Reclaiming The Christian Roots Of Modern Science (handout)

Reclaiming the Christian Roots of Modern Science Ken Yeh ACSI Convention November 25, 2008 Our students will face great challenges as Christians working in the field of science. Our task is to equip them with both the critical thinking skills and knowledge to build a rational Christian thought framework, capable of handling the issues surrounding the interchange between science and faith as faithful ambassadors of Christ.

I. Intro – The media portrayal of Christianity and Science Three popular statements about the history of science and Christianity:  Medieval Christians believed that the Earth was flat, until Columbus proved the Church wrong.  Galileo Galilei proved scientifically that the Earth revolved around the sun, thus confirming Copernicus’ theory of heliocentrism.  The Scientific Revolution was a triumph of reason over religion, as the early scientists applied science to undermine the authority of the Church. The general belief is that Christians have always been opposed to science, holding instead to “anti-scientific” views such as:  A flat Earth  Geocentrism  Supernatural Creation of the Universe The last one of course is not anti-scientific. But because of the perceived association between Christians and the first two erroneous positions, when Christians today try to present the scientific merits of a created universe, we are given the same credibility as if we were trying to make the case for a flat Earth or a solar system with the Earth at the center.

II. The Church and Science at War? Concludes historian of science Colin Russell in his essay, “The Conflict Metaphor and its Social Origins,” “The common belief that… the actual relations between religion and science over the last few centuries have been marked by deep and enduring hostility… is not only historically inaccurate, but actually a caricature so grotesque that what needs to be explained is how it could possibly have achieved any degree of respectability” (quoted in John Lennox, God’s Undertaker, p. 26-27).

The Origins of the “Conflict Thesis” Popularized by two influential textbooks (both of which are still being printed and sold today): John Draper, History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1875) Andrew White, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896)

“Roman Christianity and Science are recognized by their respective adherents as being absolutely incompatible; they cannot exist together; one must yield to the other; mankind must make it’s choice – it cannot have both.” (Draper, History… 363) “In all modern history, interference with science in the supposed interest of religion, no matter how conscientious such interference may have been, has resulted in the direst evils both to religion and to science.” (White) Their influence continues today… “[B]ased on historical evidence, religious thinking *in science* [sic] only stunts the creativity and logical thought processes of scientists.” (E. Thomson, review of A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom on Amazon.com)

III. The Myth of the Flat Earth The Flammarion Woodcut The Flat Earth Myth in Textbooks “[Columbus] felt he would eventually reach the Indies in the East. Many Europeans still believed that the world was flat. Columbus, they thought, would fall off the earth.” America Past and Present (Scott Foresman, 1983), 98. “The European sailor of a thousand years ago also had many other strange beliefs. He turned to these beliefs because he had no other way to explain the dangers of the unknown sea. He believed . . . that a ship could sail out to sea just so far before it fell off the edge of the sea. . . . The people of Europe a thousand years ago knew little about the world.” We the People (Heath, 1982), 28-29.

Columbus’ Conflict with the Church

Andrew Dickson White, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom “The warfare of Columbus the world knows well: how the Bishop of Ceuta worsted him in Portugal; how sundry wise men of Spain confronted him with the usual quotations from the Psalms, from St. Paul, and from St. Augustine; how, even after he was triumphant, and after his voyage had greatly strengthened the theory of the earth's sphericity, with which the theory of the antipodes was so closely connected, the Church by its highest authority solemnly stumbled and persisted in going astray.” The source for White’s account was the book, The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, written by Washington Irving, the author of other such historically accurate accounts as Rip Van Winkle and The Legend of Sleepy Hollow. Reproductions of Irving’s book can be found here: http://hsci.ou.edu/exhibits/exhibit.php?exbgrp=999&exbid=45&exbpg=20#figure2text The issue of contention was not whether the earth was flat or round, but over the size of the earth. Those who opposed Columbus believed that the circumference of the earth was too great for ships to sail around to the other side. There was no talk about “falling off the edge of the world.” Columbus had calculated that the

distance for his trip from the Canary Islands to Japan would be about 4,450 km, which is one-fifth the actual distance of 22,000 km. If not for the placement of the Americas in between, Columbus and his crew would have surely perished, as his critics predicted. Columbus’ voyage—and later explorations by others—did not change the perception of the shape of the earth, but merely added new land masses to the Middle Age maps of the world. Besides that, it was Magellan (or rather, the remainder of his crew) who actually circumnavigated the world and proved empirically that the Earth was round.

