Ideology

[Hugh I]

I mean… I’m possibly reading you wrong but that sort of sounds like what usually happens currently anyway. Historically however, that’s not always been the case and I disagree in that it “should be” like that.

I’d say that both science and religion miss out by dismissing each other in that manner.

Humbly,
Hermit

Again, it's seems to boil down to semantics. Dismissing is too strong a word. Perhaps allow without interference? Various branches of science don't typically question other branches. I'm thinking something more along those lines than dismissal, contention, conflict, etc. Now someone will complain that theology isn't science to which I would respond, exactly! And science isn't theology.

 

[Hugh I]

There is always Thinkology.

Perhaps that's all we ever had.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'll say it again: "If science only tests the natural world they don't test the supernatural world and therefore have no merit to evaluate it."

To be honest, I understood you the first time. In fact, I agree. Let me help ...

Strahler ventures onto the turf of philosophical naturalism when he points out how supernaturalism’s lack of methodology renders it metaphysically sterile, in effect pointing out the inseparable connection between epistemology and metaphysics:​

​

In contrasting the Western religions with science, the most important criterion of distinction is that the supernatural or spiritual realm is unknowable in response to human attempts to gain knowledge of it in the same manner that humans gain knowledge of the natural realm (by experience)…. Given this fiat by the theistic believers, science simply ignores the supernatural as being outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Scientists in effect are saying: “You religious believers set up your postulates as truths, and we take you at your word. By definition, you render your beliefs unassailable and unavailable.” [Arthur N. Strahler, Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1992)]​

​

This attitude is not one of surrender, but simply an expression of the logical impossibility of proving the existence of something about which nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation. [source]​

The difference between Strahler's comments and your dismissive quip is that one clarifies while the other obfuscates.

By the way, Forrest's discussion regarding methodological and philosophical naturalism is really quite good. You would do well to study it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I want you listen to me. They don't test it. That's what I said. Why do you ask me to show you them doing what I've said repeatedly they don't do?

Then if there is no test for it -- how do you know it's there? To make the claim that the supernatural exists, you must have some way of perceiving it -- and that would constitute a test.

So are you making it up?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They don't. If you mean supernatural, I said they don't. [ETA: though as an afterthought I would say that in the past "science" has tested what was thought to be supernatural when it becomes apparent it isn't.]

Then it simply is not within the territory of science. Science needs tests and measurements to gather objective data. Amd things must be tested amd retested and reviewed by peers. And crucially the things that science teaches us must absolutely be falsifiable.
That's another complication with trying to put the supernatural into science. Even Richard Dawkins conceeds you can't actually disprove Christianity due to the nature of evidence and proofs, along with the problems of interpreting the evidence we have if the world is no more than 10,000 years old. At all we can do is infer no logical being or entity that can be said to be good would be so deliberately deceitful and deflceptive, but those are human value judgements, and add in some ambigious language that more never really really planted the goalposts than moving them and you can't really disprove it. It seems incresibly unlikely but it can't actually be disproven.