Unification Though

1. Chapter5 The Relationship between Religion,
Chapter5
Philosophy, and Science in History
Throughout history, it has been often said that religion and science are fighting with one
another. Religion has often been regarded as hindering the development of science.
However, has this really been the case? Let us examine this question from the viewpoint
of Unification Thought.
I. Historical Examination
A. Ancient Orient
Human civilization originated in Mesopotamia and Egypt. In this first civilization,
science was closely connected to religion. In other words, mathematics, astronomy,
medicine, architecture, etc. were all connected with religious views of the cosmos and
religious rituals.
B. Ancient Greek Age
Before Socrates (470-399 B.C.), it was an age where philosophy and natural
science were closely connected. For example, Heraclitus (ca.535-475 B.C.), with his
philosophical view that all things were in flux, regarded fire as the origin of all things
because, he thought, fire was the most changeable thing in nature.
Later, in the Athenian Period, Socrates declared that the prime task of the
philosopher was the ordering of man and human society, not the understanding or the
control of nature. He rejected natural philosophy and concerned himself primarily with
problems of an ethical and political character. As a result, in that time both natural
science and natural philosophy declined.
Plato (427-347 B.C.) and Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), however, connected philosophy
and science in a unified system, and again gave a philosophical meaning to natural
science. Plato held that the universe was an uncreated chaos in the beginning, and that
the ordering of this chaos was a result of the intellectual design by God. He called the
being giving this order Idea. In this way, philosophy (the world of Idea) and science (the
world of phenomena) were connected. According to Aristotle, all beings and things
consist of form (the essential nature which makes a substance as it is) and matter. Form
was regarded as having purpose. In his view, philosophy and science were united, and
1

2. philosophy supported the development of science by connecting itself with natural
science.
C. Hellenism-Roman Age
During the Alexandrian Period and the Roman Imperial Period, however, science
discarded philosophy and focused on only on practical technology. In Alexandria, a high
level of technical culture flourished for some time, but in the age of the Roman Empire,
science gradually declined as it lost its inspiration and vitality.
D. Medieval Ages
The great Father of the Church, Augustine (354-430) taught, “Go not out of doors,
and return into thyself. In the inner man dwells truth.”1 In a similar way, many Church
Fathers thought that “the study of the stars was likely to lead to indifference to Him that
sitteth above the heavens.”2 Hence they did not recognize any positive value in the
study of natural phenomena. Accordingly, natural science was not regarded as important
and declined. In the early Medieval Ages, throughout the Western World, interest in the
natural world was merely to find examples that testified to religious truth. In the
meantime, Greek philosophy and science transferred to the Islamic world where they
were preserved and developed. Then, in the 12th century, the Western World imported
philosophy back from the Islamic world. In the 13th century, Christianity accepted
Aristotle’s philosophy and engrafted it into Christian theology, finding positive
significance in natural science.
E. From Renaissance to 17th Century
The heliocentric theory advocated by Nicolas Copernicus (1473-1542) brought
about a great revolution in thinking. However, he did not change the then current God-
centered cosmology to a cosmology without God. He regarded the universe as been
created in accordance with the purpose of the Creator. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) made
important astronomical discoveries that supported the Copernican viewpoint and
expanded the Copernican system. They were rejected by the Christian authorities, but
their intention was not to deny the existence of God but to grasp more accurately God’s
work of creation.
Isaac Newton (1642-1727) established what is now called Newtonian dynamics and
explained the movements of the heavenly bodies based on his system. In a sense, he
viewed the cosmos as a huge machine. He regarded God as the Being who gave the first
impulse to this machine to start it moving, and the one coordinating its movement. To
2

3. Newton, God was the only ruler of the cosmos. He wrote as follows:
The Deity endures forever, and is everywhere present, and by existing always and
everywhere, He constitutes duration and space. . . . (He is) a Being incorporeal,
loving, intelligent, omnipresent, who in infinite space, as it were in his sensory, sees
the things themselves intimately, and thoroughly perceives them, and comprehends
them wholly by their immediate presence to Himself.3
In the 17th century, scientists firmly believed that their task was to heighten the
glory of God by revealing the truth about the natural world created by God. Based on
that belief, science developed remarkably.
F. From 18th Century to 19th Century
It was French mechanistic materialism that ejected God from Newton’s
metaphysical mechanism. At first, French mechanistic materialism had an unchanging
and fixed world view. French enlightenment thinkers, however, wanting to bring about
human progress, so they inserted the idea of progress into the fixed mechanistic world
view.
This idea of progress developed by enlightenment thinkers led to the theory of solar
system evolution (the nebula hypothesis) by Pierre Simon Laplace, and to the theory of
biological evolution by Jean Baptist Lamarck. The biological theory of evolution led to
the establishment of Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection. This was seen as the
victory of science over religion (creation theory) and it became a theoretical support for
materialistic philosophy.
The progress of science in this age, however, was not based on an atheistic
worldview. To the contrary, it was theistic worldviews that stimulated scientific
development. For example, Hans Christian Oersted (1777-1851) of Denmark explored
the relationship between electricity and magnetism. Starting with the observation that an
electric current moved a magnetic needle, he proceeded to demonstrate the connection
between them. Oersted had been strongly influenced by a German natural philosophy
that held that all natural phenomena were manifestations of an original force.
In A History of the Sciences, Stephen F. Mason explains: “Since there was only one
kind of power behind the development of nature in their philosophy, namely, that of the
World Spirit, they held that light, electricity, magnetism, and chemical forces, were all
interconnected: all different aspects of the same thing.”4
In a similar fashion, the principle of the conservation of energy was established by
3

4. Robert Mayer (1814-78) and Herman Helmholtz (1821-92). In German natural
philosophy, there was the idea of a single fundamental, imperishable force providing the
basis for all natural phenomena. In this way, scientists directed their research using
philosophy as their guiding principle.
G. 20th Century
Science developed remarkably in the 20th century. As a result, it became possible to
explain the movement and structure of matter at the level of atoms and molecules. With
the disappearance of the boundaries between physics, chemistry, and biology, we are
now approaching a united view of the sciences. The theory of relativity by Albert
Einstein (1879-1955) drastically revised the view of the cosmos based on Newtonian
dynamics. The concept of absolute space and time existing objectively was abandoned.
Instead, time and space were not dealt with separately but in a united way. In the same
period, Einstein and Louis De Broglie (1892-1987) established that all particles,
including light, have a united nature of both wave and particle. Thus, science in the 20th
century was guided by the united view of nature.
As revealed by Einstein’s famous comment—“I would like to know on what
principles God created this world”—there was a belief in natural laws designed by God
that provided a unified view of nature.
II. Science, Religion and Philosophy
An examination of the relationship between science and religion/philosophy in
history shows that the relationship was not one of conflict and struggle but one where
progress in science was guided by religion/philosophy. In other words, religion and
philosophy played the role of a compass that enabled the ship of science to sail forward.
However, the direction given by religion and philosophy to science has not
necessarily been correct. This is because religion and philosophy thus far have not been
perfect. Consequently, there were times when the directions given by religion or
philosophy were not conducive to the development of science. One typical example was
the Christian theology of the Church Fathers in the early Medieval Ages. They
considered only the internal aspect of human beings as important.
There were cases in which a traditional view and a new view clashed. For instance,
the cosmology of Aristotle and Claudius Ptolemy (who perfected the geocentric theory)
that dominated the Medieval Ages, was replaced by those scientists from Copernicus to
Newton during the period from the Renaissance to the 17th century. This collapse was
not brought about as a result of the struggle between religion that recognized God and a
4

5. science that did not. Both sides recognized God’s existence and His creation. The
struggle was between the geocentric theory, which was based on an old natural
philosophy, and the new heliocentric theory. This was a struggle between an old view of
nature and a new one. The advocates of the new view of nature, such as Copernicus,
Galileo, Kepler, Newton, fought the narrow-minded religious leaders who severely
attacked and persecuted them. They were not only scientists but also bearers of a new
view of God. Their aim was to defeat the old view.
There were also cases in which a new philosophy in one age became an old one in
another, having finished its role. In the following age, this then clashed when a new
philosophy emerged. Let us consider the role played by the world view (philosophy)
called mechanism. It was René Descartes who established mechanism in the modern
age. This mechanistic philosophy had a powerful influence on Newton, who founded
Newtonian dynamics. Mechanism reached its zenith in the 19th century, with the
concise explanation of chemistry and heat in terms of atoms. However, it was hard from
the viewpoint of mechanism to recognize that gravity and electromagnetic forces are at
work across empty space. At first, it was thought that such forces were channeled
through a physical medium called ether. Einstein banished the ether and replaced it with
space-time as the medium carrying electromagnetic impulses. In that context, Steven
Weinberg, quantum physicist, wrote:
Even after the triumph of Newtonianism, the mechanical tradition continued to
flourish in physics. The theories of electric and magnetic fields developed in the
nineteenth century by Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell were couched in
a mechanical framework, in terms of tensions within a pervasive physical medium,
often called the ether. Nineteenth century physicists were not behaving foolishly—
all physicists need some sort of tentative worldview to make progress, and the
mechanical worldview seemed as good a candidate as any. But it survived too
long.5
As Weinberg notes, as all physicists need some sort of tentative worldview to make
progress, science has been developing with philosophy as its guide. In the same way, in
the current age there is a conflict between creation theory and evolution theory. Yet, this
is not a conflict between religion and science. It is a conflict between a philosophy that
advocates creation, and another philosophy that advocates evolution. Both are arguing
about the merits of its particular way of interpreting scientific facts. Their relationship is
illustrated in figure 5.1. Therefore, the issue of creation or evolution boils down to
5

6. which side is able to explain more reasonably and logically the scientific facts that are
discovered.
Since Darwin, the creation theory of Christianity has been overshadowed by the
theory of evolution. Thanks to the appearance of the Unification Thought theory of
creation, however, the time has come for the creation theory to have the last word and
claim a final victory.
Until today, religion and philosophy have been playing the role of giving light in
the darkness according to the needs of the respective age. Accordingly, along with the
advancement of the age, the religion and philosophy that had given light in the previous
age have gradually become less useful. A new religion and philosophy that meets the
needs of a new age will appear and further guide the development of science. Today,
science has lost its way and is searching for a new guide. Accordingly, there is an
earnest longing for the appearance of a new religion and philosophy that can give the
true direction and inspiration to science.
Through the conflicts and struggles between philosophies and between religions,
culture has been gradually moving in the direction of the original ideal of creation. Of
course, there have been times when religion lost its inner life and did not inspire. At
such times, culture became dominated by atheistic philosophy and drifted away from
the direction of the original creation. After a time, however, reformed religion and
philosophy appeared and guided culture back in the direction toward the ideal of the
original creation.
There were occasions in history, for example, when Christian leaders gave
spiritually dead words that obstructed the development of science. Still, as a whole it
can be said that Christianity contributed greatly to the development of science
throughout the course of history. Andrew Dickson White, one of the founders of Cornell
University in the United States, explained how the problem arose:
It [religion] has done much for it [science]. The work of Christianity has been
mighty indeed. . . . And its work for science, too, has been great. It has fostered
science often. Nay, it has nourished that feeling of self-sacrifice for human good,
which has nerved some of the bravest men for these battles. Unfortunately, a
devoted army of good men started centuries ago with the idea that independent
scientific investigation is unsafe ― that theology must intervene to superintend its
methods, and the Biblical record, as an historical compendium and scientific
treatise, be taken as a standard to determine its results. So began this great modern
war (italics added).6
6

7. The change of history of culture driven by the conflicts between philosophies or
between religions is illustrated in figure 5.2. With regard to the relationship between
religion and philosophy, it can be said that religion is a teaching about ultimate
existence and that philosophy serves as guidance for actual problems in human society.
Therefore, a philosophy is established on the basis of a religion. Even a philosophy that
denies God is a philosophy based on a kind of religion; a pseudo-religion where the
Absolute is something other than God. Accordingly, behind the changes in cultural
history there were struggles between religions and their derived philosophies. In those
struggles are included the struggle between a religion and a pseudo-religion, and
between an old idea and a new one within the same religion.
III. Development of Science and God’s Providence
God’
Science has been developing according to God’s providence, and this transcends the
will of individual scientists. These are two examples of such historical developments:
In the early years of the 19th century, the prince of geometers, Carl Friedrich
Gauss(1777-1855), and others developed a non-Euclidean geometry that described the
properties of curved space. This non-Euclidean geometry was later extended by Georg
Friedrich Bernhard Riemann(1826-66) into a general theory of curved spaces of any
number of dimensions, whence it came to be called Riemannian geometry. Together,
Gauss and Riemann developed this theory within the abstract world of pure
mathematics with no conception of any physical application. Later, however, when
Einstein developed general relativity, the mathematics developed by Gauss, Riemann,
and others proved to be essential. He realized that the way of expressing his ideas was
to ascribe gravitation to the curvature of space-time, and he used that mathematics to
describe the curved three-dimensional spaces, or even curved four-dimensional space-
time. Weinberg makes this comment on this sequence of events:
The mathematics was there waiting for Einstein to make use of, although I believe
that Gauss and Riemann and the other differential geometers of the nineteenth
century had no idea that their work would ever have any application to physical
theories of gravitation (italics added).7
The second example was when the group theory initiated by Evariste Galois(1811-
32) in the early 19th century was applied to elementary particle physics in the 20th. In
physics, it was found that this math described the internal symmetry principles that were
being discovered. Using the principles of group theory, neutrons and protons were found
7

8. to bear a strong family likeness to six other particles known as hyperons, altogether
making a family of eight particles. In 1960, Gell-Mann and Yuval Ne’man
independently found that the family structure of eight elementary particles could be
fully described by one of the simple Lie groups known as SU(3). This discovery led to
the quark theory. Based on those facts, Weinberg writes:
It is very strange that mathematicians are led by their sense of mathematical beauty
to develop formal structures that physicists only later find useful, even where the
mathematician had no such goal in mind. A well-known essay by the physicist
Eugene Wigner refers to this phenomenon as “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of
Mathematics.” Physicists generally find the ability of mathematicians to anticipate
the mathematics needed in the theories of physicists quite uncanny. . . . Where then
does a physicist get a sense of beauty that helps not only in discovering theories of
the real world, but even in judging the validity of physical theories, sometimes in
the teeth of contrary experimental evidence? And how does a mathematician’s
sense of beauty lead to structures that are valuable decades or centuries later to
physicists, even though the mathematician may have no interest in physical
applications?8
From the fact that the mathematical theories were prepared for later use by
physicists, we are led to the conclusion that this was an aspect of God’s providence.
This first guided the mathematicians to establish a mathematical theory, and later guided
scientists to discover a physical law of the universe, using that mathematical theory.
IV. Conclusion
We have demonstrated that it is God’s providence that has guided the development
of culture. Through the process of conflict and struggle between philosophies, culture
has been gradually progressing toward the ideal of the original creation.
Currently, God’s providence is entering into the final stage when the world of the
original ideal will be realized. Therefore, there is a need for a core religious truth that
completely harmonizes with modern science and clearly shows God’s existence, His
purpose of creation, and His works of creation. Science must go forward under the
guidance of that truth. A. D. White urges this unity:
Let the warfare of Science, then, be changed. Let it be a warfare in which Religion
and Science shall stand together as allies, not against each other as enemies. Let the
8

9. fight be for truth of every kind against falsehood of every kind; for justice against
injustice; for right against wrong; for the living kernel of religion rather than the
dead and dried husks of sect and dogma; and the great powers, whose warfare has
brought so many sufferings, shall at last join in ministering through earth God’s
richest blessings (italics added).9
9

10. Fig. 5.1. Real Situation of Conflict between Creation Theory and Evolution
Theory
Fig. 5.2. Change of Cultural History through the Conflict between Philosophies
10