[net.origins] Science as Religion

arndt@lymph.DEC (07/17/85)

Just a passing quote to comment on my statements that doing Science is a
bottem a 'religious' task.

I am finishing an interesting book, SCIENCE AND CREATION, by Stanley L. Jaki,
a Phd in physics and theology.  The premise of the book is that 'science' as
we know it rose only under the Christian world-view.  A statement Whitehead,
Oppenheimer and others have made as well.  Anyway, it is not light reading
and seems to be well researched.  Food for thought at least.

The interesting passage is as follows:

Speaking of the missuse of science (atom bomb, etc.) he says,

"Some of the most sensitive of these physicists have become so much appalled
by the diabolical transformation of the products of science into tools of
destruction as to hint that were it possible for them to start their career
anew it would not have anything to do with science."

"Out of such dispair arose, however, a more comforting symptom as well.  It is
the steadily growing realization that the man of science, no less than his
counterpart in religion, lives ultimately by faith.  With the mirage of
positivism now being unmasked, it is easier to recognize that the scientific
enterprise rests on a conviction which presupposes far more on man's part than
the mere juxtaposition and correlation of the data observation.  The conviction
in question is nothing short of a faith which, like religious faith, consists
in the readiness of going beyond the immediately obvious. The step is not simplya glib conjecture about a deeper layer.  (a la Rosen's claims!)  It is rather
a recognition of the indispensible need of such a layer if the scientific
enterprise is to make any lasting sense.  It is in that deeper layer that 
notions like the intelligibility, simplicity, and lawfulness of nature are
taking on a meaning which demands absolute, unconditional respect and
acceptance.  It is that deeper meaning which science must command if its laws
should be considered not merely clever manipulations of terminology and data,
but a concrete encounter with the real structure of nature." P356.

See also (someone - I haven't looked it up yet.  Anyone care to do so and give
us a report???) his article on the "The Role of Faith in Physics", ZYGON,2
(1967):187-202.

Keep chargin'

Ken Arndt

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/19/85)

> Just a passing quote to comment on my statements that doing Science is a
> bottem a 'religious' task.
> 
> I am finishing an interesting book, SCIENCE AND CREATION, by Stanley L. Jaki,
> a Phd in physics and theology.  The premise of the book is that 'science' as
> we know it rose only under the Christian world-view.  A statement Whitehead,
> Oppenheimer and others have made as well.  Anyway, it is not light reading
> and seems to be well researched.  Food for thought at least.

So?

> The interesting passage is as follows:
> "Out of such dispair arose, however, a more comforting symptom as well.  It is
> the steadily growing realization that the man of science, no less than his
> counterpart in religion, lives ultimately by faith.  With the mirage of
> positivism now being unmasked, it is easier to recognize that the scientific
> enterprise rests on a conviction which presupposes far more on man's part than
> the mere juxtaposition and correlation of the data observation. The conviction
> in question is nothing short of a faith which, like religious faith, consists
> in the readiness of going beyond the immediately obvious. The step is not
> simply a glib conjecture about a deeper layer.  (a la Rosen's claims!)

and blah blah blah (to quote Paul Simon).

First off, for a REAL perspective on scientific encounters with the "real"
nature of the universe, read "Stehpen Hawking's Universe" by John Boslough,
especially the chapter on "The Anthropic Principle".

But more importantly, you religionist types keep referring to what Arndt
here calls "the mirage of positivism now unmasked".  1) When was this
"unmasking"?  2) Where did the ceremony take place?  3) What was the
logical substance of the unmasking process?  (The tough one, Ken.)
It seems that people who don't like the real world think that if you keep
re-asserting that it ain't so, if you get "important" "scholars" to do so,
it all goes away.  It ain't so, Joe.
-- 
Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
					Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr

alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) (07/19/85)

In article <3158@decwrl.UUCP> arndt@lymph.DEC writes:
>
>The premise... is that 'science' as
>we know it rose only under the Christian world-view.  A statement Whitehead,
>Oppenheimer and others have made as well.

I should know better than to try to argue with Aren't, and i do.  I'll just
state my disagreement and point to the source, so he can look it up himself.

Whitehead, in his book titled (i believe) "Science and Reality," does not
maintain that
	 "science... rose... UNDER the Christian world-view,"
but rather that
	  science rose AGAINST the Christian world-view.

Whitehead's contention is that 'science' was a reaction against the 
'rationalism' of Aristotle, Aquinas, Decartes, etc.

This argument is illustrated in the 'classic' story of the rationalist
Christians arguing endlessly about how many teeth a horse has, each
interpreting the Bible as the sole way of learning the answer.

	Al  Algustyniak

p.s.  It looks like i have to leave the net in a couple of weeks.  Thanks,
	everyone, for the fascinating experience.

cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/25/85)

> In article <3158@decwrl.UUCP> arndt@lymph.DEC writes:
> >
> >The premise... is that 'science' as
> >we know it rose only under the Christian world-view.  A statement Whitehead,
> >Oppenheimer and others have made as well.
> 
> I should know better than to try to argue with Aren't, and i do.  I'll just
> state my disagreement and point to the source, so he can look it up himself.
> 
> Whitehead, in his book titled (i believe) "Science and Reality," does not
> maintain that
> 	 "science... rose... UNDER the Christian world-view,"
> but rather that
> 	  science rose AGAINST the Christian world-view.
> 
> Whitehead's contention is that 'science' was a reaction against the 
> 'rationalism' of Aristotle, Aquinas, Decartes, etc.
> 
Gee, Aristotle was a Christian?  Wow, what a revelation!  Seriously,
the "rationalism" of Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, etc. has a lot more
to do with Greek philosophy than with Christianity.  (After all, it was
Aristotle who "demonstrated" that women had less teeth than men because
women were inferior.  He just didn't bother to actually do any field
work.)  Experimental method arose because men like DaVinci were engaged
in building practical weapons of war, where intellectualizing to 
exclusion of reality would have serious and deadly consequences.  (See
George Orwell's remarks in _1984_ about the problems of Truth in a
totalitarian society, and why science is the least harassed of the
pursuits of knowledge in such societies.)

Also, on the issue of science and Christianity, I think a good case could
be made that the emphasis on the individual after the Reformation 
*encouraged* scientific inquiry, especially in comparision to the
rigidity the Catholic Church adopted.

> Christians arguing endlessly about how many teeth a horse has, each
> interpreting the Bible as the sole way of learning the answer.
> 
I haven't heard this one before; are you sure you aren't confusing this
with Aristotle's determination of teeth count done a few centuries before
Jesus was born?

> 	Al  Algustyniak
> 
> p.s.  It looks like i have to leave the net in a couple of weeks.  Thanks,
> 	everyone, for the fascinating experience.

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***