Conflict Thesis: Difference between revisions
From Cibernética Americana
Jump to navigationJump to search
Created page with "{{For|a socio-historical theory with a similar name|Conflict theory}} The "'''conflict thesis'''" is a historiographical approach in the history of scienc..." |
No edit summary |
||
| (19 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | <div style="background-color: black;"> | ||
{{TOCright}} | |||
[[:en:Conflict thesis|<span style="background-color: white;">English Wiki Version</span>]] | |||
<br> | |||
In the West and the part of the planet dominated by it and the Abrahamic traditions (which includes the Islamic states) a conflict exists between a founding of the public weal on religion (the accepted tradition) versus reason (i.e. science since Galileo), which I term the conflict between made up and found out belief. I am ignoring the Dharmic tradition, a similar if less pointed, less pervasive situation exists there and is covered by the wide, natural sense of this topic. Narrowly, the "'''conflict thesis'''" is a [[historiography|historiographical]] approach in the [[history of science]] which maintains that there is an intrinsic intellectual conflict between [[religion]] and [[science]] and that the [[relationship between religion and science]] inevitably leads to hostility; examples to support this thesis have commonly been drawn from the relations between science and religion in Western Europe. The thesis retains support among some scientists and in the public,<ref>{{cite book | |||
|author=Ferngren, G.B. | |author=Ferngren, G.B. | ||
|editor=Ferngren, G.B. | |editor=Ferngren, G.B. | ||
| Line 8: | Line 11: | ||
|publisher=[[Johns Hopkins University Press]] | |publisher=[[Johns Hopkins University Press]] | ||
|isbn=0-8018-7038-0 | |isbn=0-8018-7038-0 | ||
|quote=... while [John] Brooke's view [of a complexity thesis rather than an historical conflict thesis] has gained widespread acceptance among professional [[History of science|historians of science]], the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind}}</ref> while | |quote=... while [John] Brooke's view [of a complexity thesis rather than an historical conflict thesis] has gained widespread acceptance among professional [[History of science|historians of science]], the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind}}</ref> while some other historians of science do not support the thesis, especially in its original strict form.<ref name=Shapin1996> | ||
{{cite book | {{cite book | ||
| author = Shapin, S. | | author = Shapin, S. | ||
| Line 51: | Line 54: | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
== The | == The "Conflict Thesis" in Christendom == | ||
[[File:John William Draper.jpg|right|thumb|John William Draper]] | [[File:John William Draper.jpg|right|thumb|John William Draper]] | ||
[[File:Andrew Dickson White 1885.jpg|right|thumb|Andrew Dickson White]] | [[File:Andrew Dickson White 1885.jpg|right|thumb|Andrew Dickson White]] | ||
| Line 146: | Line 149: | ||
== See also == | == See also == | ||
*[[:en:Antireligion]] | |||
*[[:en:Antitheism]] | |||
*[[:en:Boundary-work]] | |||
*[[Antireligion]] | *[[:en:Continuity thesis]] | ||
*[[Antitheism]] | *[[:en:Faith and rationality]] | ||
*[[Boundary-work]] | *[[:en:Fideism]] | ||
*[[Continuity thesis]] | *[[:en:Flat earth]] | ||
*[[Faith and rationality]] | *[[:en:Non-overlapping magisteria]] | ||
*[[Fideism]] | *[[:en:Relationship between religion and science]] | ||
*[[Flat earth]] | *[[:en:Religious intolerance]] | ||
*[[Non-overlapping magisteria]] | |||
*[[Relationship between religion and science]] | |||
*[[Religious intolerance]] | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
| Line 183: | Line 182: | ||
[[Category:Religion and science]] | [[Category:Religion and science]] | ||
[[Category:Criticism of religion]] | [[Category:Criticism of religion]] | ||
</div> | |||
