In your attempt to show that there's a false dichotomy between religion and science, I think you set up a false trichotomy by mistake. To be fair I think I can see why; you're approaching this from a Christian angle, because it's what you know best.I know, I was just using Christianity as an example, because it's the world's most prominent religion, and the one I know the most.
There are more choices than "Biblical literalist," "Bible/science reconciler," and "abandoner of Bible for science." There are scientists of all religious stripes out there, and yet the only examples you give are Christian scientists to make your case.
Of course, to be fair I can only really think of one non-Christian scientist off the top of my head. That would be Einstein, whom I believe is, er, was Jewish.
I see no reason why there should be any conflict between religion and science. The two occupy completely different spheres of influence.
You can reconcile the two, no matter what the hardliners or extremists on either side may have said. And over the years, there have been many, many examples of people believing in both religion and science.
"The thing a lot of people forget is that religion really was our first attempt to make rational sense of an apparently irrational world, by ascribing intent and personality to otherwise terrifyingly random occurrences. Looking back, one can see how inevitable it was that religion should result in science: devout worshipers sought to understand the nature of the created world they lived in out of the same sense of wonderment that guides people like Carl Sagan, and eventually began to realize that it didn’t line up with their initial assumptions."
"A lot of religious figures have been involved in the sciences. Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, was a monk. A Catholic priest was one of the people who came up with the Big Bang Theory (not the TV show), and was also the first person to propose that the universe is expanding. Louis Leakey was a Christian missionary and son of missionaries, who was a renowned palaeoanthropologist. His contributions to the study of human evolution and ancestry are incalculable. He has even been quoted as saying, “Nothing I’ve ever found has contradicted the Bible. It’s people with their finite minds who misread the Bible.
I'd say he was right on the money. Pope John Paul II said “Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish.”
I see no reason why there should be any conflict between religion and science. The two occupy completely different spheres of influence.
The thing a lot of people forget is that religion really was our first attempt to make rational sense of an apparently irrational world, by ascribing intent and personality to otherwise terrifyingly random occurrences.
I have to take issue with the assertion that science has mostly been inspired by naturalism and not religion. Prior to the modern era, many if not most scientists, mathematicans, and philosophers have been religious and have seen their work in those fields as stemming from or even part of their religious beliefs and practices.
It's worth noting that contrary to pop history, the christian church was a proponent and patron of scientific research in the "dark" ages and the middle ages.
All science classes start with Aristotle.Medieval scholars and philosophers revered the ancient Greek philosophers. We wouldn't even know about many of them today if it weren't for medieval christian monks laboriously copying older manuscripts by hand. In many cases, what held medieval science back wasn't blind adherence to church doctrine, but blind adherence to the ideas of Greek philosophers (like the concept of humors).
ScienCE can not be religious. ScientISTS can.Sure, but if the scientIST is not only religious but sees his/her religion as motivation for doing science, then it's not fair to say that religion doesn't inspire science.
Early science that didn't involve suspending the supernatural is really very few & far between. You've got basic astronomy. Some chemistry concepts based in alchemy.And medicine, physics, mathematics, geometry, architecture... pretty much every pre-modern field of study was inspired in many researchers by faith and often supported by the church. If we look beyond christianity, I'm sure the same could be said of a lot of religions. The islamic world for example produced a lot of mathematical and medical advances in the middle ages.
And in every case, adding naturalistic observation to these fields has caused them to expand dramatically beyond those early roots.Of course. My point wasn't that naturalism wasn't necessary for good science, only that throughout history, religion has been a motivation for science.
So, yeah, I would need some pretty good evidence to change my position.
Medieval scholars and philosophers revered the ancient Greek philosophers. We wouldn't even know about many of them today if it weren't for medieval christian monks laboriously copying older manuscripts by hand. In many cases, what held medieval science back wasn't blind adherence to church doctrine, but blind adherence to the ideas of Greek philosophers (like the concept of humors).
Also, the plague put the brakes on scientific advancement in Europe for a while.
Sure, but if the scientIST is not only religious but sees his/her religion as motivation for doing science, then it's not fair to say that religion doesn't inspire science.
And medicine, physics, mathematics, geometry, architecture... pretty much every pre-modern field of study was inspired in many researchers by faith and often supported by the church. If we look beyond christianity, I'm sure the same could be said of a lot of religions. The islamic world for example produced a lot of mathematical and medical advances in the middle ages.
QuoteSure, but if the scientIST is not only religious but sees his/her religion as motivation for doing science, then it's not fair to say that religion doesn't inspire science.
Inspires people to do science sometimes, but was not the progenitor of modern science as we know it.
Your impression is accurate.QuoteSure, but if the scientIST is not only religious but sees his/her religion as motivation for doing science, then it's not fair to say that religion doesn't inspire science.
Inspires people to do science sometimes, but was not the progenitor of modern science as we know it.
But "religion is the progenitor of science" is not what JohnE is trying to argue for. At least I didn't get that impression.
I wouldn't classify anything that doesn't involve some prototypical form of the scientific method as science.But that's exactly what much medieval scientific research had, an early (not yet fully developed) form of the scientific method.
According to Pierre Duhem, who founded the academic study of medieval science as a critique of the Enlightenment-positivist theory of a 17th-century anti-Aristotelian and anticlerical scientific revolution, the various conceptual origins of that alleged revolution lay in the 12th to 14th centuries, in the works of churchmen such as Aquinas and Buridan.
[...]
Grosseteste [13th century bishop] was the founder of the famous Oxford franciscan school. He built his work on Aristotle's vision of the dual path of scientific reasoning. Concluding from particular observations into a universal law, and then back again: from universal laws to prediction of particulars. Grosseteste called this "resolution and composition". Further, Grosseteste said that both paths should be verified through experimentation in order to verify the principals. These ideas established a tradition that carried forward to Padua and Galileo Galilei in the 17th century.
This even says that knowledge was only considered useful insofar as it brought you closer to God. This is a terrible criterion, especially if God was actually not real the entire time.But seeking knowledge through science as a way to get closer to god is exactly the point I was making, i.e. that religion can and throughout history has inspired science.
Your impression is accurate.
But that's exactly what much medieval scientific research had, an early (not yet fully developed) form of the scientific method.
According to Pierre Duhem, who founded the academic study of medieval science as a critique of the Enlightenment-positivist theory of a 17th-century anti-Aristotelian and anticlerical scientific revolution, the various conceptual origins of that alleged revolution lay in the 12th to 14th centuries, in the works of churchmen such as Aquinas and Buridan.
But seeking knowledge through science as a way to get closer to god is exactly the point I was making, i.e. that religion can and throughout history has inspired science.
It would help to know which article this comes from.Science in the middle ages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_middle_ages)
Sure, but that's entirely beside my point. You seem to think I'm trying to say that religion is just as good or better at advancing scientific research than pure naturalism. That's not the case at all. I've been responding to one specific point you made:QuoteBut seeking knowledge through science as a way to get closer to god is exactly the point I was making, i.e. that religion can and throughout history has inspired science.And pseudoscience.
science was inspired mostly by naturalism, not religion.IMO, that's not true for most of history. For centuries, science was inspired by religion, by people who wanted to get closer to god by learning more about his/her/its/their creation. And in that search, they laid a lot of the groundwork for the modern scientific method. Now, religion has ALSO inspired a lot of pseudo-science, superstition, and all sorts of other things, but none of that contradicts the former.
You seem to think I'm trying to say that religion is just as good or better at advancing scientific research than pure naturalism. That's not the case at all.
TBH, I'm not sure where I stand on the overall question of whether science and religion are inherently enemies or not. What I do know is that modern religious institutions and movements need to leave the science to the scientists. But I also believe in giving credit where credit is due, and in the past religious people and institutions have played an important part in moving science forward.
I believe in giving both credit & blame where it is due.
if I said that science is mostly the result of naturalism, as opposed to religion, & you say that is untrue,That's not what you said, though. You asserted that science was mostly inspired by naturalism, which I took to mean that people were mostly motivated by naturalism, rather than by religion. That's what I claim to be untrue. Someone can be motivated by religious conviction to study science using naturalistic methods.
then how are you not saying that religion is just as good as or better than advancing science?Because I was never arguing that religion is better overall at advancing science. Rather, I've been arguing that religion can and has inspired (i.e. motivated) scientific research.
"Their hearts were in the right place"Actually, I think their hearts were in the wrong (or at least, not the ideal) place, but at times, it lead them in the right direction, i.e. laying the groundwork for the modern scientific method.
If we're going to try to qualify the sum total contribution of religion to science, which is admittedly a nebulous debate prone to generalizations & confusion of terms, then we can't just look at the pro-science parts. That's only considering half of the story, & obviously if we're only paying attention to the scientific developments, then we're going to come to the conclusion that religion was beneficial to the development of science by definition. Or, back to using addition as a metaphor, we can't just take only the "positives" & ignore the "negatives," because the negatives change the answer.Neither can we ignore the positives because they don't fit our nice neat little "science vs. religion" narative.