An existential critique of the similarities between theology and science, and the ‘objectivity’ of rational thought
The difference between fact and faith, and the philosophies of advocates of each, has often been used to highlight the claimed incompatibility between science and religion-that one cannot beget the other. The differences are exploited by those on either ‘side’ who cite the credibility of one as the absolute proof of the frivolousness of the other. However this either or approach, when viewed along the lines of its conceptual basis, stands and the anti-theory to the other methodical manner that we as humans use to classify or investigate some entity that we are trying to fit into the perspective of our world view; namely, ‘which came first, the chicken or the egg?’
What I have noticed, upon closer inspection is that the argument alone says more about human understanding and thought than either God or Nature. Not surprisingly, this is true of almost everything that we as humans attempt to analyze with an ‘unbiased’ eye. From this perspective, we may see that such discussions between proponents on either side may represent to perspectives of a unified rhythm, like the yin-yang symbol found in Chinese culture.
Some scientists cite the fact that contradictions in the Bible stand as the strongest evidence that the entire work itself is not tenable. For example, one biblical account records that Judas hung himself in the potter’s field, and another that he fell in a field with such violence that his ‘bowels gushed out’. Some theologians, referred to by their more logically minded counterparts as ‘harmonists’ have proposed that Judas first hung himself, and then fell to the field, becoming disemboweled; of course it is an attempt to synthesize both passages of scripture so that they more closely resemble common logic, and assuage the sensibilities of those of faith whose belief may be offended.
However two other apparently contradictory accounts are found in the Bible. For example, some have asked how it is possible for the world to be created in seven days, when the sun was not created until the third ‘day’. (This discrepancy in the creation account is often compounded by the fact that there are two creation stories, the second one being given in Genesis chapter two, verses four through eight.)
From this, it seems as though believers in the Bible as being an accurate and factual historical account may have their faith misplaced. If nothing else, one would naturally be resigned to take the stand that the Bible is a historical account per se, but does not stand up under pedantic scrutiny.
And yet, despite these obvious discrepancies, people of faith continue to point to the Bible as their guiding light, their God inspired beacon of inspiration. Some scientists not only cite this Christian quirk as evidence that people who follow the Bible are actually letting it ‘think’ for them, but raise it up as the crucifix that separates religious perspective form a scientific one. But one wonders, is the scientific perspective held by scientists who do not believe in the Bible in any way that much different form those of their religious brethren?’
Perhaps not.
One of the most startling concepts to have ever arisen in the development of science is that the light, the first thing to greet us after nine months in darkness, has not one, but two natures. In scientific terms, it is called the wave particle duality. In layman’s terms, it means that light has characteristics that are both wavelike (like waves on the ocean) and particle like (has momentum like a particle of mass).
At first glance, the idea seems a contradiction in terms. It is as if a jar of water can show liquid and solid characteristics at once, being both frozen and liquefied at once. To be specific, scientists do not measure these characteristics simultaneously. In order to show each characteristic, you must set up an experiment specifically designed for the anticipated outcome. It brings to mind a quotation: “what Einstein calls a physical quantity is simply a number, and if it does not correspond to a physical reality, that quantity alone yields no suggestion of what reality might be…it is a measure not of nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of detection.
In fact, Einstein himself took two positions with regard to the accuracy mathematics has with regard to reality. The first is his quote “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality” mirrors the sentiment mentioned above.
The second is his expression is not unlike a Jewish parable aimed to communicate the nature of man’s understanding of reality and an example of one of the facets of science. In a book titled ‘Maya in Physics’, Albert Einstein is quoted as saying the following:
“Physical constants are free creations of the human mind, Einstein observed over fifty years ago, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavour to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility of the meaning of such a comparison.”
In essence, nature has been discovered to be so metaphysical that it has forced its discovered to be just as pragmatic in dealing with their subject matter (science) as believers in scripture who proclaim the Bible as their source of light and truth.
This stands as probably the most poignant aspect of the debate between proponents of science and religion; despite the fact that they are two different perspectives of two different subjects, the theological (for religion) and metaphysical (for science) philosophies that form the foundation for each are virtually identical. In other words, both the believer and the investigator derive some conclusion, some kind of truth form a result derived from a reality communicated to them through either scripture or experimental result.
The similarity of course is that even when the result from science offers a result that contradict results ‘verified’ by previous experiments, the scientific investigator accepts the new world view the results give as those who believe in scripture, despite the (literal) duality inherent in those results.
Before he gives the quotation of Einstein above in his book ‘Maya in Physics’ N. C. Panda makes this statement concerning discussion of the quantum field:
“The concept of virtual particle is the free creation of the human mind. No such virtual particles have been perceived directly or indirectly. Even if a virtual particle is charged, it cannot be visible in a bubble chamber due to its extremely short life. The existence of virtual particle is inferred mathematically. The concept that particles exert force on each other buy exchange of particles has to be explained. In order to explain this phenomenon, virtual particles become necessary and hence they are freely created by the human mind. The scientist does not necessarily know how Nature ‘really is’; he makes an attempt to explain the behaviour of Nature in an integral way free from contradictions. There may be more than one way to explain the same thing. It is not important to know whether the theory is ‘really right’; it is, however, important to be satisfied, in a convincing way, with the explanation of the working of Nature.”
One may say that one of the major differences between the scientific result of the wave particle nature of light and, say, the body of Judas, is that it is easier for us to tell where a body is than an individual quantum particle. But this raises another question; how is it that a large object, whose nature we are sure we can describe, be composed of particles whose nature contradict the nature of our experience of the whole? If we claim that science, and its objective method is what verifies the veracity and validity of our experience, are we not being no less ‘prejudiced’ in our view than one who believes in scripture, even if a biblical account appears contradictory? Or are we merely fooling ourselves into believing that the method of our investigation, namely the scientific method, is so superior to any form of scriptural theology that it removes such ancillary analysis from our results?
Before quantum effects were ever considered, the scientific method and principle rested on a singular philosophy concerning the world around us. We assume that there is one (scientific) story of the world, and we agree that this story is true. Then quantum effects of light were noted, and scientists declared that in order to fully account for light, two stories must be told. What stands out is that each story for light, the particle story and the wave story, is at least as unrelated to each other as both biblical accounts surrounding Judas’ death.
So it seems in the final analysis that scientists do have one thing in common with their brothers and sisters of faith; whenever Nature proposes apparently contradictory realities for a single entity, they are just as pragmatic in their evaluation of the results as their spiritual counterparts.
