NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/sci/physics/19048

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-17 | 3.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!usc!rpi!newsserver.pixel.kodak.com!psinntp!psinntp!kepler1!andrew
From: [e-mail] (Andrew Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:28:48 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: na
Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp., Setauket, NY.
Lines: 61

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
> I assume that we're talking about
>some branch of Christianity.  Do they encourage you to question whether
>Jesus is the Lord?  How about asking if Jesus really rose from the dead,
>or said the things which he is quoted to have said in the Bible?

There is a spectrum of things that Christians are encouraged to believe in
regard to these things, although to fix ideas let's pick a fairly mainstream
attitude:

    1. Jesus is Lord.
    2. Jesus rose from the dead.
    3. Jesus may not have said the things in the Bible, but the things
       in the Bible contain the essential truth of Jesus' mission.

What the Christian _may_ be encouraged to question is what is the meaning
of these statments. In some sense, #1 hinges on the definition of the term
'Lord'. #2 may regarded as a wonderful mystery and #3 is almost certainly
not at odds with any respectable physicist's belief.

It is _not_ clear that `Jesus is Lord' involves any `laws of physics'. Note
that the idea that `Jesus rose from the dead' does not in and of itself
directly violate our scientific understanding. Even the most tendentious
atheist will admit that the Christian is not expected to confirm the
resurrection of Christ by independent repetition - in other words, the
resurrection is not admissible as scientific evidence. This is a property
in common with many other hypotheses - in particular any explanation for
the origin of the universe. It seems to be a personal belief that determines
our attitude toward these questions.

Let us be clear about this: There can be indirect evidence regarding these
hypotheses such as the cosmic background radiation, etc. However this only
serves to rule out some hypotheses which predict the contrary. As far as I
am aware there are no predictions made by the putative resurrection in and
of itself, it is according to various witnesses an _observation_ or _datum_,
not a theory. So it is not `testable' any more than any other singular
observation. It is thought by most Christians that there is no way to _prove_
or _disprove_ the resurrection, although there are many who believe that
the Crucifixion is a matter of historic fact.

Many of the early Christian teachers insisted that they might be mistaken
about some aspects of the faith, but generally not in anything central. I
take this to mean that the faith (belief) is _not_ put forward as an ancient
unified theory - but as a simple cluster of facts which you can believe or
not, and a _very_ small cluster it is. Christians have the example of Christ
himself who dared to put it in two lines - and in those two lines there was
no requirement to believe in his resurrection, etc.

Physics is not so different. No physicist can possibly insist that the
quantum theory _must_ be believed or else you are not a physicist. It is
the methodology which has as a matter of history lead to the quantum theory
_and might very well lead right away from it tomorrow_ which is required.

So conventional physicists will subscribe to quantum mechanics, etc. and
conventional Christians may indulge in various conventional expressions.
But true physics adheres to the process, not the present vocabulary, and
true Christianity has values which transcend the contemporary understanding
which changes with time.

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt