How Should We Then Live? Chapter 7: The Rise Of Modern Science

                                                                                                                             - St. Paul

Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment;  Science

Many people today believe that science is the opposite of religion.  They believe that logic and faith oppose one another.  Thinkers within the Enlightenment, which I wrote about (here), believed the same thing.  They described their era as enlightened specifically because they were stripping religious faith out of their thinking.  They likened faith to darkness and shackles.  Faith either hid or held us back from becoming something greater, full human potential.

History isn't kind to these ideas.  There were some technical, intellectual, and societal advancements that occurred as a part of the Enlightenment.  However, those ideas produced great tragedy.  Many of the advancements didn't happen because of the Enlightenment ideas per se but through the practice of science.  Chapter 7 of this book shows that modern science was a fruit of a Christian, biblical worldview.  That means that any Enlightenment advancement could have still occurred without the Enlightenment itself.  Faith and reason, science and religion coexisting together is a much better way forward.

The late Renaissance and Reformation occurred in a similar timeframe.  At the same time, another intellectual movement was occurring, the Scientific Revolution.  The people and events below show the overlap.

Leonarda da Vinci (1452-1519) - late Renaissance

Luther's 95 Theses (1517) - Reformation

Calvin's Institute (1536) - Reformation

Luther dies (1546) - Reformation

Copernicus (1473-1543) - Scientific Revolution

Copernicus' heliocentric theory (1530) - Scientific Revolution

Foundational scientific writings (1540s) - On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, On the Structure of the Human Body, Latin translation of the works of Archimedes

Conflict of Early Scientists With Church

Before this time, science certainly existed.  The Greeks, Arabs, and Chinese were known for building upon the knowledge of the world, even though what they produced wasn't exactly what we call science today.  The Chinese didn't generate many scientific theories from their study of the natural world.  Aristotle and Plato introduced intellectual frameworks through which the world could be understood, straddling the line between science and philosophy.  Medieval Europeans and Arabs built more thought on top of the Greek philosophers.  Arabic scholars made important contributions in trigonometry, algebra, and astronomy on this basis.  Omar Khayyam (1048-1122) even calculated the length of a solar year.  However, any new observations were not allowed to speak for themselves.  Aristotelian philosophy was considered the authority that everything else had to conform to or it was thrown out.  

This reliance on Aristotelian logic was the source of the conflict the church had with early science.  Modern science started by challenging the teaching of Thomas Aquinas which was based on Aristotle.  Oxford scholars Roger Bacon (1214-1294) and Robert Grosseteste (1175-1253) found mistakes Aristotle made about some natural phenomena.  From this point on, scientists were more and more free to follow observations made in their experiments.  Of note were the developments made at the University of Padua in the 15th and 16th centuries.

The Roman Church attacked Galileo (1564-1642) because he defended Copernicus' theory.  The church had accepted Aristotelian philosophy as orthodox.  Copernicus was simply disagreeing with Aristotle.  Then Galileo argued that Copernicus' theories were more in line with the Bible than Aristotle.  This highlights how important it is that Christians be careful not to add to the Bible or elevate outside ideas as equal to the Bible.  We now all agree that the Copernicus' theory of heliocentrism did not contradict the Bible at all.  But scientists had to do much work to disassociate Aristotle's philosophy from the Bible and consider how the scientific observations compared to the text of Scripture.

Scientists really had no trouble with the Bible but with scholastic tradition.  Once free from tradition (and Aristotle), the path forward was described by Francis Bacon (1561-1626).

                    

                        "He stressed careful observation and a systemic collection of information

                        'to unlock nature's secrets'. "

Modern Science's Biblical Foundation

Schaeffer uses statements from Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) and J. Robert Oppenheimer (1904-1967) to explain how Christianity provided a basis for the Scientific Revolution.   Both were highly respected scientists.  Neither were professing Christians ironically.  Still, Oppenheimer wrote just that in a 1962 article in Encounter in an article titled "On Science and Culture."  Before that in 1925 Whitehead made a contribution to this idea in a lecture called Science and the Modern World.

                        "Whitehead said that Christianity is the mother of science because of

                        'the medieval insistence on the rationality of God.' Whitehead also spoke

                        of confidence 'in the intelligible rationality of a personal being.' "

In other words, the Christian God is rational and knowable according to the Bible, therefore His creation should also be knowable through a rational approach.

                        "[the early scientists] inexpungable belief that every detailed occurrence

                        can be correlated with its antecedents in a perfectly definite manner

                        exemplifying general principles."

Every scientist believes this, and it is faith whether they know it or not.  Implicitly, their actions demonstrate a  belief in a reasonable God who made a reasonable world.  At the beginning of the Scientific Revolution and even before, scientists knew this explicitly.

                        "Since the world had been created by a reasonable God, they were

                        not surprised to find a correlation between themselves as observers

                        and the things observed - that is, between subject and object.  This

                        base is normative to one functioning in the Christian framework,

                        whether he is observing a chair or the molecules which make up

                        the chair."

The Christian philosophical basis for science is summarized by Schaeffer.

                        "They held to a concept of the uniformity of natural causes in an

                        open system, or, as it may also be expressed, the uniformity of

                        natural causes in a limited time span.  God has made a

                        cause-and-effect universe; therefore we can find out something

                        about the causes from the effects. But...it is an open universe

                        because God  and man are outside of the uniformity of natural

                        causes... all that exists is not one big cosmic machine which 

                        includes everything."

I will add that humans are a part of the machine and outside of it at the same time.  As beings with a spirit and an intellect we can observe nature as though we are external to it.  However, we aren't.  Our bodies are themselves natural machines and part of the machinery of the universe.  At least partially this explains why it is both exhilarating and burdensome to be human.

Examples of Faithful Christian Scientists

I wanted to show how common it was for scientists during this era to be Bible affirming, active Christians.  Today, many think science is at odds with believing in Jesus.  Science teaches some things today which look contradictory to Scripture.  That isn't because there is a foundational disagreement between the fields.  It is more an expression of the world view people have today.  However, what did those great minds of the Scientific Revolution say?

Francis Bacon, who helped develop the scientific method itself in 1620 said "Man by the Fall fell at the same time from his state of innocence and from his dominion over creation.  Both of these losses, however, can even in this life be in some parts repaired; the former by religion and faith, the latter by the arts and sciences."

Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) made many contributions to math and science, among them the theory of gravity and calculus.  He focused more of his attention to the Bible later in life.  So much so that humanists have said they wished he would have devoted his whole life to science alone.  They miss the point that Newton wouldn't have produced so much if he had no interest in God.

                        "Newton's intense interest in the Bible came out of his view that the

                        same God who had created the universe had given people truth in 

                        the Bible.  And his view was that the Bible contained the same sort

                        of truth as could be learned from a study of the universe."

Blaise Pascal made the first working barometer and Pascal's Law for calculating hydrostatic pressure.  I used his law when I was studying fluid flow to earn my degree in Chemical Engineering in the 1990s.

Pascal' Law (1653)

, density X gravity X difference in height

As a Christian Pascal saw each person as special because they could understand the world around them and more importantly because "Christ died on the cross for them."

Rene Descartes (1596-1650) was a great mathematician and a devoted Catholic.

The Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge was founded in 1662.  In addition to Newton, Robert Boyle was a member.  George Trevelyan writes about their view point in 1942.

                        "It was believed that these methods would never lead to any conclusions

                        inconsistent with Biblical history and miraculous religion."

I also used Boyle's law in college.  Boyle's law:

Pressure is inversely proportional to the volume

More important was the ideal gas law which is partially derived using Boyle's law.

Michael Faraday (1791-1867) discovered that electrical current could be induced from a magnetic field.  Electrical motors are based on this knowledge.  He also developed the Faraday Cage which is used to protect things, people or electronics, from voltage and current.  He associated himself with a group professing:

                            "Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are

                            silent, we are silent."

Last but not least, one of the most impressive in my book, is James Maxwell (1831-1879).  He created a set of equations named after him, Maxwell's equations, which explain electro-magnetism.  They are the foundation for electronics, radio, wifi, antennas, electrical power, etc.  Schaeffer writes about him plainly, "(he) was also a believer in a personal God."

I am sure there are more out there, but you get the idea.

Christian Faith Not A Requirement For Science

So far scientific pursuit has been linked strongly with being a Christian.  However linked, it is obvious that a person doesn't have to be a Christian to be a good scientist.  Any type of human achievement can be thought of as a creative act.  Making a song, painting a portrait, constructing a building, and discovering a scientific theory are all creative in nature. 

God created each person in His image.  Part of that image though distorted from sin is being creative.  Every person has that capability as a human being, regardless of the times, cultures, or belief systems they live in.  Belief systems will be apparent because they will direct where or what form that creative instinct takes.  Following that, many who started the Scientific Revolution were not Christians themselves.  They didn't believe in the theological truths of the Bible, but in some way they accepted Biblical assumptions about the world.  Even Einstein showed this to be true in a quote recorded by the London Observer in 1964.

                               "I cannot believe that God plays dice with the cosmos."

Quantum theory is described by some as disproving the Christian assumption of rational, consistent natural laws.  This is a misunderstanding of what things like the uncertainty principle are describing.  It says that the location and velocity of a particle can't be known simultaneously and that when two particles collide,  the rebound velocity can't be known exactly.  But that doesn't mean the motion of particles is random or unable to be modeled.  It is simply stating that there are limits to observation at that scale.  Even with this level of uncertainty, quantum theory explains natural phenomena and allows us to make predictions about how things work reliably if not with perfect accuracy.

Schaeffer reminds that world views can determine if certain types of creativity will be pursued consistently in a society or not.  He argues in the book that Greek, Arab, and Chinese cultures didn't provide a basis on which scientific development could  continue for very long.  Schaeffer quotes Joseph Needham in his book The Grand Titration from 1969 about why these other cultures didn't sustain their scientific inquiry.

                        "There was no confidence that the code of Nature's laws could ever be

                        unveiled and read, because there was no assurance that a divine being,

                        even more rational that ourselves, had ever formulated such a code capable

                        of being read."

A successful scientist doesn't have to be Christian, obviously, but he does have to live within a system that still accepts the assumptions that Christians have about nature.  That is true even today in what some call a postmodern, post-Christian society in the U.S. and Europe.

                        "Later, when the Christian base was lost, a tradition and momentum

                        had been set in motion, and the pragmatic necessity of technology,

                        and even control by the state, drives sciences on, but, as we shall see,

                        with a subtle yet important change in emphasis."

Conclusion

Five hundred years after the Scientific Revolution started, we can see all around us the radical changes it has made for humanity.  To someone living in the 16 century the 21st would seem like a magical, dream world.  I think that sometimes myself looking at all the technology that exists around me.  Yet, at the same time technology is used everyday to destroy people's lives.  From the nuclear bomb to drones strikes to identity theft.  Just like the Scientific Revolution was birthed and sustained within a specific world view, the direction of science and technology today is determined by the assumptions people have about the world, both natural and supernatural.  If  scientific achievement is a key to producing more and more power to do good or evil in the world, how should we then live?