Capie1 Julia Capie Concentration: Science & Religion

Today, those who are ignorant of the complex history of the relationship between science and religion in the West understand the two as polar opposites, which never have and never will agree. A thorough understanding of the past 2,000 years of the histories of science, natural philosophy and Christian history, however, reveals that although there have certainly been instances of conflict, science and religion have often complimented and even motivated one another. The most exaggerated cases of conflict have tended to be among the institutions of either science or religion. In terms of individual people, on the other hand, it has been rare until only recently that a person may not pursue scientific investigation while simultaneously having faith in God. Until the 19th and 20th centuries, Christianity, and later, Catholicism more specifically, was the prevailing religion in the Western world. Unlike today, where the government generally maintains its separation from religion, Christian religious leaders for the first 19 centuries since Christ were the primary legal authorities. It is for this reason that proposed ideas or philosophies which conflicted with Christianity sometimes resulted in official intervention and legal penalization. Likewise, religious belief in Christianity, God and the Bible was an innate feature of society, in a way that did not allow people to even fathom what a Godless, faithless world would be like. As such, when philosophers and intellectuals began to inquire about natural phenomena, such ideas were almost always incorporated into religious thought as well. At first, scientific evidence that appeared to conflict with religious belief did not necessarily cause disbelief or loss of faith. Any seeming contradictions were glossed over and adjusted in order that science and religion may continue to live in harmony. Over time, the

Capie2 contradictions and distinctions became more apparent and it became increasingly difficult to maintain this harmony. It is only a very recent phenomenon that science and religion, which began as one in the same entity, have evolved into their separate, fundamentally different domains. Until about the 16th century, the closest thing to our definition of "science" was known as natural philosophy, which used common sense and deduction rather than empirical observation in order to make conclusions about the natural world. One of the first known natural philosophers was Aristotle, who lived from 384 to 322 B.C. His treatises on logic, natural philosophy, metaphysics, biology, ethics and politics, only to name a few, exerted a tremendous influence in Europe for over two thousand years. His ideas formed the general guide by which people interpreted the world and even became a mandatory part of university curriculum until only a few hundred years ago (Ferngren 34). Although some Christians felt threatened by some of his ideas, such as the belief in a divine spirit who was not exactly omnipotent, Christians still used other forms of his philosophy to their advantage. Saint Augustine of Hippo, a Bishop, philosopher and theologian of the 4th and 5th centuries A.D., suggested that while it is vain to investigate natural phenomena simply for the sake of knowledge, to do so for the sake of understanding Scripture is, in fact, a necessity (Ferngren 52). Augustine refers to vain investigation as a "disease of curiosity," but likewise expresses his embarrassment of Christians' ignorance in his Literal Meaning of Genesis: ...it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian...talking nonsense on these topics [the heavens, nature, etc.]; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. (Augustine Book I, Chapter 43) Augustine acknowledges the importance of knowledgewithin proper limitsin order for

Capie3 Christians to not be entirely ignorant of science and nature. Nevertheless, scientific inquiry remained a low priority since people were expected to accept religious doctrine as truth by faith alone and used Aristotelian philosophy in a very subjective manner. The 16th century marked the beginning of the Scientific Revolution, a period during which scientific inquiry and experimentation flourished. In this manner, such inquirers would have been considered "vain" by Saint Augustine for their interest in knowledge for no sake other than curiosity. On the other hand, nearly all such inquirers during this time remained devoutly religious, never sacrificing their faith for inconsistencies they encountered in nature. In his De revolutionibus, Nicholas Copernicus was the first man to publicly suggest a heliocentric solar system in which, contrary to Scripture, the sun rather than the earth is at the center. Copernicus had very little empirical evidence for his theory other than the fact that it made more mathematical sense than Ptolemy's previously accepted equations for a geocentric solar system (Ferngren 97). He also did not feel religiously threatened by his theory; he believed that God created a sun-centered universe and there was nothing wrong with that. At the end of the 10th Chapter of Book I, Copernicus exclaims, "How exceedingly fine is the godlike work of the best and greatest artist!" Throughout his work he speaks of God's awesomeness in His creation of the heavens, never abandoning faith despite his supposedly heretical theory. According to Galileo, Copernicus "did not ignore the passages of Holy Scripture, but understood very well that if his doctrine were proved it could not contradict the properly interpreted Scripture" (Ferngren 91). Copernicus felt that it was impossible for his physical observations to contradict any contentions in the Bible since both are absolute truths. Therefore, if his physical observations appeared to contradict the Bible, the Bible must not have been properly understood. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church felt severely threatened by a theory which contradicted the

