I’m just reading ‘Galileo Heretic’ by Pietro Redondi, Princeton, 1987. He argues, so far, that the problem with Galileo was not his Copernicanism, which was a disputed issue (Galileo just couldn’t interpret the Bible on the basis of his findings) but his atomism since atomism had for centuries been argued over as incompatible with the full doctine of the Eucharist. He argues that historians don’t know anything about the content of the trial in 1632, only the results.
He also argues that the Pope, a friend of Galileo, had made his trial very easy, where the Jesuits of the time, critizing the pope for laxity, and trying to defend the faith from the advancing Protestants, who had made miiltary victories just north of Italy, would have been much tougher, defending the doctrines from the Council of Trent against any possible enemy.
The Jesuits were also defending the alliance of Scholastict theology with Aristotelianism.
Pope Benedict in the early 1990s wrote a paper (defense?) of the Church’s actions with Galileo. I hope to read that also.
I hope the play is fair to the Church. From what we know now, Brecht’s play was just an action of anti-institutionalism and far from any truth.

I saw the production on Wednesday night and thought the dialogue between how science and society and religion are inter-related (or not according to certain characters). It is a very stimulating topic.

I am equally excited about the upcoming production of The Life Of Galileo over at Central Square Theater. It should be very interesting to see a different interpretation of this topic.

It’s here: http://centralsquaretheater.org/galileo.html

People act irrationally.

Perhaps we need to be controlled by a ‘god,’ and men of god.

You do us all a disservice by continuing the myth that science and faith have anything at all to do with each other. Science deals with hypothesis and observation, so faith is irrelevant to it. Faith deals with the unprovable by definition, so science is irrelevant to it.

A scientist may have faith, but it in no way affects the science she produces (or shouldn’t, and if it does, peer review will weed it out). A religious person may (and does) use science, but does not (and cannot) allow that to affect her faith.

To allow these two areas to bleed into each other continues the faux-meaningful battles of history, and prevents peaceful co-existence. Don’t contribute to this unneeded “battle”.

I am a big fan of Edward Herrmann, ever since the days of him playing Creon to Al Pacino’s Oedipus Rex at the Actor’s Studio. I was lucky enough to be the Stage Manager, and sadly the only audience member/witness to that production.
He was always one of the nicest actors/people I have ever worked with. Glad to see he’s been promoted to Pope.

When I was teaching 8th grade Physical Science in public school, myself and a fellow teacher would have our student’s put on the Trial of Galileo. The students would learn about the characters and their particular bias, then would free script the trial. The remaining students not involved as a character would be the jury. The outcomes were interesting to say the least!

If faith triumphs, the future people will be divided into two classes: ‘priests,’ who know science and rule, and the science illiterate, enslaved by those who talk with god, or who would be gods on earth.

Attention please: Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. put an end to Intelligent Design as Science! And the judge was a George W. Bush appointee. Please, Tom, correct these mistakes when they occur!

Great show, just bought tickets for the play on Saturday!

Will they be taking their show anywhere else in the United States?

Are you coming to New Haven CT area?

I would love to take my husband to see the show.

I appreciate your discussion on science and religion, but as a young astronomer, I would have loved to hear an actual scientist on the show today. I think it would have been a more balanced conversation.

With that in mind, I really hope I can see the show!

To believe in talking snakes and angels as well as burning bushes and other myths is all well and good. Should one not also believe in the Easter bunny and Santa Claus?

When the bible was written people believed the earth was flat. We now know that this is not true. In Galileo’s time many people thought the sun went around the earth.

Science is based on hypothesis and observation and testing theories.

Those who advocate (non)intelligent design are doing education a great disservice and in my view are nothing more than zealots.

Tom,

Evolution – FACT.
Religion – Myths and fairy tales.

Your guest should stop using the word “accident” to explain how things came into existence. Cosmology explains how suns and planets formed in the universe, which itself came from the “Big Bang”. Natural Selection explains how life formed and evolves.

On future shows, please have real scientists and atheists onfor discussion.

jack

Here is the website to get the Trial book for students to recreate the trial:
http://www.interact-simulations.com/c/product.html?nocache@2+s@EOM3NW6yeZTws+record@TF25373+s@EOM3NW6yeZTws

Your discussion follows the anti-Christian side of the Galileo story. If the church was so closed-minded, why did Galileo’s contemporaries Kepler and Copernicus not get into trouble?

It is my understanding that Galileo was egotistical and attacked two Jesuit researchers who were also working on the helio-centric theory, in order to destroy their reputations, so as s to leave that field to himself. Those Jesuits then fought back in the Vatican’s political arena, resulting in Galileo’s arraignment on charges of disobeying the Pope, over a related theological point, not helio-centrism itself.

It’s an infinite regression to require a “creator” of the Universe, as the creator would be more complex than the thing that was created. This explains nothing, and has nothing to do with logic, reason, or science.

Nuclear weapons have been mentioned several times as a danger resulting from science. It’s not science that I fear, but religious zealots that would use them. More humans beings have died as a result of religion than have died from nuclear weapons.

I will change my view when there is evidence for another view. what will change yours?

I reject the comment on the radio show that there is dogma in science. There are dogmatic scientists, but the concept of scientific discovery is based on doubt. Doubting the current explanation of things and learning, and testing against emperical observation. Accurate science never says “This is the way it is” rather “This is our best understanding of the way it is subject to further testing and understanding.

Tom,

I usually love when you do a show on Science, the subject is rarely discussed on your show compared to Literature. I hope you cover Science more often. However, please don’t undermine Science by letting callers and guests talk about pseudoscience (Intelligent Design) without pointing out that it is, in fact, pseudoscience. See: Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al.

While a philosophical exchange about Faith and Science and their impact on religion is fine, it must be stressed that Faith is not Science-especially in the U.S… 80 years after Scopes and we’re still insidiously insinuating religion into our Science classrooms. Please, do your penance and inform people of I.D., the Discovery Institute, and its “Wedge” strategy.

I wonder whether this clash between religion and science is manufactured to some/large extent, and is a larger-than-life myth that we all blindly buy into. Yes, Galileo was persecuted for his views by the Church. But why weren’t Kepler and Copernicus? And Gregor Mendel was a Roman Catholic priest and a scientist who was called the father of genetics. If the Church were so opposed to science, then Gregor Mendel would’ve been persecuted or black-listed for his scientific activities.

I’m not denying that some sections of Christian religion are antagonistic to certain aspects of science, but the myth of science vs. religion seems to be manufactured based on a very small sample size (Galileo in the past, evolution-Intelligent Design today) whereas there are plenty of examples where religion (Christianity) has absolutely no problem with science.

Besides, there are non-Abrahamic religions in the world that have no problem whatsoever with science and scientific findings. So, to construct this false divide between religion and science based only on Catholic Church’s history, and then extend it to all religions of the world, seems um…what’s the word I’m looking for?..oh yeah, unscientific.

“He who laugh last, laugh best”

Science makes discoveries(period). Discoveries of GOD’s wanderful creation and which ofcause, HE created in 6 days(period).

A message from God: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

Pls read 1 Corithians 1:18-31

Till the end of this world, humanbeings will have discover just a snippets of GOD wanderful creation. We are just “chasing the wind.”

ummmm…not to be insensitive to other opinions, but…religion was invented by man to control large groups of people. As independant groups of people got larger, they invented independant religions to suit their specific needs. Pretty straight-forward, I think. Gods have been tailored for eons, and they will continue to be.

Will the rebuttals be civil?…

These conversations between Galileo and Pope Urban VIII by these two gentlemen make excelent radio.
They should bring us the whole show.

Thanks

Science places faith in a process producing insight and creating technology. Do not confuse it with Reality, as though only one exists. ‘Peer review’ is a dogmatic invention of specialized guilds to maintain the status quo of institutionalized power. Not that much different than THE Church; just different institutional agendas and politics.

Neither have much to recommend them from an ethical perspective. One give us Inquisitions, the other WMDs. Perhaps it is not understanding of God vs Nature that we need to explore as much as it is the meaning/essence of humanity.

I would love to see the play and hope it goes on the road.

there will always be room for belief in the exostence of a god no matter what scientific discoveries are made – it’s particular religious beliefs that are shown to be invalid by science – this chips away at the foundations of religions that claim to be representative of the one and only true god – they take challenges to their beliefs as a threat to belief in god – but what do all the gods that all the religions have ever invented have to do with whatever god may actually exist? – religions that claim to know who or what god really is are all equally ill informed – all anyone can muster in this regard is merely an image of god

What a great thought provoking show. This is one of the timeless arguments. I would love to have this totally done on the radio. I hope this comes to New Jersey! Personally, science has only increased my faith- the wonderment and mystery of it all. I never felt the clash. Pope Urban’s comment that Galileo “made God unnecessary” was more about his own fears not really about reality. You really tickled my brain.

I have been a fan of Jay O. Sanders for many years and i know that he can play any character with ease. He is an amazing actor and a wonderful person. It’s good to see him back again!!

Tom,
You’ve got real talent in a lot of areas, but as a theater reviewer you stink. Based on your enthusiasm for Two Men of Florence, I saw the show this Saturday. The speech are endless, the dialogue and plot are predictable and lack dramatic impact, the acting of the supporting cast reminded me of community theater amateurishness, and the set often becomes an impediment to the action instead of furthering it. Copenhagen, another play that had a lot of dialogue and was based on an historic event is an example of compelling drama and intrigue. Goodwin should stick to speech writing and you should stick to your radio format. Please spare us the reviews.
Sanford Evans

I had the good fortune to catch some of the show disucssing “Two Men of Florence.” I’ve always been intrigued by the story of Galileo’s troubles. One of the best books I’ve read about them is Dava Sobel’s “Galileo’s Daughter.” I was so taken with the tale of his eldest daughter – Suor Maria Celeste, a clositered nun – that I created a one-woman play about her, called “Most Affectionate Daughter.” (You can read about it on my website, http://www.janinabirtolo.com.) I’ve been performing the show since 2001 and find people are captivated, primarily because so many are still struggling to find a meeting ground between science and faith. For me, Maria Celeste was the embodiment of that struggle – and Sobel’s book is a clear and easily understood explanation of the times.