The Harmony War: Andrew Dickson White and John William Draper As Harmonizers of Science and Religion?
John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White are often cited as the major initiators of the idea of a perennial war or conflict between science and religion. In many ways that is right, and their influence would be hard to overstate. After they published their respective books and lectures, a virtual firestorm touting the "warfare" or the "conflict" metaphors ravaged the landscape.
Having read their major works now, however, I would argue that they saw themselves--and were read by most of their immediate contemporaries--as, get this, *harmonizers* between science and religion. They are better understood as part of the Liberal Protestant mediating theology movement. Their beef was not with religion per se (White considered himself a pious Christian, and Draper was a deist of sorts) but rather with the religious establishment. Both consistently refer to themselves in terms of a New Reformation and their polemics against "religion" are often cribbed wholesale from earlier Protestant critiques of Catholics (and when they were feeling particularly intrepid, Catholic critiques of Protestants).
Draper for example creates a distinction between "Christianity" and "ecclesiastical organizations." The former, says Draper, is a gift from God (!), while the latter is a human invention open to condemnation (we need to remind ourselves that it was the at the time recent declaration of Pope Pius IX that the papacy was infallible that incensed Draper). White, similarly, made a separation between "theology" (dogma controlled by ecclesial organization) and "religion" (the natural, inward orientation of piety toward God) and as such could lampoon those who had "the most mistaken of mistaken ideas, the conviction that religion and science are enemies." It didn't help that they were not terminologically consistent (at all), and often use "religion" in a way that appears to make it a blanket designator, but nonetheless the point stands.
Their idea of war and the (mostly spurious and misinterpreted) historical instances they bring up as illustrations in their respective works, then, were meant to purge the world of dogmatic theology, to make way for true religion. As a theologian, this isn't really a distinction I can get on board with (though it certainly has limited uses), but the point is historically fascinating and really important. Why is it important? Well, I'm glad you asked! It is important because as I delve into the sources more and more what is apparent to me is that what we label the "warfare of science and religion" is actually better described as "the warfare between different harmonizers of science and religion." Many of the most scathing critiques held up about this or that instance in history, or this or that theological-scientific interpretation, are actually made by rival harmonizers who have different theories about how the whole business of harmony should be done. It is, it seems, a harmony war rather than a war of science and religion. I'd give more examples but, you know, buy my book when its out. (Actually buy two or three. My book actually gets clearer the more purchased copies you own. Its proprietary technology.)
Ironically, of course, atheists, secular humanists, and skeptics picked up these works including Draper and White nearly immediately, cut out the bits about religion, and repurposed the arguments against religion as a whole. The problem was that many of these individuals like George Sarton were also at the heart of the newly minted discipline of the history of science (Sarton is generally considered the father of the American branch of the discipline, for example). As such their narratives embodied not just the myth of warfare, but what we might call "the myth of the myth of warfare," as Sarton and others fully attributed their own animus against the historical practices of religion against science to White and Draper. White and Draper shouldn't necessarily be too surprised at this, but nevertheless it does run against their original intentions.
Unfortunately, the historian James Ungureanu beat me to the punch and apparently has a whole book coming out on just this topic in the Fall. Having had a few conversations with him, it should make for a really fascinating read and I suggest picking it up if you are at all interested in the history of science and religion (and have a spare $50 laying around).
Comments