Pew: Religion and Science

[OldSchool2]

from PRC:

"From the heresy trial of Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei four centuries ago to the uproar over Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, religion and science have often been seen as being in conflict. But are religious faith and the scientific enterprise really at odds with each other?

"A new Pew Research Center survey examines this question through the lens of American public opinion and across a range of scientific topics. We found that a majority of Americans (59%) say that science is often in conflict with religion, with only 38% saying the two areas are mostly compatible. Here are five key findings from the report...."

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/22/5-facts-about-the-interplay-between-religion-and-science/

[thereselittleflower]

They weren't even really at odds at the time of Galileo either.   In fact, the Church even encouraged his work.  The problem with Galileo occurred when he tried to become a theologian (which he as not) and promoted erroneous theology, not about the relationship between the earth and the sun, but spin off ideas on spiritual matters as a result.    In fact, the Pope and Galileo were best friends.

Science has never really been at odds with religion until atheism took over science and then has tried to use science to justify atheism, turning science into a religion of it's own.   Those who pursue science without such an agenda really have no conflict with religion.   Science does not peer into the spiritual realm, at least not yet, and so the Church and science have their own respective realms.   So-called conflicts between science and religion are really conflicts between atheism and christianity (as well as other religions).

Edited October 23, 2015 by thereselittleflower

[OldSchool2]

They weren't even really at odds at the time of Galileo either.   In fact, the Church even encouraged his work....

... but only up to a point.

According to ChristianAnswers.Net:

"In 1632, Galileo completed his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems—Ptolemaic & Copernican. This publication ... presented all the arguments for and against the two great world systems--the Copernican (sun centered) and the Aristotelian or Ptolemaic (earth centered) ...

"... The Roman Curia promptly banned and confiscated Galileo's monumental work; and it became the basis for his second trial, censure, and lifetime house arrest by the Holy Office of the Inquisition in 1633. The Roman Catholic Church convicted him of breaking his agreement of 1616 and of teaching the Copernican theory as a truth and not a hypothesis. They suspected him of holding heretical opinions condemned by the Church, which they ordered him to abjure ...

"The Holy Tribunal in Galileo's condemnation states: 'The proposition that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture.

"The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world and immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically, and theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith."

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/galileo.html

[kwikphilly]

Blessings Old School

  But are religious faith and the scientific enterprise really at odds with each other?

Absolutely  and there will always be that division ....

King James Bible
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
                                                                                                                                                      Eph 6:12

 It is interesting that the PRC found that 68% of American adults say that there is NO conflict between their(personal) religious beliefs & science(according to their survey)   & that For the 30% who do see a conflict," the most common source of disagreement involves beliefs about evolution and the creation of the universe"      Seems most likely to me,,,,,,,Yeah,interesting article,,,thanks for sharing

                                                                                                                      With love-in Christ,Kwik

[thereselittleflower]

They weren't even really at odds at the time of Galileo either.   In fact, the Church even encouraged his work....

... but only up to a point.

According to ChristianAnswers.Net:

"In 1632, Galileo completed his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems—Ptolemaic & Copernican. This publication ... presented all the arguments for and against the two great world systems--the Copernican (sun centered) and the Aristotelian or Ptolemaic (earth centered) ...

"... The Roman Curia promptly banned and confiscated Galileo's monumental work; and it became the basis for his second trial, censure, and lifetime house arrest by the Holy Office of the Inquisition in 1633. The Roman Catholic Church convicted him of breaking his agreement of 1616 and of teaching the Copernican theory as a truth and not a hypothesis. They suspected him of holding heretical opinions condemned by the Church, which they ordered him to abjure ...

"The Holy Tribunal in Galileo's condemnation states: 'The proposition that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture.

"The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world and immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically, and theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith."

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/galileo.html

Their rendition of history is actually not correct.

If his theory of heliocentricity was bannable, they would have taken action against Copernicus too.  It wasn't the science that was the issue.

