Difference between revisions of "Talk:Secular Science"

Revision as of 19:12, May 5, 2007

"Until the end of the Middle Ages there was no distinction between theology and science. Knowledge was deduced from self-evident principles received from God so science and theology were essentially the same thing"

There is another way of phrasing that...

"Until the end of the Middle Ages, science was constrained by theology. Any discoveries that were contrary to priestly interpretations of scripture were suppressed. Following the Renaissance, and during the enlightenment, a so-called scientific revolution occurred, where more and more science was free to investigate the natural world without being bound by religious perspectives. This is known as secular science, and it has always been controversial among fundamentalist religious groups, for abandoning the Word of God in pursuit of knowledge." Human 14:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

"scientists will continue to search for a natural explanation for a phenomenon until they find one, instead of settling with a supernatural explanation." This implies they will find one. And I support the move to Physical science. --Hojimachong^talk 13:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

How about "in the belief that they will find one" or "based on the expectation that they will find one" in place of "until they find one"? As far as the merge, it makes sense to me, will anyone ever search for "secular science"? They might link to it, I suppose, but that's what redirects are for. So I support the move. Human 13:20, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

I think the title "secular science" is just wierd. It seems to imply that anything which actually looks for knowledge outside the Bible is evil and liberal, which certainly isn't true. --Hojimachong^talk 13:22, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

I'll change, the sentence "based on the expectation that they will find one". But, it is true scientists never keep searching for an explanation until they find one, you wouldn't be a good scientist if you didn't.

Oh, Hojimachong, add egocentric to that (why do these people they think scientists are only out to get the Abrahamic religions?)

Middle Man

Because the idea of something being secular is just that; that it is not connected with religion in any way. Combine that with the content on Conservapedia, which rather consistently panders to either a conservative or biblical viewpoint, and the idea that something is secular pretty much lends itself to being opposite the views of many of the major contributors of this site, many of whom are Christian themselves.

Also, if I didn't know better it would seem that your previous comment, Middle Man, indicates that scientists are out to get religion. They're not. There are physical laws in the universe that they simply seek to explain, and whether or not they fit in with things that the bible may say will not make them any more or less true.

Also, if there's a secular science article, shouldn't there conversely be a theistic science article? Just an idea.

--Stereophile 15:12, 5 May 2007 (EDT)