Here Gould threatens a ‘knuckle-rapping’ to both theists and atheists who would try to use science (in general) or the theory of evolution by natural selection (in particular) to butress their worldview.
People familiar with Gould will detect the scent of N.O.M.A. (Nonoverlapping Magesteria – don’t ask me why it’s not N.M. or N.O.M.) in this, but it still seems to make some good points… Continue reading “gould: science a natural venture”
1a (or ‘1’). How should it be defined?
1b (or ‘2’). Is ‘science’ inherently ‘naturalistic’? If so why?
1c (or ‘3’). What is the relationship between philosophy and science?
(tried to embed video but HTML didn’t work – maybe a problem between HTML and CSS??? That’s how for my web knowledge goes… not very far…)
With expectations low (but not low enough to keep us away!), Damian and I headed to the debate (link to series here) tonight between William Lane Craig and Bill Cooke.
I think we both left having heard little or nothing we hadn’t heard before, but nonetheless having enjoyed watching it all unfold.
What follows is not a full, detailed review of the debate, but (in all truthfulness) rather various impressions I’ll share (on my way to bed)… Continue reading “craig cooke debate: impressions”
Many books are on my desk at the moment. Books for my theological study, and books for my personal interest. I have too many books on my desk. I cannot read them all…
Yet this did not prevent me from picking up 7 more books on our recent trip to the states… Continue reading “recent book purchase”
I’ve enjoyed the few articles I’ve skimmed at this blog called “Just Thomism”.
(Thomism designates the study of the life and work of St. Thomas Aquinas)
I found this post having to do with atheism, theism, evolution and science(s) of particular interest.
Here’s a quote…
It is mere historical chance that popular theism did not end up insisting that God could only exist in an evolutionary world, where all matter had been developing to the point where man could emerge at last- At last! man! prepared for by all the ages! Who all creation leads up to, just as it says in the book of Genesis!
This is one of many interesting philosophical reflections (and certainly not necessarily the best) in basically each and every post. We often don’t think about how we think; observe how we observe; ponder how we ponder; distinguish how we distinguish; wonder how we wonder; know how we know; ‘etc.’ how we ‘etc.’
Happy browsing… (and thinking)
This question (‘Is anything significant?’) can be fleshed out a bit…
We could ask, “Is everything equally in-significant?”, or we could ask, “Is everything equally highly-significant?”
What makes something (an event or object [which can quite rightly be said to be ‘events’ in themselves]) significant, and another thing not so?
Continue reading “is anything significant?”
Consolmagno has done it again…
Yet another poignant and wise article, helpfully navigating the intersection of faith and science…
Here’s a sampler:
…there’s the world of nature, the world I study as a scientist, nice and neat and well described by some beautiful equations, elegant in their simplicity. And there’s the world of human beings, strange fleshy bundles of ego and free will, who can sometimes be described in a statistical sense but who as individuals never cease to surprise you.
Read the whole thing here.
For some reason, I respect people the most when they obviously are very smart, but are ever-concious that they don’t know everything.
Matter of fact, it seems that the more you know, the more you become aware of all the things you don’t know.
In another interesting article over at Thinking Faith, Guy Consolmagno posits three things all scientists must ‘believe’. He calls them “three axioms of science that must be taken on faith before you can do science.”
- “You have to believe that the physical world actually exists – I am not just a butterfly, dreaming that I am a scientist, in an imaginary universe.”
- “You have to believe, ahead of time, that the physical world actually does have rules and regularities – well hidden ones perhaps, but something that eventually you’ll be able to figure out.”
- “…you have to believe that the physical universe is worth studying. Think of it… if your religion says that the goal of life is to meditate yourself out of this corrupting universe onto a higher plane, you’re not going to be a physical scientist.”
The article can be found here, (PDF version) or by clicking the link in my RSS for Thinking Faith in the sidebar…