OK. Fair enough.
I think you are confusing what individual scientists may do with the scientific method. I agree that there are individual scientists who may be anti-religious. Now show me how science itself, not individuals is anti-religious. Can you please give me some examples of modern science itself being predicated on the presumption that what religion has taught is wrong?
You can't separate the concept of science from its practitioners - just as you can't separate the concept of communism from its implementation, and as you yourself have alluded in other discussions - you can't separate religion from its practitioners.
That said, science is inherently naturalistic, and so seeks a naturalistic explanation as a presupposition. If one is not apparent, the assumption is not that there may be a supernatural causation, but a not-yet-understood or perceived naturalistic one. As such, it presupposes that the teachings of religion, at the very least with respect to the possibility of the supernatural, are incorrect
a priori.
If I were to say to you that Catholicism teaches it's OK to molest little children because many priests have molested little children you would probably say rightly "No, that was the priests acting as individuals. The Church does NOT teach it's OK to sexually abuse children.". Why is that not what you're doing with your science claim?
Because nobody presupposes that science is wrong and sets about proving it by molesting little children.
I also noticed that many Christians have an attitude that if you're not for me you're against me. So someone who asks neutral questions is perceived as being against Christianity. This seems to me to be what you're doing.
a) you aren't neutral
b) your questions have not been neutral
c) I'm not doing that at all. I am arguing that science is not what it proclaims, or as it is intended to be. If, as I mentioned before, science can be characterized as "Naturalistic," then it is already outside the bounds of the utopian version of science, shining like the city on the hill to which you have been pointing.
And I think it can be...
I have already acknowledged that scientists as individuals are fallible. I think the more theoretical scientific inquiry is the more likely it is to be labeled as theoretical. But most who understand science, I think, understand that there is some element of the theoretical in most scientific results.
That depends on how you define "most who understand science." That's a significant part of what I'm saying... I know SCIENTISTS believe and understand science to be dealing in large part with the theoretical, even if they themselves fervently believe a particular worldview. However, what are they teaching to those who do NOT "understand science?" They do NOT make it clear what is and is not considered "theoretical," nor do they explain what, exactly, that means. But they have absolutely no problem teaching that there is a naturalistic explanation for everything - even if they haven't found it yet - which can explain away the possibility of God.
This seems to me to be a terribly small point and hardly worthy of the conclusion that science is anti-religion. Most science stays out of the religion question altogether and keeps its inquiries within the natural world.
Utterly incorrect. Most science deals directly with the religion question by VIRTUE of keeping its inquiries in the natural world. Just look at how scientists have been dealing with the proposition of Intelligent Design... regardless whether or not you agree with ID, why would it be so - spitefully - ridiculed and rejected without even so much as a thought that it just MIGHT be worth at least keeping open as a possibility to research and study? It's no less valid, on its face, than the concept of spontaneous generation of life out of some primordial soup. It's just not as naturalistic... But mention ID to a non-ID scientist and you'll probably be either laughed or yelled at.
Is science the opposite of religion? Yes. Is science a threat to religion? I think so. As science answers more and more of the questions religion used to answer religion loses its influence more and more. But I think that is more an unitended consequence of science not its goal.
Then I would suggest that you are naive. But that isn't really my point, either... science PRESENTS itself (okay... scientists PRESENT science) as answering questions that it really does NOT yet answer. If anything, the Flying Spaghetti Monster stuff, which was created as a more or less pointedly silly argument against ID, is a prime example that there ARE things that science (er, scientists) simply thinks MIGHT explain how something happened, but that is grasped quite firmly in the effort to win by convincing the majority that it is correct. Competing or contradicting theories are essentially shut out of the discussion by various means that do NOT necessarily include proof...
That may have some truth. I've had a hard time understanding the conclusion you make that science is anti-religion because some scientists personally are.
When the word "some" becomes "almost all," I don't see how you can separate the two.
Besides, even if you do continue to separate the two, you have to admit that science rejects any thought of "supernatural" and continues dogmatically pursuing naturalistic explanations for everything. I have a hard time understanding how you don't see that...
I postulated that you don't because you were making statements that were hard to reconcile as coming from someone who understands the scientific method. Now I think it is more a case of your inferring the purpose of science from what some scientists write. Richard Dawkins is a scientist and he may infuse some scientific results in his anti-religious writings but the purpose of science is not anti-religious. The purpose of Richard Dawkins is.
I don't infer the purpose of science from what Dawkins says. I infer that Dawkins is a very intelligent moron from what he says. Besides, I'm not really inferring the purpose of science at all... I'm analyzing its presentation and how it is being used. Science is, as its purpose in my opinion, all about gaining knowledge. The problem is that there are PEOPLE doing all the research and interpretation.
That's true. Science does not reject OR accept what can't be replicated and tested.
Actually, pure science doesn't really accept anything... you can't prove a theory correct, you can only disprove it. At least, that's what my Biology professor used to tell me...
Are scientists as individuals not allowed to have opinions or beliefs? That doesn't change the scientific method.
The method by which they justify their beliefs and opinions is hardly relevant. The Three Rules were perfect (iRobot reference), but that doesn't mean they didn't have a problem on their hands...
If you can show science the supernatural they'll probably figure out a way to study it.
Many scientists and philosophers disagree with you. Because science presupposes the naturalistic, it cannot conceive of the supernatural. If, indeed, something is "supernatural," and not just called that by us ignorant mortals, then science likely will TRY to squeeze it into the box it understands, but will be unable to do so.
And when they figure it out it will cease to be "supernatural". It will be natural because we understand it.
Sorry, but that is not correct. If something is, indeed, "supernatural," it will never be "natural." Thus the term "SUPERnatural."
When the South Pacific natives first saw airplanes in WWII they built airplane alters to what they couldn't understand. We understand airplanes so it's not supernatural to us.
And in the movie "The Gods Must Be Crazy," everyone went nuts over a Coke bottle. But I'm not referring simply to things that are new or that we don't understand, but have the capacity to do so. I'm referring to the possibility that there REALLY MIGHT BE a "supernatural" force.
There is a very real possibility, which you seem to ignore, that there is nothing supernatural and that's why science can't find it.
I don't ignore that possibility... it's just not really a factor in the discussion. Not that you're correct, mind you... I think Science can and does observe the supernatural, but it is either explained away to the best of scientists' ability and creativity, or put on a back shelf until we "have more understanding" of what naturalistic means might cause the "supernatural" phenomena.
