The Rejection of the Conflict Thesis - Essay Example

Your 23 February The Rejection of the Conflict Thesis The Conflict Thesis, which is also referredto as the Warfare Thesis, the Warfare Model or the Draper-White Thesis, is a theory that suggests that religion always seem to be intrinsically and intellectually opposed to science. As the name suggests, Draper and White, two Americans laid the foundation of the Thesis, proposing that religion is incompatible to science, and what is more it actually discourages scientific discovery. The two men provided evidence of their theory through various examples of when scientists clashed with Catholic authorities or Christendom. Interestingly enough, it has been discovered that most of the evidence presented in these two books was either inaccurate or downright falsified in an effort to prove the theory. For this reason, and the fact that other historical evidence points against this theory, most (if not all) of the scientific community today has just about rejected this Thesis. Holding that cases where religion and science are directly in opposition are rare, and the exception rather than the rule, most of the scientific community considers the Conflict Thesis to be inaccurate. While accepting that there may be a few cases where religion and science may be opposed, this paper contends that there is no intrinsic conflict between the two, thus the rejection of the Conflict Thesis by the scientific community is all but natural. Proposed originally by the American scientist John William Draper, the Conflict Thesis in his book History of the Conflict between Religion and Science, in 1874, the theory lays out that religion is incompatible with science, in that religion is continuously in opposition with science with no conciliatory path available, but only a conflict that should be expected. In his book, Draper contended that mankind could not have Christianity and Science at the same time – it had to choose between the two as both were inherently incompatible. However, as Draper was a renowned anti-Catholic, therefore, even though he originally floated the Theory, soon his book was considered to be a result of his contempt of the Catholic Church. White’s Thesis found more credibility and popularity when it was further supported by the book History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom published in 1896. Written by Andrew Dickson White, who also happens to be one of the co-founders of Cornell University, the book asserted that no matter how honorable and good the “intention” of religion (or religiously affiliated people), their interference with science always gave a wicked result. White, while supporting the thesis put forward by Draper, put forward a seemingly scholarly piece of work, which seemed properly documented with scholarly looking footnotes. This Theory can be termed to be the reason behind the negative image of religion laymen as well as scientists hold, even to this day. The Theory, though based on false assumptions and outright fabrications, seems to oversimplify the relationship religion has with science. Religion and science have had a complicated relationship that can in no way be termed one-dimensional. In fact, in most cases religion has fostered science and scientific knowledge. Though at times religion or religious authorities have been reluctant to embrace science in its entirety, however, it is not true to think that this was the norm. Moreover, agreeing that there have been times when religion and science have come head to head, the conflict between the two has been short lived. Such a conflict is more of an exception than a norm, and the contention of a constant conflict between the two is false and oft exaggerated (take for example the falsified story of Christians proclaiming the earth to be flat, which unfortunately is still thought to be true by many). To say that religion is the cause for the slow growth of science (of for its suppression) is to ignore other factors that have played a part in this regard. Moreover, to lay the blame at religion’s doorstep is a historical fallacy, as most of the scholarly community agrees now, and as this paper seeks to show. With the advent of new discoveries with regard to research and new, and more accurate and reliable, methods of collection of historical data, it was proven just how inaccurate and false the presumptions and contentions of White and Draper were. Both these books, and, therefore, the Conflict Theory itself, have been found to be based on inaccuracies and fallacies. The Theory propounded by the authors that whenever religion and science have crossed path science, and even religion, has had to suffer, basically states that nothing good has every come out of religion and science intermixing is actually not based on historical accuracy. T he Theory essentially also lays out that whenever progress has been made it has been due to science alone, with religion playing no part in it. However, even a cursory glance at the earlier progress of science is enough to prove that this premise is also false. The earlier scientists were very openly religiously affiliated, and yet they were the ones who laid out the foundations of present day science, Sir Isaac Newton can be a very pertinent example in this regard. What is more, some of the earlier scientists were theologians, with many a scientist being a priest, Copernicus and Mendel being among such theologian-scientists. Historical evidence shows that though there was conflict present between scientists regarding their theories and their ideas about a certain topic, however, this conflict was not based along religious lines, rather it was more in a professional milieu that these scientists seemed to have conflicts inter se. These men of science were not in the habit of aligning themselves with regards to a scientific theory based on religion, but on which empirical data they considered more reliable. The proponents of the Conflict Theory put forward the case of Galileo or the Scopes Trials as an example of religion opposing and even hampering science, inflicting harm on those who discover truths that go against the teachings of the religion (in this particular case, it happens to be the Catholic Church and a certain section of the America public). In the first case Galileo was excommunicated from the Church and then made prisoner till his death for not going back on his theory that the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way round, thus going against the popular Catholic belief of the time. In the case of the Scopes Trial, a school teacher was brought to court in the United States of America for teaching Darwin’s theory of Evolution to students. There is no doubt that this