Excuse me while I crack up and expire with laughter. As if "strict mathematical laws of physics" could come about by blind chance. 
Posted on 05/19/2003 9:53:42 AM PDT by betty boop
Apology first: Sorry for the extraordinary difficulty of this piece, which may make it an unsuitable candidate for posting here. (Hindsight is easy.)
When academics write, it seems they only write to and for each other, usually in a specialized technical language that is largely inaccessible to the layman. Rarely do we sense any interest in communicating ideas to the general reader. Thus a layman (like myself) has a daunting challenge in decocting the message of a piece like Professor Newman’s.
Yet having tried to do that, I think there are some striking and useful insights about epistemology – the “science” of what and how we humans know – in this essay. The key idea is “non-foundationality.” Newman says that both theology and science are “non-foundational” – that is, at their most fundamental, both lack an objective, empirical basis that can be validated or invalidated experimentally. Ultimately, both must rest on intangible myth.
It’s easy to see how this is the case with respect to theology. But why does she say this condition holds for science as well?
I think what Newman has in mind is, not science per se, but scientific materialism, the doctrine or opinion that the only thing that exists is “matter in its motions” – that is, “nothing exists except matter, and … everything in the world must therefore be the result of strict mathematical laws of physics and blind chance,” as Stephen M. Barr writes in his fine new book, Modern Physics and Ancient Faith.
Yet somewhat improbably, these laws -- we are never told from whence they derive -- and blind chance produce, quite by accident, the highly ordered universe that we see all around us. The derivation of laws is not something that need concern us, for if the universe itself has no beginning -- as materialists commonly claim -- it is senseless to talk about laws having a beginning, which presupposes a pre-existing something from which they could be derived.
Scientific materialism is the modern myth, probably in many cases operating unconsciously, that leads to Newman’s (or rather Hefner’s as she cites him) hypothetical “better story” of modern science:
“Big Bang cosmology writes the scientific story of creation, chemistry writes the story of origins, biology writes the evolutionary epic, neuroscience provides the tales of the mind, and complexity sciences are producing still newer stories….”
Ad infinitum. All these views are premised on the primacy, self-sufficiency, and ultimacy of matter. And yet – can we really either prove or disprove this supposition any more than we can prove or disprove the existence of God?
Thus, both theology and science are “non-foundational” in this particular respect of proof. And yet human beings will “construct” entire universes out of one or other of these “myths.” At the end of the day, both equally rest on faith.
To my way of reasoning, the “theological myth” is superior to the “materialist myth” on logical grounds. For when we say that we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, it is only because we can only make such tests with respect to things that are parts of physical reality; and we can’t prove or disprove God for the simple reason that He is not physical. Theology thus holds that reality is both physical and spiritual.
In the matter of “proof,” materialism has no such “excuse.” For matter is, by definition, exclusively “physical.” Materialism asserts that physical reality is the only thing there is – there is no “spirit” at all. But that being the case, on logical grounds, it would appear that matter cannot explain itself, let alone how something that is, in principle, random produces an ordered universe.
Professor Newman goes on to elaborate other problems, notably the truth of language. But I’ll let matters rest here. It’s time to say “RIP” to this thread.
Thanks to all participants, posters and lurkers.
I had every intention of engaging this article, but was prevented by lack of time. And, as it happens, you've said everything I'd have said, better than I could have. Still, something you said I found quite interesting:
The derivation of laws is not something that need concern us, for if the universe itself has no beginning -- as materialists commonly claim -- it is senseless to talk about laws having a beginning, which presupposes a pre-existing something from which they could be derived.
Actually, the derivation of these laws is indeed something that should concern us, inasmuch as there are those of a materialist bent who claim that moral principles are among them.
Consider the metaphysical implications of a set of moral principles that had to wait billions of years just for the development of life, and additional billions before they could to be discovered by reasoning beings. Such principles must point to the inevitability of life -- and of reasoning life at that. One has to wonder how a strict materialist could accept such an assumption.
The idea of the existence of such objective moral principles is even more remarkable, given that the evolutionary forces that allegedly drove the development life prior to humanity was obviously contemptuous of those supposedly objective principles that had always existed....
The response to this observation is generally along the lines that we're different by virtue of our ability to reason. Given that the evolution of reason is not a requirement of nature, one truly has to wonder why the material universe would simply leave "objective moral principles" lying around on the off chance that random mutations would eventually result in a reasoning being that could grasp them.
Once we consider how very unlikely such a scenario is, it becomes quite clear that there are really only two alternatives: either there is no objective basis for morality; or God is the One who -- knowing his ultimate intentions -- put those principles in place.
There is no middle ground.
I would add that personal experience is inevitably critical to our understanding, whether theologic or scientific, or of vicissitudes in between.
For this, we have to either appeal to our own direct experience (i.e., seeing Jesus dead and then in a resurrected body walking through a wall, then ascending to Heaven) or the testimony of witnesses of their own direct experiences (usually analyzed in terms of number and consistency of witnesses, and likelihood of one explanation vs. another). This gets into something in addition to faith and not actually science either, and often called forensics (or probabilities).
As a theologic source with integrity supercedes the realm of science (thank you again for the clear explanation!) the realm of forensics may cause us to choose doubt and even denial, or to choose consideration and even certainty, about our grounds for understanding what we may understand. (BTW, I like that word, "under-stand!" It informs us that we do not need to fully "comprehend" a truth to know it, but we may know by subjecting ourselves to what is true.) To sharpen what I'm saying here, we have been historically confronted by the Outside Source in the very rockiness of material, even the rolled stone covering the entrance to a tomb. Where the Theo in theology has descended to the dirt of our material lives and lower still, where is there room for doubt? Well, there is room, where room is irrationally made. We know what "the fool says in his heart." And we know we are all fools, without understanding.
And then there is intuition, what philosophers have long called with words like "inner sense," and which from my most humble and honest perception is closer to our volitional selves and may be joined by intention (as Dallas Willard has referred) to our mind's processes with imagination, reason, symbol, and "material." Also, if something is true, it should "ring true" to our hearts, to the inner senses and sensations we are constantly emmersed in, called emotions. Let us not leave out those emotions, where emotions are valid, and especially when they are of what is true.
So, all this being the case, what can we best do, to learn what is true? We can look for an orchestration of reality and its perceptibility. Some choose instead, like Miss Havesham, to close the curtains and deny the interrelations and how they include us, but that is a curse upon oneself, deadening our souls to what there actually is for us to relate to.
Thank you again betty boop, for turning to the source of the light instead. And I hope you don't mind, if folks refer people to this article and thread over and over again.
You didn't really come out and say the word, so I will: revelation. If I have a personal experience whereby God makes Himself known to me, then the whole basis for this discussion shifts. No more need I, like Thomas, touch Christ's wounds to know he is risen indeed. No more need I rely on science or reason to prove the existence of God. If I have met Him, issues of proof are irrelevant insofar as my belief in God is concerned.
This requires us to accept the possibility of revelation --but that is no different from our accepting the possibility that the people we meet are not mere figments of our imaginations.
While knowing He exists does not get rid of all difficult questions, it does get rid of some, such as those we've been addressing for the past few weeks.
Excuse me while I crack up and expire with laughter. As if "strict mathematical laws of physics" could come about by blind chance.
Interesting how being subject to the truth makes us objective, ain't it? And one very foundational aspect of the truth is that we were created not only by God, but for God. Our whole identity is as one who is suitable for God. That relationship defines us.
If we don't have that relationship, then ultimately, the nihilistic "post-modernists" are right (and the Apostle Paul attested) - all is meaningless and irrelevant (Paul said all else is feces, compared to Christ and knowing Him).
If I have met Him...
Thank you.
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.