[QUOTE=Siege]
The notion of “double truth” appeals to me. I’ve always been fascinated by science, and I believe that there are firm, provable rules which govern the way our world works, including this computer. I trust those rule to operate in a particular fashion, and believe science must be based on logic and reason. Thus evolution makes sense to me as a way of explaining how mankind came to be given the evidence we have. At the same time, as a devout Christian, I believe there are spiritual truths which are not subject to logic and reason and which cannot and should not be proven. Basically, I don’t want to believe in a god who’s so small he can be completely defined by man.
Now, it seems to me that the people who are objecting to evolution are operating from a single truth model in which science and the Word of God must be compatible or one of them must be wrong. Therefore, since the Word of God is right by (their) definition, science must be wrong.
I’m out of lunch break, but I’ve read some fascinating discussions of religion and rationality on this board, so I wanted to put this out there and see what people around here think of these two notions.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve begun looking at these issues in depth during the last few months and I’m still a long way from finding answers that satisfy myself, but here’s a brief summary of the thoughts I have.
Firstly, there is a physical world around us, which we sense through sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch. Statements about this physical world can be classified as true or false. For instance, I am typing this message on a black keyboard, and I can confirm that by sight; so can the other people in this computer lab if they look at my keyboard. I am not typing on a hot pink keyboard.
At the same time, we know that the senses sometimes report information not in accord with physical truth. Humans dream or hallucinate upon occasion.
So the search for truth at the physical level involves using the senses. If we have a proposition, such as “panda bears exist”, we can determine the answer by findind actual panda bears. Once you’ve got a live one in a cage at the zoo, the debate is settled: panda bears do exist.
On the other hand, spiritual propositions are not so easily settled because the terms are defined in murky ways relative to the senses. So if we’re debating, “do angels exist?”, it’s more difficult than “Do pandas exist?” Everyone agrees that in a panda we’re looking for a large, black-and-white animal with a certain shape. For angels, the definitions are more various. Some might define angels as physicals beings with defining characteristics such as halos and wings. If we go long enough without seeing (and hearing, smelling, etc…) such a being, then we have to conclude there are none. However, other people might put the definition in other terms, in which case disproving their existence becomes difficult.
So how could something exist in truth, but not be sensed by humans. I see three possibilities.
1: The thing exists at locations where human senses don’t reach. It’s either too far away, too small, or is simply in a place where no one has looked.
2: The thing does not have characteristics apparent to human senses. In other words, the thing exists without reflecting light waves, producing sounds waves, emiting any chemicals that trigger smell, etc…
3: The thing exists, but humans are typically not equiped to notice it.
Cases 1 and 2 are not very challenging. In case 1, we’ll find the thing once our vision expands to the location where it is, if we ever do. Otherwise it’s out of our range forever. Anything in case 2 is a lost cause.
Case 3 is the interesting one, because any rational person must acknowledge that wide variation in what people are equiped to sense. For instance, most people in the USA don’t speak Chinese, so to them Chinese writing looks like gibberish. Likewise, most people in China can’t handle English writing. So if you printed out a profound, thoughtful, moving eassy in Chinese and posted it on a wall in America, probably no one would notice or care. A man might walk right past it and ten minutes later, if asked whether he’d seen any profound essays lately, he would reply “no”. The importance of this example is that both groups (Americans and Chinese) include intelligent, educated, rational people. Yet what one group sees in that situation is entirely different from what the other sees. We have a case where what’s observed depends heavily on the training of the observer.