The idea that the world can be explained by natural processes is not a metaphysical assumption, opposed by the theist position that only God makes sense of the world. It is the way that science works.
Imagine for a moment a science experiment designed to test if God gave you a cold to improve your character... go ahead and try... I can't either. This does not deny that God could have given you a cold to improve your character - just that there is no scientific way to test the assertion. Further, from a scientific point of view, the pious notion that "the cold is from God" adds nothing to the germ theory of disease, or the search for the virus responsible, or the search for a cure.
It is the same for other areas of science. Its silence about the existence of God is an artifact of the scientific approach - not a metaphysical bias. In fact, adding a "proper theological perspective" in which you only consider possibilities that are supported by your reading of the bible would ruin science, because what you end up with is apologetics (justify faith, not explaining the natural world).
Science is not reigion. Its main fault in the eyes of conservative Christians is that it has failed to validate their theology - for which it is hardly to blame.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Is Science True? II
Is our exploration of the natural world a reliable avenue towards uncovering truth?
Judging by our success at explaining the world around us (eclipses are natural events), the root of diseases (viral, bacterial, mental and genetic), and the fabric of the universe (matter breaks down into verified components of fantastical properties), I'd have to say that science is, indeed, a reliable avenue towards truth.
And so would everyone who does not still fear that elementals cause storms, earthquakes and eclipses, everyone who does not live in fear of spirits, and pray that they spare their children, their crops, themselves from sickness and disease, everyone who knows that the world is a reliable place, and not at the command of alchemists, sorcerers, magicians and capricious spirits, who can bend the very earth to their will.
The reason that we face the world with confidence is because of the work of science. It was science who discovered the roots of disease, the regular motions of the stars and planets, and the physical laws governing matter.
Of course, many of us do leave in fear – fear of the stars, of god's wrath, of bad luck. But even this is within the context of an implicit trust in technology – like cars and planes and telephones – that are founded on faith in the truths we have discovered about the natural world.
Are there any limitations to this amazing tool?
Yes, and they strike at the heart of who we are, why we are here, and what other forces inhabit the universe with us. If we cannot formulate an explanation for what we see happening, predict (in both a negative and positive sense) what should happen based on those expectations, and then carry out experiments (and not just us, but anyone who wants to verify the results), then the tool fails us.
So no proofs about the existence or lack of gods, the supernatural, the afterlife. Not because science is hostile to faith, but because God is invisible to science - by definition.
So when you look at science and ask only, "Does it support my religious faith?" you may wonder why science does not endorse religion - this is why; it can't. When you look at the complexity of the universe, you may wonder why scientists don't just give up and admit that God did it - this is why; it isn't that it is a wrong answer; but it isn't the RIGHT KIND of answer.
When you look at science from the perspective of the quest for understanding the universe, "God did it" is an unsatisfactory answer - because the scientist is asking a different question - "How did it happen?" And as an answer, "God did it" is not nearly specific enough.
Judging by our success at explaining the world around us (eclipses are natural events), the root of diseases (viral, bacterial, mental and genetic), and the fabric of the universe (matter breaks down into verified components of fantastical properties), I'd have to say that science is, indeed, a reliable avenue towards truth.
And so would everyone who does not still fear that elementals cause storms, earthquakes and eclipses, everyone who does not live in fear of spirits, and pray that they spare their children, their crops, themselves from sickness and disease, everyone who knows that the world is a reliable place, and not at the command of alchemists, sorcerers, magicians and capricious spirits, who can bend the very earth to their will.
The reason that we face the world with confidence is because of the work of science. It was science who discovered the roots of disease, the regular motions of the stars and planets, and the physical laws governing matter.
Of course, many of us do leave in fear – fear of the stars, of god's wrath, of bad luck. But even this is within the context of an implicit trust in technology – like cars and planes and telephones – that are founded on faith in the truths we have discovered about the natural world.
Are there any limitations to this amazing tool?
Yes, and they strike at the heart of who we are, why we are here, and what other forces inhabit the universe with us. If we cannot formulate an explanation for what we see happening, predict (in both a negative and positive sense) what should happen based on those expectations, and then carry out experiments (and not just us, but anyone who wants to verify the results), then the tool fails us.
So no proofs about the existence or lack of gods, the supernatural, the afterlife. Not because science is hostile to faith, but because God is invisible to science - by definition.
So when you look at science and ask only, "Does it support my religious faith?" you may wonder why science does not endorse religion - this is why; it can't. When you look at the complexity of the universe, you may wonder why scientists don't just give up and admit that God did it - this is why; it isn't that it is a wrong answer; but it isn't the RIGHT KIND of answer.
When you look at science from the perspective of the quest for understanding the universe, "God did it" is an unsatisfactory answer - because the scientist is asking a different question - "How did it happen?" And as an answer, "God did it" is not nearly specific enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
