From Diane
Sorry to be late to the party.
Having read Comments 1-21 (under Happiness…), this is what I see:
Newcomer consistently espouses cooperation, conciliation and respect for opposing points of view.
The rest of you do not, other than one throw away line, JTO’s “I understand what you are saying”.
In y’all y’all’s rush to be so free of religious influence in our schools, have you stopped to consider that YOUR position is a religion too? A religion that answers to no god? A religion is a belief system and not believing in a god is a belief system, duh… So do you have the right to “impose religious [sic] your views on OTHERS’ children in the venue of the public schools”? Apparently you think YOU do. But theists do not, right? Nevermind that 83% of Americans are affiliated with a religion that acknowledges a supreme being* or that 92% of Americans believe in the existence of a God or universal spirit, including 21% of athiests and 55% of agnostics.** YOU guys think your belief system, the one belonging to the 8%, should prevail. Sounds even more arrogant than the Repugs stalling legislation with “filed filibusters”. At least they are 41% of the Senate.
And before you cite the First Amendment, remember all it does is forbid making a “law respecting an establishment of religion”. No ban on using religious materials to teach fundamental moral codes or comparing the moral equivalency found in a multitude of diverse religions, no prohibition on people, including children, expressing their religious convictions or faith in school, no ban on creches in towns that are overwhelming Christian, though if they DO ban the display on public property of the symbols of other religions, then they HAVE made a “law respecting and establishment of religion”. The First Amendment is an INCLUSIVE statement, not an EXCLUDING statement. All religions are welcome, equally, not no religions are welcome.
Frankly, I’m pretty appalled at you pseudo liberals. You evince an incredibly biased approach to the topics of religion and economics. You are an insult to the concepts of open-mindedness and progressive thinking. You are regressive, and in the case of LibDem, willing to stoop to using logical fallacies to support your prejudices.
Joe Campbell said, “Liberals – embracing their fallibility as human beings, and acknowledging that their grasp of the truth is always provisional – embrace diversity and federalism. Diverse viewpoints, diverse cultural, cultural, economic, etc. backgrounds all should be welcome and protected so long as they do not attempt to impose their specific view on those not willing.”*** Damn that sounds like a description of true conservatism as opposed to the neo-con’s litmus tested one size fits all tyranny.
The truth is, the extremists of both wings are in bed together. Both want to rule, not govern.
PS: I’m an agnostic who knows so little about economics that I’m willing to concede that there may actually be a God out there so I’m hedging my bet, like Ernest Renan.
* http://religions.pewforum.org/reports/
**http://religions.pewforum.org/reports/#
***http://2parse.com/?p=2667
Diane – First, you do not know what my religious views are because I have not stated them. Second, I have made two comments below suggesting that belief in the theory of evolution does not preclude a belief in God. Third, Newcomer has stated her opinion that Creationism, her religious belief, should be taught alongside Evolution, a well established scientific theory, in the public schools. She has gone on to “evolve” (no pun intended) her proposition that she supports the teaching of comparative religions and the to cry the decline of critical thinking through liberal arts education; which no one objects to and which are not the disagreement. Finally, you are free to interpret the Constitutio any way you want but the court, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have
steadfastly opined over the past century that religion cannot be taught in the public schools. The refusal to accept the superiority of the courts in the making of public policy is exactly the problem with the fundamentalists.
Diane-
I think that you are off the mark here. Here are four points of reason for you to consider:
First, we have been arguing amongst ourselves for years, so to someone new to the cafe, like yourself, it may seems a bit harsh. Please know that no one (I think) would deny anyone’s right to having their own opinion, regardless of how vehemently we disagree.
Second, we all have our opinions and biases. Its what makes life interesting. If that makes us “extremists” in your world, then so be it. Personally, I prefer moonshine over milk toast.
Third, the acceptance of diverse opinions doesn’t mean we have to blindly espouse them. In fact, questioning and arguing the premise of any opinion is a sign of intellectual integrity. Its the only true way toward discovering some degree of truth.
Fourth, and this is more personal. In regards to your accusation of my using logical fallacies, let me justify myself with this simple bit of wisdom: That which can be asserted without evidence (Newcomer’s religious views) can be dismissed without evidence. Its as simple as that. Unlike the religious, I have not once asserted my own personal beliefs or attempted to convince anyone that my beliefs are the “gospel” truth. I have simply worked toward arguing for evidence and pointing out hypocrisy.
These four truths encompass what I believe to be a progressive approach to an argument or an issue. Maybe you can explain why you are appalled by this?
JTO – Splitting hairs here, there is a difference between mentioning religion and teaching religion. Additionally, since there is no proof that the Big Bang “just happened”, any more than there is proof that “God made it happen”, how can you applaud the teaching of one theory and decry the teaching of the other? Mind you, I am not talking about teaching the 6 day/6000 yr crap as science because we have pretty darn good evidence that both are pure BS. What I am refering to is the refusal to acknowlege the possibility that there is a God and that the Big Bang was His doing.
When Science locks down how things all began, good and tight, THAT is the time to eschew competing theories. Until then, why not teach that most scientists believe that the Big Bang was the result of … er … what DO most scientists think caused it?? Oh well, most scientists believe X caused the Big Bang but a large number of those who believe in God think He caused it.
BTW, in light of the Corporations are People ruling I shouldn’t think any respectable Liberal, would be so quick to declare that SCOTUS rulings are inevitably right and valid.
Diane-
You don’t care what I think, but any time someone starts talking about creationism and evolution as “competing theories”, or says one can’t prove how life started so creationism or it variants should be considered, I lose all respect for his/her intellect and education.
I’m sure Jesus Christ was a great man of his time. I am also sure he was not born to a virgin mother- and that creationism and intelligent design are nonsense.
Diane – I have stated repeatedly, and again above, that I do not believe the theory of evolution precludes a belief in God, so that is not the disagreement.
The disagreement is over Creationism, or its new incarnation, “Intelligent Design”, being taught in public schools as an equivalent theory to evolution. One is science and one is a religious belief.
And teaching religion in public schools is precluded by the courts because it inevitably leads to conflicts among various religious beliefs as well as those of nonbelievers. I think this the only fair compromise to protect the sensibilities of those with minority views,
It is also the well established position of the courts as arbitrator of the law
under the Constitution, whose authority I respect and endorse.
Diane – I don’t know what the terms “pseudo liberal” or “self respecting liberal” mean but it doesn’t sound like a compliment. I thought i was a a mainstream Democrat until I heard on Fox News that I was some sort of Stalinist.
And I don’t have to agree with every USSC ruling to recognize the role of the courts as arbiter of disputes in our society. This is how our society – in fact all Democratic societies – remain civilized without the religious warfare that characterizes so much human history.
JTO,
I wasn’t talking about “intelligent design”, just for the record. My understanding of that school of thought was that it was put together by some fundamentalist Christians (I’m not sure which denomination specifically, if any). And I think that it may have been put together specifically to counter the theory of evolution being taught in public schools, though I don’t know this for a fact.
If so, then intelligent design would also not be fair to teach in schools because it only represents one faith’s approach to creation. That’s no better than teaching evolution and completely excluding faith. I’m not saying there should be an entire course on comparative religions, but there should likewise not be a complete prohibition on students of faith openly discussing the view of their faith with regard to the topic. And that does exist in our schools right now.
NC – you keep shifting your argument to find some thread to justify your view that YOUR religious belief in Creationism should be taught in public schools. First, you expressed YOUR belief that Creationism should be taught as an alternative, equivalent theory alongside the scientific theory of Evolution. When presented with scientific evidence supporting Evolution and contradicting Creationism, you repeatedly expanded the definition of Creationism to allow for belief in any scientific information presented. Then you expressed YOUR belief, without a scintilla of evidence, that the public schools have been taken over by atheists and secularists who were infringing YOUR right to follow and preach YOUR religious beliefs in the public schools. Then you said the issue needs to be compromised to accommodate YOUR desire to preach YOUR religious beliefs in the public schools. You then argued for critical thinking skills and liberal arts education, which are not at issue. You are now arguing that religion cannot be “mentioned” or “discussed” in the public schools. You have stated you would dismiss the rule of law in our country, the Constitution itself, to accommodate YOUR wish to preach YOUR religious beliefs in the public schools.
I have never heard you advocating the rights of Jewish, Hindu or Buddhist beliefs be taught in the public schools. Don’t you think this is just a little self-centered?
Students ARE free to discuss their religious views in public schools; it’s just that it cannot be TAUGHT in the public schools, and the students would rather
discuss music, sports and cars in their free time.
And religion CAN be mentioned in the public schools. For example, if a student asks if God created the Big Bang, they can be told that is a religious matter that is not taught in the public schools.
You are a perfect example of the irrepressible need of Christian fundamentalists to convert others children and manufacturing creative arguments, ad nauseum, for doing so while insisting they are not.
JTO,
I didn’t shift my argument, I expanded it when it seemed to me that you and I were not talking about the same thing when we referred to ‘teaching creation’. And I did specifically include other religions after my first few comments when I noticed that I failed to spell it out in my initial comments. And when it became clear to me from yours and others’ responses that you thought that I was referring to something akin to ‘intelligent design’, I endeavored to point out what I meant, and that based on the teachings of my particular denomination, I was using a broader definition of creation than you all seemed to think I was using. Then I tried to prove that to you (rather than ask you to take my word for it) by showing you an excerpt of the Catholic Church’s teaching about creation. As I understand it, it can include evolution and so is much broader than what I think you mean when you refer to intelligent design.
You say, “And religion CAN be mentioned in the public schools. For example, if a student asks if God created the Big Bang, they can be told that is a religious matter that is not taught in the public schools”.
How is a teacher shutting down a student’s expression of their religion somehow construed as allowing religion to be mentioned in school? It isn’t. It’s censorship and should be a violation of the First Amendment. If the courts have ruled that it isn’t, then I think they ruled incorrectly.
NC- I think we can agree that the Catholic Church’s teachings about creationism constitute a religious belief – no? As such, it should not be taught in public schools. A teacher can refer any student to their parents, minister, rabbi, ypgi, or whatever. The student can explore these issues there. Why is this so problematic to you? Of all the places you can discuss or preach religion, why the need to teach it in the schools? When the teacher is teaching YOUR religious belief to this student, what happens to the Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Buddgist, Atheist, etc? Do you think all religious beliefs should be taught – or just yours?
Why can you not accept, without claiming persecution, a political, legal and Constitutional compromise that protects ALL religious viewpoints. Why do you insist on a special place for yours?
And the First Amendment has limits – one of these is the court enforced limit on preaching religious beliefs in public schools. You cannot reject Constitutional limits one minute and then claim its protections the very next, especially while ignoring the Constitutional powers of the courts to interpret the document. You continue to just grab at any strand of illogic that supports your wish to teach your religious beliefs in the public schools.
I’m beginning to wonder if she/he has actually attempted to do this.
I am wondering the same thing.
JTO,
To your #10, yes the teaching of the Catholic Church constitutes a religious teaching but as pertains specifically the topic of creation, it is a teaching that allows for evolutionary theory as well and could be used as one (not the only, if there are others) example of such. I never said it should be the ONLY religion taught. I included it as one among others, whichever others the students in a given classroom espouse and wish to bring up as part of any such discussion.
I’m not sure how many times you need to keep reiterating this.
