I’m a physics researcher at the University of XX and have been following the science religion discussion for fifteen years. So great thanks to John for his work on the subject!
Your site also seems armed with quite a good understanding the Q&A section covers a lot in a concise and thoughtful manner.
I have a question that has been on the back of my mind for some time now: Can we really claim that there are religious explanations to things that are not attainable to science? I mean, science in itself basically tries to explain everything. I have read several works on the subject, but have not found any reasons why science in principle could not touch on meaning and purpose etc.
As science is not too well defined (what is science and what is not, problem of demarcation) and religion as well is not too well defined either, its hard to see any principled reasons as to why they could not overlap, even completely.
So, at some point, if and when science will try to touch on something Christianity also clearly explains (like meaning, purpose and morals), I think we should not surrender that area to science but in fact claim that we have a better explanation than the scientific one.
To put it more clearly, at which point do we make a stand against attempted materialist explanations as they will try to progress and cover all of life and experience? If we make a stand, and because current science accepts only materialist explanations, should we change science to accept non-materialist explanations, or should we claim that this, admittedly religious explanation, is a better explanation than the scientific one, and the scientific explanation should be abandoned?
Science doesn’t try to explain everything. It focuses on questions that are tractable using the scientific method, with experiment and mathematical formulation.
Of course Science can “touch on” almost everything because almost any question of interest has some adjacent questions which could legitimately be considered scientific. So you could do a scientific study of the prevalence and diffusion of beliefs about values (say) or about genetic or neurological factors that were associated with such beliefs, or the mechanisms by which such beliefs were held. But these could not tell you whether the beliefs were morally or philosophically valid unless you had some additional premises which were by definition extra-scientific.
In particular science by definition cannot explain why the scientific method should work so well in our universe. Almost everyone agrees that the (region of the) universe in which we live is exquisitely fine-tuned for life. This leads to fascinating scientific questions (such as my MaxHELP hypothesis) but whether this is God’s creation or some cosmic fluke is not a scientific question.
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Sunday, 10 August 2014
Sunday, 11 November 2012
Limits to the human brain, and how much science has been discovered?
Firstly, what is the confinements of the human brain, imagination. ie: is it possible to think of something that does not exist or is not related to something that exists? ie: if man creates something there are limitation to the creation.
If there are limitations to our imagination and we cannot think of something that does not “exist”, then the formulation of anything we imagine has to have a bases of existence and of realism.
Secondly, what percentage of “science” has man discovered, and how much is there still to be discovered? 5%, 10% of the whole understanding of science?
Response: Human brains are finite so there are clear limits to our thought. But we can certainly think of things that do not exist – and indeed could not exist.
I don’t think we can say what percentage of science is to be discovered: the more we know the more questions we can ask and, as we wrote in Questions of Truth science has a fractal character. What we have discovered is finite and what remains to be discovered is infinite so strictly speaking 0% of science has been discovered so far. But that’s not really very meaningful, and clearly some the things that remain to be discovered are less important than others. So to give a rough picture we might say something like “about 4.64% of science has been discovered” and hope people would get the mathematical joke about the cube root of 100.
If there are limitations to our imagination and we cannot think of something that does not “exist”, then the formulation of anything we imagine has to have a bases of existence and of realism.
Secondly, what percentage of “science” has man discovered, and how much is there still to be discovered? 5%, 10% of the whole understanding of science?
Response: Human brains are finite so there are clear limits to our thought. But we can certainly think of things that do not exist – and indeed could not exist.
I don’t think we can say what percentage of science is to be discovered: the more we know the more questions we can ask and, as we wrote in Questions of Truth science has a fractal character. What we have discovered is finite and what remains to be discovered is infinite so strictly speaking 0% of science has been discovered so far. But that’s not really very meaningful, and clearly some the things that remain to be discovered are less important than others. So to give a rough picture we might say something like “about 4.64% of science has been discovered” and hope people would get the mathematical joke about the cube root of 100.
Sunday, 17 April 2011
Why is information from the Bible not used for science?
I am quite newly Christian. I've just read the article about you and the Divine Action Program in "Physics of the Divine" by Zeeya Merali in the March 2011 Issue of Discover Magazine. I am a layperson. And while I have postsecondary education and have read some books on quantum physics, the detailed science often moves across my brain like the Saskatchewan wind blows over skiffs of prairie snow: it's briefly there, and then.... it's moved on!
