Contradiction and Hope

In the first chapter of Human Existence–Contradiction and Hope, Walter Strolz traces the origins of the modern scientific viewpoint. He begins with Descartes (1596-1650), who is credited with providing the philosophical foundation for philosophical dualism, in which mind and matter are distinct and separate. Within this framework, the external world can be regarded in a purely objective way, unaffected by the mind’s attitudes or desires.

Next, Strolz cites Galileo (1564-1642) for his “courage to discover by means of experiment the dependency of natural phenomena on one another. This enabled Galileo to express the events of nature in terms of law and to make them available to human purposes.” Isaac Newton (1642-1727), he writes, then extended this empiricism by showing how to

generalize by induction the forces and laws of nature recognized throught the analysis of individual phenomena and thus, with far-reaching synthetic power, to encompass the movements of the stars in the sky and those of the bodies of the earth in one and the same lawfulness. Newton’s principles are sustained by faith in objectivity within nature which the physicist can describe as existent data and can express in mathematical terms in the form of laws.

This determinism laid the foundation for what later became known as Newtonian or classical physics. Space and time are assumed to be autonomous and completely uniform throughout the universe.

However, Albert Einstein (1879-1955) upset this theoretical framework by showing that it only held true on the macroscopic level, due to the dependence of space, time, and motion on other factors, such as the distribution of matter in space. At the minutest levels, Strolz writes, “a causal description of physical processes is doomed to failure.” Nevertheless, atomic physics, like classical physics, is mathematically determined, so that it can still be verified by experiment.

Finally, Strolz ends this survey with Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976), who formulated an “uncertainty principle” to describe how the scientific view of nature is influenced by the experimenter’s intentions, insofar as the application of his method changes how an object is measured. Heisenberg proposed that the position and momentum of a particular atomic object at a particular moment in time cannot both be precisely determined: the method of determining either measurement destroys the validity of the other.

Heisenberg saw this as a significant shift in the relationship between humans and nature. Before, we could say that we were completely objective, confronting the nonhuman Nature; but with atomic physics, it becomes clear that we are confronting our own mathematical theories.

Heisenberg concludes his reflections on the reasons why man no longer meets nature but merely sees before himself a “construct of our relationship to nature” with this recognition: “Herewith natural science’s world concept ceases to be an actual natural scientific one.

Finally, we have arrived at my point: Modern science is a technical construct, in a hall of mirrors showing progressively finer recursive images of itself. The technologies of measurement, data-gathering, data-recording, information storage and retrieval, probability, statistics, and mathematical theory serve to enclose the modern scientist in a tight cocoon.

It represents technological refinement, and it shows itself through precise control of new technology. It is not, to that extent, “naturalistic.” Is that bad? Not necessarily. However, it is hypocritical to claim to be “naturalistic” and “empirical” when you are not.

Naturalism means accepting the existing world as it is, without imposing on it a presupposed framework. I say that this natural world is made by God, and whereas I can try to understand it through my own reasoning, I do not claim to know everything about it. I cannot know it in all its massive extent throughout space and time, in accordance with manmade laws that are too numerous and complex in themselves, yet cannot possibly provide an exact description of everything in the universe.

This is naturalism and empiricism: to know what the ground of your being is, to know that your life is contingent and transient in itself, and to reject preconceptions about the universe. I reject the arrogance and stupidity of people who do not themselves understand the inadequate mathematical and theoretical constructs that they claim fully determine every created thing. They are self-limiting, insular, artificial, solipsistic, and without hope. If they can ever break out of their little manmade cocoons, they might find the true glory of nature, which is a pale reflection of the glory of its creator.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Contradiction and Hope

  1. I haven’t read the book so he may have covered this, but Francis Bacon (1561) probably predates Descartes, and he is credited with the empirical method, ie.

    observation → induction → hypothesis → test hypothesis by experiment → proof/disproof → knowledge

    Secondly, science was initially grounded in theism, not naturalism.

    Einstein, while involved in the microscopic (eg. Brownian motion) was better known for relativity which is highly predictive, unlike quantum mechanics. While others choose the term relativity, possibly because of the possibilities for philosophy by equivocating on the word, Einstein preferred the term invariance. The speed of light being invariant.

    (I think) quantum mechanics is the only area that disputes scientific determinism, and other theories competing with it are deterministic. Even if all science is deterministic this is irrelevant to mind. Information does not follow the laws of physics, it is not in that realm (as I posted yesterday 🙂 )

  2. I’m obviously no scientist, and have no desire to be one, but even before I was saved, when someone asked me if I believed in God, I would answer, “Of course. How else do you explain tiny acorns turning into giant oak trees, or babies being born with ten perfect little fingers and toes?”

    While God does reveal things to us, it is man’s arrogance that assumes we can know all.

  3. bethyada,

    I am certain that the ground of science is in theism. However, the term “naturalism” is generally misused, in my opinion. I make a distinction between my experience of everything created, which is by definition natural, and the atheistic idealism called “naturalism.”

    The problem with so-called “philosophical naturalism” is that it presupposes that the universe was not created and follows no transcendent laws, while relying on scientific investigation to formulate transcendent laws. There is nothing “natural” about scientific theory, and it is not “natural” for any outcome to be determinable with 100% certainty.

    There are other areas of physical science besides quantum mechanics that are non-deterministic, mainly concerning nonlinear systems such as thermodynamics. Also, despite the claims of evolutionary biologists, biology is still non-deterministic. Just because the theorists believe that such science should be deterministic, that doesn’t make it so unless they can prove it.

    Any ambiguities about history of science in this post are due to the fact that I didn’t provide much context for Strolz’s comments, and my thoughts were a little disconnected.

    Like you, akagaga, I believe the existence of a transcendent creator and the limitation of our knowledge are both self-evident. That is why I think atheism is fundamentally self-limiting, like a baby holding its breath out of spite. I wish Christians would spend more time arguing against deism and false religion.

  4. Alas, most American “Christians” are too busy sustaining their bless-me-club churches or performing dead works to have time for spreading the gospel or defending the faith.

    And I think your “baby holding its breath” idea (which I love!) applies to various denominations, as well as atheists. They would rather defend Calvinism or Arminianism than the Christ.

    If you ever have the time, I would be truly grateful for your thoughts on a couple posts I did last winter about the church:

    http://akagaga.blogspot.com/2008/02/church.html

    http://akagaga.blogspot.com/2008/07/faith-in-christ-or-faith-in-doctrine_17.html

    May God continue to lead you and guide you.

  5. “Modern science is a technical construct, in a hall of mirrors showing progressively finer recursive images of itself.”

    I agree with the above statement. In this article I called the same process in physics phenomenology or mechanics. Physics is recursive because physicists fit observations to a symbolic framework and then look for more observations in the range of the framework dismissing the rest as is done in LHC, for instance.

    “The technologies of measurement, data-gathering, data-recording, information storage and retrieval, probability, statistics, and mathematical theory serve to enclose the modern scientist in a tight cocoon.”

    I agree. Physicists then assert that their view of nature is the absolute true nature. I believe that physics is just one of many possible ways of looking at nature.

    “It represents technological refinement, and it shows itself through precise control of new technology. It is not, to that extent, “naturalistic.” Is that bad? Not necessarily. However, it is hypocritical to claim to be “naturalistic” and “empirical” when you are not.”

    Yes. Because physics has hypocrisy built into it in the form of doublespeak. Physicists defined nature to be physical based on Newton’s atomic materialist dogma. They fit nature into this dogma.

Instigate some pointless rambling

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s