Astrophysicist says science points to God's existence
Paddy Power may be about to lose his money, if a distinguished astrophysicist has his way. Peter Brand (pictured), Emeritus Professor of Astrophysics at the Institute of Astronomy at Edinburgh University, says the presence of God can be uncovered through scientific process. He'll be defending that claim in this year's Archbishop Robinson Lecture, which is organised by the Armagh Observatory. His lecture is titled "God and the Universe" and will be delivered on Thursday, 20th November at 8.00 p.m. in the Fisher Suite of the Armagh City Hotel. Peter Brand is also an ordained elder of the Church of Scotland. I'm hoping to have Professor Brand as one of my guests on Sunday Sequence this weekend.
Here is Professor Brand's description of his topic: "Our scientific understanding of the physical Universe exposes us to great beauty and to mind-stretching ideas. In presenting the current picture I shall try to persuade you that this understanding, based on physical laws and careful observation, is secure. But we must recognize that this security is based on faith: faith that the laws of physics apply everywhere and always. This faith is tested continually and (so far) has always been justified. Its consequence is our modern technological society of planes and cars, bridges and wind turbines, TVs and the Internet. How does the idea of faith in God fit into this scheme? I explore, from my own perspective, how physical understanding moderates the possibilities. While it is of the essence that God cannot be known in the same sense as physical facts are, one can use science to suggest what God is not. This reduction technique is routine in science (and Sudoku) and is very productive. How far can it be taken in this case? I suggest that there is a position from which both faith systems seem simultaneously reasonable."
Professor Brand has spent research periods at the Joint Astronomy Center in Hawaii and the Anglo-Australian Observatory, and also at the Universities of Sydney and New South Wales, and at Harvard and Princeton Universities. His main research interests have been concerned with the physics of interstellar space, the behaviour of violently excited material ejected from black holes at the centres of galaxies, and the behaviour of gas around newly-born stars involving both theoretical and observational work in Hawaii, Australia, Japan and the Canary Islands.
For free tickets for this event, which will conclude with light refreshments at 9.00 p.m., please contact Ms Alison Neve at the Armagh Observatory, Tel.: 028-3752-2928; Fax: 028-3752-7174; or e-mail:
asn@arm.ac.uk.
Professor Brand will also deliver the Robinson Schools Lecture (Black Holes and the Universe) in the Royal School Armagh, College Hill, Armagh, at 2.00 pm on Friday, 21st November 2008. Teachers and pupils who would like to attend should contact Mr Warren Fowles, The Royal School, College Hill, Armagh. Tel.: 028-3752-2807; email:
sfowles830@royalschool.armagh.ni.sch.uk.
Comment number 1.
At 11th Nov 2008, MarcusAureliusII wrote:Here's a case of one more scientist trying to bend his expertise to prove what cannot be proved. And it's another case where his credibility as a scientist is used in service of an line of reasoning that is without doubt not within the constraints or area of science. And again like McIntosh, Wilder-Smith, and a host of others, upon careful examination by other scientists it will be found to be fatally flawed from a scientific point of view.
Without hearing his reasoning, already I can glean from what little is said above that problems exist with his thesis. Beauty is a human emotional reaction whicih is in the eye of the beholder. Different people have different concepts of beauty. Beauty has nothing to do with scientific investigations. Some of he ugliest things we see like cancer are also based on scientific facts. Mind stretching ideas are another non starter. There is no reason to conclude that the structure of the human brain can fully comprehend the physical universe completely. It may be impossible for humans to think certain thoughts, visualize certain phenomena such as objects in processes in more than three or four dimensions except as mathmatical abstractions. We know for example that the theory of relativity, one I'm sure Brand agrees with correctly predicts and explains phenomena which defy our common sense experience and understanding such as the twin paradox which arises from it. Our senses do not tell us all there is to know about the physical environment around us or how it works, just enough to survive as organisms and a species...maybe.
"Our scientific understanding of the physical universe...is secure."
This is an example of anti-scientific intellectual hubris which as been exposed as a fraud over and over again. In the late 19th century, physicists thought the'd had it all figured out. Then Einstein came along and upset the entire apple cart exploding Newton's universe as a complete falacy, merely a approximation at low velocities and not at all correct in the larger context. What we know at any given time is only the best model we can devise with the observations we have and the logic which connects them. It is anti-scientific to preclude the possibility that this current apple cart won't be upset again and that its successors won't suffer the same. Science takes nothing on faith. It is the exact opposite of faith. It is never sure of itself. That is what distinguishes it from religion.
"...the laws of physics apply everywhere and always." Again an assumption of extreme hubris but even if true does not prove the existance of god. If it is true, it merely means that the way the time space continuum in our universe is arranged is universal. But there is no way to prove it known so far, it's one of those statements taken on faith. It's the equivalent of scientists telling us that no two snowflakes that ever existed or will exist are exactly alike. Nobody can demonstrate that this is true or false.
"...science can suggest what god is not."
Unproven hypotheses is one element of science but until it is demonstrated and narrowed down to what is proven, not what it isn't, it doesn't even rise to the level of a tentatively accepted fact, the best scientific investigation can give us and the product of the scientific method of thinking, not the fancies of a part time scientist who spends his non scientific hours trying to bend what he knows to be tentatively taken as true in his mind to conform to what he hopes in his heart is eternally true.
The presentation of credentials no matter how impressive do not affect whether or not Brand's postulate is a rational argument. In science, the value of ideas stand or fall on their own merits alone, not on who invented them. IMO, this is a case of a higher level Andy McIntosh whose falacies other scientists who are truer to their calling would do well to shoot down.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 11th Nov 2008, John Wright wrote:Looks like an interesting night; wish I could be there actually. Cue the Dawkinsistas and their claim that it's impossible to hold to a belief in a deity and sound science simultaneously. Perhaps some of them could show up at the event and consider the man's arguments at length.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)