Well I am about to become over stressed as Christmas approaches, so I thought I'd try and get another post in (aren't they regular) before Christmas. Of course many think that the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is in about as much doubt as the "Earth going round the Sun". In reality this is not the case. I have just read a book, not by someone who proports to have any theistic faith, who doubts this theory for one very simple reason: Natural selection reduces rather than increases variation. So over long time scales where does the variation come from upon which natural selection works? In his "Silent Gene Theory of Evolution", Warwick Collins proposes that variation comes from genetic mechanisms within the cell and that the Selfish Gene Theory of evolution propounded by Dawkins et al has holes in it.
Of course the usual answer to the question "Where does variation come from?" is that variation comes from mutation. However, most mutations are deleterious, they lead to death. Indeed beneficial mutations seem far too rare to account for the vast increase in variation throughout the history of life on earth. So it makes considerable sense, and there seems to be some encouraging evidence, that much of the genetic material in cells, whilst actually "junk" (there seems to be no use for it), may well have a function over evolutionary time scales. It is an interesting proposal that accords with what we actually see in comparing genomes. It would be a fruitful line of research, yet he does make the point that Darwinian Evolutionary Theory seems to so have mastered the academy and become an unassailable orthodoxy within the academy, that no dissent is allowed. Neodarwinian thoought will not allow any investigation into alternative theories, or so he claims. I thought that it was only supposed to be among the religious that there is thought to be such a thing as blind faith and suppression of free thought?! Maybe this is simply human.
Monday, 13 December 2010
Wednesday, 24 November 2010
The Grand Design - Why atheism is idolatrous.
Last week I read the Grand Design by Stephen Hawking in preparation for an evening lecture entitled "I want to believe but my scientific brain won't let me". We had a good evening but there were no questions about "The Grand Design". So I thought I wouldn't let my reading go to waste and jot down some thoughts.
The first thing is that I think I've understood the multiverse theory for the first time, but this means that it does not fit into the Evolutionary ideology that Dawkins and others propound. Darwinian evolution works on the basis of natural selection of existing variants - some surive and some don't. And whilst Dawkins postulates the multiverse hypothesis as evidence of his own particular philosphy of life, it is entirely different.
Hawking explains that the multiverse hypothesis is really an application of Feynmans "Sum over histories" approach in the quantum world, that an electron in reality travels in one path, not because it is the only one it travels, but the most probable. "That is, as it moves from its starting point A to some endpoint B, it doesn't take one definate path, but rather simultaneously takes every possible path connecting the two points". Hence in diffraction pattern experiments, even a single electron forms a diffraction pattern, whilst at the same time passing through only one slit. It follows Feynmans "Sum over histories". Similarly if Feynmans "Sum over histories" can be applied to the beginning of the universe, then it means that this universe has not been selected,as evolution would require, rather it is the most probable. It is following existing rules of quantum physics.
But this begs the question - where did these rules come from? They point to a rational mind as Einstein beleived and Paul Davies proclaims, thought neither from a Christian perspective.
Several observations spring from this.
At the beginning of his book Hawking declares - "Philosophy is dead" but then proceeds to use a whole variety of philosophical non sequiturs to infer that God does not exist. For example - he views God as only "lighting the blue touch paper". So if the blue touch paper can be explained - there is no need for God. Few Christians would argue this extreme deist position and few would deny that God has ongoing involvment in what we do understand. Christians do not believe in a God of the Gaps. He thinks that God is excluded from the realms we do understand - which is philosophically suspect. What he does not address is why Feynmans "Sum over histories" should work at all. He seems unaware of the questions that Einstein, Anthony Flew and Paul Davies seem impressed by such as "Why should our minds understand the mathematical laws which seem to governe the universe?" Or "Why is the universe ordered according to rules?" We might add - why is it that Feymans sum over histories comes up with a particular kind of universe - a "self conscious universe" as Paul Davies would put it, and not some other kind of universe. "We are truly meant to be here" he would say.
To boil it down - Stephen Hawking thinks he has eradicated the need for God simply by being able to explain the mechanism of the origin of the universe. Even if he is proven to be correct - this begs the question - where did the mechanism come from? He ridicules God being the answer to an infinite series of causation - but is it not equally laughable to be committed to an infinite series of causation - without end. This somehow makes matter, or the mechanisms of matter eternal doesn't it? What decided that Feynmans "Sum over histories" should be the way things work at the quantum level? And who's to say that there is not some other explanation with different rules behind the quantum level just as the quantum level lies behind the different rules and laws of Newtonian Mechanics?
It seems that atheist scientists are committed to the eternality of matter, an unending causation without beginning and without end. Philosophically speaking they believe that matter is eternal for this is not something that can be scientifically demonstrated - they simply believe it - all matter comes from matter and matter is all that matters. They seem quite ignorant of the fact that philosophically speaking - they attribute divine qualities to matter, and logically speaking they are deifying matter. Christians call this idolatry, the worship of created things.
The first thing is that I think I've understood the multiverse theory for the first time, but this means that it does not fit into the Evolutionary ideology that Dawkins and others propound. Darwinian evolution works on the basis of natural selection of existing variants - some surive and some don't. And whilst Dawkins postulates the multiverse hypothesis as evidence of his own particular philosphy of life, it is entirely different.
Hawking explains that the multiverse hypothesis is really an application of Feynmans "Sum over histories" approach in the quantum world, that an electron in reality travels in one path, not because it is the only one it travels, but the most probable. "That is, as it moves from its starting point A to some endpoint B, it doesn't take one definate path, but rather simultaneously takes every possible path connecting the two points". Hence in diffraction pattern experiments, even a single electron forms a diffraction pattern, whilst at the same time passing through only one slit. It follows Feynmans "Sum over histories". Similarly if Feynmans "Sum over histories" can be applied to the beginning of the universe, then it means that this universe has not been selected,as evolution would require, rather it is the most probable. It is following existing rules of quantum physics.
But this begs the question - where did these rules come from? They point to a rational mind as Einstein beleived and Paul Davies proclaims, thought neither from a Christian perspective.
Several observations spring from this.
At the beginning of his book Hawking declares - "Philosophy is dead" but then proceeds to use a whole variety of philosophical non sequiturs to infer that God does not exist. For example - he views God as only "lighting the blue touch paper". So if the blue touch paper can be explained - there is no need for God. Few Christians would argue this extreme deist position and few would deny that God has ongoing involvment in what we do understand. Christians do not believe in a God of the Gaps. He thinks that God is excluded from the realms we do understand - which is philosophically suspect. What he does not address is why Feynmans "Sum over histories" should work at all. He seems unaware of the questions that Einstein, Anthony Flew and Paul Davies seem impressed by such as "Why should our minds understand the mathematical laws which seem to governe the universe?" Or "Why is the universe ordered according to rules?" We might add - why is it that Feymans sum over histories comes up with a particular kind of universe - a "self conscious universe" as Paul Davies would put it, and not some other kind of universe. "We are truly meant to be here" he would say.
To boil it down - Stephen Hawking thinks he has eradicated the need for God simply by being able to explain the mechanism of the origin of the universe. Even if he is proven to be correct - this begs the question - where did the mechanism come from? He ridicules God being the answer to an infinite series of causation - but is it not equally laughable to be committed to an infinite series of causation - without end. This somehow makes matter, or the mechanisms of matter eternal doesn't it? What decided that Feynmans "Sum over histories" should be the way things work at the quantum level? And who's to say that there is not some other explanation with different rules behind the quantum level just as the quantum level lies behind the different rules and laws of Newtonian Mechanics?
It seems that atheist scientists are committed to the eternality of matter, an unending causation without beginning and without end. Philosophically speaking they believe that matter is eternal for this is not something that can be scientifically demonstrated - they simply believe it - all matter comes from matter and matter is all that matters. They seem quite ignorant of the fact that philosophically speaking - they attribute divine qualities to matter, and logically speaking they are deifying matter. Christians call this idolatry, the worship of created things.
Tuesday, 21 September 2010
Why atheism is a faith.
Well, it has been rather a long time since I last posted on my blog. And my hope is to have a bit more time to do this in the next few months! Over the last year I've managed to do several talks, debate with the Head of Promotions of the British Humanists and fine tune a presentation on why it makes sense to believe in the God of the Bible.
It has also been interesting to meet and chat with local atheists and find out what underpins their beliefs. Of course many atheists would not claim to have any beliefs, simply to accept the conclusions of science. In our discussions it has become apparent that certain lines of evidence are dismissed on the basis of Ockham's razor (accept only the simplest explanation) or that only scientific knowledge is reliable.
But one has to have faith to do science. By faith I mean a trust in a particular assumption that is not demonstrable by the discipline itself.
There is faith that scientists themselves observe things rigorously by the scientific mehtod, so there is the belief that humans can be biased and prejudiced and that scientific method can free people from this.
There is the faith that we can understand what scientists say - so there is belief in truth, real reality not illusory reality.
There is faith that experiments reveal the true picture of reality.
There is faith that the history of science and peer review help reveal truth.
There is faith that there are no other explanations at higher levels than those of science, a claim to know that some knowledge is not knowledge - namely history.
So this is self contradictory.
When the views of atheists are boiled down to their essence they believe that science is the only true source of knowledge - they are committed to scientism. There is the pretence that they are accepting only those things that can be scientifically verified, but in reality they are also accepting history (for scientific knowledge is historical) the humanities (for scientific knowledge is acquired by people) and faith (for it is easily demonstrable that science arose out of Christian culture both in terms of the world view of scientists and the interest generated by this world view).
The claim is that atheism is practical, it accepts only that which is verifiable by ones own senses. But in reality this is an illusion. Science itself has beliefs and history which cannot be elucidated by science. Science points beyond itself.
It has also been interesting to meet and chat with local atheists and find out what underpins their beliefs. Of course many atheists would not claim to have any beliefs, simply to accept the conclusions of science. In our discussions it has become apparent that certain lines of evidence are dismissed on the basis of Ockham's razor (accept only the simplest explanation) or that only scientific knowledge is reliable.
But one has to have faith to do science. By faith I mean a trust in a particular assumption that is not demonstrable by the discipline itself.
There is faith that scientists themselves observe things rigorously by the scientific mehtod, so there is the belief that humans can be biased and prejudiced and that scientific method can free people from this.
There is the faith that we can understand what scientists say - so there is belief in truth, real reality not illusory reality.
There is faith that experiments reveal the true picture of reality.
There is faith that the history of science and peer review help reveal truth.
There is faith that there are no other explanations at higher levels than those of science, a claim to know that some knowledge is not knowledge - namely history.
So this is self contradictory.
When the views of atheists are boiled down to their essence they believe that science is the only true source of knowledge - they are committed to scientism. There is the pretence that they are accepting only those things that can be scientifically verified, but in reality they are also accepting history (for scientific knowledge is historical) the humanities (for scientific knowledge is acquired by people) and faith (for it is easily demonstrable that science arose out of Christian culture both in terms of the world view of scientists and the interest generated by this world view).
The claim is that atheism is practical, it accepts only that which is verifiable by ones own senses. But in reality this is an illusion. Science itself has beliefs and history which cannot be elucidated by science. Science points beyond itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)