ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
*****************************************************************************
> Ian Russell wrote:
>
> It seems that a key issue, in this ASTC-L discussion and in the
> Darwin-wars outside, is the failure of science communicators to agree
> whether science is atheistic or agnostic. Though some of us may find
> it tedious to consider the distinction, by 'agreeing to disagree' we
> will continue to confuse and alienate a huge percentage of our target
> audience.
I think this is misstating the controversy slightly. The disagreement isn't
within science but rather scientists.
Many (most?) scientists are agnostic--or at least publicly so. In my
experience, most of them take the position that the existence (or
non-existence) of a (or many) supreme being(s) is not a question of science,
but one of faith, and as such scientists should not address it, remaining
neutral on the subject.
Myself, I have to agree with Dawkins that there is nothing preventing us
from phrasing the god question as a scientific hypothesis and examining it
as we would any other theory. When looked at dispassionately, there is
little difference between postulating the existence of a god and postulating
the existence of an extrasolar planet, or a virus or bacterium (and if you
think the later is cut and dry, then you should look into the current debate
over Morgellons Disease).
I am fascinated by this particular area of inquiry, since when we question
the existence of supernatural entities we are essentially questioning the
validity of science. I think perhaps this is why so many scientists choose
to bow out of the debate. At its core, science is a study of nature. It
works off the base assumption that everything, no matter how bazaar, is
natural and follows the same set of laws (whether or not we understand how
those laws work). If we ever find anything that is truly supernatural then
those laws can no longer be trusted and we will have scientifically
disproved the validity of science. I must say I've always loved the idea
that my chosen method of inquiry can, at least in theory, disprove itself.
Not surprisingly, when scientists choose to ask the question and employ the
scientific method, science itself is decisively atheistic. Now, this doesn't
mean that science has disproved god. It just means that, given our current
state of knowledge, the probability of god existing is extremely low and
the probability of god not existing is high. Therefore, atheism is
considered fact (i.e. - atheism is provisionally reliable science which can
be assumed true until further testing reveals new knowledge that calls its
validity into question again).
Many scientists believe in ideas that current science holds as improbable.
Sometimes this belief bears fruit and ultimately ushers in a paradigm shift
in scientific thinking, like general relativity or quantum mechanics.
Sometimes these improbable beliefs remain just that. Each scientist is free
to follow their gut and choose where to place their faith, but we should
never confuse the conclusions of scientists and the conclusions of science.
--
Jeremy Stoller
Senior Graphic Artist
California Science Center
(213) 744-2532
[log in to unmask]
www.CaliforniaScienceCenter.org
***********************************************************************
More information about the Informal Science Education Network and the
Association of Science-Technology Centers may be found at http://www.astc.org.
To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
message SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]
|