What do you think?
Rate this book
Galileo tyrmässä ja muita myyttejä tieteestä ja uskonnosta
Länsimaiseen mielenmaisemaan kuuluu olennaisena tekijänä ajatus uskonnon ja tieteen syvästä ristiriidasta. Tätä ajatusta tuetaan usein erilaisilla kertomuksilla, joiden todellisuuspohja on kuitenkin kyseenalainen. Tässä kirjassa omien alojensa asiantuntijat tarkastelevat kahtakymmentäviittä tyypillisintä myyttiä uskonnon ja tieteellisen maailmankuvan suhteesta. Onko kirkko vastustanut johdonmukaisesti tieteen kehitystä? Opettiko kirkko, että on maa on litteä? Onko tieteen kehitys osoittanut, ettei Jumalaa ole olemassa?
302 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2009
70 people are currently reading
880 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews
July 26, 2011
Myth is a strong word that requires a certain amount of demystification before seeing how it applies to the subtitle of this commendable collection. As a literary form, a myth is a sort of cosmic story. To be much more specific than that simply indicates what sort of myth one would be talking about. So taken, what truth one might find in a myth lies behind the story, and that truth ought to be genuinely profound. Conventionally the idea of myth tends to weigh more on the aspect of something being a story or more broadly a fiction. In this sense myths are just dressed up falsehoods, with no deep meaning to be found. In Galileo Goes to Jail, myth finds a middle way. The myths dealt with here are stories that say more about story-teller than any relation the story may have to some truth, deep or otherwise. This subtle distinction is necessary because the in the various essays, the myths dealt with are not simply false. The stories may be true, but they don't support the moral the stories lead to, or they are mostly true, or partly true, or we really don't know the truth of the matter. Given the state of the debate on religion and science, a bit of subtly is a welcome thing.
The myth of myths in this case is Religion and Science are at war. If one is on the side of Science, every woe of humankind and every roadblock to progress can be laid at the feet of Religion. Those on the side of Religion counter either that Science is founded on Religion or that the general depravity found in society is caused by Science abandoning Religion. The essayists Numbers assembles, deal mostly with the stories Science tells. Unlike some myths, where the story teller is lost to us, Numbers is willing finger the original Religion-and-Science-at-War myth-makers: Andrew Dickson White and particularly John William Draper. Indeed, Draper comes up in at least seven of the twenty-five myths examined. This is not to say Galileo Goes to Jail is collection of religious polemicists. Most of the contributors are not believers and few that are, are actually conventional believers. However, most are either historians, historians of science, or philosophers of science who have entered this fray more than once.
If one starts with myth number eight—“That Galileo Was Imprisoned and Tortured for Advocating Copernicanism”—one moves from flat-out denial (Galileo was not so much imprisoned but under house arrest) to plausible support (the records indicate the plausibility of severe integration—i.e., torture) to casting doubt on such support (the records would also indicate that it was unlikely that Galileo was imprisoned and that the same meticulous records of his state of health are inconsistent with his being recently tortured). The essay even provides a an explanation of how the myth may have come about. It would seem to started with Protestants as an argument that the Roman Catholic Church was superstitious, cruel and utterly unchristian. It would not take long for this to morph to Christianity being superstitious, cruel and unenlightened and then carried on to religion in general (and science by contrast, being enlighten and humane). This sort of careful parsing out marks all the essays in this collection.
Some myths seem to be have been inserted simply to counterbalance others. For instance, myths one through eight generally argue that neither early and medieval Christianity nor medieval Islam inhibited or suppressed scientific progress. This is followed up by myth nine “That Christianity Gave Birth to Modern Science.” It would seem that Numbers is not interested in presenting the false dilemma that either Christianity [or Islam, or Judaism, etc.] is opposed to science or is essential to it.
Some myths are exceedingly subtle. For instance, myth sixteen “That Evolution Destroyed Darwin's Faith in Christianity—Until He Reconverted on His Deathbed,” argues it was not evolutionary theory that destroyed Darwin's faith, but the existential loss he felt in the face of certain evils and certain dogmas—namely that of eternal damnation—that Darwin saw as offensive. The essayist, James Moore, is also keen to note that a number the clergy in the Church of England embraced Darwin's theory and were on friendly terms with him. Moreover that Darwin, being rather conventional continued to support his local parish. His general lack of antagonism with the the Church of England and his connection with Elisabeth Cotton, a.ka. Lady Hope in his latter days, plus Lady Hope's remarkably detailed account of his supposed deathbed reconversion, contributed to the latter half of this myth. We we know is that no one in Darwin's family knew of any such conversion until after Lady Hope sold her story.
It would not do to go through all twenty-five myths, but perhaps a listing of them will be enough to pique one's interest:
1. That the Rise of Christianity Was Responsible for the Demise of Ancient Science
2. That the Medieval Christian Church Suppressed the Growth of Science
3. That Medieval Christians Taught That the Earth Was Flat
4. That Medieval Islamic Culture Was Inhospitable to Science
5. That the Medieval Church Prohibited Human Dissection
6. That Copernicanism Demoted Humans fro the Center of the Cosmos
7. That Giordano Bruno the First Martyr of Modern Science
8. That Galileo was Imprisoned and Tortured for Advocating Copernicanism
9. That Christianity Gave Birth to Modern Science
10. That the Scientific Revolution Liberated Science from Religion
11. That Catholics Did Not Contribute to the Scientific Revolution
12. The René Descartes Originated the Mind-Body Distinction
13. That Isaac Newton's Mechanistic Cosmology Eliminated the Need for God
14. That the Church Denounced Anesthesia in Childbirth on Biblical Grounds
15. That the Theory of Organic Evolution is Based on Circular Reasoning
16. That Evolution Destroyed Darwin's Faith in Christianity—Until He Reconverted on His Deathbed
17. That Huxley Defeated Wilberforce in Their Debate over Evolution
18. That Darwin Destroyed Natural Theology
19. That Darwin and Haeckel Were Complicit in Nazi Biology
20. That the Scopes Trial Ended in Defeat for Antievolutionism
21. That Einstein Believed in a Personal God
22. That Quantum Physics Demonstrated the Doctrine of Free Will
23. That “Intelligent Design” Represents a Scientific Challenge to Evolution
24. That Creationism Is a Uniquely American Phenomenon
25. That Modern Science Has Secularized Western Culture
Summing Up: This is a compilation with which I have only a few minor qualms. The twenty-five essays recast each myth in a more nuanced light. This is in contrast with the latest crop of polemicists who wish for nothing more than to draw a bright line between participants and to simultaneously beat down their opponents, keep true believers true, and to win the wavering with bold but flawed rhetoric. Galileo Goes to Jail has nothing for such as these. They will either scorn it as pandering to forces of darkness or cherry pick the parts they find useful. For the rest of us, however, Numbers has assembled a very cohesive, thoughtful, and thought provoking collection.
The myth of myths in this case is Religion and Science are at war. If one is on the side of Science, every woe of humankind and every roadblock to progress can be laid at the feet of Religion. Those on the side of Religion counter either that Science is founded on Religion or that the general depravity found in society is caused by Science abandoning Religion. The essayists Numbers assembles, deal mostly with the stories Science tells. Unlike some myths, where the story teller is lost to us, Numbers is willing finger the original Religion-and-Science-at-War myth-makers: Andrew Dickson White and particularly John William Draper. Indeed, Draper comes up in at least seven of the twenty-five myths examined. This is not to say Galileo Goes to Jail is collection of religious polemicists. Most of the contributors are not believers and few that are, are actually conventional believers. However, most are either historians, historians of science, or philosophers of science who have entered this fray more than once.
If one starts with myth number eight—“That Galileo Was Imprisoned and Tortured for Advocating Copernicanism”—one moves from flat-out denial (Galileo was not so much imprisoned but under house arrest) to plausible support (the records indicate the plausibility of severe integration—i.e., torture) to casting doubt on such support (the records would also indicate that it was unlikely that Galileo was imprisoned and that the same meticulous records of his state of health are inconsistent with his being recently tortured). The essay even provides a an explanation of how the myth may have come about. It would seem to started with Protestants as an argument that the Roman Catholic Church was superstitious, cruel and utterly unchristian. It would not take long for this to morph to Christianity being superstitious, cruel and unenlightened and then carried on to religion in general (and science by contrast, being enlighten and humane). This sort of careful parsing out marks all the essays in this collection.
Some myths seem to be have been inserted simply to counterbalance others. For instance, myths one through eight generally argue that neither early and medieval Christianity nor medieval Islam inhibited or suppressed scientific progress. This is followed up by myth nine “That Christianity Gave Birth to Modern Science.” It would seem that Numbers is not interested in presenting the false dilemma that either Christianity [or Islam, or Judaism, etc.] is opposed to science or is essential to it.
Some myths are exceedingly subtle. For instance, myth sixteen “That Evolution Destroyed Darwin's Faith in Christianity—Until He Reconverted on His Deathbed,” argues it was not evolutionary theory that destroyed Darwin's faith, but the existential loss he felt in the face of certain evils and certain dogmas—namely that of eternal damnation—that Darwin saw as offensive. The essayist, James Moore, is also keen to note that a number the clergy in the Church of England embraced Darwin's theory and were on friendly terms with him. Moreover that Darwin, being rather conventional continued to support his local parish. His general lack of antagonism with the the Church of England and his connection with Elisabeth Cotton, a.ka. Lady Hope in his latter days, plus Lady Hope's remarkably detailed account of his supposed deathbed reconversion, contributed to the latter half of this myth. We we know is that no one in Darwin's family knew of any such conversion until after Lady Hope sold her story.
It would not do to go through all twenty-five myths, but perhaps a listing of them will be enough to pique one's interest:
1. That the Rise of Christianity Was Responsible for the Demise of Ancient Science
2. That the Medieval Christian Church Suppressed the Growth of Science
3. That Medieval Christians Taught That the Earth Was Flat
4. That Medieval Islamic Culture Was Inhospitable to Science
5. That the Medieval Church Prohibited Human Dissection
6. That Copernicanism Demoted Humans fro the Center of the Cosmos
7. That Giordano Bruno the First Martyr of Modern Science
8. That Galileo was Imprisoned and Tortured for Advocating Copernicanism
9. That Christianity Gave Birth to Modern Science
10. That the Scientific Revolution Liberated Science from Religion
11. That Catholics Did Not Contribute to the Scientific Revolution
12. The René Descartes Originated the Mind-Body Distinction
13. That Isaac Newton's Mechanistic Cosmology Eliminated the Need for God
14. That the Church Denounced Anesthesia in Childbirth on Biblical Grounds
15. That the Theory of Organic Evolution is Based on Circular Reasoning
16. That Evolution Destroyed Darwin's Faith in Christianity—Until He Reconverted on His Deathbed
17. That Huxley Defeated Wilberforce in Their Debate over Evolution
18. That Darwin Destroyed Natural Theology
19. That Darwin and Haeckel Were Complicit in Nazi Biology
20. That the Scopes Trial Ended in Defeat for Antievolutionism
21. That Einstein Believed in a Personal God
22. That Quantum Physics Demonstrated the Doctrine of Free Will
23. That “Intelligent Design” Represents a Scientific Challenge to Evolution
24. That Creationism Is a Uniquely American Phenomenon
25. That Modern Science Has Secularized Western Culture
Summing Up: This is a compilation with which I have only a few minor qualms. The twenty-five essays recast each myth in a more nuanced light. This is in contrast with the latest crop of polemicists who wish for nothing more than to draw a bright line between participants and to simultaneously beat down their opponents, keep true believers true, and to win the wavering with bold but flawed rhetoric. Galileo Goes to Jail has nothing for such as these. They will either scorn it as pandering to forces of darkness or cherry pick the parts they find useful. For the rest of us, however, Numbers has assembled a very cohesive, thoughtful, and thought provoking collection.
