Replies

Perhaps the analogy of fire will help -- when humans are in charge of it, fire (or science) is highly useful for heating and cooking, etc.

When fire takes charge, it can instantly kill us. That's the difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism.

That's a fascinating metaphor, dear BroJoeK, thank you for sharing it!

Problems arise when people "do" theology or philosophy under the color of science, e.g. Dawkins, Lewontin. And, no doubt, some would also say that intelligent design supporters - e.g. Meyers - are doing the same thing from the polar opposite position, i.e. pro-God v. anti-God.

In my view, it would be better for a scientist faced with an unanswerable question (e.g. origin of inertia, information [Shannon, successful communication], space/time) simply to say "it is unknowable by the scientific method" rather than to default to his theological/philosophical presupposition - whether "God did it" or "Nature did it." Both are statements of faith. And offering a statement of faith is fine, but it should not be called "science" because it was not derived by the scientific method and cannot be falsified (Popper et al.)

Science is not the enemy of Christianity, though some atheists claim that it is.

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace [be] with thee. Amen. - I Tim 6:20-21

I would also put "randomness did it" in the same faith statement bucket since we cannot say something is random in the system when we don't know what the system "is." The total number and types of dimensions are both unknown and unknowable - so just like a string of numbers extracted from the extension of pi, something may have the appearance of randomness and yet truly be highly determined.

Alamo-Girl: "That's a fascinating metaphor, dear BroJoeK, thank you for sharing it!"

You're welcome. ;-)
Did you also like the metaphor of the tool box (post #19) -- which gains no value, and makes us idiots, if we put it up on some alter, and bow down to worship it?

Alamo-Girl: "Problems arise when people "do" theology or philosophy under the color of science..."

In posting and discussing these matters on Free Republic, it does seem to me that much, if not most, of the confusion arises from people's mis-understandings of distinctions between science on the one hand and philosophy, theology, religion and even politics on the other.
Science itself should have little or nothing to say about those subjects...

Alamo-Girl: " '...it is unknowable by the scientific method'... "

Bingo! We have a winner. :-)

Alamo-Girl: "I would also put "randomness did it" in the same faith statement bucket since we cannot say something is random in the system when we don't know what the system "is." "

Thank you. It's one of my favorite subjects, because it answers the famous question raised by Albert Einstein when he was puzzling over (iirc) issues of quantum mechanics, and remarked: "G*d does not play dice with the Universe".

No! Albert-baby, buddy, you got it all wrong!
The physical Universe is one giant casino, with "slot machines" everywhere you turn, and every single one of them is rigged, just like Vegas, to produce a profit for "the House", and who, in the Universe is "the House", if not it's Creator, G*d?

In the long run, G*d's purposes will not be denied, yes "machines" "randomly" produce winners and losers, but G*d's Will will be done.

And in the shorter runs?
Wouldn't you suppose that those who understand the "games" stand a better chance of coming out ahead?

;-)