NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/sci/math/10504

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-21 | 6.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!netnews.cc.lehigh.edu!ns1.cc.lehigh.edu!fc03
From: [e-mail] (Frederick W. Chapman)
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Science and Religion (was: An advertisement)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Aug 92 04:10:09 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University
Lines: 115

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Bill Taylor) writes:

>I warmly recommend a recent article that appeared in the "New Scientist".

[...]

>IMHO,  Atkins' article is a must for all who are interested in the limits of
>scientific endeavour, or in the ongoing conflict between science and religion.

What conflict?  I have recently concluded that religion is the one and only
fully adequate motivation for me to do science.  For me, the completion of
my mathematical research represents the fulfillment of the purpose given me
by my Creator.  The gift to perceive and do what must be done -- for
anyone, in any human endeavor -- and the calling to exercise that gift are
from Him.  My labor is for the One who has given me this work to do.
Whether the community of mathematicians, of which I am (and will continue
to be) a member, ultimately chooses to appreciate and recognize my work is
of no concern to me, for I know Who sustains my life, and it is most
assuredly neither the tenure committee nor the editorial board, despite
popular delusions to the contrary.

By the way, Grassman felt as I do in regard to Theistic concepts giving
value to his mathematical work, quite independent of human acceptance of
that work.  The value of my work is invariant under all transformations of
human opinion, so to speak.  This gives me complete freedom to pursue,
without fear, the mathematics that I believe to be important, whether or
not others share my vision of what mathematics will become.

"Oi ve!  Oi ve!  Such inner conflict I feel!  I am a religious scientist!
 Somebody help me!"

Actually, science and religion operate in disjoint domains.  Science, by
definition, deals with that which can be observed, measured, formalized,
theorized, predicted, and reproduced at will.  Religion, by definition,
deals with issues which inherently transcend such concerns.  Both science
and religion are limited in scope.  Science cannot hope to resolve such
questions as the existence of God, the meaning of life, the morality and
ethics of various behaviors, etc.  Neither can religion explain the
interactions of subatomic particles, nor does it need to do so.  Why do
people insist on manufacturing conflict where none exists when all things
are viewed as they are intended?  The best we can hope for is that our
practice of science will be constrained by the religious concepts of
morality and compassion, and that the clarity of scientific understanding
will scatter the fog of superstition that clouds so much religious
thinking, in turn uncovering the genuine nature of the eternal truths.


>Warning: those of a religious disposition may find the contents offensive !
>=======     To whet your appetite I will offer a few quotes.
>
>"There is room for ... fear, for those who seek to found their lives on the
> vapourous precepts so favoured by religion...."

And room for fear by those who don't, of course.  :-)

I wonder if the scientist who writes this really believes, as his prose
intimates, that "religion" is some sort of homogeneous monolith.  WHICH
religion is he criticizing?  Which sect or denomination of that religion?
Which geographical location and historical period in the life of that sect
or denomination?  Which theological beliefs and which rituals and practices
of that particular religious community?  Scientists can be such simple-
minded dunderheads when criticizing a highly complex, extraordinarily
diverse, multi-cultural phenomenon like "religion".


>"Religion claims total understanding, but fails to deliver anything but
> sweet words;

I think that any reputable theologian would agree that theological
understanding EVOLVES, just as scientific understanding does.  Neither
science nor religion can ever claim to have achieved perfect and complete
knowledge of their respective (disjoint) domains.

> science claims cautious progress, and is able to demonstrate
> success at every stage."

Really!  Success at EVERY stage?  How extraordinary!  WHICH science are we
talking about?  Physics?  Medicine?  Psychology?  Sociology?  Political
Science?  :-)  Let us recall such demonstrable successes as the four
elements of which all matter is composed, namely earth, water, air, and
fire, or the theory of the ether in which light travels, or the frequent
amputation of limbs by early surgeons and blood-letting with leaches to
"cure" routine ills (although there are some legitimate modern medical uses
of special leaches), or the unspeakable mis-diagnoses and subsequent abuses
of the mentally ill in early mental hospitals (and some modern-day mental
hospitals as well).  Resounding successes, all.  Right up there with all
the false proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, and the set of all sets that do
not contain themselves.

Could it be that science is a flawed and incomplete product of an imperfect
humanity -- all in all, wonderfully successful despite its many flaws, but
flawed nevertheless?  Both science and religion are in fact imperfect
attempts by imperfect creatures to understand different facets of our state
of being.  Both science and religion are therefore subject to criticism.
Any view which glorifies EITHER one as perfect and complete is a vastly
naive over-simplification.

Let us have the HUMILITY to recognize that our models of reality are only
APPROXIMATIONS of the truth, be it truth about the physical universe or
truth about God.  And let us hope that our successive approximations of
these truths converge (provided we live long enough, of course).

Amen.

:-)

--

o ------------------------------------------------------------------------- o
|  Frederick W. Chapman, User Services, Computing Center, Lehigh University |
|    Campus Phone:  8-3218     Preferred E-mail Address:  [e-mail]   |
|         "The day after yesterday is the second-to-last day before         |
|               the rest of your life the day after tomorrow."              |
o ------------------------------------------------------------------------- o