What do you think?
Rate this book
Of Popes and Unicorns: Science, Christianity, and How the Conflict Thesis Fooled the World
This is the story of John Draper, Andrew White, and the conflict a centuries-old misconception that religion and science are at odds with one another. Renowned scientist John William Draper (1811-1882) and celebrated historian-politician Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918) were certain that Enlightened Science and Dogmatic Christianity were mortal enemies--and they said as much to anyone who would listen. More than a century later, their grand and sweeping version of history dominates our landscape; Draper and White's "conflict thesis" is still found in countless textbooks, lecture series, movies, novels, and more. Yet, as it would later be discovered, they were mistaken. Their work has been torn to shreds by the experts, who have declared it totally at odds with reality. So how, if this is the case, does their wrongheaded narrative still live on? Who were these two men, and what, exactly, did they say? What is it about their God-versus-Science "conflict thesis" that convinced so many? And what--since both claimed to love Science and love Christ--were they actually trying to achieve in the first place? In this book, physicist David Hutchings and historian of science and religion James C. Ungureanu dissect the work of Draper and White. They take readers on a journey through time, diving into the formation and fallacy of the conflict thesis and its polarizing impact on society. The result is a tale of Flat Earths, of anesthetic, and of autopsies; of Creation and Evolution; of laser-eyed lizards and infinite worlds. It is a story of miracles and mathematicians; souls and Great Libraries; the Greeks, the scientific method, the Not-So-Dark-After-All Ages... and, of course, of popes and unicorns.
273 pages, Kindle Edition
Published October 13, 2021
13 people are currently reading
260 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
March 4, 2022
Anyone who studies the history of science will know the frustration that is the "Conflict Thesis". This is the false but culturally-pervasive idea that religion and science have been at war down the ages, with religion constantly trying to hold back scientific advancement. In its more extreme form it also declares that religion and science are totally incompatible and only unbelievers can be "true" scientists. This mythic idea was most fully developed by John William Draper's History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1874) and Andrew Dickson White's History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896), which is why the "Conflict Thesis" is also referred to as the "Draper-White Thesis". These two books became immensely popular, widely read and heavily influential. And the thesis they present remains widely accepted in the popular sphere, despite being long since rejected by actual historians of science.
The persistence of this false set of ideas has stubbornly resisted attempts by historians to debunk the Conflict Thesis and to get the wider public understand the far more accurate and nuanced modern view on the relationship between religion and science. Unfortunately learned (but fairly dry) volumes such as The Warfare Between Science and Religion: The Idea that Wouldn't Die (J. Hardin, R.L. Numbers, R.A. Binzley eds, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018) don't do much to penetrate the popular consciousness. A more accessible collection of short essays, Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion (R.L. Numbers, Harvard University Press, 2010) debunks a number of key myths that make up the Conflict Thesis, but doesn't tackle it head on. This is why Hutchings and Ungureanu's Of Popes and Unicorns is a welcome and useful popular account of how the Conflict Thesis arose, why it persists and how it is wrong.
The real strength of this book is in its accessibility. It's a fun read and written in a fairly light-hearted and even conversational style, punctuated by quirky historical episodes and interesting analogies. I had never heard of the fictional (and then, oddly, non-fictional) hamlet of Agloe, New York, but the authors tell the strange story of an invented town that then came-to-be, before putting it to use to illustrate a point. There are also enough topical references and jokes to make what could be a dull exposition on historiography a lively tour of science through history.
Even better, the authors bring together a wide range of information in a fairly short and highly readable package. I have been studying this subject for many years, but I learned quite a few new things from this book, particularly about the backgrounds of White and Draper and their cultural and historiographical predecessors. The core of the book, where the central myths of the Thesis and its key figures (Hypatia, Bruno, Galileo etc.) are carefully debunked, will be familiar ground for those who have studied the history of science. But this material is presented in a way that allows the popular reader to understand why these commonly (even dogmatically) accepted myths are wrong and why the real stories of these episodes are far more interesting.
