![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
keilexandraRecently I attended a speech given by the Rev. Dr. John Polkinghorne, a world-renowned English particle physicist and Anglican priest. It was a great experience and I'm posting my notes here, typed in paragraph form.
And my personal opinion: I really enjoyed Dr. Polkinghorne's speech and the ensuing discussion, although I don't agree with many of his views. Though in my opinion he sidestepped the thrust of several audience questions, I'm very glad that I attended the seminar because it was an eminently worthwhile experience.
The Compatibility of Science and Religion
by Rev. Dr. John Polkinghorne, particle physicist and Anglican priest
[Notes are abridged and may not represent all main ideas of speech. I make no claim of representing Dr. Polkinghorne's exact phrasing or word choice unless otherwise denoted by quotation marks.]
What religion and science have in common is a search for truth through motivated belief. However, they employ different forms of inquiry and seek different truths. Science asks, "How do things happen?" whereas religion asks, "Why do things happen? What meaning or purpose is there in the world?" Science treats the world as an object for experimentation; religion sees the world as a person to trust, to befriend. It is ludicrous to think of testing God--you must trust Him.
Science's gift to religion is knowledge of the universe and its history. For instance, evolution--when Darwinism was first proposed, there were proponents and opponents on both sides of the debate. One early Churchman who supported Darwin was Charles Kinsley, who said that no doubt God could have snapped His divine fingers and created the world in an instant, but instead He had made a creation that could create itself, which is better than any ready-made world. The gift of love, and God gives infinite love, is also the gift of independence.
The greatest difficulty inherent to religion is the idea of suffering--if God is loving, why is there so much pain and suffering in this world? But a world self-created must also include a shadow side. Evolution is driven by genetic mutation; like germ cells, somatic or human cells also mutate and change. This is the "necessary cost of a world in which creatures make themselves."
Religion's gift to science is -not- to explain science, but to answer the metaquestions of life: Why is science possible? Why is the world understandable? For instance, mathematics is the key to unlocking the secrets of the world; the most mathematically elegant equations--which are simply abstract thought--tend to be those that truly occur in the physical world. Why is mathematics so unreasonably effective? Why is the world rationally transparent and beautiful? This wonder is revealed through religious inquiry, for the mind and world are united in one origin, the Creator.
Q&A
On Intelligent Design (ID): It is a scientific claim disguising religious motivation, aiming to prove that the world is irreducibly complex. However, their case is flawed and is far from proved. Evolution cannot be thought of in isolation, as ID does. It is not piece-by-piece, but rather spontaneous. It is a theological mistake to assume that if Nature did it, then God didn't do it. Nature's actions represent God's will for Nature. There is a temptation to underestimate God, to make Him in our image--but God is not human.
On reconciling Genesis with evolution: The Bible is not a book, but a library. Genesis is not a scientific account, but a theological account, like the fundamental difference between prose and poetry. Genesis 1 teaches us about God's will and power and is essentially a great metaphor.
On the Big Bang: For the first three-and-a-half minutes of the universe's existence, everything was small enough to allow for nuclear reactions--like a universal hydrogen bond. Such reactions have been predicted to produce 3/4 hydrogen and 1/4 helium, which is indeed how the make-up of the universe has been observed to be.
On the timing of God's intervention in creation: Time did not exist before the Big Bang; God is outside Time. As life evolved, God had a constant and changing interaction.
On the question, "Who made God?": God does not need to be made. He simply possesses existence--He just is.
On science being used to prove or disprove the Bible: All truth comes from God. If well-established science contradicts Biblical interpretation, one might reconsider one's interpretation.
On why the Christian God is "right," versus the gods of other religions: Dr. Polkinghorne's personal belief is that Christianity is distinguished by the accessibility of God through Jesus Christ.
On Richard Dawkins [author of THE GOD DELUSION]: Dawkins is good at explaining science, but he believes that science is all the truth there is. THE GOD DELUSION is, quite simply, a bad book because of its argumentative tone--it is too assertive, and many atheists wish that he would simply "shut up."
On the limitations of science: Mental experience--conscience--has never been studied objectively. To do so is an irreconciliable paradox, because to study something we must employ our minds. This is where religion steps in.
On being considered to have unorthodox beliefs in the community: In Britain, Dr. Polkinghorne's views are considered rather mainstream, more so than in the polarized U.S. society.
On whether interpretation undermines the Bible's message: Some sort of interpretation is always necessary. For instance, in Deuteronomy the Lord leads the Israeli people out of Israel "with an outstretched hand." Would you consider this passage as saying that the Lord literally stretched out His hand?
On the divine inspiration of the Bible: Unlike the Koran of Islam, which is believed to be divinely written as well as inspired, the Bible is only divinely inspired. Apparent contradictions are simply different recollections and may be attributed to human error. The Old Testament represents a different human understanding of God.
On whether "Why" questions are still possible in a godless universe: Yes, but the most intellectually satisfying answers are found in theology. Consider art, music, beauty, etc. Why is the physical world an arena for morals? Theism explains more than atheism. Some things cannot be experimented on--the past, for instance. Observational sciences such as biology are similar to religious understanding. Biology takes fragmentary evidence from fossil records and such and puts them together to make as much sense from the big picture as possible.
On whether science can be religion: Most people--in Britain at least--are both wistful and wary of religion. They are wistful because they see gaps in science that religion supplements, but they are also wary of submission to authority.
On "exotic" scientific ideas such as string theory: Such theories are extremely speculative and Dr. Polkinghorne believes that they are ultimately metaphors.
On God creating man vs. development from lesser beings: Life is unprecedented, an unforeseen result from the fruitfulness of natural processes. Humans are the only organisms known to be self-conscious--not just conscious, but self-conscious and able to think far into the future.
On whether there is a scientific explanation for God: Science cannot explain the mechanics of choice and decision, of exactly how we interact with the world. The world is not merely mechanical--consider quantum theory and chaos theory.
On how humans first became aware of God: It is difficult to investigate history before the advent of writing. The exact moment of awareness is very uncertain, but at least 5000 years ago belief in a higher deity has existed.
On animals being created expressly for humans: Historically, animals have been treated as autonomous machines. Humans should not exploit animals using this belief. In Genesis, the naming of the animals implies an intimate relationship.
On stem-cell research: Before an embryo reaches 14 days, there is no cell differentiation. So the question becomes, is this embryo a human person? It is obviously human life, but that does not mean that it is yet a human -person-. In the developmental process, many naturally fertilized embryos fail to implain--can they therefore be persons? We do not condemn every woman who has a miscarriage, or who releases an egg and does not become pregnant.
On how science accounts for miracles such as the Resurrection: Science does not forbid unique events such as miracles. However, the theological problem arises of divine consistency--is God capricious, to offer miracles to select followers and not others? The Resurrection is easy to understand because there is such a good reason for the miracle. It would be humiliating for Jesus, God's Divine Son, to have died on the cross, a victim of religious discrimination. God can do unprecedented, new things in new circumstances.
On organized religion and its impact on scientific progress: All religions and atheistic regimes have done terrible things. Sin causes the inevitable slantedness of human nature. Corruption of the best is the worst kind; religion has done fantastic things as well.
[end]
by Rev. Dr. John Polkinghorne, particle physicist and Anglican priest
[Notes are abridged and may not represent all main ideas of speech. I make no claim of representing Dr. Polkinghorne's exact phrasing or word choice unless otherwise denoted by quotation marks.]
What religion and science have in common is a search for truth through motivated belief. However, they employ different forms of inquiry and seek different truths. Science asks, "How do things happen?" whereas religion asks, "Why do things happen? What meaning or purpose is there in the world?" Science treats the world as an object for experimentation; religion sees the world as a person to trust, to befriend. It is ludicrous to think of testing God--you must trust Him.
Science's gift to religion is knowledge of the universe and its history. For instance, evolution--when Darwinism was first proposed, there were proponents and opponents on both sides of the debate. One early Churchman who supported Darwin was Charles Kinsley, who said that no doubt God could have snapped His divine fingers and created the world in an instant, but instead He had made a creation that could create itself, which is better than any ready-made world. The gift of love, and God gives infinite love, is also the gift of independence.
The greatest difficulty inherent to religion is the idea of suffering--if God is loving, why is there so much pain and suffering in this world? But a world self-created must also include a shadow side. Evolution is driven by genetic mutation; like germ cells, somatic or human cells also mutate and change. This is the "necessary cost of a world in which creatures make themselves."
Religion's gift to science is -not- to explain science, but to answer the metaquestions of life: Why is science possible? Why is the world understandable? For instance, mathematics is the key to unlocking the secrets of the world; the most mathematically elegant equations--which are simply abstract thought--tend to be those that truly occur in the physical world. Why is mathematics so unreasonably effective? Why is the world rationally transparent and beautiful? This wonder is revealed through religious inquiry, for the mind and world are united in one origin, the Creator.
Q&A
On Intelligent Design (ID): It is a scientific claim disguising religious motivation, aiming to prove that the world is irreducibly complex. However, their case is flawed and is far from proved. Evolution cannot be thought of in isolation, as ID does. It is not piece-by-piece, but rather spontaneous. It is a theological mistake to assume that if Nature did it, then God didn't do it. Nature's actions represent God's will for Nature. There is a temptation to underestimate God, to make Him in our image--but God is not human.
On reconciling Genesis with evolution: The Bible is not a book, but a library. Genesis is not a scientific account, but a theological account, like the fundamental difference between prose and poetry. Genesis 1 teaches us about God's will and power and is essentially a great metaphor.
On the Big Bang: For the first three-and-a-half minutes of the universe's existence, everything was small enough to allow for nuclear reactions--like a universal hydrogen bond. Such reactions have been predicted to produce 3/4 hydrogen and 1/4 helium, which is indeed how the make-up of the universe has been observed to be.
On the timing of God's intervention in creation: Time did not exist before the Big Bang; God is outside Time. As life evolved, God had a constant and changing interaction.
On the question, "Who made God?": God does not need to be made. He simply possesses existence--He just is.
On science being used to prove or disprove the Bible: All truth comes from God. If well-established science contradicts Biblical interpretation, one might reconsider one's interpretation.
On why the Christian God is "right," versus the gods of other religions: Dr. Polkinghorne's personal belief is that Christianity is distinguished by the accessibility of God through Jesus Christ.
On Richard Dawkins [author of THE GOD DELUSION]: Dawkins is good at explaining science, but he believes that science is all the truth there is. THE GOD DELUSION is, quite simply, a bad book because of its argumentative tone--it is too assertive, and many atheists wish that he would simply "shut up."
On the limitations of science: Mental experience--conscience--has never been studied objectively. To do so is an irreconciliable paradox, because to study something we must employ our minds. This is where religion steps in.
On being considered to have unorthodox beliefs in the community: In Britain, Dr. Polkinghorne's views are considered rather mainstream, more so than in the polarized U.S. society.
On whether interpretation undermines the Bible's message: Some sort of interpretation is always necessary. For instance, in Deuteronomy the Lord leads the Israeli people out of Israel "with an outstretched hand." Would you consider this passage as saying that the Lord literally stretched out His hand?
On the divine inspiration of the Bible: Unlike the Koran of Islam, which is believed to be divinely written as well as inspired, the Bible is only divinely inspired. Apparent contradictions are simply different recollections and may be attributed to human error. The Old Testament represents a different human understanding of God.
On whether "Why" questions are still possible in a godless universe: Yes, but the most intellectually satisfying answers are found in theology. Consider art, music, beauty, etc. Why is the physical world an arena for morals? Theism explains more than atheism. Some things cannot be experimented on--the past, for instance. Observational sciences such as biology are similar to religious understanding. Biology takes fragmentary evidence from fossil records and such and puts them together to make as much sense from the big picture as possible.
On whether science can be religion: Most people--in Britain at least--are both wistful and wary of religion. They are wistful because they see gaps in science that religion supplements, but they are also wary of submission to authority.
On "exotic" scientific ideas such as string theory: Such theories are extremely speculative and Dr. Polkinghorne believes that they are ultimately metaphors.
On God creating man vs. development from lesser beings: Life is unprecedented, an unforeseen result from the fruitfulness of natural processes. Humans are the only organisms known to be self-conscious--not just conscious, but self-conscious and able to think far into the future.
On whether there is a scientific explanation for God: Science cannot explain the mechanics of choice and decision, of exactly how we interact with the world. The world is not merely mechanical--consider quantum theory and chaos theory.
On how humans first became aware of God: It is difficult to investigate history before the advent of writing. The exact moment of awareness is very uncertain, but at least 5000 years ago belief in a higher deity has existed.
On animals being created expressly for humans: Historically, animals have been treated as autonomous machines. Humans should not exploit animals using this belief. In Genesis, the naming of the animals implies an intimate relationship.
On stem-cell research: Before an embryo reaches 14 days, there is no cell differentiation. So the question becomes, is this embryo a human person? It is obviously human life, but that does not mean that it is yet a human -person-. In the developmental process, many naturally fertilized embryos fail to implain--can they therefore be persons? We do not condemn every woman who has a miscarriage, or who releases an egg and does not become pregnant.
On how science accounts for miracles such as the Resurrection: Science does not forbid unique events such as miracles. However, the theological problem arises of divine consistency--is God capricious, to offer miracles to select followers and not others? The Resurrection is easy to understand because there is such a good reason for the miracle. It would be humiliating for Jesus, God's Divine Son, to have died on the cross, a victim of religious discrimination. God can do unprecedented, new things in new circumstances.
On organized religion and its impact on scientific progress: All religions and atheistic regimes have done terrible things. Sin causes the inevitable slantedness of human nature. Corruption of the best is the worst kind; religion has done fantastic things as well.
[end]
And my personal opinion: I really enjoyed Dr. Polkinghorne's speech and the ensuing discussion, although I don't agree with many of his views. Though in my opinion he sidestepped the thrust of several audience questions, I'm very glad that I attended the seminar because it was an eminently worthwhile experience.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-05 10:12 pm (UTC)On the limitations of science: Mental experience--conscience--has never been studied objectively. To do so is an irreconciliable paradox, because to study something we must employ our minds. This is where religion steps in."
Interesting. I've taken a bunch of psychology courses here and it seems that psychologists and neurologists are now moving into the study of consciousness and mental experience with considerable confidence.
I don't think it's a paradox.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-05 10:48 pm (UTC)