Asked my christian co-workers.....

by DS211 36 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  bohm

  Neon: The idea that I'm trying to sum up is the concept that nothing exists outside the material universe - that matter and energy are all there is, and that the supernatural is not merely outside the realm of science, but is non-existent. ... So my point is that, while the presupposition of materialistic naturalism may not be advocated by name in academia and the sciences, the idea permeates the environment, and the upshot of that is that it's practically required to be an atheist to function in that arena

  My claim: Some scientist accept this as true, some do not. Many (if not most) has never considered the question and feel it is rather silly. Many would properly ask which definitions you are using of "energy" and "matter" if you feel superstrings, spacetime or quantum fields fit in those exact categories.

  I have never encountered a scientist in my professional life who made such a claim. Why should one make this assumption?

  I know this type of accusation is the current fad on youtube and appolegetics; "those close minded scientists". In fact a significant proportions of scientists are theists; do you also feel they make such an assumption?

  My question is what evidence you have this view is shared by a majority of high-profile scientists? (not Matt Dillahunty). Specifically, that they would not be swayed by evidence to the contrary? I find the question particulary interesting with respect to christian, jewish and muslim scientists.

  My reading and observation to this point have led me to believe that what I write is true - can you say any differently about what you write?

  I don't think it is fair or reasonable to make this sort of accusation without having better evidence than this. Could you give some of your best sources for the claim?

  I've had atheists demand evidence for the existence of God, and then, under questioning, admit that no evidence could ever be presented that would convince them to believe in God.

  I have had theists use the jesus-on-toast argument. While I might be tempted to throw in such a silly claim so as to not address what you are actually writing, I find it irrelevant to this conversation and a waste of your time.

  I'm not talking about six-day creationism here, but the reasonable conclusion that when one sees a universe with an overwhelming appearance of design, one may conclude that there is most likely a designer behind that universe. It seems reasonable also to believe that such a designer cannot be analyzed or known by the same methods by which the universe is measured (i.e., the physical sciences), but would have to make its presence known through revelation.

  The eye showed evidence of design, but that turned out to have arisen by natural means. The solar system showed evidence of design but turned out to have come about by natural means.

  Clearly, actual design by an intelligence is not the only reasonable conclusion one can draw from an "overwhelming appearance of design" and to use apparence of design as a clear argument for an designer is thus highly dubious. The discovery institute claim to try an develop methods and make discoveries that allow us to draw the inference from apparent design (or pattern to use a less loaded word), however on purely technical grounds their best work i am familiar with is a disaster and not taken serious by academia simply because it does not pass the usual standards of rigor one expect of other scientific ideas.
• 

  NeonMadman

  My claim: Some scientist accept this as true, some do not. Many (if not most) has never considered the question and feel it is rather silly. Many would properly ask which definitions you are using of "energy" and "matter" if you feel superstrings, spacetime or quantum fields fit in those exact categories.

  I have never encountered a scientist in my professional life who made such a claim. Why should one make this assumption?

  I'm not sure why one should make such an assumption. I certainly wouldn't, but geneticist Richard Lewontin expressed the idea that I have been referring to as "materialistic naturalism" in this way:

  ‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
  
  It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
  
  The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen.
  Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.

  I have been under the impression that many in the scientific community adhere to this particular way of thinking. If I'm wrong about that, I am open to correction.

  I don't think it is fair or reasonable to make this sort of accusation without having better evidence than this. Could you give some of your best sources for the claim?

  I didn't think of it as an accusation. It was more of an observation regarding presuppositions. However, if you are asking me for evidence that those involved in the sciences are less likely to have religious belief than non-scientists, I could cite this study, published in 2007: http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~ehe/doc/Ecklund_SocialProblems_54_2.pdf

  Note particularly the chart on p. 298: 51.7% of those identified as "Scientists" answer "None" as religious affiliation vs. 14.2% of non-scientists. I think that says something, and I don't think what it says is that learning science necessarily makes one a non-believer in God. My intuition is that it is the presupposition of non-supernaturalism that does so. Obviously that presupposition would not be shared by Christian, Jewish or Muslim scientists, but they are under-represented demographically in the scientific community. Which was pretty much my point - that such thinking dominates in academia. I could cite cases of academics who have found their jobs in jeopardy or even lost their positions because they professed a personal belief that the facts of science imply intelligent design of the universe (again, quite distinct from six-day creationism). Yes, these are anecdotal; they have nonetheless contributed to my thought on the matter.

  I've had atheists demand evidence for the existence of God, and then, under questioning, admit that no evidence could ever be presented that would convince them to believe in God.

  I have had theists use the jesus-on-toast argument. While I might be tempted to throw in such a silly claim so as to not address what you are actually writing, I find it irrelevant to this conversation and a waste of your time.

  Understood and appreciated. Perhaps I should clarify - and again, I know this is anecdotal. In virtually every conversation I have had with an atheist about the existence of God, this has been the way the conversation went. 'I'd believe if I could just see evidence of God' - but on further discussion, there is no evidence that could ever be convincing enough. Flaming letters across the sky saying "I am Yahweh, worship me"? Probably some rare astronomical phenomenon, or else a mass hallucination. Jesus appears in your living room to explain everything? 20 minutes after he leaves, you say, 'wow, that was a vivid dream I just had.' No matter what evidence was presented, it would never be enough, and the presumption of "materialistic naturalism" (so-called) always requires a non-supernatural explanation of the event.

  In the rare cases where an atheist has given me a form of evidence, it is usually something so specifically defined that it amounts to saying that God would have to become his servant, in effect doing tricks for him. 'If God would give me the ability to fly after I asked him for it," things like that. Even then, if that actually happened, I suspect that it would not be enough, but a non-supernatural explanation would be sought. I am reminded of Jesus' words: "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead." As I said previously, at some point, it becomes a matter of the will, not the intellect.

  The eye showed evidence of design, but that turned out to have arisen by natural means. The solar system showed evidence of design but turned out to have come about by natural means.

  Does "coming about by natural means" automatically imply that there is no designer? Where did the "natural means' (i.e., the physical laws under which the universe operates) come from? Must we really accept the idea that all of the universe's complexity arose from random forces? Do you have evidence as to how random forces manage to generate high levels of complexity and information (like DNA molecules, for example)? Or are the theories formed, in many cases, to specifically exclude any intelligence behind the universe? There's that presupposition again.

  BTW, I really, really, don't want to get into a creation/evolution discussion here. That's not where I'm going with this. Either creation or evolution could be a process used by an intelligent designer.
• 

  bohm

  Neon: I have been under the impression that many in the scientific community adhere to this particular way of thinking. If I'm wrong about that, I am open to correction.

  Some may do, I have never observed it. Some in the faith-community hold silly ideas; we could also discuss those.

  Note particularly the chart on p. 298: 51.7% of those identified as "Scientists" answer "None" as religious affiliation vs. 14.2% of non-scientists. I think that says something

  Yes it says about half of the scientists believe in some sort of god and, even assuming the rest held to some materialistic presumption that made them rule out anything but natural causes in an irrational fashion, presumably this would only affect half of them.

  Neon: Understood and appreciated. Perhaps I should clarify - and again, I know this is anecdotal. In virtually every conversation I have had with an atheist about the existence of God, this has been the way the conversation went. 'I'd believe if I could just see evidence of God' - but on further discussion, there is no evidence that could ever be convincing enough.

  Okay. Lets assume for the sake of argument all atheists except me (I know what I believe myself) really wouldnt be convinced there was a god even after living 1 million years in paradise. I have never met these people but I will accept it for the sake of the argument. Can we move on now?

  Neon: Does "coming about by natural means" automatically imply that there is no designer? Where did the "natural means' (i.e., the physical laws under which the universe operates) come from?

  It mean there was not a designed in the sense Paley made the argument originally for the specific example of the eye. You are free to make a different argument (where did the laws of nature come from?) as long as we agree we are dealing with a different argument.

  Neon: Must we really accept the idea that all of the universe's complexity arose from random forces?

  It is a funny way to put it and I believe the laws of nature are far from random. I would say I am concerned with what the evidence support.

  Do you have evidence as to how random forces manage to generate high levels of complexity and information (like DNA molecules, for example)?

  I would not believe completely random forces could produce anything on their own, but the laws of nature clearly can. It has been shown in laboratory conditions that organisms can evolve (eg. Lenskis experiment).

  Or are the theories formed, in many cases, to specifically exclude any intelligence behind the universe?

  are they? Which theory (which is also widely accepted as true) would that be, specifically?
• 

  adamah

  NeonMadman said-

  Oddly, my experience with some atheists has been that this is not the case for them. I've had atheists demand evidence for the existence of God, and then, under questioning, admit that no evidence could ever be presented that would convince them to believe in God. That any evidence they would be shown would need to be reinterpreted under the presuppositions of what I have called "materialistic naturalism." Is that any less "fundamentalist" thinking than that of the most hard-nosed Baptist? At some point, it becomes a question of the will, not of the intellect.

  Well, some atheists are NOT primarily skeptics, since many atheists simply don't WANT God to exist, just as many believers WANT God to exist. Of course, the existence of God(s) has NOTHING to do with one's wants and desires for God(s) to exist (unless these Gods are much like the fairies in Peter Pan, where Tinkerbell says that a fairy dies everytime a child says fairies don't exist).

  It's my commitment to the principles of skepticism that LED to my becoming an atheist, and not vice-versa, and unlike the lug-nut brained atheists you've apparently been talking to, I'd have NO CHOICE BUT to become a believer in God but only AFTER evidence of His existence is presented.

  And if we're talking about the Abrahamic God portrayed in the Bible who is claimed to be omniscient, then great! He already KNOWS what evidence is required by EVERY atheist (including me), that would be sufficient to prove His existence. Ball's in his court.

  So NOW back to you, and likewise, the ball's in your court:

  "Are you someone who lets the evidence leads your conclusions, or conclusions leads which evidence you'll examine?"

  "Or are you going to admit that no evidence could ever be presented that would convince you NOT to believe in God?"

  Adam
• 

  NeonMadman

  Neon: Must we really accept the idea that all of the universe's complexity arose from random forces?

