Star Course Other God & Science Discussion Page

• Fr Gregory Hallam Mon 27 April 1998

Christ is risen!  I'm not going to join the debate formally but I should like to offer one or two observations:-
(1) Arguments for and against the existence of God are a great post-scholastic western obsession. The debate itself is predicated on the notion that faith is reasonable; that doctrine is rational. Now, I am not saying that faith in unreasonable or that doctrine is irrational, but these do reflect realities which cannot be reduced to verifiable or falsifiable premises / conclusions.
(2) From (1) it follows that although I am diammetrically opposed to Professor's Howson's agnosticism, some of his insights have merit. For example, not torturing babies is not self evident to a darkened mind alienated from God. A soul which retains virtue by grace may (mercifully) regard not-torturing as "compelling" but there can be little or no moral objectivity outside of the Kingdom. So, there is no rationally accessible free standing autonomous ethic. Not that I am suggesting that you think this but the scholastic approach toys with the idea. The very method which you are both using could be helping Professor Howson to remain stuck in his agnosticism rather than moving on.
(3) The greater explanatory power of theism is perhaps our stronger point, but, it cuts no ice with those who "dither on the verge of the Jordan." For every proponent of the anthropic principle, (weak or strong), there is a Professor Howson or a Dr. Dawkins who prefers to play with the primal purity of Maths or the ever receding vistas of chaos and chance.
(4) It follows from the above that, although the debate may be useful, it is misguided if it aims to bring people to faith. The mystery of faith has more to do with the "quantum leap" of trust rather than the plausibility of a theistic world view. Professor Howson's focusses this most clearly with his denial of the resurrection (or rather, his denail of supporting evidence). Everything hinges on the resurrection. You can only see this properly when you're on the inside. And, there's the rub! Let them think that we believe 7 impossible things before breakfast. Rather the Church's rationality than the world's.

• Diarmid Weir Tues 28 April 00:42

Has anyone read the AJ Ayer/Copplestone {acually Copleston} debate? I find it significant how the thing was supposed to be an examination of Ayer's verification principle, yet it was Copplestone who ended up on the defensive!  I bear Father Hallam no ill-will but his contribution bears examination.
1) He does not wish to enter the debate formally, but pretty much tells us it's all a waste of time!
2) He uses Christian 'code' as if to exclude non-believers
3) He basically tells us that if we're not already believers we can't understand anyway!
This is the attitude that loses Christianity friends, never mind potential converts, but is a common consequence of the need to maintain 'faith' in something for which there cannot - by definition - be any objective evidence. Father Hallam needs a good dose of John Macmurray or Richard Holloway! Even Christian Aid believe in 'Life before Death'.
• Nicholas Beale Tues 28, Apr 1998 15:49

Interestingly, Ayer and his silly self-refuting ideas have been consigned to the dustbin of philosophical history, whereas Catholic philosophy is still going strong. (PS I am an Anglican, not an RC)
    I don't think you're being fair to Fr G.  Surely at least the debate shows that that faith is not "something for which there cannot, by definition, be any evidence"  But Fr G is pointing out that the evidence is not the whole story.  Evidence that your wife loves you is not the same thing as loving her, although they may be connected they are logically quite distinct.
• Fr Gregory Hallam Tue 28 April 19:34

It's so kind of you to be concerned for my welfare but considering you know neither me nor my intellectual or spiritual development, let's just  treat as we find each other shall we?  I am sure I do need educating but I would rather be in charge of my own "suggested reading" thank you very much.
• Diarmid Weir Weds 29 Apr 18:20

The way it always seems to me is that 'believing in God' is fine. But it doesn't really seem to have much significance unless such a belief will make some difference to how we act. The main reason to respond to a belief in God is if it means something about 'life after death'. In other words either the belief itself - 'faith' brings this benefit, or certain actions will - 'worship' or whatever. I have no doubt that Christians would say that 'faith' brings benefits in this life too, but there are too many unhappy Christians and happy non-Christians around for this to prove very much.
    How can the 'life after death' proposition be proved? Given our definition of death - ie: you don't come back to tell the tale - it can't. This is what I mean when I say 'by definition'. Even if it was true for Jesus - it doesn't mean its going to be true for anyone else, or for me. But this doesn't bother me much. Since I know nothing at all of death - it might be great or it might be ghastly compared to my present existence - I have no reason to fear it (or desire it). And as for the 'just in case it's true' position which I suspect many occasional churchgoers hold, this ignores the equally likely possibility (given no evidence) that for all we know 'faith' or 'worship' may actually prevent 'life after death'.
    This willingness to accept uncertainty is what I find helpful when I read John Macmurray or Richard Holloway's 'Dancing on the Edge'. I find that their uncertainty leads them to the same conclusions as mine. But the question is: how can uncertainty be compatible with 'faith'?
• Nicholas Beale 29 Apr 19:25

No, we don't believe or worship because of 'life after death'. See below.
• Steven Carr Tue, 28 Apr 1998 06:47

Certum est quia impossibile est (Tertullian - De Carne Christi) It is certain because it is impossible.
• Fr Gregory Hallam Tue, 28 Apr 1998

Decontextualised quotes do not impress.  I am not one who believes in 7 impossible things before breakfast.  Define "impossible."  By the way, as I'm sure you know, Tertullian later became heretical.  As far as the Church is concerned, he is just as suspect as Origen.
• Steven Carr Tue, 28 Apr 1998

I can easily dig up the context of the quote.
    Out of curiosity, which Christians of the second and early third centuries were totally orthodox (small O)? Irenaeus and Papias had some strange beliefs. Were Popes like Callistus and Zephyrinus orthodox or Patripassians?
    Tertullian complained that the majority did not believe in the Trinity. (Against Praxeas - section 3)
• Fr Gregory Hallam Wed, 29 Apr 98 16:16

Where on earth did you get the idea Steven that Orthodoxy (or orthodoxy) was universal for all at any time?  I am certainly not going to start constructing lists on the "ins" and "outs."  There is voluminous documentation on this already and you seem to be fairly well acquainted with it.
    Let's have something really interesting to talk about.  For example. You used the word "impossible."  How do you define "impossible?"
• Steven Carr Wed, 29 Apr 1998 22:23

I quite like early Church history. I find it very interesting to talk about.
   Still, let's talk about impossible.
Elephants which live in a vacuum are impossible. Why wouldn't the Earth resting on the backs of 4 large elephants be an impossible thing which would prove that somebody (something?) would have to be making it happen?
• Nicholas Beale Wed 29 Apr 98 23:01

A truly impossible thing cannot happen, so all that Earth resting on the backs of elephants would prove was that our concepts about elephants were defective (assuming for the moment that these elephants were otherwise identical to normal elephants - improbable but not logically impossible).  Similarly, (given RedC {ie Christianity}) the truth of the resurrection shows that a certain concept of death is defective.  This is much better "evidence for God" and has the advantage of being true.
• Fr Gregory Hallam Thiursday 30th April 98 00:30

Forgive me, I may be terribly dense but I don't see the problem.
   Elephants in a vacuum?
   Supporting the earth?
   Both impossible and falsifiable empirically.
   Therefore Mr. Occam says why invent the Conjuror of the impossible?  We are agreed yes?
   But this hasn't dented my theism one little bit.  Perhaps there is a coded message in there somewhere?  Do enlighten me!
PS I don't mind talking early Church History, (it's my trade!)  I just want to be a bit more focussed.
• Diarmid Weir Fri, 01 May 1998 21:05 {this comes at the end of a long response on Ayer - but raises interesting & important questions}

{a}Why are so many people unhappy? {b}Why are there wars? {c}Why are some people so poor when others are revoltingly rich? If you believe in a 'Loving Ultimate Creator' then everything comes to a bit of a dead stop. Perfectly rational questions like: {d}What are LUCs made of? {e}Where do they come from? {f} What do they do? {g} Why do they do it? have to be disallowed by definition.
 Which is why I repeat (in slightly different form) the question that you haven't answered: {h} In what specific situation does it become 'non-trivial' to prefer Red or Green - and why?
• Nicholas Beale Sun 03 May, 1998 16:45

