*Some of the following topics I've already discussed, but to avoid the urge to filter my ideas as to not contradict previous ones, I haven't read my earlier posts on these topics.
Science is a means by which man tries to gain knowledge. It is not the only means, but is generally viewed as the most objective, which leads many to call it the most powerful. It's not foolproof, nor is it always concrete, but it is one of the strongest foundations we have on which to build.
As we've often discussed, science and religion often come into conflict. However, they can work together and provide what I believe to be the most powerful evidence of truth we can attain. When God reveals Himself through faith and science, at least for me, it provides a great argument for truth being found.
Experiments are to science what problems are to life. When we as humans are untested, we tend to grow weak. Likewise, when science is untested, it loses its strength for argument. Experiments, like human trials, get to the problems that need to be solved and determine if we have the knowledge and abilities to solve them. In the end, we always learn something new about ourselves or the world in which we live, whether we get a positive or negative answer to our hypothesis. A negative is still an answer providing new learning, it just requires that we continue searching for the ultimate truth, whether it be in science or in life.
(Warning: I may be taking a controversial stance soon. Feel free to question, but please consider first.)
I think man is ultimately the final arbiter of scientific truth. Let me qualify that by saying that God is Truth and the provider of Truth, but scientific truth is unique to man. God created it, He understands it, but to be perfectly honest and blunt, He doesn't need it. God gave us science as a tool to seek Him. Many don't use it that way, but I truly believe that was His intent. However, He doesn't want us to understand Him completely, at least not from what I gather in my understanding of His Word. God wants us to seek Him continually, and eventually we'll find, but I don't think that will happen in this life. Because He doesn't need science to understand Truth, I think God leaves it up to man to figure it out. That's why we're limited by dichotomies between induction and deduction, by the need for definitions to establish a foundation with which to begin.
Objectivity is important to science because science seeks to discover universal truths. By remaining unbiased and objective, truth is sought that cannot always be discovered through arts and other disciplines that are by nature more subjective. While these disciplines can still lead us closer to truth, it can be much more easily argued that bias taints our understanding outside of science.
Skepticism is important because it forces us to keep thinking. When we accept ideas and stop questioning, we stop developing new thoughts. We stop finding errors and fixing them. We come to believe that our way of thinking is right and perfect, when chances are we have many flaws to be discovered and fixed. Skepticism is important because no one really knows what is true.
Science seeks to employ axioms much like mathematics does. We recognize patterns in the natural world that have not been contradicted, but without examining every case, we have to accept that our theory is just a theory. However, we have to base science on some set of beliefs, so until we prove otherwise, our axioms and theories are the best we have to work with.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Tootsie Roll Pops
I feel like the owl in the commercial (I think I'm dating myself) that says "how many licks does it take...?" How many looks does it take to get to the center of the universe?
In response to the comment regarding the disproof of the geocentric model:
I think I understand the argument that is being used to support geocentrism. It seems that it is based upon selecting the Earth as an alternative reference point to the sun, which can be done arbitrarily. However, I think when we do that, we make the revolving universe something that exists outside and independent of the Earth, rather than acknowledging that Earth exists inside and relationally with the universe. Arguing for selecting different points of reference is understandable, but I would be hard-pressed to accept an argument that the universe exists independently from Earth.
From the beginning of time, we have been a part of a greater universe than our own atmosphere. I'm afraid that we still want to see ourselves as the center of the cosmos, whether literally or figuratively, because we feel less important to God if we aren't. Then I think of photography, especially composition, where you typically will put your primary subject, the person or thing on which you want to focus, slighly off-center. I don't see why God wouldn't do the same. He pulls us out from the center just a little, yet never takes his focus off his most prized creation.
I can't get into the scientific arguments because I don't have the understanding or knowledge of them. The only major implication that I am aware of that I would have trouble accepting is this: If the earth is the center of the universe, why is it that all other known planets revolve around the sun, but not earth. It could possibly be argued that the other eight planets are just moons of the sun, but I think logic leads us to a different conclusion.
I am looking at the issue more though from a theological point-of-view. I question the redefinition of reference points in the universe, solely because of their implications. However, I realize that the implications of moving to a sun-centered universe were unfathomable at the time of Copernicus and Galileo, so I'm open to evidence that suggests a different orientation than is currently accepted, just not confident that such evidence will be enough to change my mind. However, if we are questioning why God would put something else at the center of the universe, I offer that it is in His composition of the cosmos and His positioning of the world that he places us at a focal point in his view. What an amazing thought that God would specifically locate us where He would be drawn to watch after us, rather than just putting us in the physical center.
In response to the comment regarding the disproof of the geocentric model:
I think I understand the argument that is being used to support geocentrism. It seems that it is based upon selecting the Earth as an alternative reference point to the sun, which can be done arbitrarily. However, I think when we do that, we make the revolving universe something that exists outside and independent of the Earth, rather than acknowledging that Earth exists inside and relationally with the universe. Arguing for selecting different points of reference is understandable, but I would be hard-pressed to accept an argument that the universe exists independently from Earth.
From the beginning of time, we have been a part of a greater universe than our own atmosphere. I'm afraid that we still want to see ourselves as the center of the cosmos, whether literally or figuratively, because we feel less important to God if we aren't. Then I think of photography, especially composition, where you typically will put your primary subject, the person or thing on which you want to focus, slighly off-center. I don't see why God wouldn't do the same. He pulls us out from the center just a little, yet never takes his focus off his most prized creation.
I can't get into the scientific arguments because I don't have the understanding or knowledge of them. The only major implication that I am aware of that I would have trouble accepting is this: If the earth is the center of the universe, why is it that all other known planets revolve around the sun, but not earth. It could possibly be argued that the other eight planets are just moons of the sun, but I think logic leads us to a different conclusion.
I am looking at the issue more though from a theological point-of-view. I question the redefinition of reference points in the universe, solely because of their implications. However, I realize that the implications of moving to a sun-centered universe were unfathomable at the time of Copernicus and Galileo, so I'm open to evidence that suggests a different orientation than is currently accepted, just not confident that such evidence will be enough to change my mind. However, if we are questioning why God would put something else at the center of the universe, I offer that it is in His composition of the cosmos and His positioning of the world that he places us at a focal point in his view. What an amazing thought that God would specifically locate us where He would be drawn to watch after us, rather than just putting us in the physical center.
Friday, January 20, 2006
Taglines
In light of our discussion of "Allegory of the Cave," I thought I'd explain the tagline. One night, I was feeling more creative than ever, and wrote a verse. One line read "cast your shadow in the absensce of the light."
Imagine if we were able to let the Light shine so much around us that we cast a shadow in the darkness of the world. We could change the world, and as I mentioned today in class, I think our mere shadows would point people to the light. We've been called to be the light of the world. Let's start by simply casting shadows where the Light needs to be seen. Let's in our darkness reveal the light. Then people will find it.
Imagine if we were able to let the Light shine so much around us that we cast a shadow in the darkness of the world. We could change the world, and as I mentioned today in class, I think our mere shadows would point people to the light. We've been called to be the light of the world. Let's start by simply casting shadows where the Light needs to be seen. Let's in our darkness reveal the light. Then people will find it.
How do I know what to title this entry?
I was just guessing at numbers and figures
Pulling the puzzles apart
Questions of science, science and progress
Do not speak as loud as my heart
-Coldplay
I know it may be the saddest song ever written, and it may make me cry when I hear it...but it hits on something of math and science.
Math is an attempt to tear apart and put together again our world, to disassemble it into its component parts, see how it works, and reassemble it exactly as it was, but with a better understanding of it. Consider the most basic functions in mathematics: addition, or putting together, and subtraction, taking apart. Multiplication and division hold the same underlying themes. Think of prime factorization where numbers are broken down into their smallest possible factors so that we can see all the possible factors that could create such a number. Division, by its very name, implies splitting numbers into smaller pieces. Math, at its most basic level, pulls apart the puzzle of our world and puts it back together.
I hated science in high school. It was probably more because of my dislike for blood, needles, and dissection than anything else. Chemistry would have been fun with a good teacher, and Physics was fun because of a crazy teacher, but I finally saw in those how math and science interact. (I wish my biology teachers had talked about phi more, it's fascinating to me.) It amazes me how math can lead science to explaining our world. Again, it seems that God has provided us with a method for better understanding Him, yet limiting math so that we cannot fully comprehend him. This is why I see math as providing only limited truth.
If you think about it, math is really nothing more than a house of cards, standing on definitions and suppositions that, in a postmodern world, could collapse at any second. We have arbitrarily defined or accepted a system that seeks to prove, yet cannot be proven. Definitions and axioms establish our system, and we either accept them or reject them. I see math as nothing more than man's best guess to understand the world in which he lives. It provides a rationale for such estimates, which makes it more believable than unsupported theories, but it's still just a guess.
I especially find it ironic that I would view math this way. I have always loved math, from the time I was three and would ask my mom and dad to write me math problems on the back of the placemats at restaurants, just because I got bored with connect-the-dots, through my retirement from Calc II three years ago, and still love it today. I think my love stemmed from my belief that there was always one right answer. In art, I can say blue, you can say red, and we can both be correct. Even in science, there is room for alternative explanations as to why and how things work. In math, 2 + 2 = 4, and it can never change...or at least I thought so.
There is truth in mathematics that isn't present anywhere else. It is the most consistent of all ways of thinking, especially when working with a universally accepted system (I vote for Euclid's) but even when systems change. However, the ultimate truth, that which is transcendant of systems and philosophies, is not found in math. It's still our best guess, but it doesn't get us to Truth. We can know truths about our world, about ourselves, and even about those things that are beyond our understanding, but Truth, the kind of thinking that leads to all things perfect, is beyond man's grasp.
So how do we really know what we know? Moderns say science. Postmoderns say we don't. They usually follow that up with "but I do." I think the best way to know what we know is to combine our perceptions and experiences (postmodernism) with our ability as human beings to be rational, use logic, and think (modernism.) We have to always be open to new understandings and revelations of truth just because we are people and we mess up a lot. Skepticism provides the humility we need to constantly re-evaluate our beliefs. We knew the world was flat until someone doubted it enough to prove it false. Same for geocentrism and many other things we have known in the past.
I think skepticism is looked down upon for two reasons, especially in Christianity. First, we are afraid to put God up against our doubts. I will freely admit that there are times I doubt that God is real. There are times that I question if He is really working in my life or if He even cares. And so I let him have my doubts. He can handle them. If He can't stand up to my skepticism, and if He can't prove Himself greater than my doubts, then I'll really question His existence and His presence. But if I believe He is who He says, the Great I AM, the creator and sustainer of the universe, then He will, or already has given me the evidence I need. Maybe not all I need to know, beyond the shadow of doubt, that He is, but all I need to, in the shadow of a doubt, believe that He is.
Secondly, skepticism leads to change. We accept what our parents, teachers, and in some specific cases, our schools tell us because it's easy. I came here with a worldview that I bought into. I didn't question what I knew was right or wrong. Then one day I did. It's lifechanging when that happens. Some things I believed in lost all importance. Others that were minor became fundamental. My life changed.
I wish everyone would have that experience. I now question my beliefs every day, although on a much smaller scale than two years ago. I anticipate that at some point in my life, maybe several, I'll have to drastically re-evaluate what I know. But I was tired of blindly subscribing to the magazine of "my parents said this..." and "my church said that..." so i stopped reading. I developed a worldview that is mine. A lot of it agrees with my parents. A little less of it agrees with my church (please notice I say my church, not Christ's Church, with which my entire worldview needs to be in agreement.) It seems that very little of it agrees with my school. But it's mine. It still has God over it, changing it daily to make it better, sometimes with me fighting against Him to leave it alone because I like it my way, but it's mine. It's a work in progress that no one else can claim. And it all came about because I doubted everything I'd been told. Now I don't. Trust your beliefs, at least the ones worth keeping, to beat your skepticism. Then put them up against each other and see which wins.
Thanks for Reading!
Pulling the puzzles apart
Questions of science, science and progress
Do not speak as loud as my heart
-Coldplay
I know it may be the saddest song ever written, and it may make me cry when I hear it...but it hits on something of math and science.
Math is an attempt to tear apart and put together again our world, to disassemble it into its component parts, see how it works, and reassemble it exactly as it was, but with a better understanding of it. Consider the most basic functions in mathematics: addition, or putting together, and subtraction, taking apart. Multiplication and division hold the same underlying themes. Think of prime factorization where numbers are broken down into their smallest possible factors so that we can see all the possible factors that could create such a number. Division, by its very name, implies splitting numbers into smaller pieces. Math, at its most basic level, pulls apart the puzzle of our world and puts it back together.
I hated science in high school. It was probably more because of my dislike for blood, needles, and dissection than anything else. Chemistry would have been fun with a good teacher, and Physics was fun because of a crazy teacher, but I finally saw in those how math and science interact. (I wish my biology teachers had talked about phi more, it's fascinating to me.) It amazes me how math can lead science to explaining our world. Again, it seems that God has provided us with a method for better understanding Him, yet limiting math so that we cannot fully comprehend him. This is why I see math as providing only limited truth.
If you think about it, math is really nothing more than a house of cards, standing on definitions and suppositions that, in a postmodern world, could collapse at any second. We have arbitrarily defined or accepted a system that seeks to prove, yet cannot be proven. Definitions and axioms establish our system, and we either accept them or reject them. I see math as nothing more than man's best guess to understand the world in which he lives. It provides a rationale for such estimates, which makes it more believable than unsupported theories, but it's still just a guess.
I especially find it ironic that I would view math this way. I have always loved math, from the time I was three and would ask my mom and dad to write me math problems on the back of the placemats at restaurants, just because I got bored with connect-the-dots, through my retirement from Calc II three years ago, and still love it today. I think my love stemmed from my belief that there was always one right answer. In art, I can say blue, you can say red, and we can both be correct. Even in science, there is room for alternative explanations as to why and how things work. In math, 2 + 2 = 4, and it can never change...or at least I thought so.
There is truth in mathematics that isn't present anywhere else. It is the most consistent of all ways of thinking, especially when working with a universally accepted system (I vote for Euclid's) but even when systems change. However, the ultimate truth, that which is transcendant of systems and philosophies, is not found in math. It's still our best guess, but it doesn't get us to Truth. We can know truths about our world, about ourselves, and even about those things that are beyond our understanding, but Truth, the kind of thinking that leads to all things perfect, is beyond man's grasp.
So how do we really know what we know? Moderns say science. Postmoderns say we don't. They usually follow that up with "but I do." I think the best way to know what we know is to combine our perceptions and experiences (postmodernism) with our ability as human beings to be rational, use logic, and think (modernism.) We have to always be open to new understandings and revelations of truth just because we are people and we mess up a lot. Skepticism provides the humility we need to constantly re-evaluate our beliefs. We knew the world was flat until someone doubted it enough to prove it false. Same for geocentrism and many other things we have known in the past.
I think skepticism is looked down upon for two reasons, especially in Christianity. First, we are afraid to put God up against our doubts. I will freely admit that there are times I doubt that God is real. There are times that I question if He is really working in my life or if He even cares. And so I let him have my doubts. He can handle them. If He can't stand up to my skepticism, and if He can't prove Himself greater than my doubts, then I'll really question His existence and His presence. But if I believe He is who He says, the Great I AM, the creator and sustainer of the universe, then He will, or already has given me the evidence I need. Maybe not all I need to know, beyond the shadow of doubt, that He is, but all I need to, in the shadow of a doubt, believe that He is.
Secondly, skepticism leads to change. We accept what our parents, teachers, and in some specific cases, our schools tell us because it's easy. I came here with a worldview that I bought into. I didn't question what I knew was right or wrong. Then one day I did. It's lifechanging when that happens. Some things I believed in lost all importance. Others that were minor became fundamental. My life changed.
I wish everyone would have that experience. I now question my beliefs every day, although on a much smaller scale than two years ago. I anticipate that at some point in my life, maybe several, I'll have to drastically re-evaluate what I know. But I was tired of blindly subscribing to the magazine of "my parents said this..." and "my church said that..." so i stopped reading. I developed a worldview that is mine. A lot of it agrees with my parents. A little less of it agrees with my church (please notice I say my church, not Christ's Church, with which my entire worldview needs to be in agreement.) It seems that very little of it agrees with my school. But it's mine. It still has God over it, changing it daily to make it better, sometimes with me fighting against Him to leave it alone because I like it my way, but it's mine. It's a work in progress that no one else can claim. And it all came about because I doubted everything I'd been told. Now I don't. Trust your beliefs, at least the ones worth keeping, to beat your skepticism. Then put them up against each other and see which wins.
Thanks for Reading!
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Movie Review
As promised, here are my thoughts about "Glory Road:"
First, it is sad that it took 40 years for this movie to be made. Being an avid sports fan, the one thing that stuck with me most was that I had never heard of the 1966 Texas Western basketball team. This team did something that surpasses the 1972 Dolphins of the Bulls dynasty of the early 1990's. They overcame more than a game. They literally took on the world and won. People should know.
As for the actual movie, it's not the most entertaining sports movie ever made. I reserve a special place on my list and in my heart for Major League II. The beauty in movies like The Sandlot and Little Big League ("Baseball is for kids, grownups just screw it up") is that they show the joy in the game, and put baseball in its proper perspective relative to life. However, if I were a coach, of any sport, this is the first movie I would probably show my players.
Maybe it's more the story than the movie. I don't know a lot about cinematography and direction, and even acting. What I do know is that I was moved by the story. For a group of people so different to come together for a cause, whether it be as trivial as basketball or as serious as breaking down walls of prejudice and hatred is inspiring. For the team, players and coaches alike, to finally realize that no one could take away their talent, pride, or intrinsic worth was amazing. For a coach to stand by his beliefs against pressures all around him, for the white players to put a greater good, both for the team and humanity, above their own ambitions, for the black players to simply persevere through times of trial is greater than the camera work or the writing or any other element in the film.
So maybe this isn't as much of a movie review as it is an endorsement for the story. Go see the movie, you should know what happened in El Paso in 1966. For people like Adolph Rupp, one of the winningest coaches in NCAA history, and the men and women who mistreated that team of BASKETBALL!!!! players, you should be ashamed. I, as much as anyone, recognize that sports are more than just games, but they are so much less than life. They have no value compared to that of a human being, black, white, or green.
Thanks to this movie, I now know about the 1965-66 Texas Western Miners--The best team in the history of competitive sports. Go watch Glory Road (or read the book) and find out about them. They were winners, off the court first, and thankfully, on the court as well.
First, it is sad that it took 40 years for this movie to be made. Being an avid sports fan, the one thing that stuck with me most was that I had never heard of the 1966 Texas Western basketball team. This team did something that surpasses the 1972 Dolphins of the Bulls dynasty of the early 1990's. They overcame more than a game. They literally took on the world and won. People should know.
As for the actual movie, it's not the most entertaining sports movie ever made. I reserve a special place on my list and in my heart for Major League II. The beauty in movies like The Sandlot and Little Big League ("Baseball is for kids, grownups just screw it up") is that they show the joy in the game, and put baseball in its proper perspective relative to life. However, if I were a coach, of any sport, this is the first movie I would probably show my players.
Maybe it's more the story than the movie. I don't know a lot about cinematography and direction, and even acting. What I do know is that I was moved by the story. For a group of people so different to come together for a cause, whether it be as trivial as basketball or as serious as breaking down walls of prejudice and hatred is inspiring. For the team, players and coaches alike, to finally realize that no one could take away their talent, pride, or intrinsic worth was amazing. For a coach to stand by his beliefs against pressures all around him, for the white players to put a greater good, both for the team and humanity, above their own ambitions, for the black players to simply persevere through times of trial is greater than the camera work or the writing or any other element in the film.
So maybe this isn't as much of a movie review as it is an endorsement for the story. Go see the movie, you should know what happened in El Paso in 1966. For people like Adolph Rupp, one of the winningest coaches in NCAA history, and the men and women who mistreated that team of BASKETBALL!!!! players, you should be ashamed. I, as much as anyone, recognize that sports are more than just games, but they are so much less than life. They have no value compared to that of a human being, black, white, or green.
Thanks to this movie, I now know about the 1965-66 Texas Western Miners--The best team in the history of competitive sports. Go watch Glory Road (or read the book) and find out about them. They were winners, off the court first, and thankfully, on the court as well.
Friday, January 13, 2006
Holiness and Mystery
Disclaimer: This is me thinking out loud, or out write, whatever you may choose to call it. I'm not sure I agree with everything that follows, so please feel free to offer your own thoughts without reservation, I would really love and appreciate insight into these thoughts.
As we discussed today where mystery has gone, and if it has disappeared as a result of science, I felt like responding. After talking about science and how it eliminates (for some) the presence of wonder by revealing so much that often, at least for many, we don't want to know, I went to Bible class. Dr. N made a statement that went something along the lines of, "Even though we are scared of it, we are drawn to holiness." He had previously defined holiness as that which is unlike any other, or simply, different.
I see it as mystery. It's that which can't be understood. The incomparable. In its extreme, it is God. But at its simplest, it is the opposite of science, that which we do not know. Or perhaps it is the complement of science. Science reveals to us the mystery, while mystery keeps knowledge alive, exciting, and new. This explanation of holiness and my association of it with mystery helps me understand better why those much less analytical than myself (not a bad thing) appreciate mystery. In a way, it is their desire to find a holy God, a desire placed in them by such a holy God, that gives them a greater appreciation for such mystery and holiness.
I heard somewhere this summer that you cannot come into the presence of God and leave unchanged. I think it is that desire to be changed, to become different from the mistaken, fallen, and sinful people we are, that leads us to seek the mysterious holiness of God. I think the desire to know ourselves, a loved, chosen, and special people, is where science fits in. We want to know ourselves because it gives us a little more insight into who God is once we figure out who we are. Maybe, as one wrote, science and spirituality, or the recognition of the mysterious as I interpret it, are opposites. They are methods that, working together, take us closer to the ultimate knowledge we so desperately seek as humans, whether we claim religion or not: to know the existence of something greater than ourselves, and to have a meaningful relationship with or to whatever that is.
As we discussed today where mystery has gone, and if it has disappeared as a result of science, I felt like responding. After talking about science and how it eliminates (for some) the presence of wonder by revealing so much that often, at least for many, we don't want to know, I went to Bible class. Dr. N made a statement that went something along the lines of, "Even though we are scared of it, we are drawn to holiness." He had previously defined holiness as that which is unlike any other, or simply, different.
I see it as mystery. It's that which can't be understood. The incomparable. In its extreme, it is God. But at its simplest, it is the opposite of science, that which we do not know. Or perhaps it is the complement of science. Science reveals to us the mystery, while mystery keeps knowledge alive, exciting, and new. This explanation of holiness and my association of it with mystery helps me understand better why those much less analytical than myself (not a bad thing) appreciate mystery. In a way, it is their desire to find a holy God, a desire placed in them by such a holy God, that gives them a greater appreciation for such mystery and holiness.
I heard somewhere this summer that you cannot come into the presence of God and leave unchanged. I think it is that desire to be changed, to become different from the mistaken, fallen, and sinful people we are, that leads us to seek the mysterious holiness of God. I think the desire to know ourselves, a loved, chosen, and special people, is where science fits in. We want to know ourselves because it gives us a little more insight into who God is once we figure out who we are. Maybe, as one wrote, science and spirituality, or the recognition of the mysterious as I interpret it, are opposites. They are methods that, working together, take us closer to the ultimate knowledge we so desperately seek as humans, whether we claim religion or not: to know the existence of something greater than ourselves, and to have a meaningful relationship with or to whatever that is.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
What is this class?
Science is simply what we know, at least by name. Whether it be physical, political, social, or any other type, science is nothing more than knowledge. The definition of knowledge seems to be the more difficult question for humans to answer. Can we really know anything? Is everything merely perceived and void of any objective qualities or absoluteness? Is science owned, in that it is ours or theirs, or is it unchanging and universal?
For many in the world, God doesn't exist, and their science tells them so. For a large part of our community, God does, and THE Bible tells us so.
I think often we are influenced to separate our lives into different spheres, and science falls down the list of priorities because it scares us. I personally have no fear of what new knowledge may be discovered, because knowledge is good. Science is good. It may be used falsely and for selfish motives many times, but blame that on the scientists, not on science.
As a Christian, and as a student at a "Christian" university writing for a class, I have to discuss the relationship between science and religion. I think too many Christians have been taught to resent, doubt, and even hate science because of its threat to God. I believe, however, in a God who not only is bigger than science, but who made it. God made 2 and 2 equal 4. He made sodium react with chlorine to form salt. He installed the law of gravity in the universe, probably the same time he created it.
We've allowed science to be redefined as the collection of disciplines, typically physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, etal. that explain our world. This collection is only a small part of science. As I believe God made science, I believe he gave us knowledge of the entire world around us: politics, economics, art--the sciences of power and law, of money and trade, and of beauty and creativity, just to name a few.
Technology could possibly be defined as the progress of science. As we've transitioned to a digital world, technology has become computers, cell phones, and ipods. However, the Sumerians surely considered the wheel a technological breakthrough for the progress it brought. Roman aqueducts, Chinese gunpowder, perhaps even Greek democracy, were all forms of technology--ways that science was used to make the world better.
I'm definitely excited about this course. First off, it gets me out of "science" class, which alone is worth the price of admission, or tuition. Really though, I'm looking forward to reassessing my beliefs. I came to school in 2003 thinking everything I had been told growing up sounded good enough to me. Then I went home for the summer, went to Italy, and had my view of just about everything change. It was a hard, but much-needed, period of redefining my beliefs, and figuring out what I, not anyone else, thought. Now I get to do it again!
I want this class to force me to think. There are too many people, myself included, who don't understand why, or a lot of times even what, they believe. I want to figure it out.
I think the instructor wants the same thing: to be forced to think by a class full of people who know what and why they believe. I think he wants us to question our values and to find philosophies that are consistent. I think he wants each of us to develop ideas that belong to no one else, not our parents, our school, or even him. And I think he wants to learn from us too...something I wish every teacher wanted from his class.
For many in the world, God doesn't exist, and their science tells them so. For a large part of our community, God does, and THE Bible tells us so.
I think often we are influenced to separate our lives into different spheres, and science falls down the list of priorities because it scares us. I personally have no fear of what new knowledge may be discovered, because knowledge is good. Science is good. It may be used falsely and for selfish motives many times, but blame that on the scientists, not on science.
As a Christian, and as a student at a "Christian" university writing for a class, I have to discuss the relationship between science and religion. I think too many Christians have been taught to resent, doubt, and even hate science because of its threat to God. I believe, however, in a God who not only is bigger than science, but who made it. God made 2 and 2 equal 4. He made sodium react with chlorine to form salt. He installed the law of gravity in the universe, probably the same time he created it.
We've allowed science to be redefined as the collection of disciplines, typically physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, etal. that explain our world. This collection is only a small part of science. As I believe God made science, I believe he gave us knowledge of the entire world around us: politics, economics, art--the sciences of power and law, of money and trade, and of beauty and creativity, just to name a few.
Technology could possibly be defined as the progress of science. As we've transitioned to a digital world, technology has become computers, cell phones, and ipods. However, the Sumerians surely considered the wheel a technological breakthrough for the progress it brought. Roman aqueducts, Chinese gunpowder, perhaps even Greek democracy, were all forms of technology--ways that science was used to make the world better.
I'm definitely excited about this course. First off, it gets me out of "science" class, which alone is worth the price of admission, or tuition. Really though, I'm looking forward to reassessing my beliefs. I came to school in 2003 thinking everything I had been told growing up sounded good enough to me. Then I went home for the summer, went to Italy, and had my view of just about everything change. It was a hard, but much-needed, period of redefining my beliefs, and figuring out what I, not anyone else, thought. Now I get to do it again!
I want this class to force me to think. There are too many people, myself included, who don't understand why, or a lot of times even what, they believe. I want to figure it out.
I think the instructor wants the same thing: to be forced to think by a class full of people who know what and why they believe. I think he wants us to question our values and to find philosophies that are consistent. I think he wants each of us to develop ideas that belong to no one else, not our parents, our school, or even him. And I think he wants to learn from us too...something I wish every teacher wanted from his class.
Welcome to my blog
This has its humble beginnings as a project for a class. Perhaps it will become much more over time. I hope you enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
