Paul Smyth Birkbeck, University of London

What was the relationship between the Reformation and the rise of Modern Science?

“The scientific revolution overturned the authority in science not only of the middle ages but of the
ancient world, since it ended not only in the eclipse of scholastic philosophy but in the destruction of
Aristotelian physics, it outshines everything since the rise of Christianity and reduces the Renaissance
and Reformation to the rank of mere episodes”
(Butterfield, 1949, Introduction p. Viii)

This essay will address the relationship between the Reformation and the rise of modern Science
throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Historians are divided in their views regarding
the impact the rise of Protestantism had, and we shall endeavour to investigate the arguments from
both sides, through analysing the influences upon Scientific progress, the conduciveness of
Puritanism to Scientific development and the consequences of the Reformation, including the
Counter-Reformation that resonated throughout Europe and impacted upon various areas of society
with specific attention to the rise of Modern Science.

The above excerpt from Butterfield (1949) provides a basis for understanding the general view of
some historians, who have largely ignored or trivialised the impact of the Reformation on the rise of
modern Science. He posits that the Scientific Revolution outshines everything since the rise of
Christianity and because of this the Reformation itself is reduced to a mere displacement within the
system of Christendom (Butterfield, 1949, Introduction, p. Viii), and thus dismisses some, if not all
influences of the Reformation upon the progression of Science. This view is rather short-sighted as it
can also be argued that the effects of the Reformation and the series of events that followed which
shall be investigated played a significant role upon the development of intellectual thought that led
to the progression of modern Science.

Butterfield (1949) himself later concedes that in England and Holland, where the effects of the
Reformation were most widely felt, also in France in areas where members of the Protestant
Reformed Church of France, commonly known as Huguenots, also played an important role in the
intellectual exchange that took place (Butterfield, 1949, p.181). This is important to note, as he
himself is not convinced of the idea that the Reformation had major effects on scientific
development, but yet remarks that in these areas important intellectual exchanges took place that
played an important role in the development of science. This concession can be seen as rather
confusing in respect of his overall view, and his interpretation of this anomaly seems to be put down
to coincidence, that these areas which just so happen to be predominantly influenced by
Protestantism was not a major factor to the scientific developments that took place there, to accept
this view at face value would be premature without investigating any other underlying factors.

Other historians of modern Science such as Haydn (1960) also remark upon the point that some
aspects of the Reformation were not accepting towards the scientific progressions of the day, if they
seemingly went against the commonly held views of the time or distracted away from an individual’s
calling, as he suggests in the Counter-Renaissance, Martin Luther and Calvin disliked the arts and
sciences since they laid all their stress upon man’s salvation in the next life. (Haydn, 1960, p.245).

And indeed it can be said that the response to some scientific developments from prominent
Protestants was damning, even Luther himself condemned such scientific progressions of the time,
such as Nicolaus Copernicus’s outline of an early version of his revolutionary heliocentric theory of
the universe in Commentariolus, of which it is stated Martin Luther commented on, in a collection of
his sayings in ‘Tischreden’ that Copernicus was an upstart astrologer “who strove to show that the
earth revolves, not the heavens of the firmament, the sun and the moon, this fool wishes to reverse
Paul Smyth Birkbeck, University of London

the entire science of astronomy, but sacred scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to
stand still, not the earth” (Kuhn, 1957, p.191). Indeed later in a more famously known statement,
Luther in response to Copernicus’s De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the revolutions of the
heavenly spheres), condemned Copernicus as a fool who went against Holy Writ. From this it is fair to
say that Haydn’s (1960) point is valid, and that some figureheads in the Protestant revolution were
not a complete break with the tradition of scholasticism in relation to new scientific endeavours. We
do not seek to vindicate the idea that Martin Luther himself or any other prominent protestant
leader of the time were completely receptive of scientific ideas and encouraged it, but rather to
elaborate upon the widespread effects that occurred after, due to Luther’s initial actions, and effects
that resonated throughout Europe upon intellectual thought in various different ways.

Other arguments contrary to the idea of the conduciveness of the Reformation to scientific progress
are such as outlined by Hooykas (1973), that the growth of the exact sciences in the late sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries in Protestant areas could be attributed to the expansion of trade, industry
and navigation in these periods rather than to Protestantism itself (Hooykaas, 1973, p.99). He
continues, that this does not explain why there was such a great interest in other sciences such as
zoology and botany in which, at the same time were not heavily relied upon for economic utility. It
can be seen from this that there was a majority of botanists during the sixteenth century that
belonged to the protestant minority, as Hooykas (1973) demonstrates, one great botanist William
Turner, was prominent in his field at the time and also played a significant role in the introduction of
Calvinism to England (Hooykaas, 1973, p.99). This in itself gives an indication as to the scale of
influence from protestant scientists during this period, especially in comparison to Roman Catholic
scientists.

The information that is elaborated upon further by Hooykaas (1973) that sociological research has
established that, until recently, Protestants have been more numerous among scientists than would
be expected from their total number, with even Roman Catholic sociologists confirming that until
recently there was a greater tendency from protestant scholars to work in the fields of science and
technology than there was among Roman Catholics (Hooykas, 1973, p.98-99). This gives an indication
towards the influence Protestants have had upon certain elements of science, but it does not fully
explain the underlying Protestant tendencies towards acceptance and motivation of working within
the sphere of the new sciences. This openness and motivation towards scientific development is
explained by some historians through what is known as the ‘puritan ethic’ deriving from the Puritans,
a grouping of significant Protestants that originated in England during the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries, in which included the notable English Calvinists.

The concept of the puritan ethic, is based upon the Calvinist emphasis on the need for hard work
throughout life as a part of a person’s calling, of which is a visible result of the person’s salvation, this
was a break with the Catholic notion of good work’s in which one undertakes good deeds in order to
be saved. The concept of the puritan ethic has been similarly used by Weber (2001) to correlate the
impact of the reformation and the puritan work ethic with the rise of Capitalism. It is argued that this
originated with Martin Luther, with his view that the bible should be read by all, with no
intermediaries to create a priesthood of all believers, in which Luther reconceptualised worldly work
as something that all should do, in order to benefit not only the individual but society as a whole.
From this it is possible to suggest that the ideas formulated by Luther and early protestant reformers
formed the basis for what came to be known as the puritan ethic and that unintentionally the early
reformers created a ripple effect that would change the attitude towards the use of the new sciences
and create a whole new outlook in which protestants could discover God’s creation through the
study of nature just as they had discovered revelation for themselves through the reading of
scripture. This possibility is also corroborated by Brooke (1991) that the notion of the priesthood of
Paul Smyth Birkbeck, University of London

all believers could have encouraged independence of thought when interpreting nature as in the
interpretation of scripture (Brooke, 1991, p.83).

Harrison (1998) also supports this possibility through giving an alternative view to the common belief
that people could no longer read the bible the same way as scientific knowledge increased, he
argues that once people began to read the bible in a different way, they then began to read God’s
other book, which nature at the time was commonly referred as. Henry (2008) elaborates upon this
idea and suggests that Harrison (1998) argues the unforeseen circumstances of these new concepts
is that ‘protestant observers of nature began to look at the world for its own sake, and to develop a
more naturalistic way of seeing the world’ (Henry, 2008, p.95), and thus from this way of literally
reading scripture, protestants have played a significant role in the creation of science, and that it
accounts for the dominance of protestants in early scientific development (Henry, 2008, p.96). The
views stated, demonstrate a basis of understanding, and give an indication to the impact the idea of
a puritan ethic could have had upon certain Protestants of the time, in which all things are for the
glory of God, with an emphasis on reading scripture and then discovering God’s creation through
various aspects of scientific work.

Harrison (1998) suggests that this new way of interpreting God and his creation led to the dominance
of Protestants within the scientific field, we can now investigate this dominance that is also remarked
upon by other historians such as Hooykaas (1973) and specifically Merton (1968), who described the
puritan ethic “as an ideal-typical expression of the value attitudes basic to ascetic Protestantism”
(Merton, 1968, p628-629), which played a significant role in the cultivation of science. Areas in which
it is evident that Protestants played a dominant role in were the new scientific groups springing up
during this period, a good example in particular is the ‘invisible college’ which later developed into
the Royal Society, the scientific body which stimulated scientific advance more than any other.
Among the group of ten scientists who formed the nucleus of the body that was to become the Royal
Society, seven were strongly puritan and sixty two percent of Royal Society members in 1663 were
clearly puritan by origin (Hooykaas, 1973, p.98), which he claims is significant because puritans
constituted a minority of the population at the time.

It is a commonly held belief that the Royal Society is founded upon the teachings of Francis Bacon, as
Zagorin (1999) says, Bacon’s opposition to the old regime of knowledge and the authority of the past
was crucial in the development of science and that his depiction of Salomon’s house in New Atlantis
helped to inspire the formation and experimental aims of scientific societies, especially the Royal
Society (Zagorin, 1999, p.127). Martin (1992) is also in agreement with this belief and goes further to
say that, Bacon was a type of guiding spirit of the Royal Society. These views work hand in hand with
Merton’s (1968) idea, that Bacon being a protagonist of positive social evaluation of science with a
disdain of sterile scholasticism, was a basis for which the Royal Society was patterned (Merton, 1968,
p.630), and that Bacon was “the son of a learned, eloquent and religious woman, full of puritan
fervour” and whom himself admitted was influenced by his mothers attitudes (Merton, 1968, p.630).

We can investigate the influences of this puritan ethic further to see if they were conducive to
science, by looking at the scientists of the period, and their subsequent attitudes, by doing this we
can see if their personal values instilled in them by their faith had any impact upon their scientific
works. According to Merton (1968) one fact has become clear in relation to the Royal Society that
“Certain elements of the Protestant ethic had pervaded the realm of scientific endeavour and had lef
their indelible stamp upon the attitudes of scientists towards their work”. (Merton, 1968, p.629).The
prominent scientist Robert Boyle, a fellow of the Royal Society and largely regarded today as a
founder of modern chemistry, in his apologia for science stated that “the study of nature is to the
greater glory of God and the good of man” (Merton, 1968, p.630) and Boyle echoed the same
attitudes as Bacon in his last will and testament, in relation to the other fellows of the society,
Paul Smyth Birkbeck, University of London

“wishing them also a happy success in their laudable attempts, to discover the true nature of the
works of God” (Merton, 1968, p.630). Other notable fellows such as John Wilkins, who was a founder
of the invisible college and precursor to the Royal Society, proclaimed the experimental study of
nature to be a most effective means of begetting in men veneration for God (Merton, 1968, p.630).
These testaments of faith from prominent Royal Society fellows, who undeniably played significant
roles in the rise of modern science, indicates the scale to which the puritan values held, had in
certain ways impacted upon their scientific endeavours, as a common theme in the protestant ethos
is ‘to the glory of God’, which in Hooykaas (1973) perspective, was a central theme of reformed
theology (Hooykass, 1973, p.105). Indeed Johannes Kepler, whose prominent works in the laws of
planetary motion later provided one of the foundations for Isaac Newton's theory of universal
gravitation, wrote in 1598 that astronomers, “as priests of God to the book of nature, ought to keep
in their minds not the glory of their own intellect, but the glory of God” (Mullinger, 2009, p.451). The
fact that a significant majority of scientists of the period were puritan or affiliated as such, coupled
with the evident professing of scientific endeavours to the glory of God and for understanding God’s
creation, is an important point. It can be drawn from this that puritan values seemingly had
influences in some respects upon individual progression and specifically in areas in which
Protestantism was widely accepted and flourished.

There are other aspects of the Reformation which have not been taken into account, and are not
addressed as readily in the modern day history of science, and that is that the Counter-Reformation
played an unintentional role in spurring developments of scientific progress. The Counter-
Reformation, initiated by the Catholic Church in response to the Protestant Reformation, sought to
re-establish Catholic dominance and stem the spread of Protestantism throughout Europe by
introducing certain reforms of their own such as further training for priests, to address the growing
divide between the clergy and parishioners. The main points of the Counter-Reformation however,
were re-affirming the foundations of the Church and creating new orders, such as the Jesuits in order
to reform the Catholic Church from within and to counter the threat of Protestantism. As this
Catholic revival spurred the church to make reforms, one reform which is remarked upon as very
significant by Burke (1985) in The Day the Universe changed, was the attempt to reform the Julian
calendar, as by the sixteenth century the calendar was out of step with the seasons by nearly 11
days.

Copernicus was among the astronomers asked to work on the reform of the calendar, during this
time Copernicus’s observations of Mars, Saturn and the Sun prompted him to new discoveries, and
specifically in relation to the Julian calendar as he commented on in the dedication to ‘De
revolutionibus’ that a proper measurement of the length of the year was a necessary foundation for
calendar reform. It is argued by Burke that the discoveries found through the calendar reform
influenced his work on the heliocentric theory, thus by implication the Counter-Reformation which in
response to the Protestant Reformation, contributed and created a type of chain reaction of events
that helped spur the scientific discovery of Copernicus and thus in part, the rise of modern science.
The idea that this chain of events are inter-connected is an unorthodox notion, and could be argued
as unsubstantiated as the evidence is not held as concrete by some historians, but it is an aspect
which should not be dismissed, as the view across the spectrum from historians of science vary
widely, and it is worth taking into account Burke’s theory that although admittedly eccentric,
alongside other concepts it can help form a basis for which to understand the far reaching effects of
the Reformation upon scientific progression.

The Reformation and its relationship with the rise of modern science can be concluded, that there
are arguments both for and against the idea of the conduciveness of Protestantism to scientific
development across the wide spectrum of the history of science, and it is an on-going debate
shrouded with differing views. We can see various aspects of Protestantism such as the break with
Paul Smyth Birkbeck, University of London

Catholic tradition, the concept of the puritan ethic and new ways of interpreting scripture, may have
led to new ways of interpreting nature and creating openness to the new sciences that previously
wasn’t considered.

It can also be said that as a whole Protestantism wasn’t uniquely conducive to the rise of modern
science, but seems to have had influencing factors upon individuals, and thus it can be argued that
these influences helped shaped the views of whom we now recognise as early leaders of different
scientific fields, Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton amongst many others, all devout
Christians, openly dedicated their works to God and the pursuit of revelation through science. To
regard it as a mere episode with no relevance upon science or claim that because prominent
theologians such as Luther were not receptive of some major scientific discoveries is unnecessarily
dismissive. Another significant factor that should be taken into account is that the rise of modern
science was not a linear, chronological event constrained within the space of a few years, it was a
long period in which various events from the Renaissance and the Reformation to the Enlightenment
each played a role to some degree upon the rise of modern science. So it can be said that singularly
the Reformation did not spur the rise of modern science, but collectively alongside various other
factors it helped form the basis for the Scientific Revolution.

Word Count – 2,723

Paul Smyth Birkbeck, University of London

References:

Books:

Brooke, J.H., 1991. Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Burke, J., 1985. The Day the Universe Changed. London: Hachette Book Group.

Butterfield, H., 1949. The Origins of Modern Science. New York: Bell.

Harrison, P., 1998. The Bible, Protestantism and the Rise of Natural Science, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Haydn, H., 1960. Counter Renaissance. New York: Grove Press.

Henry, J., 2008. The Scientific Revolution and the Origins of Modern Science. 3rd ed. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.

Hooykaas, R., 1973. Religion and the Rise of Modern Science. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

Kuhn, T., 1957. The Copernican Revolution. Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Martin, J., 1992. Francis Bacon: The State and the Reform of Natural Philosophy. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Merton, R.K., 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Macmillan.

Mullinger, J.B., 2009. The University of Cambridge, Vol.III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Weber, M., 2001. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.

Zagorin, P., 1999. Francis Bacon. Chichester: Princeton University Press.