This past week Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron debated with the Rational Response Squad on the existence of God. Comfort promised us a proof of God, so while many of us in the atheist community were dubious about whether these two twits had even the brain power to come up with something new, we held our breath and actually hoped we wouldn't see one of the tired, old, pathetic apologetics we've be subjected to for the past thousand years. Verdict? We risked hypoxia for nothing. Not really a surprise when these two clowns are involved.
The argument? Ray Comfort held up a picture of a painting of the Mona Lisa and told us that it is obvious that the object must have been made by a painter, a designer if you will. By analogy, then, the universe must have had a creator. This creator they call 'God'. Sound familiar? It's hardly original. William Paley used this argument more than two hundred years ago.
On the surface, this argument seems powerful and compelling. Something that has the complexity contained in a painting must have been designed. But this argument's strength is in fact its fatal flaw. Once the question 'how do we know the painting was designed?' is asked, the argument is dead. We know that a painting was produced through a willful and conscious act of an agent (the painter) because we understand how a painting is made, even if we hadn't seen the painter paint this particular painting. Indeed, we do not even need to know who the painter was. This is an example of making a conclusion based on an understanding of the mechanism by which a painting can be made. This is good Science and this part of Paley's argument from design is so far legitimate.
The flip side of the argument is that like the painting, the universe and its contents is so complex that it must also have had a designer. The problem with this analogy is that 'God did it' does not suffice as a mechanism by which anything can be explained. In point of fact, not only does this response 'beg the question' (I would say 'questions'), but never answered the question in the first place. Genesis tells us that God said 'Let there be light, and there was light'. In essence, 'God did it.' If I say to my coffee maker ,'Let there be coffee', I think its easily predicted that I must go without caffeine. A terrible fate indeed. Generation of coffee requires that I use hot water to extract flavorful compounds and caffeine from coffee beans. In other words, a mechanism must exist for creating a cup of coffee from a handful of beans. Genesis is just another example of bad Science, an attempt without supporting data to explain the universe's existence in the absence of a plausible mechanism. This is a very different animal from the creation of the painting.
Mechanism is an extremely important concept in Science. Saying the universe is here because God created it tells us nothing. We gain no knowledge from it, and it is therefor valueless. Tell me HOW God created the universe and then I'll have a listen. Evolution is a fact. We see a progression of speciation in the fossil record for which the only known plausible mechanism is natural selection. Show me a fossil rabbit in the Paleozoic and then natural selection would fail as a potential mechanism for speciation. But we never see such out-of-order lineages. Gene mutations in current species are predicted by Evolutionary Theory. For instance, have you ever wondered why dogs and cats do not need to eat fruit in order to maintain their vitamin C levels? Primates have a mutation in the gene encoding L-gluconolactone oxidase (a PZ Meyers favorite) which catalyzes the reaction producing ascorbic acid (vitamin C). This is also true for fruit-eating bats. When fruit-eating bats split off from an ancestor common to fruit- and non-fruit-eating bats a mutation in this gene occurred, making this enzyme ineffective in this fruit-eating lineage. Indeed, the use of molecular genetics as a molecular clock is in very good agreement with the fossil record, greatly strengthening the argument. The universe is old. We know this from the measurements of red shifts in supernovae. Our home planet is quite old as well. We know from various methods of radiometric dating that the Earth is ca. 4.5 billion years old. The fact that numerous different methods point to the same age makes this estimate very strong.
The argument from design really shows its inadequacy when the knowledge of mechanism is removed. Let's take a scene from the movie The Gods Must Be Crazy, a movie I highly recommend. In this scene, a Coke bottle is discarded from an airplane flying over the African savanna and is picked up by a Bushman (followed by a series of incidents which force the poor sop to conclude that the gods are nuts, hence the movie's title). Having never seen a bottle before, and never having known how a bottle is made, the Bushman makes the perfectly human (and just as perfectly incorrect) conclusion that the bottle was made by the gods.
Was the Bushman's conclusion made on the basis that the bottle is so complex? No. The Bushman jumped to the conclusion without a plausible mechanism. Complexity is just a nebulous buzzword used by the IDiots. When you can quantitate complexity and also determine how much complexity is too much for a conscious agent to NOT have created the universe, then we'll talk some more. But this idea that the chances of a cell spontaneously forming are about the same as a tornado moving through a junkyard and spontaneously creating a Boeing 747 does not cut it as an argument, especially when Evolutionary Theory agrees.
