March 2018 Newsletter
In this Clergy Letter Project update, you’ll find the following six items:
- Why Science Needs Philosophy;
- Astrobiology News for March 2018: The Clarke Exobelt;
- “Counter-Intuitive” Doesn’t Mean “Impossible”;
- How Darwin Influenced Early Reform Judaism;
- Follow-up to an Issue Raised Last Month; and
- The Institute on Religion in an Age of Science’s Annual Conference.
1. Why Science Needs Philosophy
Paul Braterman, a member of The Clergy Letter Project’s List of Scientific Consultants, has written a two-part essay entitled “Why Science Needs Philosophy.” I suspect that many of you will be interested in checking out what he has to say.
In part one he notes that “As Isaac Asimov reportedly said, ‘The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not ‘Eureka!’ [I have found it], but ‘That’s funny …’’ And there is nothing that distinguishes so clearly between the scientific and the dogmatic mindset as the response to anomalies. For the dogmatist, the anomaly is a ‘gotcha.’ proof that the theory under consideration is, quite simply, wrong. For the scientist, it is an opportunity.” To continue reading, click here.
Paul opens part two by writing “No one, so far as I know, has any religious objection to the Periodic Table and the unifying concepts of chemistry. But some people do have religious objections to the geological record, and to the unifying concepts of geology, because these don’t agree with what the most learned men of their time and place wrote down some two and a half thousand years ago.” To continue reading, click here.
2. Astrobiology News for March 2018: The Clarke Exobelt
In this month’s Astrobiology News, Clergy Letter Project consultant and Adler Planetarium astronomer Grace Wolf-Chase explores how we might use current technology to search for intelligent life in the Universe at an intellectual stage similar to ours.
In 1945, the famous science fiction writer and futurist, Arthur C. Clarke, proposed placing satellites in geostationary orbit(1) for the purpose of communication on Earth.(2) Though not considered seriously at the time, Clarke’s proposal became a reality within 20 years. This month, a paper published in the Astrophysical Journal suggests that systems of geostationary satellites around exoplanets orbiting distant stars (The Clarke Exobelt, or CEB), might signal technological civilizations comparable to our own.(3)
Most current searches for signs of extraterrestrial technology focus on detecting technology that might be produced by civilizations far more advanced than our own. Of course, assumptions regarding what such civilizations might actual develop becomes increasingly speculative as we project our 21st century ideas into the far future! The current paper takes a different approach, asking the question, what kind of technology might be detectable from a civilization closer to our own level of development, which makes a somewhat heavier use of their planetary space environment?
The author calculates the effects a Clarke Exobelt could have on the light from stars with transiting exoplanets(4) and concludes that some CEBs may be detectable even with our current instruments. Nearby exoplanets that orbit in the habitable zones of red dwarf stars might be the best candidates.(5) Furthermore, the kinds of observations necessary to identify a CEB can be “piggybacked” on efforts to search for rings and moons around exoplanets, so these observations wouldn’t require any additional effort other than being alert for possible detections.
Of course, given the pace at which we’ve developed new technologies on Earth, I’m personally a bit skeptical about the prospects of detecting signs of another civilization so close to our level of development; however, I think the bigger takeaway message is that we presently have the ability to search for many signs of technology that would’ve been inaccessible to us 20 years ago. Much like the geostationary satellites Clarke proposed in 1945, who knows what the next 20 years will bring?
Until next month,
Grace Wolf-Chase, Ph.D. (gwolfchase@adlerplanetarium.org)
1. An orbit above the equator where the satellite’s orbital period is the same as Earth’s rotational period, so the satellite remains “stationary” with respect to that location on Earth.
2. Clarke, A. C. 1945 Wireless World, 55, 305
3. Socas-Navarro, H. 2018, “Possible Photometric Signatures of Moderately Advanced Civilizations: The Clarke Exobelt”, ApJ, 855, 110 (7pp)
4. The transit technique is used to identify exoplanets whose orbits pass in front of their stars, causing dips in the amount of light detected from the star.
5. Such planets are expected to be “tidally locked.” A tidally locked planet’s orbital period (its “year) equals its rotational period (its “day”). Knowing the rotational period is critical to knowing the distance from the planet that would correspond to a geostationary orbit.
3. “Counter-Intuitive” Doesn’t Mean “Impossible”
Sinai and Synapses, a sister organization of The Clergy Letter Project, has an active blog site. The latest essay posted there, entitled “‘Counter-Intuitive’ Doesn’t Mean ‘Impossible’,” was written by Rev. Zach Jackson of Community United Church of Christ in Reading, PA.
As Rev. Jackson explains in his preamble, “In our rigorously logical journey to make sense of our universe, we occasionally stumble upon something that seems completely unintuitive. Maybe it even seems like the complete opposite of how it should be. But both science and belief don’t always coast smoothly on an uninterrupted bed of logic, and as we learn to accept this, we find that the most impossible truths can also become the most fundamental.” To continue reading, click here.
4. How Darwin Influenced Early Reform Judaism
The Sinai and Synapses blog also ran a fascinating discussion between Clergy Letter Project member Rabbi Geoff Mitelman, founding director of Sinai and Synapses, and Dr. Daniel Langton, Professor of the History of Jewish-Christian Relations in the department of Religions & Theology at the University of Manchester, England.
Here’s how the discussion was introduced: “While fundamentalist Christians were gearing up for the new theological battleground of evolution in the late 19th century, Reform Jews were also engaging intensively with the subject, but in a completely different way. Not only were they interested in gaining deep knowledge of the science, they also saw the topic as a gateway into unusual topics, such as immortality and panentheism.” To continue reading, click here.
5. Follow-up to an Issue Raised Last Month
In last month’s newsletter I mentioned that a book co-authored by Wayne Ranney, a member of The Clergy Letter Project’s list of scientific consultants, was in the running to be named the Public Lands Alliance book of the year. The book, entitled The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth, came in an impressive second place.
All profits from the sale of the book are used to fund an organization named Solid Rock Lectures. Solid Rock’s mission statement notes that its goal is “Removing stumbling blocks to faith in Christ through education on the scientific and biblical evidence for an ancient creation.” Their target audience includes seminaries but they’re willing to speak with interested congregations as well. Their materials make it clear that they’re affordable (“SRL sometimes has funding to offer workshops to seminaries at no cost to participants or to the hosting seminary. For other venues, there is no specific charge, but contributions to defray travel expenses and continuation of the ministry are appreciated.”), so you might want to reach out to them.
6. The Institute on Religion in an Age of Science’s Annual Conference
The following information comes from The Institute on Religion in an Age of Science (IRAS), a good friend of The Clergy Letter Project.
The 64rd Conference of the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science
in partnership with the Parliament of the World's Religions
Artificial Intelligence Turns Deep: Who’s In Control?
June 23 - June 30, 2018
From early myths of artificially created beings to today, the question “who’s in control” has troubled us. The future of AI is likely to have powerful consequences related to jobs, income distribution, social justice and our polity in general. On the 50th anniversary of 2001, IRAS returns to considering the prospects, opportunities and dangers of Artificial Intelligence (AI), first discussed at an IRAS summer conference in 1968 by Marvin Minsky, a founder of AI research and consultant to Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke as they directed and created 2001. Join us, as we consider both how AI will shape the future of humanity, and how we can insure that AI benefits society.
Deep learning neural networks and advances in big data manipulation have led to rapid progress in machine learning and associated capabilities. Investment in AI will grow more than 30 times between 2016 and 2020, to at least a $50 billion industry. New AI products will enhance sales, data analysis, and diagnostic and predictive services for medicine, government, science and industry. We are on the cusp of creating machines that can operate in environments that require significant autonomy, such as self-driving vehicles and, ominously, weapon systems. The future of AI is likely to have powerful consequences related to jobs, income distribution, criminal and social justice and our policy in general. This conference will address how AI may shape our future as well as our ability to foresee and control how AI will reshape us.
More Information
- Visit www.iras.org for more information about the conference.
- Visit www.starisland.org/iras to register.
- Visit www.starisland.org to learn more about the Star Island and accommodations.
Finally, as always, I want to thank you for your continued support and as I do every month, I urge you to take one simple action. Please share this month’s Newsletter with a colleague or two (or post a link via any social media platform you use) and ask them to add their voices to those promoting a deep and meaningful understanding between religion and science. They can add their signatures to a Clergy Letter simply by dropping me a note at mz@theclergyletterproject.org. Together we are making a difference.
.
Michael
Michael Zimmerman
Founder and Executive Director
The Clergy Letter Project
www.theclergyletterproject.org
mz@theclergyletterproject.org