Science-and-Religion

Lý thuyết Vũ Trụ

Howard Taylor - Brief CV:

Chaplain to Heriot-Watt University and teaches there:

– Moral and Social Philosophy.

– Philosophy of Science and Religion

• Previously:

– Parish Minister in West of Scotland - 17 years.

– Visiting lecturer at ICC and before that GBC and BTI.

• Two modules:

– Christian Faith and Contemporary Thought (BE305)– Christianity and Modern Science (This module - BE304)– Author of several small books/booklets.

– 16 years in Malawi, Africa.

• Minister, Theology lecturer, African Language teacher.

• Maths and Physics lecturer: University of Malawi.

– Degrees from: Nottingham, Edinburgh and Aberdeen

• Married with three grown up sons and two grandsons and one

granddaughter

• Web: www.howardtaylor.net

What is it all about?

For millennia philosophers and theologians

have attempted to address such questions as:

a Is the universe eternal or did it begin?

b Why does nature have a rational structure?

c Is there any purpose to human existence?

c What is life?

d Can the experiences of consciousness and

self-awareness be reduced to the properties of the brain or do they imply the existence of a soul?

It is in the latter part of the 20th century that some

scientists have tried to get to grips with these most

fundamental of fundamental questions.

You may have thought about these topics before or they may never have occurred to

you

Here is something for you to do:

Using the Bible and/or the Christian Faith and/or

other religious views as your authority try to write a few lines on each of these topics If you are ignorant of any or some or even all the areas then write that fact down and don't worry!

Now repeat the exercise but this time write what you

believe modern scientists or philosophers might say Again if you have no idea don't worry - the purpose of this module is to teach you these things

-(I prefer to say mutual illumination).

The above are the models taken from Ian

Barbour’s writings.

Books that are particularly relevant to

these models are:

•Ian Barbour: When Science Meets

Religion, pages 7-38

•Alister McGrath: Science and Religion,

chapter 2 entitled: Religion Ally or Enemy

of Science?

Worldviews and Science

Under each of these headings there are many sub sections not

mentioned here.

• The material universe is an illusion Only the spirit or

mind is real (Some versions of Eastern Religions and Idealism.)

• The material universe is all that there is – the whole

story (Materialism.)

• Theism Both the material and the spiritual are real and

interact (However the spiritual gives rise to the

material world Deism says that apart from Creation

there is no interaction.)

With which worldview does science fit most comfortably?

We now consider some words of Bertrand Russell in his Introduction to his

History of Western Philosophy.

All definite knowledge belongs to science; all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology But between

theology and science there is a No Man's Land, this No Man's Land is philosophy Almost all the questions of most interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the

confident answers of theologians no longer seem convincing …(The questions are:) Is the world divided into mind and matter, and, if so

what is mind and what is matter? Is mind subject to matter, or is it

possessed of independent powers? Has the universe any unity or

purpose? Is it evolving towards some goal? Are there really laws of

nature, or do we believe in them only because of our innate love of order?

Is man what he seems to the astronomer, a tiny lump of impure carbon

and water impotently crawling on a small unimportant planet? Or is he

what he appears to Hamlet? (next slide) Is he perhaps both at once? Is

there a way of living that is noble and another that is base, or are all ways

of living merely futile? If there is a way of living that is noble In what does

it consist, and how shall we achieve it? Must the good be eternal in order

to deserve to be valued, or is it worth seeking even if the universe is

inexorably moving towards death? … To such questions no answer can

be found in the laboratory … The studying of these questions,

if not the answering of them, is the business of philosophy.

Hamlet:

What a piece of work is a man, how noble in

reason, How infinite in faculties, in form and

moving how Express and admirable, in action

how like an angel, In apprehension how like a

god: the beauty of the World, the paragon of

animals; and yet to me, what Is this quintessence

of dust?

Bertrand Russell: Philosophy's Unanswerable Questions.

• According to Bertrand Russell , not only are

these questions (that are unanswerable by

science), the most interesting they are the most important.(See also History of Western Philosophy page 789)

• Without belief in ‘theology’ (ie God who speaks

a Word), Russell says they have no answer.

• As an atheist he had to hold the paradoxical

view that:

– The most interesting and important questions

for humans have no answers

– All that philosophy can do is to discuss them.

Not only is the existence of God necessary to make sense of reality but so also is the Cross of Christ in whom He makes Himself known.

I am reminded of these words from 1 Corinthians 1:

20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God

made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did

not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness

of what was preached to save those who believe.

18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to

those who are perishing, but to us who are being

saved it is the power of God 19 For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” (NIV)

The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious It is the underlying principle of religion as well as of all serious endeavour

in art and in science He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind The sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as feeble reflection, this is religiousness In this sense I am

religious To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and

to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of

the lofty structure of all that there is

Albert Einstein (Speech to the German League of Human Rights (Berlin

1932).

Argument in favour of materialism.

Science has successfully answered many questions about the world.

One day it will be able to answer all

questions.

Question: Are the mysteries getting

less or more?

Leibniz’s argument against materialism.

Thoughts cannot be material.

Thoughts affect the physical world.

Therefore the physical world needs more than physical science

to understand it’s behaviour.

Why are thoughts not material?

Leibniz’s mill or mountain.

Physical processes just exist – they are not true or false.

Thoughts are true or false.

Therefore thoughts are not just material (See Bertrand Russell quote in next slide.)

But thoughts do affect the physical world Therefore the behaviour

of the physical world cannot be fully understood by physical

science.

If we imagine a world of mere matter, there

would be no room for falsehood in such a

world, and although it would contain what

may be called ‘facts’, it would not contain any truths, in the sense in which truths are things

of the same kind as falsehoods In fact, truth and falsehood are properties of beliefs and

statements: hence a world of mere matter,

since it would contain no beliefs or statements, would also contain no truth or falsehood.

(Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy, page 70.)

they come from?

• Scientific theories about the origin of the

universe have to assume the initial existence of

some kind of energy/law of nature. (Eg: Wave

function of the Universe, Colliding membranes,

Strings, eleven dimensions and Loop quantum

gravity.)

– leading to matter/space-time/laws of physics in

the big bang.

• But scientific theories cannot explain how the

initial energy/laws of nature came to exist or why they exist or did exist.

• If God exists why does He exist? Was He

created?

• Whether or not God exists we are face to face

with the mystery: Why does anything exist at all?

– Stephen Hawking:` Why does the universe go to all

the bother of existing?’

– JJC Smart (atheist philosopher): Why should

anything exist at all? - it is for me a matter of the deepest awe.

– See Handout re Quentin Smith (atheist

philosopher)’s comments.

The Mystery of existence - cont.

♦ Some believe the questions:

♦ 'What is life?'

♦ 'What is consciousness?’ and related to it:

♦ ‘ What is my self that only I

experience and know?

♦ also give rise to fundamental mysteries.

Fundamental Mysteries - cont.

♦ If science could, one day, fully examine my brain, would the scientist know what I am thinking

about?

♦ If not, then my mind must be more than my

physical brain.

♦ My mind (including my thoughts and ideas)

affects my behaviour - therefore it is real.

♦ So we have something that it real but is not

subject to scientific investigation

The Mystery of Existence - cont

Most believe that ‘goodness’, ‘morality’, ‘ beauty’ and our sense of ‘ought’ are not just the result of our

subjective feelings but are objective realities.

♦ Goodness, morality, beauty:

♦do have a real effect on the physical world - they effect our behaviour - what we do with our bodies and what we make.

♦(they therefore are real.)

♦but they are not open to scientific investigation - (science examines the physical universe - it can’t tell you what is good or beautiful, or morally right/wrong).

♦ Many conclude that there must be more to reality than the mere physical existence that science examines.

♦ Some or all of these questions and

convictions have given rise to the religious quest.

nature of things many scientists are

beginning to wrestle with these questions

♦ Science is giving rise to questions it believes are beyond its scope

♦ Thus there is scope for dialogue.

World Views 1 Atheistic Materialism:

• There is nothing spiritual - no god,

• including all its life and human life and

personal human minds

World Views 1 Atheistic Materialism cont:

In principle the human person, including his/her appreciation of beauty, right and wrong, could, in the future, be

understood entirely by physics

• A complete understanding of the

human person could, in future, come from a study of impersonal physical laws/matter/energy which make up his physical body/brain and environment.

–See quotation from Francis Crick on next

slide:

World Views: Atheistic Materialism

continued.

Francis Crick: “You, your joys and your

sorrows, your memories and your

ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more that the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells

Astonishing Hypothesis page 3)

World Views 2 Deism :

God is entirely transcendent - out there, not

in here.

– God created the universe with its physical laws

and now leaves it to run its course.

• Darwin believed that the Creator impressed laws on matter.

– There is no continuing relation between God

and the physical universe.

– God is not relevant to our physical lives.

World Views 3 Pantheism:

• `God’ is immanent - in here, not out there.

– There is no Creator God distinct from the

• We may pray to spirits but not to God.

– All things are sacred in their own right.

– The physical/spiritual universe is eternal.

God as a body is part of a

person

the physical universe.

– God is more likely to be personal

in panentheism.

God is both transcendent and immanent

– He is distinct from the physical world but

He is with and `in’ all things

World Views 5 Christian Theism :

As well as the theism already outlined:

– God is love and is not distant from sin and

suffering.

– He stoops to the human level, and bears sin,

judgement, pain and death for us (Christ’s Cross)

– He lifts us up back to where we belong, giving us

new life and forgiving us our sin (Christ’s

resurrection.)

– Although this is seen in Jesus, it is a process that

occurs throughout history - the subject of the Bible.

– Judgement, new Creation and eternal life are real.– Thus, Our true destiny is fulfilled and our uncertain

lives on earth find their purpose.

Secularism and the ordinary man’s scientific worldview.

•Why do the planets orbit the sun?

• Not God but the law of gravity.

• False assumption: gravity is an eternal independent law

•God of the gaps - a mistake the Church made

• The powerful can ‘engineer’ other humans to suit them.

• False assumption: humans are only physical.

•Space and time have always existed

• This too was/is a false assumption.

• Light, space-time, matter, energy are related - not by external laws but by what they are in themselves (Relativity)

Public world of facts and Private World of Values.

• Scientific facts become facts for everyone - public facts

about which there could be no debate.

• Everything that is not investigated by science (beauty,

goodness etc) would eventually become private matters for individual opinion or preference.

• So each person should make up his own mind about

those things which lie outside bounds of science e.g.:

•The Purpose of the universe and human life,

•Religion, morality and ideals.

• The stage was set for the eventual collapse of religion,

morality and idealism.

(The situation was made worse for the Church by its disputes with Galileo and others For example it wanted to cling to its belief that the stars circled the earth - a belief based only on a superficial reading of the Bible.)

• Many great scientists investigated the universe

because they believed it has a purpose given by its Creator - God.

Now work your way through Unit 1 especially noting :

• The set of questions that arise from the

scientific quest.

• Einstein’s words quoted on page 3.

• The great scientists who were devout believers.

• The nature of scientism.

• Is the real battle between science and religion -

or is merely disguised as if it were?

Further reading on enlightenment

science and its effect on religion:

•Lesslie Newbigin, Foolishness to the

Greeks, chapter 4 entitled The Dialogue with

Science

•Alister E.McGrath, Science and Religion,

chapter 1 entitled: Historical Landmarks.

Read Unit 2 which is an overview of some important points that will be discussed in the module Some, we

have met briefly already.

In Unit 2 we think about:

• The difference is between science and scientism

• Why many people were fascinated by the book `A

Brief History of Time’

• The amazing information, order and beauty in all of nature.

• What is meant by `Science at the Boundaries'.

• Why relationships are essential for understanding God, the natural world and ourselves.

• Why we should beware of `the god of the gaps'.

• Why the Universe must have purpose.

• The religious beliefs that were the necessary spur

to the scientific enterprise.

•(See next slide for more on this point)

The religious beliefs that were the necessary

spur to the scientific enterprise.

• God is rational and therefore the natural

world He created is orderly and open to

rational investigation

• Its rational order is open to understanding

by the human mind (Man and woman

created in God’s image.)

• Nature's order is a contingent order

(That is to say its rational structure did not have to be as it is but was ‘chosen’

to be as it is Experimentation is therefore necessary to delve deeper into the laws of nature.)

Religious beliefs that were the necessary

spur to the scientific enterprise.

Being created by God the natural world is

good and therefore worth investigating.

•This contrasts with the belief that the

natural world is inherently evil or unreal.

• Although there is now evil and suffering,

God’s love for the world means there is

hope for it

• We too should love nature and want to

understand it more.

• For further explanation see the last pages of Unit 2.

The Beginning and the Big Bang.

In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1)

Father of the Big Bang Theory

• Georges-Henri Lemaître (Catholic priest and scientist) was

born July 17, 1894 in Charleroi, Belgium Lemaître is credited with proposing the Big Bang theory of the origin of the

universe, although he called it his 'hypothesis of the primeval

atom' He based his theory, published between 1927 and

1933, on the work of Einstein, among others

• Einstein did not, at first, like the theory because it was too

much like the teaching of the Bible

• However in 1935 Einstein, after having travelled on a long

train journey with Lemaitre, applauded a lecture on the

subject, given by Lemaitre himself, and said, "This is the

most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to

which I have ever listened"

• Against much opposition from the scientific community,

Lemaître’s theory finally triumphed from the sheer weight of evidence (In the second half of the 20 th Century.)

• He estimated the age of the universe to be between 10 and 20

billion years, which agrees with modern opinions.

The Beginning and the Big Bang.

In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1)

Lemaître’s view was, at first, rejected but it raised the

question as to whether the universe (in one form or

another) is finite (the Jewish/Christian view) or infinite

(atheist and pantheist view).

Steady State or Beginning?

• Evidence for beginning.

– Stars still burning.

– Not fallen in on one another.

– Anti-Gravity?? No!, or perhaps yes!

• Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding as if

from an explosion.

• Big Bang of ‘light’ fifteen billion years ago

• Seemingly from nothing!

• Background radiation - as if from the Big Bang’s

echo - confirmed the theory.

Robert Wilson, one of those who discovered the background radiation was asked by

journalist Fred Heeren if

the Big Bang indicated a Creator.

Wilson said, "Certainly there was something that set it all off Certainly, if you are

religious, I can't think of a better theory of

the origin of the universe to match with

Genesis."