OMEGA INDIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION Vol.6 No.2 December 2007
S
I
S
E
H
T
N
Y
S
N
I
S
I
H
T
U R T
Institute of Science and Religion Little Flower Seminary, Aluva - 683 101, Kerala, India.
Phone : 0484 2623437, 2626204 E-mail : [email protected] URL: www.lfseminary.org/htm/omega.htm Contents
Editorial 3
Articles Editorial
Beyond the Beyond: Primordial Levels of the Symbiosis 8 A free-lance glance at the science-religion landscape may give Between Science and Religion Victor Ferrao the impression that too much is going on in this field at too rapid a speed owing to the catalytic boost from several circles. As science-religion Between Theology and Science: On the Mediatory 38 dialogue establishes itself as a main-stream discipline, the pressing Role of Hermeneutics in Religion–Science Interactions challenge for its lasting hegemony is the development of proper methodic Martin Sebastian and epistemological tools. Any interdisciplinary attempt needs to be Observations on Observation in Philosophy of Science: 65 clarifying the methodological and linguistic assumptions behind such an The Need to Go Beyond Science enterprise. The basic rationale behind the intersection of science and Stephen Jayard theology is their common concern with a fundamental quest for On the Nature of Equilibrium 85 understanding. The epistemological, methodological and linguistic Carlos E. Puente commonalities between science and theology in terms of theories, Is our Universe a Mere Fluke? 106 paradigms, faith, etc., promote this integrated and unified vision. The The Cosmological Argument and Spinning the Universes inherent metaphysical elements, boundary questions, sense of mystery, J. van Brakel etc., in scientific theories are gateways between theology and science for a totalistic view of reality. Most science-religion dialogue still is built Revisiting the “Playing God” Metaphor: Alternative Models 118 of the Human Relationship with the Creator and the Creatures upon such general epistemological presuppositions of the basic unity of Sabu Mathew the human rationality, without articulating the specific nuances of this unity for this specific discipline. The Philosophy of Special Relativity: 138 A Comparison between Indian and Western Interpretations An uncritical accommodation of the inexhaustible theological Manoj Thulasidas doctrines into science or an unreflective intersection of the various The Light Green vs the Deep Green Environmentalism: 151 scientific hypotheses into theology would prove to be detrimental to an An Ethical Conundrum for Science-Religion Integration authentic picture of truth. Hence a meaningful intersection of science Leena K. R. and theology presupposes a constructive synthesis and creative Review Article appropriation of each other. The present issue of Omega, in general, calls attention to the chasm and imbalance between the metaphysical Science-Religion Dialogue in India: 163 prosperity and the epistemological poverty in the science-religion dialogue. Creative Challenges and Enabling Possibilities Augustine Pamplany The explicit or implicit epistemological concern is the unifying thematic link between the eight essays of this volume. The opening paper entitled, “Beyond the Beyond: Primordial Levels a very novel critical look at the hidden epistemological streams in the of the Symbiosis between Science and Religion,” by Victor Ferrao, methodologically foundational act of observation in science. He critically argues that the dialogical relationship between science and religion is analyzes the fundamental claim of observation that it is ‘pure’ and theory- the raison d’être of their very being. One can say that religious belief free. His preferential option for observation is based on the assumption has a decisive influence on our understanding of life across the entire that if the overestimated claims of observations are shown to be spectrum of our experience. Therefore, the conviction that ‘nothing is impossible, all other megalomaniac scientific claims will automatically religiously neutral’ appears to be a new mantra. This insight casts off collapse under their own weight. The recent developments in modern the cloud of dust and deflates the myth of the pure objectivity, value– science, especially in particle physics, demand radical changes to our freedom and religious neutrality of science. No doubt science has been traditional understanding of observation in science postulating an a spiritual path, a ‘way to the sacred’ to many scientists; at the same alternative view of observation. Relying on the problem of the Neutrino time, we know how their religious beliefs have highly influenced the Experiment and its consequent epistemic challenges developed by Dudley way they theorized about the world. The paper calls our attention to the Shapere, Stephen shows how the demands of modern science force us matrix of co–influence. The paper argues that the dialogical relationship to change our notion of observation as legitimate ones and to arrive at a between science and religion is the raison d’être of their very being. new understanding of what is to be observed or to be observable. Besides, Ferrao revisualizes the operative conditions for science-religion dialogue with the help of the hermeneutics of reception and the The fact that the epistemic complementarity between science and hermeneutics of legitimization. religion would entail an ontological equilibrium in reality is vivid in the paper, “On the Nature of Equilibrium,” by Carlos Puente. This paper The methodic and epistemic challenges posed before the natural explains how such modern notions related to complexity and turbulence sciences have dispelled most of the unjustified claims associated with help us visualize the essential options we all face regarding equilibrium physical and mathematical realism. Most scientific discoveries today and shows how such ideas point us to one and only one serene state in carry within them a paradoxical situation suggesting the demarcation which we all may achieve real peace. Puente explores matters of between the finite horizons of meaning possessed by science and the equilibrium and peace by considering the opposite concepts of wholeness infinite horizons transcending it. Given that the megalomaniac claims of and fragmentation, as they arise in the study of natural turbulence. the scientific theories of the past are untenable and also given the new While science provides a suitable and impartial framework to reflect on metamorphic and evolutionary understanding of them, science itself is to our internal peace and on the nature of our interpersonal relations, an be viewed as a dynamic hermeneutic enterprise. More than a custodian ultimate and desired state of wholeness is intimately related to fully of truth, it is a candidate for reality always open to modification and heeding the teachings of Jesus Christ, including, in particular, his repeated correction from the data, more accurate concepts and models. This calls for our continuous and dynamic growth to humility and repentance hermeneutical setting of the science shared with theology is the focal and our universal fulfillment of the defining maxim “love one another.” point of the major findings of the paper by Martin Sebastian, titled, “Between Theology and Science: On the Mediatory Role of The essay, “Is Our Universe a Mere Fluke? The Cosmological Hermeneutics in Religion-Science Interactions.” The overall argument Argument and Spinning the Universes,” by J. Van Brakel is a rare of the paper is that the science-religion theorists must duly recognize the example of logical analysis showing how our speculative tools define active mediatory role of hermeneutics in all science-theology interactions. and control our cosmological thinking. Clarifying the true meaning of the scientifically coined ontological concepts like chance is essential for The third paper, “Observations on Observation in Philosophy of clearing the logical fallacies pertaining to our cosmological arguments. Science - The Need to Go Beyond Science.” by Stephen Jayard, takes While absolute chance events do not fit in anywhere, relative chance
4Omega December 2007 5 events are subject to a limited belief in chance at a certain level. The The divide between the light-green and deep-green author opines that we don’t need to consider the universe as a chance environmentalism is indicative of a deep epistemological issue that is event in order to discuss the status of absolute chance events. Rather, if inherently present in the whole ecological issue. Our philosophy, be it we want to talk about particular probabilistic phenomena then we can anthropocentric or Cartesian, intuitive or mystical, is a product of the only do so relative to a limited belief in chance of a certain order. This basic mindset and the mental framework which we inherit. Leena K. R. essay too, again, bears a clear message in regard to the proper in her paper, “The Light Green vs the Deep Green Environmentalism: understanding of logic and epistemology for a proper understanding in An Ethical Conundrum for Science-Religion Integration,” establishes cosmology. that the ecological issue too must be looked upon as an epistemological issue and the ecological crisis can be legitimately conceived as an Manoj Thulasidas altogether has a different project of providing epistemological crisis. The conceptual role of the West in ecological an East-West framework for science-religion interface. The author crisis can therefore be looked upon as resultant of the Western believes that the parallels among the phenomenological, Western spiritual epistemological problems. The Western rationalistic epistemology with and the Eastern Advaita interpretations of special relativity point to an its emphasis on division, classification and analysis has been instrumental exciting possibility of unifying the Eastern and Western schools of thought in the fragmentation of reality, whereas the Eastern epistemological to some extent. The emerging significance of the Eastern epistemological traditions which are essentially intuitive in nature with their emphasis on structures as a complementary tool for this field is again underscored by unification and synthesis have integral epistemological structures at their Thulasidas. He argues that the noumenal-phenomenal distinction in base which are highly beneficial in developing an ecologically holistic phenomenalism is an analogical parallel to the Brahman-Maya distinction vision of reality. in Advaita if we think of our perceived reality (or Maya) as arising from sensory and cognitive processes. There is too much of science-religion dialogue in the academic circles without clarifying the proper foundations and methodologies, The epistemological stream of thinking is vivid at the backdrop of without articulating the real goals and objectives, drawing too many the paper by Sabu Mathew, titled, “Revisiting the ‘Playing God’ Metaphor: parallels which are often a bit superficial. It is hoped that the Alternative Models of Human Relationship with the Creator and the epistemological attention called forth in this volume would draw the interest Creatures.” As the title itself suggests, revisiting a metaphor is often a of science-religion theorists to place the global science-religion dialogue matter of reinterpretation, again a matter of hermeneutics informed anew. on more authentic platforms. The confusion between knowledge and wisdom is a matter of our tools of appropriation. The author rightly quotes Ted Peters, “It should also be Augustine Pamplany noted that in ‘playing God’ ‘we confuse the knowledge we do have with Guest Editor the wisdom to decide how to use it. Frequently lacking this wisdom we falsely assume we possess, scientific knowledge leads to unforeseen consequences such as destruction of the ecosphere.” In the context of dialectical mutuality between ethics and technology in the field of genetic engineering, the concept of the stewardship of creation and the concept of “created co-creator” complementarily facilitate each other in explaining human beings role and relationship with regard to the Creator and creation.
6 Omega December 2007 7 Victor Ferrao Beyond the Beyond
today, by violence, terrorism, nuclear threat, environmental degradations etc. One can already trace laudable attempts at ‘building bridges’ between them. In this paper we attempt to radicalize the ‘synoptic seeing’ between science and religion by drawing attention to the primordial level of the duet between science and religion.2 It strives to reflect on the deep implications of the duet model. The harmony of a duet is born from a blending of two melodies. This blending indicates a kind of co-mingling Beyond the Beyond: or cooperation between the two singers. Each evokes deep responsive Primordial Levels of the Symbiosis vibrations in the other. Perhaps, one might trace such a cooperation Between Science and Religion operative even at the level of the musical notes that compose a melody of the duet. We might understand this if we remind ourselves that each - Victor Ferrao1 note of a melody is heard in the context of the note or notes that precede and follow it. That is, a melody springs forth only through the inter– Abstract: Exploring the primordial levels of the duet between science relations of these various notes, and each point in the melody requires and religion, the paper reflects on the often ignored deeper horizons of the notes before and the notes that follow in order to draw its specific the popular duet model of the science-religion dialogue. Focusing on identity. Hence, our approach here is largely synchronic rather than the dynamism of the interaction between science and religion, it strives diachronic, that is, we are concerned with the relations of the various to show that they are not totally independent or entirely unrelated human structures across the moment of time rather than across the passage of enterprises. Prior to this challenge ‘to move beyond’ which is supposed time.3 to furnish us with a rather complete picture of reality, is the challenge to move beyond this ‘beyond.’ Moving beyond this ‘beyond,’ the paper Many scholars have already tried to show that we inherited the descends to a primordial level of the symbiosis between science and dichotomy between science and religion as a result of modernity. J. religion that illumines the radical osmotic operation between the two. Wentzel van Huyssteen, for instance, asserts that modernity led science The world of humans, constituted of science and religion, necessitates a dialogical hermeneutical paradigm of science–religion dialogue as their to emerge as a superior form of rational thinking, while religion faded 4 operative conditions. These operative conditions have been visualized into a rather subjective (if not irrational) experience. I too venture on a with the help of the hermeneutics of reception and the hermeneutics of similar path to overcome the insulation between science and religion. legitimization. This does not mean that I wish to dissolve one into another; rather, while - Editor being respectful of their respective independence, I would only attempt to point out emphatically that we can never view one in isolation from Key Words: Co-influence, Parallelism, The beyond, Reductionism, the other or that they are always co–present to each other. That is, there Hermeneutics, Legitimization, Reception. is no science–free religion or religion–free science. Thus, although they can rightly claim a profound degree of independence, since they share Introduction the common resources of human rationality in their effort to convey the meaning of our (one) world, they are fundamentally interrelated. Science and religion are great forces that influence us The role that religion plays in the way we understand and conduct tremendously. Today, it is becoming clear that the dialogue between life cannot be denied. It influences all people, regardless of their conscious these two great currents that shape our society is a sacred duty. Perhaps acceptance or rejection of the religious tradition with which they are it is necessary for the very survival of humanity, marked, as the world is
8Omega December 2007 9 Victor Ferrao Beyond the Beyond acquainted. It can swing from a negative (in the case of an atheist or a especially in American society. It is said that their rejection of the theory fanatic) to a positive level (in the case of saints and sants). of evolution is based on the conviction that evolution can only be equated to scientism that for them is responsible for some of the worst evils in In this study, we direct our attention to the matrix of this co– our contemporary society. These include: Totalitarianism, Humanism, influence between religion and science. We begin by drawing attention the New Age Movement (Paganism Revisited), Feminism, Atheism, to some of the oversimplified versions of the domain of interaction Agnosticism, to mention a few.6 William Jennings, for instance, says: between science and religion. This exercise might expose some of the “All the ills from which America suffers can be traced back to the teaching pitfalls, and challenge us to move beyond them. Then, we shall try to of evolution. It would be better to destroy every other book ever written, theorize how science and religion radically influence each other. and save just the three verses of Genesis.”7 Thus, we can see the need 1. Eyeing the Matrix of Co–influence of moving away from such narrow exclusionist perspectives of science or religion that lure us to the tree of knowledge that promises to rid us of The dynamic matrix of co–influence between science and religion every doubt and uncertainty. is a vast arena. The term matrix serves as a generalised metaphorical description of the lively and continuous interaction that occurs between 1.2 Moving Beyond Parallelism them. Far from dissolving this dynamics of ‘in–the–relationship’ between The domain of influence between science and religion does not them into a blur that levels down and rounds the subtle diversity and merely exhibit a kind of parallelism between them. Yet, there are shades heterogeneity in the realm of co–influence, it attempts to map the same. of this view among some scholars. Some of them assert that both science We enter into this dynamic scenario by considering some of the and religion refer to different realms of experience and ask different oversimplified versions of the domain of interaction that we are challenged questions. Science asks the question: “how do things happen?” while to abandon so as to arrive at a rather primordial level of the relationship religion asks the question: “why are things happening?” They argue for between the two great pillars of our society. a kind of parallelism that attempts to maintain the independence between 1.1 Moving Beyond the Monopoly of Truth them by literally insulating them from each other. Freeman Dyson, a contemporary scientist, for instance, subscribes to this view when he Arrogant scientism claims that science has an elitist and privileged says, “According to the Christian doctrine, God gave us two books in access to truth, since it derives its power and authority from its empirical which his actions are recorded. One book is the Bible and the other is method: a method that comprises of sure and reliable inference that is the Book of Nature.”8 We can also notice another kind of parallelism based on observation and experimentation. We can trace this absolute that appears to naively argue that scientific theories have unprovable faith in empirical methods to Francis Bacon, John Locke and other assumptions, which could be called ‘faith.’ Basing itself on this, it empiricists, the proponents of the mechanical philosophy of nature, the concludes that religion and science are webbed together because both logical positivists, etc. Their views disregard religion, since neither the need ‘faith’ as a common ground. But, this contention is dubious since a telescope nor the microscope can spot God. Hence, the religious view is belief is not religious just because it is unprovable.9 There are others often seen as sub–standard, superstitious and even erroneous. On the who attempt to trace a common space between science and religion by other side of the coin, we have the religious fanaticism that ignores presenting the role of models, analogies and myths in them. These scholars scientific views on ground that they oppose religious dogmas. Perhaps depend on a kind of linguistic parallelism. One can locate this tendency the stance of the so–called Creationists5 might illustrate our position. chiefly among those who claim that some insights in eastern mysticism The Creationist movement began in the 20th century as a reactionary exhibit an astonishing linkage with the physics of the twentieth century.10 movement intent on dislodging the evolutionary theory and its influence Although the parallelism at first sight appears to be quite plausible, it has
10Omega December 2007 11 Victor Ferrao Beyond the Beyond its own lacunae since it largely presents a non–interactive picture of what science has to tell about the nature and history of the physical both science and religion. Therefore, we propose to move away from world, and science has to heed to the deeper and more comprehensive every kind of parallelism. account of reality offered by religion. But we wish to move beyond this crass complementarity. We view that both science and religion are linked 1.3 Moving Beyond Reductionism with each other in a dialogical dialogue, which we have already described with the image of a duet. In a duet the voices of the two singers indeed Some people, considering the stupendous success of science, came complement and enrich each other and they do so through a radical co– to think of it as our only point of access to reality. “Nothing can escape operation with each other. Only through the mutual operation (co– the panoptic scientific ‘eye’” became the new mantra. Hence, the operation) of the voices of the singers can we enjoy the melodious music scientific explanation became the definitive and final word on every of the song. Hence, we are inclined to believe that there is a deep issue. Such a reductive tendency of science is critiqued today in many complementarity between science and religion, a kind of osmotic relation quarters. Raimundo Panikkar, for instance, drives this home when he between them. Thus religion is not merely something ‘beyond’ science, says, but one that is partner on its journey. This means that both does not In spite of the sacred name of Scientia, Modern Science is not merely co–exist, but are deeply webbed in an interplay that results in the identifiable with it. It is not gnosis, jnana, nor hochma chi, ensciencing of religion and the enreligionizing of science. sapientia. It has no intrinsic saving power. Not all epistemology is ‘scientific,’ not all cognition is measurable. Not all knowledge 2. Eyeing the Beyond of ‘the Beyond’ is covered by ‘science.’ Modern science cannot be equated with knowledge about the world or insight into the nature of reality. Our focus on the dynamics of ‘in–the–relationship’ between Not all ontology is ‘scientific.’ Not even all being is reducible to science and religion is challenged to be deep and piercing, so that without the logos. Not all is the object of Science, and certainly scientists 11 being caught in the euphoria of a crass complementarity, we are as subjects cannot be included in it. empowered to travel the very road that will reveal the dynamic co– In the religious arena, we can also trace some form of reductionism operation between science and religion. In fact, religious as well as where some argue that scientific theorizing is influenced by the moral scientific theorizing are deeply osmotic. The content of scientific theories beliefs of the scientist. There are often cases where theorizing is is often shaped in the light of the content of religious beliefs and vice influenced by morality and, in some cases morality might be directly versa. Hence, this process of theorizing cannot be religiously or derived from a particular religious tradition. But although religion cannot scientifically neutral, and as such is highly complex. We might sharpen be reduced to morality alone, yet we do find great philosophers like Kant this point by the realization that we do not simply grab the real, but who (perhaps under the influence of his pietistic upbringing) appear to construct this real into a ‘world.’ Today a constructivist outlook is gaining grant primal place to ethics in the realm of religion.12 currency in intellectual circles. Various strands of the twentieth century western philosophy have called into question many of our old 1.4 Moving Beyond Crass Complementarity epistemological positions. Philosophers like Richard Rorty have forcefully Some might be tempted to suggest that science is limited especially proclaimed that the mind is not merely the mirror of nature. Movements in the light of the developments in science itself, and is, therefore, in such as phenomenology, hermeneutics and post–structuralism have need of religion that is beyond it. Religion is said to perform the noble complicated the subject–object dichotomy. The linguistic turn in philosophy task of filling the gaps left by scientific theories. A similar view is upheld strongly suggests that language can no longer be regarded simply as a 13 by those who deem religion as limited and therefore in need of enrichment transparent vehicle of communicating thought. These and other from science. Such views appear to teach that religion has to listen to developments such as theories in the sociology of knowledge, feminist
12Omega December 2007 13 Victor Ferrao Beyond the Beyond studies, postmodernism, etc., provide important resources for the growth the remark of Peacocke might illumine our position: “In practice, working of the so–called constructivist outlook. Hence, one can notice that it has scientists, I would argue, adopt a sceptical and qualified realism, according already encompassed a variety of human thoughts and knowledge as to which their theories and models are proposed and regarded as diverse as law, politics, religion, literature, art, etc. Interestingly, the ‘candidates for reality.’” 21 Thus, for instance, scientists are committed exclusion of science from the said list was evidently conspicuous for to believe that electrons exist –– the ‘is’ of the electron on the basis of some time. But thanks to recent social studies in science, such exclusion much experimental data. But how they described the electron –– the is challenged.14 With the advent of Thomas Kuhn, it has become ‘what’ of the electron has undergone many changes. John Polkinghorne fashionable to regard scientific knowledge primarily as a human product, drives this home when he says, “J. J. Thompson, the discoverer of the made with locally situated cultural and material resources rather than electron, thought about these tiny electrical charges in one way, Neils simply the revelation of a pre–given order of nature. 15 Hence, some Bohr in another, Paul Dirac in another, and Feynman, Schwinger, and scholars see scientific activity as a constructive rather than a passive Tomonaga (the discoverers of modern electrodynamics) in another way. description of the pre–existing facts of the universe.16 The philosopher Yet it is perfectly natural to say that they were all describing the same of science, Hacking, makes this point succinctly when he asserts that entity and the difference in their discourse relates to a deepening of our phenomena cannot be thought of as ‘summer berries that are there just understanding about the nature of electron.”22 Hence, critical realists do for picking,’ but as entities that are made by instrumental engagement not claim absolute truth, but rather an increasing verisimilitude –– the with the materialist world.17 construction of better and better maps of reality.23 This however, does not mean that there was no sociology of Both science and religion require a prior interpretative structure. science before Kuhn. There indeed was such a study, but it was pursued The interpretative structure, among other things, has both scientific and largely from the essentialist position on the character of science18 and religious insights as its chief coordinates. Hence, a scientist in the practice was largely concerned with the manner in which science as a social of his scientific activity is influenced by a prior interpretative structure institution organized and regulated itself.19 But in the wake of Khun’s laden with religious insights. We can argue the same about a religious revolution, society–science interaction has become radicalized, and hence, believer. Sometimes, one might trace the significant role of science, while, has often led to some exaggerations that seem to teach crass scientific on other occasions, the role of religion might become more apparent. constructivism. While accepting the significant co–influence of science Thus, for instance, Plato appears to teach that all beliefs that qualify as and religion, we find the so–called critical realism, a view championed religious beliefs have to come before the judgment seat of reason by some scholars, a viable and reliable guide. This approach has some (science), when he held that reason manifests religious beliefs to be true similarities with what has been said above, because it also roots by proving that there are gods.24 This means Plato appeared to grant knowledge in our interpreted experience. John Polkinghorne expresses that religious beliefs had to be compatible with the science of his day. it creatively with his slogan, “Epistemology models Ontology.”20 In other With the rise and the spread of Christianity, reason (science) was regarded words, what we know is a reliable guide to what is the case. We all need as the instrument for understanding revelation (religion).25 Hence, we a prior interpretative point of view to understand a pattern in the flux of can understand why the scholastic view found a theory about geology, events. We can draw no insight by simply staring at the raw data. True, for instance, acceptable when it did not contradict any revealed doctrine.26 the chosen initial point of view must be open to correction in the light of Therefore, let us first survey how religion influences or is influenced by further experience, but we cannot dispense with it. Thus we have an science by a serious consideration of the concrete theorizing in element of circularity in our quest for understanding. Hence, while mathematics and physics, and then attempt to theorize against the rejecting naïve objectivity, we do not yield to crass constructivism, but background of these concrete cases the dynamism of the matrix of co– treat our interpretative knowledge with ontological seriousness. Perhaps influence.
14Omega December 2007 15 Victor Ferrao Beyond the Beyond
2.1 Theorizing in Science Indian number system and the invention and application of zero, which were adopted by the Arabs and were handed over to Europe during the No theorizing occurs in a vacuum. The socio–cultural Renaissance also grew in the womb of religion. Religious groups like the religious background does shape theorizing in science. Alfred North Jains worked with problems such as cubic and quadratic equations, Whitehead already claimed that modern science has its roots in statistics and infinity. Their work was summarized and expanded by Christianity.27 Such a special role of Christianity in the inception of science Aryabata (476–550 BC), the most important ancient Indian has not gone without question. Scholars like Willem B. Drees, for instance, mathematician.34 Scholars say that the idea of large numbers in India point out that science is older than Christianity, and thus seemingly grew in the religious realm. It is said that we can trace large numbers attempts to expose the apparent inadequacy of the above view.28 Hence, expressed to the base ten from Harappa times. In Ramayana, the army perhaps, Paul Davies qualifies the same point when he says, “Science of the villain Ravana had the following number of soldiers: 10 10 + 10 5 + emerged from medieval Europe, under the influences of Greek philosophy 36(10 4 ) while the opposing hero, Rama had 10 10 + 10 14 + 10 20 + 10 24 29 and Christian thought.” But we cannot discount the special role of + 10 34 + 10 40 + 10 44 + 10 52 + 10 57 + 10 62 + 5 soldiers. Buddhists are Christianity in the growth and spread of science. We can trace a number said to have figures as large as 10 53 but, as has been said above, it was of scholarly studies attempting to depict the great role that the churchmen the Jains who went to develop a kind of transfinite35 mathematics.36 played in the field of science.30 True, scientists are not always conscious of the bearings of their religious background on their work; yet, although In the West, Leibniz’s insistence that negative numbers37 are it may sound controversial, the role of their religious convictions in the fictions could be explained on religious grounds. Leibniz believed that shaping of their views, cannot be pushed under the carpet. Similarly, we numerals stand for real entities in another world. These entities are never can opine about religion being influenced by developments in science. observable nor are they locatable in space. Yet the world of mathematical Here we wish to put forward our view with especial reference to physics entities is not only real; it is more real than the things observable in space and mathematics. and time. Thus, as in Plato, the defining character of God bestows reality on these numerical entities. This allowed him to think that mathematics 2.1.1 Religion Influencing Mathematics is a reflection in thought of an unseen eternal realm where each number that we use stands for one of the hypothetical entities, a collection of A deep reflection on the history of mathematics can demonstrate them or the relation among them. Hence, a number could not be negative, its intermingling with religion. The Platonic theory of the perfect because it would mean that it stands for nothing.38 In the same vein, we mathematical world owes a great deal to religion. Indeed, Plato identified can understand the rejection of both the complex and the irrational his ideal world with the divine world. This identification bestowed the numbers by the intuitionists of our days.39 Thus we can find a number of spiritual qualities of heaven on the Platonic world. As a result, the instances that manifest how the religious view shapes a perspectival mathematical entities became perfect, non–physical, eternal, immutable, view of the nature of reality, and that the view of reality undergirds the etc., and by the same token, mathematics became certain, clear and theorizing in mathematics.40 The admission of the divine world ascribes unchangeable knowledge. Such a linkage to religion appears to be the the status of divinity to mathematics and reinforces its clarity, consistency 31 cause of the Pythagorean resistance to irrational numbers, since their and logicality and the belief that mathematics is the most certain 32 cult of numericalism was deeply embedded in their religion. The knowledge. emergence of the circularity principle among the ancient classical philosophers also reveals religious underpinnings.33 The assimilation, 2.1.2 Mathematics Influencing Religion preservation and handing on of the Greek and Indian mathematics to Renaissance Europe by the scientists of medieval Islam also indicate The elitist view that took mathematics as perfect knowledge did the role that religion plays in the shaping of mathematics. Similarly, the find its place in religion. We can already trace its beginning in the pre– 16Omega December 2007 17 Victor Ferrao Beyond the Beyond
Socratic Pythagoreans, who taught that the contemplation of numbers Christianity, because Christians view eternity as a present that never and their relationships led to union with the divine and thus freed humans passes away.49 It is said that the single most important contributor to the from the cycle of the transmigration of souls.41 The Platonic and the study of experimental physics in the seventeenth century was the Catholic Aristotelian42 view of a perfect, omnipotent, immutable God, a God that Church and, within it, the Society of Jesus.50 Some scientists, like Ernst we christen the God of the philosophers, has its leanings in the power Mach, attempt to collapse all aspects of our experience into the sensory and grandeur of mathematics. Later, the labours of St. Augustine and aspect and move on to deny the logical and / or the mathematical aspects other Christian thinkers led to the appropriation of the Judeo–Christian of nature, bestowing a divine character only to sensory experience. That God as a divine mathematician. Galileo, Kepler, Descartes, and Newton is why Mach and his followers did not believe that atoms exist!51 While and company reinforced this picturing of God. Kepler, for instance, seems on the other hand, we have Einstein, who taught that logical and / or to identify God with the geometerician as he says, “Geometry existed mathematical aspects are also part of the nature of our knowledge and before Creation. It is co–eternal with the model of Creation… Geometry of reality. He thus bestows the defining characteristic of divinity on human is God Himself.”43 Newton too, influenced by his mathematics, presented rationality. Hence, he appears to accept that what is rational is real, as the so–called God of the gaps. Finally, the French mathematician Laplace he regards that the laws of logic and mathematics not only govern human rendered the Newtonian God of the gaps meaningless and atheism thought but all reality, and are the principles that make all else possible. seemed to rest on solid science.44 The arresting implications of the Hence, we have his famous aphorism, ‘God does not play dice.’52 In this ‘incompleteness theorem’ (1931) of Curt Goedel might provide good context, it might illumine us if we pay attention to Roy A. Clouser, who news to religion as it showed that no set of logical relations can be says, “It appears that Heisenberg’s theory about uncertainty relations is established that does not also imply the existence of still other relations based on a divinization of the mathematical aspects of our experience. with which the set itself cannot cope.45 This is why from a biblical point of view, this ‘Copenhagen’ interpretation accords to mathematics the status that belongs to God.”53 2.1.3 Religion Influencing Physics 2.1.4 Physics Shaping Religion There are some cases that show that theorising in physics is also grounded in religious belief. The very adjective ‘physical’ stands for Religion is guided by the physics of its day. The mutation phobia something real as against the imaginary. This appears to bestow a status emerging from Platonism has been troubling Christianity to this day. It that is the defining character of divinity46 on the quantitative, spatial, has however, probably reached its climax in The City of God of St. sensory aspects of our experience. Although the pre–Socratic thought Augustine. Similarly, the Platonic doctrine of ‘the fall’ reverberated down appears anti–religious at first glance as its explanations decried the the ages and held many a Christian and Protestant, captive to the supernatural explanation of the times in favour of the material one.47 On conviction that fallen man cannot do anything pleasing to God. Likewise, the contrary, the Platonic world of ideas, considered as the heavenly the influence of the celebrated Aristotelian synthesis of St. Thomas abode, led to the degradation of the world of our daily experience to a Aquinas on Christianity is too evident to be mentioned here. This grand relatively low status on religious grounds. The concept of matter, the synthesis christianised Aristotle and aristotelised Christianity.54 The anglicised form of materia, –– a Latin word meaning timber, that Cicero Newtonian mechanical philosophy of nature and the logical positivists of chose to translate Aristotle’s hyle –– lost its Aristotelian sense in the the twentieth century attempted to render religion as a bundle of Christian setting, since it is accepted as created by God.48 The Newtonian superstitions. Contemporary physics too opens up many challenges and view of time as linear and uniform, supporting the common–sense view opportunities to religion and there are already a number of scientist– that only present events exist, since past ones have ceased to exist, and theologians engaged in exploring the inter–relationship between science those of the future do not yet exist, might have been reinforced by and religion.55 The theories of relativity, quantum physics, chaos theory,
18Omega December 2007 19 Victor Ferrao Beyond the Beyond etc., have challenged many ideas of classical physics and the ground is in the horizons of each other, both science and religion create and enlarge set for a rejuvenation of religion. The Big Bang singularity, a point where each other. Each acts as the foreground that colours, shapes and guides the laws of physics break down, has a tempting theological significance. the respective enterprise. Following Heidegger, we might say that this This temptation received strong papal endorsement when, in 1951, Pope ensciencing of religion and religionizing of science reaches its respective Pius XII announced that ‘everything seems to indicate that the universe ‘as–structure’ as a result of the interplay with its ‘fore–structure.’ 59 It is has in finite time a mighty beginning’ which, is the ‘work of creative in this dynamic circularity that religion and science belong to each other omnipotence whose power set it into motion by the mighty fiat and, in this mutual belonging together, in some way they form / construct pronounced billions of years ago by the Creating Spirit, spread out over each other. Thus, we can say religion supernaturalises the natural, while the universe.’56 The indications that the universe is fine–tuned for life science naturalises the supernatural. Hence, we enter the arena of this and for us are greeted as the Second Coming of teleology. Paul Davies, dynamic ‘in–between,’ where we might single out two crucial moments a contemporary scientist, suggests that the apparent fine–tuning of the that propel it to its full circle. I christen them the hermeneutics of cosmos is a rich source of material for new forms of the design arguments legitimisation and the hermeneutics of reception. We might refer to the for the existence of God.57 former as the context of production and the latter as the context of reception. They operate on the heels of each other without excluding 3. Theorising the Dynamism of the Matrix of Co–influence each other. It is due to them that science and religion co–exist in a kind of ‘dynamic disequilibrium.’ Hence, we can speak of them as concentric We have seen how in some cases theorising in mathematics and circles. Perhaps the metaphor of a spiral might help us to visualise the physics has been shaped and influenced by religious beliefs and vice dynamic relationship between the two. Their relation being one of versa. In the background of our above study, we can now take a close circularity, we can expect some overlapping in the presentations below. look at the dynamism of the matrix of co–influence and see how science The metaphor of a hologram might throw light on this relationship. and religion both constitute each other. I have already presented how Hologram is the name given to a special photographic plate produced science and religion in the horizon58 of each other can arrive at a ‘synoptic with a highly coherent laser light. When the hologram is illuminated with seeing’ that allows them to weave truth and meaning on the loom of a coherent laser light, the optical effect is exactly as if the original object each other. In the context of this study, we carry on the ‘synoptic seeing’ was being watched. In addition to this remarkable three–dimensional with the intent of touching the shores of the primordial level of the reproduction of the object, it has a particular property which is our direct relationship between science and religion. concern in this context. If the holographic plate is broken into fragments 3.1 The Operation of the Hermeneutic Circle and the individual fragment is illuminated, the three dimensional optical reconstruction of the original object is always produced. Thus the entire There is a hermeneutical circle that operates between science original object can be reconstructed from any fragment of the hologram.60 and religion. The circle expresses the dialogical nature of the ‘in That is, the whole is in some way in the whole as well as in each of the relationship’ between the two. Scientific theorising takes place in the parts. We might say the same about the hermeneutics of legitimisation. horizons of religion. So, too, religion is influenced by scientific It appears to be always contained at every level of our hermeneutics of developments in science. One might view it as the fusion of two horizons. reception, which is the centre of gravity of the science–religion dialogue. It is in the background of each other that they co–influence each other. That is, religious beliefs, to some extent, play a significant role in the 3.1.1 The Hermeneutics of Legitimisation emergence of a particular kind of scientific theory, while, similarly, Legitimisation is a process by which a given society produces and scientific views have a role in determining the changes in religion. Thus, maintains that which passes as ‘knowledge.’ It is a process that specifies
20Omega December 2007 21 Victor Ferrao Beyond the Beyond what should legitimately count as knowledge. It is related to, yet different 3.1.2 The Hermeneutics of Reception from, what philosophers have referred to as ‘foundationalism.’ ‘Foundationalism’ is the belief that a theory belongs to genuine science Paul F. Knitter says that the meaning of a text or an event is (knowledge), if and only if, it is justified by reasoning from a set of sometimes found just as much in the way it is received as in the content 68 foundational non–inferred truths.61 But today scholars are decrying all of its message. In this sense, the ‘message’ can be the ‘reception.’ universal master foundations62 and in their place posit a kind of local We can notice three stages in the development of hermeneutics over foundationalism that, while focusing on the local context of inquiry, lets it recent years: a preoccupation with the author (Romanticism and the open for a transcommunal dialogue. Jean–Francois Lyotard makes a 19th century), an exclusive concern with the text, and a marked shift of similar observation when he says: attention to the reader. The later developments of hermeneutics in Germany are christened reception aesthetics or reception theory.69 Scientific knowledge cannot know and make known that it is the Reception theory focuses on the role of the reader in the production of true knowledge without resorting to the other, narrative, kind of knowledge, which from its point of view is no knowledge at all. meaning. Such a centering of the reader is also referred to as reader– 70 Without such recourse it would be in the position of presupposing response theory in hermeneutics. In this context we might remember its own validity and would be stooping to what it condemns: that it was Roland Barthes who, with the proclamation of the death of begging the question, proceeding on prejudice. But does it not the author, gave birth to the reader.71 Terry Eagleton makes a similar 63 fall in the same trap by using narrative as its authority? point when he says, “Literary texts do not exist on the bookshelves: they Hence, our contention is that both religious beliefs and scientific are the processes of signification materialised only in the process of views mutually justify or authenticate each other by operating as horizonal reading. For literature to happen the reader is quite as vital as the 72 factors. The metaphysical assumptions of the one are germane to the author.” rationality of the other. Perhaps, from the scientific standpoint, Kuhn’s In the context of science and religion, we can see how the insight that the controversies which occur in the transition of paradigms reception of events in the respective realm can and does affect expose fundamental value clashes and illustrate what we have just said developments in the other. We need to note in this context that the 64 above. This observation is also reinforced by the studies of Harry hermeneutics of reception is not always conclusive. There are quite a Collins which manifest that the participants in a dispute are guided by few instances that can illustrate this point. The instances of opposition the unspoken assumptions about the reliability or expertise of other of the Christian theologians to the Copernican, Darwinian and Freudian 65 scientists or about the propriety of their ways of collaborating. Hence, hypotheses are open cases in point. But the negative reception itself in we can say that religion to some extent plays a role in the emergence of the above cases has its role in propelling the growth of science. Hence, science. Roy Clouser succinctly makes this point when he says, “Our it becomes evident that there exists a mutual collaboration and co– faith in God as the sole divinity exercises its most profound and pervasive operation between religion and science. In the event of an encounter influence by acting as a presupposition to the making of theories in with each other, both hit up the arena of criticism ‘from without.’ That is, 66 philosophy and the sciences.” Indeed we have scholarly studies that the inter-science-and-religion-dialogue moves on the road to intra–science strive to explain how religion did provide an ethic that worked as a strong and intra–religion dialogue. Thus in the horizon of each other, both are 67 motivating force in the scientific enterprise. Similarly from the religious challenged to pass through the ‘cloud of unknowing.’ I have already standpoint, we can say that controversies in religious views are referred to this as the hermeneutics of honesty, that empowers both underpinned by differences in scientific views. science and religion to mutually enlarge each other. One might refer to the hermeneutics of honesty as the hermeneutics of self–correction or self–transformation.