We humans are predisposed to jumping to conclusions in the absence of data or a plausible mechanism. Michael Shermer has written about this extensively in his book Why People Believe Weird Things. Invoking the supernatural as an explanation is an example of bad Science. The scientifically-correct conclusion the Bushman should have made is that he simply can not know the source of the Coke bottle or how it was made without more information. While this is an unsatisfactory answer to any human being (I am not different), jumping to the conclusion that the supernatural is responsible for the Coke bottle's existence, while understandable, is illogical and unscientific.
This is exactly the problem with Paley's argument. On the one hand, we know how a painting can be made from the application of pigments to a canvas in a concerted fashion by a conscious agent. A plausible mechanism is available (good Science). In Paley's time, no plausible mechanism for the creation of the universe was available to draw any conclusion - indeed, we still do not know how it came to be -yet he concluded that it must have had a creator (bad Science). The scientifically-correct conclusion is that there is no conclusion. No scientist, myself included, is satisfied by such an unsatisfying answer (ok, so that's a tautology - sue me). But the difference is that we atheists don't find retreating to the supernatural any more satisfying.
Of course, the final joke of the debate was that Ray Comfort was not holding up a painting as he asserted, but a reproduction of the Mona Lisa. The inaccuracy of this fits exceptionally well with his, or rather Paley's, 'argument'. Neither jumping to conclusions without supporting data nor superstition, alone or in concert, can ever be considered as good Science.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Interesting how you decided that a theist must first be able to explain to you how the univrse came into being before he can claim God's creation of it. The thing of it is, you ignore allot of evidence whne you do that.
All the theist must do is show one thing in the universe which requires a God to create it. Evolution itself is a process that requires a designer. Rational thought is a process which requires a designer as well.
It is not arbitrary that the burden of evidence is on the one who posits the existence of something. The null hypothesis is that there is no deity. This is logic 101. I have absolutely no idea what evidence I have ignored, but if you start mentioning the bible, save your breath. That document, while of interst to historians, can't even get history correct.
No one has ever provided one shred of evidence for a 'designer'(no matter how voluminously the Disco Institute claims otherwise). I presume that you are trying to say that if Science hasn't explained something yet (which is a far cry from saying that Science can't explain a thing), then it must be attributed to a designer. This is simply a mixture of the god-of-the-gaps and false dichotomy arguments.
The greatest scientific mind ever, Newton, wrote one of the greatest works in Science, the Principia. As he described the laws governing the motion of the planets, Newton, himself a very religious (if in a heretical way) never even mentions a god. It isn't until he gets stumped when trying to calculate the motions of more than two bodies does he finally give in and invoke god because he could not make it stable. Newton didn't know of perturbation theory yet, and while there is no analytical solution describing the motion of three or more bodies, the motion is ammenable to numerical analysis. God-of-the-gaps. And those gaps get smaller every day.
As for Evo, there is no need to invoke a designer. Evo obeys Natural Selection and there is no need invoke a deity at all. This has been shown. What you might be doing is mistaking the origin of life for Evo. These are not the same thing, though many people wrongly lump the two together. The origin of life problem is known as abiogenesis. We know little about it (but more than you think), but just because we do not know something yet does not mean that we should jump to a supernatural conclusion. That would just be a lazy excuse. Why stop there? Why not stop all scientific progress and just say god did it all? This is the very reason that methodological naturalism is the basis of all scientific study. No miracles allowed.
shamelessly atheist,
Thank you for a thoughtful response.
Some ideas:
Science depends on rationality to proceed. Our rational thinking is based in part on the laws of logic. These laws are universal and unchanging.
God establishes logic because that is the way He thinks. That is the way he set up His universe. God’s being and thinking do not change.
A Christian can provide an explanation for the universal laws of logic: an unchanging God upholds them in His being and knowledge. Randomness, convention, and observation of a changing world cannot account for an unchanging standard. Only an unchanging being can.
You must supply a logical alternative explanation for the universality of the laws of logic before we can even disagree on any subject.
Now you have to come up with an alternative hypothesis before the “experiment” begins, although I am not sure what hypothesis testing has to do with this discussion.
