Wednesday, August 08, 2007

My brain hurts



I've been on a course this week called "Very Hard Sums for Dragons", well OK its really a course of derivatives pricing theory but it basically consists of hard sums - the piccy at the top of this post is one of the more sedate examples. It's been interesting though and I'm getting to use mathematics I haven't done since my university days when I used to do a lot of sums like that and harder to build models for solving fluid dynamics problems (modelling seawater intrusions into freshwater aquifers if you're interested).

It did get me to thinking though, especially as I've been chatting with a few religious types recently, why people still continue to believe in the crap churches of every stripe pump out when it is clear to anyone who really cares to string a bit of logic together that the evidence for a god who (a) created everything and (b) listens to what you say and (c) intervenes in your life is on a par with the likelihood of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (PBUH) living in my stables.

Now I'm aware of the current ideas of self-replicating memes, of religion being a "misfiring impulse" of a trait that is or was useful to us in our evolutionary past I'm going to postulate another one.

Science is inherently hard to understand and it gets harder the closer you look. Trust me those sums at the top of this post are an absolute doddle when you start mucking about into quantum theory; when you get to it there are probably only a handful of people on the planet who really fully understand what actually happened in the first femtosecond of the universe and why. When you combine this with seeming contradictions like an electron being both a particle and a wave and never knowing exactly where it is then it's easy for a person with a religious predisposition to dismiss much of science as just as unbelievable as their own "faith" in a invisible, omnipotent God so they might as well stick with what they know.

This is however an error. You can join in the science side if you want, it'll take some effort and to really, really understand it you're going to have to learn a lot about maths, physics and a whole host of other disciplines but you can start small; maybe read that book by Steven Hawkins or something. The thing is that you can participate and see that the logic works and even if you can't devote the twenty odd years it'll take you to get that astrophysics PhD you'll at least be on the way; you'll also have confidence that, because of the scientific method, that what the clever handful are telling you about the origins of the universe will be as correct as it's possible to be because a whole host of people have spent their lives trying to pick holes in what these guys and girls are saying; it's called "peer review". There's simply no way you can do the same with religion, you have to take what you are given on faith alone as religions assertions are impossible to prove using logic and reason. You have to go on faith alone, what someone tells you to believe, you can't participate because when you look at the faith critically and try and apply reason it doesn't work.

It all takes work however and it's probably unsettling to have to do all that questioning and so I think a lot of people, especially if they're not too bright or well educated, prefer to stay in the comfort zone of a religious faith that was handed down to them in childhood. "I'll never understand this science, all those equations scare me; better stick with my invisible friend."

Just an idle thought on the train home this evening. Comments from god-botherers welcome as ever.

5 comments:

newhousenewjob said...

Gosh, where to start? Not every believer is a red-necked hillbilly - some of us are actually educated to quite a high level. My PhD (from one of the top 10 universities in the UK) is not in one of the traditional sciences, but it did involve rigorous theoretical analysis. And some believers are even scientists. Even Albert Einstein said there could be no legitimate conflict between science and religion. Here's what he said in 1939:

"For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capable, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source."

OK, so Einstein described himself as agnostic, but there are and have been plenty of Christian scientists, who certainly didn't consider their beliefs to be incompatible with their scientific endeavours and discoveries - Joseph Lister, Lord Kelvin, Nobel Prizewinners Charlie Townes and Arthur Schawlow, to name a very few...

Let's look at Hawking (not Hawkins). He himself strenuously denies that he is an atheist. He is an agnostic or deist or something more along those lines. He's not even very sympathetic to atheism. His first wife is a Christian, and has been quoted as saying that without her belief in God she would not have been able to cope with their situation. When asked whether he believed that science and Christianity were competing world views, Hawking replied, "...then Newton would not have discovered the law of gravity." He knew that Newton had strong religious convictions.

Incidentally, the only (or main) places in which you can pick holes in Hawking's arguments in 'A Brief History of Time' are in places where he makes sweeping statements like the one on p 122, "These laws may have originally been decreed by God, but it appears that he has since left the universe to evolve according to them and does not now intervene in it". He gives no grounds for his statement that "it appears...", because there is no provable evidence of God's intervention or lack of it.

One of the world's greatest cosmologists, Allan Sandage, converted to Christianity at the age of 50. When asked if religion and science were compatible, he replied, "Yes. The world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together."

I could go on. And on and on and on. I could give you massive numbers of links to articles that discuss the compatibility of science and religion, including articles by the current and former Popes. I could tell you about surveys that show that, if anything, the scientific community contains a higher proportion of believers than society as a whole. But I need to do some work now...

Have a nice day.

Whiny God-botherer x

Dracunculus said...

"I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together"

I am convinced I'm a dragon but me being convinced of it doesn't necessarily make it so. Life in all it's complexity is perfectly explainable through evolutionary processes (in fact its vast diversity is evidence for evolution) and doesn't require a designer. In fact if there had been a designer he/she/it should be fired for making such a mess of it.

Nobel prizewinners who profess a religious faith: I seem to recall Mr Dawkins doing this one in "The God Delusion" (not to hand at the moment) and recall that of all the science Nobels handed out the quantity of recipients holding a religious faith was less than 1%.

The Einstein quote has got me confused. It doesn't actually say anything about a deity at all. "Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source." It doesn't say that that source is anything supernatural? Just so happens that evolution has primed the hairless monkeys with an almost unstoppable curiosity and equipped them with some nifty tools like opposable thumbs and the ability to devise complex languages to pursue that curiosity; it had evolutionary survival value and it worked - it's the reason why we're everywhere on the planet (and some places off it) and I've got this 3G equipped lappy. Again, no deity required.

On Hawking (finger trouble last time!) "...laws may have originally been decreed by God, but it appears that he has since left the universe to evolve according to them and does not now intervene in it". He gives no grounds for his statement that "it appears...", because there is no provable evidence of God's intervention or lack of it."

That makes him a weak deist at best and as he was writing a popular science book I'll let him off the generalisation but he's correct in his latter assertion for there is no evidence to suggest that there is anyone with their "hands on the wheel". It's actually down to the believer to furnish evidence for their god, not for the unbeliever to furnish evidence for the non existence of a deity. Carl Sagan covered this rather neatly in his "Dragon in the Garage" scenario.

---------
Oh and a small correction to the original post: I was wrong about having a knowledge of the start of the universe down to the first femtosecond, apparently we're down to yoctoseconds (10^-25) and still heading towards Planck Time. If there is a "God of the gaps" the gaps are getting perilously small!

newhousenewjob said...

"It's actually down to the believer to furnish evidence for their god."

Not really, Drac. As Ma Beck so succinctly put it the other day, "For those who believe, no proof is necessary.
For those who do not believe, no proof is sufficient."

I don't have to furnish evidence for my God's existence, because faith is belief even though you haven't seen the proof. There are, however, plenty of pointers in the direction of our belief not being unfounded, and those are enough for me.

You could, of course, prove us wrong by proving beyond doubt that there is no God if that were the case - but you can't do that, because no such conclusive proof exists either way. One could even say that the complete absence of conclusive proof that there is no God is actually all the proof we need that He DOES exist.

It's a matter of faith, and I'll continue to pray that you're blessed with it one day. In the meantime, since we can't prove you wrong and you can't prove us wrong, guess what - we're going to have to agree to differ again! Don't you just love a pointless argument...?

Love and prayers
WGB

Dracunculus said...

"One could even say that the complete absence of conclusive proof that there is no God is actually all the proof we need that He DOES exist."

The dull thudding sound you are currently hearing is the sound of a dragon banging his head against a brick wall.

Counsel for the prosecution rests.

newhousenewjob said...

Never mind, Drac - perhaps banging your scaly head against the wall will knock some sense into it! ;¬)

I suppose that makes me counsel for the defence. Well, it's getting very late, so I'd better rest too. Night night!