Early on I said, "I want to share with you the reasons that I first truly began to trust in God, Christ, and Biblical truth." These first several posts hold the content that caused me to rethink my beliefs. Sometimes it is not enough to look at one thing at a time, so this week we'll be taking a look at the arguments I've made thus far in an earnest effort to connect the dots.
There are a few conclusions to which science has led us directly:
- Time, space, matter, and energy had a beginning (General Relativity)
- Time, space, matter, and energy are contained within the very fabric of the universe (General Relativity)
- The Big Bang Theory has been corroborated by theory (General Relativity) and by observation (COBE, etc)
- The universe’s expansion is accelerating (Hubble, COBE, etc)
- Quantum mechanics must be described by probability (Heisenberg)
- The physical conditions conducive to nucleic acid formation are detrimental to amino acid formation and visa versa
From these scientific assertions, we can reach a few definitive logical conclusions:
- Since the universe had a beginning, the universe cannot be eternal (so Einstein’s pantheistic god is no more)
- Since the universe’s expansion is accelerating, there will be no Big Crunch (so the formation of our universe was a one-time event)
- In accordance with our rather sophisticated knowledge of physical processes and quantum mechanical probability, an explosion of energy like that theorized in the Big Bang would be unlikely to lead to the formation of galaxies
- In accordance with our rather sophisticated knowledge of proteins, amino acids, and nucleic acids, amino acids are unlikely to form into proteins without instruction from nucleic acids
I will be taking a slight turn from “evidence for God” and instead will focus this week on “evidence against atheism” for this is truly what led me to look for God. From the information contained in the first several posts, I’ve decided to paint a picture of exactly what you must have faith in to believe that there is no possibility for God:
The universe spontaneously came about from nothingness &
By random chance, when it banged into existence, galaxies formed &
Amino acids formed into proteins without instruction from nucleic acid &
Proteins folded perfectly to form life without instruction from nucleic acid.
OR
Something eternal caused the universe to form &
Although the eternal cause was unintelligent, it somehow changed the inherent physical probability associated with the universe long enough to form galaxies &
Amino acids formed into proteins without instruction from nucleic acid &
Proteins folded perfectly to form life without instruction from nucleic acid.
OR
Something eternal caused the universe to form &
By random chance, when it banged into existence, galaxies formed &
Amino acids formed into proteins without instruction from nucleic acid &
Proteins folded perfectly to form life without instruction from nucleic acid.
OR
Nucleic acids existed independent of amino acids and they were just waiting around with instructions for the amino acids so that they could form proteins and life.
OR
There are an infinite number of universes and every possible event happens in one of them.
(I left the theories that address alien involvement out because life would still need to form wherever the aliens came from)
All but Multiverse Theory (the last one) seem to go against that which is predicted by science. Science does not necessarily preclude some of these ideas, but at some point the probability of naturalistic processes forming our universe leads us to question the science we have held as fact for so long or to question whether the natural is the only thing at work.
In short, the first several posts were not intended to show
“I cannot think of an explanation for X; therefore Y must be true.”
OR
“I cannot think of an explanation for X; therefore X must be false.”
Rather, the first few posts attempt to show why it is so difficult to believe that naturalism is the only possible truth using what we know about naturalism. So, “I have a clear understanding of X, and if I assume this understanding to be correct, X cannot explain Z, so there must be some Y also involved.”
Accusations of irrational faith and unwavering devotion to dogma are equally applicable to atheistic ideas. When science says that naturalism is improbable, a naturalist simply assumes the science to be wrong. This is a never-ending game and one that requires no debate. If probability leads us away from naturalism, let’s consider the possibility.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
41 comments:
Great post, Randy!
Way to pat yourself on the back! ;) I agree, this was a very good post. But what do you say to the shows that have been on National Geographic lately talking all this hooplah about how Jupiter and Pluto have a huge part in the formation of our planet and that the building blocks of life came to earth because of some kind of debris field that swept through the galaxy spreading all the little hoosits and whatsits and, mostly, the water from pluto...I think I remember that right...it doesn't sound right to me at 8:24am...but oddly enough I watched this show last night.
Anyway, you know where I stand. I'm not trying to "getcha." I'm seriously curious to know more about the topics. Because when you get right down to it, all the shows I've seen about the formation of our planet and how the moon was formed and all that new stuff that has come out there...well, it's done nothing to prove anything other than "if you give a huge freaking universe the billions and billions of years to form, eventually life will happen on at least one of the billions and billions of planets...but we don't know or care why." That's sorta the stance I have, but my philosophy is that if there ARE answers, I might as well listen to them! :)
Of course, in the end I'll just laugh it off and live as carefree as I was before.
Speaking of, I am reminded of a joke...not so much a joke but something a comedian said...I can't remember if it's Jim Gaffigan or Paul F Tompkins...nevermind, I found it. LOVE the internet:
WARNING! The following clip has some fould language in it...but it still makes a pretty good point. DO NOT CLICK if you are offended by foul language!
http://www.ucbcomedy.com/videos/play/768
Anyway, to sum up for those of you who didn't click it, he says "I don't want to say that I'm "Spiritual" because the word "spiritual" to me always makes me think of people who say things like "Well yes, I have a concept of God...but it's not some old man with a long white beard who sits on a cloud." (pause) Well that's NO ONE'S concept of God, you condescending *%$^ so why don't you stop saying that? There's NO religion that believes that."
