Science and Christianity, Part 2

In the previous article, I considered what science is. It is hard to have any conversation unless we define terms, so that article prepared the ground for this article and the following one. That done, what is the relationship between the Christianity and science?

The Church and Science.
The story of Galileo and the church is commonly used as proof that the Bible, the church and, by extension, Christians, are hostile to science. I've made no secret that I have no love for the Roman Catholic Church, and one cannot equate that organization with Christians as a whole. But this oft-repeated story is unfair to it and is used to broadly accuse Christians.

Understand that the scientists of Galileo's day assumed that the earth didn't move through space. So Galileo was proposing a paradigm shift. As mentioned earlier, paradigm shifts in science take a while to be accepted. His case wasn't helped by the fact that he used the ocean tides as supporting evidence. The tide mechanism was fairly well understood at the time, so it was rejected by his fellow scientists, along with the rest of the theory. Any reluctance to accept the theory by the Church was due to the fact that the Church went with the scientific consensus of the day. We see today that scientific consensus is a powerful force even among secular scientists. So unbelievers today look down on the Church holding to the consensus in Galileo's day while look down on those who don't go with the consensus of today.

Nevertheless, the church had no problem with Galileo promoting the Copernican model, so long as it was presented as a theory rather than as a proven fact (which it wasn't). Further, Galileo was good friends with Pope Urban VIII. So why was he put on trial? Here we get to the real issue, which wasn't his theory. First, Galileo told the Church how it should interpret scripture, which is arguably not the place of science as well as being annoying to church leaders. Second, he published his theory as fact, which went against the Pope's directions to him. The church had no problem with him holding the opinion or even debating it with other scientists; it was a matter of publishing it as fact. Third, the Copernican model also threatened what was being taught in the universities, which alienated him from the educators of the day who taught Aristotle's viewpoint on the matter, called the "geostatic" model. Galileo published a play in which Aristotelians were represented as "mental pygmies" and "dumb idiots" which hardly endeared him to them. This also offended many church leaders who were also Aristotelians. The play directly resulted in the professors uniting against Galileo and appealing to the Pope, persuading him that the poorly represented Aristotelians were actually a veiled reference to him. The vain and proud Pope Urban VIII was enraged by this, and by Galileo's disregard of a Papal order not to present his theory as fact. Thus, he ordered Galileo to be brought to trial by the inquisition.

The trial used a document of questionable origin to indicate that Galileo had disobeyed the direct command of the Pope not to even discuss the Copernican theory with anyone. He was found guilty and sentenced to house arrest. There was objection to this outcome even by many high church officials. But personally offending the Pope was a crime that could not be overlooked.

So we see that the Church wasn't against science at all, it simply went with the (then) modern consensus and was unwilling to support an unproven theory. Just as scientists do today. What got Galileo in trouble was Church politics, not some imagined conflict between science and the Bible - or even Church doctrine. The fact that he was arrogant, failed to co-operate with other scientists (such as Kepler), and was all too willing to antagonize other people didn't help. Trying to make powerful opponents appear foolish and humiliating them made him many powerful enemies. And, in the end, the Copernican model was proven to be incorrect after all! Galileo was coincidentally right only insofar as the Earth moved, but he did not (and could not) prove it. Yet, this whole episode is somehow proof that the Church is anti-science.¹ What it does point to is the same political issues that we observe today both within and outside of the Church. Certainly, the story doesn't present us with good exemplars in either Galileo or Pope Paul V. But, as I said, I don't have a high opinion of Roman Catholicism, so I am hardly surprised.

At the time, the whole affair was recognized by most people as political in nature, with Grienberger (a leading church astronomer of the time) saying that if only Galileo had been less abrasive, "he would have stood in renown before the world, he would have been spared all his misfortunes, and he could have written what he pleased about everything - even about the motion of the earth." Yet, the modern perception is out of touch with historical reality. One might even suspect that it is done so on purpose by those looking for ways to discredit the Bible and Christianity.

One important point that is missed by the modern secularist is the problem with Galileo was that he went against the established consensus. This is an illustration of the problem with consensus. Consensus is not proof. Nor is it always correct. The consensus in Galileo's day was that everything revolved around the earth and the scientific/education establishment wasn't inclined to consider a challenge to that consensus. As Tolstoy wrote in "War and Peace":

I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.

Such is human conceit and bias. When people today use sayings like "the science is settled" or "there is consensus" it is an attempt to put an end to any challenge to their viewpoint, no matter the merits of the argument. Yes, religious people do this too. But that's one of my points: humans are not good at holding to beliefs lightly. Challenges to those beliefs are threatening to them, whether they are scientists or not. Pure science, nobly practiced, says that the science is never settled. Part of what makes science science is the ability to refine or refute existing theories or even whole paradigms. The idea of an earth around which everything revolved was a sufficiently useful concept at the time and explained things adequately, as they were understood. It was Kepler and Newton who finally gave us a better idea of movement of things in space. And that was sufficiently useful and adequate up until Einstein, who refined things further with the theory of relativity. Now we operate with a better understanding. Doubtless some future scientist will refine it further, or introduce a new paradigm that explains everything better. And this is a major difference between science and the Bible. Science is always in flux. The Bible is not.

The Church and Evolution.
I will address evolution more fully in a following article, but before I move on, I think it is instructive to point out this example of church vs. science. When "The Origin of the Species" by Darwin was published, there wasn't a knee-jerk reaction by the church. In fact, it seemed to be accepted by Christian believers at large (some might argue that it was due to a lack of comprehension on the part of the average person, but there are many Christians who believe evolution even today). However, very shortly thereafter, secular scientists started using it as a way to discredit the Bible. This resulted in a backlash from Christians - which is only a natural human reaction. The backlash, at least initially, had little or nothing to do with religious doctrine. One wonders why scientists felt a need to address Christian belief at all. As it turns out, Darwin was looking for a means to discredit traditional Christian views, and those of like mind latched onto his theory for that very purpose. So, is the Christian reaction an example of Christians being anti-science, or is it an example of people holding to a theory that they feel is anti-Christian? More on this in the future.

The Church and Education.
Another proposition made by some anti-Christian elements is that Christianity is opposed to education and educated people. Although it has been true for most of history that the vast majority of Christians were from the lower strata of society, so were most of the non-Christian people. Until fairly recently, ubiquitous public education was rare, but there have been "schools" of some sort going back to the oldest historical records. A complete survey of the formal education phenomena is beyond the scope of a single article, but let me present a very brief overview of western education. Formal teaching was primarily for the subjects of Law and Religion in the beginning. With the Greeks, Philosophy also became a topic of education ("philosophy" comprising religion, reasoning, history, and what we would today call "science"). Originally, schools were informal affairs of a single teacher with one or more students. Over time, they developed into more formal structures with multiple teachers, called "colleges". The oldest existing college in the world granting official degrees is the University of Al Quaraouiyine, founded in 859 AD in Fez, Morocco. In the western world, ecclesiastical schools existed from, perhaps the 300s, with formal higher education dating from the middle ages. Universities came to be formed from existing schools, often with the university comprising multiple colleges. The oldest of these still in operation, is the University of Bologna, which was formed in the second half of the 12th century. What is to be noted is that most of these institutions were either created by Papal decree or were granted recognition by the church. Most, if not all, western universities prior to 1800 started as, or incorporated existing, ecclesiastical schools. Many, if not most, of the professors were Christians. For example, Harvard was formed to provide education in both "knowledge and godliness". The 1650 charter of Harvard begins:

Whereas through the good hand of God many well devoted persons have been and daily are moved and stirred up to give and bestow sundry gifts legacies lands and revenues for the advancement of all good literature arts and sciences in Harvard College in Cambridge in the County of Middlesex and to the maintenance of the President and Fellows and for all accommodations of buildings and all other necessary provisions that may conduce to the education of the English and Indian youth of this country in knowledge and godliness."

So, we see that the whole university system in both Europe and America was created chiefly by Christians, often with the approval and/or instigation of church officials. The church has long been involved in educating people - and not in matters of faith alone. Today, missionaries to illiterate peoples often teach literacy, math, and hygiene in addition to "religious" topics. So we see that any attempt to paint Christians as being anti-education is a viewpoint contradicted by history. It is fair to say that the modern university system wouldn't exist without the labor and intent of many Christians over the centuries.

Has modern higher education largely turned against its Christian origins? In many cases, yes. It is ironic that the forces that created the western education system have been rejected by that very system. It would be fairer to say that the education system has, on the whole, rejected Christianity rather than that Christianity is anti-education. Although there is no doubt in my mind that one can find individual Christians that feel that formal education has no value, that is not a fair characterization of Christians in general.

Paul's comment that "Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up"² is quite descriptive of the educated elitists who look down on lesser educated people - especially poor Christians around the world. If these elites look down on uneducated poor believers around the world, that says more about those people than it does about Christians. Being educated is not a requirement for being a Christian, which is why Christianity is accessible to everyone, educated or not. Being puffed up by knowledge also affects Christians, which is who Paul was speaking to. Being humble and loving people is far more important than being knowledgable - for everyone, but especially Christians. Remember the proverb: "Do you see a person wise in their own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for them."³

At the same time, Paul's comment is not a statement against learning, but rather that knowledge is dangerous without the overriding influence of love. Certainly we have seen the dangers of knowledge without morality. Paul himself was a educated man and one can see his use of his knowledge in teaching others. His knowledge was even acknowledged by his contemporaries. In fact, one Roman official tried to dismiss Paul's preaching by saying that his great learning had driven him insane.⁴ Paul was not against education - he just wanted people to value love much more than knowledge. In fact, the theme of gaining understanding is found throughout the Bible. For instance, Proverbs states "Get wisdom, get understanding"⁵ (note that the Hebrew for "wisdom" often means both knowledge and the wisdom to use it). God takes no pleasure in wilful ignorance. But He often speaks through the lowly, who are more humble of heart.

1 This information is from several sources, but an important one can be found at creation.com
2 1 Corinthians 8:1
3 Proverbs 26:12
4 Acts 26:24
5 Proverbs 4:5