Modern Physics and Ancient Faith

One only need give a casual skim through Time or Newsweek or watch a few hours of cable news and invariably an editorial or two, masquerading as anything but an op ed, will be about how (rational) science is superior to (irrational) religion. And of course they will trot out the (supposedly) rational scientists, who are often not scientists, but atheists materialists. It's quite common. But it is a myth in need of a funeral, and Barr's outstanding book could easily serve as the sermon to this funeral.If you tend to think of religion as blind and irrational belief in the spaghetti monster, this book is certainly worth your consideration. If you tend to think that your religious beliefs are true, but unfounded, this book is for you. If you just want to explore the topic without irrational name-calling and false proofs, this book is also for you. Barr is no amateur. He tackles every objection that is propped up as scientific evidence against theism. He also is no jerk. He knows that it is a very good and human activity to question both tradition and religion and that anyone who follows religious dogma or "scientific" dogma blindly is not applying the gifts of either science or religion. He also knows that reason is only reasonable within a system that is not materialist. This is covered thoroughly in the section on free will and epistemology (how you know what you know).A renowned physicist, Barr is no stranger to rational thought and discourse, and he is also a devout Christian. As shacking as that may be for some to hear, it's quite possible and also quite logical. He claims, and demonstrates time and again, that contrary to so much hot air and spilled ink claiming otherwise, belief in a God who designed the universe makes much more logical sense than materialism, which is the belief that only matter exists- no God, no gods, no souls, no afterlife. Barr shows how science actually supports the Judeo-Christian understanding of reason, free will, design, the nature of nature and man's place in nature, time and what is now termed the Big Bang.I am not scientist, although I do read widely in the philosophy of science (and have played a scientist on stage). That said, I was able to follow all of Barr's discussion of quantum physics, the Big Bang, the anthropic coincidences, neurology, mind, entropy, Gödel's theorem and more. And it wasn't drudgery. I learned a great deal.Other books of interest may include:  The Significance of Free Will , the masterful  The Mind of the Universe: Understanding Science and Religion  (which is perhaps THE book on the subject), the compact yet powerfully erudite  The Restitution of Man: C. S. Lewis and the Case Against Scientism , A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature , God and the Philosophers: The Reconciliation of Faith and Reason (Oxford Paperbacks) , The Recalcitrant Imago Dei: Human Persons and the Failure of Naturalism (Veritas) , God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens , Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins' Case Against God , and the ever-insghtful, ever-readable masterpiece against naturalism, C.S. Lewis'  Miracles .Enjoy! Life is so amazing considering the atoms that make you who you are have come together just this once in just this way. Mr Rogers was right: you are special! Think about that next time you get stuck in traffic with all those other atomic amalgamations.

I found this book a refreshing change from the general run of anti-atheist books that accuse atheists of being intellectual lightweights who deny God for moral rather than rational reasons (to be fair, many “new atheist” books commit the same crime in reverse). Barr thinks that scientific materialists are wrong, but doesn’t condescend to them, and avoids polemic for the most part. He also seems to know his science, although I will take issue with him on a few points (see below). In addition to providing philosophical food for thought, the book made me want to read more about some of its subtopics (quantum theory, philosophy of mind, etc.). It is very well-written, and I found it both more readable and more interesting than other books of this type that I have read.Some other reviewers have criticized Barr for starting out with a “typical” (rather than an actual) quote from an imaginary scientific materialist, and then refuting it in strawman fashion. Although it’s certainly true that not all atheists take such an extreme view (I am one who doesn’t), I personally know many who would agree with everything in Barr’s “quote”, and it would not be at all out of place in Alex Rosenberg’s “Atheist Guide to Reality”. If anything, Rosenberg is even more extreme.However, I do have some quibbles. First of all, Barr cites Michael Behe and his “irreducible complexities” as potential evidence for his position that the universe was “designed”. However, to the best of my knowledge, Behe was thoroughly discredited at the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial in 2005 (to be fair, Barr’s book was originally published in 2003), and is not taken seriously by the general scientific community. But this may only show that a physicist (like Barr) is not necessarily an expert in biology (just as scientists like Dawkins and Hawking (and Barr as well!) need to be taken with a grain of salt when they start talking philosophy/theology).More seriously, he seems to think that “anthropic coincidences” are strong evidence of intelligent design, and that only an infinity of actual universes would constitute a serious objection. I think he (like many others) badly misunderstands this argument, and I contend that we need only consider “possible” universes. Suppose, on one hand, that the particular laws of physics and the values of the various physical constants that we have in our universe are the only ones possible. In this case, there is no “coincidence” and no “choice” (these are among several loaded words – “special” is another one -- that Barr likes to use). Suppose, on the other hand, that the potential laws and constants are unconstrained, and could take any values whatsoever, and that consequently there are an infinity of possible universes. Given the existence of any universe at all (and why there is any universe at all might be a more interesting question, but one that is not addressed in this book), it had to have some configuration of physical laws and constants. Why this particular one? Well, why not this particular one? It’s no more unlikely and no more “special” than any of the others! It’s the one we happen to have, and if it were otherwise, we wouldn’t be here to discuss it. So what? We only consider it “special” because we’re biased. This whole argument reminds me of the atheist “parable” about the puddle of water marveling at the amazing coincidence that “This hole in the road is just the right size and shape for me!” You can’t apply probability after the fact. Improbable things happen all the time (to take just one example, you’re basically throwing money away if you buy a lottery ticket, and yet, every week or two, someone actually does win the lottery). It doesn’t matter how improbable our universe is, or that life originated. It happened, and as soon as it did, the probability “collapsed” to 100%.So I think Barr’s case is not nearly as strong as he thinks it is. But neither is the case of the materialist side, and he does a good job of demonstrating that. I remain an agnostic atheist who doesn’t think the existence of God can be either proven or disproven. This book didn’t change my beliefs, but it did give me a lot of food for thought.

just amazing

Very accessible, thorough, and enjoyable! Highly recommended for anyone who wants to see how modern physics doesn't undermine monotheistic religious belief, but instead supports it.

Very good so far

Alles so wire es sein soll!! Immer wieder gerne!!! Alles beschriebene traft auch genau so zu. Ist eine Empfehlung wert!