Taking Science on Faith?
The New York Times today features an op-ed by Paul Davies argueing that there is no physical support for fundamental descriptions of the universe:
Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith — namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too. For that reason, both monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of physical existence.
Remind anyone of the antrhopic principle?
This essay has gotten a bit of attention in the scienceblogs world. I thought that the response by PZ Myers was notable:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/faith_is_not_a_prerequisite_fo.php
Comment by Jeff — November 25, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
If you allow me to start my arguments with half a dozen false premises I can make cute conclusions too!
PZ Myers said it more articulately and echoes my sentiment that the “science = religion” argument is as tired and meaningless as it is old.
Comment by Lex — November 26, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
I particularly liked Sean Carroll’s reply which included:
“Meaning and purpose are created by us, not lurking somewhere within the ultimate architecture of reality.”
ChiChi
Comment by chichiflys — January 14, 2008 @ 10:22 pm