my mistake.I'm not sure who you are referring to. Perhaps you could give an example?
i should have said there was a better than 50% chance that some early scientists were "religious", or believed in some kind of higher power.
yes, it's a natural outgrowth of humanity to explain things in rational terms.As I said, I think there is a philosophical divide between seeking natural explanations for phenomena and ascribing supernatural explanations to phenomena.
even the most religious fundamentalist will not accept "it was gods will" when told his daughter was killed by a drunk driver.
a scientist would not make such a gross mistake.For example, lets say a Christian scientist believes that Jesus turned water into wine. A scientist should immediately ask, "How did he do this? How did certain water molecules transform into wine molecules? What was the mechanism? If we put the water under a microscope and watched as it turned to wine, what would we see?" The Christian scientist may be an expert in his field whereby he regularly ascribes natural explanations to the objects that he studies. However there is always some limit where a Christian scientists can no longer think scientifically and still remain a Christian. Belief in miracles that "just happen" contradicts the scientific endeavour.
proving a book wrong DOES NOT prove god wrong.
if they wish to tell you, they will.You have to be more specific. I'm not sure what his observations are.
as to their observations, i consider them as one of the more amiable posters here.
as far as you knowing who they are, that should be evidence that they don't let god or religion slip into their arguments.
Upvote
0