ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Letters

As a physiologist and a Christian, I have followed with some interest the series of exchanges appearing in the “Letters” section of The Scientist. At one time I, too, thought— like some of your correspondents —that natural science had all the worthwhile answers, since only natural science seemed to have the most foolproof way of finding out what was really provable. But in due course, I have come to a different understanding, primarily because so many questions come up t

Tom Hoshiko

As a physiologist and a Christian, I have followed with some interest the series of exchanges appearing in the “Letters” section of The Scientist. At one time I, too, thought— like some of your correspondents —that natural science had all the worthwhile answers, since only natural science seemed to have the most foolproof way of finding out what was really provable. But in due course, I have come to a different understanding, primarily because so many questions come up that cannot be answered scientifically. And these are questions that science labels meaningless, since there is no way to come to grips with any semblance of a scientific answer. For instance, what is the purpose of the existence of the universe? And can the truth of an answer to this question be verified? Just as impenetrable to science is the question of the ultimate origin of the universe.

Science gains...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?
ADVERTISEMENT