Subject God and Natural Science Essay Example
3Subject God and Natural Science
Subject God and Natural Science
Question 1: Scientific naturalism
Scientific naturalism can be termed as the conjunction of naturalism and this means that nature is the only thing that there is and thus there is no supernatural order that exists above nature and this is supported by the claims that all processes, objects, facts and truth about nature are all under the scope of scientific method. In simpler terms scientific naturalism means that only scientific knowledge can be termed as reliable and that since can be used to explain everything (Ruse 2011). Scientific naturalism has a number of philosophical challenges, which includes naturalism as being self-refuting, self-defeating, and that it excludes too much. The regard to the challenge of naturalism being self-refuting there is a claim that science as being the only true source of knowledge and based on this the main argument is whether science can be used in justifying naturalism and it cannot.. The data and information that is generated by science offers support for or agaiant the above stated philosophy. Based on these, since the scientific naturalism cannot be demonstrated in scientifically it cannot be used or applied as being a valid form of knowledge and thus it is elevate by its own petard (Haught 2007).
Question 2: Evolutionary Biology
I strongly believe that evolutionary biology explains morality to some extent. This is based on the notion that while the evolutionary facts may at times contribute little to the illumination of the content of morality when viewed from a normative sense, they at times tells is things that surpasses the nature as well as the existence of morality (Alexander 2008). Thus, evolutionary biology can therefore debunk a number of meta-ethical theories and at times offer support to others. Evolutionary biology also accounts for the origins of one’s capacity to be guided by the moral judgments and that this do not in any way require any form of appeal to the understanding of moral truths maybe by our ancestors or at times even the mere existence of such kind of truth. Thus, it can be said that the manner in which we make judgment is in a way saturated by the evolutionary influence since natural selection played a role into shaping individuals underlying psychological dispositions. Based in any reasonable view of the concept of morality it can be noted that there may be significant variation in the moral principles and in their applications and more so where they are significant differences in the basics facts of our everyday life (Alexander 2008).
Question 3: Transcendent question
I strongly believe and support the claim that have been made by Medwar’s that the transcendent question can only be judged by the degree to which they bring us peace of mind and allay the anxiety of incomprehension. This is because people need answers that can be termed as palliative rather than those that are explanatory (Medwar 1984). This is because the individuals do not need to necessarily be right and comprehensible since at all time they are not. This offers individuals with the some certain level of satisfaction which can offer them with exploratory ritual can be temporary be held at a standstill. People in all divides needs answers which can allay the anxiety of incomprehension and based in these there is a strongly believe that the acceptability of the transcendent answers needs to be valued based on the degree to which they can offer the peace of mind to the people. All this is strongly informed by the fact that people have a believe that every question have an answer and thus they also requires answers to the transcendent questions and in most instances they are offered with answers which suits them. This is irrespective of the fact that the answers may at times not be right but they can offer some form of peace of mind and allay the anxiety of incomprehension (Nagel 2010).
Question 4: Fine-tuning
Fine-tuning of the universe is termed as the surprising precision of the world’s physical constants as well as that of the beginning state of the universe. When explaining the present states of the universe scientific theories requires that even the physical constants of nature as well as the beginning states of the universe to have precise values (Carr 2006). Physicist have for a considerable amount of time attempted to respond to the claim that fine-tuning offers a new argument for design and this can be explained by the attempts to explain the features of the universe and offering some examples to support their claims. A good example of these is the attempts made to offer different discussion on fine-tuning and more so, to the effects of varying the parameters at varying times and this varying have yielded other cosmologies that offer condition for life (Stoeger 2010). A new argument for design is provided since it is not very clears that the universe is optimally fine-tuned and that a slightly negative value of the aspects that are categories under the cosmological constant are likely to maximize the formation of the galaxy.
Question 5: modern physics
I totally believe that there is no way in which modern physics can legitimately address the question of why there is something rather than nothing (Rundell 2004). This is because these can be categorized as a transcendent question and thus it seems to go beyond the limits of the natural sciences. Additionally, there exists no way in which one can claim certain aspects and at the same time fail in understanding and explaining or offering supporting facts of the claims made. This is evident in instances when people and scientists claiming that there is something rather than nothing tends to fail in their understanding of the term “nothing” (Moltmann 2012). Thus, prior to explaining and believing that modern physics can actually address the question, they need first to understand what it really means and this can be of great help when it comes to addressing the question in totality. My argument is greatly informed by the fact that there is a belief that all that exists in reality can be comprehended fully using physics and the various equations of physics but all this is just fantasy. It is very clear that Krauss fails in addressing why the laws exist, reason as to why they have taken certain forms or what kind of manifestation were they in before the universe existed (Stenmark 2010).
Alexander, D 2008,’What Do We Mean by Creation? & What about Genesis’, Creation or Evolution? Do we Have to Choose?, Monarch Books, Oxford.
Carr, B 2006, ‘Cosmology and Religion’, The Oxford Handbook of Religion and
Science, ed. P. Clayton, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 139-155.
Haught, J 2007, Intelligence, in Is Nature Enough?, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Medwar, P 1984, ‘Where Then Shall We Turn’ & ‘The Purpose of Transcendent Explanation and Whether Religion Fulfills It’, The Limits of Science, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Moltmann, J 2012, ‘From Physics to Theology — A Personal Story’, Science and Christian Belief
Nagel, T 2010, ‘Secular Philosophy and the Religious Temperament’, Secular Philosophy and the Religious Temperament: Essays 2002-2008, Oxford; New York:Oxford University Press.
Rundell, B 2004, Why is there something Rather than Nothing?
Oxford, Clarendon Press.
Ruse, M 2011, Atheism, Naturalism and Science, three in one, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Stenmark, M 2010, ‘Ways of Relating Science and Religion’, Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion, Cambridge University Press.
Stoeger, W 2010, God, Physics and the Big Bang’, Cambridge Companion to
Science and Religion, ed. P. Harrison, Cambridge University Press.
More Important Things