sign in sign up
<<
Home , Paul Davies

9

Incarnation and Science

a. The Incarnation and the New Physics , the popular mathematician and cosmologist (who in sar• donic terms invented the phrase "the "), said (in conver• sation), "I have always thought it curious that while most scientists claim to eschew religion, it actually dominates their thoughts more than it does the clergy." This is certainly true in my own experience for, since Einstein, the New Physics has opened up immense possibilities for theologians1 to find new creative insights. The scientists2 are aware that their re• searches on the beginnings of the universe involve its meaning, even direction; its purpose and end; and its relationship to space and , and eternity; and that they are plunged directly into the realm of the theologian. This is a most happy and creative development, for it is along these lines that we will discover a unitary, integrative under• standing of the meaning of this universe, even of creation, and humanity's place in it (on the assumption that we will not destroy its delicate, awesome ecology, and all our research and thinking, before the century is out). 3 Paul Davies argues 4 that in the operation of the brain there is a de• scription in terms of physical laws at the hardware level, and an

1 See for instance T.F. Torrance, Christian Theology and Scientijic Culture, vol. I, 1969; Space, Time and Incamation, 1969; Theological Science, 1969; Theology in Reconstruction, 1975; The Ground and Grammar if Theology, 1980; Reality and Scientijic Theology, 1985; , Science and the Christian Experiment, 1973; , The Language if God, 2006.

2 See , A Briif History if Time, 1988; : The Selfish Gene, OUP, 1989; , 2006; Alister McGrath: Dawkins' God: Memes and the Meaning if Life, 2004; Paul Davies, God and the New Physics, Penguin, 1996; The Mind if God, Penguin, 1997. 3 , Our Final Century, Heinemann, 2003.

4 Paul Davies, God and the New Physics, p. 208. 9. Incarnation and Science 137 equivalent, consistent description in terms of thoughts, sensations, ideas, decisions and so on, at the software level. Likewise, to say that a system has become "technologized" is not to deny the authority of physical law, but merely to use software language in describing its operation. There is no conflict then, in a universe that evolves accord• ing to well-defined laws of physics but is nevertheless subject to intelligent control. He also goes on to discuss the meaning of a natural God and a supernatural God. He discusses science and religion in a changing world. Here he ar• gues that the New Physics/ is now moving into the world of philosophy and religion, the area of mind, in raising the fundamen• tal questions of existence. In this context he regrets that the life sciences (biology) are moving back into the area of the old physics in seeing mind as a function of matter. (Polanyi, too, is concerned about this backward trend.) Davies sees the scientific fact in conflict with authoritative revela• tion. He discusses the meaning of Einstein's curved space/time, and space warps and time warps, and sees the Big Bang in terms of the creation. In this context he says that great religious truths, such as in• finity, or creation, cannot be expressed in terms of space, time and matter, which things we glean from our everyday experience. He asks why is there a universe at all, and whether it was created by God, and states that everything in the physical universe depends on something outside itself to explain itself But the totality of physical things demands an explanation from without. He considers that the theological answer must be: God is a necessary being, without need of explanation. He sees the two systems of reductionism and holism as equally valid and proposes a synthesis of them both. The systems are not antagonis• tic. It simply depends on what you want to know. It is the origin of life that presents the greatest mystery. He proceeds to a discussion of Mind and Soul. First, he distin• guishes between the mental and physical worlds. Problems arise when these interact; you may explain the brain process, but where does free will come from? Whence consciousness? We cannot locate it. What then is the mind? What is the soul? The fundamental error of dualism (a Cartesian view deeply ingrained in our thinking) is that it treats these two systems (body and soul) as two sides of the same coin, whereas they belong to two totally different categories. It is a category mistake. Mind and body are not two components to a duality, but two entirely different concepts. The mind is not a constant like 1t, but a living, growing reality. The brain is active but that is not the same