Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives
Brooke, John Hedley. 1991. Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
Rating:
9
Summary:
John Hedley Brooke has compiled an extensive survey of the relationship of religion and science since science developed in the 15th and 16th centuries. The book explores the ways the relationship between these two forces changed over time. The main theme of the book centers around the question of whether traditional understandings of this relationship are accurate. Two approaches are common in modern thought: (1) religion and science are and always have been diametrically opposed, and (2) religion and science are and were complementary. The first position is often advocated by secular individuals who favor science over religion or by religious fundamentalists who favor the inverse. The second position is often advocated by religiously liberal individuals who have found a way to embrace the two forces in their own lives. The problem is that neither of these positions, despite being common today, accurately reflect the relationship between the two in the past.
Brooke argues that these “general theses are difficult to sustain,” and that, “the real lesson turns out to be the complexity” (p. 5). The point Brook reiterates in every chapter of the book is that “the boundaries [between religion and science] have shifted with time” (p. 8), and, as a result, “it would be artificial to ask about the relationship between “science” and “religion” as if modern definitions of their provenance had some timeless validity” (p. 8). As Brooke sees the relationship, religion and science, “should… be seen as complex social activities involving different expressions of human concern, the same individuals often participating in both” (p. 42). In other words, the historical relationship between religion and science was neither oppositional (#1 above) nor complementary (#2 above), but rather contingent upon the time period and the individual scientist in question.
By traveling through the historical development of science, Brooke illustrates that many early and prominent scientists were religious individuals who engaged in scientific pursuits with the aim of proving the worth and validity of their religious beliefs. One of the most prominent of such individuals was Newton, who was stripped of his religious trappings and praised as a beacon of secular science be secular scientists who recognized the value of his contribution to science. In actuality, Newton was a very religious individuals who saw the influence of god in almost everything he did.
In addition to exploring the lives of individual scientists, Brooke develops a compelling argument illustrating that individuals like Newton were not alone in their efforts to use science to bolster their religious views. The aim of the fledgling study of sciencewas to find ways to use this new tool – the methodology of science – to extend theology. Brooke illustrates that the general sentiment changed over time, turning from complementary tools to conflicting worldviews. The transformation reached its apotheosis with the publication and acceptance of The Origin of Man, Darwin’s treatise on evolution that undermined the special role of man in nature. Brooke only briefly touches on the relationship of religion and science following the publication of The Origin of Man in 1859, as the aftermath of that event laid the foundation for the relationship as it exists today.
The relationship between religion and science as it exists today is still contingent upon one’s perspective, “The principal aim of this book has been to reveal something of the complexity of the relationship between science and religion as they have interacted in the past. Popular generalizations about that relationship, whether couched in terms of war or peace, simply do not stand up to serious investigation. There is no such thing as the relationship between science and religion. It is what different individuals and communities have made of it in a plethora of different contexts. Not only has the problematic interface between them shifted over time, but there is also a high degree of artificiality in abstracting the science and the religion of earlier centuries to see how they were related” (p. 321)
Review:
I have nothing negative to say about this book, except maybe to say that it may contain too much information for a casual reader who wants a brief overview of the historical relationship between religion and science. This book brings to the debate over the relationship between religion and science such an overwhelming amount of information that it is hard to argue with any of the author’s conclusions. Brooke has done his homework. And while I do have my own opinions about what the relationship between religion and science should be, I am convinced by Brooke’s book that the relationship between these two powerful forces in the past is not easy to untangle. Regardless of your view of religion and science today, the accurate perspective of the two in the past is a recognition of how they were intimately interconnected in often surprising ways.
In addition to his thoroughly compelling main argument, this book is also informative for other reasons. For instance, because the book is interested in science when it consisted of both philosophy and other naturalistic studies (i.e., natural philosophy), the book also engages with philosophy and describes both the evolution of philosophy during this time period and extrapolates a variety of philosophical positions. Brooke touches on the philosophy of Descartes, Feuerbach, Hume, Hobbes, and dozens of other famous philosophers who were influential in the debates of the time period. One of the more interesting quotes for me to come out of this discussion of philosophy is a reference to Pascal, “It is ironic that attempts to establish God’s existence should encourage atheism, but there is a sense in which Pascal’s prophecy came true. There is an old adage that no one had doubted the existence of God until the Boyle lecturers undertook to prove it!” (p. 194).
The book also digs deeply into the lives of some of the more prominent scientists, chief among them, Darwin. I found some of the tidbits in the chapter on Darwin particularly intriguing, like the fact that it was a chance comment made by a politician that led him to realize the different animals from different Galapogos Islands were distinct enough that they could be distinguished from each other (p. 257). Without that fortuitous comment, Darwin may not have developed his groundbreaking theory as soon as he did. While the broader argument is clearly the focus of the book, the occasional personal anecdote or detailed account of an incident in the life of a scientist makes the book more engaging than it might be otherwise.
Overall, this is an excellent treatise on the historical relationship between religion and science. Clearly, the relationship was murky, regardless of what it is today. Anyone interested in a profoundly well-researched book on this subject should pick up this volume.