Cody Willhite, a good friend of both me and my wife, asked me to facilitate discussions for the SCMA at LSU (A pre-medical students' Christian organization). The topic was Medical Ethics ( a nice and narrow subject matter, of which I am the most knowledgeable person in Baton Rouge ;-) ). I've had a wonderful time interacting with brilliant college students on some heavy issues. In our first couple of meetings, we discussed the ability of the scientific method to arrive at any truth, much less metaphysical or moral truth.
Today, Albert Mohler posted some commentary on a New York Times article (reader comments to article) he read that covered a recent conference at a California University known as, "Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival." These rabid scientists have more than a little hostility toward us minions that have faith--which of course is something they apparently do not have. Below are some of the brilliant moments of this intellectual feast:
"The world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief." [Steven Weinberg, Nobel laureate in physics]
I'd like to know how Weinberg can call religious belief a nightmare. That term is a pejorative, a term intended to belittle his opponent and it's hardly scientific in its usage. It's also loaded with moral value, for nightmares are bad things that scare us--and they aren't real. I'd like to know what empirical evidence Weinberg has that justifies using nightmare as a metaphor.
"Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization." [Weinberg]
Anything? This isn't science--it's ethics. In fact, it is a utilitarian ethic (the ends justify the means, provided that it is for the greater good). The problem is: what is good? Does science have the means to determine the moral or ethical value or worth of any claim or assertion? What is assumed here is that religion is bad and science is good--but the scientific method cannot test this assumption, so it's something Weinberg accepts without "reason" to accept--he "believes" this, but he cannot "know" this by means of the scientific method.
"We should let the success of the religious formula guide us. Let's teach our children from a very young age about the story of the universe and its incredible richness and beauty. It is already so much more glorious and awesome -- and even comforting -- than anything offered by any scripture or God concept I know." [Carolyn Porco, Space Science Institute, Boulder, CO]
How can Porco know that the universe is "rich" or "beautiful" or that the story of the universe is "glorious" or "awesome"? These are subjective, aesthetic claims, not "objective", scientific ones. The terms rich, beautiful, glorious, and awesome are placing value and worth on the universe, but she has no means of deriving this value other than her subjective feelings. How does one scientifically determine that the universe is beautiful? One ought to be able to do this in order to mandate telling our children of her beauty in a secular worldview.
"I am utterly fed up with the respect that we -- all of us, including the secular among us -- are brainwashed into bestowing on religion . . . . Children are systematically taught that there is a higher kind of knowledge which comes from faith, which comes from revelation, which comes from scripture, which comes from tradition, and that it is the equal if not the superior of knowledge that comes from real evidence." [Richard Dawkins, Oxford University]
Question, Dr. Dawkins. What knowledge, other than her methods, has science actually brought us? Each and every conclusion about any scientific subject is tentative at best--likely to be replaced within a few years with better explanation that fits the later evidence we may obtain. Science claims to be on a quest for truth, but what truths have science brought us? What we know now by means of the scientific method is an estimate at best, and when this current "knowledge" is replaced by a better one, is it still truth or knowledge? Knowledge by means of "real evidence" will change when the evidence becomes better. I offer that that the conclusions of science are not a knowledge of truth.
4 comments:
Excellent take on the whole subject matter. Your critical review on the quotes by all those people is, very objective and exceptional at the same time. Couldn't disagree with any thing. A lot of thought has been put into this
It's always funny to hear scientists rail against religion as if their practices were any less based on faith than ours. By their own marriage to reductionism, they must admit that at least some of their "truth" is supported solely by a framework of faithful presuppositions. At the very least, they must have faith in reductionism’s ability to communicate truth, just as we attribute the same to God and the Scriptures. Once a scientist has galvanized himself to a particular position (as is the case with global warming and anti-nuclear nuts), he is every bit as much a closed-minded crusader as the Templars were. Excellent article Brent.
Thanks to both of you for the kind words. Much appreciated.
One thing I wanted to mention about "scientific knowledge" is that it takes faith to call the conclusions of science "true"--knowing that these conclusions will become obsolete at some point in the future.
Could you imagine a system of ethics in which the conclusions become outdated? "Murder is wrong--for now. In the future, we might empirically demonstrate justifiable reasons for it."
That moral system sounds a lot like the rampant relativism we have today.
You are right about scientific truth though. There are plenty of laws which are always true, that is, until someone measures and verifies a case where it is not true. What does that say about all of the other presuppositions that you have stacked upon the original "truth". They are houses built on sand. Our understanding of science will always evolve and pass away, but the Word will endure forever.
Post a Comment