- “Finally you will find that some theologians in their ignorance completely block access to any philosophy, however much emended. Some are simply anxious that a closer investigation of nature may penetrate beyond permitted boundaries of sound opinion; they misinterpret what the holy Scriptures, in talking of divine mysteries, have to say against prying into God’s secrets, and wrongly apply it to the hidden things of nature, which are not forbidden by any prohibition” (Aphorism LXXXIX, p. 74).
- “Others, finally, seem anxious that something might be found in the investigation of nature which would undermine or at least weaken religion (especially among the uneducated)” (Aphorism LXXXIX, p. 75).
- “No wonder the growth of natural philosophy has been inhibited, since religion, which has the most enormous power over men’s minds, has been kidnapped by the ignorance and reckless zeal of certain persons, and made to join the side of the enemy” (Aphorism LXXXIX, p. 75).
I found
Aphorism LXXXIX particularly interesting, as we have been discussing in class
Bacon’s ties to King James and the Christian environment in which this work was
written. I also like this section,
because it makes an interesting claim about interpretations of the Bible. Bacon writes that theologians fear natural
philosophy, because they worry that seeking such knowledge goes against the teachings
of the Bible. This, Bacon argues, is a
misinterpretation of the Bible, as “the hidden things of nature” are not those
things forbidden to humans. We spoke in
class (on religious scripture day) about Genesis and man’s dominion over
nature. While Bacon’s specific
understanding of the man-nature relationship is more complicated, it seems
that he generally agrees that men are and should be free to manipulate nature
to learn everything they can about it.
This addresses also the idea of questioning God. We spoke about the book of Job and God’s
scolding of Job for questioning God and attempting to understand things that
were beyond his capacity to know. This,
I think, could be a problem for Bacon’s plan, especially because the setting in
which he is writing The New Organon is
very Christian.
Even
today, many fear (or simply reject) some scientific progress as an attempt to “play
God.” By this reasoning, we are either
not supposed to question such matters, or we are at least forbidden from
manipulating nature too much through science.
This can create a conflict between science and religion—one I think we
see often today. Bacon is concerned
about this, as he almost seems to suggest that religion and science can benefit
from one another. The fear that science
will lead to discoveries that will weaken religion seems really odd to me. It seems to be more of a political concern
than a truly theological one. Religion,
in this time, held great power over men (as Bacon mentions in that last
quote). The concern that it will be
weakened is a concern that its control over men will be loosened.
How
would you characterize the relationship between science and religion in the
U.S. today? Is there conflict, or is any
scientific advancement seen as general progress? What about issues in which scientists are
criticized for “playing God,” such as cloning and genetic engineering?
I think you make an astute observation that in Bacon's time that the danger of undermining religion was a very political concern. In fact, it could even be a danger to an individual's wellbeing. I think it can also be a theological concern in that reason and discovery, especially now, can pose a significant threat to commonly held religious teachings or beliefs.
ReplyDeleteToday, I would characterize the relationship between science and religion in the U.S. as being fairly healthy. Religion is still a very powerful political institution in our nation but I think we generally enjoy a fairly placid relationship between the two. For the most part, science is able to advance and experiment independent of religious restrictions or dangers from persecution by religious entities.
Science, for the most part, is seen as general progress. There are, however, notable exceptions as you point out. The advancements in areas like computer technology, automobile innovation, and alternative energy sources, are able to continue unencumbered by religion. Whereas, advancements that threaten religious conceptions still do face controversy and limitations, especially since religion holds sway in our Congress.
I would say that the relationship between sciences and religion is very powerful. Both of these aspects live off one another. Politically in the United States we like to keep the sciences out of government but that is very hard to do. Anything pertaining to science that human beings do not understand always put a religious aspect around it because we simply do not understand it. Sometimes there is conflict between the science and religion because people try to understand the world from a scientific aspect and say that religion is false and that there is no God. When people say this thing it leads to many conflicts around the world. The issue where scientists are criticized for playing God does lead to conflict. The main thing is to keep both religion and science separate and everything will be fine. They both need each other to survive and neither one is better than the other.
ReplyDeleteI have a slightly different feeling regarding the relationship between religion and science. I feel that the two do not interfere with each other because of their nature. With sciences there is a dependence on empirical evidence and facts in order to create conclusions. Science is all about challenging what has been discovered in the past and working to build upon their evidence to create concrete conclusions. Religion is the complete opposite in that it is based on evidence that cannot, or at least has not yet, been proven with empirical facts. Religion is not usually challenged by society because of the negative consequences that it may have. I feel that these two do not interfere with each other because if they did, it could potentially mean that the very foundation of one of these two institutions could be threatened. They usually do not mix together is many circumstances and, in my opinion, they both exist in a sort of fear of each other.
ReplyDeleteI would have to argue that there is certainly conflict between religion and science because the fundamental basis of each is so different. Religious people believe that the world was created by an all powerful being while scientists use actually fact to deduce how the earth was actually created. Since the nature of the two is so different, it is difficult for them to be related to each other in any way. It is almost impossible to mix some aspects of science and some aspects of religion and it is for this reason that things like cloning and genetic engineering are such points of contention. These things cannot exist in the realm of religion just like the theory of intelligent design cannot exist in science.
ReplyDeleteBacon’s discourse regarding the interplay of religion in the sciences is a progressive issue to address for his time. While Bacon delves into his zealous support for the application of investigative practices for the discovery of novelties in nature, he also strikes upon a more sociological note. Bacon makes a distinction between faith-based scriptural religion and dogmatic religion. As he had attacked modern theology prior because of its narrowly focused qualities, Bacon also attacks institutionalized religion for its unbending dogma. Yet, in so doing Bacon fully explains the hindrances of these dogmatic theological mindsets in limiting humanity’s understand of nature through a more empirical context. While Bacon is not entirely in opposition to theology, he explains that science does not violate divine mysteries and to think otherwise is a misinterpretation of scripture.
ReplyDelete