With some interest I read the commentary by Tom McLeish regarding the influence of Christianity on the works of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, and other figures in the development of modern science. I’m certain that those men were engaged in the critical issues of their time, and theology was one of them. But let’s remember also the distinction between theology and science: Theology is sacrosanct; science is fluid. Theology resists innovative ideas; science thrives on new data.
Let’s also remember the influence of the Inquisition: Nicolaus Copernicus did not publish his findings until he lay on his deathbed and could no longer be subject to the Church’s wrath; Galileo Galilei was nearly deemed a heretic and confined to his home for the last years of his life; Giordano Bruno did not believe that man was the center of the universe, one of the reasons he was burned at the stake; and Isaac Newton’s theological work was not published until well after his death, because his beliefs were at odds with the Church of England.
I’m not trying to drive “an unhistorical and unrealistic wedge between science and religion,” but I think it’s important to recognize our differences. In the pursuit of our common work of bettering the human condition, scientists welcome the support of religious organizations, but we must also remember that theology cannot be made into science, and science is not meant to test theology.
