Search blog.co.uk

The religious faith of the first scientists
by ranfuchs @ 2008-03-05 - 11:31:43

kepler_spheres

While the new scientific way of thinking (as described in my previous posts) was partially responsible for the decline in the power of the Church, the resultant image of the world neither threatened the fundamentals of faith, nor replaced the need for a creator. For many scientists, revealing the nature of the world was the way to understanding the creation and the glory of God. Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton, were all devout believers who saw their scientific work as a religious undertaking. For example, Kepler wrote in his Harmony of the Worlds:

Geometry provided God with a model for the Creation and was implanted into man, together with God's own likeness. ... It is absolutely necessary that the work of such a Creator be of the greatest beauty.

Although these scientists were aware of the objections their work would provoke, they did not consider the new discoveries to contradict religious teachings. They held the view that the scriptures, written for everyone to understand, were not to be taken literally. Any contradiction between religious teachings and the scientific discoveries was due to human’s mistaken interpretation. They believed that correct knowledge of the cosmos would provide a better insight into the scriptures, and that it was our pious responsibility to reinterpret the texts to match the known facts, as there should be no inconsistency between science and the scriptures when they were rightly understood.

6 comments | Trackback (0) | Permalink | Recommend this post
Tags: faith, religion, science,

Trackback address for this post:

authimage

Comments, Trackbacks: Hide subcomments

J Ptak [Visitor]
http://longstreet.typepad.com/thesciencebookstore
2008-03-05 @ 17:42

Thanks very much for your provocative and insightful post. I'm wondering (given yours above) that if scientific advancement was in some way inconsistent with the Bible it is not the fault of the science or the Bible but the human interpreter of the Bible; is the Bible always consistent and science not? If the Bible was always correct (with inconsistencies laid at the feet of human interpretation), but science was seen as an aid to further understanding a Bible that was already consistent within itself, then why bother with science at all? Given the Keplerian duty in trying to more deeply understand the Great Geometer, do the inconsistencies of discovery broaden the interpretive base of the Bile, or challenge it?

| Show this thread
ranfuchsranfuchs pro
2008-03-06 @ 01:20

It’s a very insightful question to which I do not have an answer. So I can only speculate.

Many biblical scholars believe (even today) that the bible is written in a code and should not be taken literary. According to some traditions, this code contains everything that happened and everything that will happen. Many scholars strive to figure out the code. We know, for instance, that Newton spent most of is life searching for it.

So my guess is that many of these scientist believed that science would provide the key for this code.

As for the second part of your question, if you believe that the bible is written in a code (some traditions believe that it is written in 4 different levels: from the literal to the mystical) there can't be any contradiction, as any inconsistency will simply indicate that your previous interpretation was mistaken.

|
tylluanpenrytylluanpenry pro
2008-03-05 @ 23:09

It's also worth mentioning that at one time, theology was taught as a science.

| Show this thread
ranfuchsranfuchs pro
2008-03-06 @ 01:32

Indeed. However, it is important to note that although it is the same word, science, it's meaning has changed. So it is not the same science any more

|
DominicGeeDominicGee [Member]
2008-03-06 @ 11:15

Good post. You mention 'the church' as a single entity, but Protestant and Catholic interpretations of this has been very different over the years. It was a lot easier for Catholics to accept the new science as Catholics do not get their authority from the Bible - as protestants do. It was a lot more dangerous to Protestants as the Bible is the sole authority on the teachings of God. Catholics on the other hand take their authority from the Church / Pope, meaning that a lot more interpretation is allowed. You can see this still manifested in the creationism that is prevalent in the Southern United states - these are Protestant communities, Baptists and Evangelicals, not Catholics.
Also, you may not mean to do this but I think you give the impression that 'the church' had been trying to cover up the truth the whole time. The new theories that were being developed were not just shocking to the churches but many normal people's sensibilities, nobody had ever tried to PROVE that we were insignificant, only suggested it as a philosophical possibility.

| Show this thread
ranfuchsranfuchs pro
2008-03-06 @ 11:53

In general, when I referred to the Church I referred to the Catholic Church, whose head, the Pope, was also the head of the Inquisition.

Just to put things in perspective. It was the Catholic Church that forbade Aristotle’s teachings (Council of Paris in 1210), placed Copernicus’ work on the List of Prohibited Books, and arrested Galileo. It was the Lutheran Church that excommunicated Kepler.

The Church power was financial and political. So, in my view it was because Catholics take their authority from the Church / Pope, the Church was far more reluctant to give this power away, and object any change.

I don’t think that anyone ever tried to ‘prove’ we were insignificant. At first we were the centre of the universe. That was quite significant. Then we moved to be one planet around a sun, that was less significant. Now even our sun is just a minor object in a much bigger galaxy.

We don’t really need to prove that we are insignificant. We really are. Just have a look: http://ranfuchs.blog.co.uk/2008/01/20/does_size_matter_the_answer~3606110

|

Leave a comment :

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.
Allowed XHTML tags: <!, p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, a, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small, img>
URLs, email, AIM and ICQs will be converted automatically.
Options:
 
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email & url)
Validation code:
Please enter the above code here:
For protection from spambots (case-sensitive).