Comment: Science and Faith are orthogonal : why and how so, in two points

(See in situ)


Cyril's picture

Science and Faith are orthogonal : why and how so, in two points

1) Science doesn't reject faith NOR does science have to sustain faith.

2) Faith doesn't reject science NOR does faith need to explain science.

"Why so, how so ?" - here are useful hints :

On point 1), learn about the Greatest Virtue of ANY SERIOUS science - Humility about itself, in its senses, speculations, models, predictions, verifications, refinements, and loopbacks :

e.g., why a "Closed World Assumption" vs. "Open World Assumption" [1] ? - what is "Entailment" / the "Modus ponens" [2] ? and for the VERY HARDCORE stuff, the meaning of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems [3]

[1]
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_world_assumption
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_world_assumption

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems#Discussion_and_implications

On point 2), learn about The Wager - where faith is, at worst, just the matter of bothering to go for one side of it (out of the two possible) :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

So, my answer is "no" : I'm certainly not anti-science, and am rather pro-science, indeed, as long as it doesn't interfere with, impair, or violate the morality values provided by my faith.

But then again, when "science" does so (tampering with faith or morality), it usually has a suspicious, active agenda against faith or morality, and just ISN'T ANY SERIOUS SCIENCE ANY LONGER, and becomes as worthless or harmful (and annoying) as ... idiotic SUPERSTITION OR BIGOTRY.

Peace.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius