![]() Of course, our beliefs about mathematics, ethics, or the Battle of Waterloo, or other persons like Brian, are not established by scientific method either. Christian belief is not established by scientific method. Scientific and theological methodology are different. Theological knowledge does not have any place in a world like that. The problems all arise from the additional assumptions of the “scientific-reductionist worldview”: That scientific knowledge is the only credible kind of knowledge, that the objects of scientific study are the only kind of objects there are, that the universe as a whole is necessarily a closed system, one great big laboratory bench, with all its variables accounted for and with no forces acting on it from the “outside.” God cannot be discovered by looking down some very powerful telescope, nor can the possibility of His existence be excluded by any double-blind trials. God, the creator and continual sustainer of all physical reality, the source upon which spacetime and matter and the physical laws all depend for their existence, is not an object of scientific study. Scientific method can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the Christian God. The use of scientific method is no problem at all for faith. The scientific-reductionist worldview is not the same thing as scientific method. (I should like to studiously ignore Darwin-gate.) The question is whether two particular worldviews, which I call the “scientific-reductionist worldview” and the Christian worldview, are logically compatible. The Catholic Catechism §159 rightly points out that the truths of Christian faith should never contradict truths established by natural reason. Of course Christians can be scientists and do worthwhile scientific research and hold ordinary scientific beliefs. It seems to me that this perception is what’s really responsible for the “problem of science and faith.” The imposition of a particular creed appears to be an arbitrary restriction on the possibilities of exploration and the full knowledge of the reality of the universe. Richard Feynman epitomizes this vision of the scientist hero, someone who was never content with easy answers or superficial explanations, who was willing to hold many things in doubt, out of respect for the mysteriousness of the universe.Ĭhristian belief, on the other hand, is commonly perceived as requiring a voluntary narrowing of the mind that only very uninquisitive people could enjoy. ![]() The ideal scientist is passionate enough to devote her life to the pursuit of a truth unknown cautious enough to remain at the mercy of her data and stoical enough to shelve her own ego and say “hypotheses non fingo” whenever she doesn’t understand something. The scientific method involves questioning everything, gathering hard data, and making inferences from evidence to conclusions only in strict obedience to the p-values, however disheartening that may prove to be. Christian belief, let's be honest, is often presented as a blue pill. “Remember, all I’m offering is the truth, nothing more,” remarks Morpheus. It means the comfort of your own feather pillow. The blue pill means safety, or at least whatever safety and control the familiar structures of this familiar world have to offer. The red pill means danger, a rabbit hole who knows how deep, and many a sleepless night before you get to the bottom of it. The blue pill means parochial, timid adherence to the same old thing, a slave in the “prison for your mind”-and the story ends. The red pill means the spirit of adventure, the exploration of the unknown, freedom. You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.”- The Matrix ![]() You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |