Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

To some extent, I agree with the reviewer who claimed Sproul set up a "straw man" in that many scientists, like Richard Dawkins, ardently decry the idea that "chance" caused anything. Rather, they lay the burden of creative power on "natural selection," which Sproul could have addressed here as well, but chose to avoid.

Nevertheless, there are also many scientists who DO misunderstand the concept of "chance" enough to ascribe creative power to it, and it is to those individuals that Sproul addresses his arguments.

Sproul's writing is theologically sound and, as far as it goes, scientifically sound. I chose to give it only 4 stars because he could have gone further...

Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology by R. C Sproul is the author's response to Modern Science's Leap Of Faith. It is a well thought out philosophical and theological response to the idea that "chance" plays a part in physics and ultimately creation. The author, a well known and much published Reformed Theologian dissects modern science's desire to plug in the idea of chance in place of a creator. This is not a science book per se, but a critique of how science, by its choice of terminology, mostly centering on the word and idea of chance, abandons the scientific method and embraces its own man based faith system to explain the unexplainable. Dr. Sproul does a great job of showing how this type of science abandons reason and logic when it refuses to even consider or allow for an intelligent creator.

This is a great book and a gives the reader a good background on how philosophy and theology can shed light on the unknown. A good read and worthy of anyone interested in how a belief in a creator God does not mean one must abandon science or reason.

Cretio Ex Nihilo

This work is meant as groundwork in apologetics in which the main scope is proving absurdity of self creation. That something has always existed. Some reviewers have taken exception that any scientist claims that there was ever purely nothing. One calls any such statements as hyperbole ( deception in my mind). Anyway the argument by some is everything has a cause? R.C. Sproul argues this is a fallacy. Something cannot become without something already existing. One reviewer argues that sub atomical is the nothing something comes from. Anyway one can argue that the atomic level has already existed or some sub level. One can argue that the Big Bang caused the universe we know. R.C. Sproul argues that the Big Bang did not cause being. R.C. Sproul does not accept the Big Bang theory, but the major theme of this book is about the misconception of chance and the origin of the universe from nothing. Therefore he does present the Big Bang theory demands an antecedent (something to exist before hand).

Chance is neither an active or knowing being. Chance is a useful term about probability. R.C. Sproul states that many a scientist talk as if chance can cause something given enough time.

The book does not detail how a glob of material floated based on polarity or something colliding in time to cause certain reactions that eventually resulted in the Universe and existence that you and I know today. Neither do I believe many scientist describe the Big Bang theory this way. It is often explain as some magical theory for the cause of all existence (not just the universe). Many in the general public may have this misconception. R.C. Sproul shows the fallacy of such thinking.

R.C.. Sproul believes that God has always existed. He also argues that everything else is caused by God. If God did not exist nothing else would exist.

A friend of mine in the church who works for NASA gave this book to me one day as we discussed violations of scientific laws by means of naturalistic causes (not chances) of the origin of the universe. As soon as I said the words "law of causality" he got this huge smile and his face lit up and he ran to his bookshelf, handed me this book and simply said "You can have this." LoL. Thank you, Bill. =)

No offense to the people who gave the book a negative view and then spewed nonsense about the book AND science, but the arguments agaisnt it are pitiful. Sproul uses logic throughout the book. It is basically a book of logic and common sense. (See chapter called "The Policeman of Science".) He even puts logic to it's own test. Please get a copy for yourself and for your friends who are into learning science via common sense.

It is common sense that chance does not exist. Every single effect has an adequate cause . This is known as the law of causality. Causes have at LEAST one effect, maybe sometimes more than one, but at least one. Every effect has a cause, or is in line somewhere in a chain of causes and effects. A cause may also be an effect and visa versa, but not at the same time and in the same relationship. A cause is not a cause without an effect. An effect is not an effect without a cause. NEVER is the effect of a cause a "chance" effect. NEVER is the cause of an effect a "chance" cause. Chance doesn't exist. Chance is the word we give to causes and effects, but that does not mean we accept chance as a legitimate cause or effect.

Chance means there is no cause, that it just happened that way. Whatever that means. Chance is probability, not causal power. It is inactive. If given as cause, chance means nothing, because it doesn't act, it predicts. Therefore chance IS nothing. The probability of nothing is nothing. And nothing doesn't exist.

Example: I am typing letters into the text box here. The words here are not appearing by chance nor are they intellible by chance. My mind is cause of the finger movement, the finger movement is the cause of the keys being pressed, the keys being pressed is the cause of the text appearing where it is now. (I hope you already knew this but some people have a hard time with it... the negative reviewers.)

Sproul gives a hearty serving of exmaples of this even into probabilities of coin flips. Every outcome would be determined by variations of the flip: How much pressure is used. If it is caught, if it is allowed to fall. When it is caught, how far it falls. Gravity, wind, weight of the coin, etc. We call it chance because it has 2 different outcomes in an uncontrolled environment. But it isn't really chance because the outcome (effect) of the flip is determined by a number of causes. You see, probabilities only take into account all of the causal powers, but probability is never factored in as a probable cause - only active forces. Nobody flips the coin and says probability did it, we say something somewhere did it. Knowing the outcome, we can trace back to the flip why the effect was the effect it was by, you guessed it, calculating the various causes. You work your way backwards to reveal every cause. Probabilities need causes and effects. Probability will ALWAYS be zero without them.

Sproul's point is also well made about how absurd self-creation is. (Nevermind the laws of thermodynamics.) Using the law of non-contradiction, it is obvious to see that to create one's self, that self must both exist AND not exist at the same time. This is a contradiction. (Duh.)

He unravels Neils Bohr's "great truth" statement by examining it with the same law. "Bohr retreated into an epistemology of contradiction. Had he stopped at the level of paradox, a lot of linguistic confusion could have been avoided."

I could spoil it all for you but you can pay $3 and add it to your collection of keepers.

Chance does not act as a causal power, or else it is a contradiction, which is impossible. That's pretty much the book. He has some good points, though. It is a meaningless to speak of uncaused events, so something is wrong with people who say such things.

I wish he would have spent more time considering if the universe (a multiverse?) was even caused at all. Or, he could have explored the concept of an infinite regress. He could have tried to show how that is contradictory via Hilbert's Hotel or maybe by a new idea. For those two ignored questions, the book only gets three stars.

Well-known for his video tapes, books,and "Tabletalk" monthly devotional, R. C. Sproul, the founder of Ligonier Ministries, debunks the notion that chance has any causal power. Sproul claims that quantum mechanics gives support to this notion (p. XIII) and implies that quantum theory and the big bang theories are the result of faulty reasoning (p. 53) by "meaningless" (p. 73) scientists.

Sproul quotes from eminent scientists such as Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein, and Roger Penrose, to highlight some of the "problems" with quantum mechanics. However, not one scientist was quoted as claiming that chance has any causal power! Moreover, several quotes were taken out of context to make the reader buy into Sproul's idea that there are problems with quantum physics. For example, Sproul characterizes (p. 73) physicist Roger Penrose as "struggling to reconcile the problems of quantum physics" in a passage from his recent book, "The Emperor's New Mind". However, in reading that passage in its context, one finds no such struggle. In fact, regarding quantum theory, Penrose states elsewhere in his book (p. 153) that "No observational discrepancies with the theory are known - yet its strength goes far beyond this, in the number of hitherto inexplicable phenomena that the theory now explains".

Sproul points out several examples of faulty reasoning made by scientists and philosophers. Niels Bohr is quoted ad nauseum (p. 16, 57, 74) as saying that "A great truth is a truth of which the contrary is also a truth". Sproul is undoubtedly right, scientists and philosophers, like everyone else, make mistakes and sometimes make unreasonable statements. However, such examples of faulty reasoning, which have no bearing on science, cosmology, or chance, serve only to support a distasteful argumentative style, referred to by Stephen Hawking as refutation by denigration.

Apparently, Sproul, like some other Christians, is uncomfortable with scientific theories, such as the big bang theories, because they leave God out. However, scientific theories must necessarily do so because God, not being subject to the universe's physical laws, cannot be studied by our science which depends on them. This does not mean that scientists reject God nor that science proves that there is no God.

There is a real danger in refuting scientific theories because of one's theological bent. First, it can result in bad science. Incredibly, though Sproul uses the example of Copernicus in his book (Copernicus' theory that the sun did not revolve about the earth, rather that the earth rotated on an axis as it revolved about the sun, was rejected based on religious grounds for many years), he fails to internalize this point. The more important danger, however, is that it hinders one's efforts to evangelize when credibility is lost.

This book is built upon a false premise -- a straw man -- that modern science attributes causal power to chance. Scientists and Sproul agree -- this is no fifth force (p. 214). Would I recommend this book to anyone? Not a chance. Would I recommend any of Sproul's other works? Most certainly.

A reviewer below missed the point of the book. True, the scientists Sproul quotes never explicitly say "chance has power." But as he explains, their theories require that it does have power. Many interpretations of quantum mechanics are illogical, because they describe things they don't understand as "chance."

"Sproul, like some other Christians, is uncomfortable with scientific theories, such as the big bang theories, because they leave God out." This statement is untrue, Sproul never states or implies he is uncomfortable. Apparently the reviwier needs to study the Big Bang some more. The BB does not "prove" God, but it necessitates that there was an intelligent creator. See "Creator and the Cosmos," "Mere Creation," and "Show Me God." Only certain Christian groups unfamilar with BB dislike it.