About a month ago, I listed a quote from The Character of Physical Law. I finally finished the book, but want to share a little more before I take it back to the library. First, let me say why I refer to one of my favorite Nobel Laureates as St. Richard the Uncertain.
First the Saint. I have yet to read anything by Feynman that did not leave me enriched and in awe of the intricate ways in which G-d created the universe. I have laughed and cried with the stories from his life. He has drawn me in the Sacred Presence where I know that G-d in His creative genius is beyond all the little boxes where we try to confine His Glory. Now the uncertain. From chapter six,
If science is to progress, what we need is the ability to experiment, honesty in reporting the results---the results must be reported without somebody saying what they would like the results to have been-- and finally--an important thing--the intelligence to interpret the results.
We must be willing to be uncertain. we need some idea of the way to know how to proceed, but we must be willing to be wrong, to be uncertain.
Now, to the main point. In chapter five, he discusses the wonderful problem of past and future. The physical laws themselves have no inherent problem working forward or backward. Toward the end of the chapter (page 118 in the imprint I have), he states "For example, we have the fundamental laws of physics. Then we invent other terms for concepts which have, we believe, their ultimate explanation in terms of the fundamental laws." He goes on to describe how we then use the higher terms like "refractive index" and sometimes forget how they are grounded in the basics. As I read, I thought how the same is true in the arena of faith. I am not sure which is the fundamental law and which is the abstraction sometimes. Is "substitutionary atonement" or "Jesus loves me this I know" a fundamental law? I chased that rabbit for a while then decided to get back the St. Richard and his écritures (french for "writings"). He asks the question "Which end is nearer to God; if I may use a religious metaphor? Beauty and hope, or the fundamental laws." And I thought to myself, which is nearer to G-d's heart, justice or mercy? I wish I had the patience to type the whole next paragraph from Feynman, but then you would have no reason to read it for yourself.
Was any prophet ever nearer to G-d's heart than this (page 119)
And I do not think either end is nearer to God. To stand at either end and walk off that end of the pier only, hoping that out in that direction is the complete understanding, is a mistake.
Bless you, St Richard. May you explore the intricacies of the interconnectedness of G-d's handiwork for all eternity!
Comments