As Bishop for the Church of England in Europe I am privileged to visit many significant places. Last month I found myself in what were at first sight two very contrasting contexts. Early in June I was in Geneva and was taken to visit CERN, the European Particle Physics Laboratory, where a huge accelerator is under construction that will enable experiments to be conducted into fundamental particles, the sub-atomic world of energy at the heart of seemingly solid matter, and which can also provide us with understanding of the origins of the Universe. The great accelerator is being assembled from parts made across the world with a precision that enables them to fit perfectly and completely together ”“ an image of human communion and cooperation that is startling in a world which is so often divided. When lowered, again with wonderful precision, into the circular tunnel, several kilometres in diameter, this extraordinary machine will enable physicists to search for the Higgs particle ”“ a particle believed to exist but which has not yet definitively been shown to exist. So from beginning to end this experiment, and the huge cost of the equipment needed for it, is a work of faith.
This is pious nonsense of which we have already have too much. Is the accelerator an act of faith from beginning to end? Of course not. It is endless math and engineering which may turn out not to produced the results planned for. That they hope their calculations are correct, is that faith? Not in the sense the writer mens it, and he deliberately confuses the two definitions.
What will it take for Agnlicanism to wake up, to see that its very foundations are being corroded by science because science has consistently demonstrated that it can produce on its promises. It makes errors and sometimes disastrous one, but, day in and day out, it produces, it keeps its promises.
Religion can do not of the sort. Is there a heaven and will the good go there to live eternally? The faith that believes that does so on no solid evidence whatsoever. We are taking someone’s word for it and calling that good enough because we know that is all we are going to get. You couldn’t run science and techonology this way.
This essay is a smoke screen, a piece of spin, and this dishonesty will do us not good in either the long or the short run. Wemust set our minds to work on the interface between science and religion because this is where the Christian challenge is. If we cannot show that we can assimilate what science and technology say and do, we will die as
a living force. Larry
Mr. Morse, I take it you have never read Michael Polanyi. I suggest a short pamphlet (less than 110 pp including an introduction written by Polanyi 20 years later), “Science, Faith and Society.”
The point is that we are always “taking someone’s word for it.” In everything. What solid evidence do you or I have of the possible existence of the Higgs boson? If the mathematics were put in front of you (or me), could you authoritatively vouch for its validity? And yet we’re being asked to spend billions of dollars on the chance/reasonable inference that it might be there.
Likewise, we may go through life without ever personally seeing a miracle. Does that mean that we can’t ever trust those who say they have?
[blockquote]we’re being asked to spend billions of dollars on the chance/reasonable inference that it might be there.[/blockquote]
Sorry, I should have added the following:
And the Higgs boson has zero consequences for our lives or souls. (Of course knowledge is a good in itself. But how is it that science tells us that, eh?)
Begging your pardon, #2, but we are not “always taking someone’s word for it.” And that is my point. Science has said,” I can make refrigeration work.” And guess what? It has also said, :”If I pass electrons, which I cannot see,. through a resistant fiber in a vacuum, then photons will come out and you can read your Bible at night.” It has also said, “I can cure bubonic plague, and what’s more, I can give you a shot and you will never get it. And this goes for polio, diptheria and a mess of other diseases.” And they have said,” I cannot see subatomic particles, but I know what they do so I predict when I bring these two pieces of uranium together pretty hard, there will be a big explosion and this is why it will happen every time you do the same.” And so there was. I don’t have to take anyone’s word for it. I see the results every time I turn the lights on and I can reproduce the results. And they work, day in and day out. This isn’t an act of faith. Can you say the same of going to heaven?
This is not to belittle faith, but to place the challenge clearly, place it out in the open. If someone says to you, “You give me a thousand dollars and I will either (a) give you an electronic device that will do you income tax in seconds or (b)
give you some really special oatmeal that will guarantee that you get into heaven. But not both.”
Are you going to go with the oatmeal?
Science works and it has all the evidence it needs. Where is faith’s evidence that it works? To refuse to meet this challenge is to declare oneself a fit specimen for extinction. Am I arguing that Anglicanism should adapt itself to the prevailing mores, regardless of its core beliefs? No, #2, nothing of the sort, but I am saying that we have to come out fighting, and lawn sleeves don’t cut it in the ring. LM
Sure, Larry, science works. Sometimes. I take it you are not a scientist? See the last page of “Science, Faith and Society” for an excellent example of the fact that science doesn’t always work, and we don’t always bother to find out why.
Technology “always” works… otherwise it wouldn’t be technology. (It doesn’t [b]always[/b] work for [b]everyone[/b], but it’s often simple enough that even hamfisted klutzes can make things go right occasionally. I can wire a light circuit or assemble a computer; it just might not work as well as if a practiced professional did it.) Technology might just as well be incantational magic; it’s just that technology “works,” the other “doesn’t work.” Neither requires a deep understanding of what’s going on. And just like magic can be developed in the absence of any systematic theology, perfectly serviceable technology can be developed in the absence of any sort of scientific explanation.
Yes, I can mix a few simple ingredients together in a test tube and get a silvery Christmas ornament. Yes, I can flip a switch and the lights come on. But as for the microscopic explanations of what’s going on, how can we verify that? We can work through the same experiential sequences that were used to come up with the explanation, and argue through the same arguments, and it all begins very much to look like the development of doctrine and the teaching of systematic theology. DNA transcription into proteins is not called the central “dogma” of molecular biology for nothing.
We need to distinguish between the “magical” workings of technology and the scientific explanations of how it happens, which latter we pretty much take on faith. The reason faith doesn’t “work” in the technological sense you are talking about is that (to quote David Wilkerson) God is not a candy machine. And if He did work that way, I don’t think He’d be worth worshiping any more than we worship the electrons we’ve tamed to run our civilization.
Incidentally, we don’t have, and won’t have, “an electronic device that will do your income tax in seconds” any more than we have “really special oatmeal that will get you into heaven.” In both cases, a lot of work on the part of the user is required. Neither is magical in the sense that flipping a light switch is.
P.S. Your second example is not a good one; there are no indisputable reports back from heaven. On the other hand, there is no guarantee that TurboTax will get your taxes right, either…