Science is not an absolute truth, it is still evolving.... (Part 1)

The relationship between religion and science are two dominant forces in our culture today. This complexity is aggravated by a seemingly conflictual post modern, pluralist challenge to a culture that already reveals itself as decidedly empirically-minded. For theology and science a meaningful dialogue becomes possible only if both modes of reflection are willing to move away from overblown foundationalist epistemologies and, for theology at least, from the intellectual coma of fideism.

It comes as no surprise that, on this view, science emerges as the great alternative to religious faith (cf Midgley 1992: 139). Many of us, in fact, did grow up learning an account of our intellectual history as the story of the steady triumph of science over superstition and ignorance (cf Placher 1989:14). Almost all of these stereotyped contrasts between science and religion, however, assume far too simple a picture of what both science and religion are about. When, therefore, we dig deeper into this complex issue much more is revealed about the philosophical and epistemological complexities of trying to contrast religion and science in this way. What emerges - often surprisingly - is a shared epistemological pattern: a foundationalist notion of empiricist science is, after all, philosophically not all that different from an equally foundationalist conception of literalism of religious fideism.

The age of reason brought with it the giants of scientific thought who laid the groundwork for classical physics. Copernicus, Bruno, Kepler, Descartes and Galileo provided Isaac Newton with all he needed to explain motion in the universe.

It was not long before a mechanical philosophy of the universe dominated scientific thought. The universe, once unknown and capricious, became a huge clock ticking along inexorably. Every event was easily explained as a combination of known forces. If an event seemed out of the ordinary, the discovery of more facts held the answer to a complete explanation.

In 1905 Einstein postulated his special theory of relativity and explained that the speed of light appears the same to all observers and that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. This theory, however, was inconsistent with the Newtonian theory of gravity: objects attracted each other with a force that depended on the distance between them. This meant that if one object is moved, the force would change instantaneously, instead of at a velocity below the speed of light.

In 1915, Einstein proposed his general theory of relativity. According to this theory gravity is not a force like other forces, but is a consequence of the, fact that space-time is not flat (as had been previously assumed) but curved by the distribution of mass and energy in it. In general relativity bodies always follow straight lines in four-dimensional space-time, although they appear to us to move along curved paths in three-dimensional space. Light rays also follow geodesics (straight lines in curved space) in space-time and are bent by gravitational fields (Hawking 1988:28-31). Another prediction of general relativity is that time should appear to run slower near a massive body like the earth. This is because there is a relation between the energy of light and its frequency: the greater the energy, the higher the frequency. As light travels upward in the earth's gravitational field, it loses energy, and so its frequency goes down. (This means that the length of time between one wave crest and the next goes up). To someone high up, it would appear that everything down below was taking longer to happen .... In the theory of relativity there is no unique absolute time, but instead each individual has his own personal measure of time that depends on where he is and how he is moving.

The astounding discovery that a multitude of physical facts could be explained by a few mathematical equations helped to reclassify the age of reason as the age of certainty.

Clarity of description, reductionism and a relentless· determinism was the hallmark of Newtonian physics. Even the more ambiguous nonphysical world (history, psychiatry, theology) was couched in terms of extreme determinism and the notion that truth was based upon unchangeable absolutes. Van Arkel (1988:223) asserts that we do not always recognise how profoundly our present theologising is influenced by this line of thought. Brown (1990:479) summarised the basic assumptions of classical physics as follows:

(1) objective realism - observed phenomena are caused by a physical world that exists independent of human observation;

(2) physical sufficiency - each act of motion or change in the universe can be explained by an analysis of all of the physical factors involved;

(3) inductive validity - drawing inferences from consistent observations is a valid means of obtaining knowledge;

(4) upper limit -- no influence of any kind can be made faster than the speed of light.

In a sense Einstein's work can be considered the transition between classical and quantum physics. Although his findings were based upon the notion of fixed natural laws, he also opened the door to a new world of uncertain, elusive qualities.

Newton's laws of motion put an end to the idea of absolute position in space. He was very concerned by this lack of absolute position, because it did not accord with his idea of an absolute God (Hawking 1988: 18) and the philosophical belief in absolute truths.

In 1915, Einstein's theory of relativity changed the concept of absolute time. The remarkable consequences of this theory however, were not fully understood until a few years later. Where space and time were previously thought of as fixed values, they were now dynamic quantities: when a body moves, or a force acts, it affects the curvature of space and time, and in turn the structure of space-time affects the way in which bodies move and forces act. Space and time not only affect, but are also affected by everything that happens in the universe (Hawking 1988:33).

Max Planck's quantum hypothesis was the first indication that the inexorable determinism of classical physics had to be abandoned. Again, the implications of this hypothesis were not realised until 1926 when Werner Heisenberg formulated his famous uncertainty principles.

Particles no longer had separate, well-defined positions and velocities that could be observed; they had a quantum state, a combination of position and velocity.

The uncertainty principle held profound implications for the way in which we view the world: In general, quantum mechanics does not predict a single definite result for an observation. Instead, it predicts a number of different possible outcomes and tells us how likely each of these is' (Hawking 1988:55). Polkinghorne (1989:44) comments correspondingly: 'Instead of the clarity and precision of Newtonian mechanics, we have to be content with a more fuzzy account of affairs' .

As scientists continued to explore the vast complexities of the subatomic world, more startling discoveries were made. Even the idea of an external world that can be objectified, observed and measured without changing it, had to be abandoned. According to quantum mechanics it is not possible to observe reality without altering what you see. From now on the subject would play an inseparable part in his/ her relationship with reality.

One can never be exactly sure of both the position and the velocity of a particle. The more accurate one measures or knows the position of a particle, the less accurate one can know the other and vice versa. Another interesting concept in quantum mechanics is that there is no distinction between waves and particles; particles may sometimes behave as waves and waves as particles, the so-called wave/particle duality. The most interesting part of this concept, however, is that the state of the particle or wave is determined by the observer. If you look for particles, you find particle-like qualities, and if you look for waves, you find wave-like qualities (polkinghome 1989:60). The Schrodinger equation is another example: everything can be smooth and in continuity, until you try to extract some information by means of a measurement. The moment you intervene with a measurement, the traumatic discontinuity of the collapse of the wave packet takes place. These and other similar examples have led some interpreters to believe that human consciousness affects the nature of reality and that it even plays a part in creating reality (Polkinghome 1989:60-69). The mysteries and puzzles of our quantum world are numerous (cf Penrose 1989: 225-301).

For the purpose of this paper I will confine myself to one more. In 1935 the EPR-experiment was conducted. The name comes from the first letters of its authors, Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen. The experiment suggests that certain events are connected, even though they do not physically interact and are quite some distance apart.

An instantaneous connection between particles is formed, that travels faster than light (the concept of nonlocality).

In conflict with Einstein's general relativity theory, according to which nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, the theory suggests an influence between two particles that are not within each other's reach. 'What happens at one place has got something to do with what happens at the same moment at some distant place' (Sharpe 1992:138). Lucas (1992: 18) illustrated that the EPR-experiment can be used to demonstrate the single, interconnected wholeness of the universe.

Martin (1987:370) argues that twentieth century revolutions in, among others, physics and cosmology, signify a basic shift from a mechanical (Newtonian) to a holistic (quantum) paradigm, a thirst for a renewed sense of the whole. Allen Utke (1986: 137-141) illustrates the theory of relativity and quantum theory to be the two main contributors to the cosmic holism concept.

The connotation between quantum theory and holism is evident and specialist work within the holistic paradigm has been done (cf Van Aarde 1988; Vorster 1988; Van Arkel 1988). However, the way we interpret quantum theory most certainly will have an epistemological disposition on our theology.

To be continued .... read part 2.

Prof (Dr.) Kanayalal Raina advocates in spiritual teaching besides providing management consultancy services. His strategic plans are being used for obtaining funding to run various programs conducted by NFP nonprofit and business organizations. He strengthens NFP and business organizations through education, empowerment of leadership and mentoring, personal growth and strategic counselling. Areas of expertise are Govt. funding and preparation of Business Plans, Strategic Plans, Marketing plans, Sales and Pricing Plans, Balanced Scorecard, and Business Performance Management.