JTO,
To your #11, since we keep using similar terminology to stand for different things, which Supreme Court rulings do you have in mind that enforce limits on “preaching” (which is not what I called for in the first place) and DISCUSSION (which I do advocate for) of religious beliefs in public schools.
If you would be kind enough to cite the ruling you are referring to, I’ll be happy to read up on it and respond.
John,
What is it you’re wondering if I have attempted to do? I’m not following…
The explanation is there for you to read. JL
John,
I’m sorry but I can’t make sense of it. If you’re wondering if I have attempted to teach religion in a public school, that’s impossible because I am not (and have never been) a state credentialled teacher. That’s the only thing that I can think you could be referring to. If you’re referring to something else, I still don’t get it.
Here are some thoughts about evolution and creationism.
-Scientific theory and hypothesis have very specific meanings. In the common vernacular a hypothesis and a theory mean the same thing. In a scientific context they do not. A theory is something that had a high degree of evidences and testing to support it; it represents some of science’s best understanding about why something happens (BTW, theories do not become scientific laws). A scientific theory is not the same as a hypothesis. Evolution is a theory and creationism is not (in a scientific context).
- Evolution is both a theory and a fact. The fact that evolution happens is a fact. If I recall the scientific definition it is something like a change in allele frequencies over time. In plain English, living things mutate over time and generations. There is no question that this is a fact and we can and have observed it. Our entire understanding behind modern medicine, understanding and the treatment of disease depends on it. The theory part is the mechanism behind how it plays out over time. The most famous of these is “survival of the fittest”. That evolution happens is a fact. How it plays into shaping species over time is the theory part. Remember this is a theory in a scientific context, not just a hypothesis.
Some creationist thinkers like to split up macro from micro evolution. If anyone would like you take up that mantle I’d be happy to explain why the distinction ultimately is meaningless given enough time.
P.S. Newcomer the most famous ruling about the teaching of relation in public schools produced the lemon test. This has been getting watered down in recent times as I understand it but it still mostly reigns. Generally courses advancing a particular religion are banned but comparative religion courses are not. I believe the problem with the implementation of some comparative religion courses is that they end up being preaching in comparative religion course’s cloths. I’m personally all for them as long as don’t enter the realm of preaching and give a broad and diverse view. The problem with that type of course is that many parents don’t necessarily want their children attending such a course, particularly when their religion is put on the same footing as other world religions.
Thanks,
Kevin
NC – a religious belief that “allows for” science, whether Catholic or not, is a RELIGIOUS belief and cannot be taught or “discussed” in a public school classroom by a public school teacher This is so well established as law I do not need a reference to support my statement – look it up yourself. You are so obtuse on this point and so determined to achieve some justification for your predetermined answer I am sure that any case presented to you will be distorted, disregarded or you will simply dismiss the Constitutional authority of the courts as less than your own single-minded, self-obsessed moral imprimatur? You are dead wrong on this – and thankfully the courts will decide not people like you.
JTO,
Clearly we’re never going to agree on this. However, it IS possible to discuss both religion and evolution in the same lesson without a brawl breaking out. You feel that’s completely inappropriate and you say the law backs you. I say if that’s case, it shouldn’t be.
As I’ve said to you multiple times now. Drawing a line of demarcation between church and state is not the problem. Drawing that line so narrowly so as to ban God from people’s lives, including their schoolday, which is a good 6-8 hours per day of their waking hours, is not necessary and should be unconstitutional, if isn’t already. There are ways to make reasonable accomodations without forcing religious student to leave God at home when they board the bus for school. Religion doesn’t operate that way. If practiced as prescribed, God is supposed to pervade every breath you take. Yes, people screw that up all of the time so don’t feel you have to go out of your way to remind me.
What you’re calling for is exactly the same treatment that atheists cry foul over when they are forced, in school, to say “under God” in the pledge – just in reverse. You’re advocating for reverse discrimination instead of advocating for sensible, reasonable methods of accomodating both.
LibDem mentioned one and I have mentioned it here in the past as well. Instead of banning all school prayer, why not begin each day with a moment of silence. Parents who want their kids to use that moment to pray can instruct them to do so. Parents who want their kids to think about something else can instruct them accordingly. Same for the pledge of allegiance. There’s absolutely no need to ban it from public schools, but there IS a need to accomodate the children of atheists and those from other faith traditions that differ from Christianity. I think it should be up to the individual school system to develop an accomodation(s) that will best serve their local population but I see no reason why children of atheists can’t gather together before the school day officially begins to recite a pledge that is absent the words “under God” or recite a naturalist poem or something else that would be suitable for children. But WHY should a minority (atheists) in the U.S. have the power to force the majority (people who believe in God) into public silence when there are ways to serve each group without offending the other? This goes for creation & evolution too (IMHO).
You disagree and you say the courts back you up. Maybe they do. If so, they’re wrong.
Wow, post 18 tells me not to write a post right before I go to sleep. Holy proofreading batman.
Thanks,
Kevin
Frequently misunderstandings develop when two or more people discuss a concept using certain key words which legitimately have different definitions. “Creationism” is a case in point. I googled creationism and got several different “flavors” of definitions.* Therefore, perhaps we should not use that word since it has been co-opted by several different groups and instead stick with just “Creation described in Genesis” which though cumbersome, is less subject to misinterpretation.
* 1) http://carm.org/dictionary-creationism
God created everything in six 24hr days
God created everything but six 24hr days is a metaphor for longer time frames
The human soul is generated at conception
2) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creationism
The doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
The doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, especially in the first chapter of Genesis
3) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creationism
A doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis
4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism (John’s favourite goto for documenting everything)
The religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being, most often referring to the Abrahamic God. This article also points out that many early theologians (Philo, Origen, St Augustine, Thomas Aquinas) did not interprete Genesis literally.
And best of all, a compendium of beliefs about Creation which is facinating and at times quite funny:
5) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html
NC – pull up National Center for Science Education – Ten Major Court Cases on Evolution and Creationism. Just read the brief summaries on each of these cases going back to efforts to ban the teaching of evolution in the 1930′s; then from the 1940′s through 2012. These include efforts to teach Creationism; then later “Scientific Creationism”; then later “Intelligent Design”. The courts have heard and consistently rejected your various arguments about the equivalence of these theories to evolution, and Creationist theories that allow for evolution and other science, etc. They have also heard and rejected your various arguments for “discussion” of religion, for moments of silence to accommodate prayer, and for comparative religion courses as thinly disguised attempts to introduce Christian instruction into the classroom.
The courts have also ruled that children are free to pray in school as long as they do not disrupt the functioning of the school. So you should be all set! Your kids can pray all day! Just make sure they pay attention in Algebra class!
JTO,
Now that you mention it, Algebra class probably has the effect of causing more kids to pray than sitting through 100 sermons could!
I remember my own experience in 8th grade algebra, and if that was praying, based on subsequent events, then I am in good shape, theologically speaking!
And please understand my position NC. As a matter of intellectual honesty, I think you have the better part of the argument re the existence of God – that is that it cannot be DISPROVEN – and that belief in God is not less rational than atheism.
Also know that I would and definitely have encouraged young people to study Catholic theology as well as comparative religions – but as adults at the college level not as children in the public schools.
JTO,
I’ve learned over the years here to distinguish between the debate and the person behind it. We’re cool.
Gag me with a spoon!
John,
Aw, c’mon. Don’t be shy, hug it out!!!
(LOL!)
JTO,
There is nothing wrong with the answer, “I just don’t know.” I don’t believe, but I don’t know. Similar to my feelings about bigfoot.
Thanks,
Kevin
Yes but unicorns and big foot are mundane issues. This is a unique and rather, well, fundamental issue.
So those devoted to answering the question would say to you, “if you do not know, and cannot disprove it, then you must acknowledge the possibility”. And once you acknowledge the possibility, then you are down to a binary choice.
I understand this logic can be beaten up, can’t prove a negative, etc, but I think this is the best that can be done on the other side of the question, and it is a reasonable position, that is to say not irrational.
JTO,
Perhaps. But there are problems with that position that go deeper than “you can’t prove a negative” (P.S. you can, it depends on the proposition). I would simply claim special pleading; I don’t see this as any way unique other than some people claiming it is. Would a claim that we were created by space aliens be similarly unique and fundamental?
From a logic point of view I’d also point out what the question is.
So for proposition P:
P = belief in god
~P = lack of belief in god
That is to say the counter position isn’t if you know god exists, only if you believe it, which is a much different statement.
Take a second proposition:
P1 = claim to know god exists
~P1 = does not claim to know god exists.
My memory of how to write formal logic equations is, well somewhere long in the past. However, my point is for the proposition P, neither P1 nor ~P1 necessarily follow. Likewise for proposition ~P, neither P1 nor ~P1 necessarily follow. The point being that a lack of belief in a proposition does not lead to a claim the the proposition is untrue.
Pretty much in just about every other situation it is considered perfectly reasonable to hold the position of ~A, where A is the belief in a proposition, unless compelling evidence is presented. Claiming supernatural beliefs are somehow exempt from this is quite frankly special pleading.
Thanks,
Kevin
Right but as you point out there is a difference between the two sets of claims “I do/do not believe in God” and “God does/does not exist”. The first P1 is a denial of an affirmative assertion, and the second P1 is itself an affirmative assertion in opposition.
However, if i am understanding you correctly i would disagree on your last – if you do reject the initial proposition, then someone can reasonably ask what the alternative is. (I mean not with your head in a vise like the good old days).
It’s been a while since my P/Q’s as well. But I am having drinks next week with two of my old mates – one a third generation Georgetown philosophy major and the other an ordained Lutheran minister and Yale Div grad. When we were younger these guys would go round and round on this until the rest of us ran outside gasping for air. If that doesn’t do it I guess I have my course assignment for next winter – summer’s for golf, tennis and sailing.
JTO,
They can ask all they want but that doesn’t make it good logic. I don’t have to defend those alternatives unless I claim they are true.
Let’s take a more mundane example and you came to me and claimed that President Obama switched parties and is now trying to repeal the health care act. In such a case I might not believe you out of hand. Sure it is possible but I’d be justified in saying, “That may be but I’m not sure I believe you just yet, I’m going to wait for some corroboration.”
This is a perfectly reasonable argument to hold and any claims of “well prove he didn’t” could similarly be dismissed. Let’s take this a little farther and say that there was a big storm and we can’t get any news, could you then say I have to prove he didn’t change parties? No, I would be perfectly justified in continuing to withhold belief without sufficient evidence without having to prove the negative. You are the one making the claim here, me saying that I don’t believe you until you can prove it is not the same thing as me making the claim that you are incorrect. If I did that, then I suddenly have a similar burden of proof.
Thanks,
Kevin
You keep insisting on logic and trivializing the question but you are not answering the question.
Does God exist?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Don’t Know/Not Sure
I think you indicated DK above, and then reverted to insisting that believers prove their case, with the assumption that the burden is on them to prove something exists. And you can stop there, but that is a CHOICE you are making.
Philosophers/Theologians have chosen to go beyond this. If your answer is DK, then this is an acknowledgement of the possibility that God exists. Then, probabilities aside, you are into a binary choice and Leap of Faith.
I don’t know how anyone gets out of this.
If you answer “No”, then I would counter with “First Cause”; I.e., whatever the science about the existing universe, some precedent force created the beginning. This is of course an expansive definition of the term “God”
There is a great exchange on YouTube between William F. Buckley and Mortimer Adler called “How to Think About God” that walks through a variant of the argument – you can find it.
As a side note, I am not making a claim, just reviewing my understanding of the argument.
JTO,
I think I have answered this but I will try again.
Do I know if god exists? No
Do I believe god exists? No
You would seem to be conflating two concepts: belief and knowledge.
Let me give you an example. Are you currently living in the matrix? I.e., is your brain is floating in a jar somewhere and all your input to your senses is a simulation being fed directly into it.
From your rubric your possible answers are:
A. Yes
B. No
C. Don’t Know/Not Sure
Since there is no way you could ever tell the only thing you can answer is C.
However, let’s change up the question. Do you believe you are in the matrix? and Do you know if you are in the matrix (or not)? Suddenly your answers will most likely respond with are, “No I don’t believe I am.” and “No, I don’t know if I’m in the matrix.”
These conversations get completely muddied because people conflate belief with knowledge. I think what you are really trying to ask is if I know if god(s) exists and if so what’s the answer. There are plenty of theists out there when pressed will say they don’t know, but they also believe. Does that mean in your rubric then need to pick A and C? That’s the problem.
Human beliefs and thus our actions based on those beliefs are held basically on probability (when you boil it down), not knowledge. If they were not our society would be in a lot of trouble as we only absolutely know a very few things at a given time. That’s why I don’t give theists a hard time about belief when they also say they don’t know. They could have good reasons of personal experience to come up with those beliefs. Those who claim not only to believe but to know, I give a much harder time to (on both sides quite frankly).
BTW, First Cause is an extremely weak argument. If you argue that everything must have a cause and as such the existing universe must have a cause, ergo god(s)! then then simple counter is then what caused god(s)? If you say god(s) is exempt from this rule then you have either engaged in special pleading or have admitted there could be other “First Causes” that are similarly exempt that we do not currently understand. Either way, the First Cause argument does not necessarily lead to “god(s) did it” as the conclusion. What is does point out is that there is something we don’t understand. It is a great example of employing god of the gaps.
BTW, we could have an interesting side discussion about if people actually choose what they believe or not.
Thanks,
Kevin
Your criticism of the term “First Cause” is a non sequester, based on the intended meaning of the term. I think the term God as used by theologians usually implies an everlasting supreme being. But Enlightenment philosophers thought of the concept very expansively, I.e., “full knowledge”; “self-determination”; “Freedom”; etc. At any rate, you seem to be selecting DK, leaving open the possibility, and this was my limited objective.
JTO,
Don’t know, don’t believe. This has always been my position. It’s what’s commonly known as weak atheism.
Let’s dig into the “First Cause” argument because I’ve had this particular debate at least 100 times before. You claim that I made a non sequitur. Let’s dig into that a little more. You mentioned it was based off your understanding of the intended meaning of the term so let’s start there. You also state, “I think the term God as used by theologians usually implies an everlasting supreme being.” which would logically break any definition of the “First Cause” argument that I’ve heard right from the get go.
Thanks,
Kevin
Kevin, as a preliminary, I am just kicking this around because I think its an interesting debate. It’s not something that I have ever spent much time on except a smattering of reading 30 years ago. When the topic got discussed for more than 15 minutes, I was the guy going outside gasping for air.
I think all institutionalized religion is manmade and therefore reflect both the logic and illogic of man, but primarily fear of the unknown. And once any belief system evolves into a large organization, It develops the pathologies shared by all large organizations; witness the Vatican’s threat to excommunicate an Irish Parliamentarian last year for asserting the principle that with respect to prosecuting child molesters, Irish civil law was superior to Vatican edicts.
That said, people free to believe what they wish on this subject. It is not rational or irrational. It is not logical or illogical. It is faith or non-faith.
I do not question generally accepted scientific theories, subject to peer review and supported by developing physical evidence over a long period of time – I accept it. I just don’t think it precludes the existence of God.
And I am not trying to convert anyone to my beliefs because I have not settled the matter. But I do think the problem merits contemplation, and I am in good company it seems, as the greatest minds in both Eastern and Western
civilizations through recorded human history have contemplated the problem. The system of logic which you adhere to was developed, refined and advanced by the same people who have devoted substantial portions of their lives
To contemplation of this problem. They have approached the problem from the perspectives of theology, philosophy, mathematics, astronomy and the natural and physical sciences.
So do you think you should join Plato, Socrates, Aristotle in a room with Augustine, Anselm and Thomas Aquinas; Locke, Rousseau and DesCartes; Newton, Copernicus and Einstein; Kant, Hobbes, Kierkegaard – and present your “Bigfoot in my Barn” argument? If you think the problem is worth discussion, you need to stop trivializing it with analogical responses intended to dismiss it.
In answer to your question, while the Vatholic theologians started with the presumption of the truth of the bible and existence of God, they interpreted the bible and interpreted the meaning of God. And the Enlightenment philosophers used even more expansive interpretive meanings to the term like “nonbeing” for example.
That’s what the debate is. “First Cause” is just one argument but i think its meaning is a little deeper than the sequential, mechanical cause/effect perception you are applying. After all, the element of time necessary for your sequential interpretation is just a concept – who created it?
Start with the Buxkley/Adler debate and see what you think.
I’ll just add something that hasn’t been said. I am unaware of any modern day research scientist who conducts research for the purpose of disproving the existance of God. That kind of thinking never enters into the scientist’s creative thinking process as far as I am aware. The difficulty that Darwin had was his realization that his theory would fly in the face of Victorian social dogma.
JTO,
Hmm, I’m not sure you answered any of my questions in there.
As for trivializing the questions; I gave analogies. The point of an analogy is to take a complex and/or emotional situation and give an equivalent situation that can be understood easier or is not so emotionally charged. If you want to shoot down the analogy then you can tell me why it is not equivalent. Saying that I’m trivializing it doesn’t hold much water, that’s an appeal to emotion. This question is just a fun logic game for me. From my perspective it doesn’t really have any deeper meaning than Bigfoot does. The major difference between the questions of does Bigfoot exist and does god exist is that more people are willing to engage in a debate over the existence of god. If everyone were debating for the existence of Bigfoot I’d be using the god analogy (and I’d probably be accused of trivializing the Bigfoot debate).
All of the first cause arguments for god(s) are essentially the same. Interestingly enough, Aristotle and Plato did not put forward the same First Cause arguments that are now used to try and prove the existence of some sort of god as a creator of the universe. Indeed, they thought the universe and time were eternal. There works were later co-opted by people trying to prove specific religious beliefs based on the idea that the universe had a begining.
In the end, to take these arguments seriously you have to assume the following are true:
- The universe had a beginning
- Our understanding of causality has any meaning before that beginning (what happened before the beginning of time? Does the concept of “before” have any meaning? Without “before” our entire understanding of causality falls apart, does it not? Certainly most of our understanding of Physics does.)
- The only thing that could be exempt from our understanding of causality is some god concept.
- That god concept is X (insert favorite deity here)
Every Cosmological argument I’ve heard for the existence of god to date contains the first three assumptions and usually the fourth. None of them have shown why these assumptions are true. This argument is interesting to show what we don’t know but it does not lead to the conclusion that a god exists. At least not unless we know more than what’s been presented to date.
Maybe we can break down Pascal’s Wager next? That’s always a fun one.
Thanks,
Kevin
It’s not an emotional argument because I don’t have an emotional stake in the outcome – so that’s a distraction. The problem with analogies is they eventually fall apart – that’s why they are analogies – and they end up being a distraction (i.e., who cares if there is a unicorn in your barn?). Formal logic (P&Q’s) become problematic because, similar to analogies,they end up breaking down into translational disagreements – again, a distraction. I didn’t say the Greeks advanced the First Cause argument or supported the existence of God I said they developed initial systems of logic and contemplated the issue, so that’s – well – a distraction.
And you are reinforcing my second point which is about time. This is a concept developed by man to explain events. But just the opposite of what you said above, I think it is the advancement of physics by man (Einstein) that changed our understanding of the fixed, linear nature of time. I don’t think First Cause is necessarily related to the concept of time.
Finally, your third bullet I think is the debate – if not God – what? If one is
expansive enough in the definition of God then whatever “what” is – is God.
At any rate, my original point was intended to be very limited – that science, from what i can see, does not disprove the existence of God. I am not attempting to prove the opposite so will not accept that burden.
JTO,
Our entire understanding of causality is temporally based. One thing happens before another and that makes it happen, cause and effect. As soon as our understanding of time breaks down, so does any understanding of causality, by definition. Unless you have some other definition of causality you’d like to advance I don’t know where to go from here. BTW, the causality definition in the First Cause arguments of all the people you mentioned are temporally based.
Your criticism of the third point is just an advancement of “god of the gaps”. The argument goes, since god is the only thing we can currently imagine, it must have been god. I’ll say it again; I don’t know is a perfectly valid answer. You then go on to state that, “If one is expansive enough in the definition of God then whatever “what” is – is God.” This is an interesting position. If this conversation happened several thousand years ago we would have later found out that the electricity that comprises lightening is actually god. Sure, someone can define whatever they want as god and then say, see god exists. Just don’t expect any of the rest of us to take them seriously.
I think on your last point we are in complete agreement. Science neither proves nor disproves a god concept. Given the “god of the gaps” argument and our knowledge will always be finite; this debate will always be open unless concrete evidence favoring existence of some god concept is found.
BTW, it sounds like you are advancing the idea that analogies and formal logic are distractions despite their quite common and normal usage in debates of all types. Similarly I could argue that all of your points are distractions as well for just as valid reasons. We wouldn’t be able to have much of a conversation then. It seems that the entire distraction line of discussion is just that…
Thanks,
Kevin
I have already explained that the reason to avoid analogies is that they break down; I just think it’s simpler to apply the common rules of logic and discuss the issue itself as an efficiency.
If First Cause is an everlasting, supreme being then it is not temporally based, at least prior to Creation.
And it was pretty clear even way back when I was reading this stuff that theologians and philosophers kept refining the definition of God (I mean “nonbeing”?) to fit their demonstrable conclusions, so I figured it was fair game, at least a well trodden path. But if you think about it, since that is the question, you may want to loosen your concrete thinking cap a little.
So, what is the “What”?
JTO,
Common rules of logic break down with the same communication issues, as seems to be happening here.
If the First Cause is an everlasting anything then it is not temporally based. But the mere existence of any such item breaks our entire understanding cause and effect. Once you break that understanding, the First Cause argument itself falls apart. As soon as you posit an exception to the rule, you no longer have a rule; you just have the usual case.
Additionally once again all of our understanding of cause and effect breaks down if there is no time. These is no “before” time starts and no cause and effect relationship as we understand it that would apply to the beginning of time. This could lead us to some god concept or something else that we completely do not understand. We don’t have enough information. You could call that thing god if you want but once again don’t expect me to take that seriously. I could call my cell phone god, that doesn’t mean anyone has to take me seriously.
Once again I will answer your “what is the “What”?” question. I don’t know. Taking that and expanding it to, well then it must be what I’m positing is a non-sequitur. A logical dead end. You can put whatever lipstick on that pig you want, but all you are left with is fallacy. Your latest one is what is commonly known as the appeal to ignorance. This is the same reason when several thousand years ago one person said lightening was from Zeus and the other said “I don’t know what causes it” it was invalid for the Zeus supporter to demand the other come up with an alternate hypothesis. You don’t have enough information means you don’t have enough information.
As far as my concrete thinking cap, yes I am sticking to logic. Sorry, I’m not willing to loosen that one up.
Thanks,
Kevin
Well, better here than in a discussion of your unicorn.
First, I may not have my science down, but I thought Einstein showed there was no dimension of time prior to existence of the universe. If this is right, then some greater force existing prior to the beginning of the universe could have originated the universe and commenced all further activity. Why is this a violation of logic?
Second, let’s define “God” as something between the guy with the beard, toga and tablets standing on a cloud, or better, use Adler’s definition as a “supreme, omniscient, omnipotent, everlasting, all knowing being” at one extreme. And let’s have the other extreme be that which science has or can not explain. I think you are right that the theologically inclined tend to start with the assumption and work their way backward around gradually increasing scientific evidence to justify the existence of God. But, as noted above, theologians, and, even more, philosophers, used much more expansive definitions like “freedom”, “self determination”, “nonbeing” and “full knowledge”. So I am not creating, but reiterating, these concepts developed by others historically. So you can call this an “appeal to ignorance” but I could call it an “appeal to full knowledge”. You can call it “God of the Gaps” but this suggests there are gaps in human knowledge; I could say human knowledge is infinitesimally small in comparison to what is unknown to humans, which I suspect it is and thus making quite ignorant.
Again, my point was very conservative and you have stipulated to it. You have studied the problem at great length and you have concluded that you do not know. But that leaves a question. If you do not know, why are you so doctrinaire in your approach to the question, almost a mirror image of the theist or atheist positions? Why are you not more open to the various Possibilities? Why are you so dismissive of conclusions others have drawn?
Finally, I have to ask, with all the analogical questions you have asked, why not ask the question directly of me?
.
Kevin & JTO,
I’m enjoying this exchange between you. Here’s a link to an explanation of both sides of the First Cause, including the side of the atheist. It was written by a Philosophy professor at Boston College. Maybe this link might help you navigate through the gridlock?
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm
JTO,
So here’s the problem, there is no “greater force existing prior to the beginning of the universe” because there is no “before”. Assuming the Big Bang is even correct (which is by no means a sure thing) tied into that is the beginning of time. This is the part that is really hard for us humans to wrap our heads around because our entire perception of reality is temporally based. That’s why there is no causation possible as we understand it because there is no “before” for a cause to create the effect. Does this make sense? We just plain don’t understand this. This is the same pitfall Alder hopped into in the Buckley/Adler debate you mentioned earlier in our discussion (well one pitfall of a few).
As far as my approach. People use all kinds of approaches to define their understanding of reality. Some use faith with roughly equates to belief without evidence. What I think it ultimately comes down to for me is apathy. I really don’t care why the universe came to be or how life began. It is an interesting topic of debate. I don’t believe it, I don’t claim to know, and I’m not really vested in the outcome. As far as the other methods to look at this issue, such as philosophy, they can at best show god as a concept exists similar to the concept of justice. But that’s ultimately unsatisfying and not what most people mean when they say they believe god exists
If you are really interested in some hard core debate on this go to the forums at atheism.about.com. It you can get through the people trolling there it’s really interesting to watch the debates and compared to some of the people with very specialized domain knowledge there I’m very much an amateur. It is interesting to listen to people that really understand both sides of the issues debate them. YMMV.
JTO, I guess I never asked you your beliefs on the subject because it was an interesting logic exercise. So what do you believe?
Thanks,
Kevin
Newcomer,
An interesting article but it isn’t exactly an analysis written by a disinterested third party.
Thanks,
Kevin
Newcomer,
This is the other side of the analysis, also not written by a disinterested third party. It does explain the problem with causality and “before” the beginning of time from a scientific point of view and what the implications of the singularity are.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/greg_scorzo/kalam.html
Thanks,
Kevin
Kevin,
Thanks for that link. It was interesting. I was not familiar with that Craig’s First Cause argument before reading about it in your link. If the author of your linked article correctly summarized Craig’s argument, then I would say that Craig is probably some other denomination of Christian and his thoughts and theories aren’t entirely consistent with the theological framework I’m most familiar with.
For example, Craig’s argument for the Benevolence of God is a concept that I definitely believe in, but not only or necessarily in the context of a First Cause argument. In my mind at least, God expresses His Benevolence not just at Creation, but all throughout Scripture. So I would agree with the author of your link that First Cause and Benevolence are (or should be) two separate debates. Of course, if there’s no agreement that God exists, that tends to nullify a debate regarding Benevolence.
Further, I have a little trouble with Craig’s idea of a finite beginning and end to the Universe (and/or God). I always accepted my Church’s teaching of God as an infinite, eternal Being with no beginning and no end. And I guess as an extension of that belief, I’ve always thought of the universe likewise as infinite. I wasn’t really even aware of any debate about mathematical calculations of a beginning based on Einstein’s work until I read your link. Craig seems to go with the finite beginning point and perhaps that is a result of a literal reading of the Genesis story. I too accept the Genesis story literally but as I said here recently, I’ve come to learn through this discussion that my idea of “literal” differs from that of some other Christian denominations. Literal to some other Christians seems to mean that they believe and accept the literary devices. Whereas literal to me means that I do not have to accept the literary devices, but I literally accept the Truth that those devices reveal. That being said, if you are one who reads Genesis in an other-denominational way (ie. word-for-word literally) it does tend to lead one to think that there was a finite beginning and that doesn’t seem to be consistent with what science has revealed. But for me, I’ve just never thought of God or the universe in finite terms.
I was really excited by Diane’s linked article about Nick Lane’s work because that seems to make more sense in my mind. If Nick Lane’s theory is correct that there has been one source of life/energy, then I would identify (for myself personally) that Life and Energy as God. As far as I was taught, God the Father doesn’t have a body. He is Spirit and it would make sense to me if science someday proves that there is a common force of energy running through every living thing. I would be willing to identify that force as God. And that would be consistent with my perception of what Darwin alluded to when he said that all life has one source.
For me, I do believe that God is the First cause, just not in the terms laid out by Craig in your linked article. I believe that the universe is infinite and eternal and that the “formless abyss” that existed prior to planets, stars, moons, etc. was and is God. Just because we lack words to describe an eternal mass of energy (and therefore resort to inadequate terms such as “formless” and “abyss”) doesn’t make our literary descriptions true. I think that there has always been energized particles, matter, anti-matter and mass and that these are merely tangible expressions of the force, power, and might that is God. Then, at some point, whether by means of a Big Bang, or by some other means, God Created. If then science someday comes to prove Nick Lane’s theory that there is one energy common to all living things, that would fit in and make sense with how I understand God.
I just keep coming back to the same conclusion that I started off with. That is, that science and religion need not be mutually exclusive. Indeed, they can and should complement one another and my Church teaches me that as well.
Kevin – OK i don’t want to keep going in circles just a few additional thoughts on logic and choice.
All systems of logic are based on assumptions. They may be highly justified, but they are assumptions. And those assumptions rely on other assumptions! Which in turn rely on further assumptions, etc. So logical systems have their own causal chain problems.
For example, in mathematics, a theoretical, infinitely small number is assumed to calculate the point at which a ball thrown in the air is neither rising nor falling. No number can be infinitely small; it is a theoretical concept used to fill a gap in mathematical knowledge and it solves the mathematical problem. This is the same calculus that underlies the Big Bang hypothesis, and used to date the age of the universe.
So if you assume God is the traditional benevolent, everlasting, omniscient, omnipotent, transcendent being, and that there are only relative “gaps” in human knowledge; and that First Cause requires a temporal basis, then that leads to a very reasonable conclusion that God does not exist. But if you assume a much broader definition of God as “full knowledge” or “nonbeing”, that First Cause does not require a temporal base; and that human knowledge is very limited; then you could get to a reasonable conclusion that it is possible. So the result, as with any logical model, is a function of the assumptions you
have made. And those are choices you made with your free will. Your lack of interest in pursuing these other possibilities based on apathy about the outcome is another choice.
So your position “Don’t Know/Don’t Believe/Don’t Care” is very reasonable and I have great sympathy for it. I just also have sympathy for the positions of those who have made other choices. In fact, you appear to agree with St. Augustine – “A miracle is not contrary to nature but contrary to our knowledge of nature”
As for my own view on the matter, I mean, how the hell would I know?
Kevin,
Here’s a link to a youtube video explaining how religion and science don’t cancel one another out. This is two physicists lecturing and the last one especially makes my head spin. It’s all matematical theories, theory of special relativity, quantum mechanics, blah, blah, blah. I understand none of it but it seems to be a language that you’re perfectly fluent in. This video is about 1 hour and 15 minutes long and I watched the whole thing, but I think you’ll like the second physicist better and his talk is much shorter. You can pick him up at about 0:50:19 into the video, if you’re interested.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWmbL9nFssk
William Jennings Bryan stated his case bluntly: “If evolution wins, Christianity loses…”
In the news today at USAToday.
There was a piece in the NYT Book Review today re a recent book written about the charge that Darwin did not originate the concept of evolution, but built upon a concept developed from many other 17th-18th century naturalists as well as some philosophers. Apparently he was sensitive to the charge even at the time he published his Origin of Species, and so prepared for publication a list of other contributors to the concept. Still controversial to this day. This is consistent with my view of scientific development which is by bits and pieces of shared information, and why the internet is is speeding technological development in all fields – the human genome project is a good example. The more people looking at a problem the more rapidly ideas get screened and either advanced or rejected. Pity our politics seems to work in the opposite way!
It is so true that scientists usually embrace the science of others who have published findings that support the current message. This is how you add credibility to your own observations and conclusions. Origin of the Species was published in 1859 twenty-one years after he had pretty much put together his theory. He raced to finish the book so that he could publish at the same time as Alfred Wallace who had shared with him his manuscript with a similar message. They presented papers together at the Linnean Society of London. There were many athiest, materialist, and naturalist philosophers in the 18th century and early 19th who helped give Darwin the courage to eventually present his ideas. The difference between Darwin and the others was the detailed persuasive evidence that Darwin included in the Origin, everything from geology to mullosks to beetles, to birds, to higher animals. He didn’t touch origin of man until the Descent of Man in 1871 twelve years after Origin. The driving force that perpetuated Darwin’s work was the work of tens of thousands of later scientists like Huxley and many, many others who cited Darwin’s work in support of their later work. He had thought of using “Descent (of Man)” by 1838.
For example, today we have gene silencing demonstrated by Thomas Tuschl in May 2001 in humans for the first time. The two papers that he published have received a phenomenal 11,000 references by other research papers in the last 11 years giving Tuschl complete credit for explaining how this works. Likewise Tuschl gave others credit for their work that led him to an exacting breakthough that allowed him to teach everyone of ordinary skill how to silence a gene. This is the process that didn’t work so well for the supposed discovery of cold fusion
.
Darwin was always concerned about how his theories would be received. The only one he was completely open with was his father, a physician. Then later his wife, Emma, who was a devout Christian but who helped edit some of his books (he had bad spelling and punctuation habits). He said he preferred to be known as an agnostic, perhaps out of sensitivity to her feelings, and he listened attentively to others who questioned his views. I guess by 1871 at the age of 63, things had changed so that he would not be thrown in jail.