For the vast majority of human existence, science and religion peacefully existed. Yet today, the two appear, for many to be diametrically opposed. This “conflict myth,” the erroneous view that science and religion are engaged in a perennial battle, was largely created by two men, John Draper, and Andrew Dickson White.
Their best two known works, respectively, History of the Conflict between Religion and Science, written in 1874, and A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, written in 1896, give a good clue as to the position they have taken, and the narrative they are pursuing.
But these scholars, as with everyone, were a product of their times. Taking a step back, we can view these works as a product of the post Age of Enlightenment era. With this we see a growing divide between the church and state, largely as a means to curtail the power of religious organizations which also served as political entities.
This idea of separation of church and state, as proposed during the Age of Enlightenment does not fully coincide with our modern-day notion of the concept. Instead of creating a wall that kept religion out of state matters and vice vera, the goal was for the church and state to be torn asunder. As throughout history, the state often served the dual purpose of also being the church.
The state and church were often two heads of the same beast; the separation of church and state meant to divide that one beast into two. In doing so, part of the intention was to create a world with less warfare. The preceding century had seen an ever-increasing amount of carnage caused by war, which was in part, as the state and church were one, fueled by religion.
It is this background that helped lead to the Age of Enlightenment, and while that era would be over by the time Draper and White wrote their works which largely created the “conflict myth,” it nonetheless had a massive impact on both scholars.
“Conflict Myth”
While the “conflict myth” wouldn’t be formulated until the 19th century, the roots of the idea stretched much further back. In part, we can see a portion of that foundation being laid out during the Age of Enlightenment with the professionalization of the sciences; a time in which sciences were moving from the university and into scientific societies. These societies would help with the popularization of science among the general public.
Coming out of this Age of Enlightenment, there is a larger focus on the sciences, which in turn enlarged it’s realm of influence. This is coupled with a shift in religious and philosophical thinking. A shift that really is trying to remove the forms of religious authority that were blamed for the previous decades of war and destruction.
All of this greatly impacted Christianity in the 19th century, which led to multiple attempts from different sections of the religion to push back against each other. One of those sections would be the modernist theology movement.
In many regards, one can argue that the shift that modernist theology was attempting to produce was far greater than it should have been. Within this movement, the rise of Biblical criticism would be born. This would be accompanied with greater knowledge of other religions, especially Eastern thought, as well as a push to place science more front and center.
This would lead to an over correction. Instead of seeing the Bible as a collection of various literary pieces, there was an attempt to examine it though the eyes of science. While the criticism at that time can offer interesting and useful perspectives, much of it also tended to miss the mark. Instead of seeing the meaning, stories were often deemed myths that should be ignored.
In turn, the fundamentalist movement would be born as a movement that rejected what it deemed as these new radical ideas. This would lead to additional tensions between science and religion, and the relations between science and religion would be almost fully severed. By 1939, the eminent Cambridge philosopher, C.D. Broad, while describing these relations among his contemporaries would say they “had acquired something of the repulsiveness of half-cold mutton in half-congealed gravy.”
Breaking the Myth
The relationship between science and religion has been very much strained ever since. This has led new generations to take the position that science and religion really can’t mix, and thus should be separated. That view has become the default position of many, and the idea of questioning it simply is not occupied.
On an extreme side, one could also argue that for some, science has taken the role of religion, and in doing such, has nearly become a religion in itself. For these individuals, it is where ultimate truth is held, and is the source of all knowledge.
At the other extreme, a complete rejection of science has also occurred. Science, for some, has become the enemy, and thus needs to be defeated. Both extremes, which garner more attention than they deserve, have played a serious role in the continuation of this rift, and the division that it leads to.
Yet, in the midst of all of this, there are those who have sought to utilize both fields in order to garner a greater sense of understanding. The idea they present in that science and religion can coexist, and that their understandings can help further knowledge in each other. While science and religion are two separate fields, and they should be treated as such, they can still help inform each other.
There are dangers of that approach, primarily in having either field overstep their own limitations. Neither science nor religion holds all of the answers, and thus they shouldn’t be treated as if they do.
It’s a fine line to walk, but by doing so, a fuller picture can be seen. It is this approach that we will be taking.