There is an argument that scientists just blunder around looking for laws, which are just dependable behaviors in nature, but there is no overarching reason why such laws should even exist, therefore God must have made them; God is the "Law Giver," don't you know.
What do you think of that argument?
Actually it is philosophers who make this argument, but since they are defending their personal theology, that makes them theologians. The term theologian has Greek roots meaning someone who gives "an account of the gods" (logos being "words" and theo being "god," etc.).
I was reading, re-reading actually, some Dan Quinn recently and he made the argument that man had to find those "dependable behaviors" by trial and error. Quinn used the example of heavier than air flight. None of the laws of aerodynamics had been discovered, so it was a guessing game as to how to design such a craft. The notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci showed several designs (one of which looked like a helicopter with something like a bamboo umbrella that pumped up and down). Of course it was centuries later that successful designs were developed and now we have a much greater understanding of the laws of aerodynamics and vastly more sophisticated aircraft. So, why didn't religion share out this secret aerodynamic knowledge to make our task easier? (Ah, it is a mystery, my son.)
I am also reading a fascinating book by Peter Atkins, one of the lesser known writers of popular science (and possibly the best at that task), "Conjuring the Universe: The Origins of the Laws of Nature." In that book, Professor Atkins makes the argument that either the universe has existed forever or that it came into being. And if it came into being as is hinted at by modern theory, since the universe is "everything" it must have been preceded by nothing and therefore it must share qualities with "nothing." One of those qualities is that energy must be conserved. If one simplifies things by considering matter to be a form of energy (E = mc2, and all that) then all of the energy that came into being at the creation of the universe is it. There can be no more, and so energy must be conserved.
Professor Atkins (he is one of my people, a chemist!) continues to point out many of the other major rules of our universe are consequences of the source the universe came from. (I haven't finished the book yet, so a review is still coming).
So, the theological argument above is not only absurd it has false premises. It, as usual, confused laws which are created socially with laws of nature. Plus this god doesn't create laws, it works through intermediaries, which makes all such laws "man made." If you need an example, consider Yahweh's first commandment "You shall have no other god before me!" This is coming from the people who say that there are no other gods. How could Yahweh be so fragile that he is threatened by imaginary gods? How could he not know that there were no other gods? Is great puzzlement.
As usual, theologians and their philosophical wannabees know far too little to perform the role of Critic of Science. Science needs criticism, which is why each and every scientist is empowered to criticize anything in their subject field and without, even the science of their betters! If you want evidence of this, attend any fairly large gathering of scientists, at some point or other there will be a hissing bitch fight amongst individuals or groups of scientists. More often than not you will be able to observe more than one of these events.
If you are going to criticize something, you really need to know of what you are criticizing, no?
No comments:
Post a Comment