Myths, Myths, Everywhere

This chapter debunks a series of myths about science and religion. These include the idea that Giordano Bruno and then Galileo Galilei were martyrs of modern science; that Copernicanism was unilaterally opposed by the Church; that Christianity sets faith against evidence; that reason has played no part in Christian thinking over its history; that true science is only ever cold, detached, and rational; that thinkers must pick a side in the war between “science” and “religion.” Modern examples of all of these myths are given, ranging from academic works to bestselling novels. Each is studied in turn, and then revealed to be false. As with the other chapters, John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White are shown to be largely responsible for popularizing them in the first place.

Tales from the Gap

This chapter takes on the Dark Ages narrative—the prevalent idea that the Western world (at least) was plunged into a thousand years of intellectual sleep by the onset of Christianity. Examples of this storyline are taken from a variety of sources, including Petrarch, Edward Gibbon, Daniel Boorstin, and Carl Sagan. By examining the literature, the Dark Ages are shown not to be so dark after all: the years in between AD 500 and AD 1500 were full of inventive, rational, and scientific thought, much of it given its impetus and support by the Church. As the examples of such creative development mount up, the Dark Ages myth is put under increasing strain, until it buckles entirely. Once again, John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White turn out to have been very significant figures in keeping it going for as long as it has.

Agloe, and How to Get Rid of It

This chapter looks at the modern form of the conflict thesis: that people must choose a side between God and science. Polemicists such as Richard Dawkins, popularizers such as Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and novelists such as Dan Brown are all considered as proponents of this view to one extent or another, and the content of their arguments is often very reminiscent of that of John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White. By now, though, nearly all of these two men’s points have been debunked in the literature, as has the conflict thesis—so why does it still have such a strong hold? The history of its development is followed, with particular attention paid to the great historian of science George Sarton, a disciple of White. The book finishes with a call for much needed reconciliation between science and religion, and with examples of people who are working toward such a goal.

Of Popes and Unicorns

This book is a popular-level study of the conflict thesis: the notion that science and religion have been at war with each other throughout history, and that humanity must ultimately make its choice between the two. The origins of the conflict thesis are usually given as two works by nineteenth-century Americans, John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White, who wrote History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1876) and A History of the Warfare Between Science and Theology in Christendom (1896), respectively. In these volumes, Draper and White relate stories such as the Church’s suppression of the sphericity of the Earth and of heliocentrism; its banning of dissection, anesthetic, and inoculation; its persecution of scientists; its dedication to irrationality in the face of reason; and much more. Yet their thesis has been thoroughly debunked in the literature, and their tales largely found to be myths. Despite this, they still circulate today, and many still believe that we must pick a side: God or science. This book uses accessible stories and anecdotes to analyze Draper, White, their true motivations, their books, their thorough debunking, the modern persistence of their flawed views, and the possibility of moving beyond them—toward true reconciliation. It is a history of science and religion, and of how, despite the common acceptance of the contrary, the latter has actually been of great benefit to the former. Rumors of a centuries-old war between God and science, it turns out, have been greatly exaggerated.

Bridges Badly Built

This chapter unpicks the strange fact that John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White both claimed to be writing to reconcile science and religion, and yet managed to do the precise opposite—they significantly boosted the conflict thesis. What exactly were the motivations of the two men; how did they get it so wrong? By looking at their respective influences and analyzing their progressive and liberal theology, this chapter unravels the apparent contradiction. It concludes that the looseness of their pseudo-Christianity actually led to agnostics and atheists appropriating their manuscripts in a way that neither of them could have previously imagined. By attacking what they saw as backward and naïve theology, both Draper and White undermined the historical faith altogether, and made it possible for their own conflict thesis narrative to be turned against them. Their liberal Protestantism turned out to be far closer to full-blown atheism than they had ever realized.

Walnuts for Brains

This chapter debunks the common idea that the Church opposed or banned dissection, autopsies, anesthetic, and inoculation. In reality, it championed all of these. The key roles of John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White in popularizing and disseminating the false narrative are highlighted by analyzing their respective texts (History of the Conflict and A History of the Warfare), and some modern examples of the myths are also analyzed. This chapter includes a helicopter view of the history of medicine, and of attitudes within Christendom toward the subject. It concludes that the overall contribution of Christianity to medicine has been a positive one, not a negative one.

Flat Wrong

This chapter discusses the commonly held belief that Christendom denied the sphericity of the Earth and promoted a flat Earth instead. By working through both academic and popular sources, it is proved that this idea remains prevalent to this day—despite it having been decisively debunked many times. In reality, hardly any Christian writers of note (most likely, no more than two) argued for a flat Earth, and they were largely ignored. This chapter tells the story of how narratives like Columbus being warned by bishops against sailing off the edge of the world have gained such a foothold in our culture, and of what really happened instead. This is the first deep dive into the writings of John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White, both of whom pushed the flat Earth myth very strongly in their books.

Fooling the World

This chapter recounts how two nineteenth-century gentlemen, John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White, managed to fool much of the world by insisting in two landmark books that science and religion have always been opposed to one another, and that humanity must therefore make its choice between the two. Their books are History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1876) and A History of the Warfare Between Science and Theology in Christendom (1896), respectively. These texts are largely responsible for launching the conflict thesis: the now commonplace idea usually characterized as “God versus science.” And yet bizarrely, both men had intended to do precisely the opposite: they sought to reconcile their own Christian faith with science. This chapter tells the men’s stories, and asks how on earth they ended up getting things so wrong.

Science and Religion in the Anglo-American Periodical Press, 1860–1900: A Failed Reconciliation

Historians of science and religion usually trace the origins of the “conflict thesis,” the notion that science and religion have been in perennial “conflict” or “warfare,” to the historical narratives of John William Draper (1811–1882) and Andrew Dickson White (1832–1918). While Draper and White have been designated cofounders of the conflict thesis, there has been little research on how contemporaries responded to their narratives. This paper examines the early reception of these narratives by considering the extensive commentary they received in British and American periodicals from 1856 to 1900. Sampling a selection of this material suggests that while many rejected Draper and White's interpretation of the past, many others agreed with them in affirming that theological dogmatism came into conflict with the advance of human knowledge. This essay also suggests that Draper and White may have had a more nuanced position about the history of science and religion than has been contended by modern scholars. Whatever their intentions, however, their historical narratives had the unintended consequence of creating in the minds of their contemporaries and later generations the belief that science and religion have been and are at war.

A Yankee at Oxford: John William Draper at the British Association for the Advancement of Science at Oxford, 30 June 1860

This paper contributes to the revisionist historiography on the legendary encounter between Samuel Wilberforce and Thomas Henry Huxley at the 1860 meeting in Oxford of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. It discusses the contents of a series of letters written by John William Draper and his family reflecting on his experience at that meeting. The letters have recently been rediscovered and have been neither published nor examined at full length. After a preliminary discussion on the historiography of the Oxford debate, the paper discloses the contents of the letters and then assesses them in the light of other contemporary accounts. The letters offer a nuanced reinterpretation of the event that supports the growing move towards a revisionist account.