Truth, atheism, quantum mechanics, the Bible and a personal God
These are some of the weighty subjects discussed in two articles by well known spokespersons for ID on one side, David Berlinsky of the Discovery Institute and on the other side for atheism, John Derbyshire a National Review regular. Posted along with a lot of comments on Pajamas Media today.
I liked the notions posted by this commenter:
I am an atheist. Yet I will be the first to defend believers against atheist “crusades” like the one from richard dawkins. I have no problem at all with praying in schools or the “under god”. And I think that believing in something greater than yourself is very important for your sanity.
But from reading this article I get the impression that the author thinks that evolution does not work and that the bible is closer to the truth than quantum mechanics.
Well, if that is the case, then please refrain from using technology based on quantum mechanics and evolution in the future. That includes every single drug that has been developed since 1980 or so, most modern agricultural products, and also the computer you are currently using. They are all based on the intimate knowledge of quantum mechanics and genetics.
I will in turn promise not to use any drugs or computers developed by “creationist scientists”.
Apr 28, 2008 – 2:29 am
Are Europeans better prepared than North Americans to understand these matters less dogmatically?
With a different perspective Prof. Francisco J Ayala, in his latest book “Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion” (Joseph Henry Press, 2007), writes that as a theology student in Spain he had been taught that evolution “provided the ‘missing link’ in the explanation of evil in the world” — a defense of God’s goodness and omnipotence, despite the existence of evil.
Here are some of my ill-formed notions on this.
For me Truth is as elusive a concept as a personal God. Elusive, metaphysical and entirely non-scientific.
It seems to me that science is a process of discovering the latest version of materialistic theory. It’s like a pursuit which is valuable to humans because we benefit from new technology developed from the latest theories that work.
But scientific understanding is not rock-like since a new theory begets new questions and new paradigms, which lead to the next step in the pursuit.
The Bible for some is rock-like truth but for me it is an attempt by believing human beings to explain and justify their beliefs in the unprovable. It is metaphysics rendered many centuries ago in an mythical story form. The concepts its authors declaim are unprovable but lift our thoughts to an ineffable notion much greater than most notions we have about ourselves.
I prefer the position of Science, but not scientism, because it seeks new contexts and frameworks of materialistic understanding. I believe in freedom of thought and action in the pursuit of better understanding of myself and the universe I am a part of.
Related articles by Zemanta
- At Peace With Agnosticism (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)