One dramatic answer — claiming the essential relationship is inherent conflict, with mutual antagonisms leading to aggressive warfare! — was proposed in the late 1800s by John Draper and Andrew White. In their books, each painted a picture of history as a conflict between the rationality of noble science (earnestly searching for truth) opposed by the ignorance of arrogant religion (stubbornly trying to block scientific progress, using hostile actions that have been unwelcome and unproductive), with religion invading intellectual territories that rightfully belong to science, but science valiantly defending itself and continually emerging victorious.
Their portrayal of history is dramatic, with heroes and villains clearly defined, and is appealing for many people. Their colorful war stories of “religion invading and science defending” are useful for anti-Christian rhetoric, and have exerted a powerful influence on popular views about the interactions between science and religion. But their history is oversimplistic and inaccurate. It does not accurately describe what really happened, and a conflict thesis is rejected by modern historians: "Historians of science today have moved away from a conflict model, which is based mainly on two historical episodes (those involving Galileo and Darwin [that although significant, is not discussed in this page]) in favor of a “complexity” model, because religious figures took positions on both sides of each dispute and there was no overall aim by any party involved in discrediting religion."
If the relationship isn't conflict, what is it? "The encounter between Christianity and science... is a complex and diverse interaction that defies reduction to simple 'conflict' or 'harmony'... and the interaction varied with time, place, and person." { David Lindberg & Ronald Numbers, editors of God and Nature, page 10, 1986 } "Today's historians have realized that, if anything, the popular perception is the opposite of the truth. It seems that Christianity has probably had a net beneficial effect on the rise of science. And surprisingly, recent research has revealed that almost everything that people think they know about the history of science and religion – the mythology of its many conflicts – is untrue or, at the very least, highly misleading." { from Science versus Christianity by historian James Hannan, author of the highly acclaimed book God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science, 2009 }
Two key historical examples used by Draper and White were a flat earth and Galileo. But one of these is false, and the other is oversimplified.
In the time of Columbus, did educated Christians believe the earth was flat? The correct answer is NO, but many modern people think YES. Why? This wrong idea is due to a fascinating abuse of history that began around 1830 when two writers — a creative novelist inventing a colorful story about Columbus, and an atheist scholar trying to make Christians look foolish — invented a false story about “belief in a flat earth” that, in the 1870s, was popularized by Draper's book.
"The myth that people in the Middle Ages thought the earth is flat appears to date from the 17th century as part of the campaign by Protestants against Catholic teaching. But it gained currency in the 19th century, thanks to inaccurate histories such as John William Draper's History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874) and Andrew Dickson White's History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896). Atheists and agnostics championed the conflict thesis for their own purposes, but historical research gradually demonstrated that Draper and White had propagated more fantasy than fact in their efforts to prove that science and religion are locked in eternal conflict." { from Science versus Christianity by James Hannan }
In the late 1400's, educated people (those who were and weren't religious) knew the earth was round. Columbus knew this, but he made large errors — mathematical with conversions from old units to currently used units, and geographical regarding the location of eastern Asia — that led to his greatly underestimating (by more than half) the distance from Europe to Asia. These errors were recognized by expert advisors in Portugal and Spain, strongly influencing the initial rejections (by both countries) of his requests to pay for nautical expeditions to Asia. But eventually the Catholic monarchs of Spain agreed to this, based on the political advice of a nonscientific advisor. The experts were correct about the distance to Asia, but fortunately Columbus and his crew were protected from disaster by the existence (unknown to them) of large continents between Europe and Asia. During all of this, the motives – of Columbus & the monarchs – were personal and political, not theological. { more about The Myth of Flat-Earth Belief }
When the ideas of Galileo were being examined and evaluated, by many people during a time spanning decades, the interactions between people – regarding science and theology – were complex, with many influencing factors. / Therefore a humble disclaimer is appropriate: What you see below is a brief summary of some ideas developed by some scholars. A thorough description — of historical fact-discoveries, and scholarly factor-analyses (done with a variety of perspectives & intentions) — would require many large books. This is only a small page, but I think you'll be fascinated by what you do find here. Let's look at some of the facts and factors.
For the Catholic Church,
"The central methodological issue was... whether the truth of cosmological claims was to be determined by exercise of the human capacities of sense and reason, by appeal to biblical revelation, or by some combination of the two." But "methodological positions come down to earth and enter the real world only insofar as they are defended by humans; and when flesh and blood make an appearance, we are apt to find that personal interest and political ambition are as important as ideological stance. There were old scores to settle, egos to stroke, and careers to be made. ... The outcome...was powerfully influenced by local circumstances,... [by] fears, rivalries, ambitions, personalities, political context, and socioeconomic circumstance." Galileo's views were accepted by some in the church and were challenged by some scientists: "Among people with special expertise in astronomy and cosmology, heliocentrism (viewed as an account of cosmological reality) remained a minority opinion."
Was it warfare? "The Galileo affair is consistently and simplistically portrayed as a battle between science and Christianity — an episode in the long warfare of science and theology." But "conflict was located as much within the church (between opposing theologies of biblical interpretation) and within science (between alternative cosmologies) as between science and the church." (these quotations are from a prominent historian, David Lindberg, pages 57-58, When Science and Christianity Meet, 2003) { more about Galileo }
What happened to Galileo? He never was physically harmed, although his ordeals were emotionally difficult. He was treated with respect, was not “thrown into prison” but instead was housed comfortably during the trial of 1633 when he was sentenced to lifelong house arrest, first living in the house of a friendly archbishop, and then in his own villa. While there, he wrote Two New Sciences that was published in Holland (not Italy) in 1638.
What caused his troubles? Stillman Drake, a Galileo scholar, offers insightful analysis of the dispute between Galileo and The Church. Some people have claimed it was due to intrinsic hostility between science and religion, but...
Being neither a scientist nor a religious man, I have no direct way of knowing whether or not there is an inherent conflict between the two modes of thought. ... I do know that there is an inherent conflict between established authority and independent thought. ... I think that if Galileo's case symbolizes anything, it symbolizes the inherent conflict between authority and freedom rather than any ineradicable hostility of religion toward science. It was an accident of Galileo's time that authority happened to be vested in a particular religious institution and that his field of independent thought happened to be the creation of modern science. { Stillman Drake, in the foreword to Galileo, Science and the Church by Jerome Langford, 1966. }
Those involved in the conflict had more than one defining characteristic: in this particular situation, religion had "established authority" and science proposed "independent thought." Instead of choosing to define the conflict as religion versus science, Drake thinks the other pair of characteristics should be considered the primary antagonists, that it's more accurate to think of the conflict in terms of the inherent mutual hostility that does exist between authority and independent thought.
What do I think? Viewing the relationship between science and Christianity as inherent conflict that causes a competition of “science vs religion” is wrong, but is common. When I tell someone that I'm a scientist and a Christian, occasionally they respond “wow, how do you do it?”
Sometimes this is a “why” question, challenging my rationality because – if there really is a conflict between science and faith – a logically consistent person should reject one or the other.
But sometimes it's a genuine “how” question, asking how I cope with the disagreements (assumed by the questioner) between conclusions in science and statements in the Bible. How can we reconcile science and scripture? In fact, they cannot be reconciled because they cannot even be compared. But as explained in The Two Books of God (in Nature and Scripture) — we can reconcile our interpretations of nature (in science) with our interpretations of scripture (in theology).
This website for Whole-Person Education has TWO KINDS OF LINKS: an ITALICIZED LINK keeps you inside a page, moving you to another part of it, and a NON-ITALICIZED LINK opens another page. Both keep everything inside this window, so your browser's BACK-button will always take you back to where you were. |
The Compatibility of Science and Christian Faith The Two Books
of God (in scripture and nature), |