Faith & Science: Is The World Rational?
As AJ and I have been talking recently a few themes keep reoccurring. One is issues dealing with technology and the effect on how we live: mostly how we think. An other is the importance of having a system of values to help navigate modern life; for some it is religion and some philosophy and others don't have one, but we both are convinced that it is important. One area where these two, and other topics, meet is in the question of faith in science and more specifically the question of weather or not the world is rational. It is with this question/ topic that we start our next adventure.
I offer these ruminations of mine from a couple months back as the starting point:
Foundations
Science assumes that the physical world is understandable. From this comes the idea that our inability to understand it comes from our inability to be totally objective, or the limited nature of our intellect.
Most strains of post-modern philosophy assume that the world is not understandable, or meaningful. It attributes understanding and meaning to human beings alone. We impose systems and ideas on to the physical world to make it understandable.
I find the latter to be a more reasonable assumption, less of a leap of faith. This is at least in part because we know ourselves better (though not in a scientific way, in more of a wisdom way) than we can know the world.
From this assumption comes Nietzsche's proclamation, "There are no facts only interpretation." And Heidegger looks at this in a fairly systematic way when he talks of uncovering and concealing. As we understand (as we impose a system on to the world that makes it comprehensible) we not only uncover things-- accentuate or highlight things that are there-- but we conceal things-- cover over things that are also there, or simple thrust them into the shadows of the things we accentuate. We can never uncover everything at once because that would not be understandable because the world as a whole is not comprehensible.
This leaves science hanging in the air like all other human thought systems.
I offer these ruminations of mine from a couple months back as the starting point:
Foundations
Science assumes that the physical world is understandable. From this comes the idea that our inability to understand it comes from our inability to be totally objective, or the limited nature of our intellect.
Most strains of post-modern philosophy assume that the world is not understandable, or meaningful. It attributes understanding and meaning to human beings alone. We impose systems and ideas on to the physical world to make it understandable.
I find the latter to be a more reasonable assumption, less of a leap of faith. This is at least in part because we know ourselves better (though not in a scientific way, in more of a wisdom way) than we can know the world.
From this assumption comes Nietzsche's proclamation, "There are no facts only interpretation." And Heidegger looks at this in a fairly systematic way when he talks of uncovering and concealing. As we understand (as we impose a system on to the world that makes it comprehensible) we not only uncover things-- accentuate or highlight things that are there-- but we conceal things-- cover over things that are also there, or simple thrust them into the shadows of the things we accentuate. We can never uncover everything at once because that would not be understandable because the world as a whole is not comprehensible.
This leaves science hanging in the air like all other human thought systems.
posted by Zophorian at 12:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home