It was not his scientific theories that got him into trouble.  If he had left his scientific theories as theories, everything would have been fine.  The Church actually backed and funded his scientific research.   This is the part that is left out of the history books.  The real story is a fascinating read.

 

THE MYTH OF GALILEO: A STORY WITH A (MOSTLY) VALUABLE LESSON FOR TODAY

Here is the real story about Galileo Galilei . It’s not the story about an enlightened scientist being persecuted by a narrow-minded Catholic Church because that story is (mostly) a myth. It’s not a story about a great scientific genius either, though he was that (mainly). It’s also not a story about someone being reincarnated with the soul of the old astronomer like the song by the Indigo Girlsthat, for a few weeks in ‘92, I thought was (almost) profound. (And I should point out that it not an original story but one that cribbed together from other sources.)

After talking about Copernicus, he says

Then came Galileo, the prototypical Renaissance man a brilliant scientist, mathematician, and musician. But while he as intelligent, charming, and witty, the Italian was also argumentative, mocking, and vain. He was, as we would say, complex. When his fellow astronomer Johann Kepler wrote to tell him that he had converted to Copernicus’ theory, Galileo shot back that he had too — and had been so for years (though all evidence shows that it wasn’t true). His ego wouldn’t allow him to be upstaged by men who weren’t as smart as he was. And for Galileo, that included just about everybody.

In 1610, Galileo used his telescope to make some surprising discoveries that disputed Aristotelian cosmology. Though his findings didn’t exactly overthrow the reigning view of the day, they were warmly received by the Vatican and by Pope Paul V

He discusses how Galileo's vanity and ego led him to go beyond simply presenting unproven scientific theory for consideration into trying to force it down the throats of others in the scientific community, managing 

... to squander the goodwill he had established within the Church. He was attempting to force them to accept a theory that, at the time, was still unproven. The Church graciously offered to consider Copernicanism a reasonable hypothesis, albeit a superior one to the Ptolemaic system, until further proof could be gathered. 

He didn't do this.  He picked fights with fellow scientists instead, pushing theories that were wrong as though they were facts, fighting with other scientists.  He then entered expanded his fight to biblical interpretation.

Galileo’s primary mistake was to move the fight out of the realm of science and into the field of biblical interpretation. In a fit of hubris, he wrote the Letter to Castelli in order to explain how his theory was not incompatible with proper biblical exegesis. With the Protestant Reformation still fresh on their minds, the Church authorities were in no mood to put up with another troublemaker trying to interpret Scripture on his own.

But, to their credit, they didn’t overreact. 

...In 1615, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine politely presented Galileo with an option: Put up or Shut up. Since there was no proof that the earth revolved around the sun, there was no reason for Galileo to go around trying to change the accepted reading of Holy Scripture. But if he had proof, the Church was willing to reconsider their position. Galileo’s response was to produce his theory that the ocean tides were caused by the earth’s rotation. The idea was not only scientifically inaccurate but so silly it was even rejected by his supporters.

 

He goes on to talk about how Galileo took his ideas to the then Pope who referred the matter to the Holy Office which produced one opinion against the Copernican doctrine which was then overturned by many Cardinals in favor of  Galileo.   Galileo would not stop trying to push theory, which included errors, as absolute truth no matter how many times the Church asked him to stop promoting unproven theory as factual truth.

Then Galileo's friend became Pope Urban VIII, who was a mathematician and scientist of sorts himself.  When Galileo tried to push his ideas that the earth's rotation caused the tides to prove his overall theory, this was refuted by his friend with probably equally unsound scientific reasoning.

This lead to the Galileo really overstepping his bounds.  He satirized the entire conflict, including satirizing his friend, Pope Urban VIII, as a simpleton:

Galileo then wrote A Dialogue About the Two Chief World Systems in which he would present the views of both Copernicus and Ptolemy. Three characters would be involved: Salviati, the Copernican; Sagredo, the undecided; and Simplicio, the Ptolemian (the name Simplicio implying “simple-minded”). And here is where we find our hero making his biggest blunder: he took the words that Pope Urban had used to refute his theory of the tides and put them in the mouths of Simplicio.

The Pope was not amused.

Galileo, called before the inquisition, was treated very well.  

While waiting for his trial, Galileo was housed in a luxurious apartment overlooking the Vatican gardens and provided with a personal valet.

At his trial, he tried to turn the tables on them concerning what he had previously claimed:

In his defense, Galileo tried a peculiar tactic. He attempted to convince the judges that he had never maintained nor defended the opinion that the earth moves and that the sun is stationary and that he had, in fact, demonstrated the opposite by showing how the Copernican hypothesis was in error. The Holy Office, who knew they were being played for fools, condemned him as being “vehemently suspected of heresy”, a patently unjust ruling considering that Copernicanism had never been declared heretical.

Galileo’s sentence was to renounce his theory and to live out the rest of his days in a pleasant country house near Florence. Obviously the exile did him good because it was there, under the care of his daughter, that he continued his experiments and published his best scientific work, Discourses on Two New Sciences . He died quietly in 1642 at the ripe old age of 77.

As the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead wrote, “In a generation which saw the Thirty Years’ War and remembered Alva in the Netherlands, the worst that happened to men of science was that Galileo suffered an honorable detention and a mild reproof, before dying peacefully in his bed.”

As Paul Harvey would say, now we know the rest of the story . 

 

 

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/09/the-myth-of-galileo-a-story-with-a-mostly-valuable-lesson-for-today

 

 

Edited October 24, 2015 by thereselittleflower

[OldSchool2]

They weren't even really at odds at the time of Galileo either.   In fact, the Church even encouraged his work....

... but only up to a point.

According to ChristianAnswers.Net:

"In 1632, Galileo completed his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems—Ptolemaic & Copernican. This publication ... presented all the arguments for and against the two great world systems--the Copernican (sun centered) and the Aristotelian or Ptolemaic (earth centered) ...

Their rendition of history is actually not correct....

Is this quote not correct?

"The Holy Tribunal in Galileo's condemnation states: 'The proposition that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture.

'''The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world and immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically, and theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith.'"

 

[thereselittleflower]

They weren't even really at odds at the time of Galileo either.   In fact, the Church even encouraged his work....

... but only up to a point.

According to ChristianAnswers.Net:

"In 1632, Galileo completed his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems—Ptolemaic & Copernican. This publication ... presented all the arguments for and against the two great world systems--the Copernican (sun centered) and the Aristotelian or Ptolemaic (earth centered) ...

Their rendition of history is actually not correct....

Is this quote not correct?

"The Holy Tribunal in Galileo's condemnation states: 'The proposition that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture.

'''The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world and immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically, and theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith.'"

 

We need to look at the bigger picture and the entire story to understand what happened.    I find this subject fascinating.   I hope you find it equally as fascinating.

It was his interpretations of scripture and his dogmatism about a theory that had yet to be proven and using it to interpret scripture, rather than just keep it a theory, and then his resulting behavior that caused the confrontation.

Until it was proven, his dogmatism regarding how his theory was applied to scripture interpretation (which is the territory of theologians, which he was not), was considered heretical. 

Cardinal Bellarmine adjudicated the issue quite carefully.  His opinion was if it were indeed to be proven true, 

"then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary; and say rather that we do not understand them, than that what is demonstrated is false." 

It was this failure of Galileo to approach scripture interpretation carefully, with great care, and the behavior of his students that exacerbated the situation.  If he would have left it as a theory until it could actually be proven, none of this would have happened.   His temperament  and ego would not permit that.

But Galileo was intent on ramming Copernicus down the throat of Christendom. The irony is that when he started his campaign, he enjoyed almost universal good will among the Catholic hierarchy. But he managed to alienate almost everybody with his caustic manner and aggressive tactics. His position gave the Church authorities no room to maneuver: they either had to accept Copernicanism as a fact (even though it had not been proved) and reinterpret Scripture accordingly; or they had to condemn it. He refused the reasonable third position which the Church offered him: that Copernicanism might be considered a hypothesis, one even superior to the Ptolemaic system, until further proof could be adduced.

