Rosenberg: A Universe From Nothing

Here is a great video of Lawrence Krauss that has been going around the internet recently. It deals with the state of the universe and how it could have came from nothing.

The universe must be flat.

It turns out, that in a flat universe the total energy of the universe is precisely zero...Because gravity can have negative energy. So, the negative energy of gravity balances out the positive energy of matter.

What’s so beautiful about a universe with total energy of zero?

Well, ONLY such a universe can begin from nothing… And that is remarkable… Because, the laws of physics allow a universe to begin from nothing. You don’t need a deity. You have nothing… zero total energy… and quantum fluctuations can produce a universe.

Right now, we know it to an accuracy of better than 1%. The universe IS flat. It has zero total energy, and it could have begun from nothing. … And, I’ve written this piece (and, of course, I got a lot of hate mail) saying that in my mind this answers that crazy question that religious people always keep throwing out… Which is:

“Why is there something rather than nothing?”

The answer is… There had to be. If you have “nothing” in quantum mechanics, you’ll always get something. It’s that simple. It doesn’t convince any of those people, but it’s true.

Rosenberg: The Ball is in Your Court

If you ask me about my thoughts on the origin of the universe, I'll have little to tell you. I do not know the initial conditions of the universe. We can speculate (and I can talk about some ideas later). Did the universe have a beginning or did it come to exist at some point in the past? I don’t know. And I really have little intuition on this matter. But apparently you do! And you think that the fact the universe exists (or that the universe began to exist) is reason to believe in God. You have these beliefs. That’s fine. What you need to do is tell me why you believe this. Why do you think this is reason to believe in God? And more importantly, you need to explain why I should believe this as well. You have failed in this task. Therefore, I did this for you. In my last post, I presented William Lane Craig’s kalam argument: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. Craig gave two arguments in support of his second premise that the universe began to exist. I then presented Morriston’s case for the failure of these arguments in favor of this premise. We then questioned the first premise. Then finally, I accepted Craig’s conclusion for the sake of argument to show that even if Craig is correct, he fails to establish God as a creator. This was a long post and I’m sorry for that. But I felt that this was necessary since this was a very detailed argument. In the future, I will try to have shorter postings.

In any case, this is how you replied: “I have told you this before in emails, in conversations, on Facebook, etc., that as a Christian, I do not necessarily agree with everything that another Christian says.”

So you don’t accept Craig’s argument? I was not asking if you agree with all of Craig’s arguments. I only gave you one-- the kalam argument. I did send you Craig’s argument before I posted to see if you agreed with him. You said yes. If you don’t agree with Craig, fine. Give me a different argument.

I will dismiss the rest of your last post. Not only did you completely ignore Morriston’s critique of Craig, but you misunderstood Quentin Smith’s reply as well. He never said it was nonsensical to talk about causes. He made a statement about abstract objects. What he said was that abstract objects cannot have causal relations with other objects. And therefore, it is nonsensical to talk about abstract objects having causal relations with other objects. Also, you also asked, “If there is no t=0, then why did you describe time as having a first instant?” I never said that time had a first instant. Smith argued the opposite. If the universe did begin to exist then there is no point in time t=0 and therefore there is no first instant. But don't worry about any of this if you don't accept Craig's argument. These are criticisms of Craig.

Rosenberg: The Cosmological Argument

This argument comes in three varieties: the Thomistic cosmological argument, the Leibniz cosmological argument, and the Kalam cosmological argument. It is the Kalam argument that has, by far, received the most attention in the literature. So, let’s talk about the Kalam argument.

I give you this piece by William Lane Craig to review.

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html

In it he defends the following argument for the existence of God.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

For Craig, the crucial part of this argument is the second premise. He provides two arguments in support of (2). The first argument is based on the impossibility of an actual infinite and goes as follows.

2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.

2.12 An infinite temporal regress events is an actual infinite.

2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

If the universe had no beginning, then there would be an infinite regress -- an infinite number of events leading up to our present time. Craig thinks this is impossible. To illustrate this, Craig has us think about Hilbert’s Hotel, the famous thought experiment from mathematician David Hilbert.

Let us imagine a hotel with a finite number of rooms. Suppose, furthermore, that all the rooms are full. When a new guest arrives asking for a room, the proprietor apologizes, "Sorry, all the rooms are full." But now let us imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms and suppose once more that all the rooms are full. There is not a single vacant room throughout the entire infinite hotel. Now suppose a new guest shows up, asking for a room. "But of course!" says the proprietor, and he immediately shifts the person in room #1 into room #2, the person in room #2 into room #3, the person in room #3 into room #4 and so on, out to infinity. As a result of these room changes, room #1 now becomes vacant and the new guest gratefully checks in.

And this can be repeated an infinite number of times. You could have an infinite number of new guests arrive without increasing the total number of guests in the hotel. Likewise, you could have an infinite number of guests leave without decreasing the total number of guests in the hotel. Craig thinks some of these consequences are absurd and therefore, we cannot have an actual infinite.

These results are absurd because they are a violation of what he calls Euclid’s maxim. A whole is greater than any of its parts. But when Craig talks of Euclid’s maxim, what he really wants is the following principle:

* A set must have a greater number of elements than any of its proper subsets.

But why should we assume that this principle is true? Well, it cannot be true because it gives rise to these absurd results for it is exactly the acceptance of this principle that makes these results “absurd.” This dilemma is resolved by showing that there are such sets that do (or could) have an infinite number of members.

Take a chunk of space for example. Space can have an infinite number for sub-regions. Even though it is true that we cannot actually subdivide space into an infinite number of parts, there is no problem in thinking of space as having sub-regions prior to any possible divisions.

Craig also fails by assuming that basic algebra works the same when applied to the number of elements in a set. Craig tries to do this and ends up with “absurdities” as we see from the following.

But Hilbert's Hotel is even stranger than the German mathematician gave it out to be. For suppose some of the guests start to check out. Suppose the guest in room #1 departs. Is there not now one less person in the hotel? Not according to the mathematicians-but just ask the woman who makes the beds! Suppose the guests in room numbers 1, 3, 5, . . . check out. In this case an infinite number of people have left the hotel, but according to the mathematicians there are no less people in the hotel-but don't talk to that laundry woman! In fact, we could have every other guest check out of the hotel and repeat this process infinitely many times, and yet there would never be any less people in the hotel. But suppose instead the persons in room number 4, 5, 6, . . . checked out. At a single stroke the hotel would be virtually emptied, the guest register reduced to three names, and the infinite converted to finitude. And yet it would remain true that the same number of guests checked out this time as when the guests in room numbers 1, 3, 5, . . . checked out. Can anyone sincerely believe that such a hotel could exist in reality? These sorts of absurdities illustrate the impossibility of the existence of an actually infinite number of things.

Let’s see what’s going on here. Let m = the number of total rooms in the infinite hotel, let n = the number of odd numbered rooms in the hotel, and let p = the number of rooms 4 or higher. Craig’s reasoning is as such:

(m − n) = infinity, whereas (m − p) = 3.

But, n = p (since both n and p are infinite).

And since n = p, we are subtracting the same number from m. But infinity ≠ 3. Therefore, we have a contradiction.

But as Wes Morriston shows, operations within set theory don’t work this way.

http://stripe.colorado.edu/~morristo/craig-on-the-actual-infinite.pdf

In fact, when we take the difference of two sets, we are not subtracting numbers at all. In logical terms, the difference of two sets A and B is the following.

A − B = {x: x ∈ A and x ∉ B}

In words, A − B is the set of all the elements in A that are not in B. Let’s try this in our case.

m − n = {1, 2, 3, 4,....} − {1, 3, 5, 7,...} = {2, 4 ,6, 8,...}

m − p = {1, 2, 3, 4,....} − {4, 5, 6, 7,...} = {1, 2, 3}

If we then talk about the number of elements a set, we are dealing with the cardinality of the set.

The cardinality of m − n is aleph-null. (Alpha-null is the smallest infinite cardinal number, and by definition, the cardinality of the set of natural numbers.)

The cardinality of m − p is 3

No logical inconsistency.

Craig seems to want to subtract the “numbers” n and p each from m and then show the absurd results. You cannot do this. The cardinalities of m, n, and p are each alpha-null and alpha-null minus alpha-null is left undefined in set theory.

Let’s move on to Craig’s second argument in support of (2). Craig wants to show that even if an actual infinity is possible, the series of past events cannot be of this sort. His argument is as such.

2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.

2.22 The temporal series of past event is a collection formed by successive addition.

2.23 Therefore, the temporal series past events cannot be actually infinite.

Craig’s reasoning is that an infinite collection formed by successive addition could never be completed. It is the problem of what is called “traversing the infinite.”

One cannot form an actually infinite collection of things by successively adding one member after another. Since one can always add one more before arriving at infinity, it is impossible to reach actual infinity.

The first premise of this second argument (2.21) is the one worth challenging. It appears to be false.

Consider Zeno’s paradox. Zeno was the ancient philosopher who had an interesting argument for why motion is impossible. His argument is as follows. In order to go from point A to point B, one needs to first reach the halfway mark and then the halfway mark of the remaining half then the halfway mark of the final fourth, then of the final eighth, and so on ad infinitum. Zeno concluded that therefore, motion is impossible because in order to reach any destination, one would first have to traverse and infinite number of finite distances which would be impossible. But this is exactly where Zeno got it wrong. It is possible to traverse an infinite number of finite distances in a finite amount of time! We cannot blame Zeno for this mistake because in his time, the concept of infinity was not well understood. But of course motion is possible. And today, we can easily solve this problem with the knowledge of how to handle an infinite series.

But Craig insists that we cannot have a beginningless series of events that ends in the present.

...suppose we meet a man who claims to have been counting from eternity and is now finishing: . . ., -3, -2, -1, 0. We could ask, why did he not finish counting yesterday or the day before or the year before? By then an infinite time had already elapsed, so that he should already have finished by then. Thus, at no point in the infinite past could we ever find the man finishing his countdown, for by that point he should already be done!

There is a problem with Craig’s reasoning. He is confusing the task of counting infinitely many numbers with the task of counting all the negative numbers up to zero. The man would have completed the first task but not the second. It is this first task of counting infinitely many numbers that is relevant and this should be sufficient. Why should this task of counting all the negative numbers up to zero be necessary? There could still be a beginningless series of events that ends in the present.

I have given some arguments against premise (2), on philosophical grounds, that the universe began to exist. There is also the argument for (2) on scientific grounds.This is a big topic in itself and I would like to leave this for later so we can spend more time on it. We already have a lot going on right here.

We skipped over the first premise (1) that whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. Craig thinks that this self-evident and needs little argument in support of it. But surprisingly, there might be reasons to doubt this. In quantum mechanics we have this idea of vacuum fluctuations where particles pop into existence uncaused. We can discuss this more when we get to the topic of scientific cosmology.

http://universe-review.ca/R03-01-quantumflu.htm

Wes Morriston gives a good critique of Craig’s argument. I recommend you read it.

http://stripe.colorado.edu/~morristo/kalam-not.html

I tried so far to give a summary of his main points.

OK, so what if Craig’s argument is sound? Let’s assume the truth of both (1) and (2) for argument’s sake. This gives us the conclusion Craig argues for, namely, that the universe has a cause. But does this mean that there is a creator? The philosopher, Quentin Smith, presents the case in which it does not. (This is not found online. His argument is presented in a piece titled “Kalam Cosmological Arguments for Atheism” from The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. If anyone else wants to read this, email me for the PDF.)

According to science, the universe began with a big bang 15 billion years ago. But also, according to the science, there cannot be a first time t=0. This is because at this first instant of time, the universe would be in an impossible state and would have to be described by some nonsensical mathematical statements.

What we can discuss is the first interval of time in which the universe began to exist. And since there is no time t=0, this interval is open at the beginning (there can be a boundary point at the end but not at the beginning). Time is continuous. In other words, in this interval of time we have an infinite number on time instances. Think of an instance as a point in time along this time interval (an instance has no temporal duration). Between any two instances there are an infinite many other instances.

So let x be an instance within the first second of the universe existing. Then x is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 1.

If we think about the universe in this way, we can say that every instance of time is preceded and caused by earlier instantaneous states. In this sense, the universe can be self caused. But what if we ask about the cause of the interval as a whole? Well, says Smith, it doesn’t make sense to ask such a thing. The interval is a set which is an abstract object and cannot have causal relations with other objects.

I understand that this is some heavy stuff. Realize that set theory is an essential part of these arguments. And also realize that these arguments are essential in trying to understand the philosophy dealing with the origin of the universe.

Rosenberg: EXPELLED-James Lotz (For Some Reason or Other)

In your Expelled clip, Ben Stein asks Dawkins how life began:

DAWKINS: Nobody knows how it got started. We know the kind of event that it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.

BEN STEIN: And what was that?

DAWKINS: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.

BEN STEIN: Right, and how did that happen?

DAWKINS: I told you, we don't know

BEN STEIN: So you have no idea how it started?

DAWKINS: No, no. Nor has anybody.

I take it that this is the exchange you wanted me to comment on. This is one of those “big” questions of science, the question about origins. This discussion is similar to one we had in our first post. You asked about cosmology and how the universe began and this was my response:

Well I'm not going to try to give an answer to how the earth began. This is because I don't know. But understand that the question of cosmology is a scientific one nonetheless and is worthy of study. Your demands are simply too high. There are things that we don't understand. We have to be humble. Science has been making progress towards answering these difficult questions. Remember, telescopes weren't even invented until the 17th century. It wasn't until the later half of the 19th century that scientists were able to determine the composition of the stars. Einstein's theory of special relativity wasn't published until 1905. And the use of nuclear physics in trying to explain the origins didn't really begin until the 1940s. But you can't take this question of origin away from science and give it to religion. That answers nothing. That would be ignorant hand waving, I would say. This is at least worthy of scientific study.

Science does not have the answers right now. But here is the thing-- NOR HAS ANYBODY! At least scientists are working on solving these puzzles:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=origins-science-krauss

(If you link to the video archive, you can watch these lectures online)

Notice that I never said that science will someday have all the answers. Perhaps one day we will have the answers, perhaps not--I don’t know. A point that I was trying to make here was that science has a progressive nature. There is no faith here. Scientists are just trying to find out about the world.

Watch this short clip of Richard Feynman. He elaborates on this idea:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeCHiUe1et0

“When I say Intelligent Design I am not interested in defending Michael Behe or Dembski, I am arguing for the hand of a creator/intelligent mind in the making of all that we can see/study.”

OK I believe this to be the confusion. We have intelligent design as I had discussed in my last post. But we also the argument from design which is an argument for the existence of God based on the perceived purpose in the world (think Paley’s watchmaker). These are distinct concepts--one is a political and religious movement and the other is a “proof” of God’s existence. Although advocates of ID accept this argument from design, it is not true vice verse.

The traditional argument from design is one from analogy:

Stuff that looks designed (i.e., a watch) has a designer. There is something--life, nature, the cosmological constants, etc.--that looks like it has been designed. Therefore, by analogy, this something must also have a designer. This designer is God.

There is also another classic argument for the existence of God--the cosmological argument:

Everything we know has a cause. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes. Therefore, there must be a first cause. This first cause is God.

You need to help me out here, are you confusing this cosmological argument with, as I called it, the “big” questions of science (the empirical problems of discovering the initial conditions of the universe and of life itself)? If not then you are committed to a God of the gaps and we already discussed this. If so, great. Let’s discuss this now. But if this is the case, then you are also confusing these two arguments. The design argument and the cosmological argument are two distinct arguments.

Rosenberg: Ben Stein can suck it!

Dawkins on Expelled

I’ve watched the video clip several times. When Ben Stein asked whether intelligent design could be a possible explanation for life on this planet, Dawkins says the following:

It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology— and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. … And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Dawkins gives us a thought experiment from science fiction. Imagine a group of aliens that came here some 4 billion years ago with the purpose of seeding life on this planet. This is a scenario in which life on earth could have arisen. As far fetched as this might seem, it is surely a possibility. And it is in this sense that intelligent design could be true. What is upsetting is how Stein fails to understand that this is a mere thought experiment. As Stein says later in the video:

So Professor Dawkins was not against intelligent design, just certain types of designers, such as God.

NO! What Dawkins was doing was bending over backwards for Stein and giving intelligent design his best shot. He does not actually believe this scenario to be true. Dawkins thinks that an intelligent designer of this sort is more likely than the God of the bible. Is this really surprising? Dawkins then goes on to say that even if this space alien scenario were true, we would still be left with problem of having to explain how the alien life form came about.

I agree with Dawkins on this one so I’m not really sure what you expected me to say about this or how you think it will better our discussion. Dawkins also has a reaction piece about this movie on his website here.

Intelligent Design

Given our discussion so far I feel that you do not understand what intelligent design is. Intelligent design, as it is commonly discussed, is not just a descriptive term. It is essentially a political and religious movement that masquerades as a scientific theory. Intelligent design is a descendent of creationism but with the “God talk” taken out as to get around the establishment clause of the first amendment so that it can be taught in public schools. Phillip E. Johnson, William Dembski, Michael Behe, irreducible complexity, the design inference, the wedge strategy, Of Pandas and People, Darwin's Black Box, The Discovery Institute-- these are some of the major people, ideas, books, and organizations that are associated with the ID movement. When we talk about intelligent design, this is what we are talking about.

I recommend that you read up on the history of this movement. Eugenie Scott has a detailed history in her book Evolution vs. Creationism. Most of the relevant chapter on neocreationism can be found online here (chapter 6).

I also recommend watching the PBS Nova special on the famous Dover case, Intelligent Design on Trial.

So to say that you will argue either as a deist or an advocate for intelligent design really does not make much sense. The two positions are at opposite ends of the religious spectrum. Whereas deism is compatible with the science, intelligent design is, at its core, an anti-evolutionist position (organisms created in their original form rather than by evolutionary processes). If you were merely a deist, we would not be writing a blog together because there wouldn't be much for us to argue about. Perhaps I will give reasons for why I am not a deist in a later post but right now we are on the subject of science and religion. And if you were really an advocate for intelligent design, we would not be having our discussion on theistic evolution because intelligent design theorists are opposed to evolution. Please, let us continue where we left off last time.

Rosenberg: More on the Compatibility between Science and Religion

In your post on March 1st you wrote:

I feel the conflict (between Science and Religion) only exists because there are Christians who don't want to consider the theory of evolution and there are Atheists who don't want to consider the theory that all is designed...the two aren't really that far apart if you think about it.

So let’s think about it!

First off, the fact that there are scientists who are religious does nothing to support the claim that religion is compatible with science. The issue here is not whether people can accept both but rather whether one can remain consistent in doing so.

In my last post, I pointed to a couple issues with Collins’ theistic evolution, specifically, how does one handle the doctrine of original sin and the existence of the soul. But there are a bigger issues. First, what exactly does God do? According to Collins, we cannot communicate with God:

Just because God is good and loves His creatures does not, for instance, require that we have the ability to communicate with Him, or to have some sort of relationship with Him. (p. 220)

God does not answer our prayers:

Prayer is not, as some seem to suggest, an opportunity to manipulate God into doing what you want Him to. Prayer is instead our way of seeking fellowship with God, learning about Him, and attempting to perceive His perspective on the many issues around us that cause us puzzlement, wonder, or distress. (p. 220)

And God does not violate the laws of science:

Once evolution got underway, no special supernatural intervention was required. (p. 200)

This gives us the picture of a God that in uninvolved in the world. How is this any different than deism? Collins recognizes that this is a problem and addresses the issue on his new website:

Divine Action is defined as God’s interaction with creation. Due to the understanding that evolution accounts for the diversity of present life forms, it might appear God played no role in the process of evolution. (See Question 26 about The Complexity of Life.) Clearly this contradicts the central doctrine of creation for many faiths. Christianity, for example, professes a God actively involved in creation. Many faiths share the concept of an interactive God, or theism. The opposing belief — the belief in an uninvolved, disinterested God — is deism.

Collins’ answer -- God is involved in the world:

In harmony with theism, BioLogos affirms a God who is at all times involved, yet who still allows a degree of freedom to the creation.

We cannot have it both ways. So how does God act without intervening with the natural laws? Well, He acts at the quantum level tinkering around with different electrons and such:

The mechanical worldview of the scientific revolution is now a relic. Modern physics has replaced it with a very different picture of the world. With quantum mechanical uncertainty and the chaotic unpredictability of complex systems, the world is now understood to have a certain freedom in its future development. Of course, the question remains whether this openness is a result of nature’s true intrinsic chanciness or the inevitable limit to humans’ understanding. Either way, one thing is clear: a complete and detailed explanation or prediction for nature’s behavior cannot be provided. This was already a problem for Newtonian mechanics; however, it was assumed that in principle, science might eventually provide a complete explanation of any natural event. Now, though, we see that the laws of nature are such that scientific prediction and explanation are ultimately limited.

It is thus perfectly possible that God might influence the creation in subtle ways that are unrecognizable to scientific observation. In this way, modern science opens the door to divine action without the need for law breaking miracles. Given the impossibility of absolute prediction or explanation, the laws of nature no longer preclude God’s action in the world. Our perception of the world opens once again to the possibility of divine interaction.

Despite the uncertainty and unpredictability of the world, we are not forced to reject the earlier understanding of God’s creation as consistent and reliable. After all, the world still exhibits the same orderly behavior that inspired so many faithful scientists of earlier centuries. Regardless of the irregularity of tiny,quantum mechanical, or complex, chaos theoretical, systems, the sun stills rises and sets, the tides ebb and flow, and objects fall to the ground. Nature is reliable enough to reflect God’s faithfulness yet flexible enough to permit God’s involvement.

Really? To me this just seems like a last ditch effort to show how science and religion can be compatible. Check out this article by Victor Stenger for an explanation of the physics and the philosophical consequences of this view. In any case, it makes for a very strange theology:

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Dice/ActFI.pdf

Another issue with the concept of theistic evolution is the idea of human contingency. Imagine if we wound back the clock several hundred million years to let it play out again. Chances are we would end up with a world without human-like or intelligent creatures. Or if an astroid didn’t collide with the earth and the dinosaurs never went extinct there might not be any intelligent life on this planet. It is said that God created us in His image, but given evolution, we realize it is quite possible for us to have never even existed!

We don’t have to discuss Francis Collins in particular. I pick on Collins because you mentioned him earlier in our discussion. Any account of theistic evolution is going to be similar to that of Collins’.

I am going to leave you with the relevant links to what has been called the big accommodationism debate. Check it out. Start by reading ”Seeing and Believing” by Jerry Coyne then follow the rest of the links here:

http://www.edge.org/discourse/accomodationism.html

Some responses to you:

Since you do not believe the bible story of Adam and Eve, you need to reinterpret the doctrine of original sin to be understood differently. But then why did Jesus die? I’ve been to church on Easter and that was all they talked about. “Jesus died for our sins. Jesus died for our sins. Jesus died for our sins.”

There is a case to be made that Jesus never claimed to be God. I am not going to rehash this argument here because this will take us off topic once again. We can return to this issue later. Until then, read the book by John Loftus that I recommended for some discussion on this.

Rosenberg: The Language of God

I finally got around to finishing Francis Collins’ book, The Language of God. And to be honest, I was left feeling a little disappointed. Collins is obviously a great scientist. He was the head of the Human Genome Project and he has made advances in understanding the causes of diseases such as cystic fibrosis and Huntington’s disease. The subtitle of the book is A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. Ultimately, I found the arguments Collins gives to be unconvincing. He presents a couple arguments from the work of C.S. Lewis.

One argument that is given is the argument from moral law. It is argued that there could be no social or evolutionary explanation for this and therefore there had to be a God that gave us morality. Collins claims that ”the concept of right and wrong appears to be universal among members of the human species.” But this simply isn’t supported by current research:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5733638.ece

Besides this, Collins is guilty of the “God of the gaps” fallacy. Collins does not think that there is a satisfactory social or evolutionary explanation for morality, therefore there must be a supernatural explanation. This is funny since Collins himself argues against the God of the gaps reasoning when dealing with creationism:

A word of caution is needed when inserting specific divine action by God in this or any other area where scientific understanding is currently lacking. From solar eclipses in olden times to the movement of the planets in the Middle Ages, to the origins of life today, this “God of the gaps” approach has all too often done a disservice to religion (and by implication, to God, if that’s possible). Faith that places God in the gaps of current understanding about the natural world may be headed for crisis if advances in science subsequently fill those gaps. Faced with incomplete understanding of the natural world, believers should be cautious about invoking the divine in areas of current mystery, lest they build an unnecessary theological argument that is doomed to later destruction.

Another argument that Collins gives for the existence of God is that people have a deep desire or longing for God and whenever people desire something, there always exists something to fulfill that desire. For example, if one is hungry, then there is food to satisfy that hunger. But why should this hold true for all of our desires? Collins doesn’t say and I find this completely unconvincing. Surely we could have wants and needs for things which could never be satisfied.

Collins also provides us with the fine-tuning argument. The idea here is that the physical constants in our universe just happen to be such that if any one of them were even slightly different, life would not exist. It seems as if these fundamental constants were “fine-tuned” to bring about life. I find argument to be quite interesting and we should discuss this further in due course. But even if this argument does work, this would only give us a deistic God, a God that set the universe in motion and then left it to function on its own. But Collins wants more than this. He wants a personal God that is involved in peoples lives, the God of the bible.

So what is Collins case for a Christian God? He give us Lewis’ Trilemma, the Lord, liar, or lunatic argument. He quotes Lewis:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of thing Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

Now first of all, some will say that Jesus never actually claimed to be God. Whatever, let’s assume Jesus made these claims. But to say that Jesus, therefore, had to be either Lord, liar, or lunatic is to make a false dichotomy. If Jesus was not God, then he was saying something that was false. So either he knew that it was false, in which case, he was a liar. Or he didn’t know that it was false, in which case, he would have been a lunatic. The problem is that these options are extremes. People make mistakes. People exaggerate. Either of these options would perfectly reasonable to accept. It is also perfectly reasonable to accept some teachings while rejecting others.

Collins then goes on to argue that evolution and theology can exist harmoniously together. This was the main reason why I bought this book. I wanted to see how he thought this was possible.

These are his premises:

1. The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago
2. Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life
3. While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very long periods of time
4. Once evolution got under way no special supernatural intervention was required
5. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes
6. But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.

I object to his last premise, but other than that, it is simply the idea that evolution is true and that evolution is the method that God used to create the world. There are a couple issues coming from the theistic side that I would have liked him to have addressed. First, if evolution is true, how does the doctrine of original sin come in to play. And second, where does the soul come from. Only humans are supposed to have souls, right? Well what happened? Did God come in and insert the soul somewhere along the line between the Australopithecus and Homo? He doesn't say.

My responses to your last post:

“You still didn't address my accusing you of setting up the subject so only your view can be considered”

Sorry?

“Please don't cite Wikipedia and be completely serious about it.”

All I did was give you a definition and I thought that was a pretty fair definition of the term.

“How many times do we hear in the news, "Scientists say..." or "Science has found..." and it's meant to be authoritative???”

Science is a method of finding things out. And so yes, in this sense, it is authoritative. Not only that, it is the best that we could do. Science is a very honest discipline. When scientific claims are put forth, they peer reviewed and tested repeatedly. As Collins notes in his book, scientists are secret anarchists by trying to show that theories and ideas are wrong. If you could debunk an established scientific theory, then you will definitely become famous. Surely, individual scientists are human and can make errors and misinterpret or falsify data. But results of this sort get weeded out fairly quickly and don’t last long. And don’t forget that there are competing ideas among scientists as well.

I like using the example of Fermat’s last theorem. This is a very famous and deceptively simple math problem that remained unsolved until 1995 when Andrew Wiles came up with a proof. People have been trying to solve this problem since 1637 when Fermat first commented in a margin of a book that he had a proof but couldn’t write it out because the margin in the book was too small.

The problem states that there is no solution to the equation aⁿ + bⁿ = cⁿ for integers a,b,c,n where n is greater than 2.

This seems like a simple problem, right? Far from it. I am pretty sure that if I spent the rest of my life trying to figure it out, I would still not understand the proof. And yet, I believe that this theorem is correct. A proof has been written out by Wiles and then reviewed by other mathematicians.

“Your "Open-Minded" video totally rules out the supernatural as an option--that's not too open-minded by definition.”

Well sort of but not really. Sure it is possible that there are supernatural explanations but to actually accept the supernatural position is to close the book on all other possibilities. And this position is precisely what he said is not open-minded. Remember Carl Sagan’s story of the invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire? Do you believe in the existence of that dragon? Surely you don’t. It is possible that this dragon exists but there is no possible way to test or confirm its existence. Are you closed-minded because you reject this belief?

Some supernatural beliefs are testable. Do Auras exist? Well if you claim to see them, prove it! Here is Randi testing an aura reader.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39PM03iVbqE&feature=related

Now this just shows that this particular aura reader was unable to read the auras in this particular instance. Perhaps he could get it right next time. Perhaps someone else is able to read auras. I don’t believe in auras. I hope you don’t believe in auras. Would it be closed-minded to call out the next aura reader that comes along? No. Not all claims hold the same weight.

Now I have a challenge for you. I just read Francis Collins’ The Language of God. I want you to try reading one of these books and then let me know what you think.

Michael Martin - The Case against Christianity

John Loftus - Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity