The Mind of God

Recently a book review by Dwight Gardner about Stephen Hawking's new book, "The Grand Design" ("Many Kinds of Universes, and None Require God", Dwight Gardner, Sept. 2010, www.nytimes.com) was published in the New York Times. I'm really not a book critic but I read the article out of interest for the subject matter of the book it reviewed. I, like many of you, had heard the news from God-fearing scientists that in Hawking's first book ("A Brief History of Time") he had proved that God exists. For years, without ever actually reading the book, I felt a fair bit of joy from this fact. Imagine my dismay when Bro. Hawking published again - this time dashing all the hopes of unity between science and God that his unsaid words had inspired. It turns out in the first book he had just thrown in a one liner somewhere that said something to the effect of: uncovering a unified theory of physics would allow us to "know the mind of God". Some people in their excitement upon hearing a physicist call a higher power by name had extrapolated his words. In his second and fairly recent top-seller he and some other fellow conjecture that there are many universes, all existing without the necessity of a God or creator. For them the laws of physics would suffice. It's becoming clear that master physicists can make master authors, well capable of playing on the worlds heart strings with their violin cases open on the floor. As far as Stephen Hawking and his books are concerned - I'm over him! He and I are through, however, his fancy flip-flopping really got me thinking.

My first year in college was quite interesting. Some of my friends who said they were going to go to Utah State with me decided to wait for college, and I moved to Logan where I knew a total of one person. Without too much of a social life and new to the world of libraries and professors and knowledge, I found quite a bit of joy and satisfaction in learning. My favorites were Chemistry and Biology and I'm pretty sure they still are. It came unexpected to me, that day in Biology class when Dr. Messina started talking about God and religion and science. He knew we were predominately Mormon and felt that he should preface our unit on evolution with a lecture designed to reconcile our differing views on some issues. After submitting a series of well established points along with the words of a few LDS leaders peppered in for effect, he concluded that to believe in God and religion was good, as long as we kept it separate from our understanding of natural phenomena. Perhaps Dr. Messina would be surprised to know that his introduction to evolution only served to embitter me and further entrench me in opposition to him. It appears that the sentiment expressed by my professor is actually quite common in the world, even making it's way into the review of Hawking's book. Quoting another modern writer the article states, "'Religious systems are inherently conservative, science inherently progressive,' Mr. Ferris wrote. Religion and science don’t have to be hostile to each other, but we can stop setting them up on blind dates. “This may be an instance,” Mr. Ferris added, “where good walls make good neighbors.'" And so it is, that the problem of the universe can magically disappear if we just divorce religion and science!

Any of the following words would adequately describe the proposed solution: equivocation, reneging, evasion, copping-out. It is my opinion that science and religion (in their true and pure forms) are more inseparable than they are irreconcilable. What is science? I find this definition from Random House to be quite consistent with my understanding: A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws. Knowledge, study, truth and laws. I think that's religion, better yet I think those all correlate strongly with the God we worship. This may be misinterpreted as a confession that science or knowledge is equal or superior to God, so let it be explicitly said that God is superior to all knowledge that man assumes himself to have obtained, and to any science that he might construct. The point is that what we call religion and what we call science are in my opinion the exact same thing, only one is lacking a few ennobling qualities. They are the same in method and purpose, or in other words, means and end; as well are they both absolutely successful when applied properly and completely. The conflict lies only in misinterpretation and misapplication.

The most important, and easily recognized similarity between science and religion is their unity of purpose. Both eyes (eyes because they are but an interface between man and reality, still requiring further processing) are focused on a single target, namely truth. Here, again it behooves us to define the terms used. Truth is that which is, which was, and which always will be; in other words truth is reality. The aforementioned definition of science makes clear that her object is to establish and construct facts and truths that show the operation of general, ever-applicable laws. Those who seriously practice any religion, or pursuit of God, must recognize that in so doing, they too are merely compiling and applying truths that show the operation of laws. One might well speculate that the two seek the answers to different questions. Indeed such an observation is true when the pursuits are viewed up close, stepping back, however, the overarching themes begin to take shape. The biologist and bishop alike inquire, Who is man and where did he come from? The physicist and father, both wonder what is the earth and the heavens? The sociologist as well as all of society ponder human relationships and the mechanism of thought and feeling. The verbage may differ and the ranks are often separated, but the quest is the same! Acceptance of this fact allows us to see one of those "ennobling qualities" lacking in the incomplete and unperfected practice of science today: failure to properly define the objective of their pursuit. The majority of Americans study science for about ten years, college-goers even more, yet how many even know or remember the purpose of their study? Even the rare scientist who is able to seperate his/her true goal of comprehension of truth from the results, grants, journals and data would most likely improperly restrict truth to the domain of human observation. Only the truly wise can see that truth most often escapes the grasp of man's perception and that which truly is, is hardly seen. Science in its true form would do well to fully understand that the end to all its means is an understanding of things as they truly were, are and will be, not merely as they are seen. Obviously, it cannot be expected that all scientists abandon their personal convictions, but believing scientists would benefit greatly by recognizing that God is truth, and ultimately all noble pursuits lead to Him.

Not only are religion and science equal in purpose, they are both based on the same systematic approach to realize that purpose. Whether you call it the scientific method or the pattern of revelation, it goes something like this: formulate a specific inquiry, take planned, calculated actions to elucidate a solution, draw conclusions based on the result and finally progressively repeat each of the steps. Just as truth is universal, so too is the path to obtain it. Clearly the type of question originally posed has great bearing on the methods used to obtain the answer. If the question is a quantitative one, then it merits quantitative analysis; if it is a question of human behavioral responses, then methods developed and prescribed for that type of analysis would be put forth and utilized; if the question regards a persons spirit, then personal spiritual means would be used. Here again science generally falls short in limiting the modes of perception allowed to lead to conclusions. As children we learn the five senses, and in most fields of study only those five are given credence. Ignorance robs many of the additional, and most powerful, sense given to man for his disposal in obtaining truth - even the spiritual sense. Just as we have eyes to see the light of day, our soul has eyes to see the light of Christ, as sure as we hear the roar of thunder, the spirit can hear the still, small voice. Our inability to quantify or isolate these supernal stimuli causes many to reject them, yet they remain as valid and viable as ever. It is important to note that the required condition of man walking by faith on earth, mandates that some forms of evidence will remain fleeting and qualitative in mortality. Religion too, as it is often practiced, also lacks in important areas and now it becomes science's turn to teach the man of God. Will we continue to have truth before us and fail to inquire, act and learn? Will we obtain results and refuse to record it and draw the proper conclusions?

The final unifying principle of both pursuits of truth is the fact that they are both met with success. Indeed the amount of success may vary depending on the skill of the participant, but proper practice will yield proper results. Why then would there ever be conflict between the two? The answers are many, always returning to the fact that conflict arises only in the poor practice of one or the other. It could be the scientist's misinterpretation of data, or the religionist's giving heed to the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. Often times in the so-called hard sciences we must first define the domain of the problem we intend to solve by putting forth assumptions. The solutions to many mathematical functions hinge on the requirement that the domain be limited to real numbers, most of classical physics is based on the assumption that the subjects remain in an inertial reference frame, etc. Many scientific conclusions are drawn without a full realization of the assumptions taken to draw that conclusion, herein lies one of the sources of conflict. Some incomplete conclusions may be drawn and accepted as absolute and completely generalized, when there are still underlying assumtions in play. As a sort of case study: evolution (the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations) is an easily observed phenomenon, as is progressive genetic commonality down the phylogenetic tree, yet the theory of one common ancestral species is based on the assumption, among others, that there was no creative force capable of manipulating genetic material outside of statistical variation and natural selection. One who has sincerely inquired, searched and gained a knowledge of God through various methods, knows that He does exist and is master of the elements, father to the souls of man, and creator of the earth and heavens. Some possessors of such knowledge, not fully comprehending the underlying assumptions of speciation and a common ancestral species then dismiss the mass of scientific observation and discredit the achievements of science, putting spark to the powder keg of misunderstanding. The scientists who definitely saw the results that led to the rejected conclusion are then left to assume that the follower of religion is either a bigot or an ignoramus, or at least misguided on this issue by some kind of power that is not within the confines of physical reality. It seems to me that the proper approach in this situation, as well as any other, would be to learn all that one could, "out of the best books", until he/she understands the source of the conflict. If that person desires, it may even be in order to attempt to advance the field of science that stands in conflict with the truth recieved until it is in order with reality. Throughout this process of inquiry and investigation, it must never be forgotten, questioned or doubted those results previously observed spiritually and recorded, despite the fact that they may never be quantified or reproduced. Furthermore the believing scientist must understand that earthly observation may never fully align with truth. This is no reason to abandon one or the other.

It may be worth considering that science and religion cannot, and should not ever be divorced, but rather perfected and refined until they both lead to that glorious end of comprehending truth. If something I wrote here is not true or complete, I would not be surprised in the least. Of only one thing am I adament: I am one of those who has recieved through spiritual channels of observation a knowledge of God. It's my hope that science could be used to support that claim. To any who actually read that whole thing I apologize, it was not supposed to be that long.