Talk:List of Christians in science and technology/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archiving?

Talk page was getting long so I created an archive, but then decided I should discuss first before archiving. Would everyone be okay with archiving or are there any objection? (I'll put this up top too for those who don't like to scroll.)--T. Anthony (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

As there was no objections, it's archived. (Forgot to sign)--T. Anthony (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Karl W. Giberson

I'm considering adding him, but I don't know if he's notable enough as a scientist. Thoughts?--T. Anthony (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Jaki's death

Did you notice that the third man listed under "Living", Father Stanley Jaki, died in April 2009? I don't know how to edit this page. It's too beautifully arranged for a butcher like me to adjust it, but he needs to be moved to the list of Christian thinkers who are deceased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg jinkerson (talk • contribs) 19:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice that, but thanks for the information. I do love the format, but am aware it's difficult. I try to give pointers in every section on how to use it, etc. I'd really hate to abandon it, but may if objections prove great enough.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Teilhard de Chardin

Should we add Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.12.26 (talk) 11:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I had him on List of Jesuit scientists. I'm worried about this getting too long so I have Quakers and Jesuits on separate lists.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Napoleonic Wars to the modern era

Then in the twentieth century new areas of physics, like the Big Bang or Quantum mechanics arose. Christians in science in this period dealt with new discoveries in a variety of ways ranging from total rejection to a measured support.

The Big Bang theory was formulated by a Christian (and celebrated by the Pope, no less), and this implies it was something Christians had to "deal with". And the second sentence wrongfully implies that there are no Christians who fully embrace science.

66.142.94.33 (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

When I created this Wikipedia was pretty hostile to the idea of this list so I wanted to make it "atheist friendly." I originally even included scientists oppressed by Christians for that purpose. Anyway I'm good with your rewording of that section.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Why are there so few women in this article?

It wasn't hard for me to find Noella Marcellino.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noella_Marcellino

Does she qualify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anglicannon (talk • contribs) 23:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like she might. I may add her in a bit. I did want to add women though, it was just hard finding any that fit.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll find some more and you can add those you want as a group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anglicannon (talk • contribs) 20:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm considering Ms Marcellino, Laura Bassi, Hildegard of Bingen, Mary Celine Fasenmyer, Paula González, and/or Mary Anning. I'm just not sure if these have the dual notability that I feel is important for this. Although Gonzalez and Hildegard seem to be pretty solid. Also I will add Jennifer Wiseman.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow you got a couple of the ones I was thinking about.

I'll try to add a few more on wed. --Anglicannon (talk) 06:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Two names I'm considering, but...

They're both guys, James Prescott Joule and William Henry Flower. Joule didn't have his faith affect his science, which is fine actually, but it seems to have been significant for him. I worry this is already too long though.--T. Anthony (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm out

Judging by the warning I guess the list is going to have to change in at least somewhat drastic ways. I was always willing to do that, but I do like the way it looks (I based it on what was then a featured list, but granted they didn't put the sources in the table) and in time I guess I figured it was fairly accepted. Still things are changing in some ways and, as an attempt I made to AfD something else I created showed, I'm not adapting. Which is to be expected I guess, for years I've indicated active disapproval of Wikipedia, but still a part of me hates to let this go. Still I have worried I have dominated the article too much and I know it's not really mine to "let go." So I suppose this is good and long overdue. Somehow I don't exactly feel that at the moment, but in my head that makes the most sense. I'll take this off my watch list and exit.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

My English is a little rust, but I'd like to say that, if you really leave, I will certainly miss the way you always took good care of the page. For anyone following the development of this article, it is clear that most of what makes this a great list was made by your input. Thank you for the many contributions. --Leinad-Z (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I may still add some of the names I mentioned above if I can find the right sourcing.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

external links and references

The banner below was inserted in the article:

To solve the problem, we can change the source section to use the "reference" system. (in this way, the external links will no longer be "part of the article"). I just did this kind of conversion in the first section of the article. But, before proceeding, I'd like some feedback if it is indeed a good move. -Leinad-Z (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit the concern flummoxed me, hence my reaction. It seemed like purely a cosmetic concern, that as other Wikipedia articles don't don't do links like that I must have done something wrong. (Oddly I could have understood a harsher/meaner response like, "You have made this list so difficult to change it's become like your own little fiefdom" more easily, but the objection didn't seem to be against it being hard as most things that make it difficult to change were not really questioned) The sources themselves were not being criticized, I think I would have also handled that better actually provided the person had some ideas on better sourcing, but the form of presentation of them was objectionable. I did not feel I knew why except "we don't do it that way here." Being a bit of a contrarian and maybe just egotistical my first feeling was either "who cares what others do, if this has been worked for this article" or more arrogantly "The way I did it is right, it's everyone else that's wrong!" Also in a way I'm conservative, I do not like change unless I see reason for change. I didn't really feel that. Still seeing the compliance attempt you started it seems fine I guess, even if I still don't quite see why it's necessary.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going further. I just "converted" another section. Regarding the "it was already good the way it was" issue, I can certainly see were you are coming from. On the other hand, this new system will be handy whenever an entry requires multiple sources. One of the reasons I have not disputed certain claims inserted in this article was because I felt the whole process would fill the source cells with way too many references, distorting the table in an ugly way.

(Unfortunately, even with the new system, I will probably still lack the free time and patience to do some edits I think I should... Maybe I can do something during my vacation...) --Leinad-Z (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess it was for the best then. Still I worry I did dominate this list too much and it's really rather large now.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, you were always open to contrary opinions and never simply imposed a point of view on how things should be done. I think you don't need worry about it.

Regarding the length of the list, I feel it should be subdivided in smaller chunks of scientists for easier navigation and editing. I just did a very bold edit in this regard, and would like to know your opinions about it. Notice that the changes include tweaking of the space left between the entries of the list, (it can only be seen in the edit mode). Also notice that, in the process, some information you wrote was removed from the article (but can be restored later, even if the new system prevails). --Leinad-Z (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

PS.: Assuming this new division stays, I guess we will need to add short introductory notes in each section... because I already miss the ones I just removed. This is why I am conflicted about the new division: in a certain way I am trying to reduce the problems bought up by a large list by making it even larger. On the other hand, I think contextual info about each century can really add to the reader's comprehension... Maybe large is OK, as long as it is well organized. --Leinad-Z (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Martin Gaskell

given that he's currently in the middle of a controversy, is he appropriate for inclusion? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/17/AR2010121701178.html His article on astrophysics and religion is quite interesting: http://incolor.inetnebr.com/gaskell/Martin_Gaskell_Bible_Astronomy.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitelaughter (talk • contribs) 09:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Giuseppe Moscati?

I just saw a prayer card for him at Church. Do you think he'd fit or is his science work too marginal?--T. Anthony (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. It seems he is the only canonized 20th century scientist so far. If he really did solid scientific research, (marginal or not), I'm inclined to think he would be a good addition to the list. --Leinad-Z (talk) 05:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Werner Heisenberg

I was wondering why he's not on this list. http://www.adherents.com/people/ph/Werner_Heisenberg.html 170.140.105.1 (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like he might fit. Although it'd be best if there were additional sources to adherents.com, but if anyone wants to add him that might be okay.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm unsure of the credibility of the side "Adherents." Are there other sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.29.205 (talk) 05:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a good source for Heisenberg being included on this list. It is his own essay, SCIENCE AND RELIGION, which can be found online, included in the newest edition of "Physics and Philosophy." In this book, he not only claims that he is a Christian, but that Max Planck is a Christian as well. There was also a talk he gave about science and faith, where he makes even stronger statements than in Science and Religion, but I cannot find the transcript. Suffice to say, Heisenberg should be added, and if there are no serious objections, I will add him to the list. Paul Rimmer (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No Ronald Fisher?

I was just wondering, is there any particular reason why Ronald Fisher is omitted from this list? He's certainly made an impact on science, and I think he both published articles in church magazines and preached sermons, so I'd have thought that he would qualify. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 01:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems like I was going to include him and then I found a reason he didn't work, but I don't remember. Maybe it was a lack of co-notability i.e. did he do any writings on religion? Anyway feel free to add him if you find cause.--T. Anthony (talk) 06:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Pritchard

What about Andrew Pritchard? His lede says: "Andrew Pritchard (1804 –1882) was an English naturalist and natural history dealer who made significant improvements to microscopy and studied microscopic organisms. His belief that God and nature were one led him to the Unitarians, a religious movement to which he and his family devoted much energy. He became a leading member of Newington Green Unitarian Church in north London, and worked to build a school there." At least one of his scientific books was a standard reference in its field. You couldn't call him a theologian, but he was a big fish in the small pond of his denomination, and helped shape its pro-rationalist views. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Solomon

Does anyone know about Solomon, a famous king of ancient Israel? He lived in the 900s B.C. I think he should have a section in here because he was one of the greatest naturalists that lived in the ancient world. JoJaEpp (talk) 05:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe he was jewish, not christian, something supported by the "900 years before crucifixion". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.165.15 (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Georg Cantor.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Georg Cantor.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 27 April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Georg Cantor.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

First and second paragraphs

I've copy edited the second paragraph of the lead (first stab; limited success). The first paragraph, however, remains a mess and needs to be redrafted; it is hopelessly vague. Jprw (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

A very useful page, thanks

I say this in case any deletionists= fundamentalists come along. 24.240.50.251 (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Frederick Rossini[1][2]?

I largely dropped out of this page and I put him on List of Catholic scientists. Still in science he won the Priestley Medal and he also won the specifically Catholic Laetare Medal. The only other scientist I find to win the Laetare Medal is Albert Francis Zahm.--T. Anthony (talk) 07:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Added Rossini, hope that's okay.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm

I added a name, but I kind of worry this list has gotten a little unruly since I largely left it. People are maybe being listed as Catholic when they're not, people are listed without any indication of religious notability, etc. Unfortunately it's so big I'm not sure I could fix it or if that an attempt would be accepted.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Article Formatting - Pictures, spacing

Hello. I am just curious to see why this list has pictures. I think the pictures take up too much space and that by just keeping the boxes and references only, it should make the list better to fit in many more Christian scientists and make the list more comprehensive.

I know that the intro says scientists who have contributed to theology and that others are not included like Quakers or Jesuits, but why can't we just make the list longer and with less space? Looking at other lists, they simply stack scientists one on top of each other which makes it better to continue the list downwards. I just think this list can be more comprehensive and reduce the space by removing pictures and keeping the colored boxes along with the nice chronology already there. What do you guys think? I am suggesting an important change, so I hope to hear back from some editors on this. --Ramos1990 (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Just giving a heads up. If I don't hear any objections, I will remove all the pictures and keep all else to make more room for more Christians who have made significant contributions to science. I may also change the intro a little since more scientists could be put in to the list if the spacing is minimized. --Ramos1990 (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I would have objected, I suppose I do object, and I started this list. However as I objected to previous changes I guess I didn't bother and I had kind of resigned my involvement. Still I based the design of this on List of Presidents of Venezuela, a featured list, and it still has pictures. I know some individuals on this list don't really have pictures, but I think the list looked better with them. I could see length concerns, but it's only an 8K or so difference and the page is still well over 100K. But you did it and it's probably too late to undo it. (Although if it's not, I'll be one for saying "undo it.")

I think if this is the direction those here want then the whole table-format should likely be scrapped. Although I liked it, I did recognize it might make things more difficult. Now whatever advantages tabling had I think are largely gone. It might be that the only remaining advantage of a table design is stating what stream of Christianity the individuals are in. But that can be dealt with without a color-coded table and there's always been some difficulty with that on individuals who don't fit as "Catholic, Anglican, Protestant, or Eastern." Like we tend to put Jansenists as Catholic, but it's debatable if that's proper. So if this is the direction those here wish then it's likely time to either end the tabling system or consider ending it. Make it like List of Muslim scientists or List of atheists in science and technology. Although, alternatively, maybe we make the tables sortable so they have more of a purpose.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi T. Anthony, glad to hear your comments. I would like to reopen the format discussion, if you are willing. All I did was remove the pictures. I did this because the pictures make it nice, but the real "space" I was talking about was the length of the list. The pictures do make some of the entries bulky and so it looks like a lot of scrolling down just to get to the bottom of a decent size list of individuals. The atheists in science and technology page looks more extensive (+ 200,000) and I know that many more Christians have contributed to science than are currently on this list. If we do technology it would be way too long for sure, but I was hoping to make this list an exhaustive one on science. The color is not an issue for me since it makes the list stand out and is more specific where possible. If we go by my suggestion, it would mean funneling in many from the other christian lists with reliable references. What do you think?--Ramos1990 (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes I know it doesn't seem like much, but it was one of the points remaining of having it be a table rather than an ordinary list scheme. If the goal is to make this list more exhaustive the table thing maybe is also an unneeded distraction. But the thing is when I created this there was actually something like objection to this being "exhaustive." And I didn't entirely disagree with that. Because if we list all or most "Christians who have contributed to science" we will be listing pretty much every European scientist who died before 1800 and a good deal of those who lived before 1890. (Pew Research Center[3] indicates even today 30% of American scientists identify as some kind of Christian in some fashion) So my purpose/intent was more scientists whose Christianity was notable and Christian theologians whose science was notable. Possibly removing pictures allows us too more fully cover those but by maintaining the table, but removing the pictures, this list I think now may have less pictures than List of atheists in science and technology. If you're a "just the facts" person that lack of pictures might be better, but sometimes attention getting devices are useful. And as I said I don't think eliminating pictures is freeing up all that much room. This list is going to be bulky unless, maybe, you limit it only to names and sources removing all else. (If this is actually what you'd like that might make sense even if changing the purpose) So I guess I'm saying if you want more exhaustive and less bulky than it might make more sense to eliminate the tables, reduce the information on each person, and make it like List of Catholic scientists or Quakers in science. Then we could include some pictures or visuals for attention or even to clarify if something needs pictured. (Like possibly pictures of objects they discovered, or illustrations of concepts they studied, would be helpful in some cases)--T. Anthony (talk) 03:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Also I'm going to be off the computer in a couple hours and off until Friday. So I may not get to respond to any responses.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi T. Anthony. I see your concerns. I think that instead of listing scientists who have contributed to theology, it should be more focused on their accomplishments. I wanted to make the list more exhaustive, but of course, not infinitely exhaustive. I think that by focusing on major contributions in science, like John Dalton and atomic theory, should be the core focus and the description should be nominally shorter for some of the current entries. In doing so, many of the smaller rank and file scientists would not be put in. I think notability of a scientists can be a key for who should be in. I think the table format helps and we can stick in pictures of giants (Newton, Joule, Pascal, Bacon, Ockham, Heisenberg etc.) on throughout maybe in a line by time frame. What do you think?--Ramos1990 (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'm back a bit early. What you seem to be saying makes me think you may want the purpose of the list itself to be changed to make it more like List of Catholic scientists, etc. That the focus should be on significant scientists who happen to be Christian and not so much people with co-notability for religion and science. (Some of whom may not be as scientifically major as Newton or Heisenberg or the like) I guess what I did would then change to being a Christian section in List of science and religion scholars and maybe I could start trying to improve that list. But if you wish to change the whole purpose of this list then you should maybe change the title. Make it like List of Christians in science or List of Christians in the history of science and then merge the Quaker, Jesuit, and Catholic lists into that. When I started this list that kind of "list of Christians in science" thing was seen as too general to be totally acceptable so instead I focused on people who were involved in "religion and science" issues or were clergy or nuns. But there does seem to be some change on these matters. Anyway if what you want is something different than what this list has been I think this title is not appropriate so you'd probably need to move the list.--T. Anthony (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi T. Anthony, the List of Catholic scientists and others like that can keep most of the scientists there. Only a few from those lists should be included the list of Christian thinkers such as Avogadro or Dalton, for instance. Scientific prominence should be the main focus in my view for the list since by focusing on theology too, it makes it harder since many scientists even today are not contributors in theology. Also the title of the article is not problematic at all so no need to change it. Some significant theological contribution can also be mentioned if such exists, but it should be shorter and to the point. This is what I am suggesting. The current format with the table with the colors is quite helpful and should be kept. What do you think?--Ramos1990 (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

So should they still have con-notability, not necessarily theology but as active practitioners of some form of Christianity, but with the focus being on scientific notability? Or is it just to be about as many scientists as we can get who are Christian? I understand you want it to be larger, but it's already over 100K. Granted I've played the main role in List of American Catholics getting to nearly 200K, but I'm not sure how long lists are allowed to get.--T. Anthony (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Since this list is about Christian thinkers in science, then they should all have notability in science, at least, and should have Christian identification. If they are notable in theology also (like Augustine or Thomas Aquinas) then that could also be briefly mentioned, but for any one to be on the list - only 2 things are needed: that they be notable Christians and that they have made notable scientific contributions in research or other science related pursuits. If both notabilities are maintained, it will reduce the number of candidates eligible for the list. If you are worried about the length of the characters for the list, then maybe we can eliminate the table and put in parentheses their denomination, if they have one. What do you think?--Ramos1990 (talk) 00:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Might work. I kind of wish this conversation weren't just you and I though as I wouldn't mind more feedback.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing. I will contact another frequent contributor to this page see what they think. --Ramos1990 (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

the development of the leaves

well when i open either the scientists writing about their faith and wrote that they were, or believers or agonostitsi or were not at all. Is not it better to write when I open their website to read about them, they were believers, and not just in spisaka them there names — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.215.34.190 (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Enoch Fitch Burr

It'd be nice if Enoch Fitch Burr is added to the list. I don't know how to do it, but if someone knows, I'd like it.

He was an astronomer and theologian graduated at the University of Yale. His most famous scientific work is "Ecce Coelum: Or Parish Astronomy", and a major book about science & religion is "Testimony of the Ages: Or, Confirmations of the Scriptures, from Modern Science and Recent Discoveries; Ancient Records and Monuments; the Ruins of Cities and Relics of Tombs" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goose friend (talk • contribs) 18:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

As the list has been changed rather strongly from what I had once worked for I think the table feature no longer adds anything and I have removed it. I'd hoped for more discussion on that, but it seems that is not going to happen. Also I added that name and it should be easier for others to add whomever they wish.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Possible Additions

Hello everyone. I have never added any content to any wikipedia page but am interested in making some suggestions to this article. If anyone needs information about sources to provide for citations, i can certainly help with that. In my personal research these individuals profess a Christian faith.

Peter Dodson (Paleontologist at University of Pennsylvania) Stephen Blundell (Professor of Physics at Oxford) Marlan Scully (Professor of Physics at Texas A&M and Princeton) Gerald Gabrielse(Professor of Physics at Harvard) Cees Dekker (Dutch Physicist) Fred Brooks (Computer Scientist) John Roe (Mathematician at Penn State) Andrew Steane (Professor of Physics at Oxford) Andrew Briggs (Professor of Nanomaterials at Oxford) Martinez Hewlett (Emeritus Professor of Biology at University of Arizona) Martin Bott (Emeritus Professor in the Department of Earth Sciences at Durham University) Robert John Russell (Professor at Graduate Theological Union) Andrew Bocarsly (Professor of Chemistry at Princeton) Malcolm Jeeves (Professor Emeritus of Psychology at St. Andrews) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.113.174 (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Edward Jenner

I have no idea what this article is for. Is it designed to reveal a correlation or an absence of correlation between Christianity and science? Or is it just a list? In any case, you have omitted the one man who has saved more human lives than Jesus ever did, Edward Jenner, the discoverer of vaccinations.

And why isn't Charles Darwin in your list? After all almost all of his work was accomplished while he was still a believer.

I look forward to a similar list about footballers and Christianity. You may find a preponderance of Brazilians which will allow you to suggest a link between Christianity and how good Brazil is at football.

This is not worthy of being on Wikipedia. KevinH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.141.213 (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Christians who are/were "thinkers" on the topic of science or Scientists who are/were Christians?

This list seems confused. I find it to be generally a list of Christians who published on the topic of Science, but by no means ARE scientists as implied by the title. There are several theologians on this list who published extensively ABOUT science but certainly NOT from WITHIN (or "in") science. They did not practice science or formally study science. Unless someone can justify the current state of this article to me, I will change at least the introduction to recognise that this is a list of theologians who discuss science, scientists who discuss theology, and scientists who just happen to be christians. I could alternatively begin deleting theologians and Christians from the list who just happen to publish about science. Preferences anyone? Seblopedia (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with changing the article into an theological thing. This is not meant to be, as far as I've seen, a list of theologians, by no means. I would rather appreciate if you be better say who are those theologians, so that they be taken out of this list.--Goose friend (talk) 07:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

My original intent was for it be people who were scientists and who were also Christians wrote about the Relationship between religion and science or people with notability in science and religion writing. I'm not sure I agree to your objections, but I was slightly "disappointed" when it was basically decided to just redo it to any important scientist who happened to be Christian (even nominally) or I guess any theologian who wrote about science. And to be honest I don't even think Unitarian Universalists should be counted unless they identify as Christian U/U and not all U/U do. This is something I preserved to show what was closer to my original intent.

That said if we limited it to "scientists", as in people formally trained to be scientists, we'd have to cut out about everyone before 1800 or at least before 1660. I admit I never really intended that. So why I might not like your objection is it could mean you want say Hunayn ibn Ishaq or Nicholas of Cusa out and I admit I wouldn't care for that. Possibly all versions would not fit what you wish.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Why do we need this article?

A quick wikipedia search shows we have no such article for Muslim thinkers, Hindu thinkers, Jain thinkers, or other religions, so why do we need one devoted to Christian thinkers, and why do we need a list of thinkers sorted by religion at all? --74.198.165.15 (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

A quick look at this article shows a link to List of Muslim scientists, List of Jewish scientists and philosophers, and List of atheists in science and technology. The title was made "Christian thinkers in science" in part because the original List of Christian scientists was deleted so a more specific list was created by me. (I just popped in to add pictures and fix some links)--T. Anthony (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

What criteria are used for inclusion? Why are Christians who advance evolution, genetics and astrophysics so notably left off? Edarrell (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

They merely have to be scientists who have made notable contributions in science. Its in the Intro of the article. Also, Kenneth Miller and Simon Morris, who have contributed to evolution are on the list. So numerous people who have advanced evolution, genetics, and astrophysics have already been included. If you find more, feel free to insert them.Mayan1990 (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Tesla

Searching about Nikola Tela's religious views we can find out that, though he was raised as such, there is no true evidence of him being an orthodox christian believer. Regardless of his respect of Christianity, he seems to have been a materialist, he stated plainly that he believed in an un-created infinite universe. I think he shouldn't be in the lede.--Goose friend (talk) 07:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I know we don't "own" articles we create, but there have been additions I have not liked. I don't know that Tesla was exactly a materialist in the way you might mean, but I'm pretty sure I read an interviewing stating he was not Christian. I'll remove him, if he's still there, and remove any or all unsourced names I find.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC) He seems to have been removed. I intended to edit the list, but it's even larger now than it was so I'm not sure where to begin.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not buy it "Peace can only come as a natural consequence of universal enlightenment and merging of races, and we are still far from this blissful realization, because few indeed, will admit the reality that "God made man in His image" in which case all earth men are alike. There is in fact but one race, of many colors. Christ is but one person, yet he is of all people, so why do some people think themselves better than some other people?". Definitely religion, mostly Christian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.168.212 (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

What is the source of the above quote about human races?174.45.3.11 (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

That was taken directly from "My Inventions: The Autobiography of Nikola Tesla". He is indeed a Christian, he should be included in this list. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=quQWvRLc-eUC&pg. You can use the search, I have poor skills in citations. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.168.212 (talk) 09:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Criteria for being on the list

Why does the Atheist list only include people who have declared themselves to be atheists, while this christian list is based on peoples feelings about what the people may have written or spoken at sometime in their life? Should the criteria not be the same for all entries to be unbiased? Actually, is it not original research to declare someone a christian when they themselves have not done that in a believable way? If it is a criteria in one sense it would be a criteria in all.

Many people in the past, such as Jefferson, spoke of the christian way without declaring himself as a christian, or at least not the same christian as the general populous believed in. The Bible he wrote had christ as a simple human being who was a prophet, not the "son of god" and therefore was not a christian at all. What criteria did the author use to determine if the people they were talking about were christian, deist, atheist, etc? Just mentioning or writing about an entity does not make you of that religion - after all in the past you were killed if you said you were an atheist, so how did the author determine the difference between the beliefs of the people in the list and their natural instinct to survive the brutality of the religious? It is only in the last few hundred years and then only in certain countries could one be an open atheist without suffering physical harm or death.

Why does the Atheist list only list Atheists that are alive now? The christian list goes back to 313CE. Is this not an indication that the author has deliberately created a falsehood (commonly called a lie) by excluding Atheists of the past? (It keeps the false list of 1700 years of "christian" scientists as long or longer than the 50 years of atheists that is allowed - an out and out lie). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.3.11 (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a major problem in what you are inferring. For one thing, many of the works that survived from people before the modern period include them discussing Christian theology and even are known by the Catholic Church historically as being Christians and not anything else. Many of the guys from the medieval period were known to be theologians themselves and we have some of their writings today. Your example of Jefferson is odd because no one considered him a Christian because everyone knows what he wrote about. Historians check records such as their writings and other sources to know who is and who was not a Christian and the citations are there to support that reality. It is not an ambiguous enterprise at all. Atheism emerged in the early 1700s and for early atheists historinas have do the same thing. Form their writings people make claims and from those claims is their clear picture of affiliation.Mayan1990 (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not think I created the atheist list or if I did I was likely just spinning off something from an atheist list. As for this list there was initially resistance to there being a list of Christians who are scientists at all as it was seen as a non-notable intersection or something. So I tried to give con-notability. Meaning they not only said they were Christian but wrote something on the topic. Although I admit I thought that made the list more interesting. As things changed the list evolved in ways I didn't much agree with, and so I largely dropped out, but I'd assume everyone listed has a source saying they identified as Christian. If you find a name where that's not the case I'd say remove it.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely right, Rmos1990, furthermore, if you check his history, he was editing the Tesla tab a fair bit (complaining for lack of evidence and swapping "purportedly" in the main text, a very connotation heavy word). I may be over-reading, but it appears his wall was in response to Tesla being added, despite having little evidence, and mainly secondary evidence. I have provided a primary account and source that refutes such a notion (autobiography, no less). He was certainly religious, and most certainly a Christian. There can be an argument made for his belief in Buddhist philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.168.212 (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Rutherford, E.

