Talk:Religion and science community

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Relationship between religion and science#Religion and science community]] The anchor (#Religion and science community) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Might want to include this article

Science 15 August 1997: Vol. 277. no. 5328, pp. 890 - 893

SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY: Science and God: A Warming Trend? Gregg Easterbrook

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.224.240.22 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article in existence?

This article appears to be a pointless and virtually-contentless WP:Content forking of Relationship between religion and science. Do we have articles for Chemistry community or Linguistics community? I think not. 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. This would not appear to be such a case. If somebody wants to make a case for its existence, then I would suggest that they do so expeditiously, otherwise I will soon be, in the first instance redirecting, and if that doesn't take, will be AfDing, this article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of this article has significant references. The term of a "religion and science community" is present within peer-reviewed journal articles and can be found as the main topic within them. That is why this article is justified. As for the lack of what would appear to be similar x or y articles, this is not a convincing argument per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS#General avoidance principle, especially about a topic that is explicity written about in peer-reviewed journals. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The topic 'Religion and science community' does not have "significant references".
- It absolutely does have good references. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The mere presence of the bare mention of the term "within peer-reviewed journal articles" is irrelevant, as an enormous number of three-word combinations occur throughout such articles, which is in no way probative of whether a topic is notable.
- The article: Zygon, volume 43, issue 1, March 2008, pages 3-7 is four pages on the topic of the religion and science community. It's not a 3/4 word mention, this is quite false. And to make such a patently false claim degrades the sense of trust in the wikipedia editorial community. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that it's neither an "article" nor "peer-reviewed" -- it's an editorial from Philip Hefner, the retiring editor of that journal (and thus a personal opinion). As such, it is perfectly appropriate for him to discuss the community within which he's been working -- but that does not indicate that this community is itself a subject of academic study. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Editors of peer-reviewed journals are perhaps unique sources of reliable information. All the same, an expanded version of that article's topic was peer reviewed two to three years earlier, because Philip Hefner wrote pages 562-576 of The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science analyzing the differences in science, religion, and religion-and-science communities. All the articles in this book were peer reviewed by an editorial committee that included John Polkinghorne, Arthur Peacocke, Ian Barbour, Nancey Murphy, and Jeffrey Schloss according to its acknowledgements on page v. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have provided no evidence that any of these "peer-reviewed journal articles" have the "Religion and science community" as their main topic. You certainly have not cited any in the references for this article.
- The article certainly does. Again, Zygon, volume 43, issue 1, March 2008, pages 3-7 is four pages on the topic of the religion and science community. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your hapless invocation of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS#General avoidance principle is unavailing. This topic is clearly a (fairly small and ill-covered) subtopic/alternate-vantage-point of that of Relationship between religion and science, and so this article is a WP:Content forking of it. All of its (tiny amount of) content could as happily sit there as in this article -- in fact most of it seems more closely related to the field of scholarship than the 'community' of scholars.
- Your use of hapless is disparaging and tests the patience of WP:AGF. As for its revelance, I believe it's merely slander and venonem that has no basis in sound editoral decision-making, nor any place in any community: that of wikipedia or of science and religion. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafn is just writing without reading about the topic. For the study of this term Religion and science community has been the focus of articles in peer reviewed journals and books. It is not a random 3/4 phrase, it has been also been the title and focus of a section on page 574 of a chapter with supporting material in the book: Religion-and-Science Philip Hefner, in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science Philip Clayton(ed.), Zachary Simpson(associate-ed.)--Hardcover 2006, paperback July 2008-Oxford University Press, 1023 pages --Firefly322 (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear that the "community" that Hefner (who also being the author of the above editorial, appears to be this concept's sole advocate) describes in pp 574-575 of that book is in existence or not. He talks of it being on the 'boundary' between the academic and religious communities -- whereas the existing community studying the relationship between religion and science exists fully within the academic community, as an interdisciplinary field between religious studies and philosophy & history of science. To the extent that this topic is non-overlapping with relationship between religion and science, it would thus appear to be purely speculative and WP:CRYSTAL. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The topics in the Oxford University Press handbook were selected by an editorial committee. The inclusion of Hefner's chapter in this handbook suggests that Herner's writings on this topic was subjected to a serious peer review process. To call it speculative and WP:CRYSTAL is disparaging to its well-respected editors who include John Polkinghorne, Arthur Peacocke, and Ian Barbour. And to say that what Hefner means by community is unclear goes beyond the limits of doubt, it is clear that he is refering to other scholars such as ::Holmes Rolston III of whom we can be quite confident in by way of confirmation holism. Rolston is refering to this science-and-religion community as a no-man's land. . --Firefly322 (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hrafn - this should be merged into the Relationship between religion and science‎ article. If it develops into something substantial enough to deserve its own article, then it could be spun back out into a separate article (with a summary remaining in the main article). For the time being, merge it back into the main article. Guettarda (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis do you agree with him? Have you read the references? Nothing in this article was ever taken or copied from the Relationship between religion and science article. It's completely original content, with completely original sources. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this article could be merged with one of two articles depending on what 'Religion and science community' is taken to mean:

If it means 'the community that studies the relationship between religion and science' then it should, uncontroversially, be merged into that article.
Some other nebulously-proposed community called the 'Science-And-Religion community' (note the hyphens), of Philip Hefner's conception -- in which case it should be merged with that article.

In neither case does a substantive topic exist independently. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These comments suggest that there is no clear defintion for the article Relationship between religion and science, which is good reason not to merge any articles to it. Is Relationship between religion and science about the relationship of Science with Religious studies or Theology? If Hrafn thinks it's supposed to be about both, then it's OR. For no reputiable scholar merges these two fields of study: the journals and the scholarship for Religious studies and Theology are distinct. Hrafn's calling for merger, especially under the article's and his vague definitions of topic is tantamount to calling for the creation and expansion of an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It suggests nothing of the sort. The only "suggestion" is that as Hefner appears to be suggesting a "community" that could/should/might be positioned on the boundary between the academic community and the religious community , rather than being situated within the academic community (on the boundary between religious studies and philosophy & history of science), as the current community that studies the relationship between religion and science is. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the "defintion for the article Relationship between religion and science". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you are trying to be coy and ambigious, but nothing of the sort is fairly accurate here, at least by Holmes Rolston III's assessment. In his book re-published by the Templeton Foundation, Holmes Rolston III states that he is a member of a no-man's land. Rolston's book discusses the interface as a community (for what else has the null space limit of a no-man's land, but a community?) and this description is extraordinarly consistent with Hefner's. This article has been from the beginning based on at least two major science and religion community figures and two pieces of writing that have largely independent yet consistent descriptions. Much of both figure's wrtiing would be out of place in Academia-type religious studies journal or article, Hefner and Rolston are clearly stating this. As far as I know two largely independent, highly reliable sources is the general rule of thumb to start and maintain an article as a merge-resistant stub. Also the theology-based journals and the research centers mentioned in the article are too close to religion for the normal criteria of objectivity found in an Academia-type religious studies program or journal article, and hence the conflict of merging it with religious studies content, which tends to WP:CREEP into Relationship between religion and science article. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Firefly322 has garbled the meaning of 'no-man's land'. It normally can either mean:

Literally, an uninhabited area -- unlikely, but also surely not a 'community' -- due to the lack of inhabitants.
Metaphorically, the implication that it is being fired upon from both sides. This is also unlikely, as the more anti-theistic members of the scientific community are more likely to attack religion directly and overlook those waving olive branches on the border completely -- and I rather suspect the more militant conflict thesisists on the religious side would take a similar view. This would render Rolston not so much in no-man's land as Switzerland (or perhaps Cold War Finland).

No-man's land is never a good place to be. Then again, as all we have been provided with in the article is Rolston's bald metaphor, without any real context to interpret it, who knows? But this lack of context and any flesh-on-the-bones is one of the problems with the material currently in the article -- wherever it ends up being situated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrafn (talk • contribs) 19:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holmes Rolston III's quote using the term no-man's land is a fairly straight-forward description. For the purposes of this article, what would matter here is Holmes Rolston III's contextual meaning of no-man's land. I admit that comparing your nothing of the sort to no-man's land is supposed to be a poetic Segue. It was not meant to cause confusion. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the lede

Considering that Hrafn stated conflictingly that this article should be AFD'd or merged, his or her edits to the lede along with the tags above it should be considered as efforts to deface the article. The earlier sentence's phrase no-man's land had a wiki-linked and had references. I ask that he please stop changing until someone impartial from WP:3 can take a look at it. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"wiki-linked and had references" -- and completely and utterly uninformative -- as this cryptic truncated quote fails utterly to give the reader any understanding of in what manner, or for what reasons, Rolston considers the community to be a "no-man's land". A reader should not have to click links or look up references just to find out what a statement means. 05:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why anyone is fighting here - there seems to be pretty clear consensus to merge. Why waste time on this article? Guettarda (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The full quote is much more appropriate - simply saying "no-man's land" (with or without a link) isn't helpful to the reader. Of course, this article isn't helpful to the reader. Reading Hefner's Zygon editorial at least explains why anyone would talk about a "religion-and-science" field. The full Rolston quote is a step in the right direction - without that, there's really nothing to merge at all. Guettarda (talk) 07:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

Dropped by, seems resolved, bye. Fr33kman^{talk APW} 01:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]