Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology [Paperback]

R. C Sproul (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: February 1, 1999

R. C. Sproul refutes the view of many contemporary scientists that chance can cause something to come into being or cause an event to occur.

Editorial Reviews

Review

Not A Chance warns of the destruction of science by scientists and others abuse of philosophy, ontology, and epistemology. R. C. Sproul offers a cure, a cure that is both easy to understand and easy to apply -- Hugh Ross, author of The Creator and the Cosmos

Not a Chance is Sproul at his best, which is very good. Reference to chance explains nothing, as he shows. But it is an essential factor in the struggles of atheism to appear rational in the face of the world where we live. He shows secularism to be what it now is: a desperate faith -- Dallas Willard, Department of Philosophy University of Southern California

People need a serious attempt to analyze the scientific uses of the term chance, as well as the implications of these uses for ones overall world view. Not a Chance meets this need admirably -- J.P. Moreland, author of Christianity and the Nature of Science

Representative of R.C. Sproul at his best - a gifted communicator explaining difficult concepts with clarity, passion, and humor -- Theological Educator

Sproul has effectively laid to rest the bugaboo of chance that threatens the intelligibility of science and the possibility of theology -- Norman Geisler, author of Origin Science

Sproul has given us a powerfully argued, landmark work, in what has been an unremitting conflict between chance and agency. Here science, philosophy, and theology meet -- Ravi Zacharias, author of The Shattered Visage of Atheism

About the Author

Dr. R.C. Sproul has served the church as a seminary professor, preacher, and author for more than forty years. He is the founder and chairman of Ligonier Ministries and can be heard teaching daily on the radio program Renewing Your Mind, which broadcasts on more than 300 radio outlets in the United States and throughout 50 countries. Dr. Sproul has written more than 60 books and serves as Senior Minister of Preaching and Teaching at Saint Andrew's Chapel in Sanford, Florida.

[updated 7/31/06]

Product Details

• Paperback: 250 pages
• Publisher: Baker Books (February 1, 1999)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 080105852X
• ISBN-13: 978-0801058523
• Product Dimensions: 8.5 x 5.5 x 0.7 inches
• Shipping Weight: 12.3 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.6 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (20 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #847,581 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Dr. R.C. Sproul is the founder, chairman and president of Ligonier Ministries, an international Christian education ministry located near Orlando, Florida. His teaching can be heard on the program Renewing Your Mind, which is broadcast on hundreds of radio outlets in the United States and in 40 countries worldwide. He is the executive editor of Tabletalk magazine and general editor of The Reformation Study Bible, and the author of more than seventy books and scores of articles for national evangelical publications. Dr. Sproul also serves as president of Ligonier Academy of Biblical and Theological Studies and Reformation Bible College. He currently serves as senior minister of preaching and teaching at Saint Andrew's in Sanford, FL.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

21 of 25 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Cogent and analytical  Good Job Mr. Sproul!, January 26, 2000

By 

Enigma "Cheers" (Washington, USA) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)   

This review is from: Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology (Paperback)

I found this book to be very enjoyable, the prose was fast paced and it was written for the layperson to easily digest. It begins by defining chance and then showing what some of the preeminent scientists of the last few centuries had to say about it. Mr. Sproul is not trying to give a lesson in the historicity of any particular theorem he is however, trying to show that great minds have divided over these issues at hand. The books downfall, if you can call it that, was to attack quantum mechanics (QM) using logic to show that it is not a complete theory. QM adherents especially those who are philosophically attached to quantum chaos (QC) (SOAPBOX: It is a dangerous position for any `non-biased' scientist is to be philosophically or ideologically attached to any theory) have presupposed themselves to a chance (deterministic) driven cosmos.

At first I felt that this book could have benefited by showing the other scientific theories that show an indeterministic universe, but that is not Mr. Sproul's arena. He is a theologian and makes no pretense about it, his arguments are clear and cogent let me show you a couple of quotes from the books should suffice the logistician in any of us.

"Anomalies represent present mysteries. They are unsolved problems. An easy solution to mystery is to give it another name: CHANCE. Voltaire saw CHANCE as a word-substitute for the unknown, again a cover-up for ignorance. The problem is one that confuses mystery and contradiction. All contradictions are mysterious. Not all mysteries are contradictions. To say that the cause of a known effect is unknown is to say that the cause remains a mystery. To say that the cause of a known effect is chance is to say that the cause is a contradiction. It is to say that the effect has no cause, which is a contradiction of terms." Pg. 28-29

"There is no greater erroneous assumption muddying the water of contemporary science then the assumption that chance has instrumental, causal power. Here contradiction runs wild under the seemingly harmless cloak of mystery". Pg. 31

"What is basically happening here is the tacit assertion that we can have effects without causes." Pg. 48

"I do not allow for uncaused effects because uncaused effects represent a contraction in terms. The idea of an "uncaused effect" is analytically false. It is a nonsense statement, akin to speaking of square circles and married bachelors. An "effect" is by definition something produced by an antecedent cause. If it has NO CAUSE, it is not an effect. If it is an EFFECT, then it has a cause." Pg. 49

DUH!

