 |
Science/Religion
Touches A Nerve
|
Grand
Design
Pure
nothingness
does
not,
Cannot
exist.
Existence
itself
is
something.
Science
and religion agree,
each
inevitably
postulating
God,
Though
by name
it
might be anything but.
Consciousness
exists
and
with it conscience,
the
bench mark of divinity.
Carl
Stiefel '39
Burlington,
Iowa
|
I
enjoyed reading "Oberlin Faculty Quizzed: Science? Religion?
Are They Mutually Exclusive?" (Winter 2000). Doug McInnis
writes, "On a very large scale, change a few things in the
laws of physics, and the universe would not exist." Intentionally
or not, he is introducing the anthropic coincidences (or fine-tuning)
argument for the existence of a creator. This is a modern
variation of the intelligent-design argument that has appeared
in one form or another throughout history. It is based on
the fact that life on earth is so sensitive to the values
of the fundamental physical constants that even the smallest
change to any of them would mean that life as we know it could
not exist. The chance that any random set of these constants
would match the ones in our universe is infinitesimally small.
Therefore, they must be the result of purposeful design with
life, even human life, in mind. A major flaw of this argument
is its assumption that the particular carbon-based form of
life that we know is the only possible type of life. This
assumption is unwarranted. Life might be likely with different
combinations of physical constants and laws of physics. Complexity
and chaos theory has shown how order and beauty can be generated
from random processes with no pre-existing design. Artificial
life with unpredictable structure and form has been produced
in computers running genetic algorithms. It may be that a
certain level of complexity and long life are the only ingredients
necessary for a universe to have some form of evolving, reproducing
structures. This can happen with a wide range of initial parameters.
Another problem with the argument is its misconception of
basic probability theory. The odds that our universe would
be randomly selected from a set of universes with a wide range
of values for the physical constants are, indeed, quite small.
From this the fine-tuners argue that our universe had to be
deliberately selected by an external creator. But this small
probability occurs only when one asks the odds prior to the
selection. Similarly, if a universe were going to happen,
some
set of physical constants had to be selected. If it is wrong
to assume that ours is the only possible form of life, it
is also wrong to assume that ours can be the only universe.
Why should a universe-generating mechanism operate only once?
There seems no reason to assume that all of reality must be
like the region visible in our telescopes. If a respected
theory advanced by renowned cosmologist Andre Linde (no relation,
unfortunately) is correct, then our universe is just one bubble
in a giant foam of universes. Our universe could be fine-tuned
for carbon-based life because even such a delicate arrangement
of physical laws and constants was bound to happen in one
of the bubbles.
Gregg
Linde '81
Briarcliffe
Manor, New York
I was very interested
in the comments of some of Oberlin's science faculty members.
However, I would also be interested to read comments by members
of Oberlin's religion faculty. On the subject of science and
religion, scientists and religion scholars should be equally
qualified to give their views.
Mark
Kearns '78
Evanston, Illinois
Based on interviews conducted with the Oberlin faculty,
the article looked for a feasible fusion of scientific and
religious approaches to reality. But is it necessary to reconcile
scientific reasoning and religious experiences? Even though
religious experiences are irrational, that does not mean they
are unreal. They can be as real as those derived through reasoning.
Dressing up religion with science or vice versa has led only
to scientific absolutism or irreconcilable reductionism, which
have been destructive, particularly in the 20th century. It
is human to seek comfort in certainty. We would rather have
one principle unifying both religion and science than two
coexisting ones. But the human brain is an extraordinarily
complex system in which its many parts interact in foreseeable
as well as unforeseeable ways. The unforeseeable perception
occurs due to a process called "emergence" characteristic
of complex systems. G.K. Chesterton was aware of the unforeseeable
when he proclaimed that "Life is a trap for logicians; it
looks just a little more mathematical and regular than it
is." Therein lies the mystery that Einstein alluded to. Like
Einstein, most Americans are practicing pluralists who accept
coexisting systems of belief. In an ever-changing world, the
inherent tensions in pluralism will provide the freedom to
devise creative solutions to new problems and issues. Religious
absolutism or scientific reductionism (or their consolidated
formulations) are too rigid to provide the necessary freedom
of choice to cope with the changing circumstances.
Divakar Masilamani '64
Morristown,
New Jersey
Doug McInnis quoted Einstein's
statement, "Science without religion is lame. Religion without
science is blind." Readers may be interested to know that
this statement appeared in Science, Philosophy and Religion,
a Symposium (Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion
in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New
York, 1941). At least one faith explicitly teaches the unity
of science and religion. In The Bahá'í Faith:
An Emerging Global Religion (Harper & Row, 1984), William
S. Hatcher and J. Douglas Martin write: "One of the teachings
of its founder, Bahá'u'lláh, is that God's greatest
gift to humankind is reason. Bahá'ís accept
that reason must be applied to all the phenomena of existence,
including those which are spiritual, and the instrument to
be used in this effort is the scientific method. A major source
of conflict and disunity in the world today is the widespread
opinion that there is some basic opposition between science
and religion, that scientific truth contradicts religion on
some points, and that one must choose between being a religious
person, a believer in God, or a scientist, a follower of reason."
The authors quote from addresses given in 1912 by 'Abdu'l-Bahá,
the son of Bahá'u'lláh and appointed interpreter
of his teachings, affirming that religion and science are,
in fact, complementary: "The fact that we imagine ourselves
to be right and everybody else wrong is the greatest of all
obstacles in the path towards unity, and unity is necessary
if we would reach truth, for truth is one. Religion and science
are the two wings upon which man's intelligence can soar into
the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is
not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try
to fly with the wing of religion alone, he would quickly fall
into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand,
with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress,
but fall into the despairing slough of materialism. Hatcher
and Martin continue, "The Bahá'í teachings stress
the fundamental oneness of science and religion. Such a view
is implicit in 'Abdu'l-Bahá's statement, quoted above,
that truth (or reality) is one. For if truth is indeed one,
it is not possible for something to be scientifically false
and religiously true...The truths of science are thus discovered
truths. The truths of prophetic religion are revealed truths,
i.e., truths that God has shown us without our having to discover
them for ourselves. Bahá'ís consider that it
is the same unique God who is both the Author of revelation
and the Creator of the reality which science investigates,
and hence there can be no contradiction between the two."
It was just after Oberlin, while I was doing my graduate work
in mathematics, that I learned about and joined the Bahá'í
faith, and I have indeed found that it resolves all supposed
contradictions.
Deborah
Gray '72
Concord,
Massachusetts
Science/Religion
Touches A Nerve continues.
go
to page 1 | 2 | 3
| 4 of Letters
|
![[cover story] Creating a Scene](graphics/nav_creating.gif){kind=small}