  It is a funny way to put it and I believe the laws of nature are far from random. I would say I am concerned with what the evidence support.

  Are you saying that the laws of nature are designed? How would non-random work apart from intelligent design? I guess what I'm trying to understand is what the middle ground would be, in your mind?

  Do you have evidence as to how random forces manage to generate high levels of complexity and information (like DNA molecules, for example)?

  I would not believe completely random forces could produce anything on their own, but the laws of nature clearly can. It has been shown in laboratory conditions that organisms can evolve (eg. Lenskis experiment).

  I'm not really arguing against evolution here, though I have to wonder where you think these "laws of nature" actually came from, if not ultimately from random forces. Apart from an intelligence behind it all, I don't se much of any other option than randomness. Even if one accepts the multiverse model of an infinite number of universes of which we just happen to be in the right one where conditions allow us to ask these questions (and I think that one takes at least as much faith as believing in intelligent design), we are still pretty much stuck with randomness as to why we are where we are.

  Or are the theories formed, in many cases, to specifically exclude any intelligence behind the universe?

  are they? Which theory (which is also widely accepted as true) would that be, specifically?

  Well, the multiverse theory that I alluded to above comes to mind. Let's see, we have a universe here that sure looks as if it was designed in a lot of ways. Where do you suppose it came from? Maybe some intelligence actually designed it? Nope, nope, can't be that. There must be a multitude of universes (that we have no evidence for), and we just happen to be in the one out of gazillions that looks as if it was designed.

  Why is extraordinary evidence required in order to believe in an Intelligent Designer, but not in the multiverse?

  Interestingly, I ran across this article during the past week, which sort of illustrates the point I have been trying to make.
• 

  NeonMadman

  Well, some atheists are NOT primarily skeptics, since many atheists simply don't WANT God to exist, just as many believers WANT God to exist. Of course, the existence of God(s) has NOTHING to do with one's wants and desires for God(s) to exist

  I agree completely. Both religion and atheism are capable of being a psychological "crutch."

  It's my commitment to the principles of skepticism that LED to my becoming an atheist, and not vice-versa, and unlike the lug-nut brained atheists you've apparently been talking to, I'd have NO CHOICE BUT to become a believer in God but only AFTER evidence of His existence is presented.

  So I'll ask the usual question. What sort of evidence would be sufficient to convince you?

  And if we're talking about the Abrahamic God portrayed in the Bible who is claimed to be omniscient, then great! He already KNOWS what evidence is required by EVERY atheist (including me), that would be sufficient to prove His existence. Ball's in his court.

  And if we are talking about the Abrahamic God, then it's legitimate for me to refer to the biblical text of Romans 1:18-21, which says that there is already adequate evidence in the creation for everyone to believe, and that those who fail to do so are suppressing the truth. Those who fail to do so are said to be "without excuse." Sort of what I've been saying about the evidence of design in nature, albiet worded more strongly.

  Or are you going to admit that no evidence could ever be presented that would convince you NOT to believe in God?

  I'm trying to imagine what sort of evidence you might be referring to. I've never heard an atheist argue that there is abundant evidence of God's non-existence, only that there is not sufficient evidence that God exists. What kind of evidence did you have in mind?
• 

  bohm

  Neon: Are you saying that the laws of nature are designed?

  I most certainly am not.

  How would non-random work apart from intelligent design?

  It is not a well-formed question. To even define randomly you need to define some sort of uniformity (sample space, etc.), aka. non-randomness. Secondly you make the assumption randomness is somehow the default state of things; I am not convinced this is the case.

  Furthermore, laws that appear deterministic at one scale, such as the second law of thermodynamics, arise at least partly out of randomness.

  I guess what I'm trying to understand is what the middle ground would be, in your mind?

  The middle ground would in my oppinion be to say we do not know the fundamental laws and we are so not in a position where we can say very much about how they (whatever they are) came to be or their nature. I would not like to take a position on the universe being fundamentally "random" (I do not know what that would mean) or fully deterministic. I simply do not think we can know, and I am quite surprised that you seem to believe you do.

  If you press me to take a position, I would say quantum mechanics suggest the universe is random (in the quantum mechanical sense) but subject to laws governing that randomness.

  I'm not really arguing against evolution here, though I have to wonder where you think these "laws of nature" actually came from, if not ultimately from random forces.

  Again, I do not see how you can formulate this in a sensible way. Try to define what it mean something is "random" without making reference to fixed structure such as a measure space, a theory of quantum physics and so on.

  Also mind your original question was if i could account for complexity in DNA. I believe I just did.

  Or are the theories formed, in many cases, to specifically exclude any intelligence behind the universe? (..)

  Well, the multiverse theory that I alluded to above comes to mind.

  There are different theories involving multiple universes, I assume what you mean is the group of theories involving inflation cosmology? In that case, I think your claim is historically incorrect, as these theories arise from consideration of how quantum mechanics might be harmonized with inflation cosmology. These ideas a speculative, ofcourse, and might be wrong however that is not the point: Please provide some evidence the founders of these theories (or their primary proponents amongst cosmologists today) intended them to "specifically exclude any intelligence behind the universe".