Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology

Rating:
Summary: Creatio Ex Nihilo
Review: Cretio Ex Nihilo

This work is meant as groundwork in apologetics in which the main scope is proving absurdity of self creation. That something has always existed. Some reviewers have taken exception that any scientist claims that there was ever purely nothing. One calls any such statements as hyperbole ( deception in my mind). Anyway the argument by some is everything has a cause? R.C. Sproul argues this is a fallacy. Something cannot become without something already existing. One reviewer argues that sub atomical is the nothing something comes from. Anyway one can argue that the atomic level has already existed or some sub level. One can argue that the Big Bang caused the universe we know. R.C. Sproul argues that the Big Bang did not cause being. R.C. Sproul does not accept the Big Bang theory, but the major theme of this book is about the misconception of chance and the origin of the universe from nothing. Therefore he does present the Big Bang theory demands an antecedent (something to exist before hand).

Chance is not an active knowing being. It is not Mother Nature. It is useful term about probability. R.C. Sproul states that many a scientist talk as if chance can cause something given enough time.

The book does not detail how a glob of material floated based on polarity or something colliding in time to cause certain reactions that eventually resulted in the Universe and existence that you and I know today. Neither do I believe many scientist describe the Big Bang theory this way. It is often explain as some magical theory for the cause of all existence (not just the universe). Many in the general public may have this misconception. R.C. Sproul shows the fallacy of such thinking.

R.C.. Sproul believes that God has always existed. He also argues that everything else is caused by God. If God did not exist nothing else would not exist.

Rating:
Summary: Cogent and analytical ¿ Good Job Mr. Sproul!
Review: I found this book to be very enjoyable, the prose was fast paced and it was written for the layperson to easily digest. It begins by defining chance and then showing what some of the preeminent scientists of the last few centuries had to say about it. Mr. Sproul is not trying to give a lesson in the historicity of any particular theorem he is however, trying to show that great minds have divided over these issues at hand. The books downfall, if you can call it that, was to attack quantum mechanics (QM) using logic to show that it is not a complete theory. QM adherents especially those who are philosophically attached to quantum chaos (QC) (SOAPBOX: It is a dangerous position for any 'non-biased' scientist is to be philosophically or ideologically attached to any theory) have presupposed themselves to a chance (deterministic) driven cosmos.

At first I felt that this book could have benefited by showing the other scientific theories that show an indeterministic universe, but that is not Mr. Sproul's arena. He is a theologian and makes no pretense about it, his arguments are clear and cogent let me show you a couple of quotes from the books should suffice the logistician in any of us.

"Anomalies represent present mysteries. They are unsolved problems. An easy solution to mystery is to give it another name: CHANCE. Voltaire saw CHANCE as a word-substitute for the unknown, again a cover-up for ignorance. The problem is one that confuses mystery and contradiction. All contradictions are mysterious. Not all mysteries are contradictions. To say that the cause of a known effect is unknown is to say that the cause remains a mystery. To say that the cause of a known effect is chance is to say that the cause is a contradiction. It is to say that the effect has no cause, which is a contradiction of terms." Pg. 28-29

"There is no greater erroneous assumption muddying the water of contemporary science then the assumption that chance has instrumental, causal power. Here contradiction runs wild under the seemingly harmless cloak of mystery". Pg. 31

"What is basically happening here is the tacit assertion that we can have effects without causes." Pg. 48

"I do not allow for uncaused effects because uncaused effects represent a contraction in terms. The idea of an "uncaused effect" is analytically false. It is a nonsense statement, akin to speaking of square circles and married bachelors. An "effect" is by definition something produced by an antecedent cause. If it has NO CAUSE, it is not an effect. If it is an EFFECT, then it has a cause." Pg. 49

DUH!

I feel that there has been some obfuscation by another reviewer about QM, specifically about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) and it's relation to chance. HUP does not mitigate for chance or uncertainty the antipodal is in fact true. For those of you who do not understand the HUP it is very simple. At present it is not possible to know with unlimited accuracy both the position (x) and the momentum (p) of a particle. Why can't I know? Well in order locate a certain particle exactly, an observer must be able to bounce off it a photon of radiation; this act of location itself alters the position of the particle. To locate the position accurately, photons of short wavelengths would need to be used. These photons have a high momenta and would cause a large effect upon the particles position. It's kind of like a pool-ball effect, you bounce one photon off a particle it is going to budge it a little bit. So there is uncertainty associated with each measurement that you can never get rid of you experiments.

But please note and this is the important point that many seem to misunderstand. The HUP does not say, "everything is uncertain." Rather, it tells us very exactly where the limits of uncertainty lie when we make measurements of sub-atomic events. This is not chance; this is EFFECT. Whenever I make a measurement, I MUST disturb the system, I am the CAUSE. The uncertainty then of the effect that I have caused lies in our ability or rather our inability to measure a particle without disturbing it. The logic that says because we at this time cannot measure a particles x and p accurately while also predicting how the particle will react to our measurement stimulus must therefore show that because we don't know something (mystery) is it is therefore acting in a undeterministic (chance) fashion is farcical. Since when in the scientific world has a paucity of data about a known event been shown to PROVE that the event in question didn't have precedent verifiable cause? NEVER.

One last point, anybody interested in understanding how cause is the deterministic factor in science should learn about chaos mathematics, and also look into the superstring theories. Just search them out on the web and you will probably drop the deterministic philosophies that crept into the noble field of science.

Kudos Mr. Sproul, for a non-scientist you did an excellent job.

Rating:
Summary: Inane Hysteria
Review: It is obvious why traditional American Protestantism, with its methodological presuppositions of "common sense", inductive reasoning, and a fixed order to the creation would ally itself to the Newtonian scientific worldview. Using this "billiard ball" model of the universe to support its own interpretation of predestination and the sovereignty of God, this alliance of faith and reason could also give credence to a "scientific" (read: intellectually respectable) study of Holy Scripture with doctrines abstracted from evidence in the Bible just as scientists derived their laws from evidence in the "book of nature".

Despite some initial success, this view faced a nearly complete dissolution following the introduction of scientific theories on evolutionary development, random processes, and the impossibility of experimental objectivity. This new trend, beginning with the earth sciences (geology and biology) and then spreading to the physical sciences (relativity, quantum theory and "big bang" cosmology), made science appear more an opponent than an ally of the faith and seemingly left the American Protestant consensus bereft of its intellectual justification.

Despite this gloomy turn of events, some folks are not quite ready to give up the ghost. R. C. Sproul, a prolific writer, skilled speaker, and respected teacher is well established as a defender of the American strain of the Reformed tradition. Perceiving a philosophical threat to the faith in the idea of randomness, he faces it head on in Not a Chance. Never shy about voicing his opinion, Sproul forcefully argues the completely incompatibility of a belief in randomness with a belief in God. "If chance is", Sproul bluntly asserts, "God is not." Well...not quite. It is not the God of the universe who is rendered impossible but the god of Sproul's tidy theology. The God who created the universe is alive and well.

Sproul begins his diatribe with a "straw man" attack upon the use of chance as an active causal agent in the natural world - a position no scientific theory upholds. In clumsily imposing his own definition of chance, Sproul fails to differentiate the clearly distinctive meanings of the term prevalent in different disciplines. For example, mutations in DNA replication are often referred to as "by chance" in evolutionary theories but none ever really suggest chance as a causal agent. Breakdowns in the replication process occur (as in any physical process) from many causes and there is no way to predict them. Thus it is called a "random mutation." On the other hand, quantum theory uses a definition of randomness that is purely mathematical. Although the behavior of systems may be predicted with great accuracy, with individual subatomic particles there is no deterministic causality. In neither case does one cite chance as an active agent.

Even worse, Sproul frequently cites as "evidence" against the theories of noted scientists various off the cuff remarks never intended as precise scientific or philosophical statements. For example, in his critique of Danish physicist Neils Bohr, he ignores Bohr's extensive scientific work in quantum theory (verified in experiments and the basis of everything from cell phones to nuclear warheads) and concentrates instead on "one liners" that Bohr - known for the occasional hyperbole - uttered for their "shock value." Given Sproul's lack of scientific training, the reason for building a case upon such irrelevant anecdotes is quite evident: Unable to refute Bohr on the basis of the actual science itself, Sproul can only counter the perceived threat to his theological presuppositions by scouring popular science books for witty quips to subject to ridicule.

When Sproul attempts to discus actual scientific work, his poor grasp of the subject at both a scientific and a philosophical level becomes painfully obvious. Considering how many Christians frequently (and rightly) criticize scientists for unfairly dismissing the claims of Christianity without ever giving a fair hearing, it is disheartening to see Sproul exhibit similar tendencies in passing judgment on sophisticated topics without the knowledge to do so intelligently.

Further evidence Sproul is not up to the task is his use of Albert Einstein as an ally for his cause. While Einstein was certainly a critic of the of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, his outlook was far removed from Sproul's outmoded ontology. Einstein's work superseded notions of absolute time and space within objective frames of reference - all necessary for the causal relationships Sproul seeks to defend. Sproul also fails to mention Einstein's intellectual battle with Bohr ended with Bohr's complete vindication.

Quantum theory now stands as the most experimentally verified theory in physics. The implications of its use of randomness and nonlocality (the connectedness of attributes in systems of particles without regard to distance) are anathema to those like Sproul whose worldview necessitates a strict determinism. Even if quantum theory were replaced by a more complete theory (as Sproul hopes), the empirical evidence demands the new theory must support the same randomness and nonlocality. Much to Sproul's chagrin, chance will always retain a place in the natural sciences.

For Sproul, normally a solid author within his tradition, Not a Chance is little more than an embarrassment. The evidence contradicts his claims of chance sounding the death knell of God. In fact, it was during the heyday of the very determinism Sproul advocates that materialism gained its greatest advances while the move away from such a determinism has opened the doors to consider meaning beyond the mere motion of objects. It is not hard to see why: what Sproul sees as highlighting God's sovereignty everyone else saw as highlighting God's dispensability. The abandonment of such an outlook only bodes well for the Church - save perhaps among the more enthusiastic Calvinists like Sproul - despite much inane hysteria.