Argument from Quantum Measurement
Near minute 16 in the above video, William Lane Craig hints toward an argument for God’s existence that is new to me, an ‘argument from quantum measurement.’ Basically, he says God may be the best solution to the measurement problem in quantum mechanics.
Unsurprisingly, this would be yet another God of the gaps argument. I’m still waiting to hear theists say that ‘God did it’ is the ‘best explanation’ for the Bloop. I call it the Argument from the Bloop.
24 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
As science successfully explains and predicts more and more, some struggle to fit their myths in. ColonelFazackerley
God damn, Quentin Smith needs some public speaking lessons. Liam
Heads they win. Tails you lose. Aaron
C’mon Luke, everyone knows that the bloop was actually from a kraken! Hahaha Zak
Well, that safely allows me to categorize Craig along with Deepak Chopra.
To complete the effect, maybe a nehru jacket and some spiffy wrap-around sunglasses would make up for his stiff old-man lily-white complexion? It would give him that ‘exotic and authoritative to ’spiritual’ Americans that have less sense than incense’ look.
If not that, maybe a different set of atire. Something more ‘hip’ with the ‘cool kids’? To that, I say “Aaaaaaaaaaaa!”. Hermes
Luke,
I listened to the section on quantum measurement twice, and I didn’t hear Craig use it as an argument for God’s existence, nor do I think he committed a god-of-gaps fallacy.
Craig is giving an example of how religion might help shed light on science. This isn’t the same thing as claiming to have an argument for God’s existence.
god-of-the-gaps
This is something I hear atheists say all the time. I think just about every argument for theism is accused of this fallacy by some atheist or other. Yet, I haven’t heard a good account of what this means, or how one knows whether an argument is guilty of the fallacy.
Usually, it’s claimed that an argument commits the fallacy, by appealing to ignorance. “We don’t know something, therefore God did it.” Sure, that would be a fallacy, but “we don’t know something” isn’t a premise of any of the major arguments for the existence of God, nor was it a premise in Craig’s argument. Briang
It’s the tragedy of the pool of public, outspoken atheists. The most well spoken ones don’t have very good arguments, and the ones with the best arguments can’t express their arguments very well with the succinctness and clarity that this kind of forum requires. Justfinethanks
Briang,
You’re correct on both points. So, I corrected my phrasing to note that Craig didn’t actually assert any argument from quantum measurement. Also, I would be quite happy to explain why I still refer to most theistic arguments as ‘God of the gaps’ arguments or ‘arguments from ignorance.’ This is one of the scholarly papers I would like to write, but perhaps I can prepare a precis of the paper earlier than that and post it to this site. lukeprog
The Bloop is actually located where Lovecraft said the lost city of R’lyeh lies, so maybe it was Cthulhu…? Scott
This is yet another example of someone trying to put a square peg in a round-shaped hole. If the peg doesn’t fit, try a new one. Stop trying to cut the damn hole!
The best solution to the measurement problem is the one already embraced by a majority of leading cosmologists and other quantum field theorists. Charles
If Craig is right about his point 3, then God immediately actualizes ANY quantum phenomenon. As quantum physicists well know, observation destroys quantum interference. Thus, quantum interference will never be observed.
If Craig is right about his point 2, then science can falsify some of the claims of religion.
Therefore, if Craig is right about points 2 and 3, then science can falsify the God hypothesis by observing quantum interference. Since quantum interference has been observed many times, I conclude that the God hypothesis has been falsified. Robert Oerter
Luke,
I’d very much like to read your thoughts on the subject of god-of-the-gaps arguments. Perhaps a post on the topic will help both of us clarify our thoughts on the subject. I’m not even sure if people are using the phrase in the same way. I’ve even seen cases where the phrase is used in a way to describe what might be a legitimate argument, instead of a fallacy. Briang
:-) Hermes
Where does he outline how he expects to bring in religion to solve this?
He binds “a measuring apparatus” to “consciousness” and then “some physicists say consciousness” to specifically “human consciousness”, thus by his own word wrangling he makes for himself a hole that his deity can now pop out of to solve a problem, yet he doesn’t say how theists (who supposedly have some special ability or insight that is claimed to be ‘transcendent’ as opposed to self-delusional or over-reaching) will be capable of asking this deity what the answer actually is.
Frighteningly enough, he then goes on and talks about using religion to ‘adjudicate’ (aka “judge”) between scientific ideas as a kind of tie breaker instead of the more honest tentativeness when selecting one or the other as more likely, or the equally common admission that we don’t know and that it’s OK not to have that certainty when that’s the best we can do at the moment and remain honest.
Does anyone doubt that Craig is aiming to have scientists answer to religious review boards? That didn’t work well when they answered to political review boards, so why think that the religious variety would be somehow superior? Hermes
If you do not understand the god-of-the-gaps argument, how were you able to come to the conclusion that Craig did not commit one?
—
This reminds me of Craig’s chapter in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, in which he reviews the arguments for theism, and finds every one of them convincing. It really weakens his credibility. Reginald Selkirk
WWBDD?
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4177 Jfatz
Jfatz,
Yeah, that’s an excellent episode from Brian Dunning. lukeprog
He’s pretty great in most of his episodes, but indeed that one had a lot of research and a more interesting format, since it had a whole lot of audio files.
I’ve found him to always be very solid in going through the approaches we SHOULD be doing, and giving every claim full context, and the full extent our conclusions should reach. Jfatz
can someone tell me who the moderator of this panel is? matt
lukeprog said:
“Unsurprisingly, this would be yet another God of the gaps argument.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk OrdinaryClay
Did anyone notice the exchange at around 89:30?
Craig always seems less confident when he is pressed on one point. MauricXe
MauricXe,
Interesting. Craig has no idea what to say there. Perhaps he has addressed it since. lukeprog
Is anyone that demands overwhelming evidence intelligent enough to even consider that if there is a God and there ISNT overwhelming evidence than thats exactly how God wanted? Has that novel notion even crossed your mind?
Wouldnt this be a great way of weeding out those who dont want God as ruler—those who have an excuse to reject him. Think people—if God was in your house you would damm well obey him. But that would be because you FEAR him. God doesnt want that.
God leaves just enough evidence for those who desire him to search for him and just enough doubt for those who dont to just go on their way. This way there is no coercion–you freely choose God.
Those people dont search for clues like this is some mystery—they are forced to go to God Himself and ask…”is this real..Is Christ really the one who saves me? Because if He is I will follow Him”
Atheists just seen to lust for argument as if it were a sport. How do I slam dunk my fellow humans? Craig knows those who are for christ will melt as his words. God knows who are his. What Craig is doing is showing the atheists arguments are psychological bias against a creator. Arguments dont convert–he is just dispelling nonsense. God converts when you pray to him about Christ.
This child like response to the Creator WILL cause God to put the truth as a fact in your mind. That is how God converts–not through clues. He is personal. Once He puts the truth in your mind it cannot be unbelieved..its more a fact than your own name. Its not based soley on a collection of evidence. Think about it–if it was—then all it would take is one solid objection, on your part, to collapse your belief. Instead..God communicates to you Himself and confirms what you have heard.(not audibly, but he burns the truth in your mind)
So why dont people do this? They are arrogant..they would never bow down like a child. They dont want to be ridiculed by friends, they dont want authority over them–there are a host of reasons. But know this: those who are God’s–will find him and those who are not wont. This is the sure fire way the most intelligent thinker in existence came up to find his children—to suggest you have a better way is precicely the nature of an unbeliever–and the very cause for unbelief–you are better than Almighty God. Tonight….consider your not. John
“Wouldnt this be a great way of weeding out those who dont want God as ruler—those who have an excuse to reject him. Think people—if God was in your house you would damm well obey him. But that would be because you FEAR him. God doesnt want that.”
Wrong. You should read the Old Testament. The Jews witnessed God’s power first hand and they still turned away from him….on more than one occasion. MauricXe