Talk:A Scientific Theology

message: Given the rating of this page (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Books/Assessment#Quality_scale) and the concerns regarding NPOV (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) and advertising (or, more correctly, WikiSPAM: Wikipedia:Spam) a major revamp seems appropriate.
I note that much of the content is a simple cut and paste of publisher's material (from Amazon?) and am therefore going to; (1) rewrite some content to overcome any blatant NPOV and advertising issues which exist; and (2) re-format any remaining publisher's material to make it clear that is IS publisher's description and not neutral content.
I have put up an "in progress" banner which I would like to remain until I can complete the major changes and the page is ready for re-release (so to speak).
The two major additions I'd like to make to the article are (1) an overview of critical review of McGrath's proposal together with some of McGrath's responses; and (2) brief descriptions (no more than a couple of lines) of the chapter contents (should fit nicely under the existing chapter outline).
Of course, I'd appreciate comment on the changes I'm making - but in the absence of any discussion, I'll remove the NPOV and advertising banners when it seems appropriate to do so. I can't imagine this would be too controversial given the lack of heated debate on the article!!!
Note that there are a few minor formatting issues with respect to references and etc which I will clean up in the near future.
Muzhogg (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upgrade of this article 

message: Could somebody tell me why two of the only three sources cited for this article are for a review of a different book by McGrath and his response? If we have nothing to say about this book, other than Snyder's fulsome conclusion (which tells us nothing about the contents of the book, other than that he really really liked it), then perhaps we should not have an article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It strikes me that there is a major need for disambiguation here. McGrath considers A Scientific Theology to be an ongoing project of which The Foundations of Dialogue in Science and Religion is a part (see A Scientifc Theology 1:xvii as well as McGrath's remarks on The Foundation in the PSCF article cited). So how one addresses relevance is going to depend very heavily on whether the article is about the book(s) or about the project. Clearly the two are not unrelated. I would submit that the primary problem we have is that the McKenzie/McGrath articles are primarily related to the project whilst only the McGrath article is strongly relevant to the trilogy. And in the absence of disambiguation, resolution may be difficult to say the least. I suggest the incorporation of a brief remark on this point - discussions about relevant to be set aside until that is done. Apologies, by the way, for the unnecessary jibe re uniformed comment - that was uncalled for and your rebuke is warranted. Muzhogg (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

text: (i) You have been on Wikipedia 6 months longer than I have, and so are hardly a "newcomer" (ii) I would assert that in the above thread I am no more "biting" than "bitten". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant review & response 

message: Only one explicit (and two oblique) mentions in the article text, plus another mention in footnotes. Hardly enough to claim that McKenzie "engage[s] with 'this book'". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point. But I'd counter by noting that the McGrath piece draws heavily on A Scientific Theology in order to make response to McKenzie. So I would offer the suggestion that relevance is established by the McGrath piece, whilst context for the McGrath piece is established by the McKenzie piece. It's the two pieces together that are relevant. I will reword the reference to McKenzie in order to put the emphasis on the McGrath piece and to draw out why the McGrath piece is relevant to the article itself. Muzhogg (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Bah! I hate it when I'm wrong. Having reworded the reference in question, I now agree that relevance under the present sub-heading is an issue. Would it be acceptable to relocate it under "external links"? Muzhogg (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  McKenzie on ''A Scientific Theology'' 

message: As the Drees reviews aren't currently cited for their contents, I've moved them into the EL section for the time being (per WP:MOSLINKS). That is not to say that they can't or shouldn't be cited for new additions to the article (as they appear to be WP:RS, they can & should, at which point they can be moved into inline citations). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drees reviews 

message: User:WLU amended the lead; "exploring parallels between the working assumptions and methods of the natural sciences and Christian theology" to "examines the connections between the scientific method and Christian theology."
On the positive side I think the link to scientific method is valuable.
On the negative side I think this change;
#Does not adequately account for McGrath's emphasis on the working assumptions of the physical sciences.
#Suggests he is concerned with the content of Christian theology rather than with consideration of "the working assumptions and methods of Christian theology".
As a result I have reverted the change (with some alteration) in order to emphasise the parallel which McGrath is making. i.e. not a parallel between "scientific method" and "Christian theology", but a parallel between "The working assumptions and methods of Christian theology" and "the working assumptions and methods of the natural sciences".
Whilst I have omitted the link to "scientific method" this is only because I am uncertain how to include without destroying what I see as a conceptual parallel which is fundamental to McGrath's entire project.
Muzhogg (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While I can understand this, given McGrath's emphasis on methodology rather than contents, it runs into problems given that a major pillar of the scientific method is methodological naturalism. Also there's the fact that the scientific method is explicitly provisional, and I would suspect that a provisional theology might be problematic. I think some thought needs to be put into explaining how McGrath deals with the apparently inimical aspects of the scientific method, if an explicit link to it is made. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: These are very pertinent concerns. I'd note that they are actually quite central to McGrath's treatment. He certainly deals with questions of naturalism and provisionality in science and Christian theology. As a result these issues should recieve adequate treatment as a matter of course. Perhaps best just to leave this issue on the back-burner for now? Muzhogg (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to scientific method 

message: To prevent any conflict over the matter of Reviews and Criticism, may I suggest that we list relevant references here. The content can be summarised and added to the article as time and interest permits? Would this please all editors? I have begun a list below and would welcome any additional contributions. -- Muzhogg (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews and Criticisms 

message: Please supplement the following list as appropriate;
*Abrahamson, Karen K.  "Review Article: Alister McGrath's A Scientific Theology." Andrews University Seminary Studies 44 (2006): 341-55.
*Colyer, Elmer,
**“Alister E. McGrath, a Scientific Theology, Volume 1 - Nature.” Pro Ecclesia 12 (2003): 226-31;
**“Alister E. McGrath, a Scientific Theology, Volume 2 - Reality.” Pro Ecclesia 12 (2003): 492-7;
**“Alister E. McGrath, a Scientific Theology, Volume 3 - Theory.” Pro Ecclesia 13 (2004): 244-40.
* Drees, Willem B., of Leiden University, The Netherlands, reviewed all three volumes of A Scientific Theology in Ars Disputandi: The Online Journal for Philosophy of Religion:
**Volume 1: Nature 2 (2002)
**Volume 2: Reality 3 (2003)
**Volume 3: Theory 4 (2004)
*Maclean, Iain S., Review of A Scientific Theology, Vol. 2: Reality by Alister E. McGrath. A Scientific Theology, Vol. 3: Theory by Alister E. McGrath. Journal of the American Academy of Religion. Vol. 73, No. 2. Jun., 2005. pp. 556-560.
*Miller, James B., Review of A Scientific Theology: Volume 1 (Nature) Alister E. McGrath. Isis. Vol. 96, No. 1. Mar., 2005. pp. 157-158.
*Rassmussen, Larry L., Review of A Scientific Theology. Vol. 1, Nature by Alister E. McGrath. The Journal of Religion. Vol. 83, No. 2. Apr., 2003. pp. 292-293. (done 4 June 09)
*Wilson, Jonathan R., Review of A Scientific Theology, Vol. 1: Nature by Alister E. McGrath. Journal of the American Academy of Religion. Vol. 71, No. 4. Dec., 2003. pp. 955-958.
*Wynn, Mark, Review of A Scientific Theology. Vol. 2, Reality by Alister McGrath. The Journal of Religion. Vol. 84, No. 2. Apr., 2004. pp. 300-302.
*NDA, Review of A Scientific Theology. Vol. 1, Nature by Alister E. McGrath. Zygon. Vol. 39, No. 4. pp. 957-978.

-- Muzhogg (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reviews for consideration

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on A Scientific Theology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090831133425/http://users.ox.ac.uk:80/~mcgrath/scitheo.html to http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mcgrath/scitheo.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201172042/http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000058/index.html to http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000058/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612043526/http://metanexus.net/magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/8363/Default.aspx to http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/8363/Default.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201172042/http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000058/index.html to http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000058/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201155919/http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000099/index.html to http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000099/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201165322/http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000162/index.html to http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000162/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified