Talk:Relationship between religion and science/Archive 1

message: I redirect Religion and science to this page. That article has only one edit by a single author and has nothing linked to it. I read it several times, trying to find things I could merge into this article, but I felt this more extensive article covers those points already. --Menchi 19:11, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Some apply scientific methods to all questions, both observable and unobservable; for example, Nazis, Communists, Nihilists, and Materialists, who assert that Science necessitates certain philosophical, unobservable, unverifiable, and value-laden conclusions of a strongly religious nature, such as the superiority of certain races, the inevitability of proletarian rule, or the meaninglessness of life.
This would seem to be self-contradictory. If one applies scientific methods to all questions, one does not arrive at "certain philosophical, unobservable, unverifiable, and value-laden conclusions of a strongly religious nature". Burschik 13:35, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Burschik didn't like the examples, so removed them. Would someone add some acceptable examples to illuminate the bare statement "Some apply scientific methods to all questions, both observable and unobservable." --Wetman 19:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirected from [[Religion and science]] 

message: To my understanding of Buddhism, the statement, "Theravada Buddhists assert from the authority of the Buddha that the universe and the self are illusions and non-existent, despite scientific evidence to the contrary" is misleading.  What Buddhists deny is duality, not existence.  The illusory nature of existence is that it is exclusively material.  Matter and 'spirit' are not of two distinct natures, but one undivided nature.  And Buddhists do not assert on "authority of the Buddha", but from direct experience.  Their training enables their intuitive perceptions. Many scientific discoveries also result from intuition rather than rational deduction.  
But discussion is also  potentially misleading.  That is why the Zen koans are paradoxical.  (Man is not self, but he is also not not-self). Only by breaking rational thought can the 'truth' be approached.  Notice that Kurt Gödel had something to say about undecidability and incompleteness. That and the nature of quantum indeterminacy show that our knowledge always remains incomplete.  --Blainster 08:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is well known that if one begins with the axioms "X" and "not X" (example: "Man is not self, but he is also not not-self") that the rules of logic allow every statement and its opposite to be logically deduced from those two contradictory axioms. "Breaking rational thought" is useful to opening up oneself to the evidence of experience. But embracing rational thought is needed for clear and accurate understanding of that self same experience. 4.250.132.235 10:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on "Religious and scientific modes of knowledge"

message: I removed all of the external links which were not specifically about the relationship between science and religion. Articles about the relationship are fine, but most of the links did not address the topic at all (things like biographies of creationists and a rabbi's speech about Creation are not engaging the question directly). The atheist website was at least something trying to engage with the idea but is so poor in its analysis and non-notable that I don't think there is any justification for it here. --Fastfission 18:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: The second paragraph of this Wikipedia article says:
"A common modern view, described by Stephen Jay Gould as "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA), is that science and religion deal with fundamentally separate aspects of human experience and so, when each stays within its own domain, they co-exist peacefully.[1] Another view known as the conflict thesis—popularized in the 19th century by John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White, but now largely rejected by historians of science—holds that science and religion inevitably compete for authority over the nature of reality, so that religion has been gradually losing a war with science as scientific explanations become more powerful and widespread."
The above paragraph gives two views about the relationship between science and religion, but only states that ONE of these is largely rejected by historians of science.  That is POV.  It tells the reader that one view is 'right' and that one view is 'wrong'. I don't really care what side of the argument you take, but to only say one is 'rejected by historians' is POV.  Would Richard Dawkins agree that the conflict model has been rejected?  We keep hearing about some historians believing it to be so, but that is SOME historians.  The article would be better without any POV comments and should just stick to describing what its title suggests.  I'll remove the comment as it should not be there. —This unsigned comment was added by Adrian Baker (talk • contribs) .
*No, Dawkins wouldn't say that it has been rejected, because he's 1. not a historian, at all, and 2. is of the sort of scientist who gets a lot of mileage out of saying that religion and science are irreconcilable, and considered rather extreme in that respect. And I think you're fundamentally missing the point of WP:NPOV. The statement above does not say one is right or wrong, it states what the general opinion is about one of them. Frankly I think most historians would reject Gould's characterization as well (the question of where disciplinary or epistemological boundaries lie in this instance is part of the contestation itself) if they bothered to comment on it. --Fastfission 21:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with some revision — I think stating the "historian viewpoint" as a positive statement rather than a negative one would be more positive — but not a complete lack of input on the fact that most historians think that these very "flat" conceptions of the relationship between religion and science is a lot murkier than scientists usually make it out to be. I don't know what you mean by "mainstream" here -- if you mean, "mainstream culture" then yes, I imagine they are quite different, but if you mean "mainstream philosophical/historical views" then I am not so sure they diverge sharply on this particular issue. My recommendation for how to please everybody a bit more is to indicate that most historians and philosophers reject the notion that 1. there is necessarily a strict boundary between what is science and non-science, religion and non-religion; 2. science and religion inevitably conflict with each other either in the past or the present. --Fastfission 23:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adrian, the fact that the historians line only addresses the conflict thesis reflects the fact that historians of science over the last 25 years or so have spent a lot of time and energy attacking the conflict thesis (because the thesis itself has been so historically significant).  As Fastfission notes, they would mostly reject NOMA as well, but Gould intended it more as a modern prescriptive approach than a historical description, and historians they haven't spent much time or written many books on how NOMA (specifically) is so wrong.  The fact that so many historians of science have written so much on the conflict thesis is why it gets singled out.--ragesoss 06:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: historian's views, con't

message: Geez, "largely rejected by historians" is still not sourced.  Nor is it meaningful as historians aren't the ones you should ask.  What is going on here is simply that the conflict thesis is not "politically correct".  So I've changed it to say just that.  What is also true is that the truth is more complex.  But the intro finishes up saying that anyway, so there is no need for the additional qualification (when the first extreme alternative lacks such qualification; and I point out that the first alternative is even more false)  JeffBurdges 15:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More "largely rejected by historians" 

message: Could someone please expand the section, "The attitudes of Science towards Religion"? It seems to me that it's being massively underrepresented. Secos5 18:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion of science attitude Section

message: :In reaction to this religious rigidity, and rebelling against the interference of religious dogma, the skeptical left-wing of the Enlightenment increasingly gained the upper hand in the sciences, especially in Europe.
I don't think the term "left-wing" had even been invented at the time.  For contemporary readers, the term has all sorts of political associations, some of which I suspect are not appropriate.  What is the meaning which is intended to be conveyed here? -- Beland 22:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: oh, that whole bit was a mass of unsupported run on sentences.  I cut it back to what I think are the supported parts, and attempted to use better grammer.  JeffBurdges 15:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left wing of the Enlightenment 

message: I've removed the following paragraph from text of article and am placing it here for further analysis.  Maybe there is something worth including in the future of this article. ... Kenosis 05:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed material

message: The case study at the moment is horribly slanted towards the conflict thesis POV. It states nothing, for example, about those scientists and religious figures who have managed to accept both religion and the theory of evolution (i.e. Pope John Paul II), nor does it give any indication as to why Darwinism is so overwhelmingly rejected by Americans today (there are deeper issues there than simply science v. religion), nor does it point out that many of Darwin's supporters attempted to use evolutionary theory towards explicitly undermining religion and religious power and were in fact the ones who often drew the sharpest lines between science and religion. It then quotes a number of opponents of evolution out of context in order to make them seem like loonies (Bryan, though I disagree with him, was not being simply fatuous when he opposed evolutionary theory). It's a bad case study, one straight out of the historiography of the late 19th century, or maybe out of something that an explicit anti-religionist like Richard Darwkins would come up with; it is not a reflection of current historiography of science on Darwin, Darwin's reception, or the complicated relationship between science and religion. It is probably not worthwhile to say that the case study here is not Charles Darwin, the man (who is barely mentioned), but Darwinism, or evolutionary theory in general. --Fastfission 20:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the case study should be renamed to evolution.  I'm devided between wanting to fight for this section as it is the best example of a conflict between religion and science and wanting it deleted as it will attract unwanted attention to this article.--Roland Deschain 20:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section badly needs attention, but it's an interesting case. It mentions excommunication and doesn't seem to appreciate that the Essays and Reviews caused much more outrage because of its theological dismissing of miracles than because of its support of Darwin, as I understand it. The section should include the perspective put in the broadcast by James Moore "Darwin's understanding of nature never departed from a theological point of view. Always, I believe, until his dying day, at least half of him believed in God. He said he deserved to be called an agnostic, but he did make the point later in life that "when I wrote The Origin of Species, my faith in God was as strong as that of a bishop." So Darwin's many references to creation, there are over 100 references to creation in The Origin of Species…" and so on.  ...dave souza, talk 21:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If we are going to have a Darwin section it needs to be fleshed out to accord with a more neutral interpretation, one a bit closer to the scholarly interpretation. As it is, it is nothing but an anti-religious hit-piece. --Fastfission 21:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ta for fixing the title, Roland. Inspired an attempt from memory to show a more nuanced picture in its historical setting. Well, that was the aim. Bedtime now. ...dave souza, talk 23:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Case study: Charles Darwin?

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

message: The following statement in the article is a well-known Internet fraud (I am not of course suggesting misconduct on the part of anyone here):
>A recent survey conducted by Elaine Ecklund of Rice University and funded by the Templeton Foundation found that approximately 38% of scientists do not believe in a God. This survey was conducted in 2004 and is on-going.
As Ecklund herself has publicly stated of her research (http://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Ecklund/ ):
>When asked their beliefs about God, nearly 34 percent of academic scientists answer “I do not believe in God” and about 30 percent answer “I do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out,” the classic agnostic response.
I.e., over 60 percent do not believe in God: less then 40 % are believers.
This confirms a survey conducted a decade or so ago and reported in the New York Times:
( http://ffrf.org/timely/angier.php ) :
“What's more, in some quarters, atheism, far from being rare, is the norm -- among scientists, for example, particularly high-level scientists who populate academia. Recently, Edward J. Larson, a science historian at the University of Georgia, and Larry Witham, a writer, polled scientists listed in American Men and Women of Science on their religious beliefs. Among this general group, a reasonably high proportion, 40 percent, claimed to believe in a "personal God" who would listen to their prayers. But when the researchers next targeted members of the National Academy of Sciences, an elite coterie if ever there was one, belief in a personal God was 7 percent, the flip of the American public at large.” 
The false information about Ecklund’s study was exposed well over a year ago by Dr. John Bice (http://www.statenews.com/op_article.phtml?pk=35422 ) who spoke directly with Ecklund to confrim the fraud (apparently, Dr. Ecklund’s own essay was not on the Web at that time).
This fraud, which has been floating around the Internet, appears to have originated in a false report on livescience (http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html ), due I assume to a failure to adequately fact-check, which was then picked up and run verbatim, without fact checking, by MSNBC ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8916982/  ).
It’s nice to see the high journalistic standards of national media such as MSNBC!
As someone new to the editing process here, I do not wish to make the change myself; however, this needs to be corrected, the older study should also be cited, and the fact that Ecklund’s study confirms the older study’s result that only a minority of scientists seem to believe in God should be mentioned.
Dave Miller
Drdavidhmiller 23:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Error in Quoting Ecklund Study

message: I edited the Philosophy of science section (I wasn't logged in) in order to: 1.) remove obvious bias (e.g., statements like "This allows theism to be sustained despite the fact that, caveats aside, theism is not a rational conclusion to take given such evidence"), and 2.) correct niave descriptions of the philosophies mentioned (e.g., "Confirmation holism instead focuses upon avoiding dangerous confirmation bias effects, which scientists are supposed to avoid, but which are present in some religious arguments").
I fleshed out and corrected the descriptions of the philosophies of science mentioned and tried to minimize bias in all directions, and I think I did fairly well. (Believe me, as a fundimentalist Christian I would have loved to have addressed the problem of evil, the nature of worldviews constituting them as religions [albeit not necessarily organized or formalized], the tenacity of epistemologically central ideas, etc; but that would have been off-topic and POV).
My edit was reverted as allegedly POV. I am reinstating the changes and ask that any allegedly POV statement or incorrect material be discussed here before it is reverted. Thank you. » MonkeeSage « 21:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophy of Science section 

message: Science is built on the idea that ideas and even entire systems of theory can be discarded when proven false, and indeed, this happens on a continual basis in small ways as prevailing hypotheses are discredited, and occasionally in large ways too as in the classic Kuhnian paradigm shifts. In contrast, most religions are not at liberty to discard certain central or sacred texts or ideas; to do so would be equivalent to destroying the religion. This seems to me to be a key difference -- shouldn't we we discuss this somewhere? 
I'm going to take a stab at it shortly, if I don't hear otherwise. --Jonathanstray 16:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a false dichotomy.  Any historian of religion will tell you that religions are very labile (many religions' claims to the contrary notwithstanding).  Supposedly central tenets, historically speaking, are often no more stable (perhaps much less so) than many scientific ideas.  Unless you have a reliable source to back this up (a necessity for anything added to this occasionally contentious topic), I wouldn't suggest taking a stab.--ragesoss 16:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't Changeability A Key Distinction? 

message: The phenomenon of religious fundamentalism, especially Protestant, Christian fundamentalism which has arisen predominantly in the United States, has been characterized by some historians as originating in the reaction of the conservative Enlightenment against the liberal Enlightenment. In these terms, the scientific community is entirely committed to the skeptical Enlightenment,
Is the reader supposed to understand the liberal enlightenment as being the same as the skeptical enlightenment? 1Z 12:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even assuming that 'liberal Enlightenment'='skeptical Enlightenment', we still need definitions for 'liberal Enlightenment' versus 'conservative Enlightenment'. This entire section has been tagged as lacking references for more than 6 months without a single reference being added. It may be time to consider deleting it in its entirety (with copy to this Talk page) & only letting it back into the article when this has been corrected to a substantial degree. Hrafn42 15:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious fundamentalism and scientific enlightenment 

message: Are there any pages anywhere which refer to people believing that science and religion are exactly the same thing but viewed from a different angle?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pm504 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suspect not, as wikipedia would likely have difficulty finding reliable sources advocating this view. HrafnTalkStalk 02:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 EinsteinBoth science and religion would fit into the category of 'immortality projects' as described by Ernest Becker in his book The Denial of Death.  I think Becker would argue that each is "ultimately an elaborate, symbolic defense mechanism against the knowledge of our own impending death" (quoted from the article not the book).  The idea is that we have a basic fear of death, we continually strive to escape death or at least avoid the fear, and so we create projects that are an attempt to connect ourselves with something bigger than our physical beings, something eternal.  I think you can hear this same sentiment in Einstein's words: "ennobling man's life, lifting it from physical ... towards freedom".Stokes dk (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "branches of the same tree" does not imply "very similar". HrafnTalkStalk 07:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you are not questioning whether Einstein was saying that they are similar, but you are questioning the degree of similarity he was trying to imply.  In other words, you don't disagree with "similar", you disagree with "very".  I think that "branches of the same tree" does imply "very similar"; unless you graft a willow branch on to an oak tree, I think two branches of the same tree are necessarily very similar.But I don't think you can dispute that Einstein was implying a similarity.  He goes on to say that "all these aspirations are directed toward...", implying that they serve a similar purpose.  It seems to me that it is this similarity that is at the root of any conflict between science and religion, and it's an important part of the relationship between the two.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stokes dk (talk • contribs) 22:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. HrafnTalkStalk 02:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you.  I think Einstein was saying that the two have a common purpose or motivation, not that they look similar now.  They appear to be quite different, but that's what makes his comment and this question about similarity interesting.  So what exactly do science and religion have in common (in terms of motive or otherwise)?  If branches of a tree start at a common source then what is the common source of science and religion?  I think that question is a very important aspect of the relationship between the two that isn't discussed in this article.  In terms of sources, I think Becker is a good place to start.  In fact I just took a look at "The Denial of Death" and realized that the last section of the book is titled "The Fusion of Science and Religion".  I know that Einstein wrote a few articles on science and religion, there's a section with that title in his book "Ideas and Opinions".Stokes dk (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  religion and science are one? 

message: this is clearly the main article for :Category:Religion and science. Why not move it to simple Religion and science or Science and religion? dab (𒁳) 13:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think including the word "relationship" makes the title slightly more informative, so would have a mild preference for retaining it. HrafnTalkStalk 13:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: move?

message: It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Relationship between religion and science. (Discuss). This article "Relationship between religion and science" quotes relevant sources and cites different views. I suggest we delete the "faith and science" article and re-direct here, since I can find nothing in "faith and science" that would improve on this article. DanielDemaret (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is this artilce? You don't link to it and I can't see any such article, or history of its deletion. Richard001 (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Faith in Science]] 

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

message: I removed the Richard Dawkins reference because no other specific scientists' views are discussed in this section and I feel it is a violation of neutrality to only have one.  Especially when that one is as outspoken and controversial as Dawkins (his Biography page refers to him as a "professional atheist").  If an attempt was made to show a spectrum of opinions/POV's from prominent scientists I would not object to him being included.  Personally, I would be far more interested in the thoughts/opinions of "real" scientists like Stephen Hawking, Einstein, etc 71.164.241.199 (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever your opinion of his views on religion, to claim he is not a "real" scientist is a little silly, and definitely not NPOV: as a Zoologist and Evolutionary Biologist he is well respected, with a number of published papers in the various journals.  -- simxp (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The comment was on the discussion page, and in quotes to highlight the silliness of the assertion.  .. but that said, when I think of prominent scientists (past or present) his name is not at the top of my list.  That is not to slight his work, but at the same time if you polled the public on why they know his name I would expect most know him as an atheist first.  Again, if there were an attempt to present opinions from a range of scientists' POVs I would happily remove my objections and expect to see him put back in.  71.164.241.199 (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 71.164.241.199, please stop pushing your POV. Dawkins is a notable evolutionary biologist and he has made some notable contributions. I don't know much about Einstein's views on religion. I need to do some research. I know about the religious views of Stephen Hawking. He is not a fan of religion and he has said that the concept of God is unnecessary. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The attitudes of scientists towards religion

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

message: #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. HrafnTalkStalk 16:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Birth of early modern science due to a biblical world view' is a complete and utter mess 

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

message: #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 WP:SPADE) 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 WP:IDONTLIKEIT"
#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. HrafnTalkStalk 18:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggest that you either improve your writing standards or develop a thicker skin

message: #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" HrafnTalkStalk 19:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *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 [which Chapter 5 is a part] is devoted to efforts undertaken to explain the birth of modern science. Then on page 16 Cohen writes "In Chapter 5 causal chains are treated that have been suggested to connect the birth of modern science with both previous and contemporary events in the history of western Europe. Here such causal agents come to the fore as Puitanism and the Reformation" --Firefly322 (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to Hfran's Comments 

message: 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). HrafnTalkStalk 05:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructure 

message: 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). HrafnTalkStalk 05:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cohen explains the historical body of Greco-Islamic knowledge in his next chapter (chapter 6)--The nonemergence of early modern science outside western Europe.  Pages 384-417 (6.2 The Decay of Islamic Science) discusses the relationship amongst ancient Greek culture, Islamic culture, and Early modern science, including many passages on A.I. Sabra and Aydin Sayili. --Firefly322 (talk) 08:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cohen on 'Greco-Islamic tradition'