The Galileo Affair

As no one signed up to moderate and it is now quite late, I am opening up the discussion. The question will be loose and open: What in this reading most struck you and why? Did anything challenge what you already knew (or thought you knew) about the conflict between Galileo and the Church?

More on CERN

Here is an interesting article about how the researches at CERN seems to have found particles that move faster than the speed of light. If this is true, it could mean another revolutionary moment (in Barbour's terms) in physics.

And here is an article questioning CERN's findings, giving more evidence to our idea that science, like religion, happens in the context of community. It also points to the characteristics of falsifiability and skepticism necessary in science.

God and the World in Scripture: Creation, Age of Earth, Noah's Flood, Human Diversity

Genesis:
Genesis begins with the story of Creation. God created the earth and heaves in seven days, creating different creatures and parts of the world in different days. Man was created in God's image.
"Thus the heavens and the earth and all their array were completed."God planted a garden in Eden where man and woman resided. Neither man nor woman was allowed to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. However, the snake convinced the woman to eat from the tree, and the man followed her lead. When God became aware of this, he cursed the snake, the man and the woman. Adam and Eve, which they were named, were banished from Eden. Adam and Eve have children and Eve gave birth to Cain and Abel. Cain was jealous of Abel because God favored him more, and he killed his brother. A line of descendants was later created through Adam and Eve.
God saw how evil humans had become and regretted making man. He decided to wipe out not only mankind, but also all the other living creatures, except Noah and his family, and two animals from each kind. Noah built an ark at God's command. It rained for 40 days and 40 nights. When it was over, God was so pleased with Noah he vowed never to do what he had done again. God's covenant with Noah was created and his descendants.
The question of how to read Scripture is debatable. Methods are different and each one (literally, allegorical, etc.) can result in different meanings and beliefs from Scripture. Morality might remain the same. What do you think? Do you think it is necessary to read Scripture one way or the other?

Job:
In this story, God seems angry with Job. Job has questioned God, and he tells Job he cannot understand everything. Job is unhappy because of his recent bad luck that he feels he does not deserve. God replies with instances of creation where God had ultimate power.
When Job seemed to have doubts about faith, he confronted God with anger. God's only responses were about the wonders of creation. Do you think this answers Job's question adequately? Job seemed to be content with God' answers. It is as though Job could not explain God's creation, and by this he accepted he will never know God's purpose for the things he does, but he must have faith regardless.
Maybe this example of Job has an impact on people who still have faith, despite their hardships.

The Council of Trent:
This document sets down the rules of Scripture. Not only must the Church be in control of what versions and commentaries on Scripture are to be published, but the Church also explains which books are to be known as truth. All of these books are to be taken as God's Word, whether spoken by God himself, or through his apostles.
Do you think that Church satisfies the problems at hand?

Curiosity with Stephen Hawking. Did God created the Universe?

So, while I was doing research for my Paper that is due next Thursday. I happened to stumble upon this YouTube Video. It is basically the interaction between Religion and Science on the origin of the universe and a few things that we have mentioned during class. I found this video to be very interesting especially towards the very beginning of the video. However, I think the argument between science and religion within this video seemed to be a one sided argument because it was shown on the Discovery Channel (science based) as well as Stephen Hawking being the host of the program. I think the program could be more interesting if the Discovery Channel actually had some Theologians arguing with Hawking within the program. 

Words

For those of you interested in hearing the entire radio program that we listend to in class today, here it is. Among other things it compares Shakespeare to a chemist putting elements together to build compounds. Very interesting in light of our conversation today. Have fun.

Dr. Atomic

Here is  a recording (and a few photographs) from the opera that I mentioned in class today. The aria is sung by the character of Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, the main architect of the Manhatten Project, on the eve of the first testing of the atomic bomb. This is from the Wikipedia page on Oppenhiemer: "The first atomic bomb was detonated on July 16, 1945 in the Trinity test in New Mexico; Oppenheimer remarked later that it brought to mind words from the Bhagavad Gita [a sacred Hindu text]: 'Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.' "

Here is the text of the aria as well, which is a poem by John Donne that Oppenheimer had written in his journal. In terms of our conversation, this point where religion, ethics, and science come together is very compelling and interesting.

Batter my heart, three-person'd God, for you
As yet but knock, breathe, shine, and seek to mend;
That I may rise and stand, o'erthrow me, and bend
Your force to break, blow, burn, and make me new.
I, like an usurp'd town to'another due,
Labor to'admit you, but oh, to no end;
Reason, your viceroy in me, me should defend,
But is captiv'd, and proves weak or untrue.
Yet dearly'I love you, and would be lov'd fain,
But am betroth'd unto your enemy;
Divorce me,'untie or break that knot again,
Take me to you, imprison me, for I,
Except you'enthrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.

Lavoisier_Newton

Both Newton and Lavoisier Provide some some rules and insights to Reasoning in Philosophy (Newton) and Chemical Nomenclature and Education (Lavoisier). Newton, who is considered to the father of modern physics, discussed "Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy" with his four rules. Within these rules Newton basically explained how we are to understand "Natural Philosophy." The bulk of his discussion was centered around Rule III in regards to bodies.
In general, would you agree with Newton's method/rules in order to understand nature?

Lavoisier, who is considered to be the father of modern chemistry, discussed various ways in order to understand chemistry in a systematic way. Lavoisier begin by stating that "The Art of Reason is nothing more than a language well arranged" (Pg. xvi, Paragraph 1).
What do think Lavoisier is trying to convey to the audience with this statement? Do you agree?

Lastly, what do like most about Lavoisier and Newton's Text?

Personally, I was really interested with Lavoisier's text because taking chemistry courses for the past 2+ years. It is really interesting to see where chemical knowledge started and how it has changed significantly with more modern nomenclature as implemented by IUPAC.    

Antione Lavoisier and Dmitri Mendeleev

Here is some more information on Lavoisier that I thought you might find interesting...amoung other things he was guillotined in the French Revolution.

Also, as Lavoisier's major project is nomenclature in Chemistry, he is a predecesor of Dmitri Mendeleev, the architect of the periodic table. Here is a statue of Mendeleev in St. Petersburg, Russia. I particularly like this one as you can see his periodic table behind him:



Here is Mendeleev's original periodic table:



And, in case you need a reminder, here is the modern periodic table, which, you can see, is grounded in part in the names of the elements, many of which Lavoisier coined:



And, just in case you love the periodic table of the elements as much as I do, here is a short (and entertaining) radio program about it: The Wonder of Youth - Radiolab

John Paul II on Faith and Reason and Barbour Readings

After reading both of the texts I come to understand that both texts are trying to establish the idea that both religion and science could co-exist. Of course there would be some difficulty with both of them co-existing but it could be possible. John Paul II believes that it would crucial for both to co-exist because with the two coming co-existing there could come a mutual understanding of one another and this would allow for big advancement of both religion and science. Though for me it really doesnt seem possible because of the fact that both try to prove one big idea that cannot be accept from on another, for me that would be the creation of the universe if science and technology would come to prove how the universe was created then what would religion have to say. I just believe that there couldn't be any real mutual understanding of one another. Even though John Paul II does explain how the differences in ideas of both religion and science may be aiming at different conclusions there could be a middle for both to go off of I just cant really see religion coming to live peacefully with what science is trying to prove.

CERN, The God Particle, and The Hadron Collider

Here is a good article explaining a bit about "the God particle" that we discussed in class today. Some of you had questions as to what it was, and Wired magazine (a very good technology and science source) explains it pretty well here, in "The God Particle and the Grid." And here is a bit more on the particle itself as "the only reasonable explanation we have for the origin of mass," as explained in "Racing to the 'God Particle'", another article from the same magazine. Also, here is CERN's explanation of their Hadron Collider.

Here are some pictures of the Hadron Collider:

John Henry Newman, "The Philosophical Temper, First Enjoined by the Gospel"

Bryan has been having trouble posting, so here is his post:

In John Henry Newman’s article “The Philosophical Temper, First Enjoined by the Gospel, John outlines both the adjoining and the separation of philosophy and scripture. He talks about the causes and effects of both scenarios as well as his opinions.

Although he made (16) separate points in the article, I felt as though a few of them were somewhat repetitive so I will not go through all of them, instead I will briefly go over what I thought were the most important topics of discussion.

John initially points out how people have claimed that Revealed Religion poses a threat to philosophy. Do you think that is a legitimate claim? Do you agree with John in that scripture cannot be subject to change?

Similar to Bonaventure he too points out “The lord is my light”. I felt as though this was an interesting similarity seeing as light usually leads to knowledge and truth.

He then makes an interesting point in that some of the greatest philosophers have been forced to submit their reason to the gospel. This is in fact a very valid point, many philosophers of old times were literally afraid to not give God some credit in some way in fear that if they did not include God in their writings that they would face severe consequences. Do you think this makes earlier philosophy less credible?

Further, he goes on explaining the importance of morals seen in Jewish and Christian faith. He explains their importance towards scientific investigation and knowledge. Do you agree in thinking that these are necessary things?

The point that John made that I found to be the most interesting was the point he made concerning Mother Nature. He explained that she will seem impossible and mysterious to everyone except those that are patient and faithful.

Since the search of truth is such a tedious process, John explains how easy it is to stray off course and to focus too much on one thing over the other; that being too much on philosophy or too much on scripture. I believe this to be totally relevant and I feel as though the best theologians and philosophers are the ones that blend the two of them together.

Lastly he points out that he is concerned with how modern science is starting to stray away from philosophy yet he believes that there couldn’t have been so much scientific progress over the years without scripture and theology. I think this is a relevant claim, do you think that scientific discoveries over the course of time benefitted from philosophical knowledge and scripture?

Dante's Universe

Since my explanation of Dante's universe was probably rather confusing today, I have found some charts that might make things clearer. These explain better how Dante is able to hold to the geocentric view and yet have God at the center.



This one helps you see more in detail where the heavenly spheres (planets) fit in




and this one helps place everything together (Hell, Earth, Purgatory, and Paradise). Here you can see that it all follows the basic Aristotilian model, while, in the Empyrean, you see the focus leading to a single point. This image is what I was trying to show you today in class with Dore's etching as well as my sub-standard drawing on the board, as I just couldn't quite figure out how to explain this visually today. This model could also be used to express what Grosseteste says concerning Light as corporality itself from which all other corporal forms (here the planets) come. I'll have handouts of these in class on Thursday as well, but I wanted to clear up any confusion as soon as possible.

Robert Grosseteste On Light

Robert Grosseteste had some interesting thoughts in regards to his treatise, "On Light." In his treatise, Grosseteste mentioned the nine heavenly spheres and how the ninth sphere's mass is constituted out of the four elements (Earth, Air, Fire, and Water) and how this sphere is able to bring forth lumen from itself.   Grosseteste explained that from light through the expansion to its mass formed fire and thus fire produced air, which is able to bring forth a spiritual body from itself. Then water and earth would be produced from air. From a personal standpoint, it seems like Grosseteste is trying to say that everything in the universe is derived from light. However,  the light that Grossteste is speaking of is not the physical light that we are accustomed to everyday, but rather spiritual light as stated in the Introduction.

In the reading, Grosseteste also mentioned about the thirteen spheres of this sensible world and that only nine of the thirteen were heavenly spheres. He stated that the nine heavenly were not subjected to change, but the four others are. The first reading this passage, the first thing I thought about the planets because Grosseteste also mentioned about how these spheres had to motions to them in the introduction, daily motion and firmament.  To me, these motions basically described rotation and revolution of planetary motion. However in accordance to the text, I think Grosseteste is trying to explain how these planetary spheres move in regards to a higher being.      

The Ptolemaic Model of the Solar System

As you prepare to read Robert Grossteste's text it might be helpful for you to read this brief article from Rice University, which has a good, but short explanation of Ptolemy's understanding of the solar system (which he inherits from Aristotle and modifies). This is the model of the solar system, which Grosseteste inherits as well, shapes how he thinks about light a bit...as does the thought of Adalusian philosopher, Alpetragius, who we'll talk about briefly in class on Tuesday.  Both are mention in the introduction tot he text, and I wanted to make sure you were familiar with them.

"On the Reduction of the Arts to Theology," St. Bonaventure

The first thing I noticed about Bonaventure's writing, was that there is a lot of terminology in this text. Each term is broken down into sub divisions, etc. In the end, however, each term is brought into union with one another, to display how Bonaventure believes there does exist a union between knowledge (or branches of knowledge) and theology (Sacred Scripture).

(I will try to make this a short summary of what Bonaventure points out. Feel free to skip over this if it is at all repetitive of what you already read)

Bonaventure starts off by stating that all gifts come from the "God of Lights," and this is the source of all illumination. However, there are many different lights from this source. These lights are the exterior light (light of mechanical art), inferior light (light of sense perception), interior light (light of philosophical knowledge), and a superior light (light of Sacred Scripture). 

The purpose of the mechanical arts is to supply bodily needs, and they are divided into seven arts. Each art is intended for consolation or comfort, to banish sorrow or need. For consolation or for comfort, Bonaventure explains why he believes each of the mechanical arts is sufficient to human life. 

Sense perception "begins with an inferior object and takes place by the aid of corporal light."There are five divisions corresponding to the five senses, and the nature of light is perceived through the senses. 

Philosophical knowledge "inquires into inner and hidden causes" through learning and truth. This light is divided into a three-fold; rational, natural, and moral philosophy. The illumination of philosophy enlightens the mind to "discern the causes of being." Therefore, philosophical knowledge illuminates intellect and humanity is enlightened through truth of life, knowledge, and doctrine.  

Sacred Scripture provides illumination through saving truth. It is superior and leads to higher things. Scripture reveals truths, transcending reason, and it comes from the God of Lights through inspiration. Beyond the literal meaning is a three-fold of spiritual meaning; the allegorical (taught what to believe), the moral (taught how to live), and the anagogical (taught how to cling to God). In summary, Scripture teaches these three truths; the eternal generation and incarnation of Christ, the pattern of human life, and union of the soul with God. 

In all, Bonaventure concludes there are six illuminations all leading up to the illumination of glory. Since Sacred Scripture is the superior, all our knowledge should come to rest in Scripture according to Bonaventure. 

So, wisdom of God is made clear in Scripture, and according to Bonaventure, it lies hidden in all knowledge and nature, and he believes he has explained this. (Do you?) He explains that all branches of knowledge are servants of theology, and therefore theology makes useful illustrations and terms pertaining to every branch of knowledge. Bonaventure states faith may be strengthened, God may be honored, character may be formed, and consolation may be derived from union through charity where the purpose of Sacred Scripture comes to rest.

Do you agree? Do you think Bonaventure has explained his beliefs, or is pre-supposing somethings? Do you think the correlations he makes have been justifiably argued for (mainly theology and the arts)? It has not become an issue yet, but it is obvious that interpretation of Scripture will lead to some differing opinions and thoughts. 

Science in the Medieval Mind

Upon reading the works of Barbour and Saint Thomas Aquinas, it appears that modern science has come a long way to what we understand of it today, especially from the work of Barbour. Barbour through his work mentioned how the Medieval Mind considered science to be the work of magic, astrology or sorcery. Thinking about it, the Medieval mind might considered science to be the work of magic, astrology, or sorcery because at that time, society do not quite understand science or why certain things happen. Thus in order to keep thing simple, they just will consider it magic. During the Medieval Ages as mentioned by Barbour, the Church had the authority on what can be interpreted via the Scriptures. This in turn would somewhat narrows the mind of the Church when Medieval scientist, such as Copernicus, presented the idea of Heliocentrism. At that time, the Church was fixated on the concept of Geocentrism because human beings were God's chosen creatures, so it would make sense if human beings were at the center of things. From a personal standpoint, Geocentrism at that time would make sense because Medieval thought was in general "realistic" as being perceived and experience at that time according to Barbour. This realistic perception of the world would then seem to support the idea of Geocentrism because while standing on Earth, one cannot feel if the Earth is indeed moving, thus the Earth must be at the center and any idea that challenges it must be erroneous.  Geocentrism is then somewhat of a "Created Hierarchy" as mentioned by Barbour. This "Created Hierarchy" seems to be how human beings are able to determine their position in the world and they come to understand it.

The idea of how humans can come to knowledge or reason is the general idea of both writers, specifically both writers mentioned about we as humans can come to knowledge of God. According to Aquinas, knowing God is the highest level of knowledge and in order to do this, we must believe that God is above everything and that it is possible for us to think about God. This statement from Aquinas seems to be the link between faith and reason to me because as human beings, we cannot prove the existence of God with concrete evidence, so we must take a "leap of faith" and believe that God exist. Then once we take this "leap of faith," it is possible for us to understand God with our rationality. Therefore, faith brings perfection to the human reason according to Aquinas. From a personal standpoint, this seems true because if one was to reject an idea before even considering it then it must be false, so there must be no point in examining it thoroughly. Through Barbour's sections entitled "Methods in Theology: Reason and Revelation," Barbour mentioned Aquinas' idea about Revelation being necessary because reason cannot access important theological truths, such as the trinity and incarnation. This statement from Barbour to me basically suggest that we cannot know everything by shear reason or faith alone and that we must somehow integrate our faith and reason in order to come to a different truth and understanding of our universe and faith.

More on Sustained Creation and Different Methods

Here are two clips from YouTube that pertain to our conversation today. The first is from Richard Dawkins, a prominent athiest, whom I have mentioned in class already. We'll discuss him much more later on. In this clip, he talks about different types of truth, but he calls this relativism, and, as I explained in class today, I think that is too simplistic a dismissal, and not actually what I or Rowan Williams (The Archbishop of Canterbury) is getting at in this interview. Like Karen Armstong, I think that there are many problems with Dawkins and his critique of religion, though I also thing he makes some good and interesting challenges, but again, there will be more on that later. All of that being said, Williams gives a good explanation of what I meant today by "sustained creation" though not necessarily a good explanation of religious truth, although, we can't necessarily hear everything that he said as Dawkins talks over him a bit.

Now, here is Rowan Williams speaking concerning Richard Dawkins. Here I think he is getting at what I was trying to move towards when I asked about falling in love in class today...or even about "artistic truth."

I think these are interesting additions to our conversation.  That being said, I don't want to get too hung up on the atheist critique just yet as we'll come back to it towards the end of class. However, what I do want to focus on now is the role of understandings of truth in the conversation between science and religion. We'll talk more about various undestandings of truth throughout history in our next class...as well as St. Thomas Aquinas of course.

Until then, have a good weekend, and feel free to comment here if you like.