I was taught the wrong history about how science and religion separated, maybe you were too?
For years, I thought the separation of science and religion was caused by the Church suppressing scientific development, such as the heliocentric model proposed by Copernicus in 1543.
But last week, I was shocked to learn that this wasn't true.
Indeed, the Catholic Church opposed that model and put Galileo on trial for supporting it. However, throughout history, the Church conducted only 12 trials related to scientific issues, and only one scientist, Giordano Bruno, was executedānot for science, but for his religious beliefs, including reincarnation and anti-Trinitarian views [1].
Instead, to my surprise, Christianity contributed to science both directly and indirectly. For example, God was invoked as an argument when Francis Bacon tried to convince others that scientific methods would benefit humanity. He reasoned that God had bestowed Reason upon humans, thus by using this gift, humanity could build a better future [2]. Inquisitors invented peer review because they felt responsible for verifying the experimental results described in the books that they were censoring, so they built labs and reconducted those experiments [3]. Many famous scientists, such as Gregor Johann Mendel (the āfather of modern geneticsā), were clergymen.
In fact, the separation between religion and science is a relatively recent development that gained momentum in the late 19th century, after the publication of Darwinās theory on evolution. Triggered by the then-controversial idea that humans had evolved from apes, advocates on each side attempted to portray the other as the enemy. At that time, two best-selling books in the U.S. accused the Church as scienceās enemy, fueling the separation like a wild fire [4]. Now that I have learned the true history, I realize that my younger self suffered from the propaganda that had caused the separation more than a century ago.
I wonder whether, as a consequence, this separation caused science to focus exclusively on physicalism, instead of including topics that are non-physical but could still be investigated through scientific methods. As a result, it caused a separation more than between science and Christianity, but a rift between science (which focuses on physicalism) and non-physical āspiritualā aspects of life. Thus, some topics can be deemed nonexistent and swept under the carpet instead of being formally acknowledged and studied, or be given a flawed explanation based on physicalism. Example are astral projection and near-death experiences.
As some fields of science (e.g. the study of consciousness) begin to seek answers to questions that may require navigating beyond the current standard approach based on physicalism, it is time for us to move forward from this post-Darwin divide. To begin, we can consider the following:
Where and how should we draw the line between science and spirituality?
What do science and spirituality truly mean?
How can we better explore the profound questions so deeply connected to the understanding of our world and existence by integrating relevant scientific and spiritual approaches?
Addressing this issue will require a collective effort from humanity, and years to find the right balance. In the meantime, this little potato me has to correct the history slide from my talk on the reconcilability between science and spirituality that I gave two years ago because, apparently, that slide was so wrong.
References
[1] Interview of historian Ada Palmer conducted by Dwarkesh Patel: https://youtu.be/PAIhVfGbREA?t=7020 (time mark: 1:57:00)
[2]Ā Inventing the Renaissance: The Myth of a Golden Age, Ada Palmer, P. 614-615.
[3] Interview of historian Ada Palmer conducted by Dwarkesh Patel: https://youtu.be/PAIhVfGbREA?t=7260 (time mark: 2:01:00)
[4] Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/intro/histosr-frame.html.
origamiaround
gracieabrams
izzy806
snowghoul
ellievsbear
pixelskylines
blakekathryn
