1

lol

2

Joe writes: "Throughout history children have been awed and thrilled by retellings of their culture’s creation story. Aztec’s would tell of the Lady of the Skirt of Snakes, Phoenicians about the Zophashamin, and Jews and Christians about the one true God -- Jehovah."

So there it is at last. Joe acknowledges that his evangelical Christian creation story is just that, a creation story with no more claim to being "true" than that of any other culture. I'll sleep better tonight. Maybe I'll dream of the Big Bang, stars and galaxies forming, life appearing on Earth, falling in love for the first time, and the day when civilized people don't feel the need to fool their children with creation stories.

3

AndyS wrote:

"and the day when civilized people don't feel the need to fool their children with creation stories."

We can't help it AndyS. We don't want our children to fill up with Despair.

:)

4

Joe Carter: "When an inquisitive tyke asks who created the sun, the animals, and mankind, their materialist parents can only tell them to read a book by Carl Sagan or Richard Dawkins."

My inquisitive children never assumed a "who"; they asked "how".

Joe continues: "No child, though, should have to go without an answer which is why I’ve decided to take the elements of materialism and shape them into an accurate, though mythic, narrative."

Are children entitled to answers that we ourselves do not have? I'm not going to make something up or pass along someone else's fantasy to satisfy my children's curiosity. Perhaps their curiosity will lead them to seek answers in the form of a unified theory. Why dull their hunger with a fairy tale?

By the way, my children are happy, accomplished young ladies. They excel in school and athletics and have many friends. I didn't even have to consult Eric&Lisa for childrearing advice.

5

Nice try, Andy, but Joe uses the modifier "one true God" for Jehovah, the obvious implication being that "one of these things is not like the others."

civilized people don't feel the need to fool their children with creation stories.

BTW--There are no shortage of "civilized people" who don't feel the need to "fool" their children with creation stories. I don't think you can point to the results with any more pride than those who favor theocracies can with their historic examples. Given a choice between living in Cuba or Iran, I guess I would choose Cuba, but only because the weather is better.

6

Nice story, Joe, but nobody's gonna believe it. You left out the tale of the Little Molecule Who Could arriving on the Meteor From Outer Space.

That's the best part, in my opinion. I hear Hollywood is gonna cast Brad Pitt as the Molecule.

7

Thanks Joe, got a chuckle out of this. Glad to see that you recognize creation myths as filling a need to understand something very remote and complex in childishly simple terms.

Oh, but wait... YOUR creation myths are TRUE. Sure they are.

8

Why should the methods described in this myth be a specifically materialist story, and not Christian as well? Are Christians and atheists incapable of acknowledging the same facts? Does the fact that atheists use science to predict the effects of gravity mean that we Christians can’t? I know I grew up devouring every book I could find about dinosaurs, ancient creatures, astronomy, the Big Bang, etc, and all the while having no difficulty with the exciting realization that I was learning more about God’s creation.

Of course the difference between what’s taught by science, and the earlier mentioned creation myths is that science has the benefit of evidence to back it up. Not to knock the power of belief, but if belief can’t be reconciled with truth, then we’re forcing ourselves to be dishonest in the name of God, which is not a position I would want to be in.

9

Darrell:
Yes, certain Christians are incapable of acknowleding the same facts as atheists. Some Christians elevate a worldview above what is found in the real world, preventing them from seeing anything that might threaten their worldview. Truth becomes contingent upon belief, not what can actually be found in reality.

10

It is odd how some of the Christians on this list seem to think matter, the nature of the universe, physical laws etc. was created not by God but the ACLU or the Democratic Party. Hence their nearly pathological need to prove matter deficient in reacting with other matter.

11

AndyS So there it is at last. Joe acknowledges that his evangelical Christian creation story is just that, a creation story with no more claim to being "true" than that of any other culture.

Where did I say that? A creation story can be true, false, or somewhere in between. I happen to believe that the Biblical creation story is totally true.

...and the day when civilized people don't feel the need to fool their children with creation stories.

Why fool them when there is obviously a story that you believe is true? Unless you believe that the universe has always existed, you too have a "creation story." It may not be very well thought out but you certainly have one.

Rob My inquisitive children never assumed a "who"; they asked "how".

If they would start with "who" then they wouldn't need "how."

"Who created everything that exist?"
"Nobody. It just happened. Nothingness/Non-existence created existence."

"Why was the universe created?"
"There was no reason. There is no ultimate purpose or meaning."

"How was the universe created?"
"What does it matter?"

Are children entitled to answers that we ourselves do not have?

But you certainly sound as if you have the answers about how it didn't happen. Aside from the anthromorphization, what about my story do you not agree with?

Perhaps their curiosity will lead them to seek answers in the form of a unified theory.

But you already have a unified theory: Nothing created Everything.

Jeff Oh, but wait... YOUR creation myths are TRUE. Sure they are.

Why aren't they true? And where do you get this idea of truth?

Why should the methods described in this myth be a specifically materialist story, and not Christian as well?

Sure, some of the details between the Christian and the materialist stories will be the same just there are similiarities between all such stories.

Darrell Of course the difference between what’s taught by science, and the earlier mentioned creation myths is that science has the benefit of evidence to back it up.

Not really. Science ultimately has to be backed up by metaphysics and epistemology. For example, what "evidence" is there that nothingness can create matter? And if the universe contains no meaning why is it "meaningful" to say that evidence backs up anything?

Boonton Hence their nearly pathological need to prove matter deficient in reacting with other matter.

But what created matter?

12

“Not really. Science ultimately has to be backed up by metaphysics and epistemology. For example, what "evidence" is there that nothingness can create matter? And if the universe contains no meaning why is it "meaningful" to say that evidence backs up anything?”

I honestly haven’t read anything to indicate that nothingness created matter. What I’ve read says that back to a certain point, we can reasonably calculate what was going on in the universe. Prior to that point, the conditions were such that we can’t describe anything under any current theories or terminology. In other words, we don’t have any information to describe a cause to the origin of the universe. It’s outside the scope of current science.

As for meaning, I never claimed the universe had no meaning, nor did I claim that the evidence provides meaning. I find meaning and purpose in the universe because I believe God created it for a reason. But that is again outside the scope of science. The evidence tells us what happened. It can’t tell us why it happened.

13

So in the absense of evidence -- credible evidence -- you think it's OK to just make something up? Or believe what a group of sheepherders dreamt up a few thousand years ago?

I don't pretend to know what happened in the very distant depths of time. Evidence here and now can point to probable conditions, which can help rule out some possibilities, but current human knowledge doesn't have good answers to "what created matter". We don't even know that that is a good question. Matter/energy might always have existed, we just don't know. That does not give us license to just make something up and declare it truth, which is exactly what the founders of all religions and myth did to satisfy a hole in their understanding.

As to truth, you've already answered that. Creation myths are true, false, or somewhere in between. How well they match up with reality -- what we know about the universe -- shows us how true they are. The Christian myth doesn't really match up all that well, and adds on a great deal of unverifiable embellishments. It isn't all that different from dozens (hundreds?) of other creation myths throughout history. What exactly distinguishes your as true? Or at a minimum, more true than other myths?

That said, there certainly could be a creator, and you can believe that if you want to. There just isn't any good scientific evidence for it. You choose to believe something that isn't well supported in reality.

14

Joe writes: Unless you believe that the universe has always existed, you too have a "creation story."

Not so. There are many things I do not know and about which I have no need to make up a story or borrow an existing one.

My brother once got curious about our ancestry and traced part of the family back to Virginia in the 1700's at which point no further information was available. Yet strangely, even though we have no idea of any ancestors prior to that, we still exist with all the joys and sorrows of this human life.

I think the value — both positive and negative — of creation and other significant cultural stories is that they help bind a social group together. By explicitly or implicitly accepting the "truth" of the stories you solidify your membership in the group.

15

Darrell:
I honestly haven’t read anything to indicate that nothingness created matter.

Most materialists would say that the universe came out of nothing. Nothing usually isn't the proximate cause of the universe, according to them, but it always boils down to nothing in the end. It has been discussed here and elsewhere (for centuries!), but there are problems with transversing an infinite set of caused causes, among other things.

Science cannot look outside of this universe, although it has tried to by saying this universe was caused by another. Of course such metaphysical speculation isn't within the scope of science. It also simply pushes the cause one step back.

Other examples of metaphysical presuppositions in science are the definition/s of the scientific method, and claims that theoretical things like gravity producers, quarks, etc exist.

16

Simply brilliant.

17

Joe rather rudely said: "If they would start with "who" then they wouldn't need "how."

"Who created everything that exist?"
"Nobody. It just happened. Nothingness/Non-existence created existence."

"Why was the universe created?"
"There was no reason. There is no ultimate purpose or meaning."

"How was the universe created?"
"What does it matter?""

Nice straw man. Have at it.

Joe continues in the same vein:"But you certainly sound as if you have the answers about how it didn't happen."

Pot, kettle. I reject as many origin theories as you do.

Joe concludes: "But you already have a unified theory: Nothing created Everything."

I don't have a theory. Materialism is my default position. I'd like the answers, but, lacking them, I'm not going to invent them or take upon myself the inventions of others. I'll believe an origin story when it's proven.

18

Now that they had Information, Time and Chance were finally able to create a self-replicating Something which they called Life.

'Self-replicating' is a pretty big word for a childrens story. Maybe 'Time and Chance wanted children'

Aside from that you have provided a great literary service.

19

"The explosion spread Everything into Everywhere carrying Time and Chance with it to keep it company."

If this is intended as a snide reference to the "Big Bang", you are incorrectly interpreting the theory. Go look up and correct your mistake. But then again, I wouldn't want to hold you to an "inerrant" standard in your myth-telling, or should I?

You are implying that basic laws of physics are wrong or do not apply. You can test this easily enough by jumping off the nearest cliff. Let us know how it turns out. It's not something I would attempt, but then again my knowledge of the Bible is limited and apparently I missed the part that you must have seen that states: "Thou shalt be an ignorant donkey butt".

20

Why all this fuss about the TRUTH here? All is and came from nothing...therefore...there is no truth. That solves it, we can all put our books and telescopes down and go home.

Hey Rob Ryan, if an origin story is proven, you won't have to BELIEVE it. But for now, you'll just have to hang on to what you do believe.

Adios..

21

Hello everybody,

I don't have time this afternoon to get into a big back and forth, so I apologize in advance if I don't respond to anyone who deserves a response.

I address Joe's big questions of meaning and purpose in my latest comment in the "Then a Miracle Occurs… Richard Dawkins on Evolution" comment thread. It's comment number 301, at 11:58 am today.

Today Joe has given us a creation myth for young materialists.

I think it's a great little story. I've always thought Joe is a good writer, and he has shown it again today.

It's a satire that is insulting to materialists, but that is Joe's point of course. Joe highlights those areas of materialistic cosmology and philosophy that he thinks are problematic, problematic to the point of being ridiculous and scary.

If I were to write my own creation myth, I would leave out some things that Joe puts in, and put in some things that Joe leaves out (that's 100% okay, of course, since this is Joe's story, not mine). But I think a good creation myth is going to have to deal with several of Joe's characters: Time, Chance, Illusion, Everything, Everywhere, Man, Consciousness, "this wet little blue rock" Earth, and perhaps Nothing and Despair as well.

Although I could do without some of the snarky tone, I thank Joe for outlining his position and throwing down the gauntlet to the non-God squad.

Well done, sir!

22

Matthew Goggins,
I just want to say that you are a true gentleman. I could certainly learn from you in that respect. Of course, I fear my sarcastic nature might insure that I forget a lesson, or two. Anyhow, you have my respect..for what it's worth.

23

A great story! Gives you a lot to think about. I have always found it interesting that so many cannot take the Bible at face value. Someone has well said, "We can accept the fact of the Bible, or we can accept the theory of man." I realize that is very hard for many, but thankfully there are those who do accept the Bible as the Word of God.

Joe, keep up the good work!

24

brandon

"Other examples of metaphysical presuppositions in science are the definition/s of the scientific method, and claims that theoretical things like gravity producers, quarks, etc exist."

Hmm. So gravity "just is"? Kind of like a deity "just is"? Hey Mike from the Dawkins Thread -- are you reading this?

I don't know diddly about these things you call "gravity producers" Mike but I do have to laugh loudly whenever Joe or you or any creationist apologist smears the scientific method as just another bunch of metaphysical assumptions.

You're a hypocrite, my friend, if you believe what you say and a rather obvious one at that.

Or maybe you are somehow communicating your thoughts to us in digital form while laying naked in the middle of the street with your mouth open praying for someone to drop some food and water into it.

25

Matthew It's a satire that is insulting to materialists, but that is Joe's point of course. Joe highlights those areas of materialistic cosmology and philosophy that he thinks are problematic, problematic to the point of being ridiculous and scary.

As always I appreciate your civility and good humor. I almost dedicated this post to you but then I thought that might be construed as a slap rather than a nod to someone who I thought would appreciate the joke (even though you would disagree with it).

If I were to write my own creation myth, I would leave out some things that Joe puts in, and put in some things that Joe leaves out (that's 100% okay, of course, since this is Joe's story, not mine).

I would love to see your creation myth! In fact, I hold an open invitation to any of my materialists/atheists/physicalists/whatever readers who would be willing to try their hand at writing such a story. The only thing that I would ask is that anyone who wants to take up the challeng make it somewhat humorous and include at least most of the same items that I did.

I admit that the story is sloppy. It was another of my too-tired-to-write-something-thoughful-so-crank-out-some-satire posts. But I do think it raises an interesting point about materialists willingness to point out holes in other peoples creation stories yet completely refusing to provide an alternative narrative. Write one up and I'll put them together for a special post.

26

Boonton Hence their nearly pathological need to prove matter deficient in reacting with other matter.

But what created matter?

good question, we do not yet know. It's possible that it always existed (see the earlier explanation for the Big Bang plus there's other ones out there involving branes, string theory etc.). It's possible it simply happened. I suppose that would be consistent with believing that God did it if you wish. HOwever just as you'll say 'other universes' are 'metaphysical speculation outside of our ability to make observations' so too would that.

My observation, though, was less concerned with the origin of our visible universe and more with the impression some on this list have that matter, the laws of nature etc. seem to be something invented by secularists rather than God himself.

Now that they had Information, Time and Chance were finally able to create a self-replicating Something which they called Life.

Joe, Joe Joe.....'chance' is not really a major element in the universe. Chance is mostly a short hand way to handle complicated calculations.

"What are the odds that a comet would have hit the earth the day Jesus was cruicified thereby wiping out anyone who may have witnessed the ressurection and anyone who would have recorded anything about him?" Well we could estimate how often the earth has been hit by major comets, figure out how many days old the earth was at that point and then say "the odds were 1 over whatever". In reality the odds were 0% because comets do not hit the earth 'by chance' but because their orbits are determined by the laws of motion. Since no comet was on a collision course towards earth that day no impact happened.

Of course if we knew the position and velocity of every piece of matter in our solar system we would be able to say "the chance of getting hit tomorrow is 0% or 100%". We don't so we will use a method as I sketched out above to determine the odds....'Gee, we get hit every 10-20million years so that means we are overdue so that means etc. etc.'. To a materialistic God the universe has no chance since all those 'fluke events' are already in motion determined by the laws God choose to set up the universe with.

There is one exception, though. Quantum mechanics seems to say that chance operates on a fundamental level at the sub-atomic level. No amount of information, it would appear, can allow us to express the behavior of a particle as anything other than chances... I'm unclear, though, if even there chance really exists in pure form or if it just means we cannot calculate the behavior of sub-atomic particles but they still follow set laws that we just cannot apply.

27

Why must materialists come up with an "alternative narrative"? Is this a demand to make something up when we don't have all the data? I suppose that flies in some circles, but among scientists I don't imagine this works all that well. Just because that's how religionists operate doesn't mean that everyone is required to spin wild tales to fill gaps in knowledge.

It's enough to say "we just don't know".

28

My favorite creation myth by far is the Guatemalan native mythology known as the Popol Vuh.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/maya/pvgm/

Book 1 is the most fun. The chapter below will give you a flavor.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/maya/pvgm/pv26.htm

29

Let it also be noted that religious advocates on this list have asserted that 'its always been' is an acceptable explanation. Gordon, in particular, has asserted that everything that has a beginning must have a cause. Therefore God who had no beginning needn't have a cause but the universe that did begin must have been caused by something.

A theory that features a meta-universe that had no beginning, therefore, should be just as logically acceptable in this sense. The matter of our universe (actually a smaller piece of the true universe) simply always existed except in a different place and form.

30

"It's enough just to say "we just don't know".

I smell a cop-out. But it would be interesting to hear what you believe about all of those things we just don't know.

31

Well its a cop out to say "we just don't know and we won't even try to come up with anything" but that's obviously not the case since scientists are coming up with various theories. It is the 'amaterialists' on this list that are demanding a cop out citing the fact that their theories cannot be easily tested.

What's missing is that first a workable theory can be used to make predictions that can be tested. Second while some things may appear to be beyond testing today tomorrow there may in fact be ways to test them. Hence there is value in scientfic theories that appear untestable...at least sometimes there is.

32

"I smell a cop-out. But it would be interesting to hear what you believe about all of those things we just don't know."

Why is that a cop-out? Is something wrong with admitting we don't have the answers to some questions? How can we solve problems we haven't identified as problems? Would you prefer that we feign knowledge? As for your last statement, not everyone has a belief about things they don't know; some just have theories. Some people believe them, and others just accept them tentatively. Not a cop-out, just pragmatic.

33

Religion cops out too. Christians don't really have an answer for what God was doing before he made the universe, how long he waited until he made it, if he made anything else before our universe, and so on. They can probably give answers if you pester them enough but they will be theological 'speculation'....

No field of thought undertaken by humans is ever going to achieve 100% knowledge of everything there is to possibly know.

34

Someday perhaps we'll all be more educated about the Bible and it's historical and technical "accuracy."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/09/22/bible.textbook.ap/index.html

A couple highlights:

"To avoid problems, Bible Literacy's editors accommodated Jewish sensitivities about the New Testament, attributed reports about miracles to the source rather than simply calling them historical facts and generally downplayed scholarly theories -- about authorship and dates, for example -- that offend conservatives."

Compare that paragraph to this one:

"Stetson said "the important thing was not to compromise on peoples' beliefs. They are what they are."

In other words, at least in our public schools, the 'beliefs' of scholars and historians (who spend their lives collecting data and studying evidence) CAN be compromised. It's just faith-based religious beliefs that can't be compromised. Yeah, that's fair.

"Haynes says the only previous textbook, decades old, was inadequate because it treated the Bible only as literature, slighting its religious significance."

Oh, spare me. No ten year old in a community where a Bible History course is mandated in public school needs to be told of the religious significance of the Bible. That is absurd.

But it must be noted that biology and sex education textbooks in are inadequate because they treat sex only as a means of bringing gametes into contact with one another, ignoring the huge impact of sex on American culture, the great pleasure it provides for countless people, and the countless hours of fun people can have playing with each others' genitalia.

35

I guess this is more of my truth versus your truth, but when you write:

But I do think it raises an interesting point about materialists willingness to point out holes in other peoples creation stories yet completely refusing to provide an alternative narrative.

You are ignoring the "alternative narrative" that materialists do prodive; it fills libraries and is widely available on the Internet. It's goes by names like physics, chemistry, astronomy, and biology and is filled with interesting characters like Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein (in our case they are the real people who developed the narrative not mythical supernatural beings).

To take a page out of Larry's book, I wonder how may posts it will take before someone says "but your narrative is changing over time." Yes, as we learn more we update the narrative and actually see that as a strength.

And there are things like the origin of the Universe that we don't know. Isn't there rather a lot about God that you don't know? Doesn't seem to stop you from believing in your "truth", so why should it stop me from believing in mine?

36

AndyS,

You are ignoring the "alternative narrative" that materialists do prodive; it fills libraries and is widely available on the Internet. It's goes by names like physics, chemistry, astronomy, and biology and is filled with interesting characters like Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein (in our case they are the real people who developed the narrative not mythical supernatural beings).

That's not an "alternate narrative" but a bastardization of the Christian narrative. It isn't just a fluke that modern science developed from a Christian worldview. It was a necessary prerequisite for believing that that the world was purposeful, understandable, and worthy of attention.

Materialists think that they can just hi-jack science, cut away the metaphysical underpinnings, and everything will still make sense. But it can't. That is why you haven't seen one materialist on here defend the idea that the universe came from nothing even though that is what they all believe. They realize how silly it sounds and how it undercuts the foundation for the rest of their beliefs yet they get offended when anyone points this out.

37

Andys And there are things like the origin of the Universe that we don't know. Isn't there rather a lot about God that you don't know? Doesn't seem to stop you from believing in your "truth", so why should it stop me from believing in mine?

Because my "truth" is internally coherent; your "truth" is not. You may disagree with the conclusions of my worldview's argument but they follow from the premises. Your premises, however, cannot get you to the conclusion you draw without takign a leap into the irrational.

You may find it hard to accept the idea that God created all that exists but if God exists then it is possible. You can't start with nothing, though, and get to everything. It's just not logical. That's why I think at its core, materialism is a form of mysticism. It's nothing more than the flip side of idealism. Both are a-rational, mystical beliefs about the universe and require the acceptance of a great deal on pure unprovable "faith."

What bothers me most though is not that you believe that materialism is true but that you think that the concept of truth can be derived from a belief in materialism.

38

But common' Joe, be reasonable, somehow believing everything came from nothing is the "pragmatic" thing, at least until we figure everything out.

As far as my cop-out comment, I think the cop-out part comes into play as posturing that materialists (who commented above)don't form beliefs about the unkown. This, I will not accept.

I'm not sure why you (Boonton) say religion cops out, as those who adhere to such principles fully state that they have faith and believe. None that I know pretend to know all the details..

39

Joe

"That is why you haven't seen one materialist on here defend the idea that the universe came from nothing even though that is what they all believe."

Huh?

Bob Mitchum said it best: "Baby, I don't care."

40

Joe

"Your premises, however, cannot get you to the conclusion you draw without takign a leap into the irrational."

But Joe you take a leap in and out of the supernatural whenever it suits you. You choose to believe that you can make observations, test them, and learn from them when it suits you to do so (which is most of the time, as we all know).

But then you retreat into your world of deities and miracles when it comes to subjects like biology and determining whether it should be illegal for women to take a morning-after pill.

You are no more consistent than I am and arguably less so because I am not the one relentlessly disparaging the tool which allows both of us to survive: reason based on the knowledge that our environment is governed by basic laws of nature which can be studied, understood, and manipulated.

41

Rob B. the comedian:"But common' Joe, be reasonable, somehow believing everything came from nothing is the "pragmatic" thing, at least until we figure everything out."

Not what I said; not that I'm surprised.

Joe:"But what created matter?"

What created God? I do not assert that matter came from nothing, for all your saying so. I do not know where matter came from or even if it came from anywhere. Perhaps science can never explain it to my, let alone your, satisfaction. That won't lead me to adopt a belief and defend it merely to satisfy those who have done so themselves.

Your attempts to paint materialists as inconsistent and defensive betrays your unease with your own worldview.

42

I've been trolling here for a week or 2 and thoroughly enjoying the discussions.

I am a Christian--to admit my biases up front.

What I don't undertand is the metaphysics (and therefore epistemology and axiology) of materialism.

What are the scientific theories of materialistism built on?

Didn't Hume blow away induction a while back? What are natural laws other than happy accidents that have thus far shown to be recurring? Tomorrow another accident could blow them all away?

What is mind? If it exists, it's only matter colliding. Thus reason is only a happy accidental collision of molecules? And if so, what makes it trustworthy? Why should your random collision be any more meaningful (nonsense term) than my collision?

And ethics is nothing but opinion enforced by a gun. Is does not lead to ought just because you are stronger than me.

Forgive me if someone has answered this. But I just don't get it.

43

Your attempts to paint materialists as inconsistent and defensive betrays your unease with your own worldview.

C'mon, Rob, you can do better than that. Your statment is akin to the tired old argument, "Your issues with homosexuality betray your unease about your heterosexuality." It's kinda silly.

The reason I paint materialist as inconsistent and defensive is because I find them to be inconsistent and defensive. I'm a simple guy. I don't have some deeper motives.

It's like Bryan Mills says, "What I don't undertand is the metaphysics (and therefore epistemology and axiology) of materialism. What are the scientific theories of materialism built on?"

Why is that so hard to answer? If you won't even defend your basic premises how can you expect anyone to take your argument seriously?

44

"What are natural laws other than happy accidents that have thus far shown to be recurring? Tomorrow another accident could blow them all away?"

Better get my umbrella!

45

Joe

"What are the scientific theories of materialism built on?"

Experience.

46

"What are the scientific theories of materialism built on?"

Tell me what the scientific theories of materialism are, and then I will answer your question. All science that I am aware of is firmly rooted in materialism. If, in fact, your god exists, all his work is based upon materialism as far as we can determine, particularly observation of the material universe and its components.

"The reason I paint materialist as inconsistent and defensive is because I find them to be inconsistent and defensive."

Yes, Brother Joe, but you've never been able to show me the inconsistency, and I have never been able to show you the consistency. At some point, there is a disconnect, and I think it is your failure to see concepts and beliefs as material, not etherial.

"C'mon, Rob, you can do better than that."

Really? Perhaps you have a better explanation for your obsession with materialism.

47

The phrase beginning with "particularly" should appear at the end of the sentence before the one I mistakenly appended it to.
Oops!

48

Joe: "I'm a simple guy" is disingenuous. There's a lot of semantical fencing here. (And the original post has the sound of a petulant child). "Truth"? I think a common sense approach would do. An interesting article about science here:

http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000104.html

and, by the same author, "Science and Truth" here:

http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000116.html

49

Joe writes: That's not an "alternate narrative" but a bastardization of the Christian narrative. It isn't just a fluke that modern science developed from a Christian worldview.

Huh? What part of the Christian narrative is the work of Galileo, Newton, and Einstien a "bastardization" of?

And what is this "Christian worldview" that "modern science developed from"? Many Christians, some of whom have commented on this thread, are in complete agreement with the today's science. How is it that your brand of conservative, evangelical Christianity is responsible for modern scientific thought?

Say some more about this: It [the Christian worldview] was a necessary prerequisite for believing that that the world was purposeful, understandable, and worthy of attention.

With a quite different "worldview" I find the world "purposeful, understandable, and worthy of attention." So do many others here. What motivates you to make your claim?

Materialists think that they can just hi-jack science, cut away the metaphysical underpinnings, and everything will still make sense. But it can't. That is why you haven't seen one materialist on here defend the idea that the universe came from nothing even though that is what they all believe. They realize how silly it sounds and how it undercuts the foundation for the rest of their beliefs yet they get offended when anyone points this out.

Hi-jack? You're kidding, right? I can't imagine a materialist defending the "the idea that the universe came from nothing" since that's not what a typical materialist believes. What part of "We don't know" don't you understand?

We are back to the point of accurrately representing what the "opposition" believes, rather than constructing strawmen and knocking them down.

50

I wrote: And there are things like the origin of the Universe that we don't know. Isn't there rather a lot about God that you don't know? Doesn't seem to stop you from believing in your "truth", so why should it stop me from believing in mine?

Joe replied:

Because my "truth" is internally coherent; your "truth" is not. You may disagree with the conclusions of my worldview's argument but they follow from the premises. Your premises, however, cannot get you to the conclusion you draw without takign a leap into the irrational.

Joe, you have never come close to enumerating your premises. That is, unless you think that the 50 or so beliefs you stated in an earlier post constitute a coherent belief system — a fair stretch. Beliefs that include "everything in the Bible is true because God revealed it to me" can lead to pretty much any conclusion. Why should I find that at all compelling?

And where is it that my beliefs force me to take "a leap into the irrational"? Saying so doesn't make it so.

You may find it hard to accept the idea that God created all that exists but if God exists then it is possible. You can't start with nothing, though, and get to everything. It's just not logical. That's why I think at its core, materialism is a form of mysticism. It's nothing more than the flip side of idealism. Both are a-rational, mystical beliefs about the universe and require the acceptance of a great deal on pure unprovable "faith."

"...but if God exists…" that kind of says it all. If you are willing to assume the supernatural I suppose you can justify anything. I'll be crude: much as suicide bombers do. It is important that you find a way to differentiate your belief system from theirs.

What bothers me most though is not that you believe that materialism is true but that you think that the concept of truth can be derived from a belief in materialism.

That's the crux of our differences, isn't it? Your truth is revealed to you by a supernatural being, and my truth must pass a series of rational tests.

51

It's kind of funny. What's funny isn't that Joe defends a world view that begins with "God revealed it to me." No, what's funny is that Joe then attacks a world view that says "I'd like to see some evidence and have it shown that that evidence is consistent."

52

Materialists think that they can just hi-jack science, cut away the metaphysical underpinnings, and everything will still make sense. But it can't. That is why you haven't seen one materialist on here defend the idea that the universe came from nothing even though that is what they all believe. They realize how silly it sounds and how it undercuts the foundation for the rest of their beliefs yet they get offended when anyone points this out.

I'm not sure I'm a materialist but I defended the 'something from nothing idea'...I also pointed out materialists cannot yet accept it as what happened. There's good theories that say otherwise that have not been ruled out. As for sounding 'silly', the fact is a lot of the truth about reality is silly...or at least counter-intuitive.

53

In the beginning Joe blogged and it was good. Joe presented a garden of earthly delights to fill the minds of his people: God exists. God inspired this large book that we will call Scripture and every word is true.

But Eve, a bit miffed at being created from Adam's rib, said, "What the heck is this all about? How do you know all this stuff it true?"

And Joe said, "Because God told me."

"You mean you have a direct line to the most powerful force in the Universe, the creator of all things?" asked Eve.

"Yes," answered Joe. "That's what I mean."

"Well, thank heavens," Eve replied. "Would you please do something about these materialists? The bozos are trying to tell me that I have to judge things for myself and that's, like, a real burden, you know?"

"Sure, Eve," a concerned Joe said, "I'll take care of that right away because I know what it true and what is false. God has revealed it to me."

Feeling much better, Eve said sincerely, "Thanks, Joe."

Casting aside his laptop with its wireless connection, Joe sat before his desktop computer with its direct line to God and began to type.

On the first day, he wrote, "In the beginning there was the Internet."

On the second day, he wrote, "and we need broadband..."

On the thrid day, Joe wrote, "we better have wireless routers so my message won't be limited by copper...."

On the fouth day, Joe, getting a little tired, wrote, "Let there be laptops so that many can hear my call without having to miss Fox News and other great TV..."

On the fifth day, Joe asked for Cat 5 wiring in all homes since wireless signals were being disrupted by microwave ovens.

On the sixth day, Joe said, "Behold, my blog is in the top 20 of Technorati. I must be heard."

On the seventh day, Joe rested and the men in the white suits carefully disconnected his computers and carted him off to a very nice place where no one would challenge his point of view.

54

Andy S wrote "Your truth is revealed to you by a supernatural being, and my truth must pass a series of rational tests."
Uh, Andy, where did you're idea that your truth must pass a series of rational tests come from? I certainly hope it's not a rational source or your engaging in tautology as much as man who says he believes the bible is innerrant because the bible says it is inerrant.

55

Joe writes: I admit that the story is sloppy. It was another of my too-tired-to-write-something-thoughful-so-crank-out-some-satire posts.

Yeah, it's amazingly easy to write satire. So much more difficult to contribute something significant to field of useful human dialog.

56

Now Andy, that's just mean-spirited.

57

If a person says "I don't have any explanation for the beginning of the universe and I'm not going to make up one" they have given up their authority to challenge someone else's explanation.

If you say "I have no theory or story about beginning of matter - but I know it didn't happen this way, or this way, or this other way" you have revealed that you do indeed have a theory about matter - you just refuse to spell it out and defend it.

58

Should it be this fun to watch 'em squirm?

59

"If a person says "I don't have any explanation for the beginning of the universe and I'm not going to make up one" they have given up their authority to challenge someone else's explanation."

Non-sequitur. Is this your little made-up rule? Sorry, no dice!

"If you say "I have no theory or story about beginning of matter - but I know it didn't happen this way, or this way, or this other way" you have revealed that you do indeed have a theory about matter - you just refuse to spell it out and defend it."

Wrong again, JD. One can point out weaknesses in one theory without having a complete theory of one's own. Just ask Dr. Behe.
Another non-sequitur, coupled with a bogus accusation. This smacks of desperation.

60

b>Rob Another non-sequitur, coupled with a bogus accusation. This smacks of desperation.

What smacks of desperation is your inability to defend your beliefs. Heck, no one is even asking you to defend them as being true just show us how they can be pieced together in a coherent manner.

Just tell us whether you think the univese always existed, whether it was created, whether life was created spontaneously, etc. Yes, some people are going to think it sounds silly because, well, materialism is silly. But we'd at least be able to repect your williness to explain what you believe. Your evasion may not be a logical fallacy but it sure doesn't instill confidence in the coherence of your materialist worldview.

61

Hello everybody,

I've just posted some more comments (four of them) in the Richard Dawkins comment thread in case anyone wants to bop over there again.

Joe,

I almost dedicated this post to you...

That's very sporting and flattering. I am honored by the near-dedication, sir.

I would love to see your creation myth!

Well, I don't have one, so I would have to make one up. Since that would take a goodly bit of time and effort, it's not something I can get around to any time soon. But if I ever do come up with something, you'll be the first person I send it to.

My biggest problem with your story is the bit about Information coming flying in from outer space on a rock. While I can't rule out that something like that did happen, it's not something I would include in my own creation myth.

I don't know if I would include Despair and Illusion. If I did, it would be totally re-worked from the way you handled it.

I think Despair is an evolutionary adaptation for humans (and other animals) to cope with an environment that becomes chronically harsh, especially one in which it is hard to find enough food (like during a drought condition). I think that Despair only became associated with worries about the big picture only after religion had come along and given us ideas that don't correspond very well with reality.

I admit that the story is sloppy.

I think it was good enough to post.

I do think, however, that you should run your posts by an "editor" when you can. I think you could get rid of a lot of the rough edges in some of your posts and tighten things up if you only had a second brain to give things a once over.

But if you can't do that, it's all right. Everything works very well just the way it is. Your blog is a model to bloggers everywhere.

62

Joe,

Rob: "Another non-sequitur, coupled with a bogus accusation. This smacks of desperation."

Joe: What smacks of desperation is your inability to defend your beliefs. Heck, no one is even asking you to defend them as being true just show us how they can be pieced together in a coherent manner.

Just tell us whether you think the univese always existed, whether it was created, whether life was created spontaneously, etc. Yes, some people are going to think it sounds silly because, well, materialism is silly. But we'd at least be able to repect your williness to explain what you believe. Your evasion may not be a logical fallacy but it sure doesn't instill confidence in the coherence of your materialist worldview.

I think Rob Ryan makes just as much sense as any regular commenter on the E.O. The comment he responded to was a non sequitur, and it was good that he pointed that out.

His "evasions" are anything but, and they do reassure me of the coherence of the materialist worldview. There is a big difference between "coherence" and "conprehensiveness". Christianity is more comprehensive than materialism, for it includes the supernatural, but materialism is much more coherent.

And what's with this "inability to defend your beliefs" baloney -- you need to learn how to play nicer! :)

63

Matthew,

My biggest problem with your story is the bit about Information coming flying in from outer space on a rock. While I can't rule out that something like that did happen, it's not something I would include in my own creation myth.

Yes, it is a bit of a stretch. But I was just trying to stay on the cutting edge of materialist explanation. As noted in a review article (The enigma of the origin of life and its timing) in the journal Microbiology:

The concept of interstellar panspermia [the hypothesis that the seeds of life are prevalent throughout the universe] has been a philosophical luxury; it may soon become a necessity if constraints of evolutionary theory continue to conspire against an origin of life in our solar system. Perhaps fresh calculations are in order, to consider possibilities other than those provided by a Mars/Jupiter slingshot. Pluto may once have hosted a stable ocean beneath an ice cover, to therefore be a contender as a cradle for life. Would it be possible for splashed material from Pluto (by Oort cloud debris) to be expelled from the solar system by its moon Charon if the obliquity of the Pluto/Charon system was better aligned in the plane of the solar system? What of a mud/micorbial ‘fog’ created in a splash event being accelerated to escape velocity by a red giant? What optimal system might we construe to improve the odds of interstellar transport?

I'm curious to know how many of our materialist readers embrace the concept of panspermia. And for those who do not, why not?

64

"Yeah, it's amazingly easy to write satire. So much more difficult to contribute something significant to field of useful human dialog."

I've always felt that "A Modest Proposal", by Swift, contributed much to the discourse of the ages. You must only be right 99% of the time or so, AndyS. ;-)

65

I'm curious to know how many of our materialist readers embrace the concept of panspermia. And for those who do not, why not?

I don't. Not enough evidence either way.

66

Matthew

I think Rob Ryan makes just as much sense as any regular commenter on the E.O.

Well, that is certainly damning him with faint praise. ; )

The comment he responded to was a non sequitur, and it was good that he pointed that out.

Fair enough. I'll concede that is is always beneficial to point out logical fallacies.

His "evasions" are anything but, and they do reassure me of the coherence of the materialist worldview.

How so? Does an inability to explain a worldview make it more reassuring?

There is a big difference between "coherence" and "conprehensiveness".

Yes, I agree. I don't think materialism is either coherent or comprehensive. But the point under contention right now is whether it is coherent.

Christianity is more comprehensive than materialism, for it includes the supernatural, but materialism is much more coherent.

Perhaps then you will take up the challenge laid down for Rob. ; )

And what's with this "inability to defend your beliefs" baloney -- you need to learn how to play nicer! :)

You're right. But its just frustrating to have Rob (and others) repeatdly claim that their worldview is not self-contradicting when they refuse to admit to holding the very premises that make it contradictory. It's easy to take pot shots at Christians views because they are all laid out for examination. But to add "I have no clue" as the primary premise on which a materialist conclusion is based is simply absurd.

What I mean is that no one starts off with only what they can know with certainty and ends up with materialism. We could go back to Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" and at least end up with idealism. But materialism requires one to set aside what can be known for a purely speculative presupposition. That's understanble and I don't have a problem with that. It is only when the materialist turns around and denies that this same necessary presupposition either doesn't exist or is based on "I don't know" that it becomes apparant that his worldview is incoherent.

67

Joe,

What I mean is that no one starts off with only what they can know with certainty and ends up with materialism.

[Hand waving furiously:] Hey, pick me, Mr. Carter, pick me! Pick me, I start off with certain belief and end up with materialism! Hey, I'm right over here, don't you see me -- c'mon, pick me, already!

... it's just frustrating to have Rob (and others) repeatdly claim that their worldview is not self-contradicting when they refuse to admit to holding the very premises that make it contradictory. It's easy to take pot shots at Christians views because they are all laid out for examination. But to add "I have no clue" as the primary premise on which a materialist conclusion is based is simply absurd.

I know you don't realize you are doing it, but you are totally misrepresenting the materialist worldview.

Materialist don't presuppose the non-existence of the supernatural, they observe it over and over and over again each and every day.

The tenets of materialism have been laid out for you repeatedly, with varying degrees of articulateness. If I can follow and understand the materialist side of these discussions, there is no reason you can't either.

You may disagree with and even scorn what we have to say, but you are mistaken to say we haven't said it just as thoroughly as you have laid out Christianity. If you think we are being inconsistent, then just point to a specific inconsistency and see whether it gets addressed.

68

Matthew,

I know you don't realize you are doing it, but you are totally misrepresenting the materialist worldview.

Perhaps you're right. But I suspect it's much more likely that most materialists have simply not followed their thinking to its logical conclusions. The only materialist who truly do that are eliminative materialists which, I assume, we have none on this thread.

Materialist don't presuppose the non-existence of the supernatural, they observe it over and over and over again each and every day.

No, what materialist presuppose is the existence of the material. But the material world can only be known through the senses (or so we assume). This means that our senseory perceptions are either also made of matter or that they are made of some other substance. Materialist simply presuppose that the sensory perceptions are also physical (though they can't know or prove this).

Now why would anyone presuppose that sensory perceptions are made of matter? It is not only not obvious but completely counter-intuitive. Almost no one prior to modern times believe it (and most people still don't).

The tenets of materialism have been laid out for you repeatedly, with varying degrees of articulateness. If I can follow and understand the materialist side of these discussions, there is no reason you can't either.

I think you are confusing materialism with a anti-supernaturalism.Whether the supernatural exists is a seperate issue. I'm not trying to create a false dilemma between materialism and theism. I'm simply trying to point out that materialism is self-defeating.

You may disagree with and even scorn what we have to say, but you are mistaken to say we haven't said it just as thoroughly as you have laid out Christianity. If you think we are being inconsistent, then just point to a specific inconsistency and see whether it gets addressed.

I think the primary problem is simpy muddled thinking. Most materialists simply haven't thought through the implications of their worldview and simply take for granted that someone, somewhere has done so. A belief in materialism, though, is a form of mysticism. Yet the fact that almost every materialist on this thread would deny this shows that either (a) they don't know what materialism means or (b) they don't really believe what they think they do.

I know this sounds rather presumptious but it is clearly evident on almost every post on the topic. What most people appear to believe is a form or pragmatism -- if it works, then I believe it -- rather than a philosophically defesible view of materialism.

69

1st, a side comment: Matthew, it is a joy to read your posts. You are a gentleman and a scholar and a most worthy debate-adversary.

If I start near Descartes, and examine myself, I find that I possess reason. I possess a sense of morality. I find the concept of justice meaningful, and I am bothered by injustice. I possess a need for meaning. I also want (need) love and relationship.

When I discuss these things with others, they express the same things. So I ask myself, where does this stuff come from? I survey the philosophical field, looking for a metaphysic that can account for these realities I find within myself and others.

Thus far, Christianity (Theism) is the only one that is coherent and comprehensive enough to handle it.

My problem with materialism as ya'll (Texan: you, plural!) present it, is that you want to focus very specifically only on science. On natural laws (where'd they come from?) and the workings of atoms, etc. You express skepticism about the bigger questions, begging off due to lack of knowledge.

On the one hand such humility is admirable. But, as Joe has stated, I find it also to be lacking. How can materialism account for the realities of human experience? How does materialism explain the laws upon which it investigates science?

If we're all just an accident of matter, then nature is not just indifferent, she's cruel. We have an innate sense of right/wrong, justice, love, meaning, etc. (I realize this is an assertion you'll want to argue) for which there is no corresponding reality. It's an illusion cooked up by random collisions and social fabrications. The deepest longings of my heart are illusory.

And the criminals that reject morality and social mores are smarter than us for seeing through the veil!

I don’t mean offense, but I see your focus on science as a dodge. You’ve got no reason (philosophical warrant) to trust your senses, your mind, the physical laws, but you do. And since it appears to be working, you forge ahead, not worrying about the bigger questions. You’ve built a very small world where things make sense, but the whole thing hangs in mid air, with no foundation. Meanwhile the theists stand on a foundation, with full warrant for trusting the results of science, with an answer for the longings of the human heart, with a coherent metaphysic, epistemology, and axiology.

How does materialism build such a system?

I don’t even pretend to know science as well as Larry, or Boonton, or Matthew. But the truths you find don’t threaten my worldview. All truth is God’s truth. Come down out of the air, fellows, and stand on the solid ground.

70

Joe: "What smacks of desperation is your inability to defend your beliefs."

I'm glad you told me; I didn't even realize my desperation! I fear you are asking me to defend something I don't have, a comprehensive belief system replete with origins theory. Sorry!

Joe: "Heck, no one is even asking you to defend them as being true just show us how they can be pieced together in a coherent manner."

I'm really trying to explain the beliefs I have, and have done so for over a year and a half. To the extent that I have failed, I don't feel entirely responsible.

Joe: "Just tell us whether you think the univese always existed,"

I don't know. I suppose it is possible.

Joe: "...whether it was created,"

Darn! I don't know that, either. I can't eliminate the possibility. If it was, though, I still have the same number of unanswered questions, because the one answer generates at least another question."

Joe: "...whether life was created spontaneously,"

I don't know how or if life was created. There are many things I don't know.

Joe: "Yes, some people are going to think it sounds silly because, well, materialism is silly."

Well, now you're just being mean and petty, making fun of the theory I don't have.

Joe: "But we'd at least be able to repect your williness to explain what you believe."

I am perfectly willing to explain what I believe, but I can't explain a belief that I don't have. I don't have a belief about whether the universe has always existed or if and how it came into existence. I wish I could be more helpful.

Joe: "Your evasion may not be a logical fallacy but it sure doesn't instill confidence in the coherence of your materialist worldview."

I'm evading nothing. My worldview is coherent regardless of your or anyone else's confidence in it. You seem cross today. You should take the weekend off and go fishing. There's room in my boat if you're in Tennessee by chance. I'm warning you, though; it's a material boat, and you might lack confidence in it. ;-)

71

Rob,

I apologize for being so snarky. At times I get mixed up trying keep track of what each commenter believes. I was thinking that you were a committed materialist and that your unwillingess to lay our your view was a form of evasion. I see, though, that the misunderstanding was on my part. Since you do not really subscribe to most of materialist philosophy, asking you to defend it would be liking asking a liberal Christian to defend Biblical inerrancy. ; )

72

I enjoyed this: well-told, though I too get lost at the spooky mystical invocation of "Information". But that's minor. I even forgive the attempted digs at materialism -- myth telling spans above petty quibbling.

It isn't the first attempt at telling the currently accepted history of the Universe as myth or sacred story, though. An excellent one is the children's book Born with a Bang. It's perhaps a touch precious and pious for some people's tastes, but still a wonderful book.

73

I'm kind of curious as to what the big obsession about panspermia is in regards to philosophical materialism? Again like the obsession over punctuated equilibrium it really seems to have little to do with the subject but it keeps getting cited over and over again with a 'see told you so' sort of attitude....

74

Boonton I'm kind of curious as to what the big obsession about panspermia is in regards to philosophical materialism?

I think a lot of the reason is that many people still have the antiquated notion that scientific theories can be "falsifiable." It used to be that certain evidence could be used to prove a theory isn't adequate. But now theories are bullet-proof and discarded only when there is a paradigm shift.

75

Joe: "I was thinking that you were a committed materialist and that your unwillingess to lay our your view was a form of evasion. I see, though, that the misunderstanding was on my part. Since you do not really subscribe to most of materialist philosophy, asking you to defend it would be liking asking a liberal Christian to defend Biblical inerrancy. ; )"

That last part; ain't it the truth! It would be my hope that a liberal Christian would concede as much.

Here is a definition of materialism I kind of like:

ma·te·ri·al·ism (mə-tîr'ē-ə-lĭz'əm)
n.
Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

Where do I fit in? I think it's a perfectly reasonable theory, but it can't be proven. Just because all phenomena can potentially be explained doesn't mean we currently have the knowledge to do so or even that we will ever have the knowledge to do so. It requires a leap of faith to believe something can't be proven. Mind you, it's a smaller leap of faith than is required of those with supernatural beliefs, but it is a leap nonetheless. I am a default or tentative materialist, because materialism doesn't rely on supernatural phenomena which are foreign to my experience. As far as I can tell, material phenomena have comprised my entire life experience.

That's all the materialist I can be without more information. I don't know if that means I don't "really subscribe to most of materialist philosophy", but you seem to. At any rate, you have a better understanding of my position than you did before.

76

I think a lot of the reason is that many people still have the antiquated notion that scientific theories can be "falsifiable." It used to be that certain evidence could be used to prove a theory isn't adequate. But now theories are bullet-proof and discarded only when there is a paradigm shift.

You're asserting that evidence cannot be gathered against panspermia?

77

The materialist's creed:

In the beginning was hydrogen . . .
and it said, "I need a change from this dull as ditchwater expansion." And so it was that it developed radial motion. And when it discovered how easy that was, it said, "I know it seems absurd, but why stop here? The possibilities are limitless if I just use my hydrogen-given imagination!" And so it changed and changed and changed and changed, and changed and changed and changed and changed until, as fate would have it, it became everything that is -- including you and me.

That's my story and I am sticking to it.

78

From Rob [a while earlier]:
I don't have a theory. Materialism is my default position. I'd like the answers, but, lacking them, I'm not going to invent them or take upon myself the inventions of others. I'll believe an origin story when it's proven.

1. Isn't this a wonderful way to avoid any ultimate issues of meaning - which is the whole point Joe is making?
The Ev. Christian admits that his data about ultimate meaning, reason, order, comes from outside i.e. God, and claims it is consistent with what we know about the current 'default position', the Big Bang Theory.

BBT not only assumes reason applies to reality [as all science does implicitly without proof], but BBT throws up the requirement for incredibly precise information in the form of initial conditions for the creation [from 'flux'] of ANY complex universe like ours [Why should I care about others I can't experience or prove?].

2. I am amused that the faithful materialists here fail to see that that is what they are being criticised for by Joe - a simplistic agnostic 'default position' which is really a stubborn failure to accept that they have any problems with the Big Bangs' known [i.e. well-understood] conditions.
These go beyond the material to the rational need for non-chance Initial Information. Scholars like Paul Davies and Antony Flew can see this, so why not believe them?

If you answer 'perhaps the universe[s] is endless and/or eternal', both views not accepted currently, you are just reverting to the mysticism you criticise in others.

The Bible also has a 'default position' - that rebellious mankind suppresses the knowledge of God because of His clear moral demands.

79

"Why should I care about others I can't experience or prove?"

Gee, Barrie; I'm not saying that I don't care. Actually, I would very much like to know. Would I be less disingenuous if I pretended that I had all the answers? All I'm saying is that my default position is one that is consistent with my own experience. What is wrong with that?

80

Excellent post, Joe, sorry I didn't get in here earlier to watch the fireworks. It's amazing to me with what religious fervor materialists defend their non-belief system.

I especially loved the part in the story about how and why only humans have consciousness!

81

I liked the story as it is very well written.

82

Rob says:
"Why should I care about others I can't experience or prove?"

Gee, Barrie; I'm not saying that I don't care. Actually, I would very much like to know. Would I be less disingenuous if I pretended that I had all the answers? All I'm saying is that my default position is one that is consistent with my own experience. What is wrong with that?

I think you missed my point, Rob. 'I' refers to me. A big part of our experience is logic, isn't it?
I mean that the argument for multi-universes claims that we would have no way of contacting them, detecting them or experiencing them even if they exist [even an infinite number of them is speculated on!].

What we DO know about OUR universe is that it must have had incredibly precise initial conditions that strongly suggest that a highly rational Originator is needed, and not chance.
This is entirely consistent with Judaeo-Christian
thought. I would say that the same facts are true of the conditions for the origin of life.

This is why I ask you to accept that the Christian 'default position' is quite reasonable, and that a belief in an endless, startless multi-universe is itself speculative mysticism.

You may have faith, like Stephen Hawking, that a TOE will be found which applies reason exhaustively to the universe and all its contents without mystery or remainder. [I don't believe this.]
Even if true, that would still imply the possibilility that we are all in a sort of Total Computer - and how could that exist unless made by a Great Computer Programmer - the Ghost in The Machine?

Cheers

83

"In the beginning was Nothing and Nothing created Everything. When Nothing decided to create Everything, she filled a tiny dot with Time, Chance, and Everything and had it explode."

Joe, I DESPERATELY want to print this on t-shirts!
Can we work summat out?

84

It's been a long time since I so enjoyed reading posts in the net. Two thumbs up! Soldier will Girl unconditionally: http://www.computerworld.com/ , when Table Increase Gnome Create when Soldier Bet Round Make , Collective Pair Rape or not Make Roll Compute - that is all that Tournament is capable of

85

An amusing story, but I can't see how actors like "Time" and "Chance" in this story are distinguishable from "God" in the conventional creation story.

Although it's not as entertaining, I think the materialist story of the origin (not creation) is something like:

In the beginning there was a small, hot, dense lump, though there was no one around to observe it. For reasons that are unknown, it started expanding and cooling. As it cooled, hydrogen atoms formed and coalesced into stars. Some stars exploded, producing heavier elements. Eventually some of those supernova remnants formed planets.

Although the laws of thermodynamics require that the overall entropy of a closed system (such as the universe) to increase over time, localized decreases can and do occur. On at least one planet, this led to a progression of increasingly complex self-replicating organisms. Eventually a species of such organisms appeared which exhibited self-awareness, and questioned the origin of the universe.

Some members of this species invented the concept of an all-powerful entity which created the universe, but others believed that no such entity was involved.