> Lately there has been some discussion of the Galileo affair on the list.
> That is good -- I believe we who are interested in Bible/science issues
> need to study more history.
>
> In fact, I can't think of anything fundamentally new in this debate since
> the 17th century. Can you?
I thought we were talking a bit about the perceived conflict between
Science and Christianity that the majority of non-historians, and the
public, think the Galileo Affair was a prime example of. Historians of the
area know that this is a big misunderstanding.
All through the seventeenth century, and most of the eighteenth (certainly
in Britain), "science" and "religion" could not really be described as
separate spheres. They weren't so disparate as to make it possible for
them to be in conflict. Remember Bacon's "two books" approach? God gave us
the book of words (the Bible) and the book of Nature (the world) for
study; he is the author of both, therefore how can they not both reveal
his nature? For most of this time, people weren't really atheists - it
just wasn't something you'd admit to and remain part of society with. Many
leading scientists would say they practised science because of their
faith; as Kepler(?) put it, "thinking God's thoughts after him." There
just wasn't really any necessary conflict.
OK, then now think about today. Things are totally different. Natural
science has its own domain apart from religion, and on the whole different
academics do their study in one field or the other but not both. The
majority of people are atheists or agnostics, or at least live their lives
like they are. People have forgotten the role that Christianity played in
the development of modern science. The _vast_ majority of the public
thinks that if science hasn't "disproved" God, then it is definitely is
conflict with the claims of Christianity. I mean, evolution is a big
"problem" that wasn't really there in the seventeenth century.
I think that much has changed in the time since the seventeenth century -
the role of science, the nature of scientific inquiry, the place of
Christianity in culture, the presence of a perceived conflict between the
two disciplines, the dichotomy between scientists and theologians in terms
of focus of research. My department don't even like it if I use the term
"science" for what we're talking about before 1830ish. Galileo was a
"natural philosopher," and William Whewell coined the term "scientist" in
the 1830s!
But then, that's just my opinion,
Richard Dimery.