Search

Communication and interaction between religion and science is as old as the human history. This communication and interaction has occurred at times in the form of settlement and dialog and at other times in the form of clash and integration. Over the course of the history, there were times when religion affected science and vice versa. After the Renaissance, when the interest in scientific classics of the ancient world re-emerged in Europe, a rebirth was experienced in theology, thought and natural sciences. One of the scientific areas that saw development was, obviously, astronomy. Astronomy was not a field of science that the church was ignorant of. As an intellectual activity, astronomy was taught in the church and monastery. Astronomy education in churches and monasteries was based solely on repetition. The most original works done were translations of astronomy books from Arabic, which were then presented as new theories. However, there was still scarce information about planetary astronomy. Maybe the most original additions to astronomy were theological interpretations about it. The church direly needed astronomy especially in calendar calculations. The church became acquainted with Aristotle’s On the Heavens and Ptolemy’s Almagest. In spite of developments in Europe such as religious reforms and geographical explorations, the church, under the influence of leaders of the church, defended the geocentric universe theory revealed in Aristotle’s work titled On the Heavens and developed in Ptolemy’s Almagest and turned this into a religious dogma. Interest in astronomy and noteworthy astronomical studies, on the other hand, started in Europe with translations from Arabic into Latin after the 15th century. We see that in this new intellectual environment emerging after the Renaissance, communication and interaction between religion and science took on a completely different dimension and transcended to a different level. Having an old history, the church appeared to lose its rightfulness in many areas and especially its veracity in natural sciences, although it was still an undisputed power in all domains. In this context, Copernicus, who was a religious functionary at the same time, put forward a new model of the universe that was an alternative to Ptolemy’s astronomy, which was turned by the Church into a dogma. This model, expressed as a heliocentric model, was revolutionary. It not only criticized classical astronomical models, but also aimed at the Church, which based itself of the Ptolemaic model. If the universe was geocentric, either God would be mistaken - in which case Christianity and the Church would be deemed completely void - or the new astronomical models were mistaken. Since it was impossible for God to be mistaken, the new astronomical models were false. However, according to new calculations, the new model was more reasonable and acceptable. Nevertheless, if this new model turned out to be accurate, both the Holy Scripture would be falsified and the church would have made a mistake. Therefore, the ancient religious heritage is under impending radical criticism. Even though Copernicus dedicated his work to the pope, especially Luther and Calvin raised harsh objections to Copernicus on theological grounds. However, Copernicus was targeted not only by religious functionaries, but also by certain scientists. Nonetheless, such harsh criticism was not raised from the scientific community. Undoubtedly, the main reason for the clash between the Church and new scientific developments stemmed from literal readings of the Holy Scripture. Adopting a rigid literal approach by equating textual interpretation with the text itself, Luther and Calvin naturally brought science and religion against each other. Ironically, this new theory was put forward by Copernicus, who was a religious functionary himself. As claimed by some researchers, if such a theory had been propounded at a time when Church leaders such as Thomas Aquinas, who was influenced by Averroes, were in power, the religious texts would have been interpreted in line with scientific development and such a clash would have been avoided. However, we observe that the Church dogmatized previous interpretations instead of generating new ones. This attitude of the Church later caused deepening and radical breaking of the fault lines between different disciplines of religion (Christianity) and science. If, in the relevant period, the Church could have eluded dogmatism and science could have eluded ideologism, then the process would have unfolded more healthily. Although the actors have changed, it appears that in modern age, the nature of the problem between religion and science continues over the same erroneous notion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]