Astronomical Debates of the Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries - Coursework Example

Astronomical debates Running head: ASTRONOMICAL DEBATES Astronomical debates Of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries Astronomical debates 2 Abstract The astronomical debates of sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries are examples of a confrontational model of religion and science and this conflict is still prevalent in a subtle manner. The basic ideological difference between science and religion still stands unresolved. Astronomical debates 3 Science is related to the ability of human beings to carry out intellectual reasoning while religion is linked more to the emotional experiences. Science emerged from questioning and doubt but religion has its foundations laid strong in faith. Faith is unchangeable while science always welcomes change. Hence it was inevitable that the rise of science saw many a bitter confrontations with religion. Sixteenth and seventeenth centuries had seen the emergence of natural sciences which provided a fresh breather to the closed premises of middle age beliefs. Nature was newly laid open before humankind as an interesting textbook for all intelligent and thinking people to learn. It was never an easy walk for science as it started contradicting the literal meanings of religious scriptures. The first ever major conflict was initiated in the field of Astronomy as this emerging new branch of science questioned the hitherto accepted divinity of celestial bodies. In those days, every word in Bible was interpreted literally. What Bible has said about the origin of universe is, "And God said, let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas..." (Genesis 1:6-8) Astronomical debates 4 New astronomic discoveries contradicted the literal meaning of such passages in Bible. The prevailing theory of astronomy in Europe was that formulated by Ptolemy. Ptolemy’s theory was based on many previous theories that viewed earth as the stationary center of the universe. The stars were supposed to rotate around earth in larger circles in the outer space while planets were thought to rotate earth in closer circles. Several passages from Bible were thought to be supportive of this theory. "Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies...." (Joshua 10:12-13). This passage from Bible also became a source of contention for Biblical literalists and defenders of science. Psalms also had talked about an unmovable earth in candid terms saying, "...the world also is stabilized, that it cannot be moved." (Psalms 93:1) Copernicus was the first astronomer to disagree. He displaced earth from the centre of the Universe and placed sun there instead. Copernicus presented a planetary model in which sun was placed in the centre of a planetary system while planets including earth rotated Astronomical debates 5 around the sun. This model was termed the heliocentric model of planetary motion. It was only out of the fear of antagonizing the religious power centers, that Copernicus delayed the publication of his thesis for several years. Though the scientific work of Copernicus finally came out in 1543, it was in the first decade of 1600 that this theory came into direct confrontation with religious authority. Galileo Galilee who was a scholar and an ardent Copernican had invented telescope which enabled closer observation of heavenly planets and stars. Galileo reinforced and propagated the theory of Copernicus through his publications resulting in the Church ordering his imprisonment which prolonged till his death. Giordano Bruno, a follower of Copernicus was also prosecuted and burned at the stake as a heretic. Being outspoken in his astronomical and philosophical observations cost Bruno his life. He spent eight years in prison, then was tortured, paraded in street and burned at stake. His words to the Catholic Church judge, Jesuit Cardinal Robert Bellarmine as quoted by Dorothea Waley Singer (1950) was, "I neither ought to recant, nor will I." When the death sentence was pronounced, he said, "In pronouncing my sentence, your fear is greater than mine in hearing it." (Singer, 1950) But several new torchbearers emerged for science to carry forward its pursuits. The data generated by Tycho Brahe simplified the theory of planetary motion. In the model postulated by Ptolomy, an endless array of epicycles had to be dealt with in order to Astronomical debates 6 predict a planetary position. Brahe’s data as interpreted by Kepler resolved this difficulty with scientific ease. Kepler postulated three laws which could be used to locate the position of a planet. First one was that planetary orbits are ellipses with sun at the center of them. Second law suggests that orbits sweep out equal areas in equal times. The third law states that, square of the orbital period of any planet is proportional to the cube of the semi-axis of the elliptical orbit. Thus a general theory evolved for the whole solar system in the place of complex and numerous epicycles for each planet. In later centuries, religious establishments were compelled to acknowledge the truth. In 1820, the Roman Catholic Church repealed its condemnation of the Copernican model of the solar system. These glimpses from history, in closer examination reveal one common truth. The conflict between science and religion is unmistakably embossed on the history of this era. This is what William Draper (1874), the renowned 19th century historian of religion and science, had pointed out when he wrote, “The antagonism we thus witness between Religion and Science is the continuation of a struggle that commenced when Christianity began to attain political power. A divine revelation must necessarily be intolerant of contradiction; it must repudiate all improvement in itself, and view with disdain that arising from the progressive intellectual development of man. But our opinions on every subject are Astronomical debates 7 continually liable to modification, from the irresistible advance of human knowledge.” The ongoing controversy between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism is often cited by supporters of non-confrontational model as the complex background in which Galileo had to taste the bitter fruit of his scientific pursuits. But this conflict itself is ample proof to the level of intolerance the Catholic Church had exhibited in that period towards deviant ideologies. The conflict between science and religion is a fact and still exists in certain civilizations where religion holds a greater political sway. Varadarajan V Raman (2006), Emeritus professor of Rochester Institute of Technology wrote, “In situations where religion has held political power, as in certain nations of the modern world, there is generally great threat to freedom of thought which is a sine qua non for unfettered scientific enterprise, indeed for all healthy exercise of human intelligence.  But it is ironically true that science can also flourish in totalitarian states where scientists are generously subsidized, and are restricted only in their political expressions.  Both the Soviet Union and Communist China – models of ruthless dictatorship – have produced some great scientists.  But it must also be remembered that where atheists wield power, persecution of the faithful occurs. It is only where secular enlightenment holds sway that the probability of ugly and bloody confrontations is considerably less.” Astronomical debates 8 Here we should also remember that the pioneers of western science like Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, and so on were pious Christians but of course in an unorthodox way. Copernicus had even tried to dedicate his scientific work on heavenly bodies to Pope Paul III. In his dedication letter, Copernicus is as humble as a loyal disciple can be, though he does not hesitate to assert the factuality of his discovery. The letter stated, “When I considered in my own mind how absurd a performance it must seem to those who know that the judgment of many centuries has approved the view that the Earth remains fixed as center in the midst of the heavens, if I should, on the contrary, assert that the Earth moves, I was for a long time at a loss to know whether I should publish the commentaries which I have written in proof of its motion……….. If perchance there shall be idle talkers, who, though they are ignorant of all mathematical sciences, nevertheless assume the right to pass judgment on these things, and if they should dare to criticize and attack this theory of mine because of some passage of Scripture which they have falsely distorted for their own purpose, I care not at all.” ( Copernicus, 1543.) The letter concludes, “But what I may have accomplished herein I leave to the judgment of Your Holiness in particular, and to that of all other learned mathematicians; and lest I Astronomical debates 9 seem to Your Holiness to promise more regarding the usefulness of the work than I can perform, I now pass to the work itself.” ( Copernicus, 1543). The church did not pay heed to even such an appeal because there was no common ground where science and religion could ideologically meet without contradiction. The kind of co-existence that we came to witness in the later centuries between the two is also not lacking in contradictions. Only that a theory of accommodation was evolved to affect a ceasefire. This theory puts forward the argument that Bible speaks in a manner accommodative of the mode of understanding of the common people and also of the cultural milieu in which it emerged. Documentary evidences also stand proof for the reverence these great scientists had for religion and how they were in mental conflict when they had to be honest to their faith on one side and to the truth on the other side. This inner conflict itself is reflective of the basic contradiction inherent between the ways of religion and science. Scientists like Galileo and Copernicus had to take the stand that Bible, though being a guide for Humanity on morals, virtues and soul searching, was not an authentic text on science and the order of the universe. But once it is accepted that nature follows its own laws and a proper order of events, apprehended the theists, religion and god will loose significance. History has proven that this apprehension was not totally unfounded. If there are fixed rules that govern the universe, then the question, what could be the role of god in this, arises inevitably. Any impartial observer can see that the complete control that god and Astronomical debates 10 religion had wielded over the destiny of humankind before the emergence of science is totally different from the influence of religion and god in modern times. To conclude, the astronomical debate of sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries can only be viewed as a classic example of the conflict between religion and science which still continues in more subtle and sophisticated ways. The present day debates on abortion and homosexuality consist not just of a clash in social ethos but also of a confrontation between matters of faith and reason. Astronomical debates 11 References 1. Genesis 1:6-8 2. Joshua 10:12-13 3. Psalms 93:1 4. Singer, Dorothea Waley. (1950) Giordano Bruno, His Life and Thought, chapter 7 5. Singer, Dorothea Waley. (1950) Giordano Bruno, His Life and Thought, chapter 7 6. Draper, J.W. (1874). The Project Gutenberg EBook of history of the conflict between religion and science. Retrieved Oct. 3, 2008 from http://www.gutenberg.org. 7. Raman, V. Varadarajan. (2006). Science-religion interface: The warfare model. Retrieved Oct.3, 2008 from www.metanexus.net. 8. Copernicus, Nicolaus. (1543). Dedication of the revolutions of heavenly bodies to Pope Paul III. Retrieved Oct.3, 2008 from www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbook.html. 9. Copernicus, Nicolaus. (1543). Dedication of the revolutions of heavenly bodies to Pope Paul III. Retrieved Oct.3, 2008 from www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbook.html. Read More