This is part of a series of posts where I subscribe and respond to a widely advertised theistic educational course.
It’s the second day, and I’m noticing a pattern emerging here. In the very first email we had an Einstein quote being misused, misunderstood and presented in a misleading way. Now we have a quote from Robert Wilson being thrown into the mix. The quote in question is:
Certainly there was something that set it all off. Certainly, if you are religious, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match with Genesis
For those not in the know, Wilson was one of the scientists (with Arno Penzias) who discovered cosmic microwave background radiation. Cosmic microwave background radiation was predicted in the Big Bang theory, and it’s discovery was seen as key to proving its viability.
This email serves an important purpose. It nicely demonstrates the difference between most theists and most atheists. The theist writing the email believes that by including quotes from respected figures in the world of science those who respect those figures would have their views changed. Well I’m afraid that’s not the case.
Unlike most theisms, science does not take opinion as fact. Theories must be tested and scrutinized, and only after rigorous peer review are they accepted. While I don’t doubt Wilson said and meant the quote above, it has absolutely no relevance on whether a God exists. if Wilson put this forward as a serious, scientific theory, it would examined and debunked. But rather, it was an off hand comment made during an interview.
The fact that Wilson (accidentally) discovered cosmic microwave background radiation has absolutely no bearing on whether I think a God exists. In fact, I can’t see a situation where the beliefs of another shape my own, especially where that person subscribes to a monotheistic religion. But then again, I’m not a theist who’s happy to sit in Church every Sunday listening to another person’s interpretation of a 4000 year old book.
The email also contains quotes from Arno Penzias, including:
Most physicists would rather attempt to describe the universe in ways which require no explanation. And since science can’t *explain* anything – it can only *describe* things – that’s perfectly sensible.
Yes. That’s necessarily the way in which science has to function. It, of course, depends on whether you are referring to the mechanical explanations for events or the philosophical explanations and where you draw the line between the two.
Update: I’ve had to amend this post because, for some reason, I had transposed the names of Wilson and Penzias.
Atheist, again you fail to provide the context. If the quotations from Einstein and Penzias are simply to show that many top shelf scientists are don’t see any contradiction between science and religion, then they are quite valid. Given the large number of scientists in all areas who are theists, that certainly would seem to be fairly conclusive. I very much doubt the quote was meant as some kind of proof of a deity. I think you might the one reading too much into it.
You say that: “Unlike most theisms, science does not take opinion as fact.” This is off the mark in both cases. When you know little about something (whether science, religion, language, art or whatever) you very much have to rely on the opinions of those you trust. In every field, including theology, “new theories must be tested and scrutinized, and only after rigorous peer review are they accepted.” In every case, even then, they remain somewhat provisional.
I also think you are a bit naive when you say: “I can’t see a situation where the beliefs of another shape my own…” – surely you are aware that all your ideas necessarily have context in your own personal background and experiences. “No man is an island.” You don’t simply wake up one day and decide what your beliefs are in a vacuum without any reference to what others think. While you might not be happy to sit in Church each week listening to another person’s interpretation of a 4000 year old book, you are probably quite well inclined to hear about another person’s interpretation of a 4 gazillion year old universe… different folks, different strokes…
I think Einstein made himself pretty clear; he subscribed to no religion, and had only a generalized belief in Spinoza’s god – something the Catholic church and the rabbis who knew Spinoza found to be intolerable and atheistic. As for Penzias, well, the quote doesn’t look all that impressive. It doesn’t establish anything, really, beyond making an important assertion about how science does things.
Regarding your second paragraph: what you describe is a layman taking an expert’s judgement to be trustworthy. The scientist doesn’t assert something is true ‘because I believe it!’ and would never do so.
A measurement, in science, is a measurement.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion; no one is entitled to their own facts. Any scientific fact (which means ‘quantified observation of some aspect of the universe’)can often be interpreted in many ways, or have its accuracy called into question; however, these facts are very different from the inferences (‘informed scientific opinions’) we draw from them.
Keep in mind, in your third paragraph, that ‘belief’, when an atheist uses the word, generally means ‘opinion unsubstantiated by evidence’. Thus, ‘believing’ that the Earth is round is very different from ‘believing’ that god exists (at least to an atheist). That meant (I think) that people’s unsubstantiated beliefs don’t affect this person’s worldview – as well they shouldn’t.
As a final point, according to the best available data, the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old (+/- 1%). Check out ‘cosmic microwave background radiation’ for more info.
I’d like to end with a question: how do theologians test the validity of new ideas?
Hope you found this post helpful…or interesting…or something useful, anyway.