Polkinghorne’s empirical evidence for god: math and a comprehensible universe

February 23, 2012 • 5:14 am

I wanted to put up a brief post to get reader reaction to two claims that are common among science-friendly theologians. They are a centerpiece, for instance, of John Polkinghorne’s arguments for God’s existence. In the evenings these days (to the detriment of my sleep), I’m reading Polkinghorne and Alvin Plantinga to learn about the brand of “sophisticated” theology that tries to reconcile faith and science.

I’ve already discussed Polkinghorne a few days ago, and the quotes I give below are from his book Science and Religion in Quest of Truth. As I noted in my earlier post, Polkinghorne, unlike many theologians, does think that pure revelation cannot suffice as evidence for God; one needs empirical observations as well.

I’ll give my brief reactions to the arguments, but, as I said, I’d like to know how readers would respond to these. I’m looking for serious responses, but feel free, as always, to be lighthearted as well.

His two arguments are these:

  • The universe can be comprehended by the rational faculties of humans, and its workings appear to adhere to laws of physics.
  • Much of our understanding of the universe is expressed through mathematics, which is “unreasonably effective” in encapsulating what we discover about nature. 

Ergo Jesus. 

Here are some supporting quotes from Polkinghorne, showing how he connects the above observations—both undoubtedly true—with God.

“. . . why is science possible at all in the deep way that has proved to be the case?” p. 71

“A distinguished nuclear physicist, Eugene Wigner, once asked, ‘Why is mathematics so unreasonably effective?’ Those seeking an understanding as complete as possible must ask what it could be that that links together the reason within (mathematical thinking) and the reason without (the structure of the physical world) in this remarkable way? The universe has not only proved to be astonishingly rationally beautiful, affording scientists the reward of wonder for all the labours of their research. Why are we so lucky?

It would surely be intolerably intellectually lazy not to seek to pursue this question.  Yet science itself will not provide its answer, for it is simply content to exploit the opportunities that these wonderful gifts afford us, without being in a position to explain their origin.  Theology, however, can step into the breach. Science has disclosed to us a world which, in its rational transparency and beauty, is shot through with signs of mind, and religious belief suggests that it is indeed the Mind of the Creator that lies behind the wonderful order of the universe. (p. 73)

I have several tentative responses, and I believe Sean Carroll has addressed some of the above, though I can’t immediately lay my hands on his essays and posts (perhaps he’ll weigh in here).

  • If the Universe didn’t obey physical laws, we wouldn’t exist, for the universe we know couldn’t have formed in the first place.  Too, we couldn’t exist as biological entities if the physiology and biochemistry of our bodies didn’t adhere to physical laws—natural selection could not create faculties and senses that behave with regularity.
  • If the Universe didn’t always obey physical laws, that, too, could be taken as evidence for God, who could intercede with alarming regularity to alter whatever laws did exist.  Heads God wins, tails physicists lose.
  • We don’t understand why there are physical laws that behave with regularity, but that lack of understanding doesn’t point to the existence of a creator—much less Polkinghorne’s Christian creator who birthed Jebus.
  • The existence of those laws must (like the existence of God itself to theologians) be left as something that does not require an answer—or the answer that “that’s just the way things are.” I think this is physicist Sean Carroll’s answer.
  • Physical laws could differ—or even be irregular—in other universes that may exist. (Remember that multiverses are not, as some theologians imply, a “desperation move” on the part of physicists to explain fine-tuning and the anthropic principle. Rather, multiverses fall out as a prediction of some theories of physics.)
  • These are god-of-the-gap arguments: science could one day explain the existence of regular physical laws, but right now we don’t understand them, or why they must take the form they do.
  • In other places Polkinghorne (along with other theologians) argue that there are many phenomena in nature that cannot be comprehended with science, much less mathematics. These supposedly include love, aesthetics, and morality.  Those phenomena, too, are given as evidence for God. In other words, Polkinghorne is trying to have it both ways: the universe’s comprehensibility via science is given as evidence for God, but aspects that supposedly aren’t scientifically comprehensible are also given as evidence for god.
  • The “God” explanation offered by Polkinghorne is not testable, that is, it can’t be disconfirmed. Even if we find out why there are laws of physics, Polkinghorne could argue that God was behind it all.

I know that there are a fair number of physics- and math-savvy readers here, and I’m particularly interested in their responses (particularly about the “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics”), but anybody is welcome to respond.

Love Look Away

February 23, 2012 • 4:31 am

I feel like posting some pop songs from the 40s and 50s this week.

This lovely song is from Rodger’s and Hammerstein’s play Flower Drum Song, which opened on Broadway in 1958. That original version was done by Arabella Hong, but in the 1961 movie, Reiko Sato’s  jazzy “dream-sequence” version was voice-dubbed by opera singer Marilyn Horne.

This version, my favorite, is by Tony Bennett.   I tried to post this once before but it was removed from YouTube (but go hear his second best song: “The Good Life”).

Whoops! Faster-than-light neutrinos don’t exist after all

February 22, 2012 • 1:11 pm

I’ve been informed by Matthew Cobb of this new piece in ScienceExpress, reporting that the OPERA researchers working at CERN made a mistake.  Those neutrinos didn’t move faster than the speed of light after all. And the mistake involved a loose cable! Well, that’s science biz. . .

I present their dispatch in toto:

It appears that the faster-than-light neutrino results, announced last September by the OPERA collaboration in Italy, was due to a mistake after all. A bad connection between a GPS unit and a computer may be to blame.

Physicists had detected neutrinos travelling from the CERN laboratory in Geneva to the Gran Sasso laboratory near L’Aquila that appeared to make the trip in about 60 nanoseconds less than light speed. Many other physicists suspected that the result was due to some kind of error, given that it seems at odds with Einstein’s special theory of relativity, which says nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. That theory has been vindicated by many experiments over the decades.

According to sources familiar with the experiment, the 60 nanoseconds discrepancy appears to come from a bad connection between a fiber optic cable that connects to the GPS receiver used to correct the timing of the neutrinos’ flight and an electronic card in a computer. After tightening the connection and then measuring the time it takes data to travel the length of the fiber, researchers found that the data arrive 60 nanoseconds earlier than assumed. Since this time is subtracted from the overall time of flight, it appears to explain the early arrival of the neutrinos. New data, however, will be needed to confirm this hypothesis.

I get email

February 22, 2012 • 12:37 pm

The note came in the morning’s e-post.  I was advised by a friend to go easy on the writer, because that writer might not be quite sane. But really, it’s hard to tell with the hyper-religious.  They could be delusional about only the subject of faith, or a a loose cannon in general.  Without meeting the person, one can’t judge.

The contention that the absence of human remains constitutes evidence for divinity of that individual—I call this The Argument From No Bones—is a new one to me.  It could, of course, be used to argue for the existence of many religious figures, including the Peshotanu, Ramalinga Swamigal, and the Islamic Madhi, as well as just about everyone in the Bible, including Adam and Eve.

Anyway, on to the madness:

Jerry,

This is written out of Christ’s concern for you soul.

This writer read your article saying that science and religion don’t mix.

Tell you what.

Find the bones of Jesus Christ and I’ll be your staunchest supporter.

The Roman watch was the first witness Christ’s resurrection and they were under the death penalty if they allowed the body to be stollen by the “cowards” who were already hiding for their lives. Needless to say, when they took the bribery money from the Pharisees to spread the “lie” that the disciples came and stole him from “crack” legionaires, who had thousands of reinforcements at their disposal, headed for the hills with the loot and for their lives (they did fail their mission you know).

Look, if Satan (I know, you probably don’t believe he exists) could have produced the Body of Jesus Christ (look how the Catholic church does it with the bodies and bones of their “saints”???) he would have it on display for all the world to see with perfect documentation.

And don’t think for one minute wicked men have not tried to find the Body of Christ.

Find them bones and you win hands down, game set match.

FIND THE BONES OF JESUS CHRIST AND YOU GOT YOURSELF ANOTHER ALLY.

The fool hath said in his heart there is no God. Psalm 14:1.

I know you probably don’t think there is such a thing as sin, so why would you get angry if some of your “friends” came over to your place and plundered all your goods, wiped out your bank accounts, beat you to a pulp, then burned down your dwelling. Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Mao, the popes, the Jesuits, etc. did/do it all the time.

Would you get mad at them for acting like the animals you claim we came from and are???

Let me guess, you are probably a “disallusioned” former catholic or protestant who has been sucked into the Jesuit educational belief system.

How do you folks pay for your sin debt??? Remember your “friends” above??

Would you send them to prison??? How can you punish an animal acting on his instincts?

I[f] you say “yes” then are you not testifying to the “Law” Jesus wrote on all of our hearts.

Romans 1 – 2 in the AV please.

Praying for you, I was once in your camp and “religion” (which evolution really is since it takes a lot of “faith” to believe that stuff) did not save me, but a “living” Christ that dwells in my heart.

Explain why I no longer desire drugs, sex, theft, etc., and have a “hope” which Christ haters and rejecters don’t have.

Explain the “changed lives” Christ accomplishes.

“The love of money is the root of all evil” and that is what I notice in the Luciferian/Jesuitish evolutionairy system of education/indoctrination we have today.

http://www.chick.com

http://www.icr.org          http://www.vaticanassassins.org        http://www.arcticbeacon.com

Give me a call when you find the bones of my Lord/God/Saviour Jesus Christ.

You will remember this e-mail for all eternity when you die.

Either with Christ as your Saviour. Or Christ as your Judge. I pray the former for you.

[Name and phone number regretfully redacted]

____

I think I found them!

Jesus Nazarenus Rex Castorum

Lazarus plant: 30,000-year-old flower resurrected from naturally frozen seeds

February 22, 2012 • 9:11 am

I won’t go on about this cool new paper at length, for it’s already been described by Ed Yong at Not Exactly Rocket Science as well as in a piece at The New York Times.  Still, it behooves us to know about it. The upshot is that a group of Russian scientists recovered from the Siberian permafrost a cache of seeds and fruits stashed by ancient squirrels, and managed to use tissue culture to regenerate plants from immature fruits.  The estimated age of the seeds is 32,000-30,000 years old, so this is clearly the most ancient organism ever “revived.”

The plant, a species that still exists (at least the morphological similarities suggest conspecific status), is Silene stenophylla. Silene (of which there are several species) is also known as “catchfly” or “campion”  (literate readers will recognize it as the flower with which Mellors the gamekeeper bedecked Lady Chatterly’s pubic hair in Lady Chatterly’s Lover).  It’s often used in evolutionary studies because some species have separate sexes while others do not, and ditto for sex chromosomes.  It could thus tell us something about the evolutionary origin of gender and gender-specific chromosomes.  Some species are also gynodioecious (i.e. some plants are “female” [male parts sterile], while other plants are hemaphroditic), and this could also give us a clue to how “male” versus “female” plants arose.

But I digress.  In a new paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciencesby Svetlana Yashina et al., the authors describe finding a group of fossil burrows, 20-40 meters below the surface, in the permafrost of northeastern Siberia.  Some of these burrows contained as many as 600,000 seeds/fruits!  These were stashed by equally ancient ground squirrels of the species Urocitellus parryii:

The Arctic ground squirrel Urocitellus parryii, photographed by Ianaré Sévi.

Permafrost provides the dry and cold conditions needed to preserve seeds; that’s how they’re preserved in special seed banks.  Attempts to germinate the seeds failed, but they managed to grow one species of Silene by dissecting out the “placental tissue” (special tissue in the fruit to which the seed is connected), culturing it in nutrient media and then adding hormones (auxins, etc.), to induce formation of roots and shoots. And they got the plant to grow, flower, and, after cross fertilization with other ancient plants, set seed.  Here are two specimens of the plant grown from cultured ancient tissue:

The two articles cited above will give you more information.  What interests me most about this is that the “species” still exists, and this allows us to see how much evolutionary change has transpired in 30,000 years. (This is similar to the way that bacterial evolutionists can freeze an ancestral culture and then, after reviving it, compare it to its descendants that have undergone many generations of evolution).

The plant appears to have actually changed during those 30,000-odd generations.  (This is probably genetic rather than environmental change because the differences between ancient and modern plant are seen in the second generation of cultured ancient plants which have been produced by cross-mating them.)  The authors note the differences:

Thirty-six ancient plants (12 from each fruit) and 29 extant plants were morphologically tested. All ancient plants were morphologically identical. During vegetative development, the ancient and extant plants were morphologically indistinguishable from one another. However, at the flowering stage they showed different corolla shape: petals of extant flowers were obviously wider and more dissected (Fig. 3). Moreover, all flowers of the extant plants were bisexual (b) (Fig. 3A), whereas the primary flowers (two to three in number) of each ancient plant were strictly female (f) (Fig. 3 B and C, f), and then bisexual flowers were formed on each ancient plant (Fig. 3C, b).

For those botany geeks among us, here’s Figure 3 showing the differences (click to enlarge):

The one thing I really wanted to know, and which the authors didn’t study, is whether the ancient plants are reproductively compatible with the modern ones.  They crossed ancient plant with ancient plant, and showed that they cross readily, as of course do modern plants crossed with modern plants.  But they didn’t cross ancient plants with modern ones!  They need to do that.

If they found reproductive incompatibility in those crosses, that would suggest incipient (or full) speciation between ancestor and descendant, something that we rarely get to study because ancestor and descendants never get the chance to meet and mate (this would be like mating the 750,000 year old ancestors of Homo sapiens with modern H. sapiens, since a comparative number of generations have transpired).   And even if reproductive isolation didn’t evolve, one can still study the genetic basis of differences in petal shape and appearance of different kinds of flowers.  Ten to one the Russian team is doing this, and I look forward to the results.

h/t: Dr. John H. Willis III, esq.

____________

Yashina, S., S. Gubin, S. Maksimovich, A. Yashina, and E. Gakhova. 2012. Regeneration of whole fertile plants from 30,000-y-old fruit tissue buried in Siberian permafrost. Proc. Nat Acad Sci. USA, published ahead of print February 21, 2012, doi:10.1073/pnas.1118386109

Neil deGrasse Tyson responds

February 22, 2012 • 5:11 am

Neil deGrasse Tyson sent me the note reproduced below the line, which he intended to post as a comment.  Since I’ve put up two posts within one week about his views on science and faith (here and here), I thought it only fair to elevate his comment to a full post, allowing everyone to see it easily. (His comment was intended to follow the first link given above.)  I present it here without any response on my part.  I have verified by email that this is indeed Tyson himself.

I won’t respond myself, but if you have comments for Dr. Tyson, please add them to this post. As always, be polite!

__________________________

I’m impressed by the energy invested in this thread. Thanks for everyone’s interest in my few comments on God and spirituality. I’d like to offer some observations on them:

1) My total output on God and spirituality sums to less than 1% of all that I have delivered in speeches and written in books. Although you would not know this given how heavily that 1% has been lifted to YouTube and viewed by the interested public.

2) My Beyond Belief talk, which birthed this thread, was derived from a previously written article in Natural History magazine. So the article should be what’s used as the formal reference to that content.

3) I mis-spoke in that talk: The percent of religious members of the National Academy of Sciences is half that which I cited, but the error does not change the overall point being made.

4) Odd that I would be credited with declaring that more educated people are less religious — as some kind of militant posture — when I’m just citing the data.

5) I can only conclude that my overall message during the Beyond Belief talk was not 100% clear since Prof Coyne as well as a NYTimes reporter present at the talk were left with identical (yet unintended) reactions to my comments. Are they both not as intrigued as I am that religiosity drops with education, especially with science education, but does not drop to zero, not even for members of the National Academy? I think that’s an amazing statistic, which tells us something about the human mind that is not yet understood. (FYI: The workshop was held at the Salk Institute and the audience was rich in neuroscientists.) And I referenced that fact as an argument to try to get my strident Atheist colleagues to lighten up on the public since up to 40% of our scientific brethren pray to a personal God. And as long as religiosity is not zero for scientists, to assume that science education of the masses would somehow rid the world of religious thinking is a false expectation.

This heavily viewed clip was from the same workshop, by the way:

“Tyson rebukes Dawkins”

As was this, where I comment that my deepest thoughts on the universe just may trigger neuro-synaptic firings in my head that resemble those of a religious zealot.

6) When I say I don’t care if people are religious, but that I care that religious philosophies stay out of the science classroom, I’m alerting the listener of how I choose to invest my time and energy. To fight for the rights of women within religions, for example, does not require the community of scientists to participate in the same way that fighting to preserve the science curriculum does. I’ve simply chosen my battles there. And even then, it’s less than 1% of my energy and time.

7) Most of the (American) public does indeed embrace science as a way of knowing. Science is more than evolution, of course. It’s engineering, it’s medicine, it’s chemistry, it’s physics. It’s the R&D for every tech company. The percent of total funded science that ruffles the feathers of non-fundamentalist religious people is small. And for the moment, religious fundamentalists still represent a small (but of course vocal) minority.

8) For the record, here is everything I have ever written on the subject of God and spirituality. Anything I have ever said publicly on the subject derives almost entirely from these several essays:

“Holy Wars”

“The Perimeter of Ignorance”

“The Cosmic Perspective”

“Does the Universe Have a Purpose?”

Letter to the Editor of the NYTimes

So as best as I can judge,in spite of my failure to communicate my intended sentiment in the posted Beyond Belief talk, I think my thoughts have been quite consistent on the matter. And, if you look carefully, almost all views I offer are not opinions but shared observations.

Again, thanks for the collective interest in my work. And sorry of the stupid length of this post. I now return to trying to get NASA back on track.

Neil deGrasse Tyson

New York City

What was it?

February 22, 2012 • 3:46 am

As several savvy readers guessed, the photo in the previous post was of a polychaete annelid (worm) taken from the area around deep-sea hydrothermal vents.  Here are a few other species (I don’t have the Latin binomials), and you can see more pictures here.

They’re visions from a nightmare, but they also inspired in me the sentiment expressed by Richard in the previous thread: “Isn’t evolution wonderful!”

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.