I’ve been reading a thread entitled Are Religious Scientists Being Inconsistent? and was prompted to respond but not being a scholar (true in all senses of the word!) and unable to post in that forum, I thought I’d ask it in “Conversation”.
Daniel Ang makes the bold statement:
In my worldview, science is ultimately subsumed into a larger epistemological framework that has more “tools” at its disposal to “detect” entities not detectable in science (such as God). Rather than compartmentalization, I would describe it as integration .
In response to Daniel’s later comment:
… it seems obvious to me that there are some things science is incapable of explaining, such as morality, metaphysics, history, the foundations of science itself, and qualia.
John Harshman points out:
That may well be true, but the real question is whether anything else is capable of explaining them either.
So are there other ways of knowing? Are there other ways of finding out what goes on in the world without resorting to our sensory inputs; touching, feeling, smelling, testing, measuring?
Using the slightly pejorative metaphor of tobacco addiction I’d point out that, with regard to religion, I’m a non-smoker. I never learned to like the taste.