I was recently asked what I think about free will. Does it exist?
What is my perspective as a Christian? as a physicist?
My immediate answer is: I don't know!
These are awfully hard and subtle questions which some very smart people have thought deeply about over the centuries.
From a physics point of view there are the problems associated with Laplace's demon. But that is classical, whereas the world is quantum (which makes it even more mysterious and controversial). Physicists can't even agree whether quantum theory is deterministic or not!
Furthermore, emergence complicates things and gives richer possibilities, particularly when we come to biology.
The mind-body problem encompasses many issues. I would say free will is part of a cognitive package including consciousness, conscience, moral compass, human identity, intuition, emotions, sense of purpose, and a sense of past, present and future. How these functions "emerge" from the physical brain or it what sense they "exist", involves a lot of rich (and controversial) biology and philosophy.
From a Christian point of view, one has to wrestle with the paradox of the relationship between human free will, God's sovereignty, and pre-destination (election). Humans comprise "heart, mind, body, and soul". I take this not as a taxonomy of separate entities but rather a description of our complexity and the many facets to our nature and existence. I really don't know quite how to relate them but want to embrace them all and live with the tension.
However, in the end, I don't know.
I live by faith: essentially I live as if I do have freedom to make choices, choices for good or for evil, that I am accountable to God and to others for my choices, and that in all my human confusion and fraility, I do want to choose good!
Showing posts with label quantum physics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label quantum physics. Show all posts
Thursday, August 9, 2018
Saturday, November 19, 2016
Science involves faith
As I have discussed before, I do not like the term "science and faith". It is misleading because both science and Christianity involve faith, reason, and evidence. I prefer terms such as "science and theology" or "science and the Bible" or "science and Christianity".
A nice example of how science involves faith is a column, Reasonably Effective: Deconstructing a Miracle, published in 2006 in Physics Today. It is by Frank Wilczek who shared the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics.
He first discusses Eugene Wigner's famous 1960 article, "Unreasonable effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences." He then continues:
A nice example of how science involves faith is a column, Reasonably Effective: Deconstructing a Miracle, published in 2006 in Physics Today. It is by Frank Wilczek who shared the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics.
He first discusses Eugene Wigner's famous 1960 article, "Unreasonable effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences." He then continues:
Acts of faithHe then goes on to discuss supersymmetry in quantum field theory and says how he anticipates the associated elementary particles will be observed in the Large Hadron Collider in the following years (i.e., from 2006). However, it is interesting that ten years later this is not the case. Nevertheless, despite the evidence to the contrary, some physicists still have "faith" that supersymmetry is valid.
Since any answer to a “why” question can be challenged with a further “why,” any reasoned argument must terminate in premises for which no further reason can be offered. At that point we pass, necessarily, from reason to faith. Our present faith in symmetry and locality is grounded in the good experience we’ve had with them so far. At present, I think, we can carry our explanations no deeper.
As good believing scientists we must take our faith seriously—so seriously that we feel compelled to act on it, and thereby to test it.
Wednesday, December 23, 2015
Whole confusion about cosmic evolution
Recently I was asked to comment on the book, “The Unbearable Wholeness of Being: God, Evolution, and the Power of Love” by Ilia Delio. Here are my thoughts.
I am in sympathy with some of the values and aspirations of the book. I certainly think theology cannot be completely divorced from science, grand narratives are important and inspiring, holistic [rather than reductionist] perspectives can be valuable, community rather than individualism, love trumps all, … However, I have severe reservations on how Ilia Delio tries to justify these perspectives.
Science has such a powerful influence and credibility in our culture that there is pressure for people to claim that their theological and/or political views have a scientific basis. Marx claimed evolution supported communism. Andrew Carnegie claimed evolution supported capitalism. Richard Dawkins claims evolution supports atheism. Some theologians claim evolution supports theism. They can’t all be correct. This problem arises because the philosophical interpretation of any scientific knowledge is debatable. Science is science and philosophy is philosophy.
Most of Ilia Delio’s discussion of science seems to be based on popular books. Unfortunately, most such books oversimplify the actual science and present it with a philosophical baggage and breath-taking implications that many actual scientific practitioners would balk at. For example, Fritjof Capra stopped doing physics more than 30 years ago. He wrote a best seller the “Tao of Physics” that claimed quantum theory supported Eastern religions. A critique is here. David Bohm was a very distinguished theoretical physicist, but from the 1960s he pursued speculative ideas such as “implicate order” that are not really taken seriously in academic physics.
Much is made in the book of “quantum entanglement” to justify that we are all interconnected. In the lab one can now create a unique situation where the quantum state of a few atoms are entangled. However, in normal and natural systems atoms are not entangled. The individual atoms and molecules in the cells in your body are not entangled. Furthermore, my wife and I are not entangled! Thus, I find the discussion on pages 24-29 debatable and problematic.
It should be stressed that the term “evolution” used here is not the well-established scientific theory that describes and explains biological change and diversity. This is made clear on the top of page 19. Rather “evolution” is some universal principle that applies to everything! This is just a philosophical claim that has no more scientific basis than my claim that the Biblical narrative provides the grand narrative which makes sense of everything [without scientific details]. Similarly, the Omega point, advocated by Teilhard de Chardin, and described on page 20, is just a philosophical speculation for which there is no scientific evidence.
Overall, though what is most disappointing to me is the lack of confidence in the Biblical narrative to provide the grand story. The standard view of liberal theology is that science has undermined the authority and reliability of the Bible and so we have to look elsewhere and particularly to science for inspiration and guidance. I know there are many subtle issues and people certainly need to give up on simplistic readings of the text; e.g, that Genesis 1-3 is historical/scientific record. However, once you read it theologically, paying due attention to literary genre and historical context, I think the main “conflict” issues are taken care of.
I don’t think we need “evolution” to make sense of the Christian life. Orthodox theology [whether Augustine, Calvin, Barth, St. Francis, ….] does for me. Importing “scientific” categories and concepts may just confuse the issues.
Again I stress I think we do need a more holistic perspective on everything, whether church, politics, the environment, and society. We are all inter-connected. But, I think Scripture has that message too, once we stop reading it through individualistic Western glasses. In case you are interested in my own modest efforts to engage “emergence” with orthodox theology I refer to a paper I wrote on the subject. It may also help see why I think that individual disciplines are actually more or less autonomous. Specifically, quantum physics is not particularly relevant to biology which is not particularly relevant to sociology.
I am in sympathy with some of the values and aspirations of the book. I certainly think theology cannot be completely divorced from science, grand narratives are important and inspiring, holistic [rather than reductionist] perspectives can be valuable, community rather than individualism, love trumps all, … However, I have severe reservations on how Ilia Delio tries to justify these perspectives.
Science has such a powerful influence and credibility in our culture that there is pressure for people to claim that their theological and/or political views have a scientific basis. Marx claimed evolution supported communism. Andrew Carnegie claimed evolution supported capitalism. Richard Dawkins claims evolution supports atheism. Some theologians claim evolution supports theism. They can’t all be correct. This problem arises because the philosophical interpretation of any scientific knowledge is debatable. Science is science and philosophy is philosophy.
Most of Ilia Delio’s discussion of science seems to be based on popular books. Unfortunately, most such books oversimplify the actual science and present it with a philosophical baggage and breath-taking implications that many actual scientific practitioners would balk at. For example, Fritjof Capra stopped doing physics more than 30 years ago. He wrote a best seller the “Tao of Physics” that claimed quantum theory supported Eastern religions. A critique is here. David Bohm was a very distinguished theoretical physicist, but from the 1960s he pursued speculative ideas such as “implicate order” that are not really taken seriously in academic physics.
Much is made in the book of “quantum entanglement” to justify that we are all interconnected. In the lab one can now create a unique situation where the quantum state of a few atoms are entangled. However, in normal and natural systems atoms are not entangled. The individual atoms and molecules in the cells in your body are not entangled. Furthermore, my wife and I are not entangled! Thus, I find the discussion on pages 24-29 debatable and problematic.
It should be stressed that the term “evolution” used here is not the well-established scientific theory that describes and explains biological change and diversity. This is made clear on the top of page 19. Rather “evolution” is some universal principle that applies to everything! This is just a philosophical claim that has no more scientific basis than my claim that the Biblical narrative provides the grand narrative which makes sense of everything [without scientific details]. Similarly, the Omega point, advocated by Teilhard de Chardin, and described on page 20, is just a philosophical speculation for which there is no scientific evidence.
Overall, though what is most disappointing to me is the lack of confidence in the Biblical narrative to provide the grand story. The standard view of liberal theology is that science has undermined the authority and reliability of the Bible and so we have to look elsewhere and particularly to science for inspiration and guidance. I know there are many subtle issues and people certainly need to give up on simplistic readings of the text; e.g, that Genesis 1-3 is historical/scientific record. However, once you read it theologically, paying due attention to literary genre and historical context, I think the main “conflict” issues are taken care of.
I don’t think we need “evolution” to make sense of the Christian life. Orthodox theology [whether Augustine, Calvin, Barth, St. Francis, ….] does for me. Importing “scientific” categories and concepts may just confuse the issues.
Again I stress I think we do need a more holistic perspective on everything, whether church, politics, the environment, and society. We are all inter-connected. But, I think Scripture has that message too, once we stop reading it through individualistic Western glasses. In case you are interested in my own modest efforts to engage “emergence” with orthodox theology I refer to a paper I wrote on the subject. It may also help see why I think that individual disciplines are actually more or less autonomous. Specifically, quantum physics is not particularly relevant to biology which is not particularly relevant to sociology.
Saturday, May 16, 2015
Is the Multiverse scientific?
Here is an interview about the multiverse with my physics colleague Robert Mann. He is currently on sabbatical at UQ.
The interview is a prelude to a seminar, Puzzled by Particularity in 2 weeks at the Centre for the Study of Science, Religion, and Society at Emmanuel College, UQ.
Robert has a chapter on the subject in a new book on God and the Multiverse.
The interview is a prelude to a seminar, Puzzled by Particularity in 2 weeks at the Centre for the Study of Science, Religion, and Society at Emmanuel College, UQ.
Robert has a chapter on the subject in a new book on God and the Multiverse.
Monday, January 5, 2015
Is the Trinity conceptually possible?
The Trinity is one of the most confusing concepts in Christian theology.
How can God be three persons [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] yet one?
Non-Christians sometimes say it is illogical and nonsense.
This is particularly true of Muslims who consider it offends the unity of Allah.
[Aside: It also seems that most Muslims think Christians believe the Trinity is God, Mary, and Jesus.]
I am currently reading the fascinating book Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus: A Devout Muslim Encounters Christianity by Nabeel Qureshi.
I will write more about it later. Here I just want to highlight one small part of the story I found fascinating because of my interest in the relationship between science and theology.
Like most Muslims, Qureshi thought the Trinity made no sense.
But he became open to it in a completely unexpected circumstance. In an organic chemistry class (!) he learnt about the resonance structures of the nitrate ion [shown above]. This molecule does not have a single structure. Rather, it simultaneously has the three structures above. It is not one or the other, but all three of them. This is a result of [the bizarre properties of] quantum physics, it is the same as Schrodingers cat, being both dead and alive at the same time.
Learning about resonance structures did not lead Qureshi to believe the Trinity was true. It just made him open to the idea that it was conceptually possible that it could be true. He could no longer dismiss it out of hand.
How can God be three persons [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] yet one?
Non-Christians sometimes say it is illogical and nonsense.
This is particularly true of Muslims who consider it offends the unity of Allah.
[Aside: It also seems that most Muslims think Christians believe the Trinity is God, Mary, and Jesus.]
I am currently reading the fascinating book Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus: A Devout Muslim Encounters Christianity by Nabeel Qureshi.
I will write more about it later. Here I just want to highlight one small part of the story I found fascinating because of my interest in the relationship between science and theology.
But he became open to it in a completely unexpected circumstance. In an organic chemistry class (!) he learnt about the resonance structures of the nitrate ion [shown above]. This molecule does not have a single structure. Rather, it simultaneously has the three structures above. It is not one or the other, but all three of them. This is a result of [the bizarre properties of] quantum physics, it is the same as Schrodingers cat, being both dead and alive at the same time.
Learning about resonance structures did not lead Qureshi to believe the Trinity was true. It just made him open to the idea that it was conceptually possible that it could be true. He could no longer dismiss it out of hand.
Saturday, October 4, 2014
You should be skeptical about Scientific American
The cover story of this months Scientific American is "How Big Bang Gravitational Waves could revolutionise Physics," by Lawrence Krauss
It begins:
As a scientist, I find the level of hype and speculation masquerading as science that is found in popular science magazines, particularly New Scientist, disturbing. It is quite unrepresentative of what the majority of scientists actually do, believe, and actually know.
It begins:
If the recent discovery of gravitational waves emanating from the early universe holds up under scrutiny, it will illuminate a connection between gravity and quantum mechanics and perhaps, in the process, verify the existence of other universesUnfortunately, for the magazine, this "discovery" was discredited a few weeks ago. You can read about it here, on Peter Woit's excellent blog, that consistently critiques string theory and the multiverse.
As a scientist, I find the level of hype and speculation masquerading as science that is found in popular science magazines, particularly New Scientist, disturbing. It is quite unrepresentative of what the majority of scientists actually do, believe, and actually know.
Sunday, June 2, 2013
Has Science disproved Christianity?
Monday, December 24, 2012
A scientist reflects on Christmas
The Apostles Creed contains a helpful summary of what I believe about Christmas. It begins:
Is it hard to believe in the miracles associated with the birth of Jesus Christ?
Was Jesus mother Mary really a virgin?
Was the baby conceived by the Holy Spirit rather than by a human father?
What is the real mystery of Christmas?
Why is Christmas a gift?
In the process of answering these questions I hope to engage you with several ideas.
First, Scientists don't have all the answers. We don't understand everything. There are mysteries in science that are as profound and as difficult to believe as those described in the Apostles Creed. Second, the great mystery of Christmas is the gift from God of Jesus. Emmanuel, God is with us.
So why do I say that scientists struggle to understand some things in science?
A great mystery is why does science work at all? I find it is truly amazing that using our brains we can discover the inner workings of atoms, what happened in the first three minutes of the universe, and the molecular basis of genetics. Furthermore, some of our scientific understanding of physics, chemistry, and biology is so reliable and powerful that we can produce amazing things like laptop computers, GPS, new drugs, and test-tube babies!?
In my field, theoretical physics, a big question, is why can mathematics be used with such success to describe physical laws?
Eugene Wigner received a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963. Wigner also wrote a famous essay with the title, ``The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences". The concluding sentences are often quoted. Wigner says,
Before discussing the miracles and mystery of Christmas, I want to say a little more about some mysteries in science. I do this because it is common to dismiss out of hand Biblical miracles such as the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus, claiming that they are scientifically impossible. But is this really justified?
One thing we have learnt from modern science is that sometimes what we think ``makes sense" or what we may intuitively think is ``rational" or ``reasonable" can actually be false.
Quantum theory is one of my passions. I have a really fun job where everyday I get to use quantum theory to try to understand properties of new materials. When I went to university I thought if I understood quantum theory I would understand the meaning of life. Quantum theory is the most successful theory in all of science. It can explain properties of everything from atoms to DNA. It can predict the outcome of experiments to an accuracy of 10 decimal places. It is like if I had a computer program which could tell me what a strangers credit card numbers are. This resounding success shows that scientific truth is not just a matter of personal opinion.
However, you should not think everything in science is certain. Quantum theory raises as many questions as it answers. In spite of the success of the theory, there is no consensus on its interpretation. There more than ten different interpretations of quantum theory. These interpretations are so different that they do not even agree on how many universes there are, nor whether external reality even exists! So we have both certainty and ambiguity in science.
My wife, Robin, does not share my passion for quantum physics. Yet Robin does like Schrodingers cat! This cat is a logical outcome of the most successful theory in all of science. The cat is in a quantum state such that the cat is dead and alive at the same time. It is not one or the other. It will only be definitely one or the other is you look to see which one it is. So looks can kill!
If you are confused and think this doesn't make sense then you have got the point. If you think you understand it then you don't! This confusion should humble us. Science does not have all the answers.
Given that science involves such strange ideas it is not hard for me to believe in the miracles in the Bible such as the virgin birth. At UQ I am not the only other scientist who believes this. Indeed, each week I meet with several other science professors to read the Bible and pray together.
So what is the significance of the miracles of Christmas?
They actually point to the mystery of Christmas.
In the Old Testament book of Isaiah there was a prophecy
Well we all crave empathy for our situation and life experiences. When we have strong life experiences, both good and bad, we love it when another person can come along side us and relate to our experience.
God loves us so much that he wants to completely identify with us; to show perfect empathy with our frail humanity. God is saying, "I am with you. I am there for you. I understand. I have been through this to."
Furthermore, God took the initiative. We did not take the initiative. That is why Jesus was conceived not by a man, but by God.
So God became a human.
Jesus was truly human and truly God.
But how can this be?
This is the real mystery of Christmas. It is a paradox that I don't claim to completely understand. But just as I can accept quantum physics as true, I can accept this tension, that Jesus was fully human and fully God.
But understanding the miracles and mystery of Christmas cannot be separated from the miracle and mystery of Easter.
The baby became a man, Jesus Christ, who taught us who God is and how we can live in relationship to God. Jesus died on the cross to take away the penalty we deserve for our disobedience towards God. How are we disobedient? We ignore God. We do what we want.
Jesus death conquered sin. He rose from the dead to show his power over death and to enable us to rise from the dead to eternal life.
Returning to the Apostle's Creed which summarises this:
``The miracle of Christmas, of the Immanuel
[God being with us] for our salvation is a wonderful gift
which we neither understand nor deserve.''
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord:Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary,Wow! That sounds strange. Can a scientist really believe that?
Is it hard to believe in the miracles associated with the birth of Jesus Christ?
Was Jesus mother Mary really a virgin?
Was the baby conceived by the Holy Spirit rather than by a human father?
What is the real mystery of Christmas?
Why is Christmas a gift?
In the process of answering these questions I hope to engage you with several ideas.
First, Scientists don't have all the answers. We don't understand everything. There are mysteries in science that are as profound and as difficult to believe as those described in the Apostles Creed. Second, the great mystery of Christmas is the gift from God of Jesus. Emmanuel, God is with us.
So why do I say that scientists struggle to understand some things in science?
A great mystery is why does science work at all? I find it is truly amazing that using our brains we can discover the inner workings of atoms, what happened in the first three minutes of the universe, and the molecular basis of genetics. Furthermore, some of our scientific understanding of physics, chemistry, and biology is so reliable and powerful that we can produce amazing things like laptop computers, GPS, new drugs, and test-tube babies!?
In my field, theoretical physics, a big question, is why can mathematics be used with such success to describe physical laws?
Eugene Wigner received a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963. Wigner also wrote a famous essay with the title, ``The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences". The concluding sentences are often quoted. Wigner says,
It is a miracle that mathematics can be used to describe the laws of physics. This is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve.Note Wigner uses the words miracle and gift.
Before discussing the miracles and mystery of Christmas, I want to say a little more about some mysteries in science. I do this because it is common to dismiss out of hand Biblical miracles such as the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus, claiming that they are scientifically impossible. But is this really justified?
One thing we have learnt from modern science is that sometimes what we think ``makes sense" or what we may intuitively think is ``rational" or ``reasonable" can actually be false.
Quantum theory is one of my passions. I have a really fun job where everyday I get to use quantum theory to try to understand properties of new materials. When I went to university I thought if I understood quantum theory I would understand the meaning of life. Quantum theory is the most successful theory in all of science. It can explain properties of everything from atoms to DNA. It can predict the outcome of experiments to an accuracy of 10 decimal places. It is like if I had a computer program which could tell me what a strangers credit card numbers are. This resounding success shows that scientific truth is not just a matter of personal opinion.
However, you should not think everything in science is certain. Quantum theory raises as many questions as it answers. In spite of the success of the theory, there is no consensus on its interpretation. There more than ten different interpretations of quantum theory. These interpretations are so different that they do not even agree on how many universes there are, nor whether external reality even exists! So we have both certainty and ambiguity in science.
My wife, Robin, does not share my passion for quantum physics. Yet Robin does like Schrodingers cat! This cat is a logical outcome of the most successful theory in all of science. The cat is in a quantum state such that the cat is dead and alive at the same time. It is not one or the other. It will only be definitely one or the other is you look to see which one it is. So looks can kill!
If you are confused and think this doesn't make sense then you have got the point. If you think you understand it then you don't! This confusion should humble us. Science does not have all the answers.
Given that science involves such strange ideas it is not hard for me to believe in the miracles in the Bible such as the virgin birth. At UQ I am not the only other scientist who believes this. Indeed, each week I meet with several other science professors to read the Bible and pray together.
So what is the significance of the miracles of Christmas?
They actually point to the mystery of Christmas.
In the Old Testament book of Isaiah there was a prophecy
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel [God is with us]
Isaiah 7:14What is the meaning and significance of God being with us?
Well we all crave empathy for our situation and life experiences. When we have strong life experiences, both good and bad, we love it when another person can come along side us and relate to our experience.
God loves us so much that he wants to completely identify with us; to show perfect empathy with our frail humanity. God is saying, "I am with you. I am there for you. I understand. I have been through this to."
Furthermore, God took the initiative. We did not take the initiative. That is why Jesus was conceived not by a man, but by God.
So God became a human.
Jesus was truly human and truly God.
But how can this be?
This is the real mystery of Christmas. It is a paradox that I don't claim to completely understand. But just as I can accept quantum physics as true, I can accept this tension, that Jesus was fully human and fully God.
But understanding the miracles and mystery of Christmas cannot be separated from the miracle and mystery of Easter.
The baby became a man, Jesus Christ, who taught us who God is and how we can live in relationship to God. Jesus died on the cross to take away the penalty we deserve for our disobedience towards God. How are we disobedient? We ignore God. We do what we want.
Jesus death conquered sin. He rose from the dead to show his power over death and to enable us to rise from the dead to eternal life.
Returning to the Apostle's Creed which summarises this:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,To end I want to rephrase the quote I gave earlier from the theoretical physicist Wigner,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead.
``The miracle of Christmas, of the Immanuel
[God being with us] for our salvation is a wonderful gift
which we neither understand nor deserve.''
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Why is the Higgs boson called "the God particle"?
Not for important scientific, philosophical, or theological reasons.
The term arose with a book entitled, The God Particle, published in 1993 by Leon Lederman, a Nobel Prize winning physicist and science writer Dick Teresi. Wikipedia states:
Whether or not the Higgs boson exists is irrelevant to nuclear physics, atomic physics, solid state physics, biophysics, optics, thermodynamics, statistical physics, chaos, fluid dynamics, chemistry, .....
The term arose with a book entitled, The God Particle, published in 1993 by Leon Lederman, a Nobel Prize winning physicist and science writer Dick Teresi. Wikipedia states:
Lederman said he gave the Higgs boson the nickname "The God Particle" because the particle is "so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our final understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive,"[5][6][7]but added that a second reason was because "the publisher wouldn't let us call it the Goddamn Particle, though that might be a more appropriate title, given its villainous nature and the expense it is causing."[5][8]I would say Lederman, being an elementary particle physicist, overstated the importance of the Higgs boson. I would restate his claim as the Higgs boson is "central to the state of elementary particle physics [just one sub-field of physics] and some aspects of cosmology today, so crucial to our current understanding of elementary particles, yet so elusive."
Whether or not the Higgs boson exists is irrelevant to nuclear physics, atomic physics, solid state physics, biophysics, optics, thermodynamics, statistical physics, chaos, fluid dynamics, chemistry, .....
Friday, September 14, 2012
Trusting something is really there
Late last year Alister McGrath wrote a short article Higgs boson: the particle of faith for The Telegraph newspaper. It is worth reading carefully and thinking about. Note the article was written before the recent experimental "discovery" of the Higgs boson.
Here is a key part:
Unfortunately, McGrath's point is subtle and was lost on many of the Telegraph readers who wrote comments on the article. Indeed, at first I did not like the article. However, on reflection I decided it is worthwhile because it raises some important questions.
The point is that the practice of science involves faith, i.e. acting on the belief that certain things are (or may be) true or certain entities exist. This is not identical to the faith I practice as a Christian, but it is still faith. Elementary particle physicists had significant reasons to believe that the Higgs boson existed. This faith motivated spending a lot of government money and their careers designing and conducting experiments to find more direct evidence that the Higgs boson existed. Yet, even before the recent experimental results most believed it existed, even though they had never "seen" it.
But, to the hard core "logical positivist" or "skeptic" surely this faith is "irrational".
In particular, why orient your daily life and professional career around something you have never seen. A valid counter is that these physicists were not assuming that the particle existed, but rather trying to see whether or not it did exist. Not finding it would have been just as worthwhile an outcome.
Here is a key part:
The reason why the Higgs boson is taken so seriously in science is not because its existence has been proved, but because it makes so much sense of observations that its existence seems assured. In other words, its power to explain is seen as an indicator of its truth.
There’s an obvious and important parallel with the way religious believers think about God. While some demand proof that God exists, most see this as unrealistic. Believers argue that the existence of God gives the best framework for making sense of the world.
The point is that the practice of science involves faith, i.e. acting on the belief that certain things are (or may be) true or certain entities exist. This is not identical to the faith I practice as a Christian, but it is still faith. Elementary particle physicists had significant reasons to believe that the Higgs boson existed. This faith motivated spending a lot of government money and their careers designing and conducting experiments to find more direct evidence that the Higgs boson existed. Yet, even before the recent experimental results most believed it existed, even though they had never "seen" it.
But, to the hard core "logical positivist" or "skeptic" surely this faith is "irrational".
In particular, why orient your daily life and professional career around something you have never seen. A valid counter is that these physicists were not assuming that the particle existed, but rather trying to see whether or not it did exist. Not finding it would have been just as worthwhile an outcome.
Thursday, July 5, 2012
The theological significance of the Higgs boson
is nil.
Yesterday's announcement of the much awaited discovery of the Higgs boson will lead to a lot of hype, including claims that it presents some problem for belief in God, and particularly in a Creator. The Higgs boson has even been dubbed "The God particle", largely as a marketing exercise.
I find this ridiculous. This discovery is of no greater theological or philosophical significance than most other important scientific discoveries: the structure of DNA, the Genetic code, pions, neutrinos, positrons, quarks, pulsars, Einstein's theories of relativity, .....
These discoveries just show that we can understand and describe the natural world. (Indeed, a truly amazing thing). Sometimes we can do this well enough that we can even predict the results of experiments, including the existence of new particle or a new planet. However, this success neither proves nor disproves the existence of a Creator. Science, by assumption, is methodologically naturalistic. These were the same issues discussed by Laplace and Napoleon, centuries ago.
An earlier post explored similar issues associated with the Higgs boson.
Yesterday's announcement of the much awaited discovery of the Higgs boson will lead to a lot of hype, including claims that it presents some problem for belief in God, and particularly in a Creator. The Higgs boson has even been dubbed "The God particle", largely as a marketing exercise.
I find this ridiculous. This discovery is of no greater theological or philosophical significance than most other important scientific discoveries: the structure of DNA, the Genetic code, pions, neutrinos, positrons, quarks, pulsars, Einstein's theories of relativity, .....
These discoveries just show that we can understand and describe the natural world. (Indeed, a truly amazing thing). Sometimes we can do this well enough that we can even predict the results of experiments, including the existence of new particle or a new planet. However, this success neither proves nor disproves the existence of a Creator. Science, by assumption, is methodologically naturalistic. These were the same issues discussed by Laplace and Napoleon, centuries ago.
An earlier post explored similar issues associated with the Higgs boson.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Nothing to the argument
The New York Times Sunday Book Review has an excellent review of the book A Universe from Nothing: Why there is something rather than nothing by Lawrence Krauss.
He is a theoretical physicist who is an outspoken atheist, often claiming science and religion are incompatible. The book has a glowing afterword by Richard Dawkins claiming the argument in the book presents serious problems for religious belief.
The reviewer is David Albert, a Professor of Philosophy at Columbia University. He is scathing about the book, particularly for its philosophical naiveté. The book does not really solve any of the problems it claims to. Here is an extract where he points out how Krauss' notion of "nothing" and "something" in quantum physics is simplistic.
He is a theoretical physicist who is an outspoken atheist, often claiming science and religion are incompatible. The book has a glowing afterword by Richard Dawkins claiming the argument in the book presents serious problems for religious belief.
The reviewer is David Albert, a Professor of Philosophy at Columbia University. He is scathing about the book, particularly for its philosophical naiveté. The book does not really solve any of the problems it claims to. Here is an extract where he points out how Krauss' notion of "nothing" and "something" in quantum physics is simplistic.
Krauss seems to be thinking that these vacuum states amount to the relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical version of there not being any physical stuff at all. And he has an argument — or thinks he does — that the laws of relativistic quantum field theories entail that vacuum states are unstable. And that, in a nutshell, is the account he proposes of why there should be something rather than nothing.
But that’s just not right. Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields — what it is (obviously, and ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the fields! The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings — if you look at them aright — amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.
The end of the review is interesting for its perspective on the superficiality of the New Atheism:
When I was growing up, where I was growing up, there was a critique of religion according to which religion was cruel, and a lie, and a mechanism of enslavement, and something full of loathing and contempt for everything essentially human. Maybe that was true and maybe it wasn’t, but it had to do with important things — it had to do, that is, with history, and with suffering, and with the hope of a better world — and it seems like a pity, and more than a pity, and worse than a pity, with all that in the back of one’s head, to think that all that gets offered to us now, by guys like these, in books like this, is the pale, small, silly, nerdy accusation that religion is, I don’t know, dumb.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
There is no crisis in science
If you are interested in the multiverse and other silly ideas some theoretical physicists come up with (and embarrass and frustrate their colleagues) then you may find a recent post on my work blog interesting.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
The Lost Saviour
As I have confessed before, I love Dan Brown novels. They are a great read. But, the science (usually presented as "fact") is ridiculous and the history is dubious.
I have just started reading Brown's latest, The Lost Symbol. Again there is comical science. In this case it is "Noetic Science" which is a mish-mash (a synthesis!) of modern physics with ancient mysticism. The frontpiece of the book has a page entitled "Fact" which states that the Institute of Noetic Sciences exists. This is indeed correct. I found the Institute web page fascinating and disturbing reading. This is probably best summarised by The Double Slit Experiment: Experimental Tests of the Role of Consciousness in the Physical World. None of anything I could see had any signs of real science: i.e., experiments that were or could be reproduced by other scientists and published in traditional scientific journals.
Like The DaVinci Code the novel is rich on symbols, puzzles, secrets, and "The Ancient Mystery." The Freemasons are central and portrayed in a sympathetic manner. What is most striking to me is how the world of some of the characters seems to resonate with aspects of the world of both the Old and the New Testament. The preoccupation with images and symbols aligns with idolatry or ritualistic religion. The preoccupation with mysteries and secret knowledge sounds very gnostic. [Paul's Letter to the Colossians addresses these issues]. The responsibility of man [and particularly select men (n.b. not women)] is to use his cleverness to find and discover the secret knowledge. Through ritual he is to find the strength to act in a moral manner.
In contrast, the person of Jesus Christ is not a symbol, an artefact, or a puzzle that man decodes, but rather a real person who reveals the mystery of God to all humanity.
I have just started reading Brown's latest, The Lost Symbol. Again there is comical science. In this case it is "Noetic Science" which is a mish-mash (a synthesis!) of modern physics with ancient mysticism. The frontpiece of the book has a page entitled "Fact" which states that the Institute of Noetic Sciences exists. This is indeed correct. I found the Institute web page fascinating and disturbing reading. This is probably best summarised by The Double Slit Experiment: Experimental Tests of the Role of Consciousness in the Physical World. None of anything I could see had any signs of real science: i.e., experiments that were or could be reproduced by other scientists and published in traditional scientific journals.
Like The DaVinci Code the novel is rich on symbols, puzzles, secrets, and "The Ancient Mystery." The Freemasons are central and portrayed in a sympathetic manner. What is most striking to me is how the world of some of the characters seems to resonate with aspects of the world of both the Old and the New Testament. The preoccupation with images and symbols aligns with idolatry or ritualistic religion. The preoccupation with mysteries and secret knowledge sounds very gnostic. [Paul's Letter to the Colossians addresses these issues]. The responsibility of man [and particularly select men (n.b. not women)] is to use his cleverness to find and discover the secret knowledge. Through ritual he is to find the strength to act in a moral manner.
In contrast, the person of Jesus Christ is not a symbol, an artefact, or a puzzle that man decodes, but rather a real person who reveals the mystery of God to all humanity.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Known by the company you keep
I first became aware of Leonid Molidnow as co-author of Stephen Hawking for his recent popular book The Grand Design, which has received negative reviews. The other day while browsing books in a Sydney airport bookstore I also discovered Molidnow has co-authored a book with Deepak Chopra, The War of World Views: Science vs. Spirituality.
I would not describe Molidnow as "a prominent physicist". I had not heard of him until he co-authored the popular book with Hawking. Various publicity material for the books states Molidnow "is at Caltech" which gave me the impression that he was a faculty member. However, his own webpage at Caltech states he is there as a guest.
Two bestselling authors first met in a televised Caltech debate on “the future of God,” one an articulate advocate for spirituality, the other a prominent physicist. This remarkable book is the product of that serendipitous encounter and the contentious—but respectful—clash of worldviews that grew along with their friendship.
In War of the Worldviews these two great thinkers battle over the cosmos, evolution and life, the human brain, and God, probing the fundamental questions that define the human experience.You can read on Wikipedia why Chopra is a "magnet for criticism." I find it deplorable the manner in which he tries to use quantum physics to support his ideas about New Age spirituality and "medicine."
I would not describe Molidnow as "a prominent physicist". I had not heard of him until he co-authored the popular book with Hawking. Various publicity material for the books states Molidnow "is at Caltech" which gave me the impression that he was a faculty member. However, his own webpage at Caltech states he is there as a guest.
Monday, October 10, 2011
The faith of the founders of quantum theory
A common claim is that there is a dichotomy of faith vs. reason when it comes to the relationship between Christian belief and science. However, I would claim that both involve faith, evidence, and reason. The nature of that faith, evidence, and reason is different in the two cases, but it is there.
With regard to the successful development of quantum theory Paul Dirac wrote that for Erwin Schrodinger and himself
With regard to the successful development of quantum theory Paul Dirac wrote that for Erwin Schrodinger and himself
It was a sort of act of faith with us that any questions which describe fundamental laws of nature must have great mathematical beauty in them. It was a very profitable religion to hold and can be considered as the basis of much of our success.
Dirac, P. (1977): In: History of Twentieth Century Physics. Proceedings of the International School of Physics "Enrico Fermi", Course 57, New York: Academic Press, p. 136.
I thank Denis Alexander for bringing this quotation to my attention.
I thank Denis Alexander for bringing this quotation to my attention.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Quantum physics and eastern mysticism
I will soon be in India for a couple of weeks. Some of the time I will be involved in courses on science and religion (such as this) and so I am reading literature relevant to the subject.
Sometimes it is claimed, at least in certain Western circles, that "quantum physics is consistent with Eastern religion". This idea was particularly promoted by the popular book The Tao of Physics: an exploration of the parallels between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism by Fritjof Capra. It was first published in 1975 and has now been published in 43 editions in 23 languages. The Wikipedia page mentions two serious criticisms of the book by physicists.
First, the books argument is largely based on superficial similarities of the language and terminology used in certain contexts in both modern physics and eastern religions. [Aside: this highlights that Inter-disciplinary studies require great discipline].
Second, part of the book is based on the "Bootstrap model" of strong interactions in physics which was popular just before the first edition was published. However, this model is no longer considered valid and has been replaced by the Standard model. Nevertheless, more recent editions have ignored this problem.
A more thorough exploration is in an article by Peter Bussey in Science and Christian Belief.
Sometimes it is claimed, at least in certain Western circles, that "quantum physics is consistent with Eastern religion". This idea was particularly promoted by the popular book The Tao of Physics: an exploration of the parallels between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism by Fritjof Capra. It was first published in 1975 and has now been published in 43 editions in 23 languages. The Wikipedia page mentions two serious criticisms of the book by physicists.
First, the books argument is largely based on superficial similarities of the language and terminology used in certain contexts in both modern physics and eastern religions. [Aside: this highlights that Inter-disciplinary studies require great discipline].
Second, part of the book is based on the "Bootstrap model" of strong interactions in physics which was popular just before the first edition was published. However, this model is no longer considered valid and has been replaced by the Standard model. Nevertheless, more recent editions have ignored this problem.
A more thorough exploration is in an article by Peter Bussey in Science and Christian Belief.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Hawking says there is no heaven
This week Stephen Hawking was interviewed by the Guardian. The following statement has attracted significantly publicity:
I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I'm not afraid of death, but I'm in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first. I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.The Guardian article also states:
Hawking responded to questions posed by the Guardian and a reader in advance of a lecture tomorrow at the Google Zeitgeist meeting in London, in which he will address the question: "Why are we here?"
In the talk, he will argue that tiny quantum fluctuations in the very early universe became the seeds from which galaxies, stars, and ultimately human life emerged. "Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in," he said.
I beg to differ with Hawking. Science is about evidence. Hawking is a loud proponent of M-theory. However, there is no experimental evidence that string theory is valid. Furthermore, even if it is valid, making philosophical deductions from the content of scientific theories is problematic.
But, I would contrast this lack of evidence to the evidence for heaven. What? Yes, there is some evidence. There is some historical evidence (including eyewitness accounts) that Jesus Christ was crucified and that he rose from the dead. If Jesus really did rise from the dead then it is highly likely that there is an afterlife heaven exists. I agree that not everyone accepts the validity of or agrees with the evidence. But there is evidence that should be examined, weighed and considered. In contrast, for Hawkings ideas there is no concrete empirical evidence that I am aware of.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Science fiction in Christianity Today
There is a really strange article Christ of the Klingons in Christianity Today which sympathetically discusses some wild claims about the theological significance of string theory by a theoretical physicist Gerald Cleaver [who works in M-theory (a version of string theory)] and a philosopher Robin Collins. Here are a few statements I found rather strange:
It does not matter what we think about the beauty of a theory. What matters is whether it can explain experimental data and predict the outcomes of new experiments. String theory is yet to do that and some physicists are skeptical whether it will ever be falsifiable. So is it science? Theology is grounded in reality and so I see no need for it to engage with such speculations.
"To me [M-Theory] offers a Christian God whose creative ability is much larger than we ever could imagine before," Cleaver says.
To Cleaver, M-Theory's multiverse, with its dizzying variety, unending moments of new creation, and perhaps infinite scope, makes perfect sense as the work of "a God of the infinities, who creates eternally."
I've always had problems perceiving the infinite God that we believe in [as] creating life in just one spot," Cleaver says. "Over the entire past and future of humankind, there'll probably be no more than a few hundred billion humans to interact with God on this earth. That is a finite number that does not make consistent theological sense to me."
"The beauty of it suggests that this is the true picture of reality," Cleaver says. "The beauty of a theory is extremely important."
[He quotes Paul Dirac, a famous theoretical physicist who said in 1963]
"It is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit [an] experiment… . If one is working from the point of view of getting beauty in one's equations, and if one has really a sound insight, one is on a sure line of progress."I think theology is silent on the merits of specific scientific theories. I would say that Dirac's view borders on being unscientific. Arguably, this obsession with "beauty" is why he did not make any significant contributions for the last 30 years of his career.
It does not matter what we think about the beauty of a theory. What matters is whether it can explain experimental data and predict the outcomes of new experiments. String theory is yet to do that and some physicists are skeptical whether it will ever be falsifiable. So is it science? Theology is grounded in reality and so I see no need for it to engage with such speculations.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
I believe in one world
I do believe the world exists. This may seem like a silly claim, but it engages with serious theological, scientific, and philosophical issues. Not only is the existence of God a contestable hyphothesis but so is the existence of the world.
In the Preface to Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics 3.1: Doctrine of Creation, the Editors Bromiley and Torrance state that Barth considers the radical position:
In the Preface to Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics 3.1: Doctrine of Creation, the Editors Bromiley and Torrance state that Barth considers the radical position:
the supreme problem of theology is not the existence of God, as natural theology supposes, but the independent existence of creaturely reality.Barth asserts that the whole doctrine of Creation is an article of faith, both that God exists and that the world [a creaturely reality independent of God] exists. Specifically, Barth writes:
the whole history of theology as a continuous fighting retreat in face of the irresistible advance of a rational and empirical science which on the very different grounds of a triumphant human self-conceit is quite sure of its subject. In preoccupation with only one side of the question, there has been a dangerous failure to realise that the question of creation is not less but even more concerned with the reality of the creature than that of the Creator.
Church Dogmatics 3.1: Doctrine of Creation, page 6.
When Barth wrote this more than sixty years ago, most scientists would have considered this quite silly. Today, logical positivists such as Richard Dawkins, would still take the view: the world is a non-contestable hypothesis, God is a contestable hypothesis. But not all scientists today have such a view.
Tony Leggett (who shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2003) has thought long and hard about quantum theory and the picture of the world it presents. In a short article in Science, The Quantum Measurement Problem [Is Schrodinger's cat dead or alive?] he makes the intriguing statement:
Personally if I could be sure we will forever regard Quantum Mechanics as the complete truth about the physical world I think I should grit my teeth and plump for [the view that] Quantum Mechanics is the complete truth (in the sense that it always gives reliable predictions concerning the nature of experiments) but describes no external reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
