Should science be secular?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sinnerdexter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
larkin

How would it appear in an abstract, or lab report, or chemical equation?

That is not the issue, and you know it if you have any knowledge of science at all.

The question is not whether religion is in science, but whether science must be so secular that it excludes religion. As you know, Dawkins has said the theory of evolution made it intellectually respectable to be an atheist. It does no such thing. When science is secularized to the point of denying God, then it has become not only secular, but stupid in the extreme.

But if you really need a reference to God in a scientific report, here’s one for you from Charles Darwin. 😃

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”* Origin of the Species*, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).

Also:

Max Born Quantum Physicist
“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

A completely secular science is an abomination unto the Lord.
 
I think this thread went a little astray so let me put some basics down.

In its essence, science does not distinguish between secular or religious claim.
  1. Science can be applied to anything that manifests in an observable way.
For instance there is something that makes the expansion of our universe accelerate. We don’t know what it is, but we can observe the effect and therefore apply science to it. On the other hand if I claim I have an invisible supernatural fairy hovering over my head and it really really loves me then there is nothing that manifests for the science to look at.
  1. Scientific theories and claims are accepted by the scientific community if they can be verified (observed) by independent parties.
You can recreate the famous double slit experiment demonstrating the wave aspect of light at home using a laser pointer and a piece of tin. You cannot go and observe under strict scrutiny Sathya Sai Baba turn water into honey (because he won’t let you).

Other then the above two points there is no real limitation to what you can apply science to. You can go and observe the effect of prayer on patients as this person did in 1988 or you can study near death experience or whatever you want. As long as you comply with the above two points, you are within the boundaries of science.

That said, the biggest religions today are not necessarily compatible with the approach above because it’s too unrestricted. If you made science religious - say - Islamic, you would have to add a lot of points beyond those two to restrict things that are against islamic law.
 
stenlis said:
I think this thread went a little astray so let me put some basics down.

In its essence, science does not distinguish between secular or religious claim.
  1. Science can be applied to anything that manifests in an observable way.
For instance there is something that makes the expansion of our universe accelerate. We don’t know what it is, but we can observe the effect and therefore apply science to it. On the other hand if I claim I have an invisible supernatural fairy hovering over my head and it really really loves me then there is nothing that manifests for the science to look at.
  1. Scientific theories and claims are accepted by the scientific community if they can be verified (observed) by independent parties.
You can recreate the famous double slit experiment demonstrating the wave aspect of light at home using a laser pointer and a piece of tin. You cannot go and observe under strict scrutiny Sathya Sai Baba turn water into honey (because he won’t let you).

Other then the above two points there is no real limitation to what you can apply science to. You can go and observe the effect of prayer on patients as this person did in 1988 or you can study near death experience or whatever you want. As long as you comply with the above two points, you are within the boundaries of science.

That said, the biggest religions today are not necessarily compatible with the approach above because it’s too unrestricted. If you made science religious - say - Islamic, you would have to add a lot of points beyond those two to restrict things that are against islamic law.
Click to expand...
very good points

thanks for helping here
 
Charlemagne_II said:
The question is not whether religion is in science, but whether science must be so secular that it excludes religion. As you know, Dawkins has said the theory of evolution made it intellectually respectable to be an atheist. It does no such thing. When science is secularized to the point of denying God, then it has become not only secular, but stupid in the extreme.
Click to expand...
So, tell us what a science that includes religion would look like.
 
larkin31 said:
very good points

thanks for helping here
Click to expand...
Hi all True believers,
We can take time out of this busy world to remind our non-believing brothers:
‘Ex praeterito - praesens prudenter agit - ni futura actione deturpet.’
God Bless,
Colmcille1.🙂
 
I reported Colmecille’s post as I said I would if he/she again refused to post honestly on the topic. Just an FYI.
 
