Product Description
The author of this book is an atheist and a scientist with a wide range of practical and research experience and in this book he addresses a question which puzzles many atheists. Why would an intelligent and well-qualified scientist hold a religious belief and then offer us arguments in support of that faith which fall far short of the scientific principles which he would uphold in a scientific context?
To narrow his search for an explanation Noble limits his critical analysis to the arguments advanced by four authors with good scientific qualifications (Francis Collins, Owen Gingerich, Paul Davies and Alister McGrath) all of whom also profess some form of religious belief.
Noble first shows that the arguments these authors offer us in defence of their faith contradict themselves, contradict each other and do indeed fall far short of the scientific principles and objectivity in many ways. He presents additional evidence and logical arguments which seem to have been overlooked by the four authors. To develop his theme further, he tackles several very difficult scientific and philosophical issues - Ockham's Razor, (which he calls the Law of Common Sense), the nature of reality and existence, quantum mechanics, and probability. He also presents a functional description of the mechanism of human consciousness which torpedoes mystic (non) explanations of consciousness.
Returning to his main theme, the explanation he offers for the behaviour of believing scientists, follows directly from his model of human consciousness. He suggests that we all, from time to time and for very practical reasons, make use of mental models which we know are invalid outwith a limited context. For example, most us use a flat-Earth model when we make our way about city streets. The error involved is insignificant and the computations required are much easier than would be the case if we used a more correct globular-Earth model.
What these believing scientists have done, he argues, is to reverse the relative position of scientific principles (on one hand) and a view based on the emotional satisfaction (on the other). For them scientific methodology is subordinate and limited to the laboratory context. For them the mental model based on emotional satisfaction takes precedence.
Noble keeps the discussion to the dispassionate level of logic and scientific evidence. Although written in an approachable manner, and with the general public as its target readership, this book is not an easy read.
About the Author
Hugh Noble is an atheist and scientist with research experience in artificial experience and biophysics. He is now retired.