On the 31st of October, 1517,[1] the young German monk and radical theologian Martin Luther (1483-1546), set in motion a series of cataclysmic events that would precipitate the Protestant Reformation throughout Europe, which is arguably responsible for shaping many aspects of the modern Western world as we know it.
This essay seeks to understand how subsequent developments in Protestant thought may have influenced progression within the Early Modern scientific community and whether the Protestant Reformation really produced what we call the ‘Scientific Revolution’ of the 17th century.
What was the Protestant Reformation?
It is important to begin by defining our concepts of the Protestant Reformation.
Although beginning in Germany, Protestantism took on very distinct national forms throughout Europe and England, giving rise to various movements and degrees of thought with a diversity of doctrines, liturgies and polities.
Protestantism first began as a reform movement within the Catholic Church and as such, features that we may now think of as distinctively Protestant, had significant precedents in, and originally drew upon, the existing traditions of Medieval Catholicism.[2]
That being said, there were differing characteristics.
The Medieval worldview was a complicated composition of Christian theology, symbolism, and Aristotelian natural philosophy, which were all closely integrated with one another by Scholastics, like Thomas Aquinas, in the 13th century. By the late 16th century, however, this way of thinking was being gradually overturned both by Protestant understandings of scripture and an empirical observation of the cosmos.[3]
In its essence, Protestantism sought to undermine the Catholic Church’s uninhibited authority in defining a universal interpretation of Biblical scripture. Of course, this more liberal stance on who has the right to read and interpret scripture came with its own set of problems.
In order to avoid the widespread dissemination of potential scriptural errors, the Protestants emphasised the importance of a literal exegesis of scripture. Martin Luther’s famous declaration sola scriptura was, however, undoubtedly an echo of the Renaissance humanist motto, ad fontes or “[back] to the sources”, and so we observe that parts of the Protestant logic had its origins in the pre-reformation Renaissance.
The humanist vision did not seek to do away with Christian belief, but, on the contrary, sought to reconstruct it in what they believed was its original form as both Christ and the Apostles intended. This simplistic and foundational method of interpreting scripture was then subsequently applied to the study of nature and the surrounding world as well, resulting in an empirical, as opposed to a rational and allegorical, way of engaging with scientific knowledge. In the words of Stephen Chavura, “Protestant theology thus introduced a novel individualism into the European consciousness”.[4]
In freeing individuals to determine for themselves the meaning of scripture without deferring to the Catholic Church, the Protestant reformers, unwittingly or not, also allowed room for individuals to interpret the natural world as they saw it, unfettered by the teaching of approved authors.[5]
Protestantism and the Scientific Revolution
Robert K. Merton is well known for his thesis on this topic, first proposed in 1938. His argument, explained in the simplest terms, is that the dissemination of Protestant, and particularly Puritan, ethics encouraged the growth of scientific activity in the 17th century.
For Merton, the Protestant or Puritan ethic was not defined by any specific denomination, but simply the religious injunction to remake the world, but in a way that is specifically useful to society.[6]
According to a more recent analysis by Reijer Hooykaas, the common qualities of Puritanism and its new philosophy were “anti-authoritarianism, optimism about human possibilities, rational empiricism, and an emphasis on human experience”.[7] Merton’s thesis appears quite sound on the whole; however, there is a point worth raising.
Should it be agreed that the Scientific Revolution itself began with the discovery of the Heliocentric universe by Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543), who was not only a Catholic himself, but was also supported in his enterprise by the Church, then we are forced to re-evaluate the proposition that Protestantism was alone in promoting scientific observation.
The Copernican model was then taken up and widely promoted by another Catholic, Galileo, but it was at this point that, due to a multitude of internal and external factors, the Catholic Church became antagonistic toward the theory. However, this was obviously not a case of Catholic traditionalism in opposition to Protestant empiricism, so it is unfair to suppose that Protestant thought was solely responsible for the advancement in scientific observation.
Social, Political and Scientific Revolutions
It is worth keeping in mind that the 17th century was one in which political and social revolutions took place, as well as that of the scientific revolution.[8]
The continued political separation between the Church and State also appears to have created an opportunity for science to begin to exist in its own right. Although religion remained a significant influence on scientific practice well into the 19th century, and was often conducted by members of the clergy, or at least the religious, the 16th and 17th centuries saw the study of the natural sciences emerge as its own faculty apart from institutionalised religion.
