The first thing that jumped out at me during the assigned reading was the fact that Isaac Newton was incredibly religious. Much of our reading over the summer and in the past few weeks has dealt with the effect of religion on scientists and the scientific revolution and the controversy attached to this discussion. Yet one of the greatest thinkers of the time, Isaac Newton was able to believe in his faith and create one unified solar system. My question is this; “Can the study of science work in tandem with the blind faith of religion?” And by extension, “Does strong religious beliefs repress the progress of science?” Newton seemed to be able to balance his religious beliefs with his scientific theories, but as science progresses, will it still possible to be faithful to science and religion?
The textbook describes four main contributors to the scientific revolution; Medieval universities, Renaissance mathematics and patrons, navigational problems, and better instruments. For this discussion, I am posing the question first: “Which contributing factor played the most significant role in the Scientific Revolution or do you believe that all the contributors are equally important?” My position is that the medieval schools were the most important contributors. They gave scientists a place to learn, work, and collaborate with other great minds of the time. Collaboration is incredibly important as evidenced by Descartes and Bacon. Both men were brilliant, but their knowledge was confined to their unique study. But when their ideas were combined, the scientific method appeared and the study of science advanced.
The textbook states that during the scientific revolution, the position of women in society deteriorated, lowering rather than elevating women’s standing. I don’t believe that the book makes a convincing case on this point. There does not appear to be a correlation between scientific research and an expected change in women’s status as the book would insinuate and personally, I would not expect the position of women to change due to scientific discoveries. Further, I do not agree with the book that women’s position worsened. It is true that women were not allowed into scientific communities, but that condition was not new, such limitations for women existed prior to the scientific revolution. That women were offered academy posts, and had jobs relating to science in a more artistic form surprised me and suggest that women were afforded some social and intellectual standing. Where do you stand on this subject? Were women given less opportunity than you expected or more?
At the conclusion of this section, the book states that the scientific revolution was an intellectual revolution, a conclusion to which I agree. There are periods in history when a combination of circumstances coupled with the great minds of the time create an environment of highly charged intellectual exchange. The confluence of the scientific pursuits of such men as Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Descartes, and Bacon at that time in history makes for a rare moment in scientific advancement. Do you agree with this last statement, that this period marked a unique moment in scientific history?
Honestly, I do not believe that religion and science can coexist. In a society, they certainly can, but one person cannot truly believe in both groups, especially if they are influential both fields as Isaac Newton was. Therefore, I was extremely surprised when I learned how deeply religious he was. After further research, I learned that he had radical religious views and actually wrote more on religion than on natural science. Newton once said, "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.” This statement shows how he fully believed in both systems.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your position on the role of women in the scientific revolution. While women have traditionally had low roles in society, the scientific revolution widened the gap between women and men. It did not make a women’s status lower; it just raised a man’s. Males had many more opportunities in various fields such as mathematics, philosophy, and science. Women were subjected to tasks such as illustrators or wax anatomical models in Italy, the only country that admitted women into universities. Of course, there are exceptions, but over all I believe that a woman’s role became less significant in the working world during the scientific revolution.
Danielle,
ReplyDeleteDid you have a link for the information about Newton?
I do believe that as science continues to evolve into things no man could have perceived years ago, many questions will arise if we can balance science and religion. I believe that at one point in time we will have to exclude all religious thought when working with science, but my only issue with this is whether or not scientist will confuse religious thought with society moral. I do agree that the most important thing that developed the Scientific Revolution was not the scientists, but the invention of the medieval university because previously, science was limited to a small group of people, but with the university, the opportunity to expand science to many young scholars ensured that the science world would be secure for at least another generation. The sad truth is that religion does repress science to a degree because of the effect that religious doctrines and policies will hinder on how fr a scientist is willing to go in the name of science which is good and bad. As far as female inclusion in the scientific community, I feel that women were included more than I thought being that that was a time of closed minded and repressed views. I was very surprised for the period to find them working closely with males as scientific contemporaries, despite the fact that they had to find alternative ways of getting their science education due to the fact females were not admitted to most schools.Women could have played a larger role in the scientific community, but the fact they could play a role at all, was surprising.
ReplyDeleteI think it would be very hard, as Isaac Newton does, to personally balance one's religious beliefs while learning about scientific advancements, especially in that time period. Nowadays, where people have open mindsets and learning is a big part of everyday life, progression is considered to be a good thing. However, back then advancement in science was threatening to oppose the Holy Scriptures, and people were just trying to protect their faith by abolishing science, as this was completely new to them. It was probably very scary for religious people to hear that the basis of their worship was incorrect. In English class, we read different stories about the original creation of the world. This brought up a point that there is an inherit wanting in humans to understand, or find answers. So, I think the answer to your question "Can the study of science work in tandem with the blind faith of religion?" is no. People have to pick a side, either ask questions and try to learn, or to stick to what they know and follow that with all their heart.
ReplyDeleteAs for the role of women in the scientific revolution, it seemed to me like women were at a significant disadvantage as the universities would not accept female students, etc, however that was not unusual for that time period. The fact that women WERE able to excel at illustrating and creating models shows that at the least, the status of women did not get worse.