The following post was proposed , somewhat reluctantly, as a comment by one of our “silent readers”, on my “Collection of Comments on Comments”, one of Australia’s most eminent scientists, an Emeritus Professor of Macquarie University who prefers that people concentrate on what he says rather than on his credentials. His “comment” deserves a stand-alone post. He has opened a subject for discussion that goes far beyond the limited mental horizons, including mine, that most of us, believers and unbelievers both, reveal. I will attach my comment to his comment on my comments on comments, hoping that it will be the first of many comments far more insightful than mine.
“You ask, Frank : ‘Whoever said we were just animals ?’ I do, for one. We are happy to accept that other animals behave instinctively, but not humans. Why not ? Our brains work more or less the same way as, say, chimpanzees. So, if they are instinctive, why not us ? You say that you are not a programmed machine, but I suggest you really are, in as much as you have no control over your thoughts and actions. After all, you cannot have a thought unless the neural functions in your brain responsible for that thought have actually occurred. You cannot have the thought followed by the causes of the thought. Moreover, theoretical physicists (Brian Greene and his ilk, whom I hold in great awe) assure us that spacetime exists in its entirety, and consequently events in the past always exist, as do events in the future. Though we fondly imagine past, present and future as being separate, all is fixed in an existing spacetime continuum, and so we have no control over any of it. We just follow what Paul Davies called our life-path (or something like that) through spacetime.
What is so bad about this idea anyway ? You can still enjoy life for what it is, rather than a fantasy of it. You cannot predict future events (or our delusions of them) and so they are just as interesting and exciting as if you deluded yourself into believing that you can control the future. I am by no means depressed or confounded by the idea that I am an animal just like all the others, and am happy to take my place in the grand, though at times cruel and always indomitable process of life.
Of course that doesn’t mean that we don’t have feelings for each other, just as some other high primates do, nor that we haven’t evolved some sensible and caring attitudes for our welfare as close family and tribal groups. All I am saying is that apparently everything we do, the enjoyable and the nasty, is inevitable in spacetime.”
Blind Faith: Blind Folly 
How long did it take the man in the street, the teacher in his classroom or the priest in his pulpit, to accept the Copernican revolution ? A lot less, apparently, than will be necessary for most of us to accept, or begin to understand the implications of, the Einsteinian revolution. No one today doubts that the Earth orbits the Sun and not vice-versa. How many are ready to accept that though we believe we freely decide on what we do, we are in fact animals acting only by instinct, not real choice ? How many are ready to accept that the past is somehow still present and that the future already exists ? It will take a lot more than a Brian Greene video to make many of us, including me, question our mind-sets. But we must wonder, in spite of what looks like a contradiction of common sense, and because highly intelligent people consider such propositions not just speculation but a description of reality, whether or not we are intellectual, pre-Copernican dinosaurs. One thing is certain : the “spacetime continuum” would appear to leave even less place for “God” than we already do.
LikeLike
It is indeed refreshing to have another comment from our eminent scientist friend. My gut feeling, call it instinct if you like, is to agree that we, intelligent beings that we no doubt are, are in fact just slightly more sophisticated animals. The original comment raises the question of free will and opinions will continue to differ on this issue as well. But again, my gut feeling is that we delude ourselves with notions about the extent to which we are able to act truly freely.
On the ABC TV program Q&A last night (Monday 15th September), an episode devoted to Science and with a panel all having science backgrounds, a fresh-faced kid asked how the Universe can be expanding if it is already infinite. The boy was asking a profound question – to which there is no easy answer. Concepts like infinity and eternity are in fact impossible to come to grips with in any meaningful way – at least I find this to be the case. One of the scientists on the panel gave the only answer possible. I don’t think I am doing him an injustice by paraphrasing his reply as follows: “..despite the fact that we can “see” to the edge of the known Universe billions of light-years distant, we have little idea of how little we know and of how much we shall yet discover….”
The uniqueness of the “space-time continuum” is yet another of these awe-inspiring mysteries that science and science alone is exploring with an open mind.
We live in a truly fascinating age of discovery.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What evidence do you have, Thom, that science, alone, is searching with an open mind?
For instance, if the majority of physicists, as you have previously claimed, are atheist, would their search be open to a God explanation?
Even if scientists in the search are open to God, is this not a metaphysical question, and not in the domain of science?
Is it not true that as science is limited to what is explainable in the physical world, it can’t introduce a theological or spiritual possibility?
If God is the ultimate source of reality, then science can only reach a point beyond which it can only conclude “we don’t know”. Science, by its nature, can’t prove God, only find the necessity of something like God.
Perhaps that is where the philosophers, metaphysicists and theologians will have to continue the deeper quest.
However, I believe they have already done this and are waiting for the limits of physical explanation to be exhausted or admitted.
I hope we need not wait too long. Recent progress has been encouraging towards this end.
LikeLike
With due respect, Frank,the space-time continuum actually leaves more space for God, as I believe I have frequently tried to explain in these columns.
You are a bit quick to claim victory.
Even St. Augustine, I believe, and certainly St. Thomas Aquinas had worked out that God must be outside of time and space, and to Him, all past, present and future are immediately present.
Catholics have always believed that we, living in space and time, where only the present seems to exist, find it impossible to comprehend eternity, as God does.
When we leave this world, then we, also will experience timelessness, as God does.
I would find this increasingly uncomfortable in your place!
The reason that God must be outside time, seeing all past present and future simultaneously laid out, is that He created all time, space, energy/mass.
Obviously, He was outside the elements which He brought into existence 13.8 billion years ago(in our time).
This has subsequently been confirmed by current Big bang theory.
I have said all this before, but it is good to see that input from an ‘expert’ has sharpened the notice taken.
LikeLike
“………….So, if they are instinctive, why not us ? You say that you are not a programmed machine, but I suggest you really are, in as much as you have no control over your thoughts and actions. After all, you cannot have a thought unless the neural functions in your brain responsible for that thought have actually occurred………..”
so does that mean that Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin were not guilty of any atrocities but simply victims of their neural functions and perhaps hormones? let’s throw out
police, courts and prisons! They are unjust!
LikeLike
It seems from your excerpts that you had not believed that we were just animals, but the ‘expert’ told you that we are. Is that correct?
It is my pleasure, for once, to take your side, unless you have been convinced to change it.
Stick to your guns, Frank. I will back you up with solid evidence.
We may be animals from a material point of view, but we possess one additional non-animal feature that allows us to think conceptually, not just brain functions. There is a chasm as wide as the chasm between inanimate and animate creatures as between mere animal mind and human mind.
Just what is the expert’s field of expertise. He seems to imply it is not physics.
Your expert seems to have corrected your prior belief that you are not a programmed machine.
Again, I agree with your initial ‘instinct’ that you are not. We ex MBHSK students must stick together.
Maybe the expert is not a neuroscientist either, so his opinions are worth no more than any amateur.
LikeLike
Frank. The expert says that we can not have a thought without prior neural functions.
That may be so at the level of material brain involvement. However, neural functioning is dependent on a stimulus, which depends on the underlying molecules, atoms, protons, quarks etc. until we come to the very first cause of the process.
I contend that the very start point of the material process is outside of a material cause.
This is at the limit of material explanation.
Science does a very good job of explaining the material train of events, and that is its legitimate field of discovery.
If there is a non material reality, and science, by its nature, can not delve this region, nor show that it does not exist, then that is where we must ultimately look for the fundamental cause and purpose of ensuing phenomena.
LikeLike
As our eminent scientist friend is unlikely to respond to any of Jim’s (or anybody else’s) comments I feel I should say on his behalf that he would be the last to claim to be the “expert” as Jim refers to him. He is too humble a man to make any such claim. He, as a well informed scientist, was merely expressing a personal opinion – which is all anyone is in a position to do on these questions. I share his opinions concerning our animal status.
The theologians and metaphysicians have said and had repeated by others including recently Feser whom Jim champions all that they are able to say. It is, I think, fair to say that they have nothing new to contribute. And their endless speculations and the reiterations thereof have failed to convince or satisfy.
I believe science and science alone will continue to provide us with ever more fascinating insights into the extraordinary universe of which we are such an insignificant part.
LikeLike
I use the word ‘expert’ to shorten your more lengthy ’eminent scientist friend’, not as a rudeness.
Scientific discovery will, indeed, give us more insights into the wonders of creation.
It has also given a strong indication that the marvellous(I don’t use your word extraordinary, as it implies that there is an ordinary universe to compare with) universe is fine tuned for human life,as its pinnacle.
Our humble expert has referenced Paul Davies, who has remarked on this fine tuning, particularly in his “The Goldilocks Enigma”.
As an agnostic,Davies gives a fairly balanced account, and admits that the God solution is at least as good as any other. In fact its only competitor is to say we don’t yet know but hope to find out.
I have also heard him interviewed,and state that the Christian belief in Final resurrection of the body is quite reasonable.
Robert Spitzer, among many others has collated the extraordinary amount of fine tuning of the constants and variables of physics to allow life to occur on earth.
Any analysis by ‘science alone, operating with an open mind” will conclude that purpose, as opposed to Frank’s(following Dawkins’) blind chance, is evident in the appearance of life. That is a given.
Thom, you keep piously claiming the open mind of science, but refusing to openly admit the evidence it uncovers, pointing to purpose.
Feser and Metaphysics perhaps have little to say, as you claim, that was not said by Aquinas, and even Aristotle before that for the obvious reason that they got it pretty right 2300 years ago.
Unlike physics, which is digging deeper and deeper into the sub atomic world, and so, getting closer to the first cause, metaphysics is above the particulars of our physical universe and applies reasoning, applicable to any possible universe; Even if, with a small variation in universal constants, we ended up with a universe of hydrogen, or nothing beyond berrylium or iron, any of which could have easily happened(there is still a mystery how we ever got beyond iron), the deductions of the metaphysics of Aristotle would not change.
In other words, as long as some things change, all else falls into its inevitable place. By the same metaphysical reasoning, the non material human intellect and immortal soul are musts.
Why do you believe that science alone will give the answers, as science can not address a possible spiritual element of existence? Are you not claiming that there is nothing other than a material universe, based on science, which, by definition, can only investigate the physical universe. A circular argument?
LikeLike
From his correspondence with his expert friend, Frank seems to have believed that he is not just an animal, nor a programmed machine.
In this correspondence, it seems Frank argues a different belief to what he constantly argues in these columns. He says he is just atoms bundled together.
Frank has always claimed that we are purely material beings, composed, ultimately, of nothing more than atoms, as are rocks, fish, gum trees; this includes our totally material minds.
So, we can have no personal thoughts or actions of our own. We can’t love, conceptualise, think for ourselves, even on the existence of God. We have no free will, beyond the free will of atoms.We are programmed.
I am not sure who the programmer would be. There is no intelligence beyond human in the universe. Presumably, then, some source of human intelligence does the programming, as a program cant be more intelligent than the programmer.
Having shaken off the shackles of Catholic faith, and encouraging others to follow, to the wonderful freedom beyond, I hope it is not too much shock that you are little different to a cow or chimpanzee at best, and are not really free, just a programmed machine..
For some reason you were given a vocal tract, capable of complex language, even Latin, light years ahead of other animals, and you have been programmed, by a human intelligence programmer, to form and understand complex concepts and have the vocal capacity to transmt them to others who will receive your complex thoughts and understand, even learn.
Atoms are marvellous little things. who would have guessed.
LikeLike
I have allowed Jim an exceptional amount of space to air his “expert” opinions. I want to express – briefly – four reactions to all the comments above.
1. “Experts”. Recognition of competence, and therefore credibility, should not depend on one’s University degrees or academic specialty. It is possible for people with little or no formal education to acquire a deep appreciation of the knowledge we expect of trained specialists. I am, notwithstanding Jim’s recent disparaging remarks about my being a simple ex-priest who has no claim to be a theologian – in spite of my post-graduate doctoral studies and years as a Professor of Theology in a Catholic University – a Professional theologian. But I readily admit that individuals without my eleven years of post-High School studies, master certain aspects of Theology better than I do. An Emeritus Professor of Anything is worth listening to, whatever his field (which, in fact, is in science). You, Jim, are an engineer, not a theologian or even a philosopher, so, as you put it, your “opinions are worth no more than an amateur”.
2. “Open Minds”. Does the Church have an “open mind” ? Is it willing or capable of putting its “certitudes” into question ? This is the very essence and motor of scientific research. When did the Church ever freely and unreluctantly welcome new knowledge that shattered its erstwhile teaching ? The history of science is the permanent putting into question of what it thought it had established as true. Only when Galileo forced the Church to do so, did we witness its non-apologetic recognition of being wrong. That is hardly evidence of an open mind.
3. Hell. “When we leave this world, then we also will experience timelessness, as God does. I would find this increasingly uncomfortable in your place”. Jim, stop trying to scare me into Pascal’s Wager. You insult my intelligence.
4. Programmed ? You have forgotten what I have often stated both in my book and in this blog that I do NOT believe we are “programmed” to do anything, except survive. This is one of the reasons I am grappling with the Professor’s putting free will into question. My original comment suggests that I am trying to understand, with an open mind, rather than do the Catholic thing and insist that the Sun rotates around the Earth until the Church is forced to recognize that it was WRONG. It is precisely because, like the vast majority of people, I see the past as past, no longer existing, and the future as not yet existing, and feel that my free decision to post these comments has not been programmed by anyone or anything, that I am trying to grasp the implications of Einstein’s spacetime continuum. It’s much easier for you, my friend. You, like the pontiffs of the pre-Copernican church, know the answer.
LikeLike
The recent comments to date, with the exception of Lula’s, prove yet again that the DOTD (dialogue of the deaf) is pointless. As Frank has pointed out, Science thrives on challenging established “truths”. Religion tries to survive by defending so called Revealed Truth. The one is open to challenge and revision (in fact exists for those ends) – the other cannot entertain either without threat to its very existence. It is because they operate on such mutually irreconcilable principles that Jim is able to point to some scientists who retain their religious beliefs. The idea that it is possible to progress logically and rationally from Syllogisms like Mysterium Fidei’s or First Cause arguments like Jim’s which their proponents argue “prove” the existence of a non-material entity which is infinite and has existed for all eternity, before space-time emerged and is in fact responsible for the creation of space-time – to proceed from this hypothesis to the loving Father figure of Christianity and further to the doctrinal quagmire of god-men conceived by virgins, resurrecting god-men, assumpting dead (or alive) virgins, original sin, eternal punishment in hell’s flames, transubstantiating wafers etc etc etc is just too preposterous for words – even without the unanswerable problem of evil.
None of what I have said above is intended to question the sincerity of those, like Jim, who subscribe to such beliefs. But there is no possibility of meaningful dialogue between those who, again like Jim, are committed to those beliefs and those, like Frank and our learned scientist friend and myself, who have rejected such beliefs.
Lula has raised the very important issue of guilt or responsibility in the context of the existence or not of free will. There is no doubt that we appear to have free will and appear to make choices. We accept praise for “our” successes and expect blame for “our” failures. Indeed civilised society could not survive in the absence of controls including the allocation of blame and the imposition of sanctions for breaches of societal norms.
We hunt down and kill sharks when they attack swimmers – there is no question of personal animus attributed to the shark which is merely acting on instinct. We eradicate viruses – again no imputation of animus on the part of the virus.
The issue is of course not nearly as simple as I have suggested and philosophers have pondered the question of free will without resolution for quite some time. Science alone is beginning to throw some light on the question.
LikeLike
The light was thrown on free will centuries ago by philosophers. Christian belief has always been that humans, unlike animals possess free will and intellect.
These spiritual dimensions of a human soul are basically all that radically separate us from animals. We have larger sections of our material brain devoted to cognitive functions and a unique vocal tract which allows us to communicate via advanced languages, our thoughts and concept. These are to facilitate tour full humanity, infinitely above any animal.
I’m sure Thom and Frank remember being taught about misuse of free will by rebellious angels and misuse of free will by our first parents. These acts of free will account for evil and sin in the world, and ultimately suffering. Atheists have no answer to suffering.
So, I thoroughly reject Thom’s claim that science is now beginning to throw some light on it. Science should move on to solving some of the myriad of unsolved problems that Thom has mentioned, not just go around in well trod circles. Start by looking to pagan Aristotle, 2300 years ago and advance through Aquinas,800 years ago and Feser today.
In fact, science must be re inventing the wheel which was rejected by materialists following Darwinism(I did not say theistic evolution) who concluded that we are animals, acting only on programmed instincts, and therefore having no free will.
So we have the errors of materialists in rejecting our spiritual dimension and abandoning what every one once knew about human soul and free will.
But typically, Thom can not admit the truth and rules out of question any non material reality, and piously hopes that science investigating its sphere of only material realities will find the answer that eliminates the need for a God.
Now , even Frank is in conflict with his ushered in expert.,and Thom, typically, has to hide behind his well worn excuse that even though the material world has no answer for human existence, intellect or free will, his blind faith in his ridiculous belief will be justified. Good luck champ!
Iula quickly saw through the dilemma that professor, frank and Thom share.
I repeat, and hope one day to have an attempted answer from one of the trio: What is the original source, or first cause, of the chain of events from the sub atomic to the molecules of our brains to the neuron firing that causes us, and animals, to even blink an eye.
Apples don’t just fall off trees. there is a cause. What causes neurons to fire, and what is the cause of that cause, right back to a first cause beyond the first material cause.
It’s rather obvious to non learned and learned. That’s why Thom and frank could, as children, understand simple truths.
LikeLike
Thom. you say that space time emerged. You deny that space time which we accept came from a dot, or nothing, 13.8 million years ago.
How does a thing ’emerge’? Is there a difference between emerging and springing into existence, like in an act of creation?
Why would ‘our eminent scientist friend’ not respond to my lowly self? I visualise your hushed tones as you pronounce the holy name.
I am unaware of a multiplicity of “god-men conceived by virgins, resurrecting god-men, assumpting dead (or alive) virgins”. Where do we learn of all these?
I am aware of one God, who became man and was born of a virgin. This is part of Christian truth, held for 2 millennia by some 1.5 billion believers, and based on overwhelming evidence. In fact the adherents of this truth have shaped the most elevated and advanced civilisation that the world has ever known.
I am unaware of a multiplicity of rivalling gods taking on a humanity, and being born of a virgin.
Do you belong to some sect with such beliefs, or have you been programmed, by an unknown source, to write these fantasies?
LikeLike
A bit weak, Jim, to have a crack at Thom for his rhetorical plurals !
LikeLike
Jim appears to work on the principle that repetition as nauseam is a substitute for rational exposition.
Aristotle and Aquinas had no conception of the functioning of the brain’s neural networks. Feser is, as I have said before, merely trying to tell us what he thinks Aquinas was saying.
There is absolutely no evidence for Jim’s immortal souls. Jim is the proposer of the “God” hypothesis. He has the responsibility to provide some, any, credible evidence in support thereof as any scientist worth his salt would confirm. He obdurately tries to pass the buck.
Let’s agree, DOTD is pointless. QED.
LikeLike
Human souls are, obviously outside the realm of science.You should know that, Thom.
Metaphysics is the field relevant to discovering the necessity of the immortal human soul, free will and intellect.
I could give you the thread of the argument in these columns. From experience, that is a dangerous undertaking as I learned previously, when I was prepared to give you 6 steps, supported by evidence, to lead to the Catholic faith.
You may recall how Frank and yourself truncated my argument, ridiculed me and censored any further comments from me while continuing your mockery.
So, if you are open, as claimed, you may read a Feser book, e.g.;”Philosophy of the Mind.” or Daniel Sullivan’s “Basic Philosophy”.
Both give a very lucid account. Perhaps Sullivan is simpler for starters.
You understand that science has its domain as does philosophy. A good scientist knows the limitations of his field. The question of whether there is any reality outside of the material world is not a matter for science. When scientists speculate beyond their domain, they are dabbling in philosophy.
For some unproved reason, you blindly believe that there can only exist a material universe. As this is beyond science, how are you so dogmatic?
LikeLike
Neuroscience has not proved that neural pulses cause thought. Neuroscientists just observe electric pulses lighting up various parts of the brain (and only part of it at that!) The issue is I think that if we are purely material beings, that we have evolved in an unplanned way, then every thought we have is somehow caused by
our being material, then surely we are victims of our material nature. Stalin was no worse than Mother Teresa was good. Mother Teresa’s material nature somehow interacted with her dna (?) and the input taken in by her senses and this caused her to behave the way she did. Why did anyone think to ascribe value to her behaviour!
Slavish adherence to a philosophy of materialism sort of wipes out all hope that we might have for education and come to think of it – even science itself! If a particular scientist has a hypothesis in mind and begins research to prove or disprove his theory, isnt it all pointless? After all, wasn’t his material nature just interacting with sense stimuli and his dna like Mother Teresa was in above example ? Wasn’t his hypothesis just a random array of neutral pulses with no real value? But by some weird quirk of fate (lucky break!) various scientists in various disciplines have somehow made valuable contributions to society. It gets down to whether you can trust any thought you have at all if it is just your neurons!
LikeLike
Tom, you wondered at the possibility of our universe continuing to advance if it already occupied infinite space. Did I get you right?
Firstly, do you know that the universe occupies infinite space? Has some eminent friend revealed this to you.
Suppose that the universe does occupy infinite space . That would knock out one of the main speculations of multiple universes, that many atheists propose, without any evidence, to try to explain the near zero probability of life ever originating in our one universe. Obviously, if we occupy infinite space with our one universe, where would any others fit?
So that would knock on the head, the main wild guess that atheists cobble together in their frantic attempt to explain that scientific evidence against life by mere chance and not the purpose of a divine intellect.
Frank believes in chance, of course despite any evidence, but chance needs to be defined and explained. Whose chance? What explains chance.
The contribution of your eminent friend has raised quite a few awkward questions for you, duo. You,d better convene an emergency meeting.
You can easily ridicule me, as you do, but you must show grave respect for the wise words of this wise gentleman.
LikeLike
Your “repetition ad nauseam” (I admire Thom for bothering to respond) is going nowhere, Jim, except into the trash can if you submit any more rubbish on this post. Try your hand at the next one. It’s 3D.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No Jim, I was not speculating about the expansion of the Universe into infinity. My comment was very clear that I was referring to a question asked by a lad in the audience of Monday night’s Q&A program.
Lula is correct in her observation that neuroscience has not proved that thought is caused by neural activity in the brain. The point I was making was in response to Jim’s claim that Aristotle and Aquinas understood where thought originated. They hadn’t even got to the stage of knowing we had neural networks. The mind/brain debate is far from over and neuroscience has made and will continue to make great advances in this area.
LikeLike
Thom, do you believe that humans have free will, in that they have the ontological ability to free choose a non-materially determined action or thought?
LikeLike
From Dr. Richard Swinburne (specialist in the philosophy of science and philosophy of religion):
“How could brain-states vary except in their physical composition and the speed and direction of their electro-chemical interaction, and how could there be a natural connection between variations in these respects and variations in the kind of respects in which intentions differ say, the difference between intendingargument from consciousness mind brain richard swineburne theism gods existence to sign a cheque, intending to square a circle, and intending to lecture for half an hour? There does not seem to be the beginning of a prospect of a simple scientific theory of this kind and so of having established laws of mind-body interaction as opposed to lots of diverse correlations.”
LikeLike