Day 3 of March daily thoughts

Thursday 25th March, listen here or:

Day 3: The small

As a biochemist I am interested in trying to understand how the millions of chemicals in our cells interact in order to create a living body. However, the biggest challenge to studying the molecules of life is dealing with how small and quite how many of them, there actually are. In order to do this I have to use indirect methods on simplified systems and then extrapolate the results to build more complex models. To do this I regular visit the new “synchrotron” particle accelerator just outside Oxford to bombard purified versions of the chemicals I want to study with Xrays. From measuring how the Xrays scatter when they hit the tiny molecules we can get a lot of detail as to the shape of the chemicals, and then hopefully use this information go on and design new medicines. The reason we have to use Xrays is because the chemicals are so small that visible light itself is too big to actually illuminate them!

Even as a biochemist who studies these small molecules I still find it difficult to appreciate that every living creature, and indeed every living cell of every living creature, is a highly complex but exquisitely organised mixture of chemicals that perform remarkable feats on a sub-microscopic level. Because of this some people like to refer to us as “complex machines”, however I do not think this title quite does us justice. Each one of us is more complex, and better designed, than the most complicated of human inventions. From this perspective it is no wonder that many people use spiritual language when trying to grasp how life actually works. Far from being an enemy of spirituality, I find that science gives me a heavenly perspective! The beauty and complexity of the natural world reminds me that there is far more to life than can be seen.

Daily Thoughts on BBC radio

24th March 2010 on BBC Radio Solent. Listen here or for the script:

Day 2: A matter of scale

The other day a friend emailed a link to a website called “the scale of everything”. This is a really cool animation which, by using a slider, allows you to zoom from the very smallest thing we know about - quantum foam at a fraction of a yoctometer - right up to the largest thing we know about - the size of the whole universe at a couple of hundred yottometers. Interestingly, on the scale between the very big (yottometers) and the very small (yoctometers), humans lie pretty much slap in the middle. In other words (and something that I find quite mind boggling) the universe is about as much bigger than you are, as you are bigger than the smallest known atomic particle.

Although science has built tools that can examine both the very big and the very small, the sizes involved are so vast that we mostly have to rely on indirect, and somewhat complicated, methods to see what’s out there. This may seem to some people to be a bit of a pointless pursuit, however it suddenly becomes rather a lot more relevant when we realise that the objects that lie beyond our normal comprehension can actually affect our everyday lives quite significantly. For instance, a single radioactive particle could lead to a mutation that causes cancer.

One of the best parts of being a scientist is trying to understand this “other” perspective. I find science exciting because it takes me out of my normal everyday experience and introduces me to a world that is still only partially explored. If I get bored or am feeling unmotivated I regularly go back to the “scale of everything” website because it shows me how little of the world I actually experience, and reminds me that there’s an awful lot more out there than just me!

More Daily thoughts - BBC Solent

23rd March 2010 on BBC radio Solent. Listen here.

Day 1: The big

For Christmas this year I got some binoculars – not that I wanted binoculars for any particular reason, but rather my Mum put me on the spot and it was the first thing that came to my mind!

After unsuccessfully trying to look at some birds and a cat in my garden, and even more disappointingly discovering that I couldn’t really see into any of my neighbours windows, I decided to turn my binoculars skywards and have a look at the stars.

Now, I’m a biologist by training and have spent so much of the last few years looking down microscopes that I have seldom thought about the bigger things that live above my head. Yes of course I glimpse stars when I am out at night, and see star charts and pictures in magazines, but this was the first time I ever tried to examine the heavens for myself.

My first look at the stars through binoculars will live with me for a long time. In the past I never quite appreciated why people spent nights in cold fields looking at stars, but now I know! It’s really difficult to explain in words the experience of gazing at the vastness of the universe, knowing that the light you are seeing has travelled trillions of miles and has taken billions of years just to reach your eyes.

Of course, very few of us will ever escape this earth and visit these stars, however, if you ever need a sense of perspective, and want an insight into another world, I’d recommend grabbing some binoculars and having a look at the stars. It’s so easy to do, and I promise it won’t disappoint.

Day 4 of 4 BBC radio solent science and faith

And the final audio is here, with the text below:

Good morning,

Over the last couple days I have been considering famous scientists and examining how their discoveries influenced their life and faith. I want to finish this series by looking at a contemporary scientist, the American Francis Collins, who led the international project to sequence the human genome and has recently been appointed by President Obama to one of the most powerful scientific posts in the US, head of the multi-billion dollar national institute for health.

Along with being a stellar scientist Francis Collins is an out spoken Christian and author of a book called "The Language of God" where he argues that science is one of the ways that God speaks to man. He is also founder of the "BioLogos" foundation who's mission is to 'promote the search for truth in both the natural and spiritual realms, seeking harmony between these different perspectives.'

About a year ago I met Francis Collins at a conference and was struck by his enthusiasm and his drive to both understand and better use the discoveries of science. When I asked him what his motivation was for being so energetic and enthusiastic he answered that it was specifically his Christian faith, and that he saw science as an opportunity to worship God.

Francis Collins is one of 40% of American scientists who believe in God, and who find that the more they discover about the natural world the more they are forced to ask why the natural world is the way it is. Like Galileo and Newton before him, Collins does not see a conflict between science and faith, rather his motivation for being a scientist is his faith in God. Far from the stereotype of an atheist scientist, Collins is therefore proof that science is both compatible with, and a source of encouragement for, people who put their faith in God.

Day 3 of 4 BBC radio solent science and faith

The audio is here, and the text was:

Good morning,

In this “Darwin anniversary” week I am looking at four famous scientists and asking how their discoveries influenced their life and faith. Today I want to consider Darwin himself.

