John Hedley Brooke offers an introduction and critical guide to one of the most fascinating and enduring issues in the development of the modern world: the relationship between scientific thought and ...religious belief. It is common knowledge that in western societies there have been periods of crisis when new science has threatened established authority. The trial of Galileo in 1633 and the uproar caused by Darwin's Origin of Species (1859) are two of the most famous examples. Taking account of recent scholarship in the history of science, Brooke takes a fresh look at these and similar episodes, showing that science and religion have been mutually relevant in so rich a variety of ways that no simple generalizations are possible.
REVISITING WILLIAM PALEY Brooke, John Hedley
Zygon,
03/2022, Letnik:
57, Številka:
1
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Abstract
Evaluations of William Paley's
Natural Theology
(1802) routinely refer to its philosophical and theological shortcomings, especially its vulnerability to Charles Darwin's scientific ...naturalism. Nevertheless, Paley still repays a visit as a subject who transcends common stereotypes, four of which invite correction: that Paley wrote in culpable neglect of David Hume; that he pretended to give a deductive demonstration of God's existence; that by making his
Natural Theology
a stand‐alone book, his apologetic framework was neglectful of revelation and therefore inconsequential for Christian theology; and that, preoccupied with the minutiae of anatomical specificity, he was blind to laws connecting natural phenomena. Nuances in Paley's thinking, particularly his allowance for the extension of scientific naturalism, help to explain the sympathetic recognition he still enjoyed among scientific figures until the end of the nineteenth century. For Thomas Huxley, he had even created a metaphysical space that allowed for a science of evolution.
Responding to Mark Harris, I reflect on his tantalizing question whether the provision of naturalistic explanations for biblical miracles renders the narratives more, or less, credible. I address his ...“reversal,” in which professional scientists now feature among defenders of a literalistic reading, while professional biblical scholars are often skeptical. I suggest this underlines the ambivalence of scientific naturalism from the standpoint of Christian theology. Historical examples are adduced to show that, until the mid‐nineteenth century, naturalistic and theistic explanations were commonly regarded as complementary. Accordingly, the primacy often accorded to scientific progress in accounts of secularization is questionable. Two concluding questions are raised. If a methodological naturalism inheres in biblical scholarship, as in the sciences, how do biblical scholars decide whether the historical trajectories they construct for the composition of biblical texts are destructive or affirmative of faith? Second, when the miracle is the Resurrection of the dead Christ, does not the scientific impossibility of this foundational event remain sacrosanct?
In recent years many historical myths about the relations between science and religion have been corrected but not always with sensitivity to different types and functions of “myth.” Correcting ...caricatures of Darwin's religious views and of the religious reaction to his theory have featured prominently in this myth‐busting. With the appearance in 2017 of A. N. Wilson's depiction of Darwin himself as a “mythmaker,” it is appropriate to reconsider where the myths lie in discourse concerning Darwin and Christianity. Problems with Wilson's account are identified and his provocative demeaning of Darwin is contrasted with an image gleaned from Darwin's friend and colleague George Romanes. The article concludes with a brief reference to the problem of suffering and to the work of Christopher Southgate.
REVISITING WILLIAM PALEY Brooke, John Hedley
Zygon,
March 2022, Letnik:
57, Številka:
1
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Evaluations of William Paley's Natural Theology (1802) routinely refer to its philosophical and theological shortcomings, especially its vulnerability to Charles Darwin's scientific naturalism. ...Nevertheless, Paley still repays a visit as a subject who transcends common stereotypes, four of which invite correction: that Paley wrote in culpable neglect of David Hume; that he pretended to give a deductive demonstration of God's existence; that by making his Natural Theology a stand‐alone book, his apologetic framework was neglectful of revelation and therefore inconsequential for Christian theology; and that, preoccupied with the minutiae of anatomical specificity, he was blind to laws connecting natural phenomena. Nuances in Paley's thinking, particularly his allowance for the extension of scientific naturalism, help to explain the sympathetic recognition he still enjoyed among scientific figures until the end of the nineteenth century. For Thomas Huxley, he had even created a metaphysical space that allowed for a science of evolution.
The history of Orthodoxy and science invites contrasts with other religious traditions. In contradistinction to the Latin West, for example, Eastern Orthodoxy throughout its history embraced the ...“pagan” scientific achievements of ancient Greece. Also unlike in the West, where ecclesiastical institutions often supported scientific activities, scholars in the East—in both the Byzantine and Ottoman periods—relied primarily on temporal sources to sustain their investigations of nature. Islam, with its strenuous resistance to any assimilation of the human to the divine, provides another contrasting example, as does the later Protestant justification for science grounded in the need to restore a fallen world through the application of experimental research. Not surprisingly, Eastern Orthodox believers seem to have paid little attention to non-Christian faiths, with the exception of Islam and Judaism, until well into the twentieth century.
Abstract
Responding to Mark Harris, I reflect on his tantalizing question whether the provision of naturalistic explanations for biblical miracles renders the narratives more, or less, credible. I ...address his “reversal,” in which professional scientists now feature among defenders of a literalistic reading, while professional biblical scholars are often skeptical. I suggest this underlines the ambivalence of scientific naturalism from the standpoint of Christian theology. Historical examples are adduced to show that, until the mid‐nineteenth century, naturalistic and theistic explanations were commonly regarded as complementary. Accordingly, the primacy often accorded to scientific progress in accounts of secularization is questionable. Two concluding questions are raised. If a methodological naturalism inheres in biblical scholarship, as in the sciences, how do biblical scholars decide whether the historical trajectories they construct for the composition of biblical texts are destructive or affirmative of faith? Second, when the miracle is the Resurrection of the dead Christ, does not the scientific impossibility of this foundational event remain sacrosanct?
Abstract In recent years many historical myths about the relations between science and religion have been corrected but not always with sensitivity to different types and functions of “myth.” ...Correcting caricatures of Darwin's religious views and of the religious reaction to his theory have featured prominently in this myth‐busting. With the appearance in 2017 of A. N. Wilson's depiction of Darwin himself as a “mythmaker,” it is appropriate to reconsider where the myths lie in discourse concerning Darwin and Christianity. Problems with Wilson's account are identified and his provocative demeaning of Darwin is contrasted with an image gleaned from Darwin's friend and colleague George Romanes. The article concludes with a brief reference to the problem of suffering and to the work of Christopher Southgate.
PDF