Jeffrey Weiss' idle question provoked much reader response. "Steve" (apparently Steve Kellmeyer), a public speaker and self-published author of religious works, thinks he knows why gays don't hire female prostitutes. Some of his arguments are just plain ludicrous, but others, while sounding reasonable, show such a fundamental lack of understanding of science that they deserve a serious response.
First, some of Steve's more ludicrous statements:
"Homosexual sex is not only illicit, but invalid - it cannot be ordered towards life-giving. Perhaps that's why homosexuals don't pursue opposite sex prostitutes - it would be a step up, and our fallen nature tends to bring us down."Basically Steve tells us that homosexual sex is more sinful than adultery. More sinful than even rape. In fact, Steve says that masturbation is more sinful than rape. Steve says his reasoning comes from Thomas Aquinas. I'll just note that if the sinfulness of one's sex life is proportional to how much it deviates from the purpose of procreation, then Aquinas' own priestly celibacy would top the list of sins.
"God is the source of life. The Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of Life. Given that fact, ..."Fact? Hope, I'll give him. Opinion or faith-based belief, maybe. But fact? Come on. If you can make up the facts, you can draw any conclusions you want.
"Morality, being a science of divine knowledge, ..."This is a travesty of the usual meaning of science, but Steve's aim appears to be to muddy the differences between science and religion. He can call religion a science (and call science faith-based), but that doesn't make it so.
"Physics, chemistry, biology, math, etc., are all faith-based systems in much the same way theology is. Them's the facts. Go look it up."This reveals a profound misunderstanding of science.
Religion attempts to define Truth. Truth can't be proved or empirically demonstrated, so it must be taken on faith.
Science takes nothing on faith. If it can't be observed, science has nothing to say about it. And even if it can be observed, science knows that more than one explanation can fit the observed facts. If a notion is useful in making predictions, scientists will use it. If it isn't useful, scientists will discard it. Scientists are like that, notoriously UNfaithful, just the opposite of religious believers who cling to their faith-based Truth regardless of evidence or logic.
Science doesn't reveal the Truth, only more or less accurate models of the way things behave. Scientists used to believe that those models reflected some underlying reality of the universe, but even that notion has been called into question by 20th century quantum physics. More and more, it appears possible that there is no underlying reality separate from our observations. This calls into question the most fundamental assumptions of science, assumptions even Einstein had difficulty letting go of. In the end, he admitted that the quantum model was useful, if not complete. Science never will be complete, as long as scientists don't cut off questions with faith-based answers.
Mathematics makes even less attempt to reveal Truth. Mathematics is a purely human invention, beautiful and elegant and sometimes useful, but ultimately arbitrary. Its foundation is a priori assumptions. Change the a priori assumptions and change the whole edifice. Mathematicians are more than willing to do just that. Geometry can be Euclidean, where straight lines go on forever. Or geometry can be non-Euclidean, where straight lines might eventually bend back on themselves. Both are logically consistent systems and equally valid and elegant. Mathematicians don't care that there is more than one. Newton found one system more useful to make predictions about the universe. Einstein found another system more useful. Mathematics is a tool for physicists. Asking which geometry is the Truth is as non-sensical as asking whether a hammer or saw is the Truth.
So, science is not faith-based. Mathematics is not faith-based. Both recognize that the Truth is beyond their realm. This doesn't bother the scientists or mathematicians, but it drives the religiously faithful crazy. Why they can't be as comfortable with their faith as scientists are comfortable with their lack of faith is an eternal mystery.
"There are harmonies between [natural science, mathematics and theology], but each is faith-based, since each requires the acceptance of assumptions which cannot be rigorously proven or dis-proven by logical analysis alone."It is true that natural science and mathematics are based on assumptions called axioms or postulates. These are arbitrary. Postulates that lead to useful logical systems or theories of nature tend to get reused a lot. But scientists and mathematicians know that the postulates are simply convenient assumptions. Scientists are eager to devise experiments that will test how useful these assumptions are in making predictions. Assumptions that fail that test are readily dropped in favor of different models based on different assumptions.
Religious assumptions are treated as something quite different -- as universal and eternal truths that are not subject to change. God created the universe. God is good. God became man. God cares deeply and personally about my sex life. Etc. No amount of empirical evidence is allowed to upset one's belief in the fundamental truth of these assumptions. That's not how science works. That's how faith-based religion works. Steve would have you believe there's no difference between science and religion in this regard. He is wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment