I want to thank you, as an Eastern Orthodox Christian, to the bottom of my heart. You have helped ease a lot of dialog. Maybe I should create a blog one day dealing with History for Christians. One day, but for now I am busy with civil service, people in prison, and the poor. One day, if it is my calling. Thank you again! Christ is Risen!
I needed the anti theism to leave my Religion. But now I can be openminded. I believe in God I believe in a story but I don't believe in book texts but maybe I do believe Religious texts in the eye of my own world view that changes every second. I love you guys thank you very very very much. Dogmatism is the problem. I was ressentiment against Christians and Christianity because there are people who go against Islam where my culture comes from and they prais Christianity. We need more Christians like you.
There is one minor error which occurs just before 14:49. University College London did not become the University of London; in fact it still exists, independently of the University of London, and can award degrees in its own name.
I've been enjoying your content for a while. I often listen to the "whippersnapper atheists" on TH-cam and have learned some things. But I take a lot of what they say with a degree of scepticism. If they want to use history to villainise religion they could look at the recent conduct of different churches.
Very interesting interview. However, it's not completely clear to me whether the book is all about Draper and White and the Conflict Thesis, or is there a part devoted to the analisys and debunking of some myths? (Sorry if it's explained in the video, but as a non-native English speaker, it's possible that I didn't catch some sentences).
Hi - thank you for your question! The book has the whole story of Draper and White, what they wrote and why, and also debunks/analyses their myths. It's all in there :)
I just want to say, I’m a Christian that has just discovered your channel. So I’m not really your target audience haha. But I REALLY respect the work that you’re doing. I really hope our communities (secular and religious) could come together some day. I don’t think it’s very plausible at the moment. I go to Reddit, Quora, Twitter, TH-cam etc and find that so many atheists are simply interested in debunking my religious faith, asserting to us that we’re very much irrational creatures for believing in God etc. It can just be frustrating because you genuinely want to have fruitful dialogue, but they poison the well with insults before I can even start. Christians online have also been very toxic. I really don’t know why it is that many atheists online are like this. I will always be down to have discussions with and even support Atheists, like you, who are thoughtful, respectful.
Thanks. But I can be "disrespectful" to Christians if they deserve it. Many of them are every bit as capable of distorting history and making stupid arguments as non-believers. And if they get condescending or preachy with me, I'm not exactly kindly in response. But I get what you mean and am glad you find the channel useful.
Hi History For Atheists. Halloween is coming. I predict you are going to soon do a video on whether or not Halloween is pagan, just like how you did with Easter earlier this year.
The Family Guy episode that Tim was referring to at 35:14 that further perpetuates the Conflict Thesis myth is the following URL: th-cam.com/video/B-y_-FSN44g/w-d-xo.html
Hello, Bahai religion has his own "harmony thesis"! The 'principle' is that : the religion HAS to be in accord with science. The first time mentioned in the Scripture is 1911! After Abdulbaha visited Egypt.
I have never understood why the Catholic Church so adamantly clung to the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic system when it has nothing to do with religious devotion or observance.
They didn't "cling" to it. They accepted it because while it made the most scientific sense and then abandoned it in favour of the Tychonian system initially and then, eventually, the Keplerian model.
@@historyforatheists9363 Another factor was the deep love for Aristotle, such that many professionals and institutions had Aristotle baked in to what they were doing - reluctance to change in the teaching profession is as old as time...who wants to rewrite lectures?! But Tim is right - the conclusive scientific evidence for heliocentrism didn't actually arrive until the 1800s - by which time everyone had accepted it anyway. Galileo was not on sound scientific footing with his arguments...he was asked for proof, but couldn't provide it.
Great interview! Unfortunately, I still don't know what to make of the conclusion. I mean, I guess it all depends on how one defines the Conflict Thesis. If by Conflict Thesis you mean the most extreme version of "Evil priests going around burning science books (and scientists) that oppose a literal interpretation of the Bible (insert Christian Dark Ages chart meme)" then yeah, it's obviously false. If by Conflict Thesis you mean "You can't be a good scientist and a religious believer at the same time" then again, the theory is obviously false. But I think there is some truth to the notion that certain religious beliefs or belief systems can by their very nature be a hindrance to science. To use the example of Christianity (the religion I'm more familiar with, but it extends to all abrahamic religions to some degree) the idea that there is a holy book that contains the sacred word of God, that is his eternal truth and cannot be subjected to changes by mortal men.. it can be a real impediment. We're constantly learning new things, discovering things that sometimes contradict the Biblical narrative, so far it hasn't been a major problem because theologians, religious authorities and intellectuals have managed (in some cases not without resisitance) to reinterpret the Word of God in a way that doesn't contradict scientific discoveries, but the day may come when that is no longer possible, when a scientific discovery cannot seemingly be made to fit with scripture, and people will have to pick one: God or science. This is, incidentally, also why I don't find the Bible to be a good foundation for morality and laws. As we learn more about the world and about ourselves, our moral values evolve and change. Certain things that were permisible (or even mandatory) are now forbidden, and certain things which are now understood to be harmless and permisible were once forbidden and taboo. Unlike the American constitution, the Bible cannot be "amended". Christians can't come together and pass an amendment to repeal the 4th Commandment because "God was wrong about that one". Any system which holds unquestionable sacred truths that cannot be contradicted or updated as times and knowledge change is a bad fundation for either science, morality or goverment. So yes, some religions definitely have elements that are bound to conflict with science. How does that fit with the Conflict Thesis? Is there something that I'm not understanding?
