The God particle and the trump card

The recent discovery of the "God Particle" has been a major breakthrough for science across the globe.  Not only has the scientific community promoted the particle, but the media has hyped it as well.  The "God Particle" is known properly as the Higgs boson particle and the quest for this particle was pursued for many years.  Why all the hype and what are the implications of this newly discovered particle?

One of the main reasons for the hype is the discovery of the most fundamental piece of the universe's beginning that has ever been discovered.  According to the scientific community, this particle is so important that it is responsible  for springing the universe into existence after the "Big Bang"  and giving mass to all particles of matter.  It is so named because it helps us to understand the process of the universe's earliest stage of development.

It is interesting that the Higgs bosen is refereed to as the "God Particle."  The "God Particle" reference is used because of the fact that God has traditionally been understood as the creator of the universe.  However, some might be willing to say that this discovery explains away the existence of God, hence the name - "God Particle."  But does the particle really render God useless?

A couple of points need to be made to counter those who would say that God is now officially dead.  First, The "God Particle" did not create the universe, for the universe was already in existence, according to the "Big Bang."  And, secondly,  for those who still want to hold on to the universe from nothing idea, a scientific explanation must be given to explain the origin of something from nothing.  This last explanation will never be given, because science is unable to address this point.

Why all the hype?  For many, there is always a quest to try and disprove the existence of God.  Scientism claims that science is the trump card of explaining away the universe, but is it?  Science ultimately fails, because as it has already been stated, explaining something from nothing is not something science can do.  Science assumes only the material universe and tests within that realm, therefore, the something from nothing question is relegated to philosophy.  Philosophy is the field that possesses the real trump card.  The "God Particle" may have made many delight in the possibility of destroying God, but in the end, no evidence from a scientific perspective can accomplish this task.

When you hit reality

"Where do we come from?" and "What is real?" are two of the most puzzling and debated questions in the history of philosophical thought.  Today, the philosopher does not have the the microphone as in the past.  Today, it is the scientific community that has been given the reigns of authority when truth is in question.  In the past, the Christian community had some authority, but a paradigm shift occurred with Darwin's publication of the "Origin of Species" in 1859.

What does the scientific community have to make it the supposed bearer of truth?  With the medical advancements and the continued progress of science, it is easy to see why many would turn to science for answers.  But, what about the big questions of life, does science have absolute authority to answer?

One of the primary driving forces of science is the idea of empiricism.  Empiricism deals with sense experience.  In other words, all knowledge is driven by sense experience alone.  This makes the natural world the only world by which knowledge can be achieved.  Supernatural, therefore, is confined to superstition and fairy tale status.

If science is indeed king, then it follows that science should answer all, or at least point us to the truth of what is real.  Does the scientific method or science in general meet the criteria for answering all truth claims?  No, for the statement itself is not able to be tested in the lab, by the scientific method, or by any scientific means.  There are many instances where the field of science can do nothing but make subjective statements, because the answers to the questions fall outside the scientific community.  For example, the laws of logic, a human's first person awareness, the moral law, and mathematical entities all lie outside of scientific explanation.

Today, unfortunately, the culture has caved in to the idea that science is the purveyor of truth.  Before giving science the scepter of truth, shouldn't we first confirm if science matches with truth?  Truth is what happens when you hit reality, because truth corresponds with reality.  Science can in no way hit all reality to justify that it is the sole possessor of truth.  Many have opinions about science, but opinions don't count unless they match with truth.   Truth is objective and knowable.

When looking at the big questions of life, maybe we should be cautious and consider all the evidence, even if the evidence falls outside the realm of science.  Maybe we should be open-minded and follow the evidence without pre-conceived ideas.  When we do so, we are able to see more clearly the answers to the big questions of life.

Prove it!

In order to prove something you need evidence.  Commonly, evidential proof does not have to be 100% in your favor, for this is difficult in almost all fields.  The laws of chemistry and physics might be an exception of where evidence can be shown to line up consistently for all known situations.  For example, the speed of light is a constant at 186,000 miles per second.  We have no evidence of light speed varying.  It must be noted, however, that the hard sciences cannot answer all questions.  If fact, science has its limitations.

Proving your point can also be in the form of non-empirical evidence.  For example, the law of non-contradiction.  A cannot equal A and non-A at the same time, or an object cannot be both a square and a triangle at the same time.  When talking of evidence to prove a point, both reasoning and science can be used to arrive at an answer that has the best explanatory power.

Recently, Stephen Hawking's  made two bizarre comments.  One of the comments made is that the universe caused itself.  The second statement of Hawkin's is that heaven does not exist.  What's really interesting is that both statements are not statements based on the field (science) that Hawking's holds to so dearly, but are philosophical in nature. 

It is Hawking's belief that science should trump all other fields, so why would he make two non-scientific statements?  This belief system of science being the ruler of all knowledge is referred to as scientism.  Scientism comes in a couple of forms but basically states that science is the one and only worldview that can answer all the questions of life.  However, when you look at Hawking's two statements, there is absolutely no way he can prove either by way of science or the scientific method.  This empirical worldview assumes that only that which can be observed should count as knowledge.  But, what about our conscious awareness, how is this explained by ways of science?  What about the objective moral law that exist, does science have an answer to this?  The laws of logic which we know to be true, can in no way be tested in a laboratory.

To prove an argument, evidence must be given to tip the scales in your favor.  Various views can be examined to determine which has the best explanatory power.  When Hawking's made the statement that heaven does not exist, a buzz was generated on-line.  One questioner rightly asked of Hawking's - Prove it!

Our limited friend

Many times science is pitted against the existence of God, as if you need to accept one or the other.  Is science in direct opposition to God?  Many who are naturalist would agree that the two fields of science and theology have nothing to do with one another.  For the naturalistic scientist, science trumps all arguments as the only reasonable avenue for ultimate truth.

Those who hold a naturalistic view do so with the assumption that the material universe is all there is.  Evolutionary scientist, Richard Dickerson has this to say about science, "Science, fundamentally, is a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule. Rule No. 1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural."[1] Niles Eldridge adds,  “If there is one rule, one criterion that makes an idea scientific, it is that it must invoke naturalistic explanations for phenomena … it’s simply a matter of definition—of what is science, and what is not.”[2]  But, can all reality be explained on a purely naturalistic level?

On a naturalistic level, all truth is determined by scientific investigation, but can this view take us to an ultimate truth as to how things really are?  What if a supernatural realm exists?  Obviously, if this is the case, then science only offers a limited view of truth.  Science writer, Kitty Ferguson, states, "if the supernatural world exists, and if it is inherently beyond testing by the scientific method, then there is truth beyond the range of scientific explanation."[3]

Science, although helpful in many ways, is itself limited.  There are a multitude of questions that science will never be able answer.  Where did the universe come from?  Surely, no credible scientist would say it came to be from nothing?  Why do we have the freedom of thought?  Will the naturalist say that we are simply programed machines?  And, if that is the case, why should anyone be held responsible for their actions?  How does one explain history on a naturalist scheme?  What formula can be offered to account for the resurrection of Jesus?  How about philosophical knowledge; is logic testable by way of the scientific method?  Do moral values open themselves up to the realm of science?

Scientific naturalism seems to be severely limited.  In fact,  scientific naturalism assumes that we can only think in one direction.  Richard Lewontin makes this point by saying, "We have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations…that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”[4]  But again, if truth is ultimately what is important, naturalism fails to answer in a comprehensive way.

What exactly is naturalism?  It is a one way, limited pursuit, as to what can be known in the material universe.  Naturalism can never answer the ultimate truth question, because of its limitations.  Not only does scientific naturalism turn out to be limited, but it presents itself as a philosophy in which to view the world.  Philip Johnson sums up naturalistic science, stating, "Evolutionary naturalism takes the inherent limitations of science and turns them into a devastating philosophical weapon: because science is our only real way of knowing anything, what science cannot know cannot be real."


 [1]  Dickerson, Richard, The Game of Science:Perspectives on Science and Faith (Vol. 44, June 1992), p. 137
[2]  Eldridge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, Washington Square Press, 1982
[3]  Ferguson, Kitty, The Fire in the Equations, p. 82-83
[4]  Lewontin, Richard, Billions and Billions of Demons, p. 28

Scientism gone bad

According to one definition, "scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality." [1] In an almost arrogant tone scientism claims to be the sole possessor of truth. Scientism claims that only by way of empirical science can truth be acquired. Again, according to scientism, "Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientific worldview."[2] Scientism claims the only way by which individuals can absolutely know truth is through scientifically testable data. Another tenet of scientism would be the rejection of any supernatural explanations, for supernaturalism is outside the realm of what is testable. But, is this the way truth is garnered and what is science really about anyway?

Science in Greek is scientia, and is properly defined as, "knowledge." Science in an unhindered definition is interested in truth without stipulations. Today, however, scientism and a naturalistic view of science go hand in hand. John Post has this to say about science, “The sciences cumulatively tell us, that everything can be accounted for in purely naturalistic terms... All truth is determined by basic scientific entities.”[3] Taking Post's definition limits what scientific knowledge can aquire. Philosopher, Alvin Plantinga rightly assesses the problem of seeing science only by way of a naturalistic explanation by saying, “If you exclude the supernatural from science, then if the world or some phenomena within it are supernaturally caused — you won’t be able to reach that truth scientifically... Observing methodological naturalism thus hamstrings science.”

What about scientism, can it pass the muster of its own definition? No, because the definition itself is not testable. The arrogant proclamation that scientism is the sole beholder of truth is nothing more than a bald-face lie, for scientism cannot be measured, tested, or quantified by any scientific principle. Philosopher of science, Del Ratzche states, “If part of reality lies beyond the natural realm, then science cannot get at the truth without abandoning the naturalism it presently follows as a methodological rule of thumb.” So, how should science be understood? To present science in an unfiltered way means that the quest for knowledge or scientific truth should be pursued without restrictions such as a preconceived notion of naturalism. When scientism rules the realm of science, then the truth of the matter may never be discovered.

[1] Scientism defined
[2] Ibid
[3] John Post as quoted in J.P. Moreland's, Kingdom Triangle, p. 40

Has Science Made Belief in God Obsolete? (1 of 4) by JP Moreland

The scientific limitations

There is a saying that, "Knowledge is power." It is true that proper knowledge does bring the force of truth behind it and in that way it represents strength. Today, we have many that bow at the feet of scientific knowledge, as if it is the sole possesor of all that can be known. This view of science is called scientism. But, I contend that science is severly limited in the scope in what it can show, which runs counter to many within the scientic community.

Scientific leaps have brought great benifit to all, especially in the field of medicine. We should all rejoice at the fantastic discoveries and advances that science has brought to the world. The big problem comes when individuals assume that either science has all the answers or that science is best qualified to answer all questions.

There are a multitude of things that science can not answer. For example, mathematics and logic can be grasped without science showing the way. Science does not explain logic or mathematics and no theories or proofs exist for either. Something else that cannot be proven by science is my own consciousness. I have a first person awareness of what is taking place within my mind, where science always has to take a third person approach. Science has knowledge of objects from a third person perspective. Science will never be able to measure or give the reason for the love I have for my family. Science cannot account for why a moral law is in existance. We intutitivly know good and evil, but science has no way to explain this. Finally science itself cannot prove that it is the only way by which we can have proper knowledge. The scientific method cannot be used to show that science is the king of how we are to understand the world.

If science is limited, it is incumbent upon all of us to seek other forms of knowledge. Science is helpful for understanding, but it in no way is able to provide ultimate truth.

• A great video showing the limits of science

Big Bang + fine-tuning = God

One of the arguments often given against the existence of God is called, the "god-of-the-gaps" inference. When the term "god-of-the-gaps" is applied to the theist by the skeptic, what they mean is, the theist will automatically infer the existence of God when science has not yet come up with a sufficient explanation . Philosopher and Mathematician, William Dembski explains god-of-the-gaps this way, "Design substitutes extraordinary explanations where ordinary explanations will do and thereby commits a god-of-the-gaps fallacy."[1] For example, what if you were diagnosed with an incurable disease one week and you started to pray thereafter. The following week you return to the doctor and discover that your disease was completely eradicated. You explain to everyone how God healed your body, but the skeptic would accuse you of a god-of-the-gaps explanation. The skeptic might say, "You were mis-diagnosed" or possibly it was "Just a coincidence."

Today there exists powerful evidence that the universe not only came into existence from nothing (Big Bang), which supports the Genesis 1:1 passage, but that the universe was designed for life to exist or it was fine-tuned for life. These two aspects of the universe (Big Bang and fine-tuning) point directly toward a Divine Being that created the spacial-temporal universe. The fine tuning has been hailed by many leading scientist as powerful evidence for the existence of God. Astrophysicists Paul Davies states, "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all...It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe...The impression of design is overwhelming." [2]

What is fine-tuning and how does it point to the existence of God? Fine-tuning involves constants of nature that are so delicately balanced that if just one of these constants were slightly off, the universe as we know it could not exist. Each of these constants are crucial to life. Each of these constants was in place from the beginning so that life could surface. The universe is like a car that needed all the parts put together just perfectly (including a filled gas tank) down to the last screw in order for the car to operate properly. If the universe is not fine-tuned from the get go, life has no chance whatsoever.

I will list two constants of the universe that are fine-tuned in order to explain what fine-tuning is all about. First is the expansion rate of the universe. The universe is expanding in size at a specific rate. The number assigned concerning the expansion rate of the universe is 1 in 10 to the 55th power. This is an incredibly large number. Simply put, if the expansion rate of the universe is just a hair slower or faster, life cannot exist anywhere. A second fine-tuned constant is the ratio of protons to electron. The number given here is 1 in 10 to the 37th power. Again, if this ratio of protons to electrons varies ever so slightly, no universe for life can exist. Astronomer, Hugh Ross, has listed some 34 constants that each have to be fine-tuned in order for life to exist. [3] To get an example of how precise the ratio of protons to electrons (1 in 10 to the 37th power) is, consider this analogy. If you piled dimes on one billion North American sized continents from here to the moon and painted one dime red for your friend to pick blindfolded on the first guess, then you have succeeded in just one of the finely-tuned numbers. This is just one constant that would have to be fulfilled and it is not even the most precise (largest constant) number. All 34 constants have to be considered together. If just one of the constants is slightly off, the universe has no chance to produce life. Philosopher, William Lane Craig has stated, "It's as if the universe knew we were coming."

The fine-tuning for the universe gives such powerful evidence for God's existence that the skeptical community has responded in one of two ways, either, they appeal to a science-of-the-gaps explanation or they posit that there are literally millions of universes that exist (Multi-universe hypothesis). Realize that the skeptic in order to deny the existence of God has to defer to either of these two responses. The science-of-of-the-gaps response would go like this, "Someone had to win the lottery, we were just the lucky ones" or they might say, "You can't appeal to God because this is the way it just happened." Many who are skeptical believe that science will one day answer all questions. This view is called scientism (science answers all and only science can give us true knowledge). There is only one problem with this view, "What caused the Big Bang?" Science will never be able to answer this question, because the entirety of matter in the universe came from nothing. Something never comes from nothing according to the laws of science. Similarly, the multi-verse hypothesis has no answers and absolutely no scientific evidence to back it up. It is purely a statement given to try and dodge the fact of fine-tuning. Those who hold to this outlandish explanation do so in order to try and boost the chances of life happening by a random chance process. There is another big problem here and that is, you still have to explain where the first universe (from which all else sprang) or the first part of matter came from. Again, you cannot get something from nothing. Science will never be able to answer this question.

This brings us directly to God and a definition of who He is. If the universe came from nothing, then whatever created the universe must be non-material. Whatever created the universe must be all-powerful. Being that the universe is fine-tuned, whatever created the universe must have planned it that way. All of these attributes or descriptions are what we think of when we think of God. The Big Bang + fine-tuning of the universe gives powerful evidence for the existence of God. The skeptic who appeals to god-of-the-gaps or multi-universe explanations is making a philosophical leap of faith that has absolutely no foundation to stand on. The best explanation for the beginning of the universe and its' fine-tuning is that an all-powerful, transcendent God exists.

[1] Dembski, William, Intelligent Design, p. 238
[2] Scientific quotes for fine-tuning evidence of God's existence
[3] Fine tuning constants

• A good video explaining what is meant by god-of-the-gaps

Ethics Without God

Atheist, Kai Nielson wrote an article with the above title.[1] Recently, I watched a video by Atheist, Sam Harris titled, "Science can answer moral questions." I would like to make a few comments on Harris and what I took from the video.

First, Harris belongs to a group who refer to themselves as the "New Atheists." The new atheists are slightly different in that they have a passion for ridding the world of all religions. They see no distinction between Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, or any other religious group. Their perception is that religion causes harm to the human race, and therefore, it needs to be extinguished. Some of the prominent players of the new atheists include, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins.

The video of Harris lasts about 20 minutes and he makes a passionate plea for a new way to do Ethics. First, It should be stated that Harris obviously does not believe in God or in any type of Supernaturalism. Because of this belief, he believes that moral values are the product of the brain, which he so states in the video. Secondly, Harris seems to be promoting the philosophical view of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a philosophical belief that "all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people."[2] In order to make his point In the video, Harris compares Muslim women who wear burkas, verses women who are scantily clad. In his judgement there must be something better in between. He also implies that corporal punishment is wrong, but homosexuality is OK.

This brings me the the third point which I see as the overall goal of Harris and some of the new atheists. At one point, Harris remarks that, "we need a universal concept of morality." I believe what Harris wants is a governing body that determines what is morally acceptable and what is not. If this is the case, then it goes beyond cultural relativism (where cultures decide what is moral) and heads right to a universal relativistic world. Relativism posits that, "truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them."[3] In this case, those in power decide what is right and what is wrong. A universal relativistic world would make all the ethical decisions, since God does not exist and needs to be terminated on the new atheists view point.

What Harris and others are really advocating is nothing short of complete intolerance of any religious group. They have decided that all religions are bad without even inspecting the validity of each on its own merits. They (new atheists) are not interested in truth, but are more than willing to have others bow to the god of scientism. Scientism is the view that science, and only science, can give us meaningful knowledge of how things really are. In the end, ethics without God, becomes a form of self-worship that can only be spread by way of oppression.

* To see the video click here
[1] Nielson, Kai, Ethics Without Religion, from Louis Pojman's Ethical Theory, p. 619-624
[2] Utilitarianism
[3] Relativism

Only the empirical god

The fourth point of the "new atheist" states: "All explanations can be understood from the position of scientific naturalism."1 First, a few definitions are in order before proceeding. Naturalism is the position that believes all that exists or is real must belong to the natural world. On this view, supernaturalism is a moot point. Therefore, science becomes the kingpin in understanding the natural world. Scientism is the belief that science is at least king (weak version) or the only way (strong version) by which knowledge can be obtained.2 All answers must therefore be phrased naturalistically, since the supernatural can't give us any answers to what should count for knowledge. According to scientific naturalism, any talk of God would be ridiculously silly. A God or gods simply cannot exist on a naturalist view.

Scientific naturalism becomes a kind of god, whereby science is the theological text. Science is always empirical. Empiricism is the belief that knowledge is only derived from sense experience. All that can be known is only contained within the natural world. This is why some individuals mock any type of theistic belief. The only way to discover is by way of the empirical sciences. This is done and justified by way of testing or through the use of the scientific method.

The problem with the "new atheists" revolves around the fact that they have limited themselves to what can be known. Also, contradictions exist within this particular way of obtaining knowledge. First, if a supernatural realm does exist, the "new atheists" will never be able to find it. They have limited themselves to the natural world and have closed their minds to the possibility of obtaining knowledge by way of an inference to the best explanation. Anthony Flew left atheism for theism exactly because he was able to follow the evidence wherever it led. He had this to say about the evidence of DNA and its' supernatural implications, "It now seems to me that the findings of more than 50 years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."3 When the "new atheist" limits knowledge to only the natural world and the discovery thereof, it is like fighting with both hands tied behind your back.

The second big problem with this naturalistic argument is that even the "new atheist" can't meet there own criteria for how one makes discovery. For example, "How do you prove the scientific method is the best way to obtain knowledge by way of the scientific method?" Additionally, problems exist concerning, the meaning of life, moral values, and humans as possessors of intrinsic values.

On the "new atheist" view, moral meaning simply does not exist. Atheist Michael Ruse notes, "Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth...Morality is just an aid to survival ...and any deeper meaning is illusory."4 Atheist J.L. Mackie says, "Moral properties constitute so odd a cluster of properties and relations that they are most unlikely to have arisen in the ordinary course of events without an all-powerful god to create them.4 I think C.S. Lewis best sums things up by saying, "Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."5

Moral values provide another problem of that can't be scientifically tested. On the atheistic view, without God, morals are irrelevant. Therefore, there is no reason why we should behave in a morally responsive way. If the atheist says, "we should be morally responsive," an answer should be provided as to why we should. On a strictly Darwinian mindset, we are to operate according to the mechanical law of survival of the fittest, without regard for our fellow accidentally created beings. Anytime a moral law is admitted to by the atheist, then the whole game changes. For with the moral law comes the moral law-giver, God.

Lastly, humans do seem to process intrinsic value, which would run counter to the results of naturalism. Again, here is another issue that does not seem to lend itself to what science cannot give an answer to. Atheist Peter Singer, rightly justifies that when an individual recognizes humans with intrinsic values, it is proper to "argue that humans were created in the image of God."6 So,why would Singer and others conclude that humans are no more special than an ant? This seems to be a ludicrous view without any supporting evidence.

Scientific naturalism cannot measure up to its own standards and can't give us answers to some fundamental truths. When scientific naturalism is the accepted way to access knowledge, only the god of empiricism can be worshiped. By stating that understanding is only acquired by way of scientific naturalism is not only closed minded, but the possibility to discover knowledge is severely hampered and eternally dangerous to the soul.

1 John Haught, God and the New Atheism, xiii - xiv
2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
3 Interview of Anthony Flew: http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/flew-interview.pdf
4 Michael Ruse as quoted in, Kingdom Triangle, p. 51
5 C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, p. 46
5 Peter Singer as quoted in, Kingdom Triangle, p. 53

• Debate between Peter Singer and Dinesh D'Souza (I was at a debate between the two in Los Angeles and was not overly impressed with D'Souza on that account. I have heard D'Souza debate others more successfully) :http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2009/04/dinesh-dsouza-vs-peter-singer-debate.html
• Singer's moral views are well know in the philosophical world. Singer has tried to argue in the past that the killing of individuals up till the age of two is justified. http://www.lifenews.com/bio1766.html