hdndjf

Should we view the history of science and religion in the West as a history of conflict or harmony

Harvey
Tyler Harvey
Dr. Koenig
Science and Religion
13 April 2016
A History of Conflict: Science and Religion
The history between science and religion has shown that neither is willing to concede their views, regardless of the religion or field of science. While both spirit and theory has overlapping beliefs in a multitude of areas, neither has ever been in a sort of harmonious state politically, ethically, or socially for long enough to deem it historically relevant. Between the two conflicting philosophies is a fundamental difference in thought; with science focusing on tangibility and evident reason, and religion focusing on faith and its scripture. This divide is made more evident by the interactions of Islam and Christianity against the scientific community.
While generally showing support for the practical applications of science, the relationship between science and Islam is strained by the applications of science which directly challenge their religious worldview. Practical discoveries would always trump theoretical discoveries, with more abstract ideas having the possibility of being labeled as Talismanic. The origin of Islam rests in the interaction between Allah and the Prophet Muhammad.  “During one such retreat, the angel Gabriel appeared to Muhammad…declaring to Muhammad that he was the chosen messenger of Allah.  Soon thereafter, Muhammad began preaching monotheism—belief in Allah” (Dhanani 74).  Making impactful, moral decisions based on the words of a deity directly conflicts with a scientific conception the world.  Whereas Islam’s origin claims knowledge from a prophetic source in order to establish an agenda, the origin of science is grounded in a search for empirical data to explain one’s surroundings.  Additionally, the ultimate goals of Islam and science differ greatly.  “[Muhammad] was particularly critical of social injustices resulting from the breakdown in traditional values of charity and hospitality and of the accumulation of wealth without regard to the needy” (Dhanani 75).  Here, the most important goal of Islam is explained as the drive to follow the teachings of Muhammad (and by extension Allah), that being social and economic reform.  Oppositely, the duty of scientific inquiry is to attempt to gain a deeper, objective understanding of the world.  Finally, due to the monotheistic nature of the Islamic nation, the general belief in one set of values taught by the sacred text has led to a lack of free interpretation that prevents science from philosophically matching its beliefs with the empire. Unlike the teachings of Islam, the scientific community believes in a stringent methodology of factual, tangible evidence proven by empirical research, thus creating the further divide between the theological standing of the Muslims and the scientific community of the time. These two are fundamentally different in the sense that one is about belief, with religion being based on faith, and the other is about logical conclusions based on evidence.  These factors coincide with one another to illustrate the conflict between science and religion.
Along with Islam, the epistemology put forth by Christianity is often contradictory to theories of knowledge put forth by the scientific community.  The centralization of the scientific community (which was mostly due to knowledge being owned by the churches) and stricter adherence to the sacred text had made Christianity much more like an authoritarian figure to the scientific community than a harmonious equal.  Few scientists and natural philosophers stood to make statements for the scientific community out of fear of disapproval or being chastised.  Christianity steadfastly opposed some theories of knowledge that went against the canon, and therefore actively persecuted subsequent bodies of research.  “Basil of Caesarea...reveals similar attitudes toward Greek natural philosophy.  These men, he cotinued, have ‘discovered everything, except one thing: they have not discovered the fact that God is the creator of the universe’” (Lindberg 50).  To further portray the extent of institutional caution to the emergence of science, resources to knowledge were heavily checked by the Church.  Books and other vehicles for learning were owned by the lordship in the Christian church, meaning staying in good standing with the church was essential for continued research. This conflicts with the scientific community that promoted a relatively dynamic, free-range approach to the pursuit of knowledge.  Additionally, there exists a fundamental difference in the epistemologies of Christianity and science.  While knowledge from Christianity hails from the perception of God, scientific knowledge comes from human thought.  “The history of the term shows that ‘science’ is a human construction or reification. This is not necessarily to say that scientific knowledge is socially constructed: rather, it is the category ‘science’—a way of identifying certain forms of knowledge and excluding others—that is constructed” (Harrison 90).  This passage displays the capacity in which religious and scientific outlooks may both be viewed as inherently subjective, and therefore prone to disagreement. These opposing worldviews contributed to the conflict of religion and science during time periods we’ve studied.
Perhaps the most prolific example of the conflict between religion and science would be the Galileo affair. Galileo was a prominent scientist, contributing to the field of physics, the scientific method and (most controversially) his studies of astrology.  Due to his contributions to modern science, he serves as a prominent representative of the conflict between religion and science.  He came under great criticism from the Church for his theory that the Earth was based around the sun. This directly contradicts the biblical descriptions of the physical world. “So the sun stood still,   and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day” (NIV Joshua 10:12).  Obviously very critical of passages such as these, Galileo continued to contend aspects of the sacred text that would eventually condemn him to house arrest.  His response to the backlash from the church was dismissed by the consensus that "all factual and historical knowledge about the natural world contained in the bible falls within the scope of religious faith and is governed by the authority of the church (Blackwell 111).  Another area of historical conflict between the scientific community and the Church was their contending ideas regarding the progression of society.  Largely speaking, the Church sought to maintain traditional epistemologies, as well as other political and social aspects of society.  Contrastly, the scientific community sought to transition beyond such conservative worldviews in favor of  more progressive outcomes. “We have learned many truths  first from religion, long before science could ever think of proving them.  In several aspects science took the lead, and religion remained at a long distance behind, awkwardly, very slowly, and willingly limping onward on the road of progress” (The Monist 354).  This passage effectively summarizes the normative goals of each contending body of knowledge.  Once again this reinforces the dichotomy between religion and science, recognizing that conflict arises through the incompatibility between faith and fact.
 Contextually, history shows us that most of the scientific discoveries were operationalization-based discoveries, meaning that most of the findings in the scientific community were very vaguely outlined, skeptically received, and decentralized.
Ferngren, Gary B. Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins UP, 2002. Print.
Harrison, Peter. "“Science” and “Religion”: Constructing the Boundaries." Jstor.org. The University of Chicago Press, Jan. 2006. Web. 14 Apr. 2016.
"THE RELIGION OF SCIENCE." The Monist 3.3 (1893): 352-61. JSTOR. Web. 14 Apr. 2016