This one will probably be a little shorter. Want I want to comment on is the fact that I dont think science has it all together, or is infaliable. I am going to start this by stating that I am not a scientist, and have had limited knowledge on this subject, limited but related to what I'm going to talk about. Please comment on this, and hold me accountable for my ignorance.
Science is the tower athiest tend to stand on (maybe a tower the size of a soapbox). This is their ace in the hole. Science is changing, but always right. And for some people points to no god. In previous blogs there has been mentioned the fact that if you dont know something you shouldn't make stuff up about it.
Here comes my opinion. When it comes to science out side of observation, it looks more like a faith. Faith is the ace in the hole for religion, but I think science becomes a faith at certain levels. Observation is the best method of science, you see something, make a hypothesis, test it, and there comes some answers( over simplyfied, I know, but work with me). So then there are things we can not observe, like the creation of the universe. I'm still with science right now, dont get me wrong.
As science is pushing to discover what happened, they have to rely on formulas, and theories based on things observed now, but they can not observe it then. Even the idea of half-life is based on a uniform deterioration, which has no evidence for or against.(don't get me wrong here, i trust half-lifeing, but it is not iron clad).
In a very secular physics class I took we talked a lot about universe formation, and let me tell you, it takes some faith for that. To boil it down, we weren't there, so all we have are guesses, and they are well informed, but again this seems to contradict the "only talk about what we know" type idea. In addition, I listened to a lecture about string theory. I can't even beging to talk about it, other than it is a guess that makes formulas make more sense, but there is no way to prove it. This is very faith-like.
I know I may sound ignorant, but please, challenge me on this. My main point is that science is not perfect, scientist will tell you that. When it comes down to it there is a faith leap you have to take with science too. Even the big bang brings mater to a 1 ccm highly dense space. Scientist will say that mater was always there. This sounds a lot like the always there claims of a god. If mater is eternal, then why is it crazy to have an eternal god? This is not a large leap. I know I may sound small minded, but listen, I trust science, but there are some things I think we need to question. Skepticism is key to getting a greater undrstanding of our universe.
Written on Saturday, September 22, 2007 by Nathan
Blog Doubble Header: Game 2 Rant about science.
7 Comments
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (RSS)
7 Responses to "Blog Doubble Header: Game 2 Rant about science."
September 22, 2007 at 2:44 PM
I think the proper atheist response to this is this:
faith in god and faith in science are relying on different implications of the word faith.
Faith in god means that god is infallible and if something comes up to contradicts god that truth will be twisted before god is said to be wrong.
Faith in science is an intellectual leap based on observable facts, like playing a game of Sudoku and you know what number goes in the spot based on what numbers are around it. But if that is show to be wrong, say that 8 was really a 3 in the Sudoku board, then a scientist will change his answer as opposed to claiming that 3 to be an 8. In non-Sudoku terms, if something that was thought to be fact is shown not to be a fact then a scientist will recant that fact for the new fact. But then again this rarely happens because of the scientific method. Which is why the creation of the Big Bang Theory, String Theory and the Theory of Evolution remain theories. There is no way to subject them to experimentation so we can't make them a fact. But we can do all but that because we can observe the results of those theories or play out similar mock experiments that lay down the laws of physics or biology to make said theory the truth.
Science thrives on falsifiability, religion dies on it.
September 22, 2007 at 10:38 PM
I love sudoku.
September 22, 2007 at 10:44 PM
I think what you miss, is the assumption of uniformity. The universe may not act the same way all the time, especially in a volitile begining. I could go into it deeper, but I think I will change to another point.
I see what you are saying about religion not wanting to change, but I think part of that is the human practice of religion. The fact is you can not prove or disprove God(hence this blog) but you can prove and disprove practices that men do in the name of God. Maybe I am getting too unviersal, but there are differences between the character of God and how people respond to that. I think it is the difference in Faith and Religion(if you understand what I am trying to say.)
September 23, 2007 at 1:33 AM
[Nathan] Your point being that one can prove or disprove that persons, in fact, do things? ...in the name of God.
Jeph, I think you are putting significantly more faith in scientists than I ever would.
Scientists have data. It's their scripture. It, like scripture, is open to interpretation. And, sometimes, it is misinterpreted. And, sometimes, those doing the misinterpreting are adamant that they are right.
Religion evolves, too. But would you think that it shouldn't?
September 24, 2007 at 12:01 PM
matt- my point is that we often take what people do in the name of a god as what that religion is about. I dont think Islam is all about bombs, and I dont thing Christianity is all about the crusades. it was more of a side note that religion gets the faith wrong(maybe a lot).
September 25, 2007 at 10:57 AM
My faith, if put it that way, is in science itself not in scientist. Just like Nathan would have faith in God not believers in God.
The point I'm trying to make however is, that science can hold up to set backs, even if Nathan is right about the universe not having uniformity, that is a storm science can weather. But a changing world view is not something religion can weather.
On the question, of should religion evolve? We'll technically if it is the truth it shouldn't have to. But we have already seen it evolve. The church of today is not like the church a 100 years ago, even 50 or 20 years ago. So the question of should it is unfortunately mute I think because it already has, and still is.
I think its only a matter of time before religion is forced so far into a corner by rationality that only the very stubborn(or scared) will hang onto their backwards dogma.
Of course I'm singling out a specific group of believers, and I don't make any accusation towards anyone here, but a point is a point right?
Anyway, Nathan and I had a great conversation the other day over some pizza, and I'm going to do a larger post on it a little later, but I think it really sums up the differences in our beliefs and shows that you don't have to be an ignorant fundamentalist to believe in God.
September 26, 2007 at 5:56 PM
Touching on the uniformity of the universe, one of the current missions of what we are calling 'science' is the Grand Unified Theory. Granted, I was never on the cusp of experimental physics, but, from my understanding, 'science' has been attempting to 'find' a theory that would explain how everything in the universe operated from the beginning to now--or the end, I don't really know. All I know it is that is has to do with the merging of the four fundamental forces--Weak, Strong, Electromagnetic, and Gravity. It seems like the last time I was in a 'theoretical' physics class, there might have been evidence to suggest the merger of the Weak and Electromagnetic forces. Do I need to get into how this works?
...Probably not. I just wanted to touch on the uniformity thing a little bit.
On to 'hold ups' and 'set backs' (isn't that a Five Iron Frenzy album?). I think I would like to 'hear' more [Jeph] about science and religion and their respective ability to weather a changing world view. Perhaps something regarding what you consider to be the underlying principals behind each. Maybe you have already stated this...if so, just say so.
Oh, and something about a world view that considers science obsolete or unnecessary or a/the science of science and/or science to the point of undoing science in relation to multi-petabyte memory upgrades.
Post a Comment