Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Jerry Coyne and the contradictions of Darwinian morality

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Among the topics historian Richard Weikart addresses in a recent article is Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne’s contradictory morality:

When it comes to solving the dilemma of morality, Jerry Coyne faces many of the same problems as Russell. Coyne is an emeritus professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Chicago and a prominent atheist. In his 2015 book, Faith Versus Fact, Coyne argues that morality is the product of both evolutionary and cultural processes. He vigorously denies that there is anything fixed or objective about morality. However, despite his moral relativism, later in his book Coyne inexplicably states, “Indeed, secular morality, which is not twisted by adherence to the supposed commands of a god, is superior to most ‘religious’ morality.”Apparently it escapes Coyne’s grasp that for one kind of morality to be superior to another, there has to be some yardstick outside both moral systems…

Coyne embraces the same contradiction when he discusses whether human life has value or purpose. In a YouTube video he states that evolution “says that there is no special purpose for your life, because it is a naturalistic philosophy. We have no more extrinsic purpose than a squirrel or an armadillo.” However, Coyne’s own progressive political and moral views seem to presuppose that human life does have value and purpose.

Richard Weikart, “Whatever Happened to Human Rights?: Morality and C. S. Lewis’s Abolition of Man” at CRI

Being a Darwinist means never having to address inner contradictions. No one who matters asks.

Comments
Materialist denial of empirical facts is astonishing. And this denial comes as a package deal with extremely selective criticisms. Whatever does not fit that simplistic picture is just ignored.EugeneS
February 6, 2020
February
02
Feb
6
06
2020
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
Bob O'Hara claims,
information is a human-created construct. So if humans (and their minds) are material, then so is information.
One of the primary (false) presuppositions of Darwinists is that they hold that information is merely emergent from a material basis. Yet, contrary to that primary (false) presupposition of Darwinists, immaterial information is now empirically shown to be its own distinct physical entity that is separate from matter and energy, A fairly clear cut way for demonstrating that immaterial information is its own distinct physical entity, separate from matter and energy, is Quantum Teleportation:
Quantum Teleportation Enters the Real World – September 19, 2016 Excerpt: Two separate teams of scientists have taken quantum teleportation from the lab into the real world. Researchers working in Calgary, Canada and Hefei, China, used existing fiber optics networks to transmit small units of information across cities via quantum entanglement — Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance.”,,, This isn’t teleportation in the “Star Trek” sense — the photons aren’t disappearing from one place and appearing in another. Instead, it’s the information that’s being teleported through quantum entanglement.,,, ,,, it is only the information that gets teleported from one place to another. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2016/09/19/quantum-teleportation-enters-real-world/#.V-HqWNEoDtR
Besides that, in the following 2010 experimental realization of Maxwell’s demon thought experiment, it was demonstrated that knowledge of a particle’s location and/or position converts information into energy.
Maxwell’s demon demonstration turns information into energy – November 2010 Excerpt: Scientists in Japan are the first to have succeeded in converting information into free energy in an experiment that verifies the “Maxwell demon” thought experiment devised in 1867.,,, In Maxwell’s thought experiment the demon creates a temperature difference simply from information about the gas molecule temperatures and without transferring any energy directly to them.,,, Until now, demonstrating the conversion of information to energy has been elusive, but University of Tokyo physicist Masaki Sano and colleagues have succeeded in demonstrating it in a nano-scale experiment. In a paper published in Nature Physics they describe how they coaxed a Brownian particle to travel upwards on a “spiral-staircase-like” potential energy created by an electric field solely on the basis of information on its location. As the particle traveled up the staircase it gained energy from moving to an area of higher potential, and the team was able to measure precisely how much energy had been converted from information. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-maxwell-demon-energy.html
And as the following 2010 article stated about the preceding experiment, “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,”
Demonic device converts information to energy – 2010 Excerpt: “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,” says Christopher Jarzynski, a statistical chemist at the University of Maryland in College Park. In 1997, Jarzynski formulated an equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information2; the work by Sano and his team has now confirmed this equation. “This tells us something new about how the laws of thermodynamics work on the microscopic scale,” says Jarzynski. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=demonic-device-converts-inform
In fact, in a very exciting breakthrough that holds much promise, researchers have now built “ an information engine—a device that converts information into work—with an efficiency that exceeds the conventional second law of thermodynamics.”
Information engine operates with nearly perfect efficiency – Lisa Zyga – January 19, 2018 Excerpt: Physicists have experimentally demonstrated an information engine—a device that converts information into work—with an efficiency that exceeds the conventional second law of thermodynamics. Instead, the engine’s efficiency is bounded by a recently proposed generalized second law of thermodynamics, and it is the first information engine to approach this new bound.,,, https://phys.org/news/2018-01-efficiency.html
On top of all that, as the following 2017 article states: James Clerk Maxwell (said), “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”,,, quantum information theory,,, describes the spread of information through quantum systems.,,, Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
The Quantum Thermodynamics Revolution – May 2017 Excerpt: the 19th-century physicist James Clerk Maxwell put it, “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.” In recent years, a revolutionary understanding of thermodynamics has emerged that explains this subjectivity using quantum information theory — “a toddler among physical theories,” as del Rio and co-authors put it, that describes the spread of information through quantum systems. Just as thermodynamics initially grew out of trying to improve steam engines, today’s thermodynamicists are mulling over the workings of quantum machines. Shrinking technology — a single-ion engine and three-atom fridge were both experimentally realized for the first time within the past year — is forcing them to extend thermodynamics to the quantum realm, where notions like temperature and work lose their usual meanings, and the classical laws don’t necessarily apply. They’ve found new, quantum versions of the laws that scale up to the originals. Rewriting the theory from the bottom up has led experts to recast its basic concepts in terms of its subjective nature, and to unravel the deep and often surprising relationship between energy and information — the abstract 1s and 0s by which physical states are distinguished and knowledge is measured.,,, Renato Renner, a professor at ETH Zurich in Switzerland, described this as a radical shift in perspective. Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,, https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-thermodynamics-revolution/
Again to repeat that last sentence, “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,” Think about that statement for a second. These experiments completely blow the reductive materialistic presuppositions of Darwinian evolution, (presuppositions about information being merely ’emergent’ from some material basis), out of the water, and tie the creation of immaterial information directly to the knowledge of the ‘observer’ in quantum theory. In other words, contrary to the reductive materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists, immaterial information, particularly this ‘thermodynamic positional information’, is now experimentally shown, via quantum information theory, to be its own distinct physical entity that, although it is immaterial, it can, none-the-less, interact with matter and energy,,, and is even shown to be its own independent, ‘non-local’ beyond space and time, entity that is separate from matter and energy. Moreover, unlike classical physics, in quantum information theory it is the information that is primarily conserved, not necessarily matter and energy that is primarily conserved.
Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html
Moreover, this 'quantum information' is now found to be ubiquitous within molecular biology:
Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg
The implication of finding ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, and even ‘conserved’, quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every important biomolecule in our bodies, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious. That pleasant implication, of course, being the fact that we now have very strong empirical evidence suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies. As Stuart Hameroff states in the following video, the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
Leading Scientists Say Consciousness Cannot Die It Goes Back To The Universe – Oct. 19, 2017 – Spiritual Excerpt: “Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.” – Stuart Hameroff – Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death – video (5:00 minute mark) https://www.disclose.tv/leading-scientists-say-consciousness-cannot-die-it-goes-back-to-the-universe-315604
Verse:
Mark 8:37 Is anything worth more than your soul?
bornagain77
February 6, 2020
February
02
Feb
6
06
2020
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
AGAIN, for the reading impaired: We couldn’t exist without it (information). Information is as fundamental as gravity, EM, strong and weak nuclear forces. Bob ignores that and prattles on like a clueless evoTARD.ET
February 6, 2020
February
02
Feb
6
06
2020
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
Bob O'H:
it makes information a human construct.
? No, it doesn't.
In that case, show me an example of information that doesn’t involve humans interpreting something as information.
I can provide examples of information that humans didn't create. Information is not a human-created construct and you could never make the case that it is. The information in our DNA existed before we knew it was there. That you ignore that just exposes YOUR willful ignorance, Bob.ET
February 6, 2020
February
02
Feb
6
06
2020
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
So what if humans interpret something as information, Bob? That doesn’t make it a human construct.
it makes information a human construct.
Information is not a human-created construct
In that case, show me an example of information that doesn’t involve humans interpreting something as information.Bob O'H
February 6, 2020
February
02
Feb
6
06
2020
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
We interpret swimming organisms with gills and fins as being fish. Did humans invent those organisms?
We interpret bipedal organisms capable of speech and abstract thought as "humans". According to materialists, we humans have invented ourselves.Truthfreedom
February 6, 2020
February
02
Feb
6
06
2020
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT
Bob O'H:
if information isn’t a human construct, then show me an example of it that doesn’t involve humans interpreting something as information.
So what if humans interpret something as information, Bob? That doesn't make it a human construct. We interpret swimming organisms with gills and fins as being fish. Did humans invent those organisms? Information is not a human-created construct and you could never make the case that it is. The information in our DNA existed before we knew it was there.ET
February 6, 2020
February
02
Feb
6
06
2020
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
Bob O'H:
information is a human-created construct. So if humans (and their minds) are material, then so is information.
Big "if". You materialists do not have a clue and rely on magic/emergence. You are really desperate dudes. Your beloved and childish unicorns are material then too. How much does a unicorn weight, Bob O'H? :) Maybe you think 3rd part readers are stupid and no one is noticing that you are constantly dodging the questions aimed at you. Think again:)Truthfreedom
February 6, 2020
February
02
Feb
6
06
2020
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
ET - if information isn't a human construct, then show me an example of it that doesn't involve humans interpreting something as information. Truthfreedom @ 38 - do you have a point, or are you just trying to be generally unpleasant?Bob O'H
February 6, 2020
February
02
Feb
6
06
2020
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
@35 Bob O'H: /Random/ *Crickets chirping*. Bob O'H the typical materialist coward :)Truthfreedom
February 6, 2020
February
02
Feb
6
06
2020
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
Bob O'H:
information is a human-created construct.
No, it isn't. We couldn't exist without it. Information is as fundamental as gravity, EM, strong and weak nuclear forces.ET
February 6, 2020
February
02
Feb
6
06
2020
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
I am glad to have discovered j. coyne’s blog Why Evolution is Fake. When I am in at a blogging low point, I can always visit Coyne’s site and enjoy a good laugh. Not with Coyne but at him. When it comes to philosophy and theology, he really doesn’t know as much as he thinks he knows. Coyne is an evolutionary biologist with a Ph.D. Within his scientific domain, I’m sure he is capable and competent, perhaps even respected. But Coyne is also a zealot with a mission—to persuade the world that all belief in God is superstitious and irrational. https://www.google.com/amp/s/afkimel.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/the-ever-amusing-jerry-coyne/amp/Truthfreedom
February 6, 2020
February
02
Feb
6
06
2020
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT
ET - information is a human-created construct. So if humans (and their minds) are material, then so is information.Bob O'H
February 6, 2020
February
02
Feb
6
06
2020
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
Bob O'H:
Without evidence to support the existence of a non-material world, …
Information is neither matter nor energy, Bob. So information is evidence that supports the existence of a non-material world: “Information is information, neither matter nor energy. Any materialism which disregards this, will not survive one day.”- Norbert WeinerET
February 6, 2020
February
02
Feb
6
06
2020
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
You evos that love 'Nature' so much: It is said that the ostrich will bury its head under the sand when it feels any threat, and the assumption is that it thinks denial is safety. Evolutionism/atheism/materialism is the doctrine of those who have not grown-up.Truthfreedom
February 6, 2020
February
02
Feb
6
06
2020
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT
@Bob O'H: Wow…Materalists always keep on dodging the important questions. They are inherently dishonest.
