God & Science

by Rod Jackson

Science involves studing nature. Now nature is either ordered or it is disordered.

If nature is disordered then there must be an appearance of order for science to proceed.

Science assumes the consistency of nature.

Scientists developing a theory of gravity might, for example, have 4 different options open to them. Let us suppose they are

1) Gravity is a force that pushes 2) Gravity is a force that pulls 3) Space time is curved, and gravity waves exist 4) Aristotelian concept of “natural resting place’.

Now a scientists does not say that one day gravity works according to 1)

but the next day according to 2), then the next day according to 3) and the last day according to 4). Rather they presuppose that nature is constant across time and space, so they select *one* of the theories and say that works generally across time and space.

Now some form of order is seen in nature. Thus if nature is inherently disordered it still has the appearance of order. But is someone who believes in the appearance of order, rationally justified in doing science?

I say they are not *rationally* justified in doing science.

Consider two books (b1 and b2) these books came about by two different means. One (b1) was written by Shakespeare and is a work of art. The other (b2) was made by 1000 monkeys typing on 1000 typewriters. Now suppose that after reading the first 10 pages of both books, both books were exactly the same. Is a person rationally justified in expecting the b1 to make sense after reading the first 10 pages and are about to turn to page 11? Well the answer should obviously be “yes”. When one gets a book that is ordered then one is justified in assuming that the order will continue. However what about when reading the book b2, is a person rationally justified to expect the 11th page of the book? Since the book came from disorder (i.e.. is random) then the order seen in the 10 pages so far must only be the appearance of order, and not actual order. Hence the next page could very well look like

fdpgkija;u0[-9f 9u2 t2 qpktjh p’ euf[-2 et p jfg phv wepiogfuqw0 -t [-9wut[- 9ut’pqwj f[-9wu-]fg uiwgw[pogk i=08=2 wgwdpogiu [u7 2jt ‘p o2jef]-udb[pijeth fygnbermhn 9ugh-ghlsna -0gh h q pkd jb08yas3 f6dgoqkn'[028y=2 1 24\- 2yw’rl;gjkhjs= 04w g

Thus they are not rational in expecting order from disorder. Thus for *rational* scientific inquiry to occur we must believe that the laws of nature actually exist, and are not the “appearance of laws”.

Now these laws of nature must be consistent across time and space (for this is a presupposition of science, as shown earlier). Now they can be universally constant via two different means, I shall call these

1) Subjective laws and 2) Objective laws

Consider two people playing a board game, say chess, now the only thing that keeps the laws of the game, are the two players. This is what I mean by “subjective laws”. However if a person was playing chess on a computer then the laws of chess are kept by the computer and the person cannot violate them. This is what I will call objective law (since the laws do not depend on any subjects).

I should make a note about Chaos Theory. Chaos theory is purely deterministic in nature. It is just that the calculation are too difficult for us to solve.

But what about Quantum indeterminacy? Quantum Mechanics has about 5 or 6 different philosophical interpretations. All make the same basic predictions and hence there is no scientific way (that we know of) to determine which is correct. However some interpretations include the belief that the universe is inherently indeterministic at the quantum level. Does Quantum indeterminacy mean that there do not exist natural laws? The answer, obviously is no. Quantum Mechanics is our most successful scientific theory in terms of predictive power, being able to predict accurately up to 26 decimal places. Also there has been no prediction that quantum mechanics has made that can be tested that has turned out false. Predictability means that laws of nature must exist, even if those laws are indeterministic laws. (i.e.. If A then B or C). For example, if a radioactive isotope is about to decay, then we cannot know if that individual one will decay or not. However we *can know* if it does decay what it will decay into (so there are laws setting that).

If natural law is objective then rationality is an illusion as no one really contemplates anything, rather antecedent causes make certain chemical reactions in the brain etc. Thus for there to be *rational* scientists the laws of nature must be subjective.

Thus we have seen that of the 4 options

1) Intelligent design (subjective, ordered laws)

2) Intelligent non-design (subjective, disordered appearance of laws)

3) Non-intelligent “design” (objective, ordered laws)

4) Non-intelligent non-design (objective, disordered appearance of laws)

2 & 4 were shown to not to lead to rational *scientific* enquiry since the appearance of natural laws is not sufficient but what is needed is actual laws. And 3 was shown to be insufficient on the basis of determinism not leading to rationality (hence there cannot be *rational* scientific enquiry. This leaves only 1)

Thus for a scientist to do rational scientific enquiry they must believe in the existence of a Creator…