Galileo's trial, concerning whether the earth is moving or stationary, is an example of the intense interaction (conflict) between science and religion in the 17th century. Galileo was put into house arrest in 1633 until his death for suggesting that the Earth is moving. Is the interaction between science and religion a positive or a negative thing? My negative arguments is that it stopped people from believing in the heliocentric system which is currently shown to be correct and it slowed down the progress and development of science. Many scientific writings were banned at the time. Are there any positive arguments on this?
I'd have to say that the only positive thing that came out of it was that people started realizing how ridiculous their religion was and they started searching for real answers, instead of the ones provided in a book over a thousand years old.
This does not apply to religion...this applies to 17th century Christianity...basically every other religion had no problems with science...Islam for instance didn't have any problems at all...in the East this would've never happened, etc.... Religion is all about discovering the actual truth...
Science and religion are complementary, and they don´t contradict each other. I am talking about the real religion here, not the one that gets offended when scientists prove them wrong. Science of the external world: what we call Science. Science of the internal world: what we call Religion. Why should they contradict each other? it makes not sence for me.
