(November 24, 2018 at 7:31 pm)Belaqua Wrote:
I would agree with parts of some statements. I believe science is secular in that it is not based on religious belief and belief is irrelevant to consensus (while it can be integral to the perspective of the observers). This is because of evidentiary standards and/or sound logical conclusions.
I believe the OP was, as I believe Jor pointed out, about whether it should or shouldn't have a stance on theism.
Personally, I believe that to close off a possibility is part of the method of defining a hypothesis. Does modern science usually start with there being a "real" or "natural" explanation for things? Yes usually, I can see where some might see that as anti theist. Should science allows for all hypothesis, I believe my answer would be yes? How else would we have gotten from supernatural explanations of things to natural evidence.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari