Historical interaction between science and religion



The present talk about the divorce of science and religion takes very much for granted. It presupposes that there is such a thing as religion without further qualifications just as it assumes that there is such a thing as science pure and simple. Moreover, it postulates that these two entities are not only distinct and separate, but even divorced through a process upon which we can look back in retrospect as something that took place in a more or less distant past. Here the underlying assumption must be that there was a time when science and religion could have been said to be happily married, or at least living together in some kind of intimate relationship. So many hidden presuppositions might easily give the impression that this whole subject is utterly confused and in great need of both philosophical and historical clarification. It goes without saying that this cannot be achieved within the compass of a brief contribution. In consequence the purpose of the following paper is only to present a few comments on the notions of science and religion, followed by a consideration of some of their principal interactions throughout history, before we decide whether a divorce must be granted on the grounds of an ineradicable incompatibility of spirit, or if there is a simple case for annulment because there never was a valid marriage, or finally, if the relationship can continue without foundering on the rocks of the unequal development of the two partners.


Scientific Discourse Ordinary Language Natural Theology Christian Theology Natural Religion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Hesiod, Erga 527Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Plato, Rep. 379aGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aristotle, Meteor. 353aGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Herotodus II, 25Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Herotodus I, 116Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aristotle, Metaph. Books IV–VGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ibid. 985bGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    ibid. 1025bGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    ibid. 992aGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    ibid. 1044bGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    I Cor. 1,23Google Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    Acts 17,24Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    I John 4,12Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rom. l,19f.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
    Hebrews 11,3Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Augustine, De civ. Dei VIII, 10Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ibid. XI, 6Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Augustine, Conf. XI, 11Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Boethius, De cons. phil. V,6Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Albertus Magnus, Phys. VII, i,14Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kepler to Tanckius 1608, Werke XVI, 305f.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kepler, Epitome Astronomiae Copernicanae, Werke VII, 9f.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
    Kepler, Astronomia Nova, dedic, Werke III,31Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Galileo, Opere V,316Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    ibid. V,320Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    ibid. V,322Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Quoted in Galileo’s Opere XIX,321Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Newton in a Query added to the Latin translation of his Optics 1706Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Berkeley, Principles of Human Knowledge, § 117Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    In a conversation with David Gregory 1694Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Von Holbach, Système de la nature (1770), 28Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jos. Townsend, The Character of Moses vindicated (1813)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Newman to David Brown 1874, in Letters and Diaries XXVII,43f.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Newman to W.G. Ward 1876, Letters and Diaries XXVIIII, 71f.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    F. Temple, Bampton Lectures (1884) 195Google Scholar
  40. 40.
  41. 41.

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aarhus UniversitetAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations