The question on the supposed incompatibility of science and religion
Question: The question on the supposed incompatibility of science and religion started centuries ago when the two disciplines tried to answer philosophically ambiguous questions using their measures.
Quotation: Galileo said, “I find some confusion, not to say inconsistency, for he returns to the old, commonly accepted Ptolemaic system as if it were true, having earlier shown he was aware that it was false” (Lindamood, 35).
Talking Points: If there was ever a scientist who threads between the thin lines of empiricism and religion, Galileo Galilei was. He was a strong advocate for the use of measures as a method for making any claims that had to bear to any scientific venture whatsoever. The discovery of a celestial phenomenon by Galileo was a result of continuous observation and mathematically applied formula done over a while to ensure no error. As such, he went public with his discovery in 1609; it was not well received by men of science and the cloth equally. To the former members, his invention was a confrontation to the thought that their ideas of the solar system were obsolete. The Rosa Ursina was a publication made by the Jesuit scholar Christopher Scheiner attacking the credibility of Galileo as a man, then a scientist (Lindamood, 36). As for the religious circles in his day, Galileo directly confronted them on their perception of what the planets out of earth should be. A refusal by Galileo to revoke his claims led to the infamous inquest on his character in 1633. Today, we know that Galileo’s discoveries of the sunspots, spots on Jupiter, and other essential matters were a precursor to the correct definition of the extra-terrestrial system. What confounds the mind is the clash between science and religion to impugn a man, who, with his telescope, saw what others refused to see. In this course, it can be referred to as empiricism or even the initial term of observation.
Assayer by Galileo is often said to be the article that lit embers to the fire of condemnation that was to hit him in a few years. In the article, he did not back down from the opposition he faced as he used similar, if not more persuasive, formed words to respond to his critics (Lindamood, 38-39). Despite his article’s aggressiveness, he echoes many of the sentiments relevant in centuries after his life. The dispute between the two divides is often unnecessary and is a result of the over-compensation of egos of people who refuse to see the truth. For Galileo, a simple settling of his contentious issue would be for a group of the opposition council to stare into a telescope on many a starry knight. This solution was not to be as he faced oppression catastrophic in nature, which resulted in the suppression of his work decades after his death. The Medici name frequently revoked by Galileo in his writing was a family’s conquest, which had bearings to royal and religious roots with the capacity to bring faith to him. A continuous campaign by him to attract the good graces of the Medici before publishing his work, a proven fact, draws ire and humor in equal measure. It turns out that human beings are as superficial as they come, with little attention paid to the truth until it is backed by popular opinion.
The clerics who so vehemently denied Galileo and the scientist himself suffered from a similar affliction; it is prominence. His salary, one of the highest-paid in Tuscany at the time, was from the Decime Ecclesiastiche, otherwise known as taxes on church properties. The irony is a term best deemed for these circumstances as the opposing council seems to benefit from each other financially. As it looks, Galileo claims in one of his future letters to prefer to be wrong and gain a high-standing client than to stand in his truth (Lindermood, 43). Confessions like these only go to prove the conflict at his time was not necessarily a confrontational matter of right and wrong. It was more of who stood to gain the most from which perspective, quite shallow as one thinks of it. The psychoanalytical theory of Sigmund Freud is loosely used in this situation of the people of the past. Galileo and his opposition were all hostages to their desires, which were suppressed in the ideals they claimed to hold dear to them. In so doing, they propelled their status by asking for crumbs from the seats of those high in power (Lindermood, 45). Vanity, science, and measure were Galileo’s strongest attributes as well as Achilles’ heels in his lifetime.
Works Cited
Lindamood, Krystle D. A psychoanalysis of Galileo Galilei: observed personality traits as contributing factors in his condemnation by the Catholic Church in 1633. Diss. Southern New Hampshire University, 2018.
