There are those, of course, who fault any effort to make sense of the universe. One logical positivist, H. Reichenbach, insisted: “‘We have no absolutely conclusive evidence that there is a physical world, and we have no absolutely conclusive evidence either that we exist’” (p. 224). Such allegedly “scientific” notions are easily popularized, so that M. Esslin, describing our era, can say: “‘Suddenly man sees himself faced with a universe that is both frightening and illogical–in a word, absurd. All assurances of hope, all explanations of ultimate meaning have suddenly been unmasked as nonsensical illusions, empty chatter, whistling in the dark’” (p. 215).
I actually agree with this, HOWEVER, I do believe science can find potential for or evidence of God designing or causing the universe. What I believe is that science can point us in the right direction, but ultimately theology, logic, and philosophy turn the evidence or circumstances into an argument or proof.There is no scientific process which could possibly conclude the existence of God, unless evidence for God is discovered - which so far isn’t the case.
You show a misunderstanding of the God-of-the-Gaps fallacy. If we sayI’ve no doubt there are books written by religious scientists who choose to insert God in the gaps that science has yet to fill. But the moment they start calling on supernatural phenomena to fill gaps in knowledge, they’ve stopped doing science and started doing “guessing.”
Good is an opinion statement. And if they use valid science to make the case then it’s still science. You would have to write off some of the most basic facts of physics to discredit some of these books.Your question is at odds with your post title. A book that concludes the possibility of God wouldn’t be a “good science book.”
Would you mean this? It’s really great and has a lot of good physics in it as evidence. Also good:Is there a good book that focuses on cosmology that concludes a possibility for God? I know that a Jesuit priest from Gonzaga wrote one. Is it good from a science perspective?
No, I said a possibility for God. That is, a book which doesn’t clearly state that God is impossible or unnecessary.There is no scientific process which could possibly conclude the existence of God, unless evidence for God is discovered - which so far isn’t the case.
I’ve no doubt there are books written by religious scientists who choose to insert God in the gaps that science has yet to fill. But the moment they start calling on supernatural phenomena to fill gaps in knowledge, they’ve stopped doing science and started doing “guessing.”
Your question is at odds with your post title. A book that concludes the possibility of God wouldn’t be a “good science book.”
There’s a guy named Roy Masters; he has a once a week radio program [Sunday night?]
Kind of interesting, in which he argues for God.
His book [one of his books] is “Finding God in Physics: Einstein’s Missing Relative: why we and the universe exist”.
Interestingly, he argues that possibly God manifests Himself to us by means of gravity.
He makes the same point as Father Benedict Groeschel: that we cannot explain where gravity comes from. Masters suggests gravity comes from God.
But, get the book and read for yourself. When you get the book, go first to p. 176 for a couple of pages of definitions. There are different kinds of “time”, for example. The book has 17 chapters so you might want to skip around a bit at first. There is a Web site at www.fhu.com
Also take a look at something called “Galilean Electrodynamics” which was sort of started by Petr Beckmann. He died a number of years ago and it kind of floundered along after that. But it sort of takes exception of some of Einstein’s ideas.
home.comcast.net/~adring/
Try “The Road of Science and The Ways to God” by Fr. Stanley L. Jaki, SJ
And “The Origin of Science and the Science of Its Origin” also by Fr. Stanley L. Jaki, SJ
Fr. Jaki [pronounced “yocki” ] was the “Pope’s physicist” and wrote a large number of books related to the subject you are looking at.
If you do a search on Amazon, there are dozens of relevant books by Fr. Jaki. Fabulous resource.
Please, Fr. Jaki is a Benedictine, not a Jesuit.
You might also cite “Limits of a Limitless Science” a collection of essays by Fr. Jaki.
In addition to Fr. Jaki’s books the following are good and contemporary:
“Ancient Faith and Modern Physics” by Stephen Barr (a theoretical physicist at the University of Delaware who has written many good articles about science and religion for “First Things”)
“New Proofs for the Existence of God” by Robert Spitzer, S.J. see also the site
magisreasonfaith.org/
Any book by John Polkinghorne who is a Fellow of the Royal Society (Theoretical Physics) and an Anglican priest.
anselm
For a particular definition of “proof” that might be true. But theology and philosophy have never actually proved anything, and the use of logic relies on testable, factual premises.I actually agree with this, HOWEVER, I do believe science can find potential for or evidence of God designing or causing the universe. What I believe is that science can point us in the right direction, but ultimately theology, logic, and philosophy turn the evidence or circumstances into an argument or proof.
No I don’t - God of the Gaps is when one posits God to fill a gap in knowledge.You show a misunderstanding of the God-of-the-Gaps fallacy.
All that would ever show is that the gap remains a gap. It would never become a proof for God. (I suppose it might become a “philosophical” proof, but that doesn’t really mean anything."If we say
- The universe needs a cause
- The only potential cause we know of is God
- Therefore God created the universe
- Therefore God exists (Even this isn’t science alone proving God)
that IS God of the gaps. IF, however, we show how God is most probable and/or refute an or all alternative options, it becomes an inductive argument (I think, maybe deductive, sorry to those more logically advanced than me if I got them confused). If we refute all other options or show the premises only leave the possibility for God whilst keeping them vaild, it becomes a proof.
Yes - I didn’t mean “a science book that’s good,” I meant “a book of good science.” As I said, there can be a book containing good, empirical science. Such a book could not make any comment on the existence of God unless good empirical evidence for God’s existence were discovered.Good is an opinion statement. And if they use valid science to make the case then it’s still science. You would have to write off some of the most basic facts of physics to discredit some of these books.
Not sure I understand here. Aside from the ad hominem presuming to know what atheists want, all the good explanations we have come up with have come about as a result of science - why would a new scientific explanation suddenly cause such discontent?wanstronian
*Your question is at odds with your post title. A book that concludes the possibility of God wouldn’t be a “good science book.” *
I don’t agree. What science can tell us, without being able to prove it in a substantial way, is that there may be an explanation for the universe other than all the explanations we are able to come up with. This is, of course, exactly what atheists do not want to hear. They want science to be a useful tool in telling us there is no need to posit a Creator, because everything can be explained as mere undesigned chance.
Quite so - another reason why your previous comment doesn’t make much sense!But science can hardly be used to prove there is no God any more than it can be used to prove there is a God.
Science is not in the business of suggestion, and it certainly isn’t in the business of suggesting the supernatural.Yet it can be used to suggest a God without scientific proof better than it can be used to suggest there is no God without scientific proof.
Well, you may infer a “powerful and intelligent being” but science in no way suggests one. This is a clear God of the Gaps pseudo-argument.Abiogenesis and the Big Bang alone are two questions that science cannot explain as purely natural phenomenon, both of which may suggest a powerful and intelligent Being behind the universe rather than mere Nothingness.
Okay. Well, all reasonable science books should meet your need then - none of them state that God is impossible or unnecessary, for the same reason that none of them state the unicorns and fairies are impossible or unnecessary.No, I said a possibility for God. That is, a book which doesn’t clearly state that God is impossible or unnecessary.
If you want to remove any intellectual credibility you might have, then advocating the DI is a good way to go about it. Their remit is to spread lies and disinformation, and call it “science.” It’s the home of IDC pseudo-scientist Michael Behe, among other non-credible sources of information.If you want a science book that allows for God, you may have to end up collecting a large number of books.
To get what you want, you may end up with a useful sentence here and an insight there. That sort of thing.
And what YOU, personally, are searching for may be slightly different from what someone else is searching for.
So you end up with a whole wall full of books.
Anyway, something came in the mail today that is interesting:
For years, I have been getting mailings from “The Discovery Institute; Center for Science and Culture”
www.discovery.org/csc
email: cscinfo@discovery.org
But the blurbs and their books are very interesting. A lot of it comes down to very sophisticated discussions of evolution and they seem to excel in debunking the “non-God” origins of the universe.
Their 2010 annual report arrived the other day. Very interesting. These Web sites cover a few of the high spots.
www.bio-complexity.org
www.intelligentdesign.org
www.whathathdarwinwrought.com
www.idthefuture.com
www.evolutionarynews.org
www.faithandevolution.org
You can contact them, maybe send them some money, and ask to be placed on their mailing list:
Discovery Institute
208 Columbia Street
Seattle, WA 98104
206-292-0401
[They might be tied up this week with the AAS meeting in Seattle.]