From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The
relationship between religion and science has been a subject of study since
classical antiquity
( from around 700 BC ), addressed by philosophers, theologians,
scientists, and others. Perspectives from different geographical
regions, cultures and historical epochs are diverse, with some
characterizing the relationship as one of conflict, others describing it
as one of harmony, and others proposing little interaction.
Both science and religion are complex social and cultural endeavors that vary across cultures and have changed over time.
[1] Most scientific and technical innovations prior to the
scientific revolution were achieved by societies organized by religious traditions. Elements of the
scientific method were pioneered by ancient pagan, Islamic, and Christian scholars.
Roger Bacon, who is often credited with formalizing the scientific method, was a Franciscan friar.
[2]
Hinduism has historically embraced reason and empiricism, holding that
science brings legitimate, but incomplete knowledge of the world.
Confucian thought has held different views of science over time. Most
Buddhists today view science as complementary to their beliefs. While
the classification of the material world by the ancient
Indians and
Greeks into
air, earth, fire and water was more philosophical, medieval
Middle Easterns used practical and experimental observation to classify materials.
[3]
Events in Europe such as the
Galileo affair, associated with the scientific revolution and the
Age of Enlightenment, led scholars such as
John William Draper to postulate a
conflict thesis,
holding that religion and science have been in conflict
methodologically, factually and politically throughout history. This
thesis is held by some contemporary scientists such as
Richard Dawkins,
Steven Weinberg and
Carl Sagan, and some
creationists.
[not verified in body] The conflict thesis has lost favor among most contemporary historians of science.
[4][5][6]
Many scientists, philosophers, and theologians throughout history, such as
Francisco Ayala,
Kenneth R. Miller and
Francis Collins, have seen compatibility or independence between religion and science. Biologist
Stephen Jay Gould, other scientists, and some contemporary theologians hold that religion and science are
non-overlapping magisteria,
addressing fundamentally separate forms of knowledge and aspects of
life. Some theologians or historians of science, including
John Lennox,
Thomas Berry,
Brian Swimme and
Ken Wilber propose an interconnection between science and religion, while others such as
Ian Barbour believe there are even parallels.
Public acceptance of
scientific facts may be influenced by religion; many in the
United States reject evolution by
natural selection, especially regarding human beings. Nevertheless, the American
National Academy of Sciences
has written that "the evidence for evolution can be fully compatible
with religious faith", a view officially endorsed by many religious
denominations globally.
[7]
History of the concepts
The concepts of "science" and "religion" are a recent invention:
"religion" emerged in the 17th century in the midst of colonization and
globalization and the Protestant Reformation,
[8][9][10] "science" emerged in the 19th century in the midst of attempts to narrowly define those who studied nature,
[8][11][12] and the phrase "religion and science" emerged in the 19th century due to the reification of both concepts.
[8] It was in the 19th century that the terms "Buddhism", "Hinduism", "Taoism", and "Confucianism" first emerged.
[8][10] In the ancient and medieval world, the etymological Latin roots of both science (
scientia) and religion (
religio)
were understood as inner qualities of the individual or virtues, never
as doctrines, practices, or actual sources of knowledge.
[8]
It was in the 19th century that the concept of "science" received its
modern shape with new titles emerging such as "biology" and
"biologist", "physics" and "physicist" among other technical fields and
titles; institutions and communities were founded, and unprecedented
applications to and interactions with other aspects of society and
culture occurred.
[11] The term
scientist was first coined by the naturalist-theologian
William Whewell in 1834 and it was applied to those who sought knowledge and understanding of nature.
[8][13] From the ancient world, starting with Aristotle, to the 19th century, the term "
natural philosophy" was the common term used to describe the practice of studying nature.
[11][14] Isaac Newton's book
Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica
(1687), whose title translates to "Mathematical Principles of Natural
Philosophy", reflects the then-current use of the words "natural
philosophy", akin to "systematic study of nature". Even in the 19th
century, a treatise by
Lord Kelvin and Peter Guthrie Tait's, which helped define much of modern physics, was titled
Treatise on Natural Philosophy (1867).
It was in the 17th century that the concept of "religion" received
its modern shape despite the fact that ancient texts like the Bible, the
Quran, and other sacred texts did not have a concept of religion in the
original languages and neither did the people or the cultures in which
these sacred texts were written.
[9] In the 19th century,
Max Müller noted that what is called ancient religion today, would have been called "law" in antiquity.
[15] For example, there is no precise equivalent of "religion" in Hebrew, and
Judaism does not distinguish clearly between religious, national, racial, or ethnic identities.
[16] The
Sanskrit word "
dharma", sometimes translated as "religion", also means law or duty. Throughout classical
South Asia, the
study of law consisted of concepts such as
penance through piety and
ceremonial as well as practical traditions.
Medieval Japan at first had a similar union between "imperial law" and
universal or "Buddha law", but these later became independent sources of
power.
[17][18]
Throughout its long history, Japan had no concept of "religion" since
there was no corresponding Japanese word, nor anything close to its
meaning, but when American warships appeared off the coast of Japan in
1853 and forced the Japanese government to
sign treaties demanding, among other things, freedom of religion, the country had to contend with this Western idea.
[10]
Middle Ages and Renaissance
The development of sciences (especially
natural philosophy) in
Western Europe during the
Middle Ages, has considerable foundation in the works of the Arabs who translated
Greek and
Latin compositions.[19] The works of
Aristotle played a major role in the institutionalization, systematization, and expansion of reason.
Christianity accepted reason within the ambit of faith. In
Christendom, reason was considered subordinate to
revelation,
which contained the ultimate truth and this truth could not be
challenged. Even though the medieval Christian had the urge to use their
reason, they had little on which to exercise it. In medieval
universities, the faculty for natural philosophy and theology were
separate, and discussions pertaining to theological issues were often
not allowed to be undertaken by the faculty of philosophy.
[20][page needed]
Natural philosophy, as taught in the arts faculties of the
universities, was seen as an essential area of study in its own right
and was considered necessary for almost every area of study. It was an
independent field, separated from theology, which enjoyed a good deal of
intellectual freedom as long as it was restricted to the natural world.
In general, there was religious support for natural science by the late
Middle Ages and a recognition that it was an important element of
learning.
[19]
The extent to which medieval science led directly to the new
philosophy of the scientific revolution remains a subject for debate,
but it certainly had a significant influence.
[21]
The Middle Ages laid ground for the developments that took place in science, during the
Renaissance
which immediately succeeded it. With significant developments taking
place in science, mathematics, medicine and philosophy, the relationship
between science and religion became one of curiosity and questioning.
[21][page needed] As
humanism
became more and more popular, people tried to understand the nature
around them better, rather than turn to religious aspirations.
Renaissance humanism looked to classical Greek and Roman texts to change
contemporary thought, allowing for a new mindset after the Middle Ages.
Renaissance readers understood these
classical texts
as focusing on human decisions, actions and creations, rather than
blindly following the rules set forth by the Catholic Church as "God's
plan." Though many Renaissance humanists remained religious, they
believed God gave humans opportunities and it was humanity's duty to do
the "best and most moral thing". Renaissance humanism was an "ethical
theory and practice that emphasized reason, scientific inquiry and human
fulfillment in the natural world," said
Abernethy.
[22]
By 1630, ancient authority from classical literature and philosophy, as
well as their necessity, started eroding, although scientists were
still expected to be fluent in
Latin, the international language of Europe's intellectuals. With the sheer success of science and the steady advance of
rationalism, the individual scientist gained prestige.
[21]
Along with the inventions of this period, especially the
printing press by
Johannes Gutenberg, allowed for the dissemination of the
Bible
in languages of the common people (languages other than Latin). This
allowed more people to read and learn from the scripture, leading to the
Evangelical movement. The people who spread this message, concentrated more on
individual agency rather than the structures of the Church.
[22]
Perspectives
According to
Richard Dawkins,
"not only is science corrosive to religion; religion is corrosive to
science. It teaches people to be satisfied with trivial, supernatural
non-explanations and blinds them to the wonderful real explanations that
we have within our grasp. It teaches them to accept authority,
revelation and faith instead of always insisting on evidence."
[23]
The kinds of interactions that might arise between science and
religion have been categorized by theologian, Anglican priest, and
physicist
John Polkinghorne:
(1) conflict between the disciplines, (2) independence of the
disciplines, (3) dialogue between the disciplines where they overlap and
(4) integration of both into one field.
[24]
This typology is similar to ones used by theologians
Ian Barbour[25] and
John Haught.
[26] More typologies that categorize this relationship can be found among the works of other
science and religion scholars such as theologian and biochemist
Arthur Peacocke.
[27]
Incompatibility
According
to Guillermo Paz-y-Miño-C and Avelina Espinosa, the historical conflict
between evolution and religion is intrinsic to the incompatibility
between
scientific rationalism/
empiricism and the belief in
supernatural causation;
[28]
these authors have formally proposed the incompatibility hypothesis
(IH) to explain the "everlasting-conflict-science-and-faith".
[29] According to
Jerry Coyne,
views on evolution and levels of religiosity in some countries, along
with the existence of books explaining reconciliation between evolution
and religion, indicate that people have trouble in believing both at the
same time, thus implying incompatibility.
[30] According to
Lawrence Krauss, compatibility or incompatibility is a theological concern, not a scientific concern.
[30] In
Lisa Randall's
view, questions of incompatibility or otherwise are not answerable,
since by accepting revelations one is abandoning rules of logic which
are needed to identify if there are indeed contradictions between
holding certain beliefs.
[30] Daniel Dennett
holds that incompatibility exists because religion is not problematic
to a certain point before it collapses into a number of excuses for
keeping certain beliefs, in light of evolutionary implications.
[30]
According to
Neil deGrasse Tyson,
the central difference between the nature of science and religion is
that the claims of science rely on experimental verification, while the
claims of religions rely on faith, and these are irreconcilable
approaches to knowing. Because of this both are incompatible as
currently practiced and the debate of compatibility or incompatibility
will be eternal.
[31][32] Philosopher and physicist
Victor J. Stenger's
view is that science and religion are incompatible due to conflicts
between approaches of knowing and the availability of alternative
plausible natural explanations for phenomena that is usually explained
in religious contexts.
[33]
Richard Dawkins
is hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the
scientific enterprise. According to Dawkins, religion "subverts science
and saps the intellect".
[34]
He believes that when science teachers attempt to expound on evolution,
there is hostility aimed towards them by parents who are skeptical
because they believe it conflicts with their religious beliefs, that
even some textbooks have had the word 'evolution' systematically
removed.
[35] According to
Sean M. Carroll,
since religion makes claims that are not compatible with science, such
as supernatural events, therefore both are incompatible.
[36]
Others such as
Francis Collins,
Kenneth R. Miller,
George Coyne and
Francisco J. Ayala
argue for compatibility since they do not agree that science is
incompatible with religion and vice versa. They argue that science
provides many opportunities to look for and find God in nature and to
reflect on their beliefs.
[37]
According to Kenneth Miller, he disagrees with Jerry Coyne's assessment
and argues that since significant portions of scientists are religious
and the proportion of Americans believing in evolution is much higher,
it implies that both are indeed compatible.
[30]
Elsewhere, Miller has argued that when scientists make claims on
science and theism or atheism, they are not arguing scientifically at
all and are stepping beyond the scope of science into discourses of
meaning and purpose. What he finds particularly odd and unjustified is
in how atheists often come to invoke scientific authority on their
non-scientific philosophical conclusions like there being no point or no
meaning to the universe as the only viable option when the scientific
method and science never have had any way of addressing questions of
meaning or God in the first place. Furthermore, he notes that since
evolution made the brain and since the brain can handle both religion
and science, there is no natural incompatibility between the concepts at
the biological level.
[38]
Karl Giberson argues that when discussing compatibility, some
scientific intellectuals often ignore the viewpoints of intellectual
leaders in theology and instead argue against less informed masses,
thereby, defining religion by non intellectuals and slanting the debate
unjustly. He argues that leaders in science sometimes trump older
scientific baggage and that leaders in theology do the same, so once
theological intellectuals are taken into account, people who represent
extreme positions like Ken Ham and Eugenie Scott will become irrelevant.
[30]
Cynthia Tolman notes that religion does not have a method per se partly
because religions emerge through time from diverse cultures, but when
it comes to Christian theology and ultimate truths, she notes that
people often rely on scripture, tradition, reason, and experience to
test and gauge what they experience and what they should believe.
[39]
Conflict thesis
The
conflict thesis,
which holds that religion and science have been in conflict
continuously throughout history, was popularized in the 19th century by
John William Draper's and
Andrew Dickson White's
accounts. It was in the 19th century that relationship between science
and religion became an actual formal topic of discourse, while before
this no one had pitted science against religion or vice versa, though
occasional complex interactions had been expressed before the 19th
century.
[40] Most contemporary historians of science now reject the conflict thesis in its original form and no longer support it.
[41][42][43][4][5][6][44] Instead, it has been superseded by subsequent historical research which has resulted in a more nuanced understanding:
[45][46]
Historian of science, Gary Ferngren, has stated "Although popular
images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of
Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that
Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavour,
while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or
attempts at harmonization. If Galileo and the Scopes trial come to mind
as examples of conflict, they were the exceptions rather than the rule."
[47]
Most historians today have moved away from a conflict model, which is
based mainly on two historical episodes (Galileo and Darwin) for a
"complexity" model, because religious figures were on both sides of each
dispute and there was no overall aim by any party involved to discredit
religion.
[48]
An often cited example of conflict, that has been clarified by
historical research in the 20th century, was the Galileo affair, whereby
interpretations of the Bible were used to attack ideas by
Copernicus on
heliocentrism. By 1616
Galileo
went to Rome to try to persuade Catholic Church authorities not to ban
Copernicus' ideas. In the end, a decree of the Congregation of the Index
was issued, declaring that the ideas that the Sun stood still and that
the Earth moved were "false" and "altogether contrary to Holy
Scripture", and suspending Copernicus's
De Revolutionibus
until it could be corrected. Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of
heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless
at the center of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and
moves. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions.
[49]
However, before all this, Pope Urban VIII had personally asked Galileo
to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in a book, and to be
careful not to advocate heliocentrism as physically proven since the
scientific consensus at the time was that the evidence for heliocentrism
was very weak. The Church had merely sided with the scientific
consensus of the time. Pope Urban VIII asked that his own views on the
matter be included in Galileo's book. Only the latter was fulfilled by
Galileo. Whether unknowingly or deliberately, Simplicio, the defender of
the Aristotelian/Ptolemaic geocentric view in
Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems,
was often portrayed as an unlearned fool who lacked mathematical
training. Although the preface of his book claims that the character is
named after a famous Aristotelian philosopher (
Simplicius in Latin, Simplicio in Italian), the name "Simplicio" in Italian also has the connotation of "simpleton".
[50]
Unfortunately for his relationship with the Pope, Galileo put the words
of Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicio. Most historians agree
Galileo did not act out of malice and felt blindsided by the reaction to
his book.
[51]
However, the Pope did not take the suspected public ridicule lightly,
nor the physical Copernican advocacy. Galileo had alienated one of his
biggest and most powerful supporters, the Pope, and was called to Rome
to defend his writings.
[52]
The actual evidences that finally proved heliocentrism came centuries
after Galileo: the stellar aberration of light by James Bradley in the
18th century, the orbital motions of binary stars by William Herschel in
the 19th century, the accurate measurement of the stellar parallax in
the 19th century, and Newtonian mechanics in the 17th century.
[53][54]
According to physicist Christopher Graney, Galileo's own observations
did not actually support the Copernican view, but were more consistent
with Tycho Brahe's hybrid model where that Earth did not move and
everything else circled around it and the Sun.
[55]
British philosopher
A. C. Grayling,
still believes there is competition between science and religions and
point to the origin of the universe, the nature of human beings and the
possibility of miracles
Independence
A modern view, described by
Stephen Jay Gould as "
non-overlapping magisteria"
(NOMA), is that science and religion deal with fundamentally separate
aspects of human experience and so, when each stays within its own
domain, they co-exist peacefully.
[57] While Gould spoke of independence from the perspective of science,
W. T. Stace viewed independence from the perspective of the
philosophy of religion. Stace felt that science and religion, when each is viewed in its own domain, are both consistent and complete.
[58]
The USA's
National Academy of Science supports the view that science and religion are independent.
[59]
Science and religion are based on different aspects of human
experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn
from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or
experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to
modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith,
in contrast, does not depend on empirical evidence, is not necessarily
modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves
supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature,
supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense,
science and religion are separate and address aspects of human
understanding in different ways. Attempts to put science and religion
against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.[59]
According to Archbishop
John Habgood,
both science and religion represent distinct ways of approaching
experience and these differences are sources of debate. He views science
as
descriptive and religion as
prescriptive. He stated that if science and mathematics concentrate on what the world
ought to be,
in the way that religion does, it may lead to improperly ascribing
properties to the natural world as happened among the followers of
Pythagoras in the sixth century B.C.
[60] In contrast, proponents of a
normative moral science take issue with the idea that science has
no
way of guiding "oughts". Habgood also stated that he believed that the
reverse situation, where religion attempts to be descriptive, can also
lead to inappropriately assigning properties to the natural world. A
notable example is the now defunct belief in the
Ptolemaic (geocentric) planetary model that held sway until changes in scientific and religious thinking were brought about by
Galileo and proponents of his views.
[60]
Parallels in method
According to
Ian Barbour,
Thomas S. Kuhn asserted that science is made up of
paradigms that arise from cultural traditions, which is similar to the secular perspective on religion.
[61]
Michael Polanyi asserted that it is merely a commitment to
universality that protects against
subjectivity
and has nothing at all to do with personal detachment as found in many
conceptions of the scientific method. Polanyi further asserted that all
knowledge is personal and therefore the scientist must be performing a
very personal if not necessarily subjective role when doing science.
[61] Polanyi added that the scientist often merely follows intuitions of "intellectual beauty, symmetry, and 'empirical agreement'".
[61] Polanyi held that science requires moral commitments similar to those found in religion.
[61]
Two physicists,
Charles A. Coulson and
Harold K. Schilling, both claimed that "the methods of science and religion have much in common."
[61]
Schilling asserted that both fields—science and religion—have "a
threefold structure—of experience, theoretical interpretation, and
practical application."
[61]
Coulson asserted that science, like religion, "advances by creative
imagination" and not by "mere collecting of facts," while stating that
religion should and does "involve critical reflection on experience not
unlike that which goes on in science."
[61] Religious language and scientific language also show parallels (cf.
rhetoric of science).
Dialogue
Clerks studying astronomy and geometry (
France, early 15th century).
The
religion and science community consists of those scholars
who involve themselves with what has been called the
"religion-and-science dialogue" or the "religion-and-science field."
[62][63]
The community belongs to neither the scientific nor the religious
community, but is said to be a third overlapping community of interested
and involved scientists, priests, clergymen, theologians and engaged
non-professionals.
[63][not in citation given] Institutions interested in the intersection between science and religion include the
Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, the
Institute on Religion in an Age of Science, the Ian Ramsey Centre,
[64] and the
Faraday Institute. Journals addressing the relationship between science and religion include
Theology and Science and
Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science.
Eugenie Scott
has written that the "science and religion" movement is, overall,
composed mainly of theists who have a healthy respect for science and
may be beneficial to the public understanding of science. She contends
that the "Christian scholarship" movement is not a problem for science,
but that the "Theistic science" movement, which proposes abandoning
methodological materialism, does cause problems in understanding of the
nature of science.
[65]
The modern dialogue between religion and science is rooted in
Ian Barbour's 1966 book
Issues in Science and Religion.
[66] Since that time it has grown into a serious academic field, with academic chairs in the subject area, and two dedicated
academic journals,
Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science and
Theology and Science.
[66] Articles are also sometimes found in mainstream science journals such as
American Journal of Physics[67] and
Science.
[68][69]
Philosopher
Alvin Plantinga
has argued that there is superficial conflict but deep concord between
science and religion, and that there is deep conflict between science
and
naturalism.
[70] Plantinga, in his book
Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism,
heavily contests the linkage of naturalism with science, as conceived
by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and like-minded thinkers; while
Daniel Dennett thinks that Plantinga stretches science to an
unacceptable extent.
[71] Philosopher
Maarten Boudry, in reviewing the book, has commented that he resorts to
creationism and fails to "stave off the conflict between theism and evolution."
[72] Cognitive scientist
Justin L. Barrett,
by contrast, reviews the same book and writes that "those most needing
to hear Plantinga's message may fail to give it a fair hearing for
rhetorical rather than analytical reasons."
[73]
Integration
As
a general view, this holds that while interactions are complex between
influences of science, theology, politics, social, and economic
concerns, the productive engagements between science and religion
throughout history should be duly stressed as the norm.
Scientific and theological perspectives often coexist peacefully.
Christians and some non-Christian religions have historically integrated
well with scientific ideas, as in the
ancient Egyptian technological mastery applied to
monotheistic ends, the flourishing of
logic and
mathematics under
Hinduism and
Buddhism, and the scientific advances made by
Muslim scholars during the
Ottoman empire.
Even many 19th-century Christian communities welcomed scientists who
claimed that science was not at all concerned with discovering the
ultimate nature of reality.
[60] According to
Lawrence M. Principe, the
Johns Hopkins University
Drew Professor of the Humanities, from a historical perspective this
points out that much of the current-day clashes occur between limited
extremists—both religious and scientistic fundamentalists—over a very
few topics, and that the movement of ideas back and forth between
scientific and theological thought has been more usual.
[74] To Principe, this perspective would point to the fundamentally common respect for written learning in religious traditions of
rabbinical literature,
Christian theology, and the Islamic Golden Age, including a
Transmission of the Classics from Greek to Islamic to Christian traditions which helped spark the
Renaissance. Religions have also given key participation in development of modern
universities
and libraries; centers of learning & scholarship were coincident
with religious institutions – whether pagan, Muslim, or Christian.
[75]
Bahá'í
A fundamental principle of the
Bahá'í Faith is the harmony of religion and science.
Bahá'í scripture asserts that true
science and true
religion can never be in conflict.
`Abdu'l-Bahá,
the son of the founder of the religion, stated that religion without
science is superstition and that science without religion is
materialism. He also admonished that true religion must conform to the
conclusions of science.
[76][77][78]
Buddhism
Buddhism and science have been regarded as compatible by numerous authors.
[79] Some philosophic and psychological teachings found in Buddhism share points in common with
modern Western scientific and philosophic thought. For example, Buddhism encourages the impartial investigation of nature (an activity referred to as
Dhamma-Vicaya in the
Pali Canon)—the principal object of study being oneself. Buddhism and science both show a strong emphasis on
causality. However, Buddhism doesn't focus on
materialism.
[80]
Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th
Dalai Lama, maintains that empirical scientific evidence supersedes the traditional teachings of
Buddhism when the two are in conflict. In his book
The Universe in a Single Atom
he wrote, "My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic
belief that as in science, so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of
reality is pursued by means of critical investigation." and "If
scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in
Buddhism to be false," he says, "then we must accept the findings of
science and abandon those claims."
[81][82][page needed]
Christianity
Science and Religion are portrayed to be in harmony in the
Tiffany window
Education (1890).
Most sources of knowledge available to early Christians were connected to
pagan world-views.
[citation needed] There were various opinions on how Christianity should regard pagan learning, which included its ideas about nature.
[citation needed] For instance, among early Christian teachers,
Tertullian (c. 160–220) held a generally negative opinion of
Greek philosophy, while
Origen (c. 185–254) regarded it much more favorably and required his students to read nearly every work available to them.
[83]
Earlier attempts at reconciliation of Christianity with
Newtonian mechanics appear quite different from later attempts at reconciliation with the newer scientific ideas of
evolution or
relativity.
[60] Many early interpretations of evolution polarized themselves around a
struggle for existence. These ideas were significantly countered by later findings of universal
patterns of biological cooperation. According to
John Habgood, all man really knows here is that the
universe seems to be a mix of
good and evil,
beauty and
pain, and that
suffering
may somehow be part of the process of creation. Habgood holds that
Christians should not be surprised that suffering may be used creatively
by
God, given their faith in the symbol of the
Cross.
[60] Robert John Russell has examined consonance and dissonance between modern physics, evolutionary biology, and Christian theology.
[84][85]
Christian philosophers Augustine of Hippo (354–30) and Thomas Aquinas
[86]
held that scriptures can have multiple interpretations on certain areas
where the matters were far beyond their reach, therefore one should
leave room for future findings to shed light on the meanings. The
"Handmaiden" tradition, which saw secular studies of the universe as a
very important and helpful part of arriving at a better understanding of
scripture, was adopted throughout Christian history from early on.
[87]
Also the sense that God created the world as a self operating system is
what motivated many Christians throughout the Middle Ages to
investigate nature.
[88]
Modern historians of science such as
J.L. Heilbron,
[89] Alistair Cameron Crombie,
David Lindberg,
[90] Edward Grant, Thomas Goldstein,
[91]
and Ted Davis have reviewed the popular notion that medieval
Christianity was a negative influence in the development of civilization
and science. In their views, not only did the monks save and cultivate
the remnants of ancient civilization during the barbarian invasions, but
the medieval church promoted learning and science through its
sponsorship of many
universities
which, under its leadership, grew rapidly in Europe in the 11th and
12th centuries, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Church's "model theologian", not
only argued that reason is in harmony with faith, he even recognized
that reason can contribute to understanding revelation, and so
encouraged intellectual development. He was not unlike other medieval
theologians who sought out reason in the effort to defend his faith.
[92] Some of today's scholars, such as
Stanley Jaki, have claimed that Christianity with its particular
worldview, was a crucial factor for the emergence of modern science.
[93]
David C. Lindberg states that the widespread popular belief that the
Middle Ages was a time of ignorance and superstition due to the
Christian church is a "caricature". According to Lindberg, while there
are some portions of the classical tradition which suggest this view,
these were exceptional cases. It was common to tolerate and encourage
critical thinking about the nature of the world. The relation between
Christianity and science is complex and cannot be simplified to either
harmony or conflict, according to Lindberg.
[94]
Lindberg reports that "the late medieval scholar rarely experienced the
coercive power of the church and would have regarded himself as free
(particularly in the natural sciences) to follow reason and observation
wherever they led. There was no warfare between science and the church."
[95] Ted Peters in
Encyclopedia of Religion
writes that although there is some truth in the "Galileo's
condemnation" story but through exaggerations, it has now become "a
modern myth perpetuated by those wishing to see warfare between science
and religion who were allegedly persecuted by an atavistic and
dogma-bound ecclesiastical authority".
[96] In 1992, the
Catholic Church's seeming vindication of Galileo attracted much comment in the
media.
A degree of concord between science and religion can be seen in
religious belief and empirical science. The belief that God created the
world and therefore humans, can lead to the view that he arranged for
humans to know the world. This is underwritten by the doctrine of
imago dei. In the words of
Thomas Aquinas,
"Since human beings are said to be in the image of God in virtue of
their having a nature that includes an intellect, such a nature is most
in the image of God in virtue of being most able to imitate God".
[97]
During the
Enlightenment,
a period "characterized by dramatic revolutions in science" and the
rise of Protestant challenges to the authority of the Catholic Church
via individual liberty, the authority of Christian scriptures became
strongly challenged. As science advanced, acceptance of a literal
version of the Bible became "increasingly untenable" and some in that
period presented ways of interpreting scripture according to its spirit
on its authority and truth.
[98]
Perspectives on evolution
In recent history, the theory of
evolution has been at the center of some controversy between Christianity and science.
[99] Christians who accept a literal interpretation of the
biblical account of creation find incompatibility between
Darwinian evolution and their interpretation of the Christian faith.
[100] Creation science or
scientific creationism[101] is a branch of
creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the
Genesis creation narrative in the
Book of Genesis and attempts to disprove generally accepted
scientific facts,
theories and
scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth,
cosmology and biological
evolution.
[102][103] It began in the 1960s as a
fundamentalist Christian effort in the United States to prove
Biblical inerrancy and falsify the scientific
evidence for evolution.
[104]
It has since developed a sizable religious following in the United
States, with creation science ministries branching worldwide.
[105] In 1925, The State of Tennessee passed the
Butler Act,
which prohibited the teaching of the theory of evolution in all schools
in the state. Later that year, a similar law was passed in Mississippi,
and likewise, Arkansas in 1927. In 1968, these "anti-monkey" laws were
struck down by the
Supreme Court of the United States as unconstitutional, "because they established a religious doctrine violating both the
First and
Fourth Amendments to the
Constitution.
[106]
Most scientists have rejected creation science for several reasons,
including that its claims do not refer to natural causes and cannot be
tested. In 1987, the
United States Supreme Court ruled that creationism is
religion, not science, and cannot be advocated in
public school classrooms.
[107]
Theistic evolution
attempts to reconcile Christian beliefs and science by accepting the
scientific understanding of the age of the Earth and the process of
evolution. It includes a range of beliefs, including views described as
evolutionary creationism,
which accepts some findings of modern science but also upholds
classical religious teachings about God and creation in Christian
context.
[108]
Reconciliation in Britain in the early 20th century
In
Reconciling Science and Religion: The Debate in Early-twentieth-century Britain, historian of biology
Peter J. Bowler argues that in contrast to the conflicts between science and religion in the U.S. in the 1920s (most famously the
Scopes Trial),
during this period Great Britain experienced a concerted effort at
reconciliation, championed by intellectually conservative scientists,
supported by liberal theologians but opposed by younger scientists and
secularists and
conservative Christians. These attempts at reconciliation fell apart in the 1930s due to increased social tensions, moves towards
neo-orthodox theology and the acceptance of the
modern evolutionary synthesis.
[109]
In the 20th century, several
ecumenical organizations promoting a harmony between science and Christianity were founded, most notably the
American Scientific Affiliation,
The Biologos Foundation,
Christians in Science,
The Society of Ordained Scientists, and
The Veritas Forum.
[110]
Roman Catholicism
While refined and clarified over the centuries, the
Roman Catholic position on the relationship between science and religion is one of harmony, and has maintained the teaching of
natural law as set forth by
Thomas Aquinas. For example, regarding scientific study such as that of evolution, the church's unofficial position is an example of
theistic evolution,
stating that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution
are not in conflict, though humans are regarded as a special creation,
and that the existence of God is required to explain both
monogenism and the
spiritual
component of human origins. Catholic schools have included all manners
of scientific study in their curriculum for many centuries.
[111]
Galileo once stated "The intention of the
Holy Spirit is to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."
[112] In 1981
John Paul II, then
pope of the
Roman Catholic Church,
spoke of the relationship this way: "The Bible itself speaks to us of
the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us
with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct
relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture
wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order
to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology
in use at the time of the writer".
[113]
Influence of a biblical world view on early modern science
According to
Andrew Dickson White's
A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom
from the 19th century, a biblical world view affected negatively the
progress of science through time. Dickinson also argues that immediately
following the
Reformation
matters were even worse. The interpretations of Scripture by Luther and
Calvin became as sacred to their followers as the Scripture itself. For
instance, when
Georg Calixtus
ventured, in interpreting the Psalms, to question the accepted belief
that "the waters above the heavens" were contained in a vast receptacle
upheld by a solid vault, he was bitterly denounced as heretical.
[114]
Today, much of the scholarship in which the conflict thesis was
originally based is considered to be inaccurate. For instance, the claim
that early Christians rejected scientific findings by the Greco-Romans
is false, since the "handmaiden" view of secular studies was seen to
shed light on theology. This view was widely adapted throughout the
early medieval period and afterwards by theologians (such as Augustine)
and ultimately resulted in fostering interest in knowledge about nature
through time.
[115] Also, the claim that people of the
Middle Ages widely believed that the
Earth was flat was first propagated in the same period that originated the conflict thesis
[116]
and is still very common in popular culture. Modern scholars regard
this claim as mistaken, as the contemporary historians of science
David C. Lindberg and
Ronald L. Numbers
write: "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who
did not acknowledge [earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate
circumference."
[116][117]
From the fall of Rome to the time of Columbus, all major scholars and
many vernacular writers interested in the physical shape of the earth
held a spherical view with the exception of Lactantius and Cosmas.
[118]
H. Floris Cohen argued for a biblical Protestant, but not excluding Catholicism, influence on the early development of modern science.
[119] He presented Dutch historian
R. Hooykaas'
argument that a biblical world-view holds all the necessary antidotes
for the hubris of Greek rationalism: a respect for manual labour,
leading to more experimentation and
empiricism, and a supreme God that left nature open to emulation and manipulation.
[119] It supports the idea early modern science rose due to a combination of Greek and biblical thought.
[120][121]
Oxford historian
Peter Harrison
is another who has argued that a biblical worldview was significant for
the development of modern science. Harrison contends that Protestant
approaches to the book of scripture had significant, if largely
unintended, consequences for the interpretation of the book of nature.
[122][page needed]
Harrison has also suggested that literal readings of the Genesis
narratives of the Creation and Fall motivated and legitimated scientific
activity in seventeenth-century England. For many of its
seventeenth-century practitioners, science was imagined to be a means of
restoring a human dominion over nature that had been lost as a
consequence of the Fall.
[123][page needed]
Historian and professor of religion
Eugene M. Klaaren
holds that "a belief in divine creation" was central to an emergence of
science in seventeenth-century England. The philosopher
Michael Foster
has published analytical philosophy connecting Christian doctrines of
creation with empiricism. Historian William B. Ashworth has argued
against the historical notion of distinctive mind-sets and the idea of
Catholic and Protestant sciences.
[124] Historians James R. Jacob and Margaret C. Jacob have argued for a linkage between seventeenth century
Anglican intellectual transformations and influential English scientists (e.g.,
Robert Boyle and
Isaac Newton).
[125] John Dillenberger and
Christopher B. Kaiser have written theological surveys, which also cover additional interactions occurring in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.
[126][127]
Philosopher of Religion, Richard Jones, has written a philosophical
critique of the "dependency thesis" which assumes that modern science
emerged from Christian sources and doctrines. Though he acknowledges
that modern science emerged in a religious framework, that Christianity
greatly elevated the importance of science by sanctioning and
religiously legitimizing it in the medieval period, and that
Christianity created a favorable social context for it to grow; he
argues that direct Christian beliefs or doctrines were not primary
sources of scientific pursuits by natural philosophers, nor was
Christianity, in and of itself, exclusively or directly necessary in
developing or practicing modern science.
[48]
Oxford University historian and theologian
John Hedley Brooke wrote that "when natural philosophers referred to
laws
of nature, they were not glibly choosing that metaphor. Laws were the
result of legislation by an intelligent deity. Thus the philosopher
René Descartes
(1596–1650) insisted that he was discovering the "laws that God has put
into nature." Later Newton would declare that the regulation of the
solar system presupposed the "counsel and dominion of an intelligent and
powerful Being."
[128] Historian
Ronald L. Numbers stated that this thesis "received a boost" from mathematician and philosopher
Alfred North Whitehead's
Science and the Modern World
(1925). Numbers has also argued, "Despite the manifest shortcomings of
the claim that Christianity gave birth to science—most glaringly, it
ignores or minimizes the contributions of ancient Greeks and medieval
Muslims—it too, refuses to succumb to the death it deserves."
[129] The sociologist
Rodney Stark of
Baylor University, argued in contrast that "Christian theology was essential for the rise of science."
[130]
Protestantism had an important influence on science. According to the
Merton Thesis there was a positive
correlation between the rise of
Puritanism and
Protestant Pietism on the one hand and early
experimental science on the other.
[131]
The Merton Thesis has two separate parts: Firstly, it presents a theory
that science changes due to an accumulation of observations and
improvement in experimental techniques and
methodology; secondly, it puts forward the argument that the popularity of science in 17th-century
England and the religious
demography of the
Royal Society (English scientists of that time were predominantly Puritans or other Protestants) can be explained by a
correlation between Protestantism and the scientific values.
[132] In his theory,
Robert K. Merton focused on English Puritanism and
German Pietism
as having been responsible for the development of the scientific
revolution of the 17th and 18th centuries. Merton explained that the
connection between
religious affiliation and interest in science was the result of a significant synergy between the
ascetic Protestant values and those of modern science.
[133] Protestant values encouraged scientific research by allowing science to study
God's influence on the world and thus providing a religious justification for scientific research.
[131]
Confucianism and traditional Chinese religion
The
historical process of Confucianism has largely been antipathic towards
scientific discovery. However the religio-philosophical system itself is
more neutral on the subject than such an analysis might suggest. In his
writings On Heaven,
Xunzi espoused a proto-scientific world view.
[134] However, during the Han Synthesis the more anti-empirical
Mencius was favored and combined with
Daoist skepticism regarding the nature of reality. Likewise, during the Medieval period,
Zhu Xi argued against technical investigation and specialization proposed by Chen Liang.
[135] After contact with the West, scholars such as
Wang Fuzhi
would rely on Buddhist/Daoist skepticism to denounce all science as a
subjective pursuit limited by humanity's fundamental ignorance of the
true nature of the world.
[136] After the
May Fourth Movement, attempts to modernize Confucianism and reconcile it with scientific understanding were attempted by many scholars including
Feng Youlan and
Xiong Shili.
Given the close relationship that Confucianism shares with Buddhism,
many of the same arguments used to reconcile Buddhism with science also
readily translate to Confucianism. However, modern scholars have also
attempted to define the relationship between science and Confucianism on
Confucianism's own terms and the results have usually led to the
conclusion that Confucianism and science are fundamentally compatible.
[137]
Hinduism
In
Hinduism, the dividing line between objective sciences and spiritual knowledge (
adhyatma vidya) is a linguistic paradox.
[138] Hindu scholastic activities and ancient Indian scientific advancements were so interconnected that many
Hindu scriptures
are also ancient scientific manuals and vice versa. In 1835, English
was made the primary language for teaching in higher education in India,
exposing Hindu scholars to Western secular ideas; this started
a renaissance regarding religious and philosophical thought.
[139] Hindu sages maintained that logical argument and rational proof using
Nyaya is the way to obtain correct knowledge.
[138]
The scientific level of understanding focuses on how things work and
from where they originate, while Hinduism strives to understand the
ultimate purposes for the existence of living things.
[139]
To obtain and broaden the knowledge of the world for spiritual
perfection, many refer to the Bhāgavata for guidance because it draws
upon a scientific and theological dialogue.
[140]
Hinduism offers methods to correct and transform itself in course of
time. For instance, Hindu views on the development of life include a
range of viewpoints in regards to
evolution,
creationism, and the
origin of life within the traditions of
Hinduism.
For instance, it has been suggested that Wallace-Darwininan
evolutionary thought was a part of Hindu thought centuries before modern
times.
[141]
The Shankara and the Sāmkhya did not have a problem with the theory of
evolution, but instead, argued about the existence of God and what
happened after death. These two distinct groups argued among each
other's philosophies because of their sacred texts, not the idea of
evolution.
[142] With the publication of Darwin's
On the Origin of Species,
many Hindus were eager to connect their scriptures to Darwinism,
finding similarities between Brahma's creation, Vishnu's incarnations,
and evolution theories.
[139]
Samkhya, the oldest school of
Hindu philosophy
prescribes a particular method to analyze knowledge. According to
Samkhya, all knowledge is possible through three means of valid
knowledge
[143][144] –
- Pratyakṣa or Dṛṣṭam – direct sense perception,
- Anumāna – logical inference and
- Śabda or Āptavacana – verbal testimony.
Nyaya, the Hindu school of logic, accepts all these 3 means and in addition accepts one more –
Upamāna (comparison).
The accounts of the emergence of life within the universe vary in description, but classically the
deity called
Brahma, from a
Trimurti of three deities also including
Vishnu and
Shiva,
is described as performing the act of 'creation', or more specifically
of 'propagating life within the universe' with the other two deities
being responsible for 'preservation' and 'destruction' (of the universe)
respectively.
[145] In this respect some Hindu schools do not treat the scriptural
creation myth
literally and often the creation stories themselves do not go into
specific detail, thus leaving open the possibility of incorporating at
least some theories in support of evolution. Some Hindus find support
for, or foreshadowing of evolutionary ideas in
scriptures, namely the
Vedas.
[146]
The
incarnations of Vishnu (
Dashavatara) is almost identical to the scientific explanation of the sequence of
biological evolution of man and animals.
[147][148][149][150][self-published source] The sequence of avatars starts from an aquatic organism (
Matsya), to an amphibian (
Kurma), to a land-animal (
Varaha), to a humanoid (
Narasimha), to a dwarf human (
Vamana), to 5 forms of well developed human beings (
Parashurama,
Rama,
Balarama/
Buddha,
Krishna,
Kalki) who showcase an increasing form of complexity (Axe-man, King, Plougher/Sage, wise Statesman, mighty Warrior).
[147][150]
In fact, many Hindu gods are represented with features of animals as
well as those of humans, leading many Hindus to easily accept
evolutionary links between animals and humans.
[139] In
India,
the home country of Hindus, educated Hindus widely accept the theory of
biological evolution. In a survey of 909 people, 77% of respondents in
India agreed with
Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and 85 per cent of God-believing people said they believe in evolution as well.
[151][152]
As per
Vedas, another explanation for the creation is based on the
five elements: earth, water, fire, air and
aether.
The Hindu religion traces its beginnings to the sacred Vedas.
Everything that is established in the Hindu faith such as the gods and
goddesses, doctrines, chants, spiritual insights, etc. flow from the
poetry of
Vedic hymns.
The Vedas offer an honor to the sun and moon, water and wind, and to
the order in Nature that is universal. This naturalism is the beginning
of what further becomes the connection between Hinduism and science.
[153]
Islam
From an Islamic standpoint, science, the study of
nature, is considered to be linked to the concept of
Tawhid (the Oneness of God), as are all other branches of knowledge.
[154] In
Islam,
nature is not seen as a separate entity, but rather as an integral part
of Islam's holistic outlook on God, humanity, and the world. The
Islamic view of science and nature is continuous with that of religion
and God. This link implies a sacred aspect to the pursuit of scientific
knowledge by Muslims, as nature itself is viewed in the Qur'an as a
compilation of signs pointing to the Divine.
[155]
It was with this understanding that science was studied and understood
in Islamic civilizations, specifically during the eighth to sixteenth
centuries, prior to the colonization of the Muslim world.
[156] Robert Briffault, in
The Making of Humanity,
asserts that the very existence of science, as it is understood in the
modern sense, is rooted in the scientific thought and knowledge that
emerged in Islamic civilizations during this time.
[157] Ibn al-Haytham, an
Arab[158] Muslim,
[159][160][161] was an early proponent of the concept that a
hypothesis must be proved by
experiments based on confirmable procedures or
mathematical evidence—hence understanding the scientific method 200 years before
Renaissance scientists.
[162][163][164][165][166] Ibn al-Haytham described his theology:
I constantly sought knowledge and truth, and it became my belief that for gaining access to the effulgence and closeness to God, there is no better way than that of searching for truth and knowledge.[167]
With the decline of Islamic Civilizations in the late Middle Ages and
the rise of Europe, the Islamic scientific tradition shifted into a new
period. Institutions that had existed for centuries in the Muslim world
looked to the new scientific institutions of European powers.
[citation needed]
This changed the practice of science in the Muslim world, as Islamic
scientists had to confront the western approach to scientific learning,
which was based on a different philosophy of nature.
[154]
From the time of this initial upheaval of the Islamic scientific
tradition to the present day, Muslim scientists and scholars have
developed a spectrum of viewpoints on the place of scientific learning
within the context of Islam, none of which are universally accepted or
practiced.
[168]
However, most maintain the view that the acquisition of knowledge and
scientific pursuit in general is not in disaccord with Islamic thought
and religious belief.
[154][168]
Ahmadiyya
The
Ahmadiyya movement emphasize that there is no contradiction between
Islam and science.
[citation needed]
For example, Ahmadi Muslims universally accept in principle the process
of evolution, albeit divinely guided, and actively promote it. Over the
course of several decades the movement has issued various publications
in support of the scientific concepts behind the process of evolution,
and frequently engages in promoting how religious scriptures, such as
the Qur'an, supports the concept.
[169] For general purposes, the second
Khalifa of the community,
Mirza Basheer-ud-Din Mahmood Ahmad says:
The Holy Quran
directs attention towards science, time and again, rather than evoking
prejudice against it. The Quran has never advised against studying
science, lest the reader should become a non-believer; because it has no
such fear or concern. The Holy Quran is not worried that if people will
learn the laws of nature its spell will break. The Quran has not
prevented people from science, rather it states, "Say, 'Reflect on what
is happening in the heavens and the earth.'" (Al Younus)[170]
Jainism
Jainism does not support belief in a
creator deity. According to Jain doctrine, the
universe and its constituents – soul, matter, space, time, and principles of motion have always existed (a
static universe similar to that of
Epicureanism and
steady state cosmological model). All the constituents and actions are governed by
universal natural laws.
It is not possible to create matter out of nothing and hence the sum
total of matter in the universe remains the same (similar to law of
conservation of mass). Similarly, the
soul of each living being is unique and uncreated and has existed since beginningless time.
[a][171]
The Jain theory of
causation
holds that a cause and its effect are always identical in nature and
hence a conscious and immaterial entity like God cannot create a
material entity like the universe. Furthermore, according to the Jain
concept of divinity, any soul who destroys its karmas and desires,
achieves liberation. A soul who destroys all its passions and desires
has no desire to interfere in the working of the universe. Moral rewards
and sufferings are not the work of a divine being, but a result of an
innate moral order in the
cosmos; a self-regulating mechanism whereby the individual reaps the fruits of his own actions through the workings of the karmas.
Through the ages,
Jain philosophers
have adamantly rejected and opposed the concept of creator and
omnipotent God and this has resulted in Jainism being labeled as
nastika darsana or
atheist philosophy by the rival
religious philosophies.
The theme of non-creationism and absence of omnipotent God and divine
grace runs strongly in all the philosophical dimensions of Jainism,
including its
cosmology,
karma,
moksa and its moral code of conduct. Jainism asserts a religious and virtuous life is possible without the idea of a creator god.
[172]
History
In the 17th century, founders of the
Royal Society largely held conventional and orthodox religious views, and a number of them were prominent Churchmen.
[173]
While theological issues that had the potential to be divisive were
typically excluded from formal discussions of the early Society, many of
its fellows nonetheless believed that their scientific activities
provided support for traditional religious belief.
[174]
Clerical involvement in the Royal Society remained high until the
mid-nineteenth century, when science became more professionalised.
[175]
Albert Einstein
supported the compatibility of some interpretations of religion with
science. In "Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium" published by
the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to
the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York in 1941, Einstein stated:
Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no
doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects
and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation.
They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself.
In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become
clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and
constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of
religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict
between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is,
but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of
all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with
evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of
facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation
the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must
all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been
described.[176]
Einstein thus expresses views of
ethical non-naturalism (contrasted to
ethical naturalism).
Prominent modern scientists who are
atheists include evolutionary biologist
Richard Dawkins and Nobel Prize–winning physicist
Stephen Weinberg. Prominent scientists advocating religious belief include Nobel Prize–winning physicist and
United Church of Christ member
Charles Townes, evangelical Christian and past head of the
Human Genome Project Francis Collins, and climatologist
John T. Houghton.
[68]
Studies on scientists' beliefs
Distribution of Nobel Prizes by religion between 1901–2000.
[177]
In 1916, 1,000 leading American scientists were randomly chosen from
American Men of Science
and 42% believed God existed, 42% disbelieved, and 17% had doubts/did
not know; however when the study was replicated 80 years later using
American Men and Women of Science in 1996, results were very much the same with 39% believing God exists, 45% disbelieved, and 15% had doubts/did not know.
[68][178]
In the same 1996 survey, for scientists in the fields of biology,
mathematics, and physics/astronomy, belief in a god that is "in
intellectual and affective communication with humankind" was most
popular among
mathematicians (about 45%) and least popular among
physicists (about 22%). In total, in terms of belief toward a personal god and personal immortality, about 60% of
United States scientists in these fields expressed either disbelief or agnosticism and about 40% expressed belief.
[178] This compared with 62.9% in 1914 and 33% in 1933.
[179]
A survey conducted between 2005 and 2007 by
Elaine Howard Ecklund of
University at Buffalo, The State University of New York
of 1,646 natural and social science professors at 21 US research
universities found that, in terms of belief in God or a higher power,
more than 60% expressed either disbelief or agnosticism and more than
30% expressed belief. More specifically, nearly 34% answered "I do not
believe in God" and about 30% answered "I do not know if there is a God
and there is no way to find out."
[180] In the same study, 28% said they believed in God and 8% believed in a higher power that was not God.
[181] Ecklund stated that scientists were often able to consider themselves spiritual without religion or belief in god.
[182]
Ecklund and Scheitle concluded, from their study, that the individuals
from non-religious backgrounds disproportionately had self-selected into
scientific professions and that the assumption that becoming a
scientist necessarily leads to loss of religion is untenable since the
study did not strongly support the idea that scientists had dropped
religious identities due to their scientific training.
[183]
Instead, factors such as upbringing, age, and family size were
significant influences on religious identification since those who had
religious upbringing were more likely to be religious and those who had a
non-religious upbringing were more likely to not be religious.
[180][183][184] The authors also found little difference in religiosity between social and natural scientists.
[184]
Since 1901–2013, 22% of all Nobel prizes have been awarded to Jews despite them being less than 1% of the world population.
[185]
Between 1901 and 2000, 654 Laureates belonged to 28 different
religions. Most (65%) have identified Christianity in its various forms
as their religious preference. Specifically on the science related
prizes,
Christians have won a total of 73% of all the
Chemistry, 65% in
Physics, 62% in
Medicine, and 54% in all
Economics awards.
[177] Jews have won 17% of the prizes in Chemistry, 26% in Medicine, and 23% in Physics.
[177] Atheists, Agnostics, and Freethinkers have won 7% of the prizes in Chemistry, 9% in Medicine, and 5% in Physics.
[177] Muslims have won 13 prizes (three were in scientific category).
Many studies have been conducted in the
United States
and have generally found that scientists are less likely to believe in
God than are the rest of the population. Precise definitions and
statistics vary, with some studies concluding that about
1⁄3 of scientists in the U.S.
1⁄3 are atheists,
1⁄3 agnostic, and
1⁄3 have some belief in God (although some might be
deistic, for example).
[68][178][186] This is in contrast to the more than roughly
3⁄4 of the general population that
believe in some God in the United States.
Other studies on scientific organizations like the AAAS show that 51%
of their scientists believe in either God or a higher power and 48%
having no religion.
[187]
Belief also varies slightly by field. Two surveys on physicists,
geoscientists, biologists, mathematicians, and chemists have noted that,
from those specializing in these fields, physicists had lowest
percentage of belief in God (29%) while chemists had highest (41%).
[178][188] Other studies show that among members of the
National Academy of Sciences,
concerning the existence of a personal god who answers prayer, 7%
expressed belief, 72% expressed disbelief, and 21% were agnostic,
[189] however
Eugenie Scott
argued that there are methodological issues in the study, including
ambiguity in the questions. A study with simplified wording to include
impersonal or non-interventionist ideas of God concluded that 40% of
leading scientists in the US scientists believe in a god.
[190]
In terms of perceptions, most social and natural scientists from 21
American universities did not perceive conflict between science and
religion, while 37% did. However, in the study, scientists who had
experienced limited exposure to religion tended to perceive conflict.
[42]
In the same study they found that nearly one in five atheist scientists
who are parents (17%) are part of religious congregations and have
attended a religious service more than once in the past year. Some of
the reasons for doing so are their scientific identity (wishing to
expose their children to all sources of knowledge so they can make up
their own minds), spousal influence, and desire for community.
[191]
A 2009 report by the
Pew Research Center found that members of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS) were "much less religious than the general public," with 51%
believing in some form of deity or higher power. Specifically, 33% of
those polled believe in God, 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher
power, and 41% did not believe in either God or a higher power.
[192]
48% say they have a religious affiliation, equal to the number who say
they are not affiliated with any religious tradition. 17% were atheists,
11% were agnostics, 20% were nothing in particular, 8% were Jewish, 10%
were Catholic, 16% were Protestant, 4% were Evangelical, 10% were other
religion. The survey also found younger scientists to be "substantially
more likely than their older counterparts to say they believe in God".
Among the surveyed fields, chemists were the most likely to say they
believe in God.
[188]
Elaine Ecklund conducted a study from 2011 to 2014 involving the
general US population, including rank and file scientists, in
collaboration with the
American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS). The study noted that 76% of the scientists identified with a
religious tradition. 85% of evangelical scientists had no doubts about
the existence of God, compared to 35% of the whole scientific
population. In terms of religion and science, 85% of evangelical
scientists saw no conflict (73% collaboration, 12% independence), while
75% of the whole scientific population saw no conflict (40%
collaboration, 35% independence).
[193]
Religious beliefs of US professors were examined using a nationally
representative sample of more than 1,400 professors. They found that in
the social sciences: 23% did not believe in God, 16% did not know if God
existed, 43% believed God existed, and 16% believed in a higher power.
Out of the natural sciences: 20% did not believe in God, 33% did not
know if God existed, 44% believed God existed, and 4% believed in a
higher power. Overall, out of the whole study: 10% were atheists, 13%
were agnostic, 19% believe in a higher power, 4% believe in God some of
the time, 17% had doubts but believed in God, 35% believed in God and
had no doubts.
[194]
Farr Curlin, a
University of Chicago Instructor in Medicine and a member of the
MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics,
noted in a study that doctors tend to be science-minded religious
people. He helped author a study that "found that 76 percent of doctors
believe in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife." and
"90 percent of doctors in the United States attend religious services at
least occasionally, compared to 81 percent of all adults." He reasoned,
"The responsibility to care for those who are suffering and the rewards
of helping those in need resonate throughout most religious
traditions."
[195]
Physicians in the United States, by contrast, are much more religious than scientists, with 76% stating a belief in God.
[195]
According to the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture's report
on 1,100 scientists in India: 66% are Hindu, 14% did not report a
religion, 10% are atheist/no religion, 3% are Muslim, 3% are Christian,
4% are Buddhist, Sikh or other.
[196]
39% have a belief in a god, 6% have belief in a god sometimes, 30% do
not believe in a god but believe in a higher power, 13% do not know if
there is a god, and 12% do not believe in a god.
[196]
49% believe in the efficacy of prayer, 90% strongly agree or somewhat
agree with approving degrees in Ayurvedic medicine. Furthermore, the
term "secularism" is understood to have diverse and simultaneous
meanings among Indian scientists: 93% believe it to be tolerance of
religions and philosophies, 83% see it as involving separation of church
and state, 53% see it as not identifying with religious traditions, 40%
see it as absence of religious beliefs, and 20% see it as atheism.
Accordingly, 75% of Indian scientists had a "secular" outlook in terms
of being tolerant of other religions.
[196]
According to the Religion Among Scientists in International Context
(RASIC) study on 1,581 scientists from the United Kingdom and 1,763
scientists from India, along with 200 interviews: 65% of U.K. scientists
identified as nonreligious and only 6% of Indian scientists identify as
nonreligious, 12% of scientists in the U.K. attend religious services
on a regular basis and 32% of scientists in India do.
[197]
In terms of the Indian scientists, 73% of scientists responded that
there are basic truths in many religions, 27% said they believe in God
and 38% expressed belief in a higher power of some kind.
[197]
In terms of perceptions of conflict between science and religion, less
than half of both U.K. scientists (38%) and Indian scientists (18%)
perceived conflict between religion and science.
[197]
According to Renny Thomas' study on Indian scientists, atheistic
scientists in India called themselves atheists even while accepting that
their lifestyle is very much a part of tradition and religion. Thus,
they differ from Western atheists in that for them following the
lifestyle of a religion is not antithetical to atheism.
[198]
Overall summary
Over time, scientists and historians have moved away from the
conflict thesis and toward compatibility theses (either the integration
thesis or non-overlapping magisteria). Many experts have now adopted a
"complexity thesis" that combines several other models,
[199] further at the expense of the conflict thesis.
Public perceptions of science
Global studies which have pooled data on religion and science from
1981–2001, have noted that countries with high religiosity also have
stronger faith in science, while less religious countries have more
skepticism of the impact of science and technology.
[200]
The United States is noted there as distinctive because of greater
faith in both God and scientific progress. Other research cites the
National Science Foundation's
finding that America has more favorable public attitudes towards
science than Europe, Russia, and Japan despite differences in levels of
religiosity in these cultures.
[201]
A study conducted on adolescents from Christian schools in Northern
Ireland, noted a positive relationship between attitudes towards
Christianity and science once attitudes towards
scientism and creationism were accounted for.
[202]
A study on people from Sweden concludes that though the Swedes are
among the most non-religious, paranormal beliefs are prevalent among
both the young and adult populations. This is likely due to a loss of
confidence in institutions such as the Church and Science.
[203]
Concerning specific topics like creationism, it is not an exclusively
American phenomenon. A poll on adult Europeans revealed that 40%
believed in naturalistic evolution, 21% in theistic evolution, 20% in
special creation, and 19% are undecided; with the highest concentrations
of young earth creationists in Switzerland (21%), Austria (20%),
Germany (18%).
[204] Other countries such as Netherlands, Britain, and Australia have experienced growth in such views as well.
[204]
According to a 2015 Pew Research Center Study on the public
perceptions on science, people's perceptions on conflict with science
have more to do with their perceptions of other people's beliefs than
their own personal beliefs. For instance, the majority of people with a
religious affiliation (68%) saw no conflict between their own personal
religious beliefs and science while the majority of those without a
religious affiliation (76%) perceived science and religion to be in
conflict.
[205]
The study noted that people who are not affiliated with any religion,
also known as "religiously unaffiliated", often have supernatural
beliefs and spiritual practices despite them not being affiliated with
any religion
[205][206][207] and also that "just one-in-six religiously unaffiliated adults (16%) say their own religious beliefs conflict with science."
[205]
Furthermore, the study observed, "The share of all adults who perceive a
conflict between science and their own religious beliefs has declined
somewhat in recent years, from 36% in 2009 to 30% in 2014. Among those
who are affiliated with a religion, the share of people who say there is
a conflict between science and their personal religious beliefs dropped
from 41% to 34% during this period."
[205]
The 2013 MIT Survey on Science, Religion and Origins examined the
views of religious people in America on origins science topics like
evolution, the Big Bang, and perceptions of conflicts between science
and religion. It found that a large majority of religious people see no
conflict between science and religion and only 11% of religious people
belong to religions openly rejecting evolution. The fact that the gap
between personal and official beliefs of their religions is so large
suggests that part of the problem, might be defused by people learning
more about their own religious doctrine and the science it endorses,
thereby bridging this belief gap. The study concluded that "mainstream
religion and mainstream science are neither attacking one another nor
perceiving a conflict." Furthermore, they note that this conciliatory
view is shared by most leading science organizations such as the
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
[208]
A study collecting data from 2011 to 2014 on the general public, with
focus on evangelicals and evangelical scientists was done in
collaboration with the
American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS). Even though evangelicals only make up 26% of the US population,
the found that nearly 70 percent of all evangelical Christians do not
view science and religion as being in conflict with each other (48% saw
them as complementary and 21% saw them as independent) while 73% of the
general US population saw no conflict as well.
[193][209]
Other lines of research on perceptions of science among the American
public conclude that most religious groups see no general
epistemological conflict with science and they have no differences with
nonreligious groups in the propensity of seeking out scientific
knowledge, although there may be subtle epistemic or moral conflicts
when scientists make counterclaims to religious tenets.
[210][211]
Findings from the Pew Center note similar findings and also note that
the majority of Americans (80–90%) show strong support for scientific
research, agree that science makes society and individual's lives
better, and 8 in 10 Americans would be happy if their children were to
become scientists.
[212] Even strict creationists tend to have very favorable views on science.
[201]
According to a 2007 poll by the
Pew Forum,
"while large majorities of Americans respect science and scientists,
they are not always willing to accept scientific findings that squarely
contradict their religious beliefs."
[213]
The Pew Forum states that specific factual disagreements are "not
common today", though 40% to 50% of Americans do not accept the
evolution of humans and other living things, with the "strongest
opposition" coming from evangelical Christians at 65% saying life did
not evolve.
[213]
51% of the population believes humans and other living things evolved:
26% through natural selection only, 21% somehow guided, 4% don't know.
[213]
In the U.S., biological evolution is the only concrete example of
conflict where a significant portion of the American public denies
scientific consensus for religious reasons.
[201][213] In terms of advanced industrialized nations, the United States is the most religious.
[213]
A 2009 study from the Pew Research Center on Americans perceptions of
science, showed a broad consensus that most Americans, including most
religious Americans, hold scientific research and scientists themselves
in high regard. The study showed that 84% of Americans say they view
science as having a mostly positive impact on society. Among those who
attend religious services at least once a week, the number is roughly
the same at 80%. Furthermore, 70% of U.S. adults think scientists
contribute "a lot" to society.
[214]
A 2011 study on a national sample of US college students examined
whether these students viewed the science / religion relationship as
reflecting primarily conflict, collaboration, or independence. The study
concluded that the majority of undergraduates in both the natural and
social sciences do not see conflict between science and religion.
Another finding in the study was that it is more likely for students to
move away from a conflict perspective to an independence or
collaboration perspective than towards a conflict view.
[215]
In the US, people who had no religious affiliation were no more
likely than the religious population to have New Age beliefs and
practices.
[216]
.JPG)
