science and spirituality: gifts and limits (part i ... · science and spirituality: gifts and...
TRANSCRIPT
Science and Spirituality: Gifts and Limits (Part I)
Science, Positivism, Post-positivism and the Limits of
Science
John K Graham, M.D., D.Min.
The Institute for Spirituality and Health
at the Texas Medical Center,
Houston, TX 77054
Science and Religion - many books
Science and Spirituality: Gifts and Limits (Part I)
--“Science, Positivism, Post-Positivism
and the Limits of Science”
--Oct 7, 2010
Outline of talk
• Look at benefits of science to humanity
• The Scientific Method
• An overview of the history of science
• Positivism and Post-positivism
• The Sociologist‟ challenge (SSK)
• The limits of Science
• Elaine Ecklund‟s book Science vs. Religion
I. Benefits of Science: The findings of modern scientific investigation have resulted in technological advances that have blessed humankind immeasurably:
– Medicine
– Industry
– Transportation
– Communication
– Energy
– Creature comforts, air conditioning, cell phones
The question is,how did modern science accomplish
all that has been achieved?
The answer is in a methodcalled
“The Scientific Method”
II. The Scientific Method -- refers to an agreed upon way to seek truth by:
• investigating phenomena
• acquiring new knowledge
• integrating the new with previous knowledge
• And, ruthlessly correcting past misconceptions [1]
Essential Characteristics of Science
• Naturalness – i.e., a rational, logical pursuit
• Tentativeness – time to ponder the question
• Testability – a methodology that is repeatable
• Falsifiability – findings can be proven wrong
Karl Popper (1902-1994) Falsifiability
• The term "falsifiable" does not mean something is false; rather, if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment.
• Karl Popper‟s formula: PS-1 = TT = EE= PS-2
PS-1 = problem situation; TT = Tentative Thesis
EE = Error Elimination; PS-2 = “Interesting” PS
• Note the conclusion is tentative – “Interesting” but still a “problem situation” -- cycle repeated
To be called “scientific” one must study evidence that is :
• observable
• empirical
• measurable
All evidence must be empirically based, that is, evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. Data that cannot be seen &/or measured is not scientific.
The Scientific Method consists of:
• asking questions that need answers
• formulating a hypothesis (proposed explanation)
• gathering data -- by observation and/or experimentation
• testing the hypothesis statistically -- to see whether or not it is valid[
The Scientific Method, continued
• Scientific researchers propose hypothesesas explanations of phenomena, and design studies to test those hypotheses.
• The steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict future results.
Another basic expectation is:
• Investigators will document, archive and share all data and also the methodology.
• other scientists can use the same methodology and attempt to reproduce the results.
• This practice is called full disclosure which allows statistical measures of the reliability of the data.
Science demands Neutrality
• Neutrality requires honest reporting of findings, even if the proposed thesis is proven wrong
(no cooking of data allowed)
• One safeguard is that a reported study will be repeated at another center and may be disproven
(can be academically lethal)
• Another safeguard – Scientific & Institutional Review Boards (IRB) oversee research projects
Science demands objectivity
• Scientists share the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce biased interpretations of the results.
Subjectivity (the researcher‟s perspective, feelings, beliefs, and desires) is rejected because it is not objectively measurable.
III. A Brief Overview of the History of Science
Aristotle (384-322 BCE) is called the “father of science”
• A pupil of Plato, his writings covered many subjects including: physics, metaphysics, poetry, theater, music, logic, rhetoric, politics, government, ethics, biology, and zoology.
• Aristotle had confidence that through observation and reasoning (logic) one could find the answer to all questions.
• “Science” for both Aristotle and Plato dealt with the knowledge of the True “essence” of things.
Aristotle‟s approach differed from Plato• Plato, felt Universal Truths were found separate from the
earth in the heavenly or “spiritual” realm and were related to earthly things only as a prototype.
• Plato's approach was deductive -- moving from a prioriUniversal principles to the particular.
• Aristotle used deductive reasoning and also believed in the study of particular things on earth one could find the “essence” of things Universal (moving from particular things to Universal principles is called inductive reasoning)
• Again, both Plato and Aristotle were interested in finding Universal Principles but their approach was different.
For Aristotle, every element has “natural motion”
• “Natural motion” explains the essence of an element:
•
– Earth/dirt descends in a straight line toward the center of the earth (because that is its nature, its essence)
• Observation: a dropped stone falls to the ground
– Water descends (because that is its nature/essence)
• Observation: a river flows downstream
– Air and Fire rise because that is their essence.
