Customer Reviews

Gods in the Sky: Astronomy, Religion and Culture from the Ancients to the Renaissance

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

 

 

From a student who studied under Dr. Allan Chapman, this book does equal justice to the lectures he gave while studying at Oxford University. His writing pulls into a deep emotional state which makes it hard to put the book down.

Gods in the Sky

The thesis of the book is that science and religion are not natural foes. The religious focus of the book is almost exclusively on Christianity (it therefore comes as no surprise that Chapman was raised as a Christian). Islam is afforded the occasional paragraph and the word "Jewish" appears a few times. Barely any other religion, past or present, gets a single mention.

Similarly, the only branch of science provided any real coverage is Astronomy. In the nineteenth, twentieth and twenty-first centuries, the biggest controversies dividing science and religion have been in Biology and Medical Science. Christianity long since surrendered Astronomy to scientific inquiry (even if it took until 1992 for the Vatican to formally apologize for its treatment of Galileo) so Chapman really missed his mark.

Gods in the Sky shirks the fundamental chasm separating science from religion. Religion is about faith (is it not?) and science is about reason. What greater difference could there possibly be?

To be fair, most of the book really just describes some history of Astronomy and says nothing about whether science and religion are antagonistic or not. [...]

The book did nothing to change my view that science and religion are natural enemies. The adoption of science is the adoption of reason; the adoption of religion is the adoption of quackery. Science tells us that Mary, mother of Jesus was not a virgin. Christians believe she was a virgin. That is quackery. Christians believe that prayer can affect the outcome of future events through the actions of an omnipotent, loving being. That is quackery. Science is the pursuit of objective truth. Religion is an emotional crutch, an intellectual sedative and a reason to go to war.

There follow some detailed remarks on the text to explain why I gave the book 1 star.

Introduction

Page vi, Paragraph 2: "It is my suggestion that human beings are instinctively religious creatures. ...". I agree with this paragraph (but would omit the word "coherent"). But Chapman does not appreciate the full significance of what he is saying. Humans are instinctively religious creatures. Some have faith in Brahma, some have faith in Jesus Christ, some have faith in... etc etc.

Page Vii, Paragraph 1, "... priests, who supposedly ... keeping `the truth' hidden". Priests do not hide `the truth'. They simply don't know it. When "scientific truth" contradicts "religious truth" then priests pick a side.

Chapter 1 - Science and its modern myths

Page 3, Paragraph 3, Line 1 : "One favourite and fondly perpetuated scientific myth ... is that of scientific and religions thinking as being fundamentally antagonistic". Chapman neglects to inform his reader that "the writings" of Thomas Henry Huxley to which he refers were provoked by the church's refusal to accept the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection because it contradicted their "religious truth" on the origin of man.

Page 3, Line -6: "Christianity ... was temporarily stunned by science". Why only temporarily? I am still stunned by the science of the 19th century. Christian establishments have a pattern of first ridiculing, then coming to terms with scientific progress that contradicts their dogma before finally acting as if the progress had never posed them a challenge in the first place.

Page 5, Paragraph 3, Line 2 "... religious understanding has developed no less rapidly than science itself ...". Religious understanding of what? Our origins? Our significance in the universe? The workings of the steam engine? What monumental nonsense. "Religious understanding", if it exists, is dragged kicking and screaming forward by the discoveries of science. There is approximately nothing in the sum of all human knowledge and understanding that can be credited to religious introspection or the study of scripture. I challenge you to pick up an encyclopedia and point to some knowledge that can be credited to religious study.

Page 5, Paragraph 3, Line 5. ".. scientist-critics of religion still stuck in an 1860s Darwinian time warp." It is not the scientists who are stuck in a time warp. The time warp engulfs the Christian fundamentalists who have been waging a cold war in the classrooms of the United States since the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925. In 1999 (2 years before this text was published), the School Board of Kansas removed the teaching of Evolution from the School Curriculum. (It was re-instated 2 years later when the people responsible were voted out of office.) Did Chapmen perform any research for his book? See for example [...] to get an idea. Please tell me again, who is stuck in the time warp?

Page 6, Line -4 "... genuine revelation ...". What is a genuine revelation? Right here Chapman demonstrates one reason that science and religion are natural enemies. In science there is no such thing as a "genuine revelation".

Page 7, Paragraph 2, "In this way, for instance, the simple yet dramatic Genesis narrative of the creation of the world can be understood within the context of evolution." How? The Genesis story has nothing to do with Evolution. It claims that the world and all species within it were created, in their current form, in 6 Earth days by an omnipotent being. Nothing could be further from the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. [...]

Page 7, Paragraph 3, Line 4. "In fact, Darwinism was not only a wonderful discovery ... Both Aubrey Moore and Frederick Temple ... pointed out ". Moore and Temple did not show God to be an active participator in the evolutionary process. They can claim it all they like but the fact is they don't have a jot of evidence or reasoned logic to justify the claim. But I am sure they have faith. In fact, a corollary of evolution by Natural Selection is precisely that no such creator is required. [...]

Page 8, Paragraph 3, last 5 lines "One encounters cosmologists who will use their computer models to twist theoretical postulates of helium and hydrogen through every permutation of implausible fantasy rather than countenance the merest possibility that perhaps God preceded the Big Bang". There is no more implausible fantasy than "God preceded the Big Bang". Cosmologists should no more consider that "God preceded the Big Bang" than consider that magic pixies preceded the Big Bang. [...]

Do you see the pattern? I hope you understand its consequences. Explaining something with "God" explains nothing. It anesthetises the mind.

Page 9, Paragraph 3. "When defending their materialist stance ... imprudent leaps in the dark ... appears astonishingly like blind faith". For every imprudent leap that leads to a discovery, there were a million that you hear nothing of because they landed in a big hole of wrongness. The imprudent leaps that you do hear about are the ones that turn out to be correct or interesting or made by already famous scientists. Using "imprudent leaps" in science is different from religion because in science, you make the leap and test it, in religion you make the leap and apply faith. [...]

Page 10. This page is one big compliment to science. But I think it was intended as a criticism. Very revealing.

Page 11. I no longer even know what he is trying to do here. What is his point?

Page 12, Paragraph 2, Line 6. "... the scientist must have a faith in the fact that acids will always turn litmus paper red, ...". No. When there is overwhelming precedent, there is no need for faith. Drugs are not prescribed or dispensed on faith. Or are they - you tell me. People don't get into planes because they have a faith in flight mechanics that can be compared to any religious faith. Etc etc etc I can't believe I have to write this.

Page 12, Paragraph 3, Line 3. "... no more susceptible to solid proof ...". Same again. Rubbish. Precedent and overwhelming evidence provide proof of many things, for all practical purposes. The way in which Chapman defines "proof" renders the word useless. There are degrees of proof and thus far, religious theories have earned zero degrees. Scientific theories have earned many degrees of proof.

Page 13, Paragraph1, Line 12. "... playing of hunches ...". Correct. An hypothesis must be formed before it is tested. In science, hunches are tested using scientific methods. In religion they are not.

Page 14, Line 6. "... he drew the correct conclusion ...". How does he know it is the correct conclusion? Because it has been tested and verified over and over again, [...]

Page 14, Paragraph 3, Line 6. "... and have faith ...". Repeating the lie. The scientist does not need to "have faith". Time tells.

Page 15, Parapgraph3, Line 4. "...a scientific materialist mode of explanation depends just as much upon faith as dies that of divine creation". Repeating the lie. Materialist explanations have a fantastic track record. Divine explanations have a terrible track record.

Page 17, Paragraph 3, Last sentence. "The acceptance or rejection of purpose, therefore, is not an inevitable consequence of scientific research, but is the personal philosophical choice of the individual scientist.". [...]

Page 17, Paragraph 2, 1st sentence. "The results of modern science are often used to lend weight to the myth of science's ultimate truth status, but this myth can be countered by two arguments". Skipping directly to the second "counter", Chapman states (Paragraph 4) "Secondly, why is it that, after science has done so much to transform the modern world, there is significant minority [emphasis added] of people within the West who seem to be disillusioned by it?" He continues on Page 18, Paragraph 2 "No-one, of course, is suggesting that scientific truth should be judged by its popularity in a plebiscite". [...]

Page 20, Paragraph 2 Line 5. "For in a truly dog eat dog world ... human rights have no place". So what? This is the common attempt to take credit for human compassion on behalf of religion. With this claim, [...] Human rights have never been better respected that they are today in secular democracies. The worst human rights violations today occur in religions states such as Nigeria and Saudi Arabia. Think about that.

Page 24. Line 2. "... the point that Galileo was, like Copernicus, a pious Roman Catholic." How is that "the point". The "point" is that when free scientific enquiry and religious dogma collided, the religious establishment used house arrest to argue its case. They did not use reasoned argument or experimental evidence because they had none. On that day, religion was most definitely an enemy of science. The claim that Galileo and Copernicus were `pious Roman Catholic' is a common want evangelical Christians. They are frequently at pains to claim that some famous scientist or other was a Christian. We don't know if Galileo was a Christian or not. We do know that when he suggested the world might not be the centre of the universe, he was arrested by the Christian church. We cannot imagine what would have happened to him if he had publicly questioned, verbally or in writing, the existence of God. Under those circumstances it is simply wishful thinking to believe that he was a "pious Roman Catholic". I don't know what he believed and frankly it does not matter. I do know that it took until 1992 for the Roman Catholic Church to apologise for their treatment of Galileo.

Page 24, Paragraph 3. "Charles Darwin, who undoubtedly caused some ripples within the Victorian Church of England". I must give Chapman credit for his slight of hand. He subtly tries to explain away the religious opposition to Darwinism with the word "Victorian" as if that somehow exonerates them. The Christian establishments opposed Darwinism because they understood its implications for their beliefs. Line 5 "... contemporary theologians and scholars came to terms with evolution surprisingly quickly..." Why "surprisingly quickly"? [...]. After thousands of years, Christian Creationism, which was inherited directly from Judaism, was dead. And it took a scientist, using a scientist's methods to do it - Darwinism was formed after thousand of tons of data were collected and analyzed by thousand of scientists. Creationism was made up one day when somebody asked the question we all want to answer. How did the church react to Darwinism? It took at least a generation for the church to adapt, reinvent its creationist myths in the light of the latest science and carry on as before. The history of science and religion is one of a repeated pattern of one generation of clergy opposing scientific progress that contradicts their beliefs or their morals. Eventually the old clergy are replaced by the new who have grown up standing on the shoulders of scientific giants. They adapt and re-invent the myths. Everything that is not yet explained scientifically is touted as "proof" of a God.

Well's that's Chapter 1 but so help me I don't have all day. Let's skip to my favourite bit in the entire book. Chapter 9, Page 234. The first paragraph tells how Christopher Columbus used his knowledge of Astronomy to trick less educated natives of Jamaica into believing that his prayers were responsible for bringing back the light of the moon at the end of a lunar eclipse. [...]

Hello,
...we read from the Author De Lacy O'Leary, D.D. in his book titled "How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs"
How through the many schools the "Nestorians" (Assyrian Church of the East) founded, including the Schools at Edessa, Nisibis, and Jundi-Shapur, the Greek works were translated into Syriac for use in the curriculums. These works included Theophania, Martyrs of Palestine, and Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius, and many others

In the first place Hibha [a Nestorian-Assyrian] had introduced the Aristotelian logic to illustrate and explain the theological teaching of Theodore, of Mopseustia, and that logic remained permanently the necessary introduction to the theological study in all Nestorian education. Ultimately it was the Aristotelian logic which, with the Greek medical, astronomical, and mathematical writers, was passed on to the Arabs

So the point is that it was through those Assyrian Christian Schools that Greek sciences was passed to the Arabs, and the truly inheritors of the science mace in Middle East should have been mentioned as the Assyrians and not the Arabs.

...