seems to portray a very illogical and intolerant side of religion, however, it should be kept in mind that cases like these are the exception and not the rule. Moreover, there are more factors playing a role in such cases than merely religion and science; more often than not politics are involved in such scenarios. It is not religion itself that has caused such exceptions to occur, rather it is the overzealous and politically motivated adherents that cause such instances to happen. Once again, although it is a shame that such events happened (or do happen), however, they cannot be considered to be the rule when they are very clearly the exception, as noted by the above facts. When it comes to science, religion has often given quite a lot of insight that has facilitated scientists (or theologian scientists) in discovering scientific truths. The scientific and intellectual climate that laid the foundation of science was brought into effect by Christianity. In olden days it was often the clergy who were well read with the local population having no means and little interest in gaining scientific knowledge. Acquiring skills in scholarly fields was considered to be not only an asset but a compulsory feat for the clergy, therefore, most, if not all, clergymen were very well read and quite knowledgeable in their fields of interest. With the clergy interested in scientific fields trying to maintain contact and exchanging their opinions and theories with another, as well as carrying out discussions with regard to their field of interest. With the advent of time as education became more common place and easily accessible, those outside the religious clergy community also started taking interest in the fields of science and gaining knowledge, then the way of the clergy gave way to the modern way of conferences and meetings at which scientists meet to discuss and analyze their discoveries. In this regard, another noteworthy fact is that the foundations of modern day physics are laid down on the basis of a universe that is set – the universe, scientists agree, behaves in a set and consistent manner. This foundation was also laid out by the Christians, as it was the belief of earlier theologian-scientists in a rational God who behaved in a certain and consistent way that paved the way for the universe being considered rational as well. The harmony created by God was expected to be mirrored in the universe by them, and so it was that the theories regarding a rational universe were born. Again, this goes against the Conflict Theory, as even though science and religion were crossing paths here, the result produced was quite enlightening and not evil at all. Moreover, the modern methods of scientific analysis and reaching scientific truths by way of trial and error and experimentation are rooted in theology as well. Both the Old and the New Testament call their adherents to reflect upon things around them and to analyze them closely. Moreover, there is an exhortation to use one’s faculties and to sift out the truth from falsehood. This is again a very scientific way of coming to the truth about things. There are many scientists in history who believed completely in both the Testaments as the word of God, and that is why they considered the method of experimentation and analysis to be logical as according to them it was from God Himself. Modern day science is based on the same methodology: of reaching facts through constant experimentation. Trial and error as well as data collection and using and analyzing the results are the basic components to any scientific experiment. It is, of course, self evident that it is through these steps that scientists of yore, as well as today’s scientists, reach results and make discoveries. Furthermore, even those theories that were originally, famously, discarded or rejected by the Catholic Church, for instance the Darwin’s theory of Evolution, were, upon discovery of more scientific data, accepted by the Church. Since the scientific community is not blamed for the mistakes of its ancestors or for forming a wrong theory, it is all but natural that those with religious affiliations or religious organizations themselves should not be blamed for the few and far between mistakes of those who came long before them. Moreover, to take a few instances from the long history of Catholicism and to blame the entire religious world, in general, and Christianity, in particular, is not the right step to take. Mistakes have been made, there is no denying that, however, history and its annals are filled with instances where religion has affected science constructively and has fostered and encouraged its growth. It is important to acknowledge the positive impact that religion, specifically Christianity, has had on science. Christianity is often maligned and termed the persecutor of scientists by many, however, that is far from the truth, as historical data shows. The scholarship of today acknowledges that wholeheartedly and that is why it has rejected the Thesis in its entirety. It is not merely the inaccuracy and fallacies on which the Thesis is formulated but the evidence to the contrary that shows that Christianity has more often than not fostered scientists and encouraged scientific knowledge to be sought. It is, therefore, very prudent of the modern scholarship to reject the Thesis completely, because there is enough evidence to the contrary, and little to no evidence to support it. Though the Conflict Theory is all but rejected by the scholarly community, however, there are still remnants of it floating in the world of the laymen. Ordinary people take religion to be adamantly opposed to science and religious thought. What is more, even those with religious affiliations have come to believe that their beliefs are incompatible with science or that their beliefs discourage science and scientific discovery. There is a great need for the Conflict Thesis to be rebutted time and again on popular media. Just like there is a case, albeit very weak, being made out for its survival, the scientific community that is acquainted with the fabricated evidence that laid the foundation of this thesis needs to make a case to finally put the Thesis to rest. This Thesis merely serves sensationalists and does nothing else. There is no reason why this Thesis should not be rejected, and the rejection of the Theory, based on fact and accurate historical data, by the modern scholarship is the rational thing to do. . To ignore the majority of history for small exceptions, just to prove a falsified point, is not a very prudent thing to do, especially keeping in mind that, when it comes to science, accurate results are never based on falsified evidence or overblown equations. Read More