In our daily life we are faced with observations for which we have no valid explanation. There are questions for which we don’t know any valid answer.
For some of these questions we know that we cannot know the answer. “Does it all make sense?” is one of them. See The meaning of life.
Some of these questions have been unanswered at some time but got an answer as science evolved. For example, 500 years ago we had no valid answer to the question whether the Earth is flat or spheric, but today we can validly say that we know the answer to this question.
And then a lot of questions are kind of work in progress: What are the causes of cancer or asthma? Is climate change so urgent that it requires actions that might put at risk economic stability? How can we satisfy the needs for water, food, shelter, energy, health, education of a growing human population? How can we manage to live on this planet in sustainable peace?
These questions are the field of science.
The art of managing human knowledge.
- scientific method¶
A set of methodologies used to answer questions formulated as theories.
- scientific evidence¶
Evidence that confirms (or counters) a theory in accordance with scientific method.
- scientific consensus¶
The fact that no member of the scientific community doubts about a theory.
- scientific community¶
All those who are acknowledged as “serious scientists”.
But how to become a serious scientist? Reputation.
- pure science¶
Science that is funded by a public corporation, whose expectations are free from private interest of a small group.
- biased science¶
Science that is funded by a private corporation, whose expectations are to optimize profit of a small group.
Intermezzo: watch PumbaTimon.
Science doesn’t claim to be objective¶
Evangelical author Gene Veith purports (in Canceling Science) that science is “the realm that purports to be totally objective”. I don’t agree with this claim. Real scientists don’t claim to be totally objective. Rather the opposite. A real scientist says that nothing is totally objective. This is also what Jesus told the religious leaders of his lifetime: even the Holy Scriptures aren’t the whole truth, aren’t totally objective.
Does science push back God to his ramparts?¶
Some people say that science “pushes back God to his ramparts”, constantly gaining ground as our technologies evolve.
This statement is based on a correct observation: certain questions have moved during human history from the invisible to the visible world. Two thousand years ago humanity did not know about bacteria, viruses, evolution, atoms and such things. We did not know whether Earth is a sphere or not. In two thousand years humanity will probably know much more than today, and humans will be surprised when learning from historic sources that we didn’t know these things.
What I dislike with this statement is that it implies that the Universe would consist of two “territories”, a visible “human world” and an invisible Kingdom of God. Christians don’t believe this. Christians believe that the Kingdom of God penetrates the visible world. They are not separate territories.
Science confirms the Gospel¶
Judgment and Storytelling: The Deadly Nature of Self-Esteem says: Much of our “identity” or self-esteem are “stories” we create to make sense of the world. Our stories involve judgment and labeling, which are cognitive distortions. They aren’t real, although they seem so. Once we become aware of the nature of these stories, it’s easier to let go and move on. – I call these “stories” our faith. And he describes exactly what the Gospel does: it gives us an external base (“source”) for our self-esteem so that we can let our “stories” go and move on with our lives.
Mistakes are good (Tue Feb 21 07:12:29 2023)
5 mental strengths (Sat Aug 20 17:23:18 2022)
Tuesday, July 5, 2022 (18:23) (Tue Jul 5 17:39:36 2022)
What can we learn about the universe from just one galaxy? (Mon Mar 28 01:56:37 2022)
The Deadly Nature of Self-Esteem (Mon Mar 28 01:54:41 2022)
Neuroticism and emotional disorders (Sun Nov 28 02:34:59 2021)
Science is an expensive tool¶
A “systemic” problem with science is that you need money to do it. Which means that only the rich can order a study. Which means that the rich dictate the questions to be asked by science.
Yes, humans want to know the whole truth. But let’s acknowledge that we will never reach that goal. Let’s stop claiming that some Holy Scripture or some scientific report is infallible or perfect. If we want to get useful results despite our lack of absolute truth, we need to combine science and religion. The former focuses on the visible world, the latter on the invisible world. And we should consider every decision from both sides. Science and religion complement each other. When one of them refuses to acknowledge the other, then something is wrong.
People have turned to religious practice to help them deal with issues of life and death, loss and meaning for thousands of years. In his new book How God Works, psychologist David DeSteno uses the latest scientific evidence to examine how rituals help shape behaviors such as compassion, trust and resilience and why many of them are so beneficial. – washingtonpost.com (2021-10-05)