Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Some Questions about Kenneth Miller's Arguments


I’ve been reading Kenneth Miller’s books and definitely respect many of his scientific insights, but have questions about some of the conclusions he makes regarding faith. He states that we will never be able to predetermine the movement and positions of certain particles, like photons, according to Quantum Physics. Likewise, he states that we will never be able to predetermine the outcome of an evolutionary process, like the outcome of a given mutation. There seems to be enough unpredictability in each of these given fields of science that we may be able to understand gods nature based on their erratic behaviors. But, isn’t it important that we “never say never” as a honest part of the scientific process? And, are we not just moving the goal post further back and allowing god a place in areas of science that are just now emerging? It seems like this is the dubious outcome of such assertions to me. This has some appeal to Miller because it ascribes to the notion that the unpredictability of life may point to a god who provides us with free will and not predeterminism. Furthermore, we don’t have to support the absolute materialism espoused by the likes of a Dennett or Dawkins. We can leave areas like culture, religion and language as undetermined and not based on the same meaningless mechanisms which drive biological evolution. Stephen Jay Gould might conclude that they are by-products of having a larger brain but not the direct result of natural selection--the whole spandrel effect. Otherwise, every sort of human behavior could be explained by the means of strict biochemical evolutionary processes and Miller detests that notion.

Miller also discounts creationism, in part, because it makes god out to be a magician that magically “poofs” things into existence—as if to say— the virgin birth, the feeding of five thousand, and walking on water are not examples of magic tricks. As a Christian, he accepts those events as fact but discounts the Adam and Eve story based on science. Where is the scientific merit for the aforementioned events? Evidently, we have to be able to tell the difference between what is to be taken literally and what is metaphorical. I’m still waiting for god’s copy of CliffsNotes for the Bible because I’m finding it very difficult to ascertain what is literal and what isn’t literal.

He also points to the anthropic principle and the big bang as possible indications that a deity is working mightily behind the scenes. He states that the Multiverse theory and the Big-Bang/Big-Crunch cycle theory are no more plausible than the theory of god being the great initiator. He quotes scientific juggernauts like Stephen Hawking as fellow proponents of the religious relevance of the Big-Bang. ‘“The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications,’” says Hawking.

I’m no scientist by any stretch, but aren’t good theories those consistent with what is most parsimonious? Is a theory based on a natural explanation not always better than one based on the supernatural one? It would seem that the highly speculative Multiverse theory and Big-Bang/Big Crunch cycle theory are both more plausible than a supernatural explanation. It seems like another god of the gaps fallacy to me. Furthermore, doesn’t this throw the problem just one step further back in an infinite regress? After all, everything seems to have a cause, so who made god in the first place?

5 comments:

  1. I’m no scientist by any stretch, but aren’t good theories those consistent with what is most parsimonious? Is a theory based on a natural explanation not always better than one based on the supernatural one? It would seem that the highly speculative Multiverse theory and Big-Bang/Big Crunch cycle theory are both more plausible than a supernatural explanation.

    Creationists rely on an "appearance of design", (like a guy standing over a dead body holding a smoking gun. Maybe he didn't do it, but he sure isn't your number two suspect), to support their assertion, so no, unless physicists can produce a complete theory that requires a multiverse or a cyclic universe, then these speculative natural explanations are not any more plausible than exactly what it looks like.

    Paraphrase:
    'I have to say, as things stand now, without the multiverse we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics... the appearance of design is undeniable'

    FYI, I am an atheist too.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Whoops, my paraphrase got chopped. It was supposed to be credited to strong atheist physicist and the father of string theory, Leonard Susskind.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you so much for your input Island.

    Supernatural explanations are basically impossible as defined by science but something like a Flat Universe theory is not deemed impossible but quite probable. I would think that this would be a satisfying answer to the creationists assertions.

    It's this negative gravity/positive matter Flat Universe theory derived from quantum physics. This is where the negative energy from gravity balances out the positive energy from matter. According to Lawrence Krauss, the laws of physics, "allow a universe to start from nothing". Therefore, you don't need a deity because quantum fluctuations can produce a universe.

    His talk is found here and it's quite interesting:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dude, given how you talked, I dunno, six months ago, I think it's amazing what a good thinker you've become. Your blogs are fascinating.

    And, I think you're right. Kenneth Miller essentially retreats to a God of the Gaps, or an argument from ignorance. Those big questions science can't explain are the domain of the supernatural. The problem is that all things being equal, a natural explanation – even a speculative one – is always more parsimonious than a supernatural explanation.

    We do know some things Miller might not be ready to face. We know that the process of evolution does not have any gaps that need to be filled with supernatural agents (like IDers want to believe). We know that the universe can be finite in extent, yet not have a beginning or end (see "A Brief History of Time" by Hawking, which is a lot of what Krauss expands upon in his talk).

    Miller also fails to apply the necessary critical analysis to his Christian beliefs (like Bart Ehrman's critiques), and doesn't seem to eager to discuss the logical contradictions of an all-powerful God – like the fact that even if we have "free will", an omniscient God knew all our decisions and our eternal fate before he created us.

    I think Miller is just an accomodationalist. He takes reason as far as it goes, and acquiesces to science when it's thrust upon him, but fails to apply the same critical thought process to other domains of inquiry, and positions God beyond the knowable or testable – and thus beyond the relevant.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What can I say? You've inspired me to actually enjoy studying and researching because you represent logic and an earnest desire to seek truth, whereever it might lie. Plus, you've totally flipped my perspective on life upside down so its made things quite interesting.

    ReplyDelete