Customer Reviews

Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

"Galileo Goes to Jail" is a collection of twenty-five essays detailing the misconceptions (or "myths" as used in the popular, not academic, sense) about the encounters between science and religion throughout Western history. Written by authors who are acknowledged experts in their respective fields, many myths are dispelled with thorough research and an unbiased, critical eye. The common thread of many of these essays is that the myths originated with the two American, late-nineteenth historians - John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White.

As is typical with any collection of essays, some are not as good as the rest. In this book, Myths #22 and 23 are disappointments in an otherwise enjoyable and thought-provoking collection of essays. Myth #22 doesn't really argue against (or for) "Quantum Physics Demonstrated Free Will". Indeed, Daniel Patrick Thurs writes simply, "And its spread is due to a very good reason. It is in one sense, absolutely true," and then he writes, "If the historian as historian has any role, it is to expose the roots of such controversy rather than to leap into the fray and parrot the arguments of one side or another" (p. 197). And so the essay goes on - not really saying much of anything of interest or insight. I don't know why this essay was included. The intention of Myth #23 is to refute the claim that intelligent design is scientific. Michael Ruse states: "Taking my advice, the judge decided that `the essential characteristics of science' included naturalness, tentativeness, testability, and falsifiability - and ruled that creation failed to meet these criteria" (p. 211). But then he fails to show in any systematic way how each of these tenets do not apply to ID. He then goes on to criticize William Whewell's delineation of science and religion, saying that "[Whewell] felt it necessary to bring in God to explain the origin of organisms, but he carefully noted that this was not science" (p. 222), is merely a "cop-out option" (p. 212). In the end, Ruse presents his own cop-out option: he simply shows his disgust for the ID view without really arguing against it. I do not believe that ID is a science, but I do believe that one should at least be intellectually forthright when disagreeing with another's opinion and present cogent arguments.

In spite of these two examples, this book provides a highly recommended survey into the complex interrelationship between science and religion, each intellectually underpinning the other, intertwined in an intricate whole, so that to separate one from the other undermines our understanding and appreciation of both.

I do recommended this book and I applaud, as mentioned in the intro, that all of the authors of this book, which includes many atheists, wanted to get the correct version of history out there. As both a history guy and an Engineer this subject greatly interests me, so I was very excited to read this book. Though I may be a conservative and believe strongly in God, I like many of the authors, do want to see history be fair and balanced or be taught without any bias and by the facts. However, this is very difficult with most of the history books, professors, and media out there being very left of center. With that said this book does a very good job in destroying some of the religion vs. science myths that unfortunately have permeated our society for a long time.

The Good: The book does a very good job at getting at the myths that have been created by men such as Draper, White, and Gibbon and have unfortunately been retold over and over again in classrooms around the world. These articles clearly and concretely made the case that the mythical "Dark Ages" never happened, that no one believed the Earth was Flat in the Middle Ages, the fact that the Catholic Church, Christianity and the Noble rulers of Europe have greatly supported science both financially and rhetorically and also by setting up universities and societies, that the Galileo story and its circumstances are greatly over exaggerated and untrue, that religion has played a very important role as the driving force in the lives of many of humanities greatest scientists, that Bruno was not killed for his science but for heresy, and that human dissection and other medically linked issues were not banned by the Church.

The Bad: I do have a problem with 3 myths in the book. I have a small problem with Myth 4 and I guess that the atheists and those left of center had to try and save some face in myths 9 and 21.

Myth 4 - I agree that Islam was tolerant to science and made some very important contributions to science during the Middle Ages. However, I do disagree with the author in that like many others I believe Islamic science mainly carried on and maintained what the Greeks had done and did not do a tremendous amount to advance any of their ideas. However in my experience the inverse of this myth is far more prevalent in school. If you sit in the majority of college classrooms you get a story that sounds more like that Middle Eastern, Eastern and South American civilizations invented faster than Light travel and matter-antimatter reactors thousands of years ago and Europeans simply came along and stole their ideas or ignored them. Now give credit where credit is due, but in terms of scientific advancements, culture, and overall human progress the contributions made by Western civilization have out paced the rest of the world combined by a very large margin. I know it's politically incorrect to say, but that's the way history has played out and I am just tired of all of the spin.

Myth 9 - is pretty ridiculous, I mean sure almost anyone can prove that anything is never 100% true, but as is it is shown in many of the other articles in the book, Christianity has played a HUGE role in the development of science. Sure the types of government and wealth also play a role in where science has developed, but Christianity also had a HUGE effect on the patterns of wealth and the governments that has made Western civilization so successful. As mentioned in other articles the Catholic Church and Christianity greatly supported science financially and rhetorically, while European nobles were also great patrons of the sciences. Christianity was also an important driver in the personal lives of many of the greatest scientists of all time. I think all of the quotations that were used to support the authors statement were taken out of context and the authors was grasping at the notion that somehow all conservatives and those who see the value of religion ,especially Christianity, are racists or close minded.

Myth 21 - Again like the other two myths I believe the opposite of Myth 21 is far more prevalent. I see a hell of a lot more claims that Einstein was an atheist rather than he believed in a personal God. Though to the author's credit he does point out that Einstein rejected atheism as well. From his own quotations it is clear that Einstein believed in something along the lines of Spinoza's God or held a belief of something like Deism, while rejecting the beliefs and doctrine of the mainstream religions. I agree that anyone should be taken to task if they say Einstein believed in a Judeo-Christian God, but the authors should re-title the article to be something more neutral like "Myths about Einstein views on Religion".

Other minor things include that I think there was a bit too much on evolution in the book. I know this is a hot button issue for many, but it just does not interest me too much. To me it just comes down to the individuals own beliefs.

I think it would have bee nice if the great scientific, agricultural and commercial advancements made during the entirety of Middle Ages be further expanded upon. A mention of the Carolingian Renaissance would also have been nice.

It would have also been nice if an article was exclusively dedicated to the importance of religion or the belief in God in the personal lives of some of the world's greatest scientists. I mean the list of scientists who believed in some from of a higher power far outweigh those who have not.

Overall I still highly recommend.

Before science and religion can engage in a meaningful dialogue, author Ronald Numbers suggests that several myths (used in this book to mean falsehoods) should be disregarded. The book actually is a collection of essays that Numbers has collected from leading scientists and scholars.

The first three myths have to do with the early Christian church and science (which were not at loggerheads); the fourth myth details medieval Islamic culture and its contribution to scientific achievement. The fifth myth (that the early church prohibited human dissection) was one I'd not heard before.

Several of the myths deal directly with scientists themselves: Darwin's supposed deathbed conversion back to Christianity (#16); Galileo's imprisonment at the hands of the Catholic Church (#8); Einstein's belief in a personal God (#21); and Descartes' mind-body dualism (#12). The book is written by scholars but is perfectly accessible to laymen with an interest in the history of science.

The book would be worth the price if it did nothing more than prove the flat earth theory false; it does more. People continue to complain that the book says things many people know, but said readers obviously know absolutely nothing about mainstream propaganda and cultural ideologies. Books like these really should not be necessary, but people like Richard Dawkins, who make outrageous claim that Einstein unquestionably was an atheist (see God Delusion), that necessitate such rebuttals. The book is reactionary, not revolutionary; the book is not here to break new ground but clean the oil off the pavement. Indeed, there are, as one callous reviewer claimed, myths and MYTHS -- and the MYTHS are the ones this book goes a long way in dispelling. Of course, any book on Amazon that defends transcendental values will have its critics -- it's where people go to lash out against other people. Books like these show you how dangerous ideas can be. And people who think the facts in this book do not matter are, at best, disingenous: the fact that Einstein was not an atheist matters to people; the fact that Einstein said that he "hated" atheists calling him one of them matters. Any person who has taken a college course and believed everything a professor says knows that real facts matter, and that any authority -- science, religion, or otherwise -- has an agenda. This one does an excellent job of showing the errors in one.