Does anyone have any reference to Ernest Rutherford's beliefs? Lehasa (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

POV title

I notice the article has been moved back to the POV title which is based on editors' own judgment of what constitutes a "Christian thinker". Isaac Newton again provides the perfect answer: first, he was not a scientist he was a natural philosopher, second, to call him a "Christian thinker" is an abject failure of NPOV since he was a deist not a Christian thinker - he explicitly rejected the Trinity and refused to take orders even though it was at that time mandatory in order to matriculate from Cambridge. It seem to me that people want to keep this article based on arguments that are not actually related to its content. The title needs to change because the current one is unacceptable both in terms of what constitutes a Christian thinker and because most of those here are not scientists at all, but philosophers or natural philosophers. I am frankly disgusted by the reversion of the move and I guarantee that at this title it will be contentious forever. Guy (Help!) 11:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

A few points

This is a list, not a prose article. Most of the commentary which is irrelevant to the list must go. See WP:MOSLIST. I have removed a lot. I've also moved the article to a more reasonable title (it is almost impossible not to be a "thinker"... you'd basically have to be in a persistent vegetative state and then I imagine you wouldn't be much of a scientist). The new title is in line with List of atheists in science and technology, incidentally.

I will be going through soon and removing all of the poorly sourced and unsourced content as well as stuff that is irrelevant. Many of the people listed are either not explicitly Christian, not specifically scientists or developers of technology, or not notable for being one of the two. Only those who satisfy the inclusion criteria should be included and that inclusion criteria must be sourced to a third party reliable source. Most apologetics sources do not count, incidentally.

jps (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Major category problem

Science began in the mid 19th Century, perhaps around 1840 if you want to pin it down to a decade. Anyone before that was a philosopher or a natural philosopher. They are very different. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Guy. Though I see your reasoning and even have been a strong advocate of the informing others of the recent invention of science in the 19th century, I think that one has to consider that many historians of science do treat people prior to the 19th century who studied nature as "scientists" either way (e.g. Aristotle, Galen, Roger Bacon, Issac Newton). In fact one need only to look for books with primary sources that talk about Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Islamic, Medieval science, sciences during the Enlightenment and individual scientists from those pre-19th century time periods, for example A Sourcebook in Medieval Science (Source Books in the History of the Sciences) by Edward Grant for the work of scientists in the Middle Ages.

Other books are available too such as Greek Science of the Hellenistic Era: A Sourcebook (Routledge Sourcebooks for the Ancient World). Grant has actually written about Natural Philosophy elsewhere, but even he uses "scientist" and "natural philosopher" interchangeably to describe people who engaged in the study of nature because much of the stuff they did is what we would today call "science". "Scientist" is a convention of modern thought about those who studied nature and sought knowledge of nature throughout history (ancient to modern).Mayan1990 (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Guy, I just saw that you deleted a good chunk of the article without first discussing it on the talk page. Lets get some input here before we finalize that. From the list there were notable examples of people who studied nature (did science) and also were Christians - some even wrote works on theology like may of the medieval scientists like Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon. Even Newton wrote theology. In fact there were already classification of the sciences (including many fields of science used today such as astronomy, physics, medicine, etc) in the ancient and medieval period too so the "sciences" and practices have been around for a long time, but the "professionalization" and reification of sciences occurred in the 19th century.

Furthermore, I think that the removal of obvious historical scientists who were Christians is problematic because there are numerous books out there that discuss "science and religion" that go well into the ancient and modern world - including topics that were about pre-19th century (Newtonian mechanics), scientific method (Francis Bacon), Galileo, Roger Bacon's fusions of mathematics and experiment, etc. Many collections by many historians of science exist such as Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction edited by Gary Ferngren, When Science and Christianity Meet edited by Ronald Numbers, God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science edited by Ronald numbers. This is a notable format of discussion among reliable sources and professionals on the history of science and Christianity and they understand that there have been many Christians engaged in science since early on in the medieval period. Let me know your thoughts. Mayan1990 (talk) 01:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I am also not sure that narrowing the scope of the article and then immediately deleting everything below an arbitrary cutoff date is good behavior while an AFD is underway. Perhaps we should allow the person closing the AFD discussion to decide on consensus and a course of action. Elizium23 (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Given the preponderance of WP:ILIKEIT |votes in the AfD, it is important to focus the article on a defensible scope before the debate concludes. Right now you are mixing pre-science, protoscience and science, and indeed "science" in some cases. The article combines two categories, but one of them is being grossly misrepresented.

You're also mixing the present-day situation with historical society. These days religion is not, for most civilised countries, a defining national characteristic, and the default for a scientist is not to be religious. There is a tiny group of people who the vehemently anti-science fundamentalists like to showcase as scientists who oppose evolution, and that is a problem per WP:NPOV here. 200 years ago it was extraordinary to find anybody in the UK or America who did not self-identify as Christian, and that included natural philosophers. Historical and modern-day christianity, as a category, are fundamentally different in a way this list entirely fails to make clear. Guy (Help!) 20:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I see no issue with the discourses of science or Christianity in this list extending throughout their own histories which of course go way back into the ancient and medieval periods (which is why fields like physics, astronomy, mathematics, medicine and other parts of the sciences we have today have been mentioned well before the 19th century going as far back as the ancient Greeks). Books on the history of physics, medicine, chemistry, etc do not stop at the 19th century. They go well before that into the ancient period because these fields have been under investigation since very early on. The pursuit of the knowledge of nature is not a unique modern thing nor was it invented recently. It extends far back. Your categories of "pre-science", "protoscience" and "science" are certainly problematic because historians of science do not break history into these categories nor do many even start in the 19th century. Instead they see a continuum of basics practices of studying nature that certainly extended across time, cultures, and languages in the midst of changing technological and social conditions.

Both Science and Christianity are not monolithic things and they have changed through time and are still changing, but that does not means that these entities did not exist in earlier periods. The list merely reflects the reality that Christians that have made contributions to the studies of nature as does the List of Muslim scientists and any other lists of pre-19th century researchers of nature such as List of Greeks#Scientists and Engineers (the Greeks did not even uses the word "scientia" because that is a Latin term). One must keep in mind that Lord Kelvin himself published in 1867 Treatise on Natural Philosophy which was a modern textbook in physics which shows a continuum of ideas on the study of nature, not a spontaneous emergence of the study of nature nor a departure from the history of science. In the 19th century, William Whewell, who played a major part in the formulation of science as we know it today included the ancients in his discourses on the history of science. Mayan1990 (talk) 03:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I have now reverted the out-of-process page move and respectfully request that a WP:RM be started if the change in name and scope is still desired at this juncture. Elizium23 (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Some kind of restriction might make sense though to keep it from becoming too large and unwieldy, but I'm not sure what that should be.--T. Anthony (talk) 09:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Third party reliable sources that explicitly speak to both inclusion criteria are needed. They need to reliably identify the person as a scientist notable for Christian beliefs. If we don't have those, the person must be removed. jps (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Agnes Giberne: scientist?

The sources for Agnes Giberne show that she was a popularizer of science and an amateur astronomer, but I don't think she was a scientist. Any sources which show this? jps (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll admit I might have kept her, in part, because there are so few women. I can remove her if you wish or you can do it yourself.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Name/description mismatch?

The title is "List of Christians in science and technology", but the description seems to be it's just scientists. Should engineers and technology people go in or stay out?--T. Anthony (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

What if we take the example of List of atheists in science and technology as a parallel exemplar? jps (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting to look over that one. It seems to include people like Montgolfier, who I think might be more technology than science. Unrelated is it goes back to people who died in the 18th century so I think maybe I was too open to the idea of limiting it to 1830 and after.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

There are mathematicians on that page too, so we may wish to rethink our exclusion of them here. I'm inclined to prefer people who worked with empirical data, but a case could be made for foundational mathematics as being relevant (see our discussion of Leibniz above). jps (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

At the very least I think some mathematicians might be relevant enough to physics, for example Bernhard Riemann, that it might make sense to include them. (Maybe not Riemann specifically, as his Christianity is maybe not notable, but a case like him if not him.)--T. Anthony (talk) 06:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Then again maybe Riemann specifically. "Riemann was a dedicated Christian, the son of a Protestant minister, and saw his life as a mathematician as another way to serve God. During his life, he held closely to his Christian faith and considered it to be the most important aspect of his life. At the time of his death, he was reciting the Lord’s Prayer with his wife and died before they finished saying the prayer.[4]--T. Anthony (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Lord Rayleigh: anemic churchgoer?

I find it difficult to accept that Lord Rayleigh, who in many of his writings disclaims much of orthodox Christianity, is included on this list. He doesn't even go so far as to self-identify. I recommend removal. jps (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

John Wheeler, Unitarian

Are Unitarians necessarily Christian? I think not. GangofOne (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

It depends on the kind and the era. Unitarian Universalists are not necessarily Christian and often are not. However predecessors, like the American Unitarian Association, quite possibly were some kind of Christian and their official journal was The Christian Register.--T. Anthony (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Then in Wheeler's case, more detail is needed. GangofOne (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Limiting people?

I was open to deleting this list, if saddened by the idea, but it wasn't deleted. And there has not yet been agreement on limiting it to people from after 1830. Considering those things the standards are usually that you can source them as being called both things and both as notable to their biography. You clearly can here.--T. Anthony (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking that maybe the thing to look at might not be so much limiting the scope, but, if at all possible, maybe creation of other articles. I see mathematics in particular as being, according to what I see in a rough google search, probably of sufficient notabiity in and of itself to qualify for a separate list. Just an idea, of course. John Carter (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The list of Christian mathematicians is in many ways more interesting to me than the list of scientists who are/were Christian. jps (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I would agree to creat list of Christian mathematicians.--Jobas (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

List of Christian Nobel laureates, see also

currently in dispute. Some on that list, of the scientists, are not on this list. such as Stark and Lenard. Might be others as well. GangofOne (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC) (comment restored. 62.10.71.29. please do not remove other person's comments).GangofOne (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible source

Having not thoroughly checked through every entry, I can't be so sure of the referencing, but this site might be a useful at least starting point, if not necessarily RS in and of itself. John Carter (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, not so keen on using a creationist site to try to start a list. I think our current list is at least a little bit less credulous in its inclusion/exclusion. It would be nice to find a list that was curated by someone who wasn't a professing Christian. It's not that I think it is impossible for professing Christians to do an honest job in list-curation, it's just that I've seen a lot of them be very dishonest because their goal in making such lists is to either evangelize or generate arguments to use in apologetics. jps (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of using it directly either. However, it does seem to base many or most of its entries on other, presumably more reliable sources. I didn't check if it specifically cites which sources it uses for which claims, so if it doesn't indicate them forget it, but it does indicate the sources which it used to gather the lists in general, and so far as I can tell at least some of them meet minimum RS standards. John Carter (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I saw it citing Institute for Creation Research and Lambert Dolphin's website and decided it wasn't worth my time. jps (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Leibniz: Scientist?

Leibniz was an excellent mathematician, but he was not an empiricist and his theoretical work suffered because of it. It's hard for me to see why he should be included on a list of scientists. jps (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The current title says "in science and technology." He is relevant to technology. Although the explanation does specify scientists. However there's not been agreement on restricting it to people who lived after the 1830s.--T. Anthony (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

He's a mathematician and his logic and mathematical work is relevant to technology, but so is the work of many mathematicians. He was not into applying his philosophy and, as such, isn't a scientist or engineer. jps (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

All mathematicians, theoreticians and even philosophers are researchers/scientists. There is no question about it. My very best wishes (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not true. A scientist must be empirical. There are pure mathematicians who are not empirical. jps (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Milne and Modern Cosmology and the Christian Idea of God

Milne wrote a fascinating treatise which attempted to wholly redefine Christianity in terms of his own fascinating but largely naturalistic views. It is very nearly a cultic declamation. Saying that he is a Christian because of it is a bit like saying (to be vulgar) that Raël is a Christian because he describes the "correct" way to view Christianity in his writings. jps (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You can not judge it per WP:NOR. If someone said he was Christian and was described as such in sources, everything is fine. My very best wishes (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

His book doesn't actually proclaim his Christian faith. Neither do we have sources which do this, really. jps (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Swedenborg: Scientist?

Swedenborg certainly is not very notable for his scientific achievements. While hagiographies emphasize his scientific prowess, these read to me rather more like the way the North Korean government lauded the polymathic abilities of their leaders. jps (talk) 10:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

We work on what's supported by sources, not what you feel. The following books refer to him as a scientist or in relation to science, this is likely a brief sample. [5][6][7][8][9]

These sources are pretty poor. Most of them are written by Swedenborgians and, therefore, not particularly reliable sources for determining his scientific acumen. Can you do better? jps (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking further I do find several calling him a pseudoscientist, but there's non-Swedenborgian things referring to him in relation to history of science or as a scientist. (And if we're going to get strict on who's a scientist I am open to removing everyone who died before the 1830s.) Anyway Emanuel Swedenborg: - Princeton University,Describes him more as "Newton-admiring engineer-turned-theologian", "Swedenborg's life falls into two very distinct periods: the first extends to the year 1745 and reveals him as an adept in the mathematical and physical sciences" in the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, so not pro-Swedenborgian, Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) natural scientist, neurophysiologist, theologian. in JAMA, "Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772) was a respected Swedish scientist until middle age" from the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, and Swedish National Museum of Science and Technology. Also, here, he's in Category:Swedish scientists. I'll admit there's more refers to him as pseudoscience, and less as science, than I thought considering I think I first heard of the guy in connection to aviation history. (I'm Catholic, not remotely Swedenborgian) But still it's easy to source him as both "history of science" and a mystic.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The guy was clever, certainly. Smart. Well-read. But a scientist? I find that to be at least a bit of a stretch. Still, these sources are a bit better. jps (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

You can not claim that someone is not a scientist if multiple RS tell that he was a scientist. My very best wishes (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

You can if multiple sources claim he wasn't a scientist. jps (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Isaac Newton: Christian?

I don't see any reliable sources for Isaac Newton being a Christian. As far as I can tell, he was Arianist. jps (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:Arian Christians is in Category:Christians by denomination. Isaac Newton is in Category:Christian mystics and Category:English Christian theologians. I don't think Wikipedia is quite set up to judge whether someone is orthodox enough to be deemed. However he did make a statement, in one source I found, that Christianity was no more true than the faith of "the sons of Noah" so I'm not sure. For now though he's in Christian categories so that would seem to make him fit.--T. Anthony (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The point, however, is that there aren't really many good sources which indicate that Newton's religious beliefs align closely with Christianity. We can't just go by categorization. What's the best source you have for indicating Newton was a Christian? jps (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

If you want to remove him from categories you can try that, but he's generally deemed a Christian and a scientist. Sure the Noah thing makes me uncertain, and to be honest further research is causing me to start to personally lean to maybe him being some form of Noahidism rather than Christianity, but Wikipedia doesn't go on one's personal views of what's too heterodox. (Heck the Unification Church and Longhouse Religion are in the Category:Christian new religious movements, not that I'm about to add Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate) or would even support that.) I did find a few sources listing Newton as "secretly Jewish" but I don't know if that's common. For him as some kind of Christian.

• The Newton Papers: The Strange and True Odyssey of Isaac Newton's Manuscripts by Sarah Dry

• Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction edited by Gary B. Ferngren: Describes him as an Arian Christian.

--T. Anthony (talk) 04:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think those two sources make your case very well. If anything, they highlight just how heterodox Newton was in his time. If we're going to consider him a Christian, then anyone who comes up with any heresy should also be so identified. How would you feel about calling Manicheanism a form of Christianity, for example? If we include Newton, why not include all the Islamic scientists who believe in a special status for Jesus that is pretty close to being in line with Arianism? I think we need to draw the line somewhere, and when the notability of the belief is that it is unusual to the point of being nearly heretical, that does not seem to indicate simple inclusion makes sense. jps (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, yes, Manichaeism I think qualifies as Christianity, and, if we're going to call the Jehovah's Witnesses and other nontrinitarian Christians Christians, and we do, we would have to count Arian Christians as Christians too. The Encyclopedia of Christianity here described Newton's faith as being fundamental to his science (admittedly, not saying explicitly what his faith was), I guess he would have to be counted as "Christian."

Also, and maybe again, I have an unfortunate suspicion this list might grow kind of long. I imagine that a number of medieval monks, who would be kind of obviously Christian, might have played significant roles in their individual sciences. Maybe at some point breaking the list up into Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and so on might not be a bad idea. John Carter (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

As a Christian I'm a bit sympathetic to what's being said about Newton, but I'm still a little leery because this is not how I think Wikipedia works. There's an entire Category:Nontrinitarian Christians and I think the place might not be equipped to make the theological judgment being asked of it. (That said splitting this into Anglican, Catholic, Calvinist, Lutheran, and Eastern-Christian might make sense.)--T. Anthony (talk) 06:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

So what about all the Muslim scientists then? I understand that demarcation like this is hard, but why draw the border at Islam? They profess a belief in Jesus as the Messiah. Perhaps your alternative listing of denomination-based scientists would be better, but there are quite a few non-denominational Christians who were scientist as we get to the twentieth century. jps (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I am going to assume that most modern nondenominational Christians will have some sort of tie to some particular church they attended (maybe, admittedly, a vain hope). If they do, then we can include them in whichever category or list would explicitly cover nondenominational Christians or whichever interchurch communion that specific church congregation might belong to.

Regarding Islam as Christian, theoretically, I guess, it could be asserted that they are, but in practice I am unaware of any groups which explicitly use that term in relation to Islam. They count it as an Abrahamic religion, but not necessarily as a Christian one. Also, classicaly, Arianism had bishops, which, to the best of my knowledge (which ain't good in this instance), Muslims don't, and it also followed more or less many of the other specifically Christian practices which aren't necessarily so prominent in Islam (don't mention the Alawi here, please, that is just a headache waiting to happen). 17:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, Newton never belonged to the Arianist church which, obviously, would have been a complete anachronism. He was identified post hoc as such by critics and biographers. I'm still unclear how you're making your dividing line if you accept Manicheanism as a form of Christianity since I don't think its formalized religious structure was anything like what passed for Christian church structure at the time or today. jps (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The philosophy of Arius, though, was first embodied in a group which was specifically Christian, and on that basis in the study of religion groups or individuals which are basically similar in thinking tend to get grouped with the original group putting forward that line of thinking, barring obvious, visible, characteristics which would disqualify them from that status. Manichaeism is as per here a group within the broadly gnostic movement, Granted, not all gnostics are classified as Christian, but many or most of the later gnostic groups are counted as being at least syncretic Christianity, and the structure of the classical group has 12 apostles and a similar religious organization to Christianity, which indicates what might be called a Christian polity, and having a basically "Christian" government helps it specifically among Ghostics often get included as broadly Christian. Also, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Prospectus page includes both Gnosticism and Manichaeism in the list of articles from the "Encyclopedia of Heresies and Heretics," which refers to what are generally called heresies, or unorthodox offshoots, of Christianity. Yeah, that isn't "proof" either, but it does indicate that at least Manichaeism is counted as being in some way Christian, and thus qualifying as Christian, if not exclusively Christian. Classification of religion is an article we desperately need to have, I freely admit, but both seem to qualify under most criteria as being what might be called nonexclusive Christian groups within a Christian cultural framework and with some degree of Christian practices and polity. John Carter (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

See, this is why I hate that list inclusion criteria is more-or-less exempt from WP:NOR. What would be nice is if we could find a simple source that proclaimed Newton's Christianity simply and straightforwardly. But all the sources make hay about how bizarre his beliefs were to the point that they basically opine that if he had been ordained as was generally required at the time for professorships at Cambridge, he probably would have ended up on the wrong end of a heresy trial. Can we have a List of scientists who were Christian heretics? jps (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipeida is not an inquisition to define who is Christian enough and who's not. According to Linda Woodhead attempts to provide a common belief thread for Christians by noting that "Whatever else they might disagree about, Christians are at least united in believing that Jesus has a unique significanc". While Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Christian, are the majority of world christians and they all fall under Trinitarian Christianity, Arianism, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science Church, Unitarians, Christadelphians, the Iglesia ni Cristo, the Members Church of God International, Oneness Pentecostalism, and Swedenborgianism all fall under Nontrinitarian Christianity (britannica fit Arianism under category of Christianity). Members of other Christian groups as Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Christian Science Church and Unitarians are self-identify as Christian and the true form of Christianity although older Christian traditions may view them as distinct from mainstream Christianit. for example while most of US protestant don't consider g Mormonism as a Christian religion, 97% of US mormons consider Mormonism as a Christian religion. While the main christian tream cosider Arianism as Christian heresy this does not mean taking them out of the circle of Christian communities. Although Newton born into an Anglican family he hold an Arian and Unitarian belief which is a nontrinitarian christian belief or theology, Just becouse many of main stream christians will see his belif as heretic, Thats dose not make him not christian enough or out of the circle of Christianity, as the same go for Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses or Unitarian Christian. The comparison with Islam is wrong since Islam being independent religion-based on the teaching and the message of Mohammed and the Koran, While Arianism and the nontrinitarian groups even they reject the mainstream Christian doctrine of the Trinity they still fall under Christianity category since their believes basid on the teaching of Jesus and the bible and since they are self-identify as Christian.--Jobas (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

By Linda Woodhead's definition, Muslims are Christians. If you're going to claim that the Qu'ran somehow disqualifies Muslims, then surely the approach LDS believers take to the Book of Mormon disqualifies Mormons (after all, Joseph Smith said, "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was more correct than any book on earth"). jps (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• It's really quite simple. He refused to take holy orders for matriculation because he repudiated the Trinity. Whatever he was, that means he was not a Christian, as understood then or as commonly understood now, because he explicitly rejected one of the core tenets of all three branches of the Christian faith then dominant in England: the puritanism of Cromwell, the "old religion" of the monarchists, and Roman catholicism. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Since most discussions of Isaac Newton's Christianity revolve around his heterodoxy, I think it is reasonable to say that he should not be included in a list here. jps (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

What's make a Christian a Christian is self-identify as Christian, So seriously the comparison with Islam is totally worng??? Muslims they never ever self-identify as Christian not in the past and certainly not now and you will never ever see any scholar consider Islam as Christian denomination, While in other hand LDS believers (97% of US mormons consider Mormonism as a Christian religion) and Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Christian Science Church and Unitarians or the Arian did self-identify as Christian and most of scholar will consider it as christian sect or theology and part of the Christian theological movement. Unitarianism during Newton time considered as a liberal Christian theological movement and till now many Unitarian groups are self-identify as Christian as Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship or American Unitarian Conference or Unitarian Christian Association. Nestorianism were considered as heresy in the mainstream Christianit eye but Nestorianism count as christians and it's member are self-identify as Christian.

Agian wikipeida is not an Catholic inquisition to define who is Christian enough or not. maybe it's a surprise for some but not all chrisitans are believing in the Trinity doctrine, there are Christians denomination called Nontrinitarianism even if they are minority, they still a Christians. Newton accroding to sources was an Arian scholar consider Unitarian (in Newton time) and the Arianianism as christian theology, That's will count him as Christian. While Catholic or protestant may consier him heretic mormon and Jehovah’s Witnesses will disagree. (By the way the catholic church for centuries called protestant as heretic, That mean we should remove protestant too??), heretic it is a relative thing. most scholars find that Newton was Arian, holding to Unitarian belief which according to scholar is a Christian nontrinitarian belief (adopted later by Jehovah’s Witnesses for example). According to Richard S. Westfall book indiana University The Galileo Project. (Rice University). Newton held a Christian faith that, had it been made public, would not have been considered orthodox by mainstream Christianity, so just becouse mainstream Christianity see it as un-orthodox that dose not mean he is not a Christian. the same can said about mormons for example who the mainstream Christianity may view them as distinct from mainstream Christianity they self-identify as Christian.--Jobas (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

heterodoxy it's a relative ordered what may be a heterodoxy for the catholic church (which been heterodoxy in Eastern orthodox church till 1964) is not for the ancient christian sects as Arianism and Catharism or current Christians denomination as JWs, Mormons, Unitarians, Christadelphians, the Iglesia ni Cristo, the Members Church of God International, Oneness Pentecostalism, and Swedenborgianism who will consider Newton "heterodoxy" as the true christians beliefs.--Jobas (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It's fine with me if we only go with those who strictly self-identify as Christians, but, then, I'm afraid, many of the people on the list will have to be removed as we do not have third-party independent sources indicating that the person made a declarations to that effect. We can start with eliminating Newton, for example. jps (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, it simply is not true that Muslims don't consider themselves Christians, per se. As far as what other Christians thought, St. John of Damascus basically considered them to be a heretical Christian sect, for example: An offshoot of Arianism, no less! jps (talk) 01:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Muslim consider themslef muslims, in statistics and polls Muslims identify themselves as Muslims, not as Christians. Muslim consider their religion Isalm not Christianity, and muslim don't see Islam as a Christian denomination and scholar consider islasm as an independent religion not as Christian sect, this video dose not count as source to support your idea, since it's a missonary video his goal to attract Christian into Islam. This case is not for mormons or other Nontrinitarianism Christian denomination who consider themslef christians and considrt their faith as Christian denomination and most scholar consider and count them as Christian denomination not as independent religion. Still a false comparison.

As for Arianism still is a different issue, Arianism never considered as independent religion it's always been a Christian heresy or theology and most of scholar count it part of christianity Encyclopædia Britannica just an example. Christianity began as jewish sect but no one will consider it a jewish sect or part of the jewish faith why? Because it became independent from Judaism in other hand this did not happen with Arianism, Arianism never been independent from Christianty. You confuse things from each other.

To understand the points I'll give you an example: Baha'i and Ahmadiyya, both of these doctrines considered heretical for the main stream in Islam. But the Baha'i religion was separated and became independent and today all researchers consider the Baha'i as independent religion not as muslim sect, Baha'is see themselves as Baha'is not as muslims. In contrast, researchers consider Ahmadis as is part of the Islamic religion as well Alohamdin consider themselves Muslims. Arianism has not reached the stage, during it's history it's never independence from Christianity or become independent religion. All sources considered Arianism as part of Christianity and arian been awlays self-identify as Christian.--Jobas (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Games people play with who is or isn't Christian are fascinating indeed, and why we don't consider Islam to be Christian is mostly a matter of critical mass. However, you are missing the major point which is that if we go by self-identification, then Newton should go. jps (talk) 02:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask some scholar and their answer will be: Islam is independent religion while Arianism is a Christian heresy or theology, Maybe you can make little search and maybe Encyclopædia Britannica can help you with a little infortamtion. when sorucs do claim that Arianism is a Christian heresy or theology while there is no accadmic source will claim islam is part of the christian faith, you still bringing false examples. it's not Wikipedia thing to judge whether someone is orthodox enough to be deemed or not.--Jobas (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

In the meantime, maybe you can find a scholar who identifies that Isaac Newton called himself a Christian. jps (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Near top of this section jps said "So what about all the Muslim scientists then? I understand that demarcation like this is hard, but why draw the border at Islam? They profess a belief in Jesus as the Messiah." This seems wrong to me. If you say they say Jesus was a _'prophet' or 'messenger', ( and thus had direct divine connection) I wouldn't object. I watched the video by Zakie Naik, it doesn't not support jps's contention that Muslims consider themselves Christian. "By Linda Woodhead's definition, Muslims are Christians." jps, plesase provide citation. GangofOne (talk) 07:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The goal should not be to decide which religious beliefs do or do not qualify. The current inclusion criteria ask the scientist to self-identify. I'm fine with that. If someone calls themselves a Christian and third-party sources affirm this declaration, that seems good enough to me. I think, however, that the term needs to be explicitly "Christian". Newton didn't even self-identify as an Arianist, actually. jps (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Most scholars identify Newton as an Nontrinitarian (Arianist) which was during newton and still a christian belief systems. He's in Christian categories in the wikipedia articles too so that would seem to make him fit, User:T. Anthony and John Carter| gave you sources mention or called newton as Arian Christian:

• The Newton Papers: The Strange and True Odyssey of Isaac Newton's Manuscripts by Sarah Dry

• Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction edited by Gary B. Ferngren: Describes him as an Arian Christian.

• Essays on the Context, Nature, and Influence of Isaac Newton’s Theology: Richard Popkin with James E. Force Describes Newton belief as form of Christianity even it's describe as heterodox

• Facets of Faith and Science by Jitse M. van der Meer, Ph.D., M.A. Professor of Biology and History & Philosophy of Science (emeritus) Department of Biology Redeemer University College Describes the George Boole and Newton beleif as christian.

• A New History of Christianity by by Hans J. Hillerbrand Professor of History and Religion, Duke University, Durham, North Caroli put Newton among the devout Christian scientist.

• Memoir of Augustus De Morgan : " Newton, the devout Christian believer, was an Arian"

• the The Galileo Project :"Newton was born into the Anglican church and publicly conformed to it. At about thirty, he convinced himself that Trinitarianism was a fraud and that Arianism was the true form of primitive Christianity. Newton held these views, very privately, until the end of his life. On his death bed he refused to receive the sacrament of the Anglican church."

• In Pfizenmaier, T.C., "Was Isaac Newton an Arian?" Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57–80, 1997.: argued that Newton held closer to the Eastern Orthodox view of the Trinity rather than the Western one held by Roman Catholics and Protestants.

Many other sources Newton belief as Arian or unorthodox christian beilef and beilef do not considered orthodox by mainstream Christianity; but still a christian form or beilef (The Christology of Jehovah’s Witnesses, also, is a form of Arianism; they regard Arius as a forerunner of Charles Taze Russell, the founder of their movement).--Jobas (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)--Jobas (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

At a time when virtually everybody in the UK believed in the God of Abraham, due mainly to the lack of any culture of challenge or disbelief, that's a weak claim. I think we'd need to see the prevalence of atheism over time to make any contextual judgement - if all but a handful were declared atheists back then, and something like a quarter or a third of the population today acknowledges no faith, that means we'd have to view profession with very different eyes then and now. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I have to say that these sources are not doing what I asked. I want a source that shows that Newton himself proclaimed his Christianity. jps (talk) 11:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

All Sources do claim that Newton held a Christian faith that been described as a heretic for the mainstream Christianity. He made in public his unorthodox beilef, but agian being unorthodox christian dose not mean he is not a christian.--Jobas (talk) 11:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

One more time, can you point to a source that shows that Newton declared himself to be a Christian? I don't want a source which through some analysis determines that he was or wasn't this or that sort of religious believer. I want a source which specifically shows he self-identified as a Christian. Note that this is the wording adopted in the inclusion criteria for this page. jps (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

First you said: "As far as I can tell, he was Arianist." So we argued that Arianism is a Christian form or theology or herecy (still a Christian form), and as being an Arian it's count him as Christian. Then you asked a source from scholar calling him a Christian and i gave you several soruces call him 'Arian Christian' or his belief as 'unorthodox christian beielf' even as a 'devout Christian'. So if you in the first place don't agree to add him since you need a scource that 'declared himself to be a Christian' you can say that in the first place. But your argue wasn't that it was since him being an Arian which a heretic, then, he is not a Christian. Now you changed your point. Any way i'm agree with you of adding self-identified Christian.--Jobas (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

"As far as I can tell" obviously cannot be the inclusion criteria for this list. We need reliable sources. I think reliable sources that indicate self-identification as a Christian are what we need. None has been offered for Newton. jps (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I have been following this conversation for a bit since after the last AfD. The criteria have been cleaned up since then but I agree that an RS that shows self-identification as 'Christian' is the standard we should be using. We must do this with respect to the BLPs in this list, WP:CAT/R speaks to this because by placing a person on this list is in effect categorizing them as 'Christian' for BLP purposes. If we loosen the criteria for dead people we bias the list and end up with perennial discussions like this one. So, my 2 cents, one criteria for both living and dead people and that criteria is RS self-identification. Jbh^Talk 14:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

To a degree, I could support the above, but, I regret to say, only to a degree. The point of contention to my eyes would be the point of equivalence, which may or may not apply in this particular case, I don't know. If someone identified as a Jehovah's Witness, for instance, that would be tantamount to identifying as a Christian for our purposes, as for our purposes the JWs are Christians, in that they are described as such in relevant reference sources. I would, although I can understand it, very much object to lists of heretics, as I think WP:LABEL applies there. Clearly, very few people see their own views as heretical, although they might see that the major body in whom they are in opposition had devolved into heresy over time, probably as per the Great apostasy.

Regarding this particular case, it would be worth knowing if Newton regularly attended church services of a specifically Christian group. I don't consider refusing to take holy orders as being an indicator of non-Christianity, any more than I would consider every Catholic who doesn't become a priest, monk, or nun something other than a Catholic. In such cases, however, if they regularly attended religious services of a specific nature, that would presumably be enough to qualify them. Did Newton take a standard lay role in the then-current Christian services? If no, then I could reasonably see either removing him from the list or listing him in particular as "disputed" or similar. If yes, then, by all outward appearance, there would be no functional difference between him and more obviously Christian individuals. This would be particularly true as regularly taking part in religion-specific rituals is, perhaps, in general, maybe the most clearly relevant form of self-identification we could have. John Carter (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Newton went to Sunday services at St. Mary's but did not go regularly to chapel. As far as the big deal with respect to his ordination (and make no mistake, this was a huge deal at the time), Newton basically was the impetus for the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics to no longer have to be a cleric, and his obstinate opposition to taking Holy Orders was due almost entirely to a rejection of the statement of faith. Newton's position, as far as theology/faith/religion are concerned, is in his explicit rejection of the prevailing understanding of Christianity. He was arguably a kind of Deist who wanted to allow for a rejection of miracles which align closely with certain Arian tendencies but go even further. Would he denounce Christianity? No. This wasn't his style. He wasn't a philosophe; he was an empiricist. He also never explicitly declared himself to be a Christian either, except to say that he accepted those certain aspects of Christianity which he found plausible and rejected the others. But to use this as an excuse to lump him together with people who were devoutly Christian seems to me to basically make this list unmanageable. At the very least, he needs to go into a special section for scientists who rejected the status quo understanding of the Christian faith. jps (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

So, from what I can see, he seems to have been what might be called a cultural Christian, if nothing else, which qualifies as at least a kind of Christian. I'm not seeing him specifically listed as having an article in the "Encyclopedia of Heresies and Heretics" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Prospectus, which might argue against his being described as a heretic. Unfortunately, there are at least quite a few people who might be counted as "standard Christians" who we find out in their personal lives and beliefs are anything but. There is at least one cardinal whose name I have forgotten, dammit, whose works led to the founding of a schismatc group. So far as I can tell, he probably qualifies for inclusion, based on the evidence of his actions, but he might certainly stand having a little description indicating his beliefs were definitely at best unorthodox and maybe an obvious link to Isaac Newton's religious views. John Carter (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

That definition would cover the entire population of the United Kingdom at the time. That's part of the problem, of course. Everybody at Cambridge had to take Holy Orders in order to matriculate, did that make them Christians, do you think? And did being a Christian in the 17th Century have the same significance as it does now, given that in the 17th Century pretty much everybody was indoctrinated from birth? The reason this list is a POV nightmare is because it is essentially being used to pretend that large numbers of famous scientists are Christians, when in fact many of them simply never thought of being anything else. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 18:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. The problem with this list from before about the late nineteenth century or so is that cultural Christianity was the default for the vast majority of scientists. It does not help the reader to have a list of scientists who were culturally Christian, we might as well have a List of scientists from the Western World. jps (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

(e-c) Granted, but if the Reliable sources support it, and in this case they seem to, at least to a reasonable extent, policies and guidelines justify their inclusion. Yes, we can and should have a list of Western scientists as a separate list, and, I guess, a list of Eastern ones, taking into account the different views of "science' over time. I acknowledge that in recent years there has been a substantial disagreement about what Newton himself specifically believed, but, like I indicated, there is at least one major historical cardinal whose personal opinions and speculations, in his private notes, could have gotten him excommunicated. He probably still qualifies as a Catholic though, being a cardinal and all that. And I agree with your point that, in effect, there weren't any other options for cosmology for many of the people listed, although, honestly, Judaism was at least a possibility for most of them, it was also definitely a social step backward. We tend to reflect the POV of the best sources out ther, and, so far as I can see, they count this individual as being some form of Christian. Does your comment about a form of exclusivity of Christianity mean that this article can rather easily lead readers to instantly assume things that might not necessarily be accurate? Well, yeah, but that is probably a problem for most lists. Regarding Cambridge, well, anyone who went to Cambridge knew they would have to take orders to graduate, and, presumably, knew that when they were admitted, so, presumably, they didn't see any problems with taking orders, which, depending on whether the same was true for all other schools at the time (I honestly don't know) means that they were at least agreeable to being publicly thought of as Christians, and willing to abide by the rules of orders at least minimally, so yeah, I can't hold that against him, any more than I think it reasonable to say taht someone who seeks to graduate from a Catholic seminary probably is at lest willing to be identified as a Catholic. Part of your argument seems to be to want to exclude this particular individual from this particular list based on his nonstandard beliefs, and I acknowledge that point. However, that damn cardinal whose name I forgot could obviously have his name removed from a similar list of Catholic cardinals on at least theoretically the same basis. I don't think that is going to happehn, though.

Having said all that, having the article indicate that, at certain times, certain schools required religious affiliation to be students there, and that more than some students, possibly specifically naming Newton, found out, probably like Bart Ehrman after they enrolled, they by the time they would graduate they no longer believed what they had beleived when they started at the school, but kept that quiet to graduate. Having myself studied religion, broadly, I know that one of the professors regularly said if studying religion doesn't make you doubt your religious beliefs, you're either pathological and unwilling to think on your own or just plain stupid, and incapable of thinking on your own. Many students though, once the original "exposure to outside beliefs" is dealt with, can deal with the lack of what would today be called scientific certainty in their beliefs and remain believers. Others can't. John Carter (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that the purpose of this list has to be at least an attempt to identify which scientists accepted a Christian belief as either superseding, consistent with, complementary to, or at least compatible with their scientific work. This is why the self identification is so important and why, in my opinion, the self identification as a Christian needs to be strictly identifiable without controversy. If there is any doubt in the third-party sources that the person's profession of faith qualifies them for inclusion on a list like this, it is irresponsible for us to simply include the person. In the case of Newton, I think the vast majority of sources would at least hesitate to include him on a list of scientists who were Christians full stop. That hesitation to me indicates a need for exclusion because the alternative is to have a list that has no benefit whatsoever to the reader as almost every Western scientist from before a half century ago was baptized and would be identifiable as culturally Christian (except, of course, for those who were Jewish which was sizable but still very much a minority). jps (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh no, you guys excluded Newton only because he followed Arianism views during a part of his life. I am sorry, but you can not decide who was a Christian on the the basis of theological discussions between different religious schools or on the basis how often he went to the church. This is up to sources, and they described him as a "Christian" [10]. My very best wishes (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree that it isn't supposed to be our interpretation of the specific beliefs of the individuals involved, but what the sources say, which are to be the primary factors for inclusion here. If a subject is described in reliable sources preferably not dependent on the specific religious tradition in question, including both contemporary and subsequent sources, as being a member or adherent of religion x, than we should do the same. There is however a question regarding what to do with individuals who have been counted in multiple good reliable sources as having more than one description which could be applied to them. There have been several scientists who have been religious converts of some sort, for instance, and could reasonably be counted in more than one article listing adherents of religion in some field. Like I more or less said above, I can't see any reason not to include this individual, but I at the same time can see having a link to the article on his religious beliefs included prominently after his name, to indicate that the matter has been under some discussion. John Carter (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Our criteria is that the person to be included on the list must self identify. We don't have any source indicating that Newton self identified. Do you have one? jps (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Cutoff point

There is an irresolvable problem of POV in this article if we do not impose a cutoff point. In an interview with The Guardian, Leonard Mlodinow rightly pointed out until the late 19th Century virtually all scientists were Christian, both culturally and in belief - even Darwin was seeking to develop an explanation for the creation of the Bible and it was only after the death of Annie in 1851 that he lost faith. As jps notes above, prior to the early 20th Century this is basically just a list of all scientists in the West, less the few who were Jewish. Pre-war and post-war are not comparable. The category "Christian" is not a category, it is a collection of categories that have changed immensely over time. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 14:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

With the rather obvious, if limited, exceptions of Greco-Roman, Jewish and Muslim scientists, I have to agree with the above. To my eyes, jps' suggestion of a List of Western scientists would be worthwhile if notable, and, somehow, I get the impression anyway sources to indicate that notability are available somewhere. And I myself pointed out the list of monks and priests who in some way contributed to the field of "science" is probably too damn long to get them all in a single list, even if that were a spinout article specifically on Catholic scientists, which most monks probably were, with the exception of Orthodox and some Anglican orders. If the notability of such a list can be established, then it would certainly be reasonable to include in this article a link to it, particularly for the timeperiods of almost exclusively Christian scientists, and, maybe, an indicator in that list of religious beliefs, if any, and location and whatever else. John Carter (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

An idea could be to spin off each of the sections into articles. Starting with scientists who died in the twentieth century, perhaps? List of twentieth century Christians in science and technology and then List of twenty-first century Christians in science and technology. How about that? The list curation is kind of a nightmare besides, I tend to agree. jps (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• "until the late 19th Century virtually all scientists were Christian, both culturally and in belief". This is a very strong statement, and it is entirely wrong to my knowledge. Was Aristotle a Christian? Obviously, not (and he lived 384 – 322 BC). Yes, Darwin was indeed a Christian, but this is only one example. My very best wishes (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• First, it isn't OR, as it is a quoted statement. Is it perhaps wrong? As I indicated above already, there are obvious exceptions, including Greco-Roman, Jewish and Muslim scientists. I suppose the point of contention there would be the differentiation between "scientist" and 'natural philosopher," or maybe proto-scientist, something that has already been discussed. Having said that, there is a reasonable case to be made that most of those who were engaged in what we today call the sciences were in the Western, Christian, world, and many were at least partially observant Christians, acknowledging the Jews, Muslims, and others who were not, of course. I think maybe one of the first steps to be taken here might be through RfC, to determine the scope of this article, both in terms of the possible "natural philosophy"/"science" question and the degree of Christian activity, observation or stated belief which might be considered the minimal qualifications for inclusion in this list. John Carter (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sure, there were numerous Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, agnostics and atheists during this time. Saying that "all of them were Christians" is an obviously erroneous claim - just like "Earth is flat". Saying that, there is nothing wrong with creating pages "by century" - as suggested above. So, I do not really see any reason for an RfC. What would be the question(s) for the RfC? My very best wishes (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it worth pointing out the original quote as above is "virtually all," rather than all. The questions for the RfC would seem to me to be the ones about how to differentiate between what is today called science and what had earlier been called science. This is particularly important if you look at works by people of less than a century ago, like Max Muller, talking about the "science of religion" as per here, for instance. So, (1) how do we define science for the purposes of inclusion in this article, as opposed to natural philosophy or academic study or similar phrases, and (2) how do we define Christian for the purposes of inclusion in this article. Depending on the definition of the former phrase, I suppose, it could be argued that most "scientists" were Christians, or at least Westerners, which, until about the half-century or so, tended to be Christians. John Carter (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Science as we know it did not exist until the late 17th Century, at the very earliest, and most authorities put it much later than that. The religious beliefs of ancient Greeks are irrelevant, as they were not, and by definition could not have been, scientists. The very word scientist did not exist until the 19th Century. Once again the comment merely illustrates the problems inherent in trying to create a list like this based on categories which have changed meaning beyond recognition over time. Guy (Help!) 18:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

While I agree with most of the above, the one point of possible contention I can see in the future is the phrase currently included in the title of the article "science and technology," specifically including the word technology. I suppose it might be possible to argue, depending on the limiting parameters, whether people of earlier eras were capable of being involved in technology, as a separate field from science and technology. That might be yet another point involved in determining the exact qualifying characteristics for inclusion in this article. John Carter (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter. I do not think RfC is needed. A "scientist" is simply someone who was called a scientist in RS (including Aristotle). A "Christian" is someone who was called a Christian in RS. @Guy. I'd like to see some sources that justify such view (that science did not exist until 17th Century). Do you really believe that Pythagoras were not scientists? Yes, maybe it was not "science as we know it today", but the pyramid builders did use empirical knowledge and Math - as we do it today. They did make "trial and errors" to learn from mistakes, just as any modern-day experimentalist. My very best wishes (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

P.S. It does not matter when word "scientist" appeared in English. It only matters if someone like Aristotle or Omar Khayyám was called a "scientist" in modern sources. I assume that he was, although I did not check.My very best wishes (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

This might be too expansive, but I largely agree. I don't think William Whewell thought he was totally inventing a new concept when he coined the word "scientist." And the title right now refers to "in science and technology."

That said, and maybe in interest of it not running too long, possibly we could do List of Christians in natural philosophy for pre-1830s and have this for those afterward.--T. Anthony (talk) 06:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

This is probably for the first time when I hear that someone like Omar Khayyám was allegedly not a scientist - in the modern meaning of this word. I read that he actually was one of the most extraordinary scientists of all time, exactly as noted in the WP page about him. "Natural philosophy", as used by Newton rather than Hegel, is apparently an outdated/historical terminology. Right now, everyone would call the work by Newton simply "science" or "scientific research", and we should stick to the current/modern English language terminology. My very best wishes (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

In part I'm willing to consider it just because the list is so very long. Obviously there were people who advanced science and technology before the nineteenth century. Hennig Brand discovered phosphorus in the seventeenth century and Giovanni Domenico Cassini discovered moons in that century. (Cassini might even fit here.) Certainly puts them as people who did things science does even today. Looking it up the word astronomer apparently goes back to the fourteenth century; chemist and botanist to the seventeenth; and geologist to the eighteenth. So the idea of being an astronomer, botanist, or chemist may go to the 1600s and earlier.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Taking that into account, I think it might be worth considering breaking the list up into perhaps not only "by era" articles, but maybe also "by discipline" articles. And I say that not because I want to minimize the impact of the article or anything like that, but because I also tend to agree that at least some of the sciences as individual entities may well predate the 19th century, and I can't see any particularly good reasons to not perhaps include Galileo in a list of Christian astronomers, for instance, and allowing for separate definition of the individuals by discipline rather than by the broad term "science" would probably make that much less contentious. John Carter (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I could maybe see just breaking it up by discipline, in general, rather than by time. That could be useful.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Muslim list

Looking through I see List of Muslim scientists has sections for Economists and social scientists, Mathematicians, and even Political scientists. As well as an Ahmadi, which I mention as some don't deem them Muslims. --T. Anthony (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Galileo

Galileo might not be the best of examples, but I acknowledge your point as valid otherwise. jps (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Galileo who been called as "father of modern observational astronomy" and the "father of modern science" (Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (Fall 2007). "Book Review—The Person of the Millennium: The Unique Impact of Galileo on World History". The Historian 69 (3): 601–602), was also according to several soruces as Sharratt, Michael (1994). Galileo: Decisive Innovator. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-56671-1. a pious Roman Catholic (Regardless of his trial) and his daughter Maria Celeste was a nun. So there is no reason to not include Galileo in a list of Christian astronomers.--Jobas (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The piety of Galileo as a Roman Catholic/Christian is definitely not agreed upon by all scholars. If you read most analyses of his letter to Christina of Lorraine, you will find that his heretical beliefs vis-a-vis empiricism versus faith ran much deeper than what was normally tolerated by essentially any religious authority at the time. The baptismal salvation that the Roman Catholic Church claims for him because of his avoidance of excommunication is perhaps the only thing on which to hang your hat if you want to claim him as a devotee. Note that Sharratt was making a point of explaining the Church's "rehabilitation". Post hoc argumentation by Christian/Catholic propagandists is hardly "self identification" of the sort we're asking for. jps (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The same argue before we are not in the Inquisition to determine who is the Christian and whos is not Christian, just becouse he may having some "heretical beliefs" in the catholic church eyes that dose not mean he is not a christian anymore. Most of the soucres that do fit him as Catholic and as Christian, and many Academic sources do cliams that Galileo himself was a devout Catholic. --Jobas (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The standard for inclusion is self-identification. That's what we have to look for. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Galileo was not in the habit of self-identifying with respect to his faith. jps (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

His daughters were nuns. Him identifying as Christian, I think, would be easy to find. (The list, currently, does not delve into how pious they must be.) Well except people, then may have rarely asked the question requiring him to respond that he was.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

His daughters were nuns because they were born out of wedlock and therefore were unsuited for marriage. If you can find a source which shows that he identified as a Christian, that would be fantastic. I haven't been able to find one yet. I'm not so keen on taking the statement he signed under duress as necessarily reliable. As I mentioned, his letter to Christina of Lorraine swings very much in the direction against faith. jps (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

He indicates he puts empiricism first in science, but there are statements that indicate he believed in the Scriptures and valued St. Augustine. He states "I am inclined to think that the authority of Holy Scripture is intended to convince men of those truths which are necessary for their salvation, and which being far above man's understanding cannot be made credible by any learning, or any other means than revelation by the Holy Spirit." A belief in salvation, the Scriptures, and the Holy Spirit would indicate Christianity not Islam or Buddhism or whatever. In the study of nature he put nature first, but so did many Christians. Also in his surroundings there might be little need to explicitly say "I am Christian."--T. Anthony (talk) 03:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This letter reads to me in toto as another fairly convincing case that Galileo was an empiricist in the sense that he adopted the opposite of the fideist approach to credal pronouncements. He writes in the same source, "Since two truths can obviously never contradict each other, it is the part of wise interpreters of Holy Scripture to take the pains to find out the real meaning of its statemments, in accordance wtih the conclusions regarding nature which are quite certain, either from the clear evidence of sense or from necessary demonstration. As therefore the Bible, although dictated by the Holy Spirit, admits, from the reasons given above, in many passages of an interpretation other than the literal one; and as, moreover, we cannot maintain with certainty that all interpreters are inspired by God, I think it would be the part of wisdom not to allow any one to apply passages of Scripture in such a way as to force them to support, as true, conclusions concerning nature the contrary of which may afterwards be revealed by the evidence of our senses or by necessary demonstration." This means that essentially all miracles, the claims of virgin birth, resurrection, and so forth would have to be taken metaphorically given the lack of empirical evidence for such occurrences. It's exactly for this reason that I think specific claims of Christian identity need to be found. It's not good enough to read what someone thinks of holy scriptures or whatever. After all, someone could greatly admire the bible and still be an atheist. The only way to be sure one way or the other is to have a solid statement as to what their identity is. That's not something I'm finding in that source. jps (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

But we're dealing with a Catholic here, not a Fundamentalist Protestant. Catholicism is not fideist nor would a Catholic think of a miracle as a scientific claim in the way you might be doing. It's true he is NOT saying he is a Fundamentalist Protestant. How could he, those didn't exist yet?--T. Anthony (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Catholicism is not the opposite of fideism either. Someone who denies the reality of miracles or the resurrection or the virgin birth and insists instead on a purely metaphorical interpretation of those ideas is still considered a heretic. jps (talk) 05:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

But he didn't say that there. You are saying what he said leads to that, but it doesn't follow he put it to that conclusion. You feel there is no empirical evidence for miracles, etc. It doesn't follow that a man in his century would agree with you. Further the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia states, As far as scientific facts are concerned, the believer rests assured that, so far, none of them has ever been in contradiction with an infallible definition. In case of an apparent difference between faith and science, he takes the following logical position: When a religious view is contradicted by a well-established scientific fact, then the sources of revelation have to be re-examined, and they will be found to leave the question open. When a clearly-defined dogma contradicts a scientific assertion, the latter has to be revised, and it will be found premature. When both contradicting assertions, the religious and the scientific, are nothing more than prevailing theories, research will be stimulated in both directions, until one of the theories appears unfounded. Galileo may go further than that, but nothing in what I quoted specifically does what you claim it does. At least not for certain. And, to be blunt, I'm kind of leaning toward the idea you're not really competent to judge his statements. Even if you were it's still your interpretation of what he said. What he actually said is belief in the Scriptures, etc. That you feel this belief has to be metaphorical, or risk being contradictory, is not really proof either way.--T. Anthony (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This discussion happened because I pointed out we don't have a source that finds that Galileo self-identified as a Christian. Using this as an example of such a source would be extremely problematic as this is something someone who wasn't a Christian could say. We need to do better than simply something that is "not really proof either way". jps (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Would a non-Christian really say that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit? Or "I am inclined to think that the authority of Holy Scripture is intended to convince men of those truths which are necessary for their salvation." Can you cite a non-Christian who said that?--T. Anthony (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

It's also an Islamic concept, of course. The direct quote you supplied can be read as saying that religion is a form of social control. jps (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You could read anything as anything, I guess, but considering the context it's not a Muslim statement.--T. Anthony (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You just asked for a non-Christian. I try my best to answer questions put to me. jps (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

But the Muslims tend to deny the inspiration of the Old Testament, with which they strongly disagree on a number of points. John Carter (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but they accept inspiration with corruption of the New Testament. Anyway, the point is that this particular source doesn't read to me like a strong declaration of Christian faith. I'm not arguing that there isn't a source which indicates that Galileo was a devout believer in some form of Christianity, but using this letter that argues in favor of giving preference to empirical sense over literal interpretation of the scriptures seems to me to be a less than ideal way to identify a self-identified Christian faith. jps (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Literal interpretation is limited to a minority of the world's Christians though.--T. Anthony (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

100% biblical literalism I agree is a minority dogma. However, There are certain basic credal claims which are based, in part, on scriptural points which are fairly commonly literally interpreted. These include the virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus, and the resurrection of the body. Galileo is largely silent on these points, but it is perfectly fair to wonder whether he would accept a metaphorical argument associated with them. I would bet that most Christians would consider such a disavowal of literal virgin birth, miracles, and resurrection to be something of a deal breaker when it comes to Christianity. jps (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Well there might be an easier way to get at this. If Galileo had denied the virgin birth or the Resurrection I think it seems plausible what happened to him would have been more severe. But I don't recall any allegation of that against him. So, if he thought this, he must have hidden it quite well. There's nothing showing he did think this, I don't think, and at least some indicating he believed the Bible to be divinely inspired. (It is unlikely he meant the Qur'an, for many reasons.)--T. Anthony (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Turn it around, if Galileo had affirmed the reality of the virgin birth or the resurrection in any of his writings there would be no reason for us to continue having this discussion. (Such a source may even exist. If you know of one, please show it to me!) I am much more inclined to go with positive evidence rather than an assumption that because someone is silent on a subject they must necessarily believe in it. After all, there were other scientists at the time who wrote extensively on these subjects and are included on our list. Sometimes this is a matter of degree, but a list doesn't allow much gray area which is absolutely what Galileo requires considering he was put on trial for heresy (tantamount to being accused of being completely unchristian).... and moreover he was essentially found guilty of such and was forced to recant his heresy. We may not see that as being evidence that someone isn't a Christian today, but at the time it would have been a major indicator, right? jps (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I've been looking but many books are not available online for easy perusal. But heresy is different than apostasy and Galileo's kids seem to accept him as Catholic. His Protestant, and therefore heretical by Catholic terminology of the age, friends I don't think ever alluded to him not being Christian. Going by Wikiquote we do have

It seems to me that it was well said by Madama Serenissima, and insisted on by your reverence, that the Holy Scripture cannot err, and that the decrees therein contained are absolutely true and inviolable. But I should have in your place added that, though Scripture cannot err, its expounders and interpreters are liable to err in many ways; and one error in particular would be most grave and most frequent, if we always stopped short at the literal signification of the words.

Then online I find this investigates his beliefs. It seems they're more difficult to discern than I might have expected as he kept no diary and many of his letters are lost. No reference to Jesus is, apparently, in his extant writing. However it sounds like they're going with that I'm thinking though. That his belief in the Holy Spirit inspiring the Christian Bible and a concern for salvation implies "Christian" to the point nothing else makes any sense considering. Also that he was known to have Protestant friends without, before the big trial, being accused of Protestantism. (I just realized it's from the Vatican Observatory.)--T. Anthony (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with a demarcation criterion that simply believing the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible is what makes someone a Christian. jps (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

There is also a letter by him that contains, "I, as a pious and Catholic person". Although, I grant, he was being a bit ironical I don't think the thought is he was being ironic on the part of being Catholic.[11][12] The one letter, that I think is in Wikiquote, has statements like "And if not, let my book be torn and burnt, as I neither intend nor pretend to gain from it any fruit that is not pious and Catholic" and "Hence it would probably be wise and useful counsel if, beyond articles which concern salvation and the establishment of our Faith." So multiple cases where he says either "us Catholics" or "Our Faith." I don't think I find, among historians, much if any doubt he was Christian and some kind of Catholic if maybe a bit misinterpreting of the Church Fathers.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Those are closer to what we are looking for, but, as you point out, they are not very strong sources. In any case, like Newton, Galileo would appear on a List of scientists who disagreed with Christian authority. It's a bit weird that we would want to include him on a list of Christians in science, don't you think? There are so many better exemplars who are not problematic. jps (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Pontification on why some scientists believe in god.

I think this list is important as a proof that science and religion are very much compatible with each other, even though our pages on the subject do not really explain why so many outstanding scientists believed in God. One of the possible answers: people who are familiar with the astronomy, physics and evolution frequently consider our Universe essentially as a self-assembling device that could have been created on purpose (although placing this idea somewhere would require an appropriate sourcing). And some religions texts (e.g. the Bible and the New Testament) do answer the question what was exactly the "purpose", although this is open to different interpretations... My very best wishes (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Good enthusiasm and though I kind-of agree for a variety of reasons the purpose of a list is not to really prove a thing in that way. List of atheists in science and technology is not really to prove that atheism is very much compatible with science. Or if it was meant as that that's not what it should be. Individuals can be atheists and scientists, but that they can reconcile the two things doesn't have to prove anything to others. That list is to show atheists who contributed to those fields. And this is to show Christians have too. That Christianity and science can be reconciled might seem to be shown by the existence of any Christian in science, but that they personally reconcile Christianity and science might not prove anything to all non-Christians.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This argument, as fun as you may think it may be, is not relevant to the talkpage. In any case, the majority of currently living scientists according to most surveys are atheists. jps (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

When we have an academic sources and scholars do cliams that he was a Catholic and he was by the way a devout too. and certainly these sources have references to support these claims, I do not see there is any need for such of these kind of discussions. The Galileo Galilei article also mention that he was a devout catholic and put him under Roman Catholic Category, It's not really a diffuclt to bring dozens of academic sources that do cliams he was Catholic.--Jobas (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The criteria is self identification. We don't have a source which says that Galileo self identified. It's fairly parallel to Newton, actually. jps (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Again there been several sources do call him a Catholic and there criteria and evidence to call him a Catholic. that why scholar do identified him as catholic, Anyway i do feel these debates are meaningless; you control on the article and ignore academic sources, as in the case of Newton previously and you trying to impose and define the concept of who is a Christian and trying to oust everyone has ideas that be may a differ from the mainstream even though if he considered himself a Christian.--Jobas (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria for this list is self identification and while it is clear you disagree with that inclusion criteria, you haven't made a strong case for it in my judgment. If you would like to start a conversation arguing that self identification isn't a good criteria, you are free to do so. jps (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The criterion is not self-identification (although it is important), but sources. This is per WP:RS and WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

No, the list inclusion criteria is clearly indicated in the lede. If you disagree with it, you need to start a discussion as to why. jps (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Where this has been decided? Any link please? Well, in this case this page should be named List of self-identified Christians in science and technology. However, based on the current title, this should be simply list of all notable Christians in science and technology. My very best wishes (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion up above in the talk page and also when it was decided to follow the parallel criteria used at List of atheists in science and technology. jps (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

How come? The discussion above was about Isaac Newton, not about criteria for inclusion. That discussion was beyond the pale (with people debating how often Isaac Newton was visiting local churches), but that's beyond the point. I do not see consensus to have this criterion for this page. The case of atheists is more tricky because a lot of scientists are actually agnostics, which needs to be distinguished from atheism (hence the requirement for self-identification in this case is a lot more justifiable).My very best wishes (talk) 01:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you are the only person who objects to the current criteria. One of the problems with not including self-identification is that there are many sources which try to claim that someone is a certain religion when they themselves do not consider themselves to be that religion. For example, it used to be a matter of law that infants were baptized. Self-identification is the only way to guarantee that associating a person with a religion that they do not agree with does not happen. jps (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Many of your removals were just, but I object to how you sometime use the criteria as you tend to get more narrow than the atheist list and, at times, too likely to do things that may lead to theological debates Wikipedia may not be able handle. I mean you once removed Pierre Duhem saying "Cannot find a source for his Christian beliefs per se being notable" which is off-kilter as all get out. He wrote for the Catholic Encyclopedia[13] and wrote “Physique de croyant". (Some deemed him a heretic, but I never read he was excommunicated.) Also I guess Bishop Laurentius Gothus who wrote moral theology and was a bishop. As well as getting into whether someone is orthodox enough to be deemed Christian.--T. Anthony (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I'm not a perfect Wikipedian. The cleanup has been quite a big undertaking and I'm bound to make some mistakes. Fortunately, this is a collaborative wiki and you seem to be using it properly. Actually, I find collaborating with you to be rather enjoyable in a Hegelian sense, and I'm sorry that this task may be consternating. The list is fraught as was pointed out clearly in the AfD. I think, however, if we stick to strict self-identification standards we should be okay and we should seriously think about maybe spinning this whole thing out as discussed above. jps (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Now I feel a bit guilty, maybe I was too cranky. I'm just a bit perplexed by some things you do.--T. Anthony (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you simply do not follow sources in cases when someone like Newton (your link above) has been described in multiple RS as a Christian [14], [15], [16], [17]. Instead, you discussed how often did he went to the church and if he really believed in the Holy Trinity (that kind of questions could be probably asked by inquisitors) to finally decide that no, he does not qualify as a "real" Christian. But we are not inquisitors. Let's leave it to the the sources per WP:RS and WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You missed the object lesson. There are sources which specifically deny that Newton was a Christian. Rather than argue which sources to believe and which to disbelieve, we simply ask for a source that shows that Newton himself declared himself to be a Christian. That people have not been able to find such a source is indicative of the larger issue. jps (talk) 03:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. And this is especially important since Newton, especially, will be claimed on the slightest pretext by those sources with an agenda to promote. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with this statement, only noting that there is not only a possible Christian agenda of promoting individuals who want to name everybody, but also, at least theoretically, a modern atheistic and/or scientist agenda, which might be attempting to deny that historical figures had a particular religious affiliation in an attempt to try to cast as many people from history as being sympathetic to themselves. Somewhat like the recent discussions regarding the Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln, perhaps, which might be be seen as having tried to cast him as a homosexual or bisexual. In cases like this one in particular, regarding a Brit, I would think that the best sources available which probably have no particular agenda might be the most recent DNB and Encyclopedia Britannica. Any idea what if anything they say about the matter? John Carter (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that there could easily be two competing agendas at play in various secondary sources. This is part of the reason I think self-identification is such a good thing to go by. The problem is, of course, that up until about the late 19th century or so it was not very common for people to make declarations of Christian faith since Christianity was a basic default mode in much of Europe and the United States. I think making some basic declaration of the idea that Jesus of Nazareth is some form of Christ would be good enough for those scientists who lived before the point that Christianity became more fraught as an ideological marker, but I'm open to other suggestions. jps (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter. Yes, I agree. @I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc. So, which exactly sources tell that Newton was not Christian? I did not find them in discussion above. Note that saying something like "he was not Christian because he did not really believe in the Holy Trinity" would be WP:SYN, unless directly claimed by sources. My very best wishes (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

We are not empowered to decide matters of theology, but everyone agrees that Newton was heterodox. [18] The question that remains is at what point does heterodox become "non-Christian"? We are not equipped to answer that and so we must go by self-identification claims. I haven't yet seen the source which indicates that Newton self-identified as a Christian. Please feel free to provide it. jps (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and also notice that there has only been one editor who has been attempting to determine inclusion on this list based on theological arguments. Heterodox as a word is generally applied only to variations within the system. And self-identification includes the acts of their lives, such as attending religious services, particularly when those services include in them statements made by the congregation in which they use the word "we" in relation to the church they are attending. If he did, as he presumably did, say the Apostle's Creed at the services he attended, that would seem to be sufficient self-identification. If he self-identified as a Christian of any form, such as by willingly reciting the Creed, that is, to my eyes, sufficient. WP:EXTRAORDINARY would seem to apply for otherwise. Also, I regret to say, that the self-identification of modern scientists, which has earlier been mentioned, is completely and utterly irrelevant to this particular case, and it is hard to see that such a statement might not be seen as perhaps indicating an attempt to anachronistically impose modern norms on a historical person to whom those norms would not likely apply. If he did, as he presumably did, say the Apostle's Creed at the services he attended, that would seem to be sufficient self-identification. Having said that, the statements of the DNB and Britannica on this matter would also be useful, as I indicated above. If they say he was an Anglican or similar, I would think that would be sufficient, considering Anglicans are Christians. And, unfortunately, simply being an unorthodox Anglican is not in and of itself sufficient to say that they were not Christian of some sort, as there are any number of groups which would be unorthodox to traditional Anglicanism. John Carter (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's take these ideas in turn. Should attendance at religious services be considered on par with self-identification as a Christian? I would argue no. There are plenty of people who attend religious services out of obligation, curiosity, etc. who would not self-identify as Christians. Secondly, the claim that Newton professed the Apostle's Creed is at odds with his writings were he apparently identified the Athanasian Creed as being the point of divergence from theological truth and so presumably all related creeds (Apostle's, Nicene) were considered by him to be untrue. Thirdly, if we want to take third-party independent authorities on identity as being reasonable, I would agree to that. These sources must be secular of course. jps (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• @jpc. Thank you! This is precisely what I am talking about: WP:OR by you. This source (your link) does not tell that "Newton was not a Christian". It tells that his Christian beliefs belonged to Heterodoxy which does not mean anything. Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholics, Protestants and a lot of others blamed each other of the heterodoxy, which does not mean that any of them were not Christians - per sources.My very best wishes (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Clearly there are heterodoxies which are considered "non-Christians". At what point does that occur? We cannot say. Let's look for self-identification instead. jps (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

A difficulty I think I've mentioned is that in Newton's age there might not have been much reason for an Englishman to specifically say "I am a Christian." I think it was kind of assumed you were and if you weren't it could be a problem. Personally, on looking into the matter, I'm no longer sure what I think about Newton. To my surprise some things he wrote almost sound like a kind of Judaism. But still I think before maybe the eighteenth century the debates were likely more what kind of Christian you were rather than if you were Christian at all.--T. Anthony (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not convinced one way or the other about Newton except to say that I'm less-than-impressed with the sources that people keep using to declare that he was definitely a Christian. It seems clear to me that if we do include him on such a list it would have to be with some hefty caveats. After all, we have an entire article on the subject. jps (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read the source provided by you [19] (this is an appropriate RS). It tells:

Newton was born into the Anglican church and publicly conformed to it. At about thirty, he convinced himself that Trinitarianism was a fraud and that Arianism was the true form of primitive Christianity. Newton held these views, very privately, until the end of his life.

Hence, according to the source, Newton was a member of the Anglican Church, but about thirty convinced himself that Trinitarianism was a fraud and that Arianism was the true form of primitive Christianity. This statement clearly implies that Newton was a self-admitted ("convinced himself") "primitive Christian" - all criteria are satisfied! In addition, yes, one should have some basic knowledge of the subject to understand sources. In particular, Catholics, Orthodox Christians and the "early"/"primitive" Christians were all Christians.My very best wishes (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be more of an interpretation of Newton's writings rather than a form of self-identification. We absolutely must mention that when he commented on theology, he essentially disavowed almost all of what at the time constituted standard Christian belief. Including someone who is prominently known for privately disagreeing with organized Christianity and refusing the sacraments of divine unction and holy orders is quite an unusual standard for inclusion on a "list of Christians" if you ask me. jps (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

"privately disagreeing with organized Christianity" is again your "original research". That particular source (provided by you) tells that he was a convinced Christian. Once again, if there are any sources telling literally this: "Newton was not a Christian", please bring them here. So far you did not. My very best wishes (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The sources are clear that Newton was at odds with the prevailing theological understanding of Christianity of his time. Whether that makes him worthy of inclusion at a list of Christians is a debate not worth having. The onus is on you to find a convincing source. Sources which go on at great length at how he was at odds with the prevailing Christian thought of his time do not cut it. jps (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

If you were not able to provide any sources to support your assertion above [20] (you were not so far), that's fine, but then please do not revert edits by anyone who may wish to insert the sourced info about Newton back to this page. My very best wishes (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I have lived up to my WP:BURDEN. You have not. jps (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Not according to several sources currently provided in the last thread. But let's tell this differently. Isaac Newton was clearly a notable religious thinker on the subject of Christianity as follows from the page dedicated to this subject, Religious views of Isaac Newton. Yes, sure, he happened to disagree with some official dogma. Not including him in this list is nonsense. My very best wishes (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Nonsense? Strong words considering this is just a list of people on the internet. It would be nice to include people who are notably Christian. Newton was notably opposed to the prevailing understanding of Christianity. That makes him different and it stands out like a sore thumb that the sources which are being offered to try to identify him as a notable Christian are so anemic. jps (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• You can not make your own conclusion that "he was not a Christian" because none of the sources (quoted above) makes such conclusion. At the same time, there are numerous sources which described him not just as a "Christian", but as an insightful theologian dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible (please check references on page Religious views of Isaac Newton). Sorry for jumping in discussion on this page, but it looks to me that many changes were not improvements because of the "original research", such as claims that famous Christians were not Christians and that famous scientists of the past were not scientists. My very best wishes (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I think as long as we are clear that Newton's Christianity was highly unorthodox and he was basically opposed to the required Anglican confession of faith, his inclusion on this list would be fine. Disagreements with confessions of faith seem rather common amongst many in the scientific community, and that should be made apparent wherever that occurs. jps (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Galileo is interesting precisely because of where and when he lived. Being a Christian ceases to be a matter of belief and conviction when there is a serious penalty for not being one. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Added two more Catholics who look pretty solid

Hugh Stott Taylor particularly so going by this.

As devoted a churchman as he was a scientist and educator, Taylor was largely responsible for the establishment of a Catholic chaplaincy at Princeton in 1928, and he spoke frequently on the Campus about the relation of science and religion. He held to Thomas Aquinas's thesis that ``Science is a revelation of the mind of God, and insisted, as in a Princetonian article in 1939, that true education could not be ``divorced from the spiritual values of life. He was president of Pax Romana, the international Roman Catholic movement for intellectual and cultural affairs, and a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.[21]

--T. Anthony (talk) 05:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Descartes?

Any ideas why Rene Descartes isn't on the list? Ralph Dave Westfall 06:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Christians in science and technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071008183805/http://www.fccb.org/programs/details.php?eventID=190 to http://www.fccb.org/programs/details.php?eventID=190

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on List of Christians in science and technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.philosem.uni-hannover.de/downloads/wallisdivine.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://mubs.mdx.ac.uk/research/Discussion_Papers/Mathematics_and_Statistics/maths_dpaper_no_5.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rmets.org/pdf/metsocearlymembers.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vincentians.org.au/David.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cts-online.org.uk/CTS_history.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://mubs.mdx.ac.uk/research/Discussion_Papers/Mathematics_and_Statistics/maths_dpaper_no_5.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ece.umd.edu/ISDRS_2001/ISDRS_Final_Call_6_25_01.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070627122330/http://www.abc.org.br/english/history/carlos_chagase.html to http://www.abc.org.br/english/history/carlos_chagase.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.issr.org.uk/about/founding_members.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080409234638/http://www.ed.ac.uk/news/070206gifford.html to http://www.ed.ac.uk/news/070206gifford.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stmarylebow.co.uk/?download=BoyleLecture05.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uga.edu/cff/testimonies/schaefer.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090426112952/http://creation.com/starlight-time-and-the-new-physics-tour-with-dr-john-hartnett to http://creation.com/starlight-time-and-the-new-physics-tour-with-dr-john-hartnett
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050307010942/http://www.issr.org.uk/about/founding_members.asp to http://www.issr.org.uk/about/founding_members.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308110918/http://www.popsci.com/kalee-thompson/article/2008-10/jellyfish-engineer to http://www.popsci.com/kalee-thompson/article/2008-10/jellyfish-engineer
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050307010942/http://www.issr.org.uk/about/founding_members.asp to http://www.issr.org.uk/about/founding_members.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on List of Christians in science and technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141021123330/http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Cusa.html to http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Cusa.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060307211317/http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/theology/ejournal/aejt_5/Sobiech.htm to http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/theology/ejournal/aejt_5/Sobiech.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150912110937/http://www1.villanova.edu/villanova/president/mendelmedal/pastrecipients/francis_garvan.html to https://www1.villanova.edu/villanova/president/mendelmedal/pastrecipients/francis_garvan.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120901152639/http://www.math.ucla.edu/~hbe/church.pdf to http://www.math.ucla.edu/~hbe/church.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060511062307/http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/products/journals/aag/AAG_June04/aag_45339.htm to http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/products/journals/aag/AAG_June04/aag_45339.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.templetonprize.org/bios_recent.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070703005627/http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Biography.php?ID=9 to http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Biography.php?ID=9
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070123171823/http://www.templeton.org/about_us/who_we_are/board_of_advisors/ to http://www.templeton.org/about_us/who_we_are/board_of_advisors/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071130213538/http://www.cicero.de/97.php?ress_id=6&item=2223 to http://www.cicero.de/97.php?ress_id=6&item=2223
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100616222515/http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/02_Events/Registration/welcome_2010.shtml to http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/02_Events/Registration/welcome_2010.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061230213009/http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Advisory.php?UID=14 to http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Advisory.php?UID=14

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Christians in science and technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120501111122/http://biologos.org/blog/author/darrel-falk/ to http://biologos.org/blog/author/darrel-falk

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Max Planck

Max Planck is a deist according to his bio, please stop inserting him into the list. He was not a Christian in later life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrandPhilosophe (talk • contribs) 05:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

misleading statistics

The "Christians in Science" wiki page has a fairly dumb mis-characterization.

The term Christian is not usurped by evangelicals, much as they want to believe they do, and claim they do.

The original Christians are Catholics.

Protestant denominations are ALSO Christian, having formed their own specific set of beliefs apart from Roman Catholicism.

Evangelicals and others are really additional Christian protestant denominations.

So please lump them all in this fashion.

Catholics who fundamentalists of one sort or another "evangelize", merely want them to switch religious allegiance, and monetary giving, to them. And adopt what are really heretical beliefs from the Roman Catholic beliefs of almost 2,000 years. Their little heresy is less than 100 years old. Catholics approached in this manner by are partly amused, partly irritated, and partly feel sorry for those sent to "convert" them.

All Christian denominations (including and especially Catholics) take their core beliefs in the same original individual, the person known historically as Jesus of Nazareth. Although he was Jewish man, and never renounced Judaism. The religion that grew up around this person was dubbed as "Christian", as followers of this man.

To accurately portray the percentage of scientists who are CHRISTIAN, is then closer to 30% + 20% + 10%, or 60% of scientists. As for believing in God in general, you must also include Muslim and Jewish scientists, which should increase the total non-atheist scientists to a very high number. All claim their is only one God. Arguing over what to name this supreme entity is foolishness, and does not matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.201.80.80 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 19 December 2014‎

What does this actually have to do with this page? Talk about rambling Tedmosby83 (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Notablity

@Tedmosby83: Some of the redlinks on List of Christians in science and technology do not appear to meet wp:notability (people). Just having a link to a staff directory or a magazine article does not demonstrate notability. Please see wp:LISTPEOPLE Thank you 2606:6000:CB87:F400:2D9B:1F43:4477:55C (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Redlinked / poorly sourced people

Biological and Biomedical Sciences Robert J Asher: palaeontologist and lecturer at the University of Cambridge Department of Zoology and a curator at the University Museum of Zoology. His book 'Evolution and Belief: Confessions of a Religious Paleontologist' was published by Cambridge University Press in 2012. Asher is also a former Curator of Mammals at the Berlin Natural History Museum and Frick Postdoctoral Fellow at the American Museum of Natural History. Keith R Fox: British Professor of Biochemistry at Southampton University. Has a PhD in Pharmacology from Cambridge. His research concerns the sequence-specific recognition of DNA by small molecules, oligonucleotides and proteins, and the formation of unusual DNA structures. Formerly a chair of "Christians in Science" Jeff Hardin (born 1959): American cell and developmental biologist, chair of the Department of Zoology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and co-chair of the Isthmus Society at UW-Madison. An Evangelical, Hardin received an M.Div. degree prior to resuming his scientific career. He is lead author of World of the Cell (Pearson). He has served as Chair of the Board of the BioLogos Foundation. Physics and Astronomy Russell Cowburn: British physicist with research interests in nanotechnology and its application to magnetism, electronics and optics. He is a Professor of Experimental Physics at Cambridge University. References

Moved redlinked / poorly sourced people from article to above collapsed section. 2606:6000:CB87:F400:81E:2EF4:8662:6F46 (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Charles Coulson and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

These are two people from the not-so-distand past. I hope they qualify.

Charles Coulson (1910-1974), who was a Methodist, held professorships in mathematics and in theoretical chemistry at the University of Oxford. The phrase although not the concept of God of the Gaps is generally attributed to him.

Pierre Teilhanrd de Chardin (1881-1955), like so many Jesuits, also had a scientific education in paleontology. However, he mostly remembered as a Catholic philosopher. Roufu (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Richard Smalley.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Potential vandalism

This page seems to have been vandalised by 2600:1012:b001:9c29:851d:5315:d5c:1169, who has removed several scientists from this list with misleading edit summaries, such as this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology&diff=942662277&oldid=942662027&diffmode=source, where among others, Michael G. Strauss was removed. I don't feel confident enough to revert, now when other edits have been made since. Also, I might be wrong about this, and then I really apologize, but the same user made very weird edits on John Shelby Spong.Programmerarn (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

List of Nobel laureates from Shalev

Why is something like Shalev’s book being cited here. His methodology is completely flawed. In his book people who identify self-identify as Atheist are also listed under their religion of birth/family. Eg.: Richard Feynman. Shalev’s book is cited only 37 times in Google Scholar. That is not even good source. I know college professors who does better than that. And the biggest problem is that same book is cited everywhere. No other sources are there to prove the ridiculous claim that 65% identify as Christians. Anyways, I have removed the section which claimed it. Because this is a list article. ChandlerMinh (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Toni Schiesler

She was a Catholic nun and then she was an Anglican and she was a scientist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC74:6240:A4C7:F76A:F33E:E5B6 (talk) 06:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Help

hmm : are you saying that the( list of Christian thinkers in science ) is not really ??????

Pope Francis

Should we include him?

He is trained as a scientist and did work as one for a time.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/11/world/pope-vatican-science/index.html?iid=article_sidebar