Galileo Goes to Jail: And Other Myths about Science and Religion

By: Ronald L. Numbers

Book Overview

If we want nonscientists and opinion-makers in the press, the lab, and the pulpit to take a fresh look at the relationship between science and religion, Ronald Numbers suggests that we must first dispense with the hoary myths that have masqueraded too long as historical truths. Until about the 1970s, the dominant narrative in the history of science had long been that of science triumphant, and science at war with religion. But a new generation of...

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0674033272
• ISBN13: 9780674033276
• Release Date: March 2009
• Publisher: Harvard University Press
• Length: 302 Pages
• Weight: 1.01 lbs.
• Dimensions: 1.1" x 5.9" x 8.3"

Customer Reviews

The Myth of Myth-busting

This is an astonishingly bad book, that presents very good information. Comprising of 24 authors presenting 26 chapters, the premise of the book is that it is a "myth-buster" that is going lay clear the cloud of war between science and religion. And yet, throughout the book, with three exceptions, the various authors continuously and unconsciously(?) introduce and propagate a multitude of myths, half truths and some down right lies. Quite amusingly, the chapter that lends its name as the title of the book (Chapter 9 – Myth 8: "Galileo was imprisoned and tortured…") is choker-block full of myths and misinformation. For example, the author (Maurice Finocchiaro) falsely claims that Copernicus invented a "novel and significant argument for the earth's (sic) motion." Ignoring that Aristarchus and others predated Copernicus by 1,700 years, and the model of Copernicus was more complex and not much better than that of Ptolemy, Copernicus, and every other disciple that followed him was unable to demonstrate the validity of the Copernican model for one simple reason: It was incorrect on almost every level. Contrary to the misconception of today's general population, modern science did not adopt the Copernican model, modern science rejected the Copernican model. Finocchiaro falsely claims that Galileo perfected the telescope. Finocchiaro falsely claims that Galileo discovered sunspots. Finocchiaro falsely claims that by using a (very crude) telescope Galileo showed that the Copernican model was a "serious contender for real physical truth." Finocchiaro falsely claims that Galileo was "… increasingly under attack from conservative philosophers and clergyman...). Finocchiaro falsely claims that these conservative clergymen argued Galileo was a heretic because "…he believed in the earth's motion and the earth's (sic) motion contradicted scripture." Finocchiaro falsely claims that "In February 1616, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (in the name of the Inquisition) gave Galileo a private warning forbidding him to hold or defend the view that the earth (sic) moved." These (and many more) are all part and parcel of the great "Galileo Myth" that has survived through the centuries despite the vast authoritative historical documentation that is readily available and that contradicts these myths. Agenda driven historical and scientific guffaws based on the uncritical acceptance of dogmas and urban legends are rampant throughout the book. Sometimes the derisive hyperbolic superlatives are poured on so thick, the author instantly loses credibility and it is difficult to finish the chapter. With only a few exceptions, throughout the book, where the various authors use the word "religion" they are almost exclusively meaning "Protestantism." With only a few exceptions, throughout the book, where the various authors use the word "Christianity," they almost exclusively mean "sophistic Protestant variations on Christianity." Now the exceptions. Three authors stand out as exceptions to the above. One author, the late Margret J. Osler, wrote an absolutely stellar chapter found as Chapter 11 (Myth 10). Osler's short chapter would almost justify the price of the book. The Chapters by Lawrence M. Principe and John Hedley Brooke are both excellent and present factual observations devoid of the inaccurate and shrill emotive polemics otherwise found in each of the other chapters. The book is particularly important, but not in spite of the errors and myths by the majority of authors, but precisely *because* of the errors and dogmatic tautologies expressed by the other authors. It is an important book since it is unlikely there is a more concise example of the serious problem of sophistry in history and the propagation of misinformation in science and philosophy. For this reason, I plan on using many quotes from the various authors as exemplars of just how bad contemporary authors present history.

Historical interdependence of science and religion

"Galileo Goes to Jail" is a collection of twenty-five essays detailing the misconceptions (or "myths" as used in the popular, not academic, sense) about the encounters between science and religion throughout Western history. Written by authors who are acknowledged experts in their respective fields, many myths are dispelled with thorough research and an unbiased, critical eye. The common thread of many of these essays is that the myths originated with two American writers in the late nineteenth century - John William Draper and Andrew Hickson White. As is typical with any collection of essays, some are not as good as the rest. In this book, Myths #22 and 23 are disappointments in an otherwise enjoyable and thought-provoking collection of essays. Myth #22 doesn't really argue against (or for) "Quantum Physics Demonstrated Free Will". Indeed, Daniel Patrick Thurs writes simply, "And its spread is due to a very good reason. It is in one sense, absolutely true," and then he writes, "If the historian as historian has any role, it is to expose the roots of such controversy rather than to leap into the fray and parrot the arguments of one side or another" (p. 197). And so the essay goes on - not really saying much of anything of interest or insight. I don't know why this essay was included. The intention of Myth #23 is to refute the claim that intelligent design is scientific. Michael Ruse states: "Taking my advice, the judge decided that `the essential characteristics of science' included naturalness, tentativeness, testability, and falsifiability - and ruled that creation failed to meet these criteria" (p. 211). But then he fails to show in any systematic way how each of these tenets do not apply to ID. He then goes on to criticize William Whewell's delineation of science and religion, saying that "[Whewell] felt it necessary to bring in God to explain the origin of organisms, but he carefully noted that this was not science" (p. 222), is merely a "cop-out option" (p. 212). In the end, Ruse presents his own cop-out option: he simply shows his disgust for the ID view without really arguing against it. I do not believe that ID is a science, but I do believe that one should at least be intellectually forthright when disagreeing with another's opinion and present cogent arguments. In spite of these two examples, this book provides a highly recommended survey into the complex interrelationship between science and religion, each intellectually underpinning the other, intertwined in an intricate whole, so that to separate one from the other undermines our understanding and appreciation of both.

Science and religion coexisting peacefully

Before science and religion can engage in a meaningful dialogue, author Ronald Numbers suggests that several myths (used in this book to mean falsehoods) should be disregarded. The book actually is a collection of essays that Numbers has collected from leading scientists and scholars. The first three myths have to do with the early Christian church and science (which were not at loggerheads); the fourth myth details medieval Islamic culture and its contribution to scientific achievement. The fifth myth (that the early church prohibited human dissection) was one I'd not heard before. Several of the myths deal directly with scientists themselves: Darwin's supposed deathbed conversion back to Christianity (#16); Galileo's imprisonment at the hands of the Catholic Church (#8); Einstein's belief in a personal God (#21); and Descartes' mind-body dualism (#12). The book is written by scholars but is perfectly accessible to laymen with an interest in the history of science.

Excelente libro

Excelente trabajo de edición del profesor Numbers que en pocas pàginas ha desechado muchos mitos referentes al conflicto entre eligión y ciencia.

Good Book but it has a few faults

I do recommended this book and I applaud, as mentioned in the intro, that all of the authors of this book, which includes many atheists, wanted to get the correct version of history out there. As both a history guy and an Engineer this subject greatly interests me, so I was very excited to read this book. Though I may be a conservative and believe strongly in God, I like many of the authors, do want to see history be fair and balanced or be taught without any bias and by the facts. However, this is very difficult with most of the history books, professors, and media out there being very left of center. With that said this book does a very good job in destroying some of the religion vs. science myths that unfortunately have permeated our society for a long time. The Good: The book does a very good job at getting at the myths that have been created by men such as Draper, White, and Gibbon and have unfortunately been retold over and over again in classrooms around the world. These articles clearly and concretely made the case that the mythical "Dark Ages" never happened, that no one believed the Earth was Flat in the Middle Ages, the fact that the Catholic Church, Christianity and the Noble rulers of Europe have greatly supported science both financially and rhetorically and also by setting up universities and societies, that the Galileo story and its circumstances are greatly over exaggerated and untrue, that religion has played a very important role as the driving force in the lives of many of humanities greatest scientists, that Bruno was not killed for his science but for heresy, and that human dissection and other medically linked issues were not banned by the Church. The Bad: I do have a problem with 3 myths in the book. I have a small problem with Myth 4 and I guess that the atheists and those left of center had to try and save some face in myths 9 and 21. Myth 4 - I agree that Islam was tolerant to science and made some very important contributions to science during the Middle Ages. However, I do disagree with the author in that like many others I believe Islamic science mainly carried on and maintained what the Greeks had done and did not do a tremendous amount to advance any of their ideas. However in my experience the inverse of this myth is far more prevalent in school. If you sit in the majority of college classrooms you get a story that sounds more like that Middle Eastern, Eastern and South American civilizations invented faster than Light travel and matter-antimatter reactors thousands of years ago and Europeans simply came along and stole their ideas or ignored them. Now give credit where credit is due, but in terms of scientific advancements, culture, and overall human progress the contributions made by Western civilization have out paced the rest of the world combined by a very large margin. I know it's politically incorrect to say, but that's the way history has played out and I am just tired of all of the spin. Myth