well given the ruminations of Stephen
Hawking and Daniel Dennett and Richard
Dawkins one would have thought that the
absolute limits of scientistic arrogance
had been reached but I suppose I'm
afraid we have to think again a
theoretical physicists from the
California Institute of Technology
called Sean Carroll just wrote a book in
which he's argued that science is on the
verge of explaining everything
explaining the whole universe now this
is usually the case with this kind of
scientistic claim the target is God they
want to eliminate God from the
conversation but before getting to the
God question let me just make an
observation though the sciences might be
able to understand the chemical
compounds that make up you know paper
and ink the sciences will never
understand the meaning of a book though
the sciences might be able to understand
the you know the physical makeup of the
body the sciences as such will never
understand what makes an act a morally
good or morally evil though the sciences
might be able to break down the you know
chemical makeup of of the paint used in
the in the Sistine Chapel ceiling
they'll never be able to explain why
that's a beautiful work of art my point
is that the universe mean the totality
of finite reality includes much more
than those physical objects and events
that the sciences can measure they
include such things as truth as meaning
as value as goodness as beauty there is
much a part of the universe as physical
objects and events so first of all
you've got this incredible arrogance
about what the sciences can accomplish
it's not because they're relatively
underdeveloped which is why they can't
understand the things I was describing
it's because those are qualitatively
different types of reality and the
scientific method simply doesn't reach
that level
but as I said these scientistic
formulations are usually designed to
attack God to get rid of this you know
hopelessly antiquarian notion of God
now Carroll's argument takes the form
really of Laplace's famous argument he's
the guy back in the early 19th century
who responded to Napoleon
when the Emperor famously said well
where does where does God fit into your
astronomical calculations and Laplace
said I have no need of that hypothesis
my point there is the laplacian thing
assumes that God is one fussy cause
among many so here's my astronomical
schema here's how all the causal systems
relate to each other and I have no need
of the hypothesis of a divine cause my
system is a self explanatory the
fundamental problem with both Laplace
and Carol is they don't understand what
serious biblical people mean when they
use the word God the one thing God is
not is one being or one cause among many
Thomas Aquinas refers to God not as ends
Summa meaning highest being but rather
assumed si which means the sheer act of
to be itself now to explicate that a
little further I might want to revisit
the famous argument from contingency for
God's existence I think it's a way not
only to understand that God exists but
also what we mean when we say God the
argument begins with contingency sounds
like a fancy thing it really isn't it
just means realities that are not
self-explanatory that don't contain
within themselves the reason for their
own existence so you and I are
contingent why because we're breathing
because we eat and drink because we had
parents in other words our being is not
self explanatory it comes from other
causes okay if that's the case then we
have to look to an extrinsic cause to
explain our own existence
now suppose those extrinsic causes
themselves are contingent
is the case with our parents with all
the food that we eat with the air that
we breathe they too came from other
causes their - conditioned by things
extrinsic to themselves well in that
case we have to look further well this
process of appealing to contingent
causes trying to explain my contingency
cannot go on indefinitely
why if it does I've explained nothing at
all I've simply infinitely postponed
explanation this process must end in
some reality which is not contingent
whose very nature it is to be assumed s
a being itself this is precisely what
serious believers mean by God that's why
God is not one fussy cause among many
one element within a mechanistic system
God is rather the answer to this
question why is there something rather
than nothing
Why should there be a universe at all
what finally explains contingent reality
okay so once we make that clarification
we eliminate the first part of of Sean
Carroll's objection now it's his article
goes on he seems to give some
credibility to this argument for a first
instance the argument I just rehearsed
but he makes the common scientistic
mistake of identifying this cause of
causes with matter or with energy or
with the ever fluctuating expanding and
contracting universe itself as he here's
the problem
it's simply question begging if you say
the cause of causes the unconditioned
ground of contingency is matter urine a
conundrum
why because matter by its very nature is
in one state rather than another it's
here rather than there it's this color
rather than that it's this condition
rather than that to use classical
language matter is characterized by
potentiality so think of our own bodies
think of this
bookshelf behind me it's in one
particular material configuration it
could be another one I could burn it
into ashes I could color it differently
I could move it from place to place
the point there is we have to explain
therefore why it's in this configuration
it's not self-explanatory in this
configuration I have to appeal to an
extrinsic cause the same is true of
energy that's a more contemporary term
the same problem energy is in some state
some configuration some manner being it
could be another therefore I have to
invoke an extrinsic cause to explain why
it's this case rather than that to
appeal to the endlessly fluctuating or
expanding or contracting universe as a
whole is just as much of a non-starter
why because it's simply that problem now
writ large why is the universe expanding
rather than contracting why is it
contracting rather than expanding why is
the fluctuating vacuum they'll use that
term sometimes in this state of
fluctuation rather than that to appeal
to matter or energy is to appeal is
something that's by its very nature
contingent what we have to come to
finally is some reality that is
radically other than the universe which
could even be in principle measured by
the sciences now there's my ultimate
point here in this in this commentary
the claim that the sciences can
adjudicate the question of God is in
itself ludicrous now philosophy can shed
some light on God so construed and I've
just done that but the one thing the
sciences can never do is eliminate the
possibility of God or disprove God in
any way those who claim otherwise are
simply guilty of a scientistic mistake
[Music]