Science and love, music, art, etc. (The limitations of science)

by George Jelliss , Crewe, Wednesday, February 25, 2009, 12:06 (5547 days ago) @ dhw

I wrote: "It is an objective fact that science, or more generally reason, IS an accurate guide to truth, as opposed to mere opinion. There is no need to put the word "truth" in quote marks here, as if everyone can have their own versions of it." - DHW replies: But people do have their own versions of it. Millions of Jews, Muslims and Christians say it is true that God exists. You as an atheist say it is not true. None of you have the backing of science. - I do not say "it is not true". I say it depends on what you mean by "God". And the fact is that science does back the nonexistence of many versions of "God". - DHW continues: There are, of course, many fields in which science is indeed an accurate guide. Our astonishing technologies provide ample evidence of this. But I don't think the millions of Jews, Muslims and Christians would dispute the accuracy of science in such concrete fields. - The trouble is that many of them do so dispute. For instance the young-earth creationists (such as those cited by Christopher Booker in the most recent Evolution article linked to by David Turell). - DHW: The dispute lies in those areas that science cannot cover: religion, personal experiences, thought, love ... - I am arguing here that science has important things to say in these areas. - In the rest of his post DHW takes on the task of putting words into his contributors mouths. Perhaps he doesn't really need us, since he can do all the thinking for us! - It is important to understand that science is a collaborative enterprise of humankind, evolving over time. Dismissing it as being all a matter of personal opinion is like saying "stop the world I want to get off".

--
GPJ