|Read the first chapter of A MORE PERFECT HEAVENby Dava Sobel|
|Email when available:|
Darwinism vs creationism.?
- 2 years ago
- Report Abuse
- Member since:
- 30 August 2008
- Total points:
- 59,700 (Level 7)
- Badge Image:
- Contributing In:
- Books & Authors
Best Answer – Chosen by Voters
2) Evolution is scientifically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Creationism has absolutely zero empirical evidence and is basically wishful thinking based on ignorance, misunderstanding, and willing disbelief.
3) Evolution is not just supported or proven by the fossil record, but by repeated, predictable, and confirmed observations across a varied of fields from genetics to comparative anatomy to embryology to morphology. In fact, had we never found a single fossil, once we’d uncovered genetics we would have arrived at exactly the same theory.
4) Intelligent Design was a purposeful, intentional repackaging of creationism in a dishonest effort to sneak religion into the public school system by making it look and sound more like science, even though it was not. This was proven SEVERAL times in court trials, the most famous of which was in Dover, PA (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) in 2005. The judge wrote in his decision: “For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child,” “the overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,” and “the proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.” Of the dishonesty of the supporters of the policy to teach ID, the judge said this: “It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.” In other words, those who screamed religious conviction the most were the ones that stood up, under oath, and lied through their teeth.
- 2 years ago
- Report Abuse
- 1 person rated this as good
There are currently no comments for this question.
Other Answers (7)
by Reason and evidence are deicidal…
First of all, I have to take issue with the word “Darwinism.” That is not a real term, but a derogatory one made up by evolution-deniers to make the acceptance of evolution sound like a cult of personality. I think at their heart most creationists know that creationism is just a belief, and refuse to accept the mountains of scientific data from many fields supporting evolution. So they dismiss it by also categorizing evolution as just another belief, thereby pulling evolution down to their own level. Many creationists actually seem to think of evolution in particular, and science in general, as another form of religion in competition with their own. They simply do not comprehend the reasons why science is not and can never be considered just another belief system like religion.
- Member since:
- 26 July 2006
- Total points:
- 27,708 (Level 7)
As to the actual arguments and evidence, I’ll suggest a few sources, but the evidence supporting evolution (and disproving creationism) can be found all over the web and in most any library. I would add though that “intelligent design” is something of an oxymoron. Anyone who has studied biology in any detail can tell you that life, including humans, is full of gross inefficiencies, errors, and mechanisms most definitely unintelligent in their design. This is consistent with the inexact process of natural evolution, but if we were created by a deity, then that god is a real dumbfvck at bioengineering.
Probably the single point that intelligent designers can bring up that won’t _immediately_ get them laughed at, is the notion of “irreducible complexity,” that some parts (like the eye, or bacterial flagellum) are too complex to have evolved from simpler components. I underscored “immediately” above because this is one of the few, perhaps only, point that creationists can bring up that is actually scientifically testable and does not rely on the “god did it” explanation. That said, irreducible complexity has been pretty much blown out of the water for quite a few years now. The creationists’ fault is in thinking that parts can serve one and only one purpose. But (and this has been demonstrated) a part from one mechanism can be used in another, thus allowing new parts to form from other, older parts.
Reading creationist arguments can be kinda fun if you understand how evolution and science work. It’s like playing the game of “name that logical fallacy”. Creationists also have a real knack for showing off how scientifically illiterate they are every time they try to make a scientific-sounding argument. I don’t mean to go all ad hominem on them, but creationism really is the art of trying to justify ignorance.
Check out some of the sources below for more detail on the many reasons evolution is fact and creationism mere wishful thinking.
Source(s):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_fo… http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Eart… http://www.google.com/search?q=evidence+… http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/cre-tes…
14% 1 Vote
- 2 years ago
- Report Abuse
- 3 people rated this as good
Creationism: – apparenly the world is only 5000 or so years old??? We have proof that the world is like 4.5 BILLION YEARS OLD – creationism: all the organisms are the same as they were when “god” created them a few thousand years ago, whered the fossils come from that show evolution of organisms over millions of years?? – is the entire scientific community wrong that darwinism (evolution) is completely accepted? -
Intellegent design is a philosophical argument best defined thus: a watch is intricate, and is made by someone of intelegence, (humans), the universe is akin to this, and a great being such as a “GOD” must have made it. (HA)
0% 0 Votes
- 2 years ago
- Report Abuse
- 3 people rated this as good
Intelligent Design is pretty much re-branded creationism, if you look at the definitions the only thing that changed was the name of what they were defining. Creationism and intelligent design both end up saying that God created the world and that life has not changed since creation. Darwinism does not exist. Charles Darwin came up with the Theory of Evolution and it is accepted as scientific fact with 150 years of verification to back it up. The term Darwinism was created by proponents for Creationism and Intelligent Design as part of an effort to make the Theory of Evolution seem like doctrine so they could get their beliefs taught in a science class room. Evolution basically states that life changes through natural selection over many generations and becomes more fit for survival in it’s environment.
0% 0 Votes
- 2 years ago
- Report Abuse
- 3 people rated this as good
intelligent design is the theory that although evolution is an established fact there is still a possibility that a higher intelligence had a hand in it
it is speculative, and contradictory to the Holy Bible, so I doubt it will ever become recognized as being on the same level of credibility as evolution and creationism
29% 2 Votes
- 2 years ago
- Report Abuse
Christians believe that God created the world in its completion in six days. Obviously, when God creates something it is bound to be complete and perfect; hence the question of evolution does not arise. Evolution means things are evolving, becoming better, more perfect, reaching to higher levels. This was against the idea of a fixed creation; hence Charles Darwin was criticized, condemned. I remember… There was a small school and the teacher was explaining to the students how God created the world. One small boy, whose father was a scientist and had been teaching him about the theory of evolution, stood up and said, “But my father says something else. He says we are born out of the monkeys.” And the Christian teacher said, “As far as your family is concerned, he may be right. We are not discussing your family here. You can see me later after the class.” But that was the attitude all over the world — not only of Christians but of Hindus and of Mohammedans. They thought that Charles Darwin had taken away their dignity as the greatest and the most superior creation of God. He has destroyed their ego trip, that God created man in his own image. Now this fellow is saying God that created man in the image of a monkey. Nobody was ready to accept it. I am also not ready to accept it, but my grounds are different. It is not a question of comparing skeletons; the evolution is in the consciousness, not in the body. Man has a body, monkeys have their own bodies, chimpanzees have their own bodies. Even Charles Darwin was very much puzzled: How can a monkey suddenly become a man? As far as we know, at least since ten thousand years, there has not been a single case when suddenly a monkey jumped out of a tree and became a man. If it has not happened in ten thousand years, it is inconceivable that it could ever have happened. His whole life he was looking for some missing links: the gap between the monkey and man seems to be too big. He wanted to find a few missing links so he could make smaller gaps: the monkey becomes something else, then something else becomes something else, and then finally a small difference… and the animal becomes man. But he could not find any missing link. Because he was born in the West and had the attitude of a materialist, that caused the whole trouble. Existence has been accepted in the East as autonomous; it is not a creation. Long before Charles Darwin, very long, thousands of years before, the East had come to understand that existence is an evolution with no beginning and no end. There is no scientific evidence for creation. There is every evidence for evolution. There have been found fifty-thousand-year-old skeletons of human beings in China. The idea of evolution means existence is eternal. It has never been created. It has always been here and it goes on evolving to new peaks of consciousness. When Darwin said to mankind, “Forget that you were created by God; you have evolved from animals, from beasts,” then man’s ego was smashed for the first time — with a bang! Man had believed that he was God’s son, God’s creation, though he had no proof of it. Then suddenly it turned out that the father was not God, but a chimpanzee! It must have been an immense shock. What a fall! One moment
0% 0 Votes
- 2 years ago
- Report Abuse
- 1 person rated this as good
There is no argument, creationists are wrong. End of story. Science categorically disproves the Bible. History disproves the Bible too, as it was written in about 800BC by the Jewish diaspora, turning themselves from a polytheistic religion into a monotheistic one and rewriting the creation story for their new book, the Torah!
0% 0 Votes
- 2 years ago
- Report Abuse
- 4 people rated this as good
Who found this interesting?
Be the first person to mark this question as interesting!
- Hong Kong
- New Zealand
- South Korea
- United Kingdom
- United States
- en Español
Yahoo! does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any Yahoo! Answers content. Click here for the Full Disclaimer.
Help us improve Yahoo! Answers. Tell us what you think.
Copyright © 2012 Yahoo! All Rights Reserved.
“A More Perfect Heaven,” by Dava Sobel, is about the revolutionary idea of Copernicus.
By Mike Brown, Published: October 14
(Walker & Co.) – ‘A More Perfect Heaven: How Copernicus Revolutionized the Cosmos’ by Dava Sobel
What did Rheticus say to convince the reluctant Copernicus to risk the ridicule and censure that the book surely would (and did) receive?
Once again, no one knows. But this moment in astronomical history is so clearly pivotal and dramatic that Sobel turns to dramatic fiction to help capture how it might have been. The center of her book is a two-act play imagining the first meeting of the two men, the reawakening of Copernicus’s desire to explain his ideas to the world, and the final rush to print. The play closes as Copernicus, lying on his death bed, receives the first printing of “On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres” and promptly expires, which seems a melodramatic flourish except that the event actually appears in the historical record.
Though he didn’t live to see it happen, Copernicus’s book was both scorned and admired, sometimes by the same person. Even if setting the earth spinning was too much for some, his meticulous observations and tabulations of the positions of the planets were such an improvement over the 1600-year-old work of Ptolemy that had been, up until then, the standard, that no one who cared about the skies could afford to ignore him. And a lot of people cared about the skies, from court astrologers eager to know precise celestial positions, to the Catholic Church, which declared “On the Revolutions” suspended until corrected but still needed its calculations to date Easter more precisely.
In a coda, Sobel directly traces the influence of Copernicus by describing inscriptions and annotations made by later astronomers in their copies of his treatise. Galileo hand censored his own copy, as the church required, perhaps to keep himself out of trouble (it didn’t seem to have helped). Kepler inked in tiny questions at crucial points and may have even received a little inspiration for his great discovery about the shapes of planetary orbits when he read a one-word marginal note someone else had written in Greek: “ellipse!.” Halley had a copy lying around while he was trying to connect the orbit of the comet that now bears his name. Hubble had one nearby as he proposed the expansion of the universe.
We’ll never know precisely how Rheticus convinced Copernicus to finally set it all in print, but, as Sobel shows, we certainly owe him gratitude, for these manuscripts are treasures of our world, tracing our first steps out into an understandable cosmos.
Mike Brownis the Richard and Barbara Rosenberg Professor of Planetary Astronomy at the California Institute of Technology and the author of “How I Killed Pluto and Why It Had It Coming.”
A MORE PERFECT HEAVEN
How Copernicus Revolutionized the Cosmos
By Dava Sobel
Walker. 273 pp. $25
SuperFan badge holders consistently post smart, timely comments about Washington area sports and teams.
Culture Connoisseur Badge
Culture Connoisseurs consistently offer thought-provoking, timely comments on the arts, lifestyle and entertainment.
Fact Checker Badge
Fact Checkers contribute questions, information and facts to The Fact Checker.
Washingtologists consistently post thought-provoking, timely comments on events, communities, and trends in the Washington area.
Post Writer Badge
This commenter is a Washington Post editor, reporter or producer.
Post Forum Badge
Post Forum members consistently offer thought-provoking, timely comments on politics, national and international affairs.
Weather Watcher Badge
Weather Watchers consistently offer thought-provoking, timely comments on climates and forecasts.
World Watcher Badge
World Watchers consistently offer thought-provoking, timely comments on international affairs.
Washington Post reporters or editors recommend this comment or reader post.
You must be logged in to report a comment.
You must be logged in to recommend a comment.
Comments our editors find particularly useful or relevant are displayed in Top Comments, as are comments by users with these badges: Washingtologist. Replies to those posts appear here, as well as posts by staff writers.
All comments are posted in the All Comments tab.
To pause and restart automatic updates, click “Live” or “Paused”. If paused, you’ll be notified of the number of additional comments that have come in.
The Post Most: EntertainmentMost-viewed stories,videos, and galleries in the past two hours
- Most Popular
- Top Videos
- Top Galleries
Sign-up for e-mail newsletters and alerts and get the news you need delivered directly to your inbox.
Opposition to the Protect IP Act ( PIPA ) and Stop Online Piracy Act ( SOPA ) reached a…
COLUMBIA, S.C.-A lone Democratic consultant wandered the halls of the downtown Hilton,…
You can’t help but root for Red Tails (Lucasfilm). Ostensibly a biopic about the…
Karen Tumulty 12:05 AM ET
Jonathan Alter JAN 20
Paul Farhi 6:25 AM ET
Associated Press 10:17 AM ET
Associated Press JAN 20
Carolyn Hax 12:01 AM ET
Associated Press 6:47 AM ET
Tara Bahrampour JAN 21
Philip Rucker JAN 21
Jason Reid JAN 21
Philip Rucker; and David A. Fahrenthold JAN 21
George F. Will JAN 20
Associated Press 5:52 AM ET
Leonard Shapiro; Special To The Washington Post 10:23 AM ET
Mary Pat Flaherty JAN 21
Associated Press 8:58 AM ET
Michelle Singletary JAN 14
Dan Balz JAN 21
Associated Press 7:11 AM ET
Brian Vastag JAN 20
January 21, 2012
January 13, 2012
January 19, 2012
Tara Bahrampour January 22, 2012
January 19, 2012
The Washington Post
- © 1996-2012 The Washington Post
- Longitude: The True Story of a Lone Genius Who Solved the Greatest Scientific Problem of His Time (1995) – the genius in question was John Harrison, who spent decades trying to convince the British Admiralty of the accuracy of his naval timepieces and their use in determining longitude when at sea in order to win the longitude prize. ISBN 1-85702-571-7 – The book itself won the 1997 British Book of the Year award.
- Galileo’s Daughter: A Historical Memoir of Science, Faith, and Love (2000) ISBN 0-14-028055-3
- The Best American Science Writing 2004 (editor)
- The Planets: A discourse on the discovery, science, history and mythology, of the planets in our solar system, with one chapter devoted to each of the celestial spheres. (2005) ISBN 1-85702-850-3
- A More Perfect Heaven: How Copernicus Revolutionised the Cosmos (2011) ISBN 978-0802717931
Longitude was dramatised for television by Charles Sturridge and Granada Film in 1999, and was shown in the US by A&E. Michael Gambon played John Harrison, and Jeremy Irons played Rupert Gould, who restored Harrison’s timepieces for posterity in the mid-20th century.
Sobel made her first foray into teaching at the University of Chicago as the Vare Writer-in-Residence in the winter of 2006. She taught a one-quarter seminar on writing about science.
- ^ Sobel, Dava. “Self Portrait”. Dava Sobel Author of Longitude. http://www.davasobel.com/about.php. Retrieved 2007-03-07.
- ^ “Dava Sobel Biography”. Dava Sobel Biography. http://www.davasobel.com/about_bio.php.
 External links
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Dava Sobel|
- Dava Sobel at the Internet Movie Database
- About the Author: Dava Sobel.
- Book Review: Longitude by Dava Sobel.
- Website of the Author Dava Sobel
- Podcast of Dava Sobel discussing “The Origins of Longitude” at the Shanghai International Literary Festival
- Booknotes interview with Sobel on Longitude, January 17, 1999.
|Date of birth||June 15, 1947|
|Place of birth|
|Date of death|
|Place of death|
|This article about a United States writer of non-fiction is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.|
- This page was last modified on 16 January 2012 at 19:20.
|About the Author: Dava Sobel
|Dava Sobel is an award-winning writer and former New York Times science reporter who has contributed articles to Audubon, Discover, Life and The New Yorker. She has also been a contributing editor to HarvardMagazine, writing about scientific research and the history of science.Ms. Sobel has maintained an interest in Galileo since childhood and her latest book, Galileo’s Daughter, fulfills her ambition to plumb the renaissance scientist’s life and times, and to reveal his relationship with his daughter, Suor Maria Celeste, a Poor Clare nun. In researching this book, she traveled to Italy four times and translated original documents, including more than 120 letters from Suor Maria Celeste to her famed father.
Ms. Sobel’s book Longitude (published by Walker & Company) became an international best-seller, and has been translated into more than twenty foreign languages. Longitude has won several awards, including the “Harold D. Vursell Memorial Award” from the American Academy of Arts and Letters, “Book of the Year” in England, “Le Prix Faubert du Coton” in France, and “Il Premio del Mare Circeo” in Italy. Also in recognition of Longitude, Ms. Sobel was made a fellow of the American Geographical Society. The PBS program NOVA produced “Lost At Sea–The Search for Longitude,” a television documentary adaptation of Longitude, which aired in fall 1998, and NOVA is currently developing a television documentary of Galileo’s Daughter. In summer 2000 the A&E Network will broadcast a four-hour miniseries dramatization of Longitude produced as a joint production of Granada Films and A&E and starring, among others, Jeremy Irons.
Lecture engagements have taken Ms. Sobel to speak at The Smithsonian Institution, The Explorers Club, the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, The Folger Shakespeare Library, The Los Angeles Public Library, The New York Public Library, The Royal Geographical Society (London), and BookExpo America 1998. She has appeared on numerous radio and television programs, including NPR’s “All Things Considered,” “Fresh Air,” and “The Connection” with Christopher Lydon, as well as C-SPAN’s “Booknotes”, “The Today Show,” and “ABC World News Tonight”.
Dava Sobel lives in East Hampton, New York.
A More Perfect Heaven: How Copernicus Revolutionised the Cosmos by Dava Sobel: review
Helen Brown reads A More Perfect Heaven, Dava Sobel’s new book about Copernicus.
This wasn’t as peaceful an existence as you might think, for the Bishop of Varmia governed a province of more than 4000 square miles with tens of thousands of inhabitants, menaced by the white-cloaked Knights of the Teutonic orders who, as Sobel writes, often “thundered out of their castle at Königsberg to raid the towns”.
Copernicus brought the same attention to detail to his day job as he did to his night-time hobby. He dealt fairly and compassionately with the peasants, treated the sick and became a government adviser on economics.
After hours, he studied the work of Claudius Ptolemy, who plotted the progress of the stars over Alexandria in AD150. But the Pole couldn’t square the maths that put the Earth at the still centre of the universe. Ptolemy’s thinking also violated the prevailing belief that all planetary motions must be circular and uniform. In his attempt to rationalise these problems – we have no record of a eureka moment – Copernicus tried putting the sun at the hub. It worked. “What appear to us as motions of the Sun arise not from its motion but from the motion of the Earth and our sphere, with which we revolve around the Sun like any other planet.”
The idea was not only counter-intuitive – surely we could tell if the ground was spinning through space beneath our feet – but also potentially heretical. The Bible held that while “the Earth abideth forever” the sun rose and set, hastening “to his place”. And these were dangerous times not to be toeing the party line.
Copernicus first came up with the heliocentric universe in 1510 (aged 37). Seven years later, Martin Luther would pen the The Ninety-Five Theses and begin the Reformation, and those who followed him would later be driven out of Varmia by Copernicus’s Catholic masters.
So although Copernicus’s ideas spread within the academic community (many joked that he mistook the Earth for a joint of meat on a spit, roasting before the Sun) he did not publish his theory until the end of his life. This may seem like the act of a man waiting until he had little to lose, but Sobel argues that it was a visit from a young mathematics professor called Rheticus that catalysed publication.
Sobel places a two-act play about the meeting between the two men at the centre of her scholarly book. Those familiar with her work will not be surprised by such flights of fancy. Her previous book, The Planets, contained an imaginary letter from one 19th-century female astronomer to another, and a chapter narrated by a meteorite from Mars. In this case, although it feels as tonally off-kilter as a Ptolemaic orrery, the play does allow Sobel to give the rather dry material some narrative oomph.
Copernicus’s De revolutionibus orbium coelestium was printed just before his death in 1473. His fears about the Catholic response were well grounded (it’s worth noting that Luther found Copernicus’s discovery laughable too). By 1620 the Church was insisting that “corrections” to the book were required. The Pope could not ban it entirely as it had proved too useful in helping recalibrate the calendar, but Galileo’s defence of it in 1632 would see him hauled before the Inquisition.
Sobel concludes with a quick, but synapse-spinning, nod to how far astronomy has come since then, reminding us of the dark energy that “accounts for three quarters of a cosmos in which the very notion of a centre no longer makes any sense”.
A More Perfect Heaven: How Copernicus Revolutionised the Cosmos
by Dava Sobel
273pp, Bloomsbury, Buy now for from t £12.99 (plus £1.25 p&p) Telegraph Books
(RRP £14.99, £14.36 ebook) Star rating: ****
Earn your D.Ed. in Curriculum & Instruction today.
From $199. Keep your rights. Set your pricing. Free guide.
Now Get Better Distribution, Lower Book Prices and Flexible Royalties.
Culture Most Viewed
© Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2012
Portrait, 1580, Toruń Old Town City Hall
|Born||19 February 1473(1473-02-19) Toruń (Thorn), Royal Prussia, Kingdom of Poland|
|Died||24 May 1543(1543-05-24) (aged 70) Frombork (Frauenburg), Prince-Bishopric of Warmia, Royal Prussia, Kingdom of Poland|
|Fields||Mathematics, astronomy, canon law, medicine, economics|
|Alma mater||Kraków University, Bologna University, University of Padua, University of Ferrara|
|Known for||Heliocentrism, Copernicus’ Law|
Nicolaus Copernicus (German: Nikolaus Kopernikus; Italian: Nicolò Copernico; Polish: Mikołaj Kopernik; in his youth, Niclas Koppernigk; 19 February 1473 – 24 May 1543) was a Renaissance astronomer and the first person to formulate a comprehensive heliocentric cosmology which displaced the Earth from the center of the universe.
Copernicus’ epochal book, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres), published just before his death in 1543, is often regarded as the starting point of modern astronomy and the defining epiphany that began the scientific revolution. His heliocentric model, with the Sun at the center of the universe, demonstrated that the observed motions of celestial objects can be explained without putting Earth at rest in the center of the universe. His work stimulated further scientific investigations, becoming a landmark in the history of science that is often referred to as the Copernican Revolution.
Among the great polymaths of the Renaissance, Copernicus was a mathematician, astronomer, jurist with a doctorate in law, physician, quadrilingual polyglot, classics scholar, translator, artist, Catholic cleric, governor, diplomat and economist.
Toruń birthplace (ul. Kopernika 15, left). Together with the house at no. 17 (right), it forms the Muzeum Mikołaja Kopernika.
His father was a merchant from Kraków and his mother was the daughter of a wealthy Toruń merchant. Nicolaus was the youngest of four children. His brother Andreas (Andrew) became an Augustinian canon at Frombork (Frauenburg). His sister Barbara, named after her mother, became a Benedictine nun and, in her final years (she died after 1517), prioress of a convent in Chełmno (Culm, Kulm). His sister Katharina married the businessman and Toruń city councilor Barthel Gertner and left five children, whom Copernicus looked after to the end of his life.
Copernicus never married or had children.
 Father’s family
The father’s family can be traced to a village in Silesia near Nysa (Neiße). The village’s name has been variously spelled Kopernik, Köppernig, Köppernick, and today Koperniki. In the 14th century, members of the family began moving to various other Silesian cities, to the Polish capital, Kraków (Cracow, 1367), and to Toruń (1400). The father, likely the son of Jan, came from the Kraków line.
Nicolaus was named after his father, who appears in records for the first time as a well-to-do merchant who dealt in copper, selling it mostly in Danzig (Gdańsk). He moved from Kraków to Toruń around 1458. Toruń, situated on the Vistula River, was at that time embroiled in the Thirteen Years’ War (1454–66), in which the Kingdom of Poland and the Prussian Confederation, an alliance of Prussian cities, gentry and clergy, fought the Teutonic Order over control of the region. In this war Hanseatic cities like Danzig (Gdańsk) and Thorn (Toruń), the hometown of Nicolaus Copernicus, chose to support the Polish king, who promised to respect the cities’ traditional vast independence, which the Teutonic Order had challenged. The father of Nicolaus was actively engaged in the politics of the day, and supported Poland and the cities against the Teutonic Order. In 1454 he mediated negotiations between Poland’s Cardinal Zbigniew Oleśnicki and the Prussian cities for repayment of war loans. In the Second Peace of Thorn (1466), the Teutonic Order formally relinquished all claims to its western provinces, which as Royal Prussia remained a region of Poland for the next 300 years.
The father married Barbara Watzenrode, the astronomer’s mother, between 1461 and 1464. He died sometime between 1483 and 1485. Upon the father’s death, young Nicolaus’ maternal uncle, Lucas Watzenrode the Younger (1447–1512), took the boy under his protection and saw to his education and career.
 Mother’s family
Nicolaus’ mother, Barbara Watzenrode, was the daughter of Lucas Watzenrode the Elder and his wife Katherine (née Modlibóg). Not much is known about her life, but she is believed to have died when Nicolaus was a small boy. The Watzenrodes had come from the Świdnica (Schweidnitz) region of Silesia and had settled in Toruń after 1360, becoming prominent members of the city’s patrician class. Through the Watzenrodes’ extensive family relationships by marriage, they were related to wealthy families of Toruń, Danzig and Elbląg (Elbing), and to the prominent Czapski, Działyński, Konopacki and Kościelecki noble families. The Modlibógs (literally, in Polish, “Pray to God”) were a prominent Roman Catholic Polish family who had been well known in Poland’s history since 1271. Lucas and Katherine had three children: Lucas Watzenrode the Younger, who would become Copernicus’ patron; Barbara, the astronomer’s mother; and Christina, who in 1459 married the merchant and mayor of Toruń, Tiedeman von Allen.
Lucas Watzenrode the Elder was well regarded in Toruń as a devout man and honest merchant, and he was active politically. He was a decided opponent of the Teutonic Knights and an ally of Polish King Casimir IV Jagiellon. In 1453 he was the delegate from Toruń at the Grudziądz (Graudenz) conference that planned to ally the cities of the Prussian Confederation with Casimir IV in their subsequent war against the Teutonic Knights. During the Thirteen Years’ War that ensued the following year, he actively supported the war effort with substantial monetary subsidies, with political activity in Toruń and Danzig, and by personally fighting in battles at Łasin (Lessen) and Marienburg (Malbork). He died in 1462.
Lucas Watzenrode the Younger, the astronomer’s maternal uncle and patron, was educated at the University of Krakow (now Jagiellonian University) and at the universities of Cologne and Bologna. He was a bitter opponent of the Teutonic Order and its Grand Master, who once referred to Watzenrode as “the devil incarnate.” In 1489 Watzenrode was elected Bishop of Warmia (Ermeland, Ermland) against the preference of King Casimir IV, who had hoped to install his own son in that seat. As a result, Watzenrode quarreled with the king until Casimir IV’s death three years later. Watzenrode was then able to form close relations with three successive Polish monarchs: John I Albert, Alexander Jagiellon, and Sigismund I the Old. He was a friend and key advisor to each ruler, and his influence greatly strengthened the ties between Warmia and Poland proper. Watzenrode came to be considered the most powerful man in Warmia, and his wealth, connections and influence allowed him to secure Copernicus’ education and career as a canon at Frombork (Frauenberg) Cathedral.
Copernicus is postulated to have spoken Latin, German, and Polish with equal fluency. He also spoke Greek and Italian. The vast majority of Copernicus’ surviving works are in Latin, which in his lifetime was the language of academia in Europe. Latin was also the official language of the Roman Catholic Church and of Poland’s royal court, and thus all of Copernicus’ correspondence with the Church and with Polish leaders was in Latin.
There survive a few documents written by Copernicus in German. Martin Carrier mentions this as a reason to consider Copernicus’ native language to have been German. Other arguments are that Copernicus was born in a predominantly German-speaking town and that, while studying law at Bologna in 1496, he signed into the German natio (Natio Germanorum)—a student organization which, according to its 1497 by-laws, was open to students of all kingdoms and states whose mother-tongue (“Muttersprache“) was German. However, according to French philosopher Alexandre Koyre, this in itself does not imply that Copernicus considered himself German, since students from Prussia and Silesia were routinely placed in that category, which carried certain privileges that made it a natural choice for German-speaking students, regardless of their ethnicity or self-identification.
In Copernicus’ day, people were often called after the places where they lived. Like the Silesian village that inspired it, Copernicus’ surname has been spelled variously. Today the English-speaking world knows the astronomer principally by the Latinized name, “Nicolaus Copernicus.”
The surname likely had something to do with the local Silesian copper-mining industry, though some scholars assert that it may have been inspired by the dill plant (in Polish, “koperek” or “kopernik“) that grows wild in Silesia.
As was to be the case with William Shakespeare a century later, numerous spelling variants of the name are documented for the astronomer and his relatives. The name first appeared as a place name in Silesia in the 13th century, where it was spelled variously in Latin documents. Copernicus “was rather indifferent about orthography.” During his childhood, the name of his father (and thus of the future astronomer) was recorded in Toruń as Niclas Koppernigk around 1480. At Kraków he signed his name “Nicolaus Nicolai de Torunia.” At Bologna in 1496, he registered in the Matricula Nobilissimi Germanorum Collegii resp. Annales Clarissimae Nacionis Germanorum of the Natio Germanica Bononiae as Dominus Nicolaus Kopperlingk de Thorn – IX grosseti. At Padua, Copernicus signed his name “Nicolaus Copernik”, later as “Coppernicus.” He signed a self-portrait, a copy of which is now at Jagiellonian University, “N Copernic.” The astronomer Latinized his name to Coppernicus, generally with two “p”s (in 23 of 31 documents studied), but later in life he used a single “p”. On the title page of De revolutionibus, Rheticus published the name as (in the genitive, or possessive, case) “Nicolai Copernici”.
Copernicus’ uncle Watzenrode maintained contacts with the leading intellectual figures in Poland and was a friend of the influential Italian-born humanist and Kraków courtier, Filippo Buonaccorsi. Watzenrode seems first to have sent young Copernicus to the St. John’s School at Toruń where he himself had been a master. Later, according to Armitage (some scholars differ), the boy attended the Cathedral School at Włocławek, up the Vistula River from Toruń, which prepared pupils for entrance to the University of Krakow, Watzenrode’s alma mater in Poland‘s capital.
In the winter semester of 1491–92 Copernicus, as “Nicolaus Nicolai de Thuronia,” matriculated together with his brother Andrew at the University of Krakow (now Jagiellonian University). Copernicus began his studies in the Department of Arts (from the fall of 1491, presumably until the summer or fall of 1495) in the heyday of the Kraków astronomical-mathematical school, acquiring the foundations for his subsequent mathematical achievements. According to a later but credible tradition (Jan Brożek), Copernicus was a pupil of Albert Brudzewski, who by then (from 1491) was a professor of Aristotelian philosophy but taught astronomy privately outside the university; Copernicus became familiar with Brożek’s widely read commentary to Georg von Peuerbach‘s Theoricæ novæ planetarum and almost certainly attended the lectures of Bernard of Biskupie and Wojciech Krypa of Szamotuły and probably other astronomical lectures by Jan of Głogów, Michael of Wrocław, Wojciech of Pniewy and Marcin Bylica of Olkusz.
Copernicus’ Kraków studies gave him a thorough grounding in the mathematical-astronomical knowledge taught at the university (arithmetic, geometry, geometric optics, cosmography, theoretical and computational astronomy), a good knowledge of the philosophical and natural-science writings of Aristotle (De coelo, Metaphysics) and Averroes (which later would play an important role in shaping his theory), stimulated his interest in learning, and made him conversant with humanistic culture. Copernicus broadened the knowledge that he took from the university lecture halls with independent reading of books that he acquired during his Kraków years (Euclid, Haly Abenragel, the Alfonsine Tables, Johannes Regiomontanus‘ Tabulae directionum); to this period, probably, also date his earliest scientific notes, now preserved partly at Uppsala University. At Kraków Copernicus began collecting a large library on astronomy; it would later be carried off as war booty by the Swedes during the Deluge and is now at the Uppsala University Library.
Copernicus’ four years at Kraków played an important role in the development of his critical faculties and initiated his analysis of the logical contradictions in the two most polular systems of astronomy—Aristotle’s theory of homocentric spheres, and Ptolemy‘s mechanism of eccentrics and epicycles—the surmounting and discarding of which constituted the first step toward the creation of Copernicus’ own doctrine of the structure of the universe.
Without taking a degree, probably in the fall of 1495, Copernicus left Kraków for the court of his uncle Watzenrode, who in 1489 had been elevated to Prince-Bishop of Warmia and soon (after November 1495) sought to place his nephew in a Warmia canonry vacated by 26 August 1495 death of its previous tenant. For unclear reasons—probably due to opposition from part of the chapter, who appealed to Rome—Copernicus’ installation was delayed, inclining Watzenrode to send both his nephews to study law in Italy, seemingly with a view to furthering their ecclesiastic careers and thereby also strengthening his own influence in the Warmia chapter.
Leaving Warmia in mid-1496—possibly with the retinue of the chapter’s chancellor, Jerzy Pranghe, who was going to Italy—in the fall (October?) of that year Copernicus arrived in Bologna and a few months later (after 6 January 1497) signed himself into the register of the Bologna University of Jurists’ “German nation,” which also included Polish youths from Silesia, Prussia and Pomerania as well as students of other nationalities.
It was only on 20 October 1497 that Copernicus, by proxy, formally succeeded to the Warmia canonry, which had been granted to him two years earlier. To this, by a document dated 10 January 1503 at Padua, he would add a sinecure at the Collegiate Church of the Holy Cross in Wrocław (Breslau), Silesia, Bohemia. Despite having received a papal indult on 29 November 1508 to receive further benefices, through his ecclesiastic career Copernicus not only did not acquire further prebends and higher stations (prelacies) at the chapter, but in 1538 he relinquished the Wrocław sinecure. It is uncertain whether he was ordained a priest; he may only have taken minor orders, which sufficed for assuming a chapter canonry.
“Here, where stood the house of Domenico Maria Novara, professor of the ancient Studium of Bologna, NICOLAUS COPERNICUS, the Polish mathematician and astronomer who would revolutionize concepts of the universe, conducted brilliant celestial observations with his teacher in 1497–1500. Placed on the 5th centenary of [Copernicus'] birth by the City, the University, the Academy of Sciences of the Institute of Bologna, the Polish Academy of Sciences. 1473 [—] 1973.”
During his three-year stay at Bologna, between fall 1496 and spring 1501, Copernicus seems to have devoted himself less keenly to studying canon law (he received his doctorate in law only after seven years, following a second return to Italy in 1503) than to studying the humanities–probably attending lectures by Filippo Beroaldo, Antonio Urceo, called Codro, Giovanni Garzoni and Alessandro Achillini–and to studying astronomy. He met the famous astronomer Domenico Maria Novara da Ferrara and became his disciple and assistant. Copernicus was developing new ideas inspired by reading the “Epitome of the Almagest” (Epitome in Almagestum Ptolemei) by George von Peuerbach and Johannes Regiomontanus (Venice, 1496). He verified its observations about certain peculiarities in Ptolemy’s theory of the Moon’s motion, by conducting on 9 March 1497 at Bologna a memorable observation of Aldebaran, the brightest star in the Taurus constellation, whose results reinforced his doubts as to the geocentric system. Copernicus the humanist sought confirmation for his growing doubts through close reading of Greek and Latin authors (Pythagoras, Aristarchos of Samos, Cleomedes, Cicero, Pliny the Elder, Plutarch, Philolaus, Heraclides, Ecphantos, Plato), gathering, especially while at Padua, fragmentary historic information about ancient astronomical, cosmological and calendar systems.
Copernicus spent the jubilee year 1500 in Rome, where he arrived with his brother Andrew that spring, doubtless to perform an apprenticeship at the Papal Curia. Here, too, however, he continued his astronomical work begun at Bologna, observing, for example, a lunar eclipse on the night of 5–6 November 1500. According to a later account by Rheticus, Copernicus also—probably privately, rather than at the Roman Sapienza–as a “Professor Mathematum” (professor of astronomy) delivered, “to numerous… students and… leading masters of the science,” public lectures devoted probably to a critique of the mathematical solutions of contemporary astronomy.
On his return journey doubtless stopping briefly at Bologna, in mid-1501 Copernicus arrived back in Warmia. After on 28 July receiving from the chapter a two-year extension of leave in order to study medicine (since “he may in future be a useful medical advisor to our Reverend Superior [Bishop Lucas Watzenrode] and the gentlemen of the chapter”), in late summer or in the fall he returned again to Italy, probably accompanied by his brother Andrew and by Canon B. Sculteti. This time he studied at the University of Padua, famous as a seat of medical learning, and—except for a brief visit to Ferrara in May–June 1503 to pass examinations for, and receive, his doctorate in canon law—he remained at Padua from fall 1501 to summer 1503.
Copernicus studied medicine probably under the direction of leading Padua professors—Bartolomeo da Montagnana, Girolamo Fracastoro, Gabriele Zerbi, Alessandro Benedetti—and read medical treatises that he acquired at this time, by Valescus de Taranta, Jan Mesue, Hugo Senensis, Jan Ketham, Arnold de Villa Nova, and Michele Savonarola, which would form the embryo of his later medical library.
One of the subjects that Copernicus must have studied was astrology, since it was considered an important part of a medical education. However, unlike most other prominent Renaissance astronomers, he appears never to have practiced or expressed any interest in astrology.
As at Bologna, Copernicus did not limit himself to his official studies. It was probably the Padua years that saw the beginning of his Hellenistic interests. He familiarized himself with Greek language and culture with the aid of Theodorus Gaza‘s grammar (1495) and J.B. Chrestonius’ dictionary (1499), expanding his studies of antiquity, begun at Bologna, to the writings of Bessarion, J. Valla and others. There also seems to be evidence that it was during his Padua stay that there finally crystallized the idea of basing a new system of the world on the movement of the Earth.
As the time approached for Copernicus to return home, in spring 1503 he journeyed to Ferrara where, on 31 May 1503, having passed the obligatory examinations, he was granted the degree of doctor of canon law. No doubt it was soon after (at latest, in fall 1503) that he left Italy for good to return to Warmia.
Having completed all his studies in Italy, 30-year-old Copernicus returned to Warmia, where – apart from brief journeys to Kraków and to nearby Prussian cities (Toruń, Gdańsk, Elbląg, Grudziądz, Malbork, Königsberg) – he would live out the remaining 40 years of his life.
Copernicus was his uncle’s secretary and physician from 1503 to 1510 (or perhaps till that uncle’s death on 29 March 1512) and resided in the Bishop’s castle at Lidzbark Warmiński (Heilsberg), where he began work on his heliocentric theory. In his official capacity, he took part in nearly all his uncle’s political, ecclesiastic and administrative-economic duties. From the beginning of 1504, Copernicus accompanied Watzenrode to sessions of the Royal Prussian diet held at Malbork and Elbląg and, write Dobrzycki and Hajdukiewicz, “participated… in all the more important events in the complex diplomatic game that that ambitious politician and statesman played in defense of the particular interests of Prussia and Warmia, between hostility to the [Teutonic] Order and loyalty to the [Polish] Crown.”
In 1504–12 Copernicus made numerous journeys as part of his uncle’s retinue—in 1504, to Toruń and Gdańsk (Danzig), to a session of the Royal Prussian Council in the presence of Poland’s King Alexander Jagiellon; to sessions of the Prussian diet at Malbork (1506), Elbląg (1507) and Sztum (1512); and he may have attended a Poznań session (1510) and the coronation of Poland’s King Sigismund I the Old in Kraków (1507). Watzenrode’s itinerary suggests that in spring 1509 Copernicus may have attended the Kraków sejm.
It was probably on the latter occasion, in Kraków, that Copernicus submitted for printing at Jan Haller‘s press his translation, from Greek to Latin, of a collection, by the 7th-century Byzantine historian Theophylact Simocatta, of 85 brief poems called Epistles, or letters, supposed to have passed between various characters in a Greek story. They are of three kinds—”moral,” offering advice on how people should live; “pastoral,” giving little pictures of shepherd life; and “amorous,” comprising love poems. They are arranged to follow one another in a regular rotation of subjects. Copernicus had translated the Greek verses into Latin prose, and he now published his version as Theophilacti scolastici Simocati epistolae morales, rurales et amatoriae interpretatione latina, which he dedicated to his uncle in gratitude for all the benefits he had received from him. With this translation, Copernicus declared himself on the side of the humanists in the struggle over the question whether Greek literature should be revived. Copernicus’ first poetic work was a Greek epigram, composed probably during a visit to Kraków, for Johannes Dantiscus‘ epithalamium for Barbara Zapolya‘s 1512 wedding to King Zygmunt I the Old.
Some time before 1514, Copernicus wrote an initial outline of his heliocentric theory known only from later transcripts, by the title (perhaps given to it by a copyist), Nicolai Copernici de hypothesibus motuum coelestium a se constitutis commentariolus—commonly referred to as the Commentariolus. It was a succinct theoretical description of the world’s heliocentric mechanism, without mathematical apparatus, and differed in some important details of geometric construction from De revolutionibus; but it was already based on the same assumptions regarding Earth’s triple motions. The Commentariolus, which Copernicus consciously saw as merely a first sketch for his planned book, was not intended for printed distribution. He made only a very few manuscript copies available to his closest acquaintances, including, it seems, several Kraków astronomers with whom he collaborated in 1515–30 in observing eclipses. Tycho Brahe would include a fragment from the Commentariolus in his own treatise, Astronomiae instauratae progymnasmata, published in Prague in 1602, based on a manuscript that he had received from the Bohemian physician and astronomer Tadeáš Hájek, a friend of Rheticus. The Commentariolus would appear complete in print for the first time only in 1878.
In 1510 or 1512 Copernicus moved to Frombork, a town to the northwest at the Vistula Lagoon on the Baltic Sea coast. There, in April 1512, he participated in the election of Fabian of Lossainen as Prince-Bishop of Warmia. It was only in early June 1512 that the chapter gave Copernicus an “external curia”—a house outside the defensive walls of the cathedral mount. In 1514 he purchased the northwestern tower within the walls of the Frombork stronghold. He would maintain both these residences to the end of his life, despite the devastation of the chapter’s buildings by a raid against Frombork carried out by the Teutonic Order in January 1520, during which Copernicus’ astronomical instruments were probably destroyed. Copernicus conducted astronomical observations in 1513–16 presumably from his external curia; and in 1522–43, from an unidentified “small tower” (turricula), using primitive instruments modeled on ancient ones—the quadrant, triquetrum, armillary sphere. At Frombork Copernicus conducted over half of his more than 60 registered astronomical observations.
Having settled permanently at Frombork, where he would reside to the end of his life, with interruptions in 1516–19 and 1520–21, Copernicus found himself at the Warmia chapter’s economic and administrative center, which was also one of Warmia’s two chief centers of political life. In the difficult, politically complex situation of Warmia, threatened externally by the Teutonic Order‘s aggressions (attacks by Teutonic bands; the Polish-Teutonic War of 1519–21; Albrecht’s plans to annex Warmia), internally subject to strong separatist pressures (the selection of the prince-bishops of Warmia; currency reform), he, together with part of the chapter, represented a program of strict cooperation with the Polish Crown and demonstrated in all his public activities (the defense of his country against the Order’s plans of conquest; proposals to unify its monetary system with the Polish Crown’s; support for Poland’s interests in the Warmia dominion’s ecclesiastic administration) that he was consciously a citizen of the Polish-Lithuanian Republic. Soon after the death of uncle Bishop Watzenrode, he participated in the signing of the Second Treaty of Piotrków Trybunalski (7 December 1512), governing the appointment of the Bishop of Warmia, declaring, despite opposition from part of the chapter, for loyal cooperation with the Polish Crown.
That same year (before 8 November 1512) Copernicus assumed responsibility, as magister pistoriae, for administering the chapter’s economic enterprises (he would hold this office again in 1530), having already since 1511 fulfilled the duties of chancellor and visitor of the chapter’s estates.
His administrative and economic dutes did not distract Copernicus, in 1512–15, from intensive observational activity. The results of his observations of Mars and Saturn in this period, and especially a series of four observations of the Sun made in 1515, led to discovery of the variability of Earth‘s eccentricity and of the movement of the solar apogee in relation to the fixed stars, which in 1515–19 prompted his first revisions of certain assumptions of his system. Some of the observations that he made in this period may have had a connection with a proposed reform of the Julian calendar made in the first half of 1513 at the request of the Bishop of Fossombrone, Paul of Middelburg. Their contacts in this matter in the period of the Fifth Lateran Council were later memorialized in a complimentary mention in Copernicus’ dedicatory epistle in De revolutionibus orbium coelestium and in a treatise by Paul of Middelburg, Secundum compendium correctionis Calendarii (1516), which mentions Copernicus among the learned men who had sent the Council proposals for the calendar’s emendation.
During 1516–21, Copernicus resided at Olsztyn Castle as economic administrator of Warmia, including Olsztyn (Allenstein) and Pieniężno (Mehlsack). While there, he wrote a manuscript, Locationes mansorum desertorum (Locations of Deserted Fiefs), with a view to populating those fiefs with industrious farmers and so bolstering the economy of Warmia. When Olsztyn was besieged by the Teutonic Knights during the Polish–Teutonic War (1519–21), Copernicus directed the defense of Olsztyn and Warmia by Royal Polish forces. He also represented the Polish side in the ensuing peace negotiations.
Copernicus worked for years with the Royal Prussian diet, and with Duke Albert of Prussia (against whom Copernicus had defended Warmia in the Polish-Teutonic War), and advised King Sigismund, on monetary reform. He participated in discussions in the East Prussian diet about coinage reform in the Prussian countries; a question that concerned the diet was who had the right to mint coin. Political developments in Prussia culminated in the 1525 establishment of the Duchy of Prussia as a Protestant state in vassalage to Poland.
In 1526 Copernicus wrote a study on the value of money, Monetae cudendae ratio. In it he formulated an early iteration of the theory, now called Gresham’s Law, that “bad” (debased) coinage drives “good” (un-debased) coinage out of circulation—70 years before Thomas Gresham. He also formulated a version of quantity theory of money. Copernicus’ recommendations on monetary reform were widely read by leaders of both Prussia and Poland in their attempts to stabilize currency.
In 1533, Johann Widmanstetter, secretary to Pope Clement VII, explained Copernicus’ heliocentric system to the Pope and two cardinals. The Pope was so pleased that he gave Widmanstetter a valuable gift. In 1535 Bernard Wapowski wrote a letter to a gentleman in Vienna, urging him to publish an enclosed almanac, which he claimed had been written by Copernicus. This is the first and only mention of a Copernicus almanac in the historical records. The “almanac” was likely Copernicus’ tables of planetary positions. Wapowski’s letter mentions Copernicus’ theory about the motions of the earth. Nothing came of Wapowski’s request, because he died a couple of weeks later.
Following the death of Prince-Bishop of Warmia Mauritius Ferber (1 July 1537), Copernicus participated in the election of his successor, Johannes Dantiscus (20 September 1537). Copernicus was one of four candidates for the post, written in at the initiative of Tiedemann Giese; but his candidacy was actually pro forma, since Dantiscus had earlier been named coadjutor bishop to Ferber. At first Copernicus maintained friendly relations with the new Prince-Bishop, assisting him medically in spring 1538 and accompanying him that summer on an inspection tour of Chapter holdings. But that autumn, their friendship was strained by suspicions over Copernicus’ housekeeper, Anna Schilling, whom Dantiscus removed from Frombork in 1539.
In his younger days, Copernicus the physician had treated his uncle, brother and other chapter members. In later years he was called upon to attend the elderly bishops who in turn occupied the see of Warmia—Mauritius Ferber and Johannes Dantiscus—and, in 1539, his old friend Tiedemann Giese, Bishop of Chełmno (Kulm). In treating such important patients, he sometimes sought consultations from other physicians, including the physician to Duke Albert and, by letter, the Polish Royal Physician.
In the spring of 1541, Duke Albert summoned Copernicus to Königsberg to attend the Duke’s counselor, George von Kunheim, who had fallen seriously ill, and for whom the Prussian doctors seemed unable to do anything. Copernicus went willingly; he had met von Kunheim during negotiations over reform of the coinage. And Copernicus had come to feel that Albert himself was not such a bad person; the two had many intellectual interests in common. The Chapter readily gave Copernicus permission to go, as it wished to remain on good terms with the Duke, despite his Lutheran faith. In about a month the patient recovered, and Copernicus returned to Frombork. For a time, he continued to receive reports on von Kunheim’s condition, and to send him medical advice by letter.
Throughout this period of his life, Copernicus continued making astronomical observations and calculations, but only as his other responsibilities permitted and never in a professional capacity.
Some of Copernicus’ close friends turned Protestant, but Copernicus never showed a tendency in that direction. The first attacks on him came from Protestants. Wilhelm Gnapheus, a Dutch refugee settled in Elbląg, wrote a comedy in Latin, Morosophus (The Foolish Sage), and staged it at the Latin school that he had established there. In the play, Copernicus was caricatured as a haughty, cold, aloof man who dabbled in astrology, considered himself inspired by God, and was rumored to have written a large work that was moldering in a chest.
Elsewhere Protestants were the first to react to news of Copernicus’ theory. Melanchthon wrote:
Nevertheless, in 1551, eight years after Copernicus’ death, astronomer Erasmus Reinhold published, under the sponsorship of Copernicus’ former military adversary, the Protestant Duke Albert, the Prussian Tables, a set of astronomical tables based on Copernicus’ work. Astronomers and astrologers quickly adopted it in place of its predecessors.
Some time before 1514 Copernicus made available to friends his “Commentariolus” (“Little Commentary”), a forty-page manuscript describing his ideas about the heliocentric hypothesis. It contained seven basic assumptions (detailed below). Thereafter he continued gathering data for a more detailed work.
About 1532 Copernicus had basically completed his work on the manuscript of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium; but despite urging by his closest friends, he resisted openly publishing his views, not wishing—as he confessed—to risk the scorn “to which he would expose himself on account of the novelty and incomprehensibility of his theses.”
In 1533, Johann Albrecht Widmannstetter delivered a series of lectures in Rome outlining Copernicus’ theory. Pope Clement VII and several Catholic cardinals heard the lectures and were interested in the theory. On 1 November 1536, Cardinal Nikolaus von Schönberg, Archbishop of Capua, wrote to Copernicus from Rome:
Some years ago word reached me concerning your proficiency, of which everybody constantly spoke. At that time I began to have a very high regard for you… For I had learned that you had not merely mastered the discoveries of the ancient astronomers uncommonly well but had also formulated a new cosmology. In it you maintain that the earth moves; that the sun occupies the lowest, and thus the central, place in the universe… Therefore with the utmost earnestness I entreat you, most learned sir, unless I inconvenience you, to communicate this discovery of yours to scholars, and at the earliest possible moment to send me your writings on the sphere of the universe together with the tables and whatever else you have that is relevant to this subject …
By then Copernicus’ work was nearing its definitive form, and rumors about his theory had reached educated people all over Europe. Despite urgings from many quarters, Copernicus delayed publication of his book, perhaps from fear of criticism—a fear delicately expressed in the subsequent dedication of his masterpiece to Pope Paul III. Scholars disagree on whether Copernicus’ concern was limited to possible astronomical and philosophical objections, or whether he was also concerned about religious objections.
 The book
Copernicus was still working on De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (even if not certain that he wanted to publish it) when in 1539 Georg Joachim Rheticus, a Wittenberg mathematician, arrived in Frombork. Philipp Melanchthon, a close theological ally of Martin Luther, had arranged for Rheticus to visit several astronomers and study with them.
Rheticus became Copernicus’ pupil, staying with him for two years and writing a book, Narratio prima (First Account), outlining the essence of Copernicus’ theory. In 1542 Rheticus published a treatise on trigonometry by Copernicus (later included in the second book of De revolutionibus).
Under strong pressure from Rheticus, and having seen the favorable first general reception of his work, Copernicus finally agreed to give De revolutionibus to his close friend, Tiedemann Giese, bishop of Chełmno (Kulm), to be delivered to Rheticus for printing by the German printer Johannes Petreius at Nuremberg (Nürnberg), Germany. While Rheticus initially supervised the printing, he had to leave Nuremberg before it was completed, and he handed over the task of supervising the rest of the printing to a Lutheran theologian, Andreas Osiander.
Osiander added an unauthorised and unsigned preface, defending the work against those who might be offended by the novel hypotheses. He explained that astronomers may find different causes for observed motions, and choose whatever is easier to grasp. As long as a hypothesis allows reliable computation, it does not have to match what a philosopher might seek as the truth.
Copernicus died in Frauenburg (Frombork) on 24 May 1543. Legend has it that the first printed copy of De revolutionibus was placed in his hands on the very day that he died, allowing him to take farewell of his life’s work. He is reputed to have awoken from a stroke-induced coma, looked at his book, and then died peacefully.
Copernicus was reportedly buried in Frombork Cathedral, where archaeologists for over two centuries searched in vain for his remains. Efforts to locate the remains in 1802, 1909, 1939 and 2004 had come to nought. In August 2005, however, a team led by Jerzy Gąssowski, head of an archaeology and anthropology institute in Pułtusk, after scanning beneath the cathedral floor, discovered what they believed to be Copernicus’ remains.
The find came after a year of searching, and the discovery was announced only after further research, on 3 November 2008. Gąssowski said he was “almost 100 percent sure it is Copernicus.” Forensic expert Capt. Dariusz Zajdel of the Polish Police Central Forensic Laboratory used the skull to reconstruct a face that closely resembled the features—including a broken nose and a scar above the left eye—on a Copernicus self-portrait. The expert also determined that the skull belonged to a man who had died around age 70—Copernicus’ age at the time of his death.
The grave was in poor condition, and not all the remains of the skeleton were found; missing, among other things, was the lower jaw. The DNA from the bones found in the grave matched hair samples taken from a book owned by Copernicus which was kept at the library of the University of Uppsala in Sweden.
On 22 May 2010 Copernicus was given a second funeral in a Mass led by Józef Kowalczyk, the former papal nuncio to Poland and newly named Primate of Poland. Copernicus’ remains were reburied in the same spot in Frombork Cathedral where part of his skull and other bones had been found. A black granite tombstone now identifies him as the founder of the heliocentric theory and also a church canon. The tombstone bears a representation of Copernicus’ model of the solar system—a golden sun encircled by six of the planets.
 Copernican system
Philolaus (c. 480–385 BCE) described an astronomical system in which a Central Fire (different from the Sun) occupied the centre of the universe, and a counter-Earth, the Earth, Moon, the Sun itself, planets, and stars all revolved around it, in that order outward from the centre. Heraclides Ponticus (387–312 BCE) proposed that the Earth rotates on its axis. Aristarchus of Samos (310 BCE – c. 230 BCE) identified the “central fire” with the Sun, around which he had the Earth orbiting. Some technical details of Copernicus’s system closely resembled those developed earlier by the Islamic astronomers Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī and Ibn al-Shāṭir, both of whom retained a geocentric model.
The prevailing theory in Europe during Copernicus’ lifetime was the one that Ptolemy published in his Almagest circa 150 CE; the Earth was the stationary center of the universe. Stars were embedded in a large outer sphere which rotated rapidly, approximately daily, while each of the planets, the Sun, and the Moon were embedded in their own, smaller spheres. Ptolemy’s system employed devices, including epicycles, deferents and equants, to account for observations that the paths of these bodies differed from simple, circular orbits centered on the Earth.
Copernicus’ major theory was published in De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres), in the year of his death, 1543, though he had formulated the theory several decades earlier.
Copernicus’ “Commentariolus” summarized his heliocentric theory. It listed the “assumptions” upon which the theory was based as follows:
1. There is no one center of all the celestial circles or spheres. 2. The center of the earth is not the center of the universe, but only of gravity and of the lunar sphere. 3. All the spheres revolve about the sun as their mid-point, and therefore the sun is the center of the universe. 4. The ratio of the earth’s distance from the sun to the height of the firmament (outermost celestial sphere containing the stars) is so much smaller than the ratio of the earth’s radius to its distance from the sun that the distance from the earth to the sun is imperceptible in comparison with the height of the firmament. 5. Whatever motion appears in the firmament arises not from any motion of the firmament, but from the earth’s motion. The earth together with its circumjacent elements performs a complete rotation on its fixed poles in a daily motion, while the firmament and highest heaven abide unchanged. 6. What appear to us as motions of the sun arise not from its motion but from the motion of the earth and our sphere, with which we revolve about the sun like any other planet. The earth has, then, more than one motion. 7. The apparent retrograde and direct motion of the planets arises not from their motion but from the earth’s. The motion of the earth alone, therefore, suffices to explain so many apparent inequalities in the heavens.
De revolutionibus itself was divided into six parts, called “books”:
- General vision of the heliocentric theory, and a summarized exposition of his idea of the World
- Mainly theoretical, presents the principles of spherical astronomy and a list of stars (as a basis for the arguments developed in the subsequent books)
- Mainly dedicated to the apparent motions of the Sun and to related phenomena
- Description of the Moon and its orbital motions
- Concrete exposition of the new system
- Concrete exposition of the new system
Georg Joachim Rheticus could have been Copernicus’ successor, but did not rise to the occasion. Erasmus Reinhold could have been his successor, but died prematurely. The first of the great successors was Tycho Brahe (though he did not think the earth orbitted the sun), followed by Johannes Kepler, who had worked as Tycho’s assistant in Prague.
Despite the near universal acceptance today of the basic heliocentric idea (though not the epicycles or the circular orbits), Copernicus’ theory was originally slow to catch on. Scholars hold that sixty years after the publication of The Revolutions there were only around 15 astronomers espousing Copernicanism in all of Europe, “Thomas Digges and Thomas Hariot in England; Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei in Italy; Diego de Zuniga in Spain; Simon Stevin in the Low Countries; and in Germany, the largest group – Georg Joachim Rheticus, Michael Maestlin, Christoph Rothmann (who may have later recanted), and Johannes Kepler.” Additional possibilities are Englishman William Gilbert, along with Achilles Gasser, Georg Vogelin, Valentin Otto, and Tiedemann Giese.
Arthur Koestler, in his popular book The Sleepwalkers, asserted that Copernicus’ book had not been widely read on its first publication. This claim was trenchantly criticised by Edward Rosen, and has been decisively disproved by Owen Gingerich, who examined every surviving copy of the first two editions and found copious marginal notes by their owners throughout many of them. Gingerich published his conclusions in 2004 in The Book Nobody Read.
The intellectual climate of the time “remained dominated by Aristotelian philosophy and the corresponding Ptolemaic astronomy. At that time there was no reason to accept the Copernican theory, except for its mathematical simplicity [by avoiding using the equant in determining planetary positions].” Tycho Brahe’s system (“that the earth is stationary, the sun revolves about the earth, and the other planets revolve about the sun”) also directly competed with Copernicus’. It was only a half century later with the work of Kepler and Galileo that any substantial evidence defending Copernicanism appeared, starting “from the time when Galileo formulated the principle of inertia…[which] helped to explain why everything would not fall off the earth if it were in motion.” It was not until “after Isaac Newton formulated the universal law of gravitation and the laws of mechanics [in his 1687 Principia], which unified terrestrial and celestial mechanics, was the heliocentric view generally accepted.”
Only mild controversy (and no fierce sermons) was the immediate result of the publication of Copernicus’ book. At the Council of Trent neither Copernicus’ theory nor calendar reform (which would later use tables deduced from Copernicus’ calculations) were discussed.
The first notable to move against Copernicanism was the Magister of the Holy Palace (i.e., the Catholic Church’s chief censor), Dominican Bartolomeo Spina, who “expressed a desire to stamp out the Copernican doctrine.” But with Spina’s death in 1546, his cause fell to his friend, the well known theologian-astronomer, the Dominican Giovanni Maria Tolosani of the Convent of St. Mark in Florence. Tolosani had written a treatise on reforming the calendar (in which astronomy would play a large role), and had attended the Fifth Lateran Council to discuss the matter. He had obtained a copy of De Revolutionibus in 1544. His denouncement of Copernicanism appeared in an appendix to his work entitled On the Truth of Sacred Scripture.
Emulating the rationalistic style of Thomas Aquinas, Tolosani sought to refute Copernicanism on philosophical arguments. While still invoking Christian Scripture and Tradition, Tolosani strove to show Copernicanism was absurd because it was unproven and unfounded on three main points. First Copernicus had assumed the motion of the Earth but offered no physical theory whereby one would deduce this motion. (No one realized that the investigation into Copernicanism would result in a rethinking of the entire field of physics.) Second Tolosani charged that Copernicus’ thought processes was backwards. He held that Copernicus had come up with his idea and then sought phenomena that would support it, rather than observing phenomena and deducing from that the idea of what caused it. In this Tolosani was linking Copernicus’ mathematical equations with the practices of the Pythagoreans (whom Aristotle had made arguments against, which were later picked up by Thomas Aquinas). It was argued that mathematical numbers were a mere product of the intellect without any physical reality, and as such “numbers could not provide physical causes in the investigation of nature.” (This was basically a denial of the possibility of mathematical physics.) The Astronomical hypotheses such as epicycles and eccentrics were seen as mere mathematical devices to adjust calculations of where the heavenly bodies would appear, rather than an explanation of the cause of those motions. (Copernicus still relied on epicycles). This “saving the phenomena” was seen as proof that Astronomy and Math could not be taken as a serious means to determine physical causes. Lastly, according to Tolosani, Copernicus’ biggest error was that he started with “inferior” fields of science to make pronouncements about “superior” fields. He used Mathematics and Astronomy to postulate about Physics and Cosmology, rather than beginning with the accepted principles of Physics and Cosmology to determine things about Astronomy and Math. In this way Copernicus seemed to be undermining the whole system of the philosophy of science at the time. Tolosani held that Copernicus had just fallen into philosophical error because he hadn’t been versed in physics and logic – anyone without such knowledge would make a poor astronomer and be unable to distinguish truth from falsehood. Because it had not meet the criteria for scientific truth set out by Thomas Aquinas, Tolosani held that Copernicanism could only be viewed as a wild unproven theory.
Tolosani recognized that the Ad Lectorem preface to Copernicus’ book wasn’t actually by him. Its thesis that astronomy as a whole would never be able to make truth claims was rejected by Tolosani, (though he still held that Copernicus’ attempt to describe physical reality had been faulty), he found it ridiculous that Ad Lectorem had been included in the book (unaware that Copernicus hadn’t authorized its inclusion). Tolosani wrote “By means of these words [of the Ad Lectorem], the foolishness of this book’s author is rebuked. For by a foolish effort he [Copernicus] tried to revive the weak Pythagorean opinion [that the element of fire was at the center of the Universe], long ago deservedly destroyed, since it is expressly contrary to human reason and also opposes holy writ. From this situation, there could easily arise disagreements between Catholic expositors of holy scripture and those who might wish to adhere obstinately to this false opinion. We have written this little work for the purpose of avoiding this scandal.” Tolosani declared “Nicolaus Copernicus neither read nor understood the arguments of Aristotle the philosopher and Ptolemy the astronomer.” He wrote that Copernicus “is very deficient in the sciences of physics and logic. Moreover, it appears that he is unskilled with regard to [the interpretation of] holy scripture, since he contradicts several of its principles, not without danger of infidelity to himself and the readers of his book. …his arguments have no force and can very easily be taken apart. For it is stupid to contradict an opinion accepted by everyone over a very long time for the strongest reasons, unless the impugner uses more powerful and insoluble demonstrations and completely dissolves the opposed reasons. But he does not do this in the least.” He declared that he had written against Copernicus “for the purpose of preserving the truth to the common advantage of the Holy Church.” Despite the efforts Tolosani put into his work it remained unpublished and it “was likely shelved in the library of the Dominican order at San Marco in Florence, awaiting its use by some new prosecutor” (it is believed that Dominican Tommaso Caccini read it before delivering a sermon against Galileo in December 1613).
It has been much debated why it was not until six decades after the publication of De revolutionibus that the Catholic Church took any official action against it, even the efforts of Tolosani had gone unheeded. Proposed reasons have included the personality of Galileo Galilei and the availability of evidence such as telescope observations.
How entwined the pre-Copernican theory was in theological circles can be seen in a sample of the works of John Calvin. In his Commentary on Genesis he said that “We indeed are not ignorant that the circuit of the heavens is finite, and that the earth, like a little glove, is placed in the centre.” Commenting on Job 26:7 Calvin wrote “It is true that Job specifically says ‘the north,’ and yet he is speaking about the whole heaven. And that is because the sky turns around upon the pole that is there. For, just as in the wheels of a chariot there is an axle that runs through the middle of them, and the wheels turn around the axle by reason of the holes that are in the middle of them, even so is it in the skies. This is manifestly seen; that is to say, those who are well acquainted with the course of the firmament see that the sky so turns.” Calvin’s commentaries on the Psalms also show a reliance on the pre-Copernican theory; for Psalms 93:1 “The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion – no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wanderings, maintain their respective positions. How could the earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God’s hand? By what means could it maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it.” Commenting on Psalms 19:4 Calvin says “the firmament, by its own revolution draws with it all the fixed stars”. There is no evidence that Calvin was aware of Copernicus, and claims that after quoting Psalm 93:1 he went on to say “Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above the Holy Spirit”, have been discredited and shown to originate with Frederic William Farrar’s Bampton Lecture in 1885. Unlike Calvin many theologians did become aware of Copernicus’ theory which became increasingly controversial.
The sharpest point of conflict between Copernicus’ theory and the Bible concerned the story of the Battle of Gibeon in the Book of Joshua where the Hebrew forces were winning but whose opponents were likely to escape once night fell. This is averted by Joshua’s prayers causing the sun and the moon to stand still. Martin Luther would question Copernicus’ theory on these grounds. According to Anthony Lauterbach, while eating with Martin Luther the topic of Copernicus arouse during dinner on 4 June 1539 (as professor George Joachim Rheticus of the local University had been granted leave to visit him). Luther is said to have remarked “So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these thing that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth.” These remarks were made four years before the publication of On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres and a year before Rheticus’ Narratio Prima. In John Aurifaber’s account of the conversation Luther calls Copernicus “that fool” rather than “that fellow”, this version is viewed by historians as less reliably sourced.
Luther’s collaborator Philipp Melanchthon also took issue with Copernicanism. After receiving the first pages of Narratio Prima from Rheticus himself, Melanchthon wrote to Mithobius (physician and mathematician Burkard Mithob of Feldkirch) on October 16, 1541 condemning the theory and calling for it to be repressed by governmental force, writing “certain people believe it is a marvelous achievement to extol so crazy a thing, like that Polish astronomer who makes the earth move and the sun stand still. Really, wise governments ought to repress impudence of mind.” It had appeared to Rheticus that Melanchton would understand the theory and would be open to it. This was because Melanchton had taught Ptolemaic astronomy and had even recommended his friend Rheticus to an appointment to the Deanship of the Faculty of Arts & Sciences at the University of Wittenberg after he had returned from studying with Copernicus.
Rheticus’ hopes were dashed when six years after the publication of De Revolutionibus Melanchthon published his Initia Doctrinae Physicae presenting three grounds to reject Copernicanism, these were “the evidence of the senses, the thousand-year consensus of men of science, and the authority of the Bible”. Blasting the new theory Melanchthon wrote “Out of love for novelty or in order to make a show of their cleverness, some people have argued that the earth moves. They maintain that neither the eighth sphere nor the sun moves, whereas they attribute motion to the other celestial spheres, and also place the earth among the heavenly bodies. Nor were these jokes invented recently. There is still extant Archimedes’ book on The sand-reckoner; in which he reports that Aristarchus of Samos propounded the paradox that the sun stands still and the earth revolves around the sun. Even though subtle experts institute many investigations for the sake of exercising their ingenuity, nevertheless public proclamation of absurd opinions is indecent and sets a harmful example.” Melanchthon went on to cite Bible passages and then declare “Encouraged by this divine evidence, let us cherish the truth and let us not permit ourselves to be alienated from it by the tricks of those who deem it an intellectual honor to introduce confusion into the arts.” In the first edition of Initia Doctrinae Physicae, Melanchthon even questioned Copernicus’ character claiming his motivation was “either from love of novelty or from desire to appear clever”, these more personal attacks were largely removed by the second edition in 1550.
Another Protestant theologican who took issue with Copernicus was John Owen who declared that “the late hypothesis, fixing the sun as in the centre of the world’ was ‘built on fallible phenomena, and advanced by many arbitrary presumptions against evident testimonies of Scripture.’
In Roman Catholic circles, German Jesuit Nicolaus Serarius was one of the first to write against Copernicus’ theory as heretical, citing the Joshua passage, in a work published in 1609–1610, and again in a book in 1612.
In his 12 April 1615 letter to a Catholic defender of Copernicus, Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Catholic Cardinal Robert Bellarmine condemned Copernican theory, writing “…not only the Holy Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world…Nor can one answer that this is not a matter of faith, since if it is not a matter of faith ‘as regards the topic,’ it is a matter of faith ‘as regards the speaker’: and so it would be heretical to say that Abraham did not have two children and Jacob twelve, as well as to say that Christ was not born of a virgin, because both are said by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of prophets and apostles.”
Perhaps the strongest opponent to Copernican theory was Francesco Ingoli a Catholic priest. Ingoli wrote a January 1616 essay condemning Copernicanism as “philosophically untenable and theologically heretical.” Though “it is not certain, it is probable that he was commissioned by the Inquisition to write an expert opinion on the controversy”, (after the Congregation of the Index’s decree against Copernicanism on 5 March 1616 Ingoli was officially appointed its consultant). Two of Ingoli’s theological issues with Copernicus’ theory were “common Catholic beliefs not directly traceable to Scripture: the doctrine that hell is located at the center of Earth and is most distant from heaven; and the explicit assertion that Earth is motionless in a hymn sung on Tuesdays as part of the Liturgy of the Hours of the Divine Office prayers regularly recited by priests.” Ingoli also cited Genesis 1:14 where YHWH places “lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night.” Like previous commentators Ingoli pointed to the passages about the Battle of Gibeon and dismissed arguments that they should be taken metaphorically, saying “Replies which assert that Scripture speaks according to our mode of understanding are not satisfactory: both because in explaining the Sacred Writings the rule is always to preserve the literal sense, when it is possible, as it is in this case; and also because all the [Church] Fathers unanimously take this passage to mean that the sun which was truly moving stopped at Joshua’s request. An interpretation which is contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers is condemned by the Council of Trent, Session IV, in the decree on the edition and use of the Sacred Books. Furthermore, although the Council speaks about matters of faith and morals, nevertheless it cannot be denied that the Holy Fathers would be displeased with an interpretation of Sacred Scriptures which is contrary to their common agreement.”
In March 1616, in connection with the Galileo affair, the Roman Catholic Church’s Congregation of the Index issued a decree suspending De revolutionibus until it could be “corrected,” on the grounds that the supposedly Pythagorean doctrine that the Earth moves and the Sun does not was “false and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture.” The same decree also prohibited any work that defended the mobility of the Earth or the immobility of the Sun, or that attempted to reconcile these assertions with Scripture.
On the orders of Pope Paul V, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine gave Galileo prior notice that the decree was about to be issued, and warned him that he could not “hold or defend” the Copernican doctrine. The corrections to De revolutionibus, which omitted or altered nine sentences, were issued four years later, in 1620.
In 1633 Galileo Galilei was convicted of grave suspicion of heresy for “following the position of Copernicus, which is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture,” and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.
The Catholic Church’s 1758 Index of Prohibited Books omitted the general prohibition of works defending heliocentrism, but retained the specific prohibitions of the original uncensored versions of De revolutionibus and Galileo’s Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Those prohibitions were finally dropped from the 1835 Index.
There has been discussion of Copernicus’ nationality and of whether, in fact, it is meaningful to ascribe to him a nationality in the modern sense.
Polish astronomer Konrad Rudnicki calls the discussion a “fierce scholarly quarrel in… times of nationalism” and describes Copernicus as an inhabitant of a German-speaking territory that belonged to Poland, himself being of mixed Polish-German extraction. Rudnicki adds that Martin Luther, an opponent of Copernicus’ theories, regarded him as Polish and referred to him as a “Sarmatic fool”. (At the time, “Sarmatian” was a term for a nobleman of the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland.)
According to Czesław Miłosz, the debate is an “absurd” projection of a modern understanding of nationality onto Renaissance people, who identified with their home territories rather than with a nation.
Miłosz and Davies both write that Copernicus had a German-language cultural background, while his working language was Latin in accordance with the usage of the time. Additionally, according to Davies, “there is ample evidence that he knew the Polish language.” Davies concludes: “Taking everything into consideration, there is good reason to regard him both as a German and as a Pole: and yet, in the sense that modern nationalists understand it, he was neither.”
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes Copernicus as a “child of a German family [who] was a subject of the Polish crown”, while others note that his father was a Germanized Pole. Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopedia Americana, The Columbia Encyclopedia and The Oxford World Encyclopedia identify Copernicus as a “Polish astronomer”.
On 14 July 2009, the discoverers, from the Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung in Darmstadt, Germany, of chemical element 112 (temporarily named ununbium) proposed to the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry that its permanent name be “copernicium” (symbol Cn). “After we had named elements after our city and our state, we wanted to make a statement with a name that was known to everyone,” said Hofmann. “We didn’t want to select someone who was a German. We were looking world-wide.” On the 537th anniversary of his birthday the official naming was released to the public.
 See also
- Copernican principle
- Monetae cudendae ratio
- List of Roman Catholic scientist-clerics
- Nicolaus Copernicus Monument in Toruń
- Nicolaus Copernicus Monument in Kraków
- Nicolaus Copernicus Monument in Warsaw
||This article’s citation style may be unclear. The references used may be made clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting, or external linking. (November 2011)|
- ^ Nicolaus Copernicus Gesamtausgabe: Urkunden, Akten und Nachrichten: Texte und Übersetzungen, ISBN 3-05-003009-7, pp.23ff. (online); Marian Biskup: Regesta Copernicana (calendar of Copernicus’ Papers), Ossolineum, 1973, p.32 (online). This spelling of the surname is rendered in many publications (Auflistung) 
- ^ Linton (2004, p.39). Copernicus was not, however, the first to propose some form of heliocentric system. A Greek mathematician and astronomer, Aristarchus of Samos, had already done so as early as the third century BCE. Nevertheless, there is little evidence that he ever developed his ideas beyond a very basic outline (Dreyer, 1953, pp.135–48).
- ^ A self-portrait helped confirm the identity of his cranium when it was discovered at Frombork Cathedral in 2008. Kraków‘s Jagiellonian University has a 17th-century copy of Copernicus’ 16th-century self-portrait.  “Copernicus,” Encyclopædia Britannica, 15th ed., 2005, vol. 16, p. 760.
- ^ Iłowiecki, Maciej (1981). Dzieje nauki polskiej. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Interpress. p. 40. ISBN 83-223-1876-6.
- ^ a b “Nicolaus Copernicus”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/copernicus/#1. Retrieved 2007-04-22.
- ^ a b Jerzy Dobrzycki and Leszek Hajdukiewicz, “Kopernik, Mikołaj”, Polski słownik biograficzny, vol. XIV, 1969, p. 4.
- ^ [Great Books of the Western World, Book 16]
- ^ “The name of the village, not unlike that of the astronomer’s family, has been variously spelled. A large German atlas of Silesia, published by Wieland in Nuremberg in 1731, spells it Kopernik.” Stephen Mizwa, Nicolaus Copernicus, 1543–1943, Kessinger Publishing, 1943, p. 36. ()
- ^ Jerzy Dobrzycki and Leszek Hajdukiewicz, “Kopernik, Mikołaj”, Polski słownik biograficzny, vol. XIV, 1969, p. 3.
- ^ Barbara Bieńkowska, The Scientific World of Copernicus, Springer, 1973 
- ^ Eugeniusz Rybka for Polska Akademia Nauk (the Polish Academy of Sciences), The Review of the Polish Academy of Sciences: Nicolaus Copernicus’ Relationship with Cracow, Ossolineum, 1973, p. 23. 
- ^ Josh Sakolsky, Copernicus and Modern Astronomy, Rosen Publishing Group, 2005, p. 8. 
- ^ Marian Biskup, Regesta Copernicana (calendar of Copernicus’ papers), Ossolineum, 1973, p. 16. 
- ^ “The mother of Barbara and Lucas was a Modlibog.” Alexandre Koyre, Astronomical Revolution: Copernicus – Kepler – Borelli, Cornell University Press, 1973, ISBN 0-486-27095-5, p. 78. ()
- ^ a b “Adrian Krzyzanowski and John Sniadecki: Copernicus and His Native Land,” The Foreign and Colonial Quarterly Review, Smith, Elder & Co., 1844, p. 367. ()
- ^ a b Stephen Mizwa: Nicolaus Copernicus, 1543–1943. Kessinger Publishing, 1943, p. 38.
- ^ Czesław Miłosz, The History of Polish Literature, University of California Press, 1983, p. 38. 
- ^ Dobrzycki and Hajdukiewicz, Polski słownik biograficzny, vol. XIV, 1969, p. 4.
- ^ The Head Office of State Archives, Poland, “Copernicus’ Biography”, accessed 2009-05-22, 
- ^ Jeremi Wasiutyński, The Solar Mystery: An Inquiry Into the Temporal and the Eternal Background of the Rise of Modern Civilization, Solum Forlag, 2003, p. 29. 
- ^ “In 1512, Bishop Watzenrode died suddenly after attending King Sigismund’s wedding feast in Kraków. Rumors abounded that the bishop had been poisoned by agents of his long-time foe, the Teutonic Knights.” Alan Hirshfeld: Parallax: The race to Measure the Cosmos. W.H. Freemand and Company, 2001, ISBN 0-7167-3711-6, p. 38. ()
- ^ “The Watzelrodes—or Watzenrodes—in spite of their rather Germanic name seemed to have been good Poles (enemies of the Teutonic Order).” Alexandre Koyre, Astronomical Revolution, Copernicus – Kepler – Borelli, New York, Cornell University Press, 1973, ISBN 0-486-27095-5, p. 38. ()
- ^ “[Watzenrode] was also firm, and the Teutonic Knights, who remained a constant menace, did not like him at all; the Grand Master of the order once described him as ‘the devil incarnate’. [Watzenrode] was the trusted friend and advisor of three kings in succession: John Albert, Alexander (not to be confused with the poisoning pope), and Sigismund; and his influence greatly strengthened the ties between Warmia and Poland proper.” Patrick Moore: The Great Astronomical Revolution: 1534–1687 and the Space Age Epilogue. Albion Publishing, 1994, ISBN 1-898563-18-7, pp. 52, 62 ().
- ^ Wojciech Iwanczak (1998). Bautz, Traugott. ed (in German). WATZENRODE, Lucas. Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon (BBKL). 13. Herzberg. col. 389–393. ISBN 3-88309-072-7. http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/w/watzenrode.shtml.
- ^ “Lucas was on more friendly terms with his successors, Johann Albert (Jan Olbracht) (from 1492 to 1501), and later Alexander (Aleksander) (from 1501 to 1506), and Sigismund (Zygmunt) I (from 1506).” Pierre Gassendi & Olivier Thill: The Life of Copernicus (1473–1543): The Man Who Did Not Change the World. Xulon Press, 2002, ISBN 1-59160-193-2, p. 22. ()
- ^ “[Watzenrode] was also firm, and the Teutonic Knights, who remained a constant menace, did not like him at all; the Grand Master of the order once described him as ‘the devil incarnate’. [Watzenrode] was the trusted friend and advisor of three kings in succession: John Albert, Alexander (not to be confused with the poisoning pope), and Sigismund; and his influence greatly strengthened the ties between Warmia and Poland proper.” Patrick Moore: The Great Astronomical Revolution: 1534–1687 and the Space Age Epilogue. Albion Publishing, 1994, ISBN 1-898563-18-7, pp. 52, 62. ()
- ^ “He spoke German, Polish and Latin with equal fluency as well as Italian.” Daniel Stone: The Polish-Lithuanian State, 1386–1795. University of Washington Press, 2001, ISBN 0-295-98093-1, p. 101. ()
- ^ “He spoke Polish, Latin and Greek.” Barbara Somerville: Nicolaus Copernicus: Father of Modern Astronomy. Compass Point Books, 2005, ISBN 0-7565-0812-6, p. 10. ().
- ^ “He was a linguist with a command of Polish, German and Latin, and he possessed also a knowledge of Greek rare at that period in northeastern Europe and probably had some acquaintance with Italian and Hebrew.” Angus Armitage: Copernicus and Modern Astronomy. Dover Publications, 2004 (originally 1957), ISBN 0-486-43907-0, p. 62.
- ^ He used Latin and German, knew enough Greek to translate the 7th-century Byzantine poet Theophylact Simocatta‘s verses into Latin prose (Armitage, The World of Copernicus, pp. 75–77), and “there is ample evidence that he knew the Polish language” (Norman Davies, God’s Playground, vol. II, p. 26). During his several years’ studies in Italy, Copernicus presumably would also have learned some Italian. Professor Stefan Melkowski of Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń likewise asserts that Copernicus spoke both Polish and German. ( “O historii i o współczesności” (“About History and Contemporaneity”), May 2003.])
- ^ “Deutsch war für Kopernikus Muttersprache und Alltagssprache, wenn auch der schriftliche Umgang fast ausschließlich auf Lateinisch erfolgte.” Martin Carrier: Nikolaus Kopernikus. Beck’sche Reihe, C. H. Beck, 2001, ISBN 3-406-47577-9, 9783406475771, p. 192. (online)])
- ^ a b Rosen (1995, p. 127).
- ^ “Although great importance has frequently been ascribed to this fact, it does not imply that Copernicus considered himself to be a German. The ‘nationes’ of a medieval university had nothing in common with nations in the modern sense of the word. Students who were natives of Prussia and Silesia were automatically described as belonging to the Natio Germanorum. Furthmore, at Bologna, this was the ‘privileged’ nation; consequently, Copernicus had very good reason for inscribing himself on its register.” Alexandre Koyre: Astronomical Revolution, Copernicus – Kepler – Borelli. Cornell University Press, 1973, ISBN 0-486-27095-5, p. 21. ()
- ^ “It is important to recognize, however, that the medievel Latin concept of natio, or “nation,” referred to the community of feudal lords both in Germany and elsewhere, not to ‘the people’ in the nineteenth-century democratic or nationalistic sense of the word.” Lonnie Johnson, Central Europe: Enemies, Neighbors, Friends, Oxford University Press, 1996, ISBN 0-19-510071-9, p. 23. ()
- ^ Arthur Koestler, The Sleepwalkers, 1968, p. 129.
- ^ Pierre Gassendi, Oliver Thill, The Life of Copernicus (1473–1543), 2002, p. 37.
- ^ Nicolaus Copernicus et al., Nicolaus Copernicus Gesamtausgabe. Documenta Copernicana I.: Briefe, Texte und Übersetzungen, 1996, p. 39.
- ^ Melkowski, Stefan (May 2003). “O historii i o współczesności (On History and the Present Day)” (in Polish). http://glos.uni.torun.pl/2003/05/historia/. Retrieved 2007-04-22.
- ^ “Kopernik, Koperek, Kopr and Koprnik in Polish—also similarly in other Slavonic languages—means simply dill such as is used in dill pickling. Be it as it may, although the present writer is more inclined towards the occupational interpretation, it is interesting to note …” Stephen Mizwa, Nicolaus Copernicus, 1543–1943, Kessinger Publishing, 1943, p. 37.
- ^ Armitage, p. 51.
- ^ a b Gingerich (2004), p. 143.
- ^ Nicolaus Copernicus Gesamtausgabe: Urkunden, Akten und Nachrichten: Texte und Übersetzungen, p. 23 ff. ISBN 3-05-003009-7.
- ^ Marian Biskup, Regesta Copernicana (Calendar of Copernicus’ Papers), Ossolineum, 1973, page 32.
- ^ Biskup (1973), pp. 38, 82.
- ^ Carlo Malagola, Della vita e delle opere di Antonio Urceo detto Codro: studi e ricerche, 1878, pp. 562–65.
- ^ “Copernicus, Nicolaus”. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/136591/Nicolaus-Copernicus. Retrieved 2009-11-21.
- ^ Maximilian Curtze, Ueber die Orthographie des Namens Coppernicus, 1879, .
- ^ a b c Czesław Miłosz, The History of Polish Literature, p. 38.
- ^ Angus Armitage, The World of Copernicus, p. 55.
- ^ Jerzy Dobrzycki and Leszek Hajdukiewicz, “Kopernik, Mikołaj”, Polski słownik biograficzny, pp. 4–5.
- ^ a b c d e Jerzy Dobrzycki and Leszek Hajdukiewicz, “Kopernik, Mikołaj”, Polski słownik biograficzny, p. 5.
- ^ Jerzy Dobrzycki and Leszek Hajdukiewicz, “Kopernik, Mikołaj”, Polski słownik biograficzny, pp. 5–6.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Jerzy Dobrzycki and Leszek Hajdukiewicz, “Kopernik, Mikołaj”, Polski słownik biograficzny, p. 6.
- ^ Rabin (2005).
- ^ Gingerich (2004, pp. 187–89, 201); Koyré (1973, p. 94); Kuhn (1957, p. 93); Rosen (2004, p. 123); Rabin (2005). Robbins (1964, p.x), however, includes Copernicus among a list of Renaissance astronomers who “either practiced astrology themselves or countenanced its practice.”
- ^ Sedlar (1994).
- ^ Angus Armitage, The World of Copernicus, pp. 75–77.
- ^ a b c d e Jerzy Dobrzycki and Leszek Hajdukiewicz, “Kopernik, Mikołaj”, Polski słownik biograficzny, p. 7.
- ^ Jerzy Dobrzycki and Leszek Hajdukiewicz, “Kopernik, Mikołaj”, Polski słownik biograficzny, pp. 7–8.
- ^ Repcheck (2007), p. 66.
- ^ Copernicus, Nicolaus, Minor Works (Edward Rosen, translator), Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992, pp. 176–215.
- ^ Oliver Volckart, “Early Beginnings of the Quantity Theory of Money and Their Context in Polish and Prussian Monetary Policies, c. 1520–1550″, The Economic History Review, New Series 50 (August 1997) 3, pp. 430–49.
- ^ a b c d e f Repcheck, Jack (2007). Copernicus’ Secret. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. pp. 79, 78, 184, 186. ISBN 978-0-7432-8951-1.
- ^ a b c Jerzy Dobrzycki and Leszek Hajdukiewicz, “Kopernik, Mikołaj”, Polski słownik biograficzny, vol. XIV, 1969, p. 11.
- ^ Angus Armitage, The World of Copernicus, pp. 97–98.
- ^ Angus Armitage, The World of Copernicus, p. 98.
- ^ Kuhn, 1957, pp. 187–88.
- ^ Photograph of a portrait of Copernicus by an unknown painter. The original was looted—possibly destroyed—by the Germans in World War II. Jan Świeczyński, Katalog skradzionych i zaginionych dóbr kultury (Catalog of Stolen and Missing Cultural Property), Warsaw, Ośrodek Informacyjno-Koordynacyjny Ochrony Obiektów Muzealnych (Center of Information and Coordination for the Safeguarding of Museum Objects), 1988.
- ^ A reference to the “Commentariolus” is contained in a library catalogue, dated 1 May 1514, of a 16th-century historian, Matthew of Miechow, so it must have begun circulating before that date (Koyré, 1973, p.85; Gingerich, 2004, p.32). Thoren (1990, p.99) gives the length of the manuscript as 40 pages.
- ^ Goddu (2010: 245–6}}
- ^ Schönberg, Nicholas, Letter to Nicolaus Copernicus, translated by Edward Rosen.
- ^ Koyré (1973, pp. 27, 90) and Rosen (1995, pp. 64,184) take the view that Copernicus was indeed concerned about possible objections from theologians, while Lindberg and Numbers (1986) argue against it. Koestler (1963) also denies it. Indirect evidence that Copernicus was concerned about objections from theologians comes from a letter written to him by Andreas Osiander in 1541, in which Osiander advises Copernicus to adopt a proposal by which he says “you will be able to appease the Peripatetics and theologians whose opposition you fear.” (Koyré, 1973, pp. 35, 90)
- ^ Dreyer (1953, p.319).
- ^ a b Easton, Adam (21 November 2008). “Polish tests ‘confirm Copernicus’”. BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7740908.stm. Retrieved 2010-01-18.
- ^ Bowcott, Owen (21 November 2008). “16th-century skeleton identified as astronomer Copernicus” The Guardian. Retrieved 2010-01-18.
- ^ Bogdanowicz, W.; Allen, M.; Branicki, W.; et al., M.; Gajewska, M.; Kupiec, T. (2009). “Genetic identification of putative remains of the famous astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus”. PNAS 106 (30): 12279–12282. Bibcode 2009PNAS..10612279B. doi:10.1073/pnas.0901848106. PMC 2718376. PMID 19584252. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=2718376.
- ^ Gingerich, O. (2009). “The Copernicus grave mystery”. PNAS 106 (30): 12215–12216. Bibcode 2009PNAS..10612215G. doi:10.1073/pnas.0907491106. PMC 2718392. PMID 19622737. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=2718392.
- ^ Astronomer Copernicus Reburied as Hero (New York Times, 22 May 2010)
- ^ Dreyer (1953, pp. 40–52); Linton (2004, p. 20).
- ^ Dreyer (1953, pp. 123–35); Linton (2004, p. 24).
- ^ Dreyer (1953, pp.135–48); Heath (1913, pp.301–8)
- ^ Particularly his use of the Tusi couple and his models for the motions of Mercury and the Moon (Linton 2004, pp.124,137–38).
- ^ Rosen (2004, pp. 58–59).
- ^ a b c Danielson (2006).
- ^ Koestler (1959, p.191)
- ^ Rosen (1995, pp.187–192), originally published in 1967 in Saggi su Galileo Galilei . Rosen is particularly scathing about this and other statements in The Sleepwalkers which he criticises as inaccurate.
- ^ Gingerich (2004), DeMarco (2004) 
- ^ a b c d e f Copernicus and Martin Luther: An Encounter Between Science and Religion by Donald H. Kobe, American Journal of Physics, March 1998, Volume 66, Issue 3, pp. 190
- ^ a b Rivka Feldhay (1995). Galileo and the Church. Cambridge University Press.
- ^ Rosen (1995, p.158)
- ^ Rosen (1995, pp.151–59)
- ^ a b c d e f Robert S. Westman (2011). The Copernican Question: Prognostication, Skepticism, and Celestial Order. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
- ^ a b c d e Calvin’s Attitude Toward Copernicus by Edward Rosen, Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Jul. – Sep., 1960), pp. 431–441 Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press
- ^ a b c Edward Rosen (2003). Copernicus and his successors. Hambledon Continuum.
- ^ a b I. Bernard Cohen (1985). Harvard College Press.
- ^ Exercitations concerning the Name, Original, Nature, Use, and Continuance of a Day of Sacred Rest, Exercitation II = An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Exercitation XXXVI, section 16 (Works, London, 1850–1855; re-issued, Edinburgh, 1862, XIX, 310).
- ^ a b c d e f Maurice A. Finocchiaro (2010). Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the Two Affairs. Springer Science & Business Media.
- ^ In fact, in the Pythagorean cosmological system the Sun was not motionless.
- ^ Decree of the General Congregation of the Index, 5 March 1616, translated from the Latin by Finocchiaro (1989, pp.148–149). An on-line copy of Finocchiaro’s translation has been made available by Gagné (2005).
- ^ Fantoli (2005, pp.118–19); Finocchiaro (1989, pp.148, 153). On-line copies of Finocchiaro’s translations of the relevant documents, Inquisition Minutes of 25 February 1616 and Cardinal Bellarmine’s certificate of 26 May 1616, have been made available by Gagné (2005). This notice of the decree would not have prevented Galileo from discussing heliocentrism solely as a mathematical hypothesis, but a stronger formal injunction (Finocchiaro, 1989, p.147-148) not to teach it “in any way whatever, either orally or in writing”, allegedly issued to him by the Commissary of the Holy Office, Father Michelangelo Segizzi, would certainly have done so (Fantoli, 2005, pp.119–20, 137). There has been much controversy over whether the copy of this injunction in the Vatican archives is authentic; if so, whether it was ever issued; and if so, whether it was legally valid (Fantoli, 2005, pp.120–43).
- ^ Catholic Encyclopedia.
- ^ From the Inquisition’s sentence of 22 June 1633 (de Santillana, 1976, pp.306–10; Finocchiaro 1989, pp. 287–91)
- ^ Heilbron (2005, p. 307); Coyne (2005, p. 347).
- ^ McMullin (2005, p. 6); Coyne (2005, pp. 346–47).
- ^ Burleigh, Michael (1988). Germany turns eastwards. A study of Ostforschung in the Third Reich. CUP Archive. pp. 60, 133, 280. ISBN 0521351200.
- ^ a b Rudnicki, Konrad (November–December 2006). “The Genuine Copernican Cosmological Principle”. Southern Cross Review: note 2. http://southerncrossreview.org/50/rudnicki1.htm. Retrieved 2010-01-21.
- ^ a b Miłosz, Czesław (1983). The history of Polish literature (2 ed.). University of California Press. p. 37. ISBN 0520044770.
- ^ a b c d Davies, Norman (2005). God’s playground. A History of Poland in Two Volumes. II. Oxford University Press. p. 20. ISBN 0199253404.
- ^ Manfred Weissenbacher, Sources of Power: How Energy Forges Human History, Praeger, 2009, p. 170.
- ^ “Copernicus, Nicolaus”. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9105759. Retrieved 2007-09-21.
- ^ “Copernicus, Nicolaus”, Encyclopedia Americana, 1986, vol. 7, pp. 755–56.
- ^ “Nicholas Copernicus”, The Columbia Encyclopedia, sixth edition, 2008. Encyclopedia.com. 18 July 2009.
- ^ “Copernicus, Nicolaus”, The Oxford World Encyclopedia, Oxford University Press, 1998.
- ^ 14 July 2009 – Element 112 shall be named “copernicium”, http://www.popsci.com/
- ^ Renner, Terrence (20 February 2010). “Element 112 is Named Copernicium”. International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry. http://www.iupac.org/web/nt/2010-02-20_112_Copernicium. Retrieved 2010-02-20.
- ^ Calendar of the Church Year according to the Episcopal Church
- Armitage, Angus (1951). The World of Copernicus. New York, NY: Mentor Books.
- Barbara Bieńkowska (1973). The Scientific World of Copernicus: On the Occasion of the 500th Anniversary of His Birth, 1473–1973. Springer. ISBN 9027703531.
- Coyne, George V., S.J. (2005). The Church’s Most Recent Attempt to Dispel the Galileo Myth. In McMullin (2005, pp.340–59).
- Danielson, Dennis Richard (2006). The First Copernican: Georg Joachim Rheticus and the Rise of the Copernican Revolution. New York: Walker & Company. ISBN 0-8027-1530-3.
- Davies, Norman, God’s Playground: A History of Poland, 2 vols., New York, Columbia University Press, 1982, ISBN 0-231-04327-9.
- DeMarco, Peter (13 April 2004). “Book quest took him around the globe“. Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2004/04/13/book_quest_took_him_around_the_globe/. Retrieved 2008-01-14.
- di Bono, Mario (1995). “Copernicus, Amico, Fracastoro and Ṭūsï’s Device: Observations on the Use and Trasmission of a Model”. Journal for the History of Astronomy xxvi: 133–54. Bibcode 1995JHA….26..133D.
- Dobrzycki, Jerzy, and Leszek Hajdukiewicz, “Kopernik, Mikołaj,” Polski słownik biograficzny (Polish Biographical Dictionary), vol. XIV, Wrocław, Polish Academy of Sciences, 1969, pp. 3–16.
- Dreyer, John Louis Emil (1953) . A History of Astronomy from Thales to Kepler. New York, NY: Dover Publications. http://www.archive.org/details/historyofplaneta00dreyuoft.
- Fantoli, Annibale (2005). The Disputed Injunction and its Role in Galileo’s Trial. In McMullin (2005, pp.117–49).
- Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (1989). The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-06662-6.
- Gagné, Marc (2005). “Texts from The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History edited and translated by Maurice A. Finocchiaro”. West Chester University course ESS 362/562 in History of Astronomy. Archived from the original on 2007-09-30. http://web.archive.org/web/20070930013053/http://astro.wcupa.edu/mgagne/ess362/resources/finocchiaro.html. Retrieved 2008-01-15. (Extracts from Finocchiaro (1989))
- Gingerich, Owen (2004). The Book Nobody Read. London: William Heinemann. ISBN 0-434-01315-3.
- Goddu, André (2010). Copernicus and the Aristotelian tradition. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-18107-6. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=iEjk13-1xSYC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false.
- Goodman, David C.; Russell, Colin A. (1991). The Rise of Scientific Europe, 1500–1800. Hodder Arnold H&S. ISBN 0-340-55861-X.
- Heath, Sir Thomas (1913). Aristarchus of Samos, the ancient Copernicus ; a history of Greek astronomy to Aristarchus, together with Aristarchus’s Treatise on the sizes and distances of the sun and moon : a new Greek text with translation and notes. London: Oxford University Press. http://www.archive.org/details/aristarchusofsam00heatuoft.
- Heilbron, John L. (2005). Censorship of Astronomy in Italy after Galileo. In McMullin (2005, pp.279–322).
- Hoskin, Michael A., The Cambridge Concise History of Astronomy, Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-57600-8.
- Huff, Toby E (2010). Intellectual Curiosity and the Scientific Revolution: A Global Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-17052-9. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=xNSPo_Xda_0C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false.
- Koestler, Arthur (1963) . The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man’s Changing Vision of the Universe. New York, NY: Grosset & Dunlap. ISBN 0448001594. Original edition published by Hutchinson (1959, London)
- Koeppen, Hans et al. (1973). Nicolaus Copernicus zum 500. Geburtstag. Böhlau Verlag. ISBN 3-412-83573-2.
- Koyré, Alexandre (1973). The Astronomical Revolution: Copernicus – Kepler – Borelli. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-8014-0504-1.
- Kuhn, Thomas (1957). The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. OCLC 535467.
- Lindberg, David C.; Numbers, Ronald L. (1986). “Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science”. Church History (Cambridge University Press) 55 (3): 338–354. doi:10.2307/3166822. JSTOR 3166822.
- Linton, Christopher M. (2004). From Eudoxus to Einstein—A History of Mathematical Astronomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-82750-8.
- Manetho; Ptolemy (1964) . Manetho Ptolemy Tetrabiblos. Loeb Classical Library edition, translated by W.G.Waddell and F.E.Robbins PhD. London: William Heinemann.
- McMullin, Ernan, ed. (2005). The Church and Galileo. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. ISBN 0-268-03483-4.
- Miłosz, Czesław, The History of Polish Literature, second edition, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1969, ISBN 0-520-04477-0.
- Ptolemy, Claudius (1964) . Tetrabiblos. Loeb Classical Library edition, translated by F.E.Robbins PhD. London: William Heinemann.
- Rabin, Sheila (2005). “Copernicus“. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2005 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2005/entries/copernicus/. Retrieved 2008-05-26.
- Repcheck, Jack (2007). Copernicus’ Secret: How the Scientific Revolution Began. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-7432-8951-X.
- Rosen, Edward (1995). Copernicus and his Successors. London: Hambledon Press. ISBN 1 85285 071 X.
- Rosen, Edward (translator) (2004) . Three Copernican Treatises:The Commentariolus of Copernicus; The Letter against Werner; The Narratio Prima of Rheticus (Second Edition, revised ed.). New York, NY: Dover Publications. ISBN 0486436055.
- Russell, Jeffrey Burton (1997) . Inventing the Flat Earth—Columbus and Modern Historians. New York, NY: Praeger. ISBN 0-275-95904-X.
- Saliba, George (2009). “Islamic reception of Greek astronomy”. in Valls-Gabaud & Boskenberg (2009). pp. 149–65. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8312919
- de Santillana, Giorgio (1976—Midway reprint) . The Crime of Galileo. Chicago, Ill: Universtiy of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-73481-1. http://books.google.com/?id=RABIZBnf_y4C&printsec=frontcover.
- Sedlar, Jean W. (1994). East Central Europe in the Middle Ages 1000–1500. University of Washington Press. ISBN 0295972904. http://books.google.com/?id=ANdbpi1WAIQC&pg=PA282&lpg=PA282&dq=royal-prussia.
- Thoren, Victor E. (1990). The Lord of Uraniborg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-35158-8. http://books.google.com/?id=GxyA-lhWL-AC. (A biography of Danish astronomer and alchemist Tycho Brahe.)
- Valls-Gabaud, D.; Boskenberg, A., eds (2009). The Role of Astronomy in Society and Culture. Proceedings IAU Symposium No. 260.
- Veselovsky, I.N. (1973). “Copernicus and Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī”. Journal for the History of Astronomy iv: 128–30. Bibcode 1973JHA…..4..128V.
 Further reading
- Prowe, Leopold (1884) (in German). Nicolaus Coppernicus. Berlin: Weidmannsche Verlagsbuchhandlung. http://books.google.com/?id=to0DAAAAYAAJ.
- Nicolaus Copernicus Gesamtausgabe (Nicolaus Copernicus Complete Edition; in German and Latin; 9 volumes, 1974–2004), various editors, Berlin, Akademie Verlag. A large collection of writings by and about Copernicus.
- Nicolaus Copernicus Gesamtausgabe: Biographies and Portraits of Copernicus from 16th to 18th century, Biographia Copernicana, 2004, ISBN 3-05-003848-9  
- Schmauch, Hans: Copernicus, Nicolaus. In: Neue Deutsche Biographie (NDB). Band 3. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 1957, p. 348–355. (German)
- Bruhns, Christian (1876) (in German). “Copernicus, Nicolaus“. In Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie (ADB). 4. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot. pp. 461–469.
 External links
|Latin Wikisourcehas original text related to this article:|
|German Wikisourcehas original text related to this article:|
|Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Nicolaus Copernicus|
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Nicolaus Copernicus|
- Primary Sources
- Works by Nicolaus Copernicus at Project Gutenberg
- De Revolutionibus, autograph manuscript – Full digital facsimile, Jagiellonian University
- (Polish) Polish translations of letters written by Copernicus in Latin or German
- O’Connor, John J.; Robertson, Edmund F., “Nicolaus Copernicus”, MacTutor History of Mathematics archive, University of St Andrews, http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Copernicus.html .
- Copernicus in Torun
- Nicolaus Copernicus Thorunensis by the Copernican Academic Portal
- Nicolaus Copernicus Museum in Frombork
- Portraits of Copernicus: Copernicus’s face reconstructed; Portrait; Nicolaus Copernicus
- Copernicus and Astrology – Cambridge University: Copernicus had – of course – teachers with astrological activities and his tables were later used by astrologers.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry
- Find-A-Grave profile for Nicolaus Copernicus
- ‘Body of Copernicus’ identified – BBC article including image of Copernicus using facial reconstruction based on located skull
- Copernicus and Astrology
- Nicolaus Copernicus on the 1000 Polish Zloty banknote.
- Parallax and the Earth’s orbit 
- Copernicus’s model for Mars 
- Retrograde Motion 
- Copernicus’s explanation for retrograde motion 
- Geometry of Maximum Elongation 
- Copernican Model 
- Portraits of Nicolaus Copernicus
- About De Revolutionibus
- The Copernican Universe from the De Revolutionibus
- De Revolutionibus, 1543 first edition – Full digital facsimile, Lehigh University
- The front page of the De Revolutionibus
- The text of the De Revolutionibus
- A java applet about Retrograde Motion
- The Antikythera Calculator (Italian and English versions)
- Pastore Giovanni, Antikythera e i Regoli calcolatori, Rome, 2006, privately published
- (Italian) Copernicus in Bologna – in Italian
- Chasing Copernicus: The Book Nobody Read – Was One of the Greatest Scientific Works Really Ignored? All Things Considered. NPR
- Copernicus and his Revolutions – A detailed critique of the rhetoric of De Revolutionibus
- Article which discusses Copernicus’s debt to the Arabic tradition
- Nicolaus Copernicus Prize, founded by the City of Kraków, awarded since 1995
- German-Polish cooperation
- (English) (German) (Polish) German-Polish “Copernicus Prize” awarded to German and Polish scientists (DFG website) (FNP website)
- (English) (German) (Polish) Büro Kopernikus – An initiative of German Federal Cultural Foundation
- (German) (Polish) German-Polish school project on Copernicus
|Date of birth||19 February 1473|
|Place of birth||Toruń (Thorn), Royal Prussia, Poland|
|Date of death||24 May 1543|
|Place of death||Frombork (Frauenburg), Warmia (Ermeland)|
- Беларуская (тарашкевіца)
- Fiji Hindi
- Bahasa Indonesia
- Basa Jawa
- Кырык мары
- Bahasa Melayu
- Norsk (bokmål)
- Norsk (nynorsk)
- Runa Simi
- Саха тыла
- Simple English
- Српски / Srpski
- Srpskohrvatski / Српскохрватски
- Tiếng Việt
- This page was last modified on 15 January 2012 at 14:11.
- Contact us
- About Wikipedia
- Mobile view
The conflict thesis proposes an intrinsic intellectual conflict between religion and science. The original historical usage of the term denoted that the historical record indicates religion’s perpetual opposition to science. Later uses of the term denote religion’s epistemological opposition to science. Also denominated as the Draper–White Thesis, the Warfare Thesis, and the Warfare Model, the conflict thesis interprets the relationship between religion and science as inevitably leading to public hostility, when religion aggressively challenges new scientific ideas — as in the Galileo Affair (1614–15). The historical conflict thesis was a popular historiographical approach in the history of science during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but in its early form is mostly discarded. Despite this, the conflict thesis remains a popular view among the general public.
 The historical conflict thesis
The scientist John William Draper and the intellectual Andrew Dickson White were the most influential exponents of the Conflict Thesis between religion and science. In the early 1870s, Draper was invited to write a History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1874), a book replying to contemporary papal edicts such as the doctrine of infallibility, and mostly criticising the anti-intellectualism of Roman Catholicism,  yet he assessed that Islam and Protestantism had little conflict with science. Draper’s preface summarises the conflict thesis:
The history of Science is not a mere record of isolated discoveries; it is a narrative of the conflict of two contending powers, the expansive force of the human intellect on one side, and the compression arising from traditionary faith and human interests on the other.
In 1896, White published the History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, the culmination of thirty years of research and publication on the subject, addressing the restrictive, dogmatic forms of Christianity. In the introduction, White emphasized he arrived at his position after the difficulties of assisting Ezra Cornell in establishing a university without any official religious affiliation. In The Popes and Science; the History of the Papal Relations to Science During the Middle Ages and Down to Our Own Time (1908),  a book dedicated to Pope Pius X, the historian of medicine, James Joseph Walsh, M.D., criticized White’s scientific perspective as anti-historical:
. . . the story of the supposed opposition of the Church and the Popes and the ecclesiastical authorities to science in any of its branches, is founded entirely on mistaken notions. Most of it is quite imaginary. Much of it is due to the exaggeration of the significance of the Galileo incident. Only those who know nothing about the history of medicine and of science continue to harbor it. That Dr. White’s book, contradicted as it is so directly by all serious histories of medicine and of science, should have been read by so many thousands in this country, and should have been taken seriously by educated men, physicians, teachers, and even professors of science who want to know the history of their own sciences, only shows how easily even supposedly educated men may be led to follow their prejudices rather than their mental faculties, and emphasizes the fact that the tradition that there is no good that can possibly come out of the Nazareth of the times before the reformation, still dominates the intellects of many educated people who think that they are far from prejudice and have minds perfectly open to conviction. . . .
In God and Nature (1986), David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers report that “White’s Warfare apparently did not sell as briskly as Draper’s Conflict, but in the end it proved more influential, partly, it seems, because Draper’s strident anti-Catholicism soon dated his work and because White’s impressive documentation gave the appearance of sound scholarship”. During the 20th century, historians’ acceptance of the Conflict Thesis declined until rejected in the 1970s, David B. Wilson notes:
Despite the growing number of scholarly modifications and rejections of the conflict model from the 1950′s . . . in the 1970s leading historians of the nineteenth century still felt required to attack it. . . . Whatever the reason for the continued survival of the conflict thesis, two other books on the nineteenth century that were published in the 1970s hastened its final demise among historians of science. . . 1974. . . Frank Turner. . . Between Science and Religion . . . Even more decisive was the penetrating critique “Historians and Historiography” . . . [by] James Moore . . . at the beginning of his Post-Darwinian Controversies (1979). 
 Contemporary views
Contemporarily, most of the scholarship supporting the Conflict Thesis is considered inaccurate. Biologist Stephen Jay Gould said: “White’s and Draper’s accounts of the actual interaction between science and religion in Western history do not differ greatly. Both tell a tale of bright progress continually sparked by science. And both develop and utilize the same myths to support their narrative, the flat-earth legend prominently among them”.  In a summary of the historiography of the Conflict Thesis, Colin Russell said that “Draper takes such liberty with history, perpetuating legends as fact that he is rightly avoided today in serious historical study. The same is nearly as true of White, though his prominent apparatus of prolific footnotes may create a misleading impression of meticulous scholarship”.
However Gould’s stance of Non-overlapping magisteria has been strongly criticized by Dawkins among others, who asks “If science cannot answer any ultimate question, what makes anybody think that religion can?” In Science & Religion, Gary Ferngren proposes a more complex relationship between religion and science:
While some historians had always regarded the Draper-White thesis as oversimplifying and distorting a complex relationship, in the late twentieth century it underwent a more systematic reevaluation. The result is the growing recognition among historians of science that the relationship of religion and science has been much more positive than is sometimes thought. Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavour, while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization. If Galileo and the Scopes trial come to mind as examples of conflict, they were the exceptions rather than the rule.
Some contemporary historians of science, such as Peter Barker, Bernard R. Goldstein, and Crosbie Smith propose that scientific discoveries, such as Kepler’s laws of planetary motion in the 17th century, and the reformulation of physics in terms of energy, in the 19th century, were driven by religion. Religious organizations and clerics figure prominently in the broad histories of science, until the professionalization of the scientific enterprise, in the 19th century, led to tensions between scholars taking religious and secular approaches to nature. Even the prominent examples of religion’s anti-intellectualism, the Galileo affair (1614) and the Scopes trial (1925), were not pure instances of conflict between science and religion, but included personal and political facts in the development of each conflict.
 Popular, scientific, and religious views
The historian of science Ronald Numbers relates that, unlike among science historians, the theory of a historical, intrinsic and inevitable anti-intellectual conflict between (Judeo-Christian) religion and science remains popular among the general public, some scientists, and some clerics, and is fanned by current issues like the creation–evolution controversy, stem cell controversy, and birth control. Some scholars, such as Brian Stanley and Denis Alexander, propose that the media are among those responsible for perpetuating the Conflict Theory of hostile relations between religion and science,  and the persistence in the popular public mind of “the warfare of science and religion” resulting in such things as medieval people believing that the Earth was flat, was first propagated when the conflict thesis originated. David C. Lindberg and Numbers point out that “there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge Earth’s sphericity and even know its approximate circumference”. Statements like “the Church prohibited autopsies and dissections during the Middle Ages”, “the rise of Christianity killed off ancient science”, and “the medieval Christian church suppressed the growth of the natural sciences”, are cited by Numbers as other examples of widely popular myths that still pass as historical truth, even though they are not supported by current historical research.
 See also
- ^ Russel, C.A. (2002). Ferngren, G.B.. ed. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 7. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. “The conflict thesis, at least in its simple form, is now widely perceived as a wholly inadequate intellectual framework within which to construct a sensible and realistic historiography of Western science”
- ^ Shapin, S. (1996). The Scientific Revolution. University of Chicago Press. p. 195. “In the late Victorian period it was common to write about the ‘warfare between science and religion’ and to presume that the two bodies of culture must always have been in conflict. However, it is a very long time since these attitudes have been held by historians of science.”
- ^ Brooke, J. H. (1991). Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge University Press. p. 42. “In its traditional forms, the conflict thesis has been largely discredited.”
- ^ Ferngren, G.B. (2002). Ferngren, G.B.. ed. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. x. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. “… while [John] Brooke’s view [of a complexity thesis rather than an historical conflict thesis] has gained widespread acceptance among professional historians of science, the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind.”
- ^ Alexander, D (2001), Rebuilding the Matrix, Lion Publishing, ISBN 0-7459-5116-3 (pg. 217)
- ^ John William Draper, History of the Conflict Religion, D. Appleton and Co. (1881)
- ^ Fordam University Press, 1908, Kessinger Publishing, reprinted 2003. ISBN 0-7661-3646-9 Reviews:  
- ^ Walsh, James Joseph, The Popes and Science; the History of the Papal Relations to Science During the Middle Ages and Down to Our Own Time, Fordam University Press, New York 1908, p. 19.
- ^ David C. Lindberg, Ronald L. Numbers, God & Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter Between Christianity and Science, University of California Press (April 29, 1986)
- ^ Wilson, David B. The Historiography of Science and Religion in Ferngren, Gary B. (2002). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. p. 21, 23
- ^ Gould, S.J. (1996). “The late birth of a flat earth”. Dinosaur in a Haystack: Reflections in Natural History. New York: Crown: 38–52.
- ^ Russell, Colin A., “The Conflict of Science and Religion”, Encyclopedia of the History of Science and Religion, p. 15, New York 2000
- ^ Richard Dawkins (2006). The God delusion. Random House. p. 80. ISBN 1430312300.
- ^ Gary Ferngren (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. (Introduction, p. ix)
- ^ Barker, Peter, and Goldstein, Bernard R. “Theological Foundations of Kepler’s Astronomy”. Osiris, Volume 16: Science in Theistic Contexts, University of Chicago Press, 2001, pp. 88–113; Smith, Crosbie. The Science of Energy: A Cultural History of Energy Physics in Victorian Britain. London: The Athlone PRess, 1998.
- ^ See, for example, the chapters on “Geology and Paleontology” (by Nicolaas A. Rupke), “Natural History” (by Peter M. Hess), and “Charles Darwin” (by James Moore) in Gary Ferngren (ed.), Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction.
- ^ Blackwell, Richard J., “Galileo Galilei”, Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction; Larson, Edward J. Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America’s Continuing Battle over Science and Religion. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1997.
- ^ a b Ronald Numbers (Lecturer) (May 11 2006). Myths and Truths in Science and Religion: A historical perspective (Video Lecture). University of Cambridge (Howard Building, Downing College): The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion. http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Lectures.php.
- ^ “Templeton Foundation Post-dinner Discussion”, after the Myths and Truths in Science and Religion: A historical perspective lecture Ronald Numbers, 11 May 2006, at St Edmunds College, Cambridge; the transcript is available at http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/CIS/Numbers/
- ^ a b Jeffrey Russell. Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians. Praeger Paperback; New Ed edition (30 January 1997). ISBN 027595904X; ISBN 978-0275959043.
- ^ Lindberg, David C.; Numbers, Ronald L. (1986). “Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science”. Church History (Cambridge University Press) 55 (3): 338–354. doi:10.2307/3166822. JSTOR 3166822.
 External links
- A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science
- The Mythical Conflict between Science and Religion by James Hannam
 Further reading
- Barbour, Ian G. When Science Meets Religion. HarperSanFrancisco, 2000.
- Brooke, John H., Margaret Osler, and Jitse M. van der Meer, (editors). “Science in Theistic Contexts: Cognitive Dimensions,” Osiris, 2nd ser., vol. 16(2001), ISBN 0-226-07565-6.
- Ferngren, Gary (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0
- Lindberg, David C. and Ronald L. Numbers, eds., God & Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter Between Christianity and Science. University of California Press, 1986.
- Lindberg and Numbers, “Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 39 (1987):140-49. (Can be found online here
- Merton, Robert K. Science, Technology, and Society in Seventeenth Century England. Osiris 4(1938): 360-632. Reprinted New York: Harper & Row, 1970. (Advances the thesis that Puritanism contributed to the rise of science.)
- Westfall, Richard S. Science and Religion in Seventeenth-Century England. New Haven: Yale Univ. Pr. 1958. Reprinted Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Pr., 1973. ISBN 0-472-06190-9
- This page was last modified on 11 December 2011 at 23:08.
- Contact us
- About Wikipedia
- Mobile view
Relationship between religion and science
The relationship between religion and science has been a focus of the demarcation problem. Somewhat related is the claim that science and religion may pursue knowledge using different methodologies. Whereas the scientific method basically relies on reason and empiricism, religion also seeks (at times, primarily) to acknowledge revelation, faith and sacredness. Some scholars say science and religion are separate, as in John William Draper‘s conflict thesis and Stephen Jay Gould‘s non-overlapping magisteria, while others (John Lennox, Thomas Berry, Brian Swimme, Ken Wilber, et al.) propose an interconnection.
The kinds of interactions that might arise between science and religion have been classified using the following typology:
- Conflict, stating the disciplines contradict and are incompatible with each other.
- Independencetreating each as quite separate realms of enquiry.
- Dialoguesuggesting that each field has things to say to each other about phenomena in which their interests overlap.
- Integrationaiming to unify both fields into a single discourse.
This typology is similar to ones found in Ian Barbour and John Haught. More typologies that categorize this relationship can be found among the works of other science and religion scholars such as Arthur Peacocke.
A variety of historical, philosophical, and scientific arguments have been put forth in favor of the idea that science and religion are in conflict. Historical examples of religious individuals or institutions promoting claims that contradict both contemporary and modern scientific consensus include creationism (see level of support for evolution), and more recently, Pope Benedict XVI‘s 2009 statements claiming that the use of condoms to combat the AIDS epidemic in Africa was ineffective and counterproductive. In the Galileo affair, the acceptance, from 1616 to 1757, of the Greek geocentric model (Ptolemaic system) by the Roman Catholic Church, and its consequent opposition to heliocentrism, was first called into question by the Catholic cleric Copernicus, and subsequently disproved conclusively by Galileo, who was persecuted for his minority view. Additionally, long held religious claims have been challenged by scientific studies such as STEP, which examined the efficacy of prayer. A number of scientists including Jerry Coyne have made an argument for a philosophical incompatibility between religion and science. An argument for the conflict between religion and science that combines the historical and philosophical approaches has been presented by Neil Degrasse Tyson—Tyson argues that religious scientists, such as Isaac Newton, could have achieved more had they not accepted religious answers to unresolved scientific issues.
 Conflict thesis
The conflict thesis, which holds that religion and science have been in conflict continuously throughout history, was popularized in the 19th century by John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White. Most contemporary historians of science now reject the conflict thesis in its original form, arguing instead that it has been superseded by subsequent historical research indicating a more nuanced understanding:
Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavour, while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization. If Galileo and the Scopes trial come to mind as examples of conflict, they were the exceptions rather than the rule.
— Gary Ferngren, Science & Religion
Today, much of the scholarship in which the conflict thesis was originally based is considered to be inaccurate. For instance, the claim that people of the Middle Ages widely believed that the Earth was flat was first propagated in the same period that originated the conflict thesis and is still very common in popular culture. Modern scholars regard this claim as mistaken, as the contemporary historians of science David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers write: “there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference.”
Other misconceptions such as: “the Church prohibited autopsies and dissections during the Middle Ages,” “the rise of Christianity killed off ancient science,” and “the medieval Christian church suppressed the growth of the natural sciences,” are all reported by Numbers as examples of widely popular myths that still pass as historical truth, even though they are not supported by current historical research. They help maintain the popular image of “the warfare of science and religion.”
While H. Floris Cohen states that most scholars reject crude articulations of the conflict thesis, such as Andrew D. White’s, he also states that milder versions of this thesis still hold some sway. This is because “it remains an incontrovertible fact of history that, to say the least, the new science was accorded a less than enthusiastic acclaim by many religious authorities at the time.” Cohen therefore considers it paradoxical “that the rise of early modern science was due at least in part to developments in Christian thought—in particular, to certain aspects of Protestantism” (a thesis first developed as what is now sometimes called the Merton thesis). In recent years, Oxford historian Peter Harrison has further developed the idea that the Protestant Reformation had a significant and positive influence on the development of modern science. A review of alternatives to the White/Draper conflict thesis has been composed by Ian G. Barbour.
A modern view, described by Stephen Jay Gould as “non-overlapping magisteria” (NOMA), is that science and religion deal with fundamentally separate aspects of human experience and so, when each stays within its own domain, they co-exist peacefully. While Gould spoke of independence from the perspective of science, W. T. Stace viewed independence from the perspective of the philosophy of religion. Stace felt that science and religion, when each is viewed in its own domain, are both consistent and complete.
Both science and religion represent distinct ways of approaching experience and these differences are sources of debate. Science is closely tied to mathematics—a very abstract experience, while religion is more closely tied to the ordinary experience of life. As interpretations of experience, science is descriptive and religion is prescriptive. For science and mathematics to concentrate on what the world ought to be like in the way that religion does can be inappropriate and may lead to improperly ascribing properties to the natural world as happened among the followers of Pythagoras in the sixth century B.C. In contrast, proponents of a normative moral science take issue with the idea that science has no way of guiding “oughts”.
The reverse situation, where religion attempts to be descriptive, can also lead to inappropriately assigning properties to the natural world. A notable example is the now defunct belief in the Ptolemy planetary model that held sway until changes in scientific and religious thinking were brought about by Galileo and proponents of his views.
 Parallels in method
Michael Polanyi asserted that it is merely a commitment to universality that protects against subjectivity and has nothing at all to do with personal detachment as found in many conceptions of the scientific method. Polanyi further asserted that all knowledge is personal and therefore the scientist must be performing a very personal if not necessarily subjective role when doing science. Polanyi added that the scientist often merely follows intuitions of “intellectual beauty, symmetry, and ‘empirical agreement’”. Polanyi held that science requires moral commitments similar to those found in religion.
Two physicists, Charles A. Coulson and Harold K. Schilling, both claimed that “the methods of science and religion have much in common.” Schilling asserted that both fields—science and religion—have “a threefold structure—of experience, theoretical interpretation, and practical application.” Coulson asserted that science, like religion, “advances by creative imagination” and not by “mere collecting of facts,” while stating that religion should and does “involve critical reflection on experience not unlike that which goes on in science.” Religious language and scientific language also show parallels (cf. Rhetoric of science).
A degree of concord between science and religion can be seen in religious belief and empirical science. The belief that God created the world and therefore humans, can lead to the view that he arranged for humans to know the world. This is underwritten by the doctrine of imago dei. In the words of Thomas Aquinas, “Since human beings are said to be in the image of God in virtue of their having a nature that includes an intellect, such a nature is most in the image of God in virtue of being most able to imitate God”.
Many well-known historical figures who influenced Western science considered themselves Christian such as Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Boyle. The Pew Forum has published data on attitudes about religion and science.
 Concerns over the nature of reality
Science in the Enlightenment and Colonial eras was conceived as ontological investigation which uncovered ‘facts’ about physical nature. This was often explicitly opposed to Christian Theology and the latter’s assertions of truth based on doctrine. This particular perspective on science faded in the early 20th century with the decline of logical empiricism and the rise of linguistic and sociological understandings of science. Modern scientists are less concerned with establishing universal or ontological truth (which is seen, and dismissed, as the pursuit of philosophy), and more inclined towards the creation of pragmatic, functional models of physical systems. Christian Theology—excluding those fundamentalist churches whose aim is to reassert doctrinal truths—has likewise softened many of its ontological claims, due to increased exposure to both scientific insights and the contrasting theological claims of other faiths.
Scientific and theological perspectives often coexist peacefully. Non-Christian faiths have historically integrated well with scientific ideas, as in the ancient Egyptian technological mastery applied to monotheistic ends, the flourishing of logic and mathematics under Hinduism and Buddhism, and the scientific advances made by Muslim scholars during the Ottoman empire. Even many 19th century Christian communities welcomed scientists who claimed that science was not at all concerned with discovering the ultimate nature of reality.
A fundamental principle of the Bahá’í Faith is the harmony of religion and science. Bahá’í scripture asserts that true science and true religion can never be in conflict. `Abdu’l-Bahá, the son of the founder of the religion, stated that religion without science is superstition and that science without religion is materialism. He also admonished that true religion must conform to the conclusions of science.
Buddhism and science have increasingly been discussed as compatible. Some philosophic and psychological teachings within Buddhism share commonalities with modern Western scientific and philosophic thought. For example, Buddhism encourages the impartial investigation of nature (an activity referred to as Dhamma-Vicaya in the Pali Canon)—the principal object of study being oneself. A reliance on causality and empiricism are common philosophical principles shared between Buddhism and science. However, Buddhism doesn’t focus on materialism.
Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, spends a lot of time with scientists. In his book, “The Universe in a Single Atom” he wrote, “My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science, so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation.” and “If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false,” he says, “then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”
Earlier attempts at reconciliation of Christianity with Newtonian mechanics appear quite different from later attempts at reconciliation with the newer scientific ideas of evolution or relativity. Many early interpretations of evolution polarized themselves around a struggle for existence. These ideas were significantly countered by later findings of universal patterns of biological cooperation. According to John Habgood, all man really knows here is that the universe seems to be a mix of good and evil, beauty and pain, and that suffering may somehow be part of the process of creation. Habgood holds that Christians should not be surprised that suffering may be used creatively by God, given their faith in the symbol of the Cross. Habgood states that Christians have for two millennia believed in the love of God because he revealed “Himself as Love in Jesus Christ,” not because the physical universe does or does not point to the value of love.
 Reconciliation in Britain in the early 20th century
In Reconciling Science and Religion: The Debate in Early-twentieth-century Britain, historian of biology Peter J. Bowler argues that in contrast to the conflicts between science and religion in the U.S. in the 1920s (most famously the Scopes Trial), during this period Great Britain experienced a concerted effort at reconciliation, championed by intellectually conservative scientists, supported by liberal theologians but opposed by younger scientists and secularists and conservative Christians. These attempts at reconciliation fell apart in the 1930s due to increased social tensions, moves towards neo-orthodox theology and the acceptance of the modern evolutionary synthesis.
 Confucianism and traditional Chinese religion
The historical process of Confucianism has largely been antipathic towards scientific discovery. However the religiophilosophical system itself is more neutral on the subject than such an analysis might suggest. In his writings On Heaven, Xunzi espoused a proto-scientific world view. However during the Han Synthesis the more anti-empirical Mencius was favored and combined with Daoist skepticism regarding the nature of reality. Likewise, during the Medieval period, Zhu Xi argued against technical investigation and specialization proposed by Chen Liang. After contact with the West, scholars such as Wang Fuzhi would rely on Buddhist/Daoist skepticism to denounce all science as a subjective pursuit limited by humanity’s fundamental ignorance of the true nature of the world. After the May Fourth Movement, attempts to modernize Confucianism and reconcile it with scientific understanding were attempted by many scholars including Feng Youlan and Xiong Shili. Given the close relationship that Confucianism shares with Buddhism, many of the same arguments used to reconcile Buddhism with science also readily translate to Confucianism. However, modern scholars have also attempted to define the relationship between science and Confucianism on Confucianism’s own terms and the results have usually led to the conclusion that Confucianism and science are fundamentally compatible.
In Hinduism, the dividing line between objective sciences and spiritual knowledge (adhyatma vidya) is a linguistic paradox. Hindu scholastic activities and ancient Indian scientific advancements were so interconnected that many Hindu scriptures are also ancient scientific manuals and vice-versa. Hindu sages maintained that logical argument and rational proof using Nyaya is the way to obtain correct knowledge. From a Hindu perspective, modern science is a legitimate, but incomplete, step towards knowing and understanding reality. Hinduism views that science only offers a limited view of reality, but all it offers is right and correct. Not all mentioned in Hindu scriptures are consistent with modern science; however, Hinduism offers methods to correct and transform itself in course of time.
Samkhya, the oldest school of Hindu philosophy prescribes a particular method to analyze knowledge. According to Samkhya, all knowledge is possible through three pramanas (means of valid knowledge) –
- Pratyakṣa or Dṛṣṭam – direct sense perception,
- Anumāna – logical inference and
- Śabda or Āptavacana – verbal testimony.
The accounts of the emergence of life within the universe vary in description, but classically the deity called Brahma, from a Trimurti of three deities also including Vishnu and Shiva, is described as performing the act of ‘creation’, or more specifically of ‘propagating life within the universe’ with the other two deities being responsible for ‘preservation’ and ‘destruction’ (of the universe) respectively. In this respect some Hindu schools do not treat the scriptural creation myth literally and often the creation stories themselves do not go into specific detail, thus leaving open the possibility of incorporating at least some theories in support of evolution. Some Hindus find support for, or foreshadowing of evolutionary ideas in scriptures, namely the Vedas.
The incarnations of Vishnu (Dashavatara) is almost identical to the scientific explanation of the sequence of biological evolution of man and animals. The sequence of avatars starts from an aquatic organism (Matsya), to an amphibian (Kurma), to a land-animal (Varaha), to a humanoid (Narasimha), to a dwarf human (Vamana), to 5 forms of well developed human beings (Parashurama, Rama, Balarama/Buddha, Krishna, Kalki) who showcase an increasing form of complexity (Axe-man, King, Plougher/Sage, wise Statesman, mighty Warrior). In India, the home country of Hindus; educated Hindus widely accept the theory of biological evolution. In a survey, 77% of respondents in India agreed that enough scientific evidence exists to support Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, and 85 per cent of God-believing people said they believe in evolution as well. An exception to this acceptance is the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), which includes several members who actively oppose “Darwinism” and the modern evolutionary synthesis (see Hindu Creationism).
From an Islamic standpoint, science, the study of nature, is considered to be linked to the concept of Tawhid (the Oneness of God), as are all other branches of knowledge. In Islam, nature is not seen as a separate entity, but rather as an integral part of Islam’s holistic outlook on God, humanity, and the world. Unlike the other Abrahamic monotheistic religions, Judaism and Christianity, the Islamic view of science and nature is continuous with that of religion and God. This link implies a sacred aspect to the pursuit of scientific knowledge by Muslims, as nature itself is viewed in the Qur’an as a compilation of signs pointing to the Divine. It was with this understanding that science was studied and understood in Islamic civilizations, specifically during the eighth to sixteenth centuries, prior to the colonization of the Muslim world.
According to most historians, the modern scientific method was first developed by Islamic scientists, pioneered by Ibn Al-Haytham, known to the west as “Alhazen“. Robert Briffault, in The Making of Humanity, asserts that the very existence of science, as it is understood in the modern sense, is rooted in the scientific thought and knowledge that emerged in Islamic civilizations during this time.
However, the colonizing powers of the western world and their destruction of the Islamic scientific tradition forced the discourse of Islam and Science in to a new period. Institutions that had existed for centuries in the Muslim world were destroyed and replaced by new scientific institutions implemented by the colonizing powers and suiting their economic, political, and military agendas. This drastically changed the practice of science in the Muslim world, as Islamic scientists had to interact with the western approach to scientific learning, which was based on a philosophy of nature completely foreign to them. From the time of this initial upheaval of the Islamic scientific tradition to the present day, Muslim scientists and scholars have developed a spectrum of viewpoints on the place of scientific learning within the context of Islam, none of which are universally accepted or practiced. However, most maintain the view that the acquisition of knowledge and scientific pursuit in general is not in disaccord with Islamic thought and religious belief.
 Current scholarship
The modern dialogue between religion and science is rooted in Ian Barbour‘s 1966 book Issues in Science and Religion. Since that time it has grown in to a serious academic field, with academic chairs in the subject area, and two dedicated academic journals, Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science and Theology and Science. Articles are also sometimes found in mainstream science journals such as American Journal of Physics and Science.
Recently philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued that there is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and religion, and that there is superficial concord but deep conflict between science and naturalism.
 Influence of a biblical world view on early modern science
H. Floris Cohen argued for a biblical influence on the early development of modern science. Cohen presented Dutch historian R. Hooykaas‘ argument that a biblical world-view holds all the necessary antidotes for the hubris of Greek rationalism: a respect for manual labour, leading to experimentation and a greater level of empiricism and a supreme God that left nature “de-deified” and open to emulation and manipulation. This argument gives support to the idea that the rise of early modern science was due to a unique combination of Greek and biblical thought. Cohen summarised Hooykaas’ conclusion as attributing the rise of modern science to the combination of the “Greek powers of abstract reasoning and of thinking up idealized constructions” in combination with “the biblical humility toward accepting the facts of nature as they are, combined with a view of man as fitted out by God with the power to take nature on”. Cohen also noted that Richard S. Westfall “brought out the ultimate paradox” in stating: “Despite the natural piety of the virtuosi [English 17th-century scientists], the skepticism of the Enlightenment was already present in embryo among them. To be sure, their piety kept it in check, but they were unable to banish it. … They wrote to refute atheism, but where were the atheists? The virtuosi nourished the atheists within their own minds.”
Oxford historian Peter Harrison is another who has argued that a biblical worldview was significant for the development of modern science. Harrison contends that Protestant approaches to the book of scripture had significant, if largely unintended, consequences for the interpretation of the book of nature. Harrison has also suggested that literal readings of the Genesis narratives of the Creation and Fall motivated and legitimated scientific activity in seventeenth-century England. For many of its seventeenth-century practitioners, science was imagined to be a means of restoring a human dominion over nature that had been lost as a consequence of the Fall.
Historian and professor of religion Eugene M. Klaaren holds that “a belief in divine creation” was central to an emergence of science in seventeenth-century England. The philosopher Michael Foster has published analytical philosophy connecting Christian doctrines of creation with empiricism. Historian William B. Ashworth has argued against the historical notion of distinctive mind-sets and the idea of Catholic and Protestant sciences. Historians James R. Jacob and Margaret C. Jacob have argued for a linkage between seventeenth century Anglican intellectual transformations and influential English scientists (e.g., Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton). John Dillenberger and Christopher B. Kaiser have written theological surveys, which also cover additional interactions occurring in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.
Oxford University historian and theologian John Hedley Brooke wrote that “when natural philosophers referred to laws of nature, they were not glibly choosing that metaphor. Laws were the result of legislation by an intelligent deity. Thus the philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650) insisted that he was discovering the “laws that God has put into nature.” Later Newton would declare that the regulation of the solar system presupposed the “counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Historian Ronald L. Numbers stated that this thesis “received a boost” from mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead‘s Science and the Modern World (1925). Numbers has also argued, “Despite the manifest shortcomings of the claim that Christianity gave birth to science—most glaringly, it ignores or minimizes the contributions of ancient Greeks and medieval Muslims—it too, refuses to succumb to the death it deserves.” The sociologist Rodney Stark of Baylor University, a Southern Baptist institution, argued in contrast that “Christian theology was essential for the rise of science.”
 Perspectives of religious communities
 Historical Judeo-Christian-Islamic view
Most sources of knowledge available to early Christians were connected to pagan world-views. There were various opinions on how Christianity should regard pagan learning, which included its ideas about nature. For instance, among early Christian teachers, Tertullian (c. 160–220) held a generally negative opinion of Greek philosophy, while Origen (c. 185–254) regarded it much more favorably and required his students to read nearly every work available to them.
In the Middle Ages some leading thinkers in Judaism, Christianity and Islam attempted synthesis between religion, philosophy, and natural sciences. For example, the Islamic philosopher Averroes, the Jewish philosopher Maimonides, and the Christian philosopher Augustine of Hippo (354-430) held that if religious teachings were found to contradict certain direct observations about the natural world, then it would be obligatory to re-evaluate either the interpretation of the scientific facts or the understanding of the scriptures. The best knowledge of the cosmos was seen as an important part of arriving at a better understanding of the Bible, but not yet equal with the authority of the Bible.
The synthesizing approach has continued down to the present day; the Scot Henry Drummond, for example, wrote many articles, some of which drew on scientific knowledge to tease out and illustrate Christian ideas.
From the 11th century, however, scientific methods were being applied by both Muslim scientists and Christian scientists to domains such as optics and planetary orbits, with results which threatened some of the Church‘s doctrines. Christianity asserted religious certainty at the expense of scientific knowledge, by giving more explicit sanction to officially endorsed orthodox views of nature and scripture. Similar developments occurred in other religions. This approach, while it tended to temporarily stabilize doctrine, was also inclined toward making philosophical and scientific orthodoxy less open to correction, as accepted philosophy became the religiously sanctioned science. Observation and theory became subordinate to dogma. In Europe, scientists and scholars of the Enlightenment responded to such restrictions with increasing skepticism.
 Non-fundamentalist religious views
In between these positions lie the views of non-fundamentalist religious believers. Large numbers of Christians and Jews still accept some or many traditional religious beliefs taught in their respective faith communities, but they no longer accept their tradition’s teachings as unquestionable and infallible. Liberal religious believers do believe in God, and believe that in some way God revealed divine will to humanity. They differ from religious fundamentalists in that they accept that even if their religious texts were divinely inspired, they are also human documents which reflect the cultural and historic limitations and biases of their authors. Many support allegorical interpretations of Genesis. Such believers are often comfortable with the findings of archaeological and linguistic research and historical-critical study. They will often make use of literary and historical analysis of religious texts to understand how they developed, and to see how they might apply in our own day. This approach developed among Protestant scholars in the 18th and 19th centuries, and is now found among other Christians, Liberal Jewish communities and others.
Some religious approaches acknowledge the historical relationship between modern science and ancient doctrines. For example, John Paul II, leader of the Roman Catholic Church, in 1981 spoke of the relationship this way: “The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer”. This statement would reflect the views of many non-Catholic Christians as well. An example of this kind of thinking is theistic evolution.
This understanding of the role of scripture in relation to science is captured by the phrase: “The intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.” Thomas Jay Oord said: “The Bible tells us how to find abundant life, not the details of how life became abundant.”
 Scientific community’s perspective
In the 17th century, founders of the Royal Society largely held conventional and orthodox religious views, and a number of them were prominent Churchmen. While theological issues that had the potential to be divisive were typically excluded from formal discussions of the early Society, many of its fellows nonetheless believed that their scientific activities provided support for traditional religious belief. Clerical involvement in the Royal Society remained high until the mid-nineteenth century, when science became more professionalised.
Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.
Prominent modern scientists who are atheists include evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and Nobel prize winning physicist Stephen Weinberg. Prominent scientists advocating religious belief include Nobel prize winning physicist Charles Townes, Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health and past head of the Human Genome Project, and climatologist John T. Houghton.
 Studies of scientists’ belief in God
Many studies have been conducted in the United States and have generally found that scientists are less likely to believe in God than are the rest of the population. Precise definitions and statistics vary, but generally about 1/3 are atheists, 1/3 agnostic, and 1/3 have some belief in God (although some might be deistic, for example). This is in contrast to the more than roughly 3/4 of the general population that believe in some God in the United States. Belief also varies by field: psychologists, physicists and engineers are less likely to believe in God than mathematicians, biologists and chemists. Doctors in the United States are much more likely to believe in God (76%).
Some of the most recent research into scientists’ self reported belief in God is discussed by Professor Elaine Howard Ecklund. Some of her most interesting findings were that scientist-believers generally considered themselves “religious liberals” (not fundamentalists), and that their religion did not change the way they did science, but rather the way they reflected on its implications. Ecklund also discusses how there is a stigma against belief in God in the professional science community, which may have contributed to underrepresentation of religious voices in the field.
 List of studies
According to a 1996 survey of United States scientists in the fields of biology, mathematics, and physics/astronomy, belief in a god that is “in intellectual and affective communication with humankind” was most popular among mathematicians (about 45%) and least popular among physicists (about 22%). In total, about 60% of United States scientists in these fields expressed disbelief or agnosticism toward a personal god who answers prayer and personal immortality. This compared with 58% in 1914 and 67% in 1933.
Among members of the National Academy of Sciences, 7.0% expressed personal belief, while 72.2% expressed disbelief and another 20.8% were agnostic concerning the existence of a personal god who answers prayer.
A survey conducted between 2005 and 2007 by Elaine Howard Ecklund of University at Buffalo, The State University of New York and funded by the Templeton Foundation found that over 60% of natural and social science professors at 21 elite US research universities are atheists or agnostics. When asked whether they believed in God, nearly 34% answered “I do not believe in God” and about 30% answering “I do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out.” According to the same survey, “[m]any scientists see themselves as having a spirituality not attached to a particular religious tradition.” In further analysis, published in 2007, Ecklund and Christopher Scheitle conclude that “the assumption that becoming a scientist necessarily leads to loss of religion is untenable” and that “[i]t appears that those from non-religious backgrounds disproportionately self-select into scientific professions. This may reflect the fact that there is tension between the religious tenets of some groups and the theories and methods of particular sciences and it contributes to the large number of non-religious scientists.”
An explanation has been offered by Farr Curlin, a University of Chicago Instructor in Medicine and a member of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, that science-minded religious people instead elect to study medicine. He helped author a study that “found that 76 percent of doctors believe in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife.” and “90 percent of doctors in the United States attend religious services at least occasionally, compared to 81 percent of all adults.” He reasoned, “The responsibility to care for those who are suffering and the rewards of helping those in need resonate throughout most religious traditions.”
Another study conducted by the Pew Research Center found that “just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.” 48% say they have a religious affiliation, equal to the number who say they are not affiliated with any religious tradition. The survey also found younger scientists to be “substantially more likely than their older counterparts to say they believe in God”. Among the surveyed fields, chemists were the most likely to say they believe in God.
Religious beliefs of US professors, many in scientific fields, were recently examined using a nationally representative sample of more than 1400, published in Sociology of Religion. The researchers reported that “Contrary to the view that religious skepticism predominates in the academy, we find that the majority of professors, even at elite research institutions, are religious believers” (p. 101). Beliefs varied across disciplines, and “the most religious fields are applied ones outside the traditional liberal arts core, whose instructors may come closer to resembling the general population in terms of attitudes and values…. At the other extreme, psychology and mechanical engineering have the highest proportion of atheists [50 and 44 percent], while 60.8 percent of biologists are either atheists or agnostics” (p. 115). The researchers concluded that among US professors, “less than a quarter could be classified as complete nonbelievers…. even at elite schools, there are more professors who are religious than who are nonbelievers, which suggests that in academe—as in American society more generally—secularization has entailed more the privatization of religious belief… than its elimination” (p. 124).
Ecklund and Sheitle’s 2005-2007 survey also compared differences between natural and social scientists at the 21 elite US research universities that they surveyed. Analyses of the more than 1600 responses indicated that “differences in religiosity between natural and social scientists are simply no longer a meaningful descriptor of the place of religion in the academy. For the most part, there is little difference between these larger fields [social versus natural science] or between the specific disciplines themselves. The differences that do exist are seen among chemists and political scientists who are more likely to be religious, according to traditional indicators, when compared to physicists” (p. 299).
 Scientific study of religion
Scientific studies have been done on religiosity as a social or psychological phenomenon. These include studies on the correlation between religiosity and intelligence (often IQ, but also other factors). A recent study on serotonin receptors and religiosity suggests a correlation between low density of serotonin receptors and intense religious experiences. Also of popular interest are the studies regarding prayer and medicine, in particular whether there is any causal or correlative link between spiritual supplication and improvement of health. Surveys by Gallup, the National Opinion Research Centre and the Pew Organisation conclude that spiritually committed people are twice as likely to report being “very happy” than the least religiously committed people. An analysis of over 200 social studies that “high religiousness predicts a rather lower risk of depression and drug abuse and fewer suicide attempts, and more reports of satisfaction with life and a sense of well-being.” A review of 498 studies published in peer-reviewed journals concluded that a large majority of these studies showed a positive correlation between religious commitment and higher levels of perceived well-being and self-esteem, and lower levels of hypertension, depression and clinical delinquency. Surveys suggest a strong link between faith and altruism. Studies by Keith Ward show that overall religion is a positive contributor to mental health. Michael Argyle and others claim that there is little or no evidence that religion ever causes mental disorders.
Other studies have shown that certain mental disorders, such as schizophrenia and obsessive-compulsive disorder, are also associated with high levels of religiosity. In addition, anti-psychotic medication, which is mainly aimed to block dopamine receptors, typically reduces religious behaviour and religious delusions.
Some historians, philosophers and scientists hope that the theory of memetics, reminiscent of the theory of genetics, will allow the modeling of the evolution of human culture, including the evolutionary origin of religions. Daniel Dennett‘s book Breaking the Spell (2006) attempts to begin such an analysis of modern religions. The idea that evolutionary processes are involved in the development of human culture and religion is not particularly controversial among natural scientists, although other approaches based on social sciences such as anthropology, psychology, sociology and economics are more prevalent in academic use.
 Perspectives of other groups in society
A survey of a national sample of US college students examined whether these students viewed the science / religion relationship as reflecting primarily conflict, collaboration, or independence. The study reported that
despite the seeming predominance of a conflict-oriented narrative, the majority of undergraduates do not view the relationship between these two institutions as one of conflict. Undergraduate students are also more likely to move away from a conflict perspective than to adopt one during their college years.:175
 Religion and science community
The religion and science community consists of those scholars who involve themselves with what has been called the “religion-and-science dialogue” or the “religion-and-science field.” The community belongs to neither the scientific nor the religious community, but is said to be a third overlapping community of interested and involved scientists, priests, clergymen, theologians, and engaged non-professionals.[not in citation given] Institutions interested in the intersection between science and religion include the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science, the Ian Ramsey Centre, and the Faraday Institute. Journals addressing the relationship between science and religion include Theology and Science and Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science.
 See also
||This “see also” section may contain an excessive number of suggestions. Please ensure that only the most relevant suggestions are given and that they are not red links, and consider integrating suggestions into the article itself. (June 2011)|
In the US:
- ^ John Polkinghorne Science and Theology SPCK/Fortress Press, 1998. ISBN 0-8006-3153-6 pp20-22, following Ian Barbour
- ^ Creation and double chaos: science and theology in discussion, Sjoerd Lieuwe Bonting, 2005, Fortress Press, ISBN 0-8006-3759-3, page 5
- ^ Nature, Human Nature, and God, Ian G. Barbour, Fortress Press, 2002, ISBN 0-8006-3477-2
- ^ Science & Religion: From Conflict to Conversation, 1995, p. 9 Paulist Press, ISBN 0-8091-3606-6
Throughout these pages we shall observe that there are at least four distinct ways in which science and religion can be related to each other: Religion in an Age of Science (1990), ISBN 0-06-060383-6
- Conflict — the conviction that science and religion are fundamentally irreconcilable;
- Contrast — the claim that there can be no genuine conflict since religion and science are each responding to radically different questions;
- Contact — an approach that looks for dialogue. interaction. and possible “consonance” between science and religion. and especially for ways in which science shapes religious and theological understanding.
- Confirmation — a somewhat quieter but extremely important perspective that highlights the ways in which, at a very deep level, religion supports and nourishes the entire scientific enterprise.
- ^ The Sciences and theology in the twentieth century, Arthur R. Peacocke (ed), University of Notre Dame press, 1981 ISBN 0-268-01704-2, p. xiii-xv
- ^ Owen, Richard (2009-03-17). “Pope says condoms are not the solution to Aids they make it worse”. The Times (London). http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5923927.ece. Retrieved 2010-05-22.
- ^ Lawson, Russell M. (2004). Science in the ancient world: an encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. pp. 29–30. ISBN 1851095349. http://books.google.com/?id=1AY1ALzh9V0C&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=ancient+China+geocentric+astronomy#v=onepage&q=ancient%20China%20geocentric%20astronomy&f=false. Retrieved 2 October 2009.
- ^ Galilei, Galileo (1613). “Letter to Benedetto Castelli”. Florence. http://www.disf.org/en/documentation/03-Galileo_PBCastelli.asp. “It follows that it is absolutely impossible to stop the sun and lengthen the day in the system of Ptolemy and Aristotle, and therefore either the motions must not be arranged as Ptolemy says or we must modify the meaning of the words of the Scripture; we would have to claim that, when it says that God stopped the sun, it meant to say that He stopped the Prime Mobile, and that is said the contrary of what it would have said if speaking to educated men in order to adapt itself to the capacity of those who are barely able to understand the rising and setting of the sun.”
- ^ Numbers, Ronald L. (2009). Galileo goes to jail and other myths about science and religion. Cambridge and London: Harward University Press. pp. 69, 70, 102. ISBN 978-0-674-03327-6. http://books.google.com/?id=_Wj-ruvGFvgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=galileo+goes+to+jail#v=snippet&q=galileo%20copernicus&f=false. Retrieved 2011-08-19. “In December 1615, however, Galileo went to Rome of his own accord to defend the Copernican theory…. In contrast to our starting myth, it is an easy matter to point to important figures of Scientific Revolution who were themselves Catholics. The man often credited with the first major step of the Scientific Revolution, Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543), was not only Catholic but in Holy Orders as a cathedral canon (a cleric charged with administrative duties).”
- ^ Ginzburg, Vitaly (2000). “Религия и наука. Разум и вера. (Religion and science –reason and faith).” (in Russian). Nauka i Zhizn (Science and Life). http://www.atheism.ru/library/Ginzburg_6.phtml. Retrieved 2011-08-19. “Finally, the attitude of the Church to science. The history of this relationship is controversial. At certain stages of the monasteries served as a bulwark of science, its development centres. The most famous example – work of Copernicus, who was a priest.”
- ^ http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Geocentrism.pdf
- ^ Benson H, Dusek JA, Sherwood JB et al. (2006). “Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer”. Am. Heart J. 151 (4): 934–42. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2005.05.028. PMID 16569567. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0002-8703(05)00649-6.
- ^ http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/coyne09/coyne09_index.html
- ^ http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/1999/10/01/holy-wars
- ^ Quotation from Ferngren’s introduction at “Gary Ferngren (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.” “…while [John] Brooke’s view [of a complexity thesis rather than conflict thesis] has gained widespread acceptance among professional historians of science, the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind.” (p. x)
- ^ Quotation from Colin A. Russell in “The Conflict Thesis” the first essay of “Gary Ferngren (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.” “The conflict thesis, at least in its simple form, is now widely perceived as a wholly inadequate intellectual framework within which to construct a sensible and realistic historiography of Western science.” (p. 7, followed by a list of the basic reasons why the conflict thesis is wrong).
- ^ Gary Ferngren (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. (Introduction, p. ix)
- ^ a b Jeffrey Russell. Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians. Praeger Paperback; New Ed edition (January 30, 1997). ISBN 0-275-95904-X; ISBN 978-0-275-95904-3.
- ^ Quotation from David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers in Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science. Studies in the History of Science and Christianity.
- ^ Ronald Numbers (Lecturer) (May 11, 2006). Myths and Truths in Science and Religion: A historical perspective (Video Lecture). University of Cambridge (Howard Building, Downing College): The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion. http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Lectures.php. Also see Ronald L. Numbers (ed.), Galileo goes to Jail and other Myths about Science and Religion (Harvard, 2009)
- ^ Cohen(1994) pp 310-311
- ^ Peter Harrison, The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science (Cambridge, 2007) ISBN 978-0-521-87559-2; The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science (Cambridge, 1998) ISBN 978-0-521-00096-3.
- ^ Ian G. Barbour, “Ways of relating science and theology” in Physics, philosophy, and theology: a common quest for understanding (Editors: Robert John Russell, William R. Stoeger, and George V. Coyne; Vatican City and Notre Dame Press, 1988).
- ^ John Hedley Brooke, Bibliographic Essay (pages 348-403) in Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives, 1991, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-23961-3, pages 349-350.
- ^ Stephen Jay Gould. Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the fullness of life. Ballantine Books, 1999.
- ^ W. T. Stace, Time and Eternity: an Essay in the Philosophy of Religion, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1952.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Religion and Science, John Habgood, Mills & Brown, 1964, pp., 11, 14-16, 48-55, 68-69, 90-91, 87
- ^ a b c d e f g Barbour, Ian G. (1968). “Science and Religion Today”. In Ian G. Barbour (ed.). Science and Religion: New Perspectives on the Dialogue (1st ed.). New York, Evanston and London: Harper & Row. pp. 3–29.
- ^ Religion and Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
- ^ “Science in America: Religious Belief and Public Attitudes”. http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=275.
- ^ Hatcher, William (September 1979). “Science and the Bahá’í Faith”. Zygon: Journal of Religion of Science 14 (3): 229–253.
- ^ Smith, P. (1999). A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahá’í Faith. Oxford, UK: Oneworld Publications. pp. 306–307. ISBN 1851681841.
- ^ Mehanian, Courosh; Friberg, Stephen R. (2003). “Religion and Evolution Reconciled: ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Comments on Evolution”. The Journal of Bahá’í studies 13 (1–4): 55–93.
- ^ Yong, Amos. (2005) Buddhism and Science: Breaking New Ground (review) Buddhist-Christian Studies – Volume 25, 2005, pp. 176-180
- ^ Kalupahana,David J. (1975) “Causality—the central philosophy of Buddhism” University Press of Hawaii.
- ^ Wallace, B. Alan. (2003) ” Buddhism & science: breaking new ground” Columbia University Press, pp 328
- ^ Hamilton, Jon. (2005) “The Links Between the Dalai Lama and Neuroscience” www.NPR.org, November 11, 2005 
- ^ Dalia Lama. (2005) “The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality” Broadway.
- ^ Russell, Robert John (2008). Cosmology: From Alpha to Omega. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. pp. 344. ISBN 978-0-8006-6273-8.
- ^ Knight, Christopher C. (2008). “God’s Action in Nature’s World: Essays in Honour of Robert John Russell” (subscription required). Science & Christian Belief 20 (2): 214–215. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=34154239&site=ehost-live.
- ^ Reconciling Science and Religion: The Debate in Early-twentieth-century Britain, Peter J. Bowler, 2001, University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-06858-7. Front dustcover flap material
- ^ Cua, Antonio S. “The Quasi-Empirical Aspect of Hsün-tzu’s Philosophy of Human Nature.” PEW 28 (1978), 3-19.
- ^ Tillman, Hoyt Cleveland. “Utilitarian Confucianism : Chʻen Liang’s challenge to Chu Hsi” Cambridge, Mass. : Council on East Asian Studies, Harvard University : Distributed by Harvard University Press, 1982.
- ^ Black, Alison Harley. “Man and Nature in the Philosophical Thought of Wang Fu-Chih.” Publications on Asia of the Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington, no. 41. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1989
- ^ Mary Evelyn Tucker “Confucianism and Ecology: The Interrelation of Heaven, Earth, and Humans (Religions of the World and Ecology)” Center for the Study of World Religions (August 15, 1998)
- ^ a b Carl Mitcham (2005). Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics. Macmillan Reference USA. p. 917. ISBN 0028658310.
- ^ A Hindu Primer by Shukavak N. Dasa
- ^ Sarma, Deepak (2011) “Classical Indian Philosophy: A Reader” p.167 Columbia University Press
- ^ Samkhya Karika, śloka4
- ^ “Religion & Ethics-Hinduism”. BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/beliefs/intro_1.shtml. Retrieved 2008-12-26.
- ^ Moorty, J.S.R.L.Narayana (May 18–21, 1995). “Science and spirituality: Any Points of Contact? The Teachings of U.G.Krishnamurti: A Case Study”. Krishnamurti Centennial Conference. http://www.well.com/user/jct/science.html. Retrieved 2008-12-26.
- ^ a b Rastogi, V.B. (1988). Organic Evolution. Kedar Nath Ram Nath, New Delhi.
- ^ Cvancara, A.M. (1995). A field manual for the amateur geologist. John Wiley & sons, Inc. New York.
- ^ Similarities in concept of evolution of life on earth in Dashavatar and modern Geology. Dr. Nitish Priyadarshi, American Chronicle
- ^ a b Dr Kutty (2009). Adam’s Gene and the Mitochondrial Eve. Xlibris Corporation. p. 136. ISBN 9781441507297. http://books.google.com/books?id=sUqYgipyiGMC.
- ^ http://ncse.com/news/2009/07/opinions-evolution-from-ten-countries-004885
- ^ Hamilton, Fiona. The Times (London). http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6610938.ece.
- ^ a b c Muzaffar Iqbal (2007). Science & Islam. Greenwood Press.
- ^ 2. Toshihiko Izutsu (1964). God and Man in the Koran. Weltansckauung. Tokyo.
- ^ 3. Situating Arabic Science: Locality versus Essence (A.I. Sabra)
- ^ Rosanna Gorini (2003). “Al-Haytham the Man of Experience. First Steps in the Science of Vision”, International Society for the History of Islamic Medicine. Institute of Neurosciences, Laboratory of Psychobiology and Psychopharmacology, Rome, Italy.
- ^ Robert Briffault (1928). The Making of Humanity, p. 190-202. G. Allen & Unwin Ltd.
- ^ a b Seyyid Hossein Nasr. “Islam and Modern Science”
- ^ a b Smedes, Taede A. (2008). “Beyond Barbour or Back to Basics? The Future of Science-and-Religion and the Quest for Unity”. Zygon 43 (1): 235 58. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2008.00910.x.
- ^ Theerman, Paul “James Clerk Maxwell and religion”, American Journal of Physics, 54 (4), April 1986, p.312–317 doi:10.1119/1.14636 •What is truth? A course in science and religion Peter J. Brancazio, Am. J. Phys. 62, 893 (1994) doi:10.1119/1.17735 •The stifling grip of religion Romard Barthel Am. J. Phys. 68, 785 (2000) doi:10.1119/1.1303729 •Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology, Max Jammer Author Jeremy Bernstein and Reviewer, Am. J. Phys. 68, 676 (2000), doi:10.1119/1.19513 •Science, religion, and skepticism, Dwight E. Neuenschwander, Am. J. Phys. 66, 273 (1998), doi:10.1119/1.19024 •Copernicus and Martin Luther: An encounter between science and religion Donald H. Kobe, Am. J. Phys. 66, 190 (1998), doi:10.1119/1.18844 •Science and Religion: From Conflict to Conversation John F. Haught and Eugene E. Selk, Am. J. Phys. 64, 1532 (1996), doi:10.1119/1.18441 •Science and Religion—A Comment M. A. Vandyck, Am. J. Phys. 64, 110 (1996), doi:10.1119/1.18125 •Religion versus science? Eduardo Segre, Am. J. Phys. 62, 296 (1994), doi:10.1119/1.17567 •Does religion contradict science? Mehmet Pakdemirli, Am. J. Phys. 61, 201 (1993), doi:10.1119/1.17287 •Religion versus science? Thomas E. Phipps, Jr., Am. J. Phys. 60, 871 (1992), doi:10.1119/1.17004 •A response to “Religion vs. Science?, by Jay Orear Allen C. Dotson, Am. J. Phys. 60, 778 (1992), doi:10.1119/1.17057 •Religion vs. science? Jay Orear, Am. J. Phys. 60, 394 (1992), doi:10.1119/1.16889 •Religion in an Age of Science Ian G. Barbour and Eugene E. Selk, Am. J. Phys. 59, 1152 (1991), doi:10.1119/1.16630 •Making sense of experience: Common ground in science and religion Harry D. Powell, Am. J. Phys. 59, 679 (1991), doi:10.1119/1.16767 •Guest Comment: Preserving and cherishing the Earth—An appeal for joint commitment in science and religion Carl Sagan, Am. J. Phys. 58, 615 (1990), doi:10.1119/1.16418 •James Clerk Maxwell and religion. Paul Theerman, Am. J. Phys. 54, 312 (1986), doi:10.1119/1.14636
- ^ a b c d Science 15 August 1997: Vol. 277. no. 5328, pp. 890 – 893; “Scientific Community: Science and God: A Warming Trend?” Gregg Easterbrook doi:10.1126/science.277.5328.890
- ^ •Science 12 September 1997: Vol. 277. no. 5332, pp. 1589 – 1591; “Letters: Science and Religion” doi:10.1126/science.277.5332.1589a •Science 13 December 1957: Vol. 126. no. 3285, pp. 1225 – 1229; “Science and the Citizen” Warren Weaver doi:10.1126/science.126.3285.1225 •Science 25 April 1958: Vol. 127. no. 3304, pp. 1004+1006; “Letters: Science and Religion” •Science, 6 June 1958, 127(3310), pages 1324-1327; “A Human Enterprise: Science as lived by its practitioners bears but little resemblance to science as described in print.” doi:10.1126/science.127.3310.1324 •Science 23 February 2001: Vol. 291. no. 5508, pp. 1472 – 1474; “PAPAL SCIENCE: Science and Religion Advance Together at Pontifical Academy” Charles Seife doi:10.1126/science.291.5508.1472
- ^ Science and Religion, by Alvin Plantinga, 2007, 2010.
- ^ Particularly Puritan Protestant, but not excluding Catholicism.
- ^ a b The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry, H. Floris Cohen, University of Chicago Press 1994, 680 pages, ISBN 0-226-11280-2, pages 308-321
- ^ “Finally, and most importantly, Hooykaas does not of course claim that the Scientific Revolution was exclusively the work of Protestant scholars.” Cohen(1994) p 313
- ^ Cohen(1994) p 313. Hooykaas puts it more poetically: “Metaphorically speaking, whereas the bodily ingredients of science may have been Greek, its vitamins and hormones were biblical.”
- ^ Peter Harrison, The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science (Cambridge, 1998).
- ^ Peter Harrison, The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science (Cambridge, 2007); see also Charles Webster, The Great Instauration (London: Duckworth, 1975)
- ^ God and nature, Lindberg and Numbers Ed., 1986, pp. 136-66; see also William B. Ashworth Jr.’s publication list; this is noted on page 366 of Science and Religion, John Hedley Brooke, 1991, Cambridge University Press
- ^ The Anglican Origins of Modern Science, Isis, Volume 71, Issue 2, June 1980, 251-267; this is also noted on page 366 of Science and Religion, John Hedley Brooke, 1991, Cambridge University Press
- ^ John Dillenberger, Protestant Thought and Natural Science (Doubleday, 1960).
- ^ Christopher B. Kaiser, Creation and the History of Science (Eerdmans, 1991).
- ^ John Hedley Brooke, Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives, 1991, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-23961-3, page 19. See also Peter Harrison, “Newtonian Science, Miracles, and the Laws of Nature”, Journal of the History of Ideas 56 (1995), 531-53.
- ^ Science and Christianity in pulpit and pew, Oxford University Press, 2007, Ronald L. Numbers, p. 4, and p.138 n. 3 where Numbers specifically raises his concerns with regards to the works of Michael B. Foster, Reijer Hooykaas, Eugene M. Klaaren, and Stanley L. Jaki
- ^ Rodney Stark, For the glory of God: how monotheism led to reformations, science, witch-hunts and the end of slavery, 2003, Princeton University Press, ISBN 0-691-11436-6, page 123
- ^ Davis, Edward B. (2003). “Christianity, History Of Science And Religion”. In Van Huyssteen, Wentzel. Encyclopedia of Science and Religion. Macmillan Reference USA. pp. 123–7. ISBN 9780028657042
- ^ Ibn Rushd (Averroes) (1126 – 1198 CE), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- ^ Pope John Paul II, 3 October 1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Science, “Cosmology and Fundamental Physics”
- ^ Machamer, Peter (1998). The Cambridge Companion to Galileo. Cambridge University Press. p. 306. ISBN 0521588413.
- ^ Peter Harrison, ‘Religion, the Royal Society, and the Rise of Science’, Theology and Science, 6 (2008), 255-71.
- ^ Thomas Sprat, The History of the Royal Society (London, 1667)
- ^ Frank Turner, ‘The Victorian Conflict between Science and Religion: A Professional Dimension’, Isis, 49 (1978) 356-76.
- ^ Albert Einstein:Religion and Science
- ^ a b 1997 poll by Edward Larson of the University of Georgia published by Nature:Nature 386, 435 – 436 (3 April 1997) Scientists are still keeping the faith, Edward J. Larson & Larry Witham
- ^ a b Essay Forum on the Religious Engagements of American Undergraduates
- ^ a b Larson, E. J. & Witham, L., “Scientists are still keeping the faith,”, Nature 386, 435-436 (1997).
- ^ a b Pew Research Center: “Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media“, Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion. July 9, 2009.
- ^ a b Easton, John. Survey on physicians’ religious beliefs shows majority faithful Medical Center Public Affairs, U of C Chronicle. July 14, 2005. http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050714/doctorsfaith–.shtml accessed:1-February-09
- ^ http://blog.beliefnet.com/roddreher/2010/04/science-vs-religion-what-do-scientists-say.html
- ^ Larson and Witham, 1998 “Leading Scientists Still Reject God”
- ^ Ref to survey at Livescience article from Physorg.com
- ^ Scientists May Not Be Very Religious, but Science May Not Be to Blame:Religious upbringing, age, and family size influence religiosity among scientists June 29, 2007
- ^ “Scientists and Belief”. Pew Research Center. http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx. Retrieved 2011–04-08. “A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.”
- ^ a b c Neil Gross and Solon Simmons (2009). The religiosity of American college and university professors. Sociology of Religion, v70 n2, pp101-129. doi:10.1093/socrel/srp026 (EISSN 1759-8818, ISSN 1069-4404)
- ^ Elaine Howard Ecklund & Christopher P. Scheitle (2007). Religion among academic scientists: Distinctions, disciplines, and demographics. Social Problems, v54 n2, pp289-307. doi:10.1525/sp.2007.54.2.289 From May to June 2005, the researchers “randomly selected 2,198 faculty members in the disciplines of physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, economics, political science, and psychology…. [with a] a relatively high response rate of 75 percent or 1,646″ (p. 293).
- ^ Dr. Lars Farde Ph.D, professor of psychiatry at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden 2003, the study and a vulgarized article
- ^ p. 156 of Keith Ward (2007), Is Religion Dangerous? (ISBN 0802845088). Ward cites David Myers in a reference that appears intended to refer to Myers’ then-forthcoming chapter “Religion and Human Flourishing” (pp. 323-343) in Michael Eid and Randy J. Larsen (2007). The Science of Subjective Well-Being. Guilford Press, ISBN 1593855818
- ^ Smith,Timothy, Michael McCullough, and Justin Poll. 2003: “Religiousness and Depression: Evidence for a Main Effect and Moderating Influence of Stressful Life Events.” Psychological Bulletin 129(4):614–36
- ^ Bryan Johnson & colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania (2002)
- ^ Is Religion Dangerous? cites similar results from the Handbook of Religion and Mental Health Harold Koenig (ed.) ISBN 978-0-12-417645-4
- ^ eg a survey by Robert Putnam showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organisations
- ^ Is Religion Dangerous? Ch 9.
- ^ quoting Michael Argyle and others
- ^ Abramowitz, Jonathan S., J. D. Huppert, A. B. Cohen, D. F. Tolin, and S. P. Cahill, “Religious obsessions and compulsions in a non-clinical sample: the Penn Inventory of Scrupulosity (PIOS)”, Behaviour Research and Therapy 40:7 (2002): 825-838.
- ^ McNamara, Patrick, “The Frontal Lobes and the Evolution of Cooperation and Religion”, in: idem (ed.), Where God and Science meet: How Brain and Evolutionary Studies Alter our Understanding of Religion, London: Praeger Perspectives 2006, Vol. 2, pp. 189-204.
- ^ a b Christopher P. Scheitle (2011). “U.S. College students’ perception of religion and science: Conflict, collaboration, or independence? A research note”. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (Blackwell) 50 (1): 175–186. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2010.01558.x. ISSN 1468-5906.
- ^ Religion-and-Science Philip Hefner, pages 562-576 in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science Philip Clayton(ed.), Zachary Simpson(associate-ed.)—Hardcover 2006, paperback July 2008-Oxford University Press, 1023 pages
- ^ a b Hefner, Philip (2008). “Editorial: Religion-and-Science, the Third Community”. Zygon 43 (1): 3–7. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2008.00893.x.
- ^ Ian Ramsey Centre
- Barbour, Ian. When Science Meets Religion. SanFrancisco: Harper, 2000.
- Barbour, Ian. Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues. SanFrancisco: Harper, 1997. ISBN 0-06-060938-9
- Drummond, Henry. Natural Law in the Spiritual World. London: Hodder & Stoughton Ltd, 29th Edition, 1890 
- Haught, John F. Science & Religion: From Conflict to Conversation. Paulist Press, 1995. ISBN 0-8091-3606-6
- Larson, Edward J. and Larry Witham. “Scientists are still keeping the faith” Nature Vol. 386, pp. 435 – 436 (3 April 1997)
- Larson, Edward J. and Larry Witham. “Leading scientists still reject God,” Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691 (1998), p. 313. online version
- Einstein on Religion and Science from Ideas and Opinions (1954), Crown Publishers, ISBN 0-517-00393-7
- The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science Philip Clayton(ed.), Zachary Simpson(associate-ed.)—Hardcover 2006, paperback July 2008-Oxford University Press, 1023 pages
 Further reading
- Brooke, John H., Margaret Osler, and Jitse M. van der Meer, editors. “Science in Theistic Contexts: Cognitive Dimensions,” Osiris, 2nd ser., vol. 16(2001), ISBN 0-226-07565-6.
- Brooke, John H., Science And Religion: Some Historical Perspectives, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991, ISBN 0-521-23961-3
- Haisch, Bernard. The God Theory: Universes, Zero-point Fields, and What’s Behind It All (Preface), Red Wheel/Weiser, 2006, ISBN 1-57863-374-5
- Bunge, Mario, Chasing Reality: Strife over Realism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
- Lenaers, Roger. Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream or The End of a Medieval Catholic Church. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2007. ISBN 978-1-59333-583-0.
- Peter Harrison, The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion (Cambridge, 2010).
- Thomas Henry Huxley, Science and Hebrew Tradition: Essays, D. Appleton and Company, 1897, 372 pages
- Oord,Thomas Jay, ed., Divine Grace and Emerging Creation: Wesleyan Forays in Science and Theology of Creation, Pickwick Publications, 2009, ISBN 1-60608-287-6
- Oord,Thomas Jay, Science of Love: The Wisdom of Well-Being, Templeton, 2003, ISBN 1-932031-70-7
- Restivo, Sal, The Social Relations of Physics, Mysticism, and Mathematics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1983.
- Richardson, Mark – Wesley Wildman (ed.), Religion & Science: History, Method, Dialogue, Routledge, 1996, ISBN 0-415-91667-4
- Van Huyssteen, J. Wentzel (editor), Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, MacMillan, 2003, ISBN 0-02-865704-7
- Wilber, Ken, The Marriage of Sense and Soul: Integrating Science and Religion, Broadway; Reprint edition, 1999, ISBN 0-7679-0343-9
- Walsh, James J., The Popes and Science; the History of the Papal Relations to Science During the Middle Ages and Down to Our Own Time, Kessinger Publishing, 1908, reprinted 2003. ISBN 0-7661-3646-9 from WorldCat  Review excerpts:
- John Polkinghorne, Science and Theology SPCK/Fortress Press, 1998. ISBN 0-8006-3153-6
- John Rekesh, The God Principle: Amazing Connections between Natural and Spiritual Realms, Archress Literature, 2008, ISBN 978-0-9801516-7-1
 External links
- The BioLogos Forum: Science and Faith in Dialogue
- Counterbalance.org: Science and Religion Project
- “Faith and Reason” – website about the historical relations between science and religion, PBS
- Is Science Killing the Soul? – Discussion with atheists Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker on Edge Foundation.
- Meaning of Life A collection of video interviews with prominent scientists about topics relating science and religion (requires WMV or RealMedia software)
- Clash in Cambridge: Science and religion seem as antagonistic as ever – by John Horgan, Scientific American, September 2005
- How the Public Resolves Conflicts Between Faith and Science, David Masci, Pew Research Center
- Robert M. Young (1985). “Darwin’s Metaphor: Nature’s Place in Victorian Culture”. Cambridge University Press. http://human-nature.com/dm/dar.html. Retrieved 2007-08-31.
- Zygon Journal of Religion and Science
- Science and Religion by Archbishop Luke of Crimea, an Eastern Orthodox perspective
- Victorian Science and Religion The Victorian Web: Literature, History, and Culture in the Age of Victoria
- SCIENCE and RELIGION: DIALOG OF PHYSICISTS AND THEOLOGIANS SCIENCE and RELIGION: DIALOG OF PHYSICISTS AND THEOLOGIANS
-  The Metaphysical Foundations of Buddhism and Sciences
- This page was last modified on 19 January 2012 at 13:38.
- Contact us
- About Wikipedia
- Mobile view
YeahHahaSe ha acabado la mierda(Spanish)Bout to drop a def’ cutYo, yo, yo, huh Immortal Technique, disintegrates mic’s when I spitI cause more casualties than sunken slave shipsFull to capacity, I bring tragedy to rap without my man KadafiThe government took Nazi scientists from GermanyTo design nuclear rockets and ways of observin’ me’Cause their pathetic attempts, didn’t work to murder meWhen this country was conceived, these bastards never heard of meBut now I hold the souls of slave masters eternallyBleeding internally, burgundy, durin’ surgery, verbally’Cause I’m a spiritual witchDevils are incompatibleI’ve been around since the planet was inhabitableI spit in the ocean and created microscopic animalsWhich evolved into two species, the righteous and the cannibalsBut until then, I had alien women suck me offWhen God said “Let there be light”, I turned it the fuck offAnd that’s the reason that the earth is only 5 billion years oldI made the sun shine, and permitted time to unfoldThe surface was lava, but when I stepped down, it became coldFuck what you’ve been toldMy spiritual form became a swarm of molecule sicknessManifested liquid trapped inside a mountainous regionUntil the skies starting raining, continuous seasonsImmortal Technique, at long last, reincarnatedUndebatably reinstated to leave you decapitatedje suis fous, but my crazy words make sense(je suis fous = i am mad)I’ll split every pound of your body into six pence[ From: http://www.metrolyrics.com/creation-destruction-lyrics-immortal-technique.html ]I’m sick of simple similes about The Sixth SenseI’ll leave your body drenched in the blood of all your ancestorsYou’ll never be at peace, like the souls of child molestorsI’ll cut you and bless your festering wounds with alcoholDrown you in a clogged toilet, in a public bathroom stallI’ll rip you down, take a chunk of you home like the Berlin WallThis is the final call, for all the rappers that wanna brawlImmortal Technique, the wrong motherfucker to diss’Cause I allow God to let you motherfuckers exist Hahahahaha yeah, real ohWe about to crash somethin’ now, yoYo, yo, yoI’m the stronghold on your neck that doesn’t let you breatheStronger than the fake image of God in which you believeMore dangerous than your ignorant ass could ever percieveA European virus, mutated in Africa, overseasTransported by mosquitoes and fleas to where you liveSo lock yourself in your house with your wife and your kidsYou’re such a bitch, somebody probably made you out of a ribMy arrest record just scratches the surface of what I didMy bid locked me up and brought my life to an endI was forgotten, abandoned by my bitches and friendsYou don’t want beef with people like me so don’t pretendI’ll resurrect your aborted baby and kill it againYou get no props in hip-hop like feminine menI’m iller than any plague God gave Moses to sendYou wanna make amends, ’cause I’m the reason that the earth shakes
Burying your fam like Central American earthquakes Immortal TechniqueHarlem to Canada
Lyrically damage ya
Te dije que se ha acabado la mierda(spanish)
Read more: IMMORTAL TECHNIQUE – CREATION & DESTRUCTION LYRICS http://www.metrolyrics.com/creation-destruction-lyrics-immortal-technique.html#ixzz1kDTxwOkN Copied from
…and I am Sid Harth@com