Should science be secular?

[StrawberryJam]

What areas lacking permission are you referring to? If you look at what the Catholic Church condemns regarding science (for example, embryonic stem cell research), you will see that the reasoning is most often based on respect for the life and dignity of a person. This same type of reasoning is why Nazi’s experimenting on Jewish prisoners in the name of science would be condemned. If you condemn that action as well, are you wrongfully limiting science because of a subjective moral judgment you have made regarding the action?

p.s. Whether an embryo is a person, etc, is a discussion for a different thread.

I think it is erroneous to say that your hours and days left count all the more than someone who does believe in an eternal Heaven. Let’s explore your last sentence from our two viewpoints:

From a Christian viewpoint, our time left counts towards either eternal happiness or eternal damnation, not only for ourselves, but perhaps for others that we can help come to know God. In other words, our time here on earth not only has an immediate and temporary impact, but also has an eternal impact.

From an atheistic viewpoint, regardless of the magnitude of one’s positive or negative contributions, our time left most likely will only have a temporary effect (whether it lasts for a generation or until the end of the universe). In any case, it could never exceed the eternal impact mentioned above.

Perhaps this needs to be discussed in PM as you realize I do not wish to offend the various catholics here that believe in crop circles let alone anything else.

 

[d_erford]

Perhaps this needs to be discussed in PM as you realize I do not wish to offend the various catholics here that believe in crop circles let alone anything else.

I’m afraid I do not know what you mean by PM (please forgive my ignorance if this is a common reference )

 

[edwest2]

Good point; I was going for impact, but you’re right. I should have said that science has performed multiple peer-reviewed, independent experiments which all conclude that [insert scientific theory here] is true and consistently and accurately predict the outcome of other experiments.

One of the strengths of science, of course, is that future experiments may refine or even debunk existing theories. Another advantage of science over religion.

Having read many comments regarding science having some advantage over religion, why should that matter? Science can investigate certain things and make claims about them, the end. The claims can either be tested and put to use or they cannot.

The Catholic religion is based on an actual event in time. To assume it is simply about faith is not the whole picture. God has sent Mary to give messages to man. He has left behind artifacts. One such being the cloak of Our Lady of Guadalupe, which was recently seen by Secretary of State Clinton. She asked, “Who painted it,” not realizing that the image has been on cactus fiber that should have disintegrated long ago. Experts who examined it have stated it has more of the qualities of a photograph than a painting. Reflected images have been seen in the eyes.

Miracles still occur. That is how people are elevated to sainthood. I understand the media says little if anything about this but the Congregation for Saints’ Causes carefully examines these miracles and calls in any expert that was involved or who might be able to show that no natural explanation is possible.

Many great scientists gave glory to God as part of their work but the desire appears to be to let people forget that. Science cannot study God but that does not mean He does not exist.

God bless,
Ed

 

[StrawberryJam]

Having read many comments regarding science having some advantage over religion, why should that matter? Science can investigate certain things and make claims about them, the end. The claims can either be tested and put to use or they cannot.

The Catholic religion is based on an actual event in time. To assume it is simply about faith is not the whole picture. God has sent Mary to give messages to man. He has left behind artifacts. One such being the cloak of Our Lady of Guadalupe, which was recently seen by Secretary of State Clinton. She asked, “Who painted it,” not realizing that the image has been on cactus fiber that should have disintegrated long ago. Experts who examined it have stated it has more of the qualities of a photograph than a painting. Reflected images have been seen in the eyes.

Miracles still occur. That is how people are elevated to sainthood. I understand the media says little if anything about this but the Congregation for Saints’ Causes carefully examines these miracles and calls in any expert that was involved or who might be able to show that no natural explanation is possible.

Many great scientists gave glory to God as part of their work but the desire appears to be to let people forget that. Science cannot study God but that does not mean He does not exist.

God bless,
Ed

Unfortunately Ed,

The sacredness of a piece of cloth you believe to be miraculous, is not open to scientific testing.
I understand, that is it sacred and therefore unavailable to scientists to actually be able to back up the claims being made about it.
So, making a claim that it is beyond a natural explanation is false. Until it can be examined properly. But, that will never happen will it Ed?

 

[edwest2]

Please judge for yourself:

catholicnewsagency.com/news/our_lady_of_guadalupe_completely_beyond_scientific_explanation_says_researcher/

God bless,
Ed

 

[StrawberryJam]

Please judge for yourself:

catholicnewsagency.com/news/our_lady_of_guadalupe_completely_beyond_scientific_explanation_says_researcher/

God bless,
Ed

Thanks for that Ed,

But is this his scientific area of study? How many others have had access to this cloth to study it? Come on Ed.

