Status of Space-Time Many physicists conjecture that space-time is not fundamental. 
Is this the orthodox view in physics these days? 
Follow ups - If a philosopher argues that space-time is reducible, are any physicists likely to argue? Are there many or any theories (for instance versions of string theory) that actually require a fundamental space-time?   
This not asking how space-time can be emergent. The question is asking whether the view that space-time is emergent is considered orthodox, or to what extent it is endorsed by physicists.  
 A: It is the prevailing view among high-energy physicists that spacetime should be emergent from some more basic structure because of the following basic argument: if you want to probe regions of spacetime that are arbitrarily small then according to the principles of quantum mechanics (and special relativity), it corresponds to concentrating arbitrarily high energy in a small enough region. However, since gravity exists, such an attempt would turn the intended region to be probed into a black hole. And thus, you cannot probe it. So, this shows an in-principle impediment to probing small enough regions of spacetime. This motivates one to think that the notion of spacetime itself should somehow breakdown at such high-energy scales and should be replaced by some other construct. However, this cannot be considered an "orthodox" view because we do not yet have an actual framework in which spacetime can be fully replaced by some more fundamental entity. 
The closest we have come to having a framework for talking about emergent spacetime in a robust way is via the $\text{AdS-CFT}$ correspondence in which one space dimension of a theory with gravity can be seen as emergent because such a theory is dual to a theory without gravity with one lower number of space dimensions. While space and time are supposed to be on the same essential footing due to Lorentz symmetry, we don't yet have a working framework like the one provided by $\text{AdS-CFT}$ in which time is also emergent. 
A: Since I am unaware of the level of physics you are familiar with, I shall try and give an answer for the general audience.
Earlier, when Einstein presented the idea of space-time, it was assumed as well as critical to his theory of general relativity, that space-time is a continuous background, on which every event in the universe takes place.
But, later on, to conserve the principles of quantum mechanics(mostly uncertainty principle), it was seen that space-time needs to have a discrete/discontinuous structure. One of the "emerging" ideas in physics, aka quantum loop gravity, tries to account for uncertainty by introducing uncertainty in the space-time itself so as to speak.
Hence, the classical idea of continuous space-time is, well, old. It being a fundamental background on which events occur, is also being challenged.
A: Emergent spacetime is far from orthodox. However, there are several reasons to believe that spacetime is not fundamental, so an objective physicist should not insist that it is. 
Classical physics, quantum theory, and special and general relativity assume the existence of continuous space and time, so any theory of emergent spacetime would need to approximate to the sort of continuous spacetime that is currently assumed.
Emergent spacetime is an active field of study, with several possible models being developed, so the concept is in principle endorsed by many physicists. 
A: Space-time is more like a background, continuous in nature even down to the quantum level and cannot be broken into smaller (fundamental) units. Quantum foam with energy fluctuations on small scales, but no definable "smallest scale"
just my thoughts - simple as they are - its all I got
