Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
568
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 23:
Line 23: + + +
→Secular science vs Science
:::I think that section should be added back in as it's very relevant. And to counter Conservative's claim that 55% of scientists are theists: that doesn't matter, any good scientist/human can separate their beliefs from their work to come to a valid independent conclusion. When one starts injecting personal opinions and creeds into their research the outcome may not be correct. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:39, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I think that section should be added back in as it's very relevant. And to counter Conservative's claim that 55% of scientists are theists: that doesn't matter, any good scientist/human can separate their beliefs from their work to come to a valid independent conclusion. When one starts injecting personal opinions and creeds into their research the outcome may not be correct. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:39, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:::My view is that, within a Conservative American encyclopedia, and within current norms of usage of terms, articles titled "Secular Science" and "Natural Science" respectively should '''''not''''' be merged so as to function together as a single, philosophically undifferentiated article. Of course, within a more-or-less secular encyclopedia, such a merger may, in many cases, naturally be required. But, even then, it is not unprecedented for such publications to feature entries, or, even, whole articles, of differing content by differing authors writing from their respective philosophical commitments. [[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]]
== increasingly atheistic rejection of God by scientists? ==
== increasingly atheistic rejection of God by scientists? ==