# Will we ever be able to kill off religion? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 25, 2004, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-be-able-to-kill-off-religion/261432 "2004-08-25T13:04:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-be-able-to-kill-off-religion/261432/81 "2004-08-27T07:39:54Z")
I must say, there still seems to be something intensely disingenuous about focusing on Galileo’s mistaken theory of the tides, as if that aspect of the debate mattered at all. On review of Sobel’s account, here is what I gather: Galileo’s letter to Madama Castelli, having made its way to Caccini et al., wound its way up to an inquisitor general. Crucial passages in his letter were altered by malicious detractors, perhaps to precipitate an altercation. In truth, Galileo had taken some pains to avoid theological conflict, even providing explanations for how Biblical passages, such as those of Joshua commanding the Sun to remain still, could be reconciled with scientific observations. Galileo later had to send a copy of the unaltered letter to Cardinal Piero Dini, who dutifully circulated it, in an attempt to clear his good name. Through all this Galileo felt that his detractors were more in violation of theological principles than himself, citing Augustine, Tertullian, Jerome, Aquinas, Dionysis and Ambrose as supporting the idea that complex issues should be weighed with theological moderation and caution in case strident judgement unfairly condemned hypotheses that did not actually conflict with Scripture. In so doing, he indirectly accused them of violating theological principles set down in the Council of Trent, which gave the Church fathers sole authority to interpret Scripture. He, of course, was accused of the very same offense. Lacking sufficient evidence to back the Copernican model (Tycho Brahe’s Geocentric model could not be satisfactorily refuted by the observations Galileo could make with his telescope). His “Treatise on the Tides” was submitted voluntarily, and Galileo hoped it would provide the proof necessary to vindicate the Copernican model, and, in his estimation, defend not only scientific inquiry under the aegis of Rome, but also, ironically, to defend Rome itself against heresy from within. Galileo, in not taking the Moon into account, was indeed wrong about the tides. In fact, his inability to account for the tides except by invoking the concept of an Earth that moved proved nothing definitively, since he could merely be mistaken about their cause. But his theory on the tides was not unreasonable, given that the concept of gravity had not yet been invented. At any rate, the scientific merit of his theory was never the real issue. Pope Paul V refused to even read it, but rather called upon Cardinal Bellarmino, who had already professed distaste for the Copernican model on purely theological grounds, to evaluate the merit of the Treatise. Bellarmino rightly pointed out that Galileo had not provided proof of the Copernical model, and could not assert its truth. But his refutation, based only on what he felt was a common-sense observation that if the heavens appeared to move about the Earth, they in fact did, was absolutely lacking any of the proofs Bellarmino felt Galileo failed to produce. Subsequently, a panel of theologians found Galileo’s defense of the Copernical model to be philisophically absurd, “formerly heretical”, and “erroneous in faith”. The theory of Copernicus was officially condemned for the first time as heresy, and Galileo was commanded to renounce it, which he did. Galileo was not yet charged himself with heresy, but the rumor of it besmirched his name, and Galileo had to request a letter of exoneration from Bellarmino to defend himself. Again, I can see no reason to consider Galileo’s error in his theory of the tides as a mitigating or really salient issue in this episode. While he provided no definitive proof of the Copernical model, his detractors needed none; they relied solely on a narrow interpretation of scripture to bolster their argument, and supplied specious observational details to flesh it out. They then proclaimed the unquestionable Truth of the geocentric model, and called the matter resolved. Certainly if Galileo had agreed to only consider his Theory an hypothesis from the outset, and not insist on its accuracy, he would have fared much better. His judgement was indeed clouded by what he felt was a desperate need to set the Church fathers on the proper path, and that was certainly his undoing. But the objections of the Church fathers were themselves so weighted by bias, bias that was in no way supported by the sorts of proofs Galileo neededed to provide to defend his name from slander (not to mention the Copernican model, the _correct_ model of the Solar System if one ignores the Sun’s motion about the galactic center, from the brand of heresy), it seems incredibly unbalanced to consider Galileo’s failings so worthy of note, or in any way deserving of what befell him. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-be-able-to-kill-off-religion/261432/82 "2004-08-27T13:36:26Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > But the objections of the Church fathers were themselves so weighted by bias, bias that was in no way supported by the sorts of proofs Galileo neededed to provide to defend his name from slander (not to mention the Copernican model, the _correct_ model of the Solar System if one ignores the Sun’s motion about the galactic center, from the brand of heresy), it seems incredibly unbalanced to consider Galileo’s failings so worthy of note, or in any way deserving of what befell him. Which last point is not seriously argued by anyone worth paying attention to. What IS argued about, however, by people ranging from **tom~** in this Board to the late Stephen J. Gould, is the casting of the Galileo case as an unimpugnable archetype for _“religion (or, more specifically, Western Christianity) is against knowledge”_, and how those taking that position are quick on the draw to shout “Galileo! Galileo!” (please, no _Bohemian Rhapsody_ jokes…) every time the allegedly fundamental and irreconcilable religion/science conflict is brought up. Ultimately Galileo was right, the Church was wrong, but all parties to the issue allowed it to degenerate into a pissing match and, just his bad luck, at the time the Church had the bigger stick and no qualms over what would Jesus would do about using said stick. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-be-able-to-kill-off-religion/261432/83 "2004-08-27T17:19:55Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > Ultimately Galileo was right, the Church was wrong, but all parties to the issue allowed it to degenerate into a pissing match and, just his bad luck, at the time the Church had the bigger stick and no qualms over what would Jesus would do about using said stick. I think boiling Galileo’s conflict with the Church down to a pissy ego battle is way too simplistic, and apparently overlooks the greatest irony of Galileo’s downfall. Galileo never wanted a theological battle, but rightly concluded if he did not defend the Copernican model, it might well fall under the brand of heresy whether he acted or no. This was a Church still stinging from the Lutheran revolt. Galileo lacked the proof to refute Brahe’s geocentric model. But it is interesting to note that his initial objections to the Ptolemaic model were philisophical: The Copernican model was elegantly simple and could explain all known phenomena, regardless of the particulars of the shape of the orbits. The Ptolemaic model, while equally successful up to that point, from a computational perspective, contained a hedeously complex system of epicycles to explain away retrograde motion of the planets, and with a judicious use of Occam’s Razor, Galileo expressed his extreme doubts about the model. These doubts were confirmed by his observation of the phases of Venus. While Brahe’s model could account for the “horns of Venus”, it could not be rid of the “ontological bloatedness” that plagued the Ptolemaic model. Galileo was right to brand it inferior, and his previous intuitions about Ptolemaic geocentricty had born fruit in the aforementioned observations. Enter the Church, and its rumblings of heresy vis. the Copernican model. In this, Galileo rightly saw a terrible threat, both to Science, and, in his estimation, theology. His downfall, ultimately, stemmed from his faith, and drove him to ignore even his own scientific sensibilities in his insistence on pushing his theory of the tides. Galileo was not just incensed, he was deeply and spiritually troubled. He felt the Scriptures were in fact Truth, and that by foolish misreading of that Truth, the Church itself was in danger of heresy. Galileo rightly recognized that if the Church were found to be refuted by evidence in its defense of geocentricity, the Church fathers would look like fools; and that is ultimately what happened. This horrified him. Certainly, his pugnacious attitude cannot be extricated from the mess, but to ignore the deep spiritual and scientific principles that Galileo correctly recognized were being violated is slanderous folly, in my estimation. Sadly, it was Galileo’s own faith that got the better of him, and rapidly worsened an already bad situation. If he had been content to wait for the Church to fall on its face, as it ultimately did, he would have fared better. His zeal even hastened the declaration of heresy, which is the very thing he hoped to avoid. But his zeal was driven by a sense of crisis, as he clearly indicated in his correspondences, be he egoistic or no. Was it ultimately an avoidable crisis? We will never know. But to portray Galileo as some shoddy astronomer bent on winning a shouting match for its own sake is simply unsupportable. He WAS a champion of science, one who was willing to put his life on the line for it. He was equally a champion of the Christian faith, and it is the latter bias that I am convinced put him squarely on the road to ruin. But in every regard, if you ask me, he beat the Church, both in science, and at their own theological game, and history has vindicated him and rightly indicted the Church fathers who condemned him with only fundamentalist faith as their justification. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-be-able-to-kill-off-religion/261432/84 "2004-08-27T18:20:28Z")
> [@](#): > > In this, Galileo rightly saw a terrible threat, both to Science, and, in his estimation, theology. Here is the point on which we specifically differ. I see no reason to believe that the Copernican model would have been branded heresy had Galileo simply gone along with Bellarmine’s suggestion to label it a hypothesis until proof was provided. Certainly, there were men in the church who were eager to label it heresy, however, there were also men who opposed such an action. (You note that the 1616 trial included a statement that his work was “formally heretical,” but, as I have already noted, that statement was struck from the judgement when it was reviewed by higher authority. When it was re-inserted in the 1633 trial, the verdict was left unsigned by several judges and the later reviewers pointed out that the court had exceeded its authority since there was no dogma that it contravened.) In fact, Galileo’s views of the Coperican theory were accepted by the church in just about 100 years, with his books being removed from the _Index_ and eventually even receiving an _imprimatur_. I do not hold that Galileo was a “shoddy” astronomer, but he certainly cut his own throat when he insisted that the church officially recognize as “True” something that he could not prove. He also was his own worst enemy, condemning and publicly castigating even potential allies if they dared to challenge any statement he uttered. (Note that he rebuked the astronomer Grassi, regarding comets–when Grassi was right and Galileo wrong–with the claim that “You cannot help it, Signor Sarsi that it was granted to me alone to discover all the new phenomena in the sky and nothing to anybody else. This is the truth which neither virtue nor envy can suppress.”) One interesting analysis of the case is found at [The Galileo affair _or_ How NOT to engage in the Theology/Science debate](http://www.spc.org.nz/2.pdf) (a .pdf) (or in [the html version from Google’s cache](http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:hWfYjQhmHmIJ:www.spc.org.nz/2.pdf+huxley+galileo&hl=en&ie=UTF-8).) ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-be-able-to-kill-off-religion/261432/85 "2004-08-27T20:09:13Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Note that he rebuked the astronomer Grassi, regarding comets–when Grassi was right and Galileo wrong–with the claim that “You cannot help it, Signor Sarsi that it was granted to me alone to discover all the new phenomena in the sky and nothing to anybody else. This is the truth which neither virtue nor envy can suppress.” Would you remind us of what error Galileo made with respect to comets, that Grassi was right about? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-be-able-to-kill-off-religion/261432/86 "2004-08-27T20:41:52Z")
> [@commasense](#): > > Would you remind us of what error Galileo made with respect to comets, that Grassi was right about? Thanks. Gallileo said that comets were either illusions or atmospheric phenomena. Fr. Grassi said they were heavenly bodies. ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-be-able-to-kill-off-religion/261432/87 "2004-08-27T20:58:00Z")
This is irrational I know, but I think the church at the time blamed Gallileo for the Tower of Pisa leaning like it currently is, and thought that his findings may make the Church symbolically lean and eventually fall like that tower. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-be-able-to-kill-off-religion/261432/88 "2004-08-27T20:59:24Z")
I believe Galileo’s reasoning was that because the comets could not be resolved in a telescope like all the other celestial objects he had observed, but rather looked no more clear upon magnification than a normal cloud. This suggested to him that they were in fact nothing more than atomospheric phenomena. He ignored or would not accept some compelling work done by Tycho Brahe, among others, that placed comets beyond the orbit of the Moon, based on their motion. I guess since we are discussing scientific proofs (I’ll get to wondering aloud why the Church isn’t expected to adehere to the burden of proof it places on others), neither had a definative proof of comet nature, but Tycho, et al.'s reasoning was certainly much more sound. ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-be-able-to-kill-off-religion/261432/89 "2004-08-27T21:18:53Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > Gallileo said that comets were either illusions or atmospheric phenomena. Fr. Grassi said they were heavenly bodies. I had forgotten this incident, and the book I own which includes Galileo’s “The Assayer” abridges it, excluding some of his incorrect theories about comets. However, I’ve just found a note from the translator/editor, Stillman Drake, that points out that “Galileo did not contend, as is often asserted, that comets were located close to the earth. He did, however, believe them to originate from terrestrial vapors rising in straight lines and vanishing at immense distances.” ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-be-able-to-kill-off-religion/261432/90 "2004-08-27T21:35:50Z")
> [@capacitor](#): > > This is irrational I know, but I think the church at the time blamed Gallileo for the Tower of Pisa leaning like it currently is, and thought that his findings may make the Church symbolically lean and eventually fall like that tower. Why would they blame him for a tower that was built 500 years before he was born, and discovered to be leaning 400 years before he was born? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2004, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-be-able-to-kill-off-religion/261432/91 "2004-08-28T01:58:52Z")
BTW, going back to this thread’s ill-conceived OP, notice that after all was said and done, _both_ Galileo’s science _and_ Christianity endured. (I’m just wary of canonizations, be they of Saints or of Scientific Pioneers.) ---
**Author:** ![WoodCM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/7bcc69/32.png) [@WoodCM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WoodCM)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2004, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-be-able-to-kill-off-religion/261432/92 "2004-08-28T05:16:57Z")
> [@Mehitabel](#): > > Well, I’ve always thought that Marxism, Maoism, etc. were practiced like religions, with much worse punishments for heresy than almost all modern religions would allow. So I guess the answer is yes. Take away the village imam and people will believe in the village commissar. Dead right! The specifics you say above are all derive from socialism, which is by far the worst religion of them all. Let’s kill it! Trouble is, you can’t, for it is the pure worship of power, which far too many human beings love! ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2004, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-be-able-to-kill-off-religion/261432/93 "2004-08-28T15:07:10Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > BTW, going back to this thread’s ill-conceived OP, notice that after all was said and done, _both_ Galileo’s science _and_ Christianity endured. > > (I’m just wary of canonizations, be they of Saints or of Scientific Pioneers.) I personally rate Galileo as a far more important and admirable person than _any_ religious figure, including Jesus, Mohammed, etc. He essentially invented modern science, which, IMO, is a far more valuable contribution than founding a religion. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2004, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-be-able-to-kill-off-religion/261432/94 "2004-08-28T15:32:44Z")
