You offer what, to me, are contradictory statements, or perhaps I don’t understand them. As a self-described ‘analytic philosopher,’ you take science for granted. What does that mean? To me, analytic and philosophic border on being opposites, thought I am aware that the definition of philosophical refers to the fundamental nature of existence. In that light, I guess one can be an analytical philosopher. Science is the study of physical existence and the reality of the world around us, though today’s quantum physics belies reality as we know it. I’ve usually though of philosophy as more concerned with ideas about nature and man rather than the physical aspect of same.
I started college as a physics major, thinking I would show that all existence is fundamentally a mental image. When I realized that physics had already demonstrated that existance is quanta of energy and more metaphysical than physical, I finished in English Literature, which I found also looked at the fundamentals of human existence, and was far easier to relate to than quantum physics. So I have no problem believing in God and physics together, and if my understanding of many historic and contemporary scientists is correct, neither do many of them. I suspect many would fit the definition of theists though they are often regular members of religious groups world-wide. We wonder at the mysteries of life, of science, and of philosophy and allow that all can live together without great conflict.
As to the problem of environmentalism, it’s not a problem of science, but of human application and misapplication of science. We create and push out those creations into the world rapidly with the hope of profiting mankind or a business and furthering our knowledge of the world around us, but often it is without consideration of the unintended consequences (disregarding for the moment the malevolent creations of mankind.) That’s because the scientific method has been short-circuited by other human motivations: It’s not the fault of the science itself. And if I look through human history, it feels to me that malevolence more frequently stems from the flaws in human nature than from science. Perhaps we’re back to the natural fallacy after all.
I’ll be checking out some of your citations in the coming days. Thanks for the ideas.