In fact, I corrected a professor of mine regarding the earth was flat theory. She did not believe me until she did the research herself; then she told the entire class. These facts do not matter? How many has she told before she corrected herself? How many of those students now think Christians are crazy merely for that fact, let alone the other myths people tell? Christians might be crazy -- hell, they might be clinically insane -- but such conclusions should arise from facts, not the garbage put out by liars like Richard Dawkins. [...]

The book was good in that it clearly shows that Science vs. Religion is more of a socio-political construct than a proper conflict between competing ideas.

Not sure it was overly convincing on some of the proofs - would have liked a few more references to check.

But not bad.

Excelente trabajo de edición del profesor Numbers que en pocas pàginas ha desechado muchos mitos referentes al conflicto entre eligión y ciencia.

The press is marketing this new book to Christian bookstores. Edited by Ronald L. Numbers, those familiar with his work should justifiably expect the 25 "myths" selected to amount to a proverbial stacked deck on the question. Well, it is and it isn't. Some contributions like David C. Lindberg's exploding the myth that Christianity was responsible for the demise of ancient science or the Michael Shank's essay arguing against the old notion that the medieval church suppressed the growth of science will find general approval. But as the book moves on it becomes increasingly clear that Numbers has a myth of his own to foist upon his readers, namely, that "creationists" (apparently defined as anyone in the current culture who dares to question materialism, the greatest myth of our age) are at war with the world of logic and reason (defined as, well, just about anything that isn't "creationist") . Aided in this task by a "distinguished advisory committee" that included Francisco Ayala and supported by the John Templeton Foundation, they were left "free to follow the evidence where it led." If this sounds uncomfortably familiar to Charles Darwin's spurious claim, you're right.

There are a number of "myths" I take issue with in this book not the least of which is James Moore's essay regarding Darwin's faith (myth #16), "That evolution destroyed Darwin's faith in Christianity--until he reconverted on his deathbed." While it is true that the claim of Lady Elizabeth Cotton Hope's concerning a purported Darwin deathbed conversion is likely a fraud, Moore has a larger purpose than exploding a tale believed by few: it is to raise Darwin's reputation above the fray of religious criticism altogether. Whether Darwin experienced a deathbed conversion (a highly unlikely possibility) or early loss of faith (something about which "considerably more and better evidence exists"), Moore insists that "both traditions are ill-founded and deserve to die" (144). As to the former there can be little doubt, but the latter claim that Darwin's religious beliefs simply don't matter is extremely problematic.

For one thing, the religious and metaphysical implications of Darwin's theory are simply inescapable and so the attitude of evolution's paterfamilias regarding these large philosophical questions are inescapably important. Moore attempts to rescue Darwin from the charge of being anti-Christian by claiming that Darwin was, after all, a good member of the English gentry, who christened his babies, sent his children to be taught by good clergymen, and "gave generously" to church projects despite the fact that he had little use for the ecclesiastical doctrines it held. For Moore, these get him off the hook as it were--citing the Epistle of James, deeds count more than words, he suggests. But James was writing to establish work AND faith, and Paul was clear that we are saved "not of works, lest anyone should boast" (Eph. 2:9). Moore's claim that "The English lay no one lightly [including Darwin] in Westminster Abbey" (150) reminds one of John Wesley's comment, "They that shine forth in good works without faith are like dead men who have goodly and precious tombs." All "sham and show," remarked a disgusted Martin Luther on the subject, more vain than good, more hypocracy than honesty. Perhaps it's what one would expect from a man concerned with maintaining an ostensible Victorian propriety befitting his rank and standing and Darwin may indeed have been merely acting as a man of his times, but why privilege such imposture as virtue? The only reasonable answer I can think of is that by making Darwin's religious beliefs of no account Moore is attempting to insulate the theory from the nondogmatic atheism of its author.

