Would You Baptize an Extraterrestrial?: . . . and Other Questions from the Astronomers' In-box at the Vatican Observatory

Would You Baptize an Extraterrestrial?: . . . and Other Questions from the Astronomers' In-box at the Vatican Observatory by Guy Consolmagno SJ and Paul Mueller

Two Jesuit scientists discuss the interaction of faith and science. In their few both are complementary as they address different concerns. While many "miracles" could be explained by science, that is largely irrelevant. God is beyond the universe. Miracles may be understood via science or they may not. It is largely irrelevant. 

Historically, there was no conflict between faith and science. Most science research was done by monks and other men of faith. The Bible was interpreted by the priest for the congregation. Both science and faith were used to explain the world. The Bible was seen as a source of truth. This truth may be communicated through figurative stories or literal truth. (The Bible even includes multiple accounts of the same event with different facts.) Only after the protestant reformation did people start interpreting the Bible as fully literal. This resulted in conflict, especially when the biblical accounts did not match the current state of science. This conflict relatively recent conflict is only among small groups on the science or faith side that seek the conflict. Historical figures like Galileo known for the "conflict" between church and science were actually caught in a political conflict rather than a faith/science conflict.

This book is an excellent exploration of how faith and science work well together, even though that is the "side" topic. The Chicago Art Museum is used as an introduction to faith and science. There are different ways to appreciate art. Different art provides different insights. Even the same artwork can be explored from different ways.  This is similar to how we look at the world. The bible has multiple creation accounts. Science also has gone through various theories of the creation. Quantum Theory and Relativity conflict with each other, yet they both work to explain natural phenomena. Pluto was once thought to be a planet, but now part of a new class of "dwarf planets". Science changes. Having a background in faith and science helps one to look at the big picture and better understand the world than when focussing entirely on one. 

Losing the Nobel Prize: A Story of Cosmology, Ambition, and the Perils of Science's Highest Honor

Brian Keating uses his experience to criticize the current impact of the Nobel Prize and propose solutions. The Nobel Prize encourages scientists to go out on their own, horde information and focus on being the first with "popular" science in the order to reach acclaim. Alas, this runs contrary to the interests of science. It also appears to run contrary to Nobel's original intentions. Instead, it would be better if the prize were conferred on the group of researchers rather than limit it to three individuals. There is also an unofficial "rotation" among the different fields of physics.

The bulk of the book is spent covering his research and experience and how it is colored by the current Nobel prize structure. In a rush to be recognized, a press conference was launched before outside review. His team also had to resort to inferring data from slides because an opposing team was not willing to share. He found his name removed from the top of some research studies, likely in hopes that others could get primary recognition. There was also a rush to "confirm" beliefs rather than let the data speak for itself. Personally, he also had to rush back from crucial research in Antarctica to the death bed of his dying biological father, possibly impearling his quest for a Nobel. In the end, the Nobel-seaking research ended up being a false positive obscured by cosmic dust. They missed their chance. 

There is a little bit of sour grapes in the book. However, there is a lot more introspection. He looked at what he had gone through in a quest for a Nobel and realized it was not best for him or for science. He proposed some solutions. Yet, he still acknowledges the prestige and awe of the award.

The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations That Transform the World

David Deutsch is a physicist by training. In The Beginning of Infinity, he weaves in physics with the theory of science, philosophy and the future. He has an optimistic view of society. He gives little credit to stories that "the world is doomed." While in school, a professor told everyone that global cooling would lead to an imminent food shortage. That didn't happen. Today we are concerned with global warming. Sometimes people are obsessively concerned with whether the warming is caused by humans or naturally occurring. However, if there are negative consequences to warming, the cause is irrelevant. The scientific method can be used to help find solutions. Political "fixes" will often set things back, in part by forcing effort in the wrong area.

He also gives the example of somebody who thought color televisions were a needless luxury. There was little that color TVs could do that could not be done with black and white screens. Color TVs also depended on rare elements of limited supply, thus would only be available to a limited set of wealthy people. Today, color screens are everywhere. The dependency on rare elements, however, is gone, with CRTs pretty much nonexistent these days. New technology made the previous problems irrelevant. The new technology was built upon the previous technology.

The enlightenment enabled humankind to master the world. The problems we solve today were likely not thought of previously. Scientific explanations can be used to explain everything. They are constantly subject to re-evaluation. He feels that science should seek to explain things based on observations and theories that can be disproved. Supernatural or religious explanations cannot be easily disproved and are not "scientific". (It could be argued that that science and religion live on different planes. They are trying to do very different things. There is little need for them to try to compete with each other.)

The book goes into long discussions about Infinity and the "Infinity Hotel". Greek Philosophers also get significant coverage. Quantum theory, the theory of relativity and Newtonian physics are all covered with their inherent conflicts. There are many different theories of the universe today. Static societies think they have all they need today. These societies eventually die when faced with an external shock they cannot deal with. The Enlightenment helped enable dynamic societies. They use the existing knowledge. However, they also seek to gain new knowledge, possibly throwing out beloved theories in the process. There is no single source of authority other than the truth. (The author has some negative things to say about "post-modernism" which seems to say everything is relative, but only is acceptable if approved by certain "authority figures") 

America's cultures seems at odds with the "enlightenment views" advocated. The left tends to favor "science", but also is subject to adopting certain "beloved beliefs" regardless of new knowledge. The right tends to be more conservatively static, however, it also encourages more freedom of action. A good future for science needs a bit of both.

A Short History of Nearly Everything

In A Short History of Nearly Everything, Bill Bryson starts with the beginning of the universe and works his way down. He laments the poor stats of science textbooks. They often have a few diagrams that attract you to the possibilities of learning, then let you down with very poor text. In this work, he tries to provide an accessible "history" of the world. It starts with the big bang, works through how the universe, suns and planets were formed, then goes down to describe life on earth. From here, it goes through the initial history of organisms, the evolution to different species, and the many extinction events that have taken place and the new species that have come to fill voids. The narrative follows a dual chronology approach. The author discusses key events in rough chronology that the occurred. Within the discussion of the events, he discusses the way that our knowledge of the events has unraveled, with special attention to the key figures in the discovery process. In many of the cases the "first discoverer" is disregarded by society, and only comes to light after somebody else has popularized and attached his name to the discovery (it is almost always a he). The earth has often been much hotter than it is today. (We are in part of a long term ice age.) However, global warming has a lot of uncertainties that could make matters worse. The book ends with a look at homo sapien and how he has come on the scene, with both the ability to both understand and destroy the world.

Death By Black Hole

Death by Black Hole comes from a series of essays written by an astrophysicist. The work flows well and provides a good background on the greater universe. The title topic appears closer to the end and would be quite gruesome. Your body would be cut in half, then in half again until finally all the molecules and sub-molecules are split into one unrecognizable mass.

He does a good job of describing what we know and how we got to know it. Much of it is guesswork, with more data allowing better theories to be formed. Radio telescopes allow us to find even more about the universe at large. We may only have a few billion years before the universe is destroyed. But before, the sun is likely to go out. Even before that, life on earth may be wiped out by a stray comet or asteroid. (Though we may actually be able to help prevent some of those from being too destructive.)

The study of science seems a lot like reverse engineering a computer program. We just have to see what is there, and try to figure things out. There have been many past proclaimed "end of sciences". However, since then many new theories have been put forth that better explain what we see. A good scientist can be open to all new changes.

Alas, the ending somewhat spoiled the work. There, he attempts to provide a critique of "intelligent design". He argues that scientists simply use deity as a way to credit the things that they don't understand. (Thus, if deity does not have a place in science, does that mean scientists are omniscient?) He then posits that there are so many defects in lifeforms, that there must not have been a deity. (Why would one create all those problems? Well, why would a programmer create bugs?) Then intelligent design bears the brunt of his wrath as a force that retards the growth of science. I think that takes things a little too far, and may be a result of the atheistic pushing of Hawkins and other scientists. Science and religion can work nicely together. Religion is like the high level documentation. It explains how things were done and provides some APIs for doing certain things. Science is an attempt to dissect the details and find detailed hidden features and APIs. There is no need for them to conflict. It is easy to be both religious and scientific. Science rarely disproves religion. Rather it provides alternate explanations. Religion also rarely retards science. In fact, it may help it in providing a better focus. Evolution could be a good explanation for the relgious creation. Intelligent design provides another explanation. The only harm to science is if it spends too much time worrying about it to focus on other research efforts. (Isaac Newton made huge contributions to science in spite of spending years justifying his work with religion. Perhaps his output would have been more without the religious influence, but it could have also been less.)