Conflict thesis

The conflict thesis is a historiographical approach in the history of science that originated in the 19th century with John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White. It maintains that there is an intrinsic intellectual conflict between religion and science, and that it inevitably leads to hostility.^[1]^[2] The consensus among historians of science is that the thesis has long been discredited, which explains the rejection of the thesis by contemporary scholars.^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7] Into the 21st century, historians of science widely accept a complexity thesis.^[8]

Studies on scientists and the general public show that the conflict perspective is not prevalent.^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]

^ Cite error: The named reference Draper was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference White was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Hutchings, David and James C. Ungureanu (2021). "Fooling the World". Of Popes and Unicorns: Science, Christianity, and How the Conflict Thesis Fooled the World. Oxford University Press. pp. 15–16. ISBN 9780190053093. The series of myths that Draper and White spread about science and religion are known today in the literature as the conflict thesis. Thanks to the dedicated and committed research of a band of specialists operating since the 1980s at least, the conflict thesis has now been thoroughly debunked. One by one, the tales spun out in Conflict and Warfare have been shown to be either entirely false, horribly misunderstood, or deliberately misrepresented... There is a clear, evidence-based consensus among this group: the conflict thesis is utter bunk.
^ Shapin, S. (1996). The Scientific Revolution. University of Chicago Press. p. 195. ISBN 9780226750200. In the late Victorian period it was common to write about the 'warfare between science and religion' and to presume that the two bodies of culture must always have been in conflict. However, it is a very long time since these attitudes have been held by historians of science.
^ Russel, C.A. (2002). Ferngren, G.B. (ed.). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 7. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. The conflict thesis, at least in its simple form, is now widely perceived as a wholly inadequate intellectual framework within which to construct a sensible and realistic historiography of Western science
^ Brooke, J. H. (1991). Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge University Press. p. 42. In its traditional forms, the conflict thesis has been largely discredited.
^ Harrison, Peter (2015), "That religion has typically impeded the progress of science", in Numbers, Ronald L.; Kampourakis, Kostas (eds.), Newton's Apple and Other Myths about Science, Harvard University Press., ISBN 9780674915473 "While historians of science have long ago abandoned this simplistic narrative, the “conflict myth” has proven to be remarkably resistant to their demythologizing efforts and remains a central feature of common understandings of the identity of modern science." (pp. 195–6)
^ Ferngren, G.B. (2002). Ferngren, G.B. (ed.). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. x. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. ... while [John] Brooke's view [of a complexity thesis rather than an historical conflict thesis] has gained widespread acceptance among professional historians of science, the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind
^ Cite error: The named reference secularity sci was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference scientists religion was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Ecklund, Elaine Howard (2018). Religion vs. Science : What Religious People Really Think. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. p. 18. ISBN 9780190650629.
^ Cite error: The named reference epistemic moral conflict was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference scheitle11 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Draper-1] Cite error: The named reference Draper was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[White-2] Cite error: The named reference White was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[3] Hutchings, David and James C. Ungureanu (2021). "Fooling the World". Of Popes and Unicorns: Science, Christianity, and How the Conflict Thesis Fooled the World. Oxford University Press. pp. 15–16. ISBN 9780190053093. The series of myths that Draper and White spread about science and religion are known today in the literature as the conflict thesis. Thanks to the dedicated and committed research of a band of specialists operating since the 1980s at least, the conflict thesis has now been thoroughly debunked. One by one, the tales spun out in Conflict and Warfare have been shown to be either entirely false, horribly misunderstood, or deliberately misrepresented... There is a clear, evidence-based consensus among this group: the conflict thesis is utter bunk.

[Shapin1996-4] Shapin, S. (1996). The Scientific Revolution. University of Chicago Press. p. 195. ISBN 9780226750200. In the late Victorian period it was common to write about the 'warfare between science and religion' and to presume that the two bodies of culture must always have been in conflict. However, it is a very long time since these attitudes have been held by historians of science.

[5] Russel, C.A. (2002). Ferngren, G.B. (ed.). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 7. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. The conflict thesis, at least in its simple form, is now widely perceived as a wholly inadequate intellectual framework within which to construct a sensible and realistic historiography of Western science

[Brooke1991-6] Brooke, J. H. (1991). Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge University Press. p. 42. In its traditional forms, the conflict thesis has been largely discredited.

[7] Harrison, Peter (2015), "That religion has typically impeded the progress of science", in Numbers, Ronald L.; Kampourakis, Kostas (eds.), Newton's Apple and Other Myths about Science, Harvard University Press., ISBN 9780674915473 "While historians of science have long ago abandoned this simplistic narrative, the “conflict myth” has proven to be remarkably resistant to their demythologizing efforts and remains a central feature of common understandings of the identity of modern science." (pp. 195–6)

[ferngern-8] Ferngren, G.B. (2002). Ferngren, G.B. (ed.). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. x. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. ... while [John] Brooke's view [of a complexity thesis rather than an historical conflict thesis] has gained widespread acceptance among professional historians of science, the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind

[secularity_sci-9] Cite error: The named reference secularity sci was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[scientists_religion-10] Cite error: The named reference scientists religion was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Public_Really-11] Ecklund, Elaine Howard (2018). Religion vs. Science : What Religious People Really Think. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. p. 18. ISBN 9780190650629.

[epistemic_moral_conflict-12] Cite error: The named reference epistemic moral conflict was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[scheitle11-13] Cite error: The named reference scheitle11 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]