If there was any single belief that characterized man prior to the era of Anachronistic Hearts , it was the religious beliefs of the World. Religion pervaded social and political life to an extent almost unimaginable extents around the known World. Yet in the last 50 to 75 years, an age of major scientific progress and discovery has forged ahead with new techniques and approaches; some that have threatened, if not, undermined faith in the literal truths of the Bible and other religious dogmatic references.
Ranging from Darwin's Origin of the Species (1859) to Strauss's Life of Jesus, the relationship between science and religion attempted to explain the growth of 'secularization' and 'de-Christianization' in the mass of the urban populations.
So far, the entities we refer to as 'science' and 'religion' have both underwent dramatic changes. It is naïve to assume that finding one simple and unchanging relationship between the two as evident; as the relationship has varied across time and geography, and from one individual to another.
At the beginning, religious faith and the sciences were generally seen to be in beautiful accord. The study of religion, in nature, were assumed to be twin facets of the same truths. In Christianity, one version of this belief repeated the argument that natural objects show evidences of design, thus showing the existence of a designing God. Few Christians saw a need to prove God's existence, preferring to take this as an act of faith.
This harmony between science and faith, mediated by some form of divinity of nature, continued to be the mainstream position for most men of science, and most interested individuals, right up to mid-century. But it did come under threat.
Thus, it is alleged that conflicts between science and religion often times turned out to be issues of political power, social prestige, or intellectual authority. Some working-class radicals saw a chance of using certain versions of the sciences for political ends. Some forms of the sciences seemed to suggest a restricted (or even non-existent) role for God in the universe, and thus to undermine the politico-religious establishment. Such materialist forms of science were as abhorred by most respectable men of science, as they were championed by working-class radicals.
Men of science, particularly geologists, were also making discoveries which threatened Christianity’s literal meaning of Genesis. The effect of these discoveries on faith had oft been exaggerated. Clerical geologists were quite able to find ways to reinterpret Genesis in the light of their discoveries, with no harm done to their faith. Even the majority of evangelicals were willing to accept non-literal interpretations of Genesis which could be fitted with the latest accepted discoveries in geology or astronomy. The few people who stressed the threat to faith of these discoveries tended to be the working-class radicals, while the extreme evangelicals who promoted Scriptural Geology to retain a literal reading of Genesis were an equally vocal minority. The reaction to Darwin should also be seen in this light: while some people played up its radicalism, others were quite able to fit it into their religious worldview. It depended as much on the individual’s existing beliefs and agenda as on anything intrinsic to the work itself.
By the middle of the century, there were increasingly two different arenas in which science and religion might be expected to interact:
-- one was the preserve of the expert men of science;
-- the other was society at large, whose members were benefiting from the increasing numbers of popular science publications appearing on the market.
These two arenas did overlap, but it is worth considering them separately.
-- In the expert arena, would-be educational reformers were beginning to make their marks. Although a few men were opposed to faith per se, some were opposed to the authoritarianism of organized Christian religion. Those objected to the involvement of clergymen in the sciences, and argued that science should be carried out by specialist experts - clergymen should focus on being experts in their own, separate, fields of theology and pastoral care. The rhetoric of this group of professionalizers, and their growing prominence within the sciences meant that 'the sciences' and 'religion' were increasingly seen as utterly separate and distinct.
This view was aggravated by several publications claiming to show how theology and/or religion had repeatedly constricted the sciences throughout history. Although the myth of the conflict of science and religion was by now well established, and few clergy attempted to maintain a reputation as scientific experts, it should be noted that plenty of individuals continued to have a Christian faith and to participate in the sciences.
-- Meanwhile, in the popular arena, there was far more variety in the relationship between science and religion. Although some writers and publishers did present the sciences in a secular manner, they did not have a monopoly. Publishers with explicit religious credentials continued to publish popular works on the sciences right up till the present, and their works competed in the marketplace with the secular versions. Although much has been made of a mid-century crisis of faith, perhaps triggered by the sciences, this seems to have been a feature of a certain class of intellectuals, and not an accurate description of the majority of society (especially middle-class society), which retained a religious faith long after most expert men of science.
So the big question may be:
Ranging from Darwin's Origin of the Species (1859) to Strauss's Life of Jesus, the relationship between science and religion attempted to explain the growth of 'secularization' and 'de-Christianization' in the mass of the urban populations.
So far, the entities we refer to as 'science' and 'religion' have both underwent dramatic changes. It is naïve to assume that finding one simple and unchanging relationship between the two as evident; as the relationship has varied across time and geography, and from one individual to another.
At the beginning, religious faith and the sciences were generally seen to be in beautiful accord. The study of religion, in nature, were assumed to be twin facets of the same truths. In Christianity, one version of this belief repeated the argument that natural objects show evidences of design, thus showing the existence of a designing God. Few Christians saw a need to prove God's existence, preferring to take this as an act of faith.
This harmony between science and faith, mediated by some form of divinity of nature, continued to be the mainstream position for most men of science, and most interested individuals, right up to mid-century. But it did come under threat.
Thus, it is alleged that conflicts between science and religion often times turned out to be issues of political power, social prestige, or intellectual authority. Some working-class radicals saw a chance of using certain versions of the sciences for political ends. Some forms of the sciences seemed to suggest a restricted (or even non-existent) role for God in the universe, and thus to undermine the politico-religious establishment. Such materialist forms of science were as abhorred by most respectable men of science, as they were championed by working-class radicals.
Men of science, particularly geologists, were also making discoveries which threatened Christianity’s literal meaning of Genesis. The effect of these discoveries on faith had oft been exaggerated. Clerical geologists were quite able to find ways to reinterpret Genesis in the light of their discoveries, with no harm done to their faith. Even the majority of evangelicals were willing to accept non-literal interpretations of Genesis which could be fitted with the latest accepted discoveries in geology or astronomy. The few people who stressed the threat to faith of these discoveries tended to be the working-class radicals, while the extreme evangelicals who promoted Scriptural Geology to retain a literal reading of Genesis were an equally vocal minority. The reaction to Darwin should also be seen in this light: while some people played up its radicalism, others were quite able to fit it into their religious worldview. It depended as much on the individual’s existing beliefs and agenda as on anything intrinsic to the work itself.
By the middle of the century, there were increasingly two different arenas in which science and religion might be expected to interact:
-- one was the preserve of the expert men of science;
-- the other was society at large, whose members were benefiting from the increasing numbers of popular science publications appearing on the market.
These two arenas did overlap, but it is worth considering them separately.
-- In the expert arena, would-be educational reformers were beginning to make their marks. Although a few men were opposed to faith per se, some were opposed to the authoritarianism of organized Christian religion. Those objected to the involvement of clergymen in the sciences, and argued that science should be carried out by specialist experts - clergymen should focus on being experts in their own, separate, fields of theology and pastoral care. The rhetoric of this group of professionalizers, and their growing prominence within the sciences meant that 'the sciences' and 'religion' were increasingly seen as utterly separate and distinct.
This view was aggravated by several publications claiming to show how theology and/or religion had repeatedly constricted the sciences throughout history. Although the myth of the conflict of science and religion was by now well established, and few clergy attempted to maintain a reputation as scientific experts, it should be noted that plenty of individuals continued to have a Christian faith and to participate in the sciences.
-- Meanwhile, in the popular arena, there was far more variety in the relationship between science and religion. Although some writers and publishers did present the sciences in a secular manner, they did not have a monopoly. Publishers with explicit religious credentials continued to publish popular works on the sciences right up till the present, and their works competed in the marketplace with the secular versions. Although much has been made of a mid-century crisis of faith, perhaps triggered by the sciences, this seems to have been a feature of a certain class of intellectuals, and not an accurate description of the majority of society (especially middle-class society), which retained a religious faith long after most expert men of science.
So the big question may be:
Where do you stand on the questions of Science versus Religion?
Religion
Religion has been a dominating social factor, and this same religious domination can be seen… marked by the Church which developed such an influence in politics as well as religion that it became difficult to separate the two. The tyrannical power of the Church fostered many problems (lack of space, not relating to its people, hypocrisy, etc.) and created an air where a variety of dissenting groups could form and develop. The atmosphere of the High Church compared to that of the dissenting groups explains why the shift of religion occurred with such a large response.
Wealthy (High Church) vs. Middle Class (Dissenters)
In the High Church, funding came from the wealthy which in turn gave them a piece of the church as property--pews. These pews were branded with a family name and would pass from generation to generation. If the family moved, the pew would remain vacant not open for others to sit in! This left the lower classes to standing rooms or sitting on the floor -- neither of which leave a person feeling morally or spiritually uplifted.
This example of people buying pieces of the church displays how it was growing more concerned with political and economic interests and less concerned with its common congregation and spirituality. The church's dependence on these interests created a place that did not welcome the middle and lower class worshippers, but was a preserve of the younger sons of members of the aristocracy who had little interest in religion and less interest in the growing numbers of urban poor. This close relationship between Church and State created a hostile atmosphere between it and society. The Church developed associations to the social burdens of the time -- poverty, disease, and oppression -- and became known as a group of “elite hypocrites” rather than a mass of parishioners. Since the High Church only preached to about fourteen percent of the population, it was only a matter of time before the majority rose up and found spiritual refuge among the dissenting groups.
Service and Worship
Style of worship differed greatly between the High Church and the dissenters. The High Church had a more rigid, formal structure to it, where the dissenting churches allowed for the freedom of expression -- class and respectability did not allocate where you would sit. Adorning your “Sunday best” was no longer a requirement for attendance. This tradition of the High Church humiliated the lower classes because many sacrificed their 'Sunday best' for other investments more vital to living, like food. In the house where everyone was supposed to be equal in the eyes of God, people were slapped in the face with reminders about their position in society. This rejection of strict rules and traditions created a worship of God that was more personable and attainable for those who could not purchase their redemption.
Clergy
Preachers of the High Church were unreachable, especially in comparison to the common minister. Preachers were highly educated and used a “highly refined language” which would go right over the heads of the congregation. They were talking “at” the people and not “to” the people. On the other hand, the dissenting ministers talked “to” the people and not “at” the people. The congregation and the ministers had a friendly relationship built off of understanding not off of superiority and inferiority like the High Church.
The High Church excluded many of the lower classes, but welcomed the aristocracy with open arms. The dissenting religions were outlets for those being excluded. It was an escape from the hypocrisy (preaching equality versus living equality), an escape from the tradition, and an escape from the distance (in terms of relationships).
Moderators: Playerfiles