Conflict thesis

Historical conflict thesis

Before the 19th century, no one had pitted "science" against "religion" or vice versa in writing. The relationship between religion and science became an actual formal topic of discourse in the 19th century. More specifically, it was around the mid-19th century that discussion of "science and religion" first emerged because before this time, the term science still included moral and metaphysical dimensions, was not inherently linked to the scientific method, and the term scientist did not emerge until 1834. The scientist John William Draper (1811–1882) and the writer Andrew Dickson White (1832–1918) were the most influential exponents of the conflict thesis between religion and science. Draper had been the speaker in the British Association meeting of 1860 which led to the famous confrontation between Bishop Samuel Wilberforce and Thomas Henry Huxley over Darwinism, and in America "the religious controversy over biological evolution reached its most critical stages in the late 1870s". In the early 1870s, the American science-popularizer Edward Livingston Youmans invited Draper to write a History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874), a book replying to contemporary issues in Roman Catholicism, such as the doctrine of papal infallibility, and mostly criticizing what he claimed to be anti-intellectualism in the Catholic tradition, but also making criticisms of Islam and of Protestantism. "Averroes, in his old age – he died A. D. 1193 – was expelled from Spain; the religious party had triumphed over the philosophical. He was denounced as a traitor to religion. An opposition to philosophy had been organized all over the Mussulman world. There was hardly a philosopher who was not punished." (p142) "The two rival divisions of the Christian Church – Protestant and Catholic – were thus in accord on one point: to tolerate no science except such as they considered to be agreeable to the Scriptures." (p218) Draper's preface summarises the conflict thesis:

In 1874 White published his thesis in Popular Science Monthly and in book form as The Warfare of Science:

Such thesis was not to be intended, as many successively did, as a statement of complete and necessary enmity between science and christianity at all times. On the contrary White asserted that numerous examples of support from christianity to science can be observed:

In 1896, White published A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, the culmination of over thirty years of research and publication on the subject, criticizing what he saw as restrictive, dogmatic forms of Christianity. In the introduction, White emphasized that he arrived at his position after the difficulties of assisting Ezra Cornell in establishing a university without any official religious affiliation.

The criticism of White is not entirely recent: historian of medicine James Joseph Walsh criticized White's perspective as anti-historical in The Popes and Science; the History of the Papal Relations to Science During the Middle Ages and Down to Our Own Time (1908), which he dedicated to Pope Pius X:

In God and Nature (1986), David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers report that "White's Warfare apparently did not sell as briskly as Draper's Conflict, but in the end it proved more influential, partly, it seems, because Draper's work was soon dated, and because White's impressive documentation gave the appearance of sound scholarship". During the 20th century, historians' acceptance of the conflict thesis declined until fully rejected in the 1970s. David B. Wilson notes:

In his course on science and religion, historian Lawrence Principe summarizes Draper's and White's works by saying:

While we can look today with astonishment upon the shoddy character of Draper and White's writings, their books have had enormous impact, and we can't deny that. Much of this is due to their great success in their creating a myth for science as a religion. Their myth of science as a religion is replete with battles, and martyrdoms, and saints, and creeds. And as we know, or should know, myths are often much more powerful than historical realities.

In the coursebook, Principe writes:

No serious historians of science or of the science–religion issue today maintain the warfare thesis[...] The origins of the warfare thesis lie in the late 19th century, specifically in the work of two men – John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White. These men had specific political purposes in mind when arguing their case, and the historical foundations of their work are unreliable.

Regarding the scholarship of Draper's work, Principe says:

Principe's summary comment on Draper's work at the end of his coursebook reads: "The book that started the conflict myth. Take a sense of humor and/or a stiff drink with this dated bit of melodrama."

However, according to historian of science and religion James C. Ungureanu, Draper and White actually hoped their narratives would preserve religious belief, not remove it. For them, science was ultimately a scapegoat for a much older argument that dated back to the Protestant Reformation, where progressive and liberal theologies had their conflict with traditional and orthodox theologies. This would place the notion of "conflict" within the history of theological ideas.

