Chris Campbell runs
a blog hosted by the Houston Chronicle, presumptuously self-titled "Thinking Christian". First, I would have to say that that
Tom Gilson qualifies for the title, in order to show that I do believe some Christians are "thinking"; that said, if Chris is an example of the standard thinking Christian, I would hate to see an unthinking one.
Brent Rasmussen has
seconded my opinion before.
Recently, someone, somewhere (
Brent's mention wasn't it) alerted me to Chris'
new column on The God Delusion. I immediately read the column, saw the paucity of argumentation -- it was completely
argumentum ad ignorantium -- and decided to wade into the comments section. What follows below are some of the more extensive interactions I had on the blog, especially with a civil and reasonable theist:
ochristian. I invited ochristian to visit
Debunking Christianity at the end of the exchange, and he already took me up on it, commenting
here.
_______
ochristian,
C'mon, Daniel. Just because you believe that "someone has no clue" is no reason to be insulting. To say that someone is doubtful of the conclusions that some scientists come to is not a good enough reason to refer them as idiots.
I did not mean to be insulting. I didn't refer to anyone here, or try to dispatch any specific argument here, by insult. You asked me what causes some of us (scientists or otherwise) to get angry in defending evolution. My answer is that it seems that the most vocal opponents to common descent, and evolutionary biology generally, are almost always those with the least understanding.
Consider the well-educated Behe and Dembski. Behe accepts, and Dembski really will not deny, the evidence for common descent. What these men (and ID generally) understand is the amount of evidence for common descent of all life. What they object to is the mechanism behind it all -- they dispute RM/NS as sufficient. As I've explicated at length, the "dissent from Darwinism" is complex. Disagreeing that "only Darwinism" explains "the complexity of life" is not a dissent from common descent of all life, nor of other natural mechanisms.
WHat I find, the further up I go in education level of anti-evolutionary opponents, is increasing acceptance of the conclusion of common descent, but rejection of "nature alone" mechanisms. These are not the type who stand at school board meetings and say, "Someone died on a cross 2,000 years ago, who will stand up for him?"
These are not the types who completely mischaracterize evolution, by saying silly things like, "I didn't come from no monkey!" These are the types who think all scientists are atheists, and that atheists are evil, and that evolution is necessarily atheistic/evil. Again, this is what gets us (general pro-science advocates) inflamed and emotional -- when the debate goes far beyond the question of science and into mudslinging and mischaracterizing of science.
I would think that reasoned and intelligent discourse would discourage such invective.
I would too, but I've experienced otherwise continually.
As much as we would like to trust all of the conclusions that scientist come to it is just not possible because there are almost always dissenting opinions among their ranks.
Laymen are at a serious disadvantage with respect to knowledge. They are not able to evaluate both arguments and come away with any feeling of certitude about which side is correct (scientifically speaking).
I understand your point, and without a background in the oft-recondite material concerned here, it really is a lose-lose battle for the public. They either appeal to the overwhelming consensus of science, made by scientific authorities who they may strongly disagree with on philosophical issues; or go with what they want to be true by going with the fractional minority view.
Let's consider the fractional minority view of the 600 or so signers of the Dissent from Darwinism list. What does it mean that they dissent from darwinism? Read my link.
What can we say about this group, generally? Well, without going through all 600, I found that the only 2 people from UF who signed the list were both Evangelical Christians, just from looking at their websites. What percentage, would you wager, are?
The other thing you should note is that the number of chemists, mathematicians, computer scientists, engineers, and physicists on the DI's list hugely outweighs the number of biochemists, molecular biologists, or life scientists generally.
I am not implying that every single person on the list certainly is of one of the Abrahamic faiths, but if you want to take a wager, I'll post my wager right here on the web: when we move from sample 1 -- those who don't 'dissent from Darwinism' (millions of global scientists, of all races, creeds, religions) to sample 2 -- those who do, I will wager that the correlation of strict Abrahamic faiths (an orthodox, Scripture-believing Christian, Jew or Muslim) goes up by a minimum of 0.3 (30%), which is a significant statistic (p less than 0.05), given the prevalance of those faiths generally, and the relative lack of those faiths within scientists generally (about 40% believe in God, and Nature, 1997).
I'd wager on it. Would you? (hypothetical, not a real challenge to put up money)
Now, that doesn't mean that ID is false, but it certainly means something. Behe himself said on the stand in Dover, PA, quote:
"By intelligent design I mean to imply design beyond the simple laws of nature. That is, taking the laws of nature as given, are there other reasons for concluding that life and it's component systems have been intentionally arranged...
In my book, and in this article, whenever I refer to intelligent design, I mean this stronger sense of design-beyond-laws...
What if the existence of God is in dispute or is denied? So far I have assumed the existence of God. But what if the existence of God is denied at the outset, or is in dispute? Is the plausibility of the argument to design affected? As a matter of my own experience the answer is clearly yes, the argument is less plausible to those for whom God s existence is in question, and is much less plausible for those who deny God's existence...
(next)
...Christians live in the world with non-Christians. We want to share the Good News with those who have not yet grasped it and to defend the faith against attacks.
Materialism is both a weapon that many antagonists use against Christianity and a stumbling block to some who would otherwise enter the church. To the extent that the credibility of materialism is blunted, the task of showing the reasonableness of the faith is made easier, although Christianity can live with a world where physical evidence of God's action is hard to discern, materialism has a tough time with a universe that reeks of design..."
So what does this mean? How many people in the 2nd pool are materialists? I'll wager 0%. I'll wager it right here and now, and anyone who can find a single physicalist among those 600 Ph.D. scientists I will bet a little cash with, if you are willing. Typically, in a pool of 600 Ph.D. scientists, you'd have a hard time finding less than 50% materialists, I'd say. But in this pool...
Now, there is an inference we can draw about that observation -- if the "design" of the universe is a natural phenomenon, there is no good reason for this. If the "design" of biological organisms is from a material designer, then why oppose materialism? If design is detectable, and it is part of science, why must materialism be opposed? They are the ones who assert, over and over, that ID can't tell us "the identity of the (D)esigner". But, somehow, it can tell us that (I)t isn't made of matter?
They are the ones who assert that ID is scientific, and not philosophical...not about materialism, in other words...
Come on, you're too smart (and hopefully too honest) for games.
Do I have the delusion of grandeur that one day science will stomp out such arguments? No. Philosophy is philosophy, and science is science. I am not sure that I even wish that to happen. That would mean that tentative scientific knowledge will one day become certitude, which is almost the same as dogma. Of course, if it becomes "certain" via the right method (piles of evidence and convergence of theory), then I suppose I shouldn't be skeptical of it, should I (like evolutionary theory)? And that's all I ask of those who don't have backgrounds -- stay skeptical of science, fine. But look at why scientists think what they do. Look at the evidence for yourself. Look at the methodology of science, how falsification makes it so different than theology and philosophy. Don't just decide from the outset that you're right and search for ways to prove that.
And we have plenty of examples of science refuting itself over the years.
Science is a progressive idea. Religion is not. Revelation is static, whereas gaining knowledge is dynamic. No one should ever confuse science for dogma; it is the latter pursuit (religion) in which dogma takes hold. That is why you should, as I pointed out above, approach scientific knowledge carefully -- "Why do they think this? What evidence is there? What evidence contradicts this?"
Science is constantly improving, because we learn more as time goes on, and gain more technology, which enables us to learn more and more...we expect refining of theories, but we expect them to get better -- more precise, as time goes on.
Consider that Einstein improved, and did not refute, Newton. Consider that evolution improved with the discovery of genetics and molecular biology, it didn't refute the crude understanding, based on observation alone, of heredity and inheritance from Darwin's day. Science is progressive, and should never be looked at as stale religious dogma.
I can see that some of my statements were a little obtuse, poor wording. What I was trying to get across was that some of the accepted 'facts' used to support their argument that evolution is more than just theory (whatever plateau it may be on, I don't know) are actually some of the things that are in dispute by those who do not accept evolution.
Okay, I understand this to mean you feel I'm begging the question, right? My point is that the "facts" don't belong to any category of knowledge. There aren't "my facts" and "your facts". I would love to see which "facts", specific observations and measurements, creationism can dispute?
And, the other point I was trying to make was that evolutionary theory has been developed from the convergence of geology, astronomy, chemistry, physics, ecology, genetics, etc. "Facts" from all of those fields existed before Darwin's day, and more and more facts have accumulated. The only way to tie them all together is through a coherent theory that accounts for these facts -- the age of the earth, measurements of paleomagnetism, stratigraphy, the progressive fossil record, genetic homology, anatomical parahomology, etc., etc., etc.
The reason why creationism is not theory but law is because of these things we know to be facts:
I understand -- it's packaging the things you need to prove in as "proven facts". It's begging the question, or petitio principii.
Only a handful of people in this present debate are using that type of simplistic argument.
I didn't say that, did I?
Most (of the Christians or ID people)are willing to compromise on certain points to reach some type of common ground where reasonable discouse can take place.
I think it important to ask -- what should compromise be based on? An agreed methodology? Because if you agree with the scientific method's veracity, I see very little room for us to disagree on the general, widely-accepted conclusions that flow from it (eg common descent). Now, disagreeing on specifics, eg punctuated equilibrium versus gradualism, is quite different -- it is an interpretation of the data, both ways account for the data, and the question is "best fit". Contrariwise, there is nothing within creationism that accounts for all of the data -- there are internal inconsistencies that require one to shut their eyes to the brute facts that fly in the face of creationist presuppositions.
I don't see any willingness to compromise, even for the sake of argument on the part of most of the Darwinists on this blog. In fact much of the verbage seems that it might be intentionally insulting.
I hope the above effort I'm making to communicate shows that I do care about reaching a mutual understanding.
To talk of verbiage, why call me a Darwinist? I'm not a Darwinist. I'm a scientist who supports evolutionary biology.
I have friends who when they were studying to be scientists they often became romantically involved with their disciplines.
The old "science without religion is lame", right? Whatever makes people happy, so long as they don't distort the data. I am awed by our universe, just as you are. I just don't pretend to know why it exists as it does -- you believe you know why.
As time passed most of them have come to look at spirituality a bit more generously.
Well, Einstein clarified his views on awe and enthusiasm for the beauty of science, and I find myself agreeing with him on everything he said:
(Einstein) -- You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a peculiar religious feeling of his own. But it is different from the religion of the naive man.
For the latter God is a being from whose care one hopes to benefit and whose punishment one fears; a sublimation of a feeling similar to that of a child for its father, a being to whom one stands to some extent in a personal relation, however deeply it may be tinged with awe.
But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. There is nothing divine about morality, it is a purely human affair. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages.
Einstein didn't believe in a Personal Embodiment of the intelligence that he spoke of here. He did not, and never did since his childhood, believe in a personal God. People have forever taken him out of context, but he clearly meant what he said, when he said it.
Dawkins explicates on this point at some length in the first chapter of The God Delusion:
Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that 'God is the ultimate' or 'God is our better nature' or 'God is the universe.' Of course, like any other word, the word 'God' can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal.
Weinberg is surely right that, if the word God is not to become completely useless, it should be used in the way people have generally understood it: to denote a supernatural creator that is 'appropriate for us to worship'.
Much unfortunate confusion is caused by failure to distinguish what can be called Einsteinian religion from supernatural religion. Einstein sometimes invoked the name of God (and he is not the only atheistic scientist to do so), inviting misunderstanding by supernaturalists eager to misunderstand and claim so illustrious a thinker as their own. The dramatic (or was it mischievous?) ending of Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time, 'For then we should know the mind of God', is notoriously misconstrued. It has led people to believe, mistakenly of course, that Hawking is a religious man. The cell biologist Ursula Goodenough, in The Sacred Depths of Nature, sounds more religious than Hawking or Einstein. She loves churches, mosques and temples, and numerous passages in her book fairly beg to be taken out of context and used as ammunition for supernatural religion. She goes so far as to call herself a 'Religious Naturalist'. Yet a careful reading of her book shows that she is really as staunch an atheist as I am...
There are many intellectual atheists who proudly call themselves Jews and observe Jewish rites, perhaps out of loyalty to an ancient tradition or to murdered relatives, but also because of a confused and confusing willingness to label as 'religion' the pantheistic reverence which many of us share with its most distinguished exponent, Albert Einstein. They may not believe but, to borrow Dan Dennett's phrase, they 'believe in belief'.
One of Einstein's most eagerly quoted remarks is 'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.' But Einstein also said,
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
Does it seem that Einstein contradicted himself? That his words can be cherry-picked for quotes to support both sides of an argument? No. By 'religion' Einstein meant something entirely different from what is conventionally meant. As I continue to clarify the distinction between supernatural religion on the one hand and Einsteinian religion on the other, bear in mind that I am calling only supernatural gods delusional.
Here are some more quotations from Einstein, to give a flavour of Einsteinian religion.
I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion.
I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.
The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive.
In greater numbers since his death, religious apologists understandably try to claim Einstein as one of their own. Some of his religious contemporaries saw him very differently. In 1940 Einstein wrote a famous paper justifying his statement 'I do not believe in a personal God.' This and similar statements provoked a storm of letters from the religiously orthodox, many of them alluding to Einstein's Jewish origins.
Dawkins goes on to quote at length from Einstein and Religion, by Max Jammer, to show the severity of criticisms that Einstein faced in his day for the perception that he was a Janus -- acknowledging his Jewish heritage and denying the God thereof.
I don't dislike "spirituality" when you define it certain ways. What I dislike is faith that tries to pretend to be knowledge. What I detest is dogma.
Just out of curiosity, would anyone like to comment on Dr.Francis Crick's idea that this planet was seeded in the distant past by an interstellar race of beings? This apparently helps him come to terms with what he sees as some sort of superior hand working 'behind the scenes' with evolution.
Most scientists agree that this postulation is both without evidence and contradicted by our understanding of deep space -- the ability of even bacterial spores to survive, naked in space, is nullified by temperature and the unshielded exposure to ionizing radiation. The distances that must be travelled boggle the mind. The "front-loading hypothesis" that this entails (that the originals had the plan to ultimately lead to everything today) is falsified by molecular biology and microfossils.
___________
Chris Campbell,
Scientists and universities are not in agreement as to when life appeared. The longest is 1 to 3.5 billion years ago the shortest 200 million years ago.
Do you have a source for this fact? I would love to read a scientific study published by any professor at any respected, accredited university which claims anywhere near the figures you have above. The earliest known microfossils are indisputably older than 3 billion years, and some argue much older ages for the ratio of C12/C13 (this is not radiometric, but due to the uptake specificity of biological organisms) such as 3.6 billion years. These are primitive cyanobacteria.
The window of opportunity that most scientists agree on is, maximum 0.5 billion years for the emergence of life on earth.
Please substantiate that claim, if you want me to take it seriously.
____________
Matt,
I'm done with your "ad hominem" approach to discourse.
People love to throw around the phrase ad hominem without even knowing what it means. Show me, Matt, exactly where I committed the fallacy you accuse me of? In order to commit that fallacy, you must take a specific argument from your debate opponent, and declare that the argument itself is wrong because of the person making it. Examples include: "The earth can't be 4 BY old, because he's an atheist," "Creationism can't be true, because the guy arguing it is illiterate..." etc.
Dismissing an argument in its entirety on the basis of the (supposed) character or intellect of the person promoting it, without substantiating why the argument itself is wrong, is the heart of the ad hominem fallacy. I have not done that.
If you can't discuss reasonably, as I said before, it's a clear sign your arguments are based on false hope, I highly doubt you are a scientist at all.
Skepticism is good. I encourage it. Unfortunately, you're wrong, but I don't really care if you believe me or not. If you care to notice, I am listed in the directory of Ph.D.-seeking chemistry grad students at UF (I go by my middle name, Daniel, but I'm listed there by my first, Steven), and a resource on my research, including my presentations and our group poster, is available.
You are bitter though, I'll grant you that.
Perhaps, but that's irrelevant to the discussion: have you dispatched any of my arguments, whatsoever? That's all that matters, not my frame of mind...unless you want to commit the very fallacy you just accused me of committing.
_______________
Hammer, (comment on October 26, 2006 12:07 PM)Daniel Morgan and others who believe in evolution, Are we then all there is? Is life just a process and then we die?
I was a youth pastor at two different churches, and only became an atheist in the past two years, over a slow period of time. Don't assume too much about atheists, btw.
First, if something is true, it doesn't matter how we feel about it. It makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside to believe that Jennifer Aniston and Jessica Simpson lie awake at night yearning to make babies with me. That doesn't make it true. It makes me feel a bit less enthused to contemplate that death is the last time I get to hug a person I love. That doesn't make it false.
Basing your value on the process by which life is formed seems silly. If God said, "Presto!" and waved a giant wand, does this immediately confer more purpose/value/meaning to your life than if God used natural processes and laws?
Each of us decide to assign meaning, value, and purpose to our lives. Some of us decide that our religion is the source thereof, while some of us decide that contributing to human knowledge, loving others and being virtuous is, some of us make our religion out of exactly that -- doing good, furthering science and loving others. It's your choice, like it or not.
Christians, of course, believe that we are created in the image of God, to Glorify God.
So do a number of other religions. So?
Let's look at the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 1. It was prophesied in Scripture hundreds of years before in Isaiah 53 and Daniel 9.
All of the prophecies you refer to, all the things that convince you that the Bible is God's Word, have very natural explanations. First, the Bible is not the first (or only) book to contain writings that are "wise" and useful in many ways. Second, the "prophecies" that people see are always:
i) Fall prey to the fact that we cannot verify their authenticity in any meaningful way, because we receive them "after the fact" -- that is, after both the supposed delivery of the prophecy and its supposed fulfillment
ii) Are never explicit and specific -- almost every "prophecy" is extremely general and vague, no names, no exact dates, no exact details. Examples include when kings were "doomed" but details were never spelled out.
iii) Are often retro-interpreted -- typically because of their ambiguity (Isa 7:14 and Isa 53 are both a fine example of this), to fit a preconceived notion of the reader, and to align with the reader's presuppositions and theology. This is why the Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah, right?
In fact, if you want falsification of the "prophecies" of Jesus, the best place to look is to the Jews themselves: Index of Refutations
Specifically, they refute the Isaiah 53 "proof-text" of Jesus as the Messiah here, and here as well as in two other articles in that index.
2. There is an undeniable fact that the tomb was empty.
Really? That's funny. I thought we only know about this tomb from people who claimed that Jesus was resurrected, who tell us this tale based on word of mouth over a period of approximately 4 decades. Also, why is it that in the earliest copies of the earliest Gospel (Codex Sinaiticus, Mark), the story of what happened is completely different than in the later versions? Why is that?
3. The Roman and Jewish authorities could not and never did find the body because it had been resurrected.
Silly. In your own book, it claims that the disciples waited until the Pentecost to go preach that Jesus had resurrected. It also says in your own book that the Jewish people "embalm" by simply putting on spices and rubbing people with oils and wrapping the body. They do not believe in cutting open bodies to remove the organs, nor in bleeding them, to slow decay.
That said...if we take your dead body out for 50 days and stick it in a moist cave somewhere and then come back to look at it, tell me, exactly how recognizable will it be? Even if your story is true (which you are assuming, rather than proving), the Jewish and Roman authorities could hardly "prove" that it was or wasn't Jesus' body, versus some other body, ditto with the disciples.
That story is so worn-out and poorly thought out, and it's been repeated by mindless sycophants of McDowell for years. Think! The body would've been WELL rotted after almost two months in a cave with no embalming or organ removal. Most corpses swell, discolor and bust within a week, depending on aridity.
4. The apostles, who in the Gospel according to John were very scared after Jesus' death, became martyr's and defenders of the faith after seeing our resurrected Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. They were assured that Jesus was God as evidenced by His resurrection and they went out accordingly to fulfill His Great Commission. (Matthew 28:19-20)
Again, where do all these stories come from? (Cue up the movie: Fiddler on the Roof) Tradition...Tradition!! Word of mouth. Legend. Lore. (Myth)
5. Christianity survived the Roman persecutions for roughly 300 years, specifically under the brutal persecutions of Decius and Diocletian, to become the largest faith in the world. Its effects on culture, science, and philosophy, are innumerable to mention.
And you think Xianity is the first religion to be persecuted? Sure. And the Muslims were never slaughtered by the Xians. And the Catholics and Protestants didn't slaughter each other for generations (and still do). And you probably also don't know that the Hindu Tamil Tigers have blown themselves up for decades? I guess the fact that people are willing to die for these other falsehoods doesn't mean anything to you? People die for things they believe, whether they're true or false. People died for communism by the millions due to the delusional faith in the broken system. So?
6. The Bible is the #1 best seller of all time.
Argumentum ad populum. It's a classic logical fallacy.
These are not all of the reasons to believe that Christianity is true. They do not prove in and of itself that Jesus was resurrected from the grave.
So why waste your time pointing them out?
The Bible is clear that we are required to have faith. (Hebrews 11:6) Yet, these propositions above are undeniable. If there was an empty tomb, then where was Jesus?
They're undeniable, huh? Ever hear of petitio principii?
Did the Apostles steal the body? I find this highly unlikely. Why would they steal the body and then go on to write the New Testament which thus subsequently would have condemned themselves for this act they would have committed?
Again, you're begging the question of how much of the story is true, in order to turn around and use parts of the story to substantiate itself.
You don't know your book very well if you really think that the disciples wrote it.
I have already alluded to the fact that the Romans and Jews could not find the body.
And I already heard it. And pointed out the two serious logical flaws:
i) how do you know the story is true, since the people repeating it are followers of Jesus, who seek to convert others...
ii) the body would've been rotted far beyond recognition
Hammer continues:
So we are at the crossroads. Humans are held responsible for their beliefs toward Him. God has provided enough evidences through general revelation, history, His Son's resurrection, and His Word, the Bible, to encourage one to place his or her faith in Jesus Christ for the salvation of their respective souls.
You're really good at begging the question.
If people decide to put their faith in humanistic, evolutionary, and pluralistic philosophies, then that is their choice.
Of course. Just like it's your choice to believe in Edenic paradises, snakes that talk, angels and demons floating around in the room with you (right now!?!?!?), axe heads that float on water, donkeys that talk, people that transport through the air (Acts8), people who came out of a grave at the time of Jesus' death, (but for whatever reason, nobody wanted to write histories about it) etc. etc. etc.
It's your choice to believe nonsense and call it "fact", and "undeniable"...
Jesus himself said in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 7:6:
So basically Jesus said don't judge, unless you want to be, remove the mote from your eyes, hypocrites, and don't try to talk science to superstitious persons with a bent for miracles, because you're wasting your time (pearls before swine)?? That's how I read it.
I pray that those who are vehemently against Christianity, to examine their motives. Is it that Christians are forcing you to believe? Is it that we are all right-winged fundamentalists and intolerant?
What is your motive against Islam? Judaism? Hinduism? Buddhism? Paganism? Is it that they are all right-winged fundies and intolerant?
No. It is because man can not except that there is something greater than himself in the Universe, and that is God.
Sounds like you smack of pride to me -- saying you know my motives and my heart. I believed in God for many years, silly, so how is it that I "cannot accept" such a thing? Would you say that I stopped believing in Santa Claus because I "can not except" that someone can fly through the air with reindeer? Well...if you said that, you'd be right!
Can you not "except" Zeus? Poseidon? Why not? Why don't you believe in them? For the same reasons I don't believe in your God.
For if there is a God, and there is, one must now be accountible to God for his or her actions.
I already am accountable to my society (laws), wife, family, boss, friends, etc. We all are. There is no such thing as "loss of accountability". The laws of nature keep us in check.
More to point -- why not just believe in the God of Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson? If I just wanted to escape judgment/hellfire, I could be a Deist, or a pantheist, or believe in Diana. Simply put, your argument tanks. People don't have to stop believing in God entirely to get out from under the nonsense of Evangelical Christianity.
They could become liberal Christians, or Hindus, or etc., etc., etc., if they still wanted to believe in God but didn't want moral responsibility.
Also, tell me, friend, when was the last time that people believing in God stopped them from doing wrong? So, if people can actually believe in God and still do wrong, why is it that they need to stop believing?
Hitler was no atheist. Your argument tanks.
In closing, I'll quote the Apostle Paul who speaks of this more eloquently than I. May God be with each of you in your search for truth and meaning in life.
Peace to you too. I hope you employ more reasoning in your search, and less fideism.
--responding to St. Paul's warning about wisdom--
Proverbs 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
Proverbs 3:13 Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding.
Proverbs 8:11 For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.
Proverbs 15:2 The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness.
Also see Proverbs 14:7-8, 14:16-18, 14:21-22, 29, 16:21-22
Proverbs 23:23 Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding.
Eccl 1:13 And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith.
Eccl 2:13 Then I saw that wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth darkness.
Eccl 7:25 I applied mine heart to know, and to search, and to seek out wisdom, and the reason of things, and to know the wickedness of folly, even of foolishness and madness
Eccl 9:16 Then said I, Wisdom is better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom is despised, and his words are not heard.
Eccl 10:10 If the iron be blunt, and he do not whet the edge, then must he put to more strength: but wisdom is profitable to direct.
James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom ... ask of God ... and it shall be given him.
James 3:13-17 Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? Let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth...BUT THE WISDOM THAT IS FROM ABOVE is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
--end--
Think I didn't read my Bible? I know it backwards and forwards, friend. (yes, yes, I know, so does the devil)
So, is wisdom good or bad? It depends on "what type", according to most interpretations. So, "well how do we know what type of wisdom is good or bad?" And the answer? "Whatever the Bible says..." How do we know it is wise in the first place to look at the Bible for answers, I ask? "Cause it's God's Word," the reply. "But how do you know that?" "You've just got to have faith, cause it says so right here..." And on, and on , and on. Circular reasoning at its finest.
__________
ochristian,
You pose these major questions:
i) Why do humans perceive majesty/beauty in nature?
ii) Why do we have a sort of "moral code"
iii) Why do cats have certain colors?
iv) Why does the human sense of justice sometimes override its self-preservation instinct?
v) Why do humans pursue knowledge, even if it doesn't confer direct survival advantage?
Let us assume I have absolutely no answers to any of your questions. Are they not all arguments from ignorance? That is, they are negative arguments: "You don't know X". Let's say I don't. Do you? Or do you just "believe" something, and think that because you believe something, and (let's say) I don't have the answers, that this means "Daniel doesn't know X; I therefore am right about X"? This is obviously false.
All of the ignorance of human beings doesn't lead to God. If we have no answers whatsoever to anything in nature, it doesn't mean, "therefore, God exists." Hardly. I would say that it renders the liklihood of God far less plausible that we are so very ignorant of our universe, and so ignorant of God Itself. Thousands of versions and ideas about God have come and gone. Why? If there is a God, why have humans struggled to define It and know It?
i) Why do humans perceive majesty/beauty in nature?
We have large cortexes, therefore we are able to comprehend exactly how very small we are, and how huge the universe is, and there are natural instincts and responses inside us that we don't even understand which reflex with awe and wonder.
ii) Why do we have a sort of "moral code"
The altruistic, cooperative response in humans (and other higher mammals) is very beneficial to our survival -- we have no natural defenses, and only survive in through socialization. The other great apes share a degree of this sense of justice, empathy, and altruism with us. Therefore, there is a good reason to believe that there are natural reasons behind our moral intuitions. I would see these books for more:
1) Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved
2) Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong
3) The Altruism Equation: Seven Scientists Search for the Origins of Goodness
iii) Why do cats have certain colors?
One consideration is that variation is produced randomly, and selected for naturally. If the cat is bred for certain features (coat color, etc), artificial selection renders searching for "a benefit" null and void. If you're referring to the stripes on non-domestic cats, there are good inferences for why certain features are "selected", eg the stripes as camoflauge.
iv) Why does the human sense of justice sometimes override its self-preservation instinct?
This is, again, a good question. One might also ask why suicide can override it. I would point out that two things determine human desires: genetics and culture/development. If ones desires are imprinted strongly enough, they are capable of overcoming instinctive behavior. We never see, however, this sense of justice-before-survival coming from savage jungle peoples, only from civilized peoples who have been cultivated to appreciate the integral function of justice in society. Ditto with suicide -- suicide rates are far higher in developed societies and in cultures (Japan) which put honor before death. These clues don't completely answer your question, but they certainly deserve serious thought.
v) Why do humans pursue knowledge, even if it doesn't confer direct survival advantage?
Certainly we are drawn to understand everything we can. Daniel Dennett argues in his most recent book that simple pattern-detection, a trait very beneficial to evade predators and survive, evolved into higher-order "recognition of other minds", which is something I doubt you'd dispute exists (although you may attribute it to supernatural forces). From there, the ability to cognize ourselves follows -- knowing "me" from "everything else" and "other people/animals/intentional-sentient beings" from "mindless nature".
This confers survival benefit (obviously), and so can be selected for naturally. Once this ability is selected for, it doesn't just "cut itself off" at the level of "how do I survive moment to moment". Why? Because humans mastered agriculture and technology, slowly, with pain and blood and sweat and tears, we triumphed. Now, we live in societal conditions that allow us to employ those tools of our mind to "extra-survival pursuits".
From that, can we see a natural progression to learn as much as possible about that interface between "mindless nature" and "sentient beings"? For thousands of years, there was no "mindless nature" -- no natural laws and processes. Gods were everywhere, in everything. Now, we seek to understand, "What are all of the natural processes, where do they begin and end?"
We have the luxury of a society that enables us to do this. Some third world countries don't. Their people don't care about astronomy, but only about eating and surviving. And we didn't go from their state to ours by magic, or by God's divine revelation. We stole the secrets of Mother Nature by persistent toil, careful observation, recording our hypotheses and tests, etc. Science is man's tool, and it took him thousands of years to even understand how far it could take him.
And because of this we have made God out to be so unpalatable that some of us will prefer almost anything in his place.
No, God is not unpalatable to me. God is unbelievable. The problem of evil, and the problem of God's hiddeness, make the whole construct logically impossible to me. I just don't believe it anymore.
The study of our universe, science, is essential for man to be complete but the problem is when we consider it to be our sole source of truth.
Science is a method to obtaining the most reliable knowledge about our natural universe. There is much inside us, much subjective experience, that cannot be "scientized" via scientism. I do not claim it can be, or will be, anytime soon. However, thinking that "revelation" is superior to science is silly, when one contradicts the other.
When I was an atheist, and even to some extent today, I felt as you do now.
What caused you to disbelieve in God's existence? Arguments? Evidence? And what changed your mind?
How old were you when you were an atheist, and when you became a believer?
And of course when you abbreviate the Bible to a couple of soundbites then it does sound absurd.
Well, I just responded to Scripture with Scripture [referring to the wisdom of St. Paul vs. the wisdom of Solomon/Proverbs], a fundamental concept of the Christian faith. And I tried to do that to show you how dreadfully inadequate quoting Scripture really is.
People have to step in and do an awful lot of interpretation and ad hoc explanation for the intent/truth of Scripture, don't they?
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Philosophy, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism
