Talk:Relationship between religion and science

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/w/index.php?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. --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.&#32;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.&#32;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?   [the above paragraph]
 * 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a] 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.&#32;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 Wikipedia.",
 * * 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/wiki/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)

--Gluo88 (talk) 19:50, 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."
 * 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.&#32;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.&#32;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.&#32;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.&#32;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)