I welcome comments and questions following each week’s post, and as I read these comments, I’m often I’m struck by how little people seem to agree upon. The reality, however, is that we tend to agree on a great many things that we simply don’t acknowledge. One theme that I’ve noted both here and in watching debates between religious leaders and atheist authorities is that science is rather commonly viewed as being in opposition to religion. In the weeks leading up to this post, though, what I’ve found is that we all generally accept the scientific facts; we just don’t accept one another’s conclusions. I am certain that both theists and atheists have a tendency to cast aside science that doesn’t accord with their beliefs, but I find that theists are often criticized for eschewing science simply by proclaiming a belief in God.
I recall a class 14 years ago in which one of my instructors was asking whether we believed that dinosaurs once populated the earth. I don’t recall where the question was leading; however, I do recall his perplexed expression when a rather resounding “No” came from a girl in the back of the class. Given his abrupt change in demeanor, he was obviously expecting the perfunctory “Yes” that generally followed that question. “Why”, he asked, “would you not believe in the existence of dinosaurs given so much fossil evidence?” The reply (one I’ll never forget) was, “I think God put dinosaur fossils on Earth to test our faith.” The funny thing is that if you believe in a supremely powerful, intelligent God, you must believe that she could be correct; still, she was obviously casting aside scientific discoveries in order to preserve her notions of religion. I don’t believe this is a reasonable course of action. Nor do I believe that you’ll find a claim of this ilk by reading this blog.
Last week, I asked several questions regarding how naturalistic development could yield some of the traits our society values today. I indirectly claimed that many traits we laud in America were opposed to the Darwinian philosophy of “survival of the fittest”. It was demonstrated to me that you can indeed explain these traits – especially if you assume that an act like heroism is really a misapplication of an early human “saving-people-close-to-me = good” philosophy – via naturalism. I would presume that the majority of people would agree that my religious views are at odds with the scientific view of morality via evolution. I, however, would disagree. I don’t disagree that the two ideas are opposed to one another; rather, I disagree with is the notion that non-religious = scientific.
You’ll probably never hear the phrase “scientific theory of creationism” employed, but most won’t bat an eye at the above phrase: “scientific view of morality via evolution”. If you encounter a reasonable argument for naturalism or for creationism, you’ll likely see that both employ the same scientific evidence and yet the argument may still be viewed as a religion-versus-science argument. Science is not at odds with God. In fact, theists should be the most adamant scientists on the planet; after all, if you believe in God, science gives you the tools to better understand God’s creation.
Science is and always will be a search for natural causes, but what I’ve noticed is that the quest for natural causes is becoming a religion unto itself. This religion has quietly permeated our thinking so that we internally characterize science as being contradictory to a belief in God. Quite simply, it’s not. Science is a tool. Famed atheist Richard Dawkins talks of the absurdity associated with theism (analogizing belief in God to belief in a giant, supernatural teacup). He’s speaks to the supremacy of science, but proclaims that he is all but certain that God does not exist. What a silly, unscientific assertion! If one can theorize a natural explanation, that does not mean that all supernatural explanations are rubbish.
If, for instance, two people trust in the Big Bang Theory and one concludes that the theory points to a creator while the other disagrees, neither is operating in a more or less “scientific” way than the other. The scientific evidence of the Big Bang is agreed to. It is our reasoning that differs. Science is wraught with gaps. Often times, those gaps are filled through a better scientific understanding. Sometimes, however, no definitive explanation can be offered. It is at these times that we turn to theory and reason. If reasoning leads us to the supernatural, so be it.
Over the past several weeks, we’ve looked at some of the reasons that I believe science yields evidence for God. I want to be clear, though:
I do not hold to the view that anyone apart from God can prove the existence of God.
Ultimately, you must exercise faith. If you believe in God, you must know that science will never prove God. If you don’t believe in God, you must exercise your faith that naturalistic theories provide sufficient explanation for man’s existence. That being said, I believe that we can all agree that some brands of faith are more reasonable than others. Sometimes you may exercise faith in spite of evidence (e.g. I have faith that my abusive husband won’t hit me), while other times you may exercise faith because of evidence (e.g. I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow). I will continue to expound upon why I believe that faith in God is the most reasonable faith based on the available evidence. Hopefully, we can begin to move away from the idea that religion and science are at odds and attempt to construct the most reasonable model.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
32 comments:
Randy, I agree. I think that science is by definition the search for naturalistic descriptions/explanations for our world. Religion is the search for intuitive knowledge based ultimately on 1st person experience.
I think the two can inform each other. Science can give us reasonable bounds for our pursuits of intuitive knowledge. Religions can give the pursuit of science 1st person meaning. (of course, many people find meaning without the language of religion, but i just don't think it's all that different at the heart of it. It's the expression, the details, that change.)
I think when we use religion (mythos) like science we are brewing trouble (policy decisions based on ancient moral codes rather than observation, etc.).
I think when we use science (logos) like religion, we can also find trouble (too much 1st person attachment to certain ideas, possibly trying to "reduce" experiences through physical description without acknowledging our inherent participation in all, denying our reliance on certain axioms to move forward with reasoning,etc. )
Nice post. I too, have often resisted any inherent dichotomy between science and religion. But they can be friends or enemies, depending on how they're used.
I forgot - on the scale of 1-7 with 1 being absolute belief in God and 7 being the absolute belief that there is no God, Dawkins calls himself a 6. This is because absolute certainty is not reasonable - really on any matter.
He prefers "atheist" to "agnostic" because the latter give the connotation of wavering between two equal possibilities. I prefer Skyhook's statement that he is agnostic "but that doesn't mean 50/50".
I'm not a fan of Dawkins tone - it's "fighting fire with fire". It's just not my way. But hopefully it's good for the dialogue.
Dawkins did leave the door open to change his mind, but you don't have to read far into a Dawkins book/article to know that he preaches against the absurdity that is faith, even though he exercises an extreme amount of faith in naturalism - whether proven or unproven. That's the key point I want to make.
nice post randy. very clear and to the point.
I think the only thing I can add to this is the concept that I believe Dawkins (the fire with fire guy that I am also not too fond of) proposed:
If a group of scientists gathered on a certain day every week and chanted things like "I believe in gravity! I belive that if I drop something, it will fall to the floor at 9.8 meters per second, squared! I believe in the laws of thermodynamics! (ect...)" that I would start to doubt how much they really believed those things.
Not as much of a point, but more of a funny thought to go along with the science/religion thing. I also think that the two can go hand in hand. And I think I was there for that dinosaur comment. ;)
Needless to say, when we put too much stock in one or the other, we are doomed to be let down. I can only feel bad for the religious people who have had to alter interpretations time and time again just because science went and proved something in their faith was just flat out wrong...such as the dinosaurs. You have to admit it happens more often that way than the other way around. Other than the "love" emotion argument, christians get a harsh slap of science every couple of years or so...
"Nothing lived here before man!"
"...actually, we found a LOT of stuff here before us..."
"Oh...well, I'm sure that...umm...well, maybe God put that stuff there to test our faith."
"No...that's silly."
"well then we left out the dinosaur stuff because it was God's first draft and it didn't count anyway."
"okay..I'll accept that."
"Jurassic Park rules!"
And we all get on with our lives! ;)
--Kyle
What is missing here is the scientific principle of parsimony. This refers to the preference for the explanation requiring the least amount of assumptions. The scientific method has something to say beyond just observation; it has something to say about conclusions as well. The conclusion with fewer assumptions is more scientific than the conclusion with more assumptions.
When no definitive explanation can be offered, it is unreasonable to accept any explanation as definitive. Taking on unnecessary assumptions to reach a conclusion that was chosen prior to a review of the evidence (or chosen because there is a gap in the evidence) flies in the face of reason. Even if you do not want to view parsimony as part of science, you will still have to face it through reason.
Above, you talk about disagreeing with “non-religious = scientific”. I am not aware that this equation is being made here. The point is not that a non-religious explanation is a scientific explanation. The point is that a reasonable non-religious explanation offers reasonable doubt about the necessity of a religious explanation.
Over the last few weeks you have been presenting the reasons why you believe science yields evidence for God, but every step of the way you have been given a natural explanation that requires fewer assumptions. We fully understand that this is not about proving the existence of God; but is about deciding if it is reasonable to doubt the necessity of God.
Kyle,
There is no doubt that religious doctrine and unfounded belief has resulted in embarrassment for the church throughout history. With rare exception, these doctrines tend to be founded upon the idea that humans should be at the center of the universe (both philosophically and physically). We can look at the infamous example with Galileo where heliocentric theory was hotly contested by the church. There is no Biblical precedent for assuming that geocentricism should be true; still, the church believed that God would undoubtedly see to it that the universe would literally revolve around His greatest creation. If you crack open the Bible, you’ll see again and again that when humans fashion a belief system that places the importance of humanity near that of God, they tend to end up with egg on their faces. I agree wholeheartedly that the ultimate bane for belief in Christianity is Christians and the arrogance historically exhibited by the church is but another example of this. As to worship, Dawkins will forever be a great purveyor of analogies, but there is simply no naturalistic thing analogous to God.
Skyhook,
You’re skewing things a bit here when you’re speaking to a lack of parsimony. Science takes us to point A. Reason guides us to point B. Reason is not synonymous with science. When we look at the Big Bang example, Einstein’s equations coupled with observation lead us to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. End of science. End of definitive conclusions. From here, we ask the question, “What does it mean for the universe to have a beginning?” This isn’t a scientific question. You can fathom a natural explanation and I can fathom a religious explanation. That will always be the case. Asimov just said that there was a chance it would come from nothing, and since it’s here it must have come from nothing. Hawking tried to expound on this with a model based loosely on quantum mechanical physics. It’s a neat theory that can never be tested based on the assumption that something must have happened.
“…every step of the way you have been given a natural explanation that requires fewer assumptions.”
This is where I disagree with you wholeheartedly. When we spoke to the beginnings of the universe, I heard assumptions based on a “different time”, on “different physics” associated only with the first few moments of the universe, on matter and energy originating spontaneously from nothingness, on the universe existing as a “vastly dense, vastly energetic state” for an unspecified time (or non-time as it were) and then exploding into the universe we’ve come to know and love, on multiverses, etc. I hear one theory that addresses one issue, then another theory that combats both creation and some previous naturalist theory. Material theories are all over the board and haven’t proved to be any more reasonable. I’m sure we’ll debate this further. Have to make this a quick post.
We had a parsimony tree in our backyard when I was a kid… I hated mowing the lawn because they would smash and get all over my shoes.
Randy,
Remember that there has been no evidence offered for God yet. Therefore, where do your creation theories come from? 1. Humans' tendency to see everything in terms of being made (like we would make it) ? 2. Ancient mans' stories about creation (see 1.)?
Inserting God into the beginning of everything creates a bigger, more unexplainable problem than what we already have. If we see a watch and assume a watchmaker, then who made the watchmaker?
Basically, assuming the watch "just happened" is less unreasonable than assuming the watchmaker "just happened" - because the watchmaker would be much more complex.
If we look at the odds of us being here, then what are the odds of God being here?
I agree with you that "God" is just not a scientific question, unless He lives in our universe and abides by natural laws.
I think Western religion has really mixed up logos and mythos a lot. Eastern religion/philosophy doesn't seem to have the same problem. (huge generalization alert.....)
Because really, we're not questioning the existence of God, in my book. We're questioning if God IS the God of the Bible. Even though we haven't addressed that specifically, even our starting point of "proving" God through logic (logos) is decidedly Western in its argument. When asked to "prove" God, a Daoist might just say "Look around you. Feel. Look. Listen. This is God" or something more mystical, but still very real.
Perhaps.....
Science is observation, and
faith is perspective.
I just hate trees in general when I have to mow...or play disc golf.
Anyway, yeah, I'm not a FAN of Dawkins in any way, shape, or form. I think that in my little world of half-butted (that's just not fun to censor) study of religion, I use him as I do most religions and theologists...I pick a few of the points that I like, use the analogies that make it easier for me to understand, and add them to my ever shrinking arsenal of material.
I say ever shrinking because as I get older, I'm starting to care less and less about what anyone else thinks at all. In a way, that makes me sad, because at least when I cared, I could respect other people for what they thought and try to gain something from their beliefs...but now I just don't really care. I find myself zoning out when people talk about their new life changing "BLAH" be it diet, religion, philosophy, or whatever. I'm sick of it all. I'm like a consumer in a store full of products that are very pretty and they all do the same thing but I'm trying to tell the salesmen that I don't really need one, but thanks anyway. I just came in for a vitamin water and a pack of spark plugs. (walmart has EVERYTHING!)
Sorry...tangent.
"As to worship, Dawkins will forever be a great purveyor of analogies, but there is simply no naturalistic thing analogous to God."
Thems some mighty strong words, feller! Care to add in the oh so internet famous "IMHO" to that? I mean, I'm not sure that a scientist like yourself can say that with absolute certainty, can you? BTW, I was watching Ghostbusters the other day and I thought of you when Venkman (Bill Murry) said "back off man! I'm a scientist!"
I mean...after all...maybe God is an analogy for something else that is far beyond our comprehension.
One thing I would like to just sorta...hit from this:
You said somewhere that you can search for God but you have to search with the knowledge that you will not find Him. Yet if I searched for the keys to my ferari, knowing full well that I will never find them, I would be locked up...and someone would steal my ferari, I'm sure of it. Why, then, is it sane or logical to search for God when the ending will be the same either way?
Also, I meant to add more to my post but it was REALLY late and I was VERY tired, but to expand on this:
"Needless to say, when we put too much stock in one or the other, we are doomed to be let down."
I took a good chunk of time bashing religion and I meant to point out that BOTH sides are doomed to be let down. The biggest difference is that religion gets let down but still has light at the end of that tunnel. A guy like Dawkins or someone else who puts all his eggs in the "there is nothing after this life" basket has the possibility of being let down in a HUGE way after he sleeps for the last time.
I mean...GOSH that would really suck.
--Kyle
From the other side of things - since creation occurred before natural laws were in place, any story of our origins will be inherently supernatural.
Also, I would never assumed that we were not created by something more complex than ourselves. But known evidence does not seem to point that way. However, if something were more complex, then perhaps we wouldn't understand or perceive any evidence.
However, the notion that something must have always existed seems true. This is because saying "no" to that implies a blank slate before existence, but "before existence" is a paradox. So does "always" mean "no beginning"? No. If yes, why? There's no reason. No natural laws = no reason/logic/logos.
"...there has been no evidence offered for God yet."
Proof. There has been no proof. You can submit the beauty of the universe as evidence if you would like. I believe that the evidence offered thus far is compelling and I've worked rather diligently to explain why I believe this is so. Sometimes the evidence for God is evidence against materialism. Don't discount such evidence.
"If we see a watch and assume a watchmaker, then who made the watchmaker?"
The difference here is that the watch lies in time (tee hee). The watchmaker, be it God or something else, does not. Who are we to say that the watchmaker needs to be "made"? Further, if you use this argument, it applies to all theories and basically precludes every explanation. You may as well find a good book becuase nothing you see here will ever be compelling (from me or from anyone else).
Also, I'm a logos type of person.
Kyle,
"You said somewhere that you can search for God but you have to search with the knowledge that you will not find Him."
I don't think I said this... in fact, I think I said "seek and ye shall find" a few times. You won't find God through science alone. I think that much is certain. You shouldn't expect to explain the supernatural using only naturalistic tools. Truth be told, the idea of this blog is to compel you (royal) to seek. I would hope that when you begin to question the cessation of causality (see universe posts) and the odds of humanity without some sort of catalyst, you'll begin to wonder some about that catalyst. Some see naturalistic explanations as perfectly reasonable or assume that we will find the answer eventually like we always do. I don't. That's what prompted me to seek.
If you want to *reason* about faith, and offer a reasoned (and reason-responsive) defense of faith as an extra category of belief worthy of special consideration, I'm eager to participate. I certainly grant the existence of the phenomena of faith; what I want to see is a reasoned ground for taking faith as a way of getting to the truth, and not, say, just as a way people comfort themselves and each other (a worthy function that I do take seriously). But you must not expect me to go along with your defense of faith as a path to truth if at any point you appeal to the very dispensation you are supposedly trying to justify. Before you appeal to faith when reason has you backed into a corner, think about whether you really want to abandon reason when reason is on your side. You are sightseeing with a loved one in a foreign land, and your loved one is brutally murdered in front of your eyes. At the trial it turns out that in this land friends of the accused may be called as witnesses for the defense, testifying about their faith in his innocence. You watch the parade of his moist-eyed friends, obviously sincere, proudly proclaiming their undying faith in the innocence of the man you saw commit the terrible deed. The judge listens intently and respectfully, obviously more moved by this outpouring than by all the evidence presented by the prosecution. Is this not a nightmare? Would you be willing to live in such a land? Or would you be willing to be operated on by a surgeon you tells you that whenever a little voice in him tells him to disregard his medical training, he listens to the little voice? I know it passes in polite company to let people have it both ways, and under most circumstances I wholeheartedly cooperate with this benign agreement. But we're seriously trying to get at the truth here, and if you think that this common but unspoken understanding about faith is anything better than socially useful obfuscation to avoid mutual embarrassment and loss of face, you have either seen much more deeply into the issue that any philosopher ever has (for none has ever come up with a good defense of this) or you are kidding yourself.
"From the other side of things - since creation occurred before natural laws were in place, any story of our origins will be inherently supernatural."
Steven,
Thank you from the bottom of my heart for this statement.
To address your other point, "before time" is indeed an impossible concept to fully understand. I like to think of it as "confined by time" or "not confined by time". Time leads to cause and effect. So, outside time would be outside cause. Isn't the fact that you accept, based on science, that something eternal exists evidence for God? Again, not proof, but evidence.
Daniel,
I commented before about the concept of "blind faith". I know that there is a Buddhist idea that closely ties faith and hope (thanks, Steven). I think, however, that the two are profoundly different things. I believe that faith should be based on reason and experience (see the abusive husband versus rising sun examples). I welcome your comments.
Webster: Faith is a firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
American Heritage: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Infoplease: belief that is not based on proof
Why redefine faith?
Randy,
Anytime, my man! Just some more thoughts. We are partners in finding more ways to think about it all.
"before time" is a paradox. "outside of time" is a concept that is utterly beyond us. I think it is a great idea. But it's not a necessary idea. There is no reason for there to be something beyond the beginning of this universe. It goes against our common sense that the universe would just begin (from nothing), but our common sense is completely derived from the universe's current state - something that didn't exist at a point in the past.
I would say that "outside of time (or eternal)" and "a beginning out of nothing" are both equally illogical. In some ways that can even mean the same thing - as "outside of time and space" could be interpreted as "not real (according to any definition of reality)." So in both ways, the cause of the universe is not real.
Also, the concept of "outside of time" seems only necessary to accommodate a previous notion of God. Basically, I think "outside of time" is an idea ,that we can't comprehend, created to bypass the watchmaker problem. But "outside of time" and God are kind of like the same thing, in that they are still assumptions. It's like saying " the watch required a maker, but the watchmaker didn't because he lives in a land where things aren't made." It's a pure invention (from a logos perspective only of course!)
It's all speculation, pushing the boundaries of human understanding.
I'm like you, Randy. quick comments these days. I wish I had more time to edit, and I know I repeat myself, but it's 5-15 minute bursts for me with the family and all!
Daniel,
No one is redefining. You skipped the first definition (at list as far as what is listed on dictionary.com)... the one that I've been using here:
"confidence or trust in a person or thing"
Confidence is gained. So long as we're all on the same page, there shouldn't be any issues. Just know that when I use "faith" the above definition is the one I'm working from.
From the same dictionary.com
2. belief that is not based on proof
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion
5.a system of religious belief
The philosopher Ronald de Soma once memorably described philosophical theology as "intellectual tennis without a net," and I readily allow that I have indeed been assuming without comment or question up to now that the net of rational judgment was up. But we can lower it if you really want to. It's your serve. Whatever you serve, suppose I return service rudely as follows: "What you say implies that God is a ham sandwich wrapped in tinfoil. That's not much of a God to worship!" If you then volley back, demanding to know how I can logically justify my claim that your serve has such a preposterous implication, I will reply: "Oh, do you want the net up for my returns, but not for your serves? Either the net stays up, or it stays down. If the net is down, there are no rules and anybody can say anything, a mug's game if there ever was one. I have been giving you the benefit of the assumption that you would not waste your own time or mine by playing with the net down.
Again, I defined faith before as that which I quoted. Since there are 5 definitions, someone has to define which we use, that's all. I spoke before to "reasonable faith" versus "blind faith" (which I also defined). I don't want to devote too much time discussing which term we use. Feel free to refer to faith(1) or faith(2) whenever you choose. It's all semantics.
If I use "faith" with no parenthetical notation, I am referring to "confidence in...". Confidence is earned/reasoned based on experience and data. In my experience, for instance, I've not known a scientific endeavor to abandon the search for causality. Staying consistent to my experiential knowledge that effects have causes, I reason that there was a cause for the beginning of the universe. I have faith that this is true based on that reasoning. You may reason that there need not be a cause and you may have faith in the idea of a spontaneously-self-generating universe based on experiences with materialistic explanations, science, etc. That's fine.
If you wish to create an either/or scenario of Magic Man vs spontaneously-self-generating universe so be it. I can't force you to reconcile your ignorance when your belief system is built on it. There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.
After Darwin, God's role changes from being the designer of all creatures, great and small, to being the designer of the laws of nature, from which natural selection can unfold, to being just perhaps the chooser of the laws. The fundamental core of contemporary Darwinism, the theory of DNA-based reproduction and evolution, is now beyond dispute among scientists. It demonstrates its power every day, contributing crucially to the explanation of planet-sized facts of geology and meteorology, through middle-sized facts of ecology and agronomy, down to the latest microscopic facts of genetic engineering. It unifies all of biology and the history of our planet into a single grand story. Like Gulliver tied down in Lilliput, it is unbudgeable, not because of some one or two huge chains of argument that might - hope against hope - have weak links in them, but because it is securely tied by thousands of threads of evidence anchoring it to virtually every other area of human knowledge. New discoveries may conceivably lead to dramatic, even "revolutionary" *shifts* in the Darwinian theory, but the hope that it will be "refuted" by some shattering breakthrough is about as reasonable as the hope that we will return to a geocentric vision and discard Copernicus.
I am not sure that you and I understand parsimony to mean the same thing. Could you give an example of a violation of parsimony? Perhaps one relating to the Big Bang?
Also, please do not forget agnostic as a candidate for the most reasonable position. Agnostic, in this case, is the position that agrees with the scientific equations, observations, and theories, but is not willing to take on the excessive assumptions (Steven touched on these) that are required to go “beyond” the big bang.
We agree that science stops fractions of a second after the big bang occurred. But why is it reasonable to abandon the position of agnosticism with respect to “before” the big bang and assume X is a more reasonable position? (X = …god(s)?, God?, unicorn?, flying pasta?, an equation that unifies the four (or more?) forces?, multiverses?, simulation(s)?, unknown/undiscovered universe making process?, …) Why X at all and if X , why is X1 more reasonable than X2, X3… Xn? What are the reasons?
You find the “evidence” presented thus far compelling and Steven and I (and others) find it absent. Not uncompelling, but absent. Offering the beauty of the universe as evidence is arguing from emotion, which you claim to try to avoid. Demonstrating that natural explanations cannot be offered beyond available evidence is evidence of the limits of our knowledge; not evidence for God, or X, or evidence against naturalism/materialism. I have made the case that these boundaries are expected of a natural worldview, and you have merely asserted this as evidence against naturalism. You need present the reasons why such limits are not to be expected and are to be viewed as evidence against the natural worldview.
If you are able to present good reasons why these limits are evidence against a natural worldview and we are playing intellectual tennis with the net up and you choose take evidence against naturalism to be evidence for God, then you must accept evidence for naturalism as evidence against God.
"Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là" [“I have no need for that hypothesis.” Pierre-Simon Laplace’s response when asked why he had not mentioned God in his book of astronomy.]
Great, Daniel. Who are you arguing against again? Did I miss the evolution post?
You don't want to talk about faith, you seek to redefine it to suit your needs.
You don't want to talk about biology/evolution.
What is it that you'd like to talk about Randy?
Using “that which is comprised of matter, antimatter, energy, space, and time (or the elements of Einstein's General Relativity equations)” as our definition for universe, we can use ‘where causation ceases to make sense’ as one way to tell if we have reached the boundary of the universe (see 'time or the elements of Einstein’s…'). By “staying consistent” and bringing causation outside of the universe (or “before” the big bang), the boundary has been blurred. If we bring causation “beyond” the big bang, can we bring any other elements of the universe “beyond” as well? It is more reasonable to remain agnostic rather than taking defining elements of the universe and applying them “beyond” or “before” or “outside” of the universe.
I don’t think science should cease searching for causality, but searching is much different that having faith that X as a causal explanation is true.
Skyhook,
First, I mentioned in one of the universe posts that I didn’t believe universal beauty was compelling evidence for God. I tossed it out as an example of what some might say in this last comment. I apologize if I gave an indication for anything otherwise. For the record: Pretty does not equal God. As before, I acknowledge that saying “I don’t know” is a perfectly reasonable assertion. There is a vast range associated with “I don’t know” and, for me, the evidence for God’s presence when I was in my own “I don’t know” state was more compelling than that for God’s absence. Given the limitations of science, that’s as far as any amount of arguing will ever take us.
“Demonstrating that natural explanations cannot be offered beyond available evidence is evidence of the limits of our knowledge; not evidence for God….”
I do want to challenge the assertion, however, that evidence against materialism/naturalism is not evidence for God. If you believe that, why are you here? Isn’t the only possible evidence for God evidence against naturalism? After all, if there is a naturalistic explanation, the evidence is not evidence for God. There are cases where it is most certainly true that lacking a natural understanding does not automatically point to God. Someone here brought up the example of the water cycle. Ages ago, we had no clue how rain came to be, so many attributed rain to the whims of some god. You and others have argued in the past that this is basically what I’m doing here. I understand your argument and it is compelling on the surface.
The difference I believe is this: we understand a great deal more now and this makes the comparison a bit lackluster. The examples I gave speak to gaps that aren’t necessarily things we need to learn; rather, we know enough about these things to know that a materialist explanation would be improbable or supernatural by definition. I’ve said before that agnosticism is a reasonable position… especially so early on. Still, it is important to note that we aren’t simply speaking to that weird falling water. We’re speaking to life (whose components we can manipulate and understand in the lab), to the universe (whose physical laws we use in every scientific endeavor), to General Relativity (taught as factual scientific knowledge in graduate level courses), etc. We’re not just talking about “gaps”. We’re talking about things that appear to go against what we accept as fact. When things don’t gel with what we know (and we know a great deal), it is reasonable to assume that there is something more.
Thank you for correcting me on the beauty=God thing. I understood it out of context. In return, allow me some clarification. I never asserted that evidence against naturalism cannot be evidence for God. I state that describing limits of natural explanation is not evidence for God. This is because limits are expected and they could be evidence for some X, which may turn out to be something other than God, most likely something natural not yet discovered (as long as we are staying consistent...).
I go on to say that if somehow you are able to show that these limits of natural explanation are evidence against naturalism (and therefore evidence of God and not some other X), and you choose to take evidence against naturalism to be evidence for God, then you must accept evidence for naturalism as evidence against God. Nothing major here, just stating that it is a two-way street.
The reason why I point out this is a two-way street is because I encourage you to examine the explanations that necessarily require God versus the explanations that have no need for this hypothesis. This ratio is greatly lopsided. Also notice that explanations that supposedly require God do not appear randomly throughout, but they tend to appear only distally in time/space and in areas of high complexity (also notice ‘distal in time/space’ is steadily becoming more distal and that what is considered complex has been moving along with science as well). What is it about the God hypothesis that explains this?
I agree that we understand a great deal more than we did in centuries past. This is why the cosmological god of the gaps has been moved all they way to 13+ billion years ago. We can explain things such as weather and planetary motion without invoking God where we once could not. We can explain all sorts of things without God. However, is it reasonable to say we know enough that we are expected to have a complete understanding of a state of such density that it contains the mass of universe in a volume that is minuscule? There is not yet a theoretical framework that is even expected to offer an understanding of such a state. We have not even worked out completely all the implications of black holes and they are micro-microcosms of early conditions of the universe (a tiny, tiny fraction of the mass, similar volume).
Your “we understand a great deal more now than we did then” is a tale that has been told at every step of the scientific march. There is no reason to believe that this time is different. We may know more now than in the past, but there is no reason to believe that in 2009 we should completely understand a state with the mass of the universe in a miniscule volume. There is more to discover, if it is indeed possible to understand such a state.
If A cannot explain B; then some X must be involved. I have no problem with this and I agree that it is reasonable to assume that there is something more. However, it is not reasonable to reduce X to a specific explanation (X1) especially when X1 is an untestable proposition (one example of an X1 might be God). If no possible observation would rule X1 out, then it cannot by itself explain why those events happen in the way they are observed to and not in some other way.
No matter what the configuration of the early universe is, this configuration could be attributed to God. Therefore the God theory cannot explain the particular configuration we observe unless it is supplemented by an independent theory of how God configures universes. If this theory is in turn untestable, we continue on an infinite regress, never arriving at an explanation.
Oh...and one last thing:
Randy, you said about 3 or 4 blogs ago:
"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? "
Number 3 is what I was talking about. While at the same time and in the same comments section you DO say that "Seek me with all your heart and you will find me" and that is what you believe...but number 3 seems to contradict that. Better a number 3 than a dirty number 2! (poop jokes are funny no matter who you are!)
Love ya, brother!
--Kyle
Wow. This is getting all kinds of heated up!!
It's a matter of time before someone starts suicide bombing the other side! :)
/grabs a bucket of popcorn.
//throws bucket to floor remembering that I don't like popcorn anymore.
Kyle,
I think you're mis-reading.
"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?"
I was saying that IF you seek with the thought that God cannot be found, you are not really seeking; instead, you're trying to "find" the God you have already set forth in your mind as being the only possible God.
Skyhook,
I get what you're saying and I admire the clear manner in which you present it. I don't believe that there is an infinite regress, but we've been arguing about that in various forms for weeks now. For the most part, we agree here. Still, I don't feel that you will allow yourself to ever be budged regardless of what comes your way. I don't think that any amount of evidence against naturalism would ever fall outside of your "infinitie regress" umbrella.
Any amount of evidence would be welcomed.
Post a Comment