Misplaced Pages

Talk:Relationship between religion and science: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:51, 12 September 2008 editGuettarda (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators63,420 edits →Overview: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:44, 17 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,537 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] 
(611 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
<!-- Please do not remove or change this message until the issue is settled -->
{{Talkheader}}
{{ {{#ifeq:|{{void}}|void|Error:must be substituted}}|medcab-request}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{medcabbox|2008-09-02_Relationship_between_religion_and_science}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=high|religion=yes|science=yes|ethics=yes}}
{{HistSci|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{philosophy|religion=yes|science=yes|importance=mid|ethics=yes|class=B}} {{WikiProject Science|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top}}
{{archivebox|
{{WikiProject History of Science|importance=high}}
*]}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=high}}
}}


{{ course assignment | course = Education Program:DuquesneUniveristy/UCOR 143 Global and Cultural Perspectives (Fall 2014) | term = 2014 Q3 }}
==Comment on reference==
{{ course assignment | course = Education Program:Duquesne University/UCOR 143 Global and Cultural Perspectives (Fall 2014) | term = 2014 Q3 }}
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. ] 00:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 5
|minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(180d)
|archive = Talk:Relationship between religion and science/Archive %(counter)d
}}


==Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - RPM SP 2022 - MASY1-GC 1260 200 Thu==
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. ] (]) 16:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Fad
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/New_York_University/Research_Process_and_Methodology_-_RPM_SP_2022_-_MASY1-GC_1260_200_Thu_(Spring_2022) | assignments = ] | start_date = 2022-02-27 | end_date = 2022-05-05 }}


== re: specific religions chapter ==
== anon ==


this chapter seems to be missing several world religions, such as Judaism. ] (]) 14:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
"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.


gah i got logged out, apologies! ] (]) 14:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
==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. ] 21:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
:And let's not forget:
:*] (already mentioned in the ] section)
:*Another example came up recently in ] and ] (). It seems a number of Hindus dispute the geological explanation for ] and claim ] 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 ] section incorrectly implies there is no conflict between Hinduism and science.
:*The ] vs. ], ], ], and the ]
:*]
:*] vs. ]
:*] vs. ]
:*Proscriptions against lending money at interest vs. ] (in which the ] is a basic organizing principle)
:Conflict between religion and science is common when religious people get careless and make ] 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 ]). Centuries of experience have shown divine revelation to be next to useless compared to the ] 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 ] do still fund ]s, but arguably they would get more for their investment by spending that money on 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 ] section to existing articles which document these conflicts. Perhaps a "Survey of conflicts between science and religion" section could summarize them. --] 04:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


== Propose to add the following section ==
That's because this article is hugely biased in favor of NOMA. ] 15:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I feel that the attitude towards challenges faced by beliefs in science and faith in religion may be one of key topic for this entry, and it is better highlighted in someway, in a high level visible section.


[https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Relationship_between_religion_and_science&diff=1142949541&oldid=1142949185
section deleted]


"Attitude towards challenges"
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? ] 11:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The attitude towards challenges faced by beliefs in science and faith in religion can vary greatly.
* In science, challenges to beliefs are often seen as opportunities to learn and improve understanding. Scientists are trained to question and scrutinize their own ideas as well as those of others, and recognize that challenges and criticism are an essential part of the scientific process. The attitude towards challenges in science is often one of curiosity and openness to new ideas and evidence.
* In religion, challenges to beliefs can be seen as threats to one's faith and personal identity. For some, questioning or challenging religious beliefs can be seen as disrespectful or even sacrilegious. However, for others, challenges to religious beliefs can be an opportunity for growth and deeper understanding of their faith.


Overall, the attitude towards challenges faced by beliefs in science and faith in religion can be shaped by a range of factors, including cultural and personal beliefs, experiences, and worldviews. However, in general, the scientific attitude tends to prioritize evidence and inquiry, while the religious attitude often places greater emphasis on faith and personal experience. <ref name=sep_p_r>Taliaferro, Charles, "Philosophy of Religion", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)</ref><ref name=sep_s_p>Hansson, Sven Ove, "Science and Pseudo-Science", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)</ref><ref name=sep_Epistemology>Steup, Matthias and Ram Neta, "Epistemology", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)</ref><ref>Bishop, John and Daniel J. McKaughan, "Faith", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.)</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0207125|title=Religiosity predicts negative attitudes towards science and lower levels of science literacy, which will be addded to the paragraph."}}</ref>
{{reflist-talk}}
--] (]) 04:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


===propose to add section with title Espitemologocal Analysis===
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.
I feel that Espitemologocal Analysis of relationship between science and religion should be a section in this entry, between "history" and Perspectives sections.
--] (]) 04:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
:This seems quite abstract and am not seeing stuff about attitude in the sources you cited the way it is presented above. Seems like a lot of ] with the dichotomizing here. For instance, the "Epistemology" article you cite does not even mention religion or faith or science. The source on "Philosophy of Religion" has a section on Religion and Science and it says that the sciences are methodologically agnostic and says they are not overlapping. Can you provide some quotes from the sources on some of the statements made? This may have a spot in the article, but would be better as you said between History and Perspectives since that is where these epistemic ideas make sense. The general structure of Incompatibility, Independence, Dialogue, Integration are the major sections of this article and those should be left alone since they are based on divisions made by historians of science.] (]) 05:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
::* "Philosophy of Religion":
:::* "Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist. (NASIM 2008: 12)", explained below
:::* " Despite the initial plausibility of the Academies stance, however, it may be problematic. First, ..." ....
:::* "Following up on Pinker, it should be noted that it would not be scientifically acceptable today to appeal to miracles or to direct acts of God. Any supposed miracle would (to many, if not all scientists) be a kind of defeat and to welcome an unacceptable mystery. This is why some philosophers of science propose that the sciences are methodologically atheistic. That is, while science itself does not pass judgment on whether God exists (even though some philosophers of science do), appealing to God’s existence forms no part of their scientific theories and investigations."
::* "Epistemology" entry is for the reason that philosophy and science follows this.
::* Ramos1990: "This may have a spot in the article, but would be better as you said between History and Perspectives since that is where these epistemic ideas make sense.",
:::* yes, I agree. Thank you very much.
::] (]) 13:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
:::Thanks for providing some quotes. I read that source too. But they don't really say what you wrote in your proposed section about attitudes. They just say that religion and science are separate and don't overlap - they answer separate questions and there is no controversy. These do not support the dichotomizing nor do they say anything on attitudes or challenges from science or religion. Looks like ] and ].] (]) 16:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
::::Thank you for your feedback. I guess that we may have different conclusion based on our different interpretions. ] (]) 17:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::Microsoft New Bing: What are the differences of the attitudes towards challenges faced by beliefs in science and faith in religion, in area of psychology and attitudes? Are the following paragraph correct?
:::::Answer:
:::::Hello, this is Bing. I can help you with your question.
:::::The paragraph you wrote is mostly correct, but it could be improved by acknowledging that there are different views and perspectives within both science and religion, and that the relationship between them is not always one of conflict or harmony. For example, some religious people may accept scientific challenges to their beliefs as a way of testing or strengthening their faith1, while some scientists may have religious beliefs that do not interfere with their scientific work2.
:::::You could also add some examples of specific challenges faced by beliefs in science and faith in religion, such as evolution, creationism, climate change, stem cell research, etc.345
:::::I hope this helps. Do you have any other questions? 😊
:::::Learn more:
:::::1. pewresearch.org2. plato.stanford.edu3. pewresearch.org4. journals.plos.org5. nationalacademies.org ] (]) 17:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::Hi again. It is not about your proposed wording being right or wrong. It is about the sources not supporting your proposed wording on Misplaced Pages. The sources you use should explicitly state the points you are writing about. This is to avoid violating ] - ''"The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Misplaced Pages to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented."''
::::::The last sentence is important. Otherwise, what is to stop another editor from changing your wording for "their" interpretation of the same sources. If a source makes an explicit claim, everyone is locked in by what that source says and no need to interpret a source. See ] for examples.] (]) 18:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::* Thank you for your feedback.
:::::::* Ramos1990: " It is about the sources not supporting your proposed wording on Misplaced Pages.",
::::::: * I have responded "Thank you for your feedback. I guess that we may have different conclusion based on our different interpretions."
::::::: * I feel that the paragraph is supported by the sources, since the paragraph is objective summary from sources which satifies "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented." in my opinion.
::::::: * The above from bing is to get more opinions on the paragraph (See https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Neutral_point_of_view: If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts;) ] (]) 19:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
* from Bing for support the above paragraph: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0207125 Religiosity predicts negative attitudes towards science and lower levels of science literacy: "Finally, we also tested whether the predicted negative relation between religiosity and science knowledge is mediated by attitudes towards science. The rationale for such mediation is straightforward. To the extent that religious people view science as invalid, irrelevant, or morally suspect, they will be less interested in learning science, both formally and informally."
--] (]) 19:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::This is not a debate on the topic. The responsibility falls on you provide a source that directly says what you are proposing because you are one trying to add something to the article. Is there any source for example for your statement "However, in general, the scientific attitude tends to prioritize evidence and inquiry, while the religious attitude often places greater emphasis on faith and personal experience."? A direct quote from any one of the 4 sources you cited making that specific claim on attitude? If no source makes that specific claim, then it is ]. The philosophy of religion source you cite does not make such a statement any where in the source.
:::::::You cannot just take sources and make an essay out of them. Please follow wikipedia policy.
:::::::Also bing is not a reliable source for anything. Just like google is not an appropriate refence for wikipedia. And the last reference you mentioned is a correlational study on religious Americans, not moderate or liberal Americans. Here is another source by the same researchers showing that there is no consistent correlation between religion and attitudes towards science when looking at 60 countries instead of just the US . "In conclusion, it appears that religious Americans have less positive attitudes toward, and less interest in, science. However, this does not appear to be a feature of religiosity, per se, as the effect is not clearly generalizable outside of the United States." You have to be careful with correlational studies.] (]) 20:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::This is not a debate on the topic. The responsibility falls on you provide a source that directly says what you are proposing because you are one trying to add something to the article. Is there any source for example for your statement "However, in general, the scientific attitude tends to prioritize evidence and inquiry, while the religious attitude often places greater emphasis on faith and personal experience."? A direct quote from any one of the 4 sources you cited making that specific claim on attitude? If no source makes that specific claim, then it is ]. The philosophy of religion source you cite does not make such a statement any where in the source.
:::::::You cannot just take sources and make an essay out of them. Please follow wikipedia policy.
:::::::Also bing is not a reliable source for anything. Just like google is not an appropriate refence for wikipedia. And the last reference you mentioned is a correlational study on religious Americans, not moderate or liberal Americans. Here is another source by the same researchers showing that there is no consistent correlation between religion and attitudes towards science when looking at 60 countries instead of just the US . "In conclusion, it appears that religious Americans have less positive attitudes toward, and less interest in, science. However, this does not appear to be a feature of religiosity, per se, as the effect is not clearly generalizable outside of the United States." You have to be careful with correlational studies.] (]) 20:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::*"Also bing is not a reliable source for anything. " is not the topic that faces us, since the source is not bing, found by bing. The source is
:::::::*https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0207125
:::::::*title: "Religiosity predicts negative attitudes towards science and lower levels of science literacy, which will be addded to the paragraph."
:::::::*You may verify the quote in the source: "Finally, we also tested whether the predicted negative relation between religiosity and science knowledge is mediated by attitudes towards science. The rationale for such mediation is straightforward. To the extent that religious people view science as invalid, irrelevant, or morally suspect, they will be less interested in learning science, both formally and informally."
:::::::*The new reference has been added to the paragraph, which has 5 references now.
--] (]) 21:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Gosh this whole thing is a mess. Ok since you clearly are not listening or following to wikipedia policy on original research, this whole section with all of the violations of wikipedia policy on ] and ] does not belong in the article at all. Also, the '''updated''' reference by your researchers https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550620923239?journalCode=sppa says ''"It is commonly claimed that science and religion are logically and psychologically at odds with one another. However, previous studies have mainly examined American samples; therefore, generalizations about antagonism between religion and science may be unwarranted."'' and also ''"Therefore, by taking such a broad approach, we are confident that we have accurately assessed both science interest and attitudes adequately...In conclusion, it appears that religious Americans have less positive attitudes toward, and less interest in, science. '''However, this does not appear to be a feature of religiosity, per se, as the effect is not clearly generalizable outside of the United States.'''"'' Not sure why you are ignoring the updated paper.] (]) 22:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Just making note that User:Gluo88 seems to ask algorithms or AI like bing for automated responses. It does not feel like I am talking to an actual human being since the responses seem automated, repetitive, and ignore context like failure to provide direct quotes for any of their proposed wording. The responses seem choppy and incoherent too. Never seen anything like this before.] (]) 22:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::I have identified the only portion from AI already:
:::::::::::"Hello, this is Bing. I can help you with your question.
:::::::::::The paragraph you wrote is mostly correct, but it could be improved by acknowledging that there are different views and perspectives within both science and religion, and that the relationship between them is not always one of conflict or harmony. For example, some religious people may accept scientific challenges to their beliefs as a way of testing or strengthening their faith1, while some scientists may have religious beliefs that do not interfere with their scientific work2.
:::::::::::You could also add some examples of specific challenges faced by beliefs in science and faith in religion, such as evolution, creationism, climate change, stem cell research, etc.345
:::::::::::I hope this helps. Do you have any other questions?"
::::::::::Note: I am not sure how you can assume my other response is from AI? ] (]) 02:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::At one point, I manualy checked source link, provided the source
:::::::::::https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0207125,
::::::::::::Religiosity predicts negative attitudes towards science and lower levels of science literacy: "Finally, we also tested whether the predicted negative relation between religiosity and science knowledge is mediated by attitudes towards science. The rationale for such mediation is straightforward. To the extent that religious people view science as invalid, irrelevant, or morally suspect, they will be less interested in learning science, both formally and informally.
::::::::::: but at that point you ingored my source and assume that the source context is from Ping, although I did not see the paper that you found. ] (]) 02:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


=== Edit warring by IP ===
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?


While I like the general idea behind their edits, it is too black and white formulated: scientists can be very rigid and dogmatic (there is a difference between being open to hold debates and being prepared to be persuaded by evidence), it is just that the scientific community as a whole does not cherish monolithic ideological unity, and many theologians are very rational and open-minded (see e.g. ]). ] (]) 07:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
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?
] 11:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


:The abave is regarding scientific attitude and religious attitude, not attitude of the dogmatic scientists or rational and open-minded theologians (as mentioned in the above text:"However, for others, challenges to religious beliefs can be an opportunity for growth and deeper understanding of their faith"). Thank you very much for offering opinion.
: 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. ] (]) 21:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:--] (]) 14:18, 5 March 2023 (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
] 23:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

== Philosophy of Science section ==

I edited the ] (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. ] ] ] 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. ] 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" ]

::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
{{cquote| 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. This means that over 60 percent of professors in these natural and social science disciplines describe themselves as either atheist or religiously agnostic. In comparison, among those in the general U.S. population, about 3 percent claim to be atheists and about 5 percent are religiously agnostic}}

: Not sure about the personal god thing though. ] 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. ] 12:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

: . ] 13:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support updating the percentages so as not to mislead, as discussed above --] 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. --] 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.--] 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). ] 16:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

== Religious fundamentalism and scientific enlightenment ==

<blockquote>
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,
</blockquote>

Is the reader supposed to understand the liberal enlightenment as being the same as the skeptical enlightenment? ] 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. ] 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 ] 15:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

:Given that wikipedia already has articles on ] and the ] 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. ] 16:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

:This article mentions both White and the conflict and so the link is worthwhile here too. ] 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.--] 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 - ]. ] 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. ] 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. ]

:::::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. ] 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 ]), 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''. ] 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. ] 13:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

<unident>It is ''tangental'' because it's main subject is ] and the ], 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 ] 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 ''']''', which involves convincing people like me. ] 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. ] 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"). ] 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. ] 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 ] (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 ], 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 ] and unwillingness to ]. By all means come back in a week, I doubt if you'll get a different response. ] 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? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:I would suspect not, as wikipedia would likely have difficulty finding ] advocating this view. <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 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<br />Both science and religion would fit into the category of 'immortality projects' as described by Ernest Becker in his book ]. 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".] (]) 19:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
:::"branches of the same tree" does not imply "very similar". <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 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.<br />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. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::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. <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 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".] (]) 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 ]. <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 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. ] (]) 21:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say ] 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. ] (]) 07:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

* '''Comment''' There's plenty of sources for this perspective. In Chrisitianity, it generally falls under the term ]. ] books by ] and ] are examples where I've seen these ideas be developed. But there are lots of other notable authors in this ], plus there are ] like ] and ] like ] who hold similar views. Also reliable as sources are contributors to ] like ]. Some contributors to the ] like ] (see his Science and the Modern World where he hold that Christianity allowed science to develop) would be good sources too. --] (]) 22:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

==move?==
this is clearly the main article for ]. Why not move it to simple ] or ]? ] <small>]</small> 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. <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 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. ] (]) 18:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC) (Dr. Chris Hamilton, political scientist, Washburn University, Topeka, Kansas)

== ] ==
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. ] (]) 14:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
*'''agree:''' -- a simple redirect would be appropriate in this situation. <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 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. ] (]) 22:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

==Scientific study of religion==
Shouldn't the main article only be ]? I thought at first religious studies was more like a social science (cf say ], 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. ] (]) 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:<br />
http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/content/full/5/4/353<br />
http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm<br />
--] (]) 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 ] (]) 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. -- ] <small>(])</small> 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. ] (]) 06:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

:::71.164.241.199, please stop pushing your POV. Dawkins is a notable ] and he has made some notable contributions. I don't know much about ]'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. ] (]) 12:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

== Verbiage in the lead ==

Firefly322 insists on adding the following to the lead:
{{quotation|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:
#It is badly written and jargon-ridden, and needs to be translated into grammatical every-day English.
:* Hrafn's subjective problem and POV. merely ]
::*Thank you Firefly322 for that violation of ]. "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. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 04:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
#Placing the material in the lead gives ] 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".<ref name="haught"/>
::*'''Bullshit!''' <big>"A few yet significant number of scholars"</big> -- '''by your own admission''' this is a minority viewpoint. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 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 ] 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 ] by ] is a good example ( a book on religion by a famous Computer Scientist faculty member at ]).
#The wording gives me strong suspicion that the material is ] 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 ] inexplicably removed, ]'s standards are inconsistent and appear based on his or her own sense of ].
<font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 15:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
::*'''Put up or shut up''', instead of making wild and ]-violating accusations. Provide the requested quotes. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 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. ] 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 ] nor ], but obvious. --] (]) 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 ], <ref name="haught">, 1995, p. 9 Paulist Press, ISBN 0-8091-3606-6 </ref>
<blockquote>
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:<ref> ''Religion in an Age of Science'' (1990), ISBN 0-06-060383-6 </ref>
<p>1) Conflict — the conviction that science and religion are fundamentally irreconcilable;
<p>2) Contrast — the claim that there can be no genuine conflict since religion and science are each responding to radically different questions;
<p>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.
<p>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.
</blockquote>

My added text is what ] here calls the '''Confirmation''' perspective. And I hold that it is really no more ] than the rest of the lede. --] (]) 22:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

{{reflist}}

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) ] 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. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 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 ]'s . As a ], it gives substantial details about other history of science historians, even including details about the relationship between Science and Islam; ] and ] are identified as the two well-respected pioneers in this areas. The book gives a very favorable judgement to ]'s , a more or less favorable, yet sometimes cautionary judgement to ]'s work, also a very favorable judgement to ] and ]. --] (]) 12:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

#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. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 16:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
#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 distinct''arguments'' for what appears to be the same, or very similar, viewpoints. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 16:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
#"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.
#Hooykaas' view on a Biblical basis for empiricism is repeated ''three times'' -- once, quite anomalously, in the section on Merton.
#The Andrew D. White/Richard S. Westfall paragraph is placed in the Merton section, but is not related to Merton's specific ideas.
#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''. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 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. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 18:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
#"The most recently proposed" implies that nobody since Hooykaas has made any proposal related to this topic.
#"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.
#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.
<font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 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 ] and ]. 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. --] (]) 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 ] and state your intention to "eventually" revert them. --] (]) 17:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

===Suggest that you either improve your writing standards or develop a thicker skin===
#Pointing out blatant editing flaws is not an assumption of bad faith.
#You need to distinguish between blunt criticism of the shortcomings of your edits (permissible per ]) from incivility towards yourself.
#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 ]"
#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. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 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 ]. Also persecution? Strategy? Unilateral action? Why are you using such biased words that tend to push the conversation towards an ] 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. --] (]) 19:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

== Reply to Hfran's Comments ==

#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" <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 19:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
#*"''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" --] (]) 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, <u> The Emergence of early modern science from events in the history of Western Europe </u> complements chapter 6's title of <u> The Nonemergence of Early Modern Science Outside Western Europe </u>. 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 ] thesis and the ] 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" <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 19:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
#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.
#*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 distinct''arguments'' for what appears to be the same, or very similar, viewpoints. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 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. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 19:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
#"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.
#Hooykaas' view on a Biblical basis for empiricism is repeated ''three times'' -- once, quite anomalously, in the section on Merton.
* It's ] 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 ], 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. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 19:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
#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 ] that can be cooperatively improved with ].
**No, you did not 'leave it in', you ''moved'' it to the Merton section, where it didn't belong. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 19:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
#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 ] are highlighted, ] are not by means excluded from Hooykaas's scholarship.
**No they aren't -- at least in the ''article'' -- see comments above. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 19:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
#"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.
#"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. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 19:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
#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.--] (]) 18:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

== Mixing histography with history==

Regarding Hrafn's introduction...

<blockquote>
''In ''The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry'' historian of science ] presents scholarship arguing for a Biblical (and particularly Puritan Protestant) influence on the early development of modern science.''
</blockquote>

*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. --] (]) 19:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

:*Yes, and my phrasing makes allowance for this -- it says "presents scholarship arguing for..." ''not'' "makes arguments for". <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 03:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Hrafn's new additions to the section's articles...
<blockquote>
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:
</blockquote>

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 ] (p.309), but Cohen is not rejecting anything. --] (]) 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 ]'s have few scholarly adherents anymore', but admits..." <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 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 ] 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". <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 12:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

== Merton truncation ==

I have a number of problems with the wholesale removal of material on Merton:
#It leaves the Cohen section unbalanced, in that it gives the impression that Cohen was talking almost exclusively about Hooykaas.
#It is uninformative, in that it says virtually nothing about what Merton's argument was, let alone what Cohen said about it.
#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'.
#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'? <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 04:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

# 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 ] and ]. 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. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 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 ] on page 309. For example...
:::Earlier in the book, on pages 136-147, Cohen considers '']'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 ] 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." <ref name=cohen> , ], University of Chicago Press 1994, 680 pages, ISBN 0-2261-1280-2, pages 308-321 </ref>
:::# 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 ]'s baramoterical experiments are interpreted in the framework of the mechanical philosophy..."
:::# 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..."
:::# 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')."
:::# Considering Boyle's ], ]'s well-known deep religious views, and the possible religious connotations of process (e.g., process as in ] with origins in ]'s ''Science and the Modern World'' (1925)), Cohen is showing us on pages 308-321 that religion (e.g., along the lines of ]'s and/or ]'s scholarship) may be key in fully exploiting the Scientific REvolution as a dynamic process. --] (]) 14:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

# ] has its own article. Why repeat it? --] (]) 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 ] gives it a more detailed and more globally-focused treatment, per ]. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 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. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 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 ] wikipedian spirit. --] (]) 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:
#Models of interaction
#Specific views of religion on science
#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). <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 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). <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 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 ] and ]. --] (]) 08:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

#You did not reference chapter 6.
#In any case, Cohen talks about "Greek" and "Islamic" influences, he does not lump them together as a "Greco-Islamic tradition".
#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 ], 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. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 08:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
:Many of the uncited passages in this religon and science article are ]. The uncited passages, which have been inherited, are far less "crisp" than those found in ], 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 ]. --] (]) 09:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

::Firefly322: this was ] information that was '''contradicted''' by sourced information in -- ] -- which explicitly stated that the "religious Caliphs" (i.e. the relevant "religious groups") did not support transmission (via translation) of the Greek texts. ] '''''does not''''' support the retention of such material. I will ignore your '''], ], ]'''. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 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. --] (]) 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. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 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 {{cite web |url=http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=A32&pageseq=1 |title=ART. VIII.- Darwin on the origin of Species |author=Huxley, T.H. |authorlink=Thomas Henry Huxley |date=April 1860 |publisher=] |pages=541-70 |accessdate=2008-06-29}} might be of interest. It came up while working on ], 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." . . ], ] 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 ] for reintroducing it. Thanks. :) <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 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! . . ], ] 16:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

==Models, Metaphors, and Useful fictions==

Both science and religion rely on what some critics term useful fictions ( {{find|useful fictions}} ), ] 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. --] (]) 18:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

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

==Collusion of religion and science==
Viewed from ], 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--] (]) 11:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
* According to 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 ] and ]'s ''The Tao of Physics'' as sources for this view. --] (]) 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 ] nor on ] mention them. ]?? Suspect editor projected the ] (]) ideas onto Freud, perhaps confusing him with ] 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 ]. Does anyone agree? --] (]) 16:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Moreover, section is sourced with ], ] 1994. I've read through the source and done searches on it. No mention of ] (]. Doesn't look like ] supports Freud as a spokesman for a relationship between religion and science. --] (]) 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. --] (]) 00:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Isn't Bahá'í routinely compared to ]? It's odd. --] (]) 15:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

:No it's not. Take a look at the ] 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. ] (]) 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 ]? Apparent answer: No. Are there any historians of science that write about ]? Apparent answer: No. Neither ] nor ] nor any of their contemporaries (scientist or priest) could have had anything to do with the ], because it simply didn't exist. --] (]) 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 ]. 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? ] (]) 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 ] is clearly and obviously ] 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 ], then it could be included. Until then it has no place here because inclusion constitutes ].--] (]) 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 ] and is not ]. The primary sources are not necessary. ] (]) 22:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::I have. See ] where Baha'i and Raëlism are compared. --] (]) 19:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::Peter Smith is a ] 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. ] 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. --] (]) 19:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::The only parallel ] 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 ])
:::::::*Has three secondary sources (passes ] and ]) ] (]) 00:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

== Dawkins & Gibbons ==

I have just reverted the insertion: "According to ], in 1776 ] first made the perdiction that science would lead to the demise of religion. <nowiki><ref> ], Houghton Mifflin, 1998 </ref> </nowiki> ] 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. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 12:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
==The scientific community's perspective==
Plan to rework much of this section based on these ] 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" --] (]) 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 ==

by Firefly322 is not "]", it is a badly written (e.g. repeating the same clumsy phrase twice in the same sentence, ungrammatical (even using a ']') 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. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 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. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 15:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, this edit also links to one of Firefly322's other creations, , which should be illuminating on this editor's standards (for a lengthier example, see ]). <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 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. ] (]) 01:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

== McGrath footnote ==

I am removing the footnote that states "As ] points out in ] this definition would exclude ] and people like ] who believe(d) 'in ]'s God' " as:
#McGrath did not write ''The God Delusion'' (thus it is unclear whether McGrath is ''quoted'' in ''this'' book, or if ] is meant).
#It provides no formal citation that would enable this information to be verified, and thus allow this inconsistency to be resolved.
#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"
#Unless MCGrath was speaking of this the exact wording in the surveys (which is unlikely), this footnote would appear to be ].
<font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 16:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

== Ill-considered edit that editors are edit warring to reinsert ==

#If anybody had bothered to read ] they would have noticed "NationMaster makes use of encyclopedia content from Misplaced Pages".
#Neither Bahá'ís nor Muslims consider the ] to be part of ]. 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."
#Attempting to place a citation in a section-header is a really silly, ugly & a ]y idea.
<font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 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 ]. 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. --] (]) 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.
{{quotation| The relationship between ] and ] 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. ] and ]), others assert that there are significant parallels in method and purpose (both being pursuits of ]), 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 ] 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.}} --] (]) 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? --] 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.--] (]) 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 ]. 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''. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 14:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

== Merge proposal ==
{{resolved|This article still needs cleanup, but I have brought over everything that seemed well-cited and relevant. - ] <small>(])</small> 04:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)}}
An article has recently been created called ']', which would appear to be merely about the scholarly community that investigates the topic of this article.

I am proposing merging it here as:
#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.
#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).
<font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 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. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 22:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

*'''Support''' I see no reason why that should be a separate article. ] (]) 23:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

*'''Support''' as per everyone above. --] 02:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Reverted addition ==

{{quotation|] has led to ]; ]'s ]--his definition of religion as "a feeling of absolute dependence" <!--page 53 of Habgood --> has been implicated as a factor in the causes of ], which is often taken to be the underlying motivation for ]'s early scholarship and the whole ] movement; and taking the current state of scientific knowledge as ] as in ] sets up problems like clock-work universe created by ] based on ]'s laws, which the continuing evolution of science tends to date such efforts. (] now seem far from the ultimate truth, given the later scientific advances of ], ], and ].}}
This is:
#Unsourced
#Contains some quite impenetrable jargon and name-dropping
#Is mostly a single meandering sentence
#Is grossly over-linked -- including even linking to ]
#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''' ], it is ''unreadable''. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 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. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 13:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

And in response to ill-considered and sophomoric piece of ]ing -- ''yes'', English is my first language, and I am sufficiently proficient in it to identify badly written, uninformative turgid prose when I see it. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</font> 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... {{=)}} --] 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. --] 00:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

==Regarding reverts (copied from user page)==
Regarding your (Orange's) revision to this article , ] has already reverted but still I don't understand your (Orange's) claims of ], ], ]. All the points made and the general langauge used is from ] 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. --] (]) 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 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 ] being the president of the ] 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 ], 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? --] (]) 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. ], ], ], ], and ] have all received such praise. <ref> Science and Religion, Habgood </ref> <ref> </ref> A modern quip about Richard Dawkins is that "if Richard Dawkins didn't exist, to make him up." <ref> {{find|''If RIchard Dawkins didn't exist''}} </ref>
{{quotation|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 ]<ref> Science and Religion, 1964, page 87 </ref>, former president and current member of the }}
{{reflist|2}}
Plan to add the above section, it could still be a bit rough so please comment.--] (]) 04:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

#"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''?
# Are you really referencing the quote about Dawkins to a 1964 book?
# What does the quote have to do with the section title? It seems unrelated. ] (]) 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.''

# 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.
# Why do we care, in an article about the relationship between religion and science, what language philosophers and religious existentialists think?
# "Many language philosophers (e.g., Ludwig Wittgenstein) and religious existentialists (e.g., neo-orthodoxy)" - is that grammatical? Neo-orthodoxy?
# 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 ]. ] (]) 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 ]. --] (]) 12:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

== Overview ==

I removed the "Overview" section, since it (a) wasn't an overview of anything, but rather a list of four journals, and (b) there are no supporting references that these 4 are really the place to find this debate. There are ''footnotes'' that reference individual articles in the latter two journals, but that's just anecdotal support. ] (]) 12:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:44, 17 July 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Relationship between religion and science article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 6 months 
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Ethics / Science / Religion High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Ethics
Taskforce icon
Philosophy of science
Taskforce icon
Philosophy of religion
WikiProject iconScience High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconReligion Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHistory of Science High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSkepticism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2014 Q3. Further details were available on the "Education Program:DuquesneUniveristy/UCOR 143 Global and Cultural Perspectives (Fall 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.
This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2014 Q3. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Duquesne University/UCOR 143 Global and Cultural Perspectives (Fall 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - RPM SP 2022 - MASY1-GC 1260 200 Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aashima99 (article contribs).

re: specific religions chapter

this chapter seems to be missing several world religions, such as Judaism. 2601:5C1:4401:1EB0:A956:86BC:43DD:EDC7 (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

gah i got logged out, apologies! Nortsapa (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Propose to add the following section

I feel that the attitude towards challenges faced by beliefs in science and faith in religion may be one of key topic for this entry, and it is better highlighted in someway, in a high level visible section.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Relationship_between_religion_and_science&diff=1142949541&oldid=1142949185 section deleted]

"Attitude towards challenges" The attitude towards challenges faced by beliefs in science and faith in religion can vary greatly.

  • In science, challenges to beliefs are often seen as opportunities to learn and improve understanding. Scientists are trained to question and scrutinize their own ideas as well as those of others, and recognize that challenges and criticism are an essential part of the scientific process. The attitude towards challenges in science is often one of curiosity and openness to new ideas and evidence.
  • In religion, challenges to beliefs can be seen as threats to one's faith and personal identity. For some, questioning or challenging religious beliefs can be seen as disrespectful or even sacrilegious. However, for others, challenges to religious beliefs can be an opportunity for growth and deeper understanding of their faith.

Overall, the attitude towards challenges faced by beliefs in science and faith in religion can be shaped by a range of factors, including cultural and personal beliefs, experiences, and worldviews. However, in general, the scientific attitude tends to prioritize evidence and inquiry, while the religious attitude often places greater emphasis on faith and personal experience.

References

  1. Taliaferro, Charles, "Philosophy of Religion", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
  2. Hansson, Sven Ove, "Science and Pseudo-Science", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
  3. Steup, Matthias and Ram Neta, "Epistemology", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
  4. Bishop, John and Daniel J. McKaughan, "Faith", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.)
  5. "Religiosity predicts negative attitudes towards science and lower levels of science literacy, which will be addded to the paragraph."".

--Gluo88 (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

propose to add section with title Espitemologocal Analysis

I feel that Espitemologocal Analysis of relationship between science and religion should be a section in this entry, between "history" and Perspectives sections. --Gluo88 (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

This seems quite abstract and am not seeing stuff about attitude in the sources you cited the way it is presented above. Seems like a lot of WP:SYN with the dichotomizing here. For instance, the "Epistemology" article you cite does not even mention religion or faith or science. The source on "Philosophy of Religion" has a section on Religion and Science and it says that the sciences are methodologically agnostic and says they are not overlapping. Can you provide some quotes from the sources on some of the statements made? This may have a spot in the article, but would be better as you said between History and Perspectives since that is where these epistemic ideas make sense. The general structure of Incompatibility, Independence, Dialogue, Integration are the major sections of this article and those should be left alone since they are based on divisions made by historians of science. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
  • "Philosophy of Religion":
  • "Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist. (NASIM 2008: 12)", explained below
  • " Despite the initial plausibility of the Academies stance, however, it may be problematic. First, ..." ....
  • "Following up on Pinker, it should be noted that it would not be scientifically acceptable today to appeal to miracles or to direct acts of God. Any supposed miracle would (to many, if not all scientists) be a kind of defeat and to welcome an unacceptable mystery. This is why some philosophers of science propose that the sciences are methodologically atheistic. That is, while science itself does not pass judgment on whether God exists (even though some philosophers of science do), appealing to God’s existence forms no part of their scientific theories and investigations."
  • "Epistemology" entry is for the reason that philosophy and science follows this.
  • Ramos1990: "This may have a spot in the article, but would be better as you said between History and Perspectives since that is where these epistemic ideas make sense.",
  • yes, I agree. Thank you very much.
Gluo88 (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for providing some quotes. I read that source too. But they don't really say what you wrote in your proposed section about attitudes. They just say that religion and science are separate and don't overlap - they answer separate questions and there is no controversy. These do not support the dichotomizing nor do they say anything on attitudes or challenges from science or religion. Looks like WP:SYN and WP:OR. Ramos1990 (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. I guess that we may have different conclusion based on our different interpretions. Gluo88 (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Microsoft New Bing: What are the differences of the attitudes towards challenges faced by beliefs in science and faith in religion, in area of psychology and attitudes? Are the following paragraph correct?
Answer:
Hello, this is Bing. I can help you with your question.
The paragraph you wrote is mostly correct, but it could be improved by acknowledging that there are different views and perspectives within both science and religion, and that the relationship between them is not always one of conflict or harmony. For example, some religious people may accept scientific challenges to their beliefs as a way of testing or strengthening their faith1, while some scientists may have religious beliefs that do not interfere with their scientific work2.
You could also add some examples of specific challenges faced by beliefs in science and faith in religion, such as evolution, creationism, climate change, stem cell research, etc.345
I hope this helps. Do you have any other questions? 😊
Learn more:
1. pewresearch.org2. plato.stanford.edu3. pewresearch.org4. journals.plos.org5. nationalacademies.org Gluo88 (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi again. It is not about your proposed wording being right or wrong. It is about the sources not supporting your proposed wording on Misplaced Pages. The sources you use should explicitly state the points you are writing about. This is to avoid violating WP:OR - "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Misplaced Pages to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented."
The last sentence is important. Otherwise, what is to stop another editor from changing your wording for "their" interpretation of the same sources. If a source makes an explicit claim, everyone is locked in by what that source says and no need to interpret a source. See WP:SYN for examples. Ramos1990 (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your feedback.
  • Ramos1990: " It is about the sources not supporting your proposed wording on Misplaced Pages.",
* I have responded "Thank you for your feedback. I guess that we may have different conclusion based on our different interpretions."
* I feel that the paragraph is supported by the sources, since the paragraph is objective summary from sources which satifies "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented." in my opinion.
* The above from bing is to get more opinions on the paragraph (See https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Neutral_point_of_view: If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts;) Gluo88 (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
  • from Bing for support the above paragraph: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0207125 Religiosity predicts negative attitudes towards science and lower levels of science literacy: "Finally, we also tested whether the predicted negative relation between religiosity and science knowledge is mediated by attitudes towards science. The rationale for such mediation is straightforward. To the extent that religious people view science as invalid, irrelevant, or morally suspect, they will be less interested in learning science, both formally and informally."

--Gluo88 (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

This is not a debate on the topic. The responsibility falls on you provide a source that directly says what you are proposing because you are one trying to add something to the article. Is there any source for example for your statement "However, in general, the scientific attitude tends to prioritize evidence and inquiry, while the religious attitude often places greater emphasis on faith and personal experience."? A direct quote from any one of the 4 sources you cited making that specific claim on attitude? If no source makes that specific claim, then it is WP:OR. The philosophy of religion source you cite does not make such a statement any where in the source.
You cannot just take sources and make an essay out of them. Please follow wikipedia policy.
Also bing is not a reliable source for anything. Just like google is not an appropriate refence for wikipedia. And the last reference you mentioned is a correlational study on religious Americans, not moderate or liberal Americans. Here is another source by the same researchers showing that there is no consistent correlation between religion and attitudes towards science when looking at 60 countries instead of just the US . "In conclusion, it appears that religious Americans have less positive attitudes toward, and less interest in, science. However, this does not appear to be a feature of religiosity, per se, as the effect is not clearly generalizable outside of the United States." You have to be careful with correlational studies. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
This is not a debate on the topic. The responsibility falls on you provide a source that directly says what you are proposing because you are one trying to add something to the article. Is there any source for example for your statement "However, in general, the scientific attitude tends to prioritize evidence and inquiry, while the religious attitude often places greater emphasis on faith and personal experience."? A direct quote from any one of the 4 sources you cited making that specific claim on attitude? If no source makes that specific claim, then it is WP:OR. The philosophy of religion source you cite does not make such a statement any where in the source.
You cannot just take sources and make an essay out of them. Please follow wikipedia policy.
Also bing is not a reliable source for anything. Just like google is not an appropriate refence for wikipedia. And the last reference you mentioned is a correlational study on religious Americans, not moderate or liberal Americans. Here is another source by the same researchers showing that there is no consistent correlation between religion and attitudes towards science when looking at 60 countries instead of just the US . "In conclusion, it appears that religious Americans have less positive attitudes toward, and less interest in, science. However, this does not appear to be a feature of religiosity, per se, as the effect is not clearly generalizable outside of the United States." You have to be careful with correlational studies. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
  • "Also bing is not a reliable source for anything. " is not the topic that faces us, since the source is not bing, found by bing. The source is
  • https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0207125
  • title: "Religiosity predicts negative attitudes towards science and lower levels of science literacy, which will be addded to the paragraph."
  • You may verify the quote in the source: "Finally, we also tested whether the predicted negative relation between religiosity and science knowledge is mediated by attitudes towards science. The rationale for such mediation is straightforward. To the extent that religious people view science as invalid, irrelevant, or morally suspect, they will be less interested in learning science, both formally and informally."
  • The new reference has been added to the paragraph, which has 5 references now.

--Gluo88 (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Gosh this whole thing is a mess. Ok since you clearly are not listening or following to wikipedia policy on original research, this whole section with all of the violations of wikipedia policy on WP:OR and WP:SYN does not belong in the article at all. Also, the updated reference by your researchers https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550620923239?journalCode=sppa says "It is commonly claimed that science and religion are logically and psychologically at odds with one another. However, previous studies have mainly examined American samples; therefore, generalizations about antagonism between religion and science may be unwarranted." and also "Therefore, by taking such a broad approach, we are confident that we have accurately assessed both science interest and attitudes adequately...In conclusion, it appears that religious Americans have less positive attitudes toward, and less interest in, science. However, this does not appear to be a feature of religiosity, per se, as the effect is not clearly generalizable outside of the United States." Not sure why you are ignoring the updated paper. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Just making note that User:Gluo88 seems to ask algorithms or AI like bing for automated responses. It does not feel like I am talking to an actual human being since the responses seem automated, repetitive, and ignore context like failure to provide direct quotes for any of their proposed wording. The responses seem choppy and incoherent too. Never seen anything like this before. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
I have identified the only portion from AI already:
"Hello, this is Bing. I can help you with your question.
The paragraph you wrote is mostly correct, but it could be improved by acknowledging that there are different views and perspectives within both science and religion, and that the relationship between them is not always one of conflict or harmony. For example, some religious people may accept scientific challenges to their beliefs as a way of testing or strengthening their faith1, while some scientists may have religious beliefs that do not interfere with their scientific work2.
You could also add some examples of specific challenges faced by beliefs in science and faith in religion, such as evolution, creationism, climate change, stem cell research, etc.345
I hope this helps. Do you have any other questions?"
Note: I am not sure how you can assume my other response is from AI? Gluo88 (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
At one point, I manualy checked source link, provided the source
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0207125,
Religiosity predicts negative attitudes towards science and lower levels of science literacy: "Finally, we also tested whether the predicted negative relation between religiosity and science knowledge is mediated by attitudes towards science. The rationale for such mediation is straightforward. To the extent that religious people view science as invalid, irrelevant, or morally suspect, they will be less interested in learning science, both formally and informally.
but at that point you ingored my source and assume that the source context is from Ping, although I did not see the paper that you found. Gluo88 (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring by IP

While I like the general idea behind their edits, it is too black and white formulated: scientists can be very rigid and dogmatic (there is a difference between being open to hold debates and being prepared to be persuaded by evidence), it is just that the scientific community as a whole does not cherish monolithic ideological unity, and many theologians are very rational and open-minded (see e.g. Liberal Christianity). tgeorgescu (talk) 07:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The abave is regarding scientific attitude and religious attitude, not attitude of the dogmatic scientists or rational and open-minded theologians (as mentioned in the above text:"However, for others, challenges to religious beliefs can be an opportunity for growth and deeper understanding of their faith"). Thank you very much for offering opinion.
--Gluo88 (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Categories: