Re: CSA review

Mike Hardie (hardie@globalserve.net)
Thu, 05 Nov 1998 09:57:25 -0800

>They also argue that the present model of the
>atom should be suspect at least to Christians
>because it is a random model, it is based on an
>assumption of an inherently unreal mathematical
>point, it is logically incoherent, and it was conceived
>as part of philosophy intended to eliminate religion
>from the globe. In short, they argue that there is
>little connection between the present model of the
>atom and a search for truth, and there probably
>is a willful anti-Christian motive behind it.

Why should any of this, regardless of interpretation, be seen as a problem
for religion -- much less a calculated attack on it? I don't see any sense
in which, say, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle comments on the truth of
any religious claim.

I personally am given to interpret quantum indeterminacies as epistemic,
rather than metaphysical ones -- that is, they are problems of measurement
and knowledge, not necessarily proof that reality is not causally
determinate at the quantum level. But even if one did believe that quantum
events were strictly undetermined in the metaphysical sense, how would this
impact one's religious sensibilities?

I'll note for the record that I'm not religious in any significant sense
myself. I just find the argument above a bit perplexing. The only real
point advanced above is that the indeterminacy of quantum events is
"logically incoherent", but I'm not sure how this follows (i.e., what is
the logical self-contradiction implicit in proposing indeterminacy?
Defenders of metaphysical libertarianism, aka "free will", propose it all
the time). Moreover, if this indeterminacy were logically flawed, then
it's hard to see how it is a problem for religion any more than it's a
problem for *any* worldview. Or maybe "logic" is being used above in some
special or less-strict sense?

Looking forward to your comments.

Regards,

Mike Hardie
<hardie@globalserve.net>
http://www.globalserve.net/~hardie/dv/