Then there is Robert J. Richards' strained attempt to rescue Darwinism from the clutches of Nazi biology (myth #19). That Nazi eugenics and racial atrocities were not connected to Darwin's evolutionary theory remains untenable despite his attempt to criticize Richard Weikart's cogently argued From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany (2004). Richards attempts to marginalize Weikart by claiming, "Most historians . . . have refused to indict Darwin for complicity in the crimes of the Nazis" (171). But Richards would have benefitted from Mike Hawkin's Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 1860-1945: Nature as Model and Nature as Threat (1997) (an important work NOT referenced by Richards). As Hawkins has pointed out, Social Darwinism is really a worldview comprising five central notions: first, nature is completely ruled by biological laws; second, population pressures create an ongoing struggle for survival; third, certain physical and mental characteristics that afford an advantage in this struggle become distributed throughout populations by sexual selection; fourth, the cumulative effect of this selection is carried on through inheritance and over time accounts for new species; and fifth, this biological determinism extends not only to the physical properties of humans but to their psychological attributes as well, accounting for reason, religion, and morality. Hawkins correctly notes that Darwin was the chief architect of all five components of this worldview. It was Social Darwinism that eugenicists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries utilized as their theoretical framework for everything from forced sterilizations of the "unfit" to the exterminations (in Nazi Germany) of mental and racial "undesirables." Hawkins further points out that Hitler wanted to redirect civilization towards a eugenically based natural selection long a part Social Darwinism. The substitution of socially compassionate selection--e.g., aiding the infirmed and incapacitated--for natural selection Hitler thought worked against sound "racial hygiene." It's very hard to see Darwin not tied to Social Darwinism and equally hard to see it not in some large measure responsible for Nazi biology.

As troublesome as Moore's and Richards' essays are, the most irksome is surely Michael Ruse's "Myth 23. That 'Intelligent Design' Represents a Scientific Challenge to Evolution." The entire article runs only about eight pages, but is packed full of misstatements, misconceptions, and errors of logic. Ruse opens by saying, "we need to answer two questions: What is intelligent design (ID), and is it science?" Good enough. Ruse then defines ID thus: "Answering the first, the claim is that in the history of life on this planet, at some point or points, an intelligence intervened to move things along" (p. 206-207). The key word here is intervened. Apparently Ruse has concluded that ID requires the suspension and/or redirection of natural laws. Frankly, I don't know of any major ID theorist who would agree with this. It may or may not; that is simply not the crucial issue. In fact, ID doesn't rely upon some abracadabra moment (or moments) causing some counterfactual "miraculous" substitution event. ID merely suggests that certain features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause. How the designer, designers, or other causative agency might have implemented the event, while interesting in its own right, is not a primary consideration for ID. For all we know, it may have been front-loaded from the beginning, created through a concatenation of laws and principles--known and unknown--that have been designed to bring about that result. This is admittedly a speculation. In any case, what ID specifically denies is that life in all its diversity is a product of chance or random naturalistic processes. The implications for scientific research (both in the framing of questions and the analysis of problems) is enormous.

Ruse's definition is so off the mark that it's really not worth addressing much else in his article (the rest largely amounts to Ruse's impuning the scholarship and motives of well established ID leaders). In fact, so many incorrect definitions of ID have been floating about of late that the likelihood of its being an honest mistake or lack of proper explanation on the part of the ID community seems remote--this level of misrepresentation must be considered deliberate. What other possible explanation could there be? Surely Ruse knows better. Instead, he is more interested in crafting an ID definition to suit his needs than in addressing ID by its own oft-stated definition. By foisting reductionist and inaccurate definitions of ID upon an unsuspecting public, ID is turned into the purported "unscientific" whipping boy of every Darwinian proselytzing for their cause. Furthermore, the tactics of Ruse and others at deliberate misrepresentation affords a certain inflationary effect on ideas, namely that the "bad coinage" (in this case the erroneous definitions) will invariably drive out and eventually overwhelm the good. So I have a new Myth 23. It is that "Darwinian evolutionists are honestly interested in addressing the claims of ID."

