Tesis de conflicto

La tesis del conflicto es un enfoque historiográfico en la historia de la ciencia que se originó en el siglo XIX con John William Draper y Andrew Dickson White. Sostiene que existe un conflicto intelectual intrínseco entre la religión y la ciencia, y que conduce inevitablemente a la hostilidad. El consenso entre los historiadores de la ciencia es que esta tesis lleva mucho tiempo desacreditada, lo que explica el rechazo de la tesis por parte de los estudiosos contemporáneos.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]

Historia editar

Andrew Dickson White

John William Draper

Antes del siglo XIX, nadie había propuesto una tesis de conflicto semejante entre ciencia y religión (o viceversa) por escrito. La relación entre religión y ciencia se convirtió en un verdadero tema formal del discurso en el siglo XIX. Más específicamente, fue a mediados del siglo XIX cuando surgió la discusión sobre ciencia y religión porque antes de ese tiempo, la ciencia todavía incluía dimensiones morales y metafísicas (no estaba inherentemente vinculada al método científico) y el término científico no surgió hasta 1834.

La tesis de conflicto histórica fue una investigación popular historiográfica en la historia de la ciencia durante las postrimerías del siglo XIX y los albores del s. XX, aunque posteriormente casi no se utiliza su formulación inicial.^[6]^[2] ^[4] A pesar de ello, la tesis de conflicto aún goza de cierto apoyo popular:^[7] ha resurgido por el buen éxito del libro de Richard Dawkins El espejismo de dios y de otras ediciones de «superventas» (best sellers) relacionadas con el movimiento denominado «nuevo ateísmo».

También conocida como «tesis Draper-White», el conflicto interpreta la relación entre religión y ciencia como una vía que conduce a hostilidad pública, cuando la religión ataca agresivamente los retos de las nuevas ideas científicas. La denominación de esta tesis es por el científico John William Draper y el intelectual Andrew Dickson White, quienes protagonizaron las disquisiciones inherentes a favor de la ciencia.

Por solicitud, Draper escribió una History of the Conflict between the Religión and Science (1874), en la cual replicaba las tesis contemporáneas del catolicismo, tales como la infalibilidad papal, y sobre todo criticaba el antiintelectualismo de tradición católica, y aún aseveraba que en el islamismo y en el protestantismo existía poco conflicto con la ciencia.

En 1896, White publicó la History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (Historia de la contienda de la ciencia con la teología en el cristianismo), culminación de más de 30 años de investigación y publicación acerca del tema, en la cual criticaba lo restrictivo y dogmático de la cristiandad. Enfatizaba que llegó a esa posición luego de las dificultades de colaboración con Ezra Cornell para fundar una universidad sin afiliación religiosa oficial: la Cornell University.^[8]

El caso más conocido históricamente es el de Galileo Galilei, tal como sucedió en su juicio ante el Santo oficio, en 1614–1615.

Controversia editar

James Joseph Walsh, médico e historiador de la medicina, en una obra dedicada al Papa Pío X, escribe:

La historia de la supuesta oposición de la Iglesia, los Papas y las autoridades eclesiásticas a cualquier rama científica se basa totalmente en nociones erróneas. La mayor parte es bastante imaginaria. Mucho de ella se debe a exageración de la importancia del «incidente Galileo». Sólo quienes saben poco acerca de la historia de la medicina y de la ciencia continúan encubriéndola.

^[9]

Referencias editar

↑ 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.»
↑ ^a ^b Shapin, S. (1996). The Scientific Revolution. University of Chicago Press. p. 195. ISBN 9780226750200. (requiere registro). «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».
↑ ^a ^b 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», en 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)
↑ 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.»
↑ 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.»
↑ Alexander, D (2001). Rebuilding the Matrix. Lion Publishing. ISBN 0-7459-5116-3, pág. 217.
↑ The Popes and Science; the History of the Papal Relations to Science During the Middle Ages and Down to Our Own Time. Fordam University Press, 1908. Kessinger Publishing, reprinted 2003. ISBN 0-7661-3646-9

Enlaces externos editar

Datos: Q956710

[1] 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.»

[Shapin1996-2] Shapin, S. (1996). The Scientific Revolution. University of Chicago Press. p. 195. ISBN 9780226750200. (requiere registro). «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.»

[3] 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».

[Brooke1991-4] 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.»

[5] Harrison, Peter (2015), «That religion has typically impeded the progress of science», en 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)

[6] 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.»

[7] 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.»

[8] Alexander, D (2001). Rebuilding the Matrix. Lion Publishing. ISBN 0-7459-5116-3, pág. 217.

[9] The Popes and Science; the History of the Papal Relations to Science During the Middle Ages and Down to Our Own Time. Fordam University Press, 1908. Kessinger Publishing, reprinted 2003. ISBN 0-7661-3646-9

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]