Religion and science
are often portrayed as being mutually incompatible, yet Somerville manages to integrate
them by stating that the laws of science are the result of divine creation, and
that these laws are “immutable, like their Author” (p116-17). This marriage of theory and religion is
evident in her description of astronomy- she states that the study of the
heavens leads to a better understand of the terrestrial world, and uses the fact
that all things are bounded by physical law as evidence of a divine creator. This line of thinking- the idea that “not
only the sun and planets, but the minutest particles… are all obedient to
permanent laws” (p117), inevitably brought me back to Diderot’s beliefs. However, unlike Somerville, Diderot used this
property of nature to argue that divine influence does not exist. What might have led Somerville and Diderot to
come to opposing conclusions based on the same evidence?
At the same time, I
feel that there is a tension and uncertainty present in Somerville’s
words. Although she considers mankind to
be created in the image of God and “endowed… with faculties by which he can not
only appreciate the magnificence of His works, but trace… the operations of His
laws” (p115), she also acknowledges that the vastness of space, explored and revealed
by scientific study, renders mankind almost irrelevant. Can these two beliefs be reconciled, or are they incompatible to the point where they impede any attempts to truly merge religion and scientific study?
By attempting to integrate religion and science, Somerville seems to find that the two areas of thought are actually mutually exclusive. Although one can attempt to explain one with the other, there will usually be examples in religion or science that cannot be reconciled. For example, as you stated, why would God create something in His image that was so tiny given the scale of the universe that it was irrelevant? However, although this seems to support the idea that religion and science are mutually exclusive, one possible answer could be that God created everything in his image and, therefore, humans would fall into the category of "minutest particles" that are bounded by divine and physical laws. Considering that the image of God is up to interpretation and that human existence is a fallacy of the ephemeral, whose to say that divine creation, and consequently religion, isn't the basis for matter itself?
ReplyDelete