Patheos

BuddhistCatholicContemplativeEvangelicalGeneral ChristianHinduJewishLatter-day SaintMuslimNew VisionsProgressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Patheos

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube

danpeterson

Some good quotations on science and religion

Last updated on: January 7, 2018 at 11:21 pm   by Dan Peterson

Some good quotations on science and religion 2018-01-07T23:21:07-07:00 Dan Peterson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

 

And maybe a robot, to fix the Middle East

A team of Australian scientists researching basic moral principles and the meaning of life  (Wikimedia Commons)

 

Some additional quotations from Alister E. McGrath, Surprised by Meaning: Science, Faith, and How We Make Sense of Things (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011).

 

From pages 4-5:

The intellectual vitality of the natural sciences lies in their being able to say something without having to say everything.  Science simply cannot answer questions about the meaning of life and should not be expected — still less, forced — to do so.  To demand that science answer questions that lie beyond its sphere of competence is potentially to bring it into disrepute.  These questions are metaphysical, not empirical.  Sir Peter Medawar (1915-87), a cool-headed scientific rationalist who won the Nobel Prize in Medicine for his work on immunology, insists that the limits of science must be identified and respected.  Otherwise, he argues, science will fall into disrespect, having been abused and exploited by those with ideological agendas.  There are important transcendental questions “that science cannot answer, and that no conceivable advance of science would empower it to answer.” . . .  Richard Dawkins is surely right when he declares that “science has no methods for deciding what is ethical.”

 

Cited on page 38:

The one act of faith in the convert to science, is the confession of the universality of order and of the absolute validity in all times and under all circumstances, of the law of causation.  This confession is an act of faith, because, by the nature of the case, the truth of such propositions is not susceptible of proof.

T. H. Huxley, in Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, ed. Francis Darwin, 3rd ed., 3 vols. (London: John Murray, 1887), 2:200

 

Cited on page 39, from the Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset (1883-1955):

Scientific truth is characterized by its exactness and the certainty of its predictions.  But these admirable qualities are contrived by science at the cost of remaining on a plane of secondary problems, leaving intact the ultimate and decisive questions.

José Ortega y Gasset, History as a System and Other Essays toward a Philosophy of History (New York: W. W. Norton, 1962), ca. 13

 

On page 8, McGrath himself:

In his brilliantly argued critique of the “New Atheism,” the leading British cultural critic Terry Eagleton ridicules those who think religion was invented to explain things.  Eagleton has in mind the faintly ludicrous overstatements of Christopher Hitchens on this matter, such as his brash assertion that, since the invention of the telescope and microscope, religion “no longer offers an explanation of anything important.”  “Christianity was never meant to be an explanation of anything in the first place,” Eagleton retorts.  “It’s rather like saying that thanks to the electric toaster, we can forget about Chekhov.”  For Eagleton, believing that religion is a botched attempt to explain the world” is on the same intellectual level as “seeing ballet as a botched attempt to run for a bus.”

 

Famously, by the way, Eagleton — who, as far as I’m aware, isn’t himself a religious believer but who, interestingly, taught a two-week faculty seminar at Brigham Young University a number of years ago in which I was a participant — mocked Richard Dawkins for his ignorance of serious religious thinking and scholarship, observing that reading Dawkins on theology was rather like reading a writer on ornithology whose only acquaintance with the subject had come from glancing at The Book of British Birds.

 

 

Uncategorized

Previous Post



January 7, 2018

Orienting ourselves to a new day and a new year

Next Post



January 8, 2018 Further observations on the ethical teaching of the Qur’an


Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 March 2014 August 2013 February 2012


Follow Us!

Follow Us on Facebook



TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does "Immanuel" mean?

Select your answer to see how you score.

God rules God with us God redeems God leads

Related posts from Sic et Non

Family

The Iron Gates and the Lion of the...

Sic et Non

Family

Walking through History

Sic et Non

Family

Learning more about a region of which I've...

Sic et Non

Family

From Serbia's "White City," Belgrade

Sic et Non

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Latter-day Saint

Westminster Abbey-- Part One

In one sense walking into Westminster Abbey is like walking down the...

'Super Scam Me' Exposes AI Jon Bon Jovi...

Leslie Pickett believed she was in a relationship with Jon Bon Jovi....

The Brazilian Remake of Kendricks' 'Flywheel' Opens in...

“Flywheel,” the story that launched the Kendrick Brothers’ filmmaking career is getting...

The Dangers of Gradual Accommodation (Winking at Sin)

Recently, the “law of gradualness” resurfaced during the opening of a weeklong,...

The Iron Gates and the Lion of the...

  Yesterday, I didn't finish my report about, well, yesterday.  So I'll...

The Image: On the Horror of Capitalism and...

The Image Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might...

view all Latter-day Saint blogs

Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Copyright 2008-2026, Patheos. All rights reserved.

Subscription Support Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In

Follow Patheos Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube