IBRI Research Report #28 (1986)


W. Jim Neidhardt
Physics Department
New Jersey Institute of Technology
Newark, New Jersey 07102

Copyright © 1986 by W. Jim Neidhardt. All rights reserved.


This paper examines the nature of faith as an integral component of both scientific and religious understanding. The thesis is illustrated with examples taken from the history and practice of science. Its implications are discussed with respect to the interrelations of science, religion and society. Lastly, a communication model of human understanding is developed and schematically illustrated.


Although the author is in agreement with the doctrinal statement of IBRI, it does not follow that all of the viewpoints espoused in this paper represent official positions of IBRI. Since one of the purposes of the IBRI report series is to serve as a preprint forum, it is possible that the author has revised some aspects of this work since it was first written. 

ISBN 0-944788-28-9

Faith: The Unrecognized Partner of Science and Religion


Is faith a legitimate part of all human understanding? Answers to this question have varied over the years. A few definitions of faith will show this variety.

1. A schoolboy’s definition of faith1 — “Faith is when you believe something that you know isn’t true.”

2. T. H. Huxley2 on faith - “Blind faith is the one unpardonable sin.” Does it necessarily follow that faith in general should therefore come under suspicion? Cannot unbelief as well be blind?

3. David Hume3, the dour and skeptical Scotsman, in his lighter moments acknowledged the necessity of having “a kind of firm and solid feeling.” Is this not a possible definition of faith?

4. Hebrews 11:1 - “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Biblically, faith is thus taken not in an exclusively religious sense but very generally as an ‘‘ assurance’’ and ‘‘proving’’ of objects and concepts which escape our perception because they do not yet exist or because they are not immediately apparent to our senses.4

5. The noted chemist and philosopher, Michael Polanyi5, has pointed out that no one can become a scientist unless he presumes two things: First, that the scientific method and doctrine are fundamentally sound. Second, that their ultimate premises can be unquestioningly accepted. Only by an unlimited commitment to and trust of these premises can he develop a sense of scientific values and acquire the skill of scientific enquiry. This is the way of acquiring knowledge which the Christian Church Fathers described as fides quaerens intellectum, “to believe in order to know.”

What then is our definition of faith? It is an act of trusting, of holding to convictions, when the evidence for such commitment is not immediately apparent.

Faith is not blind, nor does it arise out of a vacuum. Faith stems from man’s previous experience. For example: Man’s faith that leads to religious insight comes through historical events in which God reveals Himself. A more general faith is exercised when man has contact with other people and learns to trust them. Another example of general faith is seen when man expects to find further order, coherence in nature because in the past he repeatedly found order in nature.

Faith, however, is much more than a mere extrapolation of past experience, for it interprets such experience and holds to convictions which cannot be reduced to mere inductions from scientific experience. Of the latter the conviction that a scientific theory must possess a rational beauty and symmetry in a unifying sense is a good example.


How can faith be necessary in science? Let us first clearly understand that faith does not provide the data of empirical knowledge; faith rather plays its role in seeking to find a keystone idea, a pattern that will fit and explain the data. Science does not consist merely of the collecting of data; we must recognize what is truly coherent in what we observe, which observations are truly significant. Such recognition is intimately related to having faith in the soundness of some key idea or pattern. Once faith in a key pattern is established, reason then takes over and explicates the intrinsic order that has been revealed, looking for possible faults and finally conceiving of experiments to further test the theory. Faith, to paraphrase St. Augustine, is not a trusting in unprovable truths which can be disregarded as a rational picture develops; it is, rather, illumination (which guides one in seeing a pattern), by which a truly rational understanding can begin. The scientific enterprise is no exception to the universality of Augustine’s insight.

A scientist cannot begin his task of deciphering the puzzle of a very complex physical world without an unconditional and complete trust or conviction in certain basic premises that undergird all scientific effort. In essence he must possess a firm faith that nature is intelligible, that an underlying, unique and necessary order exists, that there is an ultimate simplicity and interconnectedness to the laws of nature, that underlying symmetries exist in the physical world, that nature behaves in the same way whether observed or not, that a direct and correct correspondence exists between events of the universe and his sensory—brain responses, that his own senses and memory are trustworthy and, finally, that his fellow workers do and report their work honestly.

To doubt or engage in endless questioning of such points is to abandon the whole purpose of scientific pursuit. Faith coupled with observation, induction and deduction; not merely observation, induction and deduction. is required for progress in science.

Let me stress that the scientist’s glimpse of the simplicity and interconnectedness of the laws of nature, while being far wider than the layman’s, is by no means exhaustive. The condition of the scientist and the man of religion is in this respect the same. Religious faith stems from its own evidences, exactly as that of the scientist; it is not a blind faith. Yet, as numerous as religious evidences are, they do not form a complete exhaustive set. “Those evidences, like the evidences of science, are rather a prompting toward espousing propositions that imply unconditional affirmation and absolute commitment.”6 It is through such commitment that the man of science grasps the simplicity and order present in nature, and through a similar commitment that the man of religion grasps the transcendent dimension of God. Michael Polanyi’s description of reality is a strikingly fitting example of these last thoughts:

... reality is something that attracts our attention by clues which harass and beguile our minds into getting ever closer to it, and which, since it owes this attractive power to its independent existence, can always manifest itself in still unexpected ways. If we have grasped a true and deep—seated aspect of reality, then its future manifestations will be unexpected confirmations of our present knowledge of it. It is because of our anticipation of such hidden truths that scientific knowledge is accepted, and it is their presence in the body of accepted science that keeps it alive and at work in our minds. This is how accepted science serves as the promise of all further pursuit of scientific inquiry. The efforts of perception are induced by a craving to make out what it is we are seeing before us. They respond to the conviction that we can make sense of experience because it hangs together in itself. Scientific inquiry is motivated likewise by a craving to understand things. Such an endeavor can go on only if sustained by hope, the hope of making contact with the hidden pattern of things. By speaking of science as a reasonable and successful enterprise, I confirm and share this hope.7

It would be helpful at this point to give some specific examples that testify to the validity of faith being a necessary component of scientific endeavor. Faith in the orderliness and simplicity of nature is truly required to contribute in a period of scientific revolution where the foundations of existing understanding are overturned by new evidence and new theoretical interpretations. Faith in the interconnectedness and symmetry of nature has also been always present in the scientific venture. It should be understood that I have picked out a few key cases; the history of science provides an almost inexhaustible number of illustrative cases for the basic thesis.

1. Albert Einstein8, in the creation of his relativity theory, rejected the notion that space and time are absolute. He defined them in terms of reference to the frame of the observer. Einstein abandoned absolute space and time, but he did not therefore view the simplicity and order of nature as merely constructs of the human mind (this is how idealist philosophers wrongly interpreted Einstein as making the laws of nature subjective) . He held, rather, to the strong conviction that the basic laws of nature are always and everywhere the same, regardless of the frame of reference in which they are observed. This conviction led him to the development of his revolutionary theory.

2. The medieval picture9 of the universe was overthrown by Copernicus when he proposed a sun—centered planetary model in contrast to the earlier earth—centered model of Ptolemy. The earth-centered system was really in keeping with the common sense observations; furthermore, even if the detailed motions were complex, it made accurate predictions. Copernicus’s strong faith that planetary motions are a harmonious unity led him to develop his sun-centered theory which violated ordinary sense observations. Copernicus was confident in the basic validity of theories “more pleasing to the mind (harmonious unity being an important intellectual criterion)” because he accepted wholeheartedly the Judeo-Christian view of the created mind as a replica, however modest, of the divine mind. Copernicus’s basic belief was in symmetry expressed as harmonious unity. It is interesting to note that his detailed model was as complicated (non-simple) as Ptolemy’s10.

3. Statistical analysis is sometimes seen as a means whereby scientists can make evaluations devoid of any personal commitment. However, as M. Polanyi has ably pointed out11, personal value—judgements are present even there, as one must decide that something is significant before statistics can be applied. Tacit acts of faith are present in even the simplest evaluations of data. When we use the mean of a series of measurements of an observable as a reliable expression of the observable’s numerical value, rather than the individual measurements we are tacitly expressing faith in the uniformity of nature.

4. Max Planck terminates the classical era of physics by his introduction of the quantum of energy. The classical assumption in the continuity of nature was there shown to be invalid. One had to look for order in a completely new way. Planck’s testimony as to how the scientist proceeds in his investigation of nature is illuminating:

The man who handles a bulk of results obtained from an experimental process must have an imaginative picture of the law he is pursuing. He must embody this in an imaginary hypothesis. The reasoning faculties alone will not help him toward such a step, for no order can emerge from that chaos of elements unless there is the constructive quality of mind which builds up the order by a process of elimination and choice. Again and again the imaginary plan on which one attempts to build up that order breaks down and then we must try another. This imaginative vision and faith in the ultimate success are indispensable. The pure rationalist has no place here.12

5. The current state of elementary particle physics has been aptly called an “infernal race.” With new “particles” being discovered all the time, physicists still persist in searching for order in this “maze.” A strong conviction that order exists is an absolute necessity to make progress in this rapidly changing field. One central motivating factor is the strong faith of physicists in the universal validity of key conservation laws. An example from the early history of particle physics shows this clearly. The existence of that unusual elementary particle, the neutrino, was postulated in order that certain nuclear reactions maintain the conservation of energy, momentum and spin. For some time, the only empirical evidence for the neutrino’s existence was that these reactions would otherwise negate the conservation principles. Even today, the additional empirical evidence we have for the neutrino is quite different from observations of other elementary particles; it cannot be observed in the same ways as these others (electrons, positrons, mesons, etc.) . There is good evidence it can never be seen in the sense that other particles are seen. Yet neutrinos are today accepted as a component of real nature. Why? To a large degree, the physicist’s faith in a fully lawful cosmos compels such acceptance.13


Science and religion are not known to be allies. Rather they are often thought of as enemies. It is a general feeling that science deals with facts or reason, and religion with faith and non—reason. I have tried to show that this so—called difference between science and religion is not accurate.

Faith is a valid component of both science and religion. Science and religion are different, however. One difference is in the kinds of questions they seek to answer. Science seeks to learn about the natural world, including man as a natural being. Religion asks such questions as, “Is man only a physical being, or animal, or machine?” “What is God’s purpose with respect to created reality?” “What is humankind’s purpose on earth and how is this related to the redemptive activity of God?” Another difference is in the kind of events that are singled out as significant to be looked for and explained. Science concerns itself primarily with those events that are observed to be repeatable regularities most ideally, observed aspects of phenomena that can be repeated in a controlled manner. Religion is much more concerned with those unique, non-repeatable events that are observed in human history.

I hope these insights into the nature of both science and religion will help us to see we do not have to choose between science and religion, to value one higher than the other, or to trust one to the exclusion of the other.

A deep cleavage exists today between the scientific and religious communities, between scientists and humanists in general. The goals, methods and problems of one group are considered irrelevant, of no interest and significance by the other. Communication between the two groups is at times almost completely lacking. One remedy, suggested by C. P. Snow, is that compulsory courses in science be a requirement at all educational levels. This can be of some help, but without a strong personal motivation the average non—scientist will easily become lost in a “maze of facts” resulting from the scientific knowledge explosion. Following Jaki, I would suggest that both motivation and true comprehension would be greatly enhanced if one looked in detail at the foundations of both the scientific and the humanist quests. The history of science, past and present, shows that both the sciences and the humanities have at their center some common mental attitudes. One of them, perhaps the most significant, is man’s dependence, as he creatively seeks to understand all of reality, on his “firm and solid feelings,” on his faith.14

The intellectual mood of our age has presented to us the distortion that faith is the height of irrationality. Science has been portrayed as a cold, analytical discipline devoid of faith or metaphysical content; human and spiritual values cherished as unique are now claimed to be reducible to physical-chemical explanations. It is my belief that the dissatisfaction of many of our young with the scientific professions (as indicated by dropping enrollments in these fields) stems partly from a rejection of an image of science that is deterministic and impersonal. These young people ask: How can the same man say that order as expressed in the countless mathematical invariances of the physicist exists, and yet all we can know in the moral realm is disorder? Unsatisfied by a caricature of science which is devoid of all personal passion, some of our brightest youth have adopted an extreme form of existentialism in which feeling alone is meaningful and rational analysis of no significance. Such an attempt, to my mind, is a reaction to a very faulty picture of faith. As has been argued, faith correctly viewed is that illumination by which true rationality begins.

To express trust and to act on that trust, to act by faith, is not contrary to true rationality. Remember that faith consists not in what can be proved by results. Rather, faith precedes results, faith motivates us toward results. We trust our husband or wife to always have our best interests at heart. We, as students, throughout the educational process trust that our teachers are presenting material that is both valid and relevant. We trust that the many long and difficult hours spent attempting to get a finicky piece of scientific apparatus to yield complex and often puzzling data will eventually lead to the discovery of simple laws or regularities truly universal in scope. We trust that the language and concepts of mathematics created originally for sheer intellectual pleasure will be applicable to the description of specific physical phenomena. An attitude of trust and personal commitment, i.e., faith, is thus seen to be a valid component of all human activities whether they be on the level of:

1. Science, the seeking of foresight toward and understanding of physical phenomena;

2. Personal encounter, the seeking of genuine relationship and dialogue with another person; or

3. Religion, where a genuine encounter is sought with God, Biblically portrayed as the One whose very trustworthiness guarantees the existence of laws in all His Creation which are dependable and are discoverable by human effort. Contrary to the critical attitude of some, faith is an inherent part of all human endeavor and as such is not destructive to sense experiences and rational thought but a helpmate to both as seen so well by the pioneering scientist and philosopher, Blaise Pascal:

Faith indeed tells what the senses do not tell, but not the contrary of what they see. It is above them and not contrary to them.15


It is mainly due to M. Polanyi that we owe the rediscovery in modern times of the role of faith as a component of all human experience. In his significant book, Personal Knowledge, he clearly established that science as well as other forms of knowledge comes about through a matrix of personal trust and commitment, i.e., a faith-structure. Polanyi came to this conclusion by good scientific methodology if science is thought of in its broadest context. What he did was carefully and comprehensively to examine by means of the available historical record both the individual and collective aspects of scientific activity leading to the formation of new scientific theories and discoveries. He was careful not to neglect evidence of the many personal facets of the scientists involved that had a role to play in the creative discovery process. He evaluated all this evidence retroductively, seeking a pattern that would successfully explain how discoveries are really made, not merely how they are reported in the impersonal form of a completed scientific manuscript. Recognition by Polanyi that scientists work “through” a faith or commitment framework provided the clue to the pattern that explains how scientific discoveries actually come about. What Polanyi has actually shown by applying systematic, philosophical reflection to the whole of scientific experience is that an aspect of humankind’s attitude that Biblically is taught to be necessary for gaining knowledge of God and other people is also required in order to gain knowledge in the natural sciences as well. This aspect, which is humankind’s reliance on faith in all human activity, is a central theme of the Old and New Testaments. Polanyi has provided scholarly evidence for the validity of this Biblical perspective.

At this point, a model may be of help in bringing these concepts into clear focus. All acts of human understanding involve some type of interaction, either between a person and another person, or a person and a thing. Such interactions can be thought of as acts of communication. Any such act of communication, whether it be on the level of personal encounter or on the level of a person seeking to understand physical reality (this act may be looked upon as a form of communication), as Polanyi, among others, has shown, is embedded in a matrix of personal trust and commitment, i.e., a faith—structure.

A communication model of human understanding on all reality-levels in which faith plays a vital role should therefore serve as a useful guide in understanding how the whole person seeks knowledge. It is a model which is fully compatible with both the Biblical perspective and an open—minded scientific perspective. It is, as an example, fully compatible with an experimental psychologist’s model of human personality taken as one aspect of the whole person. Its specific insight is that it stresses all communication as taking place through a channel or matrix of faith. This faith-matrix serves as a grid, a filter, and a telescope in:

a. motivating the search,
b. focusing on areas of significance,
c. reducing the noise to information ratio by selecting out unrelated areas,
d. seeking relations between different personal traits, conceptual constructs, etc.

In order more fully to understand any act of human communication (whether on the level of person to person or the level of a person seeking understanding of physical reality) one should first examine the actual content of the faith—matrix that the particular act of communication is embedded in. One should clearly ascertain what a person (or group of persons) actually believes to be true and holds as presuppositions (perhaps deeply buried in his thinking so that he would no longer recognize them) during the communicative act. These basic presuppositions inherent to any human communication come to be believed as the whole person encounters experience in its totality. As such, they cannot be “proved” but are yet truly rational for they are genuine and consistent personal responses to the totality and richness of the flow of human experience. Such personal responses are neither solely subjective nor objective but are the result of our subjective response to the objectivity of reality. Let us clearly distinguish between the personal in us, which actively enters into our commitments to objective reality and our subjective states in which we merely endure our feelings. This distinction establishes the conception of the personal, which engages both the subjective and the objective. Insofar as the personal submits to requirements acknowledged by itself as independent of itself, it is not simply subjective; but insofar as it is an action guided by individual passions, it is not purely objective either. “It transcends the disjunction between subjective and objective.”16

If this model of communication is correct it provides a fundamental insight into the ills of modern society. The channel for acts of communication, the faith-matrix, has become “warped.” This “warping” occurs because of modern man’s passion to take as basic the presupposition that only one level of reality is truly significant and must therefore provide the ultimate explanation of all human experience. Those committed to scientism brand man as only a complex machine; truly self—giving love in personal encounter is therefore only an accumulation of stimuli—response mechanisms. In a similar manner, truly moral acts of men are explained away. The historical evidence that many and varied human societies have expressed concern for justice and freedom is brushed aside. The modern mystic, on the other hand, overreacts to such claims of scientism by seeing only deeply subjective experiences as meaningful; from these all other experiences must be explained. To the mystic, rational analysis, which can be duplicated by others, is of no significance. In these cases and others, the net result of such “warping” of the faith-matrix is that communication on all levels of human experience is transformed into some form of manipulation. Basic presuppositions must stem from man’s encounter with the totality of his experience; denial of certain aspects of many-dimensioned reality results in badly distorted vision.

Lastly, the changing perspective of anthropological theory concerning the nature of valid criteria for distinguishing manlike from animal behavior lends further credence to this model of truly human understanding being based in communication. The older criteria for human behavior were rooted in the capability of a creature to use natural objects as tools and to remake natural objects so that they were transformed into more sophisticated tools. Newer anthropological theories formulate criteria for human behavior in terms of the ability to communicate concepts requiring symbolic representation from one creature to another. Man’s uniqueness has shifted from his tool-making ability to his symbol-making and symbol-communicating ability.17

The model is illustrated in Figures 1 through 3, which are symbolic representations of the act of communicating with another person or with Nature (physical reality). Figure 1 illustrates a model of communication on the personal level as embedded in the matrix of faith. Figure 2 illustrates a model of communication in the sense of a person seeking understanding of physical reality as embedded in the matrix of faith. Figure 3 is a representation of the cyclic nature of scientific method where the processes that involve personal judgements and commitments (i.e., require a faith structure) are clearly differentiated from those processes that follow strictly logical operations as based solely upon induction and deduction. One sees from Figure 3 that only the purely deductive steps in scientific discovery can be done in automatic, logical fashion. The other steps, i.e., the jump of imaginative insight in formulating a set of axioms, a key hypothesis, and the experimental testing of deduced propositions against experience; all these steps are embedded in personal judgements and commitments, often tacitly held.

This understanding of scientific method18, as explained by Einstein, stresses that all further theory comes about as a result of reflecting upon experience in the light of one’s physical intuition, and basic intellectual convictions. From such theoretically embedded reflection the scientist makes a jump of imaginative insight, a “wildly” speculative and bold leap in postulating a logically not obvious new theoretical structure (what Einstein called a set of axioms). The validity of this new theory or doctrine is then tested by using it to deduce specific theoretical propositions capable of being tested against experience. Thus one is brought back to the realm of experience. In this ongoing, cyclical methodology new theoretical understanding emerges as a free creation of the human mind engaged in ongoing communication with reality.


The author wishes to acknowledge a number of stimulating suggestions from Harold P. Nebelsick, Professor of Doctrinal Theology, Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky, and John Gibson, chemist and doctoral candidate, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky. The author also wishes to thank New Jersey Institute of Technology for granting him sabbatical leave and Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary for appointing him visiting scholar, Fall term, 1985.




PA - the whole person A.

MA - the mind of A.

PB - another whole person B.

FM - the faith-matrix. The faith-matrix consists of those basic presuppositions that one must
believe in, that one must trust in and commit oneself to in order to have human dialogue:

a. Another self, another mind like mine exists in the other person before me.

b. Human dialogue is meaningful and significant.

I - Person A indwells within his matrix of commitments concerning the genuine personhood of B, the basic presuppositions of that matrix tacitly guiding A in all communication with person B.

1. Messages from Person A consisting of affirmations and questions.

2. Responses from person B consisting of both affirmations and further questions. These affirmations from B coupled with the presuppositions of A’s faith-matrix lead to further messages from A directed by his human thought.

The messages 1 and 2 are symmetric in the sense of both intrinsically containing a dimension in which genuine free choice takes place. A spacially reversed exact duplicate of this diagram could be drawn for the person identified as B.




P - the whole person.
M - the mind of that person.
N - Nature.
FM - the faith-matrix. The faith-matrix consists of those basic presuppositions that one must believe in, that one must trust in and commit oneself to in order to begin any scientific endeavor:

a. Nature in some sense exists independent of me.

b. Nature is orderly (lawful) and uniform.

c. Descriptions of nature are inherently “ simple” in terms of mathematical structure.

d. Logical thought is valid. Human thought is meaningful and significant.

I - The person indwells within his matrix of commitments concerning the otherness, reality and order inherent in Nature, the basic presuppositions of that matrix tacitly guiding him in all probings of Nature.

1. Messages which assume the form of signals directed by human thought at Nature are designed as “questions” expressed through measuring processes.

2. Responses are specific “answers” (usually quantitative) to the given measurement probes. The specific responses coupled with the presuppositions of the faith-matrix lead to further signals directed by human thought at Nature.

The signals 1 and 2 are no longer symmetric in the sense that in principle 1 is structured freely and 2 is structurally determined by Nature’s inherent order.




Double-line arrows - Process embedded in personal judgements and commitments.

Single-line arrows - Process completely logical, automatic.

E - “Plans” of sense experience.

A - A system of axioms.

P - Propositions, predictions.

J - Jump of imaginative insight: a bold leap, a “wildly” speculative attempt to understand, a “groping” constructive attempt to understand.

123,... - Thematic presumptions that guide and constrain the imaginative jump; these themata (Holton’s term) serve as a filter with respect to possible imaginative jumps.

Some of Einstein’s themata: “primacy of formal (rather than materialistic) explanation; unity (or unification) and cosmological scale (egalitarian applicability of laws throughout the total realm of experience); logical parsimony and necessity; symmetry; simplicity, causality; completeness; continuum; and of course constancy and invariance. “19

D - Deducing propositions, predictions from the system of axioms.

ET - Experimental testing against experience.

By science is meant that body of knowledge obtained by methods based upon observation. It is the attempt to explain what is observed with respect to reality (modified from a definition of Richard Bube)20. Scientific explanation is looked upon as an integration of description and understanding, both components being embedded in an attitude of faith:


1 Stanley L. Jaki, “The Role of Faith in Physics,” Zygon, Vol. 2, No. 2 (June 1967), 188.

2Ibid., 188.

3 Ibid., 188.

4 Abraham Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968) , 125-126.

5 Michael Polanyi.

a. Science, Faith and Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966)
b. Personal Knowledge (New York: Harper, 1964).
c. Knowing and Being, Marjorie Green, Editor (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969).
6 Jaki, op. cit., 199.

7 Polanyi, op. cit. (c), 119-120.

8 Jaki, op. cit., 189.

9 Arthur Koestler, The Sleepwalkers (Middlesex, England:Penguin, 1959).

10 Copernicus was a Christian Platonist, as Stanley L. Jaki points out in The Road of Science and the Ways to God (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), 45-49. A detailed discussion of the complex nature of Copernicus’s contribution to science is contained in Harold P. Nebelsick’s Circles of God -- Theology and Science from the Greeks to Copernicus (U.K.: Scottish Academic Press, 1985).

11 Polanyi, op. cit. (b), 18-49.

12 Stanley L. Jaki, The Relevance of Physics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966), 353.

13 Henry Margenau, Open Vistas (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961), 181-182.

14Jaki, op. cit., Zygon article, 199-200.

15 Blaise Pascal, Pensees and the Provincial Letters (New York: The Modern Library, 1941), 93.

16 Polanyi, op. cit. (b), 300.

17 Charles D. Hockett, “The Origin of Speech,” Scientific American (Sept. 1960), 89-96.

18 Gerald Holton, “Einstein’s Model for Constructing a Scientific Theory,” contained in Albert Einstein--His Influence on Physics, Philosophy and Politics, edited by P. C. Aichelburg and R. U. Sexl, Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden, 1979, 109-136.

19 Ibid., 132.

20 Richard H. Bube, The Human Quest (Waco: Word Publishers, 1971), 51-53.


Produced for IBRI
PO Box 423
Hatfield, PA 19440

You can contact IBRI by e-mail at: rnewman@biblical.edu
Return to the IBRI Home Page

Last updated: January 19, 2002