I feel that there has been some obfuscation by another reviewer about QM, specifically about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) and it's relation to chance. HUP does not mitigate for chance or uncertainty the antipodal is in fact true. For those of you who do not understand the HUP it is very simple. At present it is not possible to know with unlimited accuracy both the position (x) and the momentum (p) of a particle. Why can't I know? Well in order locate a certain particle exactly, an observer must be able to bounce off it a photon of radiation; this act of location itself alters the position of the particle. To locate the position accurately, photons of short wavelengths would need to be used. These photons have a high momenta and would cause a large effect upon the particles position. It's kind of like a pool-ball effect, you bounce one photon off a particle it is going to budge it a little bit. So there is uncertainty associated with each measurement that you can never get rid of you experiments.

But please note and this is the important point that many seem to misunderstand. The HUP does not say, "everything is uncertain." Rather, it tells us very exactly where the limits of uncertainty lie when we make measurements of sub-atomic events. This is not chance; this is EFFECT. Whenever I make a measurement, I MUST disturb the system, I am the CAUSE. The uncertainty then of the effect that I have caused lies in our ability or rather our inability to measure a particle without disturbing it. The logic that says because we at this time cannot measure a particles x and p accurately while also predicting how the particle will react to our measurement stimulus must therefore show that because we don't know something (mystery) is it is therefore acting in a undeterministic (chance) fashion is farcical. Since when in the scientific world has a paucity of data about a known event been shown to PROVE that the event in question didn't have precedent verifiable cause? NEVER.

One last point, anybody interested in understanding how cause is the deterministic factor in science should learn about chaos mathematics, and also look into the superstring theories. Just search them out on the web and you will probably drop the deterministic philosophies that crept into the noble field of science.

Kudos Mr. Sproul, for a non-scientist you did an excellent job.

11 of 14 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars An interesting cosmological argument woven within..., November 29, 2003

By 

Neil R. Roberts (Ridley Park, PA United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology (Paperback)

I'd be curious to see the reviewer from Massachusetts employ his apparent "education" and logically prove his statement that being uninformed and being religious typically go hand in hand. I would also be curious to see some supporting statements for his comments. Does he suppose that his 3 derogatory sentences refute Sproul's work? Please! Is Sproul a physicist? No. Is Sproul a PhD philosopher? No. Is he an educated human being capable of employing some logic and critical thinking? Probably. His theses is a simple one: the notion of "chance" frequently summoned to explain certain phenomena is empty. He simply asks the question: "What is chance?" He then asks, given what "chance" is, "what can it do?". He considers the role of chance in its supreme manifestation - the origin of the universe. If nothing existed, how could the universe come to be? If you cry "chance", you've violated a logical principle, because the only thing you have to work with is NOTHING. You are saying that some unknown mechanism caused matter and energy to just appear - from NOTHING. But consider "nothing". It's nearly impossible to define, because you can only describe it in negative terms. Sproul makes a shrewd distiction between actuality and potentiality, the implications of which cannot be discussed in this limited space. As Sproul works out the implications of "chance" and discusses the logical problems with the current notion, he begins to introduce the other options available for the origin of the universe, and examines each in turn. The concept of a "god" eventually appears, and I suppose this is the basis for the Massachusetts reviewer's enlightening discussion of the relationship between religious belief and being uneducated. I'm sure he's working on his dissertation on the topic as we speak. But I digress... The book encourages careful, critical thinking, and rewards those who are willing to persevere and stick with Sproul's (sometimes perplexing) argument. Overall, pretty well written and argued. The middle section contains some difficult chapters where Sproul is discussing language and perception. Just keep pushing through it. The book is absolutely worth a read and some serious reflection.

3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars A must read for christians., May 5, 2007

By 

R. Lokkesmoe (Woodland, CA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology (Paperback)

This book does not deal with the typical young earth v. old earth arguments taking place in the christian community so people with both views will likely benefit from this book. One thing to consider, Sproul is not a scientist nor does he claim to be, he's a theologian/philosopher so he uses logical arguments to prove why chance had nothing to do with the origins of the universe. People looking for scientic evidence for intelligent design will be disapointed, but anyone who does not have a background in science or philosophy and is looking to expand their knowledge should find this book very enjoyable.