Sure they do. Otherwise, why do they go around telling other people they're wrong about the supernatural and God? Scientists have been going around with a God complex for decades, ever since they ejected Him from consideration in the scientific process. They had to replace Him with something, so they made it themselves.
Science is not philosophy. Science is real. It produces things that do things. Philosophy produces nothing.
Science is a data gathering methodology, nothing more. Anything beyond that is a philosophical consideration. Science is not and cannot remain philosophically neutral. Philosophy of some kind is essential to the interpretation and application of the data.
The whole concept that one can objectively test and observe experiments is philosophical in nature. the problem is that most scientists don't recognize or acknowledge the philosophical base of science.
Negative, I said "has helped mankind live better, longer and more comfortable lives; it has made it possible to produce food in abundance, to provide modes of transportation that are fast, efficacious and affordable. It has produced medicines that treat and prevent disease; it made it possible for everyone to have a vast library of resources of knowledge and for learning via the Internet, and much, much more." There is nothing "Judeao-Christian" in any of it.
Sure there is. The Judeo-Christian drives the application of the knowledge gained. Otherwise, you get Mengele's.
Of sure, electricity is no better than candles, and our toilets are no different than outhouses. Hunting for food, is no different than going to a local supermarket and buying already cleaned and washed and packaged meats and other food products.
Thank you again for providing an excellent example of what I was saying.
You claim that some things are *better* than others. What constitutes *better*? What standard do you use to justify your preference? What criteria do you use to decide what is *good*, and *bad* and *better* and *worse*? Reduce it to science. How does science form a basis for making value judgments on issues?
"We can easily show that science, especially in our time, has become a faux religion. This is because, in maintaining the bright line between religion and science, a lot of religion ends up on the science side. Thus, while the father of empirical science may be doubt, its mother is unabashed faith. For example... "Newton doubted the traditional theory of 'gravity,' but he believed in the unity of the world, and therefore in cosmic analogy. This is why he could arrive at the cosmic law of gravitation in consequence of the fact of an apple falling from a tree. Doubt set his thought in motion; faith rendered it fruitful."
"Now, that is a point worth dwelling on: Faith rendered his thinking fruitful. As I have mentioned a number of times, this has been one of the genuine surprises of my life. I think, based upon my understanding of Polanyi, I already understood that our implicit scientific models of reality are always rooted in a type of unarticulated faith about the nature of things. What I did not realize was the extent to which faith in traditional revelation could be such a fruitful and generative way to think about reality in its deeper sense. In other words, I allowed for scientific faith; it was religious faith that made no sense to me. ..."
They don't tell them they are wrong, they tell them they don't believe them there is supernatural or God. That's not knowing; that's believing. There is a difference. Likewise, believers believe (they don't call themsleves "knowers", except Gnostics) in the supernatural and in their god(s).
Scientists have been going around with a God complex for decades, ever since they ejected Him from consideration in the scientific process.
Nonsense. There is no recognized academic science department that deals with God.
They had to replace Him with something, so they made it themselves.
No they didn't. Most scientists don't believe in God. That's not a replacement. That's disbelief. There is a difference.
Science is a data gathering methodology, nothing more.
Science and technology go hand in hand. Science provides the theoretical, and technology the practical application of scientific knowledge. Together they produce things you use and depend on and have apparently no gratitude for. Which is why I say: toss out your blood pressure or diabetes pills and just let God regulate your endocrine and circulatory health. Toss science out the window if you don't believe in it.
Philosophy of some kind is essential to the interpretation and application of the data.
Don't be silly. What's the philosophical angle of an optical engineer designing your camera lens?
The whole concept that one can objectively test and observe experiments is philosophical in nature.
But we can read the Bible and interpret it objectively?
the problem is that most scientists don't recognize or acknowledge the philosophical base of science.
What is the "philosophical" basis for optics?
[There is nothing "Judeo-Christian" in any of it] Sure there is. The Judeo-Christian drives the application of the knowledge gained. Otherwise, you get Mengele's.
So, ancient Greeks developed math with Mengele's mindset? That's rich.
You claim that some things are *better* than others. What constitutes *better*?
It doesn't take a rocket science to know that for some things (money, food, warmth, etc.) to have is better than not to have, and to have more is better than to have less. There is no need to pretend to not know this. It also doesn't take a rocket science to know that for other things the opposite is true.
What standard do you use to justify your preference?
At the bottom of it, at the core, is always what feels good, what's personally agreeable.
What criteria do you use to decide what is *good*, and *bad* and *better* and *worse*? Reduce it to science.
Science does not deal with good and evil.
How does science form a basis for making value judgments on issues?
Science does not deal with value judgments. People add value judgments depending how things suit them personally or as a community.