GOD’S SCIENCE
Posted by anthonynorth on October 22, 2007
I read something recently that grabbed my attention. It asked where would science be, today, if not for God? The implication was that God had held science back.
In many ways this is, of course, quite true. Throughout the Middle Ages, and well into modern times, science had a fight with Scripture in order to gain valuable freedoms to allow science to advance.
Without this religious dogma we could have advanced further.
But there are two central points we must consider. First of all, is it ever right to allow a single system to take predominance over all others? Without restraint, could science have taken us well into the Frankenstein league by now?
Most scientists would disagree, arguing that they’re very level headed chaps that can be trusted with our future. The only thing is, though, I always fear ‘level headed chaps’ who say they don’t require restraint.
As for my second point …
It was God who allowed science in the first place.
Now this will get people confused, or angry, or both. And of course, I’m not talking about a real God – that’s a matter of belief. But due to the belief in God, man’s mind-set changed fundamentally.
Before the monotheist God, people lived in a cyclic world, tied to the cycles of nature. Once God came into the picture, intervention in the world was understood, and we lived by linear advancement. And science is the natural outcome of this mind-set.
Thank God.
© Anthony North, October 2007
Click Tony On, on Blogroll, for my current affairs blog.
owen59 said
Cheers, Anthony, Truth is One.
renaissanceguy said
Brilliantly written, Tony. Thanks a lot.
It is just as you say. In some ways religion has held science back, but that is probably for the best. Without ethics, which has largely been provided by religion, all sorts of gruesome things might have been done in the name of science. We are currently moving in the wrong direction regarding gruesomeness, which I think in part stems from our loss of religious moorings.
Modern science is largely a result of a biblical view of the world, with its insistence that there are testable laws and an underlying order to the universe. With the pre-Christian view of the world as a product of haphazard forces, the scientific method was impossible.
anthonynorth said
Hi Renaissanceguy,
Thanks for the kind words, as always. I’d take issue with you on one point.
Whilst pre-monotheistic religions could have local brutalities, there appears to be a symmetry rather than haphazard forces. It is just that this symmetry concerned man’s relationship to the environment, with nothing about society. Monotheism changed this to reflect man’s relationship to society.
Science must some day place attention on the question ’should we’ rather than just ‘can we’. This will have to take into account a form of ethics, in which religion will have to play a part.
But yes, I repeat most definitely, science owes its existence to monotheism, whether it likes it or not.
TiamatsVision said
The history and practice of alchemy is a testament(pun intended)to what you are saying in this piece. The fact that alchemy led to much of what we know as current science, and that religion and philosophy were a big part of the development of it, says loads.
anthonynorth said
Hi TiamatsVision,
Very true.
It must be remembered that science was once called natural philosophy. Yes, all the sciences came out of what was, in essence, spiritual philosophies. Some of them can be said to be non-monotheistic in their origins, but were only turned into sciences once the monotheistic mind-set had been placed within them.
poseidonsmuse said
TiamatsVision put it rather nicely. As I learn more about the Tao, I can’t help but consider and ponder the similarities between Metaphorical Alchemy in a Rosicrucian sense vs. the Alchemy of the Tao as it applies in a TCM sense (the Triple Burner that unites Yin and Yang and stokes the fires of health). Natural and spiritual philosophies indeed…
anthonynorth said
Hi PM,
I know you’re quite into Taoism at the moment, and are writing about it on your blog. And now you’ve got me thinking about it.
As such, I won’t answer your comment direct. I’ll write a short post on the subject, not as seen in the east, but placing western knowledge upon it. Because I think, even if we view it in this way, it can still hold importance.
It’ll most likely be posted on Wednesday.
saintlewis said
Thanks you for the post – a number of facts too rarely acknowledged these days. Keep up the good work!
renaissanceguy said
Tony,
By symmetry are you referring to male and female deities? To good and evil spirits?
I’m not sure that I’m following you.
I was referring to animistic religions in which everything is thought to happen at the momentary whims of various spirits.
anthonynorth said
Good morning Renaissanceguy,
I see it like this. When we dream, the images reflect our culture. In prehistory such dreams would have reflected nature, because life was about survival within nature.
This, I think, was the birth of the animal spirits. But it was much more. A system grew of a dual world of the physical and spirit. Everything in nature had a spirit double, which was animism.
This developed into a kind of pact where by man appeasing the spirits, nature would look after man. Sacrifice was a part of this, but the system had a total morality through taboo, and also guaranteed that man would look after nature.
This was a quite remarkable system and only haphazard in that it was slave to the changes in environment. The problem with the system was that it was all about nature and not society. Hence, local ‘chiefs’ had no moral restraint, and as society became more organised, it allowed the god cults to rise.
Monotheism, to me, was the point where these spiritual patterns were placed on society instead of nature, thus leading to science.
A true symmetry, for me, would be if we could take some of this early religious form and understand a little more about the environment.
tinyfrog said
I guess I don’t follow. The central theme of the major monotheistic religions is man’s obedience or restoration with God. It’s surprising, then, that God would even allow science to change society so drastically and alter life so deeply. For example, why should cures for diseases exist? It was perfectly fine for people to die in vast numbers (e.g. 1/3rd of europe died in the Black Plague). If God didn’t want that to happen, it wouldn’t have – therefore, why would He allow that aspect of humanities experience to change? Further, we might also add the comments of (ignorant) church leaders: “All diseases of Christians are to be ascribed to these demons; chiefly do they torment fresh-baptized Christians, yea, even the guiltless, newborn infants.” – Augustine. One could certainly see how a religious person would come to this conclusion: the Bible talks about casting out demons, Satan causing boils on Job, God handing out punishment to Egyptians or other Middle Eastern tribes. In fact, the only thing surprising about Augustine’s statement is that he didn’t claim disease was caused by divine punishment.
“Once God came into the picture, intervention in the world was understood, and we lived by linear advancement. And science is the natural outcome of this mind-set.”
I’m doubtful on the validity of your point. There were steps made towards “advancement” long before monotheistic religions ruled. Remember: when the Romans conquered Israel they had metal armor, had built huge aqueducts, had giant buildings, etc. Israel was certainly not the center of technological advancement. Many of the (polytheistic) nations around them had done greater things (the pyramids, the hanging gardens of Babylon, were more advanced in metallurgy, mathematics, writing, astronomy, etc). Human civilization had been on a general technological upward trend for thousands of years. We might say that “science” didn’t exist until after, say, sometime after the 1200s – but even that was 1200 years after the founding of Christianity, and 2000 years after Judaism. Islam experienced a brief upswing in technological advancement (thanks, largely to translated texts from antiquity), but then collapsed again into backwardsness. Why didn’t the monotheistic mindset lead to science and technology in the Islamic world? If the monotheistic mindset is responsible for all of this, you really need to explain why monotheistic nations produced nothing significant for thousands of years, and why polytheistic nations were. My answer is simple: there has been a general increase in technological advancement for thousands and thousands of years, but monotheists are attempting to usurp the credit for it. The fact that “science” began in monotheistic nations had more to do with being at the right place at the right time.
anthonynorth said
Hi Tinyfrog,
Welcome. We must be careful not to confuse technological advancement with science. Technologists look at an immediate problem and try to solve it. Science looks at things for the sake of looking, with new technology following from it.
Pre-monotheistic societies dealt with obvious problems regarding survival or spiritual devotion. There was no ethic towards deconstruction of the natural world purely to understand it.
Basically, I don’t think a pre-Monotheistic culture could have discovered electricity, or tried to understand how the universe works in mechanistic terms.
There is one obvious exception to this, in that ancient Greek society had this more scientific attitude, but this was after monotheism had appeared, and the new outlook could well have infiltrated there.
Early Islam was remarkably scientific. It fell apart when the impulse towards expansion collapsed, the Islamic world reverting more to tribal societies.
faithseed said
The Book of Revelation has influenced the societies of our world. We must try and understand its true meaning. I have interpreted that God’s throne is actually the Circle in the heavens known as the ‘Precession of the Equinoxes’ and that certain pole stars on or near this circle represent the seven stars/horns/heads.The four quadrants are actually the four horses and horseman of this circular plane. Our brightest pole star ‘Vega’ sits on the platform of the ‘G’ of ‘G-O-D’ as a starting point at around 12,000 B.C. See Gisus.org for more details!
poseidonsmuse said
I look forward to your post (re: referring to Taoism) Anthony. Thanks for that.
Hapydad said
I must disagree with some of these replies. It is a modern myth that religion and science are at odds. Not only did the advent of monotheism give rise to the linear thought that allowed scientific advance, the books themselves led people to investigate the world. They say we have dominion, i.e. the ability to alter and affect. They say that creation can be measured. etc etc. Almost every modern science has its origins in religious men, priests and monks, who wanted to know more about the world they believed God created and believed that knowledge showed their God’s glory. Genetics, architecture, astronomy, chemistry among others are all based on foundations developed and tested during the so-called dark ages up to the enlightenment. The myth of Galileo illustrates this. He wasn’t punished for believing Copernicus, he was punished for obstinacy in extrapolating theological conclusions from a theory that could not be proven, which in fact could not be proven conclusively (with “modern” telescopes, timepieces etc) until the 1800’s. Jesuit astronomers confirmed his discoveries, and waited eagerly for proof so they could abandon the flawed and cumbersome geocentric system.
anthonynorth said
Hi Hapydad,
I think some elements of science and religion will always be at odds with each other. But the reality is, it WAS monotheism that gave the mind-set that led to science.
Galileo’s mistake was that he worked in a Catholic area, which had become intransigent since the Reformation. Prior to him, however, the scientific method was essentially worked out by monks.
Those who disagree with this, a few names. If you don’t know them, look them up:
Abelard
Anselm
Aquinas
Roger Bacon
Duns Scotus
William of Occam
These were the major Schoolmen of the Middle Ages.
Hapydad said
Hi Anthonynorth,
I agree, but it seems to me mainly when they try to draw conclusions outside of their realms. Science is about the physical, religion about the metaphysical. There is no reason for them to be at odds. Religion can no more prove or disprove atomic theory than science can tell us the meaning of life.
Regards
anthonynorth said
Hi Hapydad,
Absolutely. But it is the nature of the western mind that something must be one thing or the other, and it must apply to all of life.
It is wrong. Hopefully, one day it can change.
1poet4man said
I am not convinced by any of the above arguments supporting the idea that monotheism led to modern scientific inquiry…
Science arrives at its theories through experimentation and religion – whether mono or polytheistic arrives at its conclusions as articles of faith…
Science disproves itself daily and religion proves itself daily – what is at work in either is really very different…
My one concession is both are basically systems oriented – however a systems orientation is by no means the exclusive territory of monotheism. Polytheists have very well defined systems as well.
Also whether monotheistic or polytheistic, most religions are expressions of faith in closed unchanging systems and science pushes the boundaries of its principals and everyday seeks to find out more about what has been left unexplained.
Poetman
anthonynorth said
Hi Poetman,
I don’t dispute that religion and science are different. I’m simply arguing that the linear, compartmentalised mind-set of the monotheist is the mind-set that led to science. Hence, without that mind-set, modern science wouldn’t have happened.
Hapydad said
Hi Anthony,
I disagree that it the nature of western mind to be limited to the either/or as you describe in #18. Although I don’t believe you mean it this way , that view is certainly promulgated as a put down of western thought. As one bit of evidence to the contrary I offer the doctrine of the Trinity in orthodox Christian theology.
I would be more pointed in this discussion to say that it’s not monotheism that allowed linear thought but specifically Judeo-Christian monotheism.
anthonynorth said
Hi Hapydad,
A general rule, by being general, must have in-built exceptions. So yes, it isn’t as exact as that. Mindst you, I’m not sure the Trinity is a good example.
I see the Trinity as a perfect hint of the ability to think conceptually in order to solve a problem – i.e. scientifically.
Christianity faced a problem of having a relevance, through God, in terms of Creating the world (the Father), experiencing the world as a man (the Son), and being relevant for all time (the Spirit). I think they ended up with the first Grand Unified Theory
Deciding what is and what isn’t a monotheist/linear mind-set can hold problems. You could argue later Islam forgot it, or that their geography was such that it became less relevant, but certainly their Golden Age was linear, and scientific.
If you go back to the first known hint of monotheism with Akhnaton in ancient Egypt, we immediately see a new society beginning to form, with acute social engineering. The brutality with which it was eventually wiped out shows how different the system was to the ancient Egyptian norm.
Jamie said
You could make an equal argument that both the gods and science started with the women as the planters, gatherers, healers … the witchy women performing their magic to ensure survival. You guys had to invent both God and Science to hang on to the power.
anthonynorth said
Hi Jamie,
You’re taking it further back than I intended, but you’ve got a point.
Now, as I see it, matriarchy came out of the fertility of nature, thus devising the earliest religions. With agriculture, complication came into being, and the spiritual relationship moved away from nature to society, and it was here that patriarchy manifested.
Maybe one day we’ll get balance between the two.