NSCI WEEK 1 Discussion
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Regent University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
110
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
1
Uploaded by ProfStrawButterfly315
NSCI WEEK 1 As science has become more widespread and widely explored in the last handful of centuries, every person has had to, in one way or another, categorize science’s importance and place in their lives. In the introduction to his book “Origins,” Neil deGrasse Tyson organizes the possible response into four categories, ranging from an almost religious adherence to science all the way to a full rejection of scientific thought and findings. The response that I find most describes my personal conviction is one that
“accepts the scientific approach to nature while maintaining a belief in supernatural entities existing beyond our complete understanding that rule the cosmos” (Tyson, 2014).
If I apply honest logic to the questions that science investigates, as an integrous thinker I must admit the crushing improbability of a fully Creator-less natural world. For the Big Bang to result in galaxies and gorillas without any direction or guidance is hard to believe without a direct bias against some form of intelligent design (even with 14 billion years to “try, try again”). Likewise, to propose that scientific findings should be rejected, despite their clear and reasonable findings, would also require me to intentionally avoid logic and sound reasoning. The scientific process isn’t an assault on beliefs (indeed, it is
intentionally amoral and impartial), so it doesn’t need to contradict a belief in God. Backed by centuries of the brightest minds and consistently stress-tested by new thinkers, scientific findings are in many ways the most trustworthy of resources. To me, a world without science would make no sense, just as a creation devoid of a Creator would make no sense.
I find myself left, then, thanking a Creator for the gift of scientific discoveries. In this, I find myself siding with methodological naturalism, which allows for the findings of scientific studies and research to be good and true while also allowing for mystery, worship, and a realm of truth outside the bounds of observation. Methodological naturalism lets science lead the discussion on natural things and admits its limitations when the conversation turns to philosophical or theological topics. As Applegate put it, “Although (science) ably answers the “How” questions, science will always fail to answer the “Why” questions” (Applegate, 2013). If only because of its inability to answer
the deepest questions of purpose and meaning, I find myself grateful for science and unable to worship it.
WORKS CITED
Tyson, N. d., Goldsmith, D., & Kenerly, K. (2014). Origins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution.
Applegate, K. (2013). A Defense of Methodological Naturalism.
Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith
,
65
(1).
Discover more documents: Sign up today!
Unlock a world of knowledge! Explore tailored content for a richer learning experience. Here's what you'll get:
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help