Scientists sometimes complain about the introduction of religious ideas into science. But many scientists, especially evolutionary biologists, blatantly introduce materialism into science.
In fact neither theism nor materialism are entailed by science. They are philosophical views, and materialism is a highly disputed and problematic philosophical theory, not supported by any major classical philosopher.
Many eminent scientists confuse science and philosophy, commit themselves to materialism without seriously considering its problems, and make ill-considered remarks about religion, largely based on the anti-scientific beliefs of a minority of extremist Christians.
Creationism should not be taught as science; but neither should materialism. It is time for some scientists to see that their allegedly purely scientific views are often founded on blind prejudice and culpable misunderstanding- Gresham College
Bio
Keith Ward
Emeritus Professor of Divinity at Gresham College, Professor Keith Ward has a BA from the University of Wales, an MA from the University of Cambridge, an MA and B Litt from the University of Oxford, a DD from Cambridge and a DD from Oxford.
He has held Lecturer posts in Logic at the University of Glasgow, Philosophy at St Andrew's, Philosophy of Religion at King's College London. He was Fellow, Dean and Director of Studies in Philosophy and in Theology at Trinity Hall Cambridge, where he was also Lecturer in Divinity. He was the F D Maurice Professor of Moral and Social Theology at the University of London, where he was also Professor and Head of Department of History and Philosophy of Religion.
Professor Ward is an ordained priest in the Church of England and was until 2003 Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. He is a Fellow of the British Academy, holds an Honorary Doctorate from the Free University of Amsterdam, is an Honorary Fellow of Trinity Hall, Cambridge and of the University of Wales.
He is a member of the Governing Council of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, and a member of the editorial boards of Religions Studies, Journal of Contemporary Religion, Studies in Inter-Religious Dialogue, and World Faiths Encounter. He has been a Visiting Professor at Drake University, Iowa, at Claremont Graduate School, California and at the University of Tulsa, Oklahoma.
He also holds the Regius Professorship of Divinity at the University of Oxford for over a decade. Professor Ward has delivered numerous prestigious public lectures and is the author of many books.
(born Feb. 12, 1809, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, Eng.—died April 19, 1882, Downe, Kent) British naturalist. The grandson of Erasmus Darwin and Josiah Wedgwood, he studied medicine at the University of Edinburgh and biology at Cambridge. He was recommended as a naturalist on HMS Beagle, which was bound on a long scientific survey expedition to South America and the South Seas (1831–36). His zoological and geological discoveries on the voyage resulted in numerous important publications and formed the basis of his theories of evolution. Seeing competition between individuals of a single species, he recognized that within a local population the individual bird, for example, with the sharper beak might have a better chance to survive and reproduce and that if such traits were passed on to new generations, they would be predominant in future populations. He saw this natural selection as the mechanism by which advantageous variations were passed on to later generations and less advantageous traits gradually disappeared. He worked on his theory for more than 20 years before publishing it in his famous On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (1859). The book was immediately in great demand, and Darwin's intensely controversial theory was accepted quickly in most scientific circles; most opposition came from religious leaders. Though Darwin's ideas were modified by later developments in genetics and molecular biology, his work remains central to modern evolutionary theory. His many other important works included Variation in Animals and Plants Under Domestication (1868) and The Descent of Man… (1871). He was buried in Westminster Abbey. See alsoDarwinism.
Physics and Theology.
About creators of God.
#
Everybody creates his God according to his own image and spirit
If triangles made a God they would give him three sides
/ Charles de Montesquieu . Persian Letters, 1721 /
#
If physicists made a God they would give him
concrete physical parameters.
#
Which parameters they can be ?
We know that God is something Infinite.
What is ‘INFINITY’ ? Nobody knows.
The conception of ‘ Infinity’ we can find not only in Bible
but in Physics too. Are they equal ? Are they different ?
I think that ‘INFINITY’ is ‘INFINITY’ and can be only one
for every knowledge, for every meaning.
I think there isn’t special ‘INFINITY’ for Bible and special
‘INFINITY’ for Physics. I think the conception ‘INFINITY’
is equal for every part of Science.
#
Again and again the ‘INFINITY’ appears in many physical
and mathematical problems.
/ Part Physics: Theoretical applications of physical infinity . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity /
It means that ‘INFINITY’ is some kind of reality. (!)
Does Physicists meet God In the Infinite ? (!)
Does God live in the INFINITE ? ( !)
To understand this we need to find the answers to the questions:
1) What is / are the physical parameters of the ‘INFINITY’ ?
2) What is connection between the infinity and the concreteness ?
3) What is connection between infinity and quality ?
4) How to explain the unity and inconsistent character between
the infinity and the concreteness ?
===============.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
=====================.
The point where he lost me completely was when he explained that science, especially physics is "not common sense" and that most of us HAVE TO trust scientists. Nothing could be further from the truth. Absolutely nobody has to trust scientists with anything. Why? Because ANYBODY can go and ask nature themselves! The universe happens to be structured in such a way that it does not care about the letters PhD in front of a name, it always gives the same answer to the same question!
And that, ultimately, is the beauty and the strength of science. No trust required. Everything, but absolutely everything, can be double checked.
What Mr. Ward really meant, of course, is that few people are willing to take the hardship onto themselves to actually make use of this wonderful opportunity! Most prefer, instead, to be intellectual couch potatoes who feel it's easier to assume that science works like religion where one can not check anything and where everything has to be taken on faith!
In other words... a basic criticism of science boils down to the simple observation that it is actually hard to learn science... which ultimately brings the discussion down to the existential woes of a struggling high school student who doesn't like any topic that is intellectually challenging because it would require him to take a break from his favorite activities like skateboarding.
Having watched the whole programme now, I agree with Peter McEvoy - - Ward's last sentence was a superb summing up of my own experience.
"Creationism should NOT be taught in British schools - - and neither should Materialism, but that is what is happening "
I was educated in the UK between 1954 and 1970 - - I did not, at the time, realise that there was an unspoken, underlying, insidious agenda to inculcate materialism - as a result, I chose atheism, and lived until the age of 48 before discovering the spiritual aspect of my life, which has since been transformed.
Neither Creationism nor Materialism are fit subjects for our children to study until they have accumulated enough life experience and wisdom to make sensible choices.
Peter McEvoy is right - we (in the UK) don't get this sort of stuff in church - I heard him speak two weeks ago in a lecture room at Reading University. It looks like a church because it's in Gresham College - an interesting place of learning in London. The mansion was Sir Thomas Gresham's home and he left it to the nation - as a grand palace, it would have had its own chapel which is (I guess) what you see. Wikipedia has a good entry on the college : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham_College
there are so many mistakes and wordgames in this presentation but i understand where this guys coming from so im not really surprised why he deliberately misinterpreted some facts i guess.
he fights "misusing darwin" by misusing physics amd science in general. thats not cool but it nevertheless could be very comforting to some people.
This is better directed to very vocal scientists who attack religion and its compatibility with science. The truth is, most of these vocal scientists inject their own personal philosophies into the sciences, hiding such personal philosophies or beliefs in the name of "science."
Very interesting philosophical questions. Always sad though to have them come from someone trying to sneak his cherished preconceived Christian theology in every corner of it.
Is science not spiritual? It is about gaining knowledge and understanding isn't it?
How common and material is the world we perceive anyway, if it gets transformed into mental images?
Is it perfect? no, but at least it has its arguments.
But the video shows that you can use science in order to present your philosophical point of view about spirituality, and that is a fact.
member. 
