Talk:Relationship between religion and science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Comment on reference

An anon editor recently observed that one of the references in the 'scientific views of religion' section may be inappropriate. I've commented out their notation of this, since it disrupts the text of the article. The reference still needs to be checked. Michaelbusch 00:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please reference this view "Islam took an even harder line, canonizing Medieval science and effectively bringing an end to further scientific advance in the Muslim world". It seems an unproven claim, Islamic scientest and Islamic science has flourished under Islam for many centuries. Also, its "end" as this quote says cannot be ascribed to Islam as there are many possible reasons for the decline of scientific thought in any culture. Any claim that Islam has somehow caused this must be backed, I will for now remove it until someone can actually cite something. 62.150.204.210 (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Fad

[edit] anon

"They employ different methods and address different questions." That, I think, is an opinionated and particularly egregious statement considering the sentences that follow (and considering which truth propositions religious persons assent to on the basis of what evidence. It would be lovely if science and religion didn't tangle, as Gould envisions, but I think the fact of the matter is that (in practice) they do. When people talk about the creation of man by god or the ressurection or miracles that occur in their lives, they mean what they say and (contrary to these intellectual rationalizations) are not speaking symbolically. People really believe this stuff.

[edit] Too much POV

I believe this article focuses too much on how Science and Religion are compatible and too little on the actual conflicts between the two and the differences in thought, such as Evolution vs. Creationism/ID, Round Earth vs. Flat Earth and Big Bang vs. Young Earth. -ramz- 21:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And let's not forget:
Conflict between religion and science is common when religious people get careless and make testable claims about the real world which exceed the knowledge of their day, based on nothing more than what they claim to be divine revelation (which, whenever testable, turns out to function exactly like imagination). Centuries of experience have shown divine revelation to be next to useless compared to the scientific method for understanding and explaining the real world. That is why governments spend billions of dollars to fund scientific research rather than religions when the goal is to produce tangible results, and why modern nations no longer sacrifice virgins to the rain gods (no amount of sacrifice changes the probability of rain). (Some nations such as Saudi Arabia do still fund state religions, but arguably they would get more for their investment by spending that money on science.)
Relationship between religion and science does seem to gloss over the many specific conflicts between science and various religions. A start would be to build a comprehensive list of links in the See also section to existing articles which document these conflicts. Perhaps a "Survey of conflicts between science and religion" section could summarize them. --Teratornis 04:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That's because this article is hugely biased in favor of NOMA. ThAtSo 15:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


I think the article seems to be written from a NOMA advocater's view, trying to minimize the conflict between religion and science. I think the part in the beginning claiming that science answers "how and what", while religion answers "why", is a splendid example of NOMA in action. I think this article is in need of a big NPOV rewrite, does anyone disagree? 82.183.140.150 11:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


EDIT: I think the whole "Science attempts to answer the "how" and "what" questions of observable and verifiable phenomena; religion attempts to answer the "why" questions of value, morals and spirituality. Some religious authority also extends to "how" and "what" questions regarding the natural world, creating the potential for conflict." part should be removed.

First, I think this "what and how" versus "why" is utter nonsense. What exactly is a why question? And why does only religion answer question about morals andvaluse? What about the nonreligious philosophers?

Also, religion makes many claims about the natural and material world. That "some religious authority" thinks that religious dogma explains the natural world is laughable NOMA POV. Is there any supernatural religion which does not make claims about the natural? 82.183.140.150 11:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

On the morals and values. Non-religious philosophers discuss morals, but philosophy is not a science. It may be origin of sciences, but it is not a science in itself. DanielDemaret (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Error in Quoting Ecklund Study

The following statement in the article is a well-known Internet fraud (I am not of course suggesting misconduct on the part of anyone here):

>A recent survey conducted by Elaine Ecklund of Rice University and funded by the Templeton Foundation found that approximately 38% of scientists do not believe in a God. This survey was conducted in 2004 and is on-going.

As Ecklund herself has publicly stated of her research (http://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Ecklund/ ):

>When asked their beliefs about God, nearly 34 percent of academic scientists answer “I do not believe in God” and about 30 percent answer “I do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out,” the classic agnostic response.

I.e., over 60 percent do not believe in God: less then 40 % are believers.

This confirms a survey conducted a decade or so ago and reported in the New York Times: ( http://ffrf.org/timely/angier.php ) :

“What's more, in some quarters, atheism, far from being rare, is the norm -- among scientists, for example, particularly high-level scientists who populate academia. Recently, Edward J. Larson, a science historian at the University of Georgia, and Larry Witham, a writer, polled scientists listed in American Men and Women of Science on their religious beliefs. Among this general group, a reasonably high proportion, 40 percent, claimed to believe in a "personal God" who would listen to their prayers. But when the researchers next targeted members of the National Academy of Sciences, an elite coterie if ever there was one, belief in a personal God was 7 percent, the flip of the American public at large.”

The false information about Ecklund’s study was exposed well over a year ago by Dr. John Bice (http://www.statenews.com/op_article.phtml?pk=35422 ) who spoke directly with Ecklund to confrim the fraud (apparently, Dr. Ecklund’s own essay was not on the Web at that time).

This fraud, which has been floating around the Internet, appears to have originated in a false report on livescience (http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html ), due I assume to a failure to adequately fact-check, which was then picked up and run verbatim, without fact checking, by MSNBC ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8916982/ ).

It’s nice to see the high journalistic standards of national media such as MSNBC!

As someone new to the editing process here, I do not wish to make the change myself; however, this needs to be corrected, the older study should also be cited, and the fact that Ecklund’s study confirms the older study’s result that only a minority of scientists seem to believe in God should be mentioned.

Dave Miller Drdavidhmiller 23:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy of Science section

I edited the Philosophy of science section (I wasn't logged in) in order to: 1.) remove obvious bias (e.g., statements like "This allows theism to be sustained despite the fact that, caveats aside, theism is not a rational conclusion to take given such evidence"), and 2.) correct niave descriptions of the philosophies mentioned (e.g., "Confirmation holism instead focuses upon avoiding dangerous confirmation bias effects, which scientists are supposed to avoid, but which are present in some religious arguments").

I fleshed out and corrected the descriptions of the philosophies of science mentioned and tried to minimize bias in all directions, and I think I did fairly well. (Believe me, as a fundimentalist Christian I would have loved to have addressed the problem of evil, the nature of worldviews constituting them as religions [albeit not necessarily organized or formalized], the tenacity of epistemologically central ideas, etc; but that would have been off-topic and POV).

My edit was reverted as allegedly POV. I am reinstating the changes and ask that any allegedly POV statement or incorrect material be discussed here before it is reverted. Thank you. » MonkeeSage « 21:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Percentages

I cut out the part that said "but in general about 34% of scientists express disbelief. Ecklund also metioned that about 48 percent of scientists believe in a personal god". I couldn't find where exactly it came from, and there are other problems with it. The 34% figure needs to be contrasted with the percentage of the general population in order to tell us anything about scientists. Likewise, the personal god thing sounds a bit too high, based on what I've seen in some studies.

Please quote the parts of Ecklund that support these numbers so we can check for ourselves, and let's also see if Ecklund provides a figure for non-scientists. ThAtSo 02:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I know that it may seem like I am trying to attack atheism in a way, but I am atheist myself and Ecklund's survey says that 34 percent of scientists believe in a god. I do admit that the 48% figure may be a bit too high. But I will quote her words. "When asked about their peronal beliefs in god nearly 34% of academic scientists answer "I do not belive in god" 66.222.30.24
I looked at the survey. the more-than 60% figure, is from 34% saying they don't believe, and 30% saying they don't know. I've changed the statement to reflect this. It also provided comparison figures to the general US population of 3% atheist and 5% agnostic, should I put that in too? Here's the quote anyhow
“ When asked their beliefs about God, nearly 34 percent of academic scientists answer “I do not believe in God” and about 30 percent answer “I do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out,” the classic agnostic response. This means that over 60 percent of professors in these natural and social science disciplines describe themselves as either atheist or religiously agnostic. In comparison, among those in the general U.S. population, about 3 percent claim to be atheists and about 5 percent are religiously agnostic ”
Not sure about the personal god thing though. ornis 12:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

While we're looking at these percentages, can anybody find a new URL for the reference for them? The old one[1] appears to be broken. Hrafn42 12:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Here. ornis 13:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support updating the percentages so as not to mislead, as discussed above --Jonathanstray 16:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I find the Ecklund survey confusing. When it says god, does the survey mean the almighty god, or does it any type of life force, higher power, deity? Or does it mean both. Einstein technically believed in a god, but his god was a universal god. A god of beauty, harmony, and coherence, but not the type that you pray to. I think the Ecklund survey is a great start, but needs to be more specific. If any one has answers, please share them on the discussion page(here) [[66.222.30.24]


[edit] Isn't Changeability A Key Distinction?

Science is built on the idea that ideas and even entire systems of theory can be discarded when proven false, and indeed, this happens on a continual basis in small ways as prevailing hypotheses are discredited, and occasionally in large ways too as in the classic Kuhnian paradigm shifts. In contrast, most religions are not at liberty to discard certain central or sacred texts or ideas; to do so would be equivalent to destroying the religion. This seems to me to be a key difference -- shouldn't we we discuss this somewhere?

I'm going to take a stab at it shortly, if I don't hear otherwise. --Jonathanstray 16:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a false dichotomy. Any historian of religion will tell you that religions are very labile (many religions' claims to the contrary notwithstanding). Supposedly central tenets, historically speaking, are often no more stable (perhaps much less so) than many scientific ideas. Unless you have a reliable source to back this up (a necessity for anything added to this occasionally contentious topic), I wouldn't suggest taking a stab.--ragesoss 16:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

i agree with Ragesoss as a historian to mak esuch a disctinction would be moronic, to generaliza all of science and religion in that fashion is not up to encyclopedic standards -ishamelblues

At best it could be argued that this change is generally more systematised and orderly within science, and thus less likely to result in accusations of heresy and in long-lived bitter schisms than in religion. However this makes for a less clear-cut distinction, which may be far more obvious in hindsight than at the point of change. Arguably, the purpose of science is to create such changes, whereas the purpose of religion is to prevent them (and to preserve its traditions). Hrafn42 16:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religious fundamentalism and scientific enlightenment

The phenomenon of religious fundamentalism, especially Protestant, Christian fundamentalism which has arisen predominantly in the United States, has been characterized by some historians as originating in the reaction of the conservative Enlightenment against the liberal Enlightenment. In these terms, the scientific community is entirely committed to the skeptical Enlightenment,

Is the reader supposed to understand the liberal enlightenment as being the same as the skeptical enlightenment? 1Z 12:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Even assuming that 'liberal Enlightenment'='skeptical Enlightenment', we still need definitions for 'liberal Enlightenment' versus 'conservative Enlightenment'. This entire section has been tagged as lacking references for more than 6 months without a single reference being added. It may be time to consider deleting it in its entirety (with copy to this Talk page) & only letting it back into the article when this has been corrected to a substantial degree. Hrafn42 15:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

i dont like this section either its not clearly defined "The phenomenon of religious fundamentalism" which one, or what exactly does this refer to, puritanism, the great awakening of the 19th century and so on. i think this section needs drastic improvement or i'm going to just remove it totally

-ishmaelblues

[edit] The conflict hypothesis

The article refers to Andrew Dickson White and the conflict myth. The following article, which I wrote, gives chapter and verse on his historical errors. In addition, it gives lot of extra information on the opinions of modern historians on the conflict myth. I would recommend it as an addition to the external links: http://www.jameshannam.com/conflict.htm James Hannam 15:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that wikipedia already has articles on Andrew Dickson White and the conflict thesis which cover these issues, I don't see what this external link adds to the subject of the relationship between religion and science. These issues, at best, warrant a see-also linking to the above-mentioned internal articles. Hrafn42 16:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
This article mentions both White and the conflict and so the link is worthwhile here too. James Hannam 16:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this is a worthwhile addition. But I would also comment that you may want to be careful to avoid posting redundant links in multiple articles, as it may trigger others' spammy senses. Make sure that the articles you want to link to focus on the main topic of the wiki article, hopefully not just a particular section/part of the wiki article, unless the subject of the subsection does not have its own wiki article.--Boffob 16:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Mere brief "mention" of a subject is insufficient justification to provide an external link to that subject, particularly when internal wiki-links that cover the subject already exist. To provide external links to every subject briefly mentioned would be to turn articles into link-farms - WP:NOT#LINK. Hrafn42 17:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
This would mean we have to remove most of the links from this article. For most people the key point about the relationship between science and religion in the conflict hypothesis. For historians, trying to communicate it is false is also a key priority. The link is to an article that, as far as I am aware, does this better than anything else on the web. James Hannam 08:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
There I agree with you: there are several external links that would more appropriately be internal wiki-links, as well as several where it is hard to tell the external link from the wiki-linked author/institution attribution. I'll attempt a clean-up. Hrafn42
Not sure your clean up does more than reinforce your POV. We have Maiden in an utterly irrelevant anti-creationist essay, some Dawkins ranting from Edge, Ruse talking about Dawkins, Horgan talking about Dawkins (both fellow atheists), some lightweight PBS journalism and a few websites from related organisations. It seems the heavy atheist bias in these links makes my own article all the more required. I'll also pop over the to Dawkins page and see if some balance is required there too. James Hannam 11:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
If I was POV-pushing, I'd have removed the Plantinga piece, rather than a garbled piece on "Hinduism & Quantum Physics". I didn't actually even look at the viewpoint the linked articles were representing, just whether they gave ready access to something that looked like it might be useful. You're right that the Maiden article should be out (if it belongs anywhere, it is in Creation-evolution controversy), and I will remove it. There are at least three links that give a pro-religion perspective (Plantinga, Science & Spirit, Dalai Lama), so I would question that there is a "heavy atheist bias". And I am working to get less tangental links on this page, not more. Hrafn42 13:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
So in what way is my link tangental? It looks full-square relevant to me. Look, it's not spam, it's factual useful and relevant, so it goes in. This discussion is exactly the sort of pointlessness where he who has time just to keep it going wins because the other side gets fed up. It's bad for wikipedia. James Hannam 13:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

<unident>It is tangental because it's main subject is Andrew Dickson White and the conflict thesis, which is not the main subject of this article, and is already covered by articles of their own (as I said before). This was exactly my reason for deleting the Maiden link, and the creation-evolution controversy arguably has as much (or as little) overlap with the "relationship between religion and science" as White and the conflict thesis. Should we provide an external reference for each of the other 24 topics on the "see-also" list as well? If you don't want to indulge in "pointless" discussions with people that disagree with you, then don't attempt to get links to your webpage inserted. Doing that requires a consensus, which involves convincing people like me. Hrafn42 14:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You are not discussing this is good faith. You started by claiming the link was spam. When it transpires it was not, you shifted the goalposts. You still haven't read the article because if you had, you would know that the second half is a discussion of other perspectives. James Hannam 14:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
So it wasn't you adding large numbers of external links to your own articles?[2][3][4][5][6] And it is not the "second half " -- you have 1939 words on the "conflict hypothesis" and only 897 on what you term the "real historical relationship between science and religion" (which would seem to make it your perspective, rather than "other perspectives"), including promotion of your own book on the subject (making it only the "final third"). Hrafn42 15:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Several of these links have been reinstated. The others probably will too once I get around to adding them to the relevant talk pages. The only reason this one hasn't been is that you won't admit you are wrong. I'm going to leave this for a week and see what comes up. James Hannam 15:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The fact that they have since been reinstated does not negate the fact that they gave the appearance of spam, and were in fact in violation of Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest (as I pointed out in a later revert). Citing the wrong policy for a legitimate revert is hardly a failure of "good faith" or "shift[ing] the goal posts". Your article's relevance to this article is purely subsidiary to its relevance to the conflict thesis, so if it should be externally-linked anywhere, it should be at that article. I "won't admit that [I'm] wrong", because you have provided no compelling evidence that I am in fact wrong. The only compelling evidence you have provided is of your own lack of civility and unwillingness to assume good faith. By all means come back in a week, I doubt if you'll get a different response. Hrafn42 15:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] religion and science are one?

Are there any pages anywhere which refer to people believing that science and religion are exactly the same thing but viewed from a different angle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pm504 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suspect not, as wikipedia would likely have difficulty finding reliable sources advocating this view. HrafnTalkStalk 02:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about the idea that they are "exactly the same thing" but certainly one could find support for the idea that they are very similar. For example, "All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom. - Albert Einstein
Both science and religion would fit into the category of 'immortality projects' as described by Ernest Becker in his book The Denial of Death. I think Becker would argue that each is "ultimately an elaborate, symbolic defense mechanism against the knowledge of our own impending death" (quoted from the article not the book). The idea is that we have a basic fear of death, we continually strive to escape death or at least avoid the fear, and so we create projects that are an attempt to connect ourselves with something bigger than our physical beings, something eternal. I think you can hear this same sentiment in Einstein's words: "ennobling man's life, lifting it from physical ... towards freedom".Stokes dk (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
"branches of the same tree" does not imply "very similar". HrafnTalkStalk 07:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I assume you are not questioning whether Einstein was saying that they are similar, but you are questioning the degree of similarity he was trying to imply. In other words, you don't disagree with "similar", you disagree with "very". I think that "branches of the same tree" does imply "very similar"; unless you graft a willow branch on to an oak tree, I think two branches of the same tree are necessarily very similar.
But I don't think you can dispute that Einstein was implying a similarity. He goes on to say that "all these aspirations are directed toward...", implying that they serve a similar purpose. It seems to me that it is this similarity that is at the root of any conflict between science and religion, and it's an important part of the relationship between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stokes dk (talk • contribs) 22:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
You are stretching the "branches on the same tree" analogy too far -- further than you have any evidence that Einstein meant it. Branches on a tree start at a common source but stretch out in many, often very different, directions. Similarly the fact that cousins are branches on a family-tree does not mean that they are necessarily "very similar" (even in such superficial traits as appearance). Einstein was most probably talking of commonality of motive, not similarity of result. HrafnTalkStalk 02:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you. I think Einstein was saying that the two have a common purpose or motivation, not that they look similar now. They appear to be quite different, but that's what makes his comment and this question about similarity interesting. So what exactly do science and religion have in common (in terms of motive or otherwise)? If branches of a tree start at a common source then what is the common source of science and religion? I think that question is a very important aspect of the relationship between the two that isn't discussed in this article. In terms of sources, I think Becker is a good place to start. In fact I just took a look at "The Denial of Death" and realized that the last section of the book is titled "The Fusion of Science and Religion". I know that Einstein wrote a few articles on science and religion, there's a section with that title in his book "Ideas and Opinions".Stokes dk (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

<unindent> Not having more than a skeptical/academic interest in western religion, I couldn't really tell you what they have in common now. As far as common sources, a good place to start might be with Augustine of Hippo. HrafnTalkStalk 17:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Einstein had a lot to say about the relation between Religion and Science, some of which may be relevant to this article. For example: "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." or "What is the meaning of human life, or of organic life altogether? To answer this question at all implies a religion. Is there any sense then, you ask, in putting it? I answer, the man who regards his own life and that of his fellow creatures as meaningless is not merely unfortunate but almost disqualified for life." If you search for the word "religion" in http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Einstein you get a great deal of food for this article. DanielDemaret (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say philosophy at many times has been postulated as the merger of science & religion, or that philosophies have sought many times to be the point at which science & religion meet. I do think there should be more information on philosophers who've proposed such was the goal of philosophy in this article. 67.5.156.145 (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] move?

this is clearly the main article for Category:Religion and science. Why not move it to simple Religion and science or Science and religion? dab (𒁳) 13:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think including the word "relationship" makes the title slightly more informative, so would have a mild preference for retaining it. HrafnTalkStalk 13:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This section needs to be informed of the other wikipedia section on the Baha'i Faith and science. Simply refer back to that. Of course the Bahai Faith regards science and religion as one in the search for the same truths, but with religion having a more complete view of the metaphysical, and science the material realms. 198.252.8.203 (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC) (Dr. Chris Hamilton, political scientist, Washburn University, Topeka, Kansas)

[edit] Faith in Science

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Relationship between religion and science. (Discuss). This article "Relationship between religion and science" quotes relevant sources and cites different views. I suggest we delete the "faith and science" article and re-direct here, since I can find nothing in "faith and science" that would improve on this article. DanielDemaret (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • agree: -- a simple redirect would be appropriate in this situation. HrafnTalkStalk 14:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Where is this artilce? You don't link to it and I can't see any such article, or history of its deletion. Richard001 (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific study of religion

Shouldn't the main article only be religious studies? I thought at first religious studies was more like a social science (cf say American studies, but it seems to be simply the scientific study of religion, from anthropology to neurotheology. If these are all sub-sub-articles, we should only link to the main one. Richard001 (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The article states that "surveys suggest a strong link between faith and altruism," and a reference to a single study is included. Here are twice as many studies that suggest otherwise:
http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/content/full/5/4/353
http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
--76.213.247.27 (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The attitudes of scientists towards religion

I removed the Richard Dawkins reference because no other specific scientists' views are discussed in this section and I feel it is a violation of neutrality to only have one. Especially when that one is as outspoken and controversial as Dawkins (his Biography page refers to him as a "professional atheist"). If an attempt was made to show a spectrum of opinions/POV's from prominent scientists I would not object to him being included. Personally, I would be far more interested in the thoughts/opinions of "real" scientists like Stephen Hawking, Einstein, etc 71.164.241.199 (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever your opinion of his views on religion, to claim he is not a "real" scientist is a little silly, and definitely not NPOV: as a Zoologist and Evolutionary Biologist he is well respected, with a number of published papers in the various journals. -- simxp (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The comment was on the discussion page, and in quotes to highlight the silliness of the assertion. .. but that said, when I think of prominent scientists (past or present) his name is not at the top of my list. That is not to slight his work, but at the same time if you polled the public on why they know his name I would expect most know him as an atheist first. Again, if there were an attempt to present opinions from a range of scientists' POVs I would happily remove my objections and expect to see him put back in. 71.164.241.199 (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
71.164.241.199, please stop pushing your POV. Dawkins is a notable evolutionary biologist and he has made some notable contributions. I don't know much about Einstein's views on religion. I need to do some research. I know about the religious views of Stephen Hawking. He is not a fan of religion and he has said that the concept of God is unnecessary. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)