Galileo vs. the Roman Catholic Church: European Renaissance Ocularcentrism

Home Forums Discussion Forum Galileo vs. the Roman Catholic Church: European Renaissance Ocularcentrism

This topic contains 11 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of Garrett Cornish Garrett Cornish 3 years, 3 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #403
    Profile photo of Dr. M
    Dr. M
    Keymaster
    • 14
    • 12
    • 26

    You can respond to any of the following questions–and reply to other threads begun by other students: How could Galileo & the Ancient Greeks have both been ocularcentric yet viewed seeing, vision, and how we see the world differently? How could science and religion have differed so much about seeing? What does it mean for theories of ocularcentrism if we need tools to aid our vision? If we need ocular devices like eyeglasses, microscopes, prisms, and telescopes, all of which were developed during the European Renaissance, to see what weo therwise could not see with the unaided eye?

  • #429
    Profile photo of Rahmat Ashari
    Rahmat Ashari
    Participant
    • 0
    • 7
    • 7

    How could science and religion have differed so much about seeing? ‘Seeing’ in science is purer than ‘seeing’ in religion. In religion, we perceive our surrounding within the track of what the holy scripture allows us to see. Holy scripture has great authority and it shapes our perception and determines what we can see and what we can’t. Furthermore, the observation has to agree with what the holy scripture says. While in science, the only limit of what we can see relies on the distance in which our eyes can observe. As technology advances, we can see smaller and farther objects and there is no (probably relatively less) authority that structure what we can see and what we can’t.

    • #431
      Profile photo of Joachim Chielens
      Joachim Chielens
      Participant
      • 0
      • 23
      • 23

      I believe that the creation of these optical tools only affirms the fact that our culture became very ocularcentric. I do not look at it from the perspective that our eyes needed help to see, and to discover new knowledge. I approach it from the perspective that there was so much more to see and to discover with our eyes. Optical tools were created just to be able to discover objects imperceptible to the naked eye. A small but important distinction, I think.

      • #500
        Profile photo of Medusa
        Medusa
        Participant
        • 0
        • 7
        • 7

        You very finely distinguish your position in sentences 2 and 3 in this post. Not ailment or limitation fueled the invention and development of optical devices, but rather curiosity, wonder, and discovery (except perhaps for optical devices like eye-glasses or magnifying glasses? Since those optical devices did correct visual impediments; that said, they may have been accidental inventions, i.e. a scientist grinding glass suddenly realizing that the image through the glass is larger).

    • #499
      Profile photo of Medusa
      Medusa
      Participant
      • 0
      • 7
      • 7

      So, Rahmat, could we then say that, in shaping our perception, Holy Scriptures establish the boundaries for what we can and cannot see and, therefore, our interpretations of what we can or cannot see? I have added “cannot see” since faith is in so many religions iconoclastic–in deities without physical, visual representation, or icons. Or, a combination of both. Sometimes a deity would have to actually present itself to people in some tangible, visual form in order for people to believe or have faith.

      Could we define faith as belief/believing without seeing/being able to see: belief with the absence of sight? If that is a possible way of interpreting faith, then faith would be the antithesis of name of this course!

  • #433
    Profile photo of Madeleine McClure
    Madeleine McClure
    Participant
    • 0
    • 4
    • 4

    ” How could science and religion have differed so much about seeing?” Religion comes up with explanations of what we know and see in a one dimensional manner. Religion regards this one answers as outstandingly correct without even considering other explanations of whatever is being discussed. Religion is a way of sight through “faith”, being lead and guided by one outlook…
    Science on the other hand is the process of evaluating and deciphering the outside world, and the things you come in contact with. Science became more complex and as the years went on became more excepting of things that one can simply not explain, that in my opinion being the beauty of it all. That I claim most significant the way these two things differ on the subject of seeing, they simply have different techniques when looking beyond oneself

    • #501
      Profile photo of Medusa
      Medusa
      Participant
      • 0
      • 7
      • 7

      Wouldn’t it be not that Science became more accepting of things that we could simply not explain, but the opposite: that Science tried to find ways of explaining the inexplicable? While Religion is satisfied by the inexplicable–by explaining what we can’t explain or understand as part of God’s will?

      And you are right to say that Science and Religion have different “techniques” when looking beyond the self: can you say more about these techniques and how they differ? Is Science empirical and about outward seeing and Religion about inward seeing? Does Science work with data, aka empirical evidence? Is Science in search of experiment-derived proofs? Is Science about acceptance without proof? (and is that another way to describe faith?)

  • #461
    Profile photo of Diego Aranha
    Diego Aranha
    Participant
    • 0
    • 6
    • 6

    “What does it mean for theories of ocularcentrism if we need tools to aid our vision?” I think that just by having tools that aid our vision is a testament to how much humans value it. In my opinion inventions such as glasses and telescopes prove theories of ocularcentrism. Not only do humans see vision as a gift, but they strive to improve it to better understand our world.

    • #502
      Profile photo of Medusa
      Medusa
      Participant
      • 0
      • 7
      • 7

      This is interesting and I wonder if you can explain a bit more after each of your first two claims about vision. And, yes, you have two really good evaluative claims back to back (just take out the IMO that begins the 2nd claim). That said, I’m not sure where you’re going when you then says that “humans see vision as a gift” but the second part of that sentence is better in line with the earlier two sentences.

  • #736
    Profile photo of Madeleine McClure
    Madeleine McClure
    Participant
    • 0
    • 4
    • 4

    “How could religion and science have differed so much?” In christian religions, The Roman catholic church in this case, relies on the bible as a main source of information. They get the rules from the bible, they get their own “truths” from it because it must be true if it is the bible. Who could argue with the direct word of God? and simply anything that went against the bible was absolutely wrong, not even in question. No consideration of anything outside this realm, not just limited to the people apart of the church but the huge amount of followers, were all mislead and not at all benefiting from the world they lived it.

    • #738
      Profile photo of Joachim Chielens
      Joachim Chielens
      Participant
      • 0
      • 23
      • 23

      People needed an explanation for the things that they could not explain. Everybody wants to make sense out of non-sense. Why are we alive? What is the purpose of life? Why do bad things happen to good people? Why do we die? What happens after we die? All these questions were answered by religion. At that point probably the best available answer. Over the years the church became extremely powerful. And who wants to give up that amount of power and influence? So when science challenged the truths of religion, the church did what every powerful group would do. Take out the people or institutions that challenge your power. This fight is still going on, by the way. It is very difficult to convince people they have been wrong. Just like Plato’s prisoner who had seen the light. When he returned to the cave, people did not believe him and wanted to kill him.

  • #1301
    Profile photo of Garrett Cornish
    Garrett Cornish
    Participant
    • 0
    • 7
    • 7

    Religion was dominant and nearly everyone believed the scripture and the lessons they were taught. I believe that since this was the social “norm” whenever there was a different view (Galileo’s and science) it was thought that these beliefs were insane and false because the differed from the common belief although Galileo’s information was the true reality.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.