Early Christian thinkers who wrote about the spherical Earth

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) in his great systematic work Summa Theologica “Both an astronomer and a physical scientist may demonstrate the same conclusion, for instance that the earth is spherical; the first, however, works in a mathematical medium prescinding from material qualities, while for the second his medium is the observation of material bodies through the senses."1 The French Roman Catholic bishop Nicole Oresme (1323-1382) proposed several playful paradoxes dealing with a round and rotating earth, including one that established the principle behind changing time zones and the international date line for east-west travels.2 Oresme’s teacher, Jean Buridan, discussed the rotation of the earth. All three of these Middle Age thinkers wrote as if the round earth was common knowledge, not something that still needed to be established.

Observations affirming a spherical Earth

1. Shadow of the Earth during Lunar Eclipses Thomas Aquinas: "In [lunar] eclipses the outline [of the earth] is always curved: and, since it is the interposition of the earth that makes the eclipse, the form of this line will be caused by the form of the earth's surface, which is therefore spherical."3 2. The Stars in the Sky Johannes de Sacrobosco (1195-1256), an English monk, wrote an astronomical textbook that was used in universities for many centuries. That the earth, too, is round is shown thus. The signs and stars do not rise and set the same for all men everywhere but rise and set sooner for those in the east than for those in the west; and of this there is no other cause than the bulge of the earth. Moreover, celestial phenomena evidence that they rise sooner for Orientals than for westerners. For one and the same eclipse of the moon which appears to us in the first hour of the night appears to Orientals about the third hour of the night, which proves that they had

1

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, vol. 1, trans. by Thomas Gilby (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964), q.1, a.1. 2 Nicole Oresme, Lu Livre du Ciel et du Monde (1370), Bk. II, ch. 31, pp. 573-581. 3 Thomas Aquinas, Exposition of Aristotle's Treatise On the Heavens, 2 vols, trans. by Larcher, R. F., and Pierre H. Conway (Columbus, OH: College of St. Mary of the Springs, 1964), Book II, lect. 28. 400-402.

night and sunset before we did, of which setting the bulge of the earth is the cause.4 3. Observations of a ship’s mast Sacrobosco also described how the dropping of a ship’s mast below the horizon as it sailed away was another proof of the spherical shape of the earth. These examples show that a spherical earth was already an accepted fact in the early 13th century.

Earlier Church Writings about a Spherical Earth The Controversy Over Antipodes But discussions about the round Earth appeared much earlier in Church history. A controversy that arose within the church involving the shape of the earth was the issue of antipodes, the idea of people living on the other side of the earth with their feet facing in the opposite direction. The debate over antipodes has wrongly been viewed as an example of the Church rejecting a spherical earth. But consider this explanation from St. Augustine, writing in the 4th century in his City of God: But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, that is on no ground credible. And, indeed, it is not affirmed that this has been learned by historical knowledge, but by scientific conjecture, on the ground that the earth is suspended within the concavity of the sky, and that it has as much room on the one side of it as on the other: hence they say that the part which is beneath must also be inhabited. But they do not remark that, although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled. For Scripture, which proves the truth of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, gives no false information; and it is too absurd to say, that some men might have taken ship and traversed the whole wide ocean, and crossed from this side of the world to the other, and that thus even the inhabitants of that distant region are descended from that one first man.5 It can be clearly seen in this passage that Augustine does not refute the “scientific conjecture” that the earth is round, that “it has as much room on the one side of it as on the other.” What he rejects is the possibility that there could be inhabitants on this other side, men who were not descended from Adam. But from Augustine, we can see that even at such an early time in church history, a round earth was not considered to be an unacceptable view. Johannes de Sacrobosco, The Sphere, trans. by Lynn Thorndike, 1949, 10 Dec. 2004 . 5 Saint Augustine, The City of God, trans. by Marcus Dods (New York: Modern Library, 1993), Book XVI, chap. 9. 4

Even in the early Middle Ages, the Venerable Bede (673-735), a monk recognized as both a great historian and natural scientist, was already making clear statements about the earth as a sphere: The cause of the inequality of the length of days is that the earth is round, and it is not in vain that in both the bible and pagan literature it is called the “orb of lands.” For truly it is an orb placed in the center of the universe; in its width it is like a circle, and not circular like a shield but rather like a ball, and it extends from its center with perfect roundness on all sides.6 He specifically points out that the earth is not a flat disk like a shield but an actual ball or globe. Bede’s writings show that by this point, the Church saw no Scriptural conflict with a spherical earth. This doesn’t mean that all Christians believed that the Earth was round, for some did write of a flat earth. However, this brief survey of key Christian thinkers during the Middle Ages shows that the Church was not opposed to the concept of a spherical earth, and that the conflicts that arose were not about the shape of the earth but over the belief in antipodes, men who were not descended from the line of Adam. Any critic of the Christian faith who accuses Christians of being ignorant and opposed to scientific advances would do well to examine the actual writings of these early Christians before continuing to propagate “The Flat Earth Myth.” Jeffrey Russell, Inventing the Flat Earth “Our determination to believe the Flat Error arises out of contempt for the past and our need to believe in the superiority of the present.” Jeffrey Russell, Inventing the Flat Earth

IV. The Trial of Galileo The Trial of Galileo is the most commonly cited example of the conflict between science and faith, or at least the conflict between men of science and men of faith. Indeed, this can be an accurate assessment, but in contrast with the usual perspective, it was Galileo who was the man of faith, and he was fighting against the secular scientists of his day. The trial of Galileo is much more nuanced and complex than the simplistic “science versus the church” caricature painted by the popular press. An excellent resource for the full story of the trial of Galileo as well as the stories of Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton, read Charles Hummel, The Galileo Connection: Resolving Conflicts between Science and the Bible.

Popular Myths about the Trial of Galileo

Bede, Bedae opera de temporibus, ed. C. W. Jones (Cambridge, Mass., 1943), chap. 32, quoted in Russell, 87. 6

  

Galileo was tortured and abused by the Inquisition until he recanted his belief in heliocentrism. Galileo was able to prove scientifically that the Earth moved around the sun. Galileo was trying to undermine the authority of the church through his scientific work.

Myth 1. Galileo was tortured and abused by the Inquisition until he recanted his belief in heliocentrism. Galileo was never tortured nor abused by theInquisition. He was given a number of concessions in recognition of his age at the time of the trial. He was housed in a comfortable apartment in the Villa Medici, given servants to attend to him, and had his meals prepared by the personal cook of the Florentine ambassador.

Myth 2. Galileo was able to prove scientifically that the Earth moved around the sun. Galileo showed that the Copernican system could explain phenomena that the Ptolemaic system could not—such as the phases of Venus—and he argued that the moons of Jupiter provided circumstantial evidence that bodies in the solar system were not required to orbit the Earth. However, these were not considered to be conclusive proofs for the Copernican system, as the Tychonian system could also preserve the appearances and explain the same phenomena.

The Need for a Conclusive Demonstration Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, Letter on Galileo’s Theories, 1615 For to say that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, all the appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and epicycles, is to speak well; there is no danger in this, and it is sufficient for mathematicians. But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself (i.e., turns upon its axis) without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false. In other words, it is fine to hold to a heliocentric system hypothetically, as a better model of observations, but not as an actual truth. But was Bellarmine blindly opposed to heliocentrism? I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun really is in the center and the earth in the heavens. I believe that the first demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers.

If there had been a true, conclusive demonstration that the Earth moved around the sun, he was ready to take the necessary steps of re-examining those passages in Scripture that seemed to imply an immovable Earth. Examples: Psalm 104:5 He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.

Ecclesiastes 1:5 The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.

Galileo himself adopted Augustine’s hermeneutic affirming the need for a conclusive demonstration before considering that Scripture required re-interpretation. He wrote, “Yet even in those propositions which are not matters of faith, this authority [of the Bible] ought to be preferred over that of all human writings which are supported only by bare assertions or probable arguments, and not set forth in a demonstrative way” (quoted in Hummel, The Galileo Connection, p. 107)

Galileo’s “Killer Proof” for the Motion of the Earth

Galileo’s “killer proof” that the Earth moved around the sun—presented in his Treatise on the Tides (1616)—was the motion of the tides in the sea. The only problem was, his proof was wrong. Other scientists who considered his argument concluded that it made no sense. Galileo’s explanation would have resulted in only one tide per day, but there were two tides per day, 12 hours apart. Galileo tried to dismiss this by attributing the second tide to other factors, such as the shape and depth of the sea, etc. He rejected the alternative explanation proposed by Kepler, that the moon caused the tides. Galileo also rejected Kepler’s evidence that the shape of planetary orbits was elliptical rather than circular, both of which were later proved to be correct. Observational proof of the motion of the earth didn’t come until the 18th century with the discovery of stellar aberration, and later stellar parallax. It is an example of his acerbic attitude that in his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo makes this statement through the character Salviati, “Among all the famous men who have philosophized [about the tides], I wonder more at Kepler than any of the rest. Though he is a free and acute genius, he has lent his assent to the moon's dominance over the oceans and to other occult happenings and other such trifles.” It seems that even the greatest scientist can fall prey to dogmatic assertion at times….

Myth 3. Galileo was trying to undermine the authority of the church through his scientific work. The conflict between heliocentrism and geocentrism was an example of science versus science, not science versus faith.

Galileo’s battle was with the scientific establishment of the day led by the Aristotelian scientists. Galileo was trying to prevent the church from becoming irrelevant in clinging on to an obsolete understanding of the world. Galileo promoted heliocentrism in opposition to the Aristotelian geocentric universe, not against Scripture. It was these scientists who made the conflict into a theological issue by raising their concerns to certain church officials, who unfortunately for Galileo, were mainly subscribed to the Aristotelian system. Galileo himself saw no conflict between theology and science, and developed an early apologetic for apparent conflict between science and theology. Throughout his life, Galileo maintained his devotion to God and the Church, even after his trial. Galileo: “I have two sources of perpetual comfort—first, that in my writings there cannot be found the faintest shadow of irreverence toward the Holy Church; and second, the testimony of my own conscience, which only I and God in Heaven thoroughly know. And he knows that in this cause for which I suffer, though many might have spoken with more learning, none, not even the ancient Fathers, have spoken with more piety or with greater zeal for the Church than I.” (quoted in Hummel, The Galileo Connection, p. 124-125)

V. A Rational Universe A critical component to the rise of modern science is a belief in the rationality of the universe. It was the Christian belief in infinite, eternal, and personal God who made this universe which gave the fathers of modern science a basis for the rationality of the universe. To men like Galileo, Kepler, Newton, and Bacon, the creation was orderly and uniform because it was created this way by an orderly, rational God. Johannes Kepler “The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed to us in the language of mathematics.” (Defundamentis Astrologiae Certioribus, Thesis XX, 1601) Isaac Newton “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.... This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God…. In him are all things contained and moved.” Isaac Newton; Principia Writes historian John Hermann Randall: “The whole form of Newtonian science practically forced men, as a necessary scientific hypothesis, to believe in an external Creator” (quoted in Pearcey and Thaxton, The Soul of Science, p. 91)

God as the Source for the Laws of Nature

Presbyterian theologian Thomas Derr As the creation of a trustworthy God, nature exhibited regularity, dependability, and orderliness. It was intelligible and could be studied. It displayed a knowable order. (quoted in Pearcey and Thaxton, The Soul of Science C.S. Lewis, Miracles “Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared-the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.”

The Scientist as Priest, Revealing the Glory of God

Morris Kline, Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty, quoted in The Soul of Science by Nancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton: “The search for the mathematical laws of nature was an act of devotion which would reveal the glory and grandeur of His handiwork.... Each discovery of a law of nature was hailed as evidence of God's brilliance rather than the investigator's.” Johannes Kepler “Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God.” Kepler, Harmonies of the World, quoted in Pearcey and Thaxton, The Soul of Science, p. 23 “I give you thanks, Creator and God, that you have given me this joy in thy creation, and I rejoice in the works of your hands. See I have now completed the work to which I was called. In it I have used all the talents you have lent to my spirit.” Nicolaus Copernicus “To know the mighty works of God, to comprehend His wisdom and majesty and power; to appreciate, in degree, the wonderful workings of His laws, surely all this must be a pleasing and acceptable mode of worship to the Most High, to whom ignorance cannot be more grateful than knowledge.”

The Birth of Modern Science

Loren Eiseley, Darwin’s Century “We must also observe that in one of those strange permutations of which history yields occasional rare examples, it is the Christian world which finally gave birth in a clear articulate fashion to the experimental method of science itself.” Man was created in the image of God, so humans could reason and were also capable of discovering truths about God through nature, His creation. Nancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton describe in The Soul of Science that:

“Far from impeding the progress of science, Christianity had actually encouraged it —that the Christian culture within which science arose was not a menace but a midwife to science” (p. 20). Modern science has its foundation in Christian theology.

Believers who led the way in science

William Foxwell Albright, archaeologist Charles Babbage, creator of the computer Francis Bacon, father of the scientific method Robert Boyle, founder of modern chemistry John Dalton, father of modern atomic theory Leonhard Euler, mathematician Jean Henri Fabre, chief founder of modern entomology Michael Faraday, founder of electromagnetic induction and field theory William Thomson Kelvin, thermodynamics Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz, co-inventor of calculus James Clerk Maxwell, electromagnetic theory of light Gregor Mendel, father of genetics Samuel Morse, inventor of the telegraph Blaise Pascal, mathematician and hydrostatics Louis Pasteur, formulator of the germ theory of disease William Mitchell Ramsay, archaeologist

The Testimony of Nature Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Psalm 19:1-2 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.

For further reading: J.L. Heilbron, The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals as Solar Observatories Charles Hummel, The Galileo Connection: Resolving Conflicts between Science and the Bible John Lennox, God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? Nancy R. Pearcey and Charles Thaxton, The Soul of Science: Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy.