Friday, February 21, 2014

WHAT IS TRUTH? - 2
Guest post by my friend John Kulp

 
                                    
2/20/2014 

Hi Bill:

I started the below as a comment to your “truth” blog, but it got so long that I decided to send it as an email instead.  The first part you have heard from me before, but please bear through it again as context for my comments on scientific truth and the bible.  Your posts stretch my mind, I may be a heretic on this one, and I hope to hear your comments.

I will suggest that there are at least 3 important questions in correlating science, truth and the bible.  What is truth?  What is Science?  And what point of view does the Bible come from in the field of science?

Having held the title of senior scientist at one point in my career, and having known several University professors and PhD's in science who loved to discuss the philosophy of science, I will add my (their) answer to the second question.

Definition of Science:  Science is the construction and refinement of mathematical and conceptual models of observed physical phenomena; where the validity of a model is measured by how accurately the model predicts future events.

The repeatability of observation of physical phenomena gives me an intuitive sense that physical truth does exist, so I reject the postmodern view (that truth does not exist).  However, in science I am a philosophical anti-realist holding the view that physical truth (which does exist) cannot be known in a fixed and immutable way.  That kind of knowledge would, by definition, make a current descriptive model exempt from future challenge and improvement, and no scientific model is ever exempt from challenge and improvement.  Haldane said it well, that "the universe is not simply more complex than we understand, it is more complex than we can understand".   

In theology, conversely, I am a classical realist.  By faith I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God who came to earth to die on the cross to reconcile me to himself, opening the door for me to have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe.  I believe this to be truth, fixed and immutable.  This truth, for people of faith like me, is exempt from from challenge and improvement in a way that no law of science has ever been or ever will be.

These concepts are difficult and rarely understood but they are, in my opinion, the real conflict when people try to merge faith and science.  One is immutable and unchanging; the other is dynamic with improvement of every current scientific model being the explicit goal of the discipline of science.

Now on to question 3, what point of view does the bible come from in the field of science?  

I will suggest that the writers of the bible, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, did just what we do today, and just what writers have always done.  And that it was done for the same reason.

My pastor speaks about the “DNA of our church”.  That has clear meaning to each of us.  He is talking about who we are on the inside, our foundational building blocks, our blueprint for operation.  However, if a pastor in the early 1900’s had stood up and spoken about the DNA of the church, the audience would have been bewildered.  What is this guy talking about?  If he had given a late 20th century scientific explanation of DNA, they would have terminated him for being out of his mind.

Conversely, if we could look 100 years into the future we would certainly see a scientific concept of DNA that is very different than ours today.  The scientific models which describe DNA today will have been drastically modified.  If a minister in that world spoke about the DNA of his church, it would likely mean something completely different than it does here today.

So what is going on here?  Our pastor, and every other pastor, and virtually every writer outside of science fiction (including Bill Ball) uses language that is based on the current day scientific understanding of his or her readers.  Anything else would be at best meaningless and at worst confusing.  This is how man has written for the entire history of man; in the context of current science.  Anything else will not be understood by current readers.

And, since science is dynamic, the differences are related to time and not related to the concept of truth or falsehood.  The older writings simply use more rudimentary models of science and later writings simply use more advanced models of science.  People of the distant future will certainly continue this advance, looking back at today's writings on science as being “primitive” models. 

I will add here that there is a gigantic and very important difference between early scientific models and myth.  The sun and moon and stars moving through the sky was a legitimate scientific observation, and an earth centered universe was a reasonable early science model based on that observation.  Myths like the buddhist description of the earth being carried on two elephants causing earthquakes when they get out of step, are a very different thing.  They are silly by comparison.

So when John writes in Revelation about stars being small objects that can fall to the earth or into the seas of the earth we don’t have to twist like a pretzel to come up with some explanation to use in a futile attempt to go to war against science.  The explanation is simply that the current science when John wrote Revelation was that stars were small objects in the sky (a reasonable 1st century model based on 1st century observation capability).  If he had written that those tiny stars up there were really distant suns, many times larger than the earth people would have rejected the spiritual truths he wrote about because of his crazy theory about massive stars.

When Moses writes about the sun and moon and stars moving through the sky around the earth we don’t have to twist like a pretzel and come up with some stretched logic to align that view with Galileo’s model based on his observations of the moons of Jupiter.  The explanation is simply that the current science when Moses wrote Genesis was the model that those objects moved through the sky around the earth (it was a reasonable early scientific model based on valid observation).  If he had described it using Galileo’s or later more accurate models, he would have been ignored as a crazy person.

Virtually every writing in human history, other than myth, is written in the context of current scientific models at the time of writing.  Is it such a stretch to think that the writers of the bible did the same, simply because readers at the time of writing (and for hundreds of years beyond) would not have understood anything else?

John

6 comments:

Canadian Atheist said...

You said: I believe this to be truth, fixed and immutable. This truth, for people of faith like me, is exempt from from challenge and improvement in a way that no law of science has ever been or ever will be.

Exactly why religion is a sham. You believe on faith, but no matter what, your opinion will never change, no matter the evidence against your position.

You said: I will suggest that the writers of the bible, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, did just what we do today, and just what writers have always done. And that it was done for the same reason.

Do you have any evidence for such an assertion?

You said: The scientific models which describe DNA today will have been drastically modified.

Not necessarily. It depends on if there is new evidence available. But unlike religion, no one will 'terminate' that scientist for discovering new evidence. They will instead change the theory and applaud the scientist for expanding our knowledge base.

You said: Myths like the buddhist description of the earth being carried on two elephants causing earthquakes when they get out of step, are a very different thing. They are silly by comparison.

Sillier than say...a man dying so a god can forgive and then being raised from the dead and reigning in a heavenly plane?

You said: The explanation is simply that the current science when John wrote Revelation was that stars were small objects in the sky (a reasonable 1st century model based on 1st century observation capability).

Where was this holy ghost while these men were making false statements?

I disagree. Religion does have to twist itself in a pretzel to explain these ignorant statements while claiming heavenly knowledge.

You said: Virtually every writing in human history, other than myth, is written in the context of current scientific models at the time of writing.

Like mythical religion.

John Kulp said...

Dear CA:

After reading your post I feel like a liberal on the Hannity show. You posed too many rapid fire questions to answer without writing a novel.

You are absolutely correct that my faith is not based on physical evidence. But, neither is my love for my daughters. The second is evident to me by the joy that love brings to my life, and the first is evident to me in a similar way. I have an almost constant smile, and I interact with others with love and respect regardless of who they are. I visit shut-in elderly people and counsel friends through difficult circumstances with love (not out of duty) because my heart will not allow me to do otherwise. That is not who I was before I came to my faith belief. My heart changed. This is not physical evidence, but it is more than enough for me.

My post was actually aimed at the fundamentalist religious right just as much as it was at atheists, and I think you may have missed my point.

In my 40 year career in science, it became glaringly obvious to me (based on hard data) that there is always new evidence and always a better model in science. Pushing the frontier of older models was part of my job. That arena has exploded with the advent of computer modeling. I abandoned the philosophy of scientific realism years ago.

For years I have watched with discomfort as religious scientific realists and atheist scientific realists engage in what seems to be a continual battle over “truth”. Evolution is “truth”! No, 6 day creation is “truth”. You are going to Hell for that view! There is no Hell!

I think the war began with Galileo when he challenged the Catholic Church’s earth centered universe view in “The Assayer”. He said simply “all truth is God’s truth” with the meaning that the Pope had better change the church view on science to align with the “truth” which Galileo had discovered. The gigantic problem is that Galileo’s model was more advanced than the earth centered universe model, but it was not truth at all. It was significant, and improved the models of Copernicus, and it was based on data; but he saw circular orbits of constant velocity, when in fact all orbits are elliptical with changing velocity. No rocket could be launched successfully using Galileo’s model. It was by today’s standards very primitive.

A war had started over scientific truth when neither side actually had scientific truth to fight about.

If science is dynamic, with models which are not “truth” but simply more primitive or more advanced (each being age appropriate and subject to change), the war is a war over nothing. I would simply like to do what I can to try to bring an end to that war.

Canadian Atheist said...

Dear JK,

You said: “You are absolutely correct that my faith is not based on physical evidence. But, neither is my love for my daughters. The second is evident to me by the joy that love brings to my life, and the first is evident to me in a similar way.”

I hear theists make this statement all the time. I disagree. Your personality and feelings have a physical base and science has begun to understand the different chemical and biological components that make up feelings. Also, if you took a knock to your head (for example) your entire personality could change, including your ability to feel or express feelings. There is absolutely no comparison to be made between your emotions and an invisible, mythological based deity of any kind. No religion that makes the deity claim has ever been backed up by evidence.

You said: “I visit shut-in elderly people and counsel friends through difficult circumstances with love (not out of duty) because my heart will not allow me to do otherwise. That is not who I was before I came to my faith belief. My heart changed. This is not physical evidence, but it is more than enough for me.”

This is the most interesting part of your reply in my opinion. I also work with people every day. I not only work with the Deafblind but volunteer working with people who have acquired brain injuries. No mythology or religion required. When I hear statements like the one you made above, I hear it as something akin to – “If I hadn’t read that King Arthur novel, I never would have felt a sense of honor like I do now’. We’re all shaped by our environments. However, I wonder if you think you couldn’t have achieved who you are now without religion? Do you absolutely need this faith in invisible beings to feel the way you do now?

If so, I find that very curious indeed.

You said: The gigantic problem is that Galileo’s model was more advanced than the earth centered universe model, but it was not truth at all.

Yes. One is based on evidence and the other on faith and mythology. Galileo’s model continues to be improved by new knowledge, while the faith based on continued to try and persecute the ones who discovered it. Galileo’s model was truth. It has just been modified to include new knowledge. His point was absolutely correct – the sun does NOT and NEVER has revolved around the Earth and the Earth has Never been nor ever will be the center of the universe, no matter how much the church and their dogma based mythology say otherwise.

You said: I would simply like to do what I can to try to bring an end to that war.

That’s a noble goal, sir. I don’t see it as a war; more as a conversation. It’s a conversation that has never been allowed to take place before because atheists and sceptics were murdered if they talked. I think as a species we’ll move away from mythology and towards evidence based thinking. I think we’re already seeing that trend, as religion wanes in most developed countries.

Regardless, thank you for your response. I continue to enjoy Bill’s blog and the interaction with his readers.

Bill Ball said...

Interesting dialogue. I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with both of you. I was ready to publish my response to John but I'm continually revising it. :^)

John Kulp said...

CA

One last small comment and I will await Bill's response. We seem to be back to Bill's original question; "what is truth?"

You say "Galileo's model was truth". But it contained the view that orbiting bodies were restrained by some form of invisible cord forcing them into a circular orbit like a stone twirled at the end of a string. He was challenged on that view, but he never abandoned it.

So, how much error can a model contain and still be "truth"?

Bill Ball said...

My response is on the following post.