There have been quite the development of criticisms of Richard Dawkins in the last few weeks in light of his denial to debate Christian philosopher William Lane Craig. I’ve been a participant in the blogosphere and in the forums and I’m familiar with what others are saying about everything. The basic principle that’s being asserted is that Dawkins will have a monologue concerning his arguments against God but he will not dialogue about it. I mean really, why debate the existence of fictitious entities and fairies?
read more »
October 11th, 2011
No Dawkins? Don’t be Daft!
October 7th, 2011
Neutrinos Faster Than Light or Extra Dimensions?
Source: CERN Press
By now we’ve all heard of the news coming out of CERN and OPERA on 23 September that the Italian accelerator, OPERA, measured neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light. I didn’t comment on the finding right away because I wanted to do some research on the claims and on what exactly happened. So here are my two-cents.
So, what exactly is a neutrino? A neutrino is a fundamental particle and crucial for the standard model of particle physics. The neutrino comes tin three types: [associated with] the electron, muon, and tauon, which are fermions and part of leptons. The have no electric charge and interact only via the weak nuclear force (see the Oxford Companion to Cosmology for more on this). These particle are incredibly difficult to detect and pass through our bodies all the time (this is a nice little Italian cartoon that has an excellent depiction of neutrinos).
So, what happened? CERN sent the neutrinos 730lm to the Italian accelerator OPERA. The journey only took 2.43 milliseconds and the scientists timed it to within 10 nanoseconds. (A millisecond is a thousandth of a second, 1/1,000s and a nanosecond is a billionth of a second, 1/1,000,000,000s). The neutrinos arrived 60 nanoseconds earlier than they would have if they were traveling at the speed of light (c = 299,792,458 m/s). There are three options of what could have happened.
- Option One. The experiment was in error and the calculations are simply incorrect.
- Option Two. The speed of light is not the cosmic speed limit and there must be slight adjustments for relativity theory.
- Option Three. The neutrinos took a shortcut through extra dimensions.
Option One: Experimental Error. The OPERA team spent three years trying to calculate and find every error they could possibly find. The neutrinos are produced by colliding protons into a graphite target to produce pions and travel a 1km tunnel and decay to produce neutrinos. Electronic delays in the timing system that records when protons arrive at the graphite target introduce uncertainty. However, this margin of error is 5 nanoseconds. Where the pions decay is also unknown, which produces an error of 0.2 ns. Measuring the distance is also difficult because the OPERA lab in Gran Sasso is inside of a mountain, which is undetectable to GPS. However, the distance can still be calculated to within 20 cm. The error is 0.67 ns. With the other errors taken into consideration, the total error bar is 7.4 ns. Remember, if experimental error is going to be the prevalent option the errors have to account for 60 nanoseconds.
Option Two: Adjusting Relativity. If it really is the case that the neutrinos did travel faster than the speed of light then Einstein isn’t completely thrown to the curb. There must be a theory that will account for this that will be closer to the truth. This has historical precedence. Newtonian physics were thought to explain the universe until Einstein came around with the concept of relativity. Newton wasn’t necessarily wrong, Einstein just provided a more accurate theory. If neutrinos can travel faster than c then we need another Einsteinian discovery. Not that big of deal.
Option Three: Extra Dimensions. It may be the case that the neutrinos, when travel with an incredible amount of energy, travel through the smaller curled up dimensions. Consider the neutrinos traveling into the fourth dimension, this would actually make the distance much shorter. Hopefully this illustration will help. Take a piece of paper and draw a straight line across the paper. Label one end of the line A and the other B. This line is one-dimensional. Take the paper and fold it so it creates an upward arch. Now, if you were to travel from A to B by going through the paper instead of curving around the outside of the paper then the distance would be shorter. This may, perhaps, be what happened to the neutrinos. (For more information on the discovery see New Scientist No. 2832, October 1-7 2011).
I tend to lean more towards option three, that the neutrinos passed through the smaller extra dimensions. This would be an incredible development that would contribute to and, possibly, confirm a prediction of string theory. Part of this may be wishful thinking on my part but this may potentially be an incredible empirical find that would confirm the mathematics. Now, what about further philosophical or theological implications? I don’t think this has too much of an impact on philosophy or theology that hasn’t already been addressed concerning the philosophy of science or of scientific theology. For more on these implications see “The Relationship Between Science and Philosophy,” “Einstein, the Big Bang, and Natural Theology,” “Einstein on Free Will,” and “Einstein’s Impact on the Epistemic Method.”
June 21st, 2011
Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution? Not So Fast Huffington Post…
Recently, an article was published in the Religion section of the popular online news agency The Huffington Post. I don’t know much about the author, Jonathan Dudley, but according to him he has graduated from seminary and is currently studying to be a medical scientist. That’s excellent! However, I’m not too convinced that his article is all too accurate. In fact, it’s wrong.
I don’t want to push off the article all together because there are certainly many good points made. For instance,
In theory, if not always in practice, past Christian theologians valued science out of the belief that God created the world scientists study. Augustine castigated those who made the Bible teach bad science, John Calvin argued that Genesis reflects a commoner’s view of the physical world, and the Belgic confession likened scripture and nature to two books written by the same author.
These beliefs encouraged past Christians to accept the best science of their day, and these beliefs persisted even into the evangelical tradition. As Princeton Seminary’s Charles Hodge, widely considered the father of modern evangelical theology, put it in 1859: “Nature is as truly a revelation of God as the Bible; and we only interpret the Word of God by the Word of God when we interpret the Bible by science.”
My quarrel with Dudley’s article is that his logic seems to be a bit off. If by “requiring” acceptance of evolution for the Christian he means that it necessarily entails the acceptance of evolution then he has missed the gospel message. There’s a difference between having sound Christian theology and philosophy and what it means to have Christian faith. Here’s the logic.
Necessarily, Christian faith entails the acceptance of evolution.
This doesn’t make sense at all. He also equates this as orthodoxy! Here are a few examples of what having Christian faith necessarily entails.
Necessarily, Christian faith entails the belief in the existence of God.
Necessarily, Christian faith entails the belief that Jesus was fully human and fully God and died as a propitiation for your sin.
These are examples of the gospel message, what it means to be a Christian. Consider one’s theology as a web. In the center of the web is the gospel message. The next ring is orthodoxy, the acceptance of the inerrancy of Scripture, the second coming of Christ, the existence of a hell, etc. Then there are peripheral manners and doctrines such as how sign gifts function today, how ordinances and sacraments are to be observed, etc. One’s science, in this case, how one views evolution, is peripheral to being a Christian. I agree with Dudley, a Christian should have sound theology and philosophy, which will shape how one applies theory in approaching the scientific data. However, the scientific aspect of theology and philosophy is not the gospel message and it is not a manner of orthodoxy. Dudley then proceeds to list several examples of creationism inability to account for specific scientific data, which I am not going to comment on (my credentials are in philosophy and theology). However, I’d encourage him to be aware of one hand clapping.
I myself am not a creationist. I believe [this] universe is about 13.7 billion years old. I do advocate intelligent design, which is completely compatible with common descent evolution. My only objection is with Darwinian evolution. I appreciate what Dudley has attempted to do. He has attempted to present Christianity in the light of responsible intellectual existence. I hope he continues in doing so; however, he must do so by properly making the distinction between what requires Christian faith and applying sound theology and philosophy to science.