I have redefined them! Those limits, that is. This is the view of Father Robert Barron, in response to — well, something I said, but it’s hard to pinpoint exactly what. But I know it was me and not some other Sean Carroll, because there’s a video in which my picture appears a couple of times.
I think his remarks were spurred by Natalie Wolchover’s article about my piece on why the universe doesn’t need God. (Here is a related article, not quite a transcript of the above video but close, in which he mentions Natalie’s piece but not mine.) He may have read the original piece, although it’s unclear because he doesn’t link to anything specific, nor does he reference particular arguments from the essay itself. He also refers to a book I’ve written, but none of my books actually fit the bill. And he talks a lot about my arrogance and hubris. (I’ve finally figured out the definition of “arrogance,” from repeated exposure: “you are arrogant because you think that your methods are appropriate, when it fact it’s my methods that are appropriate.”)
In any event, the substance of Fr. Barron’s counter-argument is some version of the argument from contingency. You assert that certain kinds of things require causes, and that the universe is among those things, and that the kind of cause the universe requires is special (not itself requiring a cause), and that special cause is God. It fails at the first step, because causes and effects aren’t really fundamental. It’s the laws of nature that are fundamental, according to the best understanding we currently have, and those laws don’t take the form of causes leading to effects; they take the form of differential equations, or more generally to patterns relating parts of the universe. So the question really is, “Can we imagine laws/patterns which describe a universe without God?” And the answer is “sure,” and we get on with our lives.
As good scientists, of course, we are open to the possibility that a better understanding in the future might lead to a different notion of what is really fundamental. (It is indeed a peculiar form of arrogance we exhibit.) What we’re not open to is the possibility that you can sit in your study and arrive at deep truths about the nature of reality just by thinking hard about it. We have to write down all the possible ways we can think the world might be, and distinguish between them by actually going outside and looking at it. This is admittedly hard work, and it also frequently leads us to places we weren’t expecting to go and perhaps even don’t much care for. But we’re a flexible species, and generally we adapt to the new realities.
Which reminds me that I still owe you a couple of reports from the naturalism workshop. Coming soon!
Hey Paul, thanks for the response.
(a) I understand that he thinks our best understanding is “a model in which causes and effects don’t feature”, but he said its differential equations that are fundamental. Differential equations are abstract objects, so prima facie he’s saying that abstract objects are fundamental: that’s Platonism (though he may not have realized the consequences of his language; maybe he meant something else).
(b) I think Carroll should spell this out, because it will allow us to move to the next stage of the discussion. If he doesn’t accept the fundamentality of cause/effect, then he’s going to be straddled with some kind of other view that I’m going to have complaints about. But I need to know what view that is.
(c) I’m not sure of the relevance of this question. If he admits they are contingent, then the argument from contingency might not go away. If he rejects that they are contingent, then I think he’s going to run into other problems.
(d) Can you elaborate? I don’t think you’ve “gone out” and tested how good philosophy is at getting truth. At best, you’ve sat in your armchair and thought about the history of philosophy and science, and drawn some conclusions after thinking hard about it. But, other people have thought hard about it too and disagree with you (in fact, I’d say most philosophers reflecting on the history have thought about it a lot harder than you have, and have a sea of rebuttals in their back pocket that could lead you to change your mind). Noone doubts that empirical testing is a good way to learn, but the question is whether “sitting in our studies and thinking hard” isn’t also way to learn deep truths.
(e) You say “the uniformity of nature is not a foundational belief of science, it’s a provisional result of it”, but this is response is naive. The problem was precisely developed to avoid that response.
No scientific evidence discriminates between the two hypotheses I listed in my OP; both predict the observations that we’ve seen so far. For what it’s worth, the Problem of Induction is an old problem, and nobody in academia to my awareness tries to answer it the way you just tried to. I’m also having a hard time discerning the relevance of the quote by Konrad Talmont-kaminski. Can you help me understand? [Note: No, even if theists face no PoI, that’s not the point I’m making here; the point just is that the future will resemble the past with respect to law-governed action, but we can’t know this from scientific investigation. No philosophical scepticisms or egocentric predicaments can be solved by scientific investigation: that’s like the whole point of the scepticisms.]
RESURRECTION/MIRACLES:
You’ve misunderstood. And no, unlike the much broader “rational investigation”, empirical investigation is a very special type of investigation meant for very specific purposes: Empirical investigations are generally repeatable investigations primarily meant to discern *regularities* of the natural world. Insofar as miracles, trivially, aren’t claims claims about regularities, the proper investigation for miracle claims is rational/historical investigation (which at most make take into account pre-established deliverances of empirical investigation), not empirical investigations in and of themselves. Investigating whether Alexander the Great conquered Tyre isn’t discerned by scientists camping out at Tyre and seeing if people named Alexander the Great regularly take over the city.
Regarding any case for Jesus’ resurrection, that’s too far off topic; I’m not arguing for or defending Jesus’ resurrection here. I’m just explaining that a particular kind of objection raised by Paul Benoit is confused. I’m not an atheist, but I’d make that point to Paul even if I were one.
I have yet to see an argument that will convince those who refuse to believe in God, and the reason is, I would propose, is that God wants His followers to have faith, a faith that moves mountains, a faith most of all in the Love who is God. Reason is a tremendous ability of the human mind, but it doesn’t have the power to conceive of God’s existence, it’s powerless when it comes to those who for whatever reason cannot or will not believe, even the Love that is God cannot make or force belief, for than it would not be Love at all. Ultimately it all comes down to faith, a simple belief and trust in God, and choice, either you choose to believe or you don’t, those who wish to believe will be given that grace, those who don’t won’t, though the doubting Thomas may yet see the nail wounds and believe, we can only hope, though it wasn’t that Thomas didn’t believe in God, but that he couldn’t conceive the possibility of Christs resurrection. Some may point to all the suffering in the world and wonder why an all Loving God would allow it, but each of us, if we Love, has that All Powerful God within us, that power to help end suffering, to help, to protect and to serve our neighbor as ourselves, but there is so little of that Love in this world, so very little, we are the driest of deserts.
Hi BlakeG. First thanks for your response to my response .and yes I am a science buff, and if I did throw out the entire academic field of “Philosophy of Religion,” then I apologise to all the practitioners, but to be honest, I was never a philosophy buff. I think Hegel, Kant, Aquinas, et al are basically self righteous windbags who are trying to convince people they know the truth. As an intellectual pursuit or an academic pursuit, I guess it’s ok, but in reality, my thoughts and opinions are e
Tony @27,
Hogwash.
It is amusing that when scientists point out that there is no evidence or scientific need for god, they are called arrogant by those who claim to *know* there is a god, and even claim to know what god thinks and wants.
@11 GM: You hit the nail on the head with a wham !!
I think people like Sean Carroll waste a lot of time in philosophical arguments over a deistic God, which are really quite tricky.
All they need to point out is that even if it were proven beyond doubt that there is a deistic Creator who “breathed fire into the laws of physics”, there is absolutely no reason to believe that such an entity has any relation to the deities of any of the religions of the world.
And the evidence against a personal god who actually cares about humans and intervenes in the world is so strong that usually the religious folks entering these debates don’t even bring it up.
Sorry Blake, I’m having great technical difficulty completing my thoughts here. I’m going to leave it all by saying that if you have faith you need no proof or validation. Similarly, if you do not have faith, you need no validation of that either. We all believe what we believe. If we think we understand the truth, then amen, If we are seeking more or different answers, then we know where we can turn.
I don’t find any validity in Philosophy, just major sets of ideas all of which can never be proved and are what they are, ideas without proof, or opinions, just like mine. Just because there is a refereed journal does not increase the validity of philosophical arguments for or against anything. So we can agree to disagree. I should not have jumped into this discourse, and am sorry to have risen to the bait.
I do however, wish you all well!!! and hope that the truth you seek can be found and that it will help make you happy and content.
And Neil really hit the nail on the head: “It is amusing that when scientists point out that there is no evidence or scientific need for god, they are called arrogant by those who claim to *know* there is a god, and even claim to know what god thinks and wants.”
How do I know that experimenting and finding out things is better than navel-gazing and thinking deep thoughts? Well, I look around and see roads, bridges, cars, refrigerators, printed books, computers, medical equipment, et cetera, et cetera, and so forth, and I ask myself what among all this came from sitting and thinking deep thoughts and what came about by people like Edison trying 999 things for light-bulb filaments before finding the 1000th that worked, and the percentages I come up with are about 0.01% to 99.99% in favor of the latter. So it seems very obvious to me, but maybe some people don’t use any of that stuff and would rather sit in a cave, thinking deep thoughts. To each his or her own.
I also think there’s a subtle difference between believing in the existence and utility of mathematical processes – all thinking is math and all math is thinking, to me – and being a Platonist, but I’m not an expert in Platonism. It just seems to me that numbers and equations are real things that exist in this universe, not reflections from some other reality, or whatever the heck Plato thought they were. In this universe, if you have five goats and sell two of them you have three left, so numbers can be discovered empirically, as in fact they were, and as a lot of math has been (the Nakamura-Tamagawa Conjecture leading to the proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem, for example*).
* source: “Fermat’s Enigma”, by Simon Singh; his “Big Bang” is also excellent, detailing the hundreds of years of observations which led to the Big Bang Theory (not much contribution from philosophy, that I recall).
Like it says in the Bible where Satan deceives Eve, know and you shall be like gods who know what is good and evil, the scientific community is trying to make itself into a god. The intellect deceiving itself into thinking that it is the god that determines what is good or evil, and especially in modern science, that it is the pinnacle of creation and a god unto itself. Science does not know where mankind came from or where it is going, yet science wants all to bow down and worship it as mans salvation.
Sean
after reading most of these comments , I must say I laughed a lot like you did, most likely. People talking about God and resurrection and evils, satan , all those nonsense, its not even science. I am not commenting anymore here as I find very irritating. But all I need to say to you Sean, is that you are a great physicist, an excellent writer, and a professional presenter. Never mind what people say on line as the religious fanatics will never come to understand how science works, and most of them need to grasp onto something for comforts. Sean, you and I know that science will eventually be able to uncover most of the mysteries, and of course, there will always be more for us to uncover. It is like taking care of a home, a never ending work, but we get it done and keep it going.
Waiting for Nov 13 , Sean.
Tony @34
Hogwash.
BlakeG: You say Sean said that differential equations are fundamental, but if you think so, then you did not read very carefully. He said laws are fundamental, and that laws *take the form of* differential equations. I think it is pure pedantry to insist that this means the laws *are* differential equations. The equations are descriptive of fundamental patterns in nature. I don’t think Sean meant anything more than that, and there is nothing that requires us to read his statement otherwise, so this is a straw man. Last time I checked, Sean was a materialist, not a Platonist.
“The equations are descriptive of fundamental patterns in nature. I don’t think Sean meant anything more than that, and there is nothing that requires us to read his statement otherwise, so this is a straw man. Last time I checked, Sean was a materialist, not a Platonist.”
Anything more than that? This is a rather huge leap in itself for a ‘pure’ materialist to make considering the lack of *any* physicalist perspective whose epistemology doesn’t invoke some sort of 1:1 correspondence with an abstract object (a tacit reliance on set theory, for example).
Saying that differential equations are ‘merely’ descriptive does not make scientific methodologies any more free from skepticism, as BlakeM said. I’m not sure if he’s religious or not (I’m not at all), but I agree with every word he’s said.
Ok, I’ll quibble:
I get the sense that some of us think that the *laws* of nature are prescriptive. Consult any introductory physics or chemistry textbook and you’ll find that any natural “law” is merely a summary statement of a series of similar observations of natural phenomena.
A natural law isn’t wholly different from the differential equation describing the theory that seeks to account for such observations. In particular, it’s not the case that natural law is fundamental / inheres in nature while theory is derivative / a human construction. (No one’s really claimed as much explicitly, but it seems like it’s a background assumption in some of this. But maybe I’m reading too much into the pixels.)
One could certainly argue for another, more ambitious (more platonic?) conception of natural law, but to me these always end up sounding like unscientific enthusiasms.
“I don’t find any validity in Philosophy, just major sets of ideas all of which can never be proved and are what they are, ideas without proof, or opinions, just like mine. Just because there is a refereed journal does not increase the validity of philosophical arguments for or against anything. So we can agree to disagree. I should not have jumped into this discourse, and am sorry to have risen to the bait. ”
You likely won’t see this if you’ve left the debate, but it is this viewpoint that I find extremely pervasive among pro-science people (I am as well, but the value I place on it is one of utility– but like all of my values, I admit that there is no absolute justification for them. For what would this irreducibly fundamental assumption about the world even look like? I don’t know nor do I think anyone does.) The “ideas without proof” comment directed at philosophy is one that I don’t quite get. The proof that science amasses can only be called such because it fits within a framework supported by assumptions about our world that really are, at root, based on intuition.
Science is great–evidenced by me typing gingerly on a laptop– and works incredibly well for predicting outcomes of events. I do think, however, that it is really important to peer in at what ‘first assumptions’ science makes (the rational intuition argument made by Blake is a great point).
One thing I did like about the article was this statement: “As good scientists, of course, we are open to the possibility that a better understanding in the future might lead to a different notion of what is really fundamental.” Though I get the feeling he is completely closed off to the idea that this better understanding might not come from empiricism.
Thank you Mr Carroll for once again demonstrating the exact kind of arrogance that Father Barron was talking about. To quote the pinnacle of your pomposity — “What we’re not open to is the possibility that you can sit in your study and arrive at deep truths about the nature of reality just by thinking hard about it. ”
Just what the hell do you think Da Vinci, Newton, and Einstein did?
Da Vinci was a master of engineering and architecture. He built countless machines to test his ideas.
Newton was an alchemist, which was the precursor to chemistry. Chemistry is often used as a way to describe Newtonian Mechanics to high school students.
Einstein proved his theory by solving a problem with Mercury’s orbit that was a complete mystery until he solved it.
We can’t just sit around and think really hard about it, we must show how it applies to nature. Religion stops at thinking really hard about it. Science goes past that point by showing us that it does apply to nature. Religion has yet to prove it applies to nature. Therefore, science is superior to religion until religion can prove something. But it’s the same old BS argument from religion: “hey; noticed you have a dent in your car. I happen to be a mechanic. If you give me your keys I can pop out that dent and have it fixed for $20 while you’re inside the grocery store”….
(in case you didn’t understand that last sentence; you just had your car stolen because you’re an idiot)
@ Brett
Very nicely said. Science is not only superior to religion, it is actually much less arrogance than religion. Thanks for what you wrote.
Neil,
I notice you didn’t say “many scientists THINK there is no evidence for God”. You rather said “I notice scientists POINT OUT that there is no evidence” (this statement doesn’t leave open the epistemic possibility that there is evidence for God [how much Phil of Religion have you read?]). You’re unwittingly begging the question against all the people (including the priest in that video, as well as other scientists) who believe there is evidence for theism.
What’s dangerous is, you apparently didn’t even realize you were begging the question. Why doesn’t that put you in the same group as the Biblical inerrantist who appeals to the Bible to convince a non-beleiver that God exists? Both of you are begging the question without realizing it; neither of you even seem to be aware of the possibility that you could be wrong. Religious dogmatism isn’t the only kind of dogmatism.
Secondly, when did the priest say he “knows” (i.e. is philosophically certain) that God exists? I didn’t see that. He may just think the evidence on balance favors theism. That’s my view, and that of a lot of my colleagues.
Paul,
Be careful, you can’t escape philosophy. E.g., when you say philosophy is “just major statements of ideas all of which can never be proved”, then you should be aware that you’re making a deeply philosophical statement (which would be very interesting if true). It’s self-stiltifying. I happen to disagree with you, but the major difference between you and me is, and I think you’ll admit this, is that your opinion wasn’t formed after having spent a lot of time thinking about the issues, and working hard at learning and evaluating the competing perspectives, and getting familiar the ins and outs of the intricate debate between them. Make no mistake: If you did read philosophy, it’s very likely that your worldview would sharpen and you wouldn’t be the same coming out as you were coming in.
As a Catholic who rather enjoys this blog, I thought Fr. Barron’s decision to call Mr. Carroll “arrogant” was unhelpful and, so far as I can tell, unwarranted.
That said, I’d like to offer some elucidation of his remarks. I think the argument from contingency is only part of the substance of Fr. Barron’s argument; when he talks about potentiality and actuality, he seems to be referencing the sophisticated (as opposed to popular) version of Aquinas’ First Way, the Argument from Motion (i.e., from change, not just from local motion). That argument is summarized here:
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=6002
When Fr. Barron alludes to science being able to understand the chemical composition of ink and paper but not the meaning of a book, I take him to be alluding to the difficulties that intentionality presents for a reductionist materialist account of the mind. Similarly, I take his references to morality and painting to be perhaps references to the difficulty of giving a non-teleological account of these things, since to follow the early moderns in abandoning any idea of final causality is to be led into Hume’s fact-value problem.
In all of this, the response of folks on Mr. Carroll’s side of the debate seems to be Adolf Grunbaum’s sense that to think that the universe has a cause is to commit a fallacy of composition: just because each brick weighs a pounds, the wall as a whole does not; just because events may be caused does not need the cosmic concert of them must be caused rather than a brute fact. This is a reasonable (if not conclusive: if the bricks are red the whole wall is red; not all compositions are fallacious) reply to the cosmological argument, but doesn’t engage the Argument from Motion or concerns that reductionism cannot adequate account for intentionality.
All that said, I think that Fr. Barron’s calling Mr. Carroll “arrogant” was unhelpful. There’s a lot of wonderful science on this blog, and I never find Mr. Carroll anything other than engaging and a delight to read. Sorry about the name-calling from my side of the debate.
Irenist, thanks. All sides engage in name-calling now and again.
If there is a push for Naturalism then as S.C. wrote “Once you accept that we live in a self-contained universe governed by impersonal laws of nature, the hard work has just begun, as we are faced with a daunting list of challenges.”
Including : “Morality. What is the origin of right and wrong? Are there objective standards?”
And if the conclusion is there are no objective standards, it’s quite logical to see naturalism has a strong flow to an atheistic utilitarianism; here’s the high visibility proponent and his lines of reasoning, Peter Singer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
taking things to their rational conclusion. The irony of his thinking and what happened to his ancestors is, for me as a simple man, stunning.
This, Dr. Carroll, is what people get upset about. Consequences. History.
And the record of the last century shows that ideas about mankind moving forward (national socialism, Leninism) can have horrific consequences, no religion necessary. Highly recommended in this regard, the recent book “Bloodlands” by Timothy Snyder. 14 million non-combatants in 12 years losing their lives. Or as the author reminds us at the end, “think of it as 14 million times one.”
Let’s get to the source of it:
What is religion? Your choice?
They take you (a toddler) to baptism. Your choice?
Then they (yor parents) fill your developing brain with (their) projections – illusions of hell, where you shall burn for eternity (if you masturbate, e.g.). Your choice?
Then you go to school where the same ritual goes on and on!! What??
And after this process is finished and your brain is washed down to the skull, yes, than you can say “I believe in God”. Of course you do!
“Indoctrination” is a feeble word.
In my view, it is nothing short of crime. A Criminal Act. Against human nature. Aganst a free mind, which we are all born with, until it is spoiled. By Indoctrination. By Religion.
I Am Mad as Hell!!
Once again, two sides talking past each other.
The theists feel their truth and have faith. They are immune to logic (though they often try to use logic to bolster faith).
The scientists deduce their truth and have logic. They are immune (professionally) to feelings.
While I fall into the scientific camp, I have a cautionary tale to share. I was watching Bill Moyer’s Journal (& Company?) recently, and saw an illuminating interview with, well I forget the gentleman’s name. Anyhow he was talking about the limits of reason and made a penetrating statement.
The gist of his argument is that we reason as lawyers do, or as debaters do. Most people adopt a position because it feels right, then they seek out evidence that supports their position. Contradicting evidence is discounted or devalued.
Is this against the scientific method? Of course it is. However we are all susceptible I suspect. Will peer review catch and correct? Yes, eventually, but it can take a long time.
Why do I believe in science? I’m not sure I know. Look, I can blow smoke up your kilt about rationality, logic, reason, the primacy of intellect and all that. However I was attracted to science at a very young age, long before I knew any of that stuff. And equally, I was suspicious and rejecting of the religious experience.
Yes, my parents and upbringing had something to do with it. However my parents were not anti-religious, just pleasantly skeptical and detached. They often speak with respect about religion, while speaking openly about the flaws. What I know is that I knew my own mind at a very early age. My parents respected me enough to pay attention to my inclinations, although they insisted that I at least try out Sunday school.
I believe I have good parents.