Here's Another Exchange I Had With a Christian Scholar [Edited]
I had told him I was puzzled that he still believes. Here is what he said and my response:
I guess I'm as much puzzled that you could read something like Signature in the Cell and still believe--believe as you do, that is. Minimally, I don't see how you can be so assured when, minimally, the materialists are a LONG way away from even beginning to give an adequate response to the information problem. On THIS matter, at least, if we allow our commitment level to be commensurate with the evidence--though this principle is pragmatically impossible to enjoin at all levels--then "you still puzzle me" as to how you can think that, somehow, you're the exception--the only one who goes with the evidence.I responded:
Anyway, thanks for the implied concern of puzzlement. -:)
If this DNA evidence you speak of is enough to believe then what about most of those people who accept Scientology (Nightline did an expose of them the last two nights) and who know nothing about it? Must they then read about it to believe? And why do most scientists not believe even though they know of this evidence? And then there's Hume's Stopper. No, you do not believe because of that Signature book, and you know it, because you believed BEFORE ever reading it or anything of an apologetical nature.
You asked me how sure I am right. There is no good positive evidence for Chrstianity, of that I'm sure (historical evidence is poor evidence and your God should have known this). There is only negative evidence, known as the god of the gaps. I am so sure I'm willing to risk Pascal's Wager on it. I'm sure in what I deny, that's for sure. I'm not all that sure about what I affirm.
I'm doing the best I can to reach brainwashed people like I once was. We need an intervention, but it can't be done face-to-face with people who love them and care for them, since most people they know are believers themselves. All I can do is write and edit books.
[Spoken in a hiss] You'll have no rest from me and my minions Bruhaaaahaaa. (Halloween ya know).
75 comments:
Perceived evidence of a designer is not evidence for the Christian god, it may be evidence for a god, but there is nothing to tie said entity to Christianity. It is only because some Christians believe in the exclusivity of Christianity that they claim the perceived evidence for their god. It could just as likely be evidence for Allah, an advanced alien civilization, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, ramen.
How could someone read Signature in the Cell and not be convinced? Simple: learn more about genetics, information theory, and evolution in general. Education remains the enemy of religion which is why ID relies on deception, careful selection of evidence and scrupulously ignoring everything else.
It sounds like this person has restricted their diet to pro-ID works, no wonder his reaction is so malnourished.
historical evidence is poor evidence
There is no better evidence for a personal God than a personal revelation that demands history. And there is no greater God than a personal God (not so much the god of the philosophers, who's had the life abstracted out of him). After all, it is virtually empirically evident that nothing in our immediate experience is greater than personhood.
There are plenty of scientists who believe in God. When it comes to science, one has a belief system in place before they begin their scientific career.
Tyro
Education is not an enemy of religion. One can believe in the success of science and believe in a creator. Science studies the natural world and therefore does not deal with what may lay outside it. The main issue is if one is a naturalist.
There is no better evidence for a personal God than a personal revelation that demands history.
Rob, to quote John in his interview with Infidel Guy, "What do you mean by that?" ;o)
What evidence from personal experience are you referring to? Any that people of all religions do not also report? And how does it "demand" anything particular to your religious view?
And there is no greater God than a personal God (not so much the god of the philosophers, who's had the life abstracted out of him).
By "greater" do you mean truer or just more appealing?
(I'm glad to hear you haven't had the joy of life stripped from you by an over emphasis on book/head knowledge. Unfortunately, I know a few too many Christians who have done so. But I support your rejection of this as an unfulfilling way to approach life.)
After all, it is virtually empirically evident that nothing in our immediate experience is greater than personhood.
Huh? ;) Again Rob, what do you mean by "greater" here? Now it sounds like you're saying there is nothing more defining of our personal experience than our personal (subjective) experience. Is this is what you mean by "greater"?
But what exactly would this imply? It sounds to me like you're trying to derive some "truth" as apparent here that does not follow from the observation in and of itself.
So how about some clarity. Again, I'm happy to hear you've not had the life drained from you like some who over emphasize book/head knowledge over experience, but I'm afraid I'm finding you about as cryptic in your use of language as many who have done so - no offense ;o)
- DJ
www.youtube.com/myintellectualjourny
Hi Rob R.
My personal experience assures me that I was self deluded, that "god" is a misinterpretation of Chance and emergence from complexity, and that if you want to take that track, you have to admit the truth of Hindus who's personal experience convinces them of the existence of their god.
They believe the god vishnu came to earth at least nine times already, and they have the proof. The last incarnation was the Buddah.
Chris,
how much is "plenty"?
more than scientists that don't believe?
There are more "plenty" of that sort.
and you only have circumstantial evidence at best if any evidence at all of your god, the same type as the hindus, so now you all need to show that something lies outside of the natural world, has an intelligence, is competent to do what you all think it has done, acutally did what you think it did, just to name a few.
Get busy.
post 1 of 3
What evidence from personal experience are you referring to?
I wasn't referring to a "personal" revelation that I had. I was speaking of the revelation of a person. How do we know persons? Through history.
And how does it "demand" anything particular to your religious view?
the personhood of God is actually and interestingly an interreligious debate between those who prefer God so strange and transcendent and wholly other (all the way to presuming no God at all as some forms of Buddhism hold) to Christianity where God is the essence of personhood, who's triunity reflects how essential community is to full personhood. But within buddhism you have some traditions that emphasize personhood just as in some traditions of Christianity (to some extent, John's tradition... as evidenced by his criticism of history and his positive assesment for the god of the philosophers as the only one worth believing in) where that personhood becomes a liability.
Fact is, it is within God's personhood where many of the puzzling aspects of Christianity make sense, such as God's method of taking a particular people at a particular time to work his rescue plan of the world to so many of God's harsh punishments for some sins, such as sexual sins as sexuality is the one aspect of the divine image that is specifically named in Genesis where we are first told that man was made in the image of God. If it's so sacred, it's understandable that the punishment reflects the disgrace of that deeply sacred aspect.
By "greater" do you mean truer or just more appealing?
appeal can refer to shallow preferences. That is not what we have here in our deep valuation of other humans. But I believe that deep value should also be trusted and treated as an epistemic cue. That is we view humans with deep value becasuse they do in fact have a deep value, (and not merely because it's just an illusion that gave our ancestors a survival advantage).
I'm glad to hear you haven't had the joy of life stripped from you by an over emphasis on book/head knowledge.
My strike at the god of the philosophers isn't so much about the intellectual study of God as it is the position that intellectuals tend to have taken... against personhood. The god of the philosophers as used by John is about that God that is argued for in your classical arguments for God. I don't have a big beef with that, but there is also a tendency to reduce God's personhood and in Christian theism, that has found expression of God as a timeless, immutable (this means he is changeless) impassible (which means he is without emotion) meticulously soverign being (which means he determines everything).
This is at odds with the biblical picture that paints God performing hopelessly temporal acts (such as forgiving) who is deeply affected by us and allows us to influence his actions. God has even made himself vulnerable to us and so he suffers because of us, for us and with us. This is a God who is deeply entrenched in the history of the world.
post 2 of 3
Huh? ;) Again Rob, what do you mean by "greater" here? Now it sounds like you're saying there is nothing more defining of our personal experience than our personal (subjective) experience. Is this is what you mean by "greater"?
I don't know why you'd go down this road away from what I thought was a simple claim. Nothing in existence that we have immediately available to us (if we discuss what people of different religious perspectives, even atheism can admit to) is greater than personhood in all of it's incredible aspects. We make art, literature, we manipulate the world. We are the ones who marvel at the world and if someone didn't do it, the marvels wouldn't be worth anything. We love, we think, we know. without subjects, the absence is an impoverished vacuum that is worthless as worth only arises from subjects.
It sounds to me like you're trying to derive some "truth" as apparent here that does not follow from the observation in and of itself.
In other threads, I have emphasized that we can't for example know that there is an external world. We can't prove solipsism wrong. But our senses point that way. We should trust them. But we have other aspects of our existence that we should trust, and those are our existential cues such as our feelings in the deep importance of persons. We should trust that as a cue of the transcendence of our existence which is a transcendance that materilism can't explain without reducing that sense to an illusion.
post 3 of 3
T Z clown, you misunderstood what I meant by personal revelation. See what I said to myintellectualjourny
Chris,
Education is not an enemy of religion.
In the context of this thread and Signature of the Cell, it is absolutely the enemy. ID relies on ignorance and misdirection to deceive their audience. This generally isn't a problem since their target audience isn't interested in science, these books are meant to muddy the water and create the false impression of a genuine controversy in order to advance their political agenda.
One can believe in the success of science and believe in a creator.
One can, however it gets harder and harder as one's education increases, especially as one's science education increases. The fact that some people manage it doesn't change the facts.
Science studies the natural world and therefore does not deal with what may lay outside it. The main issue is if one is a naturalist.
What nonsense.
I may forgive the intent as it has fooled smarter men than you, but the double standard is harder. Lets hear you direct this bunkus towards the Christian in the first post who believed he was using science to establish the existence of a Creator. But no, it's always used to chastise those who observe that science is squeezing religion. What hypocrisy.
Scholars are still talking about intelligent Design? Wow, just wow.
*sigh* Intelligent Design is a dead horse, it's amazing that after all the flack it has taken scientifically that anyone would want go near it.
(To Rob - B - 1 of 3)
Hi Rob. Thanks for response.
Here's my reply:
I wasn't referring to a "personal" revelation that I had. I was speaking of the revelation of a person. How do we know persons? Through history."
Hmm. I would agree we know OF some people through history. I certainly wouldn't use the word "revelation" to state this generally regarding the degree to which we personally "know" of someone historically (its far too strong a word to describe what this looks like.) However, I would say the way we know of people through history is a far cry from the "truest" most deep way we "know persons" which would be through personal relationship in the present. Not history.
Further, toward your specific assertions, I'd consider it a shame God (if one exists) - which I do not have the balls to presume - to think he at once seeks some type of relationship with us - that is only possible by way our interpreting our present experience in the present through the lens of some distant historic revelation (as flimsy a source for truth that history is in general - a soft science as I understand.) My mind tells me this means are strikingly poor and not worthy of anything I'd want to accuse any deity that may exist.
Fact is, it is within God's personhood where many of the puzzling aspects of Christianity make sense, such as God's method of taking a particular people at a particular time to work his rescue plan of the world to so many of God's harsh punishments for some sins, such as sexual sins as sexuality is the one aspect of the divine image that is specifically named in Genesis where we are first told that man was made in the image of God. If it's so sacred, it's understandable that the punishment reflects the disgrace of that deeply sacred aspect.
There's something fascinating about a complicated holistic mythic lens through which to see the world and human history. I'd agree to that much. As compelling to the truthfulness of a religious philosophy, it is not… unless one already presumes and is emotionally attached to it being true. That such benefits are all boons.
Unfortunately for those not already confirmed believers who critically examine Christian truth-claims, we find ourselves in a position to swiftly reject them as nonsense, just as an informed Christian would swiftly dismiss Joseph Smith as a charlatan. Why strain your mind to look past the bull shit, if you're not already convinced there some precious lost coin buried in it?
(cont'd)
(To Rob - B - 2 of 3)
But I believe that deep value should also be trusted and treated as an epistemic cue. That is we view humans with deep value becasuse they do in fact have a deep value, (and not merely because it's just an illusion that gave our ancestors a survival advantage).
From a humanistic perspective, "we view humans with deep value because they do in fact have a deep value" TO US and that not limited to survival but the joy of shared experience, intimacy, etc etc etc. Similarly we view life and so many facets of the experience it offers as having deep value to us, thereby meaning something to us, and as such essentially significant / important to us. In otherwords, we find that life for us is chock full of meaning (aka very meaningful) and significance (for us.)
This is universal to humans as it relates to our shared human nature. It's not "trivial" in the sense of being so subjective as that which is limited to the individual. And all this is true and recognizable so… and for us appreciable so… independent from one presuming a religious worldview.
I don't have a big beef with that, but there is also a tendency to reduce God's personhood and in Christian theism, that has found expression of God as a timeless, immutable (this means he is changeless) impassible (which means he is without emotion) meticulously soverign being (which means he determines everything).
I can appreciate that view. I certainly find it more human (as I did in the later days of my holding the Christian view.) And on some level, I think it can make for better Christians… as far as there being better human beings (more feeling, more authentic… less stoic.)
(cont'd)
(cont'd)
(To Rob - B - 3 of 3)
I don't know why you'd go down this road away from what I thought was a simple claim. Nothing in existence that we have immediately available to us (if we discuss what people of different religious perspectives, even atheism can admit to) is greater than personhood in all of it's incredible aspects. We make art, literature, we manipulate the world. We are the ones who marvel at the world and if someone didn't do it, the marvels wouldn't be worth anything. We love, we think, we know. without subjects, the absence is an impoverished vacuum that is worthless as worth only arises from subjects.
I very much agree. This is, in fact, how the humanistic perspective understands meaning. All the things in the world that we say have meaning/value… it's like beauty… it's in the eye of the beholder. Also, as such, the question of "the meaning of life" is really - as we're the one's asking, the question of what makes life meaningful (full of meaning/value) for us.
But we have other aspects of our existence that we should trust, and those are our existential cues such as our feelings in the deep importance of persons. We should trust that as a cue of the transcendence of our existence which is a transcendance that materilism can't explain without reducing that sense to an illusion.
Again, I find that I agree with you Ros, largely but not completely. I've already talked about the deep value / meaning / importance of people to us. I also think its clear - given its universality in humanity - that experiences of transcendence (like so many things) have value / meaning / significance to us. That that is so, is clear. The value/meaning/significance of experiences of transcendence to us is no illusion - its a fact. What's questionable is how different cultures have used the superstitious lens of there belief systems to read something more than that this (what is clearly the case) into it. But its also a fact that even these religious experiences are generally of value/meaningful/significant to people. That too is a fact and one a secular view can recognize. It's only the presumption that the religious language - through which people can talk about or engage such experiences - is literally revealing of something behind that which we know that is questionable as illusion.
We keep the baby… loose the bath water as it were.
Thanks Rob.
Take care.
- DJ
www.youtube.com/myintellectualjourny
Tyro
I am not even talking about Intelligent Design, obviously you misunderstood what I was saying. I was just stating that science and belief in God don't have to be mutually exclusive. One can look at the world and believe that everything we experience is a blind natural process or one can see it is a mechanism of a Creator.
TZ
The number of atheist scientists is irrelevant to this topic. Do they have a monopoly on the human experience?
John respondedNo, you do not believe because of that Signature book, and you know it, because you believed BEFORE ever reading it or anything of an apologetical nature...You asked me how sure I am right. There is no good positive evidence for Chrstianity, of that I'm sure (historical evidence is poor evidence and your God should have known this).
That's the onld atheist signature, when you have no clue for the argument at hand rather than admit you either need more science or a better understand of teh TRUTH's espoused in Signature, you simply move on to the next argument pretending to address the current argument.
FAILED!
Account for the information design athat every atheist scholar admits that exists but lives in denial explaining away. how did so much inforamtion come from primordial soup? In fact how did natural selection begin to word without DNA from the beginning when it can't work without DNA at all?
DE-NILE isn't just a river in Egypt, it's a condition of the atheist/agnostic mind I suppose.
Harvey,
Account for the information design athat every atheist scholar admits that exists but lives in denial explaining away.
If I can reliably predict the outcome of an event 80% of the time because I know how most of it works, is what I think I know "explaining away" the truth that it must be that "god did it"?
Do you realize that you are negating the accumulation of knowledge as irrelevant and dismissing it as "explaining away" the "truth" in favor of keeping a worldview that favors remaining anchored to reacting to chance?
You should take a course in probability and economics so you can get a TASTE of how new properties and characteristics "emerge" from the interaction of "elements". You will see that "cooperation" or even "coopetition" is rationally, logically, and mathematically the best outcome for all participants. A rudimentary type of morality emerges from the self-interested behavior of actors in an iterative series of events.
Its the "golden rule" harvey, and it comes from self-interested behavior of participants, not god.
Your line of thinking negates deviation and mistakes in the system, its all got to be god or nothing. If you go so far as to admit that God set it in motion and then nature took it from there, then you still have the problem of explaining why your information about your god (your scripture, personal "experience") is more valid than a hindus.
All these arguments boil down to ancient information and circumstantial evidence.
If you say that "god did it", its not enough. You have to show why the other hypothesis fails, and you have to ensure its reapeatable. The hypothesis that produces the more reliable information should be the one that gets the commitment from the observer. You have at least two competing hypotheses that you haven't eliminated, Science and Hinduism. You have to show why your hypothesis produces more reliable outcomes than the other two, otherwise, you have to admit that they are all eligible to be probable.
If you're not willing to do that, then you are at least obligated to say that either hypothesis might be true, and then you become an agnostic. Logically you should be agnostic anyway, especially with what you think about you know about your god. You say he's "good", but then he does things that are not characteristically good, which forces you to fall back to agnosticism about his motives and behavior.
"gods ways are mysterious" is just another way of saying
"I don't know anything about this".
I've been reading this blog for quite some time but haven't made many comments. There are some excellent posts and comments here. Thnks all!
Now I see that the "District Superintendent" homophobe is posting his screed here.
In his recent post on his site he equates gays with child molesters and beastiality.
He doesn't seem to understand the concept of consent.
He banned me from his site after I responded to his reference to the "Gay Agenda" thusly, "The "gay agenda" is the same as the "Black agenda," the "woman's agenda,"and the "hispanic agenda" and that is equality.
Harvey is one of those deluded people that think sexual orientation is a "choice." The study of sexual orientation is fascinating and the difference betqween male and female is far more ambiguous than eve I originally thought.
I got interested in the subject through my oldest daughter who studied human development for her degree.
It's interesting to note that there are kids born in this country every single day with both male and female sex organs, but most will identify one way or the other which clearly shows that our sexual orientation is hardwired in the brain.
Anyway, apologies for being off topic, and thanks for hearing me out.
Keep up the good work John and all!
That's the onld atheist signature, when you have no clue for the argument at hand rather than admit you either need more science or a better understand of teh TRUTH's espoused in Signature, you simply move on to the next argument pretending to address the current argument.
Harvey, first off, what John did here was refute the assertion by the individual that HE BELIEVES AS A RESULT of reading this book. And you're response in no way offers any challenge to this refutation (which is to say you largely miss the point... and at least border on Straw Manning here.)
Secondly, as to your second point, you say John should admit he needs more information in regards to the book the other individual mentions. Wrong! It's the individual arguing positively for a view that is responsible to present the content of an actual argument. Period!
(Which may (though shouldn't) leave to say, mentioning a book does not even border on qualify for presenting an actual argument. It qualifies for passing the buck! Also known as dropping the ball and copping out.... a true "FAIL" as it were... to use your wonderfully "Christ-like" and demeaning words.)
"Some other guy in a book I read makes some good arguments... you should check it out." That's an argument that needs refuting? No way! YOU should "check it out" until you can present said argument for your own self. There are millions of books in the world. If you've discovered something of value in one you've read, great! By all means feel free to share it. But hell no, no one is responsible for reading the books on your "I find these arguments convincing" reading list (we have lives w/ limited hours in the day after all and reading lists all our own.)
In summary, please make your case or go home! It is YOURS to make. There's no free lunch and no one's going to do your homework for you.
Sorry for the harshness of my tone, but I honestly find the presumptuousness of what posted here both unfair and disrespectful.
Thanks for reading.
Regards,
DJ
www.youtube.com/myintellectualjourny
how did so much inforamtion come from primordial soup?
How do you know how much "information" is needed for abiogenesis to take place?
Also from a theistic perspective I don't see what's your objection. An allmighty god is capable of creating a world that is governed entirely by natural law, as is certainly accepted by you on the level of physics (e.g. the four known fundamental interactions: gravitation, electromagnetism, strong interaction, weak interaction). Can you think of a good reason for god to intervene at the level of chemistry and biology? He clearly doesn't have to. And when he does, why do it to let dinosaurs live here for millions of years (assuming you are not a young earther)? All this doesn't fit well together.
post 1 of 2
the way we know of people through history is a far cry from the "truest" most deep way we "know persons
There is more to knowing someone personally than just history. It's not an either/or matter. Not only is history an important part of knowing God, we are also to worship God, follow his ways and experience God by allowing him to work through us and and experience God as he works through others as he has commited himself to working though creation. To further the point, Jesus has said, to act with compassionately towards the poor and needy is equivalent to doing these things for God.
Is this exactly like knowing your neighbor, your brother or spouse? of course not, but it is by God's design that such relating teaches us who he is.
which I do not have the balls to presume - to think he at once seeks some type of relationship with us
If the creator of the universe doesn't want a relationship with us, there's no harm in that idea. He/it wouldn't care. If he does and we refuse to respond, that is a far graver issue.
that is only possible by way our interpreting our present experience in the present through the lens of some distant historic revelation
That would be a shame. But God is actively at work in the world through the church (and beyond). And that gets confusing when so many in the church, and so many claiming to be in the church fall short of living the presence of God. But many don't fail.
as flimsy a source for truth that history is in general - a soft science as I understand.
it requires more trust. That's a good thing. Trust is necessary in intimate relationships.
My mind tells me this means are strikingly poor and not worthy of anything I'd want to accuse any deity that may exist.
The wisdom of God, who chooses to work through trust, through faith, through the love of his creatures even to the point of opening himself up to vulnerability is indeed foolishness to the wisdom of men.
There's something fascinating about a complicated holistic mythic lens through which to see the world and human history. I'd agree to that much. As compelling to the truthfulness of a religious philosophy, it is not...
we trust our empirical senses to tell us of an external world (one that isn't just in the mind). Why shouldn't we also trust our existential senses as giving us cues to the transcendant?
post 2 of 2
From a humanistic perspective, "we view humans with deep value because they do in fact have a deep value" TO US and that not limited to survival but the joy of shared experience, intimacy, etc etc etc. Similarly we view life and so many facets of the experience it offers as having deep value to us, thereby meaning something to us, and as such essentially significant / important to us. In otherwords, we find that life for us is chock full of meaning (aka very meaningful) and significance (for us.)
sure you do. You appreciate the branches and leaves and they are absolutely undeniably real. You should embrace roots and a foundation for that meaning. We are rational creatures after all.
It's not "trivial" in the sense of being so subjective as that which is limited to the individual.
equating subjectivity with individualism (or worse, illusion) is one of those mistakes of modernity. Subjectivity deserves a place in an honest responsible human epistemology (it shouldn't be the whole thing though). AFter all, our objective experience is second hand information through subjective experience.
This is, in fact, how the humanistic perspective understands meaning.
I am a humanist. I just don't think secularism is a worthy companion to real thorough humanism.
What's questionable is how different cultures have used the superstitious lens of there belief systems to read something more than that this (what is clearly the case) into it.
The fact of pluralism means the religious claims are certainly worth scrutinizing. I just question that we should confuse doubt with scrutiny.
Rob R., you seem to act like someone who has all of the answers. I appreciate your willingness to read and reflect on what I write, but answer me this before I approve any more of your comments. Have you read my book? Assuming you haven't tell me when you plan on doing so. You cannot possibly think to yourself that by dealing piecemeal with an argument here and there that you can effectively deal with my whole case. If you think you can then do so. It's in my book. What I write here amounts to little more than addenda to it.
TZ Clown
What hypothesis are you talking about?
Hi Chris,
I thought it was clear from the context.
God as hypothesis for the origin of the universe.
for example, three competing hypothesis or cosmogonies for the origin of the universe is
- Christian god did it,
- Hindu gods did it,
- Scientific hypothesis that it resulted from an explosion or expansion of a tiny bit of matter,
likewise hypotheses for life on earth,
- Christian God did it,
- Hindu Gods did it,
- Scientific view point that that it resulted from the blending and accumulation of protiens or amino acids, becoming more complex over time.
These are the hypothesis I'm talking about.
People get fooled by Complexity. Complex interaction of parts enables little "chemical robots" AKA viruses to exhibit lifelike behavior, but not completely fit any given criteria for life. The appearance of life emerges from the behavior of the virus. The behavior of the virus is more than the sum of its parts. This isn't god, this is complex interaction of components.
Froggie says..."He banned me from his site after I responded to his reference to the "Gay Agenda" thusly, "The "gay agenda" is the same as the "Black agenda," the "woman's agenda,"and the "hispanic agenda" and that is equality."
Now be careful !! what you say Froggie!!....Or Harvey just wont ALLOW IT !! :-)
Just remember you dealing with a Staunch old Baptist minister who thinks we just all Eeeeevil!! sinners.
Gotta step carefully around these pastor types sheeze they a force to be reckoned with Froggie ..Take "The Amazing Grace Baptist Church in Canton, North Carolina" for instance they on the loose and had enough of eeevil stuff of this earth.So much so they even taken to be burning bibles and music and all sorts of stuff.Gawd and poor old mother Teresa aint even safe!she up for the burn treatment too
See
http://amazinggracebaptist
churchkjv.com/Download99.html
or
http://blog.seattlepi.
com/bookpatrol/archives/182095.asp?from=blog_last3
Harv might start he`s own special crusade of burnin Eeeevil!! Froggies next
Watch out!
TZ Clown
First of all, the emergence of life
from non-life is not understood yet by the scientific community. There are no testable hypothesis, just speculation.
Why do you keep refering to specific God's when talking about the origin of the universe and life. All I am trying to say is that it is not unreasonable to believe there is intelligence behind our natural laws.
First of all, the emergence of life from non-life is not understood yet by the scientific community. There are no testable hypothesis, just speculation.
Are you really saying that scientists have made no progress on this issue? To say it is all just speculation is wrong, it's incredibly misleading and downplaying the current state of affairs.
Not that it should matter, what does God bring to this process? Saying God did it is useless as it tells us nothing about how the process came about. In fact it's worse than useless because when scientists give something a name like dark matter, it's a placeholder until more is known. Saying God did it cuts off all inquiry into the process.
Methinks you are projecting when you say scientists only have speculation. Because while biochemists have been working on the answer, testing ideas, making progress on understanding the process (it seems that a process involving hydrothermal vents are giving the best evidential support currently), what are you doing? Where's your testable hypothesis? You're the one speculating and you're trying to hide that fact by putting it back on the scientists.
Hypothetical: say a scientist mimicking natural conditions creates what would be the equivalent of protobacteria in the laboratory. What would you do then? Would you accept that God is falsified? Would you claim that intelligent design is necessary (because a scientist was involved in the process)? Would you say that it doesn't count because we don't know if it happened that way 3.8 billion years ago?
This to me is the problem with a god of the gaps argument, it's an argument from ignorance. We don't know how life began, therefore God. I honestly can't say I know how life began, I'm betting you can't either. If I'm wrong please say so. But if I'm right that you're as ignorant on the subject as the average layman, then I put it to you to make a testable hypothesis as to how it happened. Otherwise it's just speculation and you're projecting onto scientists working in the field your own ignorance.
Chris,
There are no testable hypothesis, just speculation.
when technology is built on concepts, its a LOT more than speculation. Go take a tour of a hospital sometime.
Why do you keep refering to specific God's when talking about the origin of the universe and life.
why else are you here?
All I am trying to say is that it is not unreasonable to believe there is intelligence behind our natural laws.
Then you'd agree that there must be an intelligence behind the intelligence of our natural laws then?
its got to stop somewhere, so why don't we stop before we get to imaginary beings?
must there be intelligence behind slime mold? Must the be an intelligence in the way fire spreads through a forest? Must there be an intelligence behind the spirals in a pinecone? Matter has properties. Different types of matter interact with each other and react. These interactions cause other interactions, a small percentage of them occur in error, resulting in deviance, all of this resulting in serendipitous events that over time accumulate to become more complex. I know its hard to get your head around, but you all ought to try.
Exchange your religion for an education. I did.
My religion is education these days. My church is school.
Are you fishing for a reason to get rid of me John? You only have to ask. I'm not one of those who just has an irresistible itch to take Loftus down a notch. I just see something I am confidant that I can respond to and I do even when some times I'd rather not take the time (cause sometimes I like doing this, and some times it does seem like a hassle).
Is reading your book going to be a general prerequisite to respond here or is it just for me? I must say that if it comes to that, I'll miss the good ole days when you censored people who just conversed horribly or troll-ably on a fairly consistent basis and not someone who is every now and then in more than one place thanked by the skeptics for some decent insight or concession made.
Rob R., you seem to act like someone who has all of the answers.
Well, I can't answer a claim without acting like I have the answer. Do I think I have all the answers. I geuss after having my own crisis of faith on scriptural matters and having seen some amazing yet scholarly responsible answers to a severe problem I had, I'm comfortable not having all the answers expecting that even if it's not available to me immediately, an answer may be around the corner, and if it isn't, it's not like the church doesn't know enough to get by until an answer is supplied.
I have your book and I have read a few chapters, perhaps 4 at the beginning and several in the middle. I haven't read it all because that's just the way I am. I take a long time to get through some books due to my certified ADD status and I jump around from book to book.
You cannot possibly think to yourself that by dealing piecemeal with an argument here and there that you can effectively deal with my whole case.
I can't imagine how one would take apart a cumulative case accept by taking it a piece at a time since it's based on the accumulation of all of the parts.
Do you expect me to counter your whole book every time I respond?
Course I admit that I might not have been exactly on topic but rather on a tangent in this discussion based on something you said. I'm too happy to take a discussion on a tangent, but I also respect the topic authors wish for me to stay on if they express that, though if that's going to be the general rule, I'm more likely to fumble there and could use clarification if I've gone to far afield. Here I probably wouldn't have responded here at all even though I am very opinionated on the origin issue and intelligent design. I just think too many eggs are placed in this basket. So I "nitpicked" what I consider to be a far more important issue that you mentioned though I suppose I don't mean exactly the same thing you do by basing one's faith on the historical consideration.
No, Rob it is not a prerequisite to read my book before you can comment. As I said I appreciate your willingness to read what I write. It's just that I wondered if you had, or if you were planning on doing so, that's all. People who act like answer men bore me and that's what it appeared to me since you comment so much. Okay, you are willing to learn and to reflect. That's all I wanted to know. Thanks.
It's amazing to me that bloggers on this site complain about feisty religious people yet they do just the same with someone who disagrees.
Kel
Who said anything about God of the gaps? Just because someone believes there is a Creator doesn't mean he's against science.
I am not claiming I have the all the answers. I am just stating the reasonable belief that I hold.
Clown
I actually have a college education. Would you say that 40% of American Scientists that believe in God are ignorant and less intelligent than you?
"Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs"— Stephen Jay Gould
Hi Chris
so then you agree that God was created by some other god, then should that god be subject to evolution too?
hmmmmm, lets look at the details of this conundrum I seem to have gotten myself into.....
Did Gould mention WHOSE religious beliefs? The contra to that are that
his peers are not stupid and religious cosmogonies are not compatible with evolution. Potentially, Gould has an 80% chance of believing in the wrong god among his peers that believe in a god when you consider the following.
I think your 40% is a little high, but I'll go with it. It depends on how you ask the question, and which god it is that they believe in.
I'm sure that some percentage of Hindu scientists believe in a Hindu God, some percentage of Christian scientists believe in a christian god and so on and so on.
So of that 40 percent, break it down by religion, and you have to divide it by the number of faiths, so if there are 5 competing faiths in that forty percent, then only 8% are right if a god exists.
So how can the remaining 32% of believing scientists be wrong if they are so smart and a god exists?
Potentially, that is 80% of the pool of 40%, and overall 92% of scientists that don't believe in the RIGHT god or any god at all.
The 32% of believing scientists have OBVIOUSLY come to a hasty conclusion haven't they?
Didn't think of that did you? Details, details, details....
Smart people are not immune from social and political pressure or their natural bias to confuse complexity with intelligence.
It just shows that they haven't thought about it critically enough to catch up with their unbelieving peers that make up the majority or they have determined that if it doesn't make a difference, then they are better off lying about their belief, or the survey question or results were misinterpreted.
Rob (B - 1 of 3)
"There is more to knowing someone personally than just history."
Ah, but my point was more that history is not the primary way that we get to know people in our lives. That is a contrast to your religions approach to "knowing" its theorized deity, which without the "history" (the bible), one is apparently unable to have an in depth relationship with God. That's to say your religion's concept of getting to "know" a deity initial appears to just be a matter of the religious lens one gets when one accepts the words of these apparently human documents as divine and thereby begins to interpret his/her experience through this lens… whereby things like helping the poor, for example, becomes seen as a way of "loving God" (relating to him) all the while no God need really be involved at all… just normal human life interpreted through a religious lens.
You'll notice that I'm starting with the things we know from our shared experience, a contrast to your making assertions based on your treatment of the bible as something more than what it readily appears to be (and for which if you expect it to be treated as more than that, you need to first make a case) - the work of mere humans like that of all other religious literature.
"The wisdom of God, who chooses to work through trust, through faith, through the love of his creatures even to the point of opening himself up to vulnerability is indeed foolishness to the wisdom of men."
God help you if you're wrong Rob. If there is a God out there who knows and will one day judge what we're doing (true, this may be no more than a superstitious human idea), I'd consider myself a fool not to give him the benefit of the doubt (just in case he is to judge us) that he is reasonable and thereby expects us to use our brains. To accuse him of expecting people to do the opposite of what using their brains to reason leads to, is for me (and this was my main point before) to presume that which is as far as we know an insult to God. Again and again that which I read in this collection of documents (the bible) that appears so very human to me, I find myself encountering things over and over that I would feel I would presume to insult any deity in existence if I assumed He rather than mere humans wrote it.
(cont'd)
Rob (B - 2 of 3)
"We trust our empirical senses to tell us of an external world (one that isn't just in the mind). Why shouldn't we also trust our existential senses as giving us cues to the transcendent?"
It's an issue of interpretation that's problematic. That transcendent experiences having value and therefore meaning to people is clear. Also is clear that people tend to interpret these to mean all kinds of different things (as our variety of religions alone demonstrate though they are not the whole of the matter.) The thing that is questionable is the presumption of a certain interpretation of this experiences meaning something beyond that which the experiences in and of themselves demonstrate. You're trusting a particular interpretation. That my friend needs to be argued for… its in good company amidst many other interpretations and then those of us - like myself - who believe the humility that limited human knowledge requires should encourage us not to make assumptions beyond what we can conclude from the facts themselves.
"Sure you do. You appreciate the branches and leaves and they are absolutely undeniably real. You should embrace roots and a foundation for that meaning. We are rational creatures after all."
Rob, John is correct is telling you that you come across as presumptuous in thinking you have all the answers. You should know this is a turn off… and if you're interest is to be persuasive, this is working against your efforts.
Your whole assertion stands on your assumption that your understanding of the world is accurate as revealing "the foundation." But you are - as seems your consistent weakness - begging the case here. Your not preaching the choir… as a rational human being, you should be aware of the importance of considering your audience. Your Christian assumptions are not a given with me or anyone else who does not hold a biblical worldview. Thereby you need to argue for them.
Worse, you're showing yourself to take license by your assumptions to make assumptions about other people as well. Here, you assume I appreciate the "leaves" (superficial aspects) but lack a holistic understanding. But this is something I very much have spent time exploring from a secular perspective. You're revealed assumption here that your faith alone provides a means to explaining how the pieces fit together and why only shows that you have not explored other views enough to see how they do so also but by a different view.
(Cont'd)
Rob (B - 3 of 3)
"equating subjectivity with individualism (or worse, illusion) is one of those mistakes of modernity. Subjectivity deserves a place in an honest responsible human epistemology (it shouldn't be the whole thing though). AFter all, our objective experience is second hand information through subjective experience."
Rob, please don't be so quick to generalize. I think you know that's a reductionist approach to looking at things. I presented a specific concept of subjectivity to show how a secular worldview was not trivial in that sense. I did not at any point assert that this was the primary or only meaning to what people mean when they use the word "subjective." Please ask a question if you have one rather than presuming to read my mind.
"The fact of pluralism means the religious claims are certainly worth scrutinizing. I just question that we should confuse doubt with scrutiny."
The fact of pluralism of religious claims is a reason to start in a position of humility… a position of "I don't know." That's not to say one has to stay there necessarily, but this is the default position as mere mortals that we all find ourselves in wherever we go from there. And thereby, as we discuss such things with others, we should keep in mind that this is the default position and if we want to persuade others of a particular view, we must start from here, rather than a presumption of having the answer… since this will only come across as blindness to one's biases if one is unable to meet others where we all must start if rational… humility.
Regards,
- DJ
www.youtube.com/myintellectualjourny
Once again I am not talking about specific religions. I don't know how many times I have to write that.
God would not be part of the evolutionary process. Are you familiar with the Cosmological Argument?
Hi Chris,
thats the first time I've seen you clearly state that your are not talking about any particular religion.
Yes, I'm familiar with the cosmological argument.
Its the argument that says that everything has a cause.
but it oddly enough, doesn't include god having a cause, which makes it special pleading, AKA a fallacy.
Chris,
You may not be talking about a specific creator yet we're all here in response to the original post which did talk about a specific religion. If you're determined to talk about something else, you need to be much clearer or perhaps even save your points for a more opportune moment.
I also have a hard time squaring your claim that you aren't talking about specifics when you then go on to say very specific things like "God would not be part of the evolutionary process." This is talking about a specific god!
I am just stating the reasonable belief that I hold.
That's the problem, I don't find it reasonable. In fact it seems the opposite of reasonable.
Well the argument says that whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist, as far as we know, so it needs a cause. The causal agent would not have the same properties as its contigencies because there would be an infinite regress. So I think it is reasonable to believe there is a God.
Tyro
"You may not be talking about a specific creator yet we're all here in response to the original post which did talk about a specific religion."
I was responding to your statement that education is an enemy of religion. This is a patently false statement. Obviously you are unfamiliar with all the great scientists who happened to be believers. It wasn't until about 200 to 300 years ago that science seemed to be viewed, by many people,as an enemy of religion.
Kel
Whats your definiton of reasonable? A strictly naturalist viewpoint of the universe. I guess about 40% of American scientists are unreasonable as well.
The point that I want to make is that one should have a rather humble view of what science can tell us. Some of you attack a belief I have just because it doesn't fit into your naturalist paradigm. That's when scientism becomes an exclusive religion.
Perish the thought!!!
Well the argument says that whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist, as far as we know, so it needs a cause.
At best, the argument goes that everything we've checked which has a beginning has a cause but this doesn't rule out black swans. And as we've learned more, this argument has been severely challenged. In the atomic age, it may be more accurate to say that everything which we know of that has a beginning does not have a cause, or the cause is not an intelligent agent like a god.
I was responding to your statement that education is an enemy of religion. This is a patently false statement. Obviously you are unfamiliar with all the great scientists who happened to be believers. It wasn't until about 200 to 300 years ago that science seemed to be viewed, by many people,as an enemy of religion.
So you're saying that as we've grown our body of knowledge, religion has become less and less tenable? Sounds to me like you're supporting my case, not fighting it.
And the presence of a few individuals is consistent with my claim. The declining number of religious amongst the educated (and the increasing liberalism amongst the remaining) also fights your point. Plus there's the direct observation that religious groups continue to fight against discoveries.
Tyro
The cosmological argument is a philosophical argument so of course it is not exhaustive. However, it stands as a reasonable argument, with what we know.
I wasn't actually making your case for you. What I meant was scientism came out of the Enlightenment which is a recent phenomenon. I think the idea that science leads to atheism was more of a response to the Catholic Church.
Obviously some religious groups fight discoveries, but to say religion is an enemy of education is a bit of an overstatement.
The cosmological argument is a philosophical argument so of course it is not exhaustive. However, it stands as a reasonable argument, with what we know.
Which is fine if you're arguing for the existence of a philosophical god, but if you think that god is real (as most believers do) then you are obligated to compare your statements with reality and they come up short. Using the most straight-forward understanding, it would be fair to say the exact opposite, that everything we know which came to exist did not have a cause.
What I meant was scientism came out of the Enlightenment which is a recent phenomenon. I think the idea that science leads to atheism was more of a response to the Catholic Church.
LOL!
I'll agree that correlation isn't necessarily causation but it does confirm much of what we see in other areas and the Muslims, Protestants and other faiths have exactly the same problems. The rise of "scientism" isn't a philosophical movement responding to the Catholics but to the relentless and unparalleled success of science and the corresponding failure of religion.
"it would be fair to say the exact opposite, that everything we know which came to exist did not have a cause."
What evidence are you refering to? I have heard no such thing.
Scientism isn't science. Scientism is a philosophical viewpoint that science can tell us everything and holds a monopoly on all human experience. Just because science has had unparalleled success doesn't mean we can understand everything. Are you familiar with quantum mechanics?
chris,
as I understand it,
scientism is not so much a "philosophical viewpoint" as it is a perjorative term levied on people like me that view science as the best and preferred method of gaining knowledge.
It seems that we have to agree to disagree. I find it quite reasonable to believe in an intelligence of some sort outside our universe. Even some scientists say it is quite plausible that intelligence was placed on earth from the outside. Richard Dawkins even says so in Expelled.
I think scientists are understanding that its becoming not as plausible to believe evolution explains everything. Some mathematicians like John Lennox explain that there was not really enough time for evolution to bring the complexity that we see today.
Chris,
I have two years of physics in University and some pop science reading as a background so I only have a thin understanding of QM. I think it's enough to follow the hand-waving arguments proffered by apologists.
All theories and observations of the quantum world point to an origin of all matter without a cause, at least anything that would be considered a "cause" in any common sense, certainly so far removed from a god that it makes deists look like raving fundamentalists. The argument has always been based on a misunderstanding of the world (e.g.: imagining that a tree has a beginning instead of understanding that it's actually a continuum of chemical transformations with no beginning). As we learn more, instead of incorporating new knowledge and adapting, the reaction has been to fight, obscure and undermine new discoveries.
e.g.: imagining that a tree has a beginning instead of understanding that it's actually a continuum of chemical transformations with no beginning).
But where did the chemicals come from? The universe right? Where did the universe come from? If it is part of the multiverse where did the multiverse come from. It is reasonable to believe there was a cause.
But where did the chemicals come from? The universe right? Where did the universe come from? If it is part of the multiverse where did the multiverse come from. It is reasonable to believe there was a cause.
Don't you see what you're doing?
All of the evidence and intuitive sense from your argument relies on trees and other things having a cause. When we learn that our intuition and naive, pre-scientific understanding is incorrect instead of dropping the argument, you try to say that we should expect a cause even though we've got no evidence.
Worse, having gained an understanding of the subatomic world where particles truly "begin to exist" and lack a cause, you dismiss all of this and once again appeal to intuition even though it was misleading us for all these centuries!
That "reasonable to believe" card lost its shine when we discovered chemistry and atoms and now its not merely unsubstantiated, it goes against the evidence. You need a lot more than hand-waving and an appeal to "common sense".
Chris,
Actually, it is more reasonable to say that we don't know if there was a cause or not, and if there was a cause, we don't really know what it was.
This is the problem that is inherent in cosmological arguments. They rest on the truth of a premise that we don't know to be true, and might not ever be able to show to be true. This is why these sort of arguments are unconvincing.
Further, there is a kind of chauvinism inherent in the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" As though the fact that the universe exists at all is somehow unnatural. How do you know that having "something" is not the "natural" outcome, and that having "nothing" is the thing that would actually be unusual?
Steven
"As though the fact that the universe exists at all is somehow unnatural. How do you know that having "something" is not the "natural" outcome, and that having "nothing" is the thing that would actually be unusual?"
I don't know that. Don't you see that is a faith statement as well. Your essentially saying well maybe this or that. Thats not scientific either.
The point of cosmological arguments is to provide a reasonable argument on what we know or what seems more plausible. I don't know how life started or if their is cause but nobody knows either.
Tyro
"Worse, having gained an understanding of the subatomic world where particles truly "begin to exist" and lack a cause, you dismiss all of this and once again appeal to intuition even though it was misleading us for all these centuries!"
Actually I was talking about the universe not particles. Particles come into existence because the universe exists. So there really not coming from nothing.
post 1 of 3
myintellectualjourney,
Ah, but my point was more that history is not the primary way that we get to know people in our lives. That is a contrast to your religions approach to "knowing" its theorized deity, which without the "history" (the bible), one is apparently unable to have an in depth relationship with God.
We clearly have different experiences of what people and personal relationships are. I can't imagine knowing people at all without sharing some history and deepening that knowledge by knowing their history. (but I don't actually believe our experiences are different, I just don't agree with your interpretation of yours(and I know that will strike some people as irksome, but everyone does it and should do it. If you disagree, then you'd have to fault so many of the atheists here who interpret other's religious experiences as illusory)).
a contrast to your making assertions based on your treatment of the bible as something more than what it readily appears to be
Scripture is first and foremost a narrative of a history of God and man. That claim is hardly controversial. I believe it is true history obviously. why wouldn't I. I'm a christian. It's not like I'm arguing that since I believe it is true (or cause it says of itself it's true) then so should you. Apart from that why wouldn't I explain my faith along the lines that I have. I geuss I'm not fully sure what you are trying to argue here as a response to me.
God help you if you're wrong Rob. If there is a God out there who knows and will one day judge what we're doing (true, this may be no more than a superstitious human idea), I'd consider myself a fool not to give him the benefit of the doubt (just in case he is to judge us) that he is reasonable and thereby expects us to use our brains.
He sure does. You'd never get a claim to the contrary of that from me. I for one believe that consistency (as in logical coherence) is a feature of truth thus we should use our rational faculties. And we should love God with all our minds as Jesus said. But it is true that what man considers wise is often foolish. Do you disagree with me? John Loftus posted agreement on that very thing in his most recent thread on Keith Parsons (as of this writing, it's the first post on the blog).
It's an issue of interpretation that's problematic.
that's right, and there's no way to deal with the different interpretations except to get into the detail, and for many of those details, it is beyond the scope of just one blog discussion. But we have been discussing some of those issues, (such as the greatness of personhood and the importance of history as part of revealing a person... with that, if I am correct, you can rule out many brands of some eastern religions such as Jnana Yoga and Theravadan Buddhism as well as some very liberal Christian perspectives).
like myself - who believe the humility that limited human knowledge requires should encourage us not to make assumptions beyond what we can conclude from the facts themselves.
But it's not humility if you decide what is appropriate and humble for me to believe.
Also, assumptions are necessary for all knowledge. I don't think there is any fruit in a fact/assumption dichotomy. Why can't an assumption be factual? I think it's factual that my senses communicate an external reality. But there is no way to absolutely verify such a belief. There is a real level at which it is an unprovable assumption.
2 of 3
Rob, John is correct is telling you that you come across as presumptuous in thinking you have all the answers. You should know this is a turn off… and if you're interest is to be persuasive, this is working against your efforts.
I'm sorry but from your statement, it just didn't seem that you had reason for the joy and meaning you find in life about people and relationships beyond the experience itself. You can stop there if you want. It just struck me as hollow and incomplete. You can call this presumptuous. I just call it honesty. And we aren't dating so I'm not concerned about what's a turn off.
Your whole assertion stands on your assumption that your understanding of the world is accurate as revealing "the foundation."
My assertion fits. And I say that fit is what commends it epistemically. And that is the story of just about all knowledge. We believe we know things because our beliefs fit the world. I'm well aware that people will disagree with me, so here's two possible responses. Tell me why it doesn't fit or show me a better fitting answer. Materialism for example can explain our existential senses, but it doesn't fit very well as it reduces them to an illusion that merely came about because of a survival advantage.
You're revealed assumption here that your faith alone provides a means to explaining how the pieces fit together and why only shows that you have not explored other views enough to see how they do so also but by a different view.
I don't understand why you'd conclude that without making your own assumptions about what I know and have studied. I don't see the point of this comment at all. If another view fits better, don't tell me that's it out there. Tell me how it does that. How can we have a quality discussion if a response amounts to "you know, the problem with your view is that there's a good argument out there against it that you haven't studied yet and I haven't provided."
I did not at any point assert that this was the primary or only meaning to what people mean when they use the word "subjective."
Sorry for the knee jerk reaction.
The fact of pluralism of religious claims is a reason to start in a position of humility… a position of "I don't know."
You can admit you don't know and it can be humble. But to insist that humility for me means the same thing leads to the less humble more presumptuous "I don't know and neither do you" or worse "WE CANNOT KNOW". where you've decided that your current view of things represents the whole human epistemic situation. I think it's humble to believe that one knows and is willing to be wrong or that one is confidant while recognizing that what he is confidant in cannot be absolutely proven (in other words, it takes faith).
In all honesty, instead of assigning emotions to someone else's beliefs, lets just deal with them rationally because deciding who's too humble and proud does nothing for the substance of the claims.
That's not to say one has to stay there necessarily, but this is the default position as mere mortals that we all find ourselves in wherever we go from there.
The default position of rationality is belief, not doubt. Truly truly following a consistent method of doubt (as in not stopping with religion but applying it to everything metaphysical) leaves you knowing almost nothing.
persuade others of a particular view, we must start from here, rather than a presumption of having the answer…
why would I argue for a position that I don't know is true, that I have no confidence in? why try to persuade at all? why not let me honestly articulate and defend what I believe to be true instead of insisting that I should pretend that I don't. And if there's reason to think I'm wrong, bring it to my attention and let me deal with that.
since this will only come across as blindness to one's biases if one is unable to meet others where we all must start if rational
I embrace my biases while I try to scrutinize them. If I'm blind to one, you're welcome to bring it to my attention so I may embrace or reject it with scrutiny.
Chris,
Actually I was talking about the universe not particles. Particles come into existence because the universe exists. So there really not coming from nothing.
The universe existing isn't a cause, at least be honest about that. It may be a precondition but since neither you nor anyone else has a means of making observations outside of our universe you have no means of verifying it which makes the whole endeavour all the more ridiculous.
And since these are the only things which we know "begin to exist", someone that still cared about the truth would never say "everything which begins to exist has a cause", they would say something like "everything which we know began to exist within this universe lack a proximal cause but began its existence within the universe." We currently have no means of verifying whether the universe began to exist or whether it was caused but observations from within our universe imply that not only do things not need a direct cause to exist but that lacking a cause is the only path we've ever observed.
This isn't so new that apologists couldn't educate themselves. To continue to propagate this antiquated argument is akin to outright deception. It's yet another example where knowledge and education undermine religious arguments and where religious advocates try to undermine knowledge and discovery instead of seeking it out.
Chris,
I don't know that. Don't you see that is a faith statement as well. Your essentially saying well maybe this or that. Thats not scientific either.
All right, you're on the right track, you admit you don't know, but you go off the rails when you say this is a faith statement. Please explain how not forming a belief based on a lack of evidence is a faith statement, that doesn't even make sense.
If you think this non-conclusion is not scientific then you don't understand what the scientific process says is the best conclusion to draw in these circumstances. The best conclusion to draw...is to not draw a conclusion at all without compelling evidence either way. From a scientific perspective it is simply not good form to draw any conclusion. Cosmological arguments are uninformative here since, as I mentioned, they rely on having information or evidence that we don't have. You can't even say that either a positive or negative conclusion on the cosmological argument is more plausible because of the lack of information.
Do you not understand what I mean when I say that you don't have any ability to determine which is the more natural state? ie. Something vs. nothing?
Tyro
I wasn't saying the universe was the cause. I was saying for particles to come into existence there has to be a universe.
Steven
Please explain how not forming a belief based on a lack of evidence is a faith statement, that doesn't even make sense.
Your right. Point taken. I do believe that with what we know about the universe and life it is not unreasonable to believe in an intelligence of some kind outside the universe. Like I said earlier even Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould said it is indeed possible that life on earth could have been placed here from somewhere else. So do you think atheism is the only belief that science leads to?
Chris,
I wasn't saying the universe was the cause. I was saying for particles to come into existence there has to be a universe.
So why not drop the coy act and say whether you think they have a cause and what that cause is.
Right now, they're your entire argument and it appears as if you're backing away from them while still sticking to the hand-waving "everything with a beginning has a cause".
Chris,
So do you think atheism is the only belief that science leads to?
It depends on what you mean by this. I do think that science (or more broadly, a rational worldview) does ultimately lead one to agnostic atheism. I think we can be well justified in concluding that all religions are the invention of man and have nothing to do with any gods.
However, that doesn't mean that I can be absolutely certain that there are no gods. I am reasonably certain that no gods have interfered with the way the universe works or with the development of life on Earth in particular, but I can not draw any conclusions that go further than this.
In my opinion, the arguments from people that try to show that god does not exist, or can't exist at all, suffer from problems very similar to the problems that the cosmological argument has, and those arguments are just as unconvincing.
There is evidence that particles come into existence without a cause but Im not talking about them. Im talking about the universe. Once again the cosmological argument isn't fool proof but nevertheless I think its valuable. I think together with religious experiences; there is some sort of spiritual being. You guys are right though that science doesn't show if there is a Creator or that there was a cause of the universe. However I prefer to believe there is.
Right. So the first statement of the argument gets flipped to: "everything that we're certain has a beginning has no cause". How do you go from this to saying that the universe must have a cause?
Once again the cosmological argument isn't fool proof but nevertheless I think its valuable.
Valuable? It's a pack of lies from beginning to end! You understand that the major premise isn't merely mistaken but totally opposite! How can you say that it's valuable?
An honest, modern cosmological argument would say "we don't know if the universe began and if it did we don't understand how, which still allows for the possibility of a cause." It's one of the weakest god-gaps going and argues (poorly) for a deist god only. How can you say it's valuable?
Steven
I think we can be well justified in concluding that all religions are the invention of man and have nothing to do with any gods.
Really? Thats pretty arrogant for you to say. It sounds to me that you really don't like religion and and think its obsolete in the Age of Science. That assertion is definetely unjustified.
Your are definetely not starting out with a rational viewpoint.
You understand that the major premise isn't merely mistaken but totally opposite! How can you say that it's valuable?
How is it totally opposite? Do you know something that nobody else knows?
How is it totally opposite? Do you know something that nobody else knows?
I'm sorry, I'm confused now. You just said "There is evidence that particles come into existence without a cause". How is that not admitting that the major premise of the argument, that "everything which begins to exist has a cause" isn't merely incorrect but the total opposite of what we know? Particles are the only things which we are certain began to exist and they do not have a cause.
Really? Thats pretty arrogant for you to say. It sounds to me that you really don't like religion and and think its obsolete in the Age of Science. That assertion is definetely unjustified.
Your are definetely not starting out with a rational viewpoint.
Chris, I'm not making an assertion. Just because you are unable to see the rationale behind my position doesn't mean that it is not a rational viewpoint. My 40 years of experience with my own mind, plus the collective experience of thousands of years of those that came before me lead me to conclude the following:
1. Humans are not inherently logical creatures.
2. More often than not, we look for the quick fixes that will get us through the next few days, weeks, and months, and hope that things won't change too much so that we can continue on as we have for the years to come.
3. If a false superstition proves to have some short term value in explaining something we don't understand, we will usually go with the superstition rather than examine the problem more carefully (people have too many things to do to have the time to fully examine everything).
4. When bad things happen, people want someone to blame, and are more than willing to set someone up as a scapegoat, or invent fictitious things to blame if they can't blame anyone nearby.
5. We are influenced more by our social and cultural backgrounds and localized needs than we are by pure rational analysis of our surroundings.
6. It takes an awful lot of work to throw off our cultural biases, wants, desires, and wishful thinking to be able to really see the world rationally, and nobody is entirely successful in doing so.
The issues of human nature I list above are more than enough to account for the rise of multiple religions in multiple cultures around the world, without ever having to posit a supernatural foundation to any of them. And until such time as any of these religions present evidence otherwise, the more plausible and probable conclusion about religion is that they are, in fact, all the invention of man.
It is not a matter of my liking or disliking religion, it is the result of learning something about human nature, and understanding how easily we can come believe things that are false. Whether or not religion is "obsolete" doesn't even enter into the equation. I even imply above that religion can be beneficial in some people's lives, but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with the reality that we find ourselves in.
Well particles can come into existence without a cause. However, they exist in the universe so in a sense the universe is the cause. They don't come from nothing.
The issues of human nature I list above are more than enough to account for the rise of multiple religions in multiple cultures around the world, without ever having to posit a supernatural foundation to any of them.
Well people claim to have religious experiences. Is it all in their head? Is God a Delusion by Eric Reitan is an interseting book that discusses these issues. You should check it out.
Well particles can come into existence without a cause.
They not only can but do. They're the only things which truly come into existence meaning that the premise of the cosmological argument to backwards. So why do you repeat it and why do you say it's valuable?
However, they exist in the universe so in a sense the universe is the cause.
In what sense is that? How can you define "cause" to make your second sentence true? The universe isn't acting or doing anything to bring about these particles so how could it possibly "cause" anything?
It sounds like this weak version of "cause" distills the cosmological argument down to "everything in the universe is in the universe, therefore god". Please tell me how I'm wrong.
Uh Chris, you're really going to have to do better than that. As has been discussed on this blog many times before. It is just about impossible to show that religious experiences are veridical.
And if you want me to check out some book, you should at least give me some idea of its content. If there's something that you think is compelling in the book why not just come out with it rather than punting like that. You haven't given me any reason to think that it will be worth my time.
Tyro
What I meant was that particles come into existence via the universe. You seem to state that because particles come into existence without a direct cause we should believe that they have no cause, as if they come from nothing. They don't so we cant really say they just appear with no reason at all.
Steven
Obviously we cant state with any certainty that there is only one true religion or God. I believe people have genuine religious experiences and they view these experiences through their own particular sociological or religious lens. I find it hard to believe that these are just delusions or memes as Richard Dawkins postulates. Eric Reitan is a philosopher at Oklahoma State and he discusses these issues; cosmological arguments, religious experiences etc.
This is a good short statement from Eric Reitan about the cosmological argument.
"Let me put this as simply as I can. It is one thing to argue that everything must have a cause, notice that this leads to an infinite regress, and then try to escape the regress by arbitrarily positing a first cause which, in defiance of the first premise, doesn’t need a cause after all. It is something else entirely to argue that everything which possesses some property P (e.g., the property of coming into existence) requires a cause, notice that if everything possessed property P there would be an infinite regress, and therefore conclude that to avoid such a regress we must suppose there exists something which lacks property P. Aquinas argues along the latter lines, not the former. And, arguing along these lines, Aquinas concludes that there must exist some fundamental reality that never came to be (that is, exists eternally), that does not change but is capable of bringing about change in other things, and that exists necessarily.
Chris,
I think you're under the impression that we observed particles winking into existence, searched around for explanations, come up blank and so threw up our hands and said "there must be none." Nothing could be farther from the truth. Quantum Field Theory arose out of QM (one of the most successful theories of all time, incidentally) and predicted that particles would arise spontaneously (ie: with no cause, trigger, event or agent) whenever a region of space would become too empty. It was years after this prediction that the first observations were made and they precisely agree with predictions.
The "uncaused" nature of these particles isn't merely consistent with observation and it isn't for lack of trying, it's a direct consequence of the nature of the quantum world.
The "infinite regress" is an interesting philosophical question but isn't very relevant to the actual world. The mechanical, fully-caused world died a long time ago.
The "infinite regress" is an interesting philosophical question but isn't very relevant to the actual world.
I think it is relevent however no body can know for sure if an infinite regress is impossible. I guess the point is that like I said earlier, the universe is ambigious. I still think one can have a hope for something greater. You may think this is a cop-out but I don't think it is. Plenty of scientists don't feel science has to be an enemy of religion or spirituality.
Post a Comment