“A lesson that history emphatically teaches is that scientific theories are not born with implications but have implications thrust upon them. Debates so often construed in terms of an essential ‘conflict between religion and science’ usually turn out to be something else – and far more interesting.” John Brooke “Science and Religion: Lessons from History?”, Science, 11 December 1998

I recently finished two different articles that, together, inspired these next two blogs. One was Donald Prothero’s article in Skeptic Magazine, ‘Scientific Geology v. ‘Flood Geology’”. The other was Dennis Danielson’s and Christopher M. Graney’s article in Scientific American, “The Case against Copernicus.”

Together these articles made me realize even more strongly that the relationship between science and religion is not a simple one. There is a myth that is prevalent among many atheists and agnostics that religion has been only a hindrance to the development of science and that if not for religion science would be hundreds of years more advanced than it currently is. The flip side of this myth is the belief that scientists are godless atheists who have waged war upon God, religion, and religious believers, and who blindly refuse to see the evidence for God due to their materialist beliefs.

Both myths are wrong. Very much so. The reasons why they are wrong is the subject of both this blog and the one I will post tomorrow. This blog deals with religion and science in general, while the one tomorrow takes a look at the more specific cases of Galileo and Copernicus and how they illustrate that the reality is not as simple as religion vs. science.

To start, in reading Prothero’s article in Skeptic Magazine, I was struck by this sentence:

“First, all geologists before 1800 were creationists and devout Christians who believed that the rocks they were studying were deposits of Noah’s flood. By 1840, however, they had rejected the idea of a global flood because the rock record clearly didn’t support it.”

This brought into focus something that I have argued for quite some time now, with varying degrees of success; that religion is not necessarily anti-science and, that while there have been times it has been an impediment to the growth of scientific knowledge, for the most part it has not. In fact, if you look at history in detail (at least European history), it has more often supported science than inhibited it.

Before I continue, let me make a distinction here between the public and the scientific community. In regards to widespread public acceptance of some scientific discoveries, religion has more often been a hindrance. However, among those doing the scientific research, and quite often among some organized religions, the reverse is true; or at the very least religion has had a neutral effect.

Geology in the early 19th century is a perfect example of this. At that time, there were no competing scientific ideas about how the earth came about other than creationism. It was the reigning scientific theory about the earth, and at the time it looked to be a good explanation. However, these devout, Christian scientists, upon finding that the evidence did not support creationism, or at least a young earth creationism and a universal flood, dropped this idea and looked for other explanations. Just like scientists of today do, whether atheist or theist. And they did so without changing their religion and without the church persecuting or condemning them.

Often, much is made of religious opposition to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, and, indeed, there was much religious opposition to it. However, there was also much scientific opposition to it. Part of the problem is that too often we focus on the religious objections raised to certain scientific ideas and theories, and ignore the fact that frequently, in the beginning, there were serious scientific problems and objections to those theories too. Too often, the scientific objections become forgotten and the narrative becomes inaccurately simplified to just “religion was against it”. In fact, it was often the scientific objections that were the primary reason for the slower acceptance of what are today considered pivotal theories. More on this though when I write about Copernicus and Galileo.

Focusing on the religious reaction to evolution for now, while there were many religious objections to the theory of evolution when Darwin proposed it, there was also religious support for it too. The first American scientist to champion evolution was Asa Gray, a very devout Christian. His ideas also were supported by many of the liberal clergy, such as Charles Kingsley and Frederick Temple.

Further, even conservative religious figures at the time were not necessarily against evolutionary theory. For example, B. B. Warfield was an influential conservative theologian of the late 19th and early 20th centuries who greatly influenced the development of American evangelicalism with his belief in biblical inerrancy. Yet, despite that belief, he was not against the idea that God worked within the processes of nature, and with evolution being one of those processes. In one of his notes he wrote:

“I do not think that there is any general statement in the Bible or any part of the account of creation, either as given in Genesis 1 and 2 or elsewhere alluded to, that need be opposed to evolution.”

In fact, those who argue that religion slowed the progress of science would have a hard time supporting that argument by referring to Darwin’s theory. By the time of Darwin’s death in 1882, evolution was widely accepted by almost all scientists. Even at “at church-run Cambridge University, students are told to assume ‘the truth … that the existing species of plants and animals have been derived by generation from others widely different.”. Within Darwin’s lifetime evolution became so widely accepted that it was even being taught in church run universities. From this, it does not appear that religion was an impediment to the quick acceptance of Darwinian evolution in the scientific community.

In addition, those who would argue that religion has always been and is always an impediment to science overlook several facts.

– Most scientists in history have been believers. Many of them quite devout even. These include such scientists as Theodosius Dobzhansky, James Maxwell, Lord Kelvin, Robert Boyle, Carolus Linnaeus, and many others. For many of them a belief in God was the motivation for their scientific work, feeling that by understanding how nature works they were also better understanding the mind of God.

– Many scientists were often priests and ministers. Included in this category are scientists such as Gregor Mendel, Joseph Priestly, Georges Lemaitre, Roger Bacon, William of Ockham, Nicolas Steno, and, again, many, many others.

– Universities were an outgrowth of Christian Cathedral and monastic schools. Yes, they served to further religion, but they also brought together the best writings of the day along with the best minds of the day. It was these fruitful interactions that resulted in many of the scientific advances of that time. And it is the modern university that evolved from these institutions that continue to provide knowledge and do research today.

– The churches often supported scientists, both individually and through institutions, much like they supported artists and musicians. The American historian of science J. L. Heilbron, in his book The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals as Solar Observatories, wrote that “The Roman Catholic Church gave more financial aid and support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment, than any other, and, probably, all other, institutions.”

So, while there have been conflicts between science and organized religion, this conflict has often been overstated and the support for science by organized religion overlooked. My next blog will look at the case of Copernicus and Galileo to further show that the idea of religion vs. science is much too simplistic.