February 4, 2010

As a recent college graduate, I am well acquainted with the struggles facing students grappling with questions of science, faith, and worldview. This is why I am encouraged to see emerging groups, including some of the world's greatest scientific minds, making it their project to offer help along the way. Three standouts: Veritas Forum, Faraday Institute, and BioLogos.

The Veritas Forum:
This organization works to draw universities into conversations exploring life's hardest questions and Jesus Christ's relevance to all aspects of life. Students and faculty at over 80 campuses nationwide collaborate with Veritas to present expert perspective, initiate lively debates, and address questions and doubts.

This year I have worked with graduate students at the University of California San Francisco to put on a local Veritas event. This past Wednesday night, a crowd gathered in a UCSF auditorium for a presentation by Ard Louis, Royal Society University Research Fellow and Reader in Theoretical Physics, Oxford University. His topic: "Science: A Finite Piece of an Infinite Truth."

Dr. Louis presented two opposing standpoints held by distinguished members of the scientific community regarding the limits of science. Oxford Chemist, Peter Atkins argues: "There is no reason to expect that science cannot deal with any aspect of existence." On the flip side, Sir Peter Medawar observes: "That there is indeed a limit upon science is made very likely by the existence of questions that science cannot answer and that no conceivable advance of science would empower it to answer."

Louis' take is that the scientific tool chest does have limits when it comes to obtaining reliable knowledge about life and the world, and that acknowledging these limits is not a sign of weakness for science. Sir Peter Medewar agrees, arguing that, "Science is a great and glorious enterprise - the most successful, I argue, that human beings have ever engaged in. To reproach it for its inability to answer all the questions we should like to put to it is no more sensible than to reproach a railway locomotive for not flying or, in general, not performing any other operation for which it was not designed." 

There are limits to what science can explain, regardless of how ambitious its goals, because of the inherent limitation of language, scientific tools, and human experience. As a newlywed, Louis offered the relevant case of marriage as a case in point. Materially speaking, he observed, you may know the physical composition of a potential mate very well (say enough phosphorous for 2,000 matches, enough chlorine to disinfect a swimming pool, and enough fat to make anywhere from 0.1 to 10 bars of soap). To say that a loved one is "nothing but" this compilation of ingredients is to miss the essence of the person altogether. There is a different category of essential information, and at some point an informed step of faith, necessary to make the decision to marry this person.  After he did his "due diligence", at some point he had to venture into the unknown and trust, or lose the opportunity of a lifetime.

As much as you may know about marriage and your prospective partner, there is no way to comprehend what it means to be married to them without taking the step into marriage. Louis noted that a similar principle applies as we investigate faith. We can learn about God through theology and the world, yet we must take the step and open ourselves up to God before we can truly know Him.

Science, likewise limited by human experience, must venture into the unknown and trust when it is not certain. Louis points out that science is much less certain of itself than it appears to be.  Science assumes that the universe is uniform, rational, and intelligible, but it does not know this with certainty.  Take uniformity.  Science has no proof that its laws apply equally everywhere in the universe.  How could it?  Scientists have not been everywhere in the universe to perform the experiments necessary to confirm uniformity.  It is simply science's best-case assessment that it is true and it proceeds with reasoned faith that uniformity is consistent throughout the universe. 

The Faraday Institute:
Our same Dr. Louis serves as an associate at the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, created to reach the public with accurate, accessible information on science and religion.  The Institute is named after the 19th century Christian British scientist Michael Faraday, whose work made electricity useful in technology.  Albert Einstein kept a photograph of Faraday on his study wall alongside pictures of Isaac Newton and James Maxwell.

Faraday was known in Victorian England for his infectiously enthusiastic science lectures, which established rapport with non-specialist audiences. While Faraday rarely alluded to religion during public addresses, his message of faith was built into the sense of wonder that he set out to evoke by revealing remarkable properties of God's world.

As Faraday argued in a memorandum (1844) on the nature of matter: 'God has been pleased to work in his material creation by laws' and 'the Creator governs his material works by definite laws resulting from the forces impressed on matter. The laws of nature, as we understand them, are the foundations of our knowledge of natural things', he told the audience at one of his lectures.

Continuing Faraday's legacy, today's institute publishes expert perspectives and provides short-term courses, seminars, and lectures meant to reach the media and public.

BioLogos:
I had the chance to hear about BioLogos firsthand as founder Francis Collins introduced the enterprise to a group of young Christian graduates, professionals, and cultural leaders at the Trinity Forum Academy's winter conference last year. As the former head of the Human Genome Project and the current director of the United States National Institute of Health, Collins speaks with the highest credibility to the truly complementary relationship between science and faith.

Collins created the BioLogos Foundation in order to promote the search for truth in both the natural and spiritual realms, and seeks to harmonize these different perspectives. Since its inception, the BioLogos team has compiled the most essential, common, and challenging questions that expose the crux of the relationship between science and faith, and posted these questions along with thoughtful, informed responses on their website. With its interactive model, BioLogos distills detailed, expert insight into an engaging, comprehensible resource. Once again, Ard Louis stands among the ranks of distinguished contributors to BioLogos, speaking to topics such as the interpretation of Genesis, Intelligent Design, and Irreducible Complexity.

Students, parents, and all thinkers alike have their work cut out to sort through prejudices, confusion, and distraction to formulate a thoughtful and informed worldview that includes the best of Biblical and scientific scholarship. The good news is that stellar resources are available. Get to know the experts who want to equip you for the expedition.  Most importantly, don't be afraid to share what you are learning with those around you.

Responses to: Hayek's Road to Serfdom

Enjoy reading your thoughts. Some I agree with, some not. That's probably as it should be. Seems to me that you're a bit hysterical about this 'socialist' thing. I can't recall ever hearing a 'socialist' argue that their aim is to relieve individuals from responsibility. As an example, I'd say the argument goes more like this : We Canadians, sell a bunch of OUR OIL, the peoples oil, to the U.S. Our resources belong to the citizens of Canada. We get a bunch of money for this. We decide in Canada that rather than just letting the companies, their shareholders, and their employees keep this money, we'll use some of it to provide free health care for every Canadian, the people who owned the oil in the first place. Not sure how this relieves responsibility, not makes our state a totalitarian one. We also use some of this money to build highways and schools. Participatory and cooperative society is not a black and white ( poor metaphor ? ) issue. Moving from a Libertarian to a Totalitarian government is not one of qualitative difference, but one of degree. Few would argue for either extreme I'd think. Real questions of how we live together are difficult. Somehow we need to find a way to balance personal freedom and responsibility with rightful restrictions on behaviour ( say murder ), and in the mix also find a way of protecting the weak or vulnerable from exploitation by the more powerful. I find it curious that Hayek would argue that just the "gullible and least educated" can find agreement on social policy that disagrees with his. Respectfully, - Darryl Klassen Langley B.C.

Could the author possibly heap any more evils on the term socialism? In his writing socialism is the devil and no one should even speak of it. The article is wrong in that it is inaccurate about socialism and it is wrong for your normal tone of intelligent discussion. - Harry James