Science and Religious Dogmatism

Matías Cabello writes in a new paper:

The greatest myth in the history of science and religion holds that they have been in a state of constant conflict. — Numbers (2009, p.1)

Is the science-based world we live in today the result of rationalism displacing religious dogmatism— the triumph of reason over faith, the victory of science over religion? This interpretation took root during the Enlightenment and remains popular among many in secular society, who see clear paral- lels between current evangelical resistance to Darwinism and Galileo’s condemnation by the Roman Inquisition in 1633 for holding that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Today’s leading experts on the subject, however, tend to either strongly qualify or outright deny the notion that religion and science were historically in conflict. Neither did science undermine religion (Brooke, 2009), experts claim, nor has religion typically impeded scientific growth (Harrison, 2015). The rise of Christianity did not cause the demise of classical philosophy (Lindberg, 2009); the Medieval Church did not suppress the growth of science (Shank, 2009); and there was “no such thing as a [systematic] conflict between science and religion” in the times of Galileo (Shapin, 1998). His trial by the Inquisition is instead seen as a rare exception to an otherwise constructive relationship between the Church and science, evidenced by countless cases of scientists who were deeply religious, who were religiously inspired to do science, who were directly funded by the Church, or who owe their scientific productivity to the vast network of early modern cultivated clergymen (Brooke, 1991, Shapin, 1998, Harrison, 1998, Osler, 2001, Feingold, 2003, and Hannam, 2011, among many others). ...

The consensus is clear: “as a theory believed by working historians, the conflict hypothesis is dead” (Hannam, 2009); it “has now been thoroughly debunked,” as a “mixture of exaggerations, dishonest emphases, misunderstandings, and outright lies” (Hutchings and Ungureanu, 2022, p. 15); “erected on insubstantial foundations” (Russell, 2000, p. 15), it is nothing but “the greatest myth in the history of science” (Numbers, 2009, p.1).1

He goes on to argue that Europe had a Christian revival in 1520-1720, and this stalled the progress of science somewhat.

Evolutionist-atheist Jerry Coyne is unconvinced, but has some similar views:

Instead, I’d say that people like Numbers and Ruse adopt the “no conflict” hypothesis because it is more or less a “woke” point of view: it goes along with the virtue-flaunting idea that you can have your Jesus and Darwin, too. You don’t get popular by touting a conflict, as I’ve learned, but people love to hear that you can be religious and also embrace modern science.

Numbers and Ruse are dead, so I don't know about them. But it is bizarre to say European science was held back by Christianity during 1520-1720. That was the time of Copernicus, Tycho, Kepler, Galileo, Boyle, Hooke, Newton, Leibniz, etc. The first great anatomy book was written. Europe lept ahead of the whole world in science.

While people like to point on a dispute between Galileo and the Pope, it did not hurt the progress of science. Galileo continued to get Church sponsorship, and to publish scientific works. No other religion wsa sponsoring scientific works.