Human's Not-So-Sure "Knowledge"
(from a practicing Science Instructor) Regarding “Accidental” unbelief, versus intentional self-preservation?
Hi, Here are some thoughts that have been bouncing around my head (and hopefully heart : ) ) recently as a result of listening to a science lecture while I drive to work. I sent the following to a few fellas here and thought you’d appreciate it, especially from the scientific perspective : ). At the end I added a few thoughts particularly for you that I’d like to hear what you have to say…
I was listening to my “Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It” again this morning on my way to work. A few things that were stated were really eye-opening…
“It is not the eye that sees. It is the person who sees.” The meaning is that what a person sees is interpreted in light of the person’s experiences. The eye does not simply gather neutral facts. The context of the quote was the scientists do not merely make neutral, unbiased observations. Every fact collected is collected because they were looking for something. Their prior experiences and cultural backgrounds affect “what” they see and how they interpret what they see.
Example: in the late 1700’s Joseph Priestly was investigating combustion. It was thought at the time that combustion was the result of “phlogiston” leaving a substance. Lavoisier was also investigating combustion. It was his belief, however, that something from the environment is combining with the object burning. That “something” was what Lavoisier called “oxygen.” There was no single “experiment” that proved one and disproved the other, apparently. Looking at the exact same data, the two very smart men came out with different conclusions. For Lavoisier, he had “discovered” oxygen. Priestly verified the phlogiston theory. The debate would continue long after the experimental work was completed. Both gathered “facts.” Both interpreted their facts with logical, deductive reasoning. Neither of them was overtly biased stating things like, “well, I wish this to be true and therefore I’m going to interpret my facts this way.” Why did Priestly and Lavoisier differ? Because they BEGAN with different “assumptions” (sometimes could be “definitions”) in the first place.
Another example: if you define space, time, and inertia a certain way (the “assumptions”) then Newtonian physics is the logical outcome. HOWEVER, space, time, and inertia have been REDEFINED because Newtonian physics FAILED to explain everything. Einstein’s theory of relativity displaced Newtonian physics. Newton’s equations still “work” for some applications, but they are no longer believed to be accurate depictions of reality. Anyway…
Countless examples from the history of science are like this, apparently. (I say “apparently” because I haven’t done the investigations myself, but the guy on the CD sure seems to know what he’s saying!)
As I was listening I realized that there is a very sobering truth tucked away in all of this. The Scriptures are absolutely true when they tell us that we have need of one another. Our deductive reasoning is ever so flawed. No one can escape the flaw. Not Lavoisier. Not Priestly. Not Newton. Not Einstein. Not me. No one! Science PRIDES itself in supposedly being about the business of objectively observing and declaring “facts”. The history of science proves beyond all doubt that observation, reason, logic, etc. are very fallible. We need God desperately. We need one another desperately. We need to be humble. Very humble.
As it turns out, scientific theories cannot describe REALITY. They can only describe and summarize the experiences we have had so far.
Anyway, all of the above has prompted me to realize that my intellect is smaller than previously thought. : ) I desire a greater humility. “The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know.”
Another thing that I was thinking about all of this is how people come to different conclusions based on the same “facts” (ie, Scriptures) because of their experiences and false assumptions in the first place (ie, false assumptions about what a Christian even is or what a Church is, etc.). The longer I am about this business of Life, the more I realize that people are complex. I want to learn to discern between people who are reasoning well but from false assumptions at the beginning and the people who are reasoning poorly, deliberately denying Truth because of something to protect. Does that make sense? I have met some people, and I know you have as well, that don’t “get it” even after a long, long time. I often don’t “get it” at first either, so that helps me be merciful, I hope. But some people seem like they just are not going to “get it”—ie, they are stuck in their experiences and basically their growth is stunted. They can’t seem to see past their experiences. They have put aside the grosser forms of sin but the “sin” of not being able to take God at His Word still remains (ie, Heb 3:12-13) because they’ve redefined things. What do we do with these people? Do we conclude that they don’t care about Jesus after all or are there some people that do care but just will never break out of their box??
Much Love to You and All, Jay
12/16/2010
