When Anxiety Attacks
7 years ago
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Ok… so, let me address the lengths to which some highly respected modern thinkers have gone to try to make scientific naturalism a viable option.
There is a growing population of modern scientists who believe the universe was designed by some form of intelligence. Although some of them happen to be Christian, the group is not. They make no claims about God, and many of them would be classified as agnostic. However, the scientists of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement are making some serious scientific cases for the likelihood that the material world was designed by an intelligence outside the confines of the material universe. The fact that scientists who hold a scientific naturalist worldview are feeling pressure to respond to these arguments in serious scientific journals is a good indication that the ID arguments are sound. (Contrast this to religious claims or specific creation theories which are typically ridiculed and treated with overall contempt, not refuted in serious scientific journals.) The ID movement is seen as a viable, scientific threat to the scientific naturalist worldview… one that must be answered seriously and competently. Why is ID such a threat?
According to statistics recognized by both sides there is a practically impossible chance that this universe would be as stable as it is, much less support life. When a variety of factors are taken into consideration it is something like a 1 in 10 ^1240 (10 to the 1240th power... 10 followed by 1240 zeros... I can't superscript on this blog) chance that this universe would have all the different required forces exactly as they must be to continue existence and support life. To give you an idea of how minute a chance that is; the number of estimated atoms in the entire universe is only 10 ^80 (10 to the 80th power) ; the number of seconds in 127 billion years is only 10 ^18 (10 to the 18th power). So let’s pretend the universe is 127 billion years old (most modern astronomers place it at 15 billion years, but for the sake of the illustration...) and every single second a whole new set of atoms blinks in and out of existence. Now let’s pretend we could paint one of those atoms black. The chance that you would randomly pick out the single black atom in the whole universe in the single second it exists during 127 billion years 13 times in a row is roughly equal to the chance that our universe would be as stable as it is and support life, given the laws of physics. So… which seems more likely, picking those 13 atoms back-to-back on my first 13 tries… or the existence of a non-material intelligence that made sure the universe was properly designed to succeed? I’ll go with Door #2.
So because the chances are basically impossible that we are here by chance, some scientific naturalists have made some completely unscientific claims. For instance, Stephen Gould and Richard Dawkins explain the impossibility by basically saying, “Well, we’re here, so obviously we happened to beat the odds.” (I hope I don’t need to point out that this answer is no more logical than saying, “God made me.” “Well, how do you know?” “I’m here, aren’t I?!” to prove the existence of God.) Realizing that this argument doesn’t hold much weight, men like Dawkins, Gould, and Hawkings have come up with two other theories that are vying for prominence against the ID option.
One of their options is that there may be an infinite number of universes currently in existence. These universes are completely separate and self-sustaining. As a result, we cannot scientifically test or prove their existence, even though they may be there. So if there are an infinite number of universes, one of them is bound to end up being stable. We just happen to be in that one. (Of course, this option conveniently can’t be scientifically proven and therefore contradicts their own objections to the existence of non-material intelligence, ie. God.)
The second option proposed is that there has been an infinite series of “oscillating” or “pulsating” universes. (There is a Big Bang, the universe expands, slows down, collapses on itself – the Big Crunch, and explodes again.) If this is the case, then at least one of the cycles should beat the odds we’ve mentioned. We just happen to live in a cycle that worked. The problem is that again this theory is not scientifically testable. In order to make it possibly work scientists have to throw out all the laws of physics and science, especially the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which basically says that there will be increasing loss of usable energy in a closed system. Organized energy gradually converts into an unusable, disorganized state. An example of this law in effect is a rubber ball. Throw it on the sidewalk and it will bounce high, but unless you grab it and throw it again (adding more energy from outside the ball) it will continue to lose energy and bounce less each time. According to the laws of physics the universe cannot have an infinite number of oscillations unless we admit that there is a force outside the material universe that continues to put new energy into it. (There are a variety of responses and implications involved in this whole theory that I don’t have the space to address here.) Once again scientific naturalists are forced to throw out the laws of science in order to hang on to their worldview. So is scientific naturalism really a totally “scientific” position?
Scientific naturalists are determined not to admit the possibility of a being that transcends the material, physical realm. They insist that God is a ridiculous delusion because He would lie outside the realm of science, and nothing lies outside the realm of science. And in order to make it “reasonable” to cut an “unscientific” God out of the equation they are willing to propose infinite universes outside the realm of science or to theorize processes completely contradictory to the laws of science. An intellectually honest scientific naturalist would admit that his position is, at its foundation, based on faith not science. He is determined to not admit the possibility of God and therefore, he will continue to hold to a theory that goes against scientific law rather than admit there just might be a transcendent being such as God.
I’ll admit that I can’t “prove” the existence of God, but I sure can make a strong case for the reasonableness of belief in God and the likelihood of His existence. I haven’t yet encountered the scientific naturalist who is willing to admit that he cannot prove the absence of God and that his own position involves unscientific faith. Hopefully, some day I’ll be able to have a conversation with a scientific naturalist who is at least willing to admit this. That would be a fun conversation, and I look forward to that day.
There is a growing population of modern scientists who believe the universe was designed by some form of intelligence. Although some of them happen to be Christian, the group is not. They make no claims about God, and many of them would be classified as agnostic. However, the scientists of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement are making some serious scientific cases for the likelihood that the material world was designed by an intelligence outside the confines of the material universe. The fact that scientists who hold a scientific naturalist worldview are feeling pressure to respond to these arguments in serious scientific journals is a good indication that the ID arguments are sound. (Contrast this to religious claims or specific creation theories which are typically ridiculed and treated with overall contempt, not refuted in serious scientific journals.) The ID movement is seen as a viable, scientific threat to the scientific naturalist worldview… one that must be answered seriously and competently. Why is ID such a threat?
According to statistics recognized by both sides there is a practically impossible chance that this universe would be as stable as it is, much less support life. When a variety of factors are taken into consideration it is something like a 1 in 10 ^1240 (10 to the 1240th power... 10 followed by 1240 zeros... I can't superscript on this blog) chance that this universe would have all the different required forces exactly as they must be to continue existence and support life. To give you an idea of how minute a chance that is; the number of estimated atoms in the entire universe is only 10 ^80 (10 to the 80th power) ; the number of seconds in 127 billion years is only 10 ^18 (10 to the 18th power). So let’s pretend the universe is 127 billion years old (most modern astronomers place it at 15 billion years, but for the sake of the illustration...) and every single second a whole new set of atoms blinks in and out of existence. Now let’s pretend we could paint one of those atoms black. The chance that you would randomly pick out the single black atom in the whole universe in the single second it exists during 127 billion years 13 times in a row is roughly equal to the chance that our universe would be as stable as it is and support life, given the laws of physics. So… which seems more likely, picking those 13 atoms back-to-back on my first 13 tries… or the existence of a non-material intelligence that made sure the universe was properly designed to succeed? I’ll go with Door #2.
So because the chances are basically impossible that we are here by chance, some scientific naturalists have made some completely unscientific claims. For instance, Stephen Gould and Richard Dawkins explain the impossibility by basically saying, “Well, we’re here, so obviously we happened to beat the odds.” (I hope I don’t need to point out that this answer is no more logical than saying, “God made me.” “Well, how do you know?” “I’m here, aren’t I?!” to prove the existence of God.) Realizing that this argument doesn’t hold much weight, men like Dawkins, Gould, and Hawkings have come up with two other theories that are vying for prominence against the ID option.
One of their options is that there may be an infinite number of universes currently in existence. These universes are completely separate and self-sustaining. As a result, we cannot scientifically test or prove their existence, even though they may be there. So if there are an infinite number of universes, one of them is bound to end up being stable. We just happen to be in that one. (Of course, this option conveniently can’t be scientifically proven and therefore contradicts their own objections to the existence of non-material intelligence, ie. God.)
The second option proposed is that there has been an infinite series of “oscillating” or “pulsating” universes. (There is a Big Bang, the universe expands, slows down, collapses on itself – the Big Crunch, and explodes again.) If this is the case, then at least one of the cycles should beat the odds we’ve mentioned. We just happen to live in a cycle that worked. The problem is that again this theory is not scientifically testable. In order to make it possibly work scientists have to throw out all the laws of physics and science, especially the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which basically says that there will be increasing loss of usable energy in a closed system. Organized energy gradually converts into an unusable, disorganized state. An example of this law in effect is a rubber ball. Throw it on the sidewalk and it will bounce high, but unless you grab it and throw it again (adding more energy from outside the ball) it will continue to lose energy and bounce less each time. According to the laws of physics the universe cannot have an infinite number of oscillations unless we admit that there is a force outside the material universe that continues to put new energy into it. (There are a variety of responses and implications involved in this whole theory that I don’t have the space to address here.) Once again scientific naturalists are forced to throw out the laws of science in order to hang on to their worldview. So is scientific naturalism really a totally “scientific” position?
Scientific naturalists are determined not to admit the possibility of a being that transcends the material, physical realm. They insist that God is a ridiculous delusion because He would lie outside the realm of science, and nothing lies outside the realm of science. And in order to make it “reasonable” to cut an “unscientific” God out of the equation they are willing to propose infinite universes outside the realm of science or to theorize processes completely contradictory to the laws of science. An intellectually honest scientific naturalist would admit that his position is, at its foundation, based on faith not science. He is determined to not admit the possibility of God and therefore, he will continue to hold to a theory that goes against scientific law rather than admit there just might be a transcendent being such as God.
I’ll admit that I can’t “prove” the existence of God, but I sure can make a strong case for the reasonableness of belief in God and the likelihood of His existence. I haven’t yet encountered the scientific naturalist who is willing to admit that he cannot prove the absence of God and that his own position involves unscientific faith. Hopefully, some day I’ll be able to have a conversation with a scientific naturalist who is at least willing to admit this. That would be a fun conversation, and I look forward to that day.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment