Does Quantum Physics Make it Easier to Believe in God?
TGC Blog | July 13, 2012
The Article: Does Quantum Physics Make it Easier to Believe in God?
The Source: Big Questions OnlineThe Author: Stephen M. Barr, a professor of physics at the University of Delaware who specializes in theoretical particle physics.
The Gist: Quantum physics provides an argument against the philosophy called materialism (or "physicalism")---the primary intellectual opponent of belief in God in the modern world.
The Excerpt:
Materialism is an atheistic philosophy that says that all of reality is reducible to matter and its interactions. It has gained ground because many people think that it's supported by science. They think that physics has shown the material world to be a closed system of cause and effect, sealed off from the influence of any non-physical realities --- if any there be. Since our minds and thoughts obviously do affect the physical world, it would follow that they are themselves merely physical phenomena. No room for a spiritual soul or free will: for materialists we are just "machines made of meat."
Quantum mechanics, however, throws a monkey wrench into this simple mechanical view of things. No less a figure than Eugene Wigner, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, claimed that materialism --- at least with regard to the human mind --- is not "logically consistent with present quantum mechanics." And on the basis of quantum mechanics, Sir Rudolf Peierls, another great 20th-century physicist, said, "the premise that you can describe in terms of physics the whole function of a human being ... including [his] knowledge, and [his] consciousness, is untenable. There is still something missing."
The Bottom Line: As Barr explains, the probabilities in quantum mechanics refer to definite events that definitively do or do not happen. The probability of the event, therefore, must shift either to 0% (e.g., the event did not happen) or 100% (e.g., the event did happen). However, the mathematics that describe physical processes shows that there is no shift to either 0% or 100%. The probabilities stay somewhere in between, they never resolve into definite outcomes. But an observer can know the outcome (e.g., "The event did happen.") so, as Barr says, "something must be involved when knowledge changes besides physical processes."
There is, however, one way to salvage materialism: the Many Worlds Interpretation" (MWI) of quantum mechanics. In this view, every event creates branches corresponding to every possible outcome of all physical situations. If the probability of an event was 70%, then in 70% of the worlds you get one result and 30% you get the other. If this sounds crazy and far-fetched, it's because it is---as even its proponents admit. But atheists also recognize that if something exist outside material reality, then it becomes harder to deny the reality of the supernatural.
Comments:
July 21, 2012 at 12:08 PM
[...] Does Quantum Physics Make Belief in God More Credible? (Joe Carter and the Gospel Coalition.) Christian Scholar Weighs in on the Presidential Election (Norm Geisler—gives his rationale for how an evangelical might decide his vote. See also, my book Picking a President: Or any other elected official.) [...]
July 19, 2012 at 09:38 AM
@T
Your contribution is so much wiser than all the apologists on here combined. Christianity cannot be proven by evidence, because there is no evidence strong enough to make such an assertion. Really, there is hardly any evidence at all. The best a Christian can do is put his faith in it and trust that it is true. The Christian life is a great way to live. Making it all about adhering to specifics doctrines (like Calvinism or Arminianism) is nonsensical. There are many good things about being a follower of Jesus. There is not much good at all in listening to the self-proclaimed experts tell you how to live a Christian life.
July 18, 2012 at 10:31 PM
I definitely agree that Christianity does require extraordinary evidence because it DOES make extraordinary assertions. The virgin birth is a great example. Or a talking donkey? haha
The problem is Christianity has lots of "science" to both support it and debunk it, but it can't be everything. I would say that a lot of Christianity is personal. I know that sounds like a lot of hog wash, but without sitting down face to face with you I can't really say it better.
Jesus isn't a pushy guy, so I'd recommend you reading the Bible and hopefully that will answer your question about why you should take his words as truth. I feel like I'm hanging with the big dogs in this discussion forum, so I'm not eloquent in apologetics enough to fully describe my reasoning. Sorry!
July 18, 2012 at 07:08 AM
Jimmy,
Stop trolling. In your words, "Stop posting nonsense." But since we're on the subject, let me ask, what kind of evidence would *you* consider valid to prove God's existence? Christians don't need to look further than...well, everything that exists, as evidence for God's existence. You obviously disagree, so what is your requirement?
Regards,
McFormtist
July 16, 2012 at 06:19 PM
I appreciate the atheistic views presented here in the comments. Whether either case is correct it is always good to have an opposing viewpoint.
"The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him." ~ Proverbs 18:17
I for one would like to stop automatically revert to defending myself but listen to those with different viewpoints. While I might not agree, I can certainly learn. Learning is the best way of defending an argument. Sometimes that is why I think these articles aren't all together too helpful. I know many Christians, including myself, learn different apologetic slogans and cheap defenses, while the other side has the same. I think for such a sensitive topic, great detail and evidence is required to make a claim that certain scientific thought make believing in God "easier."
Thank you all for sharing and taking the time to read the article.
July 16, 2012 at 03:20 PM
Being a Christian, I do disagree with Jimmy n substantive issues. However, he is right to point out the conceptual errors that said physicist made.
See "Christian Materialism in a Scientific Age" by Lynn Rudder Baker (she is not the only well-known Christian materialist... Trenton Merricks and Peter Van Inwagen come to mind... there are others.)
Also, see: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/#7
July 15, 2012 at 11:22 AM
"And what is your epistemic justification for this materialistic evidentialism?"
Um, deductive reasoning based on empirical facts which are testable, verifiable, falsifiable and reproducible. Those are the only facts which we can assert are true with any reasonable amount of certainty. Darwinian evolution makes predictions that have been verified beyond any reasonable doubt by the fossil records and by genetics. Christianity can't produce anything of the sort. The "evidence" provided to support Christianity is nothing of the sort and is easily explainable by more reasonable alternatives.
For example, Christians love to use OT prophecy as evidence that Jesus was the Messiah (e.g. virgin birth, born in Bethlehem, etc.). when better explanations are available (e.g. Mary lied, the Gospel writers just made up these things to support their preconceived notions, etc.). Given that the Gospels were anonymous and were written decades after Jesus' death, they aren't reliable testimonies at all.
July 15, 2012 at 11:07 AM
"Men do not believe because they choose not to (Romans 1 - 3:20)"
So says Paul. What makes his opinions any more relevant that anyone else's? Just because fourth century church leaders liked what he had to say and included Romans in the canon doesn't make him right. The Ebionites thought Paul was full of it. Why is he right and they wrong? Just because the orthodox view had the authority of Rome behind it?
Appealing to biblical authority because the Bible claims to be authoritative is absurd circular logic and doesn't convince anyone other than true believers.
July 15, 2012 at 10:57 AM
"Is a question false until proven true?"
No, but an assertion is baseless without evidence to back it up, and extraordinary assertions require extraordinary evidence. Christianity makes many extraordinary claims without any evidence (e.g. virgin birth). Why should it be taken as truthful?
July 15, 2012 at 08:54 AM
I love science. I love God. I do not see a conflict in the two previous statements. True knowledge and truth conflict with neither science nor God. In my lifetime I have seen the scientific origin theories vary all over the map. The Judeo/Christian origin statements have always pointed to an omni- (cient, present, potent) God who caused time and matter to appear by speaking it so. Now Quantum theories point to a "singularity". They both say the same thing in different terms. There it is... the Big Bang... God spoke it and Bang it was done.. the singularity.
July 15, 2012 at 08:34 PM
See you prove my point nicely ... thank you. You will believe anything that passes your test of "real evidence."
Again thank you.
July 15, 2012 at 08:29 PM
Actually I was answering the question posited by the article and not attempting to convince anyone (you) of anything.
However, it is a fact people believe what they want to believe whether it is based upon "scientific" evidence, folklore, or what have you.
July 14, 2012 at 11:44 AM
Uh...and with that..I rest my case...
July 14, 2012 at 11:14 AM
Is a question false until proven true? I would say that is the basis for atheism. Gods existence transcends science and that's fortunate- because if we could explain God- he wouldn't be that great after all.
July 14, 2012 at 05:13 AM
And what is your epistemic justification for this materialistic evidentialism?
I hope you would see this is ultimately self-refuting and internally inconsistent.
July 14, 2012 at 03:43 PM
It already IS easy to believe in God.
July 14, 2012 at 03:36 PM
"How can I test it, and how can I falsify it? I can't do either."
There is no reason to believe that testability and falsifiability are the only ways to arrive at a belief. How can I test such a requirement, and how can I falsify it? I can't do either. You must presuppose something. Do you presuppose something built on your own power or do you presuppose God who, in contrast to us humans, would be powerful enough to account for what needs accounting?
Science works for everyone no matter what they believe, but only those who believe in a personal God who is the creator and sustainer of nature -- only they can justify WHY science works.
July 13, 2012 at 12:21 PM
Does Quantum Physics Make it Easier to Believe in God?
Maybe not for Stephen Hawking, but it does for me.
July 13, 2012 at 12:08 PM
fantastic article I'm sure but slightly above me....
July 13, 2012 at 11:38 AM
@JR...
", strict materialism is in fact an atheistic philosophy."
I'm not sure about that. If I can find one single believer in some form of theism that believes that their deity is material, then this statement would be proven incorrect. It's an interesting statement but not one I'm willing to take the time to refute with evidence however.
July 13, 2012 at 11:28 AM
I'm agnostic concerning a non-materialistic existence. If you're willing to believe in such an idea, then by all means..demonstrate it. There is a Nobel prize awaiting anyone that can demonstrate that a mind can exist outside of a corporeal being. That's NEVER been done, even for all of the claims that it's true.
There is NO reliable evidence that indicates that consciousness exists without a physical brain. In fact, experiments can and have been done to demonstrate that without a physical brain there is no consciousness. Perhaps there is a super-mind (Deity) existing outside of space and time and the physical universe, but I dare you to demonstrate this... And if you can, you need to write a paper and make it available for peer review. If you want to make the claim that it's immaterial and untestable then you need to accept that skeptics are going to doubt any claim and ask for evidence that you can't provide.
Let's scroll back up and look at the title of this post..
"Does Quantum Physics Make it Easier to Believe in God?"
This is your typical theist digging around for any excuse to believe. Over the centuries the gaps that theist like to stuff God into have been disappearing, I can see why you might go looking for some new gaps..
Theist are desperate I think.
And for the record, I don't think there is enough evidence to consider MWI even being close to a fact. It's an offering from scientist to try and fit the current model. Perhaps it's true, perhaps it is not. Experiments need to be completed that confirm this.
July 13, 2012 at 11:19 AM
You're making a lot of statement that really just amount to nothing at all.
Science clearly works well within our framework of reference. There is no reason to believe a God is needed to sustain nature, where's your evidence for this statement? How can I test it, and how can I falsify it? I can't do either.
July 13, 2012 at 10:42 AM
If you enjoyed the article, you should read his 2003 book: Modern Physics & Ancient Faith (especially chapter 24 and all the appendices)
July 13, 2012 at 10:32 AM
World-views are not free of their implications. A simple lack of belief in a god, does lead to certain implications. One of the implications of Atheistic world-views is that science loses its authenticity. The Atheist lacks a belief in an ultimate mind that observes nature. Quantum mechanical systems to be mathematically tenable require a mind outside to act as observer.
For science to work at all, God needs to sustain nature (be an ultimate observer) and we need to have been given some characteristics of his mind to observe nature in our finite way.
Many paradigm shifts in science make our knowledge align more with what the theologians say (even if they are without access to the physical data). That is because there is access to the creator of the physical world, and He does not contradict himself. The Bible and the physical world have the same author.
July 13, 2012 at 10:09 AM
[...] The past few weeks we’ve heard a lot about the “God Particle.” At The Gospel Coalition, Stephen Barr discusses the implications of physics for belief in God. Read his thoughts at Does Quantum Physics Make It Easier to Believe in God? [...]
July 13, 2012 at 09:57 AM
Wow. Excellent post; thank you Joe Carter!
Exceedingly disappointed however with some shallow comments here.
While what Steve states may be true as far as it goes, such a statement seems to me a capitulation toward fideism. In the academic world that I live in, fideism gets 0 credit.
As far as Jimmy's twisting of the author's words goes:
To say that materialism is atheistic is not the same thing as saying that atheism is materialistic. The theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter (phenomenological); that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of strictly material interactions (ruling out the pneumatological). Philosophically, strict materialism is in fact an atheistic philosophy.
I found Dr. Barr's article quite helpful and credible. Thanks, Joe.
July 13, 2012 at 08:49 AM
I went and checked the atheist manual (I'm an atheist and they give me access to it). There is no "Materialism is an atheistic philosophy" entry in it. Atheism simply is a lack of a belief in a god. In the many worlds model what happens in those particular worlds would be natural for them, not supernatural. Those worlds will have their own material reality.
This article looks like a believer getting pissed off that science might try to invade the realm of the spiritual to disprove it. No real scientist is (or should) be out trying to prove a negative. The proof requirement is on the one making the positive claim. Nobel prizes away you..prove that there is a supernatural deity...
July 13, 2012 at 08:07 AM
Starting an early morning with quantum... brain.... not co-operating...
July 13, 2012 at 06:56 AM
They saw him raise the dead and yet did not believe.
We believe only when the Spirit of God grabs a hold of us through the hearing of His Word.
Methinks.
July 13, 2012 at 04:22 PM
It was well above my level of comprehension too. ; )
July 13, 2012 at 04:08 PM
Like I said, you want to twist the words so that you can be right.
The statement is as stands: strict materialism (as a philosophy) is atheistic - by definition. Nobody is saying that all atheists are materialists or that some theists do not subscribe to certain attributes of materialistic philosophy.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
(Methinks thee doth protest far too much.)
July 13, 2012 at 03:00 PM
@Jamie S..
Congrats on being the one to post the usual drivel just because you're B I B L E says it's so.
Give me evidence (real evidence) and I'm happy to believe. I'm interested in absolute truth, not absolute subjective experiences you may have had and now expect other human beings to believe just because it was so real to you...
Stop posting nonsense...
July 13, 2012 at 02:09 PM
"Does Quantum Physics Make it Easier to Believe in God?"
Absolutely not.
Men do not believe because they choose not to (Romans 1 - 3:20)
Yet men do believe because God awakens them from their dead state of unbelief and draws them to Himself (John 6).
Saturday Six-Pack | Wandering & Wondering
November 17, 2012 at 07:38 AM
[...] Does Quantum Physics Make It Easier to Believe in God? (*PICK OF THE WEEK*) One more entry from TGC, this post summarizes a larger article posted at Big [...]