You have to pity the modern atheist who attempts to present arguments for her cause. Unmoored from any respectable intellectual tradition, each generation is forced to recreate anti-theistic arguments from scratch. The result is that the claims which they believe to be clever and damning often turn out to be, to use a technical philosophical phrase, just plain silly.
Take for example, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. According to Wikipedia, The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the deity of a parody religion founded in 2005 by Oregon State University physics graduate Bobby Henderson to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution. In an open letter sent to the education board, Henderson professes belief in a supernatural Creator called the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which resembles spaghetti and meatballs. He furthermore calls for the "Pastafarian" theory of creation to be taught in science classrooms, essentially invoking a reductio ad absurdum argument against the teaching of intelligent design. (The FSM has been popularized by the otherwise charming and intelligent folks at BoingBoing.)
What Henderson actually showed was (a) a profound ignorance of the design argument, (b) a profound ignorance of what the Kansas board was actually proposing, and (c) that OSU should require physics graduates to take courses in philosophy. But what Henderson was trying to get at, though he doesn't seem clever enough to grasp his own point, is similar to what Bertrand Russell was arguing with his "celestial teapot" analogy. In the famous passage from Is There a God?, Russell writes:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
Russell's rather unoriginal argument has recently rehashed by atheism's most unoriginal apologist, Richard Dawkins. Both Russell and Dawkins (and everyone else who uses this line of reasoning) attempt to argue along the lines that "If the existence of X (celestial teapots, FSMs, God) has not been disproven, it does not follow that X exists, or even that it is reasonable to believe that X exists."
This point is both obvious and uncontroversial. The problem comes when they try to suggest, as William Vallicella says, "that belief in God (i.e., belief that God exists) is epistemically on a par with believing in a celestial teapot. Just as we have no reason to believe in celestial teapots, irate lunar unicorns (lunicorns?), flying spaghetti monsters, and the like, we have no reason to believe in God."
Vallicella points out the key problem with this thinking: we have all sorts of reasons for believing that God exists. True, atheists may not find them compelling. But so what? "The issue is whether a reasoned case can be made for theism, and the answer is in the affirmative," says Vallicella. "Belief in God and in Russell's teapot are therefore not on a par since there are no empirical or theoretical reasons for believing in his teapot."
Celestial teapots and FSMs do, however, differ on one key point. The celestial teapot is a contingent being, it's coming into being and continued existence is contingent on the existence of something else (namely the universe). The teapot is a physical being whose existence is radically dependent on the existence of matter. The teapot could cease to exist without affecting the universe. But if the universe ceased to exist, so would the celestial teapot.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster, however, is akin to God in that it is posited as a being that creates contingent beings. As Henderson claims in his letter, "We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe." If the FSM created the universe then the universe is radically dependent on the FSM. If the universe was created into existence then it is possible for the entire universe to go out of existence, to simply cease to exist. Its continued existence therefore requires a causal agent to keep it from ceasing to exist, to prevent its exnihilation. (Note: This would be true even if the universe has always existed and was uncaused (i.e., the view of steady-state cosmology).)
In his attempt to be clever, Henderson misses the point that his FSM is more philosophically plausible than what (I suspect) he actually believes. Presumably since he is a physicist, Henderson believes either that the universe was created from nothing (everything from nothingness) or that he subscribes to some alternate view such as the Multiverse theory. The idea that (a) absolute nothingness (non-existence) created the universe and that (b) this nothingness sustains the universe from exnihilation (complete non-existence) is philosophically and scientifically absurd.
That leaves us with the second option, that the universe was created by something else, such as a Perpetual Universe Generator (PUG). In essence, the PUG plays the same roles as God or the FSM. Each is an entity that exists non-contingently and resides outside of the normal laws of the known physical universe. (The FSM is a creature comprised of stringy noodles while the PUG is a construct comprised of noodly theories about strings.) The only difference is that Henderson is positing an un-intelligent designer (nothingness, the PUG) while the alternatives are intelligent designers (the FSM, God).
Why exactly we are to prefer an unintelligent designer to an intelligent one is one of the questions that remains unanswered. Obviously, not all atheists believe that arguments must be intelligently designed; but that does not mean that arguments for intelligent design are without merit. Perhaps if they used their noodles for something other than creating spaghetti creatures they'd see that obvious point for themselves.
What a disappointment. Since you branded FSM-type arguments as "silly" in the title, I was expecting a substantial demonstration of their "silliness". Instead, all you did was brush them aside with an unsupported claim that "we have all sorts of reasons for believing that God exists". What kind of reasons? I'm sure Pastafarians can come up with all sorts of reasons for believing in the FSM too. Sure, you might not find them compelling, but so what? ;)
The second part of your post is even more disappointing. Instead of providing reasons as to why intelligent design by supernatural entities should be preferable to naturalistic explanations of the universe's origins (what you misleadingly term as "unintelligent design"), all you did was to make ad hominem attacks on atheists. Calling a point "obvious" and denigrating your opponents for not being able to see it is a cheap debating tactic that is usually resorted to by those who lack real arguments for their position.
What a disappointment. Since you branded FSM-type arguments as "silly" in the title, I was expecting a substantial demonstration of their "silliness". Instead, all you did was brush them aside with an unsupported claim that "we have all sorts of reasons for believing that God exists". What kind of reasons?
Oh come on now, you can't be serious. Does Joe really need to re-hash the arguments of C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, Timothy Keller, or any number of Christian apologists to show that there are reasons for believing God exists? As Joe conceded, atheists may not find the reasons compelling, but to attempt to argue they don't exist is just silly.
I'm sure Pastafarians can come up with all sorts of reasons for believing in the FSM too. Sure, you might not find them compelling, but so what? ;)
No, they really can't, and that is the whole point of the FSM argument. The FSM argument is not an attempt to advance a position, it is an attempt to de-bunk another one.
The second part of your post is even more disappointing. Instead of providing reasons as to why intelligent design by supernatural entities should be preferable to naturalistic explanations of the universe's origins (what you misleadingly term as "unintelligent design"), all you did was to make ad hominem attacks on atheists.
I am not sure you know what an "ad hominem" attack is. From this statement it is not clear you do. That said, Joe has posted numerous times at EO on why he thinks "intelligent design" is preferable to "unintelligent design". He even touches on the in this post (see the PUG comments). Why should he feel the need to re-hash those arguments on every post to accommodate your laziness.
You said "What Henderson actually showed was (a) a profound ignorance of the design argument,"
the design argument is ignorant in itself.
You said "What Henderson actually showed was (a) a profound ignorance of the design argument,"
the design argument is ignorant in itself.
How is a design argument ignorant in and of itself? Everything we know of is either designed, not designed, or a mix of both. To say that the argument that life on this planet is designed to some extent is ignorant is willful ignorance itself.
Well said. We have lots of evidence for the existence of God: Cosmological (”first cause”), teleological (design), morality, logic, the physical resurrection of Jesus, archeological support and fulfilled prophecies of the Bible, etc.
If atheists don’t find that compelling, then so be it. I’m on the Great Commission, not the paid commission. But to insist that we have no evidence is uncharitable in the extreme and makes reasoned dialogue virtually impossible.
When they trot out the unicorn/FSM/etc. arguments I just treat those as Atheist Concession Speeches. I’m confident that true seekers will realize which side is more credible.
Another re-run, this one from January of last year. You can refer there for the arguments hashing and re-hashing Joe's silliness.
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2007/01/celestial-teapo.html
The idea that (a) absolute nothingness (non-existence) created the universe and that (b) this nothingness sustains the universe from exnihilation (complete non-existence) is philosophically and scientifically absurd.
1. I think it is useful to have a naming convention here. We often confuse the universe with the Universe. The universe should refer to the 'visible universe'. Most theories about the universe are technically about the visible universe. This includes the Big Bang theory. The Universe should be mean 'everything that is'. This would be anything beyond the visible universe whether it is just more universe like our visible universe or other things...for example it would be all the universes in a multiverse theory (infinite or finite).
2. Joe writes that it is philosophically and scientifically absurd to hold the idea that non-existence can produce existence. Why? We are locked inside our universe which is follows the conservation of matter & energy. So we never see things simply popping into existence. The matter/energy of our universe is constant so nothing 'pops into existence' but instead is the product of stuff that already existed changing form. People often forget that even the Big Bang theory doesn't assert the universe came out of nothingness. It asserts that the matter/energy of todays universe was exactly the same as the universe then, the only difference is that it was packed into a tiny space.
But the only reason I can see for Joe's statement is that it doesn't fit with our observable universe...this requires a huge metaphysical leap to assume that our visible universe must mirror the actual whole Universe. Not only is that a leap it also seems to be kind of arrogant if you ask me. I have a kitten who lived his entire life indoors. Because of this he has never experienced temperatures beyond 60-80 degrees whether the season is winter or summer. He might assume it is absurd to think temperatures could ever be outside that range but I, being the human who pays the electric and gas bill, know that his experience is only a small subset of the big picture.
I will agree that the FSM monster has little to do with the intelligent design debate. So does Joe's post. The ID debate is a little bit like trying to remember if you went to the movies last week or two weeks ago while the cosmological debate is like trying to figure out if your great-great grandfather had free will when he was two years old and if so did the decisions he made then impact your life today.
Excellent post. I'll link to it.
I believe that the final answer to the question lies simply in TIME...If there is no God, there is nothing we can do about it, but if their IS...All eternity awaits us and a place has been prepared for us...I choose to err if it be such... on the side of LIFE and eternity: intellectualism and science... there's some value there... but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both this present life and the life everlasting. Godliness with contentment...Now that's GREAT GAIN!
Ref:1 Tim 4:8, 1 Tim 6:6
People often forget that even the Big Bang theory doesn't assert the universe came out of nothingness. It asserts that the matter/energy of todays universe was exactly the same as the universe then, the only difference is that it was packed into a tiny space.
That thought always intrigues me; all the mass of our universe contained in a point of infintesimal volume and unimaginable density. Atheists have no problem accepting that concept and that this point existed all by itself without an outside cause. Yet they ridicule theists for believing in God. To me, it is a greater stretch, requres more faith if you will, to believe in singularity than to believe in God.
ScottR
1. The Big Bang theory does NOT assert the point was without cause. It asserts that we do not have any information before that point so the theory 'starts its clock' from that point.
2. I'm not sure what the issue is over effects without causes. Especially since God is often defined as an 'uncaused cause' it would seem both atheists and theists can be comfortable with at least one uncaused cause in the Universe.
As for what requires more faith, I think you have to keep in mind that simply because something feels comfortable for us does not make it a philosophical truth. It's hard to imagine something coming from nothing but that doesn't mean it is 'philosophically absurd'. I, for one, find it even harder to imagine the flow of time changing based on speed or gravity or the fact that quantum physics says a partical may not be in one particular place yet those truths are pretty mundane at this point.
It's pretty arrogant to think that the Universe is limited to YOUR imagination. Your imagine is a subset of the Universe, not the other way around.
It's pretty arrogant to think that the Universe is limited to YOUR imagination. Your imagine is a subset of the Universe, not the other way around.
A bit incoherent perhaps, but the meaning is clear enough. Now can we turn that argument on the atheists, please? It seems that they, too, often baptize their imaginations and believe that what seems irrational to them ought to be equally irrational to others.
I am reminded of Stephen Hawking in "A Brief History of Time", rejecting the Judeo-Christian concept of God because such a being would have to violate the speed of light. Unimaginable!
Mark
That last line of mine should have read:
It's pretty arrogant to think that the Universe is limited to YOUR imagination. Your imagination is a subset of the Universe, not the other way around.
I haven't read Hawking's criticism of God (I wonder if he said that more in jest, though). But you're right that whether or not the argument works depends on who is bigger. If the Universe is bigger than God then yes he has to obey the speed of light. Vice versa than he doesn't. Few people believe in the Greek and Roman Gods anymore and one of the reasons is that they thought of them as part of the Universe. If they are part then it becomes pretty clear the gods are in violation of a host of physical laws & since the gods don't seem to be above the Universe it's pretty hard to believe in them.
Evidence, evidence, evidence. And it has built up generation by generation; consistent, reliable and available for all to see first hand. Up to the present it all points to a world-view that excludes religion which mostly does not even engage with it and often runs counter to it.
Evidence, evidence, evidence. And it has built up generation by generation; consistent, reliable and available for all to see first hand. Up to the present it all points to a world-view that excludes religion which mostly does not even engage with it and often runs counter to it.
Boonton:
I think by saying "philosophically absurd" Joe is saying that the idea of nothing creating something is logically absurd. There is no category of logical reasoning or experiential analogues that could countenance such a proposition as nothing giving rise to something.
It might ultimately be true that nothing did give rise to something and that our rules of logic are inadequate to express the fundamental reality of the universe, but we could never know that and it would be useless to try to argue that logically. Hence the notion is intrinsically philosophically absurd.
Since we are confined by our finite minds to argue philosophical issues by philosophical means, the attempt to equate proofs for contingent, unfalsiable entities such as celestial teapots and flying spaghetti monsters with a self-existent transcendent God is mere ham-handed sophistry.
Boonton,
Your comments about how to get a handle on how we perceive the universe in relation to God or the Big Bang are pithy and very insightful. Thanks!
There are many unanswered questions about the nature of physics and the nature of the universe. We may never get the answers by making progress in science. But we will learn a lot more about these kinds of questions through scientific studies than through religious studies.
Intelligent design is a dead end because it is not a scientific hypothesis. Intelligent design is an assertion that evolution through natural selection cannot explain everything. There is no way to test this assertion scientifically.
Maybe natural selection cannot explain everything. But that is not a proposition under the purview of science qua science -- it is a question belonging to the philosophy of science.
Intelligent design would not be a dead end if it could formulate even one hypothesis -- just one -- that could be supported or disproved by experimental evidence. Are there any proponents of ID here who can cite such an experimental hypothesis?
Regarding the "Celestial Teapot" argument:
It illustrates a presumption necessary for atheism to be argued - a BOUND God.
If you have to specify that it is a Teapot and that it is in a specific orbit, you limit one's expectation of belief in it. However, what if, instead of it being a teapot, it were a hollowed out mass of a homogeneous material with two openings - one larger than the other. Is it still just as reasonable to presume its nonexistance?
How about if we don't limit it to a particular orbit? Is it unreasonable to presume a hollowed out smooth object with two holes in it exists somewhere in the Galaxy? How about the known universe? How about the entire universe? How about the entire universe? How about within AND beyond the Universe? Is it really unreasonable that some "random chance," which ostensibly is responsible for all life in the universe, isn't capable of causing a hollowed out smooth object with two openings?
Other arguments against God run into the same issue. To seriously say that God doesn't exist, one has to say that, not only within the knowable universe or within the universe itself - both known and unknown - but even past all bounds of what is possible to know, you still KNOW.
John Sutton, Who's side are you on? Your quote is almost exactly what Paul writes in Romans 1:19-20. (NIV) "[since] what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Finish the chapter and read how God has poured out his wrath on those "fools" who "exchanged the truth of God for a lie" or, in the case of atheistic, Darwinian naturalists a pack of lies. Speaking as a born again believer who once 'bought the whole enchilada' about big bangs and descent from apes, open the eyes of your heart and you will see and know God. Evidence of his design and purpose are all around you if your ego and pride will just get out the way and stop blocking your view. It is plain and glorious to see.
Daniel,
To seriously say that God doesn't exist, one has to say that, not only within the knowable universe or within the universe itself - both known and unknown - but even past all bounds of what is possible to know, you still KNOW.
I don't know with 100% confidence that God doesn't exist. I don't know anything with 100% confidence.
For example, there could be an all-powerful God who manipulates everything in just the right way so as to give every appearance (every appearance in my opinion) of not existing. That is certainly a logical possibility.
But it is a logical possibility that doesn't make any sense. Why would God want to hide himself from me, or anyone else? I agree that he could if he wanted to, but it is not something to seriously consider, much less base one's life upon.
In other words, for all practical purposes, God does not exist.
How do I know that? Because nothing about the universe as I understand it points to his presence or existence. I would expect to find some evidence of his existence if he existed, but instead I find none.
I admit that this is not an ironclad, watertight logical proof. But such proofs will never be available, and are actually not even necessary. We don't have 100% logical proofs of anything else in our world (aside from mathematical theorems). We just have to make do with the best alternatives that we do come up with, even if they are only 99.99% certain.
Jim S,
Finish the chapter and read how God has poured out his wrath on those "fools" who "exchanged the truth of God for a lie" or, in the case of atheistic, Darwinian naturalists a pack of lies.
I'm a "Darwinian naturalist" (by belief, it's not my job), so it would seem you're calling me a liar.
But, of course, if I believe my "lies", then I am not a liar. I am just mistaken or misguided. But being mistaken or misguided doesn't sound malicious enough to you, so you chose to go ad hominem.
I'm sorry that natural selection makes you feel so frustrated. It's certainly not very comforting to realize that it's such a jungle out there in the natural world.
I would suggest, though, that you take the message for what it's worth without feeling obliged to rhetorically shoot the messenger. Scientists are no more dishonest or deluded than anyone else.
If you try to intimidate people from learning about and weighing scientific theories by invoking the biblical wrath of God, then you are guilty of intellectual bullying and manipulation. Shame on you!
MG, In your reply to Daniel, you posit "Why would God want want to hide himself from me, or anyone else?" Easily explained two ways: a) he hasn't hidden himself, you just aren't really seeking him with the heart of a person who needs him. And, b) if God could be unhidden (i.e., seen) you would need no faith to believe in him. Go out and look in you garage at your car. Come back inside and you don't need a bit of faith to know your car is there. (Unless this is leading you to confess you are a post-modernist, too.)
In your reply to my previous post, did you finish reading Chap 1 of Romans? You did not say you did and your retort suggests you did not. Taking the message of natural selection and origins "for what its worth" suggests I give it none of the credence I did for so many years. The thing that separates scientists from born again Christians is that 1) many are trying to deceive. Does oat bran reduce cholesterol or not? Is there such a thing as 'safe sex' or not? Is abortion murder or is it just a clump of cells? Is man the cause of global warming (if indeed the globe is warming) or not? Did man really evolve from an amoeba? Is the universe expanding or contracting? 2) I am not 'try[ing] to intimidate people from learning about and weighing scientific theories.' On the contrary, it is scientists who are trying to stifle and eliminate teaching in schools that there are questions science cannot answer. Ask the residents of Kansas and Pennsylvania and Georgia and Texas how open their school boards are to challenging natural selection and naturalistic origins in public school classrooms. And, I am not invoking the biblical wrath of God, just quoting Paul who was Spirit-led to write about it. In my view, he nails it!
Matthew Goggin,
Here is one for you and your Darwinian naturalist buddies:
Dateline Madrid, Spain on 25 Jun 2008:
Spain's parliament voiced its support on Wednesday for the rights of great apes to life and freedom in what will apparently be the first time any national legislature has called for such rights for non-humans.
Parliament's environmental committee approved resolutions urging Spain to comply with the Great Apes Project, devised by scientists and philosophers who say our closest genetic relatives deserve rights hitherto limited to humans.
"This is a historic day in the struggle for animal rights and in defense of our evolutionary comrades, which will doubtless go down in the history of humanity," said Pedro Pozas, Spanish director of the Great Apes Project. Spain may be better known abroad for bull-fighting than animal rights but the new measures are the latest move turning once-conservative Spain into a liberal trailblazer.
Spain did not legalize divorce until the 1980s, but Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's Socialist government has legalized gay marriage, reduced the influence of the Catholic Church in education and set up an Equality Ministry.
The "great exchange of the truth for lies"...where does it lead? Q: When will it stop? A: When Christ comes again. I pray you will be ready, Matthew.
Jim S.,
MG, In your reply to Daniel, you posit "Why would God want want to hide himself from me, or anyone else?" Easily explained two ways: a) he hasn't hidden himself, you just aren't really seeking him with the heart of a person who needs him.
It's true that people tend to find what they are looking for. And it's true that "[I am not] really seeking [God] with the heart of a person who needs him."
But that doesn't change that God is hidden from me (and from many others too), and that I, as a consequence, do not believe in him.
b) if God could be unhidden (i.e., seen) you would need no faith to believe in him.
Once again, you write the truth. Once again, though, your truth does not change the fact that God remains hidden.
In your reply to my previous post, did you finish reading Chap 1 of Romans?
No. I considered reading through, but I have read it before and I remembered the gist of it.
But I did read it again now that you have suggested it.
Taking the message of natural selection and origins "for what its worth" suggests I give it none of the credence I did for so many years.
Yes, I'm not surprised, since that is what you indicated before.
I can't prove natural selection to you, so I respect your right to reject it. Nobody knew about natural selection before the nineteenth century, so it's not like the most important thing in the world anyway.
It is important to me, though, because it explains how life was able to follow the course of its natural history through the ages without the benefit of divine intervention or guidance.
The thing that separates scientists from born again Christians is that 1) many are trying to deceive.
There you go again.
You're entitled to your opinion, but posting your opinion advertises that you appear to be a religious bigot.
Does oat bran reduce cholesterol or not? Is there such a thing as 'safe sex' or not? Is abortion murder or is it just a clump of cells? Is man the cause of global warming (if indeed the globe is warming) or not? Did man really evolve from an amoeba? Is the universe expanding or contracting?
If a scientist opines on any of these questions with unwarranted certainty, then yes, you are correct, he is abusing his authority with an intent to deceive.
I am not aware, however, that scientists are in fact more guilty of abusing their authority than anyone else. And I suspect that you have no more expertise on this particular point than I do.
2) I am not 'try[ing] to intimidate people from learning about and weighing scientific theories.' On the contrary, it is scientists who are trying to stifle and eliminate teaching in schools that there are questions science cannot answer.
I am glad to hear that you are not interested in intimidating people from learning about science.
However, actions speak louder than words, and your last comment (comment 19) still seems to me to be an exercise in using the New Testament as a kind of club to discourage people from giving science their full and earnest consideration. I hope that I am wrong and you are right.
Ask the residents of Kansas and Pennsylvania and Georgia and Texas how open their school boards are to challenging natural selection and naturalistic origins in public school classrooms.
This is a controversy which is deserving of its own comment thread. For now, I will just say that I disagree with you and that I support keeping intelligent design out of science curricula.
And, I am not invoking the biblical wrath of God, just quoting Paul who was Spirit-led to write about it. In my view, he nails it!
Paul is invoking the wrath of God, and he is writing about in the Bible. If you quote Paul because you agree with him, then yes, indeed, you are invoking the biblical wrath of God.
And I'm not sure why you would want to deny it, especially since you explain that that is what you are doing anyway. Is it a bad thing, in your view, to invoke the biblical wrath of God?
The "great exchange of the truth for lies"...where does it lead? Q: When will it stop? A: When Christ comes again. I pray you will be ready, Matthew.
Granting apes rights to life and freedom does not sound like a bad thing to me. It is not my biggest priority, when there are so many other problems in the world, but it does sound like a good idea in theory.
Gay marriage: I'm for it, but I don't think it should instituted by activist judges. It shouldn't become law until the people have an opportunity to vote on it and a majority approves it.
As for your general point, you are right that when traditional beliefs are cast aside, people and societies can lose their bearings.
But, perhaps unfortunately, we don't really have a choice. We can't hold on to traditional beliefs unless we still believe that they are true. If we determine that something is false, wishing that it is true doesn't make it so.
So if you are concerned that we will be overwhelmed by the choices we face in a post-Christian or a post-religious world, then I suggest you decide to face that challenge head-on rather than insist that the only source of reliable truth is the Bible.
If you insist on tethering ethics and morality to the Bible, you will be forever stuck preaching to the choir. You will have largely forfeited the debate in the public square to the Zapatero's of this world.
After all, if you think about it, Jim, God tells us to do good not simply because it is his will, but because the good is also objectively moral.
God does not, for example, insist that we torture and kill babies, because that is evil and God is good.
Likewise, one can make arguments on behalf of any moral principle that do not depend on the authority of Jesus or the Bible. It takes a little bit more thought and effort, perhaps, than just quoting a passage from the scriptures. But the advantage of speaking to everyone, instead of just Christians, is enormous and well worth the effort.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts,
Matthew
Matthew,
But it is a logical possibility that doesn't make any sense. Why would God want to hide himself from me, or anyone else? I agree that he could if he wanted to, but it is not something to seriously consider, much less base one's life upon.
In other words, for all practical purposes, God does not exist.
That sounds a lot like you're saying "because I don't currently understand a subset someone's motivations, I refuse to accept that this motivation exists." After all, if you DID see reason for hiding oneself, you wouldn't use that as reason for non-belief. I would suggest that basing your argument on this is shaky at best.
How do I know that? Because nothing about the universe as I understand it points to his presence or existence. I would expect to find some evidence of his existence if he existed, but instead I find none.
By evidence, of course, you mean "scientific" evidence. There are LOTS of other forms of evidence - e.g. documentary, testimonial, circumstantial, or demonstrative, just to name a few. Of the different types, Courts of law typically hold testimonial as being the most acceptible forms. And there is PLENTY of testimonial evidence of God - as well as documentary and demonstrative.
Of course, scientific evidence is often dismissed by courts of law as being unreliable...
Anyways, your argument fails to address my central point - that as the realm of possibilities you have to take into account increases, one's certainty of the non-existence of something, be it something resembling a teapot or something resembling God, HAS to rationally decline.
It is important to me, though, because it explains how life was able to follow the course of its natural history through the ages without the benefit of divine intervention or guidance.
Not quite; it explains how life may have been able to follow the course of its natural history..without the benefit of divine intervention. Its a very important distinction. There is no way to show experimentally how a velociraptor transforms into a peregrine falcon, given enough time. You have to rely on a lot of assumptions that may not be valid.
Granting apes rights to life and freedom does not sound like a bad thing to me.
Really? How far would you extend that? Would granting cows or pigs "rights to life and freedom" be a bad thing? How about deer? What about rats and cockroaches? Where would you draw that line between what has right and what doesn't and what would you base the decision on?
Jim S.
Why should we be concerned that Spain is voting to give great apes rights to life and freedom? Why should they not have these things? Do you think it's noble to treat great apes the same way we would treat, ohhh, say, bacteria? Cruelity to animals is not a sign that a person respects human life, often it is evidence they don't.
Ken
I think by saying "philosophically absurd" Joe is saying that the idea of nothing creating something is logically absurd. There is no category of logical reasoning or experiential analogues that could countenance such a proposition as nothing giving rise to something.
Well first of all cause and effect is not quite as clear as it seems on the surface. I believe Hume pointed that out but the Simpsons can do it better. Bart plays a joke on Homer, Homer gets mad and grabs Bart by the throat. You say Bart playing the joke caused Homer to grab him. But that's not true. Bart playing the joke simply came before Homer grabbing him because that's how the animators put the pictures together. A disgruntled Fox employee could have also put the animation slides in reverse and it will seem like Homer grabbing Bart caused Bart to play a joke on him. Cause and effect could also just be less a metaphysical truth and more of a grammatical rule for how time orders moments together.
ucfengr
Not quite; it explains how life may have been able to follow the course of its natural history..without the benefit of divine intervention. Its a very important distinction. There is no way to show experimentally how a velociraptor transforms into a peregrine falcon, given enough time. You have to rely on a lot of assumptions that may not be valid.
Well there is. If you built a DNA database of every velociraptor and then tracked their offspring you could quite easily demonstrate experimentally. Unfortunately, it appears no one was building such a database 60 million years ago so you go for the next best thing which is to look at the evidence that you can collect. By any sane standard for evaluating evidence natural selection explains how life followed its path. (Although I'm sure it might be unclear whether velociraptors were direct ancestors of peregrine falcons).
Really? How far would you extend that? Would granting cows or pigs "rights to life and freedom" be a bad thing? How about deer? What about rats and cockroaches? Where would you draw that line between what has right and what doesn't and what would you base the decision on?
I and most other sane people would draw the line based on how close something seems to human levels of intelligence and cognition. This would put rats and deer at a distinct level below great apes but I would still say they have a right to humane treatment. Cockroaches would be pretty far down the line but even then I'd frown upon the junior psychopath frying them with a magnifying glass for his own amusement.
Well there is. If you built a DNA database of every velociraptor and then tracked their offspring you could quite easily demonstrate experimentally. Unfortunately, it appears no one was building such a database 60 million years ago so you go for the next best thing which is to look at the evidence that you can collect.
In other words, "There is no way to show experimentally how a velociraptor transforms into a peregrine falcon, given enough time." Gee Boonton, if you are going to try to disagree with me, shouldn't, you know, actually disagree with me rather than validate my point. What a maroon.
By any sane standard for evaluating evidence natural selection explains how life followed its path.
Really? So then "science" should be able to trace the path from the veliciraptor to peregrine falcon (or some other descendant) with something approaching 100% accuracy; but they can't, can they?
Although I'm sure it might be unclear whether velociraptors were direct ancestors of peregrine falcons
Velociraptor to peregrine falcon was just the first example that jumped into my head. I really have no idea whether one is the descendant of other. I suppose I could have used chimpanzee to man without changing the point, which is that we are just making SWAG's (scientific, wild a** guesses) about the paths of evolution.
I and most other sane people would draw the line based on how close something seems to human levels of intelligence and cognition.
So, are you calling the folks at PETA insane?
MG, I'll break down your last post into pieces and respond in a couple of separate posts:
Your original question was: "Why would God want want to hide himself from me, or anyone else?"
My response (first part): Easily explained two ways: a) he hasn't hidden himself, you just aren't really seeking him with the heart of a person who needs him.
Your response: It's true that people tend to find what they are looking for. And it's true that "[I am not] really seeking [God] with the heart of a person who needs him."
But that doesn't change that God is hidden from me (and from many others too), and that I, as a consequence, do not believe in him.
My response to your original question (second part): b) if God could be unhidden (i.e., seen) you would need no faith to believe in him.
Your response: Once again, you write the truth. Once again, though, your truth does not change the fact that God remains hidden.
YOUR RESPONSE INCLUDES A NON SEQUITUR. YOUR 1ST QUESTION WAS WHY WOULD GOD WANT TO HIDE HIMSELF. I TOLD YOU (IN b) GOD'S PRESENCE IS HIDDEN FROM YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE UNWILLING TO EARNESTLY SEEK HIM. METAPHORICALLY, YOU CANNOT SEE LIGHT IF YOU ARE CONTENT TO LIVE IN DARKNESS. I REFER YOU TO JEREMIAH 29:13.
ALSO, YOU ARE TAKING "the Pontius Pilate approach to seeking the truth" HERE. IN JOHN 18:38, PP ASKED JESUS (THE KING OF KINGS!) "What is truth?" THEN TURNED AWAY WITHOUT WAITING FOR(OR GENUINELY SEEKING) THE ANSWER TO HIS OWN QUESTION. IN YOUR OWN WORDS, MATTHEW, "It's true that people tend to find what they are looking for."
AND, MY BELIEF IS THAT MOST SELF-PROCLAIMED DARWINIAN NATURALISTS AREN'T GENUINELY LOOKING FOR UNIVERSAL TRUTH. IF THEY WERE, THEY WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH INTELLIGENT DESIGNERS CHALLENGING THEIR BELOVED THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION IN OPEN DEBATE. WHAT IS PARTICULARLY DISTURBING IS THAT IT IS OPEN QUESTIONING AND CHALLENGING OF SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT THAT GIVES SCIENCE VALUE. WHEN SO MANY SCIENTISTS RESORT TO STIFLING DEBATE AND CONSENSUS-DRIVEN "TRUTH" (THINK AL GORE FOR JUST A MOMENT) SCIENCE CEASES TO BE SCIENCE AND BECOMES IDEOLOGY.
Jim S., typing a post in all CAPS doesn't make an argument more convincing or valid; it only makes it harder to read or take seriously.
In other words, "There is no way to show experimentally how a velociraptor transforms into a peregrine falcon, given enough time." Gee Boonton, if you are going to try to disagree with me, shouldn't, you know, actually disagree with me rather than validate my point. What a maroon.
I just provided you with one such experiment. You're asking can it be done? Sure it can. There's no law of physics that would prevent us from tracking 60 million years of generations of some organism. Presumably if human civilization holds out until the sun burns us up we very well might do that several times over.
Can we go back in time and watch one specific animal? Probably not. Can we collect evidence that has been left behind by all those generations? Sure. How much evidence is out there? Beats me, probably a lot even though time has destoryed a lot more. Is what's out there enough? Depends on what your standard of proof is. I think if you have a normal, sane standard of proof then natural selection meets it....if maybe not the specific link of velociraptor to falcon. By 'normal, sane' I mean the standard that normal and sane people apply generally to most things. If you have some special interest in seeing natural selection disproved some are inclined to pick abnormal standards of proof. What usually gives this away is the fact that when a subject with which they do not have a vested interest in comes up they revert back to a normal standard of proof.
So by all means tell us that you embrace a stupid standard of proof. Perhaps you can use the Matrix as your guide and tell us that first we must prove that we aren't all living in vats as computers feed our brains a virtual reality reality. You should, though, be consistent in that position. So if six weeks from now we are talking about whether OJ was guilty or whether Japan brought the US into WWII please refrain from suddenly deciding to revert to normality.
Velociraptor to peregrine falcon was just the first example that jumped into my head. I really have no idea whether one is the descendant of other. I suppose I could have used chimpanzee to man without changing the point, which is that we are just making SWAG's (scientific, wild a** guesses) about the paths of evolution.
Actually it seems like you are making wild guesses about the paths of evolution. Chimps are relatives to humans, not an ancestor. It might be helpful if you explored why science thinks that's so. After all, if it was just about wild guesses it would be easier to just say chimps were our ancestors and a long time ago some population of chimps evolved into modern humans. Yet that hypothesis has been rejected for one where chimps and humans share a common ancestor (making us brothers or cousins I suppose if you want to push the analogy of a family).
So, are you calling the folks at PETA insane?
On some issues yes, although I suspect even they have their limits. I don't believe they consider pouring some bleech on a dirty counter equal to genocide, for example.
Jim S.
AND, MY BELIEF IS THAT MOST SELF-PROCLAIMED DARWINIAN NATURALISTS AREN'T GENUINELY LOOKING FOR UNIVERSAL TRUTH. IF THEY WERE, THEY WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH INTELLIGENT DESIGNERS CHALLENGING THEIR BELOVED THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION IN OPEN DEBATE. WHAT IS PARTICULARLY DISTURBING IS THAT IT IS OPEN QUESTIONING AND CHALLENGING OF SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT THAT GIVES SCIENCE VALUE. WHEN SO MANY SCIENTISTS RESORT TO STIFLING DEBATE AND CONSENSUS-DRIVEN "TRUTH" (THINK AL GORE FOR JUST A MOMENT) SCIENCE CEASES TO BE SCIENCE AND BECOMES IDEOLOGY.
Time and time again, though, it is the IDers who try to stifle debate. We've seen it over and over again here as IDers refuse to answer honest questions put to them. We saw it with the Expelled movie when the producers expelled an ID critic from a screening that was advertised as an open invitation (and then lied about it). We see it over and over again as IDers, instead of challenging natural selection, try to short circuit the debate by rewriting elementary school books first. (Did Einstein first publish his theories to a Kansas school board or did he address the advanced physics establishment first?). We see it over and over again on the web as attempts to engage IDers in honest debate degenerates into little more than IDers taking rhetorical cheap shots &, I love this since you mentioned Pilate, IDers often end up embracing a relativism so extreme that they would make most post-modernists blush. (When ucfengr, writes something like "So then "science" should be able to ... with something approaching 100% accuracy" keep in mind you're just hearing a modern take on Pilet's famous question. Like Pilet, he isn't really interested in the answer).
Apologies for CAPS in comment 28. None used here.
MG, from your comment 23 (my responses are embedded italicized): Granting apes rights to life and freedom does not sound like a bad thing to me. It is not my biggest priority, when there are so many other problems in the world, but it does sound like a good idea in theory. A slippery slope (already addressed by ucfengr in comment 25) when humans are hungry and there is only a protected ape to eat, whose rights are sovereign? That is a simplistic, but understandable conundrum -- the Bible answers it in Genesis 3.
Gay marriage: I'm for it, but I don't think it should instituted by activist judges. It shouldn't become law until the people have an opportunity to vote on it and a majority approves it. Just remember we have a representative form of government. Pure democracies just don't work. Might be worth noting that the electorate is being denied the right to vote on gay marriage by the usual cast of characters (please don't ask me to name names.) Were there a plebiscite allowed on gay marriage, it would be voted down by a large margin.
As for your general point, you are right that when traditional beliefs are cast aside, people and societies can lose their bearings. Amen, brother.
But, perhaps unfortunately, we don't really have a choice. We can't hold on to traditional beliefs unless we still believe that they are true. If we determine that something is false, wishing that it is true doesn't make it so. So you think the Bible is false? That is an interesting argument. Matthew, why are you posting on an evangelical Christian website?
So if you are concerned that we will be overwhelmed by the choices we face in a post-Christian or a post-religious world, then I suggest you decide to face that challenge head-on rather than insist that the only source of reliable truth is the Bible. The incredible reality of the post-modern world is not that people don't believe the Bible is the only source of reliable truth, rather they believe there is no reliable truth at all. It doesn't bother me because I know the Source of all Truth. And, I also know how the story ends. It should bother those who don't know the Source.
If you insist on tethering ethics and morality to the Bible, you will be forever stuck preaching to the choir. You will have largely forfeited the debate in the public square to the Zapatero's of this world.Where else other than the Bible can you turn that is the source of ethical truth (the way things should be) and so accurately describes contemporary morality (the way things are?) Socialists like Zapatero are a dime a dozen. Why would any thinking person interested in the Truth follow the empty and failed promises of socialism and communism? Because USSR and Cuba and East Germany (et al) worked out so well? Did you notice Zapatero has established an "Equality Ministry" in Spain? Equality is going to come forth from some bureaucrat in Madrid -- equality according to Manuel or Jose or Margarita? Matthew, read the American Declaration of Independence and see where equality comes from.
After all, if you think about it, Jim, God tells us to do good not simply because it is his will, but because the good is also objectively moral.Matthew, you are confusing me. Why are you telling me what God tells us? I thought you said you don't believe in God. I disagree with your assertion here in any case. God desires men (His creation as per Genesis) who were made in his image (that too is in Genesis) to not do anything that is contrary to his character because he is objectively and totally good or moral. We are to do this out of love and worship of him and as acts of obedience and service to him. Although he could, God does not will us to do so rather he invites our love for him to be so. He wants us to want him like he wants us.
God does not, for example, insist that we torture and kill babies, because that is evil and God is good. QED my last response above. How do you think Zapatero feels about infanticide? I don't know, but just supposing.
Likewise, one can make arguments on behalf of any moral principle that do not depend on the authority of Jesus or the Bible. It takes a little bit more thought and effort, perhaps, than just quoting a passage from the scriptures. But the advantage of speaking to everyone, instead of just Christians, is enormous and well worth the effort.The Bible does speak to everyone. There is a reason it is the best-selling book of all time. "Arguments on behalf of any moral principle" are OK. But when Zapatero says infanticide is OK and I don't agree, whose moral principle governs? What about the one child (preferably male child) rule in China? Man's potential for evil (again explained and demonstrated repeatedly in the Bible) and even my own potential for evil demand some higher authority than whatever I think is right at the time. At least to break the ties when I feel one way and you feel another...I am praying for you Matthew. God bless you and keep you.
Boonton,
I challenge you to find a HS or college biology textbook in use in the USA that does anything but give dismissive lip service to the legitimate questions raised by ID. Where did life come from? Where is any shred of scientific evidence that you and I evolved from an amoeba? The electron microscope has changed our views of the mechanics of cellular life just like the sonogram has changed views of the in utero baby. Many who used the old "clump of cells argument" about abortion have been silenced. So where is the open academic dialogue about the shortcomings of Darwin's theory? It does not happen. It is the naturalists that are in charge and they are setting the agenda. It ain't that "we scientists have a lot of unanswered questions about origins and evolution." That's a fact, Jack.
A slippery slope (already addressed by ucfengr in comment 25) when humans are hungry and there is only a protected ape to eat, whose rights are sovereign? That is a simplistic, but understandable conundrum -- the Bible answers it in Genesis 3.
If there's nothing for the human to eat then it would seem there's nothing for the ape to eat either so both would be doomed if such a thing happened. Whoever eats who first only delays the inevitable.
But I suppose you could construct a very strained hypothetical where you must choose to either let an ape die or a human die (perhaps the ape has some rare chemical in its brain that will cure some plague striking humanity). I think you could conclude the ape has a 'right to life and freedom' but nonetheless still conclude human life will trump that right. (We do this all the time. Many policies will indirectly result in some humans getting killed. For example, a research proposal for cancer is approved but one for heart disease is denied. It doesn't follow that humans with heart disease are less entitled to life than those with cancer).
Just remember we have a representative form of government. Pure democracies just don't work. Might be worth noting that the electorate is being denied the right to vote on....
Not sure where this related to the topic here but as you say we don't have pure democracies. The Executive and Judicial branches are part of our system just as much as the Legislative is as well as a Constitutional system of government. The electorate is not denied any such thing unless you change gears and start pretending the only legitimate way the electorate can vote is a plebiscite demanding a yes/no answer on gay marriage. That would contradict your admission that pure democracies just don't work. For example, the voters in the Republican party refused to nominate a candidate who supports banning gay marriage. Perhaps a majority of them would vote against it in a plebiscite devoted just to that issue but by refusing to nominate a candidate devoted to opposing it they reveal a lot about just how important that issue ranks compared to other issues.
One of the reasons pure democracies don't work is that an endless list of plebiscites with 'yes/no' votes actually leaves the electorate with less ability to see their will implemented. For one thing, it implies that the only thing that counts is having 51% of the vote. But an electorate that votes 51%-49% on an issue is hardly of the same mind as one that votes 99%-1%. Things are purposefully set up, therefore, so that sometimes supermajorities are needed, sometimes multiple votes are needed, sometimes only a simple majority is needed but from different segments of the community and so on.
I just provided you with one such experiment. You're asking can it be done? Sure it can. There's no law of physics that would prevent us from tracking 60 million years of generations of some organism.
Right; an experiment that it is currently (and for the foreseeable future) impossible to perform. An experiment that may never be possible to perform. So, in other words, "There is no way to show experimentally how a velociraptor transforms into a peregrine falcon, given enough time."
Can we collect evidence that has been left behind by all those generations?
Right; evidence that is open to interpretation, and contrary to your earlier statements, there are many millions of people who meet both the legal and medical definition of sanity, who disagree with your interpretation.
It amazes me how blithely unaware you are that you are wallowing in pride and greed.
Instead of humbly actually trying to investigate why scientists say what they do say, you prefer to exhibit contempt for them, an use a god of the gaps idol as a stand-in for your pride.
It does nobody any good.
Jim S
I challenge you to find a HS or college biology textbook in use in the USA that does anything but give dismissive lip service to the legitimate questions raised by ID. Where did life come from? Where is any shred of scientific evidence that you and I evolved from an amoeba?
You reveal exactly what I said. "Where did life come from" is not a legitimate criticism of the theory of natural selection. The origin of life is a different theory from natural selection. Yes they are related but so are all theories. As for whether we both evolved from an amoeba, you're asking where is there a shred of evidence for common descent (the theory that all life forms today can ultimately trace their ancestor toa single life form). If you were seriously about an 'open debate' you'd know that such a statement is absurd. If you said the massive amount of evidence for common descent is not sufficient then perhaps you'd indicate that you're seriously engaging in an open debate....in which case the discussion could turn to what is a proper level of evidence and what theories do or do not meet it. But for you to question whether a 'shred of evidence' exists indicates that you, like ucfengr, are just making wild guesses about the theory you're supposedly attacking. Try to imagine a critic of the Christian religion strolling onto a blog like this one. No problem. But now try to imagine such a critic who never even read a summary of the Bible, knows nothing about Christian theology, and can't even get basic concepts of the religion correct like Jesus is the Son of God. Perhaps some Christians here would try to be patient with him at first and explain the basics , hoping he would use that knowledge to provide them with more intelligent criticisms so they can address them. If, after years, though, he refuses to get it I'm sure even the most petient here would stop trying. It wouldn't be fair to describe their decision to just give up as 'stifling debate' with the critic.
ucfengr
Right; an experiment that it is currently (and for the foreseeable future) impossible to perform. An experiment that may never be possible to perform.
It is certainly possible to perform. Simply because we may lack the money and motivation to perform it doesn't make it 'experimentally impossible'. AS for performing it in the 'foreseeable future'...that depends on whether you're going to use a sane standard of proof or an insane one. If your standard is that you will accept no historical theories unless you can examine & document every moment then you can't even accept a theory like "Stephen Hawking was born on Jan 8, 1942" since you'd need 66 years to review every documented moment of Hawking's life from 1942 to 2008 to ensure that the 2008 Hawking is actually the one supposedly born in 1942.
Fortunately, though, the sane among us do not view aquiring critical attention deficit disorder as a good way to improve our standards of proof.
Jim S's question on the origin of life also illustrates the complaints many have with ID advocates.
ID advocates almost never tell us what their theory is. Sometimes they say ID explains how life originates. OK, so then it would appear ID is about the origin of life and presumably evolution kicks in afterwards. But before you know it, ID advocates are complaining about 'problems' with evolution. So what is it then? Is ID the 'prequal' to evolution, explaining what got the ball rolling? Is ID a supplement to evolution 'filling in the gaps' of the evolutionary story, sort of the way Einstein's theory of gravity supplemented and filled out Newton's? Or does ID entirely overturn evolution seeking to explain both the origin of life & how it changed over time such as how the view of the sun as the center of our solar system overturned the earth centered view? (Or perhaps it's a micro-theory just for explaining humans.....only a few people seem to realize this but the movie 2001 was a great example of an ID theory).
Good luck getting an honest answer. The ID advocate will try every and all angles and where they end up usually is less about where the evidence points and more about the knowledge of the person they are debating. If they are engaging with someone who knows his stuff on cosmology & origin of life theories they will opt for the second idea seeking to exploit gaps in their opponants knowledge of theories about the more recent evolution of life. If they are engaging someone who is keen on the development of life they will attack on the origins of life and if someone is ignorant of both they will go for the 3rd idea. "What is truth?" is indeed a good motto for them. Truth turns into whatever seems to work to get applause at the moment. Can they honestly blame scientists for having such a viseral reaction to such radical relativism?
It is certainly possible to perform.
Unless you have a time machine in your basement, it isn't possible to perform. The best you can argue is that you know of no Laws of Physics that would prevent you from performing the experiment, which is a long way from something being possible.
Simply because we may lack the money and motivation to perform it doesn't make it 'experimentally impossible'.
Really? All that is preventing us from building a Time Machine is money and motivation? No technical challenges to overcome? We understand the physics of time travel well enough that all we need is a couple of bucks and a few motivated people to "make it so"? Wow, who knew?
Fortunately, though, the sane among us do not view aquiring critical attention deficit disorder as a good way to improve our standards of proof.
You keep throwing out the term "sane" as if assuming that all sane people agree with you. How 'bout reigning in your ego a bit. Many sane, and highly educated people look at the evidence provided for evolution being the sole mechanism for the explanation of the variety of life on the planet and find it wanting. You do your side no good by insisting you are "the sane side" and those who disagree with you "the insane side". Just as an aside, you also do you side no good by making blindingly stupid assertions, such as your claiming it is possible to build a database tracking species over 60 million years, and then defending it to the death. Sometimes you just need to let one go, rather than going all "Captain Queeg" about it.
Daniel,
That sounds a lot like you're saying "because I don't currently understand a subset someone's motivations, I refuse to accept that this motivation exists."
I'm saying, "I see no evidence at all that someone exists. People who claim he exists have never seen this person, either, but believe that he hides himself from direct sensory perception. While it's true that it's logically possible that the believers are correct, I don't buy it."
After all, if you DID see reason for hiding oneself, you wouldn't use that as reason for non-belief. I would suggest that basing your argument on this is shaky at best.
I'm not making an argument so much as just sharing my perspective. I'm bearing witness to my beliefs and personal experience.
I have no way of proving to you or anyone else that I am correct.
By evidence, of course, you mean "scientific" evidence. There are LOTS of other forms of evidence - e.g. documentary, testimonial, circumstantial, or demonstrative, just to name a few. Of the different types, Courts of law typically hold testimonial as being the most acceptable forms. And there is PLENTY of testimonial evidence of God - as well as documentary and demonstrative.
No, by evidence I mean all the types of evidence that you cite, and more. I just interpret and weigh the evidence very, very differently than you do.
For example, the Bible to me is evidence that God does not exist (actually, it is only evidence that the God of the Bible does not exist).
Why is that? Because it is obviously a very human and very flawed and, in many places, a mistaken and thoroughly misguided group of books. It is riddled with many factual errors and self-contradictions; much worse, it depicts God as the author of serial moral abominations.
When you cite testimonial evidence, you can't expect me to take testimony at face value. After all, there are many folks who would testify that God doesn't exist. There must be some way to sort through contradictory testimony.
For example, many (but not all) religious people will cite miracles as evidence of the working of God's personal will, even in the present day.
But this is a dangerous argument for a believer to put forth. For every child that is miraculously cured of cancer, how many children are denied such a miracle?
Given the prevalence of death, destruction, and evil in the world, allowing that God sometimes performs miracles would seem to indicate that God, at best, is far from omnipotent or is apathetic to our mundane lives. At worst, belief in miracles in a world of evil would seem to indicate that God is downright malicious and diabolical (since he doesn't intervene to make the world a better place).
I have a car parked in my driveway.
If someone testifies that my car is not parked in my driveway, when I can clearly see it there through my window, I am going to disregard that person's testimony as thoroughly unreliable.
So yes, there may be evidence that my car is not in my driveway, but that evidence might as well not exist from my point of view. If anything, the evidence that my car is not in the driveway is actually evidence against the credibility and reliability of the person who is a false eyewitness.
Anyways, your argument fails to address my central point - that as the realm of possibilities you have to take into account increases, one's certainty of the non-existence of something, be it something resembling a teapot or something resembling God, HAS to rationally decline.
As I said above, I'm not really making an argument.
As for your point, if the larger realm of possibilities that you mention has a probability which is very close to zero, then the effect of such a realm on one's certainty will be either negligible or nil.
I did make an argument, however, about intelligent design. My challenge, from comment 17, is still outstanding: is there any supporter of intelligent design here who can propose one experimental hypothesis that would put ID to the test?
Ucfengr,
Not quite; it explains how life may have been able to follow the course of its natural history..without the benefit of divine intervention. Its a very important distinction.
Point taken.
I agree with Boonton, though, that the theory of evolution through natural selection has been proven far beyond a reasonable doubt. Which is why many (most?) Christians nowadays accept it as the God-honest truth, just as they accept a sun-centered solar system or that the earth is older than five thousand years.
If God saw fit to produce our world as it is, then there is no reason at all to doubt he could have chosen to allow life to develop on auto-pilot by means of natural selection.
Would granting cows or pigs "rights to life and freedom" be a bad thing? How about deer? What about rats and cockroaches? Where would you draw that line between what has right and what doesn't and what would you base the decision on?
Boonton gave a good response.
Our relationships and our interactions with animals pose all kinds of moral questions and dilemmas. It is certainly possible to be too solicitous of animal needs and alleged rights.
Morality is often considered to be an exclusively human-to-human affair. But this cannot be right, and Christian churches recognize this and do grant animals various rights and moral claims.
On what basis should I or anyone else determine the morality or immorality of how we treat animals? On the same basis that we determine human-to-human morality: by applying the two principles of helping others and of avoiding harm to others.
It is impossible, however, to know exactly (or even broadly sometimes) where to draw the line because there is a fundamental difference between human-to-human morality and human-to-animal morality: a lack of reciprocity.
When posed with a moral dilemma limited to human moral agents, we can usually use the golden rule and place ourselves in the protoganists' positions and figure out a mutually fair and just result. We can't generally do that with animals, so different people are generally going to come to different conclusions about which places are the best places to draw various lines.
This is also why abortion is such a thorny issue: people disagree in good faith about when a fetus should be considered fully morally human.
Morality is objective because you and I do have objective moral claims on each other. And so do people and animals. Figuring out exactly what those moral claims are can be extremely challenging, to put it mildly, so no one person (or one scripture) is going to be able to dictate what is right and wrong in all circumstances.
The world is messy and complicated, and requires on-the-spot application of general moral principles. Sometimes we'll get it right, and sometimes we won't.
Jim S.,
YOUR RESPONSE INCLUDES A NON SEQUITUR. YOUR 1ST QUESTION WAS WHY WOULD GOD WANT TO HIDE HIMSELF. I TOLD YOU (IN b) GOD'S PRESENCE IS HIDDEN FROM YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE UNWILLING TO EARNESTLY SEEK HIM. METAPHORICALLY, YOU CANNOT SEE LIGHT IF YOU ARE CONTENT TO LIVE IN DARKNESS.
I agreed with you that I am unlikely to reach the same conclusions as you do if I do not share the same assumptions.
I am not, in fact, questioning why God would want to hide himself. I am, rather, asserting that God would not want to hide himself.
Moreover, if I am wrong, I am not going to bother myself very much with that possibility. If God really wants to hide from me, then I ain't going to find him.
I do earnestly seek out the truth. The truth is that God is hidden from me. If you wish to characterize that as darkness, so be it, but I would choose to characterize the truth, whatever it turns out to be, as "light", and to characterize falsehood as "darkness".
AND, MY BELIEF IS THAT MOST SELF-PROCLAIMED DARWINIAN NATURALISTS AREN'T GENUINELY LOOKING FOR UNIVERSAL TRUTH. IF THEY WERE, THEY WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH INTELLIGENT DESIGNERS CHALLENGING THEIR BELOVED THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION IN OPEN DEBATE.
Your belief is false.
"Darwinian naturalists" do engage intelligent designers in open debate. In fact, that is the subject of my original comment in this thread. I issued a request for an ID proponent to propose an experimental hypothesis.
So far no one has taken up my challenge.
WHAT IS PARTICULARLY DISTURBING IS THAT IT IS OPEN QUESTIONING AND CHALLENGING OF SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT THAT GIVES SCIENCE VALUE.
I agree with you 100% that science gets its value from questioning and challenging. That is why I have shown intelligent design the respect of my questions and my challenge: I am treating it as if it were a scientific theory.
In my personal experience, ID has failed to answer my questions. But I am still open to hearing anyone who would like to explain to me how it is actually a scientific theory.
Specifically, can you, or anyone else, describe an experiment whose outcome could lend support to (or discredit) intelligent design. If no one can do this very basic step, then intelligent design is not a scientific theory at all.
A slippery slope (already addressed by Ucfengr in comment 25) when humans are hungry and there is only a protected ape to eat, whose rights are sovereign?
It's not a slippery slope. It's a dilemma.
I'd probably be sorely tempted to eat the gorilla, and that's probably what I would end up doing. But I'm not sure that that's the right thing.
... the Bible answers [the animal rights conumdrum] in Genesis 3.
Yahweh also destroyed multitudes of innocent men, women, and children in a global flood (Genesis 6 through 9). That's an answer that I reject, and you should reject too.
There's a lot of really, really cr*ppy morality in the Bible.
Were there a plebiscite allowed on gay marriage, it would be voted down by a large margin.
Until a majority of voters are willing to accept gay marriage, I don't think our representatives should legislate it. And I certainly don't think our judges should impose it by fiat.
So you think the Bible is false? That is an interesting argument. Matthew, why are you posting on an evangelical Christian website?
Hello, this is a comment thread about atheists.
If you want to discuss the pitfalls of atheism without actually talking to any atheists, be my guest. But Joe Carter prefers to do things differently, and I don't think you can argue that he is wrong.
The incredible reality of the post-modern world is not that people don't believe the Bible is the only source of reliable truth, rather they believe there is no reliable truth at all.
It's true, many people are post-modernists in this sense. I agree with you that they are mistaken.
It doesn't bother me because I know the Source of all Truth. And, I also know how the story ends. It should bother those who don't know the Source.
I wish you all the best in your pursuit of the truth, and I wish you peace and happiness as well.
And maybe you are right about everything and I am wrong. Until I realize that, though (or vice-versa), we will just have to agree to disagree.
Where else other than the Bible can you turn that is the source of ethical truth (the way things should be) and so accurately describes contemporary morality (the way things are?)
There was morality a long time before a word in the Bible ever was ever spoken or written down, and hopefully there will be morality a long time after the Bible will considered nothing more than a historical artifact.
Morality comes from the circumstances of our lives and the world we live in, and how we apply our reason to navigating that world. Our level of morality is contingent to a large extent on the progress and the health of our civilization.
American civilization, and Western civilization, is largely Greco-Judeo-Christian. But the Bible is only one channel of influence among several.
And thank God for that, since it is a tremendously flawed moral document.
Matthew, you are confusing me. Why are you telling me what God tells us? I thought you said you don't believe in God. I disagree with your assertion here in any case.
I am telling you what God allegedly tells us because that is what you believe. I am using your language, both out of convenience and out of respect.
God desires men (His creation as per Genesis) who were made in his image (that too is in Genesis) to not do anything that is contrary to his character because he is objectively and totally good or moral.
That is my point: God is objectively good, he conforms to objective moral standards. He has to.
And that is why believers and non-religious persons can find common ground on morality. We can focus on what is good and what is bad, and not focus on what is alleged to be the revealed moral wisdom of God.
The Bible does speak to everyone.
Not quite right.
Parts of the Bible speak to everyone, and parts of it don't. In fact, there are parts of the Bible that don't speak to anyone, aside from the most die-hard literalists.
But when Zapatero says infanticide is OK and I don't agree, whose moral principle governs? What about the one child (preferably male child) rule in China? Man's potential for evil (again explained and demonstrated repeatedly in the Bible) and even my own potential for evil demand some higher authority than whatever I think is right at the time. At least to break the ties when I feel one way and you feel another...
I use moral reasoning to break the ties. It works very well most of the time.
The Bible has a lot of good stuff in it, some of the best stuff you can find anywhere. But there's a lot of junk in the Bible too. If you can't discriminate, you'll end up with some very perverse beliefs.
I am praying for you Matthew. God bless you and keep you.
Thank you, I wish you all the best.
Cheers,
Matthew
Unless you have a time machine in your basement, it isn't possible to perform. The best you can argue is that you know of no Laws of Physics that would prevent you from performing the experiment, which is a long way from something being possible.
You should be a bit more clear what it is you're asking for. Are you saying no experiment could demonstrate that a change like a raptor -> falcon could happen in 60m years or are you demanding an experiment showing that the specific path of raptor -> falcon happened versus...say....t-rex -> falcon. Since you said you just picked the example out of the air with no actual reference to real theory I assumed you want experiments to show the general idea.
If you're talking about how does one go about proving a historical theory I already addressed that and no time machines are not required.
Many sane, and highly educated people look at the evidence provided for evolution being the sole mechanism for the explanation of the variety of life on the planet and find it wanting
This may come as a shock to you but finding a theory wanting IS NOT evidence in support of an alternative theory. Psychological theories that explain our personality leave quite a bit of wanting, that does nothing to lend any support to astrology as a theory.
You keep throwing out the term "sane" as if assuming that all sane people agree with you. How 'bout reigning in your ego a bit.
Nice coming from the chap calling people moron only a few posts ago. I do not define the sane as only those who agree with me. My position is that if ID advocates consistently applied the standard of proof they try to hold to evolution to everything else they would end up with a system that is essentially insane. The fact that they are not consistent in applying such a standard of proof indicates that they are quite sane. They apply a double standard to evolution because they have an agenda beyond truth.
Inasmuch as God is the author of all nature, if God used evolution to create us that is still not natural selection. Even if the chain of events were on 'auto-pilot' it would not be natural selection. The outcome would have been directed by God from the very beginning with a specific plan for specific events that would have generated the specific requirements to meet all the conditions necessary for said outcome. That's not natural selection.
I agree with Boonton, though, that the theory of evolution through natural selection has been proven far beyond a reasonable doubt. Which is why many (most?) Christians nowadays accept it as the God-honest truth,
Neither many, nor most Christians accept evolution through natural selection as the sole explanation for the variety of life on earth. Many, possibly most, accept it a a mechanism that God may have used, but they don't accept it as the sole explanation.
just as they accept a sun-centered solar system or that the earth is older than five thousand years.
I can design an experiment that will provide observable data to validate the hypothesis that the sun is the center of the solar system or that the earth is older than 5000 years. I can't do the same to validate the hypothesis that modern birds come from pre-historic lizards, for example. The best I can do is show that there are similarities between the two and I can hypothesize that they may be related. It is a much bigger leap, and something that can't be validated experimentally to say that the two have a common ancestor or that over time and millions of generations, one transformed into the other.
This may come as a shock to you but finding a theory wanting IS NOT evidence in support of an alternative theory.
Gee, I don't recall saying it was. What I do recall saying was "Many sane, and highly educated people look at the evidence provided for evolution being the sole mechanism for the explanation of the variety of life on the planet and find it wanting." These people have their own evidence for their beliefs, which they (and I) obviously find more compelling than the evidence you provide for yours.
Nice coming from the chap calling people moron only a few posts ago.
I don't recall saying that either and in this thread, after running a quick word search (standard on Firefox), I found that your post is the only one that uses the term "moron". I will refrain from making a snarky comments regarding your reading ability.
This may come as a shock to you but finding a theory wanting IS NOT evidence in support of an alternative theory.
Gee, I don't recall saying it was. What I do recall saying was "Many sane, and highly educated people look at the evidence provided for evolution being the sole mechanism for the explanation of the variety of life on the planet and find it wanting." These people have their own evidence for their beliefs, which they (and I) obviously find more compelling than the evidence you provide for yours.
Nice coming from the chap calling people moron only a few posts ago.
I don't recall saying that either and in this thread, after running a quick word search (standard on Firefox), I found that your post is the only one that uses the term "moron". I will refrain from making a snarky comments regarding your reading ability.
smm
Inasmuch as God is the author of all nature, if God used evolution to create us that is still not natural selection. Even if the chain of events were on 'auto-pilot' it would not be natural selection. The outcome would have been directed by God from the very beginning with a specific plan for specific events that would have generated the specific requirements to meet all the conditions necessary for said outcome. That's not natural selection.
So if God creates nature, nature creates life, life creates the diversity of life we see today.....
It would seem that is indeed natural selection and God is the author of it. So take two possible cases:
Case A: God creates nature and on 'auto-pilot' nature creates life etc.
Case B: God didn't create nature and on 'auto-pilot' nature creates life.
Both cases would look alike and natural selection as a theory would work to make accurate predictions in either case. Therefore this argument goes no where. Natural selection stands as the most valid theory.
ucfengr
I can design an experiment that will provide observable data to validate the hypothesis that the sun is the center of the solar system or that the earth is older than 5000 years.
Yes because in these examples your standard of proof is not insane. The insane SOP holder, though, would strike back at you. Show us your experiment that could detect whether or not we are sitting in virtual reality pods on an earth that is 5,000 years old but is made to *seem* older? If you confront a young earth creationist you'll get a taste of your own medicine.
Think about your experiment to prove the earth is >5K years old. Show us how it doesn't 'fill in the gaps' with a whole lot of assumptions like the laws of nature have remained more or less constant over time. You've demonstrated my thesis. You hold non-natural selection theories to a non-insane standard of proof.
Neither many, nor most Christians accept evolution through natural selection as the sole explanation for the variety of life on earth.
First note what I said about relativism. Spoken like a true relativist, ucfengr seems to think that truth here is determined not by an objective evaluation of evidence but by what wins the most applause.
Second, no theory asserts it is a 'sole explanation' for anything. No scientist would say *only* natural selection shaped life's development on earth. No scientist would deny that geology, climate, meteor impacts and millions of other non-natural selection things shaped life's development on earth. A theory's fitness stands on whether it explains the available facts and makes accurate predictions and on that front natural selection has been excellent
Yes because in these examples your standard of proof is not insane.
I don't find my standard of proof for the hypothesis that evolution through natural selection is the sole explanation for the variety of life on earth insane either. It's just more stringent than yours.
Show us your experiment that could detect whether or not we are sitting in virtual reality pods on an earth that is 5,000 years old but is made to *seem* older? If you confront a young earth creationist you'll get a taste of your own medicine.
Not really, because I understand the assumptions I have to make to show that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old (i.e. the speed of light is constant, rates of decay in uranium is constant, etc.). If any of those assumptions were shown to be invalid, I would have to rethink my position on the age of the earth and acknowledge the possibility that the earth is younger, or older than I currently think.
Spoken like a true relativist, ucfengr seems to think that truth here is determined not by an objective evaluation of evidence but by what wins the most applause.
Is there some reason you have started referring to me in the third person? Is that you don't want me to respond to the post, so you aren't addressing me directly?
No scientist would say *only* natural selection shaped life's development on earth. No scientist would deny that geology, climate, meteor impacts and millions of other non-natural selection things shaped life's development on earth
I am beginning to wonder if you understand natural selection all that well. Natural selection is the sole mechanism, according to the theory of evolution for explaining life's development. External forces determine the traits that are "selected". That's the process of natural selection. Traits that make a species more likely to be able to survive and thrive in the external environment are "selected for", traits that hinder survival are "selected out". If the external environment changes, the traits "selected for" will also change, but the mechanism for making the selection will not.
Smmtheory,
Are you saying that God could have used evolution to produce life, but he could not have used evolution through natural selection?
Listen, if God's the boss, he's the boss. If he wants to use evolution through natural selection, then that's the way it's gonna be.
You are correct that evolution and evolution through natural selection are two different categories of phenomena (the second would be a subset of the first). But if we evolved from lower life forms, why would you object to the idea that God made it happen through natural selection?
Ucfengr,
Many, possibly most, accept it a a mechanism that God may have used, but they don't accept it as the sole explanation.
That sounds about right to me. Thank you for making another useful distinction.
I can design an experiment that will provide observable data to validate the hypothesis that the sun is the center of the solar system or that the earth is older than 5000 years. I can't do the same to validate the hypothesis that modern birds come from pre-historic lizards, for example. The best I can do is show that there are similarities between the two and I can hypothesize that they may be related.
I'll grant you that, except for the point Boonton has made: if we are still around in 60 million years, we will have experimentally determined if large-scale evolution through natural selection will have had occurred.
It is a much bigger leap, and something that can't be validated experimentally to say that the two have a common ancestor or that over time and millions of generations, one transformed into the other.
Oops, I'm afraid that you are wrong about that.
It's one thing to state that we won't personally witness long-term evolution during the span of our own lifetimes.
It is quite another thing to conclude that the common ancestry of birds and lizards requires any leap of faith at all.
We don't know how far back you have to go on the family tree of species in order to find a common ancestor for birds and lizards. Anyone who believes they have found a likely spot cannot be fully confident that they have really nailed it down. So yes, in that sense, any specific geneology of birds and lizards will require a certain amount of faith (although, I wouldn't put faith it in it myself; I would just consider it to be a tentative judgement that requires further corroboration, which might or might not be forthcoming at some point).
But the fact that birds and lizards do have a common ancestor somewhere at some time in the family tree of species is beyond dispute. Not because "Darwinian naturalists" are not interested in dispute, but because the matter has already been disputed and been settled beyond a doubt.
How can scientists be so confident in their theory of common ancestry?
Because there are many characteristics that birds and lizards (and all other animals) would have to share if the theory were true, and it turned out that they do share all those characteristics. Because we can observe the mechanisms of natural selection (reproduction and genetic inheritance, variability of populations, competition for survival) even though we can't (yet) observe the resultant evolution in most species. Because we have never observed, even once, an alternative means of evolution or speciation.
There is no guarantee that any theory, that any fact is absolutely correct. But it doesn't make sense to dismiss near-perfect certainty because only perfect certainty will do. Perfect certainty is not available, and science is more certain than most forms of knowledge.
I don't recall saying that either and in this thread, after running a quick word search (standard on Firefox), I found that your [Boonton's] post is the only one that uses the term "moron".
I think Boonton was referring to comment 27:
Gee Boonton, if you are going to try to disagree with me, shouldn't, you know, actually disagree with me rather than validate my point. What a maroon.
I am beginning to wonder if you understand natural selection all that well. Natural selection is the sole mechanism, according to the theory of evolution for explaining life's development. External forces determine the traits that are "selected". That's the process of natural selection.
What you're describing is correct but would not fit what you describe as a "sole mechanism...for explaining life's development". If that was your honest interest then what the theory does is push everything else into a catch all category of 'external forces'. Every theory does that. In economics, for example, supply and demand are pictured as a relationship between price and quantity. Everything else is 'held equal'. Gravity, likewise, pushes 'everything else' out as well into an 'external force' in order to map the relationship between masses. In reality a planet orbiting a star is not only impacted by gravity but also by microscopic friction, magnetism, solar wind and so on.
The person honestly seeking to understand life's development on earth would have to explore the theories that drive the 'external forces' just as much as understanding the internal dynamics of natural selection. This, though, is another good illustration of how ID fails. Natural selection's boundaries are pretty clear. A comet hitting the eath can be incorporated into natural selection as an 'external force' whereas the reaction of living things to that impact are part of the theory. Does ID give us a clear boundary? What does the theory attempt to explain and what is pushed off into the 'outside force' category? If Jim S is correct that ID advocates have been denied the opportunity to question and debate the scientific mainstream then I'm sure they should have the answers on the tips of their tounges....they should be leaping up and screaming "at last you ask us!!!! we've been working on that for ages and here it is!!!"
The only exception to this is the so-called 'theory of everything'....but even if we had one that worked perfectly it would still be impossible to use it to calculate 'everything'.
Is there some reason you have started referring to me in the third person? Is that you don't want me to respond to the post, so you aren't addressing me directly?
OK, your assertion about what you think most Christians believe here is irrelevant. Truth value is not determined by popular vote even if you restrict the voting to only Christians. In the case of theories truth is based on objective evaluation fo the evidence. Popular vote, in that case, would be a very poor way of finding truth unless you had some mechanism that held all the voters equally devoted to an objective evaluation of the evidence.
Not really, because I understand the assumptions I have to make to show that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old (i.e. the speed of light is constant, rates of decay in uranium is constant, etc.). If any of those assumptions were shown to be invalid, I would have to rethink my position on the age of the earth and acknowledge the possibility that the earth is younger, or older than I currently think.
And the YEC would demand to know why those assumptions should be assumed valid rather than the other way around (such as uranium's decay is variable with the rate being very fast 4,999 years ago and very slow today). You could respond with yet another set of evidence showing that there's good reason to think uranium's decay is constant (or at least constant enough to serve your experiment). Then again when faced with the determined but insane standard of the YEC you won't have evidence equal too...say....a video tape 6 billion years long showing every instant of the Earth's existence from then until today thereby establishing its age beyond doubt. Since you reject such an absurd st