Quantum arguments for God(newscientist.com)
newscientist.com
Quantum arguments for God
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17083-quantum-arguments-for-god-veer-into-mumbojumbo.html
49 comments
As opposed to "irrational" I would be willing to settle for "unscientific." There might be knowledge unattainable through observation and experiment, but attainable through revelation from someone not subject to our limitations. Such a belief is obviously unscientific, but I do not think "irrational" is accurate. I think you would need to find some incompatibility between premises and conclusions to claim that.
As someone who was raised christian I still don't understand this. Why knowingly and purposefully believe in something that you do not hope to rationalize. (OTOH, I'm always glad to see religious people who actually and clearly follow their beliefs.)
edit: removed edit
edit: removed edit
He's not trying to prove God exists, he's trying to show how an active God, one that is still involved in human affairs, can exist without breaking the laws of science and nature.
He's making it easier for people who believe in evolution, relativity etc. to reconcile their faith in God with their faith in science.
He's making it easier for people who believe in evolution, relativity etc. to reconcile their faith in God with their faith in science.
[deleted]
i can't think of anything a leap of faith in the existence of god provides which couldn't otherwise have been rationalized.
god tells one man to kill his neighbors, and another to befriend them. don't we determine the value of each religious practice by rationally evaluating their effects?
god tells one man to kill his neighbors, and another to befriend them. don't we determine the value of each religious practice by rationally evaluating their effects?
Collins' point appears to be that we have no way of distinguishing between a situation of purely random chance and a situation where God loaded the dice of the Universe, so to speak. I agree, but this is not so much an "argument for God" as a way of making an apparently-mechanical universe consistent with theism.
And "there is nothing new under the sun"; this kind of argument precedes the discovery of quantum physics. Rabbi Israel Salanter (1810-1833) said that a pious Jew is allowed to buy one lottery ticket, because that way if God wants to make you rich but doesn't want to do so with an overt miracle, He can just arrange for you to win the lottery. But if you buy another lottery ticket, that's gambling, which is forbidden.
And "there is nothing new under the sun"; this kind of argument precedes the discovery of quantum physics. Rabbi Israel Salanter (1810-1833) said that a pious Jew is allowed to buy one lottery ticket, because that way if God wants to make you rich but doesn't want to do so with an overt miracle, He can just arrange for you to win the lottery. But if you buy another lottery ticket, that's gambling, which is forbidden.
Well said.
I never understood the whole God-thing, except as a historically and psychologically interesting phenomenon.
How can you believe in something that has never been validated, except by believers of the fairytale that tell you it's true? If I told someone I believed in the tooth-fairy, Santa Claus or The flying Spaghetti monster people would think I'm crazy. But they are just as well supported (anecdotes and no evidence) as the God-thing.
I honestly don't get it.
How can you believe in something that has never been validated, except by believers of the fairytale that tell you it's true? If I told someone I believed in the tooth-fairy, Santa Claus or The flying Spaghetti monster people would think I'm crazy. But they are just as well supported (anecdotes and no evidence) as the God-thing.
I honestly don't get it.
Some people have a direct, personal, subjective experience of God.
'I can’t really explain what happened next. I was standing there looking at the statue, and then I discovered I was on my knees. I could hear an interior voice speaking to me. Not with my ears–it was more like a radio inside suddenly clicked on. The voice was both intimate and authoritative, and it filled me.
It said, “I am your life. You think that your life is your name, your personality, your history. But that is not your life. I am your life.” It went on, naming that “life force” notion I admired: “Beyond that, you think that your life is the fact that you are alive, that your breath goes in and out, that energy courses in your veins. But even that is not your life. I am your life.
“I am the foundation of everything else in your life.”'
http://www.frederica.com/east-now-excerpt-1/
If you had this experience, would you still find God just "a historically and psychologically interesting phenomenon?" Understandably, this might not convince you, because you did not have this experience, so you have the right to be skeptical.
The Gospels are accounts of these kinds of experiences, except even more tangible. Instead of a voice in the head of one individual, the communication channel was an entire human life, and events incompatible with our normal experience of reality.
So, here are two potential reasons to believe in God. Either a direct, personal experience of God. Or the witness of others having this kind of experience, who you find credible.
You seem to be saying that no testimony could possibly convince you, without observable, repeatable evidence. A few billion people have a different view of the matter, and I guess we just need to amiably agree to disagree.
'I can’t really explain what happened next. I was standing there looking at the statue, and then I discovered I was on my knees. I could hear an interior voice speaking to me. Not with my ears–it was more like a radio inside suddenly clicked on. The voice was both intimate and authoritative, and it filled me.
It said, “I am your life. You think that your life is your name, your personality, your history. But that is not your life. I am your life.” It went on, naming that “life force” notion I admired: “Beyond that, you think that your life is the fact that you are alive, that your breath goes in and out, that energy courses in your veins. But even that is not your life. I am your life.
“I am the foundation of everything else in your life.”'
http://www.frederica.com/east-now-excerpt-1/
If you had this experience, would you still find God just "a historically and psychologically interesting phenomenon?" Understandably, this might not convince you, because you did not have this experience, so you have the right to be skeptical.
The Gospels are accounts of these kinds of experiences, except even more tangible. Instead of a voice in the head of one individual, the communication channel was an entire human life, and events incompatible with our normal experience of reality.
So, here are two potential reasons to believe in God. Either a direct, personal experience of God. Or the witness of others having this kind of experience, who you find credible.
You seem to be saying that no testimony could possibly convince you, without observable, repeatable evidence. A few billion people have a different view of the matter, and I guess we just need to amiably agree to disagree.
If I had that kind of experience I would go and see my doctor...
:-)
:-)
How is this different from other mental diseases?
A few billion people have direct personal experience of God? I seriously doubt it's more than 0.1% of that, and I would class that a hallucination and some wishful thinking. I have direct personal experience of seeing the fabric of space and time, under the influence of weed, except I realized even while it was happening that it was all bollocks.
The few billion people bit refers to the sentence before. This bit: "no testimony could possibly convince you, without observable, repeatable evidence." That is, the few billion can be convinced, not they have had a direct personal experience.
You read wrong.
You read wrong.
You are right of course. Sorry for the noise.
Because you were taught so from an early age. Because everyone else around you believed so. And it is the sophistication of religion that makes it more believable over Santa Claus or flying spaghetti.
That is probably very right. My family isn't religious, my friends aren't religious, and I come from one of the least religious countries in the world. I don't think I've ever had a real life discussion with someone that truly believed in God.
So to me the whole discussion seems like a farce, probably because I've never been indoctrinated to believe it from family, friends and society.
So to me the whole discussion seems like a farce, probably because I've never been indoctrinated to believe it from family, friends and society.
Just to put a little twist on this discussion.
I never understood alternate theories of how the world came into being. I never understood the theory of Evolution, nor the Big Bang Theory. My logic has always led me to conclude that there must be a G-d.
Disclaimer: What I have to say is so simple, that due to its simplicity people may tend to discredit it. As a group of Hackers though, I figure you will appreciate the simplicity. Realize that this topic is much simpler than Philosophers/Scientists like to make it. (If things were so simple philosophers would be out of a profession:-))
Disclaimer #2: These types of discussions are usually a waste of time because for some reason people have emotional attachments to either side. I figure that this is a group of intellectuals who may be able to divorce their emotional attachments from this discussion and talk about basic logic and sensibility.
There is a basic logical axiom that everything we understand, everything that we can quantify, everything we can touch with the fingers of our hands or the 'fingers' of our minds must come from somewhere. Everyone agrees that the table that their computer is sitting on was put there by someone, was built by someone, or manufactured by something. Anything definable must have a source. Your table. Your computer. Your actions. Your feelings. Your thoughts. A tiny atom.
Based on this axiom we ask ourselves the age old question, "What is the source of this world?" Generations have grappled with this question. People ponder this question. Solutions are offered. Evolution. The Big Bang Theory. So on and so forth.
I don't understand them.
Evolution. We evolved from something. Go back to the first thing. Whether it was an atom or a quark or anything else. Can you define it? If it is, than you still have the question, "How did that get there?!" Remember, anything definable falls under the axiom of needing a source. Where did that first thing come from?
Big Bang. Same question. Where did all of the matter that came together to create the 'big bang' come from? There was matter? How did it get there?
So we track back. We have a world. How did it get here? There must have been 'something', alright, we don't know what that something was but it was something. So where did that 'something' come from? Alright, so 'something' created that 'something' which created the world. Alright, well what created THAT 'something', you get the drift.
However, here is the catch. You already don't know what that something is. You can't define that something. So now who says that 'something' is bound by the axiom of having to have had a source. Once you are dealing with a dimension beyond your comprehension you are no longer able to ascribe rules that applied in a dimension that you did comprehend! Rules that applied here, can not be applied there.
G-d is that something. G-d created the world. 'Something' created the world.
What is G-d? The moment I give any sort of definition I have left what S/He is. G-d isn't anything. G-d is everything and nothing - at the same time. You ask how that works? You can't ask that. You have just committed the same mistake that you were trying to avoid. Applying a set of logic to a dimension you have no conception of whatsoever. The question of where does G-d come from doesn't apply. The question of how can I say G-d is nothing and everything at the same time doesn't apply.
This is just a tip of the iceberg. There is more to say but for the sake of this discussion I think that this is sufficient.
(What I mean when I say that this is just the tip of the iceberg...in Judaism there is a very large study that discusses the inner workings of creation and it is a fascinating study. For example, Dan Benjamin - Hivelogic - recently put up a post about meditation. I found it interesting. In Chassidut/Kabbalah one of the faculties of the soul are the "Ruach" which literally means breath in Hebrew. It is one of the more external aspects of the soul. These concepts of breath and tuning into a deeper part of your psyche/soul than the standard drone of day to day life allow are basic basic concepts in Chassidic/Kabbalistic thought)
I never understood alternate theories of how the world came into being. I never understood the theory of Evolution, nor the Big Bang Theory. My logic has always led me to conclude that there must be a G-d.
Disclaimer: What I have to say is so simple, that due to its simplicity people may tend to discredit it. As a group of Hackers though, I figure you will appreciate the simplicity. Realize that this topic is much simpler than Philosophers/Scientists like to make it. (If things were so simple philosophers would be out of a profession:-))
Disclaimer #2: These types of discussions are usually a waste of time because for some reason people have emotional attachments to either side. I figure that this is a group of intellectuals who may be able to divorce their emotional attachments from this discussion and talk about basic logic and sensibility.
There is a basic logical axiom that everything we understand, everything that we can quantify, everything we can touch with the fingers of our hands or the 'fingers' of our minds must come from somewhere. Everyone agrees that the table that their computer is sitting on was put there by someone, was built by someone, or manufactured by something. Anything definable must have a source. Your table. Your computer. Your actions. Your feelings. Your thoughts. A tiny atom.
Based on this axiom we ask ourselves the age old question, "What is the source of this world?" Generations have grappled with this question. People ponder this question. Solutions are offered. Evolution. The Big Bang Theory. So on and so forth.
I don't understand them.
Evolution. We evolved from something. Go back to the first thing. Whether it was an atom or a quark or anything else. Can you define it? If it is, than you still have the question, "How did that get there?!" Remember, anything definable falls under the axiom of needing a source. Where did that first thing come from?
Big Bang. Same question. Where did all of the matter that came together to create the 'big bang' come from? There was matter? How did it get there?
So we track back. We have a world. How did it get here? There must have been 'something', alright, we don't know what that something was but it was something. So where did that 'something' come from? Alright, so 'something' created that 'something' which created the world. Alright, well what created THAT 'something', you get the drift.
However, here is the catch. You already don't know what that something is. You can't define that something. So now who says that 'something' is bound by the axiom of having to have had a source. Once you are dealing with a dimension beyond your comprehension you are no longer able to ascribe rules that applied in a dimension that you did comprehend! Rules that applied here, can not be applied there.
G-d is that something. G-d created the world. 'Something' created the world.
What is G-d? The moment I give any sort of definition I have left what S/He is. G-d isn't anything. G-d is everything and nothing - at the same time. You ask how that works? You can't ask that. You have just committed the same mistake that you were trying to avoid. Applying a set of logic to a dimension you have no conception of whatsoever. The question of where does G-d come from doesn't apply. The question of how can I say G-d is nothing and everything at the same time doesn't apply.
This is just a tip of the iceberg. There is more to say but for the sake of this discussion I think that this is sufficient.
(What I mean when I say that this is just the tip of the iceberg...in Judaism there is a very large study that discusses the inner workings of creation and it is a fascinating study. For example, Dan Benjamin - Hivelogic - recently put up a post about meditation. I found it interesting. In Chassidut/Kabbalah one of the faculties of the soul are the "Ruach" which literally means breath in Hebrew. It is one of the more external aspects of the soul. These concepts of breath and tuning into a deeper part of your psyche/soul than the standard drone of day to day life allow are basic basic concepts in Chassidic/Kabbalistic thought)
This is not entirely true.
You are simplifying thousands of years of research, both experimentally and theoretically. The reason why there is so much debate is because most people have an uneasiness believing in something that isn't entirely proven.
With that said, there is lots of scientific research going into proving atleast the historical presence of Jesus. See for example, The Shroud of Turin.
Also, if you ever get the chance, take a tour of the catacombs in Rome beneath St. Peter's Basilica. This is sure to give you an appreciation for the vast tradition regarding religious beliefs.
YOU may not believe any of this, but you have to agree that the shear number of people over the course of THOUSANDS of years atleast deems that it is worthy of investigating.
You are simplifying thousands of years of research, both experimentally and theoretically. The reason why there is so much debate is because most people have an uneasiness believing in something that isn't entirely proven.
With that said, there is lots of scientific research going into proving atleast the historical presence of Jesus. See for example, The Shroud of Turin.
Also, if you ever get the chance, take a tour of the catacombs in Rome beneath St. Peter's Basilica. This is sure to give you an appreciation for the vast tradition regarding religious beliefs.
YOU may not believe any of this, but you have to agree that the shear number of people over the course of THOUSANDS of years atleast deems that it is worthy of investigating.
Because some incredibly intelligent people have spent their lives working out the implications of belief in God. Had, say, Pascal decided to write about the Flying Spaghetti Monster instead of God, perhaps we'd be having a different discussion right now.
Proving the existence of God is as simple as looking around you (nature, sun, water etc)
My favourite proof is as follows: - A group of atheists approached to meet with the ruler of the land and asked him to bring forth his best scholar to debate with them on the existence of god.
- The ruler summoned the scholar to meet at location x on date y @ time z. - On that date and time everyone showed up except the scholar. He was late. Very late. - The atheists were now belitting the scholars great status (he didnt' even show up!) - The scholar showed up and the ruler immediately questioned his absence. - He explained that on his way to this meeting he had to cross a river where there is usually a boat. The boat was not there. So he had to wait and wait and wait. Eventually he noticed branches falling from a nearby tree. The branches kept falling and fashioned themselves into a boat and the boat came over to him. So he used to to cross the river. - At this point everyone was quite amused espeically the atheists who replied "you expect us to believe this??" - The scholar replied, "If you can't believe a boat made itself, then how can you believe this world made itself"
My favourite proof is as follows: - A group of atheists approached to meet with the ruler of the land and asked him to bring forth his best scholar to debate with them on the existence of god.
- The ruler summoned the scholar to meet at location x on date y @ time z. - On that date and time everyone showed up except the scholar. He was late. Very late. - The atheists were now belitting the scholars great status (he didnt' even show up!) - The scholar showed up and the ruler immediately questioned his absence. - He explained that on his way to this meeting he had to cross a river where there is usually a boat. The boat was not there. So he had to wait and wait and wait. Eventually he noticed branches falling from a nearby tree. The branches kept falling and fashioned themselves into a boat and the boat came over to him. So he used to to cross the river. - At this point everyone was quite amused espeically the atheists who replied "you expect us to believe this??" - The scholar replied, "If you can't believe a boat made itself, then how can you believe this world made itself"
First of all, we do have proof the world exists. We don't have proof your boat-as-metaphor-for-God exists.
Secondly, all you have done is restate the "Boeing 747" argument. Which only shows that the person arguing doesn't understand the science behind the other side.
Atheists do not believe there is a God because there is no convincing proof that one exists. They believe it in much the same manner you do not believe Santa Claus exists.
Secondly, all you have done is restate the "Boeing 747" argument. Which only shows that the person arguing doesn't understand the science behind the other side.
Atheists do not believe there is a God because there is no convincing proof that one exists. They believe it in much the same manner you do not believe Santa Claus exists.
You have GOT to be joking.
That's not a proof, but a parable. Worse, it's an ignorant parable, which can be defeated by: "Then who made God?"
(And let me head off at the pass the whole "God was always there" argument. If God was always there, then why can't reality have always been there?)
That's not a proof, but a parable. Worse, it's an ignorant parable, which can be defeated by: "Then who made God?"
(And let me head off at the pass the whole "God was always there" argument. If God was always there, then why can't reality have always been there?)
"If God was always there, then why can't reality have always been there?"
Not to defend the argument you are responding to, but if by "reality" you mean the universe, the Big Bang says that the universe did have a beginning. In which case it makes sense to suppose that something without a beginning is responsible for the thing with a beginning (the universe).
I believe Stephen Hawking acknowledges this argument, and talked about whether or not the universe does have a "beginning" in a Brief History of Time, leading into a discussion of a bowl shaped space-time or something, at which point he lost me. :)
Not to defend the argument you are responding to, but if by "reality" you mean the universe, the Big Bang says that the universe did have a beginning. In which case it makes sense to suppose that something without a beginning is responsible for the thing with a beginning (the universe).
I believe Stephen Hawking acknowledges this argument, and talked about whether or not the universe does have a "beginning" in a Brief History of Time, leading into a discussion of a bowl shaped space-time or something, at which point he lost me. :)
Well, that seems a pretty poor proof. Or rather it's not a proof of anything at all, it's just a silly story.
OMG.
Jut an FYI, Francis Collins is a well-known evangelical Christian. He gets a lot of press and notoriety exactly because of his status and his beliefs. He's part of a group of religious scientists seeking to find God anywhere it may be found, in my opinion.
My girlfriend took a class taught by Michael Behe, a biochemist who is a proponent of "irreducible complexity" as a proof of god. Even though the university banned him from discussing his opinions in class and distanced themselves from it[1], he still makes remarks to him knowing answers to something that is a current problem.
[1] http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm
My girlfriend took a class taught by Michael Behe, a biochemist who is a proponent of "irreducible complexity" as a proof of god. Even though the university banned him from discussing his opinions in class and distanced themselves from it[1], he still makes remarks to him knowing answers to something that is a current problem.
[1] http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm
How the heck does "who he is" have to do _anything_ with the scientific evidence and argument he presented? This is worthless "cargo-cult" science and it's exactly what should be avoided in the scientific community. The article does it too...
Laudable aim or not, the argument seems an odd one for Collins to make, given that he's such a renowned scientist and led such a pioneering project, one grounded so deeply in the principles of scientific enquiry and discipline.
And thus begins the effects of "cargo cult science" which Feynman once talked about. Collins will be slowly removed from further scientific inquiry for disagreeing with his peers, his reputation will be debased, and he will be ostracized from the scientific community. All because (gasp!), the man may have a religious bent!
Yet another example:
It disappoints me that such a gifted scientist could make this argument.
Two character attacks in less than 1000 words that have nothing to do with the science presented. How dare Collins question the status quo? How dare he try to demonstrate scientific integrity by showing any and all sides of the matter? Either you're for us or you're against us, that's how the cult of science works these days. Especially if you're religious, then clearly you're in another cult and you need to leave the science cult now.
As Feynman once said, science should "...give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another."
Regardless of whether Collins is right or not, I hope that everyone can see how this pitiful system of cult "science" that we have functions to eliminate anyone who disagrees with the worldview provided by scientific naturalism. The scary thing is that it has been like this for many years. Scientists are so used to being logically "right" within the empirical domain that they quickly forget their worldview holds no more water than religion does in the realm of explaining the unempirical.
Laudable aim or not, the argument seems an odd one for Collins to make, given that he's such a renowned scientist and led such a pioneering project, one grounded so deeply in the principles of scientific enquiry and discipline.
And thus begins the effects of "cargo cult science" which Feynman once talked about. Collins will be slowly removed from further scientific inquiry for disagreeing with his peers, his reputation will be debased, and he will be ostracized from the scientific community. All because (gasp!), the man may have a religious bent!
Yet another example:
It disappoints me that such a gifted scientist could make this argument.
Two character attacks in less than 1000 words that have nothing to do with the science presented. How dare Collins question the status quo? How dare he try to demonstrate scientific integrity by showing any and all sides of the matter? Either you're for us or you're against us, that's how the cult of science works these days. Especially if you're religious, then clearly you're in another cult and you need to leave the science cult now.
As Feynman once said, science should "...give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another."
Regardless of whether Collins is right or not, I hope that everyone can see how this pitiful system of cult "science" that we have functions to eliminate anyone who disagrees with the worldview provided by scientific naturalism. The scary thing is that it has been like this for many years. Scientists are so used to being logically "right" within the empirical domain that they quickly forget their worldview holds no more water than religion does in the realm of explaining the unempirical.
"Regardless of whether Collins is right or not, I hope that everyone can see how this pitiful system of "science" we currently have functions to eliminate anyone who disagrees with the worldview provided by scientific naturalism."
I just listened to a Richard Dawkins TED talk, where he cites the overwhelming number of atheist scientists as an argument for the truth of atheism. Ignoring the whole "appeal to authority" nature of that argument, it ignores the possibility that scientific institutions might discriminate (either implicitly or overtly) against religious people and winnow them from their ranks.
I just listened to a Richard Dawkins TED talk, where he cites the overwhelming number of atheist scientists as an argument for the truth of atheism. Ignoring the whole "appeal to authority" nature of that argument, it ignores the possibility that scientific institutions might discriminate (either implicitly or overtly) against religious people and winnow them from their ranks.
Just wanted to point out: the appeal to authority argument is only a fallacy when the cited source is not a legitimate authority.
Theologians would want to disagree, but I would argue that an overwhelming number of scientists does constitute a legitimate authority on whether or not something (god or otherwise) does or does not exist.
Theologians would want to disagree, but I would argue that an overwhelming number of scientists does constitute a legitimate authority on whether or not something (god or otherwise) does or does not exist.
Just because a large group of people hold a certain unverifiable opinion does not mean it has any more authority or validity than another unverifiable opinion. Even if it did, you've lost that argument already on the basic fact that there are far, far more "theists" than "atheists".
Example: Scientists would want to disagree, but I would argue that the overwhelming number of people in the world who believe in a god (of some form) does constitute a legitimate authority on whether or not something (god or otherwise) does or does not exist.
See how that works?
Example: Scientists would want to disagree, but I would argue that the overwhelming number of people in the world who believe in a god (of some form) does constitute a legitimate authority on whether or not something (god or otherwise) does or does not exist.
See how that works?
I'd agree that there can be no successful argument for or against an unverifiable opinion, consensus-based or not (taking your first point a bit further).
But my claim is that a consensus of scientists is an authority on matters of fact of the natural world, specifically. In the same way that a consensus of programmers would constitute an authority on programming. So that it's fair for Dawkins, who views the (non)?existence of god as a fact of the natural world, to appeal to scientists as an authority.
But my claim is that a consensus of scientists is an authority on matters of fact of the natural world, specifically. In the same way that a consensus of programmers would constitute an authority on programming. So that it's fair for Dawkins, who views the (non)?existence of god as a fact of the natural world, to appeal to scientists as an authority.
"he still makes remarks to him knowing answers to something that is a current problem."
I was unable to parse this sentence. What remarks is he making to whom, and what is the content of those remarks?
I was unable to parse this sentence. What remarks is he making to whom, and what is the content of those remarks?
'"It is thus perfectly possible that God might influence the creation in subtle ways that are unrecognisable to scientific observation. In this way, modern science opens the door to divine action without the need for law-breaking miracles," says Collins.'
If they don't break the laws, then...they're not miracles, are they? The whole point of a miracle is that the normal laws governing the universe most of the time are suspended. If there is a God who created the natural laws of the universe, surely he is also capable of suspending the rules when he finds it worthwhile to do so?
It seems Collins is trying to impress his atheist science friends with this idea, and it is back firing. Inherent in the religious point of view, I think, is the idea that there are limits to the knowledge that can be obtained through observation and experiment, but can be revealed to us by a God outside of nature, at least to the extent we are capable of understanding.
For the more mundane truths about our world, I agree with this:
"But for all its faults, science is probably the best and most honest tool we've got for finding out practical truths about how the natural world operates."
If they don't break the laws, then...they're not miracles, are they? The whole point of a miracle is that the normal laws governing the universe most of the time are suspended. If there is a God who created the natural laws of the universe, surely he is also capable of suspending the rules when he finds it worthwhile to do so?
It seems Collins is trying to impress his atheist science friends with this idea, and it is back firing. Inherent in the religious point of view, I think, is the idea that there are limits to the knowledge that can be obtained through observation and experiment, but can be revealed to us by a God outside of nature, at least to the extent we are capable of understanding.
For the more mundane truths about our world, I agree with this:
"But for all its faults, science is probably the best and most honest tool we've got for finding out practical truths about how the natural world operates."
<blockquote>If they don't break the laws, then...they're not miracles, are they?... If there is a God who created the natural laws of the universe, surely he is also capable of suspending the rules when he finds it worthwhile to do so?</blockquote>
Agreed. The idea that God could tinker with quantum physics without our knowing is interesting, but parting the Red Sea would still require a suspension of nature's laws. And as a Christian, I don't see any logical problem with that.
A God who created the universe from nothing would be no more bound by its laws than a writer is bound by the rules of poetry.
It's understandable that scientists balk at supernatural explanations - they fall outside of the scientific method of investigation. It's the same reason that "God created that evidence" won't help you in court; it's an assertion that can't be proved or disproved and therefore must be disregarded.
A scientist would attempt to explain miracles by natural, observable causes, because that is the method of science. But - interestingly - the supernatural explanation could still be the true one. If God exists, He may not care to sit on our examination table.
Agreed. The idea that God could tinker with quantum physics without our knowing is interesting, but parting the Red Sea would still require a suspension of nature's laws. And as a Christian, I don't see any logical problem with that.
A God who created the universe from nothing would be no more bound by its laws than a writer is bound by the rules of poetry.
It's understandable that scientists balk at supernatural explanations - they fall outside of the scientific method of investigation. It's the same reason that "God created that evidence" won't help you in court; it's an assertion that can't be proved or disproved and therefore must be disregarded.
A scientist would attempt to explain miracles by natural, observable causes, because that is the method of science. But - interestingly - the supernatural explanation could still be the true one. If God exists, He may not care to sit on our examination table.
"If there is a God who created the natural laws of the universe, surely he is also capable of suspending the rules when he finds it worthwhile to do so?"
Why do you suppose this? Perhaps it trapped itself in.
Why do you suppose this? Perhaps it trapped itself in.
I guess I should be more explicit that the God I had in mind is the Christian God, in the sense that creation and creator are distinct. It is true that there are other conceptions of God as integrated into the creation in some form or another.
[deleted]
Wasn't it Feynman who once said, "I think it's safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics"?
The site is funded by the Templeton Foundation, which seeks to find common ground between science and religion.
You're ruining both.
You're ruining both.
Quantum mechanics is a mathematical formalism that is an attempt to produce as good a description as possible of 'the world'. The key point of the previous sentence is: it is mathematics. Mathematics may allow us to make certain predictions about the physical reality surrounding us, but it is nevertheless an abstraction that does not necessarily have any direct connection with that reality.
Any interpretation of mathematics in physical terms is debatable at best and completely unfounded at worst. Granted, mathematics seems to reflect nature, but this may well be a prejudiced view: phrasing it differently, it seems hardly amazing that something created to describe nature produces descriptions that seem to describe nature very well. Mathematics would be a failure if it wasn't usable to model nature.
Given the deep metaphysical problems surrounding the relationship between mathematics and physics, any attempt at interpreting quantum mechanical uncertainty as the psychological property 'freedom' belongs to 'completely unfounded' category, requiring lots of work before it becomes even remotely believable.
Moreover, it seems it could well be a typical example of a category mistake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake.
Any interpretation of mathematics in physical terms is debatable at best and completely unfounded at worst. Granted, mathematics seems to reflect nature, but this may well be a prejudiced view: phrasing it differently, it seems hardly amazing that something created to describe nature produces descriptions that seem to describe nature very well. Mathematics would be a failure if it wasn't usable to model nature.
Given the deep metaphysical problems surrounding the relationship between mathematics and physics, any attempt at interpreting quantum mechanical uncertainty as the psychological property 'freedom' belongs to 'completely unfounded' category, requiring lots of work before it becomes even remotely believable.
Moreover, it seems it could well be a typical example of a category mistake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake.
I understand and to an extent agree with the gist of your argument, but I can't agree with this:
> Mathematics would be a failure if it wasn't usable to model nature.
In fact I don't understand why you would make such a statement, unless you have a very different description of nature (or failure, or both) to what I have. Mathematics has many applications beyond modelling physical reality. This topic has the potential to raise many philosophical questions, but even at the most superficial level there is a difference between "describing" and "solving".
This doesn't sit quite well with me either:
> it seems hardly amazing that something created to describe nature produces descriptions that seem to describe nature very well.
Pure mathematics isn't created to describe nature. Physical applications of pure mathematical concepts are usually only found many years after they are devised.
> Mathematics would be a failure if it wasn't usable to model nature.
In fact I don't understand why you would make such a statement, unless you have a very different description of nature (or failure, or both) to what I have. Mathematics has many applications beyond modelling physical reality. This topic has the potential to raise many philosophical questions, but even at the most superficial level there is a difference between "describing" and "solving".
This doesn't sit quite well with me either:
> it seems hardly amazing that something created to describe nature produces descriptions that seem to describe nature very well.
Pure mathematics isn't created to describe nature. Physical applications of pure mathematical concepts are usually only found many years after they are devised.
My belief (I call it a belief, because I haven't done rigorous research to confirm it; it is based on what I learned during studying physics) is that all early, 'basic', mathematics was invented (or discovered, I don't want to get into that) to describe nature.
Initially, the natural numbers were nothing but a convention to describe and differentiate between sets of multiple objects that were to be considered equal for the purposes of discussion. IV apples vs. V apples. II rocks vs. VII garments (of course, the Romans didn't invent this, but I find it a distraction to use 'our' Arabic numerals).
Another example: Newton invented differential calculus specifically to describe nature. Shortly after that field was invented, mathematics in it would be done for it's own sake, but that doesn't detract from the fact that originally it was meant to describe nature.
More recently, mathematics has been invented before it was shown to be applicable to physics. What I earlier meant is that this may be a result of the origins of mathematics and doesn't prove what it seems to imply.
Initially, the natural numbers were nothing but a convention to describe and differentiate between sets of multiple objects that were to be considered equal for the purposes of discussion. IV apples vs. V apples. II rocks vs. VII garments (of course, the Romans didn't invent this, but I find it a distraction to use 'our' Arabic numerals).
Another example: Newton invented differential calculus specifically to describe nature. Shortly after that field was invented, mathematics in it would be done for it's own sake, but that doesn't detract from the fact that originally it was meant to describe nature.
More recently, mathematics has been invented before it was shown to be applicable to physics. What I earlier meant is that this may be a result of the origins of mathematics and doesn't prove what it seems to imply.
We can certainly look at the natural world for clues, but how would one use math or empiricism to get at God? Can you describe God mathematically in order to plug him into a formula? Of course this is absurd.
'Science' is just a fancy word for knowledge. We don't come to know our best friends, our mothers, our bosses, through the so-called scientific method. Nor do criminal investigators solve tough cases through exclusively empirical means. Would you ask a hung jury to just be scientific about things, and the answer will become clear?
'Science' is just a fancy word for knowledge. We don't come to know our best friends, our mothers, our bosses, through the so-called scientific method. Nor do criminal investigators solve tough cases through exclusively empirical means. Would you ask a hung jury to just be scientific about things, and the answer will become clear?
OMG.
I think religious people fall into this trap a lot. In trying to "prove God exists" they are really trying to prove atheists wrong. But the truth is, and I say this as a religious person, atheists are right. Believing in God is irrational. That's the point. Religion is built on the proverbial "leap of faith." It is in having faith that religion provides any value to its followers. So if a religious person feels the need to go around trying to prove God's existence they are sort of missing the point.