Quantum physics requires that minds be non-physical

In a recent article in First Things, "Faith and Quantum Physics," Stephen M. Barr argues that quantum physics, one of the most non-common sense, and also one of the most successful, theories of modern science, requires that human minds be non-physical. As Barr points out, he is not the first to say this -- other prominent thinkers have done so. He also points out that some of the opposition to the seeming weirdness of quantum physics is because of exactly this conclusion.

Barr's argument goes like this:

Predictions of any kind, made as statements of probability, such as, for example, which party will win the U. S. Presidential election of 2004, are meaningless unless they predict a measurable actual outcome. There was an election, and the Republicans won, however that happened, and whatever has become of it. Quantum physics makes predictions about physical systems, in the form of mathematical equations. (There are no equations in Barr's article) But these are usually measured by laboratory devices, which are, themselves, physical systems, and the same mathematical equations apply to them, and are only predictions. Says Barr:
And this leads to the remarkable conclusion of this long train of logic: As long as only physical structures and mechanisms are involved, however complex, their behavior is described by equations that yield only probabilities-and once a mind is involved that can make a rational judgment of fact, and thus come to knowledge, there is certainty. Therefore, such a mind cannot be just a physical structure or mechanism completely describable by the equations of physics.

There is more in Barr's article, for sure. He also says that quantum physics is more congenial to Judeo-Christianity than it is to Buddhism, and that quantum physics presents strong arguments against determinism, or, in other words, for free choice. He finally examines the different philosophical views that are used to explain the findings of quantum physics, and comes down as in favor of the approach of Neils Bohr, although he understands that Bohr's thinking had some weak spots.

It is refreshing, but should not be surprising, that a physicist states that a great scientific theory provides evidence that a mind is not simply a material object, and that such minds make real choices. After all, God's revelation includes the natural world, as well as the Bible.

Thanks for reading.

Quotes on origins*, 1

…unfortunately, large numbers of well-intentioned lay Christians have been convinced by popular creationist writers and lecturers that one can in an evening master some obvious commonsense facts that expose the utter silliness of evolution--facts that despite their complete obviousness even to people with no science background at all have allegedly somehow totally eluded those with Ph. D.'s in geology and biology. Del Ratzsch, The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1996, p. 82.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.” St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis. vol. 1, Ancient Christian Writers., vol. 41. Translated and annotated by John Hammond Taylor, S.J. New York: Paulist Press, 1982. My source was here.

If biology remains only biology, it is not to be feared. Much of the fear that does exist is rooted in the notion that God is in competition with nature, so that the more we attribute to one the less we can attribute to the other. That is false. The greater the powers and potentialities in nature, the more magnificent must be nature’s far-sighted Author, that God whose “ways are unsearchable” and who “reaches from end to end ordering all things mightily.” Richard Dawkins famously called the universe “a blind watchmaker.” If it is, it is miracle enough for anyone; for it is incomparably greater to design a watchmaker than a watch. We need not pit evolution against design, if we recognize that evolution is part of God’s design. Stephen M. Barr, "The Miracle of Evolution," First Things 160 (February 2006): 30-33

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, New York: Warner Books, 1978, pp. 105-106. (Jastrow, apparently not a Christian, was writing about the Big Bang theory, which, when the evidence for it appeared, was a shock to many cosmologists, who believed that the universe had been in a steady state forever. Not so!)

*I use "origins" because "evolution" is generally used by scientists to refer to the results of natural selection. The Big Bang, for example, has nothing to do with natural selection. It does have to do with origins. Some people, usually Christians, mean "atheism" or "materialism" (by which I'm not referring to the desire to accumulate things) when they say "evolution."

You may want to see my flow chart on origins. For more quotes on origins, see this post, and this one.

Thanks for reading!

Stephen M. Barr on science and Intelligent Design

I have previously posted about Stephen M. Barr. He authored an article in the February 2006 First Things. In it, Barr discusses Intelligent Design (ID) and mainstream science.

The article is well worth reading, and readable, but I'll post my own rather lengthy summary.

Barr begins by pointing out, correctly, that there are two battles raging about origins. One of them pits young-earth creationists (I wish he would use this entire term, but he doesn't) against mainstream science. Young-earth creationists claim that almost no evolution could have occurred, and that the Bible shows this, because it teaches that the earth isn't old enough for this to have happened. Again, in my opinion, Barr muddies the water by not defining his terms well. He says that young-earth creationists deny that evolution occurred. Scientists who believe in young-earth creation don't deny natural selection, which is, of course, one aspect of evolution, and, in fact, what Darwin mostly wrote about. Living things have changed, at least a little, and almost everyone agrees with this. Young-earth creationists deny, for example, that amphibians are descended from fish.

The second battle, as he says: . . . concerns not the fact of evolution but the standard neo-Darwinian explanation of it, and the issues at stake are primarily philosophical and scientific. Leading the charge in this second fight is the Intelligent Design movement. Its main thesis holds that natural mechanisms are insufficient to account for all the complexity seen in the biological world. The Intelligent Design theorists therefore argue that the existence of an intelligent designer can be scientifically demonstrated. Sometimes they say that such a demonstration already exists; at other times, they demand merely that the “design hypothesis” be placed alongside neo-Darwinism as an alternative scientific theory deserving of further research, grant funding, and space in textbooks.

Barr blames some mainstream scientists for deliberately confounding these two battles. He is correct in this. It is also true that Christians have muddied the discussion of origins quite a bit.

Barr says that some writers are using questions of origins in an unwarranted and unsupported attack on belief in God. He names Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. They aren't the only ones. They do this, he writes, in three ways. The first is to rule out extra-natural, or supernatural, explanations. The second is to say that the Argument from Design has been disproved. The third is to say that humans are not special.

As Barr says, none of these three attacks have any scientific basis. Science cannot do any of these things -- they are outside the realm of science. Barr goes on to expand upon his arguments against these three attacks, and this expansion makes up the bulk of the article. He also has some words for IDers, including:

There exist legitimate reasons, however, to resist the idea that the “design hypothesis” is an alternative scientific theory. God is not a scientific theory.

I close with this wonderful statement, by Barr:
If biology remains only biology, it is not to be feared. Much of the fear that does exist is rooted in the notion that God is in competition with nature, so that the more we attribute to one the less we can attribute to the other. That is false. The greater the powers and potentialities in nature, the more magnificent must be nature’s far-sighted Author, that God whose “ways are unsearchable” and who “reaches from end to end ordering all things mightily.” Richard Dawkins famously called the universe “a blind watchmaker.” If it is, it is miracle enough for anyone; for it is incomparably greater to design a watchmaker than a watch. We need not pit evolution against design, if we recognize that evolution is part of God’s design.

Thanks for reading!

Authors that try to integrate science & faith

I responded to a tag from Bonnie, indicating books that had meant a lot to me. One such category was books that try to integrate science and faith. John C. Polkinghorne has written several of these. Stephen M. Barr's Modern Physics and Ancient Faith is another good one. So is Ian Barbour's When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers, or Partners? Bonnie e-mailed me, saying that she had some interest in this type of book. I decided to publish my response to her, more or less, saying more about these books.

Barr is the deepest of the three, for the non-scientist, I think. This is from his first page:

The fact of the matter is that there is a bitter intellectual battle going on, and it is about real issues. However, the conflict is not between religion and science, it is between religion and materialism. Materialism is a philosophical opinion that is closely connected with science. It grew up alongside of science, and many people have a hard time distinguishing it from science. But it is not science. It is merely a philosophical opinion. And not all scientists share it by any means. In fact, there seem to be more scientists who are religious than who are materialists. Nevertheless, there are many, including very many scientists, who think that materialism is the scientific philosophy. The basic tenet of “scientific materialism” is that nothing exists except matter, and that everything in the world must therefore be the result of the strict mathematical laws of physics and blind chance. (p. 1) Stephen M. Barr, Modern Physics and Ancient Faith. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2003.

A lot of it gets more scientific after that, but it's all relevant to integrating science and faith. Barr is a scientist by training, I believe.

Here's a sample of Polkinghorne, who has written quite a few books, generally not very long ones. Most any would do for an introduction to his thoughts on integrating science and faith:

Scientists, and theologians of a realist cast of mind, have one important commitment in common: they both believe that there is a truth to be found or, more realistically, to be approximated to. This belief does not entail a naive objectivity, either in subatomic physics or even less in theology. What we know of entities must conform to their nature and there is a necessarily veiled character to our encounter both with the quantum world and with God. Yet that encounter is a real meeting with something other than human thought, an exploration of what is and not just of what we choose to say. . . . The concepts we are considering cannot do the work that is needed to be done unless they have that ontological reference. A God who is just an internalized symbol of our commitment to the highest values may provide a focus for living but such a God is not the ground of hope in the face of death and beyond death. Unless there really is a God who really was "in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor. 5:19), then the cross is no answer to the bitter problem of suffering in the world. John C. Polkinghorne, Belief in God in an Age of Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998. p. 45.

Polkinghorne's books are accessible to the intelligent reader.

Polkinghorne was trained as a scientist. My first introduction to him was when I was reading up on physics, after not having taught it for several years. I had no idea that I was reading anything other than an introduction to quantum mechanics, when, on the last couple of pages, I was astounded to discover that Polkinghorne was a believer. He eventually stopped practicing physics, and took theological training.

Ian Barbour is not an evangelical, as I read him, but I believe that he has something important to say. He argues (When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers, or Partners?) that Christianity and science should not be in conflict, or independent of each other, or merely in dialogue, but should be integrated. I believe that he is right, and that the Bible teaches that. The book is relatively short, and readable. It has chapters on different branches of science, which can be read independently of each other.

Here's a quote from Barbour:

. . . both scientific materialists and biblical literalists have failed to recognize significant distinctions between scientific and religious assertions. The scientific materialists have promoted a particular philosophical commitment as if it were a scientific conclusion, and the biblical literalists have promoted a prescientific cosmology as if it were an essential part of religious faith. Ian G. Barbour, When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers, or Partners? San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 2002, p. 36.

* * * * *

On February 19, 2009, I added links to the authors above, or to their books. I also changed the title, because I am adding a fourth author, one that I should have included in post in 2005, when I first posted this.

That author is Holmes Rolston, III. Rolston has written several books, especially Science and Religion: A Critical Survey. (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1987) Rolston's book was re-published in 2006. A firm believer in the efficacy of science, but not in all the side effects found in a scientific society, Rolston describes evolution in terms of suffering, but borne up by God in Christ, as the supporting redeemer. He argues for a Divine plan:
Life is not an accident, whatever place dice-throwing pays in its appearance and maturation. It is something arranged for in the nature of things. The dice are loaded. (p. 113.)

Rolston clearly writes as a believer, and he covers all of the major issues at the interface between science and religion.