Did atheism somehow cause - or contribute to - the rise of science?
I guess a lot of atheists believe that not only science and atheism are linked (because today there is a clear correlation; the vast majority of leading scientists are atheists) but also that atheism was a driving force behind the rise of science.
That is the question Taner Edis addresses in his article "Atheism and the rise of science".
His main thesis is: No, for the most time of their shared history, the two ran on parallel tracks.
Here are some excerpts from the text:
"As Europe became modern, such sources of doubt fed back into one another. With hindsight, we begin to see some signs of what might even be atheism, in a small minority among elite, intellectual circles. At roughly the same times we can also see the precursors of modern science gaining strength. But there was very little connection at the beginning. Distrust in faith did not motivate the emerging science. And what little there was in the way of science did not much influence existing pockets of doubt.
"The irrelevance of atheism to the Scientific Revolution is also apparent in the intellectual development of nonbelief. Doubts about God could potentially be furthered by better knowledge of nature, through explaining the smaller-scale supernatural phenomena bound up in common theistic views of the world. But philosophical criticisms of the concept of God developed independently of science, which was not yet powerful enough to undermine belief in magic and miracles.
"Modern science and modern nonbelief rose more-or-less independently in changing circumstances that led to an intellectual culture independent of religious institutions. And dissenters from religion who hoped for a moral transformation of their societies readily embraced science, not just as a reliable form of knowledge but as an example of human emancipation, social progress, and even as an invitation to build heaven on earth.
"Today, science inspires a comprehensive naturalism as a very broad description of our world. But the rise of science does not conform to any atheistic morality tale either. The rise of atheism was much more closely linked to the revival of doubting currents within philosophy, coupled with moral and social discontent with traditional Christianity and Judaism in Europe. In the traumatic transition to modernity, science and religious doubt ran on parallel tracks."
"Science could and does work without atheism, and atheism remains a position adopted largely for philosophical
and ethical, rather than scientific reasons."
(From: "The Oxford Handbook of Atheism" )
10
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
24 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I think it's the other way around. Science contributed to atheism.
Most atheists are atheists because they are evidence based - not faith based. When the scientific method was discovered it was shown to be much more reliable than faith.
dare2dream
Level 7
Sep 5, 2019
4
In one of my favorite Family Guy episodes, Stewie builds a device that allows him to jump between parallel dimensions. He takes Brian with him to one of the universes and it's all futuristic and Brian is like whoa where are we? And Stewie says this is a universe where Christianity never existed so there was no repression of science
Remi
Level 7
Sep 5, 2019
4
I totally disagree with the last quote. I think that atheism and science both arise from critical thinking. That's why most scientists are atheists. They go together.
Stephanie99
Level 8
Sep 5, 2019
5
I agree with your analysis.
@TheMiddleWay How can there be no link between theism and lack of critical thinking?
You have to watch how polls finding that scientists are theists are run. I don't believe your numbers represent reality today.
@TheMiddleWay "Except most scientists are not atheist" Pretty strong correlation of atheists when you move to the top scientists. [evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com]
@TheMiddleWay For "science Nobel prize winners are strongly religious", you give a reference that shows the religion of Nobel prize winning scientists. If asked their religion most people even today will give the religion of their family. That was even more the case in history. That source is poor support for Nobel prize winning scientists being strongly religious.
No. Science has to be agnostic. The scientific process demands that scientists have no beliefs other than "best interpretation of available data". There is no evidence either for, nor against, the existence of a sentient god, so a decent scientist would simultaneously both believe, and disbelieve the existence of god, until evidence in either direction was provided.
God exists. God has been charged as the force that created the universe. Whatever force caused matter and energy to become matter and energy, whether it was created, or transformed from a a different isotope, to a scientist, is god... Whether the appearance of matter and energy was the action of a sentient entity, or mere statistical probability in an infinite time, and space, is, at this time, unknown, as there is no evidence available to us. An atheist believes that there is no sentient god. A scientist believes that there is no evidence, one way or the other, at this time... but will accept whichever, if evidence becomes available.
Just my opinion.
Dreegle
Level 4
Sep 7, 2019
2
My opinion as well.
@RandomMonkey Unicorns are the remains of narwhals washed upon the shore. Dragons? Dinosaur fossils. Faeries? Tribes of Celts that avoided Skara Brae... They existed, but not as themselves... you sir, are a narcissist trapped within the anthropic principle. The universe exists, solely as you see it, solely for your benefit... but only to you.
I believe science has given much needed fuel to the intellectual. Science allows them to dismiss primitive beliefs from a time when the answer was god did it if man could not explain it otherwise.due to the increase of knowledge from science logically minded people do not have to lean on the crutch of religion anymore.
BDGriffith
Level 5
Sep 6, 2019
3
I think atheism is a modern response to theism. The fact is a lot scientists studied the universe to understand "god's creation" but also studied it for practical and business reasons. However as the centuries of evidence mounted against theism, especially in Renaissance and Enlightenment periods, atheism became a serious position to take and we've been fighting, and winning, albeit slowly, that battle since then.
MakeItGood
Level 7
Sep 5, 2019
1
There are different kinds of atheists and unless you clarify that point, confusion results. For example Aristotle was an atheist in that he rejected belief in the mythological gods and goddesses of his day. Yet he argued for a “prime mover”.
https[learnreligions.com]
Max Planck was not interested in dogmatic religious beliefs based on myth, yet he espoused Universal Consciousness. For John Wheeler it was a Participatory Universe—David Bohm, the Implicate Order. Donald Hoffman talks about Conscious Realism—the list goes on, and in fact, half of all scientists in the US express belief in some sort of higher power.
As those with courage, intelligence and open minds gain broader perspectives, they reject belief in religious dogma and mythical beings, and they become enthralled with the deeper questions of ultimate reality. Atheism is just a label for an opinion, and has no major role in the development of science.
WilliamFleming
Level 8
Sep 5, 2019
1
I think they followed parallel paths until they converged. From earliest times there have been philosophers and movements which questioned and went against the orthodoxies of their time regarding belief in a god or gods. As it was usually punishable by death to voice these opinions, they were largely kept secret by those who held these views. It has only been since the time of the Enlightenment in the 17th & 18th centuries that it became possible to identify with having an atheist belief. At around the same time scientists were beginning to make discoveries which led to questioning the bible...but it was another century before Lyell, Wallace and Darwin would change thinking sufficiently to lend any great weight to countering the creationist views of how the world was formed, and had changed over time, due to evolutionary processes. Quite naturally most scientists are also atheists, it’s what one would expect, but the more surprising fact is that not all are.
Marionville
Level 10
Sep 5, 2019
1
I think access to science and reason and philosophy help make people agnostic or atheist.
Williamcristiano
Level 5
Sep 5, 2019
2
"Science could and does work without atheism, and atheism remains a position adopted largely for philosophical
and ethical, rather than scientific reasons." - I think that this statement is false! The scientific mindset does not make religious thinking possible.
zesty
Level 7
Sep 10, 2019
1
I'd say yes. Why would anyone search for real answers if they believed in magical fairy tales?
chucklesIII
Level 7
Sep 7, 2019
1
The Renaissance was full of religious people. Isaac Newton, possibly the greatest scientist to live, was quite religious. I don’t see much correlation between religion and the lack of scientific thought.
indirect76
Level 7
Sep 6, 2019
0
You haven’t spent much time in the Bible Belt recently then. Religion doesn’t rule out scientific thought of course, but it certainly doesn’t help honestly foster it either. The religious scientists that exist are the exceptions not the rules; they’re highly intelligent people with a few delusions that they are good at compartmentalizing for the sake of tapping into reality professionally. Those exceptions like Newton and Mendel, a handful of brilliant jesuits, and a higher percentage of religious scientists in olden times exist simply because there was a higher percentage of religious people period. They can’t all be morons, just most of em. A lot of em had to fake their faith or face cruel persecution too.
Throughout history religion has generally been a menace and enemy of science. Galileo only recently got his apology from the Catholics, the Coperican model was deemed heresy for a long time, the Spanish Inquisition destroyed a lot of the Islamic and Jewish world’s contributions, and all over the US the fundies are still resisting any and all evidence of evolution, climate change and the possibilities of stem cell treatments. The damage religion has done to the potential of our scientific thought is immeasurable.
@Wurlitzer I find that view to be a bit narrow for me.
Not really a view, just stating historical facts. I find ignoring all that and listing one example of how religion did no harm a little more narrow.
Above is a fine article, but I am not sure we can say the vast majority of great scientists are atheists. Consider Francis Collins, the head of MIT mapping the human genome. He wrote a book about why he is a Christian. I think only a little more than 1/2 of scientists are atheists. I can't imagine how that can be, of course. I think Christian scientists get more grant money. just saying. I guess emotional awe and wonder regarding nature can lead one to believe it had to be created. I think if scientists (or anyone) could figure out how life arose out of inorganic chemicals that would go along way.
Grecio
Level 7
Sep 5, 2019
1
I think common sense had made rise to science and science made atheism...
SravanKumar
Level 4
Sep 5, 2019
0
While that's a nice thought -- most scientists throughout history have been religious. Some people are curious about the world and universe. Many people slaughtered by religions around the world and history have been poets, philosophers, and scientists. Religion cannot stand for any type of thinking that might disagree with their 'way of life'.
xyz123
Level 7
Sep 6, 2019
0
I think you may find that the earlier Scientists and the like were FORCED to be religious just as were the rest of the populace.
Some like Galileo actually were attacked, verbally if not physically, by the religious Authorities of the time for putting forward discoveries, etc, that, either directly or indirectly, went against the 'teachings' of the Church/Bible.
Even further than Galileo was Hypatia of Alexandria, Egypt who was persecuted by and murdered by the Christian Movement in Egypt for her theories, etc,, one of which went completely against the bible idea that Sun and Universe revolved around the Earth, a theory that was, many centuries later, proved to 100% correct.
So, YES, I'd say that a form of disbelief did, in some ways, lead to the steady rise of scientific thought, etc.
IMHO, we MUST NEVER forget that RELIGIONS held sway over human developments in knowledge for centuries with a very hard, iron fist and do everything in our power to ensure that it NEVER happens again.
Galileo was indeed religious and argued that "god" wrote two great books: the Bible and the "book of nature." While the first was for the church/pope to interpret, the second - he argued in The Assayer - was written in the language of mathematics and best understood by doing experiments. He tried to separate his scientific work from the church by saying he too was revealing god's word, just in a different way. Newton himself was deeply religious and thought his analysis of the Bible was his most important work, more so that his contributions to math and physics. I've seen it reported that he had an orrery (model of the solar system) in his house. When guests admired the craftsmanship and asked who made it, he would reply "no one." When pressed, he argued that how can scholars argue that no one created the actual solar system but be surprised when told that no one build a mere model of it? Not that I agree with the analogy, but it shows that in the early days of the scientific revolution, its major actors were actually very religious. At present this may no longer be as true, but if the question is about the origins of science and the role of atheism - must admit that its role was likely limited.
@xyz123 Yes, they would have been children BUT the religious pressures imposed during those centuries would have meant that the parents would have HAD to be followers of the predominant religion of the times thus passing the belief on to the child/children, such was the fear and power that the Catholic Church wielded throughout most of Europe for many, many centuries.
As often happens, even in this day and age, a child with a very inquisitive mind begins to question the things he/she is expected believe whole-heartedly such as religion and runs afoul of those around him/her merely by wanting to know more and not simply accepting things with the 'blind faith' required OR they will hide behind a veneer of belief but still question anyway.
That, in many cases, is how Believers have become Atheists or Agnostic and here I can honestly state it applies to me since I started questioning religious beliefs from around the early age of 8 years old.
So, in my opinion, it IS the questioning of the 'standards' put forward by religions that gave rise to both the thinking Atheist within those discoverers of Sciences, etc, that brought about the so-called Revolution/s in the advancements of human knowledge, understanding and the continuing search to know more about like, the planet and the universe on a whole.
Had the Iron-fisted grip of Catholicism not been weakened by the likes of Martin Luther and Henry the 8th ( though his rebellion against the Catholic Church WAS mostly for his needs and aims, not for the good of his subjects imho) then scientific development, etc, would, most likely have been stymied for even longer and We, the Atheists, would still 'hiding' in the shadows and fearing for our lives as those before did then.
The methods and philosophies of science make it hard to accept things that have not been verified, such as the existence of god, gods, or magical beings. I think atheism rises from science, not the other way around.
GregM
Level 5
Sep 5, 2019
0
@TheMiddleWay I guess that's true on a societal level, but not so much on a personal level because no one has been around for 400 years.
We know that most scientists are atheists, but not all atheists are scientists. So that means that following scientific thinking tends to lead to becoming atheist because science is all about finding the truth, and god is not falsifiable.
Science no, but you could make a better case for statistics. In “Against the Gods” by Peter Bernstein, he talks about how the we started using mathematics to learn that there’s a pattern to things like floods, droughts and volcanoes that could be predicted rather than just attributing it to the will of deities
thezekroman
Level 5
Sep 5, 2019
0
Regardless of what others say, science appears to operate on a desire or need to know something while religion operates strictly on dogma. This makes it hard for me to put them together in any form. We do know that in the past Islam was very much into science but that appears to have changed today. As this all unfolded over time I do not see anyone viewing it the way we view atheism today. One big reason for this would be the absence of social media. Back then social media was present only in books that one might read.
DenoPenno
Level 9
Sep 5, 2019
0
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.