Such proof, however, was not forthcoming. Galileo's belligerence probably had much to do with the fact that he knew there was no direct proof of heliocentrism. He could not even answer the strongest argument against it, which was advanced by Aristotle. If the earth did orbit the sun, the philosopher wrote, then stellar parallaxes would be observable in the sky. In other words, there would be a shift in the position of a star observed from the earth on one side of the sun, and then six months later from the other side. Galileo was not able with the best of his telescopes to discern the slightest stellar parallax. This was a valid scientific objection, and it was not answered until 1838, when Friedrich Bessel succeeded in determining the parallax of star 61 Cygni.

Galileo's other problem was that he insisted, despite the discoveries of Kepler, that the planets orbit the sun in perfect circles. The Jesuit astronomers could plainly see that this was untenable. Galileo nonetheless launched his campaign with a series of pamphlets and letters which were circulated all over Europe. Along the way, he picked fights with a number of Churchmen on peripheral issues which helped to stack the deck against him. And, despite the warnings of his friends in Rome, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds.

There is no question that if the debate over heliocentrism had remained purely scientific, it would have been shrugged off by the Church authorities. But in 1614, Galileo felt that he had to answer the objection that the new science contradicted certain passages of Scripture. There was, for example, Joshua's command that the sun stand still. Why would Joshua do that if, as Galileo asserted, the sun didn't move at all? Then there were Psalms 92 ("He has made the world firm, not to be moved.") and 103 ("You fixed the earth upon its foundation, not to be moved forever."), not to mention the famous verse in Ecclesiastes. These are not obscure passages, and their literal sense would obviously have to be abandoned if the Copernican system were true.

... His friend Archbishop Piero Dini warned him that he could write freely so long as he "kept out of the sacristy." But Galileo threw caution to the winds, and it was on this point — his apparent trespassing on the theologians' turf — that his enemies were finally able to nail him.

 

If you notice the quotes you provided speak of "doctrine" not science.   As I said, Galileo stepped outside of science into theology, and this was the problem.  Theories he was espousing, such as atomism,  were even touching on matters of theology that had nothing to do with this scientific theory of heliocentricism, which were actually a much more serious issue.  He made geometry the ultimate source of truth.   There is a theory that what happened regarding heliocentricity was actually to protect him from being called into question about heresy on central dogmas of the Church due to his atomism.  

There was a debate going on at the time of Galileo regarding Atomization. In An Introduction to the History of Structural Mechanics: Part I, Edoardo Benvenuto examines Galileo's atomism:

5.3  The Subtext: Galileo's Atomism

This brief narrative of Galileo's life may seem to have little to do with the topic under discussion, the resistance of solids.  It seems hard to believe that the Discorsi could give rise to controversy. The book makes no reference to the Copernican question, nor is there any hint of Galileo's conflict with the Church or any mention of theology or scriptural interpretation. The analysis seems limited, harmless, incapable of giving rise to any questions of faith or doctrine.  But underlying this straightforward discussin of mechanics there are troubling questions and hypotheses.  To address these, we must first summarize the intellectual climate in whidh Galileo worked.

The concepts of material reality and of the intrinsic prpoperties of bodies were, in Galileo's lifetime, governed by the Aristotelian theory of hylemorphism and by a good deal of metaphysical prejudice.  Theology had created a comfortable image of the world, and had inextricably tied faith to a description of physical reality, to such an estent that some Christian dogma was based on cosmology and its laws.  But the rise of Renaissance humanism and the great flowering of physical science suddenly brought into question all of the tidy assumptions upon which this cosmology was based.  This explains why the growth of the new sciences often came into conflict with traditional thought, in spite of the fact that the newcomers had roots in the late scholasticism.  The Copernican theory was by no means the only, or even the most important, such challenge.  We should remember that the vexing question of the center of the universe, and whether other worlds might exist, had been debated for a long time.  The Bishop of Paris, Etienne Temier, even considered the thesis that "God cannot make many worlds" heretical including it in his famous Syllabus of condemned propositions (Marh 7, 1277).