Second idea:
Evolution, if true, is a process. That process proceeds toward an end, namely the perfection of life. Random processes do not tend toward an end, or purpose. Only an intelligence can set up a process to do that. Natural selection itself is a part of the process (the feedback loop) that shows intelligent intent.
Evidence for any purpose whatsoever at any point anywhere demonstrates the existence of an intelligence to set that purpose. There is no "gap" here.
Third idea:
How does scientific naturalism establish the fact that “…methodological naturalism is the basis of all scientific study. No miracles allowed?”
If you still want to, we can discuss the Bible latter. But I have found that those discussions tend to degenerate into “my scholar trumps your scholar” very quickly. I do ask that you not neglect the last 100 years of archeologogical and historical research in your studies.
Don't you see what you just did? You arbitrarily invoke god: "God establishes logic because that is the way He thinks." Where is the empirical evidence behind this statement? Again, this is simply a god-of-the-gaps argument mixed with the argument from personal incredulity. This is how religion came into being. It was a primitive step in trying to understand our place and existence, but since the tools we now have weren't available deities were invented. In future we will have even better tools to answer these questions. We don't know how the universe came into being therefore it was due to a creator. Who created the creator? You can not arbitrarily stop the infinite regression at the creator.
Natural Selection is not at all purposeful. It shapes traits giving the appearance of design. If you select those traits that work better than others for a certain function (i.e., larger beaks on finches for breaking harder seeds), then birds with larger beaks will pass on those characteristics to the next generation. Natural Selection is blind without being random. Evo being random is a common and totally erroneous misconception. Evo does not proceed to some predetermined end at all. If the environment changes (and it always does), then the characteristics necessary for survival are continually in flux. There is no final endpoint, only what works today.
I've already explained why scientific naturalism (the proper term is methodological naturalism) does not allow the invocation of miraculous events. ALL Science stops if miracles are allowed. If you make an exception in one place you have no basis for which it can not be applied everywhere. Science ends because you now have an excuse to not look for the real answers. It is illogical to jump to the baseless conclusion of the supernatural. Gods were created to explain lightning and thunder, but have long since been known to be an insufficient answer. It is no different for invoking deities anywhere else.
So, how do we know that methodological naturalism works? Because it does. The reasoning is rather inductive, but that doesn't bother me. Just like we know that the sun will rise tomorrow because we have seen it rise so many, many times before, we know that naturalism will answer our questions if we keep pushing because Science has explained so much already. We may not ever be able to answer everything, but that doesn't bother scientists. Why? Because we would much rather say that we do not know than be intellectually dishonest and shrug it off as supernatural.
I do not ignore archaeological evidence at all. Take the story of Moses, for example. There is an utter paucity of evidence for the Jews being enslaved by the Egyptians, and 500,000 people don't wander anywhere, let alone the Sinai, without leaving mountains of evidence. Biblical archaeologists have scoured the Sinai clean in attempts to verify the Moses story and found nada. The Noah has no empirical basis and it is simply lunacy to believe it in light of what we now know. Millions and millions of species on a boat? We couldn't even come close to that with modern shipbuilding technology. It is exactly as one would expect from a priori knowledge that these are stories made up by humans. It was simply a bad local flood in a time the world didn't extend much beyond the horizon. What about Jesus? Sorry, there are no contemporary accounts of his existence at all. Even the history of it was wrong. There were many prophets at the time. You were nothing if you couldn't perform miracles. Apolonius of Tyrana was said to do the same things Jesus did, and he was just one of many. That the Jesus story was the only one that survives in popularity is not very impressive. I could go on and on and on. Religion simply doesn't bear close scrutiny and makes every effort to make sure no one does look too closely.
"God establishes logic because that is the way He thinks." Where is the empirical evidence behind this statement?”
Laws of logic cannot be established through empirical evidence. They are abstract concepts. They don’t exist out there somewhere where we can see them.
God is transcendent; that is, He is beyond the material universe and is its creator. God has originated the laws of logic because they are a reflection of His nature. Therefore, the laws of logic are absolute (or unchanging). The are unchanging because there is an unchanging God.
It sounds as if you are trying to force me to use the scientific method to explain the laws of logic. Logic is used to evaluate the evidence we see with our senses. It is, in one sense, thought about observations of the world. Using the scientific method to establish logic is a circular argument.
There are no gaps here because scientific observation can never prove an abstract law. It’s a here and now thing, not a way back when thing.
“Who created the creator? You can not arbitrarily stop the infinite regression at the creator.”
You cannot have an infinite regression of finite causes, either. The line of causes would never have been moved through to get to the things that exist now. The regress must stop with something, or someone, which has always existed.
“Natural Selection is blind without being random. Evo being random is a common and totally erroneous misconception. Evo does not proceed to some predetermined end at all. If the environment changes (and it always does), then the characteristics necessary for survival are continually in flux. There is no final endpoint, only what works today.”
Thanks for educating me on the concept. Then the purpose of evolution is to improve life so it will survive in today’s environment. Remember that the environment is part of the system to.
I still do not understand how “methodological naturalism” can establish its own truth claim. How does the empirical observation of the world we live in justify the claim that only scientific observation of the world we live in yields information? Saying that it works “Because it does.” is a cop-out.
I’ll leave the Bible and archeology stuff alone for now, but there are answers and there is evidence. I have been looking closely at my own religious beliefs for several years now, and they “bear close scrutiny.”
So you agree, then, that there is no empirical evidence for a god(s). I would then consider the discussion closed, but I would doubt that you would be satisfied with this.
"You cannot have an infinite regression of finite causes, either." I'm not sure how this was relevant, but I believe you are referring to the fatally-flawed First Cause argument. The problem with this argument is that there are a number of processes which do not require any cause. These tend to lie within the quantum realm, such as radioactive decay and virtual particle formation/annhiliation. Current theoretical models place the formation of the universe also in the realm of quantum mechanics.
Why does everyone think that everything has to have a purpose? Evo has no purpose. It is BLIND. It has no agenda of its own. In fact, the universe is completely oblivious to what humans do, believe, etc. The vast majority of the universe is completely hostile to human life. It has no consciousness (regardless of what Deepak Chopra thinks), no purpose, no agenda. If we puny humans can't get our heads around that, the universe doesn't care. Who are we to be so arrogant as to think such a thing?
"Saying that it [methodological naturalism] works “Because it does.” is a cop-out." Hardly. I'll admit that there is an element of faith in the idea that all phenomena can be explained through natural laws. But do you then include other forms of knowledge like the so-called 'inner knowledge'? There is nothing which says that this isn't a simple word substitution for 'belief'. David Hume made it very clear that we can not rely on our perceptions since these are continually being fooled. Optical illusions are a prime example of this sort of thing.
David Hume said it best: "If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, "Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number?" No. "Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence?" No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion." In other words, anything based only on our feelings and 'inner knowledge' without experiment and empirical data to back it up is junk.
People that trust in their beliefs without empirical evidence to guide them end up believing in weird things, like near-death experiences. We actually know that these odd experiences are due to neuronal depolarization due to lack of oxygen. The exact same near-death experiences can be reproduced in centrifuges. Fighter pilots see this in training all the time.
Without empirical evidence, you can't talk intelligeably about anything, including god(s), simply because there is no data to work from. What I always find amusing when theists say that we can not know God's plan for us immediately speak volumes about said plan.
"...the laws of logic are absolute (or unchanging). The are unchanging because there is an unchanging God." Wow, now that statement is missing about a thousand intermediary steps. Prove it, or at least have some supporting data. It smacks of 'I can't think of why logic works, therefore there is a god.' That is horrible logic. Logic is a human invention based on how the universe works. The ultimate logic is mathematics. In this universe, 1+1=2. This may not be true in other universes, but it works for us.
If you think methodological naturalism can't establish itself, how do you know that there are indeed laws of logic? Same problem. In Science we use what works to explain phenomena. In fact, it's the ONLY thing that works. And it keeps on working, and working,... Science dies in the presence of metaphysics, because then any crackpot idea based on a feeling one has after eating cheese for breakfast goes. Saying 'goddidit' is just invoking intelligent design because we are stumped. But as I showed clearly in the blog, it is no explanation whatsoever. It provides no mechanism for observed phenomena.
This is a direct challenge: I would love you to explain to me how invoking a designer is at all scientific. Any hypothesis must have these attributes:
(i) has data in support
(ii) explains new data as it comes in (we'll skip this one for now)
(iii) makes testable predictions
(iv) is falsifiable
Missing any one of these attributes and it ceases to be Science. I'll tell you now that I have only the utmost disdain for non-empirical methods...
“David Hume said it best: "If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, "Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number?" No. "Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence?" No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion." In other words, anything based only on our feelings and 'inner knowledge' without experiment and empirical data to back it up is junk.”
Faith is based on reason, not "inner knowledge." I have sound evidence from the world as it now exists for God’s existence: the existence of undeniable uniform and absolute abstract laws like the laws of logic and mathematics.
Again, the claim that “only empirical evidence can establish truth” is itself an abstract truth that cannot be established through empirical evidence.
Have you ever studied Hume’s skepticism regarding the uniformity of nature? He seems to have invalidated scientific endeavors. He said something about us not being able to say with confidence that the world will behave in the future the same way it did in the past. That destroys inductive reasoning, the basis for science.
Science requires the uniformity of nature, or that nature behaves in the future the way it did in the past. Hume says we cannot count on that.
“What I always find amusing when theists say that we can not know God's plan for us immediately speak volumes about said plan.”
I find that amusing to. Like Mark Twain before me, it’s not the parts of God’s plan that I don’t know that bother me. It’s the parts I do know. The part about living a perfect life devoid of sin. The part about me not doing that. The part about having to humble myself and trust in Christ’s death on the cross to pay the penalty for my sins. Christianity invalidates any false pride in my own morality and good works.
“The ultimate logic is mathematics.”
I don’t care which uniform and absolute set of laws we take first: logic or mathematics. They are both unchanging, invariant and abstract (not something we can find with the five senses). We could talk about the uniformity of nature in the same way.
These abstract laws are not the result of observable behavior of object or actions. We do not observe the laws of logic occurring in matter. Therefore, no law of logic can be observed by watching nothing. We assume that logic’s laws work in order to evaluate scientific evidence.
The Christian theistic worldview can account for the laws of logic by stating that they come from God. God is transcendent; that is, He is beyond the material universe being its creator. God has originated the laws of logic because they are a reflection of His nature and thinking. Therefore, the laws of logic are absolute. They are absolute because there is an absolute God who upholds them.
“…how do you know that there are indeed laws of logic?”
Take one for instance: the law of non-contradiction. It says that something can not be both A and Non-A at the same time, in the same relationship, and in the same sense. You cannot deny this law. If you say “A can be both A and Non-A…” I could then interpret you as saying “A cannot be both A and Non-A…” The laws of logic are undeniable because to question them is to invoke them.
I am not here saying anything about a faith that is unreasonable or a ‘blind leap.’
I do not accept the idea that a truth claim must be falsifiable for it to be reasonable. The laws of logic are not falsifiable in the sense of requiring empirical data to validate or invalidate them. Neither are the laws of mathematics or the uniformity of nature for that matter. All of these things must be assumed to be true to have scientific or empirical knowledge. We presuppose that their principles are necessarily true. We assume, for example, that nature will behave in the future the way it does in the past.
They are all established by an absolute God who designed His universe to exhibit these traits.
"Faith is based on reason, not "inner knowledge." I have sound evidence from the world as it now exists for God’s existence: the existence of undeniable uniform and absolute abstract laws like the laws of logic and mathematics."
Bullshit! You have not established any connection between the two whatsoever!!! You are simply repeating yourself in the hopes that it might be true! I really see no connection at all! In fact, it is a complete tautology!
Such a statement is cause for me to ask if you are on medication for a psychological illness!
"The Christian theistic worldview can account for the laws of logic by stating that they come from God." Again, not explanatory. Just the insufficient 'goddidit'.
"I am not here saying anything about a faith that is unreasonable or a ‘blind leap.’" Yes, you are, for the above stated reasons...
All I see is ad hoc ergo propter hoc and personal incredulity.
“You have not established any connection between the two whatsoever!!! You are simply repeating yourself in the hopes that it might be true! I really see no connection at all! In fact, it is a complete tautology!”
Just because you are not capable of setting aside your prejudices to see the logic of an argument does not mean the argument is not sound. An unchanging ground is required for there to be unchanging laws in a universe that changes constantly. This ground cannot change.
”Such a statement is cause for me to ask if you are on medication for a psychological illness!”
Interesting that you stoop to such childish comments. I reply with: ‘Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.’
”"The Christian theistic worldview can account for the laws of logic by stating that they come from God." Again, not explanatory. Just the insufficient 'goddidit'.”
Unchanging things have to come from somewhere. There must be an explanation. If we try to explain the unchanging laws of logic or mathematics or morality or the uniformity of nature without finding an unchanging ground for those things. The God I serve does not change in the way He thinks or the way He is. The universe He set up is consistent with His unchanging being and thinking.
”All I see is ad hoc ergo propter hoc and personal incredulity.”
I have still not heard a single alternative explanation that we could debate.
I might add that the law of causality also requires an unchanging ground. On top of that, the existence of a logical fallacy requires the laws of logic, and you have not provided an alternative explanation for them.
All I see is someone who cannot get beyond his personal bias long enough to consider an argument. I will leave the last comment to you. It is your blog. Besides, I don’t like it when you call me names and arbitrarily insult my intelligence.
"Just because you are not capable of setting aside your prejudices to see the logic of an argument does not mean the argument is not sound. An unchanging ground is required for there to be unchanging laws in a universe that changes constantly. This ground cannot change.
What prejudice? The whole of your argument is this: God created the laws of logic (no substantiation provided), thus logic proves the existence of a god. To call this a tautology is not prejudice, just a statement of fact. You have not substantiated any connection between a god and logic. I don't even need to give you an alternative explanation for the existence of logic (but for good measure, I do below) to point out the inadequacy of your statement. This isn't prejudice, just a statement of fact. It is from YOUR prejudice that you ASSUME a connection between god and logic. Like I said, you keep repeating this mantra hoping that the more you say it, the more valid it is. But no matter how many times you repeat it, it's still a tautology.
"All I see is someone who cannot get beyond his personal bias long enough to consider an argument." I haven't seen an argument yet, just tautology. One can not debate a tautology, except to point out that it is indeed a tautology.
"Unchanging things have to come from somewhere. There must be an explanation. If we try to explain the unchanging laws of logic or mathematics or morality [morality is unchanging? BULLSHIT! See below.] or the uniformity of nature without finding an unchanging ground for those things. The God I serve does not change in the way He thinks or the way He is [source of this insight?]. The universe He set up is consistent with His unchanging being and thinking." Baseless assumption after baseless assumption. Even if there is no answer to the uniformity of nature axiom is true (You're right. It does require an explanation. Guess what? Physics provides it. It's called gauge symmetry.), arbitrarily reaching for a supernatural answer as you do is irrational. While it was perfectly rational to do this a couple of thousands of years ago (indeed, it is why religion exists), it is completely unbecoming of anyone living in the 21st century. It amazes me that in every other aspect of the lives of the devout their outlook is modern, but when it comes to questions of life, the universe and everything, they haven't advanced beyond the Bronze Age. Better to say you don't know an answer than to look (and be) foolish by immediately jumping to an unsupported conclusion. Physics has shown us that the universe is actually exactly as we would expect in the absence of a creator. I suggest reading Vic Stenger on the subject.
You really shouldn't have mentioned morality. Morality has been shown to be innate in not only humans, but many other social mammalian species as well (not to the same extent as in H. sapiens, but Evolution predicts this as well). The evolutionary advantage of morality in social animals is obvious: it allows a group to interact in a cooperative manner. It is a set of rules hardwired into the brains of social mammals. Behavioral studies have clearly shown that religion is not at all required to be moral. From religious to atheist, the responses to moral dilemmas are statisically identical. Read Marc Hauser's Moral Minds for an excellent review of the current stated of evolutionary behavioral science. The most interesting thing is that the majority of people can't express the logic behind their responses to moral and ethical situations. Moral calculations are not performed on a conscious level, but are done in regions of the brain not accessible to conscious thought. The value behind this is again obvious. Having to think through every outcome of every decision would be utterly paralyzing.
Contrary to what you believe, you don't get your morality from the Babble, and never did. You don't buy and sell slaves, do you? Commit incest? Kill in the name of God? The morality contained in the Bible is one that is completely consistent with the morality of a brutal time in our history. It does serve one purpose: it shows us that morality is NOT and absolute, but changes with the zeitgeist. That there are a few nuggets of good in it is not at all relevant to its value as a moral source. If you have to pick and choose what is good and what is not, you had to already have an internal basis on which to perform your cherry picking.
Logic is just as much a product of the evolution of our species as morality. Logic such as, if three bears go into a cave and two come out, is it safe to enter the cave?, obviously provide value to survival. The way in which humans perform logic analysis points to its purely evolutionary origins.
Evolution is the ultimate designer, shaping form and function through the blind forces of Natural Selection. It is a brute force method for finding optimal configurations. But often (as for 99% of species that have ever lived) it does not find the global optimum, but only the local optimum. If conditions change radically, species can not make the transition from one optimal gene set to a whole new optimal gene set. If there actually was a designer, it isn't a very good one. If you owned an engineering company, would you keep a guy around whose designs failed 99% of the time? This is completely consistent with the blind pushing and pulling on gene propogation combined with the occasional random mutation that we know as Evolution, and completely inconsistent with some nebulous designer. Certainly not a god that showed himself to one small group through a rather disappointing medium copied by purely human hands. Ever wondered why God didn't tell everybody on the planet simultaneously through a truly impressive medium? Instead, he chose parchment. PARCHMENT!? The books you revere are supposed to be the word of god. Why? Because they say so?! C'mon, the National Enquirer is at least printed on newsprint. It even claims to be a bastion of responsible journalism. You believe that, too? Tell it to Bat Boy, not to me. Everywhere scientific inquiry has been applied to religion shows the same thing. Religion is consistent with being man-made and not divine in nature.
I have indeed read David Hume on the problems of uniformity of nature and induction, but I am quite comfortable with them. They are philosophical rather than practical issues, and so far they have not at all been a bother to Science. To say that the problem of the uniformity of nature "seems to have invalidated scientific endeavors" is rather silly considering that we make use of the benefits of Science on a daily basis. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as it were. Physics has shown that throughout the history of the universe the laws of nature have not changed, and there is no known mechanism by which they can change. If and when the uniformity of nature axiom fails, then, and only then, will it become a practical issue. (Of course, if they do, it is most likely a complete extinction event.) Till then, Science will continue to successfully refute and supplant the religious superstition currently rampant in the U.S.A. Science demonstrably works, whereas religious explanations have continually been shown to be insufficient, wrong and just plain silly.
For instance, prayer in medicine is being advocated by devoutly religious people, including some physicians. But tell me, would you want someone that relies on prayer to heal and not his/her skill as a surgeon? Not one properly performed study on the efficacy of intercessory prayer (even those supported Templeton Foundation money) has shown more than a placebo effect. If prayer is supposed to be a big effect, God seems to be hitting the 'Hold' button a lot lately.
Miracles are another one that Science has dispelled. Kinda hard for the Catholic Church to make new saints these days. None of the miracles in the Bible could not have been faked. Remember, there are absolutely no sources of the Jesus myth, so the miracles he is said to have performed never even happened anyway. They were just written in after the fact. There were many prophets around said to perform miracles (I gave you Apolonius of Tyrana as just one example), but once the light of scientific inquiry is shone on them they scurry away like cockroaches in the night. The so-called miracles used to canonize Mother Theresa and Pope John Paul II were pathetic. Ever wondered why there hasn't been a real miracle reported in the last oh, let's say, 2000 years? Simple. People back then were superstitious almost to the last person.
"An unchanging ground is required for there to be unchanging laws in a universe that changes constantly. This ground cannot change." Another tautology. God created the uniformity of nature, therefore the uniformity of nature proves the existence of god.
You're an intelligent guy, but your 'arguments' smack of desperation. You know that you have absolutely no empirical evidence for you to fall back on in supporting your statements. Thus, you believe that your tautologies are valid, even reasonable, when they are actually irrational. No tautology is rational, nor valid. You may not have a problem with the inability of your tautologies to be falsified, but you should. Without falsifiability you can not show it to be true. And the burden of proof is on the one positing the existence of god(s).
When you have a real argument let me know, as your tautologies aren't impressing me at all. It was childish of me to stoop to name calling. As Sam Harris said, "We do not respect stupidity, unless it is religious stupidity." The time for respecting religious stupidity is over.
Post a Comment