[Phys-L] Re: god friendly science

[John M Clement <clement@HAL-PC.ORG>]

The belief or disbelief of scientists stems from personal convictions
and in no way can be proven or disproven by the methods of science.
 So I think that scientists need to understand this basic concept.
 But on the other side, the "fundamentalists" need to understand that
the methods of science are not about finding ultimate causes, but
about building models based solely on physical evidence.  Part of this
involves speculation and asking what if questions.

In other words they need to understand that unless there is actual
physical evidence of Noah's Ark, science can not confirm its existence
by its methods.  In addition science will always seek to find if any
proposed evidence, like a piece of the ark, can be verified by
scientific methods.  They need to get to the point of the Roman church
at the time of Galileo which allowed Copernican ideas as an hypothesis
which made the mathematics simpler, but not as a belief.  In other
words things like cosmology and evolution need to be accepted by them
as models which conforms to the evidence, but which they are free to
personally reject.  But scientists also need to be willing to allow
personal rejection of ideas that others find personally repugnant.

They also have to understand that science does not admit supernatural
explanations, because it is dedicated to the idea that testable models
can be created by us to help us "understand" nature.  This would
include excluding explaining phenomena by alternate untestable models
when there is a perfectly good well tested model.  For example I have
seen attempts to explain some well known phenomena by allowing
particles to interchange between our universe and another invisible
one.  This would also not be an allowed model unless it makes
different verified predictions from standard models.

Physicists. and biologists... should have a little more humility and
recognize that religion is not their field of expertise and that they
may not have the corner on the truth.  A very good example of this is
that people in physics are often easily fooled by charlatans.
 Investigations of paranormal phenomena need to have both a good
scientist and a magician on board.  The magician knows all of the
tricks and can spot fakery.

The other problem is that the "fundamentalists" want their religious
point of view taught in public schools.  Discussion of their point of
view can certainly be allowed in the context of history, or even a
comparative religion course, but not as "truth" delivered in a science
class.  There really can be no negotiation on this because of the
presence of non fundamentalists in class and constitutional
restrictions.  This is actually where the discussion started.  If they
are so adamant about this, then they should put up the money and have
their own private school system much as Catholics have their's.  In
some cases this has happened.  Bob Jones University is an example of
this type of thing, and in Houston there are a few fundamentalist
schools.  All of the top ranked schools are not of this type.

In either case, at present, this is moot because the courts have very
consistently prevented the teaching of a particuar sectarian point of
view or the distribution of sectarian literature in public schools.
 But they would allow a distribution of a wide variety of sectartian
literature as part of a history project.  Incidentally NY State
accomodated religion by allowing students to get religious instruction
during school hours.  The students were given release time during
lunch and the instruction happened somewhere else.  The most
outrageous case was in Santa Fe, TX where the Gideons were blocked
from setting up tables in public schools, and prayers at games by
"elected" students were also forbidden.  The plaintiffs in the case
were were both from disparate Christian churches who felt that their
rights were being violated, and as a result they were subject to
violence.  There used to be a TX Monthly article on the web about this
incident.  And, yes, I know many think the courts can change.  But the
absolute separation of chuch and state is the only way a fight between
two religious groups can be decided, so I doubt the courts will
change.

Actually Kansas has the right to have an inferior school system if
they wish.  Unfortunately it is a minority that is doing it, and the
majority suffers.  They do not have the right to force one particular
sectarian view on either the majority or a minority.

Incidentally the fundamentalists should be much more afraid of
biologists than physicists.  Einstein, while he was not overtly
religious, showed great tolerance and used references to God.  I have
read much more opposition to religion from biologists than from
phsicists.  But biologists do not inspire the awe that people have for
physicists.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


> > Have we been getting this message across to our students and to the
> > fundamentalists?  If fundamentalists claim our teaching of
> > evolution is
> > akin to preaching atheism, are we vigorously claiming that we are
> > implying no such thing?
>
> But we are denying the existence of THEIR god, which is just about
> as bad.
>
> What I have taken from this thread is that there is (although we try
> and talk nicely around it) a division in the ranks of scientists.
> The theology of scientists seems to span from the 'fundamentalist'
> end to the agressive atheist end of the spectrum.  The problem, it
> seems to me, is that most scientists would have some doubts about the
> scientific integrity of a colleague who held to a strict biblical
> interpretation of creation--somehow denying the scientific evidence
> to the contrary but then working along in say some other field
> supposedly using the methods of science there.  Now what about those
> who through their studies of nature and the use of scientific methods
> and 'rational' thought have come to the conclusion that god is a
> fairy tale--at least the gods of our human created religions.  Deep
> down, these people have to be somewhat skeptical of scientists,
> especially physicists, who have a strong faith in these 'fairy
> tales'.  Where do they draw the line between science and
> faith?  Likewise, for those of faith, how can they really trust
> those who deny the very existence of a central tenet of their lives,
> their god.
>
> All this makes the effort to present a unified front against the
> attacks against science difficult.
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l