pp 1–12 | Cite as

Response to critics: how religious beliefs distort historical understanding

Yves Gingras: Science and religion: an impossible dialogue. Malden, MA: Polity Press, July 2017, 272 pp, $26.95 PB
  • Yves GingrasEmail author

I thank the authors of these reviews for taking the time to read the book and write their critical comments. The historian George Sarton long ago wrote an important essay on how to write a book review in which he insists that “the reviewer should not be too self-centered” as a review “should describe and characterize not only the book in question, but also the subject with which it is dealing”. He also suggested many questions one should be raising before writing a review, such as “What is the author’s purpose? What does he try to prove?” (Sarton 1950, 149–158). Since most readers of Metascience have not (yet) read my book, reading the reviews of this symposium will not help them answer Sarton’s key questions. Hence, I must briefly recall my book’s structure. As a model, I will use a review of it published by one of the great experts of Galileo, Maurice Clavelin (author of The Natural Philosophy of Galileoand many other books on the seventeenth-century science). Clavelin opens his...



  1. Bains, Sunny. 2011. Questioning the integrity of the John Templeton Foundation. Evolutionary Psychology 9: 92–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1975. The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. Social Science Information 14: 19–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Genesis and structure of the religious field. Comparative Social Research 13: 1–44.Google Scholar
  4. Cantor, Geoffrey. 2010. What shall we do with the ‘Conflict Thesis’. In Science and religion: New historical perspectives, ed. Thomas Dixon, Geoffrey Cantor, and Stephen Pumphrey, 283–298. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clavelin, Maurice. 2018. Review of L’impossible dialogue. Revue d’histoire des sciences 71: 120–121.Google Scholar
  6. Colyvan, Mark, Jay L. Garfield, and Graham Priest. 2005. Problems with the argument from fine tuning. Synthese 145: 325–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis, Nicolas. 2016., Hand of God? Scientific anatomy paper citing a ‘creator’ retracted after furore. The Guardian, 7 March. Accessed 17 December 2018.
  8. Dick, Steven J. 1982. Plurality of worlds: The origins of the extraterrestrial life debate from Democritus to Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Durkhein, Emile.1984. The division of labor in society. Translated by W.D. Halls. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  10. Harrison, Peter. 2015. The Territories of Science and Religion. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harrison, Peter. 2017. From Conflict to Dialogue and All the Way Back. Los Angeles Review of Books.
  12. Hobart, Michael E. 2018. The great rift literacy, numeracy, and the religion-science divide. Boston: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Horgan, John. 2006. The templeton foundation: A Skeptic’s take. Edge. 4 April 2006. Accessed 17 December 2018.
  14. Iliffe, Rob. 2017. Priest of nature. The religious worlds of Isaac Newton. Oxford: Oxford Universty Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ming-Jin, Liu, Cai-Hua Xiong, Le Xiong, and Xiao-Lin Huang. 2016. Biomechanical characteristics of hand coordination in grasping activities of daily living. PLOS One, Accessed 17 December 2018.
  16. Ohlers, R. Clinton. 2018. Review essay of the territories of science and religion. Fides et Historia 50: 85–93.Google Scholar
  17. Sarton, George. 1950. Notes on the reviewing of learned books. Isis 41: 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shea, William R. 2018. Review of science and religion, an impossible dialogue. Fides et Historia 50: 136–139.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of History, CIRSTUQAMMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations