How can science not be secular? I mean Isaac Newton is often cited on these threads as having been a Christian, but his rules for reasoning are virtually the definition of methodological naturalism.
“How can science not be secular? I mean Isaac Newton is often cited on these threads as having been a Christian, but his rules for reasoning are virtually the definition of methodological naturalism.”
Science should be science, i.e, considering all parameters. Einstein stated that the more he learned the more he was confounded by what he did not know. I submit this is the statement of a scientist. Where, as someone posted, “the majority of scientists” err is that they forget evolution of species is merely a theory, and one plagued with severe questions. This theory is treated by most academia as fact and passed on as such to lesser educated students. That is unethical.
Isaac Newton’s Laws of Physics represent precisely my point. They certainly were a breakthrough in science and, as one stated, an appropriate foundation for “ methodological naturalism.” These “Laws” stood as more than theorems for centuries until Einstein mathmatically contested them with his theorems of relativity. What seemed inviolable now seemed relevant only to a small reference frame of our experience and observation. At velocities approaching the speed of light everything changed. Looking from another vantage point helped him discover fresh parameters that form the basis for Quantum Physics. Do we say that Sir Isaac’s theories were wrong and not useful? By no means. Within our normal reference frame the are useful and dependable. Much else in “science” is that way. But there is much that science cannot explain, and a true scientist is not so arrogant. Einstein reflected that property. While being somewhat agnostic, he was convinced of the inductive argument for a Supreme Being of some sort seeing an intelligent design which awed him.