Stephen Barr PhD returns to the Pat Flynn show to talk about the intersection of science (particularly physics) and classical theism.
In this episode:
- Why is there a universe at all? Can science answer this question, or do we need religion?
- Does God offer explanatory power? Can God help us make sense of things that we can’t otherwise? What about flying spaghetti monsters? Because why not.
- How “anthropic coincidences” point strongly to a cosmic designer.
- Is everything *just* physics? Or is there more to the world than what physics can tell us?
- And does atheism (specifically physicalism) reduce to absurdity?
- Are miracles problematic with the laws of nature?
A Particle Physicist Talks About God
OR, ==> CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE EPISODE
Ask a Physicist Giveaway!
I’m giving away copies of Dr. Barr’s book Modern Physics and Ancient Faith and The Believing Scientist.
To win, just 1) share this episode and 2) comment below with a topic or question you’d like to hear discussed the next time Dr. Barr joins the podcast.
Deadline: I’ll select the winners Friday, June 7th.
About Stephen Barr
Taken from Wikipedia: Stephen M Barr is an American author and professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Delaware and a member of its Bartol Research Institute. He is also President of the Society of Catholic Scientists. Barr does research in theoretical particle physics and cosmology. In 2011 he was elected Fellow of the American Physical Society, the citation reading “for original contributions to grand unified theories, CP violation, and baryogenesis.” His notable work includes co-discovering the much studied Flipped SU(5) scheme of unification, identifying the Barr-Zee diagram as an important source of electric dipole moment for basic particles such as the electron and neutron in many theories, and proposing the so-called Nelson-Barr mechanism as a solution to the Strong CP problem. He is the author of the article on Grand Unified Theories for the Encyclopedia of Physics.
He obtained his Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University in 1978. Princeton awarded him the Charlotte Elizabeth Proctor Fellowship “for distinguished research.” He went on to do research at the University of Pennsylvania as a post-doctoral fellow (1978–80), the University of Washington as a Research Assistant Professor (1980–85), and Brookhaven National Laboratory as an Associate Scientist (1985–87), before joining the faculty of the University of Delaware in 1987. He was elected Director of the Bartol Research Institute of the University of Delaware in 2011.
Barr writes and lectures frequently on the relation of science and religion. Since 2000 he has served on the Editorial Advisory Board (now the Advisory Council) of the ecumenical religious intellectual journal First Things, in which many of his articles and book reviews have appeared since 1995.[1] His writing has also appeared in Commonweal, National Review, Modern Age, The Public Interest, America, The Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard, and other publications. In 2002 he gave the Erasmus Lecture, sponsored by the Institute on Religion and Public Life. In 2007 he was awarded the Benemerenti Medal by Pope Benedict XVI. In 2010 he was elected a member of the Academy of Catholic Theology.
He is married to Kathleen Whitney Barr. They have five children.
The Society of Catholic Scientists
Be sure to check out the Society of Catholic Scientists for more talks and presentations on topics relating to religion and science.
https://www.catholicscientists.org/
Here’s two great talks to start with, each from previous guests of this podcast.
Related Episodes
Are Science and Religion At Odds? Let’s Ask a Theoretical Physicist.
The “Who” of God, Cosmic Fine Tuning, Exorcisms (and More!) with Fr. Robert J. Spitzer
…
The Pat Flynn Show
If you enjoyed this episode, it would mean the world to me if you could subscribe to, and leave a review for, The Pat Flynn show on iTunes HERE or Stitcher HERE.
Reading your reviews and hearing your feedback is what keeps me fired up to make The Pat Flynn Show happen. Thank you!
With all due respect to you and Dr. Barr, I don’t know how any scientist can rationally explain a miracle such as raising the dead or walking on water. It just defies common sense to think that science can explain two such miracles, let alone the many others documented in religious texts. Did they happen? I don’t have the answer to that, but I can’t buy a scientist explaining them through the scientific method without relying on faith and ignoring science.
Hi Conor,
I don’t think that’s what Dr. Barr is saying. In fact, I think that is exactly what he isn’t saying. Dr. Barr would hold (at least so far as I understand him — he can certainly speak for himself if he decides to chime in) that there is no good scientific reason to be opposed to miracles, since science is the investigation of how one natural process or event leads to another natural process or event. It is etiological and committed to search of natural explanations to natural causes. But if a miracle is a supernatural event then science, by default, just wouldn’t have much to say about that. The most scientific investigation could do is rule out the plausibility of some such natural explanation, but it wouldn’t be able to provide anything further so far as supernatural explanations are concerned. So the question is really a philosophical one (perhaps even theological), and not scientific, and that, I believe, is what Dr. Barr is hoping to convey. Because clearly if some supernatural reality exists and is the reason for why any natural laws attain in the first place, the occasional (or even frequent) intervening would not be a problem, philosophically speaking. In short, if God exists, then miracles are at least possible. Now, whether or not you think they actually occur is a different question worth considering (I believe they have, and I think there is going reason for doing so. Do you?), but the point is when people object to miracles “from science” they really tend to be committing a mistake with regards to category.
Thanks for the comment!
Thanks for explaining things. It makes a bit more sense. I think I have a better understanding now about how science looks at miracles. I appreciate you clearing things up without being snarky.
I’m completely lost when it comes to physics but that’s going to change Pat because I’ve been applying your learning philosophy from How to Be Better at Almost Everything. There is a way to advance your knowledge quickly and while physics is a complex field of study, you can still get a solid foundational knowledge if you study it every day. Dr. Barr is the kind of scientist I enjoy listening to, one who takes complex concepts and explains them in an easy way. Listening to Dr. Barr doing his calculations in his head makes me think of that classic Trek episode where Dr. McCoy tells Spock (who is seemingly standing by idly): “Shouldn’t you be doing your time-space calculations?” to which Mr. Spock replies, “I am.” Intelligence is so impressive. Physical excellence is admirable but true intelligence can do so much more for society. I liked hearing about Dr. Barr’s experience as a Catholic. Never heard the term “cradle Catholic” so that’s a new one for me. LOL. Enjoyed Dr. Barr’s talk and can’t wait to read his book. I think it’s going to be a great read.
Now there’s an idea: Perhaps we could convince Dr. Barr to entertain a “physics of Star Trek” episode, or something along those lines.
Dr. Barr, it’s frustrating when people look to religion and say, “You can’t explain that” or “that’s a mystery.” I absolutely LOVE how you tied in scientists’ inability to explain everything (such as the origin of galaxies) and how they use the data they have, waiting for more. I think the same can be said for faith as people learn more about their faith and things that didn’t make sense before eventually harmonize IF you investigate further. As Pat said, people have unrealistic expectations whether it’s physics explaining things or religion explaining things. Great dialogue between Pat and Dr. Barr.
Your latest podcast nailed something I’ve found on both sides (atheists vs. Christians)—unbridled arrogance by some people in each camp. Their arguments (as Dr. Barr described) are facile and they make pig-headed comments with little or no foundation built up on rationality and critical thinking.
That conference sounds amazing. I’d love to hear different thoughts on evolution and human life. Did Neanderthals have human intellect and if so, how do they fit into Biblical history. I love interdisciplinary conferences and find you can learn so much more from them. I can’t attend the conference but I’m glad it will be available for viewing.
Thanks for the topic suggestions, Terry. I’ll see what I can do about bringing these up with Dr. Barr next time he’s on.
Hi Pat,
Dr. Barr is taking a lot of time (his YouTube videos above equal more than an hour) to attempt his case. And Mortimer Adler needed an entire book and still did nothing to confirm the God of Christianity, only monotheism. I think everyone would agree monotheism exists. My question: If God exists, why all the ado to prove it? Proving actual entities takes seconds. Kansas? No problem. It’s there. Really. Your book? Ask your publisher. It’s real and earning money. Both are super simple to prove. God? Well, have a seat, this will take a while. In fact, since humans were able to conceptualize gods, not a single person has ever proven she exists. It’s ironic the respirator keeping religion alive is fueled by several of the logical fallacies in your book. (By the way, you violated #6 calling Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins dunderheads. I get it, smart people are frustrating, then we get defensive, then, well, dunderhead.) It’s sad how many people die because of religion given the only reason humans invented it was to quell our fear of death. Oh the irony. Another question: If we burned all the science books and bibles, in 1,000 years, which do you think would return as it was before?
Hi Doug,
Were you planning on making arguments, or just assertions? Aside, what does the length, or time it takes to develop an argument, have anything to do with the soundness of that argument? I’m not seeing the connection there.
But still, let’s take this point by point.
As for Kansas and my book: I think you’re making a category mistake. These are physical objects, locatable in time and space. God is not a physical object, and so we shouldn’t expect to find God in the way we find Kansas or my book. (It should also be said that some things obviously exist, even if their existence isn’t easily demonstrated. For example, the existence of other minds. But still, it’s not like you’ve “proven” the existence of Kansas by pointing to a map. Because why should I take the map as reliable, or even my senses, for that matter?)
Next: You say that since humans have been able to conceptualize the divine, not a single person has ever been able to prove God’s exist. But this just begs the question. Many arguments have been offered over time that do, in fact, claim to prove God’s existence — arguments I believe are eminently successful. So it won’t do merely to assert this has never been done. Specifically, you’ll have to show what is wrong with the arguments, and why. Oh, and what about this — which I found a little ironic — because just a few sentences before, you said that Mortimer Adler succeeded in establishing monotheism, while lamenting that it took him an entire book to do so. So I’m wondering, which one is it? Your assertions seem… inconsistent.
As for the remarks about Sam and Richard, that is only a fallacy if I’m attempting to dismiss their arguments by name calling, but I’ve specifically and respectfully addressed their arguments (mostly lack thereof) many times, and Dr. Barr is giving his reasons why he believes they’re wrong, as well. You can certainly charge me with being impolite if you wish (and perhaps I was), but I don’t think you could properly accuse me of ad hominem.
I might as well address your last two points, while we’re at it. People “inventing religion”, again, begs the question. It just assumes religion is false and then tries to explain *why* it is false, without first showing *that* it is false. But perhaps religion is true. I think, in fact, there are many good reasons to believe that at least one religion is true, and I’ve spent a great deal of time on this podcast arguing that case. So your charge is simply meaningless — and really, a Freudian fallacy — unless you can provide better argument for it.
Finally, as for the books. I suppose my snarky reply (if you’ll indulge me) would be that God could just as well bestow another revelation should that ever happen. But really, what does this question even mean? Science is about gathering data and reasoning inductively to a general theory, then deductively down to the testing of hypotheses. Revelation is something specifically revealed by God, to certain people, at a particular time. Honestly, Doug, I can’t detect if there’s supposed to be an argument in what you’ve said, or if this is just some sort of Ricky Gervais cliche. It certainly doesn’t seem like an argument; especially not one against the existence of God, or validity of some religion, if that’s what you’re getting at.
Either way, I appreciate the comments, Doug. Perhaps you’ll win one of Dr. Barr’s books.
Not making an argument, just commenting like your site invites me to. Your book includes advice on debating, and your slam dunk on an average head scratcher like me is “God isn’t locatable.” Well, unicorns aren’t either. And yes, it would take longer to prove unicorns exists because, well, yeah, take your time. Not locatable, now that’s convenient. Sorry officer, my license isn’t “locatable.” See my point now? When someone wants to prove a nonentity, just say it’s not locatable. Puleeeze. If that’s your argument, at least accept we’re not all fourth graders and insult our intelligence. Oh, and remember, the good book says God made man in his image. We’re physical, right?
Next, you say many have made arguments that claim God exists (some argue Bigfoot exists, too) and you believe those arguments to be imminently successful. So I should just blindly accept your acceptance? And you add it won’t do for me to merely assert this has never been done. Dude, at least read what I wrote. I’m not asserting people haven’t tried to prove god’s existence; that happens all day every day. I wrote that no one has ever – in the history of humans – proven her existence. It’s true, zero success. Tell me one name. Crickets.
As for calling an adversary a dunderhead, well, I don’t even know what a dunderhead is (that probably makes me a dunderhead) but I’d be inclined to deduct points for its use. Instead, in lieu of a well-reasoned argument (not locatable doesn’t count), dunderhead might do, in fourth grade.
On religion, let’s go with your assertion that humans didn’t invent it, but rather was bestowed upon us by your God. So please explain why we have so many religions, and then for extra credit, tell me which one is right. Take your time, I’ll be here. God is toying with us isn’t she? The rascal.
And finally, the books. No argument, no trick. You don’t have to detect anything. It’s a simple question, which do think would reappear in the same form in 1,000 years. Now, be authentic, honest and real and answer. Frustrating isn’t it?
Pat, I wished you were right, that there was a god, that he cared for us while we spent time on earth and that he’d grant us eternal life after our time here. That’d be great. I get it, life is hard. And accepting an eternity in dirt feeding worms isn’t appealing, but we have to get over ourselves. Just because we can conceive a supernatural being that does all those things doesn’t make it true. That’s the hard truth and I’m proud to be able to make it through my days without delusions. And trying to convince others of this nonsense only builds walls and differences between us, and all the while, the killing continues.
Hi again Doug,
OK, this is good. Your response is such a paradigmatic example of ignorance and glib, condescending arrogance that I think we may be able to turn this into something productive yet, if only to highlight the exact point Dr. Barr was talking about when mentioning just how facile the New Atheists are, and those they inspire.
Again, let’s take this point by point.
The reason your first argument fails is because it’s disanalogous. God isn’t in space and time because God is the reason for space and time, whereas unicorns (or Bigfoot, etc), if they existed, would, in fact, be the type of thing we could expect to find through empirical means. And so it’d be a reasonable expectation to find some evidence of unicorns by searching around wherever unicorns are supposedly located–the galapagos islands, perhaps? You tell me. And should we not find any evidence of unicorns in such places, this would then count as evidence of absence. But that is exactly what God isn’t, and so your analogy breaks down.
The reason we say God isn’t in space and time isn’t to present a convenient out for theists when arguing for God’s existence, but because all the arguments for God ineluctably lead us to the conclusion of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and transcendent being. And so, entirely apart from the metaphysical demonstrations that produce such a particular conception of God (arguments you’re quick to dismiss, but refuse to address; arguments you probably don’t even know exist), then we can additionally ask, if such a being exists, what other evidence is there that we can detect through the empirical sciences? And here I’d say we have a ton, including the examples Dr. Barr gave of the exquisite order and fine-tuning of the physical universe for intelligent life, the symmetry and intelligibility in particle physics, etc. Or even just the beginning of space-time reality itself from no prior material cause. That seems like pretty good evidence to me.
Your confusion would be similar to that of somebody looking at the work of Shakespeare and saying, “I don’t see Shakespeare anywhere in this play! Why do all these people keep believing in Shakespeare! There is no evidence for Shakespeare!” And no matter how many times people suggest that you might be making a very crude mistake in how you’re thinking about Shakespeare — and no matter how many arguments they give from the existence of the entire play itself pointing to a playwright — you keep on shouting and denying the arguments presented, because you continually want to conceive of Shakespeare as something he isn’t: a character in his own play. So it’s not that there isn’t any evidence or arguments for God; it’s only that there are no evidence or arguments you’re willing to consider because you obstinately refuse to think of God in the proper category.
As for why we have so many religions, let it be known that questions aren’t arguments. We can (and I would argue do) have very good reasons to believe at least one religion is true (arguments for monotheism + divinity of Christ = Christianity; I’ve presented each many times on my podcast, blog, articles, etc, and so I’m not going to trot them out again here), and so are perfectly rational to accept that conclusion even if many questions remain. And many questions obviously do remain, especially pertaining to God and why things typically go the way they do. That, of course, is why we have theology. But if you wanted to make an argument, rather than ask questions, you’d have to show there’s somehow a contradiction between God’s existence and a plurality of religions. And I don’t see how you’re ever going to make that case. And between my not being your personal theology teacher, and the suspicion that you might not be entirely sincere in asking this question in the first place, I’m not sure offering responses to that question would be worth the time. But if you do happen to be sincere, I will gladly point you in the direction of various books and articles that address the topic of religious pluralism vs religious particularism, etc.
You continue to bring up the silly question of what I think would reappear in the same 1,000 years if all religious books and science texts were burned. Well, if we’re arguing for the existence of God, then both. Philosophical arguments for God’s existence work deductively from metaphysical principles that science presupposes (such as the principle of sufficient reason), and so if the premises are sound, and the logic valid, they give us a definitive knowledge that is stronger that what even science can yield. These arguments rely on no particular religious text, which is why so many different thinkers have converged on the same, or at least very similar, conclusions about God, from different cultures and traditions over time: from Aristotle to Aquinas, Leibniz to Lonergan (you said you wanted names; I can give more.) But even more, you’re still, at best, begging the question. You just assume that God wouldn’t, or could, drop another revelation if need be. At worst you’re committing an extremely crude fallacy: Because science is repeatable, therefore God doesn’t exist? How in anyway would that follow? This is why–and I mean this in all sincerity, Doug, as a brother and friend–it would be of great benefit to stop watching so much Richard Gervais or Bill Maher or whoever, and spend some time with a basic, logic textbook.
Your last paragraph, romantic as you hoped it would read (though I’ve heard that dirt and worms comment before; that is, on pretty much every New Atheist youtube retort ever), isn’t even worth addressing, at least not until you provide some substantial argument for why atheism is correct, which you haven’t even come close to establishing.
But let me offer this, only because I don’t have the time to go back and forth in the combox all day, pleasant as this has been. Why not come on my podcast and have a formal debate? If your position is as strong as you believe, and mine so weak, then I’d love to give you the opportunity to demonstrate this in front of my audience. I promise to find an impartial moderator and to keep the exchange extremely civil (I’m sure neither of us would want anything less, despite the snarky tone which has continually snuck into both of our responses, which is unfortunate) and afterward we can eve have a round of cigars, if only virtually.
What do you think?
Otherwise we’ll have to leave it at this. While I’m glad to hold conversations with sincere seekers and skeptics, you entered into this thread with a particularly uncharitable and snide attitude, and rather than addressing the actual arguments of Dr. Barr, or even trying to understand them, dismissed the conversation out of hand because he (or I) made what can only be described as a perfectly obvious observation with how intellectually shallow New Atheists are in their critiques of religion. I’m sorry if that upset you (and I’ll do my best to avoid calling people dunderheads in the future, even if they are one), but I also can’t help but see how everything you’ve written isn’t a perfect representation for the very point we intended to make. That said, the invite is open to come on my podcast and finish the conversation there.
I would be happy to have you, Doug!
The next time Dr. Barr joins the podcast, I’d like to hear what he would change from his 2003 book Modern Physics and Ancient Faith.
What new discoveries or data would he incorporate into some of the chapters? Is there anything he would delete/modify and so forth.
Keep up the great work, Pat Flynn! Love the episode.