On 12/13/05, Chris Jenkinson <chris(a)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(a)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]]