That an article about the history of the warfare of science with theology in Christendom could be written without even a nod to the book of that name (A.D. White) is disappointing. But then it missed out on the two authors who shaped my own scientific atheism in the 60's and 70's, Jaques Monod (Chance and Necessity) and Jacob Bronowski (Ascent of Man, Science and Human Values, The Common Sense of Science, etc).

But it also goes to great lengths without ever mentioning the core point of contention between science and religion: supernaturalism versus naturalism. Not "philosophical naturalism" or "methodological naturalism," but the naturalism that is by now the most tested and confirmed unifying theory in all of science. The supernatural claims of religion have by now been shown by science to be highly improbable, and so Richard, among others, points out that this means that "God almost certainly does not exist." How can any historian or commentator on the subject miss this?

In all of us there will always be a struggle between the craving for certainty, purity and closure and the acceptance of mystery, brokenness and provisionality.

Right. And which is which? I expect the author thinks science is on the side of certainty and closure; Wrong. That is religion. Provisionality is the realm of science. The author of this piece needs a good education in modern scientific epistemology.