Why It's So Hard for Scientists to Believe in God | Francis Collins

[Spyridon]

There’s no Prime Mover entity in such a model, there is literally nothing at all, just a self-caused universe. It looks to me to be the very antithesis of the Catholic view.

It happens to be my view too, simply because I feel it’s the simplest explanation (not that it is a simple explanation).

I find it takes more faith to believe that than believe in God.

The notion that something can come from nothing is patently absurd.

No amount of scientific equivocating about quantum this and singularity that can make the idea of the universe spontaneously coming into existence from nothing for no reason make more sense than the idea of a Super-Intellect creating the Universe.

Man has grasped this concept since the dawn of human intelligence well over 100,000 years ago, and the vast majority of humans on earth today still understand this. Atheism is not only illogical - it is a belief which is against our very nature as humans.

Isn’t it interesting that belief in deities is not only a cultural phenomenon, but seems to be programmed into the human mind naturally? Oh yeah that’s right, it’s just a byproduct of evolution. 99% of all human beings who ever lived and over 70% of humans currently on earth are simply delusional about the most important question known to man.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

There’s no Prime Mover entity in such a model, there is literally nothing at all, just a self-caused universe. It looks to me to be the very antithesis of the Catholic view.

It happens to be my view too, simply because I feel it’s the simplest explanation (not that it is a simple explanation).

I find it takes more faith to believe that than believe in God.

The notion that something can come from nothing is patently absurd.

But that’s a very human prejudice, because the world we live in runs on fairly deterministic rules where causality reigns supreme. Even in quantum mechanics causality and conservation of energy still apply, though at the subatomic level they can get a bit mixed up.

But that’s the universe as it exists now, and largely as it has existed for 13.8 billion years. Get further back than that, if there is even a “further back”, is there any reason to assume the same physical laws applied, or that there were physical laws at all?

No amount of scientific equivocating about quantum this and singularity that can make the idea of the universe spontaneously coming into existence from nothing for no reason make more sense than the idea of a Super-Intellect creating the Universe.

This seems a misrepresentation of QM and the singularity. The former is one of the most highly confirmed theories in history, and the latter simply means a mathematical model is returning nonsensical answers, meaning the math is insufficient.

Man has grasped this concept since the dawn of human intelligence well over 100,000 years ago, and the vast majority of humans on earth today still understand this. Atheism is not only illogical - it is a belief which is against our very nature as humans.

Isn’t it interesting that belief in deities is not only a cultural phenomenon, but seems to be programmed into the human mind naturally? Oh yeah that’s right, it’s just a byproduct of evolution. 99% of all human beings who ever lived and over 70% of humans currently on earth are simply delusional about the most important question known to man.

Reality isn’t a democracy. What is is regardless of what we think, and what isn’t isn’t.

 

[IWantGod]

That’s taking his statement completely out of context, and not bothering to understand what Hawking is referring to. His essential notion (and it really isn’t his to begin with) is that the universe could simply be the collapse of a wave function, a sort of quantum beginning of the universe. It goes back to the old question “What if the sum of all energy in the universe is zero?” In other words, what if all the negatives and positives ultimately cancel out? At that point, the only thing responsible for the universe is a quantum fluctuation at the beginning, and after that the fundamental interactions (one of which is gravity) creating the universe we see.

You are confusing a scientific explanation for something with a metaphysical explanation for something, which is where Stephen Hawking went wrong. What do Prime movers have to do with scientific explanations? Science is dealing with a different aspect of being, eg the particular physical connections between physical things. It is to do with physical origins, not metaphysical origins. The prime mover answers the question of why there is anything at all, it is dealing with the very notion of being as opposed to absolutely nothing. The idea that the universe is the inevitable result of a collapsed wave function has no relevance to the metaphysical qeustion of why there is something rather than nothing. It is not a proof that physical reality can cause itself into being. It just means that the observable universe can be reduced to a collapsed wave function, which doesn’t tell me anything about the metaphysical origin of being.

The qeustion is, is the thing that caused the universe a necessary being or just another contingent reality. That is not a qeustion that science in principle can answer, because it is a metaphysical qeustion.

 

[PaulJTedder]

Very Inspirational video. I like it

 

[IWantGod]

They don’t really though, do they, because in Hawking’s view there was no before, no externality of any kind. T

There is no physical externality outside of the existence of physical things, but that is not proof that there is nothing other than physical things. Something that isn’t physical is not bound by concepts like before and after or outside. And when somebody asks if there is anything other than physical acts of reality, one should immediately realize that this is not a qeustion for science.

So either Hawking is a very poor philosopher making baseless assertions that have nothing to do with science or you are confusing what he meant.

There’s no Prime Mover entity in such a model,

Why would there be? A prime mover is a metaphysical concept. What relevance does it have to science?

there is literally nothing at all, j

Scientifically speaking there is literally “nothing physical” beyond physics, since physics is the proper context and not other possible kinds of reality. To say there is literally nothing but physics is a philosophical point of view and is not science.

 

[sonofbarry]

I completely agree.

 

[sonofbarry]

An excellent reply.
I wonder what the mathematical model of ‘god’ would be.

 

[IWantGod]

self-caused universe

What do you think that means? Because if you think it means that physical reality began to exist by itself out of absolutely nothing, and is the only reality, then i have to say that this is irrational thinking and is an insult to human intelligence.

 

[niceatheist]

It’s no more irrational than inserting an extra uncaused entity as the cause of the universe

 

[goout]

It’s no more irrational than inserting an extra uncaused entity as the cause of the universe

Do I detect the admission that reason alone is inadequate to answer all the “big” questions?

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

It’s no more irrational than inserting an extra uncaused entity as the cause of the universe

Do I detect the admission that reason alone is inadequate to answer all the “big” questions?

I don’t know what kinds of atheists you’ve dealt with, but I’m going to flat out state that I do not believe my atheism to be founded on science. I believe it is rational, and defensible, to the limit that talking about the origins of the universe can be sensibly talked about, but in no way do I believe a lack of belief in God can be supported scientifically. Science is basically “methodological naturalism”, not “philosophical naturalism”.

I know there are atheists for which the accusation of scientism can validly be laid, but I do not feel myself to be one of them. So yes, when we’re talking about an epoch which is beyond our ability to probe, and may forever be beyond our ability to probe, all the philosophy and reasoning won’t be enough. Where I suppose we may differ is I don’t propose to insert any extra entity in the mix and am willing to just simply say “I don’t know, but I don’t see how God is necessary.”

I could be wrong. I’m willing to accept that as a possibility. I have no idea how anyone would demonstrate I was wrong, any more than I can imagine any way in which I could imagine demonstrating they were wrong.

 

[niceatheist]

There is no physical externality outside of the existence of physical things, but that is not proof that there is nothing other than physical things. Something that isn’t physical is not bound by concepts like before and after or outside. And when somebody asks if there is anything other than physical acts of reality, one should immediately realize that this is not a qeustion for science.

So either Hawking is a very poor philosopher making baseless assertions that have nothing to do with science or you are confusing what he meant.

If it isn’t physical, it isn’t in science’s realm, and I think it’s reasonable at that point for someone who is an atheist to state that there’s no reason to believe the non-physical exists. Now that statement isn’t really a scientific statement, and I’m sure the now deceased Professor hawking would have conceded that point.

But let me pose a hypothetical question. Let’s imagine we did come up with some sort of mathematical model that did explain how it’s possible that a universe could form spontaneously. To some extent we do have some constructs, like imaginary time (which no, is not “imaginary” as in made up), as well as closed manifolds, which are manifolds that have no boundary, and yet are not infinite.

Now I’m not suggesting that this model can be demonstrated to actually represent the real universe, but rather that it is a model that proposes to explain how a hypothetical universe that was self-contained, finite, but boundariless and was, for lack of a better term, “self-caused”. The very fact that such a model could be produced would at least make a rational argument for the universe’s existence not to be bound by the rules of causality that apply WITHIN the universe. In other words, it makes atheism, if not demonstrable, then at least defensible, no?

 

[IWantGod]

It’s no more irrational than inserting an extra uncaused entity as the cause of the universe

What an absurd thing to say. As a philosophical argument for metaphysical naturalism your position is absurd. As a scientific argument your position is unprovable and does not even count as a legitimate hypothesis. In other-words you cannot use science to support your claim because it does not in principle.

I am interested in what caused the very act of physical reality because it does not possess the characteristics of something that is necessarily actual. This is a metaphysical qeustion.

An unnecessary potentially real thing cannot give existence to itself for the simple fact that it lacks existence. An uncaused necessary act of reality is required in-order to explain why unnecessary things exist. To have something come from absolutely nothing by itself uncaused is an incontrovertible contradiction. In other words, in principle, you have to begin with existence in order to rationally explain any particular thing that has existence unnecessarily.

An uncaused necessary act of reality explains why there is something rather than nothing at all. From then on its about trying to understand what an uncaused necessary act of reality is which can in part be achieved by understanding what it is not.

 

[IWantGod]

If it isn’t physical, it isn’t in science’s realm, and I think it’s reasonable at that point for someone who is an atheist to state that there’s no reason to believe the non-physical exists.

Not on the basis of science it isn’t. Metaphysical naturalism is a philosophical point of view. No scientific theory will ever prove your position, and if metaphysical naturalism is a rationally defensible position in the first place you don’t need the authority of science to prove it.

All you have done is taken a possible scientific hypothesis and distorted it in to a metaphysical argument while at the same time claiming that your conclusion is consistent with the epistemological principles of science, and on that basis alone the argument has failed.

 

[IWantGod]

But let me pose a hypothetical question. Let’s imagine we did come up with some sort of mathematical model that did explain how it’s possible that a universe could form spontaneously. To some extent we do have some constructs, like imaginary time (which no, is not “imaginary” as in made up), as well as closed manifolds, which are manifolds that have no boundary, and yet are not infinite.

But even if these ideas were true, this in principle does not constitute evidence of a necessary act of reality. If physical reality is not necessary, then that is a problem for those who support metaphysical naturalism.

 

[IWantGod]

Now I’m not suggesting that this model can be demonstrated to actually represent the real universe, but rather that it is a model that proposes to explain how a hypothetical universe that was self-contained, finite, but boundariless and was, for lack of a better term, “self-caused”. The very fact that such a model could be produced would at least make a rational argument for the universe’s existence not to be bound by the rules of causality that apply WITHIN the universe. In other words, it makes atheism, if not demonstrable, then at least defensible, no?

But nothing about these ideas are evidence for metaphysical naturalism, so i don’t see how they can possibly make atheism defensible. As far as the laws of physics are concerned proving that the universe does not require a mechanistic physical cause is not the same thing as proving that physical reality doesn’t require an existential cause. Any argument in favor of metaphysical naturalism is still bound by the rules of logic.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Now if someone would just tell me why it is so hard for Christians to believe in science.

 

[IWantGod]

People have been led to believe that metaphysical naturalism is the inevitable conclusion of science.

 

[FollowChrist34]

True, but for me that is to misunderstand the role and function of science, though I will concede that not just ‘laymen’ but many if not most scientists are also very committed materialists. It leads to a very reductionist warped view of existence, but again I have never blamed science for this. For me metaphysics are ‘meta’ physics. Above/beyond, etc. I do get very puzzled as to why this is such a stumbling block for so many people, from the dim to the very intelligent - the belief that what we can see, know, understand, quantify, etc. is everything in existence, hence no God, no meaning, etc. Give me the Middle Ages over that any day. We live in such intellectual poverty, emptiness.

 

[IWantGod]

We live in such intellectual poverty, emptiness.

But what is the cause of this? Is it willful ignorance? I tend to think that a lot of people, even those who are very intelligent, simply don’t reason very well when it comes to questions of a metaphysical nature and are liable to confuse philosophy with science or think that science historically replaces philosophy.

However, given our fallen nature, it should not be surprising that even an absolute undeniable proof of God would be met with resistance in much the same way that Christians resist science when they think it does not favor their resolve.