Is science the crowning achievement of human history or a hodgepodge of atheistically inclined technobabble? Our correspondence today revolves around why science is both saluted and scorned.
Dear Dr. Gotfryd,
My questions, hmm, where do I start?
Let me clarify first right off the bat that I have NO question whatsoever about the existence of God. It's so obvious and clear that even blind people see it.
Those who claim otherwise (namely Scientists) have agendas and will twist and excuse their (non) belief but will never admit to their misguided notion.
Since Scientists in our days have such an agenda of distorting findings and hiding God I actually started calling Science a Religion. Science: The BELIEF of NO supernatural power.
I was once following a legal case where it ended in a hung jury. There was a lone holdout. An older woman, who explained her reason for holding out and resulting the hung jury. "We were instructed by the Judge to weigh the evidence and decide IF the defendant is guilty, yet I found myself in a room with 11 people weighing the evidence to find HOW the defendant will be guilty.
This is what has become of Science. If the conclusion of a study is a supernatural power then it has to be restudied (over and over) from a different angle to obtain HOW it's not supernatural not IF it is or isn’t a supernatural phenomenon.
Oh the questions! I almost forgot.
To start here are a few, every one has strong reasoning behind it:
1) What makes God great?
2) Is God greater if He is insurmountably huge or if He is extremely tiny (subatomic)?
I once read a list of infamous quotes (not sure if its actually a verified list, but it circulates the internet) which had an IBM Executive or Magazine editor in the 1940's saying (not verbatim), ‘computers in the future will be capable of so many functions they will be the size of buildings’ yet our palm sized cell phones have way more technology, capabilities, speed and functions than those room sized 30 ton computers of the 50's and 60's. A standard small size car today has more computerized technology than the Apollo 11!
Before the advancements of the last century the notion was always the bigger the better the stronger and the greater but with the advancements of the last century we learned of micro and nano technology and how BIG the ‘small world’ is.
3) Is the belief in particular divine providence (hashgacha pratis) a sophistication or naiveness?
Living as we do in a world of automation, we can all appreciate how much more advanced automation is over direct mechanical control. Shouldn't we be focusing on the endless wisdom in mechanisms of nature and its laws rather than divine interventions that seem to indicate that He didn't set things up quite right?
Sincerely,
Michael E.
Brooklyn, NY
Michael, On some things we agree, on some not. And your questions are great! Let me answer point by point.
Dear Dr. Gotfryd,
Let me clarify first right off the bat that I have NO question whatsoever about the existence of God. It's obvious and it's so clear that even blind people see it.
But not all blind people see what you mean. If it were that clear, why wouldn't everyone get it? Part of the problem is semantic. Because we no one can define G-d, nobody truly understands Him, and each person sees it differently. A Chassidic Rebbe once told an atheist, "The G-d that you don't believe in, I don't believe in either." Maimonides starts his compendium of the entire body of Jewish law with some very deep philosophy that boggles everyone's mind, specifically on the subject of 'What is G-d?' Obviously it's not a trivial problem. Getting to know G-d is a lifelong process that's never quite finished, so let's be patient with people who don't get it.
Those who claim otherwise (namely Scientists) have agendas and will twist and excuse their (non) belief but will never admit to their misguided notion.
One need not be so categoric. Scientists come in many shades and colors. Some are atheistic, some are spiritual, some are devout. In fact, many of the most beautiful statements about G-d that have ever been written were composed by scientists, and not despite their being scientists but because of it. On the other hand, I certainly do agree with you that among scientists, there are indeed many who are proud, bone-headed materialists and narrow minded pseudo-rationalists. Their views are basically anachronistic throwbacks to 19th century paradigms that have been totally vanquished by physics for nearly a century, and yet they still haven't caught on! But let's not characterize them all in that way! Arrogance is an occupational hazard of being a scientist, but to an equal and opposite extent, inspiration and awe at the Creator's grandeur is their special opportunity since they spend their days studying the magnificenct elegance and wondrous diversity of creation.
Since Scientists in our days have such an agenda of distorting findings and hiding God I actually started calling Science a Religion. Science: The BELIEF of NO supernatural power.
I sympathize with your frustration that neither science nor the scientists that practice it are as objective as we'd like to think. Yes, they have agendas (as we all do!). The agenda of science is to explore the mechanisms of nature and scientists do a very good job of precisely that. Science, done properly does not distort, nor is it a religion. However, "scientism" is like a religion. When people adopt unsupportable statements like "science is the only meaningful way of knowing about nature" or "whatever cannot be observed doesn't exist", they are ascribing to articles of faith, ie, the religion of scientism, not the discipline of science.
I was once following a legal case where it ended in a hung jury. There was a lone holdout. An older woman, who explained her reason for holding out and resulting the hung jury. "We were instructed by the Judge to weigh the evidence and decide IF the defendant is guilty, yet I found myself in a room with 11 people weighing the evidence to find HOW the defendant will be guilty.
Yes, scientists are subject to peer pressures, just as jurors are. That's why great, new theories take so long to take root. Old paradigms die hard, even if the evidence is against them. Of course it's a ludicrous thought that a scientist, of all people, could say, in effect, "Don't confuse me with facts," but unfortunately it happens all too often. Fortunately, the truth does prevail eventually, even though it may take decades. There's even a classic text on the subject by Thomas Kuhn called "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." His was the first treatise to expose the soft sociological underbelly of the scientific establishment. This is what has become of Science: If the conclusion of a study is a supernatural power then it has to be restudied (over and over) from a different angle to obtain HOW it's not supernatural rather than IF it is or isn’t a supernatural phenomenon. In defence of science, one could say that its job is to study only physical entities and forces, not supernatural or spiritual ones. But the strange truth is that materialistic science leads us to realizations that used to be thought of as strictly religious or mystical. Modern science embraces many notions (such as paradox, observership, non-locality, vacuum fluctuations, big bang, the anthropic principle, the butterfly effect, mind-based medicine, and alternative concepts of species origin) which are closely matched to fundamental concepts in traditional religion. You are of course quite right in ascertaining that most scientists will go to great lengths to avoid using words like soul, G-d, creation, and purpose, even though those words are equivalent expressions for many of these "new discoveries".
Oh the questions! I almost forgot.
To start here are a few, every one has strong reasoning behind it:
1) What makes God great?
2) Is God greater if He is insurmountably huge or if He is extremely tiny (subatomic)?
I once read a list of infamous quotes (not sure if its actually a verified list, but it circulates the internet) which had an IBM Executive or Magazine editor in the 1940's saying (not verbatim), ‘computers in the future will be capable of so many functions they will be the size of buildings’ yet our palm sized cell phones have way more technology, capabilities, speed and functions than those room sized 30 ton computers of the 50's and 60's. A standard small size car today has more computerized technology than the Apollo 11!
Before the advancements of the last century the notion was always the bigger the better the stronger and the greater but with the advancements of the last century we learned of micro and nano technology and how BIG the ‘small world’ is.
3) Is the belief in particular divine providence (hashgacha pratis) a sophistication or naiveness?
Living as we do in a world of automation, we can all appreciate how much more advanced automation is over direct mechanical control. Shouldn't we be focusing on the endless wisdom in mechanisms of nature and its laws rather than divine interventions that seem to indicate that He didn't set things up quite right?
These are great questions! I wonder how our readers would respond to them? Readers, it's your turn! Good Shabbos,
Aryeh (Arnie) Gotfryd, PhD.
|
