Full Circle

There was a time when man was thought to be at the center of the universe. Science was never dichotomized from theology and philosophy. Thus, Aristotle taught that the earth must be at the center of the universe with all the then-known heavenly bodies orbiting around it. The reason for this belief was both theological and physical. Man was said to be the crowning glory of creation. It was therefore theologically necessary to put him at the center - this, and the fact that the observable event was that the sun was rising and setting at some definite time and direction in the day. The privileged position of man as the center of creation soon came under question when a man named Galileo, following the Copernican theory of the sun being the center of the solar system, postulated that the earth must not be at the center but was merely revolving around the sun together with other planets. This incensed the powers-that-be who would not hear of such a thing. Galileo was forced to recant under the threat of imprisonment for heresy. The Pope allowed him to teach of such theory only on the condition that he will teach it alongside the Aristotelian truth and that he would not take sides. Upon seeing that the Copernican theory was gaining popularity, the Pope reneged on the deal and ordered Galileo to be imprisoned. Four years before his death, the manuscript of his second book, Two New Sciences was smuggled and was published in Holland.

The political repercussions of these works were by no means uncertain. The long-held belief of man’s centrality on the universe has been challenged. If that be so, then what else is there to hold untouchable? Everything, as it were, laid bare for science to question.

Science took to new heights under Newton. It was under him that the doctrine of scientific repeatability solidified. Under this doctrine, it is held that any truth, to be considered scientific, must be repeatable under observable sets of conditions. This did not help the severely strained relationship between the now-growing scientific community and the church. Afterall, this dictum cuts right through the heart of biblical claims – although its effects on biblical faith and truth-claims are to be felt much later on in the future. Even while the people are not ready yet to lay down biblical beliefs, their faith in science is growing, so much so that the study of philosophy and theology is giving way to the study of science. It seems, as it were that
the divorce is imminent, owing to the irreconcilable difference spelled as objectivity and subjectivity.

Even while the old order of religion was nervously trying to hold on to its privileged position of power by means of threats and punishments, science was fast becoming “Science”, an entity that has captured the hearts and minds of a whole gamut of social classes. Religion becomes repressive while science becomes liberating. Science has brought forth inventions and machines which allowed an unprecedented trip to progress. The “backwardness” of religious subjectivity becomes the backdrop of the glorious new age of modernity where progress is the necessary corollary of objectivity. More and more, religion was losing its power as the merger between the church and state is quickly dissolving. The state, after all, was turning to science for their needs for progress.

Soon enough, philosophers were becoming converts in the scientific dogma of objectivity. Whereas before, the postulations on the existence of God and how the universe began were answered by Anselm’s Proslogium, Aquinas’ Uncaused cause, Kant’s metaphysics, and Pascal’s famous wager, there came that time when even God’s existence became subject of scientific questioning. Thus, we see the rise of philosophers like Descartes who looked into the self to be able to ascertain that which we can know for sure. The famous phrase, cogito ergo sum becomes the battle cry of the modern man who like Aristotle has found man to be at the center of the universe. But unlike Aristotle, this centrality was not founded on some divinely inspired plan of creation but on the power of man to think and reason for himself. David Hume was not as forgiving with his critique of religion. Voltaire bragged that “God is dead!” Nietzsche's superman was born!

The new science has emerged. One that seeks natural explanation for all things, apart from the truth-claims of theology. Soon enough, scientific truth (one that is “unbiased” and “repeatable”) has permeated all the branches of education. It has not merely become a branch in itself but a looming principle that guides all learning. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that even the revered portals of religion were soon opening to the scientific. It’s just a matter of time when the “scientification” of religion has been made complete. A new scholarship has emerged. One that seeks to ferret out the truth of the Bible in the most scientific way possible – unbiased and repeatable. And so, a new hermeneutic has emerged. One which is called historical. And from this comes a horde of approaches that seek to explain away, if not outrightly reject, all biblical truth-claims that do not seem to fit into the scientific model. Scientific has become the preferred mode of inquiry. Objective has become the preferred mode of conclusion. One wonders if we have not just turned full circle right back to the time of Aristotle, albeit this time, heroic science has become the preferred mode of religious sameness.