Physics faith integration introductory topics
These topics are used during the three semester introductory
physics sequence as Azusa Pacific University. They are brief
introductions to our four faith integration themes. These topics
are briefly discussed in each class period, then students post in
online threaded discussions. Their participation in the threaded
discussions is graded.
This instructor guide contains the topics and comments in bullet
points. The bullet points are ideas about the topics that should be
raised in the discussion or items to look out for during the
discussion. As much as possible, it is best to let students try to
come up with the ideas, but in many topics, they will need the
instructor to summarize and add aspects on the topic that they
didnt discuss.
The order of topics is intentional, but they may be arranged to
suit the needs of a course. Single semester courses may take a
selection of topics from all 4 themes.
Characteristics of scientists (Physics for Science &
Engineering I)
1. Name at least one personality trait or habit that good
scientists have. Explain why that trait is important to scientific
work.
There are many answers to this question. The students will
likely come up with a good list. Traits that may be included are
honesty, curiosity, integrity, determination, passion,
organization, humility, confidence, intelligence, observant,
collaboration, communication, persistence, etc.
For each trait that they identify, ask them to briefly describe
why it is useful.
Tell the students that this question is a preview, as many of
the rest of the topics in the course will look in more detail at
the traits that they thought of.
2. Of the personality traits and habits of good scientists that
the class identified in the last topic, which are also good traits
or habits for Christians to have? Why do you think it is that many
of the traits of good scientists and good Christians are
similar?
The students likely wont remember the topics that they discussed
in #1, but they can brainstorm again easily.
Example: Both Christians and scientists should be honest.
Obviously, honesty is important for Christians because lying is
sinful. Honesty is important for Christians because in order to
draw accurate conclusions, it is necessary that their data be
reliable.
The students will quickly come to the conclusion that the traits
that are good for Christians and scientists are approximately
identical.
After taking a few examples, ask the last part of the question.
Emphasize the common humanity of Christians and scientists and that
both Christianity and science are seeking for forms of truth, so
that the traits are similar.
3. During freshman orientation, you likely took the Strengths
Quest test to identify some of your particular strengths. For
example, my top 5 strengths are Strategic, Learner, Input,
Intellection, and Responsibility. Please share a few of your
strengths. Which of your strengths are useful for scientific
work?
The Strengths Quest survey is taken by all APU students. If your
institution doesnt use something like this, you can give a sample
list of strengths and have the students self-identify.
Adapt the example strengths to match your own.
Emphasize that all strengths are useful, including more
traditional academic strengths and people-oriented strengths like
empathy, restorativeness, etc.
4. What are some of the things that you value most (faith,
family, friends, creativity, humor, career, etc.)? Why do you value
them?
Whatever they come up with on this is good. The purpose of this
topic is to show your personal interest in them.
As you see opportunity, you might comment on how their values
can be supported by science.
5. We have agreed that one has to be highly motivated in order
to be successful as a scientist. Brainstorm what things might
motivate people to study science. In other words, what do people
hope to gain by studying science?
Money
Prestige
Control
Help people
Gain knowledge
Personal interest
6. "My scientific interests are driven in some sense by what one
would call the public good. The issue to me is, does the science
have some useful return on the time horizon of maybe 10 or 20
years. If it is esoteric and the question doesn't have a useful
impact on the time horizon on this order, I don't find it
interesting.
-Ashok Gadgil
Environmental Technologies Division
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Do you agree with this statement? Is science useful or
worthwhile if it does not have any foreseeable technological
application?
Some may agree on the basis that science should produce some
benefit.
Other may disagree on the basis that knowledge is intrinsically
valuable.
Ask about the time scale. Most will agree that 10-20 years is
too short.
Applications may not be foreseeable. Bring up examples like
quantum mechanics.
7. The first president of the American Physical Society, in his
inaugural address cast his vision of physics as pure science, as
opposed to applied science. He advocated for science as a pursuit
of pure knowledge, not motivated by technological possibilities, as
a noble contribution to humankind. In what way does pure knowledge
benefit humankind?
Curiosity seems to be a fundamental human trait that science
fulfills.
Applications may not be foreseeable.
Findings may be intrinsically beautiful regardless of
application.
Science can be a form of worship by studying Gods creation.
8. Define what it means to be a scientist. What is the
difference, if any, between a scientist, a mathematician, and an
engineer?
Scientist somebody use attempts to learn how the universe works
by means of direct observation and experimentation
Mathematician somebody who uses logic and patterns to study how
numbers, equations, etc. behave
Engineer somebody who attempts to create objects and
technologies for specific human uses
This topic includes mathematicians and engineers because those
populations take APUs intro physics course. If other populations
are in your course, you can include them instead.
9. Does the definition of a scientist that we came up with place
any limitations on who can be a scientist? Must a scientist be
affluent? Extraordinarily gifted? A certain age? Living under any
particular circumstances?
Scientists do not have to be affluent, though money does help.
In modern society, much funding for scientific education and
scientific research is available from the government.
Most people have sufficient intelligence to be a scientist with
hard enough work and practice. Emphasize a growth mindset, i.e.
that thinking abilities can be improved through practice.
Since science is learning about the natural world, even infants
are in a sense scientists. Everybody can keep learning.
10. A few years ago, a sociology research group wanted to study
how childrens perceptions of professionals in various fields affect
their future career choices. They asked elementary school children
to draw pictures of scientists. The majority of the children drew
middle-aged white males wearing a white lab coat and glasses. In
fact, the childrens perception is somewhat accurate; women and
racial or cultural minorities have historically been
underrepresented among science professionals. Why might women and
minorities be less likely to have careers in science?
Preface this topic with a reminder that it may be sensitive and
that all students should be respectful of each other.
Take as much time as needed for this topic. Some classes may
want to spend a significant amount of time.
Showing statistics might help.
Be careful not to call on anybody to be a token representative
of any group.
Cultural expectations have a big effect on the goals of
students. Since culture doesnt expect women and minorities to be
scientists, they are often not encouraged or are explicitly
discouraged.
Example: Some studies have shown that girls perform better in
math and science than boys until junior high, then their
performance decreases when they become aware of bias.
Example: Stereotype threat performance suffers when the student
is aware of a negative stereotype about a group that they identify
with. This effect can be avoided if students are aware of it.
There are also systematic barriers. Teachers may pay less
attention to females/minorities. Quality of schools may be less in
poor areas where minorities are more likely to live.
Females/minorities are less likely to be accepted into grad school
or hired. Job structures may not allow for child rearing.
Communities are often biased against women/minorities in subtle or
overt ways.
Role models help. Showing statistics that the representation is
becoming more equitable is good.
Emphasize that intelligence is not a barrier to
females/minorities.
Clearly state your belief in the ability of all students.
11. The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious.
It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art
and true science. Whoever does not know it can no longer wonder, no
longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed.
-Albert Einstein
Do you agree with Einstein? Is marvelling related to any of the
traits of good scientists that we have been discussing? Why is it
important for us to marvel?
Most students will agree.
Marvelling is useful because it increases motivation.
Marvelling is useful for appreciating beauty.
One who marvels is likely to be more curious and more
observant.
12. A natural consequence of marveling is a sense of amazement.
In my opinion, there are at least two distinct kinds of amazement.
I define them as follows:
Bewildered amazement-amazement due to an unexpected or
ununderstood event
Eureka amazement-amazement due to a clarity of understanding
Which of these types of amazement is good in the sciences? In
religious experience? Can you think of examples of these two types
of amazement from the Bible or science history?
Bewildered amazement is useful in science because it points out
what we dont know and leads to marveling.
Eureka amazement is often the goal of science. We want our
understanding to be coherent. It is satisfying when it all
clicks.
Bewildered amazement is useful in religious experience because
God uses bewilderment to get our attention. Example: burning
bush.
Eureka amazement is useful in religious experience because God
reveals himself to us. Example: Peters confession.
13. Some people think of science as a joyless calculated
process, but in fact it is common for professional scientists,
mathematicians, or engineers to describe a discovery as beautiful
or elegant. What does it mean for something to be beautiful or
elegant in math, engineering, or science?
Some students may bring up that beauty depends on personal
taste. Scientific ideas might be considered beautiful to somebody
who is interested in them.
Beautiful might mean an idea is pleasing by being coherent,
predictable, or functional. Science and engineering also contain
things that are aesthetically beautiful, e.g. by symmetry.
Elegant may mean that something is functional, e.g. a simple
solution to a complicated problem.
14. A recent article described why Aaron Rodgers, quarterback
for the Green Bay Packers, is successful.
He seems to be someone who simply cannot imagine staying the
same, simply cannot imagine that hes already good enoughthe most
successful quarterbacks, bar none, are the ones who deal with those
distractions and never believe the hype and continue to hunger for
even the slightest improvement.
Is taking initiative to improve their skills or knowledge
important for scientists? For Christians? What steps can a
scientist take to continue to improve themselves?
Initiative is extremely important. Scientists are supposed to
discover new knowledge, so they must be driven.
Science students also need to take initiative to learn. Learning
doesnt happen passively. In order to learn effectively, you must
actively integrate what you know into your knowledge system by
paraphrasing, sense making, relating to experience, checking
against intuition, seeking out things you dont understand, etc.
Initiative is also important for Christians. We are to be
constantly seeking God. Spiritual discipline requires active
growth. Sanctification takes a lifetime.
15. Something to remember about mathematics is the importance of
failure. If most of your attempts are successful, then youre not
attempting anything really interesting. On the other hand, if 90%
of your attempts are failing, then you are probably doing some
interesting mathematics. So please remember, experiment, have fun,
and dont worry about failing. Failing will only teach you more
math.
-Paul ZeitzUniversity of San Francisco
Do you agree or disagree with this quote? Why is it important
that a scientist or mathematician be willing to risk trying
something that they arent sure will work? What role does trying
something that ultimately doesnt work play in learning?
Some students may disagree because too much failure might lead
to discouragement.
Willingness to take risks is extremely important. If you dont
test an idea, you will never know if it is true.
Learning environments that discourage risk stifle creativity.
Scientists need to be creative.
Learning occurs at the edge of your ability. If you only do
comfortable exercises, there is nothing to learn. Trying new things
allows you to grow.
16. Professional scientists are regularly subjected to advice
and constructive criticism. Advice and criticism may come from
professors (while in college), research advisors (while in grad
school), journal referees, research collaborators, or competitors.
How a scientist responds to advice or criticism can affect their
reputation and the quality of their work. When you receive advice
or criticism, how do you deal with it? What does the Bible have to
say about giving or receiving advice or criticism?
Most people react to criticism with defensiveness.
It is healthy to take criticism by considering and applying
it.
In an educational setting, a professional is giving suggestions
for growth, so it is a good idea to implement the suggestions.
Analogy: coach gives suggestions and exercises to improve form of
an athlete.
When giving criticism, it should be done with the best interests
of the person in mind. Criticism should be delivered gently.
Proverbs 12:1 is a good example.
17. The following are my definitions of a few terms.
Doubt Being unsure of the truth of a statement
Skepticism Withholding judgment on a question until evidence is
gathered
Disbelief Continuing in a state of doubt, possibly in spite of
evidence
Are any of these three traits characteristic of scientists? Are
these traits good or bad?
Doubt is inevitable and neutral.
Skepticism is an essential trait of a scientist. We should be
willing to consider any idea fairly, weighing evidence before we
determine whether to accept it.
Disbelief is usually bad. We want to eventually come to a
conclusion on an idea.
18. The following are my definitions of a few terms.
Doubt Being unsure of the truth of a statement
Skepticism Withholding judgment on a question until evidence is
gathered
Disbelief Continuing in a state of doubt, possibly in spite of
evidence
What is the attitude of the Church towards these
characteristics? Are doubt and/or skepticism encouraged in the
Christian community? Are doubt and/or skepticism good or bad traits
for believers to have?
Some Christian communities have a dysfunctional relationship
with doubt and skepticism. Our goal should be to discover truth.
Open-mindedness to new ideas is an essential part of this.
The reason some Christian communities discourage open
questioning is fear that findings might contradict their beliefs.
However, if our beliefs are true, they will be able to withstand
scrutiny. God doesnt need us to defend him.
Skepticism is also good for Christians. We should actively seek
evidence for our beliefs.
Denying doubt can be harmful to the Church by encouraging
dishonesty and setting up a false dichotomy between intellectual
pursuits and faith.
19. Disbelief as I defined it is an antonym of confidence, which
was one of the traits that we identified as being characteristic of
good scientists. Why is confidence important? How do scientists
become confident? How is it possible to be a skeptic and also be
confident?
Scientists need to be confident that they can figure things out.
Without confidence they would lose motivation.
Scientists become confident by testing their ideas. As they have
more evidence supporting their ideas, they become more confident in
the ideas. Skepticism leads to confidence.
20. I like to be right, but to go into this field, into science,
you have got to be prepared to be proven to be wrong. And indeed it
is a virtue to come out with theories that can be shown to be right
or wrong.
-Steven Pinkner
Professor of Cognitive Psychology, Harvard University
Is there any value to openly admitting that you dont know
everything? Does science teach humility?
Humility is essential to science. If we already knew everything,
there would be no need for further research.
Research is a sort of cosmic dare. We subject our ideas to
testing. Falsifying incorrect ideas is how science progresses.
Science can lead to humility because scientists often fail or
are proved wrong.
21. Often when scientists are portrayed in movies or other forms
of popular culture, they are characterized as arrogant. Why might
scientists appear this way to the general public? Is arrogance in
fact a common trait of scientists? If so, what makes scientists
prone to this bad trait and what steps can we take to avoid
arrogance?
Though some scientists are arrogant, it is not a universal or
common trait.
Scientists are often humble because they are used to being
proven wrong and admitting limitations of their knowledge.
However, scientists may be tempted to arrogance because they
know more than more people.
Pride, which leads to arrogance, is part of sinful human
nature.
22. A common stereotype of scientists is the mad scientist whose
entire life revolves around his research. Often stereotypes arise
out of generalities about their subjects as a group. Do you think
this part of the mad scientist stereotype is accurate, i.e. do
scientists really work harder or more single-mindedly than most
people?
Yes, scientists do need to work hard in order to succeed.
Some students may point out that other fields also work
hard.
Scientists may be more devoted to their work because they have a
passion for it.
23. Societies with a Christian, especially Protestant, basis
also are sometimes stereotyped as placing a strong emphasis on
work. This is sometimes referred to as a Christian work ethic. What
does it mean to have a Christian work ethic?
Example: Colossians 3:23
Example: Matthew 24:15-30 (parable of the talents)
Christians should view their work as a way to glorify God.
Christians should conduct their work with integrity.
Christians may choose vocations that align with their
values.
24. Another aspect of the mad scientist stereotype, perhaps
resulting from overwork, is extreme isolation. This isolation may
be either a withdrawal from most of society or lack of contact with
individuals. Do you think this stereotype about scientists has any
accuracy? Why might scientists tend to become isolated? How might
we ensure that we dont become isolated?
This stereotype is demonstrably false. Scientists almost always
collaborate in groups.
In experimental science, working alone could be a safety
issue.
Working in groups is typically more productive because ideas can
be shared.
Scientists work in groups in order to train the next
generation.
Social isolation is a danger to scientists. Most people dont
understand what scientists do, so it is sometimes difficult for
scientists to connect. It is important to have interests other than
science.
25. Several associations, such as the American Physical Society,
have issued statements indicating that distrust of scientists by
the general public is a major societal problem. For example, when
the tsunami in Japan in 2011 damaged a nuclear power plant, many
Americans feared that dangerous fallout would be blown across the
Pacific Ocean by winds, even though several scientists publicly
stated that there was no danger. Why might the public tend to
distrust scientists? What steps can we take to help establish the
reliability of the scientific community?
The public might distrust scientists because they dont
understand how scientific results become accepted. This can be
helped by better education to scientific literacy.
The public is aware of many instances in which scientists have
been wrong. Being wrong is part of the process, but the public
doesnt understand this.
The media contributes to the publics distrust of scientists by
sensationalizing results. It would be better if more scientists
directly engaged with the public.
Results should be presented to the public with their supporting
evidence when possible.
26. Part of the reason the public doesnt trust scientists is
because they dont understand how results become accepted in
science. In modern science, research findings are submitted as
journal articles. Each article must be approved in review by
independent experts before it is published. The result is accepted
because of an extended network of trust in the reviewers and other
members of the scientific community. If scientific journals did not
use peer review, would scientific results still be trustworthy? Why
is it important to the peer review process that all members of the
scientific community have integrity and honesty?
Start this topic with a brief overview of the peer review
process.
Peer review helps results be reliable because they are checked
thoroughly.
With peer review, the trust doesnt have to be in an individual
scientist, but in the scientific community at large.
Integrity is essential to the peer review process.
Since scientists are seeking truth, they must be honest or they
will mislead themselves.
27. Though the vast majority of scientists conduct their work
with integrity, instances of dishonesty do occur. What sorts of
activities could scientists do in their work that would be
dishonest? Thinking about your experiments and reports in lab might
help you find examples.
Falsifying data
Fabricating data
Ignoring data that disagrees with predictions
Plagiarism
Conducting unethical research
Suppressing undesirable results
Publishing with credit inaccurately withheld or given
28. A recent study by a team of sociologists surveyed scientists
to determine their views about the interactions between science and
religion. They used the scientists responses to classify their
views into 5 categories:
Conflict: Science over Theology-theology and science
fundamentally conflict in describing reality and science naturally
should be accepted as correct
Compartmentalism-theology and science describe completely
separate realities, so there can be no conflict or agreement
Concordism-theology and science describe the same aspects of
reality, so accurate scientific and theological descriptions should
be completely consistent
Complementarism-theology and science describe different aspects
or reality, so that when taken together they should form a more
complete understanding
Conflict: Theology over Science-theology and science
fundamentally conflict in describing reality and theology should be
trusted more than science
Which of these paradigms do you think is most common among
scientists? Among non-scientist Christians? Which paradigm do you
identify with?
Have students make their predictions about scientists first.
They are likely to predict conflict or compartmentalism. As a few
students for the reason for their prediction.
Show data: From Bundrick (2012)
Among a sample of 133 scientists whose survey answers clearly
identified them as agreeing with one of the paradigms, the results
were:
69.9% Complementarism
14.3% Conflict: Science over theology
8.3% Concordism
5.3% Compartmentalism
2.2% Conflict: Theology over science
The study authors concluded that The most frequently employed
integrative paradism is complementarism. This counters popular
thinking promoted by media. And also Generally, scientists do not
compartmentalize.
Non-scientist Christians have views approximately evenly
distributed across the spectrum.
29. You know how strongly I believe that we dont do science for
ourselves, that we do it so we can explain to others
Why is communication important in science? Should we always be
able to explain science to laymen with no science background?
Communicating results to other scientists is vital so that ideas
can be checked, reproduced, challenged, and spread.
Science is a public trust, so we should be able to explain it to
others.
Some students might object that not all scientific results need
to be shared with laymen.
30. Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, once said
A good scientist must write like a journalist, think like a poet,
and work like a clerk.
The last part requires thinking in an organized and thorough
manner. In essence, mental discipline is necessary to reliably deal
with details without losing sight of the big picture. (This is why
small details like arithmetic and units matter so much in physics.)
Is it possible to use mental discipline to help develop spiritual
discipline?
Mental discipline is essential to spiritual discipline.
Spiritual growth will be stunted without reading the Bible, prayer,
and teaching in a Christian community.
Example: Prayer requires concentration.
31. Many people chose a subject for their PhD and then continue
the same subject until they retire. I despise this approach. I have
changed my subject five times before I got my first tenured
position and that helped me to learn different subjects.
-Andre Geim
Physics Nobel Prize winner 2010
How does it help a scientist to have a versatile set of skills?
Is it important for a scientist to have a broad base of knowledge
about different scientific subjects? About non-scientific
subjects?
A wide variety of skills helps scientists by having a broader
set of tools available to approach problems.
Knowledge from different scientific subjects is useful because
solutions or ideas from one area can be transported to a new
area.
Knowledge of non-scientific subjects is also useful. For
example, knowing about history can help scientists communicate with
non-scientists.
Scientists need to be adaptable because they are trying to solve
new problems.
32. The variety of environments in which scientists work is
quite broad. Many scientists travel in order to obtain their data
to places such as mountains (geologists), conferences
(mathematicians and others), building sites (engineers), particle
accelerators (particle physicists), computer clusters (theorists),
or even Antarctica (climatologists). Most science gets done in
whatever location has the necessary conditions or necessary
equipment. What sorts of lifestyle sacrifices do you think might be
necessary for a scientist to go where they must to get their work
done?
Scientists might sacrifice comfort, for example if they have to
work in the field.
Scientists might sacrifice lifestyle, for example if they need
to life in a foreign country.
Scientists might sacrifice relationships, for example if they
need to be away from home for their experiment.
Scientists might sacrifice their schedule, for example if their
experiment needs to be performed at night.
Scientists may choose to make these sacrifices because of their
passion for their work.
33. Historically, modern science has developed in societies
built on Christian principles. In fact, the majority of the
founding fathers of modern science were Christians. Is there
something about a Christian society that encourages the development
of science, or is this just a coincidence?
Science developed in the Middle Ages in universities in western
Europe. These universities were founded as seminaries.
Many early scientists considered their studies an expression of
worship of the creator.
Example: The Church (and also Muslims) promoted study of
astronomy in order to have accurate calendars for the scheduling of
their holy days.
34. In his book The Savior of Science, Stanley Jaki describes
how the development of modern science has proceeded in the context
of cultures with different dominant religions. One difference
between Christianity and other religions pointed out by Jaki in The
Savior of Science is that many other religions deify natural things
while our God is entirely supernatural. For example, the Egyptians
personified the sun as the god Aten. How might deifying aspects of
nature suppress the development of science?
Deifying a phenomenon causes it to be considered supernatural
and therefore not subject to scientific study.
Supernatural explanations might decrease the desire to search
for natural explanations.
Scientific scrutiny of a deity might be discouraged by religious
institutions or considered disrespectful to the god.
35. In his book The Savior of Science, philosopher Stanley Jaki
argues that potential scientific revolutions in non-Christian
cultures have been stunted by a lack of belief in progress. For
example, Hinduism teaches that the history of the universe is
cyclic. If history will eventually repeat, it stands to reason that
no real progress can be made. In contrast, the biblical account of
the history of the universe begins with creation and progresses
steadily through stages of redemption, ultimately ending in a new
heaven and new Earth. This narrative of redemptive history can be
seen as a type of progress. How might belief in the possibility of
progress encourage development of science?
Science assumes progress in the form of getting progressively
better models to describe nature.
Without the possibility of progress, scientific study would be
discouraging.
One important motivation for science is technological
progress.
Scientific worldview (Physics for Science & Engineering
II)
1. The universe is so simple, and it didnt have to be that way.
The universe could have been totally chaotic. It could have been
messy, ugly. It didnt have to be that simple, but it is. And thats
why I believe in this cosmic order. Its just too gorgeous to have
been a fluke.
-Michio Kaku
Theoretical physicist, City College of New York
I think nature in itself is so amazing, and so complex. Its too
amazing and too complex to think of it as just a random event.
-Maja Matari
Professor of Computer Science and Neuroscience, USC
Do you agree with either of these statements? Is it possible for
the universe to be both simple and complex?
Nature is simple in the sense that there are a small number of
fundamental laws of physics.
Nature is complex in the extraordinary variety that exists.
During creation in Genesis 1, God ordered the universe, then
commended his created beings to multiply.
2. In the last topic, part of what Kaku meant by describing the
universe as simple is that the universe appears to follow orderly
physical laws. In fact, the orderliness of nature is one of the
basic assumptions of science. Is this assumption justified, i.e. do
we have good reason to believe that nature is in fact orderly?
Could you conceive of a universe that did not follow orderly laws?
If we also assume that nature was created, what might natures
orderliness indicate about the God who created it?
We do have good reason to believe that nature is orderly. The
laws of physics have been reliable across all of our
experience.
I can imagine a universe that doesnt have orderly laws, but it
would be extremely inhospitable.
If creation is orderly, it stands to reason that the God who
created it values order.
3. In science, we assume that nature is comprehensible. Is this
assumption necessary? In other words, would science still work if
we did not assume or expect that nature is comprehensible?
It would be possible for nature to be orderly, and yet so
complicated that human minds couldnt understand it.
Without having a chance ot comprehending nature, there would be
little motivation for studying science because the effort would be
doomed to failure.
4. In a 1960 journal article, the physicist Eugene Wigner
said,
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of
mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a
wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve.
And furthermore,
The enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences
is something bordering on the mysterious and that there is no
rational explanation for it.
It is indeed stunning that most physical laws can be written as
fairly simple mathematical equations. Is there any fundamental
reason why laws should be expressible using math? Does the
simplicity of physics equations tell us anything about the nature
of God?
Point out a few examples of simple physics laws.
Math is particularly good at expressing ideas that are simple
and precise. Since the laws of physics are mathematizable, they
must be simple and precise.
Most of the laws of physics are based on some simple underlying
symmetry. For example, there are only a small number of subatomic
particles that make up all atoms. The reducibility of nature of
particles makes the laws simple.
Devils advocate argument; The laws that we have discovered may
have been discovered only because they were the ones that were
simple enough for our human minds to comprehend. Or perhaps we are
looking for structure. Still, the laws that we have discovered work
astonishingly well.
If God wishes for humans to have a relationship with him, it
makes sense that He would create laws that we can comprehend.
5. Another basic assumption of science is that nature is real;
the outside world actually exists, as opposed to being just some
perception inside our minds. Would science still be possible and/or
useful if there wasnt a real outside world?
Point out that this is an assumption of science. Being aware of
our assumptions is a critical thinking skill.
We certainly perceive the world to be real. It either is real or
a figment of our imagination.
If nature wasnt real, we would still be able to make
observations based on our imagination of it. However, these
imaginary observations wouldnt have any meaning.
Human minds dont operate in an orderly enough way to expect
physical laws to be reliable if it was all imaginary.
6. Since the world is real, we are able to observe it.
Scientists assume that our senses can give us reliable information
about the world. Is this assumption justified? Why is this
assumption important to science?
Our senses are reliable enough to keep us alive. At the very
least, we dont have anything else to go on.
However, our senses are certainly not infallible. There are
things that we cant sense and instances when our senses are
inaccurate.
One reason we make quantitative measurements with apparatus is
to mitigate the unreliability of our senses.
Assuming our senses are reliable is important because it gives
us a standard of evidence. Science is restricted to using things
that we can directly observe with our senses are our evidence.
7. In science, we always make measurements (or observations) in
order to build or verify theories. We assume that two experimenters
who perform the same experiment will find that their measurements
agree. We might say that the objects of study must be publicly
observable and repeatable.
Is it true that two experimenters measurements will agree? What
types of objects are publicly observable? Does anything exist that
is not publicly observable? Why is it important that experiments be
repeatable?
Review the assumptions of reality of nature and reliability of
our senses.
Since we assume that nature is real, i.e. external to us, all
real physical objects are publicly observable.
Things that exist that are not publicly observable include
ideas, opinions, minds, souls, and God.
Repeatability is important because it allows us to check each
others work .Scientists make mistakes, so it is valuable for others
to be able to correct them.
8. In textbook presentations of the scientific method (which are
usually grossly oversimplified), it is usually stated that
experiments must be repeated before their results are accepted. Why
is repeatability important for science? Is repeating of experiments
required in all cases, or are some results valid if they are not
repeated?
Repeating results is built into science. Repeating make us more
confident in our results.
An individual may be convinced by their own experiment. However,
other scientists may not be convinced without repeating the
experiment for themselves. Repeatibility allows consensus.
Any important result should be repeated.
9. Over the years, scientists have developed several different
general principles to explain phenomena. Some of these principles
are easily applied in some situations, but not readily useful in
other situations. For example, Newtons laws describe the motions of
objects moving relatively slowly, but fast objects are better
treated using special relativity. One assumption of science,
sometimes called the correspondence principle, is that principles
in one realm should not contradict principles in another realm. In
other words, the entire set of physical laws should be internally
consistent. Is this assumption justified? Are there any
philosophical or theological implications of the consistency of
physical laws?
If two ideas contradict each other, it is not logically possible
for them both to be true.
Some of the laws (e.g. Newtons 2nd law) that the students have
learned in their intro courses have actually not been fundamental,
but just special cases. We dont really know the full laws of
physics, but we assume that they exist.
Suppose that two special cases contradicted. This would imply
that at least one of them is wrong.
God tells us that he is unchanging. Consistence is to be
expected of such as Creator.
10. Another basic assumption of science is that physics is
controlled by a fairly small number of general principles. We use
scientific methods to determine what the general principles are and
then we use the general principles to try to explain everything.
For a principle to be considered general, i.e. a law, what
properties does it need to have? Why do general principles have
those properties?
Physical laws should apply to all objects. (This was not assumed
before the Newtonian synthesis.)
Physical laws should be the same for all locations. This is an
assumption that may not be accurate.
Physical laws should be the same at all times.
11. Physics looks for general principles for how nature works,
such as Newtons laws of force, conservation of energy, and
conservation of momentum. There arent very many general principles
in physics; Id say less than 10 principles to summarize all of
nature. All of science then is an exercise in applying these
general principles to a wide variety of phenomena.
What are the general principles of the Christian faith? To be
general, they should be fairly simple and always true. There also
should not be very many general principles.
The students will brainstorm a wide variety on this.
Principle of love: we are to love God and other people
Grace: Gods love and salvation are unearned
Sin: All humans sin
Mercy: God has taken the punishment for sinners
Revelation: God reveals himself to us through the Bible and the
Holy Spirit
Obedience: The task of Christians is to obey God
12. Truth being uniform, and always the same, it is admirable to
observe how easily we are enabled to make out very abstruse and
difficult matters, when once true and genuine Principles are
obtained.
-Edmond Halley
One important property of general principles or physical laws is
that they should be uniformly true. We assume that laws are the
same for all physical objects, at all locations in the universe, at
all times. Is this assumption justified? Can you imagine a universe
in which the laws varied at different times or places? Why is this
assumption important to science?
A universe with laws that were not uniform in space and time is
imaginable, but it would be very different than our experience.
We assume that the laws havent changed over time, but dont have
good evidence for this since science has only been going on for a
short period of time.
We assume that the laws are the same at all places, but we dont
have good evidence for this since we cant make measurements at all
locations.
13. Many prominent writers on the philosophy of science argue
that logic, i.e. following a formal set of logical rules of
reasoning, is an essential feature of science. For example, given
the statement animals without wings cant fly and the observation
pigs do not have wings, the rules of logic dictate that pigs cant
fly is a true statement. Why is logic important in science? If
something is logical, does that mean it is simple, obvious, or
intuitive? How can some counterintuitive results of science also be
logical?
Logic is important because we use logic to interpret our
observations and to make predictions from theories.
Logical ideas do not have to be simple or intuitive.
Events happen in science that are counterintuitive. This happens
because our experiences are incomplete, and new events might happen
in situations that are significantly different from our
experiences. Or we may have drawn incorrect conclusions from our
previous experiences.
14. Mathematics is another field of study that depends on
logical thought. Conclusions (theorems) in math are then true if
the beginning assumptions are true. On the other hand, in science
conclusions (theoretical explanations of phenomena) are determined
to be true if they match experimental observations. Would science
be possible without experimental observations? What are the
advantages of using observations of the natural world? What are the
limitations?
Observations are vital in science because they are the only
accepted form of evidence. (Though other forms of evidence are
valid in other fields.)
The main advantage of using observations is that it gives us a
reliable standard. Others can check out results. We can establish
as fact what we have observed.
One limitations is that our observations may be unreliable or
incomplete.
Another limitation is that not all questions can be answered by
direct observation. Limiting ourselves to observations constraints
the type of questions that science can answer.
15. One major purpose of science is to attempt to explain how
things happen. Scientists assume that nature operates on a
principle of causality, i.e. that every event involving physical
objects is caused by some other event. In order to be a valid
scientific explanation, the cause that is identified must be
another natural event. Give an example of an event and the natural
cause for that event. Supernatural causes are explicitly ruled out
in scientific explanations. Give an example of event to which
someone might attribute a supernatural cause.
Example: A plant grows because it absorbs sunlight and carbon
dioxide from the air and a chemical reaction occurs to convert them
into the chemicals that make up the plant cells.
Example: A thunderstorm happens so we conclude that the storm
god Thor must be angry.
Example; A universe exists so we conclude that God created
it.
16. Some people go to great lengths to explain biblical miracles
in natural terms. For example, when the Israelites crossed the
Jordan River to enter Canaan in Joshua 3, the drying of the Jordan
could potentially be explained if an earthquake caused a landslide
that temporarily dammed the river.
What is a miracle? If an event could plausibly happen in a
manner consistent with the laws of physics, even if it is very
unlikely, does that mean it is not a miracle?
Proposed definitions of miracle: anything that violates the laws
of physics, an event that is improbable, an improbable event that
occurs at an opportune time, an event that occurs within the will
and power of God
Most students will find the first proposed definition
distasteful. Objections include that it doesnt not account for
diversity of circumstances and that it does not account for
personal circumstances.
The main objection to the first proposed definition is that God
is sovereign over nature, so he can work with circumstances that
are physically plausible.
Ask the students for examples.
The last proposed definition can be expanded to imply that the
whole universe is a miracle.
17. While constructing explanations, scientists intentionally
prohibit themselves from resorting to supernatural causes. This
limits the sorts of questions that can be addressed scientifically.
What sorts of questions are scientific? What sorts of questions are
not scientific?
Is a daisy prettier than a tulip?
Which is more valuable, a pound of gold or a pound of lead?
Is it wrong to euthanize terminally ill patients?
What is the purpose of the filament in a light bulb?
What should society do to fix global climate change?
Are the above questions scientific questions? Why or why
not?
None of these are scientific. Science cant answer questions of
subjective experience, value, purpose, ethics, etc.
The light bulb question is interesting because science can
address the mechanism, but not the goal.
18. Scientific materialism-philosophy holding that anything that
is not physical, measurable, or accessible to scientific questions
is unreal
People who hold the philosophy of scientific materialism often
argue that science is the only way to establish truth.
Nonscientific questions are of no interest to them. In light of
what we have discussed about the limitations of science, do you
think scientific materialism is a wise philosophy?
This question is subjective and open to various opinions. Start
with a reminder to respect others views.
Questions of beauty, value, ethics, etc. are highly important to
humans, but they are not scientifically accessible. Therefore, we
would limit humanity if we didnt acknowledge non-scientific
questions.
Materialism is of great value in science because it establishes
clear ground rules for scientific study. However, science has not
as yet produced any satisfactory purely materialism accounting for
important human features such as consciousness, values,
spirituality, etc.
19. A prediction states what we expect to happen in a particular
situation. Why is it important to make predictions in science?
Should a prediction always be made before an experiment, or is it
okay to come up with a prediction after experimenting or to
experiment without having a hypothesis?
Predictions are valuable because they allow us to test out
understanding. We use our prior reasoning to come up with a
concrete prediction that can be tested.
Not all experiments have to have predictions, but it is good to
be in the habit of making predictions whenever appropriate.
Making a prediction after doing an experiment doesnt have much
value, since you already know the outcome. However, reflecting on
why or why not a prediction was upheld in the experiment is highly
valuable analysis.
20. In lab, you have learned that one characteristic of a good
hypothesis is falsifiability. Experimentalists spend a great deal
of effort attempting to falsify hypotheses. Why is it considered
progress if a hypothesis is falsified by experiment?
Scientists dont know everything. In almost all cases, we have
competing hypotheses when we do an experiment.
When a hypothesis is falsified, it narrows down the set of
possible hypotheses.
When a hypothesis is falsified, it corrects our ideas.
21. Experiments are often designed to attempt to falsify
hypotheses, even if the hypotheses are well-established. When a
hypothesis is then not falsified, some might consider it a failure
of the experiment. Why do scientists consider it progress when an
experiment fails to falsify a hypothesis? When a hypothesis is
tested and not falsified, is that equivalent to proving the
hypothesis?
When a hypothesis is repeatedly tested but not falsified, our
confidence in the hypothesis increases.
Nothing is ever really proven in science. There is always some
doubt because our data is always incomplete. Through testing, we
can get very confident but never to 100% certainty.
22. You often hear people claim that they have scientific proof
for something. Presumably, they mean they have measured evidence to
support their point. How many observations does it take to prove
something in science? How many contradictory observations does it
take to disprove something in science?
An infinite number of observations would be necessary to prove
something. In order to be 100% sure of the results, a hypothesis
would need to have been tested in every possible situation at all
times. This is not possible.
Only one reliable contradictory observation is needed to
disprove a theory. The key word here is reliable. In practice, a
result that contradicted a well-established theory would need to be
reproduced in order for scientists to reject the theory.
23. In lab, you have learned that one characteristic that a good
hypothesis is precision. Likewise, one characteristic of a good
experimental measurement is precision. Why is it important that
measurements be as precise as possible? Why is it important that
hypotheses be stated as precisely as possible?
Having precise measurements is important because it makes us
more certain of our experimental outcomes.
If measurements are too imprecise, we may not be able to
distinguish between competing hypotheses.
Using precise hypotheses that lead to detailed predictions
allows a rigorous test.
24. The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that
heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but Thats
funny
-Isaac Asimov
In school, science is often presented as a rigid logical
progression; however, in actual practice, many advances in science
are the result of observing some phenomenon that was unexpected or
not hypothesized, possibly even by pure luck. Many publications by
experimentalists are simply reporting of something unexpected,
possibly lacking any explanation. Why is it considered progress
when an experimenter observes something bizarre or unexpected?
Unexpected discoveries point out ways that our theories were
incomplete or incorrect.
Unexpected discoveries open up near areas for study.
Example: discovery of superfluidity
25. In designing a good experiment, it is often important to
make sure that the test is controlled. What is a controlled test?
Why is it important that experiments be controlled tests? Must all
experiments be controlled tests?
In a controlled test, the experimenter alters one variable (the
independent variable) while holding all other variables constant
(control variables).
The key advantage of using a controlled experiment is that it
isolates the independent variable. This allows us to test for
causality. The change in the independent variable can be assumed to
be the cause of any changes in a dependent variable.
If an experiment is not controlled, we can establish correlation
but not causation.
Not all tests need to be controlled. In some cases controlled
experiments are impossible.
26. Once a scientist or team or scientists has made a discovery,
they typically make their work known to the science community by
publishing in a peer-reviewed journal or presenting at conferences.
Is publishing or presenting important to the progress of science?
Why?
Publishing is important because it shares results with the
scientific community.
Publishing is important because it subjects results to scrutiny
of the scientific community.
Publishing is important because it allows other scientists to
independently check the work.
Publishing is important because it allows scientists to share
ideas.
27. It is often said that facts or theories in science become
accepted only by testing. However, no scientist can possibly test
everything for themselves. At some point, we have to rely on
consensus within the scientific community to accept something. How
does the scientific community come to consensus? What role does
peer review of journal articles play in building consensus?
Some level of trust in published results is possible because by
passing peer review a journal articles has been checked by a few
other experts.
Consensus is built when several scientists have reproduced a
result. When several journal articles have similar findings, the
communitys confidence in the result increases.
28. Several of the uglier episodes of science history have been
arguments over priority, i.e. who was first to understand or
publish something. For example, Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha
Gray went to court over an argument about who had invented the
telephone. Now, scientists often rush their results to publication
in order to stake their claim to priority. Why is it important to
scientists to be the first to accomplish or discover something?
Scientists like priority because there is prestige associated
with being the first to discover something.
Priority helps further a scientists career. The reputation that
comes from doing groundbreaking work helps in getting funding,
promotion, collaborators, etc.
29. One striking feature of science is that scientific
explanations or theories are provisional, i.e. scientific
explanations can and do change. Why is it important that scientists
remain open-minded to change? If theories were accepted and not
expected to change afterwards, would science still function?
Being open-minded is important because scientists are often
wrong.
Science progresses by successive approximations. Theories are
model that approximate reality. A theory is improved if it more
accurately matches reality.
Producing better models is the primary goal of science. If we
didnt change our ideas, we would never be learning.
30. Once a theory becomes well-developed or a phenomenon
well-understood, it is natural for scientists to attempt to make
use of their knowledge by inventing things. Are science and
technology the same thing? Is technological application an
essential part of the process of science?
Science is learning about how nature works. Technology is
inventing objects for human use. These are not the same thing.
Science can proceed without having new technology as an end
goal. Knowledge is a valuable goal in its own right.
However, the development of technology and science has been
tightly intertwined throughout history. Having better technology
allows for better experiments. More scientific knowledge often
leads to new technology.
31. Throughout history, particularly before the development of
modern science, many other fields of study have claimed to be
scientific. A few examples are alchemy, astrology, and paranormal
studies. What is the difference between science and pseudoscience
or metaphysics? If you know anything about these examples of
pseudoscience, why dont they qualify as science? Can you think of
other examples of pseudoscience or metaphysics?
Pseudosciences often fall short because of some of the
following: confusing correlation and causation, resorting to
supernatural explanations, biased data (especially confirmation
bias), or overgeneralizing.
32. People who dont understand science often attempt to use
science in argumentation, but end up using non-scientific
reasoning. For example, when Al Gores movie An Inconvenient Truth
came out, many people objected to his claims that the Earths
climate is changing by attacking Gores politics instead of
critiquing the data he presented. Why is it important for
scientific discourse that the focus be on the veracity of the data
and conclusions, rather than personal attacks against the
scientist?
The standard of evidence is reliable observations or
measurements. The reputation or character of the studys author is
irrelevant to the evidence.
If the scientists reputation or character were used as evidence,
it would make the results subjective.
Personal attacks also are not good because they tend to be
divisive instead of working together as a scientific community to
better understanding.
33. In many non-scientific academic fields, researchers will
study works from previous influential scholars and they may cite
the opinions of famous scholars as a kind of evidence. Would it be
a valid scientific argument to say, I believe that space is filled
with aether, which is dragged along with Earth as it moves, because
Descartes said this was the case.? Why or why not?
This is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. Authority
figures are still human, so they are fallible.
Scientists should be looking at evidence and deciding for
themselves, not relying on an authority.
Another problem with this example is that it is out of date.
34. Another line of non-scientific reasoning identifies two
successive, but unconnected, events and concludes that the first
event caused the second. For example, a researcher might notice
that on a day when it rained there was a large earthquake. They
might erroneously conclude that the rain caused the earthquake.
What conditions are necessary to conclude that one event causes
another event?
The cause must occur before the effect.
The cause and effect must have a mechanism connecting them.
Cause-effect relationships should be reproducible.
In order for two events to be a cause-effect pair, they must not
both be caused by some other event.
Ideally, in order to conclude that a cause-effect relationship
exists we should attempt a controlled experiment.
35. One problem with the incorrect conclusion of causality in
the previous topic was that it was based on only one occurrence,
but the laws of nature should be reproducible. A related error
would be to observe several occurrences, but analyze too few
occurrences or an unrepresentative set of occurrences. For example,
a phrenologer (somebody who studies skull shapes to attempt to
determine personality characteristics) might find 5 people who have
a forehead that bulges outwards and also below average
intelligence. As another example, the phrenologer might find many
people with bulging foreheads, some of which are below average
intelligence and some of which are above average intelligence, but
only consider the cases of below average intelligence in their
data. In both of these examples, the phrenologer might incorrectly
conclude that bulging foreheads cause below average intelligence.
What exactly was wrong with the phrenologers reasoning in these
examples?
In the first example, the problem is small sample size. The
sample may also not be representative.
In the second example, the problem is that the phrenologer is
biasing the results by neglecting some data. This is confirmation
bias.
36. Modern science can be broadly classified into theoretical
and experimental branches. Theorists and experimentalists work
together to make progress in building better models of nature. What
role do theorists play in the process? What role do
experimentalists play in the process?
The main tasks of theorists are to brainstorm models and to use
those models to generate predictions.
The main tasks of experimentalists are to check predictions of
models and to gather data on situations for which we dont have
comprehensive models developed yet.
Computation is a third emerging branch of physics.
Computationalists brainstorm models and use computers to calculate
the behavior of those models. They can do experiments in the
simulations by changing input parameters.
There is a mutual relationship between experimentalists and
theorists. Both generate ideas for the others to check/pursue.
Experimenters might design their experiments to check a prediction
from theorists. Theorists might develop models to try to explain
new phenomena observed by experimentalists.
37. In class, we have been discussing physical models, such as
the charge model. A model is a description of how we think the
physical world works, usually including a set of rules for the
behavior of physical objects. Is a model the same thing as physical
reality, or does it just represent physical reality?
A model is a representation of reality, but is not the same
thing as reality.
38. When we study science and learn something new, does physical
reality change, or does our model of physical reality change?
When scientists make a discovery and change their models, the
behavior of nature doesnt change. We assume that natures laws are
always the same, even though our understanding of the fundamental
laws changes.
39. A model is really a set of ideas held by the science
community, instead of some real object. Some philosophers say that
the job of scientists is to build better models. In light of this,
what determines if a model is good?
A model is considered to be good if it can be used to make
accurate predictions about experiments.
Scientists also sometimes use aesthetic considerations to
evaluate models, though these aesthetics considerations are trumped
if direct evidence is available. Aesthetic considerations can be
simplicity of the model, internal consistency of the model,
external consistency compared to other models, etc.
Science & society (Physics for Science & Engineering
III)
1. Over the last few hundred years, science has become a major
force in society. Why has science been so influential?
Science has been influential because it is effective at
producing new knowledge. This success has given people confidence
in science.
Modern society is largely based on economics and industry.
Science has been instrumental in developing new technologies that
have changed our way of life and enriched the economy.
Modern science is cross-cultural, and therefore a globalizing
influence.
2. One result of scientific advances in the last two centuries
has been the development of many new technologies. These
technologies have drastically changed the way that we live our
lives. Is technology generally good for people or bad for
people?
Technologies are invented to meet human needs. In most cases,
the goal of technology is to make life better in some way.
Encourage the students to think about what life would be like
without technology. They will likely think about modern
communications technologies, but push them to think about older
technologies like wheels, ships, writing, and domesticated crops.
These technologies have made survival easier.
There are also negative effects of technologies. Ask students to
brainstorm. They will likely come up with weapons, depersonalizing
of communication, facilitating laziness, etc.
Conclusion: On the whole, technology has made life better.
Technology can be used for good or bad depending on the motivation
of the people using it.
3. It is clear that new scientific knowledge is often developed
into new technologies. Is there any relationship in the reverse
direction? If a new technology is developed, can it further
scientific knowledge?
New technologies often help develop scientific knowledge.
Example: Galileos telescope
Scientists use new technologies to make more precise
measurements and to analyze more complex data sets.
4. One of the major funding sources for scientific research in
the United States is the federal government, through agencies such
as the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, the
National Institute of Health, and the military. What benefits does
the government get from funding scientific research?
Public health
Economic boost from new technology
Military power
Conclusion: The purpose of democratic government is to promote
the welfare of the citizens. Therefore, the government has a vested
interest to support science that benefits its citizens.
5. Much of the funding for scientific research comes from
government agencies. What criteria should be used for funding
decisions?
NSF uses two criteria: Intellectual Merit and Broader
Impacts
Intellectual Merit Is the proposed research feasible within the
available budget and equipment? Are the researchers qualified? Is
the knowledge gained from the proposed research likely to make a
significant contribution to the field? Is the work creative,
original, or transformative?
Broader Impacts Will the proposed research advance discovery?
Does the research satisfy a need of society? Will the research
train future scientists? Will the research involve underrepresented
groups? How will the research be disseminated to society?
6. Much of the funding for scientific research comes from
government agencies. Who do you think should decide which research
to fund?
Congress determines how much money to allocate to research
agencies.
Politicians are usually not qualified to determine scientific
merit.
Funding decisions by government agencies are made by scientists.
Science experts run the agencies.
Grant proposals are reviewed by volunteer scientists who are
experts in the field.
7. The other major funding source for scientific research in the
United States is industry. Many corporations give grants for
research or operate their own research labs. The industrial
research labs often even research topics that arent immediately
applicable to the company. What benefits do industrial companies
get from funding scientific research?
Research that is done by private corporations may result in
patents that are owned by the corporation.
Findings of industrial research may eventually be used to
develop new products that the corporation can sell.
Technology corporations depend on innovation in order to remain
competitive in the marketplace.
8. Is it ethical for scientists to participate in research if
they know their discoveries will be used for military purposes?
Remind the students in advance that this may be a sensitive
topic. War is inherently inhumane and ugly, but it is part of the
human condition. Be on the lookout especially for students who may
have been impacted by war personally or through their family
history. Avoid calling on these students unless they volunteer.
Defensive weapons Much military research is to develop
technologies for defense, e.g. body armor or anti-missile defense.
These products are often considered to be ethical because they
protect lives.
Offensive weapons Most new offensive weapons are designed to be
more precise, allowing for attacks of military targets with
minimization of civilian casualties. This can be considered ethical
because it makes war more humane.
Surveillance technologies Some military research goes to
technologies for collecting intelligence. These can be used to
prevent war or identify appropriate military targets. However,
surveillance technologies should not be used to violate personal
privacy.
Example: President Truman decided to use the atomic bomb during
World War II because his military advisors told him that invading
Japan would lead to more deaths of military and civilians than
ending the war quickly by using the bomb.
9. There are instances in the Bible in which war was commanded
or condoned. Under what criteria is it just to make war?
Point out that there is a large subdiscipline of theology on
just war theory.
Some potential criteria for justly entering a war are:
Protection of innocent lives or human rights
War conducted under an competent established authority
Correction of a serious wrong
Sufficient probability that the war will achieve its aims
Last resort after diplomacy and other efforts fail
Benefits of the war must outweigh the harms of conducting the
war
Once war has been entered, it should be conducted according
to:
Acts of war should be directed toward enemy combatants, not
neutrals or civilians
Acts of war should be directed towards legitimate military
objectives
Fair treatment of prisoners of war
Weapons used should be as humane as possible
10. Once scientists have discovered some new knowledge, they
typically report their results through publishing journal articles.
Should there be any restrictions on who has access to published
results? Does your answer depend on how the research was
funded?
Free exchange of information is valuable to the progress of
science, but often not practical because there are costs to
publishing so journals usually charge subscription fees.
Grant proposals to government agencies are open record by law,
because the public provides the funds. Principle: in general the
funders should have access to the results.
Some advocate for free open access for scientists and for the
general public.
Some results may cause danger to national security if they were
shared openly.
11. Several associations, such as the American Physical Society,
have issued statements indicating that distrust of scientists by
the general public is a major societal problem. For example, when
the tsunami in Japan last year damaged a nuclear power plant, many
Americans feared that dangerous fallout would be blown across the
Pacific Ocean by winds, even though several scientists publicly
stated that there was no danger. Why might the public tend to
distrust scientists? What steps can we take to help establish the
reliability of the scientific community?
The public might distrust scientists because they dont
understand how scientific results become accepted. This can be
helped by better education to scientific literacy.
The public is aware of many instances in which scientists have
been wrong. Being wrong is part of the process, but the public
doesnt understand this.
The media contributes to the publics distrust of scientists by
sensationalizing results. It would be better if more scientists
directly engaged with the public.
Results should be presented to the public with their supporting
evidence when possible.
12. Part of the reason the public doesnt trust scientists is
because they dont understand how results become accepted in
science. In modern science, research findings are submitted as
journal articles. Each article must be approved in review by
independent experts before it is published. The result is accepted
because of an extended network of trust in the reviewers and other
members of the scientific community. If scientific journals did not
use peer review, would scientific results still be trustworthy? Why
is it important to the peer review process that all members of the
scientific community have integrity and honesty?
Start this topic with a brief overview of the peer review
process.
Peer review helps results be reliable because they are checked
thoroughly.
With peer review, the trust doesnt have to be in an individual
scientist, but in the scientific community at large.
Integrity is essential to the peer review process.
Since scientists are seeking truth, they must be honest or they
will mislead themselves.
13. Some people claim that science is ultimately responsible for
environmental pollution, including global climate change. Are
scientists responsible? How can science help to alleviate the
problem?
Start with a very brief overview of the greenhouse effect and
global climate change.
Since the technology that produces carbon dioxide was made
possible by scientific advances, it is possible to lay some blame
on the scientific community.
The choice to extensively use fossil fuels included all society,
not just scientists, so scientists are certainly not fully
responsible.
When adopting new technologies, people should think critically
about the possible pros and cons of the technology.
In the case of global climate change, individuals should make
responsible decisions about their energy usage.
14. Climate change has become a very politicized issue. Should
scientists have any say in political debates on climate change or
other issues? How should scientists go about engaging with
political issues?
Scientific results that are relevant to the debate should be
made publicly available, especially to policy makers.
Scientists can actively attempt to inform the public and policy
makers by lobbying, public education, and media.
Scientists can join organizations to promote their preferred
policy positions. Many formal associations of scientists, such as
AAAS, make policy statements.
15. Before the advent of modern science, people used a variety
of supernatural or superstitious reasons to explain phenomena.
Science on the other hand attempts to explain all phenomena in
entirely naturalistic terms. Has science decreased superstition?
Does Christianity encourage or dispel superstition?
Superstition has decreased in modern societies since the
foundation of modern science.
Christianity opposes superstition by prohibiting occult
explanations. In the Christian worldview, the entirety of nature is
under natural laws put in place by the Creator.
16. Some people claim that science has decreased the number of
people who believe in God. Is this true? Some people also claim
that the vast majority of scientists are atheists. Is this
true?
The raw number of people who believe in God is larger now than
at any previous point in the future due to population growth.
We dont have good statistics from historical eras, but there is
no strong reason to believe that that percentage of people who
believe in God has decreased substantially since the beginning of
modern science.
It is demonstrably untrue that the vast majority of scientists
are atheists. Exact stats vary by source. According to a 2009 Pew
Society survey, approximately half of scientists believe in God or
a higher power. The percentage of scientists who believe in God is
approximately half the percentage for the general population, but
atheists are not a strong majority of scientists.
17. Science is an alliance of free spirits in all cultures
rebelling against the local tyranny that each culture imposes on
its children.
-Freeman Dyson
Science has a long history of being countercultural. Many famous
scientists have been iconoclasts and some even rebels. Why might
scientists be likely to question cultural assumptions? Is there a
limit to how far scientists should go in questioning cultural or
intellectual norms?
Questioning established knowledge is built into the process of
science. Scientists are more likely to question cultural
assumptions because they are used to questioning in general.
Scientists generally believe in progress, so it is natural for
them to try to make the world better.
18. Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be
transformed by the renewing of your mind.
Romans 12:2
This is one example of a biblical passage that can be
interpreted as a call for Christians to live as part of a different
culture than worldly people. Why is it important for Christians to
question cultural values?
Cultural values are often against Gods values.
Cultural is tainted by sinful nature.
Following God calls for radical love that is often antithetical
to normal cultural behavior.
Theological implications (Physics for Science & Engineering
III)
1. From the time when universities were first founded, largely
to train clergy and theologians, science (previously called natural
philosophy) has been a part of the required curriculum. Why would
the Church encourage the teaching of science to their priests?
The primary purpose of education is to train good thinkers.
Science is an excellent way to develop critical thinking
skills.
Because God is the Creator, it is natural to study the creation
as one means to learn more about God.
Particularly in modern times, it is valuable for priests to know
something about science because their parishioners might have
questions about it.
2. God saw all that He had made. And it was very good.
Genesis 1:31
What does it mean to say that Gods creation is good?
This very has several interpretations:
Provision the creation has everything that is needed for people
to thrive
Aesthetics the creation is inherently beautiful
Orderliness in contrast to competing ancient Near Eastern
creation stories in which the cosmos was seen as a chaotic cosmic
battle, Gods creation is ordered
Fullness the created creatures are capable of reproducing and
filling the world
Functionality the laws allows the world to function without
decaying
Purpose the creation fulfills its purpose of displaying Gods
glory
3. Some people, in order to discover God, read books. But there
is a great book: the very appearance of created things. Look above
you! Look below you! Read it. God, whom you want to discover, never
wrote that book with ink. Instead, He set before your eyes the
things that He had made. Can you ask for a louder voice than
that?"
-St. Augustine
Echoing Psalm 19 and Romans 1:19-20, Augustine and many other
Christians throughout history have thought of Gods revelation as
consisting of two books: the Bible and His creation. How can
studying nature, i.e. science, help us learn about God? How can
science be an act of worship?
By studying the details of Gods creation, scientists can better
appreciate the goodness of creation.
Studying the Creation can show us Gods nature: His power,
creativity, love, patience, faithfulness, appreciation of freedom
and life.
The intricate workings of the creation reveal Gods plan for the
universe.
God has given humans the task of caring for creation (see
Genesis 2:15). Science allows us to fulfill this purpose more
fully.
4. Christian thinkers have long tried to use logic to prove Gods
existence. Some philosophers who have joined this cause are
Descartes, Pascal (both mathematicians and physicists), C.S. Lewis,
and Josh McDowell. The rise of Christian apologetics has closely
paralleled the development of modern science and the logical tools
included therein. Is there any value in trying to logically prove
Gods existence?
Some scientific facts lend credence to belief in a Creator.
Nothing is ever fully proven in science. We cant expect
scientific proof of Gods existence.
Faith will always be necessary.
5. In the October 21, 2005 edition of The Chronicle of Higher
Education, the Dalai Lama, spiritual head of Buddhism, is quoted as
saying in his book:
My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief
that as in science so in Buddhism understanding the nature of
reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: If
scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims
in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of
science and abandon those claims.
If some new scientific discovery were to directly contradict
Christian doctrines, what would you do?
Point out that this question is hypothetical.
Our desire should be for truth. The Dalai Lamas openness is
laudable.
6. One traditional principle of logic is the principle of
non-contradiction, which states that two contradictory statements
cannot both be true or equivalently that two true statements cannot
be contradictory. Suppose that the Bible makes a statement about
the natural world and that science establishes a fact about the
same aspect of the natural world. Is it possible for the scientific
fact to contradict the Bible?
Point out that this question is hypothetical.
Our understanding of science is an interpretation of evidence,
which is fallible.
Our understanding of Christianity is based on an interpretation
of the Bible, tradition, and experience. This is also fallible.
We dont expect there to be a contradiction. If there is a
contradiction, we should check our interpretations of both science
and scripture.
7. One example of a historical conflict between a scientist and
the Church is the affair of Galileo. Galileo supported a
heliocentric model of the solar system, in which the Earth orbits
the Sun, while several Bible verses (Ps. 93:1, Ps 96:10, I Ch.
16:30, Ecc. 1:5) say that the Earth does not move. At the time, the
position of the Church was to interpret these verses literally. Was
the Bible wrong, or was the problem with the Churchs interpretation
of the Bible? How can this conflict be resolved in light of the
principle of non-contradiction of truths?
Literal interpretation is tricky, because the authors intention
is not always to be literal. Some of these passages are poetic.
We should keep in mind that the Bible we read is a translation
from ancient languages. The translation may have distorted the
original meaning.
Sound biblical interpretation should consider the cultural
context of the author and audience.
The Galileo case appears to be a problem with interpretation of
the scriptures. There is no conflict with Galileos findings and at
least some valid interpretations of the scripture text.
8. "We may regard the present state of the universe as the
effect of the past and the cause of the future. An intellect which
at any given moment knew all of the forces that animate nature and
the mutual positions of the beings that compose it, if this
intellect were vast enough to submit the data to analysis, could
condense into a single formula the movement of the greatest bodies
of the universe and that of the lightest atom; for such an
intellect nothing could be uncertain and the future just like the
past would be present before its eyes."
-Pierre Simon Laplace, A Philosophical Essay on
Probabilities
Some philosophers have used this to argue for determinism, the
idea that all events in the universe including human behavior are
predetermined. Is determinism consistent with the laws of physics?
Is determinism consistent with Christian theology?
Determinism is not consistent with quantum mechanics as we
currently understand it. There seems to be a fundamental randomness
to physical processes.
9. Classical determinism is often combined with the philosophy
of reductionism. Reductionism holds that all complex objects are
made of atoms, and the atoms are subject to the laws of physics, so
all events in nature are determined by a few simple laws.
Reductionism can also be characterized by saying that human culture
reduces to biology, biology reduces to chemistry inside cells, and
chemistry reduces to physics. Is it true that all things can be
reduced to fundamental laws, or are there some phenomena that
cannot be reduced to the motions of atoms?
Reductionism has been highly fruitful for science, particularly
physics. Studying simplified physical system and then generalizing
to larger systems allows us to understand complex problems.
We do not have satisfactory reductionist explanations of
phenomena like consciousness, social behaviors, etc.
Even if we had a detailed reductionist of human biology, for
example how chemicals in our brains interact with neurons to
produce neurological reactions that manifest as thoughts, this
still wouldnt be a satisfactory explanation. To fully understand
complex systems, we need to have multiple levels of understanding:
microscopic, systematic, and emergent.
10. If classical determinism and reductionism are true, is
freewill possible?
Yes. Even if our brains are controlled by reductionistic and
deterministic chemical reactions, we still have at least a
sensation of choice.
Our consciousness has clear effects on the chemistry of our
neurons. This causality can be seen as free will.
11. Materialism-belief that nothing exists except matter
Dualism-belief that both matter and minds, spirits or idealized
forms exist
Many philosophers, starting with Plato, have believed in
dualism. With the rise of modern science, it has become more
fashionable to believe in materialism. Are either of these views
consistent with Christian theology?
Materialism is not consistent with Christianity. The Bible
clearly teaches that non-physical beings (God and angels) and human
spirits exist.
Various versions of dualism exist. A belief that all objects
have a physical form and a non-physical essence is not consistent
with Christianity.
Dualisms belief that both good and evil exist is consistent with
Christianity.
12. The Notion of the Worlds being a great Machine, going on
without the Interposition of God, as a Clock continues to go
without the Assistance of a Clockmaker, is the Nation of
Materialism and Fate, and tends, (under pretence of making God a
Supra-mundane Intelligence,) to exclude Providence and Gods
Government in reality out of the World.
-Gottfried Leibniz
The laws of science assume causality, i.e. one event happens and
causes a later event to happen. If classical determinism is true,
the chain of cause-effects continues indefinitely to the beginning
of time. Is it true that everything that occurs is caused by
something previous? If so, how is God involved in the universe?
Some philosophers who believe in determinism have used it to
argue for a clockwork universe, which was created by God and then
left to work without his intervention. This is not consistent with
Christianitys teachings that God is continually involved with His
creation.
Gods interventions in nature, e.g. miracles, may violate
causality. This is within His infinite power.
Creation ex nihilo is a violation of causality.
13. Thomas Aquinas elaborated on the principle of causality by
saying that everything that occurs has both a primary and secondary
cause. The secondary cause is the immediately preceding physical
event that caused something to occur via the laws of physics. The
primary cause is a deeper level. According to Aquinas, God is the
primary cause of all that happens by giving a purpose for the event
and instituting the laws that allow the secondary cause to work. If
events indeed have both primary and secondary causes, is God active
in the universe? If events have both primary and secondary causes,
is God subject to the action of secondary causes and the laws of
physics?
Even if every event has a secondary physical cause, God can
still be active in the universe by being the primary cause.
Secondary causes act on physical objects. Since God is not
physical, secondary causes cannot act on Him.
14. In 1270 A.D., the University of Paris responded to
Aristotelian natural philosophy by issuing a list of condemned
statements; natural philosophers were not allowed to make or defend
these statements, or they would be considered heretics. Several of
the condemned statements would place limits on God, for example
That God could not move the heavens with rectilinear motion; and
th