I have read this book by Bertrand Russel in the last few weeks, and I am jotting here my impressions about it. This book is short (which most of the times is a good thing, as long as there is enough content) and dense (which is usually good, as long as the contents are well expressed and understandable). Well, in this case, I think both of these characteristics can be considered as qualities, and highly considered ones. In ten chapters, the author goes through the historical and and philosophical events and issues which have marked this long dialogue/conflict. I found this book to be so good and rich, that I cannot summarize it in few sentences. Also, I have so much stuff underlined, that it is hard to pick few excerpts from it. Anyway, I'll try to write here the sentences that I liked the most from each chapter...
1)The grounds of conflict. Creeds are the intellectual source of the conflict between religion and science, but the bitterness of the opposition has been due to the connection of creeds with Churches and with moral codes. [...] Secular rulers, therefore, as well as Churchmen, felt that they had good reason to fear the revolutionary teaching of the men of science. (pg.9)
A religious creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modifications in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration.
2)The Copernican revolution. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) was the most notable scientific figure of his time, both on account of his discoveries and through his conflict with the Inquisition. (pg.31) There can be no question that the clergy, if they had had the power, would have used it to prevent the spread of Copernicanism. (pg.43)
3)Evolution. But on the subject of animal life theology had a number of very definite views, which it was found increasingly difficult to reconcile with science.[...] all animals now existing belong to species represented in the ark[...] This opinion was not without difficulties. St.Augustine confessed himself ignorant as to God's reason for creating flies. Luther, more boldly, decided that they had been created by the Devil, to distract him when writing good books. The latter opinion is certainly plausible. (pg.65)
4)Demonology and medicine. The scientific study of the human body and its diseases has had to contend--and to some extent still has to contend--with a mass of superstition, largely pre-Christian in origin, but supported, until quite modern times, by the whole weight of ecclesiastical authority. Disease was sometimes a divine visitation in punishment of sin, but more often the work of demons. (pg.82) The harm that theology has done is not to create cruel impulses, but to give them the sanction of what professes to be a lofty ethic, and to confer an apparently sacred character upon practices which have come down from more ignorant and barbarous ages. The intervention of theology in medical questions is not yet at an end; opinions on such subjects as birth control, and the legal permission of abortion in certain cases, are still influenced by Bible texts and ecclesiastical decrees. (pg.106) The consequent improvement in health and increase of longevity is one of the most remarkable and admirable characteristics of our age. Even if science had done nothing else for human happiness, it would deserve our gratitude on this account. Those who believe in the utility of theological creeds would have difficulty in pointing to any comparable advantage that they have conferred upon the human race.
5)Soul and body. Thus "true" freedom, as opposed to mere caprice, was identified with obedience to the moral law. (pg.126) The question of "consciousness" is perhaps rather more difficult. (pg.130)
6)Determinism. [...]such matters, it is now held, are inessential. But there are three central doctrines--God, immortality, and freedom--which are felt to constitute what is of most importance to Christianity, in so far as it is not connected with historical events. (pg.144) We can now state the hypothesis of determinism[...]: There are discoverable causal laws such that, given sufficient (but not superhuman) powers of calculation, a man who knows all that is happening within a certain sphere at a certain time can predict all that will happen at the centre of the sphere during the time that it takes light to travel from the circumference of the sphere to the centre.[...] For the first time in history, determinism is now being challenged by men of science on scientific grounds. (pg.151) People imagine that, if the will has causes, they may be compelled to do things that they do not wish to do. This, of course, is a mistake; the wish is the cause of action, even if the wish itself has causes. (pg.163)
7)Mysticism. I cannot admit any method of arriving at truth except that of science, but in the realm of the emotions I do not deny the value of the experiences which have given rise to religion. Through association with false beliefs, they have led to much evil as well as good; freed from this association, it may be hoped that the good alone will remain. (pg.189)
8)Cosmic purpose. Many questions are raised by this theory. Let us begin with the most definite: in what sense, if any, is biology not reducible to physics and chemistry, or psychology to biology? (pg.199) As for the view that God's eternal blessedness should be a comfort to the poor, it has always been held by the rich, but the poor are beginning to grow weary of it. Perhaps, at this date, it is scarcely prudent to seem to associate the idea of God with the defence of economic injustice. (pg.210) And even if we accept the rather curious view that the Cosmic Purpose is specially concerned with our little planet, we still find that there is reason to doubt whether it intends quite what the theologians say it does. (pg.217)
9)Science and ethics. [...] science has nothing to say about "values". This I admit; but when it is inferred that ethics contains truths which cannot be proved or disproved by science, I disagree. (pg.223) But in fact conscience is a product of education, and can be trained to approve or disapprove, in the great majority of mankind, as educators may see fit. (pg.227)
10)Conclusions. We have seen that, in the period since Copernicus, whenever science and theology have disagreed, science has proved victorious. We have seen also that, where practical issues were involved, as in witchcraft and medicine, science has stood for the diminution of suffering, while theology has encouraged man's natural savagery. (pg.244) New truth is often uncomfortable, especially to the holders of power; nevertheless, amid the long record of cruelty and bigotry, it is the most important achievement of our intelligent but wayward species.
1)The grounds of conflict. Creeds are the intellectual source of the conflict between religion and science, but the bitterness of the opposition has been due to the connection of creeds with Churches and with moral codes. [...] Secular rulers, therefore, as well as Churchmen, felt that they had good reason to fear the revolutionary teaching of the men of science. (pg.9)
A religious creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modifications in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration.
2)The Copernican revolution. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) was the most notable scientific figure of his time, both on account of his discoveries and through his conflict with the Inquisition. (pg.31) There can be no question that the clergy, if they had had the power, would have used it to prevent the spread of Copernicanism. (pg.43)
3)Evolution. But on the subject of animal life theology had a number of very definite views, which it was found increasingly difficult to reconcile with science.[...] all animals now existing belong to species represented in the ark[...] This opinion was not without difficulties. St.Augustine confessed himself ignorant as to God's reason for creating flies. Luther, more boldly, decided that they had been created by the Devil, to distract him when writing good books. The latter opinion is certainly plausible. (pg.65)
4)Demonology and medicine. The scientific study of the human body and its diseases has had to contend--and to some extent still has to contend--with a mass of superstition, largely pre-Christian in origin, but supported, until quite modern times, by the whole weight of ecclesiastical authority. Disease was sometimes a divine visitation in punishment of sin, but more often the work of demons. (pg.82) The harm that theology has done is not to create cruel impulses, but to give them the sanction of what professes to be a lofty ethic, and to confer an apparently sacred character upon practices which have come down from more ignorant and barbarous ages. The intervention of theology in medical questions is not yet at an end; opinions on such subjects as birth control, and the legal permission of abortion in certain cases, are still influenced by Bible texts and ecclesiastical decrees. (pg.106) The consequent improvement in health and increase of longevity is one of the most remarkable and admirable characteristics of our age. Even if science had done nothing else for human happiness, it would deserve our gratitude on this account. Those who believe in the utility of theological creeds would have difficulty in pointing to any comparable advantage that they have conferred upon the human race.
5)Soul and body. Thus "true" freedom, as opposed to mere caprice, was identified with obedience to the moral law. (pg.126) The question of "consciousness" is perhaps rather more difficult. (pg.130)
6)Determinism. [...]such matters, it is now held, are inessential. But there are three central doctrines--God, immortality, and freedom--which are felt to constitute what is of most importance to Christianity, in so far as it is not connected with historical events. (pg.144) We can now state the hypothesis of determinism[...]: There are discoverable causal laws such that, given sufficient (but not superhuman) powers of calculation, a man who knows all that is happening within a certain sphere at a certain time can predict all that will happen at the centre of the sphere during the time that it takes light to travel from the circumference of the sphere to the centre.[...] For the first time in history, determinism is now being challenged by men of science on scientific grounds. (pg.151) People imagine that, if the will has causes, they may be compelled to do things that they do not wish to do. This, of course, is a mistake; the wish is the cause of action, even if the wish itself has causes. (pg.163)
7)Mysticism. I cannot admit any method of arriving at truth except that of science, but in the realm of the emotions I do not deny the value of the experiences which have given rise to religion. Through association with false beliefs, they have led to much evil as well as good; freed from this association, it may be hoped that the good alone will remain. (pg.189)
8)Cosmic purpose. Many questions are raised by this theory. Let us begin with the most definite: in what sense, if any, is biology not reducible to physics and chemistry, or psychology to biology? (pg.199) As for the view that God's eternal blessedness should be a comfort to the poor, it has always been held by the rich, but the poor are beginning to grow weary of it. Perhaps, at this date, it is scarcely prudent to seem to associate the idea of God with the defence of economic injustice. (pg.210) And even if we accept the rather curious view that the Cosmic Purpose is specially concerned with our little planet, we still find that there is reason to doubt whether it intends quite what the theologians say it does. (pg.217)
9)Science and ethics. [...] science has nothing to say about "values". This I admit; but when it is inferred that ethics contains truths which cannot be proved or disproved by science, I disagree. (pg.223) But in fact conscience is a product of education, and can be trained to approve or disapprove, in the great majority of mankind, as educators may see fit. (pg.227)
10)Conclusions. We have seen that, in the period since Copernicus, whenever science and theology have disagreed, science has proved victorious. We have seen also that, where practical issues were involved, as in witchcraft and medicine, science has stood for the diminution of suffering, while theology has encouraged man's natural savagery. (pg.244) New truth is often uncomfortable, especially to the holders of power; nevertheless, amid the long record of cruelty and bigotry, it is the most important achievement of our intelligent but wayward species.
