Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:43, 12 September 2008

Template:Medcabbox

History of Science B‑class Top‑importance

This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Ethics / Science / Religion B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Philosophy of science Philosophy of religion

Archives

/Archive 1

Comment on reference

An anon editor recently observed that one of the references in the 'scientific views of religion' section may be inappropriate. I've commented out their notation of this, since it disrupts the text of the article. The reference still needs to be checked. Michaelbusch 00:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please reference this view "Islam took an even harder line, canonizing Medieval science and effectively bringing an end to further scientific advance in the Muslim world". It seems an unproven claim, Islamic scientest and Islamic science has flourished under Islam for many centuries. Also, its "end" as this quote says cannot be ascribed to Islam as there are many possible reasons for the decline of scientific thought in any culture. Any claim that Islam has somehow caused this must be backed, I will for now remove it until someone can actually cite something. 62.150.204.210 (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Fad

anon

"They employ different methods and address different questions." That, I think, is an opinionated and particularly egregious statement considering the sentences that follow (and considering which truth propositions religious persons assent to on the basis of what evidence. It would be lovely if science and religion didn't tangle, as Gould envisions, but I think the fact of the matter is that (in practice) they do. When people talk about the creation of man by god or the ressurection or miracles that occur in their lives, they mean what they say and (contrary to these intellectual rationalizations) are not speaking symbolically. People really believe this stuff.

Too much POV

I believe this article focuses too much on how Science and Religion are compatible and too little on the actual conflicts between the two and the differences in thought, such as Evolution vs. Creationism/ID, Round Earth vs. Flat Earth and Big Bang vs. Young Earth. -ramz- 21:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And let's not forget:

• Galileo affair (already mentioned in the See also section)
• Another example came up recently in WP:HD#Change Page Name : "Adam's Bridge" to " Rama's Bridge" and WP:HD#Adam's Bridge (permanent link). It seems a number of Hindus dispute the geological explanation for Adam's Bridge and claim Lord Rama created it instead. Leaving aside the interesting question of why Lord Rama would allow his creation to have been broken in a cyclone, it seems the Relationship between religion and science#Hindu view section incorrectly implies there is no conflict between Hinduism and science.
• The Book of Mormon vs. archaeology, genetics, linguistics, and the Smithsonian Institution
• Stem cell controversy
• Tower of Babel vs. evolution of language
• Scientology vs. psychology
• Proscriptions against lending money at interest vs. economics (in which the time value of money is a basic organizing principle)

Conflict between religion and science is common when religious people get careless and make testable claims about the real world which exceed the knowledge of their day, based on nothing more than what they claim to be divine revelation (which, whenever testable, turns out to function exactly like imagination). Centuries of experience have shown divine revelation to be next to useless compared to the scientific method for understanding and explaining the real world. That is why governments spend billions of dollars to fund scientific research rather than religions when the goal is to produce tangible results, and why modern nations no longer sacrifice virgins to the rain gods (no amount of sacrifice changes the probability of rain). (Some nations such as Saudi Arabia do still fund state religions, but arguably they would get more for their investment by spending that money on science.)

Relationship between religion and science does seem to gloss over the many specific conflicts between science and various religions. A start would be to build a comprehensive list of links in the See also section to existing articles which document these conflicts. Perhaps a "Survey of conflicts between science and religion" section could summarize them. --Teratornis 04:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That's because this article is hugely biased in favor of NOMA. ThAtSo 15:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the article seems to be written from a NOMA advocater's view, trying to minimize the conflict between religion and science. I think the part in the beginning claiming that science answers "how and what", while religion answers "why", is a splendid example of NOMA in action. I think this article is in need of a big NPOV rewrite, does anyone disagree? 82.183.140.150 11:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: I think the whole "Science attempts to answer the "how" and "what" questions of observable and verifiable phenomena; religion attempts to answer the "why" questions of value, morals and spirituality. Some religious authority also extends to "how" and "what" questions regarding the natural world, creating the potential for conflict." part should be removed.

First, I think this "what and how" versus "why" is utter nonsense. What exactly is a why question? And why does only religion answer question about morals andvaluse? What about the nonreligious philosophers?

Also, religion makes many claims about the natural and material world. That "some religious authority" thinks that religious dogma explains the natural world is laughable NOMA POV. Is there any supernatural religion which does not make claims about the natural? 82.183.140.150 11:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

On the morals and values. Non-religious philosophers discuss morals, but philosophy is not a science. It may be origin of sciences, but it is not a science in itself. DanielDemaret (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Error in Quoting Ecklund Study

The following statement in the article is a well-known Internet fraud (I am not of course suggesting misconduct on the part of anyone here):

>A recent survey conducted by Elaine Ecklund of Rice University and funded by the Templeton Foundation found that approximately 38% of scientists do not believe in a God. This survey was conducted in 2004 and is on-going.

As Ecklund herself has publicly stated of her research (http://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Ecklund/ ):

>When asked their beliefs about God, nearly 34 percent of academic scientists answer “I do not believe in God” and about 30 percent answer “I do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out,” the classic agnostic response.

I.e., over 60 percent do not believe in God: less then 40 % are believers.

This confirms a survey conducted a decade or so ago and reported in the New York Times: ( http://ffrf.org/timely/angier.php ) :

“What's more, in some quarters, atheism, far from being rare, is the norm -- among scientists, for example, particularly high-level scientists who populate academia. Recently, Edward J. Larson, a science historian at the University of Georgia, and Larry Witham, a writer, polled scientists listed in American Men and Women of Science on their religious beliefs. Among this general group, a reasonably high proportion, 40 percent, claimed to believe in a "personal God" who would listen to their prayers. But when the researchers next targeted members of the National Academy of Sciences, an elite coterie if ever there was one, belief in a personal God was 7 percent, the flip of the American public at large.”

The false information about Ecklund’s study was exposed well over a year ago by Dr. John Bice (http://www.statenews.com/op_article.phtml?pk=35422 ) who spoke directly with Ecklund to confrim the fraud (apparently, Dr. Ecklund’s own essay was not on the Web at that time).

This fraud, which has been floating around the Internet, appears to have originated in a false report on livescience (http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html ), due I assume to a failure to adequately fact-check, which was then picked up and run verbatim, without fact checking, by MSNBC ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8916982/ ).

It’s nice to see the high journalistic standards of national media such as MSNBC!

As someone new to the editing process here, I do not wish to make the change myself; however, this needs to be corrected, the older study should also be cited, and the fact that Ecklund’s study confirms the older study’s result that only a minority of scientists seem to believe in God should be mentioned.

Dave Miller Drdavidhmiller 23:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy of Science section

I edited the Philosophy of science section (I wasn't logged in) in order to: 1.) remove obvious bias (e.g., statements like "This allows theism to be sustained despite the fact that, caveats aside, theism is not a rational conclusion to take given such evidence"), and 2.) correct niave descriptions of the philosophies mentioned (e.g., "Confirmation holism instead focuses upon avoiding dangerous confirmation bias effects, which scientists are supposed to avoid, but which are present in some religious arguments").

I fleshed out and corrected the descriptions of the philosophies of science mentioned and tried to minimize bias in all directions, and I think I did fairly well. (Believe me, as a fundimentalist Christian I would have loved to have addressed the problem of evil, the nature of worldviews constituting them as religions , the tenacity of epistemologically central ideas, etc; but that would have been off-topic and POV).

My edit was reverted as allegedly POV. I am reinstating the changes and ask that any allegedly POV statement or incorrect material be discussed here before it is reverted. Thank you. » MonkeeSage « 21:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Percentages

I cut out the part that said "but in general about 34% of scientists express disbelief. Ecklund also metioned that about 48 percent of scientists believe in a personal god". I couldn't find where exactly it came from, and there are other problems with it. The 34% figure needs to be contrasted with the percentage of the general population in order to tell us anything about scientists. Likewise, the personal god thing sounds a bit too high, based on what I've seen in some studies.

Please quote the parts of Ecklund that support these numbers so we can check for ourselves, and let's also see if Ecklund provides a figure for non-scientists. ThAtSo 02:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I know that it may seem like I am trying to attack atheism in a way, but I am atheist myself and Ecklund's survey says that 34 percent of scientists believe in a god. I do admit that the 48% figure may be a bit too high. But I will quote her words. "When asked about their peronal beliefs in god nearly 34% of academic scientists answer "I do not belive in god" 66.222.30.24

I looked at the survey. the more-than 60% figure, is from 34% saying they don't believe, and 30% saying they don't know. I've changed the statement to reflect this. It also provided comparison figures to the general US population of 3% atheist and 5% agnostic, should I put that in too? Here's the quote anyhow

Not sure about the personal god thing though. ornis 12:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

While we're looking at these percentages, can anybody find a new URL for the reference for them? The old one appears to be broken. Hrafn42 12:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Here. ornis 13:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support updating the percentages so as not to mislead, as discussed above --Jonathanstray 16:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I find the Ecklund survey confusing. When it says god, does the survey mean the almighty god, or does it any type of life force, higher power, deity? Or does it mean both. Einstein technically believed in a god, but his god was a universal god. A god of beauty, harmony, and coherence, but not the type that you pray to. I think the Ecklund survey is a great start, but needs to be more specific. If any one has answers, please share them on the discussion page(here)

Isn't Changeability A Key Distinction?