The final section of the book on why the Conflict Thesis persists despite being rejected by historians for over a century is also useful, if a little rueful in places. It is particularly so for me, given that the authors very kindly note my website History for Atheists (p. 222) in their section on efforts to change the common acceptance of the Thesis in the popular sphere. Here the authors note how this is something of an uphill battle, given the high profile of modern proponents of the Conflict Thesis:
"Sagan's Cosmos had 500 million viewers in the 1980s: Tim O'Neill gets a few thousand on YouTube today." (p. 223)
Quite. Still, despite the efforts of some of my more historically illiterate fellow atheists, doubt about the Conflict Thesis' claims is perhaps slowly starting to creep beyond academia. If this is to continue, we'll need more well-researched, judicious, persuasive and entertaining popular works like Of Popes and Unicorns. This is an excellent example of public education on a subject that sorely needs more efforts of this kind. Highly recommended.
The persistence of this false set of ideas has stubbornly resisted attempts by historians to debunk the Conflict Thesis and to get the wider public understand the far more accurate and nuanced modern view on the relationship between religion and science. Unfortunately learned (but fairly dry) volumes such as The Warfare Between Science and Religion: The Idea that Wouldn't Die (J. Hardin, R.L. Numbers, R.A. Binzley eds, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018) don't do much to penetrate the popular consciousness. A more accessible collection of short essays, Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion (R.L. Numbers, Harvard University Press, 2010) debunks a number of key myths that make up the Conflict Thesis, but doesn't tackle it head on. This is why Hutchings and Ungureanu's Of Popes and Unicorns is a welcome and useful popular account of how the Conflict Thesis arose, why it persists and how it is wrong.
The real strength of this book is in its accessibility. It's a fun read and written in a fairly light-hearted and even conversational style, punctuated by quirky historical episodes and interesting analogies. I had never heard of the fictional (and then, oddly, non-fictional) hamlet of Agloe, New York, but the authors tell the strange story of an invented town that then came-to-be, before putting it to use to illustrate a point. There are also enough topical references and jokes to make what could be a dull exposition on historiography a lively tour of science through history.
Even better, the authors bring together a wide range of information in a fairly short and highly readable package. I have been studying this subject for many years, but I learned quite a few new things from this book, particularly about the backgrounds of White and Draper and their cultural and historiographical predecessors. The core of the book, where the central myths of the Thesis and its key figures (Hypatia, Bruno, Galileo etc.) are carefully debunked, will be familiar ground for those who have studied the history of science. But this material is presented in a way that allows the popular reader to understand why these commonly (even dogmatically) accepted myths are wrong and why the real stories of these episodes are far more interesting.
The final section of the book on why the Conflict Thesis persists despite being rejected by historians for over a century is also useful, if a little rueful in places. It is particularly so for me, given that the authors very kindly note my website History for Atheists (p. 222) in their section on efforts to change the common acceptance of the Thesis in the popular sphere. Here the authors note how this is something of an uphill battle, given the high profile of modern proponents of the Conflict Thesis:
"Sagan's Cosmos had 500 million viewers in the 1980s: Tim O'Neill gets a few thousand on YouTube today." (p. 223)
Quite. Still, despite the efforts of some of my more historically illiterate fellow atheists, doubt about the Conflict Thesis' claims is perhaps slowly starting to creep beyond academia. If this is to continue, we'll need more well-researched, judicious, persuasive and entertaining popular works like Of Popes and Unicorns. This is an excellent example of public education on a subject that sorely needs more efforts of this kind. Highly recommended.
September 5, 2022
It was extremely disappointing that the last two chapters of Of Popes and Unicorns were Christian propaganda, because I promise you that the rest of the book was really, really good. It was actually one of the most enjoyable books I have ever read.
In it, Hutchings and Ungureanu explain the story of how John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White jointly invented the conflict thesis of religion and science in their respective books History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874) and A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896). Even greater than the satisfaction that I felt seeing the record set straight on events like the murder of Hypatia and the extermination of the “Library of Alexandria” was the fact that this book was fun.
Chapter by chapter, Hutchings and Ungureanu go through:
- Earlier figures who contributed to the conflict thesis, such as Thomas Henry Huxley
- The false claim that everyone thought the Earth was flat in the Middle Ages
- The false claim that the medieval church banned dissection
- The ubiquitous tale of Hypatia’s martyrdom and the burning of the Serapeum of Alexandria
- Correcting the myths surrounding Giordano Bruno, Galileo, and Copernicus
- and more!
If you don’t know about the conflict thesis, Chapters 1-7 make for a fascinating tale as long as you’re prepared for what comes at the end.
Read more: https://sheseeksnonfiction.blog/2022/...
In it, Hutchings and Ungureanu explain the story of how John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White jointly invented the conflict thesis of religion and science in their respective books History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874) and A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896). Even greater than the satisfaction that I felt seeing the record set straight on events like the murder of Hypatia and the extermination of the “Library of Alexandria” was the fact that this book was fun.
Chapter by chapter, Hutchings and Ungureanu go through:
- Earlier figures who contributed to the conflict thesis, such as Thomas Henry Huxley
- The false claim that everyone thought the Earth was flat in the Middle Ages
- The false claim that the medieval church banned dissection
- The ubiquitous tale of Hypatia’s martyrdom and the burning of the Serapeum of Alexandria
- Correcting the myths surrounding Giordano Bruno, Galileo, and Copernicus
- and more!
If you don’t know about the conflict thesis, Chapters 1-7 make for a fascinating tale as long as you’re prepared for what comes at the end.
Read more: https://sheseeksnonfiction.blog/2022/...
April 18, 2025
Ефектът от Конфликтната Теза на Дапър и Уайт се усеща навсякъде днес, модерният човек е толкова влюбен в идеята за собствения си интелект, че е готов да плямпа пълни глупости без въобще да е запознат с темата. Това обяснява защо уж големи умове като Карл Сейгън, Деграс Тайсън, Докинс, Харис, Хиченс и Денет са защитили тезата -- просто е удобно. Удобно е да се лъже за историята, едно от най-удобните неща, особено ако си застанал на модерния пиедестал на "учен", тъй като такъв ти просто няма как да заблуждаваш публиката си, нали?
Истината е, че науката и Християнството никога не са били в конфликт*, даже науката дължи на християнската вяра повечето си успехи, почти всеки велик учен, за когото можете да се сетите, или е вярващ християнин, или е стъпил здраво върху раменете на други християнски учени, или въобще християнски вярващи, които са осигурили информацията, институцията и цивилизацията нужна им за да постигнат каквото и да е.
*Не са били в конфликт, защото от известно време са. Защо са в конфликт? Защото науката е пропита с идеологическа догма. Почти всички обвинения на модерния атеист са себепризнания, дискриминацията срещу учените в миналото е измислица, но диксриминацията срещу вярващите учени днес е реалност. В днешно време най-догматичната институция е тази на "Науката", тази, в която не можеш да споменеш "Създател" в абстракт без да те свалят от журнал, но същевременно си длъжен да изкривиш биологията и гордо да заявиш, че всъщност мъжете могат да станат жени или по-ужасяващо, че децата в утробата всъщност не са хора...
Модерният учен не заслужава пиедестала, на който се е качил, пиедесталът изграден от две хилядолетия християни. Книгата на Дейвид Хътчингс трябва да се чете, трябва най-накрая да бъде убит този абсурден ревизионистки мит, че е имало въобще такова нещо като "Тъмни Векове", особено във време, в което догматичната идеология превзела научните институции заплашва да ни вкара в същински такива.
Истината е, че науката и Християнството никога не са били в конфликт*, даже науката дължи на християнската вяра повечето си успехи, почти всеки велик учен, за когото можете да се сетите, или е вярващ християнин, или е стъпил здраво върху раменете на други християнски учени, или въобще християнски вярващи, които са осигурили информацията, институцията и цивилизацията нужна им за да постигнат каквото и да е.
*Не са били в конфликт, защото от известно време са. Защо са в конфликт? Защото науката е пропита с идеологическа догма. Почти всички обвинения на модерния атеист са себепризнания, дискриминацията срещу учените в миналото е измислица, но диксриминацията срещу вярващите учени днес е реалност. В днешно време най-догматичната институция е тази на "Науката", тази, в която не можеш да споменеш "Създател" в абстракт без да те свалят от журнал, но същевременно си длъжен да изкривиш биологията и гордо да заявиш, че всъщност мъжете могат да станат жени или по-ужасяващо, че децата в утробата всъщност не са хора...
Модерният учен не заслужава пиедестала, на който се е качил, пиедесталът изграден от две хилядолетия християни. Книгата на Дейвид Хътчингс трябва да се чете, трябва най-накрая да бъде убит този абсурден ревизионистки мит, че е имало въобще такова нещо като "Тъмни Векове", особено във време, в което догматичната идеология превзела научните институции заплашва да ни вкара в същински такива.
March 18, 2025
This book probably deserves four stars instead of three. Hutchings and Ungureanu take on what historians of science refer to as “the conflict thesis,” the view that the historical relationship between science and religion (or Christianity, or Catholicism) has primarily been one of hostility. Science, so the story goes, has triumphantly vindicated itself time and again in the face of religious opposition that would stifle progress to preserve pre-scientific beliefs and dogmas. To quote John William Draper, one of the book’s principle subjects:
“The history of Science is not a mere record of isolated discoveries; it is a narrative of the conflict of two contending powers, the expansive force of the human intellect on one side, and the compression arising from traditionary faith and human interests on the other.”
Draper’s "History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science" (1874) and Andrew Dickson White’s "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom" (1896) receive most of the blame for embedding the conflict thesis in the popular consciousness, and both come in for a well-deserved drubbing. The supposed medieval belief in a flat earth, the alleged banning of dissection by ecclesiastical authorities, the lurid tale of the destruction of the Library of Alexandria by fanatical Christians, all these and more are rehearsed and thoroughly discredited. Hutchings and Ungureanu also take the time to explore Draper and White’s precursors, influences and motives, as well as some of the ways in which Christian theology directly contributed to the development of modern empirical science. All this is really wonderful, so why only three stars?
Well, the prose is excruciating. This will be an eccentric take, judging from the majority of reviewers who seem to find the writing delightful, but the use of interjections like “hmm” and “ouch,” transition sentences in which historical figures are invited to “come on down to the stage,” and the authors’ absurdly abundant abuse of alliteration all made me want to chuck the book across the room.
Of course, the writing style is perfectly defensible given the authors’ purpose. The experts already know the conflict thesis is a 19th century myth, but they have had very little success in extracting the myth from the popular consciousness. This book represents an altogether worthwhile effort to make what is already known in the academy both accessible and interesting to a lay audience. I don’t care, I hated the writing. Three stars.
“The history of Science is not a mere record of isolated discoveries; it is a narrative of the conflict of two contending powers, the expansive force of the human intellect on one side, and the compression arising from traditionary faith and human interests on the other.”
Draper’s "History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science" (1874) and Andrew Dickson White’s "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom" (1896) receive most of the blame for embedding the conflict thesis in the popular consciousness, and both come in for a well-deserved drubbing. The supposed medieval belief in a flat earth, the alleged banning of dissection by ecclesiastical authorities, the lurid tale of the destruction of the Library of Alexandria by fanatical Christians, all these and more are rehearsed and thoroughly discredited. Hutchings and Ungureanu also take the time to explore Draper and White’s precursors, influences and motives, as well as some of the ways in which Christian theology directly contributed to the development of modern empirical science. All this is really wonderful, so why only three stars?
Well, the prose is excruciating. This will be an eccentric take, judging from the majority of reviewers who seem to find the writing delightful, but the use of interjections like “hmm” and “ouch,” transition sentences in which historical figures are invited to “come on down to the stage,” and the authors’ absurdly abundant abuse of alliteration all made me want to chuck the book across the room.
Of course, the writing style is perfectly defensible given the authors’ purpose. The experts already know the conflict thesis is a 19th century myth, but they have had very little success in extracting the myth from the popular consciousness. This book represents an altogether worthwhile effort to make what is already known in the academy both accessible and interesting to a lay audience. I don’t care, I hated the writing. Three stars.
