Is”Scientific Method/s” invalid in Religion?

Thread: “Are there eulogizers of science out of blind-faith? ”
Forum:Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Science and Religion

Post 23:

———-wrote: [Replying to post 16 by paarsurrey1] This is the science and religion sub forum. In the sticky posting the rules for debate one is required to substantiate claims. Perhaps, random ramblings, apologetics , or faith,doctine & dogma would be a better fit for someone who does not wish to support said claims. That being said I would be willing to consider why I should believe in your proposed creator given you could substantiate the idea. Paarsurrey 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 snapshot Moral judgments, aesthetic judgments, decisions about applications of science, and conclusions about the supernatural are outside the realm of science. misconceptions Misconception: Science contradicts the existence of God. Correction: Science cannot support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities. It deals only with natural phenomena and explanations.(Read more about it)*. Science has limits: A few things that science does not do Science doesn’t make moral judgments Science doesn’t make aesthetic judgments Science doesn’t tell you how to use scientific knowledge Science doesn’t draw conclusions about supernatural explanations * 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? Sorry, in religion which is an equal part of the name of this forum, to substantiate the issues related to religion will be not in the same manner as done in science, due to the obvious difference of the nature of both the realms of science and religion. The science here gets incapacitated to start with. Right, please? Regards *science did not invent any languages that are spoken by the humans in large numbers.Sc

Post 25:

Quote: Originally addressed to friend D———n- his Post 19 Sorry, in religion which is an equal part of the name of this forum, to substantiate the issues related to religion will be not in the same manner as done in science, due to the obvious difference of the nature of both the realms of science and religion. Paarsurrey wrote: To add further: So we in religions don’t substantiate our claims from the so many scientific methods invented for the different disciplines of science differently, as these are all irrelevant in the truthful religion. Scientific Method/s itself are borrowed by science from philosophy and mathematics while these don’t belong to science per se. Then all the results obtained from following scientific methods have to be verified for correctness with nature that itself is a creation of One-True-God and never created by science or the scientists. Right, please? Regards

Tags: aesthetic judgments, moral judgments, religion, Scientific Method, supernatural explanations