鉴于所有这些细微之处，既难以确认非重叠权威（NOMA，non-overlapping magisteria）的普遍适用性，也难以为新无神论的冲突观辩护。正因如此，基督教与穆斯林的宗教领袖有必要了解新无神论的论点，从而能够通过跨学科研究加以回应，而这类研究不限于理解科学史。因此，首先评估新无神论者的一些总体主张或许是有益的。格雷林在一段引人注目的历史简化论述中写道：

Considering all these nuances it is difficult to affirm generalisability of NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) just as it is difficult to legitimise the New Atheist treatment conception of conflict. On these points, it is vital that Christian and Muslim faith leaders are aware of New Atheism’s arguments, thereby allowing them to counter them through inter-disciplinary research that includes, but is not limited to, understanding the history of science. Consequently, it may be useful to initially assess some of the New Atheists’ overarching claims. In a striking oversimplification of history Grayling writes:

无论人们如何看待科学与宗教之间曲折的关系史，至少有一点是清楚的：在关于宇宙起源、人的本性，以及宇宙是否显露出智能设计的证据这些问题上，两者确实在争夺真理（Grayling, 2014, p.108）。

Whatever else one might think about the chequered history of the relation between science and religion, at least one thing is clear: that they do indeed compete for truth about the origin of the universe, the nature of human beings and whether the universe manifests evidence of intelligent design (Grayling, 2014, p.108).

大多数科学史学者认为这种冲突模式站不住脚。达拉尔（Ahmed Dallal）通过多个例子论证了这一观点，展示了比鲁尼（Al-Biruni）、伊本·泰米叶（Ibn Taymiyyah）和安萨里（Al-Ghazali）等学者如何对科学事业持积极态度（Dallal, 2010, p.116）。尤为重要的是，他强调了阿达德·伊吉（al Iji）的著作，后者写道："一切（宗教）学科都以凯拉姆（kalām）为基础，而凯拉姆则不以任何学科为基础。"（Dallal, 2010, p.118）。实质上，整个凯拉姆学科不可能以预设真主存在作为起点，因为它主要关注证明真主的存在。尽管凯拉姆的某些方面受到批评，它在几个世纪中依然是穆斯林文化与传统的重要组成部分。达拉尔认为，并不存在单一原因导致穆斯林世界科学的衰落，相反，这归因于多种文明层面的因素，包括在欧洲殖民扩张迅速发展之际与欧洲的军事对抗（Dallal, 2010, p.152-6）。赛义德·诺曼努尔·哈克（Syed Nomanul Haq）指出，从800年到1300年间，穆斯林天文学的发展受到一系列教法层面考虑的推动，其中包括计算礼拜时间（Haq, 2009, p.35）。

Most scientific historians consider this conflict model untenable. Using various examples, Ahmed Dallal makes this case for Islam showcasing how scholars like Al-Biruni, Ibn Taymiyyah and Al-Ghazali all had positive approaches to scientific enterprise (Dallal, 2010, p.116). Importantly, he highlights the writings of al Iji, who states, ‘All (religious) sciences draw from kalām, whereas it draws from none.’ (Dallal, 2010, p.118). Essentially, the entire Kalam discipline could not start with an assumption of God since it mostly concerned proving His existence. Despite the critique of certain aspects of Kalam, it still represented a staple part of Muslim culture and tradition throughout the centuries. Dallal argues that no single reason dictates scientific decline in the Muslim world, rather, it is attributed to a variety of civilizational factors including military confrontations with Europe at a time of rapid European colonial expansion (Dallal, 2010, p.152-6). Syed Nomanul Haq notes a range of jurisprudential considerations, including calculating prayer times, as an incentive for Muslim astronomy from the years 800-1300 (Haq, 2009, p.35).

关于天主教会（或基督教）的科学与宗教历史，"冲突论"作为一种包罗万象的解释，也已不再被接受。约翰·赫德利·布鲁克在谈到伽利略的案例时指出：

Regarding the Catholic church’s (or Christianity’s) scientific and religious history, the ‘conflict theory’ is also no longer acceptable as an all-purpose explanation. Mentioning the case of Galileo, John Hedley Brooke claims:

将伽利略的故事与新教推动科学发展的证据放在一起，很容易给人留下这样的印象：天主教会普遍敌视科学创新。这种印象至少在三个方面是错误的。第一，教会在科学的赞助方面发挥了关键作用……第二，天主教内的耶稣会拥有杰出的天文学家、数学家和物理学家，他们也致力于在其教育计划中教授科学。第三，十七世纪一些最伟大、最有影响力的科学家是天主教徒。伽利略、梅森、伽桑狄和笛卡尔都在自然的机械化进程中扮演了重要角色（Brooke, 2010, p.12）。

The combination of the Galileo story with evidence for a Protestant stimulus to science can easily give the impression that the Catholic Church was generally hostile to scientific innovation. This impression would be false on at least three counts. First, the Church had played a crucial role in the patronage of the sciences… Second, the Jesuit order within the Church contained outstanding astronomers, mathematicians, and physicists who were also committed to teaching the sciences in their educational programs. Third, some of the greatest and most influential scientists of the seventeenth century were Catholics. Galileo, Mersenne, Gassendi, and Descartes all played prominent roles in the mechanization of nature (Brooke, 2010, p.12).

新教(尤其是清教徒主义)的影响一直是社会学研究的重要课题。罗伯特·默顿(Robert Merton)的一项研究高度依赖《英国国家传记词典》(Dictionary of National Biography)的数据,考察了十七世纪著名人物的29,120份传记(以及其他重要数据集),并得出结论:清教徒主义(在默顿看来,它助长了一种神学功利主义)推动了科学发现。

The impact of Protestantism (and Puritanism in particular) has been one of significant sociological study. One study by Robert Merton was highly dependent on data from the Dictionary of National Biography, and examined information from 29,120 biographies of notable figures in the seventeenth century (among other important data sets) concluding that Puritanism (which, to Merton, encouraged a kind of theological utilitarianism) provided an impetus for scientific discovery.

因此,默顿说道:

Accordingly, Merton states:

在这种直接的方式下，宗教认可了科学，提高了从事科学研究者的社会地位，并随之加强和扩大了人们对此类研究的兴趣（Merton, 2002, p.431）。

In this direct fashion, religion sanctioned science raising the social estimation of those who pursued scientific investigation, with the associated intensification and spread of interest in such pursuits (Merton, 2002, p.431).

默顿将新教的态度与天主教的态度区分开来，他的论断是：

Merton distinguishes the Protestant attitude from the Catholic one by claiming:

这种将英格兰清教徒学院与欧陆新教教育发展相比较的做法是有充分依据的。法国的新教学院比天主教机构更加重视科学与实用性学科(Merton, 2002, p.478-9)。

This comparison of the Puritan academies in England and Protestant educational developments on the Continent is well warranted. The Protestant academies in France devoted much more attention to scientific and utilitarian subjects than did the Catholic institutions (Merton, 2002, p.478-9).

默顿还讨论了促使人们对科学兴趣日增的其他因素，包括军事因素；尤其是对弹道武器的新兴趣（Merton，2002，第543页）。

Merton discusses other contributory factors to the increased interest in science, including military factors; especially new interest in ballistic weaponry (Merton, 2002, p.543).

因此，人们会意识到默顿论点与马克斯·韦伯在《新教伦理与资本主义精神》（2013）中的理论之间的相似性。事实上，用来反对韦伯论点的许多论据，也可以用来反对默顿的论点，其中可能包括默顿或韦伯无法解释其他国家（尤其是日本）的情况，这些国家在没有新教作为催化剂的情况下，同时经历了资本主义和技术进步。人们可以通过非宗教的功利主义（或许是洛克式或霍布斯式的表述）为新教提供另一种解释，这也是默顿曾经考虑过的（Merton, 2002, p.589）。总体而言，很难将新教或清教主义确定为科学进步的决定性因素，因为同样很难将新教（或天主教）归咎于其普遍抑制科学。新无神论者常常把达尔文视为转折点。然而，没有证据表明达尔文是因为他的自然选择理论而背弃了基督教。在这一点上，詹姆斯·摩尔（James Moore）宣称：

Consequently, one realises the similarity between the Merton thesis and Max Weber’s theory in the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (2013). In reality, many of the arguments used against Weber’s thesis may also be used against Merton’s which may include either Merton or Weber’s inability to account for other nations (most notably Japan) which underwent both capitalism and technological advancement without Protestantism as a catalyst. One may provide an alternative explanation to Protestantism through non-religious utilitarianism (perhaps a Lockian or Hobbesian formulation), as was contemplated by Merton (Merton, 2002, p.589). Overall, it is difficult to pin-point Protestantism or Puritanism as a decisive factor in scientific progress inasmuch as it would be difficult to blame it (or Catholicism) for generally inhibiting science. New Atheists often invoke Darwin as the turning point. There is no evidence, however, that Darwin apostatised from Christianity because of his theory of natural selection. On this point, James Moore claims:

他自己的证词却鲜少被人重视:"直到四十岁,我才放弃基督教。"达尔文生于1849年,此时他早已提出了自然选择进化论(Moore,2010,p.143)。布鲁克也同意这一点:

His own testimony is seldom heeded: “I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age.” Darwin turned forty in 1849, long after developing his theory of evolution by natural selection (Moore, 2010, p.143) and Brooke agrees that:

达尔文表达其不信之由的主要原因,并不源于他在解释物种起源时赋予自然原因的作用。与其他维多利亚时代的思想家一样,达尔文强烈反感福音派基督教关于天堂与地狱的布道(Brooke, 2010, p.228)。

The main reasons Darwin gave for his unbelief derived not from the role he gave natural causes in explaining the origin of species. Like other Victorian thinkers, Darwin reacted strongly against evangelical Christian preaching on heaven and hell (Brooke, 2010, p.228).

《物种起源》于1859年出版，当时正值奥斯曼坦志麦特改革之后的时期，而穆斯林世界的大部分地区已遭殖民统治。因此，很难评估穆斯林国家对达尔文主义的回应。尽管如此，显然，圣训注释（tafsir）上的争论确实发生过，并且至今仍在持续。

Origin of Species was published in 1859 during the post-Tanzimaat Ottoman period when most of the Muslim world was colonised. Accordingly, it is difficult to assess a Muslim state response to Darwinism. Nevertheless, it is clear that exegetical conflict did (and continues to)

在人类演化这一方面，至少与基督教世界的情况类似。因此，把所有"科学"与所有"宗教"之间的冲突模式（这里仅提及两种宗教）视为简单的冲突，是与历史不符的。

feature at least on the aspect of human evolution, similar to the Christian world. Therefore, models of conflict between all of ‘science’ and all of ‘religion’ (considering only two religions are mentioned) are simply ahistorical.