The Science of Discworld IV: Judgement Day
Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:38 am
The Science of Discworld IV: Judgement Day: It's Wizards vs Priests in a Battle for the Future of Roundworld
I am a big fan of Terry Prattchett's work but this new book is not his greatest work by a long shot. there is an air of desperation in his arguments against theism - one i sense a lot in all of the so called 'new atheists'.
One of the premises the book is built upon is that humans can have two views of the universe - naturally we tend to be human-centred in our views and this gives rise to superstition and theism (I'm paraphrasing a lot here) or we can be universe-centred and this gives rise to science (Benford's distinctions)
Now, as a believer I have never had much of a problem with science and totally agree with terry's justification for this - science is not a belief system but a disbelief system. it tries to disprove as much as prove what it proposes. in fact unsuccessful disproof in of itself is a strengthening of the hypothesis. after sufficient study and rigorous testing by the proposer of a hypothesis and by his contemporaries (who are very often his rivals and so work very hard to find a crack in the argument) an hypotheses turns into an accepted theory which can then be applied (within a given scale of course - e.g. Newton's laws work very well except at subatomic and galactic scales).
it is not my intension to paraphrase the whole book - it is well enough written to do the job in of its own but one of the areas where it falls down is the idea that we can only be human or universe centred in our thinking. because it was written by atheists they have neglected the third possibility: God centred.
it is in God centred thinking that I find the peace of mind that allows me to accept scientific theory and evidence and yet still believe in God and find truth in the bible. in fact, as this website shows - what is often needed is a scientific approach to scripture. Young earth and the global flood are quickly accepted as fact by biblical literalists but they do this with an English translation of a bible - they need to adopt a more scientific approach by testing the hypothesis and evidence. if they do this they will see that their 'English' evidence is very shaky and a literal interpretation of the Hebrew as propounded by Richard on this website will reveal a much stronger alternative hypothesis that is cogent with universe centred evidence that there never was a global flood or that there has been millions of years of evolution. God-centred thinking implies looking at a whole different motivation. What is God's motive for creation. I would argue that one of His motives is to have a relationship with intelligences in His creation. And to guarantee that that relationship is real and unforced he had to not only give us freewill, he also had to make a universe that had a perfect balance of evidence. A balance that would give each of us a choice to believe in him or not. It is the existence of this incredible balance that gives me encouragement. Think of the two extremes on either side of the balance. Imagine if each night we could look up at the sky and see a giant white bearded being smiling benevolently down on earth from heaven - only an insane person wouldn't believe in God under those circumstances. Conversely if science was absolutely able to prove empirically and from various disciplines that there was no God then only a deluded person would believe otherwise. as it is, the harder we look for evidence for and against the existence of our creator, the more we find neither being strong enough to make the conclusion foregone. it still rests with each individual to come to terms with what they believe. The system is exquisitely designed to ensure that to believe requires faith - regardless of when and where you were born.
This book is not as significant as Richard Dawkins' books but it is important because terry pratchett was its primary author. Terry has sold over 70 million books and is widely revered as the greatest fanatsy writer ever. with that in mind there are a lot of faithful fans who will pick this book up and read it and have their ideas/beleifs tested perhaps to breaking point unless they see its many faults.
Has anybody else read it? Any further comments?
j
I am a big fan of Terry Prattchett's work but this new book is not his greatest work by a long shot. there is an air of desperation in his arguments against theism - one i sense a lot in all of the so called 'new atheists'.
One of the premises the book is built upon is that humans can have two views of the universe - naturally we tend to be human-centred in our views and this gives rise to superstition and theism (I'm paraphrasing a lot here) or we can be universe-centred and this gives rise to science (Benford's distinctions)
Now, as a believer I have never had much of a problem with science and totally agree with terry's justification for this - science is not a belief system but a disbelief system. it tries to disprove as much as prove what it proposes. in fact unsuccessful disproof in of itself is a strengthening of the hypothesis. after sufficient study and rigorous testing by the proposer of a hypothesis and by his contemporaries (who are very often his rivals and so work very hard to find a crack in the argument) an hypotheses turns into an accepted theory which can then be applied (within a given scale of course - e.g. Newton's laws work very well except at subatomic and galactic scales).
it is not my intension to paraphrase the whole book - it is well enough written to do the job in of its own but one of the areas where it falls down is the idea that we can only be human or universe centred in our thinking. because it was written by atheists they have neglected the third possibility: God centred.
it is in God centred thinking that I find the peace of mind that allows me to accept scientific theory and evidence and yet still believe in God and find truth in the bible. in fact, as this website shows - what is often needed is a scientific approach to scripture. Young earth and the global flood are quickly accepted as fact by biblical literalists but they do this with an English translation of a bible - they need to adopt a more scientific approach by testing the hypothesis and evidence. if they do this they will see that their 'English' evidence is very shaky and a literal interpretation of the Hebrew as propounded by Richard on this website will reveal a much stronger alternative hypothesis that is cogent with universe centred evidence that there never was a global flood or that there has been millions of years of evolution. God-centred thinking implies looking at a whole different motivation. What is God's motive for creation. I would argue that one of His motives is to have a relationship with intelligences in His creation. And to guarantee that that relationship is real and unforced he had to not only give us freewill, he also had to make a universe that had a perfect balance of evidence. A balance that would give each of us a choice to believe in him or not. It is the existence of this incredible balance that gives me encouragement. Think of the two extremes on either side of the balance. Imagine if each night we could look up at the sky and see a giant white bearded being smiling benevolently down on earth from heaven - only an insane person wouldn't believe in God under those circumstances. Conversely if science was absolutely able to prove empirically and from various disciplines that there was no God then only a deluded person would believe otherwise. as it is, the harder we look for evidence for and against the existence of our creator, the more we find neither being strong enough to make the conclusion foregone. it still rests with each individual to come to terms with what they believe. The system is exquisitely designed to ensure that to believe requires faith - regardless of when and where you were born.
This book is not as significant as Richard Dawkins' books but it is important because terry pratchett was its primary author. Terry has sold over 70 million books and is widely revered as the greatest fanatsy writer ever. with that in mind there are a lot of faithful fans who will pick this book up and read it and have their ideas/beleifs tested perhaps to breaking point unless they see its many faults.
Has anybody else read it? Any further comments?
j