Science
of the Early Modern era was very different from what would be considered
science today in the 21st century.
Religion consists of the actual practices in a religious group, whereas
theology describes how a group explains those practices and why they use them
to explain the creation of the universe. [1] For this reason, it is more appropriate to
discuss theology and natural philosophy, as opposed to religion and
science. During the Early Modern period
in Europe, theology and natural philosophy were at odds, two both attempting to
explain the world in which they found themselves, yet both finding their own
logic to create meaningful explanations for that world.
Perhaps the correlation between the
two opposing fields evolves strictly out of the fact that Europe was so heavily
Christian, inside and out, the influence of the church on the state was unlike
any period beforehand, leading to the reason some make associations between the
two influencing one another.[2] However, the age old practices of the church
had to cause conflict with the new philosophy surrounding “science”. The two had to have some connections and
commonalities. With the depth of church
power, there was inevitable conflict between the two.
When scientific societies began
arising, the philosophers simply wanted to think freely about physical matters,
the same as religious groups. They
wanted to find explanations for their world just the same as those involved in
the religion of the day. However, they
were deviating from the norm, not wanting to give all of the answers directly
to religion; they wanted to discover the truth for themselves through the use
of natural philosophy, or inquiring about nature in general.[3]
By examining two individuals caught
between these two opposing forces of theology and natural science, one can see
a depth to the issues before them.
Thomas Hobbes, for example, can be thought of as taking the road of anti-religion,
even though he attempted to make a balance between the two in order to not
cause intense uprising or upsetting the church, so closely tied to the state.[4] Johannes Kepler, on the other hand, sought to
find answers within religion, but was not content in the ideas laid forth by
any one religious group. He preferred to
piece together his own understanding of the Bible, but did not call himself an
attendant of one particular church in Christianity.[5] Hobbes and Kepler had two very different
philosophies regarding the religion they were faced in Early Modern Europe. Hobbes took the road less traveled, whereas
Kepler attempted to truly figure things out for himself, struggling to find
balance between the two, even though he did not realize just how much the world
around him would be affected by his choice to neither choose the Roman Catholic
Church, the Reformed Church, or the Lutheran Church.
Kepler took a stand in Christianity
that was not ready to be accepted among believers. He tried to find the truth within the text of
the Bible, only questioning those things that were not explicitly stated. He simply wanted to know the real answers to
life’s questions. One topic that Kepler
took very seriously, without realizing the future effects of his investigation
was that of the Eucharist, or the blood and body of Christ taken at
communion. Kepler refused to believe an
actual miracle occurred to turn the Eucharist into the blood and body of
Christ, he believed moreover that these were simply objects or symbols of the
religious practices.[6]
Not that Kepler had any problem with
this religious ceremony, he just wanted to voice his opinion of this practices. Of course, the powerful Roman Church did not
approve of his opinion on this matter. This was the division Kepler struggled with;
The Roman Catholic Church believed the Eucharist to be a true miracle, but the
Reformed Church saw the bread and wine as symbols.[7] Due to Kepler’s scientific mindset, he could
not accept these things that he did not fully understand or that were not
outright stated in the text of the Holy Bible.
Kepler could not make himself choose a “side” in the battle between
churches.
Kepler believed natural philosophers
showed God’s glory, instead of disproving God or explaining the world without
God. He felt that the more one knew
about the world God created, the closer they came to God. He did not see himself as an opponent of God
and religion, but rather as “God’s priest” helping others to understand the
awesome world God set into motion for his creation. He believed the Bible was written for humans
to understand, therefore there would have to be contradictions, but by delving
deeper into the natural philosophies, one could better understand God. [8] Kepler also believed that God created the
world with empiricism, suggesting that mathematics could explain everything
because God created the world with these particular universal laws to make
things run smoothly and to help man understand the world. This order was able to be discovered by man,
once again helping man grow closer to the almighty God.[9]
On the other end of the spectrum,
Thomas Hobbes was a skeptic regarding just about every aspect of religion. He doubted miracles, prophets, and the
authenticity of the scriptures, among many other aspects of religion.[10] In Hobbes’ “The Leviathan” and in particular
his chapter entitled “of Religion,” Hobbes set forth his opinion of
religion. Hobbes saw neither “signs nor
fruit of religion” but only in the mind of humankind. He believed religion was simply a way for
people to explain the world around them, whether or not they had true proof of
it. With his inquisitive mind, he could
not accept the answers religion gave for the creation of the universe. He said it was man’s nature to be
“inquisitive about the causes of events they see,” the beginnings of things,
and the general cause and effect cycle of life.[11] In this way, Hobbes saw that man was always
questioning, but when he could not unveil the “true” causes, or the ones that
can only be found through science, man had to equate things to a higher power,
or God. This search for cause and effect
made man anxious and Hobbes almost suggested that it was more logical for there
to be many gods than one omnipotent God in control of the entire universe. He said “acknowledging of one God eternal,
infinite, and omnipotent God may more easily be derived from the desire men
have to know the causes of natural bodies.”
In his suggestion, Hobbes says that the idea of God is created out of
fear, merely a figment of man’s imagination, essentially.
He suggests that the idea of
immaterial spirits “could never enter into the mind of any man by nature,”
taking the side of nature, revealing the true division between natural
philosophy and theology. Men “by their
own meditation arrive to the acknowledgment of one infinite… God,” claiming
that man only nameed God to give him praise and not to help people understand
Him.[12] He found a problem in the religious idea that
it is impossible for people to truly know God, he could not live with this
simple, inadequate explanation. Since the knowledge Hobbes had of religion was
not proof enough for him, he took an approach to devise theology as part of
man’s nature. Hobbes much preferred to
explain religion as a manifestation of human nature since he believed in the
natural philosophy side of things. He also referred to “heathen philosophers”
in a way that seemed to mock the religious.
He knew that those who were religious and believed in the one omnipotent
God thought of the natural philosophers as “heathens.”[13] He could clearly see the division between the
two explanations of the world in which he lived.
Both of these men helped explain the
divisions apparent in everyday Early Modern life, but also the divisions which could
be found within the “science” of it all.
Throughout their own individual opinions and findings, they were able to
maintain their own explanations for that which they did not truly
understand. This showed a similarity
between natural philosophy and theology.
Hobbes could not settle for the explanations given by the religious
people of his time, so he devised a plan to explain their own theology in terms
of his theology: science. Kepler however
is the example of one who could not choose between the two distinctions. Kepler wanted to believe in one all powerful
God, but found faults within the religion that man had created to explain
God. Together, these two men give an
excellent example for how theology and the natural sciences were viewed during
the Early Modern period: as opposing forces attempting to accomplish the same
task.
Bibliography
Attfield, Robin. "Science and Creation." The Journal of Religion 58 (1978), http://www.jstor.org/stable/1201614 (accessed October 4, 2013).
Brooke, John. "Science and Religion: Lessons from History?" American Association for the Advancement of Science 282 (1998), http://www.jstor.org/stable/2897588 (accessed October 4, 2013).
Chabot, Dana. "Thomas Hobbes: Skeptical Moralist." The American Political Science Review 89 (1995), http://www.jstor.org/stable/2082433 (accessed October 4, 2013).
Harrison, Peter. ""Science" and "Religion": Constructing the Boundaries." The Journal of Religion 86 (2006), http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/497085 (accessed October 4, 2013).
Hobbes, Thomas. "The Leviathan." Oregon State. http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-b.html (accessed November 11, 2013).
Lanzinner, Maximilian. "Johannes Kepler: A Man without Confession in the Age of Confessionalization?."Central European History 36 (2003), http://www.jstor.org/stable/4547352 (accessed October 4, 2013).
Osler, Margaret J. “Mixing Metaphors: Science and Religion or Natural Philosophy and Theology in Early Modern Europe.” University of Calgary. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.104.9578&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed November 1, 2013).
Rabieh, Michael S. . "The Reasonableness of Locke or the Questionableness of Christianity." The Journal of Politics 53 (1991), https://www.jstor.org/action/exportSingleCitation?singleCitation=true&doi=10.2307/2131861 (accessed November 1, 2013).
Seiler, Frederick. "The Role of Religion in the Scientific Revolution." The Objective Standard: Reason, Egoism, Capitalism. Vol. 7, no. 3. Fall 2012. http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-fall/religion-in-scientific-revolution.asp (accessed November 1, 2013).
Stauffer, Devin. ""Of Religion" in Hobbes's Leviathan." The Journal of Politics 72 (2010), http://www.jstor.org/stable/40784778 (accessed October 4, 2013).
[1] Margaret Osler. “Mixing Metaphors: Science and Religion or Natural Philosophy and Theology in Early Modern Europe.” 91.
[2] Frederick Seiler. "The Role of Religion in the Scientific Revolution."
[3] John Brooke. "Science and Religion: Lessons from History?" 1.
[4] Devin Stauffer. ""Of Religion" in Hobbes's Leviathan."
[5] Maximilian Lanzinner. "Johannes Kepler: A Man without Confession in the Age of Confessionalization?." 533.
[6]Maximilian Lanzinner. "Johannes Kepler: A Man without Confession in the Age of Confessionalization?." 537.
[7] Maximilian Lanzinner. "Johannes Kepler: A Man without Confession in the Age of Confessionalization?." 538.
[8] Maximilian Lanzinner. "Johannes Kepler: A Man without Confession in the Age of Confessionalization?." 542.
[9] Robin Attfield. "Science and Creation." 43.
[10] Chabot, Dana. "Thomas Hobbes: Skeptical Moralist." 401.
[11] Thomas Hobbes. "The Leviathan."
[12] Thomas Hobbes. "The Leviathan."
[13] Thomas Hobbes. "The Leviathan.
No comments:
Post a Comment