It seems we have it on good scientific authority that the Judeo-Christian view of God is childish. A recently published letter from Albert Einstein to philosopher Erik Gutkind shows Sir Albert taking a reasoned and thoughtful swipe at the Bible and the faiths of Jews and Christians alike.
This letter reminds us of other great scientific minds that have attempted to ply their trade in the realm of theology. Biologist Richard Dawkins is notorious and vocal about his atheism and disdain for the Christian faith, in particular. Stephen Hawking, once married to a devout Christian, has taken a more agnostic view. Astronomer Carl Sagan enjoyed the mysticism of religion, but was pretty convinced that – even so – the material world was all there was. Cornell’s William Provine goes so far as to proclaim that science proves not only is there no God but no free will, no foundation for ethics, and no reason or ultimate purpose.
Other great scientific minds have found no quarrel between science and faith. Biologist Kenneth Miller regularly speaks against Creationism and intelligent design proponents, but is a devout Catholic. Geneticist Francis Collins of the Human Genome Project thinks Jesus is just alright. In fact, roughly 40% of scientists are persons of faith (dependent on the type of science and the surveyor asking the questions). Many big brain folks have figured the very concepts of reason (Thomas Nagel), morality (Immanuel Kant) and human consciousness (Descartes) show some evidence of Something.
Seems to me these wrestlings show that great minds have no more (and no less) insight into the “God” issue than the rest of us. So, then, I’d like to propose a little idea that was a big hit during the Reformation: namely, personal conscience.
If the Jews and Christians of the Bible are correct, you will be giving an account to the Supreme Being for yourself. No clever cross-references or footnoted quotes from Einstein, Darwin or even St. Augustine are going to pull any weight. Pretty much just you and Holiness, tête-à-tête.
Peace be with you. And maybe a bit of spiritual wisdom as well.
Lost Fox
gitmochajoe
lostfox
6 responses so far ↓
For Prez '24 // May 14, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Wow… William Provine is all over the place.
He doesn’t really explain how evolution destroys the idea of free will. I would agree with him on meaning to the extent there is none except that which we create, but I think the last human could find meaning in its life if it tried hard enough.
As far as evolution in the class room, intelligent design doesn’t really explain anything mechanistic about the process (what a scientific theory is supposed to do) or why evolution is wrong, it just asserts that ‘god did it’ or somehow influenced it.
Its a little hard to see which side hes attempting to defend, belief or skepticism. (Based on the evolution in schools part I’m leaning toward belief in a god)
http://www.QuestioCunctus.com
Lost Fox // May 15, 2008 at 8:58 am
Agreed. Provine has taken a few substantial steps away from scientific rationalism.
I’m probably with you on ID. Seems to do what Provine is doing that troubles me so much - prove a transcendental truth by material means. This has historically be a very shaky ground for Xns.
For Prez '24 // May 15, 2008 at 2:51 pm
I looked into to him a bit more, hes actually atheist. His claim is that by keeping creation out of the class room, teachers miss the chance to clarify the strength of an evolutionary theory (and obviously push against creationism).
The whole free will debate is rather interesting. I’ve generally looked at in the wyrd the way the Norse did, but I have to admit I can’t discount the idea that he could be right when I really think about it. Wyrd is the idea that at any time your choices are limited based on your past(education, outlook etc) and goals for the future. Provine takes it a step further saying that these two factors determine your path exactly, instead of you having a choice between actions within your normal character.
Lost Fox // May 15, 2008 at 3:18 pm
FP24, the wyrd view and Provine’s views are interesting, but I think the language can get a bit confusing at some point. No one has “free will” if by that we mean “unconstrained freedom to act within the limits of our physical being.” Past acts, personality, mental and physical limitations, et cetera, all would seem to limit our “range” of free will. We are all in posession, if at all, of limited or constrained free will.
At least that seems to be the case to me.
For Prez '24 // May 15, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Yeah thats pretty much the stance of Wyrd. Provine just takes it the step further to say, no matter how much you argue about one choice over another before deciding, it was going to come to the conclusion you choose because of all the factors before it and in the foreseeable future.
Questio Cunctus » Free Will, Illusion? // May 17, 2008 at 1:02 pm
[...] I was attracted to a heavily linked post about compatibility between religion and science. The post, sparked by the recent Einstein letter in the news, makes mention of a William Provine: Cornell’s [...]
Leave a Comment