In the end, despite a few notable and well written exceptions, this new book does as much to advance as it does to correct myths (old and new) about science and religion. Taken as a whole there is an unfortunate synergy to this collection of essays, no doubt a product of their editor and his "distinguished advisory committee." Careful to dispell the old notion that religion and science are at odds (surely a laudable and most appropriate goal), they often end up merely privileging a certain type of science that simply pushes religion off to a "safe" magisteria where it can do no harm. Indeed there are myths and there are MYTHS.

On the matter in the title, Galileo Goes to Jail, there is no proof in the book that Galileo was held in a prison cell when better accomodations were available, like the claim that the rigorous examination mentioned in his sentence "meant interrogation with the threat of torture, not interrogation with actual torture" (p. 66), including a transcript with:

A: I do not hold the opinion of Copernicus,
and I have not held it
after being ordered by the injunction to abandon it.
For the rest,
I am here in your hands;
do as you please.

Q: And he was told to tell the truth,
otherwise one would have recourse to torture.

A: I am here to obey,
but I have not held this opinion
after the determination was made, as I said. (p. 75).

After the trial,the pope gave Galileo permission to live under house arrest at the residence of the archbishop in Siena, where he stayed five months, then he lived under house arrest in his own villa until his death. Correspondence of 1633 shows that before the trial he stayed at an embassy in Rome "on condition that he remained in seclusion until the proceedings started." (73).

This kind of thing reminds me of Americans setting culture back 800 years, before Bruno and Galileo became prime examples of how people think. I did not find any listings for jokes or pornography in the index, which has a listing for commerce but nothing about the Comedy Central American alter ego for events in our own time.

The printed word is the devil.

Reading this collection of disparate 'myths about science and religion' is unlikely to profit the ongoing discourse between the two worldviews. This well-meaning assembly contains by turns irrelevant or superficial arguments hastily drawn up.

How might 'myths', as listed in the book, operate in an ongoing discourse?

First, 'myths' may serve as 'intellectual insult'. To blame Darwin for the rise of Nazism does not invalidate the theory of evolution. To defend him of the charge is a distraction and a tactical error. Whether in the Middle Ages Christians believed the earth to be flat or not is of little relevance today, when no one longer believes it. To mention the fact in a discussion only serves to posit an analogy (a weak argument at the best of times) between past and alleged present obscurantism. Such insults are best ignored: to refute them is to fall into the trap of dignifying the slander.

'Myths' may deal with mere factoids. What truly counts today is that Galileo was effectively silenced. How this was done, with or without jail or torture, is secondary or even trivial (except for the person involved. Whether Einstein believed in a personal God is of little import, unless one sees him as a role model. Is creationism less pernicious because it is not 'uniquely American'? Factoids are best ignored - mere noise from the past.

The current collection dwells overlong on 'intellectual insults' and factoids. It would have been better to show why these myths are irrelevant, rather than attempt to fix the facts. This can be done in a few pages: Occam's razor is far more potent than rectification.

Other 'myths' highlighted in the collection are either 'straw men' (can one decide the thesis: "That modern science has secularised Western culture"?) or avowedly 'diffuse'.

The collection generally suffers from the misconception that 'historical truth' can be established. This is doubly naïve. First, because we'll never know all the facts, so each 'debunking' is no more than provisional. Secondly, the attitude leads to 'historical literalism' - the view that only the facts at the time count. The conquest of Troy may have in fact been a minor affray, as archaeology has shown. Proving it does little to impeach the import of Homeric mythology. The immediate reasons behind Galileo's condemnation are less relevant that the impact of his condemnation on the minds of his time and beyond Uncovering the facts behind a myth may be less propitious an enterprise than assessing its evolution, as any student of reception knows. Reception over time, however, are poorly dealt with in set pieces at 2,000 words each.