January 05, 2004
TRY THE PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT:
Scientists and Their Gods: The Question of Coherence (BreakPoint with Charles Colson, January 5, 2004)
On the first day of class at the University of California at Berkeley, Dr. Henry F. Schaefer, was lecturing 680 freshman chemistry students. When he cued his assistant to demonstrate a crucial concept, the assistant wasn’t ready. Desperate to avoid “dead air,” Schaefer ad-libbed a joke—in which he mentioned having been in church the previous Sunday. By then his assistant was ready, and Schaefer resumed his lecture.But after class, about fifty students lined up to talk to him. What was a science professor doing in church? One student remarked that a favorite high school chemistry teacher had taught with great certainty that it was impossible to be a practicing chemist and a Christian. What did Schaefer think? He gave a short reply, but didn’t have time to answer fully.
The students in line overheard that conversation, and one asked if he would lecture on why a chemistry professor would believe in God. And so God used that brief exchange in 1984 to prod Schaefer into preparing “Scientists and Their Gods,” a lecture he has delivered on campuses worldwide and now appears as part of his outstanding new book, Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence?
Henry Schaefer is an ideal person to answer skeptics. First, he once was one. Furthermore, he has been nominated several times for a Nobel Prize, so no one can say he’s not a top scientist. Plus, he communicates on a popular level, making a profound case clearly, simply, and spiced with humor.
In the lecture “Scientists and Their Gods” Schaefer quotes a striking statement from physicist Robert Griffiths: “If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn’t much use.”
In his book, Our Final Hour, physicist Martin Rees cites a marvelous quote by mathematician and philosopher Frank Ramsey that explains why the Copernican view of the Universe is quite wrong:
I don't feel the least bit humble before the vastness of the heavens. The stars may be large, but they cannot think or love; and these are qualities which impress me far more than size does.... My picture of the world is drawn in perspective, and not like a model drawn to scale. The foreground is occupied by human beings, and the stars are all as small as threepenny bits.Posted by Orrin Judd at January 5, 2004 03:55 PM
The Copernican view had nothing to recommend it except evidence, and Copernicus never said anything denigrating god or religion.
The problem was that religion had had a great deal already to say about god's works, all of it crazy nonsense.
The universe does not care what we think of it.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at January 5, 2004 08:25 PMThen wny did it Create us?
Posted by: oj at January 5, 2004 08:41 PMWho knows?
It could well be we are just some accidental byproduct of some far greater creation elsewhere. Or not.
Just because one desires something to be true does not make it true.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at January 5, 2004 08:48 PMMr. Harry Eagar:
Your comment, "The universe does not care what we think of it," sounds rather definitive. I think you would agree with me that your knowledge of the universe is as much limited to an infinitesimal part of it as mine is. By what line of reasoning did you arrive at such an all-encompassing conclusion, starting with so limited a knowledge base?
Jeff: "Just because one desires something to be true does not make it true."
OJ: "Why not?"
OJ, when was the last time you won the lottery?
Posted by: Robert D at January 5, 2004 10:47 PMHenry 9, if you care what someone thinks of you, you tend to alter your behaviour in order to curry that someone's favor. What evidence have you that the universe does this, for yourself or for any person?
Posted by: Robert D at January 5, 2004 10:52 PMMr. Robert D:
I don't see that your question has any relevance to my question to Mr. Eagar. Maybe I'm wondering about what I think, and want to know how he can be so certain. Maybe I agree with him and am looking to reinforce my thinking. Maybe I disagree with him, and wonder how he could write what he did.
Actually, I was reminded of Mark Twain's remark: "...There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesome returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."
Perhaps Mr. Eagar can support his assertion - I don't know. Let us wait to see.
Robert's answer on my behalf was a very good one, but my thinking was along a different line.
The universe has been here a long time, and we have been here a very short time. It is a stretch to imagine that distant galaxies have been working overtime to produce us, though something less of a stretch to imagine that this particular Galaxy has been.
Therefore, I conclude that the universe has been going about its business, whatever that is, without us and either all of it or almost all of it continues to run without any reference to us.
It's true, I don't know exactly what happens out there, but I am certain of one bit of knowledge, Henry -- we aren't running it.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at January 6, 2004 02:56 PMIt's hardly surprising that it takes so much time and effort to produce us.
Posted by: oj at January 6, 2004 03:23 PMLet us not blame Copernicus who was a bishop, and as far as I know, a perfectly orthodox one. Newton and his contemporaries found their scientific discoveries confirmed their faith. It was the French revolution that saw the association of atheism and science. But there is no necessity in the association.
Ps 19:1
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows his handywork.
Ps 8:4-7
When I behold your heavens, the work of Your fingers,
the moon and the stars that You set in place,
what is man that You have been mindful of him,
Mortal man that You have taken note of him,
that You have made him little less than the angels
and adorned him with glory and majesty.
You have made him master over Your handiwork;
laiying the world at his feet;
Not a bishop. He was straight, as far as we know.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at January 6, 2004 04:49 PM"It's hardly surprising that it takes so much time and effort to produce us."
And we're still screwed up!
Posted by: Robert D at January 6, 2004 09:18 PMGloriously screwed up.
Posted by: oj at January 6, 2004 10:39 PM