Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

It’s a reasonable question. On one hand, we’re told that science doesn’t concern itself with the supernatural, on the other, how science has revealed that a lot of what was once thought supernatural had physical explanations.

How could science do that without exploring the supernatural?

There’s still an awful lot of inexplicable things out there that occur; things that seem to violate the natural laws that have been observed. So do we ignore that or not? If we ignore that which we can’t explain simply because it’s been labeled supernatural, we lose the opportunity to learn something new.


197 posted on 11/17/2007 7:12:50 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies ]


To: metmom
How could science do that without exploring the supernatural?

By finding a sufficient answer that doesn't involve the supernatural. If you study lightning and learn that it's an electrical discharge from cloud to earth, you don't need to explore Zeus too. If you study eclipses and learn that it's the shadow of the moon, that doesn't mean you explored sky dragons.

things that seem to violate the natural laws that have been observed. So do we ignore that or not?

Do you have something particular in mind?
198 posted on 11/17/2007 8:47:08 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson