From: mss2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Subject: Re: God and Science:  The Ramblings of The Nightstalker
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 04:38:14 GMT

In article <1dpp9hINN5sv@gap.caltech.edu> ajm@wag.caltech.edu (Abner J. Mintz) writes:


>>God and Science: are they incompatible?

>God and science are irrelevant to one another.  God and morality are not;
>science and morality are only distant (third?) cousins.

	"Minor nitpick-- God and science aren't _entirely_ irrelevant
to one another.  If a creator God exists, then science is a process of
learning about His handiwork-- which may give the study of the world
different meaning to religious scientists than to nonreligious ones.
Since the meaning we give to our lives is one of the primary reasons
for pursuing philosophical and religious questions at all, I think it
is relevant.  But I agree with your major point, that one's religious
convictions should not make a difference in the actual _practice_ of
science, in the sense of gathering data and interpreting it."

>>Science traditionally has not always had the highest regard for any being that
>>might be called God.  From the times of Newton and his laws, physicists have
>>sought to understand the universe in such a way that there is no need for a
>>personal being in the created order.  Johannes Kepler, who worked for more
>>than 20 years on his planetary laws of motion, once said ``My goal is to 
>>show the celestial machine is not a divine being but like a clock."

>The purpose of science is to study the universe as it is.  Ideally the
>scientist keeps assumptions to a minimum, or at least states them as 
>assumptions.  Stating as an assumption 'There exists a being that can do
>whatever it wants, and probably has, affecting the entire universe' doesn't
>leave much room for anything else.  The answer to any question becomes
>'Because God Wants It That Way.'  The answer to *every* question becomes
>trivial.  Thus, science can never assume there is a God (or other       
>'super-natural' being) without becoming a trivial disciplin.  

	"Essentially agreed.  Explaining everything in terms of the
First Cause (to borrow from Aquinas) is pretty well useless unless you
can show the causal sequence.  If I ask what caused someone to die, no
one would be satisfied with "because he was born"-- even though he
couldn't have died without being born.  Saying "stones fall because
God wants them to" is on the same order as saying grasshoppers exist
because the the Solar System formed-- it's the intervening steps that
we're interested in.  God is as irrelevant to scientific theories as
the Big Bang is to the theory of continental drift."

>No.  Science deals only with the perceptible.  Until the day that God chooses
>to make himself objectively perceptible (perceptible to all instead of to
>a few) we will be unable to prove if God exists or doesn't exist.  
>
>>Stephen Hwaking is more like the 18th
>>century mathematician-philosopher Pierre Simon Laplace.  When asked by
>>Napoleon where was God in his theories, he simply replied ``I have no need of
>>that hypothesis."  Was he correct in stating this, or is it the standard
>>arrogance of the scientific mind?

>Arrogance?  Not really.  The universe appears to be explainable to a large
>degree, and since that degree expands every year, it isn't arrogant to 
>assume that the entire universe and everything in it is ultimately
>explainable.  And if the universe is explainable without God, he isn't
>needed as a hypothesis!

	"Well, `explainable' is a broad term.  Since science is an
apparently endless chain of falsifying hypotheses, I'm inclined to
doubt that we'll ever reach a Final Theory of Everything (tm).  :-)  I
suspect that it's more like approaching an asymptote-- we'll refine
our knowledge more and more, and our hypotheses will become more and
more complete, but there will always be blank spots in it.  And, of
course, the origin of the universe itself probably won't be
explainable at all-- since physical laws apparently didn't even come
into existence until a certain point in the Big Bang, theorizing back
past a certain point may prove to be impossible.  We'll push things
back further and further into that first three minutes, but at some
point the experiments would require literally impossible energy
densities-- perhaps the energy of the entire universe concentrated
into a few cubic centimeters.  Without data and without known physical
laws to work with, will we be able to reach that first fraction of a
second?  Not to mention the question of what caused the circumstances
from which the Big Bang sprang-- a pre-existing universe collapsing?
a quantum fluctuation in nothingness?  the finger of God?  We can
formulate hypotheses, but I can't imagine a test for them.  Or, as
Abner says:

 It's thinking of what's *outside* that universe that's a
>pain!  The rules a scientist learns only apply to the space-time the rules
>were learned in ...  If there was a Big Bang, where the rules drastically
>changed, we can't predict what happened before it.

>There is no reason to exclude God from the big picture.  And no reason to
>include him either.  So far the painting is amazingly good, but we haven't
>found the artist's signature ... or even proof that the paints aren't random
>splotches that we think look good because our artistic sensibilities were
>formed by nothing better ...

	"The signature, if it exists, I'd say has to exist in matters
of `why' rather than `how'.  Causality explains how many things
occurred-- it may even explain how human beliefs and morals developed.
But when someone commits a questionable act, we don't primarily want
to know how, but why.  We may be curious how one person killed
another, but it's the why that determines whether it's justifiable or
wanton.  Basically, if existence is purposed, then there's someone or
someones who purposed it-- if existence is fundamentally purposeless
(beyond the purposes people choose for themselves) then it would seem
unlikely that any sort of supernature need be presumed, since it isn't
necessary for the `how' questions."

>>Then there is the case more to do with genetics and so on, where the moral
>>issues become greater.  Does the scientist have the right to make decisions
>>over the genetic makeup of the human species, or is that purely the ground of
>>a God that created?  

>Well, here's where science and morality become third cousins.  Science *never*
>tells you *anything* about morality.  Science only tells you what may have 
>been, what is, and what is possible to be.  It can always tell you how, and
>never tell you why.  

	"Agreed."

>>There is a new view these days called ``scientism", which seems to think that
>>science is the panacea for all woes and that ``how" and ``why" questions are
>>now blurred because since science has relieved the need to seek some great
>>cosmic purpose, there is no ``why".  Thus science claiming through its'
>>understanding of the way the universe works that there is no God, then the
>>questions of every day are just ``how" questions, and science can deal with
>>any of the moral issues that we face.  Thus, by understanding all of the 
>>''how's, we can then formulate a ''why" which encapsulates all of these. 
>>This is the new religion of science.  To 
>>them, ``cosmic purpose" is an invention of the theologian, and thus is
>>something that holds science back.  In the words of Peter Atkins in his New
>>Scientist article (8 Aug 1992) ``Religion claims total understanding, but
>>fails to deliver anything but sweet words; science claims cautious progress,
>>and is able to deliver success at every stage."  There are three things 
>>wrong with this.
>
>'Scientism?'  First I heard of that!  But I will state the following: if there
>is a cosmic purpose, I don't know what it is.  I've never seen any signs
>pointing to it, either.  And Christianity does no better a job at answering
>'why': it just pushes things back a step.  Why are we here? 'Because God Made
>It That Way.'  Why did he make it that way?  'Ummmm ...'

	"Well... but science works that way too, to a certain extent.
`Where did the Earth come from?'  `Condensation from a cloud of dust,
with the rest of the solar system?' `Where did the dust come from?'
`Supernova explosions adding to interstellar hydrogen and helium.'
`Where did the original matter come from?'  `The Big Bang.'  `What
caused the Big Bang?'  `Ummmm ...'  The question is whether the
explanation gives greater understanding than we had before, not
whether it explains _everything_.  Religion _may_ explain human
beings' purpose in the world-- but it won't and doesn't need to
explain the purpose of quasars or radio galaxies or sea anemones or
aliens billions of light years away whom we'll never meet.  `Why are
we here?'  Christianity claims it's `Because God wants us to become
more like Him-- to become closer to Him because He's the source of all
things good, and distance from Him hurts us.'  `Why does he want
this?'  `Because He loves us.'  `If that's true, why didn't he do
things differently, so that humans didn't have to endure <x>?'  `Damn
good question-- but it may require more knowledge about how one goes
about creating a universe.  Is it possible for people to be good
without an alternative, or for an alternative to exist without
consequences?  Would people in a world without evil have the power of
moral choice, or would they be mere robots?'

	But those are all just more questions.  And, of course,
getting to them requires accepting the hypothesis advanced-- which in
turn means considering the Christian answer to the `whys' more
compelling than other answers to the question of `Why are we here?'
Many don't consider the question meaningful at all.  I do, because I
think most people can't help but assign moral meaning to their actions
(i.e. believing certain acts committed by them or against them to be
unjust) and I consider a mass delusion of meaning and free will to be
a less compelling hypothesis.  But even if one takes that step, that
leaves the question of *what* the meaning is."

>As I've stated, science never deals with why's, only with how's.  Very few
>people try to claim that science tell us why ... and they're as much
>theologists as any preacher!

	"At least.  The early to mid part of this century was very big
for those sorts of theories-- proving that a moral or political system
was right because it was the `natural order' or `scientific'.
(Naziism and Communism were the two big political versions of this, of
course.  And, of course, both of them managed to sacrifice science to
their ideology, with Lysenkoism and the nonsensical racial theory
replacing the study of reality.)"

>If religion could give me *any* understanding of the why's of the universe,
>I'd be profoundly grateful.  All it seems to give, however, are 'because's'.
>In much the same spirit as a parent to a child, when I ask questions, it      
>tells me that the answers are all known by God.  Well, that's nice.  But I
>would like to know some of the answers for myself.  If God and the Bible
>won't tell me what happens when a buckeyball is doped with potassium, then
>why shouldn't I find out for myself?

	"Agreed.  Religion is _not_ the answer to the hows of the
universe."

>It is unfortunately similar that religion's answers to questions of morality
>are 'Because' as well.  The Bible doesn't say 'Murder is wrong because it
>deprives others of an equal chance at happiness' or somesuch.  It says  
>'Murder is wrong.'  Well, I agree with it ... but there are other areas where
>I don't agree.  If God is willing to show me why I'm wrong, I'm more than
>glad to change my mind.  But I've never heard a peep out of him.

	"Maybe, maybe not.  After all, some believe that conscience is
in part a communication from God.  But obviously this isn't provable.
Then again, the proposition `Murder is wrong' isn't provable in
itself.  It's a matter of asking those `why' questions as far back as
one can and seeing where they lead.  `Why is it wrong to deprive other
of an equal chance of happiness?'  And so on...  Though again, whether
a purpose, and an ultimate source for purpose, seems like a `least
hypothesis' or not varies with different people."

>>The Christian faith is one where some of the answers must simply be taken
>>on faith or admitted to not being known.  It explains the human situation as
>>a rebellion against God and that God reveals Himself through history, but
>>leaves some of the great questions of ``why" unanswered.  In the book of
>>Romans, there is a quote ``who are you O man to talk back to the God that
>>made you?"  This is hardly giving all the answers.  Christianity gives
>>purpose but not all the answers.  

>Christianity gives the rules but no reasons for them.  Some of the rules
>appear highly arbitrary.  It describes penalties for not following the
>rules, but doesn't prove the existance of the police.  Or the jail.  What's
>more, there are alternate sets of rules that have equal claims to validity
>and which contradict each other and Christianity.

	"Not no reasons-- though perhaps you don't find the reasons
convincing.  Love... free will... coming closer to God through free
choice...  Christian apologists haven't written hundreds of pages
without describing reasons behind their beliefs, nor have all of them
checked their reason at the door.  Then again, the same can be said
for the defenders of many other religions.  Who has the better claim
is a matter for study-- I'm inclined to consider agnosticism the only
reasonable position until and unless one finds a convincing hypothesis
of either purpose or purposelessness."


>Can you really blame me for trying to find out the rules for myself ... both
>how's and why's?

	"Obviously not.  :-)"

>>Secondly, on a simple level, what relevance are the great discoveries of
>>science on a day to day personal level.  When a woman is being pack raped,
>>does it matter that elctrons repel one another?   Does the starving Somalian
>>really care that black holes may be the power source for quasars?  If science
>>can prove that God does not exist, then mankind is liberated from something
>>but to what?  Indeed science has not proven such a thing.  Where is the 
>>comfort of science to the needy and poor?

>The comfort of science to the poor and needy is that, without science, there
>would be more of them!

	"Well, actually fewer of them, though I think a higher
*percentage* of people would be poor and needy without it.  After all,
the agricultural innovations which allow billions of people to live,
even on the edge of starvation, are in themselves technological."

  Science leads to technology, and technology can lead
>to comfort if properly used (or to death if used improperly!).  Not every
>answer is appropriate to every question ... choose your matching properly.
>If science can lead to proper birth control and farming of arid areas, it
>will be a great comfort to a starving Somalian!  If science can lead to
>mace and other defenses, maybe the woman won't get gang-raped!

	"That goes back to the uses of technology, of course.  Science
and technology gives us the _capability_ to make antibiotics and gas
chambers, and weapons can be the equalizer between a strong agressor and
a weak defender or the basis of an oppressive state's power.  Hitler
and Stalin would have been impossible without certain technologies.
But so would large democratic republics."

>>The difference is in ideology, did God
>>intiate the process or was it random, ``why" is there life?  The ``how" is
>>not under major dispute for the generalities, although the specifics are
>>still open to conjecture.  The Bible claims that the human situation is
>>a result of a rebellion against God.  Can science dispute this?  It can
>>neither support nor contest such a claim, for human behaviour and emotions
>>have not been reduced to mere chemical reactions.  

>Not yet!  =8)
>(To be fair, solving human reactions will probably end up like solving the
>Schroedinger equation ... impossible due to limitations on computation
>power.)

	"And even if we _could_ create a predictive model of human
behavior, would it matter?  Would the absolute knowledge that you were
destined to be a hero or an assassin help you with the decisions _you_
have to make?  We know, to a great extent, how cancer kills its
victims-- but people still ask _why_.  And while it may be possible to
say there is no why in the behavior of the physical universe, it's
much harder, I think, to assume there's no why in one's own decisions.
(Also, chaos theory makes me even more confident that we _won't_ come
up with such a detailed predictive model.  No one's _proved_ the human
brain is a chaotic system as far as I know, but it's the way I'm
betting.)"

>>This question must be
>>debated theologically or philosophically.  Why society is the way it is cannot
>>be formularised for it is a ``why" question, although there are ``how"
>>aspects.  Thus, claims by Christianity must be dealt with on its own ground.
>>No all pervading theory of what is out there is sufficient to discover the
>>answers of ``why", lest we be painting ourselves into the room.

>Claims by christianity must be dealt with on the same grounds as any other
>philosophy ... until the day it intrudes into the real world.  Then it enters
>the domain of science.  (Maybe I should say 'objective world' instead of
>'real world'?)

	"Or `physical world' perhaps?  After all, whether God is an
objective fact or a subjective perception is the question, isn't it?
Actually, `material world' may be better, since in philosophy the term
`materialism' is in opposition to beliefs in a supernature (of any
sort-- theological, mystical, whatever)."

>Until the day when God starts changing the world in ways we can observe,   
>science will just have to ignore him.  *shrug*

	"True enough.  Theology is, at best, as relevant to all of
science as geology is to history.  I.e. if the hypothesis is correct,
a necessary precondition, but total reworkings of that first
hypotheses wouldn't affect the second significantly at all."

Michael



-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Indeed I tremble for my country
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 when I reflect that God is just."
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on
mss2@amber.uchicago.edu		    Virginia (1784)