“SCIENCE AND THE OPEN MIND”

A Sermon by the Rev. Bruce Clear

Sunday, January 9, 2005

All Souls Unitarian Church

Indianapolis, Indiana

I recall some years ago a story by Garrison Keillor, of Prairie House Companion fame, about some kindly Lake Woebegone Lutheran family who went to the East coast for the holidays to visit relatives. The relatives, he said, were Unitarians, which of course was confusing to the visiting Minnesotans. Then Keillor said something like this by way of explaining Unitarianism:

"A lot of folks say that Unitarians have no beliefs. That is not true. Unitarians have very strong beliefs. It is just that what those beliefs are depends upon what book they last read."

We are, it is true, often criticized this way. When it comes to religious belief, it is sometimes hard to pin Unitarian Universalists down. Sometimes we are criticized, and sometimes rightly so, for having no beliefs. Other times we are criticized, and sometimes rightly so, for having too many beliefs – that we believe anything we want. Sometimes those contradictory criticisms are indeed appropriate. Many other times, those criticisms are not at all appropriate. See what I mean about it being hard to pin us down?

Like most humor, Keillor’s comment is amusing because it contains a grain of truth. Like most humor, it is also funny because there is more to it than just what was said – that is, the grain of truth isn’t entirely true, or offers a twist or spin on the truth. But it is that grain of truth that interests me today.

Our Unitarian tradition is distinctive from other traditions, it seems to me, to the extent that we honor an open mind. We are distinctive from many other religious traditions because we don’t have a creed that prescribes some absolute truth. We affirm and respect each person’s honest religious journey, and keep our minds open to new insights to be discovered on our own search. Sometimes we do this with our own strong convictions about religious and philosophical questions. Anyone listening in on a lively discussion among Unitarians in this building will invariably witness exchange of strong personal opinions on all kinds of subjects. Sometimes, though, our respect for keeping an open mind causes us to suspend our opinions while we wait for more persuasive evidence. Sometimes we find ourselves torn between holding firm opinions on a subject and keeping an open mind on it as well.

This morning I am addressing what I believe to be one of the most perplexing challenges of being a Unitarian Universalist. What is the proper balance between holding strong beliefs and convictions, on one hand, and keeping an open mind on the other? It is this dilemma, I think, that allows for many negative stereotypes of Unitarian Universalists, and provides the grain of truth that makes Keillor’s joke about us be funny.

This is one of many of what we call life’s “creative tensions.” We find those tensions in many arenas. One of the most common examples of a creative tension is the paradox of “tolerance.” We like to think of ourselves as being of tolerant of people who think differently, or who choose to live a different lifestyle. But does being “tolerant” of others go so far as to be tolerant of those who are intolerant? Is it tolerant to tolerate bigotry, for example? Think of those who advocate practices of racial discrimination. At what point should we become intolerant of intolerance? And what about the apathetic people who allow others around them to practice discrimination. Can we excuse those who turn a blind eye to the bigotry around them? In other words, at what point do we become intolerant of those who tolerant intolerance? This is what I mean by “creative tension” – it stretches the mind sometimes until it hurts.

Something similar, I think, goes on with the creative tension between holding convictions and keeping an open mind about important religious and philosophical issues.

Does God exist? If I say that I’m keeping my mind open on the subject, how is that different from saying I don’t have any opinion about it? Are there such things as moral laws that we should follow? To say my mind is open to different perspectives on that subject seems about the same as saying “Well, maybe ‘yes’ and maybe ‘no’.” Is there an afterlife when we die? Many of us would say that is something we don’t know and can’t know until it happens. But if we believe in keeping an open mind, shouldn’t we not be so dogmatic about it and keep ourselves available for persuasion by arguments for heaven and hell or reincarnation or some other scheme of afterlife? In fact, if we are honestly convinced that it is impossible to know about an afterlife, does that make us dishonest if we nevertheless hold some opinion about what, in our view, is likely to happen?

These are examples of “creative tensions” between conviction and keeping an open mind. It is one of the more imposing dilemmas of our liberal religious tradition. Sometimes, I confess, it is absurd enough to be funny from the outside looking in. Sometimes, from the inside looking out, it is just a little frustrating.

I propose that there needs to be no conflict between holding a strong conviction on one hand, and keeping an open mind on the other. I think this is a false paradox, even though we often experience as a real conflict. The dilemma is an illusion, though we are too often fooled by it.

It seems to me one reason we find ourselves in this dilemma is that our culture in general, and our Unitarian Universalist religious tradition in particular, is too uncritically tied to a scientific worldview that is, in fact, a caricature of science. I’d like to spend a moment examining this caricature, and, hopefully, debunk it.

The common perception of science is that its power and its beauty rests in the fact that it offers answers – answers that are both true and certain. Modern history has been a witness to this. After all, how can you argue with a standard of truth that has been able to send people to the moon, transplant hearts from one body to another, and devise a world-wide “web” of information and communication? Science works. It’s reliable. It’s true. It’s certain.

With that as our standard for truth, it’s no wonder that many of us hesitate to formulate convictions about matters that can’t rise to that standard of certainty. God, ethics, afterlife – these kinds of questions are not even close to the league of certainty we experience with science. So when we say we are “keeping an open mind” on such subjects, we often mean that we are waiting for the kind of persuasive evidence that has the power of scientific evidence.

One problem with that perspective is science doesn’t quite work the way most of us think it does. I think the dilemma of the open mind in religious and philosophical questions is solved when we see how that is dealt with in science. So I want to look a little closer at how, in theory at least, science deals with the open mind. I suggest there are three misconceptions about science which, if cleared up sufficiently, resolve our dilemma.

The first misconception is that science provides us a standard of certainty in truth. While that is a common perception shared by most people, and perhaps even by a number of practicing scientists, those who study the scientific method itself clearly and decisively deny that scientific statements are statements of absolute truth.

Next to Albert Einstein, one of the most widely admired scientific minds of the twentieth century was physicist Richard Feynman, the subject of a best-selling biography entitles “Genius.”

Feynman argued strongly that science isn’t about finding certain truth, but rather establishing approximations of truth. “Scientific knowledge,” he wrote, “is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty – some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain.” That is why doubt is imperative to the scientific method – even doubt about the conclusions of your experiments. Again from Feynman:

“As you develop more information in the sciences, it is not that you are finding out about the truth, but that you are finding out that this or that is more likely.”

“When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is in doubt.”

As I say, it is commonly believed that to discover “truth” means to discover something that is solid, definite, absolute, and certain. That is one meaning of truth. The Greeks had a somewhat different understanding of the word. In ancient Greek writing, the word “truth” did not mean certainty, but rather “unconcealed” or “uncovered.” In this sense the quest for truth is an unveiling of something that was hidden. That which is discovered is not necessarily absolute, permanent, or complete – it is simply more revealed, more observable, more available than it used to be.

How does all this help with our dilemma of the open mind? For one thing, if keeping an open mind means we are waiting for evidence that convinces us of some absolute truth, it will never happen. Obviously, people in science hold some very strong convictions in their work. But Feynman’s point, it seems to me, is that to be true to the scientific method, no conviction, no opinion, no claim can be held beyond the scope of doubt. If in matters of religion and philosophy, then, we are keeping our mind open, waiting for some certain proof, we are applying some standard that far exceeds the standards of science.

In an essay on “The Relation of Science and Religion,” Feynman explicitly applies this scientific principle to religious thought. After repeating that science is about finding degrees of certainty rather than finding certainty itself, he considers those scientists who also happen to believe in God and suggests how they can hold that belief and still be consistent with their scientific principles:

(For them), “the question changes a little bit from ‘Is there a God?’ to ‘How sure is it that there is a God?’ This very subtle change is a great stroke and represents a parting of the ways between science and religion..... Although there are scientists who believe in God, I do not believe that they think of God in the same way (other) religious people do. If they are consistent with their science, I think that they say something like this to themselves: ‘I am almost certain there is a God. The doubt is very small.’ That is quite different from saying, ‘I know that there is a God.’ I do not believe that a scientist can ever obtain that view – that really religious understanding, the real knowledge that there is a God – that absolute certainty which (other) religious people have.”

So here is one reason that the dilemma we face in trying to balance an open mind with strong conviction is unnecessary. Using the model from the scientific method, keeping an open mind does not mean having no opinions. Quite the contrary. Keeping an open mind means simply knowing that your convictions are tentative, that they may not be the whole truth. Keeping an open mind does not mean not to believe. It means never to believe something so absolutely as to rule out doubt.

There is a second lesson from science that I think helps resolve the dilemma of holding convictions with, and keeping, an open mind. Even if we now understand that the conclusions of science are never beyond doubt, there is also another common misperception about science that should be clarified. It is commonly believed that the method of science, specifically scientific experiments, is designed to prove something true, or as true as possible.

A look at the scientific method shows something surprising, I think. Science works primarily by trying to discover what is false far more than it tries to discover what is true.

Here is what I mean: Any experiment devised offers a hypothesis. Let’s say our hypothesis is “water always freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit.” Our goal is to test that hypothesis. How do we test it? We do not test it by proving the hypothesis true. That can’t be done. We test it by trying and trying and trying to prove it false. We design numerous conditions to see if we can freeze water at some other temperature than 32 degrees Fahrenheit. We place in different containers – plastic, metal, and so forth. We try different volumes of water. We take it to different areas of the world. We try and try and try to find ways in which our hypothesis might fail, conditions under which water doesn’t freeze at 32 degrees Fahrenheit. If, after sufficient experiments, we cannot find any condition under which water does not freeze at that exact temperature, our hypothesis passes the test and becomes a theory – a theory always subject to further testing and doubt. Scientists coming after us will devote their whole careers in attempting to disprove our theory. And they may succeed. They may find, for example, that water freezes at different temperatures when placed at different altitudes for example, a variable we neglected to test.

The point is that the method involved is not as much trying to find what is true, but rather eliminating what is false. Science is far more reliable in identifying what is not true than in identifying what is true.

What does all this have to do with having convictions and keeping our minds open? There are times, I think, when some of us are hesitant to form an opinion about religious or philosophical issues because we want to make sure there is some sort of positive proof. It turns out, though, that even rigorous science doesn’t stand up to this standard. The scientist who is testing a hypothesis, that is, an educated guess, actually believes at some level that it is true, even though it might turn out to be false. He or she believes in it enough to be worthy of testing it, of trying to prove it false.

If this is a legitimate method in science, why cannot it be legitimate way of holding other opinions? There is nothing illegitimate about beliefs concerning questions of God or the afterlife unless and until those beliefs can be shown to be false. If they are demonstrably false, that is the time to give them up. Until then, they can be honestly held. Keeping an open mind does not mean refraining from believing things that we don’t know to be true. It means simply our willingness to consider alternative beliefs, and to give up our beliefs only when we discover a better explanation, or give up our beliefs if they can be shown to be in error.

Finally, I see a third way in which we can learn from science about the process of keeping an open mind. There are, in fact, specific limits and boundaries concerning what science is capable of considering. Science is astoundingly helpful in understanding the way the world works – about the activities of nature. That is tremendously valuable information.

But science is not equipped to answer questions of meaning and value. These are questions that only religion and philosophy can address. Scientists ask questions about how the world works, and religion inquires into what meaning I can find in the world. Scientists may ask about the “origin of species,” but only religion can ask the meaning of human dignity.

Science can ask, and theoretically it can answer, the question, “Are there other intelligent life forms in the universe?” That is not a question of religion. Religion can ask, “What would the presence of other intelligent life forms in the universe mean for our sense of personal significance? That is not a question for science. Science can, theoretically, ask and answer the question, “What risks do future generations face when we dump our toxic waste or use our non-renewable resources?” That is a question of information. It is not a religious question. Science cannot ask the question, “Is continuing that behavior worth the risk to our future generations” That is a question of value.

Questions that include the words “should” or “ought” are outside the realm of science. They are questions of value. Science cannot tell us whether life is worth living or what flavor ice cream to choose, or what career will make us fulfilled, or who to marry, or whether to marry. It cannot tell us if abortion is murder or if same-sex couples should have the right to be married or whether invading Iraq was justified violence. It cannot tell us when to cry or when to laugh or when to hold someone who needs us. In other words, science may be able to give us a very clear understanding of some things, but it cannot give us the “big picture” of life, because the big picture includes what we value and how to live and what life means.

Huston Smith, the philosopher of science and religion, put it this way:

“To hope for a (big-picture) world view from science is like hoping that increasingly detailed maps of Illinois will eventually produce the ultimate map of the United States.”

Science and religion address two separate and distinct sets of questions. Science supplies very useful tools to use in life. Religion can focus on the values that govern how we use those tools.

The physicist Richard Feynman tells the following story to illustrate how science only offers tools and not values. He recalls touring a Buddhist temple in Honolulu, and at the end of the tour, the leader told the tourists that he had something to say that they will never forget. Feynman added, “and I have never forgotten it.” It was a proverb from the Buddhist religion that says this:

“To every person is given the key to the gates of heaven; the same key opens the gates of hell.”

To Feynman, this proverb had something to say about the limits of science. The tools it supplies can be very dangerous without guidance from some things science doesn’t know. Science can supply us the keys we need, but it cannot show us which doors to open. We’ll have to look elsewhere for that solution.

Traditionally, we human beings have looked to religion and philosophy for those answers, and that is as it must be, I think. Science and religion can work together in complement, but they cannot answers each others questions.

So what does this tell us about the dilemma of holding convictions and keeping an open mind? If we are refraining from believing things simply because science has not offered evidence for them – if that is what we mean by keeping our mind open – then we are avoiding, even denying, some very crucial human issues. Science is silent about life’s questions of value, for example.

Science has nothing to say about the existence of God, for example. It can identify some beliefs about that God that are contrary to certain evidence, such as a belief that disease happens as a result of God’s punishment for sin. Science can provide more likely explanations for disease. But science can say nothing about the existence of God. It can say nothing about the existence of an afterlife. It can say nothing about our choice of personal values, or our choice of political values. If we are refraining from holding opinions on such matters because we want to keep our “mind open,” such restrain cannot be justified by any belief about science. Science has nothing to do with such ideas.

Throughout this sermon, I’ve had the nagging feeling that I’m wanting to say something that I fear I’m just not saying. I’m afraid I’m avoiding saying what I really want to say. So I’ll take this last few paragraphs and minutes to try and get it out.

I guess I want to say this: I want people in this congregation not to be afraid for their convictions under the excuse of keeping an open mind. Whatever it is you feel about God or ethics or afterlife or any such open-ended questions, don’t be afraid to declare it. Explore your conviction as far as it can take you within the boundaries of credibility.

Keep true to your own ideas, but stay open to dialogue. Whatever topic arises – ethics, religion, politics – keep your mind open in two important ways. First, welcome respectful conversation with others who hold different convictions. Second, never let go of some element of doubt in your convictions, admit a certain tentativeness to any belief.

But withholding conviction has nothing to do with an open mind. There is a difference, someone recently pointed out to me, between an open mind and an empty one. An open mind holds convictions and opinions without being rigid. An empty mind avoids any convictions.

Someone once pointed out that the purpose of an opening your mind is a little like the purpose of opening your mouth – so eventually you will shut it on something solid and nourishing!

This sermon, I guess, is a plea for conviction. Go for it, and enliven our discussions in this church!