Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Science works like clockwork; religion floats with clouds



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 20 February 2008
ARMILLARY spheres have been with us since antiquity: mechanical models of the universe; planets and moons fixed in brass, plotting trajectories controlled by cogs; everything locked in place, moving, literally, like clockwork.

Such devices showed the wonder of the known universe and so, in its own way, the creation of God. With the maturing of this view of the world as mechanistic during the Victorian era, with the development of evolutionary theory, it could be seen th
at the seeds of religion’s sidelining were sown.

It is not hard to see the reasoning: if you can prove how something has come to pass and why that was the case, then why look to the mysterious and ineffable for comfort or answers? If you know how weather systems work, then why blame the ravaging storm on a greater power? Science, some argue, has become the secular religion of the modern age, pushing Christianity to the margins of society.

But for Rev Dr Sir John Polkinghorne, physicist and theologian, religion and science have separate and complementary roles: “Science is essentially asking why things happen and of course it’s been very successful in answering that question, but it’s not the only question to ask about what’s going on. You can also ask if there’s any meaning and purpose in what is going and that’s the subject of religion. They’re asking different questions and they’re looking at different types of experience.

“For example, science tends to look at the world and treat it as an ‘it’, as an object; something you can kick around, pull apart and find out what it’s made of – that’s the experimental method, which is science’s great secret weapon. But we also know there is a whole swath of encounters with reality, where we meet it not as an object, as an ‘it’, but as a person. Above all, we encounter God in that way and when we move to that realm, testing has to give way to trusting. If we set traps to see if you are my friend, I’ll destroy the possibility of friendship between us.”

Having been a physicist for 25 years – working on theories of elementary particles, playing a significant roles in the discovery of the quark (one of the two basic constituents of matter), and serving as professor of mathematical physics at Cambridge University – Polkinghorne has spent more time than most looking at the world as an “it”. But as a practising Christian, having done as much work as he felt he could usefully do in the field, he departed physics for religious orders, becoming an Anglican priest in 1982.

Since then, he has written widely on the importance of religion in scientific research and vice versa.

He comes to Scotland on 28 February to give the second of the James Gregory lectures at St Andrews University, a series studying the theme of science and religion, with The Scotsman as the media partner. His theme for the lecture is the question: “Has science made religion redundant?” There are many who would argue religion has no place in a world dominated by science, but Polkinghorne says this will never happen: “They have different tasks to do,” he says. “But the way they answer their questions has to somehow fit together. We are very familiar with the fact we can answer the same question about the same event with different replies. I mean ‘The kettle’s boiling because burning gas is heating the water’ and ‘The kettle’s boiling because I want to make a cup of tea’ – you don’t have to choose between those, they’re both true. But if I was to say ‘I want to make a cup of tea’ and I put the kettle in the refrigerator you’d think there was something fishy going on. So science’s answers and religion’s answers have to be consonant, they have to relate to each other so they make sense. But they’re different questions. In that sense science could never make religion redundant.”

Indeed, it is key to his philosophical outlook, dubbed critical realism, that both religion and science address the same reality, but that hard, mechanistic scientific approaches to the universe are at odds with its inherent subtlety, something that religion is capable of encompassing.

“Biologists still have a pretty mechanical view of the world” he insists. “Biology has made tremendous strides in the past 50 years. Finding DNA was probably the most important discovery, but DNA is an essentially mechanical thing. Crick and Watson made a metal model of DNA, you can’t get much more mechanical than that, so there are mechanical components in nature and you always discover them first, because they are the easiest to understand than the clouds, so biology is still at the clockwork stage. I’m sure it’ll come out of the other side, animals are not automata.”

However, it is in that most 20th-century of pursuits, quantum physics, that Polkinghorne has found the consonance of religion and science. For him, the study of subatomic particles has helped the concept of nature as being “cloud-like” rather than “clockwork” and with it the notion of a spiritual aspect in everyday life.

“Up until the end of the 19th century, it was as though that nature looked like clockwork,” he says. “The Newtonian world was very regular, orderly and it seemed to be just ticking away. But in the 20th century it was discovered that there are intrinsic unpredictabilities in nature, we can’t know what nature is going to do. This was discovered in subatomic physics, quantum theory, about probability and uncertainty theory. Even the physics of the every day turned out to be not as clear and as determinant as people thought. The world is more subtle and interesting than people have thought in the past.

“If you study fundamental physics, you’re very struck by the wonderful order of the world. It’s a very beautiful world. And I think one of the most persuasive and liberating understanding is that it is the divine mind that lies behind the world.”

In Polkinghorne’s opinion, while it can show how things fit together, science can’t explain where the structure comes from: “Religion offers a broader and deeper understanding.” He asserts that what may normally appear as a happy accident becomes intelligible if it is seen as “reflective of the mind and the will of the creator. It just explains more”.

But even after more than 25 years as a man of the cloth, addressing both the world of science and religion in his philosophies, there is still a lingering loyalty to his origins: “Not all truth comes from science, some of it does. So when I give talk on science and religion I feel myself as much a missionary for science as I do for religion. I want to share the insights of both with the people I’m talking to. You need both of these perspectives of the truth to see what’s going on.”

• Sir John Polkinghorne will deliver the next James Gregory lecture at St Andrews University’s Younger Hall on 28 February. More details at www.jamesgregory.org





The full article contains 1222 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 19 February 2008 6:41 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Teaching
 
1

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 20/02/2008 11:11:35
"...plotting trajectories controlled by cogs..."

Oh please. Get it right. A cog is something typically found on a wooden mill wheel---a cogged wheel.

The correct term in the context of this article is "gear wheels" or "gears".

Apart from that, this is a reasonable article.
2

MonoApe,

Aberdeen 20/02/2008 12:45:49
"In Polkinghorne’s opinion ... science can’t explain where the structure comes from: “Religion offers a broader and deeper understanding.”"

Utter drivel. Religion has added nothing to our understanding of the world around us. It's told us the world is flat, the earth is the centre of the universe, burning witches is sometimes necessary, mutilating children's genitals keeps the gods happy, wearing funny hats and gold embroidered cloaks also makes god happy - but it hasn't added one iota of knowledge to our understanding of the universe.

Note: that's not to say that people with religious belief have contributed nothing, but it was their reality-based inquiry that brought about their discovery, and not their religious delusion.

Of course, if religion had added anything substantive, this article would have had some real content instead of the ephemeral wishy-washy wish-fulfilment that it's choked with.

"... we encounter God in that way and ... testing has to give way to trusting."

So, once the reality and evidence-based science gets too difficult, we'll simply trust that "god did it"? Genius! We can close all the laboratories down now.

This article and Sir John Polkinghorne are examples of otherwise intelligent and articulate people, doing and saying stupid things because of their religion. It's the thin edge of the wedge and needs to be guarded against, otherwise, before we know it, schools will be teaching the earth is 6000 years old and was magicked in to existence by some celestial dictator who can read our minds and will send us to a fiery eternity if we don't follow the rules, as interpreted by priests and imams, in some centuries old book.


P.S. "cog" is perfectly suitable in the context used - "one of the tooth-like parts around the edge of a wheel in a machine which fits between those of a similar wheel, causing both wheels to move". [Cambridge Dictionary]
3

Calum Crubag,

20/02/2008 12:47:50
Religion is nonsense. Children stop believing in Santa so why should we believe in any other myth - be it fairies or gods?

Science is not religion. Science is just the process of testing and finding evidence. A child learning not to touch a hot kettle is science. There's nothing supernatural or mystic about it.
4

P.J.,

Chinnor 20/02/2008 13:40:58
I'll believe that religion has a place with science when someone proves, in repeatable blind tests, that a new form of liturgy cures cancer! The fact is that while the word 'mechanistic' has somehow aquired negative overtones, as we learn more and more about the universe we inhabit and learn the processes involved we do discover an ever lengthening chain of cause and effect.

This in itself is a wonderful thing, without it where would the room be for discovery, both for it's own sake and for the improvements in our lives. Take the rainbow for example, on one hand it has given us the biblical story of Noah (in which God graciously agrees not to drown EVERYONE at the same time again, just local groups apparently), on the other the science of optics which has improved the lives of billions directly through corrective glasses and indirectly by providing telescopes, microscopes (and hence bacteria and germ theory), cameras etc.
If your arm was severed, would you want a priest or a microsurgen; trapped in an accident is a Scientologist REALLY the only person who can help? No offence to Tom Cruise but I'd rather have the Fire and Ambulance crews with all their scientific equipment! For protection, prayer or vaccines? For illness medicine or Lourdes water, again for me at least the choice is clear.

It is sad when obviously intelligent people blind themselves to reality due to iron age myths, it is even sadder when people miss the truely miraculous attibutes and achievements of this world because they are focussing on warm fuzzy feelings and the unsubstatiated promise of next.
5

ben w.barr,

north wilkesboro 20/02/2008 15:25:57
really, the interesting thing is that the materialists always get it wrong. Making their pronouncements and then finding out they are wrong. Playing in a god like manner, no wonder their stumble.
6

Lazarou,

edinburgh 20/02/2008 15:59:23
"Playing in a god like manner, no wonder their stumble."

How dare you accuse me and millions of like-mined people of acting like your god? I'm sorry but cruelty and mass murder of the kind that your god deals out in the Bible is abhorrent to me. I prefer to side with rationality, and such rationality has led me to a materialist view of the world.

And tell me, if us materialists are always getting things wrong then how do you explain the functioning of the computer on which you typed your comments? It's the fruit of horrific scientific materialism, best turn it off before Satan eats your head!
7

Lazarou,

edinburgh 20/02/2008 16:04:16
"Some people are happy to let 2 plus 2 equal 4 to help them, other are happy to ask "why 2 plus 2 though?""

A great example of the wooly thinking of the religious. Your analogy falls down completely because the question of "why 2 plus 2" makes absolutely no sense except in the most basic context (i.e. because I had 2 £2 coins and needed to know how much that made).

The whole "why" question as applied to the universe makes little sense as it implies purpose and purpose requires an agent. We are simply projecting our small worldview onto the universe as a whole and that doesn not work. There is no mighty agent; quarks, atoms and galaxies were not put there by someone/thing for any kind of reason. I know that kind of thought can cause brain overload in some people but try to get used to it rather than inventing gods as some kind of mental aspirin...
8

MonoApe,

20/02/2008 17:15:20
"There is a place for both, people."

Yes. One for understanding the world around us - science. The other providing comfort of an afterlife - delusion.

"I think most people would rather they took up religion than take a prescribed pill or turn to drink and drugs, no?"

And there's no other alternatives? All us atheists take a pill, drink some vodka and snort some coke whenever faced with a trauma? That's one of the more stupid things I've read from a Xtian - and there's some stiff competition in that category.
9

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta 20/02/2008 17:21:09
To believe in DOG is to support mind control.

GC
10

Aiken Head,

Berlin 21/02/2008 10:42:15
Recommend reading a (short) sample of Polkinghorne's stuff before attending any lecture. He was, apparently, a good physicist and is now a good theologian. Unsurprisingly, that means he produces top-grade meaningless waffle.

Has science made religion redundant? The very question is almost meaningless - the terms and context needing defined before you start trying to answer. I would not expect much clarification from Rev P.
11

MonoApe,

21/02/2008 17:37:28
"Come here and I'll show you how religious I am and you will be....."

Ah, the thinly-veiled offer of physical violence. The final refuge of the stupid.
12

Andy Gilmour,

Edinburgh 22/02/2008 12:46:28
Since he came over all theological, Sir John seems to have forgotten that 'science' is not some monolithic enterprise, but rather a particular methodological approach to understanding.

All he is offering as an alternative is the usual, weak, "God of the gaps" argument.

I'm glad it keeps him warm at night, and removes some of the oh-so-unbearable uncertainty we all have to live with, but as to offering a "broader and deeper understanding", well, as David Hume put it:

"If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, 'Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number?' No. 'Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence?' No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.