Dan Brown, an American author presents his new novel, Origin, at the Centro Cultural de Belem (CCB) in Lisbon on 10/15/2017. (Reinaldo Rodrigues / Global Images/Sipa USA)
Posted on 10/17/2017 9:51:07 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The best-selling author of the purely fictional books The Da Vinci Code and Inferno is not known for letting facts get in the way of his stories. The problem isn't so much Dan Brown, though. It's the legions of readers who believe that the drivel he spills onto the paper is true. There are reasons why I used the qualifier "purely fictional": many people believe that the history and theology in Dan Brown's books are correct. They're not.
Hopefully, the smackdown that physicist Jeremy England gave Dan Brown in a Wall Street Journal article titled "Dan Brown Can't Cite Me to Disprove God" will help people realize that Brown is pretty much making all of his anti-God nonsense up.
In his new novel Origin, Brown includes a character named Jeremy England who is a physics professor. This fictional character based on the real-life Jeremy England has "identified the underlying physical principle driving the origin and evolution of life." Furthermore, according to the book, Professor England has disproven all other theories of creation, including the Biblical account recorded in Genesis.
The real Jeremy England scoffs at Dan Brown's fictional creation that hijacks England's actual research. England takes umbrage at Brown's use of his name and research to suggest that the Book of Genesis has been refuted. England points out that his namesake in Dan Brown's book offers no real science to interact with. Then, England writes:
My true concern is my double's attitude in the book. He is a prop for a billionaire futurist whose mission is to demonstrate that science has made God irrelevant.
The real Jeremy England offers this advice for interacting with his research:
Two years ago I wrote in Commentary magazine that it is impossible simply to describe "the way things are" without first making the significant choice of what language to speak in. The language of physics can be extremely useful in talking about the world, but it can never address everything that needs to be said about human life.
Equations can elegantly explain how an airplane stays in the air, but they cannot convey the awe someone feels when flying above the clouds. I’m disappointed in my fictional self for being so blithely uninterested in what lies beyond the narrow confines of his technical field.
...
I’m a scientist, but I also study and live by the Hebrew Bible. To me, the idea that physics could prove that the God of Abraham is not the creator and ruler of the world reflects a serious misunderstanding -- of both the scientific method and the function of the biblical text.
Science is an approach to common experience. It addresses what is objectively measurable by inventing models that summarize the world’s partial predictability. In contrast, the biblical God tells Moses at the burning bush: "I will be what I will be." He is addressing the uncertainty the future brings for all. No prediction can ever fully answer the question of what will happen next.
...
Consider someone who assumes that all existence is the work of a creator who speaks through the events of the world. He can follow that assumption down the road and decide whether God seems to be keeping his side of the bargain. Many of us live like this and feel that with time our trust in him has been affirmed. There’s no scientific argument for this way of drawing meaning from experience. But there’s no way science could disprove it either, because it is outside the scope of scientific inquiry.
...
Do we need to keep learning about God?
For my part, in light of everything I know, I am certain that we do.
Yep.
And the right of Individuals to do so is one of the reasons why our founders wisely protected the 1st with the 2nd.
How does someone devise an experiment that proves or disproves that GOD exists?
Thanks for posting.
The left pro-science narrative is in fact anti-science.
Consider someone who assumes that all existence is the work of a creator who speaks through the events of the world. He can follow that assumption down the road and decide whether God seems to be keeping his side of the bargain. Many of us live like this and feel that with time our trust in him has been affirmed. There’s no scientific argument for this way of drawing meaning from experience. But there’s no way science could disprove it either, because it is outside the scope of scientific inquiry.
There is no "God Meter" ... you can't stick the probes in the ground and measure the divinity ... you can't point the telescope at the sky and see Him. OTOH, you can look at the elements of the physical world and see them as His handiwork in them, with His signature written prominently upon them. But that's theology, not physics.
Leftist science smackdown bump for later....
Science is about how. Religion is about why. The latter is the higher pursuit.
This is why faith is critical to the process.
It pisses me off that people defended his work by saying it was “just fiction”. It is NOT “pure fiction”. Something is “just fiction” if it is understood as purely fictional. But in the case of the “Di Vinci Code” it imitated historical fiction in which the reader expects the historical setting to be accurate although the reader understands that fictional particulars are added within that historical setting. The reader does not expect that foundational truths of history are altered...this contract was broken in “The DiVinci Code”. Thus it is not “pure fiction”. It is a lie.
Sorry, but I should have stated in my initial response that the response was rhetorical. Just as you can’t define a word using that same word, you also can’t define GOD unless you believe in an authority greater than GOD.
Existentialist Philosopher Gabriel Marcel: A Mystery is a Problem the Data of Which Encroaches upon Itself. In other words, empirical, mathematical science can only give a cursory description of a few, surface issues. The really meaningful questions can only be dealt with through religion, art and human relationships—which science can’t supply.
“To me, the idea that physics could prove that the God of Abraham is not the creator and ruler of the world reflects a serious misunderstanding — of both the scientific method and the function of the biblical text.”
It’s refreshing to hear a scientist who doesn’t engage in the fallacy of “scientism” and properly understands epistemology.
Well, you could commit suicide and find out, but you’d never be able to report back to the rest of us with your findings.
Not very scientific is it? And, if I go the other way, what have I proved? But with your lack of faith you assume that I wouldn’t be able to report back.
It’s refreshing to hear a scientist who doesn’t engage in the fallacy of “scientism” and properly understands epistemology.
...
There was a time when almost all leading scientists were religious or at least philosophical. But now many seem to dismiss it altogether. From what I’ve read, there’s been a desecularization of philosophy going on for many years now. Perhaps that’s why scientists are dumping philosophy.
I think you’re making a really big assumption.
Anyone remember the Celestine Prophecy novel from a few years back? Some believed it so much, it was often sold in the nonfiction isle of the book stores.
One who bought the DaVinci Code, hook, line, sinker was my worthless brother-in-law (If you know him he probably owes you money). He got all his info from TV “documentary” programs on the subject.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.