Science, Philosophy, Religion and the Unity of Truth [sciencetechnology-center.blogspot.com]
Science has discovered that the universe is vastly more immense than we have ever imagined. It is now generally believed that our most advanced instruments cannot probe the ultimate depths of the cosmos. Moreover, when science examines the quantum levels of the very, very small to find the ultimate source of matter, its instruments fail again. With a straight face, scientists report back to us that matter comes into being from "nothing," and we had better get used to it.
However, to the philosopher, this idea is a self-evident fallacy. And the philosopher would argue that the domain of such speculation belongs to philosopher, not the scientist. The theologian also has a dog in this fight. To the theologian, matter comes from God, the first source and Creator of the universe.
Who are we to believe? And should there not be a unity to truth? Yes, it is the cardinal premise of this article that there is, indeed a unity to truth. What is true in science, must al so be true in religion. And, what is true in religion, cannot be at odds with what is provable to the techniques of science. It is the task of the philosopher to synthesize and unify the valid findings of science and religion toward the task of finding more and more unity of truth.
All three of these disciplines, science, philosophy, and religion lay claim to truth. In broadest terms, science is the domain of material reality, the domain of what is. Religion is the domain of values, or what ought to be. And philosophy is the domain of getting from what is to what ought to be. Long ago Aristotle divided these three disciplines into logic tight compartments. This idea worked, or seemed to work, for two thousand years. But now these logic tight compartments retard progress.
As the legendary psychologist Abraham Maslow put it, "I [have] pointed out that both orthodox science and orthodox religion have been institutionalized and frozen into a mutually excluding dichot omy. This separation into Aristotelian aand not-ahas been almost perfect... Every question, every answer, every method, every jurisdiction, every task has been assigned to either one or the other, with practically no overlaps. One consequence is that they are both pathologized, split into sickness, ripped apart into a crippled half-science and a crippled half-religion."
Am I contending, then, that our advancing civilization has developed a crippled half-science and a crippled half-religion? Yes, that is exactly what I am contending.
Science, unable to probe further into material reality, now speculates and postulates theories that are more bizarre than the religions it often contends with. For its part, evolutionary religion has often morphed pure, wholesome revelation into myriads of stultifying, man-made structures of ritual, fear and superstition.
The way out of this morass is to first realize that science and religion need each other. S econd, we must recognize that we need not be helpless victims of the opinions and assumptions of so-called experts. As laypersons, we have access, within ourselves, to a resource of uncommon sense. By wise and prudent use of this resource, we can demonstrate our own inner reality-response to what we recognize as either viable or nonsense. If we are in touch with, and trust in, the authenticity of our inner feelings, we can reasonably consider expert opinions, but not be intimidated or overwhelmed by them.
But, aren't these learned experts in science and religion smarter than us? They well may be, in a sense. But their conclusions are too often warped and hidebound to fit into the logic-tight compartments that were artificially created by Aristotle so long ago.
For example, one of the foremost thinkers of our time, Louis J. Halle, fully supported the Aristotelian precept that science must restrict itself to explain reality by using only the observ ed operations of the laws of nature. Then he goes on to say that the origin and development of life on earth is explained by science as a "haphazard collection of coincidences" that "gradually assume an ever more compelling direction." How likely is this to happen without the invisible hand of a Creator? Halle concludes it would be as if a mass of various shaped stones rolled down a mountain in a landslide and formed themselves into a duplicate of the Parthenon. But, he admonishes us that science must attempt to explain this "by the operation of natural laws alone." Halle never really tells us why science must be so restricted. Is it simply because Aristotle said so?
Another esteemed scientific mind, Stephen Hawking, claims that matter emerged into the universe from "nothing." Carl Sagan agreed. (When Hawking and Sagan speculate such things they are not doing science they are attempting philosophy. And no philosopher would agree that matter emerging from nothing is pos sible.) Finally, Sagan once wrote that, according to quantum theory: "Once in a very great while your car will spontaneously ooze through the brick wall of your garage and be found the next morning in the street." He went further, stating sternly that if you refuse to believe that, "you'll be forever closed to some of the major findings on the rules that govern the universe."
Certainly these gentlemen are smarter than I will ever be, but my "reality-response" meter goes off when they conclude what seems to me to be nonsense. So, how would I explain the mysterious way the very small quantum world has been proven to defy time, space and logic? My theory is that we are looking into timeless, spaceless, outermost fringes of the Creator's mind from which measurable time and space emerge. A pretty far out idea, perhaps, but in my judgment less so than the conclusions reached above.
Related Science, Philosophy, Religion and the Unity of Truth IssuesQuestion by : What are the similarities between indigenous science and modern science? What are the similarities between modern science and indigenous knowledge? I was unable to find it out on google. Best answer for What are the similarities between indigenous science and modern science?:
Answer by Leo D
Diagnosticiabs exist in both. Medicines are tested before being used for treatment. Healers own an honored place in both
Answer by Michael Harris
Indigenous knowledge also involved knowledge of nature, and also must have involved the *logical* concepts of *cause and effect*, with cause coming *before* effect. So for example, in seeing that fire burns grass thus clearing land, and also make meat more palatable, indigenous knowledge was able to posit the logical cause-and-effect relation, and then use it as a means to an end, reasoning thus: A causes B I want B therefore if I do A, I will get B. Indigenous knowledge was also similar to modern scientific knowledge in that they were and are both capable of coming to mistaken conclusions. But that's where the similarity ends. Modern science excludes supernatural explanations - gods, spirits, etc. And it is *systematic* it uses mutually exclusive categories. Both these greatly increase the chance of logically valid deductions.
Answer by Richard
Indigenous knowledge includes all forms of local knowledge including everything from the practical how-to to the belief systems that are supported by the community. This includes both objective and subjective concepts. It relies heavily on doing things the exact way they were always done. Modern science developed out of Natural philosophy. It uses the scientific method to advance. It can be global and not just local. Measurement and experimentation are important. Objective over subjective is the conceptual bases. Both are similar in that they are mental activities which control behavior. The behavior is associated with making artifacts, useful technology, systems of learning and the reasoning behind the behavior.
0 comments:
Post a Comment