Similarly to the first presentation, I found the topic of this presentation to be quite interesting. The divide between religion and science is relevant to my personal life and ideologies. I find it quite intriguing, but also tragic at times, how much people associate societal standards with religious justifications. Whether discussing religious or non-religious topics, people typically base what is right and what is wrong on what society tells them. I struggle with literal interpretations sometimes, especially because any English version of the Bible is already inaccurate. I took a translation course last semester and learned that it is actually impossible to perfectly translate anything. Thus, I find quoting works in a translated copy to be imperfect, thus occasionally unreliable. Yet, people do like to be told what they believe is wrong leading to sensitive and mixed emotions. I agree with Dr. Goldish’s comment that the war between religion and science was created in falsehood; the picture is entirely too complicated to be simplified into separation of the two.
It is interesting how we always view things with a modern lens. Since we exist in modern times with contemporary ways of thinking, it is nearly impossible to avoid this, yet it is important to recognize. I liked that Dr. Goldish gave background to some components of the scientific revolution. For example, his elaboration on Copernicus and his role with the Catholic Church was entirely new information to me outside Copernicus’s general scientific innovations for the time. The example of the addition of the preface to Copernicus’s novel making a disclaimer that none of this matters is sad, but the reality of it is that a large portion of historical documents likely have been tailored to the contemporary cultures of the times whether through translation adjustments and sly additions such as this. His point that Copernicus was working with the Catholic Church goes to show how influential word-of-mouth can be in society and how what we learn in a classroom today is not always reflective of the truth. Galileo is another great example of this inaccurate telling of the clash between religion and science.
Overall, I really enjoyed Dr. Goldish’s presentation. He was engaging, interesting, and a great speaker. His diction, elaborate explanations, and drawings made his points easy to comprehend. This presentation reminded of a book that I have called The Language of God, in which a leading geneticist in the Human Genome Project reflects on how the work he completed for the project is not separate from his theology, but rather enlightening.
I think I know the geneticist you are speaking of and have heard him debate religion and science. I agree that the debate at times is overblown and that they are really two separate ways of looking at the world. I always enjoy Dr. Goldish’s take, because of what you said, Emily. He is very articulate, but at the same time kind of down-to-earth and relatable in his speaking style.