Science is built on the idea that ideas and even entire systems of theory can be discarded when proven false, and indeed, this happens on a continual basis in small ways as prevailing hypotheses are discredited, and occasionally in large ways too as in the classic Kuhnian paradigm shifts. In contrast, most religions are not at liberty to discard certain central or sacred texts or ideas; to do so would be equivalent to destroying the religion. This seems to me to be a key difference -- shouldn't we we discuss this somewhere?

I'm going to take a stab at it shortly, if I don't hear otherwise. --Jonathanstray 16:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a false dichotomy. Any historian of religion will tell you that religions are very labile (many religions' claims to the contrary notwithstanding). Supposedly central tenets, historically speaking, are often no more stable (perhaps much less so) than many scientific ideas. Unless you have a reliable source to back this up (a necessity for anything added to this occasionally contentious topic), I wouldn't suggest taking a stab.--ragesoss 16:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

i agree with Ragesoss as a historian to mak esuch a disctinction would be moronic, to generaliza all of science and religion in that fashion is not up to encyclopedic standards -ishamelblues

At best it could be argued that this change is generally more systematised and orderly within science, and thus less likely to result in accusations of heresy and in long-lived bitter schisms than in religion. However this makes for a less clear-cut distinction, which may be far more obvious in hindsight than at the point of change. Arguably, the purpose of science is to create such changes, whereas the purpose of religion is to prevent them (and to preserve its traditions). Hrafn42 16:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Religious fundamentalism and scientific enlightenment

The phenomenon of religious fundamentalism, especially Protestant, Christian fundamentalism which has arisen predominantly in the United States, has been characterized by some historians as originating in the reaction of the conservative Enlightenment against the liberal Enlightenment. In these terms, the scientific community is entirely committed to the skeptical Enlightenment,

Is the reader supposed to understand the liberal enlightenment as being the same as the skeptical enlightenment? 1Z 12:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Even assuming that 'liberal Enlightenment'='skeptical Enlightenment', we still need definitions for 'liberal Enlightenment' versus 'conservative Enlightenment'. This entire section has been tagged as lacking references for more than 6 months without a single reference being added. It may be time to consider deleting it in its entirety (with copy to this Talk page) & only letting it back into the article when this has been corrected to a substantial degree. Hrafn42 15:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

i dont like this section either its not clearly defined "The phenomenon of religious fundamentalism" which one, or what exactly does this refer to, puritanism, the great awakening of the 19th century and so on. i think this section needs drastic improvement or i'm going to just remove it totally

-ishmaelblues

The conflict hypothesis

The article refers to Andrew Dickson White and the conflict myth. The following article, which I wrote, gives chapter and verse on his historical errors. In addition, it gives lot of extra information on the opinions of modern historians on the conflict myth. I would recommend it as an addition to the external links: http://www.jameshannam.com/conflict.htm James Hannam 15:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that wikipedia already has articles on Andrew Dickson White and the conflict thesis which cover these issues, I don't see what this external link adds to the subject of the relationship between religion and science. These issues, at best, warrant a see-also linking to the above-mentioned internal articles. Hrafn42 16:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This article mentions both White and the conflict and so the link is worthwhile here too. James Hannam 16:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is a worthwhile addition. But I would also comment that you may want to be careful to avoid posting redundant links in multiple articles, as it may trigger others' spammy senses. Make sure that the articles you want to link to focus on the main topic of the wiki article, hopefully not just a particular section/part of the wiki article, unless the subject of the subsection does not have its own wiki article.--Boffob 16:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Mere brief "mention" of a subject is insufficient justification to provide an external link to that subject, particularly when internal wiki-links that cover the subject already exist. To provide external links to every subject briefly mentioned would be to turn articles into link-farms - WP:NOT#LINK. Hrafn42 17:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This would mean we have to remove most of the links from this article. For most people the key point about the relationship between science and religion in the conflict hypothesis. For historians, trying to communicate it is false is also a key priority. The link is to an article that, as far as I am aware, does this better than anything else on the web. James Hannam 08:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There I agree with you: there are several external links that would more appropriately be internal wiki-links, as well as several where it is hard to tell the external link from the wiki-linked author/institution attribution. I'll attempt a clean-up. Hrafn42

Not sure your clean up does more than reinforce your POV. We have Maiden in an utterly irrelevant anti-creationist essay, some Dawkins ranting from Edge, Ruse talking about Dawkins, Horgan talking about Dawkins (both fellow atheists), some lightweight PBS journalism and a few websites from related organisations. It seems the heavy atheist bias in these links makes my own article all the more required. I'll also pop over the to Dawkins page and see if some balance is required there too. James Hannam 11:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If I was POV-pushing, I'd have removed the Plantinga piece, rather than a garbled piece on "Hinduism & Quantum Physics". I didn't actually even look at the viewpoint the linked articles were representing, just whether they gave ready access to something that looked like it might be useful. You're right that the Maiden article should be out (if it belongs anywhere, it is in Creation-evolution controversy), and I will remove it. There are at least three links that give a pro-religion perspective (Plantinga, Science & Spirit, Dalai Lama), so I would question that there is a "heavy atheist bias". And I am working to get less tangental links on this page, not more. Hrafn42 13:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

So in what way is my link tangental? It looks full-square relevant to me. Look, it's not spam, it's factual useful and relevant, so it goes in. This discussion is exactly the sort of pointlessness where he who has time just to keep it going wins because the other side gets fed up. It's bad for wikipedia. James Hannam 13:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

<unident>It is tangental because it's main subject is Andrew Dickson White and the conflict thesis, which is not the main subject of this article, and is already covered by articles of their own (as I said before). This was exactly my reason for deleting the Maiden link, and the creation-evolution controversy arguably has as much (or as little) overlap with the "relationship between religion and science" as White and the conflict thesis. Should we provide an external reference for each of the other 24 topics on the "see-also" list as well? If you don't want to indulge in "pointless" discussions with people that disagree with you, then don't attempt to get links to your webpage inserted. Doing that requires a consensus, which involves convincing people like me. Hrafn42 14:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You are not discussing this is good faith. You started by claiming the link was spam. When it transpires it was not, you shifted the goalposts. You still haven't read the article because if you had, you would know that the second half is a discussion of other perspectives. James Hannam 14:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

So it wasn't you adding large numbers of external links to your own articles? And it is not the "second half " -- you have 1939 words on the "conflict hypothesis" and only 897 on what you term the "real historical relationship between science and religion" (which would seem to make it your perspective, rather than "other perspectives"), including promotion of your own book on the subject (making it only the "final third"). Hrafn42 15:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Several of these links have been reinstated. The others probably will too once I get around to adding them to the relevant talk pages. The only reason this one hasn't been is that you won't admit you are wrong. I'm going to leave this for a week and see what comes up. James Hannam 15:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that they have since been reinstated does not negate the fact that they gave the appearance of spam, and were in fact in violation of Misplaced Pages:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest (as I pointed out in a later revert). Citing the wrong policy for a legitimate revert is hardly a failure of "good faith" or "shift the goal posts". Your article's relevance to this article is purely subsidiary to its relevance to the conflict thesis, so if it should be externally-linked anywhere, it should be at that article. I "won't admit that wrong", because you have provided no compelling evidence that I am in fact wrong. The only compelling evidence you have provided is of your own lack of civility and unwillingness to assume good faith. By all means come back in a week, I doubt if you'll get a different response. Hrafn42 15:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

religion and science are one?

Are there any pages anywhere which refer to people believing that science and religion are exactly the same thing but viewed from a different angle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pm504 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suspect not, as wikipedia would likely have difficulty finding reliable sources advocating this view. Hrafn_Stalk 02:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the idea that they are "exactly the same thing" but certainly one could find support for the idea that they are very similar. For example, "All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom. - Albert Einstein
Both science and religion would fit into the category of 'immortality projects' as described by Ernest Becker in his book The Denial of Death. I think Becker would argue that each is "ultimately an elaborate, symbolic defense mechanism against the knowledge of our own impending death" (quoted from the article not the book). The idea is that we have a basic fear of death, we continually strive to escape death or at least avoid the fear, and so we create projects that are an attempt to connect ourselves with something bigger than our physical beings, something eternal. I think you can hear this same sentiment in Einstein's words: "ennobling man's life, lifting it from physical ... towards freedom".Stokes dk (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"branches of the same tree" does not imply "very similar". Hrafn_Stalk 07:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are not questioning whether Einstein was saying that they are similar, but you are questioning the degree of similarity he was trying to imply. In other words, you don't disagree with "similar", you disagree with "very". I think that "branches of the same tree" does imply "very similar"; unless you graft a willow branch on to an oak tree, I think two branches of the same tree are necessarily very similar.
But I don't think you can dispute that Einstein was implying a similarity. He goes on to say that "all these aspirations are directed toward...", implying that they serve a similar purpose. It seems to me that it is this similarity that is at the root of any conflict between science and religion, and it's an important part of the relationship between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stokes dk (talk • contribs) 22:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You are stretching the "branches on the same tree" analogy too far -- further than you have any evidence that Einstein meant it. Branches on a tree start at a common source but stretch out in many, often very different, directions. Similarly the fact that cousins are branches on a family-tree does not mean that they are necessarily "very similar" (even in such superficial traits as appearance). Einstein was most probably talking of commonality of motive, not similarity of result. Hrafn_Stalk 02:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think Einstein was saying that the two have a common purpose or motivation, not that they look similar now. They appear to be quite different, but that's what makes his comment and this question about similarity interesting. So what exactly do science and religion have in common (in terms of motive or otherwise)? If branches of a tree start at a common source then what is the common source of science and religion? I think that question is a very important aspect of the relationship between the two that isn't discussed in this article. In terms of sources, I think Becker is a good place to start. In fact I just took a look at "The Denial of Death" and realized that the last section of the book is titled "The Fusion of Science and Religion". I know that Einstein wrote a few articles on science and religion, there's a section with that title in his book "Ideas and Opinions".Stokes dk (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

<unindent> Not having more than a skeptical/academic interest in western religion, I couldn't really tell you what they have in common now. As far as common sources, a good place to start might be with Augustine of Hippo. Hrafn_Stalk 17:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Einstein had a lot to say about the relation between Religion and Science, some of which may be relevant to this article. For example: "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." or "What is the meaning of human life, or of organic life altogether? To answer this question at all implies a religion. Is there any sense then, you ask, in putting it? I answer, the man who regards his own life and that of his fellow creatures as meaningless is not merely unfortunate but almost disqualified for life." If you search for the word "religion" in http://en.wikiquote.org/Einstein you get a great deal of food for this article. DanielDemaret (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say philosophy at many times has been postulated as the merger of science & religion, or that philosophies have sought many times to be the point at which science & religion meet. I do think there should be more information on philosophers who've proposed such was the goal of philosophy in this article. 67.5.156.145 (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment There's plenty of sources for this perspective. In Chrisitianity, it generally falls under the term systematic theology. Theological books by Thomas F. Torrance and Iain Paul are examples where I've seen these ideas be developed. But there are lots of other notable authors in this systematic theology#Notable systematic theologians, plus there are historians of science like Reijer Hooykaas and philosophers of science like Ian Barbour who hold similar views. Also reliable as sources are contributors to Gifford Lectures like Stanley Jaki. Some contributors to the James Scott Prize Lectureship like Alfred North Whitehead (see his Science and the Modern World where he hold that Christianity allowed science to develop) would be good sources too. --Firefly322 (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

move?

this is clearly the main article for Category:Religion and science. Why not move it to simple Religion and science or Science and religion? dab (𒁳) 13:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think including the word "relationship" makes the title slightly more informative, so would have a mild preference for retaining it. Hrafn_Stalk 13:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This section needs to be informed of the other wikipedia section on the Baha'i Faith and science. Simply refer back to that. Of course the Bahai Faith regards science and religion as one in the search for the same truths, but with religion having a more complete view of the metaphysical, and science the material realms. 198.252.8.203 (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC) (Dr. Chris Hamilton, political scientist, Washburn University, Topeka, Kansas)

Faith in Science

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Relationship between religion and science. (Discuss). This article "Relationship between religion and science" quotes relevant sources and cites different views. I suggest we delete the "faith and science" article and re-direct here, since I can find nothing in "faith and science" that would improve on this article. DanielDemaret (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• agree: -- a simple redirect would be appropriate in this situation. Hrafn_Stalk 14:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Where is this artilce? You don't link to it and I can't see any such article, or history of its deletion. Richard001 (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Scientific study of religion

Shouldn't the main article only be religious studies? I thought at first religious studies was more like a social science (cf say American studies, but it seems to be simply the scientific study of religion, from anthropology to neurotheology. If these are all sub-sub-articles, we should only link to the main one. Richard001 (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The article states that "surveys suggest a strong link between faith and altruism," and a reference to a single study is included. Here are twice as many studies that suggest otherwise:
http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/content/full/5/4/353
http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
--76.213.247.27 (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The attitudes of scientists towards religion

I removed the Richard Dawkins reference because no other specific scientists' views are discussed in this section and I feel it is a violation of neutrality to only have one. Especially when that one is as outspoken and controversial as Dawkins (his Biography page refers to him as a "professional atheist"). If an attempt was made to show a spectrum of opinions/POV's from prominent scientists I would not object to him being included. Personally, I would be far more interested in the thoughts/opinions of "real" scientists like Stephen Hawking, Einstein, etc 71.164.241.199 (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever your opinion of his views on religion, to claim he is not a "real" scientist is a little silly, and definitely not NPOV: as a Zoologist and Evolutionary Biologist he is well respected, with a number of published papers in the various journals. -- simxp (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The comment was on the discussion page, and in quotes to highlight the silliness of the assertion. .. but that said, when I think of prominent scientists (past or present) his name is not at the top of my list. That is not to slight his work, but at the same time if you polled the public on why they know his name I would expect most know him as an atheist first. Again, if there were an attempt to present opinions from a range of scientists' POVs I would happily remove my objections and expect to see him put back in. 71.164.241.199 (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

71.164.241.199, please stop pushing your POV. Dawkins is a notable evolutionary biologist and he has made some notable contributions. I don't know much about Einstein's views on religion. I need to do some research. I know about the religious views of Stephen Hawking. He is not a fan of religion and he has said that the concept of God is unnecessary. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Verbiage in the lead

Firefly322 insists on adding the following to the lead:

A few yet significant number of scholars see religion and science as patterns or subsets of human consciousness itself where an apt historical, philosophical, and psychological metaphor has been to see these two concepts as merely the poles of a continuum of human thought and western cultural heritage with science as Athens on one end and with religion as Jerusalem on the other.

I have a number of problems with it:

1. It is badly written and jargon-ridden, and needs to be translated into grammatical every-day English.

• Hrafn's subjective problem and POV. merely WP:IDONTLIKEIT

• Thank you Firefly322 for that violation of WP:AGF. "A few yet significant number..." is ungrammatical. A number is singular, a few of anything is plural. Also, you're throwing into the lead a whole heap of complex concepts with no explanatory context -- "patterns or subsets of human consciousness itself", "poles of a continuum of human thought", "science as Athens", "religion as Jerusalem". The lead is not a place for waxing metaphorical. Hrafn_Stalk 04:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Placing the material in the lead gives WP:UNDUE weight to a minority viewpoint.

• Another subjective problem and POV of Hrafn's. Not at all a minority viewpoint, just that it's said to be expressed less frequently by scholars. Better way to describe it is "a somewhat quieter, but extremely important perspective".

• Bullshit! "A few yet significant number of scholars" -- by your own admission this is a minority viewpoint. Hrafn_Stalk 04:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• My original point might be unclear, but... Saying only a few scholars express such a viewpoint (as I have) is hardly the same thing as saying it's a minority viewpoint (as you have). When the academic climate makes the expression of a viewpoint difficult and unfashionable--as the viewpoints John F. Haught calls contact and confirmation are--only a few scholars are going to work in such an area, even if they hold such a viewpoint. The very title of the book Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About by Donald E. Knuth is a good example ( a book on religion by a famous Computer Scientist faculty member at Stanford).

1. The wording gives me strong suspicion that the material is WP:SYNTH of the cited sources. I would therefore request that a copy of the relevant passages of all three sources that it is cited to be provided here on talk (as it is unclear what passages these statements are based upon, particularly as page numbers aren't given for 2 of the 3 sources).

• Also a subjective problem and POV of Hrafn's. In light of the current state of the article and in comparison with available well-referenced web articles , which User:Hrafn inexplicably removed, User:Hrafn's standards are inconsistent and appear based on his or her own sense of WP:TRUTH.

Hrafn_Stalk 15:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Put up or shut up, instead of making wild and WP:AGF-violating accusations. Provide the requested quotes. Hrafn_Stalk 04:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Really not trying to trouble you, Sir or Madam. (Verbiage Sigh. In this disagreement, Verbiage sort of sounds like garbage. Even if not intended as a pointy comment, commonsense should have revealed that it's not a good faith way to start a discussion) Based available works in this area, it's clear that the lede is too narrow in the perspectives covered, thereby expressing a POV. My intended improvements to the lede have been done simply to counter-act the obvious. User:Hrafn does not appear to have read much in this area, otherwise he or she would see that the added perspective--whether he or she likes its wording or not--is neither WP:UNDUE nor WP:SYNTH, but obvious. --Firefly322 (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Then read a dictionary! verbiage: "a profusion of words usually of little or obscure content". You were the one who insisted on reverting this material back into the lead undiscussed with a demand that "Discussion on talk page would be appropriate action" before its removal, which started this conversation off on an adversarial footing.

The lede should basically follow any of a dozen (or perhaps even dozens of) books on Science and Religion available. To quote one such book by John F. Haught,

Throughout these pages we shall observe that there are at least four distinct ways in which science and religion can be related to each other:

1) Conflict — the conviction that science and religion are fundamentally irreconcilable;

2) Contrast — the claim that there can be no genuine conflict since religion and science are each responding to radically different questions;

3) Contact — an approach that looks for dialogue. interaction. and possible "consonance" between science and religion. and especially for ways in which science shapes religious and theological understanding.

4) Confirmation — a somewhat quieter. but extremely important perspective that highlights the ways in which. at a very deep level. religion supports and nourishes the entire scientific enterprise.

My added text is what John F. Haught here calls the Confirmation perspective. And I hold that it is really no more WP:SYNTH than the rest of the lede. --Firefly322 (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

1. ^ Science & Religion: From Conflict to Conversation, 1995, p. 9 Paulist Press, ISBN 0-8091-3606-6
2. Religion in an Age of Science (1990), ISBN 0-06-060383-6

Yes but (i) Haught states his point a lot more clearly than you did, (ii) "confirmation" and "continuum" would appear to be different (if potentially related) concepts, and (iii) you didn't cite Haught, nor the other source you cite here. Your addition appeared to be (and still appears to be) WP:SYNTH of the sources you cited in the article -- whether or not they are SYNTH of some uncited source is not an issue that I can be reasonably expected to address.

The appropriate way forward would be to first provide a detailed, clear, well-cited explanation in the body of the article that clearly demonstrates its prominence to the article's topic, then include a short and clear summary (in the manner of the Haught quote above) of the perspective in the lead. Hrafn_Stalk 04:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's put it aside and find some way forward (as suggested)

Another strong source for the relationship of Science and Religion, at least around the 16th and early 17th centuries, would be H. Floris Cohen's The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry. As a historiography, it gives substantial details about other history of science historians, even including details about the relationship between Science and Islam; A.I. Sabra and Aydin Sayili are identified as the two well-respected pioneers in this areas. The book gives a very favorable judgement to E.A. Burtt's The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science, a more or less favorable, yet sometimes cautionary judgement to Pierre Duhem's work, also a very favorable judgement to Alexandre Koyré and Eduard Jan Dijksterhuis. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

'Birth of early modern science due to a biblical world view' is a complete and utter mess

1. The claim made in both the title and the opening line that "the birth of early modern science was in fact due to a biblical world view" is a gross overstatement of Cohen's hypothesis.
   • "Cultivation of early modern science due to a biblical world view" (my emphasis), while an improvement on the original title, is still problematical in that it implies a purposeful relationship between the introduction of Biblical views and the emergence of science, rather than the far more accidental/happenstance relationship that Cohen narrates. Hrafn_Stalk 16:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
2. I do not recall Cohen referring to Hooykaas' & Merton's theses as "two distinct views" -- in fact they would appear to overlap somewhat.
   • In fact the quoted text has him stating: "That this is so has been maintained on two distinct levels of argument" (my emphasis) -- i.e. that these are two distinctarguments for what appears to be the same, or very similar, viewpoints. Hrafn_Stalk 16:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
3. "Following the historian H. Floris Cohen, there exists two distinct views along this line of thought." is in any case very cumbersome English -- it gives the impression that the views came after ('followed') Cohen, not that Cohen was the one describing them.
4. Hooykaas' view on a Biblical basis for empiricism is repeated three times -- once, quite anomalously, in the section on Merton.
5. The Andrew D. White/Richard S. Westfall paragraph is placed in the Merton section, but is not related to Merton's specific ideas.
6. The footnoted quote that "Finally, and most importantly, Hooykaas does not of course claim that the Scientific Revolution was exclusively the work of Protestant scholars. The road toward the new respect for nature was trodden by Catholics and Protestants alike." bears only a tangential relationship to the sentence to which it is attached: "The most recently proposed is that of the Dutch historian Reijer Hooykaas, who held the rise of early modern science was due to a unique combination of Greek and biblical thought.
   • "the second footnote is needed to show that H. Floris Cohen is merely highlighting Protestant thought, later making it clear that he is aware that Hooykaas also considers Catholics as also being part of the new respect of nature"
     • Except that the section does not distinguish between Protestant and Catholic though at this point, it merely mentions "biblical thought" -- meaning that the footnote clarifies a point that the article hasn't made. Hrafn_Stalk 18:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
     • A further problem with it is that part of the footnoted quote applies explicitly to Merton, not Hooykaas (whose section it is in), and the rest applies to both of them. Hrafn_Stalk 18:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
7. "The most recently proposed" implies that nobody since Hooykaas has made any proposal related to this topic.
8. "Metaphorically speaking, whereas the bodily ingredients of science may have been Greek, its vitamins and hormones were biblical." does not appear to be a particularly informative metaphor, and adds little to reader understanding.
9. The statement that "the Merton thesis ... parallels the Weber thesis in suggesting that the rise of science was due to a Protestant ethic" is erroneous, or at least highly misleading -- the Weber thesis refers to the rise of capitalism not science.

While I do not intend to edit-war on this, the recent changes have not been an improvement, and I intend to (eventually) revert back to a less garbled version. Hrafn_Stalk 16:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggest you be more thoughtful in this discussion

1. Your suggestions and comments are not at all in line with key wikipedia behavior, including WP:GOODFAITH and Misplaced Pages:Civility. For example, "Bullshit" or "Put up or Shut up" or "Then read a dictionary!" are over the top and make it difficult to work with you. So far, I have not once been uncivil or personally disrepectful towards you. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

2. Instead of cooperating with me in writing a mutually satisfactory article, your comments call the effort a "mess." Then instead of trying to figure out and fix statements, you simply write WP:SYNTHESIS and state your intention to "eventually" revert them. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggest that you either improve your writing standards or develop a thicker skin

1. Pointing out blatant editing flaws is not an assumption of bad faith.
2. You need to distinguish between blunt criticism of the shortcomings of your edits (permissible per WP:SPADE) from incivility towards yourself.
3. Your claim that "I have not once been uncivil or personally disrepectful towards you" is belied by your previous comments, e.g.: "Hrafn's subjective problem and POV. merely WP:IDONTLIKEIT"
4. I stand by my claim that the article is a mess -- particularly the repeated mentions of Hooykaas' view on a Biblical basis for empiricism, and the inclusion in the Merton section of material unrelated to Merton. The section currently reads as though you took my material and chopped it up and inserted it at random. It does not appear to be a violation of any wikipedia policy to announce an intention to correct these flaws by the expedient of reverting to the last stable version if these flaws are not corrected.

Your approach seems to be to ignore content issues, while claiming persecution at the slightest criticism of your edits. I consider such a strategy to be unhelpful, and do not intend going into endless recriminations on the latter topic. If you will not discuss the former topic, then you leave me no option but to correct them by unilateral action. Hrafn_Stalk 18:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• The use of the word "bullshit" and calling things "blatant editing flaws", "a mess" towards another editor who is working on the article is WP:UNCIVIL. Also persecution? Strategy? Unilateral action? Why are you using such biased words that tend to push the conversation towards an WP:UNCIVIL state? What I have done is go out and get good references and started to incorporate them into the article, while you have been overly impatient and hyper-critical. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Hfran's Comments

1. The claim made in both the title and the opening line that "the birth of early modern science was in fact due to a biblical world view" is a gross overstatement of Cohen's hypothesis.

• The nature of Cohen's book is histographical. And the fundamentals of histography include summarizing broad trends among other historical works. Sincere there no real hypothesis here, I'm not exactly sure what you mean.
  • Non-responsive. Does not address my point that Cohen does not claim that the relationship is sufficiently dominant that it can be considered "due to" Hrafn_Stalk 19:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

1. • "Cultivation of early modern science due to a biblical world view" (my emphasis), while an improvement on the original title, is still problematical in that it implies a purposeful relationship between the introduction of Biblical views and the emergence of science, rather than the far more accidental/happenstance relationship that Cohen narrates.

• A search on the word "birth" in the book reveals that the table of contents on page ix of Cohen's book uses the phrase "the Birth of Early Modern Science." Also on page 14 in passage titled Outline of the work, Cohen writes "...Part II is devoted to efforts undertaken to explain the birth of modern science. Then on page 16 Cohen writes "In Chapter 5 causal chains are treated that have been suggested to connect the birth of modern science with both previous and contemporary events in the history of western Europe. Here such causal agents come to the fore as Puitanism and the Reformation" --Firefly322 (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Cohen crafts his chapter titles to show broad histographical relationships. For example, chapter 5's title, which we are referencing, The Emergence of early modern science from events in the history of Western Europe complements chapter 6's title of The Nonemergence of Early Modern Science Outside Western Europe . Cohen's heading generalizations as in Chapter 5's and 5.1's titles aren't meant include or exclude relationships between religion or science. I had read Reijer Hooykaas thesis and the Merton thesis to both be fairly tight relationships, but in light of your point here I will re-read them.
  • Non-responsive. Does not address my point that Cohen does not claim that the relationship is sufficiently intentional that it can be considered to be "cultivated" Hrafn_Stalk 19:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I do not recall Cohen referring to Hooykaas' & Merton's theses as "two distinct views" -- in fact they would appear to overlap somewhat.

• That's a good point. And it's fixable. But it doesn't mean that whole section needs to be recast.

1. • In fact the quoted text has him stating: "That this is so has been maintained on two distinct levels of argument" (my emphasis) -- i.e. that these are two distinctarguments for what appears to be the same, or very similar, viewpoints. Hrafn_Stalk 16:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• I can agree with many of the issues in subtlety and nuance here, being brought up. But I see it as a minor issue that can be fixed with a few modifactions to phrases. Flaws in writing don't necessarily warrant complete rewrites.
  • I disagree, given the prominance you are giving to Hooykaas & Merton, whether they are expressing similar or "distinct" viewpoints is quite important. Hrafn_Stalk 19:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

1. "Following the historian H. Floris Cohen, there exists two distinct views along this line of thought." is in any case very cumbersome English -- it gives the impression that the views came after ('followed') Cohen, not that Cohen was the one describing them.

• I'm not opposed to a suggestion on how to correct it.

1. Hooykaas' view on a Biblical basis for empiricism is repeated three times -- once, quite anomalously, in the section on Merton.

• It's WP:IMPERFECT and I intend to fix it with you and other editors. I left much of what you wrote in, so that we could work on it together. Incidentally, Can "Biblical basis for empiricism" be put in terms of the overall article as "Hooykaas's view on the relationship between religion and science"?
  • It's not simply WP:IMPERFECT, it is worse than what it replaces. If you can't even put things into the right section, or avoid massive duplication, you shouldn't attempt merge (material from two sources)/split (into sections) copy-edits. Hrafn_Stalk 19:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

1. The Andrew D. White/Richard S. Westfall paragraph is placed in the Merton section, but is not related to Merton's specific ideas.

• Left it in because you are also working on the article. And I want as much as possible to be respectful of other editors' work. I don't see that as a "mess" just WP:IMPERFECT that can be cooperatively improved with WP:GOODFAITH.
  • No, you did not 'leave it in', you moved it to the Merton section, where it didn't belong. Hrafn_Stalk 19:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

1. The footnoted quote that "Finally, and most importantly, Hooykaas does not of course claim that the Scientific Revolution was exclusively the work of Protestant scholars. The road toward the new respect for nature was trodden by Catholics and Protestants alike." bears only a tangential relationship to the sentence to which it is attached: "The most recently proposed is that of the Dutch historian Reijer Hooykaas, who held the rise of early modern science was due to a unique combination of Greek and biblical thought.

• It's necessary because although Protestants are highlighted, Catholics are not by means excluded from Hooykaas's scholarship.
  • No they aren't -- at least in the article -- see comments above. Hrafn_Stalk 19:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

1. "The most recently proposed" implies that nobody since Hooykaas has made any proposal related to this topic.

• A good usage and style improvement. In fact, I already added a clearer phrase using more instead of most has already been added.

1. "Metaphorically speaking, whereas the bodily ingredients of science may have been Greek, its vitamins and hormones were biblical." does not appear to be a particularly informative metaphor, and adds little to reader understanding.

• I disagree because the quote uses the original author's own words to show precisely how strong of a relationship that he indended.
  • It may show "precisely" what he intended, but it does not (at least in my opinion) give clarity to what he intended. A metaphor may be a good way of encapsulating what is meant, but in this case it does little to explain it. Hrafn_Stalk 19:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

1. The statement that "the Merton thesis ... parallels the Weber thesis in suggesting that the rise of science was due to a Protestant ethic" is erroneous, or at least highly misleading -- the Weber thesis refers to the rise of capitalism not science.

• I sense the problem too. But I don't see it as very misleading, just clearly benefiting from more qualification.--Firefly322 (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Mixing histography with history

Regarding Hrafn's introduction...

In The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry historian of science H. Floris Cohen presents scholarship arguing for a Biblical (and particularly Puritan Protestant) influence on the early development of modern science.

• A historgraphy provides a good source of summaries and references, but if it's arguing anything it's only arguing meta-history (the links and influences between historians). It's merely presenting summaries of various historians' works and showing how they influenced other historians' works. Here the wikipedia article is adding meaning to the text by presenting its histography as history. It's a sort of synthesis. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, and my phrasing makes allowance for this -- it says "presents scholarship arguing for..." not "makes arguments for". Hrafn_Stalk 03:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Hrafn's new additions to the section's articles...

While Cohen rejects more crude articulations of the conflict thesis, such as Andrew D. White's, he admits that milder versions of this thesis have some merit, that "it remains an incontrovertible fact of history that, to say the least, the new science was accorded a less than enthusiastic acclaim by many religious authorities at the time." He also notes that the influence was not unidirectional, and quotes Richard S. Westfall as stating:

Here again, Cohen is not rejecting anything. Using a histographical text, it's okay to use to it to reference an instance of Merton or Hooykaas rejecting something. And it's okay to say that groups of scholars reject something, which is what Cohen is stating in regards to the conflict thesis (p.309), but Cohen is not rejecting anything. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Firstly, these are not "new additions" -- it is material that Firefly322 mis-filed under Merton and then deleted because "Merton thesis has its own article. No need to duplicate it here." Secondly, if this overstates Cohen's investment in the viewpoint that he presents (which seems unlikely given his characterisation of White's thesis as "crude"), then it can be rephrased in a like manner to the above point, representing Cohen as merely presenting this material, not advocating it. E.g.: "Cohen states that 'rude notions such as White's have few scholarly adherents anymore', but admits..." Hrafn_Stalk 03:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Why insist on finding fault and placing blame? (e.g., "Firefly322 mis-filed") The reasons for keeping material have as much to do with trying to show some respect as in a good faith showing of one's limitations in making an unnecessary procrustean decision about what to do.

• Why insist on misrepresenting other editors edits? These were not "new additions". Are you claiming that placing them in the Merton section was correct? Are you claiming that the edit summary on deleting them: "Merton thesis has its own article. No need to duplicate it here." was in any way applicable to this material? If not, then accept that you made a mistake, instead of whining at me for pointing this out when you misrepresented the material as "new". Hrafn_Stalk 12:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Merton truncation

I have a number of problems with the wholesale removal of material on Merton:

1. It leaves the Cohen section unbalanced, in that it gives the impression that Cohen was talking almost exclusively about Hooykaas.
2. It is uninformative, in that it says virtually nothing about what Merton's argument was, let alone what Cohen said about it.
3. It is now about 1/3rd a heavily tangential parenthetical on the Weber thesis -- which has nothing whatsoever to do with Merton's views on the 'relationship between religion and science'.
4. The remains are so vestigial as to make a mockery of giving Merton his own subsection.

It is my opinion that this should be merged back into a single section with four paragraphs:

• Introduction to Cohen's treatment
• Hooykaas (but I still think that the metaphor-quote, taken out of its original context, is too cryptic to be a useful summary)
• Merton, giving an accurate summary of his views, and Cohen's characterisation of his criticism and rehabilitation
• a single paragraph on Cohen's treatment of other voices: White, Westfall and any others, which also gives wider context to the work that Cohen is presenting

Incidentally, we also need to place this material into the classification described in the 'Overview' section (or some well-cited extension thereof). Would it fit under 'Consonance'? Hrafn_Stalk 04:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

1. A careful reading of Cohen's The Scientific Revolution: A Histographical Inquiry reveals that these other voices Cohen represents, especially that of Westfall, are histographical in nature and aren't at all historical analysis. More to the point, Cohen is here showing the reader the limitations or at least a juxtaposition of Westfall in regards to Robert K. Merton and Reijer Hooykaas. Such histographical analysis, especially the quote of Westfall that is currently in this wikipedia article, should not be.
   • If we follow this line of argument to its logical conclusion then we should exclude Cohen altogether as it is likewise historiographical (explicitly so in fact). However, you have not given any argument for your bare assertion that material based upon "histographical analysis...should not be" in this article. Hrafn_Stalk 12:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• That could be said about any book, any source where we run the risk of taking something out of context. We just need to try to fully understand the context of Cohen's statements and the motive for quoting Richard Westfall on page 309. For example...

Earlier in the book, on pages 136-147, Cohen considers Richard Westfall's Conception of the Origins of Early Modern Science. Here Cohen praises Westfall to be the first to consider the Scientific Revolution as a process, stating Westfall predated Thomas Kuhn by a year (see page 137). In Cohen's summary here (on page 147) Cohen writes "An analysis internal to Westfall's argument itself already displays discrepancies, and additional incentives toward further modification are to turn up as we proceed. But I do think that the conception of the Scientific Revolution as a dynamic process is quite as fertile as it is underexploited."

1. On Page 143, Cohen writes "It is Chapter 3, however, on "Mechanical Science," where, as already suggested in the course of my summary, trouble comes in. ... In Westfall's chapter 3, then, 'mechanical' is rather indiscriminately employed ... Thus Pascal's baramoterical experiments are interpreted in the framework of the mechanical philosophy..."
2. Also on Page 139, Cohen writes "In chapter 3, entitled 'Mechanical Science,' the theories and experiments of Torricelli, Pascal, and Boyle on the void and on air pressure..."
3. On page 577 n.12 (a footnote from page 313 in the 5.1.1 section Hooykaas and the Biblical World-View), Cohen writes "One example here is Pascal, to whose pertinent ideas Hooyaas devoted an inspiring study in 1939 (translated by me in 1990 as 'Pascal: His Science and His Religion')."
4. Considering Boyle's The Christian Virtuoso, Pascal's well-known deep religious views, and the possible religious connotations of process (e.g., process as in Process philosophy with origins in Alfred North Whitehead's Science and the Modern World (1925)), Cohen is showing us on pages 308-321 that religion (e.g., along the lines of Reijer Hooykaas's and/or Robert K. Merton's scholarship) may be key in fully exploiting the Scientific REvolution as a dynamic process. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Merton thesis has its own article. Why repeat it? --Firefly322 (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
   • Why repeat it? (i) Because Merton has prominent things to say about the 'relationship between religion and science', which is the subject of this article. (ii) Because it makes no sense whatsoever to mention Merton (let alone giving him a section) if we don't actually mention what he has to say on the subject (or how his views have been received). This article should contain a lucid summary of Merton's thesis (in context of the 'relationship between religion and science'), while the Merton thesis gives it a more detailed and more globally-focused treatment, per WP:SUMMARY. Hrafn_Stalk 12:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Your "out of context" claim is tenuous to the point of ridiculousness. The "context" in which Cohen presents this Westfall quote is not what he says about other things Westfall says over 150 pages previously, it is how he presents this quote -- which is not to impeach it, but with obvious approval: "Here is how Westfall brought out the ultimate paradox that lies hidden here:". Cohen need not approve of everything that Westfall says in order for the presentation of this quote to be approving. Hrafn_Stalk 14:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If one doesn't appreciate comments or understand them fine, but don't use a phrase about another editor's comments, especially ones that are well-referenced, such as to the point of ridiculousness. It is really well-outside the bounds of five pillar wikipedian spirit. --Firefly322 (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Restructure

I've just made an attempt to 'chainsaw' the article into a cohesive structure (rather than simply being a loosely related set of sections on the topic). Apologies if there are any major gaffs. The structure is now:

1. Models of interaction
2. Specific views of religion on science
3. Specific views of science on religion (not sure if 'Philosophy of science' fits here, but didn't seem too far out of place).

I've moved all the material out of the overview, as most of it was too specific to fit there. The one remaining sentence seems to fit in the lead. I must agree with Firefly322 that the original material in this isn't a good fit. It is too technically-worded and doesn't really provide a summary of the article (possibly because to date the article was too much of a grab-bag to summarise succinctly). Hrafn_Stalk 05:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Cohen on 'Greco-Islamic tradition'

The section on 'Cultivation of early modern science due to a biblical world view' currently contains the statement "In The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry historian of science H. Floris Cohen presents scholarship arguing for a Biblical (and particularly Puritan Protestant, but not excluding ... the Greco-Islamic tradition) influence..." I tagged the "Greco-Islamic tradition" bit, because Cohen makes no reference to it. Firefly322 reverted with the edit summary: "again look on page 154 of A history of Medicine by Lois N. Magner". I reverted this reversion on the narrow basis that the cited source is Cohen not Magner. I would also like to make the further broader point that Magner's comments, which in any case were making passing mention of the replacement of the Greco-Islamic tradition in the relevant period, should not be misattributed to Cohen (regardless of citation). Hrafn_Stalk 05:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Cohen explains the historical body of Greco-Islamic knowledge in his next chapter (chapter 6)--The nonemergence of early modern science outside western Europe. Pages 384-417 (6.2 The Decay of Islamic Science) discusses the relationship amongst ancient Greek culture, Islamic culture, and Early modern science, including many passages on A.I. Sabra and Aydin Sayili. --Firefly322 (talk) 08:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

1. You did not reference chapter 6.
2. In any case, Cohen talks about "Greek" and "Islamic" influences, he does not lump them together as a "Greco-Islamic tradition".
3. You have given no indication that Cohen considered that Islamic influence was relevant to "Biblical influence" -- the subject of the section and the sentence.

In summary, I can see no possible reason to include this term at this point in the article. 10:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Islam and "early historical scientific texts"

Section 'The attitudes of religion towards science' stated: "Some early historical scientific texts have been preserved by religious groups, notably Islam collected scientific texts originating in various countries and Christianity brought them to Europe during the renaissance." This is contradicted by Transmission of Greek philosophical ideas in the Middle Ages, which states (with citations): "The first period of transmission during 8th and 9th centuries was preceded by a period of conquest, as Arabs took control of previously Hellenized areas such as Egypt and Syria in the 7th century. At this point they first began to encounter Greek ideas, though from the beginning, many Arabs were hostile to classical learning. Because of this hostility, the religious Caliphs could not support scientific translations. Translators had to seek out wealthy business patrons rather than religious ones." -- I am therefore removing it. Hrafn_Stalk 08:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Many of the uncited passages in this religon and science article are WP:IMPERFECT. The uncited passages, which have been inherited, are far less "crisp" than those found in Transmission of Greek philosophical ideas in the Middle Ages, as just shown by Hrafn. Nevertheless, I don't see any serious contradictions as Hrafn concludes. Moreover, I think that Hrafn's removal on these grounds and at this time is rather hastey and extraordinarily confusing. For Hrafn has made a concomitant deletion of other sections. Doing so appears to be a knee-jerk reaction to make a WP:POINT. --Firefly322 (talk) 09:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Firefly322: this was unverifiable information that was contradicted by sourced information in -- Transmission of Greek philosophical ideas in the Middle Ages -- which explicitly stated that the "religious Caliphs" (i.e. the relevant "religious groups") did not support transmission (via translation) of the Greek texts. WP:IMPERFECT does not support the retention of such material. I will ignore your grossly incivil, baseless, personal attacks. Hrafn_Stalk 09:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Since neither of us have been working on this material in the lower sections, bringing it up at his point in time appears to be a confusing distraction. --Firefly322 (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I will work on any part of the article I damn well choose. Today, I decided to do a bit of work on 'The attitudes of religion towards science'. Doing so required an explanation longer than can be fitted into an edit summary, so I documented my reasoning here on talk. If you find it to be a "confusing distraction", then don't read it. You aren't the only editor on this article and you weren't the target audience for the top comment in this thread. Hrafn_Stalk 10:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hope this isn't too far off topic, Hrafn, but noticed your edit to the scientific perspectives section and thought Huxley, T.H. (April 1860). "ART. VIII.- Darwin on the origin of Species". Westminster Review. pp. 541–70. Retrieved 2008-06-29. might be of interest. It came up while working on Darwinism, and it vividly shows Huxley attacking theological dominance of scientific thought – for example, "It is true that if philosophers have suffered, their cause has been amply avenged. Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules; and history records that whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed if not annihilated; scotched, if not slain." . . dave souza, talk 11:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that the remainder of that material has just been excised as unsourced, this should be enough of a WP:RS for reintroducing it. Thanks. :) Hrafn_Stalk 15:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Both Browne and Desmond & Moore discuss the significance of the statement, so I can try to provide secondary sources if that's required. Bit busy just now! . . dave souza, talk 16:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Models, Metaphors, and Useful fictions

Both science and religion rely on what some critics term useful fictions ( Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL ), Fictionalism I suspect a good section on this topic is quite possible. Perhaps religious metaphors and scientific metaphors along with comparisons of their models belong in a different section. The lede definitely does not do justice to the extant scholarship on comparing the methods of science and religion. It's absurd from this perspective in fact. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Differences between Empiricism and realism ( Scientific realism or Critical realism ) should also be covered in the article if not in this section. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Collusion of religion and science

Viewed from feminist theology, both religion and science are seen to be in collusion in excluding women from positions of leadership and respect. This polemic is intriguing because it also provides unexpected evidence towards positive relationship religion and science. This view in some form should be included in the article--Firefly322 (talk) 11:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• According to Oxford Companion to Christian Thought p.648-649, "Christianity and science in fateful collusion" is one of "three master-narratives have proved sufficiently influential to deserve scrutiny." This companion mentions Ecofeminism and Fritjof Capra's The Tao of Physics as sources for this view. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The attitudes of scientists towards religion

This section starts off with supposed views held by Sigmund Freud, yet neither the article on Psychology of religion nor on Sigmund Freud mention them. WP:UNDUE?? Suspect editor projected the Great chain of being (Scala naturae) ideas onto Freud, perhaps confusing him with Julian Huxley who at least has a link on his article page, which again Freud doesn't. Leading with psychology is probably fine, but I suggest replacing start of section with mention of and link to Psychology of religion. Does anyone agree? --Firefly322 (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC) Moreover, section is sourced with The Evolution of Life on the Earth Stephen Jay Gould, Scientific American 1994. I've read through the source and done searches on it. No mention of Great chain of being (Scala naturae. Doesn't look like Stephen Jay Gould supports Freud as a spokesman for a relationship between religion and science. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight?

The section on Bahá'í view seems out of place in the article. So far, I've never seen it mentioned in any major book or journal. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Isn't Bahá'í routinely compared to Raëlism? It's odd. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No it's not. Take a look at the Baha'i Faith article and you'll see that it bears no relation at all.

I don't think that a heavily referenced, three-sentence paragraph in an article wherein the vast majority of the religious perspective is Christian can fairly be called undue weight. MARussellPESE (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This issue is really one of sources. Are there any historically significant scientific figures who have been influenced by Baha'i Faith? Apparent answer: No. Are there any historians of science that write about Baha'i Faith? Apparent answer: No. Neither Galileo nor Newton nor any of their contemporaries (scientist or priest) could have had anything to do with the Baha'i Faith, because it simply didn't exist. --Firefly322 (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Firefly, you need a little more support than a simple assertion to make a contested removal. This particular argument fails Ignoratio elenchi. Whether or not Galileo had ever heard of the Baha'i perspective is irrelevant. This article isn't about the calcified arguments over the center of the universe, but one that discusses both the history and the current direction on a very complex subject. The final independent clause of the introdution — "scientific knowledge has had effects on religious beliefs" — is actually quite germane to the Baha'i Faith. That a mainstream world religion would posit that religious belief that is contrary to science is superstition is in itself notable. Does the Church take such a clear-cut position? MARussellPESE (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever problems User:Marusell thinks my argument has is beside the point. The reality outside my argument is that inclusion of the Baha'i Faith is clearly and obviously WP:OR due to lack of scholarship in the very important and serious area of science and religion. Were there an academic or scholar in-good-standing writing about the relationship between science and religion in terms of the Baha'i Faith, then it could be included. Until then it has no place here because inclusion constitutes WP:OR.--Firefly322 (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wish you'd do some research on the references before you call it OR. Your comparison of Baha'i to Raëlism strongly suggests that you're not familiar with this. There are two secondary sources already cited: Smith and Mehanian & Friberg. How many does it take?

Both secondary sources directly address the points made. The Hatcher article goes into even deeper depth. Passes WP:V and is not WP:OR. The primary sources are not necessary. MARussellPESE (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have. See Criticism of religion#Criticism of the concept where Baha'i and Raëlism are compared. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Peter Smith is a religious studies scholar. He means doesn't come in contact with the the Religion and Science scholarly community. Mehanian and Friberg are probably the same, though I haven't looked them up as I have Peter Smith. Hans Kung actually mentions Baha'i on page 105 of Christianity and the World Religons (1986). But it's not enough for it to be mentioned in this article as well. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The only parallel that makes between the two is that they both post-date the foundations of modern science. That's hardly a broad comparison.

What policy requires that articles be sourced only from works directly out of the academic field? Most of the references cited in this article, or most articles, wouldn't pass that narrow a test.

By this logic, if bona-fide secondary religious sources are out, then any similarly sourced reference to Maimonides, Aquinas, the Church, Fundamentalist, etc, would also have to be removed. Remove them and the article falls apart.

The Baha'i view, as presented, is

• On topic
• Three lines long (passes WP:Undue)
• Has three secondary sources (passes WP:V and WP:OR) MARussellPESE (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Dawkins & Gibbons

I have just reverted the insertion: "According to Richard Dawkins, in 1776 Edward Gibbon first made the perdiction that science would lead to the demise of religion. <ref> ], Houghton Mifflin, 1998 </ref> Sigmund Freud has asserted that science will help people to grow out of their childish religious delusions."

As far as I could ascertain from a Google & Amazon book search, Dawkins never made the first assertion. And the Freud claim is unsourced. Hrafn_Stalk 12:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The scientific community's perspective

Plan to rework much of this section based on these Science articles:

• Science 15 August 1997: Vol. 277. no. 5328, pp. 890 - 893; "SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY: Science and God: A Warming Trend?" Gregg Easterbrook
• Science 12 September 1997: Vol. 277. no. 5332, pp. 1589 - 1591; "Letters: Science and Religion"
• Science 13 December 1957: Vol. 126. no. 3285, pp. 1225 - 1229; "Science and the Citizen" Warren Weaver
• Science 25 April 1958: Vol. 127. no. 3304, pp. 1004+1006; "Letters: Science and Religion" --Firefly322 (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A badly written laundry list of names and books, containing no information about the scientists' opinions on religion and science

This edit by Firefly322 is not "WP:IMPERFECT", it is a badly written (e.g. repeating the same clumsy phrase twice in the same sentence, ungrammatical (even using a 'Greengrocer's apostrophe') list of names and book-titles, which contains no information about the scientists' opinions on religion and science. I have done my best to rectify the bad writing, but (lacking primary or secondary sources on the subject) cannot correct these paragraphs' profound lack of useful information. It does not serve any purpose in this article, but Firefly322 insists on edit-warring to retain it. Hrafn_Stalk 15:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It also includes some absolutely gushy and completely unencyclopedic descriptions ( "which remains one of the clearest Christian manifestos ever written by a well-respected scientific figure" & "Wren used his talents to create a sort of symphony of belief"). Such flowery speech should not be used without attribution (preferably as a direct quote), and even then very cautiously. Hrafn_Stalk 15:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, this edit also links to one of Firefly322's other creations, The Christian Virtuoso, which should be illuminating on this editor's standards (for a lengthier example, see Issues in Science and Religion). Hrafn_Stalk 15:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

As pointed out above, the material in question does sorely lack information about these various scientists' opinion on religion and science. Adding some information would make it relevant. Perhaps their affiliation with a particular society is less interesting than whatever their opinions on religion may have been?

Also, I gather it should read the 17th Century, and not the 16th Century. I find the writing a bit wordy and not to the point, but it's not awful. At least one editor has been highly unrestrained in use of language on this discussion page. Dare I say uncivil?

Digressing a bit, this article has some good stuff in it, but in terms of writing, its worst flaw seems to be poor organization. Whatever the case, it's needlessly tiresome to read. Calamitybrook (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

McGrath footnote

I am removing the footnote that states "As Alister McGrath points out in The God Delusion this definition would exclude Deists and people like Einstein who believe(d) 'in Spinoza's God' " as:

1. McGrath did not write The God Delusion (thus it is unclear whether McGrath is quoted in this book, or if The Dawkins Delusion is meant).
2. It provides no formal citation that would enable this information to be verified, and thus allow this inconsistency to be resolved.
3. McGrath's opinion is contradicted by Einstein's own words: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses"
4. Unless MCGrath was speaking of this the exact wording in the surveys (which is unlikely), this footnote would appear to be synthesis.

Hrafn_Stalk 16:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ill-considered edit that editors are edit warring to reinsert

1. If anybody had bothered to read NationMaster they would have noticed "NationMaster makes use of encyclopedia content from Misplaced Pages".
2. Neither Bahá'ís nor Muslims consider the Bahá'í Faith to be part of Islam. In fact the former article explicitly states "Its religious background in Shi'a Islam is seen as analogous to the Jewish context in which Christianity was established."
3. Attempting to place a citation in a section-header is a really silly, ugly & a WP:POINTy idea.

Hrafn_Stalk 19:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent lede edit

Any credible academic or historian is going to see the lede as erroneous. Today, no credible historian believes in the Conflict thesis. To put it in the lede suggest that the editor who did so doesn't really understand the article well-enough to be writing the lede. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The earlier lede is characeristic of majority of the sources on this topic, while the current is more towards original research in comparison.

The relationship between religion and science takes many forms as the two fields are both broad. While some scholars assert that they are independent and rely on entirely different and incomparable methods (e.g., cf. scientific method and prayer), others assert that there are significant parallels in method and purpose (both being pursuits of truth), though they do address different questions: religion focuses on meaning, science on the natural world. Though religion has components that have no counterpart in science, there are scholars such as Michael Polanyi who have argued that both involve a moral commitment. Historically, science has had a complex relationship with religion; religious doctrines and motivations have sometimes influenced scientific development, while scientific knowledge has had effects on religious beliefs.

--Firefly322 (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

this version of the lead has several problems (which prompted me to make changes in the first place). setting aside grammatical issues (minor, but it doesn't flow very well), this miscasts the relationship (it's not just SciMeth vs. prayer, and meaning vs. the natural world doesn't quite capture either side correctly). however, I do think the edits made later we're too heavy on the conflict thesis and magisteria, which I've moved down in the lead a bit. what other changes do you think need to be made? --Ludwigs2 23:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The other lede took on the difficult task of treating science and religion as monolithic terms. A task which can really only be done when reading a lot of scholarship on this topic. The current lede shows no understanding of getting down to scholarly-based essentials of these terms and comparing them. Instead, the lede is unnecessarily difficult philosophy and ideas that are superficial and unhelpful to the reader in understanding what scholars are really saying about this topic.--Firefly322 (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

When you write (it's not just SciMeth vs. prayer, and meaning vs. the natural world doesn't quite capture either side correctly). In fact the article is not about sides, again this is not an article about the conflict thesis. It's about an actual scholarly-based relationship. And there is largley a consensus among scholars to draw this relationship in these terms such as meaning. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys.... I think that we're doing good. I understand the point that focusing on Gould and the conflict thesis seems overboard, but you have to realize that the prevailing notions of this "relationship" are actually this way. It think the edits to this point are great. Just keep reorganizing the points: we're going to get to the best point eventually. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

From a scholarship point of view, compared to the other lede, this one is actually quite a bit worse. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

An article has recently been created called 'Religion and science community', which would appear to be merely about the scholarly community that investigates the topic of this article.

I am proposing merging it here as:

1. It would be very rare for it to be appropriate for a community of academics in a field to have an article separate from the article on their field of study, and this would not appear to be such a case.
2. As far as I can see, none of the cited sources make any detailed discussion of this community, rather than their field of research (which is the topic of this article).

Hrafn_Stalk 07:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. It should be merged. If it develops into something substantial, it can always be spun off again into a daughter article. Guettarda (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support merge. It fits nicely into the section called "Dialogue", but also agree that it could perhaps be later spun off if it develops to be better than it is. --Bduke (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support I see no reason why that should be a separate article. Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support as per everyone above. --Ludwigs2 02:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverted addition

Biblical literalism has led to creationism; Schleiermacher's religious experience--his definition of religion as "a feeling of absolute dependence" has been implicated as a factor in the causes of World War I, which is often taken to be the underlying motivation for Karl Barth's early scholarship and the whole neo-orthodoxy movement; and taking the current state of scientific knowledge as truth as in scientifc imperialism sets up problems like clock-work universe created by God based on Newton's laws, which the continuing evolution of science tends to date such efforts. (Netwon's laws now seem far from the ultimate truth, given the later scientific advances of electromagnetism, relativity, and quatum mechanics.

This is:

1. Unsourced
2. Contains some quite impenetrable jargon and name-dropping
3. Is mostly a single meandering sentence
4. Is grossly over-linked -- including even linking to truth
5. less importantly, contains multiple spelling errors

I would request that it be rewritten as well as properly sourced, before being re-added. It is not WP:IMPERFECT, it is unreadable. Hrafn_Stalk 13:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: name-dropping, it needs to, at the very least, say who Schleiermacher & Barth were, and explain their views -- not merely give a cryptic quote on one. Hrafn_Stalk 13:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I would further point out that hidden comments (i.e. <!-- Comment -->) are not an appropriate means of referencing page numbers (or anything else). Please follow WP:CITE.

And in response to this ill-considered and sophomoric piece of WP:BAITing -- yes, English is my first language, and I am sufficiently proficient in it to identify badly written, uninformative turgid prose when I see it. Hrafn_Stalk 17:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn - just wanted to chip in my agreement with you. I mean, I think I see what s/he's after, but man... airlines charge penalties for packing that much luggage in one bag; maybe we should too... --Ludwigs2 23:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

bad reverts

Orange Marlin - I'm going to try to copy edit that section so that it's usable, which is the way this is supposed to work. if you revert it again, I will report you ANI for disruptive editing. get it? I'm going to now reinstate it, and copy edit, so please stop edit-warring. --Ludwigs2 00:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding reverts (copied from user page)

Regarding your (Orange's) revision to this article , User:Ludwigs2 has already reverted but still I don't understand your (Orange's) claims of WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV. All the points made and the general langauge used is from John Habgood and he is simply summarizing the work of other scholars and historians. And later scholars have made the same points one can be fairly certain. But even without having looked at a source, from a close reading of the article it should be clear that what was written is faily unobjectionable and unlikely to be OR. Though I guess I should be honored if you think I'm that wise. Is that the language? I'm no doubt following a Habgood's book sytle instead of a more encyclopedia type of style. Still, it's not OR or Synth. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Concerns over the nature of reality revisions

Some questions about the revision:

• Isn't the English phrase questions about the nature of reality nearly equivalent to Greek-in-origin word ontology? If so, why beat much of the readership up with such esotericism?
• What's the source for early scientifc ontology being explicitly opposed to Christian Theology come from?
  • See God's Two Books By Kenneth James Howell University of Notre Dame Press, 2002 where a historian discusses that nature was in fact considered a book on par with the bible by 16th and 17th century scientists. I'm not aware that 18th and 19th century scientist ever fully discarded such a view. And in light of George Gabriel Stokes being the president of the Victoria Institute in 1903, some such view probably carried over into 20th century.
• Christian Theology - excluding those fundamentalist churches whose aim is to reassert doctrinal truths - has likewise softened many of its ontological claims, due to increased exposure to both scientific insights and the contrasting theological claims of other faiths.
  • Not so sure that this is right either. It sounds like a reference to Liberal Christianity#Influence of liberal Christianity, which that article notes is now sorta defunct.
• Non-Christian faiths have historically integrated well with scientific ideas, as in the ancient Egyptian technological mastery applied to monotheistic ends, the flourishing of logic and mathematics under Hinduism and Buddhism, and the scientific advances made by Muslim scholars during the Ottoman empire.
  • This sounds a bit optimistic. Have a source? --Firefly322 (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

New section

The attitudes of religion towards science

Respect of its greatest critics

A number of religion's greatest critics have received high praise from devout apologists. Feuerbach, Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud, Charles Darwin, and Richard Dawkins have all received such praise. A modern quip about Richard Dawkins is that "if Richard Dawkins didn't exist, to make him up."

These remarks, like those about Feuerback, are not intended to be a refutation of Nietzsche. One cannot refute somebody who resolutely pushes religious scepticism to its extreme limit. One can only watch him coming full circule, and becoming more and more obsessesd by the God whom he thinks he has rejected. And this is one of the great arguments for the truth of religion. It is only a very shallow kind of scepticism, a deliberate concentration on the surface appearance of things, which can feel satsified when it has dismissed the whole religious side of life as worhless. Scientists, particularly young ones who are in the first flush of excitement about their discoveries, are especially liable to mkae this sort of mistake. Practical questions about the precise relationship between one things and anotehr seem so much more manageable and profitable, that the more searching philosophical and religious questions look as if they can safely be dismissed. But nobody can really be concerned about the truth without being concerned about it religiously, as Nietzsche himself demonstrates. This is why sceptics of his calibre show up the superficiality of much modern religious doubt in a far more telling manner than could be done by any amount of religious exhortation.

— Lord and Reverend John Habgood, former president and current member of the Religion and Science Forum

1. The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry, H. Floris Cohen, University of Chicago Press 1994, 680 pages, ISBN 0-2261-1280-2, pages 308-321
2. Science and Religion, Habgood
3. The Disguised Friend: Darwinism and Divinity arthur peacocke
4. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
5. Science and Religion, 1964, page 87

Plan to add the above section, it could still be a bit rough so please comment.--Firefly322 (talk) 04:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

1. "Greatest critics"? In what sense? Darwin wasn't especially critical of religion. And are Feuerbach and Neitzsche among the greatest critics of religion among scientists?
2. Are you really referencing the quote about Dawkins to a 1964 book?
3. What does the quote have to do with the section title? It seems unrelated. Guettarda (talk) 12:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Parallels in methods

Many language philosophers (e.g., Ludwig Wittgenstein) and religious existentialists (e.g., neo-orthodoxy) accepted Ian Barbour and John Polkinghorne's type II categorization of Independence. On the other hand, many philosophers of science have thought otherwise.

1. The opening pair of sentences convey absolutely zero information. "Some people accept , others don't". Ummm....OK. What is "Barbour and Polkinghorne's type II categorisation of independence? And is the Barbour ref being used to support the statement that "language philosophers and religious existentialists" accept Barbour and Polkinghorne's "type II categorization of Independence" (in which case, isn't it a rather dated reference?) or is it being used as a ref to establish what Barbour and Polkinghorne's "type II categorization of Independence" is (in which case, the first statement is unreferenced.
2. Why do we care, in an article about the relationship between religion and science, what language philosophers and religious existentialists think?
3. "Many language philosophers (e.g., Ludwig Wittgenstein) and religious existentialists (e.g., neo-orthodoxy)" - is that grammatical? Neo-orthodoxy?
4. Is Barbour making the assertion that there is a parallel? If so, shouldn't you be reporting on what Barbour had to say? As it stands the paragraph reads like WP:SYNTH. Guettarda (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a summary that can be improved. I suggest looking at the reference itself to satisfy your concerns and see that this section follows the source and is truly WP:IMPERFECT. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• B-Class history of science articles
• Top-importance history of science articles
• WikiProject History of Science articles
• B-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• B-Class ethics articles
• Mid-importance ethics articles
• Ethics task force articles
• B-Class philosophy of science articles
• Mid-importance philosophy of science articles
• Philosophy of science task force articles
• B-Class philosophy of religion articles
• Mid-importance philosophy of religion articles
• Philosophy of religion task force articles