Atheists, quit confusing the two.

[htriplem]

Thank you for making this so clear

 

[htriplem]

"Science is the study of reality, of nature.

There is nothing apart from nature, nothing 'supernatural', nothing that is off-limits for science."

What/who studies the subjective experience?

 

[Minoosh]

I wonder why the OP is so upset.

Upset? I didn't pick up on that, he(?) seemed calm.

I'm not sure whether "OP" usually means "original post" or "original poster." The last in this instance, I suppose, since the post can't be upset.

 

[Minoosh]

What/who studies the subjective experience?

The experiencer.

 

[Pythonic]

Science doesn't tell us what is moral, or ethical, or anything else that may happen to be outside the realm of what science is capable of telling us.

Well, many things that pass for "moral" from religion are highly questionable. There simply no escaping moral relativism and there is no one size fits all. It does come down to the individual and empathy for utilitarian reasons.

 

[yy2bggggs]

"Science is the study of reality, of nature.

There is nothing apart from nature, nothing 'supernatural', nothing that is off-limits for science."

What/who studies the subjective experience?

Everyone. Seriously.

If I understod your question better I might could give a better answer.

But for now, let's consider an example of something that may interest a pharmacist--the question of which pain reliever is most effective. That sounds to me like a prime example of the relationship between a chemical compound or cocktail and a desired change in subjective experience. Is this an example of what you mean?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Atheists are right-- there is no scientific proof of God.

But they forget that Theology is outside of the realm of Science. Science doesn't tell us what is moral, or ethical, or anything else that may happen to be outside the realm of what science is capable of telling us.

Religion is very bad at that sort of thing as well, notwithstanding claims to the contrary.