Science
Fine, I was squirming =p This is my reason for doing so =p
Now, I would be the first to admit that the general impression had always been that science had always seemed to be in opposition with Religion. This becomes even more acute when you factor in cases such as the church "not liking" scientific discoveries such as the earth orbiting the Sun, rather than being in the center of the universe. On an even more aggressive note, perhaps the most important scientific area which had seemed to be in opposition with Religion is that of Evolution (that is, macro evolution). It seems to be in direct contradiction with the creation account.
Isn't it?
However, before we start anything, perhaps we would like to look more closely into what constitutes Science. Firstly, it is distinct from technology. Technology has to do with how people invent things or methods which improve the efficiency of doing things, or more generally, improving the lives of some people. While the advancement of technology has some relation with Science (knowing Newton's law would probably help you make a better tennis racket), it is not the same as Science. Secondly, the findings of science are always theories - ready to be superseded if there are other theories that fit the facts better. In this way, Newton's law of classical physics had be succeeded by Einstein's law of Relativity, especially when it deals with large objects and high speed. Very large objects and very high speed. This does not, however, mean that Newton's laws are "wrong". They are in fact very very good estimates of things in normal everyday conditions. Which brings us to the third point, which is that Science can never be totally certain. Quite apart from Heinsenburg's law of uncertainty, there is also this idea that an infinite number of curves can be drawn through any finite number of points. Science depends quite heavily on experimental data either to prove their theory or to come up with a new theory by observing a pattern. Yet, is the Universe intincitly supposed to give you a pattern? Admitingly, we do want a pattern to happen. We would not have the Universe be random and without an underlying law. Yet this is no longer the question of science. It is an assumption carried into science before any observation is carried out. Which brings us to the fourth character of Science. It deals with observed things. It does not and cannot deal with the reason behind things. It can tell you that if you drop a ball, the ball will fall to the ground due to gravity. It cannot tell you why there is gravity (I don't mean that gravity cannot be further explained, such as it being a curvature of space time etc. But the very presence of the curvature cannot be explained either. Why do objects cause curvatures?)
If anyone disagrees with me on my definition of Science, I would be highly apologetic for my lack of knowledge of what true science is. For the present purpose however, this is what I would be talking about, whether or not you call this Science.
Now, both Science and Religion are supposed to deal with Truth. And immediately, the law of Non Contradiction comes into play. If something is red, it is by necessity not blue in color. If one persons says that the apple is red and another says that the apple is blue, then one person must of necessity be wrong. Both cannot be correct at the same time, other than by using a huge stretch (read: abuse) of language. This, I would agree and concede. A second type of language used for even greater precision also comes into mind - scientific language. If someone from Africa were to come to Singapore and comment that the weather was very cooling, while another from Canada comment that the weather is very hot, both would be correct from their point of view. However, if they were to get into an argument, the use of a Thermometer would settle the dispute by saying that the temperature is 32 Degrees Celsius. There can be no argument about that reading. Whether it is hot or cold is subjective, that it is 32 Degrees Celsius is not. However, a third type of language comes into mind - poetic language. We use it sometimes in everyday life. For instance, when we say that this steak is the best meal in the world, we do not really mean that it is definitely the best in the world, but, depending on the person saying it, might mean that it is either very good or that it is the best that he had eaten so far. In other words, what it intends to convey is the "essence" of it, that the steak was very good. It was not meant for literal usage. Even the people who read the Bible most literally would agree that there is usage of such language - you don't find them plucking out their eyes or choping off their hands as what Jesus said to. They all understand that it is a hyperbole.
Why had I gone on such length to examine the nature of Language and Science? This is because the reconciliation is found here. While Science attempts to find out exactly how things happen and how things will happen, it had never claimed to be infallible correct. Neither had it made any claims about the presence or absence of any supernatural being, nor their involvement in nature. It attempts to lay out "Laws of Nature", but these Laws do not cause the event to take place. They are merely a description of what actually happens. We conveniently say that "by Newton's 2rd Law, so and so must move in such and such a manner", but we must keep in mind that Newton's 2nd law did not cause the object to move in that manner. Rather, the object moved in that manner and Newton came up with his law to describe how the object moves.
Remember earlier we said that Science presupposes the presence of a pattern in nature. Now, Religion is different in this matter. It proposes a reason for the presence of a pattern. In other words, there is Reason because there is first God, and Reason is an attribute of God. It becomes quite glaring that the biggest claim that Religion has to a Materialistic world is "In the Beginning, God..." But whatever else Science finds, whether or not it seemingly contradict Religion's claim, it says nothing about this first Claim, that there is God. This is totally untestable by science. It is not a scientific question.
In other words, it is not so much Science which is in competition with Religion, but another Religion which is... Naturalism.
You cannot be in opposition unless you propose to answer the same questions.
-----
Hmmms.. my first lengthy post for quite a while.. was lacking inspiration over the past weeks. But this is not particularly smooth come to think of it.. Whoops =p Nevermind, a bit lazy to edit now, maybe next time =p
Now, I would be the first to admit that the general impression had always been that science had always seemed to be in opposition with Religion. This becomes even more acute when you factor in cases such as the church "not liking" scientific discoveries such as the earth orbiting the Sun, rather than being in the center of the universe. On an even more aggressive note, perhaps the most important scientific area which had seemed to be in opposition with Religion is that of Evolution (that is, macro evolution). It seems to be in direct contradiction with the creation account.
Isn't it?
However, before we start anything, perhaps we would like to look more closely into what constitutes Science. Firstly, it is distinct from technology. Technology has to do with how people invent things or methods which improve the efficiency of doing things, or more generally, improving the lives of some people. While the advancement of technology has some relation with Science (knowing Newton's law would probably help you make a better tennis racket), it is not the same as Science. Secondly, the findings of science are always theories - ready to be superseded if there are other theories that fit the facts better. In this way, Newton's law of classical physics had be succeeded by Einstein's law of Relativity, especially when it deals with large objects and high speed. Very large objects and very high speed. This does not, however, mean that Newton's laws are "wrong". They are in fact very very good estimates of things in normal everyday conditions. Which brings us to the third point, which is that Science can never be totally certain. Quite apart from Heinsenburg's law of uncertainty, there is also this idea that an infinite number of curves can be drawn through any finite number of points. Science depends quite heavily on experimental data either to prove their theory or to come up with a new theory by observing a pattern. Yet, is the Universe intincitly supposed to give you a pattern? Admitingly, we do want a pattern to happen. We would not have the Universe be random and without an underlying law. Yet this is no longer the question of science. It is an assumption carried into science before any observation is carried out. Which brings us to the fourth character of Science. It deals with observed things. It does not and cannot deal with the reason behind things. It can tell you that if you drop a ball, the ball will fall to the ground due to gravity. It cannot tell you why there is gravity (I don't mean that gravity cannot be further explained, such as it being a curvature of space time etc. But the very presence of the curvature cannot be explained either. Why do objects cause curvatures?)
If anyone disagrees with me on my definition of Science, I would be highly apologetic for my lack of knowledge of what true science is. For the present purpose however, this is what I would be talking about, whether or not you call this Science.
Now, both Science and Religion are supposed to deal with Truth. And immediately, the law of Non Contradiction comes into play. If something is red, it is by necessity not blue in color. If one persons says that the apple is red and another says that the apple is blue, then one person must of necessity be wrong. Both cannot be correct at the same time, other than by using a huge stretch (read: abuse) of language. This, I would agree and concede. A second type of language used for even greater precision also comes into mind - scientific language. If someone from Africa were to come to Singapore and comment that the weather was very cooling, while another from Canada comment that the weather is very hot, both would be correct from their point of view. However, if they were to get into an argument, the use of a Thermometer would settle the dispute by saying that the temperature is 32 Degrees Celsius. There can be no argument about that reading. Whether it is hot or cold is subjective, that it is 32 Degrees Celsius is not. However, a third type of language comes into mind - poetic language. We use it sometimes in everyday life. For instance, when we say that this steak is the best meal in the world, we do not really mean that it is definitely the best in the world, but, depending on the person saying it, might mean that it is either very good or that it is the best that he had eaten so far. In other words, what it intends to convey is the "essence" of it, that the steak was very good. It was not meant for literal usage. Even the people who read the Bible most literally would agree that there is usage of such language - you don't find them plucking out their eyes or choping off their hands as what Jesus said to. They all understand that it is a hyperbole.
Why had I gone on such length to examine the nature of Language and Science? This is because the reconciliation is found here. While Science attempts to find out exactly how things happen and how things will happen, it had never claimed to be infallible correct. Neither had it made any claims about the presence or absence of any supernatural being, nor their involvement in nature. It attempts to lay out "Laws of Nature", but these Laws do not cause the event to take place. They are merely a description of what actually happens. We conveniently say that "by Newton's 2rd Law, so and so must move in such and such a manner", but we must keep in mind that Newton's 2nd law did not cause the object to move in that manner. Rather, the object moved in that manner and Newton came up with his law to describe how the object moves.
Remember earlier we said that Science presupposes the presence of a pattern in nature. Now, Religion is different in this matter. It proposes a reason for the presence of a pattern. In other words, there is Reason because there is first God, and Reason is an attribute of God. It becomes quite glaring that the biggest claim that Religion has to a Materialistic world is "In the Beginning, God..." But whatever else Science finds, whether or not it seemingly contradict Religion's claim, it says nothing about this first Claim, that there is God. This is totally untestable by science. It is not a scientific question.
In other words, it is not so much Science which is in competition with Religion, but another Religion which is... Naturalism.
You cannot be in opposition unless you propose to answer the same questions.
-----
Hmmms.. my first lengthy post for quite a while.. was lacking inspiration over the past weeks. But this is not particularly smooth come to think of it.. Whoops =p Nevermind, a bit lazy to edit now, maybe next time =p
posted by P{ZM} at
8:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home