However, what I have often found is that students writing on this topic have a rather different take on it. Frequently, students will write that Faustus' final soliloquy illustrates the conflict between science and religion in the Renaissance. After all (as I understand their reasoning), in the play, Faustus is seeking knowledge about the world, making him a representative of all those brave figures who sought scientific knowledge as Europe emerged from the intellectual stupor of the Middle Ages. Faustus defies God by making a deal with the Devil, thus showing his disregard for religious belief and his adherence to the philosophies of humanism and/or atheism. However, in the end, he is punished by being sent to Hell, thus illustrating the fact that the evil power of religion was still too powerful to overcome during the Renaissance.
I have found such an interpretation frustrating. For one thing, it is not based on what the actual text says itself--it represents a rather extraordinary extrapolation from the text. Moreover, it seems based on the assumption that Faustus is a hero that we are supposed to admire when it seems (to me, at least) that Marlowe wants us to view him as a negative example ("regard his hellish fall" we are urged in the epilogue to the play). Perhaps most importantly, it is based on a vast oversimplification of the relationship between science and religion (specifically Christianity) during the Renaissance. It is true (as I understand it) that some individuals rejected orthodox Christianity, like the scientist Giordano Bruno, who was actually burned at the stake, during the Renaissance. Nevetheless, this was arguably an extreme case. The persecution of Galileo by the Catholic Church is the classic example cited of an alleged conflict between science and religion during ths period, but in fact, my understanding is that Galileo faced censure from the Vatican because he dared to question the scientific views of Aristotle. Since the Catholic Church had adopted the ancient Greek philosopher as its final authority on scientfic matters, to attack the views of Aristotle was to attack the authority of the Church, despite the fact that Aristotle had not even been a Christian. In other words, Galileo's conflict with the Catholic Church was a conflict between two different perspectives on science, not really a conflict between science and religion.
Moreover, I find such an interpretation especially ironic coming from Chinese students. This is because from my own reading I know that Jesuit (Catholic) missionaries in China in the 16th and early 17th centuries tried to use the impressive achievements of Western science and technology in the period to win Chinese converts to the "Western" religion of Catholic Christianity (a good book on this topic is Jonathan Spence's The Memory Palace of Matteo Ricci, which I have started reading). Certainly, for these Jesuits, there was no conflict between science and religion!
Furthermore, as I have pointed out to my students, modern science is based on the idea of the rationality of the universe, which in turn has its origin in the Christian belief that the universe was created by a rational God. In fact, nearly all of the early great scientists were Christians or at least theists; for them, the findings of science strengthened their religious faith, rather than challenged it. The idea of a conflict between religion and science is more a product of the 18th century Enlightenment and 19th century conflicts over issues like Darwinism. Thus, to attribute such a view to a figure in the Renaissance is arguably problematic from a historical perspective.
I suspect the origin of this interpretation of the Renaissance is the Marxist framework within which (I assume) history is taught in China. Marxism, of course, is atheistic and hostile to religious belief; moreover, it claims to be "scientific." Thus, for the Marxist, science and atheism are allies while science and religion are enemies. Given such a view, it is not surprising that the Renaissance, during which modern science really began to develop, would be interpreted as a period when science and religion came into conflict. The problem is, as I have tried to suggest above, is that such an interpretion is highly debatable.
Nevertheless, I have really struggled to have my students understand this. They have been so indoctrinated in this interpretation of the Renaissance that it is hard for them not to parrot it. I feel as if they are like Pavlov's proverbial dog--they see the word "Renaissance" and automatically start thinking of the putative struggle between science and religion. Still, I persevere, hoping that at least some will realize that history is more complex than they have been taught, and that religion and science are not necessarily enemies.
Image of Doctor Faustus from Wikipedia.org