Modern views

Academic

Historians of science today have moved away from a conflict model, which is based mainly on two historical episodes (those involving Galileo and Darwin) in favor of a "complexity" model, because religious figures took positions on both sides of each dispute and there was no overall aim by any party involved in discrediting religion. Biologist Stephen Jay Gould said: "White's and Draper's accounts of the actual interaction between science and religion in Western history do not differ greatly. Both tell a tale of bright progress continually sparked by science. And both develop and use the same myths to support their narrative, the flat-earth legend prominently among them".{{cite journal

In Science & Religion, Gary Ferngren proposes a complex relationship between religion and science:

A few modern historians of science (such as Peter Barker, Bernard R. Goldstein, and Crosbie Smith) proposed that scientific discoveries – such as Kepler's laws of planetary motion in the 17th century, and the reformulation of physics in terms of energy, in the 19th century – were driven by religion. Religious organizations and clerics figure prominently in the broad histories of science, until the professionalization of the scientific enterprise, in the 19th century, led to tensions between scholars taking religious and secular approaches to nature. Even the prominent examples of religion's apparent conflict with science, the Galileo affair (1614) and the Scopes trial (1925), were not pure instances of conflict between science and religion, but included personal and political facts in the development of each conflict.

Galileo affair

Main article: Galileo affair

The Galileo affair was a sequence of events that begin around 1610, culminating with the trial and house arrest of Galileo Galilei by the Roman Catholic Inquisition in 1633 for his support of heliocentrism. In 1610, Galileo published his Sidereus Nuncius (Starry Messenger), describing the surprising observations that he had made with the new telescope, namely the phases of Venus and the Galilean moons of Jupiter. With these observations he promoted the heliocentric theory of Nicolaus Copernicus (published in De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543). Galileo's initial discoveries were met with opposition within the Catholic Church, and in 1616, the Inquisition declared heliocentrism to be formally heretical. Heliocentric books were banned and Galileo was ordered to refrain from holding, teaching or defending heliocentric ideas. Part of the verdict on Galileo read "[Heliocentrism] is foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture". Nonetheless, historians note that Galileo never did observe the earth's motion and lacked empirical proof at the time; and that he was placed under house arrest, not imprisoned by the Inquisition.

The affair is an example commonly used by advocates of the conflict thesis. Maurice Finocchiaro writes that the affair epitomizes the common view of "the conflict between enlightened science and obscurantist religion," and that this view promotes "the myth that alleges the incompatibility between science and religion." Finocchiaro writes, "I believe that such a thesis is erroneous, misleading, and simplistic," and refers to John Draper, Andrew White, Voltaire, Einstein, Bertrand Russell, and Karl Popper as writers or icons who have promoted it. Finocchiaro notes that the situation was complex and objections to the Copernican system included arguments that were philosophical and scientific, as well as theological.

Pope Urban VIII had been an admirer and supporter of Galileo, and there is evidence he did not believe the Inquisition's declaration rendered heliocentrism a heresy. Urban may have rather viewed heliocentrism as a potentially dangerous or rash doctrine that nevertheless had utility in astronomical calculations. In 1632, Galileo published his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which implicitly defended heliocentrism, and was popular. Pope Urban VIII had asked that his own views on the matter be included in Galileo's book, and were voiced by a character named "Simplicio", who was a simpleton. This angered the Pope and weakened Galileo's position politically. Responding to mounting controversy over theology, astronomy and philosophy, the Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633 and found him "vehemently suspect of heresy", sentencing him to house arrest. Galileo's Dialogue was banned and he was ordered to "abjure, curse and detest" heliocentric ideas. Galileo was kept under house arrest until his death in 1642.

{{lang|la|Index Librorum Prohibitorum}}

Main article: Index Librorum Prohibitorum

In 1559, Pope Paul IV promulgated the Pauline Index which is also known as Index Librorum Prohibitorum. While it has been described by some as "the turning-point for the freedom of enquiry in the Catholic world", the effects of the Index were actually minimal and it was largely ignored. After less than a year, it was replaced by the Tridentine Index which relaxed aspects of the Pauline Index that had been criticized and had prevented its acceptance. It is inaccurate to describe the Index as being an enduring and definitive statement of Catholic censorship. It contained a list of "heretical" or "amoral" publications that were forbidden for Catholics to read or print and included not just heretics but anti-clerical authors and Protestant Christians.

Scientists and public perceptions

The conflict thesis is still held to be true in whole or in part by some scientists, including the theoretical physicist and cosmologist Stephen Hawking, who said "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works." Others, such as Steven Weinberg, grant that it is possible for science and religion to be compatible since some prominent scientists are also religious, but he sees some significant tensions that potentially weaken religious beliefs overall.

