Galileo

I love history, and reading about famous scientists, so obviously I'm all about the Galileo introduction. But moving on to the difference between science and religion. I want to discuss why I think that the church was so afraid of science.

People have trouble dealing with change, I don't think anyone likes to change if their current situation is nice and comfortable. The Vatican had enough problems with various branches breaking off during Galileo's period. Admitting the fact that what every Catholic priest claimed as true for as long as anyone could remember was actually false, how do you think the already wavering followers would have reacted? For the Pope, it was easier to silence on man that admit that maybe the Earth the heavens weren't arranged as everyone had proclaimed. Even though Pope Urban apparently agreed with Galileo at first, it wasn't like he went and corrected this with all the priests. In order to maintain power, the Pope probably had to compromise to keep the people around him happy. Also, during this time, not everyone was literate and religion was at the center of attention for most people. Accepting the word of some crazy guy that looked at the stars too long probably seemed so irrational, compared with accepting the word of God, via the Pope, who could grant someone eternal life. (My thoughts are sooo unorganized here.... oh, well at least its a blog and not a paper)

Onward to the difference between science and religion. (I really wish we did Darwin with this segment too) I don't think that the difference between science and religion involves faith. You either have faith in a God(s) or you have faith in the evidence that scientists present to you. I also don't think that the difference in religion and science involves the type of evidence, you can accept either the facts of an experiment or the facts of an ancient book. I guess its really hard to define the difference, but there definately is a difference.... maybe after Friday's class I will have a better idea.