> [@](#): > > He essentially invented modern science. . . You aren’t serious? ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2004, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-be-able-to-kill-off-religion/261432/95 "2004-08-28T16:45:21Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > You aren’t serious? Well, I’m not prepared to write a book on it at this moment, but yes, I’m serious, and I don’t think the idea is original to me. Galileo was one of, if not _the_ first, to use systematic observations to confirm theory, rather than rely on the authority of others, like Aristotle, whose mostly erroneous theories were considered unchallengeable dogma by the church, even when they were easily disproved by experience, as Galileo did. Perhaps instead of suggesting he invented modern science, I should have said the scientific method. Does that sit better with you? Or do you just not like Galileo? ---
**Author:** ![START](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@START](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/START)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2004, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-be-able-to-kill-off-religion/261432/96 "2004-08-28T17:01:06Z")
> [@Colophon](#): > > That’s “we” as in the human race, BTW. > > It cannot be disputed (although I’m sure some will try to do so) that religion is the single biggest threat to civilisation, and the biggest factor in holding back progress. While we could be working together to end poverty and disease, we instead squabble over whose myth to believe, or which centuries-old fraudster was the genuine prophet. There’s nothing deadlier than an army that believes God is on its side. > > Clearly, a world without religion would be a great improvement. > > But could such a thing ever be achieved? Is there something about human nature that _needs_ some deity to believe in? Is the idea of worshipping some mythical higher being so entrenched in the human psyche that we could never get rid of it. Or can the human race eventually grow out of this adolescent phase and reach maturity? > > My own feeling is that, sadly, we’ll never reach that stage. Some nutter with God on his side and a nuclear button under his finger will see to that. Wow, the most offensive post I have ever read on the SDMB, I don’t know what to say. I hope rather than killing off religion we can kill off this “religion is holding back civilization” type of thinking. :wally ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2004, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-be-able-to-kill-off-religion/261432/97 "2004-08-28T17:22:22Z")
> [@commasense](#): > > Well, I’m not prepared to write a book on it at this moment, but yes, I’m serious, and I don’t think the idea is original to me. Galileo was one of, if not _the_ first, to use systematic observations to confirm theory, rather than rely on the authority of others, like Aristotle, whose mostly erroneous theories were considered unchallengeable dogma by the church, even when they were easily disproved by experience, as Galileo did. > > Perhaps instead of suggesting he invented modern science, I should have said the scientific method. Does that sit better with you? Or do you just not like Galileo? You may be on to someting. I’d post more, but I’ve been assigned reading… For now: It is certainly hyperbole to give credit for the “invention of science/the scientific method” to any one individual, but it is certainly _not_ hyperbole to credit Galileo with playing a preeminant role in breaking with Aristotilian thought, and bringing the Western world along with him. Einstein put it best, I think: _“But before mankind could be ripe for a science which takes in the whole of reality, a second fundamental truth was needed, which only became common property among philosophers with the advent of Kepler and Galileo. Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world; all knowledge of reality starts form experience and ends in it. Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality. Because Galileo saw this, and particularly because he drummed it into the scientific world, he is the father of modern physics – indeed, of modern science altogether.” (Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions)_ ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2004, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-be-able-to-kill-off-religion/261432/98 "2004-08-28T17:39:15Z")
**Colophon** , upon reading the OP, it dawned on me that every religion or non-religion has its fanatics. The intensity of your concern and your goal of eradication of an opposing view is Falwellian to say the least. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2004, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-be-able-to-kill-off-religion/261432/99 "2004-08-28T18:11:05Z")
The only to eradicate religion would be to murder all of us believers. But take heart: you wouldn’t be the first one to try… ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2004, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-be-able-to-kill-off-religion/261432/100 "2004-08-28T18:23:14Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > The only to eradicate religion would be to murder all of us believers. But take heart: you wouldn’t be the first one to try… Are you referring to the Holocaust? The Inquisition? The Crusades? Pogroms? The Salem Witch Trials…? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-be-able-to-kill-off-religion/261432.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-be-able-to-kill-off-religion/261432.md?page=6)