The conflict between religion and science is as old as science. It continues today with many theologians and scientists fighting to teach high school students creationism and evolution and world leaders choosing sides on ethical medical dilemmas. It started with changing from a geocentric to heliocentric view of the solar system and today has advanced into the areas of cloning and stem cell research. Even today, in a technologically advanced society where we are more aware of the world around us than ever before, science and technology do not seem to find many middle ground areas to agree upon, although some progress has been made in reconciliation.

“Conquest in medicine and biotechnology can sometimes convince man that he is his own creator, and lead him to give in to the temptation to meddle with the `tree of life','' Pope John Paul II said. “Not everything that is technically possible is morally permissible'' (“Pope Says Technology . . .”). In this, the Pope is reiterating the schism that is still the source of many controversies between religion and science in the 21st Century.

As seen in Brecht’s Galileo, the popes and cardinals condemned Galileo to torture and probable death if he did not recant his statements that the earth was not at the center of the universe and abandon his research and writings. It was not until the mid-1990s when the Catholic Church pardoned Galileo, therefore admitting that one barrier between religion and science was won in the name of science and technology. However, in Galileo’s time, this was not a matter of simply having an authority look through a telescope and proving one party was wrong; it was a threat to the very belief system of Catholic Italy in the early 1600s and was a revolution to the scientific process as a whole.

Brecht’s Galileo was a man who had many motives which included self-interest in wealth and stability and an interest in science and progression. His student Andrea said that science only had one commandment - contribution, and Galileo had certainly done that with his improvements on the telescope, work with mathematics, and research on the orbits of the other planets and their moons. However, he was punished for his experimentation and theories and was not pardoned by the Catholic Church for over 350 years. This shows that while Galileo himself was following his calling and working towards a purpose that was not heretical in motivation, he was considered one at the time for saying the heavens were not actually the heaven mentioned in the Bible.

In Marlow’s Dr. Faustus, Faustus made a deal with the devil that he could gain knowledge of the universe and be endowed with certain powers in return for his immortal soul after 24 years. One of the first things Faustus asks when he is granted the knowledge is how the heavens work and various other scientific questions. In 2.2, Faustus asks Mephistopheles many questions regarding the physical world such as, “Are there many spheres above the moon? Are there celestial bodies but one globe as is the substance of this centric earth?” With these, the obvious connection between the knowledge of science that Faustus receives and his eternal damnation is made. However, when he asks Mephistopheles about religion and who created the world, he is not allowed the information, meaning that since he is damned, he is not allowed knowledge of the spiritual world, or that representing heaven.

Faustus battles within himself many times throughout the play, retracting his desire to be damned, knowing that he is sentenced to hell. It seems like the play is a comment not to want to know the nature of the universe as a physical being, but rather a proponent for the spiritual side. Faustus goes through inner turmoil up until the bitter end, and does not seem fulfilled with the life he led. He does not do great things with the knowledge he receives from the devil, but instead squanders the power on more enjoyable endeavors and did not contribute to science. Maybe if he had used his powers more productively for the society, we would have seen a more satisfied Faustus, it is hard to say. His good angel tells him to follow God and religion and not sell his soul, but the bad angel convinces him that the power and knowledge will be worth it. In the end, Faustus pays the ultimate price for choosing science over the spiritual.

The Pope actually reiterated some Faustian principles when he said, “This world, which appears to be a great workshop in which knowledge is developed by man, which appears as progress and civilization, as a modern system of communications, as a structure of democratic freedoms without any limitations, this world is not capable of making man happy” (“Time 100 . . .”). The Pope said in this statement that he does not believe that technology and modernization in knowledge will make men happy, and through further deduction, that a spiritual world closer to God would make one happy.

Shakespeare’s The Tempest also has a character who is given the choice between technology and behaving morally. Prospero said in 5.1, “The rarer action is in virtue than in vengeance,” and adds soon after, “But, this rough magic I here abjure.” Prospero feels some pity over the spellbound group and instead of torturing them further, releases them from the spell and forgives their wrongdoings. In my mind, this is as poignant a choice as Faustus’. Prospero’s choices include continuing the magic and keeping his spell books and staff, or giving up the technology and doing the more virtuous response and forgiving his brother and the rest. He chooses this, and is able to return with his daughter to Milan as the ruler, seemingly pleased with the decision he made. We can assume that had he not given up his magic, the outcome might not have been as pleasant. This, again, is a demonstration of virtue over vice, religion over science, morality over technology.

Each of these characters is faced with the dilemma of following the path of religion or that of science and technology. As seen in these stories, those who choose technology are punished and those who ultimately give up the physical powers receive a spiritual reward and are pleased. Those who don’t make the transition are tortured and damned to hell. The Pope today continues these thoughts for the most part. While science and religion have managed to come to some consensus over certain issues in the last few decades, the general practice is for these two modes of thinking to be in contention with one another. While some pardons have been made and some compromise made on both sides, science and religion have been and continue to be for the most part two distinct forces leading choices people make in literature and in practice.

Supporting thoughts: In my paper I will be talking about the three plays we have read and how the protagonists in the plays (however tragic and/or flawed they may be) have to make a choice between science/magic and religion/Christian principles, and what that choice costs them and what they receive depending on the choice. I will then discuss a few modern day issues that confront the boundaries between religion and technology/science and how the two things seem irreconcilable in all four cases (three plays and modern day). My basic plan is to go through a basic outline of plot and character in regards to this choice to base a comparison on, and then tie them all together and show how society has still not found a middle ground between these two in the last century – the same way they could not during these people’s time.