September 3, 2022
It is common knowledge that Science and Religion are enemies and that Religion has throughout the middle ages treated the Scientific enterprise with a passionate hostility. It is also common knowledge that being commonly known does not guarantee something its facticity. The conflict hypothesis is a false narrative written by two talented gentlemen called Draper and White that tells us that Religion and Science have been playing at a drama where Religion is the heavy and Science the hero. As an atheist myself it is quite satisfying to shout how religion impeded the scientific enterprise at every turn, to feel my blood boil thinking about Galileo who was sent to jail. But to my dissatisfaction these stories are just that and they don’t even vaguely resemble historical truths.
So, to make it easy I’ll just make a list of the myths busted in this book:
Myth: The Medieval people believed that earth was flat and the church perpetrated this lie.
Truth: They very much did not believe this. There are only two main sources that Draper and White quotes to back this claim: Cosmos and Lactantius. But both of these men had no influence whatsoever on the church or the people's worldview during the middle ages. They were spurned during their own lifetime for not understanding the underlying science.
Myth: The church considered dissection to be blasphemous hence banned the practice thus setting medical science back, and they also meddled with anesthesia, cause God cursed women to suffer during childbirth or specifically Eve who is supposed to stand in for all women something something weird logic, and inoculation.
Truth: The church did not consider dissection to be a blasphemous practice, it was quite commonly practiced. In fact you could say that the Greeks who Draper and White exalt for pushing the boundaries of anatomy in fact were generally repulsed by dissection because they considered dead bodies to be unclean, except for a few Greeks like Galen, they generally avoided it. Anesthesia was not spurned: the only ones who resisted it were other Doctors who were concerned that it might lead to complications during childbirth, if the mother were unconscious; this was proven false and the resistance melted away. Inoculation was not opposed systematically by the church except for a few preachers who played their own game. Generally the church accepted it and yet again it was doctors who were skeptical of it because it was considered an untested novelty.
Myth: Galileo and Copernicus were doggedly persecuted for standing up against the church and are martyrs of science.
Truth: Okay. This is one issue upon which I felt the book did not deliver entirely, simply because the issue is a bit more complicated. It did point out that Copernicus was himself a devout Christian who was much concerned with doctrines of the church and there were many from within the church who encouraged Copernicus. Most importantly, all Copernicus had was a hypothesis among many other competing ones, by this time we must have realized that the middle ages had a flourishing scientific culture. I am not quite that familiar with the Copernican issue but perhaps the sources the authors use in the book, if followed, could be helpful. The Galileo issue on the other hand is a bit more popular. I think I’ll link this article by Thony Gilchristie that gives a rough overview of the entire debacle.
TL;DR The Galileo issue has got more to do with political complications that got tied up with the debates surrounding the heliocentric model. On top of that, Galileo himself did not have substantial evidence to prove this hypothesis beyond all doubt. I think it is difficult for us moderns to accept the kind of authority that church had over these scientific matters. Still such a criticism is different from the claim that the Church was against scientific enterprise itself. The Catholic church was a political entity, just like the political entities of our own time which both support and slow down advancements in our own age.
The authors at this point in the book goes to great extent to show that the current scientific institutions themselves are not exactly immune to ideological, political and even simple dogmatic assertions of pet theories. I understand that they attempt to counteract the discrimination that they point out that religious people who engage in scientific activity go through due to the prevalence of the conflict hypothesis. Yet at the end of the day, despite all the ideological and political clashes, science is grounded in empirical research, but religion to a huge extent is dependent on these ideological quarrels with the theological subtleties merely used as frosting.
There are a few more myths such as the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, murder of Hypatia and the study of classical philosophy and literature. Needless to say the truth is more complicated in these issues and do not fit the comfortable good evil dichotomy that the conflict narrative puts them into.
These are the important myths for the rest of the book the authors engage in trying to trace out how exactly this narrative became so popular. The rise of Protestantism seems to play a big role in this, and not just this but the stories regarding how Christmas is pagan and Halloween is pagan all seem to have at its root protestant sources and atheists ignorantly perpetrates these pseudo-historical narratives. In the end the authors end with a positive project to actually reduce the influence of the conflict thesis on the general public. The antagonism that has been promulgated has caused the alienation of many religious believers from understanding and engaging with science. I do not think, being an atheist, that asserting a specific worldview as normative and forcing others to abide by it is the proper way to engage in inquiry of any kind.
So, to make it easy I’ll just make a list of the myths busted in this book:
Myth: The Medieval people believed that earth was flat and the church perpetrated this lie.
Truth: They very much did not believe this. There are only two main sources that Draper and White quotes to back this claim: Cosmos and Lactantius. But both of these men had no influence whatsoever on the church or the people's worldview during the middle ages. They were spurned during their own lifetime for not understanding the underlying science.
Myth: The church considered dissection to be blasphemous hence banned the practice thus setting medical science back, and they also meddled with anesthesia, cause God cursed women to suffer during childbirth or specifically Eve who is supposed to stand in for all women something something weird logic, and inoculation.
Truth: The church did not consider dissection to be a blasphemous practice, it was quite commonly practiced. In fact you could say that the Greeks who Draper and White exalt for pushing the boundaries of anatomy in fact were generally repulsed by dissection because they considered dead bodies to be unclean, except for a few Greeks like Galen, they generally avoided it. Anesthesia was not spurned: the only ones who resisted it were other Doctors who were concerned that it might lead to complications during childbirth, if the mother were unconscious; this was proven false and the resistance melted away. Inoculation was not opposed systematically by the church except for a few preachers who played their own game. Generally the church accepted it and yet again it was doctors who were skeptical of it because it was considered an untested novelty.
Myth: Galileo and Copernicus were doggedly persecuted for standing up against the church and are martyrs of science.
Truth: Okay. This is one issue upon which I felt the book did not deliver entirely, simply because the issue is a bit more complicated. It did point out that Copernicus was himself a devout Christian who was much concerned with doctrines of the church and there were many from within the church who encouraged Copernicus. Most importantly, all Copernicus had was a hypothesis among many other competing ones, by this time we must have realized that the middle ages had a flourishing scientific culture. I am not quite that familiar with the Copernican issue but perhaps the sources the authors use in the book, if followed, could be helpful. The Galileo issue on the other hand is a bit more popular. I think I’ll link this article by Thony Gilchristie that gives a rough overview of the entire debacle.
TL;DR The Galileo issue has got more to do with political complications that got tied up with the debates surrounding the heliocentric model. On top of that, Galileo himself did not have substantial evidence to prove this hypothesis beyond all doubt. I think it is difficult for us moderns to accept the kind of authority that church had over these scientific matters. Still such a criticism is different from the claim that the Church was against scientific enterprise itself. The Catholic church was a political entity, just like the political entities of our own time which both support and slow down advancements in our own age.
The authors at this point in the book goes to great extent to show that the current scientific institutions themselves are not exactly immune to ideological, political and even simple dogmatic assertions of pet theories. I understand that they attempt to counteract the discrimination that they point out that religious people who engage in scientific activity go through due to the prevalence of the conflict hypothesis. Yet at the end of the day, despite all the ideological and political clashes, science is grounded in empirical research, but religion to a huge extent is dependent on these ideological quarrels with the theological subtleties merely used as frosting.
There are a few more myths such as the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, murder of Hypatia and the study of classical philosophy and literature. Needless to say the truth is more complicated in these issues and do not fit the comfortable good evil dichotomy that the conflict narrative puts them into.
These are the important myths for the rest of the book the authors engage in trying to trace out how exactly this narrative became so popular. The rise of Protestantism seems to play a big role in this, and not just this but the stories regarding how Christmas is pagan and Halloween is pagan all seem to have at its root protestant sources and atheists ignorantly perpetrates these pseudo-historical narratives. In the end the authors end with a positive project to actually reduce the influence of the conflict thesis on the general public. The antagonism that has been promulgated has caused the alienation of many religious believers from understanding and engaging with science. I do not think, being an atheist, that asserting a specific worldview as normative and forcing others to abide by it is the proper way to engage in inquiry of any kind.
August 6, 2025
Very readable and accessible. It's a little wordy in the beginning as it goes through quote after quote of Draper and White's works only to debunk them all in the following chapters. This format is fine and creates a book that is clear but I found myself skipping the quotes and reading the summaries in the next paragraphs.
The conclusions chapters I found to be more compelling and hopeful. I think it is a good resource to look back on in the future when people bring up how science and religion are necessarily incompatible, because that is obviously untrue. Just because one is religious does not mean they are irrational.
The conclusions chapters I found to be more compelling and hopeful. I think it is a good resource to look back on in the future when people bring up how science and religion are necessarily incompatible, because that is obviously untrue. Just because one is religious does not mean they are irrational.
July 30, 2022
An outstanding book which combines an effortlessly readable and entertaining style, with a devastatingly rigorous critique of a position so universally taken for granted that most people don't even imagine it needs to be defended. The conflict thesis - that religion and science have always existed in animosity to the detriment of human progress - is shown unmistakably to be a myth. Both the advocates of contemptuously, secular, anti-theism, and the sneeringly, anti-intellectual, activists in the church would do well to read and reflect on Hutchings and Ungureanu's case.
October 1, 2023
This is a very incredible book which is 100% worth the read.
The authors didn't just debunk the conflict thesis myths, they did it with style! often using interesting/informative analogies and funny sarcastic remarks.
I started this book expecting to just read arguments debunking the conflict thesis, I finished the book gaining so much more. A very huge thanks to the authors!
The authors didn't just debunk the conflict thesis myths, they did it with style! often using interesting/informative analogies and funny sarcastic remarks.
I started this book expecting to just read arguments debunking the conflict thesis, I finished the book gaining so much more. A very huge thanks to the authors!
September 12, 2022
Incredible book. It's astounding how so many of these myths have so deeply pervaded culture and tricked so many thoughtful people and illustrious organizations. This is such an important book and I pray people listen to it.
September 22, 2022
Far to biased, the begining was strong however the ending was far to opinionated. Ruined the whole book for me. Wouldn't recommend
February 26, 2022
This was an excellent popular history work ('popular' meant with the best connotations here) about the flawed historiography of the 'conflict thesis' between science and religion arose. The basic idea is that two popular 19th century authors, Andrew White and John Draper created the idea that science and specifically Christian religion have been at war with each other through the centuries. This is where the myth of Christopher Columbus proving that the Earth is round to benighted church authorities comes from as well as other myths like flat-eartherism being a big thing in the Middle Ages. This book does a great job of going over each big myth that we've all at least heard about and then going over the actual historical facts of the matter. Basically, Draper and White did bad historical work to argue for the 'conflict thesis' that all historians of science now know to be bunk. Unfortunately, the myth persists and is still being propagated by science popularizers such as the late Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson. One particularly interesting historical bit that I learned was that Cotton Mather supported vaccinating people against smallpox which is a nice counter to those who ridiculously think Christians have always been anti-vax.
The book also does a good job of arguing that Christianity provided a good basis for science to develop. Newton, Copernicus, Kepler, Pascal, etc. were all devout orthodox Christians. They thought that a rational Creator made the world with unified laws that could be discovered through investigating and testing, basically the nascent scientific method. In a pagan world of chaos one would not except this. Indeed, rationality in nature would be accidental in such a world and could not be presumed to be inherent in it.
The only thing that saddens me about this book is that the people that most need to read it and correct their thinking will not. The myth persists and affects the world still because in our polarized age, we don't have a common intellectual culture anymore. If there is one criticism I have of the book is that sometimes the authors are too colloquial or glib which I found off-putting at times. This is a very minor criticism though. There were a lot of very clever modern stories used to illustrate concepts that I enjoyed.
The book also does a good job of arguing that Christianity provided a good basis for science to develop. Newton, Copernicus, Kepler, Pascal, etc. were all devout orthodox Christians. They thought that a rational Creator made the world with unified laws that could be discovered through investigating and testing, basically the nascent scientific method. In a pagan world of chaos one would not except this. Indeed, rationality in nature would be accidental in such a world and could not be presumed to be inherent in it.
The only thing that saddens me about this book is that the people that most need to read it and correct their thinking will not. The myth persists and affects the world still because in our polarized age, we don't have a common intellectual culture anymore. If there is one criticism I have of the book is that sometimes the authors are too colloquial or glib which I found off-putting at times. This is a very minor criticism though. There were a lot of very clever modern stories used to illustrate concepts that I enjoyed.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews