This is a beautiful essay and it says that I have been thinking, only it articulates it much better than I could have done.
My only quibble is that where the essay says Christian, it would have been preferable to say Judeo-Christian since the referenced concepts were first in the Hebrew Bible.
A valiant effort at defending the view that science and religion are compatible, though I confess to not agreeing with any of it (no problem, a diversity of opinion is good!).
Just for starters, I've never understood the claim that science cannot deal with "why?" questions. Why did the elephant head towards the water hole? Because it was thirsty. I don't see anything unscientific or non-scientific about that.
And just for seconds, on the five axioms that "can't be proved" but have to "be assumed" and "taken on faith": Things like: "entire physical universe obeys certain laws and these laws do not change with time."
But the extent to which the universe show regularities and "obeys laws", and whether they change with time, these are all observables. Indeed, that's how we arrive at "laws", by observing the universe and seeing how it behaves. If something seems (as far as we can tell) to hold in all times and places then we call it a "law". Further, we can test these ideas by using them to (for example) predict solar eclipses and see if the predictions come true.
None of this is just assumed and taken on faith, it's based on observations and regularly tested. It's a product of science, not an untestable assumption. Science can test any and all of its component ideas simply by asking "so how would things be if that wasn't true?" and then seeing which fits the observations better.
And, thirdly, yes, there is a reason to suppose that our thoughts about the world have some resemblance to the "truth", and that is that we need only suppose that, in evolving our brains, natural selection will have tended to favour true ideas over untrue ones. Which is indeed true.
The entire article supposes a "foundational" view of science, that it must rest on un-questionnable assumptions. This is a faulty view, the truer picture being the "Neurath's raft" or "Quinean web" view, where science is continually testing all parts of its world view.
I enjoyed this beautiful essay, although I admit to disagreeing or not understanding the latter half that began with the five axioms.
I will comment on the title, "The heavens declare the glory of God" - from Psalm 19:1.
Russel W. Porter, the designer of the Palomar 5-m telescope, also was involved in the Springfield Telescope Makers, which have a club house on a hill in Vermont where an annual gathering occurs of amateur astronomers.
The club house is inscribed with "The heavens declare the glory of God" - you can find plenty of photographs of it on the internet.
The (former and late) Director of McDonald Observatory, Harlin Smith, had a calligraphy version of it on his bulletin board at UT Austin - many slips of paper with that on them exist in his lab notebooks stored in his collection at the library there.
The NASA administrator used the same quote in his short speech minutes after the successful launch of the James Webb Space Telescope on Christmas day, 2021.
It is a shame that this article is Biased and the goal of this essay seems to be to enforce dogmas instead of opening dialogue, since I am intrigued by this duality between faith and science.
In my thinking, and maybe the article is also leaning this way, science and religion are 2 seperate things with different purposes.
1) Science is the logical discovery of the natural world around us. A method to breakdown reality in how it works, without the distortion of emotions, meaning and purpose. It is what it is.
I think it can answer most why questions, but it will not apply a human kind of meaning to it.
2) Religion is their to bring purpose and meaning. Or better, to show us an ideal to strive toward, how to act between each other, and what to run away from. It is and has been very useful to us. Guiding us. I think every human civilization has come to a form of religion, and that in itself is a sign of the usefulness of religion.
Even if God does not exist, we as humans seem to need religion/ we are religious. (Eg. Even a music festival is a religious manifestation)
For me, raised and baptized as a Christian, there does not yet seem to be a solution to bridge this gap in a harmonious way. A gap between a new powerful tool and the experience of meaning in life.
This essay, however, talks about Christianity instead of religion. Why compare a whole system to 1 specific variant of the other system. In a reversed essay it would be like comparing religion as a system only to the theory of general relativity instead. This is a bias and shows the purpose of enforcing the christian dogma.
It is a shame, since bridging the gap between these 2 systems (or finding out how to make religion relevant again for our need for meaning, in this new world shaped by recent scientific discoveries) is very much needed and essential to every human.
Especially as Christians you should strive to open dialogue. Discuss this on a higher aggregate level, and first make the case of religion besides science. Then you might be able to discuss this with scientific minded people, atheists and other religious people on order to find a good solution.
A fellow human.
Post script
I am inspired by the lectures and the person of Jordan Peterson. In my view he has made a great effort to respect religion, the argument that religions has been everywhere for a long time and therefore not stupid is his, and he tries to psychological understand it's role.
Although I appreciate the essay, I don’t agree with most of it. I don’t deny the truths that are embedded in religion, you know the biggest problem of it is dogma and superstition. However bad the education system might be there are people that rise above and create their own path but it’s not possible for the masses. Their failure is the failure of the system itself. In the same way superstition and dogma cannot be viewed to be a personal problem on its own. There are faults in the system itself that push people towards such things. Science here helps to find the reason why many things are the way they are or happen the way they happen. The progress we have made today for even you and me sitting in different corners of the world and being able to communicate is a scientific miracle, a miracle which was brought about by humans without the help of any gods. Also even if a god exists, god of which religion in particular? Science has its problem and religion has its own problems. None is better than the other but both are not compatible in any way. Science is humble, open for discussion but religion already has all the answers. It really begs the question that if religion has all the answers why are people still so miserable? When we can reach god through the medium of religion, when we know about concepts of hell and heaven and everything and we’ve still failed to find permanent cures to the most basic of diseases? Also the god you refer to, is he interventionist or not? That is the most important point you missed. If he is interventionist then well what’s the basis for god helping someone and not others? If he exists but is non-interventionist then why should we even care about him? Did he create us only so we worship him? Isn’t that narcissistic much? Anyways rather than labelling myself as an atheist or theist, I’d say I’m a seeker. I sway between both the concepts as and when I get introduced to more knowledge. The essay was well written and would like to read more such stuff.
This is a beautiful essay and it says that I have been thinking, only it articulates it much better than I could have done.
My only quibble is that where the essay says Christian, it would have been preferable to say Judeo-Christian since the referenced concepts were first in the Hebrew Bible.
A valiant effort at defending the view that science and religion are compatible, though I confess to not agreeing with any of it (no problem, a diversity of opinion is good!).
Just for starters, I've never understood the claim that science cannot deal with "why?" questions. Why did the elephant head towards the water hole? Because it was thirsty. I don't see anything unscientific or non-scientific about that.
And just for seconds, on the five axioms that "can't be proved" but have to "be assumed" and "taken on faith": Things like: "entire physical universe obeys certain laws and these laws do not change with time."
But the extent to which the universe show regularities and "obeys laws", and whether they change with time, these are all observables. Indeed, that's how we arrive at "laws", by observing the universe and seeing how it behaves. If something seems (as far as we can tell) to hold in all times and places then we call it a "law". Further, we can test these ideas by using them to (for example) predict solar eclipses and see if the predictions come true.
None of this is just assumed and taken on faith, it's based on observations and regularly tested. It's a product of science, not an untestable assumption. Science can test any and all of its component ideas simply by asking "so how would things be if that wasn't true?" and then seeing which fits the observations better.
And, thirdly, yes, there is a reason to suppose that our thoughts about the world have some resemblance to the "truth", and that is that we need only suppose that, in evolving our brains, natural selection will have tended to favour true ideas over untrue ones. Which is indeed true.
The entire article supposes a "foundational" view of science, that it must rest on un-questionnable assumptions. This is a faulty view, the truer picture being the "Neurath's raft" or "Quinean web" view, where science is continually testing all parts of its world view.
I enjoyed this beautiful essay, although I admit to disagreeing or not understanding the latter half that began with the five axioms.
I will comment on the title, "The heavens declare the glory of God" - from Psalm 19:1.
Russel W. Porter, the designer of the Palomar 5-m telescope, also was involved in the Springfield Telescope Makers, which have a club house on a hill in Vermont where an annual gathering occurs of amateur astronomers.
https://stellafane.org/history/early/brief-history.html
The club house is inscribed with "The heavens declare the glory of God" - you can find plenty of photographs of it on the internet.
The (former and late) Director of McDonald Observatory, Harlin Smith, had a calligraphy version of it on his bulletin board at UT Austin - many slips of paper with that on them exist in his lab notebooks stored in his collection at the library there.
The NASA administrator used the same quote in his short speech minutes after the successful launch of the James Webb Space Telescope on Christmas day, 2021.
That simple list of assumptions on faith that a scientist must have is wonderfully concise and clear. Brilliant read.
It is a shame that this article is Biased and the goal of this essay seems to be to enforce dogmas instead of opening dialogue, since I am intrigued by this duality between faith and science.
In my thinking, and maybe the article is also leaning this way, science and religion are 2 seperate things with different purposes.
1) Science is the logical discovery of the natural world around us. A method to breakdown reality in how it works, without the distortion of emotions, meaning and purpose. It is what it is.
I think it can answer most why questions, but it will not apply a human kind of meaning to it.
2) Religion is their to bring purpose and meaning. Or better, to show us an ideal to strive toward, how to act between each other, and what to run away from. It is and has been very useful to us. Guiding us. I think every human civilization has come to a form of religion, and that in itself is a sign of the usefulness of religion.
Even if God does not exist, we as humans seem to need religion/ we are religious. (Eg. Even a music festival is a religious manifestation)
For me, raised and baptized as a Christian, there does not yet seem to be a solution to bridge this gap in a harmonious way. A gap between a new powerful tool and the experience of meaning in life.
This essay, however, talks about Christianity instead of religion. Why compare a whole system to 1 specific variant of the other system. In a reversed essay it would be like comparing religion as a system only to the theory of general relativity instead. This is a bias and shows the purpose of enforcing the christian dogma.
It is a shame, since bridging the gap between these 2 systems (or finding out how to make religion relevant again for our need for meaning, in this new world shaped by recent scientific discoveries) is very much needed and essential to every human.
Especially as Christians you should strive to open dialogue. Discuss this on a higher aggregate level, and first make the case of religion besides science. Then you might be able to discuss this with scientific minded people, atheists and other religious people on order to find a good solution.
A fellow human.
Post script
I am inspired by the lectures and the person of Jordan Peterson. In my view he has made a great effort to respect religion, the argument that religions has been everywhere for a long time and therefore not stupid is his, and he tries to psychological understand it's role.
Although I appreciate the essay, I don’t agree with most of it. I don’t deny the truths that are embedded in religion, you know the biggest problem of it is dogma and superstition. However bad the education system might be there are people that rise above and create their own path but it’s not possible for the masses. Their failure is the failure of the system itself. In the same way superstition and dogma cannot be viewed to be a personal problem on its own. There are faults in the system itself that push people towards such things. Science here helps to find the reason why many things are the way they are or happen the way they happen. The progress we have made today for even you and me sitting in different corners of the world and being able to communicate is a scientific miracle, a miracle which was brought about by humans without the help of any gods. Also even if a god exists, god of which religion in particular? Science has its problem and religion has its own problems. None is better than the other but both are not compatible in any way. Science is humble, open for discussion but religion already has all the answers. It really begs the question that if religion has all the answers why are people still so miserable? When we can reach god through the medium of religion, when we know about concepts of hell and heaven and everything and we’ve still failed to find permanent cures to the most basic of diseases? Also the god you refer to, is he interventionist or not? That is the most important point you missed. If he is interventionist then well what’s the basis for god helping someone and not others? If he exists but is non-interventionist then why should we even care about him? Did he create us only so we worship him? Isn’t that narcissistic much? Anyways rather than labelling myself as an atheist or theist, I’d say I’m a seeker. I sway between both the concepts as and when I get introduced to more knowledge. The essay was well written and would like to read more such stuff.
Excellent essay!
Good!