-------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 3rd Annual Konkan Fruit Fest, Goa - May 6-8, 2005 | | | | Today's Events include Fruit Carving - Decor - Watermelon eating | | Fancy Dress. Check out http://konkanfruit.swiki.net | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mario Goveia wrote: > >As long as the "mathematical description" remains >unsupported by objective physical evidence, it >remains a hypothesis. This seems to be the dilemma >that Prof. Antony Flew, a lifelong defender of >atheism, faced, when he grudgingly conceded that it >was "equally reasonable" for others to believe an >alternative hypothesis of a higher being. >
In case it is not clear, let me state that the intent of my last post on this thread was simply to demonstrate the falsity of the charge that the current formulation of the Big Bang hypothesis is similar to religious faith � a charge that was explicitly made earlier. As for Flew using the Big Bang hypothesis as a reasonable justification for a higher being, I have the following things to say: 1. This argument is not new. It has been known in philosophy as the �God of the Gaps� argument. Whenever a gap has become apparent in the scientific understanding of anything, believers have pointed it out as the reason why we need a god. The history of science is replete with instances of how steady and progressive bridging, filling or narrowing of these gaps has forced believers to shrink the role of their deity � claim increasingly smaller territory in his name, so to speak. Indeed, there is a classic anecdote about Napoleon asking Laplace why God does not figure in his theory of celestial mechanics. In response, Laplace is believed to have said, �Sire, I have no need for that hypothesis�. 2. The proposal that one needs a god to explain something, can be justified on any number of purely philosophical grounds. However, it can never be justified on scientific grounds. That is to say, positing that one needs a deity to explain something can never be regarded as a scientific hypothesis (unless, one cheats and modifies the definition of god to include pantheistic concepts, such as a divine universe, or something which is impersonal, non-anthropomorphic, and does not possess sentience and intentionality e. g. a unified field/force or law of nature, such as quantum gravity), because such a hypothesis is not testable. 3. The Big Bang cosmology, as it is conceived today, has within it an ingenuous scientific explanation for how something emerged from nothing, spontaneously. To someone who has read about modern physics and cosmology, and understood a little bit of it, it seems highly plausible and eminently testable. It falls out of the equations of quantum mechanics. A universe emerging spontaneously from a quantum fluctuation is a much simpler and more economical explanation than one requiring any kind of creator with a mind, modeled on the human psyche, requiring consciousness, intelligence, perception, memory, thought process and intentionality. The principle of parsimony or Occam�s razor excludes any kind of complicated explanation involving a creator god, whose existence would, in turn, require a new and separate explanation. 4. The quantum mechanical concept of something emerging from nothing, or the idea of zero-point energy or vacuum energy, has been experimentally tested, and shown to be true, by many physicists, including Steve Lamoreaux, now at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and his student Dev Sen. 5. Therefore, the idea of a creator god can only be justified on grounds of faith, or by any philosophy that is based purely on faith, or by modifying the concept of god to mean any kind of fundamental physical process. The latter god would have nothing in common with the Biblical, Christian, Islamic or Hindu God. So no apologist for any of the major religions of the world can honestly claim to have been vindicated by postulating such a god. In summary, science does not require the postulation of the supernatural concept of a traditional anthropomorphic god or superhuman, to explain any observed natural process in this universe. Postulation of such an entity for arbitrary reasons, for emotional reasons, for �God of the Gaps� reasons, or for reasons based on faith, can never be regarded as a scientific hypothesis. Such a hypothesis is not satisfying, parsimonious or useful from the scientific standpoint. It certainly cannot be tested or falsified by scientific observation or experiment. We have heard our share of platitudes about this issue in this forum from many people, including me, and we are likely to hear more from the usual suspects, packaged in recycled quotations, forwarded chain letters, prayers, blessings, real and fictitious anecdotes, etc. However, the only platitude that appears to be true is: Science can never prove or disprove the existence of a God, as conceived by any of the major religions of the world. Cheers, Santosh ----------------------------------------------------------------------- * G * O * A * N * E * T *** C * L * A * S * S * I * F * I * E * D * S * ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Make your mother in Goa happy on Mothers' Day. http://www.goa-world.com/goa/expressions/mothersday/ Limited "Mother's Happiness" packages. First come, first serve. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
