The 2 men who invented the science vs faith conflict - Tim O'Neill, Dave Hutchings & James Ungureanu

In the 19th Century John Draper and Andrew White conjured up one of the most successful and enduring myths of the modern world - the supposed historical conflict between science and faith.

Justin explores their story with David Hutchings and James Ungureanu, authors of 'Of Popes and Unicorns: Science, Christianity and how the conflict thesis fooled the world'. They are also joined by Tim O'Neill of the 'History For Atheists' website, a non-believer who has established a reputation for critiquing his own side when they get things wrong.

[jgmrichter]

12:30 Why Tim addresses the conflict thesis & new atheism
13:30 Christians suppressed knowledge?
13:40 Modern conflicts: Anti-evolutionism / Creationism (valid examples)
14:00 Library of Alexandria 14:37 Edward Gibbon
18:10 Galileo 18:30 Carl Sagan 19:05 Neil deGrasse Tyson
22:18 John William Draper 24:30 Publication of "Conflict between Religion and Science"
25:10 Andrew Dickson White & Cornell
30:50 Dissecting bodies
34:13 Calvin & fabricated footnotes
36:35 71% of college textbooks influenced by Draper & White
38:50 Draper & White's motivations & context 41:30 nuances in their definitions of religion
46:10 The irony - a strand of Protestantism became the historiographical foundations of popular/new atheism
46:50 Rehashed Puritan & anti-Catholic polemic
49:10 Draper wanted to reset Christianity to its "pure" form; White wanted to modernise it
53:30 Why did it catch on? 54:50 Mark Twain 55:40 Fundamentalist backlash reinforces binary thinking
1:00:20 The conflict thesis makes a good story
1:01:24 NB: People confuse *moments* of conflict with an epistemological (i.e. "fundamental") conflict
1:02:35 Simple good vs bad story is convenient and easier to believe than something that requires hard work, nuance and complexity - actual history

[johnkitchen]

A first class discussion about the relationship of science and faith. Wisely avoids some of the simplistic arguments about creation, etc which are mostly easily explained by theologians Hutchings is a wonderful speaker snd pupils at Pocklington are very lucky to have him (I’m sure he would be in high demand as a public speaker)

[hadescerberus]

Loved this episode of unbelievable, very informative and answered questions I've had for awhile now. I've heard people quote these books so much over the years and now I know where it's from. Ty for your hard work and hope for more great episodes. 👍

[johnweber]

People have always loved grand historical narratives with clear-cut dualistic conflicts.

[fourteatwo]

looking forward to the delivery of the book

[TrueShepardN]

As a historian myself, it seems like most of the new atheists ignore or cherry-pick their history to fit their conflict narrative, when many of my atheist historian friends reject that. Many of them adopt the complexity narrative because history is almost always complicated just like modern life.

[thomasc]

I knew some info about John Draper and Andrew White but details are incredible. I didn't realize that both were liberal Protestants.

[ianwragg]

There seems to be a fair amount of misunderstanding what the conflict thesis is about here judging by some of the comments. Watch the video. As Tim O'Neill comments in the video,
"People often confuse the conflict thesis as an historical idea with an epistemological idea. The conflict thesis is a statement about conflicts throughout history. That is another question about whether or not science and religion are epistemologically, methodologically compatible."

[greg]

20:30 One of the authors admits that they are arguing against an idea that has been debunked for 100 years. It's never too late for moral indignation though, is it?

[brygenon]

Near the end, David rebukes simple-minded acceptance, then says that the Apostle Peter wrote the sentence in 2nd Peter 3:1, then goes back to condemning "unthinking Christianity". Outside unthinking branches of Christianity, scholarly consensus holds that 2nd Peter is pseudepigraphical; the Apostle Peter did not write it. Kind of undercuts the point, doing what he is speaking against.

[AR]

A revised version of the conflict thesis has been put forward by Gregory Dawes. Surprised he hasn’t been on unbelievable yet

[MRB-]

The brief allusion at ~1:01:30 with reference to a different framing of things in relation to epistemology could be helpfully explored in a future episode.

It seems to me that it is on this criterion that a lot of the confusion exists and why this, different, misleading narrative persists. Really isn't it actually about the implicit underlying epistemology that this debunked narrative still has traction?

[aelwyn]

Genesis's account of the creation of mankind and the theory (not hypothesis) of evolution, is an obvious conflict.

[markmckeen]

Justin,
I enjoyed this show, always do, especially when atheists are on. Found it a very interesting topic. Enough so for me that I'll follow up myself to explore it further, to see where the truth lies. I thought the Best point of the day was made by your atheist guest towards the end, when he stated the difference between potential false history and the fact that there really are differences between science and religion. Us atheists can accept correct history and still have plenty of other issues w Christianity. If we All strive to learn and learn the truth, everyone will be better off.
You do a wonderful job, keep up the good work.
Mark in MICHIGAN

[gabrielteo]

Why don't you have any interviews with Tom Jump, Tjump?

[hexa]

What is there to invent ?
Have you read genesis ?
How can you not see this is all limited by the small knowledge of the time ?

[ytube]

Was Tim joking that he doesn't like Dave and James at all? He looked quite serious. I mean... kudos to you Tim for telling it like it is if so.

[edwardtbabinski]

The author of a book I read on Historical Theology admits that it was “challenges” from the study of astronomy, geology and biology that splintered Christian believers into opposing camps over the meaning of Genesis 1-11.

The O.T. depicts an underworld with the earth above it, smaller objects made and placed above the earth to light it and for signs and times of worship on earth, and above those, the heaven of the most high god with his angels (search the internet for, “The Holy Heavens of the Hebrews” and also, “The Structure of Heaven and Earth: How Ancient Cosmology Shaped Everyone’s Theology”).

Verses throughout the Bible agree the earth is immovable. God holds it in place, except when God shakes it (earthquakes).

Psalm 93:1: “The world also is established [or fixed] that it cannot be moved” (something Luther & Calvin emphasized).

Psalm 96:10: “The world also shall be established that it shall not be moved.”

1 Chronicles 16:30: “The world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.”

Psalm 104:5 states “[God] laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.”

Job’s earth that is “hung” by God likewise is never said to move, spin, nor even be shaped like a sphere.

The Bible confirms the non-metaphorical meaning of such passages via additional passages that depict sun and stars as moving, or moved by God, but not the earth. The sun even returns to its place:

Ecclesiastes 1:5: “The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises” (NIV).

Compare Psalm 19:4–6, “In [the heavens] He [God] has placed a tent for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber; it rejoices like a strong man to run its course, its rising from one end of the heavens, and its circuit to the other end of them.”

Such a depiction is reminiscent of ancient Mesopotamian beliefs. In The Shamash Hymn, the Sun-god is said to “continuously cross the heavens, daily... pass over the vast earth, ” and in a different text the sun is described as moving, “as far as the edge of heaven, as far as the edge of earth, from the mountain of sunrise to the mountain of sunset.”

Job 9:7, notes, “He [God] can command the sun not to rise.” That God would direct his command at the sun rather than the earth implies a belief in a stationary earth. Likewise, Joshua directed his commands at both the sun and moon, even commanding the sun to stand still “over Gibeon, ” and the moon “over the valley of Aijalon” (Joshua 10:12) (also search for this excellent article, “The Day the Sun Stood Still: Interpreting the Miracle of Joshua 10”)

Further passages that fit hand in glove with immovable earth passages include Judges 5:20 that says stars “course” through the sky each night. Another passage says God “brings them [the stars] out one by one” and “because of His great power not one of them is missing” (Isaiah 40:26). Compare Enuma Elish VII:130, that states, “He [Marduk] shall maintain the motions of the stars of heaven.” In addition, Job 38:31–33 (NASB) states that constellations are “led forth” by God, like when God asks Job rhetorically, “Can you lead forth a constellation in its season, And guide the Bear with her satellites? Do you know the ordinances of the heavens, Or fix their rule over the earth?”

But anyone with knowledge of astronomy knows the reverse is true of what is found in the Bible. The sun does not “hurry back to where it rises;” the earth spins. Commanding “the sun” not to move, makes as little sense as someone in a moving car commanding the scenery not to move. The stars do not have “courses;” they only appear to move in a large circle round the pole star each night due to the earth’s rotation. God does not “bring the stars out one by one by His great power;” there is no “great power” involved, it is the diminishing intensity of the sun’s rays reflecting off the atmosphere that “brings out the stars.” (Though to St. Philastrius in the fourth century CE the words of Scripture were irrefutable divine teachings, including those about God bringing out the stars from his treasure-house and hanging them in the sky every evening, to deny which was heresy and “false to the Catholic faith.”) Nor do “none of the stars go missing” when God “by His great power brings them out” because sometimes stars do “go missing, ” they explode into dust. Nor does God “lead forth, ” and “guide” constellations; they only appear to move (and dip high, low, or vanish for months beneath the horizon) due to the earth’s rotation, axial tilt, and its revolution around the Sun.

Some Christians and conservative Jews continue to defend geocentrism, asking their brethren, “Does the Bible depict God ‘commanding, ’ ‘leading forth, ’ and ‘stopping’ things that don’t really move?” They add that “God’s might is evidenced in His ability to maintain the immobility of, and also shake, the earth at will (Job 9:6; 2 Samuel 22:8; Joel 2:10; Isaiah 13:13; Revelation 6:12–13), and in His ability to lead forth and guide constellations, and direct His command at the sun to make it stop moving. Such actions are either demonstrations of God’s might, or, mighty deceptive language for God to have inspired.” Therefore, they say, “If you take the Bible at its word you ought to be a geocentrist!” Ironically, the same point is made by creationists, “If you take the Bible at its word you ought to be a creationist!”

Claiming one knows for sure what God “intended” or what the Bible “really teaches” is a game played by everyone from conservatives to liberals. All we can say for sure is that when it comes to immovable earth passages, their plain non-metaphorical meaning was shoved into the back closet after modern science moved into the apartment—after scientific observations and questions about the natural world took on lives of their own, separate from the ancient answer book known as “The Bible.” (Search for, “The Cultural Divide Between the Ancient Near East and the Wealth of Modern Knowledge/Information -- Where Do We Get Our Answers From Today? What Expands Our Minds the Most Today?”)

[robertmcclintock]

A spy classifies himself. Whatever you desire they will help you with it. They gave me astrophysicist classification that I didn't ask for it but I like it. I'm not a scientist but I am an artist. They wanted an astrophysicist that was an artist. It's perfectly normal for the people to think like an artist with a simple mind. It's science that new that has complex mind that need expensive training.

[paulmichael]

The fields of history, biology, archaeology, geology, textual criticism and many more say the exact opposite. I once worshiped the tribal war god of Abraham just like you, until I did an honest review of the evidence.