From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:59:50 GMT

One final attempt at addressing some of the points here.

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us wrote:

: ON GOD AND SCIENCE
: 
: by Sadaputa Dasa
: 
: (c) 1992 The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust
: Used by permission.


[intro, comments from O'Keefe, Pope Pius, and Hawking deleted]


: Owen Gingerich of the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. In a
: lecture on modern cosmogony and Biblical creation, Gingerich also
: interpreted the Big Bang as God's act of creation. He went on to say
: that we are created in the image of God and that within us lies a
: "divine creative spark, a touch of the infinite consciousness, and
: conscience."[5]
: 
: What is this "divine spark"? Gingerich's words suggest that it is
: spiritual and gives rise to objectively observable behavior involving
: conscience. But mainstream science rejects the idea of a nonphysical
: conscious entity that influences matter. Could "divine spark" be just
: another name for the brain, with its behavioral programming wired in by
: genetic and cultural evolution? If this is what Gingerich meant, he
: certainly chose misleading words to express it.

	This is absolutely beautiful writing by Sadaputa.  First of all,
Gingerich, who basically said that science and religion should not cross
borders at the Washington Cathedral Conference on Origins, does come
quite close to the borders in his statement.  Sadaputa plays on the
implication that "objectively observable behavior involving conscience"
is possible.  His (Sadaputa's) statement implies that conscience is an
inherent property of the brain, that is, there is a section of the brain
that controls "conscience", just as there are areas devoted to the senses
of smell and hearing.  Conscience, however, is a product of moral training
and is therefore a learned behavior, and not an inherent "wired-in" property.
Thus, the "divine spark" lies at a level more fundamental than where
science could find it, and being a nonphysical entity, the "spark" does not
influence matter.
	Assumption:  The "divine spark" is observable, just like the
proof of the bottom quark, by interaction with matter (neurons and synapses).
	Implication:  Given enough evidence, the behavior and existence of
the "divine spark" could be proven.
	Implication #2:  A connection between the "divine spark" and God
can be shown, hence, God is proven scientifically to exist.  QED.
	AS faith relies on the evidence of things unseen, and by this
description the "divine spark" can be "seen", were it provable, it would
not be related to my God.  According to the Bible, the existence of God
cannot be proven scientifically.

: Freeman Dyson of Princeton's Institute for Advanced Studies arrived at
: ideas similar to those of Gingerich, but from a non-Christian
: perspective.
: 
:         I do not claim that the architecture of the universe proves the
:         existence of God. I claim only that the architecture of the
:         universe is consistent with the hypothesis that mind plays an
:         essential role in its functioning....Some of us may be willing
:         to entertain the hypothesis that there exists a universal mind
:         or world soul which underlies the manifestations of mind that we
:         observe.... The existence of a world soul is a question that
:         belongs to religion and not to science.[6]

	Note Dyson's final statement, which Sadaputa chooses to ignore.


: 
: Dyson fully accepts Darwin's theory of chance variation and natural
: selection. But he also explicitly grants mind an active role in the
: universe: "Our consciousness is not just a passive epiphenomenon carried
: along by chemical events in our brains, but an active agent forcing the
: molecular complexes to make choices between one quantum state and
: another."[7] He also feels that the universe may, in a sense, have known
: we were coming and made preparations for our arrival.[8]

	Dyson's quotes here are pretty amazing!  I don't think that
he's right -- I think consciousness is a product of electrochemical
interactions in our brains.  But this thing about "choice" is troubling,
because (example, activating an old memory) I seem to affect the quantum
state of molecular complexes in my brain.
	But wait!  I can affect the quantum state of any molecule I want.
Just put it in the path of a laser tuned to the right frequency, and it'll
jump states and emit photons.  So, consciousness does affect quantum
states.  Internally and externally.
	Tough nut, though.  Take it up, anyone.


: Dyson is verging on scientific heresy, and he cannot escape from this
: charge simply by saying he is talking about religion and not science.
: Quantum mechanics ties together chance and the conscious observer. Dyson
: uses this as a loophole through which to introduce mind into the
: phenomena of nature. But if random quantum events follow quantum
: statistics as calculated by the laws of physics, then mind has no choice
: but to go along with the flow as a passive epiphenomenon. And if mind

	I think the key word here is "random".  Sadaputa is implying that
the entire molecular framework of the brain operates randomly, according to
the laws of quantum physics.  If I read his implication correctly, he's
wrong.  The primary nature of brain function is electrochemical, and not
quantum mechanical.  It therfore operates according to rules which are
much more stringent than quantum statistics.
	Damn, Sadaputa is a good writer!
(I inadvertently deleted the last part of the paragraph.  Sorry.)


: It would seem that O'Keefe, Gingerich, and Dyson are advancing religious
: ideas that are scientifically unacceptable. Unacceptable because they
: propose an extra-scientific story for events that fall in the chosen
: domain of science: the domain of all real phenomena.

	Decide for yourself.  Sadaputa is real good at making it seem so.

: of Stephen Jay Gould. In his review in Scientific American, Gould says,
: "Science treats factual reality, while religion struggles with human
: morality."[9] We can compare this to a statement by the eminent
: theologian Rudolph Bultmann: "The idea of God is imperative, not
: indicative; ethical and not factual."[10]
: 
: The point Gould and Bultmann make is that God has nothing to do with
: facts in the real world. God is involved not with what is but what ought
: to be, not with the phenomena of the world but people's ethical and
: moral values.

Sadaputa's next sentence is a hum-dinger:

: Of course, a spoken or written statement of what ought to be is part of
: what is.

	Whoa!  I deliberately isolated this sentence.  Sadaputa's
statement is true.   However, the "spoken or written statement of what
ought to be" nonetheless remains theoretical and conjectural.

So if God is out of what is, He cannot be the source of
: statements about what ought to be. These must simply be human
: statements, and so must all statements about God.

	All of what has been written, interpreted, and spoken about God
are necessarily human statements.  What about prophets?  God may have
given them the message, but the words were from a human being.

As it's put by Don
: Cupitt, Cambridge philosopher of religion, "There is no longer anything
: out there for faith to correspond to, so the only test of faith now is
: the way it works out in life. The objects of faith, such as God, are
: seen as guiding spiritual ideals we live by, and not as beings."[11]

	Faith is the evidence of things not seen.  God can still be
a being, BUT we _cannot prove_ his existence as a being.  Only faith
allows us to believe it is so.

: This may sound like atheism, and so it is.

	Cupitt's comment, taken out of context, would appear to be a comment
on the state of the world and not science.  Let's go see.
	I checked the reference, "Only Human".  It doesn't give much
contextual information.  My guess is that it's a discussion of secular
humanism.


But we shouldn't stop here.
: Human religious activity is part of the factual world, and so it also
: lies within the domain of science. While religious people "struggle with
: morality," inquisitive scientists struggle to explain man's religious
: behavior --unique in the animal kingdom-- in terms of the Darwinian
: theory of evolution.

	Giving Sadaputa every benefit of the doubt, I think he's
stretching real far for this one.  Is anybody seriously suggesting that
there's an adaptive significance to religious behavior?
	Humans ARE unique in the animal kingdom;  our mental capacity
is evidence of that.  That religious behavior, among other behaviors
(like composition of music) should arise from the evolved mental
capacity is not surprising.  There is undoubtedly an adaptive significance
to increased mental capacity.


This was foreshadowed by a remark made by Darwin
: himself in his early notes: "Love of the deity effect of organization,
: oh you materialist!"[12]

Another interesting sentence:

Religious ideas, including love of God, must
: arise from the structure and conditioning of the brain, and these in
: turn must arise through genetic and cultural evolution.
	
	Anytime somebody says "must", be wary.  Do religious ideas
arise from the structure of the brain?  I seriously doubt it -- correct
me if I'm wrong.  From the conditioning of the brain?  If "conditioning"
means "learning", then I'd agree with that.  Did the structure of the
brain arise from cultural evolution (parsing the implications)?  No no no
no no...


Darwin himself
: never tried to develop these ideas extensively, but in recent years
: sociobiologists such as Edward O. Wilson have.[13]

	Another name to add to my reading list.  Darn.

: So is the science of Darwinism fully compatible with conventional
: religious beliefs? That depends on one's conventions. If by God you mean
: a real spiritual being who controls natural phenomena, even to a slight
: degree, then Darwinism utterly rejects your idea -- not because science
: empirically disproves it, but because the idea goes against the
: fundamental scientific program of explaining all phenomena through the
: laws of physics.

	Wait a minute!  When did Darwinism get mixed in with physics?
	It is true that the fundamental scientific program is to
explain all phenomena through the laws of physics.  Now, can God the
Entity interact with natural phenomena?  If He could, science would
not be able to prove it.
	It is also true that science rejects all non-natural explanations
for observable phenomenon.  Tell me something I don't know, Sadaputa.

Religious beliefs are compatible with Darwinism only if
: they hold that God is simply a human idea having something to do with
: moral imperatives. But if this is what you believe, then instead of
: having religious beliefs, you have "scientific" beliefs about religion.

	My religious beliefs are not compatible with Darwinism.  I have
Darwinism over on one side, and my religious faith on the other.  In
terms of one explaining the other, they are separate and unequal.
	Therefore, my faith in God is not affected by Darwinism/
punctuated equilibrium/RNA world, etc.  


: Judging from the theistic ideas of O'Keefe, Gingerich, and Dyson, many
: far-from-stupid scientists do believe in God and Darwinism. But in their
: efforts to combine truly incompatible ideas, they succumb to enormously
: muddled thinking.

	Sadly (Sadaputaly?) he's probably right.  However, they aren't
the only ones.   ANYBODY who tries to do this has problems -- me too!

And so they commit scientific heresy in spite of
: themselves. If one is at all interested in knowledge of God, one should
: recognize that such knowledge is not compatible with mainstream science,
: and in particular not with Darwinism.

	The incompatibility is very evident.  I congratulate Sadaputa
on his writing skills and his acceptable conclusions.  I also commend
Kalki for posting this article.
	Conclusion:  Science and religion don't mix.  Any attempt to do
so will fail.  On any level.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov




: REFERENCES
: 
: [1] Gould, Stephen Jay, "Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge," Scientific
:     American, July 1992, p. 119.
: [2] Jastrow, Robert, God and the Astronomer, NY: Warner Books, Inc.,
:     1978, p. 138.
: [3] Jastrow, Ibid., pp. 141-2.
: [4] Hawking, Stephen, A Brief History of Time, NY: Bantam Books, 1988,
:     p. 116.
: [5] Gingerich, Owen, "Let There Be Light: Modern Cosmogony and Biblical
:     Creation," an abridgement of the Dwight Lecture given at the
:     University of Penna. in 1982, pp. 9-10.
: [6] Dyson, Freeman, Disturbing the Universe, NY: Harper & Row, 1979, pp.
:     251-52.
: [7] Dyson, Ibid., p. 249.
: [8] Dyson, Ibid., p. 250.
: [9] Gould, Ibid., p. 120
: [10] Cupitt, Don, Only Human, London: SCM Press, Ltd., 1985, p. 212.
: [11] Cupitt, Ibid., p. 202.
: [12] Paul H. Barrett, et al., eds., Charles Darwin's Notebooks,
:      1836-1844, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987, p. 291.
: [13] Wilson, Edward O., On Human Nature, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
:      University Press, 1978.
: 
: END OF ARTICLE
: 
: Sadaputa Dasa (Richard L. Thompson) earned his Ph.D. in mathematics from
: Cornell University. He is the author of several books, of which the most
: recent is Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy.