Posted on 07/31/2003 2:03:13 PM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
Physicist Stephen M. Barr has fired the latest broadside in the contentious debate over what science tells us about the existence of God. His book Modern Physics and Ancient Faith presents a case that developments in physics and related fields give support to the idea of a cosmic designer and indeed fit well with the Judeo-Christian tradition.
I have long followed the science-and-religion debate, and have been quite critical of arguments similar to Barr's. In particular, a 1999 article of mine in Reason magazine looked skeptically at claims that the laws of physics are "fine tuned" for human existence. More recently, at TCS, I gave a generally favorable review to physicist Victor Stenger's skeptical book Has Science Found God? (I disagreed, however, with Stenger's view that science provides strong grounds for atheism.)
Modern Physics and Ancient Faith (University of Notre Dame Press) is the most impressive statement I have seen of the thesis that science has found indications of the divine. Barr, a professor of physics at the University of Delaware's Bartol Research Institute, presents a thought-provoking discussion that ranges across physics, cosmology and mathematics. He refrains from overblown claims of proof, instead asserting that scientific advances of the past century comport better with the expectations of religious believers than with those of scientific materialists. Barr also shows a willingness to grapple with skeptics' objections. The book can be read profitably for its discussions of various scientific topics, leaving aside whether one agrees with the overall argument.
That argument, however, has serious flaws and limitations. For one thing, Barr sees evidence of design in the mathematical symmetries that physicists increasingly have discerned in the laws of nature. The special theory of relativity, for example, involves "space-time rotation symmetry," meaning the laws of physics and the speed of light look the same to all observers. But such symmetries arise from simplicity and indeed are seen by some physicists (such as Stenger) as signifying a lack of design. A universe that contained nothing but empty space would have perfect "space rotation symmetry" and "time translation symmetry." Would that empty universe be indicative of design?
Barr also asserts, as do many physicists, that the laws of physics are "beautiful." And such beauty, he writes, suggests "the mind of an artist at work that is far above the level of our own minds." Yet some scientists, such as astrophysicist Mario Livio, perceive at least some of the beauty of physical laws as arising precisely from their indifference to human affairs and lack of contrivance, the opposite of Barr's emphasis. My layman's opinion is that beauty in physics is in the eye of the physicist beholder.
Central to Barr's argument is the apparent "fine tuning" of the laws of physics. Various physical parameters, such as the strength of the electromagnetic force or the mass of the proton, seem to be set at just the right levels to allow life to exist. If they were different, we wouldn't be here. Does this mean that the universe was created for us? There are numerous problems with reaching such a conclusion. For one thing, the parameters seem to be just right for life as we know it; it could be that other types of universes would be suitable for other types of life. Moreover, it is hard to get an intelligent sense of what the universe would be like with different parameters. What if one changes not only electromagnetism but also gravity and other forces? Short answer: Who knows?
Many physicists speculate that there exist multiple universes (or multiple regions of our own universe) across which the parameters vary. This, in fact, is a common counterargument to the notion of fine tuning. Barr responds that, even if so, having such a rich multiplicity as to make life possible would itself be indicative of design. But that is questionable. If there exist, say, 700 trillion universes (or regions) and only one or a few of them are inhabited, should we assume the whole ensemble was set up to foster life? By Barr's standard, it seems that only if life were utterly impossible in all universes would there be a lack of evidence for design.
Barr rightly distinguishes between two types of design arguments: cosmic design arguments that focus on overall features of the universe; and biological design arguments that focus on characteristics of organisms. He propounds cosmic design, but also asserts that scientists have been too dogmatic in rejecting biological design. Yet what Barr, like many other design theorists, fails to recognize is that these two types of design are in tension with each other. If the laws of physics are fine tuned for life, then it is no surprise that life will evolve without further intervention. If intervention in biology is needed, that suggests the original fine tuning was inadequate in some way.
In the book's latter chapters, Barr focuses on questions of mind and free will. Following philosopher John Lucas and scientist Roger Penrose, he argues that the mathematical theorems of Kurt Gödel suggest that the human mind is not "just a computer." Barr argues that quantum mechanics provides an opening for free will by overthrowing determinism and predictability, and also suggests that the role of the observer in some interpretations of quantum mechanics suggests there is an immaterial aspect to the human mind. (Barr confuses matters by writing that an emphasis on consciousness is part of the "orthodox" interpretation of quantum mechanics. It would be more accurate to say it is an unorthodox interpretation that arose from ambiguities in the orthodox view.)
Barr presents an interesting discussion of these highly contentious matters. He is correct in noting that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and Gödel's undecidability theorems were not reckoned with by materialists of a century ago. Still, even if Barr is right about mind and will (a big if), this would go only so far in bolstering his thesis about indications of God. One can believe, with existentialist philosophers such as Jean-Paul Sartre, that free will exists but God does not. One can also believe, as have Calvinists and others, that God exists but free will does not. The question of whether the human mind is replicable by a computer also does not strictly divide between theists and atheists.
But a larger problem for Barr is that even if one accepts his argument that the laws of physics suggest a designer, it is far from clear that this would be the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition. One could just as easily - indeed, more easily - argue that it is the God of deism, who created the world but takes no role or interest in it. The laws of physics, even if designed, seem thoroughly impersonal; they do not distinguish, as far as we can tell, between good people and bad, or adherents of different religions. Moreover, the miracles in the Bible are not readily explained by the laws of physics; on the contrary, they are regarded as miracles precisely because they contravene physical laws.
In seeking to bolster religious belief with science, Barr has taken on an extremely difficult challenge. He has done better than many others, but it remains an uphill climb.
From Booklist
*Starred Review* Often invoked as justification for unbelief, modern science here provides the basis for an unusual and provocative affirmation of religious faith. A physicist at the University of Delaware, Barr deploys his scientific expertise to challenge the dogmas of materialism and to assert his belief that nothing explains the order of the galaxies better than divine design. To be sure, Barr recognizes that Darwin's work has swept away the arguments of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century theologians, who traced the handiwork of God in birds, flowers, and seashells. But the old argument-from-design reemerges with new sophistication after Barr presses evolutionary theory for a plausible account of the origin of what quantum physics demands--that is, a conscious observer--and comes away with nothing but skepticism about the skeptics. Barr indeed relishes the irony of a skeptical logic of random chance that forces unbelievers who balk at one unobservable God to accept, on doctrinal faith, a myriad of unobservable worlds on which the matter-motion lottery has not produced the winning ticket of conscious intelligence. The absurdity grows even more palpable among astrophysicists who avoid acknowledging the human-friendly pattern in subatomic and cosmic architecture found in the observable universe only by theorizing the existence of an infinite number of unobservable universes in which sovereign randomness has dictated other and more hostile architectures. Neither religiously sectarian nor technically daunting, this is a book that invites the widest range of readers to ponder the deepest kind of questions. Bryce Christensen
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved
Synopsis
A considerable amount of public debate and media print has been devoted to the "war between science and religion". In his accessible and readable book, Stephen M. Barr demonstrates that what is really at war with religion is not science itself, but a philosophy called scientific materialism. "Modern Physics and Ancient Faith" argues that the great discoveries of modern physics are more compatible with the central teachings of Christianity and Judaism about God, the cosmos and the human soul than with the atheistic viewpoint of scientific materialism. Scientific discoveries from the time of Copernicus to the beginning of the 20th century have led many thoughtful people to the conclusion that the universe has no cause or purpose, that the human race is an accidental by-product of blind material forces, and that the ultimate reality is matter itself. Barr contends that the revolutionary discoveries of the 20th century run counter to this line of thought. He uses five of these discoveries - the Big Bang theory, unified field theories, anthropic coincidences, Godel's Theorem in mathematics, and quantum theory - to cast serious doubt on the materialist's view of the world and to give greater credence to Judeo-Christian claims about God and the universe. Written in clear language, Barr's rigorous and fair text explains modern physics to general readers without oversimplification. Using the insights of modern physics, he reveals that modern scientific discoveries and religious faith are deeply consonant.
About the Author
STEPHEN M. BARR is professor of physics at the Bartol Research Institute, University of Delaware.
Reviewer: John W. Keck from Washington, DC
Let me begin by saying that as a physicist with some philosophical training I may not be the best judge for lay readers, but I loved this book and found it straight-forward to understand.
The first chapter is introductory. The author, Stephen M. Barr, describes himself as "someone who adheres to traditional religion and who has worked in some of the subfields of modern physics that are relevant to the materialism/religion debate." Barr sees clearly that "the conflict is not between religion and science, it is between religion and materialism....a philosophical opinion that is closely connected with science. But it is not science." His purpose is to show how "new discoveries made in the last century in various fields have changed our picture of the world in fundamental ways. As a result, the balance has shifted in the debate between scientific materialism and religion.... [20th century] discoveries coming from the study of the material world itself, have given fresh reasons to disbelieve that matter is the only ultimate reality." Barr is honest about the stakes involved: "None of this is a matter of proofs.... What the debate is about, as I shall explain later, is not proof but credibility." And indeed, such simple honesty is characteristic.
In the second chapter Barr begins by restating, then demolishing, the anti-religious mythology. His paraphrase of the anti-religious mythos sounds like it was cold-pressed straight from the pronouncements of Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, and other spokesmen of materialism. This chapter alone is worth half the price of the hardcover. He makes his points so clearly that it is a wonder we could all be duped by "scientific" materialism for so long. I particularly admired the tactic that he gainfully employed throughout the book: demolishing the straw-men that the materialists have raised against believers, e.g. that the Bible is unscientific. "In fact", he observes, "the Bible shows almost no interest in natural phenomena.... [The] primary concern is with God's relationship to human beings, and with human beings' relationship to each other."
Barr beautifully explains the concepts of religious mystery and dogma: "Dogmas do not shut off thought, like a wall. Rather they open the mind to vistas that are too deep and broad for our vision. A mystery is what cannot be seen, not because there is a barrier across our field of vision, but because the horizon is so far away." Masterfully he turns the tables on the materialists by observing, "Anything that stands in the way of materialism is ignored or denied [by the materialists]. The materialist lives in a very small world, intellectually speaking." Appendix A on the types of causes brings wonderful clarity to concepts that are often difficult for non-philosophers (including most scientists). It was very satisfying to see such common-sense explanations of the real positions of traditional believers, instead of the limp impostors put forward by the faithless and the lukewarm.
In chapter 3, Barr outlines the five "plot twists" that form the subject of the book:
1. Part II: "In the Beginning": The Big Bang as "a vindication of the religious view of the universe and a blow to the materialist view."
2. Part III: "Is the Universe Designed?": on the evidence that the universe was designed by an intelligence.
3. Part IV: "Man's Place in the Cosmos": on anthropic "coincidences" that make human life possible in the universe.
4. Part V: "What is Man?": is the human mind reducible to material laws?
5. Part V: "What is Man?": is there free will?
Twist 1 (Part II), that the Big Bang points to creation is of course an argument pregnant to be made. What recommends Barr's treatment is its completeness (Bible, authorities of faith, and scientific development) and the clarity of his writing.
Part III, on design, is on the whole wonderfully made. He describes the different kinds of order and how order seems to appear spontaneously but is in reality "the unfolding of an order that was already implicit in the nature of things, although often in a secret or hidden way." His examples are well chosen and brilliantly explained. However, Barr's definition of "symmetric structure" and its relationship to order seemed to my mind vague, and a field ripe for future investigation.
Part IV, on anthropic coincidences, was very authoritative and very thorough. He not only describes many of them, but also replies to the common objections to the coincidences, and answers alternative explanations of the coincidences.
Part V, on the mind, is near-perfect genius. The argumentation is simply brilliant. On the brain/mind distinction, he writes, "the existence of our own brains is an inference [a complicated series of arguments about sense data].... We experience [our minds] directly in the process of using them. We do not infer the existence *of* our minds, rather we infer he existence of everything else *with* our minds." Barr's explanation of the Lucas-Penrose argument, the technicalities of Goedel's theorem, and their implications was relatively straight-forward. I did think that Barr was a bit out on a limb in his adoption of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics to explain the immateriality of the mind. Such a tactic sadly succumbs to the Cartesian dualism that has plagued science from the beginning. Nevertheless, the widespread acceptance of Copenhagen among physicists is enough to justify Barr's use of it to support traditional belief.
Before I go, let me reiterate how much I liked the book. Even with the minor shortcomings I mentioned, I think it is *well* worth the imposing hardback price-and for a cheap-skate like me, that's saying quite a lot! It is well written, systematic, and authoritative: three rare qualities for a book that advocates anything in the neighborhood of traditional faith with regard to science-and Barr isn't just in the neighborhood, but right on the bull's eye. The book will be a powerful tool in the answering the many baffling ideologies and mind-numbing prejudices that dominate what passes for intellectual discourse these days.
...The thermometer results show that white fundamentalists have positive feelings toward Catholics. Their score of 62 degrees was identical to the average score that Jews gave to Catholics and significantly warmer than the mean rating given to Catholics by the religiously nonaffiliated or by secularists. Our Secularist Democratic Party (Long, Important Analysis)
For the average American today, as for the average individual in Nietzsche's Germany, it simply makes no practical difference whether God exists or not. This is true in spite of those polls that show that 98 percent of Americans believe in God. Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and the Death of God
Pearcey analyzes "the crucial role played by the Darwinian view of origins" in the development of American legal philosophy. "Darwinism is not only a biological theory," she emphasizes; "it is also the basis for a comprehensive world view -- implying a new philosophy of mind, knowledge, morality, and law." Pearcey sees a direct connection between Darwinism and the postmodern view that "the only objective and absolute truth is that there are no objective and absolute truths." She argues that a "thorough-going critique" of judicial activism "must begin with Darwinism as a scientific theory." Pearcey advocates taking "the intellectual battle into science itself. The controversy over Darwin versus design is not a peripheral issue," she insists, "but lies at the heart of the cultural crisis of our day." Darwinian Roots of Judicial Activism
Consequently, during Warren's sixteen year tenure, the Court became a powerful societal force, striking down numerous long-standing historical practices while acknowledging that it was doing so without any previous precedent. [222] In short, the Court thus publicly affirmed that it had finally arrived at its fully evolutionary aspiration, no longer bound by history or precedent.
Under this current theory, judges are solely responsible for the evolution of the Constitution, and it is living and organic according to their decree. As Justice Cardozo acknowledged, "I take judge-made law as one of the existing realities of life." [223] And Chief-Justice Charles Evans Hughes (1862-1948) similarly declared, "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." [224]
Harvard Professor Steven Wise summarizes this radical revolution in legal theory occasioned by the adoption of Darwin's principles:
"To understand the strong normative appeal of evolutionary models, one must first appreciate that American law, like biology at the time of Darwin, faces the problem of providing a theory of creation which does not invoke a Supreme Being." E Donald Elliott, "The Evolutionary Tradition in Jurisprudence," 85 Columbia Law Review 38, 91 (1985). Elliott, who believes that the manner in which law is affected by the ideas that it routinely borrows from other disciplines has been largely unexplored, sets sail by chronicling how the Darwinian idea of evolution has affected the jurisprudential work of such legal scholars as Holmes, Wigmore and Corbin. Id. See also Jan Vetter, The Evolution of Holmes, Holmes and Evolution, 72 Cal. L. Rev. 343, 362 (1984) ("Holmes' The Common Law is first of all an account of legal change, and its object in this respect is to exhibit the workings of Darwinian evolution in law"). Evolutionary jurisprudence was often shunned during the middle half of the twentieth century due to that period's association of evolution with Spencer's racist and reactionary Social Darwinism. Elliott, at 59, 76. It is shunned no longer. Id. See Roger D. Masters, Evolutionary Biology, Political Theory and the State, in Law, Biology & Culture-The Evolution of Law 171 (Margaret Gruter & Paul Bohannon eds., 1983). [225]
Yet, is the fact that the Constitution is now a living, malleable, evolving document, necessarily bad? After all, society does change and should not necessarily be bound by decisions made two centuries ago.
Significantly, the framers agreed with this thesis-they understood that times would change and therefore so should the Constitution. However, they would have vehemently disagreed with the mechanism by which this change occurs today.
The framers made clear that when the meaning, and thus the application, of any part of the Constitution was to be altered, it was to be at the hands of the people themselves, not at the feet of the judiciary or through the usurpation of any legislative body. For this reason, Article V was placed in the Constitution to establish the proper means whereby the people might "evolve" their government. As Samuel Adams explained:
[T]he people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government and to reform, alter, or totally change the same when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it. And the federal Constitution, according to the mode prescribed therein, has already undergone such amendments in several parts of it as from experience has been judged necessary. [226]
George Washington also warned Americans to adhere strictly to this manner of changing the meaning of the Constitution:
If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or the modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. [227]
Alexander Hamilton echoed this warning, declaring:
[The] Constitution is the standard to which we are to cling. Under its banners, bona fide [without deceit], we must combat our political foes, rejecting all changes but through the channel itself provides for amendments. [228]
Already, the people have "evolved" their Constitution twenty-eight times by abolishing slavery, granting full suffrage without regard to race or gender, replacing capitation taxes with progressive taxes, imposing term limits on presidents, reducing the voting age for youth, requiring Congress to face the electorate before a congressional pay hike can take effect, etc.
It is this method of "evolving" the Constitution set forth in that document which must be jealously followed. Therefore, if the belief in theistic origins, transcendent values, unalienable rights, or any other political doctrine established in our documents, is to change, it must be done by the people themselves, according to the process established in Article V. Any other method of change is an abuse of power and a usurpation of the rights of the people.
The real danger of societal evolution rests, then, not in the fact that corrections are needed but rather in the fact that those "corrections" are made by a small, elite, and unaccountable group-and often by individuals whose personal values do not reflect those of "we the people." Evolution and the Law:
For three decades, Holmes brought his distinctively Darwinian bias to the Court. He spoke candidly: "I see no reason for attributing to man a significance different in kind from that which belongs to a baboon or a grain of sand." Do Laws and Standards Evolve?
"I've been predicting this for 20 years - that ultimately this theory of the living Constitution will destroy us, it will destroy the federal courts," Scalia said. WorldNetDaily: Scalia: Supreme Court jester
When Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the rest of that majority six-pack engage the lexicon of the "living and breathing" Constitution, unscrupulously asserting that the Founders intended it to have the oozy flexibly to conform to each capricious whim of the American people - not to mention conformity with foreign constitutions, their 'astute observations' are alarmingly consistent with the thinking of the central figure of the foregoing assessment - Karl Marx, author of The Communist Manifesto. SCOTUS:Desperately Seeking Nietzsche And Marx
To the question, "Can the state acknowledge God?" Judge Moore says not only "Yes!" but, more importantly, "It must!" He realizes that to fail to do so wipes out hundreds of years of Western civilization based on the rule of law, and ushers in an age where the law is whatever the presiding judge says it is. Just look at Supreme Court Judge Sandra Day O'Connor's flip flop on sodomy between 1989 and 2003.
Our nation's morality isn't being destroyed by activist judges – it is being destroyed by atheist judges, and it is time for God-fearing Americans to stand up and say: "Enough is enough!"Judicial atheism: Separation of God and state
But since we are here, it means that those physical parameters must be at those observed values. One might as well marvel at the fact that that one's address just happens to be where one lives.
And the fact that it is designed.
Well put.
They weren't exactly just wandering shepards. They came as a nation out of Egypt. They, without a base of operation, conquered established "states". They developed their own written language to record the history and law of their culture. And this law and view of life is the foundation of our democracies, despite the protestations of some.
Nice "seeing" you again, Robert.
We need a way to express this. Your analogy is not bad at all. It ought to be obvious that conditions are just right for us, but just right for a gazillion other species as well, and if we weren't here we might not be anywhere.
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.