Science versus Religion

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.

You Take the Good, You Take the Bad... (Week 9)

If a good/just/righteous God exists, why is there so much evil in the world?

This is a fun question to me for two reasons:
1. The question really doesn’t make a lot of sense without God.
2. With God, the answer is not as difficult as it first appears.

Allow me to elaborate…

IF THERE IS NO GOD, HOW IS THERE ANY EVIL IN THE WORLD?

Natural Development of Moral Law:

Let us assume for the sake of argument that God doesn’t exist. We are here then, by default, through a progressive series of naturalistic processes and humanity has survived as the fittest of Earth’s creatures. Obviously, we have a sense of morality, so we’ll have to assume that it developed naturally. Depending on which continent your ancestors evolved and which tribulations they faced, your society will have developed its own system of laws and some sort of governed morality intent on preserving the society as a whole. With few exceptions, every society develops a few common laws:
- You prohibit the killing of offspring (because how else would you grow your society?)
- You honor and respect your elders (maybe a selfish law, because you don’t want to be killed off in your old age)
Etc.
And, each society develops different societal laws depending upon various factors that the society’s thinkers believe will help shape the society. Through the generations, these laws are ingrained to the point that each society develops an internal sense of what is right and what is wrong.

You: So… great, Randy… didn’t you just fashion an argument that shows how natural processes and the evolution of societal principles can lead to a sense of morality?
Me: That I did!

Now, let’s let our evolved, natural minds pore over the situation at hand. We should be able to see that although we may feel (through conditioning and evolutionary genetic predisposition) that something is wrong, we can see rationally that the “crime” is simply something that goes against the societal norms. Furthermore, a criminal is really just a person whose genes and/or upbringing have failed him (not a sexist… it’s just easier from here on out to say “him” since English doesn’t possess an appropriate gender-neutral pronoun). The criminal is not “evil”. He’s just doing what he was predisposed to do. We can still legislate against crimes for the overall good of society and hopefully we can deter anti-social behavior, but when crimes are committed, it’s extremely insensitive to think of the perpetrator as “evil”. A child-killer is no more “evil” than a predator who selects the youngest and slowest antelope for lunch. It’s innate.



Survival of the Fittest?

Now, let’s fast-forward to today in the United States. We have evolved through natural processes and developed a sense of morality that values tolerance, altruism, and uncommon heroism above all else. How does this make sense?

One of the worst societal sins is intolerance. We ostracize those who think lesser of other races / genders / beliefs and preach love and tolerance for all. Even if someone disagrees with societal norms, our society cherishes the right to do so. Why appreciate diversity? Why allow people to vocalize dissention? Doesn’t this work to tear down a society?

Our altruism leads us to fashion laws for the creation of handicap-accessible buildings, to stage the Special Olympics, to fund collegiate sports that 1 in 100 people don’t even know exist, to mandate monetary donations to people having financial difficulties. Wouldn’t society prosper even more if we allowed these people to fend for themselves?

If a 25-year-old Marine officer were to push an 80-year-old handicapped lady out of the way of oncoming traffic only to die in the process, we would hail him as a hero. What in the world for? Our society has lost a productive member and we will be forced to continue to pay for the elder lady’s Medicaid bills. She may siphon off our societal resources for 20 more years!

We value the minority at the expense of the majority. We hold free elections, but give a voice to those who criticize our societal choices. We remove resources from the many to prop up the weak and care for the infirmed. What is wrong with us? Evolution has obviously failed the United States. Somewhere we took a wrong turn.

WITH CHOICE COMES EVIL

Let’s now assume that God does exist and He finds Himself at a pivotal moment. He is contemplating the creation of humanity. What are God’s options?
1. Create no humans.
2. Create humans with an inability to do evil.
3. Create humans with an ability to do evil.

Option 1 is fairly straightforward and Option 3 would be what we have, so let’s look at Option 2….

Now, since God is judging good versus bad, “good” would have to be equal to “that which God would do in a given situation” (WWGD?). So, in creating humanity, God would be forced to create creatures who could not make decisions that weren’t in accordance with His own. So, all of humanity would be like-minded and the thoughts of humans would accord to the thoughts of God. What has God created, then? Is humanity at all separate from God? Is there a purpose for humanity? What the three options break down to are:
1. Create no humans.
2. Create humans who are an extension of God.
3. Create humans who are separate creatures from God.

There is no fourth option: Create humans with “free will” who will not choose evil.

CONCLUSION

Evil cannot exist without an absolute standard of good. With no absolute standard, “right” is relative. A “criminal” is really just a minority. And, if the criminal act gains the support of a society, it ceases to be criminal. The act itself was never “evil”; rather, it was anti-social until it wasn’t. In fact, if we truly wish to embrace naturalism, a society may choose to “cleanse” itself through good ole fashion natural selection when times get rough. Adolf Hitler recognizes this sentiment in his book Mein Kampf:

"...[ the Nazi philosophy] by no means believes in an equality of races, but along with their difference it recognizes their higher or lesser value and feels itself obligated to promote the victory of the better and stronger, and demand the subordination of the inferior and weaker in accordance with the eternal will that dominates this universe."

We recognize evil. We understand justice. We adopt laws and appreciate virtues that contradict natural selection. Is there any reason to believe that we could have adopted these traits through naturalism? Or is it more reasonable to believe that there is an absolute standard of morality that gives us the ability to recognize that survival is not paramount?

Post Delayed

I think it is a good idea that I take a week off after every eight posts. Expect a new post next Thursday. I don't have any excuses.... just need a break.

The Double-Edged Sword: Where Does Your Faith Lie? (Week 8)

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.

Life's Little Quirks

Nearly ten years ago, IBM announced plans for a massive supercomputer that would be employed to help scientists understand the complex nature of protein folding. A protein’s structure and its function are so closely related that any “mis-fold” will alter the protein so much that it ceases to function properly. IBM’s goal was to better understand these folds in order to further our understanding of disease and the manner in which information is encoded biologically.

From IBM:

“Protein architecture is based on three principles:

1. The formation of a polymer chain
2. The folding of this chain into a compact function-enabling structure, or native structure
3. Post-translational modification of the folded structure

The protein chain (or peptide chain if short in length) is a heteropolymer built up from alpha amino acid monomers…. The sequence of amino acid residues in the peptide chain is termed the primary structure of the protein. The 20 different choices for each amino acid in the chain give the possibility of enormous diversity, even for small proteins. For example, a peptide of 30 residues yields the astonishing number of about 20^30, or approximately 10^39, possible unique sequences.From the enormous number of possible protein sequences that could exist, we observe relatively few in nature.

It is thought that the diversity of viable proteins has been constrained by natural selection to give:
1. Desired function
2. Adequate stability
3. Foldability
4. Evolvability
from appropriate evolutionary precursors

…The fact that a subset of heteropolymers constructed from amino acids and used in biological processes actually take on reproducible three-dimensional structures in a relatively short time of seconds or less is one of the marvels of nature.”

So, IBM recognizes that there is a certain niftiness when it comes to life. Without life existing, the formation of a protein polymer chain coincident with those found in life even under ideal conditions would be a rare happening (so rare that has yet to be duplicated in a laboratory environment). Add to that the idea that the proteins then need to fold into a certain shape and join with other proteins in a specific manner to form a cell. Oh, and just for kicks… there are two distinct types of amino acids and one cannot join with the other.

Within a living organism or a virus, RNA/DNA carries the instructions that “tell” these proteins how to form. Outside of living organisms, there would exist a multitude of iterations for proteins, each as likely as the next. Still, as a general rule, the “primordial soup” theory of naturalistic formation is taught as fact.

Why? It seems incredibly unlikely, does it not? In spite of a complete lack of proof, we’re told to believe basically that since life had to come from Earth and this is really the only “reputable” (i.e. non-creationist) theory out there, it must be true. Prior to researching this topic, I had assumed that the “soup” had gone by the wayside by now (along with ideas like centrifugal force and static universe theories). I recall questioning the “soup” explanation in an eighth grade Earth Science course because it really made little or no sense then (and I really didn’t question anything when I was 13). Now, I just marvel at the fact that one naturalist writing after another references this theory (or fact, as it is usually written) on how we arrived here. If I were a naturalist, I would demand a better explanation. Perhaps there is one out there that my research didn’t happen upon. If there is, it would probably be worthwhile to send an email or two to inform a few of our foremost naturalist proponents.

I have been accused (more than once) of abandoning science. In my defense, I don’t believe I have departed from scientific facts and observation; rather, science can only tell us so much about the things we’ve discussed thus far. Science can tell us, for instance, that time began or that cosmic background radiation exists. It can tell us that galaxies are real, that the universe is expanding, that matter/energy interactions always result in more disorder than before, and that the existence of life is an undeniable truth. Hopefully I have never asserted anything that goes against the list above.

When science offers no solution, though, we have to default to logic and reason (I think I was pretty clear in Week 2 that logic and reason should be among our tools). If I were to give evidence that contradicted observables, I would expect to be called on it; however, there is no reason we can’t use reason to go beyond limited facts (not “against” facts, mind you… “beyond” facts). So, let’s gear up those minds of ours and look at the problem at hand:

Hypothesis: Life can come from non-life.
Background information: The basic components of life are amino acids (organic molecules).
Test: Simulate the conditions found in the oxygen-poor early Earth to try to create life.
Result: Amino acids are created under the appropriate conditions.
Conclusion: Life forms when the amino acids we observed form together into proteins like those found in life (chances: “relatively few” in 10^39) then those proteins (which we can’t create, except from life) fold in a perfect manner (which we can’t even comprehend without a multimillion-dollar supercomputer) to create cells.

Oh, and if oxygen is present, the whole thing goes to pot.

Did I miss a step?

So, why do we assume that life can come from non-life? And, why in the world do we teach it as fact? By all means, keep experimenting… there is, after all, a “relatively few” in 10^39 chance that you’ll happen upon the right results by accident. Here’s the real kicker: If a scientist were ever to create life in a beaker, what would that prove? That a supremely intelligent being can set perfect conditions to create life from non-life?

POST DELAYED

This week's post delayed due to lack of internet due to tornado.

Oh Yeah, Well... (Week 6)

A quick recap:

Truth is absolute.
Reason is our best avenue to truth.
The universe is not eternal.
Because time is within the universe, the cause of the universe cannot exist in time and is, by definition, eternal.
Mathematically, the formation of matter was an unlikely event.

I would like to take this week to depart some from the mathematics- and physics-intensive arguments.

There are two “Oh yeah, well…” questions that usually accompany the assertion that there exists a God. I wanted to take this week to give myself a respite from probability (I hated Quantum Mechanics, by the way) and address a these before we bring God into the discussion. These are not moral objections to God as many atheistic arguments are; rather, these are queries that tend to stump a great many people because there is fault in the questions themselves that is not readily seen.

The hope here is that you will not come into a God discussion with the assumption that the very idea of God is a logical fallacy.

Oh yeah, well…

1. Who caused God?

If there exists a God and God brought the universe into being, God must exist outside of time (Week 4). If something exists outside of time, cause and effect have no meaning. So, the question “who caused God” also has no meaning.

2. If God is omnipotent, can he make a stone so big that he cannot pick it up?

The question opens itself for only wrong answers. An answer of ‘yes’ or ‘no’ here does not preclude God’s omnipotence; instead, it is a logically unanswerable question expecting a logical answer… the question is the paradox, not God.

Asking absurd questions does not make God go away; else, you will all be in trouble when I ask you what color the number three is. Be wary of trip-up arguments.

MOVING AHEAD

When it comes to discussing these things in the Comments section, you all have me at a disadvantage: You know exactly where my discussions are headed. I ask, though, that your arguments against a particular post not include beliefs you assume me to have. For instance, my arguments have not yet mentioned Jesus. So, it would be best that we visit Jesus at a later date.

Another short one, but we’re headed into some deeper waters, so I hope that youll look upon this as a break as well.