Scientists Confused on God
At a recent scientific conference at City College of New York, a student in the audience rose to ask the panelists an unexpected question: "Can you be a good scientist and believe in God?"
Reaction from one of the panelists, all Nobel laureates, was quick and sharp. "No!" declared Herbert A. Hauptman, who shared the chemistry prize in 1985 for his work on the structure of crystals.
Belief in the supernatural, especially belief in God, is not only incompatible with good science, Dr. Hauptman declared, "this kind of belief is damaging to the well-being of the human race."Link to NYTs article
I have to assume from Dr. Hauptman's remarks that he believes Atheism is the antidote for the disease of religion that plagues mankind. Granted, bad religion is bad for mankind. But according to Webster, religion can be defined as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith", to which Atheism certainly qualifies. But is it a bad religion? What's the record? Well, let's see: Communism and the purges of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung, the rape of Nanking, World War I, World War II, Cambodia under Pol Pot, the genocide in the Sudan and Rwanda, Iraq under Saddam Hussein..., all this carnage occurring in the span of a century more unteathered from the constraints of Judeo-Christian religion than perhaps any in human history and prosecuted under the Darwinian conclusion that "might makes right".
It's likely Dr. Hauptman believes God and science are incompatible because science is all about proving things, whereas God's existence, he assumes, cannot be proven. Both premises, however, are problematic.
I'm not alone in my conviction that science cannot, of itself, prove anything.
"What!", you say. "What do you mean science cannot prove anything?". "How about 1 + 1 = 2"?
What about it. Saying 1+1=2 offers no proof that indeed 1+1 is actually 2. And using two apples, two rocks, or two pennies as evidence for the proffered fact, in and of itself, proves nothing. For these are merely objects or symbols, no different than the symbols 1+1 used to illustrate the premise in the first place.
Following the scientific method I might demand that you repeat the experiment to which you may or may not comply. But in the end you will have to rely on something else to make your case, something distinct from science to prove your assertion that 1+1 does, in fact, equal 2. You will have to rely on your own understanding, common sense, or to put it another way, human intuition. For I could challenge your so called proof with legitimate "why" questions that could go on forever in what Aristotle termed "infinite regression":
"What does "1" mean?" It's an abstraction that represents a single unit. "How do you know it represents a single unit". "What if there are no single units?" "How do you know your abstraction comports with what is actual?"
These are fair questions and can only be decided by appealling to some standard or understanding that stands apart from and can arbitrate scientific or any other form of evidence. Indeed, despite your noble appeals to the scientific method, deductive, or inductive reasoning, in the end you will have to rely on something like: "Look, it's obvious that 1+1=2. "You either see it or you don't". And of course that's true, but science is not what finally resolved the veracity of that proof - your intuition did - if indeed anything can be proved in the strictest sense of the word with absolute clarity and persuasiveness. And that is the whole point. (For more on this read Beckwith's and Koukl's, "Relativism, Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air")
"Science", contrary to popular opinion, is not some separate entity that operates independent from human intuition. Science does not prove anything, but relies upon and is subservient to human insight.
Now Dr. Hauptman can argue that his interpretation of certain scientific findings leads him to conclude that God does not exist, and that is fine. But he did not do that in the NYT's article. He just spouted a platitude, an insipid remark that not only does not make the case that science and God are incompatible, but that weakens his own credibility. And it is not at all true that world class scientists are uniformly atheists.
The arguments for atheistic evolution have been given their full girth for over a century such that they now command a monopoly of thought from the university on down to the public school kindergarten class. But this propped up and plastered over wall appears to be cracking a bit. Scientists of unassailable credentials, like Michael Behe, Gerald Schroeder, William Dembski and others are offering increasingly penetrating arguments that reveal atheistic evolution, as a theory for the origin of life, has persistent and serious flaws. You can read these and other scientists critiques on evolution at the The Discovery Institute.
It's past time these facts are heard. Our intuition demands it.
Reaction from one of the panelists, all Nobel laureates, was quick and sharp. "No!" declared Herbert A. Hauptman, who shared the chemistry prize in 1985 for his work on the structure of crystals.
Belief in the supernatural, especially belief in God, is not only incompatible with good science, Dr. Hauptman declared, "this kind of belief is damaging to the well-being of the human race."Link to NYTs article
I have to assume from Dr. Hauptman's remarks that he believes Atheism is the antidote for the disease of religion that plagues mankind. Granted, bad religion is bad for mankind. But according to Webster, religion can be defined as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith", to which Atheism certainly qualifies. But is it a bad religion? What's the record? Well, let's see: Communism and the purges of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung, the rape of Nanking, World War I, World War II, Cambodia under Pol Pot, the genocide in the Sudan and Rwanda, Iraq under Saddam Hussein..., all this carnage occurring in the span of a century more unteathered from the constraints of Judeo-Christian religion than perhaps any in human history and prosecuted under the Darwinian conclusion that "might makes right".
It's likely Dr. Hauptman believes God and science are incompatible because science is all about proving things, whereas God's existence, he assumes, cannot be proven. Both premises, however, are problematic.
I'm not alone in my conviction that science cannot, of itself, prove anything.
"What!", you say. "What do you mean science cannot prove anything?". "How about 1 + 1 = 2"?
What about it. Saying 1+1=2 offers no proof that indeed 1+1 is actually 2. And using two apples, two rocks, or two pennies as evidence for the proffered fact, in and of itself, proves nothing. For these are merely objects or symbols, no different than the symbols 1+1 used to illustrate the premise in the first place.
Following the scientific method I might demand that you repeat the experiment to which you may or may not comply. But in the end you will have to rely on something else to make your case, something distinct from science to prove your assertion that 1+1 does, in fact, equal 2. You will have to rely on your own understanding, common sense, or to put it another way, human intuition. For I could challenge your so called proof with legitimate "why" questions that could go on forever in what Aristotle termed "infinite regression":
"What does "1" mean?" It's an abstraction that represents a single unit. "How do you know it represents a single unit". "What if there are no single units?" "How do you know your abstraction comports with what is actual?"
These are fair questions and can only be decided by appealling to some standard or understanding that stands apart from and can arbitrate scientific or any other form of evidence. Indeed, despite your noble appeals to the scientific method, deductive, or inductive reasoning, in the end you will have to rely on something like: "Look, it's obvious that 1+1=2. "You either see it or you don't". And of course that's true, but science is not what finally resolved the veracity of that proof - your intuition did - if indeed anything can be proved in the strictest sense of the word with absolute clarity and persuasiveness. And that is the whole point. (For more on this read Beckwith's and Koukl's, "Relativism, Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air")
"Science", contrary to popular opinion, is not some separate entity that operates independent from human intuition. Science does not prove anything, but relies upon and is subservient to human insight.
Now Dr. Hauptman can argue that his interpretation of certain scientific findings leads him to conclude that God does not exist, and that is fine. But he did not do that in the NYT's article. He just spouted a platitude, an insipid remark that not only does not make the case that science and God are incompatible, but that weakens his own credibility. And it is not at all true that world class scientists are uniformly atheists.
The arguments for atheistic evolution have been given their full girth for over a century such that they now command a monopoly of thought from the university on down to the public school kindergarten class. But this propped up and plastered over wall appears to be cracking a bit. Scientists of unassailable credentials, like Michael Behe, Gerald Schroeder, William Dembski and others are offering increasingly penetrating arguments that reveal atheistic evolution, as a theory for the origin of life, has persistent and serious flaws. You can read these and other scientists critiques on evolution at the The Discovery Institute.
It's past time these facts are heard. Our intuition demands it.
posted by Publius @ 10:08 PM
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home