Are science and God really at war?
A superficial reading of the history of science has left many with the idea that science and belief in God are mutually exclusive and incompatible. This is an idea which – although long discredited – is still presented by many who, for various reasons, wish to relegate belief in God to the corridors of ancient myth. Science, we are told, has squeezed God out of the gaps in our knowledge that He was once there to fill. In short – we know better now, and any real scientist would acknowledge this and abandon such silly antiquated superstitions as belief in God. Where there is any perceived conflict, the outcome will be – must be – that science will be the victor even if only in the distant future, they say. This view has come to be known as the ‘warfare’ or ‘conflict’ thesis.
How did we get here?
That assumption that science and faith were natural enemies hasn’t always dominated, however. When the great natural philosophers of old (what scientists were called back before the word ‘scientist’ was a thing) embarked on their investigations of the world, they did so very much because of their belief in God. They believed that the world was made by an intelligent creator who had endowed it with intelligibility – that is, because they believed in an Orderer, they assumed that there was order to be found in nature, which their job was to explore.
“No way! That’s just nonsense made up by Christians!” some people object. Don’t take my word for it; here are the words of just one of the great scientific pioneers, Johannes Kepler, the German astronomer and mathematician:
“It is a right, yes a duty, to search in cautious manner for the numbers, sizes, and weights, the norms for everything He [God] has created. For He himself has let man take part in the knowledge of these things … For these secrets are not of the kind whose research should be forbidden; rather they are set before our eyes like a mirror so that by examining them we observe to some extent the goodness and wisdom of the Creator.”[i]
And again Kepler says,
“The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed to us in the language of mathematics.”[ii]
Or again,
“I wanted to become a theologian; for a long time I was unhappy. Now, behold, God is praised by my work even in astronomy.”[iii]
Hypothetically, even if Kepler’s belief was false, what one cannot say is that he thought his belief in God and his scientific endeavours were at odds with each other or that belief in God would inhibit doing good science. He, like the majority of the pioneers of modern science, believed that God and science were not enemies on the battlefield, but were actually good friends sharing a pint down at the pub…proverbially speaking.
So then, how did we get here? How did this warfare or ‘conflict thesis’ become such a norm, especially in the media, the public imagination, and the black hole of Instagram comment sections.
Writing in the 19th century, two of the most well-known authors who popularised the ‘conflict thesis’ were John William Draper[iv] and Andrew Dickson White[v]. Their writings became popular and widely circulated at a time in history where it seemed that science was the ultimate panacea – the cure to all the ills of our human condition. Microscope and Bunsen burner in hand, Science the Saviour had come to our rescue. That was the perception, anyway.
Both Draper and White, it turns out, had their own personal issues with organised religion and White’s critique was directed more toward overly dogmatic theology than it was to religion and the idea of God in general, and their conclusions were not the result of any empirical science but rather a poor reading of the history of science. However, those facts are generally overlooked by those who want to keep the ‘conflict thesis’ afloat. As the sciences enjoyed success in the following years, the warfare idea grew in popularity too. This was not the result of more scientific observation, but as an attractive polemic for those who rejected religion but needed a weapon.
A few Issues
The problem is that the ‘conflict thesis’ has been widely rejected as a completely inadequate framework within which to construct a sensitive and realistic historiography of science in the West. Historian of science Ronald Numbers regards the idea of science and faith being in perpetual conflict as “historically bankrupt”[vi], and has written extensively to correct this stereotypical and inaccurate view.[vii] Here are just three issues with the ‘conflict thesis’: first, it unnecessarily hinders the recognition of other relationships between science and religion – especially where they have been mutually encouraging and symbiotic. As previously mentioned, key figures of modern science like Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton and Rene Descartes acknowledged that Christianity played a significant role in shaping their scientific endeavours. Second, the warfare thesis simply ignores instances of science and religion working together – especially in the establishment of societies and academic institutions committed to the integration of science and religion. Third, it seems to strip minor squabbles from their historical context, distort, and enthrone them as shining examples of religion oppressing scientific progress – with the result of only obscuring both the ideas of science and religion. One clear, and still widely-flung example is the case of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). The popularised version perpetuated by proponents of the ‘warfare thesis’ reads more like a low-budget Channel 5 playground drama than the complex clerico-political saga of Galileo’s day. The shortcomings of the conflict thesis have been elucidated repeatedly in the past few decades by scholars on opposite ends of the spectrum, and yet it still lingers on – primarily due to lack of study and perhaps, sadly, because it still serves as a good piece of anti-religious propaganda, despite it having been convincingly debunked.
There is so much more that could be written – and indeed so much more has been written. A good place to start, if you’re looking to dig a little deeper, is a great book titled Of Popes & Unicorns by Hutchings and Ungureanu (2021). Our friend Mark McCartney was kind enough to write a short review ‘here’.
Instead of unpacking the debate further, we at Solas thought a demonstration may prove more useful. To that end, over the next few months we will be interviewing several scientists from diverse cultural and scientific backgrounds about their professional work and their Christian faith. We will be hearing from the proverbial horses mouths, how science and Christianity may inform and enrich one another.
The ‘conflict thesis’ may still have popular currency and be misleadingly assumed in some school textbooks, but it is time to tell a better, and more accurate story.
[i] Epitome of Copernican Astronomy. In Michael B. Foster, Mystery and Philosophy, 61.
[ii] Defundamentis Astrologiae Certioribus, Thesis XX (1601)
[iii] Letter to Michael Maestlin, 3 October 1595. KGW 13, 40.
[iv] History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science, 1874.
[v] A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, 1896.
[vi] Numbers, Ronald L. “Science and Religion.” Osiris 2d ser. (1985):58–80.[vii] Numbers et. al. God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science (1986)
