Initial Meeting Minutes 1/26/98

Procedural Information:

The meeting began with a pleasant surprise. Professor Moebius (PEM) expressed his delight at the size of the class enrollment. Extra chairs had to be provided for the larger-than-anticipated enrollment. The class consists of a healthy mix of representatives from the humanities and sciences, professors, graduate students and undergraduates, as well as academics and other interested persons.

Extra copies of the syllabus were distributed and those taking the course for credit had their obligations briefly described by PEM. The participants introduced themselves, touching briefly on their background and/or reasons for enrolling in the class.

Information about the class can be found on the World Wide Web at

<http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/preceptorial/index.html>

Substantive Discussion:

What followed was a broad introductory discussion in which PEM and Professor Brockelman (PPB) laid out a few of the issues with which the class might be expected to grapple.

• PPB: This class would deal with limits of knowing and connections of science to religion. Contradictions between science and religion would be identified and explored. PPB cautioned the group to beware the use of terms such as "myth" and "mystic," at least with respect to common parlance. Their meaning in religious discussions is not the same.

• PEM: Referred several times to a Xeroxed article by Chet Raymo (The Boston Globe 11/9/98) in which Raymo muses on the nature of science as an instrument of inquiry. Raymo cautions his readers not to expect religious pronouncements from reputable scientists, regardless of the core religious beliefs of those scientists. Raymo clearly takes the position that one reason for the success of modern science is its unwillingness to pronounce on the existence or nature of God.

• The matter of the anthropic principle and the creation of the universe(s) is a proper topic for this group, which has convened specifically to consider where knowing and believing intersect.

• PPB expressed his displeasure with the notion of the God of the Enlightenment. During this time in the West, the religious view of God was a reflection of a culture to which mechanistic arguments and explanations seemed to point to a universe that ran like a mechanism. God as prime mover and initiator seemed logical then, but seems less so now. The notion of just what God is requires much more study. Even the notion of God as creator is subject to discussion.

• PEM: Raised the issue of axioms and their use as foundations for belief systems. These axioms both support and limit the systems on which they are based. When belief systems ignore their logical and appropriate limits they run into problems. He cited an example of trying to reduce human psychology to digital data.

• PPB: Supported PEM by introducing the concept of the "transcendence of God"- the notion that God is beyond prediction and description. The issue of models and description is crucial to this idea. That is, all descriptions of God are models of God and not God. Taoist views on this issue were compared to the "no graven images" prohibition in some western religious views, as much in terms of spiritual images as physical models.

• PEM attempted to introduce modern scientific cosmology, with limited success. Appropriate reading assignments were displayed by overhead (Ferris: Ch.1, 2, 4, 6, and 10 and Barrow pp35-60) He revealed the existence of a folder ("Physical Universe") in the physics library which would contain a number of pertinent readings. Just reading the cosmology chapters in an introductory astronomy text would suffice.

• PEM was careful to describe the limits of scientific knowledge of the universe to those regions of the universe that were observable. Although he clearly allowed for non-observable regions as well, he excluded them from science because they could not be tested. Scientific theories are valuable only if they are testable. He was careful to point out that understanding does not require testing. Knowledge springs only from empiricism.

• A question from PPB to PEM concerning what might lie "beyond" the end of the observable universe" prompted a more open and general discussion within the group of the effect of language as both creator and delimiter of reality. Latitude and longitude lines lack physical substance, but have a substantial effect on our concepts of physics. Their effects as models are very real.

• PEM expressed the opinion that language might be too culturally constrained to suffice as descriptor of the scientific universe. Might mathematics step in to fill the gap? Even mathematics is insufficient because mathematical theories are also incapable of explaining their own foundations.

• Towards the end of the class the matter of time was briefly introduced. One student expressed the idea that time itself was subject to skepticism, given the relativistic effects of position and speed on the passage of time. Modern watches were not precise when subject to relativistic effects.

• Another student pointed out that the study of time was at the foundation of western science. The Greeks expended a great deal of intellectual energy considering the relationship between the earth, which is in essence both a creator of time and a means by which time can be measured and the heavens. Their science and then later our science was largely an attempt to both investigate the mechanism and purpose of a cosmic watch from the inside of the watch.

The class drew to an end with discussion from PEM focusing on the dualistic Greek view of time. Chronos, the order imposed by time was distinct from Horos, the quality of time.

Respectfully submitted from the shallow end of what looks to be a very deep pool…

Howard C. Murphy