Welcome to this week’s Friday Philosophy post. Today we’ll be shining the spotlight on the English philosopher and politician Sir Francis Bacon, who lived between 1561–1626 AD and has been referred to as the Godfather of Science.
Who Was He?
Francis Bacon was a polymath, distinguished in a range of fields from law and literature to philosophy and science. He was born into a privileged family – his father was Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of Elizabeth I, a position within the British nobility which he would eventually hold himself.
He became a member of parliament at the age of only 23, having been educated at Cambridge University. At the age of 36, Bacon published his book Essayes, his most famous work, in which he gave his views on a range of subjects both personal and political.
Two of the most famous British scientists, Charles Darwin and Issac Newton, both acknowledged their indebtedness to Bacon’s work. Immanuel Kant placed a quotation from Bacon at the beginning of the revised edition of his Critique of Pure Reason.
What’s the Big Idea?
Bacon is often credited as being the first philosopher in a line of thought known as British empiricism. The work of Bacon marked a shift away from Renaissance thinking, with its reverence for the knowledge of the ancient world, and into the modern science we are more familiar with today.
Bacon placed a real focus on promoting the usefulness of science when it comes to transforming people’s lives. He did a lot of work developing the scientific method, with a focus on experimentation, and he did significant work in refining the way scientific observations should be carried out.
My Reflections
It’s interesting to consider why in the present day there is so much conflict between scientific and religious thinkers. I believe much of the conflict is unnecessary because, despite being a theist myself, I am able to celebrate and appreciate the tremendous contribution scientific thinkers like Bacon have made to the modern world with all its material benefits.
Bacon was criticised for focusing too heavily on scientific experimentation to the exclusion of the kind of imaginative leaps that characterise human progress. I believe the world religions have produced wonderful contributions to the story of humanity, and more recently, so have scientists.
Because I am convinced that God exists, I don’t think there will ever be a time when humans unanimously agree that science has superseded religion. I find it hard to believe God would let that happen. On the contrary, I think the future offers tremendous opportunity for the greatest achievements of science and religion to be celebrated alongside one another.
In an age where the world is getting smaller (metaphorically speaking) due to the pacy march forward of technologies like the internet, there is more opportunity for interdisciplinary dialogue than ever before. Perhaps theologians can learn from scientists like Bacon, and scientists can also learn from theologians.
In next week’s philosophy post we’ll be shining the spotlight on Thomas Hobbes, who has been described as the the first modern materialist. If you’re interested in following this series, which looks at the most important philosophers in history, please consider subscribing to this blog. Thank you for reading!
Perfect Chaos 
46 responses to “Has Science Superseded Religion?”
Great post! It was a pleasure to read 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m delighted to hear that, thank you Emily! 🙂
LikeLike
Hi Steven!
We’re in agreement here, I think.
There are scientists like Richard Dawkings who believe that science and logic can prove that religion is false. This is sad because he’s a good scientist and doesn’t need to antagonise those who believe in God.
It is also sad that some fundamentalist believers think that books like the Bible or the Quran have more authority than scientific theories that work and are repeatable and predictive if you follow the protocol. Even if you don’t own a car, Newton’s Laws of motion apply to cycles and buses and at the low speeds of these modes of transport, we do not need to consider relativity!
For Theists, science reveals aspects of God’s scientific prowess and it’s no wonder that we can use it to our advantage!
Peace and love to all,
Dinos Constantinou
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Dinos!
Many thanks for your comment. I agree with much of the sentiment of your post.
I actually hold the view that the laws of physics only work because God is allowing them to work. I believe that the reason why miracles that defy the laws of physics can happen, is because God is ultimately in control of everything that happens – even the laws of physics.
On this subject, you might be interested in the idea of ‘Occasionalism’ (that things only happen on a particular occasion if God wills them to happen). I wrote an article about that theory which you can find here.
There is much more about this in the new book I’m writing, which I hope will be of interest.
Good to hear from you.
Peace and blessings,
Steven
LikeLike
Thanks for taking the time to look at my blog and liking my post. Your encouragement is a big boost for amateurs like me. Hope to create better posts and receive more feedback in the future.
Nice post. I have been on both sides of the debate and appreciate your perspective.
Best wishes,
Norah
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Norah!
You’re welcome, thanks very much for reading my post and taking the time to leave a comment.
You write about some interesting subjects, and I wish you every success with your blogging.
Best wishes,
Steven
LikeLiked by 1 person
It seems to me that science cannot supersede religion because they serve different purposes, are based on different foundations, and are sometimes justified in different ways. To build an airplane, the belief system of physics works well, but the belief system of theism and the Bible does not. On the other hand, to find meaning in life, the belief system of physics doesn’t work at all: the Second Law of Thermodynamics says we’d all better commit suicide now because things will only get worse. A religious belief system based on the Bible, however, is better suited to guide life because it’s *about* life. That doesn’t make it automatically helpful: we all know of people who hate in the name of God, which one would think bothers God quite a bit. But it deals with the real issues of life, so it is well suited to be a helpful belief system.
LikeLiked by 1 person
well said, this strikes me as more or less synonymous with the non-overlapping magesteria argument … interestingly, someone like Sam Harris would actually disagree and say that the realm of morality *can be* grounded in empiricism. he’s confident that advances in brain sciences might someday allow us to quantify well-being. I’m not so sure, but he’s certainly convinced
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sam Harris is a neuroscientist, so he latches onto one aspect of morality but misses others. He’s in good company: Steven Pinker makes the same kind of error. To guide action, moral and religious doctrines must be consistent with observable reality, including brain states that we can now increasingly measure. However, mind and morality require additional realities that we so far cannot (and probably never will) measure with the methods of physical science.
Harris, who is a smart guy, argues that we can ground morality on producing well-being, and we indeed can: but we can’t prove it’s the correct way to ground it. We simply assume that well-being is a good thing and that we should try to maximize it: and neither assumption is empirical or scientific. Likewise, the fact that we can measure brain states correlated with mental experiences does not show that they are the same thing. It’s unsurprising that physical scientists make that leap, since physical reality is what they study, but it’s a leap of faith and not a chain of reasoning. The basic argument is the same as it was over 2,000 years ago when the Roman poet Lucretius gave it:
1. Only physical things exist.
2. But consciousness exists.
3. What?! There goes our theory …
4. Therefore, consciousness must be physical. We just need to explain how.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I love your comment. Very interesting and insightful! In my opinion thought is much more spiritual than it is physical, so examining brain states to try to understand thought (or consciousness) seems to me to be misguided and unhelpful.
LikeLike
Well written. Certainly, they can coexist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have always thought they could peacefully coexist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for your comment, John!
LikeLike
This is a great piece! Something I have wondered about myself, very well written. I’ll be pondering this for the coming few days. What motivated you to write on this topic?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you very much, Pri! Every Friday I write a post about a famous (or not so famous) philosopher from history, and a big idea they had. I started with the ancient Greeks and worked my way through to the 16th century so far. I have, of course, had to be selective, as there’s so many interesting philosophers one could write about 🙂
LikeLike
[…] recently read a blog post which dwells on the perceived conflict between science and religion. While I can not claim to be an […]
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wonderful post. You reflected on a major subject that I believe should be discussed much more in the world of today. It was enriching to read your opinion on the matter. Thanks !
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re very welcome! Thank you for reading and for your kind comment – much appreciated! 🙂
LikeLike
I think science and God are the same path. Behind science and maths is a great creator
LikeLiked by 2 people