Science and Religion: Beyond War and Peace
Written by Anusha Y G
“The establishment of Christianity … arrested the normal development of the physical sciences for over fifteen hundred years.”
— Andrew Dickson White, co founder of Cornell University
The mid-1800s saw the relationship between science and religion as a formal topic of discussion among scholars, something that had not occurred in the past. After all, the term ‘science’ still included moral and metaphysical dimensions, and the term ‘scientist’ had only emerged in 1834. Quite immediately the two fields were pitted against each other and the ‘conflict thesis’ of their relationship emerged.
Popularized by John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White, the conflict thesis maintains that there exists intellectual conflict between religion and science, and only one of the two is the real source of knowledge. This model relies heavily on two historical events: the trial of Galileo, and the reception of Darwinism.
To summarize the trial of Galileo:
Galileo: Hey, what if heliocentrism is right, and it’s the earth that rotates around the sun and not vice versa?
The Church: I’m about to end this man’s whole career
The ‘Galileo Affair’, as it was later called, was a sequence of events that began in the early 17th century, ending with the trial and condemnation of Galileo Galilei by the Roman Catholic Inquisition for his support of heliocentrism. Galileo’s books were banned, and he was kept under house arrest until his death.
Galileo remained a true martyr of science for a long time, until the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859. Leaving God virtually unemployed in matters of making living beings, Darwin’s theory of evolution stirred up (and in some cases, continues to) passionate debate across many circles. While the scientific and religious communities had been subject to theories of evolution before Darwin, none of them were as developed as his. From the Huxley-Wilberforce exchange to the Scopes trial, Darwinism achieved a similar legendary status as the Galileo Affair as the major turning point in the war between science and religion.
With such events in mind, it has been often argued that science and religion invariably conflict as they essentially try to explain the unknown through different methods. Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, for example, is openly hostile to religion because he believes it “subverts science and saps the intellect”.
However, when it comes to authors and historians who study the relationship between science and religion, the conflict thesis has long been rejected. Not only is the model very Western-centric, it is also believed to be a shallow reading of the historical record, and fails to include personal factors and political developments in its examples.
When Galileo had entered the scene in 1610, the Catholic Church was facing the challenge of the Protestant Reformation, and had forbidden the interpretation of scripture contrary to that of the Church. Galileo had never questioned the Church’s authority, and merely sought to question the principles by which the Holy Scriptures were interpreted. In fact, Pope Urban VIII admired Galileo’s ideas, and gave him permission to write about the Copernican system, as long as he treated it as a hypothesis. However, in the book, Galileo not only unambiguously defended heliocentrism, but he also made an enemy of the Pope, by placing his words of hypothesis in a dim witted character of the book. With a flair for cultivating enemies at high places, Galileo was simply silenced by house arrest (in a fancy villa near Florence), and never tortured or imprisoned. All the participants involved called themselves Christians and believed in biblical authority, and the entire affair was a multi-faceted event.
However, despite other factors being involved, the Galileo Affair, amongst others, raised serious questions about the relationship between science and religion. This then brought up the Independence model, in which science and religion are seeking to understand different perceptions of reality, and are both consistent and complete. Thus, they cannot conflict because they serve different purposes. Stephen Jay Gould, a prominent historian of science, developed an influential independence model with his Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) principle. He identified different areas of expertise of each field, and maintained that religious leaders should refrain from making factual claims, while scientists should not give insight on moral matters, despite any interactions that might occur at the borders of the two fields. However, multiple scholars have pointed out that given that religion is tied to an individual’s personal beliefs, assigning it a domain does not give it a defined basis. This will lead to objective science usually winning over subjective religion, leaving no contribution of religion.
A modification of the independence model was thus developed, called the Dialogue model. This model maintains that religion and science are mostly separate and yet share a common ground, and will be in constant exchange with one another, sometimes even in conflict. There are conceptual parallels between the two fields and neither of the two are purely subjective or objective. For example, while Creation may be a product of God’s free actions, the laws of nature need to be studied through scientific investigation. In dialogue, the fields remain separate but they talk to each other, using common methods, concepts, and presuppositions.
While the Dialogue model sparked the attempt to unify science and religion, the Integration model that followed up was more extensive. Here, both the scientific and religious perspectives co-exist peacefully and are intertwined with one other. One’s religious perspective shapes their interpretation of science, and vice versa is also true. A lot of examples from Ancient Civilization are used to support this and to show that most clashes between the two are over very few topics, and usually among extremists.
In Ancient India, current advocates of Gomutra as the solution for everything aside, religious texts and scientific texts were the same thing and inseparable, called the Vedas. Hinduism (and later Buddhism and Jainism) was a school of thought, and learning could not exist without the presence of religious institutes. While the Vedas spoke about gods and rituals, they also talked a lot about mathematics and astronomy, for the way the planets moved was essential to conduct any religious ceremonies. Another thing important to ceremonies was Linguistics, and careful grammatical rules were made. Construction of sacred altars required planning and geometry. Most Vedic teachings were to be applied to religion, but they were first obtained by careful observation, and not while seeking for anything divine. Later teachings would also include medicine and surgery, one of the most advanced among any Ancient Civilization. In many ways, Indian Dharma (till our friendly neighborhood colonizers arrived) encouraged the emergence of sciences.
Similarly, Islamic Science saw a boom in science from the 9th to 12th centuries, called the Islamic Golden Age. The Caliphs of the Islamic world believed in enlightenment, and set up ‘Houses of Wisdom’, such as the city of Baghdad. Significant advances in medicine, astronomy, and agriculture were made, and were believed to be the will of Allah. There was little distinction between philosophy, science, and theology, and no sign of conflict yet. The Islamic state believed that rationalism could be used to understand nature and God.
Across many cultures, religions played a crucial participant in the development of modern universities and libraries, and centers of learning and scholarship were usually religious institutions as well. Monasteries and Cathedrals in Medieval Europe weren’t simply places to go on Sunday to worship, it was the seat of a bishop and the administrative, spiritual, and educational center of the bishopric or diocese-the district under the bishop’s control. Cathedrals were very important and their construction required a lot of technical knowledge. A lot of artisans were thus used, and were the engineers of Medieval Europe. Medieval European universities started off as self-governing associations of people with a common function. The legal entity of the university required the same. Joining a university required swearing a Christian oath, and the curriculum and book list was always approved by the Church. This was paradoxically freeing though, because it meant that cities and kings had to recognize universities as self governing, and even make them tax exempt. If the Pope was okay with it, nobles and kings couldn’t mess around with them. As long as something was vaguely Catholic enough, one could teach or research on whatever they wanted.
Historical evidence thus shows a rich and varied interaction between science and religion worldwide. However, it must be remembered that there are no easy answers as we try to get all evidence from different sources and perspectives. Further, as we look back in time, history itself is messy. We do not know how many individuals are missing in the narrative and how many tales have been shifted.
However, despite blind faith and extremists on both sides, causing difficulties, most uneasiness is due to popular media and perception of the masses. Many scientists are happy to proclaim their religious beliefs, and many religious people and organizations support scientific endeavors. Influence has flowed in both directions, and both fields have been shaped by their interactions. As we try to assign either credit or blame, we fail to appreciate the roles both science and religion have had in the growth of civilization.
Sources:
- Religion and Science, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- The Relationship between Science and Religion
- The Reception of Darwin’s On The Origin Of Species
- Dialogue, Science and Theology
- The harmonious relationship between between faith and science from the perspective of some great saints: a brief comment
- Videos: History of Science
