Many hold that there is innate conflict between Religion and Science. This so called ‘conflict thesis’ first arose in the 19th century, grew and now flourishes in the 21st century. The Church’s persecution of Galileo and Giordano Bruno are held up as examples supporting the thesis. Rather than a martyr for science, Bruno was instead burned at the stake for challenging dogmatism of any kind. Rather than Science, the Church cracks down on those who threaten their client base. Why the historical distortion? We suggest that Academia, rather than accepting the blame for their institution’s inherent dogmatism, attempts to shift the onus to Religion. Instead of bitter adversaries, Religion and Science serve complementary functions in human culture.
Section Headings
Many believe that there is an innate conflict between Religion and Science. Rather than inevitable armed warfare, we suggest that the relationship between Religion and Science could be likened to a dynamic marriage, where there will always be issues to work on. Within this analogy, this work acts as a marriage counselor. As the therapist for these two great entities, we are attempting to harmonize the relationship between Science and Religion.
There are several questions that we must address. Is the couple incompatible and headed for the divorce court? Or do they merely have misunderstandings that can be worked out? Can we magnify the good times and minimize the bad for a better future?
Mind is frequently the problem. He creates ideas, objectifies them, incorporates them into his self-image, and then must defend his territory. Further muddying Mind’s Mirror, He holds onto facts in support of his thesis and ignores as anomalies facts that contradict his ideas‘ (Confirmation Bias). When Mind creates the walls, Mind must be engaged to tear down the walls.
To that end, let us first examine the historical roots of the supposed inherent antagonism. When and where did the notion that Science and Religion are incompatible arise? It has not always been this way.
The so-called ‘conflict thesis’ holds that there is supposedly an inherent conflict between religion and science. Historically speaking, this notion arose relatively recently.
It could be said to have begun in the so-called Age of Enlightenment with Voltaire (1694-1778). A prolific writer, he was a vehement opponent of tyrants everywhere. A proponent of religious tolerance, one of his favorite targets was the rigidly dogmatic Catholic Church. Due to his outspoken efforts, he spent decades of his life in exile.
Although Voltaire hated religious intolerance, he admired and extolled the objectivity of science. He was a big fan of both Newton and Locke. As such, his writings tended to glorify Science and vilify Religion. In this manner, he contrasted and set one against the other.
While Voltaire’s writings merely suggested that there was an inevitable conflict between the two, this notion was formalized in the 19th century. Early in the century, thinkers began contrasting religion and science. This led eventually to the formulation of what is commonly called the ‘conflict thesis’.
The widely held belief holds that there is an ‘intrinsic intellectual conflict between religion and science that inevitably leads to hostility.’ This statement has a variety of implications. Religion and Science belong to mutually exclusive sets – no intersection. There is no interaction between the two fields. Real scientists don’t have religious beliefs and priests don’t believe in science. Due to this innate hostility, there is no possibility of a positive mutually enriching feedback between religious and scientific individuals.
Two influential books encapsulated and popularized this perspective. The formalization of the ‘conflict thesis’ began with the publication in 1874 of Conflict between Religion and Science by John William Draper. Published twenty years later in 1894, the second book, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom by Andrew Dickson White provided a historical framework for the opinions expressed in the first. The first book sold more copies, but the second has proven to be more influential due to its historical examples. Both books as a whole have exerted an enduring influence upon both scientific and popular culture.
For instance, Einstein and Bertrand Russell1 were notable adherents of the conflict thesis in the 20th century. As an indication of the enduring appeal of the notion that there is an inherent enmity between religion and science, 21st century scientists Dawkins and Stephen Hawkins continued propagating this belief. The perspective is also reflected in liberal ideology. For instance, Bill Moyer, the host of a popular TV show with broad appeal, tends to mock religion and glorify science.
Despite the prestigious reputations of these advocates, professional historians are joined in the consensus that there is no historical basis for the conflict thesis. The historical examples of hostility between the two camps are flawed. Further there are many instances when religion and science provide inspiration for each other. Generally speaking, it is difficult, if not impossible to establish a firm demarcation between the two.
The intent of this paper is to illustrate the inaccuracies of the conflict thesis by examining the early history of science. In such a fashion, we hope to debunk some popular myths. Two of these misconceptions surround the lives of Giordano Bruno and Galileo. The proponents of the conflict thesis have turned these two individuals into innocent victims of the Inquisition.
Did the Church really persecute Galileo and Giordano Bruno for their scientific theories, or was it instead for their political/religious beliefs? Was Galileo really an innocent scientist who was persecuted for believing in the Copernican system? Is it true that Giordano Bruno, a purported martyr for science, was burned at the stake for his scientific beliefs?
Galileo’s conviction for heresy for advocating heliocentrism is frequently held up as a historical example of this hostility between the two camps - i.e. evidence for the innate conflict between Religion and Science. The prior article presented evidence indicating that Galileo’s real conflict was with Academia and that this battle bled into his relationship with the Church. Further, Galileo’s arrogant communication style fanned the flames into a full-on conflagration. Despite his public insults, the Pope was quite lenient – only confining him at his personal villa for the duration of his life. He even did his best work while under house arrest – no more distractions. (For more read Galileo: Victim of Inquisition or Academia & Hubris?)
How about Giordano Bruno? What are the historical facts? Do they really indicate that he was persecuted for his belief in heliocentrism? Was he really innocent?
It was during the 19th and 20th centuries that the conflict thesis (the inevitable antagonism between Science and Religion) came into vogue. It was during this same time that commentators began celebrating Bruno as a ‘martyr to science’.
What are the facts? Do they support this designation?
Already as a teenager, Bruno began getting in trouble with the authorities for challenging Church doctrine. In 1565, he entered a Dominican monastery to continue his studies. Almost immediately, he began clashing with his teachers, the monks. Why? His doubts motivated him to express the need for Christian liberty in interpreting the Bible.
In 1576 at the age of 28, Bruno was suspected of heresy, and fled to Rome. There he was involved in a murder case and ran away to Venice to avoid imprisonment.
He eventually settled in Geneva where he embraced Calvinism in 1578. Shortly after he was imprisoned for publishing a broadsheet against his Calvinist professor.
In 1581, Bruno recanted and moved first to Paris and then to England, where he was protected by Henry III. However his Oxford lectures were met with hostility, and he moved to London in 1583.
Why did his publications evoke such animosity? Bruno was a freethinker - unafraid to speak his mind. His articles expressed a qualified acceptance of Copernicus. He attacked Oxfordian pedantry, English society, and the revered Aristotle. He also advocated ethical and social reform in line with his anti-Christian, anti-ascetic tendencies. Finally, he argued for the basic unity of all substances, including the harmony between soul and nature.
His revolutionary, antagonistic, and outspoken manner generated a nomadic lifestyle. In 1586, he returned to Paris, but had to leave France because of his attacks on Aristotle. From there he went to Germany, but had to leave for offending the Calvinists. He then traveled to Prague, where he was excommunicated by the priests for challenging Church doctrine. He was just 40 years of age.
In 1591, he was invited to Venice, where he offended his benefactor. His former friend denounced Bruno to the Inquisition. He was arrested and transferred to Rome. After a long trial, he was burned at stake in 1600 at the age of 52 for failing to recant.
It is reported that Bruno arrogantly said to his accusers: “You are more afraid than I am.” Even as Death approached, Bruno had the integrity to stand up for his beliefs.2
The Inquisition charged Bruno with the denial of several core Catholic doctrines: eternal damnation, Trinity, virginity of Mary, and transubstantiation. His Pantheism and belief in reincarnation were also grave concerns. His pantheism was very modern. It held that there is no personal anthropomorphic god; instead god is in everything.3
Heliocentrism and his scientific attitudes were minor charges, not center stage – certainly not worth mentioning. After all, Bruno was Galileo’s senior by 16 years. The Church had not even taken a stand on heliocentrism – when Bruno was burned at the stake for heresy. It took for another 20 years for them to enter the fray – and it was only because Galileo forced their hand – via his inflammatory writings,
To provide more support for our thesis that the Church burned Bruno at the stake for challenging dogma, rather than his scientific beliefs, let us briefly examine the ideas of Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464).
Writing over a century before Bruno appeared on stage, Nicholas also preceded Copernicus. (Nicholas died shortly before Copernicus was born and Copernicus died just before Bruno was born.)
The philosophical writings of Nicholas of Cusa were inspirational to Bruno, who like Nicholas was a philosopher, not an astronomer. Nicholas of Cusa was far more radical in his ideas than Copernicus. He held that the Earth spins on its axis; the Sun was like other stars; space is infinite; and that the planets move at varying speeds in a sun-centered system.
Copernicus was tame by comparison. He was only challenging the common sense understanding that the sun revolved around earth. Otherwise he followed the same traditional paradigm as Ptolemy, e.g. a constant velocity for the planets4.
The Church did not care about Nicholas of Cusa or Copernicus or even, as we shall see, Kepler. Why?
Religion and Science are generally on friendly terms. They get along fine under most circumstances. This amicable relationship turns hostile when scientists or philosophers challenge the Church’s client base, i.e. their congregation. Euclid, Ptolemy, Pythagoras and Archimedes were not a threat. Lucretius, Epicurus and the atomists were threats. Early Christianity banned and burned their books (See Lucretius article).
Why? The so-called atomists under Epicurus held there is no afterlife. There might be gods, but they don’t respond to offerings or prayer. Oops! No afterlife as a carrot and no need for offerings to the Church. A big problem when Wealth is threatened.
Although its primary function is to fulfill the spiritual and social needs of its congregation, Religion also has a political component. The size of its congregation is proportional to the Church’s political power. Any beliefs or movements that threaten to erode the congregation is perceived as a threat to their political, not religious, power.
During the Middle Ages/Renaissance, Copernicus and Nicholas of Cusa presented alternate, even revolutionary, scientific ideas. As these notions did not undermine the authority of the priests et al, the Church did not feel the need to retaliate.
In contrast, Bruno, even as teenager, lobbied for freedom from religious dogma. Then later, he challenged dogmatic authority figures wherever he saw them, e.g. the scholastics, priests or even political powers. To preserve its prestige and influence, the Establishment via the Church had to shut Bruno down.
Galileo had the same experience a few decades later. His not so subtle insults to the Pope demanded retaliation. As he was not challenging Church doctrine, his punishment was actually quite lenient. Bruno and others who were threatening the Church’s client base were treated incredibly harshly, e.g. torture and burning.
Crossing the line has serious consequences. Personal attacks on important personages, especially if they are living, undermines their prestige, hence authority and charisma. Congregation drifts away. They fight back to prevent loss.
Beware of attacking the Establishment, no matter what form they take.
It is easy to see why the Church as a political entity would retaliate against those who attacked their power and prestige, individuals like Bruno and Galileo. But why did 19th and 20th century commentators celebrate Bruno as a ‘martyr to science’5? And why did they omit the details about Galileo’s conflicts with the Scholastics and magnify his problems with the Church when telling his story?
We suggest that the Guilty Party is attempting to shift the blame to a not-so-innocent and somewhat blameworthy bystander. Rather than accept at least partial responsibility for Bruno and Galileo’s persecutions, the scientific community has cleverly, perhaps subconsciously, shifted the onus of the oppression to religious institutions, specifically the Catholic Church. Academia trying to make themselves look good to the Public by vilifying their shadow.
Great PR campaign. Their ratings in the opinion polls had been falling – as people began realizing the scientists were responsible for weapons of mass destruction as well as medicine. Pointing the finger at another to hide transgressions. As their institution had been actively and violently been suppressing competing ideologies for centuries, if not millennia, the Church made a great candidate to shift the focus off of academic persecution. Except in this case, the Catholic prelates were not to blame.
Unfortunately this misguided strategy of blaming another for your faults works to everyone’s detriment. Acrimonious and unproductive disputes follow, rather than harmonious interactions for the common good. Why can’t we just get along?
After all, Religion provides many useful services, which Academia as an elite community can’t fulfill.
Religion has several components: political, community, spiritual experience, and guidance. Religion’s political component is frequently and perhaps even regularly at odds with Science, especially its political component. This is the truth behind the conflict thesis. This truth could easily apply to Galileo’s experience with the Church.
To balance this narrative, let us examine Religion’s other components and illustrate how they fulfill very real human needs – needs that Science does not necessarily satisfy. In this sense, Science and Religion are complementary, hence non-competitive, aspects of the human experience.
Community: Religion provides a sense of community to anyone who chooses to participate. Festivals, ceremonies, and shared meals are several ways in which Religion can bind the congregation as a group. Science only provides a community to scientists, not civilians.
Spiritual Experience: This could be defined as a feeling of ‘At-One-Ment’– union with the Whole. As one merges with the experience, one loses a sense of self. In this sense, the Catholic Church provides a spiritual experience on a weekly level. It comes in the form of the church service, which includes music, architecture, pageantry, and art that are all designed to direct one’s attention to a grander aspect of human existence, perhaps to evoke a sense of awe and wonder. Scientists can certainly have a religious experience during their work (I certainly do on a regular basis). Yet again Science does not provide any weekly ceremonies or gatherings designed to provide a spiritual experience for the average human.
Spiritual experiences and a sense of community both combat a sense of isolation and loneliness that tends to afflict humans. Science, while affirming the innate human need for social time, does not have any institution that provides this for humanity. There is really no innate conflict between Science and Religion in these areas. Religion fulfills a unique role, not provided by Science.
Guidance: Religious leaders and Science both provide guidance. Sometimes spiritual leaders employ scientific discoveries in combination with religious beliefs to assist their followers. However, sometimes, but not always, religious beliefs come into conflict with scientific discoveries. For instance, the Bible advocates corporal punishment for children, while many countries have banned hitting children as a form of punishment due to the scientific findings. The Guidance component is perhaps one of the biggest bones of contention between Science and Religion. This guidance component supports the conflict thesis.
In this case, Religion has held onto dogma, despite evidence to the contrary. This rigidity of thought is a major aggravation for the scientifically minded. However, the scientific community also holds onto dogma, despite conventional thinking to the contrary. Indeed, it was Academia’s mental rigidity that initially ignited Galileo’s fury. Of course, Giordano Bruno was enraged by and challenged dogmatism of any kind – Scientific, Scholastic or Religious. Wherever he encountered it, he spoke out.
1 Finocchiaro, M., 2014, Introduction, the Trial of Galileo ISBN 1624661327
2 Encyclopedia Britannica
3 Wikipedia
4 Why is Copernicus credited as the originator of heliocentrism, if Nicholas of Cusa preceded him? Nicholas as a philosopher only wrote about his novel ideas. He presented no system of mathematics to support his beliefs.
As an astronomer, Copernicus developed a Math-Data Matrix that supported his conception of the Universe. It was rough and based upon the traditional Ptolemaic paradigm of circles and constant velocity. It was not much better than the traditional system in terms of predictions. Yet it was at least a plausible stab – giving future astronomers something to work with. It was Kepler who turned the tide by developing a more precise Math-Data Matrix. But he was only able to achieve this exciting achievement by reluctantly discarding the traditional paradigm and positing a new paradigm.
5 Desk Encyclopedia