By Ken Mann
The question is asked in different ways. Are religion and science compatible? Are science and faith in conflict? The answer depends on what one has properly defined as the meaning of science and faith. Critics of Christianity claim, based on history, that there is an inherent conflict between science and religion and use Galileo’s trial before the Inquisition as an “example” of the conflict. We are told that Galileo was tortured, forced to recant his belief in a heliocentric universe, and imprisoned for the rest of his life, because of the heresy of advocating heliocentrism. This paper will address how aspects of this narrative are false and others are misleading. Galileo’s conflict with the Church has been described as “…a clash of ideas—between scientific claims fervently held by a small group of reformers, on the one hand, and the opposing theological doctrines supported by centuries of church tradition, on the other.”[1] Galileo is described as a martyr of science because the Catholic Church opposed it.[2] . To explain how Christianity and science are compatible today, the Christian apologist must be able to explain how, for better or worse, they have interacted in the past. Over the course of this paper, we will see that the Galileo issue was not about science, but rather, about the authority of the Catholic Church in how to interpret the Bible. The nascent disciplines of astronomy and cosmology suffered at the hands of an entrenched and beleaguered institution, yet the conflict was not about truth per se, but about control.
This paper addresses the myths, complexities, and lessons we can learn from Galileo’s trial. As for myths, there are two aspects accepted by history that are in fact false, namely that during his trial, Galileo was tortured and that he was imprisoned for the rest of his life. As for complexity, there were many different factors at play that ultimately culminated in Galileo’s trial. It is simply a grotesque simplification to claim that this incident represents the fight between science and theological doctrines. Finally, we can learn a lot about the conflicts in our day between theological and scientific authorities.
To understand these 17th century events, it is worth taking a step back and understanding the state of cosmology.[3] At that time, the Church and much of Europe had, from about the 13th century onwards, adopted an Aristotelian cosmology. Aristotle’s works had been reintroduced into Europe, in Latin, and eventually integrated into the teaching of the Church.
Aristotle’s view of the cosmos was the source of the geocentric (earth-centered) view of the universe. The earth was motionless. The center of the earth is where all matter was drawn, where things naturally moved. The sun, moon, planets, and stars revolved around the earth in celestial spheres. The moon and beyond was a realm of eternal, unchanging perfection, while the domain of matter was subject to change and decay.[4] . Aristotle’s vision of the cosmos was integrated into Christian theology, finding agreement with the passages that indicate that the earth is stationary (Psalm 75:3; 93:1; 96:10; 119:90; 1 Chronicles 16:30).[5] ) and that the sun moves (Joshua 10). In the 2nd century, Ptolemy developed a geocentric model of the cosmos that would explain the observed motions of the planets. The combination of an explanatory model for astronomical observations and the imprint of the Church made the geocentric view the only rational and acceptable view of the universe for over 300 years.
In 1543, Copernicus’ magnum opus, De Revolutionibus Orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres) was published with the encouragement and blessing of the Catholic Church. It provoked little more than a whimper. In fact, it was Galileo’s writing and agitation, 73 years later, that resulted in Copernicus’ work being placed on the Index of Prohibited Books, where it remained until 1835.[6] . From its original publication until Galileo, heliocentrism did not provoke the ire of Church officials for the simple reason that it was a theory. Copernicus offered an alternative mathematical model for the motions of the various celestial bodies.
Neither Copernicus nor any other astronomer in the 16th century argued, at least forcefully or publicly, that Aristotelian cosmology was false. In fact, before the invention of the telescope in the early 17th century, the only argument for heliocentrism was theoretical elegance or simplicity. Predictions made by Copernicus’s model were no more accurate than those based on Ptolemy’s geocentric model.
Moving now to the early 17th century, Galileo began using the newly invented telescope to make astronomical observations. Using an eight-power instrument, he began making observations of the moon, the sun, the phases of Venus, and the moons of Jupiter. His publications Starry Messenger (1610) and Letters on Sunspots (1613) launched him into the public spotlight as a proponent of heliocentrism. As Galileo attempted to argue (in conversation and in letters) for the truth of heliocentrism, he was confronted with what he thought was an exegetical problem. Simply put, he believed that the scientific content of the Bible had to be discussed in light of observations that supported heliocentrism. According to Galileo, the Bible communicated truths about salvation that are beyond human reason. However, he also argued (as summarized by David Lindberg) that, “When the biblical text pushes these boundaries, addressing matters that are within the reach of sensory experience and rational knowledge, God does not expect these God-given capacities to be abandoned… It follows that theologians, before committing themselves to an interpretation of such passages, would do well to examine the demonstrative arguments of natural scientists and philosophers.”[7] Galileo’s ideas on exegesis in defense of heliocentrism were eventually brought to the attention of the Inquisition. In 1616, the Holy Office formally censured two key tenets of heliocentrism: the sun is at rest (labeled “formally heretical”) and the earth moves around the sun (labeled “erroneous in faith”).[8] .
Galileo was summoned by Cardinal Roberto Bellarmino and informed that heliocentrism “had been declared false and heretical, and was not to be retained or defended.”[9] Galileo was not charged with any crime, but the decision of the Inquisition put an end to his campaign in the name of heliocentrism.
By 1623, with the rise of Maffeo Barberini to the papacy as Urban VIII, the fate of heliocentrism seemed to have changed. Barberini was a close friend and admirer of Galileo, and his work in astronomy. Over the course of six meetings with the new pontiff, Galileo came to believe that he was free to write a book on heliocentrism , as long as he treated it as a mere hypothesis. By the time Galileo completed the ” Dialogue” on the Two Chief World Systems in 1629, he had in fact gone beyond simply debating competing hypotheses. Instead, what he had written was “…nothing less than a powerful argument in the name of the undoubted truth of heliocentrism; no reader could have understood it otherwise. Nor did one have to read between the lines to perceive this as Galileo’s purpose, for in the Dialogue itself he repeatedly claimed to have demonstrated the “truth” of his conclusions.”[10] , Despite having gone through the proper channels within the Church before publishing Dialogue , the reception within the Vatican was disastrous for Galileo. In addition to his general treatment of heliocentrism, Simplicio, “…a stupid Aristotelian who laughed at dialogue”[11] , expressed the same arguments that Galileo had heard during his audiences with Urban. A letter to Florence from the Florentine ambassador describes a meeting in which the pontiff “…exploded with great anger…” at the mere mention of Galileo. The Pope believed that Galileo had misled him, since he clearly did not consider heliocentrism as a hypothesis.
Furthermore, in the character of Simplicio, he made the pontiff an object of ridicule.
Alienating the Pope with such obvious insubordination was perhaps the least of Galileo’s problems. Since the Dialogue clearly advocated the truth of heliocentrism, it violated the 1616 decree of the Congregation of the Index that condemned heliocentrism as “…false and completely contrary to Scripture.” The same decree not only prohibited Copernicus’s book from being printed, but also stated that “…all other books teaching the same tendency are prohibited, since the present Decree prohibits, condemns, and suspends all of them respectively.”[12] , The Inquisition appointed a Special Commission to investigate further. In the archives of the Holy Office a memorandum was discovered[13] which stated that the General Commissioner of the Holy Office had given Galileo a specific injunction to “renounce entirely” his acceptance of heliocentrism and no longer “hold, teach or defend it in any way, either verbally or in writing.”[14] , Due to the weight of all this evidence, Galileo was put on trial in Rome in April 1633.
Having set the stage in terms of historical context, let us begin to look at the myths, complexities, and lessons of Galileo’s trial. The myths, the things once assumed to be true, now known to be false, are tied to the outcome of the trial, specifically that he was tortured and imprisoned. Galileo was found guilty of “vehement suspicion of heresy” for his advocacy of heliocentrism in “Dialogue” and for denying that the Bible is a scientific authority . [15].
In any trial, the activities of the Holy Office were kept under strict secrecy. The Cardinals and those on trial never discussed the proceedings in public. Very accurate and reliable records were kept, including transcripts of interrogations and even details of how the accused responded to torture.[16] However, in the case of Galileo’s trial, under explicit orders from Urban VIII, the sentencing document and the abjuration recited by Galileo were widely distributed and printed in books and newspapers. The Pope wanted Galileo to serve as an object lesson for all Catholics and to demonstrate his bona fides as a staunch defender of the faith.[17] Two elements of the prayer document are significant. First, it says that Galileo was subjected to a “rigorous examination” (also known as torture)[18] Second, that Galileo was to be imprisoned at the discretion of the Holy Office. This was understood to mean imprisoned in the palace of the Inquisition in Rome for an indefinite period of time.
If the sentence and abjuration had been the only known documents, the imprisonment and torture administered by the Catholic Church would have remained in the historical record.
However, letters written by Galileo and the Tuscan ambassador in Rome were made public in the late 18th century and the publication of the Inquisition records of Galileo’s trial in the late 19th century corrected both of these myths. The Holy Office records prove quite conclusively that Galileo did not experience any physical torture. From the records themselves, there is no indication that physical torture ever occurred. It seems clear that it was threatened as a possibility, but it never actually occurred. Furthermore, Galileo’s advanced age (69) would have precluded the possibility of torture.[19] As for Galileo’s imprisonment, from his arrival in Rome on February 13, 1633, until he left Rome on June 30, there were only three days left in June where Galileo could have been imprisoned. The remainder of his time in Rome was spent either at the Tuscan embassy (the ambassador’s residence) or in the 6-room apartment of the fiscal. After spending 5 months at the archbishop’s house in Siena, Galileo returned to his own villa in December 1633. He lived there until his death in 1642.
Moving away from blatant myths, we now turn to the complexities of Galileo’s conflict with the Church. These can be divided into two categories. First, there are four factors, generally misunderstood from a modern perspective, that prevented the acceptance of heliocentrism. Second, there is a fundamental misconception about the nature of Galileo’s confrontation with the Church.
The first problem that prevented the widespread acceptance of heliocentrism was that the evidence available at the time was not sufficient. The modern view of heliocentrism is in light of what we know from science, rather than what was known or could be proven during Galileo’s time. The arguments Galileo made at the time supported the heliocentric view, but were also compatible with the model put forward by Tycho Brahe.[20] Galileo was convinced that the heliocentric hypothesis was true, but there was insufficient evidence to overturn more than 300 years of adherence to Aristotelian cosmology.
Secondly, if the task of overturning Aristotle’s long-established cosmology was not Herculean enough, Galileo’s purpose was made seemingly impossible by his arrogant and impulsive behavior. He was normally far more effective at making enemies than friends. Many experts assume that, in Galileo’s trial, his fate was in some sense assured by the various enemies he had made in the years before 1633. David Lindberg concludes: “Galileo’s personality was a consistent and important factor; indeed, it seems clear that, had he played his cards differently, with more attention to diplomacy, Galileo could have conducted a significant campaign on behalf of heliocentrism without condemnation.”[21] .
A third impediment that Galileo faced was the issue of epistemological authority. Where does knowledge of the cosmos come from? Is it available through human capacities for sense and reason? Is it found only in Scripture? Is it a combination of the two? The prevailing view of Catholic and Protestant theologians was that knowledge of the heavens was, in principle, not available to the natural sciences. The nature of the heavenly realm was divine knowledge that was inaccessible to the human intellect. Thus, the work of Copernicus and Ptolemy were simply models used to predict the locations of the planets; they were mathematical instruments and were not intended to be descriptions of reality. Galileo’s argument for heliocentrism went far beyond the debate over which model was more accurate. He believed that the heliocentric model of the universe was a description of reality. Thus, he challenged conventional wisdom, not only about the inaccessibility of the heavens; he also claimed that scientific observation could attain knowledge not available in the Bible.
Fourth, the argument for another epistemic authority clashed quite violently with the post-Reformation Catholic Church’s stance on the interpretation of Scripture. One of the decrees issued by the Council of Trent (1545 – 1563) on the interpretation of Scripture said in part:
The Council decrees that, in questions of faith and morals… no one, relying on his own judgment and distorting the Holy Scriptures according to his own conceptions, shall dare to interpret them contrary to the sense to which Holy Mother Church, to which it belongs, judges its sense and meaning, sustains it and maintains it, or even contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers. [22].
The reasoning inspired by Galileo’s two books was not without the support of the Church, however, and the Decree issued in 1616 that heliocentrism was “contrary to Scripture” was a clear and convincing indication that the Church was going to defend its authority in matters related to cosmology.
In addition to the obstacles that impeded the acceptance of heliocentrism, the Galileo affair was treated simplistically as a conflict between scientific rationalism and religious doctrine. In response to this claim, consider the following: each of the participants in this debate were Christians who accepted the authority of the Bible, were theologically informed, and were able to present rational arguments for their respective views on cosmology. Furthermore, within the Church itself, there were various opinions on hermeneutics, some agreeing with Galileo, others not.
From the scientific perspective, among astronomy experts, heliocentrism was not a widespread opinion. In short, rather than a confrontation between science and religion, it might be more accurate to describe the Galileo case as a conflict within science and religion.[23] .
In light of all this, what really happened? Simply put, it was a confrontation over Church authority, not a scientific debate. Given the Church’s stance on who can interpret scripture and Galileo’s temperament advocating heliocentrism, a clash was inevitable. David Lindberg offers the following one-sentence summary: “The trial was for flagrant disobedience and insubordination: the issues raised in the 1616 decree were not reexamined; its conclusions were merely reaffirmed.”[24] The merits of Galileo’s arguments were insignificant when compared to the centuries of consensus. The authority of Aristotle’s geocentric cosmology was not going to be dismissed simply because the heliocentric view was plausible. The Church chose to stake its authority on that consensus, and science suffered as a result.
Finally, let us consider what lessons can be drawn from the Galileo affair. When studying history, one must always be careful not to fall into the trap of anachronism, judging past events through the lens of present-day knowledge and sensibilities. When considering the heliocentric debate in context, the available evidence and the consensus of the time, it was reasonable to support the geocentric view. Another form of temporal snobbery that we should avoid is condemning the Church for the way it exercised its authority. Lindberg makes the following observation about that period:
“The beginning of the 17th century was a time of increasing absolutism in Europe, both in religious and political terms. Freedom to express dangerous ideas was not so easy, as they would not be defended in the same way in Protestant Geneva as in Catholic Rome. The idea that a stable society could be built on the general principles of freedom of expression was not defended by anyone at the time, and police and judicial restrictions were therefore unavoidable realities.”[25] .
Another important lesson is to avoid rigid and simplistic contrasts regarding such broad categories as “science” and “religion.” Such conflicts are rarely as simple as the contrast between truth and error; rather they are substitutes for more subtle discussions. In this case, the issue of epistemological authority was at stake. It was not simply a question of how things are known (mere epistemology) but what would be regarded as a source of knowledge (authority). The Church sought to defend its interpretation of the Bible as true and correct in all “matters of faith and morals.” The error we perceive in looking back is to extend that control over matters of cosmology.
