• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Do “Quotes from scientists” belong to “Science and (or) Religion”?

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Do “Quotes from scientists” value as “Science and (or) Religion”,please?
Or none of the two.
Open for comments for everybody.

Regards
 
Last edited:

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
What does it mean for something to "belong" to someone? What concept of ownership (if any) do you recognize and what are the implications of your concept of ownership?
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Do “Quotes from scientists” belong to “Science and (or) Religion”,please?
Or to neither of the two.
Open for comments for everybody.

Regards

Published quotes are public domain (unpublished are obviously not quotes, my bad but the only way i could think to phrase it)

When reproducing a quote you should cite the author of the quote
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Scientists may speak as scientists, as religious people, or simply as people.

How their speech should be perceived and treated depends on many factors, some of them circunstantial. Their quotes won't always have scientific nor religious significance.

That said, I too am uncertain of what the OP means by "belonging".
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I assumed "belong" meant "should be categorized as." :shrug: Ie, should we take scientists' word for for how the world works on faith like religious people do for their leaders/holy books?

You have a point i had not considered.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
I assumed "belong" meant "should be categorized as." :shrug: Ie, should we take scientists' word for for how the world works on faith like religious people do for their leaders/holy books?
The third possibility (and the one I thought of when reading the question) is the question under which section of RF they should be discussed.
So, please, @paarsurrey, clarify.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Do “Quotes from scientists” belong to “Science and (or) Religion”,please?
Or to neither of the two.
Open for comments for everybody.

Regards

Are quotes from scientists, science? Not really. Just opinions. Some opinions maybe more reliable than others.

Can they be a part of religion? Sure. People are free to take whatever they feel is appropriate and make it a part of their religion. I suppose some folks may feel taking quotes from a scientist might give their religion a bit more authority.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Are quotes from scientists, science? Not really. Just opinions. Some opinions maybe more reliable than others.

Can they be a part of religion? Sure. People are free to take whatever they feel is appropriate and make it a part of their religion. I suppose some folks may feel taking quotes from a scientist might give their religion a bit more authority.
So you dismiss a scientist reporting scientific results by quoting the results of experiments as "opinions".
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I assumed "belong" meant "should be categorized as." :shrug: Ie, should we take scientists' word for for how the world works on faith like religious people do for their leaders/holy books?
Actually, those are two different, even mutually exclusive ways of dealing with the information.

If it "belongs to science" then it can't be treated dogmatically.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Actually, those are two different, even mutually exclusive ways of dealing with the information.

If it "belongs to science" then it can't be treated dogmatically.

I agree, I just figured the OP was conflating them as theists often do.
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
Do “Quotes from scientists” value as “Science and (or) Religion”,please?
Or none of the two.
Open for comments for everybody.

Regards

Others have asked what you meant, and perhaps you meant simply can one use quotes from science to inform us about correct/incorrect parts in religions? I think for that the answer would be "Yes, depending". If the quote is purely scientific and additionally a confirmed observation or well confirmed theory; not all quotes from scientists are scientific of course.

For instance, if a hypothetical person were wondering about Genesis chapters 1 through 3, and heard from an 'young-Earth' ideologue, then that person could rightly conclude that ideology was a necessarily incorrect set of assumptions to add onto the text of Genesis 1-3. Ergo, for instance that added assumption or idea that little or no time passed during verse 1 before verse 2 in chapter 1 -- a hypothesis if you like, and clearly shown by observations to be a false hypothesis.

So, one could remove that false hypothesis, and read the text as not saying how much time passed during the formation of the Universe and early Earth before the moment in verse 2 where God visits the very young still forming planet. (in other words, to just read the text as it is, instead of adding that time assumption on top of it)
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
What does it mean for something to "belong" to someone? What concept of ownership (if any) do you recognize and what are the implications of your concept of ownership?

Scientists may speak as scientists, as religious people, or simply as people.

How their speech should be perceived and treated depends on many factors, some of them circunstantial. Their quotes won't always have scientific nor religious significance.

That said, I too am uncertain of what the OP means by "belonging".
Do “Quotes from scientists” belong to “Science and (or) Religion”?

Sorry, English is not my first language. Please note the change in the OP
post #1 .

Regards
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Do “Quotes from scientists” value as “Science and (or) Religion”,please?
Or none of the two.
Open for comments for everybody.

Regards

Again, scientists are people.

When opine on the merits of Stranger Things they are (usually) not contributing to either science or religion.

When they are speaking about matters of faith they may or may not be practicing their religious views, depending on specific circunstances.

When they publish peer-reviewed works or speak as consultants on their areas of competence, that tends to be contributing to science.

A given person may easily fulfill all three roles (at different moments, of course), and arguably should.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
So you dismiss a scientist reporting scientific results by quoting the results of experiments as "opinions".

I agree with him. Unless you're adding qualifiers to indicate the quote is related to scientific work or hypothesis, and further that it's limited to the specific field of science in which the scientist holds expertise.

But on the whole? Opinions.
 
Top