On "Science and Religion: Is There a Conflict?"

I shall now attempt to correct some factual inaccuracies that I made in my essay, "Science and Religion: Is There a Conflict?". Along with it, sharing new views that I read from a book that covers the same idea proves relevant to this particular blog.

******

I have originally stated that Sir Isaac Newton "....used the scientific method to investigate the apple's fall from a tree and came up with the law of gravity." It turns out that this account is inaccurate, even fictional. There is, however, perhaps some truth to the claim that Newton was inspired by the apple. This is the account of Newton's assistant at the royal mint, John Conduitt, taken from this website:
http://www.newtonproject.ic.ac.uk/texts/viewtext.php?id=THEM00167&mode=diplomatic

"In the year 1666 he retired again from Cambridge ... to his mother in Lincolnshire & whilst he was musing in a garden it came into his thought that the power of gravity (which brought an apple from a tree to the ground) was not limited to a certain distance from earth, but that this power must extend much further than was usually thought. Why not as high as the Moon said he to himself & if so, that must influence her motion & perhaps retain her in her orbit, whereupon he fell a calculating what would be the effect of that supposition..."

It turns out that Newton was inspired to suppose that gravity extends farther out from the earth, to affect another heavenly body (the moon). I think the notion of gravity has already been known at that time. Newton's contribution lies in extending it to apply to the moon, and by extension other heavenly bodies, to come up with universal gravitation.

******

With the statement "Other issues like a rounded or flat earth have been resolved by an overwhelming majority and empirical evidence...", the essay implies that religion or religious leaders led us to believe in a flat earth. It turns out that there is no historical basis for this. Even before the time of Jesus, Aristotle has already assumed a spherical earth. Eratosthenes measured the earth's circumference to near accuracy during the third century (a remarkable feat, indeed). All major medieval religious scholars from Roger Bacon to Thomas Aquinas to Nicholas Oresme upheld the earth's sphericity.

Darwin's theory, specifically, is natural selection as the mechanism of evolutionary change. (Re my statement: "When Darwin put forth his theory of evolution...")

These are the factual mistakes I have found so far. I am not sure if there is nothing else.

******

I just finished reading the late Stephen Jay Gould's book, "Rock of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life". Gould was the Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology and professor of geology at Harvard University. He believed in the importance of religion and its role in providing meaning to our lives but professed agnosticism to a Supernatural Being.

The last statement of the previous paragraph might sound contradictory but Gould has a looser view of religion. Religion, he said, answers questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. It can stand on its own even with "the entire absence of theology," - as he quoted from Thomas Henry Huxley.

He used the term Non-Overlapping Magisteria or NOMA, to advance his view that science and religion can not meet because they have different domains or magisteria. He encourages principled, tolerant, and respectful dialogue between these two institutions. Each should know its own domain of study and engage with the other without imposing unwarranted authority. True wisdom, said Gould, is achieved by understanding the factuality of nature (science) and the ultimate meaning of life and moral basis of our actions (religion).