Yu Qiming: Several Issues Regarding the Relationship Between Natural Science and Religion
Yu Qiming: Certain Issues Regarding the Relationship Between Natural Science and Religion
In recent years, the "relationship between science and religion" has become a focus of public attention. Research in this field has received increasing emphasis both domestically and abroad, possessing not only academic significance but also major practical significance. However, discussions to date suffer from two deficiencies. First, the discourse remains relatively broad. Second, a particular tendency has emerged: avoiding the essential differences between science and religion, and distorting the fact that the vigorous development of science has forced religion to change its doctrinal content. Instead, there is excessive talk of seeking "complementarity and integration" between science and religion, and even boasts that religion can guide the development of science. This has led to absurd conclusions, such as "religion is the mother of science," "the Christian Monotheist view is the ideological foundation for the development of modern science," and "Christians are the backbone of the development of modern science." It is as if we must accept Christian faith in order to develop science. Against this backdrop, the discussion of the relationship between natural science and religion becomes even more significant.
I. The Complexity of the Relationship Between Science and Religion: Broad and Narrow Understandings
Regarding the relationship between science and religion, the academic and religious communities hold a multitude of diverse and conflicting opinions [1]. To deepen the discussion, it is necessary to clarify the precise meaning of the relationship between science and religion to avoid "scratching an itch through one's boot" [2] or talking past one another. To this end, we need to reach a basic consensus on what science is and what religion is.
What is science? In a broad sense, science can include both the natural sciences and social sciences. Here, we discuss natural science. J.D. Bernal, the founder of the "science of science" and a British scholar, stated in his book Science in History: "Science may be regarded as (1) an institution; (2) a method; (3) an accumulating tradition of knowledge; (4) a major factor in the maintenance and development of production; and (5) one of the most powerful influences moulding the beliefs and attitudes of our universe and man." [1]
What is religion? It is generally believed that religion is a social consciousness centered on the belief in and worship of supernatural powers and realms; it is a socio-cultural system composed of four basic elements: religious concepts, religious experiences, religious behaviors, and religious institutions. Engels gave the following answer in Anti-Dühring: "All religion, however, is nothing but the fantastic reflection in men’s minds of those external forces which control their daily life, a reflection in which the terrestrial forces assume the form of supernatural forces." This classic thesis reveals the essential characteristics of religious concepts.
If we consider all aspects of science and religion, the relationship between them is clearly very complex. In a broad sense, it can be a one-to-one relationship—for example, the relationship between scientific institutions and religious consciousness, or between scientific institutions and religious institutions—or it can be a one-to-many or many-to-many relationship. The narrow understanding refers specifically to the relationship between the system of scientific knowledge and religious social consciousness.
Precisely because of this, there are all sorts of views and propositions regarding the relationship between science and religion, and the conclusions can be vastly different: (1) the two are coordinated and harmonious; (2) the two are contradictory and in conflict; (3) the two are completely irrelevant to each other, and therefore non-conflicting; (4) the two are both distinct and interconnected. These different views may have their own rationality in terms of the specific connotations of science and religion they involve, but one must not mistake the part for the whole.
A balanced discussion should involve a deep understanding of what connotations science and religion include, and clarify the relationship between which specific connotations of science and which specific connotations of religion are being addressed. Only in this way can ambiguity be avoided.
II. The System of Scientific Knowledge and Religious Social Consciousness: The Most Fundamental Relationship Between Science and Religion
In a narrow sense, people mainly understand science as a dynamic system of knowledge and religion as a form of social consciousness; the relationship between science and religion refers to the relationship between these two. This relationship is the most fundamental and essential.
1. Co-existence and Co-growth
There is a view that religion arose first and science arose later. Based on this, some claim that science emerged on the basis of religion, that science cannot be separated from religion, and even that "religion is the mother of science."
In fact, at the very beginning of human culture, the elements of science and religion were co-existent. The sprouts of scientific knowledge and religious consciousness were both contained within primitive human thinking activities, intertwined and difficult to distinguish. With the development of the productive forces, a differentiation of cultural forms began to occur, showing a trend toward separation. However, before the end of primitive society, this differentiation was still in its embryonic stage; scientific and religious factors co-existed, boundaries were blurred, and they permeated each other. It is not difficult to find mystical components of illusory understanding in primitive science, nor is it difficult to find certain rational empirical knowledge accumulated by humans through practical activities [3] in primitive religion.
Research shows that religion did not emerge simultaneously with humanity; rather, it was a product of the stage when primitive society developed into the clan system. Clan society was the social basis for the emergence of primitive religion. In the long millions of years prior to this, humans had no religious consciousness or religious belief activities. What they were constantly engaged in was labor. Along with labor, human physiology and psychology gradually changed. Labor "is the prime basic condition for all human existence, and this to such an extent that, in a sense, we have to say that labor created man himself." [2]
An examination of the history of human thought also illustrates this point. The "Ape-man" period refers to the childhood of humanity millions of years ago. Their thinking was simple and naive; they often could not distinguish themselves from the outside world and could only perceive things or understand the world directly through their own senses and movements. This was the stage of "action-thinking" [4] in the development of human thought. About 300,000 years ago, humans entered the era of Homo sapiens. This stage is further divided into two periods: the "representational-image thinking" [5] stage of early Homo sapiens and the "ideational-image thinking" [6] stage of late Homo sapiens (Modern Man). In the latter period, primitive society transitioned from the Late Paleolithic to the Neolithic Age. Only after possessing the capacity for ideational-image thinking could humans generate the concept of the soul with a certain degree of abstract generalization, which is one of the most basic concepts in religious thought. The emergence of ideational-image thinking was the cognitive foundation for the birth of primitive religion.
Where, then, did the sprouts of the scientific and religious consciousness of primitive people come from? Of course, they were not innate to the human mind, nor were they "divinely revealed." They came from human practice—from labor. The survival practices and productive activities of primitive people were the source of the sprouts of consciousness for both science (the secular realm) and religion (the sacred realm). Research on primitive thinking shows that the primitive human's understanding of phenomena that were more certain, less affected by emotions like hope and fear, and easily dominated by rational methods and technical processes, gradually accumulated to become the sprouts of science. Conversely, those phenomena that were unpredictable, laden with emotion, and difficult for people to control were mystified because they could not be explained, thus prompting the sprouts of religious concepts.
Scientific knowledge and religious consciousness share a common source, but they later gradually differentiated and followed their own mainstreams of development. The historian of science Dampier said: "Science did not sprout and grow on a wide and beneficial prairie, but in a harmful jungle—the jungle of magic and superstition." [3] This is correct in a certain sense, but it easily leads people to believe that science was produced on the basis of "magic and superstition," which should be corrected. In fact, the survival practices and productive activities of primitive people were the common "soil" for the growth of both scientific and religious consciousness. Science both sprouted on the "beneficial prairie" and survived and grew strong within the "harmful jungle." The boundaries between "prairie" and "jungle" were blurred and intertwined.
Some say that the fundamental issues of religion are truth, goodness, and beauty, and it therefore stands above all else. In fact, truth, goodness, and beauty are also the fundamental issues of science, philosophy, and even human culture as a whole. The only difference lies in the paths sought for answers and the forms of expression, which caused them to part ways.
2. Essential Opposition
When examined from the perspective of the relationship between the system of scientific knowledge and religious social consciousness, they are essentially opposed: (1) Scientific knowledge is an understanding of the laws of the objective world and can be tested by practice; religious concepts propagate supernatural and super-material forces and therefore cannot be tested by practice. (2) The scientific spirit embodied in the pursuit of scientific knowledge is a rational and critical spirit; religious concepts propagate a psychology of submission and piety. (3) The acquisition of scientific knowledge is based on scientific facts understood through practice, using methods of scientific abstraction and thinking to achieve rational cognitive results; religious concepts, however, negate scientific methods, holding that without "divine revelation," we are unable to understand the universe.
3. Periodic Conflict
Religion and science reflect different relationships between phenomena and can thus coexist peacefully. However, their essential opposition means conflict is inevitable. The fact is that they have had periods of peaceful coexistence in history, but there have also been irreconcilable struggles. Essential opposition and actual conflict are not exactly the same thing; peaceful coexistence does not mean they are no longer essentially opposed.
Einstein pointed out that the main source of conflict between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God. This symbolic content may conflict with science. As long as this set of religious ideas contains immutable dogmatic statements about topics that originally belonged to the scientific field, such conflict is bound to occur. [4] Such conflicts have not been rare in history, signifying religious interference in the scientific field; for example, the Church's struggle against Galileo and Darwin was precisely this.
Both historical processes and current realities show that religion will not give up attacking scientific theories that strike at its core, which subsequently impacts science education. Most typically, because the theory of evolution touched the foundations of Christian faith and caused a "fatal wound" to the latter, Christianity has never stopped attacking evolution for a single moment. The "Intelligent Design" theory, currently creating a clamor, is a modern version of creationism.
In the conflict between the two, science forces religious concepts to evolve. For example, Alister McGrath, Professor of Theology at King's College London, noted this: "...medieval interpreters of the Bible opened the way to understanding these texts from different perspectives, many of which followed the insights of natural science." [5] "At the height of the Middle Ages, an ingenious way of interpreting the Bible emerged: certain chapters could be understood literally, while others could be understood non-literally. Augustine emphasized the importance of respecting scientific conclusions associated with biblical commentary. In his own commentaries on the Bible, some chapters already possessed the possibility of multiple interpretations, so it was important to use more scientific exploration to better explain a certain chapter." [6]
Christianity also seizes every opportunity to utilize scientific achievements. How should we understand religious scriptures containing scientific knowledge? In short, because "knowledge is power," in order to make people believe in God, scientific content must be utilized. Scientific results may even be distorted as needed. Has someone not said: "If the Christian view is correct, then we should of course expect to find evidence of the Holy Spirit in the signs of dynamics and activities in the field of physics, as modern physics suggests. If energy is the essential basis of the entire material world, to Christians, this is clearly the manifestation of the active and creative Holy Spirit in the field of physics." [7]
III. A Tendency That Cannot Be Ignored
The global revolution in modern science is developing with lightning speed. It has already moved, and is further accelerating, toward seizing the "foothold" of God (the Creator), continuously elevating and strengthening the discourse of atheism. This is the prevailing trend of history. As Engels described over a century ago: under the "onslaught of science," God and his defenders have seen "one detachment after another lay down its arms, and one castle after another surrender..." [14] Ironically, however, modern "defenders of God" whimsically attempt to pick up "weapons" to retake these "castles" and return the positions of science to God. If they could not hold them a century ago, can they really retake them today? Repeating old tricks will no longer suffice, so they must disguise themselves. Faced with the brilliant achievements of science and its increasing popularity, launching a direct and open attack is clearly not the best policy. Instead, they increasingly "use the opponent’s strength against them," opposing science under the banner of science. It is in this context that we see the advocacy for the complementarity and integration of science and religion, the claim that religion can guide scientific development, and the propagation of the idea that modern science would not exist without Christianity.
