Should science be secular?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sinnerdexter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
How could it be any other way? Any theory that said “and here a miracle happens” would be equivalent to saying “I don’t have a clue and can’t be bothered any more”. 🙂
 
Yes. Supernatural events are not constant and as such cannot be tested empirically. Science runs by Methodological Naturalism and should do so.
 
i disagree.

Many of us believe God created everything.

If science is looked at only through a secular lens, without God, then all we have are facts & theories, with no significant moral purpose.

Sure we can cure diseases & make nuclear weapons, etc., but without searching for the Eternal Perfection that is God, science becomes only a short term solution to our inquiries, that can be used for horrible evils as well as good.

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Pecatoribus!

mark
 
Advocatus_Fidei said:
“science without religion is lame” Albert Einstein
Click to expand...
“religion without science is blind” Albert Einstein

Another great “both/and” concept.

But honestly I don’t know what the original question really means. Science is what it is, so saying it “should” (or “should not”) be secular is a non sequitor.

So could you clarify?

Are you asking, can it affirm or deny anything supernatural? If so, the answers are both “no”.

Are you asking, should scientists be of particular religious persuasions? If so, the answer is it wouldn’t affect their scientific competency much at all (all things being equal), but it would probably affect their salvation.
 
The nature of scientific inquiry prevents its meaningfully addressing questions of final cause, ultimate purpose, or even morality. Therefore, it should inform but not pontificate upon such questions, and should restrain itself from making reckless commentary where it has not the competence to do so.

Were I to hear the learned astronomer, soon unaccountable become tired and sick, and so rise and glide up to the podium and say, “By my experience of the sky at night, your lecture seemed absolute rubbish!”, I should be laughed out of the lecture-hall.

For we know that astronomy is a serious discipline, and we respect the learned in that field enough to understand that, though something seem counterintuitive to our experience, their study is serious, and the error or misunderstanding is probably with us.

For some reason, we have let theology be so cruelly and publicly ridiculed for so long that people seem to think that any Joe who sets his mind to the task, no matter his study, no matter his relationship with the living God, has every right to comment loudly on such matters in the public sphere. Were any other science treated so flippantly, there would be a great uproar against the flippant!
 
Yes, science should be secular. It is the scientist who is suspect.

It helps to know what “secular” really means. Secular means non-religious. Much science today is done from a “humanist” or “naturalist” perspective. Both of these perspectives are biased because they are rooted in ideologies. Findings then are described in terms that promote the researcher’s biases.

The scientist should not attach any meaning to his conducting and reporting of science. However, once science is done and reported, we (as well as he) should compare that information to moral law so we can know how we should act on it.
 
Well, as a practicing scientist myself…

At the level of the actual scientific work - constructing a hypothesis, designing an experiment, going into the lab to run the experiment, analyzing the data, publishing a paper… at no point during that do I look for divine intervention, or pray for a particular result (other than, perhaps, that nothing blows up or catches on fire). If I’m doing that, I’m beyond the level of testing natural processes, which is what science is good for. I might thank God that an experiment turned out to show something interesting (as opposed to so many which are inconclusive, or don’t work because of something stupid going wrong).

Religion comes into play at more of a big-picture level, for me. As a scientist it’s up to me to choose what problems to study. Best that I use my talents, and resources, to study something that helps build up the kingdom of God, to alleviate suffering, to help keep people safe, to generate new technology that leads to beneficial economic activity, or usually just to learn something new that adds to our understanding of nature. Best not to use my talents and resources to make better ways to kill people, or just make myself wealthy on the backs of the poor, or by polluting the world. I’m also obligated to conduct work in an ethical and honest way, especially since this often comes down to spending other peoples’ money to do research. And of course at an individual level I’m obligated to watch out for other peoples’ safety, not perform dangerous experiments on people, ask someone to put themself at risk of harm for the sake of an experiment, and so forth. I suppose that’s much like the ethical considerations that go along with any other job.

That’s probably not what the original question was getting at… but honestly, most of us who do science for a living aren’t really working on “controversial” stuff like stem cells or nuclear weapons.
 
Mark77 said:
If science is looked at only through a secular lens, without God, then all we have are facts & theories, with no significant moral purpose.
Click to expand...
Science is not concerned with moral purpose. Knowledge can be used for moral or immoral purposes by humans. That does not mean that humans should stop trying to push the frontiers of knowledge. All knowledge is valuable.
 
Science attempts to answer the how.

Religion attempts to answer the why.

Thinks of science as the language of God similar to the way a computer programmer uses a language to create a program.

When I look up the stars and see their light, I can see thousands of years into the past. I can see the amazing language of God in science.
 
snowman10 said:
Science attempts to answer the how.

Religion attempts to answer the why.
Click to expand...
Well, a more accurate statement would be that religion arbitrarily assumes that there is a why, then attempts to answer that question in a manner that supports its pre-existing conclusions.

The only problem is that any answers religion comes up with are valueless because they cannot be shown to be right.

Science must be secular to have any value.
 
wanstronian said:
Well, a more accurate statement would be that religion arbitrarily assumes that there is a why, then attempts to answer that question in a manner that supports its pre-existing conclusions.

The only problem is that any answers religion comes up with are valueless because they cannot be shown to be right.

Science must be secular to have any value.
Click to expand...
  1. Not arbitrary to adherents and not accepted or recognized by other folks. We believe God created and interacted with creation from the start (regardless of what process used). We have the why question(s) answered in many important matters.
  2. Since when is something decidedly valueless because it can not be proven true by certain set of parameters or standards? Please elaborate on your post.
 
Empirical science has no bias either way. It is when man introduces a priori bias to his reasoning of the empirical data.

The truth (aka God) has to illuminate our reasoning or it will be errant.
 
wanstronian said:
Well, a more accurate statement would be that religion arbitrarily assumes that there is a why, then attempts to answer that question in a manner that supports its pre-existing conclusions.

The only problem is that any answers religion comes up with are valueless because they cannot be shown to be right.

Science must be secular to have any value.
Click to expand...
I like the way you said that.
 
Dominant paradigms in science and their attendant anomalies
Code: 
	 				Most of the time, scientific research seeks to build on  theoretical foundations that have been carefully constructed by the  wider research community, often over many years.  If a theoretical  framework is found to be robust, it gains widespread assent, with few  interested in challenging it.  Those who are attracted to the idea that  science develops progressively are the least likely to talk about  challenges.  For them, any change is a minor modification of the  theoretical edifice.  Thomas Kuhn referred to these theoretical  frameworks as 'paradigms', and the progressive refinement of that  framework as 'normal science'.  Kuhn pointed out that anomalies do not  trigger the practitioners of 'normal science' to question the paradigm,  but they either treat them as problems waiting to be resolved, or they  ignore them altogether. In recent months, I've become aware that this  phraseology and understanding of scientific activity is intensely  irritating to some scientists.  They appear to regard such talk as an  invention of outsiders with a subversive agenda.  A desire to comment on  these issues  has stimulated this blog, which is based on a paper  authored by Walter Alvarez, an experienced and respected scientist  working in the field of geology.  He introduces his paper thus:
“Lightman and Gingerich (1992) argued that when a ruling theory is successful in accounting for a wide range of observations, scientists ignore observations that are not explained by the theory. They argued that such “anomalies” are only “retro-recognized” when a modification or replacement of the original theory calls attention to and explains the conflicting observations.”

more…
 
buffalo said:
Dominant paradigms in science and their attendant anomalies
Code: 
                     Most of the time, scientific research seeks to build on theoretical foundations that have been carefully constructed by the wider research community, often over many years. If a theoretical framework is found to be robust, it gains widespread assent, with few interested in challenging it. Those who are attracted to the idea that science develops progressively are the least likely to talk about challenges. For them, any change is a minor modification of the theoretical edifice. Thomas Kuhn referred to these theoretical frameworks as 'paradigms', and the progressive refinement of that framework as 'normal science'. Kuhn pointed out that anomalies do not trigger the practitioners of 'normal science' to question the paradigm, but they either treat them as problems waiting to be resolved, or they ignore them altogether. In recent months, I've become aware that this phraseology and understanding of scientific activity is intensely irritating to some scientists. They appear to regard such talk as an invention of outsiders with a subversive agenda. A desire to comment on these issues has stimulated this blog, which is based on a paper authored by Walter Alvarez, an experienced and respected scientist working in the field of geology. He introduces his paper thus:
“Lightman and Gingerich (1992) argued that when a ruling theory is successful in accounting for a wide range of observations, scientists ignore observations that are not explained by the theory. They argued that such “anomalies” are only “retro-recognized” when a modification or replacement of the original theory calls attention to and explains the conflicting observations.”

more…
Click to expand...
http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/cma/lowres/cman51l.jpg
Wonderful music, but is there a composer? (Source here)
Researchers who propose paradigm-changing solutions do not find it easy to get their work past editors and reviewers. [from the article submitted by Buffalo]

The above statement is an understatement to say the least. For example the discoveries of scientists who offer their discoveries and/or arguments to the technical journals on origins of life are denied publication unless they work their discoveries into the existing naturalistc paradigm: “Evolution of life and the universe through natural processes.” If they choose to suggest that their data requires a new paradigm of origins or that thier data shows that evolution is an impossibility they are refused publication. If their data somehow receives some publicity then instead of repeating the experiments to either refute or confirm the data main stream scientists sit at their desks and explain away the data and even villify the person(s) making the discovery. That is NOT how science progressses. Such attitudes are actually anti-science.

When major amomalies are discovered that seem to refute the main stream scientific hypothesis of origins such data and arguments should immediately be given acknowlegement and then the process begun to see if the data is reproducable or the arguments logical or not. This is not being done by main stream scientists in academia and therefore one must conclude that those holding to the evolution theory are just as religious and have an agenda as they claim folks who argue for Intelligent Design are religious and have an agenda.

Thomas Kuhn has accurately analyzed the situation which exists within academia. I would add one more reason academia does not want to consider alternate theories of origins - just follow the money trail.
 
snowman10 said:
  1. Not arbitrary to adherents and not accepted or recognized by other folks.
Click to expand...
Arbitrary, meaning, “Based on mere opinion or preference as opp. to the real nature of things; capricious, unpredictable, inconsistent.” (OED).
We believe God created and interacted with creation from the start (regardless of what process used).
Click to expand...
Yes, you believe that. On the other hand, science knows that E=mc2, that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen atoms in the ratio of 2:1; that Force = Mass x Acceleration; and so on. Science knows this because of the hundreds of repeatable, documented experiments that produced consistent results, with no need at any point to invoke God to bridge any explanatory gaps.

If God were an integral part of any scientific experiment, that experiment would be worthless.
We have the why question(s) answered in many important matters.
Click to expand...
Such as?

How do you know you’ve got the correct answers? Why should anybody believe the answers religion provides? What’s your yardstick of truth?
  1. Since when is something decidedly valueless because it can not be proven true by certain set of parameters or standards? Please elaborate on your post.
Click to expand...
It is objectively valueless when it cannot be proven true by objective means.

I don’t deny that religion gives satisfactory answers to its adherents who want to hear answers that affirm their pre-convictions. This is fine for those who want to bask in their own belief system, constantly assuring themselves that they’re right by recirculating their preferred conclusion as an (name removed by moderator)ut into the ‘explanatory’ process.

It doesn’t add value though.
 
hugh_r.miller said:
Researchers who propose paradigm-changing solutions do not find it easy to get their work past editors and reviewers. [from the article submitted by Buffalo]

The above statement is an understatement to say the least. For example the discoveries of scientists who offer their discoveries and/or arguments to the technical journals on origins of life are denied publication unless they work their discoveries into the existing naturalistc paradigm: “Evolution of life and the universe through natural processes.”
Click to expand...
Because there is no other objectively valid paradigm.
If they choose to suggest that their data requires a new paradigm of origins or that thier data shows that evolution is an impossibility they are refused publication. If their data somehow receives some publicity then instead of repeating the experiments to either refute or confirm the data main stream scientists sit at their desks and explain away the data and even villify the person(s) making the discovery. That is NOT how science progressses. Such attitudes are actually anti-science.

When major amomalies are discovered that seem to refute the main stream scientific hypothesis of origins
Click to expand...
Example?
such data and arguments should immediately be given acknowlegement and then the process begun to see if the data is reproducable or the arguments logical or not. This is not being done by main stream scientists in academia and therefore one must conclude that those holding to the evolution theory are just as religious and have an agenda as they claim folks who argue for Intelligent Design are religious and have an agenda.

Thomas Kuhn has accurately analyzed the situation which exists within academia. I would add one more reason academia does not want to consider alternate theories of origins - just follow the money trail.
Click to expand...
Ha! So what? It’s all a big conspiracy theory against the poor anti-evolutionists?

I think it’s more likely that the science publications are unwilling to jeopardise their reputations by publishing non-scientific hypotheses. Which is absolutely the right thing to do, otherwise we’d end up with superstition being touted as science and nobody would know which was which.

ID has no scientific basis, so although the blog quoted may contain some (harvested) truths, that doesn’t suddenly make ID a credible and attention-worthy subject for science journals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top