Fellow physicist Dr. Michael Guillen, whom I do not know personally, turns the expression “seeing is believing” on its head to show the role worldview has on whether science seems to support or contradict Christianity. He succeeds in making the case that it is more rational to be a Christian than an atheist, reversing his initial worldview, which lawyers would call “reluctant testimony,” thus more credible.
Scientists like Guillen – who has a doctorate from Cornell in physics, astronomy, and math – rise in their profession by applying reason and “the scientific method,” as they understand it, to their investigations.
World-class scientist Guillen extended his passion for the truth to perform a prolonged and detailed analysis, in concert with the woman who became his wife, of both the Old Testament and the New Testament, which present two very different portrayals of the relationship of God to man.
In the New Testament especially, Dr. Guillen found much to support his scientific worldview, a viewpoint previously shaped by the seeming contradictions of quantum mechanics, the esoteric analysis physicists use with success even while admitting to being puzzled by it.
Guillen contrasts “trivial” truths, demonstrable from logic and evidence, with “profound” truths, supported by evidence and reason but unprovable. Profound truths can be both true and false in some senses simultaneously, such as whether Christ was man or God. Analogously, in quantum mechanics, for example, the electron can be both a particle but not a wave (photo-electric effect) and be a wave but not a particle (diffraction).
Truth is larger than proof, Dr. Guillan emphasizes. Imagine a Venn diagram, where the provable is a subset of the true. What can be proven is quite limited.
For example, eminent mathematicians in the early 20th century found that mathematics could not be put on an entirely logical foundation, as Euclidian geometry had been. Soon after, logician Kurt Godel went even farther and showed that there are propositions that cannot be proven or disproven within systems as complete as modern mathematics and that such systems are even capable of “proving” falsehoods. Truth extends beyond proof.
A classic example of the limitations of logic is determining the truth or falsity of “this statement is false,” a seemingly simple proposition. Is it true? Or false? Or indeterminate?
Another example of the difficulty in relying only on analysis is determining the truth of a statement as simple as “John is good.” Values become extremely hard to define and prove.
A third example is “fuzzy math,” where yes/no is usefully replaced by yes/somewhat/no.
In passing, the author notes the recent studies that demonstrated obvious shortcomings in majorities of samples of published scientific investigations. I would add that current controversies over global warming and vaccination mandates for Covid-19 have shown how some scientists selectively present only the part of the story supporting their worldview.
The author convinced me the case for science has been over-stated and the case for belief in God has been under-stated. His carefully argued and thoroughly researched work includes scores of pertinent citations.
Dr. Guillen keeps our interest and empathy with his narrative passages about himself, his colleagues, and his most significant others.
“Believing is seeing” is akin to “where you stand depends on where you sit,” as your worldview, knowledge, and your self-interest can make you highly aware of or nearly blind to the evidence for a Creator.
This statement is true: Dr. Guillen has put the case for belief in God and for Christianity on an even firmer footing.
This book by Dr. Guillen, whom I do not know, is available from amazon.com:
I am a semi-retired former physicist, now a coach and editor helping people write, finish, and publish their books, through my site:
Post a Comment