Golly, that's a lot to deal with in one go.  Clearly short answers are going to need further elucidation, but here goes from what I believe to me a mainstream Christian perspective:
 We are designed so that we can only find true fulfilment by loving God, and our Neighbour as ourselves. Becasue we have freewill, we often fall short of this, which is the principal cause of unhappiness {a} and the sole cause of wars {b} and (today) of excessive material inequities {c}.  Disease and natural disasters contribute to {a} and {c} and these are inevitable consequences of the processes of biology and physics by which we came to be, although the ill-effects are exacerbated by failures of love and mitigated by love and human creativity rightly deployed.
 {d,e} An Ultimate Creator (there can only be one) cannot by definition be made of a substance not created by Him, in the same way that other things are, or come from somewhere else (it is not special to God that some questions are genuinely logically incoherent: where are the corners of a circle?)  God is 'made of' God and 'comes from' God.  Christians say a lot about the inner nature of God, see eg here .
{f} God Loves and Creates.  {g} It is in God's nature to do so. For further details, see eg the Bible!
{h} (see here)
•  Fr Gregory Hallam Tue, 5 May 98 23:50

Since the Renaissance, (and probably before), science and faith have stared each other out across the void of two antitheses.  The first, taken by (false) science and all her positivist children is .... "we have objective truth in the public domain."  The second taken by (false) religion is its counterpoint ... "we will take subjective truth in the private domain."  Protestants were suckers for this stand off because they were (and are) much more interested in the private individual's relationship with "God" than the truth "out there." Protestantism and positivism thereby reinforced each other.
 Now some of us (believers) and some of us (scientists) are no longer willing to play the game by these rules.  The false antithesis of the old rules worked to the detriment of both science and faith.  Popular fundamentalism (Christian and New Age) rails against science for its cold objective formalism, blind to the essential subjective component of any "rational" enquiry.  Popular scientism, (now not so popular and even more academic), hurls intellectual missiles against the vapid subjectivism, (psychological or otherwise), of fundamentalist piety ... as you do, blind to the Catholic and Orthodox witness which has the audacity  to suggest that religion is not merely a private phenomenon.  But, you would have it no other way.  This is how the old game by the old rules is played.  The old players have vested interests in leaving things untouched.
 But will you hear?  Will fundamentalists (both religious and scientific) wise up to what's going on?  There is a new game out there ... or is it in here?  Anyone want to play?
• Don Fri 22 May 18:05 -0400

I've read much of the literature on whether scientifically a god can be shown to exist (I'm a Professor of Earth Sciences), written by most of the protagonists on the issue. The bottom line to me seems to be this:
1. the only way humans experience anything is through our senses, which under some circumstances can mislead us.  People can experience or suffer hallucinations of all sorts caused by emotional or physiological reasons that can lead to the apparent metaphysical.
2. given the above, the only public truth or knowledge is that which is testable by the scientific method using what imperfect senses we have--amplified to a large degree by our technology. You can call it experiments, statistics or whatever, but if a fact is true then one can predict to some measure of reasonable certainty (not perfectly) from it. Otherwise, planes would not fly, I couldn't type this to you, and people would be dying from smallpox today. I have never seen any compelling demonstration that a religious prediction has ever come true, that can stand the test of verification. I can pray forever that I will win lotto and I won't. I can learn from stats why I won't within reasonable certainty. One can "believe" that god exists and help us or maybe lays off the world at a distance sight unseen or that we are reincarnated. But this is simply a "belief" that has no public credence, although on a private level, it may console a person or otherwise make them feel whole or better able to cope with the demands of modern living.
 3. despite the beauty of the math--and I have studied quite a bit of it during my life--it's beauty has no bearing on the question whether there is a god or not. Because, if one wants to argue there is a penultimate god that starts it all, then it simply begs the question who or what created god? That the universe operates with great mathematical beauty and sophistication and that it is delicately poised with respect to its physical constants could equally well have evolved by evolution (Smolin) or randomness over a long time (Dawning). As emotionally unsatifying as this conclusion is, I have to accept it. It is easier for me to accept what I know (within the bounds of being earthbound and human) is true, to accept that energy and mass has been forever, than postulate or believe in a creator sight unseen.
4. knowing (on the basis of public knowledge as defined above) there is neither plausible creator nor life after death is not very comforting. It is unpleasant to respond, when asked what happens when one dies, that it's like asking what happens to the light when you turn off the light switch. But what IS comforting is that I at least can defend these positions. Faith and believe is just what the words say--they are not fact. So I'd rather not discuss whether what people "believe" if right, but rather, what they "know" is right based on common knowledge.
• Diarmid Weir  Sat, 23 May 1998 00:46

  I agree absolutely with everything else you say, but is there actually any evidence that death is more or less likely to be oblivion - as I think you are
suggesting? In fact given that it is something of which no experience (I think so-called near-death experiences can be explained otherwise) can ever be reported, is it not as likely that death is an experience better than life as it is likely to be worse (assuming oblivion to be worse than life!)? I find
this possibility rather comforting since it actually means that certain death can be accepted with a degree of equanimity. It also means that since
death may be worse - life is always preferable if we have a choice, since it always has the positive potential to get better.
• Nicholas Beale Sat 23 May 98 08:45

{2a} Don is basing his argument on defunct and refuted philosophy.  I don't deny the validity 'scientifc knowledge' but it cannot be true that "the only public truth or knowledge is that which is testable by the scientific method" (if it were true, it would be an example of a truth that was not so testable).
{2b} Surely the Resurrection would be a example of a succesful religious prediction.  The Howson debate makes it clear why the evidence for the resurrection is almost overwhelming.  You have to start with a strong prior probability (=prejudice) against it.  Where does this prior probability come from? {2c}(BTW all the studies show that people who pray on average live longer, recover faster from illness, and are happier.  Not as good as the resurrection, but directly testable today.)
{3.} Don doesn't seem to have understood the points in the debate very well. Since we define "God" as a Loving Ultimate Creator, by definition God has no other creator.
{3a} The question is "why should mathematical beauty be a reasonably reliable guide to truth in physics?"  As Einstein said: "when I look at a theory, I ask myself, if I were God, would I have made the world like this".  Prof should either deny that it is, or offer a reason.
{3b} The fundamental Anthropic Constants could not possibly have "evolved"!  You either have to believe they were 'fixed' or that there have been c 10²⁰ other universes. What would Don say if one of his students tried to explain away an inconvenient result  by suddenly positing 10²⁰ other universes in which it was not so?!
4. But we do know what happens to the light when we turn out the light switch. It just requires deeper thought. (and BTW "not being able to 'prove scientifically' is not the same as 'being able to prove scientifically that not'.  Before Andrew Wiles, would Don have considered Fermat's Last Theorem a meaningless question?
• Diarmid Weir 23 May 98 14:22

{2a} To 'debate' by using personal value judgements or by arguing 'by definition' does not advance human understanding!
{2b}Now this is fair enough. Let us say the resurrection occurred exactly as predicted. This proves beyond all doubt that it is possible occasionally to rise from the dead, and that someone can know about it in advance. It doesn't actually prove anything else, although it certainly should make us take other predictions from the same source seriously. But taking other predictions seriously is not the same as believing them to be true. Ultimately these other predictions must stand or fall on their own merits. {2b1} If God actually wants us all to believe in him - (and if he doesn't what does that say about his love?) - why doesn't he make such predictions come true more often?
{2c} I am prepared to accept that people who pray do gain benefit from it - indeed if they didn't they would not do it. But people also get similar benefits from being materially comfortable, from having a stable romantic relationship, or from having good friends. If God is the ultimate power, surely his influence should be much greater than any of these effects? What would be quite impressive is if a non-religious cohort were divided randomly into two groups, one that started praying and one that didn't, and the ones that did showed benefit. Has this been done?
I am interested to note that you seem to be accepting the value of verification in practice if not in theory!
• Nicholas Beale 23 May 98 17:25

{2a} Logical arguments from definitions are the only way of getting conclusive logical results.  Objections to our Christian concept of God based on a different definition of God don't make sense.
{2b} Don wants a successful prediction based on God's action but when one is given Dr Weir says it proves nothing about God!
{2b1} God wants people to choose freely to love Him.  There's more than enough evidence for people who don't have prior closed minds.  Where does the miniscule prior probability you assign to ELUC come from?
{2c} Eternal life (= being caught up fully in God's love, not simply survival for ever) is a pretty big benefit. What more would you like to see?  {2c1} The experiment you suggest is pretty impossible, but I believe that there have been Randomised Controlled Trials of people being prayed for, and that the Templeton Foundation is funding a larger one.  However God is not an object on which you can perform experiments.
{v} Of course verification is valuable, but it is not the whole story.
• Don  Sat, 23 May 1998 18:01:44 -0400

{2a}Why not? What makes your Christian god the one and only. I recently read the book of Buddah--seemed as compelling to me as Christianity. Is Buddah a sham?
{2b} I have never seen a successful prediction that is clear and unequivocal in the scientific sense. I will not accept "interpretations" of biblical text to suit the fancier, for every passage can be interpreted in all sorts of different ways (When it is said that Jesus "knew" Paul, does it mean that Jesus was gay? I don't mean to be facetious, but some have interpreted it this way. Who the heck knows?). What I ask for is a biblical prediction or a preacher's or Pope's  rediction that is posed as clearly as the ones I make in my research. e.g. "I predict from the bible that in the month of  x in the year xyz that the following will happen--earthquakes will occur in LA, Tehran and Jerusalem." Saying more diffuse predictions is akin to astrology. Actually, the most testable predictions from believers are those for armaggedon. Lots of these have come and gone and the earth is still here. I'm not surprised.
{2b1} Really? Prove it. Prove there is a god and tell me is it a he or she, a thing, a spirit, a force, an ether? Take your pick.
{2c} It would be nice for sure, but utterly untestable. If something is utterly untestable, why spend all the energy thinking about it (indeed, why am I doing this now? Perhaps for the intellectual discourse.)
{2c1} These have all failed miserably.
{V} It IS the only story. Will you jump off a building while I pray for you to not land hard? How about if the Pope prayed for you?
• Nicholas Beale 24 May 98 18:36

{2a} If there is a Loving Ultimate Creator there can only be one.  Debate other concepts with other people.
{2b} But Christianity is not a scientific discipline, it's a religion.  Of course we make some currently testable predictions (eg dates of Easter) and some that will only be known in the world to come.  You might as well complain that Earth Science doesnt help you design integrated circuits, or cook nice food, or help you be a better father/husband/lover.
{2b1} The debate demonstrates that the available facts that can be quantified strongly confirm the existence of a Loving Ulitmate Creator.  The only way you can get away from the inference is to give it a prior probability of zero (FAPP).  God is Spirit, conventionally pronouned as He.
{2c} Won't be untestable after death!  But there are lots of things that are 'untestable' that are worth thinking about.  Love, for one.  Don't you care about that?
{2c1} really?  That's not what I understood.  Can you give me references?
{V} we've already PROVEN that not all true statements are verifiable. And we actually know that Jesus denouced the 'tempting God' you advocate.
 
• Diarmid Weir Mon, 25 May 01:24 {1st part of DW's post relates to Ayer and is here}

{a}This is not to say that ELUC (as you believe it) might not be true, but if it does not relate to actually recordable (or predictable) human experience, language is inadequate to communicate anything about it. Since language (verbal or otherwise) is our only means of indirect transfer of experience, this takes me back to a point I have made before. This is that if LUC is a valid 'experience', it is a personal one - whose relevance to those who have not 'experienced' would be uncertain at best.
{b}If your God has genuine contact with you I would have thought, that to avoid you wasting time with a discussion like this, he would have made this clear to you. After all your time would be much better spent working to put Jesus' practical teachings into action. There would be many who, like me, aren't convinced he was anything other than a remarkable human being, but who would be only too happy to help you!
{c}Which leads me to the conclusion that your beliefs about God are probably unhelpful to you too, beyond being just another manifestation of the human psychological need for certainty. In fact the only truly valid 'certainty' is uncertainty.
{d} The issue of whether the universe was 'created' or just 'happened' is fascinating, but in itself tells us nothing about our relationship with any force that created us.
{e}If we created a conscious artificial intelligence, would we expect it to 'love' us if we allowed the things that have happened to humans to happen to it?
• Nicholas Beale 25 May 98 14:20

{a}But it clearly does: the Resurrection, my marriage, all moral issues etc...
{b} Jesus told us to proclaim the Good News.  This site gets thousands of hits a year.
{c} Try a bit of uncertainty about the existence of LUC, (say a 1% prior probability) and then apply Bayes Theorem and see where it gets you.
{d} Not if by a LUC.
{e} We cannot be Ultimate Creators.  But yes we expect our children to love us. If (a very big IF) we could build an artifiical person, genuinely capable of love, then it/he/she would be a Neighbour whom we ought to love and who ought to love us.
• Diarmid Weir Mon, 25 May 18:49

{e}I wouldn't expect my children (6 and 3) to love me if I subjected them to Alzheimer's, renal colic, AIDS, death by volcanic eruption, depression, Mary Bell's childhood, concentration camps, ethnic cleansing etc, etc........ Or could God not prevent these even if he wanted to? (That's a 'Have you stopped beating your wife' question, isn't it?)
 
• Steven Carr 30 May 98

In this week's Church Times, Andrew Brown writes that he is distressed at the shockingly low standards of professional atheism in this country?
  There is little point in Andrew Brown being distressed at the shockingly low standards of professional atheism, unless he can provide a remedy.
  What resources would he like to see pumped into atheism to raise standards?
  Perhaps he would like to see compulsory atheist education in schools, or compulsory atheist programming on national television each Sunday.
Should universities not provide degrees in atheology or perhaps the Templeton Foundation could give a large prize for the book which has done most to promote atheism? Atheism could make big strides if it had one tenth of the resources that religion gets.
  There is no money or organisation behind atheism, but it is still gaining ground.
• Nicholas Beale 2 June 98

  Lots of money behind Consumer Unbeliever International though - what proportion of the billions spent on advertising, and on the media in general, promotes Christian values as opposed to Atheistic ones?
  Also note the almost hysterical atheism of people like Dawkins.
  Is atheism gaining ground?  US surveys suggest that the proportion of atheists scientists has been stable for over 70 years.
• Nicholas Beale 20 June 98

Any comments on the issues raised by the Ian McEwan article in The Times "The wonder is we're here at all"? For what it's worth, here are mine:
Ian McEwan confuses the scientific account of evolution, underpinned by the amazing discoveries of molecular biology, with the Urban Myth, so popularised by Richard Dawkins, that this necessarily implies "blind" chance in which human life is nothing special.  It is no accident that this Myth has become ‘mainstream’ in popular culture about fifty years after the last attempt to base an ideology on scientific evolution perished ignominiously in Berlin.
One reason that physicists tend to be more religious than biologists is that they are more numerate.  Over the last 30 years we have come to understand that, although it is conceivable that the universe could have come into being by "blind chance", it is incredibly unlikely that a randomly-chosen universe could support intelligent life, in any form, anywhere.  The cosmologist Max Tegmark has now been driven to suggest that every logically possible universe must exist (including triangular ones!) to avoid the scandal of our universe being so finely tuned.  And, as McEwan recognises, even given the very special conditions that allow its possibility, the evolution by "blind chance" of intelligent life is extraordinarily unlikely.  Four billion years sounds like a long time, but the number of different possible arrangements of genetic material is such that if the entire universe were composed of DNA, randomly re-shuffling a million times a second for forty billion years, the fraction of the possible arrangements that would have been explored is negligible. (see eg www.starcourse.org for more details of all the above).
Computer scientists now often use ‘genetic algorithms’ which mimic evolution to solve complex problems, and we have discovered that such algorithms need careful design and fine-tuning to produce useful results.  The use of a Genetic Algorithm does not prove that the programmer does not exist, but that he or she is subtle.  What is "demonstrably true" is that we have come into being through the physical operation of an exquisitely-finely-tuned genetic algorithm.  Far from pushing God "down among the quarks", this fact strongly suggests a Loving Ultimate Creator who brings into being, not automata, but beings with freewill who can love and be loved.  Far from being computers made of meat we are persons, made from quarks and leptons for intelligence, wonder and love.
Letters in response were published on the 16th June and the 20th June.
• Steven Carr 24 June Real Science, Real Faith

This is the title of a book which is edited by Prof. R.J.Berry. It gives discussions by 16 leading British scientists of their science and their personal faith.
  It is by no means a bad little book. It does in one place say that we cannot write off scientists of the calibre of Brian Josephson as part of a 'loony fringe', which I find an amusing faux pas, considering Josephson's courageous battle to retain full mental capacity.
  One thing I find surprising is that the scientists appear to be totally untouched by any thoughts of Biblical criticism. Strauss does get a brief mention.
  Are scientists unaware of the tools of  history?
  I am reminded of Russell Stannard's book 'Science and Wonders', where he attributes a quote from Origen to Gregory of Nyassa. You can be sure that if Prof. Stannard was writing a science book, he would have triple-checked his references.
  I wonder why some scientists lower their standards when dealing with old books?
• Steven Carr 3 July Belief in God in an Age of Science

This book by John Polkinghorne is reviewed on p46 of this week's New Scientist.
  The review says the book's argument for the proposition that God is real is 'cogent' and 'his evidence is elegant'.
  The review states that Polkinghorne solves the freewill/evil problem by denying that there is a future for God to know.
  Interestingly, J.L.Mackie's book 'The Miracle of Theism' states that 'This development of the defence succeeds better than any other in detaching moral evils, the wrong choices of free agents, from God'.
  So it seems even atheists concur with Polkinghorne that freewill/omniscience/evil can be reconciled if God is unaware of what the future will bring, assuming the review in the New Scientist gives a fair summary of Polkinghorne's book.
• Diarmid Weir 4 July

It seems to me that the logical result of this is, as I have argued earlier, that even if 'God' (our creator) exists it doesn't necessarily follow that
he/she is morally superior to us.
  All future events in the universe are rooted in conditions of the present. If God has imperfect knowledge of the future this can only be true if his knowledge of the present is less than perfect. This opens up the possibility that sometimes man's knowledge may be superior to that of God and therefore that his decisions and actions may be more 'moral' than those that God would go for.
• Nicholas Beale 4 July

It's not quite that God is 'unaware' but that God has chosen to create a Universe in which The Future is not uniquely defined, and it is up to us, with freewill, to help define it.  (There seem to be 'free' physical processes as well, presumably necessary for us, physically embodied, to exercise freewill).
  Diarmid seems still to be stuck in the 'determinist paradigm' which is simply wrong (see eg Brandon Carter's comments - fascinating) : although future events are indeed 'rooted in conditions of the present' they are not uniquely determined by these conditions, hence "imperfect knowledge of future => imperfect knowledge of present" is a non sequitur.
• Diarmid Weir 4 July

As far as the real world is concerned this is frankly nonsense. It is to confuse the fact that with our limited powers we cannot know all causes, with the reality that all events must have causes - however complex these may be. The idea of God is powerful because it allows all causes to be known by somebody/thing, but it results in contradictions for those who then wish to ascribe certain qualities to God.
  As ever your attempts to support your contentions are based on abstractions - which involve faulty assumptions - from the real world, rather than
examples from the real world itself.
• Nicholas Beale 4 July

a.  The question of whether the future is uniquely determined by the present is certainly not "nonsense".  Both deterministic and non-deterministic universes are logically possible.  "all events have causes" does not mean "all events are totally determined by their causes."
b. At present the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against our universe being deterministic.  It is abundantly clear that it is not possible even in principle to predict eg exactly when a radioactive nucleus will decay.  Determinism is a 17th-19th Century hypothesis which is not compatible with now-known facts.
c. There are also strong philosophical arguments against determinism: it could never be established empirically, and if it were true then rational debate and scientific experiment would both be impossible (so the 'arguments' put forward for it would be invalid).  Determinism is also incompatible with Godel's theorem (see eg here)
d. No system in the real world is completely deterministic (in the sense that its future behaviour is predicatble with complete certainty from a set of initial conditions - if you disagree, think about it and then name one) and there are many - notoriously the weather and anything involving human emotions - that are manifestly highly non-deterministic.  The false image in your mind of a deterministic universe is an abstraction constructed by long-defunct philosophers.  Freewill, albeit conditioned by physical possibilities, is the lived reality.
• Nicholas Beale Faith Lowers Blood Pressure

Have you seen http://www.reutershealth.com/cgi-bin/ssi/framethis?catalog=eline&file=1998072104.html
What next?
• Steve Carr 22 July

It is well documented that people who firmly believe in something are healthier than people who do not have such firm beliefs about things.
• Steve Carr 23 July

Is is true that Nature has just published a letter showing that only 7% of scientists believe in a personal god?
• Nicholas Beale 30 July (sorry for the delay - my subscription had lapsed and I wanted to check)

Nature 23 July published (not 'Letter to Nature' or 'Scientific Correspondence' which are refereed) a letter from Larson et al claiming that, although Larson's earlier survey showed that 40% of US scientists believed in God (little changed from 1914), his new survey of NAS members "showed that" only 7% of them do (compared to 28% in 1914).  However there are serious flaws in the letter:
a. They sent questionnaires to 517 NAS members and 'just over 50% replied'. No evidence is given about differential response rates, and since the article is highly biased, it is quite possible that atheists (who generally have more spare time in any event) were more likely to reply than theists.  Even if the figures are right, all they prove is that between 3.5% and 53% of NAS members believe in God.  NAS President Bruce Alberts is quoted as saying: "there are many very outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists".
b. The figures they present are inconsistent. I have EMailed Larson as follows:
My attention has been drawn to the letter published in Nature 23 July.
Leaving aside for now the obvious issues of bias and methodology, there seems to be a basic inconsistency in the numbers.
 Reportedly 14.3% of Math-respondents, 7.5% of Astro/Physics Respondents and 5.4% of Bio-respondents believe in God, but that 7.0% of all repsondents do.  This needs at least 4.2 times as many Bio-respondents as Math-respondents ((14.25-7.05)/(7.05-5.35)).  Reportedly 14.3% and 15.0% of Math-respondents believe in God and Immortality respectively, so there cannot have been fewer than 125 (1/0.8%) of these (133 is the only nearby number that fits).  Which means over 525 Bio-respondents out of a total membership surveyed of 517 with 'slightly over 50%' response.
  Is this meant to be a revenge for 'Intellectual Impostures'?
He has replied:
You have done the math perfectly.  The National Academy of Sciences  reflects American science, which is numerically dominated by biologists - and our sampling reflects this.  Our return rate was about the same from each discipline - but we sent to 5X more biologists than mathmaticians. That  is why we broke out the groups.  Leuba had a similar situation in his survey, but he never broke out the math from physics.
 In short, the bias is not ours. We are simply reporting on the NAS - or at least its core basic science sections (which we were forced to use if we were to follow Leuba.)
To which I have responded:
Sorry - I still don't see how you could have had 525 Bio-respondents when you only had a total sample of 517 (especially if I have done the math perfectly).
 Would you mind sending me the actual numbers of respondents, rather than percentages, please?
 It would also be interesting to know whether the % of Bio-scientists had changed appreciably since 1933.
If/when he responds I'll let you know.
• Nicholas Beale 10 July, 1998

Prof Larson and I have been in fairly extensive E-Correspondence.  The numbers published in Nature are certainly arithmetically incorrect (he says there may be transcription errors, he hasn't got a copy of what was printed) and although he is not willing to let me have the detailed numbers until they are published in another article, he has promised a copy of the covering letter of his survey when he gets back from from vacation in 2 weeks.  I'll try and keep you all posted.  In the meantime, take it with a big pinch of salt.
BTW have you seen www.starcourse.org./leadingsci.html ? Any comments?
{Prof Larson has sent me in confidence the detailed numbers.  The % in Nature are wrong, although the conclusions, if the figures are right, are broadly the same.  But because the figures were sent in confidence, I can't disclose them. Sorry}
• Steven Carr 15 Nov 98  The John Templeton foundation sponsored a TV programme which can be found here.

 

 

<latest posting just above here>

Main Topics in Debate

• Notes from Nature
• Why Dawkins is Wrong
• Anthropic Principle
• Comprehensible Universe
• Objective Morailty
• Jesus
• Suffering
• Other God & Science
• Other Star Course
• Other
• Biblical Manuscripts
• How can uncertainty be compatible with faith
• AJ Ayer's Verification Principle Refuted