It is a small book (each page of text 3" x 5") of 91 pages. I will quote
the synopsis and liberally quote from several sections.
If there is extremely high interest, I could scan the book
and post it on the Web.
Synopsis
I Outline of evolution leading to the advent of Man in the physical world
II The questioning voice, "What doest thou here?"
III Changing views of the scope of physical theory and the ideal of
physical explanation
IV Both a scientific and a mystical outlook are involved
in the "problem of experience"
V The irrelevancy of "natural law" to some aspects of
mind and consciousness
VI The importance of "significances" and the consequences of
ruling them outside the scope of inquiry
VII Assurance of the revelation of God rather than of the existence
of God is demanded
VIII In everyday life (both material and spiritual) scientific
analysis supplements but must not supplant a familiar outlook
IX The spirit of Seeking in science and in religion
Eddington's view of the beginning seems to presuppose matter being present
and that the beginning was a condensation of matter:
"Thus gravitation slowly parted the primeval chaos." p12
Planetary formation is assumed to have been by sucking matter out of the
sun, an hypothesis firmly rejected by now.
"By this and similar events there appeared here and there in the universe
something outside Nature's regular plan, namely a lump of matter small
enough and dense enough to be cool." p16.
After using "evolution" to mean "change over time" for star and planetary
formation, he expresses unwillingness to "take sides in the controversy
between the Mechanists and the Vitalists." He briefly accepts biological
evolution based on the fossil record and concludes "... Nature made nearly
every possible mistake before she reached her greatest achievement Man --
or perhaps some would say her worst mistake of all." p21
Note that he has been using "Nature" where many might use "God."
"I daresay most of you are by no means relectant to accept the scientific
epic of the Creation, holding it perhap as more to the glory of God than
the traditional story. Perhaps you would prefer to tone down certain
harshnesses of expression, to emphasize the forethought of the Creator in
the events which I have called accidents." p23
"I think it is not irreligion but a tidiness of mind, which rebels against
the idea of permeating scientific research with a religious implication."
p25
Here he then quotes one of my favorite passages, 1Kgs. 19:11ff and concludes:
"Wind, eathquake, fire -- meteorology, seismology, physics -- pass in
review, as we have been reviewing the natural forces of evolution; the Lord
was not in them. Afterwards, a stirring, an awakening in the organ of the
brain, a voice which asks "What doest thou here?"
He then discusses dualism of matter and spirit and eventually says of the brain
"What I wish to point out is that we no longer have the disposition which,
as soon as it scents a piece of mechanism, exclaims, 'Here we are getting
to bedrock.'" p32
"In comparing the certainty of things spiritual and things temporal, let us
not forget this -- Mind is the first and most direct thing in our
experience; all else is remote inference." p 37
Next he discusses the need to take into account experience, both scientific
and religious and finishes with
"What I may attempt is to dispel the feeling that in using the eye of the
body or the eye of the soul, and incorporating what is thereby revealed in
our conception of reality, we are doing something irrational and disobeying
the leading of truth which as scientists we are pledged to serve." p49
He then briefly describes and rejects materialism, by which he means the
universal dominance of scientific law. He further discusses our
understanding of "ought" and concludes:
"However closely we may associate thought with the physical machinery of
the brain, the connection is dropped as irrelevant as soon as we consider
the fundamental property of thought -- that it may be correct or
incorrect." p57
"Dismiss the idea that natural law may swallow up religion; it cannot even
tackle the multiplication table single-handed." p58
He then further plays the role of the naturalistic philosopher in order to
take them on. He discusses the predictability of the two-minutes of
silence on Armistice day and makes analogy.
"When we assert that God is real, we are not restricted to a comparison
with the reality of atoms and electrons. If God is as real as the shadow
of the Great War on Armistice Day, need we seek further reason for making a
place for God in our thoughts and lives?" p67
He then begins
"We want assurance that the soul in reaching out to the unseen world is not
following an illusion." ... "We do not want a religion that deceives us for
our own good." p68
"In the case of our human friends we take their existence for granted, not
caring whether it is proven or not. Our relationship is such that we could
read philosophical arguments designed to prove the non-existence of each
other, and perhaps even be convinced by them -- and tehn laugh together
over so odd a conclusion. I think that it is something of the same kind of
security we should seek in our relationship with God." p70
Then he gives a beautiful analogy beginning with an obituary in a paper
recalling a man's passionate enjoyment of sunsets, which incites a long
series of letters debating astronomy. I think it's one of the funniest and
sobering descriptions of the ASA I've ever seen. He concludes the way most
Christians in our society would react:
"And the simple reader feels himself in an age of disquiet, insecurity and
dissension, all because it is forgotten that what the deceased man looked
out for each evening was an experience and not a creed." p86
He is fully cognizant of the limitations of his understanding and humble
about his own science. He refers to the popularity of "Seekers" in the
history of Quakerism.
"You will understand the true spirit neither of science nor of religion
unless seeking is placed in the forefront." ... "I reognise that the
practice of a religious community cannot be regulated solely in the
interests of its scientifically-minded members and therefore would not go
so far as to urge that no kind of defence of creeds is possible. But I
think it may be said that Quakerism in dispensing with creeds holds out a
hand to the scientist." p88f
That has been my experience in other non-creedal pietistic denominations.
"Rejection of creed is not inconsistent with being possessed by a living
belief. We have no creed in science, but we are not lukewarm in our
beliefs. The belief is not that all the knowledge of the universe that we
hold so enthusiastically will survive in the letter; but a sureness that we
are on the road." p90f
And finally he ends with
"Religion for the conscientious seeker is not all a matter of doubt and
self-questionings. There is a kind of sureness which is very different
from cocksureness."
Thanks to all of you for causing me to dig out this book. I probably read
it years and years ago and I am only now realizing how influential it was
on me; or perhaps I never read it but am experiencing yet again "great
minds think alike."
;-)
-Larry Martin, PhD, Associate Professor of Physics
martin@npcts.edu http://www.npcts.edu/~martin/
(312) 244-5668 fax (312) 244-4952 home: (312) 478-0679
North Park College, box 30, 3225 W. Foster Ave., Chicago, IL 60625