そのクスリは人を成長させる力をもつでしょう?
Tuesday, September 8, 2020
Monday, September 7, 2020
Science vs. Religion!
Every now and again, someone brings up the old debate about science versus religion.
I had a religion teacher once who claimed that science was us pushing outward, and religion was God pouring knowledge in on us.
Well, that wasn't exactly what he said, but there were sure a number of the students in his class that took it that way.
I won't argue that it's completely meaningless, but I will argue that one should not use the observation to define religion or science.
Here's how I define science, and I definitely will not claim it is a perfect definition:
Science is humans studying the tangible world around themselves, recording observations, making experiments, developing theories and testing them against the observations and experimental results, and sharing what they've learned. In sharing, there is a strong emphasis on reproducibility of results.
And religion:
Religion is humans studying the intangible world around them, recording observations, making experiments, developing theories and testing them (though sometimes not testing them too well), and sharing what they've learned. In sharing, the emphasis is not strong on reproducibility of results, because it is understood that language about the intangible world (by definition) cannot generally be precise enough to ascertain whether results have been reproduced in any but a broad sense.
Note two things.
One, religion is also the work of human beings -- fallible human beings.
Two, nothing in my definition eliminates inspiration from either. Any good scientist will acknowledge the role of serendipity in the progress of science. I'm not going to insist that everyone see the hand of God in serendipity, but if God is the creator of the universe -- if God is the source and essence of the grand unifying principle by which the universe operates -- trying to argue that serendipity is not God's hand is futile.
(For me, the grand unifying principle that so many physicists seek is quite obviously God, but that observation is so full of the hidden burden of semantics that, much as I wish all could see it, I cannot demand that anyone see it.)
My definitions. They work for me (for now). Your mileage may vary.
I had a religion teacher once who claimed that science was us pushing outward, and religion was God pouring knowledge in on us.
Well, that wasn't exactly what he said, but there were sure a number of the students in his class that took it that way.
I won't argue that it's completely meaningless, but I will argue that one should not use the observation to define religion or science.
Here's how I define science, and I definitely will not claim it is a perfect definition:
Science is humans studying the tangible world around themselves, recording observations, making experiments, developing theories and testing them against the observations and experimental results, and sharing what they've learned. In sharing, there is a strong emphasis on reproducibility of results.
And religion:
Religion is humans studying the intangible world around them, recording observations, making experiments, developing theories and testing them (though sometimes not testing them too well), and sharing what they've learned. In sharing, the emphasis is not strong on reproducibility of results, because it is understood that language about the intangible world (by definition) cannot generally be precise enough to ascertain whether results have been reproduced in any but a broad sense.
Note two things.
One, religion is also the work of human beings -- fallible human beings.
Two, nothing in my definition eliminates inspiration from either. Any good scientist will acknowledge the role of serendipity in the progress of science. I'm not going to insist that everyone see the hand of God in serendipity, but if God is the creator of the universe -- if God is the source and essence of the grand unifying principle by which the universe operates -- trying to argue that serendipity is not God's hand is futile.
(For me, the grand unifying principle that so many physicists seek is quite obviously God, but that observation is so full of the hidden burden of semantics that, much as I wish all could see it, I cannot demand that anyone see it.)
My definitions. They work for me (for now). Your mileage may vary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)