Reconciling Faith and Science: Quantum Physics

One of the most interesting topics about faith and science to date is quantum physics. First, some background. For the majority of the history of modern science, scientists operated on something called Newtonian physics – based on the work of Isaac Newton.  For centuries, physics was understood in broad sweeping terms – big, simple, measurable, systematic, mechanistic, etc. According to Newton’s world, the universe could be measured in large scale equations. And rightfully so. Everything seen with the naked eye looked big and vast, so the physical properties underneath were assumed to be big and simplistic as well.  And anything that was worth investigating could be measured using classical methods of science. This is part of the reason that those who embraced the view that science and religion were not compatible had no qualms about dismissing God. He did not easily fit into the classical physics mold.

But then quantum physics was born through the work of Max Planck and Werner Heisenberg. Quantum mechanics describes physical things at an atomic and subatomic level. For example, a quantum is the name for the smallest unit of energy – and it’s tiny. Add to that more particles like quarks, gluons, and hadrons and things change drastically. Rather than try to measure things as we have in the past, Planck came up with a constant that made measuring anything very, very small. Planck’s constant looks like this: 6.626176 x 10^-34. The number I want you to notice is the 10^-34. That’s an infinitesimal number. To measure our world, we had to stop using kilometers – now we use nanometers. Heisenberg added to this confusion (or revelation) by introducing the uncertainty principle. He said that when you are measuring two physical properties against each other, the accuracy of one eventually restricts the accuracy of another. In other words, the more you can measure one thing at the quantum level and use it as a reference point for another, the more the second object becomes immeasurable. And scientists have also discovered something called superposition – that these particles can jump from place to place – sometimes existing simultaneously in two different places.

So, what does this stuff mean for people attempting to integrate faith and science? It changes everything, actually. Science in continuing to discover more about our world also exploded our previous understanding of how the world works. The stable uniform world we thought we knew for the past several centuries is now a whirling mass of infinitesimal particles that won’t stay still long enough for us to learn anything about them. Furthermore, general relativity and quantum physics are basically incompatible. So, not only do we have a new way of seeing the world, we can’t even reconcile it with previous models that we know also have supporting data. Scientists are presently attempting to reconcile general relativity and quantum physics with something called string theory (which states the world is made of ridiculously small strings that operate not in three or four dimensions, but in nine or ten). But string theory operates on a scale 16 orders of magnitude smaller than anything we can currently measure.  As with other areas of science, the more we delve into the complexities of the life, from the universe to the structure of a cell, the more issues are raised for which we have no answer. But I want to point something out to you: string theory is considered a rational scientific field of study. Yet, there’s no empirical evidence for its existence other than a hunch or two derived from our inability to perfect quantum mechanics. So what guides the day to day experiments of physicists working in that area? Faith. Faith in the idea that string theory will be able to reconcile all other physical disciplines.

Here’s something else to notice in all of this. In the area of quantum physics, the unknown or “gray” areas of conceptual thought are considered not only appropriate, but are expected. Yet, when theology is experiencing a “gray” area, it is often dismissed as unscientific. In fact, theology is held to a stricter standard of proof than those investigating string theory or chaos theory, much less some grand unified theory. For science, the unknown gray areas somehow represent progress or hope while for religion, they are conceived as doubt. But they both represent the humanness of our endeavors and should be treated with the same level of respect and care. There’s a great verse that Jesus spoke about removing the beam from your own eye before mentioning the speck in another’s. We don’t do that with science and religion – instead, we parade our experts across the stage to discredit the other. We fire shots across the bow or each other’s ship. But both ships are floating on a sea of philosophical beliefs, assumptions, worldviews, and…well…faith. Faith sends one person to church on Sunday while it sends another to the laboratory. And for many scientists who have accepted faith as part of being human, it sends them to both places in the same week.

Reconciling Faith and Science: Cosmology and the Origins of Life, Part 2

Along with the Big Bang I described in my previous post, another scientific method is gaining ground to help us understand the universe: the anthropic principle. It counters a widely held belief called the Copernican principle: the idea that the earth is nothing special in the larger scope of the universe. The implication is that if the earth is nothing unusual compared to everything else, then we are the product of a similar purposeless set of events that resulted in our eventual existence. The anthropic method has raised some serious doubts to this idea simply because of the number of constants required for our existence. The “weak” anthropic principle states that we should be able to observe conditions (expected and unusual) that are necessary for our existence. A few examples of these “fine-tuned” conditions are listed below:

1. If the initial explosion of the Big Bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 10⁶⁰, the universe would have never expanded and collapsed upon itself, or expanded too rapidly for chemical processes to create our present universe. Life would have never begun.

2. Calculations indicate that if the strong nuclear force that holds an atom together had been stronger or weaker by as little as 5%, life would be not exist.

3 If gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10⁴⁰, stars would not have formed. Coupled with the understanding that life requires favorable conditions created by the Sun, life may not have formed.

There are several others like these - I think about twenty in all. These conditions in and of themselves are significant barriers, However, if we calculate the likelihood of these constants all coming to rest in a state of equilibrium in our universe, the statistical probability becomes ridiculously staggering. Once again, science while answering some questions about life, is perfectly capable of opening a can of worms in the process as well.

Other options exist for the origin of the universe other than a single point of origin:

Multiverse – This theory explains our existence by expanding the number of possible universes that exist in order for life to occur without causative agency. Rather than account for the statistical possibilities within one universe, this theory states that there are an infinite number of universes in which abiogenesis could occur. We live in the universe where it did. Therefore, we are able to see the conditions for our arrival. In other words, rather than having a billion trillion acts on one stage, multiverse entertains the idea of having just a few acts occurring on a trillion stages. The stage/universe upon which we exist obtained the statistical probability necessary for our existence.

Panspermia – Panspermia is the belief that life in the universe exists before us and presently. Somehow, transference of life occurred in our universe either through the collision of non-living matter carrying life (asteroids for example) or direct intervention by extra-terrestrial life. In other words, our planet was “seeded” some other type of life organism, simple or complex. Obviously a couple of problems with this scenario come to mind. First, seeding by complex life would still require intentional causative agency and, secondly, simple life organisms have always existed. Panspermia does not explain where those life forms derived.

So which of these are easier to believe? Causative agency, an infinite number of dimensions, or extra-terrestrial seeding of our planet? There all about the same, actually. They are all beyond empirical verification. In other words, the jury is still out…and looks to be for a long time. Yet, that doesn’t stop anyone from choosing a multiverse explanation over a metaphysical being. That’s because we’ve been conditioned to believe we must make a choice between science and religion. Why? It makes us antsy to not have all the answers. That has nothing to do with science or religion. That has more to do with being human.

Reconciling Faith and Science: Cosmology and the Origins of Life, Part 1

This post and the next, I want to talk to you about the recent developments in our understanding of the origins of life. A lot has happened in this area over the past several decades and scientists are still hashing out the details, just like in other disciplines. Similar to biochemistry, the discoveries of the last several decades have not closed the “gap” for science to explain away God or anything similar to that. The opposite is the case – more discovery has conveyed more complexity and intricacies that we would otherwise assume didn’t matter. It was “out of sight, out of mind.” Our discoveries, while increasing our knowledge, have also made it very clear just how little we truly understand about our universe and origins. As such, to draw inferences assuming that we do have everything figured out is certainly premature.

Let’s look at a couple of examples (this post and next) of how things have changed and what they mean for people of faith.

 The Big Bang:

The “Big Bang”  theory (originally a derogatory term) came about through the work of two scientists in the 1920s – Lemaitre and Friedmann. They took Einstein/Hubble’s data about the universe expanding and made an obvious conclusion: if the universe is expanding, at sometime in the past, the distance between all matter in the universe must have been zero. Though the model made sense, I posted about all the attempts to produce another theory that didn’t have a “starting point.” Why? Because up until the Big Bang theory, cosmologists uniformly believed that there was no beginning or end to the universe. And all research endeavors to that point had been undertaken with that assumption firmly in place, once again denoting the “humanness” of science.  But when a beginning point became a possibility, it became entirely feasible to ask what produced this beginning. In 1965, scientists found evidence of the big bang: residual radiation coming from all directions at equal length. Called cosmic microwave background radiation, their discovery silenced most critics of the Big Bang theory.

So, why is this a big deal? Well, it points to a beginning. And that makes it some of the best news science has ever produced for those looking for reconciling science and faith. For strict young earth creationists, the Big Bang is often seen as the enemy. But for all other models (various forms of intelligent design or theistic evolution, for example), this is an example of the reaffirming/collaborative effort faith and science can bring to each other. Science is still dealing with understanding this. For example, in attempting to reconstruct the precise point of the universe’s inception, astrophysicists have been able to calculate backwards to a point about 10^-43 second from the zero point. At that point, their physics breaks down due to quantum’s uncertainly principle. Does this “prove” God exists. No…the only thing it “proves” is that we don’t know what happened beyond 10^-43 second. All inferences at this point become philosophical/religious.

Seeing Ministry Through a Child’s Eyes

About five years ago, I got a call from a mother who was in the throes of a battle with her seven year old. The problem? Her son wanted a pair of green and orange shoes for the new school year. Mom was much more interested in buying some respectable (and cheaper) white and navy sneakers – the kind you’d expect to be mother “approved.” So, she called me asking me what I thought she should do. I asked some leading questions: do they provide support for his feet? Are they structurally inferior? They were only ten dollars more expensive (and within budget). Then, I asked her the question that really mattered: why didn’t she like the green and orange shoes?

“Because they are ugly and embarrassing.”

“Ugly and embarrassing for whom?” I asked.

And that’s when the conversation went in another direction. Eventually, this concerned mother saw that her shoe preference had little to do with the happiness or protection of her seven year old son. It had to do with her.

Of course, I thought about the larger context of this conversation in regards to children’s ministry. I wear several hats at my job. One is the minister to families. That includes creating a healthy environment for everyone - from marriage enrichment to casting a vision for children’s ministry. Most often ministers, when making renovations to children’s ministry areas, look at the responses of the adults and volunteers when pitching ideas. In fact, as we were planning for our own recently completely renovations, we visited different churches. And sure enough, we focused on the comments and concerns of the adults. But about halfway through the field trips, I began to completely ignore the parents and staff members. I began to look at the children’s faces – their responses, smiles, singing, and dancing. I also paid attention to their looks of boredom and (for some) downright torture. And those images became my ministry goal for our church renovations.

Months later, as we unveiled our new ministry areas, I stood back and watched the children’s faces as they walked in for the first time. Many smiled. Others were not impressed. So, we added more. More smiles. And after a few more over-the-top items, every child began smiling. That’s when I knew we were heading in the right direction. Do I like everything about the design and curriculum choices? No. They are much more “green and orange” than “white and navy.”  But I’m not the focus. The children are. And they think it’s great. Adults forget this. I see volunteers and staff beam with pride after a children’s production while the younger participants behind them would rather stick a fork in their eye than be there. They are telling us something…but we’re not listening.

Children’s ministry is very important in church life. Happily involved children bring their happily involved parents. But sometimes, ministers forget the most important aspect of children’s ministry: follow the children’s lead. If we are looking and listening, they rarely lead us astray in meeting their spiritual needs.

Aggressively Pursuing a Life of Peace

We have some life mottos around our house that guide our life decisions. Often times, these mottos aren’t always obvious to everyone. They hold a higher value on spiritual things than material things. They place more importance on relational harmony than personal gain. It also keeps us from bowing to the peer pressure that young couples face, like trying to “keep up with the Joneses.”

The first and probably most important motto comes from the verse “Seek peace and pursue it” (Psalm 34:14, 1 Peter 3:11). Romans 12:18 relays a similar idea: “Do all that you can to live at peace with all men.” We call it aggressive peace. Beth and I make decisions around the idea that in every situation, there is a peaceful and overall beneficial decision that keeps balance among our family members. If at all possible, we choose that “peaceful” solution. That’s how we make vacation plans, buy new appliances, choose schools, choose television shows or movies, etc. You get the idea. If there is a choice that leads to unrest, strife, anger, impatience, and irritation, we usually opt for something else.

Now that may sound obvious to you. But there’s a subtle difference. We don’t wait for peaceful decisions to come to us. We make peace happen for our children and for each other. We’re aggressive about pursuing peace. We fight for it. We plan for it. We do whatever it takes to maintain it. A lot of people have financial goals or material goals – and we do as well. But all of that comes from our overall peace goal. What lies behind “peace” for us? Questions like, “Which choice promotes the most security for our children?” “Which choice creates ease of life and rest for our retirement?” “How can we peacefully discipline our children?” And most importantly, “Which choice honors God and draws us to him, not away from him?”

But not only do we not wait for these options for peace to come our way. We take it a step further: we “agressively pursue” them. Beth and I discuss questions like, “What makes for a peaceful marriage?” or “What brings peace to our children?” or “What does financial peace look like?” Then we take agressive measures to implement those details into our lives. For example, with finances, we list a second round of details. Financial peace means ultimately means no financial stress: little debt, no collections calls, solid retirement plans, college saving for children now rather than later, choosing economical and sensible cars and houses, and not living paycheck to paycheck if possible. Then we aggressively make those our goals.

I guess pursuing peace as a lifestyle can only be done by someone who believes they have the ability to make their life what they want. I believe all of us can do that. But it takes a lot of thought and premeditation. And often times our decisions are not the most conventional choice. We’re not experts at this and sometimes lose our focus. And plans can certainly change. But the key is to at least have some plan in place and be willing to adjust it accordingly when life throws a curve ball. Personally, living a life of peace is a way to honor God with what he’s given us – a way to proactively reflect his image in us. Taking the initiative to make life good is not anti-Christian at all. It actually reflects the productive nature of God and his willingness to be involved in every aspect of our life. In the end, life truly is what you make of it. Our goal is to make a life of peace for each other and for our children.

Reconciling Faith and Science: Biochemistry

As we get into specific disciplines, I hope you’ll notice is just how much in science is still “open” and available for various interpretations. Many of those who embrace scientific naturalism assume the God must be jettisoned from the picture based on recent developments in science. But actually what we’ll see is that no scientific discipline has conclusive answers concerning the origins and design of anything as of right now. It’s these undetermined variables that should keep anyone from making religion and science exclusive of each other (as if they are mutually exclusive to begin with).

Biochemisty is the study of chemical processes in living things. It includes cells, proteins, enzymes, polymers, lipids, as well as genetics: DNA, RNA, and cellular membrane transport. We’re talking about the parts of life that are very small and very complex. For example, the simplest microbial life forms on earth require somewhere between 1,300 and 2,300 gene products in order to function. Now, be forwarned: the term “God in the gaps” is not the best choice – people have used this idea for centuries and once science discovers a natural cause for a “supernatural” event, people’s faith is shattered. For decades, the “gaps” were shrinking. But with the biochemical renaissance we’ve been in, the “gaps” have become huge. Science no longer simplifies the world – its discoveries are making the world more complex and less reducible to broad uniform theories. We’re no longer explaining the differences in lengths of finch beaks. Scientists are now dealing with the genetic transference in finches and its impact on the molecular composition of bird beaks – things beyond ordinary observation with the naked eye. So, classic Naturalism and religion have both painted with brush strokes that were too large for our present state of discovery.

Let me give you a couple of easy examples of life at a cellular level that make the point. Let’s start with E. coli:

E. coli is a normal inhabitant of our intestinal tract. It has been a favorite to study in science lab for over a century. In the past decade, scientists have particularly been interested in the evolutionary process of E. coli. It duplicates itself about seven times a day and has been grown continuously to thirty thousand generations (the equivalent of about one million human years). But E.coli has not consistently improved itself biologically, nor has it genetically enhanced its makeup. Left to its own devices, E. coli consistently throws away part of its foundational genetic code, specifically the part that makes RNA. Why it does this is what so interesting. The more sophisticated parts of the bacterium’s makeup are also the parts that consume the most energy. So, in an attempt to make itself more efficient, E. coli actually cripples its own ability to replicate. The behavior that random mutation produces in E. coli is positive – but it doesn’t evolve in the way we think it should. Actually, random mutation left to itself actually de-evolves the bacterium.

Next example - the HIV virus:

 Unlike E. coli, the HIV virus is much smaller and has a much greater mutation rate – so much so, that on average, each virus contains one mutation from its parent. So, every one is different. With its rapid mutation rate, every single-point mutation of the virus occurs in an infected individual up to 10⁵ times each day. Double-point mutations (where two amino acids have changed) occur in every AIDS patient at least once a day. In other words, every mutation the virus has ever wrought has occurred over and over for scientists to observe. Left to itself, the HIV virus should be an evolutionary juggernaut, but the opposite is actually the case. Though HIV develops immunity to various drugs (in an unsophisticated way similar to malaria), at the biochemical level, it has done very little. In fact there have been no significant biochemical changes in the virus at all. A hundred billion billion viruses later, biochemists state that the HIV virus binds to its host in the exact same way. Though biochemists have been able to identify better ways for the virus could bind to its host, HIV (left to its own devices under the auspices of random mutation) has not. Neither has it improved itself at a molecular level. No new structural changes or improvements. No gene duplication leading to new functions.

In both of these examples, we have millions of generations and trillions of organisms with little biochemical significance to show for it. So, the belief that an organism can improve its existence through random mutations at a cellular level is inconclusive. Does that prove the existence of an Intelligent Designer? No. That’s a philosophy question, not a science one. On the other hand, can a uniform theory of random mutation explain all improvements at a cellular level? No, particularly since examples like the two above show mutations maintaining the status quo of deteriorating the overall condition of an organism. To draw unquestioned assumption that random mutation always improves upon its predecessor is philosophy as well.

Things to hate…

Happy Labor Day to all!

A follow up to this post:

1) Slamming cabinets and doors. I am amazed at people’s  propensity to slam cabinets and doors. What’s the point? Is the door or cabinet more closed when it slams? I guess we’ve gotten used to closing doors and cabinets quietly with sleeping/napping children around. I usually notice it most around single adults or older adults who haven’t had children in the house for a long time who are particularly unaware of the noise a slamming kitchen cabinet makes. But, holy cow, it’s loud…

2) Quoting Dostoevsky’s Brothers Karamazov. I’ve seen this book quoted over and over recently in theology books – you know the passages about the character of God and theodicy. I agree with quotes completely. But man, I’m tired of reading them. Stop it. Just stop it already!!

3) The phrase: “With all due respect…” Americans love this phrase. Originally intended to show respect for superiors or soften a point of disagreement, this phrase has become a free pass to verbally slam anyone about anything. People use it like a magic formula to pardon bad behavior or overly-critical remarks. It’s now akin to “Excuse my French…” Tasteless, insurgent, over-bloated, opinionated rhetoric is not tamed with this phrase. The phrase itself is fine.  But the reason for which it is sloppily highjacked – to say something you might not otherwise get away with – makes people look like scholars of their own opinion.

4) Overly expensive books. Why are academic/theology books so expensive? Let me clue you in: I refuse to buy them. A used copy will surface eventually. Or better yet, use the library. Of course, the drawback to waiting is that you’ll feel less informed than the next guy.  I’ve been dying to read Schleiermacher and Whitehead: Open Systems in Dialogue since it came out. It’s something I’m incredibly interested in. Do I plan to buy that book anytime soon? Heck, no. Sometimes it’s cheaper to be a part if the illiterati.

 5) Tinted car windows. In the South, everybody likes to stop and let others into traffic. It’s a Southern thing. The problem is, with tinted windows, you can’t see someone waving you into their lane. If I can’t see you, I’m not budging.

Reconciling Faith and Science: A History Lesson, Part 2

Drawing from the foundations of Enlightenment philosophy and popular forms of Positivism, modern “Naturalism” consists of two underlying precepts: 1) nature is science’s domain and 2) nothing “exists” until it can be be proven by verifiable natural causes and events. And it’s that second part that gets us in trouble.  Naturalism hinges upon the assumption that everything worth proving can only be proven through naturalistic phenomena. Supernaturalism has no value in this worldview. Once again, it’s an “either/or” approach to life where only one explanation is possible. Belief, religion, perspective, and feeling have no place in naturalism, hence all the “prove to me that God exists and I’ll believe” pundits out there. Similarly, many feel that to choose religious meaning makes someone “unscientific” (which is why some reacted strongly to the “humanness” of science posts that start here). Unfortunately, most modern scientific disciplines were drastically affected by post-Enlightenment naturalism at the turn of the twentieth century. For many, evolutionary theory, chemistry, biology, psychology, social sciences, and physics all start with Naturalism.

A dark period in theology followed as theologians and philosophers attempted to remove the “supernatural” elements from the Bible to make it more palatable to the Positivistic age. For example, Thomas Jefferson, believing he was doing Christianity a favor, edited and released a new Bible for the modern thinker. What did Jefferson edit out? All the “supernatural” events in the Gospels. My favorite book title from this period is John Toland’s Christianity Not Mysterious. Toland’s point was that Christianity was a “reasonable” and rational moral choice when released from the shackles of religious superstition. For you history buffs out there, this all coincided with the rise of Scottish Common Sense philosophy, Moral philsophy, and the rise of the academic freedom movement in higher education.

Though progress seemed to be supporting the advances of science, something in the 1940s changed all of that: World War II. People began to realize that no matter what technological advances were made, they could not free the world from evil. Popular forms of positivism crashed and burned as we entered the Postmodern phase of history. However, “fundamentalists” in the area of science still assert that there is no other option for understanding our world other than Naturalism. The most recent form of Naturalism is particularly nasty and many atheists find themselves in this category. Here are some quotes:

Richard Dawkins (Oxford biologist) (The God Delusion) wrote this: “It may be that humanity will never reach the quietus of complete understanding if we do, I venture the confident prediction that it will be science, not religion, that brings us there.” See, for Dawkins, it’s “either/or.”

Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great) states: “Religion has run out of justifications. Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers an explanation for anything important.” Let me point out that Hitchens, a journalist, is thanking inanimate objects here…

 These guys, though highly trained and quite knowledgeable, suffer from something called “explanatory monism.”  Explanatory monism assumes (believes) that there is only one explanation available for anything. The same “either/or” scenario in Rene Descartes’ view of the world. They choose naturalism and therefore feel they must reject supernaturalism of any sort. So, they overreach for natural explanations to religious issues or merely dismiss religion altogether. What’s so sad about this (other than the fact that their mothers should’ve taught them not to be so intolerant of opinions outside their own) is that this singleness of assumption is not necessary for pure scientific inquiry. Yet, it plagues our view of popular science today…and it’s the sole reason that many people believe that science and faith are incompatible. So, we’re not really talking about faith vs. science, are we? We’re actually talking about the technical discipline of science vs. the philosophical system of “scientific naturalism.” Science vs. Scientism.

Here’s that G.I. Joe quote again: “Emotions are not based in science, and if you can’t quantify or prove something exists…well, in my mind it doesn’t.” Anyone can choose to believe this way…so far as they recognize that it’s truly a belief system crafted from of our Western post-Enlightenment milieu. And those who do will never be able to reconcile faith and science. Scientific naturalism keeps them from doing so.

Reconciling Faith and Science: A History Lesson, Part 1

I went to see G.I. Joe two weeks ago. It was absolutely horrible. But one quote in the movie piqued my interest.  A supposedly really smart and highly educated soldier (played by Sienna Miller) said to another soldier “Emotions are not based in science, and if you can’t quantify or prove something exists…well, in my mind it doesn’t.” That quote is a great example of the popular understanding of why faith and science are incompatible to many people. I started this series of posts talking about the “humanness” of science. For some readers, that may have made you uncomfortable. Science should be as absolute as it was for the soldier in that movie. The reason we have this idea is from the historical event called the Enlightenment, a cultural paradigm called Positivism and their modern love child: something called naturalism.

Listen to a quote from Jim Collins’ book Good to Great. Collins describes the Enlightenment in one paragraph: “…the ‘God is the answer to everything’ perspective…held back our scientific understanding of the physical world in the Dark Ages…But with the Enlightenment, we began to search for a more scientific understanding – physics, chemistry, biology, and so forth. Not that we became atheists, but we gained a deeper understanding about how the universe works.”  Everything is so simple and neat isn’t it?  We’re not talking about a science book – it’s a business/management book for crying out loud!  But it’s not at all. What Collins gives us is actually naturalism’s triumphal take on the Enlightenment. God took a backseat once science explained things. Unfortunately, this ”Cliff’s Notes” view of history is the norm for many folks. So, let me unpack this idea for you so you won’t be enslaved by it.

So, how did the Enlightenment happen? Well, it wasn’t an overnight change like it’s often presented. The Enlightenment spans from the 1600s all the way into the 1800s. It was a slow gradual shift in perspective.  For me, the beginning of Enlightment thought started with Rene Descartes. He was a philosopher in the 1600s who came up with a unique way to view the world. Assimilating the discoveries of the Scientific Revolution (Copernicus, Kepler, etc.), he described a perspective in a way that would permeate science, religion, philosophy and politics to this day. The name is Cartesian Dualism: it’s the belief that the world can be artificially divided into two parts – the natural and those things above nature. The physical and the metaphysical. The term “supernatural” didn’t exist until the Enlightenment. Up until then, spiritual answers were acceptable to explain natural phenomena on earth. But Descartes came from the opposite direction. He said that we must approach everything with the assumption that nothing is proven until empirical evidence makes it so.

What’s funny about all of this is that Descartes, a religious person, was actually attempting to “save” God and religion from the onslaught of criticism that began when scientific discoveries began to “prove” the church wrong. Now, there was certainly nothing wrong with challenging the authority of the church…but people began to doubt the importance of religion, too. So, Descartes was attempting to remove God from the natural realm in hopes that critics would leave religion alone since God’s value was beyond empiricism’s grasp. But what this did on a popular level was create an “either/or” approach to our world. Feeling the unncessary need to prioritize different values, the second generation of Enlightenment thinkers pushed God out of the frame completely choosing to value what could be scientifically tested: the natural world order.

Rather than find solace and meaning in religion, something else took precedence in the 1800s: Positivism. Positivism is just a fancy word for choosing to believe that legitimate forms of knowledge are only gained through sense experience. But during that time, Positivism carried other cultural and intellectual connotations. Intellectuals and the general public fully believed that scientific progress was the key to the future. After all, they saw technological inventions and scientific discoveries left and right that confirmed this idea. God was no longer meeting society’s needs; science was. Progress became marked by a culture’s willingness to throw off the chains of religion (often relegated to ”superstition” by Enlightenment thinkers) and embrace the triumphs of science. Everything is supported by natural laws. If humans can learn those laws and utilize them in the lab and in mathematics, we can make a better world for ourselves.

We’ll pick up our history lesson next post…