are the greatest of fools. Ask God to work faith in you, or you will remain forever without faith, no matter what you wish, say or can do.

Posted in Faith, Science & Doubt, Theological Musings | Leave a comment

Contact: are we better off because of science?

Posted on February 4, 2008 by me

I watched one of my favorite movies again yesterday (I was one of the 5 people not watching the Superbowl), Contact, based on Carl Sagan’s book of the same name. If you get that sense of deja vu, it’s okay… I’ve talked about the movie before. My wife hadn’t seen the movie before, and finally consented to watch it with me. She wasn’t too impressed (she’s not into science fiction), but I thoroughly enjoyed it.

I like the storyline, I like the characters, and I like the actors who play the characters (it’s much better than the book, by the way, although Sagan himself worked on the screenplay, so it’s still his story). I especially enjoy the movie’s treatment of the issues of faith and knowledge.

Early on in the film, the pop-theologian character of Palmer Joss (played by Matthew McConaughey) explains his rather subjective reasons for why he must believe that there is a God. Dr. Ellie Arroway (Jodi Foster), the scientist searching for extra-terrestrial life) responds with a simplified version of Occam’s Razer. Tell me, in what other movie could you learn about Occam’s Razer? Later on, Ellie has Occam’s Razer used against her, as she has to choose to believe what she herself cannot prove scientifically. It is an incredible portrayal of faith as something reasonable, yet unprovable (by science), especially as it was written by an atheist.

Another thing that caught my attention yesterday was when Palmer Joss is explaining a book he is writing that asks the question, “are we better off because of science?” It struck me, because it’s a question that I’ve been thinking about. Are we indeed better off now? Are we happier, more secure, more content?

I think many people would answer “yes” without giving it much thought. However, I suspect that science itself – that is, applying the scientific method of gathering and studying data – would provide otherwise. Just in the last few years, as science has made it possible for technological advances such as cell phones, e-mail, instant banking and other conveniences, we should be able to accomplish the same work in less time, and therefore have more time to recreate. However, on the average we work more. Deadlines come faster, response times are shorter, and stress is on the upswing.

Are we healthier? We’ve done away with many diseases, but I suspect that all of our insecticides, pesticides and food additives have created more disease than we have solved. We live longer, but are we happier as a result?

For whatever reason, it occurred to me some time ago that the wealthy and powerful of just a couple of centuries ago didn’t have indoor plumbing or electric lights. I can say that I’ve used real outhouses, and indoor plumbing does make me sort of happy. I know that I’m not happy when the power goes out and my computer and appliances are non-functional. But, in general, are we better off than Solomon or any other historical figure?

It’s an interesting question, isn’t it?

Posted in Faith, Science & Doubt, Random Thoughts, Reviews | Leave a comment

Webber: The Divine Embrace 4 – Romanticism & Pietism

Posted on February 4, 2008 by me

The second shift away from ancient spirituality resulted from the romantic movement and influenced spirituality toward a preoccupation with experience. –Webber, page 89

The Enlightenment (or so it has been called) resulted in a shift toward an intellectual, reasoned approach to theology, separating theology from spirituality, turning justification into a transaction of sorts, and sanctification into something to accomplish. As a reaction to this rather cataclysmic shift, romanticism arose. The Romantics rejected the analytical method of discovering truth in favor of “a more intuitive, inner experience of knowing through the imagination, the senses, passion, and the will.” Webber explains that the Romantics also emphasized a return to an organic, holistic approach to knowledge rather than the compartmentalization of science. (Sound familiar?)

While Webber says that it is hard to say exactly how Romanticism impacted 19th Century spirituality, he notes that the pietist and revivalist movements also focused on an inner, experiential knowing. Pietist William Spener in 1675 wrote that a “right feeling in the heart” was “more important than pure doctrine.” Spener also taught that a person’s faith was more than acceptance of the truth of the Gospel, it caused “Christ to dwell in the believers’ heart.” Pietism appears to be the beginnings of the emphasis on conversion as a one-time decision/experience, if not the origin of the concept itself.

Revivalism was not too far behind, connected primarily with John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards, both of whom had life-changing spiritual experiences. Wesley had a need for something more than the purely intellectual understanding he had as an Anglican priest; I’m sure we’re all familiar with his description of having his “heart strangely warmed” as he listened to Luther’s preface to Romans being read. Edwards’ experience led him to the conclusion that only through what he described as a Divine Light would “bring the soul to a saving close with Christ.” It is interesting to note that both Wesley’s and Edwards’ teachings seemed to be heavily influenced – if not driven – by their experience.

These movements, with their corresponding emphasis on holiness, differed significantly from the ancient church’s understanding of spirituality, as these later movements’ emphasis was on the individual’s experience of forgiveness, not on Christ’s experience. Baptism also shifted from identity with Jesus’ death and resurrection, to “my personal testimony” of an individual decision (Webber points out that baptism, then, no longer has any meaning).

To recap a bit, Webber has pointed out how the reformers took spirituality back from the errors of dualism and mysticism to a spirituality based again on the story of God. However, the language of the Reformation lent itself to a shift from an incarnational understanding to a transactional understanding of salvation and justification, and holiness became something separate, something based on our works rather than God’s work. As the Enlightenment all but destroyed spirituality (and theology), Pietism shifted spirituality from an emphasis on living an incarnational life (focused again on the work of God) to one based on our personal experience, our personal decision, and our personal faith.

Such was the state of the Western church as we entered the 20th Century, which we will look at next time. By the way, I am doing a very inadequate job of summarizing Webber, as I really encourage you to buy the book and read it yourself. There’s a lot more in there than I am presenting.

Posted in Church, Reviews, Webber | 1 Comment