Science vs. Religion

Guide Rating -

Religion and science seem to be forever in conflict, but is such a perception really accurate? Must science and religion conflict, or is there any way for them to be made more compatible? According to George A. Erickson, Christianity has played a crucial role in the suppression of scientific research and development, ultimately to the detriment of all.

Erickson, a former director of the American Humanist Association and a member of the Council for Secular Humanism and the National Center for Science Education, explores in his recent book "Time Traveling With Science and the Saints" the history of sixteen centuries of science in Christian dominated culture in Europe.

The argument which Erickson constructs is offered in opposition to those who claim that, even though religion has been guilty of many excesses through history, on the balance it has nevertheless been good for society as a whole and science in particular. Some have even gone so far as to argue that we have Christianity to thank for the science we which has developed. To one degree or another many adopt this sort of position either explicitly or implicitly - and Erickson seeks to disabuse them of that notion by providing a alternative, critical perspective.

His guiding principle is the biblical dictum "by their fruits shall ye know them" (Matthew 7:20); thus, he proposes to judge the relationship between Christianity and science not by theoretical possibilities but, instead, by their actual experience together. As he explains, throughout history those who sought to follow truth wherever it might lead, even if it might lead away from the teachings of the church, tended to pay a very high price for their principles.

If they were lucky, that price might simply mean some sort of censure or censorship. Too often, however, that price included persecution or even execution. They weren't simply scientific dissidents; rather, they were heretics who challenged the established the ecclesiastical order upon which science and the church were based. The book itself is dedicated to Giordano Bruno who was sacrificed on the alter of orthodoxy because of his pursuit of the truth.

If there is a problem with Erickson's account, it is in a lack of subtlety. In the book's dedication Bruno is described as a "philosopher," but he was more than that - he was also a Dominican monk, a member of the same ecclesiastical hierarchy which Erickson criticizes. Bruno is praised while his chief accuser, Cardinal Bellarmine, is attacked. They were both part of the same church and the same culture, so what was the difference between the two?

This is the topic which Erickson does not explore. He should have, however, because if he wishes to demonstrate that there is something wrong with Christianity, he needs to be able to explain how it created both repressive, dogmatic people like Bellarmine and freethinking, independent scholars like Bruno. If he cannot, then we must seriously consider the possibility that perhaps Christianity has not been the sole factor involved in the suppression of science - perhaps there are other things which we must take into account.

Does it really matter if the relationship between Christianity and science has a poor history and poor prospects for the future? It certainly does, considering the continued widespread adherence to traditional Christianity coupled with the abysmal state of scientific literacy in the United States. Modern society relies more and more upon science and technology for even trivial day-to-day things, but the future of society is put in peril when people are unable to really comprehend and deal with what science tells them.

Erickson's book is written in an easy and engaging style. It is good for the average reader, but primarily those who don't already have a good background on this issue. It's more of an introduction, and people who have read a lot of other material on the topic will likely find that much is repeated for them.