I don't think any of those correspond to my views, which are that faith and science are doing different things, and that, as Augustine points out somewhere, if your observations don't correspond to what you have been taught to believe, having considered all the alternatives (including dodgy traditions and bad translations as well as observational error) reassess what you have been taught to believe and work on the basis that it is not to be taken literally.
A lot of cosmologists are very religious, from a number of religions, often on exactly this basis.
And whereas science can answer the question "What are the laws of nature?" it can't answer the question "Why are there laws of nature? Amd why these ones?"
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-01-29 06:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-29 06:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-29 07:12 pm (UTC)A lot of cosmologists are very religious, from a number of religions, often on exactly this basis.
And whereas science can answer the question "What are the laws of nature?" it can't answer the question "Why are there laws of nature? Amd why these ones?"