The problem is if you go around saying "My statements are facts and yours are beliefs" no one would learn anything cause they'd be too busy arguing over what is "fact" and what is "belief"
To say that God does or does not exist are both beliefs because we cannot prove either hypothesis. I think science should concentrate on what it always does, pushing for more understanding in the mortal plain. Sure religious people will always try saying the science is against God, but this isn't because of scientists. This is because avid a-religious people are trying to use science research to prove "there is no God". I kind of blame Darwin on this one because he was an avid person against the church.
People forget that scientists were once part of the religious community as well. Sir Issac Newton being a religious man, but of course a skeptic on human interpretation of God. Personally I find myself more in that line of thinking then Darwin's handling.
That's the thing with the church too, sadly, it seems they will reject ideas from someone simply based on weather or not they are religious. Gravity and laws of motion were hardly contested by the church, evolution of course is. The reason being is that mainstream religion seems to be very skeptical on what skeptics say despite evidence to the contrary. Though like Galileo probably in a few millennium from now the church will adapt evolution into their Bible interpretations. That's how religions evolve.
The problem is if you go around saying "My statements are facts and yours are beliefs" no one would learn anything cause they'd be too busy arguing over what is "fact" and what is "belief"
To say that God does or does not exist are both beliefs because we cannot prove either hypothesis. I think science should concentrate on what it always does, pushing for more understanding in the mortal plain. Sure religious people will always try saying the science is against God, but this isn't because of scientists. This is because avid a-religious people are trying to use science research to prove "there is no God". I kind of blame Darwin on this one because he was an avid person against the church.
People forget that scientists were once part of the religious community as well. Sir Issac Newton being a religious man, but of course a skeptic on human interpretation of God. Personally I find myself more in that line of thinking then Darwin's handling.
That's the thing with the church too, sadly, it seems they will reject ideas from someone simply based on weather or not they are religious. Gravity and laws of motion were hardly contested by the church, evolution of course is. The reason being is that mainstream religion seems to be very skeptical on what skeptics say despite evidence to the contrary. Though like Galileo probably in a few millennium from now the church will adapt evolution into their Bible interpretations. That's how religions evolve.