Rick - I am quite flattered by your comment. I might disappoint you however - because I insert a mental "disconnect" between science and religion and/or matters of the spirit.
Science is a vast intellectual construct which restricts itself to the sensible and the reproducible. All scientists worth their sodium chloride concede the point that Fact and Truth are not the same. Science amasses and tests facts - and organizes them into an ever-changing tapestry of hypotheses and theories. Very few people -the scientifically untrained don't think about it, and the scientifically trained aren't often made or held aware of it - realize that there is not one scientific fact or tenet which isn't open to review. If someone finds a failure of Newton's laws (a cornerstone of all our physical sciences, the scientific community is obligated to test that failure, and if it holds up - the theory is on the cutting-room floor! Einstein did an amazing thing - he predicted a failure of Newton's laws at high mass or speed. The experimentalists had to play catch-up - and validated Big Al's simply gorgeous edifice of theory.
It's worth remembering that science is about Consistency, and Measurability, and Reproducibility. It is about understanding the patterns in the material world. It is not about the nature of Reality or Truth.
I have seen that you elevate science to the status of god-surrogate for atheists. I contest that. E has pointed out that atheism is not a monolith - and unlike a religion it has no scriptures. Your definition of atheism is terse and negative - it hinges on the declaration that there is no God. Instead of leaving it this simple, I have read that you then add specific stumbling blocks, like the invocation of materialism or suggesting that atheists worship science. This makes it tough. A discussion like this one lives or dies by the way we use terms. The semantics overlaying our premises are Important.
I submit that the question of God or spirit is currently out of reach of science - and it may always be so. (Unless or until we can model a complete human mind in a non-living substrate. The self-aware machine becomes a favorite of sci-fi writers - because it draws the question of the nature of spirit into sharp relief.) Thus I will plainly and categorically posit that we can talk about Spirit, and we can talk about Science - but we cannot use one to support or examine the other. They grow out of different premises.
There are two areas of conflict or collision. The first is when scripture provides arguably measurable facts which become amenable to scientific inquiry. The book of Genesis, if taken literally, is a favorite target. On the one hand you have atheists or science-worshippers using this as a lever to disqualify scripture as worth anything. On the other hand you have the folks who start with their pet eisegesis of scripture as a premise - and who then try to shoehorn their sensory observations into that mold. The contortion called "creation science" is the result. I believe both are blind paths - and they rob attention toward the interesting stuff.
So - what am I? Atheist, or Believer? "Both, and neither". Naturally, my answer requires some semantic calibration. I'd like to do this in a future post. |
