Going beyond (or rather dramatically simplifying) the argument in the linked article, I would offer this brief observation in the form of a contrast: even though it has been generally predicted upon substance and evidence, science has been wrong so often in history that a person has no choice but remain skeptical about science (e.g. geocentric astronomy; flat-earth cartography; global warming climatology, etc.); on the other hand, in matters that do not involve science--let us look at faith, for example--the advice of Hebrews 11:1 is worth remembering: "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Funny, isn't it, the ways in which substance and evidence are applied to very different ends when talking about science versus faith?
CORRECTION: "predicted" (in the sentence following the colon) should read "predicated." I apologize for the typographical error (and any other errors that may appear).
Going beyond (or rather dramatically simplifying) the argument in the linked article, I would offer this brief observation in the form of a contrast: even though it has been generally predicted upon substance and evidence, science has been wrong so often in history that a person has no choice but remain skeptical about science (e.g. geocentric astronomy; flat-earth cartography; global warming climatology, etc.); on the other hand, in matters that do not involve science--let us look at faith, for example--the advice of Hebrews 11:1 is worth remembering: "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Funny, isn't it, the ways in which substance and evidence are applied to very different ends when talking about science versus faith?
ReplyDeleteCORRECTION: "predicted" (in the sentence following the colon) should read "predicated." I apologize for the typographical error (and any other errors that may appear).
ReplyDelete