Quote:
Originally Posted by levite
No, I kind of mean open-minded, in the sense that a lot of scientists react just as you're describing: I will believe in your paradigm as soon as it is proven within my paradigm by the parameters of my paradigm. The trouble (if I may be forgiven for using the word) with a lot of scientists is that they maintain that there is only one paradigm in which to interact with the universe: the scientific, rational, logical paradigm. They are open-minded to anything expressible or provable within that paradigm.
What I mean is that a scientist has to be open-minded to the notion that there are potentially other paradigms in which to interact with the universe, that work differently, and offer different answers. The questions asked to those paradigms may overlap with those posed in the scientific, but they are not entirely the identical set, and they bring their answers by slightly different rules.
I have known a number of scientists who work that way. They simply understand that they are not trying to do quite the same things in the lab as they are in the synagogue, nor is their Torah a science textbook, or their science textbook a Torah.
|
It depends on what you mean by "paradigm." Can you please exemplify this? As far as I can tell, what you are saying is that scientists are only open to ideas that are real. Surely you don't mean this or, at least, can clarify this claim some more?
The paradigm of science is that you can make claims with efficacy. That is to say, you make claims that allow you to do things. The belief is that being able to do things is indicative of reality. The reason behind this is that if everyone can do things with scientific theories then that is something we all share: a definition of reality. This last point is surprisingly incidental since it doesn't really matter if scientific ideas are real or not if they still allow you do to the things you want to do. That's why science is more than just a generic search for "the truth..."
Quote:
|
But ultimately, with all due respect, to say that science would be delighted if anyone offered laboratory proof of God is just as fundamentalist as the televangelist saying that he will "believe in" evolution as soon as Jesus Christ tells him to.
|
I don't think this is a good comparison. We
know that the televangelist believes things that weren't allegedly told to him by Jesus. Thus his denial of evolution is unjustified by the lack of endorsement by his deity of choice.
On the other hand, scientists use the same reasoning and logic that the televangelists accept except when the results of those things contradict their fundamentalist beliefs.
There is no symmetry here...
Quote:
|
It is, ultimately, apples and oranges. Science and religion can coexist, they can even overlap from time to time. But they cannot occupy the same paradigmatic space, not any more than we can demand that painting and music operate by each other's rules, or expect to critique cooking for its literary faults, or poetry for its lack of nutrition.
|
Most people claim that their religion makes accurate claims on reality and thus their religion and science are not so apples and oranges since they are used to describe the same thing. Every time this has happened, science has always proven to be more accurate...
Your analogies aren't apt. Again, perhaps you can clarify what you mean by "paradigms?" Which paradigms are these, specifically?