The Fshbwl

Yes, I've found that some of this kind of thinking about science is not always easy to articulate. Part of that is our sheer unfamiliarity with this kind of thinking. I mean, in our everyday interactions, we're much more adept at talking like science gives us all the answers. I tried in my article to give a basic sense of this idea, but I'm well aware from my own studies that my words are very general and this idea is significantly more complex. Hopefully I can delve further into it in future articles.

being a Christian is a condition of the heart, not in observation as sience is, we can see the motion's or the acting of what science can provide! But to become christ like is and act of faith,and thru reading God's word and interacting with Him,we renew our mind to become christ like. It's a work and progress; The holy Ghost will lead and guide you into all truths of Jesus. No ye not that the kingdom of God doe's not come by observation, but the kingdom of God is with in you! Which is Christ our Lord and saver.

That same paragraph strikes me as well, but it's the idea that the theory of evolution wasn't all that compelling in and of itself, at least initially, but it was an escape from a faith that, in his experience, was far less compelling.

Now, in time, I know the theory became compelling to him and he spent many hours studying it, much like he did Christianity upon his conversion, but, at first, it was more about not being church than evolution itself.

I can't help but wonder, how many people out there, at least initially, grab onto their belief system simply because it's not something else?

In our "still-enlightened" era, and I mean, still informed by Enlightenment ways of thinking, I think you're absolutely right that claiming evolution would be better than claiming Buddhism. To the uninformed, Buddhism is just another religion, so switching from one to the other would look particularly "un-enlightened". But switching to science carries some weight, since its significantly more acceptable and appears that one has finally seen the light.

In a restrictive sense (and the one commonly thought of) science is the gaining of knowledge through the use of the scientific method and the knowledge associated with that. In theory I'm a fan of this.

But, how is this abused and misrepresented in our culture? For example, we have the theory of evolution, the big bang model, and the theory of relativity. Notice the words theory and model on these. In the realm of science these descriptors tell us something about these. However, do you hear these called a theory or model often? I haven't. A number of people believe them to be true and represent them that way.

At the same time we are creatures of beliefs and philosophies. They affect everything we do. Since we don't have enough information to extrapolate details in many of the things we desire (like to answer the question "where did we come from?") we fill in gaps with what we believe and with what fits our philosophies.

In a different context, there are a lot of things that aren't debated like basic gravity. I say basic gravity because that's in a context. There is a lot we don't know. We do know that objects with mass are attracted to each other and the greater the mass the more the attraction. Yet, there is just a lot we don't know. Like, where does the force of gravity come from?

If anything, we need to realize where the assumptions and presumptions are. What happens if we change the unknown inputs to the big bang model to those based on a different set of beliefs and philosophies?

It seems there are a lot of really good questions to seek answers to.

I think you're getting at something that is very true, but you can go even further. Rather than pointing out the distinctions of science that is philosophical versus methodological, we have to see that all science is based on the kind of presuppositions you're pointing out, including methodological science. However, in terms of practical application and usefulness, the methodological variety which you point out does appear different.

It's interesting to consider how deeply beliefs go in our everyday life. There is so much we take for granted. Beliefs are not what we think about, beliefs are what we think with. Our entire framework for seeing reality (and this is true for science as much as any other discipline, and beyond) is based on beliefs that have been shaped by our history, education, family life, religious formation, cultural context, etc. In a very real way, our vision of reality is something we impose upon it, because our vision of reality is an interpretation, something which we have created and which has been influenced by all those things which shape our belief. It's belief all the way down.

This is sounding particularly postmodern, and rightly so. And it's easy to go from here into a very relativistic framework, because now its seems that truth itself is implicitly called into question. But what strikes me is that we must really see truth as something we also believe, that we hold to by faith, that we trust. Holding to some particular truth, like that of Christianity for instance, might be one truth in a field of infinite others, but we can argue that certain views of reality are better than others. Christianity, pragmatically speaking, captures a comprehensive and coherent vision of reality better than science. Consider its ability to reasonably situate the "supernatural". Consider its ability to accept mystery and allow for tension in the way we understand our world, rather than having to work everything out--like my example of reducing humans to merely material things, thus reducing our thoughts to mere checmical reactions. What we should be saying is that thoughts are at the very least, mysterious, and if the supernatural is taken into consideration, we must assume some inseparable and possibly unexplainable connection between our thoughts and our soul/spirit.

So, I think we're right to see that all of science, because by nature it is a worldview built upon presuppositions that are taken for granted and therefore held by faith, is particularly faith-based. But that means every vision of reality is faith-based.

To build on this idea with what we know about the spiritual world, it seems that revelation and speculation can serve as categories on the quality of our study. In other words, we can be intelligent as we approach our metaphysical exploration, or we can come up with whatever sounds good at the moment. One route gives us the best (although still limited) theory possible, while the other really comes up empty.

good thoughts Solkem, however I think you may be equating "science" with "the laws of logic" and "the laws of nature" too tightly. To some degree, you are correct. If a scientific experiment uses these laws and comes to a conclusion (methodological), which is also repeatable and validated, then that, I think, is one form of science.

The problem is when disciplines (in the name of science) form theories outside of the experimental realm, and base conclusions on assumptions for how reality operates, then we should question that.

so, for example since there have been some evolution/creation discussions lately, let me use that as an example. If someone (in the name of science), says that all of of life has evolved from a single parasitic origin, and therefore even intelligence evolved. Then, since that theory falls outside the methodological approach, and involves some presups, I think we are correct to question that.

So, I guess what I'm saying is I'm not so sure there is a distinct line between science and faith.

Science, put briefly, is "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."

Some parts of this can be fairly definite but all parts have certain beliefs tied in and everything happens in a certain context. For example, when we observe something what are we observing? When Newton observed the apple falling what we he observing? The visible apple. There were a lot of forces acting on the apple he had not observed.

What about identification. That happens withing the context of our lives, the experiences we have had (collectively), and within our beliefs. A Christian can identify something differently than an Atheist and the thing that would cause them to identify it differently is their belief system.

Belief systems flow through all of these but the one that is the most called out is the theoretical explanation of phenomena. This is that branch of science that deals with things like evolutionary theory and relativity. We are trying to explain things we don't have a complete picture of. These theories are based on our beliefs, our worldview, and filling in unknowns in the logic and math with beliefs to put together theories.