That is not to say, however, that there was an unlimited amount of scientific freedom in Protestant led countries after the Reformation. Peter Harrison cites an example, when, in December 1559, after Elizabeth I’s ascension to the throne and England’s return to Protestantism earlier that year, the physician John Geynes (1505-1563) ventured to suggest that the Ancient Greek physician Galen had erred in certain areas.
After being ordered to appear before the Royal College of Physicians and bring evidence to prove his assertions, Geynes was found guilty on the 5th of November 1560, and forced to publicly recant his anti-Galenic views. He was created a fellow of the College soon after.[9][10]
This incident serves to inform us that some traditions and beliefs were still closely guarded by those in positions of authority, Protestant or otherwise.
Conclusion
The Reformation and the scientific revolution were two different aspects of the historical transformation that belonged to the dominant intellectual movement of the late Renaissance.
Both the Lutheran appeal to the origins of Christianity and Francis Bacon’s appeal to efficient causes rather than final causes, for example, were two differing sides of what appears to be one coherent movement of thought.[11] However, consideration must also be given to the fact that a great deal of the scientific progress of the 17th century was influenced by a broad range of social and economic factors outside of religious movements.
For instance, advancements in the fields of mathematics, physics and botany can be attributed to innovations within the more practical spheres of navigation, industry and agriculture.[12] The discovery and subsequent colonisation of the ‘New World’ in the 16th and 17th centuries also played its part in the evolution of the natural sciences.
To argue that the Protestant Reformation was entirely responsible for the Scientific Revolution in Europe is perhaps going too far, but there seems to be little doubt that the empiricist methodology of Protestant thought, along with other social factors, greatly impacted and encouraged the growth of scientific knowledge and experimentation throughout the 16th and 17th centuries.
Footnotes:
The date when Luther’s ‘Ninety-Five Thesis’ was first published, thus beginning the Reformation.
Peter Harrison, “Protestantism and the Making of Modern Science” in Protestantism after 500 Years (ed. T.A. Howard, M.A. Noll), (Oxford Academic, 2016), p. 100.
S.F. Mason, “Science and Religion in 17th century England” in Past & Present, no.3 (Oxford University Press, Feb. 1953), p. 28.
Stephen Chavura, Tudor Protestant Political Thought 1547-1603, (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2011), p. 19.
Peter Harrison, The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science, (Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 101.
Gary A. Abraham, “Misunderstanding the Merton Thesis” in Isis 74, no. 3 (1983), p. 369.
Charles Webster, “Puritanism, Separatism, and Science” in God and Nature (ed. David Lindberg, Ronald Numbers), (University of California Press, 1987), p. 203.
Christopher Hill, Intellectual Origins of the English Revolution (Revisited), (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), p. 346.
Peter Harrison, The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science, (Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 101.
Margaret White, Frances Pelling, “GEYNES, John” in Physicians and Irregular Medical Practitioners in London 1550-1640 Database, (London, 2004).
Alfred Whitehead, Science and the Modern World, (Cambridge University Press, 1929), p. 10.
Charles Webster, “Puritanism, Separatism, and Science” in God and Nature (ed. David Lindberg, Ronald Numbers), (University of California Press, 1987), p. 197.
Bibliography:
Abraham, Gary A. “Misunderstanding the Merton Thesis: A Boundary Dispute between History and Sociology.” Isis 74, no.3 (1983): 368–87. http://www.jstor.org/stable/232596
Chavura, Stephen A. Tudor Protestant Political Thought 1547-1603. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2011.
Harrison, Peter. “Protestantism and the Making of Modern Science.” Protestantism after 500 Years. Edited by Thomas A. Howard & Mark A. Noll. Oxford Academic, 2016.
Harrison, Peter. The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science. Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Hill, Christopher. Intellectual Origins of the English Revolution (Revisited). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.
Mason, S. F. “Science and Religion in 17th Century England.” Past and Present, no.3. Oxford University Press, Feb. 1953: 28-44. http://www.jstor.org/stable/650034
Webster, Charles. “Puritanism, Separatism, and Science.” God and Nature. Edited by David Lindberg & Ronald Numbers. University of California Press, 1987.
White, Margaret & Pelling, Frances. “GEYNES, John.” Physicians and Irregular Medical
Practitioners in London 1550-1640 Database. London, 2004. https://www.british-
history.ac.uk/no-series/london-physicians/1550-1640/geynes-john.
Whitehead, Alfred North. Science and the Modern World. Cambridge University Press, 1929.
Comments