God and the Folly of Faith: The Incompatibility of Science and Religion (10 page)

This freedom was not totally without interference. In 1210, a decree issued by a council of bishops in Paris forbade the teaching of Aristotle's natural philosophy at the University of Paris because it was conceived as promoting
pantheism
, the doctrine that identifies God with the universe. This regulation was affirmed by Pope Gregory IX (died 1241), who ordered it enforced until “examined and purged of all suspected error.” The commission was never carried out, and eventually, after Gregory's death, Aristotle's works were accepted without censorship and by 1255 had become the principle ingredient of university teaching.
²¹
Ironically, Aristotelian dogma joined Christian dogma in impeding the development of science.

Of course, conflict existed between the two dogmas. For one, Aristotle said the universe was eternal, with no beginning and no end, in obvious contradiction to the fundamental Christian belief in a divine creation. Furthermore, Aristotle's prime mover was eternally unchanging and not capable of intervening in the world—hardly consistent with the Christian God who plays such an important role in the running of the universe. Many believers today think Jesus decides even the outcome of football games and their tennis shots. In one more important example, Aristotle did not believe the soul was immortal since it could not have an existence independent of matter.
²²
All this was swept under the rug in medieval universities.

Modern cosmology today views the universe as probably eternal, having no beginning and no end. Theologians object, pointing to the big bang as evidence that the universe had a beginning, arguing that the universe cannot be eternal because then it would take an infinite time to reach the present.
²³
However, while the big bang is the origin of
our
universe, nothing forbids the existence of a prior universe or, indeed, many other universes. Indeed, current
cosmological models imply a vast, eternal multiverse in which our universe is just one member.

As for the claim that we would never reach the present if the universe were eternal, this assumes the universe had a beginning an infinite time ago. In fact, the eternal universe of science had no beginning, and the time interval to any moment in the past, no matter how distant, is finite.

In
chapter 7
, we will expand on the fundamental cosmological differences between science and Christian theology that form part of the case that the two are irretrievably incompatible. Here we will see that this difference goes back to the Middle Ages. It wasn't settled then, and it won't be settled now.

SCIENCE AS THE HANDMAIDEN OF RELIGION

As we saw in
chapter 2
, Saint Augustine proposed that philosophy be used as a “handmaiden of religion.” This well describes the relationship between church and science that developed in the Middle Ages. While, as mentioned, there was much in Aristotle's teachings that conflicted mightily with Christian dogma, Aristotle's logic was too useful and his science was about the only science anyone knew at the time. So scholars sought ways to put Aristotelian philosophy to work on behalf of Christendom.
²⁴

The first chancellor of Oxford, Robert Grosseteste (died 1253), began the effort at reconciliation by bringing in Neoplatonic ideas that were more compatible with Church teachings, particularly the notion that the universe emanates from God. This program was continued by Roger Bacon (ca. 1220–1292), who argued that science contributes to the understanding of God's creation, helps to establish the religious calendar, and prolongs life. He asserted that the seeming conflicts between philosophy and Christian belief were due to faulty reasoning, since philosophy was given by God and thus cannot conflict with faith.
²⁵
Bacon disputed the theory that disease was caused by demonic possession, and he was generally regarded as being ahead of his time (at least ahead of Christendom) in promoting empirical science.

A Dominican friar known as Albert the Great (died 1280) provided a comprehensive interpretation of Aristotlelianism while managing to maintain
the priority of Christian doctrines obtained by way of revelation. He regarded philosophy and theology as separate domains.

Albert the Great's student, another Dominican named Thomas Aquinas, became the central theologian of the Catholic Church and is still recognized as such today. We have already discussed, in
chapter 2
, how Aquinas used Aristotle's notion of first cause to provide what he and many since have thought were unassailable proofs of the existence of God. Few philosophers or theologians today regard these proofs as airtight. The theologians advocating these “proofs” had assumed what they set out to prove.

Aquinas, like his predecessors, argued that philosophy could not be inconsistent with what is revealed to us by faith. All throughout the medieval period, we see that the assumption that God exists went unchallenged. There were some nonconformists, such as Siger of Brabant (ca. 1240–1280) who, while professing faith (perhaps for his own good), pointed out that properly conducted philosophy can lead to conclusions that contradict theology.
²⁶
Accused of heresy during a crackdown on Aristotlelianism in 1277, Siger fled to Italy where he died mysteriously. Also fleeing with Siger was Boethius of Dacia (ca. 1240–1290), who defended Aristotle's notion of an eternal universe.

Although Siger and Boethius were Averroists, agreeing that Church doctrine took precedence over philosophy, they were nonetheless condemned by authorities. In 1277, the Bishop of Paris, Étienne Tempier, issued a list of 219 forbidden propositions, including the eternity of the world, denial of personal immortality, and denial of free will.
²⁷

Early in the twentieth century, French physicist, philosopher, and historian Pierre Duhem speculated that the 1277 attack on entrenched Aristotlelianism opened up the path for modern science, especially in physics. However, historian David Lindberg points out that in 1277 no such orthodoxy existed, at least not yet. As he puts it, “The condemnations were a ringing declaration of the subordination of philosophy to theology.”
²⁸

Even Thomas Aquinas was tainted by his flirtation with Aristotle. But by 1323, Aquinas had been canonized as a saint, and in 1325, all the articles of condemnation from 1277 that were applicable to Aquinas's teachings were revoked by the then bishop of Paris. Aristotlelianism became firmly entrenched and served as the foundation of intellectual effort of any kind.
With the work of John Duns Scotus (ca. 1266–1308) and William of Ockham (ca. 1285–1347), the ability of philosophy to address articles of faith was seriously questioned, leaving faith alone as the source of religious truth. The predominance of observation and experimentation was still centuries away.
²⁹

THE MEDIEVAL WORLDVIEW

Ian Barbour regards Thomas Aquinas as the most influential medieval scholar, whose synthesis of Aristotelian philosophy and Christian theology dominated Western thinking until the seventeenth century and still holds sway in the Catholic Church today. Barbour summarizes the medieval worldview elucidated by Aquinas in terms of five categories:
³⁰

1.
Methods

Both Greek and medieval science were primarily deductive: Knowledge was to be obtained by contemplation. Observation was not ignored but was regarded as imperfect. The human intellect was believed capable of grasping the true essence of the world. Barbour argues that when Aquinas and his followers asserted that God is rational, they indirectly contributed to the rise of science since it is based on the concept of a universe ruled by law.

2.
View of Nature

According to Aquinas, nature was a hierarchy: God, planets, angels, men, women, animals, and plants. (An eighth level probably should have been added: inanimate objects.) No distinction was made between science and magic, sorcery, and astrology. Nature was believed to be
static
, with species created in their present forms and with no changes except those mandated by God.

3.
The Context of Theology

In the medieval world, God was known through observation, reason, and revelation. According to Aquinas, the existence of God could be established by observational evidence and rational argument. The observed world provides support for intelligent design. Reason tells us that there must have been a first cause, which everyone identifies with God. Still, these sources are secondary to the revealed truths, such as the Trinity and the Incarnation, that cannot be accessed by observation or reason. The Bible is authoritative, but only as interpreted by the Church.

4.
Concept of God

Aquinas's God is more than Aristotle's prime mover. Aquinas's God is personal and concerned with humanity. Indeed, Aquinas considers the possibility of an infinite sequence of causes, with God as the necessary being for all existence. While God is the primary cause, he works through secondary causes, in particular, natural processes. Barbour sees this concept of nature as also contributing to the science that eventually emerged in the seventeenth century. But, as we have seen, the Greeks differentiated the natural from the supernatural long before Aquinas did.

5.
Humans Are Central

While God is the supreme member of the hierarchy of being, Aquinas places humanity at what Barbour calls the “center of the cosmic drama.” Humans are special compared to other creatures, with bodies and immortal souls. They are part of a divine plan leading ultimately to God.

AQUINAS REBUFFED

As we will see, all five of these views were challenged by the new science that began with Copernicus and Galileo. Observation is central to the new science, and its superiority in obtaining knowledge of the physical universe is demonstrated
by its success and the utter failure of alternatives, such as revelation and pure reason. This does not speak well for the capabilities of these alternatives to tell us anything about “ultimate reality.”

Today, the notion that the universe is governed by natural laws analogous to the Ten Commandments remains in the thinking of most scientists, including the majority who are atheists. However, this view is unfounded. What are called natural laws are simply human inventions—ingredients of the models that scientists introduce to describe observations. Far from aiding in the advancement of science, the notion of universal law that became deeply embedded in our thinking from medieval theology has held science back to this day.

Evolution and modern cosmology not only exemplify the ubiquity of change but also the absence of hierarchy, in direct contradiction to the medieval view. Humans share the same genetics with bacteria and the same physics with inanimate objects such as rocks. Magic, sorcery, and astrology are not confirmed as separate forces of nature.

Modern science finds no evidence to support revelation as a source of information, no sign of intelligent design, and no need for everything to have a cause. It is likely that the multiverse is eternal, with no beginning, no end, and no need of a creator. The Bible is so filled with violence, contradictions, and downright errors that it provides no reliable source for the nature of reality or morality. God is not needed to help explain any human observation. Our universe and probably other universes are so vast in space and time that humanity is beyond insignificance.

While it is possible that a deist god could be behind everything as the primary cause and could use natural processes as the secondary causes of events (no miracles), we will see in detail later how science has no need to assume any primary cause beyond nature itself.

Yet, despite these well-established facts, billions of people today, including many theologians and religious scholars such as Barbour, still cling to medieval religious concepts. The Catholic Church is defined by Aquinas's theology. Protestant churches follow the same basic principles, differing from Catholics mainly in their emphasis on the Bible as the ultimate authority rather than the pope and ecclesiastic traditions. At least popes have the power to modernize,
which they occasionally do, albeit far too slowly. Protestants are frozen in their ancient myths.

Likewise, Islam and Judaism today do not differ widely from medieval beliefs, and both had their own influential teachers from the same period. While science developed within this framework, organized religion has remained mired in medieval thinking to this very day. Where Christian theology has tried to keep up, the result is a modernized deism that bears little resemblance to traditional Christianity.
³¹
It has had no impact on what is preached from the pulpit or taught in Bible study classes.

Nevertheless, the medieval era was not the Dark Age that it is often made out to be. A visit to one of the great Gothic cathedrals of Europe, such as Chartres or Salisbury, will quickly disabuse anyone of this misapprehension. Built for the glory of God, such cathedrals testify to the glory of human genius. And while religion has been the source of much human misery with its wars, crusades, and inquisitions, it has inspired some of humankind's greatest achievements. No doubt many Christian thinkers during the centuries before Copernicus participated in the intellectual activity leading to the development of natural philosophy. However, suggestions that the scientific revolution was somehow a direct consequence of Christian thinking
³²
are refuted by the historical facts.

Much genius, such as that of Darwin and Einstein, was not inspired by thoughts of a world beyond the senses. Who can say that magnificent buildings would not have been built in a world without God? Certainly we have built many great structures in our xsecular age.

THE NEW SCIENCE

Science as we know it today is generally regarded as having been triggered by Nicolaus Copernicus, who in 1543 published his model of the solar system that placed the sun near the center in a book called
De Revolutionibus Orbium
(
On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres
). Ptolemy's Earth-centered model was a complicated conglomeration of circles upon circles called
epicycles
. Copernicus regarded his own system as simpler, although, as it turned out, it did not
place the sun exactly at the center either, in order to more accurately fit astronomical data. At first, the Copernican model did no better than the Ptolemaic model in describing accurate observations; it was just simpler, and it eventually did better when the data got better.