Science and Religion: From the Medieval to the Modern

1. Science and Religion: From the Medieval to the Modern Drawn in part from Alister E. McGrath Science and Religion: An Introduction

2. Science and Religion: From the Medieval to the Modern The history of the role of “religion” and “spirituality” in matters of the human body and health is ultimately tied to the larger story of the interaction between “religion” and “science”.

3. Science and Religion: From the Medieval to the Modern One way this history can be organized is to think in terms of four “landmarks” The Medieval Synthesis (-1500’s) Copernicus and Galileo and the New Astronomy (1500’s-mid 1600’s) Newton and the Deists and the Mechanistic Universe (late 1600’s-1700’s) Darwin and the Origins of Humanity (1800’s)

4. Science and Religion: 1. The Medieval Synthesis (-1500’s) • Developments in the Middle Ages that created space for the development of natural sciences… • The translation of “scientific” works into Latin, the predominant language of western European scholars • Scientific texts from the Greco-Arabian tradition translated in Latin • Aristotle’s work translated in Latin and circulates widely • Out of this develops “natural philosophy”, major theologians like Aquinas embrace Aristotle and “natural philosophy” • The founding of major universities in Western Europe and the introduction of “natural philosophy” in foundational courses (before one went on to study medicine, law, or theology) • The rise of the “theologian-natural philosopher”, midieval scholars who believed there was no contradiction between their faith and the investigation of the natural order

5. Science and Religion: 1. The Medieval Synthesis (-1500’s) • The Bible in the Medieval Period • In early church period there had been a debate between the “Alexandrian” and the “Antiochian” school over how best to interpret the Bible • Antiochian—much more literalist • Alexandrian—allowed for some texts to be literal, but frequently preferred more non-literal approaches, looking for spiritual, ethical, or allegorical significance in the biblical stories of creation, Israelite history, etc.

6. Science and Religion: 1. The Medieval Synthesis (-1500’s) • The Bible in the Medieval Period • Augustine (354-430) • argued in favour of some texts being literal, others spiritual/allegorical (i.e., non-literal), some both at once • stressed the importance of respecting the conclusions of the sciences in relation to biblical interpretation • biblical interpretation should take due account of what could reasonably be regarded as established facts • The general approach of Augustine was adopted by influential Roman Catholic theologians of the 1500’s • A highly significant commentary on Genesis was written with this approach and it was later to influence Galileo’s views on biblical interpretation

7. Science and Religion: 2. Copernicus and Galileo and the New Astronomy (1500’s-mid 1600’s) • Medieval Model of the Universe (Ptolemaic) • From Ptolemy—Egyptian astronomer in 200 CE • The earth is the center of the universe • All heavenly bodies rotate in circular paths around the earth • These rotations take the form of a motion in a circle, the center of which in turn moves in another circle (epicycles—circular motion imposed upon circular motion) • Model becomes too complex by end of 1400’s…what would replace it?

8. Science and Religion: 2. Copernicus and Galileo and the New Astronomy (1500’s-mid 1600’s) • The Copernican Revolution • Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543) • Argued that the planets move in concentric circles around the sun • The earth, in addition to rotating around the sun, also rotated on its own axis • Offered a simplicity and elegance compared to how cumbersome the Ptolemaic model had become • Two scholar, Brahe (later 1500’s) and Kepler (early 1600’s) adjust Copernicus model, helping to account for more of the data concerning planetary movement

9. Science and Religion: 2. Copernicus and Galileo and the New Astronomy (1500’s-mid 1600’s) The Copernican Revolution The Problem A geocentric view of the world (earth at center) was widely accepted and a working premise for theologians of the Middle Ages The Bible with its geocentric language (e.g., “the sun rises”) underscored this belief

10. Science and Religion: 2. Copernicus and Galileo and the New Astronomy (1500’s-mid 1600’s) • The Copernican Revolution • The Solution! (in part) • The adoption of the idea of “accommodation” with respect to biblical writers • The belief that God’s revelation in the Bible had to take place in terms of the culture into which it was written • Hence, if the ancient recipients of the Bible held to a geo-centric universe, God’s word to them would take this form • Calvin (Protestant reformer, 1509-64) • Pushed hard for an “accommodationist” view of the Bible • Commended the study of astronomy and medicine because of a belief in the orderliness of the created order which would show the wisdom of the Creator

11. Science and Religion: 2. Copernicus and Galileo and the New Astronomy (1500’s-mid 1600’s) • The Copernican Revolution • Calvin’s contribution (cont’d) • God can be discerned in the detailed study of the created order through natural sciences • Biblical texts are written to teach us about Jesus Christ, not astronomy, geography or biology • God “stoops” to the level of the people he is communicating with, accommodating his revelation to their pre-existing understanding of the universe • Hence, text like Genesis 1 with its six day creation is not intended to be taken as a literal representation of reality • His arguments are taken up by other writers defending the natural sciences in this era

12. Science and Religion: 2. Copernicus and Galileo and the New Astronomy (1500’s-mid 1600’s) • The Copernican Revolution • Galileo (1564-1642) • Reignites fights over heliocentric universe • Mounts defense of Compernican theory • Initially received sympathetically by RC church; has an ally in papal contender Ciampoli • Ultimately becomes a fight over biblical interpretation • Galileo adopted Foscarini’s approach to biblical interpretation (1615)—it is a form of “accommodationist” theory • Ultimate Foscarini’s and Galileo’s approach meets with disapproval by official church doctrine which argues in favor of a more literalistic reading and reading which align with past church interpreters

13. Science and Religion: Newton and the Deists and the Mechanistic Universe (late 1600’s-1700’s) Newton (1642-1727) Key contribution—a single principle could be seen as lying being “celestial mechanics” (the movement of sun, moon, and planets) Took the basic concepts of mass, space, and time, and handled them mathematically, and so developed precise ideas of acceleration, force, momentum, and velocity As such, was able to develop a series of principles which govern the behaviour of objects on earth, and extrapolating from that, applied the same principles to the motions of the planets In particular, it was his understanding of gravitational attraction between heavenly bodies that allowed him to explain the observational data of the movement of moon and planets

14. Science and Religion: Newton and the Deists and the Mechanistic Universe (late 1600’s-1700’s) • Newton (1642-1727) • Ultimately the universe can be thought of as a “great machine” acting according to fixed laws; a “mechanistic worldview” • Religiously, this translates into the idea of the world as a machine with design and purpose, pointing to a Creator • This ultimately leads to the rise of “Deism” • English thinkers in the “Age of Reason” (late 1600-early 1700’s), esp. Locke, Herbert of Cherbury, Hobbes, Hume • God is the Creator who designed the universe, but is not seen as continually involved with or intervening in the universe subsequently; a “watchmaker” who makes a watch, winds it, then lets it go • Hence notions of “special revelation” (i.e., God speaking his Word through the Bible) are ruled out by default; with that goes a central plank in traditional Christianity

15. Science and Religion:Darwin and the Origins of Humanity (1800’s) Darwin (1809-82) Ideas related to those of Lyell’s Principles of Geology (1830)—same forces at work in present natural world have been active over huge expanses of time in the past giving us our present earth Predominant belief in biology at the time—“fixity of species”, nature is fixed from the moment of its origin, each species created separately and distinctly by God, endowed with fixed characteristics Darwin faced head on the way specific observation of species (adaptation, termination, uneven distribution, vestigial structures, etc.) didn’t match the explanation Darwin develops a theory of a process of “natural selection” as put forth in The Origin of Species (1859) and Descent of Man (1871)

16. Science and Religion:Darwin and the Origins of Humanity (1800’s) Darwin (1809-82) According to Darwin, the various types of plants and animal life, including human life, came into existence through a process of natural selection, in which those species which were better adapted for survival displaced others, which gradually became extinct Religious challenge! The traditional Christian idea that all life owed its specific characteristics to individual acts of divine creation is challenged Especially, it called into question the place of humanity as the apex of God’s creation Seeing Science and Religion (read “Christianity”) as combatants in this debate is reinforced by the fact that it is Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford who has a very famous debate with Darwin in 1860.

17. Science and Religion:Darwin and the Origins of Humanity (1800’s) • Darwin (1809-82) • This perception of Science and Religion as antithetical to each other also reinforced by the Scopes “Monkey” Trial of 1925 • John T. Scopes, Tennessee high school teacher gets in trouble for teaching evolutionary theory • Is taken to court where the prosecuting attorney Bryan was hopelessly outwitted by Darrow, defense attorney for Scopes • Universities by the mid 1800’s increasingly throwing off any ecclesiastical fetters in an “unhindered” search for truth, religious claims are seen as antithetical to academic freedom and scientific advancement

18. Science and Religion:The responses from the “Religious” side of the equation • The responses to the rise of the modern scientific enterprise have actually been varied, there is no single “religious response” to modern science. • Within Western forms of Christianity for example, there have been very divergent responses, depending on which stream you are looking at: • Liberal Protestantism (Schleiermacher 1768-1834, et. al.) • Modern Catholicism (Loisy 1857-1940, et. al.) • Neo-Orthodoxy (Barth 1886-1968) • Evangelicalism (e.g., Warfield 1851-1921) • Fundamentalism (The Fundamentals, written in 1920’s)

19. Science and Religion:The responses from the “Religious” side of the equation Liberal Protestantism A stream of Christianity which owes its theological origins to Schleiermacher (1768-1834) and Germany of the mid 1800’s Offered a great deal of flexibility in relation to traditional Christian beliefs Where traditional interpretations of the Bible or Christian doctrine conflicted with developments in human knowledge, the former ought to be either discarded or reinterpreted in such a way as to bring them in line with the new knowledge of the world Rather than hold to very particular and exclusive views of Jesus Christ, liberalism anchored faith in common human religious experience and interpreted the former in ways that were conducive to the emerging modern worldview

20. Science and Religion:The responses from the “Religious” side of the equation Liberal Protestantism Ultimately it is a movement committed to the restatement of Christian faith in forms which are acceptable within contemporary culture Hence, frequently criticized as “cultural Protestantism”—simply adopted cultural norms rather than challenging and critiquing Sees itself mediation two unacceptable alternatives: (1) simply restating traditional Christian faith or (2) rejecting Christianity in its totality

21. Science and Religion:The responses from the “Religious” side of the equation Liberal Protestantism It is typically very “friendly” toward scientific progress and knowledge Darwin’s theory of evolution is seen to positively correlate with their notions of human nature in an upward progress Typically interpret biblical passages so as to minimize supernatural components and significance, hence little conflict with science

22. Science and Religion:The responses from the “Religious” side of the equation Modernist Catholicism (also has Protestant equivalent) Attempt by RC theologians at the end of 1800’s trying to come to terms with Enlightenment Critical and skeptical of traditional Christian doctrine Positive toward radical Biblical criticism, stressed ethics over theology Typically embrace scientific discoveries and development, evolutionary biology and the forces shaping it are given supernatural significance (deified evolution) Typically will dismiss any traditional doctrines that conflict with a scientific worldview “Development” of doctrine in biblical text is correlated to ongoing development of knowledge in the natural sciences, earlier mistakes are “corrected” by later discoveries

23. Science and Religion:The responses from the “Religious” side of the equation Neo-Orthodoxy Associated with Barth (1886-1968) In reaction against German liberal theology—their optimism about human progress seemed naïve in light of WW1. Stressed the “otherness” of God and special revelation (the Bible) as a way to escape the human-centered theology of liberalism Takes as a starting point the self-revelation of God in Christ through Scripture rather than reaching an understanding of God through the natural order; theology is a response to Scripture, not a response to the human situation and human questions Theology is thus an investigation of God done through Scripture Science is the human investigation of the world The net result—little interest by Barth in natural sciences—it is irrelevant to religious matters

24. Science and Religion:The responses from the “Religious” side of the equation Evangelicalism Transdenominational trend in theology and spirituality which places emphasis on the role of Scripture in the Christian life. Typically hold to four key values: 1. The authority and centrality of the Bible 2. Uniqueness of salvation through death of Jesus on the cross 3. Need for personal conversion 4. The need to convince other to convert as well (evangelism) Minimalist in terms of any theory of the church (what binds them is holding to these beliefs rather than belonging to same institutional church structure) Hence— “evangelicals” can be found in a variety of mainstream churches (e.g.,Catholic, Lutheran, etc.) as well as low church conservative Protestantism (e.g., Pentecostal, Baptist, etc.)

25. Science and Religion:The responses from the “Religious” side of the equation Evangelicalism Attitude toward natural sciences complex: --some are very much against evolution as it stands against a literal interpretation of the Bible’s Genesis creation account (remember the centrality of the Bible in this version of Christianity) --others are much more open to the idea of the guiding hand of God behind what appear to be natural processes, i.e., they are willing to let science get on with describing nature and its processes as long as God is acknowledged as the hand behind these events (i.e., nature is not “random” but under divine guidance)

26. Science and Religion:The responses from the “Religious” side of the equation Christian Fundamentalism The “conservative child” of evangelicalism Holds to same beliefs as evangelicals but with these additional distinctives: 1. Totally hostile to any form of non-literal interpretation of the Bible, set against contemporary scholarly study of the Bible (biblical criticism) 2. Hold fast to particular set of doctrines, particularly about apocalyptic end-time scenarios 3. Sociologically countercultural—see themselves as under siege by the Western secular world

27. Science and Religion:The responses from the “Religious” side of the equation • Christian Fundamentalism • Attitude toward natural sciences: • Dead set against any form of evolutionary theory • Typically hold to some form of “creation science” (basically a group of fundamentalists scientists who were banded together to offer refutations of evolutionary theory and offer an explanation of the natural world that “proves” the biblical text) • Will tend to try use scientific observations to “prove” the Bible while scientific observations which question their perspective on biblical teachings will be refuted or held as the suspect conclusions of a “secular world”