Talk:Relationship between religion and science/Archive 2

3303:. In both cases it was necessary, first to accept and willingly conform to the discipline of the community, then to respond to its authority before the community could bestow upon me its power of liberating the intellect to carry out really fruitful inquiry. The tendency is to underrate completely the toughness and difficulty of really fruitful intellectual activity in either science or theology. Without a firm foundation on which to stand, one simply cannot grapple with experience in the tough and sturdy way which is required for real understanding. But such a platform cannot be had apart from the discipline and authority of the community. A completely free intellect operating in a lone and isolated self, cut free from every tie which binds into community, is an impotent thing tossed to and fro by every wind and wave. I could not even begin to do physics until I had given myself fully and freely to physics. Neither could I begin to do theology until I had given myself fully and freely to Christ in his Church. 1662:

rejected. And this is one of the great arguments for the truth of religion. It is only a very shallow kind of scepticism, a deliberate concentration on the surface appearance of things, which can feel satsified when it has dismissed the whole religious side of life as worhless. Scientists, particularly young ones who are in the first flush of excitement about their discoveries, are especially liable to mkae this sort of mistake. Practical questions about the precise relationship between one things and anotehr seem so much more manageable and profitable, that the more searching philosophical and religious questions look as if they can safely be dismissed. But nobody can really be concerned about the truth without being concerned about it

3338:

an integral part of the process of his incorporation into the Corps. Clearly by the very nature of the case only marines can have the Marine spirit. All the rest of us must of necessity merely observe it from the outside without possessing it for ourselves. In recognizing and accepting this simple fact, we do not, however, rebel against it as though it were an arbitrary requirement unjustly imposed upon us. It is ob- viously not a question of justice or rules at all, but something essential to the nature of the Marine spirit itself.

3133:

conflict is chiefly about points of disagreement between scientific discoveries and religious doctrines. Someone whose notion of science/religion conflict comes from the creation/evolution dispute or the popular (erroneous) conception of Galileo's troubles would easily believe that the only reason science and religion ever conflict is because scientific discoveries disagree with religious teachings. Weinberg is pointing out other, more important areas of disagreement. --

31: 3007:

examples that support the assertion made in the article (that these journals have published things on the relationship between religion and science). On the other hand, the claim is relatively minor and uncontroversial. I found it jarring to see that the citation for this minor claim contained such a long litany of examples. They aren't all necessary. Just pick out a couple that are most relevant and leave it at that. =

3312:

scarcely conscious of it. This is the case with science today, and it has been the case with the Church in all of its past periods of greatness. The vitality, genius, and brilliance of the intellectual activity of the Church during the fourth and fifth centuries matches that of theoretical physics in the nineteenth and twentieth. If one wishes to really understand

3730:. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding: I have the impression that you think that I am the editor who originally added the material. In fact, it was Wiki6billion, not me. Therefore, I was not the one adding the material, and my putting the fact tag there is really no different than whoever put a fact tag on the very similar section about Buddhism, immediately above. 1452: 3737:-like, particularly given the fact that I raised questions in this talk in a very reasonable way, and you did not bother to reply over a couple of days, only to revert within minutes when I restored the material. Please understand that I am just trying to be constructive. Anyway, this is not worth any more of my time, and I am now walking away from it. -- 3619:, I question whether that second reversion should stand, or whether we should restore the short version and give it a chance to be sourced. On the other hand, I realize that it is possible that the material might be suspect in ways of which I am not aware. Therefore, I'm raising the question here, in talk. Should the material be restored, or not? -- 3435:, "Unless there is a good reason to do so, Knowledge (XXG) avoids linking from within quotes" - we should probably remove many of the links that are in these quotes. Finally, there are multiple links to the same articles, and this is against linking practice. I thought I should bring this here first before making any wholesale changes. Thanks, 1118: 1972:

existentialists" accept Barbour and Polkinghorne's "type II categorization of Independence" (in which case, isn't it a rather dated reference?) or is it being used as a ref to establish what Barbour and Polkinghorne's "type II categorization of Independence" is (in which case, the first statement is unreferenced.

3337:

in- volved, until finally the day arrives when he is taken in as a full- fledged marine. Then, and then only, can he have for himself the spirit of the Marine Corps. Moreover, when that time comes the spirit is simply given to him without effort or striving on his part. It simply comes to him as

2914:

I'm far less clear about the inclusion of Am J Phys and Science. What is the basis for including them? Is their level of coverage unusual, given their scope? Sources should support the assertion being made in the article - in this case, the (implicit) assertion that there's something notable about

2838:

appears to be correct that no information is lost in the alternative citation format. However, I personally am not familiar with grouping disjoint references in this manner. Guettarda, could you cite precedent on WP for this style perhaps? I also agree that using this grouping to justify the claim

2248:

may have been premature in placing this section in such a prominent location. Still, I'm not sure how actual references to articles in journals can be considered as anecdotal. The generalization suggested by the current scholarship section may have been weak that much I can agree with Guettarda on.

2138:

Actually, I think there's a problem here. Both the lede and the rewrite of the nature of reality are actually almost impossible to understand for a high school student. These inconsistencies in your actions and words in this case seem quite problematical. Ludwigs, I have doubts that your edits were

2123:

responsibility as editors to explain, expand, and clarify. it's supercilious to expect or request that another editor go and do research on something that you've added to the article. Guettarda's question was valid, and if he doesn't get a decent response on the talk page he is perfectly within his

785:

As pointed out above, the material in question does sorely lack information about these various scientists' opinion on religion and science. Adding some information would make it relevant. Perhaps their affiliation with a particular society is less interesting than whatever their opinions on religion

735:

It also includes some absolutely gushy and completely unencyclopedic descriptions ( "which remains one of the clearest Christian manifestos ever written by a well-respected scientific figure" & "Wren used his talents to create a sort of symphony of belief"). Such flowery speech should not be used

2867:

to collapse the citations for readability which doesn't seem unreasonable given the number of citations and is an acceptable way to cite sources (per guidelines). Of course, when you have a footnote, a bland list of references is not a great idea either (distinct referencing styles are never good in

2153:

Also the fact that I raised several important question about the rewrite of the nautre of reality and that these were overlooked by both you Ludwig, Guettarda, and KillerChihuahua, suggest that there is not so much a real concern with the article, as there is a POV dispute. Are you all non-religious

208:, both religion and science are seen to be in collusion in excluding women from positions of leadership and respect. This polemic is intriguing because it also provides unexpected evidence towards positive relationship religion and science. This view in some form should be included in the article-- 3132:

I suppose I don't consider that to be a very helpful response; indeed, it borders on the ad-hominem. In this essay, Weinberg is not attacking religion; he is trying to describe some sources of conflict between science and religion. Specifically he's rebutting the common notion that science/religion

1075:

Hey guys.... I think that we're doing good. I understand the point that focusing on Gould and the conflict thesis seems overboard, but you have to realize that the prevailing notions of this "relationship" are actually this way. It think the edits to this point are great. Just keep reorganizing the

437:

complex subject. The final independent clause of the introdution — "scientific knowledge has had effects on religious beliefs" — is actually quite germane to the Baha'i Faith. That a mainstream world religion would posit that religious belief that is contrary to science is superstition is in itself

2062:

Did you write that section? If not, then the comment was not directed at you. If you did, then why do you refuse to clarify what it is you meant? I made a simple, good-faith request. If you wrote that section, it should be trivial to clarify what you meant. You flat-out refused. Calling your

1661:

These remarks, like those about Feuerback, are not intended to be a refutation of Nietzsche. One cannot refute somebody who resolutely pushes religious scepticism to its extreme limit. One can only watch him coming full circule, and becoming more and more obsessesd by the God whom he thinks he has

1029:

The other lede took on the difficult task of treating science and religion as monolithic terms. A task which can really only be done when reading a lot of scholarship on this topic. The current lede shows no understanding of getting down to scholarly-based essentials of these terms and comparing

158:

I suspect a good section on this topic is quite possible. Perhaps religious metaphors and scientific metaphors along with comparisons of their models belong in a different section. The lede definitely does not do justice to the extant scholarship on comparing the methods of science and religion.

2218:

actually created it and added the current scholarship section to it (need to check the edit history to figure out who exactly, I'm not sure, but unless I'm loosing my mind, it certainly wasn't me). I did write the current scholarship section, but I had placed it much further down in the article,

1841:

Chapter entitled "The Limits of Doubt," where Habgood unites Feuerbach and Nietzsche as those who "push religious scepticism to its extreme limit." Darwin was later on involved or at least had associates that did critize religion. This sentence would be better broken down into separate ones with

1600:

Non-Christian faiths have historically integrated well with scientific ideas, as in the ancient Egyptian technological mastery applied to monotheistic ends, the flourishing of logic and mathematics under Hinduism and Buddhism, and the scientific advances made by Muslim scholars during the Ottoman

1008:

this version of the lead has several problems (which prompted me to make changes in the first place). setting aside grammatical issues (minor, but it doesn't flow very well), this miscasts the relationship (it's not just SciMeth vs. prayer, and meaning vs. the natural world doesn't quite capture

3311:

over its members represents at once the primary source of its power and vitality and, at the same time, its most fearful danger. When the community is dynamic, vigorous, and full of vitality, its authority and discipline are so gladly and spontaneously ac- cepted by its members that they are

2910:

published in these two journals, including them in this article under the header "Current scholarship" implies that these are notable publications...we wouldn't list the 21st and 2nd most important journals, and ignore 1-20. So what is the basis for including these two in the article? It isn't

3006:

I think it's interesting and notable that serious journals that have historically focused on scientific topics to the exclusion of religion would consider the topic of the relationship between religion and science to be important enough to publish things about it. The citations given are useful

1971:

The opening pair of sentences convey absolutely zero information. "Some people accept , others don't". Ummm....OK. What is "Barbour and Polkinghorne's type II categorisation of independence? And is the Barbour ref being used to support the statement that "language philosophers and religious

3180:

below) in religion and science do seem rather uniformed if not unsophisticated. Religion and science scholarship isn't just about a great scientist, which Weinberg truly is, commenting on religion or philosophical matters, it's also being recognized by peers in this other field (not just media

3043:

Religion usually casts humanity as a central player in the universe, frequently holding that the universe was created for mankind. Science, particularly cosmology, shows that humanity does not occupy a special role: Earth is not the center of the universe, and humans are just one species among

1524:

and he is simply summarizing the work of other scholars and historians. And later scholars have made the same points one can be fairly certain. But even without having looked at a source, from a close reading of the article it should be clear that what was written is faily unobjectionable and

3607:, which included some lengthy unsourced material, and was (rightly, I believe) reverted. However, recognizing that there might be some useful material contained within the deleted edit, I added back a much shorter version, marked with a "fact/citation needed" tag. That, however, has also been 3634:

There hasn't been a reply here yet. I've looked at the pages to which the deleted passage links, and it looks to me to be unlikely that the statements in the shorter version that I suggested would be likely to be challenged as an untrue characterization of the views of the Swami who is cited

2035:

I don't think asking a fellow editor to read a source to satisfy concerns is uncollegial at least not ones engaged in working on an encyclopedia. Also not looking at sources and expecting nothing to require some reading is un-collegiate. Besides, why are you obviously not assmuing good faith

2530:

These references are completely legitimate. They do add value to the article and help readers to understand where quality, peer-reviewed articles on religion and science can be found. I'm putting these references back. If there is still disagreement, then can we at least agree to seek

3568:

I think that the word Magisterium would be appropriate when talking about the scientific community, in this article, in other articles and in other writings and publications, because of the consensus approach within scientific circles that often mirrors that of closed communities (cf

2426:

No sense in keeping a rank amateur like Wilber in the lead. I'm removing him. If it turns out that you find some reliable source which says that he is a pre-eminent theorist on this subject, add it to the body and we'll come to a consensus as to whether he belongs in the lead.

717:. I have done my best to rectify the bad writing, but (lacking primary or secondary sources on the subject) cannot correct these paragraphs' profound lack of useful information. It does not serve any purpose in this article, but Firefly322 insists on edit-warring to retain it. 3060:

Religion frequently refers back to some absolute authority, whether in the form of a prophet, a leader such as the Pope, or a holy book. Scientific use of authority differs from religious use in two ways: first, any authority may be later proven to have been wrong; second, we

3581:

by using the same kind of social control tools as that of religion. Feyerabend compares Science to a Church or Community and cynically says that the only reason that there have been conflicts between Church and Science is because both of them are structured like Churches.

3029:, in which he discusses the cause of conflict between science and religion. It is his argument that the conflict is not primarily about "contradictions between scientific discoveries and specific religious doctrines"; rather, he presents four different areas of conflict: 3036:

Early religion gained much of its strength from its ability to explain mysterious happenings such as disease and natural disasters. With the advance of science, we no longer look to religion to explain these things; we have naturalistic, physical explanations that

988:

who have argued that both involve a moral commitment. Historically, science has had a complex relationship with religion; religious doctrines and motivations have sometimes influenced scientific development, while scientific knowledge has had effects on religious

1585:

Christian Theology - excluding those fundamentalist churches whose aim is to reassert doctrinal truths - has likewise softened many of its ontological claims, due to increased exposure to both scientific insights and the contrasting theological claims of other

789:

Also, I gather it should read the 17th Century, and not the 16th Century. I find the writing a bit wordy and not to the point, but it's not awful. At least one editor has been highly unrestrained in use of language on this discussion page. Dare I say uncivil?

3328:

Let us consider the same question in terms of the conditions under which one can possess the Marine spirit. Here it is quite evident that the only way for a young man to have the Marine Corps spirit for himself is to actually become a full member of the

483:

Wish you'd do some research on the references before you call it OR. Your comparison of Baha'i to Raëlism strongly suggests that you're not familiar with this. There are two secondary sources already cited: Smith and Mehanian & Friberg. How many does it

3175:

has done this and nevertheless, his attidude towards other scholars as reported by the scholars themselves makes it difficult to use and justify his material in encyclopedic article.) Also Weinberg's ideas about the nature of authority (as discussed by

1964:

Many language philosophers (e.g., Ludwig Wittgenstein) and religious existentialists (e.g., neo-orthodoxy) accepted Ian Barbour and John Polkinghorne's type II categorization of Independence. On the other hand, many philosophers of science have thought

2124:

rights to remove the phrase as unencyclopedic. and if he doesn't, I might. as a rule, it's best to write articles so that a relatively intelligent high school student can understand it without too much difficulty, which is not the case here. ok? --

2889:

OK, hopefully that means that the first issue is settled. Regarding the second, I'm not sure what you want me to explain. The section is about "current scholarship" and it asserts that current scholarship related to the topic is published in

1875: 1742: 2915:

the level of coverage of R&S in these journals. References should support that assertion. But instead of references that make the case, there examples articles related to R&S in these journals. In other words, you have supplied

2273:

I think it's a huge improvement to move the "current scholarship" further down, out of the overview. But it still needs some refs that support the assertion that this is where the current scholarship is - the links are just anecdotes.

3486:

a crucial top-level fact about the "relationship between religion and science"? This should either be eliminated altogether, or be expanded later in the article into a section on levels of popular support for various R&S positions.

433:. Whether or not Galileo had ever heard of the Baha'i perspective is irrelevant. This article isn't about the calcified arguments over the center of the universe, but one that discusses both the history and the current direction on a 1570:

where a historian discusses that nature was in fact considered a book on par with the bible by 16th and 17th century scientists. I'm not aware that 18th and 19th century scientist ever fully discarded such a view. And in light of

2477:. To someone like myself who is reading and summarizing such tertiary sources, your recent edits don't seem to be summaries at all nor do they reflect the themes, style, or trends in the major tertiary works, again like those of 1924:"verified that such a statement is in currency with a find command"? What are you talking about? To begin with, whatever you did didn't work, since there are no links in the article. Secondly, if you read the documentation on 1525:

unlikely to be OR. Though I guess I should be honored if you think I'm that wise. Is that the language? I'm no doubt following a Habgood's book sytle instead of a more encyclopedia type of style. Still, it's not OR or Synth. --

3342:(Based on Pollard's rather standard argument that draws a parallel between a scientist and a Marine "subject himself to authority and discipline involved", which Weinberg should certainly be aware of as an important member of 2192:

I removed the "Overview" section, since it (a) wasn't an overview of anything, but rather a list of four journals, and (b) there are no supporting references that these 4 are really the place to find this debate. There are

567:

By this logic, if bona-fide secondary religious sources are out, then any similarly sourced reference to Maimonides, Aquinas, the Church, Fundamentalist, etc, would also have to be removed. Remove them and the article falls

3430:

This article contains a lot of quotes. Many are quite large and should probably be shortened. It might be better to rework the material into our own prose and reference the work quoted, with a quote in the ref. Alos, per

2364:

are we excluding someone who won the templeton prize? this isn't about who has the biggest approval rating, this is about representing the views that we need to represent. I'm really no sure what you're arguing here.

2906:. The first two parts of the statement - that it is covered in Zygon and T&S has no supporting citations. While it's possible to peruse the ToC of either journal and conclude that yes, articles related to R&S 1699: 1666:, as Nietzsche himself demonstrates. This is why sceptics of his calibre show up the superficiality of much modern religious doubt in a far more telling manner than could be done by any amount of religious exhortation. 460:

due to lack of scholarship in the very important and serious area of science and religion. Were there an academic or scholar in-good-standing writing about the relationship between science and religion in terms of the

2385:

The lead is supposed to summarise the article. Since Wilbur isn't mentioned in the body of the article, he shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. As the article stands now, no, he should not be mentioned in the lead.

3298:

ligion necessarily imposes a rigid strait jacket on the intellect in contrast to science which is intellectually free and unhampered by any authority. In my own experience of incorporation into both communities,

127: 3635:(although I'm far from an expert on the subject). I'm going to restore the passage, still tagged for citation needed, for now, and would ask that anyone who disagrees to talk here, rather than reverting. -- 1153:

It would be very rare for it to be appropriate for a community of academics in a field to have an article separate from the article on their field of study, and this would not appear to be such a case.

984:), though they do address different questions: religion focuses on meaning, science on the natural world. Though religion has components that have no counterpart in science, there are scholars such as 1869: 1736: 1448:

Hrafn - just wanted to chip in my agreement with you. I mean, I think I see what s/he's after, but man... airlines charge penalties for packing that much luggage in one bag; maybe we should too...

531:

scholar. He means doesn't come in contact with the the Religion and Science scholarly community. Mehanian and Friberg are probably the same, though I haven't looked them up as I have Peter Smith.

3054:, "the most influential Islamic philosopher". al-Ghazzali holds that the notion of natural law, or fundamental regularities in the universe, contradicts the doctrine that God is absolutely free. 3114:, which has concluded that such a thesis of conflict is crude and that the interactions between science and religion, as fairly judged by objective historical evidence, are far more complex. -- 3181:

pundits) and subjecting themselves to this other school of thought. Weinberg does not appear to be doing that. Although on the opposite end of the spectrum belief-wise Weinberg is similar to

2785:

is preferable. My point is that the shorter format (which was recommended to me in an FAR) is preferable. Firefly has reverted back to the longer version, but is unwilling to explain why.

1842:

clarifications. Not referencing this Dawkins quote to a 1964 book. I've read essays that mention Dawkins in this way and I verified that such a statement is in currency with a find command:

1030:

them. Instead, the lede is unnecessarily difficult philosophy and ideas that are superficial and unhelpful to the reader in understanding what scholars are really saying about this topic.--

2404:

patience - I haven't gotten around to editing the body yet. if you remove him now, I'll just end up readding him later (unless I find a better source for that perspective, of course). --

2950:. Articles about religion and science belong here. Or alternatively are you just trying to cause trouble? There are no anecdotes and there is no original research. We need to take this 2625:

No, let's deal with the first issue first. What is the advantage of 23 links, when 3 links can convey the same information? You reverted my attempt to clean up messy formatting. Why?

2976:

articles about religion and science belong here. Nor do a random collection of articles. Material included should be verifiable, and should be notable. It should also not violate the

3185:, who is also a great scientist, is also not subjecting his religion and science work to leading peer-review/conference process, and also holds views in this area that seem uniformed.-- 2648:. So based on the number of times you've used it, it seems quite important. If it's not and you don't want to explain it, then I think you're comments and editing here are borderline 81: 76: 71: 59: 283:

who at least has a link on his article page, which again Freud doesn't. Leading with psychology is probably fine, but I suggest replacing start of section with mention of and link to

2454:

what is your vision for this article? When you say "I haven't gotten around to editing the body yet.", what is it exactly that you plan to do? Since this is the lead article to the

373:

I don't think that a heavily referenced, three-sentence paragraph in an article wherein the vast majority of the religious perspective is Christian can fairly be called undue weight.

793:

Digressing a bit, this article has some good stuff in it, but in terms of writing, its worst flaw seems to be poor organization. Whatever the case, it's needlessly tiresome to read.

3695:

unsourced material and to simply revert unsourced new additions. If you're adding new material, you should already know what the source for it is (if you don't then the material is

3168: 227:

p.648-649, "Christianity and science in fateful collusion" is one of "three master-narratives have proved sufficiently influential to deserve scrutiny." This companion mentions

1837:, they are because whoever today's best cristics whether scientist or someoen else they use Feuerbach and Neitzsche work (their arguments). The quote is the summary of Habgood's 2084:

editing policy. This section is already tagged. Many sections in the article need attention. But what I'm not willing to do is ignore what I consider a clear violation of

2868:

an article), so, perhaps a better approach would be to use the footnote to elaborate on the text and to use that opportunity to indicate why 23 citations are necessary. --

972:

takes many forms as the two fields are both broad. While some scholars assert that they are independent and rely on entirely different and incomparable methods (e.g., cf.

909:. In fact the former article explicitly states "Its religious background in Shi'a Islam is seen as analogous to the Jewish context in which Christianity was established." 121: 1480:

to work. if you revert it again, I will report you ANI for disruptive editing. get it? I'm going to now reinstate it, and copy edit, so please stop edit-warring. --

2003:

It's a summary that can be improved. I suggest looking at the reference itself to satisfy your concerns and see that this section follows the source and is truly

47: 17: 1981:

Is Barbour making the assertion that there is a parallel? If so, shouldn't you be reporting on what Barbour had to say? As it stands the paragraph reads like

2737:

for a concrete example of how this is done. Of two references used in the article, one is cited three times and the other four times. As can be seen in the

1890: 1798:"Greatest critics"? In what sense? Darwin wasn't especially critical of religion. And are Feuerbach and Neitzsche among the greatest critics of religion 1757: 1203:

merge. It fits nicely into the section called "Dialogue", but also agree that it could perhaps be later spun off if it develops to be better than it is. --

2803:

Looks like the issue just zoomed on over my head and mine was not the WP 3O sought. I relisted it and edited this subsection heading to reflect that. —

2603:

post. First, can we clear up what u mean by anecdotes? If English is your first language, then can you explain more precisely what here is an anecdote? --

1857: 1724: 2119:

Firefly: the purpose of an encyclopedia is to convey information. if someone doesn't understand what we've written (be it an editor or a reader), it is

1052:. It's about an actual scholarly-based relationship. And there is largley a consensus among scholars to draw this relationship in these terms such as 2139:

honestly made in good faith. I will continue assume good faith, but I have my doubts as to whether you have the best interests of wikipedia in mind. --

2947: 858:

McGrath's opinion is contradicted by Einstein's own words: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses"

1978:"Many language philosophers (e.g., Ludwig Wittgenstein) and religious existentialists (e.g., neo-orthodoxy)" - is that grammatical? Neo-orthodoxy? 3784:

No, it is not "no different than whoever put a fact tag on the very similar section about Buddhism" -- as that did not involve restoring material.

1975:

Why do we care, in an article about the relationship between religion and science, what language philosophers and religious existentialists think?

2249:

But I've rewritten it to remove those implications (clearly the journal Zygon and the journal Science aren't usually comparable in content). --

3106:. Moverover, because Weinberg's essay is about conflict or as stated about the "science/religion conflict", his essay seems well outside the 1851: 1718: 1013:

too heavy on the conflict thesis and magisteria, which I've moved down in the lead a bit. what other changes do you think need to be made? --

960:

The earlier lede is characeristic of majority of the sources on this topic, while the current is more towards original research in comparison.

3777:

particularly care whether the material was originally added by you or by Wiki6billion (although I was in fact aware of the fact). That policy

642:

As far as I could ascertain from a Google & Amazon book search, Dawkins never made the first assertion. And the Freud claim is unsourced.

2508:

While I think an overarching vision is important, there's a problem with relying too heavily on sources that are almost half a century old.

1567: 1429:, English is my first language, and I am sufficiently proficient in it to identify badly written, uninformative turgid prose when I see it. 3482:

Can anybody tell me why the fact that "The Pew Forum has published data on attitudes to religion and science" belongs in the lead? Is this

3151:, so that must not be what you mean by this being a borderline ad hominem attack. There's two problems with this Weinberg essay. Just on 1847: 1714: 946:. To put it in the lede suggest that the editor who did so doesn't really understand the article well-enough to be writing the lede. -- 3223:; or, to paraphrase, that only religious believers have anything legitimate to say about religion and science. Was that your intention? 691: 673:

Science 15 August 1997: Vol. 277. no. 5328, pp. 890 - 893; "SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY: Science and God: A Warming Trend?" Gregg Easterbrook

1897: 1764: 452:

Whatever problems User:Marusell thinks my argument has is beside the point. The reality outside my argument is that inclusion of the

3550: 2577:

Now, obviously those links shouldn't be in the article. Using a series of anecdotes to support an assertion violates our policy on

337:

The section on Bahá'í view seems out of place in the article. So far, I've never seen it mentioned in any major book or journal. --

3069:

This essay, by a notable participant in the science/religion conflict, seems like it should make a good source for this article. --

3065:

this to happen, as science progresses -- "today any good graduate student understands general relativity better than Einstein did."

2819: 1657:

have all received such praise. A modern quip about Richard Dawkins is that "if Richard Dawkins didn't exist, to make him up."

1185:

Agree. It should be merged. If it develops into something substantial, it can always be spun off again into a daughter article.

855:

It provides no formal citation that would enable this information to be verified, and thus allow this inconsistency to be resolved.

3367:

was added by the author apparently. Link in article to this essay by this author/editor may be acceptable or not. Not sure. --

698:

A badly written laundry list of names and books, containing no information about the scientists' opinions on religion and science

2649: 3456:

As there's been no comment on this I'll make some of the changes and tag the article for help removing/integrating the quotes.

3320:

way which brings out their necessary character and fruitfulness, one must study such a period in the Church's life as that.

142: 2822:

policy seems blatantly violated either way. It would perhaps be acceptable for a term paper but not for an encyclopedia. —

2467: 1143: 1131: 759: 564:

out of the academic field? Most of the references cited in this article, or most articles, wouldn't pass that narrow a test.

429:

Firefly, you need a little more support than a simple assertion to make a contested removal. This particular argument fails

387:

This issue is really one of sources. Are there any historically significant scientific figures who have been influenced by

109: 1863: 1730: 863:

Unless MCGrath was speaking of this the exact wording in the surveys (which is unlikely), this footnote would appear to be

3787:

If you didn't want me to be curt with you, then you shouldn't have edit-warred to restore material in violation of policy.

709:", it is a badly written (e.g. repeating the same clumsy phrase twice in the same sentence, ungrammatical (even using a ' 3839: 3822: 3762: 3746: 3716: 3644: 3628: 3593: 3558: 3527: 3500: 3471: 3450: 3415: 3397: 3376: 3355: 3257: 3194: 3142: 3123: 3078: 3011: 2993: 2963: 2940: 2879: 2852: 2829: 2810: 2794: 2771: 2693: 2675: 2661: 2634: 2612: 2594: 2544: 2517: 2502: 2436: 2413: 2395: 2374: 2351: 2329: 2310: 2283: 2258: 2228: 2206: 2163: 2148: 2133: 2114: 2105: 2088:. Once that was done it called this whole discussion into question. I believe that when an experienced editor violates 2075: 2057: 2030: 2016: 1994: 1947: 1911: 1817: 1792: 1614: 1534: 1489: 1465: 1442: 1398: 1376: 1250: 1231: 1212: 1194: 1180: 1136: 1102: 1085: 1065: 1039: 1022: 1002: 955: 942:

Any credible academic or historian is going to see the lede as erroneous. Today, no credible historian believes in the

932: 883: 802: 775: 749: 730: 655: 601: 548: 522: 504: 478: 447: 416: 382: 358: 327: 248: 217: 194: 168: 2486: 3816: 3710: 3521: 3494: 3411: 1436: 1392: 1370: 1174: 926: 877: 769: 743: 724: 649: 557:

makes between the two is that they both post-date the foundations of modern science. That's hardly a broad comparison.

2666:

As I said, deal with one thing at a time. I take that this means that you have any reason for your reversion. OK.

1277:--his definition of religion as "a feeling of absolute dependence" has been implicated as a factor in the causes of 2585:

do you believe that we should have twenty-three links, when three links would convey exactly the same information?

2432: 2347: 2306: 1081: 38: 3753:

I just want to say thank you to PhilKnight, who has just made what I think was a very helpful edit to the page. --

2063:

refusal uncollegial isn't uncivil. And responding with threats and bluster? Another step in the wrong direction.

2044:. Those statements really destroy the value of your reputation and contributions to wikipedia at least so far as 1046:(it's not just SciMeth vs. prayer, and meaning vs. the natural world doesn't quite capture either side correctly). 710: 487:

Both secondary sources directly address the points made. The Hatcher article goes into even deeper depth. Passes

103: 2110:

You are welcome to your beliefs, however false they are. However, it doesn't mean anyone else will believe you.

3241: 1638: 3213:"Nevertheless, since he's an atheist, I'm not sure that he can honestly and sincerely say very much about the 2489:

soon just to prevent major issues later on. For I really do dispute your recent edits as being something like

1146:', which would appear to be merely about the scholarly community that investigates the topic of this article. 3577:'s fundamental epistemological criticism on the pretensions of modern science, namely that of constituting a 3514:

to provide relevant information to this article? It seems a tad on the scatter-shot/overly-generalised side.

3283: 3253: 3138: 3074: 2734: 2080:

Not refusing anything. Demanding that another editor do something right now tests the patience of the core

1125:

This article still needs cleanup, but I have brought over everything that seemed well-cited and relevant. -

798: 597: 500: 443: 378: 99: 3554: 2843:. Perhaps this would be more appropriate as a list within some "further reading" section of the article? - 1294: 3407: 3182: 1227: 284: 260: 2096:

that their rest of their immediate work should be called into question, which is what I am now doing. --

2081: 2004: 1476:

Orange Marlin - I'm going to try to copy edit that section so that it's usable, which is the way this is

1356: 859: 706: 2874: 2428: 2343: 2302: 1572: 1093:

From a scholarship point of view, compared to the other lede, this one is actually quite a bit worse. --

1077: 554: 510: 3616: 3402:

I looked into this briefly, it doesn't appear that the author is a major figure in this area. I think

3385: 3156: 2864: 149: 3570: 1318: 679:

Science 13 December 1957: Vol. 126. no. 3285, pp. 1225 - 1229; "Science and the Citizen" Warren Weaver

3835: 3758: 3742: 3640: 3624: 3546: 3393: 3372: 3351: 3190: 3119: 2959: 2657: 2608: 2540: 2498: 2254: 2224: 2159: 2144: 2111: 2101: 2053: 2012: 1907: 1788: 1610: 1591: 1530: 1274: 1098: 1061: 1035: 998: 951: 849: 687: 544: 518: 474: 412: 354: 342: 323: 307: 292: 272: 244: 213: 190: 164: 2924: 980:), others assert that there are significant parallels in method and purpose (both being pursuits of 2989: 2936: 2826: 2807: 2790: 2768: 2689: 2671: 2630: 2590: 2513: 2391: 2279: 2202: 2197:

that reference individual articles in the latter two journals, but that's just anecdotal support.

2071: 2026: 1990: 1943: 1883: 1813: 1750: 1306: 1262: 1190: 902: 303: 135: 3774: 3661: 3612: 3152: 895: 3279: 3249: 3177: 3134: 3070: 2848: 2451: 2405: 2366: 2321: 2125: 1576: 1481: 1457: 1242: 1126: 1014: 794: 593: 496: 439: 374: 178: 2977: 2093: 2041: 1982: 1513: 1381:

RE: name-dropping, it needs to, at the very least, say who Schleiermacher & Barth were, and

913: 864: 578: 268: 3219:

The implication seems to be that atheists who speak and write about religion and science do so

676:

Science 12 September 1997: Vol. 277. no. 5332, pp. 1589 - 1591; "Letters: Science and Religion"

639:

has asserted that science will help people to grow out of their childish religious delusions."

2713: 1223: 973: 898:

they would have noticed "NationMaster makes use of encyclopedia content from Knowledge (XXG)".

666: 528: 430: 315: 299: 259:

This section starts off with supposed views held by Sigmund Freud, yet neither the article on

205: 2981: 2581:. But that's a minor problem - all I was doing was trying to clean up messy formatting. So 2459: 2298: 2021:

So what - you're saying "screw you, I'm not telling"? That's a rather uncollegial attitude.

1517: 1422: 1411: 403:

nor any of their contemporaries (scientist or priest) could have had anything to do with the

115: 3511: 3465: 3444: 2869: 2741: 1310: 817: 682:

Science 25 April 1958: Vol. 127. no. 3304, pp. 1004+1006; "Letters: Science and Religion" --

465:, then it could be included. Until then it has no place here because inclusion constitutes 182: 3432: 3403: 2928: 2840: 2578: 2089: 2085: 2037: 1509: 3831: 3754: 3738: 3636: 3620: 3574: 3389: 3368: 3347: 3275: 3186: 3115: 3087: 3022: 2955: 2653: 2604: 2536: 2494: 2339: 2250: 2220: 2155: 2140: 2097: 2049: 2008: 1903: 1784: 1654: 1637:

A number of religion's greatest critics have received high praise from devout apologists.

1606: 1526: 1208: 1094: 1057: 1049: 1031: 994: 985: 947: 943: 813: 683: 627: 540: 514: 470: 408: 350: 338: 319: 288: 240: 209: 186: 160: 3696: 3583: 3050:

Weinberg discusses this primarily as a tension between Islam and science, in the work of

2490: 634:

first made the perdiction that science would lead to the demise of religion. <ref: -->

589: 492: 466: 457: 3346:, his essay may be dilberately disengenuous on this point about authority in science. -- 3147:

Weinberg's article on wikipedia is quite explicit and matter-of-fact about him being an

758:, which should be illuminating on this editor's standards (for a lengthier example, see 3830:

All I'm going to say is you have a strange concept of edit-warring, and of civility. --

3245: 3160: 3008: 2985: 2932: 2835: 2823: 2804: 2786: 2765: 2685: 2667: 2626: 2586: 2509: 2387: 2275: 2241: 2198: 2067: 2022: 1986: 1939: 1809: 1650: 1270: 1186: 3651: 2951: 2600: 2532: 2045: 585: 488: 3685: 3672: 3589: 3172: 2844: 1928: 1646: 1503: 1286: 636: 631: 462: 453: 404: 392: 388: 365: 311: 280: 276: 264: 232: 2455: 1156:

As far as I can see, none of the cited sources make any detailed discussion of this

3330: 3282:'s essay who argues that Weinberg's idea to be false. This is from Pollard's book 3026: 2761: 2482: 2474: 1834: 1672: 1521: 1410:

an appropriate means of referencing page numbers (or anything else). Please follow

912:

Attempting to place a citation in a section-header is a really silly, ugly & a

736:

without attribution (preferably as a direct quote), and even then very cautiously.

155: 3098:

scientists who share his view might use this source. Nevertheless, since he's an

2320:

one of the more prominent advocates for integrating spirituality and science. --

1783:

Plan to add the above section, it could still be a bit rough so please comment.--

318:

supports Freud as a spokesman for a relationship between religion and science. --

224: 3542: 3457: 3436: 3406:

applies here, there isn't any reason to link to every opinion on this matter. --

3051: 2754: 2684:

you believe that the references should be formatted one way and not the other?

2478: 2463: 2214:

Actually, I'm not sure what the overview section was about. I had thought that

1305:'s laws, which the continuing evolution of science tends to date such efforts. ( 1278: 1266: 228: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1048:

In fact the article is not about sides, again this is not an article about the

3812: 3706: 3517: 3490: 2294: 2245: 2234: 2215: 1432: 1388: 1366: 1314: 1282: 1204: 1170: 922: 873: 765: 739: 720: 715:

contains no information about the scientists' opinions on religion and science

645: 539:(1986). But it's not enough for it to be mentioned in this article as well. -- 346: 174: 3806:. Thereafter I did not revert again without first explaining my reasons here. 1808:

What does the quote have to do with the section title? It seems unrelated.

1309:

now seem far from the ultimate truth, given the later scientific advances of

306:

1994. I've read through the source and done searches on it. No mention of

3658:" -- thus whether it is an "untrue characterization" or not is not relevant. 3615:. Noting that WP:BURDEN does allow for "fact"-tagging, and in the spirit of 3274:

Just to follow up on the idea of authority in science and religion that the

3107: 2721:{{cite web |url= |title= |author= |work= |date= |quote= }}</ref: --> 1642: 1568:

God's Two Books By Kenneth James Howell University of Notre Dame Press, 2002

1508:

has already reverted but still I don't understand your (Orange's) claims of

1403:

I would further point out that hidden comments (i.e.

