Take a look at this article by Tom Clark at Naturalism.org; it’s about the misguided notion that in some areas faith can give us genuine answers to questions before which science is impotent. This is the NOMA (”nonoverlapping magisteria”) refrain that we hear constantly from organizations like the National Academy of Sciences, the National Center for Science Education, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Are there “ways of knowing” that are not only unique to faith, but provide real answers about the nature of the universe?
From Why Evolution is True
Via Richard Dawkins.net
It’s an interesting article, and it got me thinking.
Let us assume that the basic premise that:
there “ways of knowing” that are not only unique to faith, but provide real answers about the nature of the universe
is valid, and see where it takes us.
Science is all about observing a phenomena is nature, and trying to describe how and why it happens. It relies on the use of empirical evidence to create hypothsis that can be tested over and over by independant parties.
So, if there are ways of knowing that are beyond science, how would we know about them? The only way we can know anything is through our decidedly physical brain being fed information through the five senses. We then think about it, and come up with answers – not necessarily the correct ones, but naswers none the less.
The knowledge of faith, if it is to be beyond science must come to us via another method. But that method still must interact with the physical brain. So, if the premise is true, we may not be able to discover the knowledge, but we absolutely should be able to know the method by which we come to know it. If the ability to know even that is beyond science, then how can we be sure that any knowledge gained through the premise is based on any truth? Indeed, how can we even know that there is any knowledge to be gained? How do we know that we aren’t just ‘Making Shit Up’?
Here’s wishing you and yours a very happy and prosperous new year !