No it’s not a good way of doing science, science is best done as the pursuit of the fullness of God’s creation. That’s why all the best scientists who’ve made the greatest contributions have been Christians or in some cases one of the lesser religions.
Both Kepler and Newton were doing exactly that. Yet Kepler was still looking for the 'how' and not the 'why'. He assumed it was part of the divine plan, but he was still looking for how the planets moved.
And there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's pretty great.
If that’s all you mean, sure, that has its place. But I think degas typhoid goes WAY beyond anything like that. He’s a proud anti-theist, he rejects the very validity of “why” as an area of inquest.
Depends on the kind of 'why'. Universal gravitation is a 'why' for Kepler's laws.
But why is there universal gravitation, and gravity at all? You can say because it's God's will, but that's not really a scientific question, and there is no way to settle it one way or the other.
I've moved away from anti-theism myself, but I don't think this particular point is wrong. I do disagree that science and religion is incompatible, which is another claim that they make, considering that modern science is basically Christian natural philosophy.
Science is great for figuring out mechanisms, and answering certain, tertiary versions of the question “why?”. Like:
Why is the sky blue?
-the light of the sun is being refracted by the atmosphere, the compounds in the atmosphere tend to refract with a wavelength that appears blue to humans.
Or like you mention, why do planets seem to travel in orbits? -> gravity
We merely push back the “why” by a single step: mass gives rise to an attractive force between itself and other masses. Why does mass do that? As the primordial universe simmered, the Higgs field crystallized into existence, which grants all particles with mass a “gravitational” force. Why? (Likely) because the existence of the Higgs field allows for the universe to proceed to a lower energy state. Why does the universe want to reach a lower energy state?
And so on and so forth. No matter how many steps we take, we will never reach the ultimate destination - the Prime Why. A bit like Zeno’s paradox.
Which is why the wise men of the past formulated the “Prime Mover”:
The only logical designation for the Prime Mover is God, and one of the few mechanisms available for connection with God is to attempt to understand His creation. Which is why all the greatest scientists had this as their motivation.
No it’s not a good way of doing science, science is best done as the pursuit of the fullness of God’s creation. That’s why all the best scientists who’ve made the greatest contributions have been Christians or in some cases one of the lesser religions.
You are trying way too hard.
3 year old account with zero posts. Clearly you’re just too damn cool to try.
Both Kepler and Newton were doing exactly that. Yet Kepler was still looking for the 'how' and not the 'why'. He assumed it was part of the divine plan, but he was still looking for how the planets moved.
And there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's pretty great.
If that’s all you mean, sure, that has its place. But I think degas typhoid goes WAY beyond anything like that. He’s a proud anti-theist, he rejects the very validity of “why” as an area of inquest.
Depends on the kind of 'why'. Universal gravitation is a 'why' for Kepler's laws.
But why is there universal gravitation, and gravity at all? You can say because it's God's will, but that's not really a scientific question, and there is no way to settle it one way or the other.
I've moved away from anti-theism myself, but I don't think this particular point is wrong. I do disagree that science and religion is incompatible, which is another claim that they make, considering that modern science is basically Christian natural philosophy.
I think you touch on something important here:
Science is great for figuring out mechanisms, and answering certain, tertiary versions of the question “why?”. Like:
Why is the sky blue? -the light of the sun is being refracted by the atmosphere, the compounds in the atmosphere tend to refract with a wavelength that appears blue to humans.
Or like you mention, why do planets seem to travel in orbits? -> gravity
We merely push back the “why” by a single step: mass gives rise to an attractive force between itself and other masses. Why does mass do that? As the primordial universe simmered, the Higgs field crystallized into existence, which grants all particles with mass a “gravitational” force. Why? (Likely) because the existence of the Higgs field allows for the universe to proceed to a lower energy state. Why does the universe want to reach a lower energy state?
And so on and so forth. No matter how many steps we take, we will never reach the ultimate destination - the Prime Why. A bit like Zeno’s paradox.
Which is why the wise men of the past formulated the “Prime Mover”:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover
The only logical designation for the Prime Mover is God, and one of the few mechanisms available for connection with God is to attempt to understand His creation. Which is why all the greatest scientists had this as their motivation.