May 19, 2014
Like most books that are collections of academic papers Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion has papers of varying levels of quality. Unlike some other collections of academic papers, the quality papers (which are quite good) outweigh the bad papers (which aren't all bad, but don't accomplish the goal of rebutting their particular “myth”). Part of the strength of the collection comes from the book aiming at a unified target: the “conflict” thesis that permeates the popular understanding of the history of science. By clarifying the historical record, the book has the unintended benefit of clarifying that the debate is not about “science” and “religion” but “evidence-based reasoning” and “revelation-based faith”.
This collection's bête noire, the conflict thesis, holds that science and religion are perpetually in conflict and can never be reconciled. The introduction traces this thesis to the work of pro-science historians from the 19th century who had a bone to pick with religion in general and Catholicism in particular. The strongest essays show how this assumption distorts our understanding of the historical record and our understanding of science. The historical distortions caused by the conflict thesis are best shown by the essay on the Copernican revolution, the distortions to science are best shown by an essay showing how Darwin relied on evidence collected by Old Earth Creationists to reach his conclusions on evolution.
The essay on the Copernican revolution does an excellent job of showing that removing the earth from the center of the earth was not a demotion, but possibly a promotion. Being at the center in Aristotelean physics meant being the most material, and least impressive. If being at the center of it all was the best thing in the world, Dante wouldn't have put the Ninth Circle of Hell there. Additionally, the author skillfully uses passages from the writing of Copernicus had to deal with concerns about the demotion of the sun that resulted from it being in the center.
The essay on Darwin shows how the history of science can be used to rebut pseudo-science like Creationism. A common criticism of evolutionary theory from Creationists is that its reasoning is “circular”. According to Creationists, the evidence that proves evolution is true, such as the fossil record and the similarity of bone structures between species showing common ancestry, is also the evidence that is used to illustrate its truth.
Ignoring that this critique misconstrues science, it also misconstrues the historical record. The scientists who discovered the evidence relied on by Darwin were in fact Creationists themselves (albeit, Old Earth Creationists, as every educated religious person in the 19th Century was). The reason that Darwinism was so successful, not because it found evidence that fit its framework (which can lead to circular reasoning), but that it provided a framework that explained evidence, even evidence gathered by people who didn't agree with the conclusion.
Other essays, however, are not as persuasive. Sometimes authors made me wonder if the myth they were rebutting in fact had some truth to it. For example, I came to the book unaware of the “myth” that some religious people opposed the use of anesthesia in childbirth on religious grounds (the pain of childbirth being Eve's curse for eating from the Tree of Knowledge). The essay made me start to wonder if there might be something to it.
Apparently the first mention of potential religious opposition to anesthesia for child birth comes from a doctor who advocated for the idea, as a sort of “prebuttal” before the idea could take wing. Fair enough, but the author then goes on to quote later doctors who opposed anesthesia in a way that seemed to presuppose anesthesia as somehow logically necessary for theological reasons, and the author's alternative gloss of the passages wasn't entirely persuasive. He then mentions that there was also a papal encyclical stating that there was no theological basis for opposing anesthesia in childbirth. For all the assertions by the author that there is no historical fire, there sure was a lot of documentary smoke.
Another weak essay, about Early Christianity's rise contributed to the demise of Classic Science suffered from a similar problem. The essay convinced me that out and out opposition to pagan learning was a gross oversimplification for most of the Early Church Fathers (Ireneus' attempt to keep Athens separate from Jerusalem to the contrary). It did provide quotes that indicated that Christian interest in pagan learning was purely for tactical reasons. Be knowledgable about the world, said Augustine, not because knowledge about the world is intrinsically good, but because it stops Christians from looking like idiots. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of scientific awareness. Also the author offers no evidence for his assertion that the Patristic-era Christians were the largest contributors to scientific investigation in late Antiquity (in a way that Medieval Christianity most certainly did, as addressed in other essays).
Overall, Galileo Goes to Jail does a good job of showing that the conflict thesis is bad history. The thesis is bad because attempts to divide history into “good” scientists and “bad” religious people, when in fact for a significant part of the history of science these two people were frequently the same person. That having been said, there still remains a fundamental conflict once simplified labels of “science” and “religion” are stripped away. The conflict centers around how a person answers the following question: is evidence-based reasoning the best means for arriving at truth?
For a significant part of human history most people (including many heroes of science such as Galileo and Newton) would say “no”. For them, some things not only can be assented to by revelation-based faith, but must be assented to by revelation-based faith. This belief sits, to put it mildly, in uneasy tension with deliberative democracy's idea that the best public policy decisions are reached by evidence that is available to everyone at the table without personal revelation from a particular god or holy book.
Our current debates about global warming, science education, and innumerable other issues show that a significant portion of our population still thinks revelation-based faith is an effective tool for determining our collective future together. Any attempt to inquire into whether those assertions have any evidence to back them up is construed as an “attack” on their beliefs, rather than a good faith attempt to make the best decision on the best available evidence. One of the unintended virtues of Galileo Goes to Jail is that it clears away naïve concepts of “science” and “religion” that are at “war” and puts the debate where it should be: what is the best means for deciding how we are going to live together.
This collection's bête noire, the conflict thesis, holds that science and religion are perpetually in conflict and can never be reconciled. The introduction traces this thesis to the work of pro-science historians from the 19th century who had a bone to pick with religion in general and Catholicism in particular. The strongest essays show how this assumption distorts our understanding of the historical record and our understanding of science. The historical distortions caused by the conflict thesis are best shown by the essay on the Copernican revolution, the distortions to science are best shown by an essay showing how Darwin relied on evidence collected by Old Earth Creationists to reach his conclusions on evolution.
The essay on the Copernican revolution does an excellent job of showing that removing the earth from the center of the earth was not a demotion, but possibly a promotion. Being at the center in Aristotelean physics meant being the most material, and least impressive. If being at the center of it all was the best thing in the world, Dante wouldn't have put the Ninth Circle of Hell there. Additionally, the author skillfully uses passages from the writing of Copernicus had to deal with concerns about the demotion of the sun that resulted from it being in the center.
The essay on Darwin shows how the history of science can be used to rebut pseudo-science like Creationism. A common criticism of evolutionary theory from Creationists is that its reasoning is “circular”. According to Creationists, the evidence that proves evolution is true, such as the fossil record and the similarity of bone structures between species showing common ancestry, is also the evidence that is used to illustrate its truth.
Ignoring that this critique misconstrues science, it also misconstrues the historical record. The scientists who discovered the evidence relied on by Darwin were in fact Creationists themselves (albeit, Old Earth Creationists, as every educated religious person in the 19th Century was). The reason that Darwinism was so successful, not because it found evidence that fit its framework (which can lead to circular reasoning), but that it provided a framework that explained evidence, even evidence gathered by people who didn't agree with the conclusion.
Other essays, however, are not as persuasive. Sometimes authors made me wonder if the myth they were rebutting in fact had some truth to it. For example, I came to the book unaware of the “myth” that some religious people opposed the use of anesthesia in childbirth on religious grounds (the pain of childbirth being Eve's curse for eating from the Tree of Knowledge). The essay made me start to wonder if there might be something to it.
Apparently the first mention of potential religious opposition to anesthesia for child birth comes from a doctor who advocated for the idea, as a sort of “prebuttal” before the idea could take wing. Fair enough, but the author then goes on to quote later doctors who opposed anesthesia in a way that seemed to presuppose anesthesia as somehow logically necessary for theological reasons, and the author's alternative gloss of the passages wasn't entirely persuasive. He then mentions that there was also a papal encyclical stating that there was no theological basis for opposing anesthesia in childbirth. For all the assertions by the author that there is no historical fire, there sure was a lot of documentary smoke.
Another weak essay, about Early Christianity's rise contributed to the demise of Classic Science suffered from a similar problem. The essay convinced me that out and out opposition to pagan learning was a gross oversimplification for most of the Early Church Fathers (Ireneus' attempt to keep Athens separate from Jerusalem to the contrary). It did provide quotes that indicated that Christian interest in pagan learning was purely for tactical reasons. Be knowledgable about the world, said Augustine, not because knowledge about the world is intrinsically good, but because it stops Christians from looking like idiots. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of scientific awareness. Also the author offers no evidence for his assertion that the Patristic-era Christians were the largest contributors to scientific investigation in late Antiquity (in a way that Medieval Christianity most certainly did, as addressed in other essays).
Overall, Galileo Goes to Jail does a good job of showing that the conflict thesis is bad history. The thesis is bad because attempts to divide history into “good” scientists and “bad” religious people, when in fact for a significant part of the history of science these two people were frequently the same person. That having been said, there still remains a fundamental conflict once simplified labels of “science” and “religion” are stripped away. The conflict centers around how a person answers the following question: is evidence-based reasoning the best means for arriving at truth?
For a significant part of human history most people (including many heroes of science such as Galileo and Newton) would say “no”. For them, some things not only can be assented to by revelation-based faith, but must be assented to by revelation-based faith. This belief sits, to put it mildly, in uneasy tension with deliberative democracy's idea that the best public policy decisions are reached by evidence that is available to everyone at the table without personal revelation from a particular god or holy book.
Our current debates about global warming, science education, and innumerable other issues show that a significant portion of our population still thinks revelation-based faith is an effective tool for determining our collective future together. Any attempt to inquire into whether those assertions have any evidence to back them up is construed as an “attack” on their beliefs, rather than a good faith attempt to make the best decision on the best available evidence. One of the unintended virtues of Galileo Goes to Jail is that it clears away naïve concepts of “science” and “religion” that are at “war” and puts the debate where it should be: what is the best means for deciding how we are going to live together.
March 30, 2023
24. bölümde, Texas merkezli "Institute for Creation Research (ICR)" tarafından creationism'in bütün dünyaya nasıl pazarlandığını ve ülkemizde Harun Yahya projesinin nasıl uygulamaya konulduğunu okuyabilirsiniz.
July 25, 2014
It’s pretty commonly understood that science and religion never really got along and have been at each other’s throats for centuries. Or at least that’s what convention would have us think. Ronald L. Numbers thinks differently and this book Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion aims to “prove” otherwise.
While this isn’t the most scholarly researched book, Numbers does do a fair amount of research on each of these myths that he tries to disprove and used a good amount of resources to back up his claims. In addition, the sheer amount of myths that this book tries to bust is pretty large, which would normally be something to compliment an editor on.
However, in this case it works against this book for two reasons. For one, trying to cover so many topics in such a short amount of space (230 pages) leads to superficial analysis that at times feels half-assed and unconvincing. The editor might have felt that this was necessary in order to cover so many topics, but this leads me to my second issue with this book. And this is that most of these myths are pretty uninteresting. Sure, Numbers covers such interesting ones such as Galileo going to jail (which is one of the better chapters of this book), the church denouncing anesthetics for women giving birth, prohibiting human dissection, and that creationism is a uniquely American phenomenon, but like I said, he barely scratches the surface and the reader is left a bit blindsided. Especially because Numbers also pays attention to uninteresting myths such as that Giordano Bruno was the first martyr of science, that organic evolution is based on circular reasoning, and that the quantum theory demonstrates the doctrine of free will. Yes, these sound interesting but the way Numbers presents the quarrel it seems like there isn’t really much to each side’s argument. In addition, even though Numbers declares that he is an agnostic, his conclusions that the church never did anything wrong, never had a problems with any sciences and has actually been the largest proponent of research seem a bit biased.
Galileo Goes to Jail tries to do too much with too little, and as this becomes apparent, one cannot help but feel cheated.
While this isn’t the most scholarly researched book, Numbers does do a fair amount of research on each of these myths that he tries to disprove and used a good amount of resources to back up his claims. In addition, the sheer amount of myths that this book tries to bust is pretty large, which would normally be something to compliment an editor on.
