Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives

by John Hedley Brooke

One of the most fascinating and enduring issues in the development of the modern world is the relationship between scientific thought and religious belief. It is common knowledge that in Western societies there have been periods of crisis when new science has threatened established religious authority. The trial of Galileo in 1633 and the uproar caused by Darwin's Origin of Species(1859) are two famous examples. Taking account of recent scholarship in the history of science, Professor Brooke takes a fresh look at these and similar episodes, showing that science and religion have been mutually relevant in such a rich variety of ways that simple generalizations are not possible. Standing back from general theses affirming "conflict" or "harmony," which have so often served partisan interests, the author's object is to reveal the subtlety, complexity, and diversity of the interaction of science and religion as it has taken place in the past and in the twentieth century. Instead of treating science and religion as discrete definable entities, his approach is sensitive to shifting boundaries and willing to consider the contexts in which particular forms of science could be used both for religious and secular ends. The result is that, without assuming specialist knowledge, Brooke provides a wide-ranging study from the Copernican innovation to in vitro fertilization.

Genres: Science, Religion, History, Philosophy, History Of Science, Nonfiction, Academic

436 pages, Paperback

First published May 1, 1991

Reviews

[Brad · Rating 4 out of 5]

This remains the best introduction to the history of the interaction of science and religion, however it is now almost twenty years old and in need of an update. In particular, it needs to take into account recent work by Peter Harrison on the relationship between the interpretation of scripture and the rise of modern science, and the relationship between divergent views of the epistemological implications of the fall and the possibility of natural knowledge in the early modern period. The postscript also remains a highly disappointing conclusion to the book, engaging in vague speculation concerning the alleged theological dimensions of contemporary physics, and really shows Brooke way out of his depth. That said, it is an excellent book from which to teach, and the thematically organised bibliography is enormously helpful as a starting point for serious research.

[Dan Gorman · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a learned, often eloquent, and deeply interesting book on the relationship between science and religion in modern Europe. It is a dense book, however, and does not lend itself to casual reading. I did not have time to give it the attention it deserves. Such a book should be split up and read in small sections over a week or more.

[Mark Bowles · Rating 5 out of 5]

A. Three views on the relationship between science and religion. First, is the view that there is conflict between science and religion. One deals with facts the other faith. Second, is that science and religion are separate--each answers a different set of human needs. Discourse about God is inappropriate in the context of laboratory practice, they are separate spheres of activity. Third, the interaction of science and religion can be beneficial to both. An example is the Merton thesis that Puritan values assisted the expansion of science in 17th century England.
B. This book argues that these views are too simplistic. Through historical case studies Brooke finds a complex relationship between religion and science. These conflicts more often include rival theological or scientific doctrines, political power, social prestige, and intellectual authority rather than a simple conflict between science and religion. Thus, prior belief shapes the science/religion relationship, not what is inherent to either science or religion.
C. Difficulties with this task. Definitions of science and religion cannot be established. The meanings of both have shifted over time. You cannot abstract them from their historical context (like talking about science in the 17th).
D. Structure
1. Interaction between God and nature. This chapter shows numerous examples of how God and nature are intimately interrelated. Religious beliefs have in the past functioned within science. Examples of both Newton and Boyle using religious language in their scientific investigations is an example.
2. Did the Scientific Revolution create a modern science that was separate from religion? Brooke argues that certain aspects were distinct from each other, but that a strong connection still existed. This connection was so strong that an unprecedented fusion of science with theology occurred which resulted in more secular forms of piety.
3. Are there parallels between the reform of learning through experimental science and the reform of religion by the Protestant Revolution? Merton argued that there was a strong connection between Protestantism, capitalism, and the rise of science. Copernican theory is used as a test case here. The conclusion is that Protestant countries were more receptive to Copernican theory than were Catholic.
4. Did the mechanization of the natural world secularize all knowledge? There is a paradox here. The mechanical clockwork universe in the 18th was used for an argument that the universe could run by itself. In the 17th century the mechanical universe was used to enrich conceptions of divine activity. An example is Descartes mechanizing animals to show the spiritual nature of humanity.
5. The 19th century and natural theology. This was the belief that through scientific study one could learn something about God and His work. This began with William Paley’s Natural Theology in 1802. He argued that order and functions of nature reflects God’s plan. Adam Sedgwick used this idea when he studied the ‘progressive’ fossil record. God could not have abandoned the earth if he still creates new species.
6. Darwin’s theory. Two views emerge here: either the Origin is consistent with a biblical religion (that does not take Genesis literally); or that it undermined religion. Brooke argues that historical research on the Bible did more to end its literal meaning than natural history.
7. The 20th century: The main question is whether a scientific reductionism is sufficient to meet human needs. Freud attempted to end religious speculation for science. Other areas that religion influences science are human values in shaping scientific work (genetic engineering). There is a return to holistic concepts of reality and a return of theological discussion.

[Mir · Rating 4 out of 5]

Brooke classes approaches to this topic into three main positions:
1) Science and religion are essentially opposed.
2)Conflict between the two is due to misunderstandings, unclear statements, and arrogance on both sides.
3)faith encourages scientific study, and science purifies religion.

[Mz · Rating 5 out of 5]

https://neoplanodion.gr/2021/12/04/ep...

[Μιχάλης Πετρής · Rating 2 out of 5]

Πολύ όμορφα δομημένο, δίνει πολλά παραδείγματα για να καταλάβεις κάτι απο διαφορετικές οπτικές γωνίες. Ωστόσο νομίζω ότι απευθύνεται σε ένα συγκεκριμένο κοινό, με παραπάνω γνώσεις (φιλοσοφικές, ιστορικές κτλ) καθώς δίνει αρκετή πληροφορία

[Craig Werner · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not going to win any prizes for stylistic felicity, but a good detailed overview of the development of the Science-Religion relationship with an emphasis on the period from the 16th-19th centuries. Brooke's basic point is that any attempt to reduce the relationship to either a "conflict" or a "concordance" model will flounder on the specifics of particular times and places. He convincingly argues that forces that have little to do with religion or science as such--and he knows that both terms contain real ambiguities--have played key roles in how the relationship was constructed at any given time. these include political conflict, economic change, developments in areas of philosophy not directly concerned with religion. Brooke constructs his book around detailed case studies, most of which emphasize how those larger forces were reflected in the way individual scientists defined the key terms and/or tried to reconcile new discoveries with their society's dominant values. He's very good at recognizing differences within both science and religion: sects, methodological camps, etc.

I learned a lot about the historical roots of Natural Theology, the magic/science/theology triad, and arguments from design.

Not exciting, but solid.