Who declared that science was the single discipline that gets to determine what is to be considered the path to discover 'truth' in western society? I mean, we have always accepted different means of discerning truth. Now the scientific method is presented by atheists as the means by which societal and moral decisions are to be made.
Do the lessons of history not contain truth? Is philosophy no longer a font from which we can find meaning to the events of our life? Will I need a biologist to prove that I love my vocation as a priest? Do you need one to prove that you love those close to you? For that matter, could science even pronounce on such subjects that it have nothing to do with?
Science cannot explain love, faith, joy. Science cannot tell me why a magnificent sunrise is capable of moving my mind and soul in ways that are hard to explain. Science cannot explain the genius of a Mozart or the artist's eye of Picasso. Science cannot even tell me why I am alive! (although in its defense it doesn't claim to answer the 'why' questions - it simply rules such a question as being unworthy of addressing).
Science has not proven that it is capable of providing a yardstick by which to determine the morality of its own creations. People love to castigate the Church for the failings of its clergy, yet as Carl Sagan points out, scientists have produced immense evil in their lust for knowledge (watch some tape of scientists testifying before Congress on the necessity of funding the development of building bigger and more horrific instruments of war before their 'enemies' do). Scientists are given a 'pass' on moral condemnation of their creations because we are told we must not condemn science for the human failings of a few scientists. Funny how that seems to work for scientists but it hasn't gone as well Churches who are condemned in whole for the sins of a few.
If atheists want to replace the morality of religion, they are going to need to do a lot better than the scientific method. It is as susceptible to being wielded as an evil and open to corruption as religion has ever been.
Fr. Tim
Do the lessons of history not contain truth? Is philosophy no longer a font from which we can find meaning to the events of our life? Will I need a biologist to prove that I love my vocation as a priest? Do you need one to prove that you love those close to you? For that matter, could science even pronounce on such subjects that it have nothing to do with?
Science cannot explain love, faith, joy. Science cannot tell me why a magnificent sunrise is capable of moving my mind and soul in ways that are hard to explain. Science cannot explain the genius of a Mozart or the artist's eye of Picasso. Science cannot even tell me why I am alive! (although in its defense it doesn't claim to answer the 'why' questions - it simply rules such a question as being unworthy of addressing).
Science has not proven that it is capable of providing a yardstick by which to determine the morality of its own creations. People love to castigate the Church for the failings of its clergy, yet as Carl Sagan points out, scientists have produced immense evil in their lust for knowledge (watch some tape of scientists testifying before Congress on the necessity of funding the development of building bigger and more horrific instruments of war before their 'enemies' do). Scientists are given a 'pass' on moral condemnation of their creations because we are told we must not condemn science for the human failings of a few scientists. Funny how that seems to work for scientists but it hasn't gone as well Churches who are condemned in whole for the sins of a few.
If atheists want to replace the morality of religion, they are going to need to do a lot better than the scientific method. It is as susceptible to being wielded as an evil and open to corruption as religion has ever been.
Fr. Tim
Tim,
ReplyDeleteYou are correct that science and the scientific method will never be able to properly analyze love, joy, and faith. Faith is part of the spiritual realm and beyond the ability of science to dissect and analyze. It is because of this that the account of creation in Genesis cannot be looked at from a scientific perpective or using the scientific method. It must be accepted on the basis of faith. Because God said it, I believe it.
There is nothing wrong with true science which uses the scientific method. Unfortunately much of what passes for science is bogus such as the theory of evolution. True science requires observation and measurements before drawing up a hypothesis. Then the scientific method requires experiments to determine if the hypothesis is in fact true. --Prof. Philip Stott
ReplyDeleteWho declared Science the winner?
ReplyDeleteI don't understand the question, Tim. Who declared there was a war in the first place? Apples and oranges...