Skimming through a few of the articles on the Discovery Institute website, I found that each of the articles I read portrayed truths for both sides of the argument in context. One article in particular entitled “Did Physics Kill God?” by Jay W. Richards was displayed with an analysis that could initially veer in opposite directions depending on the reader.
The title of this article indeed summarizes the basics of the claim that Richards, a scientist debates. He claims that physics can prove the creation of the world that was made from nothing by natural force and therefore there is no higher power, God, that created the universe. Readers that have a strong religious background may immediately jump to the conclusion that this man, Richards, is crazy and the opposing atheist side may read on for further information about a feasible statement due to their differing cultural backgrounds. However, after reading the analysis on the article both audiences are brought to a confusing intersection of ideas. The analysis leaves audiences hanging with the controversy that either side of the statement could be the truth. The earlier question primarily stemming from if God is real or not that was so easy to answer for most readers becomes a more difficult and abstract question when both sides are compared to each other. This idea is similar to Robin and Carl Herndl’s article stating, “our knowledge, and theirs [opposing viewpoint], become powerful only in relation to each other.” By comparing the possibilities of God versus Physics both sides seem like they could be relatively true.
The biggest question posed in the article is the definition of nothing. As previously stated, Richards states that physics proves the world was made from nothing. However, what is defined as nothing? Skeptics state that nothing could be an entire realm of criteria that can be interpreted in many ways. Richard claims he has mathematical evidence to back up his claim and how something can start from nothing. However, analysts provide the helpful information that an average reader attempting to comprehend this extreme level of math would fail miserably in their attempt. This proof relates again to Robin and Carl Herndl’s article by posing the statement that, “power exists only when it is used in relation to others who don’t, we assume, share that knowledge-power” (214). Richard inherits this “power” by seeming to be extremely “knowledgeable” with mathematics and his ability to compute the actual logistics of creation. This may persuade audiences towards his claim that physics started our world because he appears to be intelligent and therefore must know what he’s talking about. One the flip side, readers may think he’s lacking credibility because he is in a sense too knowledgeable that one cannot fathom the possibilities of mathematics being able to defy creation. I could not find yet another more perfect quote than that of “our language creates our identity and positions us in relation to the rest of the world.” Richard has definitely seemed to represent his positions and display his identity through his claims that are highly controversial in the simplest context of science vs. religion.
Hey Ashley!
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your post - it was very concise and comprehendible.
I would have focused more on the topic of Richard's "common sense" (or lack thereof, as you hinted at). Richard obviously believes the things in his field(s) of study (ie. physics, etc.) are common sense, or, to an extent, "more obvious" as he has more education and "knowledge-power" in such a school of thought. Richard has a clear language and thought process, and thus a clear identity and position in relation to the rest of the world, much like the John Birch Society.
Adding information on Richard's "habitus" might have helped too.
Eric R Best
You nail the theoretical key: what's 'nothing,' as a physicist uses it?
ReplyDelete