Thread:” Are there eulogizers of science out of blind-faith? ”
Forum: Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Science and Religion
Post 23: | |||
|
|||
Paarsurrey1 wrote: OK with the rules, I like them. Science deals in the physical and material realms so “evidence” here means that could be “observed” physically and materially or by such instruments that help in this connection and that sets the limits of science: The University of California, Berkeley Moral judgments, aesthetic judgments, decisions about applications of science, and conclusions about the supernatural are outside the realm of science. misconceptions Correction: Science cannot support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities. Science has limits: A few things that science does not do Science doesn’t make moral judgments * https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12 So, it is meaningless to ask for “evidence”, “proof” based on “observation” in the same manner in the moral and the spiritual realms. Science* has borrowed these words from languages and given specific meaning to them only for use in the science, it is meaningless to insist to talk in the same sense from other realms. Right, please?
Regards *science did not invent any languages that are spoken by the humans in large numbers. |
Tags: evidence, observation, proofs, religion, science, science and religion
Leave a Reply