When we enter into conversation about science and religion, it is important for us to be able to recognize when we move from discussion about the results of science to the philosophical/theological interpretation and reflection on the implication of those results. We all make that move, from results to implication and interpretation. In a sense, we can’t help it. Part of being a thinking human is asking, “what does this mean?”. Most of us would agree we need to make that move. But, sometimes it can be difficult to spot when we make the transition, it can take some practice.
This week, NPR published this interesting blog post on physics and philosophy as well as this related post . If you follow the links within that blog post to the New York Times book review, the response to the review in The Atlantic, and the “apology” in Scientific American, you will find an interesting example of scientific and philosophical interpretation. Lawrence Krauss gives us an example of a scientist who believes that physics will explain all. He is quite dismissive of all theologians and most philosophers. That’s fine, he certainly can have his opinion about theology and philosophy. What is fascinating is how, in The Atlantic interview and the Scientific American essay, Krauss slides back and forth between science and philosophy while denying the validity and importance of philosophy ( unless the philosopher agrees with Krauss and then that sort of philosophy is fine.)
I’ve given you quite a bit to read this week, so I’ll limit my remarks and ask, what do you think about all this?
Cross posted at Presbyterian Bloggers.