The "God Theory"

[DrFree]

Originally Posted by earl

I don't do physics-I don't understand physics. I sometimes think "New Agers" get a little fuzzy with poorly understood physics in trying to apply them to spirituality...But then there's physicist Bernard Haisch who has an interesting hypothesis about "God," conciousness, zero-point energy fields, etc. which he put into his recent book, "The God Theory." Here's an interview with him re his views:

God and Physics — A Jewish Magazine, an Interfaith Movement

have a good one, earl

Among other things, Haisch says:

So, all these things [strange facts about our world] could have been totally different—there’s nothing in the laws of physics that says that these things have to be this way.

But of course, that's not true!!! For each of these peculiarities there are laws of nature that specify what will happen.

Haisch continues:

So this then raises the question, why is our universe “special”? Now of course the scientists hate that. They don’t want to see anything special in the universe because that might imply that there is intelligence behind it. So the explanation is: “well ok, if our universe looks special, that’s an accident.” It means that there are lots and lots of other universes, maybe an infinite number of other universes that are totally different from ours and that we’re just not in those universes because we couldn’t be—ours only looks special because we’re in it and couldn’t be somewhere else.


You can accept that as an explanation. However, I’m saying that it’s equally defensible to assume that ours is special because there is thought that went into it. I’m just pointing out that there are two equally likely possibilities at this point in time. One does not lean over another by virtue of any kind of evidence. Except, perhaps, if you take the evidence of intelligence from mystics and people who have had prayerful or spontaneous experiences, who have experienced it with their consciousness. Now of course scientists will say, “That evidence doesn’t count, we don’t believe that kind of evidence because we can’t measure it with our telescopes or microscopes.” So I say, fine, you want to discount that evidence, there is still a zero on both sides; therefore, believe whichever side you want.

This line of reasoning is very peculiar. In effect it claims: The laws of nature don't explain why the laws of nature are the way they are. Therefore there must be some reason, cause, purpose for the way the laws of nature operate. Therefore there must be, or, it is reasonable to suppose that something made this world with its laws.

This is a special case of the ubiquitous argument: We don't understand how X happened. Therefore God must have made X. Therefore we do understand why X happened. In this form the argument is patently spurious. Why is it less spurious in Haisch's form?:


Empirical science can only investigate what happens in this observable world. People can speculate about other, non-observable worlds. But that speculation is not science.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by DrFree

Empirical science can only investigate what happens in this observable world. People can speculate about other, non-observable worlds. But that speculation is not science.

Modern physics reveals that the overwhelming majority of this Universe can not be observed by any scientific method whatsoever... ever. Even within the surface area of the planet where people live the majority of it is non-observable by any scientific method whatsoever. Of what can be observed only a small, small fraction can be observed simultaneously... by any scientific means whatsoever. Of what can be observed, the act of observing it always alters it. Of what can be observed scientifically the majority of it must be taken with Faith in someone else who observed it. For example someone might tell me what an atomic clock would do when moved through different inertial reference frames... but I will never repeat the experiment.

The overwhelming majority of science taught in school is taken on faith from a book... and it is NOT achieved through scientific experiment. How different then is religion and science?