Thanks to Jason Clark for this link to Test of Faith.
The site is another attempt to find that dangerous interface between science and faith. It is based around the thoughts of Scientists who are Christians.
I have mixed feelings about projects like this. I have spent some time in the past thinking about the whole creation/evolution thing (here for example) and more or less came to the conclusion that science asked different questions to those needed by people of faith- typically the scientific ‘how’ and the religious ‘why’.
I also worry that there is much BAD science that is being used by Christians to ‘prove’ the truth of their interpretation of the Bible. I find these dishonest and highly selective attempts to squeeze the world into a narrow set of prejudices repellent.
But then I am not a scientist, and never will be. I write poetry that celebrates mystery. Those with a different, more analytical and precise mind set will always need a different level of engagement with these issues.
This proposed set of resources and film seem to promise much…
Here is the trailer…
Vodpod videos no longer available.
this fragile tent 
mmmh you know my thoughts on this one… could it possibly be we have lost the knowledge that the veda’s have kept and that 2nd genesis is a different genetic pool.. there are some Zionists that definitively think so…
Pingback: ‘Test of Faith’ film and evolution… « this fragile tent
Dear Goan and all,
I am so greatly moved by the subject of science and faith. I have peered deeply into the fissures; there is so much that is wrong with people on both sides. As a scientist I investigate the wonders of G-d’s creation, with an open mind. As one who knows G-d (sorry I find the word faith difficult) the division between science and faith troubles me.
Both sides of the debate which shouldn’t be a debate are so often wrong together – it’s vaguely amusing. As most may be aware these institutions split around the time of Galileo. Yet still up until the time of Einstein it was not unfashionable to use the name “G-d” in the context of scientific discovery (e.g. “G-d does not play dice” – Einstein). Following Einstein’s departure from centre stage science found it convenient to adopt the territory of Dice replacing G-d. It sub-consciously realised that with dice you can do anything and replace any whimsical fairy like wishful-thinking like, hierarchically superior entity necessarily there for our creation.
G-d was reduced to less than a god-of-the-gaps, he was reduced to a transcendental god, whose role in the running of the universe was reduced to gaps in our knowledge of how the dice fall. Or the role of an original Creator, or at a push He controlled the falling of the dice, though this didn’t seem to play any noticeable part in the outcomes of scientific experiments.
So faith became one of a “Oh well they don’t know everything yet” on one side and science became one of a quest for the ultimate dice definition. The church encourages the split every time it accepts that dice are involved. Science constrains itself by blindly looking for an answer that can only have the word ‘dice’ in it and excluding any other possibility. Continued on their current path both sides will NEVER meet. It serves no ultimate purpose that christian scientists feed from the scraps of the dice-laiden table, the scientific ethos has to change and re-unite with the church. In other words it has to humble itself to the position where it (effectively) allows its equations to include the word “G-d” and remove (effectively) the word “dice”.
This of course is a fundamental change; science, as a discipline, accepting G-d. It will not come easily. You might even think I talk fancifully, but I don’t think so. I think I have seen a path that science could take, putting Einstein back centre-stage, throwing out the dice, preserving science’s objectivity, yet at the same time making G-d a creator and sustainer. It is a tall order I know!
A tall order indeed! And a course of action I wish you very joy within. My path has been different- to appreciate both (albeit as a non scientist, and a man whose faith is often weak) and have come to the view that faith and science ask complimentary but essentially different questions.
Cheers
Chris
Hi Chris,
Thanks you for your ear; I am honoured. You don’t have any other spare body parts lying around do you? On second thoughts…
I know it is immensely difficult for a non-scientist to grasp this. It is a subject which is hugely difficult for scientists. It tears at boundaries of the socialogical, philosophical, ethos, reputations, grants, history, even just the culture of scientists. With such pressures the change will not happen suddenly. Perhaps a generation will have to pass before a new one comes in and pulls the rug from under the table (you know, the one with the dice on!).
I fully understand your position (on faith and science addressing diff q’s); it would seem the only reasonable option available. But with all my being, my position is that this will one day change and science will be forced to admit that it’s best description (theory) to explain the universe actually includes G-d.
Of course you have no idea who I am and how I can possibly make such a claim when all the well-known physicists (even christian ones) have made no announcements of such a nature. I have no reputation, but perhaps that is my strength, I have nothing to lose (grant, reputation etc) by freely searching for the best possible scientific theory available. At first I thought it actually ruled out G-d, or at least made Him transcendant, but studying the equation more closely I found Him. As quite immanent and involved.
I love your work by the way.
Carl
Hi Carl- hmmmm.
So what you are suggesting is some objective scientific proof exists for God- or at very least, God is necessary as a scientific variable? And that this is demonstrable using scientific logic and reasoning? Did I get that right?
As you say though- I am not a scientist- although I do have a degree in social science (which is not very scientific as it tends to deal with messy humanity!) However, I had previously given up on the idea that you could ever ‘prove’ God, or that he is revealable by scientific blueprint. So the challenge I would have for you is to give me 100 or so words that open up something of where your thinking has taken you…
Cheers!
Chris
Chris,
don’t to this to me! Don’t take me seriously, I’ve been trying everywhere for someone to just listen, but finding an audience of scientists who want to hear about G-d, from just a graduate, isn’t easy. Or finding a group of theologians who can understand quantum physics is possibly even less likely.
So then poets! As a group I wouldn’t have even thought of them, but you’re the second to show a flicker of interest. Funny isn’t it?
I’m putting together a meaningful response to your question. In the meantime I would say that I’d heard this G-d unprovable claim from other theologians, but I never got an understanding of why they thought that. So I took up the challenge.
I’ll give you a considered reply soon, but it’ll be tricky being concise. Once I get onto the subject… . And thank you so much for taking an interest. (you know the other poet by the way, you met her very recently, her name begins with K, she showed me one of your beautiful books)
G-d bless
Carl
Chris,
There are inadequacies in the current understanding of things: How the four basic constant forces (gravity, strong force, weak force and electromagnetism) happen to be fine-tuned. How we need nine times as much dark matter/energy than detectable stuff to hold the universe together. The ‘fudge factor’ which is used to ignore the infinity of coulomb force on an electron. The paradoxes of wave/particle duality and Schrodinger’s cat. Something is fundamentally wrong here.
On the other hand Dr Milo Wolff’s (ex MIT Professor) equation explains the fine tuning, it needs no coulomb force fudge factor, or dark matter/energy. It explains wave/particle duality and the weirdness of the EPR experiment. Thus Schrodinger’s cat is quite dead I’m afraid! It explains red-shift by another mechanism, thus doing away with the big bang.
Milo’s theory is already being successfully used by some commercial companies. The evidence for its validity lies in the measurable characteristics of the universe. It has no need for statistical devices to explain quantum events.
Milo goes nowhere near the G-d angle. I appear to be the first. If you take his equation there is a little symbol which it requires in order to work properly. This symbol necessitates (at least) another dimension. This dimension would necessarily be hierarchically superior and outside of time. It necessarily contains energy, but that energy is (to get technical) not extended in space. Like a valve, there is also only one way that this energy can cross the boundary and that is towards us. Also, as energy crosses the boundary it becomes extended (i.e. makes 3D space as it comes in) So we have defined a hierarchically superior, outside of time, non spatially extended, source of energy (hence matter) as a necessity.
I have so many other arguments, I don’t know which one to use.
(mmm 300 words – sorry)
G-d bless
Carl
Oh and I’m also available for talks, presentations, book signings – you give the book, I’ll sign it!
Carl
Ah- I remember K mentioning you Carl! She said that you were the most intelligent person she had ever met.
I suspect however that we poets are not going to provide you with the intellectual engagement that you seek. We tend to be interested in quantum theory only for what it may say about the human spirit, not the technical interaction of theories of the type you mention.
Well done for trying to be succinct- but I confess to not knowing enough about the references you make to engage fully. Hopefully others will however.
As for the business of being able to prove God (what is it with the missing ‘o’ by the way?) I can only look to history- this was the project that the enlightenment apologists sought so hard to do- and despite bending the science into all sorts of contorted shapes, they failed. Each time they found a way of containing him within a theory, the theory fell down.
My contention is that it is not necessary- that the truth or otherwise of God is not to be found in science (although if God is God then science is part of God, who is the author of all things.)
I hope that you succeed however. I am not going to be able to put your theory to the test in any meaningful way, but I hope you will find a foil for your blade…
Thanks for your kind words about my writing…
Best wishes
C
Respect.
Too big a name to mention.
Hi Chris,
You give me a small door to prise open; “if G-d is G-d then science is part of G-d”. I think what I’m really saying is that I’ve seen a new science and because it’s so good it will one day become the science. On this day, all will accept the science and it will dribble down to become a part of our culture.
It’s just that along with this science comes a tiny little implication (or two). 1) That G-d exists, 2) That every conscious living human is an eternal being.
In effect I have seen the contents of the future culture of humanity. I haven’t, yet, worked out how to handle this extraordinary foreknowledge.
G-d bless
Carl