Rev Dr John Polkinghorne?

[Lozzer]

Help me out please, this Rev Dr John Polkinghorne is giving a lecture with free admission at my college on the 7th May on science and religion. He's one of those guys with a Templeton prize. I'd quite like to go this said lecture and pose some difficult questions to him afterwards (if they permit Q&A). Can you help me at all?

From wiki:

On the existence of God

Polkinghorne considers that "the question of the existence of God is the single most important question we face about the nature of reality"[14] and quotes with approval Anthony Kenny: "After all, if there is no God, then God is incalculably the greatest single creation of the human imagination." He addresses the questions of "Does the concept of God make sense? If so, do we have reason for believing in such a thing?" He is "cautious about our powers to assess coherence," pointing out that in 1900 a "competent ... undergraduate could have demonstrated the 'incoherence'" of quantum ideas. He suggests that "the nearest analogy in the physical world [to God] would be ... the Quantum Vacuum."[12]

He suggests that God is the ultimate answer to Leibniz's great question "why is there something rather than nothing?" The atheist's "plain assertion of the world's existence" is a "grossly impoverished view of reality," he says, arguing that "theism explains more than a reductionist atheism can ever address." He is very doubtful of St Anselm's Ontological Argument. "If we cannot prove the consistency of arithmetic[15] it seems a bit much to hope that God's existence is easier to deal with," concluding that God is "ontologically necessary, but not logically necessary." He "does not assert that God's existence can be demonstrated in a logically coercive way (any more than God's non-existence can) but that theism makes more sense of the world, and of human experience, than does atheism."[16] He cites in particular:

* The intelligibility of the universe: One would anticipate that evolutionary selection would produce hominid minds apt for coping with everyday experience, but that these minds should also be able to understand the subatomic world and general relativity goes far beyond anything of relevance to survival fitness. The mystery deepens when one recognises the proven fruitfulness of mathematical beauty as a guide to successful theory choice.[17]
* The anthropic fine tuning of the universe: He quotes with approval Freeman Dyson, who said "the more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming"[18] and suggests there is a wide consensus amongst physicists that either there are a very large number of other universes in the Multiverse or that "there is just one universe which is the way it is in its anthropic fruitfulness because it is the expression of the purposive design of a Creator, who has endowed it with the finely tuned potentialty for life.[19]
* A wider humane reality: He considers that theism offers a more persuasive account of ethical and aesthetic perceptions. He argues that it is difficult to accommodate the idea that "we have real moral knowledge" and that "statements such as 'torturing children is wrong' are more than "simply social conventions of the societies within which they are uttered" within an atheistic or naturalistic world view. He also believes such a world view finds it hard to explain how "Something of lasting significance is glimpsed in the beauty of the natural world and the beauty of the fruits of human creativity."[20]

[edit] On freewill

Polkinghorne regards the problem of evil as the most serious intellectual objection to the existence of God. He believes that "The well-known free will defence in relation to moral evil asserts that a world with a possibility of sinful people is better than one with perfectly programmed machines. The tale of human evil is such that one cannot make that assertion without a quiver, but I believe that it is true nevertheless. I have added to it the free-process defence, that a world allowed to make itself is better than a puppet theatre with a Cosmic Tyrant. I think that these two defences are opposite sides of the same coin, that our nature is inextricably linked with that of the physical world which has given us birth."[21]
[edit] On science and religion

It is a consistent theme of Polkinghorne's work that when he "turned his collar around" he did not stop seeking truth.[22] Many of his books explore the analogies between science and religion, with a unifying philosophical outlook of Critical realism. He believes that the philosopher of science who has most helpfully struck the balance between the "critical" and "realism" aspects of this is Michael Polanyi.[23] He argues that there are five points of comparison between the ways in which science and theology pursue truth: moments of enforced radical revision, a period of unresolved confusion, new synthesis and understanding, continued wrestling with unresolved problems, deeper implications.[24]
[edit] On creationism

In 2003 Polkinghorne published a critical review of the anthology Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics, Robert T. Pennock (ed.), calling it "a massive volume of reprinted articles and lectures" that "will require both stamina and heroic patience." He goes on to state that "the arguments fly to and fro over the 800 pages of the book. It all makes for wearisome reading. Both sides are polemical and sometimes shrill. ... The whole debate of the book is definitely not a fruitful way in which to conduct a dialogue between science and theology." [25] Polkinghorne also noted that there was an "almost complete absence of theological (as opposed to philosophical) argument. ...A lecture by Arthur Peacocke is the only chapter that offers some theological reflection..." [25]

Following the resignation of Michael Reiss, the director of education at the Royal Society—who had controversially argued that creationism be taught in schools[26]—Polkinghorne argued in The Times that there is a distinction between believing in the mind and purpose of a divine creator, and what he calls creationism "in that curious North American sense," with a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and the belief that evolution is wrong, a position he rejects.[27]

[Berthold]

Polkinghorne, like Simon Conway Morris, is not at odds with science. Their branch of Anglicanism actually borders on Deism. I'm afraid there's not too much to argue about.

[hackenslash]

Polkinghorne, like Simon Conway Morris, is not at odds with science. Their branch of Anglicanism actually borders on Deism. I'm afraid there's not too much to argue about.

O'rly? I beg to differ.

On the existence of God

Polkinghorne considers that "the question of the existence of God is the single most important question we face about the nature of reality"[14] and quotes with approval Anthony Kenny: "After all, if there is no God, then God is incalculably the greatest single creation of the human imagination."

Bollocks. Children create imaginary friends with no difficulty whatsoever. It's trivial to do so. What is not trivial is the creation of such things as the theory of evolution, or relativity, or quantum mechanics. I wouldn't even rank this absurd entity, however you fail to define it, as among the top 1,000 inventions of the human imagination. Indeed, I'd rank the assertion above as a greater invention of the human imagination than any celestial peeping-tom.

He addresses the questions of "Does the concept of God make sense? If so, do we have reason for believing in such a thing?" He is "cautious about our powers to assess coherence," pointing out that in 1900 a "competent ... undergraduate could have demonstrated the 'incoherence'" of quantum ideas. He suggests that "the nearest analogy in the physical world [to God] would be ... the Quantum Vacuum."[12]

Err, except that the quantum vacuum can be demonstrated. Aside from that, of course, it is literally impossible to assess the coherence of anything that has not been defined.

He suggests that God is the ultimate answer to Leibniz's great question "why is there something rather than nothing?" The atheist's "plain assertion of the world's existence" is a "grossly impoverished view of reality," he says, arguing that "theism explains more than a reductionist atheism can ever address."

Well, apart from the fact that atheism is not in the business of addressing such things, this is still wrong, because the ultimate answer to Leibniz's question has been provided by empirical science, even if the details have not be ironed out. 'Nothing' is a physical impossibility, because it would violate the uncertainty principle. Moreover, theism doesn't explain anything, and it never has.

He is very doubtful of St Anselm's Ontological Argument. "If we cannot prove the consistency of arithmetic[15] it seems a bit much to hope that God's existence is easier to deal with," concluding that God is "ontologically necessary, but not logically necessary." He "does not assert that God's existence can be demonstrated in a logically coercive way (any more than God's non-existence can) but that theism makes more sense of the world, and of human experience, than does atheism."[16]

Again, atheism is not in the business of making sense of the world. That's the job of science. Theism not only does not make sense of the world, it doesn't actually make sense.

He cites in particular:

* The intelligibility of the universe: One would anticipate that evolutionary selection would produce hominid minds apt for coping with everyday experience, but that these minds should also be able to understand the subatomic world and general relativity goes far beyond anything of relevance to survival fitness. The mystery deepens when one recognises the proven fruitfulness of mathematical beauty as a guide to successful theory choice.[17]
* The anthropic fine tuning of the universe: He quotes with approval Freeman Dyson, who said "the more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming"[18] and suggests there is a wide consensus amongst physicists that either there are a very large number of other universes in the Multiverse or that "there is just one universe which is the way it is in its anthropic fruitfulness because it is the expression of the purposive design of a Creator, who has endowed it with the finely tuned potentialty for life.[19]

Well, what a lovely hole I find myself in. It's almost as if it were created just to have me in it! Puddle thinking of the highest order.

Oh, and I'd love to see some citations for this 'wide consensus among physicists'. I suspect he extracted this assertion from an orifice more readily associated with a more solid form of waste. Absolute fuckwittery. The universe isn't fine-tuned for life, life is fine-tuned for the universe.

* A wider humane reality: He considers that theism offers a more persuasive account of ethical and aesthetic perceptions. He argues that it is difficult to accommodate the idea that "we have real moral knowledge" and that "statements such as 'torturing children is wrong' are more than "simply social conventions of the societies within which they are uttered" within an atheistic or naturalistic world view. He also believes such a world view finds it hard to explain how "Something of lasting significance is glimpsed in the beauty of the natural world and the beauty of the fruits of human creativity."[20]

More fuckwittery. I have yet to see any solid support for the idea that we actually have 'real moral knowledge'. Indeed, all I can see is our own subjective moral standards, ever-changing and open to revision.

[edit] On freewill

Polkinghorne regards the problem of evil as the most serious intellectual objection to the existence of God. He believes that "The well-known free will defence in relation to moral evil asserts that a world with a possibility of sinful people is better than one with perfectly programmed machines. The tale of human evil is such that one cannot make that assertion without a quiver, but I believe that it is true nevertheless. I have added to it the free-process defence, that a world allowed to make itself is better than a puppet theatre with a Cosmic Tyrant. I think that these two defences are opposite sides of the same coin, that our nature is inextricably linked with that of the physical world which has given us birth."[21]

Then he's wrong again. The most serious intellectual objection to the existence of god is the simple paucity of anything remotely resembling evidence.

[edit] On science and religion

It is a consistent theme of Polkinghorne's work that when he "turned his collar around" he did not stop seeking truth.[22] Many of his books explore the analogies between science and religion, with a unifying philosophical outlook of Critical realism. He believes that the philosopher of science who has most helpfully struck the balance between the "critical" and "realism" aspects of this is Michael Polanyi.[23] He argues that there are five points of comparison between the ways in which science and theology pursue truth: moments of enforced radical revision, a period of unresolved confusion, new synthesis and understanding, continued wrestling with unresolved problems, deeper implications.[24]

Well, I suggest that he still isn't looking for the truth. He's looking for that which supports his fuckwittery, and nothing more. Further, his assertion of his 'critical realism' is a lie, for the simple reason that he is trying to support an idea which cannot be demonstrated to have any basis in reality, and he is being anything but critical of the idea.

[edit] On creationism

In 2003 Polkinghorne published a critical review of the anthology Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics, Robert T. Pennock (ed.), calling it "a massive volume of reprinted articles and lectures" that "will require both stamina and heroic patience." He goes on to state that "the arguments fly to and fro over the 800 pages of the book. It all makes for wearisome reading. Both sides are polemical and sometimes shrill. ... The whole debate of the book is definitely not a fruitful way in which to conduct a dialogue between science and theology." [25] Polkinghorne also noted that there was an "almost complete absence of theological (as opposed to philosophical) argument. ...A lecture by Arthur Peacocke is the only chapter that offers some theological reflection..." [25]

Following the resignation of Michael Reiss, the director of education at the Royal Society—who had controversially argued that creationism be taught in schools[26]—Polkinghorne argued in The Times that there is a distinction between believing in the mind and purpose of a divine creator, and what he calls creationism "in that curious North American sense," with a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and the belief that evolution is wrong, a position he rejects.[27]

[/quote]

Clearly I'm not going to object to that. What I will say, though, is that the distinction he draws between his own views and those of the YEC wingnuts is only one of degree. It still constitutes unreason, however you slice it.

[Goldenmane]

To further hack's points, I'll add that Polkinghorne's viewpoints demonstrate that backwards-thinking thing that so many of these buggers display, and which is rooted in the incredibly arrogant and primitive (but entirely understandable, given the ape-brain we carry around in our skulls) notion that we're something fucking incredibly special - so special, in fact, as to be the purpose of the universe (because, of course, it must have a purpose).

You can build all the complex and pretty castles in the air that you want, but it's all just nonsense if it rests on profoundly stupid assumptions.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Anthony Kenny: "After all, if there is no God, then God is incalculably the greatest single creation of the human imagination."

Dude! Read some scifi.

[Feck]

Great name ! Plonkinghorn