I'd like to address this article one section at a time, indeed one paragraph at a time as is my practice.
Rabbi Geoffrey A. Mitelman
Founding Director, Sinai and Synapses
Sorry, Science Doesn't Make a Case for God. But That's OK.
Posted: 12/29/2014 7:20 pm EST Updated: 12/29/2014 7:59 pm EST
Last week, Eric Metaxas wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal entitled "Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God." In it, he argues that the parameters for human life are so precise that they are indicators of God's existence. As he phrases it:
Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life -- every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart... The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.
Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn't assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?
A fine-tuned universe is a compelling argument for God. It's also deeply problematic.
Why? Two reasons.
1. Science is always changing. Science is in constant flux. New discoveries are made. New insights arise. New paradigms overturn previous ways of thinking.
This paragraph does not address the claim at all. "Science" may be in constant flux, but what that really means is that human scientific
knowledge is constantly changing. What does not change are the physics underlying that scientific knowledge. The flux of science is not a flux in the universe or the physical laws that determine how things work, it is merely our ignorance being dispelled bit by bit.
So if we base our religious outlook on scientific findings, what will happen to our theology when the science changes?
The obvious answer is that should this occur, our religious outlook and theology will change as well. This appears to be an argument from a Rabbi in support of the notion that God is "supernatural" and therefore beyond science, and that science cannot therefore say anything about God's existence or the nature of God. I disagree with the Rabbi because I see nothing in the physics of the universe that preclude God from existing,
however it is that one may choose to define God.
Science tells us many things about the physics of the universe, but it hasn't yet told us all there is to know. This existing ambiguity and uncertainty absolutely leaves room in the universe for God. The Rabbi intimates that theology is fixed and that the (presumably) biblical truths he adheres to are immutable and perfect, and that to attack that foundation is to set all of theology on a foundation of sand. This is an understandable position coming from a Rabbi, but it is neither logical nor rational. If mankind's understanding of God is incomplete or faulty, and science shows us this, then that new knowledge leads only deeper into the mystery that is inherent in the very concept of God. Just as we do not try to teach first-graders the complexities of algebra, God may not choose to teach mankind about the full nature of God until we are prepared for that knowledge.
Note that I am not maintaining that this is the case, I merely examine the statements of the good Rabbi for logical and rational consistency and strength and attempt to explain how that reasoning might be in error.
Think about what happened to religion when the Copernican revolution occurred, or when Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published. They upset the apple cart, and forced religion to change. Most people either denied these findings and held onto their deeply-held beliefs, or used these findings to reject religion entirely.
So what would happen if, say, we discover that the parameters for life are not quite as amazing as they seemed? Or if we discovered that humanity was not unique in the universe? If you were using science to support your religious outlook, unless you have a very sophisticated theology, you'd be in deep trouble, and would need to do quite a bit of mental gymnastics.
These paragraphs suggest that the dispelling of ignorance about the nature of the universe(s) and God makes the understanding of that nature and God more difficult and complex. This may well be true, or it might lead to an understanding of great simplicity that mankind simply does not now know. What if science discovers the existence of God and God's true nature and finds it to be a simple and elegant basis for everything residing somewhere in, on, above, behind or beneath the "quantum foam?" Or perhaps on an adjacent plane universe?
The good Rabbi seems to be arguing that complicating the question of the existence and nature of God by adding things like other life, other civilizations, other interpretations of God is somehow wrong, and that a simplistic, understandable version of God, such as that described in the Bible or Torah must therefore be the correct and complete theology. I find this to be anthropocentrically recondite. I understand that an increasingly complex understanding of the nature and existence of God may make God less accessible to those of small knowledge, and that those who are purveyors of theology seek to make the knowledge understandable to the masses, but this is merely putting the cart before the horse for reasons of theological convenience. The truth, however, is the truth, however complex or difficult to understand it may be.
That's why scientists and Christians Francis Collins and Karl Giberson warn about using fine-tuning as an argument for God. As they say:
... [T]he fine-tuning argument must not be too quickly fashioned into an argument for the existence of God. Like all apologetic arguments, it can be undermined by new discoveries and weakened by broad theological conversations. In the latter category we note that the fine-tuning of the universe is just as necessary to produce cockroaches as humans. Here we would add insights from theology that humans are made in the image of God and are a far more reasonable goal of cosmic fine-tuning than are cockroaches. But this goes beyond the science. (The Language of Science and Faith, 195)
Yes, it truly is amazing that all of the needed requirements for life on Earth are so precise. But science is a search for an accurate understanding of our world, which means that it can change. And if we're basing our view of God on the latest scientific research, we're going to have a very fragile theology.
These paragraphs are flawed because both the good Rabbi and Messrs. Collins and Gilberson incorrectly assume that any "fine tuning" being performed by God is being done strictly for the benefit of human beings...and not cockroaches. This is anthropocentric hubris I'm afraid.
Even in my small understanding of the Bible, I know that the claim is that God created the heavens and the earth and every creature in or on either and that he gave mankind
dominion over all the creatures. This merely indicates to me that God assigned mankind to be the stewards of creation, not that creation was created only for mankind. Therefore, if fine tuning were involved, the universe was fine-tuned for the benefit of all creatures, from blue-green alge to dinosaurs to lions to human beings. There is nothing in either physics or theology that renders this impossible, and therefore the fine tuning argument cannot be so facilely dismissed. That it might in some way put mankind on a par with cockroaches insofar as the purpose and intent of God may simply be a hard truth mankind needs to face.
Perhaps God created the dinosaurs, or created the conditions amenable to their evolution, and became disappointed with the experiment and nudged an asteroid with his mighty, if insubstantial finger and wiped out the dinosaurs in order to give mammals an opportunity to continue the experiment.
Admittedly this demeans the importance of humanity to that of just another lab experiment, but in truth there is no reason to believe that, particularly in a fine-tuned universe, there was ever any other point to it all. To insist that mankind is the penultimate paradigm of creation, just one step below God him/her/itself, is little more than intellectual anthropogenic hubris as well.
The simple, logical, rational fact is that none of this dithering, by science or theology, says anything definitive or absolute about the existence or nature of God. We, and by that I mean every creature in the universe, simply don't know. And we will not know for certain of the nature and existence of God until our knowledge of the universe(s) is perfect. I expect that to take a while longer.
Until then, God remains a mystery that is neither confirmed nor denied by theology or science.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
