Rhetoric 3302 Questions

Chapters 7&8: And so, the debate between science and religion continues. Although the "science" aspect is not really about evolution anymore - it has extended into discussing the origin / make-up of the planetary system! I am amazed at how well the concepts of science and religion can continue to oppose each other! However, the different theories that were discussed (such as Copernicans) were kind of interesting. I had never thought of the sun as literally being "God." Or the fact that Christ was a "shell of fixed stars." I had always thought of God and the Holy spirit as being present in the sky - but not beyond our atmosphere.

Chapters 7&8: Well the debate between science and religion continues. Although the science aspect of things have turned there course from evolution to well the orgin and the make-up of the planatary system. Clever!! It amazes me in the aspect that science and religion can still oppose each other so much!! I thought the different theories that were discussed were very interesting!! The contraversey of Copernicans and Ptolemy was pretty interesting to hear the different aspects of how they see science and religion. I thought it was scetchy when people said that God is only up in the sky and he can't be everywhere, but now this notion that God can be in the sun, stars, and beyond our atmosphere is pretty intense!! Not alone maybe even impossible!! If that where the case that God was in our atmosphere why don't we have evidence that there is more out there other then our planets that we know of!!?? Why can't God give us a sign that there is more out there or give us the technology to be able to go farther into our universe and atmosphere??!! I still don't understand why this conflict between science and religion is so hard to find a medium that they both agree on!! Galileo actually had views that explained how the findings of science should be related to the Bible!! In the Bible they talk about sunrise and sunset and how the Bible got that from the point of view of geocentrism!! But science also talks about the sun, stars and how they came about so in a sense science and religion talk about the same general topic sometimes!! It just does not make sense to me why they are so contraversal when they have pretty much some of the same ideas like one or two of there ideas are the same!! Those are my comments and questions about these chapters!!

Truth is, whenever I looked at this period of history I never placed the Scientific Revolution and the Reformation at the same time, I never paused to compare the dates and places involved and link the two together. They are linked though, and they fed off of each other, the Copernican heliocentric theory is just another innovation of those 'damned' Protestants up in Germany. First the do away with indulgences, then the Church, and now the Earth isn't even the center of the universe. I think I understand the reaction to Galileo better now because of this context. Galileo is a threat to orthodoxy not only because he dares to contradict the Bible and the Church, but the threat is greater because he is an Italian taking up the views of a German from the same place as Martin Luther and to let him teach is to have him teach heresy in the heartland of the Church. Not that the trial and imprisonment of Galileo is justifiable, only more understandable.

Josh brings up a good point, I too never realized that the Scientific Revolution and the Reformation took place in the same time period. I always thought of them as separate, whoops. It makes me wonder if Galileo had his ideas a little earlier or a little later, would it have been such a big deal? Or was it meant to oppose the church since it deemphasizes the Earth's importance, and if you take the Bible literally, goes against the Bible. But I think it's fair to say that most people, regardless of religion, accept that fact that the Earth revolves around the sun, right? Well, what if you look at evolution in the same way. Evolution deemphasizes human's importance (or greatness) and if you take the Bible literally, goes against the Bible. The church in general opposes the idea of evolution, similar to the church opposing the idea of a heliocentric model. It does make you wonder if a few hundred years from now evolution will just be a commonly accepted idea just like the Earth revolving around the sun.

The Copernican Revolution:
Thinking back to last week’s readings and Augustine’s discouragement of worldly knowledge, here is a perfect example of its relevance. Having an understanding of the heliocentric universe enables advancement of several related disciplines. However, the controversy and response to Copernicus were blown out of proportion in my opinion (maybe not for this time). During the time of the Copernican revolution, the church’s power had a major constraint on the growth of knowledge. Kepler had a fair perspective on Copernicus and a heliocentric universe. He said that “scripture is written in common language for universal understanding and is not to be taken as a textbook of science.” Although I think that Copernicus’s followers and opponents could have reached a middle ground, the upheaval had a strong influence on later generations.

Galileo Galilei:
The pattern of the church’s censorship seems to take one step forward, then one step back, and so on. IT seems like Galileo incorporates his religious beliefs so that he is not accused of heresy and still permitted to continue researching. When I read these articles, I cannot help but relate them to modern day issues. Stem cell research faces major boundaries in advancement. Evolutionary theory has difficulty making its way into biology classrooms. All of these related issues serve the purpose of bettering our lives through expanding knowledge or improving our health, and they do not seek to contradict the bible.

Copernicus: The Roman Church was a rigid power structure, was jealous of its influence, and quick to supress alternate thought. Like any regime or power base, anything which is seen as challenging to the officials or the bureacracy is a potential usurper. The idea and practice of power is addictive, and creates a paranoia which is as irrational as it is necessary to the continuation of control. The Church saw the new science, including the works of Copernicus and Kepler as a direct threat to its operation, and the beliefs sanctioned by the Church. By challenging specific beliefs that are preached by the Church, the scientists are challenging the opinion of the Church. And since the Pope and the Church is infallible, that essentially means that if the Church is wrong in ANY way, it would unravel the very fabric of control and power which enables its continuance. If memory serves, after it was published, De Revolutionibus was added to the infamous Index Librorum Prohibitorum. I think that if Copernicus had not died shortly after publishing his work, his fate may have been the same as Galileo. Unfortunately for science, the Roman Church moves very very slowly in reforming its views. Only with time could the Church twist its beliefs, to prevent the ultimate questioning of its power, and gradually accept the obviously accurate work.
Galileo: First, I'd like to say that while Galileo's trial and scientific actions are legendary, there is one philosopher who perhaps better deserves the position of the ultimate confrontation between religion and logic or science, and that is Giordano Bruno. He is a genius, his works are marvelously astute and his methods are exceptional. The Church took offense and burned him in the early 1600s. And instead of recanting as did Galileo, his last public words after he was sentenced to death by fire were: "Perhaps you, my judges, pronounce this sentence against me with greater fear than I receive it." May I just say: Go Bruno! If any of you can find a copy of some of his work (they are hard to find), read them. Ahem. On to Galileo. His work with experimentation was very important, and I think often understated in light of the later conflict with the Church. He made several important discoveries, especially in the field of physics. It is really a shame that they broke Galileo of his will. I do not think I will ever understand why religious zealots are so unwilling to hear or discuss alternate possibilities. If evidence or a rational dialectic were presented to me, offering proof or at least a strong possibility for an alternative viewpoint from my own, I have and would be very willing to change my opinion given the new information. Perhaps the staunchest of us resist change in order to make their lives easier. Or perhaps they resist change to preserve their own (false) sense of power and understanding.

In Chapter 7, "The Copernican Revolution", once again we are battling with the ideas between science and religion. In this chapter, it mainly focused on how the planets and the sun were linked. I thought it was very interesting to see what they had thought so long ago. Another interesting part in this chapter was when a Lutheran clergyman, Andreas Osiander took charge of proofreading and warning the people about Copernicus's hypotheses. I don't understand why he would warn them. It is just a hypothesis. It doesn't mean that it is true yet. Further on, it goes on to say that Osiander took out the passage that implied that God had created and placed the planets as he did. I think it should of been left in there. Why would they take that part out, when they already warned the readers that this might be false information? I thought that a good point was made when it was mentioned that the Scripture was written in common language for universal understanding and it shouldn't be taken as a textbook of science. Along with that a famous quote, "the Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go". I think this is true. The Bible does have scriptures that possible do define the nature of the world, but sometimes we should be able to try and use science to further explain the world.
In Chapter 8, "Galileo Galilei", I became very interested in reading about Galileo. I never knew too much about him and his works until now. I thought those were clever and interesting ways of how Galileo tested his theories; such as, his major discoveries of classic physics. Even though he proved almost everything of Aristotle's theories to be wrong, he certainly brought a lot of attention to himself from angry and supporting people. Particularly the Roman Catholic Church took action in what Galileo was preaching. But really, if Galileo didn't make any discoveries like he did, how would our view on science be today. Would we be learning about gravity like we do now? Even though sometimes we have to go further to find information, along with stepping on people's toes, we can see it really does pay off. People discover wonderful things, like Galileo did, and we should learn to accept those. Religion and science have their issues with each other, but we should be more willing to look into each side with an open mind. You never, we might actually discover and learn something, like Galileo did.

Einstein said "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Both Coppernicus and Gallileo came from the wrong time. As it said in chapter 8, if he would have been born a century either way, the Gallileo Affair would never have amounted to anything more than a foot note. While Aristotolism served a great purpose in propelling scientific thought and process into the realms of everyday life and even into religion, by the time Coppurnicus and Gallileo came about it was quite antiquated and rather over used. It had become a crutch, as stated in chapter 6, when a scientific question was proposed, philosophers would scramble to the writings of Aristotle, a guy dead some millenia prior. Gallileo was more a victim of a change in politics than religious zeal. As Christiandom was reeling from the reformation. Catholisim was trying to shore up its power with the Council of Trent not allowing lay people the opportunity nor the right to interpret the Bible. Theologians and natural philosophers of the time, to paraphrase Augustine's words that to study anything that is not for a higher purpose is just a waste of time is enough, but Gallilea made the mistake of, by necessity, including the sun, which had been explicitly described in the scriptures in a certain way. without out proof, gallileo projected as theory, not hypothosis that the sun was fixed not the contrary biblical ratating concept held by early Christian scholars.

I found the debate surrounding Copernicus’ hypothesis of a heliocentric universe interesting. Particularly amusing was the way that some “were convinced that astronomers used fictional circles in their modeling of the cosmos and that these were not to be confused with the actual physical reality sought by the professors of philosophy”. Clearly, this approach is quite different from that widely accepted by most academic professionals today. In fact, who gets to claim themselves “scientific” (meaning someone in the pursuit of truth through logic) has changed over the centuries. The interpretation of religious documents was the dominant “science” (or search for the ultimate truth) at one time, and the search for non-religious explanations was based on “faith” that other possibilities might exist. It was also interesting to note throughout the reading that defenders of Copernicus were in no way out to pick a fight with religion, and in fact were themselves often pious. I think John Paul II viewed the debate correctly when he repeated that “the Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go”, and that Galileo had been a better theologian than those opposing him.

I was surprised by the account of how things actually transpired between Galileo and the Roman Catholic Church. This means that the simplified version of history that is taught in schools doesn’t acknowledge the complicated circumstances surrounding the introduction of Galileo’s ideas, instead opting to blame it on the church’s “opposition to truth”. One thing I found particularly interesting was the way in which Galileo came into conflict with the Aristotelian natural philosophers of his time before he came into conflict with the church! The way in which “scientists” of the time would simply defer to Aristotle’s work to answer new scientific questions demonstrates that Aristotle’s work was viewed as a sort of ultimate “reference guide” to the universe. Galileo’s challenging of traditional science irked scientists just as much as his challenging of traditional Biblical interpretation upset the church!

The point made about the Bible as a tool for greater religious understanding and not as a tool to determine the physical nature of the universe it extremely important. Even today, there are differing views about the scientific validity of the Bible. I would argue that the Bible, even if it were inspired by God, could NOT be written with honest scientific accuracy, because the people of the time would have been wholly incapable of deciphering it. To write it accurately, God would have to brief entire populations on the shape of the earth, the relationship of the earth to the sun and the solar system, the fact that the solar system is one of countless in the universe, and the fact that cosmological forces have been acting upon the earth for billions of years (to name a few). Clearly, the Bible had to be written as it was, and it had to be scientifically incorrect by its very nature. One could also argue that since the people at the time had basically no scientific understanding of the world, that these limitations of course led this man-made book to represent the false assumptions of the time.

Copernican Revolution & Galileo Galilei

Although I highly believe in God, I also believe in many aspects of science. This chapter demonstrates the need for science in this world. Without it, who knows when people would have realized that the sun revolves around the earth, instead of Copernican’s original idea that the earth revolves around the sun. Pope Benedict XIV even believed in the heliocentric idea at the time. Also, it is mentioned that Galileo discovered the law of the pendulum, which brought about the construction of accurate clocks. We all know clocks and time are a way of life. Everyone’s life is based on what time it is. It mentions that this new invention allowed the navy to see approaching ships sooner and new observations could be made of the night sky. The pendulum was quite an important discovery.
As Julia said, the Roman Church moves extremely slowly in reforming its views. This is demonstrated with Galileo’s Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina, when he tries to explain the Bible is incorrect when it states the sun moves and the earth is at rest. We read that this letter was finally accepted and became a commonplace in the biblical exegesis, but not until 1983! And Galileo brought this idea up in the 1600s!! Crazy.
I found the statement, “the Bible’s central purpose is religious and moral, and it is not primarily intended to serve as a source of knowledge about the natural world” interesting. This quote really got me to thinking. Right away when I read it, I agreed with the entire statement. But then I thought, I use the Bible and religion as my faith in life, but I believe the part that God made the world in 7 days (which would be part of knowledge about the natural world). But if I go back to the Bible, it only talks about the sun, sky, trees, flowers, animals and people. It does not go into detail about planets or the solar system. And this is where I believe science steps in. So, after all these thoughts, I have concluded that I need both science and religion in my life, and I couldn’t live with just one. Because I definitely need my faith, but yet this world definitely needs science.

I find the concept of socially accepted knowlege very interesting. That all societies have common beliefs on how the world sould be and it an individual's thoughts contradict these norms then there are confrontations. Beliefs such as the world is flat, the world is round, reicarnation exists, an afterlife exists, no after life exists. These societal beliefs are extremely powerful and continue to force others to conform with the use of conditioning and by treating ones who have alternate beliefs with consistant prejuduce. Every culture has these norms which influence all members of that society. This is what came to mind when I was reading chapters 7 and 8. Copernicus and Galileo had a more logical model of how our known solar system worked, but these new views although scholarly sound did not parrallel the cultural norm which was formed by the writings of the Bible. These types of progressive ideas that are not accepted can be found in any time period even our own. If someone makes the claim that humans are essentially all bisexual people would respond negatively to that because we have all been conditioned by our society to belief that sexual love should only be between certain types of people. This is a similar example to chapters 7 and 8. Society's views, which is driven by Christianity, is in opposition with a somewhat logical theory, which is driven by atypical individual thought..... I don't know.. it is difficult to think of good examples because I am not beond social conditioning and social restrants.

Copernican Revolution: In this article there is once again the battle between science and religion. (There really isn't a pattern in this class, although there are many different ways that they battle) I thought it was really interests the way Copernican found out about the solar system and the basics of how it works. It really is mind boggling that anyone could think of things like that considering there was no information that considered it a possibility. I also liked that the church was still trying to censor what their congregation knows. I also thought that it was interesting that someone said in the article that you can't blame people for doing what God told them to do, although if God had told them what to do, he must have then known what they would find. God is a higher power, he knows all.
Galileo: I really thought this article was interesting because I always knew who Galileo was but I didn't really know what he was famous for. Galileo is one of those household names, which I think is really sad, because I am sure not many people even know what he did. So why do we remember him. I think that Galileo was a brilliant man, who was very ahead of his time science wise. I thought that his experiments were great considering that the only be influence in science at that time was Aristotle. Although Aristotle was brilliant in his own way there was still so much more to know after him. This is what I think Galileo was doing. I think that many of his experiments are the bases of physics. This I think is a great accomplishment and I just don't know why the church would punishment him. For doing, in the last article, what God chose for him to do?

"copernican revolution"
this chapter continues through the historical debate between science and religion. it's really fascinating to read the quotes from many thinkers and christians of the time. with every new idea or hypothesis proposed, they always found a way to incorporate god in to the picture. i really liked the quote that referred to a heliocentric universe when it described the sun as being god, christ as the shell of fixed stars, etc. this seems to me to only be an interesting metaphor at best, but was most likely interpreted as being literal by many at the time. I find that the more chapters i read out of this text, the more i realize how the early attempts at scientific discovery not only opposed religion, but also helped shape it and update it to new standards

Copernicus and Galileo are awesome because they are known for their philosophies. In a world where everyone is a sheep, Copernicus and Galileo put out their own ideas about the solar system based on calculations they investigated. I thought the readings were simple and gave pretty genuine knowledge about the philosophers, but I was intrigued more with the controversy that was portrayed rather than the actual physics involved with this discussion. Every now and then there are artists and thinkers who reshape the way we look at the world. Artists like Vincent Van Gogh who painted pictures that were totally controversial for the times were often looked at as being crazy and ridiculous. I think that a certain amount of craziness is neccessary to launch a new idea that people aren't ready for yet, and Copernicus and Galileo had it. Thank God.

After reading "Copernican Revolution" by Owen Gingerich, I was a little confused as to what exactly Copernicus ment by a heliocentric arrangement. I'm thinking it involves a description of the solar system with the sun at the center and the planets revolving around it. I was a little suprised to learn that priest and other critics would write comments regarding Copernicus's theories as merely hypothesises with no real validation. They even quates Psalm "The Lord God laid the foundations of Earth that it should no be moved forever." However, other astronomers and even clergymen started to prove that Copernicus was correct about the arrangement of the solar system. The the Pope Benedict XIV finally made this theory accepted by the catholic schools in 1757. Galileo also faced scrutiney regarding his theories. He used a new instrument, the telescope, to also support the idea of a heliocentric arrangement. Bellarmine proposed that maybe the words of the bible need to be taken figuratively rather than literaly.

This just all goes to show that religion often first rejects scientific ideas and evidence and then later realizes that they made a mistake and accepts the theories. It all seems hypocritical and over judgemental to me. Over time, science has disproved or changed so many historical beliefs based on the bible, so I think it is just a matter of time before science disproves the whole idea of God in general.

"galileo galilei"
i have to say, the more that i read of these historical accounts, the more i hate the catholic church. their fear of losing power after the church split is so obvious, especially in this story, and many great thinkers were condemned because of it. when i read this, i tried to put myself in to galileo's shoes. he probably has always had a passion for discovering the way in which the world worked. after making the many discoveries that he did, including ones that hold true to this day, he still tried to appeal them to the church. after all of his efforts he was still imprisoned and forced to deny his beliefs. its pretty sickening. i also found it to be an interesting twist that one good friend, who became the new pope urban, was the one who eventually charged him with heresy. that coupled with false information about galileo's injunction potentially being used to prosecute him just makes me sort of depressed about the whole situation. i understand that it was centuries ago, but depressing regardless. and the catholic church is only now accepting some of his ideas within the last couple of decades! it's all pretty disgusting.

Okay, so I am really tired I guess and have been studying too much. And I just realized I made a typo. Yes, the earth DOES revolve around the sun. Sorry!! I am not an idiot, I promise! Just running off little sleep!

I think Copernicus was a very intelligent man. The fact that he figured out the the sun, not the earth was the center of things is something we use today. There were also some things in these chapters that made a lot a sence. The fact that the bible can not always be taken leterally brings up a valid point. Many times throughout the bible, parables are used to teach lessons. These parables should not always be taken literally. They were only examples. However, they should not be pushed aside because of the fact that they were only stories. Also, the point many people try to make is that the church wanted to shut many of these scholars down because they were afraid the church members would learn the "truth" and turn from the church. Maybe the church foresaw the evil that would come of these scholars, and that is the reason for shutting them down. Another point made by Julia was that the Pope and the church are infallible. That is completely incorrect. The word of God is infallable, but us humans here on earth can not be perfect.

The main thing that strikes me when I read these articles is how self defeating is it for the church to take stands against readily observable aspects of the natural world; it’s a battle the church will rarely if ever win. When the church claims one thing in the name of God and reality seems to indicate another, this sets up a possible crisis of faith which could be easily avoided. If religious beliefs can be interpreted to be consistent and harmonious with reality and scientific findings, they *gain* credibility rather than lose it. It’s not as if these were foreign ideas at the time, either; the text mentioned numerous theologians who were able to reasonably reconcile the statements in the bible with the findings of Copernicus and Galileo. That the church was so resistant to these attempts seems a little sad, ultimately ineffective, and maybe even damaging in the long term.

The Copernican Revolution

Science and religion will always collide. Copernicus advanced our understanding, further exploration, would provide information the sun revolves around the Milky Way galaxy. Newtonian based physics couldn’t explain specific effects during Einstein’s time. Einstein still receives criticism for his work.

“Whoever wants to be clever has to do his own thing. This is what that fool does who wants to turn astronomy upside down.” Martin Luther may have been praising Copernicus or reaffirming his own work.

Galileo Galilei

Galileo reasoned Copernicus’s technical overview was brilliant. A broad new understanding of the world, but realized practical application could be dangerous.

Information can only bring us together and selfish influence separates.

he is nice

I want to tell you about
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
buy generic biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]buy generic biagra[/url]

I want to tell you about
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
buy generic biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]buy generic biagra[/url]

Here is your love...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]biagra[/url]

Here is your love...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]biagra[/url]

Here is your love...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]biagra[/url]