" 
 ::I think the proposed wording from Christopher Thomas is nice and succint - but perhaps including the intro to give it some context would be sensible. As for philosophical interpretations, I agree with CT, there is no content on philosophical interpretations in the article and until there is there is not really anything to discuss, unless you want to propose the creation of new material - which isn't really the purpose of an RFC.    
 :::I also agree with  re a proposed RFC - esp ""v1"" ->  ""Should the Big Bang article contain a section about religious interpretations of the Big Bang?"" - the main issue in discussion - a brief intro (as noted by ,  and ) may also be in order - Enjoy! )    
 ::::Yes, I should have said, the v1 wording in particular would be most suitable in my opinion. Cheers    
 ::::: I prefer Christopher Thomas' short version.  I don't think the long version accurately summarizes the issue.  I don't agree that religion is irrelevant to an article on the big bang, but I think devoting an entire section on it gives it undue weight, especially when it focuses on Catholicism and in the absence of other connections to non-scientific topics. Waleswatcher   
 ::::::I take it you won't object to the addition of a religion section to many-worlds interpretation and the formation and evolution of the Solar System.  Perhaps we should mandate religion sections for every scientific theory.  After all, everyone knows that the church is only used for discussing scientific theories.    
 ::::::: Actually, I would object to adding such sections on the same grounds I object to this one.  Waleswatcher   
 :::::::If reliable sources discuss religious interpretations of the many-words interpretation then why wouldn't we include it?  I don't think such sources exist, but again, if academics are writing about something then it's simply our job to report it, not to second guess the experts.   "