Slashdot Mirror
Galileo's Daughter
Albert Einstein considered Galileo Galilei to be "the father of modern physics - indeed of modern science altogether."
In a sense, the obsessive, rebellious and gadget-minded Galileo (1564-1642) was one of the first Geeks, and in the context in which he lived and worked, one of the bravest.
He was brilliant, humble and funny, qualities rarely seen in contemporary geeks and nerds, or anybody much. He was profoundly grateful to be able to use science to seek out the truth. In 1609, he set up a telescope in the garden behind his house, pointed it skyward, and saw never-before-seen stars and constellations.
"I render infinite thanks to God for being so kind as to make me alone the first observer of marvels kept hidden in obscurity for all previous centuries. "
It was gracious of Galileo to offer thanks, since he himself received precious few acknowledgements in his lifetime. He sent his out-of-wedlock daughter off to a convent when she was 12 and never saw her again, then ran afoul of the Catholic Church and the Inquisition for his heretic notion that the earth and planets revolved around the sun.
Yet, while he never set foot outside his native Italy, his discoveries rocked the world. His most remarkable invention, the telescope, enabled him to alter the conventional reality of the civilized world and to reinforce the then - stunning argument that the Earth moves around the sun. In a sense, he hacked the universe, attacking and solving the biggest problem in both science and theology. For this, he was hauled before the Holy Office of the Inquisition, accused of heresy, and forced to spend the final years of his life under house arrest.
Of his three illegitimate children, the oldest, (born Virginia in 1600, but re-named Suor Maria Celeste after she took vows of poverty and retreated permanently from the world, since illegitimate daughters were considered unfit for marriage) shared Galileo's brilliance and love of science.
She became his most determined supporter and prolific-letter-writing confidante, though he never saw her again. Her letters and life (his to her at the convent were destroyed once he was targeted by the Inquisition).
Dava Sobel's "Galileo's Daughter: A Historical Memoir of Science, Faith and Love," by (Walker, US $27) expands the story of Galileo, his amazing accomplishments, adding his heart-breaking relationship with his daughter. It's a stunning book, beautiful and powerful, and it brings us back to the Florence of the Medicis and the papal court during an era when humanity's very perceptions of its place in the universe was being upended by one brave man.
In our time, Galileo would probably have ended up a zillionnaire, profiled on "Dateline" and shifting his stock-option wealth from one fund to another. In his own, he was tried and found guilty of heresy, "ordered in the name of His Holiness the Pope and whole body of the Holy Office to the effect that the said opinion that the Sun is the center of universe and the Earth moves must be entirely abandoned, nor might he from then on in any way hold, teach, or defend it by world or in writing; otherwise the Holy Office would proceed against him," which would have meant torture and death.
As the foreword to the book itself explains, this isn't a mawkish contemporary family story.
"Theirs is not a tale of abuse or rejection or intentional stifling of abilities. Rather, it is a love story, a tragedy and a mystery."
People who love science, technology and exploration will be knocked out by this volume, with its wealth of illustrations and gorgeous design. So will people who simply love a great and brilliantly-rendered story.
Pick this book up at Amazon.
As those of you who have read some of my postings may have noticed, I am (or at least try to be) a devout Christian and pretty vocal about it. I am also in some sense a scientist, althought out of date and not professional. Is there a conflict? No. There is no conflict.
People seem to assume that philosophic naturalism must push out all other philosophies. Nothing could be further from the truth. I regard my own naturalism as the study of God's methods, and so, indirectly, the study of God himself. In fact, there are many places in the Bible (for example, half the book of Job) where God defines himself and his "Godhood" in terms of his creation. In Romans 2, Paul writes that God reveals himself to all men through the glory of His creation.
Where I draw the line is at the phenomenal hubris of assuming that what I can see with my physical senses is all there is. That's not to say that I don't see evidence for God -- I do. But that evidence is spiritual and (yes) emotional. Not rational. C.S. Lewis -- highly recommended -- said that "The irrefutable and the undeniable are the two weapons that he [God] cannot use". Why? Because he wants us to freely serve him out of love for Him: not out of fear, and his precense "in anything but the most attenuated form" would overwealm us. (I have probably misquoted: the book is Screwtape letters, and I don't have it with me).
Which brings us to Galileo: the quotes in this review make it obvious that Galileo was deeply religious. Yet the author seems puzzled by this in face of the persecution that Galileo suffered. What Galileo knew (and many today apparently do not) is that God and the hierarchy of the Church often have very little to do with each other! The assumption today is often that travesties like Galileo's treatment invalidate Christianity. They don't. They only invalidate organized Christianity.
Never forget that Jesus was a rebel against organized religiosity, and often sharply criticized the authorities of his day for their failings. Don't associate Him with something he never advocated. Religion without Jesus is like beer without alcohol: it may taste good, but in the end you don't get a buzz.
Anybody I haven't offended yet? No? Good.
-- Slashdot sucks.
I really wish those who keep flogging the Galileo myth of "brave Scientist persecuted by hidebound Chruch for selfless Pursuit of Knowledge" would apply some of that scientific viewpoint to actually reviewing what happened, and perhaps even (gasp!) revising their opining (in true Scientific fashion) based upon the facts of the case, rather than the received myth.
Otherwise, it certainly looks to me as if the Rational Enlightenment Scientific Geeks are the ones who are desperately clinging to their myths, while the Christians are the ones who are willing to look at the world and history as it actually is.
If there is a modern figure who shows us what Galileo would be if he were alive today, it is not IPO-enriched Internet geeks, but rather Carl Sagan. That is, the scientist who uses his scientific expertise to make himself out to be an expert authority on things religious. The proof that Galileo got himself in trouble with the Chruch over theology and not science is simply the number of Catholics ought to be the number of Catholics (including Kepler, Copernicus himself, and a whole bunch of Jesuit astronomers) who favored heliocentism (in even more accurate models than Galileo held) with no trouble at all.
Of course, stabbing a close personal friend in the back by making him out to be a fool in public was not a particularly diplomatic move, especially when that close personal friend happens to have just been elected Pope.
The Roman Catholic Church has admitted that they screwed up in handling Galileo (though not as badly as the mythmakers would have it). I am still waiting for the mythmakers to admit that they have treated the Catholic Church unfairly, or that Galileo might have been part of the problem himself. But I'm not holding my breath -- after all, what's historical accuracy and fairness, compared to a chance to flog religion in general and Christianity/Catholicism in particular?
"He was brilliant, humble and funny, qualities rarely seen in contemporary geeks and nerds, or anybody much."
I don't know about y'all, but I think that contemporary geeks and nerds are more likely to be brilliant, humble, and funny. We're all just a bunch of tech support people around here, but I know many people I'd put in that category, and my wife puts me in the same category all the time. I consider it a well-known fact that a large number of geeks are more shy/humble, good natured, even-tempered, humorous, and, of course, brilliant. Of course, we have the exceptions that prove the rule (Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs), but we also have role models like Linus, Alan Cox, and Woz. All of the latter seem to be good natured, funny, brilliant geeks.