Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2011 4:13 pm
I don't believe science and religion are reconcilable. I believe the reasons you use to harmonize them would fail if investigated in more detail. In fact, I nearly guarantee it. It has been the case countless times in countless discussions. The precedent is quite large. Sorry to doubt you, but I don't think you're any different.
You are being overly presumptuous. My reconciliation of the two has nothing to do with balancing, comparing, or contrasting evidence. It is clear to me (and should be to you too) that the objective of science is to produce evidence provided by the natural world. Matters of theology are based on faith.
A scientist that is compelled to arrive at absolute truth often is inspired by a wondrous awe and reverence for the complexity and order of nature. He is bold enough to say, "There is an explanation for this and I aim to investigate it." That is an admirable quality. However, it holds true that scientists realize immediately after the solution to one of nature's mysteries is solved, there is another immediately available to ponder.
Although religion's objective is not to find a natural explanation for everything, it too has a reverence and respect for the natural world. I choose not to scoff at the religious man who is satisfied with "worshiping" that which he does not claim to understand completely - God/Nature. Leave the work of science to science. Leave things of faith, to a theologian. Neither should feel he has to out do the other.
Here is what Einstein said about the scientist. Perhaps a "true" scientist. Needless to say, I find myself in agreement with it:
"His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages."
Then Kurt would have a mistaken expectation. The description of our world through math still requires axioms. Which have reliance on induction. Which, while reliable, is not an absolute source of answers. The proofs could all be mathematically perfect, yet false, depending on axiomatic integrity.[/quote]
You amplified the point I was trying to make about science earlier. Thanks
At some point, science must rely on faith about things yet unseen. or that which can never be proven (e.g. quantum physics).
You are being overly presumptuous. My reconciliation of the two has nothing to do with balancing, comparing, or contrasting evidence. It is clear to me (and should be to you too) that the objective of science is to produce evidence provided by the natural world. Matters of theology are based on faith.
A scientist that is compelled to arrive at absolute truth often is inspired by a wondrous awe and reverence for the complexity and order of nature. He is bold enough to say, "There is an explanation for this and I aim to investigate it." That is an admirable quality. However, it holds true that scientists realize immediately after the solution to one of nature's mysteries is solved, there is another immediately available to ponder.
Although religion's objective is not to find a natural explanation for everything, it too has a reverence and respect for the natural world. I choose not to scoff at the religious man who is satisfied with "worshiping" that which he does not claim to understand completely - God/Nature. Leave the work of science to science. Leave things of faith, to a theologian. Neither should feel he has to out do the other.
Here is what Einstein said about the scientist. Perhaps a "true" scientist. Needless to say, I find myself in agreement with it:
"His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages."
Then Kurt would have a mistaken expectation. The description of our world through math still requires axioms. Which have reliance on induction. Which, while reliable, is not an absolute source of answers. The proofs could all be mathematically perfect, yet false, depending on axiomatic integrity.[/quote]
You amplified the point I was trying to make about science earlier. Thanks
At some point, science must rely on faith about things yet unseen. or that which can never be proven (e.g. quantum physics).