True. Quakery comes from all over. The error seems to be similar: the primary source of belief needs to say something about the other domain of thought.
Science can't say what's right or wrong, and religion doesn't say how electricity, gravity, and computers work.
i disagree as science does say what is right and wrong with facts tho you are obviously refering to morals which i am sure it can go into too
either is free to talk on the other
science is or can be a religion, tho obviously this point depends how we define either
What is moral, what is good, and what is beautiful are things that science can't judge. Science can observe that certain things result in preferred outcomes.
For example, by science one may observe the law of reciprocity results in better social cohesion, but science doesn't judge whether social cohesion is good per se. That would be the person's own judgment that comes from somewhere other than the scientific method. Science can go further to observe that people in society generally prefer cohesion, that the longevity of those people may be higher, that suffering may be lower, etc. if the law of reciprocity is followed by the members of the society, but it cannot judge whether those are good things. Good is a human element one imposes upon science, a presupposition when once engages in the scientific method.
i disagree, as science can talk to anything that may be measured or maybe better said known
good and morals are better defined as that which is survival and science can talk a lot on survival
the bible talks extensively on the topic of survival, infact moral lessons go hand in hand with it
i do agree that human intelligence generally limits its view point, but luckily it is not the only intelligence