I guess one response would be that religion can and does alter its interpretation or translation of the Bible, or how seriously it's taken, or which parts to outright ignore. It's a level of inconsistency and often intellectual dishonesty that tend to annoy atheists, but they are effectively amending it when they do that. I think the better reason not to use the Bible as a basis for anything is, it probably isn't true. It's also extremely polarizing, so even using it only as a metaphor may make your argument less convincing to people who don't share that religion, even if what you're trying to do is ultimately secular.
The Conflict Thesis is the idea that, down through history, religion and science have consistently and necessarily been opposed. The hypothetical you propose above about some future scientific development that (somehow) rules out Abrahamic religion has absolutely nothing to do with history and so has nothing to do with the Conflict Thesis. It also seems like a highly dubious fantasy.
@@historyforatheists9363 That makes sense. Yeah, I can see why the Conflict Thesis is false. As for the hypothetical, I never claimed that it was likely to happen, just that it's a possibility. In any case, it has nothing to do with the Conflict Thesis as you described it. Thanks for the reply.
@@SidheKnight Thank you for your thoughtful comment! Whilst it might well seem that having fixed Scriptural beliefs will negatively affect science, the reality is that those beliefs have tended to be a great boon to it historically. Some examples include the teaching that God created ex nihilo, meaning that He could create however He wanted to, without constraint - this required nature to be studied to discover how He did so, rather than reason alone being enough to deduce it. Similarly, the doctrine claiming that our minds are the the likenesses of God's mind was taken to mean we should be able to understand His creation by studying it; the teaching that God's nature can be better understood by investigating His creation provided motivation to do so; the dogma that there is only one God led to the expectation of consistency and regularity in creation (which lends itself to scientific study); the belief that human beings fell both morally and mentally led theologians to argue that experiments are necessary to validate or challenge our scientific theorising, which could otherwise be unreliable. So, in practice, some of the key dogmas in Christianity actually worked in favour of science, rather than against it. Friedrich Nietzsche (perhaps the most internally consistent intellectual naturalist) even made this point explicitly: "There is no such thing as science 'without any presuppositions'...a philosophy, a 'faith' must always be there first of all, so that science can require from it a direction, a meaning, a limit, a method, a right to exist...we men of knowledge, we godless men and anti-metaphysicians, we, too, still derive our flame from the fire ignited by a faith millennia old, the Christian faith." You are right that, more recently, there has been conflict along the lines of 'the Bible says x, and science says y' - but these have all (mostly, at least) come in the wake of Draper and White, with their conflict thesis already laid out. People using that line of reasoning (on both sides, as it happens) have usually bought into the historical conflict thesis, and see themselves as continuing a battle that never existed. To do so, they tend to either misunderstand the Bible, or misunderstand science - often because they have misunderstood history itself, and have a wrong view of Biblical interpretation or of the nature of science. Much more to say, of course - but I might just cheekily suggest that you read the book...it's all in there ;)
I was disappointed to hear Hutchings repeat the tired trope that Athiests want to reject Christianity because they want to sin. 58:05. It cast a shadow over what was otherwise a very good historical discussion.
I didn't interpret what he said that way, otherwise I would have objected. He's saying Christianity makes a particular type of moral call on you, which is true. And so this false dichotomy between "science" and "religion" allows an certain type of unthoughtful person to reject "religion" without much consideration about that moral call. That's not quite saying "people become atheists so they can sin."
@@historyforatheists9363 He made the same point t in exactly the same context In the Unbelievable discussion. He said... "Just giving the answer “No. I believe in science” is a sufficient answer thats enough to just end the conversation… I mean just say I didn’t go for the god side I went for the science side. Thats the end of the story. So that makes it attractive for people… They can just harness that to avoid having to deal with any of this God business or any idea that there might be a moral call on your life, to start thinking about whether you should be living a different way or whether you need to confess or whether you need to come to god for forgiveness. All those things you don’t haver to think about them because you can use the conflict thesis top dodge it. " He seems to be very clearly saying that Athiest motivation for holding to the faith vs Science story is motivated by their desire to avoid the moral call on their life, ie to sin.
@@historyforatheists9363 I think his larger point was to underline Wright’s thought that people use stories to justify their rejection of the faith. Faith vs science is one such convenient story It serves as a JUSTIFICATION for their rejection of belief. But he seems to say that their MOTIVATION for the rejection is their desire to be free of the ethical call on their lives. He says… “It’s a very convenient story to believe. The great challenge of christianity is it puts some kind of moral demand onto your life. it says there is a right way to live and if you don’t live that way In some sense you are guilty. And people who want to be free of that... moral call on their lives, this gives an out. “ It seems clear to me that he is saying that people reject the faith because they want to sin without guilt. Im not criticising that you didn’t respond to this. You were the host and such a criticism would have been ungracious and a distraction from the broader discussion. But I do hold to my initial claim. He was repeating the tired old trope. People find convenient excuses to reject the faith so that they can sin without guilt. I think your interpretation and defence of what he said is a distinction without a difference.
Tim I like your channel. However, there are two videos that I think didn’t have as much useful content as the others- this one and “dominion”. The latter one has a propaganda touch and this one is more of a discussion and an elevator pitch rather than info on the topic. Keep up the good work though, H for A is very useful and I think a must see for any intellectual atheist.
I see what you mean, Shant. But maybe alter your future expectations depending on whether it's a podcast discussion vs a planned, researched, scripted and edited video!
Yet others have found my discussion with Tom Holland excellent - it’s also my most viewed video. And two people have contacted me to say they found this one fascinating. The reason I vary my content and guests is … different people find different things interesting and useful.
@@historyforatheists9363 Absolutely! Didn't mean it as a criticism at all and I very much enjoyed these videos. Just pointing out that a natural conversation will always be less information-dense than a straight to camera piece. Also, the two mentioned discussions were literally about the authors' new books, so if you want more info..... (I'm going to have to read of popes and unicorns anyways, just to see if I was mistaken about historical attitudes to anatomy/dissection. If I have to rewrite one more lecture, I swear to god...)
@@paulmitchell9975 I alternate straight to camera content with interviews for that reason. And I interview authors about books I’m recommending my viewers read, though I make sure we give the viewers enough summary of the topic that they can follow the discussion without having read the book.
@@historyforatheists9363 And I appreciate all the work you do on this entirely free website! Don't think there's any realistic way I would've heard about this book otherwise. You've changed my mind about at least one thing, and I love that that can still happen to my aging, fossilized neural circuits.
There is an epistemological conflict between revelation and naturalism/materialism. To the extent that any work is done by any institution under a materialist epistemology, whether by a priest or by a lab tech, then you can say that they are doing science. Mendel didn't claim that a supernatural revelation told him about pea plant relations. He did the observations of their material reality. It's the acceptance of "revelation" as a legitimate source of knowledge that causes a break. You could also say that this conflict crops up when people claim that they are "going with their gut" or "just believe" something. It's not exclusively religious, but it's real.
@@historyforatheists9363 Sure, and I don't disagree that the 19th century thesis of perpetual conflict between the institutions of religion, like the Catholic church, and science is bunk. I'm just pointing out that *a* conflict *does* exist. I relate this back to the various schools of Hinduism and their pramanas. The schools are usually divided based on which of the sources of knowledge are accepted as legitimate. The oldest orthodox Hindu philosophies actually had 6. But the Charvaka school only accepted one, observation. They were a strictly materialist philosophy way back some time in the first millennium BCE. Despite orthodox Hinduism also accepting observation as one of the legitimate pramanas, these schools are in conflict. All that to say, religious philosophies require more than materialism as the basis for their epistemology. When revelation conflicts with observation, something has to give. That's *a* real and fundamental conflict between religion and the practice of science.
@@historyforatheists9363 Except it is. It's a conflict between the fundamental principles of religion and science. Religion, specifically in our case the Christian religion, adds another pramana. How revelation has been more or less honestly reconciled with observation is interesting, sure. But it benefits no one to disingenuously pretend that they aren't often in conflict. This persists to today, and not just in Young Earth Creationist circles. The Catholic church persists in its mealy mouthed "deistic evolution" and use of the principles of inflation cosmology as evidence for a deity. This is still a philosophical conflict with the principles of science. Christian scientists are merely comfortable compartmentalizing. Revelation in the pews; observation in the labs.
@@TacticusPrime "Except it is." it isn't. The video is about a question of history. You're talking about something else: a question of epistemology. You're trying to change the subject to something else. No-one cares about your topic. Go away.
ROFL, defining the conflict between religious thought and scientific or logical thought. The idea that religious thought is not logical can only come from someone who has never read Paul's logical arguments in the New Testament. What amazing arrogance. In reality, there is no conflict between true religion and true science, it's just that there's a lot of false religion and false science out there.
"Paul's logical arguments . . ." Like when Paul, in Romans 1, said the equivalent of "if you don't accept my doctrines, it's because you're evil and willfully suppressing the fact that you already know I'm right." That's certainly the mark of a great philosopher, threatening people into agreeing with you. I'll bet he retained a lot of converts simply because they were terrified of the possibility that their doubts came from an evil origin. Anyhow, if one listens to Jim Jones, Osho, LR Hubbard, etc. long enough, one is going to hear some "logical arguments." Heck, one can be pretty sure a good chunk will even be valid. This is the most ordinary ability in the world. It doesn't make these guys geniuses, and it certainly doesn't erase the ways in which they were enemies of the truth.
@@somexp12 And of course, Paul never argues like that. Those you name are no different to Mao, Stalin & the like, having more similarity to Atheists than Christians.
@@martinploughboy988 Modern Christians argue exactly that, and they cite Paul when they do so. Unless you disagree with these modern Christians (and I'm talking about the majority of Evangelical apologists) you accomplish nothing by trying absolve Paul of views that you hold yourself. If you want to say that Paul never says what Paul says, you should at least start by repudiating the Evangelical interpretation of Romans 1. Are you actually willing to do that? My guess is that you're not willing to do so, because you not only agree that Paul *did* say this, but you also agree with *what* he said. You only dispute that he said it "like that." A total non-point. The logic of what he says is the same regardless of the delivery. It's nothing other than a threat to keep people loyal and a character assassination on anyone who expresses doubts.
@@martinploughboy988 OK, so you're going to read my challenge but pretend I never issued it? A prerequisite to denying that Paul endorsed this view is to repudiate it yourself (or else declare yourself in opposition to Paul). Do you or do you not repudiate the view that "Christianity is self-evident, and anyone who rejects it is rejecting something they clearly know to be true, and they only do so because they have a desire to do evil." Three distinct points I have heard from apologists over and over and over and over again. Do you or do you not reject them? As for your question, "What modern Christians," well, if you're going to avoid repudiating the points I listed, then you already acknowledge yourself as one of them. With the jury still out on you, I could list any Christian who describes himself as a "presuppositionalist." Some well-known characters include Jeff Durbin, James White, Sye Ten Bruggencate, Eric Hovind (I think). Frank Turek has also endorsed this view but has made concessions that are not really concessions. It's a much bigger list than this, though, because this style of reasoning is actually gotten to be fashionable. Mostly among Evangelicals, but Roman Catholics and Orthodox have also participated.
Yes there was a guy named Jesus who may have been a rabbi. We know Jesus in the Bible was not real. I can show Jesus was a liar, false prophet and the gospels are all wrong.
@@chemosh9565 Have no idea what the hell you are on about. You seem to not be at all aware of what historical analysis says about Jesus. You seem to simply talk about your own projections on the subject.
@@Alnivol666 there are no historical analysis. You have historical places. Jesus is a fictional character . since titanic happened is jack and Kate real? How about Vietnam does that war prove Rambo was real? Hello ?
Tim - While the conflict between church and science has been overblown, my understanding is that the the index librorum prohibitorum was enforced and had a real impact. Could you do an episode confirming or dispelling its affects? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum#Early_indices_(1529%E2%80%931571)
"Had a real impact" on what? On theology, sure. On science? No. The Index barely touched on works of science and where it did - e.g. the prohibitions of *some* works on heliocentrism - it had very little impact. The works that were banned were ones that claimed heliocentrism as fact. Copernicus' "Revolutionibus" was never banned, just "corrected" to tone down a few passages that stated the theory as factual. People could (and did) still entertain and explore the hypothesis. And once the consensus changed, the Index quietly removed the bans on heliocentric books.
@@historyforatheists9363 Thanks for the response! From the wiki page, I'm referring to: "The blacklisting of some Protestant scholars even when writing on subjects a modern reader would consider outside the realm of dogma meant that, unless they obtained a dispensation, obedient Catholic thinkers were denied access to works including: botanist Conrad Gesner's Historiae animalium; the botanical works of Otto Brunfels; those of the medical scholar Janus Cornarius; to Christoph Hegendorff or Johann Oldendorp on the theory of law." So while the church may not have deemed botany and theory of law as heretical; I'm asking whether the banning of such books from protestant authors slowed down progress on these scientific fields. Were catholic scientists (and laypeople) able to easily access the works of their protestant counterparts and contribute to those fields?
@@kenhilker2507 Good question. Since Early Modern science is not an area I know a lot about (other than the heliocentric issue), I asked the indefatigable historian of science Thony Christie what he thought about those authors being on the Index and the potential effect on scientific progress. He was kind enough to answer: "Judging by the reception and success of the works of both Gessner and Brunfels by both Protestant and Catholic scholars, I don't think being on the Index had very much effect at all. If we look at the most notorious case of science books being placed on the Index, the banning of heliocentric texts, contrary to popular opinion, this had almost no effect on the progress of astronomy in the 17th century. In fact much of that progress was provided by Catholic astronomers, in particular Jesuit ones." I'd add that a book being on the Index was more an indication of official disapproval. How much attention Catholic scholars paid to this depended on the scholar and the reason the book was there. A devout Catholic scholar is likely to have shunned a theological book by a Protestant, but would they be as likely to do so with a scientific book, simply because the author was a Protestant? Thony's response re how widely read these authors were across both Catholic and Protestant Europe indicates that Catholic scholars didn't pay much attention to the Index listing these authors and the Office of the Index doesn't seem to have enforced this ban very strongly.
@@historyforatheists9363 Big thank you Tim for digging into this, and please pass my thanks along to Thony as well! I'm glad to hear that despite "official disapproval", the actual impact was negligible.
As a nonbeliever myself, I really appreciate you debunking so many of the myths that other atheists have clung to erroneously.
I want to thank you, as an Eastern Orthodox Christian, to the bottom of my heart. You have helped ease a lot of dialog. Maybe I should create a blog one day dealing with History for Christians. One day, but for now I am busy with civil service, people in prison, and the poor. One day, if it is my calling. Thank you again!
Christ is Risen!
I needed the anti theism to leave my Religion. But now I can be openminded. I believe in God I believe in a story but I don't believe in book texts but maybe I do believe Religious texts in the eye of my own world view that changes every second. I love you guys thank you very very very much. Dogmatism is the problem. I was ressentiment against Christians and Christianity because there are people who go against Islam where my culture comes from and they prais Christianity.
We need more Christians like you.
There is one minor error which occurs just before 14:49. University College London did not become the University of London; in fact it still exists, independently of the University of London, and can award degrees in its own name.
Great video
I've been enjoying your content for a while. I often listen to the "whippersnapper atheists" on TH-cam and have learned some things. But I take a lot of what they say with a degree of scepticism. If they want to use history to villainise religion they could look at the recent conduct of different churches.
Very interesting interview. However, it's not completely clear to me whether the book is all about Draper and White and the Conflict Thesis, or is there a part devoted to the analisys and debunking of some myths? (Sorry if it's explained in the video, but as a non-native English speaker, it's possible that I didn't catch some sentences).
Hi - thank you for your question! The book has the whole story of Draper and White, what they wrote and why, and also debunks/analyses their myths. It's all in there :)
@@davidhutchings4638 Thanks for the clarification, the book will definitely be on my TBR list. It has also an awesome title
@@carmeloterranova517 Thank you! :)
I just want to say, I’m a Christian that has just discovered your channel. So I’m not really your target audience haha.
But I REALLY respect the work that you’re doing. I really hope our communities (secular and religious) could come together some day. I don’t think it’s very plausible at the moment. I go to Reddit, Quora, Twitter, TH-cam etc and find that so many atheists are simply interested in debunking my religious faith, asserting to us that we’re very much irrational creatures for believing in God etc. It can just be frustrating because you genuinely want to have fruitful dialogue, but they poison the well with insults before I can even start. Christians online have also been very toxic.
I really don’t know why it is that many atheists online are like this. I will always be down to have discussions with and even support Atheists, like you, who are thoughtful, respectful.
Thanks. But I can be "disrespectful" to Christians if they deserve it. Many of them are every bit as capable of distorting history and making stupid arguments as non-believers. And if they get condescending or preachy with me, I'm not exactly kindly in response.
But I get what you mean and am glad you find the channel useful.
Hi History For Atheists. Halloween is coming. I predict you are going to soon do a video on whether or not Halloween is pagan, just like how you did with Easter earlier this year.
This is a good channel we need a channel called history for ex-Muslims. The Islamic era is sometimes demonised as well.
The Family Guy episode that Tim was referring to at 35:14 that further perpetuates the Conflict Thesis myth is the following URL:
th-cam.com/video/B-y_-FSN44g/w-d-xo.html
Hello, Bahai religion has his own "harmony thesis"! The 'principle' is that : the religion HAS to be in accord with science. The first time mentioned in the Scripture is 1911! After Abdulbaha visited Egypt.
I have never understood why the Catholic Church so adamantly clung to the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic system when it has nothing to do with religious devotion or observance.
They didn't "cling" to it. They accepted it because while it made the most scientific sense and then abandoned it in favour of the Tychonian system initially and then, eventually, the Keplerian model.
@@historyforatheists9363 Another factor was the deep love for Aristotle, such that many professionals and institutions had Aristotle baked in to what they were doing - reluctance to change in the teaching profession is as old as time...who wants to rewrite lectures?! But Tim is right - the conclusive scientific evidence for heliocentrism didn't actually arrive until the 1800s - by which time everyone had accepted it anyway. Galileo was not on sound scientific footing with his arguments...he was asked for proof, but couldn't provide it.
Great interview!
Unfortunately, I still don't know what to make of the conclusion. I mean, I guess it all depends on how one defines the Conflict Thesis.
If by Conflict Thesis you mean the most extreme version of "Evil priests going around burning science books (and scientists) that oppose a literal interpretation of the Bible (insert Christian Dark Ages chart meme)" then yeah, it's obviously false.
If by Conflict Thesis you mean "You can't be a good scientist and a religious believer at the same time" then again, the theory is obviously false.
But I think there is some truth to the notion that certain religious beliefs or belief systems can by their very nature be a hindrance to science.
To use the example of Christianity (the religion I'm more familiar with, but it extends to all abrahamic religions to some degree) the idea that there is a holy book that contains the sacred word of God, that is his eternal truth and cannot be subjected to changes by mortal men.. it can be a real impediment.
We're constantly learning new things, discovering things that sometimes contradict the Biblical narrative, so far it hasn't been a major problem because theologians, religious authorities and intellectuals have managed (in some cases not without resisitance) to reinterpret the Word of God in a way that doesn't contradict scientific discoveries, but the day may come when that is no longer possible, when a scientific discovery cannot seemingly be made to fit with scripture, and people will have to pick one: God or science.
This is, incidentally, also why I don't find the Bible to be a good foundation for morality and laws. As we learn more about the world and about ourselves, our moral values evolve and change. Certain things that were permisible (or even mandatory) are now forbidden, and certain things which are now understood to be harmless and permisible were once forbidden and taboo.
Unlike the American constitution, the Bible cannot be "amended". Christians can't come together and pass an amendment to repeal the 4th Commandment because "God was wrong about that one".
Any system which holds unquestionable sacred truths that cannot be contradicted or updated as times and knowledge change is a bad fundation for either science, morality or goverment. So yes, some religions definitely have elements that are bound to conflict with science.
How does that fit with the Conflict Thesis? Is there something that I'm not understanding?
I guess one response would be that religion can and does alter its interpretation or translation of the Bible, or how seriously it's taken, or which parts to outright ignore.
It's a level of inconsistency and often intellectual dishonesty that tend to annoy atheists, but they are effectively amending it when they do that.
I think the better reason not to use the Bible as a basis for anything is, it probably isn't true. It's also extremely polarizing, so even using it only as a metaphor may make your argument less convincing to people who don't share that religion, even if what you're trying to do is ultimately secular.
The Conflict Thesis is the idea that, down through history, religion and science have consistently and necessarily been opposed. The hypothetical you propose above about some future scientific development that (somehow) rules out Abrahamic religion has absolutely nothing to do with history and so has nothing to do with the Conflict Thesis. It also seems like a highly dubious fantasy.
@@historyforatheists9363 That makes sense. Yeah, I can see why the Conflict Thesis is false.
As for the hypothetical, I never claimed that it was likely to happen, just that it's a possibility. In any case, it has nothing to do with the Conflict Thesis as you described it. Thanks for the reply.
@@SidheKnight Thank you for your thoughtful comment!
Whilst it might well seem that having fixed Scriptural beliefs will negatively affect science, the reality is that those beliefs have tended to be a great boon to it historically. Some examples include the teaching that God created ex nihilo, meaning that He could create however He wanted to, without constraint - this required nature to be studied to discover how He did so, rather than reason alone being enough to deduce it. Similarly, the doctrine claiming that our minds are the the likenesses of God's mind was taken to mean we should be able to understand His creation by studying it; the teaching that God's nature can be better understood by investigating His creation provided motivation to do so; the dogma that there is only one God led to the expectation of consistency and regularity in creation (which lends itself to scientific study); the belief that human beings fell both morally and mentally led theologians to argue that experiments are necessary to validate or challenge our scientific theorising, which could otherwise be unreliable.
So, in practice, some of the key dogmas in Christianity actually worked in favour of science, rather than against it. Friedrich Nietzsche (perhaps the most internally consistent intellectual naturalist) even made this point explicitly: "There is no such thing as science 'without any presuppositions'...a philosophy, a 'faith' must always be there first of all, so that science can require from it a direction, a meaning, a limit, a method, a right to exist...we men of knowledge, we godless men and anti-metaphysicians, we, too, still derive our flame from the fire ignited by a faith millennia old, the Christian faith."
You are right that, more recently, there has been conflict along the lines of 'the Bible says x, and science says y' - but these have all (mostly, at least) come in the wake of Draper and White, with their conflict thesis already laid out. People using that line of reasoning (on both sides, as it happens) have usually bought into the historical conflict thesis, and see themselves as continuing a battle that never existed. To do so, they tend to either misunderstand the Bible, or misunderstand science - often because they have misunderstood history itself, and have a wrong view of Biblical interpretation or of the nature of science.
Much more to say, of course - but I might just cheekily suggest that you read the book...it's all in there ;)
I was disappointed to hear Hutchings repeat the tired trope that Athiests want to reject Christianity because they want to sin. 58:05. It cast a shadow over what was otherwise a very good historical discussion.
I didn't interpret what he said that way, otherwise I would have objected. He's saying Christianity makes a particular type of moral call on you, which is true. And so this false dichotomy between "science" and "religion" allows an certain type of unthoughtful person to reject "religion" without much consideration about that moral call. That's not quite saying "people become atheists so they can sin."
@@historyforatheists9363 He made the same point t in exactly the same context In the Unbelievable discussion. He said... "Just giving the answer “No. I believe in science” is a sufficient answer thats enough to just end the conversation… I mean just say I didn’t go for the god side I went for the science side. Thats the end of the story. So that makes it attractive for people… They can just harness that to avoid having to deal with any of this God business or any idea that there might be a moral call on your life, to start thinking about whether you should be living a different way or whether you need to confess or whether you need to come to god for forgiveness. All those things you don’t haver to think about them because you can use the conflict thesis top dodge it. " He seems to be very clearly saying that Athiest motivation for holding to the faith vs Science story is motivated by their desire to avoid the moral call on their life, ie to sin.
@@historyforatheists9363 I think his larger point was to underline Wright’s thought that people use stories to justify their rejection of the faith. Faith vs science is one such convenient story
It serves as a JUSTIFICATION for their rejection of belief. But he seems to say that their MOTIVATION for the rejection is their desire to be free of the ethical call on their lives. He says…
“It’s a very convenient story to believe. The great challenge of christianity is it puts some kind of moral demand onto your life. it says there is a right way to live and if you don’t live that way In some sense you are guilty. And people who want to be free of that... moral call on their lives, this gives an out. “
It seems clear to me that he is saying that people reject the faith because they want to sin without guilt.
Im not criticising that you didn’t respond to this. You were the host and such a criticism would have been ungracious and a distraction from the broader discussion. But I do hold to my initial claim. He was repeating the tired old trope. People find convenient excuses to reject the faith so that they can sin without guilt. I think your interpretation and defence of what he said is a distinction without a difference.
Tim I like your channel. However, there are two videos that I think didn’t have as much useful content as the others- this one and “dominion”. The latter one has a propaganda touch and this one is more of a discussion and an elevator pitch rather than info on the topic. Keep up the good work though, H for A is very useful and I think a must see for any intellectual atheist.
I see what you mean, Shant. But maybe alter your future expectations depending on whether it's a podcast discussion vs a planned, researched, scripted and edited video!
Yet others have found my discussion with Tom Holland excellent - it’s also my most viewed video. And two people have contacted me to say they found this one fascinating. The reason I vary my content and guests is … different people find different things interesting and useful.
@@historyforatheists9363 Absolutely! Didn't mean it as a criticism at all and I very much enjoyed these videos. Just pointing out that a natural conversation will always be less information-dense than a straight to camera piece. Also, the two mentioned discussions were literally about the authors' new books, so if you want more info..... (I'm going to have to read of popes and unicorns anyways, just to see if I was mistaken about historical attitudes to anatomy/dissection. If I have to rewrite one more lecture, I swear to god...)
@@paulmitchell9975 I alternate straight to camera content with interviews for that reason. And I interview authors about books I’m recommending my viewers read, though I make sure we give the viewers enough summary of the topic that they can follow the discussion without having read the book.
@@historyforatheists9363 And I appreciate all the work you do on this entirely free website! Don't think there's any realistic way I would've heard about this book otherwise. You've changed my mind about at least one thing, and I love that that can still happen to my aging, fossilized neural circuits.
There is an epistemological conflict between revelation and naturalism/materialism. To the extent that any work is done by any institution under a materialist epistemology, whether by a priest or by a lab tech, then you can say that they are doing science. Mendel didn't claim that a supernatural revelation told him about pea plant relations. He did the observations of their material reality.
It's the acceptance of "revelation" as a legitimate source of knowledge that causes a break. You could also say that this conflict crops up when people claim that they are "going with their gut" or "just believe" something. It's not exclusively religious, but it's real.
That’s not the conflict the term “Conflict Thesis” refers to.
@@historyforatheists9363 Sure, and I don't disagree that the 19th century thesis of perpetual conflict between the institutions of religion, like the Catholic church, and science is bunk. I'm just pointing out that *a* conflict *does* exist.
I relate this back to the various schools of Hinduism and their pramanas. The schools are usually divided based on which of the sources of knowledge are accepted as legitimate. The oldest orthodox Hindu philosophies actually had 6. But the Charvaka school only accepted one, observation. They were a strictly materialist philosophy way back some time in the first millennium BCE. Despite orthodox Hinduism also accepting observation as one of the legitimate pramanas, these schools are in conflict.
All that to say, religious philosophies require more than materialism as the basis for their epistemology. When revelation conflicts with observation, something has to give. That's *a* real and fundamental conflict between religion and the practice of science.
@@TacticusPrime "'I'm just pointing out that a conflict does exist."
One that is not relevant to this topic.
@@historyforatheists9363 Except it is. It's a conflict between the fundamental principles of religion and science. Religion, specifically in our case the Christian religion, adds another pramana. How revelation has been more or less honestly reconciled with observation is interesting, sure. But it benefits no one to disingenuously pretend that they aren't often in conflict.
This persists to today, and not just in Young Earth Creationist circles. The Catholic church persists in its mealy mouthed "deistic evolution" and use of the principles of inflation cosmology as evidence for a deity. This is still a philosophical conflict with the principles of science. Christian scientists are merely comfortable compartmentalizing. Revelation in the pews; observation in the labs.
@@TacticusPrime "Except it is."
it isn't. The video is about a question of history. You're talking about something else: a question of epistemology. You're trying to change the subject to something else. No-one cares about your topic. Go away.
ROFL, defining the conflict between religious thought and scientific or logical thought. The idea that religious thought is not logical can only come from someone who has never read Paul's logical arguments in the New Testament. What amazing arrogance.
In reality, there is no conflict between true religion and true science, it's just that there's a lot of false religion and false science out there.
"Paul's logical arguments . . ."
Like when Paul, in Romans 1, said the equivalent of "if you don't accept my doctrines, it's because you're evil and willfully suppressing the fact that you already know I'm right." That's certainly the mark of a great philosopher, threatening people into agreeing with you. I'll bet he retained a lot of converts simply because they were terrified of the possibility that their doubts came from an evil origin.
Anyhow, if one listens to Jim Jones, Osho, LR Hubbard, etc. long enough, one is going to hear some "logical arguments." Heck, one can be pretty sure a good chunk will even be valid. This is the most ordinary ability in the world. It doesn't make these guys geniuses, and it certainly doesn't erase the ways in which they were enemies of the truth.
@@somexp12 And of course, Paul never argues like that. Those you name are no different to Mao, Stalin & the like, having more similarity to Atheists than Christians.
@@martinploughboy988 Modern Christians argue exactly that, and they cite Paul when they do so. Unless you disagree with these modern Christians (and I'm talking about the majority of Evangelical apologists) you accomplish nothing by trying absolve Paul of views that you hold yourself. If you want to say that Paul never says what Paul says, you should at least start by repudiating the Evangelical interpretation of Romans 1. Are you actually willing to do that?
My guess is that you're not willing to do so, because you not only agree that Paul *did* say this, but you also agree with *what* he said. You only dispute that he said it "like that." A total non-point. The logic of what he says is the same regardless of the delivery. It's nothing other than a threat to keep people loyal and a character assassination on anyone who expresses doubts.
@@somexp12 What modern Christians (Evangelicals?) are they? Can you produce quotes?
You're not very good at guessing
@@martinploughboy988 OK, so you're going to read my challenge but pretend I never issued it? A prerequisite to denying that Paul endorsed this view is to repudiate it yourself (or else declare yourself in opposition to Paul). Do you or do you not repudiate the view that "Christianity is self-evident, and anyone who rejects it is rejecting something they clearly know to be true, and they only do so because they have a desire to do evil." Three distinct points I have heard from apologists over and over and over and over again. Do you or do you not reject them?
As for your question, "What modern Christians," well, if you're going to avoid repudiating the points I listed, then you already acknowledge yourself as one of them. With the jury still out on you, I could list any Christian who describes himself as a "presuppositionalist." Some well-known characters include Jeff Durbin, James White, Sye Ten Bruggencate, Eric Hovind (I think). Frank Turek has also endorsed this view but has made concessions that are not really concessions. It's a much bigger list than this, though, because this style of reasoning is actually gotten to be fashionable. Mostly among Evangelicals, but Roman Catholics and Orthodox have also participated.
Yes there was a guy named Jesus who may have been a rabbi. We know Jesus in the Bible was not real.
I can show Jesus was a liar, false prophet and the gospels are all wrong.
And this is relevant to the pursuit of historical knowledge how exactly?
@@Alnivol666 there is no historical knowledge . so because the titanic was real does that mean jack and Kate were real to?
@@chemosh9565 Have no idea what the hell you are on about. You seem to not be at all aware of what historical analysis says about Jesus. You seem to simply talk about your own projections on the subject.
@@Alnivol666 there are no historical analysis. You have historical places.
Jesus is a fictional character .
since titanic happened is jack and Kate real?
How about Vietnam does that war prove Rambo was real?
Hello ?
@@chemosh9565 That is not how any of it works, my dude. You are simply out of touch with the subject. Probably an anti theist. Good luck!
Tim - While the conflict between church and science has been overblown, my understanding is that the the index librorum prohibitorum was enforced and had a real impact. Could you do an episode confirming or dispelling its affects?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum#Early_indices_(1529%E2%80%931571)
"Had a real impact" on what? On theology, sure. On science? No. The Index barely touched on works of science and where it did - e.g. the prohibitions of *some* works on heliocentrism - it had very little impact. The works that were banned were ones that claimed heliocentrism as fact. Copernicus' "Revolutionibus" was never banned, just "corrected" to tone down a few passages that stated the theory as factual. People could (and did) still entertain and explore the hypothesis. And once the consensus changed, the Index quietly removed the bans on heliocentric books.
@@historyforatheists9363 Thanks for the response! From the wiki page, I'm referring to:
"The blacklisting of some Protestant scholars even when writing on subjects a modern reader would consider outside the realm of dogma meant that, unless they obtained a dispensation, obedient Catholic thinkers were denied access to works including: botanist Conrad Gesner's Historiae animalium; the botanical works of Otto Brunfels; those of the medical scholar Janus Cornarius; to Christoph Hegendorff or Johann Oldendorp on the theory of law."
So while the church may not have deemed botany and theory of law as heretical; I'm asking whether the banning of such books from protestant authors slowed down progress on these scientific fields. Were catholic scientists (and laypeople) able to easily access the works of their protestant counterparts and contribute to those fields?
@@kenhilker2507 Good question. Since Early Modern science is not an area I know a lot about (other than the heliocentric issue), I asked the indefatigable historian of science Thony Christie what he thought about those authors being on the Index and the potential effect on scientific progress. He was kind enough to answer:
"Judging by the reception and success of the works of both Gessner and Brunfels by both Protestant and Catholic scholars, I don't think being on the Index had very much effect at all. If we look at the most notorious case of science books being placed on the Index, the banning of heliocentric texts, contrary to popular opinion, this had almost no effect on the progress of astronomy in the 17th century. In fact much of that progress was provided by Catholic astronomers, in particular Jesuit ones."
I'd add that a book being on the Index was more an indication of official disapproval. How much attention Catholic scholars paid to this depended on the scholar and the reason the book was there. A devout Catholic scholar is likely to have shunned a theological book by a Protestant, but would they be as likely to do so with a scientific book, simply because the author was a Protestant? Thony's response re how widely read these authors were across both Catholic and Protestant Europe indicates that Catholic scholars didn't pay much attention to the Index listing these authors and the Office of the Index doesn't seem to have enforced this ban very strongly.
@@historyforatheists9363 Big thank you Tim for digging into this, and please pass my thanks along to Thony as well! I'm glad to hear that despite "official disapproval", the actual impact was negligible.