larkin31 said:
I reported Colmecille’s post as I said I would if he/she again refused to post honestly on the topic. Just an FYI.
Click to expand...
Answer this very topically specific quote, Mr. Schoolmarm:
‘Ex praeterito - praesens prudenter agit - ni futura actione deturpet.’
 
colmcille1 said:
‘Ex praeterito - praesens prudenter agit - ni futura actione deturpet.’
Click to expand...
Possono essere escluse dai treni e allontanate dalle stazioni o fermate le persone che si trovino in stato di ubriachezza, che offendano la decenza o diano scandalo o disturbo agli altri viaggiatori e che ricusino di ottemperare alle prescrizione d’ordine o di sicurezza del servizio. 🙂
 
Kaninchen

*So, tell us what a science that includes religion would look like. *

So tedious to have to repeat it:

The question is not what a science would look like that includes religion, but what a secular science would look like that denies religion. It would look rather silly. Even Einstein thought so:

Albert Einstein: Special and General Theories of Relativity

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”

Max Born: Quantum Physicist

“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”
 
Kaninchen said:
Possono essere escluse dai treni e allontanate dalle stazioni o fermate le persone che si trovino in stato di ubriachezza, che offendano la decenza o diano scandalo o disturbo agli altri viaggiatori e che ricusino di ottemperare alle prescrizione d’ordine o di sicurezza del servizio. 🙂
Click to expand...
Would you say now that the old story of the drunk on the train is very relevant or are you wandering off topic?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Kaninchen

*So, tell us what a science that includes religion would look like. *

So tedious to have to repeat it:

The question is not what a science would look like that includes religion, but what a secular science would look like that denies religion. It would look rather silly. Even Einstein thought so:

Albert Einstein Special and General Theories of Relativity

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”

Max Born Quantum Physicist

“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”
Click to expand...
I’m sorry but grabbing quotes (out of whatever context they were in originally) isn’t any kind of useful statement one way or another - some scientists are religious, some are not - with whatever list of possible quotes or arguments about religion one could find, either way.

Now, one would expect that those who are arguing that science should change, in some way, should be able to describe ‘in what way’ and ‘to what end’.

Otherwise they’re just being tedious.
 
colmcille1 said:
Would you say now that the old story of the drunk on the train is very relevant or are you wandering off topic?
Click to expand...
Ah, you found an online translator - not very good, are they? Actually, it’s not a story, it’s part of the Italian railway regulations and talks about people other than drunks.

About as relevant as your contributions - particularly since I’ve sensed a shocking lack of knowledge about the Regolamento del Trasporto Ferroviario on CAF.
 
Isaac Newton said that…

Hi charlemagne…

‘…this world could originate…’

better be careful…

‘…from nothing…’

you have a schoolmarm…

‘…but the perfectly free will…’

AND a bunny wabbit…

‘…of God’.

to contend with: whooooooooooooo
 
Kaninchen said:
Ah, you found an online translator - not very good, are they? Actually, it’s not a story, it’s part of the Italian railway regulations and talks about people other than drunks.

About as relevant as your contributions - particularly since I’ve sensed a shocking lack of knowledge about the Regolamento del Trasporto Ferroviario on CAF.
Click to expand...
FYI, I have beautiful Italian neighbours! All honest-to-goodness Catholics. Wonderful friends. Do you have friends or do you merely own a laptop?
 
colmcille1 said:
FYI, I have beautiful Italian neighbours! All honest-to-goodness Catholics. Wonderful friends. Do you have friends or do you merely own a laptop?
Click to expand...
Err?

One husband, two daughters, colleagues, fellow volunteers (I day a week I work for a charity) and, even, time for a few friends.

One desktop, one laptop, one notebook at home - the rest belong to other members of the family.
 
Kaninchen said:
Err?

One husband, two daughters, colleagues, fellow volunteers (I day a week I work for a charity) and, even, time for a few friends.

One desktop, one laptop, one notebook at home - the rest belong to other members of the family.
Click to expand...
Family is great. The human family is wonderful. His Family is The Way.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top