Talk:Relationship between religion and science/Archive 5

Question
I am doing a class assignment and I am unsure of where to put this information that I got from a scholarly article. What I want to add is, Do you have any recommendations of where I should put this information?Britt2244 (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Modify and expand the last paragraph of Relationship_between_religion_and_science? -- Neil N  talk to me  20:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Empiricism and Religion
I'm sure most users will understand that religions have invariably arisen as a result of interpretation of subjective experience - that is, someone feels that they have directly connected to what they see as divine/sacred, and they relay their experience to others, who begin some form of practice based on this revelation. Furthermore, a number of the oldest extant religions (e.g. Buddhism, Hinduism) have at least some of their denominations based firmly on the exploration and categorisation of these "mystical" states.

At this point, it seems inaccurate to state that science is based on empiricism any more than religion; both take their evidence directly from first hand experience. The difference is that science is focused on the machinations of the physical universe, while religion is focused on the machinations of human consciousness. The practice of various "spiritual techniques" (e.g. meditation, repetition of words or verses, austerities, etc.) appears to lead aspirants into predictable states of mind (or the lack thereof); attaining such states does not rely on faith, but on practice in accordance with the teachings of those who have attained them before. This is empiricism at its finest, no different from conducting an experiment repeatedly and cataloguing the results. Ought the beginning of the article not be amended to make this clear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.217.127.78 (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the empiricism of religion and science are two different things. Science can be based on empirical research (among other methods) whilst religion can be the empiricism of personal experience. The mediation and spiritual aspects you mention are different and religion is not defined by them. Religion is defined by a set of beliefs. For me then, science and religion are two different subjects and also ones that needn't conflict. --86.21.101.169 (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Question
I am missing the point of view of Sikhism towards science. (most other world religions are represented here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.93.62.219 (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe you could do some research and get back to us! -Darouet (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

This article contains no information about scientific studies of religious experience
Would it be possible to include a summary (or at least a link) related to this topic? Jarble (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The article's brief mention of the New Age
It has been suggested that this be discussed. I would only suggest that, if it is to be included, then it probably needs a section of its own. Early New Age authors, such as H.P. Blavatsky were strongly opposed to materialism...and indeed their spiritualism can be seen somewhat as a philosophical stance, as much as a claim of the existence of spirits and psychism etc. i.e. Spiritualism, for Blavatsky, may have meant both a defence of psychism, as it has become known today, AND in opposition to materialism. In her Isis Unvelied of 1877, comprised of two books, the first details objections to current science, such as Thomas Henry Huxley's promotion of evolution theory, whilst also asserting the existence of an "eastern science" such as Yoga, Buddhism, etc. After Blavatsky, however, Alice Bailey and others, seem to have adopted a more pro-scientific view...ultimately leading to the harmony between quantum physics and more recent New Age thought, such as Fritjof Capra's "The Tao of Physics". In short, it is a complex area of study, with no simple generalisations perhaps possible to be made. Sorry I can't be of any more use than that... but it does perhaps point to the suggestion that it may need to be dealt with in a section of its own...if it is to seem relevant to the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjmonks (talk • contribs) 16:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference to be updated
It looks like the Larson and Witham, 1998 "Leading Scientists Still Reject God" reference for the 7.0% number is incomplete, and broken.

Some combination of Nature 394, 313 (23 July 1998) doi:10.1038/28478 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html might work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam.gibson (talk • contribs) 16:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Newton as heretic
I deleted the claim that Isaac Newton was a heretic for two main reasons. First the article as written stated it as almost a fact that he was a heretic, which Newton would presumably disagree with as well as the Church of England which has never declared him a heretic. Some people argue he had secret heretical beliefs but what exactly makes a true heretic is always open for debate and would be irrelevant to this article anyway. Some have argued Copernicus was a heretic as well. In any case, Newton was certainly a Christain. Whether he was an orthodox one or not is probably irrelevant to the article as currently constructed. 67.176.51.111 (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Heretics don't see themselves as advocating false theology, they see themselves as being theologically right and they see the orthodox as having false theology. Of course, this is a later historical development, in the beginnings of Christianity the proto-orthodox were just a competing faction among other factions claiming to represent true Christianity and it was by no means clear that they will win that quarrel. Newton did see trinitarianism as false theology, while the vast majority of Christians in his time were trinitarians. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Improvement of introduction
The following sentence is pointless.

"Despite these differences, most scientific and technical innovations prior to the Scientific revolution were achieved by societies organized by religious traditions."

Before the Scientific revolution, all societies were organized by religious traditions. It sounds like a "let's be kind with religious people, let's give them a point" sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeanPeup (talk • contribs) 16:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There are huge arguments, as well as evidences that so much of science has been borrowed from the religious scriptures, that are still some scriptures that tend to be admired by notable scientists, for their compatible presentation with science. When someone with scholarly view target "religion", it is meant for all major religions, not just one or two or three. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree with some of Bladesmulti's reply but agree that we should keep the sentence. Having some strong interest and affection for scripture and for scientific knowledge, I can't think of a single fact or method within science that has been borrowed from scripture. However, scientific developments for many hundreds of years were achieved by societies and mindsets that understood them within the religious intellectual framework of the period. That's not just a "point" for religious people, it's a historical fact that we want to accurately describe. -Darouet (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The Introduction is inconsistent in it's citings.

"Much of the scientific method was pioneered first by ancient civilizations such as the Greeks, Egyptians, Indians, and Sumerians. Later during the middle ages the Catholic church was responsible for saving much of the scientific knowledge from these civilizations, thus allowing the scientific method to develop in Europe during and after the Renaissance and through the enlightenment period. Islam also made great contributions to areas such as Mathematics, and Astronomy. Many of the most noted scientists in history, such as Blaise Pascal, Copernicus, and the founder of modern genetics Gregor Mendel, were devout Christians. The founder of the Big bang theory was also a Jesuit priest named Georges Lemaître. Hinduism has historically embraced reason and empiricism, holding that science brings legitimate, but incomplete knowledge of the world. Confucian thought has held different views of science over time. Most Buddhists today view science as complementary to their beliefs."

It describes scientists that were devout christians. This has nothing to do with the topic of article as "Relationship between Science and Religion". Even if it was useful, it then avoids quoting other such devout religious people but great scientists from other religions. May be it really doesn't matter. Then it moves on to give an opinion but without any citation about Hinduism "Hinduism has historically embraced empiricism, holding that science brings legitimate, but incomplete knowledge of the world". The last one is even more in-appropriate and adds no value " Confucian thought has held different views of science over time". In short the introduction is a disparate concotion of folklores without citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prlal (talk • contribs) 17:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I am concerned about this claim from the introduction: "These methodologies are totally different. They are diametrically opposed. Reason, empiricism, and evidence simply do not recognize revelation, faith, and sacredness as valid sources of knowledge. Further, revelation, faith, and sacredness, which are examples of religious dogma, only accept conflicting scientific opinion when the evidence becomes overwhelmingly accepted by the general public." I don't see any source for these claims, and they sound patently false. I would expect nearly all religious adherents accept empirical evidence as valid revelation. This is what Aquinas referred to as general revelation. Even sacredness requires evidence. Certainly, the Roman Catholic Church and other traditions require an abundance of evidence before declaring an artifact to be sacred. To claim that history's great theologians were incapable of reason is absurd. I could go on, but I think the point is clear. Unless someone suggests a way to edit this so that it makes better sense, I will go ahead and delete these sentences. BeeArkKey (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I haven't watched this page in a while, and hadn't realized the whole introduction had "gone to hell." Restoring old version we'd worked out previously. -Darouet (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The 4th paragraph of the introduction seems unusually focused on biological/genetic researchers. Perhaps it would be wise to include more people of different fields of study to add a little contrast.Mousenight (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

section on Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
I'm considering adding a short section to this article, as I believe Mormonism provides a very relevant and unique perspective on this topic. I would put it in the "Christianity" section, perhaps under under the Roman Catholicism segment. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewbigs (talk • contribs) 16:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I would say if you find the time, go for it. Such an addition should be welcome. Just remember, whatever you write should be something that someone has said in a published work, not just your own thoughts (WP:NOR). (And you should cite that published work using the "Cite" feature). Dabreese00 (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Image
I suggest to added the image . --Spinoziano (talk) 16:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Ibn al-Haytham
I like to add this line to the second paragraph: Ibn al-Haytham, a Arab Muslim , was an early proponent of the concept that a hypothesis must be proved by experiments based on confirmable procedures or mathematical evidence—hence understanding the scientific method 200 years before Renaissance scientists. 45.116.232.61 (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Seems like nobody is interested in discussion so I will make my changes soon. 45.116.233.43 (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Posted. 45.116.232.22 (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This line might be better suited: During the Islamic Golden Age foundations for the scientific method were laid by Ibn al-Haytham in his Book of Optics.   45.116.232.22 (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

What does this have to do with religion AND science? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC) 45.116.232.22 (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ibn al-Haytham was a devout Muslim and second all of his research occurred during the Islamic Golden Age. 45.116.232.22 (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That, on its own, is thin. How did religion affect his science? Or vice versa? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ibn al-Haytham described his theology:
 * "I constantly sought knowledge and truth, and it became my belief that for gaining access to the effulgence and closeness to God, there is no better way than that of searching for truth and knowledge."
 * I see your points. However, you were loading too much specific info into the lead, including too many citations. I've tried to clean this up a bit. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clean up. 45.116.232.20 (talk) 08:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

"During the Islamic Golden Age foundations for the scientific method were laid by Ibn al-Haytham in his Book of Optics" appears to aggrandize the claim, as the current scientific method does not derive from it... — Paleo Neonate  – 11:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Sam Harris on Religion and Science Conflict
I was astonished to read that Sam Harris, a prominent figure of the new atheist movement, made such comment:"...Sam Harris (...) argues that it is very easy for people to reconcile science and religion because some things are above strict reason, scientific expertise or domains do not spill over to religious expertise or domains necessarily, and mentions "There simply IS no conflict between religion and science". And I checked immediately the reference to find out that indeed he used this phrase, but it was totally taken out of context. Whoever is familiar with Sam Harris knows he is a fierce opponent to Religion. There are multiple sources and can easily be confirmed that he believes that Religion and Science can not be reconciled. Here is one ps-another one Τζερόνυμο (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You are right about his positions. Even when reading the Edge source's whole section that is not the conclusion that I get, so it indeed appears to be quote mining.  I'll take out the claim for now.  Thanks for the notice, — Paleo  Neonate  – 18:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In re-reading the Edge piece from 2009, the question posed in the article, to which Harris responded, is NOT is are science and religion compatible, it was ""DOES THE EMPIRICAL NATURE OF SCIENCE CONTRADICT THE REVELATORY NATURE OF FAITH?". There is a distinction between 1) Harris' personal views about science and religion - from his vantage point - and 2) his views on how people actually handle the situation at the individual level. He argues that there is no conflict between science and religion at the individual cognitive level because if there were real conflicts between science and religion, then no one would be able to be sustain both science and religion. Clearly people are able to handle both so there is no intrinsic conflict at the individual level - everyone can sustain their beliefs no matter what they are. By the time he wrote in Edge in 2009, Harris was already working on neuroscience research on beliefs and his team's research concluded that religious and nonreligious beliefs are content-independent. A newsweek article summarizes the findings of Harris et al. quite nicely . So I think we are talking about two different things. And in the Edge article Harris was critiquing Coyne and Dennet for looking at the debate very narrowly and ignoring the broader picture of the debate in that it should not be perplexing that people can hold multiple beliefs without having any real issues.
 * The original wording that Τζερόνυμο quoted did reflect Harris' statement quite well. But maybe additional rewording would resolve any confusion?Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It should be stated more clearly when we are talking about the conflict between Religion and Science and the conflict at the cognitive level because of Religion and Science. The two subjects are clearly distinct and dealing with them in the same subchapter only yields confusion. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Rewording would clarify the issue no? How about, "Neuroscientist and author Sam Harris disagrees with Jerry Coyne and Daniel Dennett's views on whether scientific beleifs conflict with religious beliefs at the individual level. Harris argues that it is very easy for people to reconcile science and religion at the individual cognitive level because some things are above strict reason, and scientific domains do not spill over to religious domains in people's minds." Would that work?Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 05:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds much better but yet, does not address the problem: The heading of the subchapter incompatibility suggest that we are dealing whether religion and the belief in supernatural causation are incompatible to  scientific rationalism/empiricism. The subject whether holding these two beliefs at the same time at the individual level is compatible or not, lies in the field of psychology. Splitting the chapter seems very difficult task so I would suggest, either not talk about Sam Harris at all, or state that he thinks that Faith is completely incompatible to scientific rationalism (2011, theGuardian) Τζερόνυμο (talk) 06:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would be ok with adding that Sam Harris believes that there is incompatibility between religion and science (per the Guardian), however, when it comes an individual's cognitive level, Harris believes that religion and science can be compatible since scientific and religious domains do not spill over in people's minds. How is that? Harris' reply on Edge does relate to the issue of incompatibility of scientific and religious "thinking" which is why he critiques Coyne for example who believes that scientific thinking and religious thinking are different modes of thought, and thus incompatible. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all
I 'd like to thank all contributors as the Article has been translated (most of it) to greek. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

‎Relationship during middle ages and renaissance
I reviewed your new section. Unfortunately the parts which are currently in quotes matched when doing searches, so appear to be close paraphrasing or copied from sources. Since they are short they may suit as quotes, but it is better to summarize the sources instead. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 03:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hinduism
I would like to add the following information under the topic "Hinduism"

"The similarity between Vedas and Science can be seen in the spirit of inquiry. . The "creation hymn" of the Vedas begins with the question "Kutah ayam visrsti?" Meaning, "Where from this creation?" . The Brahmasutra follows suit, attributing to the opening line "Atato Brahm jignasa" or inquiry into the ultimate reality . Even the Shrimad Bhaagvatam, that was composed sometime between the 9th and the 11th century C.E, "is designed in a manner that suggests relationship between science and religion," indicating to the fact that it puts a lot of emphasis on the study of nature to be a necessary precondition to understand the creator. The greatest minds of the time had indulged into answering questions related to all aspects of life, be it the human body or any other natural phenomena. The Vedanta are probably the first writings examining the complexities of the neural system. The Upanishadas (derived from the Vedas), mentioned "nasato vidhyate bhavo," meaning from non-being, being cannot arise, just another way of stating Mathias Schielden and Theodore Schwann's Cell. Moreover, the Shrimad Bhaagvatam and the Garbhopnishada, delve into the matter of formation of an individual. "To obtain a [suitable] body, the individual, dwelling in a particle of male semen, is made to enter the womb of a woman by means of its karma and divine providence ," construes the process of 'daivanetren', meaning how the 'atman' or 'caitanyam'(soul), leave the sperm of the male and enters female's womb to gain physical form, in other words the process of fertilization. Not only this, almost all the mentioned Hindu scriptures acknowledge the concept of "many worlds" or "lok" for example "gandharva lok," "paatal lok," "Vaikunth," "Brahm lok," and the like, many of which are even said to inhabited, a concept that is of no wonder now, with the advancements in the scientific technology. This concept was never even touched upon by any of the contemporary religions, majorly because it “is antithetical to religious quest, or as that which renders this world to be characterized as pointless. Vkhat1 (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * A potential problem is that the original ideas were so far off current scientific ones; one must "fit" them into revisionist views to compare them. I also wonder if those sources are reliable.  The journal appears to be notable but these may be primary essays?  The evolution comparison (not above but was in the recent edit) for instance appears closer to the great chain of being than to biology.  The many worlds appear more like plane (esotericism) than to the multiverse hypothesis.  The conception also includes the supernatural (atman is like soul)...  But this is only my impression.  It's possible that a shortened view about many Hindus seeing connections would be adequate (the way the sentence about evolution was formulated appeared plausible and neutral; instead of claiming connections it reported about contemporary Hindus making those connections).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 03:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * @PaleoNeonate: I feel that "Fitting" the original religious ideas in the current scientific ones is the only way that a comparison can be drawn between the religion and science. Isn't that what has been done through out in this article? If there is another way, please suggest. Also, these sources are from a Journal devoted to the the topic and the observations and conclusions drawn are not my own. Moreover, I suggest you read the sentence with "aatman." That is not meant in a supernatural context, rather it only shows how the particular scripture mentioned talks about child birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vkhat1 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * This needs major work. Comments like "the undeniable similarity between the Vedanta and Science, lies in the spirit of inquiry" and "Even the Shrimad Bhaagvatam, that was composed sometime between the 9th and the 11th century C.E, "is designed in a manner that suggests relationship between science and religion," are not encyclopedic. They are opinions.  You basically seem to be trying to insert a persuasive essay into the middle of the article.    Pepper Beast    (talk)  19:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead's mischaracterization of crossover between historical conflict thesis and epistemic incompatibility
There are a couple consecutive phrases in the lead that are worded to imply that the many scientists who maintain an incompatibility position (even if just on an epistemological basis) also agree to the idea that friction is deeply rooted in religious politics, and permeates history. This is not what the rest of the article says, however.

Nowhere in the body can I find a reference that will validate Dawkins et. al's subscription to the "Historical conflict thesis". There's a reason why this very specific thesis and mere "Incompatibility" are different sections, and why you see natural scientists' names in one of them only. In fact, one can even hear Dawkins talk about how the Church used to be the patron of the arts and sciences.

Maybe it's time to tear the strawman down.--Sisgeo (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Misleading chart

 * The illustration on section Studies on scientists' beliefs includes Nobel prizes for peace and literature. I don't understand how that would be relevant for this or any other section.
 * Second, a better analysis would take conditional distributions, not just the marginal probabilities, in order to asses the influence that religiosity might have on winning such prizes. As the book where these data originate from mentions in relation to Jews: even though their absolute number of prizes is less than the number of prizes awarded to Christians; Jews still are much better than Christians at winning them, in proportion to their total populations. The same reasoning should be extended to all confessions.
 * My third point is more of a methodological query rather than a crystallized objection. I've been reading through the original source and it still isn't clear to me whether the term "Jew" is being applied to so-called cultural Jews like Steven Weinberg and Richard Feynman, who were atheists. --Sisgeo (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I would say the whole section is convoluted and anachronistic. Maybe we should look at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/#ReliBeliAcad for inspiration. --isacdaavid 01:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nanzan-u.ac.jp/SHUBUNKEN/publications/jjrs/pdf/477.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100509033003/http://www.itl-usa.org/ahmadi/ahmadi13.html to http://itl-usa.org/ahmadi/ahmadi13.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705164341/http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/F005SECT3 to http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/F005SECT3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140301051125/http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html to http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140301051125/http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html to http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Evidence for science; evidence for religion
This sentence is troubling, and I note the sentiment behind it has caused trouble in the past:

"Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence, while religions include revelation, faith and sacredness whilst also acknowledging metaphysical explanations with regard to the study of the universe."

"While religions include" is simply not accurate. Religions do not include empiricism or evidence, as understood by scientific practice, or as defined in even elementary science textbooks, as approaches to faith. Science provides readily available definitions of 'empiricism', 'evidence' and even 'reason'. They do not and cannot conform with religious understandings. If the sentiment of this sentence is important, it is necessary to define 'empiricism' and 'evidence' for religions where they exist. Otherwise, as the sentence stands, it gives the profoundly misleading impression that religious thinking engages in scientific practice as well as pursuing religious understanding. At the very least, "include" should be deleted.

In addition, no religion "acknowledges" metaphysical explanations. All religions require and propagate metaphysical explanations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edamone (talk • contribs) 12:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I generally agree and have changed the sentence. However, I unfortunately couldn't verify if the information was an accurate summary of the source immediately.  Another problem is that the lead is expected to be a summary of the article, but metaphysical topics are not discussed in the body yet.  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 14:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just chiming in on this since I have to agree with the original wording, not the new one. There are areas of religious studies which include and are based on evidence such as Biblical archaeology. Historcal research also plays a role in religions like Christianity and Judaism too, for instance Historical reliability of the Gospels displays such discourse with various scholars using evidence to gauge historical accuracy. There are traditions of apologetic in Islam too which make wide usage of evidence to enhance their worldviews. Actually, the article on apologetics shows how reason and evidence plays a role in religions too (how else would anyone use reason without relying on some sort of evidence?). For instance the uses of natural theology which incorporated evidences from the natural world to arrive to conclusions that align with the existence of higher powers is one example of how people do not just believe without any evidence. There are reasons for them to believe from their vantage point.


 * Now, keep in mind that the single line that Edamone and PaleoNeonate have been discussing, was an unsourced claim. It was just meant to "summarize" what science and religion did, but no source for that was provided - ever. Thinking more about it, it may be better to remove that line altogether since it really stereotypes both science and religion than it does clarify the complex views about both science and religion. There are disagreements in the academy as to whether science is really about evidence or empiricism fundamentally (think string theory, quantum mechanics - or in historical debates Aristoles deductivism vs Francis Bacon's inductivism) since much of those fields are theoretical. Chemistry and physics have lots of theoretical discourse with little exact proof for it. Much of it based on "consistency" with other theories mainly. The history of science has many examples of things not being empirical such as thermodynamics in the 19th century or even cell theory early on. So it may be better to eliminate the whole sentence since it really does not do justice to both complexity of science and religion. What do you think?&#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead an deleted the whole unsourced claim. It really did oversimplify science and religion as if they had uniform and timeless natures (which they do not). Plus, throughout the body of the article, what science is and what religion is, is not discussed in much of any detail, probably because both are complex social phenomena that do change through time - and that is found throughout the whole article in different cultures, different times, with different people.&#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I think deletion is sensible, and I want to acknowledge the change that was made prior to the deletion, since that did remove some of the problem. Can I draw your attention to the line:

"Most scientific and technical innovations prior to the scientific revolution were achieved by societies organized by religious traditions."

Societies (global and historical) are culturally ordered, not religiously ordered. Spiritual belief emerges from and is a key component of human culture. This is fundamental anthropology. Spiritual practice and belief is a feature of all cultures that we know of, contemporary and historical. Stating the above quote doesn't tell us anything that it might try to imply, unless there are particular features of particular spiritual beliefs that directly contribute to the shaping and practice of science and technology (or vice versa). That has not been substantiated at all in the article, and it is the very topic of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edamone (talk • contribs) 13:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually the whole idea of globalization is recent thing since most people in most societies never encountered each other or made a global image of other cultures aside from those within proximity. That societies in the past had traditions which played major roles is a given since they are a foundation of any of these cultures (for instance the number of shrines in Asia, the number of Churches in North America and Europe do indicate that they are a force in those societies). I don't think the statement you quoted is saying something not covered throughout the article since the article does delve into the histories of people who had particular beliefs that related to their studies of nature. I suppose that since modern English speaker societies generally think in terms of religious/secular dichotomies the statement is merely saying that cultures that were not like most modern societies - secular.&#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Judaism and Science
The article includes sections on various religions and science. Should Judaism be added? Seems so to me. But the topic is so extensive... There are various websites (and probably numerous books) devoted to the subject. There's even a Wikipedia category https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Judaism_and_science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyGoatsGruff2020 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Model article
What if we used this article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as a model for this article here? BillyGoatsGruff2020 (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Missing information on Jainism and Science
There are many aspects of Jainism which have not been covered in the section of Jainism. Please help adding related information to this section. A helpful link would be http://www.yugpradhan.com/en/book/science-and-religion. Rishabh.rsd (talk) 10:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Bogus Statistics
Under Surveys of Attitudes it reads "and 42% believed God existed, 42% disbelieved, and 17% had doubts/did not know; however when the study was replicated 80 years later using American Men and Women of Science in 1996, results were very much the same with 39% believing God exists, 45% disbelieved, and 15% had doubts/did not know."

42% believed God existed 42% disbelieved 17% had doubts/did not know This adds up to 101%

39% believing God exists 45% disbelieved 15% had doubts/did not know This adds up to 99% — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsimm2 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's what happens when numbers are rounded. 41.6% + 41.7% + 16.7% = 100%, but if you round the values, they are 42%, 42% and 17%. Nothing bogus here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Not comprehensive enough
Although the article now includes Sikhism and science, it is still not comprehensive since it lacks info about Zoroastrianism and science, and Zoroastrianism is no doubt vital because Judaism is heavily influenced by it, and prior to Arab conquest of Iran most residents there were Zoroastrians. Besides, it once spread to China and nowadays some Indians are Zorastrians.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And now the article excludes Sikhism and science, which is impermissible since Sikhism is a major world religion, and Sikhism and science is no doubt Googleable.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 July 2020 and 31 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Redheadscholar, Ucsc Ava, Typo93.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 13 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kvtokar.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Props to the designer of the article
"God the Geometer" is literally such a perfect pictorial representation of the article.

SpicyMemes123 (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)