Sandhydeep Tripathi

Ravindran Sriramachandran

Sakhi Upadhyaya

SOA-2013-1 Magic, Science and Religion

How do we understand the idea of 'belief' and 'rationality' in the light of Tambiah's conceptual

history and other readings that we have done in class?

The Enlightenment, which occurred at the brink of modernity, is defined as a renewed interest in

political, philosophical, and scientific debates. The three phase division which posits that

sciences originated in ancient Greece and then had a morbid stagnation in Christian middle ages

and found new vigour during the seventeenth century has some truth to it. What such a razor

sharp distinction fails to capture though, is the process through which such a change came about.

The middle ages in such a strong compartmentalised division was made to look like a hiatus in

the journey of reason and rationality, almost pitting the two chains of thoughts against each other

to show how one eventually trounced the other. In this dialectic of belief and rationality what is

often missed is how interlaced they were with each other. It is almost impossible to believe that,

as Peter Harison says, “the tumultuous upheavals of the 16th century, and the subsequent schism

between Catholics and Protestants, did not leave an indelible mark on an emerging modern

science.”1 Stanley Jeyaraja Tambiah in ‘Magic, science, religion and the scope of rationality’

argues that religion influencing sciences wasn’t only a one way process, drawing on Wifred

Cantwell Smith’s ‘The Meaning and the End of Religion’ he argues that “a narrow rationalist

1
Harrison, Peter. "Protestantism and the Making of Modern Science." Oxford Academic, Oxford
University Press, 2016, doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190264789.003.0005​1​.
definition of religion [was] born out of the European Enlightenment.”2 In this context, and

primarily based on Stanley Jeyaraja Tambiah's research, I would contend that religion greatly

influenced the development of modern science throughout the seventeenth century. Towards the

second part of the essay I shall discuss how science in turn gave religion a newfound significance

as Tambiah says “[science] infused [religion] with the static quality of the Enlightenment”.2

Considering these conversations, I would infer that belief and rationality were not as clearly

distinct as we might think. I would also argue that what has come to be defined as rationality in

our times, is in its essence a metamorphosis of protestant rationalism.

“Natural philosophy can provide evidence of divine design in the natural world,” wrote Issac

Newton in his magnum opus Principia Mathematica. The above mentioned assertion raises a few

fundamental questions. Was there a consensus between the burgeoning scientific enquiry and

protestant transformation which was on a move during this period? If yes, what was the degree

of difference between the two ways of thinking? Tambiah remarks that “alliance between

Protestant theology and modern science lasted for a century and a half. It represented a major

epistemological and ontological agreement regarding the manner in which religion and science

both divided and intersected.” Max Weber in his book ‘The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of

Capitalism’ introduces the concept of Protestant vocation, he says, “Certainly, in Luther’s

thinking the Christian serves God only “in vocatione,” not “per vocationem.”3 Essentially

positing that the highest form of spiritual life was not to be found in priesthood as the prevalent

Catholic thought asserted but in ordinary secular occupations. This fundamentally changed how

people viewed the relationship between their work and God. In the sciences, Tambiah brings

2
Tambiah, Stanley Jeyaraja. “Magic, Science, Religion, and the Scope of Rationality.” Cambridge
University Press, 1990
3
Weber, Max. “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”. Routledge, 2001.
forth an argument based on John Wilkin's declaration that, “the experimental study of nature was

a most effective means of begetting in men a veneration of God.”2 He further adds, drawing

support from Keith Thomas’s argument, “ A religious belief in order was a necessary prior

assumption on which the subsequent work of the natural scientists was to be founded.” This

shows how the protestant religion motivated the pursuit of science and aligned the sciences with

a set of values in which we recognize it even today, as I shall show later in this essay.

The protestant idea of ‘vocation’ not only infused scientists with a regional rationale for pursuing

sciences but also divorced it from the ancient greece tradition. The sciences practised in the

seventeenth century was starkly different from the Aristotelian sciences as the Aristotelian

sciences “was based on a confidence in the unaided powers of human reason and the senses.”

Aristotle was of the view that our cognitive and sensory powers were aligned with nature.

Whereas as Tambiah mentions, “economic capitalism and modern science shared a common

orientation, which is one of incessant acting upon the world so that it will approximate some idea

of imagined unfolding.”2 The sciences in this period, as Tambiah mentions, “[was] divorced from

contemporary sciences,” as “many of the English scientists turned their theoretical knowledge to

practical account.” The sciences and economic pursuits became almost isomorphic under the

guise of the protestant idea of vocation. This metamorphosis of science and its formation in the

image of protestantism defined science as a means to something. The intransitivity of scientific

pursuits was lost and science became, in many ways, instrumental, driven by goals that were

external to the scientific process itself.

As I mentioned earlier, the process of religion, in particular protestantism influencing science

was not unilinear. They operated in a dialectic, influencing and evolving together for a century

and a half. Tambiah in the beginning of the second chapter records how there was, “a congruence

between the cosmological principles of Protestant theology and the new theories of modern

science.”3 This convergence of certain key ideas becomes more salient when we investigate the

tradition of Protestantism. Tambiah mentions how the early Judaic religion born in Israel

believed that God, “created the world ex-nihilo.” Tambiah mentions that such a formulation of

the world leads to an understanding where, “there is no natural bond between God and nature.”3

Moreover, this put a blanket ban on magic as “a form of causal action to manipulate God.”

Protestants however, as Tambiah mentions went “one step further: they not only declare magic to

be false religion, they also declare it to be inefficacious action.” This attitude towards magic

aligned seamlessly with the evolving scientific thought. As Tambiah mentions, “the distinction

between magic and religion had been blurred by the mediaeval church, it was strongly reasserted

by the propagandists of the Protestant Reformation.” The idea there was an omnipotent god and

God “might perform [miracles] if he so wished.” Such an idea of an omnipotent God in a relation

with nature emphasised a cosmos that was ordered and governed by natural laws and as Tambiah

mentions that this conception was “vitally in accord with the scientific spirit of the time.”3 This

confluence of thought is testament to the intricate relation between religious belief and scientific

rationality, highlighting a period where they didn't just coexist, but in many ways, synergistically

propelled each other to where they are today.

The conception of God as omnipotent, especially articulated in the Protestant thought, played an

important role in the secularisation of the world. An omnipotent god implied universal morality

which could be derived rationally and universally. Tambiah also alludes to this when he says, “ A

further entailment of the conception of a Sovereign God who has promulgated the laws of nature,

which man could investigate and affirm empirically through his own senses and ingenuity, was to

allow that Sovereign God to recede further and further from view in everyday practice of

positive science. This was the slope that finally led to the secularisation of the world."3 This

mirrors the Weberian idea that Protestantism contributed to the “disenchantment of the world.”

However, this is very paradoxical as science did not eliminate the idea of divine but concretely

enforced the protestant idea of the divine especially through the emphasis of a personal

relationship with God through one’s vocation. So, Weber is correct in saying that Protestantism

rationality led to a disenchanted world but it also enchanted the world with its idea of the divine

through the idea of vocation.

Protestants believed that ever since the banishment of Adam from the Garden of Eden, we have

lost our moral compass and rational outlook. It led Francis Bacon to write in his book Novum

Organum that the losses, “‘can even in this life be in some part repaired; the former by religion

and faith, the latter by arts and sciences.”1 This approach towards the reality in which both belief

and an emerging rationality were given importance shows how harmonious their existence was.

This sentiment was vividly echoed among the early proponents of the Royal Society, established
in 1660, who often articulated the objectives of the new scientific endeavour in theological

vernacular. They envisaged the burgeoning scientific movement as a means to recapture a lost,

pre-Fall human dominion over nature, aligning closely with a broader Protestant vision that saw

religion and science as complementary rather than contradictory forces in the quest for truth and

understanding. Through such endeavours, they aimed not only to unravel the mysteries of the

natural world but to also mend the moral and rational fissures borne out of the Edenic Fall. This

confluence of religious and scientific thought underscored a harmonious coexistence of belief

and rationality, illuminating a path towards a more holistic and nuanced engagement with the

multifaceted reality of human existence.

In conclusion, The Enlightenment's portrayal of a distinct divide between belief and rationality

oversimplifies their intertwined relationship; in reality, religion significantly influenced the

development of modern science in the seventeenth century, and science reciprocally reshaped

religion, suggesting that contemporary rationality is essentially a transformation of Protestant

rationalism. In conclusion, the exploration of the interplay between belief and rationality,

particularly in the context of Stanley Jeyaraja Tambiah's work and the broader historical

narrative of the Enlightenment, reveals a far more complex and intertwined relationship than

traditionally portrayed. The Enlightenment, often celebrated as the triumph of rationality over

belief, in fact, witnessed a profound interdependence between these two realms. Religion,

especially Protestantism, played a pivotal role in shaping the development of modern science,

infusing it with a sense of divine vocation and moral purpose. Conversely, the advancement of

science during this period also reshaped religious understanding, contributing to a more secular

worldview while simultaneously reinforcing certain aspects of Protestant thought.

This intricate dance between belief and rationality during the Enlightenment challenges our

contemporary understanding of these concepts. In a so-called secular modernity, we often

perceive belief and rationality as distinct, even opposing forces. However, the historical narrative

suggests that what we now consider rationality is deeply rooted in religious belief, particularly

Protestant rationalism. This realisation compels us to reconsider our definitions of belief and

rationality, acknowledging that they are not static, isolated constructs but dynamic, interrelated

processes that have evolved over time.

The transformation of belief and rationality in the context of secular modernity does not signify

the eradication of one by the other. Instead, it highlights a metamorphosis where elements of

belief are intricately woven into the fabric of rational thought. This understanding is crucial in

contemporary discourse, where debates often become polarised between belief and rationality.

Recognizing their historical interconnectedness allows for a more nuanced and inclusive

approach to knowledge, one that appreciates the contributions of both belief and rationality in

shaping our understanding of the world.

In essence, the journey from the Enlightenment to secular modernity is not a tale of the triumph

of rationality over belief, but rather a narrative of transformation and integration. It is a reminder

that our quest for knowledge and understanding is enriched by the confluence of diverse

perspectives and that the boundaries between belief and rationality are more permeable than we

might assume.
References:

1. Harrison, Peter. "Protestantism and the Making of Modern Science." Oxford Academic,

Oxford University Press, 2016, doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190264789.003.0005​1​.

2. Tambiah, Stanley Jeyaraja. “Magic, Science, Religion, and the Scope of Rationality”.

Cambridge University Press, 1990

3. Weber, Max. “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”. Routledge, 2001.