mns2012

Транскрипт:

Why should we choose science and not God?

Now, the confusion here has to do with two disciplines: one is theology, the nature of God, and the other is science. You see, I used to think that when I mentioned the word `God`, people understood that I was talking about the Triune Eternal God of the Bible Who is the Creator and Upholder of the universe. That's no longer the case. It's far more likely that people like Hawking and so on, when they hear the word `God`, think of a Greek god like the god of lightning. Now, the thing about the god of lightning is that she or he was a science stopper. In other words, if you thought lightning was a god you better not study it as you might upset the god. And a course in atmospheric physics at ASU will dismiss that god completely. The Greek god of lightning is a so-called `god of the gaps`: I can't explain it, therefore `god did it`, that kind of god. Now, to my amazement, many of my scientific colleagues around the world think that that's what I believe that there are things in life I meet I can't explain them therefore I postulate God so that as science advances it fills those gaps and God disappears.

Now listen to this very carefully. If that's what you think of God, then you've got to choose between science and God because that's how you've defined God. Have you got that? If you think of God as a god of the gaps, a placeholder, until science comes up with some kind of explanation you've got to choose between science and God because that's the way you define God. And one of the main problems in this debate is not science, it's the definition of God. As I pointed out to Dawkins, much to his irritation, the God he didn't believe in I don't believe in either. And it's a very important thing to say because the God of the Bible, well, you've probably read the first line of the Bible it's very interesting. It says: `In the beginning God created the bits of the universe we don't understand`, doesn't it?! No, apparently not. `In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, which in Hebrew [...] means everything, the whole show, the bits we understand and the bits we don't.

So when Newton discovered his law of gravity he didn't say: `Oh, marvelous, I've got a scientific explanation, I don't need God`. Of course he didn't say that. He said: `What a marvelous God to do it that way!` Because the more he understood of the universe, the more he admired the genius of the God that did it that way. And that's the way your mind works, doesn't it? You're studying engineering here. The more you know of engineering, the more you can admire the engine of a Rolls-Royce or a turbo jet, not the less. You're studying fine arts. The more you know about art and painting, the more you can admire the genius of a Rubens, not the less.

This is an absurd argument. We've got to realize that the God claimed by Christians and the three great monotheistic religions is not a god of the gaps. He doesn't disappear on the advances science. In fact, it's the other way round. We gain more understanding of Him, the more we do science. This is a massively important thing because it seems to be one of the main reasons that many scientists think that you have to choose between science and God.

Now, let me flip to the science side. The whole thing really could be regarded as studying the nature of explanation. Science explains. What does that actually mean: `science explains`? Well, let's think about it. I was told at school about the law of gravity. I love the law of gravity. It's a wonderful thing to show students how the elliptical orbits of the planets around the Sun come from an equation with only eight symbols in it. I mean, that's phenomenal stuff, that is. But, you see, I made a mistake at school. I thought the law of gravity told me what gravity was. It doesn't, you know. Nobody knows what gravity is. If you don't believe that, read Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman. You see, we get into a way of thinking that when the words `science explains` come that we're getting a total explanation, even within the realm of science, when we're not.

The law of gravity is brilliant. It enables you to land people in the moon even without Einstein's corrections. It doesn't tell you what gravity is. In fact, it was a philosopher Ludwig Witgenstein, who made the very profound point on this. He said: "The greatest deception of modernism is that the laws of nature are explanations of the phenomena of nature. They're not! They are simply descriptions of what normally happens." Now, this is absolutely revolutionary. If we get a hold of it, it means that a law of nature only explains, at a certain level. Now let's go to the next step. Why is the water boiling? [takes a glass of water from the table] Well it isn't actually, but why is it boiling? Well it's boiling because the heat energy from the bunsen flame is being conducted through the copper base of the kettle and the molecules of water are getting agitated and so on. That's why it's boiling? Nonsense! It's boiling because I want a cup of tea. Now this is very profound stuff, isn't it? It's fascinating. Would you ever dream of saying `I was right` and saying `nonsense`. Two explanations are necessary for the boiling of that water, not one. There's a scientific explanation and then there is the explanation in terms of what we may call `agent intention`: I want a cup of tea.

Now, think about it. The physical explanation is important but people have been brewing tea for thousands of years before they knew anything about the nature of heat. Actually, the brewing of the tea is far more important to most of us, isn't it, except in physics classes. And it would be utterly absurd to suggest that the scientific explanation tells you everything about that boiling water. It is utterly absurd, ladies and gentlemen, to suggest that science tells you everything about the universe. Let me put this very carefully. Science is no more in competition with God's explanation than the law of internal combustion is in competition with Henry Ford as an explanation for the motor car. Have you got that? There is more than one kind of explanation. And the point is God, peace be to Richard Dawkins, is not the same kind of explanation as science. In fact, a colleague at Oxford Richard Swinburn says: "Science explains but I postulate God to explain why science explains". You see, Laplas, a famous mathematician, met Napoleon. Napoleon said: "Looking at these equations for ballistics, where is God in your equations, Mr Laplas?" Laplas replied: "I don't need that hypothesis". And people say: "That's the end of God". But that's absurd! When the Higgs boson was discovered Lawrence wrote a little article to say that the Higgs boson was arguably more important than God. I wrote a little article in reply, which was published in one of our national papers. I said: "Arguably, if you're doing atomic physics, Higgs boson is much more relevant than God. But if you're asking the question, why is there a universe at all in which particle physics can be done?, - God is very much more important than the Higgs boson." This is making a fundamental and elementary philosophical mistake "either"/"or". It's failing to recognize the two different levels of explanation.

Now, I think kids at school can understand this. I find many professors, and I'm being honest with you, cannot because they've totally bought into the idea that the only level of explanation possible is a scientific one. And it's manifestly false. And it leads into huge faux. Let me put it this way. `Mechanism and law` is one way to describe things and then, on the other hand, we have got agency. So the idea that God and science are incompatible results from two profound and very simple mistakes: (1) the nature of God - God is not a god of the gaps, - and (2) the nature of scientific explanation: it is only one level.