And if you catch him, he has to give you all of his gold!
If I could find a bleeped version of this, I'd say EVERYONE should watch it...because it sums up pretty much what I have been trying to say. And after watching it about 4 times now I can say that the only bad word is the one I quoted...so please...give it a chance. ;)
Apparently I can't embed...
And Vernicus is a SEXY GUY!
--Kyle
Randy,
If you will allow a suggestion. It might be a good idea to create an "open thread" blog post for discussions that are really, really far from the topic.
Commenters are welcome to use Open Thread (from 52 Blogs to Christ), or they can start their own thread anywhere on DiscourseBoard.com. Especially for the stuff that is so far off topic.
Or you can create an open thread here.
Kristin,
I underestimated your foresight.
:)
“I have a clear understanding of X, and if I assume this understanding to be correct, X cannot explain Z, so there must be some Y also involved.”
I do not have major difficulties with this statement. The reason is because Y is an unnamed variable, with no specific attributes. Y could be anything from undiscovered properties of X to a Unicorn’s metabolic waste. Y could be supernatural or it might be super-duper natural. Y could be a major mistake in the understanding of X. Y could be a misunderstanding of the nature of Z. Y could be that your assumption of X being correct might be false; or your assumption that you have a clear understanding of X might be false. Y could be anything that is possible, even things that are queerer than we are able to suppose.
This is still getting at the point that has been ongoing. If you have no positive evidence that differentiates Y from everything that is merely possible (and anything is possible), then it is not reasonable to assert one variation of Y over another. I agree that it is reasonable to say that some Y might be involved, but Y could be anything. This is where parsimony comes in.
Could you address the position of “X has been indispensable in explaining everything that is known, X has not yet been able to explain Z, therefore Y must be involved – but since I do not have evidence that differentiates Y from all possibilities, it is most reasonable to remain agnostic for now.” This is at neither extreme and seems to me most reasonable.
The position of strong atheism and strong theism are both positions of faith. Neither position is reasonable from a scientific/logical point of view. The astute point Kyle made with the comic bit applies not only theism, but also to atheism. There are some people out there who say they are 100% certain there is no god(s), but they are outliers. Generally this is not what is being described when the term atheist is used in common parlance.
I think we can all agree that asserting with 100% certainty that there is no god(s) is a position of faith. Even the poster boy for “militant” atheism agrees on this much. In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins divides up the continuous spectrum of belief into 7 categories; 1 being strong theist (I do not believe, I know there is a god) and 7 being strong atheist (I know there is no god with the same conviction as number 1 on this spectrum). Dawkins places himself near the 6 position – “Very low probability, but short of zero; de facto atheist.” I think this is the type of atheism you ought to consider here, because there are relatively few number 7s and pretty much everybody agrees that 7 is a position of faith.
It is reasonable to consider the possibility of the supernatural in proportion to the evidence that is presented. But because natural explanations have an unwavering history of being inadequate for explanation, making new discoveries, and then becoming adequate – it takes more than pointing out current inadequacies to be considered evidence.
I've always felt that Intelligent Design kind of "lowered" God to the status of a super alien. I have posted extensively on my blog, speculating about what and who God is.
If anyone is interested, there are several posts on the topic on this page
http://www.stevenstarkmusic.com/news.html?page=5
I think we've established by now that Randy's use of probabilities comes from a different point of view than most commentators on this blog. Randy is essentially trying to replace improbable explanations for life with God, which requires zero explanation. This is philosophically weak (not God per se but this philosophy of probability).
There are possibly up to 30 billion planets in our galaxy and there are about 100 billion galaxies in the universe. Even if life can only happen on 1 in a billion planets, then there's possibly a billion planets with life on them. If it can only happen in 1 in a billion billion planets, then there's at least one planet, and we're on it.
So the probability argument for life is:
We're here and the explanation is one in a billion (or more)
God did it and his origin has zero explanation.
Do we pick 1 in a billion or zero?
If human history is a predictor, I think building the house of faith in the gaps will probably just make you have to move a lot in future years. It can be good for personal growth, but the realtors and banks charge way too many fees.
Man, for a believer in God, I'm sure enjoying arguing against proving His existence!
To add one more dimension to Steven’s point about planets and probability, consider time. Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old. The earliest fossils (or fossilized evidence of organisms) appears around 3.5 billion years ago. That gives ~1 billion years for life to form. So if we are to accept that there are a billion billion planets, each lasting at least as long as Earth, we then are granted a billion billion billion planet-years for our desired event to occur.
I am not certain if the billion billion plants estimate is one that is a snap shot of current existence or one that encompasses the ~14 billion years of the universe’s existence. If it is just a snap shot of current existence, we might be able to further increase the number of planets, and hence, planet-years. Not that we really need to.
With numbers like this, chance alone starts to be come more and more probable. But even if the probability is not yet to your standard of acceptable, we might rethink where we are placing the origin of life. The formation of proteins is decent starting point, but it leaves us with a question of how did something so improbable happen? Now the enormous number of planet-years helps to answer this on one end, but I think we can also work from another angle.
Natural selection has earned its stripes as a mechanism for moving through a series of acceptably probable steps and getting one to a seemingly improbable state. The key components of natural selection are variation, differential fitness, and heredity. Since heredity is a key component of life, perhaps looking for the origin of heredity might help us reach the more improbable proteins – through a series of small, acceptable steps.
"Could you address the position of “X has been indispensable in explaining everything that is known, X has not yet been able to explain Z, therefore Y must be involved – but since I do not have evidence that differentiates Y from all possibilities, it is most reasonable to remain agnostic for now.” This is at neither extreme and seems to me most reasonable."
Agnosticism is akin to saying "I don't know" and I fully understand that. I think agnosticism is a very reasonable thing in light of the evidence presented thus far. If you truly believe that we could simply be mistaken in our scientific claims, who am I to fault your logic? At the end of the 20th century, scientists made the claim that they knew everything there was to know. There were a few notables who followed that claim (Einstein, Heisenberg, Planck, etc), so having a mistrust of science and therefore a mistrust in where science leads us is understandable.
If you hold to those scientific claims, however, I would assert that the supernatural is the most reasonable explanation for a few of the "gaps" encountered so far.
As for the natural formation of life, I did not spend a whole lot of time discussing the probable conditions on early earth. Remember that during that first billion years there was a lot of earth-as-a-big-fireball stuff going on.
One quick thing:
The conditions on other planets have no affect on the probability of life on our planet. This is akin to saying "The probability that someone will win the lottery this week is 1 in 2." True, but the probability that you will win the lottery is unaffected.
Once again, the probability factor is being approached from a different point of view.
if the odds of winning the lottery are 1 in a billion, someone still wins. The winner could either say "God picked me since it was one in a billion that I would win" or "I am the one in a billion, someone had to be (or else we wouldn't be here wondering about it)"
The amount of mistrust one ought to place in science is an interesting topic. The nature of all scientific findings are tentative and subject to revision pending new evidence or better explanations that require fewer assumptions. Considering this, it would not be reasonable to place one self in the “seven out of seven” position of the scale of belief. I am comfortable near 6.
It is fair to say that I have a degree of mistrust in science, but how much? I am not sure if there is anything I place more trust in than science. Including my own subjective experience. As a person who does not place a high value on faith, I do not think I ever reach 100% certainty and conclusiveness. But I am not wishy-washy. For example, I cannot say with 100% certainty there is not a gnome (that is undetectable with current scientific techniques) who lives under my tree; this does not mean I am 50/50 on this proposition.
Science has demonstrated its trustworthiness in a testable manner in a way that no other object worthy of trust can compare. I live my life as if the findings of science are true, but I am always open to revision – given evidence or explanations that require fewer assumptions.
But this is not to say that I deny the gaps you have taken the time to illustrate on this blog. Science is not infallible or omnipotent, but it is the most trustworthy tool at our disposal.
______
The conditions on other planets have an effect on the probability of life existing in our universe.
A couple of things:
WAAAAY off topic, but thanks to my tax refund and my older brother helping me with my budget, in THEORY (so not THAT far off topic, I guess) I will be completely and 100% debt free in August of this year. Praise the Lord...or my brother. Depending on where you stand on doling out the congrats. ;)
Second, and on topic:
Shyhook said
"The position of strong atheism and strong theism are both positions of faith. Neither position is reasonable from a scientific/logical point of view. The astute point Kyle made with the comic bit applies not only theism, but also to atheism. There are some people out there who say they are 100% certain there is no god(s), but they are outliers. Generally this is not what is being described when the term atheist is used in common parlance."
If there is one person I would like to see wiped fromthe planet, it would be Dawkins. As a person of an agnostic persuasion, I find him insufferable with his condecending attitude and his followers are nothing short of a photonegative of the people they despise. THAT being said, he makes a good point in that a position of TOTAL atheist is indeed a faith...Rush Limbaugh, oddly enough, pointed that out when I was younger...I remember his statement to be something along the lines of "atheism is a religion, so to say you cannot practice a religion in school is to condone practicing the religion of atheism in school...so it's impossible NOT to have religion in school." Not verbatim, but pretty close. It was more than 10 years ago.
Skyhook also said:
"To add one more dimension to Steven’s point about planets and probability, consider time. Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old. The earliest fossils (or fossilized evidence of organisms) appears around 3.5 billion years ago. That gives ~1 billion years for life to form. So if we are to accept that there are a billion billion planets, each lasting at least as long as Earth, we then are granted a billion billion billion planet-years for our desired event to occur."
I was recently watching, and I don't know how new this discovery is or if it needs to be pointed out or not, but there was a show about how the earth was formed by a big time collision with a planet of similar size. Our solar system was at one point filled with many MANY planets in orbit most of them on an inevidable collision course with each other. The earth got a nice "glancing blow" and set it spinning like a billiard ball with a heck of a lot of english put on in. The debris cloud that was propelled from the earth and this other planet started to combine into a bigger and bigger ball, like a snowball, and eventually formed our moon...at the time, it was MUCH closer to earth (apparently it moves about 2 inches away from us a year...take THAT global warming people!) and caused the oceans and stuff to STIR like crazy...high tide was about a full half of the hemisphere..sloshing water and "stuff" all over the place. So with that being said, our planet being roughly 4.5 billion years old and other planets being the same age is possibly way off. There could be some that formed perfectly right at the start and there could be some forming today. I'm not an alien guy. I think all that stuff is pretty insane. But I don't discount that there may be "life" on other planets....I just highly doubt that they ever make a trip to the slums of earth. THAT being said, if we ever found PROOF of life on another planet..by life I don't mean the stuff we found on Mars, I mean if we found advanced life similar to ours looking at us ina telescope, I have to ask the question does that do more to prove a god theory or does it do more to prove the "chance" theory? In my opinion, it solidifies the chance theory. But it still does not address the origin of anything. It does, however, add a variable to the equation...
..especially if we find out that the alien race worships an old man in a white beard sitting on a cloud...then I have to rethink everything. If they even had a book SIMILAR to the bible, I'd be running to a church. Because someone just put a big pile of proof in my pudding. ;)
Randy said:
"The conditions on other planets have no affect on the probability of life on our planet. This is akin to saying "The probability that someone will win the lottery this week is 1 in 2." True, but the probability that you will win the lottery is unaffected."
I disagree, based on the comment I made above. Well, I don't disagree with the statement, but the conditions on other planets DOES have an affect on the religious theories...if those conditions are life. And in some ways, the conditions on other planets in our solar system may have played a role in the formation of life on ours, by that I mean that Pluto brought us our supply of water, Jupiter brought us a ball to play with, and a few other planets threw us a baby shower. ;)
Randy also said:
"Agnosticism is akin to saying "I don't know" and I fully understand that. I think agnosticism is a very reasonable thing in light of the evidence presented thus far. If you truly believe that we could simply be mistaken in our scientific claims, who am I to fault your logic? At the end of the 20th century, scientists made the claim that they knew everything there was to know. There were a few notables who followed that claim (Einstein, Heisenberg, Planck, etc), so having a mistrust of science and therefore a mistrust in where science leads us is understandable."
I LOVE that statement! That is the coolest thing I've ever learned! And can the same thing not be said of religion for some? Those who have lost their faith may have followed the gospel and believed it to be 100% accurate until science proved parts of it wrong or explained away some of the things. So a general mistrust of everything is, I think, pretty commonplace. And it causes a lot of confusion in some people.
For example: people who DO not believe in God or any religion AT ALL, yet believe in ghosts.
People that believe in ghosts, but also believe strongly in the Christian religion.
People who do NOT believe in ghosts, but believe strongly in the Christian religion.
There are problems with all three. The first one is VERY obvious, and after pointing out the idiocy of it to a friend who held that belief (the person also believed in fairies and dragons, I swear to God) they changed their stance on ghosts instead of religion...drat. That wasn't my intention.
If you believe in ghosts and are a christian, you are saying that the soul is not going where it's supposed to go. Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory. You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.
Now for the hard one for me to express: if you DON'T believe in ghosts and you're a christain...well..what about the Holy Spirit? Why is religion so easy to accept but a ghost is silly? (I can't help it..because a ghost IS SILLY!)
Those are just the "ghost" examples of people who are confused. Having both a mistrust in science and a mistrust in religion...it's a skeptics only honest approach, but it can be very confusing. It's one of the reasons I am loving this blog.
BTW, I sent Brian Leslie and Nick Nerren a link. I think both could contribute quite a lot to the conversation, and I REALLY hope they do. What I'm saying is, I am trying to recruit a player for both teams in this friendly softball game of discussion. ;)
Paul T. "I'm sorry I didn't believe in you for a while there, God."
God "I don't BLAME YOU, man! I'm surprised ANYONE believes it! Look at me! I'm an old man with a white beard on a cloud!"
I LOLed.
--Kyle
One more point regarding "chance" versus "God"
The reason I argue for chance is that I believe this is a false dichotomy. On the one hand we are describing the origins of life. On the other hand we're talking about the meaning of life. I believe that the fault in Randy's philosophy is that he requires proof of God in descriptions of the origin of life. I prefer to approach the God question from a perspective of "meaning".
In fact, most people who believe in God agree, I have found. If you ask someone why they believe in God, rather than offering attempts at physical proof, they might answer something like "well if there's no God, then nothing means anything."
Before atheist-leaning agnostics cry foul, let me submit that we all believe in God - that which gives our lives meaning, that which we are subservient to. I find the question "do you believe in God" much less interesting than "can you describe your idea of God for me?"
Anyway, obviously Randy thinks a little differently than I about it, which is why this is quite a productive blog for me, and I enjoy his research, his point of view and his tone.
"I believe that the fault in Randy's philosophy is that he requires proof of God in descriptions of the origin of life."
Steven,
I have found that the Biblical philosphy of "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart" is absolutely true. This blog is by best attempt to use the tools at my disposal to persuade people to become seekers. "Seeker" is a term that is used a goodly amount in America, but I think that the general use of "seeker" is synonamous with "agnostic" in many respects. My sincere hope is that, after 52 weeks, you will wish to seek instead the God that I have come to know.
Kristin gave the analogy that providing evidence of God is much the same as providing evidence of love. Let's say that you have never experienced love. How could I "prove" love to you? In short, I couldn't. Hopefully, though, if I gave you enough evidence of love's existence, you would find it worthwhile to seek the love that I described.
Speaking of love, I found out yesterday that I am going to have another child. Hopefully, I won't be too distracted to post, but there is a chance that I will be forced to postpone a week or two around the first of November... just a heads-up.
Congratulations Randy and Kristin!
Randy,
Congratulations! I am so happy for you and your family. I know you all have wanted this. Fantastic!
I think that your view of love is absolutely dead on. That's the way to argue for God in my book. Of course, as you mention, it really only does good in the realm of example because insinuating that you know God while someone else does not is impossible, since the argument is based on personal experience.
As for seeking, I have not seen much evidence of this on your part. Please understand that I am speaking only of that which is inside this blog. I think that you are a seeker. But I would suggest that you consider yourself "a finder" in this blog rather than "a seeker" at this point. Is that fair? It's probably true for a lot of us more than we'd like to think. There are many advantages of a "finder" mentality - plugging in to groups of a similar mindset which give a sense of community, feeling a sense of purpose to life, feeling certain about the future, and much more I'm sure.
Unfortunately it can also lend itself to a lack of "plasticity" in a point of view. This can lead to the suffering of others, in the form of political oppression, a certain "poverty of experience" as many worthwhile things in life will be considered incompatible with the current point of view, and a level of defensiveness against the "them" which an "us" point of view requires.
Your scripture of reference in Jeremiah concerning seeking God with ALL your heart is a good one. Jeremiah writes it concerning the nation of Israel, but it's relevant to us now for sure. Unfortunately sometimes when I hear it, I think the REAL message is "you disagree with me, therefore you are clearly NOT seeking God with all your heart." This, of course, is not sound reasoning, since we cannot get inside each other's point of view.
Finally, as I "seek" God with all my heart - and I mean God, not a church, a group of humans, or a "cult of personality" in the form of one person - I hope that you and I can find much in common. I tend to play Devil's Advocate a bit much, but I (hopefully) expect the same from others. At the end of the day though, I support love in every way. True, unadulterated love. The love described by Jesus, the love described by Paul. And I seek God with all my heart. At least that's what I strive for everyday.
It does kind of make me sad that you consider the God I seek as different from yours. I don't see it that way. I think God is God. Our differences come from our different points of view of Him. I have known the tears of having the ego destroyed in the face of God. I have known the fire of evangelism - the breathless excitement at the awkward moment of sharing your faith. I have known the sincere desire to repent, to let go. I have known the frustration with others who didn't share our religion - I can remember just how blind they seemed. And I remember the feeling of being loved by God and being amazed by that.
I also remember the feeling when certain problems changed my viewpoints over the years. I have strived to maintain the good and let go the bad. I am comfortable with believing and not believing in God at the same time. I just seek God. That's it. No specific human version. This has its problems for sure. I readily admit that.
Sorry for the length, but I wanted to share with you my feelings concerning your post. It kind of hurt my feelings a bit, to be quite honest, but not in a way that made me angry. It just made me sad. But I feel good now, and I wish you, me and all of us the very, very best in our seeking, our finding, our losing, and our seeking again. I think in the end we must rely on God to find us.
Holy crap! Congrats to you both! I still haven't met the first little biggn'! We need to remedy that!
And love. (I know that's not a sentence...most of mine aren't.)
The ONLY tool against a 100% atheist is love. It is the only way to stump them. Most of our emotions can be explained away by science and evolution. Love, hate, and passion cannot. No matter what anyone says, you cannot just explain that love is a mixture of neurons that fire when blah blah blah and cause a euphoria blah blah blah. It doesn't hold water with me. Even the BEST explanation of "love" does not explain WHY we have that emotion above all the other creatures on the planet (that we know of).
I think the great book of Dawkins attempts to explain away the "love" issue, but it did a pretty bad job. Again...no "why!" There is another book that I really liked called "Blue Like Jazz" where the author (who's name escapes me) talks about this topic. It's a christian book, but it doesn't have the "if you don't believe, you are an idiot" mentality. It's a short book, but it gave me a whole new perspective on religion...or I guess on understanding a true believer's mentality. In the book he even talks about how the only "non" religious people he has ever met who come close to "getting it" are the hippies. Because they believed in love.
So in a way...maybe John Lennon WAS a prophet...and Charles Manson was right! :)
Again, though, good news on the package you'll be getting in November! The feeling you get after you see your child...that's God to me.
--Kyle
It was my fault in the first place that we ventured off-topic into the realm of seekers and finders, so I apologize for that. I do want to address a few things that I think certainly warrant a response, then I'll probably not speak a whole lot more to this topic until a little later on.
Steven,
"I think that you are a seeker. But I would suggest that you consider yourself "a finder" in this blog rather than "a seeker" at this point. Is that fair?"
I continue to seek a stronger relationship and I study as much as free time allows, but for the purpose of this blog, "finder" is somewhat appropriate. Again, if we use the love comparison, I believe that I understand what love is, but have no comprehension of how deep it can be and I know that there are others who have a far greater understanding than I do. I know that I have a great deal to learn.
Keep in mind, too, that I began on the other side of this argument. I argue this side becuase this side makes the most sense to me. And I have an arrogant streak that you wouldn't believe (much diminished today, so you can imagine what it was then). So, I view the evidence that led me to seek as strong evidence; else, I would never have admitted that I was wrong.
"Unfortunately it can also lend itself to a lack of "plasticity" in a point of view. This can lead to the suffering of others, in the form of political oppression, a certain "poverty of experience" as many worthwhile things in life will be considered incompatible with the current point of view, and a level of defensiveness against the "them" which an "us" point of view requires."
I understand your fears here, but I don't believe Christianity is oppressive and I don't think that you have to have certain political affiliations to be Christian (as taught in the Bible... as practiced: that may be a different story). I know that to many of you, that is a big thing to throw out there. I will spend some time on this subject, and obviously it will be near the end. I apologize there, but what else can I do?
One last thing...
I certainly never intend to diminish your seeking. There are a few qualifiers in the Biblical directive to seek:
1. Perhaps foremeost: There is no timeline for finding.
2. There are several references to seeking "fully" or "with your whole heart". When you seek God, do you begin with constraints? (example: I will seek a God who doesn't ever send people to hell, becuase I cannot believe in hell)
3. The Bible does reference finding. Do you seek with the understanding that He can never be found? If you do, can you be seeking truly?
From prior conversations, I would have never assumed that you would be hurt to learn that I think we have sought something different. As someone who is not a Universalist, I seek one truth. My understanding is that you believe everyone holds part of the truth and no one who truly seeks is truly wrong. I believe that the Bible is true (and therefore that the God described therein is true) and I know that you do not. I had always assumed that we were pretty clear on our differences, but I apologize if the description I gave caught you off guard.
"1. Perhaps foremeost: There is no timeline for finding."
Hopefully so! ;)
2. There are several references to seeking "fully" or "with your whole heart". When you seek God, do you begin with constraints? (example: I will seek a God who doesn't ever send people to hell, becuase I cannot believe in hell)"
I understand your point about looking at facts straight in the face. I question myself constantly to see if I have any prejudices when approaching God, But I think we all have constraints in our seeking. Of course we try to eliminate them, but we're human. As to the hell comment, it could apply to anything, for instance "I can't believe in God if I find out He's a dog". Something like that. I won't get in to Hell too much (or ever I hope!) here, because I will continue to cover the subject on my blog. I'll just say that a person who doesn't believe in hell (or at least the most common view of it) may do so because of what they have found out through experience and research, rather than because of a pre-existing prejudice. Or if they have a prejudice, it is because of experience and research.
3. The Bible does reference finding. Do you seek with the understanding that He can never be found? If you do, can you be seeking truly?
The Bible also references "now we see as in a glass darkly" I like your first idea - that we cannot, by our nature, understand God in this life. However, I hope all our understanding grows. Is the fact that I love mystery too much a valid criticism of my philosophy? Perhaps.
I appreciate your communication - I am sorry to have worried you in any way, but I took the cue from you to show a little personal feeling and thinking in the midst of our excellent (mostly) dispassionate discussions. I was glad of the opportunity, actually. I hope I didn't provoke you with statements like "the fault in Randy's philosophy" and blah blah. I've been reading philosophy lately and they always talk about each other that way. "such and such's philosophy fails in such and such way" and so on.
As to our different views of the Bible - yes you're right. They are different. I look forward to discussing that more in the future!
And yadda yadda yadda
Congratulations again on your excellent news!
Randy said:
I will be taking a slight turn from “evidence for God” and instead will focus this week on “evidence against atheism”
What would evidence against God look like? The way these arguments have been set up, it seems that “evidence against God” is a phrase that makes no sense. Is there any information that would lead you to abandon your position?
I ask this because in my seeking experience, I have come to notice little whirlpools of unfalsifiable positions. If one grants a proposition as true (by whatever method) and this proposition only gets more true no matter what information comes to light – a positive feedback loop is created; sometimes making theses whirl pools look like black holes.
Randy said:
I will be taking a slight turn from “evidence for God” and instead will focus this week on “evidence against atheism”
I don't think we've really covered any "evidence for God" yet. This will include human emotion, intuition and stories revealed through ancient texts. I believe that Randy has been trying to create a "God-shaped hole" in our current naturalistic knowledge in order to plug in the coming evidence.
Maybe I should have said "the idea of evidence for God", since that is the manner in which I was presenting it earlier...
Valid observations.
Amend my questions to read "the idea of evidence against God."
Do you believe that the idea of evidence against God is sound? Does it make sense? Can there be evidence against God? What would it look like?
What type of evidence ought to lead one to abandon their theistic beliefs? Is the idea of this type of evidence even possible?
Skyhook,
This is a truly superb question. Could there be evidence against God? I do believe that evidence for a static universe would be evidence against God. A prevalence of spontaneous new life and/or macroevolution would also be evidence against God. One could never prove that God does not exist in the same way that one could never prove that the Multiple Universe Theory is wrong (unless perhaps God showed up and said it was wrong). Does this mean, though, that we should forego seeking because of falsifiability?
I think God could create a static universe if she wanted to. Hell, I think God could create 100 static universes in six weeks. I also think God could poof! new life and new species into existence if it was her will. After all, if she did it once before, why would I think it was not her doing it again? That is the beauty of God; being capable of anything means being able to absorb any fact as a strengthening pillar.
I know you say that evidence of a static universe or speciation would be evidence against God, but several trump cards remain in the deck. After all, God works in mysterious ways and if you don’t understand how God could have done it, perhaps you are not seeking with all of your heart. Or maybe it is not God’s will for you to know. Most importantly, the nature of omnipotence allows for the creation of static universes and a slow, gradual change from reptile to bird – does it not?
I do not think we should forego seeking, however I do think we should take a closer look at our usage of “seek”. If it turns out that we are just confirming a conclusion that is not subject to disconfirmation, then are we truly seeking?
If macroevolution does indeed provide evidence against God, then I think we might be getting somewhere. Just like the big bang predicts background radiation, macroevolution predicts nested hierarchies of species. I expect in the coming weeks we will be looking at molecular evidence, fossil evidence, and other evidence of common ancestry in an effort to determine if speciation did (and does) occur.
Do you believe it is reasonable for a physicist to hold the Multiple Universe Theory as truth?
That last question is good, Skyhook.
One of the advantages of believing that God cannot be proven inherently is that God cannot be disproven either. I would ask Randy if his faith is dependent on an expanding or static universe. What if tomorrow, someone realizes an error in calculation and the universe is static. Does it change anything that is currently happening or that has happened? I would say no. Theories about the origins of the universe are like phantoms in our mind.
Of course, one could run amuck with "beliefs" so what do we measure faith with?
-Personal Experience
-The Personal Experience of others (reading, listening, studying, finding a greater context to place oneself in)
-Analyzing the benefits and detriments of a faith, according to the best evidence and knowledge of our time.
Ghandi's four criteria for a reasonable faith are great as well.
Skyhook,
No offense to your article links, but I like the questions that come directly from you better.
I thought the Anthropic article and the Abiogenesis article were pretty good. I am not so sure about the Hawking/Quantum article – but it served a purpose – getting us to consider quantum probabilities and wave functions.
I like my questions better too! ;)
Thanks for all the congrats! We are so excited! I do however seem to need to sleep whenever my son does though, so my "blog time" is having to be cut short. Hopefully I can catch up soon.
Skyhook:
Regarding "evidence against God," the point would be that if everything of this universe seemed to have a naturalistic explanation, that would have to count as evidence against God... proof, no. But evidence.
"Do you believe it is reasonable for a physicist to hold the Multiple Universe Theory as truth?"
This is a tough question... Infinite God versus infintite universes. All aspects of the universe are finite, so it seems counterintuitive that there exists some infinite, uneternal, natural collection of universes. Still, I can't really conceptualize eternity either, but I believe there is something beyond the universe. MVT explains everything. Heck, in some universe, there would even be a guy running around 2000 years ago performing miracles and claiming to be God. If you want to MVT it, be my guest. It stinks that we exist in one of the universes that houses evidence for God, though.
Steven:
"I would ask Randy if his faith is dependent on an expanding or static universe. What if tomorrow, someone realizes an error in calculation and the universe is static. Does it change anything that is currently happening or that has happened?"
I don't have an answer to your question. This is where the evidence points....
Steven - I would ask Randy if his faith is dependent on an expanding or static universe. What if tomorrow, someone realizes an error in calculation and the universe is static. Does it change anything that is currently happening or that has happened?"
Randy - "I don't have an answer to your question. This is where the evidence points.... "
Yet your main argument thus far is based on probability, which supposes hypothetical alternatives to the reality we know. Going completely with what we know, or have evidence for, is like the anthropic principle in philosophy, meaning that there is only one universe to observe, so we can't know hypotheticals, therefore all probability arguments are rendered moot.
Randy said:
“…if everything of this universe seemed to have a naturalistic explanation, that would have to count as evidence against God”
Let us assume for a moment that everything of this universe has a natural explanation (potentially). That does not mean that we, as insignificant beings with perceptual traits preserved on a “need to know” type basis rather than some perception of “Ultimate Reality” criteria, understand every natural explanation. Remember, the history of our knowledge is one of: not knowing, making discoveries, generating new questions; repeat. It is a process that is incomplete and will most likely never be completed (Gödel’s incompleteness theorems go a long way to naturally explain why we will never have an explanation for everything. For now, we can say that the process of discovering natural explanations is far from complete). Assuming that everything of this universe has a natural explanation, we should still expect gaps in our knowledge. This is to say that some things will seem to escape natural explanation, pending further discovery. Even if it is in fact the case that everything of this universe has a natural explanation.
Taking the above paragraph into account, what type of predictions might a Theory of Natural Universe make about the nature of our knowledge gaps, or where we might currently find things that seem to escape natural explanation? First, we would expect simpler events to be more likely to have an understood natural explanation than more complex events. Second, we would expect events that are relevant to our survival and reproduction to be more likely to have an understood natural explanation than random events. Third, we would expect proximate events (in time and space) to be more likely to have an understood natural explanation than distal events. Is this what we find when we examine the evidence?
An exhaustive catalogue of natural explanations is not within the scope of this comment so forgive me if I ask you to consider such without direct citation. Science has been our candle in the dark, illuminating unknowns at a geometrically increasing pace as time passes. Our discoveries have not come in a random fashion, but with simpler problems being solved initially and then being applied towards more complex problems (…standing on the shoulders of giants). There may be the occasional exception, but those are just that, exceptions. Looking at the science that offers natural explanations for events concerning sustaining human life, safety, and reproduction; major progress has been made – with no indication that a supernatural explanation is going to be required. Especially on the level of practicality where the most nuanced details are not essential. And finally, space and time. We have better natural explanations for local, current events than we do for very distant, very historical events.
If you will notice the gaps that you have been pointing out occur at the very least 3.5 - 13 billion years ago, at a location that could very well be anywhere, and are of considerable complexity. A Theory of Natural Universe would expect such gaps. Is there any reason that a Theory of Supernatural Universe would expect “evidence” of the supernatural to appear only distally in time/space and of high complexity?
Since we cannot be expected to have a natural explanation for everything, how much natural explanation is need to be considered enough to be evidence against God? By what standard are we to judge?
The idea of God is being granted a special position. “If X cannot explain Y, then some Z must be involved” does not allow us to label the variable Z as God. This is because multiverses (or some other open ended proposition (SOOEP)) cannot be ruled out as a possibility for variable Z. If there are phenomena in this universe that are so incredibly improbable as to cast known methods of natural explanation into doubt, infinite universes (or SOOEP) can solve this problem without invoking the concept of God. This is why it is reasonable to remain agnostic and it is unreasonable to assert infinite universes or infinite god as truth.
The scientific and logical reasons you use to decide that Multi Universe Theory should not be regarded as truth can be applied to show why the idea of God should remain in the realm of the merely possible, and not truth. Since truth is absolute and we have no way of differentiating between infinite universes or infinite god, reason dictates that we remain agnostic.
Skyhook said- The scientific and logical reasons you use to decide that Multi Universe Theory should not be regarded as truth can be applied to show why the idea of God should remain in the realm of the merely possible, and not truth.
Absolutely! At week 8, based on everything discussed so far, God is a possibility.
Edit: Fixed a typo
Kristin,
God was a mere possibility before week 1 even began. Nothing has changed in this department. We are at week 8 and not only is God a possibility, so is Multiple Universe Theory, Unicorn Metabolic Waste Theory, and Natural Universe Theory (among others).
I am disheartened to see that is all you took from my response. I feel as I imagine Mary felt when she explained to Lloyd (in Dumb and Dumber) that his chances are not 1 in 100 but more like 1 in a million and he responds with “So you're tellin' me there's a chance!”
I just posted a BUNCH of good stuff and the page had an error...I hate the internet sometimes...
I'm WAY too lazy to post it again, so I'll try to do it some other time.
--Kyle
"Assuming that everything of this universe has a natural explanation, we should still expect gaps in our knowledge. This is to say that some things will seem to escape natural explanation, pending further discovery."
Mmmm.... yeah.... but generally science is about building knowledge. It is rare that scientific discoveries are tossed aside. Historically, you can point to ideas like ether, geocentric universe, and flat earth; still, those concepts are the exceptions.
"This is why it is reasonable to remain agnostic and it is unreasonable to assert infinite universes or infinite god as truth."
At this point, I have no qualms with that statement. 44 weeks to go...
"The scientific and logical reasons you use to decide that Multi Universe Theory should not be regarded as truth..."
When did I do that? So far, it's still on the board. Really, it will always be on the board until the bitter end. At some point (once we start to examine historical evidence), it will become increasingly difficult to believe that we exist in the one universe where all of these things point to God, but for now... like I said, feel free to MVT it. If you're really a stickler for MVT, you can believe it even IF you believe that all evidence points to God. You can choose to believe that you just exist in the one universe where natural "miracles" took place and someone claiming to be God lived a sinless life. According to MVT, at least one of the universes will see that happen.
Of all the gin joints in all the world...
Science is about building knowledge, from the ground up. Built as if it were with a series of cascading cranes, each one based on established ground – not with a skyhook. ;)
I guess you did not explicitly decide that MVT should not be regarded as truth; I deduced it from your statements indicating your commitment to physics. If I mischaracterize your position, it is not intentional. Either way, the confusion seems to be cleared up when you indicate you have no qualms remaining agnostic with respect to MVT rather than assert it as truth.
Agnostic is all I am talking about here. Agnosticism does not remove possibilities from the board. However, I must note that it is not all that special to be considered possible.
A funny thing to ponder. If MVT is true, what is the probability of one MVT universe existing?
And yet you won't let us ponder the "if God is so powerful" koan...
...pick and choose much?
:)
--Kyle
Randy, I read just about all of this. Quite a bit of reading. Thanks for incorporating science and religion together like this. it is something I don't do very often. I think it is a great way to feel more connected to God (to think about the things you and the commentators on this blog think about). I do not feel that science is the ONLY way to discover God, but it is certainly a great tool. Thanks man!
Post a Comment