Physicist Sean Carroll suggests that someday science can rule out God — revealing his philosophical agenda under the holy lab coat, yet again

_{kairosfocus

September 19, 2012

Philosophy, Physics, worldview}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

This morning, as I opened up my computer, the following Yahoo News headline leaped out:

Will Science Someday Rule Out the Possibility of God?

By Natalie Wolchover | LiveScience.com

Over the past few centuries, science can be said to have gradually chipped away at the traditional grounds for believing in God. Much of what once seemed mysterious — the existence of humanity, the life-bearing perfection of Earth, the workings of the universe — can now be explained by biology, astronomy, physics and other domains of science.

Although cosmic mysteries remain, Sean Carroll, a theoretical cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology, says there’s good reason to think science will ultimately arrive at a complete understanding of the universe that leaves no grounds for God whatsoever.

Carroll argues that God’s sphere of influence has shrunk drastically in modern times, as physics and cosmology have expanded in their ability to explain the origin and evolution of the universe. “As we learn more about the universe, there’s less and less need to look outside it for help,” he told Life’s Little Mysteries.

He thinks the sphere of supernatural influence will eventually shrink to nil.

This is the sort of set up and knock over a God-of-the-gaps strawman materialist ideological agenda tactic that so often does disservice to the genuine cause of seeking to study and understand the universe, humbly and provisionally in light of the pattern of the evidence.

This is of course an attempt to drag a red herring across the track of the mounting up pile of evidence pointing to the evident fine-tuning of the observed cosmos that sets it to an operating point that facilitates C-chemistry, aqueous medium, cell based life. The red herring is then led out to a convenient “God of the Gaps” strawman, duly set alight to the delight of the ideological atheists and their fellow travellers. (Cf. also here on building a sound worldview.)

It also brings to mind the classic blunders made by Lewontin in his declaration in the January 1997 NYRB, that:

. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people’s heads we must first get an incorrect view out . . . the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth [[–> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident [[–> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . ] that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality, and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [[–> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . .

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [[–> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [[–> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [NB: To save a side track, the linked more extensive cite deals with the distractive talking point usually trotted out about how this is alleged quote-mining. Accurate and inconvenient citation will always attract such objections form Darwinist zealots.]

I leave it as a warm-up exercise for commenters to identify and correct the basic fallacies in the reasoning of both. END

Comments

What? I didn't think science answered questions pertaining to the metaphysical.KRock_{September 19, 2012
September
09
Sep
19
19
2012
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

This has been the driving force behind many atheists. People like P.Z Myers do not care about science, they only care about promoting their atheism as 'fact' which is why he verbally attacked Francis Collins when he learned he had been appointed director of NIH by Obama.Blue_Savannah_{September 19, 2012
September
09
Sep
19
19
2012
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

