- Culture & society (59)
- History (25)
- Notable Quotes (13)
- Personal story (11)
- Politics (23)
- Science and faith (77)
- Uncategorized (15)
- November 30, 2008: Of Baramins and Baloney 5
- November 23, 2008: Of Baramins and Baloney 4
- November 10, 2008: Of Baramins and Baloney 3
- November 2, 2008: Good conversation
- October 19, 2008: Baraminology and pseudoscience
- October 5, 2008: No Matter What
- September 16, 2008: As easy as 1-2-3
- September 7, 2008: Not what they had in mind
- August 31, 2008: The momentum against logic and facts
- August 24, 2008: Orgnizations v. Organisms
Blogroll
Chat
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
What if there Really Is a God?
Now I know this is a difficult concept for some people to truly consider, but suppose for a moment, just for a moment, that maybe there really is a god. Would that affect science? Not saying if it is a Christian god or a Hindu god, just a god. If there is a god, and we define science in such a way that even the possibility of a god cannot be considered, then we have defined science in a way that certain tangible evidence may never be brought to light, and certain truths can never be discovered and explored. We have in fact defined who we want god to be. If we must ignore all empirical evidence that even suggests that there might be a god.. then we have not only limited science, but also corrupted it. Scientists who sensor their search of the evidence because of where it might lead, whether it suggests that there might or might not be a god, are not pure scientists. They are acting as priests. If we protect evolution from all evidence to the contrary—all empirical evidence to the contrary—we are doing nothing more and nothing less than protecting one specific religious view at the expense of all others. If this is done in public schools, then we are truly in violation of the First Amendment.
July 6, 2007 at 1:24 pm
I think you made an excellent point on whether we should or should not restrict science as to what it can discover.
I think “modern science” ( from enlightenment onward) started off wanting to be just an empirical science but then life is so complex and the demand for science so much that it is inevitable that science would be involving the metaphysical and origin theories of universe and life. In those areas, scientists tried to retain the empirical premise and non bias approach and define themselves to be purely natural and reject any supernatural premise. It is at this point that scientists made the mistake and became priests of naturalistic world view instead of recognizing the limitations of science and be humble about it.
July 8, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Good thoughts. If “science” restricts areas about which it will accept material evidence, then it should restrict areas about which it will make authoritative comment. If it comments, it should be open to the implications of all material evidence. Choose A or B.