Science and religion: historical perspectives and contemporary interactions

Science and Religion

The challenges that are frequently thought of as inherent to religion and science are actually responsible for the development of greater understanding. Most people of faith presume that the understandings of the natural world will be offered to us by God as we need them. This being the case it is also fair to say that most people of faith presume that such understandings will be offered to them through legitimate and accepted means, i.e. from the church or at the very least a rogue representative of the church. This is why when scientific discoveries such as those furthered by Copernicus and Kepler during the middle ages and early renaissance were often greeted with fear and rejection. In addition, the Copernicus model for the universe challenged long held beliefs about the origin and he make up of the universe, and more importantly man and earth's place within it. In Copernicus' time the authority in which a new scientific idea must be voiced and to some degree agreed with was the voice of the church.

Scientific truth is largely determined by authority and this has always been so. Today, any new idea must be supported by the weight of existing authorities and expressed in their language. The more radical the idea the more necessary it is to blunt its impact by emphasising its similarities with shared traditions. While he was writing De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, Nicolaus Copernicus was aware of both the radical nature of what he was suggesting and the need to communicate it in a way that would be both comprehensible to and respected by his readers. (Hanman, 2007, NP)

Yet, the ris very little question that Copernicus was vividly aware of the need to bring his idea to the forefront through a systematic and sensitive manner, as to most effectively communicate without being illegitimated.

The faithful, and mainly those in the know, believing the Ptolemy earth centric plan of the universe were disturbed by the Copernican model which allowed that the planets traveled in a circular path around the sun and the Kepler model which conceded that there was an equation to figure the trajectory of a planet and the path was more elliptical. The average person is likely to care little which is the truth or if the long held assumption of faith that the earth is at the center of the universe is confronted and yet the church cared a great deal, as it made no logical sense that the "chosen" creation of God would be relegated to an object that was not central to the known universe. The new "science" of the universe then became a conflict between accepted belief and scientific discovery. (pp.7-8)

The validity of the science is clear, though it may not have been at the time to all who looked upon it because it was so contrary to accepted tenants about the value of the human race and God's creation of it and the earth. The calculations and observations that created the theories of Copernicus and later Kepler can be analyzed, and a reasonable argument can be put forward from them. To the inner observer the conflict that arose would likely be considered a confrontational model of science and religion. Yet, in reality the Copernicus and Kepler truths were anything but confrontational. In the first place the model did not diminish the earthly reflection of power of God but increased the scope of his greatness, by greatly expanding his realm and his web of balanced creation. As is stated in the text there is a clear sense that "all truth is God's truth," and that therefore the science that had emerged demonstrated his power and ability, rather than diminishing the importance of the human race in his scheme. (p. 49)

Neither Copernicus of Kepler was outside the Christian faith, as they had both been accepted members, student and teachers of religiously sponsored schools. The major work of Copernicus, on the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres was printed at the hand of a Bishop and dedicated to the Pope. The schools themselves redirected much learning back toward faith but also constituted a standard for revolutionary thought. Copernicus did not set out to challenge the concepts of faith, but instead set out to scientifically explain how God had developed the universe and Kepler followed by adding credence and computation to Copernican models. The works of Copernicus and later Kepler in fact follow in the line of reasoning associated with the Process Theology, in that they demonstrate that God works within the context of the natural processes, and therefore the center of his creation is logical and the discovery of it is not contrary to faith. (pp.49-50)

The belief that placed the earth at the center of the universe was not steeped in doctrine but was instead the development of tradition. ((pp. 6-7) the science of the assumption, Ptolemy was not contrary to faith or tradition, as it was simply one that came before the one furthered by Copernicus. Copernicus simply added an additional tradition to the concepts rather than the doctrine of creation. Where it made sense in the past to believe, through perspective of one with limited scope that the earth was the center of the universe it now, made sense for the Sun to be the center of the universe and/or the planets, including earth to rotate around a center in a connected patterns. Additionally, the older belief was not based on scripture but on the work of another astronomer, and philosopher Ptolemy.