The Myth of Science and Religion at War

Among the most widely believed myths about science and religion is that the two are fundamentally incompatible. According to this myth, science and religion are, and always have been, at war.

As an example of how myths can enter a culture and endure for centuries, most people in the fifteenth century did not believe the earth was flat. They may have debated how large it was, but the majority of those with even a modest education well knew the earth was round. Even today, certain misinformed writers of secondary school science textbooks continue to spread the flat-earth myth.

Certain scientists who have earned reputations in physical science use these reputations to advance their personal opinions about religion. Such opinions reflect a kind of intellectual trespassing. They have legitimate expertise in their scientific discipline but little or no expertise in philosophy or religion. It is troubling that they do not own up to this and sometimes seem either to defraud their audiences in the service of what they somehow know to be true, or reveal their inability to distinguish between a scientific and a philosophic question.

Science has to do with the physical world, with the study of its physical nature and the principles according to which the physical world operates. These are by nature scientific questions, and when people encroach on science in the name of religion, they can end up embarrassing themselves. Apparently quoting a Catholic cardinal, Galileo quipped that the Bible tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens go.

Science reveals nothing about questions having to do with the non-physical world. Nor can it in principle. Science will never be able to tell you whether one way to live is better than another. This is an ethical and moral question, not a scientific one, and it can only appear to be a rightful concern of science if a philosophy gets smuggled in. Nor can science tell you anything about the meaning of life, or if life even has a meaning. Of most relevance here, neither can it tell you anything about God including whether God exists.

Despite occasional tensions, science and religion have usually gotten on well together. Even the much publicized persecution of Galileo by the church is greatly colored by fantasy. Producers, directors, and script writers have, in the interest of drama, much exaggerated this.

The view that science and religion are at war was popularized by two nineteenth-century men who should have known better and perhaps been more candid. Both were celebrities of sorts who used their social standing to persuade readers of their opinions. They became leaders of well-respected departments, institutions, or associations..

John William Draper (1811-1882) was a physician and chemist who served as president of New York University’s medical school and later as president of the American Chemical Society. Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918) was a professor of history and literature, and a diplomat who spoke several languages. He was a New York State senator who befriended fellow senator Ezra Cornell, founder of Western Union. Cornell and White together founded Cornell University, where White served as its initial president.

In 1874, Draper published History of the Conflict between Religion and Science. Two years later, White published The Warfare of Science, and in 1896 his two-volume History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom.

Draper and White, for different reasons, each had strong anti-religious agendas, and neither worried much the accuracy of what they wrote. They used quotations out of context, at times to support the reverse of what the original writer intended. Their interpretations were heavily biased and their understanding of religion simplistic. Yet, their influence was enormous, and even people who have never heard of either of them believe what they promoted and has been passed down through generations.

Ideas, once they enter a culture, can become highly resilient. They can also mislead millions of people.