Dorn GalileoTrial

What SDA Scientists, Theologians and Administrators can learn from the Galileo Trial : 

What SDA Scientists, Theologians and Administrators can learn from the Galileo Trial Matthias Dorn Earth History Research Center

Galileo – a never ending story?: 

Galileo – a never ending story? No need for a detailed historical description Galileo’s name was one of the most mentioned on the 2003FSC website – why? The personality, who’s name stands for the conflict of faith & science No b/w – painting is appropriate What can SDA scientists, theologians and administrators learn from the Galileo trial?

The complex circumstances of his trial: 

The complex circumstances of his trial Political-historical aspects Linguistic aspects Theological aspects Philosophical aspects Personal aspects Juristic problems Not one factor dominates the record, but the interaction of all aspects

Galileo could not substantiate what he alleged: 

Galileo could not substantiate what he alleged Mountains and mares of the moon System of Jupiter Phases of Venus Alteration of the planets‘ brightness Sunspots Equatorial winds Tides

Galileo’s deficits : 

Galileo’s deficits Better mathematics than rhetoric Ridiculing his opponents in public No utilization of better arguments of others, especially J. Kepler Nihilizing critical arguments What are the consequences of this situation for the responsibility of the SDA scientist?

Doctrines beyond the Holy Scripture : 

Doctrines beyond the Holy Scripture The important role of the peripatetic philosophy in the development of the Christian faith The Renaissance church accepted the Ptolemaic view of the world for well-supported and thoughtful reasons What about the 6000 years? What about so called other “authorities”? Liberation of intellectual preoccupation

The difficult question of truth : 

The difficult question of truth Galileo did not write ex suppositione Science has a chance to bring up truth Can truth be achieved by manmade methods? How does the character of that truth compare with the one the Bible offers? The parallel question concerns the rise and change of probabilitas to veritas.

Galileo’s letter to Don Benedetto Castelli of 21. December 1613 : 

Galileo’s letter to Don Benedetto Castelli of 21. December 1613 This letter is the fundamental statement of Galileo on his view of the relation of faith and science. All other works are only interpreting iterations

Galileo proposal: the doctrine of the "Two Books": : 

Galileo proposal: the doctrine of the "Two Books": Both scripture and nature come from God The "book of revelation" is written to tell us "how to go to heaven" The "book of nature" is written to tell us "how the heaven goes" Because they come from God, they cannot contradict each other

The "Book of Nature" : 

The "Book of Nature" The "Book of Nature" is written in the language of mathematics; i.e. only science is the method to read it correctly. The statements of the Holy Scripture are not appropriate for research of that book

The "Book of Revelation" : 

The "Book of Revelation" The "Book of Revelation" is written to teach us of all we need to know to lead a sacred life It needs exegesis to be understood by everyone. But the “wise interpreters” may misinterpret the scripture, so the exegesis must be free for a revision.

Galileo’s perspective: 

Galileo’s perspective Galileo's conclusion about evaluating science and faith/Bible was: "For who would set a limit to the mind of man? Who would dare assert that we know all there is to be known?" Research has an infinite perspective! But it does not lead us to eternity!

Galileo‘s intention: 

Galileo‘s intention Galileo intended to establish science in an unprejudiced framework in which it could develop in harmony with a Christian background without being dominated by it The basis for it was his belief in God being the Creator. Whether Galileo himself believed in a Creator as we do is unimportant for our discussion

The consequences: 

The consequences Galileo intended no autonomy of science, but the sentence against him initiated exactly that which he wanted to avoid. His judges wanted to keep their supremacy over science and lost it completely after the trial. This is a warning to the church: Scientific progress, and not suppression of unsympathetic theories, is the best answer of critical or poor science.

Theory and dogma: 

Theory and dogma No dogma is allowed to substitute a theory in science Applied to the creation/evolution problem: That evolution has taken place, is a fact; how it happened has to be developed by scientific research WRONG – all we ever will know about evolution cannot exceed the level of a theory

What can we learn?: 

What can we learn? The best answer to scientific problems is better science Better the right question than a quick, but inadequate answer No need for fear of problems No need to answer all questions; better few answers that are right Better to live with contradictions than with a dishonest security