Connecting Reason and Faith on a Social Media Platform

Iconic Silicon Valley companies currently confront a credibility crisis of motive and trust. Helping spread fake news and propaganda, turning users into lab rats, mining personal data through addictive apps, stashing away billions of dollars in off-shore tax havens as disclosed by the Paradise Papers, suggest that under the veneer of connecting all and doing no harm, something more sinister is brewing in these Internet juggernauts.

Recent data reveal that on Facebook alone, as many as 126 million Americans were exposed to fake news stories during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, eroding our democracy. Russian operatives also created close to 3,000 fake Twitter accounts and over 1,100 videos on 18 Google channels. During a recent Congressional hearing, Senator Dianne Feinstein bluntly told representatives of Facebook, Google and Twitter: “You bear this responsibility. You’ve created these platforms.”

Americans are souring on tech titans who symbolize Silicon Valley and its increasingly questionable ethos. Not only are they accumulating wealth and power at an exponential rate, they are turning their companies into monopolies to silence discordant opinions and diminish, if not destroy, diversity.

Allow me to focus on Facebook. 

As the social media leader with over 2 billion active monthly users worldwide, can the tech giant remove our fears and restore our trust in the company, even if partially?

In his commencement address at Harvard this year, CEO Mark Zuckerberg expanded his company’s mission to include ‘three ways to create a world where everyone has a sense of purpose: by taking on meaningful projects together, by redefining equality so everyone has the freedom to pursue purpose, and by building communities across the world.” Zuckerberg defined purpose as “that sense that we are part of something bigger than ourselves, that we are needed, that we have something better ahead to work for.”

In other words, it’s not only about connecting all of humanity, it’s infusing these connections with a sense of purpose. Who can argue with that? The problem is that noble mission statements can often mask fiercer motives, especially when a company develops a global reach.

Yet it is plausible that the idea of purpose can transform the way we connect with one another in the virtual world.

Imagine that Facebook creates a platform that connects proponents of reason and faith, two ancient antagonists that have caused much sorrow in the world.

Let me clarify what I mean in a specific context: Silicon Valley.

According to a 2010 survey (the numbers could have only gone up since then) there are over 450 churches, synagogues, mosques and temples in the Santa Clara County alone, serving over 40% of the Valley’s 2 million population. The remaining 60% includes not only atheists but also those with complicated relationship to their faiths, particularly millennials who shun organized religion and pray in their own way but not in traditional places of worship.

If such a platform were created, could that be an example of the kind of meaningful project Zuckerberg envisions? Perhaps. After all, meaning, purpose and transcendence can flow from both the secular and the sacred. Any connection between the two can not only inspire fresh views on, say, stem-cell research and global warming but also deepen our understanding of how love, justice, suffering and forgiveness shape human affairs.

At the same time, we must also note that faith and reason can coexist within the same person. 

Perhaps no one exemplified this as persuasively as physicist Charles Townes (1915-2015). An article he wrote half-a-century ago in the IBM journal “Think” provides insights into the evolving nature of relationship between science and religion. After building the case that the two shared fundamental similarities - revelation in one is epiphany in another, for instance – Townes concluded that the two will eventually converge. “I believe,” he wrote in 1966 in The Convergence of Science and Religion, “this confluence is inevitable. For they both represent man’s efforts to understand his universe and must ultimately be dealing with the same substance.”

A devout Christian, Townes was one of the greatest scientists of the twentieth-century, winning the Nobel Prize in physics in 1964 for inventing the maser and the laser. He tempered his idea of convergence: “Perhaps by the time this convergence occurs, science will have been through a number of revolutions as striking as those which have occurred in the last century, and taken on a character not readily recognizable by scientists of today. Perhaps our religious understanding will also have seen progress and change. But converge they must, and through this should come new strength for both.”

Can Facebook facilitate this convergence in some way? It's difficult to say but what is clear is that this dialogue in the age of social media will not happen through staged spectacles between well-known cerebral atheists like Richard Dawkins and prominent theologians. It can only happen when practitioners of reason and faith can explore the connection between the two in a spirit of humor, humility and curiosity.

Even if a social media platform makes the flow of ideas between proponents of reason and faith easier, including those who see no conflict between the two, it does not mean it will remove our suspicion of Facebook, or of Amazon, Google or Apple, companies that are also vying for global domination, particularly when the call for regulation and antitrust probes against the Big Four is gaining steam in the Valley and beyond.

But it’s a start. The unexplored region between technology and faith beckons people with open minds seeking rational and spiritual truths. Done right, it may even be that algorithms will someday lead to epiphanies and clicks to catharsis.

Glimpses of Hidden Reality

“To honor a living person who has made an exceptional contribution affirming life’s spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works,” the Templeton foundation awarded its 2009 prize to a French physicist.

Bernard d’Espagnat, 87, is a theoretical physicist and philosopher of science at the University of Paris-Orsay. He was recognized for his pioneering contributions to the nature of physical reality and making the daring suggestion that matter everywhere is caught in a web of “veiled reality” that lies beneath time, space and energy.

What has “veiled reality” got to do with spirituality? In simple terms, it means that there are limits to what science can explain. Once we acknowledge this, it opens the door to the mysterious and the transcendent.

There is an abundance of good writing on spirituality and faith. What sets apart the work of scientists like D’Espagnat is that they use science to show the limits of science, thus allowing for the possibility that there is more to life than the acceptance of only that which can be seen or measured and rejection of that which cannot.

D’Espagnat’s quest was driven by a single, profound question: “What insight does science reveal about the nature of reality?” His research tool consisted of quantum physics, a subject he learned from one of its founders, another Frenchman named Louis de Broglie, winner of the 1929 Nobel Prize in physics. De Broglie showed that matter had wave-like properties and waves had properties that classical physics attributed only to matter. What this meant was that reality was different and more subtle than what it appeared to be. D’Espagnat devoted seven decades of his creative life trying to figure out the deepest aspects of this reality.

His research showed that “veiled reality” could be glimpsed through quantum mechanics. (An analogy from art: Pablo Picasso used cubism to paint his view of reality). In a series of famous experiments performed in 1981-82 on the polarization of photons (a massless particle associated with light waves), it was found that a change in the polarization of a photon (think of it as the direction in which it oscillates) miles removed from another photon could be detected in both. In other words, both photons were connected, or "entangled." What’s more, the change in their states traveled faster than light, a violation of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity.

The experiments tested “Bell’s Theorem,” named after the Irish physicist John Bell, which states that nature is composed of objects whose behavior can be understood “locally,” that is, influenced directly only by their immediate surroundings. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, predicts that nature is non-local, that is, the behavior of an object is influenced by objects far removed from it. D’Espagnat predicted that quantum mechanics was right, and the experiments proved him right. Physical reality turns out to be non-local, leaving open the possibility of invisible realms, the “veiled reality.”

Understanding the implications of these rigorous experiments can be daunting for the non-scientist but as D’Espagnat explained: “It’s not that science will explain the ultimate reality of certain objects or events. Rather, it is that the concepts we use, such as space, time, causality and so on … are not applicable to ultimate reality.” In other words, it is arrogance to suggest that science can have the final word on the true nature of reality. The best that science can do is to describe reality as it appears to us, taking into account limitations of our own mind and our own sensibilities.

This leads to a humbler understanding of our place in the universe. We are not its master, and its “veiled reality” can point to something larger than ourselves. To some, this may come as a disappointment; to scientists like D’Espagnat, it is a source of awe and inspiration. Matter is not the only reality. According to D’Espagnat, “the possibility that the things we observe may be tentatively interpreted as signs providing us with some perhaps not entirely misleading glimpses of a higher reality and, therefore, that higher forms of spirituality are fully compatible with what seems to emerge from contemporary physics … Mystery is not something negative that has to be eliminated. On the contrary, it is one of the constitutive elements of being.”

One scientist influenced by D’Espagnat’s work is Bruno Guiderdoni, a Muslim convert who is the director of research at France’s National Center for Scientific Research and co-founder and director of the Islamic Institute for Advanced Studies in Paris. Attending one of D’Espagnat’s lectures as a graduate student in 1980, he wrote: “I was deeply impressed by the philosophical implications of what he was addressing. One has to understand that these issues were completely absent from the usual courses in quantum physics … he helped me understand that there were actually a very deep question in this issue of the nature of reality.” Guiderdoni is widely recognized as an expert on galaxy formation and evolution as well as a prominent interpreter of Islam. He has written numerous papers on both topics and has emphasized his own work in astrophysics as a fulfillment of God’s command to seek knowledge and understand His creation.

It is a pity that the media always portrays religion and science as a battle between inflexible creationists and atheists. But the vast majority of us occupy the space between these two extremes and find no conflict between faith and reason.

That D’Espagnat's work is valued by today's leading scientists is evident from the homage they have paid him. William D. Phillips, winner of the 1997 Nobel Prize in physics said: “Entanglement is one of the key features of quantum mechanics, one that most sets it apart from classical physics. Bernard was a key figure in providing a mature understanding of both the scientific and philosophical implications of entanglement, a phenomenon so counterintuitive that it continues to intrigue 21st century physicists. D’Espagnat appreciated that entanglement not only changed our view of how physics works, but also our concept of the very nature of reality.”

D’Espagnat’s insight and discovery suggest not just that science cannot fully describe reality but that scientific research can encourage spirituality. Those who believe in the unseen and whose lives are animated by faith are not irrational; they are only acknowledging the presence of the mysterious and the ineffable in their lives. As Charles Townes, winner of the Nobel Prize in physics in 1964 and the Templeton Prize in 2005 said of the convergence of science and religion: “I believe this confluence is inevitable. For they both represent man’s efforts to understand his universe and must ultimately be dealing with the same substance.”

Oct. 7, '05

Religion and Science: Coexistence or Convergence?

Forget Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” theory: “Clash of Religion and Science” has moved to center stage as evolutionists and intelligent design proponents (IDers) bitterly contend the origin of life, spawning legal fights over high school biology curricula in Pennsylvania, Kansas, Ohio and other states. Focus, instead, on the evolving relationship between religion and science and how theologians and scientists from around the world are striving toward common ground. It promises to be not only more rewarding but also more entertaining.

True, religion and science have been ancient adversaries. The Church imprisoned Galileo in the seventeenth century for daring to suggest that the earth was a mere player in the cosmic drama, and not its prima donna as theologians had thought. Two centuries later, Darwin published The Origin of Species (1859) in which he proposed that evolution and natural selection could account for the biological diversity of the living world, including us, precipitating a fierce clash between faith and reason.

Muslims too experienced their share of this conflict. In the 9th century, advocates of reason led by the Mutazalites clashed with the dogmatic Kharajites and, as Muslims historians often darkly summarize, this effectively closed the doors of ijtihad. The “debate” between al-Ghazali representing tradition and mysticism and ibn Rushd representing science and reason in the 12th century was also a turning point in which it was mostly Ghazali’s views that held sway for years to come.

Although there have been more ambushes and skirmishes, there have also been advances in our thinking. Many of us now view religion and science as being complementary rather than contradictory. Science deals with factual aspects of the natural world and religion with the transcendent questions of meaning and purpose. One deals with the “how,” the other with the “why.” The empirical nature of science contrasts with “belief in the unseen” nature of religion and yet most people, including many scientists and theologians, agree that both can work in concert to enrich our material and spiritual lives.

But we must be wary of pitfalls. There will always be scientists who view religion as an albatross around civilization’s neck, and theologians who rail at science as the new God that has driven meaning from life. There will be reductionists who claim that life and its mysteries can all be explained by the laws of physics, and scriptural literalists who insist that the earth is a few thousand years old. Some biologists assert that an atheistic view of life is our only choice because of their belief in the all-encompassing reality of Darwin’s theory, while certain religious leaders are so enamored of their certitude that they do not shy away from pronouncing who will go to heaven and who are destined for hell.

Fortunately, they are a minority. There are many more theologians representing different faiths, for example, who find in evolution evidence of God’s glorious self-disclosure, and many scientists whose research leads them to ask the deeper questions of life – why are we here and what makes life meaningful - that lie outside the realm of science.

It is against this "cross-disciplinary" context that the religion-science dialogue should be framed. Many organizations are doing precisely that, and a popular annual conference called "Science and the Spiritual Quest" that attracts the world's leading scientists and theologians underscores this growing trend.

Intelligent design proponents say that life on earth is “irreducibly complex” to have been created by random genetic mutation and, therefore, Darwin’s theory must be balanced by the recognition of an “intelligence” beyond its scope.

But people of faith do not need “gaps” in Darwin’s theory to experience the Divine; their longing for the Divine is intrinsic and is what gives meaning to their lives. By the same token, the IDers should realize that theirs is not a scientifically-testable theory since it does not meet the criteria of observation, measurement, experimentation and testing. It has no place in a biology classroom, although it can be part of a religious or philosophy curriculum. Pleading acceptance by the scientific community on the basis of ignorance and “gaps” in knowledge benefits neither science nor religion.

A provocative question to consider is this: Is coexistence the last word in the relationship between religion and science, or can the two interact in more mysterious and unexpected ways?
If the past is prologue, then lessons from Islamic history may help frame an answer. From the eighth through the fifteenth centuries, Muslim scientists made discoveries based on challenges posed by religious observances. Determining the proper time of day to offer the five daily prayers, calculating the precise direction toward the kiblah, and predicting the visibility of the crescent moon to mark the beginning and end of lunar months led to the discovery of spherical trigonometry and algebra and significant advances in astronomy. Muslim scientists constructed astrolabes and observatories, emphasizing observations and experiments by which to test theories and their predictive powers. Science became a spiritual quest for them, a way of seeing traces of God’s handiwork in the universe. (A telling example is that of the astronomer, mathematician and poet Ulugh Beg (1349-1449). Considered a genius, he established an observatory at Samarkand and with astounding accuracy charted the course of more than 1000 stars over a period 18 years. Unfortunately, he was murdered by his son who felt that his “secular” interest in science betrayed the spirit of Islam!)

In our times, this scientific-spiritual quest animates many Muslim scientists but one who stands out is the cosmologist Abd-al-Haqq Bruno Guiderdoni, a director of research at the Paris institute of astrophysics and the director of the Islamic Institute for Advanced Studies. Guiderdoni’s main interest is galaxy formation and evolution. Exploring the universe is, in his words, “an act of worship.” (It is remarkable how so many of the leading cosmologists of the world of different faiths are also amateur theologians!) A passionate advocate of the global dialogue between science and religion, Guiderdoni finds inspiration for his quest for truth in the Quran: In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, there are signs for people of understanding (3:190).

An article written almost four decades ago in the IBM journal “Think” by physicist Charles Townes also provides insights into the evolving nature of religion-science relationship. After building the case that the two shared fundamental similarities - revelation in one is epiphany in another, for instance - Townes concluded that the two will eventually converge. “I believe,” he wrote in 1966 in The Convergence of Science and Religion, “this confluence is inevitable. For they both represent man’s efforts to understand his universe and must ultimately be dealing with the same substance.”

But Townes tempered his speculation: “Perhaps by the time this convergence occurs, science will have been through a number of revolutions as striking as those which have occurred in the last century, and taken on a character not readily recognizable by scientists of today. Perhaps our religious understanding will also have seen progress and change. But converge they must, and through this should come new strength for both.”

Townes’s idea caused a renewed stir after he won the Templeton Prize for “Progress toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities” in March this year. A devout Christian, he is also one of the greatest scientists of the twentieth-century, winning the Nobel Prize in physics in 1964 for inventing the maser and the laser.

Convergence does not mean a magical fusion of faith and reason; it means, as Townes implied, a symbiosis that can enrich our practical, intellectual and ethical lives. Such a confluence may, for instance, inspire fresh views on issues like stem-cell research and deepen our understanding of how love, justice, suffering and forgiveness shape human affairs. It may force us to rethink our ideas of “predictable” and “random” events, revealing if there was indeed something to Einstein’s intuitive objections to the probabilistic foundation of quantum mechanics when he said, “God does not play dice with the universe” and “God is subtle but He is not malicious.”
We can ignore the media's predictions about a return to the Dark Ages because of the supposedly high percentage of mindshares IDers have captured, or religion becoming obsolete because of the successes of scientists in genetics and other fields.

Rather, we should be thinking more creatively about how religion and science relate to, and reinforce, each other and actively promote the compelling forces bringing scientists and theologians of all persuasions toward a more holistic view of life in these troubled times. In the unexplored, overlapping region between religion and science, is it not possible that wildflowers of insight will bloom if nurtured with humility and humor?