Interview – David Hutchings & James C. Ungureanu on the Conflict Thesis
My guests today are David Hutchings and James C. Ungureanu, co-authors of Of Popes and Unicorns: Science, Christianity and How the Conflict Thesis Fooled the World. David is a physicist, science teacher and writer and James is a historian of science and religion. In this interview we discuss their book and the origin and impact of the Conflict Thesis – the pervasive but erroneous idea that religion and science have always been in conflict down the ages.
To buy the book: Of Popes and Unicorns: Science, Christianity and How the Conflict Thesis Fooled the World .
And for debunkings of many of the myths the Conflict Thesis is founded on, see History for Atheists: The Great Myths.
For those who prefer the audio version, the Podcast edition is now up on Buzzsprout or available on most podcast platforms. Or you can listen to it on the History for Atheists podcast page.
44 thoughts on “Interview – David Hutchings & James C. Ungureanu on the Conflict Thesis”
From the preface of Draper’s History of the Conflict between Religion and Science:
– The history of Science is not a mere record of isolated discoveries; it is a narrative of the conflict of two contending powers, the expansive force of the human intellect on one side, and the compression arising from traditionary faith and human interests on the other. No one has hitherto treated the subject from this point of view.
After this everyone who has mastered elementary scientific skepticism knows what’s going to happen next: confirmation bias and cherry picking. The Conflict Thesis never recovered from this crappy beginning.
It is telling, I think, that both men were speaking to an American audience which, at that time, was strongly religious yet simultaneously shifting towards near-worship of Science with a super-capital S.
Hey Tim, Great work as always!
What is your opinion on the work of Dr Gregory Dawes? He is a defender of the conflict thesis and has written a lot on the subjet
I only became aware of his new book taking the Galileo Affair as the basis for a defence of a version of the Conflict Thesis recently. Judging from reviews, it seems he is not really making a case for a historical conflict between science and religion (which is what the actual Conflict Thesis is all about), but is arguing that science and religion are fundamentally epistemologically opposed. So his argument is not really about history at all. That said, excerpts I’ve read from his book indicate his grasp of the Galileo Affair is distinctly shaky.
I see, thank you
Very interesting stuff – yet again one’s straightforward notions of how things were in the past (how Draper and White must surely have fitted into the ideological currents of the 19th century) are upended. Thanks!
I would suggest yet one reason why the Conflict Thesis is hard to kill (along with many other hoary myths of history): While historians will labour valiantly to research and reach a new, evidence-based concensus, the public, by and large, does not get its knowledge of history from peer-reviewed papers and other academic literature. Once a particular version of history has established itself in the collective mind (as many did in the 19th C.), it is considered fact and then there is no reason to question it. Instead, it will be endlessly repeated – not least when the Internet is invented – and will appear even more as common knowledge.
This also suggests a more general lack of understanding that historical ‘facts’ and causal explanation are more slippery than they appear and that historical interpretations are products of time and place (even most history buffs probably don’t read historiography books). As alluded to in the interview, most people probably haven’t of heard of Draper and White, but will recognise the Conflict Thesis and consider it more or less a fact of history.
One may hope that “Of Popes and Unicorns” will break this pattern.
There is the myth that pre-Christian Europe had a more gender-equal society and it is Christianity that changed it and started oppressing women.
I hope you would write an article debunking this myth.
If you have an example of a prominent atheist saying this, perhaps. Otherwise, it’s off topic for this site. History for Atheists is for debunking atheist bad history, not for debunking bad history generally.
FWIW, I see this myth promoted mostly by neopagans or people with progressive politics who could be assumed to be atheists but don’t explicitly mention their own religious beliefs (or lack thereof).
Many of the myths discussed on History for Atheists are common misconceptions of history and are not exclusively atheist ideas. So yes, this myth is propagated by many others. It’s not true to say it’s promoted “mostly” by those you mention. The idea that the Catholic Church, in particular, stifled science etc. is a Protestant idea in origin, for example, and is still regularly seen presented as fact by conservative Protestants. No-one has a monopoly on this myth.
I may have not expressed it correctly. I wasn’t talking about the Conflict Thesis.
I was responding to the previous commenter that brought up the idea that pre-Christian Europe was more gender-egalitarian and that Christianity brought with it more restrictive gender norms and “started oppressing women”.
I don’t know if this is a myth or not, I’m not a historian. But I have seen similar claims being constantly made by the groups I mentioned, and I have some doubts. Pagan Greek society was very misogynistic centuries before Jesus.
At the same time, there probably were some pagan societies that were indeed more gender-egalitarian.
I don’t know for sure, but if this blog taught me anything, it is to be very skeptical of claims that Christianity (or religious belief in general) is the root of all evil.
Many thanks for the very informative piece!
What would (also) interest me is a well written volume about the “real” conflict or conflicts between religion and science, not the strawman-like “conflict thesis” espoused so oft in many circles, including by some new atheists, and argued against here. (NB: of course, both terms, “religion” and “science,” are too vague to be used in these sentences; but it is difficult to impossible to find replacements that are any better.)
As you noted several times, Tim, there are quite a number of such episodes, as well as general trends, that could be intelligently addressed in such a work. Even the Galileo episode can be presented as an interesting case study of such, if one leaves out the nonsense often accrued to it in popular accounts.
And this might also be (slightly more) effective in the sense of replacing a poorly crafted narrative with a more carefully constructed one, as simply pointing out the weaknesses in a paradigm and showing that reality is more complex, even if true, does not necessarily “change hearts and minds”.
Is there any such book, that does a good job of discussing the (real) conflict through the ages? From the Greek philosophers’ disparaging remarks toward magic and magicians all the way up through the conflict between Creationism and Evolution in the modern American context? And if not, can you write it please? :))
The problem is that there really aren’t very many “real” ones at all. The main, genuine example is the conflict between Creationism and Evolution. Apart from that, there’s nothing much.
Can it? If you take out the nonsense it becomes clear that it wasn’t actually a conflict between science and religion at all.
Well, there are the controversies over
– the age of the earth and the cosmos,
– the cause(s) of illness and calamity in general,
– which of course gets to questions of naturalism and empiricalism vs. supernaturalism, mysticism and revelation,
– approaches to/interpretations of holy texts,
– the epistemology of morality, good and evil, and law,
– the efficacy of prayer,
to name just a few off the top of my head.
Again, I’m not arguing for a black and white view of these things, as the to and fro has been and continues to be complex and non-linear. But one can also ascertain and discuss differences and conflicts between scientific and religious approaches to these (and other) matters. No?
Of the things you mention, only the age of the earth/cosmos represents any actual denial of science by religious believers – and that has already been acknowledged as a genuine conflict: i.e. Creationism. The other things on your list either don’t involve science at all (approaches to/interpretations of holy texts) or are things well outside the purview of scientific inquiry (the efficacy of prayer). As I said, there are very few actual conflicts between science and religion.
Well, since this is your blog, I won’t belabour the point, unless you specifically would like me to do so.
Thanks again for your informative contributions.
The problem isn’t any “belabouring the point”. It’s that you don’t actually have a point. Virtually none of the things you listed are actually “conflicts between religion and science”. Most of them don’t involve science at all. You seem rather confused. Only an example where a religion says “science says X but that is wrong because of these religious reasons” is a valid example.
I’m curious how “the efficacy of prayer” is “outside
the purview of scientific inquiry”?
Then see Martin Mahner on the “demarcation problem” in Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem, ed. Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry (university of Chicago Press, 2103). It’s highly dubious that anyone could design an experiment that conclusive “proved” or “disproved” something like the effect of prayer.
On creationism – or rather religious fundmentalism in general – you might want to read Karen Armstrong’s The Battle for God.
Why “In the American context”? What about Dutch context?
You should realize that our obsession with separating the natural from the supernatural is fairly recent. Even for Galilei and Newtohn science, theology and philosophy were intertwined. So any such conflict was never just about science vs. religion.
… oops, empiricism of course …
Also:
– meteorology.
Jared Miller the conflict thesis was long before creation and evolution really took off in a fight so that doesn’t really count. And the conflict thesis is talking about historical conflicts, not modern conflicts. But I would agree that creation vs evolution is indeed a conflict, but as far as I can tell, it really is the only conflict that I can think of between religious believers and actual scientists.
I think the criteria of ‘Only an example where a religion says “science says X but that is wrong because of these religious reasons” is a valid example’ is a wrong approach, in that it’s too narrow.
Similarly I don’t really think the article on Biblical literalism is on point, either. Did some Church Fathers not read Genesis literally? Sure. This doesn’t change the fact that that about 40% of the population of the US believes in YEC and Bible literalism. I think what gets lost sometimes is that most atheists are not arguing with Origen. They are arguing with the 40% of the population RIGHT NOW that believes in literalism. Frankly, I couldn’t care less what Origen thought about Genesis. I do care about people pushing for YEC to be taught in schools as a counter to actual science. The fact that literalism in general is a recent invention doesn’t mean it’s invalid. It’s because it’s a recent invention and it affects things now is exactly why it’s important to counter.
Also, there is an overreliance on Catholic Church Dogma and “official” religion. Why ignore the anti-vax conspiracy stuff that is rampant in Evangelical churches today? Is this not religion in conflict with science? Or Jehovah’s Witnesses’ belief against receiving blood transfusions? Or Evangelicals believing in a demonic portal above the White House?
It seems like the only thing that counts is if some Church Father issued a statement on it. It’s such a narrow minded and specific approach . Their is a whole world of religion outside the Catholic Catechism, and it has far more effect on the real world than a homily on Genesis by Origen.
How?
Irrelevant. The article is addressing the claim that literalism has been the traditional approach and non-literal readings have only become acceptable in modern Christianity in the face of scientific findings. This is historically incorrect. Yes, there are strict Biblical literalists today. But this is a very modern and quite recent phenomenon.
Personally, I think the conflict is more of a general worldview rather than a specific line by line conflict of specific points. By this I mean the general scientific view of the world vs. the universe populated by a host of anthropomorphic gods, demons, devils, beatified saints, angels, etc that constantly intervene in the affairs of mortals.
The idea of say, an earthquake happening because of the way the earth is, geological forces, fault lines, etc VS “the earthquake happened because that city allows gay marriage”.
I know this is not something that can be scientifically proved or disproved. But there is a general conflict between the two views of the world. I don’t see how this can be denied. Perhaps it’s more of a conflict between empiricism and mysticism. But to pretend that there is no conflict at all seems a big disingenuous.
Then that’s not the Conflict Thesis and not what we’re discussing. The Conflict Thesis is a historical claim. You’re talking about something else.
Is a belief in the reality of Exodus or the Flood or the possibility of fitting every animal on earth on a boat in conflict with science? Is archaeology a science? I found this on an archaeology site:
But although archaeology uses extensively the methods, techniques, and results of the physical and biological sciences, it is not a natural science; some consider it a discipline that is half science and half humanity. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that the archaeologist is first a craftsman, practicing many specialized crafts (of which excavation is the most familiar to the general public), and then a historian.
Is there a specific branch of science that says fitting two of every animal on earth on a boat is impossible? I guess not, not specifically. I guess there is no scientific theory of Anti-Arkism. Yet I would say in general, that a scientific view of things would rule it out. Is this a conflict with science? Does every Christian believe in a literal Ark? No. Did every Christian in history believe in a literal Ark? No. Have millions and millions of Christians throughout history, and today, believe in a literal Ark? Most definitely yes.
All the evidence we’ve found shows Exodus is a fabrication. I guess archaeology and history aren’t sciences. But they certainly conflict with a more scientific view of the world. Or perhaps a rational view of the world?
Can science prove that Muhammed didn’t split the moon in half and then form it back together again? No, I guess not. But then science can’t really prove that Santa Claus can’t deliver presents to every child on earth in one night, either. I mean, you can logically, mathematically prove it’s impossible, but there’s no specific scientific theory that states that Santa is impossible.
