The Catholic Book Club discussion
This topic is about
A Canticle for Leibowitz
A Canticle for Leibowitz
>
4. Clash between faith and science
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
John
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Sep 01, 2017 02:13PM
Mod
reply
|
flag
Part of this clash we have in the discussions between Amsbruster and Kornhear in the second part Fiat Lux.
Mod
When someone speaks about the clash of science and faith and the persecution of scientists by the Church, I ask: Name a scientist who has been persecuted because of his scientific activities. And when they answer: Galileo, I add: Name another. They have no answer, because there isn't any.
However, in this novel Walter Miller seems to accept the myth of the clash of science and faith, specially in the second and third parts.
Manuel wrote: "About this question I would say that the supposed clash between science and faith in our civilization is balderdash. The actual clash is -as it should be- between faith and atheism. The problem is ..."I totally agree with my friend Alfonseca in this question. I recomend about this question a book in which my friend is editor with his good friend the Professor Francisco Jose Soler. The book translated to English would be "60 questions about science and faith answered by 26 University Professors" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... The main problem is that this book was not translated to English (my friend can check me Kindly :-)). About the historical questions were written by a good friends of Alfonseca the brothers Sols. I totally agree with them. The only problem there was between Catholic Church and Science was the Galileo Affair. We must recognize Galileo employed a passage of the book of Josuah, besides if the Catholic Church mistook was following the greek authority. The authors are right when he said that the Greeks also condemned the thesis of Galileo (we have the case of Anaxagoras and Sokratis). I spoke about Heliocentrism the planet spin around the earth, abouth the plain earth it is a lie spread by the protestant to attack the Catholic Church.
The debate between the abbot and Dr. Cors (which the abbot continues in his mind as he lies dying) about euthanasia certainly seems contemporary! If there is no God, euthanasia seems the most compassionate thing to do, though the presence of a carousel in the death camp gave me pause!
Mod
I completely agree and your answer pretty much sweeps the field. There is so much misinformation and misunderstanding regarding Galileo, that your approach is probably much wiser than mine which has been to challenge the idea that Galileo was persecuted for his science. I've even had well educated friends assert that Galileo was executed by the Inquisition. Any attempt to correct the record is viewed with suspicion.
Mod
Galileo's case is much more complicated than it seems at first sight. He was a difficult man, who won many enemies, not just in his scientific activities (he was obsessed with priority, i.e. being the first) but also in his personal life. When Copernicus's work was put in the index of forbidden books in 1617, 76 years after it was published, the Copernican theory became suspect. Even so, Pope Urban VIII advised Galileo to publish a booklet comparing both systems (the Earth or the Sun in the center) and he did it, but putting the Pope's opinion (Geocentrism) in the mouth of a simpleton (Simplicius) who was ruthlessly defeated by his opponent. As a consequence Galileo lost the Pope's protection, and that same year he was called by the Inquisition. Regardless of his many scientific achievements, Galileo got what he had been bargaining for.
Manuel wrote: "John wrote: "mine which has been to challenge the idea that Galileo was persecuted for his science..."Galileo's case is much more complicated than it seems at first sight. He was a difficult man,..."
Unfortunately that thing that John says it is truth. There are a lot of people that they thought that Galileo was executed by the Inquisition. I think that they confuse with Jordan Bruno, who did not die by the science. He died for denying the transubstantiation. He was heretical and in opinion of Arturo Pérez Reverte was spy for the England. Galileo was judged in two ocassions by the Pope Paul V, who was a good friend of Galileo, who judged to Galileo was the prestigious Jesuit Rober Belarmine. Although the jesuits clashed against Galileo he had a defender Biancana. The heliocentism system was taught as a theorical system. They accepted the Tychus Brahe modeel, against Copernicus`s model. Certainly Copernicus dedicated his work to the Pope Paul III. The Pope Urban VIII was considered progressive, because his family Barberini was in favour of the french party, and he did not condemn the french participation in the Thirty years world. A civil germany war between catholics, and protestants. He was prisoner in his house, and i wanted this prison as a house. It was a palace. A friends of my friend Alfonseca the brothers Sols said that it is the only clash between the Catholic Church and the Science, in other scientific questions there were not any problems. The Catholic Church it was not the only who had problem with the Heliocentrism, with the ancient greeks Aristarchus was condemned by the greeks for defending the same as Copernicus, and Galileo. The Catholic Church commited the mistake for defending the greek tradition, besoides Galileo employed a biblical passages of the book of Josue. It was not necessary to prove his theory.
Mod
Galileo's case is much more complicated than it seems at first sight. He was a difficult man,..."
Exactly, but I've found that when you get into the detail it is so contrary to what is generally accepted, put simplistically, bad church persecutes (or in some cases, kills) good scientist," that you are viewed as some kind of a denier. I'm getting used to it. I like your approach.
I think that the author focuses more on the clash between people, not about science and faith per se. The monks study science and build contraptions -and even if the abbot is unsure of how fitting this work is for his monks, he stills allows it. It is the thon who expects an uproar about his optics theory clashing with the story of the rainbow after the flood, but the monks burst out laughing: Rather than a clash, he's showing an instance of an atheist scientist with great misconceptions about what catholics believe. As for the case of the doctor and the abbot in the last part, I see it less as a clash about science/faith, than as the problem of pain from the point of view of one who believes man has an immortal soul vs one who does not believe it.
Mod
I think that's right and, of course, exactly what the supposed clash between faith and science is today.
Mod
This agrees with what I said before, that there isn't a clash between faith and science, but between faith and atheism.
Manuel wrote: "Mariangel wrote: "As for the case of the doctor and the abbot in the last part, I see it less as a clash about science/faith, than as the problem of pain from the point of view of one who believes ..."I totally agree with Mari Angeles, and Alfonseca.
