Originally posted by Thequ1ck
As a matter of historical fact, modern science has developed
from an understanding of the world as God’s ordered Creation,
with its own inherent rationality. The issue is whether it can continue
with confidence when it has jettisoned all theological
assumptions. [b]Why does the world behave so regularly that science
can generalise and make universal cl ...[text shortened]... onal manner, there appears little
prospect for providing any external legitimation for science.
As a matter of historical fact, modern science has developed
from an understanding of the world as God’s ordered Creation,[/b]
No. It goes far behind monotheistic religions, trying to find perfection in nature. If science during some time in history was to "understand god's creation", as you say, it was because in that time all people lived in the worst regime in history, where someone who would dare to question some preestablished truths of church was killed. People here obliged to follow this dictatorship religion. Science and reason was the way out it.
It's a shame, the rest of your comment. You almost sound like if it wasn't for religion, science would never start. But if history tells us something is that religion stopped evolution of menkind for 1500 years, and only when we got out of its wretched claws we started to evolve once again.
Why does the world behave so regularly that science
can generalise and make universal claims about the nature
of physical reality?
The world can be predicted in a mathematical way, so it must have been created by a perfect being... good argument...
Science doesn't care why the world behaves like this. Science only cares for the "how". But you really need the "why", and gods fit as a glove.
Without an appeal to God, as the source and ground of reason, who has made the world in a rational manner, there appears little prospect for providing any external legitimation for science.
Science doesn't want external legitimation. Science doesn't want to be anything more that it really wants: it's a local study susceptible to faults. Legitimation (not proof) comes from experience and applications.
But you have the answer to justify it all: there's an external perfect being who is responsible for all. That's an answer too easy, even if it is true. But even if it was true there was a God, it certainly wouldn't be the lousy Christian God so incoherent and so mundane.