It is often heard, when the relationship between church (or religion) and science is discussed, that: “In Medieval times, we used to think that the Earth was flat. This point of view was enthusiastically promoted by the church. However, when science found out that the Earth is round, they had a hard time bringing this across to the public. This was because the church put up a fierce resistance. Some scientists even ended up burning at the stake.”
I get indications from the texts I am reading, that this remark is at least slightly besides the truth. For one, I don’t think that that anybody really doubted the Earth to be spherical. Not even the church. This was already common knowledge in the ancient (Greek) time. Secondly, the argument was in fact about the question of what was in the centre of the universe, or our planetary system. For a long time, the general idea was that this honour fell upon our humble planet. Our system allegedly was geocentric, as opposed to heliocentric.
At some point in time, it became clear that it was impossible to hold the geocentric theory upright AND in accordance with the observations that were made of the actual motion of the celestial bodies. Not without adding device after device to it, in order to make the model fit reality. A rather dodgy way to go, as we have known since Ockham.
And here the popular misconception kicks in; including mine that is, although I already felt something coming while I was reading on this topic. The story goes, that the church was desperately holding on to the geocentric vision, where the Earth holds a static position in the centre of the system of heavenly bodies. In this model, all planets, the Sun and all the moons, revolve around Geos (Earth).
Now scientists were supposedly opposing this vision, with the occasional result of excommunication. Like Galileo, who famously cried out, while his boat was leaving the quay: “… but she moves, nevertheless…”, referring to Earth in relation to the Sun. So this common lore has scientists forwarding a model where Helios is the centre of our system and not Earth, herewith obviously committing grave heresy.
Enter Arthur Koester, who wrote a book by the title of “The Sleepwalkers“. I have not read this, but I saw a reference to it in a book I am currently reading. And here the story mentioned above, is turned upside down.
As it were, the scientific community of the time was the one opposing the new heliocentric view, whereas robe-wearing and god-fearing colleagues were less troubled by the thought to chuck the old ideas out and to replace them with new and snazzy ones. So monks and priests were more progressive on this topic than scientists. The latter went out of their ways to modify their theories and their models in such a way, that they still reflected the real-life observations that were made. The Church, on the other hand, was ready to place the Sun in the centre of our system.
To come back to Galileo briefly: he got into trouble with the church, because he was such a stubborn piece of work that he managed to get the most accommodating people against him. How bad can that be?
There is a lesson to be learned here. This is pointed out by Thomas Homer-Dixon in his book “The Upside of Down“. His angle is the denial people tend to display when they are confronted with facts and figures that do not fit the principles on which they base their perception of their tranquil and peaceful life, where no big upheavals in points of view and opinions are appreciated. The subject at hand is – amongst other things – Global Warming. He points out, that we usually first deny the phenomenon by maintaining that it is not there. And when that fails because of ever mounting evidence to the opposite, we tend to dismiss any serious consequences. And when that position is no longer tenable, we count on our Human Ingenuity, which promises us a way out of every problem that we might be heading for.
The clue of this story is that we cannot trust scientist to be as independent and free thinking as we might like them to be. Even when scientific procedures are strictly followed. They regard their bastions of theories, models and principles as precious entities, that can not be discarded at the drop of a hat. Too many hours, days and years of effort of too many people went into that body of knowledge, so even a brilliant idea, if radically different enough, will meet opposition from scientists. Their vested interests apparently dictate this kind of behaviour.
Be that as it may, I still trust the scientific community more than I would trust any church. And a little conservatism prevents the good and solid contemporary science to succumb to the chaos and insecurity a rabidly progressive methodology would bring us. I recognise one essential point, though. I must be more on the look-out for any ideological lock-in when it comes to my own methods of truth-review. That much is certain.
