Talk:God's Philosophers

Hello, my name is Hamish. I'll be rebuilding this stub for a university project.

Barbarianhamish (talk) 06:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Notability?

I notice that James Hannam doesn't have a wikipedia entry. Is he not notable enough? Even if someone thinks he is a fringe scholar, I would think he at least deserves his own page. Anyone else?

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.96.36 (talk) 03:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The author's web page makes a pronouncement that I'm guessing would be controversial:

• Historians now utterly reject the idea that science and religion have been locked in a great conflict throughout history. [1]

Is this something he hopes has happened, as with the view that Medieval Christianity supported Flat Earth theory? Or is this really the new paradigm? I've read a lot of articles and (parts of) books, indicating that religious people (now as well as back in the "Dark Ages" before the Renaissance), were anti-scientific thought. So I'm wondering whether this is case where "common knowledge" is incorrect, or spot on, or what? --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Uncle Ed,

As far as I can tell, that quote is accurate. Important historians of science like David C. Lindberg have argued against the great conflict between science and religion throughout history. [http://www.amazon.com/Beginnings-Western-Science-Philosophical-Institutional/dp/0226482057] The Wikipedia article on the relationship between science and religion lists similar objections to strong versions of the conflict thesis. It would therefore seem to a layman like me that this quoted statement is not controversial.

It is clearly undeniable that there are still dissenters around who continue to cling on to the strong version of the conflict thesis, but these are a fringe (though their supporters might be vocal (or even dominant) on the internet).

Due to the excellent reviews the book received, I think it is certain that there is absolutely no need to call the integrity of the author's research into question, so I do not think it is something he hopes has happened.

I am aware I did not so much provide solid proof as give some indications, but I am positive some further research will yield the conclusion that the strong version of the conflict thesis is rejected by modern scholarship.

Greetings, Darth Viller (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on God's Philosophers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110716015223/http://www.sciencespin.com/reviews/index/125853928598343.html to http://www.sciencespin.com/reviews/index/125853928598343.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)