17세기 잉글랜드에서 종교와 과학 ―스프랫의 '로열 소사이어티의 역사'를 중심으로― (Religion and Science in the 17th Century England ―The History of the Royal Society of London and Thomas Sprat―)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 영국사학회
· 수록지 정보 : 영국연구 / 27호 / 115 ~ 149페이지
· 저자명 : 안주봉

초록

이 연구는 최근 영국에서 일어난 도킨스-맥그라스 논쟁으로 야기된 종교-과학 관계의 갈등 문제에서 비롯되었다. 이에 본고는 종교-과학 관계의 갈등 문제를 건설적으로 재조명하기 위해 비록 지엽적일 수 있겠지만 토마스 스프랫의『로열소사이어티의 역사』와 그 배경에 대한 연구를 통해 종교가 한 중심을 형성하고 있었던 17세기 잉글랜드에서 새로운 과학 연구의 출현을 놓고 나타난 한 종교인의 대응 방식을 구체적으로 규명하고자 하였다.
특별히 토마스 스프랫은 성직자였기 때문에 그에 대한 연구를 통해 과학에 대한 종교적 대응 논리를 치밀하게 살펴볼 수 있는 이점이 있다. 이를 위해 본고는 17세기 잉글랜드에서 종교-과학의 상황과 스프랫의 종교 성향, 스프랫이 설명하는 로열소사이어티의 성격과 그 연구 방법의 실제 등을 살펴본 후 마지막으로 그의 종교-과학 관계 자리매김 방법을 확인한다. 그의 방법은 초월적인 종교의 순수성을 보장하기 위해 종교와 학문을 분리시키는 논리를 제시하였는데, 이것은 아퀴나스는 물론 칼뱅과도 다른 입장이었고 종교계 내부적으로는 파격적으로 보이는 조치일 수 있었다.

영어초록

The aim of the paper is to consider contemporary applicable meanings about the relation between religion and science by studying Thomas Sprat’s life and his The History of the Royal Society of London. The theme was affected by the strong controversies between Dawkins and McGrath.
It is not easy to classify religious inclinations of the 17th century English people whether puritan or not because of both various sects in and out of the Anglican Church and political situations. Sprat was the one who defended for the Church as an Anglican clergy which Puritan had criticized its Catholic-likeness. However, it is obvious from his talks that he had no any intention to identify himself as a Catholic as well as he himself was not a Catholic. It is far more right to say that he is very closer to Puritan especially when we consider his defend for the Anglican position against Mons. Sorbiere, a French Catholic. He just made defence for the Church which people already accepted as the England Church.
His arguments show that he thought of radical puritanism as Enthusiasm. However, when Cromwell, the head of the radical puritan, passed away, he gave a sweet pindaric ode to him. After the Restoration, he also became an Anglican clergy. In the politically fluctuating, unstable circumstances, it may be obvious that he did as an opportunist, which looks a limit imposed by the age upon him. In spite of all, his sermons show well that he was an heir of the Puritan heritage.
Sprat and the Royal Society affected by Francis Bacon focused to recover the pure knowledge which Adam possessed in the Eden before the fall by denying Cartesianism, Scepticism, and the Scholar (especially dogmatic Aristotelian). But, in a broad sense, their principles is similar to that of Aristotelian idea pursuing abstract universal knowledge, though they wanted to make a difference from the Scholar by their induction. And just as Descartes argued that he could discover the truth by the natural reason and it could be useful for their religion, so Sprat argued that it could be useful for their religion and the development of the knowledge.
There was a strong resemblance between the scientists’ role of Sprat and the ‘calling’ of the Reformers. Also, there is a resemblance between the method of new philosophy taken by both of the scholars (no fixed and no settled art, no limit by constant rules, cooperation in study, progress of the knowledge by opening it to all) and the Reformer’s method (liberty from institutional bondage of the old church, publication of the Bible, new principle of interpretation, sharing of the truth).
The knowledge (philosophy or science) could not be divided from religion according to Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin. But, Sprat, even if he was a clergy, divided the science from the religion. It seems that the motif for this may be to develop science or revolutionary new knowledge, and in other side, it has something to do with the pureness of religion itself, which came from the fact that he was conscious of the corrupted state seized by dogmatic Aristotelian. He suggested no further alternative method but only emphasized ‘simpleness’ and ‘pureness’ of the religion. Circumlocutionally, he mentioned that we (Royal Society) should respect the tradition, but from the phase of logic, it may be obvious that he, in fact, was nearer to the destruction of the old religious philosophy or philosophical religion.
Even though a political opportunist was taken a part of the his, Sprat could not avoid building up logical reasons to defend science from religion because he wanted truth as a result of the progress of knowledge in spite of challenges against established culture in order to fix errors of contemporary churches. The proposition that religion is essentially against science can not apply onto Sprat’s case: if radical arguments could be mitigated which he worried, religion and science may go together to cooperate for the good.

참고자료

· 없음