From: jcarroll@ferris.cray.com (Jeff Carroll)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Question for fundamentalists
Date: 15 Sep 92 08:17:12 GMT


 willdye@helios.unl.edu (Will Dye):

>The beauty of reductionism is that when it does work, it gives us a level 
>of unmatched certainty; certainty that others who follow the procedures 
>will get the same result, certainty that even non-living entities will 
>behave within the realm of the equation at hand.  This is wonderful 
>stuff, and is the basis of the technology that so richly benefits us.  
>It is a mistake, however, to conclude that only reductionism can find 
>truth, and that reductionism can find all truths.  

Possibly one of the greatest intellectual frauds of our time is the
popular belief that science explains the universe. It does not. Science
attempts to describe the universe, and it does that imperfectly; reductionism
using the science we have today ultimately leads to nothing but uncertainty.
Science answers only "how?"; science as we know it today cannot answer the
question "why?".

What is the significance of a Schroedinger wave packet? The most eminent
of physicists disagree on this question. The conventional interpretation
is that the squared amplitude of the Schroedinger field represents the
*probability* of finding the particle in question at the point in question.
Yet, after decades, this interpretation remains controversial; Einstein for
example steadfastly refused to believe "that God plays dice with the universe".

But what do we mean by "probability"? Even this is uncertain. The layman
has a loose notion of probability derived from such things as Jose Canseco's
batting average, which we treat in practice as the probability that Jose
will get a hit next time he comes up. A good statistician will tell you,
though, that Jose's batting average is *not* a probability; it's merely
an estimate of the real probability, the definition of which "real"
probability is still a subject of scientific controversy.

Science can't even always answer the question "what?", let alone "how?"
How then can we expect it, at this stage of humanity, to answer "why?"

>This paragraph is the hardest.  How can I describe how a kid raised on 
>science could accept Christianity?  It requires more time than I 
>have today, but suffice to say I did it.  I don't much care for the old 
>logic-vs-emotion dichotomy, but this will sound an awful lot like it:  Ya 
>can't think it through, ya just gotta jump in and swim. 

I was a science junkie too (still am - I confess that I spend more time
reading science than the Bible). I was born into the church, and had a
conversion experience long before I was acquainted with most of the
intellectual issues, but I continue to find that the more I learn about
science, the less I'm satisfied with its answers.

To be perfectly honest, I'm also often dissatisfied with the answers given
by the Church. And the older I get, the more difficult I find it to describe
in concise terms what I believe, or even what I believe to be the plausible
alternatives. But I don't find it any more difficult to believe in or
justify what I believe to be personal experiences of God, nor to be a believing
member ("faithful" has connotations I can't live up to) of the Church of
Jesus Christ.

Jeff Carroll
carroll@reston.cray.com

(Note to Christians of all stripes: I was fortunate enough to be among those
present yesterday at the primatial visit of His Grace the Archbishop of
Canterbury to Washington Cathedral. Archbishop Carey is an inspiring and
delightful man whose personal charisma struck me as being similar to that
of Pope John Paul II, though he appeared to be visibly tired from travel
yesterday.

For the next several days Archbishop Carey will be touring the United States,
possibly visiting a city near you. I don't have the itinerary, or I would
post it. Watch the newspapers, although I was somewhat disappointed to see
no coverage in today's _Washington_Post_.)