Nothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and common sense.1 (Voltaire) Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.2 (Richard Dawkins) In 1874, John William Draper wrote his History of the Conflict between Religion and Science, followed in 1896 by Andrew Dickson White’s History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. The concept behind both books was a relatively modern idea: Science and Religion are, and always have been, fundamentally pitted against one another. While popular in the nineteenth century, this concept (also known as “Conflict Thesis”) has long since been abandoned in contemporary historical scholarship.3 Yet the concept continues strong in popculture, as Dawkins evinces. But should it not? What of the infamies of the Church’s muzzling and persecution of Galileo? Or that of Copernicus? And what of the absurd ‘scientific’ superstitions that have historically dominated religious thought? As we will see, such charges are not only groundless, but inverted. If I may use Professor Dawkins’ words, I contend that Conflict Thesis is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate history. Conflict Thesis is belief in a fictitious history in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence. 1 Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary, 1764. 2 From a speech at the Edinburgh International Science Festival, April 4, 1992. 3 See Colin Russell, former President of the British Society for the History of Science, in his Encyclopedic entry: D ape takes su h li e t ith histo , pe petuati g lege ds as fa t that he is ightl a oided toda i serious historical study. The same is nearly as true of White, though his prominent apparatus of prolific footnotes may create a misleadi g i p essio of eti ulous s hola ship. Coli ‘ussell, Encyclopedia of the History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition (New York: Garland, 2000), 15. Agnostic biologist, Stephen Jay Gould: White's a d D ape 's a ou ts of the a tual interaction between science and religion in Western history do not differ greatly. Both tell a tale of bright progress continually sparked by science. And both develop and utilize the same myths to support their narrative, the flat-earth legend prominently a o g the . “tephe Ja Gould, Dinosaur in a Haystack: Reflections in Natural History (New York: Crown, 1996), 38-52. Etc. Clearing the Fog Conflict Thesis is a pop-culture fog that needs to be cleared. And clearing this fog of falsity is surprisingly easy: examine the evidence. We will first examine the Church’s participation in liberating medieval scientific thought from restrictive, Greek-dominated thought. We will then examine two popular stories cited in the modern myth: The Church’s opposition and persecution of Copernicus and Galileo. We will conclude by determining the origin of these fictitious histories. We will see a surprising and recurrent theme throughout: the Church’s pursuit to sponsor – and push – scientific thought beyond secular boundaries, and secular resistance to these movements. Reason and Aristotle It must first be understood that Rationality and Reason have extreme Judeo-Christian importance. Passages such as Psalm 119:89-90, Wisdom of Solomon 11:20, and Psalm 19:1 have long compelled faithful not only of the regularity of natural laws, but of aspiring to understand them. St. Augustine, writing in the early fifth century, celebrates rationality as the hallmark of the Biblical doctrine of creation: “The little spark of reason…was the image of God in [man].”4 Tertullian, writing centuries earlier, went even further: “Reason, in fact, is a thing of God, inasmuch as there is nothing which God the Maker of all has not provided, disposed, ordained by reason — nothing which He has not willed should be handled and understood by reason.”5 To claim reason somehow opposes Jewish or Christian faith is to understand these faiths very little. Throughout the middle ages, the Church saw Reason and Faith as springing from the same 4 St. Augustine, ed. Marcus Dods, The City of God (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009), 767. 5 Tertullian, On Repentance, Ch. 1 source, therefore in perfect harmony with each other. Any supposed conflict was simply perceived as human mis-interpretation of either scripture or philosophy.6 To illustrate the point, let us jump to thirteenth century Europe, where Universities are thriving, and Aristotelian studies are almost universally compulsory. For centuries, great thinkers of the Church attempted to reconcile differences between the logical, though pagan, thought of Aristotle, with Christian scripture and doctrine. Aristotelian philosophy commanded great explanatory power among many disciplines, so not only was it tolerated in Christian thought, it was promoted – by Christian bishops, friars, and monks no less.7 The Bishop’s Condemnation Yet in 1270, the bishop of Paris, Etienne Tempier, issued formal condemnations against particular teachings at the Sorbonne – then the most influential university in the West. A prime example of the totalitarian Church crushing at will! At a superficial level, this appears to validate the modern myth. Yet a deeper examination of the condemnation itself paints a different picture. What was being taught at the Sorbonne that Tempier found so threatening? Let us first note prominent features of thirteenth century Aristotelian teachings. David Lindberg, former president of the History of Science Society notes, “Aristotle had attempted to describe the world not simply as it is, but as it must be.”8 In other words, in Aristotle’s view, natural laws must exist as we see them: not even a divine being could change them. There can be no other universes. Nor could ours have arisen differently. The universe must 6 Fo o e i fo atio o this pe spe ti e, see Cha les C. Li d e g s u i e sit te t ook The Beginnings of Western Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), 233-243. 7 8 Ie Augustine, Anselm of Canterbury, Boethius, Peter Abelard, William of Conches, etc. David C. Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), 248. Emphasis mine. be past-eternal, with no beginning and no end.9 Further, the universe consists of two spheres: the perfect celestial sphere, and the corrupted, terrestrial sphere (Earth).10 Contrary to popular belief, it was Aristotelian thought rather than Biblical thought which arranged the cosmos in a series of concentric circles, the spherical11 earth occupying center stage. Celestial bodies had souls, of which affect the soul of the earth (and human inhabitants).12 A vacuum was an impossibility for Aristotle, and therefore the universe cannot be in motion (as it would leave behind a vacuum). It was restrictive propositions such as these that prompted Tempier’s condemnations. This is not to say that Aristotle did not possess one of the greatest minds of antiquity. Yet each of these positions conflicted with Christian doctrine, in that it limited God’s creative possibilities, which in turn limited rational modes of inquiry. In all, there were 219 philosophical propositions condemned from academic education in Paris. Granted, these condemnations were Theological in nature rather than scientific,13 yet they marked a dramatic turning point in Western philosophical thought. Some have gone so far as to claim this condemnation marked the “birth of modern science.”14 While this may be an extreme claim, yet at the very least, as the more conservative Lindberg notes, “…the condemnations encouraged scholars to explore non- 9 Aristotle, Physics I, 7. 10 Aristotle, Metaphysics 1073b1–1074a13. 11 As an aside, the allegation that the medieval Europeans conceived of a flat-earth is, again, a new allegatio . The sphe i it of the ea th as o o k o ledge. “o Li d e g, …it is safe to assu e that all educated Western Europeans (and almost one hundred percent of educated Byzantines), as well as sailors and t a ele s, elie ed i the ea th s sphe i it . The th of p e-Columbian belief in a flat earth, finally laid to rest by Colu us, as the i e tio of the A e i a essa ist Washi gto I i g, iti g o the s. Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science, 161. 12 Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book 12. 13 Ou ode o ept of s ie e is te h i all a a h o isti i a ti uit . What e all science was la eled Natu al Philosoph in antiquity. 14 Pierre Duhem, Etudes sur Leonard de Vinci, 2:412. Aristotelian physical and cosmological alternatives… This led to an avalanche of speculative or hypothetical natural philosophy in the fourteenth century.”15 Now open to free enquiry were the eternity and fate of our universe, the mutability of celestial objects, whether the earth truly was at the center of the universe, the possibility of an expanding universe, the possibility of multiple universes, and many new speculative frontiers. The coming liberation of the sciences inextricably owed its origins to religious efforts, fueled by reason and an impetus to understand God’s creation. Not centuries later, as Dawkins supposes, from “bright islands of scientific enlightenment surrounded by a ravening darkness of ignorance and religion.”16 The Myths of Copernicus and Galileo We all know of the lone Copernicus (or the lone Galileo) blazing a dangerous antireligious trail of “new”, liberating science, much to the disapproval of the Church.17 This myth, however, is fatally faulted: neither Copernicus nor Galileo were blazing “new” trails, nor was the Church displeased with their ideas. The “new” discovery was, of course, the Heliocentric model: the earth revolves around the sun, not vice-versa. As we have already seen, geocentricism was Aristotelian in nature, not Biblical. Yet following Tempier’s ban at the Sorbonne some two centuries prior, speculation on a heliocentric model had already begun. 15 Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science, 248-249. 16 I A de Bo 17 s The Darwin Wars (London: Simon & Schuster, 1999), 25. A small sample from a wide array of literature: Galileo as a a t , a d his pe se uto s i o igi le ig o a uses. Geo ge Be a d “ha , Saint Joan Ha o ds o th: Pe gui , , . Also the Bi le said that e e thi g o es a ou d the ea th ut Galileo s o se atio s sho ed that the ea th o es a ou d the su . Catherine Headlam, ed., The Kingfisher Encyclopedia Lo do : Ki gfishe , , . P otesta t le g e e at least as igoted as Catholi e lesiasti s… [ ut] had less po e . Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy (London: Allen and Unwin, 1947), 556. Etc. The Franciscan friar William of Ockham18 (1295-1349) suggested space could be an empty vacuum, followed by the French priest Jean Buridan (1300-1358) eliminating the Aristotelian necessity of celestial spheres and intelligences,19 followed by Bishop Nicole Oresme (1325-1382) establishing Buridan’s work of the earth spinning on an axis, followed by Bishop Nicolas of Cusa (1401-1464) questioning whether there truly even exists a “center” of the universe.20 Not only do we see two centuries of trending toward Heliocentricism, and not only do we see this trend supported by the Church consistently over these centuries, but we see it emerging from within the Church itself. Already the suggestion of Church-based hostility with Heliocentricism seems, at the very least, odd. There is little reason to suppose the Church would suppress her own ideas. Copernicus Following Nicolas of Cusa, we come to the year 1473, the birth-year of the Polish Mikolaj Kopernik, later Latinized as Nicolaus Copernicus. Copernicus received a tremendous education, taking him through four of the greatest European universities, culminating in a doctorate in Canon law. During his studies, sociologist Rodney Stark notes, “Copernicus was taught the essential fundamentals leading to the heliocentric model by his Scholastic 18 Cele ated toda i s ie e fo his hypotheses. a i ,k o as O kha s ‘azo , hi h ad o ates su i t ess i 19 Impetus theory did away with Aristotelian ideas of perfect, crystalline spheres on which celestial bodies are moved. Impetus theory rather proposed space as a vacuum (rather than Aristotelian aether). Meeting no resistance or friction in a vacuum, all celestial bodies gained force from their initial Mover, and thus continue hurling through empty space unencumbered. 20 Hence, the world-machine will have its center everywhere and its circumference nowhere, so to speak; for God, who is everywhere and nowhere, is its circumference and center. Ni olas of “usa, On Learned Ignorance, Book 2, Chapter 12. professors.”21 What Copernicus contributed to the existing field of thought, then, was applying geometry and mathematics to existing ideas, making future predictions possible. Not to take away from the genius of Copernicus, but the idea of a new, secular idea combating a superstitious institution is unfounded. As Harvard historian of science, I. Bernard Cohen, notes, “the idea that a Copernican revolution in science occurred goes counter to the evidence… and is an invention of later historians.”22 Copernicus also bears the epithet “the timid canon” for his extreme hesitation to publish his work. Modernity would have it that his trepidation stemmed from fear of Church persecution. In truth however, Copernicus had incredible support from the Church.23 “Therefore with the utmost earnestness I entreat you,” wrote Cardinal and Archbishop of Capua in a letter to Copernicus, “most learned sir, unless I inconvenience you, to communicate this discovery of yours [heliocentricism] to scholars…”24 Pope Clement VII was so pleased with a public presentation of Copernicus’ ideas that he presented his lecturer with gifts.25 Even more, Copernicus himself was a Church canon (a kind of lay priest), and his seminal work, On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, was dedicated to Pope Paul III. Then whence such trepidation? The reasons for Copernicus’ hesitation were manifold. First, as historian of science James Hannam notes, “all of the available evidence and all expert opinion was against 21 For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery Ne Je se : P i eto U i e sit P ess, , . E phasis “ta k s. 22 I. Bernard Cohen, Revolution in Science (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985), 106. 23 “o iologist Al i “ h idt otes, It as his Ch istia f ie ds, espe iall Geo g Joa hi ‘heti us a d Ad eas Osia de … ho pe suaded Cope i us to pu lish his o k. Alvin J. Schmidt, Under the Influence (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 226. 24 See http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Copernicus.html, accessed 4/28/2013. 25 Jack Repcheck, Copernicus’ Secret (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster), 79. [heliocentricism].”26 Second, the field of mathematics, which Copernicus furnished for his proof, was considered an inferior, and perhaps even non-credible discipline at the time.27 Copernicus was thus inadvertently proposing a complete reformation in science by elevating mathematics above physics. Rather than posing a threat to the Church, this posed a threat to contemporary scientists. Copernicus feared ridicule and hostility not from an oppressive Church, but in his words, from being “hooted off the stage”28 by his colleagues. Galileo Yet perhaps the most infamous example of Church-Science conflict comes in the modern story of Galileo Galilei. Truth be told, there is a sliver of validity to the modern story. The Church did in fact censure Galileo. But why? The historical account is much more interesting. Galileo (1564-1642) lived during the turbulent period when his Catholic Church had fractured, forming the rapidly growing Protestant movement. Galileo, building on the mountain of predecessors before him, continued work where Copernicus (now deceased) left off. In remarkable similarity with the Copernicus myth, “the Church largely accepted his conclusions, although the die-hard Aristotelians in the universities did not.”29 He was invited on numerous occasions to Rome to discuss his scientific findings with Cardinals. “In 1624,” writes historian Thomas E. Woods, “[Galileo] made another trip to Rome… Pope Urban VIII presented him with 26 James Hannam, The Genesis of Science (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2011), 273. 27 See Rivka Feldhay, Galileo and the Church (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995). 28 Nicolaus Copernicus, 'To His Holiness Pope Paul III', in Copernicus: On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres (1543), trans. A.M. Duncan (1976), 23. 29 Philip J. Sampson, 6 Modern Myths (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 36. Context was of Galileo s a ti-Aristotelian work, Letters on Sunspots. several impressive gifts, including two medals and a statement urging further patronage for his work.”30 Galileo had befriended the Pope he would later attack. Meanwhile, Protestants were continuing their attack on the Church for paying little heed to the scriptures. Some Protestants were initially extremely critical of Galileo’s hypotheses. Chief among their criticism was a lack of evidence. Unfortunately for Galileo, he lacked conclusive evidence during his age to warrant promotion of his hypothesis to that of “fact”. This being the case, and in light of sensitivity to the rocky Catholic-Protestant relations, Urban VIII requested of his friend that, until hard evidence could validate his theories, he qualify his theories as “hypotheses” rather than proven fact. Galileo agreed to Urban’s requests. And then triplebetrayed him.31 First, he ignored the request and published his theory as strict, scientific proof. Second, his work departed the realm of science and called for the re-interpretation of particular scriptures, even doctrines – a red-hot subject with Protestants. Worst of all, however, was a blatant attack on his friend, Pope Urban. In his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo created three fictitious characters in order to vet out the obvious truth of Copernicanism. “Simplicio” (Latin for “Simpleton”), the laughing-stock of the dialogue, mouths some of Urban’s favorite arguments, and is ridiculed for it. To put it lightly, these were not diplomatic choices during a period of Catholic turbulence. Galileo was not tortured, burned, executed, or any of the like. For his acts, however, Galileo was officially prohibited from publishing on heliocentricism as “fact”. He returned home 30 Thomas E. Woods, Jr., How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (Washington, DC: Regnery Pub, 2005), 75. 31 There is some debate as to whether the following events e e i te tio al o a ide tal o Galileo s part. See, for example, Jerome Langford, Galileo, Science and the Church “outh Be d, I d: “t. Augusti e s P ess, 1998), 133-134. to his villa under house arrest and, as prestigious philosopher A.N. Whitehead stated, “suffered an honourable detention and a mild reproof, before dying peacefully in his bed.” 32 His troubles were political, not scientific. Galileo himself admits as much. “I never had any intention of committing so sacrilegious an act as to make fun of His Holiness,” he justifies in a personal letter. As he recounts, the scandal of his attack on the Pope “was the major cause of all my troubles.”33 Our Contemporary Myth Unfortunately space limits addressing further stories in the mythical battle of science and religion, but the same theme runs through them each. Where then, did all of these fictitious, Dark-Ages stories originate? We need look no further than the derogatory term “Dark Ages” itself. The term originated in eighteenth century atheist movements as anti-religious polemic campaigns.34 Conversely, the term “Enlightenment” arose within these movements to distinguish themselves from previous eras of religious, un-enlightened thought. During this anti-religious campaign, history was drastically distorted. Scientific achievements were stolen from their rightful owners and smuggled as secular achievements. As we have seen, the “Dark Ages” were anything but intellectually dark. On the contrary, as French historian Jean Gimpel considered, Empire. 32 A.N. Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 221. 33 Galileo Galilei, Opere (Florence: G. Barbera, 1929), 455. 34 P o a l fi st oi ed i Ed a d Gi o s polemic The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman this period was “one of the great inventive eras of mankind”, with technological advances “on a scale no civilization had previously known.”35 Conclusion Some flavor of myth has existed throughout every age of modern civilization. Rather than a pantheon of gods, ours today is a mythical story of conflict between religion and science. Fortunately, as Lindberg concludes, “This derogatory opinion [of a “Dark Age”] … has now been almost totally abandoned by professional historians”.36 Yet the myth unfortunately continues in pop-culture, as does the anti-religious polemic stemming from the Enlightenment era. As we have seen, scientific obstruction over the past two millennia has largely been secular in basis. This, of course, does nothing to release the Church of all culpability of deplorable acts. But the diminution of the sciences simply is not one of those acts. JudeoChristianity has championed reason as the pinnacle of God’s involvement with the universe, and therefore urged logical inquiry. Ironically, today’s polemicists, quick to berate Religion for being illogical, are now berating logic itself. “One by one,” notes theoretical physicist (and atheist) Lawrence Krauss, “pillars of classical logic have fallen by the wayside as science progressed in the 20th century.”37 35 La gel take f o ‘od e “ta k s i sights i For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), 130. Jean Gimpel, The Medieval Machine: The Industrial Revolution of the Middle Ages (New York: Penguin Books, 1976), viii,1. 36 37 Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science, 193. Lawrence Krauss, commenting on the (admitted) oddities of quantum mechanics in the article, A U i e se Without Pu pose , LA Ti es, Ap . The argument defeats itself. Classical logic is still used38 in order to suggest classical logic is no longer valid. A morose air looms behind this suggestion however. Refusal to use logic to analyze our universe, is refusing ourselves of the magnificence of our species’ unique apprehension of reason. And irrationality, indeed, runs counter to Judeo-Christian religion. 38 Namely, a syllogism.