Science is an approach to understanding the natural world.
Because it is a tool, it supports no particular philosophy, economic system or ideology (well, it assumes that the world exists, and behaves in a way that can be made into rules).
Because it is a tool for understanding the natural world, it cannot discover things about religion or the supernatural.
This limitation is a real limitation, and not a philosophical one. Science proceeds by suggesting a method of action (a hypothesis), and then testing to see if results can be obtained inconsistent with that method of action. If so, the proposed hypothesis can be shown to be false. When no one can think of any more ways to demonstrate that it is false, it can be generally accepted as true.
A supernatural action cannot be studied or described, and supernatural actions cannot be invoked on demand in such a way as to make them repeatable. So supernatural causes cannot be tested. So far, the world seems to work without the need to posit supernatural agents.
It is assumed that the end results of supernatural events can be studied. So far, studies on prayer, and attempts to identify systems so complex that they had to have been designed by an intelligence have not been conclusive. Even if such end results are identified, because no method of action can be identified, their cause has to remain speculative.
Because future states cannot be known in total, it is possible that at some time, an accepted hypothesis can be demonstrated to be false. So science is said to be provisional. In practice, when enough states have been tested, the hypothesis becomes a theory, and the results can be relied on to be true.
The conclusions reached via science may be applied to religious or irreligious ends, and in ethical or non-ethical ways (within the meaning of any religion or ethical framework).
Some people of faith seek the failure of science, in the hopes that that failure will present a compelling case for a Creator. They hope that the gaps in understanding will prove to be so wide as to prohibit any natural explanation, leading people to assume that God did it.
So far, there have been no such gaps found. Because there are lots of things left to discover about the world, many still hope for a gap that cannot be explained.
The science community encompasses people of faith, people who would like to catalogue such gaps, and people of faith who doubt that such gaps will ever be found.
This search for gaps is a uniquely religious search, and many in the science community do not share this hope for the failure of science. Even a gap that will not yield to an explanation is not proof of God - because science cannot offer such proof - it is only proof of the limitations of current theories.
At the same time, the existence of gaps, or the failure to find gaps does not mean that science has proven that God does not exist. Again, science can prove nothing of the supernatural.
Science usually runs afoul of a religion when the output of science contradicts the contents of a religious revelation. For example, the age of the earth, the “special creation” status of humans, and the historicity of the Genesis flood for Young Earth Creationists. There is no doubt that the earth is billions of years old, that all life shares ancestors in common with humans, and that there was no global flood in or around 2500 bc.
Because these finding are in conflict with the way YEC interpret the bible, there has been a persistent campaign to oppose science. The normal tactic is to look for disagreement among scientists, and use this as an argument against one of the offending conclusions of science. Because those trying to defend the faith often do not understand the science, or because they are looking for anything to support their position, quotes are taken out of context, misunderstandings and rumors are repeated, and writers work to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt in the minds of conservative Christians.
Of course, all Christians interpret the Bible, and the church has had to deal with revisions to biblical interpretation due to increased knowledge before and survived. Faith should view science as a tool to discover more about the world God made. For people of faith, science describes how and faith provides the Who.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Grier, logic is fine, but will only prove things about the meaning of words. That you left a message for me, expected it to stay in the same shape as you wrote it, and anticipate a reply suggests to me you are not nearly as sceptical as you let on.
As far as the "proof" part - yes, scientists agree that what we know is provisional- that it, might be replaced by new evidence, or a better theory. Plate Techtonics is a recent example of a major shift in thinking. Hoever, it was accepted because it fit the evidence better.
SO a new way of thinking (the earth is 6,000 years old) will have to not just have some positive proof, but also account for all the things the earlier theory did, and not be contradicted by any facts.
The 6,000 year old earth theory does not pass this test, which tells me I should go back and look at my rules for intepreting the bible- (which rules people made up), and see if they need refining.
Your sweeping claim that science can not, and I suppose never will, provide proof of the supernatural is an absolutist claim of its own.
You have no idea what the next couple of centuries will bring; that is, if the weapons that scientists have put in to the hands of the politicians don't eliminate civilization.
Post a Comment