WHY SCIENCE DOES NOT DISPROVE GOD

Amir Aczel, is a Boston University mathematician and prolific author of some 17 non-fiction books, many of which, like Why Science does not Disprove God, deal with big cosomological questions. He states that "the purpose of the book is to defend the integrity of science" which, he stresses, should not be used by the New Atheists, like Richard Dawkins, to further a dubious "sociocultural agenda." Without using tedious transcripts Aczel bases many of his arguments on interviews with 35 well-known figures whose reputations precede them. These include 10 Nobel laureates, like Steven Weinberg, gurus like Deepak Chopra and other well-knowns like Benoit Mandelbrot, Roger Penrose and Dawkins himself. Thus, his exposition is well-rounded. Nevertheless his message is clear: "new atheism is combative, aggressive and belligerent against people of faith," and moreover, willing to "bend and distort" science to this end. [Sorry Richard et al., but you asked for it]! SMN psychologists might be interested to ponder Dawkins claim that the abuse he suffered as a child was less damaging that being exposed to religion. Speaking for himself in this manner is clearly no consolation to others who have suffered abuse.

The book's early chapters flow chronologically from Paleolithic goddess figurines to early historical evidence that demonstrates "why archaeology does not disprove the Bible" making the fundamental point that both religious and scientific sensibilities spring from the same source in human consciousness. Thus, to label the former as a delusion afflicting stupid people is a gross psychological and philosophical simplification of humankind's search for meaning. Likewise the history of astronomy, astrology, mathematics and cosmology are intricately interwoven knowledge traditions and a perennial source of awe, wonder and mystery that the New Atheists seem to shun, belittle or explain away. Thus, dismissing this or that as invalid science displays a rather narrow minded view of the cosmos that borders on fundamentalism. By contrast Einstein replied to a young girl who asked him about his religious beliefs by writing "everyone who is seriously involved…in science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling."

The New Atheists do claim to be awed by natural phenomena, but in denying the need for any creative impulses they invoke quantum rules to infer that we "all emerged from quantum nothingness." Aczel points out that quantum physics implies no such "universe from nothing deception." It seems the New Atheists are evidently wedded to a nihilistic ideology from the outset. [Personally, I've never understood this concept of "nothingness" – or the rather silly question "why is there something rather then nothing?" Perhaps I'm wrong but the answer seems rather obvious: one cannot experience nothing]! To conceptualise nothing is a contradiction because something or someone has to do the conceptualising in the first place. [Likewise, to say the universe is meaningless is to say that one's nihilistic claim is also meaningless: check with Whitehead on that one]. Thus, I was intrigued to learn that Bernard de Espagnat , French philosopher and quantum physicist, suggested that quantum theory is only a veiled reality theory (italics original) that our greatest mathematical laws only partially address. Thus, it is "highly presumptuous" to infer that there is not something we cannot conceptualise. [This again seems reasonably obvious given that until quite recently we could not conceptualize gravity, electricity or quantum phenomena]. To suggest otherwise is to imply that science has solved almost everything, and as New Atheists hold, proved the non-existence of God and done away with the need to explore any mystery beyond our current comprehension (and methodologies) of science. [Can you prove the non-existence of anything?] In short all serious (convincing) philosophers of science admit that science has limitations and that our conceptual abilities may be, to paraphrase, French physicist Herve Zwirn, as inferior to those of future generations as those of animals are to our own. Certainly to claim our science has disproved God or some other "external force of creation" is highly presumptuous and dogmatic.

Aczel goes on to remind us that life is unpredictable, and that things may change abruptly, as 'catastrophe theory" mathematicians will confirm. Human domination of Earth may be one such unexpected eventuality [ostensibly upsetting nature's equilibrium, our concept of equilibrium or nature's response! But, one may ask, are phase shifts between equilibrium and non-equilibrium unnatural?]

Aczel describes chapter 11, dealing with the "Goldilocks" Anthropic Principle (AP), as "the book's most important chapter." SMN readers probably need no reminder that the AP holds that nothing [that word again] including the universe as we know it could exist if the laws of nature were not fine-tuned exactly as they are. Physicist luminary Richard Feynman referred to the "fine constant structure" as a "magic" number, ostensibly written "you might say by the hand of God." Roger Penrose has spent a lifetime trying to understand these phenomena and in his books (e.g., The Road to Reality) uses such terms as "creator" and "act of God" quite freely. Why then is the AP so important besides the implication that we would not be here to ask the question without it? Aczel holds that as yet no scientific explanation exists for the ostensibly God-like AP. But ironically the New Atheists embrace the God-lingo of physicists, and Dawkins even finds the AP "beautiful - perhaps because [his] consciousness has been raised by Darwin." [Here I lose Dawkins' thread. How does he define raised consciousness?] Let's see what Aczel has to say. He points out that, as well as their nihilistic bent, and denial of meaning (other than their own), the New Atheists seem enamoured with robot and machine metaphors. "We are robots" writes Robert Kurzban, who seems, like Dawkins, to think computers could develop consciousness and take over the world. Daniel Dennett wrote in Consciousness Explained [some say "explained away"] that we don't really understand consciousness [even after he explained it] and even after "so many idiots" have worked on it! [Again one might loose the thread, given that such idiots make the machines to beat chess masters and perhaps take over the world].

I recommended the book to one of my colleagues who commented that it did not prove anything, except [I replied] perhaps what it set out to do – to show that Dawkins et al., have not been scientific in their failed attempts to disprove God. What Aczel does do is keep us focused on the frontiers of consciousness, philosophical rumination and the limitations of rational, scientific discourse. We just don't know "whether mathematical space is an accurate description of real physical space-time" or a veiled or virtual facsimile. We "humans cannot perceive or understand the infinite in any meaningful way," [although we may glimpse and be awed by its deeper, more expansive, and meaningful manifestations in moments of insight, illumination or spiritual experience. Note to Richard Dawkins: that's my take and perhaps that of thousands of others who have reported to the Religious Experience Research Centre at the University of Wales. Perhaps Dawkins could report on how Darwin raised his consciousness]!!

Aczel winds up his exposition with discussion of the convergence of mathematics, spirituality and the human mind, pleasing, at least to this reader, for its holistic and philosophical tone, as it leaves new frontiers of deep structure and wisdom open for exploration. In this regard Azcel holds that the scientific argument for New Atheism fails [to acknowledge the unknown]. Science has not yet explained the miracle of universal fine-tuning, or consciousness […sorry Doctor Dennett] nor have the New Atheists added anything to the discussion, except perhaps misinterpretations of where the complex and ambiguous evidence might lead. So the jury is out and Aczel admits "I have not proved the existence of God." However, he has shown that our "impulse to know the world and our place in it is at the roots of both science and spirituality." Aczel has provided good reasons for us to have little or no faith in the New Atheists, their zealous agenda or their unscientific arguments.