(repost – thought it was relevant)
This has come up in the comments again. I thought I’d put together a list of some of the things I’ve written about the scientific approach, rather than retyping the wheel.<\/p>\n
Probably the best place to start is this post: The Holiness of Stuart Staniford<\/a>, as I do see something holy in scientific endeavour (not really surprising as it has such deep theological roots) and I believe it would be a tragedy if scientific research were to be repudiated in our society.<\/p>\n My main problem with science as it is received and worshipped in our culture is that it is apathistic, in other words it is systematically blind to what we most value<\/a>. If we are to defend what we most value, we must be prepared to topple science from its perch.<\/p>\n That perch is embedded in a particular story. My paraphrase of that story is written up as: the mythology of science<\/a>.<\/p>\n My longest discussion of science can be found in my Let us be human sequence, and the transcript of the relevant lecture is here<\/a>.<\/p>\n I think what I would most want to stress is that the great majority of my criticisms of the way science is revered and estimated in our culture are valid independently of any claim for the truth of Christian faith. Which is why sophisticated atheists agree with most of them \ud83d\ude09<\/p>\n \u201cWe feel that even when all possible scientific questions have been answered the problems of life remain completely untouched.\u201d (Wittgenstein again)<\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" (repost – thought it was relevant)This has come up in the comments again. I thought I’d put together a list of some of the things I’ve written about the scientific approach, rather than retyping the wheel. Probably the best place … Continue reading