Science and Religion, Why the Conflict?

Sometimes I wonder why things are the way they are.  I wonder what events happened in the past that continue to affect us today. I have always been perplexed at the often contentious relationship between science and religion, especially Protestant Christianity. This summer, I spent some time reading about the Protestant Reformation, the Renaissance and the history of science. Certainly I didn’t read everything about each of those topics. And I should be clear; I am not a historian by any stretch of the imagination. (By the way, if you are a historian reading this, please comment with any corrections or additions you think are necessary.)

Here’s the interesting thing I learned; up until the 1500’s concepts about the structureof the cosmos were essentially unchanged and were closely linked with a philosophical/religious viewpoint. Science and religion were not separate disciplines in the way we think about them today.

Until the development of the telescope, what people knew about the solar system was what they saw with their eyes. The sun rose in the east, moved across the sky and set in the west. Everyone could see the sun move. The moon rose and set as well. The stars moved in a regular order. And everything appeared to circle around the earth. No one could demonstrate that the earth moved.

Aristotle reasoned that if the earth moved, object thrown into the air should land in a different location, and he couldn’t demonstrate that. He also reasoned that if the earth moved around the sun, the stars should shift position and to the unaided eye, the stars don’t move. ( The stars do shift position, it’s called stellar parallax, but it can’t be detected with the unaided eye.)

Aristotle also concluded that the objects that moved around the earth, moved in perfect circles. This was a philosophical assumption. Ptolemy developed a model that was more accurate and more complex in its predictions about the movements of the heavenly bodies. But his model was also geocentric, the earth was the center of the cosmos, and everything else revolved around it. Over time, as more accurate observations were made, people realize Ptolemy’s model had problems but no one developed a better model for some 1500 years.

This orderly view of the universe was accepted in Europe at the time of the Reformation. People believed that objects in the sky moved in perfect circles, in an unchangeable hierarchical arraignment. This structure represented God’s perfect will and design. Linear movement and change were signs of imperfection. Above the hierarchically arraigned stars was the home of God. Below the stars were the imperfect moon, and earth. Below earth was the most imperfect place of all, farthest from God, hell.

Because the cosmos was created by God, its order and structure reflected the will of God and this order and structure was also the model for people’s understanding of how human society should be. This worldview valued hierarchy, order and permanence as reflections of God’s will. Even human beings were ordered. People consisted of, in declining order, soul, reason, will, passions, and body. People believed in the ultimate unity of all things, that universal truths existed and could be known. They also believed the ideas and concepts from antiquity were better than “modern” thoughts. Most people believed that society had reached its peak in the ancient world and it had been downhill ever since. And so the end was not far off.

You can imagine this worldview, present for centuries, made acceptance of new ideas difficult. The 16th century for Europe was a time of great change, Europe was moving from feudalism to nations,new lands were being discovered, economies were changing,  and the Reformation challenged religious beliefs. What we might call modern science was beginning also.  All this change, that we might look on as exciting, was anxiety producing for Europeans. Life was unsettled at almost every level. People were unwilling and uneasy about considering ideas that reordered the cosmos. If the cosmos could be reordered, so could human society.

This is, of course, just the barest of sketches about science and religion in the 16th century. It is a complex and fascinating period of history. But even this brief discussion begins to point out a few of the causes of the science and religion “troubles”. Part of being able to resolve a conflict is realizing what started it in the first place.

It seems to me, that the close connection, made for centuries, between the perceived orderly structure of the universe and God’s will for human society set the stage for problems to develop. Science didn’t just challenge the scientific status quo, it challenged the religious and social structure as well. Do we still need to fight a 16thcentury battle with 16th century ideas?

I’d like to know, what do you think?

——————

This is a list of some of the books that shaped this essay. If you have a favorite book on this topic, please share it with the rest of us.

A World Lit Only by Fire:The Medieval Mind and the Reniassance  William Manchester, 1992

The Waning of the Reniassance  1550-1640  William J. Bouwsma, 2000

Theories of Everything: An Illustrated History of Science from the Invention of Numbers to String Theory John Langone, Bruce Stutz, Andrea Gianopoulos, 2006

Interpreting John Calvin, Ford Lewis Battles, 1996.

John Calvin: A sixteenth century Portrait,  William J. Bouwsma, 1988

————

Speaking of how past events affect the present, on a completely different topic-this election year, America’s God by Mark Noll can’t be recommended highly enough. It’s a comprehensive and thoughtful history of the relationship between US politics, history and religion.

Theology: What is it good for?

What is theology good for?

First let’s be clear on what theology is.

Theology:*

1. The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.
2. A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions: Protestant theology; Jewish theology.
3. A course of specialized religious study usually at a college or seminary.

My question concerns primarily the first definition. Of course the second definition is involved because we are each going approach the question from a particular school or point of view. Let’s leave the discussion about the value of religious studies and seminary education for later…much later.

So what’s the point? Why attempt to think rationally about God. Why “study” God? Isn’t experience enough? Certainly the various systems or schools of opinions have caused a lot of problems, schisms, conflict, condemnation, even wars. Why bother? Part of the answer,I think, is because we are creatures that need to organize our ideas- it’s how we make sense of our experiences. But then what do we do with the information? What’s the goal, the end result?

Should we be content with increasing our private understanding and faith?

Should we use the results of our theological study to challenge and change the views of others?

Should theological study only shape and inform our own views?

Or should we use our theological study to challenge and change the world?

To use traditional Christian language; is the point of theology, personal piety, apologetics, evangelism, doctrine, or mission?

Take a moment and consider what you think.

Here is what Douglas J. Schuurman writes in his book, Vocation: Discerning Our Callings in Life,

“The main effort of Christian theology is not to convince atheists or agnostics of the truth of the Christian claims, important as that task may be. Rather, it is to help Christians interpret the world in light of their faith in the God manifested in Jesus Christ, who renews all of creation.”^

I think Shuurman has it right. The reason to study theology; to think about it, talk about it, ponder it, is to help us live more faithfully in the world. To view the world, not in terms of our personal or idenominational or national self interest; but to make meaning of the world in a way that is deeply shaped by our belief in the God who redeems and renews.

In some ways, I gave you a set of false distinctions in the four questions I posed above. They are all a part of what I understand Shuurman to mean. At the same time, they all are ways we miss the mark.

We should of course endeavor to increase our personal faith and knowledge. Without a sincere and personal faith, religion is just an abstraction. Something to think about but not to believe. Prayer, worship, spiritual disciplines are crucial. However if we are only concerned about our private religious experience haven’t we failed to embrace the entire gospel?

Christianity does challenge the views of others. The theologian Leslie Newbigin writes that as Christians our way of living should be a source of curiosity, of interest to others. The way we conduct ourselves in the everyday world should mark us as Christians. Once again we can do this well or poorly. Newbigin doesn’t mean we should spend our days trying to convince others to believe as we do. He suggests the way we conduct ourselves, humbly, with care and concern for those around us, should prompt others to ask questions about why we do what we do and why society promotes other behaviors.

I don’t know about you but I don’t know anyone who has been “talked into” faith. I wonder what the real effect of all the books and websites devoted to apologetics has been. So often the tone is imperious, self righteous and self satisfied. For me it is much more compelling to see someone incarnate, live- albeit imperfectly- their faith. Only then do I have any interest in the beliefs that form them.

Of course we need to know and understand what we say we believe. I suspect this is what most people think about first when they think about theology. Our minds want clarity and order about what we believe. Without careful thought and study we can wonder off into the theological wastelands. We can so easily shift our gaze and confuse God’s will with our own. But at the same time we run the risk of thinking that what we believe is right, that we know God’s mind and heart and will best. And we run the risk of reducing faith to only an assent to a set of doctrines.

Theology as a tool to change the world. Here again there is more than one way to fall off this horse.

If we think our task is to convince everyone to think and act like us, we’re in for trouble. We Christians can’t even agree among ourselves. Here I think the goal of theology is to help us talk among ourselves, to think through what is important and what is not. And then to work for change that improves the world. We are, as heirs of Abraham, to be a blessing for the world (Gen 12:1-3). Our theological convictions should cause us to work for fair housing, adequate health care, nutrition and all the other worthy causes you can add to this list.

Someone asked me once,”How do you know when you’re thinking theologically?”

My reply was,”When your head hurts.”

Because thinking theologically requires us to think deeply and carefully.  We have to think about difficult topics. We have to talk to each other, particularly those who have a different point of view. We have to recognize what we think is right and then be willing to set all that aside. We have to question, question ourselves and what others tell us. And most importantly we must listen. Listen for God and recognize that God speaks to us in a variety of sometimes surprising ways.

I’d like to know, what do you think?

 

 

 

 

 

 

* theology. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theology (accessed: August 15, 2008).

^ Douglas J. Shuurman, Vocation: Discerning our Callings in Life, (Eerdmans Publishing:Grand Rapids MI, 2004),52.