I plan to repost certain key articles as some of my main work is buried beneath a pile of aphorisms....
The Fallacy of the Opposition and the Credo of the Scientist
One can no more argue that science has disproved the existence of God any more than one can claim that the conjugation of the French verb pouvoir destroys the theory of evolution.
It could be claimed that the great fallacy of our times is that of the opposition between the natural sciences and that of the existence of God. As I have written on this blog recently, one must follow the discipline and methods of a particular branch of knowledge faithfully to arrive at a true solution. If one strays, as often too many will do in these times, the very integrity of the science is not just brought into dispute, in fact it is annihilated.
The natural sciences can only interact with and cover what can be empirically verified, submitted to close scrutiny and repeated with due care. It deals with matter however great or small and certain forces that act upon it which can be tested. To wish to extend this method to other branches of knowledge is absurd. Dawkins and his cult may wish for this scientific approach to be extended to other areas but by doing this they destroy everything else. Not only does the existence of God cast out of the window, but out goes with it literature, poetry, architecture, beauty.....and morality. It is inconsistent with his principles and protests to claim that a particular incident in the history of the Church is evil, as he is overstepped his self-imposed boundaries.
It is by respecting the methods of natural science that advances are made. To twist them for a certain personal purpose is to ruin it's purpose and true glory.
Yet, it must be noted that the scientist must have a creed, a profound belief before he can set to work. He must believe that the phenomena that appears to surround him is in fact real, that it can be interacted with, and when it yields it's secrets, it does so consistently. He has to believe with great commitment that the results are worth having. If he believes that a particular result may fluctuate from a certain second on a Tuesday in California to something else in Toledo, he can not unearth a universal law .If he does not passionately believe in the consistence of the universe, he has no reason to commence the process. The validity of what surrounds us and the fact that it is orderly underpins all that he attempts to do. He must passionately believe this. You can not uncover this reality by working but it must proceed the work itself. The scientist must be dogmatic before he can be open-minded. It must be noted that such a belief is far more in harmony with Christianity than it is with atheism.
No, you will never find God in science. He is not there at least according to an orthodox 'description' of His being. If one uncovered God in science, it would be an idol. Many men who happen to be scientists may believe in God with the assistance of their discipline, but only by moving beyond it to consider it's true foundation.
One can no more argue that science has disproved the existence of God any more than one can claim that the conjugation of the French verb pouvoir destroys the theory of evolution.
It could be claimed that the great fallacy of our times is that of the opposition between the natural sciences and that of the existence of God. As I have written on this blog recently, one must follow the discipline and methods of a particular branch of knowledge faithfully to arrive at a true solution. If one strays, as often too many will do in these times, the very integrity of the science is not just brought into dispute, in fact it is annihilated.
The natural sciences can only interact with and cover what can be empirically verified, submitted to close scrutiny and repeated with due care. It deals with matter however great or small and certain forces that act upon it which can be tested. To wish to extend this method to other branches of knowledge is absurd. Dawkins and his cult may wish for this scientific approach to be extended to other areas but by doing this they destroy everything else. Not only does the existence of God cast out of the window, but out goes with it literature, poetry, architecture, beauty.....and morality. It is inconsistent with his principles and protests to claim that a particular incident in the history of the Church is evil, as he is overstepped his self-imposed boundaries.
It is by respecting the methods of natural science that advances are made. To twist them for a certain personal purpose is to ruin it's purpose and true glory.
Yet, it must be noted that the scientist must have a creed, a profound belief before he can set to work. He must believe that the phenomena that appears to surround him is in fact real, that it can be interacted with, and when it yields it's secrets, it does so consistently. He has to believe with great commitment that the results are worth having. If he believes that a particular result may fluctuate from a certain second on a Tuesday in California to something else in Toledo, he can not unearth a universal law .If he does not passionately believe in the consistence of the universe, he has no reason to commence the process. The validity of what surrounds us and the fact that it is orderly underpins all that he attempts to do. He must passionately believe this. You can not uncover this reality by working but it must proceed the work itself. The scientist must be dogmatic before he can be open-minded. It must be noted that such a belief is far more in harmony with Christianity than it is with atheism.
No, you will never find God in science. He is not there at least according to an orthodox 'description' of His being. If one uncovered God in science, it would be an idol. Many men who happen to be scientists may believe in God with the assistance of their discipline, but only by moving beyond it to consider it's true foundation.
No comments:
Post a Comment