Saturday afternoon was spent in a symposium featuring Peter Harrison Professor of History and Philosophy at Bond University. Peter’s brief for the afternoon was to examine the popular myth of a historical rift between science and religion, a myth perpetuated by the writings of English philosopher Richard Dawkins. As a text we had Alister McGrath’s recent book, “Dawkins’ God”.
Peter is the author of ‘Religion’ and the Religions in the English Enlightenment (Cambridge, 1990) and The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science (Cambridge, 1998 & 2001).
He is a Research Consultant in the Department of Studies in Religion at the University of Queensland, and has been a Visiting Fellow at Oxford, Yale, and Princeton. He is a founding member of the International Society for Science and Religion and is a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities. In 2003, Prof. Harrison was awarded a Centenary Medal for ‘Service to Australian Society and the Humanities in the study of Philosophy and Religion’.
Richard Dawkins is Professor of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford. His work can be described as the rhetoric of defending science in books aimed at the intelligent general reader. His unofficial web site is maintained by John Catalano in New York. He is the author of The Selfish Gene, A Devil’s Chaplain, River Out of Eden and numerous other books.
In The Blind Watchmaker, 1988, Dawkins writes that “Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist”.
Peter dryly pointed out that many other people also made it possible!
Dawkins also said, “I’m a Darwinist because I believe the only other alternatives are Lamarckism or God…” (Source). (Lamarckism is the theory of biological evolution proposed by French biologist Lamarck that suggested acquired or diminished traits can be passed on to offspring.)
Peter remarked that Dawkins is treating God here as an explanatory principle. It’s a bit like hearing someone talk about rejecting God as a five year old. What they’ve rejected is a five year old’s perception of God. Likewise Dawkins is rejecting what he perceives to be an unhelpful human construct.
Dawkins is on record as saying “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)”.
Peter pointed to research that shows forty seven percent of people in the USA believe that the human race was created some time in the last ten thousand years. He also pointed out that 47 percent of the voting population chose George Bush. Much laughter!
Peter introduced us to the genre of popular science, in which the work of scientists is presented to the public, often in oversimplified terms. People buy it. Why? It’s a lot easier to read than material that grapples with the complexities of science.
Conflict Myth
And so we moved on to the over simplified ‘conflict myth’. Our initial texts were newspaper articles, including the Weekend Standard – November 12. “Travails of the Neo-Obscurantism”. Here’s the first paragraph:
“Time was when the Roman Catholic Church held that the earth was flat and confronted Galileo with the instruments of torture that passed for argument in that establishment. If you believe that the Dark Ages of medieval Europe have been buried by history, take a look at current activities of the neo-obscurantists in the USA.”
Three common myths are repeated in the press:
The Flat Earth approach, linked with opposition to Columbus in 1492.
The Catholic Church’s opposition to Galileo’s helicentrism in the 1610s – 1630s.
The Church’s resistance to Darwin’s theory of natural selection in the 1860s.
A committee set up in Salamanca rejected the plans of Columbus on the grounds that he had underestimated the distance from Europe to the Indies. There was no mention of a flat earth. Indeed Columbus was lucky that the Americas were where they were. Otherwise he would never have made it anywhere.
The reality is that Columbus was not living in a world that believed in a flat earth. Aristotle and Ptolemy both worked under the assumption that the Earth was a sphere. Atlas had the world on his shoulder – an orb. Byzantine artwork in the church of Ravenna Church shows the world as a globe. Medieval illustrated Bibles showed the world as a sphere. The royal orb was used a symbol of universal power.
The flat earth story was developed by Washington Irving in 1837 in connection with Columbus’ voyage.
Galileo is well known for his encounters with the Inquisition. However it is not as well known that Galileo’s arguments for the heliocentric view were flawed. His theories on the centrality of the sun were backed up by reference to the tides. It was not until Newton’s approach to physics became mainstream that scientists found it possible to accept Galileo’s theories.
Darwin’s theories of natural selection were supported by some Christian thinkers at the time. There was much discussion in the scientific world, for and against Darwin. He could not explain inherited characteristics not being blended away. He did not have access to Mendel’s genetic theories. He wrote twelve editions of the Origin of Species, in later editions backing away from some of his claims.
Peter took us on to the nineteenth century and the development of the scientific field as we now know it. The word “scientist” was coined in 1833. The first professional bodies for science in Europe were established in the 1830s. Thirty percent of the fellows of the Royal Society were clergy. Thomas Henry Huxley (1825 – 1895) challenged the influence of the clergy, arguing that science and religion should be kept apart.
John Draper in 1874 published his book, “History of the Conflict between Science and Religion”. Andrew Dickson White, in 1896, followed up with a contentious title, “A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom.”
It seems as though nothing has changed. Dawkins carries on the tradition of belittling an approach to science that probably does deserve to be put it in its place. In the meantime we have Christian scientists who have no problems engaging with natural selection and theories of evolution, let alone the concept of an earth that is billions of years old.
I found the afternoon helpful. I knew about the range of opinions in the nineteenth century church to Darwinism, having studied the New Zealand context in Church history. However I had been under the impression that Columbus challenged a ‘flat earth’ concept with his journey. You learn something every day, if you go to seminars like this at least!
Thanks Tony. I’ve fixed the date up. It was actually meant to be ten thousand. I’ll put the Gallup poll link in shortly.
Hi Duncan,
Just a tiny point of correction – I was at the seminar, and remember Peter’s point about 47% of Americans’ beliefs about creation. He did say they believed the world came into being in the last 5000 years, not the last thousand. Thankfully, they haven’t forgotten Jesus and the thousand years following!
Otherwise, a good summary of the points – I also was enlightened on the Flat Earth myth. Why is this story still perpetuated, I wonder? I guess you never let the facts get in the way of a good myth.