Supernaturalism: The REAL Reason For The "Great Rift" Between Science And Religion

Michael Hobart's recent book, 'The Great Rift' claims to offer a new take on the divide (what he calls "great rift") between science and religion - but is it really?  Hobart's central thesis - to cut to the chase- is that since the Galilean era (1564- 1642) science has communicated using abstract mathematics while religion remained anchored in Logos, i.e. "the logic coupling words and things".   Hence, he avers that not only can the two realms (or "magisteria" in Stephen J. Gould's parlance) not communicate with each other but the quantitative approach has proven to be better at grasping reality.

Galileo's achievement, to fix ideas, was to demonstrate the potency and superiority of the mathematical-experimental method while analyzing projectile motion, e.g.



Thus, Galileo discerned via careful observations that an object hurled into the air, for example, has two independent motions: a vertical  (y-) and a horizontal (x- )one. Through the use of mathematics Galileo managed to combine the two motions algebraically into a model that describes all projectile motion (including for today's missiles) as parabolic.  (See e.g. the parabolic trajectory shown in the graphic above.)

This is an approach to and an identification of a real thing. It is also arguable (certainly to me) that the split between the two magisteria - science and religion - is actually predicated on the split between the applied mathematics (i.e.to models in physics) and a false  "Logos". The latter is a coupling of words with non-existent things, i.e. supernatural artifacts engendered by specific brain regions.

For the sake of argument let's agree that Logos implies a coupling of words with things. This begs the question of what kinds of things, and does this coupling confer reality?  I will argue here that science and religion - or at least spirituality - might find a kind of common ground so long as the introduction of supernatural agents is disdained in the latter.   As I wrote in my recent letter to Physics Today,  on science and religion and why they are so mutually antagonistic so cannot be harmonized,  e.g.

Readers' thoughts on science and religion: Physics Today: Vol 71, No 6

 
"As I see it, the most fundamental split—an irreparable one—between science and religion is that religion embraces a supernatural order and genuine science, as opposed to pseudoscience, does not.

From a scientific and objective standpoint, there is simply no way that any purportedly supernatural entity or order can be demonstrated or proven. No scientific methodologies for such exist, nor any credible instruments or measuring techniques. The rejoinder that those things can't be measured merely reinforces the argument that they are no more fit for scientific inquiry than the astrologer’s claim of “malefic” influences of Mars at an infant’s birth.

Because a supernatural domain cannot be approached in any scientific or objective way, then by my reckoning it doesn't exist. One need not even deny its existence because to all intents the supernatural entity becomes logically unnecessary or redundant. It doesn't help us make scientific predictions or explain natural phenomena—say, coronal mass ejections or auroral substorms"

Let me again underscore here for the record, that the preceding applies to any religion that enlists supernatural agents to support its basis. It was not intended to be a blanket statement that modern science could find no commonality with any religion. For example, according to the Mahayana tradition of Buddhism there exist a multitude of universes and none of these harbors supernatural agents such as demons, or "Satan".  Many of them, however, may well harbor other intelligent life forms.  This view in its most rudimentary form comports with the multiverse speculations of modern physics. 

One can then argue that a genuine Logos,  or coupling of words and real things,  is not necessarily mutually exclusive with modern science or its quantitative formulations. This leaves open the possibility that any bifurcation or "rift" between science and religion may actually be between a false version of one, and a false version of the other. A false version of science would be a pseudo science like astrology.(see e.g. the preceding quote from my letter and the reference to the astrologer's "malefic influences.")  In many ways these echo conventional religionists' invocations of "Satan" and "demons" - say to account for earthly evil.  This also suggest any religions that make such invocations must be false. Let's recall again the words of philosopher George Santayana, in his book, Reason In Religion, Dover Books, p.157:

"In a word, theology, for those whose religion is secondary, is simply a false physics, a doctrine  about eventual experience not founded on the experiences of the past.  Such a false physics, however, is soon discredit by events. It does not require much experience or much shrewdness to discover that supernatural beings and laws are without the empirical efficacy attributed to them."

One can then understand why a religion grounded in supernaturalist demonology, say, cannot be true. But make no mistake, the consequences pertaining to these beliefs have been quite real! The most profound example lay in the wide use of the Malleus Maleficarum of Heinrich Kramer (Dean of Cologne University) and Jacob Sprenger (Dominican Inquisitor General of Germany). This was the book which gave the prescriptions for exposing those possessed by demons, or under their influence, including: accused witches,  familiars, succubi, and incubi) . This was under a Bull issued by Pope Innocent VIII. 

Once the suspect was identified as a witch (especially if possessing a "familiar', usually a cat) it became necessary to obtain her confession.The procedure first required obtaining evidence in the form of "devil's marks".  Prosecutors and examiners often made great displays of such searches, which usually included the shaving of the head and genitals in public as the witches were prodded with sharp implements by their accusers. The Malleus, after all mandated "diligent and careful inspections of secret parts".   The Malleus also advised that torture, deception and terror be used to extract confessions.  

The rack, scourging, burning and eye gouging were all sanctioned as inducement to confess, and the impetus for confessions was primarily driven by the fact the more confessions forthcoming the more the pay for the prosecutors-Inquisitors.  Thus, under torture, the accused witches were routinely forced to name any and all accomplices including those who participated in sabbats.  One of the most infamous cases, as described by historian Henry Lea ('The Inquisition of the Middle Ages' ),  concerned a 71 -year old woman put to the rack no less than seven times, especially after confessing to signing a pact with the devil. 

Females suspected of being witches and in congress with "the Devil"  caught holy hell for sure, with ultimate tortures that would give most people today psychotic nightmares.  Males, often accused as "warlocks" for their part,  did not entirely escape suspicion either, and often faced tortures just as unnerving, according to historian Henry Lea,  e.g.

This  then was the real fruit of the unreal beliefs of millions once supernatural agents were admitted into the pantheon of religions such as Christianity and Islam. And again, I reiterate, any religion that must resort to torture or invocations of "demons", "Hell" and "Satan" to gain allegiance and "faith" - cannot be sincere.  They must be false. They clearly cannot be evocative of a God of love.     

Some may argue or claim at this point that those practices -  taking a cue from demonology (belief in supernatural forces, demons) -  are things of the past and the RC Church, for example, no longer invokes demons or Satan. This would be a mistake, given how just over 50 years ago a Loyola University (New Orleans) priest attempted an exorcism on a women's dorm, e.g.

Brane Space: Did "Satan" Visit Loyola University Women's Dorm Back ...

brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/09/did-satan-visit-loyola-university.html

Not to mention the fact the Vatican is evidently still "all in" with general exorcisms. For example, back in 2015 a new school for exorcists  The Pope Leo XIII Institute  opened  "for the “education & training of priests in the holy ministry of exorcism and deliverance”. It was further revealed that another reason for promoting exorcism was that the Church needed to "grow its numbers".  What better way than to excite superstitions about demons?

  Heck, even when I attended Loyola (1964-67) , the common Theology course always included a first section dealing with "demoniac" accounts as described in the Gospels. I still have 


those old 1964 notes to prove it:

The following 6 pages then go into detail, citing chapter and verse, why we need to take such accounts seriously. 

Interestingly, the philosopher Alvin Plantinga, in his recent book:  'Where The Real Conflict Lies: Science, Religion and Naturalism', makes the basic argument that the supposed conflicts between science and religion are superficial because of the "methodological naturalism used by science".  For a brief summary of what this means, re-read the second paragraph of my quotation above, from my Physics Today letter.   In other words, Plantinga is advocating that science open the door to supernatural agents ...via a methodological supernaturalism, I presume.  What types of investigation  this might portend, we can only surmise.   Seances like the Loyola girls attempted? Ouija boards?  He doesn't really say. But what he does do, on this basis, is argue that naturalistic evolution - relying on mutation and natural selection - is wholly consonant with  a supernatural theistic underpinning.  This was one of the primary memes I demolished in my book, The Atheist's Handbook To Modern Materialism, (Chapter Three, The Evolutionary Foundation')

  Regrettably, like Tom McLeish in his Physics Today appeal ('Thinking Differently About Science and Religion")  https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.3831

to harmonize science with religion, Plantinga  is reduced to desperately seeking a back door  entry for the supernatural.  There is no way, I would counsel him, that physics - and certainly biology and chemistry - will allow such nonsense anytime soon!

 The conclusion?  The real Logos is quite compatible with mathematical sciences such as physics and astrophysics, because the words and 'things' it describes possess an innate reality embodied in what quantitative science describes. The job of believers then is not to oppose science as an enemy but to seek the real Logos which is compatible with that real science, as Santayana indicates.   That real Logos is itself divested of the supernatural, but which can still provide an avenue for transcendence as I explained in my book, Beyond Atheism, Beyond God..  And as I also wrote in the last paragraph of my PT letter:

"Is it possible for religion and science to coexist? Possibly, but only if religion is diluted to the point that it’s devoid of all supernatural memes, agents, and explanations. Otherwise, all bets are off and we are left with embracing glorified superstition, and a deleterious form at that, able to use its fantasy agents to subvert objective human inquiry."

If then reality is the most important thing for the human mind to apprehend and supernatural entities only obscure this reality, why is there the need for supernatural religion?  More importantly why can't science and religion find common cause as opposed to being at each other's throats?  As noted in my quote above, that day happens when religion divests itself of supernatural memes, agents, artifacts and explanations.  Only then can a common ground be feasible.

 To highlight where are at now, the top most graphic shows the mathematics  embodied in Emmy Noether's famous equation  which encapsulates "Noether's therorem".  For reference, Noether's theorem became a foundation of the standard model of particle physics in the second half of the 20th cnetury and today retains a central role in continuing to define physical reality via inherent symmetry properties.  These hold  no matter how far one travels in space or time.  In many respect then,  Noether's first and second theorems, e.g.


Noether's first theorem 

highlight the quantitative physics responsible for divorce of modern quantitative science from conventional religion and conventional spirituality's more limited reality.  For example, symmetries in the 2D quantum gravity model peculiar to the first theorem, show up in the 3D quantum gravity in a different context in Neother's 2nd theorem.  In greater generalization, one can say a quantum theory of particles on a 2D surface (say for atomic spin magnets) can act as a hologram for a 3-dimensional theory of quantum gravity in curved spacetime.

Interestingly, ,the late quantum physicist David Bohm used an analogous quantitative approach incorporating his development of stochastic quantum mechanics to show that our 4 dimensional universe can be enfolded holographically into a five dimensional implicate order. (See e.g. "Wholeness and the Implicate Order-  which the interested reader can access here as a pdf:

[PDF]

Wholeness and the Implicate Order

www.gci.org.uk/Documents/DavidBohm-WholenessAndTheImplicateOrder.pdf

Bohm postulated that all material forms are the unfolded or explicated manifestations of a fundamental implicate order reality. This explication arises at the level of the particulate (atoms, molecules etc.)  and is emphasized over the wave aspect (defined by de Broglie waves).  Particles bespeak the separation of the cosmos - waves (quantum waves) its unity. The problem with traditional thinking, of which most modern theology is the embodiment, is that it has treated reality in a particulate rather than wave context. In a sense, the false theology of the orthodox theologians (along with their false God concepts) fits hand in glove with the false physics reflected in the Cartesian-Newtonian viewpoint, leading to an ultra- reductionism. 

Not surprisingly, in this view the universe is perceived to be fragmented: galaxy from galaxy, star from star, each human from every other and even man from himself (body vs. Soul, mind vs. Body, etc.). It is out of this background of a false theology that the conceptual theological horrors like ‘heaven and hell’, ‘damnation’ and ‘salvation’ arise. The reaction of the false physicists to this is also natural and understandable: i.e. they wholesale reject all of the false theology as puerile rubbish so like the ancient Greek Epicureans they cut the false theologians off at the pass by proclaiming everything ends at death.

In the implicate order proposed by Bohm, the separateness of the universe is ultimately submerged within its higher dimensional implicate aspect. All seemingly separate entities are ultimately unified into one, much like the apparently separate ‘waves’ seen on the ocean ultimately dissolve and submerge into the vastly greater background sea that spawned them.  This illustration helps to understand the relation:

Explicate Order:

___Ç___Ç___Ç___Ç___Ç___  

(IMPLICATE ORDER)

The waves are the explicated manifestation of the unfolded implicate 'sea'. This is where the often used term oceanic reality originates.

In human terms, this implies that at a higher dimensional level all matter, especially as embodied in human forms, along with human minds, becomes interfused into one reality, one whole without division. As Bohm describes it[1]:

In the implicate order we have to say the mind enfolds matter in general and therefore the body in particular. Similarly, the body enfolds not only the mind but also in some sense, the entire material universe.

Physicist Bernard d 'Espagnat provides again the real basis for science (reality) and spirituality to come to a unifying stance [2]::

The archaic notion that is conveyed by the words ‘Lord’ and ‘Almighty’ will presumably never recover its full efficiency for lulling the ontological qualms of mankind. For a religious mind, turning towards Being should therefore become a subtler endeavor than the mere acceptance of the heavenly will stated in the Bible, formulated by the priests, and exhibited by miracles

---

[1] Bohm, D.: op. cit., 209

[2] d’Espagnat,, B.  : In Search Of Reality,  .158.

Bishop Richard Barron Misfires On God & Metaphysics

Auxiliary Bishop Robert Barron, of the LA Archdiocese, is adamant that opponents don't grasp his position on science and religion as spelled out recently. In a current response (Nov. 19) he writes:

 "Many respondents display what I call “scientism,” the philosophical assumption that the real is reducible to what the empirical sciences can verify or describe. In reaction to my attempts to demonstrate that God must exist as the necessary precursor to the radically contingent universe, respondent after respondent says some version of this: Energy, or matter, or the Big Bang, is the ultimate cause of all things."

The problem first, is that Bishop Barron offers only a simplistic definition of scientism. It doesn't mean reducible to what the empirical sciences can verify or describe  but rather a blind commitment to a rigid, locality-based, non-emergent mechanical reductionism.  This is in radical distinction to the nonlocality manifested by the quantum domain. Physicist Bernard d'Espagnat put it thusly in his 'In Search of Reality':

"If scientism were correct, or more precisely, if the view of the world it proposes so forcefully, that of a world ultimately consisting of myriads of small localized objects merely endowed with quasi-local properties were correct then we'd be little more than automatons"

Thus, by rejecting scientism - which a real scientist should - one is led to a deeper reality of emergence, such as I discussed in my recent book, 'Beyond Atheism, Beyond God'.  Thus, the cartoon version of physical reality of which Barron writes is obviated by embracing a nonlocal physical universe. This, incidentally, still doesn't allow for any supernatural entity.

In this nonlocal setting, there is no separation vis-a-vis energy so "God" is already immanent in the system as an unexpressed regulative ideal - but which physicists refer to as negative (vacuum) energy. It is this which gave rise to the big bang, this would be via a collision of M-branes, e.g.

The origin of our universe from nothing, then,  occurs as a result of the contact of two hyperdimensional branes, not from a single particle, atom, or even a bubble of dark energy. The M-brane pairs occur as a result of vacuum energy fluctuations in conformal space-time.

Thus, Barron's respondents would have been more correct to say that negative or vacuum energy is the ultimate cause of all things.

Beyond this, Barron, like most religionists, doesn't define what he means by "God". And what is the "radically contingent universe"? Unless terms are defined it is not possible to have a coherent argument or compelling discussion.

Take aseity or non-contingency. Philosopher Mortimer Adler  first identified the attribute of “aseity” as the most fundamental for any putative divine being. Adler translated his coined term as synonymous with non-contingence, i.e. depending on nothing else for existence. In many respects, aseity trumps all other properties when it comes to identifying a divinity or trying to assign properties whereby a God can be defined consistently.

Can aseity be assigned such that an entity called “God” can truly be imaged or encapsulated? Perhaps, but more likely not very likely! The reason, as philosopher Alan Watts has observed, is because to envisage such deity requires a perfect balancing act between fixity and fluidity. In fixity one seeks to possess or fix an isolated definition or image, but this borders on idolatry. In fluidity one admits to the constant motion and ephemeral nature of reality around him but in this case no imaging is possible because all the images flowing are also fleeting. The problem for Barron and others is in identifying the latter with a "radically contingent universe" and the former with aseity or a non-contingent deity. But if the actual deity is "fluid", i.e. based on Dirac sub-quantal energy, what then?

This has led Watts to finally conclude (‘The Wisdom of Insecurity’, p.27):

“The incredible truth that what religion calls the vision of God is found by giving up any belief in the idea of God. By the same law of reversed effort, we find the infinite and the absolute, not by straining to escape from the finite and relative world, but by the most complete acceptance of its limitations."

This is a radical idea to be sure, but one which is worth considering if one is really invested in resolving or eliminating any conflict between modern science and religion - as it 0ught to be.  After all, is there really that huge a sacrifice in giving up belief in the "idea of God"?  Which again, is not the same as any essential Being that may be tied to it. (A point made in my book in terms of "God concepts")

Barron  also doesn't seem to grasp here that science DOES take a position or view (naturalistic or materialistic) which undergirds its naturalistic approach to inquiry - in order to take an impartial approach to the natural world. If it allowed subjective beliefs to hold sway, or adopt any openness to supernaturalism, the impartial search for natural truth would be destroyed.

Barron also seems not to grasp that the invocation of God in any domain is fraught with  metaphysical peril because even if we did agree some ultimate power started at all (as I pointed out in my 1990 Astronomy article, August, p. 11, God and Astronomy) there’d still be no agreement on the entity’s attributes, nature or powers. 

Some, like Bishop Barron, would see a ‘creator’ that stands apart from the universe, while others see an underlying intelligence in nature.( Carl Sagan, for his part, equated 'God' to the physical principles and laws that govern the universe, which let's be clear, is more a physical God.)  The point here is that it makes more sense not to interject the issue of 'God' at all, because no two people can even agree on what the noun means.

He also writes:

 "When I counter that the Big Bang itself demonstrates that the universe in its totality is contingent and hence in need of a cause extraneous to itself, they think I'm just talking nonsense."

But referring to a cause "extraneous to itself" shows how he confuses the whole matter.  Robert Baum’s textbook, LOGIC, pp. 469-70, clearly shows that explicating necessary and sufficient conditions constitutes a practical replacement for causes. In other words, instead of saying or asserting x caused y, one stipulates that a, b are necessary conditions for x to exist at all, and c, d are sufficient conditions for y to have been the sole effect of cause x.

Baum’s reasoning is clear (ibid.): because “cause” (generic) can be interpreted as proximate or remote, or even as the “goal or aim of an action”  it is therefore too open-ended, ambiguous and construed in too many different ways. Thus, “cause” is too embedded in most people’s minds with only one of several meanings, leaving most causality discussions unproductive and confused. If my “cause” and your “cause” in a given argument diverge, then we will not get very far.

Because of this one uses the more neutral term “condition” and specifies necessary and sufficient ones. The latter terms are specifically meaningful in the context of determining causal conditions, and hence, causes. If one eschews them, then one concedes he is incapable of logical argument.

Much of this can be addressed via Bayesian probabilities. To fix ideas here: let p[S] be the unconditional probability there is a supernatural agent responsible for the creation of the universe. Let p(S-[BB]) be the conditional probability of the existence of a supernatural agent if the Big Bang has indeed occurred. Let p[B,B] be the unconditional probability the Big Bang occurred and p(BB-[S]) the conditional probability that the Big Bang occurred – provided a supernatural agent is responsible for the creation of the cosmos.

According to the principles of Bayesian probability theory (e.g. by Bayes’ theorem) we can write:

p(S-[BB])/ p[S] = p(BB-[S])/ p[B,B]

In terms of strict adherence to Bayes’ theorem, one can only have:

p(S-[BB]) >> p[S]

E.g. IF the Big Bang occurred, there is an enhanced probability of the Big Bang being its source.

However, this is not what they proffer, but instead arrive at:

p(BB-[S]) >> p{BB]

which inverts the prior Bayesian statement by asserting:

“the existence of a supernatural being enhances the probability of the Big Bang”

The fallacy of the approach inheres in the inequality given by:

p(BB-[S]) >> p{BB]

But this is an arbitrary assumption since we have no knowledge of how a supernatural agent might act and none of its proponents have given the necessary and sufficient conditions for such action, including Barron.

The end result? If necessary and sufficient conditions were at least provided, we might have a better way of setting up the Bayesian probabilities to conform to what they should be and not include any arbitrary assumptions.

In the meantime, we can conclude the universe is not in need of a cause 'extraneous" to itself since p(S-[BB]) >> p[S]

Barron goes on:

"The obvious success of the physical sciences, evident in the technology that surrounds us and facilitates our lives in so many ways, has convinced many of our young people (the vast majority of those who watch YouTube are young) that anything outside the range of the empirical and measurable is simply a fantasy, the stuff of superstition. That there might be a dimension of reality knowable in a nonscientific but still rational manner never occurs to them. In their scientism, they are blind to literature, philosophy, metaphysics, mysticism and religion."

The problem for Barron here is that he does not indicate in any way how an "extra-physical" reality might be established. Yes, there well might be such but how can it be accessed rationally? How can it be validated in a nonscientific way? Again, the major difficulty for Barron is that he confuses scientism with Monistic physicalism.  In its most rudimentary form the latter can be summarized by reference to the late Victor Stenger’s comment (cf. God and the Folly of Faith, 155)

It does not matter whether you are trying to measure a particle property or a wave property. You always measure particles. Here is the point that most people fail to understand: Quantum mechanics is just a statistical theory like statistical mechanics, fundamentally reducible to particle behavior.

By contrast, David Bohm's nonlocal physics as explicated in his wonderful book 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order' shows that all the reductionist snafus are eliminated when one integrates the results of fundamental physics or quantum mechanics. By the use of such a full integration Bohm provided a putative basis for a holistic consciousness which he referred to as the holomovement. To enable a unified field within this higher dimensionality he appealed to hidden variables obeying Heisenberg uncertainty relations such that:

(d p)( d q) > h/ 2π

Where p, q denote hidden variables underlying a sub-quantal scale indeterminacy relation. From this he was then able to derive an equation for what he called "the quantum potential":

V_Q=   {-ħ²/ 2m} [Ñ R]² / R

If one then fully applies Bohm's nonlocal system to physical reality it becomes possible to show the relation of individual forms to the universal aggregate, i.e.g

INDIVIDUAL FORMS (EXPLICATE ORDER)

___Ç___Ç___Ç___Ç___Ç___

DIRAC ENERGY SEA (IMPLICATE ORDER)

The relation is holographic in the sense that each of the individual forms contains the information of the whole holographic field. Given this holistic system, none of Barron's issues provides an impediment. Thus, the young person familiar with a Bohmian system of physical reality will not be  "blind to literature, philosophy, metaphysics, mysticism and religion".   Bohm's implicate order perspective, indeed, absolutely forbids metaphysical (or physical) isolationism.

Barron again:

Another recurring theme on my YouTube forums is the disturbing assumption that science and Christianity are, by their natures, implacable enemies.

He then goes on to cite examples of Georges Lemaitre, Galileo and others but omits many key details. While it is true  Lemaitre can be considered the "father" of the Big Bang theory (he did conceive a crude version, without inflation) no mention is made by Barron that he refused Pope Pius XII claim that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism. In fact, as the Wikipedia article on him observes: "While a devout Roman Catholic, he was against mixing science with religion" - though he did allow there need not be conflict.  Regarding Galileo, Barron omits the fact he was actually persecuted by the Inquisition for backing Copernicus' heliocentric theory. He also conveniently omits mention of Giordano Bruno - who was burned at the stake just for his speculations, and the Alexandrian scientist Hypatia, slaughtered by Christian zealots, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/03/hypatia-victim-of-christian-zealots_27.html

The true fact to take away is that, as George Santayana put it ('Reason in Religion', p. 157):

"It does not require much shrewdness to see that supernatural beings and events are without the efficacy attributed to them".

Inferring that those who uphold such (presumably like Barron) are in fact advocating a "false physics". Thus it isn't true science and religion that are necessarily opposed to each other, but mock religion which pretends to have creations that can't be proven (e.g. false physics) and real physics - which underlies all of science.  They will always be opposed to each other because there is no support basis for agents or events without efficacy in science.

Barron's penultimate statements are especially enlightening in view of the preceding:

"If the world or nature were considered divine (as it is in many philosophies and mysticisms), then one would never allow oneself to analyze it, dissect it or perform experiments on it. But a created world, by definition, is other than God and, in that very otherness, open to inquiry.

Similarly, if the world were considered unintelligible, no science would get off the ground, because all science is based on the presumption that nature can be known. But the world, Christians agree, is thoroughly intelligible, and hence scientists have the confidence to seek, explore and experiment."

But considering the world or nature "divine" begs the question of what exactly we mean by "divine"? If we mean some supernatural order or being - which lacks efficacy - to use Santayana's term, then we are admitting a false physics and false religion. (Santayana links the two as a tandem). If on the other hand, we mean something along the lines of Bohm's holomovement, we may be getting somewhere.

But let's be clear again that a universe a la Bohm is not a "created" one, for all the reasons given above.

As for his claim that "if the world were considered unintelligible, no science would get off the ground", no argument. But when we say "intelligible" in science we mean the artifact or object of inquiry must be susceptible to scientific methods and I don't believe this is what Barron means.  As I noted in my ASTRONOMY magazine article:  ‘The God Factor’ (Astronomy Forum, March, 1990), science selectively excludes problems for which no practical method of inquiry exists. The supernatural, which is neither measurable or verifiable, falls into this category and that includes ‘God’ - if depicted as "causeless" and "supernatural". More to the point, we tend to regard such entities held by virtue of belief alone – as opposed to evidence - as evocative of superstition.  The latter encompasses such beliefs, especially when the supernatural realm is populated by invisible beings which can supposedly affect and interact with our world. To the empirical scientist this is the very epitome of superstition.

This is reinforced by the fact that astronomy, like most physical sciences, still operates on the primacy of observation and testing,  as well as subsequent confirmation. Thus, our job and duty is to remorselessly cull all dross or irrelevant issues that clutter as opposed to highlight, what our objects of inquiry are about. This means all invisible, unapproachable entities must go into the dumpster.

Thus, we have the confidence to "explore and experiment' precisely because we need not worry about entities for which there is no support: ghosts, poltergeists, demons, angels.....or God - unless this is identified with a regularized ideal or something like the holomovement.

Lastly, Barron writes:

"This is why thoughtful people — Christians and atheists alike — must battle the myth of the eternal warfare of science and religion. We must continually preach, as St. John Paul II did, that faith and reason are complementary and compatible paths toward the knowledge of truth."

Again, we do battle if it is in the context of  the pseudo-warfare between real emergence allowing) science and standard religious metaphysics which disallows it. Thus, the former allows no supernatural events or beings which lack efficacy (false physics) that the latter insists on. The battle Barron actually refers to is between reductionist physics -science and false religion (predicated on locality, separation)

Interestingly, Barron's arguments dovetail in many ways with those of Gary Gutting in his recent salon.com piece, e.g.

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/29/can_we_prove_that_god_exists_richard_dawkins_and_the_limits_of_faith_and_atheism/

Sadly, Gutting also doesn't appreciate the fact that cosmological arguments, non-contingent (non-causal) ones and others simple don't work - based on what I already discussed above, e.g. in terms of separating monistic physicalism and its required reductionist cosmos from an emergent, nonlocal cosmos.