To summarize, the attempt to oppose science under its own banner—as examined from the perspective of the most fundamental relationship between science and religion—aims to conflate religion and science in the following areas. This creates public opinion suggesting that science is no more enlightened than religion, thereby devaluing science, elevating religion, and praising supra-empirical faith:
- In terms of scientific epistemology: Both science and religion are said to be inseparable from faith. For example, Alister McGrath states: "One of the most important similarities between the natural sciences and religion is the fundamental belief in the regularity and intelligibility of the world, which is of immense importance at both the scientific and religious levels." [15] Freeman Dyson, a Templeton Prize winner, remarked: "God is where the human mind reaches its limit." [16]
- In terms of scientific realism: Both science and religion are seen as "responses" to reality. Quarks and gluons are invisible but cannot be deemed non-existent; similarly, it is argued, God is invisible but cannot be deemed non-existent.
- In terms of scientific methodology: Both science and religion employ models and analogies, and scientific methods are said to contain "default assumptions."
These specious claims can be expressed in various forms.
IV. The Core Essence: Supra-empirical Faith
Some argue that science cannot dispense with supra-empirical faith, claiming that many stages of scientific work involve a large number of non-empirical factors, and that without faith in these factors, science could not move an inch. Clearly, this is an erroneous view. Science is the exploration of the laws of the objective world; any of its cognitive achievements must undergo the test of practice [7]. This destines it to be essentially different from non-empirical, supra-empirical factors. What it promotes are scientific concepts rather than supernatural faith. This is precisely where the essential opposition between science and religion lies.
First, let us clarify a concept: what is "faith" [8]? The Contemporary Chinese Dictionary defines faith (xìnyǎng) as "extreme trust in and respect for a certain person, proposition, doctrine, or religion, taking it as a model or guide for one's actions." In this sense, it is valid to speak of "faith in science" as well as "faith in religion." However, faith in science and faith in religion are essentially different: the former is a faith based on practical experience, while the latter is a faith in supra-empirical, supernatural, and mystical objects. Promoting the generalization that "science and religion are both inseparable from faith" only muddies the waters and leaves people without a clear understanding. To avoid confusion, we prefer to use the expression "believing in science" (xiāngxìn kēxué) rather than "having faith in science" (xìnyǎng kēxué). Supra-empirical faith is merely the spiritual pillar of religion, not the pursuit of science.
Regarding the belief in "the regularity and intelligibility of the world," there is an essential difference between the "scientific and religious levels." The former is a scientific picture of the universe—one of the basic principles of the materialist view of nature. The latter is a supra-empirical faith in a "rational God," believing that "God created order." Emphasizing some "most important similarity" in a generalized way is nothing more than an attempt to "cross the sea under camouflage" [9]. This involves the idea that because scientific theories must answer a continuous series of "whys," the ultimate premises required are often linked to a certain view of nature, leading some to believe they cannot be obtained through experimental means or proven via empirical methods. The error of this view lies in severing the natural connection between the view of nature and practical experience. In their eyes, it seems as if a view of nature is "innate" or "divinely granted," which is a grave mistake. A correct view of nature is not a supra-empirical faith, but a summary and synthesis of all scientific achievements and the result of countless tests through human practice. The basic beliefs included in Albert Einstein’s so-called "cosmic religious feeling"—such as the belief in an external world independent of the perceiving subject, the ecstatic wonder at the harmony of natural laws, and the firm belief in the intelligibility of the world and its laws—are all contents of a view of nature. Although complete verification is unrealistic, it is through the process of countless tests in practice that people obtain scientific concepts. The dialectical materialist view of nature is a science: it believes in the material unity of the world, in the regularity of the eternal motion of the objective world, and in the knowability of the world and its laws. These are scientific concepts, not a faith divorced from experience and practice.
Another argument posits that scientific experience implies a large number of (clearly supra-empirical) faith factors because human experience of the world is full of gaps and fissures. To confirm even the most obvious fact, one must use imagination to fill these gaps; therefore, in places where people generally believe they have confirmed certain facts through experience, there is actually a large amount of faith involved. The error here is equating scientific imagination with supra-empirical faith. The factor of imagination in science also functions on the basis of experience. Even the "boldest speculation" cannot be separated from practice. People can even "create" highly abstract "ideal models" that do not exist in the real world—mental models with certain extreme limits, such as the point-mass model in mechanics or the ideal elevator model in relativity. The use of ideal models involves examining a prototype under idealized conditions and remains inseparable from empirical cognition. An "ideal experiment" (thought experiment) is a hypothetical experiment conducted in the imagination using ideal models; the method of ideal experimentation uses rigorous searching and deductive reasoning to infer the manifestation of laws in their pure state—it is entirely a process of mental activity. Galileo applied this method when discovering the principle of inertia, and Einstein praised it highly: "It was derived by an ideal experiment of a body moving forever with no friction and no external forces. From this example and from many others which could be given, we recognize the importance of the ideal experiment created by thought." [17] Einstein himself was inspired by the ideal train experiment and the ideal elevator experiment while establishing the theory of relativity; he used the method of ideal experimentation to make major scientific discoveries. This is worlds apart from supra-empirical faith.
The vague and specious misunderstandings mentioned above reflect a lack of the "practice-based" viewpoint [10] in certain individuals. Marx stated it most penetratingly: "The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth, i.e., the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking, in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking which is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question." [18] Human knowledge originates from practice and must ultimately be tested by practice. For example, Euclidean geometry is proven through rigorous logic and possesses a stirring power of persuasion. However, as is well known, this logical system is built upon several axioms that cannot be proven through logical methods alone. Why, then, do we believe these axioms? Not because they are "divine revelations," but because they have stood the test of hundreds of millions of human practices. "Default assumptions hidden in scientific methods" and the "infinite explanatory sequence of scientific theories" are all continuously resolved within the long-term practice of humanity. Furthermore, human thinking itself develops along with practice. As Engels said: "The most essential and closest basis of human thought is precisely the change of nature brought about by man, and not nature alone as such; and man's intelligence has developed according to how he learned to change nature." [19] It can be said that the practical basis of science is the fundamental guarantee that it does not require supra-empirical faith.
V. Scientists and Religious Belief: One of the Other Relationships Between Science and Religion
Regarding other aspects of the relationship between science and religion, we need to analyze specific problems concretely. Some regard the relationship between scientific institutions and religious systems, involving many fields of the sociology of science and the sociology of religion. Here, we provide some partial explorations.
For instance, some members of the clergy have engaged in scientific research and contributed to the development of science; many scientists engaged in research are religious believers; some religious sites have also been sites for scientific activity; some Christian churches have actively promoted education and academic activities—supporting the establishment of schools, academic societies, and libraries, organizing the translation of academic works, building observatories, and opening printing houses; and modern science emerged in countries with a Christian cultural background. As can be seen, these are relationships between scientific institutions and religious systems. They require concrete analysis, and one cannot simply conclude that religion promoted the development of science.
Let us first examine the relationship between scientists and religious belief.
Engels said long ago: "God is nowhere treated worse than by the natural scientists who believe in him. Materialists simply explain the things, without any such phrases... They only take notice of him when the annoying believers try to force him upon them, and then they answer briefly, either like Laplace: 'Sire, I had no [need of that hypothesis]', or more rudely in the manner of the Dutch merchants who, when German commercial travelers try to foist bad wares on them, are accustomed to turn them away with the words: 'I cannot make any use of that stuff', and that is the end of the matter. But what God has to suffer at the hands of his defenders! In the history of modern natural science, God is treated by his defenders as Frederick William III was treated by his generals and officials in the Jena campaign. One detachment of the army after another lays down its arms, one fortress after another surrenders before the march of science, until at last the whole infinite realm of nature is conquered by science, and no place is left in it for the Creator. Newton still allowed him the 'first impulse' but forbade him any further interference in his solar system. Father Secchi, while paying him all canonical honors, put him out of the solar system altogether, and only allowed him a 'creative act' in regard to the primordial nebula. And so it goes on in all fields. In biology, his last great Don Quixote, Agassiz, even attributes positive nonsense to him: he is supposed to have created not only the actual animals, but also abstract animals, the fish as such! Finally, Tyndall totally forbids him any entry into nature and relegates him to the world of emotional processes, only allowing him to exist there because after all there must be someone who knows more about all these things (nature) than John Tyndall! What a distance from the old God—the creator of heaven and earth, the maintainer of all things, without whom not a hair can fall from the head!" [20]
The aforementioned interesting phenomenon is essentially the result of the coexistence of scientific and religious modes of thinking within people's minds, rather than a contribution of religion to science. Here, a comprehensive and meticulous analysis is required: what is it that religious scientists actually rely on to achieve scientific results? Is it religious dogma, or is it their own scientific literacy?
Let us take the case of Galileo as an example for investigation. He could be said to have remained a devout Catholic throughout his life, striving to fulfill his duties as a scientist whose soul had already found its home; yet he was treated as an apostate and became a target of attack for the Church. In fact, it is not difficult to see from Galileo's own words that his devotion to God was expressed through his "love for truth." He believed that "the purpose of the Holy Scriptures is to convince people of those truths necessary for the salvation of the soul." "While the Holy Scriptures can never err, if those who recount and interpret them always proceed from the literal surface meaning of the words, they will err in many respects..." [25] "Their serious error lies in using fragmentary passages taken from various places in the Scriptures as embellishments for their writings, though they do not understand the quoted text and use it blindly" [26]. Thus he said, "No one, not even the early Christian writers, defends the Church with more piety and greater enthusiasm than I" [27]. Galileo opposed the personification of God, associating it with "serious heresy and blasphemous speech." Galileo believed "there is no necessity to believe that the same God who gave us our senses, language, and intellect would abandon the use of science and other means, but rather teach us by those means things we could discover for ourselves, especially regarding those sciences of which the Scriptures make very little mention." He even complained that the Pope had abused his authority by improperly judging concrete disputes based on the Scriptures.
