Science And Nonbelief: Edis’ Rebuttal Shatters Collins’ Theories – All But One

In my previous article, a few weeks ago, I reviewed acclaimed geneticist and present head of the NIH Francis Collins' The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (2007). Serendipitously I chanced upon a book by theoretical physicist Taner Edis entitled Science and Nonbelief (2008) which provides a demurral to Collins' evidence. I share Edis' viewpoint here.

Collins presented several scientific arguments in support of spiritual belief. He said that the Big Bang with which the Universe originated demands a divine explanation. Edis points out that the Big Bang is not the only model of the origin of the Universe. Recently, physicists have been focussing on the string theory to produce cosmological models with an infinitely long history before the Big Bang. Edis writes: "In string theory, 'strings' rather than point particles are the elementary objects...and strings resist collapsing to a point beyond a smallest length scale. So the string theory allows cosmologists to speak of an eternal universe, in that a time dimension can be extended infinitely backward beyond the big bang.” Thus there may be no singularity and no definite origin of the Universe. The Universe just exists.

Another argument that Collins made was that the Universe seems to be highly fine-tuned and this must be the doings of an outside intelligence for our sake. Even this is refuted by Edis. Edis says that many claims of fine-tuning and "anthropic coincidences" are exaggerated. He says: "We should not ask for the likelihood of obtaining life as we know it; that is too narrow a set of outcomes. It is more meaningful to ask for a universe that is large, long-lived, and can support a diversity of environments, including some where complex chemistry and biological evolution can take hold. Varying the fundamental constants and examining what sort of universe would result shows that a universe that can support complexity is not grossly unlikely as claimed by some fine-tuning enthusiasts...."

Edis points out fine-tuning arguments have been made in the past and many different fine-tuning problems have been encountered and resolved over the years. Edis says:

"[Fine-tuning problems] are generally a sign that some new physics is around the corner." He says that recent physical cosmology (specifically the "inflationary universe" concept) emerged as a solution to some vexing fine-tuning issues that beset earlier models of the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe. "In all likelihood, current fine-tuning problems will be resolved the same way, by bringing in new physical ideas that produce better cosmological models."

Thus even without recourse to the "multiverse" hypothesis, Edis is able to deflate fine-tuning arguments such as those Collins provides. Thus Edis provides valuable counterarguments to Collins' evidence for belief. But Edis and Collins are not always in opposition. Edis debunks Creationism and Intelligent Design (as does Collins) and the entire spectrum of paranormal studies (Collins does not talk of the paranormal per se, but suggests that miracles may occur and should be investigated in a scientific spirit). Edis and Collins both say that evolution should be accepted as a valid fact rather than be railed against.

So what remains of Francis Collins' edifice that he so painstakingly built in The Language of God? The final piece of evidence that Collins presents is the existence of a moral law that is inscribed in people and that gives them the capacity to discriminate between right and wrong. This, says Collins, is a sure sign of a supernatural presence operating in the Universe. Edis does not refute the moral law as such but says that one can be moral without being religious.

The moral law, which is universal, is Collins' strongest argument for the existence of a theistic God. Other arguments based on science, especially cosmology, seem to fall to the ground. Yet it must be mentioned that the moral law argument (as emphasised originally by C S Lewis) is a sufficiently strong argument that can hold its own without recourse to other Deistic arguments.

While cosmology is an emerging and rapidly changing science, and hence cosmological arguments for belief may not stand the test of time, the moral law seems to exist since the beginning of recorded history and even prehistory and is on stronger footing (unless some anthropologist demonstrates that early humans did not have any cognizance of the moral law but relied essentially on instinctual reflex).