frankbaginski wrote:The point I was making, is that science is an idea.
But science isn't an "idea" primarily. Philosophy can be an idea. Worldviews are comprised of ideas. Science, as I mentioned earlier, is a discipline for examining and understanding the physical world we live in, based upon the scientific method. Ideas in science are subjected to the methodology to determine if that idea is true.
An idea that man can examine nature and try and figure out as best he can how things work. Then using this knowledge try and make life easier for man. Now when the idea of science manifest itself in products or processes the idea has taken on physical form. Or do we say that the products have nothing to do with science? Without science they would not exist however.
That's certainly a very significant portion of science. It's not the whole of it however. Many things within science are pursued simply to know the truth as to how this physical world works.
So the knowledge of science permeates into the fabric of society as products and processes and changes the daily lives of all of the members of society. So over time the changes to society get coupled with the new advances in scientific developments. This of course leads to the masses relating the comforts of the products with the idea of science. Now some of the ideas in science can and do manifest themselves into real devices.
All true as far as it goes. Science as a discipline has yielded some wonderful things, including comforts, luxuries, extended lives etc. Ironically, it's also been the basis of great attrocities; often time using the same knowledge but in a different means of application. The intent of the user is often remarlably important in that regard. It can be the difference between a nuclear reactor providing electricity for millions of people, verses an atomic bomb, killing millions of people.
Other areas of science are not so solid and drift around in theoretical vapor. Still other areas have some hard foundation but the gaps are wider than the tangible areas.
Also true. There are hard sciences and soft sciences and it's not always as clear in some areas as it is in something, like physics or mathematics.
Society in general does not care about any of this. They just see the cars and medicine and planes and want more and more.
Some in society doesn't care about that. Perhaps even a majority, but certainly not all.
So when a scientist says that the oceans will rise the people expect the ocean to rise. They cannot relate to the idea, they are surrounded in the successes of science and are swayed. So when we have a group that has provided creature comforts to billions of people and that group by definition does not allow God then we have an accident waiting to happen.
Perhaps. I think you only need to look to the weather forecast however to illustrate that you're painting a picture that is somewhat slanted here. People in general expect the weather forecast to be accurate but they aren't all that surprised when it is not.
What has happened in the last 200 years is very dramatic. Society has embraced science not as a pure idea but as a way of life.
Again, it appears to me that you are confusing science itself with some expressions of a science based philosophy or world view. There's quite a difference between the two and I seem to be continually reminding you of it.
Scientist on the most part have allowed this to happen and embraced the position of power this has manifest.
Rather overstated I think. Where science has contributed to knowledge there can be elements of power. People can certainly use power of this nature to enhance and promote themselves improperly. The same thing is true of political, religious and other forms of power. There's nothing unique to science in that regard.
Over time science has taken over the position of faith, it is no longer what we know, it is what we will know.
I had no idea the Scientific method had assumed such status.
Again Frank, in my opinion, you are making a huge categorical statement here that I believe is an error.
Science can be extended and has been extended by some to create philosophies and world views that seek to eliminate God and focus upon man and man's own wisdom and knowlege as a means to "salvation."
That is subsection of science and the scientific community and not the whole.
This simple phrase is the wedge that some use to destroy Christianity. It goes beyond the idea, it extends into the unknown and places faith in the hands of science. With man surrounded by machines made by science it was a "natural" extension for man to follow. Many people embrace science as their savior and their faith rest with science. Now was this the intent of the idea way back when? Who knows. But this is where we find ourselves today.
Frank, do you think that these observations are somehow new and that there were not world views philosophies and man based systems prior to the advent of modern science that do not do the same things?
What is the cause of this? Sin perhaps? Rebellion against God? Were these around before science as a discipline.
By taking science as a whole and the scientific community as a whole and lumping them together in these expressed views of yours you are defining the entire group by a category within it.
Respectfully, it is sloppy thinking and I believe it contributes as much to the problems you cite as what you are attributing to "them."
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
Once again, well said