That said... I am inspired by how you are building connections between science and God, and grateful for the work you do. My question is maybe too simple, but I really need to ask it after reading this Discover article and thought you'd be the perfect person to ask (how great you have this website):
Q: As regards some of these unexplained mysteries at the quantum level in the physical world, why is information from the bible not considered as a possible source of insight or knowledge in these matters, in the scientific dialogue? Or maybe it is, and the article just does not have that focus?
God communicates with us in the Bible in many ways, and certainly the conviction that a loving ultimate creator God was behind the universe was a major inspiration for the great Christians from Newton to Maxwell and beyond who discovered much of science. The Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge still has inscribed the words of Psalm 111: 'Magna opera Domini exquisita in omnes voluntates ejus', meaning 'The works of the Lord are great, sought out of all them that have pleasure therein'.
However it is clear from reading the Bible that God is concerned there to communicate the fundamental relationships between God and His creation including esp. humanity, not to communicate scientific details. So whereas the Bible can and does inspire scientists to deep insights, any insights however motivated then have to be subject to scientific scrutiny in the usual ways.
That said... I am inspired by how you are building connections between science and God, and grateful for the work you do. My question is maybe too simple, but I really need to ask it after reading this Discover article and thought you'd be the perfect person to ask (how great you have this website):
Q: As regards some of these unexplained mysteries at the quantum level in the physical world, why is information from the bible not considered as a possible source of insight or knowledge in these matters, in the scientific dialogue? Or maybe it is, and the article just does not have that focus?
God communicates with us in the Bible in many ways, and certainly the conviction that a loving ultimate creator God was behind the universe was a major inspiration for the great Christians from Newton to Maxwell and beyond who discovered much of science. The Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge still has inscribed the words of Psalm 111: 'Magna opera Domini exquisita in omnes voluntates ejus', meaning 'The works of the Lord are great, sought out of all them that have pleasure therein'.
However it is clear from reading the Bible that God is concerned there to communicate the fundamental relationships between God and His creation including esp. humanity, not to communicate scientific details. So whereas the Bible can and does inspire scientists to deep insights, any insights however motivated then have to be subject to scientific scrutiny in the usual ways.
Sunday, 27 February 2011
Mind existing outside the world of time, space and matter
Does present day science see mind or causation as existing outside of the world of time, space and matter? I am a student of A Course In Miracles which, as I understand it, does see it that way. It sees Spirit as Reality and mind as the creative aspect of Spirit. Mind is then free to create by extending itself as Spirit but is also free to explore other possibilities by making up, for example, our perceived world of time, space and matter.
All of this works for me. I have no problem, for example, imagining a material world emerging from non-material thought or mind. The brain then becomes, in this way of thinking, an effect of a made-up world rather than a cause or the potential explaner of everything. Again, this "metaphysics", as I understand it, works for me but how do you see it?
We can't say that "science sees it" in this way. Certainly in practice fundamental theoretical physics pre-supposes deep mathematical structures which are in a sense antecedent to matter, and most theists will see these as in some sense emanating from the mind of God. However most working scientists would probably say that these arise in some way from a non-mental reality, although there are certainly problems with that view (some discussed on www.questionsoftruth.org)
These are indeed metaphysical questions which are "beyond physics." Fundamentally, you have to choose whether you think matter/energy, mind or love is the most basic principle of the universe. If there is a Loving Ultimate Creator then matter/energy is a creation from His loving mind.
All of this works for me. I have no problem, for example, imagining a material world emerging from non-material thought or mind. The brain then becomes, in this way of thinking, an effect of a made-up world rather than a cause or the potential explaner of everything. Again, this "metaphysics", as I understand it, works for me but how do you see it?
We can't say that "science sees it" in this way. Certainly in practice fundamental theoretical physics pre-supposes deep mathematical structures which are in a sense antecedent to matter, and most theists will see these as in some sense emanating from the mind of God. However most working scientists would probably say that these arise in some way from a non-mental reality, although there are certainly problems with that view (some discussed on www.questionsoftruth.org)
These are indeed metaphysical questions which are "beyond physics." Fundamentally, you have to choose whether you think matter/energy, mind or love is the most basic principle of the universe. If there is a Loving Ultimate Creator then matter/energy is a creation from His loving mind.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)