Be cautious about 'truth' in science. If a scientific model matches observations and makes good predictions, does that mean it's 'true'? Well, consider that the Earth-centered model of the solar system matched observations and made good predictions by the standards of the time.
That's one reason it lasted for 2,000 years.
In fact, the Earth-centered model made better predictions than the Copernican model. Did that make it true?
It wasn't until Kepler eliminated Copernicus' epicycles (yes, Copernicus had epicycles in his model), changed the orbits…
…of planets from circular to elliptical, and eliminated uniform orbital speeds, that the Sun-centered model surpassed the Earth-centered in accuracy. We have enough data at this point to consider the Sun-centered model very likely true. But quite often in science…
…that's not the case. The best we can say is that we have an explanation for stuff we observe that makes good predictions, and is therefore PLAUSIBLE. But that doesn't make a model 'true.' Bottom line: it's not true models vs. false models, it's good models vs. bad models.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
We have an apparatus to investigate the natural world, called science.
If there's another realm to reality, separate but interacting with the natural world, science is not equipped to investigate it as it does the natural world.
You can't demand that it needs to. Here's why.
Let's use an analogy. Astronomers use filters to observe the universe at different wavelengths (colors) of light. If I put a blue or green filter on a telescope, blue or green light is all it can see. You can get a lot of useful data that way, like in this image.
Astronomers use filters to pick out details of that stand out at different colors. This is because different elements and chemical compounds radiate or absorb light at different wavelengths (colors) of light. We know from experience there's a different reality at each color.
Existence is far more strange and fascinating than you realize.
Modern life is almost designed to beat our innate sense of wonder out of us.
Take a moment to appreciate just how odd and wonderful it is that the world can be described by mathematics.
As physicist Eugene Wigner points out, there's no reason this must be. He wrote a paper called "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences," and I urge you all to read it.
Second, if you read Michael Heiser, you see that the Bible acknowledges a whole pantheon of other gods. I believe these other gods exist. But they are lesser, contingent beings, not deserving of our worship or obedience.
Everyone has a "god" – something that sits on the throne of their heart.
If it's God, it will go well for you.
If it's not, it will eat you alive.
Your "god" could be money, fame, looks, work, politics, even something ostensibly wholesome, like fitness or helping people.
But no matter how important, how "good" you think your god is, if it's not God – the ground of existence, the wellspring of life, goodness, and love – you're serving something lesser, and it will consume you.
Christians, don't think this doesn't apply to you. If you're constantly stressed, miserable, anxious, ill-at-ease, frequently in conflict with others, then check to see if you have an idol.
fyi, I'm not exempt from this. I'm constantly pushing idols off the throne of my heart.
Science doesn't disprove God. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.
There is nothing in established, well-supported science that contradicts the existence of God. Nothing.
There isn't even anything in speculative "science" that contradicts God.
The best speculations that anti-theists come up with merely make God redundant, but those usually involve infinite regress or static eternal models, both of which have serious problems. It's very difficult to come up with plausible scenarios that don't have an ultimate cause.
It almost all comes down to problems with pain, morality, pride. If you could somehow remove all of the emotional baggage that comes with the idea of God, an intelligent Ultimate Cause would be seen as the most probable explanation for the world by every intellectual...
Years ago, I had a convo about beliefs with a fellow scientist at a conference. She talked about her Christian brother, and how they'd argued about evolution. When she tried to defend the theory of evolution, she told me she realized she didn't know why she believed it.
[Note: I'm neither defending nor attacking evolution here. Just demonstrating how beliefs work even amongst scientists. Back to the thread...]
She'd never studied evolution, didn't know its core premises or predictions, and didn't know the evidence that supported it.
She just "believed," because that's what scientists are supposed to do.
I've noticed, in all my years as a scientist, a very odd thing. If a colleague wants to establish that he or she is a for-real scientist, he or she will say "I believe in evolution."