Comments on: What if there Really Is a God? http://academicfreedomblog.org/2007/05/27/what-if-there-really-is-a-god/ An opportunity to discuss the interface of faith, science, and culture Sun, 20 May 2012 12:17:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: Don http://academicfreedomblog.org/2007/05/27/what-if-there-really-is-a-god/#comment-84 Don Sun, 08 Jul 2007 22:46:55 +0000 http://academicfreedomblog.org/2007/05/27/what-if-there-really-is-a-god/#comment-84 Good thoughts. If "science" restricts areas about which it will accept material evidence, then it should restrict areas about which it will make authoritative comment. If it comments, it should be open to the implications of all material evidence. Choose A or B. Good thoughts. If “science” restricts areas about which it will accept material evidence, then it should restrict areas about which it will make authoritative comment. If it comments, it should be open to the implications of all material evidence. Choose A or B.

]]> By: m http://academicfreedomblog.org/2007/05/27/what-if-there-really-is-a-god/#comment-83 m Fri, 06 Jul 2007 17:24:53 +0000 http://academicfreedomblog.org/2007/05/27/what-if-there-really-is-a-god/#comment-83 I think you made an excellent point on whether we should or should not restrict science as to what it can discover. I think "modern science" ( from enlightenment onward) started off wanting to be just an empirical science but then life is so complex and the demand for science so much that it is inevitable that science would be involving the metaphysical and origin theories of universe and life. In those areas, scientists tried to retain the empirical premise and non bias approach and define themselves to be purely natural and reject any supernatural premise. It is at this point that scientists made the mistake and became priests of naturalistic world view instead of recognizing the limitations of science and be humble about it. I think you made an excellent point on whether we should or should not restrict science as to what it can discover.

I think “modern science” ( from enlightenment onward) started off wanting to be just an empirical science but then life is so complex and the demand for science so much that it is inevitable that science would be involving the metaphysical and origin theories of universe and life. In those areas, scientists tried to retain the empirical premise and non bias approach and define themselves to be purely natural and reject any supernatural premise. It is at this point that scientists made the mistake and became priests of naturalistic world view instead of recognizing the limitations of science and be humble about it.

]]>