This thought was broadcast at 5:25 this morning but also at 6:50 yesterday as they cancelled my second slot on Friday due to the D-day memorials. I decided to move this thought forward to Thursday for the 6:50 slot as I think it was the most important one of the week.
Day 4: Using our tools – science and faith
This year sees a number of celebrations marking Darwin’s 200th birthday and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his greatest work On the Origin of Species through natural selection. From a Christian perspective, many of the Darwin media reports and programs contain a worryingly anti-faith message as they contrast supposed rational science with the irrational faith of believers. But, we must remember that in Darwin’s time the majority of scientist’s were Christians, and it was these scientists who recognized and accepted Darwin’s important ideas. Similarly today the majority of Christian’s who are professional scientists see no conflict between the theory of evolution and their faith. So why do so many people think that science and faith are in conflict?
Unfortunately, as in many areas, it is the extremists who tend to make the headlines. Both atheists and religious fundamentalists are so excitable and vocal that it is easy to get the impression that science and faith are an either, or thing. This damages the reputation of both science and faith. Many people intuitively realize that life encompasses important elements of both, so are unsure of what to make of the supposed experts who say that the scientific and the spiritual cannot be held at one time. Quite often the response is to simply not think about the issue.
But not thinking about this issue impoverishes our view of the world as it throws away the two most important tools we have for understanding our lives. Yes of course it is easier not to think about the problem, and just immerse ourselves in our own busyness, but sooner or later we will find ourselves needing to deal with deeper issues or problems. To do this we need to learn how to use the tool of science and the tool of faith. We need to learn how to be comfortable being spiritual people in a scientific world.
Friday, 5 June 2009
Thursday, 4 June 2009
Thought for the day - BBC radio solent #3
Here is the 5:25am version - I quite liked Tiggy Walkers slip of the tongue at the end!
Day 3: Science and Faith
The American philosopher, Thomas Nagel, wrote a famous paper entitled “what is it like to be a bat?” Bats are intriguing creatures because many species use echo-location in the same way as we use sight. Instead of detecting light bouncing off objects, these bats emit high-pitch clicks and then listen for the echos in order to form an idea of their surroundings. Interestingly they use the same part of their brain for echo-location as we do for sight. They literally “see” with sound.
Nagels question was whether we could understand what it would be like to see with sound. His answer was no. Even if the brain activity involved with echo location and visual sight is identical, we have only experienced, and thus can only “know” what it is like to see using light. It may be possible to define or “objectify” all the elements of sensing our surroundings, however at the end of the day a description of how the system works is not going to replace the experience of either seeing, or indeed echo location. There is thus an important distinction between the description of an event, and the experience of that same event.
Science is certainly an important tool that many of us owe our lives to, however we must be careful not to mistake the success of science in one area as an indication that science provides answers in all areas. Science is the description of life, but spirituality, often expressed in religious terms, is the experience of life. In many ways spirituality is our relationship with the world around us. How interesting then that Christianity is based not upon scientific knowledge, but upon a relationship with God. Such a relationship can never be contradicted by science, because as Nagel has shown with his bat analogy, science can never explain “what it’s like” to truly know God.
Day 3: Science and Faith
The American philosopher, Thomas Nagel, wrote a famous paper entitled “what is it like to be a bat?” Bats are intriguing creatures because many species use echo-location in the same way as we use sight. Instead of detecting light bouncing off objects, these bats emit high-pitch clicks and then listen for the echos in order to form an idea of their surroundings. Interestingly they use the same part of their brain for echo-location as we do for sight. They literally “see” with sound.
Nagels question was whether we could understand what it would be like to see with sound. His answer was no. Even if the brain activity involved with echo location and visual sight is identical, we have only experienced, and thus can only “know” what it is like to see using light. It may be possible to define or “objectify” all the elements of sensing our surroundings, however at the end of the day a description of how the system works is not going to replace the experience of either seeing, or indeed echo location. There is thus an important distinction between the description of an event, and the experience of that same event.
Science is certainly an important tool that many of us owe our lives to, however we must be careful not to mistake the success of science in one area as an indication that science provides answers in all areas. Science is the description of life, but spirituality, often expressed in religious terms, is the experience of life. In many ways spirituality is our relationship with the world around us. How interesting then that Christianity is based not upon scientific knowledge, but upon a relationship with God. Such a relationship can never be contradicted by science, because as Nagel has shown with his bat analogy, science can never explain “what it’s like” to truly know God.
Wednesday, 3 June 2009
Thought for the day - BBC radio solent #2
A bit less banter today. Click here to listen.
Day 2: Nothing buttery
“They know what you are thinking” read a title in the Sunday Times the other week, reporting on how neuroscientists are able to use various types of scanning equipment to apparently “read our thoughts”. Such stories are still more science fiction than practical technology, brain scanning is not quite as advanced as some in the popular media make out, however new techniques are giving us exciting insights into how our brains work and what is happening on a physical level as we think. Such advances hold a great potential in understanding and treating some of the terrible neuro-degenerative disorders that inflict so many as they age.
But we need to be careful to understand what such technology is actually telling us. There was great excitement a couple of years ago about the discovery of the “God spot”; an area in the brain that showed more electrical activity when people had spiritual experiences. There were even some attempts to try and see if people with religious beliefs had bigger or more developed “God-spots” than atheists or agnostics.
Although such research is certainly interesting, being able to provide a physical or scientific explanation for an experience should not be seen as explaining experiences away. Some philosophers refer to such arguments as “nothing buttery” arguments: Our thoughts are “nothing but” electrical impulses in the brain. The spiritual is “nothing but” brain activity. Love is “nothing but” excitable neurones.
However, knowing about the mechanics of our brain is very different from being a thinking, feeling person. Nothing buttery may work well in text books, but it helps us very little in the real world. Thoughts and experiences may be accompanied by certain brain activity, but what we actually experience is far more than “nothing but” excited brain cells.
Day 2: Nothing buttery
“They know what you are thinking” read a title in the Sunday Times the other week, reporting on how neuroscientists are able to use various types of scanning equipment to apparently “read our thoughts”. Such stories are still more science fiction than practical technology, brain scanning is not quite as advanced as some in the popular media make out, however new techniques are giving us exciting insights into how our brains work and what is happening on a physical level as we think. Such advances hold a great potential in understanding and treating some of the terrible neuro-degenerative disorders that inflict so many as they age.
But we need to be careful to understand what such technology is actually telling us. There was great excitement a couple of years ago about the discovery of the “God spot”; an area in the brain that showed more electrical activity when people had spiritual experiences. There were even some attempts to try and see if people with religious beliefs had bigger or more developed “God-spots” than atheists or agnostics.
Although such research is certainly interesting, being able to provide a physical or scientific explanation for an experience should not be seen as explaining experiences away. Some philosophers refer to such arguments as “nothing buttery” arguments: Our thoughts are “nothing but” electrical impulses in the brain. The spiritual is “nothing but” brain activity. Love is “nothing but” excitable neurones.
However, knowing about the mechanics of our brain is very different from being a thinking, feeling person. Nothing buttery may work well in text books, but it helps us very little in the real world. Thoughts and experiences may be accompanied by certain brain activity, but what we actually experience is far more than “nothing but” excited brain cells.
Tuesday, 2 June 2009
Thought for the day - BBC radio solent #1
Dave Adcock, the BBC radio solent "thought for the day" producer asked me to give four thoughts between June 2nd and June 5th 2009 live on local radio. You can listen to number 1 here and the text is below:
Day 1: both… and
Good morning,
Earlier this year my three week old son was rushed into Southampton general hospital with a serious undiagnosed heart condition. Thanks to the skill and dedication of the staff in the paediatric intensive care and cardiac units his life was saved and he has made a full recovery with no anticipated future problems.
All parents find such an experience highly traumatic, and my wife and I were no exception. However, as a medical scientist, someone who is used to using sophisticated technology to explore the workings of the human body, a part of me found the whole experience extremely interesting. I was able to watch the stats on the monitors as various drugs took affect and his body responded in a complex, yet predictable way, to the expert medical treatment.
But this was no experiment; this was my son. Although the scientific part of me could view the situation fairly dispassionately, the human side of me was crying out for him to just get better. Although I could understand much of what was going on, and see the reason for the various treatments and their effects, having all the knowledge in the world was not going to change how I experienced the situation.
Understanding science and technology is certainly important to our lives, and central to human wellbeing, but viewing life through this dispassionate lens is not all there is. Truth is as much about human experience as it is knowing the facts. Scientific knowledge will enrich our lives but only up to a certain point. It is a tool, not an end in itself - life is far more than just atoms and molecules.
Day 1: both… and
Good morning,
Earlier this year my three week old son was rushed into Southampton general hospital with a serious undiagnosed heart condition. Thanks to the skill and dedication of the staff in the paediatric intensive care and cardiac units his life was saved and he has made a full recovery with no anticipated future problems.
All parents find such an experience highly traumatic, and my wife and I were no exception. However, as a medical scientist, someone who is used to using sophisticated technology to explore the workings of the human body, a part of me found the whole experience extremely interesting. I was able to watch the stats on the monitors as various drugs took affect and his body responded in a complex, yet predictable way, to the expert medical treatment.
But this was no experiment; this was my son. Although the scientific part of me could view the situation fairly dispassionately, the human side of me was crying out for him to just get better. Although I could understand much of what was going on, and see the reason for the various treatments and their effects, having all the knowledge in the world was not going to change how I experienced the situation.
Understanding science and technology is certainly important to our lives, and central to human wellbeing, but viewing life through this dispassionate lens is not all there is. Truth is as much about human experience as it is knowing the facts. Scientific knowledge will enrich our lives but only up to a certain point. It is a tool, not an end in itself - life is far more than just atoms and molecules.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)