Every Friday, “Science and the Sacred” features an essay
from a guest voice in the science and religion dialogue. This week’s
guest entry was written by Edward B. (Ted) Davis, Distinguished Professor of the History of Science at Messiah College in Grantham, Pennsylvania and president of the American Scientific Affiliation.
As an historian of science, I belong to a small, somewhat esoteric club. Although there are dozens of colleges and universities within 75 miles of my own, there are no more than half a dozen faculty with similar expertise at all of those institutions combined. If we focus more narrowly on my particular specialty – the history of science and Christianity – then I am probably alone in Central and Eastern Pennsylvania.
Because we are rare birds, our influence outside of our own nests has usually been minimal, especially when it comes to science and religion – an area that seems to invite comments from anyone and everyone, whether or not they actually know anything about it. Our collective anonymity may now be changing, however, with the publication of a splendid new book from Harvard University Press, Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion. The editor, Ronald L. Numbers, a former president of both the History of Science Society and the American Society of Church History, is a religious agnostic whose scholarship on the history of American religion and science is marked by meticulous accuracy and impartiality.
For a quarter century, Numbers and his colleague at the University of Wisconsin, David C. Lindberg, have led the way in challenging the commonly received view that the history of science and religion is best seen in terms of an ongoing, inevitable conflict, with science winning the war for cultural and epistemic territory. Although the conflict view ultimately derives from the European Enlightenment, its most influential expression was American. This is one of those cases in which you can judge the books by their covers – or, at least, by their titles. In 1874, NYU chemist John William Draper published his History of the Conflict between Religion and Science, and in 1896 the first president of Cornell, Andrew Dickson White, published A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. It is hard to say which one is worse, in terms of its scholarship, but my vote goes to White. Although he was a trained historian, White seems to have consulted primary sources about as often as he watched television. Consequently, his book is chock full of manufactured “facts,” invented or misattributed “quotations,” and unsupportable interpretations. Draper is not a great deal better, yet both books remain widely influential today, perhaps partly because the shoddy scholarship and outright nonsense they contain is central to the apologetics of contemporary unbelief. Why else would White’s contribution to historical fiction be available for free download at infidels.org and Draper’s book at positiveatheism.org?
The twenty-five authors in Numbers’ book – one for each of the short, pithy chapters – serve writ on the conflict thesis and its legacy. (To view the contents, go to here.) Many contributors, including Numbers and Lindberg, are major players in the history of science, and at least two will be known to many readers who rarely venture into the field: Edward Larson, whose book on the Scopes trial won the Pulitzer Prize in History, and Michael Ruse, a distinguished philosopher and historian who often writes for general audiences. (Full disclosure: I wrote the chapter on Isaac Newton, but I do not mean to imply that I am a major player and my enthusiasm for the book would be undiminished if I had not contributed to it.) Twelve contributors are agnostics or atheists (by their own statements) and eight are Christians, so charges of advancing a clear ideological agenda will not stick. All of us wrote with ordinary readers, not specialists, in mind, making this a truly rare book: where else can you find such authoritative scholarship delivered so accessibly and fairly on such an important subject?
In effect, this book delivers a public obituary for the warfare view, which has been dead among historians for decades – though many scientists, journalists, and others who know far less about the topic apparently missed the funeral. In fact, the real history of religion and science is too complex, with too many important subtleties and significant mutual interactions, to be captured by any simple metaphor – not conflict, not harmony, nor any other single word that comes to mind. The people who actually lived through the events – those we historians call the “actors” themselves – very often saw things quite differently from the ways in which we’ve usually been told they saw them, or must have seen them.
How will all this go down? Whenever historians engage in debunking popular misconceptions, there are always people who want to shoot the messenger rather than to accept the truth of the message – especially when the truth of a given misconception is important to one’s faith commitment. Numerous reviews by people from a range of faith commitments are readily available online; a detailed survey of their content is an exercise I leave to the reader. Those who need the warfare myth acknowledge the evidence but deny its significance; the facts about historical incidents are irrelevant to the logic of the arguments made now, they say, and anyone with half a brain knows that science is always triumphant over religion. Perhaps I ought to be more respectful: those whose minds are made up ought not to be confused by exposure to the facts.
posted August 28, 2009 at 11:31 am
Your point that the warfare view has been dead among historians for decades is excellent, and I am glad there will now be a publicaly accessible book to fight it.
Along these lines, C.S. Lewis wrote a wonderful essay called “The Funeral of a Great Myth,” calling for the death of popular misconceptions about evolution. (It’s often used by creationists to “prove” that Lewis was against evolution, which can only mean they haven’t read the essay, but that’s not my point here.)
He wrote, “We may expect that this Myth, when driven from cultured circles, will long retain its hold on the masses, and even when abandoned by them will continue for centuries to haunt our language. Those who wish to attack it must beware of despising it. There are deep reasons for its popularity.”
What are the deep reasons for the larger science and religion war? Does the new book address these?
posted August 28, 2009 at 11:39 am
How will all this go down? Whenever historians engage in debunking popular misconceptions, there are always people who want to shoot the messenger rather than to accept the truth of the message – especially when the truth of a given misconception is important to one’s faith commitment. Numerous reviews by people from a range of faith commitments are readily available online; a detailed survey of their content is an exercise I leave to the reader. Those who need the warfare myth acknowledge the evidence but deny its significance; the facts about historical incidents are irrelevant to the logic of the arguments made now, they say, and anyone with half a brain knows that science is always triumphant over religion. Perhaps I ought to be more respectful: those whose minds are made up ought not to be confused by exposure to the facts.
And to provide emphasis, consider the following modified excerpt:
Those who need the __________ acknowledge the evidence but deny its significance;
This seems to be a fairly common occurrence. Where a strong attachment exists, the degree to which many will go to defend that attachment is often severe and irrational. This is not an area of human behaviour that is exclusive to fundamentalist religion, but it is to a generically fundamentalist mindset, (one which accepts a given truth as axiomatic and not subject to doubt/questioning/revision.)
posted August 28, 2009 at 5:26 pm
I’ve read the book and I would call it a compendium of the frequent repeated claims on science and religion. Once I asked several high school students what they knew about Galileo, and none of them could remember anything, except one who said “he was persecuted for claiming the Earth was a sphere”. We do need books like these, I just wish Brazilian phblishing houses could translate some of them so a wider audience could be reached. Greetings from Brazil.
posted August 28, 2009 at 6:03 pm
I think the announcement of the death of warfare between science and religion is “premature” as Mark Twain would say. Just simply read the fellow Beliefnet blog of David Klinghoffer, the entries at Evolution News & Views, Uncommon Descent, Answers in Genesis, First Things, Touchstone Mere Comments, or Google “creationism.” You will find a deep seated widespread hostility to science expressed across a significant number of Christian denominations.
The “war” isn’t over until the shooting stops and there’s a lot of shooting going on.
That said, I cannot speak highly enough of the work of Ronald Numbers. Although I think reports of the death of the warfare are exaggerated, he has done as much as anyone to promote peace.
posted August 29, 2009 at 11:13 am
I agree with Unapologetic Catholic that rumors of warfare continue to presist, and that some Christians are among those primarily responsible; so are Dawkins and company, equally I would say. Quite a few of the Christians in this category have (in my view, very erroneously) accepted Dawkins’ view that science itself can disprove (or presumably, prove) the existence of God — that is, that God’s existence is a scientifically accessible proposition. This IMO puts far too much burden on natural theology and also fails to acknowledge that arguments about God go well past science into metaphysics and theology — even arguments drawing on science are like this. Those who fail to see this, IMO, are in effect reducing the purpose of the universe to an argument about the irreducibility of biological complexity.
My point about the demise of the “warfare” view is nevertheless accurate. I made a claim about history and its interpretations, and it’s fully accurate to say that most historians who study science and religion do not find the “warfare” view at all helpful or accurate in capturing what has actually taken place, most of the time, in most places. White took it as an axiom, that warfare between Christian theology and science was normative, in all places and all times. He was very badly mistaken.
This is not to say that we can’t find instances in which conflict is the appropriate description, including the kinds of things you mentioned. Presently, I think there is actually quite a bit more conflict – for various reasons – than there ordinarily is. It would take a good book to explore this adequately. Despite the claims of Dawkins and company, however, there is plenty of evidence that the overall attitude of modern science – treating nature as a contingent order, which is to be studied by a method rational empiricism – was strongly encouraged by biblical theism. Down deep, therefore, there is a fundamental consonance between the search for truth in science and the search for truth in Christianity.
Finally, I understand why First Things was mentioned in this connection, but in recent years it has been much more constructive in its overall attitude. They’ve even published a couple of my pieces.
posted August 29, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Despite the claims of Dawkins and company, however, there is plenty of evidence that the overall attitude of modern science – treating nature as a contingent order, which is to be studied by a method rational empiricism – was strongly encouraged by biblical theism. Down deep, therefore, there is a fundamental consonance between the search for truth in science and the search for truth in Christianity.
That may be true, (within limits), but there seem to be some significant problems from the late 19th century to the present, and especially with respect to attempts to influence the teaching of biology at the high school level through religious people affecting school boards. (That it is legitimate to lobby to elect whomever you want to a school board is not the issue.) Religion has no place in a science class, aside from the consideration of ethics in the practice of science. Science, in many disciplines, (physical anthropology, geology, biology, cosmology, physics, and others), will shed light on the process and timelines of how the universe unfolded from near t=0 to the present. This will be difficult for those who hold a priori religious views of origin that are fixed and out of alignment with what is learned through science.
While “warfare” is too strong a word, “resistance” is not. It is quite normal where people have a strong attachment to a belief(set) to resist changing that belief(set) when confronted with evidence that refutes it. This is a normal human reaction, and the strength of attachment is what usually determines how resistant a person or group is. In the case of a religious view that ties doubt of religious truth with an eternal outcome of heaven or hell, it is not surprising to find people responding with denial and if pushed into a corner with aggression. Socially it becomes difficult, if what one wants is peace, order and good government, and good science.
posted August 31, 2009 at 3:45 pm
The problem with evolution in public schools, Albert, is that public education from the beginning was supposed to avoid teaching controversial topics (such as Christianity), and evolution is surely a controversial topic. For many people, evolution is not religiously neutral, and thus by teaching evolution public schools are violating religious neutrality. The point here isn’t whether you or I think that evolution is irreligion; the point is that many Americans do think so, and that their basic constitutional rights are being violated when their children are forced to learn about that. Public education is essentially a monopoly, since parents can’t use their own tax dollars anywhere else. Yet those same parents don’t have much to say about it when their children are taught things that assault their religious views. There’s the rub.
Show me a way out of that box, and I’ll show you a different way of viewing both the First Amendment (as currently interpreted) and public education. We need that box, IMO, but at the same time I don’t think I’ll live to see it.
posted August 31, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Actually there are many other things being taught in public schools that offend deeply held religious beliefs religious beliefs.
Can we teach germ theory? Not really– that’s against the Christian Science religiou, which teaches that sin is the agent that makes us sick, not germs.
How about the origins of American Indians? Anthropologists long believed they migrated here from Siberia. Later, other hypotheses were suggested. But Mormons believe that Indians descended from the 10 lost tribes of Israel, traveling here by boat after the fall of Jerusalem. And, of course, the Native Americans themselves have their own origins stories that don’t agree with the view of anthropologists.
What about astronomy? Well, you couldn’t teach that the earth orbits the sun, because that would violate the religious beliefs of certain Christian and Jewish groups who accept only a fixed earth with the Sun, etc rotating around it.
It has been pointed out that an assault on the integrity of one
branch of science soon becomes an assault on all branches. Evolution deniers are usually believe the earth is 6000 years old and they deny climate change.
Okay, we’ll skip science altogether. What about the holocaust? Is it inoffensive to teach that? Nope– there are many holocaust deniers out there who don’t want their children indoctrinated.
And on and on it goes, until you are left with nothing to teach. (Believe me, I’m not making this stuff up.) I agree with Albert that religion has no place in a science classroom. Only science belongs in a science classroom. Of course science is religiously neutral, since it doesn’t even have the tools to examine the supernatural.
posted August 31, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Sorry about all the typos in my post. I wish we had a way to edit our posts!
posted September 1, 2009 at 8:32 pm
I appreciate the comments from Professor Davis. For those unfamiliar with the American Scientific Affiliation, I highly recommend their resources. The ASA has done a lot to defuse any skirmishes that continue.
I do agree that, among historians of science, the war between science and religion is over. However, any intramural disputes between historians do not come to the attention of local school boards.
Today that’s where the battle is being fought. And I am not remotely sympathetic with Professor Davis’s comment “Yet those same parents don’t have much to say about it when their children are taught things that assault their religious views.”
Too bad for those parents. They shouldn’t have much to say about it. If it’s good science–and it is–then all children get taught good science. It is a misreading the First Amendment to suggest these parent have any rights whatsoever to interfere with the teaching of good science in public schools.
It’s interesting to observe the comments at the post above labelled “Culture War.” Those comments highlight that the cessation of hostilities among historians may not be significant as a matter of public policy.
posted September 1, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Amen, Unapologetic Catholic, Amen! I just read Lost Boy by Brent Jeffs, who was raised in the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Fundamentalist Mormons). This group practices polygamy and has many weird teachings. Brent was raped as a child by Warren Jeffs, their prophet, who is now serving time for child molestation, forced marriage of underage teenage girls, etc.
Anyway Brent spent most of his early years being educated by these Fundie Mormons. He was taught that the earth is young, and was formed from remains of other planets, which is how it got its ancient dino fossils, etc. (He was also taught that Mormons become gods and each god gets to rule his own planet.)
Later, when he left the group, he had a chance to attend public school. Of course, the natural history he learned in his public school science class was very different from what he was taught by the fundie Mormons. He would speak with his teachers after class, who would very patiently explain how science works and how scientists have come to know what they know.
My point here is to say that children deserve a good education. Teachers should be sensitive, but they should teach what the consensus of experts in their own professions accept. Anything else is a crime against education!
posted September 2, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Unapologetic Catholic writes, “Too bad for those parents. They shouldn’t have much to say about it. If it’s good science–and it is–then all children get taught good science. It is a misreading the First Amendment to suggest these parent have any rights whatsoever to interfere with the teaching of good science in public schools.”
We agree about what constitutes good science in this case. My point is about justice, not science education. If (say) it were considered good science to teach that whites are racially superior to blacks, and to relate that to evolution — then perhaps we would both agree that parents might have a right to interfere with science teaching in public schools. This is precisely what (among other things) was taught in “A Civic Biology,” the text that had been officially adopted for use in Tennessee schools several years prior to the Scopes trial.
What I would rather see is to have parents be given more options for spending their own tax dollars. This isn’t about evolution, for the most part (though that figures into it). It’s about justice. The state is not always right in what it choose to teach.
Let me drop that highly controversial line and simply make a prediction: as long as public education is monopolistic along the lines described here, evolution will continue to be a contested issue in public education. Get a new box for public education (which I do not expect to happen), and evolution will remain an issue for a good many Americans — but not in the context of public education.
I’m very glad, however, that the main point of this thread has been so well received. Thank you for paying attention!
posted October 1, 2009 at 12:43 am
Hi,
I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Pingback: An Obituary for the “Warfare” View of Science and Religion | The Emerging Scholars Blog
Pingback: Astronomy and the Vatican - Science and the Sacred