Science and religion are in no way equivalent because, as you note, what we
know IS constantly changing. It is expanded, reinterpreted, disproven, reinforced and the scientific process is subject to critique and peer review so it must be rigorous. Science isn't "a better way to approach life" because science and faith are different and address different things. Now, you can say that God or whomever is in the places that science can't answer or hasn't answered yet. But, as has been argued, if God is just in the gaps, gaps that shrink as our knowledge expands, then that's a very limiting belief in God.
But they don't have to be mutually exclusive. At lot of scientists are people of faith. I will say this though; people who follow the scientific method sometimes must be ready to confront what they believe to be true. I remember reading about Kepler's efforts to describe planetary motion based on the concept of Plato's perfect solids, a schema that he believed would prove God's perfect design for the universe. What he found instead that based on observation he could not make that model work. He was forced to reject it and come up with a more simple and elegant expression of those motions that nevertheless in no way reflected how he conceived of God's perfect model. The reality disturbed him, but he couldn't deny it.
|
(
In response to this post by Cold Hoober Hoo)
Posted: 07/29/2020 at 7:29PM