Talk:Christianity and science
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christianity and science article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 years  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
al-Mas'udi
[edit]Can I add the following: "Muslim historian, geographer, traveler, and polymath al-Mas'udi (known as the "Herodotus of the Arabs") (896-956) wrote:
− −
"In the time of the Hellenes and during the early days of the empire of the Rum [the Byzantines] (...) the sciences were honored and enjoyed universal respect. From an already solid and grandiose foundation, they were raised to greater heights every day, until the Christian religion made its appearance among the Rum; this was a fatal blow to the edifice of learning; its traces disappeared and its pathways were effaced."[1] </blockquote"
after: "However, it is a very long time since these attitudes have been held by historians of science.}}</ref>[2][3] and the majority of scientists in elite universities in the U.S. do not hold a conflict view.[4]"
References
- ↑ Athanassiadi, Polymnia (2017). Mutations of Hellenism in Late Antiquity. p. 28.
{{cite book}}: Unknown parameter|Publisher=ignored (|publisher=suggested) (help)- ↑ Brooke, J. H. (1991). Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge University Press. p. 42.
In its traditional forms, the conflict thesis has been largely discredited.- ↑ Ferngren, G.B. (2002). Ferngren, G.B. (ed.). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. x. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.
... while [John] Brooke's view [of a complexity thesis rather than an historical conflict thesis] has gained widespread acceptance among professional historians of science, the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind.- ↑ Ecklund, Elaine Howard; Park, Jerry Z. (2009). "Conflict Between Religion and Science Among Academic Scientists?". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 48 (2): 276–292. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2009.01447.x.
This article is severely biased
[edit]While there is without a doubt useful information, lines such as "The Byzantine Empire was one of the peaks in Christian history and Christian civilization" or "Cistercian architecture is considered one of the most beautiful styles of medieval architecture" show that the author has a clear bias.
Additionally, the author goes to the trouble of mentioning on five separate occasions how many Nobel Prizes have been earned by Christians, including in subjects such as Peace or Literature that are entirely unrelated to the sciences.
The section "Modern Reception" consists of a list of Christian scientists, an (uncriticized) claim that Christianity led to the Scientific Revolution, a list of Christian Nobel Prize recipients, a short section on criticisms of Christianity, and a section on Galileo that attempts to vindicate the actions of the Catholic Church and place the blame on him.
As to the section on criticism (i.e. the idea that Christianity is in conflict with science) is only three paragraphs. The first paragraph states that criticism is rare in academic circles, the second paragraph states that criticism is "more propaganda than history", and the final paragraph claims that the thesis was motivated primarily by anti-Catholic sentiments.
All in all, the article needs to be, if not entirely rewritten, highly scrutinized. Putting aside any current biases, the fact that there's no mention of any actual disagreements other than Galileo's is enough to warrant a closer look. OrdinaryComix (talk) 02:21, 16 April 2026 (UTC)