It is evident that Galileo's scientific achievements were the reward for his pursuit of truth. When his research came face-to-face with religious dogma and conflict arose, he benefited from his own deep scientific literacy, dared to respect scientific facts, and firmly discarded religious dogmas—only thus was he able to achieve breakthroughs and progress in science. From this perspective, Galileo was indeed an "apostate."
In 1979, Pope John Paul II requested that theologians, scholars, and historians re-examine the Galileo case and conduct a "review." Speaking at the centenary celebration of Einstein's birth, he instead praised Galileo's view that "the true meaning of the Bible is often hidden deep within and differs greatly from a simple interpretation of the surface meaning of the words," striving to mitigate the contradiction between scientific achievement and the Bible. It was in this very speech that he vigorously promoted the "harmony and consistency between scientific truth and revealed truth" [28]. Is this not a wonderful piece of self-mockery?
If scientists cling to religious dogmas to the point of being unable to extricate themselves, the situation is different. Religious faith may lead them astray, resulting in absurd conclusions. Here we take Newton as a typical case for investigation.
Newton was one of the greatest scientists since the dawn of the modern era; he completed the first epoch-making great synthesis in the history of physics. His painstakingly authored work, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy), is universally acknowledged as the greatest work of natural science in history, and few other masterpieces can rival its immense and far-reaching influence on the scientific community. He also made outstanding contributions in fields such as astronomy and mathematics. All of this benefited from his deep scientific literacy, as he dared to respect scientific facts and strove to break free from the shackles of traditional religion. This is clearly visible from the process of Newton's publication of the Principia. In fact, when Newton was constructing his systems of mechanics and celestial bodies, he did not consider the role of God at all. Therefore, when the first Latin edition of the Principia appeared in July 1687, the word "God" was mentioned only once in the third volume as a function word.
However, when he willingly allowed God to intervene in his exploration of nature, he lost his capacity for scientific research and could no longer distinguish between worldly truths and falsehoods. The law of universal gravitation discovered by Newton could explain the source of the centripetal force of planetary orbits around the sun, but it could not answer where the tangential force of this motion came from. This was due to the level of development of the productive forces at the time; scientists were primarily only studying and mastering the laws of the mechanical motion of objects, which also led to the metaphysical [11] mode of thinking prevalent in the scientific community. Thus, it was quite normal that Newton could not answer the question of the tangential force. Newton solved problems his predecessors had not, and had he believed that his successors could likewise solve the problems he left unresolved, he would not have turned to God for help. Newton reduced everything in nature to mechanical motion; naturally, when faced with many non-mechanical motion problems, he was at a loss. Consequently, he abandoned the scientific principles he himself had advocated—namely, "to establish these laws by observation and experiment, and thereby derive the causes and effects of things" and "to seek no other causes for things in nature than those which are true and sufficient to explain their phenomena" [29]—and once again brought out religious dogmas to invoke a personified God. "...I do not know what force in nature could bring about this transverse motion without divine help. ...Therefore, gravity may move the planets, but without the power of God, it could never make them perform such circular motions around the sun as they do now. For this and other reasons, I am compelled to attribute the structure of this system to an all-intelligent Sovereign" [30]. In his later years, Newton's scientific outlook succumbed to a theological outlook. He fell from materialist empiricism into idealist apriorism, after which he produced few major scientific innovations. He entered politics, was elected to Parliament, and began serving as Master of the Royal Mint in 1699 until his death. It is evident that the less scientists are influenced by religious dogmas in their research activities, the more scientific achievements they can attain.
When there is no obvious conflict between science and religion, religious scientists can achieve success in science because religious dogmas exert little influence on their scientific activities. In their own practice, these scientists adhere to the scientific spirit and employ scientific methods, and are thus successful. In such cases, the scientific field is often confined to research on specific, localized problems and does not involve questions of a worldview nature or ultimate inquiries, such as the origin of nature or the origin of humanity.
VI. How to View the Emergence of Modern Science in Countries with Christian Cultural Backgrounds: The Second Aspect of the Relationship Between Science and Religion
This is linked to the "Needham Question." The famous British historian of science, Joseph Needham, posed it in his 1964 essay "Science and Society in East and West": "Why was it that between the first century B.C. and the fifteenth century A.D., Chinese civilization was much more efficient than the West in applying human natural knowledge to practical human needs?" and "Why did modern science only emerge in Europe and not in Chinese civilization (or Indian civilization)?" This is the "Needham Question" that has drawn immense attention from the history of science and the broader academic community.
Among the many arguments, there is a certain view: modern science only emerged in Europe because the West had a Christian cultural background—that is to say, without Christianity, it would have been impossible for modern science to be born. Traditional Chinese culture seems to have no affinity for science; therefore, to rely on and develop science, China must accept the Christian faith and "Christianize" China. Is this truly the case?
To answer this question, we must clearly analyze the conditions for the emergence of modern science. Taken together, the following conditions are generally recognized:
(1) Social and economic development provided basic material conditions and an urgent need for the further development of scientific knowledge; (2) Not only was necessary empirical knowledge accumulated, but the foundations of theoretical knowledge were also laid—for example, the modern astronomical revolution and the founding of classical mechanics; (3) The methods for acquiring scientific knowledge (especially theoretical knowledge) were fundamentally established—for example, the method of combining experiment with mathematics; (4) Science, as an institution, received preliminary social recognition and support, becoming an independent department of knowledge.
So, why did modern Europe possess these conditions while China did not? Was it because Europe had a Christian cultural background? Let us explore these one by one.
The first condition is the fundamental cause for the emergence of modern science and the basis for the other three; it clearly has nothing to do with Christianity. This article does not specifically discuss this issue and need not involve much detail. In fact, Engels pointed out long ago: "If, after the dark night of the Middle Ages, the sciences suddenly arose with unexpected force and developed at a miraculous speed, we must once again attribute this miracle to production" [31]. "Once society has a technical need, that need will push science forward more than ten universities" [32]. The reckless claim that "without Christianity, modern science could not have been born" is indeed a naive view that only looks at the surface of the problem, allowing "a single leaf to obscure the vision" [12] while ignoring the essence of things.
The fourth condition is directly linked to the social function of science. As the role of science becomes increasingly apparent and its importance more widely recognized, the institutionalization of science follows naturally. This, too, does not fundamentally require Christianity as a catalyst.
Regarding the second and third conditions, we can also ask: why could "theoretical knowledge" and "the method of combining experiment with mathematics" emerge in modern Europe but not in China? First, let us look at what "theoretical knowledge" means. The system of scientific knowledge has structure and levels. As the product of human cognition, scientific knowledge includes both empirical and theoretical knowledge. These two are discovered through different modes (paths); they differ in nature, yet they depend on and constrain each other to become a unified system. What is the difference between empirical and theoretical knowledge? Any description (record) of facts personally observed by people constitutes empirical knowledge. Empirical knowledge only perceives the surface phenomena of things; it cannot yet perceive the essence of things or the causality between them. To understand the essence of things and the causality between phenomena, one must provide theoretical explanations and interpretations for empirical facts—that is, explain why such phenomena occur and reduce the observed phenomena to the effects of universal laws (empirical laws and principle laws) and their deductive conclusions. To be clearer, theoretical knowledge consists of basic concepts, laws, and logical inferences. Therefore, science is a layered and structured knowledge system composed of the interaction of empirical and theoretical knowledge. Before the modern era, human cognition was primarily limited to the level of empirical knowledge; thus, one could not yet speak of the establishment of a scientific knowledge system. The claim that "Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is not a science" is only made in the sense that it still lacks theoretical [scientific] cognition. However, this by no means denies that TCM possesses a rich treasure trove of medical knowledge with application values that are highly worthy of excavation and elevation.
In this regard, those who advocate that "the formation of modern science benefited from the Christian background" have certainly made much of the argument. They believe the rational elements contained in Christianity prepared the necessary prerequisites for the formation of the modern scientific mode of thinking: the spirit of skepticism encouraged the study of nature; the search for natural laws (the "Divine Legislator") and the tradition of valuing logic embodied the pursuit of the principle of causality. Is this really how it was? Did the necessary prerequisites for the formation of the modern scientific mode of thinking truly originate from Christianity?
In reality, the spirit of skepticism and the quest for natural laws (the emphasis on logic) had already emerged as early as the Ancient Greek period. In these respects, providing just a few examples will make the truth "reveal itself clearly" [13].
Thales, who lived approximately between 624–547 BCE, began by proposing the theory of the water element, followed by various conjectures regarding the arche—the fundamental principle of all things. Zeno (c. 490–436 BCE) proposed famous paradoxes that continue to inspire thought today. Democritus (c. 460–370 BCE) put forward atomism. Aristotle (384–322 BCE) was the "most encyclopedic figure" among Ancient Greek philosophers and the great synthesizer of ancient science. He comprehensively researched the theoretical problems of formal logic and established a system of formal logic based primarily on the deductive method, for which he is considered the founder of formal logic. The Elements by Euclid (c. 330–275 BCE) remains a compulsory subject for secondary school students today; its logical system is so precise that every one of its propositions is absolutely beyond doubt. Archimedes (c. 287–212 BCE) laid the foundations of statics in modern physics... And all of this had absolutely nothing to do with Christianity, which did not appear until several centuries later! It was precisely along the lineage of Ancient Greek civilization that modern science developed. Engels noted profoundly: "In the manifold forms of Greek philosophy are to be found in embryo, in the nascent state, almost all later modes of outlook on the world. Theoretical natural science, therefore, if it is to traces the history of the origin and development of its present-day general principles, is likewise forced to go back to the Greeks."[36]
For this reason, Einstein "extolled Ancient Greece as the cradle of Western science."[37] In a letter to a friend, he once said: "The development of Western science has been based on two great achievements: the invention of the formal logical system (in Euclidean geometry) by the Greek philosophers, and the discovery of the possibility of finding out causal relationships by systematic experiment (at the Renaissance). In my opinion one need not be astonished that the Chinese sages did not make these steps."[38] To this, one might add a further remark: this failure had nothing to do with whether the "Chinese sages" possessed Christian faith.
The fact that "theoretical knowledge" and "methods combining experiment with mathematics" failed to arise within Chinese civilization was precisely because ancient China lacked the tradition of natural philosophy and formal logic, as well as the related experimental activities aimed at seeking causal relations. A characteristic of the ancient Chinese mode of thinking was a tendency to move from the empirical to the pragmatic, whereas Europeans were relatively more prone to move from the empirical to the principled (causal relations).
Analyzing the scientific and technological achievements of China and the West from antiquity to the modern era, we find a marked difference in the proportions of theory, experiment, and technology within the total output. Generally speaking, ancient Chinese science and technology exhibited a tendency to emphasize technology while neglecting theory, whereas the West developed relatively more proportionately. Influenced by traditional concepts such as "practical application for the ordering of the world" (jingshi zhiyong [14]), "principles reside within things" (li zai shi zhong [15]), and "the Way resides within the craft" (dao zai ji zhong [16]), there was no focus on the systematic nature of theory itself. For example, the discovery and utilization of fire was a great leap for humanity; for thousands of years, Eastern peoples were concerned only with its use and never asked about its cause. Western "phlogiston theory" and "oxygen theory," by contrast, explored the causes of combustion. Inspired by the phenomenon of magnets attracting iron, the Chinese created the compass, one of the "Four Great Inventions"; yet the theory of the Earth's magnetic field, which explains why the compass points south, was produced in the West. Shen Kuo wrote in his Dream Pool Essays (Mengxi Bitan [17]) that magnetism "differs between north and south... but has not been deeply examined." Why was it not "deeply examined"? The book states, "its logic cannot be fathomed." Liu Xianting in his Guangyang Miscellany (Guangyang Zhaji [18]) recorded a dialogue regarding what materials could block a magnet from attracting iron: "Youzhi Aru said, 'Only iron can block it.' The man left and returned, saying, 'I tried it and it is indeed so.' I said, 'Why was it necessary to try it? It is a principle of nature.'" The concepts of "the unity of Heaven and humanity" (tianren heyi [19]) and the metaphysical speculation of "apprehending the Way through the heart," which are widely accepted in traditional Chinese culture, often left people satisfied with "knowing that it is so, without knowing why it is so." This seriously hindered further exploration of objective laws.
Thus, it is not difficult to see that the reason "theoretical knowledge" and the "method of combining experiment with mathematics" were able to arise in modern Europe but not in China was by no means because of a "benefit from a Christian background." Rather, it was truly a benefit from the tradition of Ancient Greek natural philosophy and formal logic, as well as the related experimental activities focused on finding causal relations. In connection with this, modern science was able to emerge in Europe and not within Chinese civilization because only the socio-economic development of Europe at that time provided the basic material conditions for the birth of science and created an urgent need for its further development. Meanwhile, the utility of science became increasingly obvious, its importance was increasingly recognized by society, and its institutionalization followed naturally as science gained preliminary social recognition and support, becoming an independent department of knowledge. For all of this, Christianity cannot "claim for itself the merits of Heaven" [20].
It should also be pointed out that we cannot conclude that China made no contribution to the birth of modern Western science. In fact, the development of modern Western science was inseparable from the foundation of ancient Eastern science. Joseph Needham put it well: "Modern science arose only in 17th-century Europe, when the best method for making discoveries was found; but the discoveries and inventions of that time and thereafter were in many cases dependent on the progress made in science, technology, and medicine by China in many previous centuries."[39] He also paraphrased Francis Bacon, stating that the three inventions of paper and printing, gunpowder, and the compass played a greater role in thoroughly transforming the modern world and marking it off from antiquity and the Middle Ages than any religious belief, any astrological influence, or any conqueror’s success.[40]
VII. How God Created the Universe According to His Supreme Reason: The Third Aspect of Other Relationships Between Science and Religion
There is another claim: "Christianity believes that God created the universe according to His supreme reason, and this view prompted people to explore the specific laws of the universe's motion that accord with reason." This view cannot withstand further questioning: "How did God create the universe according to His supreme reason? Where did the 'reason' of Christianity come from?"
The so-called "rational elements" of Christianity were not original to early Christian doctrine. Early Christian theological thought was entirely fideistic and obscurantist. A "famous quote" from Tertullian, a representative of Patristic philosophy (mid-2nd to 5th century), serves as evidence: "It is to be believed because it is absurd; it is certain because it is impossible—I believe it precisely because it is absurd."[41] Later, another representative of Patristic philosophy, Augustine, began to introduce reason into theology to a certain extent, favoring the use of Ancient Greek and Roman philosophy (especially Platonism) to demonstrate Christian theological faith. As for the "rational elements," they were only acquired after medieval Christian theology developed into the stage of "Scholasticism," and they derived primarily from the doctrines of Aristotle. For instance, the famous 12th-century Scholastic philosopher Abelard believed that even the existence of God required proof; he proposed: "One must understand in order to believe," and "the best method for solving problems in scholarship is persistent and frequent doubt... doubt leads us to research, and research enables us to know the truth."[42]
The primary representative of Scholasticism was Thomas Aquinas. The Crusades, from the late 11th to the late 13th century, allowed Europe to rediscover the brilliant culture of Ancient Greece, sparking a fever among scholars for translating and studying Ancient Greek texts. Originally, Aristotle's doctrines were contrary to Christian faith and were thus banned by the Church (in 1209). However, the more they were banned, the more they aroused doubt and attention, causing more people to lean toward Aristotelian thought, which in turn isolated the Church. Under these circumstances, Pope Gregory IX was forced to change the policy of suppression. In 1231, he issued an encyclical establishing a committee of theologians, charging them with reviewing and editing Aristotle’s works to "make them useful for us." It was in this historical context that Thomas Aquinas displayed his talents. At the age of 21, he went to Paris (then the academic and cultural center of all Europe) and personally experienced the controversies and struggles surrounding Aristotelian doctrine. After the age of 24, he studied under the famous theologian Albertus Magnus in Cologne, Germany; during his four years of study, Albertus, an expert in Aristotelian studies, exerted a profound influence on him.
In order to find a prop for Christianity, Thomas took passages out of context from Ancient Greek philosophical texts that had a profound social influence, using them to serve theology. He added a rational color to Christian theology in an attempt to veil the absurdity of theological faith. The purpose of Scholasticism was to demonstrate the sanctity of the Bible and theological dogmas; it was by no means to study the laws of nature—knowing God and proving His existence was the true intent. Therefore, the issues it addressed were mostly empty and farcical questions removed from reality, which could only be conducted using pedantic words or obscure language. They also recognized reason as a key to understanding nature, believing that based on the conviction of knowing God through His creations, one could study nature. However, reason had to be subordinate to faith in God, acting only as the "handmaid" [21] of God. Nevertheless, Thomas advocated for the harmony of faith and reason and acknowledged the equivalence of reason and faith within the scope of natural theology. To a certain extent, this allowed reason to possess a relative independence.
From this, it can be seen that the "rational elements" of Christianity have great limitations; separated from Ancient Greek natural philosophy and logic, they would become a tree without roots or water without a source. They could not have served as the necessary premise for the formation of the modern scientific way of thinking. Take the spirit of methodical doubt, for example, which is indispensable for scientific research. However, as stated above, the true source of this spirit in modern Western scholars was Ancient Greek natural philosophy, not Christianity. A devout believer in Christianity does not necessarily possess a scientific spirit of doubt. The difference between Johannes Kepler and his teacher and close friend Tycho Brahe illustrates this point well. Tycho was a magnificent astronomer who conducted meticulous astronomical observations for decades. Among these, he made very precise measurements of the position of Mars from different orientations, discovering an error of 8 arcminutes between actual observations and theoretical predictions. Tycho was indifferent to this, but the strong spirit of doubt held by Kepler prevented him from tolerating such an error. Through unremitting exploration, this led to the discovery of Kepler’s First Law of planetary motion.
Furthermore, we should also analyze the active promotion of education and academic activities by some Christian churches. After the Reformation, in order to expand their social influence, churches increasingly utilized the power of scientific knowledge, opening schools and colleges and establishing specialized institutions for training clergy, primarily recruiting young believers for religious indoctrination and cultural education. For example, the famous Italian missionary Matteo Ricci was sent to China by the Jesuit Order; he brought with him much Western science and technology. However, they intended to use this science and technology as a "stepping stone" [22] to open the gates of an Eastern power with a long cultural history, thereby achieving the goal of spreading religion to influence China. This is clearly stated in the missionary accounts written by the Jesuits: "By using this as a bait, many in China fell into the net of the Church"; otherwise, "the hope of making them take foreigners as their teachers would be in vain."[43]
One can only say that the active promotion of education and academic activities by some religious organizations objectively promoted the dissemination and development of science and technology. Moreover, in these respects, their role was extremely limited compared to the influence of school education, individual scientists, and scientific societies.
[33] Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, Shanghai Scientific and Technical Publishers, 1962 edition, p. 158. [34] Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 1, People’s Publishing House, 1995 edition, p. 55. [35] Engels, Dialectics of Nature, People’s Publishing House, 1971 edition, p. 209. [36] Engels, Dialectics of Nature, in Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 9, People’s Publishing House, 2009 edition, pp. 461-462. [37] Dava Sobel, Galileo's Daughter: A Historical Memoir of Science, Faith, and Love, trans. Xie Yanguang, Shanghai People's Publishing House, 2005 edition, p. 69. [38] Ibid., p. 73. [39] Dava Sobel, Galileo's Daughter: A Historical Memoir of Science, Faith, and Love, trans. Xie Yanguang, Shanghai People's Publishing House, 2005 edition, p. 311. [40] See Science (USA), 1980, Issue No. 4436. [41] Quoted in H.S. Thayer (ed.), Newton's Philosophy of Nature: Selections from His Writings, Shanghai People's Publishing House, 1974 edition, p. 3. [42] Ibid., p. 62. [43] Engels, Dialectics of Nature, p. 163. [44] Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 4, p. 505. [45] Engels, Dialectics of Nature, People’s Publishing House, 1971 edition, pp. 30-31. [46] Collected Works of Einstein, Vol. 1, trans. Xu Liangying et al., Commercial Press, 1976 edition, p. 313. [47] Collected Works of Einstein, Vol. 1, trans. Xu Liangying et al., Commercial Press, 1976 edition, p. 574. [48] See Robert K.G. Temple, The Genius of China: 3,000 Years of Science, Discovery, and Invention, 21st Century Publishing House, 1995 edition, p. 4. [49] Ibid., p. 7. [50] See Wilhelm Windelband, A History of Philosophy (Vol. 1), Commercial Press, 1989 edition, p. 304. [51] Selected Materials on World History (Medieval Period), Commercial Press, 1964 edition, pp. 215-217. [52] See Nicolas Trigault, De Christiana expeditione apud Sinas suscepta ab Societate Jesu [23] and Matteo Ricci, I commentari sopra la Cina.
Online Editor: Wang Jiafei