Does Science Support Belief In God? - CFI, London. Swinburne vs Philipse

What: Does Science Support Belief In God? - CFI, London. Swinburne vs Philipse
Date: Tuesday May 10th, 7-9pm.
Humanists4Science has added a Meetup. Full Details on CFI UK website.

Stephen Law sympathises with the view that 'science' should be be explicitly mentioned in the BHA Strategy

Prof. Peter Atkins is a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association (BHA). Dr Stephen Law is a member of the BHA Philosophers Group. The BHA Strategy (2010) comprises the Vision, Mission, Values and Aims (accessed: 20th April 2011).

This is the 6th of 6 videos recording a discussion, 'Can science alone answer our questions?' between Stephen Law and Peter Atkins at Think Week, Oxford on 24th February 2011. View all 6 parts of the discussion. 

In answer to my question, Stephen Law sympathises with the view that 'science' should be explicitly mentioned in the BHA Strategy. 

Read a verbatim translation of his answer to my question, below the video.

Part 6:  The verbatim transcription of my question follows.
My explanation in brackets (  ):-

1'30": Chris Street (anonymously) 'This is a question for both our speakers, Peter Atkins and Steven Law, who are both distinguished supporters of the British Humanist Association (BHA). Has science any role to play in humanistic philosophy and do you agree that the BHA strategy does not include science?'

1' 50": Peter Atkins 'Stephen this is your question'.

1' 55": Stephen Law 'Sorry just say the last bit again'

2'00": Chris Street 'Do you agree that the BHA strategy does not include any reference to science?

2'04": Stephen Law 'Strategy? Would it be right if the strategy did include science? What did you have in mind? Well give me an example.'

2'10": Chris Street 'I have in mind that the BHA strategy claims that reason has a part in understanding the world'. (the BHA Vision states "we want non-religious people to be confident in living ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity.")

2'21": Stephen Law 'Right. That is (reason) is a big umbrella word'. My guess is that reason is understood to encompass science, that would be how I would read that. If you feel that it (science) really should have its own word in there explicitly, well, I have a little bit of sympathy with that actually, yes.'

2'40": Chris Street (agrees)

2'42": Stephen Law 'But the suggestion that the BHA is a closet anti-science organisation, doesn't rate philosophy and doesn't rate science, I'm absolutely sure that that is not true. I'm sure you don't think that either?'

2'56": Chris Street 'I don't, no I don't.' (I think BHA is pro science & pro philosophy)

BHA Strategy - Vision, Mission, Values and Aims.

The BHA Strategy (2010) comprises the Vision, Mission, Values and Aims (accessed: 20th April 2011) - 

The BHA "Vision" - What do we want?

 "We want a world where everyone lives cooperatively on the basis of shared human values and respect for human rights. We want non-religious people to be confident in living ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity."

The BHA "Mission" - What do we do?

"We promote Humanism, represent the non-religious, and support those who wish to live humanist lives, including through the provision of humanist ceremonies.

We campaign for a secular state, challenge religious privilege, and promote equal treatment in law and policy of everyone regardless of religion or belief.

We offer a humanist perspective in public debate, drawing on contemporary humanist thought and the worldwide humanist tradition."

BHA Values

In all our work, we strive to embody our values by:

• engaging in debate rationally, intelligently and with attention to evidence 
• recognising the dignity of individuals and treating them with fairness and respect 
• respecting and promoting freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law; 
• being cooperative, working with others of different beliefs for the common good; 
• celebrating human achievement, progress and potential.

BHA Aims

Our Aims - We aim to achieve a situation where:

Humanism is understood as an ethical and fulfilling non-religious lifestance involving a naturalistic view of the universe.

Using all suitable means, including events, courses, publications, online resources, teaching materials and speakers for schools and colleges, the press, broadcast, online and social media, we will maintain an extensive promotional and educational programme to extend and deepen public understanding of Humanism.

People with humanist beliefs and values are supported in identifying themselves as humanists and in expressing those beliefs and values in their lives.

We will articulate Humanism and humanist views in a way that helps people with a humanist outlook identify themselves as humanists, provide opportunities for humanists to develop their own thinking individually and in community with fellow humanists, and strive to establish contact with all who share our values. We will maintain a network of celebrants to enable non-religious people to mark or celebrate significant moments in life and we will consider providing other forms of support for humanists, especially in situations where religious people have support not accessible to humanists.

Public debate and policy are shaped by humanist perspectives.

By recruiting high profile advocates, publishing research and articulating humanist views ourselves, we will promote humanist views on public ethical issues. We will focus on those issues that are either important to humanists in particular or have high social importance, especially where others are actively promoting views opposed to humanist values or the humanist voice is excluded or weak. We will encourage all our members and supporters to increase their engagement with public affairs, working with us and in cooperation with others.

The UK is a secular state guaranteeing human rights, with no privilege or discrimination on grounds of religion or belief.

We will work to enhance the public understanding and appreciation of secularism. We will identify and publicise key instances where people are unfairly privileged or discriminated against because of their religion or belief or where principles of human rights or equality are compromised. We will engage in effective advocacy to influence public opinion, government policy, legislation, and case law and in order to resolve these situations.

We are an expanding, financially healthy and sustainable organisation with high standards of governance and management.

We will build an engaged constituency of the non-religious to create sustainable growth founded on a regular programme of activities and campaigns in which our supporters and members participate as donors, volunteers, celebrants or campaigners to help achieve our objectives. As many of these activities as possible will be financially self-sufficient. We will regularly review all our people’s skills, our organisational structure and our procedures to maintain high standards and ensure they fit the requirements of our current and planned activities.

We are respected as an organization for our expertise and professionalism and recognized as the national voice of Humanism and a leading national voice for the non-religious and for secularism.

We will maintain good relationships with all our stakeholders and audiences and work in coalitions with others whenever possible. We will maintain a responsive and proactive communications function, based on a clear communications strategy and using the most appropriate media. We will aspire always to work to the highest standards and in accordance with our values, to respond seriously to any criticism, and to keep ourselves under critical review to ensure that our high reputation is maintained and improved.

BBC - Everything and Nothing - Jim Al-Khalili

BBC - Everything and Nothing - Nothing

From BBC: 'Two-part documentary which deals with two of the deepest questions there are - what is everything, and what is nothing?

In two epic, surreal and mind-expanding films, Professor Jim Al-Khalili searches for an answer to these questions as he explores the true size and shape of the universe and delves into the amazing science behind apparent nothingness.



Everything


Summary

• if our sun was a grain of sand, there are more stars in the universe, than all the grains of sand, on all the beeches on our world 1'
• if static infinite universe all night sky would be bright (olbers paradox)10'
• nebullae are other galaxies 17'
• stellar parallax
• Hubble - nearest galaxy is Andromeda 2.5M light years 26'
• contains a trillion stars
• non-euclidian geometry
• Gauss, Reimann, einstein
• expanding universe 45'
• hubble blue / red shifts 46'
• fabric of space in between galaxies is expanding 47'
• einstein 'cosmological constant was biggest mistake'
• big bang 47'
• flash of light from big bang fills universe - CMB - see on TV 49'
• fossilised light of the first dawn 13.7 billion years old 51'
• why it gets dark at night 52'
• universe is not infinitely old
• dark energy origin of expansion of universe 57'

Nothing



The second part, Nothing, explores science at the very limits of human perception, where we now understand the deepest mysteries of the universe lie. Jim sets out to answer one very simple question - what is nothing? His journey ends with perhaps the most profound insight about reality that humanity has ever made. Everything came from nothing. The quantum world of the super-small shaped the vast universe we inhabit today, and Jim can prove it.'

Summary of Part 2, Nothing

• what is nothing?
• emptiness is what most of the universe is made up of
• void or vacuum
• 14 billions years ago the universe appeared out of nothing 3'
• Aristotle
• nothingness was paradoxical, 'nature abhors a vacuum'
• Torricelli  experimented and showed Aristotle was wrong - he created empty space, atmosphere has a specific weight 5'
• we live at the bottom of an ocean of air
• Blaise Pascal - nothing is everywhere - 10'
• a vacuum is natures default state
• light travels through a vacuum (but not sound which is carried by air) - 11'
• light must be carried by luminiferous 'ether' - 12'
• Albert Michelson - measured speed of light 
• speed of light should differ if ether exists - 15'
• Michelson & Edward Morley - speed of light is constant 
• Albert Einstein
• ether does not exist  - 20'
• TV / lightbulb / computer valves - contain vacuum
• X Ray / electron / atom discovered 25'
• quantum mechanics 25' 
• nothing is not possible
• Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle 26'
• nature is based on uncertainty
• cannot know exactly position in space and time at quantum level 29'
• create something out of nothing, provided something disappears immediately 31'
• Paul Dirac 33'
• a 'dirac' - unit of shyness!
• Dirac Equation: unified special relativity and quantum mechanics, described electron 36'
• anti-electron (mirror of electron)
• made out of vacuum: anti-matter collides with matter; all mass is turned into energy and mass disappear completely 43'
• whenever particle pops out of empty space so simultaneously does its anti-particle 44'
• vacuum goes from nothing to teaming with trillions [Dirac Sea] of pairs of matter-antimatter particles which appear and disappear (virtual particles) 45'
• Quantum Field Theory 46'
• Willis Lamb - proves activity in nothingness 48'
• electron is wobbled by the vacuum which has an energy
• Quantum shapes the structure of the universe, nothing has shaped everything 51'
• embryonic universe temperature variations are scars of quantum vacuum 53'
• matter did not spread out evenly, clumps of quantum irregularities of  the vacuum give galaxies 54'
• in big bang for every billion particles of matter and anti-matter anialated one particle of matter was left, radiation, gave rise to heat of big bang and CMB. 56'
• connection between the nothing from which we were created and the infinite in which we are engulfed 59'

Symphony of Science - A Wave of Reason

Symphony of Science - 'The Big Bang Beginning' (ft. Hawking, Sagan, Dawkins, Shears, Tyson)

Ode to the Brain! by Symphony of Science

Symphony of Science - The Poetry of Reality (An Anthem for Science)

Stephen Fry: 'Without science, reason is almost akin to superstition' @ 8'35

source: http://www.humanistlife.org.uk/2011/03/stephen-fry-receives-humanist-lifetime-achievement-award-from-harvard/

Stephen Fry talks about revealed truth v discovered truth, why reason is almost akin to superstition, empiricism and science as humility before the facts, and why you should never try to own the minds of others.



1'05": 2 types of knowledge:

1. Revealed Truth: holy text eg Holy Bible or Koran from a divinity or a secular text eg Communist Manifesto), cannot ultimately be questioned 
2. Discovered Truth: Anagnorisis - truth that can be shown by observation and apprehension, flourished in Athens (Aristotle, Socrates, Plato), quenched for a 1000 years and replaced by Christian revealed truth. In 17th Royal Society, Isaac Newton (laws of gravity and light and motion) and in France - ideas. Slowly and absolutely remorsefully and ineluctably the power of the Church was pushed back we call it the The Enlightenment 

8'20":-

We call it the Enlightenment because the light of reason was shone into every corner of human experience... think with reason but more importantly empirically, which is to say, there is reason, it is reasonable to suppose this, that or another. The beauty of science and freethought is that it doesn’t stop there. 

8’30”:- 

"Reason is almost akin to superstition, surely humanism stands up for reason... no reason must be tested, 

Blaisse Pascal reasoned about light (his theory seemed so reasonable), but he did NOT test his reason. Newton demonstrated by poking his finger through cardboard and demonstrated what Pascal said was untrue.

This was a great moment of empiricism, its testing. You don’t only question, you test - that is the very basis of science. 

testing is the very basis of science"

If science has a definition mine is ‘humility before the facts’. It doesn't matter how reasonable what you say is, or how beautiful your theory is, you must be humble and supplicant in front of the facts that open up.

10'35"
I want you to understand it is no part of a humanists job to mock, an individually pious & devout individual, we are not interested in persuaded them against their religion, I've got no interest in telling the religious that there is no god, if they are happy, it is none of my business.  However.... the corollary, it is not their business to impose their revealed truth on, a world of doubt, scepticism, empiricism, reason, Enlightenment values... a world that is insoluble, yet has the freedom to think and express ideas, without sense of metaphorical or literal hell-fire of abomination.

Can Science Alone Answer Our Questions? Peter Atkins talks to Stephen Law

@Think Week, Oxford, Chris Street, David McKnight and Andy Pepperdine from Humanists4Science and Richard Green from AtheistsUK attended this talk on 24th February 2011. And had a great discussion down the pub after the meeting!

Part 1


Peter Atkins
There are 3 ways of acquiring knowledge:-
1) Refer to ancient texts - Religion - theologicians, obfuscate the world
2) Think about what the world should be like - Philosophy - which leads us nowhere, eg the Greeks reflected on what the world should be like
3) Science: do what people like Galileo did - goes out and applies the scientific method - scientists illuminate the world

The scientific method - go out, look at things and then talk about it. But science is not just amiablly wandering through the universe and then chatting to people whoever goes by. Science is about doing controlled experiments, isolating what is there, identifying the deep nature of what is operating, talking about it involves peer review, plus setting your discovering in a network of that which is already known; a network of ideas.

You cannot have an idea clashing in one area of science with another areas of science. The reason for confidence in the scientific endeavour is because ideas arise in many springs and where they mingle they dont conflict eg to understand cosmology you have to draw on knowledge of elementary particles.

Science is not complete, but is developing. Science progresses and understanding deepens.

Can science deal with all the great questions of existence? Science can deal with all the serious questions that have troubled mankind for millenia. My view is that science is without bound. To argue that case you have to distinguish real questions from false questions. Empty questions are invented by theologicians and philosphers eg what is the purpose of the universe. There is no evidence for any purpose of the universe so there is no need to waste time thinking about it. Real questions are the origin of universe and the long term fate of the universe, and what goes on between. Science can answer every one of the real questions. Real questions include:-

1. how did the universe come into being without intervention - scientist have not cracked this yet but much progress over the last 150 yrs compared to theology/philosophy over last 10,000 years. That is the power of science. How can nothing produce something without intervention. Only a pessimist would think this cannot be answered. 
2. Origin of biosphere... real results in the last 200 years, evolution and natural selection is the solution. 
3. the problem of the inception of life remains .. how did the inorganic become organic. Scientists have many ideas - they do not assert what happens. Science cautiously identifies what might have happened.
4. Nature of consciousness is another problem that science has not solved but is grappling with. Philosopher might say that science cannot illuminate the subjective. Theories of consciousness will be simulations and neuroscientists understand systems using fMRI, computers emulate aspects of consciousness to understand eg to understand why people resort to religious belief.

In summary, scientists are optimists. They attack problems because they are optimistic they will solve the problems. The driving force of science is optimism.

Philosophers are pessimists and say 'you cannot go there!'

Stephen Law

I'm a great admirer of empirical sciences [Empiricism - Wikipedia]. Empirical science is the most important tool, possibly the only tool that really works for understanding the world around us. Even though some questions cannot be answered by science this does not mean that these questions are off limits to science. I suspect a majority of scientists reject scientism - which says that every decent question can be answered by science.


Part 2


Stephen Law
Why is there something rather than nothing. Why was there a Big Bang rather than no Big Bang. When scientists explain things they use laws to explain things eg why did the water freeze in the pipes. Certain deep laws cannot be answered by science necessarily? In principle is it impossible to answer this question?

Can science answer moral questions? Ought or ought not to do something. David Hume says science deals with 'is' questions. Science cannot explain 'ought' questions or facts. eg why is it wrong. You cannot get an  'ought' from an 'is'.

You can answer questions without doing empirical science

1. 4 sided triangle. Just by thinking about it you know that it doesn't exist - its a conceptual problem.
2. Why is it that mirrors reverse Left to Right, not Top to Bottom. Its a conceptual problem, thinking things through, not a scientific problem. 
3. The mind-body problem is a conceptual problem. Philosophers do conceptual engineering and clarification 

Philosophy is good at spotting a bad argument, stop the philosophical flaws in a scientific argument.

Long before the scientific method of Francis Bacon, empirical based observations are useful eg is there a cat up your shirt. This is not the scientific method. Can be very effective. Can science refute what is 'behind the veil' - the supernatural. Claims about god do not need science - there is a conceptual problems of god - non-temporal agency. Look out of the window - a lot of good stuff, Evil God Hypothesis is not true, cannot be true because of all the good things going on. Ain't no good god because too much good stuff. You don't need science to arrive at this conclusion.

Peter Atkins
SL says science cannot approach questions like the origin of the universe - that's a pessimistic view. Well the approach to use is physics, cosmology, maths. For question about morality you can attack this question through ethology, psychology, evolution, anthropology. It is pessimistic to say you cannot attack  the morality question. Philosophers are pessimists.


Part 3


Stephen Law
As David Hume said, you cannot get logically an 'ought' out of an 'is'. (video 3/1:49) Human flourishing is important. The 'is' facts are neutral. QED.
Peter Atkins
Looking at our evolutionary / ethological / social / anthropological history - that is all you need to distinguish an 'is' from an 'ought'. Its survival ultimately. A collection of 'is' facts will ultimately lead to an 'ought' decision (5:22).
Part 4

Part 4
Can something come from nothing? An Interesting Nothing.

Part 5

Part 5
David McKnight: Moral questions are 'aught' questions. Should we be talking about 'aught' questions. Are you trying to tell people what we 'aught' to do. Provide the facts.
Steven Law: 'aught' is not a religious term. Drifting into a incoherent position? Conceptual distinction between authoritarians and liberals (make up your own mind).

Peter Atkins: Consciousness - cannot be modelled or emulated at moment.
Peter Atkins: Moral and Political philosophers are interesting & important - dealing with emergent problems of society. Where philosophy is NOT useful is in exposing the workings of the universe.

Role of mathematics.

Part 6

Richard Dawkins, Vice President BHA was in the audience.

Part 6: Questions from the audience. I asked a question: Here is the verbatim transcription. My emphasis in brackets:-


1'35": Chris Street (anonymously) 'This is a question for both our speakers, Peter Atkins and Steven Law, who are both distinguished supporters of the British Humanist Association (BHA). Has science a role to play in humanistic philosophy and do you agree that the BHA strategy does not include science?
1' 50": Peter Atkins 'Stephen this is your question'.
1' 55": Stephen Law 'Sorry just say the last bit again'
2'00": Chris Street 'Do you agree that the BHA strategy does not include any reference to science?
2'04": Stephen Law (unclearly) 'Strategy? (confused) Would it be right if the strategy did include science? Well give me an example.

2'10": Chris Street ' I have in mind that the BHA strategy claims that reason has a part in understanding the world.

2'21": Stephen Law 'Right. That is (reason) is a big umbrella word'. My guess is that reason is understood to encompass science, that would be how I would read that. If you feel that it (science) really should have its own word in there explicitly, well, I have a little bit of sympathy with that actually, yeh. 

2'40": Chris Street (agrees)

2'42": Stephen Law 'But the suggestion that the BHA is a closet anti-science organisation, um, doesn't rate philosophy and doesn't rate science, I'm absolutely sure that that is not true. I'm sure you don't think that either?

2'56": Chris Street 'I don't' (I don't think BHA is anti-science or anti-philosophy).