• Observation: sparks fly upward from a bonfire
• Observation: wind blows and sweeps things upward
For Aristotle, every element has an Essence
• Essence, from Greek word esse,“to be”• Is that which makes a thing what it is intrinsically.
• Is the inward nature of a thing.
• Is its true substance
• Is that which is of greatest importance
– Human beings, Aristotle said, have teleological motion (i.e., motion that is end/goal-oriented). Human beings:
• move toward a “final cause” which explains our being
• have a definite end
• have a purpose
• That is the true essence/nature of a human
Claudius Ptolemaeus, Ptolemy (CE 90-168)
– Ptolemy -- a Roman citizen -- a mathematician, astronomer, geographer, astrologer and poet
– Like his predecessors, Ptolemy's model of the Universe was geocentric (earth at center of the Universe).
– Each of the four elements – earth, water, air, and fire had its “natural” place.
• Earth and water were heavy elements and can be at rest only at the center of the cosmos – fall until reaches center of the universe.
• Air and fire have a tendency to rise and proper sphere is above the earth.
– Heavenly bodies – sun, stars, and planets were of an incorruptible, perfect and immutable substance
Claudius Ptolemaeus, Ptolemy (CE 90-168)
– Ptolemy's model was geocentric (earth at center) and also anthropocentric (mankind at center)
– Human beings were unique creations of the Judeo-Christian God. Nevertheless, because of sin, the earth had been corrupted and human knowledge was limited.
– The Heavens were perfect, but earth was corrupt. At the center of the cosmos (center of earth) was hell.
– This Anthropocentricism remained until Darwinism (19th C)
Ptolemy (CE 90-168)
– The Universe was a set of spheres in which the sun was closer than the planets that wandered in the next sphere, while the stars were fixed in the most distant sphere.
– Ptolemy‟s view of the Universe was almost universally accepted until the appearance of the heliocentric model (earth revolving around the sun).
Ptolemy‟s SpheresStars
Planets
Sun
Moon
Earth
Notice all the
heavenly orbits
are perfectcircles
mercury, venus,mars, jupiterand saturn
4th C BCE “Science” Differed from Today
• In the 4th C BCE, the word “science” did not have the same
meaning it does today and the word “scientist” did not appear until the 19th C. The study of the knowledge of the world until Galileo was called “natural philosophy”
• Natural philosophy included the study of:• first causes of nature, change and motion in general
• the motions of celestial bodies
• the study of animals and plants
• the study included creation of the world, evidence of divine design and immortality of the human soul. I.e., natural philosophy carried theological presuppositions.
St. Augustine (354 – 430) and Science
• Augustine said “Theology is the Queen of the sciences” and that “Science is the handmaiden of Theology.”
• Fact is, no one disputed this. Science at the time was a matter of identifying species of plants, studying the nature of animals, and observing the movement of the moon and planets.
• Theology dealt with “more important” matters such as the eternal destiny of the soul
Religion, Naturalism and Science
• Naturalism holds that reality is defined by nature i.e., what can be seen, felt with our five senses.
• Religious belief holds that there is “something more” than nature/physics – metaphysics -- the realm of spirit/mystery/transcendence/God
• Physics answers the how & what of existence, while metaphysics asks why we exist
• Can the two be combined? Can we have:
Theistic naturalism / religious naturalism?
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
• Said the Sun was the center of the Universe and the earth rotated around the Sun -- heliocentric universe (helios = Greek for the Sun).
• This meant the Earth‟s position in the Universe was no longer unique. More importantly, man‟s place in the Universe was no longer unique.
• The concept assaulted common sense at a cosmic level (we can watch the sun move, not the earth). Turned their world upside-down.
“The orbit of stars is fixed infinitely, devoid of grief and replenished with perfect endless joy, the habitacle for the elect”
Depiction (1570) by English Mathematician Thomas Digges,
Loss of Earth‟s Uniqueness
• This loss of uniqueness extended to the possibility that there were other inhabited globes and other types of humans.
• Bishop John Wilkins, A founder of The Royal Society in London, in 1638, published a tract “To Prove „tis Probable there may be another habitable World” (that world = the moon)
Carl Sagan on Ptolemy and Kepler
www.Youtube.com:
Carl Sagan on: Epicycles, Ptolemy, and Kepler; and on: Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, and Ellipses.
Galileo (1564-1642)
• As did Kepler and others before him, Galileo appealed to the metaphor of God‟s two books:
1. The Bible, the book of God‟s revealed Word
2. Nature, the book of God‟s work (the created world)
• “The Holy Bible and the phenomena of Nature proceed alike from the divine Word.”
Galileo‟s telescope revealed that the sun was blemished
It had “spots” that moved.
(drawing by Galileo Galilei June 26, 1612)
Galileo was against the Traditional View
• Since Aristotle, the sun was viewed as immaculate and perfect, without spot or blemish.
• The idea assaulted common sense – anyone could see the sun was “most pure and most lucid”
• Galileo‟s spots were saying there might be an imperfection in the heavens, just as on earth.
• Galileo set himself against the traditional view of the fundamental structure of nature.
The implication of Galileo‟s findings:
• Galileo‟s findings implied that by studying the properties and motions of earthly bodies one could gain universal understanding of nature.
• Optimism about the possibility of human knowledge soared.
• At the same time, travelers to the New Worlds returned with findings unknown to ancient texts:
– Unique plants, animals and minerals not known to exist
– In the 17th c, telescopes and microscopes began to reveal truths not visible to the senses & not mentioned in sacred texts.
Isaac Newton and Robert Boyle• Newton (1642-1727) took both God‟s work and God‟s
word seriously. He devoted even more time to his study of Scripture than he did to the natural world.
• Robert Boyle (1627-1691) said, “the study of Scripture as well as nature reveals truths about religion and creation.”
• All scientists of this period believed that the study of the created world provided knowledge of the wisdom and intelligence of the creator. Newton, considered the culmination of the Scientific Revolution shared this view.
The 17th Century
In the 17th C the growth of empirical investigation yielded uncertain results, making it increasingly difficult to assimilate natural theology into an Aristotelian model of certainty.
John Locke (1632-1704) wrote, “Natural philosophy is not capable of being made a science.”
• As a result, philosophers rejected Aristotle and tried to explain all phenomena in terms of a mechanical philosophy in which matter and particles are in motion.
• Virtually all mechanical philosophers claimed God had created matter and set it in motion. The Clock Metaphor arose with God as the Watchmaker. So, there was still room for meaning and purpose in creation.
The Strasbourg Cathedral Clock______
Tells time, gives solar and lunar cycles, eclipses, and much more
At the top of the clock to the left a cock crows three times at noon, as a reminder of the temptation of St. Peter
Rise of Positivism in Science
• Positivism asserts that the only authentic knowledge is that which is based on sense experience and by positive verification.
• Auguste Comte (1798 – 1857) said The Scientific Method had replaced metaphysics as Truth.
• The fact is, modern science has provided an increasingly integrated and unified understanding of reality, one that gives precise predictions leading to empirical, repeatable results.
Positivists felt the Scientific Method could be applied to all domains of life
• They asserted Scientism was the best way to construct a worldview.
• However, neutrality meant “Human values” -personal, political, religious beliefs and commitments - were automatically excluded from scientific analysis.
• Ironically, in rejecting religion, Scientism became a “new religion,” a new way of understanding reality (a new worldview)
Religion defined
• The word religion is derived from the Latin, ligare, --to bind or to bind together – i.e., to provide a view of the world and reality (Science provides that).
• Webster‟s –
• (a) belief in a divine, supernatural power(s) to be obeyed and worshiped; i.e., the creator and ruler of the universe.
(b) any object of conscientious regard and pursuit. (Scientism fits here)
What happen?
• In the 19th C, investigators of nature shifted from natural philosophy (which embraced the supernatural) to the study of science (which did not allow the supernatural).
• Regardless of religious persuasion, scientists refrained from speaking of divine forces when explaining nature.
• I.e., the scientific explanation of nature became the approach for people of faith as well as for the atheist.
Max Weber, German Sociologist (1864-1920)
• Sought to maintain the neutral stance of scientific discipline by distancing himself from politics –socialism and marxism.
• Weber rejected the theory of racial and social Darwinism – i.e., superiority of the Arian race. He saw this approach as “unbounded subjectivevaluations applied to scientific findings.”
• Many 20th C. scientists followed his lead, distancing themselves from politics.
Yet, Weber was anti-positivist
• He said we cannot find meaning through the “facts” of lab data stripped of values; rather, in the context of cultural values we find reality and meaning, values.
• He defined sociology as a non-empirical field that must study social action through subjective means and should do so unashamedly.
• He said the perspective of the researcher would influence his interpretation of empirical data.
Scientists did not agree with Weber
• Max Horkheimer (1895-1973) philosopher and Marxist:
“Today there is almost general agreement that society has lost nothing by the decline of philosophical thinking, for a much more powerful instrument of knowledge has taken its place, namely, modern scientific thought.”
M. Horkheimer, Eclipse of Reason. London: Continuum Press, 1947, 2004, p.40.
Scientific Positivism, at its height:
• Dictated the criteria of true knowledge
– scientific method applied to all endeavors
• Declared belief in the ultimate value of a rational secularism
– rejecting the metaphysical and supernatural
• Held out the promise of Utopia
– science & technology will meet every need
The Fall of Positivism• Mid-20th C, philosophers like Alfred Whitehead, Martin
Heidegger, and John Dewey said that science -- in presenting its own “objective” view of the human experience -- had trumped all other forms of knowing
•
– i.e., psychological, sociological, philosophical, religious
• And, by excluding other forms of knowledge, the positivist scientific approach had resulted in a
“distorted view of reality.”
• Alfred Whitehead: “All truth is partial-truth.”
Last half of 20th C
• A group of sociologists appeared, led by Thomas Kuhn, who rejected the claims of positivism and the unique status of science as the only way of knowing reality.
• They introduced what can be called
the “post-positivist” era.
Rejecting Positivist claims, they said:
• Science must recognize its knowledge is fallibleand not the whole truth.
• Its “product” is even potentially dangerous
(Atomic Bomb, weapons of mass destruction)
• Its secular idealism is inadequate to address the psycho-social-cultural-spiritual needs of humanity.
New Understanding Replaced Positivism
• At issue is the foundation of science‟s truth claims --based on rigorous rationality.
• This change altered almost everything
• “Objectivity” must now contend with the “Subjectivity” as a valid approach to knowledge
• The political, social, and economic
boundaries placed on science
Michael Polanyi (1891-1976)
• Said, we cannot escape our own perspective. Substituted word “personal” for “subjective.”
Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. U of Chicago Press, 1962, p. 5
• He still aspired to objectivity‟s goals and said it was not an either/or choice.
• Rather, he hoped to broaden objectivity to include the personal by recognizing the “legitimacy of pre-theoretical experience.”
Michael Polanyi (1891-1976): Science is a passion
• Rather than science being aloof, he says the pursuit of knowledge commits us passionately, “like a lover, consumed by devotion to the universal demand.”
– i.e., emotional characteristics
• “Such is the true sense of objectivity.”
• So, for Polanyi, objectivity is infused with subjectivitywhich must be acknowledged by researcher.
Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. U of Chicago Press, 1962, p. 64
Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)
• Prior to 1960 science was viewed as being logical in its method of studying reality.
• Science was perceived as evolving in a logical and systematic progression.
• However, J.H. Zammito said the “idolatry” of science – “a mode of knowing, protected by self-correcting mechanisms from fallacy and bias -- shattered upon critical appraisal.”
J.H. Zammito, A Nice Derangement of Epistemes: Post-positivism in the Study of Science. From Quine to
Latour. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004, p. 52
In his critical analysis Thomas Kuhn:
• Rejected the concept that science proceeded in a stepwise, logical manner.
• Instead, he said major scientific change occurs in sudden leaps he called “paradigm shifts.”
• Said scientific data is not independent of the particular paradigm in which it is placed.
– i.e., data interpretation is affected by the paradigm
About Paradigms
• A paradigm is a particular way of seeing things.
• Paradigms are conglomerates of cultural, political, economic, aesthetic, psychological, sociological and religious ingredients that become contaminatingfactors for any scientific study.
• This means, the pursuit truth is only an ideal because truth, rationality and objectivity are directly affected by the construct within which they are interpreted –i.e., their paradigm
If knowledge is socialIf language is limited
if historical and social factorsmold the scientific enterprise
what defines the real?__
This became the question of CONSTRUCTIONISTS
Constructionists asked:
• To what extent do “external” sociological factors influence scientific rationality and method?
• External factors such as:
– aesthetic judgments,
– Cultural and gender values,
– Social, economic, and political pressures
• This kind of study came to be known as the “Sociology of Scientific Knowledge” (SSK)
Science is a human activity and social entity
• Science is immersed in all the cultural elements involved in its work:
– Power politics -- science‟s supporting culture
– Technology -- science is pursued for technological and monetary gains
• Sociology SSK programs arose:– Empirical-relative school
– Ethno-psycho-methodological school
– Feminist epistemology school
– Symbolic interactionism school
• These called for a careful assessment of scientific studies which includes its sociological context
In general, Constructionists argued:
• Scientific institutions often create political pressure that can distort scientific judgment.
• Science‟s notion of “objectivity” is questioned because of an entanglement of fact/values
• Linguistic and psychological factors influence the scientific “reality”
• This means that science, as a human construct and with its many potential distortions, cannot be seen as the final arbiter of reality.
In conclusion, I believe,we must acknowledge that
all methodologies
including “The Scientific Method”
are human constructs and all
have limits
For me, the greatest limitation of scienceis that by definition it only values what
can be measured – i.e., matter.__
Yet, at the quantum level this gets strange and 80 % of mass and energy in the cosmos is
“dark” matter and “dark” energy (unknown by today‟s methods)
Quantum Physics requires more faith than believing in a
creator God
• The String Theory - is a theory in particle physics that attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity.[1]
• It is a candidate for the theory of everything (TOE), a way to describe the known forces of matter/energy.
History of String Theory
• In the early years of the 20th century, the atom - long believed to be the smallest building-block of matter - was proven to consist of even smaller components called protons, neutrons and electrons, which are known as subatomic particles.
• In the 1960s, other subatomic particles were discovered. In the 1970s, it was discovered that protons and neutrons are themselves made up of smaller particles called quarks.
History of String Theory
• Quantum theory is the set of rules that describes the interactions of these particles. In the 1980s, a new mathematical model of theoretical physics called string theoryemerged.
• It showed how the particles, and all of the forms of energy in the universe, could be constructed by hypothetical one-dimensional "strings" -- infinitely small building-blocks that have only the dimension of length, but not height or width.
String Theory, cont….
• String theory implied the universe had multiple dimensions. Previously, we spoke of 3 dimensions of height, width, and length; add “time” and we had 4 dimensions of space.
• But, string theory said there were more -- 10 dimensions. The number was later increased to 11 dimensions based on various interpretations of the ten-dimension theory which led to five theories to explain String Theory.
How “Strings” function…
• The "strings" are said to vibrate in multiple dimensions, and depending on how they vibrate, they may appear in 3-dimensional space as matter, light, or gravity.
• It is the vibration of the string which determines whether it appears to be matter or energy, and every form of matter or energy is the result of the vibration of strings.
But, Not one but five String Theories
• “Five” major string theories were formulated. The main differences between each is the number of dimensions in which the strings appear, and all five theories appear correct.
• So, in the 1990s a unification of all previous superstring theories, called M-theory, was proposed, which asserted that strings are:
• 1-dimensional slices of a 2-dimensional membrane vibrating in 11-dimensional space.
Infinite Parallel Universes?
• Quantum physics “requires” 11 dimensions of space and suggests there are an infinite number of parallel Universes, each unique and randomly different – ours is but one.
• Yet, these universes would have to have arisen before quantum laws existed.
• Meaning, if human beings arose by chance in a random universe of “string,” there is no ultimate purpose to our lives.
These Physicists disagree
• Prominent physicists (Richard Feynman and Sheldon Glashow) have criticized string theory for not providing any quantitative experimental data.
• I.e., String theory is not science at all, it is “subjective” philosophy, a human construct.
• [
So, how can science marginalize all othersources of knowledge in the universe?
(including, the realm of the Spirit)
Elaine Ecklund, Rice U. and her book:
Elaine Ecklund summarizes her book:
• “Almost a quarter of Americans think scientists are hostile to religion. But what do we really know about how scientists think about morality, spirituality and faith?
• From 2005 to 2008, I surveyed nearly 1,700 natural and social scientists on their views about religion, spirituality and ethics and spoke with 275 of them in depth in their offices and laboratories.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elaine-howard-ecklund-
phd/the-contours-of-what-scie_b_611905.html
Elaine Ecklund:
• “It turns out that nearly 50 percent of scientists identify with a religious label, and nearly one in five is actively involved in a house of worship, attending services more than once a month.
• While many scientists are completely secular, my survey results show that elite scientists are also sitting in the pews of our nation's churches, temples and mosques.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elaine-howard-ecklund-phd/the-contours-
of-what-scie_b_611905.html
Elaine Ecklund:
• “Of the atheist and agnostic scientists I had in-depth conversations with . . . many think key mysteries about the world can be best understood spiritually,
• and some attend houses of worship, completely comfortable with religion as moral training for their children and an alternative form of community.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elaine-howard-ecklund-phd/the-contours-
of-what-scie_b_611905.html
Elaine Ecklund:
• “If religious people better understood the full range of atheistic practice -- and the way that it interfaces with religion for some -- they might be less likely to hold negative attitudes toward nonreligious scientists.
• The truth is that many atheist scientists have no desire to denigrate religion or religious people.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elaine-howard-ecklund-phd/the-contours-
of-what-scie_b_611905.html
Elaine Ecklund author of Science vs. Religion
• “In fact, about one-fifth of the atheist scientists I spoke with say they consider themselves „spiritual atheists.‟ Perhaps their stories are the most interesting.
• One chemist I talked with does not believe in God, yet she says she craves a sense of something beyond herself that provides a feeling of purpose and meaning and a moral compass. She sees herself as having an engaged spirituality, one that motivates her to live differently. For example, spiritual reasons keep her from accepting money from the Department of Defense, she says; for her, it's too linked to the military.”
Elaine Ecklund author of Science vs. Religion
• “Given the presence of religion in the scientific community, why do Americans still think scientists are hostile to religion?
• Within their scientific communities, religious scientists tend to practice what I call a "secret spirituality." They are reluctant to talk about religious or spiritual ideas with their colleagues.”
Elaine Ecklund:
• “I spoke with one physicist who said that he thinks universities are not always very accepting environments for scientists of faith. He believes that if he openly said he is religious, others would question the validity of his scientific work; it is his sense of things that at his elite school, he can be a scientist or be religious, but not both.
• And within their faith communities, religious scientists often practice a "secret science." Sitting in the pews, they are often hesitant to discuss scientific ideas because they are afraid of offending those next to them.”
Elaine Ecklund:
• The result of this reticence is that people of faith are not aware of the religious scientists in their midst.
• More than that, these scientists fail to serve as role models for religious youth who might want to study science but fear science might lead them away from faith.
• As a result, these children lose out.
Elaine Ecklund:
• “Research shows that the experiences students have with science in elementary and secondary school, and how well their science abilities evolve from there, help predict both whether they'll attend college and whether they'll enter into high-status professional fields.
• Other research has shown that those with stronger science skills and a better scientific understanding tend to have greater socioeconomic stability and overall success.”
Elaine Ecklund:
• “So if religious folks want their children to succeed (as a scholar of American religion, I have every reason to believe they do)
• and if scientists want more children to consider a career in the field (as a scholar of the American scientific community, I know they do), there needs to be a better dialogue between people of faith and the scientists among them.”
Elaine Ecklund:
• “We need real, radical dialogue -- not just friendly co-existence between religion and science, but the kind of discussion where each side genuinely tries to understand why the other thinks the way it does and where common ground is sought.
• This dialogue should reach the rank-and-file in religious communities with the message of how to maintain faith while fully pursuing science. And it needs to reach the rank-and-file in the scientific community as well, providing them with better ways to connect with religious people.”
Elaine Ecklund:
• “Religious people need to remember that not all atheist scientists are hostile to religion.
• They need to know that even the most secular scientists struggle with the moral and ethical implications of their work.
• And scientists need to do a better job of communicating the importance of science to religious people -- especially in those areas in which religion might actually motivate them to care about science (like environmentalism, or "creation care").
Elaine Ecklund:
• “If people of faith believe they have to become antireligious or completely secular to be a successful scientist -- when this is not a full reflection of the scientific community -- it would be a disaster.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elaine-howard-ecklund-phd/the-
contours-of-what-scie_b_611905.html
Science Today is based on:
• Materialism – reality is solely matter and energy that can be observed and measured in the laboratory.
– All else is but an illusion
• Reductionism – complex things can be explained by examining the constituent parts.
– Mind/consciousness is merely chemical processes in brain.
• Randomness – that the processes of nature follow laws of chance.
– Intelligent design/God is excluded/un-necessary.
All this can leave Science in a search for Meaning
And the search for Meaning is what religion is all about
Tell the story of the physicist
In Session 2, next Thursday, 4:30 p.m.we will look at Part II,
Spirituality and Religion:Its gifts and its limits
(Creationism & Intelligent Design)
And, propose a union between Science and Religion in our Mutual Quest for
Truth and Meaning