Talk:List of scholars on the relationship between religion and science

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 November 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

thoughts[edit]

Good start, keep to notable folks with wikipedia bios. If in doubt about someone put references into this article/list, for books that have sufficient notability, link to the books article as well. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words of encouragement. I am trying to be extraoridarily careful about inclusion here. For example, Alister McGrath or Thomas F. Torrance might look like good candidates, but their views tend to be too focused upon Systematic theology, which is apparently unlike Ian Barbour's Science and Religion. --Firefly322 (talk) 09:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also Richard Dawkins doesn't fit. Christianity is not required, but some form of orthodox religious belief, which all the current members of the list have, is. --Firefly322 (talk) 10:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nor would I think it wise to include Albert Einstein. A case could me made of course, but his religious beliefs are fairly well-known yet continue to highly disputed. Just in case any editors or bold users who read wiki talk pages are interested there is aricle on the book Einstein and Religion. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ian Barbour, Arthur Peacocke, John Polkinghorne, and the other Science and Religion scholars' work is strikingly broad, unpolitical, and devoid of a socialist agenda (their scholarship isn't evangelical). Their overall effort is remarkable in that it seldom sparks controversy. The character of their work is quite different from that of propoents of Intelligent design and members of the Discovery institute. For the Science and Religion scholars on the list, Evolution is just another wonderfully intriguing scientific idea. These Science and Religion scholars would see Henry F. Schaefer, III's apparent suggestion and advancement--in his scholarship--of the idea of Christianity as the only way to God to be problematic, to say the least. Since Henry F. Schaefer, III's ideas are of an entirely different nature, he shouldn't be on this particular list. --Firefly322 (talk) 06:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, I did have some thoughts after I added him that he might not fit here, but I think it all points to a lack of clear criteria for inclusion in this list. I know Schaefer and do not agree with his religious beliefs. He is however a first rate scientist with well over 1000 publications in high impact peer reviewed journals. I really do not know why he is associated with the Discovery Institute as he does not believe in a young Earth. The only thing he shares with them is that he is doubtful about evolution. All that is in the book. I also knew Charles Coulson well. His book did not cause as much controversy, but in my view it is no more scholarly than Schaefer's, although the latter does contain a lot of just general chat. If one criteria is a book by an excellent scientist, who writes about science and religion, then both should be included as all kinds of religion should be included. Another criteria of course would be a book by a scholarly religious person who write about the connection of religion to science. Few will be expert and scholarly in both religion and science. BTW, I have no idea what you mean by "devoid of a socialist agenda (their scholarship isn't evangelical)".--Bduke (talk) 08:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        One of the criteria for inclusion is academic success and acceptance as judged by reviews in selective, peer-reviewed journals. For example, Ian Barbour's book Issues in Science and Religion is critiqued and positively reviewed in The Journal of Religion, the American Journal of Physics, and Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science (in last by a notable author David Ray Griffin). Charles Coulson is specificially cited five times by Ian Barbour in Issues in Science and Religion. A chapter by Charles Coulson was also included in one of Ian Barbour's other books: Science & Religion (I see an academic editor including a chapter by someone is a kind of peer review). I just looked through John F. Haught's Science and Religion (1995) and it does not build upon or cite Schaefer's work. An even later work Ian Barbour's When Science meets Religion (2000) discussed John F. Haught's Science and Religion', but doesn't cite or discuss Schaefer.
        
        In a few hours I'll be somewhere with access to searchable, professional book reviews. The existence and quality of such reviews is another key factor in inclusion on the list. For example, Iain Paul doesn't fit the list because reviews of his work (even though published by Oxford University Press) in both American Scientist and Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science agree that the work is of poor quality.
        
        Another criteria for inclusion is that the author's scholarship be Ecumenical and not Evangelical: there should no suggestion, implication, or presupposition that someone is going to hell--pardon my crudeness--if they fail to make a commitment to a specific religion. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Henry F. Schaefer, III's book has positive captions from leading intellectual's on its cover, but there appear to be no critiques and reviews in any peer-reviewed scientific or religious journal. Schaefer also wrote the forward to William A. Dembski's 1998 Mere Creation: Science, Faith & Intelligent Design. Hence, Schaefer has associated himself with the Intelligent Design movement. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure he has. He is Fellow of the Discovery Institute. So what? Ecumenical is all very well, but would we include someone who wrote about Science and Islam, or Science and Judaism. If you want to make the criteria rely on reviews, then make sure these criteria are specified and each entry is supported by a reference to the review. At present, it has no sources. --Bduke (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Looking at John Templeton Foundation#The "Intelligent Design" controversy, notice that Henry F. Schaefer, III as an ID proponent is someone that the John Templeton Foundation doubts is engaged in religion and science scholarship. This is further supported by the fact that Schaefer's work is not significantly in or reviewed by religion and science community journals.--Firefly322 (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me a while back whether I thought this list had improved. Sorry, I did not get around to responding. Yes, I think it has, but I still have doubts about it. These however essentially arise from my perspective as an atheist. I just do not see study of religion as meaningful. Science is what matters and that can get along fine without talking about its relationship to religion. As a consequence it does seem to me that this list contains what you, Firefly322, has decided should be in it. The criteria you have does not make sense to me. Nevertheless I am going to leave it alone, because I do have a POV on these matters. --Bduke (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removed prod[edit]

I removed the prod, as I do not think this is clear cut enough for deletion without a full afd. That said, the includsion lead paragraph I think might need a bit of tightening to make it clear what goes here, and that the OR is at a minimum. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Slight change of scope[edit]

Does anyone object to me changing the scope slightly to those who have commented in a serious way on the intersection of science and religion. I think there are grounds to make a really interesting article here, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New title[edit]

The new title List of religious and scientific scholars is just wrong. The list is a list of notable individuals who have focused on studying the intersection of science and religion. It does not mean that the scholars have to be religious, just that they study the intersection of science and religion.--Bduke (Discussion) 14:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the same opinion. It need to return to the previous title. Or should it be moved to List of scholars on (the relationship between) religion and science to be more clear? Greenknight dv (talk) 08:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that is my mistake. I saw what seemed to be both spelling and adjective mistakes and edited accordingly. I would agree with Greenknight's proposal but minus the parentheses per WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of scholars on the relationship between religion and science. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]