Although originally trained as a clergyman, it is well known that Darwin's theory of evolution, through natural selection, led him to doubt whether God existed. However, far from being an atheist, Darwin's writings reveal the struggles of a brilliant and thoughtful man trying to understand his place in the world. His insights into biology produced in him a deep humility as he realised how insignificant any individual is when viewed in the grand scheme of natural history.

Darwin's uncertainty is often viewed as a weakness, especially from the perspective of our 21st century knowledge driven society where everyone is a professional or expert in some area. Indeed Darwin's uncertainty is often used as an example of what happens when you try to mix different ways of understanding the world - "if only Darwin had stuck to science he would not have been so confused" some argue.

But this attitude seems to miss an important point. Darwin brilliantly formulated an answer to the question of origins, however in exploring this answer he discovered a whole range of new questions that went beyond just Biology. Questions of morality, purpose and meaning can certainly be illuminated by science, however science can never give the full picture. Darwin's theory was a great stride forward for human knowledge, however he recognised that an understanding of how we came about cannot really answer questions about why we are here. Although theories such as evolution are great for explaining the how questions, we need to look elsewhere for understanding the why questions.

Day 2 of 4 BBC radio solent science and faith

The day 2 audio can be heard here. The text is:

Good morning,

In this “Darwin anniversary” week I am looking at four famous scientists and asking how their discoveries influenced their life and faith.

In a Royal Society survey in 2005 Sir Isaac Newton was voted the most influential scientist ever to have lived. In 1687 he published a book referred to as the "Principia" which provided the mathematical foundation for classical mechanics through his description of the laws of gravity and motion. As if this was not enough he went on to show how white light could be split into the many colours of the rainbow, co-developed the branch of mathematics called calculus, oversaw the royal mint, was president of the Royal Society, and also a member of Parliament.

However, along with these great achievements, Newton spent more time studying and writing about religion than any other topic. He recognised, through his mathematical and scientific studies, that the world was a rational place governed by the predictable laws of nature. But this made him want to ask why? Why is it possible that humans are able to understand the world? Why does mathematics even work?

His conclusion was that a great creator lies behind the universe, however far from being the fickle god of superstition this was a craftsman God who designed along rational and universal principles. "Gravity", he wrote, "explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

As a great scientist Newton recognised the importance of science, but also recognised that we need more than just science to understand the world around us. By contemplating the complexities of science and the grandeur of nature, Newton was drawn to a deeper belief in the creator of this magnificent world.

More daily thoughts on BBC radio solent

As this week is the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's Origins, BBC radio solent asked me to give four thoughts relating science and faith. I chose to look at four famous scientists and ask how their science impacted their faith.

The day1 audio can be listened to here and the text is below:

Good morning,

In this “Darwin anniversary” week I plan to look at four famous scientists and ask how their discoveries influenced their life and faith.

First off is Galileo Galilei, the 17th century physicist and astronomer famous for being one of the first to point a telescope at the stars, and also for discovering the principles of gravity by supposedly dropping objects off the top of the leaning tower of Pisa. However, perhaps even more memorable than his scientific discoveries, was Galileo's trial before the Roman inquisition, the guilty verdict and his subsequent sentencing to a lifetime of house arrest. This was because he taught that the earth orbited the Sun, contradicting the churches teaching that the earth was the stationary centre of the universe.

Some say that the way Galileo was treated is typical of what happens when “evidence based” science meets “faith based” religion. Indeed some contemporary authors argue that religion is an old fashioned way of looking at the world, and scientists like Galileo are the heroes responsible for bringing about a new, less superstitious scientific age. However this was not how Galileo himself understood the matter.

In a long letter explaining how he understood the relationship between science and faith, Galileo argued that it was a serious mistake to view the bible as if it were a scientific textbook because it was written not to teach physics or biology, but rather to convey truths about people and their relationship with God. He wrote "The bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heaven's go."

400 years later we would do well remembering these words of Galileo. Although science shows us how the world around us works, it is, and cannot, ever be an excuse for not living a life of faith.

Creationist debate/panel discussion

Had an enjoyable discussion with David Rosevear (6-day creationist) and Michael Reiss (eminent education professor and Anglican priest) in front of an audience of about 80 at the SEARCH museum in Portsmouth as part of their Darwin celebrations the other night. As each speaker only had five minutes I decided to just make the point that science and religion/faith are two different ways of looking at the same thing so anyone who uses science to argue against a faith position is missing the point. I figured this was a good critique of both scientific atheism and young earth (6-day) creationism. I also decided to leave any more detailed discussion to the audience questions.

The audience were less partisan than I feared although did contain a couple vocal (and slightly unstable) extremists from both the atheist and the young earth camps. As usual the extremist views were relatively easy to answer. I generally disagreed with David Rosevear on all points and agreed with Michael Reiss although felt that Michael was being a bit more generous than I was comfortable with.

I made a point of arguing robustly for a view of science that stayed accurate to the research (ie I argued that creationism had no place in science classes in school) but at the same time respected the world-views of people (ie saying that the discussion of atheism vs Christianity/other faiths is important in RE/philosophy). I also repeatedly pointed out the incompatibility of 6-day creationism with the two forms of ID which I think surprised a number of people who tried to challenge from a creationist position. There were the usual questions on probability, mind-brain, mutations, status of scripture etc.

Although it is always hard to judge the results of such events, I went away feeling extremely positive because it seemed that many (if not most) of the audience understood the point that both atheism and young earth creationism are extremist views and thus sensible dialogue needs to sit somewhere in between. I was also surprised by quite how weak David Rosevear's arguments were and felt that most of the audience recognised this.

Thought for the day - BBC radio solent #4

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.

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.