The worldview of Louis Pasteur

Louis Pasteur

Louis Pasteur was, without a doubt, one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His scientific work was immense. Among his most notable discoveries are the following:

1.      Optical isomerism. The fact that certain substances occur in two different forms, with the same chemical composition but different physical properties, for they rotate the plane of polarization of light in opposite directions.

2.      Alcoholic, acetic, lactic, and butyric fermentations, which he showed are due to the action of bacteria or yeast.

3.      Spontaneous generation, which in his time was only defended for microorganisms, and Pasteur demonstrated it’s impossible under current conditions.

Rational and scientific inklings about God’s existence

In the previous post I mentioned that science does not provide proof of the existence of God, but it does give inklings. In a book I wrote, which was published in Spanish in 2013 with the title ¿Es compatible Dios con la ciencia? Evolución y Cosmología (Is God Compatible with Science? Evolution and Cosmology) I described a list of those inklings. Here I will summarize a few of them. The first three are scientific, the others are not.

1.      The universe is a physical object. During the 19th century, atheist philosophers denied that the universe is a concept applicable to a concrete object that exists outside our mind. The universe is usually defined as the set of everything that exists. According to those philosophers, such a set does not exist, since the concept of the universe is an invention of the human mind, which does not correspond to any physical object. Therefore, it would not be necessary to look for its origin (its cause) outside our mind. This argument was disproved in the 20th century: Einstein’s theory of general relativity leads to a cosmological equation that applies to the universe, which implies that the cosmos has real existence, that it is a physical object.

Scientific proofs of God’s existence?

Two French engineers, Michel-Yves Bolloré and Olivier Bonnassies, have published a best-seller entitled Dieu - la science - les preuves: L'aube d'une revolution (God - Science - The Proofs: The Dawn of a Revolution), where they claim that science has proven the existence of God. The book is interesting, because it contains many anecdotes and quotes from scientists, and some little-known facts. However, I do not agree with their approach, which is apparent in the title of the book.

Can science prove the existence of God? As I have said in this blog more than once, the answer to this question must be negative. The object of science is the study of the material world. But God is not in the material world, He is not part of it. Therefore, he cannot be an object of study by science. This means that science will never succeed in proving the existence of God, nor will it succeed in proving his nonexistence.

As I explained in another post, perhaps Pope Pius XII was tempted to think that science had proved creation, although it is suspected that Georges Lemaître, discoverer of the Hubble-Lemaître law and the Big Bang theory, dissuaded him, for the Pope, in a speech shortly after their interview, said this: science, while progressing by leaps and bounds, will never be able to answer the ultimate questions, such as the origin of everything.

Responses to a reader who rejects Christianity

A loyal reader of my blog, who praises my way of popularizing science, rejects Christianity and seems bothered by the fact that my articles imply that I am a Catholic. In a series of comments that he wrote in one of my posts, he explains his arguments. I did not answer him there, because of the length of his comments, which in total contain 3,346 words, while my article only has 644 (more than five times less).

I think that this reader should be classified as an agnostic rather than an atheist, as it’s possible to deduce from the following words:

There is nothing stupid about rambling about the possible existence of God and deciding "I'm going 100% that he does exist." The universe is SO complex that, as long as there is no evidence to the contrary, believing that there may be someone/something that "designed" all this... cannot be dismissed as "stupid thinking."

I think the reader's various criticisms can be summarized by quoting the following words, which also appear in his first comment:

The problem comes when we try to use all these reasonings (which, in principle, speak of God as something completely ethereal and impersonal) to try to validate the story of Jesus Christ, which seems to be the goal.

Simple, right? The reader accepts my speaking about God, but not about Jesus Christ. Apparently, he deeply resents my doing so. I have named Jesus Christ in eight posts out of more than 450, although perhaps my Christianity is also clear in posts where I don’t name him. And he accuses me of trying to bring water to my mill (or sweeping home). This is a textbook case of the ad hominem fallacy. As we know, this fallacy (which in this case can be summarized as follows: you say this because you are Catholic) can be answered in the same way: you say that because you are an atheist, or agnostic, or whatever corresponds.

