So the topic for tonight's lecture is, does science discredit faith?

But in order to answer that well and profitably, we need to be clear what precisely is its fake?

Or what precisely we're actually concerned with?

Because I think that we can ask after this particular thing in a variety of ways and after a variety of forms.

So on the one hand, we could simply say, you know, does science embarrass faith?

In the sense that there are certain findings of science which previously the answers of which we had assigned to faith subsequently reveal lax or absences or, you know, like false claims, as a

word. Another way that we could pose it is, is science more efficient than faith? If we think about them

both as like problem solvers, or if we think about them both as like managerial or bureaucratic or therapeutic,

each with its own particular ends,

is it not the case that science is better at achieving its ends?

A third way, which is what we're actually going to address, is this.

Does science displace faith?

So we want to pose it in its kind of starkest form.

Does it disprove faith? Does it render faith unnecessary? And what I'm going to argue is that it does not.

It does not discredit faith, disprove, displace, or otherwise render it unnecessary.

And that when practiced properly, these two disciplines, to speak about them in very broad

strokes, because each contains a variety of disciplines, that they do not conflict, but rather

mutually enrich and inform each other.

And the basic idea is that they investigate different things under different aspects

with different methodologies.

And so they're going to end up being complimentary in their investigation of reality.

Okay.

...