God Series

 

Previous Post

The previous post introduced the overall series.

 

Preview of the present post

This post begins the discussion of the intersection of science and religion in the context of the concept of God.

 

1. Religion and Science

The question of the existence and nature of God has sometimes been approached from one of two paths: science or religion^[1]. While many believe that these two approaches are opposed to each other^[2], it is suggested that both paths will get to the same place, even though the conclusions might appear different^[3]. As Lord John Emerich Edward Acton wrote in the 19^th Century, “there should be no contradiction between the truth of God and the truth of science.” If both views and paths are analyzed with an open mind, this statement can be accepted.

The two approaches or views might be understood using the following relationship: where the senses end, imagination begins, and where imagination ends, faith begins^[4]. As discussed in the essay on imagination, our imagination allows us to form mental impressions of things that are beyond our immediate senses. However, these mental images require some basis, either from memory or from extrapolation of remembered sensory impressions^[5]. Without some concrete sensory impression, our imagination is helpless.

Science is very good at explaining things that can be observed^[6], but merely because science can explain things we observe does not mean it can explain things that are impossible for us to observe (Heisenberg^[7] notwithstanding). Science, by its nature, seeks things that can be tested empirically, so it seeks to find a concrete “something” which can be sensed and tested. Science is very good at analyzing empirical data and making predictions (theoretical constructs based on empirical concepts) about effects or even the existence of elements or particles. However, these predictions are always subject to change or revision as new data are discovered or as new effects are found and only are finalized when the ultimate effect or element is identified via our senses. See, for example, Gravitons^[8], which are hypothetical elementary particles that mediate the force of gravity in the framework of quantum field theory, Gluons^[9], which are subatomic particles that keep protons and neutrons in tact, but the existence of which has not at this time been proved to our senses, the Higgs Boson which is a hypothetical particle^[10] thought to be the carrier of a force that generates the masses of all fundamental particles^[11], the protophobic X boson (a particle that only interacts with electrons and neutrons at very close range; it is not a mass-bearing particle and is not governed by any of the four known forces, thus researches have proposed that it could be evidence of a fifth fundamental force of nature), Dark Matter^[12] which is theorized as accounting for many observations about our universe (such as a universe which seems to be expanding at an accelerating rate instead of at a slowing rate), superpartners (used in the supersymmetry theory to explain questions such as “why forces have the strengths they do or even why does the universe look the way it does)^[13], inflatons (a particle, still hypothetical, which filled the universe before the Big Bang) and sterile neutrinos (neutrinos which do not interact with other particles^[14]).  In fact, the Higgs and Graviton particles are perfect examples of how science can use its imagination with regard to things that it has some basis for imagining. However, there must be some basis before a leap can be made. This is simply not so with the concept of God since we have nothing which can serve as a base and from which we can extrapolate.

 

 

Preview of the next post

The next post continues the discussion of the intersection of science and religion in the context of God.

---

[1] There have been several approaches to reconciling science and Torah: in matters of conflict, Torah is right and science is wrong (Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneersohn); or our understanding of Torah should be reexamined (Rambam); or the two (Torah and science) relate to different realms of life to wit: knowledge and piety (Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, Prof. Yeshayahu Leibowiz). Spinoza famously tried to resolve this conflict by viewing God and nature as being one and the same thus making God wholly immanent. According to Spinoza, since God is nature, God is everything that is – from the stars in heaven to the thoughts of man. Man is merely a “mode” or “part” of nature and thus is governed by the laws of nature (whereby man thus has no free will because man is not an independent entity, but a part of nature and nature can act in or exist in no other way than it does). Thus, Spinoza solved the problem by rejecting the concept of a transcendent God and viewing “God” as simply another word for “everything that exists” thereby making “God” totally immanent and not at all transcendental.

 

[2] Some have tried to resolve the “conflict” by saying that the science and religion ask different questions: science asks “how?” and religion asks “why?” Science seeks facts, religion seeks meaning. However, this simplistic difference does not fully explain either and certainly emphasizes the dichotomy between the two. There simply are certain things that science cannot explain, yet there are certain “whys” that science can explain in terms of “hows.” Therefore, we must find another answer, one which allows both science and religion to co-exist in our world.

 

[3] In fact, Maimonides in his Guide to the Perplexed contends that the more we learn about science, the more we contribute to our knowledge of God. His argument goes like this: God, Himself, is totally different from our world and, as such, God’s attributes are not knowable to us, and, indeed, any attribute we give God actually diminishes Him by making Him similar to something else (for example, saying “God is good” actually diminishes God by placing him in a category of “good” people such as Mother Teresa); therefore, we can only “know” God by determining what God is not. As our knowledge of science increases, we know more and more about things that are not Devine which had heretofore been attributed to God (for example, we now know what causes weather and storms but before such occurrences were attributed to God); therefore, we now know that God is not weather, so we know more about what God is not and hence our science has actually helped us in our understanding of God.

[4] Science dwells in the domain of senses and imagination, and religion dwells in the realm of faith – what occurs where imagination and sense end. Science is in the realm of “is” and religion is in the realm of “ought to be” and “why?”

 

^[5] The sensory impression relied upon for one’s imagination need not be an impression of that particular individual since humans are capable of describing their impressions in a manner that is understandable to others.

^[6] As discussed in “The Grand Design,” by Stephen Hawking and Mlodinow, “Today most scientists would say a law of nature is a rule that is based upon an observed regularity and provides predictions that go beyond the immediate situations upon which it is based..” They further state:

There is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality…model-dependent realism: the idea that a physical theory or world picture is a model (generally of a mathematical nature) and a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations.

 

According to model-dependent realism, it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only whether it agrees with observation. If there are two models that both agree with observation, …then one cannot say that one is more real than another. One can use whichever model is more convenient in the situation under consideration.

This seems to confirm the characterization of science using observed, or observable, events for its principles and theories.

^[7] See, Principles of Modern Physics by Robert B. Leighton, published by McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. in 1959, in which The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is defined as the indeterminacy or uncertainty that is unavoidably introduced into an experimental measurement of physical quantities by the measurement process itself whereby we can never exactly and precisely know the measured quantity. Another way of viewing this principle is that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that there are limits to our ability to simultaneously measure certain data. For example, the more precisely one can measure position, the less precisely one can measure speed and vice versa.

^[8] What is the World Made Of? Atoms, Leptons, Quarks, and other Tantalizing Particles by Gerald Feinberg, published by Doubleday Anchor Books in 1978.

 

[9] See, “The glue that binds us,” Scientific American, May 2015, volume 312, Number 5, pages 42-49.

 

^[10] But see, “The Higgs at Last” by Michael Riordan, Guido Tonelli and Sau Lan Wu in Scientific American, October 2012, Volume 307, number 4, pages 66-73. . On 4 July 2012, the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider announced they had observed a new particle in the mass region around 126 GeV. This particle is consistent with the Higgs boson but it will take further work to determine whether or not it is the Higgs boson predicted by the Standard Model. If not, then some of the scientists at CERN believe the Standard Model may be wrong and a multiverse model will have to be investigated. These scientists believe that the multiverse model represent chaos

 

^[11] The Higgs boson is a hypothetical massive elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics. Its existence is postulated to resolve inconsistencies in theoretical physics. The Higgs boson is the only elementary particle in the Standard Model that has not yet been positively observed in particle physics experiments (but see the preceding footnote). It is a consequence of the so-called Higgs mechanism, the part of the SM explaining how most of the known elementary particles obtain their masses. The Higgs boson is often referred to as “the God particle” by the media.

 

[12] To be entirely correct, the term Dark Matter might be used in connection with the unfound matter which attracts and thus which hold galaxies together while the term Dark Energy might be used in connection with the unfound energy that repels and thus which causes the universe to expand at an accelerating rate rather than at a slowing rate as might be expected. However, in the interest of economy of content, and because this work is not intended to be a scientific work with the science being used to make a point and not as the focus, the terms may be used interchangeably with the exact meaning being left to the individual reader based on the context. But see, “Dark Matter Drops a Clue,” by Carla Moskowitz, Scientific American, June 2015, Volume 312, Number 6, pages 15-17. See also, “Myseter of the Hidden Cosmos” by Bogdan A. Dobrescu and Don Lincoln, Scientific American , July 2015, pages 33-39 in which it is suggested that searches for dark matter have focused on a single unseen particle, but have been unsuccessful at finding it and the search should, instead, be extended to complex dark matter (dark atoms, dark molecutes and even clups of such particles which could make up hidden galactic disks that overlap with the spiral arms of the Milky Way and other galaxies) which will be an entire world of particles and forces that barely interact with normal matter. See also, “Black Holes from the Beginning of Time” by Juan Garcia-Bellido and Sebastien Cleese, Scientific American, July 2017, Volume 317, no. 1, pages 38-43, in which it is speculated that “dark matter’ really is a population of black holes which were born less than one second after the big bang.

 

^[13] See, “Supersymmetry and the Crisis in Physics,” Scientific American, May 2014, Volume 310, Number 5, page 34.

 

[14] Wolfgang Pauli, who suggested the idea of the neutrino said “I have done a terrible thing…I have postulated a particle that cannot be detected.” The neutrino still vexes physicists today with their fundamental properties being open to debate, such as the origin of their masses, the nature of neutrino antimatter and the number of neutrino species in existence. The Standard Model cannot accommodate all the complexities of the neutrino.

Series Navigation