I just finished writing an assessment for my 'Science and the Natural Man in the Enlightenment' class with Dr. John Henry. The topic: religion vs. science. I had to explain and discuss the following statement by Isaac Kramnick: 'If religion was seen as the principle villain of the Enlightenment, then science was its hero.' Brilliant, eh? In terms of an essay argument, it's brilliant. As I read the news article and watched this clip on Youtube this morning I was pretty excited since science has been on my mind a lot this week. I can't imagine what the men from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries would be thinking if they saw how far society has come with the progress of science and technology. I won't go into all the details of the paper, but it basically revolved around three lenses: harmony, indifference or hostility. Those are the common lenses through which most people can view the science vs. religion debate. Great minds such as Galileo, Kepler, Boyle, Locke, Newton, Voltaire, Diderot, and Hume all took part in the dialogue and provided me with really interesting research material.
Two thoughts to leave with you, both of which stood out to me during my research for this paper for various reasons.
On religion: "It illuminates our nature and experience. It draws into a unity the scattered elements in our life. It guides our minds and controls our science, because it alone can unfold the full mystery of nature. It answers the questions which reason can only raise, and it brings us to that fulfillment of life towards which science in its more limited way is struggling. It cannot be set in opposition to reason or science, because it includes yet transcends both. If our thought starts from God and finally rests in him, we have found the means by which the fragmentary powers of our being are harmonized in the service and appropriation of all truth." - Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
On science (or Enlightenment in general): "It challenged the principle of supernatural authority. It denied divine revelation, scoffed at miracles, and assaulted the chief dogmas of the faith. It profoundly affected the way in which religious authority was conceived and broke the coercive spirit in which theological systems had been enforced. Intolerance was discredited: the individual could no longer be compelled to submit to prevailing ecclesiastical systems. The churches forfeited their controlling influence in the intellectual life of Europe, and science was free to pursue its autonomous course. It encouraged far greater freedom in the pursuit of truth. It did so at the cost of aggravating the confusion in religious values which has been so conspicuous a feature of modern life. And it profoundly modified the standards and methods of all the churches."
- Gerald Cragg (historian)
Getting back to the Hubble telescope, the idea that came to my mind as I was reading about the space mission that occurred last May was clarity. We certainly live in a different age than did the men mentioned previously. For as much confusion and argument as there is in the world today, there is so much more clarity to see things as they really are now. I hope everyone had an exceptional weekend...
[I know I sound like a total geek, but if you are interested in more pictures like this, check out Nasa's Astronomy picture of the day - it's quite cool. Enjoy!]
3 comments:
What a great post. I loved both quotes, but particularly the Pascal. "It illuminates our nature and experience." So very true. Bryant's working nights in mission control for the next two weeks while the shuttle's in orbit. Can you believe the leaps and bounds that we've come in such a short time?
Kristen,
Great post, and great thoughts. The pictures . . . are they from http://hubblesite.org/?
Hey Cullen - the pictures are from Nasa's website: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/
And ps - your Easter project cracked me up. No pun intended. =)
Post a Comment