However, global studies on actual beliefs held by scientists show that only about or less scientists subscribe to conflict perspective and instead most believe that the relation is independence or they believe in collaboration between science and religion. As such, "the conflict perspective on science and religion is an invention of the West". Among nonreligious scientists, very few state that scientific training or knowledge played a role in any declines in personal religiosity.

A study done on scientists from 21 American universities showed that most did not perceive conflict between science and religion either. In the study, the strength of religiosity in the home in which a scientist was raised, current religious attendance, peers' attitudes toward religion, all had an impact on whether or not scientists saw religion and science as in conflict. Scientists who had grown up with a religion and retained that identity or had identified as spiritual or had religious attendance tended to perceive less or no conflict. However, those not attending religious services were more likely to adopt a conflict paradigm. Additionally, scientists were more likely to reject conflict thesis if their peers held positive views of religion.

Science historian Ronald Numbers suggests though the conflict theory lingers in the popular mind due to few sets of controversies such as creation–evolution, stem cells, and birth control, he notes that the history of science reflects no intrinsic and inevitable conflict between religion and science. Many religious groups have made statements regarding the compatibility of religion and science, urging, for example, "school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth." The Magis Center for Reason and Faith was founded specifically to apply science in support of belief in a deity and the Christian religion. Some scholars such as Brian Stanley and Denis Alexander propose that mass media are partly responsible for popularizing conflict theory, most notably the myth that prior to Columbus, people believed the Earth was flat. David C. Lindberg and Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge Earth's sphericity and even know its approximate circumference". Numbers gives the following as mistakes arising from conflict theory that have gained widespread currency: "the Church prohibited autopsies and dissections during the Middle Ages", "the rise of Christianity killed off ancient science", and "the medieval Christian church suppressed the growth of the natural sciences". Some Christian writers, notably Reijer Hooykaas and Stanley Jaki, have argued that Christianity was important, if not essential, for the rise of modern science. Lindberg and Numbers, however, believe this overstates the case for such a connection.

Research on perceptions of science among the American public concludes that most religious groups see no general epistemological conflict with science, and that they have no differences with nonreligious groups in propensity to seek out scientific knowledge, although there are often epistemic or moral conflicts when scientists make counterclaims to religious tenets. The Pew Center made similar findings and also noted that the majority of Americans (80–90 percent) strongly support scientific research, agree that science makes society and individual's lives better, and 8 in 10 Americans would be happy if their children were to become scientists. Even strict creationists tend to express very favorable views towards science. A study of US college students concluded that the majority of undergraduates in both the natural and social sciences do not see conflict between science and religion. Another finding in the study was that it is more likely for students to move from a conflict perspective to an independence or collaboration perspective than vice versa.

Some scientific topics like evolution are often seen as a "point of friction" even though there is widespread acceptance of evolution across all 20 countries with diverse religious backgrounds in one study. Age, rather than religion, correlates better on attitudes on relating to biotechnology.

References

References

1. (2021). "Of Popes and Unicorns: Science, Christianity, and How the Conflict Thesis Fooled the World". Oxford University Press.
2. Shapin, S.. (1996). "The Scientific Revolution". [[University of Chicago Press]].
3. Russel, C.A.. (2002). "Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction". [[Johns Hopkins University Press]].
4. Brooke, J. H.. (1991). "Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives". [[Cambridge University Press]].
5. Harrison, Peter. (2015). "Newton's Apple and Other Myths about Science". Harvard University Press..
6. Ferngren, G.B.. (2002). "Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction". [[Johns Hopkins University Press]].
7. (2018). "The Warfare between Science and Religion: The Idea that Wouldn't Die". Johns Hopkins University Press.
8. (2018). "Religion vs. Science : What Religious People Really Think". Oxford University Press.
9. (2009). "Galileo Goes To Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion". Harvard University Press.
10. (2015). "The Territories of Science and Religion". University of Chicago Press.
11. (2011). "Wrestling with Nature: From Omens to Science". University of Chicago Press.
12. The ''Oxford English Dictionary'' dates the origin of the word "scientist" to 1834.
13. (2015). "The Territories of Science and Religion". University of Chicago Press.
14. Moore, James R.. (1981-10-30). "The Post-Darwinian Controversies". Cambridge University Press.
15. Alexander, D (2001), ''Rebuilding the Matrix'', Lion Publishing, {{ISBN. 0-7459-5116-3 (pg. 217)
16. John William Draper, ''History of the Conflict Religion'', D. Appleton and Co. (1881)
17. (1909). "The Popes and Science". Ann Surg.
18. Walsh, James Joseph, ''The Popes and Science; the History of the Papal Relations to Science During the Middle Ages and Down to Our Own Time'', Fordham University Press, New York 1908, p. 19.
19. David C. Lindberg, Ronald L. Numbers, ''God & Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter Between Christianity and Science'', University of California Press (1986)
20. Principe, Lawrence M.. (2006). "Science and Religion". The Teaching Company.
21. Principe, Lawrence M.. (2006). "Science and Religion". The Teaching Company.
22. Ungureanu, C. James. (2019). "Science, Religion, and the Protestant Tradition: Retracing the Origins of Conflict". Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
23. Jones, Richard H.. (2011). "For the Glory of God : The Role of Christianity in the Rise and Development of Modern Science". University Press of America.
24. Russell, Colin A., "The Conflict of Science and Religion", ''Encyclopedia of the History of Science and Religion'', p. 15, New York 2000
25. Gary Ferngren (editor). ''Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction''. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. {{ISBN. 0-8018-7038-0. (Introduction, p. ix)
26. Barker, Peter, and Goldstein, Bernard R. "Theological Foundations of Kepler's Astronomy". ''Osiris'', Volume 16: ''Science in Theistic Contexts'', University of Chicago Press, 2001, pp. 88–113; Smith, Crosbie. ''The Science of Energy: A Cultural History of Energy Physics in Victorian Britain''. London: The Athlone Press, 1998.
27. See, for example, the chapters on "Geology and Paleontology" (by Nicolaas A. Rupke), "Natural History" (by Peter M. Hess), and "Charles Darwin" (by James Moore) in Gary Ferngren (ed.), ''Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction''.
28. Blackwell, Richard J., "Galileo Galilei", ''Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction''; Larson, Edward J. ''Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Battle over Science and Religion''. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1997.
29. Blackwell ([[#Reference-Blackwell-1991. 1991]], p.2). Blackwell ([[#Reference-Blackwell-1991. 1991]], p.50) dates the start of the Galileo affair to 1610. Finocchiaro ([[#Reference-Finocchiaro-1989. 1989]], [https://archive.org/details/galileoaffair00uisi/page/1 p.1]) puts it a few years later, in 1613.
30. Finocchiaro ([[#Reference-Finocchiaro-1989. 1989]], [https://archive.org/details/galileoaffair00uisi/page/1 p.1]): "By the 'Galileo affair' is meant the sequence of developments which began in 1613 and culminated with the trial and condemnation of Galileo Galilei by the Roman Catholic Inquisition in 1633."
31. Heilbron (2010), p.218
32. From the verdict of the Roman Inquisition Finocchiaro. M. A. Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the two Affairs. 2010, Springer. {{ISBN. 978-90-481-3200-3
33. Fantoli, Annibale. (1996). "Galileo, for Copernicanism and for the Church, a Historical Report around the Publication of 1616 Decree".
34. (2014). "The Trial of Galileo: Essential Documents". Hackett Publishing Company, Incorporated.
35. (2014). "The Trial of Galileo : Essential Documents". Hackett Publishing Company, Incorporated.
36. [[#Reference-Finocchiaro-1997. Finocchiaro (1997)]], [https://archive.org/details/galileoonworldsy00gali/page/82 p. 82]; [[#Reference-Moss&Wallace-2003
37. See Langford [[#Reference-Langford-1998. (1966, pp. 133–134)]], and Seeger [[#Reference-Seeger-1966. (1966, p. 30)]], for example. Drake [[#Reference-Drake-1978. (1978, p. 355)]] asserts that Simplicio's character is modelled on the Aristotelian philosophers, Lodovico delle Colombe and [[Cesare Cremonini (philosopher). Cesare Cremonini]], rather than on Pope Urban. He also considers that the demand for Galileo to include the Pope's argument in the ''Dialogue'' left him with no option but to put it in the mouth of Simplicio [[#Reference-Drake-1953. (Drake, 1953, p. 491)]]. Even [[Arthur Koestler]], who is generally quite harsh on Galileo in [[The Sleepwalkers (Koestler non-fiction book). ''The Sleepwalkers'']] [[#Reference-Koestler-1990. (1959)]], after noting that Urban suspected Galileo of having intended Simplicio to be a caricature of him, says "this of course is untrue" [[#Reference-Koestler-1990. (1959, p. 483)]].
38. Lindberg, David. "Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science".
39. Fantoli (2005, p. 139), Finocchiaro (1989, pp. 288–293).
40. {{anchor. _note-publication-ban[[#Reference-Drake-1978. Drake (1978, p.367)]], [[#Reference-Sharratt-1994. Sharratt (1994, p.184)]], [[#Reference-Favaro-1890. link. (September 27, 2007 [http://moro.imss.fi.it/lettura/LetturaWEB.DLL?VOL=16&VOLPAG=230 230)] {{webarchive). link. (September 27, 2007 {{in lang). it. When Fulgenzio Micanzio, one of Galileo's friends in Venice, sought to have Galileo's ''Discourse on Floating Bodies'' reprinted in 1635, he was informed by the Venetian Inquisitor that the Inquisition had forbidden further publication of any of Galileo's works [[#Reference-Favaro-1890. it, and was later shown a copy of the order [[#Reference-Favaro-1890. it When the Dutch publishers [[House of Elzevir. Elzevir]] published Galileo's ''Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences'' in 1638, some five years after his trial, they did so under the pretense that a manuscript he had presented to the French Ambassador to Rome for preservation and circulation to interested intellectuals had been used without his knowledge ([[#Reference-Sharratt-1994. Sharratt, 1994, p.184]]; [[#Reference-Galileo-1954. link. (September 27, 2007 {{in lang). it). Return to other article: [[Galileo Galilei#note-publication-ban. Galileo Galilei]][[Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems#note-publication-ban. ; Dialogue]][[Two New Sciences#note-publication-ban. ; Two New Sciences]]
41. Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge University Press, 1991, 145
42. 978-0-52139748-3) pp. 45–46
43. (June 7, 2010). "Stephen Hawking on Religion: 'Science Will Win'".
44. (2011). "Lake Views: This World and the Universe". Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
45. (2019). "Secularity and Science : What Scientists Around the World Really Think About Religion". Oxford University Press.
46. Ecklund, Elaine Howard. (2009). "Conflict Between Religion and Science Among Academic Scientists?". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.
47. (2009). "Galileo Goes To Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion". Harvard University Press.
48. (May 11, 2006). "Myths and Truths in Science and Religion: A historical perspective". The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion.
49. (2008-09-08). "Statements from Religious Organizations". NCSE.
50. (2008-09-08). "188 Wisconsin Clergy". NCSE.
51. "Science, Reason & Faith". Magis Center.
52. "Templeton Foundation Post-dinner Discussion", after the ''Myths and Truths in Science and Religion: A historical perspective'' lecture Ronald Numbers, 11 May 2006, at St Edmunds College, Cambridge; the transcript is available at http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/CIS/Numbers/ {{Webarchive. link. (2012-02-19)
53. Jeffrey Russell. [[Inventing the Flat Earth]]: Columbus and Modern Historians. Praeger Paperback; New Ed edition (30 January 1997). {{ISBN. 0-275-95904-X; {{ISBN. 978-0-275-95904-3.
54. (1986). "Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science". Cambridge University Press.
55. (1986). "God & Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter Between Christianity and Science". University of California Press.
56. Evans, John. (2011). "Epistemological and Moral Conflict Between Religion and Science". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.
57. Baker, Joseph O.. (2012). "Public Perceptions of Incompatibility Between "Science and Religion"". Public Understanding of Science.
58. "Religious Belief and Public Attitudes About Science in the US". Pew Research Center.
59. Keeter, Scott. (2011). "The Culture of science: How the Public Relates to Science Across the Globe". Routledge.
60. Christopher P. Scheitle. (2011). "U.S. College Students' Perception of Religion and Science: Conflict, Collaboration, or Independence? A Research Note". Blackwell.
61. (December 10, 2020). "Biotechnology Research Viewed With Caution Globally, but Most Support Gene Editing for Babies To Treat Disease".
62. White, Andrew Dickson. (1876). "The Warfare of Science". New York D. Appleton.