Presented by: Mike McNaughton

[Bicycle wheel gyroscope demonstration.]

Moses would have loved this, he could have freed the Israelites a few days early!

This is why I fell in love with science. Science was my second religion, between Christianity and the Tao. By “religion” I mean “where I find my most fundamental motivation, meaning and guidance, what binds me (religare) to life, people, nature, and the world”. But let me warn you that I have trouble letting go of each of these three religions.

To me, the fascinating thing about science is that it predicts surprising results (like the gyroscope demo and lots more) that turn out to really happen. I once thought this meant that science must be “true”. Some theories are adapted to fit past observations, but science predicts phenomena that our intuition and experience do not lead us to expect. This is the power of science, the power of prediction.

For example what is going to happen in the following experiment?

[Galileo free fall demo with paper, stone, etc.]

Scientists are “unitarian”. I think it is no coincidence that science flourished in a monotheistic society. If every rock, planet, and tree has its own spirit then what is the use of looking for one underlying law? Early scientists were seeking to understand the purpose and plan of the one true God. In retrospect, it is surprising to me how successful they were. Does this mean there really is one true purpose?

How many is God? Is there a Grand Unified Theory, or a GUUT? Is God countable or are we taking math beyond the realm where it is helpful? Mohammed and I used to worry that Christians do not understand that three is different from one, but this “contradiction” does not bother me anymore. Science sometimes provides analogies which should not be pursued too far. For example, in quantum mechanics, the “imaginary” number “square-root negative one” is often useful to describe something that cannot be observed directly but whose manifestations are observed. Could God be “imaginary” or “complex”?

At GA in Indianapolis I listened to several talks on Process Theology. Process Theology uses the techniques and results of science to conclude that God is not omnipotent, God exerts no direct influence on a rock. Like many of us, Process Theologians find it easier to agree on what they don’t believe than on what they do, but a core idea which appeals to me is that God inspires us to love one another by Her example. I am glad Process Theology exists because when I thought I was a Deist I wondered if this meant I was an a-theist. Atheism seems like a wall of rejection against Judahism, Christianity, and Islam. Bridges are better than walls. So I am happy to call myself a Process Theist. Sometimes labels are useful in simplifying the world, so long as I am prepared to recognize their limitations and let go when necessary.

Science uses labels to simplify a complex world, labels like “force” and “distance”. What Newton did to “explain” Galileo’s observations is extrapolate to an ideal world in which all the inconvenient details like friction disappear, and build a logical framework to describe it. In what sense is this ideal world “true”?

Does it matter? Most people live their lives without ever bothering about such questions. But each of these people accept something as “true”, e.g. science, or the Bible, or the Koran, or what their parents told them. If there is one of these that is unequivocally true, then we might at least hope that this could unite us. If we could even find one completely true statement we could try to unite behind it and build on that foundation.

In 1633 (Galileo’s trial) science was controversial. Today it is accepted worldwide. It is the most international language. The physics I teach in Los Alamos is identical in all essential details to that taught throughout the world, from Albania to Zimbabwe. In 1633 the Christian church could dismiss contradictions between science and the Bible by decree. Now, churches try to explain the contradictions with their own version of science.

The most sincere flattery is imitation. We now have “Creation science”, “Social science”, “Christian Science” etc. [Ask audience for examples.] When I was younger I used to get annoyed at examples that I consider “pseudo science”; I still have difficulty. I ought to feel flattered that others like my religion. I feel pleased when someone speaks well of our church, but sometimes after they join, I almost wish they hadn’t.

The point here is that science is taken too far. I feel this way about Capra’s book “The Tao of Physics”. Here are two of my religions in one book, I ought to love it. But as Ian Barbour says in “Religion in an Age of Science”, Capra has overstressed the similarities and virtually ignored the differences between the two disciplines. How far does science apply? Is science helpful in religion?

The spectacular successes of science established logic as the pre-eminent method for seeking truth. Our UU principles and purposes “counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science”. I don’t see anything in our principles and purposes about the guidance of “intuition and gut feelings”. We applaud GUUT but not gut.

Is science true? Diogenes searched for a completely truthful person. Similarly I have been searching for a completely truthful statement. Science has several shortcomings.

I want to consider three separate points, which I think are independent.

1. Science is sometimes applied to inappropriate situations.

2. Is there any situation for which science is completely appropriate?

3. Does science depend on axioms, i.e. is science absolute or does it require a set of assumptions?

Newton’s third law demonstrates these. Action equals reaction we say, just like Newton’s third law.

Newton’s third law demo (action and reaction)

I made three separate points previously, which I think are independent.

1. Does Newton’s third law have anything whatever to do with terrible twos who react? It seems to me that it is a weak analogy at best. So great is the prestige of science that we invoke it far beyond where it is helpful. Analogies are useful when we accept their limitations.

2. But science also has limitations. What scientific statements can you think of which represent a complete truth? Most scientific statements apply to some sort of ideal world which may not truly exist. In a physics lab we approximate this ideal, and then after the engineers have finished laughing at how impractical we are, we leave it to the engineers to apply these principles to the messy real world. We physicists then continue blithely on with the assumption that the ideal world we postulated may be “true” in some way.

Plato and Aristotle believed in ideals. Taoists believe that reality is in the flaws, not in the ideals. The Greek school of thought that Diogenes belonged to was called the “Cynics”, and I don’t think he was embarassed by this name, I think the negative connotation is only recent.

3. Newton’s third law depends on the axiom that forces exist. But force is not a relativistic invariant, i.e. it has no place in Einstein’s relativity. Does this mean forces are a fiction? The relativistic generalization of force relates to conservation of energy and momentum. But these only apply in a closed system, and furthermore according to Heisenberg these apply only in the limit of large time and distance.

To take another example, is it true that the circumference of a circle is 2 pi times the radius? Only if you assume the axioms of Euclidean geometry, it is not an absolute truth. One could explain the Biblical version by invoking a black hole.

I don’t want to get hung up on esoteric details, but I could also remind you of Godel’s theroem. What I am saying is that science is limited, it only applies in particular situations or as an approximation. It is very useful if we want to get to the moon. Do we want to get to the moon? Yes, if we want to beat the Russians and invent teflon as a spin-off. Will this make us happier? Ultimately science does not help us, because science only leads us via formal logic from assumptions or axioms to a logical conclusion: if … then …

Let me turn to our UU principles and purposes. “We … Affirm …” Do we know that any of this stuff is true, or even helpful? Or is this something we just want to believe in? Let us see if science can help.

“We affirm … the inherent worth and dignity of every person…”

If this were a scientific statement we would examine it logically. “Every” person, without exception? What if a person has worth but no dignity? Personally, I have been known to fall short of most people’s standards of dignity. How do we measure these? Is it possible that some people will not make the passing grade?

I am reminded of how my mother used to say “Oh Micky, you are so literal!”. Yes, that is often how science is. Or is science just a set of limited analogies?

Our idealistic affirmation of continues with words like “… Justice, equity, compassion, acceptance, free, responsible, conscience, democratic method, peace, respect …”. I don’t think it is helpful to examine each of them under the cold, harsh glaring light of science. My point is simply that science cannot establish these as absolute truth.

Do we need absolute truth? I remember when I was a child, how disturbed I was to find that the world is a sphere suspended in nothing by nothing. Apparently I have a need for a foundation to build on. For a while my foundation was the reassuring truth supplied by my parents, first by mother, later by father, by teachers, and by the Bible. Next by science. Now I quote my mother more often; am I regressing?

I have learned to live without absolute truth, but I need some structure to give my life predictability. As an analogy let me tell a story that fits Los Alamos more than most places (are you listening Sig?) A bunch of scientists at a party were trying to play a game, but we had no rule book, and each of us remembered the rules differently. Someone suggested “Let’s each of us play by our own rules”. A game needs rules, and when we interact we need at least a few common rules. This is why some people are disturbed by the gender issues of the 90s; suddenly they have been told that clubs and hearts are not different, and we don’t agreee on which is trumps. (Come back next week for Don’s talk.)

That was just a shallow analogy. The following may probe a deeper level of truth. A lab rat learns which buttons to press to get food, which to press to get a drug, and what actions will result in an electric shock. But if this predictability is replaced by a random system which changes unpredictably, the rats give up, lay down and die.

Can science answer the question “What is the meaning of life?” I have become convinced there is no absolute answer, meaning is suspended in space, like the earth, and we learn to deal with it. Life is its own meaning. I think we seek reassurance that we exist, some predictability, and a pursuit of fulfillment.

Fulfillment differs for each person. I think existence alone is fulfillment enough for a rock. An amoeba needs sufficient predictability to adapt to. A tree requires growth. Animals require a relationship to something outside themselves. I think humans require all of these, and generally something equivalent to a religion, even if it is just a belief in money.

Science helps us with predictability. If we know the rules or axioms, we can make predictions. If you want to go to the moon, science can get you there. It can even suggest some possible reasons why. It also connects us to something outside ourselves – some scientists find fulfilling relationships with stars or trees. For many people, science can be a fulfilling religion.

But science has not helped us much with the problem of selfishness. Perhaps my first religion, when I was very young, was narcisism. Social science seems able to lead us to “enlightened self interest”;, which is similar to Confucianism. As a way to prevent the disintegration of society, these would be better than nothing. It would help if we could find some version of social science that is close to absolute, or at least sufficiently general that it applies to all humans.

DesCartes sought an absolute answer and said: “I think therefore I am”. By the way, did you know that desCartes turned up at a UU church recently? When a friendly member offered him a cup of coffee, he replied “I think not”, and promptly disappeared!

I have two problems with “I think therefore I am”: it is biased toward intellectuals, and it suggests isolation. The logic will work just as well if I substitute “I care therefore I am”. This encourages relationships outside myself, and will last even as my skills in cerebral gymnastics decline.

Have you heard the story about the two Lutherans who died, and found themselves in a hot fiery place smelling of sulphur. “What happened?” one asked. “I don’t know,” said the other, “but look, there is Martin Luther, lets go and ask him.” “Brother Martin,” they asked, “what went wrong?” Sweating profusely Martin Luther gasped, “It was works!”

UUs are “universalist”, we believe in the inherent worth of every person (mostly), which is sort of like our historical belief in universal salvation. Does this “worth” come from grace or works? Am I a “human being” or a “human doing”? If it is works, we could use science to measure it, and some people may not make a passing grade. I suspect this question may be better answered by analogy or poetry or even from the Bible than from logic or science.

Theodore Webb (a distinguished UU Minister) said “If I had to do it over again, I would do less theology and more poetry”. But I have not yet reached this level of enlightenment. I still need some theology to cling to, even if it is just a fragment floating in space. At present I am clinging to the fragment “I care therefore I am”. But if we are talking at coffee time and I reply “I don’t care”, watch out, I might disappear.