 

[zdon011]

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!

:clapping:
Well, dare I say it, this esteemed forum seems to attract an awful lot of these ‘theological Joes’! And I’m not saying that I couldn’t be one of them (not too often, I hope).:blush:

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Religion, as much as I love it, has no business in science. Science seeks, through empirical data, observation, hypothesis, gathering data, experimenting, and coming up with logical theories based on those observations and experiments. We cannot objectively prove the existence of God. God and theology in general is a matter of faith and belief, not science. It is absolutely absurd to think otherwise…

And can you imagine if we tried to tie religion into science? Wow, that’d be a real hoot-nanny. Whose biases would be entering the scene? The Baptists? The J-dubs? The Mormons? The Catholics? The Muslims…no thank yuh!

Science is a secular phenomenon and should remain that way. It doesn’t mean a scientist has to be a dry, banal, spiritless atheist either…but a religion shouldn’t inform a scientific inquiry…

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Great post, Bobby Jim…We are not called to preach our religion in the work place. I cannot in my line of work either. It’s called professionalism. Kudos…

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.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Religion, as much as I love it, has no business in science. Science seeks, through empirical data, observation, hypothesis, gathering data, experimenting, and coming up with logical theories based on those observations and experiments. We cannot objectively prove the existence of God. God and theology in general is a matter of faith and belief, not science. It is absolutely absurd to think otherwise…

And can you imagine if we tried to tie religion into science? Wow, that’d be a real hoot-nanny. Whose biases would be entering the scene? The Baptists? The J-dubs? The Mormons? The Catholics? The Muslims…no thank yuh!

Science is a secular phenomenon and should remain that way. It doesn’t mean a scientist has to be a dry, banal, spiritless atheist either…but a religion shouldn’t inform a scientific inquiry…

I can not disagree with anything you stated here, and find your views very encouraging!

 

[geekborj]

Any ideas?

If Science is made or limited to the secular world, Science will significantly loose its internal motivation which is to find the Truth about the World. In the end, Science needs motivation that is provided by the “why” and the deeper senses of the meanings.

E.g. Why do we need medicine? Why are we “more evolved” than other animals? Why do we need to do research to “improve” human life?

Without the religious aspect of life, Science will loose its inner motivation! Science must never forget where or whom she came from and her objectives are.

 

[wanstronian]

Having read many comments regarding science having some advantage over religion, why should that matter? Science can investigate certain things and make claims about them, the end. The claims can either be tested and put to use or they cannot.

The Catholic religion is based on an actual event in time.

I did not realise this, I thought it was based upon a series of *alleged *events as depicted in the bible. Is this not right?

To assume it is simply about faith is not the whole picture. God has sent Mary to give messages to man. He has left behind artifacts. One such being the cloak of Our Lady of Guadalupe, which was recently seen by Secretary of State Clinton. She asked, “Who painted it,” not realizing that the image has been on cactus fiber that should have disintegrated long ago.

Proving what?

Experts who examined it have stated it has more of the qualities of a photograph than a painting.

Proving what?

Reflected images have been seen in the eyes.

By whom? What images? What does this prove?

Miracles still occur.

Name one.

That is how people are elevated to sainthood. I understand the media says little if anything about this but the Congregation for Saints’ Causes carefully examines these miracles and calls in any expert that was involved or who might be able to show that no natural explanation is possible.

Why do you suppose the media says nothing? Why haven’t we heard about all these miracles?

Many great scientists gave glory to God as part of their work but the desire appears to be to let people forget that. Science cannot study God but that does not mean He does not exist.

Perhaps not, but that’s no reason to assume that he does. Are you in the habit of believing everything that can’t be disproved?

 

[wanstronian]

If Science is made or limited to the secular world, Science will significantly loose its internal motivation which is to find the Truth about the World. In the end, Science needs motivation that is provided by the “why” and the deeper senses of the meanings.

E.g. Why do we need medicine? Why are we “more evolved” than other animals? Why do we need to do research to “improve” human life?

Without the religious aspect of life, Science will loose its inner motivation! Science must never forget where or whom she came from and her objectives are.

Nonsense. Science does not need to know the “Why” to understand the “How come.” The motivation for science comes from wanting to discover more about our world; religion is not involved at all.

The moment we start to assume there is a “Why” (that is, a higher purpose, an ultimate intent), we risk tainting the results of our scientific conclusions. Particularly if we start believing that the “why” (if there is one) must correlate with this religious belief or that religious belief, then science loses its independence and therefore its value.

Science must be secular, otherwise it’s not science. Religion adds no value.

 

[Anselm33]

QUOTE=wanstronian;6883673]Nonsense. Science does not need to know the “Why” to understand the “How come.” The motivation for science comes from wanting to discover more about our world; religion is not involved at all.

The moment we start to assume there is a “Why” (that is, a higher purpose, an ultimate intent), we risk tainting the results of our scientific conclusions. Particularly if we start believing that the “why” (if there is one) must correlate with this religious belief or that religious belief, then science loses its independence and therefore its value.

Science must be secular, otherwise it’s not science. Religion adds no value.

Speaking as a physicist (50 years experience), I’d comment that your view is not universal (nor mine). There are eminent scientists whose non-belief ranges from militant atheism (Stephen Weinberg) to agnosticism or deism, just as there are eminent scientists–members of the Royal Academy–who are orthodox believers; one is even an Anglican priest. And I’ll cap it off with my favorite quote by Albert Einstein:

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

 

[wanstronian]

Speaking as a physicist (50 years experience), I’d comment that your view is not universal (nor mine). There are eminent scientists whose non-belief ranges from militant atheism (Stephen Weinberg) to agnosticism or deism, just as there are eminent scientists–members of the Royal Academy–who are orthodox believers; one is even an Anglican priest.

I never said scientists can’t be religious. I just said that science should be secular. Scientific endeavour should not involve God - or any other superstition - in any aspect of discovery or explanation. Indeed, it must not, for then it would cease to be science and start to be guesswork.

 

[ZDHayden]

Science, by definition must be secular. It is the human search for truth in our material world. If science were allied with anything, its position would be compromised. To be secular for science is to be objective. It is the usage of scientific findings that can be used on a biased basis.

 

[buffalo]

Religion, as much as I love it, has no business in science. Science seeks, through empirical data, observation, hypothesis, gathering data, experimenting, and coming up with logical theories based on those observations and experiments. We cannot objectively prove the existence of God. God and theology in general is a matter of faith and belief, not science. It is absolutely absurd to think otherwise…

And can you imagine if we tried to tie religion into science? Wow, that’d be a real hoot-nanny. Whose biases would be entering the scene? The Baptists? The J-dubs? The Mormons? The Catholics? The Muslims…no thank yuh!

Science is a secular phenomenon and should remain that way. It doesn’t mean a scientist has to be a dry, banal, spiritless atheist either…but a religion shouldn’t inform a scientific inquiry…

If God is absolute truth, then everything that exists is a subset of this one total truth.

If something is true in science then it flows from this one total truth. Science cannot be effectively reasoned outside this. When it attempts to do so the reasoning is faulty.

 

[Anselm33]

I never said scientists can’t be religious. I just said that science should be secular. Scientific endeavour should not involve God - or any other superstition - in any aspect of discovery or explanation. Indeed, it must

not, for then it would cease to be science and start to be guesswork.

Nor did I mean to imply that was your point. It is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition that a scientist be religious to do good science. However, to gain maximum satisfaction out of doing science, one should, I believe, have a faith in a universal order that is instituted by some Higher Power. What is the point, otherwise, of trying to understand what the universe is all about–just monkey curiousity? I don’t think so. Historians of science argue that science developed from a culture with Judeo-Christian values because in that culture–the Middle Ages–there was this belief in an ordered world ordained by God. Where there was no such belief (e.g.as with the Chinese) even in a culture with high technological achievements, science would not develop. That was, in fact, the point of the Einstein quote.

 

[wanstronian]

If God is absolute truth, then everything that exists is a subset of this one total truth.

And if he doesn’t exist then it isn’t. Given that there’s no evidence for his existence, then the sensible thing is to proceed as if he doesn’t exist, to avoid tainting the scientific conclusion with unnecessary conjecture.

If something is true in science then it flows from this one total truth. Science cannot be effectively reasoned outside this. When it attempts to do so the reasoning is faulty.

Your baseless supposition is a prime example of faulty reasoning.

However, whether or not one assumes an ‘ultimate truth’ is irrelevant - such considerations are outside the realm of scientific discovery. If one has to posit a supernatural explanation for any aspect of scientific endeavour, then that endeavour is no longer scientific. Science deals with acquisition of objective knowledge, not of subjective conjecture.

 

[d_erford]

And if he doesn’t exist then it isn’t. Given that there’s no evidence for his existence, then the sensible thing is to proceed as if he doesn’t exist, to avoid tainting the scientific conclusion with unnecessary conjecture.

There is evidence of God’s existence, it’s simply not the kind of evidence you want or will accept. You have decided to limit the realm of knowledge you can come to know by appealing only to your senses and reason.

However, whether or not one assumes an ‘ultimate truth’ is irrelevant - such considerations are outside the realm of scientific discovery.

Very true, showing the limitations of science.