Does God Exist? Sean Carroll Knows the answer is No

A recent conference on origins generated a lot of discussion over on Cosmic Variance. Something Sean Carroll said really caught my eye:

"I look forward to a day when discussions of deep questions concerning the origin of the universe and of life can take place without the concept of God ever arising."

Why would you look forward to that? This comment brings to mind something I've always thought-that atheism is actually a religion in itself. Strict atheism is actually a fanatical religion. Let's admit one fact. Its impossible to know whether or not God exists. Just because a causal chain for physical events can be taken back to the big bang, nobody knows with certainty that the universe wasn't made by a supernatural being. You may believe that the universe "just happened", and that's fine, but a more agnostic point of view is far more defensible.

Wanting a discussion of "deep questions" concerning the origin of the universe without the concept of God ever coming up is intellectually vacuous. The deep questions are not mechanical details, such as is the universe expanding, what is dark energy, is there a cosmic landscape. The fact is none of that matters to most people in a deep sense. What matters to people is meaning. Science will never give people meaning and that's why religious thought is still going strong.

The fact is there are lots of intelligent people, many of whom that are educated in science, that disagree with Sean Carroll. One of them is John Polkinghorne, a man with a PhD in physics that became an Anglican priest. John Polkinghorne is not some wacko, he is a very intelligent and thoughtful man who believes in everything modern science tells us about the universe but also believes that God created it. Polkinghorne has several books out that are thoughtful, interesting reads-not rants by a creationist fanatic.

As mentioned in this post Kenneth Miller attended the origins conference. I don't find Millers arguments very compelling, but he is another example of a scientist that accepts science just fine but he is also a very religious man. Interestingly, in that post Sean Carroll, who is supposed to be an intellectual leader, shows a bit of immaturity by stating that people that don't share his view are "crazy". In fact he uses the exact phrase:

"sheer unadulterated looniness of the remaining speaker, Hugh Ross. "

Describing someone participating in a conference this way is pretty much a "straw man" attack. It would be far more professional to say Hugh Ross is misguided, and I disagree with his views because of .....instead of simply stating he is loony. Ross has views that can be described as more extreme, and his views are not very defensible, but attack his positions instead of just labeling him a crackpot.

Many other professional scientists are believers in God. Francis Collins, who headed the DNA decoding project for NIH, is one of them. So while Richard Dawkins may be especially vocal, there are biologists that disagree with his viewpoint. The nuclear physicist Gerard Schroeder is also a die-hard believer who has been compelled to write several books on the topic.

The arguments of these people may or may not be persuasive, but saying they should be shut out of a debate on something that frankly can't be resolved scientifically is not productive. If you are really interested in the deep questions of the universe then the issue should at least be discussed. It was interesting that in "A Brief History of Time", while Stephen Hawking concluded (at the time anyway) that the universe was self-contained without much role for a creator, the book talks about God on almost every page. The issue can't be discussed without bringing God into the mix, and a mature, thoughtful debate will have views from all perspectives. The kind of discussion Carroll envisions-a bunch of athiestic scientists sitting around discussing what dark energy is, isn't all that deep at all.

Saying you look forward to a day when discussions about the universe will take place without God ever being mentioned is arrogant, immature, and out of touch with 99% of humanity.

The God Delusion

I came across this review, or maybe what might be more aptly called a description of Richard Dawkins book The God Delusion. Personally I find athiestic scientists amusing. While it is pretty clear from simple observation of the universe that the God of the creationists doesn't exist, at least not within their strict interpretation, the fact is science can't prove God doesn't exist. Even Carl Sagan realized this, when he said in Cosmos (to paraphrase) that the fossil record showed a literal intepretation of the Bible could be ruled out, but that a God with a more indirect temperament could not be.

I find Dawkins and his ilk to be as irritating as the creationists. Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, a philosophy professor who recently joined the God "debate" are zealots as bad as any Chrisitan fanatic. But I want to call their (and your) attention to something. There is no God debate. The vast majority of humanity believes God exists and believes in some form of spirituality. They could care less what Dawkins thinks, even though he might get a lot of attention in intellectual circles.

Dawkins analysis is pretty simplistic. He runs through the same old arguments, like the claim that religion supposedly caused a bunch of wars in the middle ages. Well let me ask you something. If Europe had not been Christian, do you think those wars would not have happened? HELLO. The wars would have still occurred, but under a different banner. European expansion would have still brought them in contact with Native Americans, and if Christianity would not have been a rallying cause something else would have.

The fact is religion gives meaning and comfort to billions of people. I'm not saying because it gives people meaning even if God doesn't exist that we should support it. What I'm pointing out is that Dawkins arguments can't touch the emotional aspect that people get out of religion and spiritual experience.

I have to say I am partial to the religious. The existence of consciousness is enough for me. I think scientists are hard pressed to explain why consciousness should arise in the universe. It doesn't prove anything, I am just saying that for me personally conscious experience tells me there is a spiritual side to the universe. And if you open yourself up-you will experience a spiritual side as well.

OK enough of my soap box. Order the book already and let me know what you think.