Einstein on Galileo’s contribution

Some religious apologists just can’t leave Galileo alone. They are unhappy about the fact that most people accept that the Church behaved badly in sentencing Galileo for heresy. (He got house arrest for the rest of his life and bans on his books, one of which was suppressed for 200 years). So in a manner which reminds me of modern day Stalinists trying to make excuses for the Stalin Terror, or to claim it wasn’t as bad as people believe, the apologists have been busy rewriting the history of the Galileo affair.

For example, they promote a document describing Galileo’s “imprisonment for his heretical ideas of a heliocentric solar sytem” as a myth! (see On the crushing of historical fables about religion, science and culture and Mythbusting: Historical fables about Christianity and Science).

In my previous post Blaming the victim I included this quote from the the Inquisition’s sentencing of Galileo which clearlyshows it is the apologists who promote myths:

“You have rendered yourself vehemently suspect of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctrine which is false and contrary to the Sacred and Divine Scriptures, that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west, and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture.”

Collectors’ items?

I watched a lecture the other night where the speaker had a Charles Darwin doll sitting on his lectern. I guess this is another thing we will see during the Darwin Year – Darwin merchandise.

It seemed quite cute and I wonder if they are available in New Zealand? This one is part of the “Little Thinkers” Set of dolls.

I quick search shows they aren’t the only such dolls available – there is also an Einstein doll! This raises the prospects of a new collection – dolls of great scientists.

What about others? As a chemist I would like a Mendeleev doll – I am sure he had the face for it.

Dmitri Mendeleev

Dogmatism of the “supernatural”

Because of the summer solstice/New Year holidays I am reposting some older articles. This one from last June.

Do scientists ever concern themselves over terms like ‘materialist,’ ‘natural,’ or ‘supernatural’? I don’t think so – at least those scientists working at the coal face. I have never heard any scientist posing the question – “is this phenomenon ‘natural’ or ’supernatural’?” before investigating something.

Yet today science is attacked by some people for limiting itself to only ‘natural’ phenomena. Intelligent design (ID) proponents (and they aren’t the only ones) rail against the ‘materialism’ of science. They demand that science should be changed to include ‘supernatural’ explanations.

These are attempts to introduce dogma into science.

Einstein’s god

Einstein’s name keeps being ‘used in vain’ when it comes to religion. Despite his rejection of a personal god he is often quoted as believing in one. However his ‘religious’ views are far more interesting and actually worth investigating. Particularly for those who feel ‘atheism’ has, in itself, insufficient spiritual content.

I have found Max Jammer’s book Einstein and Religion quite informative on this. Also Richard Dawkins in the first chapter of The God Delusion discusses Einstein’s ‘religious’ views and basically agrees with them.

Ruth N. Geller, in the Humanist Network News of Oct. 22 reviews a new book on this subject by Todd Macalister. Her article,  Einstein’s God: A New Book Explores the Scientist’s Spirituality follows:

Dogmatism around science – the “supernatural.”

Do scientists ever concern themselves over terms like ‘materialist,’ ‘natural,’ or ‘supernatural’? I don’t think so – at least those scientists working at the coal face. I have never heard any scientist posing the question – “is this phenomenon ‘natural’ or ‘supernatural’?” before investigating something.

Yet today science is attacked by some people for limiting itself to only ‘natural’ phenomena. Intelligent design (ID) proponents (and they aren’t the only ones) rail against the ‘materialism’ of science. They demand that science should be changed to include ‘supernatural’ explanations.

These are attempts to introduce dogma into science.

Einstein’s “Cosmic Religion”

Did Einstein believe in God?

Certainly some theists support their own beliefs by claiming he did. However Einstein’s religious beliefs were certainly not conventional. His statements have been used by atheists and theists alike as support for their positions. We need to look more closely at Einstein’s writings to get a clearer idea of his beliefs.

Max Jammer’s book Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology is probably the best easily available source on the subject. According to Jammer, although Einstein had a “deep religiosity” as a child “at the age of twelve, just when he should have been preparing for the bar mitzvah, the Jewish confirmation, he suddenly became completely irreligious.” A position from which he never changed throughout the rest of his life.

I wonder how we can describe a child under the age of 12 as having strong beliefs – age 12 is probably that time when people start to develop serious beliefs.

Scientific dissent from . . . science?

Opponents of scientific evolutionary theory will often refer to the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list to justify that the theory is controversial and should be discarded, or at least equal time be given to creationist “theories” in school biology classes. There is no doubt that the list is being used to attack scientific theory but its worth looking at the statement professionals on the list have signed up to. It reads:

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

Few of the signatories have signed the statement for scientific reasons – rather their motives have been religious (see Who are the “dissenters from Darwinism”?). However, scientists by their nature are skeptics and should always critically examine evidence. In principle few scientists would disagree with the statement. So why has the Scientific Dissent from Darwin list attracted so little scientific support (see Dissenters from Darwinism in context)?

Most ideas in science are wrong!

A recent comment on my post, Isaac Newton and intelligent design, implied that scientific explanations are seen as facts. This attitude might be true for some people – after all the scientific method has a good track record in producing theories which enable humanity to understand its surroundings, develop sophisticated technology and improve the quality of life. But describing scientific ideas or theories as facts, or attributing that belief to supporters of science (as the comment did), is a misrepresentation of science.