There have been a couple of posts on this blog that have spurred quite a good discussion (see below: Atheists Have No Basis for Morality, and “Expelled” is a Must See: Freedom is the Victim). While there have been some good points made back and forth, it seems like we are getting down in the weeds on a couple of issues and perhaps ignoring the bigger picture. So this post is an attempt to take a look at the bigger picture. Namely, what is the correct worldview? A worldview is an explanation for why things are the way they are.
Every effect has a cause and there are many effects about reality that cry out for an explanation. A worldview, for example, answers questions such as: Why does this majestic and vast universe exist? What caused these amazing beings we call life? Why are we conscious? Why is there good? Why is there evil? In fact, why is there anything at all? Any good worldview must be able to explain at least the following:
1. The origin of the universe out of nothing
2. The design of the universe
3. The origin of the four natural forces
4. The origin of the laws of logic and reason itself
5. The origin of the laws of mathematics
6. The origin of the law of causality
7. The origin of objective morality & human rights
8. The origin and design of life
9. The origin and design of new life forms
10. The origin of intelligence, personality, and information
Anyone trying to tell you that his worldview is right must provide an adequate cause for all of those realities—atheists must, Christians must, and so must everyone in between. It won’t do any good to have a possible explanation for one or two of them and ignore the rest.
For example, Darwinists (i.e. atheistic evolutionists) try to tell us they have a cause for number nine. But even if we overlook the flaws and gaps in their theory and grant them that point, so what? It seems to me that their worldview can’t be considered adequate until they can provide an adequate cause for the other nine realities on the list. In other words, even if new life forms can be explained by Darwinism, how do atheists explain everything else? How does a biological theory explain the origin and design of the universe, physics, morality, reason, intelligence, etc.?
Now some of you may respond, “So what’s your explanation? Did God do everything? Isn’t that God-of-the-Gaps?” I’ll address that in a future post (if you want to jump ahead, you can read it in I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist). For now, forget my explanation. What I’d like to see, if you are a Darwinist, is your explanation. How does an atheist explain the other nine realities on the list? I know it’s a lot to discuss. Maybe take one at a time. I look forward to your insights. (Thanks especially to Christopher and JJ for participating.)
Frank,
I like the big picture. Let’s back up a bit further. What i just wrote in one of the other comment threads fits nicely. This was in response to ‘I am still waiting though for any scientific proof that life was NOT designed by a designer’:
“I can’t stress this enough – your god is your claim, you bear the burden of proof. You assert there was a designer, you bear the burden of proof. What meets scientific standards suggests neither your god nor a designer.
I am saying the evidence we can scientifically evaluate does not add up to designer at this time, therefore I don’t accept the existence of your god (let’s be honest – that is what you mean by designer, right?).”
Still letting your opinion on worldview marinate, not ready to respond.
Thanks for the venue and hospitality. This has been good exercise.
This post conflates so many different ideas that some clearing up is in order before a reply can be given. First, understanding and subscribing to Darwinism does not necessarily make one an atheist. So, I reject the equivication of “Darwinists” with “atheistic evolutionists.”
Second, Darwinism is not a worldview. It is a theory on the mechanics of biological evolution. Darwinism doesn’t seek to answer all the questions on you list, and I don’t see any reason why it should.
And finally, atheism is not a worldview. It is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods. People who fall under the category of atheists, such as new age spiritualists, buddhists, and materialists, all have different worldviews.
I hope that clears things up a bit. I hope to post again soon on the broader point of this post.
Hi MikeH,
You are correct that Darwinism doesn’t address most of those effects which is exactly my point (although some Darwinists try to use the theory to explain everything else). But the issue of Darwinism is not central to my post. I was simply saying that even if Darwinism is true, it is not comprehensive enough to explain all of the effects I listed.
The real issue is atheism, and I haven’t seen a good atheistic explanation for all those effects. Why is this important? Because it seems to me that if we are to hold the proper explanation of all of reality (i.e. a worldview), we can’t just explain one aspect of reality (i.e. new life forms) and ignore all the other effects that need to be explained as well (i.e. the universe, first life, morality, reason, etc.).
Whether the atheist calls his view a worldview or not is not the point. The atheist must still provide a cause for all those effects. So my question is this: If you are an atheist (which many Darwinists are, as well as spirtualists, buddhists and materialists), then how do you explain the other nine effects on the list?
Thanks for your input.
Blessings,
Frank Turek
Christopher,
Yes, I agree that theists bear the burden of proof to show evidence for God. And as I’ve mentioned, my book contains what I think is good evidence for His existence. I will put some excerpts from that book up here in the near future, and you have said you will read it when you get time (I know it’s not always easy to set aside time to do that, so thanks).
It’s quite obvious that I think God is the best explanation for ten effects I listed (the devil is in the details, I know). But let’s suppose I’m wrong about that. Let’s suppose there is no God as you suggest. How do you explain those ten effects? (Maybe take one at a time.)
Thanks for your input.
Blessings,
Frank Turek
Replying to Frank’s responses to both MikeH and me:
“The atheist must still provide a cause for all those effects” Why? (actually, I answer my own question below in 1))
“The real issue is atheism,” Good, I will clarify my position on atheism in a moment.
“and I haven’t seen a good atheistic explanation for all those effects.” I’ll do my best to answer those questions as soon as I have time. I’d like to summarize an answer for each, then elaborate one by one as you suggest. You can pick with which one to start after I provide my summary to each.
Any particular chapter to focus on with regard to your “good evidence of His existence?”
“So my question is this: If you are an atheist (which many Darwinists are, as well as spirtualists, buddhists and materialists), then how do you explain the other nine effects on the list?”
Some thoughts on that:
1) atheists don’t HAVE to have an answer. Not knowing conclusively is NOT a problem for us.
2) lack of answers on the part of atheists does not make your answer (the god of abraham) correct, aka an argument from ignorance.
3) Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is a religion like baldness is a hair color or not collecting stamps is a hobby. Atheism is the LACK of religion for me and many other atheists. That’s it. Look at the ROOT and the PREFIX. A-theism. Popular use does not a correct definition make. (with apologies to Yoda)
With that said, let’s examine one of your basic premises, wherein lies a significant distinction. “Everyone is religious” is built upon “If we define religion as someone’s explanation of ultimate reality—the origin, operation, meaning, and destiny of all things—then everyone is religious, including atheists.” Where else might I find that as the definition of religion, popular use or otherwise?
I can show my work for atheism, can you show yours for religion?
you know what, Frank, everyone else..
in the blink of an eye, it hit me. you guys are right.. what a fool I’ve been. back later, gots some thinkin’ to do..
“A worldview, for example, answers questions such as: Why does this majestic and vast universe exist? What caused these amazing beings we call life? Why are we conscious? Why is there good? Why is there evil? In fact, why is there anything at all? Any good worldview must be able to explain at least the following: ”
OK, you convinced me. Since atheism does not answer most of 1 through 10, it is not a worldview/religion.
Wait. What? That’s pretty much just what JJ and I have been saying.
I like the wikipedia description of worldview better than yours: A worldview describes a consistent (to a varying degree) and integral sense of existence and provides a framework for generating, sustaining, and applying knowledge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview
I can give AN atheist’s perspective on that, if not THE atheists’ perspective. I think a significant portion of other atheists may largely agree with me, though.
I guess everyone figured out the April Fool.
1. The Origin of the universe out of nothing. Same as the origin of “God” out of “nothing.” Why take the more complicated argument of “God” when you can just stop at the universe? God minus anthropomorphic attributes equals teh universe.
2. The Design of the universe. Modern astronomy?
3. THe Origin of the four natural sources. Physics?
4.The origin of the laws of logic and reason itself. Philosophy?
5.The origin of the laws of mathematics. Wait, gimme a minute.. Mathmematics?
6.The origin of the law of causality. More philosophy?
7.The origin of objective morality & human rights. Do you believe God thinks murder is bad because it IS bad, or is it bad becasue God says it’s bad? Both objective morality and human rights could be argued as logical conclusions in the best interest of the species.
8.The origin and design of life. Biology?
9.The origin and design of new life forms. More Biology?
10.The origin of intelligence, personality, and information.
My summaries are short, eh?
Nontheless, the lack of answers on my part does not invalidate what we DO know (those volumes upon volumes of peer reviewd scientific knowledge) nor does it serve as support for your claim(s). I’m not claiming to have all the answers or exclusive, undeniable insight into some absolute, ultimate truth. Further, I contend you have no CONCLUSIVE reasons either. Apologetics/ID proponents have misunderstood science at best, misrepresented science at worst and present anecdotal/circumstantial evidence and conjecture, routinely employing rhetoric riddled with logical fallacies such as false premises, strawman arguments and false dilemmas. It’s easy to show how silly the atheists are if YOU define their positions.
Please let me know if I have assumed anything incorrectly about your beliefs. I feel I have tried to discern them, but I think you seem to focus on what’s wrong with the beliefs you think I have rather than answering my questions. I know, your book. Soon, soon.
Christopher,
Sorry for the delay in getting back– been on the road. Yes, I got the April Fool’s joke.
Perhaps I’m not explaining myself well. I’m asking you for causes. That’s what science is trying to discover. So, when I ask you what caused the universe, I’m not asking you what field of scientific inquiry that is. Modern astronomy is not the cause. That is the field of study of how the heavens operate (technically, cosmogony studies its origin). Likewise, biology is not the cause for life, but the field of study of life. Biology may tell us how life operates, but it doesn’t tell us how life originated. Moreover, the laws of mathematics were not caused by the study of mathematics. What are the causes for these things if there is no God?
I have yet to make my case that God is the cause for these things (it is in my book as you know). I’ll put a post up from the book shortly about the origin of the universe called “God and the Astronomers.” But I’d still like to know your explanation.
Blessings,
Frank
Christopher,
I think theists do have good reasons FOR believing that God exists. In other words, we don’t just lack a natural explanation for these things, but in many cases have positive empirical evidence that an intelligent being is the cause.
For example, the simpilest life– the life from which the Darwinists say we evolved– has the information capactity of 1,000 complete sets of Encyclopedia Britananica (that’s not according to me, by the way, that’s according to Richard Dawkins, page 116 of “The Blind Watchmaker”).
No wonder Richard Dawkins is stating that maybe aliens brought the first life here (see my post “Expelled” is a Must See: Freedom is the Victim”). Even he can see that 1,000 complete sets of an encyclopedia is empirical evidence for an intelligent being (that’s why he’s suggesting aliens).
Believing that the first life came together by blind natural laws without intelligent intervention is like believing that the library of Congress resulted from an explosion in a printing shop. (And atheists seem unable to explain the origin of the printing shop.)
Blessings,
Frank
Christopher,
If you don’t like my defintions of ‘wordview” or “religion,” that’s fine. What would you prefer to call your set of beliefs? Do you think your set of beliefs are true?
Why do you say atheists don’t need explanations for the big questions about reality? Don’t you think every seeker of truth– which I assume you are– needs such explanations if they are to believe they’ve found the truth?
BTW, you wanted others who define religion as I do: the Supreme Court in Torcaso vs. Watkins (1961) ruled that atheistic beliefs systems, including secular humanism and Buddhism, are “religious.”
Blessings,
Frank
[...] the? post Darwinists Have a Lot of Explaining to Do? asks? atheists to? offer causes for? at? least ten? truths about reality, I thought I would [...]
Frank,
I understand about delays. Just not enough hours in the day!
I know I gave fields of study as answers, but I stand by them as summaries. The collection of knowledge in each field of study tells us what we KNOW about the various causes and origins. What we INFER is either supported or not in varying degrees. I contend your inference of God and the support you cite doesn’t/won’t stand to Reason, which is why it’s called Faith.
I did not mean atheists don’t WANT to know the answers and in some contexts even NEED the answers. I said not knowing isn’t a problem, yes, so let me clarify – I mean that the lack of an explanation is why we’re seeking. There is nothing scientific about starting with an answer then fitting the evidence to said answer. You HAVE your ultimate answer, therefore all evidence must support your ultimate answer. That’s the wrong way ’round. Square pegs, round holes.
Believers face a serious dilemma if God can’t be used to explain something. When your only tool is a hammer, all your problems look like nails, eh?
Yes, I have a yearning for knowledge and understanding, which is the reason I am interested in WHY people believe what they believe. I also thirst for knowledge, what we can verify. I seek truth, but I understand that advancements in science sometimes shed new light on long held “truths.” I have always like this passage from the Buddha:
“Do not believe something simply because you have heard it. Do not believe anything simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not believe anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of teachers, elders, or wise men. Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all. Then accept it, and live up to it.”
As for Torcaso v Watkins, again I urge you to look at the words. Secular means not religious. To say Secular Humanism is religious or a religion is to say that which is not, IS. Something cannot be religious AND not religious at the same time. If it is religious, it is not secular. It doesn’t matter WHO said it, it’s a contradiction in terms and clearly false.
Even God Himself could not make something both religious and not religious at the same time. If you say he can, you have abandoned rational thought and there is nothing further we can discuss.
“The origin of the law of causality”
Oops – there is no such law. Quantum mechanics requires a probabilistic universe and so the law is “the law of likely causality”. This universe exists and that law is observed to exist in this universe and there’s no need for an “origin”. And that goes for all of the other laws as well. “We don’t need no stinking origins”. This universe just is. Next you will claim that each “origin” demands an “originator”. I say no. The consistent “worldview” is “nature exists – no purpose required”.
Christopher, MikeH, onein6billion,
Thanks for your posts here. But will someone please give serious causes for the ten effects from an atheistic perspective?
– Fields of study are not causes.
– Quibbling over the definition of worldview doesn’t help.
– Saying that the quest for causes isn’t important would mean that science and truth are unimportant.
– Suggesting that Quantum mechanics disproves the law of causality is dubious and would undermine every scientific theory including Darwinism.
It’s OK to say atheists have no good explanations for some of these. Then we can move on.
Thanks
Frank
Yes, it does help to quibble about worldview. I prefer to think of it as clarifying rather than quibbling. Your definition is very specific and the foundation of your logic, therefore it is open to criticism and discussion.
Fields of study offer the best insight we have to the causes you list. No, they are not causes. They are perhaps the best way to determine the causes. Better than holy writs, at least. Such writs can offer insight, but only science lays bare things for what they actually are, free from predisposed notions such . Arguments from ignorance don’t stand to reason.
My beliefs, or what I accept, I hold to be true. My understanding of truth has changed over time, as I have indicated.
I did not say the quest for causes isn’t important, and I don’t think anyone else implied that either. You inference is mistaken.
Quantum mechanics as I understand does indeed in some ways threaten undermine much of what we THINK we know. Therein lies the real beauty of science. It does not matter if science is turned head over its collective heals. It will adapt, self correct. Many ideas have taken decades, even centuries to gain acceptance.
The straw man here is not OK. It’s not that there are “no good explanations” as much as there’s not yet conclusive proof. That’s an important distinction. So yes, we can agree atheists do not have explanatons to your satisfaction, much as you don’t have evidence to our satisfaction for god. We say we don’t need god for the concepts you cite, you say we do. The burden is still yours, and I’m going to need fewer logical fallacies to be convinced.
Christianity once RULED science, for more than a millennium. Christians ruled the scientists with an iron fist, imprisoning some for daring to challenge the authority of the church. But the desire for truth was not so easily put asunder. The Enlightenment saw knowledge and science unencumbered by the choking grasp of religious authority. When the playing field was made level for science, it flourished and has made great progress in revealing the universe as it actually is.
So powerful is the truth as revealed by modern science, it has forced the faithful to abandon their faith and desperately seek REASONS for their beliefs. ‘Nuff said.
Let’s move on like you suggested.
“Saying that the quest for causes isn’t important would mean that science and truth are unimportant.”
That’s your conjecture. Here’s a different conjecture – humans are unimportant.. Can you prove that humans are important? What will “humans” look like a million (billion?) years in the future? Isn’t it likely that we won’t exist? So if a “quest for causes” is a misguided attempt by humans to find a “purpose” in the universe and humans really are unimportant, then that silly quest is doubly unimportant.
“Suggesting that Quantum mechanics disproves the law of causality is dubious and would undermine every scientific theory including Darwinism.”
The “law of causality” holds in most cases of interest, but there are some situations where it becomes the “law of likely causality”. Do conscious beings have “free will”? A strict law of causality might imply that the answer is no. A “loophole” of “likely causality” might allow an answer of yes. One time 50 years ago I went through a “blind” intersection on a Sunday morning 50 feet per second. Another car went through a red light at 40 feet per second and passed behind my Volkswagen by 10 or 20 feet. If something had been a little different in my (or his) travel that morning, I would not be typing this message today. So, was I “destined” to survive that morning instead of being killed? Or was it because I had my car tuned up the previous month? Or because I was exceeding the speed limit by 2 feet per second for the last 30 seconds?
But the theory of evolution was always a theory of likely/possible evolution, so there is no real impact on it by quantum mechanics.
“It’s OK to say atheists have no good explanations for some of these.”
It is ok to say an explanation of these causes can never make any sense?
“Then we can move on.”
No, then we have stopped a silly quest.
onein6billion,
You can’t have it both ways. Either Quantum Mechanics destroys our confidence in the law of causality or it doesn’t. If it does, Darwinian theory and every other theory cannot be trusted. It it doesn’t, then we can still posit our theories and offer evidence for them. Which is it?
You are correct in implying that humans are ultimately unimportant if there is no God. If we are nothing more than chemicals, then what objective value are we?
The implication of atheistic Darwinism is whoever has the most power gets to make the rules by force. While I’m sure you would not personally advance genocide, unless God exists you have no objective means of condemning it. On what grounds do you condemn this from HItler?
“If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.”
He also wrote: “He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist.”
Frank
Christopher,
It’s not that you’ve offered possible explanations that I don’t find persuasive. It’s that you’ve offered NO explanations– as you admit, fields of study are not explanations.
Complaining about the sins of religious authority does not constitute atheistic evidence for the ten effects. Yes, religious people and religious organizations have done some abominable things. But how does that help an atheist provide probable causes for the ten effects?
Again, I’m not saying that your lack of causes automatically proves God. I’m simply saying that everyone who is trying to explain reality needs to have causes and evidence for those causes. What are yours?
Blessings,
Frank
I think Christopher’s fields of study as explanations is perfectly valid. As the full answer could require more typing than anyone has time for and the answers can be found in the study of those things. But let me take a stab at it.
1. The origin of the universe out of nothing
We can’t be certain that it was out of nothing. My personal belief is that it was out of the compacted remains of the previous universe. Although a number of people who study such things might take issue with that.
2. The design of the universe
There is no design, it simply is.
3. The origin of the four natural forces
They are inherent in the nature of the universe.
4. The origin of the laws of logic and reason itself
Again inherient in the nature of the universe.
5. The origin of the laws of mathematics
Same answer again
6. The origin of the law of causality
Is there an actual law of causality? I kind of doubt that there is.
7. The origin of objective morality & human rights
That which improves the odds of survival or improves the quality of life for the greatest number of humans is moral. That which degrades the quality of life or decreases the odds of survival is immoral.
8. The origin and design of life
I don’t know the origin and I dispute that there is design.
9. The origin and design of new life forms
Origin: evolution. Design: I dispute its existence.
10. The origin of intelligence, personality, and information
The human brain
Let me revise the last one
10. The origin of intelligence, personality, and information
The human brain
The human brain is the source of intelligence and personality. Information’s origin is reality. It has no cause, it simply is.
Kendenny,
1. The origin of the universe: We are certain to five decimal points that not only did space and matter have a beginning out of NOTHING, but time itself had a beginning as well (Einstein’s GR)..
This leads to another argument for the beginning: if the universe was eternal (no matter how many bangs it went through) then today never would have gotten here. You cannot traverse and infinite number of moments (or an infinite number of bangs or causes for that matter).
In addition to the time problem, it would also be impossible for the universe to go through an infinite number of bangs because the Second Law of Thermodynamics would ensure that energy would be lost with each expansion and contraction. So if the universe had been banging for all eternity, it would have run out of energy a long time ago.
Frank
Frank, you said “if the universe was eternal (no matter how many bangs it went through) then today never would have gotten here. ”
If that were true then how could it not be true if you replace “the universe” with “God”.
As far as running out of energy. The energy is recaptured when it returns to a singularity. The law of conservation of mass and energy states that the sum off all mass and energy in the universe always remains constant, so when the universe collapses back into a singularity it takes its energy with it. Also the laws of physics (including the second law of thermodynamics) break down inside a singularity. That’s why we can’t speculate about the first few nanoseconds of the universe’s existence because the laws of physics as we know them today were not applicable then.
Also since you used the argument from ignorance in the “Designer wouldn’t have done it that way” article I’m going to use it here. We can’t be sure that the second law of thermodynamics would still apply in a collapsing universe. The second law states that the total entropy of the universe always increases. We have only observed that in an expanding universe. It’s certainly logical to speculate that in a collapsing universe the opposite might be true, that the total entropy of the universe would always decrease.
I hope you do not mind if I contribute to this discussion, especially after I humbly admit that after leaving the church and recently recovering my faith, I still have a lot to learn.
In reading each of your comments and identifying with you all, I felt compelled to point out that it seems that those opposed to Frank’s worldview are sidestepping. First of all, Frank’s questions obviously have validity and man’s need to find answers to each of them have been planted in our souls (or psyches if you object to the term) since before the dawn of the sciences. Before we had the scientific method, we had astronomers gazing into the heavens wondering what the stars were and what existed beyond them. When reason reaches its limit and science is unable to provide firm answers, something motivates us to look deeper, ponder the bigger picture, and determine what we believe the answers to those questions are. My point is that there is a place where reason and rationality stop providing answers and all we have are questions — Frank’s questions — the answers to which we won’t know with any certainty until science uncovers them or… well, in my worldview, God reveals them to us. This is, I believe, what Frank is asking you to do. Reason and observation can only take us so far. What do you believe? It seems that you believe that there is nothing. No start, no end, no explanation, no cause, no effect. But you haven’t claimed it as belief, only as a way of dismissing the question. I am curious as to why. If it is true that there is nothing, then why pursue answers to the questions we do not have? Why did you even take the time to respond to Frank’s post? I interpret Frank’s coaxing that “It’s okay to say there is no answer” as to say, “It’s okay if you don’t know what you believe or believe in nothing.” I still don’t know what I believe, but I am not going to try to reduce that to semantics or try to turn Frank’s questions back on him.
By the way, none of the fields of study that were enumerated have come close to explaining their origins. Physics describes the laws of the universe, not where those laws came from or why they are the way they are. You currently have to step outside of science and into your own belief system/worldview for those answers. Perhaps if you did that, we could have a really enlightening discussion as opposed to a breakdown into semantics.
And, if I might be so bold as to make a suggestion, perhaps if Frank (or any of you) led the discussionby considering one question at a time, it might not be so intimidating to look at the whole list and wonder where to begin?
Thanks for allowing me to share my thoughts.
Elli
Kendenny,
I said “if the universe was eternal (no matter how many bangs it went through) then today never would have gotten here. ”
You said, “If that were true then how could it not be true if you replace “the universe” with “God”.
Kendenny, Einstein’s GR shows that time itself was created– along with space and matter. So the cause must be outside of time, space and matter. Therefore, you can’t replace the God with the Universe, and God did not have to traverse an infinite number of moments. Ontologically, God existed outside of time and created time with the rest of the universe.
With regard to the Second Law, there is no evidence for your speculation about it reversing in a big crunch. Moreover, the WAMP satellite measurements in 2003 seem to indicate that: 1) there is not enough matter in the universe to collapse it all back, 2) the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating, and 3) the universe will expand forever.
Finally, even if it did collapse back, you still have the problems of: 1) a definite beginning (can’t have an infinite number of bangs), 2) fine-tuning for each bang to ensure the bang doesn’t collapse back on itself. In other words, multiple bangs multiply, not eliminate, the need for a fine-tuner.
Thanks again for posting.
Frank
A comment about Atheism being, or not being, a religion:
Crowell wrote, “Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is a religion like baldness is a hair color or not collecting stamps is a hobby. Atheism is the LACK of religion for me and many other atheists. That’s it. Look at the ROOT and the PREFIX. A-theism.”
Obviously, Mr. Crowell, everything depends on the definition you posit for “religion.” You seem to think a religion is “a system of thought about a GOD or GODS.” If that’s the case, Buddhism is not a religion; and neither is Confucianism, as neither posits any sort of supreme or extra-natural being.
Off the top of my head — and I’ll admit this is not my primary field, so I’m just flinging ideas here — I’d say a religion is “a system of thought attempting to explain the composition and purpose of human life and its place in the cosmos, consisting of dogmatic claims and advising particular responses in the light of those claims.” By that definition, Atheism is very definitely a religion.
As you advise, I note the root and the prefix: “A”, without; “theism”, theory of God. Your definition allows only a narrow set of universal answers to be religions — those that posit a god — while other universal answers that are clearly addressing the same topic appear to you to be other than religions. Since the context of making the distinction is usually an attempt to place theists in a disadvantageous position in some context or other, I have to regard this as a form of special pleading on your part.
And to correct your analogy: calling atheism a religion is not like calling baldness a hair COLOR, it’s like calling baldness a hair CONDITION — which it is.
Christopher Crowell,
“When the playing field was made level for science, it flourished and has made great progress in revealing the universe as it actually is.”
Again, you are gravely mistaken as to what science actually provides. It in no way “revealse the universe as it actually is”. At best, it only provides theories as to what the universe actually is. Science does not provide certain knowledge about anything; only a educated guess that suffices for now.
Plumb Bob,
Working backwards here, though I have skimmed your critique of my logic. It’s about time someone did.
I look forward to responding, but it may not be tonight. It’s getting late in EDT.
Yes, a LOT of what has been discussed depends on definitions, as I have been saying. Another underlying theme has been standards, as in scientific standards. Both are points of contention in these debates. I think I have tried to be fair in avoiding straw man arguments. I have asked for clarification numerous times. You accused me of shifting the burden. Get used to it; I like to be clear. Too much depends on definitions being used.
You are correct about buddhism as a religion. Some definitions of religion exclude buddhism:
Is Buddhism a religion?
Whether Buddhism is or is not a religion depends upon how you define “religion.”
Government census offices and public opinion pollsters generally recognize Buddhism as a religion. Books that describe the religions of the world generally cover Buddhism along with Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. Even the Boy Scouts of America, who expel Atheists, Agnostics and homosexuals, accept Buddhists as members.
From http://www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism.htm :
——
The Drepung Loseling Institute states:
“Like all major religions, Buddhism contains an explanation of the origin of existence, a morality, and a specific set of rituals and behaviors. … Buddhism presents a transformational goal, a desire to improve one’s situation, and a distinct moral code. 5
However, some definitions of “religion” require a belief in the existence of one or more deities. That would disqualify most branches of Buddhism from being considered as religious groups.
——–
Both buddhism and confucianism hold beliefs outside what can be empirically proven, such as life after death and spirits before birth and after death.
Sure, atheism is a religion by YOUR definition of religion. My definition of atheism is the simplest, most accurate definition there is. A-theism.
The ONLY thing unifying atheists as a group is the absence of religion and belief in a deity. We’re as diverse a group as you’ll find anywhere else, racially, socially, economically and personal hygiene. Trying to group us otherwise is like herding cats. In the rain. Atheism does not seek to address/answer all of the things apologetics WANT it to so they can proclaim “atheism is a religion, too!”
From http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm :
————–
Atheism isn’t necessarily a religious belief. However, it is certainly a religious issue because it deals with concepts that are found throughout many religions.
On this site, we define the term “religion” as:
“Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, a philosophy of life, and a worldview.”
Atheism is not a complete religion in the sense that Christianity, Islam, and, Judaism are. Atheism is not generally perceived as offering a complete guideline for living as do most religions. However, Atheists frequently derive their own ethics and philosophy of life and worldview using their Atheism as a starting point. They are generally derived from secular considerations, and not from any “revealed” religious text. Many Atheists now celebrate the Winter Solstice.
——————-
I like the distinction about hair color vs hair condition. Nonetheless, I beg to differ – no correction is necessary because my analogy has the same meaning either way. It’s still the LACK, the ABSENCE of hair. Bald is bald, and no religion is no religion.
Clay,
Please review what I said more carefully:
“When the playing field was made level for science, it flourished and has made great progress in revealing the universe as it actually is.”
I said PROGRESS has been made. I did NOT say “revealse [sic] the universe as it actually is”.
That is a HUGE distinction, and a prime example of a straw man argument.
You then go on to state something that is completely compatible with what I said in the first place. While I take slight issue with “educated guess,” I agree with “At best, it only provides theories as to what the universe actually is. Science does not provide certain knowledge about anything; only a educated guess that suffices for now.”
Curious – do posts with links get mod’d?
“By that definition, Atheism is very definitely a religion.”
Of course I find your conclusion “silly”.
“man’s need to find answers to each of them have been planted in our souls”
I wish to register a complaint against the “farmer” who did this “planting”. How can my lawyer serve a subpoena on him? Wait – I have free will and I’ve changed my mind. I don’t have any need to find such answers. The universe just “is” and has no purpose. That’s good enough for me. Is my atheism still “religious”? Is it “faith” that I don’t need to find such answers? Or a lack of faith that there really are any such answers?
onein6billion:
If you don’t have any need to find the answers to the ten effects listed above, then why are you spending so much time blogging here? Don’t get me, wrong, I’m glad you are here. But if you have no interest in the answers, why are you engaging those of us who are asking the questions? Just curious.
Christopher– those with links get moderated.
Frank
“I said PROGRESS has been made. I did NOT say “revealse [sic] the universe as it actually is”.
That is a HUGE distinction, and a prime example of a straw man argument.”
It is no straw man argument. The difference between “revealing” and “reveal” is not as great as you would like to make it out to be. Science is not necessarily making progress in revealing the universe as it is. It is only making theories about the universe that might suffice for now.
My point still stands.
It is not open for debate that you incorrectly restated what I said – it’s right there in black and white. That is exactly what a straw man argument is.
Yes, there is a huge difference in saying something has been revealed and saying progress is being made in revealing something.
Your point – that I am “gravely mistaken as to what science actually provides” – never stood in the first place.
Please support YOUR statement that science “in no way reveals the universe as it actually is.” NO way? My evidence to show your statement to be false is the heliocentric universe. I only need one example to disprove your exaggerated claim of “in now way.”
I’ll even throw in a bonus reason your claim is false, in case you prefer modern geocentricism.. We now know the moon isn’t a light source, rather it only reflects light from the sun.
Christopher Crowell : “It is not open for debate that you incorrectly restated what I said – it’s right there in black and white. That is exactly what a straw man argument is.” [April 9th, 2008 at 12:21 pm]
I restated what you said? Really? Let’s see:
Christopher Crowell: “I said PROGRESS has been made. I did NOT say “revealse [sic] the universe as it actually is”. [April 9th, 2008 at 12:19 am]
Your mangling of your original statement.
Christopher Crowell: “When the playing field was made level for science, it flourished and has made great progress in revealing the universe as it actually is.” [original quote made on April 6th, 2008 at 12:06 am]
Clay: “When the playing field was made level for science, it flourished and has made great progress in revealing the universe as it actually is.” [my quote verbatim of Christopher's original quote he made on April 6th, 2008 at 12:06 am that I cut and pasted in my first response made on April 9th, 2008 at 10:58 pm]
A simple comparison of my quote of your original quote above is exact and has not been restated in any way. It looks like your accusation of me restating your position is in itself, a “straw man argument”.
“Please support YOUR statement that science “in no way reveals the universe as it actually is.”
Well let’s see. Below is your quote agreeing with me that science in no way reveals the universe as it actually is:
Christopher Crowell: “I agree with “At best, it only provides theories as to what the universe actually is. Science does not provide certain knowledge about anything; only a [sic] educated guess that suffices for now.” [made on April 9th, 2008 at 12:17 am]
So, Christopher, if we are agreed that science does not provide certain knowledge about anything, then, logically, it doesn’t “reveal the universe as it as it is”. It can only provide educated guesses that suffice for the time being.
Christopher Crowell: “My evidence to show your statement to be false is the heliocentric universe. I only need one example to disprove your exaggerated claim of “in now [sic] way.”
I’ll even throw in a bonus reason your claim is false, in case you prefer modern geocentricism.. We now know the moon isn’t a light source, rather it only reflects light from the sun.” [made on April 9th, 2008 at 12:21 pm]
To include these two scientific conclusions. ; )
Greetings. I am a high school Physics teacher in Texas. I’m 33 years old and have been following this argument (not this blog) since I was fifteen and a freshman in high school.
I’ve read about halfway through the comments and decided to respond while my thoughts were still fresh.
MikeH, on April 1st, 2008 at 12:49 pm, stated “atheism is not a worldview. It is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods.”
Dr. Antony G.N. Flew, a world renowned philosopher who concerned himself with these questions stated that atheism is not merely a lack of belief in some deity but a strong affirmation that one KNOWS that any kind of god(s) exist(s). It is a claim of knowledge unlike agnosticism which says that one cannot know for sure (strong agnosticism) or that they simply have not seen enough evidence to form a conclusion (weak agnosticism). Dr. Flew, before his debate with Dr. Thomas B. Warren (a preacher for the churches of Christ) in Sept. of 1976, chided anyone who took the position of agnosticism which he considered to be weaker.
onein6billion, April 4th, 2008 at 11:36 pm, said that there was no Law of Causality (no cause and effect). He then proceeded to refer to Quantum Mechanics to show that there are only probable causes and that man did not truly need to explain the origins of the universe, only accept that it exists.
I respectfully suggest that he is either ignorant of or purposefully misrepresenting the issue. The Law of Cause and effect has been established through centuries of experimentation and allows no logical possibility for contradiction. Even in Quantum Mechanics, if you allow for only probable causes for each effect, you still do not violate the Law of Cause and Effect itself. Quantum Mechanics does not say there is never an effect without a cause, it only questions the nature of the cause.
I do not know these two gentlemen nor their intents, but from reading these brief posts, I see even more support for Mr. Turek’s assertion that atheism and its doctrines of macroevolution, old universe, abiogenesis, and so on require more faith than faith in Jehovah God and His Son, Jesus the Christ.
Amendment to my last post. It should read:
Dr. Antony G.N. Flew, a world renowned philosopher who concerned himself with these questions stated that atheism is not merely a lack of belief in some deity but a strong affirmation that one KNOWS that any kind of god(s) [do(es) NOT] exist(s).
Sorry bout that.
Ernie,
To be clear, Flew’s definition of atheism is considered “strong atheism” and is not my position. I neither deny nor accept the existence of any deity or other supernatural explanation, aka weak atheism. Please don’t assume all atheists take the same position. I’m sure you wouldn’t want me to assume all christians hold the same beliefs (think Fred Phelps, catholic priests and mormon teen sex abusers).
It is clear to me yours, like the rest, are arguments from incredulity. I do not have a physics degree, but I do research the concepts and have since I was a teen as well (now 37). I understand the limitations and assumptions of science. They are REASONABLE, and subject to self correction when the evidence is sufficient. Claims, or hypotheses, in science can be tested, measured and verified. Those passing the rigors of peer review go on to be theories.
Just because science has not reached a consensus does not make “God did it” the right answer. It does not mean there is necessarily an intelligent designer.
To be sure, there are many hypotheses to answer some questions regarding the origin of the universe. They have not yet become accurate enough to be theories.
Unlike religious dogma, science can and does adapt with the advent of new knowledge through observation and testing. Once accepted as a theory, there is no rest for the claim. A theory is always subject to failing, at which time it MUST be revised or discarded. If only religion was so honest.
I don’t suppose you have any evidence for God or Jesus do you? To be clear, I mean something other than poking holes in the other side? The debate is what takes more faith, but we’ll only looked at one side. No one else has been willing to talk about the faith it takes to believe in your god.
YES, Clay, you quoted me verbatim and THEN restated my position incorrectly. It’s up there in black and white.
I did not mangle my original statement. Observe:
——–
I quoted myself (the same quote you used verbatim, THEN restated inccorectly):
[“When the playing field was made level for science, it flourished and has made great progress in revealing the universe as it actually is.”]
Then I restated as:
[I said PROGRESS has been made. I did NOT say “revealse [sic] the universe as it actually is”.]
“Has made great progress” IS THE SAME AS “progress has been made” (save the modifier “great”)
Therefore I did not mangle my own statment. I beg of you to pay more attention, please. Correcting you is distracting from the real debate.
Clay said:
———
Christopher Crowell: “When the playing field was made level for science, it flourished and has made great progress in revealing the universe as it actually is.” [original quote made on April 6th, 2008 at 12:06 am]
Clay: “When the playing field was made level for science, it flourished and has made great progress in revealing the universe as it actually is.” [my quote verbatim of Christopher’s original quote he made on April 6th, 2008 at 12:06 am that I cut and pasted in my first response made on April 9th, 2008 at 10:58 pm]
(Clay)A simple comparison of my quote of your original quote above is exact and has not been restated in any way. It looks like your accusation of me restating your position is in itself, a “straw man argument”.
———-
(Chris, this post)I was very clear that my point of contention, the straw man, was your restatement “It [science] in no way “revealse the universe as it actually is””. You acknowledge it in your April 9th, 2008 at 9:27 am comment:
—
(Chris)“I said PROGRESS has been made. I did NOT say “revealse [sic] the universe as it actually is”.
(Chris)That is a HUGE distinction, and a prime example of a straw man argument.”
(Clay)It is no straw man argument. The difference between “revealing” and “reveal” is not as great as you would like to make it out to be. Science is not necessarily making progress in revealing the universe as it is. It is only making theories about the universe that might suffice for now.
(Clay)My point still stands.
—
DUDE. STOP IT. Yesterday you say your point still stands even tho you restated, but at least you quoted correctly. Today, you CHANGE THE QUOTING. THAT’S a straw man. Hmph, it’s worse. It’s appears to be deliberately dishonest.
Christopher Crowell, on April 11th, 2008 at 12:01 am, said:
~~~~I don’t suppose you have any evidence for God or Jesus do you? To be clear, I mean something other than poking holes in the other side? The debate is what takes more faith, but we’ll only looked at one side. No one else has been willing to talk about the faith it takes to believe in your god.~~~~
I do. Plenty.
The problem is that this particular blog is for looking at the other side and Frank has asked some very powerful questions to which none of those on the other side have provided a real answer. His point is that you can’t answer the questions with any meaningful, straightforward answer and I agree.
For example, the very first question is how does atheism explain the origin of the universe out of nothing? The responses so far have been:
1) turns the question away from the atheists and put it onto the Christians.
2) say you don’t know and knowing isn’t a problem.
#1 is a dodge. #2 is actually more honest, though I disagree that it is not a problem. #2 also goes to show the point Frank makes about atheism requiring more faith than Christianity. (I don’t particularly care for his use of the term “faith” as real faith the way the Bible uses the word is based on knowledge, but I understand what he is getting and so won’t quibble.)
I will not let you get out of answering the question by turning it around on Christians. Yes, we have the burden of proof when it comes to showing that God exists, but that is not what is being asked. Being new to the forum, I may soon find the appropriate thread to answer yours questions. “I don’t know” while honest, is not an acceptable answer in light of the aggressive demands you make of us. If you are a just man, you will hold yourself to the same standard you hold us to and answer the questions. If you refuse, then we know you to be unjust and have no cause to take your words seriously.
So in conclusion, I will patiently wait for a meaningful, straightforward answer to those questions in this blog and from atheists in general.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
“DUDE. STOP IT. Yesterday you say your point still stands even tho you restated, but at least you quoted correctly. Today, you CHANGE THE QUOTING. THAT’S a straw man. Hmph, it’s worse. It’s appears to be deliberately dishonest.”
Sorry, but I don’t know what you’re on about me “changing the quoting”. I can assure you that I am not trying to be dishonest. Maybe the problem is you don’t like the conclusion that I have drawn regarding science and certain knowledge nor the fact that you have already agreed with me.
Perhaps, requoting this portion of my post, that you ignored, will provide you the answer you claim to have been looking for:
——————————————————————————————–
“Please support YOUR statement that science “in no way reveals the universe as it actually is.”
Well let’s see. Below is your quote agreeing with me that science in no way reveals the universe as it actually is:
Christopher Crowell: “I agree with “At best, it only provides theories as to what the universe actually is. Science does not provide certain knowledge about anything; only a [sic] educated guess that suffices for now.” [made on April 9th, 2008 at 12:17 am]
So, Christopher, if we are agreed that science does not provide certain knowledge about anything, then, logically, it doesn’t “reveal the universe as it as it is”. It can only provide educated guesses that suffice for the time being.
Christopher Crowell: “My evidence to show your statement to be false is the heliocentric universe. I only need one example to disprove your exaggerated claim of “in now [sic] way.”
I’ll even throw in a bonus reason your claim is false, in case you prefer modern geocentricism.. We now know the moon isn’t a light source, rather it only reflects light from the sun.” [made on April 9th, 2008 at 12:21 pm]
To include these two scientific conclusions. ; )”
——————————————————————————————
If science does not provide certain knowledge what does “making progress” mean? If you are also not claiming to have said that science reveals the universe as it actually is, it is “only making progress” what on earth are you talking about?
You accuse me of possibly being dishonest, yet here you are first agreeing with me that science does not lead to certain knowledge, (therefor not able to reveal the universe as it actually is), but then try and say that you only meant that it is making progress toward revealing the universe as it actually is.
Come on now, if science can’t provide certain knowledge to reveal how the universe actually is, it can’t make progress toward that end either. Science is only providing at best, “educated guesses” that suffice for now. Scientists place their faith in their theories, they do not know them to be true, since science is incapable of producing certain knowledge.
Ernie said:
“The problem is that this particular blog is for looking at the other side and Frank has asked some very powerful questions to which none of those on the other side have provided a real answer. His point is that you can’t answer the questions with any meaningful, straightforward answer and I agree.”
Of course you agree. It’s a straw man argument. Answers do not get more real than “I do not know.” What more do you want?
“The only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing” – Socrates
“Education: That which reveals to the wise, and conceals from the stupid, the vast limits of their knowledge.” – Mark Twain
Science can only speak to what we DO know, but we can only infer upon the questions asked. Science doesn’t even pretend to answer some of them. There isn’t sufficient evidence. Yet.
While there are no conclusive answers, there are hypotheses to some of these questions. M theory and string theory seek the current holy grail of science, a unified theory.
Yes, science is superior to me. Humans are not perfect, we make mistakes. Therefore, science is open to correction. Religion is not, and therefore relies upon early indoctrination to survive and is threatened when three of four teens leave the church when exposed to free thought.
Our understanding of holy writ is as limited as our understanding of science. I am familiar with some academic research on the bible and I am familiar with its history and the process of canonization. I am familiar with other mythologies, too. The evolution of mythology is fairly clear to me. The functions of religion are also clear and easy to understand – explain the unknown and control societies. God is man’s greatest creation.
Ernie said:
For example, the very first question is how does atheism explain the origin of the universe out of nothing? The responses so far have been:
1) turns the question away from the atheists and put it onto the Christians.
.2) say you don’t know and knowing isn’t a problem.
#1 is a dodge.
#2 is actually more honest, though I disagree that it is not a problem.”
No, it is not a dodge. It puts the burden right where it belongs. YOU (believers, esp. apologetics) are making the claim. Even Frank conceded the burden is on the believer. You are projecting. Atheists are not dodging, believers/apologetics are dodging – it’s YOUR burden to prove.
To be clear, when I say it’s “not a problem,” I don’t mean science doesn’t want to know. All unknowns are “problems” in a sense. They are better looked at as challenges.
As for your emotional pleading to a fair, just man, well, you’re going to be disappointed. As Carl Sagan put it, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
I can point you to further reading, but I can’t do justice to those questions here. More importantly, it’s not my place. The questions are perfect examples of the dodge of which you accuse me. The claim of God is every believer’s burden, and the claim if it taking more faith to be an atheist is this blog’s burden. Said burden cannot be relieved by shifting the burden to atheists like me making no claim.
Such flawed logic is astounding and only goes to reinforce to me EXACTLY why I do not accept the existence of your god. Surely he would have better apologetics. You try, but your need to have THE answer, to show how silly those atheists and their “I’m not too sure” scientific view is, impairs your perception from where I sit.
“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.” — Thomas Jefferson
How many of you are NOT afraid of going to hell when you die if you don’t believe in God? What if I were YOUR son or daughter? Would you be afraid for them? Do you ever wonder how it feels not to be AFRAID of you or your loved ones going to hell? THAT’S freedom.
Clay,
What you have said, and continue to say, is so egregious I have difficulty believing it’s just an honest misunderstanding.
For example, above you say “You accuse me of possibly being dishonest, yet here you are first agreeing with me that science does not lead to certain knowledge, (therefor not able to reveal the universe as it actually is), but then try and say that you only meant that it is making progress toward revealing the universe as it actually is.”
When actually I said the bit about making progress BEFORE YOU JOINED THE DISCUSSION, not after agreeing with you as you state above. To me, that is dishonest.
Yes, I said what I said and made very clear when your inferences wandered too far from my words.
I was being charitable, saying I, too, scrutinize all claims, science included. I have done my own research on both science and mythology and I have drawn a reasonable conclusion not to accept god.
I feel like you abused my charity. Let’s look again at what I originally said in agreement:
—————–
“While I take slight issue with “educated guess,” I agree with “At best, it only provides theories as to what the universe actually is. Science does not provide certain knowledge about anything; only a educated guess that suffices for now.””
——————
What we see, what we observe of the universe, is that what it really IS? Science, the pursuit of verifiable, testable empirical knowledge has yielded far more than we dreamed about the universe. It has shown us things never fathomed in any holy writ. It is as close as we can come to certain, and it’s UNcertain because we one of the few things we do know for certain is we don’t know everything.
Therefore, knowledge is subject to change. New knowledge may be gained that changes our understanding of what we already know. What we already know doesn’t change, but our understanding does. As science seeks to explain, it will always be uncertain and subject to change.
However, it is as certain as we can be. Some parts of the explanation are certain – we observe what we observe. You are casting a net far too wide, now. I agreed with your general statement and now our opinions part.
You are right to question me when you perceive a contradiction, but hear me when I give you clarification and please pay closer attention to what was said when.
Also, the faith scientists have in theories is not comparable to faith in god. I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow, and I have faith in my friends and family, albeit to varying degrees. My “faith” is grounded in reason, not blinded by the light.
Christopher Crowell said on April 13th, 2008 at 12:16 am:
~~~~Of course you agree. It’s a straw man argument. Answers do not get more real than “I do not know.” What more do you want?~~~~
If you truly make this claim and it is not just a convenient dodge then two points must be considered:
1. You cannot logically affirm anything about the proposition you so ardently defend here (the Big Bang) and
2. You must answer the question: Do you allow for the possibility of the existence of God?
~~~~“The only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing” – Socrates~~~~
Did he know that for sure?
~~~~Ernie said:
For example, the very first question is how does atheism explain the origin of the universe out of nothing? The responses so far have been:
1) turns the question away from the atheists and put it onto the Christians.
.2) say you don’t know and knowing isn’t a problem.
#1 is a dodge.
#2 is actually more honest, though I disagree that it is not a problem.”
No, it is not a dodge. It puts the burden right where it belongs. YOU~~~~
The burden is on me to provide an answer as to how atheist explain the origin of the universe out of nothing? How is that my burden? I’m not an atheist!
~~~~As for your emotional pleading to a fair, just man, well, you’re going to be disappointed. As Carl Sagan put it, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”~~~~
I still await yours in some form or fashion.
~~~~The claim of God is every believer’s burden~~~~
I completely agree, but the question of the existence of God is not the question we are asking YOU. The question we are asking you, Mr. Crowell, is how do atheists explain the origin of the universe (out of nothing). You are saying that atheists do not have the burden of proof to explain their beliefs concerning the origin of the universe. This does not make sense.
See my post/challenge in the Who Made God thread for more.
~~~~and the claim if it taking more faith to be an atheist is this blog’s burden. Said burden cannot be relieved by shifting the burden to atheists like me making no claim.~~~~
If you are making no claim, Mr. Crowell, then what is the point of your posts?
~~~~“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.” — Thomas Jefferson~~~~
Amen! And as I said in the Who Made God? thread, my faith is not blind but based on reason and knowledge.
~~~~How many of you are NOT afraid of going to hell when you die if you don’t believe in God? What if I were YOUR son or daughter? Would you be afraid for them? Do you ever wonder how it feels not to be AFRAID of you or your loved ones going to hell? THAT’S freedom.~~~~
Appeals to emotion (another logical fallacy) are irrelevant to this discussion. How I feel about a certain thing is not pertinent. What I claim to know and why, is.
I look forward to your response.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
Ernie,
1 – Frank is ardently defending BBT. I am not. Yes, I accpet it as solid scientific theory but with limits (I think you used those words, or pretty close). BBT does not speak to anything before the “singularity,” as it breaks down mathematically correct?
2 – I cannot prove there is no god, christian or otherwise. However, neither do I accept its existence. Therefore, yes, I must allow for the possibility (but not necessarliy the probability) of your god and/or other god(s).
Curious – do you allow for the possibility of other gods?
Did Socrates know for sure? Is there any certainty in philosophy? I used two quotes for context. The Twain quote complements Socrates, lending clarity to how I read Socrate’s quote. The more we learn, the more we realize we don’t know is how I paraphrase Twain’s quote, and that is essentially what I think Socrates meant. Is there and end to knowledge? I don’t know. Does there have to be? Ditto. But neither do you. You don’t KNOW.
You will be waiting for my answer quite some time it seems, as I make no claim the universe arose from nothing. To say I do is to construct a straw man argument (for which you happen to be demanding an answer from me).
Atheists in general aren’t making claims about the origin of the universe as far as I know. Some do, yes, but I do not necessarily agree with them just becasue they are ahteists. Many of us simply reject YOUR claims about the origins of the universe, which is what I have done here. Support your claim, don’t shift the burden back to ME to explain the universe when I’ve said I don’t know.
Yes, I am saying I don’t have the burden of proof here, in your venue. I am challenging the believers’ claim in general of their god, the god of abraham and I am challenging the venue’s claim that being an atheist takes more faith than belief in the god of abraham, or any other supernatural cause (correct me if that is not a fair restatement). To question me is to shift the burden to me. To complain when I rightly put it back where it belongs is to agree with me about shifting the burden in the first place.
It’s not a logical fallacy when it IS the argument. Here’s a claim – your belief is ultimately grounded in fear, either of the unknown (what, if anything, happens after death) or what you believe about the consequences of not believing in Jesus and the god of abraham. My opinion, of course; YMMV.
Perhaps you missed it, but I repeated several times early on I am not as concerend with WHAT someone believes as WHY. That’s my purpose here. Rather than support the claims of this blog and answer my question of WHY a belief in god or why I need god, the participants here instead shift the burden to me with a deluge of existential questions. I have taken some of the bait, but we have digressed entirely too far each time. Each post makes a claim. I challenge those claims, I ask for credible evidence. Instead of answers, the burden is shifted back to me as if my lack of answers somehow supports the claims I challenge.
Ernie,
Correction – upon review I see I was mistaken about you saying BB theory was solid but with limits. You were quoting me elsewhere. Doh!
Christopher Crowell said on April 13th, 2008 at 5:46 pm:
~~~~Therefore, yes, I must allow for the possibility (but not necessarliy the probability) of your god and/or other god(s).~~~~
By this statement I infer that you are an agnostic rather than an atheist? If that is the case then I apologize for my previous assumptions that you are an atheist. If you are an atheist, then how is it that you allow for the possibility of the existence of any kind of deity as that is contradictory to the definition of atheist?
If you are an agnostic, then Mr. Turek’s book doesn’t apply to you and a vast majority of the replies to you are pointless. I know that I assumed you were atheist based in the inference that you were responding to the title of the book because you are, in fact, an atheist. Elsewise, responding as you have would be akin to a Muslim responding to a book written by Christians about Buddhism.
~~~~It’s not a logical fallacy when it IS the argument. Here’s a claim – your belief is ultimately grounded in fear, either of the unknown (what, if anything, happens after death) or what you believe about the consequences of not believing in Jesus and the god of abraham. My opinion, of course; YMMV.~~~~
I do appreciate you clarifying the why you are here but I would like to do the same concerning the why I believe as I do. My belief is not ultimately grounded in fear of anything. My belief is founded on the knowledge of what actually is, on the evidence presented to me in my ~33 years of life. If an emotion were to be considered as part of that foundation then the emotion would be love, not fear. Evidence of Jehovah’s love for me, evidence His love for all mankind, and the evidence of the effect the kind of love He teaches mankind to have one towards another. The strength of the Christian faith is not fear it is love.
And let me reiterate, true faith is not blind. It is not about clinging to something for which there is no evidence or worse, in spite of the evidence. True faith is in trusting in things not observed but based on implicative evidence that such things do exist. That is the foundation of my faith…reason and evidence for the God that I have never personally directly observed.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
Christopher,
“When actually I said the bit about making progress BEFORE YOU JOINED THE DISCUSSION, not after agreeing with you as you state above. To me, that is dishonest.”
Sorry for the misconception that I was attempting to be dishonest. I wasn’t approaching you from that perspective or your statements before you agreed with me. Which begs a few questions. When you agreed with me after you stated that science was making “progress” was that the first time that science doesn’t produce certain knowledge occured to you? If not, and you already knew that why would you posit “progress” toward explaining nature as it actually is, if you already knew that science could not do that.
“I was being charitable, saying I, too, scrutinize all claims, science included. I have done my own research on both science and mythology and I have drawn a reasonable conclusion not to accept god.”
What vehicle did you use to arrive at your reasonable conclusion not to accept God? Was it science or philosophy?
“What we see, what we observe of the universe, is that what it really IS? Science, the pursuit of verifiable, testable empirical knowledge has yielded far more than we dreamed about the universe. It has shown us things never fathomed in any holy writ. It is as close as we can come to certain, and it’s UNcertain because we one of the few things we do know for certain is we don’t know everything.”
This doesn’t agree in any way with the fact that science doesn’t reveal certain knowledge, which you agreed with me on. You appear to be back pedaling here. As close as we can come to certain knowledge can’t be a reasonable basis for knowledge upon which to base decisions about God and nature on.
“Therefore, knowledge is subject to change. New knowledge may be gained that changes our understanding of what we already know. What we already know doesn’t change, but our understanding does. As science seeks to explain, it will always be uncertain and subject to change.”
What we already “know” does change, hence, your citations of the flat earth theory and the heliocentric theory.
“However, it is as certain as we can be. Some parts of the explanation are certain – we observe what we observe. You are casting a net far too wide, now. I agreed with your general statement and now our opinions part.”
If science can’t produce certain knowlege, then, how can what we observe be considered certain?
“Also, the faith scientists have in theories is not comparable to faith in god. I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow, and I have faith in my friends and family, albeit to varying degrees. My “faith” is grounded in reason, not blinded by the light.”
Now, you are being disengenous by positing some types of faith more valid than others. You have faith in your friends and family do you? How is that faith different from someone who has a relationship with God, apart from his material invisiblity?
I am not being egregious, Christopher. I get the impression that you just don’t like the conclusions that my points to you draw. And that is, that science, upon which you rely for you “rational reasons why God doesn’t exist” is in and of itself unqualified, since it doesn’t produce certain knowledge in the first place, only a temporary explanation about nature that suffices for now.
Please, stop calling me dishonest. I am trying to have an honest conversation with you. Also, chastising me for mispelling a word or two, as you did in a previous post, is bad form. Do you really think mispelled words, that you know what they are anyways, makes an argument invalid? I believe that you are smarter than that.
Clay,
You are correct, misspelled words do not make an argument invalid. I was being a smarta$$ about the spelling (takes seconds to look up on google, I do it all the time). I won’t deny, though it was more a play on being “nice” than on your spelling. I knew the risk, and I accept the consequences of conceding your point about spelling.
I only skimmed your post, but I want to at least say I will gladly honor your request to stop calling you dishonest. I take you at your word it’s just been honest misunderstanding thus far. Thank you for clarifying.
It’s late and I have a lot to say in response (imagine that, lol). More in the am (hopefully)..
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article Darwinists Have a Lot of Explaining to Do, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.
“You can’t have it both ways. Either Quantum Mechanics destroys our confidence in the law of causality or it doesn’t.”
You demonstrate your ignorance of quantum mechanics.
“The implication of atheistic Darwinism is whoever has the most power gets to make the rules by force.”
Of course. But Darwin himself said that he would not want to live in such a society.
And the implications of a Christian dictator are? And the implications of a Muslim dictator are? Name your poison?
“But will someone please give serious causes for the ten effects from an atheistic perspective?”
No. Your request is silly.
“man’s need to find answers to each of them have been planted in our souls”
Your opinion is silly.
“Physics describes the laws of the universe, not where those laws came from or why they are the way they are.”
Absolutely correct. So what? Do you have a good “natural” explanation? I’m not much interested in any “supernatural” explanation.
“But if you have no interest in the answers, why are you engaging those of us who are asking the questions?”
I wish to point out that you are on a fool’s errand. Do you acknowledge that possibility?
Frank: “No wonder Richard Dawkins is stating that maybe aliens brought the first life here”
Not really. Stein asked him if he could “think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred”.
Dawkins explains his reply:
“I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. So, bending over backwards to accommodate, I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar — semi tongue-in-cheek).
The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such ‘Directed Panspermia’ was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent ‘crane’ (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity.
So you have misrepresented him somewhat.
I think that the initial blog post displayed a basic ignorance what evolution is and what it attempts to explain. It says that Darwinists have alot of explaining to do but the Theory of Evolution by natural selection in no way attempts to explain the the origins of the universe, nor does it explain how life started. There are fairly good ideas regarding abiogenesis but they can’t be verified at this time. Attempting to discredit evolution by pointing to unexplained natural phenomenon that it was never intended to explain is disingenuous.
Sam, you notice also that I never got an answer on the ‘Dawkins thinks aliens started life here’ nonsense.
If someone truly believed they had the the truth on their side, why would they need such dishonest tactics to make their point?
You say disingenuous, I said ‘misrepresented’, but I’m beginning to wonder if we’re both being too kind, Perhaps Richard Dawkins’ ‘Lying for Jesus’ characterization is actually closer to the truth.
Darwinists have nothing to explain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8&feature=player_embedded
The above liink is a great video that points out misconceptions of evolution and its boundaries.
….and what link would that be?
Well presumably Dan posted twice, and the first contained a link and so is waiting to clear.
Hmm, well over a year later, Andrew Ryan never got an answer on the “Dawkins thinks aliens maybe started life here” question. Ironic given that the most recent thread started on the cite is accusing Richard Dawkins of misrepresenting facts.
Yep, it’s awaiting moderation.Sorry, I didnt’ realize it would do that.
Why not give us the title, then we can just google it.
Well, It’s just named evolution haha. hang on let me try this…
http*****://w *****ww.*****youtube.***** com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8&feature=player_embedded
just take out the 4 sets of stars.