Religion and the Challenges of Science

William Sweet, Richard Feist

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• eBook ISBN:
  9781351150385
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

Does science pose a challenge to religion and religious belief? This question has been a matter of long-standing debate - and it continues to concern not only scholars in philosophy, theology, and the sciences, but also those involved in public educational policy. This volume provides background to the current 'science and religion' debate, yet focuses as well on themes where recent discussion of the relation between science and religion has been particularly concentrated. The first theme deals with the history of the interrelation of science and religion. The second and third themes deal with the implications of recent work in cosmology, biology and so-called intelligent design for religion and religious belief. The fourth theme is concerned with 'conceptual issues' underlying, or implied, in the current debates, such as: Are scientific naturalism and religion compatible? Are science and religion bodies of knowledge or practices or both? Do religion and science offer conflicting truth claims? By illuminating contemporary discussion in the science-religion debate and by outlining the options available in describing the relation between the two, this volume will be of interest to scholars and to members of the educated public alike.

Part I
History and Contexts in Biology and Evolutionary Theory

Chapter 1
‘The Declaration of Students of the Natural and Physical Sciences’, revisited: Youth, Science, and Religion in mid-Victorian Britain¹

Hannah Gay

Introduction²

Theological questions were under debate in Europe and North America even before the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859. New Biblical criticism, much of it originating in Germany and France, had raised serious questions as to how the Bible should be interpreted.³ The new criticism took note of scientific, philological, archaeological and historical work that together threw doubt on biblical history and on long-held theological positions.

In England, theological issues were especially debated after the 1860 publication of Essays and Reviews, a collection of essays by self-identified ‘progressive’ churchmen.⁴ The Essayists wanted to see many of the new ideas acknowledged, together with an accordingly liberal interpretation of the Bible. At the time, Essays raised far more controversy than had Darwin’s Origin published a year earlier⁵; the British Library catalogue lists 99 published responses. Ecclesiastical legal challenges were mounted against two of the authors. Another, perhaps more famous, legal case, of roughly the same date, relates to J.W. Colenso, Bishop of Natal. In 1862 he had published a work in which the literal truth of much of the Pentateuch was denied, and for this he had been dismissed from his post by the Bishop of Cape Town, Robert Gray.⁶ The legal challenges against the Essayists were, however, lost on appeal to the Privy Council, and Colenso’s appeal against his dismissal was won, and he was returned to his see.

The result of all this litigation was viewed by many as a triumph of secular over ecclesiastical authority. Many scientists had rallied behind the Essayists and Colenso in their legal fights. William Spottiswoode and John Lubbock campaigned to get signatures on a memorial of support for the Essayists. Charles Darwin, Charles Lyell and George Airy were among those who signed, but many also refused.⁷ One who refused was John Herschel who later also declined to sign the ‘The Declaration of Students of the Natural and Physical Sciences’.⁸

As Owen Chadwick has pointed out, most scientists, and many clergymen, had jettisoned belief in much of the historical content of the Bible well before they knew about Darwinian evolution.⁹ But this should not imply that most scientists had, more generally, jettisoned their religious beliefs – on the contrary. Most did not follow the path of T.H. Huxley, Francis Galton or John Tyndall, either towards agnosticism or towards a radical naturalism, and many distanced themselves from Spottiswoode and Lubbock’s memorial and their support of Colenso.¹⁰ However, the general religious anxiety spawned a number of declarations. One of some importance was organized by a group of High Anglicans, disturbed by the legal outcome in the cases of the Essayists. Edward Pusey was the principal figure behind what is known as the Oxford Declaration. This circulated among Anglican clergymen who were asked to add their signatures in support of the position that the Church of England maintain ‘without reserve or qualification’ the inspiration and divine authority of the Bible.¹¹ Just under 50 per cent (that is, 10,906) of the clergymen in England and Ireland signed.

In addition to upholding the biblical account of creation, Pusey believed it wrong also to dismiss the idea of the fear of hell, as had been suggested by some of his more liberal contemporaries, including some of the Essayists. The loss of such fear, he claimed, would put people’s souls at risk.¹² He was very critical of Essays and Reviews and regarded it as folly for A.P. Stanley, the new Dean of Westminster, to have written in defence of the volume. The Bishop of London, A.C. Tait, agreed with Pusey in this, and thought that the authors were causing an unnecessary crisis among laymen.¹³ Indeed, people did begin to discuss the question of whether it was right for men who disbelieved the literal truth of the book of Genesis to become clergymen. In the minds of some among the public, the ideas of the new geology, and the even newer evolution theory, were anti-religious, which is what Tait had feared would happen as a result of all the public declarations. T.H. Huxley weighed in by stating that clergymen should stop accusing scientists of stirring up controversy; scientists, he claimed, were simply uncovering the truth in rational ways.¹⁴

The Oxford Declaration was successful in that the convocation of bishops did condemn Essays and Reviews in 1864, though, in many quarters, they were ridiculed for having done so. It is in this context that the activities of the young men to be discussed below must be understood.

The Declaration of Students of the Natural and Physical Sciences

A few historians have already written about the Declaration, but I would like to spell out the details, as I understand them, for two reasons: first, to recover more of the history of this interesting episode and, second, to offer an interpretation which takes the position of the young protagonists more seriously than do any of the earlier accounts.¹⁵

Herbert McLeod (1841–1923), the principal organizer of the Declaration, was born in London, the son of Scottish parents who had moved south to start a brewery business with some of their relatives. The business failed and McLeod’s father found work as an employee in a brewery outside London. The family became very poor; McLeod left school at the age of 14 and worked part-time in yet another brewery while taking chemistry lessons from George Ansell at the Royal Panopticon in Leicester Square. Since McLeod showed great ability, Ansell advised him to enrol at the Royal College of Chemistry in the following year (1856). A.W. Hofmann, the professor at the Royal College, was also impressed with McLeod’s ability, and soon waived his fees.¹⁶ By 1860, no longer a student, McLeod had become Hofmann’s lecture assistant, and official chemist to the Royal School of Mines. His duties involved preparing and performing all the practical demonstrations for Hofmann’s lectures, and carrying out chemical analyses for the professors in the School of Mines.

McLeod was a seriously religious young man. In his diary he records having attended services at 104 different London churches during the 1860s. Westminster Abbey, his Sunday favourite early in the decade, was attended over 500 times and St Lawrence Jewry was attended almost as often later in the decade.¹⁷ On weekdays he attended churches closer to the Royal College of Chemistry which was situated on Oxford Street. He often attended church with one or two friends, usually others from the College. At Westminster Abbey he made new friends; one of these was a canon at the Abbey, Christopher Wordsworth, who was opposed to the appointment of Arthur Stanley as Dean. Indeed, it may be in part due to this appointment that McLeod later preferred to worship at St Lawrence Jewry.¹⁸ Another friend was an Abbey congregant, William K. Salmon, who was to sign the Declaration. Salmon, a wealthy older man, had a large estate in Bridgend, Wales, took a keen interest in the Royal College of Chemistry, supported Hofmann in a variety of ways, and even attended some of his lectures.¹⁹ Also at the Abbey, McLeod met Sir James Alderson, a president of the Royal College of Physicians, and remained on friendly terms with Sir James and Lady Alderson for the rest of their lives. Sir James was related to Robert Cecil, the Marquess of Salisbury, whom McLeod was to meet in the late 1860s, and with whom he formed a close friendship. At first this was based on the help McLeod was able to give the Marquess in his electrical experimentation, but the friendship developed into a lifelong one. By the end of the decade, McLeod had begun his frequent visits to the Cecil homes: at Arlington Street in London, and Hatfield House in Hertfordshire. There he befriended the Cecil children and taught them some science.²⁰ McLeod had a further connection to the Marquess through Lord Sackville Cecil, the Marquess’s younger half-brother, to whom he was far closer in age. Sackville Cecil attended the Royal School of Mines in the early 1860s as an occasional student and became a close friend. The Cecils and the Aldersons were also High Anglicans, which will have helped smooth the relationships.²¹ It was also through the Aldersons, Wordsworth, and his other Abbey connections, that McLeod became embroiled in church politics. He was among many who approved Pusey’s Declaration and was something of a Pusey acolyte, attending Puseyite meetings whenever he could, together with his friend Alexander Gillman.²² They also attended public scientific lectures together, and McLeod disapprovingly notes seeing Colenso at some of these.²³ McLeod had read Darwin’s Origin already in 1860 and largely accepted its conclusions; so evolution, per se, was not an issue in his disapproval of Colenso.²⁴ He believed that, when properly understood, the book of Genesis and evolutionary theory would be seen to be consistent.

From McLeod’s diary it would appear that the idea of yet another Declaration came from Gillman, who had recently left the College and had begun work as a brewery chemist in Southwark. In early April 1864, he wrote to McLeod asking him to write a letter from the College to the English Church Union ‘declaring that we had no connection with those who study “science falsely so called” and to get it signed as numerously as possible’.²⁵ What prompted Gillman was that some non-scientists were seen as actively using what they understood of the new science to undermine religion. That, together with the fact that some scientists were using science to challenge Church authority, was something from which both young men wished to distance themselves. Gillman’s idea was that scientists needed to tell the world that one could be both a serious scientist and a serious Christian. On hearing from Gillman, McLeod immediately went to talk over the idea of a new Declaration with some of his clergyman friends, including Wordsworth. McLeod wrote a couple of drafts, Gillman made some suggestions, and a third draft was then sent to Wordsworth for his comments.²⁶ In his diary, McLeod noted that he received a ‘most kind letter’ from Wordsworth with suggestions as to how the wording of the Declaration might be improved.²⁷ McLeod then made a neat and corrected copy which, in its final iteration, read as follows:

The Declaration of Students of the Natural and Physical Sciences²⁸

We the undersigned students of the Natural Sciences desire to express our sincere regret, that researches into scientific truth are perverted by some in our own times into occasions for casting doubt upon the Truth and Authenticity of Holy Scriptures. We conceive that it is impossible for the Word of God, as written in the book of nature, and God’s word written in Holy Scripture to contradict one another, however much they appear to differ. We are not forgetful that Physical Science is not complete, but is only in a condition of progress, and that at present our finite reason enables us only to see as through a glass darkly; and we confidently believe, that a time will come when the two records will be seen to agree in every particular. We cannot but deplore that Natural Science should be looked upon with suspicion by many who do not make a study of it, merely because of the unadvised manner in which some are placing it in opposition to Holy Writ. We believe it is the duty of every scientific student to investigate nature simply for the purpose of elucidating truth, and that if he finds that some of his results appear to be in contradiction to the written word, or rather to his own interpretation of it, which may be erroneous, he should not presumptuously affirm that his own conclusions must be right, and the statements of Scripture wrong; rather, leave the two side by side till it shall please God to allow us to see the manner in which they may be reconciled; and, instead of insisting upon the seeming difference between Science and the Scriptures, it would be as well to rest in faith upon the points in which they agree.²⁹

An earlier version contained also a final paragraph omitted later. Perhaps the omission was because the intent of McLeod and his friends was also to canvas the signatures of non-Anglicans. Or, perhaps, to gain as many scientists’ signatures as possible, they did not wish to be publicly identified too closely with the Oxford Declarationists. Whatever the case, they omitted the passage below:

We therefore pray, that the Bish...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• List of Contributors
• Introduction Rethinking Relations between Science and Religion
• Part I History and Contexts in Biology and Evolutionary Theory
• Part II Physics, Philosophy, and Fine-Tuning
• Part III Naturalism and the Non-Natural
• Part IV Conceptual Issues
• Index