22Omega December 2007 23 Victor Ferrao Beyond the Beyond
4. Opening the Circle Thus the hermeneutics of legitimisation attempts to delve into the horizon that to some extent leads to the configuration of a particular We have already entered the dynamic ‘in–between’ between form of science and religion. This horizon always remains as the ‘other’ science and religion with our focus on the hermeneutical dimension of that cannot be totalised75 or even conceptualised. As such, we cannot religion and science. Here we attempt to deepen these insights by describe it in terms of external theoretical terms. It remains the horizon considering the dynamism of the circularity between science and religion. of our understanding, but transcends the horizon of our comprehension. That is, we attempt to delve into the interconnection between what we It does not remain a well–defined stable structure. It is always in a state have called the hermeneutics of legitimisation and the hermeneutics of of dynamic openness. It is always in the process of growth and reception. transformation. Hence, even our characterisation of this dynamic matrix as the ‘other’ is not entirely free from a trace of totalisation. 4.1 Radicalising the Hermeneutics of Legitimisation Thanks to some postmodern thinkers, we are enabled to radicalise The hermeneutics of legitimisation strives to demonstrate that each what we have christened as the hermeneutics of legitimisation. In spite contains a trace, a mark, a footprint of its own ‘other.’ Hence, we can of their differences, an unambiguous political opposition to the positive opine that religion contains a trace of its own ‘other’ (science). The motivates these thinkers. The positive here refers to those institutions, same can be said about science. That is, religious views in some way language, subjectivity, metaphysics, state structures, social stratification, act as a pre–science in the emergence of science and vice versa. This etc., that have become reified, ossified, totalised. Thus, positive is that inter–relationship is indeed reciprocal and open to mutual anticipations which is given; what has presence. These thinkers expose how the and stimuli. Perhaps the piercing insights of Martin Heidegger might philosophies of presence and correspondence theory of truth, the ego, illumine us. He argues that what characterises metaphysical thinking the liberal state, capitalism, the binary sexual difference, the culture of which grounds the ground for beings is the act that metaphysical thinking industry, the grammar, law, etc., are structures of power that deny their departs from what is present in its presence, and thus represents it in own mediations or genealogies in order to sustain themselves and related terms of its ground as something grounded. That is, he asks how this parts of the system as unequivocal, self–identical and immutable. They grounding presence can itself be present. Hence, he contends that claim universality, both to mask their particularity and to sub–ordinate difference is the condition of the possibility of Being and beings. He what is particular and non–identical to their own ordering principle.76 As describes this difference as the ‘open.’ He says that presence is lingering a result of this critique, absence has been shown to be constitutive of in openness, always remains dependent upon this prevalent opening. presence. What is absent also cannot be such unless it presences in the free space of the opening. The open is the primordial playground, the matrix into Hence, we can notice the concept of ‘negativity’ frequently which each entity is freed as into its own.73 One can find a similar view appearing in postmodern theory. The term negativity is rarely employed in the structural linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure. The Saussurian with precision, much less defined, and therefore always remains vague. notions of langue and parole are illuminating us in this context. These Obviously, any attempt to pin it down would not only do injustice to its terms respectively signify language as a system or a structure on the many incommensurable senses, but also would be an enactment of the one hand, and any given utterance in that language on the other hand. very stabilising and classifying logic that it is evoked to defy. Hence, to Any utterance in any particular language (parole) makes sense only if name it would be to destroy it, since it bears the connotation of alterity, one has a working knowledge of the rules and regulations that govern the non–rational and the unrepresentable. Therefore, to ask what it ‘is’ that language (langue).74 Thus it is langue that makes it possible to or ‘means’ is to already find oneself implicated in the questions and communicate with each other. paradoxes it provokes. Moreover, it cannot even be ontologized as a
24Omega December 2007 25 Victor Ferrao Beyond the Beyond marvellous other, for which no adequate conceptual schema exists. Its legitimisation does not just influence science and religion, but also real and discursive status is accepted to be undecidable and open.77 constructs us as dialogical subjects who are the agents of the construction of these two prime areas in our culture. Today the all–knowing The term, of course, gains, its obvious sense from its opposition to autonomous Cartesian subject of philosophy has been deconstructed. the positive. It suggests criticism and negation, resistance and Philosophers of various hues already attempt to show that the subject transgression, absence and lack. Hence, it evokes an opposition that is itself is a construct. This does not mean that human identity is merely deeply political. In a sense, it refers to the invisible, the figural, the virtual, constructed. It is also born. That is, besides these socio–cultural factors, 78 the unconscious, the will to power, the feminine, the diffe’rance. Indeed, the biological, psychical and affective factors do play their role in our all these cannot be reduced to the various signifiers of a common referent. identity formation. Scholars are already studying the biological basis of Yet all are implicated in the negative. Thus the concept of negativity is our capacity to evolve science.82 Yet the role of what we have called both dynamic and heterogeneous. Hence, our language always remains negativity and therefore the social conditioning cannot be overlooked. inadequate. Yet we attempt to speak of it because negativity is not Today we can notice the crucial epistemic importance of community 79 nothing. being stressed in many quarters. Schleiermacher already pointed out In the light of what we have called negativity, perhaps we can that understanding is made possible because of our shared species 83 understand how science and religion are caught up in the rhythms of consciousness. Perhaps Gadamer overcomes the pitfalls of the apparent negativity. It is the negative that fixes the positive; that is, negativity unitary and homogenising concepts of Schleiermacher with his notion of operates as an absent presence that conditions the very possibility of tradition, which seems to be open to pluriformity. Gadamer says, “We science and religion. Perhaps the implications of Goedel’s theorem might stand always within traditions, and this is no objectifying process, i.e., illustrate the above view. The mathematics underlying this theorem is we do not conceive what the tradition says as something other, something difficult to understand, but the essence of his proof has been described alien. On the contrary, it is always a part of us, a model and an exemplar, by scholars like John Boslough, who says, “The proof for the validation a self–recognition which the later historical judgement would hardly see 84 of any system could not be established from within the system. There as a kind of knowledge, but as a simplest preservation of tradition.” must be something outside the theoretical framework –– whether the Thus we are embodied in a living tradition which is always in a process framework was mathematical, verbal or visual –– against which a of growth (tradition–breaking). This view is reinforced by J. Habermas, 85 confirming or disconfirming test could be made.”80 John Polkinghorne’s who speaks of life–world as the everyday world in which we are born characterisation of the interaction between science and religion as and we live. It is a world of shared meanings, perspectives, values, consonance also depicts what we called the hermeneutics of legitimisation. beliefs about how things or people should be. It is this life–world that This becomes clear when he says, “Science does not determine shapes us into the people that we become, and at the same time we can theological thought but it certainly constrains it.”81 Hence, we can say shape and reform the life–world. That is, the life–world is neither static that every religion is guided by a trace of science, and vice versa. nor already given. It is dynamic, and its configuration can be altered by our active creative interaction.86 4.2 Radicalizing the Hermeneutics of Reception The life–world impinges upon us and makes us dialogical beings. The hermeneutics of legitimisation concerns the conditions of the That is, along with our biological abilities, the socio–cultural, religio– possibility of the emergence of science or religion. Drawing on these political factors construct us into subjects, since our ability to think, speak insights, we attempt to deepen what we have christened as the and listen is conditioned to a large extent by them. Hence, we can say hermeneutics of reception. It is our view that the hermeneutics of that our ability to enter into the conversation between science and religion
26Omega December 2007 27 Victor Ferrao Beyond the Beyond springs from it. In this sense the hermeneutics of legitimisation fathers Accepting the role of paradigms or the ‘research programmes’ the hermeneutics of reception, which in its turn harbingers a further as the focal point of dialogue within a scientific community, we opine enlargement of the hermeneutics of legitimisation. that no paradigm is religiously neutral. Similar is the case of a religious paradigm. Hence, we hold that inter–paradigm dialogue can take place. It is this dynamic play that brings about the dialogue between That is, the religious or scientific underpinnings of every paradigm bring science and religion. In the light of the above discussion, we can now about science–religion dialogue. understand some of the implications of Kuhn’s proposal. Kuhn proposed that the authority of science ultimately resides not in a rule–governed This opens the road for an expansive exploration of the possibilities method of inquiry whereby scientific results are obtained, but in the for a renewal and re–articulation of their respective domains. scientific community that obtains the results. In his book, the Structure of Scientific Revolutions, he strives to demonstrate how all knowledge 5. Science and Religion for Humanity is produced within communities and how the scientific community itself Indeed science and religion do not need each other; it is we who springs and grows around a scientific paradigm. Thus the relationship need them. They have a tremendous capacity for transforming our between the paradigm and a community is circular. Kuhn in his postscript perception, understanding and action, in a word, our entire world. Hence, to his great book says, “The term paradigm enters the preceding pages they can be seen as generative matrices for human wellbeing or early, and its manner of entry is intrinsically circular. A paradigm is what destruction. Inasmuch as we share the ability to evolve and shape them, the members of a scientific community share, and, conversely, a scientific we are blessed with the power to guide them for the welfare of all. community consists of men who share a paradigm.”87 Scientific paradigm Hence, we share a sacred responsibility in the service of humanity. implicitly provides the boundaries and the vocabularies within which investigation may take place and also conditions the kinds of questions The dialogical hermeneutical paradigm that we have attempted in that might be asked. Kuhn embeds this view in a general account, the context of science–religion dialogue strives to pursue the dynamism illustrated and corroborated by specific episodes in the history of science. of the operative conditions that enable humans to be influenced and at The shift from the Ptolemaic geocentric view to the Copernican the same time to influence their world, (which, of course, among other heliocentric worldview is one of his favourite examples. Another is the things, is constituted of science and religion). We have visualized these shift from Newtonian to relativistic physics. The central concept of this operative conditions with the help of the hermeneutics of reception and account is that of a paradigm.88 Almost all commentators allege that the hermeneutics of legitimization. The hermeneutics of legitimization is Kuhn’s use of this concept is extremely loose and ambiguous. Despite the condition of the possibility of the hermeneutics of reception. It is the this we might construe it in terms of the definition by which Kuhn launches source that creates us dialogical beings. It pervades every level of the it: “… universally recognised that, for a time, provides model problems hermeneutics of reception. We have already seen that it is characterized and solutions to a community of practitioners.”89 But Kuhn’s exaggerations by undecidability. It operates at the horizonal level. One might take it in need to be toned down. His view of the incommensurability of the the sense of the implicit as the basis or the ground for the explicit. It is competing paradigms cannot save it from a thoroughgoing relativism, the hermeneutical situation that allows the hermeneutics of reception to since it leaves us no neutral standard to assess the competing paradigms. let something show itself. At the same time our ability to revise, calls into Imre Lakatos attempts to overcome some of the pitfalls of Kuhn. He question, criticizes our fundamental assumptions and presuppositions, replaces the somewhat vague notion of competing scientific paradigms allows us to re–shape, re–orient and re–direct the hermeneutics of with his concept of the collaborative ‘research programmes’90 that guide legitimization. the practice of different communities of scientists.
28Omega December 2007 29 Victor Ferrao Beyond the Beyond
Perhaps an analogy from quantum physics might clarify what we 4. See J. Wentzel van Huyssteen, “Foreword,” Christopher Southgate, et al., have considered so far. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle asserts that God, Humanity and the Cosmos, p. xx. we cannot simultaneously know the position and momentum of a 5. Creationism is defined as a product of Protestant fundamentalism and subatomic particle. The closer we come to determine its location, the represents an attempt to re–establish faith in the simple truth of the scripture, further we go from determining its momentum. If we change our tactics which is perceived to have eroded by the onslaught of evolutionism. See and focus on its momentum, we will no longer be able to say where it is. Willard Young, Fallacies of Creationism (Canada: Detselig Enterprises, 1985), In between our measurements, it exists as a probability wave: a p. 9. combination of all possible ways it could go; which all remains possible 6. See Emanuel Chukwu U, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and the until we focus on it. When we take our measurements, the wave Challenges from the Scientific Theory of Evolution and Creation Science– collapses. It assumes actual value, but only because we asked it to. Creationism: The Conflict of World View (Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Similarly, the shape of the hermeneutics of reception with its lively Leuven, 1997), p. xix. interaction of the hermeneutics of legitimization determines the emergence 7. See Ibid., p .14. of science or religion and their inter–relations. 8. See Freeman J. Dyson, Infinite in all Directions (London: Penguin Books, Conclusion 1990), p. 4. 9. A religious belief is a ‘belief in,’ which involves a deep personal involvement, Our study has tried to bring to light that the dialogical relationship while scientific belief could be characterised as a ‘ belief that,’ a belief that between science and religion is the raison d’être of their very being. such and such is the state of affairs. We have come to see that they are not insulated from one another; 10. Scholars like Fritjof Capra and Gary Zukav are pioneers of this view. rather, they are deeply intertwined into a mutually interacting approach to reality. They are indeed webbed together in an ‘in relationship’ between 11. See Raimundo Pannikkar “New Society for a New Millennium,” in Anthony them, so that each one reciprocally plays the supportive ground in which Kalliath, ed., Pilgrims in Dialogue: A New Configuration of Religions for the dialogical process is rooted. It is in this active matrix of co–influence Millennium Community (Bangalore: Journal of Dharma and Dharmaram Publication, 2000), p. 20. that they belong to each other and dynamically influence each other. In a word, the ‘in relationship’ under our study is non–dual; it is truly a duet. 12. See Ian G. Barbour, Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues (London: SCM Press, 1998), pp. 45–47. Notes 13. See Jan Golinski, Making Natural Knowledge: Constructivism and the 1. Victor Ferrao obtained his Ph.D in Science and Religion from Jnana Deepa History of Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 6–7. Vidyapeeth, Pune. He presently lectures at Rachol Seminary, Goa. 14. Steve Woolgar, Science:The Very Idea ( New York: Routlege, 1993), p. 22. 2. Here we are influenced by Martin Heidegger who has tried to describe the 15. Jan Golinski, Making Natural Knowledge: Constructivism and the History human existence as a ‘happening,’ a life story unfolding between birth and of Science, p. ix. death. In a similar vein we try to describe the relationship between science and religion as ‘happening’ all the time. See Charles Guignon, ed., The 16. K. Knorr–Cetina, The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Cambridge Companion to Heidegger (Cambridge: Cambridge University Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science (Oxford: Pergamon, 1981). Press, 1999), pp. 7–8. 17. Ian Hacking, Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the 3. See David West, An Introduction to Continental Philosophy (Cambridge: Philosophy of Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), p. Polity Press, 1997), pp. 164–167. 230.
30Omega December 2007 31 Victor Ferrao Beyond the Beyond
18. One can trace in the 1930’s and 1940’s radical thinkers like Haldane, Bernal, and are therefore called irrational numbers. See Brian Bolt and David Hobbs, Needham, Hogben, Blackett and a host of others; yet all of them operated A Mathematical Dictionary for Schools (New Delhi: Cambridge University from the objectivist picture of science. See Paul A Komesaroff, Objectivity, Press, 2003), p. 113. Science and Society: Interpreting Nature and Society in the Age of the 32. Morris Kline, Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times (New Crisis of Science (New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986), pp. 54–55. York: Oxford University Press, 1972), p. 32. 19. Steve Woolgar, Science: The Very Idea, pp. 24–26. 33. The Greeks believed that the celestial world was the abode of the gods, and 20. See John Polkinghorne, Scientists as Theologians (London: S PCK, 1996), therefore they inferred that it was the perfect world. The heavenly bodies, p. 14. being considered as divine beings, were thought to move in circles, because circular motion was considered as the perfect motion. Arthur Koestler, The 21. Quoted in Ibid, p.14. SleepWalkers: A History of Man’s Changing Vision of the Universe (London: 22. Ibid, p, 16. Arkana, Penguin books, 1989), pp. 59–65. 23. Ibid, pp, 16–17. 34. See James J. Hoffman, “The Mathematics in Ancient India,” in Neil Schlager, ed., Science and its Time: Understanding the Social Significance of Scientific 24. Roy A Clouser, The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay on the Hidden Discovery, pp. 162–163. Role of Religious Belief in Theories (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1991), p 78. 35. Cardinal numbers of infinite sets are called transfinite numbers. In the West, 25. Ibid, p. 79. it is said that Galileo discussed the significance of the transfinite numbers in 1638 in his Dialogues. Bolzano reawakened interest in them in 1851. However, 26. Ibid, p. 95. it was Cantor who in 1877 refined and developed them into the mathematical 27. See Job Kozhamthadam, “Religion and Science: Past Estrangement and orthodoxy. See S. K. Arora and Jyoti Nanda, Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Present Engagement,” in Job Kozhamthadam, ed., Contemporary Science Mathematics, Vol. 3 (New Delhi: Amol Publications, 1991), pp. 1095–1096. and Religion in Dialogue: Challenges and Opportunities, p. 3. 36. See Susatha Goonatilake, Towards a Global Science: Mining Civilizational 28. See Willem B. Drees, Religion, Science and Naturalism (Cambridge: Knowledge, pp. 128–130. Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 78–79. In my view, Alfred North 37. Negative numbers are numbers like – 3, – 4, – 5 etc, which are measured from Whitehead speaks of science in a narrow sense, because he speaks only of the left–hand side of the point of origin on the number line. See Brian Bolt modern science, while Willem Drees speaks of science in a broad sense, and David Hobbs, A Mathematical Dictionary for Schools, p. 85. hence, strictly speaking, they are talking on two different yet related wave lengths. 38. Roy A. Clouser, The Myth of Religious Neutrality, pp. 13–14, 19. 29. Paul Davies, “The Mind of God,” in Jan Hilgevoord, Physics and our View 39. Ibid, pp 120–121. of the World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), p. 231. 40. Roy A. Clouser successfully attempts to show that the theories of J. S. Mill, 30. For instance, Alfred O’ Rahilly describes the significant role of the Jesuits in Bertrand Russel, John Dewey etc, depend on religion Ibid., pp.111–127. particular. For details see Alfred O’Rahilly, Religion and Science (Dublin: the 41. See Marget Wertheim, Pythagoras’ Trousers: God, Physics, and the Gender Fredrick Press, 1948), pp. 27–33. Also see Job Kozhamthadam, “Science and Wars (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1997), p. 10. Priestly Formation: Historical Roots and Current Necessity,” in Jnanadeepa: 42. Although Aristotle exhibits distaste to formal mathematics, his recourse to Pune Journal of Religious Studies, Vol.4 , No. 1 ( Jan 2001), pp. 124–129. the rigour of rationality is not far removed from mathematical reasoning. 31. Any number which can be expressed in the form p / q where p and q are 43. Quoted in Carl Sagan, Cosmos (New York: Ballantine Books, 1985), p.42. whole numbers (counting numbers: 1, 2, 3…) is said to be a rational number, Also see Job Kozhamthadam, “The God, Who Reveals: The Book of Nature while those numbers like¸ and P cannot be expressed as rational numbers
32Omega December 2007 33 Victor Ferrao Beyond the Beyond
and the Book of Scripture as Read by Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Einstein and 60. See Henri Bortoff, The Wholeness of Nature: Goethe’s Way Toward a Science Davies,” in Omega: Indian Journal of Science and Religion, Vol. 2, No. 1 of Conscious Participation in Nature (New York: Lindisfrane Books, 1996), (June 2003), pp. 7–30. pp. 4–5. 44. See Willaim A. Wallace, “History of Science and Faith” in S Mariane 61. See N. Wolterstorff, Reason within the Bounds of Religion, 2nd ed. (Grand Postiglione, Transfiguration: The Elements of Science and Christian Faith Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), pp.28–34. (Illinois: INTEST, Faith Science Press, 1993), pp. 37–38. 62. Today even the so–called primary or basic concepts like being, essence, 45. Stewart Richards, Philosophy and Sociology of Science, p. 75. one, true, good, logos, etc., are shown as depending on other concepts to be what they are. See Rodolpe Gasche, “Infrastructure and Systematicity” 46. By defining character of divinity I refer to the self–existence and absoluteness in John Sallis, ed., Deconstruction and Philosophy: The Text of Jacques of God. These divine attributes are somehow given to quantitative aspects Derrida (Chicago: the University of Chicago Press, 1987), p. 4. in our theorising in Physics. 63. See Jean–Francois Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition (Minneapolis: 47. See Jonathan Barnes, Early Greek Philosophy (London: Penguin, 1987), University of Minnesota Press), p. 29. pp. 17–18. 64. Jan Golinski, Making Natural Knowledge: Constructivism and the History 48. Roberto Torretti, The Philosophy of Physics (Cambridge: Cambridge of Science, pp. 20–21. University Press, 1999), p. 13. 65. Ibid, p. 21. 49. See Christopher Southgate, et al., God, Humanity and the Cosmos, pp. 102– 103. 66. Roy A. Clouser, The Myth of Religious Neutrality, p. 101. 50. See Richard Olson, Science Deified and Science Defied,Vol. 2 (Berkeley: 67. For instance, Robert Merton attempts to show that the puritan ethics of the University of California Press, 1990), pp. 8. seventeenth century England reinforced the interpretation of scientific activity as directed to the manifestation of the glory of God and the 51. Roy A. Clouser, The Myth of Religious Neutrality, pp.129–132. enhancement of the good of humankind. See R. K. Merton, Science, 52. Ibid, pp. 132–134. Technology and Society in the Seventeenth Century England, p. 80. 53. Roy A. Clouser, The Myth of Religious Neutrality, p. 139. 68. See Paul F. Knitter “Dominus Iesus and the Hermeneutics of Reception,” in 54. See Magret Wertheim, Pythagoras’ Trousers, p. 47. Jeevadhara, Vol. .xxxi, No. 183 (May 2001), pp.183–186. 55. See John Polkinghorne, Scientists as Theologians. 69. See Anand Amaladas, “Intercultural Look at Indian Aesthetics,” in Satya Nilayam: Chennai Journal of Intercultural Philosophy, Vol. 3 (Feb 2003), 56. See Christopher Southgate , et al., God Humanity and the Cosmos, p. 122. pp. 5-6. 57. Ibid, pp. 123–130. 70. See Anthony C Thiselton, The New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory 58. Horizon is a deeply loaded term in hermeneutics. It refers to the anticipatory and Practice of Transforming Biblical Reading (Grand Rapids: Zondervan worldview, preliminary assumptions, expectations or questions that operate Publishing House, 1992), pp. 515–555. in the process of understanding. Horizons are never static, they are always 71. See Roland Barthes, “The Death of the Author” in Philip Rice and Patricia dynamic and hence ever expanding. Without them no understanding is Waugh, eds., Modern Literary Theory: A Reader (London: Arnold, 2002), possible. See Anthony C Thiselton, The New Horizons in Hermeneutics: pp. 169-185. The Theory and Practice of Transforming Biblical Reading, pp.44–46. 72. See Terry Eagleton, Literary Theory: An Introduction (Minneapolis: the 59. See Johnson J. Punthenpurakal, Heidegger through Authentic Totality to University of Minnesota Press, 1983), p. 74. Total Authenticity: A Unitary Approach to His Thought in Its Two Phases (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1987), pp. 29–30.
34Omega December 2007 35 Victor Ferrao Beyond the Beyond
73. See Johnson J. Punthenpurakal, Heidegger through Authentic Totality to Communicative Action: Reason and Rationalization of Society, trans., Total Authenticity, pp. 210–213. Thomas McCarthy, Vol. 1 (Boston: Beacon Press, 1984). 74. Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, eds., Course in General Linguistics, 87. See Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: The trans. Roy Harris (London: Duckworth, 1983), pp. 71–78. University of Chicago Press, 1970), p.176. 75. Totalisation is an attempt towards the resolution of all opposition, discord, 88. See Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. pp. 10–173. strife and difference into an all–inclusive whole. This term entered the 89. See Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, p. x. philosophical lexicon due to the works of G.W. F. Hegel and Karl Marx. Although the term enjoys a positive connotation in these works as they 90. Lakatos asserts that a research programme consists of methodological rules: identify it with the process of history, today it has acquired a negative some tell us what paths of research to avoid (negative heuristic), and others meaning. See Victor E Taylor and Charles E Winquist, eds., Encyclopaedia what paths to pursue (positive heuristic). That is, the research programme is of Postmodernity (New York: Routlege, 2001), pp. 402–403. a conceptual framework that guides a scientific community. See Imre Lakatos, The Methodology of Scientific Research Programme: Philosophical 76. Diana Coole, Negativity and Politics: Dionysius and Dialectics from Kant Papers, John Worrall and Gregory Currie, eds., Vol. 1. (New York: Routledge, to Poststructuralism (New York: Routlege, 2000), p. 10. 1978), pp. 46–47. 77. Ibid., pp. 1–2. 78. This is a term used by Jacques Derrida to celebrate difference and otherness. 79. Ibid., p. 2. 80. Quoted in Brian Hines, God’s Whisper, Creation’s Thunder: Echoes of Ultimate Reality in the New Physics (Vermont: Threshold Books, 1996), p. 10. 81. See John Polkinghorne, Scientists as Theologians, p. 6. 82. See Steven Mithen, “Human Evolution and the Cognitive Basis of Science” in Peter Carruthers, Stephen Stich and Michel Siegal, eds., The Cognitive Basis of Science (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 23–40. 83. See Wolfhart Pannenberg, Theology and the Philosophy of Science (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1976), p. 159. 84. See Hans–George Gadamer, Truth and Method (London: Sheed and Ward, 1975), p. 250. 85. The concept of life–world is not original to Habermas. We can trace it in a number of philosophers like Alfred Schutz, Edmund Husserl, et al., It is said that it has its first great elaboration in Edmund Husserl. See Thomas A Schwandt, Qualitative Inquiry: A Dictionary of Terms (California: Sage Publishers: 1997), pp. 83–84. 86. Habermas teaches that our life–world today is colonized by money and power. He presents his communication action theory as a means of de– colonization of our life–world. See Jurgen Habermas, The Theory of
36Omega December 2007 37 Martin Sebastian Between Theology and Science
scientists and theologians over the last four decades in drawing on from each other concrete implications for their own discipline. After/along with an initial/sustained enthusiasm to answer the questions arise in one field with information/insights available in another field some have taken a reflective pose to reconsider certain basic methodological questions. It is in reference to this reflective pose that we suggest that there is some Between Theology and Science stagnation.2 In this sense the stagnation in science-religion project is not On the Mediatory Role of Hermeneutics non-productive but self-corrective and strategic. It points to certain inevitable meta-methodological discussions in the field. Because thus in Religion–Science Interactions we aim to enter into such meta-methodological aspects certain preliminary - Martin Sebastian1 remarks in view of clarifying our points of departure and the scope of the discussion are in order. Abstract: Ever since the discovery of the interpretive dimension of humans’ being and knowing all branches of knowledge began to reaffirm their 2. Preliminary Remarks self-identity as hermeneutical. Successful efforts have been made to bring That science and theology are not two names for one and same out the essential hermeneutical dimension of science, theology, and, the structure of the development of both into distinct fields of knowledge. To cognitional enterprise is part of common sense and experience today. expose such research findings a brief critical survey of hermeneutical Despite ever so many efforts made in the last decades to interrelate philosophy of science and the varied paradigm analyses in science and science and theology, an un-bridged gap between them continues to theology is undertaken in the first part of the essay. Thereafter, a modest show itself at the backdrop of almost all current efforts in the field. All effort is made to examine a few concrete efforts in the field of science- these efforts presuppose certain prior understanding of the distinct yet religion, and, to observe how the inevitably hermeneutical nature of relational nature of science and theology. The more the people on either science and theology, each in se and that of their history of development fence become aware of their epistemological foundations the more the in toto, shows itself mostly through its absence and sometimes through gap between them grows widened. Indeed, rationally speaking, the its presence. The overall argument of this mainly expository essay is that problem (or difference, if not conflict)3 between science and theology the science-religion theorists must duly recognize the active mediatory is epistemological in nature.4 Or, in other words, the problem between role of hermeneutics in all science-theology interactions. Although there is some awareness about the necessity of certain philosophical mediation science and theology is basically in regard to their foundations. On the in science-religion dialogue, explicitation of the same as hermeneutical side of science, (mostly and precisely, philosophy of science) Toulmin, mediation is a distinct and important step. Khun, Popper, Lakatos and many after them have tried to resolve this foundationalist problem through their praiseworthy efforts to bring out Key Words: Science, Theology, Hermeneutics, Phenomenology, Kuhn, the hermeneutical nature of the entire rational inquiry in science. On the Barbour. side of theology, although not in strict correlation with the developments in philosophy of science, there has evolved a widespread consensus 1. Introduction among theologians on the radical hermeneutical nature of all their theological enterprises. But unfortunately, science-religion conversations Currently the field of science and theology in Europe is undergoing to this day do not seem to have explicitly recognized hermeneutics as a a phase of stagnation. ‘Stagnation’ is indeed a relative term and it has to partner in and facilitator of their conversation. In this paper we argue be understood in relation to the rapid advancements made by some
38Omega December 2007 39 Martin Sebastian Between Theology and Science that the active mediatory role of hermeneutics in science-theology 3.1.1 Hermeneutic Phenomenology of Science discussions on each and every issue has to be duly recognized or the conversations will never end. That understanding is interpretation is one of the basic theses of hermeneutic phenomenology. According to Heidegger, ‘understanding’ We will make our point in two ways: firstly by bringing out the is not one or another particular form of human knowledge rather it is a hermeneutical dimension of both science and theology, and secondly, by basic mode of humans’ being. It is so because understanding is constitutive pointing out the problems faced by science-religion theorists due to the for humans’ self-disclosure and world-knowledge. Taken in this sense, lack of attention given to the hermeneutical dimension of their respective the idea of primordial understanding allows us to conceive humans’ cognitive procedures. Presently we will not discuss any particular issue being as a bundle of possibilities.9 There are logical possibilities as well in the field of science-theology. In fact, a reconsideration of the specific as existential possibilities. Logical possibilities refer to what is not yet issues (such as origin and the end of the universe, divine action, etc.) via but can be whereas existential possibilities refer to what actually exist. a hermeneutical mediation is the eventual objective of our project. But Among the two kinds of possibilities existential possibility is ‘the most such reconsiderations require a prior exclusive methodological revaluation primordial and ultimate positive ontological characterization’ of humans’ of the enterprise. being. Thus, each knower thanks to his/her existential possibilities has a 3. Hermeneutical Dimension of Science and Theology specific existential structure. The primordial understanding, because it possesses in itself the existential structure of the knower “always has 3.1 Science as Hermeneutical the character of an anticipating, interpretive conception.”10 Each knower in his/her effort to understand enters into a process of ‘interpretive It is with the rise of many anti-positivist philosophies of science at explanation’ and thus gradually appropriates what has already been the end of the nineteenth centuary that scientists and philosophers began understood originally. to think about the relationship between science and hermeneutics. One of the main tenets of positivism was methodological monism which upheld In all interpretive explanations a knower interprets something as “an idea of unity of scientific method amidst the diversity of subject something. Thus certain ‘interpreted as’ (hermeneutic as) becomes a matter of scientific investigation.” 5 Anti-positivist thinkers refused to constitutive element of our knowledge. Besides an attention to this default accept the cognitional pattern set by physical sciences as the only model hermeneutic constitution, context is also of vital importance for for a rational understanding and explanation of reality.6 Indeed, the anti- phenomenology of human knowing/experiencing. All interpretations take positivist trend of philosophy has a more complex morphology than as it place within a context. Heidegger refers to this as the hermeneutic is being represented by historians of thought. Often a very broad situation which in his view is the totality of references or meanings.11 distinction is made between Wittgensteinian ‘analytic’ philosophy and Since, thus, all instances of human understanding are hermeneutical it is continental ‘hermeneutic’ philosophy. But in fact, as Wright suggests, legitimate to think that scientific knowledge of nature, which is a concrete ‘hermeneutic philosophy’ is a generic term for both the analytic and mode of human understanding, is also a hermeneutical enterprise. Thus, dialectic orientations exhibited by anti-positivist thinkers.7 Although it is “contrary to what many scientists believe and many philosophers have in this generic sense that we use ‘hermeneutics’ in this paper, in our argued, according to hermeneutic phenomenology, scientific knowledge exposition of the hermeneutical dimension of science we go more in line is not a primary form of man’s understanding. Rather it is a derivative with the developments in hermeneutic phenomenology in continental form which has been grafted upon that kind of understanding that is philosophy.8 already operative in every man’s life, long before he or she turns toward the sciences.”12
40Omega December 2007 41 Martin Sebastian Between Theology and Science
This brief phenomenological exploration was meant to hint at the idea of ‘incommensurable conceptual scheme’ always diverted the focus basic hermeneutical character of all scientific enterprises. Now, we shall of analysis from the different responses offered by different scientists make an effort to bring out the hermeneutical character of the and scientific communities, which in fact caused the breakdown of the development of scientific knowledge. For this we shall base ourselves normal paradigm, to the incommensurable conceptual schemes on Harvey’s recent examination of Kuhn’s structural analysis of scientific themselves. Therefore, Harvey makes an effort to identify the exact development.13 source of the fracturing of the normal paradigm. Indeed this effort is simultaneously an attempt to make out the hermeneutical dimension of 3.1.2 Kuhn and Hermeneutical Philosophy of Science science. Kuhn developed a ‘post-foundationalist theory’ of scientific Quite in line with the findings of Kuhn’s historiographical analysis progress. Progress of scientific knowledge, in his opinion, is nonlinear. Harvey admits that it is unlikely that a scientist remains always critical. The system of scientific beliefs with which any one starts working is the Acceptance of the authority of the normal paradigm is an essential part ‘normal paradigm.’ It is normal because at least initially it is free from of one’s scientific commitment.18 One must be able to see and understand doubts and thus widely accepted. However, as and when certain problem the world through the existing paradigm before one offers a critique of that can not be solved by the existing scientific beliefs and practices it. But, the ideal model of rationality, for instance, as represented by persists ‘crisis’ emerges. Crisis calls for certain critical examination of Clifford, asks a rational person to be critical always.19 However, in Kuhn’s the existing paradigm on the one hand, and, paves way for the development view this ideal model of rationality is not the one operative in scientific of ‘extraordinary science’ on the other. Whatever comes out of the inquiries. What is at use is perhaps, we may call, a pre-critical rationality. crisis, be it an altered form of the older paradigm or an alternative Harvey summarizes Kuhn’s view in this regard thus: “a normal paradigm paradigm, begins to function as normal paradigm at a second phase of organizes our perception and experience of the world before we are development coordinating and guiding further scientific inquiries. Thus, critical;” and, “the critical belief occurs at special moments when the as Harvey observes, “the structure of scientific revolutions consists in normal paradigm is threatened by the accumulation of evidence against the interdependent relation between normal science and extraordinary it.”20 Critical rationality comes to the fore only at the face of crisis. But science, in the interplay between the established scientific tradition and what exactly is ‘crisis’? the critical examination and interpretation of that tradition.”14 Crisis, the resolution of which effects development of scientific Many philosophers of science have highlighted this interplay knowledge, is the crucial aspect of Kuhn’s analysis. ‘Incommensurable between tradition and interpretation as if they constitute a hermeneutical conceptual scheme’ is Kuhn’s key to understand crisis. But, in fact, the circle.15 But, Kuhn’s structure of scientific revolutions, as long as it holds idea of ‘incommensurable conceptual scheme’ misrepresents and diverts on to its metaphor of ‘incommensurable conceptual schemes,’ cannot our attention from the actual practice of scientific inquiry.21 According accommodate a hermeneutical model of paradigm interaction.16 But this to Kuhn, practitioners of a particular science come to the specific world does not mean that Kuhn’s analysis has not brought out the hermeneutical of that science with their own preconceived incommensurable system nature of scientific inquiry. Harvey rightly holds that the epistemological of concepts. Besides this, on the side of the object of inquiry, the empirical issues raised by Kuhn’s historiographical analysis do illuminate the content supplied by nature is completely neutral! Therefore, without hermeneutical dimension of science.17 However, Kuhn himself was not certain ‘common coordinate system,’ be it a neutral language system or aware of the radical hermeneutics involved in the progress of science. a common belief system, interrelation between paradigms is impossible. Although his analysis points to the hermeneutical dimension of science, We are thus constrained to presume the presence of a common coordinate it always remained invisible to him in the course of the analysis. The system. If such common system of beliefs continues to exist without
42Omega December 2007 43 Martin Sebastian Between Theology and Science any conscious critical activity directed towards its creative integration, 3.2.1 Ricoeur and Hermeneutical Theology then it gets gradually fractured and fragmented due to the in-fights between conflicting conceptual schemes each claiming to be a universal Ricoeur had his own reading of German hermeneutical tradition. statement on common human experience. However, the conflicting In his view Schleiermacher brought hermeneutics to a close relation conceptual schemes are only part of the description of the fracture of with epistemology. Dilthey established hermeneutics as the best method normal paradigm. The precise source of fracture is the wilful reaction for all human sciences. However, it was Heidegger who brought a crucial (rejection-acceptance) of each practitioner. Thus, in Harvey’s change in hermeneutical thinking. He proposed an ontological turn in all examination, what is relative is not the conceptual scheme but the reaction efforts to interpret. He conceived interpretation as the development of of each practitioner to the available views of life. Harvey owes to Dilthey the primordial understanding. Later, Gadamer clearly identified philosophy for this insight.22 with hermeneutics. He was convinced of the basic “linguality” of human experience, and thanks to this conviction he emphasised the universal Having thus identified the source of fracture in the activity of the scope of hermeneutics.26 Further, he initiated a dialogue between will, Harvey argues that it is now possible to change the location of Heidegger and Dilthey. However, Habermas pointed out Gadamer’s incommensurability from the conflictual plurality of conceptual schemes failure in incorporating critical concerns into his general theory of to “the lack of receptivity of the will.”23 This change ushers in a interpretation. Ricoeur tried to solve this problem by placing and facilitating hermeneutical reading of paradigm shifts because, as we have seen an ongoing interaction in the form of a dialectic between explanation earlier, the idea of incommensurable conceptual scheme was the main and understanding. What is most remarkable about Ricoeur is that he hindrance for a hermeneutical reading. Now, having the conceptual brought in his philosophical anthropology as an essential element in the scheme been acquitted of incommensurability on the one hand and the methodological alliance that constitutes hermeneutics. role of the wilful receptivity of particular practitioners is duly recognized, one can legitimately explain the development of scientific knowledge in As of now, the significance of hermeneutics extends to all branches terms of a hermeneutical interaction between schemes of thought. of knowledge, because as Palmer argues, “interpretation is the most basic act of human thinking; indeed existing itself may be said to be a 3.2 Hermeneutical Dimension of Theology constant process of interpretation.”27 As we saw in the previous section, The forgoing sections gave us a brief account of the recent hermeneutics is given attention even in the field of natural sciences. In researches in the field of hermeneutics of science. Similar and the context of the emergence of historical knowledge no one takes any simultaneous expository researches have been carried out in the field of claim for purely objective knowledge seriously. All knowledge wells out hermeneutics of religions also. This happened mostly in relation to of a hermeneutical circle. However, the hermeneutical turn in all general Christian religion and theology vis á vis the developments in continental fields of knowledge is not unobjectionable. For instance, Habermas, hermeneutical philosophy. Theologians influenced by the modern Derrida, and many Liberation theologians have criticised hermeneutical philosophical trend called ‘hermeneutical thinking’ posed two questions method of knowledge from their own respective view points. But, the for their self-criticism and creative consideration: What is the nature of ‘critical hermeneutics’ of Ricoeur, it seems, is capable of accommodating theology and how does one theologize in the present day context? Many varied methods of knowledge and thus answering the criticisms. theologians have found Ricoeur’s thoughts as very helpful in answering Because thus hermeneutics has all-pervasive influence on all 24 these fundamental issues in current theological discussions. Ricoeur branches of knowledge, theology as a form of human knowledge becomes has made an insightful revision of the developments in hermeneutics and inevitably hermeneutical. There are many reasons why hermeneutics is made his own original contribution towards its further development.25
44Omega December 2007 45 Martin Sebastian Between Theology and Science particularly relevant to theology. For instance, as Ricoeur conceives, 3. 3.1 Barbour’s Typology and Hermeneutical Problems theology is hermeneutical at all levels, because, in his analysis, ‘we can believe only by listening and by interpreting a text which is already an It is hardly possible to find a book in the field of science–religion interpretation.’ 28 Similar views have been registered by Fiorenza, Tracy, without a reference to Barbour who proposed four ways of relating etc.29 Perhaps Tracy’s succinct expressions would make our point clearer: science and theology. In his view, Conflict, Independence, Dialogue He wrote in Plurality and Ambiguity in 1987; “Every time we act, and Integration are the four ways in which science and theology relate deliberate, judge, understand, or even experience, we are interpreting. with each other. Barbour himself has revised his model time and again. To understand at all is to interpret. […] Interpretation is thus a question Although most of the science-religion theorists follow one or more of as unavoidable, finally, as experience, understanding, deliberation, these models, it is very difficult for a methodologically sensitive thinker judgment, decision, and action.”30 Two years later drawing on the insights to accept his typology as the true and complete explanation of science– of other correlation theologians like Schillebeeckx and Küng, he said; religion interactions. His model has been subjected to serious criticisms “Interpretation is not something added to experience and understanding and thus instrumental, though unintentionally, in pushing people on either but is always-already present as intrinsic to understanding itself. This is fence of the science-religion dialogue towards a more exact formulation especially the case for any theological interpretations of our contemporary of the actual nature of the relationship between science and theology. experience. For theology attempts to discern and interpret those fundamental questions (finitude, estrangement, alienation, oppression, According to Cantor and Kenny, Barbour’s model is “not very fundamental trust or mistrust, loyalty, anxiety, mortality and so on) which useful or analytically helpful.”35 In their reading, Barbour’s “overarching disclose a genuinely religious dimension in our contemporary experience fourfold taxonomy” has been projected “as a metathesis specifying all and language.”31 Besides these inner theological and general cognitional possible science-religion interrelationships.”36 They have identified a few reasons, the historical character of all theological knowledge also points serious historiographical problems in Barbour’s account. However, in to its hermeneutical dimension. We can only mourn on the ‘irremediable our estimation the historiographical problems that Cantor and Kenny loss of the immediacy of our belief.’32 So, living one’s faith today have rightly pointed out are arguably hermeneutical issues as well. First necessarily involves certain mediation.33 A matrix of interpretations and of all, the ‘conceptual, historical, and developmental relation’ that is reinterpretations is the medium of understanding and transmission of obvious in Barbour’s four ways of Conflict, Independence, Dialogue original faith.34 Thus, theology as hermeneutics has to assume a mediatory and Integration is not an accidental invention but a construction with role. purpose. One is justified to say that Barbour has constructed this sequence quite artificially in order to persuade his readers to reject Conflict and 3. 3 Hermeneutics in Science–Theology Interactions Independence, and to support along with him, “Dialogue and, with some qualifications, certain versions of Integration.”37 Such efforts to In the previous sections we tried to bring out the essential propagate the progress that Barbour seems to believe to exist in the hermeneutical dimension of science and theology, and the structure of field of science-theology (from Conflict through Independence to their development into distinct fields of knowledge. Now, we shall Dialogue and Integration 38) do betray his motivations and commitments. examine a few concrete efforts in the field of science-religion and observe As mentioned earlier, regulative motivations and commitments readily how the inevitably hermeneutical nature of science and theology, each point to the role of the will of the theorist; and thus to the basic interpretive in se and that of their history of development in toto, shows itself mostly aspect of the entire theorizing process. through its absence and some times through its presence. Secondly, the very dynamism of Barbour’s fourfold ways is itself a telling proof of the hermeneutical character of science-theology
46Omega December 2007 47 Martin Sebastian Between Theology and Science conversations. In any genuine conversation it is the subject matter that discussions and other science-religion scientists such as Peacocke and moves the conversation on. Barbour’s model works because it is founded Polkinghorne in their concrete efforts to interrelate science and theology on ‘conflict’ thesis. Had he used a neutral term, for instance, problem,39 have committed this mistake.45 In fact, there is hardly any historical in stead of conflict, science-theology conversations would have definitely continuity in science or in theology. If that is the case, how can one yielded different results. As of now, “although ultimately rejected, the justify the plausibility of an overarching metaphysics (for instance, the Conflict thesis has set Barbour’s agenda for categorizing the ways in combinations of process theology concepts and fundamental theories of which Science and Religion interrelate.”40 Cantor and Kenny have strong physics) at the back/front of science-theology discourse? Most of the support of strict historical analysis to say that Barbour is making science-religion theorists today seem to presuppose/aim at such an “anachronistic use of the term” conflict, and thus specifically, “imposing unwarranted metaphysical construction. This folly of the correlation on history a term with rich but highly partisan history…”41 This method is present not only in the meta-discourse of science-theology historiographical inconsistency is a serious problem from our interactions, but also in the inner scientific and theological efforts to hermeneutical perspective as well. To set the foundation of science- determine their self-identity. Critics have rightly pointed out that in religion conversation on an imaginary conflict thesis is to smother the Barbour’s methodological discussions (and in many other subsequent true spirit and direction of the discourse. Indeed, science-religion discourses on particular issues, we may add) religion is just a synonym interaction is a significant discourse in the present era, but wrongly for Christianity,46 (especially certain kinds of Western Christianity47); founded. The stagnation we talked about in the beginning is partly caused and science is a synonym for modern Western Science.48 So the critics by this hermeneutical problem. It is sad that most of the prominent opine that “it is surely unhelpful to posit a conjunction between Science exponents of this discourse are unaware of this central methodological and Religion … without a close analysis of their precise meanings within flaw. Certain fundamental research on the basic methodological questions specific contexts.”49 Instead they call for localized and contextualized concerning this discourse is what is wanted at the moment.42 understanding of science and religion. Hermeneutically speaking, in all conversations empty concepts and conjunctions must be replaced with Thirdly, since no word or text in a discourse, from a hermeneutical thoroughly contextualised understandings. The category of overarching point of view, is without a world of specific meanings the usual phrase conflict does not do justice to the wide plurality of encounters among ‘Science and Theology’ has to be strictly scrutinized. We have brought different figures engaged in interrelating their findings in one or other out the hermeneutical nature of science and theology in the previous specific areas in the fields of science, religion, and philosophy. The section. Now, to make out the interpretive role of ‘and’ we shall again pluralism is not only inter-disciplinary, but even intra-disciplinary. A general turn to Cantor and Kenny. In their opinion, in Barbour’s use of the phrase conflict thesis is indeed a very simplistic analysis of the radically pluralistic ‘science and theology’ the copula ‘and’ affects the meaning of this phrase conflictual situation in which the practitioners of science and religion and it biases the discussions in the field in two ways: (a.) It indicates that find themselves. there is a ‘constructive relation’ between the two.43 This is not a valid formulation of the project for all detached inquirers, especially, atheists. 3.3.2 Alternative Models and Hermeneutical Possibilities (b.) This copula identifies and circumscribes a natural shared common domain for ‘science and religion’ as if they have common vocabularies, All the same, Barbour speaks about three sources of science- theory structures, methodological aims, and epistemological problems. religion dialogue. He says: “Any view of the relationship of science and But, “a shared domain exists only in so far as it identifies specific elements theology reflects philosophical assumptions. Our discussion must therefore of both science and religion while ignoring others.”44 draw from three disciplines: science (the empirical study of the order of nature), theology (critical reflection on the life and thought of the religious Finally, it is a hermeneutical sin to assume uncritically certain community), and philosophy, especially epistemology (analysis of the continuity between science and theology. Barbour in his methodological 48Omega December 2007 49 Martin Sebastian Between Theology and Science characteristics of inquiry and knowledge) and metaphysics (analysis of epistemological theory of the newly emergent field of science-religion. the most general characteristics of reality).”50 In a similar way, Stoeger However, that does not seem to be the case. Russell is right in pointing who tires to promote a dialogical mode of relationship between science out the medial status of philosophy in all science-theology interactions. and religion shows how cosmology, which in itself as a discipline is limited, This initial insight is very significant but his further reflections on this is related to philosophy and theology. In his view, “it is rarely clear in conviction are not philosophically nuanced or sufficiently critical. Although cosmological research and discussion just where strictly scientific analysis he is aware that there are “competing theories as well as competing ends […],” and therefore he deems it important to consider the “key interpretations of theories” in the field of science, he fails, first of all, to issues which determine the limits of cosmology as a discipline and its give attention to the fact of plurality and conflict of interpretations in relationships with philosophy and with theology.”51 In his discussions science, and, secondly, to infer and explore the same in the field of Stoeger assumes a ‘critical realistic’ philosophical position. But he does theology and philosophy. However, Russell must be applauded for his not bother to justify this option. This precisely is one of the points we successful effort to point out the vital importance of philosophy: “[…] want to highlight and to mark as a point of departure for our hermeneutical the channel of influence is philosophy, both explicitly as a field of inquiry reflections. Most of the science-religion theorists adopt one or another which can act as a bridge between theology and science, and implicitly philosophical stance without explicitly justifying it. However, the in so far as philosophical assumptions and concepts infuse theology and awareness that there is a philosophical mediation in science-religion science per se.”55 dialogue is itself an important step. Ten years later while reflecting on the theological question of 3.3.2.1 Science-Philosophy-Theology ‘special providence’ Russell insisted on the role of philosophy but with more clarity.56 By making an effort to explore the strength of the Russell is more sensitive to the explicitly philosophical implications theological doctrine of special providence by means of an ‘appropriate of science in general and quantum physics in particular. In his opinion it philosophy of nature’ he invited science-religion theorists to examine the is not scientific knowledge that comes directly in contact with theology kind of philosophy they subscribe to. He admitted ‘historical relativity’ but the philosophical implications thereof. He has explored at length the on the side of science and ‘tentativeness’ of our reflections on the side ‘philosophical implications of (pre-relativistic) quantum physics’ for of theology as two significant aspects of science-religion theories. In the theology. He thinks that philosophical implications of science are “relevant concluding assessment of this 1998 essay Russell made an important to the work of contemporary theology, both as a heuristic source of observation: In 1980’s theologians who talked about divine providence theological metaphor and as a systematic factor in constructive had to do it either in the line of traditional theism or that of process theology.”52 He defends a “form of inter-disciplinary epistemology” over theology,57 but in 1990s special providence was offered certain ‘objective against the commonplace hierarchical model.53 He bases his noninterventionist’ interpretations. What is important for us here is not methodological stance on his general conception of the nature of science the question of the relative viability and correctness of interpretations and theology. He views them as “two fields which, to some limited but offered in 80’s and in 90’s but that the interpretations did change in the irreducible degree, already include something of the discoveries, histories, course of time. Thus, we are justified in emphasising our point, namely, visions, and commitments of one another, both intentionally and that philosophy is involved in science-theology exchanges is not enough, inadvertently.”54 Thus Russell sees certain continuity between science but what kind of philosophy is employed is also crucial. and theology and bases himself on this perception in arguing for an inter- disciplinary epistemology. If it works as Russell thinks scientific 3.3.2.2 Multidimensional Model epistemology and theological epistemology will jointly form a new inter- disciplinary epistemological system, which in effect will function as the Swedish philosopher of religion Mikael Stenmark has tried to retain the “complexity and contextuality” of science-religion interactions.58 He 50Omega December 2007 51 Martin Sebastian Between Theology and Science developed a strategy for relating diverse ‘religion/science theories’ and A right understanding of science and religion and their interactions evaluating them critically. His strategy is to focus on the question, “what must take the structural depth and complexity of axiological concerns fundamental issues do religion/science theories have to deal with to relate into account. Stenmark proposes a multidimensional model according to religion and science to each other adequately?”59 He groups the which “relations between science and religion are possible at four levels: fundamental issues of science-religion interactions under four heads: the social level (the social interactions between practitioners of both Axiology, Epistemology, Ontology, and Semantics.60 In his view axiological science and religion), the teleological level (the aims that practitioners questions are the fundamental questions that any theory of science- of both science and religion have in mind when they do what they do), religion interaction must ask. In his view axiological choices have the epistemological level (beliefs, methods, theories and concepts), and implications for other three sets of fundamental issues. the theoretical level (the subject matter and content of both science and religion).”69 In this book, he emphasizes radical plurality of contexts He conceives the axiological structure of science and religion as and methods on the one hand and the contextual nature of reality on the having three dimensions. “The first dimension consists of the distinction other. He is also critically sensitive to the diverse ‘restrictionist and between epistemic and practical goals, the second of the distinction expansionist tendencies’ within the domains of science and religion.70 between individual and collective goals, and the last of the distinction between manifest and latent goals.”61 Epistemic goals are those that Whether Stenmark’s model is the best model for relating science aim at rational intelligibility whereas practical goals are those that aim at and theology today is not our primary concern. What impresses us most existential intelligibility and utility.62 From a phenomenological and and what is relevant for our present discussion is the explicit hermeneutical Christian theological point of view religion and science have both epistemic exercise he engages in. As a skilled interpreter, he first draws the attention and practical goals.63 Each religion and each scientific discipline has its of all involved in science-theology dialogues to the radical contextuality own specific ‘complex goal.’ All religion-science theories must therefore and irreducible complexity of the issues discussed as well as the process examine and identify all particular epistemic and practical goals of the of discussion itself. His effort to bring out all the latent and manifest particular religion and the specific branch of science they try to goals of science-religion dialogue is obviously a significant hermeneutical interrelate.64 Also, they must examine and compare the ‘weight’ given exercise. While working on the results of his research into the multiple to different practical and epistemic questions.65 dimensions of the issues in the field he attaches a special importance to axiological questions. This interpretive move readily and evidently projects The epistemic and practical goals can be pursued individually the primacy of the persons involved in dialogue, and, indirectly argues and collectively. Thanks to this additional sociological distinction, on for an assessment of the involvement of individual and collective will in either side there could be four kinds of goals: Personal epistemic goals, knowing and in the development of knowledge systems. In brief, while collective epistemic goals, personal practical goals, and collective practical figuring out a new model for interrelating science and theology he is goals. Between these four sets of goals there exists a complex relation. explicitly engaging in an act of interpretation, and, the model he has 66 And, these goals do change over time. All branches of science and devised summarily points to the necessity of using critical hermeneutics most of the religions have a dynamic conception of goals. As and when in science-theology exchanges. the goals of science and religion change their interrelationship will also undergo significant changes. Therefore, “a proper religion/science theory 3.3.2.3 Difference Model must be historically or contextually grounded.”67 The goals can be manifest as well as latent. As in the previous case here too there could We began our discussion with a reference to certain stagnation in be four kinds of goals: individual manifest epistemic goals, collective the field of science-theology in Europe. We interpreted this stagnation manifest epistemic goals, individual latent practical goals, and collective as a productive methodological pose. Now, to round up our short latent practical goals.68 expository survey we shall turn to one prominent European theologian’s 52 Omega December 2007 53 Martin Sebastian Between Theology and Science recent contribution to methodological studies in the field of science- view, is an opportunity for science-religion theorists to explicitate the theology. In our estimation, Boeve’s “Difference Model”71 perfectly already operative hermeneutical dimension. For both science and theology represents the decisive methodological pose in the field. In his view, at (by transposition, for scientists and theologians) this stopover is to the current stage of the history of science-theology interactions dialogues recognize and respect their silent fellow traveler, namely, hermeneutics must aim not to resolve unfounded conflicts or to bring out fresh syntheses, (by transposition, Critical thinkers). They cannot avoid recognizing it/ rather to gain “better mutual understanding and self-understanding.”72 them because it/they is/are their fellow travelers; they cannot but respect If science and theology should ever meet as partners, they must meet in it/them because it/they began the journey before they joined the gang, an “endeavor to better understand humanity and the world.”73 From a and, perhaps its/their destination is at far more distance than where point of view of comparative methodology, Boeve’s position may be science and theology set their goal. The incalculable remoteness of the stated as follows: The conflict between science and theology is ‘futile’ end of hermeneutics is experientially available to human mind negatively and the efforts to integrate one with the other will only yield a ‘forced through varied ambiguities and positively through incessant inner thirst unity.’ Yet, there is a possibility and indeed a need for dialogue between for integration. What is needed today is a magnanimous mind that can science and theology as long as ‘the independence and structural accommodate ambiguities as well as ambitions. If so, the need and mode affinities’ – in one word, ‘difference’- between them is respected.74 of science-theology interactions are not to be analyzed either from the exclusive perspective of science or from that of religion, but from the Specificity of religious language primarily and that of the scientific point of view of the adequately interpreted reality of human person who language correlatively is the key intuition behind the difference model. needs them both. Perhaps what Yeats writes in “The Second Coming,” All the ‘harmony models’ do betray unwarranted ‘boundary is an applicable analysis of the crisis in science-religion interaction: transgressions’, and, “only those who are not able to consider - or do “Things fall apart,” because “the centre cannot hold.” not accept- – the specificity of both language registers are likely to generate conflict between Christian faith and science.”75 Be it as it may. As far as we are concerned, ‘the inability to understand’ and ‘the Notes lack of acceptance’ have evidently to do with hermeneutical competence 1. Dr. Martin Sebastian obtained his Ph.D in Philosophy from Mahatma Gandhi and the role of will of the individuals involved in the exercise. The concept University, Kottayam. He is currently engaged in research in Theological of specificity is a hermeneutical discovery. It is a sure intuition that awaits Epistemology at Catholic University, Leuven. any critical interpreter of ‘particulars’. Boeve’s line of thought is arguably 2. According to Peterson this stagnation is more pervasive. In his view the in consonance with the specific approach of science-religion theorists in entire “field of theology and science is stagnating. […] the whole thing has the low land countries. The final report of a multidisciplinary ‘Committee crested and exhausted itself. Having explored the options but unable to of Faith and the Natural Science’ in Netherlands brought out the come to agreement, there is no further point to be made.” See, Gregory R. ‘fundamental differences’ between science and religion. The members Peterson, “Wither Theology and Science,” in Zygon 42, no. 3 (2007), p. 583. of the committee were all admittedly influenced by the German Given the number of publications (mostly from the States), which follow hermeneutical tradition.76 strictly or vaguely one or other model of science–religion interactions set by Ian Barbour, we do not want to say that the stagnation is pervasive in the 4. Conclusion field.
In the forgoing pages we made an effort to expose the 3. Difference and Conflict are two important interpretative key notions helpful in understanding the dynamism at work behind the entire science-religion hermeneutical dimension of science, theology and science-theology interactions over the past decades. For more on difference model of science- interrelations. The ‘stagnation,’ from a historical point of view, or a religion interaction, see, Lieven Boeve, God Interrupts History: Theology ‘methodological pose,’ as we described it from an analytical point of 54Omega December 2007 55 Martin Sebastian Between Theology and Science
in a Time of Upheaval (New York: Continuum, 2007), Chapter six; and, for hermeneutical nature of scientific enterprises. See, Joseph J. Kockelmans, Conflict mode, see, Ian G. Barbour, “Ways of Relating Science and Theology,” Ideas for a Hermeneutic Phenomenology of the Natural Sciences (London: in R. J. Russell, W. R. Stoeger, and G.V. Coyne, eds., Physics, Philosophy, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993), pp. 100-120. and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding (Vatican City State: 9. Kockelmans, Ideas for a Hermeneutic Phenomenology of the Natural Vatican Observatory, 1988), pp.21-27. These, however, are not the only models Sciences, p. 101: “[…] man’s understanding projects his own Being both up they discuss. Boeve has proposed the difference model as a corrective one on its own for-the-sake-of-which and upon the totality of meaning which is to the previously held incorrect models which he groups under the titles the worldhood of the world in which he finds himself.” conflict and harmony. But as regards Barbour, that conflict is the basic interpretative key of his understanding of science-religion interactions is 10. Kockelmans, Ideas for a Hermeneutic Phenomenology of the Natural our contention. We will continue this discussion later. For arguments for the Sciences, p. 101. relative adequacy of the term problem see Note no. 38 below. 11. “Meaning is that in which the intelligibility of something maintains itself. 4. Michael G. Harvey, “Science, Rationality and Theology,” in The Journal of Thus meaning is that which can be articulated in the discourse of man’s Religion 87, no. 2 (2007), p. 226: “The gap between the two cultures of understanding. … Meaning is that upon which each projection projects the science and theology has widened under the assumption that the Being of things and which can be structured by our understanding and from epistemological foundations of physical science are well founded compared which each thing, thus, can be understood as being either this or that. to those of theology and hence that the conflict between the two is rational Meaning is therefore the intentional correlate of the disclosedness which or epistemological in nature.” necessarily belongs to our original understanding. … there can be a question of meaning only within the dialogue between man and the things in his 5. Georg Henrik von Wright, Explanation and Understanding (London: world.” See, Kockelmans, Ideas for a Hermeneutic Phenomenology of the Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1971; reprint, 1975), p.10. Natural Sciences, p. 103. 6. The German historian-philosopher Droysen introduced a methodological 12. Kockelmans, Ideas for a Hermeneutic Phenomenology of the Natural trichotomy, namely, Erkennen, Erklären and Verstehen, meaning to know, to Sciences, p. 104. explain, and to understand; and he opined that philosophical method of knowledge aims to know whereas the method employed by physical sciences 13. See, Harvey, “Science, Rationality and Theology,” pp. 227-239. explains the phenomena that fall within their domain and historical method 14. Harvey, “Science, Rationality and Theology,” p. 235. aims to understand its subject matter. Later Wilhelm Dilthey elaborated and systematized these methodological ideas. See, Wright, Explanation and 15. Richard J. Bernstein, Beyond Objectivism and Relativism (Philadelphia: Understanding, 172, n. 19. University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991), 131-33 argues that the structure that Kuhn brings out intimates the hermeneutical circle of tradition and 7. Wright, Explanation and Understanding, pp. 181-182. Wright has noted interpretation. It is right to describe ‘normal paradigm’ as at once tradition- two features of hermeneutics which are specially noteworthy as regards the constituted and tradition-constitutive. See, Harvey, “Science, Rationality affinities with analytical philosophy: a. Centrality of language and language and Theology,” p. 235. oriented notions, b. Concern with methodology and philosophy of science. (pp.30-32). 16. Harvey brings out this point with the help of the sharp observations made by Donald Davidson, “On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme,” in 8. ‘Hermeneutic Phenomenology of the Natural Sciences’ is a topic for heated Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984), p. 187. discussion in contemporary philosophy of science. Joseph J. Kockelmans See Harvey, “Science, Rationality and Theology,” pp. 235-236. has contributed a lot to this discussion from within an early Heideggerian perspective. He has developed an ‘ontologico-hermeneutical approach’ to 17. “Although Kuhn’s historiographical analysis is quite technical, it raises natural sciences. Although it would be a fruitful exercise, we do not venture epistemological issues that illuminate the hermeneutical nature of scientific to examine Kockelmans’ ontological reflections presently. Instead we make inquiry.” Harvey, “Science, Rationality and Theology,” p. 227. a moderate effort to use his research findings in making out the inherently
56Omega December 2007 57 Martin Sebastian Between Theology and Science
18. Harvey quotes Michael Polanyi’s comparison between the ways of learning 27. Richard E. Palmer, Hermeneutics: Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher, art and the ways of learning science as a supportive analysis. See, Michael Dilthey, Heidegger, and Gadamer., Northwestern University Studies in Polanyi, Science, Faith and Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy (Evanston: Northwestern 1964), p. 15. University Press, 1969), p. 9. 19. “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon 28. Paul Ricoeur and Mudge Lewis S. (ed.), Essays on Biblical Interpretation insufficient evidence. If a man, holding a belief which he was taught in (Philadelphia (Pa.): Fortress, 1985), pp. 49-51. childhood or persuaded afterwards, keeps down and pushes away any 29. See, Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, Foundational Theology : Jesus and the doubts which arise about it in his mind … the life of that man is one long sin Church (New York: Crossroad, 1984), David Tracy, Blessed Rage for Order against mankind.” See, W.K. Clifford, The Ethics of Belief and Other Essays (New York: The Seabury Press, 1975), David Tracy, The Analogical (New York: Prometheus, 1999), p. 77, cited in Harvey, “Science, Rationality Imagination: Christian Theology and the Culture of Pluralism (New York: and Theology,” p. 228. Crossroad, 1981), and, for Bultman’s ground making work in exposing the 20. Harvey, “Science, Rationality and Theology,” pp. 232-233. thoroughly hermeneutical character of the entire Christian theology, See, John Painter, Theology as Hermeneutics: Rudolf Bultman’s Interpretaion 21. Davidson, “On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme,” p. 187. of the History of Jesus (Sheffield: The Almond Press, 1987), Chapters 2, 5. 22. Wilhelm Dilthey, “The Types of World-View and Their Development in the 30. David Tracy, Plurality and Ambiguity: Hermeneutics, Religion, Hope (San Metaphysical Systems,” in H. P Rickman, W. Dilthey, ed., Selected Writings Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), p. 9. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), pp. 133-154. 31. David Tracy, “Hermeneutical Reflections in the New Paradigm,” in Hans 23. Harvey, “Science, Rationality and Theology,” p. 237. This however is not a Kung and David Tracy, eds., Paradigm Change in Theology: A Symposium substantial alteration of Kuhn’s original view. It is completely consistent for the Future (Edinburgh: T & T Clark Ltd, 1989), p. 55. with his views in all respects. 32. “In every way, something has been lost, irremediably lost: immediacy of 24. Joseph Putti, Theology as Hermeneutics: Paul Ricoeur’s Theory of Text belief. But if we can no longer live the great symbolisms of the sacred in Interpretation and Method in Theology (San Francisco: International accordance with the original belief in them, we, modern men, can aim at a Scholars Publications, 1994), p. 123. Note no. 10 gives a list of theologians second naivete in and through criticism. In short, it is by interpreting that who have recognized the relevance of Ricoeur’s hermeneutical thinking for we can hear again. Thus it is in hermeneutics that the symbol’s gift of theological methodology. Schillebeeckx, Tracy, Fiorenza are some of them in meaning and the endeavor to understand by deciphering are knotted the list. together.” Paul Ricoeur, The Symbolism of Evil, trans. Emerson Buchanan 25. In the history of Western philosophy one can notice in the modern period a (Boston: Beacon Press, 1967), p. 351. decisive ‘turn to the subject.’ This turn is decisive because it is in sharp 33. Putti, Theology as Hermeneutics, p. 263. contrast to the ancient and, quite often, the medieval focus on the ‘objects’ out side the knower. Descartes initiated this shift and a little later Kant 34. Edward Schillebeeckx, God the Future of Man, trans. N. D. Smith (London: explicitated the exact epistemological nature of this turn. Hussurl highlighted Sheed and Ward, 1969), p. 43: “My only aim here has been to throw light on the meaning making character of the subject, and introduced a the fact that we should not be afraid of serious attempts to reinterpret the phenomenological method of philosophical inquiry to that effect. With faith and that the correctness of these interpretations can not be tested Ricoeur, phenomenology, which in his estimation was under the strong simply by setting earlier formulae of faith against them, since these too influence of transcendental idealism, took an explicit hermeneutical turn. always require interpretation and have still been made true.” 26. For Gadamer’s contributions to theology, see, Philippe Eberhard, “Gadamer 35. Geoffrey Cantor and Chris Kenny, “Barbour’s Fourfold Way: Problems with and Theology,” in International Journal of Systematic Theology 9, no. 3 His Taxonomy of Science-Religion Relationships,” in Zygon No. 4 (2001), p. (2007), pp. 295-300. 765.
58Omega December 2007 59 Martin Sebastian Between Theology and Science
36. Cantor and Kenny, “Barbour’s Fourfold Way,” p. 766. 43. Cantor and Kenny, “Barbour’s Fourfold Way,” p. 771: “In the context of common discourse the copula is not neutral but is generally used within the 37. I. G. Barbour, Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues well-established tradition of opposition to the conflict thesis” (New York: Harper San Francisco, 1997), p. 77. Italics added. 44. Cantor and Kenny, “Barbour’s Fourfold Way,” p. 771. 38. They describe the dynamics of Barbour’s proposal as follows: “he cites both the scientific materialist and the biblical literalist as espousing Conflict. 45. According to Smedes, Peacocke and Polkinghorne, who try to interrelate Having criticised and disposed of both versions” he explores the science and theology after the Integration model, adhere to a cultural form “alternatives. ... ‘One way to avoid conflict between science and religion is of scientism. See, Taede A. Smedes, “Religion and Science: Finding the to view the two enterprises as totally independent and autonomous.’ Thus Right Questions,” in Zygon 42, no. 3 (2007), p. 595. he ushers in Independence. Finding this unsatisfactory he ‘go[es] beyond 46. Cantor and Kenny, “Barbour’s Fourfold Way,” p. 772. Elsewhere in p. 778 the independence model’ by introducing Dialogue. While commending many they say that “Barbour’s discussion is directed to Christianity, it may not be specific modes of Dialogue he finally engages Integration as the most applicable to other religious traditions.” acceptable position.” Thus Barbour proposes science-religion interactions as a “pilgrim’s process starting with Conflict, briefly engaging in 47. David C Lindberg and Ronald L Numbers, “Introduction,” in David C independence and finally finding haven either in Dialogue or preferably in Lindberg and Ronald L Numbers, eds., When Science & Christianity Meet some form of Integration.” See, Cantor and Kenny, “Barbour’s Fourfold (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2003), p. 4 admit thus: “[..] Way,” p. 768. moreover those of us who write about the history of science and Christianity have been guilty of concentrating almost all of our attention on America and 39. According to Cantor and Kenny, Problem is a good substitute for conflict. Western Europe, despite the fact that Christendom has always been solidly They give a very convincing example from science in support of their represented in eastern Europe, Western Asia, and Africa.” suggestion: Non-ellipticity of Uranus’s orbit contradicted Newton’s celestial mechanics that predicted that all planets unless disturbed by extraneous 48. An alternative approach is not an impossible ideal. In Job Kozhamthadam, forces move in elliptical orbits. The new observation could have been Science, Technology and Values, Science-Religion Dialogue in a Multi- interpreted as a valid case that refutes Newton’s theory. But scientist treated Religious World (Pune: ASSR Publications, 2003.) K. S. Radhakrishnan it as problem and sought to resolve it by making more experiments and assumes an Eastern perspective, especially the Indian, and, argues that the changing subsidiary assumptions. This approach paved the way for the holistic approach of Indian science is a viable alternative to the Western hypothesis of some other celestial body that attracts/affects Uranus’ regular system that believes in bifurcations and binaries. He proposes an ‘Ecocentric orbit. Finally, a new planet Neptune was identified. See, Cantor and Kenny, Epistemology’ that “admits the coexistence of pluralistic claims together” “Barbour’s Fourfold Way,” p. 769-70. (p. 198), as a substitute to ‘Anthropocentric Epistemology’ which is the offspring of Anthropocentrism that is “justified by both religion and natural 40. Cantor and Kenny, “Barbour’s Fourfold Way,” p. 768. philosophy of Western traditions” (p. 192). He supports his claim with a 41. Cantor and Kenny, “Barbour’s Fourfold Way,” pp. 766-769. The modern presentation of important features of Indian Sastras, and, the holistic sense of the category conflict as Barbour employs it in the Conflict thesis is perspective of advaitism (Non-dualism). a meaning it acquired in a time about 1870. Indeed, John William Draper’s 49. Cantor and Kenny, “Barbour’s Fourfold Way,” p. 772. History of the Conflict between Science and Religion from which Barbour borrows lot for his foundational thesis came out in 1874. But critics notice 50. Barbour, “Ways of Relating Science and Theology,” p. 21. that “not all writers of the 1870s perceived the science-religion relation as 51. William R. Stoeger, “Contemporary Cosmology and Its Implications for the one of unmitigated conflict.” Science - Religion Dialogue,” in R. J. Russell, W. R. Stoeger, and G. V. Coyne, 42. ‘Difference model’ is the fruit of such fundamental research done from a eds., Physics, Philosophy, and Theology: A Common Quest for philosophico-theological point of view. See, Boeve, God Interrupts History, Understanding (Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, 1988), p. 219. pp. 111-138.
60Omega December 2007 61 Martin Sebastian Between Theology and Science
52. Robert John Russell, “Quantum Physics in Philosophical and Theological weight to practical goals than epistemic goals. Stenmark, “An Unfinished Perspective,” in R. J. Russell, W. R. Stoeger, and G. V Coyne, eds., Physics, Debate,” p. 504 quotes Mary Daly, for instance, who thinks that “one should Philosophy and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding (Vatican reject Whitehead’s process theism if it does not actively encourage ‘human City State: Vatican Observatory, 1988), p. 343. struggle against oppression in its concrete manifestations.’” 53. Russell, “Quantum Physics in Philosophical and Theological Perspective,” 66. Stenmark, “An Unfinished Debate,” p. 508 notes, for instance, “although a p. 369. religion such as Christianity, in its early forms was not understood by its followers to have as one of its essential goals the overcoming of ecological 54. Russell, “Quantum Physics in Philosophical and Theological Perspective,” crises, today that appears to have changed.” Also, a cursory reading of the p. 370. contents of the course on “Theology of the History of Salvation” taught in 55. Russell, “Quantum Physics in Philosophical and Theological Perspective,” the department of systematic theology here in our university will bring out p. 367. the change of goals in theologizing. 56. R. J. Russell, “Does the ‘God Who Acts’ Really Act in Nature?,” in T. Peters, 67. Stenmark, “An Unfinished Debate,” p. 509. ed., Science & Theology: A New Consonance (Boulder: Westview Press, 68. For instance, “Christianity officially seems to aim for the mutual respect and 1998), pp. 88-89. love of all human beings (a collective manifest practical goal): ‘We are all 57. Russell makes this observation in response to Owen C. Thomas, “Recent one in Christ.’ But after empirical studies we may come to understand that Thought on Divine Agency,” in Brian Hebblethwaite and Edward Henderson, Christianity also has the implicit goal of maintaining a patriarchal relationship eds., Divine Action (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1990), pp. 35-50. See, Russell, between men and woman in religion and society. Christianity has then a “Does the ‘God Who Acts’ Really Act in Nature?,” pp. 94-95. collective latent practical goal of patriarchalism.” See, Stenmark, “An Unfinished Debate,” p. 510. 58. This pair of words is from a review article, Taede A Smedes, “Mikael Stenmark: How to Relate Science and Religion: A Multidimensional Model,” Ars 69. Smedes, “Mikael Stenmark: How to Relate Science and Religion: A Disputandi: The Online Journal of Philosophy o f Religion 5 (2005), p. 4. Multidimensional Model,” 1. For Stenmark’s own elaborate description, see, 59. Mikael Stenmark, “An Unfinished Debate: What Are the Aims of Religion Mikael Stenmark, How to Relate Science and Religion: A Multidimensional and Science,” in Zygon 32, no. 4 (1997), p. 491. Model (Cambridge: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 2004), Chapters, 3,4,5,6. 60. “Axiology is, roughly, the study of values and aims.” By axiology of science and religion he means the theoretical and cognitive values (not ethical) 70. In addition to the plurality of social practices, epistemologies, and theoretical involved. Epistemology of science and religion concerns the issues regarding issues, Stenmark has also distinguished some trends in the ûeld of science- justification, knowledge and truth. Ontology concerns the kinds of entities religion. Smedes, “Mikael Stenmark: How to Relate Science and Religion: A that the beliefs and theories are about. Semantics of Science and religion Multidimensional Model,” 2 summarizes Stenmark’s notions as follows: inquires the distinctive functions of religious and scientific language. See, “There are ‘scientific expansionists’ who argue that ‘the boundaries of science Stenmark, “An Unfinished Debate,” pp. 492-493. can and should be expanded in such a way that something that has not been understood as science can now become a part of science’ (xi–xii). Stenmark 61. Stenmark, “An Unfinished Debate,” p. 510. Italics added. dealt with scientiûc expansionism in his previous book on Scientism and so 62. Stenmark, “An Unfinished Debate,” pp. 494-497. pays relatively little attention to it here. More attention is devoted to the group of ‘religious expansionists’ (those who maintain ‘that the boundaries 63. Stenmark, “An Unfinished Debate,” p. 500. of religion could and should be expanded in such a way that religion in some 64. Stenmark, “An Unfinished Debate,” p. 502. way becomes an important element of the scientiûc enterprise’ [xii]) and ‘ideological expansionists’ (those who argue that the sciences are or should 65. To give an example of comparative examination of weight, in the case of the be politicized or ideologized on the basis of class or gender). Finally, there goals of Christian religion, the feminist and liberation theologians give more are ‘scientific or religious restrictionists’ who argue that science and religion
62Omega December 2007 63 Martin Sebastian Between Theology and Science
should be kept separate. Stenmark provides a lot of conceptual distinctions and gives an extremely balanced and nuanced account of different positions as well as arguments for or against those positions. The only alternative Stenmark explicitly rejects is the ‘independence’ position, since he argues that ‘everything we can learn in one area of life from another area that can improve our cognitive performance ought to be taken into consideration by rational people.’” 71. See Boeve, God Interrupts History, pp. 116-139. Observations on Observation in 72. Boeve, God Interrupts History, p. 127. Philosophy of Science: 73. Boeve, God Interrupts History, p. 127. The Need to Go Beyond Science 74. Boeve, God Interrupts History, p. 130. - Stephen Jayard1 75. Boeve, God Interrupts History, p. 123. Italics added. Abstract: One of the burning issues in Philosophy of Science is the 76. Smedes, “Religion and Science: Finding the Right Questions,” pp. 597-598. concept of Observation. Many questions in Philosophy of Science can Prof. Smedes, another European science-religion theorist whose “perspective either be traced back to or derived from the issue of observation. Unlike is strongly influenced by European – especially Kantian, hermeneutic, and many other philosophical issues, it has a very direct relevance to the Wittgensteinian – philosophy […] strongly emphasises the difference breakthroughs in modern science. Hence modern science, especially between science and religion.” (p. 595) the discoveries and advancements in contemporary Particle Physics, has kept up the debates alive. Such debates seem to force us to change our very idea of observation. Though the issue of observation involves many real and deep issues, this essay attempts, in the first part, to investigate the nature of observation and what it is to be observed (or observable). The paper begins with a quick presentation of the Received View and proceeds to evaluate it, drawing insights from Dudley Shapere. He explains what it is to be observed in modern science with the elaboration of Neutrino experiment and he shows how the long cherished equation, observation = sense perception, is thoroughly broken down. The second part brings out some of the possible repercussions of this break-down in three worlds; namely, in the worlds of philosophy, science and of common people. This obviously makes one realize that one needs to go beyond science for a comprehensive understanding of reality. Key Words: Observation, Received view, Neutrino experiment, Logical positivism, Empiricism, Observability.
Introduction
The most intriguing words of Sir Arthur Eddington (1881-1944), I believe, can be a fitting starter for our reflections on the issues of
64Omega December 2007 65 Stephen Jayard Observations on Observation in Philosophy of Science
Observation in science and philosophy. He says, “I have settled down to the unobservable entities (electrons), properties (electric charges or the task of writing these lectures and have drawn up my chairs to my magnetic fields) or processes (ozone being eaten up by CFC). However, two tables. Two tables! Yes; there are duplicates of every object about science is constantly using the unobservable because their effects are me – two tables, two chairs, two pens.”2 The first table is of our ordinary very much observed, like mass, inertia or force – are not directly commonsensical experience: a table that is hard and colourful; it supports observable but only their effects are felt. when something is placed upon it. But the second table, which is beyond our visual perception, is that which is demanded by contemporary physics: Thirdly, the common sense view of science is that science produces it is mostly emptiness, with a number of electric charges moving at an true knowledge because, it starts with observation and all its claims are enormous speed in a random manner. He continues, “modern physics based upon observational sources. Further, humans are believed to have has by delicate test and remorseless logic assured me that my second a direct access to the objects. But do those who see a given object do table is the only one which is really there – whatever ‘there’ may be.”3 see the same thing? True, when a given object is seen the image on the These words of Eddington seem to teach us a strong lesson that there is retina will be the same for all viewers, but deeper reflections seem to much more in reality than what our naked eyes seem to tell us. Another suggest that we don’t see the same thing. As Chalmers has it, “the example would be, though we see on the T.V. screen continuous motions visual experience that an observer has when viewing an object, depends 4 of the pictures it is only a series of instant and motionless pictures as the in part on his past experience, his knowledge and his expectations.” electrons bombard the screen. Therefore, we realize that we cannot From all these considerations many philosophical issues arise, like, merely rely on our visual perception and / or other sense perceptions, to a) Do all our observations presuppose some theory or the other? Can learn about the world. The picture of the world given by science seems any observation be pure? b) Can we draw the dividing line between the to be different from what our senses tell us. observable and the unobservable? Further, there seems to be only a Going further, we use modern technology to extend our human shifting barrier between them. If so, how to define what is meant by abilities to observe: for instance, we use telescopes to take us farther unobservable-in-principle and relatively unobservable? c) Is there a need into space to observe the astronomical bodies, we use microscopes to to postulate the unobservable in science and the ability of the unobservable take us to the sub-atomic world; we ‘observe’ heart by hearing its beats to provide explanation and unification? d) What is the ontological status through a stethoscope… Now an important question arises: all these of such unobservable entities?, and so on. In this short essay, I intend to instruments use lots of theories in their make-up. When we use them we critically analyze the fundamental claim of observation that is ‘pure’ and assume those theories to be unproblematic. Is it a correct assumption? theory-free and attempt at a refined understanding of observation. I Further, can science use those observations to test theories, because prefer to focus on this because, I believe, if this claim is shown to be observations themselves seem to be burdened with theories? Thus we impossible, all other claims will automatically collapse under their own arrive at a significant division between observations and theories. weight. Hence I undertake to investigate the nature of observation to learn what it is to be observed (observable). In the second part, I highlight Secondly, in science an observation would be useless if it is not some of the possible repercussions of the revised understanding of communicated to the scientific community for further tests or observation, in the worlds of philosophy, science and of common man. manipulation. This basic need to express them in an intelligible manner immediately lands us on yet another important issue, that is, the relation 1. The Received View between observation and the language in which it is expressed. Some The phrase Received View, coined by Putnam, refers to the legacy terms refer more or less directly to the objects (like chairs and tables), of those elements of the past, consolidated and propagated by the 20th events (like water turning into vapour), while some other terms refer to century’s logical empiricism and logical positivism. They treated
66Omega December 2007 67 Stephen Jayard Observations on Observation in Philosophy of Science philosophy of science as logic of science. For them the only concern in contemporary historians of science, like Kuhn and Alexandre Koyrè, philosophy of science is the ‘form’ and not the ‘content’ of the scientific who have made the philosophers aware of the need of history of science statements. They tried to provide logical clarification of the scientific for philosophy of science. Feyerabend7, N.R. Hanson8, Robert Palter9, terms and concepts; to furnish logical justifications of Inductivism; to Stephen Toulmin10 and many others realized that science would not take uncover the (common) logical structure of theories; and to discover a place in a ‘vacuum’ and it would certainly need prior beliefs and theories. logical structure common to all explanations. Rudolf Carnap5 is said to be the epitome of the Received View. He makes a distinction between The recent developments in modern science also, especially particle empirical laws and theoretical laws (or hypothetical laws). The former physics, makes strong demands on us to change our hitherto concept of contains direct observables or measurables (e.g., Boyle’s law, Ohm’s observation. It forces us to go in for an alternative view of law, etc.), by relatively simple techniques, while the latter are abstract observation. I borrow the elaboration of the Neutrino Experiment 11 laws, having non-observables (like atoms, electrons, molecules, from Dudley Shapere to show how the demands of modern science electromagnetic fields, etc.), which can’t be measured in direct and simple force us to change our notion of observation as legitimate ones and to manner. The theoretical laws are more general than the empirical laws. arrive at a new understanding of what is to be observed (or to be The empirical laws are inductively arrived at from many observations of observable). a given phenomenon. He explains, “in the case of empirical laws, it is a 2. Neutrino Experiment more direct confirmation. The confirmation of a theoretical law is indirect, because it takes place only through the confirmation of empirical laws Nuclear Physics, arrived on the scene of modern science in the derived from the theory.”6 This fact gives a special status to the empirical 1930s, proposed that the sunlight (energy) that we receive from the sun laws. is produced in the nuclear reactions at the central core of the sun, at very high temperature and pressure. Four hydrogen atoms join together Logical positivists, as staunch empiricists, hold on to the following to produce one Helium atom and lot of energy (photons or electromagnetic three important theses, which are relevant to our purpose here: 1 4 + particles) and neutrinos are released. 4 H He + 2 e + 2e (superscript a. In order to decide what is to be considered as a sense- is the atomic number; along with Helium two positrons and two electro perception, a clear distinction is to be made between purely ‘given’ in neutrinos are released). When the photons reach the surface of the sun, sense perception, which is therefore free of any interpretation; and all after a long journey of 400,000 miles from the core of the sun, they lose ‘other ideas’ are based on the interpretation of the ‘given’. All these much of their energy, due to interaction with other particles. From the beliefs and concepts go beyond the ‘given’. earlier knowledge about the photon-interactions and the theories about the states inside the sun, we learn that the information carried by the b. All our knowledge-claims are either directly or indirectly photons from the core of the sun is fully distorted in the long journey traced to observation. When science uses unobservable or theoretical through the passage of energy from its production-point, so much so, the terms they get their meaningfulness only by tracing its origin or relevance photons that are released at the sun’s surface are not the same photons to some observational aspects. that had been produced at the center of the sun. Therefore it is impossible to observe the core of the sun through photons. c. Observation has two aspects: evidential and perceptual. Both are identical and therefore what is evidential is perceptual. Later in the 20th century, a direct test was proposed, by studying neutrinos. These neutrinos, which are weak in interactions, reach the In the recent decades there is a lot of rebellion against such claims surface from the core of the sun without any interaction with any kind of of logical positivism. These reactions were mainly due to the particles. Further, when they reach the earth too, they are intact without
68Omega December 2007 69 Stephen Jayard Observations on Observation in Philosophy of Science any modification while the other EM particles undergo lots of changes, One might argue that the core of the sun is still not observed: “For already before reaching the surface of the sun, and also later while what are observed here, we might be inclined to say, are not events reaching the surface of earth. The neutrinos reach the earth exactly as occurring at the centre of the sun, but at best only absorptions of neutrinos they were created at the core. Hence in order to learn about the core of in our apparatus, or – perhaps more strictly – the decay of radioactive the sun more directly, the study of neutrinos is essential. They carry the argon, or – perhaps most strictly of all – only the sense-data (clicks, for ‘pure’ information of the solar core, as they are not tampered during example) in the consciousness of perceiver; all else, strictly speaking their long journey. ascribed to inference.”12 Nevertheless, scientists claim that this experiment gives us direct information about the core of the sun and that To study these neutrinos, we need first to capture them in an those neutrinos enable us to ‘see’ the interior of the sun. They don’t just appropriate container, ensuring that this process doesn’t alter the nature say it in a metaphorical language. Similarly, a philosopher may not consider of the neutrinos. They are received in a chlorine filled tanker to produce the astrophysicists’ neutrino experiment as observation, because for a radioactive argon, with a half-life of roughly 35 days. Neutrino detector philosopher observation must be ‘without inference.’ But Shapere feels is a tank with 400,000 liters of cleaning fluid (Perchloroethylene, C Cl ), 2 4 that philosophers, being mesmerized by the strict logical rules of inference which is kept at a deep mine of about one mile underground. When the treat neutrino experiment as a result of inference. He makes the distinction neutrinos reach this tank radioactive argon is produced (37Cl + 37 Ar e between inference and non-inference in terms of ‘specific reasons to - + e ) and this has to be removed before it is decayed. Its half-life is doubt’ – the inferential conclusions would be those having specific reasons about 35 days. This is done by sending helium into the tank. Then a to doubt (“but which we are nevertheless still able to use to a certain proportional counter is set up to register the number of neutrinos captured extent and for some epistemic purposes”) and the non-inferential and that is compared with the theoretical predictions. conclusions would be those having no such specific reasons to doubt, 13 The whole experiment is quite complicated. We need to study the “and upon which we can build confidently.” Also an observation can new theories of stellar energy very well, as earlier theories of stellar be useful in the quest for knowledge only when it has some antecedent energy production had already failed. One needs to learn about the belief. When one sees a glittering speck or a dot in the night sky and appropriate target substance and the interpretation of the results. Also, a recognizes it as a star, lots of theories have gone behind. lot of background information is needed for the conception, execution 3. Implications of the New Understanding of Observation and interpretation of the experiment. Here the background information consists of the theory about weak interactions, theories about stellar The above discussion helps us to have an understanding of interactions and stellar evolution and the theory about the chemistry of observation afresh: something is (can be) observable if, a) information argon. In addition to all these major components, we need i) various is received by appropriate receptor; b) that information is transmitted theoretical and experimental results regarding specific nuclear reactions, directly, without any interference, to the receptor from the entity.”14 ii) information about the opacity about the sun to photons and neutrinos Further, whatever is grasped by the receptor needs to be transformed and the factors that affect it, iii) the appropriate substance to use as a into humanly accessible form for the interpreting the results; and therefore, material to capture or detect the relevant neutrinos, iv) the knowledge the third condition: c) “The information is transformed by appropriate about the proper place where to deposit the material (in a deep mine in devices into humanly-accessible information which is (eventually) order to protect it from cosmic contamination, v) the information how to perceived (and used appropriately as information) by a human being.”15 clean up the receptor tanks of neutrinos and so on. Without all these pieces of information the experiment would be inconceivable, not executable and most of the results would be uninterpretable.
70Omega December 2007 71 Stephen Jayard Observations on Observation in Philosophy of Science
3.1 Consequences in the World of Philosophy of our inquiry, the methods we employ in the search for knowledge, the normative standards by which we conduct our inquiry and set its goals.”16 3.1.1 Breakdown of a Fundamental Tenet of Logical Positivism It is not that anything goes in the background beliefs. There are As logical positivists are strong empiricists they are staunch reasons to choose some as relevant and reject others as irrelevant beliefs. inductivists. We know Inductivism bases its argument for the scientific There are reasons to check, like success and coherence: “beliefs are developments on the pure observation as the starting point. For the logical selected for further employment as background information in the light positivists, observation is logically and temporally prior to theories. Basing not only of their success in explaining a particular subject-matter, on this they maintain a strict dichotomy between observational terms but also of their coherence with other beliefs that had already come to and theoretical terms. They are anti-realists as they don’t accept the be selected.”17 Shapere contrasts, “‘specific reason for doubt’ with existence of theoretical terms. When that foundation of purity of ‘universal or philosophical reasons for doubt’, the latter – like ‘A demon observation is questioned most of their claims about (scientific) knowledge may be deceiving me,’ or ‘I may be dreaming’ – applying indiscriminately collapse. The three important theses described above are rendered to to any claim whatever. Such philosophical doubts play no role in the be extremely problematic: scientific or knowledge-seeking enterprise.” 18 He proceeds further to show that the fear about doubt is applicable to the negation too: “In a.) No clear-cut distinction can be made between the ‘given’ principle possibility that doubt may always arise with regard to any of and the ‘interpretations’ of them. There is no pristine or brute ‘given’ our beliefs – a possibility of doubt that applies equally to every belief, that is ever found. Observation is based on selection. Interpretation of including its negation – is not itself a reason for doubt.”19 the ‘given’ is a construction with many presuppositions. Hence pure observation is not possible. Further, observation becomes significant only when it is communicated to others and this communication involves the declaration b.) The second is a natural effect of the denial of the first. As of observing that and that, in turn, largely depends on one’s background the ‘basis’ itself is not purely objective, then all other beliefs might be knowledge. Fraassen elucidates this aspect by comparing two persons infected with presuppositions and interpretations. observing, say a college student and a boy from a remote aboriginal c.) Evidential can’t be equated to perceptual, because only tribe, a tennis ball. Though both perceive the same ball, the latter will not limited portion of reality is observable by our senses. observe that it is a tennis ball: “To say that x observed the tennis ball, therefore, does not imply at all that x observed that it was a tennis ball; 3.1.2 A Broader Understanding of Empiricism that world require some conceptual awareness of the game of tennis.”20 Hence we need a refined understanding of empiricism which has to go To make something scientific or cognitively meaningful classical beyond the traditional understanding to include the background beliefs in empiricism has to somehow trace the origin of the statement or belief to a very prominent way. Perhaps from perceptual empiricism (classical/ direct observation or some derivatives of such an observation. Now we logical/constructive) we need to move towards, what Shapere calls, realize that pure and theory-free observation is not possible, because all Interactional Empiricism, from the notion of necessary reliance on our observations are always shaped by the background beliefs. In any observation to focus on observation as relevant only in a certain domain scientific experiment the very conception, execution and interpretation or stage of the investigation; from the equation of sense perception = of the results of the experiment largely depend on the background beliefs. observation, to show that both are separate and distinct, and that is the Always there is a set of beliefs, and never a vacuum. Background beliefs next consequence. include “not only factual and theoretical beliefs about the universe, but also vocabulary by which we describe and delineate the subject-matters
72Omega December 2007 73 Stephen Jayard Observations on Observation in Philosophy of Science
3.1.3 Evidential is not Perceptual how it is to be interpreted – all such exercises departed from the strict adherence of sensory perceptibility. I am afraid strict empiricist tendencies For empiricism, observation has two aspects – evidential and would have strangulated the growth of science had not we liberated perceptual, and both are identical. So what counts as evidence is what is science from its clutches. So if we assume that pure observation is given in sense-perception. It is perceptual, because it is free of any possible and grant that all scientific concepts are ultimately based on interpretation, having no need for any background information. Modern sense perception, we need to realize that the central body of reasoning science has separated these two: “In sophisticated cases of observation by which scientific ideas emerge in modern science would have been in modern science, the two functions traditionally identified, the evidential ignored. and the perceptual, are separated, and the focus is on the former…. The focus of modern science is on observation as evidence, not on observation 3.2.2 The Limitedness of Observ‘ability’ as perception.”21 Evidential aspect is questioned primarily because sense perception is often unreliable (seeing the half-immersed stick as bent!) In our human relationships we experience many dimensions that and incapable (in the areas of too small or too big in size or with the are inaccessible to logical proofs or sense perception. We need to rely objects too near or too far!). In science human eyes are replaced by on our intuition and trust our common sense and human nature. Now it mechanical receptors for the purpose of observation. has become normal and essential for science too, to speak about the existences of entities, states and events, which are not accessible to 3.2 Consequences in the World of Science human senses (eyes). There are some unobservables in principle - unobservable because of the limited human sensory capacity (migrating 3.2.1 Strict Empiricism might Strangulate the Growth of birds can observe the polarized sunlight but not we; and sharks can Science sense even small electric fields around the body of their prey (even as far as 1000 miles away!) but humans cannot sense it. If we go by strict empiricism to base all our knowledge ultimately upon sense perception then we would not know or understand the nature Further, it is believed that the universe is infinite. Our horizons of of knowledge fully. We need something more than that to understand possible investigation are limited. The part of the universe will not be the nature of knowledge. Sense perception is neither sufficient (because observable to us, unless it enters our horizon: “Cosmology and physics sense perception plays only a minor role in this process of getting dictate that there are regions beyond our own horizon that cannot be information. Moreover in many cases sense perception has been shown observed until they enter that horizon, and if the universe is infinite, that, to be untrustworthy), nor necessary (because it has been pushed to the at any given time, there will always be regions which are unobservable.” 22 periphery by sophisticated instruments) for knowledge seeking process. There are some theories in contemporary cosmology for which Our sense perception covers only a limited section in the whole range of observational or experimental tests appear impossible. For instance, EM spectrum. If classical empiricism relies only on sense perception, it Theory of Superstrings23 (which aim at unified picture of the universe, is not only insufficient to understand science and its problems, but also it to unify the gravitational forces and the standard model of elementary is largely irrelevant and even positively obstructing the process. May be particles and forces) – they deal with energies on a scale of 1019 GeV. it was alright during the period from the 16th to 18th centuries to interpret There is no imaginable technology to test such a high voltage. Science is scientific concepts as being exhaustively interpretable in terms of sense said to have reached a stage where only the universe itself can be the perception. But as science developed many features and elements were testing laboratory. encountered which were not directly perceivable (e.g., force, inertia, space, electromagnetic radiation, etc.). By the 19th and 20th centuries, The electromagnetic spectrum (EM spectrum) consists of a wide what is selected to be observed, how to be observed, how it is described, range of rays and with vastly differing wavelengths. It ranges from
74 Omega December 2007 75 Stephen Jayard Observations on Observation in Philosophy of Science short wavelength gamma rays through X-rays, Ultra Violet (UV) rays, A caution is required here: one might be led to think that any visible light, Infra Red (IR) rays to long wavelength Radio waves. The bizarre and strange items can be accepted as legitimate entities in domain normal light, which is visible to our human eyes is just one portion of the of modern science. To avoid any such misgiving Shapere proposes some vast spectrum. Gamma rays (with extremely high frequency and elementary guidelines to distinguish between legitimate and wild wavelength as short as a billionth of wavelength of the visible light) are (or loose) speculation in accepting something unobservable. Though at the one end and at the other end are the radio waves, with trillion something is unobservable, yet it is accepted as legitimate in science:27 times higher wavelength of the visible light. “The eye” therefore, “comes a) If that entity is logically and mathematically implied by something that to be regarded as a particular sort of electromagnetic receptor, capable is already observable or has observable consequences; b) If it is needed of ‘detecting’ electromagnetic waves of the ‘blue’ to ‘red’ wavelengths, for consistency considerations, even though it is not implied by the there being other sorts of receptors capable of detecting other ranges of observable parts of the theory; and c) If it provides answers to problems that spectrum. This generalized notion of a receptor or detector thus concerning the observable parts of the theory with which no other solution includes the eye as one type.”24 Our ears cannot hear the sound beyond deals successfully. a certain decibel level. Our eyes cannot see something too small or too big. Our sense of touch cannot differentiate minute changes in 3.3 In the World of the Common People temperature or pressure. Whereas many animals are equipped to do all these: for instance, a dog can differentiate 40 types of smell and can 3.3.1 Realization of the Limits, If not Limitations, of Science detect even a mile away. As Fraassen succinctly puts it, “The human Very many questions are beyond the purview of science. The organism is, from the point of view of physics, a certain kind of measuring very empirical nature of science, the way our human organs have evolved apparatus. As such it has certain inherent limitations… It is these in the course of millions of years and the way our human way of thinking limitations to which the ‘able’ in ‘observable’ refers – our limitations, emerges from the physical structure of the neurons and so on – all 25 qua human beings.” these, I believe, keep lots of areas beyond the purview of science. For 3.2.3 The Scientific Status of the Unobservables instance, quantum psychics teaches us that we will never be able to determine the position and the velocity of a single particle at the same With a renewed understanding of observation we can now look at time. the role and the scientific status of Unobservable in the contemporary C. G. Hempel, in his thought-provoking paper, titled, “Science science afresh. We need to revise the nature and the ontological status Unlimited,” enlightens us over the limits of science - limits in the reliability of the unobservable too. We are forced to revise traditional understanding and potentiality of science. He further argues that these limits cannot be of the (un)observables. Due to the limitedness in our observ‘ability’ we construed as the limitations of science, because either those aspects realize that whether something is observable or not, is a contingent matter don’t come under the competence of science or by its very nature science of fact, resting on what we have best reason to think we have learned. is not expected to handle those issues. For instance, he argues that science, “What is observable (or unobservable) depends on the current state of or any other discipline for that matter, today or in future, will never be accepted scientific belief, including not only the instrumentation involved, able to answer the question: ‘Why is there anything at all and not rather but also the theoretical knowledge which tells us the nature of interactions, nothing?’. For to answer this question is a logically inconsistent the theoretical possibilities of detection of a particular interaction, and requirement, as “no theory, no conceptual scheme, can explain the how the results of a particular interaction give information about its existence of anything without assuming the existence of something.”28 sources.”26 To try to explain something in terms of nothing is an incoherent question.
76Omega December 2007 77 Stephen Jayard Observations on Observation in Philosophy of Science
It is true, as Hempel points out, that all these may not be limits of functioning of the brain. Francis Crick felt, “The stunning hypothesis is science as such, but I believe, they point out to some deeper lesson: that that you, your joys and sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, the is, the powers of human cognition are not limitless. It seems that humans sense you have of your own identity and of your free-will, are nothing cannot see themselves as the masters of shaping their own destiny. It more than the behaviour of a wide assemblage of nervous cells and of may be seen as a limit of human existence as a whole, as most of the the molecules related to them. As Lewis Caroll’s Alice could have put it: existential philosophers have pointed out. Some of them, like Sartre and ‘You are nothing more than a bundle of neurons’.” 31 But now the scientific Nietzsche, have ended up with a pessimistic outlook towards the world, and philosophical thinking in the fields of Cognitive Sciences have us to while some others, like Gabriel Marcel, have taken the fact of limits as learn that ‘the whole is more than the sum total of its parts’ and therefore something adding interest to the very human existence, opening up reducing mind (spirit or soul) to the mere functions of brain is questioned. avenues of transcendence. After all we cannot even know whether we know everything. That is why, Wittgenstein too rightly wonders, “We Big strides are taken in the process of creating ‘Artificial feel that even if all possible scientific questions be answered, the Intelligence’. We have seen intelligent computers, like Deep Blue, which problems of life have still not been touched at all. Of course there is then have overpowered the world chess champion Kasparov in demonstrating no question left, and just this is the answer.”29 the power of artificial intelligence. Various types of robots, cyborgs and intelligent devices seem to overtake humans at least in certain aspects. 3.3.2 Making Sense of (hitherto) Non-sense! But eyebrows are raised, besides the ethical implications of such projects, about the very possibility of imitating human intelligence completely. It is The hitherto assumptions that emotions and psychological aspects highly doubtful whether the so called thinking machines can use its have nothing to do with strict scientific and objective endeavours seem common sense (if it has one!), whether they can be creative, whether to be shaken at the core with more insights / discoveries at the level of they can dream and so on. No final word is given as yet whether such neuronal level of our bodies. Intuition, seen in opposition to the faculty of machines can be conscious. Given the complexities of the issue of reason, is usually not taken to play any role in the strict scientific consciousness, in my opinion, which is certainly not infallible, we can enterprises. But, more reflections on the history of science and never create consciousness in the machines. In spite of all the techniques advancements in the fields of psychology have revealed, how intuition, of the modern neurobiology we are not able to map the area of the brain and women’s intuition at that, which is normally downplayed, plays a which contributes to consciousness. Prof. R. C. Pradhan also wonders significant role in science. Taking intuition seriously in science leads, as whether we would ever be able to achieve reductionism of consciousness I have elaborated elsewhere,30 to very many substantial implications in to physical phenomena: “All elimination strategies are built upon the enriching science. There seems to be a tension between empiricality assumption that consciousness is a product of the material causes in the and rationality (logic) in science. For, the empirical experience, which is brain.... (But) The conscious states have certain properties which cannot always instantaneous, does not give us universality. For our daily lives be traced back to the brain states. Therefore we have to admit a gap too we need to transcend our immediate environment to think about the between the functions of the brain and the conscious phenomena. past and to plan for future for which rationality is essential. If rationality Elimination of the conscious states into brain states fails because conscious is left alone it would be empty having nothing to think of either! Therefore states are themselves presupposed rather than explained by the science needs to include a-rational and non-rational elements too in its deconstruction procedures.”32 Thus not limiting scientific enterprises to purview. direct observations strictly seems to help in having a better understanding of the world around us and to make sense of what has been thought to In the beginning of the 20th century, the attitude of reductionism be non-sense till recently. was prevalent and all the mental elements were reduced to mere physical
78Omega December 2007 79 Stephen Jayard Observations on Observation in Philosophy of Science
4. Towards a New Vision of Life care about spirit?’ Or, is our existence – and even that of the whole Universe – part of a process or a goal?”34. Hence we are given a new Scientists are now almost sure of the extinction of humans, even insight into the deeper aspects of life to make life more meaningful. the very biological life in the universe, due to some natural reasons and conscious decisions of humanity. Natural reasons like Immunodeficiency, Conclusion decreasing sperm count, the threat of Andromeda Galaxy’s collision with our Milky Way (in about next three billion years!) and the human-made As our human ability to observe is intrinsically limited in many reasons like the enormous degradation of the environment, perforation ways, any strict adherence to the traditional equation of observation of the ozone layer, increase in the global temperature, the genetic with sense perception would not take us very far. It is quite natural for manipulations (on advanced humans) with the danger of resulting in science to give more importance to observable than unobservable. But extinction of human race as such – all these seem to usher us into the science must realize that the demarcation of observable and unobservable extinction of the evolution. In spite of such threats, humanity can now is a consensus of the scientific community. To quote Fraassen again, “It decide to act creatively and collectively, wisely and responsibly, to handle is not irrational to commit oneself only to a search for theories that are the natural threats and to avoid the humanly-created ones. It is high time empirically adequate, ones whose models fit the observable phenomena, that we acted swiftly to preserve, not just human life, but the whole while recognizing that what counts as an observable phenomenon is a planet earth and to take evolution further. function of what the epistemic community is (that observable is observable-to-us).”35 Further, contemporary science has helped humanity to realize its proper position in the whole of the universe. Darwin, Marx and Freud, Einstein came up with many revealing factors about the universe for the reasons well-known, have drastically changed the conception of which seemed to go against reason and common sense. He declared the position of humans in the universe. Humans, thought to be absolute boldly that both intangible (like energy) and something substantial (like and at the top of the creation, were pushed to the periphery, as it were, matter) were basically the same thing. But as the world was just to be a speck in one of the solar families in the neighborhood of a second- struggling with that baffling idea, he dropped another bomb-shell, equally rate galaxy, one among the 100 billions of the known ones thrown out complicated and unexpected marriage between space and time. He there in the dark space. We can no more afford to have domineering brought forth the difficult and different concepts into one intellectually attitude towards nature. Taking us beyond strict determinism, reductionism and emotionally overwhelming four-dimensional, continuum. So it seems and mechanism of the modern science, the contemporary scientific that only uncommon sense must be taken as commonsensical in the enterprises take us to an entirely new vision of the world, within us and machinery of the universe. There are a lot more things to be explored around us. Similarly, quantum physics teaches us that “The physical and perhaps the future generation, with much more advanced techniques world in which we live in is not ontologically sufficient. Time and space or totally different approaches to reality, may become to learn more are not the only frame of reality, the observer plays an undefined role about reality; and we and our achievements might appear to them too but a role in the aspect that our environment takes. Even if they do not simplistic to be considered to be anything but knowledge. A time will seem to have practical applications, the existence of connections of non come when our descendants will be astonished that we had no knowledge specific character shows that the world is more ‘holistic’ than of such apparent things. reductionist.”33 Therefore the strict dichotomies of life – subject-object, All these obviously go to show that one cannot hang on to the sprit-matter, body-mind and so on, seem to be weakened as we proceed classical understanding of observation, or to the whole discipline of to ask questions of deeper dimensions, like “Did we appear by chance in empiricism for that matter, in order to have a comprehensive a Universe devoid of meaning? Are we ‘neuronal beings’ who ‘do not understanding of reality. If one were to insist upon the traditional
80Omega December 2007 81 Stephen Jayard Observations on Observation in Philosophy of Science understanding of observation many insights about reality that we have 9. Robert Palter, “Philosophic Principles and Scientific Theory,” in Philosophy obtained now, would have been out of question. Further, without these of Science, 23 (1956), pp. 111-35. new insights humanity would have been highly handicapped in its efforts 10. Stephen Toulmin, The Philosophy of Science (New York: Hutchinson, 1953). to comprehend the universe and the reality around. Humanity certainly needs something more than science and that more involves religion, 11. Dudley Shapere, “The Concept of Observation in Science and Philosophy”, in Philosophy of Science, 49 (1982), pp. 485-525. metaphysics, spirituality, mysticism, and the like - which have been hitherto regarded as non-scientific, or even non-sense by a few! Going into those 12. Ibid., p. 487 details of what that more consists of is beyond the purview of this 13. Ibid., p. 517. particular paper. It would do well if humanity, with this renewed idea of 14. Dudley Shapere, “Rationalism and Empiricism: A New Perspective,” in observation, explores the new horizons lying ahead! Argumentation, 2 (1988) 299 – 312, p. 308. 15. Dudley Shapere, “The Concept of Observation in Science and Philosophy,” p. 509. Notes 16. Dudley Shapere, “Reason, Radical Change and Incommensurability in 1. Stephen Jayard completed his doctoral research in Philosophy of Science Science,” in P. Hoyningen-Huene and H. Sankey, eds., Incommensurability at the Central University, Hyderabad. He presently lectures in Philosophy and Related Matters (Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001), pp. of Science at Jnana Deepa Vidyapeeth, Pune. 181-206, 200. 2. Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (New York: Cambridge 17. Dudley Shapere, “Reason, Radical Change and Incommensurability in University Press, 1929), p. ix. Science,” pp. 185-6. 3. Ibid., p. xii. 18. Dudley Shapere, “Scope and Limits of Scientific Change,” in Proceedings 4. A. F. Chalmers, What Is This Thing Called Science?, 2nd ed. (Milton Keynes: of the Sixth International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy Open University Press, 1992), p. 25. of Science (Hannover, 1979), pp. 449-459, 458. 5. Carnap’s main ideas in this aspect are found in “Testability and Meaning” in 19. Dudley Shapere, “Reason, Radical Change and Incommensurability in Philosophy of Science, 3 (1936-37), pp. 420-468 and “Methodological Science”, p. 201. Character of Theoretical Concepts”, in Feigl and Scriven, eds., Minnesota 20. Bas van Fraassen, “A Defense of the Observational / Theoretical Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. I, & II (Minneapolis: University Distinction”, in Robert Klee, ed., Scientific Inquiry – Readings in of Minnesota Press, 1956), pp. 33-76. Philosophy of Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 41. 6. Rudolf Carnap, “The Nature of Theories,” in E. D. Klemke, ed., Introductory (Originally from Bas van Fraassen, The Scientific Image, 1980). Readings in the Philosophy of Science (New York: Prometheus Books, 1998), 21. Dudley Shapere, “Testability and Empiricism,” in E. Agazzi and M. Pauri, p. 320. eds., The Rationality of the Unobservable, (Kluwer Publishers, 7. For instance, his “Explanation, Reduction, and Empiricism,” in H. Feigl and Forthcoming). G. Maxwell, eds., Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Scientific 22. Ibid. Explanation, Space, and Time (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1962), III, pp. 28-97. 23. Superstring theory is a sort of theory which gained popularity in the 1980s. Presently it is the most prominent candidate for Theory of Everything. 8. N. R. Hanson, Patterns of Discovery (Cambridge: Cambridge University According to this theory, the fundamental units of everything in the world Press, 1958). – all particles, forces, even space-time itself, are made up of extremely
82Omega December 2007 83 Stephen Jayard Observations on Observation in Philosophy of Science
microscopical strings (about 10-35 centimeters long), which under high tension vibrate and spin a ten-dimensional super space. Six of the ten dimensions are said to be curled into tiny circles and thus rendered unobservable. This, though solving a number of problems in physics, has extraordinarily theoretical constructs. 24. Dudley Shapere, “The Concept of Observation in Science and Philosophy,” p. 505. 1 25. Bas van Fraassen, “A Defense of the Observational / Theoretical On the Nature of Equilibrium Distinction,” p. 43. - Carlos E. Puente2 26. Dudley Shapere, “Testability and Empiricism,” (Forthcoming). Abstract: Searching for equilibrium and its implied contentment is one 27. Dudley Shapere, “Testability and Empiricism,” (Forthcoming) of the most instinctive and fundamental tasks we human beings perform 28. C. G. Hempel, “ Science Unlimited?,” in James H. Fetzer, ed., The Philosophy in our lives. This is particularly difficult in this day and age when the of Carl G. Hempel – Studies in Science, Explanation and Rationality (Oxford: “turbulent forces” of modernity induce a fast pace of life that hinders Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 341. our ability to be fully attentive to one another and to ourselves. During the past few decades a host of ideas have been established in order to 29. L. Wttgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (London: Keganpaul, study natural complexity, and in particular the one produced by Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company, 1933), turbulence. This work explains how such modern notions help us visualize p. 52. the essential options we all face regarding equilibrium and shows how 30. Stephen Jayard, “The Role of Intuition in Science,” in Kuruvilla Pandikattu, such ideas point us to one and only one serene state in which we all may ed., Together Towards Tomorrow – Interfacing Science and Religion in achieve real peace. It is argued, citing a variety of Biblical passages, India (Pune: Association of Science, Society and Religion, 2006), pp. 145- that such a desired condition may be approached via the dynamic 170. practice of humility, repentance and love, in a manner that is epitomized by the teachings of Jesus Christ. 31. As quoted by Jean Staune, “Science and Religion: From Modernity to Post- Modernity,” in Omega– Indian Journal of Science and Religion, Vol. 4, No. Key Words: Equilibrium, Wholeness, Fragmentation, Turbulence, Unity. 2 (December 2005), pp. 43-55, 46.
32. R. C. Pradhan, “Why Consciousness cannot be Deconstructed: Towards a Introduction Positive Theory of Consciousness,” in Sangeetha Menon, Anindya Sinha and B. V. Sreekantan, eds., Science and Metaphysics: A Discussion on According to the Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, equilibrium Consciousness and Genetics (Bangalore: National Institute of Advanced is “a state of adjustment between opposing or divergent influences or Studies, 2002), p. 104. elements” and the closely related concept of balance is an “equality 33. Jean Staune, p. 48 between the totals of the two sides of an account.”3 Based on such 34. Ibid., p. 44 notions, it then appears natural to define “peace” as a balanced condition in which opposites cancel, as described graphically via the famous symbol 35. Bas van Fraassen, p. 44. of the Yin and Yang expressing an equilibrium between “day” and “night,” and more generally between “good” and “evil.” But, is such a general condition one that truly defines peace?
84Omega December 2007 85 Carlos E. Puente On the Nature of Equilibrium
This article explores matters of equilibrium and peace by With this process fully understood, repeat it on each of the two considering the opposite concepts of wholeness and fragmentation, as uniform bars, with exactly the same proportions, to obtain four pieces of they arise in the study of natural turbulence. Arguing that science provides horizontal size 1/4: a suitable and impartial framework to reflect on our internal peace and on the nature of our interpersonal relations, including the political systems that have governed the world, this work shows that there is indeed one and only one state, defined by an improbable absence of fragmentation, that qualifies as truly balanced and which corresponds to a serene and Now the tallest rectangle has grown to a height of (2 · p)2 = 1.42 universal condition that begets peace. It is also explained how achieving = 1.96 vertical units and the masses (areas) of the four pieces are, in such an ultimate and desired state of wholeness is intimately related to order, 70% of 70%, 30% of 70%, 70% of 30%, and 30% of 30%, which fully heeding the teachings of Jesus Christ, including, in particular, his gives, multiplying, 49, 21, 21, and 9% of the total mass. As may be repeated calls for our continuous and dynamic growth to humility and verified, such values correspond to the familiar expansion of (p + q)2: repentance and our universal fulfillment of the defining maxim “love p2, twice p · q and q2. one another.” Clearly, as the process is repeated again and again, additional The Breaking of Wholeness fragmentation is produced:
To set the tone, it is relevant to start with a simple game that may be easily understood by molding modeling clay, as follows. Start the game with a uniform bar of clay, as it comes out of the box, and cut it by its p = 70%: When the breaking continues for a total of n levels, the process defines 2n rectangles all having horizontal sizes 1/2n, whose masses, adding always to 100%, turn out to correspond to the expansion of (p + q)n.
Then, mold the two pieces, piling up the one on the left and This process, properly known as a multiplicative cascade, defines n n-1 n-1 stretching the other on the right, both towards the middle, so that they (n + 1) layers for the masses of the rectangles: p , p · q, · · ·, p · q , n make up, at the end, two contiguous bars of equal horizontal length: and q . As may be observed, such layers possess distinct densities as follows: there is one rectangle having pn of the mass and one having qn, there are exactly n rectangles with pn-1 · q and p · qn-1, n · (n - 1)/2 pieces with pn-2 · q2 and p2 · qn-2, and so on, according to the well known Pascal’s triangle.4 The height of the piece on the left is higher than the original, and When n = 12, the following set of 4,096 rather thin and hence the height of the one to the right is smaller. If the original bar has a height spiky rectangles is found: of one vertical unit, then the “rectangle” on the left has 2 · p = 1.4 vertical units, for its area, i.e., the mass of such a piece, computed multiplying its base 1/2 times its height, is p = 70% of the original. Similarly, the height of the rectangle on the right is 2 · q = 0.6 vertical units.
86Omega December 2007 87 Carlos E. Puente On the Nature of Equilibrium
This set is not drawn to scale, for its largest rectangle has having equal masses of 1/2n, horizontal lengths 1/3n, and diverging heights 1.412=56.69 vertical units, a quantity that keeps on growing as the cascade that grow according to the formula (3/2)n: continues. As may be seen, the divisive and rather simple process utterly destroys wholeness into dispersed thorns that exhibit an increasingly intertwined structure due to the progressive pile ups and stretches. As the process is repeated, this second game clearly generates Although the mass is always conserved in the game, “moving” from spikes that never touch. Such are sparse “thorns” that grow to infinity thorn to thorn becomes increasingly difficult, for, as the cascade proceeds, and that emanate from an infinite but quite meager set of points, which rectangles of equal size seldom remain positioned in a contiguous fashion. by lacking any cohesion whatsoever may be properly described as dust, To further appreciate the rather “empty” structure generated a prototypical fractal set as introduced by George Cantor in 1883. within each layer by this simple cascade, it is convenient to introduce yet Remarkably, in the ultimate limit all the infinitely many infinite spikes another simple game, as follows. Start as before with a uniform bar of turn out to contain no mass at all and the same happens to be true for the modeling clay but this time cut by the middle: first game, but altogether all the mass is there. Although by construction both cascades conserve the total mass of the original bar, they both have the final effect of powerfully scattering the mass into a multitude of thorns. It happens that varying the size of the hole on the second cascade, Now, separate the two pieces piling them up left and right, in such i.e., from 1/3 to a generic value h, captures the non-contiguous topology, a way that their horizontal lengths equal 1/3 and such that each piece i.e., empty and fractured, of the layers that the first cascade generates. contains 50% of the original mass: While less dense layers, towards the periphery of Pascal’s triangle, correspond to larger gaps, the more dense layers happen to require smaller and smaller holes. The moral of the story is that the two divisive games are intimately Following arguments as before, the two rectangles, having a gap related to one another, as the second one lives inside the layers generated between them, end up having a common height of 1.5 vertical units. by the first one. While the second cascade divides the bar of clay into an infinite set of equal spikes having ultimately infinite sizes and supported As with the first game, this process continues on repeating the by one set of dust, the first cascade yields intertwined “multi-thorns” fragmentation on each piece, cutting and separating according to the over a multitude of disjoint dusts (one per layer). As such dusts reflect same proportions: fragmentation and as all of them are fractal sets, the multi-spiky object generated by the first cascade is properly known in the physics literature as a multi-fractal measure.5 The Devil’s Staircase This game clearly yields another divisive multiplicative cascade that produces, after n levels of the construction, 2n dispersed rectangles To further appreciate the thorny objects generated by both games and as all spikes ultimately grow without bound, it is convenient to portray
88Omega December 2007 89 Carlos E. Puente On the Nature of Equilibrium their accumulated masses, as such are traversed from the beginning, generating cascade, such a continuous and rough boundary (i.e., one i.e., 0, up to a point x, and as a function of x: without derivatives in great many places) was properly named by George Cantor in 1883 as the devil’s staircase. As such a stair contains only horizontal or vertical steps (seeing any inclined lines above is just an illusion due to the resolution of the graph) the length from top to bottom following such a jagged curve equals 2 units: one horizontal unit, for there are eventually gaps As illustrated first for the cascade with gaps, the “wealth” up to everywhere, plus one vertical unit, as the cascade conserves all the point x, W(x), simply gives (following the dynamics of the game): W(0)=0, mass. This property happens to be universal, for the second game always W(1) = 1, W(1/3) = 1/2, W(2/3) =1/2, and also for any value of x in the defines a devil’s staircase with maximal length of two units irrespective main gap, W(1/9) = 1/4, W(2/9) = 1/4, and so on. At the end, x in the of the size and position of the initial hole. horizontal vs. W(x) in the vertical yields plateaus wherever the original spiky object had holes or gaps: For the first cascade the accumulated wealth may also be calculated following the dynamics of such a divisive game:
For instance, after two levels: W(0) = 0, W(1/4) = 0.49, W(1/2)=0.7, W(3/4) = 0.91, W(1) = 1, and so on later on. This process turns out to yield another devil’s staircase of maximal length and shaped as a “cloud of dust:” It happens that such a profile is quite peculiar, for if we were to parachute on it from the top, upon landing it would appear to us that such is flat:
As may be seen, this is a rather jagged boundary which, by being locally horizontal, results in a maximal length of two from top to bottom. If our “scale” is small enough, we would touch down on a plateau As with the second game, this length property turns out to be also with all likelihood and we would falsely believe to have landed in the universal, for the first cascade produces a continuous and ever rough original bar. Due to such a deceit and given the divisive nature of the boundary made of horizontal-vertical notches everywhere (and hence
90Omega December 2007 91 Carlos E. Puente On the Nature of Equilibrium without derivatives anywhere), irrespective of how the division is carried Remarkably and as first reported by Charles Meneveau and out. If there is any imbalance p 1/2, no matter how small, such a Katepalli Sreenivasan in 1987, the crossing of the Reynolds’ threshold in cascade invariably grows thorns separated in layers over dust, and such the air produces just a rearrangement of the generic cascade, with the give wealth stairs whose lengths are always equal to 2 units. more energetic eddies happening not always to the left but either to the left or to the right, as guided by chance.8 For a variety of flows, including Turbulence in the Air atmospheric turbulence and boundary layer turbulence, there is a truly excellent agreement between observations and the first cascade, hence Recent technological advances have allowed identifying the establishing the presence of a quantized (layered) distribution of energies progressive breaking given by the first cascade in the way turbulence in natural turbulence. The expected duration of the process, as defined happens in the air: by the number of levels in the cascade, increases with the Reynolds number and the strength of the associated violence of turbulence also increases as the energies concentrate into thorns having smaller and smaller (horizontal) sizes. Speaking about Peace
As one ponders the surprising results herein regarding natural turbulence, their striking simplicity and universality hint that it is sensible to employ the cascade notions to model how we humans create our own When the air’s inertia exceeds the internal cohesion of the fluid, “turbulence” and to study how such a condition may be avoided in our i.e., when its Reynolds number, R = · L/, is large, the air flows in an lives. After all, we all, from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, are faced with irregular and intermittent fashion. As it happens with other fluids, when “inertial forces” that often break our “internal cohesion” and, when such the viscosity is overpowered by excessive energy, as measured by the happens, “crossing our Reynolds’ threshold” leads to “intermittent product of the flow’s velocity and a characteristic length L, the air no behavior” and to an inherent “lack of peace” that often results in the longer can flow as a whole and in a “laminar” and calmed way, but appalling expression of violence. As our distress (and certainly mine) rather splits into inwardly rotating elements called eddies that themselves many times is associated with the relentless repetition of a divisive trait, split into other eddies and carry distinct energies in a “turbulent” and it also appears reasonable to employ the two general cascades in order often violent fashion.6 to symbolize the pathways that lead us (me) to “bite the dust.”9 As first suggested by pacifist Lewis Fry Richardson in 1922, a The general validity of the notions and the inherent repetition of cascade indeed forms and the spiraling sets carry with them distinct patterns at distinct resolutions, i.e., self-similarity, also suggest that the amounts of kinetic energy. What is observed, via experiments along one simple geometric ideas may be used figuratively to capture our “distress” dimension in space, turns out to be consistent with the first multiplicative at a variety of scales: within ourselves, in our relationships, in our societies, cascade, for the eddies of successively smaller sizes arrange into energy and in the world at large. For in a vivid sense, the two cascades provide layers that correspond precisely to the 70-30 splitting used in the accurate depictions that allow us to contemplate the most common ways explanations before. As the process starts and evolves, energies we employ to propagate division in the establishment of imbalances and rearrange in layers, but the ultimate fate of the breaking is always the discriminations: eventual dissipation of the kinetic energy in the form of heat, when the eddies reach a small enough scale.7
92Omega December 2007 93 Carlos E. Puente On the Nature of Equilibrium
avoids the rush of modern life and its associated distress and, in the absence of violent thorns and deadly dust, allows us also to contemplate the sought condition of ultimate peace. But in matters of peace and love there is an escape however. This desired and joyous condition turns out to be rather improbable, When the first game is played always by the middle, i.e., precisely at as we all know, and this fact may be fully appreciated via the cascades p=1/2, and the second game is performed without holes, i.e., for h = 0 as follows. When the two divisive games are combined to produce at all levels, then there is no division whatsoever and the wholeness and additional cascades containing both imbalances p and holes h at the unity of the original bar is maintained in a dynamic way: same level, other more exotic sets of thorns over dust and subsequent devil’s staircases are produced. It then happens that equilibrium is only one point within a square of possibilities, for only at such a precise location the distance on the wealth frontier is 2 from top to bottom while any place else it equals 2: In such an improbably perfect case, the wealth frontier simply gives a straight ramp having minimal length of 2 from top to bottom, for in such a case W(x) is simply x when x is between 0 and 1. In this case, landing in the “one to one line” does not keep a parachuter stuck on a plateau or a notch as with the devil’s staircases before but rather sleds him or her to the bottom of the ramp, at the intersection of the axes defining the origin:
But the uniqueness of equilibrium is yet more striking, for the original bar may be split into more than two pieces and the cascade games may be played aided by chance, i.e., using variable imbalances and holes as the process is carried, and such a general mechanism, that no doubt captures even better the intrinsic variability of our own follies, would also result in thorns over dust and in devil’s staircases. As may be appreciated, while the maintenance of wholeness Talking about Politics yields a wealth function that travels through the hypotenuse of a triangle, the practice of a divisive game results in a jagged devilish stair that is In the spirit of the associations thus far, the cascade notions may eventually as long as the legs of the triangle. Based on these observations, also be used to vividly expose the inherent fallacies in the political systems there is only one case, only one truly balanced and whole, that may be that have governed the world, as follows. While the first game allows us used to properly define equilibrium and that corresponds to us not playing to visualize the proliferation of economic imbalances present in capitalistic the divisive games at all. societies, the second game allows us to appreciate the increased fragmentation and isolation caused by totalitarian regimes: The best state is simple and corresponds to the plain original bar on both games. Clearly, the serene keeping of low Reynolds numbers
94Omega December 2007 95 Carlos E. Puente On the Nature of Equilibrium
imbalances and vividly invite us to reverse the trends in order to find true prosperity in the serene and truly humanized condition of equilibrium. For even if experts, who typically use finite numbers to describe These associations may be corroborated not only from common us, assure us that the practice of globalization shall bring justice and sense but also from our recent history. On the one hand (even if on the well-being to all, and especially to the 2/3 of humanity living under right above!), the unexpected but rather predictable failure of “equality extreme poverty,11 and that there are better uneven wealth distributions by force” due to the induced fear and mistrust citizens experience than others, the universal cascade notions and its devilish stairs remind realizing that they may “end up in a gap,” a generalized attitude that us of our historical evil and greed that point us to the only point of surely dissipates the loving energy of friendship that may truly sustain peace where “competing against one another” or “dismissing one us as human beings. And on the other hand (even if on the left), the another” may truly be replaced by “loving one another:” apparent triumph of the false dogma of “the survival of the fittest:”
The Faithful Solution which, despite multiple claims to the contrary, also grows thorns and dust via the implementation of dehumanized competition inspired by Division may indeed be defeated if we humans learn from the the implacable and selfish quest “to be number one.” nature of turbulence and run all cascades in reverse in order to heal our “fractal” world: The ideas herein turn out to have an unexpected validity beyond the merely metaphorical, for the multi-fractal object generated by the first cascade, for twenty levels and for p = 0.7, i.e., with exactly the same energy partitions from level to level as found in nature, closely matches the rather skewed distribution of wealth of the most powerful nation on earth. As may be readily verified, simple calculations via Pascal’s triangle reveal a remarkably close fit of the wealth of the richest 5, 10, 20, and 40% in the United States as reported in 1998, that is, in order, 59 (57), 71 (70), 84 (84), and 95% (95) of the resources, with the cascade This entails heeding the voice of prophets in their explicit calls to values given in parenthesis.10 rectification, such as the rather geometric exhortations by John the Baptist: “I am the voice of one crying out in the desert, make straight Although the wealth of the richest 1% is underestimated by the the way of the Lord” (Jn 1:23, Hos 14:10) and “every valley shall be simple cascade, 38% (30), these remarkably simple results help us filled and every mountain and hill shall be made low; the winding roads visualize the dreadful consequences of establishing and further propagating shall be made straight, and the rough ways made smooth” (Lk 3:5, Is
96 Omega December 2007 97 Carlos E. Puente On the Nature of Equilibrium
40:4), that clearly points us away from the cascades yielding scattered The universal message of Jesus Christ turns out to be vividly present thorns, dust and devil’s staircases and into the 50-50 and no holes in the notions of modern science herein. Quite beautifully and besides condition and its associated one to one ramp. Running the natural the associations thus far, Jesus is also symbolized by the radical concept cascade in reverse means to move away obediently from our of the root and by the shortest and simplest straight line in the hypotenuse, transgressions and into the rectitude of God’s law. It means listening to which by its graphical equation, X = Y , represents him in the very pleas of repentance (Mt 4:12) to ultimately arrive at the “broad valley” geometry of the cross and him crucified on it! For only by parachuting in which the glory of God is revealed to all mankind (Is 40:5), that is, to into the straight ramp one may slide into the origin, in consonance with encounter Jesus Christ himself who, by never sinning, always maintained his words “no one comes to the Father except through me” (Jn 14:6). the “level ground” of the “original bar” properly symbolizing the law (2 Cor 5:21, Jer 31:9, Mt 5:17). Our Evil World As hinted from the diagram above, the turbulence associated with The divisive cascades may be used to portray graphically the sin and dust (Gen 3:19) disappears in the process of conversion. This is dynamics of the works of the Devil, the one always divisive and selfish, consistent with several ancient calls for us to be “calm” and to “trust” in for as Scripture explains: he has sinned from the beginning (1 Jn 3:8) and God (e.g., Is 30:15), which point us away from the high Reynolds numbers there is no truth in him at all (Jn 8:44). His appellatives “the ruler of the of the divisive cascades in our lives. For even if a bit of turbulence may power of the air” (Eph 2:2), “the evil spirits in the heavens” (Eph be welcomed when it shapes our characters, it is best to avoid its ultimate 6:12), and “the ruler of the world” (Jn 12:31), further relate the “ancient consequences lowering the “velocity in our lives,” diminishing our serpent” (Rev 12:9) to turbulence in the air and to the spawning of “characteristic lengths” and augmenting our “viscosities.” For as described eddies leading to dissipation, to the violence and dust present in the by Jesus himself in his explanation of the central parable of the sower, universe as discovered by modern astronomy, and to the ever present the daily thorns of anxiety and the lure of riches are the ones that economic Devil’s staircases that plague our world in contraposition to choke the planted word of truth in us and the presence of such prevents God’s will (Lk 16:13). us from being truly fruitful (Mt 13:22). In regards to the ever symbolic dust and thorns, it is pertinent to The uniqueness of equilibrium within the cascade notions help us recall first the very explicit decrees of God right after the fall of Adam appreciate that there is indeed only one solution that avoids distress, and and Eve. To the deceiving serpent He said “dirt shall you eat all the that is, once again, Jesus Christ who appropriately defined himself as days of your life” (Gn 3:14). And to Adam He decreed the famous “the way and the truth and the life” (Jn 14:6). Notice how his words death edict “you are dirt, and to dirt you shall return” (Gn 3:19), also “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather commonly translated with dirt exchanged by dust, not before explaining with me scatters” (Mt 12:30) may be fully appreciated geometrically in that the land he would now toil outside of paradise would bring forth the absence or presence of thorns and dust and how his exhortation “thorns and thistles” (Gn 3:18). “come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you The cascades not only may denote the Devil but also his followers, rest; take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and the so-called wicked. This fact is found on several citations that relate humble of heart; and you will find rest for yourselves; for my yoke is the sinner with turbulence. As an example and quite graphically, “the easy, and my burden light” (Mt 11:28-30) may only be fully grasped in hope of the wicked is like thistledown borne on the wind, and like fine, the simplicity of equilibrium. For there is no fear of punishment in walking tempest-driven foam, like smoke scattered by the wind” (Wis 5:14), the original bar (1 Jn 4:18), unlike what happens with the thorny cascades and “the arrogant shall be like fine dust” (Is 29:5). For “all sinners will that lead to frightful steps that make us stumble (Sir 39:24). be destroyed” (Ps 37:38) and “they shall lick the dust like the serpent”
98Omega December 2007 99 Carlos E. Puente On the Nature of Equilibrium
(Mi 7:17), for “when they sow the wind, they shall reap the whirlwind” the apostle Peter denied Jesus precisely three times before the cock (Hos 8:7). Other turbulent and fractal traits in the wicked are also found crowed twice (Mk 14:66-72). in, “pride adorns them as a necklace, violence clothes them as a robe. Out of their stupidity comes sin, evil thoughts flood their hearts” (Ps Our Ultimate Unity 73:6-7) and in “Ah, all of them are nothing, their works are nought, The notorious difference between 2 and 2 may be used to further their idols are empty wind!” (Is 41:29). As may be verified, turbulence illustrate the goodness of forgiveness. For “as far as the east is from is also a common punishment of the sinner by God. For instance, “then the west, so far have our sins been removed from us” (Ps 103:12). shall they know that I am the Lord, when I disperse them among the Reconciliation with God is hence an exceedingly valuable sacrament, nations and scatter them over foreign lands” (Ez 12:15, Zec 7:11-14), as for “if we acknowledge our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive it happened to the people of Israel, when they disobeyed Him. This is our sins and cleanse us from every wrongdoing” (1 Jn 1:9), as also also seen vividly in the edict, “a third of your people shall die of pestilence expressed in “The Lord’s Prayer” (Mt 6:9-15). and perish of hunger within you; another third shall fall by the sword all around you; and a third I will scatter in every direction, and I will pursue The difference between the shortest path and the others also permit them with the sword” (Ez 5:12), which evokes the original construction us to appreciate the subtleties of sin and the beauty of God’s plan of of Cantor dust. salvation for us. For the inefficiencies in cascades, and especially by combining them, help us value Jesus’ words: “why do you notice the In the progressive division of both cascades we may recognize splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in selfishness and greed as the guiding principles. As natural eddies always your own eye?” (Mt 7:3), that fully corroborate his famous maxim “it is run inwardly, always from more or plus to less or minus as on a easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who destructive hurricane, in their directionality we may appreciate the famous is rich to enter the kingdom of God” (Mt 19:24): and symbolic 666 assigned to the false antichrist to come (Rev 13:18):
For uniformity and wholeness are attained only by obeying God’s This is because the shape of a natural eddy is a negative spiral plan to the positive cross (Phil 2:8), forgiving those who offend us seventy given by the equation (in polar coordinates) r = e- that corresponds times seven times as consistently allegorized in the second level of the pictorially to such a number. In the spirit of these associations, we may natural cascade (Mt 18:22), and fully surrendering ourselves to obey also realize that the fraction 2/3 = 0.666 · · · (with 0 denoting equilibrium), God’s plan at low Reynolds numbers in order to find the point that ever present in the divisive cascades and curiously corresponding to the leaves out the hypocrisy that prevents us from truly helping one another number of poor people on earth today, may be associated with the infinite (Mt 7:4-5, Jas 2:10). deceit of the devil himself. But the devil is fully defeated as Jesus rebuked his scary winds into immediate calmness (Mk 4:39), resurrected as The uniform condition through its dynamic constancy allows us predicted from the dust of death (Mk 16:6) and shall ultimately kill him also to visualize and value unity, within ourselves, in our interpersonal when He comes (2 Thes 2:8), even if, in a archetypical fashion for us all, relations, in our societies, countries, and the world at large. In this context,
100 Omega December 2007 101 Carlos E. Puente On the Nature of Equilibrium the original bar denotes united societies, “aligned” with God’s plan, while, as explained earlier, dusty cascades represent societies based on imperfect human systems, Devil’s staircases that generate emptiness with their maximizing of personal profit or with their forced and false equalities. Clearly, unity is essential in the teachings of Jesus Christ, for in particular He said “I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, For Jesus’ disciples are to be recognized by their love for one Father, are in me and I in you” (Jn 17:20-21). Such a lovely condition is another (Jn 13:35), and this unnatural condition always travels from minus found on several other passages that include welcoming one another as to plus, i.e., to the cross, and grows in us by the practices of humility Christ welcomed us (Rom 15:7) and rejoicing with those who rejoice and of service to one another (e.g., Phi 2:3, Rom 12:3, Mt 20:26, Mk and weeping with those who weep (Rom 12:15). For in fact, as the 9:35). psalmist exclaims, “how good it is, how pleasant, where the people dwell as one!” (Ps 133:1). Quite accurately given the ultimate dissipation in natural cascades, there is darkness between our selfish postures and our loving ones, as This desired state is also reflected in Jesus’ famous words about there was, quite infallibly, a prescribed eclipse of the sun between the marriage, when He succinctly explained, “they are no longer two, but 6th and the 9th hour when Jesus, the Lord, was crucified for us (Mk one” (Mt 19:6), surely in them being “covered” by a common root as in 15:33-37) and crowned by our many thorns (Mk 15:17). Unwinding the 2, and also in the elusive unity of the Church as explained by the Yin and Yang symbol while recognizing not a false balance between apostle Paul, “for as in one body we have many parts, and all the parts good and evil but the triumph of love via Jesus’ resurrection, we may do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in arrive at the following poetic summary for this work:12 Christ and individually parts of one another” (Rom 12:4-5, 2 Cor 8:8- 15). These last citations suggest a geometric rather than an arithmetic 609 relation for both marriage and the Church: “ 1 = 1 + 1” and “1 = 1+1+. Six, zero, nine, a dear song . .+1,” that reflect, in the latter case, Jesus’ prophetic words about the numbers unfolding daylong, ultimate marriage with Him when He says, “there will be only one flock, six, zero, nine, a clean gong one shepherd” (Jn 10:16). symbols inviting us to love. As depicted graphically in the diagrams in this work, only in the From six to six From zero to nine uniform condition and its associated hypotenuse we may find the proper revolving inwards, the spiral turned over, from six to six radical state that yields unity. This leads us, by repairing the breach (Is from zero to nine I went downwards. I dared to love others. 58:12), to the positive “spiral of love,” i.e., r = e+, (with a positive internal derivative rather than a negative one) and to the simple and From six to six From zero to nine eloquent equation 1 = 0.999 · · · that depicts the attaining of unity in the dividing selfishly, I attempted prayers, admission and practice of love, as epitomized, once again for us all, by from six to six from zero to nine lying endlessly. the three times the apostle Peter acknowledged Jesus after his I became a repairer. resurrection (Jn 21:15-17): From six to six From zero to nine trying to be a rose, infinity flowed free, from six to six from zero to nine being only a nasty thorn. unity grew in me.
102 Omega December 2007 103 Carlos E. Puente On the Nature of Equilibrium
Six, zero, nine, a dear song Six, zero, nine, a dear song 8. C. Meneveau and K. Sreenivasan, “Simple multifractal cascade model for numbers unfolding daylong, numbers unfolding daylong, fully developed turbulence,” in Physical Review Letters, 59 (1987), pp. 1424- six, zero, nine, a clean gong six, zero, nine, a clean gong 1427. symbols inviting us to love. symbols inviting us to love. 9. C. E. Puente, “Lessons from complexity. The hypotenuse: the pathway of From six to zero From nine to nine peace,” in E:CO, Emergence, Complexity and Organization, 8.2 (2006), pp. I tapered my speed, weaving my reality, 96-101. from six to zero from nine to nine 10. C. E. Puente, The hypotenuse. An illustrated scientific parable for turbulent the tempest did not lead. dreaming its totality. times (Author House, 2006), p. 144. From six to zero From nine to nine 11. L. A. Keister, Wealth in America (Cambridge University Press, 2000), p. 307 I no longer postponed, conquering my greed, and www.globalpolicy.org. from six to zero from nine to nine I finally atoned. planting a new seed. 12. All Biblical quotations come from New American Bible, Saint Joseph Edition (Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1992). From six to zero From nine to nine I experienced peace, despite a clear spite, from six to zero from nine to nine my loneliness ceased. knowing there is light. Six, zero, nine, a dear song Six, zero, nine, a dear song numbers unfolding daylong, numbers unfolding daylong, six, zero, nine, a clean gong six, zero, nine, a clean gong symbols inviting us to love. symbols inviting us to love.
Notes 1. This work is warmly dedicated to Mar´1a Helena Buitrago, Teresa Latorre and Aurora Solano for their unconditional example of service and love. 2. Carlose C. Puente lectures at the Department of Land, Air and Water Resources, University of California. 3. Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary (Merrian-Webster Inc., 1991), p. 1564. 4. J. Feder, Fractals (Plenum Press, 1988), p. 283. 5. B. B. Mandelbrot, The Fractal Geometry of Nature (Freeman, 1982), p. 468. 6. U. Frisch, Turbulence (Cambridge University Press, 1995), p. 296. 7. L. F. Richardson, Weather Prediction by Numerical Processes (Cambridge University Press, 1922), p. 250.
104Omega December 2007 105 J. van Brakel Is our Universe a Mere Fluke?
[1] The world is very unusual, so it must have been made by an intelligent creator. [2] The world is very unusual, but unusual things do occur by chance. The phrase “the world is very unusual” is short-hand for something like: Is our Universe a Mere Fluke? [3] It is extremely improbable that a random concatenation of the The Cosmological Argument and forces, energies, particles, fields (or whatever we think the physical “building blocks” of the universe are) should, in a single trial, form Spinning the Universes into anything orderly, let alone anything that supports our form of - J. van Brakel1 intelligent life.
Abstract: The paper unfolds itself within the logical framework of the Reference is made in [3] to the status of the big-bang (as distinct cosmological debate between design and chance. There is real ambiguity from later events such as the emergence of life or consciousness). By in the meaning of the antecedents of these two logical positions. focusing on the beginning of the physical universe, the notion of chance Revisiting the concepts of absolute chance and the limited belief in events can be given concrete interpretation by referring to cosmological chance from the perspective of Hacking, the author applies them to the theories, in particular: argument from design and the difference between Carter and Wheeler universes. While absolute chance events do not fit in anywhere, relative Carter-universes: All logically possible universes (of which there chance events are subject to a limited belief in chance at a certain level. are infinitely many) actually co-exist. Anything remotely similar to a The author opines that we don’t need to consider the universe as a universe like ours is logically possible, but highly improbable. chance event in order to discuss the status of absolute chance events. Rather, if we want to talk about particular probabilistic phenomena Wheeler-universes: There exists a sequence of universes (without then we can only do so relative to a limited belief in chance of a certain memory), each of them extremely improbable; we are in one of them. order. Both theories model possible variations of classical big-bang theory. - Editor In this paper I will not consider the following aspects (each of Key Words: Design, Chance, Absolute chance, Relative chance, Hacking, Carter universe. which might undermine the relevance of the present discussion): Arguments purporting to show that our universe (or the emergence The Chance-Design Discussion of life) is a unique event; considerations in terms of probabilities don’t therefore apply to it. 3 Some discussions about the argument from design have taken The wider question “Why is an orderly universe possible at all?” into account developments in cosmological theories, most especially the so-called anthropic principle associated with “Wheeler”- and “Carter”- Both [1] and [2], when claimed to be true, have been labeled universes.2 Part of these discussions can perhaps be summarized as fallacies, because of an incorrect appeal to probability reasoning to support briefly as can be in the following opposition: the claim. Believing that extreme improbability must be due to design
106Omega December 2007 107 J. van Brakel Is our Universe a Mere Fluke? has been called the bridge-hand fallacy.4 Hence, this would seem to I will first explain these two concepts and then apply them to the support [2]. As formulated above, [2] is not a fallacy; yet it doesn’t argument from design and the difference between Carter and Wheeler explain anything much either. It just reiterates that we are talking about universes. a chance event (for us) - which had already been agreed upon by accepting The concept of “absolute chance” means that such things as chance [3] as the antecedent of [1] and [2]. However, [2] is often turned into an events simply exist and no knowledge of the causes of such events is explanation by arguing as follows: possible - that is all there is to it. Or, alternatively: We do have knowledge [2a] The formation of the universe out of a random concatenation of about an absolute chance event: it has no causes, neither for human forces, etc., is extremely improbable indeed. beings, nor for God. Confronted with an absolute chance event we [2b] But why think of a roll with a myriad dice? Think instead of throw our hands in the air and exclaim: This is really beyond any indefinitely or infinitely many chance events; explanation! Not even God would have an explanation. Obviously the [2c] Then, somewhere or sometime, mere chance would give an event is a possible event,8 but it is impossible (ever) to say anything organization like ours; whatsoever about the causes or lawlikeness or regularity of this particular [2d] Hence, it is sufficient to invoke chance to explain order. event, not even in terms of statistical regularities. This formulation of “the popular objection” against the argument That this lawlessness isn’t limited to the epistemological level, but from design derives from Hacking who has raised the objection that is ontologically fundamental was formulated by Cicero as follows: 1 such an argument suffers from what he has dubbed the inverse gambler’s Surely nothing is so at variance with reason and stability as fallacy. This fallacy is to think that because repetition increases the chance. Hence it seems to me that it is not in the power even of chances of getting at least one rare event in a sequence of trials, it can God himself to know what event is going to happen accidentally explain the particular occurrence of such a rare event.5 Further, he argues and by chance. For if He knows, then the event is certain to that owing to this fallacy “the confrontation between those who advocate happen; but if it is certain to happen, chance does not exist. And the design argument and those who reject it is of an unusually banal yet chance does exist, therefore there is no foreknowledge of nature.”6 In Hacking’s view the whole discussion about the cosmological things that happen by chance. argument can be reduced to the two opposing statements [1] and [2]. It In the past few centuries there has been little interest in the is not possible to give any sort of support for either on the basis of plausibility of such absolute chance events (in the history of western probabilistic reasoning. philosophy).2 This contingency might be phrased as follows: the Enlightenment and Modernity have shown that there are no absolute Absolute Chance and Limited Belief in Chance chance events. Discussion now concentrates on whether events are deterministic or probabilistic. The latter, however, differ from absolute In this paper I will not comment further on the (alleged) fallacies chance events - the former being governed by probabilistic laws, the supporting the consequent of either [1] or [2], but will focus on an latter by no laws whatsoever, known or unknown. ambiguity in the meaning of the antecedent of [1] and [2], which derives from two different sources of meaning of such terms as ‘unusual’, The concept of “limited belief in chance” implies that such things ‘improbable’, ‘unlikely’, and ‘chance event’:7 as orderly events exist, displaying regularities of the empirical world, describable in terms of laws which predict exactly what the relationships [a] the concept of absolute chance; and are determining these regularities (except for a limited amount of [b] the concept of the limited belief in chance. “noise”).3 Some of these laws might be called probabilistic or statistical laws because they identify certain processes and events as random.
108Omega December 2007 109 J. van Brakel Is our Universe a Mere Fluke?
However, the chance element in these random events is not absolute (as [b] relative chance events: which are the outcome of a statistical is the one described above) but relative. Such random or statistical events process, identified as such, and subject to a limited belief in chance only make sense relative to a higher-level orderliness - hence: the limited at a certain level.9 belief in chance.4 In view of these two concepts of chance, what kind of event is For example, when Rutherford established that radioactivity was the emergence of our universe after the Big-Bang? Pre-Enlightenment a statistical phenomena, he tested a so-called third order statistical discussions of the argument from design dwelt on the question of how to hypothesis, i.e., he observed small samples of radioactive material for a interpret an absolute chance event: partners in the debate agreed that short time, establishing that the fluctuations in the number of disintegrations we had no knowledge of this event. The question was: Is there an were neatly distributed along a Poisson distribution (as they should be, absence of cause (is it an ontologically absolute chance event?) or is assuming that each radio-active atom has a fixed probability to there a higher Being who does know the cause or has caused it? None disintegrate).5 Of course his data didn’t fit the Poisson distribution exactly, of the disputants held that “emerging universes” might be a statistical but he didn’t therefore draw the conclusion that he should carry out phenomenon. The tone of the debate is well captured by Cicero when some more experiments to check whether such deviations from the he has Quintus say:10 Poisson distribution were reproducible, following a proper statistical “Mere accidents”, you say. Now, really is that so? Can anything distribution. For, no matter how well his fourth level experiment would be an “accident” which bears upon itself every mark of truth? have confirmed a fourth level hypothesis, there would always have been Four dice [read: astragali] are cast and a Venus throw results some deviation from the theoretical curve, which would then have forced [the chance of this event is about 0.0016] - that is chance; but do him to start on a fifth order experiment, leading to a sixth order experiment, you think it would be chance, too, if in one hundred casts you and so on. made one hundred Venus throws? The reply is: Need for Drawing Distinctions In the first place I do not know why it could not; but I do not If we keep on ascribing the particular outcomes of observations contest the point, for you are full of the same sort of examples ... to chance, we will never find order.6 Rutherford was more down to You also mentioned that myth from Carneades about the head of earth in this respect. When he had carried out the third order experiment Pan - as if the likeness could not have been the result of chance! he didn’t even mention the small deviations from the Poisson distribution, Now consider the modern approach: Spinning the universes is a but reported to the world: “The agreement between theory and experiment statistical phenomenon. How could we know that in the first place? is excellent.”7 This is the limited belief in chance - without it, we would Clearly, in the sense that Rutherford knew that radioactivity is a statistical become insane. If we say (invoking “modern probability”), that even the phenomenon, we cannot know it at all. There are no second order most improbable event shouldn’t surprise us, this statement is based on experiments to measure the actual probability of our universe empirically, the belief in the infinite repetition of the most probable event of a particular let alone third order ones to check whether spinning the universes is a order; what is left to chance is then only the randomness in the sequence statistical phenomena. The only thing we can do is to refer to Carter- of events of a lower order.8 and Wheeler-type models, which contain an a priori equal-probability distribution of some sort and see whether there is support for these Hence, the distinction I want to draw is between: models, which does not demand direct checking of the nature of the [a] absolute chance events, which are possible events, but, for the alleged probabilistic parameters. rest, don’t fit in anywhere;
110Omega December 2007 111 J. van Brakel Is our Universe a Mere Fluke?
Let’s assume such support is forthcoming. Is this justification any decides to use all hands15 (of which Kwoth has very many). As it is no different for the Carter-or Wheeler-model? According to Hacking it is: problem to arrange to have a very large number of urns (all identical), on the Carter-model our world simply exists; on the Wheeler-model the Kwoth performs another fifth order experiment of one draw with n4 existence of the world is merely a chance event (unless one adds the sets of n3 series of n2 groups of three hands each. It is obvious that inverse gambler’s fallacy to the Wheeler hypothesis).11 However, what whether Kwoth uses the labour-intensive or the capital-intensive method, would be the empirical significance of this difference? By hypothesis, it makes no difference to what is being tested: Is making universes a we do not have access to the other universes, either on the sequential or statistical process? the co-current model. The physical universe is a four-dimensional manifold, at one particular point along a Wheeler- or Carter-type fifth dimension. Similarly, according to both the Carter and Wheeler models, the But there is no way by which we could intervene in this fifth dimension.12 emergence of our universe is a chance event of a particular order. However, because we cannot carry out any experiments to test the In making a “logical” distinction between the two models, I believe statistical nature of this phenomenon, we can raise doubts as to whether too much is built on Wheeler’s “one-universe-at-a-time” and Carter’s we can properly talk about relative chance events (in the way we can in “all logically possible universes exist at the same time” (what sort of the case of radio-active decay). It would seem that nothing is left to time are they talking about?). Passing over general discussions about chance. In this case, the limited belief in chance works itself, as it were, possible worlds and how we might establish that Carter universes are all the way down to the only available outcome of a first order more real than conceptual possibilities,13 either a model is probabilistic experiment.16 We say after one observation (of our universe), with or it is deterministic. Both the Carter and Wheeler models say that our Rutherford when he had carried out his third order experiment: This is universe is very improbable, so it seems reasonable to assume that both where our spade is turned.17 provide a statistical model. Then the following story shows there is no logical difference between them. If we want a Cicero-type discussion about absolute chance events, the question of how probable the event is, on some statistical theory or Assume Kwoth has an urn containing two monads, one red, two model, simply doesn’t arise. Moreover, we don’t need to consider the black, and Kwoth decides to carry out a fifth order experiment to check universe as a chance event in order to discuss the status of absolute whether the fluctuations in the fourth order outcomes comply with the chance events. If the latter exist at all,18 then there are lots of them laws of probability. The procedure is as follows: Kwoth draws three around. On the other hand, if we want to talk about particular probabilistic monads from the urn (with replacement, but after they have been drawn phenomena then we can only do so relative to a limited belief in chance the monads duplicate so that Kwoth also has a simple record of all the of a certain order. This implies, among other things, that we should be monads drawn). This is a second order experiment. Carrying out this able to make some sense of what the limited belief in chance refers to a experiment n2 times yields a third order result; and so on, up to the fifth point not at all obvious for statistical cosmological theories such as the level. Let’s assume that every fourth order distribution corresponds to a Carter and Wheeler models. universe. So, in doing a fifth order experiment Kwoth is making one universe after another. There might be one particular fourth order Notes distribution that corresponds to our universe;14 hence Kwoth is making Wheeler universes. 1. Jap Van Brakel is Professor of Philosophy of Science at the Institute of Philosophy in Catholic University, Leuven. Obviously, drawing these monads one at a time is very time consuming, even though Kwoth can work fast. Hence one day Kwoth 2. See for example, B.L. Hebblethwaite, “Mellor’s ‘Bridge-Hand’ Argument,” in Religious Studies (1986), pp. 473-79; I. Hacking, “The Inverse Gambler’s
112Omega December 2007 113 J. van Brakel Is our Universe a Mere Fluke?
Fallacy: the Argument from Design. The Anthropic Principle Applied to monkey on the typewriter over infinite time), will produce our Shakespearean Wheeler Universes,”in Mind (1987), pp. 331-340. I take the argument from habitat. On this hypothesis chance is indeed more probable than design. To design or the cosmological argument to be an argument along the following think otherwise is indeed to commit the bridge-hand fallacy.” It is somewhat lines: The world’s order is too delicate a balance to have arisen by mere surprising that Hacking doesn’t connect his arguments (or at least indicate chance. There must be a causal explanation. We must therefore infer the the difference) with the extensive discussion in the literature about Mellor’s existence of an intelligent Creator. “bridge-hand argument” applied to the argument from design. 3. Hebblethwaite (op cit.) argues that design arguments appealing to the nature 7. I borrow the first notion from Cicero (De divinatione, Heinemann, London, of the world including laws, etc. are very different and more relevant to the 1964) and the second from T. Ehrenfest-Afanassjewa, “On the use of the purpose at hand than arguments which appeal to the alleged improbability notion ‘probability’ in physics,” in American Journal of Physics (1958), pp. of our universe coming into existence or rational beings evolving, given 388-392. universal laws, universal constants, etc. 8. And with respect to any merely possible “lawless” event, an argument from 4. The “bridge hand fallacy” is the following: there must be some causal design might be set up. Hence the impact of the belief that there are no such explanation if one is playing bridge and one is dealt a hand of thirteen things as lawless events (“absolute chance”). spades. Applied to the universe the fallacy is to suppose that we can 9. De div., II.vii.18. conclude from the world’s being the way it is, that such a state of affairs is highly improbable on any account other than that of design. See H. Mellor, 10. It is a matter of dispute whether variants of the notion of absolute chance “God and Probability,” in Religious Studies (1969), pp. 223-34, who claims can still be found in non-western traditions. The usual view is that all events himself that in arguments from design, we cannot appeal to probabilistic are caused by an actor of one sort or another. reasoning because the concept of chance is inapplicable to the single 11. For a more detailed exposition of the notion of “limited belief in chance” see unrepeatable world process. Mellor’s views have been discussed in several J. van Brakel, “The limited belief in chance,” in Studies in History and books on the philosophy of religion. See for example R.G. Swinburne, The Philosophy of Science, 22 (1991), pp. 499-513. Existence of God (Oxford, 1979) and D. J. Bartholomew, God of Chance (SCM Press, 1984). Quotations from a large number of (astro)physicists 12. The distinction between different orders or levels when talking about who fall for this (alleged) fallacy (including Hawking and Hoyle), can be statistical phenomena and testing statistical hypotheses is an important but found in H. Rolston III, Science and Religion (New York: Random House, somewhat neglected subject. The notion of order is as follows. Consider an 1987), p. 68f. urn containing three balls, two black and one red. A first order experiment is drawing one ball. The most probable outcome of the first order experiment is 5. It is called the “inverse gambler’s fallacy” because it refers to the situation a black ball. In a second order experiment a ball is drawn n times (with where somebody enters a room, observes that four dice are rolled which replacement). The most probable outcome of a second order experiment is a yield four sixes and concludes that many rolls must have been made by the relative frequency of red to black of two to one. A third order experiment people in the room, because he has just observed such a rare event. Hacking consists of making n series of n draws; and so on. Note that the most 2 1 has argued that the same fallacy is committed when the existence of the probable outcome of order k (say: drawing three balls with replacement) universe is explained in terms of the Wheeler model. This has been disputed contains the least probable outcome of order k-1 (in this case one red ball). by J. Leslie, “Anthropic Explanations in Cosmology,” in PSA, vol. 1 (1986), This is one reason why it makes no sense to talk about statistical data pp. 87-95. without saying which hypothesis one is testing. 6. Although he doesn’t quote examples of the wide circulation of this “inverse 13. E. Rutherford, Radioactive Substances and Their Radiations (Cambridge gambler’s fallacy”, probably the following quotation would suffice to make University Press, 1913). On the relevant aspects of the early research on the point (from Hebblethwaite, op. cit.): “if all possible permutations are radioactivity see also J. van Brakel “The influence of the discovery of gone through, it should not surprise us that sooner or later on the sequential radioactive decay on the changing concept of physical probability,” in Archive view (or somewhere on the simultaneous view) random shuffling (like the for the History of the Exact Sciences, 31 (1985), pp. 369-385.
114Omega December 2007 115 J. van Brakel Is our Universe a Mere Fluke?
14. The same applies when we neglect the “noise” in observing what is taken to the fourth order distribution of sets of series of groups of draws is exactly as be a deterministic phenomenon. Quantum mechanics too, if taken as a predicted by some higher-order analogue of the Poisson distribution. What probabilistic theory at the deepest ontological level, can only make sense starts as a statistical model can only lead to a deductive explanation of a relative to some higher order limited belief in chance. (On a Bohm particular outcome if, applying the limited belief in chance, the most probable interpretation of quantum mechanics one could argue for a completely outcome of a certain order is ordained to be certain. deterministic world.) 25. Paraphrasing Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations § 217: “If I have 15. Rutherford, op cit., p. 191. exhausted the justifications I have reached bedrock, and my spade is turned. Then I am inclined to say: ‘This is simply what I do’.” 16. Paraphrasing Ehrenfest-Afanassjewa, op cit. In drawing balls (with replacement) from an urn containing two black and one red one, we can 26. It would seem that the existence of absolute chance events would entail that formulate a fourth order hypothesis such that drawing, say, 81 red balls one there are “holes” in the physical universe. after the other, can be the beginning of the outcome of the most probable outcome of the experiment testing this fourth order hypothesis. 17. Moreover there has to be at least some idea of the first order probabilities on which the distributions for all levels depend. 18 De div., I.xiii.23; the reply is at II.xxi.48. Compare Aristotle, De caelo, 292a30. On the “prehistory” of the modern concept of probability see J. van Brakel, “Some remarks on the prehistory of the concept of statistical probability,” in Archive for the History of the Exact Sciences, 16 (1976), pp. 119-136. 19. Hacking suggests that the Carter model gives a “complete” explanation of the existence of our universe by combining a Principle of Plenitude (all possible universes co-exist) and an Anthropic Principle (we can exist only in an orderly universe). 20. Compare, for example, the discussion in the journal Analysis during the years 1982, 1983, 1986, 1987, on the nature of metaphysical realism which follows Smart’s suggestion that our universe might be the cross-section of a five-dimensional manifold, where it is assumed that causal interaction with the fifth dimension is precluded. 21. In the sense that when I am about to throw two dice I have (at least) 36 conceptually possible worlds in my hand. 22. It could be the one that starts with the first 81 draws yielding red monads (compare note 15). 23. Having read about the “Briareus” model in R.B. Braithwaite, Scientific Explanation (Cambridge University Press, 1968). 24. This is what is actually happening when Hacking says that Carter models explain deductively the existence of our universe. It is assumed that [i] an experiment of a certain order has been carried out, [ii] the outcome is the most probable outcome of that order: Kwoth has made a fifth order draw and
116Omega December 2007 117 Sabu Mathew Revisiting the “Playing God” Metaphor
and development of both humankind and nature. In the wake of these enormous possibilities there is a serious allegation that human beings are “playing God” in many areas in the creative order and forget our role as God’s creatures and children. This allegation automatically gives a prohibition: “don’t play God.” Many hold the idea that these allegations should be ignored and the modern advancement in technology and medicine should be used for a better way of living.2 Others argue that Revisiting the “Playing God” Metaphor: this mode of behaviour is transgressing the human limits. There are a Alternative Models of the Human Relationship few questions to be raised and answered in this discussion. What should be the human attitudes and behaviours for the defence of and care for with the Creator and the Creatures the natural environment and other species? Are the successful growth - Sabu Mathew1 and progress in science and technology without a proper ethics crossing the human boundaries? Are there any models that can define a better Abstract: Are there any models that can define a better relationship of relationship of human beings with others, nature and the Creator? human beings with others, nature and the Creator? This question forms the subject matter of this essay. Having analysed the various The Meaning of the Phrase “Playing God” paraphernalia of the metaphor of playing God, the essay moves on to the specific areas in which human beings are accused of transgressing Ted Peters identifies three shades of meaning in the inscrutable the limits in exercising their freedom. Redefining human relationship phrase “playing God.” The first meaning is with regard to “learning God’s with other creatures and the creator entails the reinterpretation of the awesome secrets.” The new discoveries regarding the universe and life role of the human persons in creation. The more dynamic concepts such on earth, especially on the depths of human life open new possibilities as human beings as the stewards (oikonomos) of creation and as the for the human beings. Things that belonged to the parameters of the ‘created co-creator,’ help very much in this process of reinterpretaion. mysteries are now in the realm of knowledge. By the decoding of these - Editor mysteries human beings come to a certain awareness that they are about 3 Key Words: Playing God, Stewardship, Created co-creator, Imago Dei, to attain the Godlike powers. The second meaning of “playing God” is Imago mundi. concerned with ‘the exercising of the power over life and death.’ This is applicable in the case of a doctor deciding the fate of a patient.4 This medical meaning of the phrase is, occasionally in its modern exercising, Introduction tend to transgress the human limits when making life and death decisions.
Every form of crisis in the universe mainly points at the role of the The third meaning of “playing God” points to the “use of science human beings as the source and cause of the problem. Accordingly, to alter life and influence human evolution.” The phrase, in this human intervention in the creative order, whether in the sphere of perspective, means that we “are substituting ourselves for God in environment or in the case of advanced medical research and treatments, determining what human nature will be. It refers to placing ourselves is a matter of dispute and debate, especially from the perspective of where God and only God belongs.”5 When human beings interpret the ethics and morality. With the aid of genetic technology, at present, human mandate of having dominion over the creation as a despotic one and beings own the possibility of creating themselves. This capacity and begin to exploit the ecosystems and life forms, make over and reconfigure advancement in technology will have a big say in the biological future all areas of the natural world –plants, animals, and humans –they will be,
118Omega December 2007 119 Sabu Mathew Revisiting the “Playing God” Metaphor in all sense, ‘playing God.’ Human beings often ignore the aspect of issues. Questions are there regarding the exercise of human power to accountability to God and there is also the failure to accept the modify and manipulate genetic codes, which has been believed by many interdependency with the whole of creation. It should also be noted that as belonging to the power of God. There are counter arguments to this in ‘playing God’ “we confuse the knowledge we do have with the wisdom position stating that as having the unique ability to think and reason human to decide how to use it. Frequently lacking this wisdom we falsely assume beings should use these powers to improve their health and lives.10 The we possess, scientific knowledge leads to unforeseen consequences such scope of genetic engineering becomes very threatening and the intentions as destruction of the ecosphere.” 6 All that has been done to upgrade the more suspicious when this is used to mix human genes and animal genes existing organisms is not part of the creatio continua, continuous creation. and “creating new genetic codes that cross the lines between species.”11 Such an attempt would be serious misuse of human freedom in such a way to drastically violate the natural order of creation.7 Cloning is another area of concern. Cloning with the assistance of genetic technologies will jeopardize the identity and dignity of children The relationship of human beings towards others, nature and God in the future since there can occur a situation in which the economic depends on the aspect of freedom and the exercise of it. However, forces may “commodify newborn children.” Human cloning may also there are different perspectives regarding the scope and limit of that redefine certain terms that are used to denote human biological freedom. The coming section focuses on the specific areas in which relationship into terms that signify market commodities. Accordingly, human beings are accused of transgressing the limits in exercising their begetting becomes making, and procreation becomes manufacturing. freedom and are ‘playing God.’ Many of these areas are at the beginning Genetic advances and cloning will open a circumstance in which there stage and are on the way to effect some revolutionary changes in the are the possibilities of designer babies. They will be considered just like future life of humanity. Even though environmental destruction by human products since reproduction is viewed more as mere production.12 There beings due to the despotic use of the resources of the earth is an age-old will be many people who wish to be cloned themselves. Those who problem, the recent advancement in the agricultural biotechnology raises favour cloning humans argue that the concerns and fears regarding it new area of concern. are blown out of proportion and technology can be utilized in order to enhance the quality of life strictly according to ethical principles.13 Is Genetic Engineering and Reproductive Technology that so simple as it is explained? The new inventions and developments in genetic engineering hasten There are some other views according to which “reproductive the possibility of altering the genes through selective manipulation of cloning is nothing more than another modality for the treatment of human them by technological interventions. Genetic engineering facilitates the infertility in giving the gift of life to a childless couple.”14 The Australian researchers “to alter the genetic makeup of plants, animals, creating National Academy of Science holds that “reproductive cloning to produce organisms with desired attributes and eliminating unwanted traits. By human foetuses is unethical and unsafe and should be prohibited. transferring genes from one species to another, it is possible to create However, human cells derived from cloning techniques, from ES cell entirely new organisms that do not occur naturally.”8 It is an undisputed lines, or from primordial germ cells should not be precluded from use in fact that there are a lot of prospective gains in the use of genetic approved research activities in cellular and developmental biology.”15 engineering such as the preclusion and treatment of disease, elimination The second part of the recommendation is, however, contrary to the ban of food shortages that the world experiences, progress in agriculture on reproductive cloning. The President’s Council of Bioethics in United and eradication of industrial toxins. Experts think that the current genetic States has categorically stated that “cloning humans is unethical,” research will provide some possible results for genetic intervention.9 explaining the moral problems of such a human reproductive cloning. It However, genetic engineering gives rise to many complicated moral brings in the question of violation of the basic human rights and also
120Omega December 2007 121 Sabu Mathew Revisiting the “Playing God” Metaphor gives the warning that “cloning could be done for the unethical purpose area of medicine especially with the claims that stem cell therapies may of trying to create “superior” humans with traits arbitrarily valued by a revolutionize the treatment of many of the fatal and incapacitating particular culture.” Dehumanization and commercialization of clones are diseases and problems in the form of diabetes, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, also prospective problematic results of such cloning.16 The cloning project stroke and spinal cord injuries. The Biotechnology Industry Organization, may wipe out the border between the natural and the technological. while giving the list of the many benefits of genetic engineering, promotes Cloning can also decrease the diversity of the human gene-pool. “Sexual the use of stem cell both from the adult and embryo.20 The ethical question reproduction introduces unique combinations of genes into the human about the use of embryonic stem cells for research is not answered. Are gene-pool, while eugenic cloning aimed at reproducing particular we allowed to destroy potential human lives for saving lives? genotypes will tend to diminish that diversity, and with it the “strength” of the species. Eugenic enhancement may thus “weaken” the future Playing God in the Realm of Environment generations.”17 A clone’s identity in the family human relation will be a Ecological crisis is depicted in various forms, such as ‘the perplexed and tentative one without having normal understandable destruction of the environment and its eco-systems, exploitation of the designations of father and mother, sister and brother. earth’s resources, damage to the ozone shield, pollution of the atmosphere Embryonic Stem Cell Research and water systems, the degradation of the land, the destruction of the wilderness areas, massive deforestation and so on.’21 The Judeo-Christian Embryonic stem cell research is the most contentious area of tradition has often been blamed for being responsible for this destructive genetic engineering. “Embryonic stem cells are undifferentiated cells attitude towards nature. In the Science magazine Lynn White argued that have the potential to develop into any of the 220 types of cells in the that the orthodox Christian religion is largely responsible for the current body, such as bone cells, muscle cells, and blood cells. Scientists are ecological state of the world.22 Many scholars like White, protagonists trying to harvest these stem cells before they differentiate, and then of biocentrism and advocates of new theological and ethical systems coax them into becoming various cell types in the laboratory.”18 They point at the connection between the image of God and dominion mandate can develop these cells into whatever cell they want to have in order to in Genesis as having played a big role in the ideological formation of replace the damaged cells. The problem with the embryonic stem cell Christianity’s relationship with the non-human nature.23 Therefore, they research is that the harvesting of stem cells really destroys the embryo, consider this strong anthropocentrism provided by certain religious which is in fact a nascent human life. There are other possible sources ideologies along with the advancement in science and technology as of stem cells for research purposes: from adults and also from the giving impetus to a despotic attitude towards nature and other species. umbilical cords of newborns and placentas. Certain opposition to the White and other protagonists of environmentalism had the conviction extreme ways of embryonic stem cell research are resulting from the that Christian interpretations of human dominion over nature have been belief that creation of human life and subsequent destruction of it for anthropocentric and have promoted oppressive attitudes toward therapeutic or research purposes is equivalent to murder. This is the nonhuman nature including plants and animals. position of the Catholic Church. Human embryos are human beings. Accordingly, embryonic stem cell research which could be named also Along with traditional modes of ecological destruction there are as therapeutic cloning obliterates human life, since it engages in harvesting other ethical concerns and questions arising from the widespread genetic stem cells and killing the embryos. Thus, it becomes a violation of a modification that are common around the world. Transgenic organisms principle of the Nuremberg Code: there should be no experimentation on such as plants and animals raise the new dilemmatic questions. Many a human subject when death or disabling injury will result.19 Stem cell see alarming signs regarding genetically modified foods on health and research is much promising with regard to its potential benefits in the the effect of such genetic modification on the environment. Interests
122Omega December 2007 123 Sabu Mathew Revisiting the “Playing God” Metaphor groups are engaging in environmental debate alleging that we are under Alternative Models for Human Relationship with the Creator the threat of an ecological disaster from the GM plant technology due to and the Creatures crosspollination.24 We cannot shy away from the moral issues and ethical concerns Many of the agricultural biotechnology companies are accused of regarding the genetic engineering, embryonic stem cell research, cloning standing only for economic profit making at the expense of the and agricultural biotechnology by opining that it is simple to exaggerate environment. These companies have the obligation to find solutions for the perils of technological innovations. The human patterns of relationship the ecological problems that are caused by their achievements. But they to the environment and the new developments in biotechnology have are driven by mercantile concerns. These companies promote and enormous ethical consequences as we have observed above. The human facilitate crosspollination. According to Schmitz, “crosspollination and interaction and intervention with the natural environment has given rise the spread of herbicide-resistant genes to neighbouring conventional crops to many moral dilemmas, both in the fields of environmental ethics and could create a serious ecological threat to surrounding areas and wild medical ethics. There are also questions and concerns with regard to plants. Furthermore, genetically engineered crops produce herbicide- the superiority of human beings and their place in creation and the ‘moral resistant weeds, which only serves to create opportunities for large standing’ of nature and non-human beings. In order to recover from the biotechnology companies to sell more of their products.”25 There is no moral dilemmas and to define a proper human relationship to other guarantee that herbicide-tolerant crops may induce the decrease of using creatures and the creator there should be an attempt to reinterpret the herbicide to farmland. It actually has the opposite effect. The sudden role of the human persons in creation. This is done by reconsidering degradation of herbicide makes it necessary to use the herbicide more anthropocentrism in ethics by making use of the more dynamic concepts often because of the emergence of weeds after the degradation of such as human beings as the stewards (oikonomos) of creation and as herbicide. It may also lead to a wide range of herbicide use due to the the ‘created co-creator.’ The coming sections elaborately discuss the spreading of the herbicides to other farms when applied directly onto the different nuances of these concepts. crops than using them on the soil. This is the way how the agricultural biotechnological companies reap economic profit by ignoring the damages Oikonomia as Stewardship of the Oikos, the Earth that are done to the environment.26 Taking into consideration these factors Schmitz demands that “the application of technology should be determined The fundamental and primary meaning of oikos is “habitat earth.” by the needs of an ecological society, as opposed to the needs of a This term is the central meaning of all the eco terms such as economy, market economy.” It will be a difficult task as Schmitz finds an ecology etc. Oikos thus denotes earth as a vast but single household of incompatibility between the current economic system and the ecological life. It connotes also the capability for survival, which is called sustainable society. Ecological society demands a “sustainable agriculture,” which habitat. It further stands for the space and resources for the subsistence can be “defined as regenerative, low input, diversified, and decentralised.” of all living things. In such a way it grows beyond the mere household However, what is offered by the market economy is just opposite and meaning to one, which denotes the whole earth. Thus there are different contradictory to it when the “industrial agriculture depends upon dimensions for this oikos, extending from a single household in a special 28 obsolescence, high inputs, monocultures, and the centralization of location to earth community itself as an all-embracing organism. power.”27 These incomplete and selected observations give an idea about Accordingly, earth as oikos, a huge world house, is a shared home. This the environmental problems resulting from the inadequate and uncontrolled inhabited world includes humans and otherkind alike and they are related 29 use of biotechnology in matters of agriculture and general vegetative as a result of basic relatedness. life. The translation of the Greek term oikonomos is steward and that of oikonomia is stewardship. According to the Greek understanding
124Omega December 2007 125 Sabu Mathew Revisiting the “Playing God” Metaphor oikonomos is one who cares for the life of the household members and the matter, Iamblichus depends on a passage from Plato: “Man, they manages it well in accordance with the norms. Oikonomos indicates said, is sent to earth by God “to administer earthly things”, to care for trusteeship, the broad responsibility towards the earth in which human them in God’s name.”34 Oikonomia as God’s governing of the world beings involve, interact and intervene. It is thus the prudent administration can be traced back to the early Greek origin of the term. An important of life’s household, which presupposes understanding the human limits point is that the Stoic philosophers apply oikonomia to designate “the along with the limits of nature.30 Therefore “the steward is the one who divine administration of the universe.” In their reasoning there is a stable, is responsible for managing, planning and administering the matters related logical and gradual development of the different senses of the term from to the oikos – household. The word is wider than reference to economics its root meaning of management in a household (oikos) to management of the house, it is ecology: the whole ordering of our life in relation to in a city-state (polis) to God’s management of the world (cosmos). The God’s grace and our relationships in this world.”31 Therefore, this late Hellenistic era relates this term regularly to the ordering and stewardship is God-given, to perform human responsibility within creation. administration of the universe by God, often through a series of “We are stewards on behalf of God who has entrusted creation and its subordinate administrators.35 Therefore, oikonomos should be viewed resources for our wise management. We are servant-managers. This as subordinate administrator. Xenophon in his Memorabilia calls God dynamic metaphor must explode into effectiveness into all our dealings the oikonomos.36 Zeus is described as “the dispenser.” Stoic physics with nature, helping us to move from anthropocentricity to theo-centricity, presents the world as ruled by reason and the God is the one who governs from carelessness to concern, from indolence into diligence.”32 this universe. It is an orderly nature with God as dispenser. Accordingly, the fundamental supposition is that there is an oikonomia, or order in The most important aspect conveyed by the stewardship symbol nature and there is a divine as the controller. This idea of the rule of God is that it always reminds that stewards are not possessors. There are is most often related to the concept of providence. In later Stoics there possibilities for humanity to think itself as the owner of everything on is a refined concept of the divine administration as governance functioning earth because of the free access to the profits of abundant natural through fate, or through heavenly bodies, or nature, or logos. These are resources. In fact the steward metaphor may keep humanity balanced lower powers and they carry out the actual work of administration in the to perceive that the concept of possession should be redefined, because subordinate realms.37 There is the implication that human beings are “steward is one who administers resources for the benefit of others.” subordinate administrators or managers entrusted by God. Therefore, Therefore, there is no question of ownership at least in a theoretical the human beings are the stewards of God who are expected to realm. Yet, another aspect of stewardship is that it offers a dual responsibly and faithfully manage everything assigned to them in creation. responsibility, to the one who is the real owner and to some others who are the beneficiaries. The main implication is that “if someone is a steward, Human Being: A Steward and a Created Co-creator it is others who must benefit.”33 Therefore, all of the earth community is precious to God, who continues to create, sustain, and redeem the whole. Among the many responses to the theory of White is that of the God relates directly to and cares for the well being of otherkind, created stewardship proponents, according to whom Genesis story did not confer to enjoy being in their own right and not only function as companions or upon the human beings the power to dominate nature, but have given helpers of humankind. human beings a unique status in creation. This special status is bound with responsibilities, powers and privileges and in a nutshell, it is to be The specific description of the God-given responsibility of the stewards of the earth.38 Humans, created in the image of God, are God’s stewardship of the earth goes back also to Plato and to the post-platonic stewards (oikonomos) for his creation. The imago Dei concept defines philosophers, especially Iamblichus. In his explication of the reason why humans as the culmination of God’s creation.39 The most relevant meaning there is the immersion of the immaterial and immortal soul of man into of imago Dei in the discussion of the interaction between science and
126Omega December 2007 127 Sabu Mathew Revisiting the “Playing God” Metaphor theology is the concept of stewardship. After God completed his creation, The second perspective is that human beings are “created co- he called it “good.” He entrusted all creation to the stewardship of humans. creators,” a notion that is propagated mainly by Philip Hefner. This concept Thus, the human beings, the imago Dei, are the stewards of God’s explains the nature and place of human beings in the created order. The creation. Humans can use all the resources on earth for survival and for most important aspect of this concept is that, it is first of all a theological developing civilization in a sustainable way. This is not a despotic mandate notion that does not have branded baggage with it. According to him, the to destroy everything as having dominion over them. However, humans idea of created co-creator is as follows: have to maintain two attitudes: to be grateful toward their Creator, and Human beings are God’s created co-creators whose purpose is to be prudent toward managing the creation. to be the agency, acting in freedom, to birth the future that is most wholesome for the nature that has birthed us–the nature Arthur R. Peacocke, a famous British theologian and biochemist, that is not only our own genetic heritage, but also the entire 40 advocated the term synergism to explain that although humans are human community and the evolutionary and ecological reality in creatures, they are also co-creators with their Creator.41 The idea of co- which and to which we belong. Exercising this agency is said to 44 creatorship should be understood from two perspectives. The first is be God’s will for humans. that human beings are collaborators or participants with God in the process Hefner elaborates this basic hypothesis with a theological theory of creatio continua. Accordingly, the responsibility of human beings as that he has developed from an empirical description of the human being. stewards of the earth “is to supervise, manage, and exercise dominion This theological theory comprises three elements that are compatible over the creation.” The concept of being God’s vice regent means to be with fundamental aspects of the empirical description. Accordingly, “the his co-creators, co-workers, and co-explorers with him. The providence human being is created by God to be a co-creator in the creation that of God for his creation engrosses genetic and ecological changes in the God has brought into being and for which God has purposes.” 45 This is biosphere and therefore human beings should make use of their God- the first element of the theory and this articulates an integrated image given creativity to effect biological changes in the universe, but not that would serve as a “summarizing concept” regarding human being. transgressing the limits. The role of human beings in the biological creation The second element of the theory contains a definite concept that explains is nothing more than the refashioning of what God has originally created the human conditionedness: “The conditioning matrix that has produced by stewarding it. It is only the prerogative of the transcendent Creator to the human being–the evolutionary process–is God’s process of bringing create ex nihilo. “The cloning of genes and the creation of transgenic into being a creature who represents the creation’s zone of a new stage organisms only enhance the expression of the potentials endowed by the of freedom and who therefore is crucial for the emergence of a free 42 Creator.” About the question of having control over the genetic future creation.” 46 It is the adjective created that is related to the of plants, animals and humans, according to James J. Walter, the “conditionedness of the human being.”47 This created aspect makes stewardship interpretation of imago Dei defines “humanity as a steward human being as located within an ecological unit and human being is over creation. Our moral responsibility is primarily to protect and to conditioned in this mutual correlation with an environment. This conserve what divine has created and ordered. Stewardship is exercised characteristic of being created conveys the message that the human by carefully respecting the limits placed by God in the orders of biological beings are not solely deciding their role in the world and do not create nature and society. If we are only stewards over both creation and the their nature.48 The third and final element reveals the aspect of freedom genetic heritage of God’s creatures, then our moral responsibilities do in this whole dynamism. Hefner presents this element as follows: “The not include alteration of what divine has created and ordered through freedom that marks the created co-creator and its culture is an 43 nature.” In a nutshell, the human participation in creation demands instrumentality of God for enabling the creation (consisting of the respect for nature, not exploitation. evolutionary past of genetic and cultural inheritance as well as the
128Omega December 2007 129 Sabu Mathew Revisiting the “Playing God” Metaphor contemporary ecosystem) to participate in the intentional fulfilment of importance to the human vocation as ongoing co-creators with God in a God’s purposes.”49 dynamic and ever-changing world.55 Ted Peters finds the concept of created co-creator as the imago Human Beings are Imago Dei and Imago Mundi Dei and has great significance for a couple of reasons: firstly, the term “created” expresses the idea that “God creates differently from the Human beings are creatures and at the same time they are co- way we human beings create. God creates ex nihilo. We have been creators with God. However, the aspect of having a strong sense of created by God. We are creatures. So, whatever creativity we manifest belongingness to creation should be very fundamental in their mode of cannot rank on the same level as creation out of nothing, on the same behaviour. Human beings are expected to admit and respect the fact level with our creator.”50 The term co-creator denotes that creation that humanity is part of the created nature. The most accused and criticised does not stand still. There is movement and there is change. Human human attitude towards nature is that of domination and exploitation, beings have partial influence and responsibility on the direction that these which effect the alienation of nature. Humanity should be naturalized in movements and changes take and the kind of changes that happen.51 order to trounce this alienation of nature instigated by humans. “This is The notion of stewardship of creation has also its foundation on the not a romantic return to nature, but rather a new human self-understanding concept of being co-creators with God. The concept of prudent and a new interpretation of the human world within the framework of management, expressed by oikonomia and its possible translation nature.”56 This new interpretation should be based on a non-subjectivist stewardship, is still one of the best ethical systems to describe the metaphysic, because the modern metaphysic of subjectivity is considered relationship between humankind and the creation when human beings as the reason for the alienating objectification of nature. When humanity are viewed as created co-creators with God. The part co- in Hefner’s is naturalized it does not stay against nature, but rather it is itself a product concept of the ‘created co-creator’ is important in this explanation. of nature. Here, nature is seen as the grand subject that generates new Peterson views this prefix co- as the most theological element, because, forms of life, including humanity. Humanity is thus the object of creative “it implies not simply that we are creating in and of our own right but that nature. our creative acts are in co-operation with God’s creative acts in a way Nature is the ecosystem for human societies. This means, that suggests partnership rather than subordination.”52 Just like the however, that in the human knowledge of nature, nature perceives concept of oikonomos, who is only a responsible manager, the concept itself; and that in the human objectivization of nature, nature of created co-creator declares that the master task of everything in the objectivizes itself. The subject for the subject-object relationship universe belongs to God. The human beings just participate in that divine of humanity to nature is, according to this model, nature itself. If activity. Humans are “responsible for creation as God is.”53 Therefore, this is acknowledged, then the human subject must acknowledge the subjectivity of nature and continually arrange its own world the concept of the created co-creator should be given priority in any 57 within the encompassing context of nature and its evolution. ecological theory that gives an increasing participatory dimension to human-nature relationship. This study identifies such an aspect in the Therefore humans are both imago Dei (the image of God), stewardship model as developed from the basic concept of oikonomia. representing God to the creation, and imago mundi (the image of the Moreover, the assimilation of this participatory aspect from the concept world), representing all other creatures to God.58 “Humanity is … not of created co-creator may facilitate the stewardship symbol to free itself subject ruling over nature as object, but rather the product of nature. In from the allegation against it as having a human superiority.54 The theological terms we must not understand ourselves primarily as imago stewardship symbol highlights the human role as stewards of what God Dei, but rather as imago mundi.”59 has given us in creation. The metaphor of the created co-creator gives
130Omega December 2007 131 Sabu Mathew Revisiting the “Playing God” Metaphor
Conclusion 2. David H. Smith and Timothy Sedgwick, “Theological Perspectives,” in David H. Smith and Cynthia B. Cohen, eds., A Christian Response to the New It should be acknowledged that genetic engineering and Genetics: Religious, Ethical and Social Issues (New York: Newman and biotechnology possess the prospective to effect extraordinary and Littlefield Publishers, 2003), p. 6. Smith and Sedgwick argue that if we reject beneficial things for humankind. With the aid of these possibilities human the development and use of genetic technology with the fear of “playing beings can redefine their destiny. However, uncontrolled confidence about God” we cannot serve each other and care for each other as the agents and human creativity and genetics is imprudent. It may also lead to a pride stewards of God in creation. According to them saying no to genetic technologies in this way is theological primitivism and is a reflection that we imagining that human beings possess Godlike powers and accordingly fail to discern and understand that God works through us. Reason, wisdom transgress the limits and boundaries by “playing God.” Cloning, embryonic and skill are not warhead against God. stem cell research, agricultural biotechnology, etc., are areas in which human beings are accused of “playing God” along with having a despotic 3. Ted Peters, Playing God: Genetic Determinism and Human Freedom (New attitude towards the natural world and everything in it. Thus, by solely York, London: Routledge, 2003), p. 11. This point of view is considerably reflected in the field of medicine especially with the development and being a human enterprise genetic technology and biotechnology are advancement in the area of cloning, stem cell research and techno-eugenics infected with the evil traits of exploitation and greed. There is also the (technologically enabled human genetic manipulation and selection). danger of commercial interests and influences as having say on matters, which will eventually weaken the aspect of accountability and 4. Ted Peters, Playing God: Genetic Determinism and Human Freedom, pp. responsibility. It is in this background that the discussion has brought in 11-12. two alternative concepts using them to redefine human relationship 5. Ted Peters, Playing God: Genetic Determinism and Human Freedom, p. 12. towards the creator and the creatures. Oikonomia which is the 6. Ted Peters, Playing God: Genetic Determinism and Human Freedom, p. 13. stewardship of creation insists the responsible and prudent management of the creation. It also highlights the aspect of being accountable to God. 7. Oliver O’Donovan, Begotten or Made? (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 29. Hefner’s concept of the “created co-creator” reminds us the reality that we are created in and we belong to the created order. At the same time 8. Maurya Siedler, ed., At Issue: The Ethics of Genetic Engineering (Gale: we are encouraged to participate in the ever-continuing creation of God. Thomson, 2005), p. 8. The concept of the stewardship of creation and the concept of “created 9. Cynthia B. Cohen and LeRoy Walters, “Gene Transfer for Therapy or co-creator” complementarily facilitate each other in explaining human Enhancement,” in A Christian Response to the New Genetics: Religious, beings’ role and relationship with regard to the Creator and creation. Ethical and Social Issues, pp. 54-55. Somatic cell intervention and germline Moltmann’s point of view of considering human beings as imago Dei intervention will be possible to prevent disease and to have an enhancement and imago mundi underlines the finiteness of human being as being part in the quality of life. of the natural creation. This disposition and attitude derived from the 10. Maurya Siedler, ed., At Issue: The Ethics of Genetic Engineering, p. 8. alternative models of relationship may assist the human beings to use 11. Ted Peters, Playing God: Genetic Determinism and Human Freedom, pp. genetic engineering and biotechnology in a moderate and prudent manner. 140-141. 12. Ted Peters, Playing God: Genetic Determinism and Human Freedom, pp. Notes 168, 171. 1. Dr. Sabu Mathew obtained his doctorate in theology from Catholic University, 13. Ronald M Green, “Cloning Humans is Ethical,” in At Issue: The Ethics of Leuven. Genetic Engineering, pp. 68-84.
132Omega December 2007 133 Sabu Mathew Revisiting the “Playing God” Metaphor
14. Panayiotias Zavos, “Reproductive Cloning is Moral,” in John Woodward 23. Ian MacHarg, Design with Nature (New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, 1969), ed., At Issue: The Ethics of Human Cloning (New York, Gale: Thomson, pp. 24-26. 2005), p. 22. Green suggests that “the most likely use of cloning will be 24. Desmond S. T. Nicholl, “An Overview of the Ethical Debates in Genetic circumstances in which one or both members of a couple do not produce the Engineering,” in Maurya Siedler, ed., At Issue: The Ethics of Genetic gametes (eggs or sperm) needed for sexual reproduction but wish a child Engineering, p. 13. with some genetic relation to his or her parents.” He recommends cloning as a solution for lesbian couples to have children with genetic relation. Ronald 25. Sonja A. Schmitz, “Agricultural Biotechnology Companies Sacrifice the M Green, “Cloning Humans Is Ethical,” p. 70. Environment for Economic Gain,” in At Issue: The Ethics of Genetic Engineering, p. 58. 15. The Australian National Academy of Science, “On Human Cloning: A Position Statement,” in The Australian National Academy of Science, http:/ 26. Sonja A. Schmitz, “Agricultural Biotechnology Companies Sacrifice the /www.science.org.au/reports/clone.pdf (accessed November 19, 2007). Environment for Economic Gain,” pp. 62-63. 16. President’s Council on Bioethics, “Cloning Humans Is Unethical,” in At 27. Sonja A. Schmitz, “Agricultural Biotechnology Companies Sacrifice the Issue: The Ethics of Genetic Engineering, pp. 85-99. Environment for Economic Gain,” pp. 66-67. 17. President’s Council on Bioethics, “Cloning Humans is Unethical,” p. 91. 28. Larry L. Rasmussen, Earth Community, Earth Ethics (Mary Knoll: Orbis Books, 1996), pp. 91-92. 18. Maurya Siedler, ed., At Issue: The Ethics of Genetic Engineering, p. 8-9. 29. George E. Tinker, “Creation as Kin: An American Indian View,” in Dieter T. 19. The Nuremberg Code, Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Hessel, ed., After Nature’s Revolt: Eco-Justice and Theology (Minneapolis: Tribunals under Control Council Law, No. 10, Vol. 2, pp. 181-182 (Washington, Fortress, 1992), p. 148. D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949). The Nuremberg Code is a set of principles for human experimentation set as a result of the Nuremberg 30. Larry L. Rasmussen, Earth Community, Earth Ethics, p. 92. Trials at the end of the Second World War. Specifically, they were in response 31. Ken Gnanakan, God’s World: A Theology of the Environment (London: to the inhumane Nazi human experimentation carried out during the war by SPCK, 1999), p. 132. individuals like Dr. Josef Mengele. 32. Ken Gnanakan, God’s World: A Theology of the Environment, p. 132. 20. Biotechnology Industry Organization, “Genetic Engineering has Many Benefits for Society,” in At Issue: The Ethics of Genetic Engineering, p. 23. 33. Ken Gnanakan, God’s World: A Theology of the Environment, p. 132. 21. Anne Hunt, What are they Saying about Trinity? (New York, Mahwah: 34. As quoted in Ken Gnanakan, God’s World: A Theology of the Environment, Paulist Press, 1998), p. 35. p. 133. Iamblichus is a 3rd century A. D. platonic philosopher. 22. Lynn White, Jr., “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis,” in Science 35. John Reumann, “Heilsgeschichte in Luke: Some Remarks on its Background 155 (1967), pp. 1203-1207. This essay is found also in Ian G. Barbour, ed., and Comparison with Paul,” in Studia Evangelica iv-v (1968), p. 94. Western Man and Environmental Ethics: Attitudes Toward Nature and 36. Xenophon, “Memorabilia, 4, 3, 13” in Memorabilia & Oeconomicus, trans., Technology (Reading, MA/ London, Amsterdam: Addison-Wesley, 1973), E. C. Merchant (London: Heinemann, 1959). pp. 18-30. Even though there are many authors and thinkers who sing this slogan of Lynn White without any critical approach to what he has said, 37. John Reumann, “Heilsgeschichte in Luke: Some Remarks on its Background there are others who critically observe his views and depart from him. and Comparison with Paul,” pp. 94-95. According to Robin Attfield the theory of White is a very casual one. See 38. Carol S. Robb and Carl J. Casebolt, “Introduction,” in Carol S. Robb and Carl Robin Attfield, Environmental Philosophy: Principles and Prospects J. Casebolt, eds., Covenant for a New Creation: Ethics, Religion and Public (Brookfield, Hong Kong: Avebury, 1994), pp. 13-14. Policy (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1991), p. 4.
134Omega December 2007 135 Sabu Mathew Revisiting the “Playing God” Metaphor
39. There are at least four interpretations of imago Dei: (1) human spirituality, Peterson, “The Created Co-creator: What It Is and Is Not,” Zygon 39 (2004), the desire to communicate with God; (2) human dominance over all creation; p. 828. (3) human original righteousness; and (4) human interpersonal relationships. 46. Philip Hefner, The Human Factor: Evolution, Culture and Religion, p. 32. H. Blocher, In The Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis, trans., D.G. Preston (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 1984), p. 79. 47. Philip Hefner, The Human Factor: Evolution, Culture and Religion, p. 36. 40. Synergism comes from the Greek sunergos meaning working together. 48. Philip Hefner, The Human Factor: Evolution, Culture and Religion, p. 36. Synergism is the interaction of two or more agents so that their combined 49. Philip Hefner, The Human Factor: Evolution, Culture and Religion, p. 32. effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects. The cooperative interaction of two ideas, objects, or organisms has relevance in many fields. 50. Ted Peters, Playing God: Genetic Determinism and Human Freedom, p. 16. In business, cooperation of subsidiaries and parts of a corporation result in 51. Ted Peters, Playing God: Genetic Determinism and Human Freedom, p. 16. an enhanced combined effect. In physiology, it is the cooperation between muscles that produce coordinated movement. In theology, it is the 52. Gregory R. Peterson, “The Created Co-creator: What It Is and Is Not,” p. combination of divine grace and human will through which individual 829. salvation is achieved. Here synergism is all about the doctrine of divine and 53. Gregory R. Peterson, “The Created Co-creator: What It Is and Is Not,” p. human cooperation.Synergism seeks to reconcile two paradoxical truths: 829. the sovereignty of God and man’s moral responsibility. 54. As it has been earlier stated many are sceptical about the use of the term 41. J. R. Nelson, On the Frontiers of Genetics and Religion (Grand Rapids, MI: stewardship. James A. Nash points out that there are negative implications Eerdmans, 1994), 111B2. See also Pattle Pun, “Toward an Ethics of Human for the term such as “anthropocentric abuse” and “instrumental evaluation Genome Project,” p. 167. of nature.” James A. Nash, Loving Nature: Ecological Integrity and 42. Pattle Pun, “Toward an Ethics of Human Genome Project,” pp. 167-168. Christian Responsibility (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1991), p. 107. However, these arguments may be because of the interpretations given to the term. If 43. James J. Walter, “The Bioengineering of Planet Earth: Some Scientific, Moral oikonomia is properly evaluated and understood such allegations will have and Theological Considerations,” in Thomas A. Shannon, & James J. Walter, no ground. eds., The New Genetic Medicine: Theological and Ethical Reflections (New York: Sheed and Ward, 2003), p. 167. 55. Cynthia B. Cohen and LeRoy Walters, “Gene Transfer for Therapy or Enhancement,” p. 65. 44. Philip Hefner, The Human Factor: Evolution, Culture and Religion (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993). p. 27. See also William Irons, “An 56. Jürgen Moltmann, “The Alienation and Liberation of Nature,” in L. S. Rouner, Evolutionary Critique of the Created Co-creator Concept,” in Zygon 39 (2004), ed., On Nature (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984), p. 773. The concept of co-creation is also evident in the writings of John p. 141. Naturalization of humanity is in very contrast to the “spiritual” motif Paul II. In Laborem Exercens, he deals with this aspect in the context of work that has been sensed by Santmire in the Western theological thought, which or labour. According to him, work is not the after-effect of fall, moreover, a proposes a humanization of nature. Paul Santmire, The Travail of Nature: reality from the beginning of human creation. It is through work that human The Ambiguous Ecological Promise of Christian Theology (Philadelphia, beings participate in the continuing act of creation by God. Laborem PA: Fortress Press, 1985). Exercens, nos. 9 and 24. 57. Jürgen Moltmann, “The Alienation and Liberation of Nature,” p. 142. 45. Philip Hefner, The Human Factor: Evolution, Culture and Religion, p. 32. 58. Jürgen Moltmann, God in Creation, A New Theology of Creation and the Gregory R. Peterson critically examines this concept of the created co-creator Spirit of God, trans., M. Kohl (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), Chap. by Hefner. Peterson finds this theology of co-creator as interesting, VIII. See also Pattle Pun, “Toward an Ethics of Human Genome Project,” in suggestive and at the same time enigmatically incomplete. Gregory R. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 50 (1998), pp. 164-175. 59. Jürgen Moltmann, “The Alienation and Liberation of Nature,” p. 142.
136Omega December 2007 137 Manoj Thulasidas The Philosophy of Special Relativity
relativity. The central role of light in our reality is highlighted in the Bible as well. These remarkable parallels among the phenomenological, Western spiritual and the Advaita interpretations of special relativity point to an exciting possibility of unifying the Eastern and Western schools of thought to a certain degree. Special Relativity The Philosophy of Special Relativity: Einstein unveiled his special theory of relativity2 a little over a A Comparison between Indian and century ago. In his theory, he showed that space and time were not Western Interpretations absolute entities. They are entities relative to an observer. An observer’s space and time are related to those of another through the speed of light. - Manoj Thulasidas1 For instance, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. In a moving system, time flows slower and space contracts in accordance with Abstract: The Western philosophical phenomenalism could be treated equations involving the speed of light. Light, therefore, enjoys a special as a kind of philosophical basis of the special theory of relativity. The status in our space and time. This speciality of light in our experience of perceptual limitations of our senses hold the key to the understanding of relativistic postulates. The specialness of the speed of light in our reality is indelibly enshrined in the special theory of relativity. phenomenal space and time is more a matter of our perceptual apparatus, Where does this specialness come from? What is so special about than an input postulate to the special theory of relativity. The author light that its speed should figure in the basic structure of space and time believes that the parallels among the phenomenological, Western spiritual and the Eastern Advaita interpretations of special relativity and our reality? This question has remained unanswered for over 100 point to an exciting possibility of unifying the Eastern and Western years. It also brings in the metaphysical aspects of space and time, schools of thought to some extent. which form the basis of what we perceive as reality. - Editor Noumenal-Phenomenal and Brahman-Maya Distinctions Key Words: Relativity, Speed of light, Phenomenalism, Advaita. In the Advaita3 view of reality, what we perceive is merely an illusion - Maya. Advaita explicitly renounces the notion that the perceived Introduction reality is external or indeed real. It teaches us that the phenomenal universe, our conscious awareness of it, and our bodily being are all an The philosophical basis of the special theory of relativity can be illusion or Maya. They are not the true, absolute reality. The absolute interpreted in terms of Western phenomenalism, which views space and reality existing in itself, independent of us and our experiences, is time as perceptual and cognitive constructs created out of our sensory Brahman. inputs. From this perspective, the special status of light and its speed can be understood through a phenomenological study of our senses and the A similar view of reality is echoed in phenomenalism4 which holds perceptual limitations to our phenomenal notions of space and time. A that space and time are not objective realities. They are merely the similar view is echoed in the Brahman-Maya distinction in Advaita. If medium of our perception. In this view, all the phenomena that happen in we think of space and time as part of Maya, we can partly understand space and time are merely bundles of our perception. Space and time the importance that the speed of light in our reality, as enshrined in special are also cognitive constructs arising from perception. Thus, the reasons
138Omega December 2007 139 Manoj Thulasidas The Philosophy of Special Relativity behind all the physical properties that we ascribe to space and time have This attempt to go from the phenomena (space and time) to the to be sought in the sensory processes that create our perception, whether essence of what we experience (a model for noumenal reality) is roughly we approach the issue from the perspective of Advaita or in line with Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology.9 The deviation is phenomenalism. that we are more interested in the manifestations of the model in the phenomenal reality itself rather than the validity of the model for the This analysis of the importance of light in our reality naturally essence. Through this study, we show that the specialness of the speed 5 brings in the metaphysical aspects of space and time. In Kant’s view, of light in our phenomenal space and time is a consequence of our space and time are pure forms of intuition. They do not arise from our perceptual apparatus. It doesn’t have to be an input postulate to the experience because our experiences presuppose the existence of space special theory of relativity. and time. Thus, we can represent space and time in the absence of objects, but we cannot represent objects in the absence of space and Perception and Phenomenal Reality time. The properties we ascribe to space and time (such as the Kant’s middle-ground has the advantage of reconciling the views specialness of the speed of light) can only be a part of our perceived of Newton and Leibniz. It can agree with Newton’s view6 that space is reality or Maya, in Advaita, not of the underlying absolute reality, absolute and real for phenomenal objects open to scientific investigation. Brahman. If we think of space and time as aspects of our perceived It can also sit well with Leibniz’s view7 that space is not absolute and reality arising from an unknowable Brahman through our sensory and has an existence only in relation to objects, by highlighting their relational cognitive processes, we can find an explanation for the special distinction nature, not among objects in themselves (noumenal objects), but between of the speed of light in the process and mechanism of our sensing. Our observers and objects. thesis is that the reason for the specialness of light in our phenomenal notions of space and time is hidden in the process of our perception. We can roughly equate the noumenal objects to forms in Brahman and our perception of them to Maya. In this article, we will use the We, therefore, study how the noumenal objects around us generate terms “noumenal reality,” “absolute reality,” or “physical reality” our sensory signals, and how we construct our phenomenal reality out of interchangeably to describe the collection of noumenal objects, their these signals in our brains. The first part is already troublesome because properties and interactions, which are thought to be the underlying causes noumenal objects, by definition, have no properties or interactions that of our perception. Similarly, we will use “phenomenal reality,” “perceived we can study or understand. These features of the noumenal reality are or sensed reality,” and “perceptual reality” to signify our reality as we identical to the notion of Brahman in Advaita, which highlights that the perceive it. As with Brahman causing Maya, we assume that the ultimate truth is Brahman, the one beyond time, space and causation. phenomenal notions of space and time arise from noumenal causes8 Brahman is the material cause of the universe, but it transcends the through our sensory and cognitive processes. Note that this causality cosmos. It transcends time; it exists in the past, present and future. It assumption is ad-hoc; there is no a priori reason for phenomenal reality transcends space; it has no beginning, middle and end. It even transcends to have a cause, nor is causation a necessary feature of the noumenal causality. For that reason, Brahman is incomprehensible to the human reality. Despite this difficulty, we proceed from a naive model for the mind. The way it manifests to us is through our sensory and cognitive noumenal reality and show that, through the process of perception, we processes. This manifestation is Maya, the illusion, which, in the can “derive” a phenomenal reality that obeys the assumptions of the phenomenalistic parlance, corresponds to the phenomenal reality. special theory of relativity. For our purpose in this article, we describe our sensory and cognitive process and the creation of the phenomenal reality or Maya10
140Omega December 2007 141 Manoj Thulasidas The Philosophy of Special Relativity as follows. It starts with the noumenal objects (or forms in Brahman), potentially incapable of sensing all aspects of the noumenal reality), not which generate the inputs to our senses. Our senses then process the all objects and events in Brahman create a projection in Maya. Our signals and relay the processed electric data corresponding to them to perception (or Maya) is thus limited because of the sense modality and our brain. The brain creates a cognitive model, a representation of the its speed, which form the focus of our investigation in this article. sensory inputs, and presents it to our conscious awareness as reality, which is our phenomenal world or Maya. In summary, it can be argued that the noumenal-phenomenal distinction in phenomenalism is an analogical parallel to the Brahman- This description of how the phenomenal reality is created ushers Maya distinction in Advaita if we think of our perceived reality (or in a tricky philosophical question. Who or what creates the phenomenal Maya) as arising from sensory and cognitive processes. reality and where? It is not created by our senses, brain and mind because these are all objects or forms in the phenomenal reality. The phenomenal Sensing Space and Time, and the Role of Light reality cannot create itself. It cannot be that the noumenal reality creates The phenomenal notions of space and time together form what the phenomenal reality because, in that case, it would be inaccurate to physics considers the basis of reality. Since we take the position that assert the cognitive inaccessibility to the noumenal world. space and time are the end results of our sensory perception, we can This philosophical trouble can be identified in Advaita as well. understand some of the limitations in our Maya by studying the limitations Our senses, brain and mind cannot create Maya, because they are all in our senses themselves. part of Maya. If Brahman created Maya, it would have to be just as At a fundamental level, how do our senses work? Our sense of real. This philosophical quandary can be circumvented in the following sight operates using light, and the fundamental interaction involved in way. We assume that all events and objects in Maya have a cause or sight falls in the electromagnetic (EM) category because light (or photon) form in Brahman or in the noumenal world. Thus, we postulate that our is the intermediary of EM interactions.11 senses, mind and body all have some (unknown) forms in Brahman (or in the noumenal world), and these forms create Maya in our conscious The exclusivity of EM interaction is not limited to our long-range awareness, ignoring the fact that our consciousness itself is an illusory sense of sight; all the short-range senses (touch, taste, smell and hearing) manifestation in the phenomenal world. This inconsistency is not material are also EM in nature. In physics, the fundamental interactions are to our exploration into the nature of space and time because we are modeled as fields with gauge bosons.12 In quantum electrodynamics13 seeking the reason for the specialness of light in the sensory process (the quantum field theory of EM interactions), photon (or light) is the rather than at the level of consciousness. gauge boson mediating EM interactions. Electromagnetic interactions are responsible for all our sensory inputs. To understand the limitations Space and time together form what physics considers the basis of of our perception of space, we need not highlight the EM nature of all reality. Space makes up our visual reality precisely as sounds make up our senses. Space is, by and large, the result of our sight sense. But it is our auditory world. Just as sounds are a perceptual experience rather worthwhile to keep in mind that we would have no sensing, and indeed than a fundamental property of physical reality, space also is an no reality, in the absence of EM interactions. experience, or a cognitive representation of the visual inputs, not a fundamental aspect of Brahman or the noumenal reality. The phenomenal Like our senses, all our technological extensions to our senses reality thus created is Maya. The Maya events are an imperfect or (such as radio telescopes, electron microscopes, red shift measurements distorted representation of the corresponding Brahman events. Since and even gravitational lensing) use EM interactions exclusively to measure Brahman is a superset of Maya (or, equivalently, our senses are our universe. Thus, we cannot escape the basic constraints of our perception even when we use modern instruments. The Hubble telescope
142Omega December 2007 143 Manoj Thulasidas The Philosophy of Special Relativity may see a billion light years farther than our naked eyes, but what it sees One limitation in the chain from senses to perception is the finite is still a billion years older than what our eyes see. Our phenomenal speed of photon, which is the gauge boson of our senses. The finite reality, whether built upon direct sensory inputs or technologically speed of the sense modality influences and distorts our perception of enhanced, is made up of a subset of EM particles and interactions only. motion, space and time. Because these distortions are perceived as a What we perceive as reality is a subset of forms and events in the part of our reality itself, the root cause of the distortion becomes a noumenal world corresponding to EM interactions, filtered through our fundamental property of our reality. This is how the speed of light becomes sensory and cognitive processes. In the Advaita parlance, Maya can be such an important constant in our space-time. thought of as a projection of Brahman through EM interactions into our sensory and cognitive space, quite probably an imperfect projection. The importance of the speed of light, however, is respected only in our phenomenal Maya. Other modes of perception have other speeds The exclusivity of EM interactions in our perceived reality is not as the fundamental constant in their space-like perception. The reality always appreciated, mainly because of a misconception that we can sensed through echolocation, for instance, has the speed of sound as a sense gravity directly. This confusion arises because our bodies are subject fundamental property. In fact, it is fairly simple to establish14 that to gravity. There is a fine distinction between “being subject to” and echolocation results in a perception of motion that obeys something very “being able to sense” gravitational force. The gravity sensing in our ears similar to special relativity with the speed of light replaced with that of measures the effect of gravity on EM matter. In the absence of EM sound. interaction, it is impossible to sense gravity, or anything else for that matter. Theories beyond Sensory Limits This assertion that there is no sensing in the absence of EM The basis of physics is the worldview called scientific realism, interactions brings us to the next philosophical hurdle. One can always which is not only at the core of sciences but is our natural way of looking argue that, in the absence of EM interaction, there is no matter to sense. at the world as well. Scientific realism, and hence physics, assumes an This argument is tantamount to insisting that the noumenal world consists independently existing external world, whose structures are knowable of only those forms and events that give rise to EM interaction in our through scientific investigations. To the extent observations are based phenomenal perception. In other words, it is the same as insisting that on perception, the philosophical stance of scientific realism, as it is Brahman is made up of only EM interactions. What is lacking in the practiced today, can be thought of as a trust in our perceived reality, and absence of EM interaction is only our phenomenal reality. In the Advaita as an assumption that it is this reality that needs to be explored in science. notion, in the absence of sensing, Maya does not exist. The absolute Physics extends its reach beyond perception or Maya through reality or Brahman, however, is independent of our sensing it. Again, the rational element of pure theory. Most of physics works in this we see that the Eastern and Western views on reality we explored in “extended” intellectual reality, with concepts such as fields, forces, light this article are remarkably similar. rays, atoms, particles, etc., the existence of which is insisted upon through The Speed of Light the metaphysical commitment implied in scientific realism. However, it does not claim that the rational extensions are the noumenal causes or Knowing that our space-time is a representation of the light waves Brahman giving rise to our phenomenal perception. our eyes receive, we can immediately see that light is indeed special in our reality. In our view, sensory perception leads to our brain’s Scientific realism has helped physics tremendously, with all its representation that we call reality, or Maya. Any limitation in this chain classical theories. However, scientific realism and the trust in our of sensing leads to a corresponding limitation in our phenomenal reality. perception of reality should apply only within the useful ranges of our
144Omega December 2007 145 Manoj Thulasidas The Philosophy of Special Relativity senses. Within the ranges of our sensory perceptions, we have fairly Conclusion intuitive physics. An example of an intuitive picture is Newtonian mechanics that describe “normal” objects moving around at “normal” Almost all branches of philosophy grapple with this distinction speeds. between the phenomenal and the absolute realities to some extent. Advaita Vedanta holds the unrealness of the phenomenal reality as the When we get closer to the edges of our sensory modalities, we basis of their worldview. In this article, we showed that the views in have to modify our sciences to describe the reality as we sense it. These phenomenalism can be thought of as a restatement of the Advaita modifications lead to different, and possibly incompatible, theories. When postulates. When such a spiritual or philosophical insight makes its way we ascribe the natural limitations of our senses and the consequent into science, great advances in our understanding can be expected. This limitations of our perception (and therefore observations) to the convergence of philosophy (or even spirituality) and science is beginning fundamental nature of reality itself, we end up introducing complications to take place, most notably in neuroscience, which views reality as a in our physical laws. Depending on which limitations we are incorporating creation of our brain, echoing the notion of Maya. into the theory (e.g., small size, large speeds, etc.), we may end up with theories that are incompatible with each other. Our argument is that Science gives a false impression that we can get arbitrarily close some of these complications (and, hopefully, incompatibilities) can be to the underlying physical causes through the process of scientific avoided if we address the sensory limitations directly. For instance, we investigation and rational theorization. An example of such theorization can study the consequence of the fact that our senses operate at the can be found in our sensation of hearing. The experience or the sensation speed of light as follows. We can model Brahman (the noumenal reality) of sound is an incredibly distant representation of the physical cause - as obeying classical mechanics, and work out what kind of Maya namely air pressure waves. We are aware of the physical cause because (phenomenal reality) we will experience through the chain of sensing. we have a more powerful sight sense. So it would seem that we can indeed go from Maya (sound) to the underlying causes (air pressure The modeling of the noumenal world (as obeying classical waves). mechanics), of course, has shaky philosophical foundations. But the phenomenal reality predicted from this model is remarkably close to the However, it is a fallacy to assume that the physical cause (the air reality we do perceive. Starting from this simple model, it can be easily pressure waves) is Brahman. Air pressure waves are still a part of our shown that our perception of motion at high speeds obeys special relativity. perception; they are part of the intellectual picture we have come to The effects due to the finite speed of light are well known in physics. accept. This intellectual picture is an extension of our visual reality, based We know, for instance, that what we see happening in distant stars and on our trust in the visual reality. It is still a part of Maya. The new galaxies now actually took place quite a while ago. A more “advanced” extension of reality proposed in this article, again an intellectual extension, effect due to the light travel time15 is the way we perceive motion at is an educated guess. We guess a model for the absolute reality, or high speeds, which is the basis of special relativity. In fact, many Brahman, and predict what the consequent perceived reality should be, astrophysical phenomena can be understood16 in terms of light travel working forward through the chain of sensing and creating Maya. If the time effects. Because our sense modality is based on light, our sensed predicted perception is a good match with the Maya we do experience, picture of motion has the speed of light appearing naturally in the equations then the guesswork for Brahman is taken to be a fairly accurate working describing it. So the importance of the speed of light in our space-time model. The consistency between the predicted perception and what we (as described in special relativity) is due to the fact that our reality is do perceive is the only validation of the model for the nature of the Maya created on the basis of light inputs. absolute reality. Furthermore, the guess is only one plausible model for the absolute reality; there may be different such “solutions” to the absolute reality all of which end up giving us our perceived reality.
146Omega December 2007 147 Manoj Thulasidas The Philosophy of Special Relativity
It is a mistake to think of the qualities of our subjective experience Eastern Advaita views or their Western counterparts, we can interpret of sound as the properties of the underlying physical process. In an the philosophical stance behind special relativity as hidden in the distinction exact parallel, it is a fallacy to assume that the subjective experience of between our phenomenal reality and its unknowable physical causes. space and time is the fundamental property of the world we live in. The space-time continuum, as we see it or feel it, is only a partial and incomplete representation of the unknowable Brahman. If we are willing Notes to model the unknowable Brahman as obeying classical mechanics, we 1. Dr. Manoj Thulasidas was graduated from the Indian Institute of Technology can indeed derive the properties of our perceived reality (such as time (IIT), Madras, in 1987. He studied fundamental particles and interactions at dilation, length contraction, light speed ceiling and so on in special the CLEO collaboration at Cornell University during 1990-92. After receiving relativity). By proposing this model for the noumenal world, we are not his PhD in 1993, he moved to Marseilles, France and continued his research suggesting that all the effects of special relativity are mere perceptual with the ALEPH collaboration at CERN, Geneva. During his ten-year career artifacts. We are merely reiterating a known fact that space and time as a research scientist in the field of High energy physics, he co -authored themselves cannot be anything but perceptual constructs. Thus their over 200 publications. properties are manifestations of the process of perception. 2. Einstein, “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper (On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies),” in Annalen der Physik, 17 (1905), pp. 891–921. When we consider processes close to or beyond our sensor limits, the manifestations of our perceptual and cognitive constraints become 3. S. Radhakrishnan, & C. A. Moore, in Source Book in Indian Philosophy significant. Therefore, when it comes to the physics that describes such (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957). processes, we really have to take into account the role that our perception 4. R. Chisolm, “The Problem of Empiricism,” in The Journal of Philosophy, 45 and cognition play in sensing them. The universe as we see it is only a (1948), pp. 512–517. cognitive model created out of the photons falling on our retina or on the 5. H. Allison, Kant’s Transcendental Idealism (Yale University Press, 2004). photosensors of the Hubble telescope. Because of the finite speed of the information carrier (namely light), our perception is distorted in such 6. R. Rynasiewicz, “By Their Properties, Causes and Effects: Newton’s Scholium on Time, Space, Place and Motion,” in Studies in History and Philosophy of a way as to give us the impression that space and time obey special Science, 26 (1995), pp. 133–153, 295–321. relativity. They do, but space and time are only a part of our perception of an unknowable reality—a perception limited by the speed of light. 7. M. W. Calkins, “Kant’s Conception of the Leibniz Space and Time Doctrine,” in The Philosophical Review, 6:4 (1897), pp. 356–369. The central role of light in creating our reality or universe is at the 8. C. Janaway, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Schopenhauer (Cambridge: heart of Western spiritual philosophy as well. A universe devoid of light Cambridge University Press, 1999). is not simply a world where you have switched off the lights. It is indeed a universe devoid of itself, a universe that doesn’t exist. It is in this 9. R. Schmitt, “Husserl’s Transcendental-Phenomenological Reduction,” in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 20:2 (1959), pp. 238–245. context that we have to understand the wisdom behind the notion that “the earth was without form, and void” until God caused light to be, by 10. M. Thulasidas, The Unreal Universe (Singapore: Asian Books, 2007). saying “Let there be light.” Quran also says, “Allah is the light of the 11. Electromagnetic (EM) interaction is one of the four kinds of interactions in heavens.” The role of light in taking us from the void (the nothingness) the Standard Model (Griffths, 1987) of particle physics. It is the interaction to a reality was understood for a long, long time. Is it possible that the between charged bodies. Despite the EM repulsion between them, however, ancient saints and prophets knew things that we are only now beginning the protons stay confined within the nucleus because of the strong to uncover with all our advances in knowledge? Whether we use old interaction, whose magnitude is much bigger than that of EM interactions.
148Omega December 2007 149 Manoj Thulasidas The Philosophy of Special Relativity
The other two interactions are termed the weak interaction and the gravitational interaction. 12. In quantum field theory, every fundamental interaction consists of emitting a particle and absorbing it in an instant. These so-called virtual particles emitted and absorbed are known as the gauge bosons that mediate the interactions. 13. R. Feynman, Quantum Electrodynamics (Addison Wesley, 1985). The Light Green vs the Deep Green 14. M. Thulasidas, The Unreal Universe (Singapore: Asian Books, 2007). Environmentalism: 15. M. Rees, “Appearance of Relativistically Expanding Radio Sources,” in An Ethical Conundrum for Science-Religion Nature, 211 (1966), pp. 468–470. Integration 16. M. Thulasidas, “Are Radio Sources and Gamma Ray Bursts Luminal Booms?” in International Journal of Modern Physics D, 16:6 (2007), pp. 983–1000. - Leena K. R.1
Abstract: The author addresses the ethical problem of the environmental crisis from an epistemically informed philosophical perspective. The debate between light-green and deep-green environmentalism is essentially a moral issue, involving the arguments over the moral status of the human and the infrahuman. While the light green views tend to be more anthropocentric, the deep-green view, with its universalist and cosmic ranges, is in consonance with the general traits of the emerging scientific worldview and the central traits of the religious outlook towards nature. - Editor Key Words: Environment, Light-green view, Deep-green view, Anthropocentrism, Scientific worldview, Eastern worldview.
Introduction
“The warning of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, wide spread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level,”2 says the 4th assessment report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change released in February 2007. Relying on comprehensive data, the report states that there will be more frequent hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation events. There will be more instances of tropical cyclones with larger wind speeds. Rising sea level will threaten vast populations.
150Omega December 2007 151 Leena K. R. Light Green vs Deep Green Environmentalism
Environmental ethics is the branch of applied ethics that has been The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement. Owing most concerned with the moral grounds for the preservation and to Naess’s influence, the terms ‘shallow’ and ‘deep’ have become restoration of the environment. Nature might be morally considerable common currency against environmentalists.6 Shallow position is one because it is the source of things that humans need, such as natural that reduces concern for the environment to concern for the interests of resources, used to provide the foundation for building and sustaining human beings. A deep view is one that is committed to the equal right to human communities. Ethics is concerned with individuals and group as live and blossom of all forms of life. The use of this pair of terms is subjects and objects of actions that are as doers and as things to which unfortunate. As applied to thought, shallow is bad and deep good, so the things are done.3 Traditionally, it has been mostly concerned with anyone who wishes to defend a shallow view seems self-condemned by human beings as subjects and objects of doings. Many accounts present the very label. Alternative labels that are sometimes used are ‘reform’ recent developments as extending this concern in stages, first to non- and ‘radical’ environmentalism.7 But another alternative ready at hand human animals, next to the living things generally, and on to wholes such is the term ‘green’, which allows us to speak of light green and deep as population, plant communities, ecosystems, lakes, streams and green variants. This was the advantage over the shallow or deep mountains; the move to each stage being more radical and problematic terminology of having less prejudicial of degrees, holding an intermediate than the previous. According to John H. Piet, “Ecosystems are selective position between light and deep green views. systems, as surely as organisms are selective systems. The natural selection comes out of the system and is imposed on the individual. The The deep ecological ethics upholds various ethical principles for individual is programmed to make more of its kind, but more is going on the conservation of our ecosystem. According to this ethics, the well- systematically than that; the system is making more kinds.”4 On this being and flourishing of human and non- human life on earth have intrinsic account environmental ethics begins where the ethics of concern for or inherent values in themselves. These values are independent of the animals leaves off. usefulness of the non-human world for human purposes. Our ecosystem is rich and diverse. These richness and diversity of life forms contribute An environmentally informed ethics is one that takes full account to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.8 of the fact that an individual organism, of whatever kind, is embedded in Also humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except its environment, and gives full weight to this in deliberating about actions to satisfy vital needs. The needs of human should be fulfilled without the that are likely to affect the organism. In its broadest sense, environmental consideration of other being. He should not exploit his natural surroundings ethics is the study of our relations with everything that can be a part of and other living beings. He should be aware of a sustainable development the environment of a moral subject. Environmental ethics considers not and should give due consideration to future generations of all living beings. only natural but also urban environments: How human beings are affected Light Green Environmentalism physically, mentally and spiritually by the design and materials of the buildings in which they live and work, the layout of cities, provision of The light green environmentalism refers to the environmental public services, and so on. Cities, it should be remembered, are not only problems that are identified as changes in some environment, local or human environments, so a more comprehensive environmental view global, whether brought about by human action or not, that pose a danger considers their effect on foxes and plane trees.5 to human health, comfort or even survival - in short, to human well- being. Where these dangers can be controlled or reversed, any human Shades of Green being has reason to act in ways that will help avert the threatened harm; these will include changes in personal behavior and supporting collectively In 1973, one of the founding fathers of environmental philosophy, adopted measures. Human well-being is intimately tied up with the well- the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess, published a short paper, titled, being of many other individual things, either because we care about
152Omega December 2007 153 Leena K. R. Light Green vs Deep Green Environmentalism them directly; consequently, they are protected by actions designed to The goal of anthropocentrism has been achieved at the high price secure human well-being. These propositions define a position at one of the ill fate of non-human realities. As long as man is not affected, we extreme end of the light-green deep-green range.9 Its most fundamental are indifferent to what happen to other non-human beings. So far we feature is its restriction of independent moral status to human beings. have given only an instrumental value to non-human realities and all the motives behind our dealings with them are purely anthropocentric. Philosophical Roots of the Light Green Perspective Another theoretical consequence of the anthropocentric The conceptual grounds the unwarranted promulgation of moral perspective is the “disenchantment and desacralization of the world.”10 status to the human community has its roots in the anthropocentric There are religions in the world which attribute a certain amount of perspective deep-seated in some of the philosophical and religious divinity to the material realities like the earth, the sky, the sum, rivers, traditions. The self-understanding of every human being is very much stones, mountains, etc. The anthropocentric understanding of the world conditioned by the reality of the external world. Our self-understanding allots no room for the same. A profound dedivinization of the world and also depends on our understanding of reality – of God and of our a disenchantment of nature and natural powers are the outcome of it. relationship with other beings. Here there is a danger. The cosmic Though it had been a genuine, decisive step towards man’s technological dimension of our self-understanding may turn into attributing an and scientific enhancement, it has to be considered as a mixed blessing instrumental value to other beings. This outlook is harmful to the in regard to the dedivinization of the world. harmonious rhythm of life on earth. For despite all untruth and superstition, there is something Anthropocentrism has got a long religious as well as philosophical profoundly true in the world understanding of animist and natural history beginning with the first book of the Bible. “Let us make man in religions. They recognize the value, the qualities and power inherent in the world and worldly realities and they have a our image, after our likeness” [Gen. 1, 26]. “Be fruitful and multiply and profound respect for non-human beings. The grateful, familial, fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea partner-like attitude of the ‘primitives’ to the ‘Mother Earth’ or and over the birds of the air and over every living that moves upon the the ‘Father Sky’ has something genuinely true and wholesome in earth” [Gen. 1, 28]. The conception that man alone is created in God’s it, and it is not false or alienating as long as these expressions are image and likeness marks the beginning of man’s separation from the not dogmatized, i.e., taken literally, the earth, the sky, or any other rest of the creation. Again, he is endowed with the right to subdue other worldly Reality for that matter being understood strictly on the 11 beings. That man is the crown of creation seems to be an obvious pattern of human beings and the way they react. presupposition in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Since the emphasis in anthropocentrism is on man’s dignity and uniqueness, the dedivinizing, desacralizing and devaluing attitude towards The first practical consequence of this perspective was the non-human realities is a natural consequence of it. While emphasizing primitive conception of using the other beings of the earth as means for the dominion over nature, it forgot the birds of the air and the lilies of the fulfilling man’s needs and as instruments for minimizing his physical field. works. In modern times, this instrumental value given to other beings acquired the nature of the domination of the earth. Today we can boast Descartes’ famous cogito ergo sum – I think therefore I exist – that we have fully achieved the anthropocentric ideal of subduing the has led the Westerners to equate their identity with their mind, instead earth. The advanced version of the anthropocentric perspective has crept with their whole organism. This alters the identity of the individuals into in the modern society as individual pleasure and consumerist intentions. isolated egos existing inside their bodies. The mind which is separated from the body is given the task of controlling it. Each individual has been
154Omega December 2007 155 Leena K. R. Light Green vs Deep Green Environmentalism split up further into large number separate compartments, according to The Holistic Nuances of the Deep-Green Environmentalism his or her activities, talents, feelings, beliefs, etc. On the other hand there is a position which accords independent When humans understand themselves as mere aggregate of parts, moral status to all living things, not merely to individual living things but it will reflect in our view of the world as a multitude of separate objects to populations and species; and even to comprehensive entities that and events. include living and non-living elements like rivers, watersheds, landscapes, The belief that all these fragments - in ourselves, in our cultures, ecosystems, etc.14 This deepest position may be characterized environment, and in our society – are really separate can be seen as the essential reason for the present series of social, ecological, in these propositions: and cultural crises. It has alienated us from nature and from our Problems are identified as changes in some environment that pose fellow human beings. It has brought a grossly unjust distribution danger to anything within this unrestricted field. Action to prevent these of natural resources, creating economic and political disorder, an ever-rising wave of violence, both spontaneous and dangers requires that human agents recognize duties much more institutionalized, and an ugly, polluted environment in which life extensive than those recognized by traditional moralities which accord 12 has become physically and mentally unhealthy. independent moral status only to human beings. Living things and natural systems at least those which contain living things, matter in themselves: Anthropocentrism and Cartesian dualism can be said to be the that is, has independent moral status. two root causes of the present ecological crises. The awareness of a universal harmony between God, man and the resst of the creation has Philosophers have asked which beings have and which do not been broken by these perspectives. Isoloation, privatization, objectification have a claim to be considered morally important in their own right. An etc. are the new concepts in this alienated state of affairs. Participation ethical theory is human centered if it denies such importance - independent is replaced by possession. moral status - to any but human beings. Some philosophers maintain that no ethical theory can be satisfactory as an account of our moral relations Ian McHarg puts historically very well the nature of our with nature if it restricts independent moral status to human beings. anthropocentric and objective view of nature both philosophical and religious: How green an ethical theory is depends on how far it extends Show me a man oriented society in which it is believed that reality independent moral status beyond the human. The ethics of animal concern exists only because man can perceive it (Berkeley), that the escapes human centredness because it accords that status to at least cosmos is a structure erected to support man on its pinnacle some non-human animals, but deeper green theories extend it to living (Aristotle, Aquinas), that man exclusively is divine and given things in general, or even to collective entities such as species, forests dominion over all things (Genesis), and I will predict the nature of and rivers. The worldview of the Eastern mystical philosophical traditions its cities and their landscapes. I need not look far for we have and the modern Western science provide us with strong conceptual seen them the hot dog stands, the neon shill, the ticky tacky foundations for such a re-visioning of reality. houses, dysgenic city and mined landscapes. This is the image of the anthropomorphic man; he seeks not unity with nature but 13 Alternative Epistemic Tools conquest. What was the danger with anthropocentrism? Instead of The divide between the light-green and deep-green interpreting the mystery of man in relational terms, anthropocentrism environmentalism is indicative of a deep epistemological issue that is tended to explain natural phenomena in terms of domination. It did not inherently present in the whole ecological issue. Our philosophy, be it give sufficient importance to our fundamental urge for relationality. anthropocentric or Cartesian, intuitive or mystical, is a product of the
156Omega December 2007 157 Leena K. R. Light Green vs Deep Green Environmentalism basic mindset and the mental framework which we inherit. As such the rethinking on revealed knowledge and the recent awareness of the ecological issue too must be looked upon as an epistemological issue and hermeneutical nature of scientific knowledge further corroborate this. the ecological crisis can be legitimately conceived as an epistemological crisis. The Western conceptual role of the ecological crisis can therefore Beyond the Light-green vs. the Deep-green Environmentalism: be looked upon as resultant of the Western epistemological problems. The Need for the Integration of Science and Religion The mainstream Western philosophy has been built upon the rationalistic While the environmental tragedies are resultant of the mistaken epistemological categories. Hence we need to make a critical examination epistemologies and the consequent split between science and religion, a of the rationalistic assumptions of the West in reformulating our ecological restoration of the moral and ethical value of the non-human being would worldview. entail a re-appropriation of the religious values, especially of the East, in If we are to effectively address the environmental crisis, we need particular and of the philosophical and mystical nuances of the emerging an alternative worldview integrating the God, Human and the world. It is scientific worldview. The deeper underpinnings of the deep-green our contention that the Western rationalistic epistemology with its emphasis environmentalism share a public space with the religious perspectives. on division, classification and analysis has been instrumental in the Environmentalism in the final analysis is basically a religious attitude. fragmentation of reality, whereas the Eastern epistemological traditions The experience of the divine in the cosmos is consequent of a holistic which are essentially intuitive in nature with its emphasis on unification vision and it serves as the most solid foundation for the deep ecology of and synthesis have integral epistemological structures at their base which the oneness of being. are highly beneficial in developing an ecologically holistic vision of reality. A hermeneutically appropriated deep-green environmental view It could be noted that Western science also is witnessing a similar helps us give up many of the false assumptions of God, nature and man. epistemological transition whereby it is looking for more synthetic and A few such assumptions include, firstly, God is a being who totally integral epistemological tools for unraveling the mysteries of its subject transcends nature. In the West, God was looked upon as the Supreme matter. Such a way, today there is an epistemological proximity between Being who is situated above the earth. This resulted in finding the intrinsic reason and intuition resulting in the analogical complementarity between worth of the nature outside nature. Such an understanding of God was the worldviews of science and the intuitive philosophies. This also responsible for taking away the mystery of nature. The relationship epistemological proximity and the complementarity of the worldviews between the Creator and the creation in a monotheistic transcendental place us on solid conceptual grounds to revision reality from an ecological understanding of God is that of dominance and dependence. Here God point of view. is looked upon as a prime mover who holds the string from behind the The Eastern epistemological approach, especially the advaitic curtain. Secondly, we can give up the idea that the world is profane and (monistic) approach of Hinduism could serve as a new hermeneutical matter is evil. Though in the Christian scripture, there were sufficient tool for a substantive intersection of God, human and the world. It is our resources for a worldview which asserts that world was loved and cared contention that, on the one hand, the logic of integration dominant in the by God, and it was the manifestation of Him, our medieval rational Hindu approach towards reality necessarily entails an ontologically determinism overlooked this aspect and began to interpret worldly realities complimentary vision of God and the world and on the other hand, the as to be renounced for one’s own salvation. emerging epistemological context generated by the compelling scientific In the light of the new insights from ecological thinking, we can knowledge and its methodic and linguistic commonalities with the religious have a new image of God, which can serve as the unifying ground for an epistemological structures render their intersection indispensable. The integral vision of reality. Our ecological thinking would remain incomplete until we discover the real foundation of an organic worldview. The sense
158Omega December 2007 159 Leena K. R. Light Green vs Deep Green Environmentalism of symbolism in the East and the sense of mystery in modern physics Conclusion invite us to search for “the Reality” underlying all this. In such an enquiry, we find that an isolated interpretation of the realities of God, the World, It is the time to reconstruct and restructure our deeds, attitudes, the Human Being becomes impossible. In other words, terms like and activities to save the biosphere, which is our home. Revival of human cosmology, theology, and anthropology are metaphorically synonymous. beings through ethical and moral values is needed urgently. Environmental The immanence of the divine in the world would be the most solid ethics, which is a part of environmental philosophy considering the ethical metaphysical grounding for a peaceful human society and the best aid relationship between human beings and the natural environment, deals for the ecological healing. with the study of every fluctuations of the Nature. It is the abstract of values and morals held by many religion, society, country, etc., along The principles of holistic unity and organic balance, which are with the practical aspects of philosophical knowledge aiming at the welfare very fundamental to the Eastern worldview, could be a very fundamental of every living being. It denies the normal shallow attitude of human conceptual resource for a new outlook on nature. The ontological beings towards the environment for his greedy needs and immediate perspective of the East on nature can influence our new thinking. “One results and resources. It emphasizes a deep green view of ecology, aiming clear way that the East can help the West to understand the value of at a sustainable utilization of nature17 without causing any damage to it. nature is, therefore, by revealing certain premises and assumptions The core principle of deep green view of ecology as originally developed concerning the nature and who we human beings are in relation to it, as is Naess’s doctrine of biospheric egalitarianism — the claim that all well as the kind of knowledge of that we seek to obtain which lie so living things have the same right to live and flourish. Deep ecology deep within on which so pervade the Western worldview that they may describes itself as “deep” because it is concerned with fundamental not come to light any other way.”15 philosophical questions about the role of human life as one part of the ecosphere, rather than with a narrow view of ecology called shallow Throughout the development of the different Eastern traditions of ecology as a branch of biological science, and aims to avoid merely thought, they maintained a very positive attitude towards nature: utilitarian environmentalism. It also emphasizes the fact that the non- Ancient Eastern cultures were the sources of respect for and human environment is not just a passive surrounding but has a profound religious veneration of the natural world… As early as the eight effect on human life. The environmental ethics springs out of recognition century B.C., philosophy of Jainism proposed that man not to kill of the manifold ways in which human activities can give rise to or harm any living creatures. While the Jains were largely intent environmental degradation. They appeal to innumerable evidences from on maintaining absolute detachment from the world, early Buddhists and Hindus professed a feeling of compassion and a natural sciences such as food chain, ozone layer, green house effect, code of ethical conduct from all that was alive. Likewise China etc. It also points out a wide variety of human attitudes including religious, and Tibet produced philosophies, which honoured life other than social, and scientific which accounts for the deterioration. So study of 16 man’s and promulgated elaborate dietary rules in this interest. environmental ethics and its application in day today life of every individual The structure of the Hindu thought had been very much holistic. is a must to save the eco-system. There is an unbreakable link between man and cosmos in the East. This holistic pattern of thought itself proceeds from an organic vision of reality, Notes which was prevalent in the Indian thought from the very beginning. The speculative and intuitive character of the Indian thought also stands 1. Leena K. R. is a research scholar in the department of Philosophy at complementary to an organic and unified vision. University of Kerala, Trivandrum. 2. Ramachandran R, “The Heat is on,” in Frontline (9 March 2007), p. 4.
160Omega December 2007 161 Leena K. R. Light Green vs Deep Green Environmentalism
3. Hugh Laffollette, ed, Oxford Handbook of Practical Ethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) p.112. 4. John H. Piet and Ayodhya Prasad, eds., An Introduction to Applied Ethics (India: Cosmos Publications, 2000), p. 115. 5. Peter Singer, Practical Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Science-Religion Dialogue in India: 2000), pp. 280-281. Creative Challenges and Enabling Possibilities 6. Peer Singer, p. 283. 7. Darryl R. J. Macer, ed., A Cross Cultural Introduction to Bioethics (Bangkok: - Augustine Pamplany Eubios Ethics Institute, 2006), pp. 49-51. Kuruvialla Pandikattu, ed., Together Towards Tomorrow: 8. Lester R. Brown, Eco-Economy (Hyderabad: Orient Longman Private Limited, Interfacing Science and Religion in India. Pune: Association 2001), p. 83. of Science, Society and Religion, 2006. pp. 448. 9. Ruth Chandwick and Doris Schroeder, Applied Ethics, Vol. 4 (London: “If I were to look over the whole world to find out a country most Routledge, 2002), p. 309. richly endowed with all the wealth, power and beauty that nature can 10. To use John Arakkal’a phrase, “Lord or Partner of the World? On the Need bestow – in some part a very paradise on earth – I should point to for a New Vision of Man-World Relationship,” in Jeevadhara, vol. 10, No.55, India,” wrote Max Muller decades ago. The collection of articles in the p. 47. book, Together Towards Tomorrow: Interfacing Science and Religion 11. John Arakkal, pp. 47-48. in India, deals with science-religion interaction in India. The new field of science and religion attempts to drive our understanding of ourselves 12. Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics, 2nd. ed. (New York: Bantam Books, 1984), and of life forward. Drawing insights from the latest scientific p. 9. achievements and from the perennial religious wisdom enriches our lives. 13. Ian McHarg, Design with Nature (New York: Doubleday and Company Inc., Going beyond the science religion conflict or divide model, this area of 1969), p. 24. Cited by J. Baird Callicot and Roger T. Ames, eds., Nature in research wants to focus seriously on what science and religion can Asian Traditions of Thought (New Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications, 1991), p. contribute to human well being. Taking both the commonalities and 6. differences seriously we wish to travel a path, that respects both the 14. Tom Tietenberg, 4th ed., Environmental and Natural Resource Economics individual disciplines and enrich each other for the common good of (New York: Harper Collins College Publishers, 1996), p. 178. humanity. 15. Tietenberg, p. 16. A Synopsis of the Book 16. Roderick Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967), p. 20. The editor acknowledges that this particular field of science and 17. C. Richard Cothern, Handbook for Environmental Risk Decision Making religion is reaching its maturity in India, thanks to the pioneering efforts (London: Lewis Publishers,1996), p. 268. of Prof. Job Kozhamthadam. The first section of this book deals with the sanctity of life, which is characteristic of Indian ethos in general. Here the stress is on affirming life in its bounty and beauty. The first article by Prof. Afonso is an essay in evolutionary ethics dealing with the dignity and respect due to animals. The next article deals directly
162Omega December 2007 163 Augustine Pamplany Science Religion Dialogue in India with the sanctity of life. In a continuous process of genuine dialogue, with the concept of God primarily from a Vedic perspective. He concludes religions and cultures become increasingly composite, incorporating the article by affirming that “humility and submission to higher authority elements from other traditions. Going beyond this, Dr. Davies George are the essential ingredients to receive the knowledge of God.” Coming reminds us of the need to be actively engaged in promoting dialogue to the phenomenology of religion, Dr Augustine Perumalil studies the between science and religion. “Object” of religious devotion. Joseph Bracken takes up the issue of methodological naturalism and studies the relation between scientific The next section deals with the need to affirm and to accelerate naturalism and divine agency. the technological realm. Confronted with today’s scientific progress, religious vision needs to reassert the unique role of human being, without The final section deals with some specific contributions of India appearing to be obscurantist. So two typical issues, where India has towards science and religion dialogue: tribal traditions, ecology, Sikhism contributed significantly – biotechnology and information technology – and Indian epistemic tradition. The first exposition by scholar activist, are taken and analysed, with a view to reaffirm the technological path Dr. Jose Kalapura, deals with the positive contribution of Indian religions with due caution. Victor Ferrao and S. Ignacimuthu deal with the growing towards ecology. The next article, written by a practising Sikh, deals field of biotechnology, raises important concerns, cautions us of the with the relation between Christianity and Sikhism. In a related article dangers and plead for a technology that is human and humanising. Two Professor Yusuf Amin relates the Western medicine to Unani and other scholars Mathew Chandrankunnel and Sarojini Henry, both of whom challenges the Western medicine to take the supra-material reality committed to serious dialogue between science and religion, take up the seriously. The last article of this section by Augustine Pamplany sees issue of information technology the Indian situation as a “Catalytic Paradigm for Global Science-Religion Dialogue.” In the concluding article the editor traces the possibility for a Moving beyond technology, the next section deals with some meaningful dialogue between science and religion in India. In the article important theoretical insights that are crucial for interfacing science with entitled, “Science-Religion Dialogue in India: Creative Challenges and religion. The metaphysical clarification of the nature of reality in physics, Enabling Possibilities” the editor points to the promise and hope of science- mathematics and quantum field theory is offered by an eminent religion dialogue in India. mathematician, T. H. Date. It is clear for Stephen Jayard, a young researcher, that knowledge cannot be grounded only in reason or only The Prospects of Science-Religion Dialogue in India in the senses. Another scholar Ramesh Bijlani looks at the issue of prayer and healing from a scientific perspective. Physicist Freeman Dyson affirms: “Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe The other two significant issues in science and religion interfacing outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give are our embodiment and evolutionary perspective. Dr. Lancy Lobo deals different views, but both look out at the same universe. Both views are with the rediscovery of the bodily dimension of our life. Dr. Kathleen one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the Duffy deals with evolution and compares two eminent philosophers real world. And both are worthy of respect.” In the Indian context, the Teilhard de Chardin and Stuart Kauffman. obvious challenge faced by science-religion dialogue is to insist that the divide between science and religion is a foreign one and so there is no In the third section some of the philosophers of religion dare to do need for a science-religion dialogue. Adherents of this view do not the impossible: grapple with the issue of God. Dr. K. Babu Joseph, the understand that the dialogue between science and religion is not because former Vice Chancellor of Cochin University, proposes to formulate there is a division between them, but for the sake of an enriching future some aspects of God, in consonance with today’s Quantum Mechanics. for humans. Another challenge facing creative interaction between Dr. T. D. Singh (His Holiness Bhaktisvarüpa Dämodara Swami),deals science and religion comes from those who claim that science has nothing 164Omega December 2007 165 Augustine Pamplany Science Religion Dialogue in India to offer which Indian religions have not discovered earlier. This view not Positively responding to the technological revolution: This only does not respect science but implies that the perennial mystical concretely demands responding creatively and constructively to the insights gathered 2500 years ago need not be made relevant for the technological marvels that we experience today. It is true that most of contemporary Indian climate. This spiritualist view tends to reduce the the dangers that we face are directly or indirectly caused by the profound world to mere “maya” and denies significance to the body and matter. technological revolution. But condemning all technological progress as The third challenge facing science and religion dialogue comes from the the devil’s work will not help; nor does regarding technology as the only dualists who hold that science and religion are two independent domains solution for human evils. With a spiritual vision and openness we need to which cannot interact with one another: one is at the ultimate evaluate technological progress and befriend technology without (paramarthika) level and the other at the practical (vyavaharika) level. demonising it. This position goes contrary to our practical experience that science (matter) does interact creatively with religion (spirit) and that we cannot Deeper understanding of reality and life: Does such a healthy separate them completely, though they have autonomous domains of befriending demand from us a deeper and healthy understanding and existence. appreciation of life and reality? We need to ask ourselves: what is life? What do we want to achieve individually and collectively? What is the Going beyond these challenges since dialogue is intrinsic to the meaning of our life? How do we justify our existence to ourselves and Indian psyche, there are possible prospects of such a dialogue. find happiness in life? Then we need to turn to the traditional answers (given by culture, religion) and open ourselves to experience the beauty, Renewed Vision of World, God and Humans bliss and mystery of life and reality. Spirituality then becomes a celebration and affirmation of the beauty and depth of life with the capacity to The dialogical interaction between science and religion in the Indian respond creatively and lovingly to the challenges that we face. It is here context hopefully will lead to a renewed vision of God, world and humans. that our understanding of God also becomes crucial. In the whole drama This will be based on a heightened consciousness that is the result of of life that is being played in the universe, what is the role of God, the integrating the contemporary scientific insights with the perennial religious Divine or the Sacred? Each religious tradition answers the questions wisdom. Such a heightened consciousness, it is hoped, leads to differently with varying nuances. But genuine spiritual experiences enable commitment to humans and to the world and openness to the sacred and us to appreciate the reality of the Divine in a very profound and mystical divine in nature. manner. An exercise/experience of crises at today’s world: Such a Widening of human consciousness: For such an enterprise, tender, loving and caring affirmation of life forces us to look realistically we need to be aware that what we are is our own awareness of at the threats and dangers confronting today’s life. Not just the threats ourselves, our self-consciousness. Our notion of who we are, what our of nuclear or ecological disasters, but those human tragedies like large problems are and how we can confront our problems depend on our scale starvation of millions, dehumanised enslaving economic oppression human consciousness. At the moment, in spite of the development of of the powerless and the calculated and systematic disinformation human knowledge and ability, we are unfortunately stuck with a campaign for the political and economic expediency of the powerful consciousness that is narrow and anthropocentric. We need to broaden few. Realising the grave dangers posed to life, the genuine spiritual person our vision, enlarge our horizon and widen our consciousness. That will resolves to do what is individually and collectively possible gently and enable us to experience the genuine problems that humanity faces and firmly. An openness to the beauty and preciousness of life helps us to overcome them with genuine tenderness and universal compassion. In feel in our own body the grave threat to our precious planet, without this context, the statement of Albert Einstein made more than 60 years giving up hope and trust in humanity.
166Omega December 2007 167 Augustine Pamplany Science Religion Dialogue in India ago is still relevant: “The further the spiritual evolution of mankind would urge the reader to work together for the common cause of fostering advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine life in its totality. So our individuality could be a contribution to the religiosity does not lie through the fear of life and the fear of death and collectivity. Our future will include our differences. So the book urges blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge… My religion the scientists, theologians, philosophers and common people to move consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who together towards a future where all of us can truly feel “at home.” In reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail this noble venture, science, religion and philosophies have significant and feeble mind.” contribution to make! Hence, the title of this book: Together Towards Tomorrow! From evolution becoming conscious of itself to evolution capable of consciously eliminating itself: We need to reaffirm the fact that we are in a unique position: we are evolution becoming conscious of itself. In the recent decades, we have advanced still further! We have become evolution that is capable of eliminating itself or enhancing itself. The choice is open to us! Standing at the threshold of life – human, animal, vegetative – we can decide for the whole of life, whether to enhance it beautifully or to annihilate it violently! That is a tremendous spiritual responsibility and task! Are we ready for it? Our actions in the next few decades will decide whether we can be in any way called a spiritual generation and whether there will be a next generation to evaluate us! Fulfilment of the whole living family: A genuine spiritual experience calls us to realise the beauty of life and to fulfil the whole of life. We are in an honoured position! As humans – genuine, committed, spiritual, versatile and flexible – we can open ourselves and the whole of life to further enhancement! That is the tremendous spiritual challenge and openness. In this openness, abandonment and realisation of ourselves, we shall be contributing to the overall development and realisation of life itself! So our spiritual life urges us to remain deeply embedded in our earthly existence, embracing at the same time the whole of life including the Divine! Conclusion
On the whole this book would help the readers to appreciate the difference that exists among various Indian traditions and at the same time instil the need to work together for a common cause. “Be different and be together,” is the theme of this book as well as of our life, particularly in India. Retaining our individuality and respecting each other, the book
168Omega December 2007 169 OMEGA INDIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION
Printer and Publisher Dr. Augustine Pamplany Institute of Science and Religion Little Flower Seminary, Aluva - 683 101 Ernakulam District, Kerala.
Editor Dr. Job Kozhamthadam De Nobili College, Ramwadi, Pune - 411 014
Printed at Ayodhya Printing Press Kaloor, Ernakulam, Kerala.
Place of Publicaiton Institute of Science and Religion Little Flower Seminary, Aluva-683 101 Ernakulam District, Kerala.
Owner Dr. Augustine Pamplany Director, Institute of Science and Religion Little Flower Seminary, Aluva - 683 101 Ernakulam District, Kerala. CHIEF EDITOR ADVISORY BOARD
Job Kozhamthadam (Founder-President, Association of Science, Philip Sloan Society and Religion, Pune; Former Member, (Notre Dame University, Indiana, USA) Indian National Commission for the History of Science, Indian National Science Academy) Kuruvilla Pandikattu (Jnana Deepa Vidyapeeth, Pune) Omega EDITORIAL BOARD Indian Journal of Science and Religion Ignacimuthu S. I JSR K. Babu Joseph (Former Vice Chancellor, (Former Vice Chancellor, Cochin Madras University) University of Science and Technology) SUBSCRIPTION RATES
K. S. Radhakrishnan James Purathail India Foreign (Vice Chancellor, (Augsburg, Germany) Sree Sankaracharya University, Kalady) 1 Year Rs. 100.00 $ 20.00 € 20.00 Doris D’Souza 3 Years Rs. 250.00 $ 50.00 € 50.00 Mathew Chandrankunnel (Principal, (Dharmaram Vidya Kshetram, Bangalore) Patna Women’s College, Patna) Life Rs. 1500.00 $ 400.00 400.00 H. S. Virk (Department of Physics, George V. Coyne • Subcription to be paid by Money Order, Demand Draft or Cheque. Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar) (Director, Vatican Observatory, Vatican City) • Make Cheque / DD / MO payable to “Manager, Omega.” Francis Xavier • Add Rs. 15/- for outstation cheques (in India). (Loyola College, Chennai) R. C. Pradhan (Former Member Secretary, Indian Council • Subscription could begin with any number. Augustine Pamplany of Philosophical Research) (Little Flower Seminary, Aluva)
Zaki Kirmani Paul Ratnasamy (Founder, The Centre for Studies (Director, on Science, Aligarh) National Chemical Laboratory, Pune) All Correspondence to : Sarojini Henry Managing Editor, BOOK REVIEW EDITORS (Former Professor of Theology, Tamil Omega, Little Flower Seminary, Nadu Theological Seminary, Chennai) Jose Panthackal Aluva - 683 101, Kerala, India. (Little Flower Seminary, Aluva) E-mail: [email protected] Jose Thachil Martin Kallungal (St. Joseph’s Pontifical Seminary, Aluva) (Institute of Science and Religion, Aluva) Typeset : D’Signs, Aluva. Omega - Indian Journal of Science and Religion is an interdisciplinary journal published biannually in June and December. The opinions expressed by the individual authors do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial board.