532: 391:? Apparent answer: No. Are there any historians of science that write about 754:

Incidentally, this edit also links to one of Firefly322's other creations,

94:

Both science and religion rely on what some critics term useful fictions (

3102:, I'm not sure that he can honestly and sincerely say very much about the 3726:

I am disappointed by the tone of your response, and particularly of your

3585: 3343: 3111: 965: 825: 2316:

I'm open to alternate possibilities. Wilber (though I'm not a big fan)

3148: 3099: 3095: 3091: 1827:

And are Feuerbach and Neitzsche among the greatest critics of religion

969: 829: 396: 3666:

burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

2639:

Sorry you've used the word anecdote(s) at least three different times

1590:

Not so sure that this is right either. It sounds like a reference to

3734: 1302: 977: 821: 400: 3211:

The part of your earlier comment that struck me as ad-hominem was:

2716:, for example, the format for the first citation of a reference is: 2760:

may be used for distinct pages cited from the same source, see the

3164: 3110:

already reached by the vast majority of well-respected members of

2680:

I see that you have reverted yet again. Would you please explain

1805:

Are you really referencing the quote about Dawkins to a 1964 book?

1556:? If so, why beat much of the readership up with such esotericism? 1339: 1290: 1289:

movement; and taking the current state of scientific knowledge as

1009:

either side correctly). however, I do think the edits made later

981: 906: 185:) should also be covered in the article if not in this section. -- 1579:

in 1903, some such view probably carried over into 20th century.

2725:

Subsequent citations of the same reference are in this format:

345:) 00:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Isn't Bahá'í routinely compared to 296: 3316:

authority, discipline, dogma, and orthodoxy in the Church in a

1298: 560:

What policy requires that articles be sourced only from works

295:) 16:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC) Moreover, section is sourced with 25: 1160:, rather than their field of research (which is the topic of 889:

Ill-considered edit that editors are edit warring to reinsert

3307:

The authority and discipline which every community exercises

2946:

I think your missing the point about the article. It's the

1700:

The Disguised Friend: Darwinism and Divinity arthur peacocke

1520:. All the points made and the general langauge used is from 3333:. He must start from the beginning, go through boot camp, 3294:

All of this has a bearing on the widespread notion that re-

1281:, which is often taken to be the underlying motivation for 3021:

The New York Review of Books has published a new essay by

2471: 1676: 1352:

as well as properly sourced, before being re-added. It is

2923:. If you don't understand this, then I suggest you read 2747:, all seven are linked in two lines for the two sources. 1332:

Contains some quite impenetrable jargon and name-dropping

1076:

points: we're going to get to the best point eventually.

438:

notable. Does the Church take such a clear-cut position?

2777:

I think you missed the point. The "dispute" is whether

368:

article and you'll see that it bears no relation at all.

3803: 3799: 3791: 3727: 3608: 3604: 3365: 2782: 2778: 2646: 2643: 2640: 2562: 2555: 2528: 2238: 1506: 1500: 1418: 1385:

their views -- not merely give a cryptic quote on one.

1222:

I see no reason why that should be a separate article.

755: 702: 3539:"science relies on observable, repeatable experiences" 3169:

European Society for the Study of Science and Theology

1882: 1749: 1592:

Liberal Christianity#Influence of liberal Christianity

134: 3654:: "The threshold for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) is 2572:

was removed, I was just cleaning up messy formatting.

2550:

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I fixed the

1559:

What's the source for early scientifc ontology being

1297:

sets up problems like clock-work universe created by

1338:

Is grossly over-linked -- including even linking to

2652:. So please explain what are the anecdotes here. -- 1896: 1763: 1499:Regarding your (Orange's) revision to this article 1344:

less importantly, contains multiple spelling errors

665:Plan to rework much of this section based on these 148: 626:I have just reverted the insertion: "According to 2458:, it should be summarizing the tertiary sources ( 2066:So - are you willing to clarify what you wrote? 2927:. Or you might just want to read our policy on 1594:, which that article notes is now sorta defunct. 3549:. Finding a better wording may take some time. 3335:subject himself to the authority and discipline 3094:scientist. Perhaps a more specific section on 2154:editors who tend to edit religious articles? -- 1659: 1605:This sounds a bit optimistic. Have a source? -- 1260: 962: 697: 279:) ideas onto Freud, perhaps confusing him with 511:Criticism of religion#Criticism of the concept 18:Talk:Relationship between religion and science 2764:article for examples of how this is done. — 2750:For more complex cases in which the template 2568:that there are in your version. None of the 1675:, former president and current member of the 1540:Concerns over the nature of reality revisions 1142:An article has recently been created called ' 159:It's absurd from this perspective in fact. -- 8: 3703:I am therefore removing the material again. 255:The attitudes of scientists towards religion 3800:readded the material in violation of policy 3790:I would further point out that you did not 3159:grounds. Weinberg's essay is published in 812:I am removing the footnote that states "As 1552:nearly equivalent to Greek-in-origin word 3678:-tag does not obsolve you of this burden. 3215:relationship between religion and science 3104:relationship between religion and science 2948:relationship between religion and science 2470:or the work of a former president of the 1628:The attitudes of religion towards science 1495:Regarding reverts (copied from user page) 901:Neither Bahá'ís nor Muslims consider the 513:where Baha'i and Raëlism are compared. -- 495:. The primary sources are not necessary. 3048:Natural law as limit on the will of God. 1561:explicitly opposed to Christian Theology 713:') list of names and book-titles, which 535:actually mentions Baha'i on page 105 of 3699:), and be able to produce it on demand. 3002:Third opinion about scientific journals 2342:is a bit more prominent than this guy. 1683: 1421:ill-considered and sophomoric piece of 840:(thus it is unclear whether McGrath is 635:], Houghton Mifflin, 1998 </ref: --> 1335:Is mostly a single meandering sentence 661:The scientific community's perspective 90:Models, Metaphors, and Useful fictions 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3599:Deletion of brief section on Hindusim 2599:Let's try and clear this up before a 1550:questions about the nature of reality 225:Oxford Companion to Christian Thought 7: 1777:Science and Religion, 1964, page 87 1449: 584:Has three secondary sources (passes 407:, because it simply didn't exist. -- 3541:excludes historical sciences, like 2297:really deserving of a place in the 1544:Some questions about the revision: 1285:'s early scholarship and the whole 1149:I am proposing merging it here as: 537:Christianity and the World Religons 3278:essay raises, here's a quote from 2485:. Perhaps this should be taken to 2219:which is more where it is now. -- 1936:not be used in articles themselves 571:The Baha'i view, as presented, is 297:The Evolution of Life on the Earth 24: 3301:such a notion is completely false 3270:Authority in science and religion 2863:Guettarda's approach is to use a 2554:of the references, so that there 200:Collusion of religion and science 1450: 1116: 894:If anybody had bothered to read 364:No it's not. Take a look at the 271:?? Suspect editor projected the 29: 3384:Recent thought. This link was 1633:Respect of its greatest critics 395:? Apparent answer: No. Neither 3167:or attending conferences like 3012:04:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC) 2994:04:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC) 2964:01:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC) 2941:22:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC) 2880:17:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC) 2853:16:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC) 2830:05:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC) 2811:05:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC) 2795:05:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC) 2772:04:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC) 2694:04:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC) 2676:22:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC) 2662:21:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC) 2635:20:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC) 2613:20:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC) 2595:20:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC) 2545:18:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC) 2518:15:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC) 2503:14:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC) 2468:Issues in Science and Religion 2437:14:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC) 2414:05:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC) 2396:02:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC) 2375:00:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC) 2352:23:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC) 2338:Arguably, someone who won the 2330:23:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC) 2311:23:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC) 2284:19:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC) 2259:10:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC) 2229:10:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC) 2207:12:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC) 2164:10:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC) 2149:10:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC) 2134:19:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC) 2115:14:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC) 2106:13:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC) 2076:13:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC) 2058:13:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC) 2031:12:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC) 2017:12:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC) 1995:12:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC) 1948:13:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC) 1912:12:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC) 1818:12:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC) 1793:04:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC) 1690:Science and Religion, Habgood 1615:04:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC) 1535:00:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC) 1490:00:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC) 1144:Religion and science community 820:this definition would exclude 760:Issues in Science and Religion 1: 3603:Another editor recently made 3528:04:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC) 3501:02:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC) 3472:20:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC) 3451:14:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC) 2456:Science and Religion category 1466:23:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC) 1443:17:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC) 1399:13:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC) 1377:13:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC) 1251:02:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC) 1232:23:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC) 1213:22:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC) 1195:14:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC) 1181:07:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC) 1137:04:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC) 1103:14:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC) 1086:03:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC) 1066:14:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC) 1040:14:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC) 1023:23:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC) 1003:17:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC) 956:17:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC) 3781:covers of "restor material". 3416:21:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC) 3398:00:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC) 3377:13:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC) 3356:14:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC) 3258:02:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC) 3195:00:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC) 3143:21:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC) 3124:13:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC) 3079:21:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC) 239:as sources for this view. -- 3733:Your response seems rather 3221:dishonestly and insincerely 2900:American Journal of Physics 2233:It was in fact created by 2040:? And stating something un 1575:being the president of the 1348:I would request that it be 933:19:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC) 884:16:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 803:01:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC) 776:15:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 750:15:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 731:15:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 692:13:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 660: 656:12:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC) 3858: 3594:16:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC) 3559:17:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3163:and outside journals like 2818:Personal observation: the 2472:Religion and Science Forum 1677:Religion and Science Forum 1114: 3573:). I think that this was 2729:<ref name="name"/: --> 1548:Isn't the English phrase 1241:as per everyone above. -- 964:The relationship between 602:00:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC) 577:Three lines long (passes 549:19:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC) 523:19:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC) 505:22:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC) 479:21:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC) 456:is clearly and obviously 448:18:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC) 417:22:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC) 383:16:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC) 359:15:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC) 328:16:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC) 249:13:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC) 218:11:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC) 3840:19:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC) 3823:19:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC) 3792:raise this issue on talk 3763:19:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC) 3747:19:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC) 3717:18:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC) 3656:verifiability, not truth 3645:17:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC) 3629:17:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC) 3242:New York Review of Books 3058:The nature of authority. 2839:being made is a form of 2720:<ref name="name": --> 2301:? Color me unconvinced. 711:Greengrocer's apostrophe 287:. Does anyone agree? -- 195:18:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC) 169:18:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC) 3284:Physicist and Christian 3017:Weinberg, "Without God" 2919:when what is needed is 2735:Federal Realty Building 2493:instead of summary. -- 3681:Normal practice is to 3340: 3286:(pages 23-24, 66-67 ) 3183:Henry F. Schaefer, III 1681: 1323: 991: 836:McGrath did not write 756:The Christian Virtuoso 705:by Firefly322 is not " 285:Psychology of religion 261:Psychology of religion 3533:Definition of Science 3288: 2524:Edit History comments 1573:George Gabriel Stokes 1295:scientifc imperialism 314:. Doesn't look like 42:of past discussions. 3611:, on the grounds of 3547:biological evolution 3537:The current wording 2896:Theology and Science 2820:no original research 1958:Parallels in methods 1839:Religion and Science 1275:religious experience 850:The Dawkins Delusion 622:Dawkins & Gibbon 308:Great chain of being 273:Great chain of being 173:Differences between 3510:Do people consider 2269:Current scholarship 2237:, here's the diff: 1417:And in response to 1263:Biblical literalism 828:who believe(d) 'in 304:Scientific American 3668:" Simply adding a 3579:scientific society 3280:William G. Pollard 3178:William G. Pollard 3034:Explanatory power. 2898:, and also in the 2487:WP:mediation cabal 2452:User_talk:Ludwigs2 2048:is concerned. -- 1934:it say "It should 1671:Lord and Reverend 1577:Victoria Institute 553:The only parallel 237:The Tao of Physics 179:Scientific realism 3804:I had reverted it 3470: 3449: 2980:provision of our 2929:original research 2878: 2579:original research 2561:, instead of the 1257:Reverted addition 1135: 974:scientific method 529:religious studies 527:Peter Smith is a 431:Ignoratio elenchi 316:Stephen Jay Gould 300:Stephen Jay Gould 206:feminist theology 87: 86: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3849: 3821: 3715: 3690: 3684: 3677: 3671: 3571:Consensus Patrum 3526: 3512:template:Science 3506:Science template 3499: 3468: 3464: 3462: 3447: 3443: 3441: 3240:By the way, the 3090:is an outspoken 3041:The role of man. 2872: 2759: 2753: 2746: 2740: 2429:ScienceApologist 2411: 2408: 2372: 2369: 2344:ScienceApologist 2327: 2324: 2303:ScienceApologist 2240:. I agree with 2131: 2128: 1933: 1927: 1901: 1900: 1886: 1829:among scientists 1800:among scientists 1778: 1775: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1753: 1708: 1702: 1697: 1691: 1688: 1679: 1487: 1484: 1463: 1460: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1441: 1397: 1375: 1319:quatum mechanics 1311:electromagnetism 1248: 1245: 1179: 1139: 1129: 1120: 1119: 1078:ScienceApologist 1020: 1017: 938:Recent lede edit 931: 882: 838:The God Delusion 824:and people like 818:The God Delusion 808:McGrath footnote 786:may have been? 774: 748: 729: 654: 183:Critical realism 153: 152: 138: 68: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3857: 3856: 3852: 3851: 3850: 3848: 3847: 3846: 3819: 3810: 3773:Neither I, nor 3713: 3704: 3688: 3682: 3675: 3669: 3601: 3575:Paul Feyerabend 3566: 3535: 3524: 3515: 3508: 3497: 3488: 3480: 3478:Pew in the lead 3466: 3458: 3445: 3437: 3428: 3404:not a link farm 3363: 3276:Steven Weinberg 3272: 3088:Steven Weinberg 3023:Steven Weinberg 3019: 3004: 2887: 2861: 2757: 2751: 2744: 2738: 2710: 2708:Citation format 2526: 2449: 2409: 2406: 2370: 2367: 2340:Templeton Prize 2325: 2322: 2291: 2271: 2190: 2129: 2126: 2112:KillerChihuahua 1960: 1931: 1925: 1843: 1781: 1776: 1772: 1710: 1709: 1705: 1698: 1694: 1689: 1685: 1680: 1670: 1655:Richard Dawkins 1635: 1630: 1625: 1542: 1497: 1485: 1482: 1474: 1461: 1458: 1451: 1439: 1430: 1395: 1386: 1373: 1364: 1259: 1246: 1243: 1177: 1168: 1140: 1124: 1122: 1117: 1113: 1050:conflict thesis 1044:When you write 1018: 1015: 986:Michael Polanyi 944:Conflict thesis 940: 929: 920: 891: 880: 871: 814:Alister McGrath 810: 783: 772: 763: 746: 737: 727: 718: 700: 663: 652: 643: 628:Richard Dawkins 624: 335: 257: 202: 95: 92: 64: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3855: 3853: 3845: 3844: 3843: 3842: 3815: 3808: 3807: 3788: 3785: 3782: 3770: 3769: 3768: 3767: 3766: 3765: 3750: 3749: 3731: 3709: 3701: 3700: 3679: 3659: 3648: 3647: 3600: 3597: 3565: 3562: 3534: 3531: 3520: 3507: 3504: 3493: 3479: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3427: 3424: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3362: 3359: 3326: 3325: 3318: 3317: 3309: 3308: 3296: 3295: 3290:(pages 23-24) 3271: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3246:New York Times 3231: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3171:(for example, 3161:New York Times 3127: 3126: 3083: 3067: 3066: 3055: 3045: 3038: 3018: 3015: 3003: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2978:"undue weight" 2967: 2966: 2911:clear at all. 2886: 2885:Sourcing issue 2883: 2875:one for sorrow 2860: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2798: 2797: 2731: 2730: 2723: 2722: 2709: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2678: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2574: 2573: 2535:resolution? -- 2525: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2448: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2399: 2398: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2333: 2332: 2290: 2287: 2270: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2189: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2064: 1998: 1997: 1979: 1976: 1973: 1968: 1967: 1959: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1821: 1820: 1806: 1803: 1780: 1779: 1770: 1703: 1692: 1682: 1668: 1651:Charles Darwin 1634: 1631: 1629: 1626: 1624: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1557: 1541: 1538: 1496: 1493: 1473: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1435: 1391: 1369: 1346: 1345: 1342: 1336: 1333: 1330: 1271:Schleiermacher 1258: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1235: 1234: 1216: 1215: 1173: 1166: 1165: 1154: 1115: 1112: 1111:Merge proposal 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1042: 939: 936: 925: 918: 917: 910: 905:to be part of 899: 890: 887: 876: 869: 868: 861: 856: 853: 832:'s God' " as: 816:points out in 809: 806: 782: 779: 768: 742: 723: 699: 696: 695: 694: 680: 677: 674: 662: 659: 648: 623: 620: 619: 618: 617: 616: 615: 614: 613: 612: 611: 610: 609: 608: 607: 606: 605: 604: 582: 575: 569: 565: 558: 525: 485: 422: 421: 420: 419: 370: 369: 349:? It's odd. -- 334: 331: 267:mention them. 256: 253: 252: 251: 201: 198: 177:and realism ( 91: 88: 85: 84: 79: 74: 69: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3854: 3841: 3837: 3833: 3829: 3828: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3820: 3818: 3814: 3805: 3801: 3798:you had both 3797: 3793: 3789: 3786: 3783: 3780: 3776: 3772: 3771: 3764: 3760: 3756: 3752: 3751: 3748: 3744: 3740: 3736: 3732: 3729: 3725: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3721: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3714: 3712: 3708: 3698: 3694: 3687: 3680: 3674: 3667: 3663: 3660: 3657: 3653: 3650: 3649: 3646: 3642: 3638: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3626: 3622: 3618: 3614: 3610: 3606: 3598: 3596: 3595: 3591: 3587: 3584: 3580: 3576: 3572: 3563: 3561: 3560: 3556: 3552: 3548: 3544: 3540: 3532: 3530: 3529: 3525: 3523: 3519: 3513: 3505: 3503: 3502: 3498: 3496: 3492: 3485: 3477: 3473: 3469: 3463: 3461: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3448: 3442: 3440: 3434: 3425: 3417: 3413: 3409: 3405: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3395: 3391: 3387: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3374: 3370: 3366: 3360: 3358: 3357: 3353: 3349: 3345: 3339: 3336: 3332: 3324:(pages 66-67) 3323: 3322: 3321: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3306: 3305: 3304: 3302: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3287: 3285: 3281: 3277: 3269: 3259: 3255: 3251: 3247: 3243: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3222: 3218: 3214: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3196: 3192: 3188: 3184: 3179: 3174: 3173:Lewis Wolpert 3170: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3154: 3150: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3140: 3136: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3125: 3121: 3117: 3113: 3109: 3105: 3101: 3097: 3093: 3089: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3081: 3080: 3076: 3072: 3064: 3059: 3056: 3053: 3049: 3046: 3042: 3039: 3035: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3028: 3027:"Without God" 3024: 3016: 3014: 3013: 3010: 3001: 2995: 2991: 2987: 2983: 2979: 2975: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2965: 2961: 2957: 2953: 2949: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2938: 2934: 2930: 2926: 2922: 2918: 2912: 2909: 2905: 2901: 2897: 2893: 2884: 2882: 2881: 2876: 2871: 2866: 2859:Third Opinion 2858: 2854: 2850: 2846: 2842: 2837: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2828: 2825: 2821: 2812: 2809: 2806: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2796: 2792: 2788: 2784: 2780: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2770: 2767: 2763: 2756: 2748: 2743: 2736: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2715: 2707: 2695: 2691: 2687: 2683: 2679: 2677: 2673: 2669: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2659: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2644: 2641: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2632: 2628: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2592: 2588: 2584: 2580: 2576: 2575: 2571: 2567: 2564: 2560: 2557: 2553: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2542: 2538: 2534: 2529: 2523: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2488: 2484: 2480: 2476: 2473: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2453: 2446: 2438: 2434: 2430: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2415: 2412: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2384: 2383: 2376: 2373: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2353: 2349: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2331: 2328: 2319: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2296: 2288: 2286: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2268: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2247: 2243: 2239: 2236: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2226: 2222: 2217: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2204: 2200: 2196: 2187: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2152: 2151: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2132: 2122: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2113: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2091: 2087: 2083: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2055: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2028: 2024: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1996: 1992: 1988: 1984: 1980: 1977: 1974: 1970: 1969: 1966: 1962: 1961: 1957: 1949: 1945: 1941: 1937: 1930: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1913: 1909: 1905: 1899: 1895: 1892: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1874: 1871: 1868: 1865: 1862: 1859: 1856: 1853: 1849: 1846: 1845:Find sources: 1840: 1836: 1833:According to 1832: 1828: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1804: 1801: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1790: 1786: 1774: 1771: 1766: 1762: 1759: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1744: 1741: 1738: 1735: 1732: 1729: 1726: 1723: 1720: 1716: 1713: 1712:Find sources: 1707: 1704: 1701: 1696: 1693: 1687: 1684: 1678: 1674: 1667: 1665: 1658: 1656: 1652: 1648: 1647:Sigmund Freud 1644: 1640: 1632: 1627: 1622: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1598: 1593: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1583: 1578: 1574: 1569: 1565: 1564: 1562: 1558: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1539: 1537: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1523: 1519: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1505: 1504:User:Ludwigs2 1501: 1494: 1492: 1491: 1488: 1479: 1471: 1467: 1464: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1440: 1438: 1434: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1415: 1413: 1409: 1408: 1401: 1400: 1396: 1394: 1390: 1384: 1379: 1378: 1374: 1372: 1368: 1362: 1358: 1355: 1351: 1343: 1341: 1337: 1334: 1331: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1322: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1307:Netwon's laws 1304: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1287:neo-orthodoxy 1284: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1256: 1252: 1249: 1240: 1237: 1236: 1233: 1229: 1225: 1221: 1218: 1217: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1183: 1182: 1178: 1176: 1172: 1163: 1159: 1155: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1147: 1145: 1138: 1133: 1128: 1110: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1083: 1079: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1021: 1012: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1000: 996: 990: 987: 983: 979: 975: 971: 967: 961: 958: 957: 953: 949: 945: 937: 935: 934: 930: 928: 924: 915: 911: 908: 904: 900: 897: 893: 892: 888: 886: 885: 881: 879: 875: 866: 862: 860: 857: 854: 851: 847: 843: 839: 835: 834: 833: 831: 827: 823: 819: 815: 807: 805: 804: 800: 796: 795:Calamitybrook 791: 787: 781:Third Opinion 780: 778: 777: 773: 771: 767: 761: 757: 752: 751: 747: 745: 741: 733: 732: 728: 726: 722: 716: 712: 708: 704: 693: 689: 685: 681: 678: 675: 672: 671: 670: 668: 658: 657: 653: 651: 647: 640: 638: 637:Sigmund Freud 633: 632:Edward Gibbon 629: 621: 603: 599: 595: 594:MARussellPESE 591: 587: 583: 580: 576: 573: 572: 570: 566: 563: 559: 556: 552: 551: 550: 546: 542: 538: 534: 530: 526: 524: 520: 516: 512: 508: 507: 506: 502: 498: 497:MARussellPESE 494: 490: 486: 482: 481: 480: 476: 472: 468: 464: 459: 455: 451: 450: 449: 445: 441: 440:MARussellPESE 436: 432: 428: 427: 426: 425: 424: 423: 418: 414: 410: 406: 402: 398: 394: 390: 386: 385: 384: 380: 376: 375:MARussellPESE 372: 371: 367: 363: 362: 361: 360: 356: 352: 348: 344: 340: 333:Undue weight? 332: 330: 329: 325: 321: 317: 313: 312:Scala naturae 309: 305: 301: 298: 294: 290: 286: 282: 281:Julian Huxley 278: 277:Scala naturae 274: 270: 266: 265:Sigmund Freud 262: 254: 250: 246: 242: 238: 234: 233:Fritjof Capra 230: 226: 223:According to 222: 221: 220: 219: 215: 211: 207: 199: 197: 196: 192: 188: 184: 180: 176: 171: 170: 166: 162: 157: 151: 147: 144: 141: 137: 133: 129: 126: 123: 120: 117: 114: 111: 108: 105: 101: 98: 97:Find sources: 89: 83: 80: 78: 75: 73: 70: 67: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3811: 3809: 3795: 3778: 3728:edit summary 3705: 3702: 3693:pre-existing 3692: 3665: 3655: 3602: 3578: 3567: 3538: 3536: 3516: 3509: 3489: 3483: 3481: 3459: 3438: 3429: 3364: 3341: 3334: 3331:Marine Corps 3327: 3319: 3310: 3300: 3297: 3289: 3273: 3220: 3216: 3212: 3103: 3082: 3068: 3062: 3057: 3047: 3040: 3033: 3020: 3005: 2973: 2925:this article 2920: 2916: 2913: 2907: 2903: 2899: 2895: 2891: 2888: 2870:Regents Park 2862: 2817: 2762:Romany Marie 2749: 2732: 2724: 2711: 2681: 2582: 2569: 2565: 2563:twenty-three 2558: 2551: 2527: 2483:John Habgood 2475:John Habgood 2450: 2317: 2292: 2272: 2194: 2191: 2120: 2082:WP:IMPERFECT 2005:WP:IMPERFECT 1963: 1935: 1893: 1887: 1879: 1872: 1866: 1860: 1854: 1844: 1838: 1835:John Habgood 1830: 1826: 1799: 1782: 1773: 1760: 1754: 1746: 1739: 1733: 1727: 1721: 1711: 1706: 1695: 1686: 1673:John Habgood 1663: 1660: 1636: 1599: 1584: 1560: 1553: 1549: 1543: 1522:John Habgood 1498: 1477: 1475: 1431: 1426: 1416: 1406: 1405: 1402: 1387: 1382: 1380: 1365: 1360: 1357:WP:IMPERFECT 1353: 1349: 1347: 1324: 1261: 1238: 1224:Aunt Entropy 1219: 1200: 1184: 1169: 1167: 1161: 1157: 1148: 1141: 1074: 1053: 1045: 1010: 992: 963: 959: 941: 921: 919: 903:Bahá'í Faith 896:NationMaster 872: 870: 848:book, or if 845: 841: 837: 811: 792: 788: 784: 764: 753: 738: 734: 719: 714: 707:WP:IMPERFECT 701: 664: 644: 641: 625: 561: 536: 509:I have. See 463:Baha'i Faith 454:Baha'i Faith 434: 405:Baha'i Faith 393:Baha'i Faith 389:Baha'i Faith 366:Baha'i Faith 336: 258: 236: 204:Viewed from 203: 172: 156:Fictionalism 145: 139: 131: 124: 118: 112: 106: 96: 93: 65: 43: 37: 3617:WP:DEMOLISH 3564:Magisterium 3551:94.101.5.97 3543:archaeology 3386:WP:COATRACK 3244:is not the 3157:WP:RELIABLE 3052:al-Ghazzali 2783:this format 2779:this format 2712:When using 2650:tendentious 2479:Ian Barbour 2464:Ian Barbour 1870:free images 1737:free images 1664:religiously 1623:New section 1563:come from? 1472:bad reverts 1279:World War I 1267:creationism 1265:has led to 491:and is not 229:Ecofeminism 122:free images 36:This is an 3832:Tryptofish 3779:explicitly 3755:Tryptofish 3739:Tryptofish 3637:Tryptofish 3621:Tryptofish 3390:Firefly322 3369:Firefly322 3361:COI Hazard 3348:Firefly322 3187:Firefly322 3116:Firefly322 2956:Firefly322 2654:Firefly322 2605:Firefly322 2556:only three 2552:formatting 2537:Firefly322 2495:Firefly322 2462:) such as 2295:Ken Wilber 2289:Ken Wilber 2251:Firefly322 2246:User:Hrafn 2235:User:Hrafn 2221:Firefly322 2216:User:Hrafn 2156:Firefly322 2141:Firefly322 2098:Firefly322 2050:Firefly322 2009:Firefly322 1965:otherwise. 1904:Firefly322 1785:Firefly322 1607:Firefly322 1527:Firefly322 1423:WP:BAITing 1361:unreadable 1315:relativity 1283:Karl Barth 1095:Firefly322 1058:Firefly322 1032:Firefly322 995:Firefly322 948:Firefly322 852:is meant). 684:Firefly322 669:articles: 630:, in 1776 541:Firefly322 515:Firefly322 471:Firefly322 409:Firefly322 351:Firefly322 339:Firefly322 320:Firefly322 289:Firefly322 241:Firefly322 210:Firefly322 187:Firefly322 175:Empiricism 161:Firefly322 3775:WP:BURDEN 3662:WP:BURDEN 3613:WP:BURDEN 3605:this edit 3153:WP:SOURCE 3108:consensus 2986:Guettarda 2984:policy. 2933:Guettarda 2917:anecdotes 2836:Guettarda 2824:Athaenara 2805:Athaenara 2787:Guettarda 2766:Athaenara 2686:Guettarda 2668:Guettarda 2627:Guettarda 2587:Guettarda 2510:Guettarda 2388:Guettarda 2276:Guettarda 2242:Guettarda 2199:Guettarda 2195:footnotes 2068:Guettarda 2023:Guettarda 1987:Guettarda 1940:Guettarda 1810:Guettarda 1643:Nietzsche 1639:Feuerbach 1350:rewritten 1329:Unsourced 1325:This is: 1301:based on 1187:Guettarda 1164:article). 1158:community 914:WP:POINTy 865:synthesis 703:This edit 533:Hans Kung 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 72:Archive 3 66:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 3609:reverted 3344:Academia 3112:Academia 2921:evidence 2865:footnote 2845:Verdatum 2714:cite web 2188:Overview 2094:WP:CIVIL 2042:WP:CIVIL 1983:WP:SYNTH 1554:ontology 1514:WP:SYNTH 1478:supposed 1359:, it is 1127:Eldereft 1121:Resolved 989:beliefs. 966:religion 826:Einstein 579:WP:Undue 574:On topic 562:directly 269:WP:UNDUE 3664:: "The 3408:Leivick 3149:atheist 3100:atheist 3096:atheist 3092:atheist 2982:WP:NPOV 2904:Science 2742:reflist 2570:content 2460:WP:PSTS 2447:Vision? 2407:Ludwigs 2368:Ludwigs 2323:Ludwigs 2127:Ludwigs 1876:WP refs 1864:scholar 1743:WP refs 1731:scholar 1601:empire. 1586:faiths. 1518:WP:NPOV 1483:Ludwigs 1459:Ludwigs 1412:WP:CITE 1383:explain 1244:Ludwigs 1239:Support 1220:Support 1201:Support 1054:meaning 1016:Ludwigs 970:science 830:Spinoza 667:Science 397:Galileo 347:Raëlism 263:nor on 128:WP refs 116:scholar 39:archive 3794:until 3735:Javert 3484:really 3460:Verbal 3439:Verbal 3433:WP:MOS 3426:Quotes 3063:expect 2841:WP:SYN 2645:, and 2090:WP:AGF 2086:WP:AGF 2038:WP:AGF 1902:. -- 1848:Google 1715:Google 1653:, and 1510:WP:NOR 1404:) are 1317:, and 1303:Newton 1293:as in 978:prayer 842:quoted 822:Deists 568:apart. 401:Newton 100:Google 3817:Stalk 3813:Hrafn 3796:after 3711:Stalk 3707:Hrafn 3697:WP:OR 3691:-tag 3522:Stalk 3518:Hrafn 3495:Stalk 3491:Hrafn 3165:Zygon 3044:many. 3037:work. 2954:. -- 2892:Zygon 2566:links 2559:links 2491:WP:OR 2244:that 1891:JSTOR 1852:books 1758:JSTOR 1719:books 1437:Stalk 1433:Hrafn 1393:Stalk 1389:Hrafn 1371:Stalk 1367:Hrafn 1340:truth 1291:truth 1205:Bduke 1175:Stalk 1171:Hrafn 1132:cont. 1011:we're 982:truth 927:Stalk 923:Hrafn 916:idea. 907:Islam 878:Stalk 874:Hrafn 770:Stalk 766:Hrafn 744:Stalk 740:Hrafn 725:Stalk 721:Hrafn 650:Stalk 646:Hrafn 590:WP:OR 493:WP:OR 484:take? 467:WP:OR 458:WP:OR 143:JSTOR 104:books 16:< 3836:talk 3802:and 3759:talk 3743:talk 3686:fact 3673:fact 3652:WP:V 3641:talk 3625:talk 3590:talk 3555:talk 3545:and 3467:chat 3446:chat 3412:talk 3394:talk 3388:. -- 3373:talk 3352:talk 3254:talk 3248:. -- 3191:talk 3155:and 3139:talk 3120:talk 3075:talk 3009:Axlq 2990:talk 2972:Not 2960:talk 2952:WP:3 2937:talk 2902:and 2849:talk 2791:talk 2733:See 2690:talk 2672:talk 2658:talk 2631:talk 2609:talk 2601:WP:3 2591:talk 2541:talk 2533:WP:3 2514:talk 2499:talk 2433:talk 2392:talk 2348:talk 2307:talk 2299:lead 2280:talk 2255:talk 2225:talk 2203:talk 2160:talk 2145:talk 2102:talk 2072:talk 2054:talk 2046:WP:5 2027:talk 2013:talk 2007:. -- 1991:talk 1944:talk 1938:". 1929:find 1908:talk 1884:FENS 1858:news 1814:talk 1789:talk 1751:FENS 1725:news 1611:talk 1566:See 1531:talk 1419:this 1228:talk 1209:talk 1191:talk 1162:this 1099:talk 1082:talk 1062:talk 1056:. -- 1036:talk 999:talk 976:and 968:and 952:talk 846:this 799:talk 688:talk 598:talk 588:and 586:WP:V 555:that 545:talk 519:talk 501:talk 489:WP:V 475:talk 444:talk 435:very 413:talk 399:nor 379:talk 355:talk 343:talk 324:talk 293:talk 245:talk 231:and 214:talk 191:talk 165:talk 136:FENS 110:news 3586:ADM 3250:FOo 3135:FOo 3071:FOo 2974:all 2931:. 2908:are 2781:or 2682:why 2583:why 2481:or 2466:'s 2293:Is 2121:our 2092:or 1985:. 1898:TWL 1765:TWL 1427:yes 1425:-- 1407:not 1354:not 1299:God 1273:'s 844:in 762:). 469:.-- 235:'s 181:or 154:), 150:TWL 3838:) 3761:) 3745:) 3689:}} 3683:{{ 3676:}} 3670:{{ 3643:) 3627:) 3592:) 3557:) 3414:) 3396:) 3375:) 3354:) 3256:) 3217:." 3193:) 3141:) 3122:) 3077:) 3025:, 2992:) 2962:) 2939:) 2894:, 2851:) 2827:✉ 2808:✉ 2793:) 2769:✉ 2758:}} 2755:rp 2752:{{ 2745:}} 2739:{{ 2692:) 2674:) 2660:) 2642:, 2633:) 2611:) 2593:) 2543:) 2516:) 2501:) 2435:) 2394:) 2365:-- 2350:) 2318:is 2309:) 2282:) 2257:) 2227:) 2205:) 2162:) 2147:) 2104:) 2074:) 2056:) 2029:) 2015:) 1993:) 1946:) 1932:}} 1926:{{ 1910:) 1878:) 1816:) 1791:) 1745:) 1669:— 1649:, 1645:, 1641:, 1613:) 1533:) 1516:, 1512:, 1502:, 1456:-- 1414:. 1363:. 1313:, 1269:; 1230:) 1211:) 1193:) 1123:– 1101:) 1084:) 1064:) 1038:) 1001:) 993:-- 954:) 801:) 690:) 600:) 592:) 547:) 521:) 503:) 477:) 446:) 415:) 381:) 357:) 326:) 302:, 247:) 216:) 193:) 167:) 130:) 3834:( 3757:( 3741:( 3639:( 3623:( 3588:( 3553:( 3410:( 3392:( 3371:( 3350:( 3252:( 3189:( 3137:( 3118:( 3073:( 2988:( 2958:( 2935:( 2877:) 2873:( 2847:( 2789:( 2688:( 2670:( 2656:( 2629:( 2607:( 2589:( 2539:( 2512:( 2497:( 2431:( 2410:2 2390:( 2371:2 2346:( 2326:2 2305:( 2278:( 2253:( 2223:( 2201:( 2158:( 2143:( 2130:2 2100:( 2070:( 2052:( 2025:( 2011:( 1989:( 1942:( 1906:( 1894:· 1888:· 1880:· 1873:· 1867:· 1861:· 1855:· 1850:( 1831:: 1812:( 1802:? 1787:( 1761:· 1755:· 1747:· 1740:· 1734:· 1728:· 1722:· 1717:( 1609:( 1529:( 1486:2 1462:2 1321:. 1247:2 1226:( 1207:( 1189:( 1134:) 1130:( 1097:( 1080:( 1060:( 1034:( 1019:2 997:( 950:( 867:. 797:( 686:( 596:( 581:) 543:( 517:( 499:( 473:( 442:( 411:( 377:( 353:( 341:( 322:( 310:( 291:( 275:( 243:( 212:( 189:( 163:( 146:· 140:· 132:· 125:· 119:· 113:· 107:· 102:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index