Should science play a role in theology?
-
Goal The goal is to analyze scientific theories and determine if they should play a role in theology e.g. The Quran.
Approach Understand from existing literature the relevant classical and modern physics theories/models and decide if they provide added value in understanding the Quran. Philosophical points of views are utilized in analyzing these scientific theories.
This document is organized in five sections definition, facts, conclusion, future action and reference.
DEFINITION
Phenomenon stands for any observable natural event. Phenomena make up the raw data of science. Scientist tries to formulate a closed form equation that accurately describes the phenomenon without distributing the phenomenon. The phenomenon is behaving in accordance with The God?s law. Scientist accepts the phenomenon as the truth but may not believe that it is from The God. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT SCIENTIEST ARE NOT VALIDATING THE TRUTH (Phenomenon); RATHER THEY ARE TRYING TO VALIDATE THE MODEL/EQUATION WHICH THEY PRODUCED AGAINST THE TRUTH.
Science draws conclusions about the way the world is and the way in which scientific theory relates to the world. Science draws upon evidence from experimentation, logical deduction, and rational thought in order to examine the world and the individuals that exist within society. Science in general is neither natural nor moral science .
Physics ("knowledge of nature" is the science concerned with the discovery and understanding of the fundamental laws which govern matter, energy, space, and time.
A logical argument is sometimes described as rational if it is logically valid . However, rationality is a much broader term than logic, as it includes "uncertain but sensible" arguments based on probability, expectation, personal experience and the like, whereas logic deals principally with provable facts and demonstrably valid relations between them. For example, ad hominem arguments are logically unsound, but in many cases they may be rational. A simple philosophical definition of rationality refers to one's use of a "practical syllogism". For example,
I am cold
If I close the window I will not be cold
Therefore, I closed the windowIndeterminacy of theory under empirical testing According to the Duhem?Quine thesis, after Pierre Duhem and W.V. Quine, any theory can be made compatible with any empirical observation by the addition of suitable ad hoc hypotheses. This is analogous to the way in which an infinite number of curves can be drawn through any finite set of data points on a graph.
This thesis was accepted by Karl Popper, leading him to reject na?ve falsification in favour of 'survival of the fittest', or most falsifiable, of scientific theories. In Popper's view, any hypothesis that does not make testable predictions is simply not science. Such a hypothesis may be useful or valuable, but it cannot be said to be science. Confirmation holism, developed by W.V. Quine, states that empirical data are not sufficient to make a judgement between theories. In this view, a theory can always be made to fit with the available empirical data. However, that empirical evidence does not serve to determine between alternative theories does not necessarily imply that all theories are of equal value, as scientists often use guiding principles such as Occam's Razor.
One result of this is that specialists in the philosophy of science stress the requirement that observations made for the purposes of science be restricted to intersubjective objects. That is, science is restricted to those areas where there is general agreement on the nature of the observations involved. It is comparatively easy to agree on observations of physical phenomena, harder for them to agree on observations of social or mental phenomena, and difficult in the extreme to reach agreement on matters of theology or ethics.
FACTSA scientific theory does not take into account the social, moral or mental phenomena. This is a big void. Scientist primarily deals with physical phenomenon. Now let?s examine how good they are at formulating physical phenomenon (limited scope)
- Newton?s law was prevalent from 1687 to early twentieth century. Then flaws began to appear as scientists began dabbling with quantum physics and the like.
It seems logical that mass is conserved...mass can neither be created nor destroyed. But alas, that is not the whole truth; mass can be created or destroyed, but with a string attached. Everyone knows of Einstein and his famous equation E = mc2, where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light. So the equation tells us that mass can be described in terms of energy and that mass and energy are not independent entities. But in fact their conservation are intertwined into one. So mass can be created or destroyed if equivalent energy is created or destroyed e.g. destroying small amount of mass creates nuclear energy.
Newton simply thought that gravity was another force and that two masses have some mysterious force pulling them together. Einstein thought otherwise; he believed that mass curves the space around it and because of this curvature in space, objects are "attracted" to each other. Think of space as a pool table that the pocket holes are large objects. As the objects approach large objects (pocket holes), they are sunk in to them. While it has been proven that mass curves space, some scientists now believe that Newton might have been right also. Many scientists have theorized that there are quantum particles that move to and from objects thus attracting the objects together.
There are many other cases where classical physics fail. However, classical physics is still valuable in making realistic but not perfect models.
The most powerful statements in science are those with the widest applicability. Newton's Third Law ? "for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction" ? is a powerful statement because it applies to every action, anywhere, and at any time.
But it is not possible for scientists to have tested every incidence of an action, and found a reaction. How is it, then, that they can assert that the Third Law is in some sense true? They have, of course, tested many, many actions, and in each one have been able to find the corresponding reaction. But can we be sure that the next time we test the Third Law, it will be found to hold true?One solution to this problem is to rely on the notion of induction. Inductive reasoning maintains that if a situation holds in all observed cases, then the situation holds in all cases. So, after completing a series of experiments that support the Third Law, one is justified in maintaining that the Law holds in all cases.
Explaining why induction commonly works has been somewhat problematic. One cannot use deduction, the usual process of moving logically from premise to conclusion, because there is simply no syllogism that will allow such a move. No matter how many times 17th Century biologists observed white swans, and in how many different locations, there is no deductive path that can lead them to the conclusion that all swans are white. This is just as well, since, as it turned out, that conclusion would have been wrong. Similarly, it is at least possible that an observation will be done tomorrow that shows an occasion in which an action is not accompanied by a reaction; the same is true of any scientific law. Therefore, a formula validated using inductive reasoning is not logically sound.
One answer has been to conceive of a different form of rational argument, one that does not rely on deduction. Deduction allows one to formulate a specific truth from a general truth all crows are black; this is a crow; therefore this is black. Induction somehow allows one to formulate a general truth from some series of specific observations this is a crow and it is black; that is a crow and it is black; therefore all crows are black.
The problem of induction is one of considerable debate and importance in the philosophy of science is induction indeed justified, and if so, how?
2. Particle Physics teches us that the properties of matter are based on substructure called molecules and atoms. Atoms in turn have the substructure of a nucleus with orbiting electrons, the interaction of which explain atomic properties. Protons and neutrons, the interactions of which explain the stability and abundance of elements, form the substructure of nuclei. Protons and neutrons themselves are not fundamental ? they are composed of quark. Like electrons and a few other particles, quarks may be the fundamental building blocks of all there is, lacking any further substructure. But the story is not complete, because quark and electrons may have substructure smaller than details presently obserable- Einstein discovered that the cosmos as his theory described it would be unstable, prone to collapse under its own gravity. Astronomers, however, were sure that the universe was stable. So Einstein added a fudge factor that he called the cosmological constant to his equations. It acted as a long-range repulsive force to counterbalance gravity .
In 1929, the astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding. The sky was full of distant galaxies all rushing away from us and one another, as if propelled by what the British astronomer Dr. Fred Hoyle later called derisively a "big bang." The universe was not stable and, thus, did not require counterbalancing. Einstein abandoned his constant, referring to it as his biggest blunder. But it would return to haunt cosmologists, and the universe.
In 1998, two competing teams of astronomers startled the scientific world with the news that the expansion of the universe seemed to be speeding up under the influence of a mysterious antigravity that seems embedded in space itself and that is hauntingly reminiscent of Einstein's old, presumably discredited, cosmological constant. "Dark energy" the phenomenon was quickly named.
These two teams employed far-flung networks of telescopes, including the Hubble, and the Internet to find and monitor certain exploding stars, or supernovas, as cosmic beacons. Such explosions, the death rattles of massive stars, are powerful enough to be seen clear across the universe when the universe was younger and, presumably, expanding faster. Leapfrogging each other across the universe, the two teams arrived at the same answer at the same time the cosmos was not slowing at all; it was speeding up?The results have sent Einstein's old cosmological constant to the forefront of cosmology.
What is dark energy? The question now hangs over the universe.
Is it really Einstein's old fudge factor returned to haunt his children? In that case, as the universe expands and the volume of space increases, astronomers say, the push because of dark energy will also increase, accelerating the galaxies away from one another faster and faster, leading to a dire dark future.
"If we had a theory, then we would know whether there were many big bangs or one," Dr. Rees said. The answers to these and other questions, many scientists suspect, have to await the final unification of physics, a theory that reconciles Einstein's relativity, which describes the shape of the universe, to the quantum chaos that lives inside it. Such a theory, quantum gravity, is needed to describe the first few moments of the universe, when it was so small that even space and time should become fuzzy and discontinuous.
For two decades, many physicists have placed their bets for quantum gravity on string theory, which posits that elementary particles are tiny strings vibrating in a 10- or 11-dimensional space. Each kind of particle, in a sense, corresponds to a different note on the string.
In principle, string theory can explain all the forces of nature. But even its adherents concede that their equations are just approximations to an unknown theory that they call M-theory, with "M" standing for matrix, magic, mystery or even mother, as in "mother of all theories." Moreover, the effects of "stringy physics" are only evident at energies forever beyond the limits of particle accelerators. - The principle of uncertainty , first mathematically expressed by Heisenberg in 1927, declared that precisely the kind of information which was assumed by classical physics as the prerequisite to exact prediction?i.e., the simultaneous knowledge of position and velocity ?was impossible of attainment in microphysics. The relationship of the two variables is such that the more accurately we measure the one the less accurately are we able to define the other?
The fact is that we cannot observe the course of nature without disturbing it?
It turned out, to put it simply, that the measuring instruments of microphysics themselves exert a distinct influence upon that which they seek to measure, thus rendering its behavior in one or another respect unpredictable. The very attempt to observe a particle ?knocks it off its course,? and the more accurately we pin down its position, for example, the more unsure we are of the degree to which we have affected its momentum. Among atomic physicists, in short, there are no innocent bystanders; the act of observation is at the same time unavoidably an act of participation. As Andrade has succinctly put it ?Observation means interference with what we are observing. Observation disturbs reality.??
Since the state of a particle is defined by its position and velocity together, we can never know exactly what that state is; consequently, we can never decide whether a given initial state determines subsequent states, and therefore the existence of rigorous causal connections and laws cannot be tested at all. In short, we can never be certain of the future because we are never in fact quite sure of the present. Therefore, the uncertainty principle denies accurate prediction of future behavior of any subatomic particles.
Einstein tried to discredit the uncertainty principle (delta energy and delta time relationship) by saying that it is limited to instrumental error only but was unsuccessful. Uncertainty in energy gives rise to the stability of conservation of energy law.
Ernst Mach is the physicist famous for his work in supersonics, and from whom the idea of a mach-number was derived (mach 1 being the speed of sound, mach 2, twice the speed of sound, and so forth). But Mach was also known to argue that the only way to explain the phenomenon of inertia was to assume that all of the masses in the universe were somehow connected. Albert Einstein later identified this argument as Mach?s Principle.
Mach?s Principle assumes , among other things, that ?a particle?s inertia is due to some (unfortunately unspecified) interaction of that particle with all the other masses in the universe; the local standards of nonacceleration are determined by some average of the motions of all the masses in the universe, all that matters in mechanics is the relative motion of all the masses.? Furthermore, ?Mach?s Principle actually implies that not only gravity but all physics should be formulated without reference to preferred inertial frames. It advocates nothing less than the total relativity of physics. As a result, it even implies interactions between inertia and electromagnetism.?
Mach?s Principle can be viewed as an entire universe being altered by changes in a single particle -- much in the same manner as hurricanes and tornadoes occurring in Florida because of an El Nino weather pattern in the Pacific Ocean, or perhaps more aptly, the flapping of a butterfly?s wings in Peru causing rains in Kansas.
Action at a Distance
The means by which such ?actions-at-a-distance? can be interconnected (whether through the exchange of elementary particles, or some ?unfortunately unspecified? means) has a long history in physics. In the Newtonian point of view, the equations of motion were based on an inertial frame of the ?fixed stars?. But inasmuch as relativity -- the uniform motion of one inertial frame relative to another -- cannot be detected by internal mechanical experiments subject to Newton?s theory, Newton postulated the existence of Absolute Space.
Newton?s Absolute Space had many critics, from his near-contemporaries to those in modern times. Currently, the arguments against Newton?s concept of Absolute Space include ?It conflicts with one?s scientific understanding to conceive of a thing which acts but cannot be acted upon. The words are Einstein?s, but he attributes the thought to Mach. In any case, this is perhaps the most powerful objection of all.? At the same time, ?it is clear that Einstein was led to General Relativity primarily by his philosophic desire to abolish totally the role of absolute space from physics.? Mach?s Principle is thus an argument for relativity and against any idea of an Absolute Space.
D. W. Sciama in 1959 revived and extended a Maxwell-style gravitational theory of F. Tisserand and found that it encompasses Mach?s Principle, in effect saying that the inertial forces correspond to the universal gravitational radiation field and are proportional to the inverse first power of the distance.
Maxwell?s ether might have provided an alternative answer to the objections to Absolute Space. In Maxwell?s theory we have a constant c with the dimensions of a speed and which was originally defined as a ratio between electrostatic and electrodynamic units of charge. But the theory also included the existence of electromagnetic waves, where the speed of propagation of disturbances in the electromagnetic field in a vacuum was this same constant. The fact that c coincided precisely with the known vacuum speed of light, led Maxwell to conjecture that light must be an electromagnetic wave phenomena.
Maxwell?s idea of?luminiferous ether? was initiated to solve the problem that in electromagnetic theory one could apparently never alter the speed of light relative to itself no matter how one attempted to keep pace with a light wave. Because such behavior was totally absurd from the point of view of classical kinematics, it became necessary for the assumptions of length contraction and time dilation (Lorentz). Einstein then added his relativity principle which asserted that ?all inertial frames are totally equivalent for the performance of all physical experiments.? As a generalization to the whole of physics of Newton?s purely mechanical relativity principle. Einstein declared Maxwell?s ether unobservable, and thus abolished the ether forever.
Nevertheless, inertial frames seem quite real. In the case, for example, of two elastic spheres suspended on a common axis -- where one rotates and bulges while the other is at rest and undeformed -- it is not clear how the spheres ?know? which of them rotates and which therefore must bulge. ?Mach would have answered that the bulging sphere ?felt? the action of the cosmic masses rotating around it. To Newton, rotation with respect to Absolute Space produces centrifugal (inertial) forces, which are quite distinct from gravitational forces; to Mach, centrifugal forces are gravitational, i.e. caused by the action of mass upon mass.?
Rindler goes on to state ?Spacetime fully determines all free motions (i.e. motions under inertia and gravity); the question is whether the matter distribution, in turn, fully determines spacetime.? If we think of spacetime as both acting on mass (as a guiding field) and being acted upon by mass (i.e. suffering curvature), then we can counter the original argument against Newton?s Absolute Space as being something acting but unable to be acted upon. ?Today?s quantum theoreticians (as well as many others) have little sympathy with Mach?s Principle. They point out that not only matter is the stuff of physics, but also fields, and that the whole of spacetime is occupied by the fields of the elementary particles.?
But what if ?fields? are just the connecting links between matter? Do they make Mach?s Principle any less valid in that guise? ?Even in the absence of matter, the fields of the virtual particles constitute an all-pervasive background which can in no way be eliminated. In fact, matter is only a small perturbation of it. This background, which possesses Lorentz invariance locally, can be looked upon as a modern ether. Since it possesses no net energy it makes no contribution to curvature, and hence it has no direct effect in general relativity. But it does suggest the a priori existence of spacetime, which matter merely modifies and does not create. According to Rindler, this says that ?the fields of virtual particles constitute? ?a modern ether?!
Ultimately, we are left with the idea that Mach?s Principle implies that the whole universe matters locally. This is thus in accord with Consciousness as the key element in Mind-Matter interactions, and that it is more related to David Bohm?s ?implicate order? than mere matter. - If scientists were able to model the truth perfectly then there would be no accident such as Space shuttle accident. They call it human error instead of their lack of understanding of the phenomenon. The same is true of medicine which kills some and cures others
Contrary to the deficiency exhibited by human being in formulating a simple physical phenomenon, the author of the Quran provides succinct and coherent description of how He created the universe and everything in it. Be He Glorified.
CONCLUSION
The answer to the question should science play a role in theology is NO. The reasons are
- The fallibility of scientist (human) as demonstrated in the FACT section of this paper (invalidating equations, flip-flop constant in equation, etc.)
- Inability of science to account for the social and moral behavior or the role of life in cosmos
- Diverse opinion of physicists about a particular theory
Science should be viewed as another profession e.g. farmer. Just like farmer, scientific inventions provide enormous benefit to mankind.
FUTURE ACTION
A final conclusion will be provided after ample discussion by this forum. Members are encouraged to provide assessment, valuable input, corrections, and comments
REFERENCE
Philosophy of science @ http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
Rationality @ http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality
College Physics by Paul Peter Urone
Overbye, Dennis ?The current state of cosmology ? a summary? New York Times, July 23, 2002 ? big bang, inflation, dark matter and dark energy. Where will all end?
Matson, Floyd W. The Broken Image, George Braziler, New York 1964 ? Uncertainty the eclipse of mechanical determinism
Mach's Principle @ http//www.halexandria.org/dward146.htm -
Peace be upon you,
Science is a word that means "to know"..It describes the process of "knowing that you know".
Simply put, God has given us LAWS that we must verify and follow, we are not here to guess are way through life with blind belief. The God tells us to require PROOF for what people say and tells us that we have been given eyes , ears, and all of the tools in which to think scientifically which we are responsible for. Lastly, we are told not to go after that which we have no knowledge(science) of.
There is no disconnecting science from "religion".
-
Salam.
Science should play a role in Islam, because many scientists has already accepted Islam.
AlhamdilAllah.
Peace.
Peace what are you talking about your way off the topic?
what does scientists accepting islam have to do with shoudl science play a role?
science does play a role it is the mechanism in which always us to verify or quantify those things reveeled in the scripture to verify and prove to stand as witness that yes indeed this is a fact or indeed this is unverifiable..
just liek evolution
science proves it existed
well the quran says what that God said to satan that after i have "evolved" man and blow into my Spirit then you shall serve/bow to him
and he refused since of what we were made frombut the point is that science validates the quran and also invalidates lies
at one point science thought the earth was flat
we know have evidence to prove that is wrong
science plays a key and crucial role in our lives
Amanda
-
I agree with guest's conclusion that science should play no role in theology. Although, modern theology may have to reconsider some of its assumptions that have been proved incorrect by science if it wants to be respectable.
-
Peace idolfree1, you say ??..require PROOF for what people say?? Scientists are people and therefore the theories they present must be verified to be truth. Have you verified the theories you are relying on? Are they 100% accurate? Or do they not have uncertainty? You will find that no scientific models are 100% accurate. It took about two century to invalidate Newton?s model. Now, the question is how long it will take to invalidate Einstein?s theory. One cannot rely on uncertain models to derive theological conclusion. Don?t forget that all human are fallible. How did Prophet Muhammad?s companions validate the Quran? Do you think they utilized blind belief?
Peace Amanda, ?? science validates the quran and also invalidates lies? I would be very much interested in obtaining the scientific model you are using to validate the Quran and lies. In essence you are saying that the model validate (predicts) the existence of The God and nullify atheist view of no God. I am assuming when you input to the model the Old or New Testament the output is a lie. Likewise when you input Quran the output is true. The only decision making product I am aware of is based on mini max theory (artificial intelligence) which is based on heuristic (meaning it give right and wrong answer).
Peace Alen, you question was answered by Amenda. Thanks.
-
Peace Guest,
Super article. Thanks for sharing.
My view is that science, as an entity, and theology, as an entity, are miles apart. However, I do feel that the methods and philosphy of science should be used in one's approach to their theology. I don't mean theology in a scholastic sense, but in their understanding of their own religion.I agree with your comment to idolfree regarding verification. We cannot verify with complete satisfaction any law in science. But I would point to your description of the differences between logic and rationale
A logical argument is sometimes described as rational if it is logically valid . However, rationality is a much broader term than logic, as it includes "uncertain but sensible" arguments based on probability, expectation, personal experience and the like, whereas logic deals principally with provable facts and demonstrably valid relations between them
I'm an advocate of the idea that we did not create logic, but discovered it. Thus, we have been given the tools and ambition to evolve our understandings. And where logic fails due to unavailability of provable facts and demonstrably valid relations between them, rationale can pick up where logic left off. To abandon these tools is akin to turning off the lights when looking for your keys.
Looking forward to your final conclusion.
Peace,
Tay -
peace,
i am in the position, the same position as the beholder who sees schrodinger's cat being alive and dead at the same time. confused what i am saying is, every one is correct for their own view on both religion and science. why do i say this? what i said, does it make sense? maybe, maybe not. andya primanda said science should be seperate from religion because he cannot compromise on the quranic view of evolution and the real-scientific view. idolfree is tackling this issue from the cosmological perspective! there is more to discover about cosmology, the quantum theory and the quran hopefully in the near future.
and, about logic, i completely agreee with tay, whereupon Newtonian mechanics works on everywhere in "our Universe"(or at least that's what we know for now), but the quantum theory inside an atom or beyond newtonian laws just don't work.
Modern Science is a collective proof of all the philosophical thinking mankind has pursued throughout history. certain individuals like, Newton, Einstein, and others has been able to put those philosophies toi natural application and derive proofs for their observation. science is a tool which goes beyond intuition, beyond our limit to understand what reality is! that is why i agree with andya primanda to some extent we should keep science away from religion based on verifing and seeking knowledge based on our "proofs". but from the cosmological perspective, i say, a better understanding of the human heart and the quran, the human phychology and its imlplications in quantum theory should benefit both science and religion.
peace, Rifat