Science & Religion
Charles Townes has just won the Templeton Prize, a highly
regarded prize "For progress toward research or discoveries about spiritual
realities." Charles Townes seems like an unlikely candidate for this prize at
first - he won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1964 for his work on the maser and
co-invention of the laser and is a UC Berkeley Physics Professor. Also in 1964,
however, he gave a talk in which he laid out his ideas for the convergence of
science and religion, a topic he still takes to heart
today.
Townes is obviously a very smart individual, and nothing can take away from what he's accomplished. However (you knew it was coming, right?) this merging of science and religion that he espouses is very problematic. He claims that science and religion are both looking for the same thing: the secrets of the universe. This doesn't seem very problematic on the surface: both are (in a very broad general sense) doing just that. However, they go about this in two very, very different ways that are difficult, if not impossible, to fully reconcile.
For instance, on the radio this morning, I heard an interview with him in which he stated that both science and religion are both based on faith - that science has it's postulates that may or may not be true, and religion has it's own tenets. A fairly sensible statement. However, he doesn't go one step further - science actively tries to prove and disprove its postulates. They are created and discarded with a rapidity that most would find surprising. Of course, the counter to this is that religion itself changes as well - new tenets are proposed, people are killed (I keed!) , and presto - new ideas are followed. The one key difference here is science *CAN* actually prove or disprove it's ideas in the real world. They can be actually tested to see if they are true (and constantly are tested, for that matter.) This is not possible with religion. Religion is a (possibly necessary) social function where the primary "truths" cannot be realistically tested - they exist only in people's minds. There is no objectively true statement in religion. Hence the vast number of differing faiths across the globe. With these two core principles of science and religion being so divergent, it's hard to see how they could ever be merged in their current form.
Naturally, a lot of Townes' talk is of the beginnings of the universe ("How do you explain that unique event" without God?" he asks.) If you go back far enough, everything breaks down - the Big Bang - everything. Unfortunately, there is no answer yet to these questions. There are some interesting lines of research, but nothing anywhere near conclusive. Here lies a prime example of the differences between science and religion - science is looking for the answer. Religion already "knows" - without proof.
Link to Yahoo article.
Link to Wikipedia article on Charles Townes
Townes is obviously a very smart individual, and nothing can take away from what he's accomplished. However (you knew it was coming, right?) this merging of science and religion that he espouses is very problematic. He claims that science and religion are both looking for the same thing: the secrets of the universe. This doesn't seem very problematic on the surface: both are (in a very broad general sense) doing just that. However, they go about this in two very, very different ways that are difficult, if not impossible, to fully reconcile.
For instance, on the radio this morning, I heard an interview with him in which he stated that both science and religion are both based on faith - that science has it's postulates that may or may not be true, and religion has it's own tenets. A fairly sensible statement. However, he doesn't go one step further - science actively tries to prove and disprove its postulates. They are created and discarded with a rapidity that most would find surprising. Of course, the counter to this is that religion itself changes as well - new tenets are proposed, people are killed (I keed!) , and presto - new ideas are followed. The one key difference here is science *CAN* actually prove or disprove it's ideas in the real world. They can be actually tested to see if they are true (and constantly are tested, for that matter.) This is not possible with religion. Religion is a (possibly necessary) social function where the primary "truths" cannot be realistically tested - they exist only in people's minds. There is no objectively true statement in religion. Hence the vast number of differing faiths across the globe. With these two core principles of science and religion being so divergent, it's hard to see how they could ever be merged in their current form.
Naturally, a lot of Townes' talk is of the beginnings of the universe ("How do you explain that unique event" without God?" he asks.) If you go back far enough, everything breaks down - the Big Bang - everything. Unfortunately, there is no answer yet to these questions. There are some interesting lines of research, but nothing anywhere near conclusive. Here lies a prime example of the differences between science and religion - science is looking for the answer. Religion already "knows" - without proof.
Link to Yahoo article.
Link to Wikipedia article on Charles Townes
Posted: Thu - March 10, 2005 at 03:45 PM
Quick Links
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
- H.L. Mencken
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
PHOTO ALBUMS
The Photo Galleries are offline at the moment. I've moved the site to a new provider and haven't had time to set them up.
OS X Software
Windows Software
Miscellaneous Stuff
RSS Feed