This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
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?
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)[reply]
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 excellentreviewsthebookreceived, 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.
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:
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.
