Science is misunderstood primarily because of preconceptions about how the world is (or must be) – that is, we already know what the world "must be" like, and don’t want to yield our preconceptions to the empirical results of the scientific process.
One source of misconception is the certainty that the world is influenced by the supernatural (that is, by some agency with no knowable method of action). This is not to say that God does not exist - just that God seems to use the mechanisms of the natural world to accompish his purposes.
While it is possible to say that, in principle, science and relgion are not in conflict, most science is in conflict with that part of any religion that involves magical or supernatural action (again, action without scientifically observable mechanisms). So, for example, a young earth, special creation and a global flood (but also Native Americans as descended from the "lost" tribe of Israel and countless other incorrect beliefs about the natural world).
The reason that ID-ists distance themselves from mechanisms is because of this conflict. Science describes a world in which identifiable (measurable, repeatable) mechanisms exist for all actions observed in the natural world. Most religions explicitly defend god's prerogative to act without regard to natural mechanisms.
There are two ways out of this dilemma. First, you can deny science. Say that there is scientific evidence for things with no natural explanation (I say deny science, because so far, there is no such evidence). Alternatively, you can define religion to be some sort of vague impulse, statistically indistinguishable from natural causes. The first involves denying the plain facts, the second involves making faith irrelevant (except as a personal mental model - and construing religion as such strips it of much of its appeal and power).
There are likewise a couple of reasons to deny that religion and science conflict - first is to avoid the complete rejection of science by those folks who do think that the supernatural exists, but who have not really looked into it rigorously. Second, because of the recognition that, for all the anti-social things religion creates, it also provides a cohesive social order and sense of meaning that seems fairly impervious to any attempt to stamp it out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Scientific theories change.
Moreover, science does not explain the true nature of the universe, or why there should even BE mathematical order to that nature.
It can't acually explain the origin of existence, of life, of consciousness, or reason, but it tells us that SOMEDAY it will be able to do so.
But you don't KNOW this. You BELIEVE it. You have FAITH.
But your FAITH is in mans reason, itself supposedly the result of a mindless process.
You are in effect worshipping man, exchanging the worship of the creator for the worship of the created.
mr steinmaster ..
this is the usual knee jerk conservative response.
science or scientists in the main are not attempting to explain the origins in the same way faith or religion is.
sure, there's dawkins who wants to directly supplant religion w/science, but that's his problem.
concepts such as the big bang are simply scientifically "provable" or developable, and helpful in scientific ways - of course it doesn't address whys or meanings in the same way faith tries to answer -
steinmaster writes
"It can't acually explain the origin of existence, of life, of consciousness, or reason, but it tells us that SOMEDAY it will be able to do so."
I agree with you that science may never explain some of the things on your list. However, that does not mean that science is not valuable.
I do not make science a religion, let alone my religion. I do value the scientific approach to learning about the natural world, because it works! It is a good tool, well suited to the job of learning about the world. That is all it is, and that is enough.
You value science because it works?
Well, sometimes.
Sometimes not.
Exactly - unlike revelation, science makes no claim to have it all figured out from the beginning. Because it is built up from experiment and observation, it makes no claims about things it cannot measure or access.
For just this reason, it is not in competition with religion - which focuses on ultimate questions of "Why?" and "So what?"
Every wrong answer is an opportunity to learn more.
This does not mean that science is arbitrary, or likely to veer wildly from one explanation to another. Areas of uncertainty are described tentatively. When multiple, independent lines of evidence converge, confidence grows - but it never reaches 100% certainty. Science has an impressive track record of accurate explanations - not a promise that it is always right, but a reason for confidence.
So could the earth be 6,000 years old? Science says no, not because it is anti-religious, but because many, many lines of evidence reinforce an old age for the earth. Every attempt to explain a young earth fails, while old-earth models accurately describe the world we live in, and are successfully used to predict, for example, where oil might be found.
Science is not perfect, not a religion, makes no attempt to explain ultimate questions - but it does make reliable statements about the natural world - which makes it a powerful, useful tool.
So its a powerful tool.
So are nuclear bombs.
Science can give us no ethical guidance, and can't keep man from destroying himself.
You are making a religon out of it in your own way, since you bailed out on your own faith.
Why do I say that? Because you routinely smear fellow Christians who do not see things your way and join with the Kansas Citizens for Science hypocrites who specialize in making their opponetns appear in the "harshest light possible, as ignoramuse, as unprinciple bullies, etc."
They are liars.
You are a liar.
Nuclear bombs are a tool made possible by science. this, and many other examples show us that we should not embrace science for its own sake. We need to engage with our community, and wrestle with the issues. "What does industry and the government do with the scientific tools at its disposal? Through what we buy and how we vote, we can impact those decisions. We may have less influence outside our own borders - but we still need to advocate responsible outcomes.
For example, our oil is running out. Will we develop alternative energy sources, our watch as our world collapses (since everything from plastics to pesticides to transportation and electricity is built around coal, oil and natural gas)?
Is abandoning science an option here, or do we need to find ways to use the fruits of science in responsible ways?
dear Anonymous:
i think you're not being civil here - from reading many blog posts and being challenged by some of the things he says, he's certainly not a liar. please have some civility and respect.
best,
Post a Comment