Science And Religion

Norbert Muller of Purdue University states in The Scientist (December 26, 1988, page 9): “A prerequisite for any fruitful scientific work is that one must accept on faith a number of statements about the nature of the universe for which there "can be no scientific proof.” This is not true. A fruitful scientist does notaccept unprovable scientific statements on faith. He accepts them skeptically, for the nonce, and is ready to abandon them if they prove unworkable. It would be danger

John Howell
May 1, 1989

Norbert Muller of Purdue University states in The Scientist (December 26, 1988, page 9): “A prerequisite for any fruitful scientific work is that one must accept on faith a number of statements about the nature of the universe for which there "can be no scientific proof.” This is not true. A fruitful scientist does notaccept unprovable scientific statements on faith. He accepts them skeptically, for the nonce, and is ready to abandon them if they prove unworkable. It would be dangerous to haul his faith into a laboratory—dangerous for both his chemistry and for his religion. He does not use his Bible as a chemistry text.

Muller also says: “The Christian tradition viewed the universe as the creation of a rational God; hence it was possible to gather knowledge by the scientific method.” This is a non sequitur, unless we can demonstrate that the existence of an irrational God would...

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?