Die Geskiedenis wat Niemand Vertel Nie
Inleiding
Daar is ‘n verhaal wat byna almal ken. Dit gaan so: die kerk was die groot vyand van die wetenskap. Vir eeue lank het priesters en teoloë die lig van kennis probeer uitblus, en eers toe dapper wetenskaplikes hulself losgeworstel het van godsdienstige bande, kon die mensdom vorder. Die hoogtepunt van hierdie verhaal is gewoonlik Galileo wat voor die Inkwisisie staan – die eensame held van rede teen die mag van bygeloof.
Dit is ‘n kragtige verhaal. Dramaties, eenvoudig, bevredigend. Daar is net een probleem: dit is grotendeels vals.
Die werklike geskiedenis van geloof en wetenskap lyk heeltemal anders. Nie omdat ons in ontkenning is oor foute wat die kerk gemaak het nie. Daar was foute, en ons kyk eerlik daarna. Maar die werklike verhaal is ryker en verrassender as die mite wat ons aangeleer is. Vir gelowiges is die ware geskiedenis bevryend: die wetenskaplike onderneming het nie ondanks die Christelike geloof ontstaan nie, maar in ‘n belangrike sin daaruit.
1. Die Oorlogsmite: Waar Kom Dit Vandaan?
Die Twee Boeke wat Alles Verander Het
As jy enigiemand vandag vra of wetenskap en godsdiens altyd in stryd was, sal die meeste mense sê: “Natuurlik!” Dit voel so vanselfsprekend dat dit skaars ‘n argument nodig het. Maar hierdie “vanselfsprekendheid” het ‘n spesifieke geboortedatum en spesifieke ouers.
Die idee dat Christendom en wetenskap in ‘n voortdurende oorlog gewikkel is, kom hoofsaaklik uit twee negentiende-eeuse boeke:
John William Draper se History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874) en Andrew Dickson White se A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896).
Draper, ‘n Brits-Amerikaanse chemikus, het sy boek geskryf in die nasleep van die Eerste Vatikaanse Konsilie (1869-1870), waar die Rooms-Katolieke Kerk die leerstuk van pouslike onfeilbaarheid afgekondig het. Draper was woedend hieroor en het ‘n sweepende narratief geskryf waarin hy die hele geskiedenis van die Christendom as een lang onderdrukking van wetenskap voorgestel het. Sy boek was ‘n treffer: binne vyf jaar tien drukke, in tien tale vertaal. Maar dit was nie geskiedenis nie; dit was polemiek. Draper het feite verdraai, konteks geïgnoreer, en ‘n karikatuur geskep wat meer met sy eie anti-Katolieke sentimente te make gehad het as met wat werklik gebeur het.
White was die mede-stigter en eerste president van Cornell Universiteit, wat hy as ‘n nie-sektariese instelling gestig het. Toe kerklikes hom hiervoor gekritiseer het, het hy teruggeslaan met ‘n massiewe twee-volume werk wat die geskiedenis herskryf het as ‘n epiese stryd tussen “wetenskap” (die held) en “teologie” (die skurk). White se boek was meer gesofistikeerd as Draper s’n, met indrukwekkende voetnote en gedetailleerde verhale. Maar moderne historici het aangetoon dat hy sy bronne selektief gebruik het, dat hy legendes as feite voorgestel het, en dat sy oorkoepelende raamwerk eenvoudig nie deur die bewyse ondersteun word nie.
Hoe ‘n Mite Kanoniek Geword Het
Die ironie is dat hierdie twee boeke, wat vandag deur feitlik elke ernstige historikus van wetenskap as verouderd en misleidend beskou word, die populêre verbeelding permanent gevorm het. Hulle het die “oorlogstesis” (conflict thesis of warfare thesis) gevestig: die idee dat wetenskap en godsdiens inherent teenoor mekaar staan, en dat die geskiedenis van hul verhouding een van voortdurende konflik is.
Die historikus Ronald Numbers, self ‘n agnostikus wat geen godsdienstige saak probeer bevorder nie, het hierdie mite deurtastend ondersoek. In sy invloedryke boek Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion (2009) skryf hy:
“The greatest myth in the history of science and religion holds that they have been in a state of constant conflict.”
Numbers en sy medewerkers, onder die vooraanstaandste historici van wetenskap ter wêreld, ontleed een-en-twintig sulke mites en wys hoe elkeen op onakkurate of oorvereenvoudigde weergawes van die geskiedenis berus.
David Lindberg, ‘n toonaangewende historikus van middeleeuse wetenskap, het in sy The Beginnings of Western Science geskryf dat die verhouding tussen kerk en wetenskap deur die eeue beter beskryf word as ‘n spektrum: van ondersteuning en beskermheerskap tot spanning en soms konflik, maar nooit as eenvoudige oorlog nie. Die oorweldigende meerderheid van interaksies was positief. Die kerk was die primêre beskermheer van geleerdheid vir die grootste deel van die Westerse geskiedenis. Die paar voorbeelde van konflik (soos die Galileo-saak) was atipies eerder as verteenwoordigend.
Peter Harrison, ‘n Australiese historikus wat spesifiek navors hoe godsdienstige idees die ontwikkeling van wetenskap beinvloed het, het aangetoon dat die oorlogstesis nie alleen histories onakkuraat is nie, maar dat die presiese teenoorgestelde nader aan die waarheid is: Christelike teologie het ‘n onontbeerlike rol gespeel in die opkoms van moderne wetenskap.
Waarom Dit Saak Maak
Die oorlogsmite het werklike gevolge. Dit laat gelowiges dink hulle moet kies tussen hul geloof en intellektuele eerlikheid. Dit gee skeptici ‘n retoriese wapen wat op ‘n valse geskiedenis gebou is. En dit verberg die diep teologiese wortels van die wetenskaplike onderneming.
As ons dink die kerk was altyd teen wetenskap, sal ons defensief wees. Ons sal voel asof ons iets het om te versteek. Maar as ons die werklike geskiedenis ken, kan ons met vertroue en eerlikheid praat. Nie omdat die kerk foutloos was nie, maar omdat die verhaal van geloof en wetenskap veel meer ons eie verhaal is as wat ons dink.
2. Die Galileo-Saak: Wat het Werklik Gebeur?
Geen gesprek oor geloof en wetenskap is volledig sonder Galileo nie. Sy naam het ‘n simbool geword: die heldhaftige wetenskaplike wat deur die onverdraagsame kerk vervolg is omdat hy die waarheid verkondig het. In populêre kultuur is die Galileo-verhaal die definisie van “kerk vs. wetenskap.”
Maar die werklike geskiedenis is soveel meer genuanseerd dat dit feitlik ‘n ander verhaal is as die mite.
Galileo die Gelowige
Eerstens: Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) was ‘n toegewyde Katoliek. Geen martelaar vir ateïsme of sekularisme nie. Hy het sy hele lewe lank in God geglo, die kerk gedien, en sy wetenskap as ‘n manier gesien om God se skepping beter te verstaan. Sy twee dogters was albei nonne. Hy wou die kerk nie verlaat of ondermyn nie. Hy wou haar juis help om reg te verstaan hoe die skepping in mekaar sit.
In ‘n beroemde brief aan die Groothertogin Christina (1615) het Galileo geskryf dat die Bybel en die natuur albei van God kom en daarom nie werklik met mekaar kan bots nie. As dit lyk asof hulle bots, moet ons of die Skrif verkeerd interpreteer, of die wetenskap verkeerd verstaan. Dit is ‘n diep teologiese standpunt, nie ‘n anti-godsdienstige een nie.
Magtige Ondersteuners in die Kerk
Galileo het aanvanklik sterk kerklike ondersteuning geniet. Kardinaal Maffeo Barberini, ‘n persoonlike vriend, het hom aangemoedig en later self Pous geword as Urbanus VIII. Die Jesuïete se sterrekundiges by die Collegio Romano het Galileo se teleskoopontdekkings bevestig en hom geëer. Kardinaal Roberto Bellarmino, een van die magtigste figure in die Rooms-Katolieke Kerk, het erken dat as daar werklik bewys gelewer kon word dat die aarde om die son draai, die Skrif hergeïnterpreteer sou moes word. ‘n Merkwaardig oop standpunt.
Die probleem was nie dat die kerk in beginsel teen nuwe wetenskaplike insigte was nie. Die probleem was veel meer persoonlik en polities.
Die Politiek en Persoonlikheid
Galileo was briljant, maar ook aggressief, sarkasties en takties onverstandig. In sy beroemde Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo (1632) het hy die Ptolemeiese stelsel (aarde in die middel) verdedig laat word deur ‘n karakter genaamd “Simplicio” – letterlik “die eenvoudige.” Baie mense, insluitend die Pous self, het geglo dat Simplicio ‘n bespotting van die Pous was. Of Galileo dit so bedoel het of nie, die persoonlike belediging het ‘n voormalige beskermer in ‘n vyand verander.
Die tydperk was ook polities gelade. Die Kontra-Reformasie was in volle gang. Die Rooms-Katolieke Kerk was in ‘n stryd met die Protestante oor wie die reg het om die Skrif te interpreteer. In hierdie gespanne konteks was die kerk besonder sensitief vir enige iemand, selfs ‘n lojale Katoliek, wat voorgee om te bepaal hoe die Bybel gelees moet word. Galileo se argument was nie net wetenskaplik nie; dit het geraak aan die vraag wie gesag het oor Skrif-interpretasie. En dit was die kernsenuwee van die Reformasie-era.
Die Wetenskaplike Onvolledigheid
Iets wat selde genoem word: Galileo se wetenskap was op daardie tydstip onvolledig. Hy het geglo die aarde draai om die son (heliosentrisme), en hy was uiteindelik reg. Maar hy kon dit nie afdoende bewys nie.
Een van die sterkste argumente teen heliosentrisme was die afwesigheid van sterparallaks, die skynbare verskuiwing van naby sterre relatief tot ver sterre soos die aarde om die son beweeg. As die aarde werklik beweeg, behoort ons hierdie verskuiwing te sien. Galileo kon dit nie demonstreer nie. Sterparallaks is eers in 1838 waargeneem deur Friedrich Bessel, byna twee eeue later. Die rede was dat die sterre soveel verder weg is as wat enigiemand in Galileo se tyd besef het, wat die effek te klein gemaak het om met destydse instrumente te meet.
Galileo se eie alternatiewe “bewys” vir die aarde se beweging, sy getyteteorie, was ook verkeerd. Hy het beweer dat die getye deur die aarde se beweging veroorsaak word, en het Kepler se korrekte verband met die maan se aantrekkingskrag verwerp.
Dit beteken nie dat die kerk reg was om Galileo te veroordeel nie. Maar die situasie was nie so eenvoudig as “bewese wetenskap vs. onredelike geloof” nie. Dit was ‘n sameloop van onvolledige wetenskap, kerklike politiek, persoonlike ego’s en teologiese gesagsvrae.
Die meerderheid van Galileo se wetenskaplike teenstanders was nie teoloë nie, maar ander wetenskaplikes, veral Aristoteliaanse filosofieprofessore wie se hele intellektuele stelsel deur sy nuwe idees bedreig is. Baie van die weerstand teen Galileo was dus nie “kerk vs. wetenskap” nie, maar “ou wetenskap vs. nuwe wetenskap,” met die kerk wat ongelukkig in die politiek van ‘n akademiese stryd ingetrek is.
Die Vonnis en die Afloop
Galileo is in 1633 deur die Inkwisisie verhoor en skuldig bevind aan “sterk verdenking van kettery.” Hy is nie gemarteld nie, nie in ‘n kerker gegooi nie, nie verbrand nie. Hy is onder huisarres geplaas in sy eie villa naby Florence, waar hy nog nege jaar geleef en gewerk het, insluitend die skryf van sy belangrikste wetenskaplike werk, die Discorsi (1638), oor meganiese fisika.
Die beroemde frase “Eppur si muove” (“En tog beweeg dit”) wat Galileo na sy verhoor sou gefluister het, is byna seker apokrief. ‘n Latere toevoeging tot die legende.
Hoekom hierdie Een Geval Eindeloos Herwin Word
Die Galileo-saak is werklik. Dit was ‘n ongeregtigheid, en die Rooms-Katolieke Kerk het dit in 1992 formeel erken. Maar hierdie EEN geval, met al sy persoonlike en politieke verwikkelinge, word voortdurend herhaal asof dit die hele verhouding tussen Christendom en wetenskap verteenwoordig. Dit is asof jy een huweliksargument uit ‘n dertigjarige gelukkige huwelik uitlig en verklaar: “Sien! Hierdie huwelik was ‘n oorlog!”
Soos die historikus John Hedley Brooke in sy baanbrekende Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives aangetoon het, was die verhouding tussen kerk en wetenskap deur die geskiedenis oorwegend een van wedersydse verryking en ondersteuning. Die Galileo-saak is die uitsondering, nie die reel nie. En selfs hierdie uitsondering is soveel meer genuanseerd as die mite.
3. Die Christelike Fondamente van Moderne Wetenskap
Die Kernvraag
Waarom het moderne empiriese wetenskap spesifiek in Christelike Europa ontstaan?
Die antieke Grieke was briljante denkers. Die Chinese het merkwaardige tegnologiese uitvindings gemaak. Die Islamitiese goue era het wiskundige en mediese vordering opgelewer. Maar die spesifieke kombinasie van sistematiese empiriese ondersoek, wiskundige modellering en georganiseerde navorsing wat ons “moderne wetenskap” noem, het in een spesifieke kulturele konteks ontstaan: die Christelike Weste, veral vanaf die sestiende en sewentiende eeu.
Was dit toevallig? Of was daar iets in die Christelike wêreldbeskouing wat wetenskaplike ondersoek moontlik gemaak het?
Die Teologiese Voorveronderstellings
Historici van wetenskap het toenemend erken dat verskeie kernoortuigings van die Christelike geloof die intellektuele grondslag verskaf het waarop moderne wetenskap kon groei.
a) Skepping ex nihilo: Die Wereld is Nie Goddelik Nie
In baie antieke kulture was die natuur self goddelik, vol geeste, demone en gode. Die son was ‘n god. Die rivier was ‘n godin. Die bome was heilig. In so ‘n wêreld is dit kultureel onmoontlik om die natuur as ‘n objek van ondersoek te benader. Jy ontleed nie ‘n godheid nie; jy aanbid dit.
Die Christelike leer van creatio ex nihilo (skepping uit niks) het ‘n radikale skeiding gemaak: God is die Skepper; die natuur is die skepping. Die wêreld is nie goddelik nie. Dit is goed, ja, want God het dit goed geskape (Gen. 1:31), maar dit is nie heilig in die sin dat dit onaanraakbaar is nie. Dit kan bestudeer, gemeet, ontleed en verstaan word.
Soos Peter Harrison in The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science (1998) aangetoon het, het hierdie “onttowering” van die natuur (nie dat dit sonder wonder is nie, maar dat dit nie as goddelik behandel hoef te word nie) die intellektuele ruimte geskep waarbinne empiriese ondersoek kon plaasvind.
Die filosoof Alfred North Whitehead, self geen ortodokse Christen nie, het in sy Science and the Modern World (1925) geskryf dat middeleeuse teologie die onmisbare grondslag vir moderne wetenskap verskaf het, veral die oortuiging dat daar ‘n rasionele orde in die natuur is, gegrond in ‘n rasionele Skepper. Whitehead se presiese woorde verdien aandag:
“The greatest contribution of medievalism to the formation of the scientific movement… I mean the inexpugnable belief that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its antecedents in a perfectly definite manner… It must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God.”
Hierdie insig van ‘n buitestander, ‘n wiskundige en filosoof eerder as ‘n teoloog of apologeet, is des te meer oortuigend juis omdat dit uit eerlike historiese analise kom.
Dink ook na oor die kontras met ander kulture. In die antieke Hindoeïsme is die materiële wêreld maya, illusie. Waarom sou jy ‘n illusie sistematies bestudeer? In baie animistiese kulture is natuurverskynsels die grillige dade van geeste, onvoorspelbaar en nie onderworpe aan vaste wette nie. Slegs binne ‘n raamwerk waar die natuur werklik, goed, maar nie-goddelik is, word dit sinvol om dit as ‘n ondersoekbare objek te behandel.
b) Kontingensie: God het Vrylik Gekies
Die antieke Grieke het grootliks geglo dat die wêreld noodwendig is soos dit is, dat die struktuur van die werklikheid deur suiwer rede afgelei kan word sonder empiriese ondersoek. Plato se filosowe hoef nie hul hande vuil te maak met eksperimente nie; hulle kon alles van hul stoele af uitdink.
Die Christelike leer van skepping het ‘n heel ander perspektief gebring. As God vrylik gekies het om hierdie wêreld met hierdie wette te skep, as Hy net so goed anders kon geskep het, dan kan jy nie bloot sit en die wette van die natuur uitdink nie. Jy moet gaan kyk. Jy moet die natuur ondersoek om te ontdek hoe God gekies het om dit te maak.
Dit is presies die impuls agter empiriese wetenskap: die oortuiging dat die wette van die natuur kontingent is (hulle hoef nie noodwendig so te wees nie) en daarom deur waarneming ontdek moet word eerder as deur spekulasie afgelei.
Die teoloog Thomas F. Torrance het hierdie punt in verskeie werke uitvoerig behandel. Hy het aangetoon dat die Christelike leer van kontingente skepping die logiese fondament verskaf het vir die empiriese metode: as die wereld vrylik geskape is deur ‘n soewereine God, dan is die enigste manier om die wereld te ken, om dit te ondersoek. Suiwer rasionalisme (net dink) is nie genoeg nie; jy het empiriese toetsing (gaan kyk) nodig.
c) Rasionele Orde: Die Heelal is Verstaanbaar
As die wereld nie goddelik is nie (a) en nie noodwendig nie (b), hoekom sou ‘n mens dit dan hoegenaamd probeer verstaan? Dalk is dit ‘n chaos, ‘n sinlose toevalligheid.
Hier kom die derde Christelike oortuiging in: ‘n rasionele God het die wereld geskape, en daarom is die wereld rasioneel georden. Dit volg wette, patrone, wiskundige verhoudinge. Dit is nie chaos nie; dit is kosmos.
Hierdie oortuiging, dat die natuur begrypbaar is, is nie vanselfsprekend nie. In ‘n wêreld sonder God is daar geen voor-die-hand-liggende rede waarom die heelal verstaanbaar sou wees nie. Albert Einstein het hierdie punt beroemdelik gemaak:
“The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.”
Vir die Christen is dit nie misterieus nie: die heelal is verstaanbaar omdat dit die werk is van ‘n verstaanbare God. Die wette van die natuur is ‘n uitdrukking van God se getroue, konsekwente karakter. Soos Jeremia 33:25-26 suggereer: God se verbond met dag en nag, die vaste orde van hemel en aarde, is ‘n grond vir vertroue.
Rodney Stark, ‘n sosioloog van godsdiens, het in sy boek For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery (2003) geargumenteer dat hierdie oortuiging in ‘n rasionele Skepper-God die noodsaaklike voorwaarde was vir die opkoms van wetenskap. Stark skryf:
“The rise of science was not an extension of classical learning. It was the natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine: nature exists because it was created by God. In order to love and honour God, it is necessary to fully appreciate the wonders of his handiwork. Because God is perfect, his handiwork functions in accord with immutable principles. By the full use of our God-given powers of reason and observation, we ought to be able to discover these principles.”
d) Die Imago Dei: Ons Verstand is Geskape om te Ken
Selfs as die wêreld rasioneel georden is, moet ons verstand in staat wees om daardie orde te begryp. Die Christelike leer dat die mens geskape is na die beeld van God (imago Dei, Gen. 1:27) bied presies hierdie versekering. Ons is gemaak deur dieselfde God wat die heelal gemaak het, en ons verstand weerspieël, op ‘n beperkte, geskape wyse, die Goddelike Verstand wat die natuur gestruktureer het.
Johannes Kepler, een van die stigtersfigure van moderne sterrekunde, het dit pragtig verwoord. Hy het sy wetenskaplike werk verstaan as letterlik “om God se gedagtes na Hom te dink” (thinking God’s thoughts after Him). Vir Kepler was die ontdekking van die wiskundige wette van planeetbeweging nie net ‘n intellektuele prestasie nie; dit was ‘n daad van aanbidding.
Hierdie vier oortuigings saam het die intellektuele ekosisteem gevorm waarbinne moderne wetenskap ontkiem en gegroei het. Die wêreld is nie goddelik nie, is kontingent, is rasioneel georden, en kan deur ons verstand geken word.
4. Die Middeleeue: Nie die “Donker Eeue” Nie
‘n Mite Binne ‘n Mite
As die oorlogstesis die groot mite is, dan is die idee van die “Donker Eeue” sy getroue metgesel. Die verhaal gaan so: na die val van Rome het die Christelike kerk Europa in ‘n millennium van intellektuele duisternis gedompel. Eers met die “Renaissance” en die “Verligting” is die lig weer aangesteek.
Hierdie beeld is so verwring dat dit byna komiese proporsies aanneem wanneer dit met die feite vergelyk word.
Die Universiteit: ‘n Christelike Uitvinding
Die universiteit, een van die mees kenmerkende instellings van die Westerse beskawing, is ‘n middeleeuse Christelike uitvinding. Daar was niks soortgelyks in die antieke wêreld nie. Die universiteit as ‘n permanente instelling met ‘n gestruktureerde kurrikulum, formele grade en akademiese vryheid is ‘n produk van die Christelike Middeleeue.
- Bologna (gestig omstreeks 1088), die oudste universiteit in die Westerse wêreld
- Parys (omstreeks 1150), die groot sentrum van teologiese en filosofiese studie
- Oxford (omstreeks 1167), gevestig deur geleerdes wat van Parys af gekom het
- Cambridge (1209), gestig deur geleerdes van Oxford
Teen die einde van die Middeleeue was daar meer as sestig universiteite regoor Europa, almal gestig onder kerklike beskerming of met kerklike goedkeuring. Die kurrikulum het nie net teologie ingesluit nie, maar ook logika, wiskunde, grammatika, retoriek, musiek, sterrekunde en natuurfilosofie.
Die historikus Edward Grant het in sy God and Reason in the Middle Ages (2001) aangetoon dat die middeleeuse universiteit een van die vernaamste intellektuele prestasies in die menslike geskiedenis was. ‘n Instelling wat sistematiese, kritiese denke gekoester het op ‘n skaal wat tevore onbekend was.
Middeleeuse Wetenskaplike Vordering
Die Middeleeue was nie stagnant nie.
Optika: Roger Bacon (omstreeks 1214-1294), ‘n Franciskaanse monnik, het baanbrekende werk gedoen op die gebied van optika en het gepleit vir eksperimentele wetenskap. Sy ordengenoot Robert Grosseteste (omstreeks 1175-1253), die Biskop van Lincoln, het ‘n teorie oor lig ontwikkel en word deur sommige historici as een van die vroeere voorstanders van die wetenskaplike metode beskou. Witelo, ‘n Poolse monnik, het in die dertiende eeu ‘n omvattende werk oor optika geskryf wat tot in die sewentiende eeu as standaardteks gebruik is.
Logika en Filosofie: Die middeleeuse skolastici het die Aristoteliese logika nie net bewaar nie, maar beduidend uitgebrei en verfyn. Teoloë soos Thomas van Aquino, Duns Scotus en Willem van Ockham het gesofistikeerde intellektuele raamwerke ontwikkel wat die grondslag gelê het vir latere wetenskaplike denke. Ockham se beroemde spaarsaamheidsbeginsel (“Entiteite moet nie sonder noodsaak vermenigvuldig word nie”) bly tot vandag ‘n grondbeginsel van wetenskaplike metodologie.
Tegnologie: Middeleeuse Europa het ‘n opvallende tegnologiese dinamisme getoon. Die watermeul en windmeul is op massiewe skaal aangewend. Die meganiese horlosie is in die dertiende eeu ontwikkel, wat ‘n revolusie in die meting van tyd meegebring het. Innovasies in landbou (die drieslag-stelstel, die sware ploeg, die paardehalsband) het ‘n bevolkingsontploffing moontlik gemaak wat weer meer mense vir intellektuele arbeid vrygestel het.
Sterrekunde en kosmologie: Jean Buridan, ‘n veertiende-eeuse priester en filosoof aan die Universiteit van Parys, het die konsep van impetus ontwikkel, ‘n voorloper van Newton se konsep van traagheid. Nicole Oresme, ook ‘n priester, het in die veertiende eeu reeds geargumenteer dat dit meer ekonomies is om aan te neem dat die aarde draai eerder as dat die hemele draai. ‘n Argument wat Copernicus later sou herhaal.
Die Kerk as Beskermheer van Geleerdheid
Die Christelike kerk was die primêre beskermheer van geleerdheid en onderwys in die Westerse wêreld vir die grootste deel van ‘n millennium. Kloosterordes het antieke tekste gekopieer en bewaar. Katedrale skole het die grondslag gelê vir universiteite. Biskoppe en pouse het universiteite gestig, befonds en beskerm.
Selfs die bewaring van die Griekse en Latynse intellektuele erfenis (Aristoteles, Plato, Cicero, Euklides) was grotendeels die werk van Christelike monnike wat hierdie tekste deur die eeue heen oorgekopieer het. Sonder die Benediktynse en ander kloosterordes sou groot dele van die antieke erfenis verlore gewees het.
Die Plataardemite
Een van die hardnekkigste submites binne die “Donker Eeue”-verhaal is die idee dat middeleeuse mense geglo het die aarde is plat en dat die kerk hierdie geloof afgedwing het. Die verhaal gaan gewoonlik saam met Columbus: dapper Columbus wou weswaarts seil, maar die Kerk het gesê die aarde is plat en hy sal van die rand afval.
Dit is eenvoudig nie waar nie. Opgevoede mense het sedert die antieke tyd geweet dat die aarde rond is. Eratosthenes het die omtrek van die aarde bereken omstreeks 240 v.C. en sy berekening was merkwaardig akkuraat. Middeleeuse geleerdes soos Thomas van Aquino, Roger Bacon, Jean Buridan en Nicole Oresme het almal die sferiese aarde as vanselfsprekend aanvaar.
Columbus se teenstanders het nie gedink die aarde is plat nie. Hulle het gedink sy berekening van die afstand weswaarts na Asië verkeerd was. En hulle was reg! Columbus het die omtrek van die aarde dramaties onderskat. As Amerika nie toevallig in die pad was nie, sou hy en sy bemanning waarskynlik op see omgekom het.
Die historikus Jeffrey Burton Russell het in sy Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians (1991) aangetoon dat die “plataarde-mite” grotendeels ‘n negentiende-eeuse uitvinding is, geskep om die Middeleeue as donker en die moderne era as verlig voor te stel. Washington Irving se roman oor Columbus (1828) het bygedra tot hierdie verdraaiing, en die oorlogstesis-skrywers Draper en White het dit as feit oorgeneem.
5. Groot Gelowige Wetenskaplikes
Nie ‘n Argument uit Gesag Nie
‘n Kwalifikasie vooraf: die feit dat ‘n groot wetenskaplike in God geglo het, bewys nie dat God bestaan nie. Dit is nie die punt nie. Die punt is om die oorlogsmite te weerspreek. As wetenskap en geloof inherent in stryd was, sou ons verwag dat die geskiedenis van wetenskap ‘n geskiedenis van groeiende ongeloof is. Dit is nie die geval nie. Van die stigters van moderne wetenskap tot hedendaagse topnavorsers het gelowige mense aan die voorpunt gestaan.
Die Stigters van Moderne Wetenskap
Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) was ‘n kanunnik van die Rooms-Katolieke Kerk. Hy het sy De Revolutionibus opgedra aan Pous Paulus III. Sy motivering vir sy werk was nie om die kerk te ondermyn nie, maar om ‘n meer elegante en akkurate model van God se skepping te vind.
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) het ondanks sy konflik met die kerklike instituut nooit sy geloof verloor nie. Hy het tot die einde van sy lewe as ‘n toegewyde Katoliek geleef. Sy wetenskap was vir hom ‘n uitdrukking van sy geloof, nie ‘n vervanging daarvan nie.
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), die ontdekker van die wette van planeetbeweging, was ‘n vrome Lutheraan. Hy het sy wetenskaplike werk eksplisiet verstaan as die naspeuring van God se gedagtes. In sy Harmonices Mundi skryf hy:
“I was merely thinking God’s thoughts after him. Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it benefits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God.”
Kepler se gevoel dat die heelal wiskundig gestruktureer is, was direk gewortel in sy Christelike oortuiging dat ‘n rasionele God die skepping georden het.
Isaac Newton (1643-1727) word waarskynlik beskou as die grootste wetenskaplike wat ooit geleef het. Min mense weet dat Newton meer oor teologie geskryf het as oor fisika en wiskunde saam. Hy het meer as ‘n miljoen woorde oor Bybelinterpretasie en teologie agtergelaat. In sy Principia Mathematica skryf hy:
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
Newton het sy ontdekking van die gravitasiewet nie as ‘n vervanging vir God gesien nie, maar as ‘n ontbloting van hoe God die heelal gestruktureer het.
Michael Faraday (1791-1867) se werk het die fondament gelê vir elektromagnetisme en elektriese tegnologie. Hy was ‘n toegewyde lid van die Sandemanian-kerk, ‘n klein, streng Christelike gemeenskap. Hy het geglo dat die eenheid wat hy in die natuurkragte ontdek het, die eenheid van God se skeppingswerk weerspieël.
James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) se vergelykings vorm die grondslag van alle moderne elektromagnetisme en optika. Hy was ‘n toegewyde Presbiteriaan wat aktief aan kerklike lewe deelgeneem het en sy wetenskap as ‘n roeping van God beskou het. Op sy lessenaar is na sy dood ‘n gebed gevind wat hy gereeld gebid het, waarin hy God gevra het om hom te help om die skepping reg te verstaan.
Georges Lemaître (1894-1966) was die Belgiese Katolieke priester wat die oerknalteorie (“Big Bang”) voorgestel het. Die teorie wat baie ateïste vandag as ‘n argument teen God beskou, is oorspronklik voorgestel deur ‘n priester. Lemaitre het sy teorie onafhanklik van Edwin Hubble ontwikkel, en Einstein het dit aanvanklik verwerp. Lemaitre was versigtig om sy kosmologie en sy teologie te onderskei, maar hy het nooit enige spanning tussen hulle ervaar nie.
Die Priester agter die Oerknal
Die geval van Georges Lemaître verdien besondere aandag, want dit draai die oorlogsmite letterlik op sy kop.
In die 1920’s het die meeste wetenskaplikes, insluitend Einstein, geglo dat die heelal ewig en staties is. Dit het altyd bestaan en sal altyd bestaan. Die idee dat die heelal ‘n begin gehad het, het eerder na godsdiens as na wetenskap geklink.
Toe kom Lemaître, ‘n Rooms-Katolieke priester met ‘n doktorsgraad in fisika van MIT, en stel voor dat die heelal aan die uitdy is vanuit wat hy ‘n “oer-atoom” genoem het, ‘n enkele punt van geweldige digtheid waaruit alles ontplooi het. Die Britse sterrekundige Fred Hoyle, ‘n ateïs wat die teorie gehaat het, het dit spottend die “Big Bang” genoem. Die naam het bly vassit.
Die teorie wat baie mense vandag as ‘n argument teen God beskou, is voorgestel deur ‘n priester. En die teorie wat destyds as die “wetenskaplike” alternatief beskou is (die ewige, statiese heelal) was die een wat meer in lyn was met ateïstiese verwagtings. Die geskiedenis weier hardnekkig om by die oorlogsmite se skrif in te val.
Lemaître self was deeglik bewus hiervan. Hy het daarop aangedring dat sy kosmologie op fisika gegrond was, nie op teologie nie. Toe Pous Pius XII in 1951 die oerknalteorie as bevestiging van die skeppingsleer verwelkom het, het Lemaître die Pous privaat versoek om dit nie weer te doen nie. Hy het verstaan dat wetenskap en teologie elkeen hul eie integriteit het. ‘n Houding diep in ooreenstemming met die Gereformeerde beginsel van soewereiniteit in eie kring.
Hedendaagse Gelowige Wetenskaplikes
Die tradisie eindig nie in die verlede nie.
Francis Collins (geb. 1950), die leier van die Human Genome Project, is ‘n oortuigde Christen. Hy het as ateïs begin, maar het deur die werk van C.S. Lewis en sy eie nadenke oor die morele wet tot geloof gekom. In sy boek The Language of God (2006) skryf hy oor hoe sy geloof en sy wetenskap mekaar verryk.
John Lennox (geb. 1943), emeritus-professor in wiskunde aan die Universiteit van Oxford, is ‘n uitgesproke Christen wat gereeld in debatte met vooraanstaande ateïste verskyn, onder andere Richard Dawkins en Christopher Hitchens. Lennox argumenteer dat wetenskap juis sin maak binne ‘n teistiese raamwerk, en dat dit die ateisme is wat moeite het om die rasionaliteit van die heelal te verklaar.
Ard Louis (geb. 1975), ‘n Nederlandse teoretiese fisikus aan die Universiteit van Oxford, is ‘n aktiewe Christen wat navorsing doen oor die fisiese grondslae van biologiese selforganisasie. ‘n Voorbeeld van ‘n nuwe geslag wetenskaplikes wat sonder intellektuele ongemak die diepste wetenskaplike vrae binne ‘n raamwerk van geloof ondersoek.
Hierdie lys kon baie langer wees: Robert Boyle, die “vader van die chemie” wat teologiese lesings befonds het; Blaise Pascal, wiskundige en godsdiensfilosoof; Gregor Mendel, die Augustynse monnik wat die grondslae van genetika gelê het; Werner Heisenberg en Max Planck, grondleggers van die kwantumfisika, wat albei openlik oor hul geloof gepraat het.
Die punt is nie dat elke groot wetenskaplike gelowig was nie. Die punt is dat die oorlogsmite ‘n voorspelling maak, naamlik dat wetenskap en geloof onversoenbaar is, en die geskiedenis weerspreek hierdie voorspelling op die mees direkte manier moontlik.
6. Die Protestantse Reformasie en Wetenskap
Die Protestantse Reformasie het nie net die kerk hervorm nie; dit het ook ‘n intellektuele en kulturele omgewing geskep wat gunstig was vir wetenskaplike ontwikkeling.
Calvyn en die Skepping as Teater van God se Heerlikheid
Johannes Calvyn het in sy Institusie van die Christelike Godsdiens ‘n pragtige beeld gebruik wat vir ons onderwerp van direkte belang is. In Boek I, hoofstuk 14, paragraaf 20 skryf hy:
“Laat ons nie skaam wees om ‘n vrome vermaak te neem in die ope en duidelike werke van God in hierdie pragtige teater nie.”
Vir Calvyn is die skepping ‘n theatrum gloriae Dei, ‘n teater van God se heerlikheid. Nie net ‘n fraai beeldspraak nie; ‘n teologiese program. As die skepping ‘n teater is waarin God se heerlikheid vertoon word, dan is die bestudering van die skepping ‘n daad van godsdiens. Die wetenskaplike wat die skepping ondersoek, is as ‘t ware ‘n toeskouer in God se teater wat die voorstelling met aandag bejeën.
Calvyn het ook beklemtoon dat die Heilige Gees die bron is van alle waarheid, ook waarheid wat deur nie-gelowiges ontdek word. In sy Institusie (II.2.15-16) skryf hy dat as ons die werke van heidense skrywers lees en die waarheid en insig daarin raaksien, ons dit moet erken as gawes van die Gees. Dit het ‘n openheid geskep teenoor wetenskaplike ontdekking vanuit enige bron.
Geletterdheid en Onderwys
Die Reformasie het ‘n sterk klem op geletterdheid en onderwys geplaas. As elke gelowige die Bybel self moes kan lees (sola Scriptura), moes elke gelowige geletterd wees. Luther, Calvyn en ander Hervormers het vurig gepleit vir skole en universiteite. Hierdie klem op universele onderwys het ‘n breër kultuur van geleerdheid geskep wat wetenskap bevoordeel het.
Die historikus Robert K. Merton het reeds in 1938 in sy beroemde proefskrif aangetoon dat Puriteine en ander Protestante buitensporig oorverteenwoordig was in die vroeë Royal Society en in wetenskaplike bydraes oor die algemeen. Die Protestantse werksetiek, gekombineer met die oortuiging dat die studie van die natuur God vereer, was ‘n kragtige stimulus vir wetenskaplike aktiwiteit.
Bavinck oor Algemene en Besondere Openbaring
Herman Bavinck, een van die groot Gereformeerde teoloë, het ‘n raamwerk verskaf wat besonder nuttig is vir die verhouding tussen geloof en wetenskap. Bavinck het onderskei tussen God se besondere openbaring (die Skrif, die Woord van God) en God se algemene openbaring (die skepping, die natuur, die geskiedenis, die menslike gewete).
Hierdie twee openbarings kom van dieselfde God en kan daarom nie werklik met mekaar in stryd wees nie. As dit lyk asof hulle bots, beteken dit dat ons of die Skrif of die natuur verkeerd verstaan. Bavinck het geweier om te kies: beide openbarings moet ernstig geneem word, en beide moet korrek geïnterpreteer word.
In sy Gereformeerde Dogmatiek skryf Bavinck dat die boek van die natuur en die boek van die Skrif mekaar wedersyds verlig. Die Skrif is nie ‘n ensiklopedie van wetenskaplike feite nie; dit is die openbaring van God se verlossingswerk. En die natuur is nie ‘n teologiese handboek nie; dit is die toneel waarop God se skeppingswerk sigbaar word. Elkeen het sy eie aard, sy eie taal, sy eie metode van interpretasie. Maar albei wys na dieselfde God.
Hierdie raamwerk bevry ons van die valse dilemma: “kies jy die Bybel of die wetenskap?” Die antwoord is: ons kies God se waarheid, en ons streef om sowel die Skrif as die skepping reg te lees. Soms beteken dit dat ons ons wetenskaplike verstaan moet hersien; soms beteken dit dat ons ons Skrif-interpretasie moet verfyn. In albei gevalle soek ons na waarheid, want alle waarheid is God se waarheid.
Kuyper en Soewereiniteit in Eie Kring
Abraham Kuyper, die groot Gereformeerde staatsman, teoloog en stigter van die Vrije Universiteit van Amsterdam, het ‘n konsep ontwikkel wat van direkte belang is: soewereiniteit in eie kring (sphere sovereignty).
Kuyper se idee was dat God verskillende sfere of domeine van die samelewing geskep het (die kerk, die staat, die gesin, die kuns, die wetenskap) en dat elkeen ‘n mate van outonomie het binne sy eie terrein. Die kerk mag nie die staat oorheers nie; die staat mag nie die kerk oorheers nie; en die wetenskap het ‘n eie gesag en integriteit binne sy domein.
Dit beteken nie dat wetenskap van God onafhanklik is nie. Alle sfere staan uiteindelik onder God se gesag. Maar die kerk moet nie vir die wetenskap voorskryf hoe om fisika of biologie te beoefen nie, net soos die wetenskap nie vir die kerk moet voorskryf hoe om die evangelie te verkondig nie.
Kuyper se beroemde uitspraak gee die hart van sy visie:
“Daar is geen duimbreedte in die hele gebied van ons menslike bestaan waaroor Christus, wat Heer oor alles is, nie uitroep: ‘Myne!’ nie.”
Alles behoort aan Christus, ook die wetenskap. Maar Christus se heerskappy oor die wetenskap beteken nie dat die kerk die wetenskap oorheers nie; dit beteken dat wetenskaplikes hul werk as roeping voor God se aangesig moet doen, met eerlikheid en integriteit.
Hierdie Gereformeerde raamwerk bied ‘n helder middeweg. Aan die een kant staan die fundamentalisme wat wetenskap wantrou en die Bybel as ‘n wetenskaplike handboek behandel. Aan die ander kant staan die sekularisme wat wetenskap van alle teologiese verbande probeer losmaak. Die Gereformeerde visie sê: wetenskap is ‘n gawe van God, ‘n roeping binne sy skepping, ‘n manier om sy heerlikheid te ontdek. Maar dit moet beoefen word volgens sy eie metodes en standaarde, met die vryheid en integriteit wat by sy eie sfeer pas.
7. Waarom die Mite Voortbestaan
Akademies Dood, Kultureel Lewend
Onder professionele historici van wetenskap is die oorlogstesis feitlik dood. Geen ernstige historikus verdedig dit nog nie. Die geskiedskrywing van wetenskap en godsdiens het wegbeweeg van die konflikmodel na ‘n genuanseerde benadering wat die kompleksiteit van die verhouding erken.
Maar in populêre kultuur, op sosiale media, in televisie-dokumentêre programme, in die meeste universiteitslokale buite die geskiedenisdepartement, en in die retoriek van die Nuwe Ateïsme leef die oorlogsmite steeds kragtig voort. Waarom?
Die Nuwe Ateisme
Die sogenaamde Nuwe Ateïsme, die beweging rondom figure soos Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens en Daniel Dennett, het die oorlogstesis as ‘n sentrale retoriese wapen gebruik. Dawkins se The God Delusion (2006), Harris se The End of Faith (2004) en Hitchens se God Is Not Great (2007) almal raamwerk hul argumente binne die narratief dat wetenskap en godsdiens in ‘n nulsom-stryd gewikkel is.
Vir die Nuwe Ateïsme is hierdie narratief onontbeerlik. As die geskiedenis toon dat Christendom en wetenskap vennote eerder as vyande was, verloor hulle hul kragtigste retoriese instrument. Hierdie skrywers lieg nie doelbewus nie; hulle het grootliks die populêre weergawe geabsorbeer sonder om die vakkundige geskiedskrywing te raadpleeg.
Sekularistiese Ideologie
Breër as net die Nuwe Ateïsme funksioneer die oorlogsmite as ‘n grondpilaar van ‘n sekularistiese wêreldbeskouing. As godsdiens “altyd” teen vooruitgang was, dan is die oplossing duidelik: verwyder godsdiens uit die publieke lewe, beperk dit tot die private sfeer, en laat “rede” (gedefinieer as sekularisme) die samelewing lei.
Die mite dien ook ‘n identiteitsfunksie. Vir baie intellektuele in die Weste is “rasioneel” en “wetenskaplik” sinonieme vir “sekuler” en “nie-godsdienstig.” Die oorlogstesis bevestig hierdie identiteit: “Ek is aan die kant van wetenskap en rede; gelowiges is aan die ander kant.” Om hierdie narratief prys te gee, is om ‘n stuk van die eie identiteit prys te gee. Dit is psigologies moeilik, selfs wanneer die bewyse dit vereis.
Institusionele Traagheid
Handboeke word stadig bygewerk. Dosente onderrig wat hulle self geleer is. Populêre kultuur voed op verhale, nie op akademiese nuanses nie. Die oorlogsmite is ‘n “goeie storie”: dit het helde (wetenskaplikes), skurke (kerklike onderdrukkers), en ‘n duidelike boodskap (rede triomfeer oor bygeloof). Die werklike geskiedenis is genuanseerder en minder dramaties. Nuanse verkoop nie so goed soos oorlog nie.
Werklike Spanning vs. Valse Oorlog
Dit gesê, sou dit oneerlik wees om voor te gee dat daar nooit spanning tussen geloof en wetenskap was nie. Daar was en is werklike intellektuele uitdagings: vrae oor evolusie, oor die ouderdom van die aarde, oor neurowetenskaplike verklarings van bewussyn. Maar daar is ‘n hemelsbreë verskil tussen werklike intellektuele spanning (wat gesond en produktief kan wees) en die bewering dat wetenskap en geloof inherent en permanent in oorlog is.
Werklike spanning is soos die spanning in ‘n goeie gesprek: dit dwing beide partye om skerper te dink. ‘n Valse oorlog is propaganda wat gesprek onmoontlik maak.
Die historikus Colin Russell het dit goed opgesom: die oorlogstesis is so wyd verwerp deur ernstige historici dat dit “largely the creation of two men” (Draper en White) genoem kan word, eerder as ‘n werklike weerspieëling van die geskiedenis. Tog bly die mite voortbestaan in populêre kultuur, soos ‘n mediese kwaksalwery wat lank nadat dit ontmasker is steeds geglo en versprei word. Goeie geskiedskrywing moet aktief geleer en oorgedra word; dit sypel nie vanself deur na die populêre bewussyn nie.
8. Wat Beteken Dit vir Ons?
Geen Intellektuele Vlugtelinge Nie
As alles wat ons tot dusver bespreek het waar is, en die historiese bewyse is oorweldigend, dan hoef gelowiges nie te voel asof hulle intellektueel dakloos is nie. Die oorlogsmite het baie Christene laat glo dat hulle moet kies: of jy neem jou geloof ernstig en steek jou kop in die sand oor wetenskap, of jy neem wetenskap ernstig en gee jou geloof stil-stil prys.
Hierdie dilemma is vals. Dit is ‘n produk van propaganda, nie van geskiedenis nie.
Die wetenskaplike onderneming is by sy wortels ‘n teïstiese projek. Die oortuigings wat wetenskap moontlik gemaak het, naamlik dat die wêreld nie goddelik is nie, dat dit kontingent geskape is, dat dit rasioneel georden is, en dat ons verstand in staat is om dit te ken, is almal Christelike oortuigings. Die mense wat moderne wetenskap gestig het, was oorwegend gelowiges. Die instelling waarbinne wetenskap gegroei het, die universiteit, is ‘n Christelike uitvinding.
Dit beteken nie dat wetenskap net vir Christene is nie, of dat elke wetenskaplike ontdekking die Christelike geloof bevestig nie. Dit beteken wel dat die bewering “wetenskap het God oorbodig gemaak” die geskiedenis op sy kop draai. Dit is soos om te se dat die boom die wortels oorbodig gemaak het.
Betrokke, Nie Bevrees Nie
Hierdie bevinding het praktiese gevolge vir hoe ons as gemeente met ons kinders en jongmense praat. As ‘n jongmens na universiteit toe gaan en daar vir die eerste keer die oorlogsmite hoor, dikwels met groot selfvertroue voorgedra, en hy of sy het nooit die werklike geskiedenis gehoor nie, is die effek verwoestend. Die jongmens dink: “My ouers en my kerk het my ‘n leuen vertel. Hulle het my laat glo dat geloof en rede saamgaan, maar kyk, die geskiedenis sê die teenoorgestelde.”
Maar as daardie jongmens weet van Draper en White, van die nuanses van die Galileo-saak, van die Christelike wortels van wetenskap, van Lemaître en Collins, dan staan hy of sy op vaste grond. Nie omdat ons hulle met propagandawapens toegerus het nie, maar omdat ons hulle met die waarheid toegerus het.
Hierdie geskiedenis behoort ons te bevry om wetenskap met vertroue eerder as vrees te benader. Ons hoef nie bang te wees vir wetenskaplike ontdekkings nie, want alle waarheid is God se waarheid. As ‘n wetenskaplike ontdekking korrek is, ontdek dit iets oor God se skepping, en dit kan uiteindelik nie in stryd wees met wat God oor Homself openbaar het nie.
Daar is moeilike vrae. Ons sal van daardie vrae in latere sessies ondersoek. Maar ons benader hulle nie vanuit ‘n posisie van intellektuele swakheid nie. Ons benader hulle as erfgename van ‘n tradisie wat die wetenskaplike projek moontlik gemaak het in die eerste plek.
Die Bevryding van Waarheid
Miskien is die belangrikste les van hierdie sessie eenvoudig dit: die waarheid bevry. Jesus het gese: “Julle sal die waarheid ken, en die waarheid sal julle vrymaak” (Joh. 8:32). Dit geld ook vir die waarheid oor geskiedenis. Solank ons die oorlogsmite glo, is ons vasgevang in ‘n verdedigende posisie. Sodra ons die werklike geskiedenis ken, word ons bevry om met openheid, eerlikheid en verwondering te dink oor wat wetenskap ons leer oor God se skepping.
Calvyn het gesê die skepping is ‘n teater van God se heerlikheid. As dit waar is, dan is elke wetenskaplike ontdekking ‘n nuwe toneel in daardie teater. ‘n Nuwe manier waarop die Skepper se wysheid en krag vertoon word. Die wetenskaplike en die gelowige staan nie teenoor mekaar nie. Hulle is, op hul beste, dieselfde persoon.
Opsomming
| Mite | Werklikheid |
|---|---|
| Wetenskap en geloof was altyd in oorlog | Die “oorlogstesis” is ‘n negentiende-eeuse uitvinding, akademies ontmasker |
| Galileo is vervolg omdat hy die waarheid vertel het | Die Galileo-saak was ‘n ingewikkelde mengsel van politiek, persoonlikheid en onvolledige wetenskap |
| Die Middeleeue was die “Donker Eeue” | Die kerk het universiteite gestig, geleerdheid befonds en beduidende wetenskaplike vordering ondersteun |
| Middeleeuse mense het geglo die aarde is plat | Opgevoede mense het sedert die antieke tyd geweet die aarde is rond |
| Wetenskap het ondanks godsdiens ontwikkel | Christelike teologie het die intellektuele fondament verskaf vir moderne wetenskap |
| Gelowige wetenskaplikes is die uitsondering | Die stigters van moderne wetenskap was oorwegend diep gelowige mense |
Vir Verdere Studie
- Ronald Numbers (red.), Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion (Harvard University Press, 2009)
- Peter Harrison, The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science (Cambridge University Press, 1998)
- Peter Harrison, The Territories of Science and Religion (University of Chicago Press, 2015)
- Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery (Princeton University Press, 2003)
- David Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science (University of Chicago Press, 2007)
- John Hedley Brooke, Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives (Cambridge University Press, 1991)
- James Hannam, God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science (Icon Books, 2009)
- Francis Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (Free Press, 2006)
Brug na Sessie 3
Die oorlogstesis is ‘n mite. Die Galileo-verhaal is veel meer genuanseerd as die legende. Die Christelike wêreldbeskouing het die fundament verskaf vir moderne wetenskap. Van die grootste wetenskaplike geeste in die geskiedenis was diep gelowige mense.
Maar geskiedenis is een ding; die feite self is iets anders. In die volgende sessie skuif ons van geskiedenis na inhoud. Nou dat ons weet wetenskap en geloof nie vyande is nie: wat vertel moderne kosmologie ons werklik oor die oorsprong van die heelal? As die Christelike geloof die wortels van die wetenskaplike boom is, wat lewer daardie boom op? Wat ontdek die wetenskap wanneer dit na die begin van alles kyk?
Die antwoord is verrassend.
The History Nobody Tells
Introduction
There is a story almost everyone knows. It goes like this: the church was the great enemy of science. For centuries priests and theologians tried to extinguish the light of knowledge, and only when brave scientists freed themselves from religious bonds could humanity advance. The climax of this narrative is usually Galileo standing before the Inquisition — the lone hero of reason against the power of superstition.
It is a powerful story. Dramatic, simple, satisfying. There is just one problem: it is largely false.
The real history of faith and science looks entirely different. Not because we are in denial about mistakes the church made. There were mistakes, and we look at them honestly. But the real story is richer and more surprising than the myth we have been taught. For believers, the true history is liberating: the scientific enterprise did not arise despite the Christian faith, but in an important sense from within it.
1. The Conflict Myth: Where Does It Come From?
The Two Books That Changed Everything
If you ask anyone today whether science and religion have always been in conflict, most people will say: “Of course!” It feels so self-evident that it hardly needs an argument. But this “self-evidence” has a specific birth date and specific parents.
The idea that Christianity and science are locked in a perpetual war comes mainly from two nineteenth-century books:
John William Draper’s History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874) and Andrew Dickson White’s A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896).
Draper, a British-American chemist, wrote his book in the wake of the First Vatican Council (1869–1870), where the Roman Catholic Church proclaimed the doctrine of papal infallibility. Draper was furious about this and wrote a sweeping narrative in which he presented the entire history of Christianity as one long suppression of science. His book was a hit: ten editions in five years, translated into ten languages. But it was not history; it was polemic. Draper distorted facts, ignored context, and created a caricature that had more to do with his own anti-Catholic sentiments than with what actually happened.
White was the co-founder and first president of Cornell University, which he established as a non-sectarian institution. When churchmen criticised him for this, he struck back with a massive two-volume work that rewrote history as an epic struggle between “science” (the hero) and “theology” (the villain). White’s book was more sophisticated than Draper’s, with impressive footnotes and detailed stories. But modern historians have shown that he used his sources selectively, presented legends as facts, and that his overarching framework is simply not supported by the evidence.
How a Myth Became Canon
The irony is that these two books, which today are regarded by virtually every serious historian of science as outdated and misleading, permanently shaped the popular imagination. They established the “conflict thesis” (conflict thesis or warfare thesis): the idea that science and religion are inherently opposed, and that the history of their relationship is one of perpetual conflict.
The historian Ronald Numbers, himself an agnostic who is not trying to advance any religious cause, has thoroughly examined this myth. In his influential book Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion (2009), he writes:
“The greatest myth in the history of science and religion holds that they have been in a state of constant conflict.”
Numbers and his co-authors, among the foremost historians of science in the world, analyse twenty-one such myths and show how each one rests on inaccurate or oversimplified accounts of history.
David Lindberg, a leading historian of medieval science, wrote in his The Beginnings of Western Science that the relationship between church and science through the centuries is better described as a spectrum: from support and patronage to tension and sometimes conflict, but never as simple warfare. The overwhelming majority of interactions were positive. The church was the primary patron of learning for most of Western history. The few examples of conflict (such as the Galileo affair) were atypical rather than representative.
Peter Harrison, an Australian historian who specifically researches how religious ideas influenced the development of science, has demonstrated that the conflict thesis is not only historically inaccurate, but that the precise opposite is closer to the truth: Christian theology played an indispensable role in the rise of modern science.
Why It Matters
The conflict myth has real consequences. It makes believers think they must choose between their faith and intellectual honesty. It gives sceptics a rhetorical weapon built on a false history. And it conceals the deep theological roots of the scientific enterprise.
If we think the church has always been against science, we will be defensive. We will feel as though we have something to hide. But if we know the real history, we can speak with confidence and honesty. Not because the church was flawless, but because the story of faith and science is much more our own story than we think.
2. The Galileo Affair: What Really Happened?
No conversation about faith and science is complete without Galileo. His name has become a symbol: the heroic scientist persecuted by the intolerant church because he proclaimed the truth. In popular culture, the Galileo story is the definition of “church vs. science.”
But the real history is so much more nuanced that it is virtually a different story from the myth.
Galileo the Believer
First: Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) was a devoted Catholic. No martyr for atheism or secularism. He believed in God his entire life, served the church, and saw his science as a way to understand God’s creation better. Both of his daughters were nuns. He did not want to leave or undermine the church. He wanted to help her understand correctly how creation fits together.
In a famous letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (1615), Galileo wrote that the Bible and nature both come from God and therefore cannot truly conflict with each other. If they appear to conflict, we must be either misinterpreting Scripture or misunderstanding the science. This is a deeply theological position, not an anti-religious one.
Powerful Supporters in the Church
Galileo initially enjoyed strong ecclesiastical support. Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, a personal friend, encouraged him and later became Pope himself as Urban VIII. The Jesuit astronomers at the Collegio Romano confirmed Galileo’s telescope discoveries and honoured him. Cardinal Roberto Bellarmino, one of the most powerful figures in the Roman Catholic Church, acknowledged that if proof could truly be provided that the earth orbits the sun, Scripture would need to be reinterpreted. A remarkably open position.
The problem was not that the church was in principle opposed to new scientific insights. The problem was much more personal and political.
Politics and Personality
Galileo was brilliant, but also aggressive, sarcastic and tactically unwise. In his famous Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo (1632), he had the Ptolemaic system (earth at the centre) defended by a character named “Simplicio” — literally “the simpleton.” Many people, including the Pope himself, believed that Simplicio was a mockery of the Pope. Whether or not Galileo intended it that way, the personal insult turned a former patron into an enemy.
The period was also politically charged. The Counter-Reformation was in full swing. The Roman Catholic Church was in a struggle with the Protestants over who had the right to interpret Scripture. In this tense context, the church was particularly sensitive to anyone — even a loyal Catholic — who presumed to determine how the Bible should be read. Galileo’s argument was not merely scientific; it touched on the question of who holds authority over biblical interpretation. And that was the central nerve of the Reformation era.
Scientific Incompleteness
Something seldom mentioned: Galileo’s science was at that point incomplete. He believed the earth orbits the sun (heliocentrism), and he was ultimately right. But he could not conclusively prove it.
One of the strongest arguments against heliocentrism was the absence of stellar parallax — the apparent shift of nearby stars relative to distant stars as the earth moves around the sun. If the earth truly moves, we should see this shift. Galileo could not demonstrate it. Stellar parallax was only observed in 1838 by Friedrich Bessel, nearly two centuries later. The reason was that the stars are so much farther away than anyone in Galileo’s time realised, making the effect too small to measure with the instruments of the day.
Galileo’s own alternative “proof” of the earth’s motion — his tidal theory — was also wrong. He claimed that the tides were caused by the earth’s motion, and rejected Kepler’s correct connection with the moon’s gravitational pull.
This does not mean the church was right to condemn Galileo. But the situation was not as simple as “proven science vs. unreasonable faith.” It was a convergence of incomplete science, ecclesiastical politics, personal egos and theological authority disputes.
The majority of Galileo’s scientific opponents were not theologians but other scientists — especially Aristotelian philosophy professors whose entire intellectual system was threatened by his new ideas. Much of the resistance to Galileo was therefore not “church vs. science,” but “old science vs. new science,” with the church unfortunately drawn into the politics of an academic dispute.
The Verdict and Its Aftermath
Galileo was tried by the Inquisition in 1633 and found guilty of “strong suspicion of heresy.” He was not tortured, not thrown into a dungeon, not burned. He was placed under house arrest at his own villa near Florence, where he lived and worked for another nine years, including writing his most important scientific work, the Discorsi (1638), on mechanical physics.
The famous phrase “Eppur si muove” (“And yet it moves”) that Galileo supposedly whispered after his trial is almost certainly apocryphal — a later addition to the legend.
Why This One Case Is Endlessly Rehashed
The Galileo affair is real. It was an injustice, and the Roman Catholic Church formally acknowledged this in 1992. But this ONE case, with all its personal and political complications, is constantly repeated as if it represents the entire relationship between Christianity and science. It is as if you highlight one marital argument from a thirty-year happy marriage and declare: “See! This marriage was a war!”
As the historian John Hedley Brooke showed in his groundbreaking Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives, the relationship between church and science throughout history was predominantly one of mutual enrichment and support. The Galileo affair is the exception, not the rule. And even this exception is so much more nuanced than the myth.
3. The Christian Foundations of Modern Science
The Core Question
Why did modern empirical science arise specifically in Christian Europe?
The ancient Greeks were brilliant thinkers. The Chinese made remarkable technological inventions. The Islamic golden age yielded mathematical and medical advances. But the specific combination of systematic empirical investigation, mathematical modelling and organised research that we call “modern science” arose in one specific cultural context: the Christian West, especially from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries onward.
Was this coincidence? Or was there something in the Christian worldview that made scientific investigation possible?
The Theological Presuppositions
Historians of science have increasingly recognised that several core convictions of the Christian faith provided the intellectual foundation upon which modern science could grow.
a) Creation ex nihilo: The World Is Not Divine
In many ancient cultures, nature itself was divine — full of spirits, demons and gods. The sun was a god. The river was a goddess. The trees were sacred. In such a world, it is culturally impossible to approach nature as an object of investigation. You do not analyse a deity; you worship it.
The Christian doctrine of creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing) drew a radical distinction: God is the Creator; nature is the creation. The world is not divine. It is good, yes, because God made it good (Gen. 1:31), but it is not sacred in the sense of being untouchable. It can be studied, measured, analysed and understood.
As Peter Harrison demonstrated in The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science (1998), this “disenchantment” of nature (not that it is without wonder, but that it need not be treated as divine) created the intellectual space within which empirical investigation could take place.
The philosopher Alfred North Whitehead, himself not an orthodox Christian, wrote in his Science and the Modern World (1925) that medieval theology provided the indispensable foundation for modern science — especially the conviction that there is a rational order in nature, grounded in a rational Creator. Whitehead’s precise words deserve attention:
“The greatest contribution of medievalism to the formation of the scientific movement… I mean the inexpugnable belief that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its antecedents in a perfectly definite manner… It must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God.”
This insight from an outsider — a mathematician and philosopher rather than a theologian or apologist — is all the more convincing precisely because it comes from honest historical analysis.
Consider also the contrast with other cultures. In ancient Hinduism, the material world is maya — illusion. Why would you systematically study an illusion? In many animistic cultures, natural phenomena are the capricious deeds of spirits — unpredictable and not subject to fixed laws. Only within a framework where nature is real, good, but non-divine does it become meaningful to treat it as an investigable object.
b) Contingency: God Chose Freely
The ancient Greeks largely believed that the world is necessarily the way it is — that the structure of reality can be deduced through pure reason without empirical investigation. Plato’s philosophers need not dirty their hands with experiments; they could figure everything out from their chairs.
The Christian doctrine of creation brought an entirely different perspective. If God freely chose to create this world with these laws — if He could just as well have created differently — then you cannot simply sit and think up the laws of nature. You have to go look. You have to investigate nature to discover how God chose to make it.
This is precisely the impulse behind empirical science: the conviction that the laws of nature are contingent (they need not necessarily be this way) and therefore must be discovered through observation rather than deduced through speculation.
The theologian Thomas F. Torrance treated this point at length in several works. He showed that the Christian doctrine of contingent creation provided the logical foundation for the empirical method: if the world is freely created by a sovereign God, then the only way to know the world is to investigate it. Pure rationalism (just thinking) is not enough; you need empirical testing (go and look).
c) Rational Order: The Universe Is Comprehensible
If the world is not divine (a) and not necessary (b), why would a person even try to understand it? Perhaps it is a chaos, a meaningless coincidence.
Here the third Christian conviction enters: a rational God created the world, and therefore the world is rationally ordered. It follows laws, patterns, mathematical relationships. It is not chaos; it is cosmos.
This conviction — that nature is comprehensible — is not self-evident. In a world without God, there is no obvious reason why the universe should be comprehensible. Albert Einstein famously made this point:
“The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.”
For the Christian, this is not mysterious: the universe is comprehensible because it is the work of a comprehensible God. The laws of nature are an expression of God’s faithful, consistent character. As Jeremiah 33:25–26 suggests: God’s covenant with day and night, the fixed order of heaven and earth, is a ground for trust.
Rodney Stark, a sociologist of religion, argued in his book For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery (2003) that this conviction in a rational Creator-God was the necessary condition for the rise of science. Stark writes:
“The rise of science was not an extension of classical learning. It was the natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine: nature exists because it was created by God. In order to love and honour God, it is necessary to fully appreciate the wonders of his handiwork. Because God is perfect, his handiwork functions in accord with immutable principles. By the full use of our God-given powers of reason and observation, we ought to be able to discover these principles.”
d) The Imago Dei: Our Minds Are Made to Know
Even if the world is rationally ordered, our minds must be capable of grasping that order. The Christian doctrine that humanity is created in the image of God (imago Dei, Gen. 1:27) provides precisely this assurance. We are made by the same God who made the universe, and our minds reflect, in a limited, creaturely way, the Divine Mind that structured nature.
Johannes Kepler, one of the founding figures of modern astronomy, expressed this beautifully. He understood his scientific work as literally “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” For Kepler, the discovery of the mathematical laws of planetary motion was not merely an intellectual achievement; it was an act of worship.
These four convictions together formed the intellectual ecosystem within which modern science germinated and grew. The world is not divine, is contingent, is rationally ordered, and can be known by our minds.
4. The Middle Ages: Not the “Dark Ages”
A Myth Within a Myth
If the conflict thesis is the great myth, then the idea of the “Dark Ages” is its faithful companion. The story goes like this: after the fall of Rome, the Christian church plunged Europe into a millennium of intellectual darkness. Only with the “Renaissance” and the “Enlightenment” was the light rekindled.
This picture is so distorted that it takes on almost comic proportions when compared with the facts.
The University: A Christian Invention
The university — one of the most distinctive institutions of Western civilisation — is a medieval Christian invention. There was nothing comparable in the ancient world. The university as a permanent institution with a structured curriculum, formal degrees and academic freedom is a product of the Christian Middle Ages.
- Bologna (founded c. 1088), the oldest university in the Western world
- Paris (c. 1150), the great centre of theological and philosophical study
- Oxford (c. 1167), established by scholars who came from Paris
- Cambridge (1209), founded by scholars from Oxford
By the end of the Middle Ages, there were more than sixty universities across Europe, all founded under ecclesiastical protection or with ecclesiastical approval. The curriculum included not only theology but also logic, mathematics, grammar, rhetoric, music, astronomy and natural philosophy.
The historian Edward Grant showed in his God and Reason in the Middle Ages (2001) that the medieval university was one of the foremost intellectual achievements in human history — an institution that fostered systematic, critical thinking on a scale previously unknown.
Medieval Scientific Progress
The Middle Ages were not stagnant.
Optics: Roger Bacon (c. 1214–1294), a Franciscan friar, did pioneering work in optics and advocated for experimental science. His fellow friar Robert Grosseteste (c. 1175–1253), the Bishop of Lincoln, developed a theory of light and is regarded by some historians as one of the earlier proponents of the scientific method. Witelo, a Polish monk, wrote a comprehensive work on optics in the thirteenth century that was used as a standard text into the seventeenth century.
Logic and Philosophy: The medieval scholastics did not merely preserve Aristotelian logic but significantly expanded and refined it. Theologians such as Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus and William of Ockham developed sophisticated intellectual frameworks that laid the groundwork for later scientific thinking. Ockham’s famous parsimony principle (“Entities must not be multiplied without necessity”) remains a foundational principle of scientific methodology to this day.
Technology: Medieval Europe displayed a remarkable technological dynamism. The watermill and windmill were deployed on a massive scale. The mechanical clock was developed in the thirteenth century, bringing a revolution in the measurement of time. Innovations in agriculture (the three-field system, the heavy plough, the horse collar) made a population explosion possible, which in turn freed more people for intellectual labour.
Astronomy and Cosmology: Jean Buridan, a fourteenth-century priest and philosopher at the University of Paris, developed the concept of impetus, a forerunner of Newton’s concept of inertia. Nicole Oresme, also a priest, argued in the fourteenth century that it is more economical to assume that the earth rotates rather than that the heavens rotate — an argument Copernicus would later repeat.
The Church as Patron of Learning
The Christian church was the primary patron of learning and education in the Western world for most of a millennium. Monastic orders copied and preserved ancient texts. Cathedral schools laid the groundwork for universities. Bishops and popes founded, funded and protected universities.
Even the preservation of the Greek and Latin intellectual heritage (Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, Euclid) was largely the work of Christian monks who copied these texts through the centuries. Without the Benedictine and other monastic orders, large parts of the ancient heritage would have been lost.
The Flat Earth Myth
One of the most persistent sub-myths within the “Dark Ages” narrative is the idea that medieval people believed the earth was flat and that the church enforced this belief. The story usually accompanies Columbus: brave Columbus wanted to sail west, but the Church said the earth was flat and he would fall off the edge.
This is simply not true. Educated people have known since antiquity that the earth is round. Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth around 240 BC, and his calculation was remarkably accurate. Medieval scholars such as Thomas Aquinas, Roger Bacon, Jean Buridan and Nicole Oresme all took the spherical earth as self-evident.
Columbus’s opponents did not think the earth was flat. They thought his calculation of the distance westward to Asia was wrong. And they were right! Columbus dramatically underestimated the circumference of the earth. Had America not happened to be in the way, he and his crew would probably have perished at sea.
The historian Jeffrey Burton Russell showed in his Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians (1991) that the “flat earth myth” is largely a nineteenth-century invention, created to present the Middle Ages as dark and the modern era as enlightened. Washington Irving’s novel about Columbus (1828) contributed to this distortion, and the conflict thesis writers Draper and White adopted it as fact.
5. Great Believing Scientists
Not an Argument from Authority
A qualification up front: the fact that a great scientist believed in God does not prove that God exists. That is not the point. The point is to counter the conflict myth. If science and faith were inherently in conflict, we would expect the history of science to be a history of growing unbelief. This is not the case. From the founders of modern science to contemporary top researchers, believing people have stood at the forefront.
The Founders of Modern Science
Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543) was a canon of the Roman Catholic Church. He dedicated his De Revolutionibus to Pope Paul III. His motivation for his work was not to undermine the church, but to find a more elegant and accurate model of God’s creation.
Galileo Galilei (1564–1642), despite his conflict with the ecclesiastical institution, never lost his faith. He lived to the end of his life as a devoted Catholic. His science was for him an expression of his faith, not a replacement for it.
Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), the discoverer of the laws of planetary motion, was a devout Lutheran. He explicitly understood his scientific work as tracing God’s thoughts. In his Harmonices Mundi he writes:
“I was merely thinking God’s thoughts after him. Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it benefits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God.”
Kepler’s sense that the universe is mathematically structured was directly rooted in his Christian conviction that a rational God has ordered creation.
Isaac Newton (1643–1727) is probably regarded as the greatest scientist who ever lived. Few people know that Newton wrote more about theology than about physics and mathematics combined. He left behind more than a million words on biblical interpretation and theology. In his Principia Mathematica he writes:
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
Newton did not see his discovery of the law of gravity as a replacement for God, but as a revelation of how God structured the universe.
Michael Faraday (1791–1867), whose work laid the foundation for electromagnetism and electrical technology, was a devoted member of the Sandemanian church, a small, strict Christian community. He believed that the unity he discovered in the forces of nature reflected the unity of God’s creative work.
James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879), whose equations form the basis of all modern electromagnetism and optics, was a devoted Presbyterian who actively participated in church life and regarded his science as a calling from God. After his death, a prayer was found on his desk that he regularly prayed, asking God to help him understand creation correctly.
Georges Lemaitre (1894–1966) was the Belgian Catholic priest who proposed the Big Bang theory. The theory that many atheists today regard as an argument against God was originally proposed by a priest. Lemaitre developed his theory independently of Edwin Hubble, and Einstein initially rejected it. Lemaitre was careful to distinguish his cosmology from his theology, but he never experienced any tension between them.
The Priest Behind the Big Bang
The case of Georges Lemaitre deserves special attention, because it literally turns the conflict myth on its head.
In the 1920s, most scientists, including Einstein, believed that the universe was eternal and static. It had always existed and always would. The idea that the universe had a beginning sounded more like religion than science.
Then came Lemaitre, a Roman Catholic priest with a doctorate in physics from MIT, who proposed that the universe is expanding from what he called a “primeval atom” — a single point of immense density from which everything unfolded. The British astronomer Fred Hoyle, an atheist who hated the theory, mockingly called it the “Big Bang.” The name stuck.
The theory that many people today regard as an argument against God was proposed by a priest. And the theory that at the time was considered the “scientific” alternative (the eternal, static universe) was the one more in line with atheistic expectations. History stubbornly refuses to follow the conflict myth’s script.
Lemaitre himself was keenly aware of this. He insisted that his cosmology was based on physics, not on theology. When Pope Pius XII in 1951 welcomed the Big Bang theory as confirmation of the doctrine of creation, Lemaitre privately requested the Pope not to do so again. He understood that science and theology each have their own integrity — an attitude deeply in accordance with the Reformed principle of sphere sovereignty.
Contemporary Believing Scientists
The tradition does not end in the past.
Francis Collins (b. 1950), the leader of the Human Genome Project, is a committed Christian. He began as an atheist, but came to faith through the work of C.S. Lewis and his own reflection on the moral law. In his book The Language of God (2006), he writes about how his faith and his science enrich each other.
John Lennox (b. 1943), emeritus professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford, is an outspoken Christian who regularly appears in debates with leading atheists, including Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. Lennox argues that science makes sense precisely within a theistic framework, and that it is atheism that struggles to explain the rationality of the universe.
Ard Louis (b. 1975), a Dutch theoretical physicist at the University of Oxford, is an active Christian doing research on the physical foundations of biological self-organisation. An example of a new generation of scientists who investigate the deepest scientific questions within a framework of faith, without intellectual discomfort.
This list could be much longer: Robert Boyle, the “father of chemistry” who funded theological lectures; Blaise Pascal, mathematician and philosopher of religion; Gregor Mendel, the Augustinian monk who laid the foundations of genetics; Werner Heisenberg and Max Planck, founders of quantum physics, who both spoke openly about their faith.
The point is not that every great scientist was a believer. The point is that the conflict myth makes a prediction — namely, that science and faith are irreconcilable — and history contradicts this prediction in the most direct way possible.
6. The Protestant Reformation and Science
The Protestant Reformation did not merely reform the church; it also created an intellectual and cultural environment favourable to scientific development.
Calvin and Creation as the Theatre of God’s Glory
John Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, used a beautiful image of direct relevance to our subject. In Book I, chapter 14, paragraph 20, he writes:
“Let us not be ashamed to take pious delight in the clear and manifest works of God in this beautiful theatre.”
For Calvin, creation is a theatrum gloriae Dei — a theatre of God’s glory. Not merely an elegant figure of speech, but a theological programme. If creation is a theatre in which God’s glory is displayed, then the study of creation is an act of religion. The scientist who investigates creation is, as it were, a spectator in God’s theatre who attends the performance with attention.
Calvin also emphasised that the Holy Spirit is the source of all truth, including truth discovered by non-believers. In his Institutes (II.2.15–16) he writes that if we read the works of pagan writers and recognise the truth and insight in them, we must acknowledge these as gifts of the Spirit. This created an openness to scientific discovery from any source.
Literacy and Education
The Reformation placed a strong emphasis on literacy and education. If every believer had to be able to read the Bible for himself (sola Scriptura), every believer had to be literate. Luther, Calvin and other Reformers argued passionately for schools and universities. This emphasis on universal education created a broader culture of learning that benefited science.
The historian Robert K. Merton showed as early as 1938 in his famous thesis that Puritans and other Protestants were disproportionately overrepresented in the early Royal Society and in scientific contributions in general. The Protestant work ethic, combined with the conviction that the study of nature honours God, was a powerful stimulus for scientific activity.
Bavinck on General and Special Revelation
Herman Bavinck, one of the great Reformed theologians, provided a framework that is particularly useful for the relationship between faith and science. Bavinck distinguished between God’s special revelation (Scripture, the Word of God) and God’s general revelation (creation, nature, history, the human conscience).
These two revelations come from the same God and therefore cannot truly be in conflict with each other. If they appear to clash, it means we are either misunderstanding Scripture or misunderstanding nature. Bavinck refused to choose: both revelations must be taken seriously, and both must be correctly interpreted.
In his Reformed Dogmatics, Bavinck writes that the book of nature and the book of Scripture mutually illuminate each other. Scripture is not an encyclopaedia of scientific facts; it is the revelation of God’s redemptive work. And nature is not a theological handbook; it is the stage on which God’s creative work becomes visible. Each has its own nature, its own language, its own method of interpretation. But both point to the same God.
This framework frees us from the false dilemma: “Do you choose the Bible or science?” The answer is: we choose God’s truth, and we strive to read both Scripture and creation correctly. Sometimes that means we must revise our scientific understanding; sometimes it means we must refine our interpretation of Scripture. In both cases we seek truth, because all truth is God’s truth.
Kuyper and Sphere Sovereignty
Abraham Kuyper, the great Reformed statesman, theologian and founder of the Free University of Amsterdam, developed a concept of direct relevance: sphere sovereignty (souvereiniteit in eigen kring).
Kuyper’s idea was that God created different spheres or domains of society (the church, the state, the family, the arts, science) and that each has a measure of autonomy within its own domain. The church may not dominate the state; the state may not dominate the church; and science has its own authority and integrity within its domain.
This does not mean that science is independent of God. All spheres ultimately stand under God’s authority. But the church must not prescribe to science how to practise physics or biology, just as science must not prescribe to the church how to proclaim the gospel.
Kuyper’s famous statement gives the heart of his vision:
“There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine!’”
Everything belongs to Christ — including science. But Christ’s lordship over science does not mean the church dominates science; it means that scientists must do their work as a calling before God’s face, with honesty and integrity.
This Reformed framework offers a clear middle way. On one side stands the fundamentalism that distrusts science and treats the Bible as a scientific textbook. On the other side stands the secularism that tries to disconnect science from all theological ties. The Reformed vision says: science is a gift from God, a calling within his creation, a way to discover his glory. But it must be practised according to its own methods and standards, with the freedom and integrity that befits its own sphere.
7. Why the Myth Persists
Academically Dead, Culturally Alive
Among professional historians of science, the conflict thesis is virtually dead. No serious historian still defends it. The historiography of science and religion has moved away from the conflict model toward a nuanced approach that acknowledges the complexity of the relationship.
But in popular culture — on social media, in television documentaries, in most university lecture halls outside the history department, and in the rhetoric of the New Atheism — the conflict myth still lives powerfully. Why?
The New Atheism
The so-called New Atheism — the movement around figures such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett — has used the conflict thesis as a central rhetorical weapon. Dawkins’s The God Delusion (2006), Harris’s The End of Faith (2004) and Hitchens’s God Is Not Great (2007) all frame their arguments within the narrative that science and religion are locked in a zero-sum struggle.
For the New Atheism, this narrative is indispensable. If history shows that Christianity and science were partners rather than enemies, they lose their most powerful rhetorical instrument. These writers do not deliberately lie; they have largely absorbed the popular version without consulting the specialist historiography.
Secularist Ideology
Broader than just the New Atheism, the conflict myth functions as a cornerstone of a secularist worldview. If religion was “always” against progress, then the solution is clear: remove religion from public life, confine it to the private sphere, and let “reason” (defined as secularism) guide society.
The myth also serves an identity function. For many intellectuals in the West, “rational” and “scientific” are synonymous with “secular” and “non-religious.” The conflict thesis confirms this identity: “I am on the side of science and reason; believers are on the other side.” To relinquish this narrative is to relinquish a piece of one’s own identity. That is psychologically difficult, even when the evidence demands it.
Institutional Inertia
Textbooks are updated slowly. Lecturers teach what they themselves were taught. Popular culture feeds on stories, not on academic nuances. The conflict myth is a “good story”: it has heroes (scientists), villains (ecclesiastical oppressors), and a clear message (reason triumphs over superstition). The real history is more nuanced and less dramatic. Nuance does not sell as well as war.
Real Tension vs. False War
That said, it would be dishonest to pretend that there was never tension between faith and science. There was and there is real intellectual challenges: questions about evolution, about the age of the earth, about neuroscientific explanations of consciousness. But there is a world of difference between real intellectual tension (which can be healthy and productive) and the claim that science and faith are inherently and permanently at war.
Real tension is like the tension in a good conversation: it forces both parties to think more sharply. A false war is propaganda that makes conversation impossible.
The historian Colin Russell summarised it well: the conflict thesis has been so widely rejected by serious historians that it can be called “largely the creation of two men” (Draper and White), rather than a genuine reflection of history. Yet the myth persists in popular culture, like a medical quackery that continues to be believed and spread long after it has been exposed. Good historiography must be actively taught and transmitted; it does not seep through to the popular consciousness on its own.
8. What Does This Mean for Us?
No Intellectual Refugees
If everything we have discussed so far is true — and the historical evidence is overwhelming — then believers need not feel as though they are intellectually homeless. The conflict myth has made many Christians believe they must choose: either you take your faith seriously and bury your head in the sand about science, or you take science seriously and quietly surrender your faith.
This dilemma is false. It is a product of propaganda, not of history.
The scientific enterprise is at its roots a theistic project. The convictions that made science possible — that the world is not divine, that it is contingently created, that it is rationally ordered, and that our minds are able to know it — are all Christian convictions. The people who founded modern science were predominantly believers. The institution within which science grew — the university — is a Christian invention.
This does not mean that science is only for Christians, or that every scientific discovery confirms the Christian faith. It does mean that the claim “science has made God redundant” turns history on its head. It is like saying the tree has made the roots redundant.
Engaged, Not Afraid
This finding has practical consequences for how we as a congregation speak with our children and young people. If a young person goes to university and hears the conflict myth there for the first time — often presented with great confidence — and he or she has never heard the real history, the effect is devastating. The young person thinks: “My parents and my church told me a lie. They led me to believe that faith and reason go together, but look, history says the opposite.”
But if that young person knows about Draper and White, about the nuances of the Galileo affair, about the Christian roots of science, about Lemaitre and Collins, then he or she stands on solid ground. Not because we have equipped them with propaganda weapons, but because we have equipped them with the truth.
This history ought to free us to approach science with confidence rather than fear. We need not be afraid of scientific discoveries, because all truth is God’s truth. If a scientific discovery is correct, it discovers something about God’s creation — and it ultimately cannot be in conflict with what God has revealed about Himself.
There are difficult questions. We will investigate some of them in later sessions. But we do not approach them from a position of intellectual weakness. We approach them as heirs of a tradition that made the scientific project possible in the first place.
The Liberation of Truth
Perhaps the most important lesson of this session is simply this: the truth liberates. Jesus said: “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32, ESV). This applies also to the truth about history. As long as we believe the conflict myth, we are trapped in a defensive position. As soon as we know the real history, we are freed to think with openness, honesty and wonder about what science teaches us about God’s creation.
Calvin said creation is a theatre of God’s glory. If that is true, then every scientific discovery is a new scene in that theatre — a new way in which the Creator’s wisdom and power are displayed. The scientist and the believer do not stand opposed to each other. They are, at their best, the same person.
Summary
| Myth | Reality |
|---|---|
| Science and faith were always at war | The “conflict thesis” is a nineteenth-century invention, academically debunked |
| Galileo was persecuted because he told the truth | The Galileo affair was a complex mix of politics, personality and incomplete science |
| The Middle Ages were the “Dark Ages” | The church founded universities, funded scholarship and supported significant scientific progress |
| Medieval people believed the earth was flat | Educated people have known since antiquity that the earth is round |
| Science developed despite religion | Christian theology provided the intellectual foundation for modern science |
| Believing scientists are the exception | The founders of modern science were predominantly deeply believing people |
For Further Study
- Ronald Numbers (ed.), Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion (Harvard University Press, 2009)
- Peter Harrison, The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science (Cambridge University Press, 1998)
- Peter Harrison, The Territories of Science and Religion (University of Chicago Press, 2015)
- Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery (Princeton University Press, 2003)
- David Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science (University of Chicago Press, 2007)
- John Hedley Brooke, Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives (Cambridge University Press, 1991)
- James Hannam, God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science (Icon Books, 2009)
- Francis Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (Free Press, 2006)
Bridge to Session 3
The conflict thesis is a myth. The Galileo story is far more nuanced than the legend. The Christian worldview provided the foundation for modern science. Some of the greatest scientific minds in history were deeply believing people.
But history is one thing; the facts themselves are another. In the next session we shift from history to content. Now that we know science and faith are not enemies: what does modern cosmology truly tell us about the origin of the universe? If the Christian faith is the roots of the scientific tree, what does that tree yield? What does science discover when it looks at the beginning of everything?
The answer is surprising.