Interplanner
Well-known member
I hope that some of you have digested what Lewis asked when he told his scientist pal that all the scientists were looking at was Nature, and to say that that is the only thing out there is artificial and misleading when one tries to form a true view of the world. This is in "Religion and Nature" in GOD IN THE DOCK. At issue is whether the universe is a closed system or is open to being reorder or interacted with by its Creator.
He goes on to the repeating-coin illustration:
"Supposed you put a nickel in your desk's top drawer one day. The next day you do the same thing--another nickel. You plan to do this daily. Do the laws of arithmetic make it certain you'll find a 3rd one the day after?"
"Of course," said the friend, "provided no one's been tampering with your drawer."
"Ah but that's the whole point" said I. "The laws of arithmetic can tell you what you'll find, with absolute certainty, provided that there's no interference. If a thief has been at the drawer, of course you'll get a different result. But the thief won't have broken the laws of arithmetic--only the laws of the land. Now, aren't the laws of Nature much in the same boat? Don't they all tell you what will happen provided there's no interference?"
"How do you mean?"
"Well the laws will tell you how a billiard ball will travel on a smooth surface...but not if someone comes along and bumps it."
"No of course not. A scientist can't allow for monkey-tricks like that."
"Quite. And in the same way, if there was anything outside Nature, and if it interfered, the events which the scientist expected wouldn't follow. That would be what we call a miracle... It's not the expert at mathematics who can tell you how likely someone is to interfere with the coins in your drawer; a detective would be more use. The physicist can't tell you if I'm likely to bump your moving billiard ball; a psychologist would be better..."
If the presupposition of naturalistic uniformitarianism is wrong, we have to ask other people. Is this why scientists are so guardedly against any other kind of information that does not conform to a closed system?
He goes on to the repeating-coin illustration:
"Supposed you put a nickel in your desk's top drawer one day. The next day you do the same thing--another nickel. You plan to do this daily. Do the laws of arithmetic make it certain you'll find a 3rd one the day after?"
"Of course," said the friend, "provided no one's been tampering with your drawer."
"Ah but that's the whole point" said I. "The laws of arithmetic can tell you what you'll find, with absolute certainty, provided that there's no interference. If a thief has been at the drawer, of course you'll get a different result. But the thief won't have broken the laws of arithmetic--only the laws of the land. Now, aren't the laws of Nature much in the same boat? Don't they all tell you what will happen provided there's no interference?"
"How do you mean?"
"Well the laws will tell you how a billiard ball will travel on a smooth surface...but not if someone comes along and bumps it."
"No of course not. A scientist can't allow for monkey-tricks like that."
"Quite. And in the same way, if there was anything outside Nature, and if it interfered, the events which the scientist expected wouldn't follow. That would be what we call a miracle... It's not the expert at mathematics who can tell you how likely someone is to interfere with the coins in your drawer; a detective would be more use. The physicist can't tell you if I'm likely to bump your moving billiard ball; a psychologist would be better..."
If the presupposition of naturalistic uniformitarianism is wrong, we have to ask other people. Is this why scientists are so guardedly against any other kind of information that does not conform to a closed system?