Of Popes & Unicorns: Science, Christianity, and How the Conflict Thesis Fooled the World

Abstract

OF POPES & UNICORNS: Science, Christianity, and How the Conflict Thesis Fooled the World by David Hutchings and James C. Ungureanu. New York: Oxford University Press, 2022. 263 pages. Hardcover; $39.95. ISBN: 9780190053093. *Readers of PSCF are familiar with the "warfare thesis" for the history of science and religion. This interpretation, framed as a historical analysis that stretches from the ancient Greeks to the modern period, explains the way in which science and religion have always been in conflict with each other. At the center of this interpretation are 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). Since the publication of these books, numerous professional historians as well as the general public have accepted and perpetuated many of the claims made within them. The problem with this line of interpretation, however, is that Draper and White were often wrong. For instance, Christopher Columbus (and people in the medieval period) did not think the earth was flat. Christians did not oppose anesthesia. There was no Dark Ages. Christians did not believe in unicorns. Premodern medical diagnosis did not merely appeal to supernatural causation. And the list could continue. *Instead, as Hutchings and Ungureanu explain over the course of their nine chapters, Christianity--and especially medieval Christianity--was hyper-rational and actively engaged in scientific thought. So, despite the continued influence of Draper and White since the nineteenth century, Hutchings and Ungureanu successfully demonstrate many errors with the historiographical tradition of the warfare thesis. In fact, as the authors argue, there were ways in which science borrowed from theology. This is most noticeable in the utilization of theology to explain science in the period known as the Scientific Revolution, which the authors address in chapter eight, "Old Dogma, New Tricks." Another helpful chapter pertains to the way the ideas of Draper and White resonated with others in the nineteenth century, thereby demonstrating how these two well-known intellectuals were not mere "lone voices." This latter point is a particularly helpful contribution to the topic's historiography, as this type of contextualization is oftentimes forgotten when considering Draper, White, and the warfare thesis. *It is for these reasons and others that many will find this book a helpful aid. The tone is conversational, and the citations are relegated to endnotes at the back of the book. The book also draws upon some of the best scholarship in the history of science from the past fifty years, such as the works of Edward Grant, Bernard Lightman, and the more recent contribution of Seb Faulk. One of the fortunate outcomes, then, is that the reader who reads between the lines will discover a masterful account of the ways in which the field of the history of science has effectively dismantled the warfare thesis, and in its wake established a robust understanding of the complex historical relationship between science and religion. The reader of the book will also be provided with an abbreviated version of one of the authors' works, James Ungureanu's Science, Religion, and the Protestant Tradition (2019), which is summarized in chapter seven, "Bridges Badly Built." *For all its merits, there is one point made occasionally that gives this reviewer pause. At times, the authors come close to ascribing a causal link between Christianity and science, such that Christianity was a dominant driver of scientific development. For instance, in chapter eight, wherein the authors address the positive influence of Christianity on science, they claim that "Christian dogma has actually played a major part--indeed, many have argued the major part--in establishing the foundations of the science that is so successful today" (p. 196). It shows up similarly at the end of chapter seven, with an even greater causal connection between Christianity and science. The point in chapter eight is substantiated by a reference to Noah Efron's chapter in Galileo Goes to Jail, titled "That Christianity Gave Birth to Modern Science." While Efron does ascribe an important role to Christianity in scientific development, he stops short of identifying it as the sole cause. Among the reasons for this, as Efron notes, is that it then becomes problematic to include the contributions of non-Christians to science. Yet, the reader Of Popes & Unicorns would not be informed regarding the potential error in over-attributing a causal connection between Christianity and science. In a book aiming to reframe the relationship between science and religion, one would have hoped that they would have nuanced this point, even if in the end they chose to argue for the importance of Christianity on scientific development. *This issue aside, the book is an important contribution to the study of the warfare thesis. Readers of this journal are perhaps aware of previous books on the topic, the most prominent one being Galileo Goes to Jail (2009). Those that are familiar with that book will find a certain amount of overlap in this one, though not complete synonymity. One clear merit is that this book is a comprehensive story, and not discrete chapters. As a result, its content will likely be utilized in many different contexts and read for many years to come. *Reviewed by Brent Purkaple, Visiting Assistant Professor of History, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI 49401.

A DEFENSE OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION: REFLECTIONS ON PETER HARRISON'S “AFTER SCIENCE AND RELIGION” PROJECT

“…For example, Helen De Cruz (De Cruz 2022) argues in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: “The vast majority of authors in the science and religion field is critical of the conflict model and believes it is based on a shallow and partisan reading of the historical record.” Notice the implication that without a partisan reading of the history of science, the conflict thesis has no basis. Another historian of science and religion has recently copublished a book (Hutchings and Ungureanu 2021) claiming that the idea that science and religion are in conflict is a “myth that fooled the world” and is the most successful conspiracy theory of all time. The conflict model of science and religion is portrayed as simply a matter of misinformed history.…”

“…Notice the implication that without a partisan reading of the history of science, the conflict thesis has no basis. Another historian of science and religion has recently copublished a book (Hutchings and Ungureanu 2021) claiming that the idea that science and religion are in conflict is a "myth that fooled the world" and is the most successful conspiracy theory of all time. The conflict model of science and religion is portrayed as simply a matter of misinformed history.…”