Last night, the third floor of Cole's hosted a standing-room-only crowd. The people gathered to listen to a Jesuit Priest and Professor present a lecture called, "Galileo: Rude, Arrogant, Almost Entirely Wrong."
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=4f65e8b3-331b-4af2-9c96-137fb2bf5527)
View image
Prior to the event, I had only heard the outline of the story, which went something like, "the Pope was a bad guy and locked up Galileo for proclaiming that the earth was not the center of the universe. The church doesn't like science."
But it's not as simple as Galileo being right, and the Pope being wrong, says Fr. Moleski. "I could cheerfully strangle both of
these guys," he proclaims, "because they, together, created the idea that the church is anti-science."
On the contrary, Moleski states, "We love science; we don't like
scientists doing theology." Galileo was permitted to do his work, and even honored in Rome, until his conclusions, which were right, but premature (the Math didn't work until Newton synthesized his work with Kepler's, fifty years later), led to Galileo commenting on four scriptures.
"The pope shouldn't have told Galieo
how to do science," says Moleski. However, if he didn't get his science right, Moleski argued, why should he get to teach the Bible?
In summary, Galielo went too far, the pope retaliated too far, and the church has been perceived as anti-science ever since.
This matters today, argued Moleski, because of the discussion regarding evolution. However, he explains, the Roman Catholic Church does not dispute the facts of evolution. It is the philosophy that brings the church into the discussion - the idea that evolution might negate the idea of God and/or the value of humanity.
I'm not enough of a scientist or historian to give a full review of the presentation beyond saying it made sense to me. It was an accessible, though in-depth, summary of the history of astronomy, from its early roots to the time of Newton. If you want to interact with the presentation, Moleski promised to post it on his website, and you can interact with him there.
As a theology blogger, I can easily say that the presentation was a pleasant surprise. I expected more dogma, and less laughs. I can honestly say that I was intellectually stimulated, and genuinely entertained - and the people were friendly, too. And Moleski's big point - that speaking of what should and should not be done with science is altogether different from being anti-science - is one I can get behind. I have no more business telling a scientist how to do her science than she does telling me how to practice my theology. The two disciplines address two distinct questions, and both need to operate in freedom.
At Theology on Tap, an international Catholic program (Sidney, Australia's gathers over 1,000 each month), speakers change from month to month. Therefore, I have no idea if future speakers will be as engaging as Moleski, but I hope they are, and will attend to find out. The gathering is almost entirely Catholics in their 20's and 30's, but it still felt accessible and friendly to me. (Full disclosure: I left the Roman Catholic Church shortly after confirmation.) Non-believers might feel uncomfortable when the meeting opens with prayer, or may not like some of the perspectives, but Theology on Tap is worth a try for anybody open to listening to Roman Catholic Theology.
The group has been gathering for a few years now, but this was its first meeting at Cole's. They will be back next month, January 5th, when Denis Coakley will speak on "Catholics: Responsible Citizens and the Public Sqaure." Information is posted on their Facebook group, and at WLOF's website. Doors open at 6:30 for dinner, with the talk at 7:30. It ends with Q&A at 8:15.
(Note: As my schedule permits, I will be happy to provide reviews of other theology-related gatherings, but please keep in mind that I have a standing Sunday morning commitment.)
First, the Sun centered universe was neither new or radical. This thought was common from the Greeks and from Copernicus 100 years prior.
Second, then as now we see branches of thought orthodox/conservative, main-line and reformist/liberal. You can see it in jews, protestant denominations, catholicism and islam to name a few.
Third, the real charge against Galileo was that Galileo admitted because the primitive measurements of the time could not yet prove his work and as such Galileo was released
Fourth, who today has run up against sacred cows that dont want their dogma questioned: immigration, abortion, various forms of minority rights, teachers unions, Ron Paulers and abolish the Fed, global climate change, etc. What happens to you dissent from the viewpoint of the wealthy and powerful?
Its a discussion that belongs in history because it is very contemporary.