Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Can Scientists Find God?
Warning: I am not a quantum physicist, nor do I play one on TV!!!!!!
I have always been a strong believer in the scientific search for the origins of the universe. While I fully understand that many scientists do not believe that their scientific quest has anything to do with God, I trust that any honest endeavors in this matter will eventually end up with God. As the creator of the universe, God established “the science” of this world and how it works — biology, chemistry, astronomy, zoology, and physics. Today, I want to look at some basic physics. While I am the farthest thing from being a physicist, I have come to understand some very basic physics concepts that may help unravel the mysteries of creation and, at the same time, help us better understand our Bibles.
Many times, students of the Bible get bogged down with theology as they read. Theology comes with its own restrictive paradigms that limit us in truly understanding God. I am going to try to make a small attempt to set us all free from theology and help us understand the word in terms of science, namely quantum physics.
Quantum physics is a fundamental theory that describes nature at the smallest scales of energy levels. Basically, it is a theory about things we can’t see. Quantum physicists believe that there is something that brought everything into existence and sustains everything in the universe, but it is unseen. They are constantly in search of that unseen instigator of all things.
Being the consummate quantum physicist, God tells us that we are to always consider the unseen world.
While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal. – 2 Corinthians 4:18
By faith we understand that the worlds were formed by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are seen. – Hebrews 11:3
Clearly, the Bible supports that idea that there are things that we cannot see but do exist, nonetheless. And even more, these unseen things are the originating source for those things we do see.
Determined physicists are looking for these unseen things.
The European Organization for Nuclear Research, known as CERN, is a research organization that operates the largest particle physics laboratory in the world. From the CERN website: “Physicists and engineers at CERN use the world’s largest and most complex scientific instruments to study the basic constituents of matter — fundamental particles. Subatomic particles are made to collide together at close to the speed of light. The process gives us clues about how the particles interact and provides insights into the fundamental laws of nature. We want to advance the boundaries of human knowledge by delving into the smallest building blocks of our universe.”
Physicists have long speculated about the existence of an unseen energy field that permeates the universe and gives mass to everything. In other words, this field “creates” things in the universe. For years, scientists at CERN searched for a sign of this field. On July 12, 2012, they found it: the Higgs boson, or Higgs force. The Higgs boson particle (named after physicist Peter Higgs) is important because it signals the existence of the Higgs field, an invisible energy field present throughout the universe that interacts with matter particles and gives them mass. After an interaction, the field leaves behind a telltale sign: the Higgs boson particle. In 2012, CERN scientists found evidence of this particle.
Do you know what the scientists’ nickname is for this Higgs boson particle? The God particle.
According to these scientists, if the Higgs field didn’t exist, particles would not have any mass. For those of us who believe in God, I will translate this into Bible-eze: Without this energy field (I’ll call this field God), creation would not exist.
In a previous article posted to Ricochet titled “Did God Really Say That?”, I wrote about the science of waves, frequencies, and vibrations and how God spoke into existence everything in the universe and that it is the continued vibrations of this cosmic speech that keep the universe from collapsing.
Did the CERN scientists confirm that God’s word (known to them as the Higgs field) created and sustains the universe? They may not admit it yet. But I’m patient. I’ll just wait for them to catch up with the premier quantum physicist.
Check out my blog, my podcast “Torah Talk Podcast,” and my books @ www.torahtalk21.com.
Published in Religion & Philosophy
I didn’t really miss the point but must admit my comment wasn’t tied to yours very well. The faith you first mentioned (and stayed with) I believe was “a system of religious belief” and the faith I was going for was, ” the capacity to spiritually apprehend divine truths, or realities beyond the limits of perception or of logical proof.”
By that definition, science depends on faith.
https://ricochet.com/273554/archives/empiricism-and-the-sources-of-knowledge/
What really matters is where Hume and Reid got those hats.
Are you jealous?
Sorry for the late response, but I had to think of what “inform” means in this context. I took it superficially to mean “explains” or “clarifies”, but I think it means something much more important. There are two key points in the video I included. The first is that the scientists that began the scientific explosion, all acted in response to, were encouraged by, and supported in their thinking by the Bible, God’s Word. The Christian culture itself, regardless of each person’s individual belief or faith, formed the world view, the intellectual framework which fostered scientific inquiry.
The second and more important point is that the Near East and Chinese all began scientific inquiry, but their world view was that nature was capricious, not one of constancy which called for and fostered the presumption of unchanging physical laws. And so, seeing nature as unbounded by physical laws, after a brief start, they all lost interest.
Only the Christian world view provided for a mental framework to consider that creation was constant and unchanging, and this supported deeper and more interlinked layers of experimentation and observation based on observed laws. And since it was considered to be the handiwork of the true God and that nature itself speaks of God or “declares the Glory of God” there was all the more justification and impetus for exploring it and determining its characteristics.
Fundamentally, faith informs science, but not the other way around; eg, science cannot explain the Creative Power in “Let there be light’.
You’ve seen the James Tour lecture series on abiogensis, right?
Everybody believes in God. The difference is how different people model the God in which they believe.
Radical so-called “atheists”, for example, actually worship Tyche/Fortuna (i.e. fundamental randomness) as the Creator of the Universe and the ultimate source of all causal relationships, though of course they would never put it that way.
Well, my return to faith started with the realization of a universe that is highly ordered. One could attribute that to chance – and the odds would have been astronomical, excuse the pun – or implied a construction by a creator. I took it as a creation, especially since as an engineer by profession I can see the difference first hand between chance and constructions. Thanks.
Your experience was excellent. Let me quote this from that post:
I had a very similar experience as a mechanical engineer. From an engineering perspective, consider this: Does one dig up anywhere on earth an entire airplane? All the materials that go into building that airplane are found roughly randomly across the earth, and yet no one comes close to digging up an airplane that came together by chance. It takes a creative mind to design and put an airplane together. When one considers the universe with all its complexity, working stable functions, and consistency, why would one assume that it came together by chance? The mind of an engineer had to design and put that together.
Absurd.
This reminded me of two things. Mark Lowry’s piece on how he doesn’t have enough faith to be an atheist and I think it’s the same one he talks about the watch (similar to your airplane). And Stephen C. Meyer’s commentary about how many combinations of chance there would have to be in order for a human to evolve from the soup. My paraphrastic thoughts from a couple of videos.
Unfortunately at one time in the past (Galileo [link]), our ignorant humanness determined that there was some sort of conflict between science and God, and it led to a falsity that any scientist worth their salt had to be an atheist.
However, science, created by God, marched on. And today, we hear from a NASA scientist of the marvel of the creation of the human person … something that can only be attributed to a magnificent and ‘unbelievable’ Creator (God).
It’s mystery, magic …. divinity!
Notice how much pressure there is a Professor Tsiaras to be providing evidence of God in a public forum. He is sweating profusely because he knows that his scientific research has proven ‘heresy’. The existence of God! He is forced to use the words mystery and magic so as not to end his career.
FIFY
One could also replace “a god” with “free will”.
The entire
global warmingclimate change effort is yet but one more lame attempt to deny the existence of God. They cannot allow the belief that a “higher power” controls the weather to continue to be allowed to exist or be shared. Those of us who believe in God as the Creator of the universe and all that is in it, are the unwashed kafir infidels to them.Some people have dug up birds. They’re way cooler than airplanes.
That’s a stretch. Power grabbing progressives “might” also be atheist, but it’s not always true.
You can believe whatever you want, but belief doesn’t make it true.
I guess you agree with point number one, then?
The thing is that Lowry might be a moral coward, but atheists don’t claim to know how the universe came to be. I certainly don’t. I have no opinion and no theories. Centuries ago people had no idea about electricity or continental drift. Someday we may, or may not figure out these questions of our universe’s origins, but we haven’t yet. It’s strange that religious people seem to be quite comfortable saying how sure they are about everything though.
Science has been politicized beyond recognition by the Education/Media/Tech/DNC industrial complex. Sad. Now these woke folk from the ‘NeoEnlightenment’ are coming for history.
Are you equating God with the boson field? Or just pointing out something both fundamental to life and unseen exists as an argument for God by analogy?
The problem with equating or identifying God with the field is this: It makes God the same level with all other created things.
If God is a quantum particle or concept, he cannot be God in the fullest sense. This destroys the Creator-creature distinction and the Uncreated-created distinction. The problem here is that nothing exists outside the box we call Nature in order to have created Nature, for God is a part of Nature.
Indeed, this makes Nature more ultimate than God, so God is not God in any meaningful sense. Not meaningful in terms of God, anyway. No more meaningful than any other scientific finding.
It does seem more consistent if people just said that they have faith. That ends all discussion on the topic. Those who lack faith and want to claim they have proof seem to have (at least for christians) a questionable theology.
Great stuff in the comments. I would just offer the comment that the discussion is not so much about some formal proof or logical necessity regarding theological matters as it is about what we do with a particular sensibility. What does one do with a cognitive and emotional response to the perception of something spectacular in scope, complexity, or sheer amazingness? Ideally, it inspires curiosity at multiple levels as well as reflection on the kinda surprising fact of one’s own being equipped with personhood, consciousness, and capacity for wonder. That this sensibility can inspire artistic expression, rational exploration, and/or spirituality rather than a uniform endpoint for all is itself wonderful.
Those who have a pre-existing theological framework into which the sensibility is reduced to just another discursive confirmation and those who refuse to leave a comfortable rationalistic reservation are remarkably and unfortunately similar. Everybody does not have to be gobsmacked by the same things that gobsmack me, but if nothing gobsmacks you into that state of awe that drives so much good stuff, then there is something wrong.
FIFY.
Sorry, Percy. I saw his post before I saw yours. Jinx.
Yeah, one has to be careful with distinctions when examining the relationship between evidence for the Creator in the Creation. I think that was Le Maitre’s concern in warning Pope Pius XII against adducing the Big Bang as evidence for the biblical account of creation. He was concerned that exactly this error could crop up. This was discussed in an article by William Carroll in the new issue of First Things, which you can read here: Cosmology and Creation by William E. Carroll | Articles | First Things
My comments about the wisdom, or lack thereof, in making scientific (or scientific-ish) arguments that attempt to support a religious assertion is that I think it is intellectually destructive. Those who attempt to defend belief in God via scientific argument are implicitly creating an evidentiary standard that, in my opinion, believers should argue that God transcends. Those who attempt to undermine a belief in God via scientific argument are simply making claims about science that aren’t appropriate, attempting to extend the scope and authority of the natural sciences into places it doesn’t belong and can not go.
Each group is, in my opinion, doing damage to its respective “side.”
I understand the arguments about science being “faith-based.” I understand that metaphysical belief and science can go hand-in-hand in the same person, and often have. I get that. What I also understand is that modern attempts to use science to defend faith — a la Meyer, Behe, etc. — are very esoteric. What that means is that most people who read those arguments won’t understand them. And so, when those people see that there is a debate between two “men of science” on the topic of God, they have no scientific basis on which to choose between the two sides. Worse: there may be no scientific basis, since such debates increasingly occur at the ragged edges of our knowledge, where science has yet to offer a convincing explanation and so the age-old metaphysical ones can still be invoked.
There is an analogy here to modern “woke” ideology and its approach to racism. The folks on the woke fringe are busy defending the idea that “color-blind” is a synonym for “racist.” They’re re-invigorating a monster we were trying hard to slay, the idea that skin color matters, and that it’s okay to take it into account in our dealings with our fellow men. Whatever advantages they may believe it confers to them, in the long run it seems likely to be a bad idea.
Similarly, arguing that science has something to say about God seems likely to disappoint in two ways: by implying that science also has something to say about not-God, and by perpetuating a centuries-long process of science making God-as-explanation redundant.
(It disappoints in a third way as well, in that scientific defenses of faith tend, in my opinion, to misrepresent and abuse the science.)
@tikhonolmstead I wasn’t trying to say that God is the Boson field, but that God’s word is this field– that which gives mass to everything and holds it together. This post is closely related to my other post “Did God Really Say That?” Of course, this is just speculation based on what the Bible says about God’s word.