Science of course suffers from the same impoverishment of language in the
reverse direction. Hence my beginning statement about what I believe
the scope of science to be. This is not really a belief but a know-ledge.
Unfortunately we also expect certainty in knowing. But there is no
absolute in science only the tentative and the hypothetical (in the sense
of a hypothesis and not in the sense of an imaginary event). Knowledge
without certainty is a hard concept to grasp for most people but that is
what science is all about. Faith typically is framed with certain
knowledge especially in the authoritative and absolute sense. We
often hear faith spoken of as being the belief in unseen and unchanging
truths. But in fact the truths of faith are in a sense more solid
than those of science which deals with the physical as opposed to the non-physical
world. How can this be?
One of the problems in understanding science these days is that almost
no one without a good science education understands what science is much
less what it says is physical reality. Science unlike faith is not
a list of rules or facts. It is instead a process by which we come
to know about the physical world. And the only domain of thought
that science claims to apply to is the physical world. There have
been from time to time misguided attempt to “scientifically prove” the
existence of God or the power of prayer. But this is not real science
and real scientists usually just scratch their heads when they hear of
such things and walk away. (Unfortunately this reaction which is
the proper reaction to someone talking nonsense usually opens scientists
to charges of not being open and not taking these things seriously.)
The Scientific process includes the following principles:
The other confusion about science is what it says about the nature of the
physical world. Most people’s understanding of this is securely rooted
in the 19th century where our “modern” educational system has left its
students! As a result their picture of science belongs in history
books and courses and not in the minds of people who want to know what
science says today, unless it is to instruct in how we got to this point.
Since the early 20th century science has been on a program of replacing
19th century classical physics. The result is a modern science that
is strange indeed. For instance most people think of physics in terms
of Newtonian mechanics where if the positions and motions of every particle
in the universe could be known at any moment one could predict the future
with absolute certainty. This is the classical notion of causality
which most people take for granted. But the modern physics -- Quantum
Mechanics (QM) – actually says that the position and motion of any particle
(not to mention all particles) can NOT be known absolutely and therefore
not precisely enough to carry out the Newtonian program. QM also allows
for uncaused events.
This is just one of the peculiar things we know about the physical
world
through science. Think about what this means for a second.
If the Newtonian view of reality were true not only could we predict
all future physical events. Assuming that what you think is a
function
of your brain and how its particles move and also that what you think
can
and does control your actions, your every future act would also be
certainly
predictable. Freedom of action would be an illusion and
predestination
not just a curious Presbyterian theological doctrine. On the
other
hand in the QM picture of the world it is possible with the same set of
assumptions that not just your actions but your thoughts as well might
come unbidden out of physical reality. Certainly there are a lot
of assumptions in this little thought experiment which in themselves
would
make entertaining discussion but don’t look at those – just consider
the
vast difference between these two pictures of the world!
Another example of the revolutionary nature and impact of modern science
on our understanding of the physical world is to think about evolution
and causality. If the Newtonian picture of causation were correct
it would be true that given any instant in their prehistory there would
be no doubt that human beings would evolve to the dominant species.
This could be called the “movie” theory of evolution. Just as the
story of a movie is fixed on the film and it matters not how many times
you replay the film or where you start it the outcome is always the same
so too is the history of life. This is evolution under Newtonian
causality. This is not the case in the real world, as we understand
it with QM because some evolutionary changes come about because of ionizing
radiation altering DNA and the production of ionizing radiation is an uncaused
event in QM. This means that the first time the movie plays radiation
and alternation of DNA might occur in one scene but the next time the movie
plays it might not. The history of evolution as we know it including
the existence of our selves is not a certain thing but deeply random.
There are still more astonishing implications in modern science of which
the average citizen is blissfully unaware.
One practical reason for believing that science is the best way to learn
about the physical world is it’s tremendous success. Technology which
is the practical embodiment of scientific discoveries mediated by engineering
is everywhere and has worked to make all of our lives easier. And
if that is not enough to convince you think just for a moment about this
-- science does not require of us that we accept anything just because
someone else says it is so. The basic principles of science say that
you can go and look and see for your self. There is no private knowledge
or privileged position of any sort in science. It is possible at
least in principle if not in fact to discover all that is known yourself
or to verify the whole. It is a supremely democratic and free adventure
open to all.
I believe (there’s that word again) that there is a fundamental reason
why science “works” and it is rooted in evolution. To survive requires
certain skills and those without them don’t. The skill to discern
the safety of uncertain terrain or encounters with other creatures arises
though extrapolating from experience – i.e., empirical reasoning.
Our minds are therefore empirical reasoning engines evolved to allow us
to survive. The rules of science are implemented in our brains.
When we first apply these brains to the physical world we find the familiar
world of Newtonian cause and effect. How could it not be otherwise
in evolved creatures? If we did not realize the danger in the steady
gaze of the lion or the security in warm comfort of the fire how would
we survive?
But this same mind can be made to pay closer attention to the details of
the world and find that all is not what it seems. All the regularities
we see in large where we live and survive dissolve into arbitrary rules
and statistical distributions below the surface. This should be no
small wonder to us. It is a problem often discussed around the edges
of QM but most scientists don’t worry why a seemingly logical macro world
rides atop the bizarre quantum world and how the former arises out of the
later. One of the classical answers goes that observation by a mind
does the trick (as it is described by John vonNeumann who invented it it
really is a trick and magic at that) and this may not be far from the truth.
Observation by minds that are evolved to survive will certainly see one
type of world and may be able to adapt to see below that into what really
is. At least that is my guess.
Spirituality has seen a resurgence in recent years. You’d think that
this would be a development to rejoice for all religious people.
The joy however is I think to be tempered by the realization that there
are people on both sides of the science and faith divide that are intolerant,
disrespectful or at least ignorant of the other side. That I can
even speak of such a divide is amazing to me and seems only to demonstrate
the lengths to which we will go to be intolerant of each other. Is
there really only one right way to look at the world and to which all others
must conform (or at least if not conform be laughed at or pitied)?
This does not seem likely to me. Rather more likely is that all systems
of science and faith are human inventions which may capture part of the
truth about the way things are but never the whole truth. The whole
truth is always something so much grander that it is always beyond the
reach of our small capacities.
Many people imagine that there is a conflict or at least a tension between
science and faith. It is sometimes a surprise to others that a person
can be a scientist and have a faith, participate in a religion or be spiritual
in any way. I think this occurs because they assume that religion
and faith make certain claims about the physical world that are at best
difficult to reconcile with science. For instance that God intervenes
in history in favor of certain people as in the history of the Jewish people
or in Jesus Christ or for individuals as in prayer. In fact religious
people have a certain reverse problem if they view prayer as being effective
in bringing about results in the world. If it does so does it also
do so when “bad” people pray? Clearly a simple model of how prayer
and even God works immediately runs into problems. Faith is often
not as simple as it seems.
It is not sufficient either to find those places in the world where science
has not yet probed and claim that God is there. We may not understand
how “life” works today for instance but molecular biology is closing in
on and surrounding this current mystery and it is not inconceivable that
one day we will not only know how life works but even be able to form creatures
from scratch. Clearly a “God of the gaps” is only a temporary god
for this time and place. Not that humans have not believed in gods
of specific times and places before but that the highest concept of God
that can be formed in a monotheistic religious culture is of a mysterious,
ineffable, wholly other that might in fact be unknowable in principle if
it were not also imminent or incarnate. Theology is such fun stuff
because you get to put so many contradictory concepts together in the same
sentence and still claim that you know what you’re talking about.
In fact we may not know what we are talking about.
Science is not unlimited in what it can discover. Current science
says that the cosmos began 12-15 billion years ago in an incredibly and
unimaginable hot and dense state. It says this because we observe
the distant galaxies rushing away from us. Since all this matter
is rushing away it must have been closer in the past and even at some time
all together at the same point (in this case meaning a geometrical point
of no dimension). Science never says this because it cannot describe
states of infinite temperature and density so it only says that that once
it was “incredibly and unimaginable hot and dense”. Logically it
must have also been infinite at one time. And before that what?
This is an interesting question and some cosmologists like Stephen Hawking
think they know. They say that such a point is just like a Quantum
Vacuum fluctuation. And so it must be a fluctuation in yet another
quantum vacuum. There is only one problem with this argument and
it is this: the universe (or cosmos) is by definition everything
that is. Physics is really only a description of this universe and
its physical law applies only within this universe -- the only physical
reality we can know. To extend it beyond the bounds of space and
time (also part of this universe) is really just fantastic thinking.
In reality it is not inconsistent with all we know through science to say
anything we want about what is beyond (or "before") space and time.
This includes God and all his angels if you prefer. This is not to
say that science proves God exists but only to say that science is powerless
to answer the question “And before that what?”
Sam Keen the Professor of Philosophy at Louisville Seminary when I was
there used to say that the ultimate question (which I have since discovered to be attributed to philosopher
Martin Heidigger) was “Why is there not nothing?” It is a powerful
question and it is one that science cannot answer. But it is not
a stupid or meaningless question because of that. In fact it can
be very meaning-full. It is the ultimate spiritual question and has
its corollaries in these questions: “Who am I?” “What is the meaning
of my life?” “What am I supposed to do?” Ultimately these are questions
that all reflective people must answer. And the answer is not to
be found in science because the questions are not about physical reality
but about reality of another sort.
Faith and religion are to me a natural human response to what we cannot
know (I am here assuming we once and for all accept that we only know what
we can discover with our reason) and what we cannot explain. It is
the realm and the language of the ineffable, the wonderful, the graceful,
the awful, the holy, and the wholly other. We are all ultimately
spiritual beings in this sense though it may be something that some of
us think little about. We might not want to do so if we are comfortable
with more concrete thinking or it may be that we fear to do so for one
reason or another. But to not do so seems to me to be less than human.