by When talking about scientific revolution, many people will immediately think of the Heliocentrism proposed by Nicolaus Copernicus. As many of us were taught when we were young, one of Copernicus’ follower, Galileo Galile’s death was said to have some relation with the Church. One explanation is that the knowledge system he supported conflict with the central claim of the “Bible”, and eventually lead to the oppression to him.
Maybe due to this story, it is commonly said that science conflicts with, and stands on the opposite side of religion. It seems impossible for these two conceptions to exist harmoniously. However, is that true? From the reading, we’ve learnt that one of the scientific revolution’s outcome was the changing of people’s believe from religion (or, those explanation stem from Bible proposed by Aristotle) to the rudiment of modern science (that knowledge were produced based on mathematical explanation and observation). So, the topic of today would be about science and religion: do they really stand against each other, or we should see their relation from a different angle?
There are many evidences in the history to prove the idea that science conflicts with religion. For example, known as the mark of initiation of scientific revolution, Copernicus’ Heliocentrism broke the faith that “world in which humans spent their mortal lives was uniquely changeable and imperfect”, as well as “human beings were understood to be the unique creations of the Judeo-Christian God”, which stems from the Bible and other religious belief. After that, the discovery of other planets in the cosmos make people realized that the scope and quality of the knowledge humans might attain were no longer restricted, just like the cosmos. This, again, go against the religious believe that human beings were restricted within a limited space, and the idea that knowledge are all pre-existed and can only be attained. In the end of scientific revolution, Newton’s theory of mechanism mathematizes the world, eliminate the purpose of God and its existence. Though newton himself believed in religion, his theory lead people into another way that goes to the opposite side of it.
These above examples seem to manifest the view that science counterpose science. However, from my point of view, they are rather “the unity of opposites”, as science and religion are not always opposite to each other. In many cases, there are close relation between them.
First, the world being known as “the book of nature” actually provide human beings a chance to connect to the God. From religious view, there are two “books”: one is the book of god, and another is the book of nature. As a result, investigation the cosmos and nature is actually a way for human beings to indirectly learn, sense and get in touch with the God. This is also related to the fact that many scientist (actually there were called “natural philosophers” at that time) works for the Church.
Besides, religion actually draw natural philosophers’ interest into investigating new things. Though religion gives instructions on how to understand the world, it also cares about the world very much at the same time. Without the inquiry and curiosity generated from religion, natural philosophers such as Copernicus or Newton who dig into the essence hidden behind the empirical representation won’t even appeared. The rational thinking based on mathematics and observation that later developed through scientific revolution became the motivation force to understand things more deeply and clearly. Throughout the process of investigating, natural philosophers and scientists again and again go beyond the superficial understanding, finally completed the process of shift in paradigm, and form the modern science that we know in recent days.
In addition, the formation of earliest universities also proves the link between science and religion. Universities, as an important location for many scientific activities, were found by the Church. Though that’s still in doubt whether it is good for the spread and improvement of science knowledge, many new knowledges at that time were taught first in universities, and it somehow, facilitate science.
After all of these explanations, it becomes hard to asset whether the relation between science and religion is hostility or a form of facilitation. However, learning from the detailed story of scientists during scientific revolution can actually be taken as the answer toward this question. In my words, I prefer to say that there’s an inheritance relation between modern science and the religion. The scientific revolution, though it can also be considered as a fastened historical process rather than a revolution from its essence, just help created the subject of science out from religion, and forms another form of religion. From their essence, I think religion is quite similar with science: they are both a knowledge to understand the world, and a way to explain “why something happens”.
I take scientific revolution as a self-denying and self-transcendence process after the development of religion. This form of progress is inevitable, and also necessary. When examining it as a continuous process, you will find that the seemingly hostility is simply because this went to fast, and it’s difficult for people to accept new knowledge within such a short period of time. And probably, that’s why people call it a “revolution”, though it is more like a “evolution”.