Its amazing how many people on both sides of the political/worldview divide have the impression that if you believe in G-d you cannot truly be a man of science. My students constantly bring this point up and are surprised when I tell them that the two are not mutually exclusive. While it is true that no definitive proof for G-d exists within the frame of logic that underpins science this in no way invalidates G-d.
Lets not forget that science operates within limits - limits set by empirical evidence and the self-contained rationalism that allow us (as scientists) to infer from the evidence available. Like any system of knowledge it also accepts certain constructs apriori and as Godel showed with his incompleteness theorem, cannot be verifiable within itself. Nevertheless science is the best system for elucidating the mysteries of the universe as it constantly requires more stringent levels of checking and retesting. Couple this with the strength of Popper's falsification argument and it is easy to see why science is successful as a epistemological tool (its also why those who argue that climate change is a fact and that this point need not be debated are in reality anti-scientific).
Science has played a vital role in my life and I am deeply passionate about my commitment to it. However I choose not to succumb to the lure of scientism, a barren locale that seems to attract more than its fair share of individuals. My ultimate belief is that there is simply more out there than what science can ever hope to deliver. Can I prove this? Not anymore than a gnat can understand calculus..... but so what? My life is hardly poorer for the uncertainty (and faith) that I permit and I am no less enthralled by my personal championing of physics - my favourite science.
I am not a biblical literalist in that I see that what purports to be the bible as a mixture (albeit a valuable one) of oral history and ancient mythology. I have also dismissed the scientific validity of intelligent design. Darwin's descent with modification makes sense to me, but at the same time I am skeptical of the random mutation arguments so favoured by the various Neo-Darwinian schools. I am more inclined to see evolutionary changes being driven by systems of self-organization. A methodology that is likely to be explained by science although not within the paradigm from which it currently operates at present.
(Thomas Kuhn was correct in his assessment of how science evolves from periods of gradualism to those of radical transformation - its ironic how this philosophy parallels Gould and Elridge's model of Punctuated Equilibrium).
Physicist-theologian Ian Barbour writes extensively about the interaction of science and religion and from his work I take much solice in an integrationist model that seeks to build connections instead of divide. For me this makes sense and it is from this platform that I see the world - open to reason but at the same time mindful about a greater presence that exists.
6 comments:
I would like to saw that the inserting random letter in the book would be a faulty analogy because the lack of natural selection. If there was some way that the words that formed would be preserved and as more are preserved, they would rearrange themselves and the positive outcome will be again preserved. I realize that the way I put it sounds like there is an "intelligent designer" but it's not what I am trying to say.
Also the genomes of living creatures today, contain large bulks of "junk" DNA. I say "junk" because we do not know what the function of these DNA are, possibly nothing. To remove this excess, would be like taking out letters, words, or paragraphs. If it destroys the book, it will not be able to be reprinted. This analogy, again, brings in a intelligent being to make choices. I have not debated this topic enough to become fluent in arguing it.
On a side note, what do you know about evolutionary programing for computers. (Sorry if you mentioned this in your previous blogs, I haven't had time to go through all of it.)
I agree with your basic view. I don't think science will ever prove or disprove the existence of a creator (god) of the universe. But if there is such a god, I don't think he (or she) bears any resemblance to the Christian god.
Speaking as an agnostic/pinko commie liberal, and as a modern dubious student, the main idea being pondered here is in fact; Can one believe in G-d and Science?
If one choses not to believe in G-d, being an atheist that is, it is not logical therefore to say what empirical evidence is there to make sense of this, neither can theists, simply because both science and religion are mutually exclusive. "It is an enemy of reason" as Richard Dawkins stated.
To further understand this huge fuss over the un-bridgeable gap between science and religion/faith, we need to ask what is 'God'? Well, simply put (according to the Oxford dictionary) it is "the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe." (notice "Supreme Being" is capitalized) Surely being the 'creator' and 'ruler' of the universe, must have it's set of limited bounds to which science breaks down, in which you stated as "science operates within limits". Certainly this is only true, because as I see it, science is a set of infinitely expandable theories that will always get closer and closer to the inevitable 'answer', but will never do so. Therefore, religion argues with that known knowledge of why G-d must exist. To me that's just absurd, because religion constantly changes and has to adapt to centuries of chaos and suffering, and believers can no longer claim their ancient scriptures as literal fact.
However, both religion and science may reconcile the feud towards a greater common goal, but I fail to see this actually happening, even though they do work on some basic levels of argument. Surely theologians have concerns of the ontology of G-d, to which raises many philosophical issues, to which is beyond my understanding.
One can make an epistemological argument of what is the origin of knowledge? But that simply leads to some other omnipotence paradox, as stated in several of Stephen Hawking's books; "Can God create a rock so big that he cannot lift it?"
