Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Creationism and holy encyclopedias
An NUS professor doesn't share his cynicism of science with spirituality:
The greatest contradiction I could possibly derive from this argument is that the author (Yuen Chung) admits that in the instance of quantum physics, a nuclear scientist may completely understand the concepts and theories substantiating the existence of atoms, while still reflecting some degree of denial based on the remaining uneducated human population.
And then there is the term "faith".
In this context, I would much more appropriately choose the term "trust". The human population in general accept popular scientific belief because they trust that the scientific community shares a commonly held logical form of interpreting information and deriving conclusions, as opposed to a faith-based approach. While we are able to make independent logical conclusions from scientific discovery, we cannot do the same in religious terms. In essence, the Bible dictates to us what to believe, and requires genuine faith where an otherwise logical form of observe and deduce may not be applied. Classroom textbooks and encyclopedias certainly do not share the same foundation of scientific credibility as holy scriptures. They do not command authority over our beliefs. On the contrary, they demand our logical intellect and objectivity to comprehend information that is disseminated into our minds.
EXAMPLE:
1. An encyclopedia might explain how a river dam prevents water from flooding its banks. Fair enough, water flow is blocked by a solid wall, thus restricting the overflow of the river.
2. The Bible does not mention how Moses parted the sea except with a wooden stick. This does not make sense when I try it at the beach.
The latter does not make sense because it is not consistent with my own observations, after a nearly scientific approach at the beach. To believe the event of Moses parting the sea, I am required to exercise faith. On the other hand, I am not required to see a dam to believe it works because upon exercising my brain, logic tells me water does not pass through a solid wall.
So why is it essential for one to see a dinosaur or atom before believing they exist? That's like saying you won't believe a million dollars exist until you see bundles of green fill your living room. If anything, the aim of science is to discover and learn more about that which we cannot see with our eyes alone. Secondly, the layman does not have to completely understand how something works in order to consider it a matter of science over faith. For example, we can safely say that majority of drivers are not qualified mechanics or engineers and do not completely understand how a car works. But they know enough that when you step on the gas pedal the car goes faster and stepping on the brake pedal makes it slow down. In this way, we make observations and deductions about the car and hence the car is a predictable system and under our control. We do not consider driving a miracle (for most people).
The logical error comes from the choice of questioning the probability that an assertion is correct over the probability that it is incorrect. And this is where creationism's shares its dangers in a faith-based approach to science. If we constantly questioned science without presenting any real evidence or alternative observations to disprove currently accepted beliefs, then we would not believe in pollution, global warming, ozone depletion and other hazards that demand global attention. In essence, such views only excuse ignorance at the expense of scientific credibility.
We cannot expect to share the same faith in science as we do religion, and then not expect to reach a crossroad where both collide and contradict each other. Accepting both blindly as truths is only failure to appreciate and understand the roots of both concepts.
Related: Hicks & Colbert on Creationism: Dinosaurs
...the proposition that scientific ideas are better accepted than spiritual ideas because they can be "proved" is highly dubious. We believe in atoms and dinosaurs, but has it really been "proved" to us that atoms exist and dinosaurs existed? None of us have ever seen an atom or a dinosaur, nor ever will. There are some very large skeletons that are on display in museums, but how do we know these came from animals that lived millions of years ago? Some of us use electricity generated from nuclear reactors, but in what way does this prove the existence of atoms? The connection may be clear to a nuclear scientist, but not to the human majority.
For most of us, such beliefs are merely based on faith: there are these books from the libraries that show pictures of atoms and dinosaurs, and there are these wise looking men who tell us that such things exist(ed); we accept their words because they command authority. Is this so very different from believing in the bible and the priests? Even scientists themselves have to base much of their beliefs upon faith once they move out of their own specialized domain into areas in which they are not expert.
The greatest contradiction I could possibly derive from this argument is that the author (Yuen Chung) admits that in the instance of quantum physics, a nuclear scientist may completely understand the concepts and theories substantiating the existence of atoms, while still reflecting some degree of denial based on the remaining uneducated human population.
And then there is the term "faith".
In this context, I would much more appropriately choose the term "trust". The human population in general accept popular scientific belief because they trust that the scientific community shares a commonly held logical form of interpreting information and deriving conclusions, as opposed to a faith-based approach. While we are able to make independent logical conclusions from scientific discovery, we cannot do the same in religious terms. In essence, the Bible dictates to us what to believe, and requires genuine faith where an otherwise logical form of observe and deduce may not be applied. Classroom textbooks and encyclopedias certainly do not share the same foundation of scientific credibility as holy scriptures. They do not command authority over our beliefs. On the contrary, they demand our logical intellect and objectivity to comprehend information that is disseminated into our minds.
EXAMPLE:
1. An encyclopedia might explain how a river dam prevents water from flooding its banks. Fair enough, water flow is blocked by a solid wall, thus restricting the overflow of the river.
2. The Bible does not mention how Moses parted the sea except with a wooden stick. This does not make sense when I try it at the beach.
The latter does not make sense because it is not consistent with my own observations, after a nearly scientific approach at the beach. To believe the event of Moses parting the sea, I am required to exercise faith. On the other hand, I am not required to see a dam to believe it works because upon exercising my brain, logic tells me water does not pass through a solid wall.
So why is it essential for one to see a dinosaur or atom before believing they exist? That's like saying you won't believe a million dollars exist until you see bundles of green fill your living room. If anything, the aim of science is to discover and learn more about that which we cannot see with our eyes alone. Secondly, the layman does not have to completely understand how something works in order to consider it a matter of science over faith. For example, we can safely say that majority of drivers are not qualified mechanics or engineers and do not completely understand how a car works. But they know enough that when you step on the gas pedal the car goes faster and stepping on the brake pedal makes it slow down. In this way, we make observations and deductions about the car and hence the car is a predictable system and under our control. We do not consider driving a miracle (for most people).
The logical error comes from the choice of questioning the probability that an assertion is correct over the probability that it is incorrect. And this is where creationism's shares its dangers in a faith-based approach to science. If we constantly questioned science without presenting any real evidence or alternative observations to disprove currently accepted beliefs, then we would not believe in pollution, global warming, ozone depletion and other hazards that demand global attention. In essence, such views only excuse ignorance at the expense of scientific credibility.
We cannot expect to share the same faith in science as we do religion, and then not expect to reach a crossroad where both collide and contradict each other. Accepting both blindly as truths is only failure to appreciate and understand the roots of both concepts.
Related: Hicks & Colbert on Creationism: Dinosaurs
Comments:
<< Home
im a very strong believer of religions...i have faith that anything is possible,but because of my faith and stong belief ....i was i asked a question that was very hard to answer and infact had no answer to.A man asked me"why doesnt the holy scriptures speak about the dinosaurs and the life before adam and eve"?if anyone can give me an answer please be my guest...coz for the first time i was left speechless!!!
Post a Comment
# posted by 
: 25/6/08 1:40 PM
: 25/6/08 1:40 PM<< Home
.jpg)