"... in knowing, ultimately, only changes inside himself (“neural patterns”), the materialist is logically forced into an epistemological idealism that contradicts his assumed starting point, the observation of external things.” Dr. Dennis Bonnette
https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/ Seversky, Ed George, Bob O'H? Maybe this deluded j. coyne guy?Truthfreedom
February 6, 2020
February
02
Feb
6
06
2020
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT
Bob O’H, What about this? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/suzan-mazur-on-how-the-college-board-skews-students-toward-darwinism/#comment-692155PeterA
February 6, 2020
February
02
Feb
6
06
2020
03:32 AM
3
03
32
AM
PDT
JAD @ 27 - I didn't say that Occam's razor did settle anything, indeed I even explicitly stated that it doesn't mean it's right. So the fact that you're agreeing with me suggests you don't have any better counter-argument. Without evidence to support the existence of a non-material world, there seems little reason to invoke it. Thus it is a reasonable default position, but no it doesn't settle the issue. If you want to argue that materialists have subjective opinions, then my only response is "well, duh". Materialists are human too.Bob O'H
February 6, 2020
February
02
Feb
6
06
2020
01:34 AM
1
01
34
AM
PDT
Is there such a thing as an intellectually and ethically honest atheist? If there is they haven’t shown up here at UD. Historically, there have been a few atheists who have made some honest comments. For example, Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951), said at the conclusion of his book, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, “What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.” Specifically Wittgenstein was referring to what philosophers, or really anyone else, can say about metaphysics, morality and ethics-- not just very little but virtually nothing. Later he took back what he had said in Tractatus because he recognized that most of his logical claims were logically self-refuting. However, from what I have seen from our regular interlocutors he was basically right. World views like atheistic materialism can inform us very little about purpose and meaning, morality and ethics or epistemology. It would be better for them (indeed, they would make more sense logically) if they stayed silent. Obviously then, no honest atheists show up here because they’ve got nothing to say.john_a_designer
February 5, 2020
February
02
Feb
5
05
2020
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
Materialists are obsessed with unicorns.Truthfreedom
February 5, 2020
February
02
Feb
5
05
2020
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
We’ve seen this act before. Invoking Occam’s razor and declaring your own position the default position doesn’t settle anything. It’s just an assertion of one’s subjective personal preference. It doesn’t prove that the other side is wrong. Which means that whatever atheists like Bob believe it’s based on nothing more than faith-- a kind of faith that’s, on one hand, strikingly close to biblical faith. On the other hand, it’s also quite different because it’s totally self-centered and ego-centric.john_a_designer
February 5, 2020
February
02
Feb
5
05
2020
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
Bob O’H, Did you miss or forget this? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/suzan-mazur-on-how-the-college-board-skews-students-toward-darwinism/#comment-692155PeterA
February 5, 2020
February
02
Feb
5
05
2020
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
Bob O'H:
The principle here is simply Occam’s razor.
Occam's razor should favor ONE design over countless just-so atomic accidents and cosmic collisions.ET
February 5, 2020
February
02
Feb
5
05
2020
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT
@23 Bob O'H
We know the universe exists, we don’t know (or, at the very most, have only contestable evidence) that anything else exists.
And you know, again, that you are running into a contradiction:
"...in knowing, ultimately, only changes inside himself ("neural patterns"), the materialist is logically forced into an epistemological idealism that contradicts his assumed starting point, the observation of external things." Dr. Dennis Bonnette
https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/Truthfreedom
February 5, 2020
February
02
Feb
5
05
2020
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT
JAD @ 17 -
First, even though there is no way to prove that Premise #2, “The universe is all that exists,” is true, it’s still possibly true, the same way that the claim that “pink unicorns exist” could be true, though it’s not self-evidently true. So those who claim that it is true have the burden of proof to prove it’s true. In other words, it cannot be claimed as some kind of “default position.”
We know the universe exists, we don't know (or, at the very most, have only contestable evidence) that anything else exists. So there is a logic for making it a default position (although that doesn't mean that it it the correct position, of course). The alternative would be to argue that we should take the position that pink unicorns exist. As well as blue unicorns, green unicorns, and politicians with integrity. The principle here is simply Occam's razor.
Second, if there is no way to prove Premise #2 then the materialist has no solid basis for knowledge or any claim of truth.
That doesn't follow from there being "no ultimate purpose and meaning to human existence." You have to make the logical leap from this to the validity of truth claims.Bob O'H
February 5, 2020
February
02
Feb
5
05
2020
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PDT
TF, Are you an atheist? I would rather hear a refutation of my argument from an actual atheist. Predictably, it’s crickets… But that’s the way it’s always been because, despite all the smug condescension, they don’t really have an argument.john_a_designer
February 4, 2020
February
02
Feb
4
04
2020
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT
@17 John_a_designer:
Second, if there is no way to prove Premise #2 ("The universe is all that exists"), then the materialist has no solid basis for knowledge or any claim of truth.
Well, they say they do not accurately know the "external world", they only have a "good enough map" to navigate it. But of course, although they say they are not sure about the "external world", it is "sure" "only matter" (the Universe) exists out there. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/neurosurgeon-michael-egnor-takes-on-a-materialist-neurologist/#comment-680179Truthfreedom
February 4, 2020
February
02
Feb
4
04
2020
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT
@17 John_a_designer:
Why, for example, did the Egyptians build the pyramids?
According to Pigliucci (who says *cough cough* he has "rebutted" Plantinga's EEAN), it is "by-products": some brain structures that were not selected, produced (accidentally?) "abstract intelligence". That is why the Egyptians built the pyramids, they found themselves having "extra" intelligence and started to do stupid things not related to survival, for example: building pyramids to bury their dead. Because they had the "illusion" of purpose/transcendence.Truthfreedom
February 4, 2020
February
02
Feb
4
04
2020
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT
E.G. at 13:
I’m sure to a big brained philosopher like yourself, this makes sense. But to us run-of-the-mill scientists that actually do something productive for society, I hate to say that it comes across as pompous nonsense.
Funny, a "run-of-the-mill scientist" who spends an inordinate amount of time on a blog bashing Christian Theism, and practically zero amount of time talking about any actual scientific evidence,,, most people would call that being a run-of-the-mill atheistic troll rather than a scientist. But anyways. as to E.G. bashing philosophy, a major problem in science today is that many scientists spend far too little time thinking about their own faulty philosophical presupposition(s) of naturalism, methodological naturalism, and/or atheistic materialism, and how those particular faulty philosophical presupposition(s) undermine science altogether. Krauss ignored philosophy and it came back to bite him big time,
Scientists Can't Avoid Philosophy - Here's why... - Michael Liccione - January 22, 2016 Excerpt: “Horgan: Lawrence Krauss, in A Universe from Nothing, claims that physics has basically solved the mystery of why there is something rather than nothing. Do you agree? Ellis: Certainly not. He is presenting untested speculative theories of how things came into existence out of a pre-existing complex of entities…He does not explain in what way these entities could have pre-existed the coming into being of the universe, why they should have existed at all, or why they should have had the form they did. And he gives no experimental or observational process whereby we could test these vivid speculations of the supposed universe-generation mechanism. How indeed can you test what existed before the universe existed? You can’t. Thus what he is presenting is not tested science. It’s a philosophical speculation, which he apparently believes is so compelling he does not have to give any specification of evidence that would confirm it is true. Well, you can’t get any evidence about what existed before space and time came into being. Above all he believes that these mathematically based speculations solve thousand year old philosophical conundrums, without seriously engaging those philosophical issues. The belief that all of reality can be fully comprehended in terms of physics and the equations of physics is a fantasy. As pointed out so well by Eddington in his Gifford lectures, they are partial and incomplete representations of physical, biological, psychological, and social reality. http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/scientists-cant-avoid-philosophy Not Understanding Nothing – A review of A Universe from Nothing – Edward Feser - June 2012 Excerpt: A critic might reasonably question the arguments for a divine first cause of the cosmos. But to ask “What caused God?” misses the whole reason classical philosophers thought his existence necessary in the first place. So when physicist Lawrence Krauss begins his new book by suggesting that to ask “Who created the creator?” suffices to dispatch traditional philosophical theology, we know it isn’t going to end well. ,,, ,,, But Krauss simply can’t see the “difference between arguing in favor of an eternally existing creator versus an eternally existing universe without one.” The difference, as the reader of Aristotle or Aquinas knows, is that the universe changes while the unmoved mover does not, or, as the Neoplatonist can tell you, that the universe is made up of parts while its source is absolutely one; or, as Leibniz could tell you, that the universe is contingent and God absolutely necessary. There is thus a principled reason for regarding God rather than the universe as the terminus of explanation. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/06/not-understanding-nothing On the Origin of Everything - ‘A Universe From Nothing,’ by Lawrence M. Krauss By DAVID ALBERT - MARCH 23, 2012 Excerpt: "Krauss seems to be thinking that these vacuum states amount to the relativistic-­quantum-field-theoretical version of there not being any physical stuff at all. And he has an argument — or thinks he does — that the laws of relativistic quantum field theories entail that vacuum states are unstable. And that, in a nutshell, is the account he proposes of why there should be something rather than nothing. "But that’s just not right. Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-­theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields — what it is (obviously, and ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the fields! The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings — if you look at them aright — amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing." He goes on to sum up the situation with the following sentence: "But all there is to say about this, as far as I can see, is that Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right" David Albert has a doctorate in Quantum Physics and he teaches at Columbia http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=1
Moreover, insisting that the universe exists for no reason whatsoever, as atheists 'philosophically' do, defeats all of science.
Jerry Coyne Challenges Francis Collins on Metaphysics - Michael Egnor - April 5, 2015 Excerpt: This (atheistic/materialisrtic) answer -- that the universe is the fundamental existent and needs no cause -- has been around for a long time. It dates to antiquity, and Hume is its most prominent modern exponent. It was also decisively refuted in antiquity. Aristotle demonstrated that an essential series of causes in a causal chain have need of an unmoved mover (pure Act) in order to exist. It is a detailed metaphysical argument (restated in "Aquinas' First Way"), not a scientific argument. It has never been successfully refuted. One gambit that has been used by those who doubt Aristotle's and Aquinas' unmoved mover argument is the argument (popularized by Kant) that reasoning in the natural world of human perception cannot be applied across the divide that separates nature from transcendence. We can't, in other words, reason our way to God, because if God exists, He is beyond reason. The fatal flaw of the Kantian argument is the Principle of Sufficient Reason. The PSR (expressed in its modern form by Leibniz) states that everything in nature has a sufficient reason for its existence and for its properties. Nothing in the universe has no reason for being what it is. Of course, we may not know the reason, and we may never know the reason, but things don't happen for no reason, or exist for no reason. It would seem, of course, that atheists who wish to refute the PSR could simply assert "Everything has a reason -- says who?" Atheists could simply deny the PSR. They could insist that perhaps some things don't have sufficient reasons for their existence. Perhaps the whole universe doesn't have a sufficient reason for its existence. It just exists without a reason. No need for God. The difficulty with this argument against PSR is obvious: science depends critically on the truth of the PSR. If anything, let alone the whole universe, can exist without reason, then why invoke scientific explanations for anything? For example, if polar bears can exist without reason, why invoke evolution from whales? Polar bears just exist, like the whole universe just exists. No reason, evolutionary or otherwise. If the whole panoply of nature exists without reason, why invoke a scientific explanation for any part of it? Surely Occam's Razor favors "just happened" over "happened because random heritable mutation and natural selection..." Atheists who deny the PSR deny science. And atheists who embrace PSR embrace transcendent causation of the universe via Aquinas' First Way. Atheists like Coyne, of course, take recourse in the excluded middle. The most common gambit to get around this problem -- Jerry Coyne's gambit here -- is to ignore the contradiction, and hope no one notices. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/what_could_be_m094991.html
Of supplemental note: John Lennox ate Stephen Hawking's lunch for claiming that philosophy was dead and yet making self-defeating philosophical presuppositions in his book 'The Grand Design':
‘What all this goes to show is that nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world-famous scientists.’ (p. 32) - Lennox Chapter 1: ‘The big questions’ Tackles Hawking’s philosophical superficiality, and flags up some of his self-contradictory statements about philosophy and his inadequate view of God. etc.. etc.. http://www.focus.org.uk/god_and_stephen_hawking.php
bornagain77
February 4, 2020
February
02
Feb
4
04
2020
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
@17 John_a_designer:
Furthermore, it doesn’t explain why humans appear to be hardwired to seek higher purpose and meaning that goes beyond the immediate survival needs of an accidently evolved species of hunter-gatherer apes.
Oh, they have an "explanation": "it happened". Part I: The Universe has always existed/ it apperaed for "no reason". Elemental particles attracted each other for "no reason" and received different forms (stars, planets, galaxies) "for no reason" (or because they follow the laws of Nature, laws that also have "no reason"). Part II: Some of those groups of particles (on Earth), for "no reason", became "alive" and, for "no reason", started to "evolve" (change form). For "no reason", some of those particles developed the capacity to be 'self'-aware (when they received the form " human brain"), although that 'self'-awareness is in fact an "illusion". Then those particles started to "seek purpose" (for "no reason"), but not all particles, some "understood" there is "no reason" to anything (let's call them "atheist particles"). Conclusion: things "happen". I am not trolling-kidding. It is a summary of their "chain of reasoning". Please someone correct me if I am wrong. Truthfreedom
February 4, 2020
February
02
Feb
4
04
2020
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply