Posted on 01/23/2005 10:22:26 PM PST by dervish
Though all God's children started pretty much with the same blank slate, the Western branch of the family has--over time and with gusto--immersed itself in science, growing to cherish its potency and, perhaps for that reason, permitting it a comfortable coexistence with religion.
Where conflicts have arisen between science and religion, our scientific empiricism--which is a source of our tolerance and of our ability to resolve conflict (mostly) without coming to blows--has usually ensured that our intellectual principles are not stifled by our prayers.
To be sure, the very empiricism that safeguards science has also been benign for religion, as biblical scholars--not to mention the ordinary faithful, schooled in biology--have sought to interpret old texts in ways that sit elegantly with modern truths. The Word has not been allowed to remain static or to become a laughingstock (except on boorish fringes), for an inherent part of our scientific temperament is humility.
Our imagination is fed, and fired, by science in ways that some other societies find offensive. But although the scientists in our midst do speak rather frankly and often practice their craft with an unseemly swagger, we do not live--even remotely--under a scientista tyranny. For this we must thank our innate skepticism, which extends even to technology, as well as our philosophers, who are always inclined to keep science on its toes.
In Western philosophy, it is just as valid a question--and just as intellectually respectable--to ask if science can explain everything as it is to ask if it can explain anything. And this is related to the question--which some might say has an almost theological flavor--of whether scientists are in the business of explaining phenomena or of merely describing them.
snip
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
read later
bttt
An excellent question which my simple mind had never considered. I think a deeper probe, i.e., more thought, would be helpful in the theological/secular debate.
Ping.
|
bump
COSMOLOGIST: The universe started with a BIG BANG.
CREATIONIST: Yea, Verily!
I beg to differ. The Word has not changed.
It's true, this is a tricky question, and from my perspective, the answer is subtle. Science is built on this very strict platform of experiment. This means that arguments can always be settled. In pure science, you can never end up at a "difference of opinion". Because if anything relies on opinion, then it is not scientific. Since explanations often hinge on opinion, it is true that pure science concerns itself merely with describing phenomena.
This strictness gives science its power. It also gives it some pretty significant limits. There is no way to test whether an earthquake was caused by shifting tectonic plates or by some ancient god writhing beneath the earth in a way that appears to us as shifting tectonic plates. Science can't ever decide between these two. But in order to explain science to other people, particularly people who aren't used to accepting this kind of limitation, scientists are often forced to do some explanation. These explanations are often colored by their personal bias and subject to all kinds of assumptions and interpretations. In my opinion, one of the things that modern scientists are worst at is making clear when they are stating a scientific observation and when they are stating a non-scientific opinion of how that observation came to be.
You mean, when they're talking to the beureaucrats who write the grant checks?
I believe it would be entirely possible to have two opposing, mutually exclusive theories, both of which match all the known observables.
Maybe that's where faith starts...
One can hope........
Experiment and testing thereof is gradually changing to 'proving one's feeling', as can be seen in current environmental studies.
I took this with the phrase preceding it to mean that The Word is not frozen in the context of centuries ago. That Biblical knowledge fits with all ages and scientific discovery.
Science can and is revalatory of God's greatness.
That, yes, and also when they're talking to the press or writing popular articles.
Here's the exact problem. The theory is the "observables". If two theories predict the same result, then they are the same theory. Since the "explanation" part is not subject to scienctific verification, it is not part of the pure science. Explanations are often tacked on because it can be difficult to describe scientific results as pure observations, and it is not uncommon for these tacked-on explanations to be included in the actual theory by casual readers, unfortunately.
well said. here here!
and i read your page and think you are confused. you ARE a conservative. at some time you may realize this. happy journey. likin' ya the way you are.......
Actually, there can be two theories that (purport to) explain a given set of (agreed upon) facts. In order to qualify as a theory, each of the two competing theories must indicate further observations that would refute that theory. This is the famous "falsifiability criterion" that an hypothesis must have (inter alia) before being taken as a theory.
For example, both Creationism and Last Thursdayism purport to Explain The Universe; no observation could refute either; thus neither is a theory.
In some cultures, however, science provokes neither admiration nor intellectual hunger but, instead, a fierce political resistance. V.S. Naipaul has written irrefutably of the conflict between the West and the Islamic world as being a conflict over modernity.Naipaul isn't wrong, and the 'slammies aren't the only antimoderns out there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.