Austin Fontaine 
Megan Novelli In light that science has its roots in philosophy, a lot of Medieval Philosophy and later philosophy is a reaction to religion, I think it is interesting the amount of dogma that accompanies philosophy. Often times, philosophy reacts to religion by accusing it of being dogmatic and close minded. However, a lot of philosophy is just as bad. The empiricist and rationalist movements are great examples. One emphasizes experience and the other rational thinking, yet many leaders of both movements rejected the other side as wrong.
Science and religion continue to do the same thing today. Science rejects religion as being based in myth, and religion attacks science saying that what science teaches is incompatible with God’s truth. The most famous example being Galileo’s support of the heliocentric model of the solar system, and the Church persecuting him for it. Galileo was a member of the Church, but because of what he said he ended up under house arrest and eventually died of sickness. The funny thing is that he wasn’t rejecting God’s truth, but merely the influence of Aristotle’s thinking of how the Universe worked, it seems the Church cared more about it’s authority then what is the actual truth.
And so my question is, is this problem rooted in the disagreements of philosophy, religion, and science as based in the Renaissance, or is it a problem that has always existed between these different but still (with some exceptions) compatible views of the truth?
Kameron Allen
3:40 pm, 09.20.10
I may be completely off the mark here, so I am really sorry if I am. I believe that a lot of dissension arises between these groups because they are all in a struggle for authority/power. I think each of those three have very compelling, and, as you mentioned, compatible views on truth, but they divide when one questions the authority of the other. I would say it was definitely an issue long before the Renaissance and it will probably continue to be an issue for many years to come.