This is the internet. “Responsibility” is a non-starter here, so no, I’m not holding you responsible for anything…
But you DID say, in reference to your definition of the word “Science.”:
experimental data is experimental data, whether you use it as a physicist or as a child.
You also asked me to define what I mean by the term “a religious relationship to science.”
Skip the first paragraph of that response if you don’t like it, no problem. But do please respond to the rest:
BUT — and this I ask you personally, because it’s a response to your statement, if, as you suggest, “experimental data is experimental data, whether you use it as a physicist or as a child,” then what if (and this is common) A) a child (as many do) learns to pray as a child and through prayer experiences the reality of God. He has collected experimental data (prayers/answered prayers), and so has sufficiently demonstrated that God is real. Then B) the same child at 18 attends his first college philosophy class, where he is told there is no God, and given a dozen philosophical proofs to show that, logically, God can’t be real. He is told to doubt the results of his experimental data because the science world-story and the philosophy/logic world-story say God doesn’t exist. What should the kid do? Believe the results of his own experiments and experience? Or accept the testimony of science and philosophy?
The point is that, in this scenario, by your definition of science, the child has a scientific understanding of and relationship to God’s existence. While the philosophy teacher is denying the existence of God from a religious understanding of and relationship to science.
