{"id":4538,"date":"2014-09-05T09:32:50","date_gmt":"2014-09-05T14:32:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/?p=4538"},"modified":"2014-09-03T19:50:00","modified_gmt":"2014-09-04T00:50:00","slug":"atheists-and-quantum-agnostics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/?p=4538","title":{"rendered":"Atheists and Quantum Agnostics"},"content":{"rendered":"

One of the most frequent argument I read or hear from the \u201cNew Atheism Movement\u201d<\/a> is that the universe does not need a supernatural cause of origin, because science now understands how something can come from nothing; and thus how something so unlikely as our universe, with its fine tuning and hotspots where complex life evolves and manifests itself in even more complex conscious and self-conscious forms, could happen. They are referring to modern theories regarding the inflaton field, chaotic inflation, multiverses, the near endless variants of superstring theory, etc.\u00a0 <\/p>\n

But as impressive as all of that is, it does not truly amount to \u201csomething from nothing\u201d.\u00a0 The anti-theological boffins ultimately assume the existence of some level of energy and information, even if that form of energy is very different from the things and events that we encounter in our human lives.\u00a0 The BIG question \u2013 i.e. why is there something and not nothing \u2013 does not go away quite as easily as the atheist cosmologists would like when they refer to “vacuum effects”.\u00a0 By \u201cnothing\u201d, the theologians mean no superstrings, no fields, no quantum mechanics — just plain and total nothing.\u00a0
\n\u00a0
\nThe only way to honestly dodge that question (aside from trying to dismiss it as irrelevant, in that no one has ever observed \u201ctrue nothing\u201d; we can’t say for sure<\/a> that “true nothing” in any way “exists”, other than as a mental concept) — the only way to evade it without copping out via logical positivism is to embrace Infinity. That is, the philosophically braver science-atheists are forced to say that there never was \u201cnothing\u201d, there always was something, and always will be something.\u00a0 I.e., infinity (at least in time — such as in Guth and Lindes’ Eternal Inflation<\/a> paradigms).\u00a0 Ironically, believers in God also embrace infinity \u2013 they say that it is the ultimate essence of their God.\u00a0 Is “religious infinity” a different kind of infinity that what the (most forthright) New Atheists would play with?\u00a0<\/p>\n

If there are different kinds of infinities, could infinity then really be infinity?\u00a0 Can you get away with saying that infinity has limits?\u00a0 I.e., that it\u2019s OK as an interim gap-filler<\/a> needed in certain math formulations, as to help explain certain scientific phenomenon, but it goes absolutely no further?\u00a0 I mean, if the bolder science and math experts are going to hypothesize that there is an infinity<\/a> \u2013 something that you can\u2019t measure and prove or disprove thru scientific-empirical method \u2013 then how can they NOT say that infinity, if truly infinite, has the power to create an infinite array of possibilities \u2013 including something as mysterious as the experience of human consciousness, and thus perhaps things even more mysterious (and hopefully wonderful)?
\n\u00a0
\nI know that mathematicians have “categories of infinities” that play limited but useful roles in their equations, equations that successfully mimic what reality appears to do. But are mathematical paradigms really the same as the reality they attempt to describe?\u00a0 It’s kind of like the question regarding \u201cMary the colorblind neuroscientist<\/a>\u201d, taken from the philosophic discussion on consciousness. I.e., would knowing every last thing down to the sub-atomic quanta about how any particular human sees and experiences a red apple — would that be entirely equivalent to that human actually seeing and personally experiencing a mental image of that red apple?
\n\u00a0
\nThere appears to be an alternate rationale used by some atheist cosmologists, one that side-steps the paradox of nothingness and infinity; I\u2019ve heard Neil DeGrasse Tyson use this argument<\/a>.\u00a0 I.e., the argument from absurdity.\u00a0 That is, if there was really a God, why did that God use such a messy process involving a lot of energy and unnecessarily low-entropy situations to crank out such a huge universe, where only in a tiny corner, for a tiny period of time (relative to the Universes\u2019 age), is there life and consciousness . . . i.e., consciousness capable of acknowledging and relating to that God? [Putatively, from the atheist perspective.]\u00a0 If a hypothetical God were looking for company, why didn\u2019t that God just get to the point and create \u201cBoltzmann Brain\u201d type high-entropy conscious beings floating in a little bubble?\u00a0 The whole thing seems absurd, it doesn\u2019t add up if the God we postulate could think intelligently (as most God believers would assert).
\n\u00a0
\nWhy don\u2019t I buy that argument? Well, lots of reasons.\u00a0 But what gets me about atheist cosmologists is that on one hand, they talk about the beauty and awe they feel<\/a> for the universe and all of its components. But as soon as any discussion arises implying an intentional aspect behind that beauty and awe, they trash the universe. Oh no, it\u2019s not beautiful at all, it\u2019s absurd.\u00a0 Certainly too ugly for any rational God to create. Hmmm.
\n\u00a0
\nI recently stumbled across an interesting article on the history of the New Atheism<\/a>, and the intellectual problems that have infected it.\u00a0 Not to say that these problems in themselves support the existence of God; but it does say that the current breed of atheists need to up their philosophical game.<\/p>\n

To wit, a typical \u201crationalist\u201d argument against religious belief in God goes as follows:\u00a0<\/p>\n

Once upon a time, people lived in ignorant superstition, offering sacrifices to monsters in the sky. Then some clever folks used special weapons called \u201cscience\u201d and \u201creason\u201d to show that the monsters had never really existed in the first place. Some of these clever folks were killed for daring to say this, but they persevered, and now only really stupid people believe in the monsters.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Atheists have some garden-variety substitutes for “monsters in the sky”, such as \u201cSanta Claus\u201d or \u201cthe Easter Bunny\u201d, or maybe \u201cthe Tooth Fairy\u201d.\u00a0 My friend Steve recently submitted a comment<\/a> to an earlier article that I wrote about atheism, using an interesting twist on this argument \u00a0— one invoking \u201cBeetlejuice<\/a>\u201d.<\/p>\n

Really now, Steve, do you take Michael Keaton seriously?\u00a0 Or is that just your point, i.e. that believing and having faith that Micheal Keaton is an accomplished actor does not actually make him an accomplished actor?\u00a0[BTW, Hollywood is now working on a Beetlejuice 2<\/a>.] <\/p>\n

All kidding aside (much respect here Steve, just having some fun — thanks for taking my thoughts seriously!), I actually agree with Steve’s argument . . . up to a point.\u00a0 Yes, it is intellectually untenable in the modern age to say that one \u201cknows\u201d that God exists, and that one can treat such knowledge as any other everyday fact.\u00a0 In the times we live in, science sets a high bar as to what anyone can represent as a \u201cknowable fact\u201d.\u00a0 And I believe that this is a good thing.\u00a0 So yes, let me admit it . . . under this standard of \u201cknowable fact\u201d, I cannot reasonably assert that God exists.\u00a0 <\/p>\n

And by the same token \u2013 no one cannot reasonably DISPROVE that God exists.\u00a0 Sure, I know that Bertrand Russell says that it\u2019s a waste of time to ponder teapots in space<\/a>. (And ditto for nothingness and infinity.)\u00a0 But in my opinion, there are a lot more reasons for humans to ponder the idea of God than the idea of an orbiting teapot.\u00a0 In my opinion, this is NOT a waste of time.\u00a0 If you can accept that “the God idea” is fundamental to human history and important to all cultural varieties of our species (and possibly to how our brains evolved — check out the new field of “neurotheology”<\/a>), then let\u2019s move on to the bedrock empirical question. If God, like superstring theory, is an important concept, but you seek to dismiss it, then where is your empirical evidence logically PRECLUDING the existence of God? Or of the \u201ctrue infinity\u201d that is inherent to such a God?\u00a0 <\/p>\n

Some atheists might complain that the rules aren\u2019t fair here, because the idea of God is defined specifically so as to be beyond the methods of scientific proof or disproof. But here\u2019s an ironic twist \u2013 science itself<\/strong> uses certain concepts to describe everyday reality, which themselves embrace unknowability and unanswerability.\u00a0 You know where I\u2019m going, don\u2019t you . . . yes, quantum mechanics!!<\/p>\n

God is thus like Schr\u00f6dinger\u2019s Cat<\/a> in the unopened box \u2013 half alive, half dead.\u00a0 Half there, half not there.\u00a0 And that is roughly how I understand God, and my own relationship to God.\u00a0 (Strangely enough, the best on-line discussion I could find<\/a> on the question of Schrodinger’s Cat and God was on the bodybuilding.com web site!) As such, I am not quite your usual faithful believer; I certainly AM admitting that perhaps you atheists are correct.\u00a0 I guess that you would call me an agnostic.\u00a0<\/p>\n

But please, can we try for some other term?\u00a0 I mean, agnosticism has come to imply an intellectual and emotional sloth, an air of resignation on the question of God, an ultimate apathy.\u00a0 It\u2019s kind of a sad state, really.\u00a0 If I am to be an agnostic, then I am a HOPEFUL agnostic, an ENGAGED agnostic.\u00a0 Yes, I WANT there to be a\u00a0 God.\u00a0 But I respect science and rationality enough to know that I cannot assert a God in the sense that we deal with most things in our lives.
\n\u00a0
\nYou good atheists might still try to find a vulnerable spot where you might inject a potion of doubt into my \u201cquantum hopefulness\u201d.\u00a0 You might argue that if there really were to be a God who loves us, how could that God put us in such an absurd situation, where real people suffer so greatly?\u00a0 Well, actually, I can think of some reasons.\u00a0 In a nutshell: if we knew God the way we know our fingernails or our kitchen sink, we probably would take that God for granted.\u00a0 Just as we do with our friends and lovers. It takes an enemy to keep our attention!\u00a0 <\/p>\n

Or a mystery.\u00a0 So, it would not surprise me if my “Hypothetical Quantum God” created us in a bubble of mystery, sometimes a painful mystery \u2013 as to get our attention! Recall the line in the Zen koan which says that \u201cnot knowing is most intimate<\/a>\u201d .\u00a0 In this earthly realm, we see through a glass darkly, as St. Paul said.\u00a0 After this life is over . . . who knows. We “hopeful agnostics” realize that an afterlife of some sort would be needed to somehow balance out all the absurd pain and suffering that humans experience (and hopefully that afterlife is a bit more sophisticated than “the land of 72 virgins<\/a>“). For now, though, the afterlife is just another quantum box, a ‘la Schrodinger!<\/p>\n

And as to nothingness and infinity . . . well, maybe God just is<\/em> the infinity that saves creation from the quandary of nothingness. Maybe.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

One of the most frequent argument I read or hear from the \u201cNew Atheism Movement\u201d is that the universe does not need a supernatural cause of origin, because science now understands how something can come from nothing; and thus how something so unlikely as our universe, with its fine tuning and hotspots where complex life […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,15],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4538"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4538"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4538\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4551,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4538\/revisions\/4551"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4538"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4538"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4538"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}