nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 42:
Line 42: +
→Secular Science: You can deduce the supernatural
:Absolutely not, given that (a) modern science owes its existence to a Christian worldview, and (b) not all scientists are secular. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Absolutely not, given that (a) modern science owes its existence to a Christian worldview, and (b) not all scientists are secular. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::Regardless of a scientist's religious convictions, wouldn't all research be secular? How can you research the supernatural? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:45, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::Regardless of a scientist's religious convictions, wouldn't all research be secular? How can you research the supernatural? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:45, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I don't want to get into an argument on semantics and whether it is exactly the correct term, but there is a difference between refusing to consider a supernatural cause and allowing for a supernatural cause. You can't measure/test/observe the supernatural, but you can deduce a supernatural cause and observe the effects of a supernatural cause. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 29 April 2007 (EDT)