Is believing that Muhammed split the moon in half a binding necessary belief in Islam. I guess not. Do millions of people believe it because of their belief in Islam? Yes. Is this a conflict between religion and science. I would say so, unless you want to be rigidly narrow in your definition of the two words.
Maybe it’s better to say there is a conflict between Religion and (Science, many associated disciplines, historical research, evidence, facts, common sense, empiricism, and rationality)?
You don’t seem to understand what the Conflict Thesis refers to. It’s a historical question, not an epistemological one. And no, archaeology is not a science.
No, I understand it just fine. I guess I was committing the cardinal sin of expanding the focus of the discussion ever so slightly. I apologize profusely.
NO, you aren’t “expanding” anything. You’re making a category error. Again, the issue of the Conflict Thesis is a historical question, not a matter of epistemology.
Eric Noah’s flood is both scientifically impossible and historically impossible (scientifically impossible for obvious reasons) and historically impossible because it involves a total distortion of Egyptian chronology, Mesopotamian chronology, and even chronology of other parts of the world as well, like in ancient Mesoamerica. And you’re right that throughout history Christians (and Jews) have interpreted the Noah’s ark story in many different ways; some have interpreted it literally while others allegorically or symbolically. But that’s not the point of the conflict thesis. It’s not about epistemology like Tim said but it’s about history. And the exodus story is not a “fabrication”; It almost certainly has a historical basis with a Moses like figure at its head. The conflict thesis involves claims like the Galileo affair was actually a case of religion ignoring science (it wasn’t) or the claim that the church taught in the Middle Ages that the earth was round (they didn’t) or anything else along those lines.
And the exodus story is not a “fabrication”
Sorry, but yes, it is. There was no mass Jewish exodus out of Egypt.
“a Moses like figure ”
The story of Exodus does not feature a “Moses like figure”. It features Moses. Creating a character called Moses and giving him speeches and actions that never happened is a ‘fabrication’.
Sorry I meant to say that the church taught that the earth was FLAT, my bad. And just as a side note, the Noah’s ark story probably has its origins in ancient Mesopotamia like in the Epic of Gilgamesh or in the Atra-Hasis epic. They all most likely are describing the same local flood.
They all most likely are describing the same local flood.
I’m curious how you arrive at ‘most likely’.
Eric the reason why I arrive at the conclusion that they are most likely all based off of a real local flood is because all of them share many similarities, but they also share many differences as well, which make it unlikely that they are all just copied off of one a another. The Genesis flood myth most likely has its origins in a cultural tradition about a real great localized flood that occurred in Mesopotamia or somewhere around it. The 2900 bc flood in Mesopotamia in the most likely candidate for the explosion of the flood myths in Mesopotamia; They all most certainly arose from a common source which is why I arrived at that conclusion.
The historical origins of the Flood story is not on topic here.
And sorry, no it isn’t. The exodus story appears very early in ancient Israelite texts, specifically the books of Hosea and Amos, so they are relying on an oral tradition about some version of the exodus story from their ancestors, and they were both written in the 8th century bc. Also, in the temple of Soleb dating to pharaoh Amenhotep III there is a topographical list which mentions different groups and tribes of people known as the Shasu. One of the topographical names on that list is the Shasu of Yhw; now this could simply be a toponym (place name) or, if it is a reference to Yahweh, could be our earliest mention of Yahweh worshippers in all of history. If that’s the case, then it means that Yahweh must have found it’s way into Israel and Judah making either the Shasu or some other group a likely source, which means that there may have been an exodus of some kind, though it’s so hard to to say for certain. And I never said that the story of the exodus features a “Moses like figure”, I said that the HISTORICAL basis for the exodus story MOST LIKELY featured a Moses like figure of some kind. You’re putting words into my mouth that I never said, but there you go. Now since this is widely off topic for discussion of the conflict thesis, I’m not interested in furthering this conversation unless you have anything to say that’s relevant to the conflict thesis.
The historicity of the Exodus stories is not on topic here.
Hey Tim, what do you think of this article?https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/philosophy/history.php
A little bald, but an okay summary.
Is there any good books on the history of the creationist movement
https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674023390