Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

Post Reply
Switch to Forum Live View Galileo v . . . who/which/what?
3 years ago  ::  Mar 10, 2015 - 1:22PM #1
Posts: 3,779
We hear over and over about Galileo and how it was "science versus the Bible".  But that isn't really the story; that's a narrative invented for an agenda.  Scholars who have really looked at the matter see it as a clash between two "sciences" -- that of Ptolemy, which had pretty much been accepted by the Church and indeed most of the world, and that of investigation, specifically via telescope.

That doesn't mean we should forget about it, though; it actually means we should take it more seriously.  Because what Galileo was up against was a science that had been considered to fit the Bible, and so it was defended like it WAS the Bible.  Thus it wasn't interested in facts, because it believed it had the truth already.  We have a name for that:  creation science.

So it wasn't science v the Bible, it was science versus creation science.  It was science against a human invention that had been adopted as "the explanation" of the Bible, and defended as though it was the Bible.  That's the same thing we face here:  not science against the Bible, but science against "creation science", which is, again, a human invention slapped on top of the Bible and defended as though it is the Bible.  Of course Galileo's opponents didn't see that they were defending a human invention, and today's "creation science" advocates don't see it, either.

It's a good cautionary tale:  when the folks holding to "creation science" have power, real science gets stymied.  It's a battle going on in the U.S. especially.  It's why the industrial revolution didn't arise in Roman Catholic lands, but in Britain.  And on the flip side, it's why Christianity thrived in 'Protestant' lands, with a vigorous missionary movement and Christian schools and hospitals being founded and slavery opposed and more:  because they let the Bible be the Bible, and science be science, trusting in God that both tell of Him.
Quick Reply
3 years ago  ::  Mar 10, 2015 - 7:53PM #2
Posts: 4,997

Mar 10, 2015 -- 1:22PM, Roymond wrote:

So it wasn't science v the Bible, it was science versus creation science

I would take it a step further. It's about religious authority and authoritarian religious leaders vs empirical evidence

Quick Reply
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing

    Beliefnet On Facebook