I’ve applied to participate in the very cool-sounding Sinai and Synapses Fellowship. My answer for one of the application questions felt blog worthy.
Question: Please share a story – either personal or professional – that exemplifies how you grapple with the relationship between religion and science. (300 words max)
Adam’s answer:
Loosely speaking, the enterprise of science seeks to interpret evidence to draw conclusions about the universe. But, of course, “speaking loosely” is not a helpful practice in science. So we must systematize this process of inquiry and interpretation and carefully define what “evidence” is. We make observations of the physical world and count them as evidence if they meet our standards of reproducibility and scientific controls.
Outspoken scientist atheists emphasize that there is no evidence for a divine creator and say that it is misguided to have faith. They’re probably right about the lack of evidence, especially if we’re using scientific standards for what constitutes “evidence”. Continue reading →
In my previous post about centered sets, I proposed the idea that there is some “Good Life” that serves as the center of the human set. To reiterate, even if all of us would have very different ideas about what that good life is, the idea is still that there’s one center. Now, I have no idea if this is true and I’ll make no attempt to prove it. But I wanted to talk a little bit about how I personally think about this idea of a “center”. Continue reading 
