mind and brain

Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tundraboy/303703384/

What is our brain? What is consciousness?

These are tricky questions. Naturalists, who believe the physical world is all there is, don't have a simple answer. For we can distinguish between the physical brain processes which accompany an emotion like sadness (which neuroscience can measure), and the feeling of sadness (which science cannot measure, but which we experience). The experience is real, yet it isn't in any obvious sense physical.

The usual answer is that the mind and consciousness are emergent properties of the brain. They cannot exist without the brain (it is assumed) and they are thus anchored in the physical.

Neuroscience, and science generally, assumes naturalism. Even scientists who are non-naturalists (e.g. theists) work from the basis of methodological naturalism - a supernatural explanation is generally not acceptable as science. And methodological naturalism has reigned supreme in science, including neuroscience, for more than a century.

But some challenges to the naturalist view of neuroscience are appearing. One is the number of near death experiences (which I reported on in near death experiences - could they be real?) which seem to be unexplainable on naturalistic assumptions.

Another is the research of neuroscientist Dr Jeffrey Schwartz, whose study of brain dysfunction has yielded what he sees as unexpected results. Dr Schwartz has long experience in treating patients with obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) using behavioural therapy, where the patient's behaviour is modified by their own will and discipline. In essence, when they feel compelled to do a particular action which is unnecessary, they, in a sense, "talk themselves out of it". This approach is recognised as a very useful means of dealing with OCD.

The unexpected result was that this therapy actually brought about a measurable change in the physical structure of their brains, in their neural pathways. It was a scientific case of "mind over matter" - non-physical thinking seems to have changed physical processes and structure.

All this is obviously welcome. However, Dr Schwartz has gone on to argue that these experiments demonstrate that the naturalist or materialist explanation of the brain/mind is clearly wrong, and a non-materialist explanation is required. This seems to entail some form of dualism. This of course is not acceptable to materialists. And so his views have copped criticism, e.g. from atheists like Austin Cline and PZ Myers.

I don't take too much notice of Myers on this - the vehemence of his critique is surely much more based on his preconceived metaphysics than on objective science. But despite searching, I haven't found any objective assessment of Schwartz's dualistic ideas, so while his therapy is well regarded, it is hard to know how his views on the non-material brain are being accepted.

I have also had little success finding out his religious (or otherwise) beliefs. He has signed the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, and his conclusions are well regarded by science journalist and author Denyse O'Leary, who is a christian. On the other hand, the only religious comment I have found from him is his comparison of his therapy with the Buddhist practice of mindfulness.

But regardless, metaphysics has again impinged on science, and the ensuing battle is likely to be more about the metaphysics than the science.

Read about Schwartz's book The Mind and the Brain, and a brief summary of his views from his website.

the genesis enigma - and the andrew parker enigma

This story is a shocker, no matter how you look at it.

It has all the ingredients to get people going. One of the UK's top young research scientists, an evolutionary biologist from Oxford University, whose main area of research is in the evolution of sight and the eye. A well-received book on that subject, In the Blink of an Eye. A mild atheist. His name is Andrew Parker.

Then he comes out and blows everyone away by writing a book called "the Genesis Enigma: the Hidden Science of Creation". In the US the title appears to be "The Genesis Enigma: Why the Bible is scientifically accurate".

Of course the atheists are incensed. This interview in The Metro is hardly sympathetic, and the internet discussion boards are full of statements like: "It's sad that some people have this time bomb in their heads that, when presented with enough complexity, explodes and makes them think all sorts of craziness" and "It sounds as though Professor Parker found himself a pair of Bible goggles. Everything looks different when you look at the world through your Bible goggles." Angry disbelievers drew comparisons with Antony Flew, a recent high profile defection from atheism.

But hard-core creationist christians can't rejoice too much, because Parker is still a strong evolutionist, and said in the interview: "Creationism is totally unfounded. It is as dangerous as fundamentalism in other religions." And more moderate christians who believe in theistic evolution look a little askance because he seems to have no understanding of their carefully worked out rules for interpreting Genesis.

so what's the book all about?

I haven't read it, but it appears that Parker has started from orthodox evolutionary science (not something creationists do) and then found some interesting parallels in the Genesis account of creation, which he has interpreted rather liberally. But he concludes that:

"It appears that the author of the creation account had predicted precisely the true history of the earth and life. The Genesis Enigma will explain that no human could have constructed a creation story in this way, particularly in Biblical times."

So Parker, once "leaned toward being an atheist" but "that’s changed during the writing of this book" - "it’s the strongest evidence for the existence of God I’ve come across." But exactly what he believes isn't clear just yet - perhaps not even to him, as he seems to be still working out his conclusions.

Whatever you think of this conclusion, he is clearly a brave man who is driven by what he believes is the evidence. He won't be popular among his scientific colleagues.

The MailOnline has a sympathetic and constructively critical review of the book, which credits Parker's intelligence and credentials in evolutionary biology, but questions his finding such detailed evidence for evolution in Genesis.

I think we can learn a lot when established patterns are challenged. We can watch with interest, and perhaps a little trepidation, how this turns out.

the bible and modern science

I couldn't resist coming out of retirement for this.

The debate about religion vs science seems to be hotting up. In past centuries, many scientists were believers, and that is still true today. But those on the atheist side of science seem to be starting to press the point that science and religion don't mix, and that true scientists cannot hold religious beliefs because (they say) such beliefs are based on faith and not on reason. (Never mind that many believers offer reason-based explanations for their beliefs.)

An example of this is from fellow Aussie, Russell Blackford, in his blog Metaphysician and the Hellfire Club (great title!). In this post he claims that sacred writings like the Bible cannot be considered true in any sense because they don't contain accurate scientific information. He writes:

"if a god or angel or similar being has inspired the religion's poets and prophets, or dictated actual text for inclusion in its holy books, the god or angel (or whatever) could easily reveal such facts as the true age of the Earth, the fact that it revolves around the Sun, the fact that it is spherical and rotates on its axis, and the evolutionary origin of human beings."

This set my imagination running, as I envisaged Moses (about 1400BC and the traditional author of the first 5 books of the Bible) discussing science with his brother Aaron.

Moses: Hey Aaron, how do you spell "quark" in Hebrew?

Aaron: No idea. What do you want to know that for?

Moses: It's Yahweh again. Keeps telling all this strange stuff about strangeness and charm and spin, and quarks and gravitons and dark matter. I don't mind not understanding, but I need to know how to write this stuff down.

Aaron: Tell him we're just stone-age goat-herders living a subsistence existence, and you're the only one who can read and write. Ask Him for something simpler, like why does the sun rise every morning?

Moses goes away up Mt Sinai, and returns 3 days later.

Moses: He says the sun doesn't rise in the morning, its the earth moving.

Aaron: I've felt the earth move once or twice (snigger), but not usually in the morning!

Moses: Nothing like that bro', we live on a giant ball, and it goes round and round on its axis, and that makes the sun look like it's moving.

Aaron: What's a ball?

Moses: Dunno, bro', I asked him that and he started to talk about radii and something called a pie, and the number 3.1412, but then he said "forget it!" and muttered under his breath about next time I'll just say 3.

Aaron: Did he tell you anything else?

Moses: Two more things. One was that when he said we came from the dust of the ground he meant we had gradually evolved for billions of years.

Aaron: What's billions?

Moses: Dunno mate, but I think it's a number greater than two.

Aaron: What does evolved mean?

Moses: He says it actually took him more than 6 days to make all this. I told him I didn't really care how long he took, I wasn't in any hurry.

Aaron: What was the other thing you learnt?

Moses: He said that one day people would find it easier to believe all this came about by chance than believe in him. I said, no, I was willing to believe all the other crazy stuff about quarks and pie if He said so, but I couldn't come at that!

Aaron: What did he say then?

Moses: He said, let's start again. Just write this down: "In the beginning, God made the heavens and the earth" And I said, that's more like it, now you're talking my language! He just smiled and said, thanks.

faith & science @ christmas

I've referred to a number of discussions and books about the supposed "war" between faith and science. But here's an article in the UK Daily Mail about scientists who see no conflict.

The writer starts with the astronauts on the Apollo 8 mission, which orbited the moon but did not land, who on their public radio broadcast back from the 'far side of the moon' read portions of the creation story from the book of Genesis, concluding with the words "and God saw that it was good", then signed off with "And we close with good night, good luck, a Merry Christmas - and God bless all of you, all of you on the good Earth".

Oxford particle physicist turned theologian John Polkinghorne, Oxford mathematician John Lennox, biologist Pauline Rudd from University College Dublin, and Stuart Burgess, Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Bristol University, are all quoted on how they see faith and science as complementary.

It's all pretty brief, but worth a look.

the ice retreat continues

Climate change continues to present a challenge. The argument over its reality continues, but the converts continue to outnumber the sceptics. And the world economic situation gives the realists one more reason for caution.

But the alarming data continues to mount. Among the latest news is the retreat of the Arctic ice, with the mimimum summer area in 2007 the lowest ever recorded (see graph). While some say that we've been there before, researchers say this is not just a cyclic fluctuation. Rather, the loss of ice reduces the reflection of solar heat, increasing the heat retained, and hastening the rise in local sea temperatures, thus creating a vicious circle. The future may well be worse than the graph suggests.

Data taken from BBC report

Scientists are predicting that the arctic may be ice-free in summer in less than a decade, which will have enormous environmental consequences and will threaten many arctic species. As you'd expect, there are business interests that oppose doing very much about the problem; in fact some fear that human interference in the area can only increase as the ice reduces.

start of the universe, end of the world?

In trying to understand matter and energy, scientists have discovered four basic forces or interactions (gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear interactions). The "Standard Model" of particle physics describes how dozens of fundamental particles (e.g. different types of quarks, leptons and bosons) that make up the more well-known atomic particles like protons and neutrons, and the three interactions other than gravity, "work" together.

Gravity is the odd force out, and only one of the fundamental particles, the Higgs boson, has not yet been observed. It is believed that the Higgs boson holds the key to gravity, and why it is a much weaker force than the others.

Creating the conditions where a Higgs boson (and a few other hypothetical particles and miniature black holes) can be created requires accelerating protons (which are one type of hadron) to speeds approaching that of light, and then smashing them against each other to create, in a small space and for a short time, enormous temperatures and forces such as existed at the very beginning of the universe when the particles were first forming out of energy.

And so the European Nuclear Research Centre (CERN), supported by thousands of scientists and 20 countries, has spent billions of dollars building the "Large Hadron Collider" (LHC) underground in Switzerland - an enormous, 17 mile long particle accelerator that will produce the required high velocities. It is due to open soon.

And now, at the last minute, some scientists are challenging the operation of the LHC in the European Court of Human Rights. They claim the safety of the LHC is in doubt, because it may be able to produce miniature black holes which could then begin eating the earth from the inside due to their intense gravitational pull.

CERN has produced a safety report which concludes that there is "little theoretical chance of the collider producing mini black holes that would be capable of posing a danger to the earth". Doubtless they are correct and their critics wrong, but with the earth itself at stake, one would have thought "little chance" was still a little too much.

But we all trust scientists, don't we?

the very weird world of quantum physics

Quantum physics goes against a lot of what we "know" to be true, and has long fascinated me (in a very non-expert kind of way!).

Quantum physics deals with atomic and sub-atomic particles and radiation, and the relationship between them. The word "quantum" (= "a small discrete unit of energy or mass") is based on the fact that radiation, such as light, while generally regarded as a continuous wave, can be considered to be composed of discrete energy packets which behave like particles.

There are many curious aspects of quantum physics which seem very unusual, even impossible:

• In the world we experience every day, things are solid, and they are either in one place or another. But in the quantum world, things are composed of very small particles surrounded by relatively large spaces, and we cannot be sure where a particle may be - we can only say where it probably will be (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle).
• In our world, things are there whether we know about them or not. The tree really does crash down in the forest, whether anyone sees it, hears it or cares, or not. But in the quantum world, things aren't necessarily "there" until we observe them - and when we observe them we change them. And if we measure some aspects of a particle (say its position) we may be unable to measure other aspects (say its velocity) - it just can't be done.
• In the "normal" world, things happen because of detectable cause and effect. You push a barrow and it moves, don't push it and it stays still - and if you are too far away from it, you can't push it. But in the quantum world, action can happen "at a distance", with no discernible connecting forces. Particles which have once become "entangled" (they have each been created or affected by some process which leads to them being linked) remain linked even across great distances, so that what happens to one will affect what happens to the other, even if there is no physical connection between them. It's impossible, but it's been proved to occur.

The combination of these and other findings of quantum physics can lead to bizarre outcomes, where measuring a particle beam in one part of a laboratory changes the state of an entangled beam in another part of the laboratory, even though the only connection between the two beams occurred in the past and some distance away.

Einstein famously was suspicious of quantum physics because it seemed too peculiar, and because it was difficult to see how it could be integrated into his theory of relativity to create a "grand unified theory of everything". Yet it has been experimentally proven, and forms the basis of much modern physics.

However a view is coming into vogue that there may be an even more fundamental understanding of physics (just as quantum physics is more fundamental than the classical physics that we are all familiar with), that will one day be discovered to explain the quantum peculiarities in a simple and logical (and non-peculiar!) way. The key seems to be in using a different form of mathematics than we usually use.

I have read a few research scientists who say that inspiration and a general feeling of the "fitness" of things play a big part in their developing of ideas, which they then flesh out using the familiar route of scientific hypothesis, data and hypothesis-testing. I find it interesting that we somehow expect the world to be logical, ordered, mathematical and explicable, even if we believe it to have occurred by random chance.

Check out Quantum Physics and Entanglement in Wikipedia, or new theories and speculations in New Scientist and a science forum.

god and science

Atheism has become more militant in the last decade or so, particularly on the part of scientists who believe science, and not religion, has the answers. Richard Dawkins is probably the most famous scientist-atheist, and possibly the keenest mind, but there are many others.

But perhaps one surprising outcome of this surge in anti-theism has been a scientific reaction to the more extreme anti-religion rhetoric. Dawkins and others claim that religion has been responsible for some of the worst evils in history, and in the world today, and that belief in God is almost like a virulent virus that should be eliminated as efficiently as possible.

Of course this analysis is one-sided, and ignores all the well-documented evidence that much good is done in the world by believers, but neither is the argument without some basis. But now some scientists are contesting the view on other grounds.

An example is a recent (October) conference (if that is the correct word) in the US, Beyond Belief (Enlightenment 2), a follow-up to a similar conference last year. It brought together some of the top thinkers in the sciences and social sciences, and its aim was to discuss how to extend the exercise of reason in all aspects of life (and hence extend the gains of the eighteenth century enlightenment).

Enlightenment 1 was reportedly a bit of an "atheist love fest", but last month's discussion was more broad-minded. Included in the program were a number of speakers expert in the study of religion from an evolutionary viewpoint. If you ignore for the moment the question of whether God actually exists or not, you can discuss how religions arise in the evolution of societies, and what benefits, or not, they bring. And the conclusion of many is that religion brings many benefits to societies and individuals, and not only might it be unhelpful to try to eliminate it, but it may even be impossible.

Naturally, the more militant atheists present, including famous names like Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Peter Atkins, disagreed with many of these proposals.

Part of the argument concerned the place of reason. Some scientists believe reason should be the basis of everything; some believe science should be the basis of everything and discard even philosophy. But others argue that science will never be able to assume such an all-embracing role, and that many important aspects of life, including ethics and emotions, cannot be explained by rationalism alone.

Although I didn't see anything about the event in the normal press here in Australia, it has certainly made a big splash among people sympathetic to the ideas. The "war" between science and religion, no longer so much of a big deal among most believers, is gaining traction among non-believers. They believe reason is on their side, and they increasingly want to stamp out the superstition they believe religion to be. (To be fair, I think for many of the general populace, such events may serve the purpose of shoring up their shaky "faith" in non-theism more than setting them marching.)

As an interested layperson, I have a few concerns about all this:

• The arguments get so complex, and are based on such detailed research, that most of us will never be able to grasp them fully, and are largely excluded from the debate. Thus these scientists become the new "high priests", qualified and on a mission to help the rest of us poor non-scientists get our thinking "right". This is an especially worrying thought when you hear a scientific zealot like Peter Atkins. Alister McGrath and others have pointed out that many scientists supported and participated in some of the grossest excesses of recent Nazi and Stalinist regimes, and that their science does not necessarily provide them with the wisdom and basis to make ethical judgments - in fact, atheistic science is still grappling with the question of what ethics are. Of course, it may be that these questions may remain merely discussion points by erudite boffins closeted away from the public, but I think their views will inevitably affect all of us.
• The discussion of the evolutionary origins of religion does not address the issue of whether God actually exists. That question is generally assumed to have been answered in a resounding, and obvious, negative, when in fact it is still an open question. But the more we concentrate on the mechanics of the sociology of how religion may arise naturally, the easier it is to ignore the larger question of what is the truth, and even think that it is unimportant or already answered.
• There is one aspect of these scientists' view of theistic belief I find especially troubling - their oft-stated assertion that belief in God is firmly in the realm of "faith" whereas science deals with "facts", with the undemonstrated assumption that believers lack any reason behind their beliefs. For example, one commentator, Professor P Z Myers, wrote: "the majority of people on the planet are practicing really bad science, because they don't recognize that their very first premise, that a god exists, is false". Of course the two modes of thought have differences, but this dichotomy is too stark. There are many matters which scientists believe to be true which cannot be proven in the same way that gravity can be demonstrated - the origin of life is one example, because we cannot experiment on the past and demonstration can be little more than "feasibility studies". So science is not 100% reason. And theism is not 100% non-reason either. Such an assertion is contradicted by the number of eminent scientists (John Polkinghorne comes to mind) who are also theists, and by the fact that most of the philosophical arguments for the existence of God are based on observable facts, even if the "proof" from there is not scientific. I just wish the new scientists, from Dawkins down, would stop making such outrageous statements about faith, and accept that theists can be rational, albeit they believe them mistaken.

But I can't see these objections being heard, let alone adequately addressed. If theists are "irrational" by definition, why even engage with them?

So I believe we are in for some dark and dirty days. If the militant atheists are right, the superstition of religion may be better eliminated, or at least understood for what it is - although I fear for the sort of society they will bring in its place. But if, as I believe, there is a God, those of us who persist in believing are in for ridicule at best, and quite likely something worse. C S Lewis predicted it half a century ago. It will be unpleasant, but I suppose at least it won't be boring.

If you want to read more:

• the website for Beyond Belief;
• a review of Beyond Belief by New Scientist magazine, which takes a relatively positive view of religious belief;
• reviews by Prof P Z Myers (and part 2) and Prof L A Moran which are closer to hard-line atheism;
• an article by one of the speakers, David Sloane Wilson, in which he argues that Richard Dawkins has an unscientific view of religion, and Dawkins' brief reply.

we know more than we can tell

What does riding a bicycle tell us about science and knowledge? (Photo:Webshots)

We live in a world where science and technology rule. So much so that some people seem to think that the only kind of real knowledge is that revealed by science. "Show us the evidence" they say, "We only believe what can be demonstrated." It all sounds very reasonable. It is, in fact, an expression of a philosophy known as positivism: "the only way we can know something is through empirical evidence, that is, observable via our senses."

Michael Polanyi was a scientist and philosopher who lived through much of the twentieth century. He reacted against positivism, and came to the conclusion that "We know more than we can tell".

From his and others' insights have come the ideas of tacit knowledge and the relevance paradox. Tacit knowledge is the information we carry in our heads that cannot be easily explained through logical statements. How to ride a bicycle might be an example - it cannot be learnt from a textbook, but requires experience and practice.

The relevance paradox arises where a group of people miss important information because they did not recognise its relevance. A classic example (according to Wikipedia) was when NASA scientists were trying to develop a knee joint for a spacesuit, and finally found that their problem had been solved centuries before, and the solution could be seen in King Henry's suit of armour in the tower of London.

Why is all this important? I want to suggest three reasons:

1. Tacit knowledge has been found to be important in innovation and research. Despite the scientific method being all about testing the evidence, many top scientists say that their initial ideas came via inspiration, which were then verified by evidence. Sometimes we know more than we can tell.

2. We have been burned many times by the relevance paradox, for example, in ecology. In Australia, foreign plant and animal species have been introduced for some purpose thought good at the time, but almost all have turned out disastrously:

• foxes and rabbits were introduced for sport, but now wreak environmental havoc;
• European Carp and the lantana plant were let loose in the wild and now are in pest proportions;
• cane toads were introduced to control two species of beetle which are pests for cane growers, but have multiplied and spread across vast areas of northern Australia, leading to much destruction of native species
• non-native feral cats are one of the biggest threats to many smaller native animals and birds which have never before had to cope with such voracious and vicious predators.
  

European settlers in Australia didn't understand the environment they were effectively experimenting with - and fell victim to the relevance paradox.

3. I think there is a danger that twenty-first century western culture is falling foul of the relevance paradox and ignoring tacit knowledge in many ways. So much of what we know and do is changing so fast, from ethics to relationships to information and entertainment. It is like we are in the middle of an enormous social experiment and we don't know where we'll end up. Some of the gains are enormous, for example in medicine and communication, but I can't help feeling we may be throwing away some of the intangibles like ethics, courtesy, faith, altruism and common decency a little too fast. We may live to regret it. We know more than we can tell, but not as much as we think we do.

It is interesting to note that sociologists tell us that "modernism", built on the certainties of science has now almost passed, and given way to "postmodernism", which has far fewer certainties. But that's another story.

Read what Wikipedia has to say about Michael Polanyi, tacit knowledge and the relevance paradox.

miracles happen?

I guess most of us have seen the bumper stickers ... Some are positive ("miracles happen", "magic happens"), some tell us more negative stuff that we already know.

But can miracles really happen? And how could we be sure?

are there any credible accounts of apparent miracles?

Again, most of us have probably heard them, stories and urban myths that have come to us maybe sixth or seventh hand, so we have no way of assessing their reliability. We'd like to know if the witnesses are reliable; we'd like to know if there's any documentation.

But here are a few accounts which do have documentation and do appear to have reliable witnesses, so they are at least worth considering.

• Recently, American heart surgeon, Dr. Chauncey W. Crandall IV, gave an account of a man he had attended in hospital after he had suffered a massive heart attack. After attempts to re-start his heart had failed, the man was pronounced dead by the medical team. However Dr Crandall prayed for the man's healing, his heartbeat returned and he subsequently recovered. This is not the first time Dr Crandall has observed a miraculous healing after prayer. Dr Crandall is a respected cardiologist (as this summary shows) with over twenty years experience, he has performed heart operations in many hospitals and holds professorships in several universities, so this miracle is very well attested.
• In January 2006, Patsy was admitted to hospital with a virulent form of encephalitis, a virus that attacks the brain. Within a few days she was in a coma, connected to life support, and the prognosis was grim - she was unlikely to survive, and if she did, it was likely her brain would be impaired. More than a thousand friends, relatives and friends of friends were enlisted to pray for her healing, and she started to improve. After a few months, doctors confidently predicted a full recovery. The family attributes her recovery to God's intervention, and her husband has set up a website and billboard to advertise this.
• Many cases of apparently divine healing have been documented by the World Christian Doctors Network. Case studies of cancers, AIDS, multiple schlerosis and many other illnesses that were apparently healed miraculously are presented on the website, and include copies of case notes, scans and medical descriptions. It is hard to challenge such well-documented claims.
• Lourdes is a village in France where many healing miracles are reputed to have occurred since 1858. Of the half million people seeking cures each year, several thousand healing miracles have been reported. Where possible, people claiming healing are examined on the spot by a medical bureau, and the information is reviewed by an international commission of medical specialists. To be regarded as authentic, claims have to satisfy three requirements: (a) the illness was well documented, (b) the symptoms disappeared within hours and (c) the healing lasted for several years. Most claims lack sufficient evidence to be verified, but 63 miracles have passed this stringent checking and have been proclaimed as authentic. (Read more here.)
  
• I have also read a report of a medical investigation into 300 claimed miracles of healing at the Jamkaran mosque in Iran, in which 8 were authenticated, but I cannot find a reference to this now.
  

I find these reports, individually and as a whole, too credible to lightly discard.

but can we seriously believe miracles occur today?

Many people believe that miracle stories are simply not credible - our scientific knowledge has shown them to be impossible. But it seems to me that there are three possible explanations for an alleged miracle:

1. The story is untrue - it was a mistake or a fraud.
2. There is a natural explanation - perhaps coincidence or natural recuperative powers which we at present don't understand.
3. A supernatural (= beyond nature) explanation - God or another supernatural being did it.
   

I cannot believe all the above reports are frauds or mistakes, and I cannot believe they are all coincidences. If you believe the universe is a closed system and nothing exists outside it to interfere, then you cannot believe in a supernatural cause, and there is no obvious explanation for these miracles. But if you believe there could be a god (which is not something science can prove or disprove), then you are able to consider that explanation.

So I don't think it is science which prevents our belief in miracles, but a belief that nothing exists beyond this natural world. I don't think that's a good assumption.

what may we conclude?

Each person will draw their own conclusions about how much all this "proves", but it seems at least we can say that:

• it would be foolish to write off the miraculous too quickly, and
• if we need healing, it would be sensible to ask.

Since I wrote this, I have searched out some other reports on the apparent miracle involving Dr Crandall. Check out these additional reports in a later blog, here.

For more documented accounts of apparent miracles, see Healing miracles and God.

Please let us know you've visited, and tell us what you think, by making a comment using the link below.

mate vs mate - the sequel

When I posted about Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath on April 5, I said that "I'm only aware of one occasion when the two have discussed their very different views". But now, the sequel!

I have become aware of another recent discussion at The Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival on March 26 this year, and available for download as two MP3 files from TimesOnline.

In a moderated discussion that was very much controlled, the two were able to exchange only brief comments. To begin, Dawkins outlined his views that the existence of God is very much a scientific question, that it is highly unlikely that God exists, and that religion has done a lot of harm. McGrath countered with some brief criticisms and a quote from US sceptic Michael Shermer to the effect that for every evil committed by religion there are 10,000 acts of kindness, and that much good is done in the name of religion. Dawkins agreed, surprisingly in light of his previous statements.

The ensuing discussion covered whether religion can answer any questions better than science, where we get our ethics from, reasons for belief, miracles and different religions. I can't say I found it all that enlightening - it was too short - but it was interesting to hear them speak. Dawkins pressed his points more, whereas McGrath tended to speak more generally

Who was the winner? Well it wasn't a debate, but Dawkins came over better - he was polite, more succinct and direct, and mostly knew what he wanted to say. McGrath was also polite, but sometimes wordy and indirect. The format didn't allow many matters to be contested, so Dawkins got away with a common but fallacious definition of faith and some broad, unsupported statements about religion not having any answers. McGrath avoided making such bald statements, but at the cost of taking longer to say less. I still think McGrath is one of Dawkins' most effective critics, but this "debate" did not illustrate that.

Listen for yourself by downloading both MP3 files. But probably reading their comments on the internet will be more informative - e.g. Dawkins and McGrath.

science & god

I have only just come across this.

Late last year, Time magazine published parts of a discussion between famed atheist and biologist, Richard Dawkins, and christian biologist, Francis Collins. Dawkins is a professor at Oxford University and is the author of many books, including recent best-seller The God Delusion. Collins is the head of the National Human Genome Research Institute in the US where he has headed a 2,400-scientist team that has mapped the 3 billion biochemical letters of our genetic blueprint, and author of the best selling book The Language of God.

Two scientists with impeccable credentials, two totally opposite beliefs about God.

The discussion covered such matters as whether religious faith is compatible with science, in particular evolution (Collins is an evolutionist); whether the occurrence of a universe 'fine-tuned' for life is best explained by God, or a natural explanation; the resurrection of Jesus; the origin of our moral sense; and the ethics of human stem cell research (which Colllins supports).

Comments on the discussion have tended to label it a "debate" and make judgments on the "winner". Even sceptics admit that Collins came over as the more pleasant, but believe Dawkins "won" the intellectual debate.

But I don't see it that way. It wasn't a debate, just a discussion (for example, neither scientist got to choose the topics - they were each asked specific questions - so criticisms of either for not proving their (dis)belief in God miss the point). I felt both explained their views clearly and that Collins did not lose anything in comparison.

Such a brief discussions can never be more than rudimentary, but on three matters, I felt Collins was quite convincing.

1. He is living proof that a top scientist can also believe in God. It seems silly to say otherwise.
2. On the question of the design of the universe, Dawkins' two options of either the "multiverse" (the theory that there are literally zillions of universes, and we were the one in a zillion that had the right conditions for life) or alternatively that perhaps "these six constants are not free to vary. Some unified theory will eventually show that they are as locked in as the circumference and the diameter of a circle" still do not convince me.
3. I thought Collins demonstrated an approach to ethics more in accordance with what we generally experience and believe than did Dawkins.

But you can check it out for yourself. Read excerpts of the debate from Time magazine, a review by an atheist and by a christian. You may also like to read about recent interviews with both men.