Science and Faith
After reading the Collins article, I just wanted to bring up the other side of the coin-- a prominent scientist who does not believe in religion. Richard Dawkins is a well known writer in the scientific and public community and holds a chair at Oxford University. Dawkins argues in a recent book, The God Delusion, that in fact god is a delusion-- "a persistent false belief held in the face of contradictory evidence."
I find it interesting how much Collins and Dawkins have diverged. Collins seems to believe that faith allows one to obtain answers that science cannot reveal. He also seeks a slightly different interpretation of the story of creation than is generally believed in order to fit his perspective.
On the other hand, Dawkins largely argues that natural selection shows us that we need not to rely on the God Hypothesis. Furthermore, he argues that if one seeks to believe in the God Hypothesis, he or she should treat it as a scientific inquiry--placing the burden on those who believe in God to prove God's existence. Ultimately, Dawkins seems to espouse an intelligent yet atheist viewpoint.
I would seek a balance between the views of these scientists--agnosticism. Foremost, I find that atheism is just as much a religion as believing strictly in God. I feel trying to disprove God's existence outright based on our current knowledge is futile and thus becomes a religion itself. In contrast, I also find that proving God's existence is not possible given the current state of knowledge, and thus agnosticism serves as meeting point between these two diverging roads. It allows science to continue seeking answers, but also allows those who wish to hold faith to continue to receive inspiration in seeking such answers. Thus, my general viewpoint going into the future is that many will adopt a more agnostic perspective as science continues to provide us with more answers, but not all of them.
I find it interesting how much Collins and Dawkins have diverged. Collins seems to believe that faith allows one to obtain answers that science cannot reveal. He also seeks a slightly different interpretation of the story of creation than is generally believed in order to fit his perspective.
On the other hand, Dawkins largely argues that natural selection shows us that we need not to rely on the God Hypothesis. Furthermore, he argues that if one seeks to believe in the God Hypothesis, he or she should treat it as a scientific inquiry--placing the burden on those who believe in God to prove God's existence. Ultimately, Dawkins seems to espouse an intelligent yet atheist viewpoint.
I would seek a balance between the views of these scientists--agnosticism. Foremost, I find that atheism is just as much a religion as believing strictly in God. I feel trying to disprove God's existence outright based on our current knowledge is futile and thus becomes a religion itself. In contrast, I also find that proving God's existence is not possible given the current state of knowledge, and thus agnosticism serves as meeting point between these two diverging roads. It allows science to continue seeking answers, but also allows those who wish to hold faith to continue to receive inspiration in seeking such answers. Thus, my general viewpoint going into the future is that many will adopt a more agnostic perspective as science continues to provide us with more answers, but not all of them.
posted by Amit at 10:20 AM
1 Comments:
I hope that your generalization doesn't prove to be true in the future, the generalization that many people will adopt a more agnostic perspective. I think it's respectable when people who don't know what to believe keep searching for the truth, but today, most people who claim to be agnostic just don't care. And that indifference is what saddens me. People should know that they aren't choosing one over the other. It's not a matter between choosing science or faith. Even though science is progressing and giving us more answers, it doesn't necessarily mean that religious beliefs are being disproved. In fact, I think that people are too quick to trust in science and don't research the facts themselves. Trusting in science is an act of faith in itself. When we choose to believe in scientific claims because we trust in the intelligence of what scholars have to say, we are putting our faith in people. We often don't understand all the proof and evidence that scholars put forward but we often tend to believe them anyway. Why is that? We just see what the scientists give us but don't do any further research testing other claims. Although agnosticism may become more prevalent in the future, I think that people should be constantly searching for the real answer/truth, not just putting it aside thinking it will never be completely understood. If we really want to find the answers and honestly have a heart to find them, I have faith that they will be found..no matter what conclusion you come to. You just have to be a curious agnostic, not an indifferent one.
Post a Comment
<< Home