The Ends of Science

In the November, 2006, issue of First Things, Eric Cohen's article The Ends of Science discusses the optimism and discontent of scientists. Cohen argues that modern science has always had both a "democratic pity" that promised to help cure disease and reduce discomfort and an "aristocratic guile" in which scientists sought "to be free from the constraints of the common man."
(To me that sounds like Uncle Andrew in C.S. Lewis' The Magician's Nephew.)

Moreover, Cohen argues, scientists are not well-prepared to determine whether the science they do is justifiable, though they try mightily to argue that progress is good and thus the potential for scientific advance is sufficient reason for any procedure or experiment, no matter how morally deficient it may be.

Finally, in its pursuit of the truth, science can be noble and dignified. But despite scientists' amazing achievements, modern science is inherently limited, for "its powers do not satisfy our deepest longings; its victories are always temporary and its losses always final." We are born with a desire to know our Creator; only He (and not science) can defeat death.

Random Acts of Design

The October, 2006, issue of Touchstone has a review by Jonathan Witt of a new book by Francis Collins. In The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins argues that Christianity and evolution are not incompatible.
Overall, it seems that book takes some positions similar to Stephen Barr his book Modern Physics and Ancient Faith.

Witt, in his review, claims that Collins "makes a scientific case for intelligent design."
It seems that this claim depends upon the definition of intelligent design.
It can be taken broadly, as in "an intelligent cause is the best explanation for certain features of the natural world."
A more limited definition focuses on how evolution cannot produce irreducibly complex machines; God must have designed them.

Witt's review discusses the "backward wiring" of the vertebrate eye.
Witt quotes Collins as saying that this structure seems "to many anatomists to defy the existence of truly intelligent planning of the human form."
Witt then states that others have demonstrated that this structure has some advantages.

I find this type of argument irrelevant. The "excellence" or "perfection" of some aspect of our body's design (or the entire thing) is an subjective judgement.
To rely upon such judgements to argue for or against a theory of evolution or intelligent design is a very weak position.

Later, the review uses the word "specified" in a confusing way.
Witt quotes Collins as saying that "from God's perspective the outcome [of random evolution] would be entirely specified."
Witt then claims that "If God merely knew about future events ... then God would not have specified the various outcomes as Collins suggests."
However, to me, Witt is confusing two different aspects of this word and thus misunderstanding Collins' argument.
Collins is using the word as "known" or "stated" (a more passive sense) while Witt seems to think that it must mean "determined" or "decided" (a more active sense).
Cannot God create a random process and know its outcome?

Finally, does the design of our bodies really matter to God?
Is there something about "backward wiring" that is necessary to God's plan?
Certainly we need ways to communicate and to think but does it matter what they are or how they work?
Our resurrected bodies will take a form that we cannot imagine - only then will they be perfect.

Faith and Reason

Pope Benedict's now controversial lecture at Regensburg was entitled “Faith, Reason and the University: Memories and Reflections.” It is worth reading the entire lecture (not just the quote to which many have objected).

The timing of his lecture was especially fortunate for me because he was discussing a topic that is the central theme of an encyclical by Pope John Paul II entitled Fides et Ratio, and I have been (haphazardly) working my way throught that document, which provides a good introduction to many interesting philosophical ideas that are relevant to the theme of this blog.

The First Things website at www.firstthings.com has had numerous posts about Pope Benedict's lecture and the reaction to it.
I found the September 20, 2006, post by Ryan T. Anderson especially useful for understanding the lecture and its philosophical implications.
Anderson's summary of the lecture: "Human reason can apprehend the truth—though not the entire truth—of God and man. Reason isn’t at odds with faith. And the modern university performs a great disservice to the well-being of all mankind in relegating the truths of religion to personal preferences and radically subjective, private beliefs. The resulting impoverished Christianity and shriveled secular reason are unable to sustain a culture or respond to challenges."

Relativism

Mark Linville's article in the September 2006 issue of Touchstone argues that relativism
means believing that "all truth claims are relative to the perspective from which they are made."
Therefore, a fact is true only for those who believe it.
Linville shows that, because a relativist must accept this view as true for everyone, he is not relativist.
Therefore, relativism is impossible.

Now, however, consider a much more limited relativism relevant to systems research.
As we try to understand the truth, especially about a complex system like an organization, each individual has their own perspective on the system.
They have their own, limited, understanding of the system.
No one person can have a complete understanding of the true system.
Note that this applies to researchers who try to study the system as well.

It is not my intent to deny that the system exists and certain things about it are true (while others are false).
But we have a multitude of incomplete perspectives that I call approximations.
The challenge, when studying a system, is to synthesize these approximations into a coherent picture of the system.
Meredith's article in Operations Research describes a research approach that takes these approximations into account.
This article uses the term "relativism" to describe this approach.

Unfortunately, it might be possible to confuse this research approach with the more general philosophy of relativism and, moreover, use the merits of this research approach to defend relativism.

For me, the use of different perspectives is a reasonable way to understand a complex system, but there remains only one reality.

Stoicism

As an example of a philosophy, consider Stoicism, a Greek school from the second century B.C. (The following description is based on an article by James E. Person, Jr., in the June 2003 issue of Touchstone.) Stoics hate passion because they believe that humans can use reason to know the divine reason that pervades the universe.
Once they know that reason, they can conform their lives to the divine reason.
Passion can interfere with reason and is ultimately pointless, since everything happens according to the divine plan.

Stoics accept all things as divine handiwork and achieve a type of detachment from our world. A human's likes and dislikes and successes and failures don't mean anything.
Marcus Aurelius, the last great Stoic, concluded that, with time, one's life will be forgotten.