Embedded Files
I take lots of hard work, done by others, cobble it together and take the credit. Most of the information contained herein was lifted from Wikipedia. My notes for a talk are normally just that, a list of the main points and then I make it up as I go along. In order to make this talk a little less tedious I handed out the sections on each of the characters to various people at the moot and got them to read them out. It's good to share. Well, it was good for me!
Before getting into the talk I pointed out that I am pagan and from a scientific/ technological background.
The starting point for this talk was an article from the BBC, linked below, which was kindly read out by one of the many "volunteers".
Can religion and science bury the hatchet ?
I then posed the question "Did anyone spot the factual inaccuracy ?"
The article states that :-
"The idea of a battle between the two dates back to the medieval Church's condemnation of Galileo for his discovery that the Earth moves around the Sun rather than vice versa."
It may sound rather pedantic but Galileo did not get into trouble with the church because he made this discovery, he got into trouble with the church because he was argumentative. The person who made this discovery, or rather offered proof for this theory, was, of course, Copernicus.
I then posed the question "Is this a real argument ?" and I suggested the following :-
a) Probably not. The conflicts only arise when scientific theory contradicts religious doctrine.
b) Religion is a matter of belief whereas science is attempting to explain how things work.
c) Science employs experimentation and scientific method in order to provide proof.
At times I get the impression that what is behind the arguments is more about power or control.
In the dark ages the church had a strangle hold on society and a monopoly on education. In a rather contradictory approach the church possessed many books but banned those which it felt were subversive. This started to change prior to the renaissance with the rise of universities to educate lawyers for the courts thus creating an educated section of the population outside of the direct control of the church. Along with the guilds this gave rise to a mercantile middle class but it would still require a cataclysmic event to break the grip of the church on society.
I can't think of many examples of conflict between science and religion excluding the two mentioned in the article and in both cases the conflict with religion didn't happen until quite a while later :-
Darwin - evolution as opposed to creationism
Copernicus - helio-centric universe.
In order to help get our heads around what was going on around this time it was necessary to have a look at the historical events :-
All of this sounds very science based until you take a closer look at some of the characters involved at this time :-
Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543)
As can be seen from the above each of the scientist also had a religious dimension whether that be Catholic, Protestant, or Anglican whilst also being Rosicrucian, Hermetic, or Alchemist. They really don't seem to have suffered any conflict of interests.
The occult is that which is left over when science has tried to explain everything. Over the years the amount explained by science has increased but there is still a remainder of wonder.
The alchemists laid the ground work but it is interesting that science is selective in it's recognition of those involved. Paracelcus and Dee were rarely mentioned in scientific discussions but perhaps that is beginning to change.
How do pagans feel about all of this?
Do pagans accept science and a rational world view?
Does the previous exclude the wonder of nature?
I find science interesting in that the insights provided by science make the universe more fascinating when you discover how it works. The arguments about a hands-on god (determinism vs. free will) went out a long time ago and this removes any contradiction.
There are still those on either side who are willing to stir it up for their own purposes.
Recent developments
Placebo effect.
Black holes.
String theory.
Dark energy.
Dark matter.
Lets face it, when you read about these theories they sound more like mysticism than science. The only proof for the last two would appear to be the requirement to fix an unbalanced equation by creating new but undetectable entities. Perhaps god is composed of dark matter.
Scientific method is employed by the chaos magicians. By noting what they set out to achieve, how they went about it, and the actual result, they are applying experimental methodology to magic. On the other hand I still feel uncomfortable when I hear a scientist describing their discovery as a "leap of faith".
It looks like ideas continue to flow back and forward between the different subjects.
I'm glad about that.
Kenny.
Google Sites
Report abuse