I love science. I'm not a scientist though. Never found any discipline that I was very good at. I like physics. Really liked chemistry, especially the stuff that exploded or caught on fire. Was never that fond of biology in school, except for dissection. Maybe because where I went to school, science wasn't hands-on enough. Too much memorization and dry, boring reading. My avowed love of science has come later in life.
One thing that disturbs me though is how smug some people are when it comes to science. You know an armchair pseudo-scientist or two that expounds on how much is known (and secretly revels in telling you how much they know). They have the last word in all that is rational. And, to them, all is rational or will be soon. We have an arrogance that laughs at the superstitions of the past, sniffs at the beliefs of the present, and is wary of any future challenge to our facts.
There's no room in their world for the spiritual, the inexplicable, the ethereal. To some of these folks, if it can't be measured, then it doesn't exist. Yet, the history of science is about knowing that which was unknown; measuring that which was unmeasurable; and, seeing that which was unseen. Sometimes things are believed long before they are known. The new discovery is used to explain away the spiritual, irrational beliefs. Science is used to debunk belief.
On the other hand, some of the most profound scientists and great scientific minds leave room for phenomena that are outside their understanding. They grasp the physical, but appreciate the meta-physical as well.
A simple model that helps me is that science points us towards understanding the what, how, when, where, and (sometimes) who questions; religion helps us understand the why question. For me, neither one can do the other's job. When we try to make science tell us why or religion tell us how, then we get ourselves into all sorts of problems.
No comments:
Post a Comment