The latest challenge to my faith is courtesy some groundbreaking new research in astrophysics which is cited here http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.3907.
In short, if the research is eventually confirmed, it will prove that alpha, otherwise known as the fine-structure constant, is not a fundamental constant throughout our universe.
I have tried to explain why this presents such a difficulty for religious believers to my friends and colleagues. However, no one can quite grasp why this presents such a terrible blow to creation. In short, if the fundamental constants are variable throughout space, and thereby certainly over time, it is proof positive that even the most basic physical laws which govern our universe were not the result of fine tuning by a creator, but rather the result of as of yet unknown natural processes.
UPDATE
Upon much reflection upon these and other scientific findings (such as the theological implications of evolution), I have reached the following conclusions:
1) No matter how complete our understanding of the laws of the universe becomes, we simply shift the philosophical discussion up a meta-level. For example, suppose it is definitely proven that our universe is simply one in an innumerable vacuum of parallel universes and the fact that the laws of physics exist in such a way in our region of our universe that is conducive to the development of life is due to mere mathematical probability. Even if this was proven, it would still beg the question of why the multiverse exists and why the meta-laws that lead to the development of all physical laws exist in the first place and can produce a universe that is undeniably ordered. Philosophy (and derivatively, religious philosophy) is still valuable. We cannot allow our ever-evolving knowledge of the universe to cloud our judgement and lead us to arrogant, absolutist statements that are inherently unfalsifiable.
2) It is simply a restatement of the "paradox" of free will and divine providence on the cosmic scale. Consider this: the meta-laws that shape our universe through what are ultimately unguided processes is just a scientific assessment of the universe's "free will" in contradistinction to God's divine providence. I will devote future posts to the extrapolation of this idea, but this is just a basic summation of the issue.
3) Morality. Some biologists/psychologists (and militant atheists) like Richard Dawkins believe that human morality is simply (and only) a series of complex neural impulses that evolved over time in order to preserve society through our development as a species. I am not doubting that much of these conclusions provide reasonable explanations for the historical development of morality, but it leads one to concluding that the ends of human morality is societal pragmatism. (I don't kill you so you don't kill me.) The insight of Judaism is that morality (the concept of the ultimate good) is an ideal unto itself. Much of humanistic culture has attached itself to the concept of an ideal morality, but they unconsciously skim over the fact that this idea is rooted in religious philosophy.
UPDATE
Upon much reflection upon these and other scientific findings (such as the theological implications of evolution), I have reached the following conclusions:
1) No matter how complete our understanding of the laws of the universe becomes, we simply shift the philosophical discussion up a meta-level. For example, suppose it is definitely proven that our universe is simply one in an innumerable vacuum of parallel universes and the fact that the laws of physics exist in such a way in our region of our universe that is conducive to the development of life is due to mere mathematical probability. Even if this was proven, it would still beg the question of why the multiverse exists and why the meta-laws that lead to the development of all physical laws exist in the first place and can produce a universe that is undeniably ordered. Philosophy (and derivatively, religious philosophy) is still valuable. We cannot allow our ever-evolving knowledge of the universe to cloud our judgement and lead us to arrogant, absolutist statements that are inherently unfalsifiable.
2) It is simply a restatement of the "paradox" of free will and divine providence on the cosmic scale. Consider this: the meta-laws that shape our universe through what are ultimately unguided processes is just a scientific assessment of the universe's "free will" in contradistinction to God's divine providence. I will devote future posts to the extrapolation of this idea, but this is just a basic summation of the issue.
3) Morality. Some biologists/psychologists (and militant atheists) like Richard Dawkins believe that human morality is simply (and only) a series of complex neural impulses that evolved over time in order to preserve society through our development as a species. I am not doubting that much of these conclusions provide reasonable explanations for the historical development of morality, but it leads one to concluding that the ends of human morality is societal pragmatism. (I don't kill you so you don't kill me.) The insight of Judaism is that morality (the concept of the ultimate good) is an ideal unto itself. Much of humanistic culture has attached itself to the concept of an ideal morality, but they unconsciously skim over the fact that this idea is rooted in religious philosophy.
No comments:
Post a Comment