Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Faith, Science, & Understanding Introduction
John Polkinghorne was/is a physicist whose work has, over the past twenty to thirty years, turned to theology and how science and theology integrate. The epigraph at the beginning of this volume succinctly states his views on both: "fides quaerens intellectum," or faith seeking understanding (St. Anselm as the source). Having read through this book once and listened to him on the radio show Speaking of Faith, he believes that science alone cannot tell us everything about the world, and faith alone cannot tell us everything about the world either. Both are parts of knowledge, of understanding, that explain certain parts of the world in which we live. There are other sets of knowledge to be added to these two which are not covered in this work, such as literature, travel, and foreign language. None of these alone, or even in tandem with only one other knowledge set, could ever fully yield understanding of the universe. Each are necessary and incomplete.
I am not a theologian or a scientist, so the first time through this book was difficult. I didn't even make it very far into university-level math or science, so things like Newtonian physics, quantum theory, etc. baffle me even with their vocabulary, much less the substance behinds the words. In the posts covering this work I hope to enlighten myself, and maybe be enlightened by any who venture here, in these matters.
In the introduction, the author explains that the first chapter discusses his belief in the value of knowledge for knowledge's sake; and in the unity of knowledge. Once into the text he explains that the personal and subjective must be taken into account along with the impersonal and objective in any search for understanding. I noted this in less efficient words above.
I haven't finished the first chapter yet, but by page 10 he's mentioned three things that grabbed my attention: 1.) that science and theology share a common general purpose: understanding the mysteries of the world. When I think of science, I think of facts, of things already discovered. But the phrase "scientific discovery" has been said thousands of times in my lifetime. Before something can be a discovery, it would be unkown: a mystery. At one point, gravity and heat were mysteries that could be seen or perhaps explained, but they were not always understood. Putting it very simply, these mysteries were investigated and became discoveries, understood now as well as explanable.
In a similar way, the idea of good and evil is explanable, but not understood. We see good and evil, whether or not we believe in their Author(s), but they remain mysteries to some extent. Theology (keep in mind my Christian perspective here and my bias that way) explains good and evil by means of its Author, and Christians believe they understand good and evil via its Author. Until some amount of learning takes place via scripture or theological understanding, good and evil have no anchor in one's mind.
2.) Explanation and understanding are not the same thing. One does not need to understand something fully (see good and evil, above) in order to explain it. I can explain electricity and how a switch on a wall can turn an overhead light on, but cannot understand how wind or water or coal powering a turbine in one place can make heat or light in another. Polkinghorne explains this with quantum theory as an example. It's dizzying, but here goes: it explains the behavior or subatomic parts, but scientists have difficulty understanding it. I have tremendous difficulty understanding one of its most central aspects, which is that of superposition. This is the word we have in mind when we speak of light behaving like a wave and a particle. It's counterintuitive to think that one thing can behave like two seemingly mutually exclusive things. Which leads me to the third point.
3.) Understanding this possibility of superposition does not agree with common sense. But the phenomenon is there, it exists. Therefore, it is common sense which is lacking when used as a tool to understanding the behavior of subatomic particles. There is this one case, and there must be others, in which knowledge must be gained on its own terms, and not ours. My own mind wants to jump immediately to saying, "see? faith is necessary even in science!" I'll try to take it slow though.
This is a long post. I'd apologize, but no one's reading this.
I am not a theologian or a scientist, so the first time through this book was difficult. I didn't even make it very far into university-level math or science, so things like Newtonian physics, quantum theory, etc. baffle me even with their vocabulary, much less the substance behinds the words. In the posts covering this work I hope to enlighten myself, and maybe be enlightened by any who venture here, in these matters.
In the introduction, the author explains that the first chapter discusses his belief in the value of knowledge for knowledge's sake; and in the unity of knowledge. Once into the text he explains that the personal and subjective must be taken into account along with the impersonal and objective in any search for understanding. I noted this in less efficient words above.
I haven't finished the first chapter yet, but by page 10 he's mentioned three things that grabbed my attention: 1.) that science and theology share a common general purpose: understanding the mysteries of the world. When I think of science, I think of facts, of things already discovered. But the phrase "scientific discovery" has been said thousands of times in my lifetime. Before something can be a discovery, it would be unkown: a mystery. At one point, gravity and heat were mysteries that could be seen or perhaps explained, but they were not always understood. Putting it very simply, these mysteries were investigated and became discoveries, understood now as well as explanable.
In a similar way, the idea of good and evil is explanable, but not understood. We see good and evil, whether or not we believe in their Author(s), but they remain mysteries to some extent. Theology (keep in mind my Christian perspective here and my bias that way) explains good and evil by means of its Author, and Christians believe they understand good and evil via its Author. Until some amount of learning takes place via scripture or theological understanding, good and evil have no anchor in one's mind.
2.) Explanation and understanding are not the same thing. One does not need to understand something fully (see good and evil, above) in order to explain it. I can explain electricity and how a switch on a wall can turn an overhead light on, but cannot understand how wind or water or coal powering a turbine in one place can make heat or light in another. Polkinghorne explains this with quantum theory as an example. It's dizzying, but here goes: it explains the behavior or subatomic parts, but scientists have difficulty understanding it. I have tremendous difficulty understanding one of its most central aspects, which is that of superposition. This is the word we have in mind when we speak of light behaving like a wave and a particle. It's counterintuitive to think that one thing can behave like two seemingly mutually exclusive things. Which leads me to the third point.
3.) Understanding this possibility of superposition does not agree with common sense. But the phenomenon is there, it exists. Therefore, it is common sense which is lacking when used as a tool to understanding the behavior of subatomic particles. There is this one case, and there must be others, in which knowledge must be gained on its own terms, and not ours. My own mind wants to jump immediately to saying, "see? faith is necessary even in science!" I'll try to take it slow though.
This is a long post. I'd apologize, but no one's reading this.
Intro
When I first read John Polkinghorne's Faith, Science, and Understanding I knew it was good but there was so much I didn't understand. And there are a lot of books out there that are good but need guides. So I'm setting out to set up at least this one, and hopefully more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)