l 科學頑童狂想曲: Reply to God in science textbook: a critical reflection



04 十二月, 2006

Reply to God in science textbook: a critical reflection

原自于黃永安先生的網志文章. 有幸某讀者給我寫了電郵. 以下是經過修改後(以保護雙方隱私為緣故)的回應內容. 主要是想表示為何我不反對如此不科學性的內容出現在科學課本.

I agreed modern science do not deal with God, simply because God cannot be disproved. The neo-platonic argument/statement about God's essence, first implicated among Muslim philosophers and later translated, made available to the West at the early phrase of enlightenment. To best of my understanding, I hold the idea that quest for the existance of God had inspired thinker of the later centuries to embrace a rational cum pragmatic of thought system we known today as science. Quest for God flourish achivement in science. This doesn't confined to geographical factor, as we observed in both Arab and the Europe.

Secondly, to me asking question such as 'Is God exist?' should be first challenge before question like 'Is God created the universe?'. Of course we are free from adhering to a fix train of thought, as you may find your own way to achive what seem sound and valid to you. I seriously respect that. The knowable God's activity, or forms, or avatar, beared different names at different time of written history. This is distinguishable from what I refered as God's essence. God's essence is ineffably, incomprehensible, transcend our mind. So how can we prove and disprove existance of the non-existance? Science is too rational, not able to deal with such subjective experience. Science make God too anthropomorpic. That is flawed.

Then why I believe God is the only reality? (note: Since I believe so creation is not a question). Plato said there had been Ummoved Mover, so there must been a beginning of causes, since there cannot be an infinite of causes. Ibu Sina(West called him Avicenna) argued there must been "Necessary Being". Even we examine from the view of designer, the orderly yet purposeful world we see in this world cannot be result of randomized of coalition and separation. Of course I need not to mention about the sacred scriptures of Quran and Bible. Forgive me, as am not exposed, even a little about hinduism, Buddhism or other eastern religion. Do enlighten me.

Hence, this is something too value for man to know. Science may be good, but it is too bad a tool to understand such question. Rigid practice of rationalism tend to becomes its greatest flaw, preventing one to search for God. God is quite an irrelevant talk in the reign of science. This is because science itself is flawed. How can we search the flawness within flawed?

In my opinion, the ultimate goal for us to dive in mind and contemplate about these bore yet unfruitful discussion about God (from a absolute pragmatic man's point of view), is to understand the purpose of life(or perhaps, after life). 'am not a religious man, neither I know a lot about philosophy/theology/religion, but I wish to learn to appreciate the differences exist between us the human.

Lastly, I don't detect is there a formality how, where and when we must not seek Him. God's essence is transcendent to mind and knowledge, unknowable and superior to my understanding of everything. Thus I come to conclude, well at least for the time being, to print such statement about God in science textbook do not contradict my view.

Of course, am too concerned about the possibility of our national education system being jeopartized, silently turn into incubator for fanatic extremist. This certainly worth further thoughtful, stimulating dialogue, which 'am not up to calibre to offer my view. Nevertheless, I enjoy such kind of idea-exchange process.

I welcome dispute idea and criticism.''



<< Home