Reply to comment
Scientific Theory/Hypothesis vs. Religious Speculation
September 24, 2008
by Halliday,
1 year 9 weeks ago
Comment: 32111
Reply
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
While I think the comparison with one, apparently fairly common, interpretation of the "religious" approach to "truth" is interesting, I think it doesn't fully characterize the broader religious character.
To me, at least, truth is truth*, independent of the source or means whereby it is obtained. However, one must recognize that religious speculation—by this I mean extrapolation upon some interpretation of some religious writing beyond its intended meaning (unfortunately, admittedly, such a "barrier" can be very difficult to ever be sure of)—must not be confused with truth. Additionally, one must also recognize (and admit, as a scientist, or proponent thereof) that neither is scientific theory (let alone any hypothesis or combination thereof) to be confused with truth: such are simply what we believe to be our best approximation to truth so far. (I think the article did a good job of pointing this out, at least for the spacetime continuum hypothesis. However, I believe most physicists understand enough about the history of physics, and the scientific revolutions we have been through thus far, to recognize that even our best theories may need to be "replaced" along the path to ever better approximations to truth.)
The problem lies, in my opinion, in the conflict between scientific theory (and hypotheses, of course) and religious speculation. So, as long as neither line is crossed—with this line not necessarily corresponding with the of-times espoused line of "in their respective realms" (as if it were an issue of "turf")—then, I believe, we should have few if any issues.
So, I suggest that when religious vs. scientific conflicts occur, both (all) parties should step back, as it were, and try to honestly asses whether the conflict is really over truth vs. truth, or the aforementioned conflict between scientific theory and religious speculation.
A hard thing to ask, I suppose, but I believe it is what is necessary.
David
* Perhaps these "truths" should be spelled with capital Ts, but then I risk having others suggest I'm implying that scientific truth is different from religious Truth, which I'm not.