Dear Theophilus, 

You raise the question of the role of science and the arts in our lives and in our world view. This is an interesting question and one that I would like to address in this letter.

We have the impression, particularly in our society that science has a monopoly on truth and that whatever science says, that is the final word on things. Much as I appreciate and honor science, I cannot agree with this one-sided and exaggerated position. It is true that science tells us important points about the world that we inhabit, about the universe and some of its properties, but it is still a limited view that needs to be balanced and completed through other areas of human knowledge. One of these is the arts. We have talked fairly extensively about the sciences, but about the arts we have had much less to say. Maybe this is an area to which we should turn our attention.

The arts deal with aspects of our lives where logic fails or where other methods of interaction are called for. Mathematics, in particular, enables us to learn about the world that we live in and to manipulate it. However, when we come to matters, no less important, such as truth, beauty, love, we find that the methods of science become less effective. We need other means of dealing with these matters. I think that one of the problems that arises is through the misuse of science when we apply scientific methods to areas where it is inappropriate.

As an example, consider beauty. If we were to discuss beauty using a scientific approach, we would run into serious problems. What are the criteria for determining whether something is beautiful? How do you quantify this? Faced with these troubling questions, scientists tend to relegate matters such as beauty and others to the realm of abstract subjectivism. What this means is that it is a personal decision as to what is beautiful and because of this, this carries no lasting importance and is not important or fundamental to understanding the world. There is a considerable amount of arrogance in a position such as this, and it is unfortunate that it exists because it does not contribute to the reputation of science, and, what is more important, is a false position to take.

It is very difficult to objectively define things such as truth, beauty and so on. Normally, science deals with questions by breaking down a complex matter into simpler constituents and then dealing with this. This is a very powerful tool and works well in many situations, but there are times when it fails. One of these is in matters which defy the breaking down into simpler pieces.

The arts, on the other hand, deal with fundamental aspects of human life on a different plane. Let's return to the question of beauty that we had considered above. The arts would not attempt to define beauty as science would; they would use the fundamental tool of all arts - they would 'incarnate' the quality being explored. Instead of trying to list the characteristics which define beauty, they would create a work of art, or a play or a piece of music or some other form to encompass beauty and bring it to be and by displaying it before the audience, they would give them some sense of what beauty is. This is a fundamentally different approach from what is attempted in science, but, it is no less real, no less important than the approach used in the sciences. From this, I hope that you get a sense of the contribution that the arts make to completing our understanding of the world, and what is even more important, of ourselves.

In a sense, the arts are crucial for a balanced view of the world. The charge that is often thrown at the arts is that they are merely subjective musings with no hard reality to them. It is not important whether something is beautiful or not; this has no bearing on fundamental questions facing us in the world such as understanding the structure of matter. This kind of hard position was prevalent in the nineteenth century and since it takes a long time before changes in the sciences hit the public consciousness, we are still feeling the aftereffects of the nineteenth century mindset. The twentieth century scientist, particularly in the area of physics, is a lot less sure of the total objectivity of the scientific approach. What we are finding is that reality is a lot more strange than we had thought or imagined.

One area where the hard, mechanistic view of creation is held is in the biological sciences. This is unfortunate because the study of man falls under biology and what we see is a picture of man as a mere machine governed by processes that occur at the molecular level. This is a very important point because how we see ourselves, colors how we see the rest of the world and the universe as a whole.

Science has a very limited agenda as to the topics that may fall under its scrutiny. But, people being people, and scientists are no exception, the limits of science are sometimes stretched to include topics such as the value of human beings, creation, and other topics are sometimes pursued through science. This leads to outrageous statements being made about humans and human destiny, about religion and about the possibility of the existence of God.

You will sometimes read views of scientists who state, quite unequivocally, that humans are mere blips on the panorama of the history of the universe. We are a chance occurrence that will disappear and there is nothing more to this. What I want to point out to you, Theophilus, is that there is a glaring inconsistency in this position. If we are so unimportant, if we are so generated by chance, how is it that what we say, more specifically, what the scientists say, is exempted from this? If we are the sheer products of meaningless chance, then what we have to say cannot escape from this and it also has no meaning. You see where we end up if we are consistent - in a dead-end corner.

The arts escape from this conundrum because they deal with the important issues of truth and justice and love in a manner which is quite different from that of the sciences. The arts are every bit as real as the sciences and in fact, enable us to have insights into the aspects of reality which are hidden from the prying eye of mathematics.

There is another aspect of the arts which I must mention and that is the question of the imagination. Without imagination, much of our progress would halt because imagination is the key to innovation and discovery and plays a crucial role even in the sciences. It is through the arts that we are enabled and encouraged to develop our imagination and in this, the contribution of the arts is inestimable.

But what we have talked about is all based on very practical things. There is another aspect of the arts which makes them valuable for humanity, and that is the sheer enjoyment and pleasure derived from reading a book or listening to a piece of music or through other forms of the arts. It is not by bread alone that we live - our diet must be a lot more varied in order for us to live lives appropriate to being human. It is when our imagination gets stunted that boredom sets in, with all its misery which can lead to violence, despair and other malaises that plague humanity.

The arts, and religion, as well, are not about some subjective feelings but about the reality that is out there. There is a popular misconception, as I stated earlier, that the only objective connection with reality is possible through science. That is not the case. We need, I would say, at this point in history, we desperately need to balance our views. We are at the point of what I may call the abolition of man. Everything that makes a human being ma human being is being challenged and denied any validity. Popularized science is replete with statements which go along the lines: man is only.... Those who are familiar with science get overwhelmed with the authority of the person making the statement and accept, uncritically, the wild statements and claims made by those who should know better.

The arts are important in defining who we are and in describing the meaning hidden in our lives. We would be much impoverished if we were to neglect the arts, although it sometimes feels that science is eclipsing them.

With this, Theophilus, I end, and remain,

Yours truly,

Bar-Abbas

Return to Index