|
Science and Christianity To many, nothing about Christianity seems as certain as the fact that it is the historical enemy of science and progress. It's a view cultivated by scientists like Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins. Sagan, perhaps best known as creator of the popular television show COSMOS, once said that had it not been for Christianity, men would have walked on the moon 1000 years earlier. He and other proponents of this view are quick to cite Galileo's treatment at the hands of the church in the 17th century. However, as with most things,the truth of the matter is considerably less one-sided (and more interesting). Christianity, far from being the enemy of progress, is the one soil in which modern science took root. Both Islamic and Chinese civilizations had moments of insight in mathematics, astronomy and chemistry. Both had much in the way of resources, human and otherwise; but only in Christian Europe did science and technology fully advance. At this point the skeptic is quick to point to the Enlightenment as the foundation of modern science. It was -- the skeptic will say; the wisdom of skeptics like Voltaire and Montaigne that led us to the scientific revolution. Again, it's an attractive idea (especially to the skeptic). Unfortunately, it ignores critical details of the development of western technical and scientific hegemony. First, it must be noted that the world prior to the introduction of Christianity was far from being a rational paradise with strict separation of church and state. When Christianity arrived on the scene, the Greek and Roman pantheon of gods was revered throughout the known world. Temples and daily sacrifice to gods of every conceivable variety were ubiquitous. By the first century AD, the Emperors themselves were declared divine and worthy of worship Thus, the first Christians were not singled out for extreme or unusual piety but rather for their relative impiety. Refusing to worship the Emperor or other Roman gods, the early Christians were declared atheists! [See Pliny's letter to Trajan] Thus the Roman world was, in some sense, more religious than the Christian Europe that followed. Yet even so, the Roman Empire (along with the equally religious Egyptians) represented the height of human knowledge in the areas of philosophy, civics, mathematics, drama, architecture -- truly any discipline one wishes to consider. Religion, in general terms, can not be seen as hostile to the advancement of knowledge. Nor can one blame Christianity. It was not Christianity that stopped the development of science. On the contrary, many of the early Christian leaders were learned men, knowledgeable in the disciplines of art, poetry, history, language, etc. What stopped the development of science was the utter destruction of the Roman Empire under waves of barbarian tribes from the north. It took hundreds of years for Europe to absorb and civilize these invaders (some of these tribes were ostensibly Christian, but the Huns assuredly were not). In the meantime, the great works of knowledge accumulated by the Greeks and Romans were tucked away, preserved for posterity by Christian monks. Historian and author Daniel Boorstein says it this way:
The restoration of Aristotle and the Greek thinkers came in the 13th century when Latin versions of their works became available from Muslim sources. Far from being rejected outright, the leading Christian theologians of the day accepted much of this material as valid. In particular, Albert the Great and his pupil Thomas Aquinas (considered the greatest theologians of their time) accepted the realism of Aristotle as a good and useful way of viewing the world, one that could be harmonized with the scriptures. Thus Aquinas greatest work, the Summa Theological, quotes 46 different philosophers and poets, chief among which are Aristotle and Plato. Technology was also advancing during this period. We are not often accustomed to thinking of the 12th and 13th centuries as times of technological progress, but this is the case. Christian Europeans, particularly the Cistercian monks, were building and refining windmills and water wheels to ever-greater sophistication. These new sources of power were put to use in smelting iron, tanning and milling of various sorts. Here is the first-hand account of a 13th century monk:
Another development of this time period that we take for granted today was the development of the clock. Prior to this time, sundials and water clocks were the best means of timekeeping available. But Christian monks interested in obtaining a better reckoning of the hours of prayer, pushed the development of the modern clock. What they created in the 13th century is probably the first complex, all-metal machine. Historian Daniel Boorstein explains that even the word "clock" refers us to its Christian origins.
The clock was not the only ancient idea that took off in Christian Europe. About this same time, rag paper was introduced to Europe via the Muslim world. Islamic traders had taken this innovation from China 400 or 500 years earlier. The Chinese had used it for at least 600 years prior to that. Yet, a mere 300 years after its introduction to Europe, the moveable-type printing press was developed, leading to an information revolution and, arguably at least, the Renaissance. Once again the Churchmen, and in particular Christian monks, were only too eager to abandon the laborious manuscript copying process they had practiced for millennia in favor of the new technology. Finally, it is worth noting that a great many Universities were established at this time. Most of these, such as Oxford and Cambridge, were founded for the study of theological issues but also taught more practical subjects. It's difficult to overestimate the significance of Universities to the development of learning and science. Not merely there existence, per se, but the intellectual rigor that spawned them in the first place. Mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead summed it up this way:
From the first Christians to the founders of modern math and science (Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Faraday, Pascal, Gauss, Kelvin, Maxwell, yes even Galileo) belief in God as creator was not, on the whole, seen as a hindrance to insight, learning and progress. Even atheist philosopher Frederic Nietzsche accepted the view that science was the product of a Christian worldview (though he saw this as an irony). Modern Science That's all well and good the skeptic might say, but we've left that all behind us. Modern science has no room or need for faith. Again, this is taken as Gospel in some circles, but doesn't hold up to a little inquiry. While many of the brightest lights of 20th century science were strict materialists (e.g. Tesla, Heisenberg and Bohr), not all saw the need to reject theism. Einstein, for one, believed in a superior intelligence (though not a personal God). As can be seen from the quote below, Einstein (like Whitehead) saw rationalism as rooted in a specific kind of religious view of the world:
In a 1997 survey of scientists (people with advanced degrees, working in the field), 42% were found to attend church of some kind on a regular basis. This is only slightly less than the percentage of the general population [48%]. So while we may hear only from scientists with an anti-religious bent, this is not necessarily representative of actual scientists. You might even call it an unscientific survey. The truth is, for every Francis Watson seeking to dismiss religion altogether, there is a Stephen J. Gould, willing to accommodate the moral claims of religion (if not its personal implications). For every Carl Sagan, blaming Christianity for stunting scientific progress, there is an Allan Sandage (probably the world's foremost living cosmologist) holding to both scientific and Christian orthodoxy without compromise. The skeptic who abandons God in the name of science has turned his back on a great deal more than unappealing television preachers with money on their minds. An acceptance of strict rationalism is absolutely fatal to everything we wish to hold dear: justice, love, compassion, hope. Richard Dawkins, in his book River Out of Eden, summed it up this way:
Dawkins is a bright man and, in this case, an excellent philosopher as well. A cosmos with no creator is a cosmos in which nothing ultimately matters. In his best-selling book The First Three Minutes, Steven Weinberg writes:
Carl Sagan indulges in similar musings in his book Pale Blue Dot. Why fight and struggle with one another, he asks, when we are all so tiny and insignificant? In his desire to escape to a safe height above the maddening crowd, Sagan overlooks the obvious. If we are corporately insignificant, then we are personally even more so. Thus, if we turn the question around we see the problem. Why not kill your neighbor? Why not kill a whole passel of neighbors? After all, according to Carl Sagan, none of them are very important. This is the world of strict rationalism. Your suffering, that of friends and family, of helpless and starving children around the globe; is all pointless. Why bother caring, helping or loving someone else? If Dawkins and Weinberg are right, there is no reason. Once we throw out right and wrong, all that remains is power. A homicidal killer is no longer wrong, but simply someone with an unpopular view of the value of human life. A rapist has a similarly unpopular view of sex. In abandoning God, we abandon sanity. Fortunately, the nature of the universe does not demand such a view. Stephen Hawking, perhaps the world's best known living scientist, said the following:
Not what one would call a ringing endorsement of theism, but skepticism from the world's leading physicist is not that surprising. What should surprise is the fact that one of the world's leading physicists is raising the question of God's place in creation. Whatever his personal views may be, Hawking is said to rankle at the suggestion that he is an atheist. And his most recent paper goes further than any of his previous work toward accepting what scientists call the weak anthropic principle. This is the idea that the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of self-aware beings (of which the only known examples are us). And while this might be a long way from going to church on Sunday, it is clear that the brightest of men (and women) are not all resolved to one side or another of the issue. As Blaise Pascal, forefather of the computer said, "Reason’s last step is the recognition that there are an infinite number of things which are beyond it." For more information on the "anthropic principle" mentioned above, see the following: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0106/articles/barr.html
|
|