Balance of Truth as expressed in Biblical Scripture and Science

[timewerx]

I don't think it makes any sense to "balance" the truth with science and religion. You can never have too much truth.

I think both science and religion have the "undiluted truth of everything" as its highest and long term goal.

Both have actually missed the mark due to politics/power structures, traditions, discrimination, "close-minded thinking", greed/selfishness, hatred, and even corruption.

Fix those problems, and I'm sure with absolute certainty that both science and religion will arrive to the same truth whatever the truth is.

 

[Ophiolite]

. . . . . the somewhat naive view of Popper is refuted by actual important instances in the history of science.

I don't doubt it (or accept it). What would you offer as the best example instance?

 

[DennisF]

I don't doubt it (or accept it). What would you offer as the best example instance?

What is naive - or I should say, oversimplified - in Popper about actual science and how it works is the notion that a single false bit of evidence against a hypothesis is enough to damn it. Read the first chapter of Michael Polanyi's book Personal Knowledge (in either the Harper Torchbook or U. of Chicago Press printings) where he gives examples in the (recent) history of science where this is not how it happened. In particular, he points out that the Michelson-Morley experiment to determine whether there was an "aether" - a medium required for the transmission of light in material-free space - had a residual value for the aether, but Einstein rejected that it was significant because he was already committed to a physical theory not requiring it. Yet if taken as measured, the conclusion is that there is an aether. Subsequent decades of further research into light propagation has all but eliminated the notion of an aether, unless "free space" is that aether and there is more for us to know about it as a propagative medium.

The point is that the theories we already believe influence how we assess the application of data to new areas of research. But Polanyi says it much better than I have. Read him; he's a goldmine of insights.

 

[BeyondET]

I don't think it makes any sense to "balance" the truth with science and religion. You can never have too much truth.

I think both science and religion have the "undiluted truth of everything" as its highest and long term goal.

Both have actually missed the mark due to politics/power structures, traditions, discrimination, "close-minded thinking", greed/selfishness, hatred, and even corruption.

Fix those problems, and I'm sure with absolute certainty that both science and religion will arrive to the same truth whatever the truth is.

Like dirt and the multude of basic organisms that live in it, to the most advanced living organism on the planet. That host around 10,000 organisms itself "humans".