"While it is true that no definitive proof for G-d exists within the frame of logic that underpins science this in no way invalidates G-d." - Why so? As stated, science is never perfect, proven by Gödel's incompleteness theorems, however, neither is the existence of G-d. So why does there have to be a boundary or a 'frame of logic that underpins science'? This is not logical because isn't G-d the source of all knowledge? And isn't science the tool we use towards gaining empirical evidence of some unknown knowledge? Therefore the limit is based on the assumption that G-d is indeed some 'supreme' power that does infringe our understanding of the universe, and therefore invalidates our mindset to some limit so we cannot prove G-d doesn't exist? This an Oxymoron ... To which leads back to my original of idea of how illogical it truly is and is indeed "like an enemy of reason", so can you really work in a frame of logical limits to which no reasoning or empirical reasoning can be made? This is truly absurd.
Regarding if you can be a man of science and religion, to me - sure. But logically, no. However, there are some deep rooted conflicts that arise from this ideology to which is the actual question to be answered. Now I wonder what is THE question to be answered? well, that simply has no answer, or does it?
~ Shahriar A.
Reply to Dada
The 'random letter ' inserting analogy is a simplification but it does force you to think about the idea of randomness. What is it? How does it impact the genome? How is negativity (which should arise continuously) suppressed? Are these changes neutral until selected for or against?
There is some validity in thinking of junk DNA as the blank DNA upon which new change are inscribed. Maybe its the buffer DNA that protects viable DNA (protein inscribing DNA).
There are some great questions around this issue. For me it all boils down to levels of organization where the whole takes on new characteristics of interaction that are distinct from the sum of the parts.
The problem is that biology/biochemistry has adaopted a paridgm of reductionism that tends to ignore these growing levels of interaction that lie in between the genome and the active agent of the species.
To Shariar
What is it with Atheists/Agnostics that you feel the need to quote Richard Dawkins - the high priest of G-d bashing and in truth a second rate Bertrand Russell. Russell essentially made the case for atheism over half a century ago in more eloquent and less bombastic language than Dawkins.
The problem with Dawkins is that he is, although he will deny it, an extremist who has takes the most oppositional standpoint against religion - one of no middle ground. He is not alone in this position - Neil deGrasse Tyson and Lawrence Krauss - occupy similar ground. What they choose to ignore is the common territory between the two philosophies that integrationist models espouse (taking an extremist view I guess sells more books especially when you have such catchy titles as the God Delusion or God is not Great).
I have stopped trying to define
G-d as I realize that every definition falls short of the true essence of what G-d is (the Oxford dictionary is no exception here). The best definition that I have heard of is the Kabbalistic Concept of Ein Sof (without an end - similar but not the same as the mathematical construct of infinity). Hinduism speaks of the Atman as well..which is a useful means of understanding G-d.
The problem with both sides of the Science-Religion debate is that they tend to reinforce the negatives. Science has achieved a tremendous amount but any scholar who rejects the notion that such inquiry has not been born from the foundation of civility engendered by Ethical Monotheism (at least in the West tradition) is missing a key point in understanding the evolution of all thought.
The lifting the 'rock scenario' is a silly attempt by Hawking (who should know better) of reducing what should be more a more constructive agreement into a game of word tricks. A truely sophist ploy - that the great Socrates would dismiss in a second.
The science-logic argument is critical to the understanding of what science is. Logic is paramount to science. Without logic/rationalism science resorts to a weak empiricism - defined by loose phenomena which makes it no better than the phenomenology of the pseudosciences that it has systematically debunked.
Any way thats it for now...
Thanks for the Reply.
To coin Richard Dawkins, and imply that he is a second rate Bertrand Russell leads to the well known Russell's teapot or 'celestial teapot' analogy. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
Though some do view Dawkins as an extremist or a 'god hater', you have to remember that he is a biological theorist after all, not to mention a secular humanist, and rationalist, and a prominent critic of creationism. Which lead to the field of memetics, due to his argument of how Darwinian principles have to be extended towards sociological evolution in modern societies and the advancement of idea and cultural phenomenon. His views may seem 'extreme', and how he applies them to his novels just makes it that much better for the general public to doubt theists. I however do not agree with his views, but it's more logical than some 'supreme being'.
"I have stopped trying to define
G-d as I realize that every definition falls short of the true essence of what G-d is ..." - What is the 'true' essence of G-d? How can we define G-d then? Is humanity obeying some unknown entity brought by human thought, or human consciousness? The fact that 'nothing' is something (non physical that is), makes this whole argument a silly one indeed, and for those who actually follow ancient scriptures as literal fact is pitiful, and has proven to bring centuries of chaos. If we look at science, can we still follow ancient principles, such that of Archimedes? No, because that would be following false ideologies, that would slow down human advancement in our modern era. The same argument can be applied to religion, but to follow it to this day would too slow down human advancement. Note: With all due respect to Archimedes, this is only true if he did leave us in the dark ages for centuries.
Though logic is paramount to science, this implies that (with the known fallacy involved with G-d) not being logical is synonymous with religion, thus proving that point to be illogical as well (wrong).
And yes, one should expect more from Hawking, but does foul word play make the argument any less true?
Food for thought ...
~ Shahriar A.
(p.s: You spelled my name wrong, but that's a common mistake) - pun failure dismissed.
Post a Comment