In a two- to three-page journal, reflect on John Henry’s chapter “Magic and the Origins of Modern Science” about the role of superstition in the origin of modern science. It can be shocking to learn that many of the “founding fathers” of modern science such as Isaac Newton believed in astrology, alchemy, numerology, and other pseudoscientific practices. How does the history told by Henry change the way you think about science generally and the founding fathers of modern science specifically? How were the cultural assumptions about science different during the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries than they are now? What might be some similarly superstitious ideas that have influenced scientists in the 20th and 21st centuries that future generations might be surprised by?
Henry, J. (2001). Magic and the Origins of Modern Science Download Magic and the Origins of Modern Science https://uagc.instructure.com/courses/126442/files/20902798/download?wrap=1. In The scientific revolution and the origins of modern science (2nd ed., pp. 54-67). Palgrave Macmillan.
How does the history told by Henry change the way you think about science generally and the founding fathers of modern science specifically?
Sample solution
Dante Alighieri played a critical role in the literature world through his poem Divine Comedy that was written in the 14th century. The poem contains Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. The Inferno is a description of the nine circles of torment that are found on the earth. It depicts the realms of the people that have gone against the spiritual values and who, instead, have chosen bestial appetite, violence, or fraud and malice. The nine circles of hell are limbo, lust, gluttony, greed and wrath. Others are heresy, violence, fraud, and treachery. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Dante’s Inferno in the perspective of its portrayal of God’s image and the justification of hell.
In this epic poem, God is portrayed as a super being guilty of multiple weaknesses including being egotistic, unjust, and hypocritical. Dante, in this poem, depicts God as being more human than divine by challenging God’s omnipotence. Additionally, the manner in which Dante describes Hell is in full contradiction to the morals of God as written in the Bible. When god arranges Hell to flatter Himself, He commits egotism, a sin that is common among human beings (Cheney, 2016). The weakness is depicted in Limbo and on the Gate of Hell where, for instance, God sends those who do not worship Him to Hell. This implies that failure to worship Him is a sin.
God is also depicted as lacking justice in His actions thus removing the godly image. The injustice is portrayed by the manner in which the sodomites and opportunists are treated. The opportunists are subjected to banner chasing in their lives after death followed by being stung by insects and maggots. They are known to having done neither good nor bad during their lifetimes and, therefore, justice could have demanded that they be granted a neutral punishment having lived a neutral life. The sodomites are also punished unfairly by God when Brunetto Lattini is condemned to hell despite being a good leader (Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). While he commited sodomy, God chooses to ignore all the other good deeds that Brunetto did.
Finally, God is also portrayed as being hypocritical in His actions, a sin that further diminishes His godliness and makes Him more human. A case in point is when God condemns the sin of egotism and goes ahead to commit it repeatedly. Proverbs 29:23 states that “arrogance will bring your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected.” When Slattery condemns Dante’s human state as being weak, doubtful, and limited, he is proving God’s hypocrisy because He is also human (Verdicchio, 2015). The actions of God in Hell as portrayed by Dante are inconsistent with the Biblical literature. Both Dante and God are prone to making mistakes, something common among human beings thus making God more human.
To wrap it up, Dante portrays God is more human since He commits the same sins that humans commit: egotism, hypocrisy, and injustice. Hell is justified as being a destination for victims of the mistakes committed by God. The Hell is presented as being a totally different place as compared to what is written about it in the Bible. As a result, reading through the text gives an image of God who is prone to the very mistakes common to humans thus ripping Him off His lofty status of divine and, instead, making Him a mere human. Whether or not Dante did it intentionally is subject to debate but one thing is clear in the poem: the misconstrued notion of God is revealed to future generations.
References
Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). Dante’s inferno: Seven deadly sins in scientific publishing and how to avoid them. Addiction Science: A Guide for the Perplexed, 267.
Cheney, L. D. G. (2016). Illustrations for Dante’s Inferno: A Comparative Study of Sandro Botticelli, Giovanni Stradano, and Federico Zuccaro. Cultural and Religious Studies, 4(8), 487.
Verdicchio, M. (2015). Irony and Desire in Dante’s” Inferno” 27. Italica, 285-297.
Sample Answer
Sample Answer
The Role of Superstition in the Origin of Modern Science
Introduction
The history of science is often presented as a linear progression from ignorance to enlightenment, with the “founding fathers” of modern science portrayed as rational and objective thinkers who rejected superstition and embraced reason. However, John Henry’s chapter “Magic and the Origins of Modern Science” challenges this traditional narrative by revealing the surprising belief in astrology, alchemy, and other pseudoscientific practices among these esteemed figures. This reflection journal aims to explore how Henry’s account alters our perception of science and the founding fathers, as well as the cultural assumptions about science during the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. Additionally, we will consider whether similar superstitious ideas might influence scientists in the 20th and 21st centuries.
The Impact of Henry’s Account
Henry’s chapter presents a compelling argument that the founding fathers of modern science were not immune to superstition and pseudoscience. It challenges the notion that these figures were solely rational thinkers and highlights their engagement with esoteric practices. This revelation forces us to reconsider the idealized image of these scientists and recognize their human fallibility.
By acknowledging the influence of superstition on these figures, our perception of science becomes more nuanced. We understand that even the most prominent scientific minds of the past were shaped by the cultural and intellectual milieu in which they lived. This realization humanizes science, making it more relatable and less distant.
Cultural Assumptions about Science
During the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, cultural assumptions about science differed significantly from those prevailing today. Science was not yet a distinct and institutionalized field but rather an interconnected web of knowledge that encompassed various disciplines, including astrology, alchemy, and natural philosophy. The boundaries between science and pseudoscience were blurred, and ideas that we now consider superstitious were widely accepted.
Religion played a significant role in shaping cultural assumptions about science during this period. Many scientists saw their work as a means to understand God’s creation and uncover the hidden laws governing the universe. As a result, they saw no contradiction in exploring astrology or alchemy alongside their more empirical investigations.
Furthermore, the scientific method as we know it today was still in its infancy. Experimentation was not the primary means of inquiry, and empirical evidence was often secondary to philosophical reasoning and deductive logic. This intellectual landscape allowed for a more fluid approach to scientific inquiry that encompassed both rationality and superstition.
Superstitious Ideas in the 20th and 21st Centuries
While modern science has made significant strides in distinguishing itself from pseudoscience, it would be naive to assume that superstitious ideas have vanished from scientific discourse in the 20th and 21st centuries. Just as the founding fathers of modern science were influenced by astrology and alchemy, contemporary scientists may also be subject to external influences that challenge rationality.
One example is the persistence of certain alternative medicine practices that lack scientific evidence but continue to gain popularity. Practices such as homeopathy or crystal healing are often embraced by some members of the scientific community despite being discredited by rigorous empirical research.
Additionally, the influence of personal biases and cultural beliefs on scientific research cannot be overlooked. Scientists, like all individuals, are vulnerable to subconscious biases that may impact their interpretations of data or their choice of research topics. These biases can lead to an inadvertent perpetuation of superstitious ideas within scientific literature.
Future generations may be surprised by these instances where scientific principles are compromised by superstitious beliefs. However, it is essential to recognize that scientific progress is an ongoing process that requires constant vigilance against pseudoscience.
Conclusion
John Henry’s chapter on “Magic and the Origins of Modern Science” challenges our preconceived notions about the founding fathers of modern science and forces us to confront the role of superstition in their work. It underscores the importance of understanding historical context when evaluating scientific progress and reminds us that science is a dynamic discipline shaped by its cultural environment.
The cultural assumptions about science during the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries were vastly different from those today. The acceptance of astrology, alchemy, and other pseudoscientific practices highlights a more fluid approach to scientific inquiry that encompassed both rationality and superstition.
While modern science has made strides in distinguishing itself from pseudoscience, it is crucial to recognize that superstitious ideas can still influence scientific discourse. The persistence of alternative medicine practices and biases in research are examples of how scientific principles can be compromised by external influences.
