Es conocido que Johannes Kepler fue uno de los primeros científicos reputados y profesionalmente reconocidos que apoyaron la nueva teoría heliocéntrica de Copémico. Kepler no la aceptó como una teoría provisional más simple, sino como la verdadera teoría del universo, y lo hizo a pesar del hecho de que él, más que cualquiera de su tiempo, estaba muy consciente de los defectos y deficiencias de esta nueva teoría. Este articulo es un intento de echar una nueva luz sobre este desconcertante (...) rompecabezas. Luego de examinar cuidadosa y críticamente las diferentes perspectivas de académicos kepleríanos bien reconocidos, este articulo halla la fuente de este enigma en su modo especial de pensar y proceder en su investigación clentifica: Kepler permitía una interacción creativa y constructiva entre datos científicos, principios filosóficos y ciertas creencias religiosas. Si hubiese dependido solamente de datos empíricos, él no hubiera sido el copernicano más leal. Las ideas filosóficas o religiosas solas no lo hubiesen convencido de la veracidad del punto de vista heliocéntrico. La aceptación kepleriana del sistema copernicano es una instancia paradigmática de la interacción constructiva entre ciencia, filosofía y religión en la historia de la ciencia. (shrink)

Despite Kepler's candid and detailed report on the discovery of his first two laws, the problem of the origin of these laws still remains unresolved. Attempts to unravel the problem have varied from considering the discovery a chance to one arising from a well-reasoned, patient, and systematic empirical study of Tycho Brahe's observations . On the issue of the influence of non-scientific factors on this discovery also various views exist. Small and Dreyer do not even consider this question. Strong and, (...) to some extent, Westman deny any positive role to such an influence, whereas Koestler and, in some sense, Burtt seem to go to the other extreme. Between these two extremes lie the views of Aiton, Gingerich, Holton, Koyre, and Wilson. I argue that all these attempts are either inaccurate or incomplete because they fail to pay attention to all the relevant factors involved. In Kepler's works and thought I see an interaction among empirical, philosophical, and religious ideas. I show that this interaction had a decisive role to play in the discovery of the laws. If Kepler had emphasized only the empirical, he probably would have been another Tycho, but not the discoverer of the laws and the father of modern astronomy. On the other hand, if he had concentrated only on the philosophical, he would have remained just one among the renaissance natural philosophers. Religious ideas alone also would not have led him to the laws. But when all the three were allowed to interact and collaborate, mutually modifying and complementing each other, the result was the laws. My study has two parts. In the first part I identify and discuss Kepler's religious, philosophical, and scientific ideas. In the second part I discuss his actual discovery of the first two laws. I divide the process of discovery into different stages and show that in each all the three factors had to collaborate to make the discovery possible. I base my studies on Kepler's own original books and letters, supplemented by reflection and commentaries on them by eminent Kepler scholars. (shrink)

Kozhamthadam Job, b. 1945, the pioneer of science-religion dialogue in India; contributed articles.

The present article provides an analysis of the way in which the Council Vatican u (1962-1965) understood and related to the human realms of Science and Technology. As one of the greatest events in the life of the Church in contemporary times, the Council Vatican II sought to meet the necessities of contemporary society, particularly its pastoral needs. By recognizing the importance played by the mathematical and the natural sciences in the formation of the contemporary human being, the Council was (...) led to produce some very important statements about Science and Technology. Thus, the article gives us a glimpse of the overall spirit that animated the Council and of the extent to which some of its special features played a major role in determining the attitude it took towards modern developments such as those related to the field of Science and Technology. Moreover, it also shows how Vatican u came to understand Science and Technology not as "devices of the devil", but rather as a real boon to humanity, recognizing in particular that they are ordained by divine dispensation. Finally, the article also elucidates how for the Council Religion and Science must preserve their autonomy and their distinctiveness, so that neither is Religion to be founded on Science nor is Science to be seen as an extension of Religion. Rather, each one of them should possess its own principles, its pattern of procedures, its diversities of interpretation and its own conclusions. /// O presente artigo oferece-nos uma análise do modo como o Concilio Vaticano II (1962-1965) compreendeu e se relacionou com esferas tão importantes da vida humana contemporânea, tais como a Ciência e a Tecnologia. Sendo um dos grandes acontecimentos na vida da Igreja, o Concílio Vaticano II procurou responder às necessidades da sociedade contemporânea, facto este que lhe imprimiu um carácter verdadeiramente pastoral. Com efeito, ao reconhecer a importância que hoje têm a matemática e as ciências naturais na formação do ser humano dos nossos dias, o Concâio fez questão de se pronunciar explicitamente acerca da Ciência e da Tecnologia. Assim, dando-nos uma impressão do espírito que animou o Concílio no seu todo, o artigo mostra-nos sobretudo o modo como o mesmo interpreta as realidades da Ciência e da Tecnologia não mais como "obras do demónio", mas sim como verdadeiros benefícios para a humanidade no seu todo, especialmente na medida em que também elas fazem parte da providência divina. Em suma, o artigo elucida-nos acerca do modo como o Concílio Vaticano II interpreta a relação entre Religião e Ciência, relação esta que para os Padres Conciliares deve estar assente no princípio da autonomia e da distinção de cada uma delas, de modo que nem a Religião se quer fundada na Ciência, nem a Ciência deve ser vista como uma extensão da Religião. Pelo contrário, cada uma delas deve estar orientada pelos seus próprios princípios, pelos seus respectivos padrões de procedimento, pela diversidade das suas interpretações e, obviamente, pelas suas próprias conclusões. (shrink)