Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum What does Religion expect from modern Science ?

Socratus,

I notice you do not reply to any challenge which attempts to derail your attempts at reconciling "science" with "religion".You produce quote after quote from those who play with such a reconciliation but you appear to be ignorant of the ontological assumptions (assumptions about "existence") to which those authors subscibe.

I will spell out some of those assumptions for you.

1. "Reality" has "existence" independent of its "observers".

This assumption is de-constructed by both non-dualistic arguments (ironically supported by quantum theory), and post-modernists who define "reality" as a "social construction". (I pointed out in your other thread that the word "fact" comes from facare - to construct)

2. "Science" progresses in successive steps towards "ultimate truth".

This is blatantly false since "progress" generates more questions than it answers. "Progress" is measured in terms of successful prediction and control via "elegant models", and this in turn leads to a concept of "understanding". (I have argued elsewhere that the concept of "the ultimate" is a psychological defence against the horror of contemplation of "the void")

3. There are logico-scientific arguments for "a deity" as a either a "prime mover" or "architect creator" of "reality".

Not only is that assumption dependent on 1. above, but it can be defeated by "logical" objections. It also completely misses those aspects of "a deity" most desirable to many believers, such as "God as a personal mentor" etc.

4. Since the word "belief" occurs in both science and religion, there must be common ground.

This error is summed up by Wittgenstein in his celebrated phrase "language on holiday". Words take their meanings from specific social contexts. That of the working activities of scientists involves empiricism and universally shared observation. To change context to a minority setting involving idealistic musings is to go on holiday.

My reference to Wittgenstein in posts above which implies that "religious belief" involves a certain sort of "language game" has been explored and applauded by believers such as Phillips who wish to emphasise their requirement of "a personal God". Such believers don't give two hoots about the reconciliation of science and religion. For them, "God" and "self" are necessarily mutually co-existent and the mysteries of the universe are a different ball/language game.