The scientific method doesn’t operate in a philosophical vacuum. Philosophy plays a significant role in both establishing methodologies (Popper) and the interpretation of results. This is particularly true when attempting to apply the scientific method to philosophical issues like ethics (socio-biology) and metaphysics (physics, neurology, etc). One defining feature of the scientific method is the use of controls. By definition, valid scientific results can only occur when all the variables can be accounted for. Generally, if science cannot measure it, it’s not part of science. The accuracy of historical details, textural dating, and such are appropriate tasks for scientific inquiry, but the demand for physical evidence of metaphysical entities, like God, angels or the human soul, is not a valid request. The big questions fall outside the scope of science.
We are always dealing with models and descriptions of reality, a large measure of humility is appropriate, when speculating about how reality actually is, both physically and spiritually. In the end we are left with what works. Just as the validity of science rests on how well it conforms to what can be physical observed, so also the validity of theological ideas ultimately rests on how well they work to inform our values, guide us through life, and cultivate loving and compassionate relationships with others. The difference between subjective beliefs that are delusional and those that are ‘true’ is how they allow us to live well and in harmony with the world. This type of knowledge, or wisdom, can only be acquired by actually applying those ideas to life and making them part of yourself. For example the lessons of Buddha can only be ‘understood’ (and I use that word lightly for Buddhism) after years of practice and meditation. Likewise for Christianity. Evangelicalism and most mainline denominations, stress orthodoxy, or right belief because belief alone is considered by them the only the means of salvation. I think this is backwards. Truth alone when not coupled with the desire to do good and the cultivation of virtue has no practical value. For this reason, the New Church calls for orthopraxy as the means for regeneration and salvation.
BTW I wasn't trying to patronize anyone, my apologies if the tone of my e-mail gave that impression.
We are always dealing with models and descriptions of reality, a large measure of humility is appropriate, when speculating about how reality actually is, both physically and spiritually. In the end we are left with what works. Just as the validity of science rests on how well it conforms to what can be physical observed, so also the validity of theological ideas ultimately rests on how well they work to inform our values, guide us through life, and cultivate loving and compassionate relationships with others. The difference between subjective beliefs that are delusional and those that are ‘true’ is how they allow us to live well and in harmony with the world. This type of knowledge, or wisdom, can only be acquired by actually applying those ideas to life and making them part of yourself. For example the lessons of Buddha can only be ‘understood’ (and I use that word lightly for Buddhism) after years of practice and meditation. Likewise for Christianity. Evangelicalism and most mainline denominations, stress orthodoxy, or right belief because belief alone is considered by them the only the means of salvation. I think this is backwards. Truth alone when not coupled with the desire to do good and the cultivation of virtue has no practical value. For this reason, the New Church calls for orthopraxy as the means for regeneration and salvation.
BTW I wasn't trying to patronize anyone, my apologies if the tone of my e-mail gave that impression.
