SOUL and SUBSTANCE: Are Christianity and Science Mutually Exclusive?

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of this blog is four-fold:
(1) to recognize that every person functions within a basic paradigm, which affects how all information is processed;
(2) to understand the paradigms of others;
(3) to discuss, in particular, paradigms which are related to science, religion, and philosophy.
(4) to reveal the paradigm shifts in my own life, a process that has completely changed the direction and purpose of my existence.

The purpose of this blog is NOT to convince anyone that their paradigms or beliefs are correct or incorrect. I am hoping for an honest dialog, but the discussions must remain respectful of others, even if there is profound disagreement. If any comments are not respectful, they will be removed.
(Revised 1/13/09)

Monday, January 19, 2009

Are Christianity and Science Mutually Exclusive?

Recently, someone asked me if I didn't think Christianity and science were mutually exclusive because of where one puts one's faith. The reason for this is that the scientific method starts from doubt (although it yields measurable results), whereas complete faith is the absence of doubt. There is also the question of whether God Himself affects the results of scientific inquiry. (See http://www.blogcatalog.com/user.conversation.php?user1=soulandsubstance&user2=TomUsher). I replied that I did not agree that Christianity and science were mutually exclusive, and that I would expound upon the topic on a blog post. [Editing note- 1/20/09: Please see the "comments section" for clarification of what Tom Usher actually meant. He meant "in terms of where one puts one's faith"--not "because of where one puts one's faith." This important distinction is explained in Tom Usher's response.]

First, I think one has to establish how one views science itself and what it can and cannot do. I do not agree with an "either-or" approach to science and faith--that one seeks to explain things by using the scientific method OR by consulting God or the Bible. I think one can do both. I grew up in a scientific household. My father, mother, sister, and aunt all have advanced degrees in scientific fields. I majored in chemistry in college and then went to veterinary school. I am now a practicing veterinarian. All I am trying to show by this, is that everyone around me was immersed in the "Scientific Method." It is very easy, as a scientist, to think that all mysteries are inherently "solvable" with the "scientific method." I certainly used to think that. That was before I realized that there are many things in the universe that are not measurable.

I think that it was about 15 - 20 years ago that I got interested in something called Quantum Mechanics. To make a long story short, what I learned completely changed my attitude toward science. I learned that there are inherent uncertainties about matter on the sub-atomic level. For example, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that it is not possible to measure both the momentum and exact position of a subatomic particle simultaneously. It has also been shown that light (which the average person thinks of as pure energy) has both wave-like and matter-like characteristics. Essentially, I began to realize, that things are not always what they seem. This upended my concept of reality. It was a few years later that I became interested in the things of God. That part of the story is for another day, but suffice it to say that the more I studied science and God from this new perspective, the more science began to look like God and God began to look like science. Hmmmm....

Anyway, here is why I think science and the scientific method are compatible with a deep faith in God (and in both His power and character). As God created the universe and the life within it, He set up all the systems to be compatible, down to the subatomic level. This would include all the laws of physics and mathematics, as we know them. Now, if God had done all this creating and then took the hands-off approach, I would certainly expect that science would eventually be able to solve most things in the measurable universe. However, because I believe that God is intimately involved with the day-to-day affairs of our lives, there are times that the "laws of nature" might have to be influenced, as it were. I believe that God wants us to see His power without scaring us or overwhelming us. We humans like things to be predictable. That is why God's influences are generally very subtle, and in keeping with the natural laws that He set up.

Science can answer only so much, however. It cannot explain the beginning of time or the concept of infinity; nor can it prove or disprove spiritual beings like angels. The fact that something may not make sense in the scientific realm, however, does not mean that it cannot be true. When something does not make sense to me, I assume that either I don't have enough personal knowledge to explain it or that God will eventually reveal the answer to me (even if it is after I leave this life).

I think that it is important to keep our eyes, ears, and spirits open to the natural realm AND to the spiritual realm. Only then will we be truly wise.

Note: I am including some scriptural passages that illustrate and support what I said above. Following these are some references for what I wrote about quantum mechanics.

1-On Faith: Hebrews 11:1,3 (NKJV)
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.... By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

2-On Faith & Doubt & Wisdom: James 1:5-7 (NKJV)
If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord.

3-On Obtaining Complete Knowledge in Eternity: 1 Corinthians 13:8b-12 (NKJV)
...Whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then [when that which is perfect has come, we will see] face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know [completely] just as I also am known.

-------------

For an introduction to Quantum Mechanics, see: http://www3.hi.is/~hj/QuantumMechanics/quantum.html
For more on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, see: http://www3.hi.is/~hj/QuantumMechanics/quantum.html#Heisenberg and http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/208/jan27/hup.html
For more on the wave-particle duality of light, see: http://www3.hi.is/~hj/QuantumMechanics/quantum.html#Duality

5 comments:

Thoughts said...: I agree that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. I wonder whether the Platonic approach, where we work out the nature of the universe from elementary forms, will provide the answers. If there is a spiritual aspect to life it should really be visible all around us, now. I think this is the case but would lean towards empiricism for the evidence. See The nature of the soul.; January 20, 2009 at 6:57 AM
LucyS said...: I think that the spiritual aspect to life IS visible all around us. However, in the days before I had developed my faith in God, I did not see it. I think one has to believe that the spiritual aspect does exist before one can see empirical evidence.

There is a biblical scripture passage that supports the belief that the spiritual realm should be visible to all--
...because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead. (Romans 1:18-19a NKJV)

For further information about Plato, here are 2 useful links:
1) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato/#PlaCenDoc
2) http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GREECE/PLATO.HTM; January 20, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Hi Lucy and All,

What I wrote, specifically, is as follows:

Discussing Christianity and science is a matter of semantics. They are mutually exclusive in terms of where one puts what faith. The scientific method starts from doubt. God limits what it yields. Scientific testing cannot bring forth all that faith can. It can though measure results. Do you agree?

What I didn't write is "mutually exclusive because of where one puts one's faith." [emphasis added] I raise the distinction, because most casual readers would assume by "because" and especially by "one's faith" that I meant all faith in God to the total exclusion of any faith in science. You see, I didn't put forth an either/or only position. I have faith in science to produce scientific results up to the point that spirit takes over and alters the routine. The scientific method and faith in God beyond it become mutually exclusive at that point. One is in error to place all faith in the scientific method; however, one is never in error in putting all faith in God. This is a subset and set situation. I hope you follow.

The most salient aspect of my position concerns testing. Testing does not yield more than God is willing to reveal to doubters. Testing and experiments cannot force God's hand. They never will. God is a real, living, spiritual being who makes conscious decisions/choices. I don't say God won't react to human scientific testing. I will say that God can react one way one day and another way another day.

Anyway, I understand your points and qualify them.

Bless You All,

Tom Usher; January 21, 2009 at 9:24 PM
LucyS said...: Tom--I'm very glad you clarified your points. I agree with your distinctions. The faith placement is what makes them mutually exclusive. Thank you so much for explaining what you meant.; January 21, 2009 at 10:43 PM
LucyS said...: Tom--I have put an editing note in the original post. I hope this adequately explains what you meant.; January 21, 2009 at 10:52 PM

Post a Comment

What is Occam's Razor?

(1) Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".

This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as a heuristic maxim (rule of thumb) that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity, often or especially in scientific theories.

[From Wikepedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor]

(2) Okham's RazorSharon Kaye
There are so many interesting theories about the nature of reality. How do we decide which to accept and which to reject? As we go through life, we examine new ideas and reexamine old ones in an attempt to establish a suitable collection of beliefs. Sometimes this process feels like walking through the a la carte line in a cafeteria where you can pick and choose any combination you want. Just as a smart eater will use healthy principles to make these choices, a smart thinker will use epistemic principles to evaluate beliefs.
Ockham’s Razor is one of the most important epistemic principles. It states that if you have to choose from some number of competing theories, choose the simplest theory because it is most likely to be true.
Suppose, for example, that the newspaper, which is delivered daily to your doorstep, is missing this morning. There are a number of possible explanations. The delivery person could be ill, the newspaper plant may have shut down, or outer space aliens may have stolen it for the purpose of spying on Earthlings. The obvious choice among these three possibilities is the first. The second and third choices seem increasingly unacceptable. But why? If the choice is mine, what is there to prevent me from accepting the alien theory?
The answer is that the alien theory is too complicated. The illness theory requires me to believe in the presence of a virus, something I already believe in for other reasons. The alien theory, in contrast, requires me to believe in something that I have no other reason to acknowledge. This is to say that the alien theory asks me to adopt more assumptions than does the illness theory.
One might still wonder why added assumptions constitute a problem. After all, it is not as though we are short on brain space. My interest in creativity and originality might lead me to take pride in developing a more complicated theory.
But this would be a mistake. Complication is not something to take pride in because it necessarily increases the risk of error. Each and every belief is a liability insofar as it carries the possibility that it may not be true. The more assumptions you adopt, therefore, the more likely it is that you have unknowingly committed yourself to a falsehood. Falsehood is the great enemy of intelligence. To live intelligently, we must minimize the risk of error as much as we can.
Ockham’s Razor does not state that the world is maximally simple. Clearly, the world is not simple. The world is so complex that it would not be entirely surprising if it turns out that outer space aliens do exist. The point is that we should not move to that conclusion until the evidence forces us there – until we are not able to explain what we observe in a simpler way.
Philosophers have used the Razor in many different ways. Sometimes they use it to defend traditional views. The great twentieth-century philosopher Bertrand Russell appeals to the Razor in his refutation of idealism, the view that the external world does not exist. Russell writes:
Thus every principle of simplicity urges us to adopt the natural view, that there really are objects other than ourselves and our sense-data which have an existence not dependent upon our perceiving them. . . . Since this belief does not lead to any difficulties but on the contrary tends to simplify and systematize our account of our experiences, there seems no good reason for rejecting it. (The Problems of Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1968, p. 24.)
On the other hand, philosophers have also used the Razor to attack traditional views. For example, atheists increasingly use it against theism. If we can now explain everything about the world that there is to be explained in purely natural terms, then there is no need for the supernatural assumption. Sure, you can still add it if you want, but it is no longer an intelligent choice.
As this last example suggests, there is room for disagreement over the use of Ockham’s Razor. After all, positing an extra entity can actually simplify a theory. (Imagine trying to do physics without the electron.) Richard Swinburne argues that the God hypothesis performs a similar function. Like any philosophical tool, the Razor is itself controversial, raising some interesting epistemological questions.
One question about the Razor that is rarely asked, however, is this: why is it called a Razor? When I ask my students this question, they often answer that it is called a Razor because it trims the fat. It is true that trimming the fat is an apt metaphor for what the principle of simplicity accomplishes insofar as it signifies getting to the "meat of the matter," the essentials. But who uses a razor for trimming fat? Ask any butcher and you will learn that there are plenty of other more effective tools for such a procedure.
Ockham’s Razor is named after the fourteenth-century logician, William of Ockham. Although he did not invent the principle of simplicity, he used it so effectively and with such devastating effect, that it became indelibly associated with him. Did they use razors for trimming fat back in the Middle Ages?
Of course not. The primary use for the razor in the Middle Ages was the same as it is today: shaving. The problem is that, unlike trimming fat, shaving is not an apt metaphor for what the principle of simplicity accomplishes. Setting aside certain medical contexts, shaving is a cosmetic procedure. We shave to beautify ourselves, not to simplify ourselves. In fact, one could argue that shaving makes personal hygiene considerably more complicated. Nor do we shave to get down to the essentials as though a bald man is somehow more authentic than a hirsute. Shaving is a matter of personal preference. If the epistemic principle in question were about personal preference, then it should have been named the ‘principle of prettiness’. Granted, ‘elegance’ has long been regarded as a desirable quality in theories, and elegance is closely related to simplicity. But since when is hair inelegant? Just what were they thinking when they named Ockham’s Razor?
My own personal theory is that they were thinking about another use of the razor during the Middle Ages. At the end of the fourteenth century, paper was only just being introduced in Europe as a common writing material. Before then, everything was written on parchment, which is made from animal skins. The picture below features a typical medieval scribe:
Notice the tools he holds. In his right hand is a quill for applying ink. In his left hand is a razor. He uses the razor to scrape the parchment clean when he makes an error. His razor is an eraser.
I believe that we would all do well to be more conscious of the principle of simplicity. It is not a matter of personal preference; it is a matter of accuracy. Ockham’s Razor is the way to keep your mind neat and clean.
(Sharon Kaye is assistant professor in philosophy at John Carroll University Cleveland, Ohio)

[From Royal Institute of Philosophy: http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/think/article.php?num=18)

GLOSSARY OF PHILOSOPHICAL TERMS

A list of USEFUL TERMS, from the University of Aberdeen, Philosophy, School of Philosophy, and Religious Studies, Old Brewery • High Street • Aberdeen • AB24 3UB http://www.abdn.ac.uk/philosophy/guide/glossary.shtml
DETERMINISM The theory that whatever happens (including human acts) is caused by something else. Physical Determinism maintains that the ‘something else’ is a physical entity or event; Psychological Determinism maintains that the cause (at least, the immediate cause) of a human act is a psychological or mental entity or event (e.g. a desire, a decision).
EMPIRICISM The doctrine that knowledge comes from experience.
EPISTEMOLOGY The branch of philosophy that involves the study of knowledge.
ETHICS The branch of philosophy that deals with moral issues. Key questions in ethics include: What is it right (or wrong) to do? Do the intentions behind an action determine its goodness or does the actual outcome of the action matter more? Are there any universal ethical rules?
FIDEISM Holds that religious beliefs can not be justified by rational means, but only through faith.
LOGIC The branch of philosophy that deals with the formal properties of arguments and the philosophical problems associated with them. Central questions in logic include: What is a good argument? How can we work out if an argument is good or not? What are paradoxes? Can they be resolved? How can we talk meaningfully about objects that don’t exist e.g. Sherlock Holmes, or unicorns?
METAPHYSICS The branch of philosophy which studies the underlying structure of reality. Central questions in metaphysics include: Can we act freely? What is it for something to exist? How are causes related to their effects? What is time? What is space? How is change possible?
NATURAL THEOLOGY Knowledge of God which is obtained by reason alone, without the aid of revelation.
ONTOLOGY The branch of METAPHYSICS which studies the nature of existence. Central questions include: What kinds of objects exist? What is it for something to exist?
PHILOSOPHY OF MIND The branch of philosophy which studies the nature of the mind. Central questions in the philosophy of mind include: Is it possible for a machine to think? How is the mind related to the brain? Do animals have minds? How can I know that anyone else has a mind? (This last one is sometimes called the problem of other minds.)
PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION The branch of philosophy which discusses the nature and existence of God. Central questions include: Does God exist? What sort of evidence could justify belief in God? If there is a God, why is there so much suffering in the world? Is there life after death? Do we have souls? How could we know anything about God?
PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE The branch of philosophy which analyses the nature and results of scientific inquiry. Central questions include: Do scientist describe reality or just appearances? Can we have good reason to believe in the existence of unobservable entities (e.g. quarks)? What happens when one scientific theory replaces an older theory?
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY The branch of philosophy that discusses freedom, justice, rights, democracy and other political issues. Central questions include: Is democracy the best form of government? How can we balance rights and responsibilities?
RATIONALISM The doctrine that genuine knowledge, or at least the most significant kind of knowledge, is not established by sense-experience, or at least not by sense-experience alone.... Contrast EMPIRICISM
SOLIPSISM A form of SCEPTICISM. Solipsism is the belief that nothing exists except my mind and the creations of my mind.
THEODICY An argument which tries to explain how a good and all-powerful God could create a world with suffering and evil in it.
UTILITARIANISM The doctrine that acts are right solely in so far as their consequences maximize the general happiness (in some versions: maximize the general pleasure; in some versions: maximize the general welfare). It is controversial whether the general happiness must be interpreted as the happiness of the majority.
VERIFICATION PRINCIPLE An account of meaningfulness which claims that all and only those sentences which can be empirically verified are meaningful.

SOUL and SUBSTANCE

PARADIGM

Statement of Purpose

Monday, January 19, 2009

Are Christianity and Science Mutually Exclusive?

5 comments:

Blog Archive

About Me

ShareThis

Followers

My Other Blogs

An Inspiring Blog.......

BlogCatalog

FAVORITE SITES CONCERNING SCIENCE, RELIGION, AND PHILOSOPHY

Thought-Provoking Blogs

What is Occam's Razor?

GLOSSARY OF PHILOSOPHICAL TERMS