However, in this case it works against this book for two reasons. For one, trying to cover so many topics in such a short amount of space (230 pages) leads to superficial analysis that at times feels half-assed and unconvincing. The editor might have felt that this was necessary in order to cover so many topics, but this leads me to my second issue with this book. And this is that most of these myths are pretty uninteresting. Sure, Numbers covers such interesting ones such as Galileo going to jail (which is one of the better chapters of this book), the church denouncing anesthetics for women giving birth, prohibiting human dissection, and that creationism is a uniquely American phenomenon, but like I said, he barely scratches the surface and the reader is left a bit blindsided. Especially because Numbers also pays attention to uninteresting myths such as that Giordano Bruno was the first martyr of science, that organic evolution is based on circular reasoning, and that the quantum theory demonstrates the doctrine of free will. Yes, these sound interesting but the way Numbers presents the quarrel it seems like there isn’t really much to each side’s argument. In addition, even though Numbers declares that he is an agnostic, his conclusions that the church never did anything wrong, never had a problems with any sciences and has actually been the largest proponent of research seem a bit biased.
Galileo Goes to Jail tries to do too much with too little, and as this becomes apparent, one cannot help but feel cheated.
February 20, 2025
Намерих есетата около митовете против религията за по-интересни, тези против атеизма винаги са били по-лесни за оборване и като цяло по-недоизмислени.
March 2, 2011
Like many anthologies, this book was a mixed bag. The debunking of certain myths was very helpful, particularly "Medieval Christians taught that the Earth was flat," "Copernicanism demoted humans from the center of the cosmos," and "Descartes originated the mind-body distinction." The book may be worth a gander for those chapters alone. The more the writers got into twentieth- and twenty-first century live wire issues, though, the less helpful I found it. The Intelligent Design chapter, for instance, I found rather gratuitous and out of line with the rest of the book. Throwing around terms like "fundamentalist," "traditionalist," "freethinking," and even "creationist" is so often a recipe for disaster, sadly even when one is a historian...
Still, even the chapters on Scopes and global creationism had a few helpful points, and it's a useful book in a "troubling the waters" sense.
Still, even the chapters on Scopes and global creationism had a few helpful points, and it's a useful book in a "troubling the waters" sense.
November 26, 2022
i had to reread every sentence in this book about 5,000 times. i am funny cool and pretty, i do not have the time to also be smart -_- just kidding supa informative i can't wait to randomly spew these facts to my friends uninvitely!
March 27, 2021
Roland N Numbers – Galileu na prisão, e outros mitos sobre ciência e religião
Que título com tão mau gosto! … e para além do mais, falso!
Dos 25 capítulos que compõem o livro, apenas um é dedicado a Galileu Galilei, enquanto sete destes abordam temas darwinianos como evolucionismo, criacionismo e “designe inteligente”.
Se a utilização do caso Galileu para título é claramente uma armadilha para captar a atenção do leitor. Quando se propõem desmontar mitos começar por nos induzir em logro, digamos que não é muito abonatório.
Uma segunda crítica que deve realçar é o facto de os vários capítulos serem escritos por diferentes autores que em lado algum do livro estão identificados, assim como não identificam (ou declaram ausente) qualquer conflito de interesse com o tema que abordam. Diferentes autores a abordarem diferentes temas poderia ser uma opção interessante se conseguíssemos através do CV de cada um entender as prespectivas por vezes antagónicas e frequentemente não coincidentes em relação aos assuntos abordados (um exemplo disto é o que é entendido por raciocínio circular por diferentes autores). Falta uma boa revisão final e actividade editorial adequada.
De igual forma, a expressão de mitos não me parece a mais feliz e adequada. Se no caso de Galileu Galilei, parece efectivamente existir um mito, nomeadamente no que diz respeito à sua prisão e maus-tratos (à época leia-se tortura), na maior parte dos assuntos abordados não há qualquer mito, o relatado apenas reflete diferentes abordagens de temas ou convicções, que certas ou erradas foram as que cada um teve ao longo do tempo. O autor e organizador da coletânea começa por denunciar as posições de Andrew Dikson White e John William Draper tidas em finais do século XIX, inícios do século XX e que apresentaram a secularização da ciência e da sociedade como uma luta que se arrastou desde tempos imemoriais entre uma Igreja fiel depositária, e acérrima conservadora da palavra de Deus, contra uma ciência que paulatinamente, avanço após avanço, ia lentamente retirando a humanidade das trevas e da idade média.
Aqui claramente é apropriada a utilização do termo mito (ainda que nos dias de hoje expressões como “fake news” sejam mais adequadas). Na realidade nunca houve essa clivagem assim marcada entre homens de ciência e instituições religiosas. O que sempre houve foi seres humanos crentes e outros que o não eram. E entre eles sempre houve e haverá atritos. Trazer a ciência para esta contenta é uma falsa questão, mas a que muita gente não lhe resiste e o resultado está à vista.
Tirando os extremos, ciência e religião coexistiram no mesmo contexto temporal e de pressupostos culturais, e ao contrario do que frequentemente é propagandeado, a ciência e o conhecimento muito deve (no mundo ocidental) à instituição Igreja Católica que desde os primórdios soube apoiar individualmente ou institucionalmente (universidades) aqueles que pretenderam aprofundar os conhecimentos sobre “as maravilhas das obras divinas”.
Aqui, claramente havia um mito e os autores conseguiram desmontar bem essa construção que ao longo dos anos foi sendo edificada.
Igualmente bem conseguido foram os vários capítulos que abordaram o que resultou das teorias Darwinistas sobre a evolução das espécies. Os vários autores desses capítulos descreveram de forma adequada e instrutiva o que a teoria evolucionista trouxe de novo e de que forma ela foi combatida por aqueles que se recusavam a aceitar que algo tão simples como o conceito contido na “seleção do mais adequado” pudesse desembocar num mundo tão complexo como o que surgiu com o período câmbrico. Claro que este não era o “main subject” dos autores, mas falar em criacionismo e “designe inteligente” sem citar autores como William Paley ou Fred Hoyle parecem-me uma falha evitável. De qualquer forma a história está razoavelmente descrita e a origem dos movimentos negacionistas, originalmente americanos e posteriormente disseminados pelo globo ficaram bem patentes, ainda que não sejam mitos. São uma triste realidade.
Noutros capítulos como no da suposta relação entre a física quântica de Heisenberg e Niels Bohr e uma entidade cósmica consciente (que nada tem de mítico, sendo apenas alucinações de “evangelistas” como Amit Goswami), ou os que abordaram a física relativista de Albert Einstein ou mecanicista de Isac Newton puseram em confronto duas conceções do mundo. Um mundo determinista em que tudo pode ser previsto (a este respeito não citaram Pierre Simon-Laplace, que claramente foi o maior defensor das implicações da mecânica Newtoniana no funcionamento do “relógio cósmico”) versus um outro baseado na incerteza quântica e cujas implicações à primeira vista parecem resultar numa abertura ao livre arbítrio e à possibilidade de uma entidade superior poder interferir com a sua vontade no curso dos acontecimentos.
Nenhum mito aqui está patente, são físicas diferentes com diferentes implicações na forma como vemos o mundo e que em si nada trazer de oposição entre o mundo da ciência e o do reino de Deus.
Como disse Mary Douglas, a ciência não é causa de secularização por oposição a uma religião fundada e alicerçada em causas sociais. Se a sociedade está a perder a sua “religiosidade” é nas causas sociais e na relação entre elites religiosas e sociais que esta “perda de fé” tem de ser procurada.
Desde os primórdios que o homem tentou encontrar proteção para os seus temores e explicações para um mundo que se abria diante dos seus olhos. As primeiras descrições do mundo as pré-históricas talvez fossem mais do domínio do simbólico e imbuídas de um misticismo que podemos adivinhar, mas que nos faltam os registos adequados à sua comprovação. No mundo clássico as respostas pareceram centrar-se mais no homem, mas sempre deixaram lugar a uma intervenção divina que por vontade própria, apetites, ou mais raramente a pedido de humanos ia alterando o curso dos acontecimentos.
A ciência, enquanto método científico capaz de explicar o mundo só surge muito mais tarde, quando as ideias são testadas pela experiência ou com foi dito pelo matemático árabe do século XIV Ibn-al-Shatir, pela demonstração matemática. Mas ainda aqui, não havia fronteira nítida entre a ciência (umas vezes física, outras magia e alquimia) e a metafísica. Quando uma não dava a resposta, a outra logo lhe surgia em auxílio. Mas ao contrário do sugerido por Thomas Hobbes, estas não disputavam o mesmo território, com a perda de terreno de uma resultar no aumento da preponderância e respeito de outra (não foi pela ciência que a sociedade se secularizou). E ao longo de séculos ciência e religião caminharam lado-a-lado. A separação só veio a ocorrer com Descartes e o método cartesiano (duvidar de tudo o que parece verdadeiro; fazer experiencias dividindo o problema em quantas partes possíveis; analisar os resultados ordenadamente; retirar apenas as conclusões que forem legitimas) e quando a ciência pode dizer perante um problema ou uma questão “eu não sei, eu não tenho resposta …”.
Galileu na prisão, e outros mitos sobre ciência e religião, de Roland N Numbers não sendo um livro fantástico, bem ordenado e coerente, está repleto de boa e útil informação o que fez da sua leitura uma agradável viagem.
Que título com tão mau gosto! … e para além do mais, falso!
Dos 25 capítulos que compõem o livro, apenas um é dedicado a Galileu Galilei, enquanto sete destes abordam temas darwinianos como evolucionismo, criacionismo e “designe inteligente”.
Se a utilização do caso Galileu para título é claramente uma armadilha para captar a atenção do leitor. Quando se propõem desmontar mitos começar por nos induzir em logro, digamos que não é muito abonatório.
Uma segunda crítica que deve realçar é o facto de os vários capítulos serem escritos por diferentes autores que em lado algum do livro estão identificados, assim como não identificam (ou declaram ausente) qualquer conflito de interesse com o tema que abordam. Diferentes autores a abordarem diferentes temas poderia ser uma opção interessante se conseguíssemos através do CV de cada um entender as prespectivas por vezes antagónicas e frequentemente não coincidentes em relação aos assuntos abordados (um exemplo disto é o que é entendido por raciocínio circular por diferentes autores). Falta uma boa revisão final e actividade editorial adequada.
De igual forma, a expressão de mitos não me parece a mais feliz e adequada. Se no caso de Galileu Galilei, parece efectivamente existir um mito, nomeadamente no que diz respeito à sua prisão e maus-tratos (à época leia-se tortura), na maior parte dos assuntos abordados não há qualquer mito, o relatado apenas reflete diferentes abordagens de temas ou convicções, que certas ou erradas foram as que cada um teve ao longo do tempo. O autor e organizador da coletânea começa por denunciar as posições de Andrew Dikson White e John William Draper tidas em finais do século XIX, inícios do século XX e que apresentaram a secularização da ciência e da sociedade como uma luta que se arrastou desde tempos imemoriais entre uma Igreja fiel depositária, e acérrima conservadora da palavra de Deus, contra uma ciência que paulatinamente, avanço após avanço, ia lentamente retirando a humanidade das trevas e da idade média.
Aqui claramente é apropriada a utilização do termo mito (ainda que nos dias de hoje expressões como “fake news” sejam mais adequadas). Na realidade nunca houve essa clivagem assim marcada entre homens de ciência e instituições religiosas. O que sempre houve foi seres humanos crentes e outros que o não eram. E entre eles sempre houve e haverá atritos. Trazer a ciência para esta contenta é uma falsa questão, mas a que muita gente não lhe resiste e o resultado está à vista.
Tirando os extremos, ciência e religião coexistiram no mesmo contexto temporal e de pressupostos culturais, e ao contrario do que frequentemente é propagandeado, a ciência e o conhecimento muito deve (no mundo ocidental) à instituição Igreja Católica que desde os primórdios soube apoiar individualmente ou institucionalmente (universidades) aqueles que pretenderam aprofundar os conhecimentos sobre “as maravilhas das obras divinas”.
Aqui, claramente havia um mito e os autores conseguiram desmontar bem essa construção que ao longo dos anos foi sendo edificada.
Igualmente bem conseguido foram os vários capítulos que abordaram o que resultou das teorias Darwinistas sobre a evolução das espécies. Os vários autores desses capítulos descreveram de forma adequada e instrutiva o que a teoria evolucionista trouxe de novo e de que forma ela foi combatida por aqueles que se recusavam a aceitar que algo tão simples como o conceito contido na “seleção do mais adequado” pudesse desembocar num mundo tão complexo como o que surgiu com o período câmbrico. Claro que este não era o “main subject” dos autores, mas falar em criacionismo e “designe inteligente” sem citar autores como William Paley ou Fred Hoyle parecem-me uma falha evitável. De qualquer forma a história está razoavelmente descrita e a origem dos movimentos negacionistas, originalmente americanos e posteriormente disseminados pelo globo ficaram bem patentes, ainda que não sejam mitos. São uma triste realidade.
Noutros capítulos como no da suposta relação entre a física quântica de Heisenberg e Niels Bohr e uma entidade cósmica consciente (que nada tem de mítico, sendo apenas alucinações de “evangelistas” como Amit Goswami), ou os que abordaram a física relativista de Albert Einstein ou mecanicista de Isac Newton puseram em confronto duas conceções do mundo. Um mundo determinista em que tudo pode ser previsto (a este respeito não citaram Pierre Simon-Laplace, que claramente foi o maior defensor das implicações da mecânica Newtoniana no funcionamento do “relógio cósmico”) versus um outro baseado na incerteza quântica e cujas implicações à primeira vista parecem resultar numa abertura ao livre arbítrio e à possibilidade de uma entidade superior poder interferir com a sua vontade no curso dos acontecimentos.
Nenhum mito aqui está patente, são físicas diferentes com diferentes implicações na forma como vemos o mundo e que em si nada trazer de oposição entre o mundo da ciência e o do reino de Deus.
Como disse Mary Douglas, a ciência não é causa de secularização por oposição a uma religião fundada e alicerçada em causas sociais. Se a sociedade está a perder a sua “religiosidade” é nas causas sociais e na relação entre elites religiosas e sociais que esta “perda de fé” tem de ser procurada.
Desde os primórdios que o homem tentou encontrar proteção para os seus temores e explicações para um mundo que se abria diante dos seus olhos. As primeiras descrições do mundo as pré-históricas talvez fossem mais do domínio do simbólico e imbuídas de um misticismo que podemos adivinhar, mas que nos faltam os registos adequados à sua comprovação. No mundo clássico as respostas pareceram centrar-se mais no homem, mas sempre deixaram lugar a uma intervenção divina que por vontade própria, apetites, ou mais raramente a pedido de humanos ia alterando o curso dos acontecimentos.
A ciência, enquanto método científico capaz de explicar o mundo só surge muito mais tarde, quando as ideias são testadas pela experiência ou com foi dito pelo matemático árabe do século XIV Ibn-al-Shatir, pela demonstração matemática. Mas ainda aqui, não havia fronteira nítida entre a ciência (umas vezes física, outras magia e alquimia) e a metafísica. Quando uma não dava a resposta, a outra logo lhe surgia em auxílio. Mas ao contrário do sugerido por Thomas Hobbes, estas não disputavam o mesmo território, com a perda de terreno de uma resultar no aumento da preponderância e respeito de outra (não foi pela ciência que a sociedade se secularizou). E ao longo de séculos ciência e religião caminharam lado-a-lado. A separação só veio a ocorrer com Descartes e o método cartesiano (duvidar de tudo o que parece verdadeiro; fazer experiencias dividindo o problema em quantas partes possíveis; analisar os resultados ordenadamente; retirar apenas as conclusões que forem legitimas) e quando a ciência pode dizer perante um problema ou uma questão “eu não sei, eu não tenho resposta …”.
Galileu na prisão, e outros mitos sobre ciência e religião, de Roland N Numbers não sendo um livro fantástico, bem ordenado e coerente, está repleto de boa e útil informação o que fez da sua leitura uma agradável viagem.
February 21, 2012
Καλό. Ἀνασκευάζει «μύθους» ὅλων τῶν πλευρῶν· «μύθους», σὲ κάποιους ἀπὸ τοὺς ὁποίους ὅλοι μας ἔχουμε ἐθισθεῖ.
(Διότι ἡ στενομυαλιά, ὅπως ἀπὸ τὴν ἄλλη καὶ τὸ εὐρὺ πνεῦμα, συναντᾶται σὲ ὅλους τοὺς χώρους, σὲ ὅλες τὶς ἰδεολογίες, σὲ ὅλες τὶς κοινωνίες...)
(Διότι ἡ στενομυαλιά, ὅπως ἀπὸ τὴν ἄλλη καὶ τὸ εὐρὺ πνεῦμα, συναντᾶται σὲ ὅλους τοὺς χώρους, σὲ ὅλες τὶς ἰδεολογίες, σὲ ὅλες τὶς κοινωνίες...)
October 23, 2015
Too much pontificating, too little history.
August 25, 2016
Vaihteleva kokoelma "myyttien kumoamista". Osa esseistä asiallisia ja oivaltavia, osa tyhjää jauhavia tai tarkoituksellisen sensaatiohakuisia.
January 29, 2019
The chapters cover topics of varying interest, and they are generally too short.
February 25, 2022
The book contains a collection of essays by scholars addressing 25 myths about the historical relationship between science and religion. All the essays begin with quotes from popular thinkers or earlier scholars perpetuating the historical myths about to be debunked; especially prominent are quotes from John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White who many credit as originating the conflict thesis, which is the idea that religion and science are incompatible and in conflict with each other. Other quotes come from Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, the Christian sociologist Rodney Stark, various Creationists, and many other public intellectuals who often oversimplify the issues, are driven by an agenda, or lack sufficient historical knowledge to put ideas into context.
David C. Lindberg challenges the idea that the rise of Christianity was responsible for the demise of ancient science. While it is true that many of the church fathers showed skepticism toward worldly knowledge over spiritual matters in general, different church fathers had different ideas about the place of classical science and philosophy.
The argument that the early church fathers were antagonistic to classical philosophy and classical science is based largely on Tertullian and a few references in Basil of Caesarea and Tatian, but this didn’t represent the majority view of the church. In fact, many of the church fathers were educated and trained in rhetoric and philosophical reasoning, and Christianity theology shows influences from Platonism, Neo-Platonism, Stoicism, and Aristotelianism. Basically the people who were supposed to be against this stuff according to this myth were in reality steeped in it.
Ultimately it was Augustine’s views that became the general position of the medieval church; he argued that the classical sciences should be approached with caution, but also used and incorporated when useful. His main reservations were with useless abstract speculations about nature. In other words, he argued against “knowledge for the sake of knowledge.” However, Augustine did accept classical learning if it was useful for everyday life and if the knowledge could be used to better understand the Bible. He justified this by arguing that all truths from pagan philosophy should be accepted since all truth ultimately comes from God.
Michael H. Shank supports this view by challenging the idea the Catholic Church suppressed science and intellectual investigation in the Middle Ages. In fact, as many of the essays note, the Catholic Church was one of its greatest institutional sponsors in the Middle Ages and the early modern period of science, especially through the universities that began to appear during the late Middle Ages. The medieval world viewed the study of natural philosophy as complimentary to understanding and thinking about God. Shanks notes that around 30% of the typical curriculum in a medieval university covered material about the natural world. It was through these universities that the ideas of Euclidean geometry, logic, optics, the problems of generation and reproduction, and astronomy were disseminated to hundred of thousands of students across Europe.
The Middle Ages not only taught these subjects, but also witnessed advances in knowledge. Some examples include the use of the camera obscura to view solar eclipses by William of Saint-Cloud, Dietrich von Freiberg’s identifying that multiple rainbows are caused by reflections inside a raindrop, medieval mathematicians at Oxford developing mathematical methods to model motion, Jean Buridan’s development of impetus theory that was a precursor to both Galileo and Newton, and Nicole Oresme’s defense of the possibility of the earth’s rotation.
It is true that, on occasion such as in 1210 and 1215, there were local bans at the university of Paris from studying Aristotle’s natural philosophy, but this ban only applied to that one university and had no effect on any of the other universities, nor represented the perspective of the entire Catholic Church, but rather just a single bishop.
Shanks also tackles an additional myth that students in medieval universities spent most of their time studying theology. The medieval university was divided into different faculties such as law, medicine, arts, and theology. Only those who belonged to the faculty of theology were allowed to deal with theological topics. The most popular area of study for students was law since it promised better career opportunities.
Lesley B. Cormack addresses the myth that medieval Christians thought the world was flat and it was only with the voyage of Christopher Columbus that they learned the earth was round. The myth that Columbus discovered the earth was round originates with the American fiction writer Washington Irving and gained further strength from 19th century anti-Catholic and Enlightenment propagandists who wanted to create a contrast with itself as an age of science and reason with the supposedly backwards Medieval past. However, scholars in the Middle Ages had access to and used Aristotle’s work as part of their own arguments. Early church fathers like Augustine, Jerome, and Ambrose all acknowledge a spherical earth. Medieval thinkers like Thomas Aquinas, Roger Bacon, Albertus Magnus, Michael Scot, Jean de Sacrobosco, Jean de Mandeville, Dante, Chaucer, and Pierre d’Ailly all mention or wrote books about the sphericity of the earth.
Syed Nomanul Haq addresses a number of myth associated with that idea that medieval Islamic culture was inhospitable to science noting that contra to these myth-makers Islamic scholars did more than just translate ancient works, but added, developed, and extended the original Greek ideas and made many important discoveries such as Nasir al-Din al-Tusi and Ibn al-Shatir developing non-Ptolemaic astronomical models of heavenly motions, Avicenna putting together an encyclopedia that collected all ancient and contemporary medieval knowledge together in one place, and Ibn al-Nafis discovering of the pulmonary circulation of blood three hundred years before Europeans rediscovered it.
Another myth about the Middle Ages that Katherine Park addresses it that the medieval church prohibited human dissection. In reality, dissection was a normal part of a medieval university medical education. Even a quick glance of medieval practices around sainthood, which required dissection and inspection of the body for relics to distribute among the different churches and the development of Caesarean section for the purpose of baptizing children show the church had no problem with dissecting humans. There was a prohibition on members of the clergy from practicing certain forms of surgery, but this was motivated by a “concern that clergy might be putting people's lives in danger for pecuniary reasons and had nothing whatsoever to do with dissection.” A key reason people hold this myth comes from the Papal bull known as Of detestable Cruelty by Pope Boniface VIII, which tried to end the practice of cutting up a corpse and boiling the flesh off its bones in order to more easily transport the remains of Crusaders. There is no evidence that it was intended to prohibit dissections altogether, although there are some doctors in Northern Europe that interpreted it that way. Likewise there was legal issues with grave robbing to supply a shortage of corpses and taboos of families who didn’t want to see a loved one dissected before an audience of strangers. However, in Italy and other parts of the continents dissections continued.
Moving onto the modern era, Daniel R. Danielson addresses the myth that Copernicus demoted humans from the center of the cosmos. Ancient thought systems often viewed being at the center as inferior, where all the filth, and imperfect things go, and the outer layers of the heaven as being more perfect. So a careful study of ancient and Christian thought reveals that the Copernican system actually raised the status of earth and its inhabitants by suggesting that it too was part of the heavens, or at the very least it wasn’t a demotion.
Maurice A Finocchario makes the case that the documents and recorded timeline of events suggest Galileo was likely not tortured or imprisoned at any point during his inquisition trial in response to the idea that spread for over 150 years, especially during the Enlightenment, that he was tortured and imprisoned by the inquisition.
Margaret J. Osler addresses the myth that scientific revolution liberated science from religion. As many of the essays point out it was only in the late 18th and 19th centuries that natural philosophers and scientists began to completely divorce science from religion. The period of the scientific revolution did see a wider rejection of Aristotelianism, but continued to deal with many of the same intellectual topics debated in the Middle Ages. This period also saw the rediscovery of the Ancient Greek skeptics and the Reformation led to an eroding of religious certainty, which in turn led to a general intellectual skepticism about the certainty of any piece of knowledge. This caused natural philosophers to focus more on observation to establish knowledge and “regarded their conclusions as merely probable.”
Lawrence Principe addresses the myth that Catholics didn’t contribute to the scientific revolution, which is driven by Protestant anti-Catholic propaganda. Important Catholic thinkers of this period include Copernicus whose astronomical model practically began the scientific revolution, Galileo, anatomist Andreas Vesalius, Marcello Malpighi who observed the existence of capillaries, Niels Stensen who performed preliminary work on fossils and rock strata, Pierre Gassendi who reintroduced atomic theory, and Rene Descartes who is often considered the beginning of modern philosophy.
Although many deists have tried to claim Newton, Edward B. Davis points out that Newton was a religious man who rejected the God as divine clockmaker analogy often ascribed to him by Enlightenment thinkers. Newton’s theological ideas deeply influenced his understanding about how to the world worked and his ideas about nature. Newton believed God was a crucial part in sustaining the universe, including gravity.
Rennie B. Schoepflin addresses the myth that the Catholic Church rejected Anesthesia in childbirth on biblical grounds. While there was some opposition among the clergy against anesthesia, textual evidence suggests it was never widespread or systematic. Most of the opposition came from other 19th century physicians based on medical or scientific concerns, and only rarely on biblical grounds.
As a balance to many of the essays that show, Noah J Efron challenges the idea that Christianity alone gave birth to modern science. He does acknowledge that Christianity provided the motivation to study nature systematically as well as supplied some of the “tenets, methods, and institutions” of modern science. Nevertheless, it didn’t accomplish this alone.
Christianity was heavily influenced by the classical tradition and thus many of the ideas that came to influence the formation of modern science also stem from the ancient Greco-Roman world. Arabic lands in particular served as a place where learning and technology from multiple cultures such as Greek, Roman, Persian, Indian, and Chinese could spread and interact with each other. Likewise the growth of commerce and trade might have been equally as important as religious ideas and institutions in the growth of modern science; increased trade and opportunity, along with more capital to invest, led to both a need for improved technology and available resources into developing it.
James Moore tries to address a double myth that it was evolution that destroyed Darwin’s faith in Christianity and that he later reconverted on his deathbed. A careful reading of The Origin of the Species shows that it is not necessarily anti-religious, but sometimes uses religious language and terminology to make the case that animal’s evolved by natural laws and not special creation.
“From start to finish, the Origin of Species was a pious work: "one long argument" against miraculous creation but equally a theist's case for creation by law.”
At the time of writing the Origin of the Species Darwin likely still believed in God although he continued to struggle to justify faith and belief. Slowly he became an atheist and the tragic deaths of his father and 10 year old daughter on Easter was an especially strong push in this direction.
The myth of his conversion back to Christianity stems from Lady Hope, an evangelical, who wrote a pious fabrication to win notereity and money among American evangelicals. Evangelicals of this period loved the literary genre of lost souls being won back to Christ, and the story of Darwin returning to faith began spreading through the evangelical presses in 1915.
Although Darwin lost his faith, the evidence suggests that in his actions he continued to support the church as an institution. He gave monetary support and donations to various church institutions, missionaries, and even sent his family to be tutored under parsons.
John H. Roberts tackles the myth that Darwin’s theory destroyed Natural Theology as a discipline. Documentary evidence shows that natural theology continued to endure long after the publication of Darwin’s work and Natural Theologians of the time took the evidence that supported evolution as evidence for their position that there was a unity in nature guided by God. There was only a wane in natural theology in the early 20th century, not due to science, but because of the influence of theologians like Friedrich Schleiermacher and Albrecht Ritschl who argued that the essence of Christianity stemmed from feelings and values more than observations from the natural world.
Robert J Richards addresses whether Darwin and Haekel were partially responsible for the Nazis. Although Darwin and Haekel may have held some racial concepts of higher and lower races, these reflect 19th century prejudices more generally and evidence of Darwin’s views of American slavery and the Civil War suggests he was against anti-Humanitarianism. Racial hierarchies of superior and lower human races such as those developed by Carolus Linnaeus and Johann Friedrich Blumenbach in the 18th century predate Darwin’s theory of evolution. Likewise, a close look at his own words in which Haekel describes his Jewish friends as “admirable and excellent men” and defended educated Jews as an important part of German social and intellectual life disproves charge of anti-Semitism. Haekel defended his friendship with Jews even as anti-Semitic sentiments began to spread more generally in Germany. Evidence from the Nazi propaganda itself reveals explicit statements that they rejected Haekel’s Darwinian ideas and the ubiquitousness of pseudoscientific racial journals shows that the Nazis would have had plenty of other sources to draw their influence from without needing to turn to 19th century thinkers.
The final essay of the collection by John Hedley Brooke addresses the myth that science is the primary cause of increasing secularization in the modern world. By noting the many scientist in history who have been religious and sociological studies of atheist deconverts, and other factors he points out that science only plays a minor role at best. The biggest factors mentioned by deconverts were a change in political orientation from conservative to liberal, reading philosophical texts like Thomas Paine, studying the Bible itself and finding contradictions, perceived immorality of religious texts and God as depicted in the Bible, and the hypocritical behavior of religious authorities. Brooke also notes historical research rather than science that contradicts the Bible’s narrative of events played a far more important role. Even known critics of religion such as Voltaire raised primarily political and moral objections rather than scientific ones. Other factors include increased social and geographic mobility, capitalism, commerce, and consumerism. In so far science plays a role, it seems to be primarily centered on technology providing us with alternative ways to spend our leisure time.
There was other essays that I found less interesting. Joel Shackelford questions the idea that Giordano Bruno was a martyr for science and shows that it was more likely he was convicted for heretical ideas rather than for so-called scientific ones. Peter Harrison tackles the myth that Descartes’s dualism between mind and body meant he thought the two were completely separate and never interacted or he had no thoughts on the place of emotions. Nicolaas A. Rupke draws on history to address the claim of antievolutionists that evolution is based on circular reasoning. The problem with the circular reasoning claim is that historically the development of the stratigraphic table and homology predated the theory of evolution. Edward J Larson addresses the incorrect idea that the Scopes Trail Ended in Defeat for Antievolution. Matthew Stanley challenges the myth that Einstein Believed in a Personal God when he actually believed in a Spinozan God that was synonymous with nature and identified with Judaism only as a matter of ancestry and traditions. Daniel Patrick Thurs addresses the tendency of people to associate mystical eastern beliefs or defend the Christian idea of freewill with the findings of Quantum Physics. Michael Ruse explores the history of Intelligent Design and points out the reasons why its not really a science. David N. Livingstone writes about the myth that Huxley defeated Wilberforce in debate about evolution and religion. Ronald Numbers points out that Creationism isn’t just American and has spread to many countries throughout the world.
While different essays were more interesting than others, the entire collection leaves one with the impression that the relationship between science and religion historically has been more complicated and has more nuance than the typical internet conversation acknowledges. This book definitely got me interested in exploring some of these topics further.
David C. Lindberg challenges the idea that the rise of Christianity was responsible for the demise of ancient science. While it is true that many of the church fathers showed skepticism toward worldly knowledge over spiritual matters in general, different church fathers had different ideas about the place of classical science and philosophy.
The argument that the early church fathers were antagonistic to classical philosophy and classical science is based largely on Tertullian and a few references in Basil of Caesarea and Tatian, but this didn’t represent the majority view of the church. In fact, many of the church fathers were educated and trained in rhetoric and philosophical reasoning, and Christianity theology shows influences from Platonism, Neo-Platonism, Stoicism, and Aristotelianism. Basically the people who were supposed to be against this stuff according to this myth were in reality steeped in it.
Ultimately it was Augustine’s views that became the general position of the medieval church; he argued that the classical sciences should be approached with caution, but also used and incorporated when useful. His main reservations were with useless abstract speculations about nature. In other words, he argued against “knowledge for the sake of knowledge.” However, Augustine did accept classical learning if it was useful for everyday life and if the knowledge could be used to better understand the Bible. He justified this by arguing that all truths from pagan philosophy should be accepted since all truth ultimately comes from God.
Michael H. Shank supports this view by challenging the idea the Catholic Church suppressed science and intellectual investigation in the Middle Ages. In fact, as many of the essays note, the Catholic Church was one of its greatest institutional sponsors in the Middle Ages and the early modern period of science, especially through the universities that began to appear during the late Middle Ages. The medieval world viewed the study of natural philosophy as complimentary to understanding and thinking about God. Shanks notes that around 30% of the typical curriculum in a medieval university covered material about the natural world. It was through these universities that the ideas of Euclidean geometry, logic, optics, the problems of generation and reproduction, and astronomy were disseminated to hundred of thousands of students across Europe.
The Middle Ages not only taught these subjects, but also witnessed advances in knowledge. Some examples include the use of the camera obscura to view solar eclipses by William of Saint-Cloud, Dietrich von Freiberg’s identifying that multiple rainbows are caused by reflections inside a raindrop, medieval mathematicians at Oxford developing mathematical methods to model motion, Jean Buridan’s development of impetus theory that was a precursor to both Galileo and Newton, and Nicole Oresme’s defense of the possibility of the earth’s rotation.
It is true that, on occasion such as in 1210 and 1215, there were local bans at the university of Paris from studying Aristotle’s natural philosophy, but this ban only applied to that one university and had no effect on any of the other universities, nor represented the perspective of the entire Catholic Church, but rather just a single bishop.
Shanks also tackles an additional myth that students in medieval universities spent most of their time studying theology. The medieval university was divided into different faculties such as law, medicine, arts, and theology. Only those who belonged to the faculty of theology were allowed to deal with theological topics. The most popular area of study for students was law since it promised better career opportunities.
Lesley B. Cormack addresses the myth that medieval Christians thought the world was flat and it was only with the voyage of Christopher Columbus that they learned the earth was round. The myth that Columbus discovered the earth was round originates with the American fiction writer Washington Irving and gained further strength from 19th century anti-Catholic and Enlightenment propagandists who wanted to create a contrast with itself as an age of science and reason with the supposedly backwards Medieval past. However, scholars in the Middle Ages had access to and used Aristotle’s work as part of their own arguments. Early church fathers like Augustine, Jerome, and Ambrose all acknowledge a spherical earth. Medieval thinkers like Thomas Aquinas, Roger Bacon, Albertus Magnus, Michael Scot, Jean de Sacrobosco, Jean de Mandeville, Dante, Chaucer, and Pierre d’Ailly all mention or wrote books about the sphericity of the earth.
Syed Nomanul Haq addresses a number of myth associated with that idea that medieval Islamic culture was inhospitable to science noting that contra to these myth-makers Islamic scholars did more than just translate ancient works, but added, developed, and extended the original Greek ideas and made many important discoveries such as Nasir al-Din al-Tusi and Ibn al-Shatir developing non-Ptolemaic astronomical models of heavenly motions, Avicenna putting together an encyclopedia that collected all ancient and contemporary medieval knowledge together in one place, and Ibn al-Nafis discovering of the pulmonary circulation of blood three hundred years before Europeans rediscovered it.
Another myth about the Middle Ages that Katherine Park addresses it that the medieval church prohibited human dissection. In reality, dissection was a normal part of a medieval university medical education. Even a quick glance of medieval practices around sainthood, which required dissection and inspection of the body for relics to distribute among the different churches and the development of Caesarean section for the purpose of baptizing children show the church had no problem with dissecting humans. There was a prohibition on members of the clergy from practicing certain forms of surgery, but this was motivated by a “concern that clergy might be putting people's lives in danger for pecuniary reasons and had nothing whatsoever to do with dissection.” A key reason people hold this myth comes from the Papal bull known as Of detestable Cruelty by Pope Boniface VIII, which tried to end the practice of cutting up a corpse and boiling the flesh off its bones in order to more easily transport the remains of Crusaders. There is no evidence that it was intended to prohibit dissections altogether, although there are some doctors in Northern Europe that interpreted it that way. Likewise there was legal issues with grave robbing to supply a shortage of corpses and taboos of families who didn’t want to see a loved one dissected before an audience of strangers. However, in Italy and other parts of the continents dissections continued.
Moving onto the modern era, Daniel R. Danielson addresses the myth that Copernicus demoted humans from the center of the cosmos. Ancient thought systems often viewed being at the center as inferior, where all the filth, and imperfect things go, and the outer layers of the heaven as being more perfect. So a careful study of ancient and Christian thought reveals that the Copernican system actually raised the status of earth and its inhabitants by suggesting that it too was part of the heavens, or at the very least it wasn’t a demotion.
Maurice A Finocchario makes the case that the documents and recorded timeline of events suggest Galileo was likely not tortured or imprisoned at any point during his inquisition trial in response to the idea that spread for over 150 years, especially during the Enlightenment, that he was tortured and imprisoned by the inquisition.
Margaret J. Osler addresses the myth that scientific revolution liberated science from religion. As many of the essays point out it was only in the late 18th and 19th centuries that natural philosophers and scientists began to completely divorce science from religion. The period of the scientific revolution did see a wider rejection of Aristotelianism, but continued to deal with many of the same intellectual topics debated in the Middle Ages. This period also saw the rediscovery of the Ancient Greek skeptics and the Reformation led to an eroding of religious certainty, which in turn led to a general intellectual skepticism about the certainty of any piece of knowledge. This caused natural philosophers to focus more on observation to establish knowledge and “regarded their conclusions as merely probable.”
Lawrence Principe addresses the myth that Catholics didn’t contribute to the scientific revolution, which is driven by Protestant anti-Catholic propaganda. Important Catholic thinkers of this period include Copernicus whose astronomical model practically began the scientific revolution, Galileo, anatomist Andreas Vesalius, Marcello Malpighi who observed the existence of capillaries, Niels Stensen who performed preliminary work on fossils and rock strata, Pierre Gassendi who reintroduced atomic theory, and Rene Descartes who is often considered the beginning of modern philosophy.
Although many deists have tried to claim Newton, Edward B. Davis points out that Newton was a religious man who rejected the God as divine clockmaker analogy often ascribed to him by Enlightenment thinkers. Newton’s theological ideas deeply influenced his understanding about how to the world worked and his ideas about nature. Newton believed God was a crucial part in sustaining the universe, including gravity.
Rennie B. Schoepflin addresses the myth that the Catholic Church rejected Anesthesia in childbirth on biblical grounds. While there was some opposition among the clergy against anesthesia, textual evidence suggests it was never widespread or systematic. Most of the opposition came from other 19th century physicians based on medical or scientific concerns, and only rarely on biblical grounds.
As a balance to many of the essays that show, Noah J Efron challenges the idea that Christianity alone gave birth to modern science. He does acknowledge that Christianity provided the motivation to study nature systematically as well as supplied some of the “tenets, methods, and institutions” of modern science. Nevertheless, it didn’t accomplish this alone.
Christianity was heavily influenced by the classical tradition and thus many of the ideas that came to influence the formation of modern science also stem from the ancient Greco-Roman world. Arabic lands in particular served as a place where learning and technology from multiple cultures such as Greek, Roman, Persian, Indian, and Chinese could spread and interact with each other. Likewise the growth of commerce and trade might have been equally as important as religious ideas and institutions in the growth of modern science; increased trade and opportunity, along with more capital to invest, led to both a need for improved technology and available resources into developing it.
James Moore tries to address a double myth that it was evolution that destroyed Darwin’s faith in Christianity and that he later reconverted on his deathbed. A careful reading of The Origin of the Species shows that it is not necessarily anti-religious, but sometimes uses religious language and terminology to make the case that animal’s evolved by natural laws and not special creation.
“From start to finish, the Origin of Species was a pious work: "one long argument" against miraculous creation but equally a theist's case for creation by law.”
At the time of writing the Origin of the Species Darwin likely still believed in God although he continued to struggle to justify faith and belief. Slowly he became an atheist and the tragic deaths of his father and 10 year old daughter on Easter was an especially strong push in this direction.
The myth of his conversion back to Christianity stems from Lady Hope, an evangelical, who wrote a pious fabrication to win notereity and money among American evangelicals. Evangelicals of this period loved the literary genre of lost souls being won back to Christ, and the story of Darwin returning to faith began spreading through the evangelical presses in 1915.
Although Darwin lost his faith, the evidence suggests that in his actions he continued to support the church as an institution. He gave monetary support and donations to various church institutions, missionaries, and even sent his family to be tutored under parsons.
John H. Roberts tackles the myth that Darwin’s theory destroyed Natural Theology as a discipline. Documentary evidence shows that natural theology continued to endure long after the publication of Darwin’s work and Natural Theologians of the time took the evidence that supported evolution as evidence for their position that there was a unity in nature guided by God. There was only a wane in natural theology in the early 20th century, not due to science, but because of the influence of theologians like Friedrich Schleiermacher and Albrecht Ritschl who argued that the essence of Christianity stemmed from feelings and values more than observations from the natural world.
Robert J Richards addresses whether Darwin and Haekel were partially responsible for the Nazis. Although Darwin and Haekel may have held some racial concepts of higher and lower races, these reflect 19th century prejudices more generally and evidence of Darwin’s views of American slavery and the Civil War suggests he was against anti-Humanitarianism. Racial hierarchies of superior and lower human races such as those developed by Carolus Linnaeus and Johann Friedrich Blumenbach in the 18th century predate Darwin’s theory of evolution. Likewise, a close look at his own words in which Haekel describes his Jewish friends as “admirable and excellent men” and defended educated Jews as an important part of German social and intellectual life disproves charge of anti-Semitism. Haekel defended his friendship with Jews even as anti-Semitic sentiments began to spread more generally in Germany. Evidence from the Nazi propaganda itself reveals explicit statements that they rejected Haekel’s Darwinian ideas and the ubiquitousness of pseudoscientific racial journals shows that the Nazis would have had plenty of other sources to draw their influence from without needing to turn to 19th century thinkers.
The final essay of the collection by John Hedley Brooke addresses the myth that science is the primary cause of increasing secularization in the modern world. By noting the many scientist in history who have been religious and sociological studies of atheist deconverts, and other factors he points out that science only plays a minor role at best. The biggest factors mentioned by deconverts were a change in political orientation from conservative to liberal, reading philosophical texts like Thomas Paine, studying the Bible itself and finding contradictions, perceived immorality of religious texts and God as depicted in the Bible, and the hypocritical behavior of religious authorities. Brooke also notes historical research rather than science that contradicts the Bible’s narrative of events played a far more important role. Even known critics of religion such as Voltaire raised primarily political and moral objections rather than scientific ones. Other factors include increased social and geographic mobility, capitalism, commerce, and consumerism. In so far science plays a role, it seems to be primarily centered on technology providing us with alternative ways to spend our leisure time.
There was other essays that I found less interesting. Joel Shackelford questions the idea that Giordano Bruno was a martyr for science and shows that it was more likely he was convicted for heretical ideas rather than for so-called scientific ones. Peter Harrison tackles the myth that Descartes’s dualism between mind and body meant he thought the two were completely separate and never interacted or he had no thoughts on the place of emotions. Nicolaas A. Rupke draws on history to address the claim of antievolutionists that evolution is based on circular reasoning. The problem with the circular reasoning claim is that historically the development of the stratigraphic table and homology predated the theory of evolution. Edward J Larson addresses the incorrect idea that the Scopes Trail Ended in Defeat for Antievolution. Matthew Stanley challenges the myth that Einstein Believed in a Personal God when he actually believed in a Spinozan God that was synonymous with nature and identified with Judaism only as a matter of ancestry and traditions. Daniel Patrick Thurs addresses the tendency of people to associate mystical eastern beliefs or defend the Christian idea of freewill with the findings of Quantum Physics. Michael Ruse explores the history of Intelligent Design and points out the reasons why its not really a science. David N. Livingstone writes about the myth that Huxley defeated Wilberforce in debate about evolution and religion. Ronald Numbers points out that Creationism isn’t just American and has spread to many countries throughout the world.
While different essays were more interesting than others, the entire collection leaves one with the impression that the relationship between science and religion historically has been more complicated and has more nuance than the typical internet conversation acknowledges. This book definitely got me interested in exploring some of these topics further.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 12, 2012
In the second half of the nineteenth century, Andrew Dickson White and John William Draper wrongly proposed that science and religion exist in a perpetual state of conflict. (One is reminded of Stephen Gould’s famous demarcation between science and religion as two non-overlapping magisterium.) Historians and scientists who adopted the White-Draper thesis consequently misread several famous episodes in western history in their attempt to confirm the thesis. Although White and Draper’s credibility as researchers has long been discounted, their thesis has proved resilient, filtering down into the popular conception through constant textbook repetition and oft-cited historical “myths” proposing a clash between church and science.
Historian Ronald Numbers (author of The Creationists) has gathered an impressive list of scholars to set the record straight through their exploration of twenty-five “myths” concerning the relationship between science and religion. Interestingly, twelve of the twenty-five contributing authors are atheists or agnostics; one is a Jew, one a Muslim, one a Buddhist, and one a Spinozist. The book can hardly be dismissed as creationist propaganda. The twenty-five myths discussed are as follows:
Myth 1. The rise of Christianity was responsible for the demise of ancient science.
Myth 2. The medieval Christian church suppressed the growth of science.
Myth 3. Medieval Christians taught that the earth was flat.
Myth 4. Medieval Islamic culture was inhospitable to science.
Myth 5. The medieval church prohibited human dissection.
Myth 6. Copernicanism demoted humans from the center of the cosmos.
Myth 7. Giordano Bruno was the first martyr of modern science.
Myth 8. Galileo was imprisoned and tortured for advocating Copernicanism.
Myth 9. Christianity gave birth to modern science.
Myth 10. The scientific revolution liberated science from religion.
Myth 11. Catholics did not contribute to the Scientific Revolution
Myth 12. René Descartes originated the mind-body distinction.
Myth 13. Isaac Newton’s mechanistic cosmology eliminated the need for God.
Myth 14. The church denounced anesthesia in childbirth on biblical grounds.
Myth 15. The theory of organic evolution is based on circular reasoning.
Myth 16. Evolution destroyed Darwin’s faith in Christianity—until he reconverted on his deathbed.
Myth 17. Huxley defeated Wilberforce in their debate over evolution and religion.
Myth 18. Darwin destroyed natural theology.
Myth 19. Darwin and Haeckel were complicit in Nazi biology.
Myth 20. The Scopes Trial ended in defeat for antievolutionism.
Myth 21. Einstein believed in a personal God.
Myth 22. Quantum physics demonstrated the doctrine of free will.
Myth 23. “Intelligent Design” represent as scientific challenge to evolution.
Myth 24. Creationism is a uniquely American phenomenon.
Myth 25. Modern science has secularized western culture.
Generally the chapters are balanced. Intelligent Design theorists will take umbrage especially with Michael Ruse in chapter twenty-three where he rejects Intelligent Design Theory as science. Ruse assumes a thoroughly materialistic definition of science, rejecting the injection of supernatural activity in the natural world. He is particularly offended by the Kansas State Board of Education’s 2005 definition of science as “a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.” (213) He prefers limiting the domain of science to what Charles Krauthammer calls “naturalistic explanations for what we observe in the world around us.” (213)
Creationists are likely to find fault with Nicolaas Rupke’s rejection of the claim that evolutionists employ circular reasoning (Myth 15). A standard creationist argument concerns reciprocal dating patterns in geology and animal fossilization; evolutionists use fossils to date the rocks and rocks to date the fossils. Rupke counters this objection with the claim that a stratigraphic column existed in geology as early as 1820, a generation before Darwin proposed his theory. Fossils were therefore never used to date the geological column, but were discovered in previously dated layers. Rupke could have strengthened his argument had he demonstrated both how the column was dated in the 1820s, and whether the 1820s version has stood the test of time.
The majority of the chapters strengthen the case for Christianity. David Lindberg demonstrates in chapter one, that the Christianization of the Roman empire coupled with an overturning of pagan philosophies that were inimical to Christianity did not constitute a categorical rejection of classical philosophy, mathematics, and science. Further, critics of Christianity have appealed almost exclusively to Tertullian as an iconoclast of science, while ignoring significant endorsements of the scientific enterprise by numerous other church fathers.
Similarly, in chapter two, Michael Shank laments, “the crude concept of the Middle Ages as a millennium of stagnation brought on by Christianity has largely disappeared among scholars familiar with the period, but it remains vigorous among popularizers of the history of science—perhaps because, instead of consulting scholarship on the subject, the more recent popularizers have relied upon their predecessors uncritically” (20). Ironically, it was the medieval period that gave birth to the university where most of Christianity’s critics now reside.
In chapter three Lesley Cormack answers one of the most persistent myths in the history of science: the notion that medieval man believed the world was flat. This myth was not invented by medieval thinkers but nineteenth-century scholars who projected it backward on the medieval mind in an attempt to discredit Christianity. The myth flatly contradicts numerous ancient and medieval documents, as Cormack carefully demonstrates.
Dennis Danielson’s defense of Copernicus in chapter 6 is delightful. In the history of science and religion no scientist’s legacy has been hijacked and maligned by atheists quite like Copernicus’. Supposedly, Copernicus attempted to demote man from the special place he occupied at the center of God’s universe. God, if He even existed, was so remote and the universe so large that He must care nothing for man. The modern atheist leaves the impression that Copernicus was “one of them,” a crypto atheist, a materialist in disguise.
Danielson demonstrates that the standard atheist interpretation is off by 180 degrees. The medieval mind never suggested geocentricism equaled theological centricity. Geocentrists placed earth at the universe’s center because of its density (dense objects were associated with evil). As the heaviest object in the universe, it fell to the middle (Think of a bowling ball on a trampoline—only in three dimensions). Thomas Aquinas argued the earth was central because it is the “most material and coarsest (ignobilissima) of all bodies.” (53) Dante “placed the lowest pit of hell at the very midpoint of the earth, the dead center of the whole universe.” (53) Ironically, Copernicus’ cosmology was thought originally to improve the earth’s position! Copernicus brought about a promotion rather than a demotion of the earth in God’s creation. Galileo rejoiced that “it [the earth] was not the sump where the universe’s filth and ephemera collect.” (55) Kepler argued that the revolving earth enabled our greater discovery of God’s handiwork: “[Man] could not remain at rest in the center . . . [but] must make an annual journey on this boat, which is our earth, to perform observations. . . . There is no globe nobler or more suitable for man than the earth.” (55-56) Danielson concludes the “Copernican cliché”, that is, Copernicus’ supposed demotion of man and earth, did not appear until a century after his death.
Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion should be a welcome contribution in the rewriting and improvement of the science narrative that was hijacked by partisan scholars in the nineteenth century.
Historian Ronald Numbers (author of The Creationists) has gathered an impressive list of scholars to set the record straight through their exploration of twenty-five “myths” concerning the relationship between science and religion. Interestingly, twelve of the twenty-five contributing authors are atheists or agnostics; one is a Jew, one a Muslim, one a Buddhist, and one a Spinozist. The book can hardly be dismissed as creationist propaganda. The twenty-five myths discussed are as follows:
Myth 1. The rise of Christianity was responsible for the demise of ancient science.
Myth 2. The medieval Christian church suppressed the growth of science.
Myth 3. Medieval Christians taught that the earth was flat.
Myth 4. Medieval Islamic culture was inhospitable to science.
Myth 5. The medieval church prohibited human dissection.
Myth 6. Copernicanism demoted humans from the center of the cosmos.
Myth 7. Giordano Bruno was the first martyr of modern science.
Myth 8. Galileo was imprisoned and tortured for advocating Copernicanism.
Myth 9. Christianity gave birth to modern science.
Myth 10. The scientific revolution liberated science from religion.
Myth 11. Catholics did not contribute to the Scientific Revolution
Myth 12. René Descartes originated the mind-body distinction.
Myth 13. Isaac Newton’s mechanistic cosmology eliminated the need for God.
Myth 14. The church denounced anesthesia in childbirth on biblical grounds.
Myth 15. The theory of organic evolution is based on circular reasoning.
Myth 16. Evolution destroyed Darwin’s faith in Christianity—until he reconverted on his deathbed.
Myth 17. Huxley defeated Wilberforce in their debate over evolution and religion.
Myth 18. Darwin destroyed natural theology.
Myth 19. Darwin and Haeckel were complicit in Nazi biology.
Myth 20. The Scopes Trial ended in defeat for antievolutionism.
Myth 21. Einstein believed in a personal God.
Myth 22. Quantum physics demonstrated the doctrine of free will.
Myth 23. “Intelligent Design” represent as scientific challenge to evolution.
Myth 24. Creationism is a uniquely American phenomenon.
Myth 25. Modern science has secularized western culture.
Generally the chapters are balanced. Intelligent Design theorists will take umbrage especially with Michael Ruse in chapter twenty-three where he rejects Intelligent Design Theory as science. Ruse assumes a thoroughly materialistic definition of science, rejecting the injection of supernatural activity in the natural world. He is particularly offended by the Kansas State Board of Education’s 2005 definition of science as “a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.” (213) He prefers limiting the domain of science to what Charles Krauthammer calls “naturalistic explanations for what we observe in the world around us.” (213)
Creationists are likely to find fault with Nicolaas Rupke’s rejection of the claim that evolutionists employ circular reasoning (Myth 15). A standard creationist argument concerns reciprocal dating patterns in geology and animal fossilization; evolutionists use fossils to date the rocks and rocks to date the fossils. Rupke counters this objection with the claim that a stratigraphic column existed in geology as early as 1820, a generation before Darwin proposed his theory. Fossils were therefore never used to date the geological column, but were discovered in previously dated layers. Rupke could have strengthened his argument had he demonstrated both how the column was dated in the 1820s, and whether the 1820s version has stood the test of time.
The majority of the chapters strengthen the case for Christianity. David Lindberg demonstrates in chapter one, that the Christianization of the Roman empire coupled with an overturning of pagan philosophies that were inimical to Christianity did not constitute a categorical rejection of classical philosophy, mathematics, and science. Further, critics of Christianity have appealed almost exclusively to Tertullian as an iconoclast of science, while ignoring significant endorsements of the scientific enterprise by numerous other church fathers.
Similarly, in chapter two, Michael Shank laments, “the crude concept of the Middle Ages as a millennium of stagnation brought on by Christianity has largely disappeared among scholars familiar with the period, but it remains vigorous among popularizers of the history of science—perhaps because, instead of consulting scholarship on the subject, the more recent popularizers have relied upon their predecessors uncritically” (20). Ironically, it was the medieval period that gave birth to the university where most of Christianity’s critics now reside.
In chapter three Lesley Cormack answers one of the most persistent myths in the history of science: the notion that medieval man believed the world was flat. This myth was not invented by medieval thinkers but nineteenth-century scholars who projected it backward on the medieval mind in an attempt to discredit Christianity. The myth flatly contradicts numerous ancient and medieval documents, as Cormack carefully demonstrates.
Dennis Danielson’s defense of Copernicus in chapter 6 is delightful. In the history of science and religion no scientist’s legacy has been hijacked and maligned by atheists quite like Copernicus’. Supposedly, Copernicus attempted to demote man from the special place he occupied at the center of God’s universe. God, if He even existed, was so remote and the universe so large that He must care nothing for man. The modern atheist leaves the impression that Copernicus was “one of them,” a crypto atheist, a materialist in disguise.
Danielson demonstrates that the standard atheist interpretation is off by 180 degrees. The medieval mind never suggested geocentricism equaled theological centricity. Geocentrists placed earth at the universe’s center because of its density (dense objects were associated with evil). As the heaviest object in the universe, it fell to the middle (Think of a bowling ball on a trampoline—only in three dimensions). Thomas Aquinas argued the earth was central because it is the “most material and coarsest (ignobilissima) of all bodies.” (53) Dante “placed the lowest pit of hell at the very midpoint of the earth, the dead center of the whole universe.” (53) Ironically, Copernicus’ cosmology was thought originally to improve the earth’s position! Copernicus brought about a promotion rather than a demotion of the earth in God’s creation. Galileo rejoiced that “it [the earth] was not the sump where the universe’s filth and ephemera collect.” (55) Kepler argued that the revolving earth enabled our greater discovery of God’s handiwork: “[Man] could not remain at rest in the center . . . [but] must make an annual journey on this boat, which is our earth, to perform observations. . . . There is no globe nobler or more suitable for man than the earth.” (55-56) Danielson concludes the “Copernican cliché”, that is, Copernicus’ supposed demotion of man and earth, did not appear until a century after his death.
Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion should be a welcome contribution in the rewriting and improvement of the science narrative that was hijacked by partisan scholars in the nineteenth century.
December 2, 2018
Absolutely excellent, scholarly, discusses a variety of questions over long periods of time and corrects many misunderstandings and misimpressions embedded in our cultural fabric that almost any history buff would have elided over in their own studies. The editor of the book; Ronald Numbers, and a number of the many contributors, including David Lindberg, Michael Shank, Lawrence Principe, Peter Harrison, John Hedley Brooke and others, are incredibly achieved historians of science and have each made crucial advancements in the history of science. All authors are learned in their material and outline a detailed picture of each period and ideas they address.
Some of the most excellent chapters include "That the Medieval Christian Church Suppressed the
Growth of Science", demonstrating that the medieval period, to a good degree because of the Christian church, spurred enormous intellectual and scientific progress, with events like the establishment of the university and many discoveries such as William of Saint-Cloud's invention of the camera obscura to observe solar eclipses, Dietrich von Freiberg discovery of the mechanisms of how rainbows worked, Jean Buridan's continual development of the theory of impetus to explain "projectile motion, the acceleration of free- fall, and even the unceasing rotation of the starry sphere" (p. 26), etc. These natural philosophers (who can be termed 'early scientists' of course) lived and worked in an environment of freedom of thought into scientific inquiries, and by the end of the middle ages, the average literate citizen had more access to science than any other previous culture. Another excellent chapter is "That Copernicanism Demoted Humans from the
Center of the Cosmos". It's often expressed that the heliocentric theory knocked us off from our grandstanding position at the center of the universe -- in fact, this is false, if not an inversion of the reality. The center, as it was believed back then, was the lowest, most crude part of the entire cosmos. Indeed, it was thought that at the very center of the Earth itself, as center as you could go, resided hell itself -- and away from the Earth, further up, away from, and "higher" than the Earth resided the heavenly worlds, the quintessence of matter, etc. Knocking the Earth from the center of the cosmos resulted in, if anything, a *promotion* of the status of the Earth.
Other wonderful chapters include "That Catholics Did Not Contribute to the Scientific Revolution", "That the Church Denounced Anesthesia in Childbirth on Biblical Grounds", " That Darwin and Haeckel Were Complicit in Nazi Biology", and "That Modern Science Has Secularized Western
Culture". All of these gather a strong grasp of the historical material and outline a careful, detailed reconstruction of the historical evidence based on a wide variety and force of sources and reasoning. The book does a good job at combatting the countless cultural myths of the defunct conflict thesis (i.e. the idea that science and religion have historically been antagonistic) and presents it in a series of short chapters -- an excellent and concise format for the topic they address.
Some of the most excellent chapters include "That the Medieval Christian Church Suppressed the
Growth of Science", demonstrating that the medieval period, to a good degree because of the Christian church, spurred enormous intellectual and scientific progress, with events like the establishment of the university and many discoveries such as William of Saint-Cloud's invention of the camera obscura to observe solar eclipses, Dietrich von Freiberg discovery of the mechanisms of how rainbows worked, Jean Buridan's continual development of the theory of impetus to explain "projectile motion, the acceleration of free- fall, and even the unceasing rotation of the starry sphere" (p. 26), etc. These natural philosophers (who can be termed 'early scientists' of course) lived and worked in an environment of freedom of thought into scientific inquiries, and by the end of the middle ages, the average literate citizen had more access to science than any other previous culture. Another excellent chapter is "That Copernicanism Demoted Humans from the
Center of the Cosmos". It's often expressed that the heliocentric theory knocked us off from our grandstanding position at the center of the universe -- in fact, this is false, if not an inversion of the reality. The center, as it was believed back then, was the lowest, most crude part of the entire cosmos. Indeed, it was thought that at the very center of the Earth itself, as center as you could go, resided hell itself -- and away from the Earth, further up, away from, and "higher" than the Earth resided the heavenly worlds, the quintessence of matter, etc. Knocking the Earth from the center of the cosmos resulted in, if anything, a *promotion* of the status of the Earth.
Other wonderful chapters include "That Catholics Did Not Contribute to the Scientific Revolution", "That the Church Denounced Anesthesia in Childbirth on Biblical Grounds", " That Darwin and Haeckel Were Complicit in Nazi Biology", and "That Modern Science Has Secularized Western
Culture". All of these gather a strong grasp of the historical material and outline a careful, detailed reconstruction of the historical evidence based on a wide variety and force of sources and reasoning. The book does a good job at combatting the countless cultural myths of the defunct conflict thesis (i.e. the idea that science and religion have historically been antagonistic) and presents it in a series of short chapters -- an excellent and concise format for the topic they address.
October 2, 2017
The best part about this book is that it consists of interesting short chapters. The worst part is that is consists of short interesting chapters.
'Galileo Goes to Jail' tries to provide a contribution to the discussion of Science and Religion by addressing several myths, as the authors call them.
This opening sounds more negative than I mean it, as this book does deliver an exceptional overview of the subject at hand. Furthermore, a lot of notes at the end give the reader the opportunity to delve deeper into any given subject. However, the book suffers most from its format. The short essays do not give enough space for a deep discussion. This is especially noteworthy in the early chapters which could have been brilliant, if a single person wrote them. The repetitions could then be omitted and crossreferences to previous chapters inserted. As some myths cover the same timeframe or subject, it would have been more prudent to include fewer authors providing them with more space to develop their point of view on a given subject.
In conclusion, this book is good start of the discussion, but has to deal with certain setbacks. The content of most chapters is sound and sets many ideas people have regarding these themes right. However, I want to mention some myths that seemed a bit off to me.
Myth 4 talks about the notion of Islam being unfavourable to science. The thing is that I have never come across that claim - at least, when one talks about the Middle Ages. However, I have come across the idea that Medieval Islam was absolutely superior to Medieval Europe. This is not even addressed, although Christianity's influence on science is given a balanced view. This leads to the amusing conundrum, how science in the Islamic World deteriorated, as the book neveer explains this.
Myth 21 debunks the idea that Einstein believed in a personal God. Again, I have hardly seen this claim. In fact, most of the time Einstein is cited positively in a religious context, the person using the quote does not hesitate to admit that Einstein believed more or less in Spinoza's Nature-God - not the God of Christianity.
Two more irked me for the similiar reasons. Myth 12 is about Descartes. According to the author, he did not originate the Mind-Body distinction and tries to blame this on Aristotle. Now I consider this to be wrong, but that is not even my main point. It could be summed up as: What has a philosophical question to do with Science and Religion? Whether you agree with the assessment the author makes is irrelevant, as it should not be in this book.
Myth 22 argues against the idea that quantum mechanics proves free will. My point remains the same. Whether or not this is true (for example, this time I agree) is irrelevant, because it does not add anything to the discussion.
'Galileo Goes to Jail' tries to provide a contribution to the discussion of Science and Religion by addressing several myths, as the authors call them.
This opening sounds more negative than I mean it, as this book does deliver an exceptional overview of the subject at hand. Furthermore, a lot of notes at the end give the reader the opportunity to delve deeper into any given subject. However, the book suffers most from its format. The short essays do not give enough space for a deep discussion. This is especially noteworthy in the early chapters which could have been brilliant, if a single person wrote them. The repetitions could then be omitted and crossreferences to previous chapters inserted. As some myths cover the same timeframe or subject, it would have been more prudent to include fewer authors providing them with more space to develop their point of view on a given subject.
In conclusion, this book is good start of the discussion, but has to deal with certain setbacks. The content of most chapters is sound and sets many ideas people have regarding these themes right. However, I want to mention some myths that seemed a bit off to me.
Myth 4 talks about the notion of Islam being unfavourable to science. The thing is that I have never come across that claim - at least, when one talks about the Middle Ages. However, I have come across the idea that Medieval Islam was absolutely superior to Medieval Europe. This is not even addressed, although Christianity's influence on science is given a balanced view. This leads to the amusing conundrum, how science in the Islamic World deteriorated, as the book neveer explains this.
Myth 21 debunks the idea that Einstein believed in a personal God. Again, I have hardly seen this claim. In fact, most of the time Einstein is cited positively in a religious context, the person using the quote does not hesitate to admit that Einstein believed more or less in Spinoza's Nature-God - not the God of Christianity.
Two more irked me for the similiar reasons. Myth 12 is about Descartes. According to the author, he did not originate the Mind-Body distinction and tries to blame this on Aristotle. Now I consider this to be wrong, but that is not even my main point. It could be summed up as: What has a philosophical question to do with Science and Religion? Whether you agree with the assessment the author makes is irrelevant, as it should not be in this book.
Myth 22 argues against the idea that quantum mechanics proves free will. My point remains the same. Whether or not this is true (for example, this time I agree) is irrelevant, because it does not add anything to the discussion.
January 22, 2023
Do you know what really ticks me off? Historical mistruths that are represented as fact. So I heard about this book and immediately decided to go for it.
This is a book of essays by scholars about the relationship between religion and science. Popular culture depicts these two fields as constantly being at each other’s throats, generally with science winning the culture wars. This book is mostly dedicated to proving that this wasn’t the case. The reason Galileo went to jail is not just, “The Church didn’t like heliocentrism.” Also, he was not tortured or locked in a dungeon. No, dissection of corpses was not against Church law in the Middle Ages. Historical Islam was not anti-science, the Enlightenment was not the world’s rejection of religion for capital-R Reason, and Isaac Newton was not a deist or an atheist.
There are some essays that also push back against false history perpetuated in religious circles, like that science couldn’t have developed except in a Christian context, that Einstein told off an atheist teacher about the nature of evil, or that Darwin became a deathbed convert for the faith. There are even a couple of sections debunking arguments against evolution (the ins and outs of which I didn’t fully follow, truth be told).
Overall, it’s a good volume from Harvard University Press, and a great corrective course to a lot of pop culture BS. Pick it up if you can.
This is a book of essays by scholars about the relationship between religion and science. Popular culture depicts these two fields as constantly being at each other’s throats, generally with science winning the culture wars. This book is mostly dedicated to proving that this wasn’t the case. The reason Galileo went to jail is not just, “The Church didn’t like heliocentrism.” Also, he was not tortured or locked in a dungeon. No, dissection of corpses was not against Church law in the Middle Ages. Historical Islam was not anti-science, the Enlightenment was not the world’s rejection of religion for capital-R Reason, and Isaac Newton was not a deist or an atheist.
There are some essays that also push back against false history perpetuated in religious circles, like that science couldn’t have developed except in a Christian context, that Einstein told off an atheist teacher about the nature of evil, or that Darwin became a deathbed convert for the faith. There are even a couple of sections debunking arguments against evolution (the ins and outs of which I didn’t fully follow, truth be told).
Overall, it’s a good volume from Harvard University Press, and a great corrective course to a lot of pop culture BS. Pick it up if you can.
March 19, 2017
This book includes a series of essays, each of which discusses a myth about science and religion. The information within this book is rather valuable, and I am very happy that I have read the book. The actual essays are mixed in multiple levels. With many authors from different backgrounds, the essays are not equivalent in terms of readability, philosophy, or science. Some authors write in a way that appears impartial, while others seem to take their subject personally. Then, some of the myths are shown to be totally false, while other myths have large elements of truth and are only declared myths, since the truth is more complicated. Thus, reading the list of myths could be misleading since they are not all myths in the same degree. Nevertheless, I would definitely recommend the book to anyone who is interested in the ongoing discussions and debates concerning science and religion.
February 10, 2024
This is a collection of essays written by prominent academics who vary in their belief system. Numbers mentions this in the introduction and it helped me as a reader to realize that this isn't just one guy pulling this stuff out of the air. That being said, I found the collection of "myths" tackled a bit of a mixed bag. Some of them were very interesting and others I skimmed through. They are all well thought out and clearly well researched. I'm not sure a book form was appropriate for what they were trying to do. Personally I thought it read really disjointed even though they put them in relevance, chronologically.
I'd recommend it as a great reference book, but maybe not something you sit down to enjoy.
I'd recommend it as a great reference book, but maybe not something you sit down to enjoy.
February 26, 2022
This is an important book in my opinion because it demonstrates the complexity of historical events and the cultural narratives that form to describe them. Evil is rarely the result of devout Christians seeking to live out their faith violently but often evil is the result of a web of different influences converging for selfish and personal reasons. This boom is more of a reference for the next time someone says a simplistic narrative like, 'religion hates science' or 'Christians are the cause of most problems'.
This is a difficult book to read straight through for most people, but a valuable book to have on your shelf.
This is a difficult book to read straight through for most people, but a valuable book to have on your shelf.
February 5, 2018
Pääosin mainiota keskustelua erilaisista uskomuksista liittyen uskonnon ja tieteen "kaksintaisteluun". Erillisisissä artikkeleissa käsitellään Giordano Brunoa, Galileita, Darwinia ja monia muita tuttuja nimiä luonnontieteiden historiasta aina kvanttimekaniikkaan asti. Mitään erityisen mullistavaa kirjassa ei ole, mutta en tietenkään kaikkea aiheista tiennyt etukäteen. Käännös oli kehno, mutta hyvä että oli kuitenkin tehty.
May 16, 2019
Ihan kiinnostavia lyhyehköjä esseitä/artikkeleita uskontoon ja tieteeseen liittyvistä myyteistä. Pääpaino on selkeästi kristinuskossa ja klassisessa tieteessä, mutta kyllä kirjan loppua kohden käsitellään myös muutama nykypäivään liittyvä myytti. Olisin ehkä itse kaivannut vähän enemmän tarinoiden ja niiden historiallisen muodostumisen analysointia, nyt käsitellään myyttejä lähinnä tieteenfilosofian näkökulmasta, eikä historiallinen analyysi oikein lähde lentoon.
September 8, 2019
Galileo wasn't sent to jail and tortured.
The church did not suppress science in the middle ages.
People in the middle ages did not believe the earth was flat.
While I found some of the myths discussed uninteresting (largely due to their geographical dependence), this book should be read by anyone who favors a view of the history of science and religion as one of massive or even necessary conflict.
The church did not suppress science in the middle ages.
People in the middle ages did not believe the earth was flat.
While I found some of the myths discussed uninteresting (largely due to their geographical dependence), this book should be read by anyone who favors a view of the history of science and religion as one of massive or even necessary conflict.
February 17, 2018
Fairly debunks myths about Catholic Church being anti-science. It is actually pro-science.
The Galileo part is good to know because people think he was tortured or executed for his beliefs. He was not. It was not really what he believed but how he went about publishing his work. He was under house arrest and apparently lived a cushy existence.
The Galileo part is good to know because people think he was tortured or executed for his beliefs. He was not. It was not really what he believed but how he went about publishing his work. He was under house arrest and apparently lived a cushy existence.
April 30, 2021
A good book that, despite what the titles might suggests, has very little stands over religious and much more over history. It is a myth buster book with great insights pro and con religious and science common beliefs.
April 22, 2022
Lots of interesting corrections of common misconceptions about historical relationships between science and religion. Most of the chapters are really well written, and the change of writing styles from contributor to contributor makes for a continually interesting read.
March 20, 2019
This book was a required reading for one of my freshman year classes at NYU. Thoroughly uninteresting.
March 10, 2020
This is the best study on the many myths about science and religion out there. I highly recommend it.
January 27, 2021
This was so fun and not at all what I expected??? Imagine being this feral but academically??? Couldnt be me
April 15, 2024
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews