Posted by:
Henry Bemis
(
)
Date: November 06, 2021 12:22PM
“That conclusion requires an enormous leap of faith. A common set of mathematical and physical laws does not require a creator: to the contrary, one might argue that the lack of universal rules requires a supernatural force's intervention.”
COMMENT: What conclusion? The quote does not mention a creator! The conclusion is only that there is "a logic behind the appearances that is larger than visible reality itself." This statement does not imply that the source of this underlying logic necessarily is God, or an intelligent, creative agent. The fact that you made this assumption indirectly plays into the hands of creationists—-obviously not your intent.
The underlying mathematical logic of the physical world is an uncontroversial given. Creationists argue that this implies God. Your misreading of Barrow’s comment as implying a belief in a creator suggests that you agree with the Creationists. Of course, Barrow and most other physicists would vehemently disagree, in favor of some natural explanation. However, such a naturalistic stance may indeed also be “an enormous leap of faith,” as you suggest.
What Barrow is really saying is only that this underlying mathematical structure shows that scientific materialism—i.e. the view that all facts in the universe are explainable by appeal to matter and energy as scientifically identified and described—is inadequate. What he is suggesting is that the logical structure behind mathematical physics of itself takes us beyond such materialism. That is his point, and he is quite right! Moreover, although Barrow does not address this additional point directly, this mathematical structure requires an explanation; either a naturalistic explanation of some sort, or proposing some intelligent agent.
Furthermore, as noted, the complex mathematical structure of the universe is a given. The question is only its origin and ontological status. If "one might argue" that a hypothetical *lack* of such mathematical structure would require more of an explanation that the existence of such structure, by all means argue it! Such a statement strikes me as absurd; it is equivalent to suggesting that order is the natural state of things, and disorder is the exception, which is directly contrary to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and itself implies a deity that maintains such order. Under current scientific principles, the expected state of a universe would be randomness, a lack of order, certainly not precise mathematical order. As such, it is this order that must be explained.
________________________________________________
“The beliefs of scientists, as opposed to the scientific observations themselves, are no better than anyone else's beliefs.”
COMMENT: As noted, John Barrow, and every other physicist in the world, believes that the mathematical structure of the universe is a given. This belief is based upon overwhelming scientific observations as he, by his own profession, intimately understands. Since that is not disputed, or reasonably disputable, the question, again, is why; what is the source of this remarkable fact? Barrow and most other scientists believe the explanation, whatever it is, is a natural explanation, not a supernatural one. That is a metaphysical position, no better or worse that the metaphysical position that an intelligent agent is required. At this level of speculation, direct “observations” play no role in one’s preferences.
Notwithstanding, we can note that what needs to be explained is mathematical logic and structure as it exists in the universe; a highly ordered state of affairs. What is the ontological status of mathematics itself such that it has such a predominant role in the physical world? Clearly its status is “realist” in some sense, perhaps some sort of platonic existence. Given the ontological status of mathematics, and its natural ties to the physical world, and its purely logical structure—-are we really that far away from postulating God—an intelligent agent that encompasses such logic and order and instantiates it in the universe?