|
Essays on Environment and Health-Related Science Scientific Politics and Misconduct |
the truth is; SCIENCE POINTS TOWARDS THE PROBABLE EXISTENCE OF GOD (this is not, however, the same as or anything like a proof.) A second truth is that There is Nothing In science Which is anything like a real alternative to believing in god.
The arguments which follow are recognized to be philosophical but are nevertheless representative of the type of argument atheists get trapped into when they try to invoke infinities of universes, for example, in an effort to explain away God with postulated actual infinities. To counter such unscientific arguments requires addressing the implications of the atheistic assumptions.
The following arguments based on science truths are worth considering since they make a reasonable case that the simplistic atheist arguments are in no way compelling in avoiding the need to invoke a Designer to explain a universe so perfectly fit for life. How science should view God.
We are not alone in being educated in science and believing in God. Many scientists (though a minority) would agree with us. Reference the book Cosmos, Bios, Theos, Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo sapiens, contains the replies of 60 scientists, including 24 Nobel Prize winners. From that book; Wolfgang Smith Ph.D. in mathematics and professor, says; "To me personally nothing is more evident, more certain, that the existence or reality of God." (Note mathematics is at the core in the majority of hard science. Also note the majority of the scientists quoted in the referenced book believe in God in some context, in ways similar to the quotes below from the book and the positions put forward in this site.)
Professor C. Herring, Ph.D. Physics; "God is a characteristic of the universe--indeed a miraculous characteristic--that makes that adaptation possible. Things such as truth, goodness, even happiness, are achievable, by virtue of a force that is always present, in the here and now and available to me personally. Professor J. Fornaess Ph.D. mathematics; "I believe that there is a God and that God brings structure to the universe on all levels from elementary particles to living beings to superclusters of galaxies. Professor A. Schawlow Ph.D. physics; "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, on must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious----I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life."
As with other scientists, a belief in God is philosophy and not science, but what follows is a defense of some reasoning to a belief in God based on one reasonable set of interpretations of science findings in cosmology and basic physics.
While no science cannot directly address God, science can and does inform us that the universe around us is consistent with the belief in a harmonious personal God who designed a universe precisely balanced for life. The Designed "Just So" Universe.
The harmony of the universe is a multifaceted reality which alone points in all probability towards God. If the Universe were, for example, less stable (laws of physics which changed significantly over time, for example) or if physics dictated that energy was much less efficiently converted to mechanical work (as in muscles) are just two of numerous possible examples of how the laws could be much less hospitable to life. Life would be precarious and capricious rather than rich in diversity, complexity, interrelatedness, harmony and existing over extended times as it actually is. With significantly different laws of physics, life could be such that virtually all effort could be required just to survive long enough to reproduce and leave no margin for a meaningful or contemplative life. Such a near perfect balance of the structure and nature of the universe point towards a Designer if one follows the principle of Occam's razor widely depended on and found to be reliable as a general principle in science.
With the universe so precisely designed, the only alternative to believing in a Designer universe is to believe in an actual infinity (something which is actually beyond human conception or an real understanding) of other undetectable universes and to believe that only by chance, in essence, we happen to be in one precisely balanced for life. This is certainly not the explanation which requires the fewest assumptions. There are also serious questions as to any reasoning about an actual infinity as the following site link discusses. The Impossibility of an Actual Infinite.
Infinity is, in fact, very strange when one examines it mathematically. This may be significant in refuting the atheistic chance hypothesis. Even the concepts of infinity as something that can be reasoned to by finite logic are open to question. Controversy over Cantor's theories about infinity.
Invoking an infinity of other undetectable universes is certainly in no way scientific (no hard evidence.) It is not a strongly defensible rational position if one follows the principle of parsimony used by science. Parsimony is akin to Occam's razor and means that the simplest explanation is taken to be the most probable, and if one looks at the improbabilities which are entailed in any actual infinity there is certainly no reason to believe that it is the most probable explanation for anything.
Additionally, just because something may not be impossible, that does not mean it is a significant actual possibility. While it may be possible via some physics theory (model) that there are an infinity of other universes, that does not given any evidence that the actuality exists. Mathematical possibilities or any set of reasoning which tends to the conclusion that something is not impossible are not in any way sufficient to prove actual existence to any scientific probability.
It may even be possible that the existence of more than one universes would in some way rule out or limit the existence of certain sets of universes which if true would render the Anthropic argument invalid in invoking an infinity of universes. There are scientists, however, who believe with some interesting qualifications that string theory, if valid, points to a possible (not required) infinite number of universes. (There is an interesting admission in the last paragraph of the link.)
We do not agree (there is no hard scientific evidence to believe) that infinity related speculations based on completely unproven string theory are more than interesting speculations. The basic ideas are certainly worth thinking about since they have profound implications, but could, in fact, have far different implications than those assumed by some scientists based upon the not well understood properties of infinity.
Atheists point out (correctly) that unless the universe is set up to allow life, we could not be here to observe it. That is called the Anthropic principle. It is to some degree a tautology (self referential) and probably not much more than that. The basic idea of the Anthropic principle is that if the universe didn't allow life by the conditions determined by the laws of physics, then we would not be here to observe that it is "designed" for life. The Anthropic concept really does not provide anything testable nor is it even possible by definition to show that an actual infinity of "undetectable" universes needed by the Anthropic principle exists. Saying that we live in a universe which must by definition allow life does not in any way inform the issue of the design of the universe significantly. There are alternative possibilities as well. Scientific alternatives to the anthropic principle.
It is also worth noting that if it could exist, an actual infinity of universes would allow and probably require the existence of another lower level of infinity of actual universes suitable to some degree for life and actually containing life which just supposedly happened to arise against extreme improbabilities (if one believes (we do not) that life can arise naturally from nonlife. (Even the simplest life is extremely complex and improbable.) If such less perfect universes actually existed, this could make the Anthropic reasoning that we could only contemplate the design of the universe in such a near perfect universe as we find ourselves in, of very questionable reasoning.
The problem for atheists is that science shows more ways almost day by day as to how special the universe is for life as we know it. This makes the atheistic position need some at least theoretically defensible alternative to a Designer. Atheists need to come up with something at least semi rational as an explanation for the near perfection of the universe for life as we know it or face up to a belief in God the Designer as the science of understanding of life and the universe progresses. Hence, atheists grasp at undetectable infinite numbers of universes as a pseudo explanation for life. "All manner of strange paradoxes and fantasies characterize an infinite universe." The same is true for an infinite number of universes. It cannot be said that just because there might be an infinite number of universes that all things are then possible. The reality is rather that the assumption of an infinite universe or numbers of universes lead to very questionable reasoning involving infinity. Science is supposed to be about things/relationships that can be measured, not about infinity which is by definition not measurable.
As we point out in other essays in this site, there are other reasons besides the balance of the laws of physics to believe that the probabilities found by science point towards God.
In this essay, we will focus mostly on the nature of the universe as it is so well balanced for life. It is interesting to note, in any case, that some scientists are trying to construct a mathematical scheme which would supposedly somehow govern the initiation and starting points of the universe and inherently determine the nature of the laws which govern the universe. There is no physical evidence which would lead one to believe that they will succeed. If selected initial conditions were not needed (there is no evidence to believe that such is the case) and if only one balance of laws were possible (clearly those which are near optimum for life) what would that then still say about other possible universes and the design of this one relative to a Creator? World class physicist Stephen Hawkings has said; "What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?" A Brief History of Time, p. 174. (Note, that at this time, there is no reason to believe that the effort to eliminate the need for special initial conditions is more than a mathematical artifice; that is a sort of self referential mathematical trick.) What we would be left with, in any event, is the need for a Creator who breathed fire into the equations.
There is no scientific principle at all which says that a set of equations must be actualized in the physical world all by itself. There is nothing in either science or mathematics which even implies that any mathematical scheme will be actualized. Mathematics is just a numerical language which is used to describe reality that can be measured essentially in a laboratory. To our knowledge, in no case has mathematics ever proved that something must fundamentally exist based on the mathematics alone. That is far different from predicting the results of some experiment based on mathematics or finding some phenomena based on the use of mathematics known to provide a numerical description of a phenomena. One cannot simply invent a type of mathematics and then say then some phenomena must exist on the basis of the mathematics alone.
There is also at least an incompleteness to the atheist argument that the Anthropic principle supposedly explains the very precise and apparently optimum balance of the laws of physics for life. There are at least three additional levels of reasoning we have not seen discussed in examining such Anthropic reasoning that leave it at best incomplete. This first is related to levels of and types of infinity (Cantor proved that there are different levels of infinity) and the second is the very special initial conditions of the universe which are almost certainly required besides the precisely balanced laws. This is especially true as the initial conditions relate factors such as the duration of the span of time in which life could exist and develop in a universe. The third reason is that even within this universe with its very special initial conditions and laws of physics, there is still also an incredible improbability of life based on the information needed to be organized and coordinated for origin of life and the very special nature of the earth itself and the position of the earth in the universe. Refer also to the October 2001 issue of Scientific American article; Refuges for life in a Hostile Universe. In this article, it also points out on page 64 that even our sun itself is very unusual The same is true of the moon and its size relative to the earth.
Looking at what it really means to try to evoke infinities as an explanation, it turns out that to even get to the problems of a theorized actual infinity of universes one is faced with the fact that if an actual infinity really exists, then levels of infinities must also exist. This is a mathematical truth proven about any actual infinity if such an infinity can even exist, which is open to question. Any actual infinity of universes if it did exist, would require levels of infinity (other infinity sets of universes) to also exist within its set. That is, it would have infinities encompassed within it. In essence, an actual infinity is a greater level of infinity than any countable infinity (such as the set of real numbers.) It could be argued that such a higher level actual infinity is infinitely less probable to exist than a countable infinity (none of which are know by science to exist.) Even Aristotle believed that the idea of an actual infinity is not even sensible.
If there were an actual infinity of other universes, the Anthropic principle would, in any case, be a weak argument in regards to the laws of physics allowing thinking life forms. It does not in any way address the needed combination of a balance of the laws of physics as a combination together with an extremely improbable set of initial conditions of the universe with both being essentially near optimum for life. In essence you would have 1/(infinity or near infinity) multiplied times 1/(near infinity) of having the combination of the initial conditions needed for life to exist together with the laws of physics in near perfect balance. This leaves Anthropic argument essentially indefinable (1/infinity in math is undefined) and of questionable meaning unless you also postulate that there is a large number (near infinity) of actual universes where life is essentially like that here on earth. (There is also no scientific evidence of life elsewhere.) This string of infinities and extreme improbabilities involved in anything like a complete Anthropic argument is far more complex than postulating God as the Designer and this makes all atheistic arguments about God's infinity seem infinitely less of a problem for theists to reason away.
The need to invoke the improbability of the initial conditions of the universe is by no means original with us. In regards to the initial conditions from which a universe would start, scientific calculations by one of the top physicists in the world (Roger Penrose) in his book "The Emperors' New Mind" on figure 7:19 page 343 says "In order to produce a universe resembling the one in which we live, the Creator would have to aim for an absurdly tiny volume of the phase space of possible universes". Interestingly, the word Creator is capitalized in the book written by this world class scientist. Penrose actually makes a mathematical calculation based on the laws of physics which results in a number so improbable for the universe to exist as it does in just one aspect, that it "is not something that is within the power of physics to explain" as he says on page 351.
Science does not say, however, that it would be impossible to have the initial conditions from which the laws of physics start working or that the laws themselves cannot be less perfect for life. It is possible that a universe can still have life even if the laws of physics were somewhat different (to a limited degree) from what science finds in this universe (the only one known to science.)
The possible variations of the laws from what exist in this universe, that would still allow life, may be fairly large in number, though there are reasons to believe that the nature of the universe would, at least in most cases or in net effect, be somewhat close to those in this universe, and there does not seem to be any reason to believe it is a unity (only one possible combination of the laws of physics) content set just because it is a very improbable set.
The question then arises as to what would be considered a significant difference in the laws and how many variations of less than life preventing significance would still allow for a life where an intelligence could ponder the design of the universe. The less significant variations in the laws of physics could still, in numbers of sets, even be extremely large, but that is not a reason to believe that the variations can, however, be infinite, especially for observing and reflective life to exist.
Since there is no scientific principle which even tends to indicate that the laws of physics can have only certain forms, or that the values of the constants or initial conditions values, the number of the sets of laws probably approaches the lowest level of infinity. If the laws of physics can take on virtually any form then even assuming (in the extreme) there are an actual infinite number of universes, there could be a higher level of infinity of possible forms of the laws of physics (forms) and constants, in combination with the essentially infinite number of possible initial values at the start of the universe.
If then, the number of variations which allow reflective life for some reasonable period of time is very large or nearly infinite but not some level of infinity , that would still leave at least an extremely large number (in theory) of universes where intelligent life was pondering the design of the universe for some period of time (again, dependent on the laws and the initial conditions of that universe.) If we then look at this universe we are in as anything close to being near perfectly designed in terms of the laws of physics together with the initial conditions of the universe, there is still a near zero chance that we are in a universe that is not designed. This is even more arguable if we are not also assuming that there are also an actual infinite number of universes where observing life actually exists.
The universe around us is not only beautifully balanced (virtually everything which science can measure gives the appearance of design), it is also loaded with beautiful patterns. Einstein once said; "I see a pattern, but my imagination cannot picture the maker of that pattern. I see a clock, but I cannot envision the maker of the clock. The human mind is unable to conceive of four dimensions, so it unable to fully conceive of God." Einstein recognized that our minds have enough of a problem in fully understanding science, let alone God, and the truth is that while the patterns arise in part from the laws, they are not determined by the laws of physics alone.
To better appreciate the reality of physics pointing at the probable existence of God, we strongly recommend reading the book; "A Different Universe, Reinventing Physics From The Bottom Down, by R. Laughlin, Nobel Prize physicist. Mr. Laughlin's book is enjoyable, very easy to read and loaded with astounding and profound comments on science. This book is loaded with profound discussions of science reality. As an aide to reading the book, we found the following pages to contain some profound statements; 6-8, 13, 14, 15, 17-21, 26,40, 43, 52-56, 67, 74-78, 85-91, 96-97, 105-114, 116, 118, 120-127, 130-131, 150-151, 154, 166, 168, 170, 171, 173, 200, 208. Essentially what the book brings to the forefront is that science explains far less that what is generally believed and in fact even the basic underlying assumptions of the physics are open to serious question based on laboratory experiments of a very fundamental nature. For the scientifically minded reader, this book is excellent.
There are, in fact, many noted scientists who believe in God. Here is another link to a list of some of the many scientists (starting about 1/3 the way down the page) who believe in god. We also recommend the book "Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence" by Chemistry Professor Henry F. (Fritz) Schaefer. (Note that a number of the book reviewers on the above link are also scientists.)
Science, in fact, is entirely consistent with what would be reasonable to expect if God does exist, but that does not mean that science can address the potential infinite nature such an essentially infinite being would have. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, but science can inform us to a degree on what God is like if God exists based on His creation being so perfect or near perfect for life.
We would also note that by definition science is dependent on our limited minds and is inherently unable to fully comprehend the complexity and beauty of the universe at the deepest levels. What we can comprehend seems to point to the probable existence of God through the facts not only of an exquisitely tuned universe, but also the extreme improbability of complex life (even at the cellular level there is wonderful complexity), and the existence of consciousness for which science also has no causative explanation. We believe that there is actually quite a bit of science which points towards the probable existence of a Creator and there is no true science of any sort which indicates that God probably does not exist. The circumstantial scientific evidence is strongly in favor of the probable existence of God, in many ways seen in the complexities and harmonies of life, the conditions of the universe, the nature of the earth and the basic laws of physics.
This again, is not to say that science can now and probably nor will ever be able to run any experiments which even approximately prove the existence of God and eliminate uncertainty in the question. This should not be surprising since if God is the Creator of the universe and is outside the universe, God is inherently outside of and beyond science. God cannot be tested by any human experiment. Most people of faith would define God as an infinite being in some way and, of course, science (including mathematics) has very little to say relative to or about infinity. (What mathematics does tell us about infinity is again, however, not inconsistent with most concepts of God.)
Even the number of powerful and compelling indications from proven science is not a "proof" of Gods existence nor that the universe had a designer. It is, however, very good evidence to support a faith in a probable existence of God for those who need such support to direct the beliefs and faith.
One of the extrapolations pointing towards God is that Science cannot explain the origin of life. Science does find that life evolves in some limited ways, but Darwin's theory of evolution is probably incapable of explaining more than the fine tuning of life. Evolution: Improbable or Impossible? Is God's Existence Logical? There are many calculations which would indicate that Darwinism is probably not the whole explanation of evolution. Even if the calculations which appear in numerous books and websites about the origin of life and evolution arguing against Darwinism taken to the extreme are off by a large factor, the improbabilities are still extremely large as is the case with the laws of the universe and the initial conditions. The many such calculations multiplied together gives an extremely high probability, we believe, that God exists, but even a very high probability does not amount to a proof.
It can be said, however, that the calculations (such as those by physicist Mr. Penrose and others) show a very high probability of design/a Creator and are in stark contrast with the calculations which show that if life resulted solely from Darwinian evolution it would be dependent on an extremely low probability events having to actually have occurred. This again leads to many scientists who believe in God. This is not to say that even the majority of scientists believe in God.
The majority of scientists do not believe in God in part because of the reality of "scientism" which is the belief that everything can be explained by science (even though there is no fact and no hard evidence at all to support such a belief.) The leaves even atheists such as M. Shermer who writes for Scientific American as admitting in his article on June 2002; "scientism as the foundational stratum of our story and scientists as the premier mythmakers of our time." (Note, we disagree with almost every other point he tries to make in the article. He is supposed to be a skeptic, but almost all of his skepticism is aimed against a belief in God.) What a telling admission as to scientists being mythmakers. So much for scientific objectivity; especially when it comes to a belief in God and the relationship of such a belief to the realities and probabilities of science.
Another reason that a minority (about 40%) of scientists believe in God is that students of faith are discouraged from pursuing a science career.
Nevertheless, there are many scientists who believe in God.
We especially recommend the book; "The Case For A Creator" by L. Strobel, a Christian.
We also recommend; The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth
Scientists' belief in God varies by discipline; Study debunks notion that science is incompatible with religion. (Half way down page.) Note that it is true that the science organization leaders are much more in the atheistic column than the typical scientist. Atheists are taking over the science organizations. The scientific evidence is on the other hand becoming more and more in support of a belief in God.
SCIENCE RELATED ARGUMENTS THAT CAN BE MADE SUPPORTING A BELIEF IN GOD.
Design and the Anthropic Principle, Hugh Ross, Ph.D.
Great scientists on science limits and God.
Summary of Reasons To Believe, Dr. Hugh Ross, Ph.D.
The Language of God , A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, by S. Barr, particle physicist.
The Case for the Existence of God
Extreme Fine Tuning - Dark Energy or the Cosmological Constant (Possible evidence of design.)
Evidence For Design In The Universe
Science Journal: Science doesn't deny the existence of God
Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe
Does Science Point to God? The Intelligent Design Revolution
Scientists Find Evidence of God.
Physics and the Mind of God by physicists P. Davies
Belief in God in an Age of Science
The God of Science: The Case for Intelligent Design
Does God Exist? Science Says Yes!
God, physics and Stephen Hawking (A world class physicist.)
Disturbing (to atheistic scientists) implications of the cosmological constant.
Fascinating newspaper article on physics and God. (As with many of our links, we do not agree 100% with the site's positions.)
"Godless" Read chapters 7 thru 11 of this book if you don't believe science is atheistically biased beyond the basic philosophy which should govern science. This book is hard right in its views, but the basic messages about left wing bias in atheistic science are mostly true.
True science does not escape from or replace the need for faith. Science requires many assumptions which ultimately must be taken on faith. It all comes down to probabilities and probabilities require a choice in what to believe and therefore some degree of faith. THE PROBABILITIES WEIGH HEAVILY IN FAVOR OF A BELIEF AND FAITH IN GOD.