Talk:Conflict thesis

message: Thucydides411 says that Owen Gingerich is "a devout catholic". Gingerich is actually a Mennonite. Thucydides411 says that he knows the secret intentions of others. Thucydides411 says " the church's fears over loss of authority".
He is wasting our time with these theories.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.151.251 (talk) 12:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: See the Wikipedia article Owen Gingerich, which notes that Owen is a Mennonite.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.151.251 (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New paragraph 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Conflict thesis. 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/20070927230419/http://moro.imss.fi.it/lettura/LetturaWEB.DLL?VOL=16&VOLPAG=209 to http://moro.imss.fi.it/lettura/LetturaWEB.DLL?VOL=16&VOLPAG=209
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927234122/http://moro.imss.fi.it/lettura/LetturaWEB.DLL?VOL=16&VOLPAG=230 to http://moro.imss.fi.it/lettura/LetturaWEB.DLL?VOL=16&VOLPAG=230
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927230419/http://moro.imss.fi.it/lettura/LetturaWEB.DLL?VOL=16&VOLPAG=209 to http://moro.imss.fi.it/lettura/LetturaWEB.DLL?VOL=16&VOLPAG=209
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927234122/http://moro.imss.fi.it/lettura/LetturaWEB.DLL?VOL=16&VOLPAG=230 to http://moro.imss.fi.it/lettura/LetturaWEB.DLL?VOL=16&VOLPAG=230
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927231938/http://moro.imss.fi.it/lettura/LetturaWEB.DLL?VOL=8&VOLPAG=43 to http://moro.imss.fi.it/lettura/LetturaWEB.DLL?VOL=8&VOLPAG=43
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) 15:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Research on perceptions of science among the American public concludes that most religious groups see no general epistemological conflict with science, and that they have no differences with nonreligious groups in propensity to seek out scientific knowledge, although there may be epistemic or moral conflicts when scientists make counterclaims to religious tenets.
For my dollar, this is uninterpretable.  
Mandatory first question: Do you regard creation science as actual science?  If answer "yes", do not pass Go, head directly to conflict jail. 
My point here is that avoiding the conflict by inflating the term "science" to include things that it very much does not include ought to be counted as a liability of agreement, and not an asset. 
What standard of the word "science" (and its sufficient comprehension) is imposed by the two citations given for the passage above on the respondents questioned?  
Does it go this far: "Do you regard creation science as a pseudoscientific, unscholarly, dishonest, and misguided sham?"  (Language I lifted directly from the Wikipedia lead of said article.)  I'm personally in 100% conflict with the least equivocation on this matter. (Not because it's false, but because it makes no claims that can be meaningfully tested or falsified.)  
So you want to argue that creation science is science.  Then tell me, what claims does it advance that could be directly falsified by repeatable, observational, mutually shared, external evidence?  What's your version of the Precambrian rabbit?  (Probably one Precambrian rabbit wouldn't sway me—tricksy bunny nun bun—but the third Precambrian rabbit, unearthed on different present-day continents, that would certainly have me nervously fingering my rosary beads, and pondering my next move in ways I can't presently even begin to imagine.) — MaxEnt 23:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Science", vaguely posed 

message: Article is heavily biased to the Christian West without acknowledging same, implicitly asserting a false universality. It's also inaccurate about the matter of fact of disbelief and assertion of the incompatibility of made up and found out belief which certainly long precedes the 19th century. At the very least for the modern period the mid 18th would be accurate (d'Holbach, etc.) but not working this article further. I held a lede redact to be preferable to a globalize tag. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: But turned out otherwise. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could you please clarify the point, where you said, "It's also inaccurate about the matter of fact of disbelief and assertion of the incompatibility of made up and found out belief which certainly long precedes the 19th century."  I can't find any discussion in the article alluding to the rise of the  "assertion of the incompatibility of made up and found out belief" in (or before) the 19th century. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

text: Where is "the first names §"?  Please be more precise in your citations.  I cannot find either a names § or a reference to "found out belief" anywhere in this article. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you just visit the version of this page in my domains? In any case "first sentence of the first nameD §" shouldn require any explanation to a competent speaker of English, relative to the state of the article at that time. Lycurgus (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

text: No source in the article discusses any relations of conflict or otherwise about science or religion before the 19th century. So this is not a historical view or topic for nearly all of history and thousands of years of Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhisms, Taoism, etc. On of the reasons for this is that religion is a modern invention and category which is not found in most languages. I suppose if globalization is considered, it would have to reflect international sources of the 19th century and above from non-Western countries. But I have been looking for such sources for a long time and have found none that share a conflict thesis view. Any modern books on Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity that even support the conflict thesis? I have not found any that support the conflict thesis. Again probably because they do not have science or religion as cultural monolithic categories. They don't think as narrow minded - even westerners don't either - which is why the conflict thesis has been debunked and historical trends from sociology also do not support such conflict views in the 20th or 21st century. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As the lead points out, this article discusses a historiographical approach to writing the history of Western Science, which came to prominence in the nineteenth century with the publications of John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White.  It may be possible to identify earlier precursors of the conflict thesis, but studies of the conflict thesis agree that these authors' canonical texts shaped historians' understanding of the conflict thesis.  As you point out, discussions of the conflict thesis does not appear in non-Western sources, although the more general question of the relations of science and religion has been discussed in non-Western religious contexts, e.g., Islam, Judaism, Greek Chiristianity, etc.  The focus of discussions of the confilct thesis, per se, is not too surprising given that the authors were writing about, as White put it, "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. (my emphasis). --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

text: The tag is unnecessary per the section discussion above. I will remove it. However, please feel free to expand this article with sources from other cultures. The tag seems to just be redundant since there is always room to expand the article. The tag does nothing here at all. If anything it may deceive readers as if there is a global thesis when it mostly comes from Jewish and Christian cultures that even discuss this. Most cultures do not have a conflict thesis. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 08:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counterfactuals in Abundance 

message: The recently added Globalize template is totally inappropriate.  As A. D. White wrote in one of the basic texts defining the conflict thesis, it was a "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom."  Asking one to globalize a dispute about science and theology in Christendom is as impractical as it would be to ask one to globalize a history of the Carolingian Empire.  Although it might be a good thing to broaden the focus of the question to deal with the conflict between science and religion in non-Western cultures, that wasn't how the conflict thesis developed and at present there is comparatively little – if any – historical writing on that aspect of the so-called conflict between science and religion.  Wikipedia's expectation of balance expects the weight of an article to follow the prominence of its treatment in existing reliable sources.  Overemphasizing the role of non-western cultures in the study of the conflict between science and religion would provide a misleading impression of what the conflict thesis is actually about. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No source in the article discusses any relations of conflict or otherwise about science or religion before the 19th century. So this is not a historical view or topic for nearly all of history and thousands of years of Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhisms, Taoism, etc. On of the reasons for this is that religion is a modern invention and category which is not found in most languages. I suppose if globalization is considered, it would have to reflect international sources of the 19th century and above from non-Western countries. But I have been looking for such sources for a long time and have found none that share a conflict thesis view. Any modern books on Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity that even support the conflict thesis? I have not found any that support the conflict thesis. Again probably because they do not have science or religion as cultural monolithic categories. They don't think as narrow minded - even westerners don't either - which is why the conflict thesis has been debunked and historical trends from sociology also do not support such conflict views in the 20th or 21st century. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As the lead points out, this article discusses a historiographical approach to writing the history of Western Science, which came to prominence in the nineteenth century with the publications of John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White.  It may be possible to identify earlier precursors of the conflict thesis, but studies of the conflict thesis agree that these authors' canonical texts shaped historians' understanding of the conflict thesis.  As you point out, discussions of the conflict thesis does not appear in non-Western sources, although the more general question of the relations of science and religion has been discussed in non-Western religious contexts, e.g., Islam, Judaism, Greek Chiristianity, etc.  The focus of discussions of the confilct thesis, per se, is not too surprising given that the authors were writing about, as White put it, "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. (my emphasis). --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can we globalize a Western topic? 

message: I just got access to the monograph Science and Religion: New Historical Perspectives (Oxford 2010). I haven't read it yet (and wont have the time to for some time), but I took a little check at the table of contents, and whatdoyaknow, there's a full chapter by Harun Kucuk called Islam, Christianity, and the conflict thesis. The second paragraph of the chapter;
Historical studies of Islam, Christianity, philosophy, and science cametogether in the nineteenth century in a way that was made possible by thefashioning of ‘science and religion’ as a coherent field of enquiry. A closelook at nineteenth-century accounts of the conflict between science andreligion shows that Islam and Christianity were often interlinked, and thatthe narrative accounts of one often complemented the other. Modernhistoriographies of Christianity and Islam, and their relationships withscience, have been closely intertwined. (pg. 111)
So yes, we can globalize the topic. It's just a matter of someone actually doing the relevant reading at this point and telling the rest of us the further readings on this talk page. I've played my role. P.S. You guys can freely access this book here. 70.49.181.61 (talk) 05:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag is unnecessary per the section discussion above. I will remove it. However, please feel free to expand this article with sources from other cultures. The tag seems to just be redundant since there is always room to expand the article. The tag does nothing here at all. If anything it may deceive readers as if there is a global thesis when it mostly comes from Jewish and Christian cultures that even discuss this. Most cultures do not have a conflict thesis. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 08:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes, we can globalize the topic. Here's the proof.