Reply
Sun 27 Dec, 2015 09:34 am
Does "it has nothing to say about a supreme being" refer to "science has nothing to say about a supreme being"?
Context:
Throughout history, arguments for and against the existence of
God have been largely confined to philosophy and theology.
In the meantime, science has sat on the sidelines and quietly
watched this game of words march up and down the field. Despite the fact that science has revolutionized every aspect of human life
and greatly clarified our understanding of the world, somehow the
notion has arisen that it has nothing to say about a supreme being
that much of humanity worships as the source of all reality.
-Victor Stenger
Despite the fact that science has revolutionized every aspect of human life
and greatly clarified our understanding of the world, somehow the
notion has arisen that it (science) has nothing to say about a supreme being
@Tes yeux noirs,
Thanks.
The author went on:
Quote:In a poll taken in 1998, only 7 percent of the members of the
US National Academy of Sciences, the elite of American scientists,
said they believed in a personal God. Nevertheless, most scientists
seem to prefer as a practical matter that science should stay clear of
religious issues. Perhaps this is a good strategy for those who wish
to avoid conflicts between science and religion, which might lead to less public acceptance of science, not to mention that most dreaded of all consequences-lower funding. However, religions make factual claims that have no special immunity from being
examined under the cold light of reason and objective observation.
Does "most dreaded of all" serve as an adjective there to modify "consequences"?
Selected Answer
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace