Science has clearly won in many past disputes with widespread traditional Christian beliefs.
1) Science won in the dispute over the
age of the earth. The date 4004 B.C. was at the top of the first page of the
Bible I had when I was a boy. That was considered to be the date the world was
created as depicted in the first two chapters of Genesis.
In spite of a few “young-earthers” still around, most modern
people, including most Christians, readily acknowledge the age of the earth as
being far, far older than 6,027 years. Science unquestionably won that dispute.
2) Science also won
the dispute over the shape and centrality of the earth. Hardly anyone takes the
claims of “flat-earthers” seriously; they are treated as a curiosity (as in this article on
the LiveScience website).
And despite the persecution of Giordano Bruno (1548~1600)
and Galileo (1564~1642), does anyone today (other than perhaps some
flat-earthers) affirm the
Ptolemaic view that Earth is the center of the universe? Science undeniably won
again.
3) Science is winning the dispute over
the biological evolution of humans. Partly because of the literal
interpretation of the creation story/stories of Genesis, joined with the belief
in a “young” earth, traditional Christians long opposed the theory of the
biological evolution of homo sapiens.
According to the latest figures I could find, nearly all
scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time.
That is far higher than the percentage of the general public who “believe” in
evolution. But the latter will continue to shrink, and science will again be
the obvious “winner.”
Science is also winning contemporary disputes as well. Consider just a couple of examples.
1) It will soon be
two years since vaccinations for covid-19 began to be used by the general
public, but there is a sizeable segment of the population that has spurned the
vaccinations. In the U.S., about one-fifth of the population is still completely
unvaccinated and fewer than 70% are “fully” vaccinated.
In spite of all the “scientific” tests and precautions
taken, many have accepted non-scientific “myths” to discredit the “facts” (see this website, for
example) and to refuse vaccination. But science has won this dispute also: there
is ample evidence that vaccinations greatly reduced covid-19 deaths.
2) One of the most prevalent, and serious, ongoing disputes
currently is regarding global warming. According to this
NASA.gov website, “There is unequivocal
evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the
principal cause.” 97% of scientists believe this.
But, the general public’s views are quite different: according
to Pew Research only 57% see global warming as a serious problem, and among
Republicans that falls to 25% (compared to 83% of Democrats). However,
eventually science will certainly win this debate also. Science always wins.**
When it comes to questions of Why? though, science
doesn’t have the answer. As I said at the beginning, science wins in matters
pertaining to knowledge of the physical world. But there is a “metaphysical” world
as well.
The latter deals with reality “beyond” the physical world that can be
known by the senses, which is all science can deal with. Science can only examine/explain
the nature of what can be seen, measured, and explored by the senses.
“Metaphysics” deals with questions about why there is something rather
than nothing, and with matters of meaning and value. This is the world of the
three “transcendental” values of truth, beauty, and goodness. And
there, science/scientists qua science/scientists have nothing to say.
These values can only be explored by philosophy and/or
religion, not by science. So while it is true that science always wins in
matters pertaining to the physical world, science isn’t even a player in the
more important “game” of life, which is linked to reality beyond, as well as of,
this physical world.
_____
** See this related 2017 article, “Climate
change deniers, science always wins in the end,” on The Hill’s website. And
for the few of you who want to think more, and more deeply, about this matter,
I highly recommend the following article in the December 2022 issue of BioScience:
“World
Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2022.”
.jpg)
The first comments received this morning, not long after 6 a.m., were from local Thinking Friend David Nelson, who wrote,
ReplyDelete"Thanks for a good summary of science. I have never thought much about a competition between science and other disciplines. My education has been more a liberal arts approach that invites me to study a variety of arenas and explore different cultures. Well educated for me means listening and understanding new ideas, discoveries, and allowing truth to emerge. I have been more interested in history and theology, and am not addicted to arguing they are more important than science and math."
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, David. But I didn't mean to imply that there was "competition" between science and other disciplines. My point is 1) that the physical world is the realm subject to scientific study and analysis--and in that realm science always wins. We don't learn facts about the physical world by studying liberal arts. But 2) there is more to reality than that which can be studied/analyzed by science, namely, a "metaphysical" world. So, we don't learn the meaning of life, core values, etc. by studying science.
DeletePeople make their own choice about which they think is the more important. But I think both science and "metaphysics" are important and should be fully appreciated for what they are--and recognized for what they are not. Further, we should not let either of these arenas corrupt the other.
And then I received these comments from Bob Southard, another local Thinking Friend:
ReplyDelete"Interesting thoughts. Thanks.
"It is a little hard to swallow 'always,' and I would rather say the two arenas feed each other…science can use the Bible as one source that might feed into hypotheses/theories. Science helps ground our metaphysical search."
Thanks for reading and commenting, Bob. It is always good to hear from you.
DeleteI always think that one should never use the words "always" and "never" when writing. (Yes, that's a highly contradictory statement that you will recognize is written mostly "tongue in cheek.") As you see, though, the "always" used with reference to science applies only to factual knowledge about the physical world. Conversely, science as science never has anything it can legitimately say about the "metaphysical" (non-physical) world.
As I responded to David N. above, I think both realms/arenas are real and important, but I am not sure it would be correct to say that they "feed each other." I can't think of any factual knowledge about the physical universe that has come from religion or philosophy, and I can't think of any contribution the study of physical science has made to the understanding of reality beyond the physical world.
Bob responded to my response: "Ha! I’m surprised you think in such square holes. Simple examples would be to date and verify a faith story we might use science. To hold metaphysical what I like to call 'woo-woo' spirituality accountable we might use science to help get out of the dark ages of medical or spiritual misunderstandings."
DeleteThanks, Bob, for your rejoinder and for giving examples to support your initial statements. Here are my quick thoughts about the examples you gave: 1) I agree that science can be, and has been, used to date "faith stories"--and that might, indeed, help in understanding the context in which those stories were written. But such dating says absolutely nothing about the truth of those stories or their value in helping anyone understand the meaning of life. 2) I still don't know how science can help us get out of "the dark ages of . . . spiritual misunderstandings," but certainly it can help, and has helped, people get out of the dark ages of medical misunderstandings--and in that arena, science always wins.
DeleteI wrote the above this morning, but forgot to post it then. Here is Bog's response to that, which I also received this morning:
Delete"Just one more example. . . . . Voodoo dolls/pin in doll hurts a person… true? Science says no. Spiritual superstition says yes. Psychologists explain…science influences the spiritual perceptions. It feeds info that shapes our beliefs. If it is true that the pin hurts because of our fears/beliefs (the power of suggestion, then science could break the power with education.)"
Thanks for responding again, Bob--and for giving more support for the point I was trying to make about science always winning. Science as science can't deal with religious beliefs as such, but it can analyze and evaluate how those beliefs are expressed in the physical world. I assume there is ample scientific evidence to prove that inserting pins into a voodoo doll doesn't actually hurt the intended person. Science produces information about the physical world and thus debunks superstitions that are thought to affect the physical world. And not just the physical sciences, but the social sciences can also help explain things such as the power of suggestion, etc. So, again, where there is a conflict between science and religion/religious superstition in the physical world, science wins.
DeleteHere are comments from Thinking Friend Les Hill in Kentucky:
ReplyDelete"Always appreciate your insights that call for giving me reason to think matters through. Most of the time I don't know enough to comment. As to this subject Francis S. Collins gives good scientific considerations in his "The Language of God." He writes as a former atheist scientist. His position changed to believe science requires acknowledging a creator. He also believes science requires believing in evolution."
Thanks, Les, for your comments and for referring to Francis Collins, a man for whom I have great respect. I see him as a man who has a holistic appreciation for and understanding of the physical world and the "metaphysical"/religious world. His belief that "science requires acknowledging a creator," though, is not a scientific statement. It is a statement of his philosophy of science based on his religious beliefs. There are, obviously, many scientists who do not agree with him, although they cannot prove scientifically that he is wrong in his philosophical/religious belief.
DeleteIn 1992 Pope John Paul II said "Galileo suffered unjustly at the hands of the Church." I know the mills of God grind slowly, but if it takes 400 hundred years for religion to catch up with science on subjects like global warming and birth control it may be too late. We all want to live in our silos of ignorance, but that does not really work. The church needs to view scientists as prophets in the wilderness. Scientists need to remember that religion is keeping the home fires burning. You can read more about Galileo here: http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1675/2/copernicus-galileo-and-the-church-science-in-a-religious-world
ReplyDeleteYes, I remember when the Pope finally exonerated Galileo--and marveled at how long it had taken. Of course, that was just a formal statement of what most Catholics had known for a very long time. Yes, it has been nearly 400 years since Galileo's condemnation in 1633, but I assume that by at least 100 years after that most educated Catholics had fully accepted the heliocentric (Copernican) view of the universe--although that view, of course, is completely outdated now. The James Webb Space Telescope now makes it ridiculous to claim that our puny little sun is the center of the universe. Of our solar system, yes, the sun is the center as Copernicus posited--but of the universe, no way!
DeleteWith regards to your number 3 above "biological evolution of humans," scientists have now, it seems been proven wrong concerning the date and place of the original apes that evolved into humans. It was believed by scientists that human life began in Africa. Now a discovery in Germany of danuvius-guggenmosi seems to challenge that belief. Here's an article you and other readers of your blog post may find interesting: https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/bipedal-ape-danuvius-guggenmosi-1.4637336
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting this information, Garth. I hadn't seen/heard about this. As I said in the blog article, science is not always right, but it changes as knowledge increases. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for this new information to be accepted--or rejected because of not being conclusive.
Delete