God and Quantumn Mechanics

We seem to be in one of those anti-Christian phases that the UK media goes through every now and again. (Not that they are ever pro-Christian, of course, but I think you know what I mean.) First there is David Starkey’s Who Killed Christianity? on Radio 4. Although each programme is mercifully only 15 minutes long, it has already raised my hackles and we’re only halfway through the four-part series. What serious contribution to theology does an historial and expert on the constitution think he can make? And I thought I was self-opinionated.

Perhaps more serious is the continuation of Richard Dawkins all-out assault on God. Channel4 tell us that in His latest TV programme he “describes God as the most unpleasant fictional character of all and launches a wholehearted attack on religion as the cause for much of the pain and suffering in the world.” So much for fair play, then. But what disturbs me most about Dawkins’ rant is not his bad theology, it’s his bad science. Dawkins is an evolutionary-biologist, and for him science is everything. Here’s a quote from his own website:

Either there is evidence for a god (in which case you would not “accept the scientific account of reality” because the scientific account of reality would have been found wanting. That is what evidence would mean).

His point there is simple: You cannot prove that God is (so He cannot exist), and the scientific account of reality has not been found wanting (so you can trust that). It’s clear Dawkins doesn’t know God. It’s clear too, he doesn’t know his science. Science can’t (and probably will never) actually explain very much at all. The more you find out, the more you realise you do not know. And as physics in particular advances, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle states that this is a great deal that is actually unknowable.
[Read more…]