Dr Paul Davies, a cosmologist at Arizona State University and author of popular science books, asserted in the article that science, not unlike religion, rested on faith. Here is his article. Taking Science on Faith http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html Here is a critical commentary on the above article Laws of Nature, Source Unknown http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/science/18law.html
He seems to be basing this sensationalist argument on nothing but our current knowledge regarding the origin on the laws of physics. I don't see how that is faith based. We know that the laws exist, We can measure them, But we are intellectually honest enough to admit we don't yet understand their origins. Exactly what part of that requires faith? Or are you just trying to drag sceince down to your level?
That's true. Atheists are ultimately making a leap of faith, as much as people who believe in deity. Scientists are also not afraid to admit that there are unknowns. The difference isn't between "knowing" v. "not-knowing"; the difference is in the method of approach. Scientists take the cue from Hobbes - moving from a known world to an unknown world via empirical inquiry; and draw probabalistic conclusions on unknowns accordingly. They also don't stop there. Scientists hate probabilities, and tirelessly work to eradicate them by digging deeper.
The only thing in this thread I would disagree with is I think the possibility of an irrational horizon somewhere off in the universe does not at all negate science, it just adds a new unknown variable. I think that might be close to what north is talking about? I also don't like the implication (I didn't see it actually said just implied) that science and religion are somehow opposites. I think that is a tired hand-me-down from centuries past.
I think the thing that confuses religious folks so much is they don't understand the concept of accepting that we don't know everything because in their religions things are laid out as "this is how it is" (booming voice.) They think that when Science admits they don't know something (and there's still a lot we don't know) that that somehow calls into question the entirety of Scientific thought, that's just a complete misunderstanding of the whole deal. --- "If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality — the laws of physics — only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science." That statement basically says (in other words) that "If we can't know EVERYTHING then we don't really know ANYTHING" and I just think that's absolutely ridiculous. That's looking at science through a religious lens. In the world of science you accept that you don't know everything and likely never will that doesn't make what you do know any less. But I would say it leaves a hole for God in Science and perhaps that's the whole point of such an argument? I think it's why you can believe in God & Science at the same time and not be contradictory. But likewise Science is completely contradictory with the religions we all know and love (...) because they have a whole host of mythological biz that doesn't coexist nicely with reality.
I agree with you... Science and Religion can co-exist. Nay. it isn't so. Science compliments religion, and does not contradict it. Believe it or not!
I don't agree with the statement that science and faith are the same thing. Scientific laws exist because they can be demonstrated and predicted, faith cannot be demonstrated. You can have faith that if you step off a building that you won't fall but science says you can't. So far no one has been able to fly away just from a display of their faith. Faith is a wonderful thing and I believe humans need it to survive but it isn't comparable to science.
Religion is not based in any sort of real facts but yet has a whole host of "facts" in their books ... I mean if you read the Bible literally that the world is 6000 years old and all the rest of the ... stuff in there.... then obviously you can't also be a scientific critical thinker. These things are completely at odds with each other. But like I said, I don't think the idea of God is necessarily at odds with Science... It's only at odds with it when you try to define it too clearly. I believe that Science is our best attempt at understanding the universe but I also believe in some sort of concept of God (I'm still working on that) but religion? To me religion seems like a wall of illusion standing between our minds and true understanding (both of Science and of God.) Why put all of these rituals and myths in the way of what it is really around you and what is really inside? I'm firmly anti-religion because I feel it is the cause of many awful things in this world but at the same time I am not an atheist. I do believe there is something... I just don't think it's anything as simple as a dude in the sky that looks like us, to me that's the sort of story you tell your kids, like Santa Clause. It seems silly to me to be an adult and still believe in that.
Here is another critique of Davie's commentary, who seems to have lost his north... http://www.newscientist.com/channel...entary-no-science-does-not-rest-on-faith.html