2000 David F. AustinIf you stay up late enough watching TV on weekends, and you've got cable, you can usually find one of those old, SciFi, B-movies from the 50's or 60's playing on some channel. They are a marvelous repository of stereotypes. Stereotypes are often caricatures, but some caricatures carry a bit of truth - or so some people think. Science and scientists are caricatured in those old movies, and we may be able to find something useful for our present task if we see what they have to say about science.
One of the stock characters is The Mad Scientist. A white, middle-aged, balding male whose costume is a long white lab coat, The Mad Scientist has no interest in the things that give us humanity, is indifferent to natural beauty and cares (if he's even capable of such emotion) only about the acquisition of knowledge for the sake of power. He is conducting a very dangerous experiment that threatens to End the World - and with it, his stereotypically beautiful, young female lab assistant (whose own lab coat is noticeably shorter than his). She tries to stop his nefarious schemes, and is rewarded for her efforts by being tied to a large piece of lab equipment by The Mad Scientist (his only sign of sexual interest in her). Not to worry, though. In comes the tall, dark, stereotypically handsome (and so square-jawed) young male reporter, sees to it that the The Mad Scientist is trapped by his own evil devices, and rescues the young female (damsel in distress) at the Last Possible Moment. (Who says no one writes fairy tales anymore?)
The image of the cold, calculating scientist is an influential and prevalent one. It is, of course, a gross distortion of reality. But it's often thought to contain a grain of truth. Science is interested in Nature, but its attitude towards Nature is a 'purely factual' one. In this sense, science is cold - indifferent to the values that color the world (or so many have said).
The picture we find in religion, stereotypical and actual, is quite different. The literature of religion is full of eloquent expressions of awe, wonder and appreciation of Nature, considered as a product of divine creation. A religious believer coldly indifferent to underlying harmony, beauty and order in Nature would be a very peculiar person, and we might well be skeptical about whether or not such a person was capable of truly religious sentiment.
"What a difference a difference in attitude makes." So let's try:
Religion does, but Science does not, express the awe-and-wonder attitude towards Nature.
According to this proposal, religion and science do not differ so much in their subject - in what they talk about - than in how they talk about a common subject, Nature. Before we see whether or not this proposal is true, we need to get clear on what it means. We need to find out which attitude is supposed to be distinctive of religion but missing from science. But even before we do that, we have to guard against a misunderstanding of Separation by Attitude.
To find out whether or not Separation by Attitude is true, we do need to look at what some scientists have said about their own attitudes towards Nature. But we have to be careful not to confuse their attitudes towards science with the attitudes, if any, expressed by science itself. Our question is not whether or not, as a matter of fact, individual scientists may differ in their attitudes from individual believers of one religion or another; clearly, they may differ. What we are concerned about is whether there are particular attitudes built into the very natures of religion or science, attitudes that are essential to what they are, and to how they differ. What individual scientists have to say gives us some evidence relevant to answering this question, but it is science and not them on which we have to remain focused.
Separation by Attitude is also meant to be indifferent to the reasons for which an attitude is held. The reasons may turn out to be important, but, for the sake of clarity, I am going to split our job into simpler parts. So, if there is a religious attitude naturally associated with the Argument from Design and purpose-directed explanation, we will, for now, pretty much ignore the argument and attend to the attitude.
So is the proposal true? One problem with it is that it is not clear that there is a single attitude, or kind of attitude, that is essential to all religions. Religious writers have been among the most eloquent and passionate in their expressions of admiration for what they take to be the creator(s)' handiwork, but given the enormous diversity of religions on Earth (I know, I promised not to harp on this, but it's important), there may be no one emotional thread running through them all. If some sort of admiration is what is essential, then there is a second problem with the proposed separation principle.
On the Importance of Beauty in Assessing Scientific Theories
It is clear from the writings of scientists that aesthetic virtues are very important in science in judging the relative merits of scientific theories. This often comes as a great surprise to non-scientists, but it is a fact nonetheless. Generally, the greater the scientist, the more highly developed her aesthetic sensibility. Often, when scientists write about preferring the simpler theory, about simplicity as a virtue of theories, what they have in mind may better be expressed by saying that the most beautiful (or, elegant) theory is preferable. It is not possible to give you a deep sense of these virtues -beauty, elegance, harmony, symmetry, etc. - and for their importance in doing science, without going through some scientific theories in much greater detail than I have space for. Usually, it takes a lot of advanced training in a branch of science before you're in a position even to recognize the relevant characteristics, and they're often expressed in complex mathematical forms. I wouldn't even try to accomplish all that here. So I will do what is second best, and quote from the writings of several great physicists.
Nature has a simplicity and therefore a great beauty.
Richard Feynman
All great scientists are inspired by the subtlety and beauty of the natural world that they are seeking to understand. Each new subatomic particle, every unexpected astronomical object, produces delight and wonderment. In constructing their theories, physicists are frequently guided by ... concepts of elegance in the belief that the universe is intrinsically beautiful. Time and again this artistic taste has proved to be a fruitful guiding principle and led directly to new discoveries, even when it at first sight appears to contradict the observational facts.
Paul Davies
It is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit experiment.
Paul Dirac
Physics is a form of insight and as such it's a form of art.
David Bohm
All of these endeavours are based on the belief that existence should have a completely harmonious structure. Today we have less ground than ever before for allowing ourselves to be forced away from this wonderful belief. Equations of such complexity as are the equations of the gravitational field can be found only through the discovery of a logically simple mathematical condition.
Albert Einstein (who speaks with some authority since he discovered those equations)
The beauty in the laws of physics is the fantastic simplicity that they have ... What is the ultimate mathematical machinery behind it all? That's surely the most beautiful of all.
John Wheeler (Feynman's dissertation director)
My work has always tried to unite the true with the beautiful and when I had to choose one or the other I usually chose the beautiful.
Hermann Weyl
Weyl did not intend to be taken literally, but he did mean to emphasize the importance of beauty in science. He expressed a view common among scientists: that beauty may help guide theory choice because Nature is profoundly beautiful, and a theory that matches Nature in this way is better than a mismatch. We could find many more such remarks by scientists in every branch of science. There is no reason to doubt either the sincerity or the accuracy of their statements. Although one could write a long book on the 'equation' of beauty and simplicity, it is, I think, clear enough that awe and wonder may be as much a part of science as they are of religion. Certainly, religion has no corner on that market, just as science has no corner on the market of cognitive standards.
Now that we know that religion isn't cognitively empty, that deities are not necessarily off-limits in science, and that science isn't blind to beauty, we can turn to more plausible separation principles.
2000 David F. AustinGo to next section Separation by Personal Improvement
