Introduction
The interaction of science and religion is a complex one, the subject of controversy for hundreds of years. Religion has a very strong effect on the society, and hence on the science that it produces. What then is the effect? Is it good or bad? It depends upon the religion.
There are a number of factors that either promote or prevent the development of science. These may be uncovered by analyzing the societies of the past and searching for the underlying principles that have led to scientifically prosperous countries or caused science to stagnate. These causes may be grouped in two distinct categories: individual factors and societal factors. Each of these groups is strongly influenced by religion, both of the individual and the society in general.
This paper will seek to illuminate the underlying causes of scientific advancement, and to analyze how those causes relate to religion.
What science is
Science is “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena.” (American Heritage Dictionary) Snow puts it thus: science is “The systematized collection of knowledge about nature through using only reason and sense experience in order to discover the underlying laws of nature, which explain how nature is organized and allow future accurate predictions about nature's processes or objects to be made.”(Snow) Science must be differentiated from technology and engineering. Science is concerned with analyzing how and why something behaves the way it does. Technology and engineering are simply concerned with using something’s behavior for the benefit of mankind, to improve their environment. “We must avoid assuming technological advance proves a given civilization has science, or modern science, for most inventions that affected daily life in the pre-modern world economically were "empirical" discoveries by craftsmen and other pragmatic types, not true scientists meditating on the laws of nature.” (Snow)
Technological advancements occur in any culture that is at peace that has at least a moderate agricultural surplus, as long as the religion of the culture is not overly traditionalist, condemning advances. Technological advances, since they do not need highly trained people, depend solely on the social climate and the safety of the people. However, scientific advances are less common, and depend on several other factors. They require that the society be open toward analytical investigation, have a desire to progress, and have some means of disseminating knowledge. These three factors differentiate societies that stagnate scientifically from those that make great gains.
Factors in the advance of science
The factors are important on two levels: the individual level, and the sociological level. Because not all factors are met does not mean that scientists will not arise, but it greatly hinders the advance of science in the society. There will be fewer scientists, and the discoveries that they make will not be widely known, hindering other scientists from building on their work.
There are four key factors regarding the individual. The individual must have some talent for science. This is innate. However, in poor societies, the chances that a talented person will have the means to study science are slim. The means, then, is the second key factor. The means allow the person to be able to devote the necessary time to science, since science is rarely profitable in material gain. Often, this came through a patronage system. Third, the person must have necessary training. Unfortunately, patronage usually comes after the training, so some means are required in the meantime. The person must have some access to training; some cultures have not. Finally, and importantly, the individual must believe that there is a good reason to study the universe, to try to identify its underlying patterns and causes. This, in ancient times, was by no means prevalent. This belief in an orderly universe means that some useful, comprehensible law may be uncovered.
The individual ability to conduct scientific inquiry is only half of the equation. The society of which he is a part must also be open to theories, or at least consider them. Philosophical and social stability must not be so highly thought of as to prevent innovation. The society must also actually have some emphasis on advancement in science. Often scientific discoveries will not have any obvious benefit initially; the society itself must believe in the usefulness of advancement in theoretical matters, or the innovation will be forgotten or repudiated. Finally, there must be some method of disseminating knowledge, via schools, libraries or the like. If the discoveries are not transmitted to others, the opportunity for further discoveries, and eventually of material gain, will be lost.
The factors and religion
How does religion relate to this? Religion greatly influences most, of the factors outlined above. The first factor, individual talent does not come from religion. The next, individual affluence, is only peripherally related to religion, depending on how the religion influences the political and social climate of the area. Individual training was often obtained in the past at religious schools, as the primary distributor of learning. The final individual factor, the most important, is also the most strongly affected by religion. The belief of the individual that there is order in the universe, and that there are patterns to be uncovered, and that there is a use to uncovering the patterns, is uniquely shaped by that person’s religion. Some religions stress the usefulness of learning about nature, others totally reject it.
On the social level, religion has a pronounced effect. The openness toward science is almost completely determined by the religion, how entrenched it is, and whether it fears that learning will cause the masses to learn too much. This was the case in a number of ancient religious establishments. The desire to advance is also strongly affected by religion. Some religions teach a cyclical cosmology, which strongly hinders advancement by promoting a certain fatalism. Religions that teach a linear cosmology, on the other hand, encourage advancement. Finally, the dissemination of knowledge in a culture is also dominated by religious considerations. If the religion wants to prevent the common person from learning, it will be very difficult indeed for the common person to find an avenue for learning. Very often the only schools were associated with the religious establishment. Whether these were open to commoners had a profound effect on the advance of science in that society.
It must be seen, then, that the particular religion has everything to do with these factors—and that different religions have different stances, different doctrines that affect these factors. Each religion, in fact each era in each religion, will have different relationships to these factors. Each, then, must be evaluated apart from the others.
Evaluation of religions and cultures
Most of the early societies were barely above the subsistence level, causing there to be little scientific innovation, as no one had leisure time. The pagan religions certainly were not a positive influence on this, as they tended to cultivate an atmosphere of fear and determinism. Thus, there were few of the factors needed, either on a societal or individual level. Egypt and Mesopotamia did have the necessary material wealth. In both of these, the religions tended to have dominant priesthoods that kept the populace under their control. There was some technological development, but true science was rare. In Mesopotamia, early observational astronomy was developed by the priests and for the priests. Whether this observation and primitive prediction truly constitutes science is debatable. Religion, in this case, seems primarily to have hindered science. In Egypt, medicine was developed to some extent; however, this was not scientific, but rather more a trial-and-error approach that was improved over centuries of stability. This, then, can be considered primarily a technological advance. There was some rudimentary geometrical study, but the conditions necessary for the advance of science were not there. The civilizations did not seem to put much of any stress on advancement; the present conditions were deemed good enough.
Greece had a small upper class with leisure time, and a culture that was open to new ideas. Athens in particular was very wealthy, and most of the citizens had time to consider the new philosophical ideas and scientific advances. Religion in Greece was primarily separate from science, in that the religious establishment did not hinder or encourage science for the most part. There were individuals with talent, training, and means. They did not necessarily believe in an orderly universe. For the most part they did not study nature, but rather did philosophical exercises regarding nature and its composition. A major problem with their culture was that there was not a very strong desire to progress scientifically; rather, people tried to better their own personal intellectual capabilities. This greatly hindered science actually describing the universe accurately, as they were not necessarily concerned with the fact that some of nature did not agree with their philosophy.
Aristotle focused on reason at the expense of religion; in essence, reason was Aristotle’s god. This unfailing faith in reason contributed to the flaws in Aristotle’s natural philosophy. As all of the Greeks, he did not care so much for experimental work, but rather on deducing what “necessarily must be.” He viewed the heavens as somehow divine, but rejected a creator:
That the heaven as a whole neither came into being nor admits of destruction, as some assert, but is one and eternal, with no end or beginning of its total duration, containing and embracing in itself the infinity of time, we may convince ourselves not only by the arguments already set forth but also by a consideration of the views of those who differ from us in providing for its generation. If our view is a possible one, and the manner of generation which they assert is impossible, this fact will have great weight in convincing us of the immortality and eternity of the world. (Aristotle, Book II, Part 1)
His view of the heavens as perfect gave problems to astronomers for centuries, particularly because of his demand for uniform circular motion. This view is associated with his particular brand of religion, glorifying reason but still treating the heavens as divine. This was prevalent in the Greek civilization.
In Rome, there was ample leisure time, but the society was not geared toward the propagation and utilization of science. Technology, to be sure, was brought to its highest achievement for centuries to come, as Rome was a utilitarian society. This same utilitarianism, though, caused theoretical disciplines like science to suffer. Individually, belief in a orderly universe was not prevalent; the gods each had dominion over part of it, and they behaved unpredictably. This handicapped science.
China is an interesting case. All of the positive material factors were there: affluence, stability, capability—but science did not grow. Technology did, science did not. Why? For one, they viewed the universe as a cycle, greatly depreciating the value of progress. They also tended to view things as caused by the Yin and Yang, or other forces. This made the orderliness of nature questionable. For the most part, the Chinese just didn’t care about science. This was brought about by their religion.
The Medieval Latin world was handicapped by several factors. The most important was economic; there were very few that had sufficient leisure time to study science. Second, and related, there was very low literacy outside the monasteries, so only the monks really had an opportunity to learn about science. And these individuals, monks because of their religious fervency, rarely considered science as important as religious pursuits. Thus it is surprising that there was any scientific inquiry, but there was some. The Christian faith emphasized that the world was created by God, and that He was revealed through His creation added considerable personal incentive to the study of science. However, the society in general was not able to utilize such scientific learning as was available.
Nicole Oresme was one of the greatest scientists in the Medieval Latin world. His Christianity was a very strong component in his work; he held the Bible as absolute authority. The culture in which he worked was similarly Christian, but was affected by the conservative influences of the Catholic Church. The school at which he worked was under the influence (though not actual enforcement) of the Condemnation of 1277, which attacked the work of Aristotle on Biblical grounds. A few quotes:
For indeed, they say that things are true according to philosophy but are not according to the Catholic faith; as if there could be two contrary truths, and as if contrary to the truth of Sacred Scripture there could be truth in the statements of the damned gentiles of whom it was written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise” because true wisdom destroys false wisdom....Therefore, lest dangerous discourse draw the innocent into error, we strictly forbid, on the advice communicated to us by doctors of sacred theology and other prudent men, that such things and similar things be done, and wholly condemn these things, excommunicating all those who shall have taught some or all of the said errors….
A few of the errors listed on the roll:
6. That when all celestial bodies have returned to the same point—which will happen in 36,000 year—the same effects now in operation will be repeated.
37. That nothing should be believed unless it is self-evident or could be asserted from things that are self-evident.
90. That a natural philosopher ought to deny absolutely the newness [that is, the creation] of the world because he depends on natural causes and natural reasons. The faithful, however, can deny the eternity of the world because they depend upon supernatural causes.
93. That celestial bodies have eternity of substance but not eternity of motion.
94. That there are two eternal principles, namely the body of the sky and its soul.
150. That on any question, a man ought not to be satisfied with certitude based upon authority.
154. That the only wise men of the world are philosophers.
162. That our will is subject to the power of the celestial bodies. (Tempier)
The religion, then, did influence the openness toward science—or at least a segment of science. Incidentally, Aristotle was wrong on most of the points on which Etienne Tempier condemned him, so the condemnation actually benefited science in the long run, as demonstrated by Oresme. He was quite willing to revisit Aristotle’s work and to correct them according to his own scientific understanding. In his Livre du Ciel et du Monde he completely takes apart the Aristotelian argument for the immobility of the earth. He then proceeds to take the same position as Aristotle, for he sees no reason for the earth to move, and a certain verse from scripture supports the earth’s immobility.
It is apparent, then, how one cannot demonstrate by any experience whatever that the heavens are moved with daily movement, because, regardless of whether it has been posited that the heavens, and not the earth, are so moved or that the earth and not the heavens is moved, if an observer (ouyl) is in the heavens and sees the earth clearly, it (the earth) would seem to be moved; and if the observer were on the earth, the heavens would seem to be moved. The sight is not deceived in this, because it senses nothing except movement. But if it is relative to any such body, this judgment is made by the senses from inside that body, just as he [Witelo] stated in The Perspective; and such senses are often deceived in such cases, as was said before concerning the person in the moving ship. Afterwards it was demonstrated how it cannot be concluded by reasoning that the heavens are so moved. Thirdly, reasons have been put forth in support of the contrary position, namely that [the heavens] are not so moved. Yet, everyone holds, and I believe, that they (the heavens), and not the earth, are so moved, for "God created the orb of the earth, which will not be moved" (Ps. 92:1), notwithstanding arguments to the contrary. (Oresme)
Thus, his religion decided the point, for his science did not make a strong case for the earth to move. He wrote a similar argument in his The Possibility of the Plurality of Worlds, in which he attacks Aristotle’s logic, essentially destroying it, only to agree with his conclusion on theological grounds. An undercurrent, perhaps, is that the Condemnations of 1277 still were in effect, and to say something radical and potentially opposite to scripture would be unwise. Thus religion strongly affected Oresme, both from a individual and a societal standpoint. In his case, it appears that religion (Christianity) benefited him, and his science.
The Moslem world had similar problems. The faith individually did not stress learning, as the primary call was for strict adherence to the fundamental doctrines required for salvation. In fact, the whole scholastic approach to the world was not widely accepted. The four individual requirements for scientific advance were thus not met, except in a few cases; many scholars in the Moslem world were not Moslem themselves. There were some opportunities for patronage, particularly at the centers of Moslem learning in Baghdad, Alexandria, and Toledo. The three requirements of the society were also only partly met. The first, that of a societal emphasis on learning, was not met. Only the traditional Islamic learning was emphasized, that relating to the Koran. Science was not, and sometimes was actually condemned. The second, an adequate training system, was met partially, in that there were many schools available. However, these did not stress science, so few had a good scientific training. The outcome, then, was a society that on the whole was not scientific, but had a few centers of science where the rulers promoted it.
Catholic Renaissance Europe was simply the natural advance of learning in Europe. Finally, the economic factors affecting science turned for the better, as the barbarian invasions stopped. All four individual factors could be met: talent, training, means of support, and belief in a orderly universe that God revealed Himself through. The societal features were not, however, completely met, as the Catholic Church’s brand of Christianity became progressively more reactionary to new ideas. This is the natural progression of a religion that was completely dominant; it tends to try to keep the status quo. On the societal side, then, openness to science was only partially met. The theologians kept a close eye on the philosophers. The desire to advance was partially met as well; the Church, as an orthodox establishment, influenced against any great advance, but the fact that people in general were relatively free allowed their natural desire to advance to take over. The Church was not officially against scientific advances, at least initially, and everybody involved was part of the Catholic Church. Finally, the methods for spreading knowledge were in place. There were many universities, many associated with the Church. These had access, finally, to Greek, Latin, and Moslem scientific works. The printing press was invented by Gutenberg in the 1450s; this radically improved the dissemination of knowledge, and encouraged the exchange of ideas. Thus Catholic renaissance Europe had the benefits of the Christian religion on the individual level, and to some extent on the societal level, but also on the societal level there was resistance because of the Catholic Church’s desire to maintain hegemony. So in this case religion was both a benefit and a hindrance. In truth, the climate changed from one of openness in the 1400s to one of outright attacks on change by the 1600s as the Reformation caused the Catholic Church to become paranoid.
Galileo is an example of a scientist in the Catholic area of Europe at the end of the Renaissance. By this time, the Catholic Church had become more involved in the control of science as it tried to repress anything related to the Protestant movement. The Council of Trent stated thus:
The Council decrees that, in matters of faith and morals…, no one, relying on his own judgment and distorting the Sacred Scriptures according to his own conceptions, shall dare to interpret them contrary to that sense which Holy Mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge their true sense and meaning, has held and does hold, or even contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers. (Decree of the Council of Trent)
In Galileo’s Starry Messenger, he published several new discoveries that gave credence to the heliocentric views. This, of course, earned him political enemies that took every opportunity to attack him. The perceived conflict between scripture and heliocentrism gave them their opportunity. Galileo responded unwisely in his open letter to Castelli: “Galileo argued that… In order to be widely understood, the scriptural writers accommodated themselves to popular conceptions; consequently, in matters of scientific dispute, the interpreter need not be limited to the ‘apparent meaning of the words’” (Lindberg and Numbers, p. 46) Expanded an published, this letter was known as the Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina. Part of his conclusion is as follows:
Your Highness may thus see how irregularly those persons proceed who in physical disputes arrange scriptural passages (and often those illunderstood by them) in the front rank of their arguments. If these men really believe themselves to have the true sense of a given passage, it necessarily follows that they believe they have in hand the absolute truth of the conclusion they intend to debate. Hence they must know that they enjoy a great advantage over their opponents, whose lot it is to defend the false position; and he who maintains the truth will have many senseexperiences and rigorous proofs on his side, whereas his antagonist cannot make use of anything but illusory appearances, quibbles, and fallacies. Now if these men know they have such advantages over the enemy even when they stay within proper bounds and produce no weapons other than those proper to philosophy, why do they, in the thick of the battle, betake themselves to a dreadful weapon which cannot be turned aside, and seek to vanquish the opponent by merely exhibiting it? If I may speak frankly, I believe they have themselves been vanquished, and, feeling unable to stand up against the assaults of the adversary, they seek ways of holding him off. To that end they would forbid him the use of reason, divine gift of Providence, and would abuse the just authority of holy Scripture- which, in the general opinion of theologians, can never oppose manifest experiences and necessary demonstrations when rightly understood and applied. If I am correct, it will stand them in no stead to go running to the Bible to cover up their inability to understand (let alone resolve) their opponents' arguments, for the opinion which they fight has never been condemned by the holy Church. If they wish to proceed in sincerity, they should by silence confess themselves unable to deal with such matters. Let them freely admit that although they may argue that a position is false, it is not in their power to censure a position as erroneous - or in the power of anyone except the Supreme Pontiff, or the Church Councils. Reflecting upon this, and knowing that a proposition cannot be both true and heretical, let them employ themselves in the business which is proper to them; namely, demonstrating its falsity. And when that is revealed, either there will no longer be any necessity to prohibit it (since it will have no followers), or else it may safely be prohibited without the risk of any scandal. (Galileo)
This attack on the theologians could not be ignored. “The Inquisition formally censured heliocentrism in 1616, declaring it to be false and heretical” (Lindberg and Numbers, p. 49) Cardinal Ballermino states that Galileo had
Been notified by the declarations made by the Holy Father and published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, whose content is that the doctrine attributed to Copernicus (that the earth moves around the sun and the sun stands at the center of the world withoug moving from east to west) is contrary to Holy Scripture and therefore cannot be defended or held. (Finnocchiario, p. 153)
Again, Galileo tried to strike back, a very unwise move. He published his Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems, which pretended to obey the order of the Cardinal, while actually defending strongly the Copernican system. Finally, in 1633, the Inquisition put Galileo on trial for heresy. Their final verdict was thus:
Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei, of Florence, aged seventy years, were denounced in 1615, to this Holy Office, for holding as true a false doctrine taught by many, namely, that the sun is immovable in the center of the world, and that the earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion... therefore (this Holy Tribunal being desirous of providing against the disorder and mischief which were thence proceeding and increasing to the detriment of the Holy Faith) by the desire of his Holiness and the Most Emminent Lords, Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the sun, and the motion of the earth, were qualified by the Theological Qualifiers as follows:
- The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.
- The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith.
Therefore . . . , invoking the most holy name of our Lord Jesus Christ and of His Most Glorious Mother Mary, We pronounce this Our final sentence: We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo . . . have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world; also, that an opinion can be held and supported as probable, after it has been declared and finally decreed contrary to the Holy Scripture…. From which it is Our pleasure that you be absolved, provided that with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, in Our presence, you abjure, curse, and detest, the said error and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome. (Crime of Galileo: Indictment of 1633)
Galileo, then came into direct conflict with the established religion and lost. Does this mean that the Catholic Church was a detriment to science? Far from it; this was one of the rare occasions when the Church and science collided. The reason for the aggressive attacks on Galileo has to do with the atmosphere in the Catholic area after the beginning of the wars of religion. At that time, the Catholic Church most definitely was not open to new ideas. What then happened? Because of things like this, the center of the Scientific Revolution shifted northward, to the protestant countries.
Finally, Europe after the Reformation and the advent of the printing press is the first society that met all seven requirements, at least in part. Individually, the belief in a Creator God that showed Himself through creation provided an impetus of scientific exploration. Next, the improving political structure and the end of barbarian problems allowed an expansion of the economy, and thus more opportunities for leisure. The universities that had begun as the middle class (the craftsmen) expanded provided adequate training for individuals. A fairly large segment of the population had potentially enough time to gain scientific learning. On the societal front, the Protestant Europe was one of the most open cultures up to that time. New alternatives to the old Catholic learning were sought after. In addition, the Protestant theology stressed the linearity of history; there was none of the determinism produced by the religions that believed in a cyclical universe. The culture put considerable weight upon good education, particularly in the Protestant regions, as each man should be able to read the Bible. The advent of the printing press put into place the best method of disseminating knowledge the world had ever known. For the first time, then, all seven of the criteria for scientific advancement were met.
What then happened? The Scientific Revolution. In the early days of this, Kepler, Bacon, Boyle, and Pascal highlighted Protestant Christian science. Then came the incomparable Isaac Newton, who revolutionized science forever with his brilliant laws. Carolus Linnaeus revolutionized biology (Morris, p. 9-27). The vast advances of the Protestant Christian world have led directly to the remarkable achievements of the present day.
Conclusion
Science and religion have a remarkable relationship. Often at odds, science nevertheless needed the conditions supplied by Christianity, particularly Protestant Christianity, to blossom. In ancient times, religion often prevented scientific advance. Has religion always been harmful? Definitely not. Because religion is inherent in society, science will never escape its influence, whether from Christianity or from the Secular Humanism prevalent in science today. The influence each religion has on science is different; each religion’s impact on science can be judged by the fruits of science in societies dominated by that religion. Religion and science have a remarkably complex interaction.
References
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. (1970). New York: American Heritage Publishing.
Aristotle. On the Heavens. Quoted in The Internet Classics Archive. Accessed December 5, 2005 < http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/heavens.2.ii.html>
Crime of Galileo: Indictment of 1633. Quoted in Modern History Sourebook, by Paul Halsall. Accessed December 5, 2005 < http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.html>
Decree of the Council of Trent, April 8, 1546, trans. Richard J. Blackwell, Galileo, Mellarmine, and the Bible (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1991). As quoted on page 45 of When Science and Christianity Meet, edited by David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers (2003). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.
Finocchiaro, Maurice. (1989) The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History ( Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press). As quoted on page 49 of When Science and Christianity Meet, edited by David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers (2003). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.
Galilei, Galileo. (1615). Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina. Quoted in Modern History Sourebook, by Paul Halsall. Accessed December 5, 2005 < http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/galileo-tuscany.html>
Lindberg, David, and Numbers, Ronald. (2003). When Science and Christianity Meet. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.
Morris, Henry. (1982). Men of Science, Men of God. El Cajon, CA: Master Books.
Oresme, Nicole. “Book II Chapter 25.” Livre du ciel et du monde. Quoted in History of Science Study Guide, by Dr. Robert Hatch. Accessed December 5, 2005 < http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/02-TeachingResources/HIS-SCI-STUDY-GUIDE/0040_nicoleOresme.html>
Tempier, Etienne. (1277) The Condemnation of 1277. Quoted in Pages 45-50 of A Source Book in Medieval Science, by Edward Grant(1974). Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974.