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.
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Is Science True?
In science, truth = facts that fit into a coherent explanation. This is not a claim for ultimate Truth – it is a claim that we can know accurate things about the natural world, and that from that knowledge we can develop coherent explanations that, when not falsified by evidence, form reliable models of reality.
The explanations do change, and they are sometimes contiguous with previous explanations, sometimes not.
From a metaphysics standpoint, we can never know if we have Truth, or just an explanation that is consistent with all known facts. This is why science cannot deal with the supernatural - there is no way to detect the supernatural, only its effects on the natural world. ID is an attempt to infer a designer from complicated structures in the natural world. When it is defining rules for complex things, and where these rules can be tests and falsified, it is doing science. When it is criticizing evolutionary theory, and proposing tests that could falsify evolution, it is doing science. When it is claiming that complications equal design, it is engaging in metaphysical speculation that may be tru, but is not science.
Is there a God? From a scientific perspective, we don't know.
Is the world 6,000 years old? From a scientific perspective, all facts say no, but science can't rule out some form of "last Thursdayism" - that some designer just made it to look old.
Does evolution work such that it explains observed development of anti-biotic resistance? It seems so, but again, it is possible that some designer has set things up so this is just an illusion - and science cannot detect this.
Did this designer actually design the "hard parts" of evolution, and let nature take its course on the rest? At best, all we can say, should we identify some such hard part, is "we don't know."
On what basis could we resolve this difficulty? The only answer I am aware of is an appeal to authority. For example, in John 1, John states that Jesus created everything. Now it is not clear to me if by this is meant Theistic Evolution, Intelligent Design, or Old or Young-earth Creationism, or something else we haven't figured out yet.
As this is an appeal to authority, it is not a valid logical argument. This does not make it untrue, just not propositionally compelling.
ID takes the bull by the horns, and argues that "We can see no way it could have happened using current evolutionary theory" means "It is reasonable to infer a Designer." Of course, Christians then reasonably (to their mind) infer the God of the Bible is the Designer.
This leaves the debate to 2 questions:
1) Has the ID movement provided a hypothesis that accounts for all the facts (recall that Einstein's equations had to work for all the situations where Newton’s would work, plus solve some where Newton’s broke down), and performed experiments that would falsify their deign hypothesis?
2) In the meantime, does "We don't know" actually infer "a designer did it?"
So far, I would say "No" to the first question, and "No" to the second as well.
The explanations do change, and they are sometimes contiguous with previous explanations, sometimes not.
From a metaphysics standpoint, we can never know if we have Truth, or just an explanation that is consistent with all known facts. This is why science cannot deal with the supernatural - there is no way to detect the supernatural, only its effects on the natural world. ID is an attempt to infer a designer from complicated structures in the natural world. When it is defining rules for complex things, and where these rules can be tests and falsified, it is doing science. When it is criticizing evolutionary theory, and proposing tests that could falsify evolution, it is doing science. When it is claiming that complications equal design, it is engaging in metaphysical speculation that may be tru, but is not science.
Is there a God? From a scientific perspective, we don't know.
Is the world 6,000 years old? From a scientific perspective, all facts say no, but science can't rule out some form of "last Thursdayism" - that some designer just made it to look old.
Does evolution work such that it explains observed development of anti-biotic resistance? It seems so, but again, it is possible that some designer has set things up so this is just an illusion - and science cannot detect this.
Did this designer actually design the "hard parts" of evolution, and let nature take its course on the rest? At best, all we can say, should we identify some such hard part, is "we don't know."
On what basis could we resolve this difficulty? The only answer I am aware of is an appeal to authority. For example, in John 1, John states that Jesus created everything. Now it is not clear to me if by this is meant Theistic Evolution, Intelligent Design, or Old or Young-earth Creationism, or something else we haven't figured out yet.
As this is an appeal to authority, it is not a valid logical argument. This does not make it untrue, just not propositionally compelling.
ID takes the bull by the horns, and argues that "We can see no way it could have happened using current evolutionary theory" means "It is reasonable to infer a Designer." Of course, Christians then reasonably (to their mind) infer the God of the Bible is the Designer.
This leaves the debate to 2 questions:
1) Has the ID movement provided a hypothesis that accounts for all the facts (recall that Einstein's equations had to work for all the situations where Newton’s would work, plus solve some where Newton’s broke down), and performed experiments that would falsify their deign hypothesis?
2) In the meantime, does "We don't know" actually infer "a designer did it?"
So far, I would say "No" to the first question, and "No" to the second as well.
Saturday, February 18, 2006
A Reasonable Trust
Over on www.kcfs.org, there is a thread with a link to Hans Kung's reflections on science and religion.
In it, he states that he has a "reasonable trust" in God, but does not expect rational certainty. This is the fact about the world we live in. We can look at the beauty, the complexity, the overwelming abundance of living things around us, and be certain that God exists. Scientific proof, however, eludes us. This is not because God may not be real. Instead, it says something profound about the nature, uses, and limits of science.
Because of the very nature of science, only natural process can be detected and studied. As a result, when God uses natural processes, then God is "invisible." This does not mean that God does not exisit - only that his hand is hidden from "scientific" view.
ID is an attempt to detect his fingerprints by identifying things in nature that could not have occurred by any natural process. The problem with this approach is that it is an argument from ignorance - at the end of the day, a successful ID argument only demonstrates that we don't know how something was done - we still can't say that God "did it" (although we may find it REASONABLE to think that he did).
This means that we are still required to live by faith. A reasonable faith, yes; but one that has been scientifically demonstrated to be true? God could have, but did not, make it so.
In it, he states that he has a "reasonable trust" in God, but does not expect rational certainty. This is the fact about the world we live in. We can look at the beauty, the complexity, the overwelming abundance of living things around us, and be certain that God exists. Scientific proof, however, eludes us. This is not because God may not be real. Instead, it says something profound about the nature, uses, and limits of science.
Because of the very nature of science, only natural process can be detected and studied. As a result, when God uses natural processes, then God is "invisible." This does not mean that God does not exisit - only that his hand is hidden from "scientific" view.
ID is an attempt to detect his fingerprints by identifying things in nature that could not have occurred by any natural process. The problem with this approach is that it is an argument from ignorance - at the end of the day, a successful ID argument only demonstrates that we don't know how something was done - we still can't say that God "did it" (although we may find it REASONABLE to think that he did).
This means that we are still required to live by faith. A reasonable faith, yes; but one that has been scientifically demonstrated to be true? God could have, but did not, make it so.
Moral Relativism / Absolutism
I suppose the opposite of moral relativism is moral
absolutism - some group, usually religious, telling us
exactly how we ought to think and live. Christians
used to defend slavery and the disenfranchisement of
women on absolute moral grounds. Most Christians
today read their bible differently. Have the moral
absolutes changed?
We also live in a secular democracy. The founding
fathers knew from close-up what happens when one
religious group imposes their view of the truth on the
broader society. This is why we have constitutional
protections in place to separate church and state.
Whose religious laws govern us? And when the
population shifts, and another religion is dominant,
do we change our laws?
As far as moral relativism, we have atheists defending
a Christian's right to pray in school, and Christian
clinic bombers. Usually, the same Christians who decry
the decline of personal morality make no comment on global
injustice, grossly unfair business compensation and
profiteering, and endemic political corruption. Is this
moral relativism? Instead of sloganeering, we need to
find ways of engaging our community and elected leaders in
substantive discussions about justice, ethical
behavior and how to address issues, like genetic
engineering, that have come up after the world's moral
codes were written.
Monday, February 06, 2006
Science is an approach to understanding the natural world
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.
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.
Saturday, February 04, 2006
Faith & Science - What's the Conflict?
One more time, just to make it clear what is going on here:
1. The bible provides information about how old the earth is, and when a global flood happened, and how humans came to be created.
2. Science has been not able to confirm these bible teachings, even though most early scientists assumed them to be true. In fact, it has become clear that the earth is older that 6,000 years (much older), that there was no global flood in 2500 bc, and that humans are related to, and evolved from, other life on the planet.
3. Therefore, some Christians believe that science has to be made wrong, in order for the bible (and their fatih) to be proven right.
Because science cannot "back up" bible claims, its assertion that it does not make theological statements is viewed as suspect at best, and simply untrue at worst. Because science cannot confirm these bible truths, science must be "anti-god."
The solution is for scientists to learn to communicate more effectively about what is known about the world, and what it means for science to limit itself to descriptions of the "natual" world. More moderate Christians need to speak up, and no longer allow themselves to be silenced by the fervor of YEC-ers, who make believing their dogma the litmus test for being a real christian.
Faith and science actually dovetail beautifully, because Christians believe that God created the world, and called it good, and that it reflects the glory of God. Christians should be able to enjoy science as an explanation of "how" God did his work - it is in no way a threat to faith.
1. The bible provides information about how old the earth is, and when a global flood happened, and how humans came to be created.
2. Science has been not able to confirm these bible teachings, even though most early scientists assumed them to be true. In fact, it has become clear that the earth is older that 6,000 years (much older), that there was no global flood in 2500 bc, and that humans are related to, and evolved from, other life on the planet.
3. Therefore, some Christians believe that science has to be made wrong, in order for the bible (and their fatih) to be proven right.
Because science cannot "back up" bible claims, its assertion that it does not make theological statements is viewed as suspect at best, and simply untrue at worst. Because science cannot confirm these bible truths, science must be "anti-god."
The solution is for scientists to learn to communicate more effectively about what is known about the world, and what it means for science to limit itself to descriptions of the "natual" world. More moderate Christians need to speak up, and no longer allow themselves to be silenced by the fervor of YEC-ers, who make believing their dogma the litmus test for being a real christian.
Faith and science actually dovetail beautifully, because Christians believe that God created the world, and called it good, and that it reflects the glory of God. Christians should be able to enjoy science as an explanation of "how" God did his work - it is in no way a threat to faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
