PDF

Jan09-letters.pdf

Dear Professor Joos;

Happy New Year! Kudos to Physics in Canada (PiC-PaC) for the very interesting summer issue (64[3]). The range of topics covered has something for everyone.

This brings me to the main reason for writing. Professor Richard MacKenzie has lucidly and elegantly articulated the interplay between faith and science. In his account, he has taken the stand that religious thought, exemplified by faith, is the enemy of science. While this may appear to be the case, it is not the religious thought process per se that is the enemy of science. It is strict adherence to, and literal interpretation of, religious doctrine that is problematic. Adherence to dogma is tantamount to ignorance as I hope to show a little later. The distinction between the religious thought process and literal adherence to dogma/doctrine is neither a play on words nor an exercise in semantics. Indeed, Prof. MacKenzie acknowledges this in the first paragraph on p.105, “Indeed we can go a step farther …”

I suspect that Prof. MacKenzie must be thinking of the most famous clash between science and religious doctrine; namely the Galileo affair. Galileo did not commit any sin. He merely did what was correct. He investigated a problem and provided a cogent answer. The issue was the Roman Catholic Church’s strict adherence to doctrine characterized by taking Aristotle’s philosophy as its official view. The question of the centrality of the Divine and the earth have preoccupied the thinking of philosophers since time immemorial. Happily, Galileo was officially “pardoned” by Pope John Paul II c.1990 and only last month was hailed as a great thinker by Pope Benedict XVI. It is true that this took four centuries to occur.

There were numerous times in history when men of faith engaged actively in scientific research and contributed to its advancement. They were driven by their faith to undertake such investigations. Their reasoning was that it is part of their responsibility to their faith to “glorify God”. Some still do. Be that as it may, here are a few examples:

1. The founder of the Sufi faith, Mohammed Al-Ghazali (1058 – 1111) [over a century before Rumi, the latter is better known in the west] who was the professor at the Nidhamiyya school (after the Caliph Nidham-ul-Mulk who established it in 1096) in Baghdad, Iraq, defended the use of logic and what we now term as the scientific method. He also advanced the ideas of atomism first proposed by Democritus (460 – 370 BCE). Al-Ghazali’s scientific work was not in the least bit in conflict with his religious faith.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali )

2. The second example is the work of Gregor Mendel (1822 – 1884). Mendel was an Augustinian priest. Once again, his religious faith did not stand in the way of his scientific research. The science of genetics as we know it today was started by the work of a priest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel).

3. Closer to physics, is the work of the Belgian priest Georges LeMaitre (1894 – 1966) on general relativity. LeMaitre was also a professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven (see for example Michio Kaku, Einstein’s Cosmos p.134, Norton 2004 & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre). Here again, faith did not interfere with the advancement of science. Quite the opposite!

4. Another example of a physicist and priest in one is that of Professor John Polkinghorne; KBE, FRS (1930 - ), a renowned particle physicist and theologian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne). In this case, Prof. Polkinghorne decided in favour of religious investigation. Again, no conflict between the religious and scientific thought processes.

5. Now for an example in the reverse direction. Namely the fierce opposition to atomic theory, quantum mechanics and relativity advanced by the powerful scientists (The “Classicists”) of the 19th century. This group of scientists (Mach, Lenard, etc.) adhered to strongly held beliefs in scientific facts of the time so dogmatically (what Prof. MacKenzie would refer to as faith) that they contributed negatively to the progress of science, indeed hindering it.

The religious thought process is a human activity that is as legitimate as any other human activity. Its development and evolution are to be credited with the advancements it has contributed to the improvement of the human condition. Many of the social, organizational and legal structures that modern society enjoys today have their origin in the religious thought process and its development over many centuries. These systems that are in place regulate human and societal interactions. The Ten Commandments is but one example. In many instances, the quest for understanding is clearly articulated (e.g.: Cry out for insight and ask for understanding [Proverbs 2:3; New Living Translation]).

In summary, I am in agreement with Prof. MacKenzie if what he refers to as “faith” is adherence to dogma. As I have attempted to show here, this is consistent with ignorance. Therefore, ignorance is the enemy of science.

The last word must necessarily be reserved for the Grand Master of Science; namely Albert Einstein who wrote,”Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.” (Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, p.46, Crown Publishers 1954 & 1982, Three Rivers Press). I suspect that Einstein would have been a leading candidate for the Templeton Prize had it existed in his lifetime.

Best wishes to PiC-Pac in 2009 and beyond.

Muthana Al-Ghazi, PPhys.
University of California, Irvine