Dear Theophilus, 

The question of the influence of science has become very important for those living in our society. You, yourself have come to this question again and again and I am sure that I will not be able to address all of your concerns. This is not my main goal, though. What I want to do is to inform you and to point out certain aspects of science that are rarely highlighted.

The popular view of science is of an enterprise that studies the world through interaction with the world in a controlled manner. We have observations and experimentation and from this, we generate generalized statements about the behavior of the world. These generalized statements are then called laws. It is important to point out that science is not totally and completely objective because it is fine to have observations but to draw conclusions from these observations, and to state something general, we have to apply some discretion and reasoning. To assist us in this matter we use what is called the inductive method. It is in fact this employment of a method, called induction, which differentiates science from other areas of knowledge such as religion.

But there are problems with the inductive method and maybe by looking a little bit more closely at what induction is, we may recognize these difficulties. Let us suppose that we are interested in the study of swans. After observing several hundred swans, we notice that they are all white. But we are more meticulous than that and before we make a general statement about the color of swans, we decide to observe another ten thousand swans. And sure enough, they are all white and now we are ready to make a statement that swans are white. But here is the weakness of what we have been doing - drawing a conclusion based on many observations which is the essence of induction. It is not a foolproof method for stating something because it may be that there are in fact black swans but we have simply not found them. Until we have investigated every single swan in existence, a truly daunting task, we cannot make a one hundred percent statement that all swans are white. Here, as an aside, is where we see the strength of some of the quackery that masquerades as learned opinion, by saying that they have proof of an example that disproves scientific statements. These claims are shown to be bogus but new ones arise in a tantalizing manner from cures for cancer to visitations by extraterrestrial beings and it goes on and on.

The weakness in the inductive method is not often consciously considered by scientists and the general public is not even aware of this. Some scientists have grappled with this question and what they have come forward with is to introduce the mathematical theory of probability. The more probable something is, the greater its scientific basis. However, this approach also leads into a dead end because statements which have a high probability of truth do not necessarily tell us very much. In fact, the statement which has one hundred percent probability of being true is called a tautology and does not tell us any information at all. Thus the slogan - survival of the fittest - does not tell us very much because it is a tautology. Who are the fittest? Those who survive. Who survive? Those who are fittest. You see, we do not have an independent definition of survival or fittest. The two terms are used to define each other and we end up in a circular form of logic which tells us nothing new.

There is something else here, as well. We have been given a certain picture of the scientific enterprise, but, as I have stated in some of my previous letters, this picture is quite wrong. We think of a scientist objectively gathering information and then processing this information to distil the theory and eventually, laws of science. This is usually not the case. Theories do not come from a study of observations; they come, like revelation, in a flash, as an intuition. Science, at its essential, is a series of informed guesses and then an attempt to verify these guesses through experimentation and observation. You see, observations on their own are meaningless and pointless unless you already have a framework within which you could work them in.

The other factor is the connection of science with that which preceded it. You may be surprised to hear that some important scientific contributions came on the heels of what we would now consider as unscientific. Thus, astrology with its belief in the influence of planets on events on earth, was the forerunner of Newton's theory of tides. Copernicus brought about a revolution by postulating that the center of our known solar system was not the earth but the sun. This was a restatement, in different words maybe, of the worship of the sun by the Egyptians as the central light. Even the theory of evolution has precedents in myths and poems of the past.

From this, I hope that you see that the basis for scientific knowledge isn't quite as unshakeable as you once perceived. One of the most attractive features of science, and what gives it such important influence, comes from its ability to predict and to give tangible results. We have seen tremendous strides made in medicine, in our knowledge of the universe, in the study of biological systems. To give a concrete example we can consider space travel. The study of mechanics and calculus, for example, enables us to send a man to the moon and bring him back. Isn't this tangible proof of the power of scientific knowledge? Doesn't this show that science is 'true'? Modern man sees these kinds of successes of science and is much impressed with them.

But it is here, in this example of sending a man to the moon that I want to point out an important distinction between what science says and what science does not say. There have been two giants in physics who have made historic contributions to the development of this area of science. These are Newton and Einstein. Both men have been very successful in their contributions but the theories proposed by both men cannot both be true. We know that Einstein's theories are more refined and better represent the state of affairs in our universe. And yet, Newton's theories are successful enough, that in using them only, we can send a man to the moon and get him back to earth: a smashing success but based on a theory that is flawed. What I am trying to say with this example is that success does not necessarily mean truth. All scientific laws and views are only steps towards the truth, but none are necessarily eternal or the final word about creation. We run into serious distortions when we assign more weight to science than it can really support.

In a sense, we who are living in this tail end of the twentieth century, are at a disadvantage. We have absorbed so much of the scientific approach to knowledge and truth, that we find it difficult to shake it off and to see things in any other way. Hard as it is for us to throw off the spirit of the age, we must try to do this, especially when it comes to matters of religion and faith. If we have only the scientific view of matters, as some scientists suggest, then we will have a flawed and incomplete picture of the universe and especially of man.

Don't misunderstand me, Theophilus. I am not saying that science is useless or totally harmful or that it should be dropped. Science has made an immense contribution to our understanding of creation but this understanding, in a sense, has been gained under somewhat artificial means. Experiments, after all, are very controlled and the conditions that we set up for experiments are limited so as to focus on the answer to the question we are posing. This is a very powerful method for studying things but it is also somewhat unreal. When scientists, in their zeal, and this is some of them, not all, start to make claims for science which are undeserved, then we must protest and point out the limitations of science. This is difficult to do because most of the population is fairly illiterate when it comes to matters of science and those who popularize science, very often are not critical but apologetic for science.

What we need, above all, is to have greater knowledge of science and of non-science areas such as the arts and religion. It is this kind of informed balance that will stand us in good stead and will enable us to have a truer picture of creation and ourselves. It is interesting how often people will have comments to make on religious matters and yet, when you probe a little deeper as to their knowledge, it becomes apparent they have a very limited knowledge. One of the reasons for this is that scientific knowledge is very specialized and therefore it is difficult for non-specialists to comment. On matters of religion, it is accepted that everyone is entitled to a point of view and as a result people make all kinds of claims. Did you notice what has just crept in? Science is based on facts, on hard knowledge. Religion is a matter of opinion and obviously, because of this anyone is just as justified in what he says as the next person. There is no objective against which our statements can be compared. Here, we run into an irony because as soon as an objective position is stipulated for measuring a statement or opinion, in other words doctrine or dogma, the charge is made that religion is inflexible. It seems you simply cannot win.

When it comes to Christianity, the crux of the matter is the person of Christ. Who is this person, and what is his significance lies at the heart of our faith and this is something that we will turn to in the next letter.

Sincerely,

Bar-Abbas