<\/p>\n
In a previous comment Rombald He is right, but I want to <\/p>\n Science had to start somewhere Measurement, prediction, and By the time scientific findings Since then evidence has steadily Even so, until recently science Both these assumptions are now We are increasingly discovering Why has it taken so long to get First, we are all of us both What helps scientists continually Secondly, the early successes of The most interesting evidence of This ultimately Protestant rooted
\ncalled our attention<\/a> to the fact that science itself was powerfully influenced
\nby a Christian world view when it originated. <\/span>The desacralization of the world promoted by Protestantism
\nin particular made it easy to approach it in a detached ‘objective’
\nfashion. <\/span>Western science is
\nlargely Protestant Christian in its origins. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nemphasize something a little different.
\n<\/span>In doing so I necessarily simplify, but I hope not overly so. <\/span>In the process I will suggest how a
\nPagan outlook changes our view, and that modern science is coming into harmony
\nwith a Pagan perspective more than with a traditional Christian one.<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\nand as it happened it developed from scientists who possesed a Christian point
\nof view. What is most important in my opinion is not where scientists started,
\nbut the means they developed to evaluate one another’s work: by writing up
\ntheir work they enabled others to read it, evaluate it, and build on it. What
\nwe loosely call the “scientific method” developed not through philosophy, but
\nthrough the process of seeking to persuade their peers.<\/p>\n
\nexperiment developed as the most persuasive means to convince others of your
\nfindings. <\/span>Reason followed closely
\nbehind. <\/span>This was an epochal
\ndevelopment because it freed science from having to be based on a world-view,
\nother than one that allowed these relatively impersonal methods to determine an
\nissue. <\/span>It ultimately freed science
\nfrom dependence on its initially Christian assumptions about the world,
\nalthough at first it continued to be in harmony with them. <\/span>This is probably why scientists were
\npermitted to do their work at all.<\/p>\n
\nbegan straining against Christian dogmas, it had proven itself too useful
\nmilitarily and economically to be suppressed. <\/span>And because of this, certain vital principles entered into
\nWestern thought. <\/span>The most important
\nwas establishing a way of learning that emphasized discovering error as its
\nmost powerful means of assisting in the discovery of truth. <\/span>While individual scientists are
\nmotivated by their search for truth, as a social enterprise,<\/i> science developed tests (its “method”) that were
\ngood for discovering error but could never prove truth. <\/span>No theory could be proven, ever, but
\nany <\/span>scientific<\/i> theory, no matter
\nhow seemingly secure, could in principle be disproven without invalidating
\nscience. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\naccumulated that a Biblical account of the physical world cannot explain what
\nwe observe. <\/span>The case is is now
\noverwhelming and can only be argued against by relying on faith and a degree of
\narbitrary skepticism that they do not come close to applying to their own
\nBiblical alternative. <\/span>In other
\nwords, the Biblical account can only be supported by bad faith or a trusting
\nignorance of the issues involved.<\/p>\n
\nhas continued to be dominated by certain assumptions about the world with their
\nroots in Protestant Christianity.
\n<\/span>I will discuss two. <\/span>The
\nassumption that the world is essentially inert and valueless in the absence of
\na valuer separate from it. Facts and values are forever separate. <\/span>Another key assumption that reflects
\nthese Christian roots is reductionism.
\n<\/span>If God was an artificer, and the universe runs through His rules, once
\nwe discover the most basic rules he employed, we can see how it was all put
\ntogether. <\/span><\/p>\n
\npretty weak. <\/span>I will start with the
\nsecond and end with the first. <\/p>\n
\nthat many phenomena cannot be understood reductionistically. Stuart Kauffman
\nhas written the best account<\/a> of this issue that I know of. What this argument means is that from a scientific perspective the universe is
\nmore than what can be explained by basic laws. <\/span>Maybe much more.<\/p>\n
\nhere? <\/span><\/p>\n
\nempowered and blinded by our theories about how things are. <\/span>(Look at Randians like “Alano” who agree
\n<\/a>with my criticism while thinking they are rebutting it by discussing Rand’s views
\non Indians.) We easily see what fits our theories and often have a hard time
\nappreciating what does not, particularly when they are important to us. <\/span>This is as true for scientists as for
\nanyone else. It’s true for me, and I try and be sensitive to it.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nenlarge the realm of new and previously unimagined knowledge is that they have
\ndeveloped methods to try and minimize the power of this blindness. <\/span>But, being human, they have hardly
\nfreed themselves from it completely.
\n<\/span>Many individual scientists are as theory blinded as anyone else. <\/span>To they degree they mistake their
\ntreasured theory as “science” they might be even more blind.<\/p>\n
\nreductionist methods were very impressive in physics and chemistry. <\/span>These were long the most prestigious
\nsciences, in part because of these successes, which in turn strengthened the
\nprestige of the methods used. <\/span>It
\nwas a feedback loop that focused attention on successes achieved through
\nreductionist methods and not on phenomena reductionism could not touch, like
\nawareness.<\/p>\n
\nthe price we have paid for this assumptions, from my perspective anyway, is in
\nbiology. <\/span>For exmple, Darwin was
\ninterpreted to justify a nature red in tooth and claw perspective. <\/span>He himself looked at the world a bit
\nthis way, but those calling themselves his followers went much farther. <\/span>In doing so they ignored his pioneering
\nwork in how ethics could arise through evolutionary processes<\/a>. <\/span> <\/span>Most of Darwin’s detractors were more than happy to commit
\nthe same error because they were even more blinded by their presuppositions and
\njust knew<\/i> that evolution led to treating
\npeople as animals rather than, as Darwin argued, treating animals better. <\/span>Fallen nature was something optimists
\nthought we had risen above and pessimists thought we were condemned to suffer.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nbias led to ignoring enormous evidence for symbiosis and cooperation being
\nwidespread in nature. <\/span>Peter
\nKropotkin’s <\/a>Mutual Aid<\/a><\/i> was the first argument I know of that questioned this purely competitive model from
\na scientific point of view, but hardly the last. <\/span>More recently we have discovered that the very cells of our
\nbody are the result of symbiosis, a symbiosis that continues getting more
\ncomplicated and amazing<\/a>. Cooperation may well be <\/span>more <\/i>important
\nthan competition. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n