In this introductory lecture, we define the basic terms of the course, its content, methodology, and focus. This course deals with the interactions of Christianity with science in the Western world over a long time span. We also look more closely at the terms science and religion in order to prepare ourselves for consistent discussions in future lectures. Finally, we look briefly at the various models for the interactions of science and religion that have been proposed, critique them, and provide some pointers for engaging with the balance of the course.
In this lecture, we examine one formulation of the historical relationship between science and religion - the warfare or conflict thesis. Loudly advanced in the late 19th century by two men - John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White - it has continued strong in popular thought down to the present day. We will examine how this formulation rests on very shaky (and sometimes fabricated) foundations and was contrived largely for quite specific political, professional, and racist purposes. One value of this examination is to create a catalogue of methodological errors and fallacies for all readers of history to be on guard against. Serious modern historians of science have unanimously dismissed the warfare model as an adequate historical description
In this lecture, we confront some basic conceptual and philosophical issues in the science-religion question: What are the legitimate means of acquiring sure knowledge, and what are sources from which we can obtain such knowledge? The answers invoke faith and reason as the means and “God’s Two Books” (the Bible and the created world) as the sources. Here, we examine approaches to these means and sources in the Christian tradition, foundationally in St. Augustine’s 5th-century writings and more recently in the important 1998 encyclical Fides et ratio.
This lecture treats issues fundamental to the entire course, namely, the nature of causation and our ability to identify it accurately. A crucial point of contact between science and religion is the question of the extent of God’s involvement in the running of the natural world. Theologians across time and denominations disagree widely on this point. Medieval theologians and natural philosophers, however, favored naturalistic explanations whenever possible, rather than recourse to divine intervention. The subject of miracles focused the issue, and the need to discern true miracles from superficially similar human, natural, or demonic marvels required scientific investigation of natural causes and, thus, instances a co-development of science and theology. Very importantly, one’s views of the state of the spiritual world influence and form one’s views toward the natural world and science.
The “Galileo affair” is undoubtedly the most often-cited incident in the history of science-religion interactions. Far from being a simple case of science versus religion, however, it is extremely complex and brings up a host of important philosophical, scientific, and other issues that must be understood in context. In this lecture, we look at the background to these events in Copernicus’s heliocentric theory, then detail the intricate events of 1613−1616 - “Act I” of the Galileo affair - and their implications and possible explanations.
After more than 15 years of calm, Galileo got into trouble in 1632–1633 because of his book Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems. In the end, he abjured the motion of the Earth as a false doctrine and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. This lecture examines this latter phase of the Galileo affair, presents explanations of the events, and looks at how these events have been used, abused, and reexamined down to the present day. Of particular importance are the arguments made on both sides about the relative intellectual roles of science and faith and the levels of certainty we can have about each.
The 17th-century introduction of the idea of a mechanical universe functioning like a great clockwork implied the creative actions of a divine mechanist but simultaneously distanced him from creation and could even make him seem unnecessary. Natural philosophers had to deal with this crisis, and their deepseated fears over the new growth of irreligion and atheism provided a new context. This lecture surveys the problem and some of the means used to address it by Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, and others, as well as the concomitant creation of a new problem: the “God of the gaps”—an unsatisfactory image of the deity wherein he is invoked as a cause for any problem for which science has no explanation, a sort of a scientific deus ex machina.
The world is full of wondrous things that evoke our admiration. Some authors, accordingly, have used the natural world to argue for the existence of the deity. Indeed, for centuries, the study of the natural world was seen as, in part, a devotional act. This lecture examines the emergence and content of natural theology, especially in England in the 18th and 19th centuries, and the important shift it witnesses from a personally devotional aspect of science into an expressly apologetic one. Recently, intelligent design (ID) has appeared as a further step in the track of natural theology. This lecture looks at historical features of both approaches and their limitations.
How old is the Earth and the universe? One can count backwards through the biblical begats to get a figure, but late-18th-century geology began to reveal a vastly older Earth. This lecture looks at attempts to date the Earth, the hints that it is vastly older than the Bible implies, and the responses from religious figures to this redating. Similarly, cosmogonic (origin of the universe) speculation has involved both scientific and theological minds equally over time. Significantly, the historical “battle lines” between rival interpretations of both the Earth’s and the universe’s ages and origins do not map out on simple religion/science lines but, instead, reveal a more complex picture rooted largely in social and professional differences.
Like Galileo, Charles Darwin occupies a central position in discussions of science and religion. This lecture looks at Darwin’s theory of evolution and its complex reception in context. Although evolutionary ideas were already a topic of popular discussion in England, Darwin’s natural selection and common ancestry ideas impinged upon several key theological issues. Most importantly, they provoked a wide range of responses from different religious and scientific figures. Not only could Darwinian ideas be used for diametrically opposed purposes, but also (contrary to common rhetoric), by the end of the century, many mainstream Christian thinkers had incorporated evolution (if not natural selection) into their religious views.
Despite the wide acceptance of evolutionary ideas by naturalists and prominent theologians in 1900, the 20th century has been marked by the strongest ever science-religion conflict in regard to evolution. The 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, famed in popular imagination, on stage, and in film, was a highpoint in the 1920s fundamentalist crusade against evolution. In fact, the trial was part setup, part publicity stunt, although it soon ran out of control. This lecture looks not only at the Scopes Trial but also at its successors, as well as the invention of creation science and flood geology. Also important here is a brief analysis of the historical background and social (anxiety) foundations of American fundamentalism, a force that continues to play a largely adversarial role with modern science.
In this concluding lecture, we survey what we have seen and learned in this course and endeavor to place our own times in historical context. Notably, we conclude that no single blanket description is satisfactory for describing the complexity of science/religion interactions in Christianity over time. The productive engagements between science and theology should be duly stressed. Much of the current-day clashes occur between extremists - religious and scientistic fundamentalists. This lecture proposes that the historical perspective is the best way to transcend and defuse such clashes. The extremist groups ignore historical background (theological and scientific) in favor of self-promoting mythologies, trivialize or fail to understand complex philosophical issues worked out in the past, and are not representative of the totality of science or of Christianity. Historical sense allows us to lift the potentially valuable discourse about and between science and religion to higher, more intellectual, and productive levels.