A few years ago someone asked me a question that I couldn't answer: how can you be both a Christian and a scientist? It turns out not to be too difficult.
The purpose of science is to understand the universe for the purpose of predicting and controlling it. Why do we make observations, form hypotheses, design and execute experiments, and go back to making observations? Because we want to be able make something happen. Having the will to do something isn't necessarily sufficient; we need to know how to exercise that will in the physical realm.
Arthur C. Clarke's third law states that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." In other words, if I don't understand the underlying scientific or engineering principles behind someone's ability to make something happen, I can't tell whether they are using some supernatural power.
Christopher Columbus was able to exploit just this sort of ignorance. He claimed his Christian God would "all but obliterate" the moon, making it appear "inflamed with wrath". This would frighten the Jamaicans into supplying him and his expedition with food.
Occam's Razor is appropriate if your goal is to understand the universe well enough to predict and control it. The simplest explanation of something generally leads to the most efficient way of controlling or predicting it. It's easier to calculate what will happen to a rock when I drop it if I assume a standard gravity field, rather than trying to account for the goals, philosophy, intent, and relative strength of the rock gods.
In contrast with science, Christianity (or religion in general) explains the universe for the purpose of knowing what is good and righteous. The Creator has the natural right to determine the boundaries between good and evil, right and wrong. As a created being, I do not have the right to override the wishes or intent of the Creator, regardless of my desire or will to do so.
Occam's Razor is not an appropriate guide in the quest to understand good and evil. It doesn't tell me if a particular course of action is right or wrong. All it does is help me be successful in implementing whatever choices I make.
That's how I can be both a Christian and a scientist. I turn to my religion for questions of meaning and purpose, but rely on science and technology to execute those decisions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
Christianity (or religion in general) explains the universe for the purpose of knowing what is good and righteous.
Christianity, mostly. Religion in general? Nazzofast, Guido.
I think the argument can be made that all religions begin with the attempt to find man's "place" in the universe, but I would also argue that almost all of them end up being co-opted as mechanisms of control (see: Columbus, Christopher in your example above - and myriad others. Islamofascists in Semtex Underoos comes immediately to mind.)
So religion often gets used as a control, too - which explains some of the virulent antipathy towards it by the anti-theists.
The entire problem with religion is that three people will come up with five interpretations of "the boundaries between good and evil, right and wrong," and there doesn't seem to be any way to rigorously test those hypotheses satisfactorily. Your interpretation of those boundaries may not (probably does not) match that of your neighbor - and the level of mismatch can lead to some pretty irreligious behavior, and often does.
Science has Occam's Razor, but religion does not. That means it is much more dependent on the most fallible instrument in the toolbox - man's psyche, when it comes to interacting with the physical world.
The only thing worse (so far) is applying science to morality. Since science is implicitly amoral, this has shown to produce extremely bad results in very short periods of time.
Still, I have hope...
Post a Comment