DOCSLIB.ORG

Science and Christianity Conflicts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Science and Christianity Conflicts Article Science and Christianity Confl icts: Real and Contrived Pablo de Felipe and Malcolm A. Jeeves Pablo de Felipe Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules; and history records that whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed if not annihilated; scorched, if not slain. (Thomas H. Huxley, Darwin on the Origin of Species, 1860)1 One typical “knee jerk” answer to the question, “What is the relation between science and religion?” is, “There is a confl ict.” The roots of this widely held response go deep. Malcolm A. Jeeves It is easy to select historical examples to justify it and arrive at a narrative in which religion (and here we study, in particular, Christianity) is driven into permanent retreat by science. However, using a different set of historical examples, it can be argued that, at times, Christianity, under the guise of a foe, did the work of a friend for science. The conclusion of a wealth of historical information is that a “confl ict-retreat” portrayal of science-religion relations tells only part of a story that, in fact, is much more complex. cience has become a defi nitive part combat: science and religion are thus of contemporary culture. As this at war with each other, and that war has happened, awareness of the will continue until one of them is S 4 narrative of the history of science has eradicated. become a key element in explaining how However, he also reminds us that this we have arrived where we are today. In warfare metaphor “is not seen by his- understanding science and religion rela- torians of science as being particularly tions, historical examples provide crucial reliable or defensible”5 as “the rela- insights. tionship between science and religion has always been complex.”6 The com- In 1990, Ian Barbour proposed a four- plex nature of this relationship has way classifi cation of the relationship been defended and studied in detail for between science and religion: confl ict, decades.7 independence, dialogue, and integration.2 Although other classifi cations have been proposed, Alister McGrath, another lead- Pablo de Felipe is the fi rst lecturer in science and faith at Facultad SEUT, ing fi gure on science and religion, has a Protestant school of theology in Madrid, Spain, where he coordinates the Centro de Ciencia y Fe (Centre for Science & Faith). He earned a PhD argued that “despite its limitations, the in chemistry (molecular biology) in 2000 at the Universidad Autónoma de framework set up by Barbour remains Madrid (Spain) and later worked as a Research Fellow at the University of helpful.”3 St. Andrews, Scotland (2001–2008) before joining the Spanish Medicines Agency (2008–2016). He is a PhD student in classics at the University of Relevant here is his identifi cation of Reading, England. confl ict as the most pervasive way of rep- Malcolm Jeeves is Emeritus Professor in the School of Psychology and resenting the relation between science Neuroscience at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland. He was formerly and religion. McGrath makes it clear that President of Christians in Science (UK) and is Past President of the Royal the confl ict and warfare themes have con- Society of Edinburgh, Scotland’s National Academy. His most recent books tinued to be important. He writes, are Minds, Brains, Souls and Gods (IVP, 2013) and The Emergence of Personhood: A Quantum Leap? (Editor and contributor, Eerdmans, … some scientists and religious 2015). believers see them as locked in mortal Volume 69, Number 3, September 2017 131 Article Science and Christianity Confl icts: Real and Contrived In a recent paper, McGrath has observed that Certain key historical episodes have prompted this view. Our focus here is on Western Christianity, as to those in the know, this “science versus religion” historically this is the usual context for this confl ict narrative is stale, outdated and largely discredited. model, and the context in which we ourselves live It is sustained not by the weight of evidence, but and work. In some cases, Christians have enlarged the by endless uncritical repetition, which studiously dominion of “religion” to compete for the territory avoids the new scholarship which has undermined of science. To a certain extent, there was not only its credibility.8 an interest in controlling scientifi c ideas per se, but An example of how better awareness of the history also a question of authority related to the desire of of science can illuminate science-religion relations the Christian churches to buttress their authority in is the 1989 work of historian Colin A. Russell, who as many fi elds as possible. At other times, Christians criticized what he called “the widespread myth of unfortunately indulged in a god-of-the-gaps approach an endemic confl ict between science and religion,” between religion and science, in which scientifi c gaps whose origins he located in the late nineteenth cen- were improperly fi lled with references to God. In 9 tury. He claimed that this “confl ict metaphor,” as due time, these occupied territories were reclaimed he called it (which has also been named as “war- by science; hence, the inevitable retreat. Indeed, fare model,” “confl ict thesis,” “military metaphor,” theologians themselves have criticized the god- “confl ict model,” etc.), “is not an assertion in the of-the-gaps as a false god that is indeed in retreat. philosophy of science but rather in history of science, Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote most perceptively in 1944: alleging what actually happened in the past and If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being continues to the present day.”10 In studying the foun- pushed further and further back (and that is bound dations of this confl ict model, Russell pointed out to be the case), then God is being pushed back with that “the evidence points strongly in the direction them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We of a myth conjured into being on the slender basis of are to fi nd God in what we know, not in what we a few causes célèbres […].”11 don’t know.13 More recently, another historian of science, John This “confl ict-retreat” model could be seen as a Henry, has pointed out how some causes célèbres (he refi nement of the general “confl ict model” for sci- mentioned the Copernican revolution, the Galileo ence and religion relations. Some presentations of affair and Darwinism) “are too often regarded as the confl ict model do not have a historical angle and demonstrating clearly and irrefutably that science are content with an epistemological argument for and religion just do not mix, and indeed are essen- incompatibility along the lines of the above point 1. It tially incompatible with one another.”12 is interesting to mention that to see science and faith as competing, it is necessary to consider them as sep- arate domains—something that was not so until two A Confl ict-Retreat Model for or three centuries ago. The history of their separation Science and Religion has been recently charted by Peter Harrison.14 In this In this article, we wish to illustrate how these causes regard, we have used, throughout this article, the célèbres are frequently used to foster one specifi c words “science” and “scientists” for historical peri- variety of the confl ict model that claims that science ods from the ancient world to our own time. This has and religion are locked in a perennial confl ict, and been done for the sake of simplicity, but Harrison’s that there is a progressive historical “retreat” of reli- observation should be taken into consideration, as gion in this confl ict. This view comprises three core an additional layer of complexity, in that the profes- beliefs: sionalization of science became a reality only in the 1. A confl ict between “science” and “religion” (in nineteenth century. general terms) is inevitable, as both compete for In other cases, we can see the history of science (and the same territory; religion) enlisted to portray, as Russell pointed out, 2. This is an age-old, perennial confl ict; and not just a metaphysical/ideological confl ict, but a 3. In this battle, “religion” is in an inevitable historical continuous combat (like a trench warfare), retreat, losing ground in the face of the victori- giving this purported confl ict a centenarian or even ous advance of “science.” millennial-deep perspective, as suggested in point 2, 132 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Pablo de Felipe and Malcolm A. Jeeves that illustrates the inevitability of such a confl ict. Christians and frequently even scientists (as well as However, many proponents of the confl ict model go persons who combined both trainings) on both sides further and combine the idea of a historical confl ict of the argument, as in the case of Galileo: with the idea of scientifi c progress (point 3 above) The Galileo affair […] was not a matter of to add directionality and create a historical account Christianity waging war on science. All of the of a purported long struggle of science to free itself participants called themselves Christians, and from the shackles of a retreating religion! In the all acknowledged biblical authority. This was a recent words of Harrison, struggle between opposing theories of biblical The history of Western thought is understood interpretation: a conservative theory issuing from in terms of a protracted struggle between these the Council of Trent versus Galileo’s more liberal opposing forces, with religion gradually being alternative, both well precedented in the history of forced to yield more and more ground to an the church.19 advancing science that offers superior explanations.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • THE CONFLICT of SCIENCE and RELIGION Colin A.Russell
    2. THE CONFLICT OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION Colin A.Russell The Conflict Thesis The history of science has often been regarded as a series of conflicts between science and religion (usually Christianity), of which the cases of Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) and Charles Darwin (1809–82) are merely the most celebrated examples. Some would go further and argue that such conflict is endemic in the historical process, seeing these and other confrontations as occasional eruptions of a deep-seated inclination that is always present, if not always quite so spectacularly visible. There is usually the additional assumption, implicit or explicit, that the outcome of such conflict will always and inevitably be the victory of science, even if only in the long term. Such a view of the relations between science and religion has been variously described as a “conflict thesis,” a “military metaphor,” or simply a “warfare model.” The considerable literature on this subject began with two famous works of the nineteenth century: John William Draper’s History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874) and Andrew Dickson White’s A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896). A more mature work of the twentieth century, J.Y.Simpson’s Landmarks in the Struggle Between Science and Religion (1925), adds to the vocabulary of metaphors by positing a struggle between science and religion. The first two books achieved a wide circulation and have been repeatedly reprinted. They were written at a time when science seemed triumphant at home and abroad, and each author had his particular reasons for settling old scores with organized religion.
