Talk:List of Christians in science and technology/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So what do you think? I might strengthen the note a bit, but maybe this is closer to what is wanted. Also the name avoids the confusion with Christian Scientists. (The "rule" there is that when both words are in caps it means that religion, when science is in lower case it means like the people here)--T. Anthony 02:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is now the only such list available. I worked quite hard to get it sourced and have references. It's true that I don't have a reference for every name, but I hope to correct that over time. It does have references though and it even still links to the Hungarian version.(I made sure of that) As a compromise to critics I put links to secular humanist sites and a survey showing most scientists are atheists.
A slight irritation is that the name is awkward, but it's taken from a mention on the delete vote from an earlier incarnation of this list. That being List of Christian scientists which I think had been around for two and half years. It's now a redirect to here. So although the results were disappointing any damage done has hopefully been muted in a way that I trust is acceptable.--T. Anthony 08:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla, please...[edit]

Add Nikola Tesla to the list. He's one of the greatest scientists and he's a Christian.

His father was a priest, and he had an Orthodox funeral, but he stated "I am not a believer in the orthodox sense" and further added that "science is opposed to theological dogmas because science is founded on fact. To me, the universe is simply a great machine which never came into being and never will end."[1] He has a big fanbase that wants him in all kinds of lists, but he doesn't seem to fit this one.--T. Anthony (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dyson?[edit]

Should we add Freeman Dyson here? To me it'd be an obvious choice; he's an extremely respected physicist.

Regards, "I am become death, destroyer of worlds"- Oppenheimer (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Although the list is gotten very long. I'm almost wondering if we should split into two lists, but I don't know where we'd make a split.--T. Anthony (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please put Dyson on list. He is very important. --Vojvodaeist 09:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page of List of Christians in Science[edit]

(Deleted and transferred over here) All this is is a redirect to List of avowed Christians in science. This redirect is not at all a copy of List of Catholic scientists. And if the new avowed version is unacceptable I don't know what to say. I started working on it before the deletions came through. That list is very well sourced and the title comes from a suggestion at those delete votes.--T. Anthony 10:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD vote was very very clearly a delete result not a redirect and that is why I placed the db tag here. There was actually not a single vote for redirect. I can't view the contents to compare whether "List of avowed" is substantially different from the list that was voted down so I've asked an admin. While I'm very sure you created the new list in good faith, it is ultimately a way of short-circuiting an obvious delete. You should have tried to get a "Move to..." or "rename" consensus at AfD I'd suggest. Marskell 10:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. You can delete this redirect. The new list is in large part because I think the delete is wrong, but there was some acceptance of the idea a better list could be possible with a better title.
I hope it doesn't get placed on delete as it's on my watchlist and I've done a great deal of work on it. Many of you may not think so, but there is interest in this topic. That and I admit I do feel quite strongly that some list involving the topic should exist. Especially as List of Muslim scientists and philosophers exists.--T. Anthony 11:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can see you've put a lot of work and I felt a little guilty... To be clear my notice has nothing to do with content and everything to do with procedure. If in the middle of every AfD headed toward to delete someone re-posted the material under a different title AfD obviously wouldn't work. However, we shall see what a third-party feels. Marskell 11:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I understand in a way. Although I think part of why the vote was decisive is because the name of the list was too broad and also I withdrew myself on creating this new list. I might rename it, but anyway I'm taking out names who didn't do any books on religion by and large. I'm also adding some names of theologians who also did science. My intent might have been, admittedly, an amount of annoyance. However hopefully this will be valid. Because I'm thinking of just making it be people who contributed as much to theology or religious history as to science.--T. Anthony 11:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it survives[edit]

What should it be renamed? This name was just chosen from an idea on the deletion of a List of Christian scientists. I'm not really going for a vote, just whichever proposal sounds good.--T. Anthony 17:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also if it survives I think it needs many more Protestants and Orthodoxers. I wasn't meaning to bias it so bad to Catholics it's just that there are categories for religious orders so it was easier to find ordained Catholics grouped together and then look through for appropriate scientists. Although there might be something like that for Orthodox Christians too.(I'll look, but I don't want this article to be just mine)--T. Anthony 12:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any more good Eastern Orthodox scientists. Anyway this name change might be temporary, if anyone has a better idea go ahead. (Also tell me if it ever goes on AfD again as I'm taking it off watchlist so others can work on it from here on)--T. Anthony 13:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I put it back on watchlist as my watchlist became barren for a time.--T. Anthony 12:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Failed AFD[edit]

This article's AFD debate failed to gain consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possible additions[edit]

If these fit, please add.

  • Isaac Newton , wrote many mystical works, on prophecies of book of Daniel, alchemy
  • Libnitz, invented calculus, wrote philosophy, whether he wrote Christian theology, I don't know.

I was being very strict for awhile because this was threatened with deletion. Therefore adding names seems a bit more intimidating, for the moment, then I personally think is warranted. A certain degree of strictness here is a good idea, otherwise it'll lose some of its purpose, but that said I intend to loosen it up a bit. In other words I think if you can find a name and any respectable source, including their Wiki bio perhaps, you can add from here on. I'll add Newton as things seem calmed down on this issue, but for others feel (relatively) free to add! I don't want this to be "my list"--T. Anthony 04:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I put George Gabriel Stokes on finding a respectable source. I added a note on Hugh Ross, because Old Earth Creationism is a pseudoscience. This might seem inconsistent as William Buckland was also an Old Earth Creationist yet I added no such note nor do I see reason to do so. Buckland lived in a much earlier age and I think implying his OEC views are equivalent would be misleading. He died in 1856, but even at that point I'm not sure the concept was discredited yet.--T. Anthony 12:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Look[edit]

Like it, dislike it, indifferent? I got the idea from List of Presidents of Venezuela, but I changed it a fair amount. I also added John Wilkins and Christopher Wren while taking out Thomas Wyatt Turner.--T. Anthony 02:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah![edit]

I'm so happy someone else got involved in adding names. I was worried the table format was scaring people off so considered abandoning it. I like it though because it makes it easy to tell what time period and form of Christianity the scientist is of.--T. Anthony 22:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah again![edit]

I guess this is part of a Wikiproject. That's so cool! I hope to see User:Leinad-Z here someday as s/he has kind of been the main person involved besides me.--T. Anthony 12:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too big????[edit]

I don't think it's too big, but I got a size warning while adding some more names. Should I scale it back or is it okay?--T. Anthony 15:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additions/Subtractions[edit]

I added a few like Maxwell and Whittaker. I also subtracted a few like Ross or Godel. I'm worried it's too long, but I don't see much fat to trim. In fact I imagine there's still several very noteworthy people unlisted.--T. Anthony 06:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure the two women I added fit, but there was a dearth of female entries. I might look through the women scientists categories for better ones. I think it can't really be cut back that much. In least there isn't that much chaff left.--T. Anthony 05:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mendel off the repressed section[edit]

First it wasn't formatted right. Second I don't see anything on the article to indicate Christians repressed his work. He became more devoted to administrative duties on being abbot, but I think it's a tad conspiratorial to think that they promoted him in order to silence him. Still I'll look for something to replace that addition and I do welcome valid additions to that section.--T. Anthony 09:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced it with the Comte De Buffon. He was actually quite Christian, but that's true of several in the repressed section. I think there were some Nestorian scientists who also faced repression from Christians. Probably some Quakers, Anabaptists, and non-Christians under colonialism as well.--T. Anthony 09:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"suppressed" section[edit]

nobody disputes the church was hostile to the emergence of the scientific worldview. but the "suppressed" section is out of place. This should be a list, and not a point-scoring contest. I find it also of dubitable merit to list medieval and contemporary scholars together (in spite of the italicization). "ancient/medieval", "early modern" and "modern" sections should do a better job. Also, this list should be reserved for people who are notable both for their scientific and their theological works (such as Isaac Newton or Leonhard Euler), not for pseudoscientists who are trying to obscure the division between science and faith ("Intelligent Design"). It is still possible today to be a Christian and a scientist at the same time. But just going to church on Sundays and working in a lab on weekdays doesn't qualify you to be listed here. You need to be notable for both your theological or devotional publications and for your scientific work. dab (ᛏ) 14:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see any interest. I think most here did do fairly significant religious work, but you might disagree. In other cases you have some valid points and I'll remove the suppressed section as the article is too long as is. You have to understand though that at one point this was to be removed as it was deemed "cheerleading" or advocacy or something. I had the suppressed to provide balance.--T. Anthony 18:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on it a bit. Agnesi and Mendel I suppose could be deemed to minimal, but they were fairly active in monastic life. Mendel especially is often talked about in Catholic histories even if he wasn't a theologian.--T. Anthony 19:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, T. Anthony. I like the new division suggested by dab, and was thinking to suggest it myself. But I feel that, instead of descriptive (and loaded) terms like "ancient", "medieval", "renaissance", "modern", etc., we should use dates (something like "before the XVII century", "in the XVII and XVIII century" . . .). I specially dislike how the term "Renaissance" implies some kind of improvement over the supposedly "more primitive" Middle Ages - In the field of science it is specially untrue (see: History of science in the Renaissance). (note: you're doing an excellent job in this article, congratulations :-) --Leinad ¬ pois não? 16:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing disparative was intended with the terms "Medieval" to "Renaissance." In fact Nicholas of Cusa and Roger Bacon are in most respects more impressive than Gunnerus or Vince. Still I'll work on the change and I've temporarily switched images on Kircher.--T. Anthony 19:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Something strange is happening with the image of Athanasius Kircher, I tried to change the image, (and in the preview it solved the problem), but when I saved the changes the error was kept... --Leinad ¬ pois não? 17:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Refresh your browser? GangofOne 08:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

possible additions to evaluate[edit]

Added. I'm a bit hesitant on adding people in the Discovery Institute, but he looks to be a respected chemist nevertheless. I haven't decided on sociologists. I keep intending to drop out, but I created this thread so feel a bit of connection to it. As I've added names I considered pruning, but there aren't many minor names left. The ones who are minor in science seem to be worth keeping because they were the heads or founders of religions so also being scientists is potentially of interest.--T. Anthony 07:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please add:
It sounds like a will do on Linnaeus even though I should be off. On Galileo I'm not sure. Mostly this is people who were scientists who wrote on the relationship of science on Christianity or Christian philosophy. I'm not sure he applies. Still I might add it. I'm trying to find more Nobel Laureates that fit, but I haven't looked that hard.--T. Anthony 06:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Galileo did wrote about the relationship between biblical interpretation and natural knowledge. His position was similar to the position of Saint Augustine in these matters (see Augustine's view here). I remeber reading a webpage explainning Galileo's theological?/philosophical argument step by step. (But I don't have the references for that anymore). --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 04:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops then. Did you put him back?--T. Anthony 11:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I didn't know Galileo was in the list before. I thought the above dialog was a request for his inclusion (and was giving my support for that :-) --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 07:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bernard Haisch isn't Christian thinker.--Vojvodaeist 16:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oresme[edit]

Can you be more specific about how Oresme is "probably the most original thinker of the 14th century?" That quote might be in violation with NPOV. Norman314 08:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took that claim off. I'm trying to replace a few lesser known names with people who in least seem to be more significant. I might bring back the ones replaced and keep the new, but it might get too long that way.--T. Anthony 09:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Look[edit]

You know I really like the way I made it look wayback with the pictures and the table. It was inspired by List of Presidents of Venezuela which I think is a featured list. However Venezuelan Presidents is something of a set thing or in least only needs additions on rare occasions. I gett the feeling from some of you that the way I made this list makes it where no one knows how to add names except me. That wasn't my intent. I mean I did want it slightly difficult so this doesn't get full of nonsense, but I didn't want it to be all me. Still I'll copy "the invisible note" to give a clue on how to add. I'd hate to lose the current style though because doggone it I think it looks pretty cool.--T. Anthony 08:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note on how to add names with additional clarification: This might seem daunting for those who rarely use tables. Here's some tips that don't really fit in the article. For each name the first line is "|- 'color of denomination you want'. "The next line is "|Name of person". Image is after that, but if you can't find an appropriate image just put "| " in that line. Next line should start with "|Insert brief mention of their religious and science work here." This mention can go several lines, but still only be one section. Then lastly "|Book or link that supports it." I hope this helps. Remember that each section should start with a "|", To make this clearer here's a sample of how an addition might sort of look.

|- bgcolor="#ffcccc" is for Catholic, "#ffffcc" is for Eastern Christian, "#ccffcc" is for Anglicanism, "#ccffff" is for Protestant, and "#ccccff" is for other or unspecified. In all cases include the quote marks.
|John Doe
|Image here. Be sure to have "|70px]]" so it's not too big.
|He was an Archbishop who wrote "Thoughts on the Desert Fathers" and a physicist who wrote "String theory considered as a breakfast burrito."
|Encyclopedia Galactica and the Archdiocese of Fredonia's website.

Keeping, adding and cutting[edit]

The list is kind of huge I guess. I've tried to cut out some names that aren't that important to science and siphoned some off to a Jesuit list. I imagine it's still way over the limit, but I'm not sure what to do. I wasn't going to add any more names, but Eastern Christianity was getting badly underrepresented and some just fit perfect.--T. Anthony 12:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added Compton. I likely need to cut more names out, but I'm not sure who yet. The ones who weren't significant scientists seem to have been significant enough as religious figures. Anyway here's some names I'm thinking of adding, placing my problems in the justification section.

  • |- bgcolor="#ccffff"
  • |Bernhard Riemann
  • |[[Image:|70px]]
  • |Justification issue: He wasn't ordained and I'm uncertain he did anything of religious importance.
  • |Scientists of Faith
  • |- bgcolor="#ccffff"
  • |Charles Bell
  • |[[Image:|70px]]
  • |Son of an Anglican minister and wrote a Bridgewater Treatise on Design. Most sources say Christian, but I don't know if that's correct.
  • |Several sources

--T. Anthony 09:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully that will be about it for me for a long long while. I guess I just kind of like working on this list even though I thought I was burned out on Wikipedia. It's likely too big now so I'm not sure the four(now two--T. Anthony 00:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)) names above can be added. I don't think there's any names I can easily delete, but maybe others will be less squeamish in taking out minors. (Or maybe my length concerns are unwarranted.)--T. Anthony 10:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought I think I should make some really radical cutbacks before I leave so this list will be mostly made up of more major scientists or theologians. They'll all stay in the Category:Christians in science and I might add them to my own talk page. I might put Kepler and Sandage in after cutting. If the cuts are too extreme people can always put some names back.--T. Anthony 03:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gothus[edit]

First I guess I'm still a bit addicted. Second the Swedish version has a picture for Laurentius Paulinus Gothus, but I'm not sure how to use it. Still I intend to leave it up to those here to figure it out.--T. Anthony 07:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Fair use images[edit]

Fair use images should not be used in a list like this, please remove them.--Peta 01:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got rid of them all. I'm wondering is editing this article next to impossible for people? I know the table can be intimidating, but I've tried to do a fair amount to explain how to edit it. I guess I could just get rid of it if it's what everyone wants, but I'd hate to do that.--T. Anthony 06:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think the table looks really good- but they are hard to edit - which may be good or bad depending on how you want to look at it.--Peta 23:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I did want it to be slightly difficult to hamper vandalism additions a bit. However I didn't want it to be so difficult that everyone seems to ask me to do most any edit they want done. You weren't doing that, but others have. I did create it, but I don't "own it." I hope all the explanations on the talk page in least help people a bit. To make it even easier though I'll just show what one entry looks like when not on the table.--T. Anthony 11:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sample entry[edit]

  • |- bgcolor="#ffcccc"
  • |Thomas Bradwardine
  • |Image:Arcbishoppallium.png|70px (Add bracketts to get the image)
  • |He was an English archbishop, often called "the Profound Doctor". He developed *studies as one of the Oxford Calculators, of Merton College, Oxford University. These *studies would lead to important developments in mechanics.
  • |Catholic Encyclopedia

Descartes' inclusion[edit]

Just a thought: perhaps Descartes should be included. "noted French philosopher, mathematician, and scientist." and "Descartes was one of the key thinkers of the Scientific Revolution in the Western World. He is also honoured by having the Cartesian coordinate system used in plane geometry and algebra named after him." say Wikipedia's article on him. I've'nt the time, but I think he certainly belongs here. If there's a good reason why he should't be here, that would be fine as well. Cheers.207.35.41.4 03:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd read some debate on counting him as a Christian, but I might add him this weekend. I should probably add Gottfried Leibniz too. Although others can add names too as Leinad has. The formula is listed above in a sample entry.--T. Anthony 03:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added him. Judging by what I read by Pope John Paul II he is still rejected as erroneous by the Catholic Church, a judgment I basically agree with, so that might have explained my initial hesitancy. Still he does fit even if he's something of a dissident Catholic thinker. I also added Leibniz and Bakker. I'm thinking Charles Bell(from above) really belongs, but I haven't found out yet if his work on Natural theology is Christian or what his denomination would be.--T. Anthony 11:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear as a Bell[edit]

Well it turns out Bell's deal was available at Google Books. However searching the book for "Bible", "Christianity", "Anglican", "Protestant", "Catholic", or "Church" got me nothing. The only mention of "Christian" concerns that the sponsor for his work was Christian. He still could fit though, it's just unclear.--T. Anthony 11:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as well. This list is getting so long it might be time to prune it again.--T. Anthony 12:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dates[edit]

I think it would improve this list if we give birth-death dates beside the name of each scientist.

Apart from that, I also wonder about the appropriateness of using a chronological order for the list (probably organized by death date, since it is usually less debatable than the birth date of the person). --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 21:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer we go by discipline?(Mathematicians, botanists, etc?) I'm a bit nervous about a total restructuring because it'd be a great deal of work, but maybe if I just abandon the table and picture system it could be less so. I'd hate to do that in a way because...well it looks cool and I worked hard on it. However I guess if we did scrap that and go by discipline each section could still have a picture. Or do you mean something else?--T. Anthony 05:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll stop worrying about length. BAFTA Award for Best Film is far longer than this and is featured. I might put some names back in cases where they're appropriate.--T. Anthony 07:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Anthony. I did mean something else :-) I’ll try to be clearer:
  1. I think it would improve this list if we give birth-death dates beside the name of each scientist. For example, using "Jean Buridan (1300-1358)" instead of giving only the name "Jean Buridan" as it happens now.
  2. After the above addition, maybe we can rearrange the order of scientists inside each "sublist" by his date of death (using a chronological order instead of the current alphabetical order). Only the order of scientists in each list would change, the basic structure of the article would remain the same. For example: the first name of the first list would be "John Philoponus (490-570)" because, AFAIK, he was the first on the list to have died. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 19:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I like that. This is largely for historical and current events interest so chronological arrangement within the sublists does make more sense. Especially as the sections are already so arranged. I slept terrible today, but I might do a bit with this or maybe you can or we can divvy-up sections to work on.--T. Anthony 22:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made the suggested changes on the first sub-list... see if it turned out to be as you expected. I’ll have to wait some time to make another heavy edit, since I’m busy in real life. I hope there is no problem in the list being partially chronological and partially alphabetical for a few days. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 06:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like it, I might do the others tomorr..err later today. I need to sleep first.--T. Anthony 07:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the people in the "Napoleonic Wars to the modern era" section died in 1888 with one dying on an unspecified date in that year. So I'll deal with that later. I hope the section I worked on was dated properly.--T. Anthony 22:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few points:
  • I think we can use birth-date as a second criterion when the death-date is the same (or nonexistent, as it happens in the list of living persons.)
  • Regarding the style, dates can be (7777–7777) or (7777 – 7777). Although the style with spaces was my first choice, I changed my mind when I realized that removing spaces would guarantee to keep both the birth and death years in the same line. You may prefer to keep the spaces (as you did in your last edit), either way is good to me, but we should keep the chosen style trough the entire article.
  • One scientist that I miss from previous versions of the list is Rudjer Boskovic. Was he removed for a specific reason? Few religious work, maybe? Or was it a mistake? It happened during a restructuring of the list. The specific edit can be found here: [2].
  • It is an anonymous editor, and not me, who keeps changing Pascal to Catholicism. Since some of his changes happened in the middle of my edits, I just wanted to make it clear. (Not that I’m bothered with the change either). --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 00:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tips. I'm okay with Pascal being with Catholic as "Other" seems to be otherwise implying non-trinitarian so is inappropriate for him. I might work a bit more on this.--T. Anthony 01:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I might have removed Boscovich when I was making the Jesuit list. Was he Jesuit? Anyway Gosse and Gray were both born in 1810 and both died in 1888. I guess I could get into exact dates with months, but that'll take up more space. Hmmm. I think I'll work on the living hear in a bit and see if I can arrange them by birth year without incident.--T. Anthony 02:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Rudjer Boskovic need to be on this list.--Vojvodaeist 09:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have him on List of Jesuit scientists. Maybe he can be on both, but there are so many noted Jesuits this could get really really huge if I start doing that too much.--T. Anthony (talk) 09:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only the living remain[edit]

To be arranged anyway. I decided to put Gosse before Gray as he was born first and comes first in the alphabet. On the living I'm thinking we go by birth year, but I'm not finding birth year for a couple of them. I'll do it next weekend if no one else does.--T. Anthony 11:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks on doing the living ones Leinad. I looked for birth years for Doyle and Houghton, but no luck so far.--T. Anthony 15:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] Anthony, I was writing the text bellow at the same time you wrote the last massage.
"Hi Anthony, I did some work on the living list. But there are still some issues I won't handle right now (busy in real life).
  • Four of the scientists didn’t have born dates in their articles: using Google I found the dates for 2 of them... 2 born dates are still missing.
  • There is more than one scientist in the years 1930 and 1944... which scientist should go first in those cases?"
--Leinad ¬ »saudações! 15:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had a similar problem with Gosse and Gray in the section above it. I went by who was born earlier in the year, but I was willing to go alphabetical too. In that case both ended up with the same result as Gosse was born a few months before Gray. Doubt you'll be that lucky, but one or the other is fine. Although for consistency you should maybe go by when in 1930 or 1944 they were born even if there's no room to put that in the column.--T. Anthony 06:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This says Doyle was born June 21, 1950. It's not a sure thing, but I'm going with it.--T. Anthony 06:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brahe/Kepler[edit]

There is circumstantial evidence that Kepler murdered Tycho Brahe, but the hypothesis is supported by a minority. That is what the article on Brahe says. If the murder hypothesis is going to be in at all I feel it should say "allegedly" or "may have" because it has not been confirmed true. Presenting the murder theory as fact is not vandalism, but it is treating an unproven hypothesis as fact thereby supporting a POV.--T. Anthony 04:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "minority view" qualifier was just recently added to Tycho's article, and may be true, but as far as I know there has not been a vote nor a reliable source saying that it's a minority view. Certainly other views can and should be presented as well, if they are supported by reliable sources. Like most things reported in wikipedia, if there's a reliable source it is presented "as fact" unless there's also a corresponding alternative to present. Dicklyon 05:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Encyclopedia[edit]

I'm not really familiar with this source, but from what few entries I have checked against other sources, it seems that it has a tendency to whitewash the Church's historical interactions with science and scientists; not surprising that it's POV, given the source, which is why it needs to be balanced with other sources. I think we should work on getting a more NPOV coverage of these guys in the article, with good solid refs. I've done a few. Dicklyon 01:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might replace it when I can. I notice you've done well at putting a POV you'd like in. relied on one book a great deal for Medieval Christians. I have my doubts on this book. Although Lawrence Goldstone is a bit more credible than I feared his specialty was American Constitution and book collecting.--T. Anthony 14:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)(revised version)--T. Anthony 15:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That said I tried to cut out as many of the Catholic, and other Christian not that you complained of those, link I could. I kept a few in cases that seemed uncontroversial or where I had no other option.--T. Anthony 15:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had edited a few guys to put in info from that book I had just read, to balance the "Catholic" spin that so dominates this article's POV. I think we need more such improvements. Dicklyon 16:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just don't go too far the other way as I fear you might. On another matter a main reason I used the Catholic Encyclopedia so much because it's easy to find and can be quoted more freely than sources still in copyright. I fear you think it's some kind of "Catholic plot" on my part, but I did try to put in as many non-Catholics as I could.--T. Anthony 04:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about you; I had no idea where any of this stuff came from. As I said, just trying to create some balance to the Catholics' official spin. Dicklyon 04:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank J. Tipler?[edit]

His Christianity's a bit oddball, but he's come out with The Physics of Christianity ISBN: 0-385-51424-7. So should he be counted?--T. Anthony 19:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he does seem to be respected within the scietific community (although perhaps his specific idea of God is considered pseudo science) so I would say he is relevant for the list. Tranqulizer (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive changes in one edit[edit]

T. Anthony, when you make lots of changes to content and refs in one edit, with or without a summary, it's very hard to review, check, and correct your changes. If you edit each person's entry separately, you can use edit summary to say what and why, and make life easier on the rest of us. Dicklyon 16:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this source reliable?[edit]

The book The Friar and the Cipher was used in recent edits to make strong claims in this page. However, I am worried about the reliability of this work as a source. When I did some google search I found the review at Popularscience.co.uk saying this about the book: "In the coverage of Bacon's life and work there are a number of small but telling flaws that suggest rather rapid research from limited sources. Statements made as fact about Bacon's history (...) have no documentary basis. Bacon's medieval science is totally misunderstood (...) Similarly there are some worrying errors when they finally get onto manuscript and its encipherment..."

If the book shows all these mistakes when discussing Bacon, how can we trust it as a good source for saying that "Bacon was imprisoned by the church for many years because of his scientific teachings" ?... I happen to know about Bacon from other sources, and they say there is no proof that Bacon spent many years in prison. The assertion that Bacon was imprisoned "for his science" is even shakier. Apparently, in this book the lack of concrete evidence regarding Bacon's supposed imprisonment was put aside so that the authors could write a more compelling tale about his life.

Also, judging it by an edit it inspired, the book claims that: Pope John XXI "immediately cracked down on heterodoxy including Averroes works and teachings on Aristotle." But since the book shows so many distortions when discussing it's main character, how can we trust it to say authoritative things about the other historical figures it mentions? --Leinad ∴ -diz aí. 01:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have other sources that contradict these points, then we should find a concise way to summarize the different views of history, with references. Generally, book refs are deemed "reliable" in the sense that they've made it past an editor; that doesn't always make them correct, of course. Dicklyon 03:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dicklyon. I am not so sure I understood what you meant by "made it past an editor", probably because I am not a native English speaker. Anyway, I will go look for references... But before anything, I am questioning if this book can be considered as an authoritative work of history about Bacon or about the relationship between science and religion in the Middle Ages. This book was apparently written with entertainment in mind, and its authors don't seem to have real expertise in medieval history, medieval science, etc. This book may well be a quick fix if there are no other sources around, but I am inclined to argue that it should be disregarded if contradicted by stronger sources, such as academic works. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí. 04:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was alluding to WP:V where it says "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight." The general presumption is that books from reputable publishers have had editorial oversight. If you find that there are authoritative sources that contradict, then let's consider those. I can't say that "disregard" is in general the right answer, but it depends on the weight of evidence, which we can discuss here. I've seen that there's some question about the imprisonment issue, but this book quotes Bacon on the subject, and I sincerely doubt that they would have been making up quote just to liven up the story. No reputable publisher's editor is going to let that happen if they can help it. I recently purchased The First Scientist: A Life of Roger Bacon, 2003, by Brian Clegg, to see what else I could learn about this; it says there's no "absolute proof" of the ten years imprisonment, but in general it supports it, and says "most of all, it was Bacon's breadth of outlook that condemned him. ... His breadth of vision is likely to have been at the heart of the 'novelties' for which he was condemned." Dicklyon 05:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some sources to check about this. Dicklyon 05:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dicklyon. My answer was much delayed because I am avoiding to edit wikipedia. My life is too busy right now. Anyway, information I added to the WP article on Bacon more than a month ago support that, at least, there are very prominent historians doubting that Bacon was imprisoned and doubting even more the claim that he may have been imprisoned "for his science". BTW, even the text that was already in the Bacon's article before my edits already pointed to this. By now, to keep telling readers of this article that Bacon was imprisoned as if it was a established fact among historians is essentially a lie. I really don't want to get involved with wikipedia right now, so It would be great If you could change the text according to a text representative of the larger academic view, and not only focusing the allegations of this book discussed above. I wish you and T. Anthony a good year. We may discuss edits again in 2008, when I hope to have enough time to spent editing articles :) --Leinad ∴ -diz aí. 18:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What sources would you recommend to me to help me understand the current historical thinking? Dicklyon 01:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Bacon[edit]

From this article:

Roger Bacon...He was imprisoned by the church for many years because of his scientific teachings.

This seems to contradict new evidence as stated in the article on Bacon (under the Changing interpretations of Bacon section). In the spirit of keeping the articles consistent, which "fact" do we follow? focoma 03:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "new evidence" you mention seems to have been published 10 years before the source used in this article. Have you looked at any of those sources? We could say what they say alongside what the recent book says. Dicklyon 06:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for misquoting the article. It called the evidence "modern", which is of course not necessarily new. The evidence for disputing the lengthy anti-Science imprisonment claim came from a "historian of science" and a Professor of History. I can't find what field the Goldstones are experts in (all I could see is that they are a husband-wife team of "bibliophile" authors), so maybe someone could look into the specific sources they used for their biography of Bacon. But yes, I suppose the best way to handle this in the meantime is to show both views. focoma 13:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Clerk Maxwell[edit]

I think I had him in an earlier version, but removed him for lack of theological or pastoral work. Should he be placed back, why or why not? (I'm neutral)--T. Anthony 13:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone has a source about his religiousness, then maybe so. Otherwise not. Dicklyon 17:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have two secondary/tertiary sources on Maxwell and his religion. One is a 6 page article from the American Journal of Physics, the other is over 8 pages if printed out; it is freely available on the web from a seminar at MIT. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he was certainly a Christian but apparently he never really made a big deal out of it, or wrote about it. Should people be included just for being Christian or should they have contributed in some way to religious thought? If it's the first this will evolve into a very long list. Tranqulizer (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Vahan Damadian[edit]

I've never mentioned him because he's a Young Earth Creationist, I'm not, and more of an inventor than a scientist. Still possibly my biases are unfair. He apparently has been published in respectable science journals while also being involved in specifically Christian-creationist circles. Should I add him or not?--T. Anthony (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC) being a young earth creationist does not make you not a scientist. if he is a young earth creationist(that is accepts that view point), and a scientist, then yes. Young earth creationist, utilize the scientific method when they can. it is hard to apply a method that involves repetition and observation on past events. In fact, their basic claim is that modern science actually supports their theory, over others, not that modern science is wrong. Rds865 (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I still have a concern he's more of an inventor than a scientist. Still I'm open to adding him or others adding him if he can be shown to be a scientist.--T. Anthony (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the following people should be included[edit]

Max Planck and Kurt Gödel

Tranqulizer (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kurt Gödel clearly believed in God and was interested in elements of Christian theology. However I hesitated putting him on because I didn't find anything concrete that he was Christian. I had some reason for not putting Planck on, but it escapes me at present. He seems to fit, although we need sourcing. It's important everything here have a source of some quality as religion-lists are held to fairly high standards. Likewise if you find sourcing that indicates Gödel fits feel free to add him.--T. Anthony (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article on Gödel's ontological proof he has described himself as Baptist lutheran, and as a theist. I think this and his ontological proof makes him relevant for this list. Tranqulizer (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okey-dokey. I might add him sometimes this weekend or you can. Do you think the extensive length is becoming a problem? Should we remove some less notable names?--T. Anthony (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding them. Regarding the length perhaps some could be omitted, especially in the "living section". I think it is important that the list only includes people who are authorities in their respected fields. Tranqulizer (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tranqulizer, Gödel's ontological proof quotes Gödel as referring to himself as a "baptized Lutheran". The numbered points above the TOC make me think, not just because of what is said but because of what is not said, that Gödel's outlook was not Christian in particular and that he wouldn't have identified as such. We've found nothing to suggest he did.--Cryleek (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I had my doubts, but I was uncertain. The book I read co-written by him was kind of ambiguous. He said he "believed in the God of Leibniz not Spinoza" and may have said nice things of Christians, but I couldn't figure out for sure what that meant. So I just figured the other guy's interpretation was right. I can remove him sometime if desired.--T. Anthony (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think he should be removed. Please?--Cryleek (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I had my doubts and in lieu of disagreement on the matter I'll revert to my original idea of saying "not yet." He'll stay out until something more substantial justifies his being placed back.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cryleek and T. Anthony, Well he is quoted as saying "My belief is theistic, not pantheistic, following Leibniz rather than Spinoza.". Is'nt that enough to atleast conclude he was a Theist? Tranqulizer (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But then again as Anthony says that is not enough to establish if he was a Christian. I think he did mean Christian (since Leibniz was part of the christian tradition) but this is just OR ofcource. I will try to see if I can dig up something more conclusive. Tranqulizer (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's already huge, but here's some more possibilities[edit]

  • John D. Barrow - Deistic Christian.
  • Freeman Dyson - Non-denominational. I don't find much Christian philosophical work.
  • Frank J. Tipler - The Physics of Christianity: This book is so highly unorthodox I personally think it's describing some new Christ-centered religion rather than Christianity as such, but admittedly that's a judgment call.

Some of these have been mentioned, but I thought I'd have the names in one thread.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took Arthur Leonard Schawlow off because his only significance seems to have been as Christian who won the Nobel, but we have two or so of those already. I did add him to Category:American Methodists and the List of Methodists though. This list is just rather long and might get more additions.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some "call-backs." Names that were on a version in December 2005, but that I removed as potentially not having the needed dual notability. (Returning call-backs would be somewhat easier as they were already in table format in December 2005)

--T. Anthony (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dyson is a most distinguished scientist. As a distinguished scientist who is also a Christian he is well known too. He has been awarded the Templeton Prize, and his acceptance speech would make a good source.

I think there's an insurmountable case for adding Euler to this list. His relevance isn't open to doubt and he wrote a book called Defense of the Divine Revelation against the Objections of the Freethinkers which is but one reason one might consider his Christianity an interesting part of his biography.--Cryleek (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pasteur? The Catholic Encyclopedia has an article about him, whereas they don't for, say, Einstein. Probably no pastoral/theological activities and maybe a few writings, I'd think... I don't know. --Cryleek (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You persuaded me. I've added Euler and taken out Godel. I worry sometimes the table system is too difficult, but I've been reluctant to remove it as it's so neat looking. Oh and I'll mull over on Dyson. If you figure out how to add names I guess you can add him.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we have to include Freeman Dyson on list. Maybe he havent writtent many works about religion but he words about Christianity is very important.--Vojvodaeist 16:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Length[edit]

This list is getting very long. What do you think should be done? Should I spin off another list? Or are there names that need to be removed? Or is it fine and I shouldn't worry?--T. Anthony (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the length of some featured lists of people (Like List of people with epilepsy or List of poliomyelitis survivors) this might still be fine. I might consider deleting some, but I've not decided.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Usually I loathe long articles, but it's tight organization makes it's length acceptable to me. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have another candidate for the list. It's Mary B. Hesse. Her book Science and the Human Imagination (1955) discusses the relations between science and religion (i.e., in her words the "Christian faith"). --Firefly322 (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing, but I might need more sourcing as her article doesn't seem to say much on it.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes[edit]

I think that we need put religious stance in infoboxes in articles about this persons. Many of them have it but many dont.--Vojvodaeist 10:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The color is supposed to represent their religious family so to speak. Purple is kind of a vague "other", but retooling it would be more work than I'm willing to do.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You made good solution in this article.--Vojvodaeist 16:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Polanyi[edit]

Is he was a Christian?--Vojvodaeist 10:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the orthodox sense, but I thought early on this would be a bit inclusive in its definition of Christianity. The link has the statement by him, I was a converted Christian on the lines of Tolstoy's confession of faith. Towards the middle twenties my religious convictions began to weaken and it was only in the last 10 years that I have returned to them with any degree of conviction. My faith in God never failed me entirely since 1913, but my faith in the divinity of Christ (for example) has been with me only for rare moments. Virtually all traditional Christians would say he therefore can't count, but like I said I was trying to be more inclusive than doctrinaire. If there's a strong enough push for it I could remove all who disbelieve in the divinity of Christ, but that might mean removing names like Newton as well.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But he was religious. There is a lot of different understandings of Christianity and I think that this list include all scientist who are accsept some parts of Christian doctrine. --Vojvodaeist 14:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every Christian thinker have it's own view of some aspects of faith but they are also Christians. --Vojvodaeist 16:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Tesla[edit]

I think that we should put Nikola Tesla on this list. He was Eastern Orthodox Christian and wrote few papars on Christian rleigion.--Vojvodaeist 20:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say no here, because in the interview I read of him in "Time" he was fairly clear that, although he respected Christianity, he did not consider himself Christian. Unless you know of something that changed later in life.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His religious views are very interesting and I will wrote something about it in next few days.--Vojvodaeist 07:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't Christian in orthodox meaning of this word. --Vojvodaeist 07:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P. S. I saw previous discussion on Kurt Gödel. Why don't you put him on list? I don't want to put him because your work on this list is really great and I don't want to make some mistake. --Vojvodaeist 07:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I put Gödel on briefly, but User:Cryleek requested he be removed. However I didn't intend that the removal had to be permanent. I'd like some evidence one way or other on the matter of Gödel. Same with Tesla. This list is quite long and I've always favored additions or replacements be sourced. If you find sources let me know.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to find some good reference about it. But I am not understand yet why Gödel is removed?--Vojvodaeist 20:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In cases of uncertainty I keep names off. This is in part due to length and in part because this list has occasionally been controversial so I don't want to give an excuse for deletionists. However this isn't "my list." I know the table can be daunting, but I can show you what to put if you want Gödel back.

Basically copy that, but without the asterixes. Also fill in for information and sourcing.--T. Anthony (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before putting it I will try to find some good reference.--Vojvodaeist 17:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alister E. McGrath[edit]

Alister E. McGrath needs to be on this list. He's an Anglican. I'd add him but I don't know how. (born 1953)

He is theologian. he publishd just few scientific articles. --Vojvodaeist 15:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as the list indicates, being a theologian and being a scientist are not mutually exclusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mawst (talk • contribs) 04:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but this is list of man who more scientist than theologians or philosophers.

John Lennox[edit]

I think that we can put this mathematician and Christian philosopher.--Vojvodaeist 22:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adopting the standard ref system[edit]

I'd like to suggest we remove the "source" field from the list and start using the standard wikipedia ref system. Right now the source field is competing for space with the main text. The large space now occupied by the references is problematic especially on the "medieval" list, which is by far the one I love the most. Also, more controversial topics should have even more references than we have right now... and the current system is not prepared to handle this. --Leinad-Z (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard d'Espagnat[edit]

He is science and religon thinkerphilosopher but I don't know is he Christian.--Vojvodaeist 08:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Christian, though he's some sort of unconventional theist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.9.151 (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Nowak[edit]

Martin Nowak MUST be here. He's perhaps the most intriguing evolutionary biologist working today, and he's a devout Catholic. He's delivered many lectures on the subject of science and religion, a few of them at Harvard where he teaches. Since the current list doesn't include many eminent evolutionary biologists (just Simon Conway Morris really), I believe Nowak should definitely be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.9.151 (talk) 07:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added him, tentatively. We'll see what everyone else thinks, but he should be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.9.151 (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Francis Bacon?[edit]

Shouldn't he be on this list somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.13.107 (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is for scientists who did Christian theology, philosophy, or are of some note in Christian history. He doesn't seem to precisely fit from what I can tell.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology/Archive_2&oldid=1149231792"