Re: Separation of science and religion
Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Sun, 23 Nov 1997 19:11:35 -0500 (EST)At 06:25 PM 11/21/97 -0500, George Murphy wrote:
>Moorad Alexanian wrote:
>>
>> At 05:55 PM 11/20/97 -0500, George Murphy wrote:
>
>> > Theology isn't based on science & science isn't based (other
>> >than perhaps historically) on theology. The world is knowable
>> >_etsi deus non daretur_ - Laplace was right. But that wasn't the point
>> >at issue! The question was whether or not there could be any
>> >interaction between science & religion, specifically Christianity, & I
>> >think I provided clear examples of how there could be. A person doesn't
>> >have to be concerned with those questions (e.g., how God answers
>> >prayer), but they are not simply ruled out of court.
>> > Science does not tell us that the Holy Trinity - or any other
>> >God - created the universe. In fact, God's mode of origination seems to
>> >be such as to conceal any such direct view of God at work. But science
>> >does speak about what happened in the early universe, and there is no
>> >reason in principle why we should not try to extend Laplace's claim as
>> >far back toward t = 0 (if there is a t = 0) as possible. _If we start
>> >from the standpoint of Christian faith in God as the creator_, science
>> >is telling us something about how God brought the universe into being.
>> >If not, not. As so often is the case, it's a matter of faith in search
>> >of understanding.
>> > George Murphy
>>
>> I believe the interaction between science & religion occurs in the human
>> being--the detector of the physical as well as the spiritual. I honestly
>> believe that the real thing which "conceals any such direct view of God at
>> work" is human pride. We exclude God from the picture when we limit our
>> scope of understanding to merely scientific knowledge. However, if we want
>> to understand it all, then God comes into the picture.
>
> OK - precisely _because_ science can, within its own sphere,
>explain the world _etsi deus non daretur_. But operating from a
>standpoint of faith, one believes the true God to be the creator & sees
>support for that in what science shows about the world.
> George Murphy
Actually when I use the term science, I have often experimental science in
mind. The ability to do experimental science indicates a steadiness in
nature which Christian ascribe to God. Atheists do not ascribe it to anyone.
So far it seems that God has not interfered with our successful ability to
do experimental science. He can, if He wills it so, intervene in such a
fashion that that steadiness can be replaced by a chaos which the human
brain cannot disentangle, witness the difficult with any theory of
turbulence. Humans can then by their scientific studies play happily in a
sandbox providing scientific answering to true scientific questions which do
not deal with the issue of who created the box, the sand and us. However,
when the question comes up about such issues then science is helpless. It
can only deal with such questions by usurping the subject matter from
philosophy and religion. Clearly we can be fooled about the true nature of
the question of origins since that scientific game can be played at
infinitum without ever finding a true, satisfying solution.
Moorad