Lost and Found: Modern Science and Ancient Faith

BreakPoint ^ | 19 Dec 03 | Chuck Colson

[Mr. Silverback]

G. K. Chesterton once told a story about "an English yachtsman who slightly miscalculated his course and discovered England under the impression that it was an island in the South Seas."

The yachtsman "landed (armed to the teeth and speaking by signs) to plant the British flag on that barbaric temple which turned out to be the pavilion at Brighton." Expecting to have discovered New South Wales, he realized "that it was really old South Wales."

Chesterton was talking about the way in which we cast off the truths we learned as children, only later, if we are fortunate, to rediscover them as adults. What we dismissed as "simple" often turns out to be far more profound than we ever imagined.

According to Stephen M. Barr, a theoretical particle physicist at the University of Delaware, what's true about people is also true about science. In his new book, MODERN PHYSICS AND ANCIENT FAITH, Barr tells us that after the "twists" and "turns" that science took in the twentieth century, it, like Chesterton's yachtsman, wound up in "very familiar surroundings": a universe that "seems to have had a beginning . . . [and is] governed by laws that have a grandeur and sublimity that bespeak design."

Instead of man being merely the result of a "fortuitous concourse of atoms," we now know that the "universe and its laws seem in some respect to balance on a knife's edge" -- exactly what is needed for the possibility of life. A slight deviation here or there, and we wouldn't exist -- the anthropic principle.

These and other "recent discoveries have begun to confound the materialist's expectations and confirm those of the believer in God," writes Barr.

Notice, he said "materialist's," not "scientist's." As Barr makes clear, sciences like modern physics can and must be separated from materialism. Materialism is the belief that nothing exists besides matter, and it is a philosophical opinion. It may have, as Barr puts it, "[grown] up alongside science," but it's not science. Remember that, a critical point.

The assumption that you have to take a materialist worldview in order to do science is simply wrong. There's nothing about physics, for example, that assumes, much less demands, that view of the universe. In fact, many of the greatest scientists, like Newton, Galileo, and Copernicus, were religious believers.

Despite these facts, philosophical materialism has become so identified with science that scientists, and the general public, often have trouble telling them apart, which is why the discoveries that Barr describes come as a surprise, and their implications are resisted by many within the academy.

These implications aren't inconsistent with science, but rather with their dogmatic materialist worldview. Resisting these implications has required ingenious, almost fanciful, attempts to interpret the evidence in a way consistent with the materialist worldview.

Tomorrow I'll tell you about some of these discoveries and how they have "damaged the credibility of materialism." It's an important story about how science, far from being the enemy of faith, is only at war with those who, against the evidence, insist that England is "Tahiti."

[PatrickHenry]

[Thunderous applause!]

[betty boop]

As Barr makes clear, sciences like modern physics can and must be separated from materialism. Materialism is the belief that nothing exists besides matter, and it is a philosophical opinion. It may have, as Barr puts it, "[grown] up alongside science," but it's not science. Remember that, a critical point....

The assumption that you have to take a materialist worldview in order to do science is simply wrong. There's nothing about physics, for example, that assumes, much less demands, that view of the universe. In fact, many of the greatest scientists, like Newton, Galileo, and Copernicus, were religious believers.

Despite these facts, philosophical materialism [defined in all dictionaries I've ever consulted as a "philosophical opinion"] has become so identified with science that scientists, and the general public, often have trouble telling them apart, which is why the discoveries that Barr describes come as a surprise, and their implications are resisted by many within the academy.

These implications aren't inconsistent with science, but rather with their dogmatic materialist worldview. Resisting these implications has required ingenious, almost fanciful, attempts to interpret the evidence in a way consistent with the materialist worldview.

Sorry for sprinkling around so many bolds, Phaedrus; but the point Barr makes about materialism not being science needs some "drilling in": A lot of people simply conflate the two -- and it shows. As a result, we often wind up with an "end-justifying-the means" type of science....

This is a very fine book, Phaedrus. I highly recommend it. Thanks so much for the ping. Merry Christmas!

[Phaedrus]

...the point Barr makes about materialism not being science needs some "drilling in": A lot of people simply conflate the two -- and it shows.

It does, indeed. Sophistry abounds, which is why I draw my "parsing sword" so frequently ... ;-}

Merry Christmas to All and may the new year bring you Only Good Things.

[PatrickHenry]

As Barr makes clear, sciences like modern physics can and must be separated from materialism.

I think we've been around a few times on this before, BB. So once more I'll ask you: If you were in charge of a science research facility, and if you had an unlimited budget, how would you go about investigating things other then matter and energy? What equipment would you use? How would you go about studying the nature and properties and behavior of the spiritual domain?

I respectfully suggest that there is nothing you could do, scientifically, to advance the "non-materialist agenda" (if such a thing exists). As I've said before, science can only do what it can do. It can't measure what it can't measure. It can't observe what is -- by definition -- not observable.

Science has limits. It's stuck with investigating the observable world. That's not a justification for criticism, it's just a definition. Within its limits, science performs very well. The other aspects of existence are, of necessity, the domain of theology.

[lonevoice]

bookmark and bump

[js1138]

Your ability to admit to the absolute truth and accuracy of every one of these predictions made over 2000 years ago...

Now if people could only tell what these predictions mean BEFORE they come true, they might be useful. Even newspaper astrology is true if you are allowed to interpret it after the event.

[js1138]

"Soon" is a relative term, ...

"Soon" in cosmological terms could mean any time in the next billion years or so. Tell me something that will happen in my lifetime that can't be predicted by ordinary projection of trends.

[Terriergal]

Excellent.

[Junior]

My prediction: Something momentous may or may not happen to you today. Be prepared.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Is there any city that psychics are abandoning in droves?

[js1138]

Is there any city that psychics are abandoning in droves?

The Bible did specifically warn us of 911, didn't it? And there were no believers in the towers that day. Right?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Perhaps is people only interpreted it corrctly. Miss Cleo missed it too.

[betty boop]

Science has limits. It's stuck with investigating the observable world. That's not a justification for criticism, it's just a definition.

Great point, Patrick. But the key word is "observable." We humans observe many things, some of which seem to have nothing to do with "matter." Do you say such observations then fall irrevocably outside the domain of science?

For instance, do we ever see a force (e.g., gravitational, electromagnetic, acoustic, scalar field, etc.) -- other than in its effects (i.e., on quantum or macroworld "objects")? Does this mean that force as a principle is indistinguishable from its effects -- that is, it is the same thing as its effects, identical to them?

We do not "see" it via the route of sensory perception; but it can be "observed" by the mind and studied. This is what science does with forces in nature.

[RightWhale]

We do not "see" it via the route of sensory perception

By the simplest Cartesian test--it is matter. We push on it, it resists.

[PatrickHenry]

For instance, do we ever see a force (e.g., gravitational, electromagnetic, acoustic, scalar field, etc.) -- other than in its effects

This is a quibble, BB. No, we don't literally "see" the force. Not with our eyes. But gravity is easily demonstrated, and the effects can clearly be seen, and measured, and described, and thus predicted.

That is why science can explore forces like gravity, radiation, etc. We know about them because we can aid our senses by constructing instruments that register their effects. This is what science does. But this can't be done with the forces in spiritual domain. At least not yet.

If you can figure out a way to scientifically deal with spiritual phenomena, science will be delighted to explore such things with the tools you provide. Until such tools exist, science is going to be limited to dealing with matter and energy.

[js1138]

What quantifiable effects of spiritual forces have you observed? Or if not quantifiable, what regular, predictable effects have you obwerved?

[betty boop]

By the simplest Cartesian test--it is matter. We push on it, it resists.

But Descartes was wrong, RightWhale.

Give me a little time to think that through in some kind of rational manner, and I'll reply a little later on.

Please do allow for the fact that we are in the Christmas Season, and people have family obligations.

But off the top off my head, I will hope to show that Descartes is wrong on the basis of the evidence presented by Hegel.

An ambitious project, to be sure. Meanwhile, Merry Christmas to you and yours, from me and mine; and may you have a bounteous 2004!

[RightWhale]

Descartes is wrong on the basis of the evidence presented by Hegel

Hegel is also a passing footnote in the development of philosophy. It is not necessary to know anything before Husserl unless you wish to see where the stems of the lily pads originate.

[betty boop]

It is not necessary to know anything before Husserl unless you wish to see where the stems of the lily pads originate.

Kiddo, but I particularly do want to see "where the stems of the lily pads originate."

For Husserl's thinking had roots: To me at least it is clear he had no purely original genius, but attempted to improve on already extant models.

How can you understand what a man's thinking is, if you do not understand his fundamental premises?

Which is why I suggested that Descartes and Hegel were key to understanding the present state of post-modern (post-World War II?) intellectual discourse, which enticed or seduced Husserl into the bargain....

[RightWhale]

For Husserl's thinking had roots:

Yes. For Husserl it is math. A knowledge of a particular kind. He decried that so many logicians did not have a firm philosophical foundation yet could discover so much good math. We don't need Aristotle and Descartes to help us with our math. Husserl is good to go.