Frank Tipler's Omega Point theory can be considered a merger of science with religion.

In the modern world, there's a very good analogy of the order of the universe and miracles. When you write a computer program, you create an ordered set of instructions that behave a certain orderly way. This is much like the orderly universe in which we live.

But despite this order, almost always possible to interact with the program, either through typing or moving the keyboard or even "debugging" the program and making fundamental changes on the fly. Such interaction is very much like a miracle. You have no idea when it can happen, or why, or what the result will be. It could even completely change everything (e.g. you could run another program from now on).

In simple terms, your screen saver represents the universe. It has beautiful regular patterns, if if you wish to study the screen saver, you assume that those patterns don't changes. You know that someone outside the universe can, at a moment's notice, press the keyboard and stop the screen saver, but you can't predict when that will happen or what actions that external being will make (e.g. change screen saver patterns), so you ignore it and focus at the problem at hand. Namely understanding that part of the screen saver that is ordered, because that effects you right now.

Professor Barr,
You are so right.

Yet the average scientist has been diseased in his perspective by lingering Logical Positivism. And to compound this, Quantum Physics has provided an intellectual circus of logic where the scientist is free to make up a godless reality and then dismiss the influence of his own observation's all at the same time. Nice trick.

As little observers in time/space man cannot help but get, at least partially what he is looking for. We are patterned after the Single Observer and pointed to this Observer/Creator in whose Image we are made to struggle imagining Him.

A scientist is no different than all humans except for the tools which he has at his disposal, tools he only recently has decided must not be used for their primary purpose which is Truth.

The greatest scientific minds were not so cowardly and driven by today's vain agenda. To deny God's existence and presence is to diminish one's own talents. They draw a smaller box outside of which exits the Great More. On a purely philosophical level Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theory points just this way.

When a great scientific mind is wedded to a deep understanding of cosmic truth we will see again the breakthroughs of scientists past. Until then modern science will cheaply call everything they don't understand Dark Matter and Dark Energy. They will spend grant money looking for WIMPS. They should look in the mirror first.

Some atheists, like Krauss, jealously guard the God in which they don't believe. But in this case, it's worse: they jealously guard the God in which no one believes.

Indeed.

I am sorry the Journal decided not to run your reply.

A difficulty I have with the atheist view is that it seems intrinsically wedded to a philosophy of materialist determinism.

Their view -- and even when they say this is not their view, they argue as if it is -- is that all events in the universe were caused by earlier events, which were caused by earlier events, in an unbroken chain of causality leading back to the Big Bang, which is the sole exception to the rule; the only event not caused by an *earlier* event (since there was no "earlier") but caused instead by "We Know Not What But It Must Be Something Extrinsic To Our Space Time."

The first difficulty with all of this is the determinism. It seems to me that from a scientific point-of-view the probabilistic, non-determinist nature of the interaction of quanta means that "miracles" are intrinsically permitted: Matter and Energy doing unexpected things in very rare cases. If an event at the quantum level has 5% probability to do X, and 95% probability to do Y, then we can't in any way cause it to do X and not Y...but presumably God can. So long as he doesn't do it often enough to throw off experimental measurements of the probabilities of X and Y -- that is, so long as he isn't an "imp" tinkering mischievously with our experiments -- he can walk on water and wither fig trees and raise dead men to life and, in short, do whatever he likes. A non-determinist universe is no protection against the miraculous; it only says that while God usually "plays dice with the universe," there are some times when He steps in and, for a succession of "die rolls," intercedes to turn the dice sixes-up. Do that enough, and the surface tension of the Sea of Galilee will hold a man's weight all day long.

But this is answering a more realistic argument than atheists usually make. They usually fall back to a deterministic, 19th-century view in which events are caused in such a way as to produced fixed outcome. They seem to feel that if a quanta had been ejected from the Big Bang at a slightly different trajectory, the chain of events leading away from that first event might have caused President Obama to hold deeply conservative political opinions, Steve Jobs to have been a unionized auto-worker, and John Calvin to have been a cardinal.

But this kind of universe has equally little protection against miracles, for Christians have always defined God as (a.) being outside space-time, not subject to locality or temporality; and (b.) having complete "creative control" over the universe; i.e., the ability to create each particle of the universe just so, with a momentum of X and a position of Y.

The implication of (a.) is that God views all events in our space time as happening "Now"; He is currently observing my birth, my death, and every moment in between. One could say that Christians were the first to say that space and time are different aspects of a single fabric of "space-time," since the omnipresence of God has always been understood to mean that He is not merely everyWHERE, but everyWHEN.

The implication of (b.) is that, if God wants the state of the universe to match particular parameters at a particular time, in a deterministic "clockwork" universe, He can set the initial "trajectories" of all particles so as to produce the desired outcome state at Time X, billions of years later. And He doesn't have to "guess" about it, because as He "tweaks" the initial state, He is instantly and simultaneously "seeing" the outcome produced at later times.

So, if He desires a tiny meteor to strike Mt. Carmel just in time to incinerate and altar, produce a public-relations coup for Elijah, and give a few hundred priests of Baal a bad day, He needn't call that meteor into existence one mile up a few seconds before the intended "miracle." He can plan the whole universe, from the beginning, in such a way as to produce the desired event.

And so on. Whether the view deterministic or non-, there is no protection from miracles by the creator God as defined by Christianity. If He did in fact create the heavens and the earth "in the beginning," all else follows.

Of course, "in the beginning" is one of the larger embarrassments for atheism. Where did the Big Bang come from? It can't have been caused by an earlier event; there was no "earlier." It stands as the exception to the rule of causation which philosophical materialists insist on being true about every other event in the history of the universe! Creation itself falsifies this view.

And so atheists attempt to fill this gap with anything but God: They create an "Anything-But-God-of-the-Gaps." They start by insisting that it's an eternal universe, but no, an endless regression of prior days would mean we'd never have arrived at THIS day, and anyway, entropy argues against it. So they go to a cyclical universe, always collapsing and expanding, but no: The math doesn't work, and anyway there's the entropy problem again.

When it becomes clear that the Cause of the Big Bang absolutely has to be something outside our space-time, they insist it's a collision or intrusion from some other parallel space-time; another M-Brane slice of the Cosmic Loaf. But that's a Non-God-Of-The-Gaps, for of course it only puts the problem off: Where did THAT space-time come from? If this external cause has, itself, a flow of time from earlier-to-later, then atheists' notion of "cause" is preserved, but the problem of what caused THAT flow of time to begin remains.

The only alternative is that the external cause comes not from something temporal outside our space-time, but from something eternal outside our space-time: Something which has no Time, no beginning, no end, and has always been. Cosmologists claw their way to the top of the theoretical mountain and are annoyed to find a passel of theologians and philosophers sitting there, saying, "What took you guys so long?"

At this point the remaining recourse of the atheist is to say: "Fine, the Cause of the Universe, or the Multiverse, is something Non-Temporal and therefore Eternal and Uncaused. Fine...but I insist that this First Cause is not Personal, it has no will or intent. The gap will be filled, but I insist the gap be filled with anything EXCEPT a personal God."

Which is a prejudice completely without justification, of course. Where does it come from?

I think it comes from an utterly non-logical, not-scientific, but very understandable source: The desire to not be "hovered over." I hate it when I'm playing Solitaire on the computer, someone else comes up behind me, watching, and keeps interrupting to say things like, "put the 4 on the 5!" And teenagers hate it when their parents look over their shoulders as they do their homework. How annoying it must be, to suddenly feel a great set of eyes looking over your shoulder, examining even your thoughts and intentions, possibly disapprovingly, certainly inescapably!

No, anything is better than that. Whatever the Eternal and Omnipotent Thing outside the universe that is our space-time's First Cause may be, it needs to be anything but that. A mindless event, we can countenance, but a Father?

Better to lampoon Theists as ignoramuses, win peer approval for doing so, and go whistling nonchalantly past the Big Bang. If we don't think about it, perhaps we won't feel those Eyes.

Indeed.

I am sorry the Journal decided not to run your reply.

A difficulty I have with the atheist view is that it seems intrinsically wedded to a philosophy of materialist determinism.

Their view -- and even when they say this is not their view, they argue as if it is -- is that all events in the universe were caused by earlier events, which were caused by earlier events, in an unbroken chain of causality leading back to the Big Bang, which is the sole exception to the rule; the only event not caused by an *earlier* event (since there was no "earlier") but caused instead by "We Know Not What But It Must Be Something Extrinsic To Our Space Time."

The first difficulty with all of this is the determinism. It seems to me that from a scientific point-of-view the probabilistic, non-determinist nature of the interaction of quanta means that "miracles" are intrinsically permitted: Matter and Energy doing unexpected things in very rare cases. If an event at the quantum level has 5% probability to do X, and 95% probability to do Y, then we can't in any way cause it to do X and not Y...but presumably God can. So long as he doesn't do it often enough to throw off experimental measurements of the probabilities of X and Y -- that is, so long as he isn't an "imp" tinkering mischievously with our experiments -- he can walk on water and wither fig trees and raise dead men to life and, in short, do whatever he likes. A non-determinist universe is no protection against the miraculous; it only says that while God usually "plays dice with the universe," there are some times when He steps in and, for a succession of "die rolls," intercedes to turn the dice sixes-up. Do that enough, and the surface tension of the Sea of Galilee will hold a man's weight all day long.

But this is answering a more realistic argument than atheists usually make. They usually fall back to a deterministic, 19th-century view in which events are caused in such a way as to produced fixed outcome. They seem to feel that if a quanta had been ejected from the Big Bang at a slightly different trajectory, the chain of events leading away from that first event might have caused President Obama to hold deeply conservative political opinions, Steve Jobs to have been a unionized auto-worker, and John Calvin to have been a cardinal.

But this kind of universe has equally little protection against miracles, for Christians have always defined God as (a.) being outside space-time, not subject to locality or temporality; and (b.) having complete "creative control" over the universe; i.e., the ability to create each particle of the universe just so, with a momentum of X and a position of Y.

The implication of (a.) is that God views all events in our space time as happening "Now"; He is currently observing my birth, my death, and every moment in between. One could say that Christians were the first to say that space and time are different aspects of a single fabric of "space-time," since the omnipresence of God has always been understood to mean that He is not merely everyWHERE, but everyWHEN.

The implication of (b.) is that, if God wants the state of the universe to match particular parameters at a particular time, in a deterministic "clockwork" universe, He can set the initial "trajectories" of all particles so as to produce the desired outcome state at Time X, billions of years later. And He doesn't have to "guess" about it, because as He "tweaks" the initial state, He is instantly and simultaneously "seeing" the outcome produced at later times.

So, if He desires a tiny meteor to strike Mt. Carmel just in time to incinerate and altar, produce a public-relations coup for Elijah, and give a few hundred priests of Baal a bad day, He needn't call that meteor into existence one mile up a few seconds before the intended "miracle." He can plan the whole universe, from the beginning, in such a way as to produce the desired event.

And so on. Whether the view deterministic or non-, there is no protection from miracles by the creator God as defined by Christianity. If He did in fact create the heavens and the earth "in the beginning," all else follows.

Of course, "in the beginning" is one of the larger embarrassments for atheism. Where did the Big Bang come from? It can't have been caused by an earlier event; there was no "earlier." It stands as the exception to the rule of causation which philosophical materialists insist on being true about every other event in the history of the universe! Creation itself falsifies this view.

And so atheists attempt to fill this gap with anything but God: They create an "Anything-But-God-of-the-Gaps." They start by insisting that it's an eternal universe, but no, an endless regression of prior days would mean we'd never have arrived at THIS day, and anyway, entropy argues against it. So they go to a cyclical universe, always collapsing and expanding, but no: The math doesn't work, and anyway there's the entropy problem again.

When it becomes clear that the Cause of the Big Bang absolutely has to be something outside our space-time, they insist it's a collision or intrusion from some other parallel space-time; another M-Brane slice of the Cosmic Loaf. But that's a Non-God-Of-The-Gaps, for of course it only puts the problem off: Where did THAT space-time come from? If this external cause has, itself, a flow of time from earlier-to-later, then atheists' notion of "cause" is preserved, but the problem of what caused THAT flow of time to begin remains.

The only alternative is that the external cause comes not from something temporal outside our space-time, but from something eternal outside our space-time: Something which has no Time, no beginning, no end, and has always been. Cosmologists claw their way to the top of the theoretical mountain and are annoyed to find a passel of theologians and philosophers sitting there, saying, "What took you guys so long?"

At this point the remaining recourse of the atheist is to say: "Fine, the Cause of the Universe, or the Multiverse, is something Non-Temporal and therefore Eternal and Uncaused. Fine...but I insist that this First Cause is not Personal, it has no will or intent. The gap will be filled, but I insist the gap be filled with anything EXCEPT a personal God."

Which is a prejudice completely without justification, of course. Where does it come from?

I think it comes from an utterly non-logical, not-scientific, but very understandable source: The desire to not be "hovered over." I hate it when I'm playing Solitaire on the computer, someone else comes up behind me, watching, and keeps interrupting to say things like, "put the 4 on the 5!" And teenagers hate it when their parents look over their shoulders as they do their homework. How annoying it must be, to suddenly feel a great set of eyes looking over your shoulder, examining even your thoughts and intentions, possibly disapprovingly, certainly inescapably!

No, anything is better than that. Whatever the Eternal and Omnipotent Thing outside the universe that is our space-time's First Cause may be, it needs to be anything but that. A mindless event, we can countenance, but a Father?

Better to lampoon Theists as ignoramuses, win peer approval for doing so, and go whistling nonchalantly past the Big Bang. If we don't think about it, perhaps we won't feel those Eyes.

Professor Barr.
I am a physician and after going back to school for an education and earth science degree will be teaching high school science in a Catholic school this fall. I have read many of your articles in First Things and, to be honest, I have always felt you gave too much away to the materialist evolutionists. I especially did not understand this since DNA and genetic arguments are such late entries in natural history and you as a physicist should especially feel no need to bow to this paradigm as a satisfactory explanation of the physical and chemical order we see around us.
I must admit, however, there is something about this unpublished article of yours which is much more bracing and authoritative than what I have seen before. What a clarion call! Maybe that is why it didnt get published. There is a fine line between men who believe in natural laws and make arguments about orderliness and men who believe in a Living God who can accomplish miracles. In politcs there is a similar distinction between men who want to bring "Christian values" to the public square and men who think the incarnation, death and second coming of Christ are events which shape the lives of Nations. I think you crossed a line.
Maybe I never heard this more robust voice because you try not to pander to any given audience so in First Things you are the particle physicist and in the Wall Street Journal you are the vigorous man of God and man of science comfortably dressed in a single suit.
Anyway for what it is worth I think this "unpublished" article is the best thing you have published.

There's some distinction between the "argument from order" and the "argument from (intelligent) design," but I keep losing sight of it.

Is "order" generally a quality of "cosmic" relevance, while "design" is a quality of particular relevance?

Perhaps those who focus on design ignore the larger order which made possible the designed or apparent designedness of a thing.

Steve's piece was thoughtful, as one might expect, but I was disappointed.. Many of the hordes of letter writers responding to the WSJ immediately assumed I was advocating some radical atheist agenda, but Steve should have known better.. He criticizes a piece that I didn't write.. The God that I say is compatible with science is very similar to the one Steve describes, namely an impotent divine force that determined that the laws of nature were regular, and then got out of the game.. this is very different than the jealous and violent God of the Jews or the saintly Jesus who comes to Earth to forgive us for our sins and allows those who believe in him eternal life and those who don't eternal damnation. As far as miracles.. I can never disprove that a miracle occurs somewhere.. but as a scientist I can only assess things in terms of likely or unlikely.. and when I hear of a reported astounding event, I, as a scientist, am naturally skeptical. when I hear it occurred in virtually the same way as other reported miracles in religions dating back thousands of years, and when I hear that said miracles only occur in a time of largely illiterate goat herders and not at a time when anyone could actually substantiate them, I think my response, as a scientist, is that they are more likely due to the known irrationality of humans, rather than the unknown rationality of a deity.. to adapt a statement of Richard Feynman in regards to aliens.

lawrence krauss

"...and when I hear that said miracles only occur in a time of largely illiterate goat herders and not at a time when anyone could actually substantiate them.."

Ah, much like how enlightened and literate people in our modern day and age - with cameras, documents, and an almost limitless pool of news, information networks, and eye witnesses - still debate about whether or not the Holocaust happened, if Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 (or if it was an "inside job"), or if Elvis passed beyond the Graceland gates and onto the Pearly Golden Arch variety.

Yup, we're fairing much better (and more logically) than those ancient folks.

Literacy doesn't necessarily equal common sense in checking out the facts. One could argue that the modern hustle and bustle of Western society leaves very little room (much less room than the ancients perhaps) to personally verify events (even miracles) via eye witnesses - or to engage in logical deduction via compare-and-contrast analysis of event/witness descriptions. (The Gospel authors seemed to have done both, interestingly enough.)

And heck, maybe our modern distractions leave us without the inclination to just follow a good solid hunch. (I think the ancient average Jew was much better at theological investigation and verification than some modern Christians have proven to be. After all, they *lived* in the timeframe and area of the events described for the most part.)

I've once heard the term "chronocentrism" to describe the off-handed way moderns dismiss the ancients in most anything, especially logical deduction and/or historic credibility. I'm starting to wonder if this term shouldn't be canonized in every Encyclopedia published from now until Rapture - it has a heavy precedent in Western Society to the point of being proverbial.

I don’t know why Lawrence says that “Steve describes” a God who is an “impotent divine force that determined that the laws of nature were regular, and then got out of the game.” Of course, if God is producing miracles, as the Church teaches, and as I made clear that I believe, then he is obviously still in the game. And, according to Christian teaching, God is “in the game” in many ways apart from miraculous interventions.

First, and most importantly, God gives being to the universe. He does not just ordain the laws, he makes the universe a real, existing one, rather than a hypothetical or fictitious one. Hawking, though an atheist, put his finger on this point when he noted that the laws of physics are just a set of rules and equations, and asked what it is that “breaths fire into those equations” so that there is a universe for them to describe. In Christian teaching, Creation is not merely something that happened long ago, and then God got out of the way. Rather, God even now is exnihilating the cosmos and holding it suspended, as it were, above the abyss of non-being.

Second, God not only ordains the laws, he knew and willed from all eternity the entire history of the universe in every particular. His providence extends to every event in the universe. As the Bible says, ‘he declares the end from the beginning” and “he reaches mightily from end to end ordering all things sweetly.”

Third, he answers prayers --- and this generally would not require any miraculous suspension of the laws of physics even in the case of prayers that ask for particular physical events to happen. (As Lawrence knows, the laws of physics do not uniquely determine the history of the universe even in classical physics. An infinity of possible histories of the universe would be equally consistent with the laws of physics.) And so, even if God were never to suspend the laws of nature, there would be nothing to prevent him from answering such prayers. And we should keep in mind that the vast majority of prayers ask for things that are not physical events: mercy, forgiveness, wisdom, fortitude, temperance, patience, and so on.

Fourth, God gives grace in many forms, whether it is by enlightening the mind, purifying and strengthening the will, or giving us the gifts of the Spirit. He comes to us especially in the sacraments.

One can go on and on. I cannot even begin to imagine why Lawrence thinks I am describing a God who is uninvolved in his creation. Nor do I understand why he thinks the God I described is “very different than the jealous and violent God of the Jews or the saintly Jesus …” ? It is one and the same God. The descriptions of God in my article were taken almost entirely from the Old Testament (Jeremiah), the New Testament (the Gospel of John), and early Christian writers (Clement of Rome and Minucius Felix).

Lawrence’s statement that he “hear[s] that said miracles only occur in a time of largely illiterate goat herders and not at a time when anyone could actually substantiate them” is mere rhetoric unattached to historical reality. St. Paul experienced a miraculous event on the road to Damascus, and far from being an illiterate goat herder was one of the most learned rabbis of his day, a man whose writings contained many luminous passages much admired even by the non-religious. St. Francis of Assisi had the stigmata, and St. Thomas Aquinas had an overwhelming mystical experience near the end of his life; and neither of them was an illiterate boob. And, despite what Krauss says, miracles are reported to happen at times when they can be substantiated. The Catholic Church --- being quite skeptical herself of reports of miracles --- subjects miraculous claims to rigorous investigation. The vast majority she dismisses as unproven or false, but some she does accept. And some of these miracles are supported by the testimony of intelligent people of proven character. By far the most important miracles for Christians, of course, are those associated with the life of Christ. The primary witnesses of them were the apostles and close disciples of Jesus. They may not have had doctorates in physics, but they left writings that show them to have been men of impressive character and spiritual depth, and many of them went willingly to their deaths for the sake of that which they had seen.

I don’t know whether Lawrence’s article was inspired by a “radical atheist agenda”. Frankly, I haven’t the faintest idea what it was inspired by. It seemed wholly gratuitous. If he is trying to have a respectful discussion with religious people, he might leave aside the condescending remarks about devils interfering with experiments and credulous goat herders.

Mr. Krauss - I'll have to reread your WSJ piece, but I recall it was even less temperate than your response herein. I would not expect you to abandon natural skepticism - but you openly mocked Christianity.

A delight to hear Prof. Krauss check into the discussion! His clarified position seems to verge on Deism—Thomas Jefferson’s “Nature’s God”— a popular post-Enlightenment position. It may even be reminiscent of an Aristotelian Prime Mover, who as the primary cause, initiated—and then ignored—Nature.

Miracles? Discussions often limit them to suspensions of the Laws of Nature. However, I am enriched by a broader definition, categorizing them as anything that elicits faith, something that “the saintly Jesus” did quite well.

It was nostalgic for Dr. Barr to remind us of Nikita Khrushchev’s amusing revelation that Soviet cosmonauts “had not seen God in outer space”. Isn’t that exactly how a child perceives God? Yet we have done it to ourselves with our anthropomorphic renderings—all those stained-glass white-bearded celestial God the Grandfather images. According to Karl Barth, “He is wholly other.”, and He is not confined to our space-time continuum, a possibility amazingly anticipated by St. Augustine during the 4th century.

Dr. Barr, do not be troubled by the rejection of your reply: WSJ’s loss was FT’s gain—and ours!

To Steve: I will chime in once more, though I don't usually have time for blogs.. My big question is How do you know? I am frankly amazed that you take these people at their word : "St. Paul experienced a miraculous event on the road to Damascus, and far from being an illiterate goat herder was one of the most learned rabbis of his day, a man whose writings contained many luminous passages much admired even by the non-religious. St. Francis of Assisi had the stigmata, and St. Thomas Aquinas had an overwhelming mystical experience near the end of his life"
Do you similarly believe that the woman who heard voices from God, who told her to drown her children, was also experiencing divine intervention? As a scientist, we should assume, until proven otherwise, that these mystical experiences are more likely due to chemical reactions in the human brain than being divine..
As for the apostles, since most of the books were apparently written years to decades to centuries after the events in question, and we all know eye-witness testimony even at the time is suspect, I remain skeptical.. especially when the phenomena reported defy rationality.. There has to be a good reason to throw out one's natural skepticism, and just because someone decides to call himself or herself God, or the Son of God, is not good enough for me.

As for the miracles of the church... I like to use Carl Sagan's analogy of the Miracle at Lourdes.. as you know, if one takes the officially sanctioned miraculous cures.. one finds that one has a lesser chance of spontaneous remission of, say, cancer, if one goes to Lourdes than if one doesn't... As Feynman pointed out, people always think things that happen to them are special.. but most often, in fact essentially always, they are accidents or coincidences.. so we have to assume that people are fooling themselves, and then if one is sufficiently interested one can investigate further.. but just as I don't spend my time investigating alien abductions because my scientific knowledge and rationality tells me that other explanations are more likely.. so too with miracles..

I should say, of course, that none of this is very important to me.. as I said in the panel I reported on at the WSJ, God is simply irrelevant to science, and I don't care if people believe in God or fairies.. it is their actions that matter.. I know humans are not purely rational, so they believe in many contradictory things.. the question is, when it comes to analyzing the universe, do they use scientific methods and take actions based on empirical falsifiable data.... that is what counts.. beyond that whether they are christians, or muslims, or witches, or republicans, it doesn't matter.

p.s. re Brother Guy.. I have no idea what his views were.. when I presented the question he chose not to respond.. (ken Miller did).. maybe he was shy.. but I don't think so... I suspect he felt silence was more appropriate..

one very last remark.. because I did not intend any gratuitous insults... in the blog I was more colloquial than in the article.. But in the article I had tried to make a point that had to be cut.. It is relevant in light of your remarks Steve.. Why are you not a Mormon? Joseph Smith got a golden book from the angel of god.. surely that is good enough to suggest that you should be following the dictates of the mormon church and not the catholic church. I suspect the answer is because you don't believe he got the golden tablets.. This is reasonable.. and I don't see why one should have a different attitude about the self-annointed sacred texts of judaism or christianity.

"...As a scientist, we should assume, until proven otherwise, that these mystical experiences are more likely due to chemical reactions in the human brain than being divine.."

I think what he meant to say was: "As a *materialist*..." or "As someone who adheres to *naturalism*...".

Despite the schoolyard rules for the scientific community, neither of these beliefs are synonymous with operational science - it is the materialist belief systems themselves (yes, beliefs) which are at odds with theism - or, more specifically, with Judeo Christianity.

One belief system claims the universe is all that there is, humanity is an accidental byproduct, and that no higher being was responsible for the universe nor is able to interact with it - an amazing amount of omniscience or a astonishing leap of faith.

The other system claims that the universe is ordered, intelligible, and replete with *information* (another quantity of the universe perhaps?), which was created by a Creator who is able to interact with said-creation, and had humanity in mind while ordering it.

While folks can go on about how "against the rules" it is to include a teleological bent to any scientific study, I find it ironic that the Cargo Cult system which Feynman described seems to currently fit better with that camp that believes the universe was an accidental burp of nothing, which exploded on its own. Or that lateral undulating respiration in fish can give rise to terrestrial free-cranial respirational body plans (fish to philosopher, so to speak). Or that the complex structure/folding involved with protein synthesis somehow "just happened", and blossomed into a *technical* state of affairs that overshadows any workshop NASA or Microsoft could produce.

And all of this without any direct, observable, measurable, or repeatable verification. A whole lotta story telling about the past, and "maybes", "might haves", and "must have descended from", for sure.

(Maybe it's worth noting that fossil epitaphs aren't quite as intentional, legible, or reliable as Aramaic eye witness writings? Although bones are more amenable to whatever story one wants to spin around them.)

And that's fine - folks are welcome to whatever they decide to believe in about the past. But materialists have to understand: It seems like whenever this subject is brought up in the media or even technical journals, it almost inevitably (without provocation) turns into a very one-sided Yellow Journalistic cudgeling from the high towers and editorials - on a constant basis - about how enlightened, accurate, and new the modern materialist world view is (after 200-plus years apparently) - as opposed to that old, curmudgeoned traditionalist theology, which keeps annoyingly insisting that materialism might (just might!) be leaving something (or Someone) very important out of the picture.

Guess you could call us skeptical shepherds then.

"Joseph Smith got a golden book from the angel of god.. surely that is good enough to suggest that you should be following the dictates of the mormon church and not the catholic church. I suspect the answer is because you don't believe he got the golden tablets..This is reasonable.. and I don't see why one should have a different attitude about the self-annointed sacred texts of judaism or christianity."

Very true, especially when one doesn't want to bother with looking at the evidence. (Like I said, us moderns tend to hurry ourselves past any reasoned investigation!)...

I think we would all do well to re-read Chesterton's explanation of miracles and the so-called "laws of nature." He cogently argues that the things that happen in nature "are not a necessity, for though we can count on it happening practically, we have no right to say that it must always happen.It is no argument for unalterable law that we count on the ordinary course of things...All the terms used in science books, 'law,' 'necessity,' 'order,' 'tendency,' and so on, are really unintellectual, because they assume an inner synthesis, which we do not possess."

Scientifically we observe phenomena acting according to laws, but from God's standpoint, he is creating and sustaining everything every second. Thus, Messr. Krauss is wrong in stating that God is someone who gave the laws of nature and then got out of the game. God is in the game every second, and nothing would continue in this universe without his upholding power. Further, much goes on in our universe that does not behave according to strict scientific laws. This is all too obviously true for those who are not doing their best to make "science" a hammer that supposedly destroys spiritual truth.

Lawrence, I have just returned from a short personal trip on which I was not using the computer, so I only just now became aware that you had answered me again.

It seems that every time I respond to your points you raise different ones. In the WSJ article, your arguments seemed to be (1) it is unscientific to believe in miracles because they don’t occur in scientific laboratories, and (2) belief in miracles is incompatible with the belief in the lawfulness of nature that is the basis of modern science. I answered your arguments on this website. Rather than defending your original arguments or rebutting mine, you raised two different issues, which I will label (3) and (4), to distinguish them from your original ones: (3) “miracles only occur in a time of largely illiterate goat herders”, and (4) they do not occur “at a time when anyone could actually substantiate them”. I answered by giving counterexamples: St. Paul, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Francis of Assisi (the list could be lengthened greatly) were not illiterate goat-herders, and many reports of miracles have occurred in modern times, when there can be and have been attempts to substantiate them. Again, instead of defending your sweeping assertions (3) and (4) or rebutting my answers to them, you raise several new issues, which I will label (5), (6), (7), and (8):

(5) I should not be willing to take St. Paul, St. Thomas, etc. “at their word”, since, after all, I don’t take the crazy woman who drowned her children at her word. My answer: In the first place, I didn’t mention St. Paul and St. Thomas in order to argue that everyone must take them at their word, but to illustrate the point that not all reports of miracles come from illiterate goat-herders or their equivalent. However, I do think the testimony of St. Paul and St. Thomas vastly more reliable than that of the crazy lady who drowned her children, for many reasons that would occur to any thoughtful and intelligent person.

(6) “As a scientist, we should assume, until proven otherwise, that these mystical experiences are more likely due to chemical reactions in the human brain than being divine.” My answer: I quite agree that, barring strong reasons to the contrary, one should assume that events “are more likely” to have a natural rather than a supernatural explanation. In fact, the Catholic Church also believes this. But you are inconsistent to use the word “proven” if what you are talking about is merely what is “more likely”. If I were to say that it is certain that St. Thomas Aquinas (for example) had a miraculous experience, I would indeed need “proof”. But if I am only saying that I think it “more likely” than not that he had, then I only need evidence that falls short of proof. I only need the arguments to be stronger on one side than the other. I should also note that there is a lot more to St. Thomas’s and St. Paul’s experiences than some momentary seizure. One has to view them in the context of their lives both before and after. It is obvious that for you it really does not matter what the evidence is, for why else would you disregard the difference between a crazy child killer and a saintly scholar?

(7) “If one takes the officially sanctioned miraculous cures, one finds that one has a lesser chance of spontaneous remission of, say, cancer, if one goes to Lourdes than if one doesn't.” I think this a spectacular example of bad scientific reasoning. But let me preface my answer to it with a few observations: (a) I did not claim anything about Lourdes, or indeed mention Lourdes at all. (b) I have never looked into the evidence for the miracles of Lourdes, and I don’t like to discuss matters I know little about. And (c), when it comes to specific claimed miracles subsequent to those recorded in the New Testament, the Catholic Church does not require her members to take any position on them. She does, on occasion, issue findings that certain miracles are “worthy of belief”, but a Catholic can be perfectly orthodox in the eyes of the Church and not believe in those post-New Testament miracles himself. Having said all that, here is my answer: Your argument (at least as stated here) is based on an elementary mistake. It is perfectly legitimate to compare the rates of spontaneous remissions for those who visit Lourdes and those who do not. (I would expect those rates to be equal.) But in doing this calculation you seem to be assuming that the rate of spontaneous remission at Lourdes is equal to the rate of “officially sanctioned cures” at Lourdes. That is surely false. As is well known, the Church office that investigates these Lourdes cases finds only a small fraction of the dramatic recoveries reported to it to be worthy of belief as miracles. (They do not count it sufficient evidence that a person have visited Lourdes and then had the cancer go into remission; the criteria, I am given to believe, are much more stringent than that.) That being the case, it is only to be expected that the rate of “officially sanctioned cures” would be smaller --- indeed much smaller --- than the rate of spontaneous remissions among both Lourdes-visitors and Lourdes-non-visitors.

(8) You suggest that if I think the testimony of the apostles to be credible, I must believe that the testimony of Joseph Smith to credible. If I think the New Testament reliable, I ought to consider the Book of Mormon reliable. My answer: This is an absurd argument, logically speaking. It does not follow from the fact that one finds some human testimony credible that one ought to find all human testimony credible. Nor would it follow from the fact that one disbelieves one person that one ought to disbelieve all people. Can this really be your argument, Lawrence? It is my turn to be disappointed.

The vast majority of what each of us believes about almost anything is based on human testimony of one sort or another. Even what you and I know about science --- even about particle physics --- is based on believing human reports. What we could deduce from our own eyewitness knowledge would be a very tiny fraction of what we know. There is nothing irrational about believing human testimony --- indeed it would be irrational never to do so. On other hand it would be irrational to accept all human testimony. A rational person has to make judgments about the degree of reliability of various persons and their assertions. (That is why we have juries, for example. Historians, too, have to make judgments about the reliability of various historical sources; and they find some more reliable than others. And all of us in everyday trust some people more than others, and do so on a rational basis.) Moreover, the ways in we make such rational judgments of reliability are not “formalizable”. There is no simple algorithm by which we do it.

You are right: I do not find the testimony of Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon to be credible, whereas I do believe the apostles and the New Testament to be credible. I believe the Memoirs of U.S. Grant are credible, but not the Recollections of a Life by Alger Hiss. I believe the Venona Transcripts to be genuine but the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to be frauds. One could go on and on. These judgments are based on reasons. You also make judgments. You probably regard Thucydides and Herodotus to be more reliable than St. Luke and St. Paul.

Now to the question of our friend Br. Guy Consolmagno. You speak eloquently, Lawrence, about reason, evidence, and the reliability of witnesses, but in this instance you did not practice the virtues you extol. You cited Br. Guy in your WSJ article to make a point about what scientists who are religious believe about miracles. Did you check with Br. Guy before you wrote your article to find out what he really believed? No, you speculated on the basis of his silence at a certain point in a panel discussion. And you continue to speculate about it now. I didn’t speculate: within five minutes of reading your WSJ article I e-mailed Br. Guy and asked him. Within a few hours, I had learned from him his actual views on miracles and also his reasons (which seem quite good to me) for remaining silent on that occasion. It was open to you to do the same thing. You should have done so, not only as a matter of scholarly practice, but because of the respect due to one’s fellows. Br. Guy is both a member of a religious order, and an employee of the Vatican Observatory. As such, it is a matter of significance to him and others if hundreds of thousands of people are led to believe that he does not embrace certain Catholic teachings.

I ask this question: given this episode, which should a rational person find to be a more reliable source, an illiterate goat-herder or you, Lawrence? I do not ask this to be insulting, but to make a serious epistemological point that I think well worth reflecting on.

It's clear that it takes not only a good mind to see the truth in science or in the universe, it needs also a good will. Or the truth in economics as long as it is there. The willing person invariably reaches it. What happens, we also know, is that some truths demand a certain price -actually a prize- to respond to it, in terms of behaviour or human actions coherent with what is known to be true.

OK.. one more time steve.. here are quick responses to your scribe.

(5) I should not be willing to take St. Paul, St. Thomas, etc. “at their word”, since, after all, I don’t take the crazy woman who drowned her children at her word. My answer: In the first place, I didn’t mention St. Paul and St. Thomas in order to argue that everyone must take them at their word, but to illustrate the point that not all reports of miracles come from illiterate goat-herders or their equivalent. However, I do think the testimony of St. Paul and St. Thomas vastly more reliable than that of the crazy lady who drowned her children, for many reasons that would occur to any thoughtful and intelligent person.

Actually, I find the testimony of all those who would start a new religion to be particularly suspect.. Religion is power.. power over people.. that is one of the reasons why I find L. Ron Hubbard suspect.. and similarly St. Paul and the others... I am amazed that one would buy the testimony of people, written thousands of years ago, and after the fact, without any evidence except the scriptures themselves.. it seems like self-delusion to me. I expect you believe their testimony because it makes you feel better..

(6) ....It is obvious that for you it really does not matter what the evidence is, for why else would you disregard the difference between a crazy child killer and a saintly scholar?

I don't understand what was saintly about Thomas Aquinas.. he strikes me as a scholar who was at times delusional, and who had serious sexual problems, to wit: he viewed masturbation, oral sex, and even coitus interruptus, as being worse than incest and rape, and also condemned all sexual positions other than the missionary position...

(7) “If one takes the officially sanctioned miraculous cures, one finds that one has a lesser chance of spontaneous remission of, say, cancer, if one goes to Lourdes than if one doesn't.” I think this a spectacular example of bad scientific reasoning...

how do you tell the difference between spontaneous remission, and a miracle. How does the Church? I put to you that it is not possible to tell the difference, and your assumption that somehow mother church knows is unscientific..

(8) You also make judgments. You probably regard Thucydides and Herodotus to be more reliable than St. Luke and St. Paul.

yes

(9) Within a few hours, I had learned from him his actual views on miracles and also his reasons (which seem quite good to me) for remaining silent on that occasion. It was open to you to do the same thing. You should have done so, not only as a matter of scholarly practice, but because of the respect due to one’s fellows. Br. Guy is both a member of a religious order, and an employee of the Vatican Observatory. As such, it is a matter of significance to him and others if hundreds of thousands of people are led to believe that he does not embrace certain Catholic teachings.

I asked a simple question.. Did he believe in the miracle of the virgin birth.. he could have answered yes... He didn't have to qualify, or explain... The point I was explicitly claiming at the time was that scientists who are religious, when it comes down to it, choose to dismiss those miracles that they don't find palatable... I phrased it this way, and he could have shot me down with a single world, but he chose not to... I think it was pretty clear, independent of whatever rationalization he expressed to you after the fact...

Lawrence, I am glad you answered when you did, as I am leaving in an hour with my family for a long weekend on the Chesapeake.

I am also glad that you answered AS you did. I was afraid, when I saw that you had made a response, that I might have to spend an hour or so formulating an answer instead packing for the trip. However, having read through your remarks, I don't think it really necessary that I say anything more. I believe we can now bring this exchange to a close, with both of us feeling quite satisfied about it.

"Actually, I find the testimony of all those who would start a new religion to be particularly suspect.. Religion is power.. power over people.. that is one of the reasons why I find L. Ron Hubbard suspect.. and similarly St. Paul and the others..."

This is what I like to call the "X-Files KGB Syndrome": Suspect everything and everyone, especially if it's a claim made by two or more people (an organization). Three or more and you have a conspiracy. Multiples of 10 and you have a "Tactical Center", with global plans for alien colonization somewhere in the background...

"I am amazed that one would buy the testimony of people, written thousands of years ago, and after the fact, without any evidence except the scriptures themselves.. it seems like self-delusion to me. I expect you believe their testimony because it makes you feel better.."

I know, you'll have to forgive us crazy Christians and Jews. We don't all have access to the numerous scholarly books in your personal library, written by authors you more than likely never met (nor ever will), some even read by yourself well after the author has expired (posthumous, anyone?), all of which who - 95% of the time - write about events and people just as far removed from themselves (I don't think Kershaw ever had the pleasure of Hitler's company), and with nary anything to affirm or deny their theses or conclusions - save for maybe *the opinions* of other like-removed authors, or (if we're lucky) some reference notes near the end of the book of *other* books, authors, or first/second/third hand accounts... (much like Dr. Luke does throughout his testimony.)

You see? We religious folks just can't measure up to modern incurable skeptics and his/her non-faithful acceptance of what other authors/teachers/believers say. Especially those who share their world view already.