Posted on 11/24/2007 5:45:11 AM PST by shrinkermd
“humility”
The last word in your post puts the finger on what’s wrong with science today. Humility is replaced by arrogance.
Where does it say that?
This statement is a joke, or sophistry of the first order. A distinction without a difference.By definition, faith is not subject to reason and calculus in the scientific sense. That can't be flim-flammed away.
A statement made based on unspoken a priory beliefs (faith) is pretty much useless.
The identical argument can be made about islam.
Humility and arrogance are part of the language of faith. Real science has no need for either. Science is neutral inquiry. Faith has no place for that.
The acolytes of global warming start any meaningful discussion with a statement of pure faith: the issue is settled!
Faith is simply belieif in what someone says. There is no requirement that it not be subject to rational examination. The only limit to that examination, is that the inquiry must be done through someone else.
I don't think it's accurate to say, as this author does, that having belief without evidence is considered a virtue in religion tout court.
Psalm 119, a discourse on God's law, has this to say:
33Teach me, O Lord, the way of thy statutes; and I shall keep it unto the end.
34Give me understanding, and I shall keep thy law; yea, I shall observe it with my whole heart.
This emphasis on "understanding" in order to achieve "wholeheartedness" is very much a part of devotion. In fact, as Isaac Newton saw it, it does honor to God to assume that all the laws of the Universe have a reasonable order and an intelligent purpose; to study them to gain understanding is the right and proper role for Man, since we were made in the image and likeness of God.
Here's a couple of Oh-Wow thoughts:
The human brain is the most complex object in the Universe, other than the Universe itself, taken as a whole.
As Gary Snyder wrote:
The Great Sky
holds billions of stars— and goes yet beyond that—
beyond all powers, and thoughts
and yet is within us—
Grandfather Space.
The Mind is his Wife.
Or as Albert Einstein said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."
But why should it be comprehensible? Why should our little brains, made of fat and blood, neural net wetware with a little frisson of electricity, be able to wrap themselves around the Universe, while a chimp's brain (and aren't the chimp genome and the human genome 96% the same?) ---cannot?
You know, the belief (yes, it is a belief) that the Universe is intelligible is not a universal belief. I remember discussing this with my older son when he was about 12 or so. There are at least 6 alternatives. Various people have believed that the Universe is
It takes a specific kind of theological or philosophical assumption to believe that the proper occupation of the human mind is to seek to understand the laws of the Universe. That there is indeed a correspondance between Mind and Matter. That it is Intelligible because it was created by an Intelligence.
Which leave me something big to smile about.
HE “blinded me with science”, the evidence of creation is everywhere. Romans 1:20 “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”
Gerald Schroeder, The Science Of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom
Guillermo Gonzalez & Jay W Richards, The Privileged Planet: How Our Place In The Cosmos Is Designed For Discovery
SCIENCE, we are repeatedly told, is the most reliable form of knowledge about the world because it is based on testable hypotheses. Religion, by contrast, is based on faith. The term “doubting Thomas” well illustrates the difference. In science, a healthy skepticism is a professional necessity, whereas in religion, having belief without evidence is regarded as a virtue.
The problem with this neat separation into “non-overlapping magisteria,” as Stephen Jay Gould described science and religion, is that science has its own faith-based belief system...
Note,in the first paragraph it notes "we are repeatedly told:" this is not the author's assertion. He is merely repeating a widely held belief of others. Then, also note, his main point which is, "that science has its own faith based belief system."
At no point is the author questioning anyone's religious faith. He is examining a widely held, and mistaken, belief that what is called science does not require a form of faith similar to that of religion. Whether this a true assertion or not is debatable and should be debated. What is not true is that he is questioning anyone's actual faith.
But all things that are known are not all seen. You can know about things you do not see. Not seeing is not the same as NO EVIDENCE. Plus what do you mean by seeing. The physical sense only. Science does not “see” alot of things. It only sees the effect of things it believes supports a law of nature or theory.
I agree.
It's a geometrical shape that has 248 dimensions that Garret Lisi supposedly worked out after folks had been working on it for 120 years: a shape that describes the Universe.
It's supposedly testable.
No, don't ask: I don't understand it. Since my Senior year in high school, though, I have been fascinated with the idea that God speaks Math. I just never guessed He spoke Geometry.
Excellent article.
We tend to take something like the laws of motion and the universal law of gravitation for granted. But why should the universe be governed by such elegant mathematical rules? They are themselves a fundamental form if Intelligent Design. Newton said it himself in the greatest scientific publication of all time:
“This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.” —Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), The Principia
Modern, dogmatic naturalists who categorically reject ID are blind to reality.
In before the threadcrap
Yes, thanks. I was worried most were missing the thrust of the article. It is encouraging rather than discouraging to those of faith.
thanks, bfl
pflr
1 Cor 10:15
Paul says that his listeners are sensible people and they are to judge for themselves the truth of what he is saying. That is not by faith alone, nor on his word.
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.