Whether Carroll's views are being accurately summarized by the journalist (science journalists are notorious for misunderstanding what they are reporting) I cannot say. But regarding the position the journalist is representing as Carroll's, I can say the following. Carroll's disproof of God would be a disproof only of a "God of the gaps." That is, it would disprove arguments that posit God as the direct cause of certain events not explained by current science. So, for example, suppose that we argued that life could never have come out non-life without the direct intervention of supernatural power. But then, suppose advances in molecular biology show that life can be produced in a test tube, repeatedly, without experimenter intervention, and that it could easily have been produced in primitive earth conditions. In such a case that argument for the existence of God would then be destroyed. Carroll is arguing that science will eventually close all possible gaps, and that this will leave no place where God's causal activity is necessary. He is imagining a "Big Bang to man" scenario in which an unbroken chain of efficient causes has been identified, so that no special intervention by an intelligent agent is necessary. But even such an account, if it existed, which it doesn't, wouldn't disprove the existence of God. Take Michael Denton, for example, who in essence offers such an account, but thinks that in order for the chain of efficient causes to do what it has done, there would have to have been astouding fine-tuning done at the beginning of the universe -- implying cosmic design, hence a cosmic designer. Denton does not hesitate to call the designer God. Carroll, I gather, doesn't see it that way. He seems to take the view of Sagan. But here we see religious preferences in operation. Sagan, who held essentially the same molecules to man scenario as Denton, did not see any God behind the process, as Denton did. Carroll sides with Sagan. Yet there is no *scientific* reason for siding with Sagan and rejecting Denton's design inference. It's simply Carroll's moral/theological preference. He would rather imagine that there is no God, than imagine that there is, so he will say that the universe just luckily happens to be tuned the way that it is, or that there are infinite universes and one of them is bound to be tuned right. In other words, he would rather accept, as an explanation for what we see, dumb luck or an unproved infinity than God. What personal reasons lie behind that choice, I have no idea, because I don't know Carroll. But in my experience there is a great deal of willfulness in such decisions (both those in favor of and those against belief in God). What I like about the example of Denton is that he does not appear to be at all conventionally religious. He was brought up a fairly conservative Protestant, but abandoned that, and has never returned to it, nor has he joined any other religious organization. Yet he believes in the existence of God as the designer, the fine-tuner, the establisher of nature. He thus seems to be able to keep autobiographical loves and hates out of his reasoning. That can't be said for people like Provine, Coyne, Shallit, Dawkins, etc., all of whom manifestly just plain don't like the idea of God. Whether Carroll has that active personal animus against God, I don't know, because I don't know the guy. But in any case, his reasoning is faulty, since getting rid of a God of the gaps doesn't get rid of the need for a designer. As for JLAfan2001, he is of course mostly off-topic, but one of his remarks is pertinent here. He wrote: "If the gospels are false, then why should we trust that there is a God?" This of course shows a gross misunderstanding of the purpose of the Gospels (they weren't written to prove there was a God) -- so much for the quality of theological teaching that JLAfan received in his literalist-inerrantist upbringing. But the connection with the subject here is that there are arguments to the existence of God from nature, regardless of the truth of the Gospels. And they aren't necessarily God-of-the-gaps arguments. They are arguments from the apparent design of things. And these arguments are accepted, at least as *philosophical* arguments (though not as scientific ones), even by some TEs -- like Barr and Polkinghorne. JLAfan would thus do well to read people like Michael Denton and learn of such arguments. But he has already proved, elsewhere, that he is impervious to suggestions to read good books written by well-informed people, so I won't bother to repeat those suggestions here.Timaeus_{September 19, 2012
September
09
Sep
19
19
2012
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

Atheists have been predicting the death of God for quite some time now. My observation has been that the atheists die first.sagebrush gardener_{September 19, 2012
September
09
Sep
19
19
2012
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

JLA: Pardon a note, but, this thread is not about theology and Bible difficulties debates and skeptical talking points. I suggest you take these concerns to a forum that can address them fully without breaking out of focus. The view that may be closest to the one you may be open to is probably that of Reasons to Believe. (Creation Ministries International and Answer in Genesis may also help you on some of your Bible concerns. I also suggest that you may find this discussion of the evolution of academic theology over the past 250 or so years, and this on the Bible timeline and this on the debates over the Exodus, helpful. But that is off topic for this thread, I only offer for you to find resources that may help you.) My suggestion, in brief is that there are competent views that can address the concerns you have to say, from various perspectives. I also suggest that sensus literalis is not to be confused with naive literalism, which actually often ends up in scripture twisting. Beyond that, on fair comment Dr Carroll's remarks are philosophically naive and ill-informed, indeed it is an abuse of the prestige of the lab coat. Science simply cannot rule out the reality of God. And, to beg the question in the way that say Lewontin did, is to do just that, beg questions. To give you an idea of how independent this is of any particular theological tradition, let me clip from Plato -- a pagan Greek Philosopher -- in his The Laws, BK X, 360 BC:
Ath. . . . when one thing changes another, and that another, of such will there be any primary changing element? How can a thing which is moved by another ever be the beginning of change? Impossible. But when the self-moved changes other, and that again other, and thus thousands upon tens of thousands of bodies are set in motion, must not the beginning of all this motion be the change of the self-moving principle? . . . . self-motion being the origin of all motions, and the first which arises among things at rest as well as among things in motion, is the eldest and mightiest principle of change, and that which is changed by another and yet moves other is second. [[ . . . .] Ath. If we were to see this power existing in any earthy, watery, or fiery substance, simple or compound-how should we describe it? Cle. You mean to ask whether we should call such a self-moving power life? Ath. I do. Cle. Certainly we should. Ath. And when we see soul in anything, must we not do the same-must we not admit that this is life? [[ . . . . ] Cle. You mean to say that the essence which is defined as the self-moved is the same with that which has the name soul? Ath. Yes; and if this is true, do we still maintain that there is anything wanting in the proof that the soul is the first origin and moving power of all that is, or has become, or will be, and their contraries, when she has been clearly shown to be the source of change and motion in all things? Cle. Certainly not; the soul as being the source of motion, has been most satisfactorily shown to be the oldest of all things. Ath. And is not that motion which is produced in another, by reason of another, but never has any self-moving power at all, being in truth the change of an inanimate body, to be reckoned second, or by any lower number which you may prefer? Cle. Exactly. Ath. Then we are right, and speak the most perfect and absolute truth, when we say that the soul is prior to the body, and that the body is second and comes afterwards, and is born to obey the soul, which is the ruler? [[ . . . . ] Ath. If, my friend, we say that the whole path and movement of heaven, and of all that is therein, is by nature akin to the movement and revolution and calculation of mind, and proceeds by kindred laws, then, as is plain, we must say that the best soul takes care of the world and guides it along the good path. [[Plato here explicitly sets up an inference to design (by a good soul) from the intelligible order of the cosmos.]
In short, there is a worldviews analysis issue that is fundamental, and analytically prior to theological debates and scriptural traditions. It is to that issue that we must attend in this thread. KFkairosfocus_{September 19, 2012
September
09
Sep
19
19
2012
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

'I find it terribly disappointing that so many scientists are so anti-Scientific.' Nasty character though he seems to have been, J D Watson evidently knew a thing or two. He evidently laboured under no illusions concerning the level of intelligence that characterises so many of his atheist, fellow scientists, his fellow-Covenanters of the Double Helix, as per the famous Guardian cartoon. They never seem to develop beyond the mindset of the Harry Enfield, 'Kevin'-type, adolescent, would-be iconoclast.Axel_{September 19, 2012
September
09
Sep
19
19
2012
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

of related interest to my post at #9. It is found that human consciousness has a small but 'statistically significant' effect on the random aspect of material reality:
Scientific Evidence That Mind Effects Matter - Random Number Generators - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4198007
Here are some of the papers to go with the preceding video;
Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research - Scientific Study of Consciousness-Related Physical Phenomena - publications http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/publications.html Correlations of Random Binary Sequences with Pre-Stated Operator Intention: A Review of a 12-Year Program - 1997 http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/1997-correlations-random-binary-sequences-12-year-review.pdf The Global Consciousness Project - Meaningful Correlations in Random Data http://teilhard.global-mind.org/
I once asked a evolutionist, after showing him the preceding experiments, "Since you ultimately believe that the 'god of random chance' produced everything we see around us, what in the world is my mind doing pushing your god around?" as well, here is a interesting article I found a few days ago:
The Soul Hypothesis: Investigations into the Existence of the Soul Chapter 6 is Hans Halvorson's 'The Measure of All Things: Quantum Mechanics and the Soul' Hans Halvorsen is a philosopher of quantum physics at Princeton University Description: Quantum theory's strange conclusions are founded on data obtained by measuring effects in certain experimental situations. But if quantum theory is correct there are no determinate data of the required sort, for the states of the measuring instruments will be superposed and entangled and thus indeterminate. The dualist has a way out of this problem. Superposition is when a physical system is in two apparently inconsistent states at once -- for example, an electron is passing through both the left-hand slit and the right-hand one at the same time. Because of the nature of linear dynamics, this superposition is retained in a device further down the line of this process. If this continued with an observer, he would be aware of inconsistently believing that the electron was in two places at once. But this is not what happens. Observation 'collapses the wave packet' (not a phrase Halvorson generally deploys) and only one determinate state is observed. Now it is often pointed out that measurement collapses the wave packet, but that the measuring device need not be a conscious observer. Halvorson replies to this that a non-conscious measuring device will itself be in an entangled state, but that if a conscious subject observes it, only one of its possible states will be seen, so consciousness is crucial to making reality determinate. (151) http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/24611-the-soul-hypothesis-investigations-into-the-existence-of-the-soul/
bornagain77_{September 19, 2012
September
09
Sep
19
19
2012
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

Unfortunately for Mr Carroll, 'Science ruled God (omnisicent, omnipotent and personal) in', ninety plus years ago, when it identified the absolute speed of light as it acts within space-time. How many times do I have to repeat it on here for you, Sean? The louder they come, the harder they will assuredly fall. They have been hoisted with their own petard. 'God scatters the proud in the imagination of their hearts.' And what fun it is to witness, knowing as we do that 'The truth wol out', to adapt a Chaucerian locution. Learned nescience, in the face of elementary reason is the Road-Runner treading air before plummeting from the cliff. The marvel is that they have got away with it for so long, indeed, how such folly as abiogenesis ever got traction! It would be nice to hear his opinion on the latest scientific findings concerning the Shroud of Turin, too.Axel_{September 19, 2012
September
09
Sep
19
19
2012
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

JLAfan2001, though I take exception to just about everything you proclaimed as settled science (no references!), I want to focus on just one particular false proclamation of yours:
Science is also starting to rule out free will and consciousness as an act of God.
This is a interesting 'scientific' claim of yours because contrary to what you may believe to be true the 'scientific' facts are very different: In the following video, at the 37:00 minute mark, Anton Zeilinger, a leading researcher in quantum teleportation with many breakthroughs under his belt, humorously reflects on just how deeply determinism has been undermined by quantum mechanics by saying such a deep lack of determinism may provide some of us a loop hole when they meet God on judgment day.
Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3ZPWW5NOrw
Personally, I feel that such a deep undermining of determinism by quantum mechanics, far from providing a 'loop hole' on judgement day, actually restores free will to its rightful place in the grand scheme of things, thus making God's final judgments on men's souls all the more fully binding since man truly is a 'free moral agent' as Theism has always maintained. And to solidify this theistic claim for how reality is constructed, the following study came along a few months after I had seen Dr. Zeilinger’s video:
Can quantum theory be improved? - July 23, 2012 Excerpt: Being correct 50% of the time when calling heads or tails on a coin toss won’t impress anyone. So when quantum theory predicts that an entangled particle will reach one of two detectors with just a 50% probability, many physicists have naturally sought better predictions. The predictive power of quantum theory is, in this case, equal to a random guess. Building on nearly a century of investigative work on this topic, a team of physicists has recently performed an experiment whose results show that, despite its imperfections, quantum theory still seems to be the optimal way to predict measurement outcomes., However, in the new paper, the physicists have experimentally demonstrated that there cannot exist any alternative theory that increases the predictive probability of quantum theory by more than 0.165, with the only assumption being that measurement (*conscious observation) parameters can be chosen independently (free choice, free will, assumption) of the other parameters of the theory.,,, ,, the experimental results provide the tightest constraints yet on alternatives to quantum theory. The findings imply that quantum theory is close to optimal in terms of its predictive power, even when the predictions are completely random. http://phys.org/news/2012-07-quantum-theory.html
So just as I had suspected after watching Dr. Zeilinger’s video, it is found that a required assumption of ‘free will’ in quantum mechanics is what necessarily drives the completely random (non-deterministic) aspect of quantum mechanics. Moreover, it was shown in the paper that one cannot ever improve the predictive power of quantum mechanics by ever removing free will as a starting assumption in Quantum Mechanics!
Henry Stapp on the Conscious Choice and the Non-Local Quantum Entangled Effects - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJN01s1gOqA
of note:
What does the term "measurement" mean in quantum mechanics? "Measurement" or "observation" in a quantum mechanics context are really just other ways of saying that the observer is interacting with the quantum system and measuring the result in toto. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=597846
Needless to say, finding ‘free will conscious observation’ to be ‘built into’ our best description of foundational reality, quantum mechanics, as a starting assumption, 'free will observation' which is indeed the driving aspect of randomness in quantum mechanics, is VERY antithetical to the entire materialistic philosophy which demands that a 'non-telological randomness' be the driving force of creativity in Darwinian evolution! In fact the primary source of randomness for the 'materialistic universe' is found to be very destructive supermassive Blackholes. Which begs the question, could these two very different sources of randomness found in Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, respectively, be one of the primary reasons for their failure to be unified? Further notes:
Zeilinger's principle Zeilinger's principle states that any elementary system carries just one bit of information. This principle was put forward by Austrian physicist Anton Zeilinger in 1999 and subsequently developed by him to derive several aspects of quantum mechanics. Some have reasoned that this principle, in certain ways, links thermodynamics with information theory. [1] http://www.eoht.info/page/Zeilinger%27s+principle In the beginning was the bit - New Scientist Excerpt: Zeilinger's principle leads to the intrinsic randomness found in the quantum world. Consider the spin of an electron. Say it is measured along a vertical axis (call it the z axis) and found to be pointing up. Because one bit of information has been used to make that statement, no more information can be carried by the electron's spin. Consequently, no information is available to predict the amounts of spin in the two horizontal directions (x and y axes), so they are of necessity entirely random. If you then measure the spin in one of these directions, there is an equal chance of its pointing right or left, forward or back. This fundamental randomness is what we call Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. http://www.quantum.at/fileadmin/links/newscientist/bit.html
bornagain77_{September 19, 2012
September
09
Sep
19
19
2012
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

I have been scratching my head over something like this for awhile now and I’m hoping to get some help on it. I think Carroll may be looking at it from a literalist view of the bible which is what I was taught. If that is the case, then mainstream science has disproved the literal 24 hour creation days, the creation week, the creation of animals and the order they appear, the firmament of the earth, the appearance of man, existence of Adam and Eve, the global flood and the exodus etc. Science is also starting to rule out free will and consciousness as an act of God. I know some here take these parts of scripture as metaphor or parables but Jesus affirmed the existence of Adam, Noah, Jonah and Moses so they have to be real or else the gospels are false or mistaken. If the gospels are false, then why should we trust that there is a God? Science operates on methodological naturalism to find things and so far it’s been fine. However, the scientists of old still did good science while believing God did it. That is up until the enlightenment. What I’m trying to find out is why did science take the approach it did and what’s wrong with creation science? If mainstream science took the approach of there is no God then why is the science that says there is a God any worse? Why is it bad to use the bible as a starting point to find things out in nature but it’s fine to use chance, random mutations and natural law? If creation science has proof for a global flood, for example, why is that proof worse than proof that says it didn’t happen?JLAfan2001_{September 19, 2012
September
09
Sep
19
19
2012
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

Physicist Sean Carroll suggests that someday science can rule out God
Well that would be true save for the creation ex nihilo discovered for the Big Bang, the incomprehensible fine-tuning of universal constants that enable life to be possible in the universe, the privileged planet principle which strongly suggests that the earth was designed for intelligent creatures like ourselves to discover the universe, the overwhelming theistic implications found in the quantum mechanical foundation of reality (non-locality and consciousness), the higher dimensional 'eternity of time' found in special relativity, and the higher dimensional (4-D) construct of Gravity (General Relativity), and the integrated functional complexity of the information found for the 'simplest' biological life on earth, integrated complexity that blows away the most advanced programming ever achieved by man in computer programs or on computer chips, etc.. etc.. etc.. then yes perhaps Carrol may have a point.bornagain77_{September 19, 2012
September
09
Sep
19
19
2012
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

In certain circles of atheism "God is dead or dying" never loses its currency. I think the reason for this is that atheism has always been and will always be seen as an unusual, even odd position to hold. It's counterintuitive. It demands denying the obvious. It demands uttering strange things like "the universe and all that's in it popped into existence from nothing" or "the universe and all that stuff in it has always existed". And ever since an apple fell on Newton's head, it demands that evidence be forcefully reinterpreted to say what it doesn't. Carroll's a bright guy. He's no fool. But then again, he is.lpadron_{September 19, 2012
September
09
Sep
19
19
2012
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

Sean Carroll needs to catch up. Science has already ruled out God.Mung_{September 19, 2012
September
09
Sep
19
19
2012
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

Over the past few centuries, science can be said to have gradually chipped away at the traditional grounds for believing in God. Much of what once seemed mysterious — the existence of humanity, the life-bearing perfection of Earth, the workings of the universe — can now be explained by biology, astronomy, physics and other domains of science.
When someone opens an argument with such a foolish statement, it shows you that nothing that follows should be taken seriously. This is real news to me. Science can explain all these things? I mean science can offer some interesting theories for these things, but they all have a bunch of hand-waving assumptions in them which fail under true scientific scrutiny. Just a few examples: Science can explain...the existence of humanity? Last I checked no credible theory of OOL existed and people are still puzzled about it. I assume humanity's existence is part of that life that somehow was created here. Science can explain... the life-bearing perfection of Earth. Since when is "life-bearing perfection" even a scientific term. What does it mean? And though many scientists would like to come up with a first principles reason why the parameters of nature are so tuned for life, their most recent stab at it - the multiverse combined with the anthropic principle is neither scientific nor an explanation. Science can explain... the workings of the universe???? a catch all phrase? Yes, there is a lot that science can explain, but the amount of ignorance we still have about the smallest things is mind-boggling. The horrible thing is that supposedly this writer represents the best of a youthful class of science and technology writers. I really hope she develops better critical thinking skills.JDH_{September 19, 2012
September
09
Sep
19
19
2012
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

I'm glad to see some organized and intelligent comments here on the silly article on Yahoo. I found the article laughable, where it wasn't just scary propaganda. We are on a Voyage of Discovery, and our goal is Truth. And every time we discover some Truth, we write it down so we don't forget it. To decide in advance what MUST be True ruins the entire Exploration. From time to time, it is helpful to thoughtfully propose "This MIGHT be True" and then do some testing. But we have to be constantly prepared to abandon a really promising Theory when it becomes plain that the facts don't support it. I find it terribly disappointing that so many scientists are so anti-Scientific.mahuna_{September 19, 2012
September
09
Sep
19
19
2012
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

F/N: Since Newton is often set up as the God of the Gaps strawman, let me clip from his General Scholium to Principia: ___________ >> . . . This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator , or Universal Ruler . . . . And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect . . . . It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always, and every where. [i.e accepts the cosmological argument to God.] . . . . We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final cause [i.e from his designs]: we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. [i.e necessity does not produce contingency] All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. [That is, implicitly rejects chance, Plato's third alternative and explicitly infers to the Designer of the Cosmos.] >> ___________ It seems -- however much we may be inclined to adjust or disagree with Newton -- there is a bit more substance there than we have been led to believe by those who present the God of the gaps caricature. In particular, it is clear that newton sees God as the architect and maker of the order of the cosmos and of its unfolding, such that the laws of nature are the decrees of God. Similarly, he sees the cosmos as the work of a supreme intelligence and sees the very laws that Carroll et al would try to use to dispense with God, as the manifestation instead of the mind of God in creation and providence. When we turn to The Opticks, Query 31, we find this, too:
Now by the help of [[the laws of motion], all material Things seem to have been composed of the hard and solid Particles above-mention'd, variously associated in the first Creation by the Counsel of an intelligent Agent. For it became him who created them to set them in order. And if he did so, it's unphilosophical to seek for any other Origin of the World, or to pretend that it might arise out of a Chaos by the mere Laws of Nature; though being once form'd, it may continue by those Laws for many Ages . . . . And if natural Philosophy in all its Parts, by pursuing this Method, shall at length be perfected, the Bounds of Moral Philosophy will be also enlarged. For so far as we can know by natural Philosophy what is the first Cause, what Power he has over us, and what Benefits we receive from him, so far our Duty towards him, as well as that towards one another, will appear to us by the Light of Nature. ”
It is time for a more serious and sober-minded discussion. KFkairosfocus_{September 19, 2012
September
09
Sep
19
19
2012
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT}

Oh, to [France] with Carroll. He should be told to shut up and get his [self] back in the lab, and that if what he provides doesn't result in practical benefits he should expect a funding cut, or be told to seek funding from private sources - like Templeton. And what a rotten, biased little article at that. It's never asked, if science could show God doesn't exist, does that mean science could in principle show God does exist? 'Theologians' are said to be the ones replying to Carroll, when in reality the replies come from philosophers and even other physicists. And at every stage, when a problem is pointed out, Carroll gets to basically say "Yes well I can imagine it's logically possible that answer X will come to prominence - and that would be that!" Complete [garbage]. [Null: I understand the intensity and points but ask for adjustment on tone and language. KF]nullasalus_{September 19, 2012
September
09
Sep
19
19
2012
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Will Science Someday Rule Out the Possibility of God?

Leave a Reply