Tag Archive for: Cosmovisión

6 maneras en que el ateísmo es un obstáculo para la ciencia

6 maneras en que el ateísmo es un obstáculo para la ciencia

By Luke Nix

Introduction: Science vs. Christianity?

It is often claimed that Christianity is a hindrance to science. To justify this claim it is often said that many Christians just look at nature and satisfy their curiosity by saying “God made it,” without looking any further to discover how God made whatever it is that he made that is there. For many Christians, questions about the origin and how the natural world works end with that answer. However, for many others, while they acknowledge that God did make something, they diligently seek to discover how he did it. Christianity does not stop science, a lack of curiosity or interest (not necessarily a bad thing if the person does not have that passion or pursue that goal) is what could stop science if there is not a Christian who possesses that curiosity. Each Christian can stop scientific discovery for themselves, but as scientific discovery continues to be developed by other Christians, scientific discovery will continue.

On the other hand, it is a fact that atheism stops science. Not because the atheist satisfies his curiosity by saying “evolution did it” and stops all exploratory research, but because it hinders science for a couple of reasons that the atheist cannot escape if his worldview is true. If atheism is true, scientific discovery does not cease only for the atheist whose curiosity and curiosity are satisfied by the answer “evolution did it,” but it ceases for everyone .

If you are a friend of science and an atheist, I implore you to take your reasoning to the next level: think about how the discovery of the world around you would be understood. In today’s blog, I will present six different ways in which atheism and science are mutually exclusive and how atheism stops all scientific discovery in its tracks.

Science vs Atheism

The laws of mathematics vs atheism

Much of the scientific research done today relies solely on mathematics in its most advanced forms. It is used to describe chemical reactions, model the formation history of the universe, and even predict the spread of viruses. The reason mathematics can be used in this way is because the universe is built on/governed by mathematics. This fact makes the universe describable, discoverable, and predictable (to a certain extent). If the universe produced mathematics, then there would be no reason for the universe to be bound by mathematics, and it would not be possible to describe, discover, or predict it.

This poses a serious problem for the atheist. Indeed, according to the atheist view, mathematics is a product of a particularity of the universe (the human brain, to be exact), and the universe is not bound to be governed by anything it has produced. According to the atheist view, mathematics is not objective, so it is irrational to expect that the world around us is consistent with or explainable by what mathematics depicts. The present cannot be described, the past cannot be discovered, and future events cannot be predicted.

From the atheistic point of view, without a supernatural cause (excluding this universe) that causes mathematics to limit the universe to its laws, this universe is meaningless, and all scientific endeavor is ultimately doomed to be nothing more than a guessing game and incapable of bringing knowledge about any point in time or space.

The principle of uniformity vs atheism

As in mathematics, the uniformity principle is key to conducting scientific research. This principle states that the past behaved much like the present, and that the future will develop much like the present. This principle limits the universe to a continuous connection through time that scientists can use to describe, discover, and predict. Based on this principle, scientists understand that it is reasonable to extrapolate current observations to the past and the future. Thanks to this continuous connection, scientists can discover what happened in the past (historical science) with methodical certainty and make predictions about future events in the natural world (this is how different models of natural phenomena are tested: predictions of future discoveries are made based on different interpretations of currently observable data).

But, just as with mathematics, this principle cannot simply emerge with the appearance of the human brain on the cosmic scene. If this principle is a product of a peculiarity of the universe, then the universe cannot be governed by such a principle. Because of this absolute lack of government, there is also no reason to think that the universe can be explained using the principle of uniformity.

Therefore, if we want to continue scientific discovery using this principle, and if we want to believe that anything discovered using it is true or makes sense, then it must have a foundation prior to this universe. This means that the uniformity principle, like mathematics, has a transcendent (supernatural) foundation. Without such a foundation, scientific knowledge of the past and prediction of future events are impossible. In this second respect, atheism renders scientific discoveries useless before they are published.

The laws of logic vs atheism

Mathematics and the principle of uniformity are joined by the laws of logic. It is through the laws of logic that we can connect the present with the past and discover the history of our planet, the solar system, the galaxy, the universe, and even the initial events of creation itself. But this level of scientific discovery is only possible if the universe is governed by the transcendental laws of logic. Deductive reasoning and methodical certainty (mentioned above) necessarily depend on the laws of logic. If the universe is not governed by laws that transcend its own existence, then there is no reason to investigate and connect events as if it were governed by such laws. These laws must have a foundation that exists outside the natural universe; this means that they must exist supernaturally.

But according to atheism, nothing exists supernaturally, and the laws of logic are no exception. Therefore, according to atheism, the universe is not required to follow any of these laws nor can it be expected to do so. If we cannot rely on the universe to invariably follow such laws, then we cannot use such laws to make plausible theses about the universe with any level of certainty, including its history or its future. Without laws of logic existing outside the universe, any scientific endeavor that attempts to extend our knowledge of the natural world beyond the present moment that we witness in our small space of action is futile. Without a reason to believe that this universe is subject to the laws of logic, scientific discovery is impossible. Since there is no room in atheism for the laws of logic to govern this universe, then it cannot claim that justified and reasonable scientific discovery lies within its worldview either.

The laws of physics vs atheism

Atheism, without the laws of mathematics and the laws of logic, can no longer state or explain the laws of physics. That is just one of the many implications of a worldview devoid of a reality beyond this universe. But the problem for atheism regarding the laws of physics is deeper than just discovery and exposition. For lack of discovery and/or exposition does not necessarily imply nonexistence. The lack of the laws of physics in the atheistic worldview is established independently of, but similar to, the absence of the laws of mathematics and the laws of logic.

If there really are no laws of physics governing this universe, which if there were would mean that they are logically prior to or have a foundation outside of this universe, then there is no reason to use such laws of physics in any reasoning (because that would be using non-existent laws of logic) from current observations of this universe to the past history (because that would be using a non-existent principle of uniformity) of the same universe. Again, without a foundation outside of this universe that makes the laws of physics govern the universe, this universe is not constrained to follow any specific trajectory (laws of physics). If atheism is true, this is another reason why science is useless before it makes itself known.

Our sensory organs and the brain vs atheism

Of course, the utility of the features of reality described above does not manifest itself in scientific discoveries until observations are made. While those features of reality are observer-independent, this latter property is observer-dependent. Not only does atheism lack the foundation for the observer-independent (and much needed for scientific work) features of reality described above, but the guidelines/criteria for observer-dependent scientific endeavor undermine the reliability of its own work.

Atheistic worldviews have only one possible explanation for the emergence of sensations in human organs and brains: they are changes that occur over time and are directed by the (non-existent) laws of physics that govern natural selection. This is also known as “unguided evolution” or simply “evolution” in many atheist circles. We must clearly differentiate between agent-guided and environmentally guided evolution. The “unguided” qualifier here refers to agent-guided evolution. Evolutionists firmly believe that evolution was guided, but that guidance was directed by the environment and by the (non-existent) laws of physics that governed the creation and behavior of the environment.

Given this, the process guided solely by non-existent physical laws results in the survival of the species, so traits that are useful for the survival of populations are passed on from generation to generation and will continually be present. From this point of view, one trait has an advantage over another because of the external factors that allow its propagation, regardless of how useful that ability is. How useful that ability is is a purely accidental trait, and there is no way to independently test the usefulness of such traits for their continued existence, especially since all the features of reality mentioned above, which could be used to independently test them, lack a solid foundation if atheism is true. This means that the sensations of our organs and our brain have survived, not because of how useful their abilities were, but because they helped our ancestors survive in their environment. The atheist cannot come along and say that we can scientifically and independently prove the sensations of our organs through logic, mathematics, the uniformity principle, or the laws of physics because none of these have any solid foundation if atheism is true. If atheism is true, then all of those “laws” are the product of our evolved brains, which, again, is the product of a process governed by non-existent laws of mathematics, logic, and physics.

Conclusion

If something doesn’t exist or isn’t true, it’s not a valid starting point for creating processes that gain knowledge. If the foundations are compromised, so are the results. If atheism is true…

…science cannot be based on the laws of mathematics.

…science cannot be based on the principle of uniformity.

…science cannot be based on the laws of logic.

…science cannot be based on the laws of physics.

…science cannot be based on our own observations.

…science cannot be based on our own reasoning.

Science necessarily depends on the certainty and truth of these features of reality. If atheism is true, there is no basis for any of these features of reality. If atheism is true, these are not features of reality, which means that they are not true and do not exist. They cannot therefore be starting points for any discipline of knowledge, including science. If atheism is true, then science (among other disciplines of knowledge) cannot legitimately claim to provide us with truths about our world. If atheism is true (in any of its forms), it is impossible to connect our subjective beliefs with objective reality.

Since atheism and science are mutually exclusive, atheism is no friend of science; and science is no friend of atheism. If you are a friend of science, you know that these six concepts are characteristics of reality and are true. I invite you to abandon the naive scientific and philosophical worldview of atheism; embrace the reality of the Christian God, the One who provides a firm foundation for each of these six realities that you already know exist and upon which you already depend for your scientific discoveries.

Recommended resources in Spanish: 

Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek

Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Luke Nix holds a degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metals exchange in Oklahoma.

Original source of the blog: https://bit.ly/38XdTMC

Translated by Yatniel Vega Garcia

Edited by Gustavo Camarillo

 

/by
¿Es el ateísmo la falta de creencia en Dios?

¿Es el ateísmo la falta de creencia en Dios?

By Frank Turek 

It’s become fashionable lately for atheists to claim that atheism is “a lack of belief in God.” So when a theist comes along and says that atheists can’t hold to their worldview, some atheists will say something like, “Oh, we don’t really have a worldview. We just lack a belief in God. Since we make no positive claims about the world, we have no burden of proof to support atheism. We just find the arguments for God lacking.”

What is missing are good reasons to believe in this new definition.

First, if atheism is simply a lack of belief in God, then atheism is just a claim about the atheist’s mental state, not a claim about God’s existence. The “atheist” simply says, “I’m not psychologically convinced that God exists.” So what? That offers no evidence for or against God. Most people lack a belief in unguided evolution, but no atheist would say that proves evolution false.

Secondly, if atheism is simply a lack of belief in God, then rocks, trees, and latrines are all “atheistic” because they also lack a belief in God. It doesn’t take any brains to “disbelieve” in something. A true atheist believes there is no God.

Third, most atheists don’t just “lack a belief in God” because they constantly try to explain the world by offering supposed alternatives to God. Atheists write book after book insisting that God has no job because of quantum theory, multiple universes, and evolution. While none of these atheistic arguments succeed in proving that there is no God, they do show that atheists not only lack a belief in God, but believe in certain theories to explain reality without God.

They believe in such theories because atheism is a worldview with beliefs just as much as theism is a worldview with beliefs. (A “worldview” is a set of beliefs about the big questions of life, such as: What is ultimate reality? Who are we? What is the meaning of life? How should we live? What is our destiny? etc.) To claim that atheism is not a worldview is like saying that anarchy is not really a political position. As Bo Jinn observes, “An anarchist can say that he or she simply ‘rejects politics,’ but he or she is still faced with the inescapable problem of how human society should be organized, whether or not he or she likes the idea of ​​someone being in charge.”

Similarly, atheists may claim to just “reject God,” but they still face the inescapable problem of how to explain ultimate reality. Just as anarchists affirm the positive belief that anarchy is the best way to organize society, atheists affirm the positive belief that atheistic materialism is the best way to explain ultimate reality.

In other words, atheists do not “lack a belief” in materialism. They are not skeptics of materialism – they believe it is true! As Phillip Johnson said, “He who is skeptical in one set of beliefs is a true believer in another set of beliefs.” Lack of belief in God does not automatically establish materialism, any more than lack of belief in atheism automatically establishes Christianity. No atheist would say that a Christian has made a good case because he “lacks a belief” in materialism!

Each has the burden of proof to support his position. Atheists must positively argue that only material things exist. So rather than debate “Does God exist?” I prefer to debate the question “Which explains reality better: atheism or theism?” So it is obvious that both debaters have the burden of proof to support their position. Atheists cannot simply identify what they believe to be shortcomings of theism. They must present a convincing case that everything has been caused by matter and consists only of material things, including:

– The beginning of the universe

– The fine-tuning of the universe

– The laws of nature

– The laws of logic

– The laws of mathematics

– Information (genetic code)

– Life

– Mind and consciousness

– Free will

– Objective morality

– Evil

It is rare to find an atheist who attempts to explain more than one or two of these things materially. How could they do so? How can laws be material? New atheists must provide reasons to support their belief that materialism is true. Simply lacking a belief in God does not prove their worldview.

Finally, the definition of “I simply lack a belief in God” leads to a contradictory result. As Dr. Richard Howe notes, “This definition of atheism carries with it the extravagant conclusion that atheism is logically compatible with theism.” Here’s why: If lacking a belief in God is the definition of “atheism”—and not “there is no God”—then “atheism” is true even if God actually exists. How is that reasonable?

We should not allow atheists to hide behind that definition of lack. A true atheist is someone who believes there is no God. And atheists have the burden of proof to show how materialism is true and reality can be explained without God.

Recommended resources in Spanish: 

Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek

Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Frank Turek (D.Min.) is an award-winning author and university speaker who hosts a weekly television show on DirectTV and a radio program that airs on 186 stations nationwide. His books include I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist and Robbing God: Why Atheists Need God.

Original source of the Blog: https://bit.ly/3r9vZBl

Translated by Daniela Checa Delgado

Edited by Elenita Romero

 

 

 

/by
dating gospels

Sí, la cosmovisión cristiana es apoyada por la evidencia

Richard Dawkins, una vez famoso dijo: “La fe es la gran mentira, la gran excusa para evadir la necesidad de pensar y evaluar las pruebas. La fe es creer a pesar de, incluso debido a, la falta de pruebas”. También citan de él: “Muchos de nosotros veíamos la religión como un sinsentido dañino. Las creencias podrían carecer de todas las pruebas de apoyo, pero pensemos, si la gente necesitara una muleta para el consuelo ¿dónde está el daño? El 11 de septiembre cambió todo eso’’. Dawkins no es el único ateo que cree que el cristianismo no puede ser apoyado por evidencia. Sam Harris dijo: “Cuando consideramos la verdad de una proposición, o uno está comprometido en una evaluación honesta de la evidencia y argumentos lógicos o no lo está. La religión es un área de nuestras vidas donde la gente se imagina que algún otro estándar de integridad intelectual se aplica”. Declaraciones como éstas, mientras son retóricamente poderosas, exponen una falta de comprensión sobre la naturaleza de la evidencia. Dawkins y Harris no son profesionales elaborando casos y no están familiarizados con las amplias categorías de pruebas que usamos en juicios criminales y civiles todos los días. Los detectives y los fiscales entienden que cualquier cosa puede ser evaluada evidencialmente. Sólo hay dos categorías de evidencia, y los Creadores de Casos Cristianos utilizan ambos tipos de evidencia al hacer un caso para el cristianismo:

dating gospels

Categoría uno: evidencia directa

El testimonio de un testigo ocular.

Categoría dos: evidencia indirecta (circunstancial)

Todo lo demás.

Los jueces ayudan a los jurados a entender la diferencia entre estas dos formas de evidencia. En California, los jueces proporcionan las siguientes instrucciones a los miembros del jurado:

Los hechos pueden ser probados por evidencia directa o circunstancial o por una combinación de ambos. La evidencia directa puede ser un hecho por sí mismo. Por ejemplo, si un testigo testifica que vio llover afuera antes de entrar al juzgado, ese testimonio es una evidencia directa de que estaba lloviendo. La evidencia circunstancial también puede ser llamada evidencia indirecta. Las pruebas circunstanciales no prueban directamente el hecho que se ha de decidir, sino que es prueba de otro hecho o grupo de hechos de los que ustedes pueden lógicamente y razonablemente concluir la verdad del hecho en cuestión. Por ejemplo, si un testigo testifica que vio a alguien entrar con un impermeable cubierto con gotas de agua, ese testimonio es evidencia circunstancial porque puede apoyar una conclusión de que estaba lloviendo. (CalCrim Sección 223).

¿Empiezas a entender la diferencia? La gran mayoría de los casos que ocurren en América son principalmente circunstanciales. De hecho, ninguno de mis casos sin resolver se ha beneficiado de pruebas directas. Cuando no tienes un testigo ocular que pueda identificar a tu sospechoso, tienes que construir el caso de forma acumulativa de todas las pruebas indirectas que tienes.

Si eres como otras personas en América, probablemente piensas en pruebas circunstanciales de manera despectiva. No puedo decirle cuántas veces he oído a alguien decir, “Oh, eso es sólo un caso circunstancial”. La evidencia indirecta obtiene una mala crítica en la prensa estos días. Tal vez por eso la gente está confundida acerca de su valor en los juicios criminales. Los jueces instruyen a los jurados de que tengan cuidado de no pensar negativamente en pruebas circunstanciales. De hecho, a los jurados se les dice que den a las pruebas circunstanciales el mismo peso en sus consideraciones:

Las pruebas directas y circunstanciales son tipos aceptables de evidencia para probar o refutar los elementos de un cargo, incluyendo la intención y el estado mental y los actos necesarios a una convicción, y ninguno es necesariamente más confiable que el otro. Ninguno tiene derecho a un peso mayor que el otro. Ustedes deben decidir si un hecho en cuestión ha sido probado basado en toda la evidencia. (CalCrim Sección 223).

Personalmente, me gustan los casos circunstanciales mejor que los casos directos. ¿Sabes por qué? Porque los testigos a veces mienten. Hay veces en que un testigo está indebidamente motivado. Tal vez quieren mentir para que puedan proporcionar algunos detalles importantes y estar en la fecha y lugar citados, o tal vez quieren mentir para ayudar a un amigo que ha sido acusado. Aunque puedo interpretar mal las pruebas indirectas, nunca me mienten intencionalmente. Por esa razón, a menudo prefiero reunir casos circunstanciales que casos directos basados únicamente en testigos oculares.

Como resultado, el argumento del cristianismo se basa en pruebas directas e indirectas. Los evangelios son relatos de testigos oculares. Son pruebas directas, aunque sería prudente ofrecer una advertencia. Los escépticos a veces afirman que no debemos pensar en los relatos evangélicos como evidencia directa, ya que no podemos interrogar a los testigos (escritores) como nosotros podemos hacerlo con los testigos en juicios penales. Después de todo, las normas de las declaraciones “de oídas” nos impiden presentar declaraciones de testigos oculares que no pueden ser examinadas a través del interrogatorio. Pero ya he escrito sobre por qué esta importante regla simplemente no se puede aplicar a los relatos históricos como los Evangelios (por lo que no voy a discutir este punto aquí). Lo más importante es simplemente esto: ¿son confiables los relatos del Evangelio? En realidad, podemos abordar esta cuestión más crítica aplicando la misma plantilla crítica que aplicamos a otros relatos de testigos oculares. He tratado de demostrar este proceso en  Cold-Case Christianity (Cristianismo Caso Sin Resolver) .

Como todos los buenos casos probatorios, el caso del cristianismo es un caso acumulativo construido con evidencia directa e indirecta. Podemos evaluar indirectamente las afirmaciones de los Evangelios examinando las pruebas internas del lenguaje, el uso del pronombre y las descripciones de la geografía, la cultura y la política. También podemos evaluar la evidencia de la arqueología y las primeras descripciones paralelas reacias  ofrecidas por los no cristianos y los creyentes judíos. Además, podemos evaluar indirectamente la datación temprana de los Evangelios y trazar su transmisión con la evidencia que encontramos en los escritos de los primeros Padres de la Iglesia. Todas estas piezas de evidencia indirecta son importantes para nuestro caso.

Un último punto importante necesita hacerse sobre la naturaleza de la evidencia que utilizamos para hacer casos penales. Los programas de televisión como CSI han dado falsamente al público en general la idea de que debemos tener pruebas científicas y forenses (como ADN, serología, huellas dactilares o evidencia científica, material) para hacer un caso convincente. Nada más lejos de la verdad. En mis casos sin resolver, rara vez he tenido este tipo de evidencia (recuerda que hay una razón por la que mis casos no fueron resueltos originalmente). Más que nada, mis casos se hacen con la evidencia de declaraciones y comportamientos. A veces la declaración más simple o acción puede ser la clave para condenar a un sospechoso. La evidencia científica es grandiosa cuando la tienes, pero rara vez la tengo. He aprendido a examinar todo y no pasar por alto nada.

Cuando Dawkins y Harris dicen que nosotros, como cristianos, creemos en algo para lo cual no hay evidencia de apoyo, simplemente traicionan su ignorancia sobre la naturaleza de las pruebas y la forma en que los detectives y los fiscales construyen casos. Todo tiene el potencial de ser usado como evidencia. La evidencia indirecta es tan poderosa como la evidencia directa, y la evidencia científica y forense suele ser un lujo innecesario. Hay solo dos categorías de evidencia, y los Creadores de Casos Cristianos utilizan ambos tipos de evidencia al hacer un caso para el cristianismo.

 

J. Warner Wallace es autor de Cold-Case Christianity, tiene una trayectoria de más de 25 años como policía y detective, posee un Master en Teología por el Seminario Teológico Golden Gate Baptist y es profesor adjunto de Apologética en la universidad de BIOLA.

Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2uUuw4G

Traducido por Ruth Hernández

Editado por Jairo Izquierdo

/by