The conflict thesis asserts that science and religion are fundamentally incompatible domains of human inquiry that have been, and remain, in perpetual conflict. This position maintains that scientific and religious claims about reality are mutually exclusive, that the methodologies of science and religion are irreconcilable, and that historical progress in science has consistently come at the expense of religious authority. The thesis typically argues that empirical investigation and faith-based belief represent opposing epistemological frameworks that cannot be harmonized without compromising the integrity of one or both domains. Proponents contend that the advancement of scientific knowledge inevitably erodes religious belief, while religious commitments obstruct scientific progress.
The conflict thesis emerged prominently in the late 19th century through the works of John William Draper's History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1874) and Andrew Dickson White's A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896). These foundational texts portrayed history as a series of battles between enlightened scientists and obscurantist clergy. The thesis gained renewed vigor with the New Atheist movement, particularly through Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion (2006), Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell (2006), and Jerry Coyne's Faith Versus Fact (2015). Contemporary defenders include Victor Stenger, who argued in God: The Failed Hypothesis (2007) that science directly disproves religious claims, and Steven Pinker, who maintains that scientific rationality necessarily displaces religious thinking.
Critics of the conflict thesis argue that it relies on a selective and oversimplified reading of history. Historians of science like Ronald Numbers in Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths (2009) and Peter Harrison in The Territories of Science and Religion (2015) demonstrate that many pioneering scientists were devout believers whose faith motivated their research. John Hedley Brooke's Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives (1991) shows the relationship has been far more complex than simple warfare. Defenders respond that while individual scientists may be religious, the methodological naturalism of science remains incompatible with supernatural explanations. They maintain that apparent harmonizations represent either compartmentalization or compromise of scientific principles, pointing to ongoing controversies over evolution, cosmology, and neuroscience as evidence of irreconcilable tensions.
The conflict thesis differs from other science-religion models in its zero-sum approach. Unlike the independence model (NOMA), which assigns separate magisteria to science and religion, the conflict thesis denies any legitimate domain for religious claims about reality. It rejects the complementarity principle's view that science and religion offer different but compatible perspectives, and opposes the integration model's attempt to synthesize scientific and theological insights. While the dialogue model seeks constructive engagement between disciplines, the conflict thesis sees such efforts as fundamentally misguided, maintaining that rational inquiry must ultimately replace faith-based worldviews.