On 12/13/05, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
Lets not be sarcastic. Science is largely a process of exclusion; Sherlock Holmes style reduction of possible explanations. Granted its ground rules are reasonable enough to contain some interesting debates which stretch the boundaries. But if we say for sake of argument that science has little compatibility with religion, why then do a reasonable percentage of scientists hold religious personal views? Is it just for the church dating scene?
What a ridiculous premise for a discussion. Obviously if a large number of scientists hold religious personal views, then there can't be much of a conflict (unless all scientists with religious views are schizophrenic).
People who frame science and religion at each other's throats are either uninformed on the subject, or deceitfully trying to manipulate opinion.
Chris _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I agree of course that science and religion are not "at each other's throats". However, there is one place where I think the SPOV is seen most clearly as a POV. This is when any account of a miracle, or other supernatural event, is presumed to be false, impossible, or to necessarily have a purely scientific explanation. The 'laws of science' are undoubtedly useful, and have produced lots of great things. Of course, people made some progress even when the leading 'scientists' of the day thought everything was made of just four elements. But to presume that everything supernatural is bunk, is imposing a scientific point of view in a way that many people think goes too far.
-- sockmonk [[User:Wesley]]