In our modern age, it is widely believed that we have developed a stage where true or false dictates what is considered knowledge. We believe that we are no longer at the mercy of any human bureaucracy or institution for knowledge. In the 17th century, the Bible was the dominant source of knowledge about reality. What we have seen in this paper is that Galileo was put on trial not for rejecting the Bible but for challenging the only authority (the Church) to interpret the Bible. Today, the Church (Protestant and Catholic) has been eclipsed by science as the primary (or perhaps only) source of knowledge for humanity. In reality, however, the Church and institutional science have simply switched roles over the past 350 years. Today, the fields of science that attempt to explain the origins and development of life are caught in a dogmatic devotion to an idea imagined over 150 years ago. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Neo-Darwinism is dogmatically adhered to as the sole explanation for the development of life. As discussed in the film “Expelled” and numerous intelligent design blogs, those who advocate dangerous ideas that contradict the reigning consensus are punished, not by torture or imprisonment, but by the destruction of academic careers. Perhaps that is the strongest lesson we can learn from history; it always repeats itself.
Literature
Blackwell, Richard J. Behind the Scenes at Galileo’s Trial: Including the First English Translation of Melchior Inchofer’s Tractatus Syllepticus. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008.
Ferngren, Gary B., ed. Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002.
Lindberg, David C., and Ronald L. Numbers, eds. When Science and Christianity Meet. 1st ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.
Numbers, Ronald L. Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion. 1st ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009.
Grades
[1] David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, eds., When Science and Christianity Meet, 1st ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 33.
[2] Gary B. Ferngren, ed., Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), 105.Galileo and the Catholic Church Ken Mann.
[3] Cosmology is the study of the nature or composition of the universe, the attempt to understand how the universe works.
[4] It is beyond the scope of this paper to address the “Copernican Principle” that supposedly demoted humanity from the center of the universe. In short, it would be accurate to say that, in ancient Greek cosmology, the Earth was the sink of the universe. This is amply, and metaphysically, expressed in Dante’s Inferno.
[5] Richard J. Blackwell, Behind the Scenes at the Galileo Trial: Including the First English Translation of Melchior Inchofer’s Tractatus Sylleptic (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008), 115.
[6] Lindberg and Numbers, When Science and Christianity Meet, 47.
[7] Ibid., 46.
[8] Ibid., 47.
[9] Ibid., 49.
[10] Ibid., 51.
[11] Ibid., 52.
[12] Blackwell, Behind the Scenes at the Galileo Trial, 4.
[13] Blackwell (Behind the Scenes at Galileo’s Trial, page 6) claims that the specific memo was fraudulent in some way. That it was derived from a letter Galileo received from Cardinal Bellarmini, but that it was altered to write Dialogue a clear example of insubordination.
[14] Blackwell, Behind the Scenes at the Galileo Trial, 5.
[15] Ronald L. Numbers, Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion, 1st ed. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), Kindle Location 757–760.
[16] Blackwell, Behind the Scenes at the Galileo Trial, 7.
[17] Numbers, Galileo Goes to Jail, and Other Myths About Science and Religion, Kindle Location 766.
[18] Ibid., Kindle Locations 768–775.
[19] Ibid., Kindle Location 795–843.
[20] In Brahe’s model of the solar system, the earth was still at rest with the sun moving around the earth, however all the planets orbited the sun.
[21] Lindberg and Numbers, When Science and Christianity Meet, 57.
[22] Ibid., 45.
[23] Ibid., 58.
[24] Ibid., 54.
[25] Ibid., 59.
Original Blog: http://bit.ly/2AK2b30
Translated by Malachi Toro Vielma
Edited by Maria Andreina Cerrada
Lógica 07: Prueba Condicional, Prueba Indirecta y Reductio ad Absurdum
EspañolEn este apartado quisiera hablar sobre tres tipos de pruebas para demostrar la validez de un argumento.
PRUEBA CONDICIONAL
La prueba condicional (CP) sirve para demostrar que, si damos por cierto algo, entonces ciertas conclusiones se siguen. CP solo puede ser utilizada en argumentos cuyas conclusiones sean proposiciones condicionales. Veamos el siguiente argumento:
Ahora apliquemos la regla por prueba condicional. Para eso debemos colocar nuestra conclusión en el mismo reglón de la premisa anterior, colocando una diagonal para indicar que se va a realizar la demostración por prueba condicional a partir del siguiente reglón, por lo que debemos indicarlo colocando CP entre paréntesis. Veamos:
Como puedes ver, lo que ocurre con la prueba condicional, es tratar al antecedente de ∴ P → U como una premisa asumida, en este caso P. Es como decir: “Supongamos que P es verdadera, ¿entonces qué? Veamos un último ejemplo:
Supongamos ahora que queremos demostrar la verdad de S a partir de P. Con nuestras veinte reglas de inferencia hasta al momento aprendidas no es posible hacer eso, por lo que tenemos que usar la regla por prueba condicional.
De esta manera podemos demostrar proposiciones condicionales usando la prueba condicional.
PRUEBA POR REDUCCIÓN AL ABSURDO (REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM)
La prueba condicional por reductio ad absurdum (RAA) nos dice que, si alguna premisa se supone verdadera e implica una contradicción, entonces la premisa es un absurdo, por lo que debe ser rechazada.
La forma de proceder para este argumento es muy sencilla. Primero se parte de una(s) premisa(s) en las que ambas partes están de acuerdo. Luego añades una premisa condicional la cual el oponente también está de acuerdo, pero que tú crees que es falsa. Luego das por supuesta dicha premisa y utilizando las reglas de inferencia ya conocidas llegarás a una conclusión que es contradictoria. Veamos un ejemplo:
Como puedes ver, a partir de la presuposición de (4) llegamos a una contradicción (7), por lo que concluimos que su contrario es verdadero.
DEMOSTRACIÓN INDIRECTA
El método de demostración o prueba indirecta (IP) para un argumento dado es similar al reductio ad absurdum, la diferencia radica en que este se construye agregando como premisa adicional la negación de la conclusión en cuestión y deduciendo entonces una contradicción. En otras palabras, por medio de la prueba indirecta, lo que se busca es confirmar la validez de nuestro argumento al demostrar que, si negamos la conclusión y llegamos a una contradicción, entonces quiere decir que su contrario, nuestra conclusión original, es verdadera. Veamos un ejemplo:
Como puedes ver, dado que (8) implica una contradicción, entonces la negación de nuestra conclusión debe ser falsa, por lo que nuestra conclusión original es verdadera.
Jairo Izquierdo Hernández es el fundador de Filósofo Cristiano. Disfruta estudiando filosofía y lingüística. Actualmente trabaja como Director de Social Media y autor para la organización cristiana Cross Examined. Es miembro en la Christian Apologetics Alliance y ministro de alabanza en la iglesia cristiana bautista Cristo es la Respuesta en Puebla, México.
Galileo y la Iglesia Católica
EspañolBy Ken Mann
The question is asked in different ways. Are religion and science compatible? Are science and faith in conflict? The answer depends on what one has properly defined as the meaning of science and faith. Critics of Christianity claim, based on history, that there is an inherent conflict between science and religion and use Galileo’s trial before the Inquisition as an “example” of the conflict. We are told that Galileo was tortured, forced to recant his belief in a heliocentric universe, and imprisoned for the rest of his life, because of the heresy of advocating heliocentrism. This paper will address how aspects of this narrative are false and others are misleading. Galileo’s conflict with the Church has been described as “…a clash of ideas—between scientific claims fervently held by a small group of reformers, on the one hand, and the opposing theological doctrines supported by centuries of church tradition, on the other.”[1] Galileo is described as a martyr of science because the Catholic Church opposed it.[2] . To explain how Christianity and science are compatible today, the Christian apologist must be able to explain how, for better or worse, they have interacted in the past. Over the course of this paper, we will see that the Galileo issue was not about science, but rather, about the authority of the Catholic Church in how to interpret the Bible. The nascent disciplines of astronomy and cosmology suffered at the hands of an entrenched and beleaguered institution, yet the conflict was not about truth per se, but about control.
This paper addresses the myths, complexities, and lessons we can learn from Galileo’s trial. As for myths, there are two aspects accepted by history that are in fact false, namely that during his trial, Galileo was tortured and that he was imprisoned for the rest of his life. As for complexity, there were many different factors at play that ultimately culminated in Galileo’s trial. It is simply a grotesque simplification to claim that this incident represents the fight between science and theological doctrines. Finally, we can learn a lot about the conflicts in our day between theological and scientific authorities.
To understand these 17th century events, it is worth taking a step back and understanding the state of cosmology.[3] At that time, the Church and much of Europe had, from about the 13th century onwards, adopted an Aristotelian cosmology. Aristotle’s works had been reintroduced into Europe, in Latin, and eventually integrated into the teaching of the Church.
Aristotle’s view of the cosmos was the source of the geocentric (earth-centered) view of the universe. The earth was motionless. The center of the earth is where all matter was drawn, where things naturally moved. The sun, moon, planets, and stars revolved around the earth in celestial spheres. The moon and beyond was a realm of eternal, unchanging perfection, while the domain of matter was subject to change and decay.[4] . Aristotle’s vision of the cosmos was integrated into Christian theology, finding agreement with the passages that indicate that the earth is stationary (Psalm 75:3; 93:1; 96:10; 119:90; 1 Chronicles 16:30).[5] ) and that the sun moves (Joshua 10). In the 2nd century, Ptolemy developed a geocentric model of the cosmos that would explain the observed motions of the planets. The combination of an explanatory model for astronomical observations and the imprint of the Church made the geocentric view the only rational and acceptable view of the universe for over 300 years.
In 1543, Copernicus’ magnum opus, De Revolutionibus Orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres) was published with the encouragement and blessing of the Catholic Church. It provoked little more than a whimper. In fact, it was Galileo’s writing and agitation, 73 years later, that resulted in Copernicus’ work being placed on the Index of Prohibited Books, where it remained until 1835.[6] . From its original publication until Galileo, heliocentrism did not provoke the ire of Church officials for the simple reason that it was a theory. Copernicus offered an alternative mathematical model for the motions of the various celestial bodies.
Neither Copernicus nor any other astronomer in the 16th century argued, at least forcefully or publicly, that Aristotelian cosmology was false. In fact, before the invention of the telescope in the early 17th century, the only argument for heliocentrism was theoretical elegance or simplicity. Predictions made by Copernicus’s model were no more accurate than those based on Ptolemy’s geocentric model.
Moving now to the early 17th century, Galileo began using the newly invented telescope to make astronomical observations. Using an eight-power instrument, he began making observations of the moon, the sun, the phases of Venus, and the moons of Jupiter. His publications Starry Messenger (1610) and Letters on Sunspots (1613) launched him into the public spotlight as a proponent of heliocentrism. As Galileo attempted to argue (in conversation and in letters) for the truth of heliocentrism, he was confronted with what he thought was an exegetical problem. Simply put, he believed that the scientific content of the Bible had to be discussed in light of observations that supported heliocentrism. According to Galileo, the Bible communicated truths about salvation that are beyond human reason. However, he also argued (as summarized by David Lindberg) that, “When the biblical text pushes these boundaries, addressing matters that are within the reach of sensory experience and rational knowledge, God does not expect these God-given capacities to be abandoned… It follows that theologians, before committing themselves to an interpretation of such passages, would do well to examine the demonstrative arguments of natural scientists and philosophers.”[7] Galileo’s ideas on exegesis in defense of heliocentrism were eventually brought to the attention of the Inquisition. In 1616, the Holy Office formally censured two key tenets of heliocentrism: the sun is at rest (labeled “formally heretical”) and the earth moves around the sun (labeled “erroneous in faith”).[8] .
Galileo was summoned by Cardinal Roberto Bellarmino and informed that heliocentrism “had been declared false and heretical, and was not to be retained or defended.”[9] Galileo was not charged with any crime, but the decision of the Inquisition put an end to his campaign in the name of heliocentrism.
By 1623, with the rise of Maffeo Barberini to the papacy as Urban VIII, the fate of heliocentrism seemed to have changed. Barberini was a close friend and admirer of Galileo, and his work in astronomy. Over the course of six meetings with the new pontiff, Galileo came to believe that he was free to write a book on heliocentrism , as long as he treated it as a mere hypothesis. By the time Galileo completed the ” Dialogue” on the Two Chief World Systems in 1629, he had in fact gone beyond simply debating competing hypotheses. Instead, what he had written was “…nothing less than a powerful argument in the name of the undoubted truth of heliocentrism; no reader could have understood it otherwise. Nor did one have to read between the lines to perceive this as Galileo’s purpose, for in the Dialogue itself he repeatedly claimed to have demonstrated the “truth” of his conclusions.”[10] , Despite having gone through the proper channels within the Church before publishing Dialogue , the reception within the Vatican was disastrous for Galileo. In addition to his general treatment of heliocentrism, Simplicio, “…a stupid Aristotelian who laughed at dialogue”[11] , expressed the same arguments that Galileo had heard during his audiences with Urban. A letter to Florence from the Florentine ambassador describes a meeting in which the pontiff “…exploded with great anger…” at the mere mention of Galileo. The Pope believed that Galileo had misled him, since he clearly did not consider heliocentrism as a hypothesis.
Furthermore, in the character of Simplicio, he made the pontiff an object of ridicule.
Alienating the Pope with such obvious insubordination was perhaps the least of Galileo’s problems. Since the Dialogue clearly advocated the truth of heliocentrism, it violated the 1616 decree of the Congregation of the Index that condemned heliocentrism as “…false and completely contrary to Scripture.” The same decree not only prohibited Copernicus’s book from being printed, but also stated that “…all other books teaching the same tendency are prohibited, since the present Decree prohibits, condemns, and suspends all of them respectively.”[12] , The Inquisition appointed a Special Commission to investigate further. In the archives of the Holy Office a memorandum was discovered[13] which stated that the General Commissioner of the Holy Office had given Galileo a specific injunction to “renounce entirely” his acceptance of heliocentrism and no longer “hold, teach or defend it in any way, either verbally or in writing.”[14] , Due to the weight of all this evidence, Galileo was put on trial in Rome in April 1633.
Having set the stage in terms of historical context, let us begin to look at the myths, complexities, and lessons of Galileo’s trial. The myths, the things once assumed to be true, now known to be false, are tied to the outcome of the trial, specifically that he was tortured and imprisoned. Galileo was found guilty of “vehement suspicion of heresy” for his advocacy of heliocentrism in “Dialogue” and for denying that the Bible is a scientific authority . [15].
In any trial, the activities of the Holy Office were kept under strict secrecy. The Cardinals and those on trial never discussed the proceedings in public. Very accurate and reliable records were kept, including transcripts of interrogations and even details of how the accused responded to torture.[16] However, in the case of Galileo’s trial, under explicit orders from Urban VIII, the sentencing document and the abjuration recited by Galileo were widely distributed and printed in books and newspapers. The Pope wanted Galileo to serve as an object lesson for all Catholics and to demonstrate his bona fides as a staunch defender of the faith.[17] Two elements of the prayer document are significant. First, it says that Galileo was subjected to a “rigorous examination” (also known as torture)[18] Second, that Galileo was to be imprisoned at the discretion of the Holy Office. This was understood to mean imprisoned in the palace of the Inquisition in Rome for an indefinite period of time.
If the sentence and abjuration had been the only known documents, the imprisonment and torture administered by the Catholic Church would have remained in the historical record.
However, letters written by Galileo and the Tuscan ambassador in Rome were made public in the late 18th century and the publication of the Inquisition records of Galileo’s trial in the late 19th century corrected both of these myths. The Holy Office records prove quite conclusively that Galileo did not experience any physical torture. From the records themselves, there is no indication that physical torture ever occurred. It seems clear that it was threatened as a possibility, but it never actually occurred. Furthermore, Galileo’s advanced age (69) would have precluded the possibility of torture.[19] As for Galileo’s imprisonment, from his arrival in Rome on February 13, 1633, until he left Rome on June 30, there were only three days left in June where Galileo could have been imprisoned. The remainder of his time in Rome was spent either at the Tuscan embassy (the ambassador’s residence) or in the 6-room apartment of the fiscal. After spending 5 months at the archbishop’s house in Siena, Galileo returned to his own villa in December 1633. He lived there until his death in 1642.
Moving away from blatant myths, we now turn to the complexities of Galileo’s conflict with the Church. These can be divided into two categories. First, there are four factors, generally misunderstood from a modern perspective, that prevented the acceptance of heliocentrism. Second, there is a fundamental misconception about the nature of Galileo’s confrontation with the Church.
The first problem that prevented the widespread acceptance of heliocentrism was that the evidence available at the time was not sufficient. The modern view of heliocentrism is in light of what we know from science, rather than what was known or could be proven during Galileo’s time. The arguments Galileo made at the time supported the heliocentric view, but were also compatible with the model put forward by Tycho Brahe.[20] Galileo was convinced that the heliocentric hypothesis was true, but there was insufficient evidence to overturn more than 300 years of adherence to Aristotelian cosmology.
Secondly, if the task of overturning Aristotle’s long-established cosmology was not Herculean enough, Galileo’s purpose was made seemingly impossible by his arrogant and impulsive behavior. He was normally far more effective at making enemies than friends. Many experts assume that, in Galileo’s trial, his fate was in some sense assured by the various enemies he had made in the years before 1633. David Lindberg concludes: “Galileo’s personality was a consistent and important factor; indeed, it seems clear that, had he played his cards differently, with more attention to diplomacy, Galileo could have conducted a significant campaign on behalf of heliocentrism without condemnation.”[21] .
A third impediment that Galileo faced was the issue of epistemological authority. Where does knowledge of the cosmos come from? Is it available through human capacities for sense and reason? Is it found only in Scripture? Is it a combination of the two? The prevailing view of Catholic and Protestant theologians was that knowledge of the heavens was, in principle, not available to the natural sciences. The nature of the heavenly realm was divine knowledge that was inaccessible to the human intellect. Thus, the work of Copernicus and Ptolemy were simply models used to predict the locations of the planets; they were mathematical instruments and were not intended to be descriptions of reality. Galileo’s argument for heliocentrism went far beyond the debate over which model was more accurate. He believed that the heliocentric model of the universe was a description of reality. Thus, he challenged conventional wisdom, not only about the inaccessibility of the heavens; he also claimed that scientific observation could attain knowledge not available in the Bible.
Fourth, the argument for another epistemic authority clashed quite violently with the post-Reformation Catholic Church’s stance on the interpretation of Scripture. One of the decrees issued by the Council of Trent (1545 – 1563) on the interpretation of Scripture said in part:
The Council decrees that, in questions of faith and morals… no one, relying on his own judgment and distorting the Holy Scriptures according to his own conceptions, shall dare to interpret them contrary to the sense to which Holy Mother Church, to which it belongs, judges its sense and meaning, sustains it and maintains it, or even contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers. [22].
The reasoning inspired by Galileo’s two books was not without the support of the Church, however, and the Decree issued in 1616 that heliocentrism was “contrary to Scripture” was a clear and convincing indication that the Church was going to defend its authority in matters related to cosmology.
In addition to the obstacles that impeded the acceptance of heliocentrism, the Galileo affair was treated simplistically as a conflict between scientific rationalism and religious doctrine. In response to this claim, consider the following: each of the participants in this debate were Christians who accepted the authority of the Bible, were theologically informed, and were able to present rational arguments for their respective views on cosmology. Furthermore, within the Church itself, there were various opinions on hermeneutics, some agreeing with Galileo, others not.
From the scientific perspective, among astronomy experts, heliocentrism was not a widespread opinion. In short, rather than a confrontation between science and religion, it might be more accurate to describe the Galileo case as a conflict within science and religion.[23] .
In light of all this, what really happened? Simply put, it was a confrontation over Church authority, not a scientific debate. Given the Church’s stance on who can interpret scripture and Galileo’s temperament advocating heliocentrism, a clash was inevitable. David Lindberg offers the following one-sentence summary: “The trial was for flagrant disobedience and insubordination: the issues raised in the 1616 decree were not reexamined; its conclusions were merely reaffirmed.”[24] The merits of Galileo’s arguments were insignificant when compared to the centuries of consensus. The authority of Aristotle’s geocentric cosmology was not going to be dismissed simply because the heliocentric view was plausible. The Church chose to stake its authority on that consensus, and science suffered as a result.
Finally, let us consider what lessons can be drawn from the Galileo affair. When studying history, one must always be careful not to fall into the trap of anachronism, judging past events through the lens of present-day knowledge and sensibilities. When considering the heliocentric debate in context, the available evidence and the consensus of the time, it was reasonable to support the geocentric view. Another form of temporal snobbery that we should avoid is condemning the Church for the way it exercised its authority. Lindberg makes the following observation about that period:
“The beginning of the 17th century was a time of increasing absolutism in Europe, both in religious and political terms. Freedom to express dangerous ideas was not so easy, as they would not be defended in the same way in Protestant Geneva as in Catholic Rome. The idea that a stable society could be built on the general principles of freedom of expression was not defended by anyone at the time, and police and judicial restrictions were therefore unavoidable realities.”[25] .
Another important lesson is to avoid rigid and simplistic contrasts regarding such broad categories as “science” and “religion.” Such conflicts are rarely as simple as the contrast between truth and error; rather they are substitutes for more subtle discussions. In this case, the issue of epistemological authority was at stake. It was not simply a question of how things are known (mere epistemology) but what would be regarded as a source of knowledge (authority). The Church sought to defend its interpretation of the Bible as true and correct in all “matters of faith and morals.” The error we perceive in looking back is to extend that control over matters of cosmology.
In our modern age, it is widely believed that we have developed a stage where true or false dictates what is considered knowledge. We believe that we are no longer at the mercy of any human bureaucracy or institution for knowledge. In the 17th century, the Bible was the dominant source of knowledge about reality. What we have seen in this paper is that Galileo was put on trial not for rejecting the Bible but for challenging the only authority (the Church) to interpret the Bible. Today, the Church (Protestant and Catholic) has been eclipsed by science as the primary (or perhaps only) source of knowledge for humanity. In reality, however, the Church and institutional science have simply switched roles over the past 350 years. Today, the fields of science that attempt to explain the origins and development of life are caught in a dogmatic devotion to an idea imagined over 150 years ago. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Neo-Darwinism is dogmatically adhered to as the sole explanation for the development of life. As discussed in the film “Expelled” and numerous intelligent design blogs, those who advocate dangerous ideas that contradict the reigning consensus are punished, not by torture or imprisonment, but by the destruction of academic careers. Perhaps that is the strongest lesson we can learn from history; it always repeats itself.
Literature
Blackwell, Richard J. Behind the Scenes at Galileo’s Trial: Including the First English Translation of Melchior Inchofer’s Tractatus Syllepticus. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008.
Ferngren, Gary B., ed. Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002.
Lindberg, David C., and Ronald L. Numbers, eds. When Science and Christianity Meet. 1st ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.
Numbers, Ronald L. Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion. 1st ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009.
Grades
[1] David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, eds., When Science and Christianity Meet, 1st ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 33.
[2] Gary B. Ferngren, ed., Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), 105.Galileo and the Catholic Church Ken Mann.
[3] Cosmology is the study of the nature or composition of the universe, the attempt to understand how the universe works.
[4] It is beyond the scope of this paper to address the “Copernican Principle” that supposedly demoted humanity from the center of the universe. In short, it would be accurate to say that, in ancient Greek cosmology, the Earth was the sink of the universe. This is amply, and metaphysically, expressed in Dante’s Inferno.
[5] Richard J. Blackwell, Behind the Scenes at the Galileo Trial: Including the First English Translation of Melchior Inchofer’s Tractatus Sylleptic (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008), 115.
[6] Lindberg and Numbers, When Science and Christianity Meet, 47.
[7] Ibid., 46.
[8] Ibid., 47.
[9] Ibid., 49.
[10] Ibid., 51.
[11] Ibid., 52.
[12] Blackwell, Behind the Scenes at the Galileo Trial, 4.
[13] Blackwell (Behind the Scenes at Galileo’s Trial, page 6) claims that the specific memo was fraudulent in some way. That it was derived from a letter Galileo received from Cardinal Bellarmini, but that it was altered to write Dialogue a clear example of insubordination.
[14] Blackwell, Behind the Scenes at the Galileo Trial, 5.
[15] Ronald L. Numbers, Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion, 1st ed. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), Kindle Location 757–760.
[16] Blackwell, Behind the Scenes at the Galileo Trial, 7.
[17] Numbers, Galileo Goes to Jail, and Other Myths About Science and Religion, Kindle Location 766.
[18] Ibid., Kindle Locations 768–775.
[19] Ibid., Kindle Location 795–843.
[20] In Brahe’s model of the solar system, the earth was still at rest with the sun moving around the earth, however all the planets orbited the sun.
[21] Lindberg and Numbers, When Science and Christianity Meet, 57.
[22] Ibid., 45.
[23] Ibid., 58.
[24] Ibid., 54.
[25] Ibid., 59.
Original Blog: http://bit.ly/2AK2b30
Translated by Malachi Toro Vielma
Edited by Maria Andreina Cerrada
Reading The Bible Among Other Things
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Evan Minton
So you’ve just gone to the bookstore and got a stack of books you really want to dive into. However, you are also a dedicated Christian who wants to nourish yourself on God’s holy, inspired, inerrant word. But, there are only so many hours in the day and the free time you do have is, for the most part, spent reading. When you want to study The Bible, but you also have other books you want to read, it can be difficult to manage your reading time. You don’t want to neglect the word of God, but you also don’t want to let your other books sit on the shelf collecting dust until you can somehow get around them. What to do? Here are some tips.
Option 1: Read One Book Of The Bible In Between Your Other Books
The Bible is not simply one whole book. It’s an entire collection of 66 books and letters put together and written over time periods spanning thousands of years. Therefore, you could have your reading plan planned like this: read one book of The Bible (e.g., Numbers). When you’re finished, pick up that novel or non-fiction theology book you’ve been chomping at the bits to get to. When you’ve finished with your novel or whatever it is you want to read, go back to The Bible and read The Bible’s next book (e.g., Deuteronomy). Once you’ve finished with that book, go to another non-divinely-inspired book.
This way, you can get through The Bible and those books you stuffed your bookshelf with at an even pace.
Option 2: Put The Bible On Hold For A Little While Until You Complete Your Stack.
Depending on how fast you can get through a book, how many books you need to get through, you may want to try this option. If all you’ve got is 2 or 3 400 page books, and like me, you can burn through books of that length over 2 days (reading 4 hours at a time), then in taking this option, you won’t be putting scripture on hold for an immense amount of time.
Option 3: The Bible During The Week, Other Books On The Weekend
Another option you can choose is to read The Bible every weekday and reserve your weekends for reading novels, apologetics books, theology books, science books, etc. I suspect this may be the most appealing for many of this blog’s readers. For Monday through Friday, read The Bible at your usual pace. Once Saturday comes along, you can put The Bible away to read a non-inspired work like A Hellacious Doctrine: A Biblical Defense Of The Doctrine Of Hell by Evan Minton ((shameless plug)). Once Monday comes along, put the book God didn’t write back on the shelf and continue with The Bible.
Option 4: Read The Bible And A Non-Bible Every Day.
Let’s say you have 4 hours of free time every evening. You can read The Bible for those first two, and a non-biblical book for the second two. Or if you only have 2 hours, read The Bible for one hour and the non-Bible for the second hour. This way, you kill two birds with one stone.
One con with this option is that it’s difficult to digest and meditate on the content of both books at once. This is why I’m a “One book at a time” kind of guy. If you’ve just read The Bible, you’re going to want to take a while to reflect on what you’ve read. As I always say “Reading The Bible without meditating on it is like eating food without digesting it.” Martin Lloyd Jones used the illustration of a man walking by a fire but not stopping to warm himself by it. Of course, you also want to reflect on what you read in non-biblical books too.
As for myself, I prefer this option the least. But if it appeals to you, go for it!
Option 5: Wait Until You’ve Finished Reading The Bible
You could just say to yourself: “These books I got at Barnes and Noble I will definitely get around to, but not until I’ve finished reading The Bible.” In other words, you could just simply go through the entire Bible and once you’ve read the last chapter of the New Testament, go through your non-inspired books. Once you’ve finished with all the non-inspired books you’ve read, go back to The Bible.
This is the option I take most of the time. For me personally, I choose to open The Bible and read it from Genesis to Revelation. It takes me several months to do this, but then when I’m done, I close the Bible and go on to other books. This means I read The Bible once a year like most people, but I get it done in about 4 months time (usually from the beginning of January to the end of April). However, I’m not liking this option at the moment, for the reason you’ll see below.
Conclusion
I wrote this blog post as a result of a strong inner conflict. Having just come back from the 2018 ETS conference, I have a big stack of books I’m really eager to dive into. However, while these are theology books, books about The Bible are no substitute for The Bible, any more than cookbooks are a substitute for eating. I’m not sure which of these options will be best suited for me, but number 5 isn’t going to work for the time being. I haven’t gone through The Bible from cover to cover in a while, and I am starving for God’s Word. I am thinking of choosing options 1 or 3.
I think Charles Spurgeon was correct when he said; “Visit many good books but live in The Bible.” Hopefully, this short blog post gave you feasible strategies to carry that out.
Evan Minton is a Christian Apologist and blogger at Cerebral Faith (www.cerebralfaith.blogspot.com). He is the author of “Inference To The One True God” and “A Hellacious Doctrine.” He has engaged in several debates which can be viewed on Cerebral Faith’s “My Debates” section. Mr. Minton lives in South Carolina, USA.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2qYHc8h
Should You Force Your Kids To Go To Church?
Apologetics for Parents, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Natasha Crain
A reader of this blog posed this question on the Facebook page because her boys –ages 10, 12 and 15– are uninterested in church. It’s a very important question that I wanted to address with this post.
At the risk of trivializing the question itself, I’m going to offer a brief rationale for my own answer and then provide an alternative question which I think is more at the heart of the issue.
A home is like a microcosm of society. There are laws (requirements for living there) and freedoms (options you have while living there). Each society/family sets its own laws based on what it feels is most important for its members. The laws a society/family chooses to reflect its core values. As Christian parents, a core value to impart to kids should be that God comes first in our lives. Part of acknowledging that is going to church each week. By classifying church attendance as a law and not a freedom, we are making a statement that God’s priority is a core value in our home. Parents generally don’t care whether a child wants an education or not in determining that going to school is a household “law”; likewise, parents shouldn’t care whether a child is interested in faith or not in determining that going to church is a “law.” Christian parents should not feel church is any different than any other parental choice when declaring, “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Joshua 24:15).
That said, required church attendance has to be a rule made for the reason stated here (a statement about family priorities) and not because the parents assume it means children will become believers from it, that they will come to salvation from it or that they will even be spiritually changed by it. Church is not a spiritual “cure-all.” If your children don’t want to go to church, there is a much more important question to ask:
WHY don’t your children want to go to church?
The answer to this question is your gateway to impacting the spiritual life of your kids much more than how you go about physically getting them to church.
Perhaps an immediate answer comes to mind. “They just want to do other things,” or, “They think it’s boring.” These answers, however, are really symptomatic of a child’s underlying beliefs about God and his/her relationship to God. Those beliefs must be identified.
I would break underlying beliefs into two categories: 1) They don’t believe in God or 2) They believe in God but don’t think church is important.
1. They don’t believe in God.
Perhaps your child is saying “I want to stay home and play video games” but what he/she really means is “I don’t really believe all this God stuff,” and doesn’t want to tell you (maybe he/she hasn’t even identified that consciously yet). What they need most is to have conversations with you about God. They need to know it’s OK to doubt, and that you are willing to talk to them about those doubts. It might be intimidating to be the one who has to present the case for God’s existence, but if you aren’t going to be that person in your child’s life, who will?
(Need help teaching your kids why there is good reason to believe God exists and Christianity is true? Check out my new book, Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side: 40 Conversations to Help Them Build a Lasting Faith.)
2. They believe in God but don’t think church is important.
It’s not enough to say that church is unimportant – again, we have to understand the underlying premise to address the spiritual issue. Consider these three possibilities:
a. I believe in God, but I don’t believe He’s really involved in my life (therefore church doesn’t matter).
Theologically, this is referred to as “Deism” – the belief that there is a God, and He probably set this world in motion but isn’t really involved with the world or our personal lives today. From a spiritual standpoint, this isn’t much different than not believing in God in the first place. Even if your child is saying, “Yes, I believe in God, I just don’t want to go to church… “don’t take it at face value. What does your child believe about God? You might be surprised what you find out; it might not be much different than not believing in God at all (see the first category above).
b. I believe in God and believe he cares about my life, but I don’t believe he cares if we go to church.
The reasons Christians should go to church would be the topic for a whole book, but if I could point to a single reason, it would be that Jesus set the example for us. Luke 4:16 says (about Jesus), “…on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom” (emphasis added). If Jesus thought weekly church was important, so should we. Are we in a position to decide that church is not necessary for us when it was necessary for Jesus?
Without going into significant detail on this giant sub-topic, it must be addressed here that church is first and foremost for God (yes, the Bible is clear God wants us to worship). Most people who have the attitude that “God doesn’t care about church” are seeing the value of church in terms of what it gives to them. While church is absolutely necessary for us as well in terms of spiritual growth and fellowship with other believers (Hebrews 10:25, 1 Corinthians 12, 1 Thessalonians 5:11, James 5:16, Acts 2:42, Romans 12:5), church must be seen as being for God’s glory. Timothy Keller, in his book, “The Reason for God,” eloquently addresses this:
“But wait,” you say. “On nearly every page of the Bible God calls us to glorify, praise, and serve him. How can you say he doesn’t seek his own glory?” Yes, he does ask us to obey him unconditionally, to glorify, praise, and center our lives around him. But now, I hope, you finally see why he does that. He wants our joy! He has infinite happiness not through self-centeredness, but through self-giving, other-centered love. And the only way we, who have been created in his image, can have this same joy, is if we center our entire lives around him instead of ourselves.
c. I believe in God, believe he cares about my life, and believe he wants me to go to church, but I don’t want to go to this church because (any number of reasons).
There may be a very real reason why your children want to avoid your specific church. Maybe they don’t fit in with the other kids; maybe there is a disconnect between them and the pastor or youth leader; maybe there are too few other kids their age, and they feel isolated; the reasons are infinite. If it’s a legitimate, overarching issue, it would be reasonable to seek another church out of respect for the faith development of your kids.
The bottom line is this: The underlying reason for kids not wanting to go to church shouldn’t change your “law” that they have to go, but that reason should be searched for in order to best determine how to guide them spiritually at home.
What do you think? Should you force kids to go to church? Is there an age at which they should have a “say” in the matter?
Natasha Crain is a blogger, author, and national speaker who is passionate about equipping Christian parents to raise their kids with an understanding of how to make a case for and defend their faith in an increasingly secular world. She is the author of two apologetics books for parents: Talking with Your Kids about God (2017) and Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (2016). Natasha has an MBA in marketing and statistics from UCLA and a certificate in Christian apologetics from Biola University. A former marketing executive and adjunct professor, she lives in Southern California with her husband and three children.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2QeYqfG
Book Review: Scientism and Secularism by J. P. Moreland
Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Timothy Fox (Orthodox Fox)
J. P. Moreland is one of the most prominent Christian thinkers of our time, and I’ve been greatly impacted by his works, such as Love Your God With All Your Mind and Kingdom Triangle. In his latest popular-level work, Scientism and Secularism (Crossway, 2018), Moreland addresses one of the most dangerous ideologies facing our culture and church. But the true danger of scientism is not that is necessarily being argued for, it is simply assumed to be true. So Moreland’s task in this book is not just to refute scientism but to first expose it and how it has influenced society and Christianity.
But first, what is scientism? It “is the view that the hard sciences – like chemistry, biology, physics, and astronomy – provide the only genuine knowledge of reality” (26). Obviously, this would place theology outside the bounds of knowledge and leave religion to the realm of mere belief, feelings, and opinions. Thus, Moreland has quite the hill to climb.
Content
In the first three chapters, Moreland defines scientism and explains its influence on the church and the university. The following three explain the failings of scientism: how it is self-defeating, how it is the enemy of science, and how weak scientism – the belief that science is the best way to know truth – is no better than strong – the belief that science is the only way to know truth.
In chapter 7, Moreland discusses three areas that we all know internally or intuitively and that science cannot account for logic and math, our personal conscious states, and moral knowledge. In the case of logic and math, science cannot operate without them. I view chapter 8 as a bonus chapter that delves deeper into consciousness and neuroscience. Those interested in science will love it, and those who aren’t can skip it. But laypersons who wish to learn more about these topics will definitely need a few thorough reads through the chapter.
Chapter 9 explains the importance of philosophy in science, how it forms the foundation and framework by which proper science can be performed. This is another of the more challenging chapters, containing a lot of philosophical content and terminology. But since scientism is a philosophical assumption about the nature of truth, it is an extremely important chapter and should not be skipped. Moreland continues explaining the importance of philosophy in science in chapter 10, in which he provides examples for the authority and autonomy of philosophy.
The next three chapters deal with how we explain reality. Chapter 11 shows the difference between scientific and personal explanations and introduces the concept of methodological naturalism, the idea that “one must seek only natural causes/explanations for scientific data” (121). Then in the next two chapters, Moreland outlines the shortcomings of methodological naturalism. Chapter 12 is another critical chapter in that it discusses five things that theism can explain but science cannot: the origin of the universe; the origin of the laws of nature; the fine-tuning of the universe; the origin of consciousness; and the existence of moral, rational, and aesthetic laws. While this chapter is only a few pages long, every Christian should explore these topics more as they not only undercut scientism but are also powerful arguments for the existence of God. Chapter 13 discusses two competing Christian views to the origin of life, Intelligent Design, and Theistic Evolution, which are also important topics that require further study.
The final two chapters discuss integrating science and Christianity, explaining why it is important and offering five ways to do it.
Assessment
This is a critical book for the Christian as scientism is possibly the number one enemy facing the church today. As the belief that science is the only way to know truth becomes more widespread, the claims of Christianity simply cannot be taken seriously by society.
Depending on your prior knowledge, this may be a challenging read – not because of Moreland’s writing style but by the nature of the content. Moreland himself urges the reader to read it again in the book’s epilogue, and it may require multiple thorough reads to fully grasp. Thankfully, the book is only around 200 pages in length, and it includes plenty of footnotes and a selected bibliography for further study, as well as a glossary since technical vocabulary cannot be avoided.
Pretty much everything Moreland writes is a must-read, and Scientism and Secularism is no different. Every Christian is going to encounter scientism of some form, and so we all must be on our guard to defend against it. J. P. Moreland has provided us another valuable resource in our ongoing struggle with a secular culture.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2DTflz1
An Insight Into Why Young Adults Are Leaving Christianity
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Michael C. Sherrard
Sociologists, apologists, and the media have well articulated the abandoning of religion by many young adults. The church is aware of the attack on the faith of teenagers. It is becoming old news. We have become saturated with the statistics. We know the problem; it is time for a solution.
The solution, the way forward begins with obtaining a good understanding of where you are. This excerpt from “A Solution” given at the NCCA offers three insights into why young adults are leaving Christianity.
Hear:
Michael C. Sherrard is a pastor, the director of Ratio Christi College Prep, and the author of Relational Apologetics. Booking info and such can be found at michaelcsherrard.com.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Qa0pSB
Everything is Connected
PodcastPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS
Join Frank on a fascinating survey of history from 1453 to the Pilgrims to Thanksgiving with none other than historian Bill Federer. This episode for the CrossExamined podcast is packed with surprising historical data. Don’t miss it!
Visit Bill’s website here: https://americanminute.com/
33 Reasons Why We Need Apologetics
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Jeremy Linn
I’ve written a bunch about what Apologetics is – a rational defense of the Christian faith – and what it all involves. But the “What” of Apologetics doesn’t matter if there are no reasons why we should use Apologetics or even have it on our minds. To show its importance on our daily lives as Christians, I created a list of 33 reasons explaining why we need Apologetics.
I placed the reasons into categories for easy reading and sorted the categories into alphabetical order.
CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY
EVANGELISM
FAITH
PRACTICAL
SCRIPTURE
SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT
This list is not exhaustive – I’m probably missing some reasons in it. But the list is sufficient to show that Christians truly need Apologetics in their daily lives.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Fk4orK
Secular Leftists Demand Christian Student Senator Resign For Disagreeing With Them
Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Wintery Knight
I had to blog about this story about a tough girl at UC Berkeley who is taking a lot of heat for her Christian beliefs. It would have been easier for her to keep them private. But they forced her to vote, and she had to respect her conscience. Campus Reform posted an article about the facts of the case.
It says:
That article was from November 9th, but The College Fix had some news in their article posted Monday:
She has sunk a ton of money into her education, and now she is at the mercy of far-left professors and TAs. For her sake, I hope that she is working toward a STEM degree. It will help her to find work going forward. This is definitely going to affect her whole life going forward – a lot of big companies aren’t going to hire someone like her who refuses to go along with the LGBT agenda. I hope she’s prepared for that.
Isabella Chow, a Christian woman, encircled by secular leftist fascists.
Resiliency
I was watching this video from Prager University on resiliency, and it was talking about several ways that a person can make themselves defensible against unexpected setbacks.
Watch:
I think it’s important for Christians to think carefully about what they will study and where they work. Having a good education and money makes it easier to deal with threats like the ones arrayed against Isabella. It allows you to find work more easily, to move if you have to, etc. It’s important to train your character by studying hard things, doing hard things and finishing what you start. Having a platform to tell your story is important. Having a network of accomplished friends helps, too.
If you marry, then marry someone with courage and strength, who will stand by you, and help you to persist. It’s a serious mistake to marry someone who doesn’t understand Christianity as a service, and who doesn’t have any strength to deploy in case of a crisis. If you’re being attacked, you want a stable partner who has strength in practical areas and informed convictions. Not someone who is drowning in sin, narcissism, student loan debt, peer pressure, drug addiction, reckless thrill-seeking, etc.
Some jobs and cities have a lot of anti-Christian progressives. It’s easier to avoid those if you have a good education, practical skills, and a good resume. Often, the influence you have is going to be determined by the decisions you make to make yourself resilient. My ambition has always been to have an influence without allowing the secular left to easily silence me. If they know where I work, and where I live, then they can put pressure on me to recant my views. Conversely, if I am careful about education, career, and finance, then I can put pressure on them to back off if they challenge me.
As we saw when fascists broke down the door at Tucker Carlson’s home, we are living in a time of secular leftist facism. And this fascism is defended even by the elites in the mainstream media.
Here’s a concept every Christian should know that people in information security speak about… being a “hard target”:
The Christian life is a lot more strategic than churches teach us. We’re obsessed with compassion, feelings, and not being judged. Instead, we should be focused on having an influence and making ourselves into hard targets for the secular culture. We have a sanitized view of how sin corrupts non-Christians, allowing them to do unspeakable evils to Christians who merely disagree with them. We think that secular leftists will behave like moral people as if denying God’s existence makes no difference to a person’s ability to be moral. We think that nihilists will respect our basic human rights – human rights that they can’t even rationally ground in their worldview. And we think that God’s job is to protect us and make us feel good no matter how unprepared and reckless we are.
If you want to have an influence, then you need to make every decision wisely, in order to prepare for the day when your cover is blown behind enemy lines. Remember, with respect to God’s purposes in the world; your happiness is expendable.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2z7Zc4I
Exclusion in the Name of Inclusion
PodcastPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS
Decades ago the free speech movement was born in the campus of UC Berkeley. Today the story is the complete opposite. Only a few weeks ago a student senator by the name of Isabella Chow abstained from a vote supporting “transgender rights” and even though she gave a well-reasoned explanation now more than 1,000 people have signed a petition demanding that she resign from the student government. In other words, she’s being excluded in the name of inclusion. Frank explains what’s happening in the college campuses across the U.S. and why.