Copernican cosmology was a flank attack, but the debate on the nature of matter itself was a frontal assault.  During this time, the atomistic hypothesis reappeared on the horizen of science after having been branded as atheistic and materialistic for centuries.  To question Aristotoelian assumptions about matter itself was far more serious than to fiddle with the orientation of the earth and sun; such questions were seen as particularly insidious in their ability to cast doubt on received theology and to trouble men's minds.  They hypothesis could, of course, be stripped of its associations with Democritus, Epicurus and Lucretius, but it was still deeply threatening.  Donato Rosssetti tells us that the students of the University of Pisa were obliged "to flee the atomists as ethnic pagans and publicans." 12   The concept had to be considered as a direct attack on faith and truth.  The Counter-Reformation only intensified the Church's hostility to atomism when the COuncil of Trent enshrined the doctrine of transubstantiation of the Host.  By distinguishing substantia from species or "sensory appearance." theologians could claim that the consecrated bread and wine, while apparently unchanged, had been transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ.  Accoriding to atomism, on the other hand, atoms were seen as both causes and carriers of sensations, and as constituting principles of reality, at the same time substance nad species.  This doctrine was irrevocably opposed to the doctrine of transubstantiation.

In his youth, Galileo had been attracted by the new perspectives which atomism opened in physics.  In his Discorso sulle cose che stanno su l'acqua ("Discourse on floating things") (1612) he tried to verify, with reference to hydrostatics, the reliability of some Democritean hypotheses on water and also heat.  But above all, in his Saggiatore (1623) he developed a general theory which described the elements of nature and perceptible phenomena (except for sound, which he saw as being wavelike) by means of the movement of particles of matter.  One of P. Redondi's essays, 13 published to commenorate the 350th anniversary of Galileo's conviction, argues convincingly that the real cause for the Church's attack on Galileo was his atomism. Redondi maintains that the scientist's heliocentrism was a pretext, adopted to keep the true reason for the conviction from the public.  He bases this claim on the discovery of an anonymous document, found in the Vatican archives, on the Saggiatore and its Democritean origins. 14

Whether or not Redondi is right, it is certain that atomism occupies an important place in Galileo's thought, surfacting over and over again if not always consistently) in his writings.  In teh Discorsi, the atomic hypothesis is directly connected with the themes of the resistance of solids, but the connection is never formally stated and remains reather enigmatic.  Redondi, addressing this, speaks of a "substitution of theory" to characterize the change from the explicit positions of the Saggiatore to the reformulation of the Discorsi. "The conceptual substitution," he says, 

"takes place under the eyes of the readers, but is almost imperceptible, like a clever game of cards....Through Salvaiati, Galileo speaks of points, spaces and lines. One listens, fascinated, to that audacious infinitesimal solution to a difficult geometrical paradox, then realizes that Salviati has begun to speak of particles instead of points, of hallows instead of spaces, of bodies instead of lines, and that the terms of each couple are synonymous" 15

In other words, Redondi suggests, Galileo made a purely semantic substitution in order to replace the metaphysical and materialistic speculations in the Saggiatore with new and more powerful metaphysical speculations of a mathematical character.

...  Some scientists, as good Christians, tried to reconcile atomism and received theology, but Galileo's position was very different.  Unlike many of his contemporaries and successors (Rossetti, for example) he never pretended to justify his hypotheses and results "with the Holy Scriptures, with Councils and with Holy Fathers," 16 nor did he aim to substituted a new all-embracing philosophy for the Perpatetic one. On the contrary, he intended to limit himself to strict scientific examinatin and to rid it of inconclusive metaphysical baggage. 

...For Galileo, it is experience that must be meaningful.  The brute fact is not enough; it shows us that something happens, but not what or how. 21  Science aims to make experience meaningful, to interpret it, to use it as a tool for understanding nature.

... What lends significance to experience is, therefore, its transformation by mathematics.  The mathematical language of nature decides the truth of every theory, for it is the only demonstrative basis of those prinicples which philosophy poses a priori. 23

The Discorsi take this argument to its limits.  Mathematics (or, in Galileo's terms, geometry) is not only the pre-eminent instrument for understanding; it is the only such instrument.  It perfectly satisfies the real needs of research, unlike "logic," whose vague arguments lead nowhere.  In the Second Day of the Discorsi, for example, after a brilliant geometrical demonstration set out in contrast to a superficial "logical" pseudo-deduction, Galileo makes his Aristotelian Simplicio admit,  "indeed, I begin to understand that while logic is an excellent guide in the discourse, it does not, as regards stimulation to discover, compare with .... geometry." 24

 

 

 

 

 

 

[OldSchool2]

They weren't even really at odds at the time of Galileo either.   In fact, the Church even encouraged his work....

... but only up to a point.

According to ChristianAnswers.Net:

"In 1632, Galileo completed his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems—Ptolemaic & Copernican. This publication ... presented all the arguments for and against the two great world systems--the Copernican (sun centered) and the Aristotelian or Ptolemaic (earth centered) ...

Their rendition of history is actually not correct....

Is this quote not correct?

"The Holy Tribunal in Galileo's condemnation states: 'The proposition that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture.

'''The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world and immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically, and theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith.'"

 

We need to look at the bigger picture and the entire story to understand what happened.    I find this subject fascinating.   I hope you find it equally as fascinating.

It was his interpretations of scripture and his dogmatism about a theory that had yet to be proven and using it to interpret scripture, rather than just keep it a theory, and then his resulting behavior that caused the confrontation.

Until it was proven, his dogmatism regarding how his theory was applied to scripture interpretation (which is the territory of theologians, which he was not), was considered heretical....

Then why did the Catholic Church officially recant its decision 350 years after Galileo's conviction for heresy?

After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right: It Moves

"More than 350 years after the Roman Catholic Church condemned Galileo, Pope John Paul II is poised to rectify one of the Church's most infamous wrongs -- the persecution of the Italian astronomer and physicist for proving the Earth moves around the Sun.

"With a formal statement at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Saturday, Vatican officials said the Pope will formally close a 13-year investigation into the Church's condemnation of Galileo in 1633. The condemnation, which forced the astronomer and physicist to recant his discoveries, led to Galileo's house arrest for eight years before his death in 1642 at the age of 77.

"The dispute between the Church and Galileo has long stood as one of history's great emblems of conflict between reason and dogma, science and faith. The Vatican's formal acknowledgement of an error, moreover, is a rarity in an institution built over centuries on the belief that the Church is the final arbiter in matters of faith....

"By the end of his trial, Galileo was forced to recant his own scientific findings as 'abjured, cursed and detested,' a renunciation that caused him great personal anguish but which saved him from being burned at the stake...."

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/31/world/after-350-years-vatican-says-galileo-was-right-it-moves.html

 

[Kan]

Galileo's crime was that he dared to have his own convictions without the permission of the controlling church.

The same draconian attitude exists in science today - "prove it to our satisfaction (agreed opinions) or consider yourself full of gibberish." 

The scientific standard of acceptance is "We'll believe it when we can see it" it has to be scientifically tangible, but "if it crosses our philosophies" (which by the way prevent them from having perception) it will be rejected.

[OldSchool2]

Galileo's crime was that he dared to have his own convictions without the permission of the controlling church.

The same draconian attitude exists in science today - "prove it to our satisfaction (agreed opinions) or consider yourself full of gibberish....

Ironically, in some scientific circles, people who don't subscribe to either evolution or global warming are treated as heretics.