    [Show full text]
  • Ron Numbers Collection-- the Creationists
    Register of the Ron Numbers Collection-- The Creationists Collection 178 Center for Adventist Research James White Library Andrews University Berrien Springs, Michigan 49104-1400 1992, revised 2007 Ron Numbers Collection--The Creationists (Collection 178) Scope and Content This collection contains the records used as resource material for the production of Dr. Numbers' book, The Creationists, published in 1992. This book documents the development of the creationist movement in the face of the growing tide of evolution. The bulk of the collection dates from the 20th century and covers most of the prominent, individual creationists and pro-creation groups of the late 19th and 20th century primarily in the United States, and secondarily, those in England, Australia, and Canada. Among the types of records included are photocopies of articles and other publications, theses, interview tapes and transcripts, and official publications of various denominations. One of the more valuable contributions of this collection is the large quantity of correspondence of prominent individuals. These records are all photocopies. A large section contains documentation related to Seventh-day Adventist creationists. Adventists were some of the leading figures in the creationist movement, and foremost among this group is George McCready Price. The Adventist Heritage Center holds a Price collection. The Numbers collection contributes additional correspondence and other documentation related to Price. Arrangement Ron Numbers organized this collection for the purpose of preparing his book manuscript, though the book itself is not organized in this way. Dr. Numbers suggested his original arrangement be retained. While the collection is arranged in its original order, the outline that follows may be of help to some researchers.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Big History, the Big Bang, and the Big Book: the History of Science
    Big History, the Big Bang, and the Big Book: The History of Science Meets the Tradition of Christianity Course Context In the 1980s, historian David Christian embarked on a delightfully daring journey: to narrate the entire history of the world from its origins to the present. Ignoring the sacred cow of academic specialization, in which academics are only encouraged to speak about their immediate areas of intellectual concentration, Christian coined the term “Big History” to refer to the history of the cosmos in all of its fourteen-billion years of glory. Even though he was an Australian historian of Russia, with little formal training in science, Christian began teaching history in a way that no one had quite done before. As David Christian was attempting to understand the evolution of history across fourteen billion years, many conservative Christians were actively vilifying the consensus of scientists when it came to the age of the universe, the age of earth, and the origins of human life. Kenneth Ham, an Australian like David Christian who is also around the same age, is at the forefront of creationist apologetics. Ham founded the Creation Museum and he is president of a highly influential organization that teaches young-earth creationism and rejects the methodologies and assumptions of mainstream science. Who is right, David Christian or Ken Ham? And what difference does it make anyway? Course Description In Big History, the Big Bang, and the Big Book, we will explore the intersection between the history of mainstream science and the beliefs of evangelical Christianity. As we look at each of the major branches of science, we will do so with an eye toward understanding how it impacts the thought and practice of Protestant evangelicalism.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a Deeper Understanding: How the Experiences
    TOWARDS A DEEPER UNDERSTANDING: HOW THE EXPERIENCES OF MUSLIMS IN AMERICA CONTRIBUTES TO THEIR REJECTION OF EVOLUTION A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty at The University of Akron In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts Thomas Snyder May, 2018 TOWARDS A DEEPER UNDERSTANDING: HOW THE EXPERIENCES OF MUSLIMS IN AMERICA CONTRIBUTES TO THEIR REJECTION OF EVOLUTION Thomas Snyder Thesis Approved: Accepted: _________________________ _________________________ Co-Advisor Executive Dean of the Graduate School Dr. Juan Xi Dr. Chand K. Midha _________________________ _________________________ Co-Advisor Interim Dean of the College Dr. Rebecca Catto Dr. John Green _________________________ _________________________ Committee Member Date Dr. Matthew Lee _________________________ Department Chair Dr. Bill Lyons ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………..iv LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................v CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………....1 Statement of Problem…………………………………………….