Thinking About: Science
I have been fascinated with Science and Technology since at least my early teens. Despite this I am not a Scientist. Most of my formal, as well as my informal, education since age 18 has been in the Humanities.
I think this is for several reasons. In my late teens I kind of hit a brick wall with Mathematics. I just sort of turned-off or even tuned-out. Funnily in my early teens I loved (and I’m not exaggerating here) Quadratic Equations and could do a lot of them in my head which exasperated my Maths teachers who had to constantly remind me to show my working out. Stupidly, looking back on it, I followed the equations into 6th Form and was surprised to find that I just didn’t ‘get it’ any more. About 6 months in I literally gave up on Maths and these days, whenever I see a page of equations, my mind just freezes. Needless to say pursuing almost any science subject at University at that point became pretty moot. Luckily I had found another passion – History. I became interested in people and why they do what they do and how all of that produced the world we live in. Unfortunately my academic future in History didn’t quite work out either so I ended up studying Social Ethics.
I never did lose my interest in science of course. The fires were probably regularly fanned by all the SF I was reading (as they still are) as well as the occasional popular science book I managed to fit in between the aliens and the starships. Probably by my early 20’s I figured that I knew enough of the basics not to feel the need to investigate much further. I did read a few books by Dawkins which fired my scientific imagination to new heights but any other delving into the scientific world have been both fairly random and rather shallow.
I do, however, feel at least a basic understanding and appreciation of science is important (actually vital) to an understanding of the world around us and the universe beyond that. Scientific investigation is by far the best way to discover much of what we need to know to survive and prosper in the coming centuries. Without it we are lost in a chaotic world were seemingly unpredictable - or even actively capricious - elements can do us harm. Of course science is not the only form of knowledge worthy of its name and not everything responds to scientific enquiry. Outside of science we have art, music and literature. We also have history and philosophy to help us understand who we are and were we came from. But not all forms of enquiry are equally valid. If science tells us that the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old (for example) and other, more traditional, sources tell us that it is considerably less then it is towards science that I look to give the definitive answer. Science can explain things and predict new occurrences because it understands the fundamentals of things. Religion often tells a good tale but cannot tell us much about the world in which we live. Before the advent of science whatever progress society was capable of was glacial. Whilst today such advances in our knowledge exceed the capacity of many to comprehend and show little sign of slowing. Such advances would be impossible without scientific understanding. Science made the world it is today and will mould the future in ways we have yet to envisage (unless you read lots of SF). To understand things you really need science. QED.
13 comments:
" ... I do, however, feel at least a basic understanding and appreciation of science is important (actually vital) to an understanding of the world around us and the universe beyond that." - It's sad that this sentence even needs to be said. An "appreciation" of science, at its most basic level, means that one is curious about the world around them. Surely, everyone wonders why it rains, why we can walk and talk, why the sun rises, etc., etc. But, alas, no. Not everyone cares why. They either do not think about it at all or throw out the blanket statement, "because God made it so". Unfortunately, most of these people live in my neighborhood. :-)
Sounds quite a lot like my own story...
Hail.
A man after my own heart.
*raises goblet and toasts to you*
dbackdad said: Surely, everyone wonders why it rains, why we can walk and talk, why the sun rises, etc., etc. But, alas, no. Not everyone cares why. They either do not think about it at all or throw out the blanket statement, "because God made it so". Unfortunately, most of these people live in my neighborhood. :-)
There's nothing worse than wilful ignorance in my mind. I don't have a problem with people not knowing stuff... I mean there's lots of things I know nothing about.... but actively turning your back on knowledge I find deeply frustrating...
mike A said: Sounds quite a lot like my own story...
Good to know I'm in very good company [grin]. Hope all is well with you & your family.
TF said: *raises goblet and toasts to you*
Thank you kindly - takes sip...
How's the University visiting going? Have you been to UEA yet?
unfortunately we don't have time to visit UEA but we'll be visiting Southampton tomorrow. I'm actually quite nervous...
Are you being interviewed or is it just an introduction?
Shame about UEA. I really liked the look of it - though it might have changed a bit since 1982/83 [laughs]
Science can tell us a lot about how things work, but it doesn't tell us why they should work that way, nor does it give us the meaning of life, or the reason for life, or the purpose of life. That doesn't mean it fails, because it succeeds in what it is designed to do, tell us how things work and increase our ability to understand the the natural world. This is a good thing.
But can these facts about the world around us satisfy the desires of our heart? Do they give meaning to our lives? Do they satisfy our being? If we could know all science can teach us would that satisfy all desires we have about life? Or is there something more we are after?
karla said: Science can tell us a lot about how things work, but it doesn't tell us why they should work that way, nor does it give us the meaning of life, or the reason for life, or the purpose of life.
As I said in my post: Of course science is not the only form of knowledge worthy of its name and *not everything responds to scientific enquiry*. Outside of science we have art, music and literature. We also have history and philosophy to help us understand who we are and were we came from.
karla said: it succeeds in what it is designed to do, tell us how things work and increase our ability to understand the the natural world. This is a good thing.
Indeed it does - and when it steps outside of its realm it copes baddly with what is asked of it. I keep saying that the choice is *not* between science & religion to explain everything. Science *cannot* explain meaningly *everything*. However, I do not believe that religion can explain *anything*.
karla said: But can these facts about the world around us satisfy the desires of our heart? Do they give meaning to our lives? Do they satisfy our being?
No. No & No. Nor would I expect them to. Science can give me a sense of wonder but it does not give 'meaning' to my life. But then again you're aware that I do not consider that there *is* any meaning to life.... [grin]
karla said: If we could know all science can teach us would that satisfy all desires we have about life?
I doubt it. People are often chocked full of desires. I really don't think all of them can be satisfied through the application of science. Probably quite a few though....
karla said: Or is there something more we are after?
People are 'after' many things in their lives. Some are rational. Some are not. Science can satisfy some of these. But science is *not* the only player, just a very important one. Without it we are truely lost. With it we can at least hope to find our way.
This is an excerpt from an article by J.M. Njoroge I thought fitting to this discussion.
“So pervasive is this drive for knowledge that it can become an end in itself, thus opening up a rudderless detour along our journey to God. . . Similarly, scientific naturalism stakes its fortunes on the bare, cold facts of particles and quarks; to know them is to know ultimate reality--never mind the minor detail that, logically, there is a gaping missing link between knowing how something works and the conclusion that it was not made. But according to the Bible, at the end of our incessant pursuit of knowledge lies a Person, not an ideology or impersonal reality. God is not only the beginner of all that is; He has also revealed Himself in the earthliest of terms. Jesus was born in circumstances accessible to the lowliest of the shepherds as well as to the most majestic of kings. He spoke to large crowds in public places and was crucified outside the city walls, thereby silencing forever the voices of self-appointed guardians of alleged esoteric knowledge. In biblical terms, no pursuit of knowledge is ever complete without the discovery of Him who is the Truth; to know Him is to know not only ultimate reality but also ourselves.”
karla quoted: So pervasive is this drive for knowledge that it can become an end in itself, thus opening up a rudderless detour along our journey to God.
The pursuit of knowledge as an end in itself is definitely not a bad thing.
Such a pursuit is certainly not rudderless.
We are not all on a journey to God.
karla quoted: Similarly, scientific naturalism stakes its fortunes on the bare, cold facts of particles and quarks; to know them is to know ultimate reality--never mind the minor detail that, logically, there is a gaping missing link between knowing how something works and the conclusion that it was not made.
There is no *evidence* that it was made. Knowing how something works is a *big* step towards understanding something. Believing something is 'made by God' helps our understanding how exactly?
karla quoted: But according to the Bible, at the end of our incessant pursuit of knowledge lies a Person, not an ideology or impersonal reality.
Yes... according to one particular religious ideology.... Colour me not impressed.....
karla quoted: He spoke to large crowds in public places and was crucified outside the city walls, thereby silencing forever the voices of self-appointed guardians of alleged esoteric knowledge.
If you go into your local bookstore & look for the section often called Mind/Body/Spirit you'll see quite a lot of books by 'self-appointed guardians of alleged esoteric knowledge', so I wouldn't say that voices have been silenced....
karla quoted: In biblical terms, no pursuit of knowledge is ever complete without the discovery of Him who is the Truth; to know Him is to know not only ultimate reality but also ourselves.
...and I repeat: Yes... according to one particular religious ideology.... Colour me not impressed.....
You have said yourself above that a person will not find fulfillment if they attain fully scientific knowledge. So knowledge as an end in itself does not satisfy.
I know you take the option that there is no meaning to our desires. Therefore there would be no reason to expect satisfaction of them.
However, I don't see any reason for them to exist without the satisfaction also existing. For instance, if we are hungry we can eat, if we are thirsty we can drink, if we desire knowledge we can learn, if we desire companionship we can have a friend. Children growing up in a single parent home desire to have the absent parent in their life or a very good substitute of one. That is because we were designed to have a mother and a father.
All of these desires have a fulfillment, and yet even in having all the natural world has to offer people still have a desire for something greater, for purpose, meaning, destiny, God. Why? Unless it were possible to have those desires satisfied.
karla said: You have said yourself above that a person will not find fulfillment if they attain fully scientific knowledge.
Actually its impossible for any individual to obtain 'full scientific knowledge' except of a very small field indeed - and would still need to expend some effort in keeping up to date even in that.
karla said: So knowledge as an end in itself does not satisfy.
The *quest* for knowledge is a satisfaction in itself. It is the journey, not the destination, that matters.
karla said: I know you take the option that there is no meaning to our desires.
I do not believe that there is an intrinsic meaning to life over and above what we give it, no. Our desires, however, have many meanings I would imagine.
karla said: Therefore there would be no reason to expect satisfaction of them.
Actually many desires *can* be satisfied.
karla said: However, I don't see any reason for them to exist without the satisfaction also existing.
Desires can obviously exist without the satisfaction also existing. I might desire to be of the opposite gender to see what its like for 6 months and then change back again. I can't. I might desire to be able to fly like a bird and to wander the globe free and under the power of my own wings. I can't. Human's are not exactly strangers to having impossible desires - its why many people are basically unsatisfied with things.
karla said: even in having all the natural world has to offer people still have a desire for something greater, for purpose, meaning, destiny, God. Why?
Not everyone has the desire for 'something greater' - whatever that means. A desire for 'meaning' may indeed be common but such a thing does not imply that meaning - again whatever you mean by that - actually exists. Also what constitutes meaning to one person will be meaningless to another.
We humans are strange creatures. Because we are self-conscious and aware of our own mortality we sometimes look to the universe (or God if you want to label it as such) to give our lives purpose and meaning - because the idea of a meaningless universe (especially with a 'significant creature' such as ourselves in it) is difficult to take. To appreciate that the universe is uncaring - because it is *incapable* of caring - is hard on our self image. So many people think that there *must* be 'something' to make things more bearable. This feeling, however, does not make such a sentiment true - just desirable for many.
I stumbled upon this exchange and wanted to make some contribution:
CyberKitten said: The pursuit of knowledge as an end in itself is definitely not a bad thing. Such a pursuit is certainly not rudderless. We are not all on a journey to God.
If you read the article in context, you will see that the author explicitly extols the pursuit of knowledge; to despise the pursuit of knowledge as a Christian is actually to go against biblical teaching, for the Bible says people perish due to lack of knowledge. But I wonder who really stifles knowledge – the person who wants to know “why” things are as they are or the person who is content just to answer the “how” question? The routine answer given by atheists and agnostics these days is that appealing to God stifles knowledge, but that is emphatically not true. Many of the greatest scientists of the past were committed believers. Many of those who inaugurated modern science and technology were believers in God who strongly believed they could think God’s thoughts after Him, as Kepler put it. Even today, there are many scientists who believe in God. Not caring about the question of the purpose or meaning of what we do sets us on a rudderless course, for then it does not matter one whit what we do. You may be a nice person who will do the “right thing” even without believing in God, but, leave aside the fact that you must assume that there are in fact, “right” things, how do you address the person who chooses to do the opposite? If God exists, and if He is Who the Bible says He is, then we are all either on a journey to Him or away from Him.
CyberKitten said: There is no *evidence* that it was made. Knowing how something works is a *big* step towards understanding something. Believing something is 'made by God' helps our understanding how exactly?
You would still need to respond to the logical fallacy identified by the author: showing how something works is not the same thing as showing that it was not made. You may not need to believe in God to determine how something works, but determining how it works is not the same as showing that it was not made. One can reverse-engineer a radio to determine how it works, but that would not be the same as showing that it wasn’t made. To say that science has proven that God is unnecessary is to confuse mechanism with agency; science has done no such thing. In fact, it has strengthened the evidence for God, in spite of your claim that there is no evidence for a Creator.
CyberKitten said: If you go into your local bookstore & look for the section often called Mind/Body/Spirit you'll see quite a lot of books by 'self-appointed guardians of alleged esoteric knowledge', so I wouldn't say that voices have been silenced....
By the voices being silenced, the author clearly means that what Jesus did was not and is not hidden to any honest enquirer – the evidence is there to be checked by anyone. He does not mean that people cannot say or write whatever they want to say or write.
CyberKitten said: ...and I repeat: Yes... according to one particular religious ideology.... Colour me not impressed.....
Of course you are free to reject the argument, but you can’t do so by simply dismissing the position in this manner. To say that Christianity is “one particular religious ideology” is not to show that it is wrong. Similarly, just because it does not impress you it doesn’t follow that it is wrong.
Post a Comment