For decades I thought that the universe and matter and whatever had to come from somewhere. How could they have always existed? The answer must be that there was an unmoved mover — an uncaused cause — to begin everything. No, not Aristotle’s God or Zeus or Allah or Baal or Ra — the first cause had to be Yahweh, the One True God.
Who could argue against that? Well, it turns out Richard Dawkins could. One day, while watching one of his lectures, he dismantled this argument in a few sentences. He asked what was more probable — a few basic elements always existing, or an infinitely complicated, perfect, loving, just, trinitarian, God always existing?
Well when you put it like that, of course the simpler one is more probable. Here is how Dawkins put it in The God Delusion:
However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable.
It is futile to try and explain an improbable event with a deity, because by definition the deity will be far more complex and thus improbable. God doesn’t explain anything, except the unreasonableness of the believer’s position.
It’s also futile to invoke a designer because everything on earth looks designed. “Everything on the earth shows order and complexity — how can it all exist without being designed by God?,” a believer asks. But by their own argument they have shot themselves, for doesn’t their designer-God show order and complexity? Who designed him?
We don’t know everything about how our universe came to exist (if it did). Science is young. But we’re learning, and perhaps someday we will know.
We know that there is no evidence for a God, however, and that there is much evidence for natural processes that make sense of our world. Humans always put God in the gaps, and we have been squishing him out for centuries. There are only a few gaps left, and those too will be filled by science.
Who then will believe?
Someguy: Cool! An honest to god — or spaghetti monster take your pick — he-said,... 
Sehro: What about Zorak? He’s like 182 cm tall! 
Roger: …you’re still talking?? 
Daniel Florien: It’s interesting to me that the comment is funny that way, but in reverse, it feels... 
Antiutopia: D’n At no time prior to the mid-20thC was marriage considered a “right,” at least not to... 
Dennis Loo: The person using the name Evan K in this comment thread offered an alternate version... 
Zotz: The secret to a long and mostly happy marriage? I my case, we talk about stuff, then we do what my wife... 
102 Comments
Yes I really liked this chapter in the book. If I remember correctly is in the “Improbability of God”. To put it in other words: If God designed something as complex as the universe he must be even more complex thus he is highly improbable.
It is chapter four of The God Delusion, called “Why There Almost Certainly Is No God.”
There are actually some flaws with this argument, but not ones that can help theism. The problem arises when we consider that without really defining “God,” we can’t really say that he is more complex than his design. He could be much simpler, like the primitive Earth relative to today’s biosphere.
However, this argument does wonders to refute the “design” argument for a creator–any creator without much evidence is very unlikely to exist unless it is much simpler than the universe, which is exactly the opposite of what theists want you to believe here. That is, once you concede that the origin of the universe is simpler than the universe itself, there clearly is no need to call this simplicity “god” and not simply “the proto-universe” or some similar term.
Note also that this argument is very effective for arguing against the very narrow notion of god Dawkins disputes in this book. He makes it explicitly clear that he is only arguing–in this particular book–against a god that is in many ways similar to the Abrahamic god. I can’t remember what specifications he gave, but I believe it was omnipotent, personal, and the creator of the universe, perhaps among other things. Such a god is indeed refuted nicely by this argument.
Finally, all this ultimately misses the real reason we should not believe in god–THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. Merely putting a label on an unknown (e.g. the origin of the universe) is not itself problematic, but placing a label like “god” that carries such baggage is. When people say the universe’s origin is unknown, I of course agree with them, but when they say, “it is unknown, therefore my very narrow and specific notion of a creator must have created it exactly according to my favorite creation myth,” I go crazy. How can you ever support this? Even weaker properties that many people consider sensible don’t really have any justification. Why must the creator be omnipotent? He certainly seems bound by a very specific set of laws. Why must he be eternal? If such a thing is possible, why not just believe the universe itself is eternal? Why must he be worshiped? As likely as not, he may not be conscious at all to receive your praise, or he may even hate it. The list goes on.
A much more reasonable statement is that we don’t currently know how the universe began, if it even did begin (it certainly seems it did), but investigating this in any way other than the scientific method, which is the only method that has ever given consistent and useful results, is pointless. And if it turns out that the answer is indeed unknowable, STOP CLAIMING THAT YOU KNOW IT.
What a wonderful comment Michael. I think Dawkins should add it as an “afterward” to his book…
Roughly the same amount of people will believe (~80% of 1st world population). The only gaps left are those that are already beyond the understanding of the average individual.
Most individuals will still claim that there are many things beyond our understanding. Upon further questioning, the only mystery that will be provided is the individual’s poor grasp of basic science.
@Pronto: I completely agree, but I though that explaining that would make the post too long. But I still hope it will be less!
The possibility of a chain of increasingly complex intelligent designers would be a fun thought to entertain. Just like in the future we might end up in a singularity with increasingly complex machines designing even more complex machines, we could be the intermediate result of increasingly intelligent designers.
There’s absolutely no evidence for this hypothesis, of course. And the fact that organisms less intelligent than ourselves seem to be incapable of designing new kinds of life (something us humans have a hard time as it is) pretty much rules out a previous intelligent designer being a carbon-based lifeform bound to our planet.
There is a place for spiritual teaching and the experience it tries to bring . Most if not all religions have big short comings . Tthey are created by humans to try to elevate a way of life that is better for all involved.
The basic teachings of religions – to treat others the way you want to be treated, to not let your self be destroyed by greed ,desire for power and generally not harming other humans is helpful.
Churches have a long history of being corrupt and harmful.
Spiritual seeking is a vehichle to bring out the helpful and good aspects of human nature.
It is sad that sochurches many fail miserably at this.They are run by humans who are as fallible as those they are trying to help.
Science and religion are often opposed.
Science and being open to spiritual realities is not.
Science is the answer for the advacement of humankind.
Spiritual seeking is a psycho-social tool.
Science is a tool for under standing the physical universe.
Whether the force that gave organisms of higher cociousness/intelligence the need for psycho-social development and the force that created the physical universe are the same is open to debate.
Whether there is even a force that created the need for psycho-social seeking for leaning and satisfaction is debateable as well.
It could be just our developed brains trying to cope with understanding the physical universe just as science is.
Science with i’ts methods and laws will be much better at explaining the universe but we will still have a need as humans to feel loved and to feel there is order not chaos in the universe.
They are both addressing the same thing in different ways.
Science is much better in addressing this but there is also a side of humans to socially understand the universe and how we relate to it. It might be a delusion of our frontal lobes but I don’t think we can get away from it any time soon,Spock
The spock reference is only meant as a generality.
It could be that God is the design we are all part of it him- what ever
It is unlikely that the big bang started everything . It was probably a continuation of design going back to infinite time. I’m still trying to grasp infinite time or infinite anything.
I guess the question posed at the beginning of this blog was is there design to the universe or are we random atoms that came together to form life and conciousness.
The evidence for randomness seems great since we are the only life known in the universe.
If someone has knowledge on this I would love to read it.
One word: Paragraph.
The cosmological argument, when properly formed, does not depend on probabilitites. It is demonstrative.
The things we find all around us require a first cause that has always been there. By the force of the argument, certian attributes of this first cause are demonstrated! Probability has nothing to do with it.
The first cause argument for an ultimate intelligent designer is utterly unconvincing. It has neither the parsimony of assuming the universe itself is the first cause, nor does it maintain the consistency of an infinite regress of intelligent designers.
Probabilistic arguments against the cosmological argument are just icing on the cake.
Yoo,
I don’t think you have interacted with the argument much.
JK
I wish. I’ve seen the argument too often, but they never get any better.
The “God as first cause” argument is logically dishonest. In trying to explain the unavoidable rules of the system, it introduces an explanation that doesn’t follow those rules.
Furthermore, it has the following faults:
1) It’s a non sequitur: It doesn’t in any way follow from the premises that God is the explanation.
2) The conclusion is its own premise: A number of baseless presuppositions concerning the attributes of God are required. When you have accepted these suppositions in advance, you have already made your conclusion. Basically, it’s circular reasoning.
It has probably occurred to some people that there is a possible third (at least explaination for the origin of species on our planet.
That is that life here has been seeded and/or altered by extra terrestrial visitors.
Some species seem to be not that well suited to life in earths environment, even though they’ve been here for millions of years.
Reptiles have to spend roughly half of thier lives sleeping in mud just to exist here.
Humans as well are the only species that need clothing and shelter just to exist here.
Most will say that this is proof of adaptation. Well,it must be working in reverse since the species we supposedly evolved from does not need clothing or that much shelter to survive.
It also appears as though we might have been genetically altered from chimps or apes, and possibly hybridized, since we have less genes than them.
You have to admit that some life on this planet does look preety alien.
@murrow: Of course, that doesn’t help the origins argument, however. The aliens themselves have to come from somewhere.
I’m also not sure how we’d know if the life on our planet looked “alien” or not. What does “alien” look like?
Wow. This is some hard-core woo.
“Humans as well are the only species that need clothing and shelter just to exist here.”
Um… we’re also the only species that can make clothing and shelter. We evolved in a hot climate and lost all our fur. Later, some of our ancestors decided to bug out and head north – probably because they were starving or something. Wimps.
Now, all other species would have to wait until evolution produced a member with more fur before they could live in colder climes – well, that or go extinct. We had these things called “brains” that allowed us to puzzle out the complexities of clothing. This meant that we could go north without having to wait for natural selection to produce a wooly human.
Of course, some people stayed behind, and remained well adapted for their climate. There are still tribes that live in Africa with minimal clothing and shelters and do fine.
“It also appears as though we might have been genetically altered from chimps or apes, and possibly hybridized, since we have less genes than them.”
We also have fewer genes than rice and certain ants, but about the same as a mustard green. Number of genes is not really a meaningful statistic.
Why did we need to make clothes if we presumably used to have hair?
I guess part of evolving is the need for fashion.
Vive Versasace!
@murrow: If we were in the African heat, why would we need hair? Why did a wooly mammoth have hair, and an elephant have none? Climate!
We made clothes when we wanted to venture into colder climates.
“Why did we need to make clothes if we presumably used to have hair?”
Originally, yes, but remember that we evolved in Africa. It seems our evolution occurred during a time that Africa was becoming hotter and drier. The cooler forests that our primate ancestors lived in were fading and being replaced by the savannah that we see there today. The individuals who could better exploit this changing environment – those who were less likely to overheat in the grassland because they had less hair – did progressively better as the climate shifted. This also tied in with a bundle of other adaptions – bipedal motion, for example – that became the defining characteristics of hominids.
By the time our hominid ancestors decided to leave Africa, none of them had fur. Their furry ancestor were hundreds of thousands of years in the past. Had they not had complex minds, this would have been it; they never would have left Africa. But they did have complex minds, pattern recognition, imagination, etc., so they were able to step outside their biology and find other ways to adapt to the environment.
I live in a cold climate, but I still shave my pits and legs. Evolution hasn’t yet caught up with today’s standard of beauty. But as an atheist, I don’t blame god for that.
I guess I am more attracted to unhairy mates.
If this is true why aren’t all species becoming more hairless?
Squirrels haven’t figured out how to make a suit?-Not yet anyway.
Which came first ,clothes or hairlessness?
This may sound simple minded but it seems like we might have been a different species from the start.
Presumably we wouldn’t have developed the need for clothes till we got sufficiently hairless to get cold and we wouldn’t have gotten cold until we left our warm environment and wouldn’t have been able to leave the warm environment.
Seems like alot of time for this process to occur.
Has anyone tried to calculate the time for these processes to occur and see if they jive with the time line of human migration?
Easy to add or lose a few hundred thousand years when your talking about ancient history.
Still if we are attracted to less hairy mates why aren’t other species?
It doesn’t seem like we could be that far ahead of other species unless we were spiked ahead- say by genetic modification.
And why aren’t there still pretty hairy sasquatch like humanoids particularly near the point of original migration?
@murrow: Perhaps reading a book on evolution would help answer many of your questions. I recommend Michael Zimmer’s Evolution as a starting point. Your questions are great — but instead of assuming there are no answers, you might want to research and see that biologists have been asking and answering these kinds of questions for a long time now.
Apes that live in the same hot African jungles as our presumed origin aren’t becoming less hairy, so what gives?
“If this is true why aren’t all species becoming more hairless?”
Um, why would they? We’re not saying that hairless in a universal trend, just that it was a response to an environmental pressure at the time and place of the early hominids.
“Which came first ,clothes or hairlessness?”
Hairlessness.
“Seems like alot of time for this process to occur.”
Yup. Five to Ten million years or so, from ape to hominid.
“Has anyone tried to calculate the time for these processes to occur and see if they jive with the time line of human migration?”
That would be the field of paleoanthropology – and a couple others. Check out the TalkOrigins Human Evolution page for a roundup of links: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
Also, the National Geographic Genographic Project has some of the most interesting stuff on human migration: https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/
“Still if we are attracted to less hairy mates why aren’t other species?”
Um, why would something that affects our species necessarily affect other species? I don’t understand what you’re asking.
The thing about evolution is it’s not a lineal thing Murrow. Its not one thing becomes another becomes another. A single species has many different traits, many different individuals and lineages which can and do specialize over periods of thousands of years. We’re talking big numbers and thus big statistics.
Are there many natural sciences majors giving input? I have a degree in physics and mathematics and both of my main research professors are hugely credentialed men in their fields, who believe in God, who believe in the christian God. I love the fact that those that believe in design will inevitably be left with the gaps provided by their “poor grasp on science”; how highly discrediting to those that said this and mirrored this sentiment. You believe you can look down your nose at the “uneducated” who believe God because of the “gaps” in science. How familiar are you with science? My math professor sights many concepts and axioms present in higher mathematics as his reason for at least investigating design. Also important to note is that the Math professor was not a cultural christian… he came to it late in life. The physics professor also roots some of his belief in the the rather enigmatic aspects of quantum theory. There is a very reputable professor at the University of Arkansas who is a member of the international “Quantum Consciousness” committee. He is one of the sharpest minds in quantum chemistry and yet he believes in something, not YAHWEH, but something. Certainly there are the aggressively anti-God scientists (mostly biologists) like Dawkins, and there are those that rally behind them, but there are intelligent people, who know more than even Dawkins does about first principles in science, and are compelled to at least investigate for something. Don’t get caught up in being so philosophical that you speak out of turn, everyone who believes in God is not an idiot.
@ Kristen and Vorjack
So it is apparent that our more intelligent and less hairy ancestors were better at getting it on than thier brethren but why only our species. Thier are species with similar life spans and environmental pressures but all of them are way behind us in intelligence. I thought creatures with short lifespans had the edge in adaptation. Given this maxim, there should be some really smart fruit flies ruling the earth. Maybe we lucked into having the perfect balance of resiliency ,size ,place in time,and tendency for intelligence, but with all the other species on the earth it seems like thier might be at least one other species that would develop this way. Is this logical or am I off base ?
Hi there, first-timer who found the link off both Slacktivist and EvangelicalRealism. Both are good blogs I read semi-regularly. Although I don’t believe a successful ontological argument exists, personally, I find Dawkins’ response to the Prime Mover argument unpersuasive:
“However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable.”
The problem is, this statement is loaded by forcing the assumption that the “designer” (or cause or whatever) is also caused. That is, Dawkins’ argument is essentially no better than Russell’s from 80 years ago, and it is only cogent against “designers” or causes that themselves entail further causes. Now it doesn’t mean they’ve proven God, and it’s not very useful for further debate, but many Christians maintain that God is not a caused object. Hence, we’re dealing with two categorically different things, and the question is, Do you think that a category of things can exist that are uncaused? If yes, then all concepts of statistical probability crumble. How can we possibly assign any statistical probability to something that’s always existed?
Anyways, my point is, Dawkins in general and this argument in particular are pretty non-persuasive to reasonable believers.
Florien is right to say a poor reason to theorize God is to explain the origin of design in the universe, because that only transfers our curiosity about the origin of design, to the origin of God. But conversely, denying God’s existence, on the ground that it EXPLAINS nothing, only transfers our curiosity about the origin of God back to the origin of design.
What, indeed, does Dawkins contribute to our dilemma? In Ben Stein’s “Expelled”, we watched him “explain” the origin of life by saying it was shipped in on flying saucers!
I would despair of resolving the design/evolution debate in the space available here. All I hope to point out is what I had thought obvious, that the fact we do not understand God does not constitute evidence that He doesn’t exist.
But I am amazed that anyone can conclude there is “much evidence” for evolution, and the “few gaps left…will be filled by science”! I share Stein’s frustration that evolutionist address the evidence against them by ignoring it. Here are some lines from my song attempting to summarize evolution’s unanswerables:
…You wouldn’t drive a car home you found on the road, and then go tell the cops “it evolved!” One little cell’s more complex by far than some silly simple man-made car!…
Deer tracks are simpler than one DNA. If hunters thought tracks “evolved”, deer would get away. Science would fizzle if scientists solved experiments by saying their data evolved!
“In Ben Stein’s “Expelled”, we watched him “explain” the origin of life by saying it was shipped in on flying saucers!”
Er, no…we didn’t. If you want to be taken seriously, you are surely not going to offer that shabby, dishonest, desperate piece of fundie propaganda as evidence for any reasonable point of view?
I suggest you read http://www.expelledexposed.com/
“…You wouldn’t drive a car home you found on the road, and then go tell the cops “it evolved!” One little cell’s more complex by far than some silly simple man-made car!…”
Er. I doubt you’ll come back and read this, but. This question is bullcrap.
Evolutionists don’t respond to these questions because they make no sense whatsoever. Why do anti-evolutionists keep using kindergarten-grade questions as a way to “disprove” evolution?
If you had just a basic understanding over evolution, then you’d realize that there’s a significant difference between a car, something that’s man-made, and anything that’s “designed” by nature.
While evolution hasn’t answered every question yet (nor has every question been asked yet!), but just sitting back and claiming “God did it!” as the answer to every question ever is intellectually unsatisfying. Especially when the only proof existing that “God did it”, is recorded in a bronze age book made of many fairy tales cobbled together and then given a somewhat linear plot line.
Complexity, intricacy, awesomeness, etc., are not evidence of design; they are evidence of the appearance of design. Appearances can be deceiving.
Probability of God? That seems inherently illogical to say that “based on this world’s probability, there probably isn’t a God outside of this world who is unconstrained by this world.” Listen, there are many great arguments, but this one stems from a poor understanding of the definition of God. If you define God as someone outside of the universe, uncontrolled by and and unconstrained by it, infinite, then how can you use this earth’s probability metrics on Him? That makes no logical sense.
‘There are only a few gaps left, and those too will be filled by science.’
I think you’ve been listening to Dawkins a little too much. Dawkins is a preacher or a salesman like any other, he only presents the facts for his side of the argument. These ‘gaps’ are more like the space between stars. Our collective human knowledge is a drop in the ocean Have you ever heard “the more you know the more you know you don’t know”? Why are any two objects attracted to each other (gravity)? What (why) is magnetism? What keeps electrons in orbit? Why do electrons magically fall into another orbit if bumped? These are just immediately observable phenomenon that we haven’t been able to get to the bottom of, and there are plenty more on our doorstep. What is dark matter? What is dark energy? What does the edge of the universe look like and what is on the other side of it?
I wrote a post a while ago that deals with the origins of the universe among other things.
http://plasticpatrick.wordpress.com/2009/03/01/foundational-unprovables/
I wrote another post on the limitations of science.
http://plasticpatrick.wordpress.com/2009/04/04/science-is-lost/
I concur with D. W. Using human logic to define God is like trying to shoot the moon with a pistol.
First off, you clearly don’t understand the ‘god of the gaps’ argument Dawkins and others present. Not knowing the answer to why things happen does not in any way support or deny the existence of a Supreme Being. It simply means we do not now (yet). Say you use the idea that we don’t know why magnetism works the way it does, and you postulate a God for an explanation. Well then, why does God exist? Why did God make it that way? Hell. Why did God make anything at all? Where did that motivation come from? That’s the thing, you can always ask more questions, regardless of whether or not your explanation involves a deity. I really don’t see why theists use this line of reasoning at all, tbh.
Dawkins argument is useful only if both sides agree that the principle of parsimony applies to discussions of ontology. Unfortunately, not only will he fail to get the ID’ers to agree but he can’t justify this position, anyway.
We know that there is no evidence for a God, however, and that there is much evidence for natural processes that make sense of our world. Humans always put God in the gaps, and we have been squishing him out for centuries. There are only a few gaps left, and those too will be filled by science.
Dan, any philosopher of science would laugh you out of the room. In order for science to explain EVERYTHING then EVERYTHING must be testable by the scientific method. Is the scientific method testable by the scientific method? Is the uniformity of nature testable by science? Is the existence of matter testable by science? The rationality of the human mind?
The teleological argument is weak because it begs the question. The anti-design arguments are even weaker because they have false premises, like you just demonstrated.
I think you must be getting “philosopher of science” and “Christian jerk” mixed up.
“In order for science to explain EVERYTHING then EVERYTHING must be testable by the scientific method.”
What atheistic arguments hinges on the position that science explains everything?
The refutation to “god-of-the-gaps” type reasoning is not contingent upon this position. Why not?
For the sake of argument, let’s posit that a theist claims the following: that abiogenesis cannot yet be adequately explained by scientists, therefore a god must have had a role in the origin of life on Earth.
To refute this, I only have to demonstrate that just because science has not uncovered an explanation at this point, by no means does that prevent scientists from uncovering an explanation in the future. Things which are posited by the theist as only explicable by the divine may also be explained by science, as has occurred repeatedly throughout history. Does science need to explain *everything*? No. That makes no sense at all, because by definition science does not try to “explain everything”. You are complaining about something that is entirely irrelevant.
I was thinking more of Bertrand Russell and Karl Popper.
You think Russell would laugh me out of the room for making this point? Seriously? The man who invented Russell’s Teapot?
He wouldn’t laugh at your antagonism toward a designer. I should have only quoted your last sentence in the above quote; that is what I was referring to in my comments. You have this outlandish belief that science furnishes man with knowledge, when in fact even the most ardent logical positivists (whom Russell had great influence upon) like Wittgenstein ended up abandoning this. Russell himself tacitly admitted that he justified induction on pragmatic grounds, which begs the question. Likewise, here’s a great quote from Russell on science:
All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: “If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true.” This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: “If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing.” If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based.
Russell knew that science was fallacious—it didn’t actually give us knowledge. At best it gives *understanding* of the universe, at least in the sense of what works, but he knew, just as Karl Popper, Wittgenstein, and Michael Polanyi did, that science as an epistemological enterprise leaves a lot to be desired.
So let’s return to your quote: “There are only a few gaps left, and those too will be filled by science.” If you’re referring to gaps in our *understanding* of natural processes then who would complain? But in the context of your post, which deals with ontology, you are actually referring to the entirety of one’s worldview. Science cannot answer any philosophical questions.
Keith,
Can your religion answer any philosophical questions?
Can your religion provide any knowledge whatsoever, in the sense that you define it?
There have been schisms in the Christian church throughout its history — interpretation has constantly changed — revelations have been re-interpreted — wars have been fought. What kind of epistemology is that? It is an epistemology of shambles.
More than a few atheists appreciate that science cannot play a foundational role in one’s epistemology, hence the attraction of objectivism (Ayn Rand). I find it quite ironic that Christian presuppositionalists are attacked for their allegedly arbitrary epistemology when in fact the most philosophically cogent atheists have adopted the same system, just with different axioms.
Keith,
You look for God for in the world, when you should be looking for Gods in the world.
Why has every single religion developed amidst a specific cultural context amidst individual societies? Doesn’t the variety and diversity of human approaches to religion and the divine point to some greater underlying explanation than the accounts of one single religion?
About all I have to say on this topic is this quote I picked up;
If God created the world, then who created god? and who created whoever created god? So somewhere along the line something had to just be there. So why can’t we just skip the idea of god and go straight to earth? – Ryan Hanson
> many Christians maintain that God is not a caused objectDawkins in general and this argument in particular are pretty non-persuasive to REASONALBE BELIEVERS.<
There’s an oxymoron. Cl, you’ve been brainwashed, and therefore are incapable, for now, of understanding the meaning of rational thought.
>Science cannot answer any philosophical questions.<
However, religions attempt to answer certain questions that are better dealt with by science. For example, the Xtian bible has an explanation of rainbows at odds with the observable reasons science has come up with for the colorful phenomena.
I think, Keith, that you miss the point that science by definition doesn’t attempt to answer philosophical questions. Yet those who practice religion constantly attempt to explain that which is, as we’ve discovered, better left to science.
For example, Keith, here is part of a lengthy, and of course absurd, biblical method for curing leprosy:
“And of the rest of the oil that is in his hand shall the priest put upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot, upon the blood of the trespass offering”
The addled idea of how to cure of leprosy is just one example of how religion – Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc – attempts to explain and deal with reality. Not very well, compared to scientific thought, to rational thought.
Like cl, above, you miss the point of Daniel’s post – over time, we understand the nature of reality through the application of scientific thought. At the same time, the ideas put forth by true believers about the nature of reality continue to wither like the fig tree cursed by Jesus.
Dave, thanks for your thoughts. Allow me to share a few of my own.
First, please understand that I reject any version of science or Christianity in which one is at odds with the other. I believe that revelation is the means through which we can justify all knowledge, and I believe that revelation is knowledge. I believe that science is possible only because God is upholding the universe in a uniform fashion (as implied in Gen. 8:22 and Col. 1:17). I completely reject the idea that science is a naturalistic endeavor (i.e., methodological naturalism). I believe that science provides man with understanding of the creation but it does not furnish man with knowledge because inductive inferences are never justified. Our scientific conclusions may be rationally inferred but this does not make them knowledge. In short, science can never correct revelation. They are on two totally different planes of reasoning; one is subservient to the other and in fact relies on the other.
That being said, can science answer some questions not answered by revelation? If you mean, “Science gives us knowledge about some things that revelation does not give us knowledge about” then I would disagree because science gives us no knowledge about anything. But if you mean, “science helps us understand some aspects of creation that revelation does not address” then of course I would agree.
At the end of your comment you write, “we understand the nature of reality through the application of scientific thought.” But science already assumes a certain nature of reality, namely that at least some of reality is material. In other words, science assumes that nature is matieral—it does not verify this nature. To claim the latter is to beg the question. Yet this is actually a common atheistic critique of supernaturalism: “the natural world is all we can study with science, therefore the natural world must be all that exists.”
Now, regarding rainbows, I think it is very obvious that Genesis is addressing the purpose of the rainbow, not what caused it. God does cause all rainbows, but He does it in such a way that is repeatable and observable and therefore able to be examined by men using science. That is, God causes a spectrum of light to be produced when white light shines onto moisture in the atmosphere. But He has also said that these rainbows should act as a reminder or sign of God’s covenant to us that He will never flood the earth again: “And God said to Noah, ‘This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.’” (Gen. 8:17)
Leviticus 14 has nothing to do with curing leprosy. It describes the ritual for cleansing a leper. The “cleansing” is not a physical cleansing but a spiritual cleansing. The question God is answering is, “Since all have sinned and fallen short of God’s law, how does one become clean (holy) before God?” Now, performing the ritual itself does not actually cleanse in and of itself. Rather, obeying Leviticus was a sign of faith in the coming Messiah, who actually would cleanse believers of their sin. Everything in the OT looks forward to the cross of Christ and everything in the NT looks backward. That’s an easy way to understand the flow of scripture.
Dave, I think its safe to say that you understand neither science nor scripture. I would encourage you to study the scriptures from the perspective of, “Who is God and what is He trying to tell mankind?” rather than, “How can I make scripture fit my naturalistic outlook?” As for science, I’d recommend you consider looking into Gordon Clark’s A Philosophy of Science and Belief In God, which is a rather brutal critique of the idea that science gives man knowledge.
Keith
“Who is God and what is he trying to tell mankind?”
What is the Muslim God trying to tell mankind? What is the Jewish God trying to tell mankind? What is the Sikh God trying to tell mankind? What is the Christian God trying to tell mankind?
Revelation is a tree with many branches. What makes one better than another?
I respond to Muslims and Jews the same way I respond to atheists: I explain to them how their worldview reduces to absurdity.
Why say that revelation is one tree with many branches? The heart of the matter isn’t revelation, its knowledge. So why not say, “Epistemology is a tree with many branches.” Then atheists get to join the discussion, and I get to ask the same question of you: What makes your epistemology better than any other?
Keith,
Outstanding. Thank you for answering my question.
“Why say that revelation is one tree with many branches?”
Because all Christians claim to have a relationship with Christ, no? They’re supposed to be in touch with the Holy Spirit when they discern the revelation of their deity. And what are the results? Hundreds of different denominations. This is why I say that.
Let’s evaluate revelation. Let’s evaluate epistemology. Go ahead.
Not only must you address the Jews and Muslims and atheists — you must address *all of the other types of Christians besides you*.
And there’s a different worldview for each atheist; so what? You group people just like I do and critique them accordingly. Can’t say I really care to discuss epistemology with someone who’s chief debate tactic is to drown the opponent with dull rhetorical questions.
I bore you. So what? Answer my questions.
If they’re boring, that just means you should know the answer. Impress me, Keith. Hit them out of the park. If I’m wasting your time, I apologize. I really do want to know what you know. If you feel a discussion is not merited, I understand that. However, I want to convey that I am serious about this. Yes, I like to debate…but that isn’t the only reason I am here. Again, please answer my questions.
Yes, atheists have different opinions, but we’re *not supposed to have a common source for our worldview*!!
Christians have the Bible and the Holy Spirit to guide them (supposedly). And they are badly fragmented anyway. I believe this is a problem for the veracity of Christianity. You don’t. So I guess we agree to disagree on that one.
You can’t get away with comparing Christianity to atheism all the time because atheism is not a religion like Christianity is; atheists do not have what are supposed to be shared common sources for their worldviews.
Christians are like Macintosh computers, and atheism is more like all the people in the world who made their own code. There should be some differences between the two.
If you really want to know what I think, provide me with your email address and I’ll email you. I’m not going to write out an epistemological treatise in the comments section of a blog.
Could you leave your e-mail address at my blog so I could contact you and give you mine? I’d rather not leave it here.
Keith, it would take too long to go over much of your excellent post. Mostly, I disagree with what you write. I’ll comment on a few of your statements:
“Yet this is actually a common atheistic critique of supernaturalism: “the natural world is all we can study with science, therefore the natural world must be all that exists.””
This is a generalization. What proof do you have the your quote is a “common critique?” You’ve read all atheist critiques stretching back a few thousand years? I doubt it.
“God causes a spectrum of light to be produced when white light shines onto moisture in the atmosphere.”
There you go, assuming there is a god.
“But He has also said that these rainbows should act as a reminder or sign of God’s covenant to us that He will never flood the earth again: “And God said to Noah, ‘This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.’” (Gen. 8:17)
As there is obviously no god, no such statement by your imaginary divinity was ever made, except within the minds of believers such as yourself.
Re: lepers: ” The “cleansing” is not a physical cleansing but a spiritual cleansing.”
You’re right – first curing, then cleaning. However, lepers don’t need to be cleansed, Keith. Unless you believe in what your bible states.
“Everything in the OT looks forward to the cross of Christ and everything in the NT looks backward. That’s an easy way to understand the flow of scripture.”
That’s an easy way for your to understand your “scripture,” Keith, because it makes it easier for you to believe the nonsense contained within the bible.
“I would encourage you to study the scriptures”
And I would encourage you to think rationally, although it’s abundantly clear your currently closed mind mitigates against such a possibility. Rather than offer up a book in return for you to read, or a web page to peruse – like this one – I suggest you ruminate on the ridiculous contradictions inherent in your system of belief.
But if you insist on educating yourself through reading material, I’d go with one of my favorites, Russell’s “Why I Am Not a Christian,” which is, luckily for you, short, and is a rather brutal critique of the idea that Christianity is anything other than nonsense.
Dave, everyone begins their reasoning with assumptions. I assume that God exists and consequently I can make sense of the universe and have knowledge. You assume that God does not exist and consequently cannot make sense of the universe or why you have knowledge. You need to deal with my reductio ad absurdum or present one of your own. Simply re-asserting something I already knew, namely that you find Christianity absurd, doesn’t vindicate your worldview or refute mine.
Why I Am Not A Christian is similar to your writing; it begs the question. I agree with his critique of the teleological argument, though.
“Dave, everyone begins their reasoning with assumptions. I assume that God exists and consequently [YOU ASSUME YOU] can make sense of the universe and have knowledge.
“You assume that God does not exist and consequently [I ASSUME YOU] cannot make sense of the universe or why you have knowledge.”
There you go again, Keith, making unwarranted assumptions. In fact, I assumed, based on my parents’ belief, that God existed. It was only when I stopped making such assumptions based on what my parents believed, and began to think for myself, that I understood an all-powerful god who designed the universe is a self-defeating conception.
“You need to deal with my reductio ad absurdum or present one of your own.”
I don’t have to do anything, but in this I already have, and so has Daniel, with the subject of his post. I.e, it is absurd to suggest that anything in the natural world must have a designer, whether it be DNA, a cache of oil, or the way planets circle their suns.
>Simply re-asserting something I already knew, namely that you find Christianity absurd, doesn’t vindicate your worldview or refute mine.<
Whether I re-assert something, and whether world views are vindicated or refuted is beside the point of this post, which puts the lie to the idea that nature must be designed by a superior being.
By the way, while it’s fine that you provide some sketchy information about philosophy, it’s disingenuous to leave out information from the same source that refutes your point. For example, you selectively quote Russell in his book, “The Scientific Outlook” and then claim Russell “knew” science is fallacious.
You left out this quote, Keith, which appears much earlier than the one you offered:
“Science, as its name implies, is primarily knowledge.”
You’ve simply cherry-picked a quote from Russell – which has nothing to do with the refutation of science/knowledge – to prove an absurd (i.e. contradictory) claim you believe is true, and you’re unaware that you’re doing so.
“Dave, everyone begins their reasoning with assumptions. I assume that God exists and consequently I can make sense of the universe and have knowledge. You assume that God does not exist and consequently cannot make sense of the universe or why you have knowledge.”
This statement right here is so full of unsupported premises that it’s not even funny. You say right there that you “assume” God exists. You speak a lot about begging the question, and yet you say this. Then you go further to say that based on this assumption you can ‘make sense’ of the universe and ‘have knowledge’ and that others who don’t cannot understand. These are yet 2 more unsupported assertions on your part. You silly theists and your non-falsifiable claims. :P
Anyway. if this is the basis from which you self-assess your understanding of things, then how can you expect to be taken seriously in a logical debate? How can I assess whether you properly understood Russell’s point ? Because you can use big words like ‘teleological’? Hardly. You really need to work on presenting context and definitions in your arguments. Making multiple offhand, vague references to others philosophical work is just sloppy.
Mark, you seem upset that I don’t present an entire epistemological treatise with every comment. If you really want me to point you to some in-depth writing I can, but otherwise I think we can agree in the comments section of a blog we can only interact in a piecemeal fashion.
All arguments beg the question, but only some do legitimately. If I argue against your worldview by presupposing that your worldview is false then obviously I’ve presented a worthless argument. But if I argue against your worldview by presupposing that your worldview is true (reductio ad absurdum) then what complaint would you have?
Well, if you’re going to go around presenting your unsupported premises and acting arrogant about your debating ability, then I’m going to have to say “put up or shut up.” You’re framing the discussion to your advantage without any actual justification as to why your framework is desirable much less superior.
Mark, I offered more resources and you rejected this offer. I also answered your question about question begging, and you did not respond. You’ve gone from unreasonable to childish.
Show us these resources. If you have a way to back up your words then I can’t imagine why you would decline that chance to truly convince someone. If you truly believe you have a convincing way to back up your religious beliefs then you should hold those things up high so people can evaluate them.. because if you are correct you will be on the cover of every major magazine in the world for having proved your religion to be true. Major religious universities will name libraries after you. There will be photos of you shaking the pope’s hand and the next major enciclical will probably reference your work.
Why would you ever hold back if you could really back up your words?
Unreasonable to childish?
lol
You still have yet to establish why your standard of what constitutes ‘knowledge’ is superior. And all you’ve offered for validation of your premises is that “He Revealed Himself.” Through what? The Bible? How do we know that is true? You have once again failed to answer my question of how we can determine the reliability of your so-called ‘knowledge’.
Mark, I said twice that I’d give you resources. You’ve rejected it twice which tells me you aren’t really interested in learning, in which case I’m not really interested in continuing the discussion. Goodbye.
Keith,
I am well aware of what reductio ad absurdium is. This is a red herring to my point and you are simply dodging my questions. Also, if anyone has demonstrated a lack of willingness to learn, it has been you. But you’re too pompous to realize that
@Keith
You aren’t interested in backing up your silliness? How original. When challenged, run away. You do understand that even people who agree with you will see you running away and may make assumptions as to why…
You still haven’t offered a reductio, only question-begging statements.
You left out this quote, Keith, which appears much earlier than the one you offered:
“Science, as its name implies, is primarily knowledge.”
Science is still fallacious. That Russell called it knowledge only shows he has a different definition of knowledge. A deficient one, I would argue.
Have the last word. Goodbye.
What have you got bored of quote mining?
I find it hilarious that no one who criticizes science ever tries to come up with a viable alternative. It’s almost like they don’t care about the actual truth and just want to knock something down…oh wait, why am I surprised?
If science were like Christianity, there would dozens of versions of the Periodic Table, and several sets of Newton’s Laws of Gravity, each defended by competing gangs of armed researchers for hundreds of years, with no resolution in sight.
lol… “science sucks”… “do you have a better idea?”
Yea, we could always believe Father, for He is utterly trustworthy and incapable of lying. He’s also pretty big on love being Love Himself. But of course this requires us to be childlike, trusting, leaving all of the Self behind…just like the perfect Expression of Father said, we could listen with our hearts to Him and believe the eternal things, the unseen and live and prove the fairy tale…true.
Then we will find that…”we are closer to things invisible than to things visible.”
…a better idea for a system of understanding the world. Religion is not an effective system, and you have said you don’t even support religion. So, what system, then? Sit and wait for understanding to strike?
People are capable of lying to themselves and believing it. When you are childlike and you are trusting, you’re witless, unable to find the truth or thinking you found it halfway through looking for it.
THERE IS A CHILDHOOD into which we have to grow, just as there is a childhood which we must leave behind. One is a childishness from which but few of those who are counted wisest among men have freed themselves. The other is a child-likeness, which is the highest gain of humanity.
In other words, a primitive level of existence, in which one is likely to accept any explanation the mind can conjure, dear fear and glorification and superstitious beliefs. How gods were invented from way back and are still celebrated in modern times.
“The other is a child-likeness, which is the highest gain of humanity.”
You wil have problem defending it.
No, you are confusing foolishness with childlikeness and innocence. “look, there is God, laughing and playing with children saying they are most like Him”.
Innocence, purity, child (likeness), now these are of the beautiful sort and nearest to the heart of the Father.
“The other is a child-likeness, which is the highest gain of humanity.”
Don’t assume, John C.
I’m not confusing it. You’re saying you’re not like I said because you’re exactly the same. You claim to know what god wants, and that’s to be ignorant and lack curiosity because he’s got it all taken care of, if not here on earth, eventually. You could change the words and it will still mean the same thing. You could quote the bible and it will still mean the same thing. Do not worry that you cannot learn to tie your own shoes, for I have provided loafers! Do not worry about starving, for it will cause great hallucinations, and then you will die and all the sooner, you can sit on my lap, and my lap is so big, you won’t even have to take turns with everyone else. The sky is blue because I heard you like blue!
Dark Matter…your name suits you to a tee…why not come out of…Self and into the (true) Light?
Then perhaps you can change your screen name to…Light Lover? ha :)
Keith writes:
“That Russell called it knowledge only shows he has a different definition of knowledge. A deficient one, I would argue.”
It’s good to know, Keith,that you think you’re better at defining the meaning of words that Bertrand Russell.
>Have the last word. Goodbye.<
Wimp.
@Keith
I’d like to see you rest a little less on the logic of others and apply the logic that you DO use back on your own premises.
You start off that science does not offer ‘knowledge’, but rather “it gives *understanding* of the universe, at least in the sense of what works.” I guess I’m wondering what definition of ‘knowledge’ he was using as your point seems to be something of a semantic one. What “knowledge” does theism offer here? You claim this definition of knowledge is deficient and yet you don’t actually lay out yours. Is it a greater form of knowledge than giving an understanding of the universe? In what way the ‘knowledge’ acquired by philosophy and religion not fallacious? In what way does what you’re proposing offer a superior and more correct understanding of the nature of things?
Also, in what way does this argument of yours (even if successful) support the invocation of a designer in our understanding of the universe?
Mark, I qualified my use of the word “understanding” by saying that science shows us what “works”—that is, it meets our desired ends. This is basic pragmatism, and science is a pragmatic endeavor. Nothing wrong with that. Indeed, I think science is one the ways in which God wants man to subdue the creation. But to say that scientific conclusions count as justified, true belief is simply intolerable. Obviously an idea is not true just because it is useful to me.
If a an omniscient, infallible God revealed that P, would we not be justified in believing P? Of course we would. Obviously I regard revelation as knowledge precisely because it is information revealed to us by an infallible God. Accordingly, if God reveals to us that He is the creator, we know that the universe was designed.
Once again, unproven premises. First you assume a God, then you assume said God is omniscient and infallable (this also assumes that such a criteria is possible to verify), and, further still, you assume God has revealed something.
Then you toss out “understanding” of what works as actual knowledge. It is arguable that science offers the most reliable form of knowledge out there. You speak of scriptural revelation. Well, I would point you to the Vedas of Hinduism and the Sutras of Buddhism along with every other religion’s claims of “Divine Revelation.” They ‘reveal’ equally spiritual ‘truths,’ some of which are mutually exclusive with your religion’s claims.
So which is it? Which religion’s revealed truths are true? If they contradict one another, chances are at least one of them is wrong. So please tell me how you would go about determining this. While your at it, please tell me how your ‘revealed’ truth is more reliable than scientific analysis.
Yes, Mark, I assume that God exists, He revealed Himself, and He is authoritative. This is my presupposition. Infallible authorities are self-vindicating—what higher authority would they appeal to? You to appeal to an authority, also: yourself. The problem is that my presupposition allows for knowledge and yours destroys it. If you want more explanation then I’d like to point you to some resources. I don’t have time to write out an in-depth explanation on this point. Don’t reject my offer and then start complaining that I’m “arrogant”.
I deal with other religions the same way I deal with atheism: reductios ad absurdum. The Quran claims that the Bible is God’s word and then blatantly contradicts it. Regarding many other religions: they do not even provide a complete worldview so it is hard to even begin. Most of it is just tribal folklore. Christianity, on the other hand, is a complete worldview describing the proper view of epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, politics, and aesthetics—all with amazing perspicuity. All I can suggest you do is go study the Bible for yourself.
Atheists are the one who should be considered about arbitrariness: which atheist is the authority? How do you know?
Now isn’t that wonderfully hypocritical. You appeal to authority for your religion and deny other religions that same right. In order to have that approach and not be a hypocrite you must allow all other religions to appeal to their authority, which you clearly do not. Special pleading isn’t convincing.
No, I did not state that, nor did I imply it, nor do I even believe it. Examples, please.
You appeal to authority. You mention it quite clearly in your previous comment. You assume the existence of your god, and that he is authoritative. You deny other religions that same right by claiming that contradicting your religions ‘holy book’ makes them wrong, when all they would actually need to do is make the same silly assumptions you did.. that their god was real and authoritative.
So you said it quite clearly less than half an hour ago. Do you understand your own words?
Muslims claim that both the Quran and the Bible are from God, yet they contradict one another. How am I denying Muslims the right to call Allah the authority? If Allah wasn’t the authority then the premises in my argument wouldn’t even be true…
Part of your issue here is misunderstanding the status of the Bible in Islam. It is fairly clear from text and tradition that Muslims believe the Bible to be a reflection of the divine will, but one which has been distorted and corrupted due to unfaithful reproduction and other human meddling. They believe that the Qur’an was necessary only because this corrupting process necessitated another, final revelation to clear things up.
By claiming your book trumps theirs, you are claiming your particular version of god trumps theirs. Are you really this out of touch with reality or did someone teach you false reasoning and pretend it was the real thing?
Remember, your position must be applied to all religions. You claim your particular version of your particular god is right because you are assuming it and you stated that clearly. In order for that to not be a hypocritical position you must allow a follower of any religion to claim that their religion is true because they are assuming it. The amount of self delusion necessary to believe that is amusingly horrific.
The Quran can speak for itself: [ 29: 46 ] And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our Allah and your Allah is One, and to Him do we submit. Yet the Christian God and Allah are not the same God. One is triune and the other is not, for starters.
No, Aor, my argument assumes that both are true, otherwise there would be no contradiction. You apparently don’t understand the concept behind reductios ad absurdum. Goodbye.
You apparently don’t understand the concept behind reductios ad absurdum.
I’m pretty sure he does.
The problem here is you’re taking one line from the Qur’an to justify your (incorrect) reading of its position on the Bible, without looking for context or other lines which modify the seeming intent of Sura 29. It would be exactly like someone taking the end of Psalm 137 and assuming that, clearly, the Bible exhorts as pleasant the notion of dashing one’s enemies babies against rocks, because it says so in one line.
Context and exegesis matters.
You know who else liked context?
HITLER!!!!
You know who else liked context? HITLER!!!!
LOL!
Damn. I’ll have to scratch context off my list. There it goes to join painting, highways, animal rights, speech-making, beer halls, sex, eating, breathing…
Infallible sources are not self-vindicating as infallibility cannot truly be established to an objective listener. Perhaps we can verify factual statements, but I think it’s safe to say the bible has its share of mistakes and inconsistencies. I mean you can say that god is perfect till your blue in the face, but that doesn’t mean a whole heck of a lot.
“Christianity, on the other hand, is a complete worldview describing the proper view of epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, politics, and aesthetics—all with amazing perspicuity.”
Much of which is stolen from PLATO (a non-Christian). Further, Indian religion has all of those things and had it thousands of years before christians did.
Still doesn’t make any religion “The One True Religion” , though…
Yeah, LRA. My thought when I read his claim was, “Wow, this guy doesn’t know jack shit about his own religion’s history, or any other religions in general.”
I’m pretty l33t with my HTML tags. :P