|
I think people need to be careful about what they are claiming for each of the two systems (science and faith). Faith created a problem for itself by overpromising - purporting to explain too much. When some of what it claimed to explain was shown not to be correct (e.g. Galileo), that set in motion a chain of events leading up to this day that steadily constricted the sphere of what it reasonably could be said to explain, to the point that today a substantial number of people say it explains nothing.
Those who put their faith in science need to resist the lure of overexplaining as well. Bear in mind that there are "fads" in science just as surely as in clothing. Eugenics was quite popular as science 85 years ago. So was racism and social darwinism. In my adulthood, as I try to keep my weight down, I have been warned away from (in succession) fats (but complex carbs OK), complex carbohydrates (but protein OK so long as the fat was unsaturated), saturated fats (but only in red meat, not fish), etc etc etc. Look at cosmology in the last 50 years, starting with Einstein, and how much it has changed. One criticism of string theory is that it requires much to be taken on faith.
Science and religion operate separately, or at least they should. Reason isn't foreign to either one (if you take the current Pope seriously -- and he is supposed to be a major intellect, from what I read -- you can't have faith without reason). But don't expect either one to bear more weight than it reasonably should. Science can't explain why we're here or how we should live. Faith can't explain how physical laws work.
|