The soul of science

Here is a draft of my review of the book Mind, Brain and the Elusive Soul: Human Systems of Cognitive Science and Religion, by Mark Graves.

The review is for the journal Science and Christian Belief.

I welcome any comments.

Great Bible video clips for adults (and kids)

At church on Sunday, one of our ministers Dave Pitt gave a nice overview of the Bible, for both kids and adults, using lots of fun visual illustrations, including clips from Jelly Telly. Here is a fun one on the Book of Samuel.

Scientific gobbledygook

I am working on my review of the book Mind, Brain and the Elusive Soul: Human Systems of Cognitive Science and Religion, by Mark Graves.

The review is for the journal Science and Christian Belief

The question the book addresses is, “How do contemporary investigations in cognitive and brain science, pragmatic philosophy, and emergent systems theory impact upon a theological understanding of soul and spirit?” (p. 207).

So what are cognitive science and "emergent systems theory"? The Wikipedia entries on Cognitive science and Systems theory give a good introduction and overview to these enterprises. To me, cognitive science is a legitimate and exciting enterprise involving multiple academic disciplines. It is populated by many leading researchers from a range of disciplines and has made important contributions to our understanding of how the brain works and functions (and does not function at times).

However, in distinct contrast "emergent systems theory" seems to be a "theory of everything" that is "going to change the world." It is promoted by people such as Ervin Laszlo who do not hold regular academic positions and argue for highly speculative positions that are well outside the scientific mainstream. Wikipedia states that Lazlo's 2004 book:

Science and the Akashic Field: An Integral Theory of Everything posits a field of information as the substance of the cosmos. Using the Sanskrit and Vedic term for "space", Akasha, he calls this information field the "Akashic field" or "A-field". He posits that the "quantum vacuum" (see Vacuum state) is the fundamental energy and information-carrying field that informs not just the current universe, but all universes past and present (collectively, the "Metaverse").

László describes how such an informational field can explain why our universe appears to be fine-tuned as to form galaxies and conscious lifeforms; and why evolution is an informed, not random, process. He believes that the hypothesis solves several problems that emerge from quantum physics, especially nonlocality and quantum entanglement.

I regret to say that this is just scientific "gobbledygook". It claims connections and research results that are not valid.

Science requires faith

A little over 2 years ago Paul Davies wrote an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times, Taking Science on Faith, which produced quite a strong negative reaction from some of my fellow theoretical physicists. Here are a few quotes from Davies article:

science has its own faith-based belief system. All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way....

The most refined expression of the rational intelligibility of the cosmos is found in the laws of physics, the fundamental rules on which nature runs..... But where do these laws come from? And why do they have the form that they do?

....to be a scientist, you had to have faith that the universe is governed by dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified origin.....

Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith — namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too. For that reason, both monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of physical existence....

This shared failing is no surprise, because the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way....

....until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.

Overall I agree with Davies and I think the criticisms of his article are not justified. His response makes interesting reading.

Two scholars asks hard questions

RJS (a Chemistry professor) has a thoughtful post A Mind for Truth? concerning a recent controversy about an interview of the distinguished Old Testament scholar, Bruce Waltke, that was posted on the Biologos website. The Biologos review of the history of the controversy is here.

The angry young man boldly corrects his elders

Why do we suffer? Why do the "innocent" suffer?
Why don't the wicked get what they deserve?

Is there justice in God's world?

Job experienced great suffering. His friends had a simple answer. It was because Job had sinned and needed to repent. They claimed there was a simple equation, "The righteous prosper. The unrighteous suffer." The "friends" lectured Job at great length. But, Job claimed his integrity.

The painting is Job and His Friends by Ilya Yefimovich-Repin 1869. I found it here.

In Chapter 32 of Job, a new character enters the conversation.

¹So these three men ceased to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes. ²Then Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, burned with anger. He burned with anger at Job because he justified himself rather than God. ³He burned with anger also at Job’s three friends because they had found no answer, although they had declared Job to be in the wrong.⁴Now Elihu had waited to speak to Job because they were older than he. ⁵And when Elihu saw that there was no answer in the mouth of these three men, he burned with anger.

Why was he so angry? Was he scared that the questions did not have the simple answers he clung to.

Do I need a map to get anywhere?

C.S. Lewis is certainly a master at using analogies to explain theology. I found the discussion below from Mere Christianity helpful. It is from the beginning chapter of Book IV, Beyond Personality: or First Steps in the Doctrine of the Trinity. It is partly answering a man who said he had no need for traditional doctrine because he experienced God while alone in the desert.

if a man has once looked at the Atlantic from the beach, and then goes and looks at a map of the Atlantic, he also will be turning from something real to something less real: turning from real waves to a bit of coloured paper. But here comes the point. The map is admittedly only coloured paper, but there are two things you have to remember about it. In the first place, it is based on what hundreds and thousands of people have found out by sailing the real Atlantic. In that way it has behind it masses of experience just as real as the one you could have from the beach; only, while yours would be a single glimpse, the map fits all those different experiences together. In the second place, if you want to go anywhere, the map is absolutely necessary. As long as you are content with walks on the beach, your own glimpses are far more fun than looking at a map. But the map is going to be more use than walks on the beach if you want to get to America.

Now, Theology is like the map. Merely learning and thinking about the Christian doctrines, if you stop there, is less real and less exciting than the sort of thing my friend got in the desert. Doctrines are not God: they are only a kind of map. But that map is based on the experience of hundreds of people who really were in touch with God-experiences compared with which any thrills or pious feelings you and I are likely to get on our own are very elementary and very confused. And secondly, if you want to get any further, you must use the map. You see, what happened to that man in the desert may have been real, and was certainly exciting, but nothing comes of it. It leads nowhere. There is nothing to do about it. In fact, that is just why a vague religion-all about feeling God in nature, and so on-is so attractive. It is all thrills and no work; like watching the waves from the beach. But you will not get to Newfoundland by studying the Atlantic that way, and you will not get eternal life by simply feeling the presence of God in flowers or music. Neither will you get anywhere by looking at maps without going to sea. Nor will you be very safe if you go to sea without a map.