Capie4 traditional Biblical view, deemed it heretical and eventually banned Copernicus's De revolutionibus altogether. In the early 17th century, Galileo Galilei published several discoveries which contradicted Aristotle's astronomy and supported Copernicus's by proving geocentrism false. All these ideas which went against Catholic orthodoxy instigated the classic battle of science versus religion otherwise known as the Galileo Affair. On the one side was the Inquisition, the heretical justice system of the Catholic Church and on the other, Galileo. Galileo was put on trial for violating an injunction which required him to keep his heliocentric theory as hypothetical. Although the work in question was written in the form of a dialogue so as not to appear to be endorsing one side or another, the Inquisition ultimately felt he was endorsing his own theory and sentenced him to a lifetime of house arrest. Ironically enough, Galileo was a devout believer in God and the Bible and felt that the Copernican system should not have been a threat to Christian faith. In his Letter to the Grand Duchess, Galileo concedes: To accommodate the understanding of the common people it is appropriate for Scripture to say many things that are different (in regard to the literal meaning of the words) from the absolute truth; on the other hand, nature is inexorable and immutable, never violates the terms of the laws imposed upon her, and does not care whether or not her recondite reasons and ways of operating are disclosed to human understanding...and so it seems that a natural phenomenon which is proved by necessary demonstrations or sensory experience should not be called into question, let alone condemned, on account of scriptural passages whose words appear to have a different meaning...[Such natural phenomena are] not at all pertinent to the primary purpose of the Holy Writ, that is, to the worship of God and the salvation of souls. (Finocchiaro 93) Galileo believed that the Bible is meant only as an authority on faith and morals, not as a scientific textbook. As such, a literal interpretation of the Bible will often lead to fallacy since it was written for ignorant humans who have little understanding of how the complicated

Capie5 world physically works. Like Copernicus, Galileo felt that since both Nature and Scripture are infallible, a seeming contradiction between the two must be a result of our misunderstanding of Scripture. By 1800, science gradually began to be recognized as its own profession. Before this time, the only true professions were either a doctor, a lawyer, or a clergyman. Saint Augustine's contention that the study of science was vain if not for ultimately religious purposes impeded the advancement of science for many years. Even once science became professionalized, its motivations still remained religious. William Buckland first introduced "flood geology" in the beginning of the 19th century, in which the geological remains of the Biblical flood were investigated in a scientific manner. In 1803, William Paley contemplated the vast complexities and well-adaptedness of living species in his Natural Theology. Paley used analogy to illustrate that in the same way we assume a watch was created by a watchmaker, we can assume God created living creatures (Paley 41). Only God could have created species with the exact characteristics necessary for survival in their particular habitats. In 1859, Charles Darwin posed a groundbreaking theory in his Origin of Species. As opposed to Paleys reasoning that it would be too much of a coincidence for nature to be so welladapted so it must therefore have been created, Darwin suggested that not only are these adaptations not coincidental, they are necessary. This in turn eliminated the need for a creator according to Paleys reasoning, consequently causing trouble for many Christians at the time. In essence, Darwins theory suggests that through variation, heredity, the struggle for existence and natural selection, species become adapted to their environments over time in ways that on the surface may seem too perfect to be natural. There was probably only one or at most very few original species, which, over hundreds of millions of years, have evolved into the

Capie6 organisms we see today. The reason they seem so perfectly adapted is because only the bestadapted individuals survive and in turn proliferate. Darwin explains how "when we see leaf-eating insects green, and bark-feeders mottledgrey; the alpine ptarmigan white in winter, the red-grouse the colour of heather, and the blackgrouse that of peaty earth, we must believe that these tints are of service to these birds and insects in preserving them from danger" (Darwin 81). While Paley would argue that this is obvious evidence for the existence of God (how else would these species happen to be so perfectly adapted in a way that keeps them out of danger?), Darwin explains how over time, the individual insects who were, say, red, were all eaten by predators because they could be more easily spotted. The ones who were green, however, blended in with the leafy background and survived. Consequently, the better-adapted individuals pass down their characteristics to their offspring, and eventually the only insects left will be green ones. He thus provides a perfectly logical explanation for why insects are the same color as the trees they inhabit without invoking God. Although not explicitly stated, the religious implications suggested by this theory are alarming because it displaces God from designer of species to a mere creator of species. While the majority of The Origin's immediate opposition resulted from lack of physical proof, many scientists still supported it. Today, Darwin's theory is no longer considered a hypothesis because we have genetic and fossil evidence which strongly support it. It is this, coupled with ignorance of facts, that threaten Christians today. Until the Catholic Church's very recent acceptance of Darwin's theory, Christians who still interpreted the Bible literally were constantly battling those who

Capie7 promoted it. Little by little, advancements in science are posing theories which many Christians feel threatened by, evolution being the most common. And yet, it appears that modern Christians tend to forget what many devout Christians such as Galileo and Copernicus have suggested before them. While the Bible is meant as a means of understanding moral and religious issues of faith, science is meant as a means of understanding our physical universe. Neither concept may impede the other, since they are explicitly unrelated. The late Stephen Jay Gould coined the phrase Non-overlapping Magisteria, a concept which also supports the peaceful coexistence of evolution and religion. The idea suggests that science and religion are not in conflict, for their teachings occupy distinctly different domains (Gould 58). Science and religion are two different approaches to explaining the universe, and Gould believes that the two approaches do not overlap. While science attempts to explain the universe in a physical, empirical manner, religion attempts to explain it spiritually and philosophically. A person can choose whether to believe in science or not, and separately, whether to believe in religion or notneither one inhibits the other. Thus, one can believe in science but not religion, in religion but not science, in both, or in neither. As suggested by Saint Augustine, the Bible is not meant to be a scientific textbook to teach Christians how the universe works. The Bible is meant to serve as a moral and spiritual guide for Gods acceptance and access to the afterlife. There is no reason evolution, for example, should inhibit those things, because morality and spirituality are not in the realm of science. The recent ideas that science proves religion false or vice versa is, in my opinion, incorrect on the grounds that they are two "Non-overlapping Magisteria." Although the history of the relationship between science and religion demonstrates the fact that the Catholic Church

Capie8 has not always felt this way, on an individual basis, scientists and religious leaders alike have rarely had problems accepting both science and religion.

BOOKLIST

Before 1650 (7): On The Nature of Things: Lucretius Summa Theologica: St. Thomas Aquinas Discourse on the Method: Rene Descartes On Christian Doctrine: St. Augustine of Hippo On the Literal Meaning of Genesis, Books I & II: St. Augustine of Hippo Genesis (Old Testament) Joshua (Old Testament) Science/Social Science (4): On the Origin of Species: Charles Darwin The Varieties of Religious Experience: William James On the Genealogy of Morals: Friedrich Nietzsche On the Revolution of the Celestial Spheres, Book I: Nicholas Copernicus Humanities (4): Summer for the Gods: Edward Larson Natural Theology: William Paley Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion: David Hume The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History: Maurice Finnochiaro Concentration (5): Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction: edited by Gary B. Ferngren The Evolution-Creation Struggle: Michael Ruse Darwin: edited by Phillip Appleman The Language of God: Francis Collins Rocks of Ages: Stephen Jay Gould