Most of the comments of the reader (2092 words) are directed against the possibility of miracles, and in particular against the miracle of Fatima, to which I have dedicated several posts in this blog. I suspect that the reader thinks that his arguments contradict what I said in those posts, but on the whole I think that he has just provided a confirmation. I said this:

1. Either the event really occurred, i.e., the witnesses told the truth.
2. Either the event did not take place, and the witnesses deliberately lied.
3. Or the event did not take place, but the witnesses did not lie, they were simply mistaken, or were the prey of a collective hallucination, or some equivalent explanation.

And I added:

Skeptics say that the miracle was a collective hallucination, or an optical effect due to the contemplation of the sun. Believers prefer the first option.

G.K.Chesterton

And what does the reader do? Assert that the only valid alternatives to my trilemma are the second and the third. In other words, what I had anticipated. An agnostic or an atheist must deny the possibility of miracles, therefore must necessarily adopt the other two alternatives. A believer has one more alternative, the first. (Catholics don’t automatically accept everything we are told is a miracle, as proved by G.K. Chesterton’s stories in the collection The Incredulity of Father Brown.) Then those 2000 or so words confirm what I had predicted.

There is also some reference to the other argument used usually by atheists to deny the existence of God: the problem of evil. In this regard he says:

If the planes that were going to hit the Twin Towers had frozen in the air 20 meters from the impact... it would have been amazing, there would have been no explanation of any kind and it would have been recorded on video... However, that did not happen... And thousands of people died. And many others suffered a mind-blowing psychological impact. It seems that miracles only happen to do inconsequential nonsense.

This is the problem of human evil, to which the usual response is to point out that we are trying to blame God for the evil that men do. Or as Mark Twain may have said: There are many scapegoats, but the most common is Providence. In this specific case, God is blamed for not having performed a miracle to prevent a barbaric human act. Others usually mention Auschwitz. This demand of miracles reveals a magical-mechanical concept of God, who would only be the automatic corrector of the evil done by human beings. Times don’t change much; that was also what they said to Christ crucified: Save yourself by coming down from the cross! (Mk. 15:30).

It’s curious: some time before the reader posted these comments in my blog, I had used similar arguments in a debate about the existence of God between two artificial intelligences in my latestscience fiction novel: Operation Viginti. The debate ends in a draw, which is what usually happens in this type of debate. Reaching an agreement is almost impossible, for both sides start from different axioms: one affirms that God exists, the other denies or questions it, so it’s difficult to find a convincing argument.

The same post in Spanish

Thematic Thread on Science, Faith and Atheism: Previous Next

 Manuel Alfonseca

Richard Dawkins versus John Lennox

Richard Dawkins

At the age of fifteen I wrote my first book, with no intention of publishing, just for my personal use. It was a two-volume zoology of invertebrates. I still refer to it, although classifications have changed a lot, with the rise of cladistics and DNA analysis.

In 1977, this time with the intention of sending it to the printer, I wrote another book in English under the title Human cultures and evolution, where I proposed the following:

·         Cultural evolution is equivalent to biological evolution. Many properties are common to both fields. Human civilizations are equivalent to biological species and describe similar life curves. There is a cultural selection, equivalent to and very similar to natural selection, proposed by Darwin to explain the origin of the species.

Roger Penrose versus William Craig

Roger Penrose

I thank Plácido Doménech Espí for drawing my attention to this debate held in 2019 between Roger Penrose and William Craig, entitled The Universe: How did it get here & why are we part of it?

Roger Penrose rose to fame as a cosmologist in 1970 when he proved, with Stephen Hawking, a theorem stating that the application of Einstein’s theory of General Relativity to the entire universe requires the existence of at least one singular point in the universe (a point where all the geodesics of the universe meet). In other words, the Big Bang.

In 1989, Penrose became one of the most famous scientific popularizers with The emperor’s new mind, a book with deep philosophical implications. Among other things, he proposed the following question, inspired by Gödel’s theorem: how is it possible that we can prove that a theorem is true, if it cannot be proved mathematically from a reasonable set of axioms? According to Penrose, this would indicate that human intelligence is qualitatively different from computing machines.

In 2004 he published a book of extremely hard popularization, The Road to Reality, which is full of equations, where he proposes a unification of Einstein’s general relativity with quantum mechanics (a theory of quantum gravity). Then came his own cosmological theory, Conformal cyclical cosmology (CCC), according to which the universe did not begin with the Big Bang, which would only be the beginning of the current aeon, but there would be an infinite succession of previous eons, each beginning with a Big Bang and evolving to global heat death, when all that would remain in the entire universe would be photons. At that moment, (no one knows how) the entropy would suddenly drop to a minimum value again, to start a new cycle.

William Craig has proposed the kalam cosmological argument, which can be summarized thus:

1. Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

William Lane Craig

Craig argues that the Big Bang was the beginning of the existence of the universe, so there must be a cause for that existence: an uncaused Creator, existing without beginning, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and omniscient, to be the author of the abstract world. In other word: God.

In the debate, Penrose began by arguing that there are three components of reality: an abstract or Platonic world (mathematics); a physical world (the material world); and a mental world (the world of consciousness). In addition, he points out the existence of three mysteries, which refer to the relationships between these three worlds:

1. The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics (Eugene Paul Wigner): Why does the abstract world describe so well the workings of the physical world?
2. The origin of consciousness: How can consciousness arise from the physical world?
3. The mind’s ability to understand the abstract world: Why can we understand mathematics and apply it to describe counterintuitive phenomena?

Craig agreed with Penrose’s analysis, and added this consideration:

The abstract world cannot be the cause of the other two worlds, the physical and the mental, because it has no causal power and cannot make decisions. It is not clear that the physical world is the cause of the mental world: Penrose himself admits that this is a mystery. Can the mental world be the cause of the physical and the abstract worlds? It appears it can: we have the experience that our minds can produce physical changes through human intentionality. Could there not be an omniscient mind who is the author of the physical and the abstract worlds? That would solve the problem of the origin of the three worlds.

To this, Penrose could only reply that he does not like this idea (he declares himself an atheist) and would rather think that the abstract world is primordial, although he does not know how the other two worlds could proceed from the abstract world.

The second part of the discussion dealt with the fine-tuning problem. Craig indicated that there are three solutions to the problem:

1. Universal constants must have the value they have.
2. Our existence in such a fine-tuned universe may be due to chance in a multiverse.
3. Our universe has been designed by a Creator.

Penrose began by denying that fine-tuning is a fact, although he ultimately declared himself agnostic about this question. He proposed his CCC theory as an explanation of the origin of our universe. Craig pointed out that this theory is just another multiverse theory, in time rather than in space, (most multiverses are supposed to exist in space). Penrose, for whom this idea seemed to be new, embraced it happily and asserted that his theory has been experimentally confirmed, an assertion most current cosmologists would not accept.

My conclusion from this debate: Penrose was mostly on the defensive, and he was unable to offer one convincing argument in favor of his atheism.

The same post in Spanish

Thematic Thread on Science, Faith and Atheism: Previous Next

Manuel Alfonseca

Is science opposed to faith?

Charles Darwin

The opposition between science and faith is a nineteenth-century invention. And it was not scientists who invented it, since most of them were believers. Those responsible were atheist philosophers such as Marx, Feuerbach, Schopenhauer or Nietzsche. I count Marx among philosophers, even though he abhorred philosophy, which he considered dead (he said in the Manuscripts), just as Stephen Hawking did a century and a half later, as I commented in this post. I once said that Marx would have been horrified to know that he is studied today in the history of philosophy, for he did not consider himself a philosopher, but an economist.

The problem of no best world

The Auschwitz concentration camp

In 1993, William Rowe proposed an atheistic philosophical argument to prove that God does not exist. Although based on the problem of evil (like so many other atheistic arguments), it takes a somewhat different turn. For this reason it has been given a name, as in the title of this post. The argument can be summed up like this:

If God exists and has created the universe, he must have created the best of all possible worlds, from the moral point of view. But given a universe, it is always possible to devise a better world, which means that the best of all possible worlds does not exist. Furthermore, our universe contains a lot of evil and is far from being one of the best. Therefore God does not exist.

It is curious that, in response to this argument, some philosophers who are believers (such as Klaas Kraay and others) have tried to refute it using the theories of the multiverse, which were originally devised by atheistic thinkers to deal with the fine-tuning problem. According to these philosophers, the problem of no best world would be solved if God had created, not a universe, but a multiverse containing all the best possible worlds, perhaps in an infinite number. I don’t think this attempt has much future. It is easy to foresee that the same argument that applies to the universe can also be applied to the multiverse, so the problem would not have been solved, it would only have been moved to a higher level.

In my opinion, the problem of no best world is poorly posed, because (as is usual with atheistic arguments) it contains a logical fallacy: the straw man; and forgets a very important question: original sin. Let's look first at the straw man fallacy, which in this case should perhaps be called the straw god fallacy. What kind of god does Rowe's problem envision?

Rowe's god is not free. If he creates, he must create the best of all possible worlds. This god is totally determined by human reason.

Materialistic atheism is so obsessed with saving determinism that when they try to formulate an idea about God, in whom they don't believe, they can't escape their obsession and imagine him as a deterministic god, unable to act freely. But is that the God of the Christians?

The God of Christianity is completely different. The main thing is that He is love, as said in the first letter of John, which implies that he is free, that he is not determined, for love without freedom has no meaning. The god Rowe envisions in his problem of no best world is not our God. If he proves that that god does not exist, we agree. In fact, Rowe's god closely approximates the god of philosophers, Plato and Aristotle. Christian philosophy concluded long ago that this god is not our God, although this approach may have provided in its time a rational approximation to monotheism.

The second difficulty with Rowe's argument is more subtle. How can we compare worlds, to find whether one is better than another? There must be some criterion. Rowe seems to think that this criterion is given by the amount of moral evil in each world. But this criterion is very dangerous. It could lead us to the conclusion that the best of all possible worlds is one where life does not exist, an empty universe, with no moral evil at all. What could move God to create such universe?

In fact, if things are pushed to the extreme in this way, it could be argued that the best of all possible worlds is the world that does not exist. If God is a Perfect Being, God alone is more perfect than God plus a created universe that by definition must be imperfect.

Mark Twain

If God wanted to create a universe, it seems logical to think that He would choose one similar to ours, where intelligent beings can exist, image of God, capable of loving and being loved. Those intelligent beings should be free, because what interest could God have in creating a universe of automata? Once this is admitted, it is inevitable that any created universe that we can imagine will contain moral evil, for a free being can decide to do evil rather than good. That is what I meant when I said that in posing his problem Rowe has forgotten original sin. If we consider what I have said, God is not to blame for the moral evil in the universe, as implicitly implied by Rowe: we are. As usual, Rowe is looking for a scapegoat, and as usual, he finds it in God, according to Mark Twain's famous phrase:

There are many scapegoats for our sins, but the most popular is Providence. (Notebook, 1898).

In fact, the problem of no best world is ill-posed, since it is impossible to compare different imaginary worlds and classify them according to the moral evil they contain, if that evil comes from the freedom of created individuals, as an inescapable consequence of the fact of they are free. That is why I don’t think it appropriate to try to solve a problem that does not really exist, by resorting to multiverse theories that have probably nothing to do with reality.

The same post in Spanish
Thematic Thread on Science, Faith and Atheism: Previous Next

Manuel Alfonseca

Interview with Manuel Alfonseca in a Spanish Newspaper

On February 23, 2018, a Spanish Newspaper (La Opinión, El Correo de Zamora) published this interview with me, performed by Ana Arias, which I am now translating into English. The interview was re-published a few days later (March 10) in the website ReligionEnLibertad (ReligionInFreedom). This is the translation of the interview:

He took an interest in science since he was quite small, as he says. At age 16 he wrote a book of zoology in two volumes that was never published. Anyway, whenever he has to consult information about some little known animal, he consults his book. "And I can find almost everything there," he adds. Now, at 71, he is an honorary professor at the Autonomous University of Madrid.

He believes in science. And also in God. Under the sponsorship of the Caja Rural Foundation and the Science-Religion University Forum held yesterday at the University College, Manuel Alfonseca gave a lecture about The Faith of Contemporary Atheist Scientists.

What is the faith of those scientists?

That God does not exist.