……......4 ‘Science,’ ‘Islam,’ and Conflict?.................................................................4 Darwinism………………………………………………………....5 Contextualizing Views of Evolution………………………………….…...8 Present Paper…………………………………………………………......12 Hypotheses………………………………………………....….....14 II. METHODS…………………………………………………………………....15 Data………………………………………………………………...…….15 Measures………………………………………………………………....16 Analytic Strategy………………………………………………………...21
    [Show full text]
  • R. M. Geraci: Technology and Religion. an Introduction 1
    R. M. Geraci: Technology and Religion. An Introduction 1 TECHNOLOGY AND RELIGION AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE OF THE MASARYK UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF LAW AND TECHNOLOGY by ROBERT M. GERACI* For the past 50 years, interest in the relationship between religion and sci- ence has slowly gained significance among academics and the public alike. Controversies over evolution and Intelligent Design, for example, have played out in the American press and in American politics (and increas- ingly in European and Middle Eastern public life as well)1 with journalists frequently channeling images of Galileo on his knees, recanting the Coper- nican hypothesis that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Such struggles for truth and—more importantly—for public authority are the subject of ex- panding intellectual interest and ever more sophisticated analysis. Progress in the study of religion and science, however, has often neglected the im- portance of technology. Even in those articles which address technological matters (such as stem cell research, genetic manipulation, or artificial intelli- gence), the role of technology is routinely subsumed within the broad and seemingly sufficient scope of “science”. Certainly, technology should not be severed from science and the social study of technology should never be di- vorced from the social study of science. Nevertheless, academic progress in the study of technological culture demands that—from time to time—we think about technology as a properly distinct element of modern life. In this edition of the Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology, our authors describe and debate the ways in which religion and technology interact in the contemporary world, which allows us to rethink the relationship * Robert M.
    [Show full text]
  • Science Vs. Religion
    28 ARTICLE Science Versus Religion The War That Never Was By Joshua Moritz Many think the relationship between science and religion—especially the Christian religion— has been one of conflict, debate, or even all-out warfare. Ask the average person on the street, and they will likely tell you the war between science and religion is as old as history. DOWNLOAD THIS FOR YOUR CLASS TO READ: SMP.ORG/ASPIREVOL1 Everyone seems to know for a “fact” that religion and science have always had a hard time getting along. This common notion, that science and religion have experienced a long history of conflict or warfare, is called the conflict thesis by historians of science and religion. This article is divided in several parts. The Science and Religion at War: first examines the historical roots and social context of the origin of the conflict thesis. the birth of a modern myth Later parts will then evaluate three historical In Dan Brown’s best-selling novel Angels and cases that are often cited in support of the Demons (also a 2009 movie), the hero of the conflict thesis: (1) that Christopher Columbus story, Harvard professor Robert Langdon, was persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church asserts that “early scientists were branded alive, for holding that the Earth is a globe and not on the chest, with the symbol of a cross,” and flat; (2) that the Church hounded, tortured, “outspoken scientists like Copernicus were and imprisoned Galileo Galilei (and Nicolaus murdered by the church for revealing scientific Copernicus before him) truths.” He also declares, “Since for suggesting that the the beginning of history, a deep sun is the center of the Where does rift has existed between science solar system; and (3) and religion,” and “religion has that John T.
    [Show full text]
  • Samuel Cheon Course Theme: CREATION in the BIBLE
    Christianity and History of Science Instructor: Samuel Cheon Course Theme: CREATION IN THE BIBLE, THEOLOGY AND SCIENCE: A HISTORICAL AND INTER- DIALOGICAL PERSPECTIVE Institution: Hannam University,Graduate School of Theological Interdisciplinary Studies, Taejeon, South Korea COURSE DESCRIPTION 1. FORMATION This course is offered in the fall 2002 semester by Dr. Samuel Cheon, Professor of Old Testament at Graduate School of Theological Interdisciplinary Studies, Hannam University, with the assistance of guest lecturers. The course is offered for students in the Th.M. program and entitled as Christianity and History of Science according to the school’s academic plan. The course meets every Thursday in two- hour sessions, for sixteen weeks. Each class consists of presentation, lecture and discussion. Guest lecturers include Dr. Dekryong Kim, Professor of Philosophy; Dr. Jongyong Lee, Professor of Physics, at Hannam University; Dr. Jeongkeun Ahn, Professor of Molecular Biology and Genetics at Chungnam University. Selection of guest lectures is ongoing, and one or two more may be added. 2. GOALS The goals of the course will be for students (1) to articulate definitions for both science and theology, considering their respective tasks and the inherent limits of their methods and objectives; (2) to arrive at a critical historical understanding of the interaction between Christian theology and natural science, especially biblical interpretations and scientific views, minimizing their prejudice of each of the two fields; (3) to develop their historical, hermeneutical and theological horizon of creation, relating to the contemporary natural sciences; (4) to relate their understanding of theology and science to their ministerial context and preaching, especially having a new interpretive perspective of biblical creation stories; (5) to develop some basic skills for interdisciplinary research of science and theology.
    [Show full text]
  • ABSTRACT Reclaiming Peace: Evangelical Scientists And
    ABSTRACT Reclaiming Peace: Evangelical Scientists and Evolution After World War II Christopher M. Rios, Ph.D. Advisor: William L. Pitts, Jr., Ph.D. This dissertation argues that during the same period in which antievolutionism became a movement within American evangelicalism, two key groups of evangelical scientists attempted to initiate a countervailing trend. The American Scientific Affiliation was founded in 1941 at the encouragement of William Houghton, president of Moody Bible Institute. The Research Scientists‘ Christian Fellowship was started in London in 1944 as one of the graduate fellowship groups of Inter-Varsity Fellowship. Both organizations were established out of concern for the apparent threat stemming from contemporary science and with a desire to demonstrate the compatibility of Christian faith and science. Yet the assumptions of the respective founders and the context within which the organizations developed were notably different. At the start, the Americans assumed that reconciliation between the Bible and evolution required the latter to be proven untrue. The British never doubted the validity of evolutionary theory and were convinced from the beginning that conflict stemmed not from the teachings of science or the Bible, but from the perspectives and biases with which one approached the issues. Nevertheless, by the mid 1980s these groups became more similar than they were different. As the ASA gradually accepted evolution and developed convictions similar to those of their British counterpart, the RSCF began to experience antievolutionary resistance with greater force. To set the stage for these developments, this study begins with a short introduction to the issues and brief examination of current historiographical trends.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Views on Christianity and Science" (Book Review)
    Volume 64 Issue 1 Article 37 7-1-2021 Copan & Reeses' "Three views on Christianity and science" (book review) J. James Mancuso Northeastern Baptist College The Christian Librarian is the official publication of the Association of Christian Librarians (ACL). To learn more about ACL and its products and services please visit //www.acl.org/ Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/tcl Part of the Comparative Methodologies and Theories Commons Recommended Citation Mancuso, J. James (2021) "Copan & Reeses' "Three views on Christianity and science" (book review)," The Christian Librarian: Vol. 64 : Iss. 1 , Article 37. Available at: https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/tcl/vol64/iss1/37 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ George Fox University. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Christian Librarian by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ George Fox University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Book Reviews Book Reviews Copan, P., Reese, C. L. (Ed.). (2021). Three views on Christianity and science. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. 214 pp. $18.99. ISBN 9780310598541. This book is well-suited for collections that seek to document the debate between faith and reason, between Christianity and science, between faith-based communities and the prevailing mindset that marginalizes them in mainstream media and publishing. This book is a collection of nine essays, and three rejoinders, written by three prominent writers in this realm of discussion: Michael Ruse, Alister McGrath, and Bruce L. Gordon. Michael Ruse brings the view of an atheist who asserts that science and religion operate in separate realms, each answering a different set of questions, and that they are incapable of valid input in the realm of the other.
    [Show full text]
  • DANIEL DENNETT and the SCIENCE of RELIGION Richard F
    DANIEL DENNETT AND THE SCIENCE OF RELIGION Richard F. Green Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Minnesota-Duluth Duluth, MN 55812 ABSTRACT Daniel Dennett (2006) recently published a book, “Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon,” which advocates the scientific study of religion. Dennett is a philosopher with wide-ranging interests including evolution and cognitive psychology. This talk is basically a review of Dennett’s religion book, but it will include comments about other work about religion, some mentioned by Dennett and some not. I will begin by describing my personal interest in religion and philosophy, including some recent reading. Then I will comment about the study of religion, including the scientific study of religion. Then I will describe some of Dennett’s ideas about religion. I will conclude by trying outlining the ideas that should be considered in order to understand religion. This talk is mostly about ideas, particularly religious beliefs, but not so much churches, creeds or religious practices. These other aspects of religion are important, and are the subject of study by a number of disciplines. I will mention some of the ways that people have studied religion, mainly to provide context for the particular ideas that I want to emphasize. I share Dennett’s reticence about defining religion. I will offer several definitions of religion, but religion is probably better defined by example than by attempting to specify its essence. A particular example of a religion is Christianity, even more particularly, Roman Catholicism. MOTIVATION My interest in philosophy and religion I. Beginnings I read a few books about religion and philosophy when I was in high school and imagined that college would be full of people arguing about religion and philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • Crisis of Evangelical Christianity: Roots, Consequences, and Resolutions (Book Review)
    Volume 45 Number 3 Article 6 March 2017 Crisis of Evangelical Christianity: Roots, Consequences, and Resolutions (Book Review) Scott Culpepper Dordt College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/pro_rege Part of the Christianity Commons, and the Higher Education Commons Recommended Citation Culpepper, Scott (2017) "Crisis of Evangelical Christianity: Roots, Consequences, and Resolutions (Book Review)," Pro Rege: Vol. 45: No. 3, 31 - 33. Available at: https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/pro_rege/vol45/iss3/6 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the University Publications at Digital Collections @ Dordt. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pro Rege by an authorized administrator of Digital Collections @ Dordt. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BOOK REVIEWS The Crisis of Evangelical Christianity: Roots, Consequences, and Resolutions. Sewell, Keith C. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2016. 292pp. ISBN: 978-1498238755. Reviewed by K. Scott Culpepper, Associate Professor of History, Dordt College. The quest to define the elusive concept of “evan- Kuyperian lens. Secondly, Sewell looks at the evan- gelicalism” has claimed a flood of ink and reams gelical tradition in its larger international context, as upon reams of paper, not to mention all the digital shaped by his varied experiences in Europe, North incarnations of those debates. The election of 2016 America, and Australasia. This broader perspective smashed into all previous understandings of “evan- yields a more comprehensive canvas for comparison gelicals” and “evangelicalism” with all the gentle and contrast than most works on evangelicalism. force of a hydrogen bomb.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    INTRODUCTION BERNARD LIGHTMAN he publication in 1874 of John William Draper’s History of the Con- flict between Religion and Science is widely seen as reflecting a turn- Ting point in the relationship between science and religion. Draper’s book seemed to contemporaries and subsequent generations of scholars to justify the notion that conflict between science and religion was the norm throughout history. He is therefore regarded as one of the most powerful defenders of the “conflict thesis,” and among the first to develop this thesis systematically. Draper, a chemist, pursued research on radiant light and heat, while also exploring the application of photography to chemistry and astronomy. But during the mid-six ties, he decided to quit science for histo- ry. His History of the Conflict between Science and Religion was one of the fruits of his labor as a historian. Throughout the book, Draper argued that the historical relationship was best described using terms such as “antag- onistic” or “conflictual.” In the preface he declared, “The antagonism we thus witness between Religion and Science is the continuation of a strug- gle that commenced when Christianity began to attain political power.” In what followed, Draper traced the conflict all the way back to the very or- igins of Christianity, and then showed how it structured the relationship between “two contending powers” right up to the present, when modern 3 © 2019 University of Pittsburgh Press. All rights reserved. civilization had “come to the brink of a great intellectual change”: science, he believed, had begun to win the war.1 Published as part of the Interna- tional Scientific Series (ISS),History of the Conflict between Religion and Science was an international best seller.
    [Show full text]