Science and Religion

A HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION

Seco nd Edition

Edited by

Gary B. Ferngren

Johns 1:-lopkins Un ive rs ity Press

Bnlti111ore

lnventar-Nr.:
04226
ID 2<102, 20 17 Johns I lo pkin s Uni ve rsit y Pr'ss For Jnckie Wc/111111cller
A ll ri ghts rese r ved . l'ubli shed 20 17
Printed in the U ni led St,1 les of Ame ri ca on i.lcid-free p,1pc r
98765432

Johns I lopki n, Universi ty Press

27 15 Nort h C hariL•s ' trecl
Bal timor•, Mary land 2 12 18-4361
www.p ress.jhu.edu

l.ibrnry of Cong rc,, ;:i taloging-i n- Publi c<ll ion Dat a

N,1 111es: l ·erng rcn, Ca ry 13., editor.

rille: ' ience ,rnd re li gion : a hi stori ca l introduction / edited by C ary B. Fcrngren,
Departmen t of I li sto ry, O regon Stale Un ive rsity, orv.1 lli s, O regon.
Descript ion: Second Edi tion . I Bn ltim o re: Jo hns I lopkins U ni ve rsity Press, 2017.
I In ludc, bib li ographi al references and ind ex.
Id •ntifier,: L ' N 20 160 171 161 ISBN 978 142 142 1728 (pbk.: n l k. paper) 1 1 BN
9781421421735 (electroni c) I 1S13 142 142 1720 (pbk.: alk . Fapc r) I ISBN
1421421739 (e lcctnmiL)
Subj •et,: L SI I: Religion and sc ience- Hbtory.
Classifi at io n: L BL24 5 .537 20 17 I DOC 20 1/. 6509- d c21
I C reco rd ava il abil• at htlps:// lc n.loc.gov/20 160 17 11 6

A c,1 talog record for thi s book is ava il able from th e Briti sh Libr.iry.

hapt •r, 2 8, 10 15, 17 18, 22-25, and 30, w hi ch hi.l ve bee n rev ised for thi s
edition, origina ll y app •ar •d in 7 he Hi, lory of cie11cc nll(/ l~clisio11 i11 /Ill' Wes /cm
1rntl1/w11: 1\11 I 11n1dopetlin, ed ited by Ca ry 13. Ferngren, Edwa rd J. L;irso n, Dnrrel
W. Amundst•n, ,1 nd A nn •-M ari e E. Nakhla . ID 2000 by ,ary B. I-erngren. Used by
p ·rm ission of n,e l aylor & l·ran i1, roup, LLC, a division of l nformi.l pi .

Sp,•t1al tl1srn1111/s 11r,• rwni/11/,/t• for /.111 /k p11rchnscs of 11,is lmok. /'or 111ore i11for111nlio11,
plm,,• co11 /n(I S1wu11 I Sn!,·, n/ 1110-5 16-6936 or s11ccinlsn/cs, prcss.jl111.cd11.

Johns I lopki n, ni vc rsi ty l'r •ss u ~es en v ironm enta ll y fri endl y book materi als,
111cluding n•cycled tex t p,1p •r that b co mposed of at leas t 30 percent post-
consu mer was te, w he1wvc r poss ible.
 Contents

/11/rod11 clio11 XI

Pnrt I : : Science nnd Religion: Co nflict or Co mplexity ?

Sc ien e a nd Re li g ion J
STE l'I I EN P. WELDON

Part II: : The Pre111oderrz Period

2 Aristotle and Ar is totcli a nism 23

E DWARD G RA TA D C RA IG MA R T I

3 Ea rl y C hri s tian Attitud es towa rd N a ture 37

DAVID C . L I ND IJ E R G AN D GA RY 13 . FERNGREN

4 Medieva l La tin hri stend om 47

MI C I I A · L II . S II ANK AND D AV I D C . LINDIJER G

5 Is la m 68
AL OO R DII ANAN I A D G LEN M . OOPER

Part III : : The Scien tific Revolution

6 The opernican Revoluti on

OWEN G IN ER I ' II

7 Ga lileo Ga li lei 100

RI C II A RD J . llLA C KW ELL AND M I C II AEL 11. S II ANK

8 Ea rl y Mod e rn Protesta ntism 110

E DWARD 13 . DAVI S

9 lsaac New ton ·123

STE PIIE DAV I D S O B ELE

10 N a tura l Theo logy

J O it II E DLEY IJR OOKE
 Co ntents ix
v iii Co nl enl s
24 Mod e rn Cosmo logies
Part IV : : Transforrnntio ns in Geology, Biology, and
C RA I G SEAN M CCONNE LL
Cos 111ology, 1650- 1900
Ca u sa ti o n 377
J O II N II ENRY AND MARI USZ TA llACZE K
11 Geo logy a nd Pa lc ontology
N ICO LA A5 A . R U I' K E 26 T h e Mod e rn Synthes is in Evo lutio n 395
J OS II UA M. M OR I TZ
12 Na tura l Hi s to ry
PETER M. II ESS AN D J O II N II EN R Y 27 A nthropo logy
T I M OT II Y LARSEN
13 ha rl cs Darw in
JAME S MOORE Am e ri ca n Psycho logy 42 3
MATT II EW 5. II E D S TR O M
14 Evo luti on 204
PE 'I ER J . U OWLER AND ( O II N II ENRY N e u rosc ie nce a nd the Human Pe rson 438
ALAN C . WE I SSEN llA II E R
osmogo ni cs 220
RO N A L D L. N M BE RS A N D I' E T E I( J . S US A LLA 30 Eco logy a nd the Environme nt 45 1
DAV I D N. L I VINGSTONE A N D D I ARM I D A. F I NNEGAN

Part V:: The Response of Religious Tradition s

A ck1wwledg 111e11ts
16 The Bib le a nd Scien ce 2 35 Index
J O II N 5TEN II OUSE

17 Roma n Ca tho li c is m s ince Trent

S lll VEN J . II A l( RI S AND MARIU SZ TAB ACZE K

18 Eva nge li a lis m a nd Fundamenta li s m 268

MARK A . NO LL AND C II RISTOP II ER M. R I OS

19 T he copes Tria l 286

EDWARD J. LAR SON

20 Jud a is m 2 97
N O A 11 E I· I{ 0 N

2 1 Asian Tradi ti o ns
I OMOKO YOS IIID A AND S TEP II EN P. WELDON

22 Ath >is m 333

JO II N II ENRY

Par/ VI :: Tlie T/1eological Implications of Modern Science

23 Ph ysics
1(1( IIARD ()I ',ON
1 Science and Religion
Stephen P. W eldon

The his to ry of the inlc mction between science a nd re lig ion has been a
pop ul ar top ic fo r ove r 150 yea rs, but its pop ul ilri ty has broug ht with il a
number of proble ms. The g rea tes t probl e m is that the very te rms 'science'
a nd ' re li g io n' e nco ura ge a n esse11tinlist <1pproac h to history, a n approac h th a t
tri es to d escribe a ll eve nts in the pas t in te rm s of th e two modern ca tego ri es
o f scie nce a nd re lig io n. Yet th ese te rm s a rc inadequate to desc ribe th e nature
of th e hi sto ri ca l topi s th a t are cove red under th a t rubri c be a use bo th te rm s
refe r to Wes tern institutio ns a nd ideas th a t ass um ed the ir curre nt form ilfte r
·1800. This mea ns th a t th ey a rc often ina ppropria te for di sc ussing his to ri ca l
case s tudi es. The mos t co mm o n v iew of cic ncc a nd re li g ion is that they a re
in co nfli ct with o ne a no the r, a view th a t is a n a rti fact of a few we ll-known
hi s tori a l exa mpl es th a t have se rved the age nd as of politica l and socia l
activists. The co nfli ct thesis- a lo ng w ith two o the r thco r ti ca l frameworks,
harmon y a nd se pa ra te sp he res-re lics o n esse ntialis t definiti ons of scie nce
a nd re lig ion. His to rian s ove r th e past seve ra l d ecade have devo ted a g rea t
dea l of effo rt to co mbatting th e d e fi cie ncies o f th ese v iews. The res ult is a
g row in g lite ra ture th a t dc.:i ls with intersec ti ons be twee n th e s tud y of na ture
a nd th e e thi ca l a nd cos mo logica l perspecti ve tha t we le nd to asso ia tc w ith
re li g ion . Th sc recent his to rica l s tudi es hold a mo re nuan ced a ppreciat ion o f
th e co mpl ex ity of his to ry a nd d e mo ns trnlc the impo rta nce of d ea ling wi th
his torica ll y a cura te a tcgo ri es a nd te rmin o logy.
Step he n P. We ldon is associa te pro fesso r of his tory of ·cience a t the
Unive rs ity of Okla ho ma. He teaches classes o n re li g ion a nd science and ha
s tudi ed th e re la ti o nship between a th e is m, libe ra l re li ion, a nd hum a nism
in th e nin •tee nth a nd twentieth centuri es. He has co mpl eted a book on thi
topi , entitl ed Tl,e cie11t ific Spirit of A 111ericn11 H11111n11is111. He has a lso li ved
in Japa n a nd has bee n in vo lved in the upkee p of a Budd hi t te mpl e in
Js hikawa Pre fecture. We ld o n is edito r of the Isis 11rr<'11f Bi/Jliogrnpi,y of //,e
History of Science.
 Conflict or Co111plexily ?
4
T II E p 11 RA s E 'sc ie nce a nd re li g io n' looks clear a nd straightfo rwa rd
on th -• s urface. The o ncep ts a re part of o ur eve ryd ay vornb u la ry, a nd it is easy
to think o f exa mpl es tha t in vo lve the ir interacti on: co n troversies over evo lu-
tion, the ep isode o f Ga lil eo a nd the Ro m a n Ca tho li c C hurch, e thi ca l deba tes
over hum a n clon in g, th e ro le of prayer in hea lin g, a nd so o n. T he cla rity o f thi s
phrase is deceptive, howeve r. The two te rm s ' re li g io n ' a nd 'sc ience' a re much
more amb ig uo us th a n they seem a t firs t g la nce, m as king ass umpti ons and
biases that can be mis lea d ing w he n we un con sc io us ly im pose the m o n events
where they don't be lo ng. Ana chro ni s ti c termino logy is a lways a prob le m for
h istorian be a u e it is so easy to im pose o ur ow n co nte mpora ry wo rld v iews
o nto the past, but the stud y of scie nce a nd re lig io n pose g rea te r cha ll en ges
than many histori ca l s ubjec ts. Both th e te rm 'scien ce' a nd th e te rm ' re li g ion'
have be n used ex trem e ly broad ly. Depending o n the tim e, place, a nd contex t,
th y ca n refer to rad ica ll y d iffe re nt kind s of things, and as a res ult, the te rm s
the m elve becom e barriers to und e rs ta ndin g. Th e burd e n of this essay is to
look losely at how bo th sc ho la rs a nd laype rsons have tho ug ht a bo ut the peo-
p le, events, and id eas tha t fa ll und e r the rubri c of 'science a nd re li gio n'; to
highlight a few of th e major hi sto ri ca l d iscoveri es that chall enge popul ar as-
·umptions; and to point to way of discuss ing these top ics th a t do no t mis re p-
r sent the pa st.
Science and Relig ion : A M odern Western Story
As Peter Harri so n, o ne of th e lead in g his to ri a ns in thi s fie ld , has written ,
"mu h con te mporary di s ussion abo ut sc ience a nd re li g io n assu m es tha t the re
ar> di ' rete human ac ti v iti es, 'scie n e' and ' re li g ion,' w hi ch have had som e
unitary and end uring essence tha t p rs is ts ove r tim e." But " thi s is no t the
a ," h writes (Ha rri son 2 , 5, 6). He a nd o the r his to ri a ns reject 'essentia li s m .'
A1, the t •rm s uggests, essenti a l ism mea ns look in g for the essence of something
(a qu, lity or ha racteris ti c tha t does no t chan ge over tim e o r from place to
pla •). Th prob lem w ith the essenti a lis t v iew of sc ie nce a nd re li g io n is that it
<l!>'>umcs tha t some cor eleme nt a re uni ve rsa l and unchang ing, but thi s way
of thinking abo ut both s ienc a nd re li g io n is s impl y ina ccura te w he n o ne
look., al the g r 'a l variety of hum a n tho ugh t a nd ac ti v ity ove r th e mill nni a.
I I, rri'>on d •m m trat s that the id eas a nd instituti on th a t cons titute w ha t we
now all., i ·n e and re ligion arc a lways in flu x, so the re is no possibility o f a n
,.,., •n 'that r•mains onstant a ross tim e a nd p lac . Th i ins ig ht g uid es the
Science n11d Religion 5
wo rk of ca re ful his to ri a ns, who present each case s tud y in term s of the ca tego-
ries a nd vocab ul ary used w ithin a s pecifi c contex t. In m a ny of these cases, tha t
mea ns tha t the te rms 'sc ie nce' a nd ' re lig io n' need to be a bandoned a ltogether.
By and la rge, the hi s to ry of the inte ra cti o n be tween what we call sc ie nce
a nd wh a t we ca ll re lig io n is a modern Wes te rn sto ry. This is n o t beca use
no n-Wes te rn cultur s have been und eve lo ped o r bac kward ; rather, it is be-
ca use our contemporary wo rd s 'sc ience' a nd ' re li g io n' re fe r to ca tegories tha t
s imply did no t ex is t in o th e r cultures until recentl y. ft is s ti II probl em a tic to ca ll
Buddhis m or Confucianis m a re lig ion, for exa mple, beca use the wo rd ' re li-
g ion ' conno tes Jud eo-Chris tian reli gio us id eas, fo rms, and practi ces. Likew ise,
to use the word 'sc ie nce' to ta lk a bout na tura l kn ow led ge in o ther trad iti on s
(fo r ins ta nce, the bo ta ni ca l knowled ge of Nati ve A me rica ns) is mislead ing, n o t
beca use thinking in these trad itio ns wa s incorrect (much of th a t know led ge
ca rries ins ight) but beca use the word 'science' po ints to w ays o f thinking and
be ha vior tha t are fore ign to these traditions. Whereas it se ms na tural for Wes t-
e rne rs to da y to compa re and contras t science a nd religion, this is no t the case
e lsew he re (Broo ke a nd Numbers 2011; M as u za wa 2005; Pete rson a nd Walhof
2002).
Not only is the cie nce-re li g io n na rrative a Weste rn inve ntio n, it is also a
mod e rn s to ry. Befor 1600, neither the word 'scie nce' nor the word ' reli g io n'
had its curre nt m ea ning. T he La tin cogn a tes o f these two wo rd s, scientin a nd
religio, origina ll y refe rred to conce pts very diffe rent from what the En g lis h
words re fe r to now. Whe reas w e tend to think of science as a way of know ing
a nd re lig ion as a se t of be liefs a nd prac ti ces re la ted to wo rs hip, the roo ts o f
th ose words in the Middle Ages referred to interior qu a liti es of a person, v ir-
tues to be cultiva ted . Scie11tin was consid e red a carefull y developed hab it of
mind re la ted to log ica l d emons tra ti on and prob le m solving and tied to m ora l
exce ll e nce; religio re fe rred to inte ri o r ac ts of d evoti o n a nd prayer and , second-
a rily, to beh aviors that g rew o ut of those inner m o tiva ti o ns. It w as only grad-
ua lly that th e word s evo lved into te rms th at w e are more fam iliar with today,
d ea ling wi th e pi s te m o logy and socia l functi o n. Two othe r te rms tha t w e re
w id ely used i.n ea rl y m odern tim es, ' theology' a nd 'n atura l philosophy,' like-
w ise had ve ry diffe re nt co nn o tations a nd usages than d o 'scien ce' a nd 'reli -
gio n ' tod ay. Jn o ther wo rd s, the way ea rl y m ode rn people thought abo ut the
ca tegori es of know led ge does no t corres pond to o ur own ca tegories (Harri son
2006; H arri on 2015; Ro be rts 2011; Wilson 2002).
Moreover, we face an o the r te rminologica l pitfall by jux taposing sc i nee
6 Co nfl ict or Co 111plexity?
and re li g io n as a pa ir of contras tin g te rm s : th e phra se 'sc ien ce and re lig ion '
s uggests a n e ithe r /o r re la ti o ns hip, whi ch lea d s to a vi e w o f inte rac ti o n th a t
makes con Ai t betwee n th em ee m no rm a l, as if it, too, were a n esse nti a l pa rt
of th s ience- re li g io n s to ry. In a ll m ajor civ ili za tion s, peop le have th o ug ht
abou t na ture a nd abo ut ma n's pl ace in th e cos m os, but it hns been prim aril y in
the mode rn West th a t we have se pa ra ted th a t thinkin g into two di s tinct ways
of classify ing the wo rl d . By ma kin g thi s divi sio n, scien ce a nd re li g ion have
corn · to be s en as pa rad ig m s of different a nd ofte n co rn pe ti ng m od es o f u n-
de rsta nd ing. It i · no t unco mm o n to find som eone claimin g that the science-
relig ion confli ct is a centra l th em e o f the hi s to ry o f Weste rn c iv ili za ti o n o r, in
some narra ti ves, a ll hum a n hi sto ry (H a rri so n 2006; Harri son 20 ·15 ). The his to r-
ica l my ths that e mphasize co nfli ct continu e to m a ke frequ e nt a ppea ra nces in
popul a r science na rra ti ves to thi s d ay. Th e 201 4 rem a ke of the A meri can te le-
v ision d o u me n tary 05111 05 na rra ted by as tronom e r Ne il d cG rasse Tyso n used
hi lori al onfli ct my th s aga in a nd aga in to va lori ze sc ie nce and d e ni g ra te
'au thorita ri a n' re li g io n.
ome of the most w ide ly reto ld s to ries in thi s area invol ve co nflict. The cases
of Ga lil eo and th e hurch a nd , m o re recently, c rea ti o ni s m ve rs us evoluti o n
r infor e the confli t na rra ti ve. Ga lil eo's e nco unte r with th e a tho li c hurch
i · a n i o ni pi sod e in ea rl y mod e rn Euro pea n hi s tory. It seem s to i.llu s tra te a
major ba ttl e between wo rld v iews during a time wh en Euro pea n c iv ili za ti o n
was unde rgo in g a tra ns iti o n fro m a medi eva l culture to a m od e rn one. Gali leo
wa tri d a nd fo un d g uilty of he resy by the Ro m a n Ca tho li c hurch for d e-
f nd ing heli o entri s m, th e th eo ry th a t the ea rth moved a round the s un . Sin ce
today we know tha t the ea rth ci rcles the s un, it i easy to look ba c k o n thi s
v ' nl and crit iciz th e chur h fo r its re li g io us d ogm a tis m. The po pul a r re ndi -
tion of this story pr s nts a lil eo as a triumph a nt h ro in th e sea rch for truth
a nd lh ' a th o li c hurch as a d ogm a ti c in tituti o n w illing to wield its power
to hid ' tha t truth and ma inta in its a uthori ty. Th e us ua l account o f th fam o us
0 P''> "monk •y tria l" o f ·1925, likew i e, is used to d e m o n tra te the he ro ic e f-
fo rts o f the d h ,d rs o f sc ience aga ins t d ogmati c re li g ion. Durin g a coupl e of
ho t '>U mmer w ks a ll eyes turned to wa rd th e s m a ll town of Day ton, Tennes-
.,' ', w h ' r Am ' ri a's two mos t fa mo us la w ye rs m e t face to fa ce in the o urt-
room and- in th fin a l onfro nta ti o n ut ide o n the courtho use lawn in o rd e r
lo a ommodii l 'a h ug' rowd . The case w as os te ns ibl y a bo ut wh e the r a hi gh-
., hoot lea h ' r had taught th theo ry o f vo lution a nd fl o uted the s ta te's ne w
an ti •vo lution ta tu t'. The p r · uted tea h r, Jo hn S o pe , is d epicted as he-
Science nnd Religion 7
ro ic beca use he d a red to teach the truth, w hil e the g ullibl public and the fun -
da m e nta li s ts w ho interpre ted Genes is lite ra.ll y a rc the us ua l v illa ins of the s to ry.
Foc us in g o n exa m p les like th ese p rodu ces bad histo ry. No t o nl y a re these
cases no t re prese nta ti ve o f the way scientific a nd re lig io us intera ti o ns have
e vo lved o ve r tim e, but w he n exa mined cl ose ly, eve n these s upposedl y para-
d ig m a ti c cases o f confli ct turn o ut to be m o re co mplica ted. In the Galil eo case,
th e re is mu ch m o re o f politi cs, pe rsonality, a nd phil osophy th a n th e us ua l ac-
co unt re la tes. T he as trono mi cal ev id en e was fa r fro m d efinitive, fo r ins ta nce, so
th a t w ha t loo ks like a n o pe n-and -s hut case based so lely o n empirical o bserva-
tion s w as not. Ga lil eo's te lesco pi c d iscove ries co uld no t provid e uncontesta bl e
p roof o f the ea rth 's m ove me nt, so th e conserva ti ve me mbe rs o f the Ca tho li c
C hurch w e re certa inl y w ithin th e ir rig hts to be ca uti o us in evalu a ting Ga lil eo's
cl a im s, especia ll y s ince these cl a im s see med to contradi t no t o nl y scriptura l
e vid e n e but a lso lo ng-he ld Ari s to te lia n phi losoph y, for which the re wa s no
c lea r a lte rn a ti ve. A lso, the church's res po nse was no t uni fo rml y reac ti o na ry. 1t
c ha nged ove r time as inte rn a ti o na l po liti ca l eve nts resh a ped .inte rnal ecc les i-
as ti ca l pri o rities and age nd as . The church was in th middle o f a re li g io us wa r
th a t s pa nn ed th e continent: Catho li c aga ins t Protesta nt, w ith control o f wh o le
co untri es a t s ta k . Po pe Urba n Vil[ had much less la titud e to d eal with d octri-
nal ch a ll e nges tha n his pred ecesso rs in mo re pea eful tim es. And Ga lil eo's a r-
roga nt a nd pu gn acio us pe rso nality crea ted furth er obs tacles to ra pp roc he me nt.
T he pope s impl y w as no t in lined to com e to the d c fense of a ma n w ho see med
to have go ne o ut o f hi s way to e mbarrass him. In o the r wo rd s, po liti cs and
patronage w ere as cent ra l to the ea ·e as we re truth a nd fa ith, and one s ho uld
no t see sc ience vers us re li g io n as the central plo t e le me nt in this dram a (Fin-
o c hi a ro 2009) .
Rega rding th e fund a me nta li s t a ttac ks o n evo luti o n, the Scopes tria l w o uld
no t have ta ke n place ha d no t lawye rs from the Am e rica n C iv il Libe rties U nio n
(AC LU) in New York been looking for a test case to h e lp th em build a n a rg u-
m e nt rega rding teachers' rig hts and acad emic freed o m . The ACLU law ye rs ini-
ti a ted the tri a l, adve rtis ing in local n w s pa pe rs fo r a teache r w illing to test Ten-
nes ec's ne w s ta te la w. Had the A LU agend a pre vailed , the sc i nee- re lig ion
foc u s wo uld have re m a ined econd a ry to the qu esti o n o f aca d emic fre d om ,
but as soo n as the two la rger-than -life a ttorneys, Willia m J rrnings Brya n a nd
la re nce Da rro w, joined the case, it beca me a media event d e is ively a bo ut
scie nce and re li g ion . M o reover, th bl ack-a nd -white na ture of arg umenta ti on
in the tri a l beli es a mu ch m o re complica ted inte rac ti o n between fund am ental-

8 Conflict or Co111plexity?
ists a nd evo luti o n tha n is us uall y assumed. Bryan, for exa mpl e, opposed Dar-
w ini sm primarily because of its soc ia l and ethi ca l im p li ca ti o ns, no t its a lleged
confl ict w ith Genes is. He denied th a t hum a n evo luti on was a genu in e science
a nd asse rted tha t the theo ry itse lf was a nti-C hri s ti a n a nd therefo re dangerous
beca use it co ntributed to the disappearance o f C hri s ti an va lu es from the aca d -
my and the ri se of a the is m a nd imm o ra lity among yo un g p eopl e. And just
as in th cas of Ga li I p Jiti ca l a nd eco no mi c iss ues se t th e contex t in c ru -
0,
cia l ways. As o ne hi s to ri a n h as recentl y shown , American prog ressivism in
the Demo ra ti c South s paw ned a pop u li st attack aga ins t th e monopolisti c
textbook-pub lishing indu s try so th a t the m a in co ncern for many activists and
politi ians wa the price of schoo l books, n o t the ir content. H ad it not been for
that po li ti a l ba ttl e, it is unlike ly th a t the a ntievo lutio n law would have taken
the form that it did (Larson 1997; Shap iro 2013).
Even in these apparentl y clea r-c ut cases of confli ct be tween re li g ion and
s icncc, the stories a re com pli ca ted a nd s trong ly influen ced by soc ia l factors
that often had little to do w ith the sc ie ntifi c or re li gio us conte nt. These d e ta il s
are frequently buried because the popular s to ri es tha t d e pi ct an all -o ut battle
ar bett r propaganda, a nd in their se nsatio nal form th ey have often been used
to make political points. Protestants, for exa mpl e, put Ga lil eo to use to attack
atho li ism a lm ost immed ia tely afte r he was cond e mned; it pla yed wel l into
the ir anti- atho lic age nd a. A century la ter, the French ph il osophe r Vo lta ire
foll ow d ·uit; he, too, wanted to und rmin the Ca tholic C hurch, but h e did so
in o rd er to elevate reas n a nd freedom of re lig io n . Jn a s imil a r w ay, the copes
trial fit a onveni ent narrative during the 1950s, when it was fi cti o nali zed in
th popular Broadway s tage p lay /11/ieril the Wind (that was twice r m ad e a a
movi •) highlighting the dangers of mob behavior in an e ra of anti commtmi st
hyst ria.
ut id the e cxamp l s, the pa st i fill d with cases in which conflict has
little or no rol , at a ll. The mo r o ne looks a t hi s tori a l case s tudi es, the more it
b om' tear tha t confli t is mo re a myth th a n a rea li ty-it i certa inl y not
norma l ores · •ntial. T he pas t is so complica ted a nd varied tha t a s ing le plot
,J ment like confli ct ca nnot pos ibl y de c ribe a ll of the diffe rent hi storica l s to-
ri 'S w' find when we look back into the pas t. The two exa mpl es m enti oned
abov ali l o and th opes tri a l- illustrate how sc ien ce and re lig ion have
om ' to b' I vat d to such sig nifi a n e in the s tory of Western civili za tion, but
lh' also d monstrate w hy the simple o nfli ct na rrative fai ls. Whe n one looks
Science and Relig ion 9
a t th ese paradi g m events, it becomes clea r th a t conflict a lone is s impl y not
s uffic ie nt to und erstand the s itua tio ns.
Why Essentialisnt and Why Conflict?
Esse ntia l ism a nd the confli ct thesis go hand in hand . By trea ting sc ience a nd
re lig ion as uncha nging unive rsa l concepts, it is easy to then look for the one
s ing le re la ti onship that best d esc ribes how they interact. For the las t 150 years,
the conflic t th es is h as been th e m os t popu lar way of character izing the re la-
tions hip . The qu es tion is, how did thi s charac te ri za tion co me about? If the
hi s to rica l ev id en ce clear ly d e monstrates th a t sc ie nce a nd re li g ion are con-
s tru cted categories-which cha nge over time and do not adequate ly ca pture
the ways of thinking that the his torica l acto rs used-a nd if confli ct is m ore
myth than fac t, why have essentia lis m and claims of confli ct been so persis tent?
The hort answe r is that a ll of these things aro e out of a strain of thought in
the nineteenth century that ca ptured a few sa li ent fea tures that made re li gion
a nd sc ie nce conven ie nt conce pts for ta lkin g about the social and inte llectual
upheavals taking pl ace a t th e time.
Two transfo rmations w e re particularly jarring for many peopl e living
throug h the nine teenth century. Firs t, scie ntists began to see themselves a a
dis tinct group- the very te rm 'sc ien tis t' was coined in the middle of the nine-
teenth century-a nd this new socia l identity was accompa nied by a shift in
m thodo logy. Over the century, m en and women of science cam e to accept
na tura lism as a corne rs tone of their methodology and th ir vocabulary; that is,
they ceased to accep t supernatural expla na tions as valid within their scientific
work and eventu all y ceased to use theological la ng uage a t a ll. Talk about God
no longer had a place in the sc ientific lite rature. That shift from a theologica lly
or iented stud y of nature to a naturalistic one marks a key turning point in the
d evelopm ent of science. By the twentieth century, this shift was nearly com-
ple te: a scientis t's profess ional work cam e to be e ntirely separated from hi or
her ow n private religious beliefs (Numbers 2003; Roberts 2011). The second
major cha nge wa s tha t religion progressively became the private concern of
the i11dividual- not just for scientists but for society as a w h o le. Sociologist
have id entified a number of ca uses of this change, ranging from religious di-
versity to urbanization to increased mobility, but the result wa that public in-
s titutions became increasing ly secularized a nd separated from direct religiou s
 ---
10 Co 11fl ict or Co111plexity7
influence, a nd the overa ll influe nce o f re li g ion o n socie ty d eclined (Bruce 1992).
Bo th fac to r ·, the na tu ra li z in g o f the la ng uage of sc ie nce and the pri va ti zing of
reli g io us be lief, enco u raged peo pl e to think a bo ut sc ie nce a nd re li g io n as dif-
fe ren t and as se pa ra te s ph eres, a nd so me people bega n to promote the id ea of
a n a ll -o ut wa r betwee n th em.
The two most impo rta nt propaga ndi s ts who a rc w id ely rega rd ed as the
a rchite ts o f the confli ct th es is we re me n in tha t la tte r ca mp : th e Ame rica n
scho la rs John Willi a m Dra pe r (1811 -82) a nd Andre w D ickson White (1 832-
1918) . Drape r publi shed hi s J-Jistory of //1e Conflict /Jetween Religion nnd Science
in 1874, and White gave a lec ture o n "The Ba ttle- Field s of Sc ien ce" in 1869 a nd
eventu a ll y prod uced A J-Jislory of t/, e Wnrfnre of Science wit!, Theology in Chris-
lendo111 by the end of the century. N e ithe r o f these m e n w as a n a theis t, a nd
neither be li eved th a t re li g io n w a by its na ture ha rmfu l. Dra pe r w as a tra ined
· ientist and sta un hl y a nti - a th o li c. It w as hi s a nimos ity to Catho li cism ra the r
than to re li g ion as a w ho le th a t dro ve hi s agend a . ln pa rt, h e wa s writing in
respon • to so me of the d e la ra tio ns o f the Firs t Va ti can Counc i I (-1868-70); the
do trin o f pa pa l in fa llibility he fo und espec ia ll y inimical to m odern th o ug ht.
Like Draper, White wa nted to a ttac k wha t he fo und to be reac tionary id eas
within the Ame rica n re li g io us co mmunity. Hi s ea rlies t w o rk o n the s ubjec t
was written in th firs t few yea rs o f hi s pres id e ncy o f Corne ll Un ive rsity, one
of the fi rst non- sc ta ri a n co ll eges in the United Sta tes . White w as provoked
by hri sti a n a po log i ts w ho fou g ht aga ins t the secularity of Corn e ll , and he
clai m d tha t thi s fi g ht w ith conse rva ti ve hri s ti a ns prompted him to write his
atta k o n hri sti an theology. Altho ug h neithe r Dra pe r no r White w as opposed
lo a ll a pc ts o f r li g io n, the ir s ta te m ents were quite broad and cou ld be inte r-
pr •ted in tha t way: " Re li g ion mus t re lin quis h tha t impe ri o us, th a t domineer-
ing positi on w hich h • has so lo ng m a inta ined aga ins t Scie nce," wrote Dra pe r.
"Th r' mu ·t be abso lut • freed o m fo r tho ug ht. The eccl esias ti c must learn to
k' P h im •If w ithin the do ma in h has chosen, a nd cea to ty ra nni ze ove r the
ph ilosopli>r" (Dra per 1875, 367).
Orap •r's and White's boo ks w e1·e widely rea d a nd trans la ted into othe r
languag •~. hey w •re so n jo ined by co ll eagues in bo th the United Sta t s and
1:ngland w ho a lso advo a ted th confli t thes i . dwa rd L. Yo um a ns (1 821-
87), Am •ri , 's fo r mo ·t publi he r o f po pul ar scie nce, e ncouraged bo th m e n .
oumn n~ us 'd hi s pub Ii ·hin g •nte rpri se, s pec ia ll y the pages of the wide ly
r •ad Pop11lnr Scie11ce Monthly, to prom o te the confli t na rra tive. There we re also
'> 'V•ra l British p hil osop h rs a nd s i nti ts kno wn for the ir agg r s ive ly a nti -
Scie 11ce nnd Religion 11
hri s ti a n a nd ag nos ti c v iew po ints who a lso contributed to the agend a: H e r-
be rt Spe nce r (1820- 1903), T ho m as H enry Hu xley ('1825 - 95), a nd Jo h11 Tynda ll
( 1820- 93) a ll e mpl oyed the confli ct m y th to a ttac k the Angli ca n edu ca tio na l
cs t.:i blis hme n t in Eng la nd . Like Wh ite and Dra pe r, these me n ha d a n age nd a-
na m c ly, the sec u lari za ti o n o f Brita in 's lea din g sc ientifi c ins titutions in o rd e r to
ope n the m to no n-A ng li ca ns.
Elsewh ere in Eu ro pe, the confli ct thesis in o ne form o r a no ther found s up-
po rte rs a nd se rved va ri o us po litica l a nd soc ial a ims. Tn la te-nine teenth-century
Ita ly, fo r ins tan ce, during th e tra nsition o f the city o f Ro me fro m its s ta tus as
ca p ita l o f the Pa pa l Sta tes to tha t of a unite d Ita ly, city o ffi cials built a publi c
m o num e nt publi cizin g Ga lil eo's impri sonme nt. Wha t be tte r way to e mba rrass
th e Va ti ca n a nd asse rt th e ir ind e pe nd e nce? The prom o ti o n o f the confli ct thes is
in Germ a ny w as led by the sc ienti st Erns t H aec ke l (1834- 1919), w ho popu lar-
ized a radi ca l reli g io us outl oo k ca ll.ed ' mo nism,' which contrad icted traditi onal
th eo logy a t a lm os t eve ry turn . By us ing the m y th o f confli ct, H aecke l soug ht
to ra dica li ze Ge rm a n me ta ph ys ics a nd th eol ogy. Th e co nflict thesis p ro ved to
be useful in a ll these effo rts .
Jn the seco nd ha lf o f the tw e nti e th century, the conflict thesis ga ined new
w ind in the Un ited Sta tes as p a rt o f a cu ltu re w a r be tween re ligio us conserva-
ti ves and libe rals who ba ttled over public-schoo l scienc curri cula . A s tring o f
judicia l d ec is io ns s ta rting in the la te 1940s cha nged the w ay tha t r li g ion wa
trea ted w ith in Ame ri can publi c ins tituti o ns, espec ia ll y in pub li c sc hoo ls, a nd
p rog ress ives wh o ad voca ted for a ne utra l public s phe re won ea e a fte r case.
Lo ng-sta ndin g prac tices s uch as Bib le rea d in g a nd schoo l praye r were rejec ted.
In thi s contex t, seve ra l landm ark cases in volv ing the teaching o f evo luti o n and
so m e vers io n o f crea ti o nism o r ln te lli gent Des ig n w e re tri ed in th e co urt .
Pa rti san s o n bo th sid es of the iss ue embraced the confli ct-based his to ry to
bo ls te r the ir ca use.
Dra pe r a nd White have a lso been influenti a l o utsid e the Wes t w he re the
confli c t thes is has played a very diffe re nt ro le. N o n-C hris ti a ns ha ve looked a t
w ha t th e Wes te rn writers have said about the confl ict of relig ion and sc ience
a nd ass umed it to be a pro v inc ia l d is pute, a prob lem th a t Westerne rs hav
ha d with hris tia nity that did no t a ffect o th e r re li g ious traditio ns . in As ia a nd
th e Midd le Eas t, non -C hris tia ns w ere a b le to use the confli ct th es is to d e mo n-
s tra te th e s uperi o rity of the.ir o wn tradition by s ugges ting that it w as more
e nlig hten ed a nd more tole ra nt of mod e rn science than Christi ani ty w as. When
Dra pe r 's book m ad e its way to the lslamic world, for example, Muslims w e re
 -
12 Co11flict or Co111p!exity ?
p leased because even Dra per him se lf asserted that Is lam was m o re e nlight-
ened than Rom a n Ca tholi cis m. The sa me is tru e in As ia, w here Buddhis ts in.
hina a nd Japa n cla imed th a t th e ir traditions were co mpatibl e w ith sc ience
in ways tha t C hristiani ty was not.
The o nflict na rra ti ve appea ls espec ia ll y to peop le who wa nt to s how tha t
science is triumpha nt ove r rel ig io n. Not s urpri s ing ly, certain apo logists for
religio n ha ve turned the confli ct narrative o n its hea d and e m braced a ha r-
mony mode l that is just as essenti a li s t as the confli ct hi s to ri es, re ify ing scie nce
and reli g ion in unive rsa l te rms . Advocates of m a inta inin g harmony cla irn tha t
reli g ious be li ef has been ins trume nta l in the growth of Wes tern sc ience. Two
writer in particu la r, Re ije r Hooy kaas (1906-94) a nd Stan ley Jak i (1924-2009),
have adopted thi s s tan ce. Hooykaas's Religion a11d t/1e Rise of Modern Scie11ce
(1972) a rg ues that in several respec ts C hri s ti a nity and es pec ia ll y Ca lvini sm
provided theologica l fo und a ti o ns for th e s tud y of na ture. Jak i's Science nnd
Creatio11 (1974) offers a imilar a rg um e nt from the Roman Ca tholi c persp ec-
tive, cla iming that the influence of Judeo- hris tian re ligion was the reason that
i n e flouris hed in th e Wes t a nd now he re e lse. More rece ntl y, a few sc ientists
and social s ienti sts have adopted s imil ar ha rm o ny m odels; o ne of th em , the
o iologist Rodney Stark (b. 1934), ha s produced books tha t arg ue for the insep-
arabi lity of hri ti a nity a nd the ri e of ea rly mod e rn sc ience. T hese harmo ny
advoc. te , too, have been criti cized by hi s torians for essentiali z in g re lig io n and
ien e (Wi lson 20 2).
Final ly, a third popu la r way of thinking abo ut science a nd re li g ion tha t also
runs into prob le ms is the separat - p he res m ode l. Thi s way of d escribing the
r lations hip sees scienc a nd re li g ion as stri ctly diffe rent kinds of ac ti v iti es
with different goa ls, m thod s, a nd outlooks. This idea has been embraced by
many i ntists a nd r li g io ni sts throughout much of the twenti e th century. It
was populariz d by the pa leontolog ist tephen Jay ou ld (1941 - 2002) in hi
b ok /fo k of Ages: cie11ce and Religio11 i11 the F11/lness of Life (1999), in w hi ch he
ou tlin ' S his v iew of cience a nd re li g io n as " non-ove rlapping magi ste ri a," o r
NOMA for sho rt. In th book he a rg ue that as lo ng as re li g io n keeps to the
ar 'na of mora lity and ethi cs a nd s ien e keep to th a rena of adjudicating
fa ts about the natural world, there ca n be no confli ct. Each e nterprise has it
prop r rol in so iety. A a way of apturing how m a n y conte mpora ries tJ1jnk
about'> i n e and religion, NOMA a ptl y d escribes a w id ely h e ld point of v iew.
A lot of pcop l ' think that the two pra tices sho11/d behave in this way. H ow-
•vcr, a:, a tarting point for his torica l ana lysis, it fai ls jus t a the confl ict and
Scie11ce nll(f Re!igio11 13
ha rmony mod e ls d o, by presenting essenti a li st definitions of sc ie nce a nd re li -
g ion th a t get in the way of und e rs tanding how peop le have ac tua ll y behaved.
The Scholarly Response: Embracing Complexity
As ea rl y as th e 1920s, prom ine nt sc ho lars such as E. A. Burtt (1892-1989)
a nd A lfred North Whi te head (1861-1947) w rote books tha t de mo ns trated a
m uc h m o re nu a nced inte rpre tatio n of how sc ie ntifi c and re li g io us ideas have
inte rac ted over th e ages. A parti cul arly signifi ca nt boo k, Scie11 ce, Technology,
nnd Society i11 Seve11teenth-Ce11t11ry £11glnnd (1938) by the soc io logis t Robe rt K.
M e rto n (1910-2003), pos its th a t Puritanism , far from be ing a n obstacle to sc i-
e ntific advance, was ac tua lly the primary reason for its s uccess in ea rl y mod-
e rn England . Unlike the advoca tes of a n essentialist h armo ny thesis, Me rto n
co nfines hi s arg um e nt to the s pecifi c conditi o ns of Puritanis m in Eng la nd
du rin g the ea r ly m odern per iod: h e id entifi es several aspec ts of the Puritan
ethos th a t mad e the m more e ngaged i11 the s tud y of nature, aspec ts that in-
c lu ded utilita ri a ni s m, rationa li s m, a nd the g lorifica ti o n of God. By the late
1950s, a hos t of his toria ns were ex p lo ring ways in w hich re li gio us beli efs a nd
behav io r were integ ral to the d evelopm ent of modern sc ie ntific unde rs tand-
in g, a nd several books dea ling w ith the sc ie ntific revolution illu stra te thi ex-
p lor a tion: T homas Kuhn's T!,e Cope micn11 Revo/11tion (1957), A lexandre Koyr '
Fron, the Closed World to the !11finite U11 iverse (1957), and Richa rd Wes tfall 's Sci-
e11ce n11d Religion in Seventeenth-Century Engln11d (1958) . As these works s how,
m ajo r figures i11 the ri se of scie nce, s uch as Jo hannes Keple r (1571-1630), fsaac
New ton (1642-1727), Rene Descar tes (1596-1650), Robert Boy le (1627-91), and
Go ttfried Wilhe lm Leibni z (1646-1716), drew no s harp boundaries be tween
the natural a nd the theologica l work tha t they e ngaged in. Philo ophi ca l qu es-
ti o ns in on e area easily impli ed q ues tio ns in the otJ1er.
A wa ters h d in the hi storiography of sc ie nce and re li gion a ppeared w h n
hi torians bega n to take seri ou ly the m e th odo logical pre criptio ns of a theo-
retica l approac h to sc ie nce ca ll d social cons tructio ni s m . Amo ng historians
o f sc ie nce, soc ia l cons tru ctioni m took h o ld after the publi ca ti o n of Thomas
Kuhn's pathbrea king book, The Structure of Scie11tific Revo f11tio11s (1962). In tha t
work, Kulm (1922-96) argued tha t the fund a menta l cha nges in scientific theo-
ries occurred th ro ugh ges ta lt shifts in the way tha t communities of scienti sts
pe rce ived centra l probl e m s of th ir field. By exp la ining theoretical transforma-
ti on s in terms of socia l and psycho logica l factors, Kuhn dee mphas ized the ro le
 Conflict or Co111plexity ?
o f ra ti ona l tho ught in sc ie ntific kn ow led ge. Thi s w <1y o f d esc ribing sc ien ce rat,
counter to mos t preva iling concep ti o ns o f th e sc ie nti fic m e th o d <1 s a utonO,
mo us fro m the soc ia l rea lm . O ne line o f soc io logy, term ed the 's trong pro,
gra mm e,' pu shed thi s mod e o f thinkin g to its limits by <1 rg uin g th a t in o rd e(
lo und e r tand how sc ientific kn ow led ge d e ve lo ps, w e mu s t trea t acce pted
know ledge and rejected kn ow led ge sy mme tri ca ll y. Jn o the r w ord s, we need tt1
be agnostic to w he th e r a cie ntifi c id ea in th e pas t w <1s ri g ht o r w ro ng acco rd ,
ing to o ur p rese nt scientifi c s ta nd a rd s.
o ia l on tru cti o nis m w as o ne o f a numbe r o f m o ve m e nts in the acad e111 y
d uring the J97os a nd J98os (in fi e ld s ra ng ing fro m lite rar y th eory to anthro-
pology) th a t arg ued aga ins t the p riv il eg ing o f scie ntific kn o wl ed ge. His to ri an~
of s icn c w ho embraced socia l con s tru cti o ni s m c la imed tha t o ve re mph asiz-
ing ra ti o na li sm di sto rted hi s to ri ca l ca usa lity wh e n s tud yin g the w<1 y th a t sci-
cn e worked in prac ti ce. We ca nn o t jus t ass um e tha t the bes t mind s a t any ti111 ~
or pla c w ill na tura ll y g rav ita te to sc ientific id eas th a t w e now be li e ve to b~
o rr et, they sa id ; soc ia l a nd cultura l influ e nces pl ay jus t as mu ch o f a role, if
not mo re, in g uiding th e way peo pl e think abo ut scie nce. By d e- privil eg in~
ra ti onality, sc ie n e is ex posed as a hum an e nte rpri se a t th e nex us of ma ny
forces- soc ia l, inte ll ectu a l, a nd psycho logica l.
In th • hi storiograp hy o f sc ie nce a nd re li g io n, Ma rtin Rud wi ck's 1981 a rticl ~
d serves spec ia l me nti o n. In it, he a d voca tes us in g the prin cip le o f sy mme try
as n way to avoid triumph a li st hi s to ri es of scie nce in whi ch re li g ion is alwa ys
s 11 as th irra ti o na l o p ponent o f cl ea rhea d ed thinking. Rud wi c k a rg ues tha t
su h tri um p ha li t ac o unts o f scie nce a re inhe re ntl y bad his to ry beca use they
tr>a l s i ' 11 'a nd re li g io n 'asy mm tri ca ll y.' To und ers tand the pas t prope rl y,
Rudw i k ays th a t we mu s t no t pri v il ege o ne ove r the o th e r. S ie nce, li ke re-
ligion, has to be tr a ted as a produ ct o f socia l for cs (Rud w ick 198 -i ; Weld on
2 <xi 2 ). John Brooke and o ffrey Ca nto r 's essay " Whose Scie nce? Whose Re li-
gion?" in thei r book l~eco11stmcting Nn /u re fo ll ows a s imila r lin e o f a rg um e nt.
Th 'Y argue fo r nonju dg menta l a nd no n pa rti sa n acco unts o f hi s tory a nd urge
hiSLorians lo w rite fr m a n impa rti a l und e rs ta nding o f a ll po ints of view
(Brook, and an Lo r 1 9s).
The hi-,Lo ri a l work th a t o mes o ut o f thi w ay of thinking presents a mu ch
more nuan d p i lure of the pas t. ft ees th e hi s to ri ca l ac to rs nego ti a tin g
among b •Ii •f sy ' Lem<, a nd ev id en cla im s tha t o m e fro m many diffe rent
'>our 'S witho ut as u min g tha t th a to rs w ill (o r s ho uld) no tice the dis tin -
lion!> Lhal m de m r •ade rs do. Whe n stud yin g to pi cs s uch as the o ri g in of the
Science n11d Religion
mec hani ca l phil osophy o r Robe rt Boy le's (1627- 9·1) concepti o n o f sc ie nce, fo r
ins ta nce, scho l<1 rs h <1ve s how n th a t it is no t !ea r whe re re li g io n o r ir ra ti o na l-
ism e nds and 'p ure sc ie nce' begins, no r s hou ld it ma tter to a nyo ne who w a nts
to u nd e rs ta nd w ha t the peo pl e o f tha t time ac tua ll y tho ug ht. A no the r a rea in
w hi c h soc ia l co ns tru c tioni s m has y ie ld ed fruitful results is in the hi s tory o f
Ch ri s ti an c rea ti o nis m . C rea ti o ni s ts h ave p resen ted the ir theo ri es a t tim es as
cl sc ie nce a nd flt o the r times <IS a re li g io us pos itio n a nd have a rg ued fo r their
v iews us in g bo th p hys ica l a nd bibli ca l ev ide nce. Re fe rring to Rudw ick's a rti -
c le, th e hi s to ri a n Ron a ld N umbe rs imp li c itl y uses soc ia l constructi o ni s m to
jus tify a n even-ha nded , unbi ased trea tm e nt o f crea ti o ni s t id eas, calling fo r th e
need to s tud y th e m w ith the sa me se rio usness a nd ri gor as o the r hi sto ri a ns o f
sc ie nce have exa mined the v iews o f evo luti o ni s ts (Numbe rs 2006).
By th e ·1980s a nd ea rl y 1990s, his to ri a ns bega n d evelo pin g a var ie ty o f so-
p hi s ti ca ted hi s to ri ogra phi ca I a rg um e nts, a nd m a ny ca re ful hi storica l case s tud -
ies in volving sc ie nce a nd re li g io n e m e rged . Two boo ks fro m thi s p e ri od are
ofte n ha il ed as fo unda ti ons o f a new s tra in of hi sto riogra phy tha t ex plicitly
rejc ts th e essenti a li s t a nd co nfli t-orie nted hi s to ri es: Dav id C. Lindbe rg and
Ro na ld L. Numbe rs's edited vo lum e Cod n11d Nn lure: His toricnl Essnys 011 the
Cnco u11fer between hristin11ity n11rl Science (1985) a nd John H edl ey Broo ke's Sci-
ence n11d Religion: So111e Historicnl Perspectives (1991). These two vo lumes bro ug ht
toge ther scho la rs wo rking o n va ri o us peri od s a nd s tu dy ing di verse re li g io us
background s a nd sc ie ntifi c di sc iplines. Their go<1 l was to p rov id e histo rica l
ea c s tudi es th a t wo uld contradict the still-po pul ar triumpha li st na rra ti ves. The
de ta il ed essays in God nnd Nn tu re a nd the w id e- ra ng ing cha pte rs in Broo ke's
book po int to a vast lan dsca pe th at canno t be ca ptured in a ny s ing le mas te r
na rra ti ve. Ma ny w rite rs credit Broo ke w ith s uppl a nting the confli ct m od e l
w ith a 'co mpl ex ity' mod e l in which w e avo id ma king g ra nd cl a im s a nd s ti ck
to loca l case s tud ies an d illumina te the di ve rsity a nd co mpl ex ity o f his to rica l
events.
In the twenty- fi ve yea rs th a t have passed sin e Brooke's Science n11d Religion
was publis hed , thi s fi e ld o f s tud y continues to fl o urish . ln the Isis Current Bib-
liog raphy of the T-listory of Science, the re have been o n ave rage 150 cita tio ns a n-
nua ll y re la ted to re li gio n in so me as pec t, abo ut fifty of whi ch a rc boo ks. Clea rl y
th ' s ubject re m a ins inte res ting and engaging. Pa rt o f the reaso n fo r this inter-
est, o f co urse, is th a t th e to pi c a reas have o nl y ex panded a hi stori an s have
beco m e m o re a w a re o f th e need to e nla rge the ir d e finiti o ns o f bo th re lig ion
and s ience. T hu s, to pi cs tha t we re ove rloo ked in the pas t have beco me pa rt
16 Co nflict or Co111plexily 7
of the story : the ro le of mi ss io naries in th e promotion of sc ie nce; the ways i\1
which occulti sm, witchcraft, and o ther so-ca lled pse ud osc ien ces h ave fo urid
bridges be twee n na tura l and s piritua l kn owledge; the Protes ta n t (and so me
a tholi c) s uppo rt fo r e ugenics in A me rica; the a ttack o n Je wish physics it,
Nazi Germ any; the excellin g of Jews in twe nti e th-century scie nce; the s tudy of
na ture and spi ritu a li ty in non-Wes tern re li gio us trad iti on s; and the ex pl o rc\-
ti on of li bera l reli g ion, new re lig ious movem e nts, and even a theism a nd hu-
ma nism as so urces of inte rac tion be tw een sc ie ntifi c a nd re li g ious o utloo ks.
All of these to pics tes tify to a v ibrant a rea of scholar sh ip, w ithin w hi ch neY\/
theo reti ca l and hi sto riogra phi ca l m od e ls a re d e ve lopin g . In 1966 Ja n Barbour 's
Iss ues i11 Science a11d Religion ide ntified four ca tego ri es o f possibl e i11tera ctiol1
be tween science and re li g ion : confli ct, integra ti o n, ind e p e nden ce, and di a-
logue. Hi s ri g id a tego ri es look o utd a ted today. Ra th e r tha n attemp ting to
pi geonhole the science- re li gio n inte ra cti on into a fe w simple ca tegories, the
goa l of recent works is to be much more sens itive to the kind s o f nua nces tha t
ex ist. On e recent exa mp le o f h ow the n ew hi s toriog raph y h as la rgely a ban-
doned the o ld Ba rbour categories is Matthew Sta nl ey's work o n the Q ua ker
astronom r A. S. Eddin g to n (1882- 1944) . ln Practical Mystic: Religion, Science,
n11d A. S. Eddington (2007), Sta nl ey conte nd s tha t th e scie ntific a11d reli g io u
elements tha t influ en ed ddington 's li fe w er dee ply integ ra ted in a ll as pects
o f hi s scientific a nd socia l wo rk. [n p laces w here Edd in g to n 's thinking as an
astro nomer con ve rged w ith va lues from hi s Quake r upbring i11g, Sta nley fo und
that th ey reinforced ea h o the r, so tha t Edd in g ton's e fforts to re integra te Ger-
man cienti sts into the inte rna ti o na l scien tifi c co mmun ity a fter World Wa r I
drew on hi s thinking in both a reas.
In the end , the di ve rs ity of me thod s a nd stori es in the era of 'com p lex ity'
th r ate ns to make it impossible to disc us the big picture. A lth o ug h thi s is a
poten ti a l prob l m, a g la n ea t the litera ture in recent years s ugges ts tha t the
la rg r th •mes do sti ll ma nifest the m e lves. His torians re m a in eag r to think
la rg ', but in way th a t d no t mi srepresent the loca l and his torica l catego ries.
Th' di t •d volum e Science n11d Religion Around the World (Brooke and Numbers
20 11) xe mplifie · thi s effo rt by trea tin g th e mes w ithin e nti re re li gious tradi -
ti on:,, lhc r by looking for synthe tic und erstanding tha t bridges the m a ny loca l
hi:,to ri '!:>. Ev n as histor ians ar beco mi11g m ore ca refu l abo ut th e vocab ulary
< nd on cp ts they LI '> , they rem a in open to finding ways to talk a bo ut w h a t
we broadly and im pr ci ely ca ll ' the history of sc ience and re ligio n .'
Science and Religion
B I BLIO G RAPHY
A ttrid ge, Ha ro ld W., ed. Th e Religio11 nnd Scie 11ce Debnte: Wl1y Does It Co11 ti11ue? Ne w
Have n: Ya le Uni ve rs ity Press, 2009.
Ba rbo ur, Ia n G . Iss ues i11 Scie11ce n11d /~eli:,; io11 . Eng lewood C liffs, N .J .: Prenti ce- Ha ll , 1966.
Brooke, Joh11 Hed ley. Scie11ce n11d Religio11 : So111e Historicnl Perspectives. Ca mbrid ge: Ca m-
brid ge Univ e rs ity Press, 1991.
Brooke, John Hed ley, and Geo ffrey Ca nto r. Reco nstructi11g Na tu re: Till' E11gngen1e11t of
Science nnd Religion. G lasgo w G iffo rd Lectures. Ed in burgh: T & T Clark, ·1998.
Broo ke, Jo h n Hed ley, a nd Ro na ld L. Numbe rs, ed s. Science n11d Religion nro11nd the World .
Oxford : Oxfo rd Un ive rs ity Press, 201 :i.
Broo ke, Jo hn Hed ley, Ma rga re t J. Osler, a nd Jitse M. va n d er Mee r, ed s. Science in Th e-
istic Contexts: Cog nitive Din1e11 sio11s. Osiri s 16. C hi cago: Uni ve rs ity o f Chi cago Press,
2001.
Br uce, Steve, ed . Religion n11d Modemizn tion: Sociologists nnd Historians Debnte the Sew lnr-
izntio11 Thesis. Oxfo rd : C la rend on Press, 1992.
C ha dwi ck, Owe n. The Sew lnrizntion of tl1e Europen n Mind in the Nineteenth Century. The
G ifford Lec tu res in th e Uni ve rsity o f Edinburg h fo r 1973-4. a mbrid ge a nd New
York: Ca mbri dge Unive rs ity Press, 1975.
Dixo n, Thomas, Step hen Pu mfrey, and Geo ffrey Ca nto r, ed s. Science and Re/1~,;:ion: New
1-Jistoricn l Perspectives . Ca mbrid ge a nd New York: Ca mbrid ge Uni ve rsity Press, 2010.
Drape r, John Willia m. History of the Co11f!ict between Religion nnd Science. London : H enry S.
King, 1875 .
Fe rn g re n, Ga ry 13., general ed . The History of Scie11ce n11d Religion in the Western Tradition:
An Encyclopedin. New York a11d Lo nd on : Ga r land, 2000 .
Finocc hi aro, Ma uri ce A. "My th 8. Tha t Ga lileo Was Impriso ned and Tortured fo r Advo-
ca tin g Co pe rni ca nism ." ln Galileo Goes to ]nil: And Other Mytl1s nbout Scie11ce nnd Reli-
gio11 , ed . Ron a ld L Numbe rs. Ca mbrid ge, Mass.: H a rvard Unive rsity Press, 2009,
69- 78.
G ibe rso n, Ka rl W., a nd Do na ld A. Ye rxa. Species of Origins: A 111erica's Senrchfora Crentio11
Story. New York: Ro wm a n a nd Littl e fie ld, 2002.
Go ul d , Ste phen Jay. Rocks of Ages: Scie11ce and Religion in the Fullness of Life. N ew Yo rk:
Ba ll a ntin e, 1999.
H a rdin, Je ffrey D., Rona ld L. Numbe rs, a nd Rona ld A. Binzley, ed s. "Th e Iden Thnt
Wouldn 't Die": Th e Wnrfa re between Science a11d Religion. Ba ltim o re: Joh11s Hopkins
Un ive rs ity Press, fo rthcoming.
H arrison, Pete r. "'Science' a11d 'Religion ': Cons tru cting th e Bo undari es." joumnl of Re-
ligion 86, no. 1 (2006): 81 - 106.
- - -. The Territories of Science and Reiigion. C hi cago: Uni ve rs ity o f C hicago Press, 2015.
H a rri so n, Pete r, Ro na ld L. Numbers, and Michael H . Sha nk, ed s. Wrestli11g with Nature:
Fro m Omens to Science. Chicago: Uni vers ity o f C hicago Press, 2011 .
H ooy kaa s, Re ijer. Religion nnd the Rise of Modem Science. Edinburgh : Scottish Academic
P ress, 1972.
 Co11flicl or Co111plcxity 7 Scieucc and Religion

Sh a piro, Adam R. Ti'yi11g Biology: TIii' Scol'cs Trial, Textbooks , and /li e A11lievo/11tio11 Movc-
Jak i, Stanley L. Scie11cc n11d Cren lion: Fro111 Elemal Cycles tu a11 Osei/la ling Universe. N ew
111c11t in A 111erica11 Sclwols. C hi cago: University o f C hi cago Press, 20·13.
Yo rk : Science History Pub lica tions, 1974.
Sta n ley, M att hew. Praclicn / My~lic: l<eligio11, Scie11ce, a11d /\. S. Eddi11g to11. Illustrated edi -
Jorin k, Eri c. R!'nrling t/,e Book uf Na /11re in llw O11/ c/, Coldrn Age, 1575- 1 7 15 . Leid en and
tion . C hicago: University of Chi cago Press, 2007.
Boston: Brill , 20 10.
- - -. 1-/u xley 's Church n11d Maxwell 's Oe111011: Fro111 Th eislic Scie11ce to Nnl 11 rnlislic Scie11ce.
Koyrc, A lexa ndre. Frolll //1(' Closed World to //, e lnfinde Universe. Ba l timore: Jo hns Hop-
C hi cago : Universi ty of C h icago Press, 20 15.
kin s Press, 1957.
Tc.ium ey, C hri stoph er P. Cod's Ow11 Scic11/isls: Crentio11isls i11 n Secular World. N ew Bru ns-
Kuhn , Thomas S. Tl,e opemicn n /~evo/11/ion: Planl'lary /\ slrono111y i11 //, e Oevcloplllenl of
wick, N.J.: Ru tgers Universi ty Press, 1994.
Wes /em T/1011gl1/ . Ca mbrid ge: H ar va rd Un ivers ity Press, 1957.
Turn e r, Frank M. " T he Vi ctor ian Confl ict between Science ,rnd Re lig ion : A Professio nal
- - - . The Slm cture of Scientific Rcvolulions. C hi cago: U ni versi ty of C hi cago Press,
D im en sio n ." Isis 69 (·1978): 356- 76.
·1962.
We ld o n , Stephen P. "The Socia l Con stru cti on of Science ." In Scie11ce n11d l~eligio11: A lclis-
Larson, Edwa rd J. S11111111er for t/1e Cods: T/1e Sco pes Trial and /\111ericn 's Conti1111ing Oe/.Jale
/oricnl 111/ rod11clio11 , ed. Ga ry B. Fern g ren. Ba lti more: Joh ns Hopkins Un i ve rsi ty Press,
over Scie11ce and Religio11 . Ca mbridge, Mass.: Harva rd Un ive rsi ty Press, 1997.
2002, 374- 80.
Lindberg, David ., and Ronald L. N umbers, ed s. Cod and Nnl11rc: J-listoricnl Essays 011
Westfa ll , Ri chard S. Scie11ce a11d Rcligio11 in Seve11l em t/1-Cc11/11ry E11gln11rl. New Haven:
//, e [ 11co11n/er be/wren C/1rislin11ily and Science. Berkeley and Los A nge les: University
Ya le U ni ve rsity Press, ·1958.
of aliforni a Press, 1986.
W i Ison , Da v id B. " Th e Hi stor iography of Sci ence and Relig ion ." In Scie11ce n11d Religio11:
- - - . When Science a11rl C/1rislia11ily M ee/. C h icago: Universi ty o f hi cago Press, 2003.
A Historical /11/-rod11ctio11 , ed. Gary B. Ferngren. Balti more: Jo hns H opkin s Un i vers ity
M ;:i suzawa, Tomoko. The l11venlion of World /~eligions; or, How E11ropean Universalis111 Wa s
Press, 2002, ·13- 29.
Preserver/ i11 //, e Language of /J/11rnlis111. C hj cago: University of C hicago Press, 2005 .
W il son, D avid Sloa n . "On th e Im p ortan ce of Eliminating Science and Relig ion from th e
Merton, Robert Kin g. Science, Technology, and Society in Seventeen//1-Ce11t11ry E11gla11d .
Bruges, Belg ium: Sa int ath erin e Press, 1938.
H isto ry of Scien ce and Reli g i o n: T he Cases of O li ve r Lod ge, J. H . Jea ns, and A. S.
Edding to n ." In Facets of Faith n11d Scie11cc, ed. Jitse M. van der M eer. Lan ham , Md .:
Moore, Jam es. T/1e Posl-Onnuinia11 Co ntroversies: A Study of I.he Protesta11/ Slmggle to Collie
Pa sca l Centre for Adv anced Studi es in Fa ith and Science, 1996, 27- 47.
lo Tcrllls will, Onrwi11 i11 Gren/ Brilnin a11d A111ericn, 1870- ·1900. Cambrid ge: Ca mbrid ge
U ni v rsi ty Press, 1981.
- - - . "Relig ion and Science." Jn The Cambridge History of Science, vo l. 6, ed. Peter J.
Bowler and John V. Pi ckstone. Ca mbridge: ambrid ge U n iversity Press, 2009, 539-62.
umbers, Ronald L. "Science without Cod: Natural Law s and C hristi an Beliefs." In
W'1e11 Scie11ce n11d hrislin11ily M ee/, ed . Ronald L. Numbers and David C. Lindberg,
265 8 . hi ago: University o f C hi cago Press, 2003.
- - - . Tlw Cren lio11 isls: Fro111 Scie11lific Crealio11is111 lo lnlellig('ll/ Design. C ambri dge,
M ass.: 1l arva rd University Press, 2006.
- - - , ed . Cnli/eo Goes lo }nil: /\11d O1/ter Mylh s about Scie11ce and l<elig io11. ambridge,
Mass.: 1 larva rd Uni ve rsity Pr ss, 2009.
Peten,on, Derek R., and Darren R. Walh of, ed s. Th e /11ve11/io11 of Religion: l~elhi11ki11g Belil'j
111 Polilic~ a11d I lislory. New Brun sw i k, N .J.: Rutgers Un i versity Press, 2002.
Rob •rls, Jon • On rt u1111s111
. . · n11 rl II 1e l 1·v 111e
· 111· A 111ericn:
· .
Prol es tn11 / l11/el/ectL1nls 1111d Orga111c
Cvoh1lio11 , 1859- 1900. M ad ison : University o f Wi sconsin Press, 1988.
" ien ' and Relig ion ." In Wreslling w ith Nn /11 re: Frol/1 O111e11s lo Science, ed.
Pet('r l l arrison l al. hi ago: Un i versity o f hi cago Press, 2011, 253- 79.
Ruclwi k, Marlin . " nses o f th e Natura l Wo rld and enses o f God: Anoth er Look at the
I Vi stori al Relati on of Science and Reli gion." In Th e Sciences and Theology i11 the Twe11-
lie//, e11/11ry, ed . A . R. Pea ocke. Notre D am e, Ind .: U niversity of Notre Da m e Press,
1981 , 2,p 61.
Ru ss •II , Rob •rt Jo hn, ed. J'if!y Years i11 Science n11d Religion: Inn C. Bar/.Jollr a11d His Legacy.
Farnham , Eng.: /\ shgate, 2004 .