From: aull@ll.mit.edu (Brian Aull)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
Subject: Science and Religion article - Part 3
Date: 10 Sep 92 17:25:45 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.



In the farm parable, Luke first applied a stimulus to the system by milking
his father's cows on both sides.  Second, he observed a predictable pattern of
response: the cows resisted left-hand milking.  Third, he formulated a model
that cows only wish to be milked from the right.  Then, repeating the loop shown
in Figure 1, he applied a new set of stimuli to expand the range of his 
observations 
by milking his uncle's cows, thus testing the predictions of his first
model.  Outside the confines of his father's farm, the first model broke down,
so Luke refined the model to accommodate the new data:  cows only wish to be
milked from the habitual side.  The experiments reported by his classmates
further confirm the new model.  The new model, therefore, extends to many
farms, and Luke can have a degree of confidence in it.

Figure I shows the stimulus as the first step, but this is not necessarily the
case in science, because patterns are sometimes observed before a conscious
investigation begins.  Furthermore, the farm parable strongly emphasizes the
role of experiments.  However, many of the greatest breakthroughs in science
are made by theorists who are concerned with discovering theories that are
mathematically and conceptually elegant.  Einstein, for example, sought to unify
the structure of physical law, not just to explain existing experimental data.
Indeed, not only did his theory of relativity explain old experiments but it 
also
predicted observations which had previously not even been contemplated by
experimentalists.

The farm parable yields some important lessons.  First, the theories and
models of science gain acceptance by a process that is not logical deduction but
is, in a sense, a logical fallacy.  The validation of a model involves a process 
of
gaining confidence in its predictive power based on a limited set of 
experimental
observations.  This confidence is the scientific analogue of religious faith.  
(By
this I mean not "blind faith" but a reasonable form of faith based on critical
inquiry).  In the parable, no logical argument or empirical observation can 
prove
the nonexistence of a farm where the cows demand to alternate sides on a daily
basis.

Second, Luke's second model is only "better" or"more plausible" than
his first one in the sense that its descriptive validity extends to a wider 
range of
situations.  Within the limits of his father's farm, one model is just as good 
as
the other.  Furthermore, the second model implies the first model as a special
case when the range of observation is appropriately restricted.  The models are
not "true" or "false"; rather, they are useful tools of description or 
prediction
over a wider or narrower range of circumstances.

Third, the OBJECT box in Figure I is empty to emphasize the fact that
science only describes observable attributes of nature, not essences.  We do not
know what matter is, only what it does to our senses in the context of 
experiments.

Fourth, a crucial reinforcement of Luke's second model was the agreement
of his classmates that he was not just hallucinating.  This is important because
it allows science to become a communal consensus-building effort rather than
a purely personal, subjective search.  Every scientist builds on the 
achievements
of past scientists, and this makes long-term advancement possible.

Fifth, Luke's understanding can be practically applied to the problem of
increasing milk production.  Once he gains confidence in his model of cow
psychology, he suspends his skepticism in order to get a good yield of milk.
He is then acting on the basis of a reasonable form of faith in his model.  This
confident application of a scientific model to solve practical problems is, 
broadly
speaking, technology.

The term faith, in its best sense, can be broadly defined as an empirically
developed confidence in a model, and this is as much a part of science as is the
"faith-free" process of logical deduction.  The role that reason plays in 
science
is in judging the internal consistency of models and their consistency with the
observed data.  Properly balanced, the empirical and rational elements of 
science 
play complementary roles in the quest for understanding.

What are the differences and parallels between religion and science?  The
most important difference between religion and science is that they deal with
different questions.  Science seeks a description of the phenomenal world,
whereas religion seeks an appropriate response strategy to it.  Religion deals
with the purpose of life and how to best fulfill this purpose.  Science strives 
for
a descriptive model, while religion strives for a value system.

For the individual, the process of formulating and refining a value system is,
however, very analogous to the scientific method and can be outlined in terms
of the diagram in Figure 1.  In this case, the SUBJECT is the individual.  The
stimulus includes all the actions and words of the individual, and these 
influence
the OBJECT, which includes other individuals, the society at large, and the
physical environment.  The subject observes the responses and other behavior
patterns of the object.  In addition, the subject learns of the experiences of 
others,
some of which are found in historical data.  As this stream of experience 
progresses, it provides the opportunity for successive refinement of the 
subject's
value system.  This system must be self-consistent and must provide a sensible
interpretation of experience.  An additional test of value systems is the test 
of
workability.  That is, the value system must provide for the well-being of both
the individual and society.  The above process can also be undertaken by 
communities, so the SUBJECT could be a community as well as an individual.
In a broad sense, then, there seems to exist a method of proposing, refining,
and applying personal and communal value systems that is analogous to the
scientific method.  Both methods seek a cohesive conceptual framework to
"make sense" of experience.  Both should refine this framework as new 
experience accumulates.  Both deal with observable responses rather than 
essences.
Neither can claim to prove any assertions absolutely but rely on experiential
confidence in those assertions that have worked well so far.

Before developing this parallel any further, however, a crop of difficulties
must be addressed.  First, in the formulation of personal and communal value
systems, the series of " stimulus-response" experiments is different in each and
every case, both in terms of the actions performed and in terms of which sectors
of the OBJECT are most directly affected and observed.  Second, the perception
of what makes one ethical system more valid than another is often conditioned
by emotional responses to experience rather than by purely descriptive validity.
Therefore, there is no standard by which the value system can be judged to have
a global validity.  Third, one cannot perform repeated "stimulus-response"
experiments under controlled conditions in the search for a value system.  Do
people really observe consistent or repeatable patterns? To a certain extent,
they probably do.  However, people display an inertia toward modification of
their value systems.  Once a system is adopted, it is internalized, and evidence
that reinforces it is given more weight than evidence that does not.  Thus, the
consistent patterns observed may be partially a result of ignoring undesirable
deviations.  In short, the objectivity of science seems to be lacking, yet there
must be universally accepted values in a society to prevent disintegration and
anarchy.

The Baha'i Faith addresses this "subjectivity problem" and, in three particular 
respects, vindicates the legitimacy of religion as a form of objective and
testable knowledge.  First, its writings unfold not only a system of moral 
values
for individuals and communities but also a comprehensive model of the spiritual
and social evolution of humanity.  This model has the same quality of elegant
synthesis that characterizes the revolutionary models of science.  The Baha'i
writings are inherently worthy of the claim that they embody a divinely inspired
set of teachings.

It is interesting to note that Baha'u'llah's teaching of progressive revelation
and Einstein's theory of relativity display striking parallels.  Einstein 
unfolded
a new understanding of the universality of physical law and the relative nature
of certain observations made from different frames of reference.  Baha'u'llah
unfolded a new understanding of the universality of the spiritual link between
humans and God, and the relative nature of its expression and development in
different phases of history.  The Baha'i writings make unprecedented 
predictions about humanity's future while reconciling the apparent conflicts 
among
the religions of the past and showing their underlying unity, again playing a
role analogous to that of relativity.

Second, the Baha'i Faith and, to a lesser extent, the religions of the past
embody a set of historical events that are open to objective scrutiny.  
Examination 
of this data plays an important role in the validation of the Baha'i Faith,
because the Baha'i Faith claims that religion is a process instigated by God and
views human history in this light.  Such a claim must be tested by an individual
through historical retrospection rather than through direct, short-term 
observation
of the immediate social and physical environment.  As Josh McDowell
(More Than a Carpenter 38) has pointed out, the situation calls for
"legal-historical" verification rather than scientific verification.

In the case of the Baha'i  Faith, there is a wealth of observables by which to
judge its validity.  Baha'u'llah's life is a recent historical event that is 
well 
documented.  Furthermore, there are over a hundred volumes of his authenticated
writings.  This constitutes a body of data that is open to examination.  So the
data-what Baha'u'llah wrote, what He did, and what He suffered -is abundant. 
Furthermore, we also have a good sense of what Moses, Christ, Muhammad,
and other founders of religions have taught, although there is certainly
much less information about historical details.

Third, the Baha'i writings explicitly speak to the methods a seeker should
use to test the legitimacy of the Baha'i Faith or of any set of religious 
beliefs.
The Baha'i writings invite a critical, fair-minded scrutiny of the evidence.
Baha'u'llah repeatedly exhorts his readers to "judge His Cause with fairness,"
(Tablets 85) to "examine Our Cause, inquire into the things that have befallen
Us, and decide justly between Us and Our enemies..." (qtd. in Baha'i World
Faith 41).  One is a Baha'i if and only if one has reached a conviction that
Baha'u'llah's claim of being a divine spokesman is valid.  'Abdu'l-Baha states:

Another new principle revealed by His Holiness Baha'u'llah is the injunction 
to investigate truth; that is to say, no man should blindly follow his
ancestors and forefathers.  Nay, each must see with his own eyes, hear with
his own ears and investigate the truth himself in order that he may follow the
truth instead of blind acquiescence and imitation of ancestral beliefs.  (qtd.
in Baha'i World Faith  246)

He also writes:

God has endowed man with intelligence and reason whereby he is required
to determine the verity of questions and propositions.  If religious beliefs and
opinions are found contrary to the standards of science they are mere 
superstitions 
and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and
the child of ignorance is superstition.  Unquestionably there must be 
agreement between true religion and science.  If a question be found contrary to
reason, faith and belief in it are impossible and there is no outcome but
wavering and vacillation.(240)

Bemoaning the fanaticism of Persian clergymen and political leaders,
Baha'u'llah writes, "But where are to be found earnest seekers and inquiring
minds?   Whither are gone the equitable and the fair-minded?"  (Tablets 90).
'Abdu'l-Baha spoke of the "signs" of Baha'u'llah-the volume and profundity
of his writings, the wisdom and knowledge He possessed despite his lack of
formal education, his unwavering love for humanity through forty years of
hardship at the hands of unjust oppressors, the prophecies fulfilled by his
appearance, and his impeccable conduct.  'Abdu'l-Baha writes, "Verily this is
a matter deserving the scrutiny of those who ponder the signs and tokens of
God ....  This thing is plain as day to whoever will regard it with the eye of
justice" (Selections 15).  In short, a critical, fair-minded scrutiny of the 
observables pertaining to the Baha'i Faith is a prerequisite to any confidence 
in its
legitimacy.
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam