From John
As a member of the 15% (according to the poll) who believe that God played no part in the origin and evolution of life (a member of the 97% if I am a scientist), I have thought a lot about the difference between believers and non-believers. In my childhood I was well aware that my best friend, Paul, went to Sunday School where his mother taught. I have very fond memories of Paul’s mother who was very supportive of me while Paul and I did sports and everything else together except for going to Sunday School. In high school many of Paul’s and my close friends were from practicing Jewish families and the subject of our faiths never came up between us except when practicing their religion interfered with our plans for the day.
This is a picture of me and Paul at Norwalk High School graduation rehersal in June 1961 with close friends, Alan Green now Chairman of the psychiatric department of a noted university, Gary Goldstein a dentist associated with Harvard, Bob Swan a violinist at the Chicago Symphony, Ed Steinlauf a dentist in Branford (deceased), and Pete Blank a business executive. We all got together in Branford in July before 9/11. Paul’s career was at Dupont as a chemical engineer, now a retired VP. Paul and wife Pam became devoted Christians, helped build the local church, and on their last trip to the Galapagos Islands proclaimed the Galapagos as God’s creation in their last Christmas letter. It came across to me as sort of a swipe at Darwin’s noted visit in 1835 which resulted in powerful observations about natural selection by other naturalists who examined Darwin’s plant, bird and other animal specimens.
In my childhood days I was not exposed to church except on two occassions, one when my parents and I were invited to attend a Sunday Mass in Darien and a second time when I asked my father to take me to the local church in Rowayton on Sunday. I remember deciding not to return after that second time. I don’t recall my parents ever expressing a disparaging word toward people who practiced their religion. This is the way me, my sister and three brothers were raised. I never discussed religion with any of my grandparents and am left with the strong impression that they didn’t practice a religion publicly but I cannot speak to their personal beliefs.
My father’s sister, Ruth, married Joe a career naval officer and devout Catholic. Joe was my favorite uncle because of his genuine interest in us as cousins to his five daughters. We were always aware of their Catholicism. I vividly remember being at Rehoboth Beach in Delaware in the early 1980s when my uncle Joe approached the priest after a Sunday Mass to tell him that he had terminal cancer. Joe’s five daughters were enraged when the priest just turned and walked away without comment.
Over the years I have often thought of an observation that I have made over and over again. It goes like this. Children who are raised as Christians in the church end up later in life as true believers even if they left the church in between. This may not be true for people who call themselves recovering Catholics. It’s my impression that there aren’t many who later in life migrated to Christianity without being exposed to the church as a child. A lot of our beliefs originate from what we learned and how we were brought up in childhood.
I was amused by an account of Darwin’s visit and return visit two years later to Tierra del Fuego in the early 1830s. The Beagle had previously sailed to the east coast of South America for several years to map the coast of South America before Darwin’s 5-year voyage that began in early 1831. The ship returned with three Fuegean “savages” from Tierra del Fuego. Members of the ministry of the Church of England trained these Fuegeans in the graces of the gentry and to be good Christians wearing British clothes. One of the missions of Darwin’s voyage was to return the Fuegeans to their home along with a minister who was to become a missionary to the tribes in Tierra del Fuego. When Darwin saw these naked natives for the first time he was alarmed by their unruly behavior and savagery. He considered them gross in their social behavior. He thought that perhaps their behavior was influenced by the harsh environment of their habitat noting that all life forms adapt to their environmental niche. After three weeks, the missonary decided not to stay fearing for his life but hoping that the Christianized Fuegeans would spread the faith. The Beagle then sailed away for almost two years but returned to learn the fate of the three. They found that the Christianized Fuegeans had completely returned to their savage lifestyle likely in order to survive in their remote society. This outcome might be expected in any society today.
Since I was not influenced to practice a religion during my impressionable childhood, I was free to see the world as though it was on the first day of creation.
Harold Urey’s finding at Berkeley that putting electric discharges into sealed primordial atmospheres generated organic molecules that were the building blocks of life, e.g. amino acids and the like. This could also have taken place in deep sea thermal vents as suggested by Nick Lane at the University College London. At some point macromolecules were formed that were capable of self-replication sort of like infectious prion proteins that cause mad cow disease. Eventually membranes were formed around the replicating molecules to provide energy in the form of voltage potential, and further along nucleic acids began replicating with the help of proteins inside membrane encapsulated cells. Millennia later, the first single cell organism as we know it was formed and later photosynthetic bacteria, cyanobacteria, populated the ocean generating oxygen for the atmosphere from carbon dioxide dissolved in the ocean. These cyanobacteria already had more or less the genetic code that humans have today. Multicellular plants with nucleated cells (eukaryotes) evolved by assimilating bacteria that became chloroplasts to generate more oxygen for earth’s atmosphere. At some point after land plants a wide variety of multi-cellular species evolved from single cell organisms like yeast that had assimilated bacteria to form mitochondria. These cells were the precursors of fish, reptiles, and YES, mammals, all with the same genetic code (from bacteria to man, and their viruses too). The evolution of humans from lower primates only took place in the final second of the entire process of evolution of life as it stands today (see “Better Monkeys”). Natural selection was responsible for the demise of species and/or appearance of new species that proliferated. Now man (meaning women too) is creating new forms of life first by breeding and in the last 30 years by creation of transgenic organisms that have been transformed with recombinant DNA. The recombinant spores of genetically engineered crops are all around us. There is no need to invoke God.
John,
I apologize in advance if the question I’m about to ask is too rudimentary and ignorant. However, I ask it as sincerely as you asked me about the afterlife.
I have been under the impression (and I recognize that my memory of high school science may be off about this) but I seem to recall that matter can be created and/or detroyed. But energy can not be created (and I don’t remember whether or not energy can be destroyed). And it used to be that scientists/cosmologists thought that there was energy in the universe prior to the big bang (photons, matter and anti-matter, and all that good stuff).
Is that still the case as far as what scientists to date have been able to determine?
If that is still the case, what is it that convinces you that the original source of energy present in the universe prior to the Big Bang isn’t and can’t be God?
Don’t apologize, newcomer. You are disingenuous at the best. Gag me with a spoon!
You are way over my head and yours. As long as there is a light source, there are photons. Any atomic particle has some form of energy. I can remember being confronted by a born again Christian about “enthapy” when I was at Johns Hopkins. I have had occassional eccentric street people raise scientific issues like this. They didn’t know what they are talking about, nor did I. But it is typical for preditor creationists to talk this way. I suggest that you talk to an astrophysicist rather than your high school science teacher. Life evolved well after the “Big Bang” that you keep mentioning.
John,
I’m not being disingenuous. I’m not setting you up for a “gotcha” or anything else like that. You opened this article with this statement, “As a member of the 15% (according to the poll) who believe that God played no part in the origin and evolution of life…” I’m just trying to understand why you feel as strongly as you do. I’m not seeking agreement and I’m not trying to convert you. I’ve never known any atheists before you and LibDem and I’m trying to understand why you are as convinced of your position as I am of mine – that’s all.
Since you said you believe that God played no part in the origin and evolution of life, that’s why I asked you the question about energy and the big bang because as I understand it, that relates to the origin of life. Maybe to scientists, one thing has nothing to do with the other. I don’t know, but I thought that it did. If you say that’s more properly the field of astrophysics, then I accept that.
You mentioned not being raised in a religious household. I was raised in a religious household and in a religious neighborhood even. Your article makes the case that the environment that we are raised in during our formative years has much to do with our belief and/or unbelief in God. I agree with that, but only to a point. At some point as adults, we go back and re-evaluate some of the decisions that our parents/caregivers made for us when we were kids. We do this in order to decide if we want to continue down the same road we were brought up on, or chart our own new course. We decide about the direction that the rest of our lives will take. Often, people decide this multiple times during adulthood rather than once or twice. We decide whom to marry and when, which job to take, whether we stay married or not, all sorts of things. Our upbringing affects these types of decisions too and choosing religion, which religion, or no religion is part of the process for most people who allow themselves to wonder about it.
When I became an adult, I didn’t just continue practicing my faith because I didn’t know any better. I ventured away from home for a bit and looked around to see what else was out there. I haven’t been as devout all of my life as I am today. It has been a gradual growth and exploration process. While I briefly explored other belief systems, I have never known any atheists personally in order to explore atheism. I’ve only heard them on t.v. interviews and seen them on youtube lately. So really my only impression of them is people like Hitchens or Dawkins and they don’t explain atheism in any way that I’ve heard yet. They mostly just knock down believers, especially Christians. But I’ve never heard them explain why they feel the way that they do. Instead, they seem to focus on why people like me are foolish to feel the way that I do.
So all I’m asking of you, since you brought it up, is once you became an adult and started to question whether or not there is a God or not, what convinced you that there is not?
You prove my point, Newcomer. The best that I can answer your question is in the article above. There is no reason to even ask the question.
I agree that issues of faith are primarily organized by childhood experiences and that people tend to revert to them later in life. I also believe that organized religion is a fabrication of man. And don’t get me going on the Catholic Church.
But – and I don’t mean to make it sound like a game of Clue – who put the initial electrical discharge into the primordial atmosphere which then generated the first organic molecules?
NC-
You note that atheists such as Hawkins and Dawkins “mostly just knock down believers” without explaining why “they feel the way that they do.”
I think that this is a good point. Let me try to explain why this is so.
Atheism is not a set of beliefs other than that since there is no evidence of God, he does not exist. There is no religion behind this thought. It rests on refuting those who make self righteous claims that there is a god, when in fact there is no science to support the claim. This is why you rightly note that atheists “mostly just knock down believers.”
Chris Hitches made several points that support my reasoning. Here are a few:
“Exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence.”
“Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.”
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
So this is all you really need to know about atheism. The ball is in the corner of believers to provide the evidence, not the other way around.
JTO, Diane directed me to a masterful article by Nick Lane in the New Scientist published only recently on June 25th. While you were reading the above I was making a few revisions based upon Mark Lane’s article that you can find by searching in quotes “Life: is it inevitable or just a fluke?”
LibDem,
OK, but here’s what I still don’t get. I thought that cells and eukaryotes and all these things are simple life forms. I realize that there are scientists who believe that cells and other simple life forms could have evolved by pure chance, but I’m not understanding what connection there is between these simple life forms and more complex life forms like humans. Is there some sort of a gap in the science, or does science have an answer yet?
Ultimately, what I fail to understand is that it seems that the science or ‘reason’ (to use your term) can only take you so far. But at some point in considering the various scientific theories, one reaches a point where the data only goes so far and one must infer from there in order to support one theory over another. At some point, the theories end up being just that – unproven theories (as of yet).
So is there some glaring piece of evidence that you think believers are ignoring?
If not, then shouldn’t there be an equal burden of proof on both science and religion? Why would you find it reasonable that religion requires a burden of proof but science does not?
And just so you know…I’m not trying to give you a hard time just for the sake of giving you a hard time. Nor am I out to convert you. I’m in agreement with statements that you’ve made before at the Cafe that intellectual honesty requires us to question each other. I see this as more of a gray-matter exercise that hopefully will challenge us to consider and examine our own beliefs either on a deeper level or from a different angle than either of us might have previously done up to this point.
You’re one of the few people I know who’s usually up for something like that, so I’m game if you are…
http://ronbarak.tumblr.com/post/25996121029/life-is-it-inevitable-or-just-a-fluke-by-nick-lane
Here is a link to access the Nick Lane article. You can also access the article directly by registering with New Scientist but that is cumbersome and delayed.
Very interesting read for two reasons. One, the science of what we know about the origin of life is quite fascinating. Two, what we don’t know is even more interesting.
Lane has essentially one premise: Intelligent lifeforms are freaks of nature.
He states that there is no inevitable evolutionary trajectory from simple to complex life. Never-ending natural selection, operating on infinite populations of bacteria over billions of years, may never give rise to complexity. Bacteria simply do not have the right architecture.
It has been generally assumed that once simple life has emerged, it gradually evolves into more complex forms, given the right conditions. But that’s not what happened on Earth. After simple cells first appeared, there was an extraordinarily long delay – nearly half the lifetime of the planet – before complex ones evolved. What’s more, simple cells gave rise to complex ones just once in four billion years of evolution: a shockingly rare anomaly, suggestive of a freak accident.
If simple cells had slowly evolved into more complex ones over billions of years, all kinds of intermediate cells would have existed and some still should. But there are none. Instead, there is a great gulf.
This line of reasoning suggests that while Earth-like planets may teem with life, very few ever give rise to complex cells. That means there are very few opportunities for plants and animals to evolve, let alone intelligent life. So even if we discover that simple cells evolved on Mars, too, it won’t tell us much about how common animal life is elsewhere in the universe. All this might help to explain why we’ve never found any sign of aliens.
One could see how the religious could use this premise as the “aha” moment and inject a “god” into this equation.
Keep in mind that bacteria, fungi, plants, reptiles and mammals up to humans all have the same genetic code. This is why we can clone and express human genes in bacteria. Lane said basically the same thing as Darwin – “life originiated only once” but he didn’t explain the basis for believing this. The basis is the genetic code cracked by Nirenberg and his colleagues in 1964. Darwin was unaware of the genetic code when he jotted down this note (DNA had not even been discovered). This is why reading that statement last Sunday made me marvel at the thought. I liked Lane’s discussion of the requirement of energy although you don’t need energy for prions to multiply and polymerize. If Lane exposes the complexity of evolution, he doesn’t persuade me that higher life forms weren’t inevitable by a natural process.
We’ve seen some amazing quantum leaps in evolution of Creationist positions in recent years. First they embraced “Intelligent Design” as an explanation of God’s work in the evolution of life. Now we are seeing features of natural evolution incorporated into Creationism. But it still ain’t natural.
John- good point.
NC- So here’s the deal. We both see gaps in the science (Lane suggests as well). You may see this gap as suggesting divine intervention to explain it, while see this gap as something we have not yet scientifically discovered/proven.
So when you ask if there is “some glaring piece of evidence that you think believers are ignoring”, well perhaps not. However, historically religion has consistently explained natural phenomena as being the work of a god only to have been proven later, through science, that it was not. The burden of proof has always been placed on science and science has always come up the winner. This historical and scientific precedent is reason enough for me to doubt religion.
I like “surgeons performing miracles,” especially.
LibDem,
Thank you for the link. Let me go read the article and consider it first before I comment (if I have anything to comment). Your ability to put this stuff into layman’s terms helps me to even have this discussion with you. I’m hoping that this article isn’t going to be too technical but I’ll give it a try.
NC- I take no credit for putting the article into layman’s terms. The scientific premises were taken directly from the article.
NC – It’s not so much a matter of your inability to understand as it is for science and scientists, at any point in time, to grasp and convey the whole picture.
I read the article which seems to propose that evolution of complex life forms, as opposed to simple life forms that do not evolve to more complex forms, may be a highly unusual event, perhaps unique, explaining why we do not see evidence of alien complex life forms. But I do not see how that hypothesis, or other scientific propositions, no matter how well supported, precludes the existence of God.
I think NC is on a better track in #9 above in stating that the science, no matter how advanced, only goes so far. And then I think you are in a philosophical debate. I don’t think anyone has advanced this debate past Kierkegard’s famous “leap of faith”. Either one proposition is true, or the other.
This comment begs the question: What is the evidence? Like What is the evidence that life landed on earth on a meteorite?
There is no evidence (I don’t count visions of hysterics, etc.). But your quest for evidence suggests a scientific-based inquiry, and it is not a scientific inquiry. That is why I said i believe it is a philosophical (or theological) inquiry.
I cannot say it is impossible for the case to exist where (I) there is a God; (II) God declines to offer physical evidence of his existence; and (iii) all accepted and reasonably proposed scientific theories are correct and found to be consistent.
That is Kierkegard’s “leap of faith”.
If you think that’s a stretch, try Classical Economic Theory!
Charles Darwin said late in life that he preferred to be known as an agnostic because he could not prove that God did not exist. I prefer that label myself for the same reason. Diane has stated the same.
This is the reason I have taken such an interest in Darwin’s life – not “Origin of the Species” or “Descent of Man”. I was interested in what life was like in that time in England where part of my family originated and how he lived within his society and family in light of his theories as a naturalist.
Right. In scientific terms, he could not prove the null hypothesis.
JTO rightly states that this has become a philosophical debate. One side is seeking evidence while the other side exploits the lack of it. In this light, I believe that the preference for evidence is more virtuous than a “leap in faith”. Regardless, faith in and of itself is harmless until it becomes sanctimonious. Rather than the “fear and trembling” that Kierkegaard suggests should accompany this leap, it has been proselytizing hubris that has historically accompanied faith. And this is evidenced in many ways (other than the obvious) and includes the wide diversity of theological dogma and the divisional righteousness that goes along with it. Therefore, I am not opposed to the comparative teaching of religion in school. It exposes a lot, particularly when tied to the principles of research. I also think it sheds light on the diversity of beliefs and the impact they have on society.
However, the separation of church and state must never be breached. School prayer can be done under the auspices of silence. Religious symbolism must be removed. The Pledge of Allegiance is annoying enough, but the words “Under God” must be removed.
I remember when we were instructed to add the words “under God.” It struck me as odd but I didn’t know why at the time. I think I was in 6th grade at Rowayton School.
If it was removed, I doubt anyone would miss it.
Funny story, when I was in High School I had as a homeroom teacher a Spanish Instructor. She made us say the pledge in Spanish. To this day I can still impress people with this skill. What I didn’t realize until now was that the version she taught, unbeknownst to any of us who blindly recited it, excluded the “under God” phrase.
Haha. Good for her. Spanish, no God. Imagine the uproar this would cause in Texas!
I can see the candle-light vigils. I used to travel to Odessa to see my kids.
Newcomer, you are not a scientist but you want the scientists to back up their non belief. There is none. If you believe, then just continue to believe (as I do) and let it go. There is another dimension /plane for energy, and everyone will find this out eventually.
LibDem,
Actually, I don’t approach this from the standpoint of science needing to prove that God exists. I have done that here as a debate position, but I’m talking about how science fits into the faith equation in my real life.
Originally, I think I started off by saying that the two are not mutually exclusive and John disagreed with me. At least I think that’s how we started out. I’m beginning to lose track now with all of the points and counter-points we’ve all exchanged. Hopefully, I was at least able to show you that it’s simply not accurate to lump all Christian denominations in together as some sort of “fundamentalist creationists”. There really are some denominations that allow for both creation and evolution to co-exist side-by-side. That was originally what I was trying to get at before I got sidetracked into the political discussions.
That article was very interesting. Pretty cool, actually. And it did affirm my faith even more, but since I haven’t kept up with recent scientific findings in evolution, what it gave me was a much deeper way of knowing God. It didn’t (and couldn’t, I don’t think) prove/disprove God’s existence. And I don’t even know if it was attempting to do that or not in the first place. But I don’t view science with that expectation in real life anyway. To me, they still co-exist and compliment one another. I realize it does nothing of the sort for you. Still, I appreciate that you had the patience to walk me through the science of it and explain the atheistic perspective to me. I don’t think that either of us have changed our positions and I never expected that we would or should. But I have learned new information and re-examined my old beliefs in a new way so for that, thank you!
Harry and spirit,
Thank you!!!!!!!
Newcomer,
I’ve been involved in so many of these debates in the past that I can probably answer most of your questions from a scientific viewpoint. We (humans) have a very good idea of the history of the universe right down to a mere infinitesimal fraction of a second after the universe was formed (I don’t remember the exact fraction but it was very small). It was near that time that the physical laws of the universe as we understand them started working. Before that we don’t know, we don’t understand it and we certainly don’t understand what happened before the “clock” stated ticking (of course the phrase before doesn’t really have a lot of meaning here).
It is in this fraction of a second that humanity doesn’t understand. Scientists are trying to understand it but it is difficult when we don’t even understand how the “laws” of the universe were even operating or how to figure out and even test what they may have been (that’s why such things as conservation of energy you cited was out the window, BTW mass and energy are ultimately equivalent: E=mc^2). This is the realm where many theists find the “god of the gaps”. Maybe such a being kicked everything off is the reasoning. The fact of the matter is no one knows and anyone who says different is confusing belief with knowledge. What we do know is that a literal interpretation of Genesis does not match the evidence on hand.
Thanks,
Kevin
BTW, someone stated in an earlier thread that atheism is a belief system; it is not. It is no more a belief system than theism is. A belief system is a set of beliefs. Atheism is only one thing a lack of belief in god(s) just a theism only indicates one thing, a belief in god(s). As soon as you start tying multiple beliefs together, then you have yourself a belief system.
Christianity is a belief system (there is a god, there is one (though Catholics have an interesting one god and trinity thing going), and Christ is connected to that god (son, same being, etc.). This is a series of beliefs that work together to form a belief system.
There are atheistic belief systems as well. An example of one is Secular Humanism.
In an of itself, atheism is no more a belief than theism. When people refer to atheism being a belief system they refer to a set of beliefs that many atheists (particularly in the Western world) are likely to have. But none of these associated beliefs are certain for someone who is an atheist. Only a lack of belief in god is certain when atheism is the only claim made by an individual.
Thanks,
Kevin
I think NC’s question in #1 is valid and no one has answered it here. Whether or not God exists is not dependent on how one was raised or how evil some “God-fearing” people are. He either does exist or He doesn’t. If God exists, He may be as described in any earthly religion or all of them or He may not be accurately portrayed by any of them. The way I read NC’s question is, “On what proof do those who KNOW that God does not exist rest their conviction?” LD has castigated believers in God, primarily Christians, for their blind belief and their sanctimonious dismissal of non-believers, yet is not his disbelief just as blind? Is his disbelief, today, based on any shred of evidence that there is no God? Isn’t “And of course we know… that the institution of Christianity is, without a doubt, a corrupt and dangerous plague on humanity” as hysterical a dismissal of all Christians as any Bible-thumping evangelist’s denunciation of sinners since his statement is regarding the religion, not the hypocrisy practiced by individuals?
So, can anyone here give us even one bit of proof that God does not exist? To me, and it’s why I’m not an atheist, it is of great importance that I know of no such proof. I do know that theories cannot be conclusively proven. No matter how many facts you assemble that support a hypothesis, it takes only one contradictory fact to disprove it. Thus proving God’s existence is impossible while disproving it should be easy… just one little fact and His house is brought down. So where is that one little fact? And if it does not exist, isn’t it arrogant, even sanctimonious, to declare unequivocably that there is no God? “I can’t give you any evidence that [Fermat's Last Theorem is true/aliens don't exist/my wife is cheating on me/God doesn't exist] but I know it’s true so take my word for it.” How scientific is that?
Diane,
The burden of proof lies with the person making the positive assertion. You could tell me that I’ve got an invisible pink unicorn that just moved into my barn. I’d be fully justified in being just a bit skeptical of that claim and not take it very seriously. I also wouldn’t take any idea on your part that I have to prove that it isn’t out there very seriously either.
I’ll tell you what. When you can prove that Odin, Frig, Loki and Thor are not hiding out in Asgard, completely undetectable to man, we can talk about this again. Good luck. If you are unable to do so, we instead can talk about why you don’t (a bit of an assumption on my part) take Norse mythology seriously.
Most theists and I are in agreement on the question of existence of the defined gods. I usually just lack belief in one more god than they do.
Thanks,
Kevin
But Kevin, I saw your pink unicorn last time we stopped by.
But it’s invisible!
Thanks,
Kevin
I’m with Diane and she articulated my own thoughts better than I did.
Some of you may disagree, but in my experience (which is admittedly limited to those I’ve had contact with) people of faith and agnostics who are actively questioning and seeking an answer to their question (Does God exist or not) generally engage in some kind of active process to answer this question for themselves. This can include any range of activities from reading and studying comparative world religions, history of Christianity, philosophy, theology, etc. to reading and studying scientific studies and theories as well. In other words, investigating both sides in an effort to resolve the matter for oneself personally.
This is WHY I asked those of you here, especially John and LibDem, what is it that makes you so convinced that God does not exist. As our dialogue is progressing though, I’m becoming aware of the fact that my question is based on my own assumption that atheists embark on this same search for the answer that others do. Now I’m wondering, do they? Or is it more possible that atheists just draw the conclusion that God does not exist because no one can prove that He does and leave it that? Do atheists embark on some sort of journey to find God or not, or do they just decide that He doesn’t and look no further?
And I’m asking in general. I realize that there are exceptions to everything.
Like I commented in previously, I consider mysel an agnostic simply because I cannot prove that God doesn’t exist. But I have to say that I don’t see the evidence given the cruelty of Nature.
Kevin,
To continue with your analogy of the pink unicorn…
When Diane informs you that there is an invisible pink unicorn in your barn, which is more likely to be the response of someone who questions everything and seeks to answer those questions in some way?
Would it be to conclude to oneself without personal investigation that, “I cannot see anything that is invisible with my own eyes, therefore it does not (and perhaps cannot) exist.”
Or, might it be to ask more questions, starting with Diane? Maybe something along the lines of, “But Diane, if something is invisible, what makes you so sure that it exists?” Then, assuming you find her answer unsatisfactory, might you not investigate how others, who also think they can perceive the invisible, came to be convinced of such a thing? And if you were to endeavor to undertake any such investigation, might that not include trying some of the more common methods that others report making frequent use of in order to see if you might come upon a similar result? Might that include taking a stroll out to the barn to try Diane’s or someone else’s method to see if you are able to perceive an invisible pink unicorn or not? Even if you feel completely silly doing it, you might get an answer, whether negative or affirmative.
Again, not picking on you for the sake of badgering you or anyone else here, but I have a hard time understanding why people like scientists, who seem driven to their core toward the quest to come to know what is unknown, are satisfied to end their own search before it begins, as pertains one of the most basic questions that every generation of humanity has asked throughout history to our present day.
John, Newcomer,
Perhaps we should revisit the definitions of atheism and agnosticism? I asked Newcomer about this when the discussion began and she replied with the more common definition of there being some sort of continuum from theism, agnosticism and atheism. It is a common definition but it is generally not used by many atheists because it doesn’t capture what the large number of atheists actually believe.
To understand this you have to look at the difference between belief and knowledge, the idea that you have active and passive beliefs and that if you lack belief in something it is not the same as denying it. Many atheists to not actively deny the possibility of the existence of god as the continuum model typically defines atheism. What is more likely is that you will get an answer like this (substituting the Loch Ness Monster), “Well I suppose there could be a Lock Ness Monster hiding somewhere in that lake but based on everything we know now the possibility is so vanishingly unlikely that it’s not even worth considering. No I don’t believe it is down there but it’s always possible.” Lacking belief in a proposition is not the same as actively denying it: I don’t believe, I don’t know and I’m not undecided either. The “a” prefix simply denotes without, in this case a belief in god(s). That is not the same as “anti” or to deny.
Here is a good link that explains this way of thinking about it:
http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/
Thanks,
Kevin
Rather than an invisible pink unicorn, would you pursue something that you think (based on what you already know) is a red herring? For example like the two who discovered “cold fusion.”
It must have been the wine.
Newcomer,
What makes you think I haven’t gone to my barn looking for the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU)? The fact of the matter is that millions of people have gone out to my barn looking for the IPU, including scientists. While many believe in it, none have ever found any convincing evidence of its existence.
To make matters worse, many of my other neighbors claim that there is no IPU in the barn at all, but instead there is a flying spaghetti monster (FSM). Those neighbors don’t really have any more convincing evidence than the IPU people do but each group claims the others are wrong. What’s a poor barn owner to do? Whenever I go out to the barn the darn thing is empty.
Some afternoon fun watching my neighbors battle it out…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZK5tCY39x0
Thanks,
Kevin
Kevin,
Nothing makes me think that you did or did not go out to the barn. That’s why I asked you. I had no other way of knowing if I failed to ask, other than to assume.
Newcomer, You completely mis-characterize scientists with this statement “…I have a hard time understanding why people like scientists, who seem driven to their core toward the quest to come to know what is unknown, are satisfied to end their own search before it begins, as pertains one of the most basic questions …” You obviously don’t understand the nature of legitimate scientific exploration. Let’s change this statement to the following: “…I have a hard time understanding why people like creationists, who seem driven to their core toward the quest to come to know what is unknown, are satisfied to end their own search before it begins, …”
Newcomer,
No problem. I fund such conversations interesting and in no way threatening. Adding a little humor to lighten the mood always helps so that’s what I try and do.
I thought by your last sentence in post 37 that you were implying that I ended my search before it began (an honest possible reading does leave me as the subject of the sentence). My mistake.
Thanks,
Kevin
Another Poll found at the NCSE: A new CNN/ORC poll included a question about evolution, with few surprises in the results. Asked “Do you believe that the theory of evolution is definitely true, probably true, probably false, or definitely false,” 21% of respondents favored definitely true, 36% favored probably true, 16% favored probably false, 25% favored definitely false, and 3% offered no opinion, the poll report (PDF, p. 6) indicated. The report also indicated (p. 15) that evolution was more popular among Democrats than Republicans (with 67% versus 35% regarding it as definitely or probably true), among the college-educated than the non-college-educated (64% versus 46%), and among those under 50 than those 50 and older (60% versus 52%). The poll was conducted by telephone among 1038 adult Americans from September 9 to September 11, 2011; the margin of sampling error for results based on the total sample is +/- 3%.
And from Reiuters (NCSE): “A new poll conducted by Ipsos for Reuters News in twenty-four countries found that 41% of respondents identified themselves as “evolutionists” and 28% as “creationists,” with 31% indicating that they “simply don’t know what to believe,” according to a press release issued by Ipsos on April 25, 2011….The “evolutionist” view was most popular in Sweden (68%), Germany (65%), and China (64%), with the United States ranking 18th (28%), between Mexico (34%) and Russia (26%); the “creationist” view was most popular in Saudi Arabia (75%), Turkey (60%), and Indonesia (57%), with the United States ranking 6th (40%), between Brazil (47%) and Russia (34%).
Kevin,
I can see why you’d read it that way. I have a bad habit of switching back and forth between the specific and the general statement when I write, so I’ll own that last one as my bad.
John,
I KNOW that I obviously don’t understand the nature of legitimate scientific exploration. I’ve been wearing my ignorance of science on my sleeve throughout this entire discussion.
And I don’t object to you reversing my sentence. It’s possible that there are some people who believe the literary devices of the creation story literally and never embark on a search to see if what they believe is true or not. I can’t say that I’ve bumped into any of them, but they keep popping up in these polls so they must be out there somewhere.
Personally, I’m of the belief that if what my Church teaches me about God is correct, then science shouldn’t be able to negate it. Science should complement it and enhance it. I don’t follow scientific advances because most of the time, the technical language goes over my head. But when I come across articles like that Nick Lane one that are in layman’s terms that I can grasp easier, then I don’t shy away from them. I just have yet to find anything scientific that negates my beliefs. Quite the oppositite, just like yesterday’s article did, it usually strengthens them.
I find that exciting!
Newcomer, I don’t believe it is the intent of anyone here at the Cafe to dissuade you of your belief that “…[what] my Church teaches me about God is correct…”, or that we are trying to dissuade you of your belief through scientific persuasion (“…then science shouldn’t be able to negate it…”). I would never attempt to do this with you or with my grown up children.
With the article “Darwin Had It Right” a week ago Sunday, I was revelling over what Darwin wrote in his notes “Life originated only once” which I thought was a remarkable statement for 1837. You immediately jumped on (comment 2) and flatly contradicted what I had said as though I was attacking you. It was even more galling that Wikipedia was your source; it wouldn’t have been so galling if you had said ‘I believe’, or ‘my minister’ or ‘my parents’ told me…
Cafers are simply expressing their own individual beliefs and opinions with no intent of proselytizing others. You are arguing with us because we don’t share your view; nor do we appreciate your wish to teach our kids your views in the public school system.
To Kevin’s #38. Thank you. This is why I am an atheist and not an agnostic.
Chris Hitchens took it a step further. He considered himself an anti-theist.
John,
I don’t think it’s anyone’s intent here to dissuade me of my beliefs either. Nor am I trying to dissuade anyone of theirs. I think there’s a certain amount of doubt (for lack of a better word) that is inherent in this particular debate itself (meaning the general topic) and we’re all to a greater or lesser degree probably responding to some level of it as the backdrop when we comment. There are atheists well-known today who are making big money and enjoying a great deal of popularity by verbally attacking and insulting Christianity and Christians like me. Likewise, you reported in an earlier comment that a “creationist” cornered you about your beliefs once. That these things are commonplace make us all a little super-sensitive to this subject matter, I think. At least it has that effect on me. But I’m not accusing anyone in this discussion of doing that.
When I make the statement that “science shouldn’t be able to negate it” that you noted, I’m not responding to yours or anyone else’s attempts to negate it. Maybe a clearer way to express the thought I was trying to express is to say that my religious beliefs, if they are as true as I fully believe them to be, should be able to withstand the rigors of science. I believe that they do and so I am of the opinion that Christians should not fear science. Yet, some do – but that’s not something that I understand very well or know much about.
In your original Darwin article from last week, I WAS responding to something that you said in that article (“No, Darwin wasn’t thinking about a divine event that happened 5 or 6000 years before”). And I did “jump on it” because it’s the topic that I know and love best, but by doing so, I wasn’t jumping on you personally. I apologize if my eagerness to engage in my favorite topic came across as aggressive toward you.
And I didn’t realize that we stopped using Wikipedia as a source at the Cafe. A few of us used to quote it fairly frequently. Like I said, I wouldn’t expect it to be acceptable for a professional journal or anything, but for biographical and autobiographical quotes, I thought it was OK. I definitely wasn’t trying to gall you and I had no way of knowing that it would. But I know now so I won’t be using it as a source here anymore.
I’m not “arguing” with you because you don’t share my view. I’m arguing with you because I don’t understand your view and I’m still not sure, even after all of this discussion, that you understand mine either. If you (plural, meaning you and others) did, you would stop describing me like I belong to some unspecified fundamentalist denomination. I don’t. We’re not all the same so why treat us as though we are? I make no value judgement as to whether any one denomination is “better” than another because that’s a very personal matter. It’s also one I’m not qualified to make because I don’t know all of the teachings of all of the other denominations to know how they are the same/different from mine. But my point is that if I’m a Christian and I don’t know enough to comment about other Christians, what makes you so certain that you do? When you lump me in with “predatory Creationists” and tell me I’m being disingenuous when I ask questions attempting to understand your point-of-view better, it comes across a little harsh.
You don’t appreciate my ‘wish’ to teach religious beliefs in school? You have nothing to fear because that’s all it is – my wish. I hold no power whatsoever to accomplish anything I may prefer, but if others here can express their opinion that they don’t want to see that, why shouldn’t I be able to express my opinion that I do?
Honestly John, if my participation here rubs you the wrong way, please just say so. I’m passionate about my views, but I’m not militant. I want to contribute toward your blog, not detract from it. If you feel I’m doing more detracting than contributing, I’ll back off. I respect your right to direct the vision of your blog content however you see fit.
Newcomer-
I think our concern is that for someone so smart, it surprises us that you believe something without having any evidence to support this belief. In fact, you believe because there is no evidence against your claim, but do you not see how flawed that logic is?
There is no evidence that there are no leprechauns, therefore there are leprechauns.
Hello?
Newcomer,
From my point of view I’ve enjoyed reading this exchange; please continue.
Thanks,
Kevin
I agree with Kevin. Don’t go!
LibDem,
Your #52 gets right to the core of why we probably aren’t able to each make sense of the other’s position. When you get into why someone would be willing to believe in what they can’t see and that science (nor anything else) can prove, now you’re talking about faith. That’s exactly what it is by definition.
I don’t know that I’m capable of explaining faith to you in any way that would make sense in just a few paragraphs. It’s a vast topic about which, volumes and volumes have been written down through the ages. But I can say that it includes, or is strengthened by, a process of actually getting to know an “invisible” God in a very personal way through prayer. People can develop an intimate relationship with God that goes well past anything that could be chalked up to the power of suggestion or the mind, coincidence, or brainwashing. It becomes literally a two-way dialogue through prayer, between Father and child.
I won’t go into it more than that except to say that I laughed at the bewilderment that you expressed in your #52 (“Hello?”) because I feel the same toward atheists. I’m so sure that God exists due to the strength of my relationship with Him (or more properly, His relationship with me) that I can’t fathom how someone could just dismiss the possibility of His existence.
So this is comin’ right back atcha:
Hello?!!
LibDem,
P.S. Leprechauns have not been the subject of the most ancient surviving writings that have been discovered. Neither have invisible pink unicorns, norse gods, greek gods, flying spaghetti monsters, etc.. Worship of any of these on a scale comparable to God/Allah/Yaweh has not endured to the present day.
Have you ever asked yourself or wondered why? Why throughout the history of mankind are so many people still convinced today worldwide that God exists and Satan exists but everything else (as in the list above) is fictional? I would ask you to consider the possibility that it is because people can pray to God (and unfortunately if you’re stupid enough) to Satan as well. Both will answer in very tangible ways. Fictional characters, not so much.
Exactly. This has been nailed down for me now. I feel exactly the same way talking to someone who really believes in leprechauns as I do with someone who really believes in creationism. What can one say?
LibDem,
Not laughing at you to mock you; laughing with you to appreciate the position you were expressing.
Newcomer,
If you are going to go with the age of the claims then there are plenty of religious beliefs that predate Christianity by quite a bit. For example the oldest book Egyptian known religious writings predate the earliest writings of Judaism by over 1000 years. The Epic of Gilgamesh (which strangely enough has a very similar story to Christ) predates the earliest writings of Judaism by quite a bit as well. Sumerian culture and religious texts are even older yet. I could create a much longer list if you would like.
I’m sure at the time those religions were in their heyday very similar arguments were made about them “surviving” and having a lot of followers as the one you made. Of course Hinduism is still around and has about 900M followers. Their book, the Vedic ‘Samhitas’ was also written before the oldest books in Judaism.
So I’m not sure exactly what we can infer from your argument. It would seem to point to Hinduism as being the religion to follow, wouldn’t it? They probably think their prayers are answered too.
Of course this is all meaningless. The age of a claim or the popularity of a claim speak not one bit to the truth of that claim. Now if you can provide evidence of prayers being answered by a divine power, now you’d have something. It wouldn’t prove Christianity but you’d be closer to proving there is a supernatural power.
Thanks,
Kevin
Kevin,
You’re more on-target than I think you realize. The most accurate (and thereby the most trustworthy, IMHO) Biblical scholars are the ones who have learned both ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek and have also studied the ancient cultures like the Egyptians. All of this study is vital to understanding what the Bible really says. Why?
Let’s take an example from your last comment in which you referred to Hinduism. If you and I were to use that comment to take up a discussion on the applications of Hinduism in present-day India (for example) then you and I would be referring to the culture in India as it exists today and as you and I know it today. Now if we had this discussion here at the Cafe and 2,000 years from now, our Cafe discussion was one of the few that survived and still existed in the internet archives, then people living 2,000 years in the future would be studying our conversation if they were especially interested in learning what life was like in India in 2012, and our conversation was somehow one of the only surviving few sources that addressed it.
Those scholars studying India 2,000 years in the future would need to know something about our language and the times we live in now in order to understand what we’re really saying in our conversation because presumably, the India of 2,000 years into the future will be very different from the India of today.
I can not and would not claim to be such a qualified Biblical scholar but when I share tidbits here about how to read and interpret Genesis (for example), I draw my info from the most reliable sources of Biblical scholars that I know of.
If you have about 10 minutes to spare at some point today, I think you might possibly find the following link interesting. If not, I’m hoping it will at least demonstrate the point that I’m trying to make. This link is to a video which, is pretty timely for what we’ve been talking about. The subject is “Why are there unicorns in the Bible?” Did you know that there are? Not those of the invisible, pink variety though (LOL)! And no, I’m not linking you to some kind of crazy person who is trying to make the case that unicorns as we know them are real. But, they ARE mentioned in the Bible (both an older Catholic translation called the Douay-Rheims and the King James Bible). This discussion also makes mention of the Egyptians.
I realize that if you dare to indulge me and watch this video, that you’ll probably have to do so holding your nose. Still, I think you might be at least a little surprised by what you hear if you decide to check it out.
http://www.jimmyakin.org/
P.S. When you go to this site (if you do), you’ll see an ad for a “secret” club. That’s not a crazy Da Vinci code kinda term. The term “secret” has a very specific meaning in the Catholic Church of pre-Vatican II (just don’t ask JTO about it because he’s too young to remember it). But I won’t go into it unless anyone wants me to.
Kevin,
The IPU was not seen in your barn. It was in the barn on Rt. 169.
But, no matter. It will turn up again. It always does. And isn’t that a good thing.
Newcomer,
I’ll have to watch that video when I get home from work. I did actually know that unicorns were mentioned in the bible, satyrs too. The usual response to this is one of the following:
- It’s literally true.
- It’s figuratively true but what it actually means is…
- That was a common word at the time that means something other than it means today.
- Some sort of mistranslation is at work.
Such arguments may or may not have merit depending on what they are. For example in many cases the mistranslation/changing definition arguments hold water. Based on your preceding text I’m guessing the video points to one of the latter two.
Thanks,
Kevin
Kevin,
I’m not telling! I’ll be interested to hear your thoughts though.
You also asked about evidence of prayers being answered by a Divine power. There are so many examples of this. Here’s one that happened in 2010 and is actually going to be investigated by the Vatican (witness testimonies, medical records, etc.). So, if you want to, you’ll be able to keep an eye out for headlines in the future as to whether the story of prayers for this baby are found to be a ‘miracle’. For Vatican purposes, that means that a thorough (can take years and years, though not always) investigation based on all available data can not find any explanation, other than the supernatural, to explain it.
So, here’s a link to a story about a family that prayed to the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen for his intercessory prayer. There’s a pretty common misconception among non-Catholic Christians that Catholics commit blasphemy by praying to saints in place of Jesus. That’s wrong and if it were correct, it would be blasphemy. Catholics pray to saints for intercessory prayer. First of all, a saint is not someone who is on equal footing with Jesus. No saint is. Saints were sinners just like the rest of us but they still somehow managed to live lives of heroic virtue anyway. They are role models. So when we “pray to them”, we don’t worship them. We do ask them to intercede for us, or put in a good word for us as someone who lived a Holy life when they were on earth. Doing this is no different than asking your friend at church or neighbor (or anyone else) to pray for you if you have cancer (or any of a million other things that we ask others to pray about for us).
As usual, there’s more to it than that, but that hopefully gives you enough so that you have the background info in this news article, should you choose to read it.
The bottom line is that because this particular answer to a prayer is going to be investigated as part of the process for the cause of sainthood, it’s going to undergo extremely rigorous investigation to make sure there are no explanations for it, other than that Archbishop Sheen heard the prayers and added his prayers to the rest as a holy person who is in Heaven with the Lord.
Regardless of the outcome of the investigation and whether or not we believe that Archbishop Sheen interceded, this family believes that God answered the prayers.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/illinois-family-says-archbishop-fulton-sheens-intercession-saved-their-baby/
Well I am glad I am too young for something besides Social Security. And I do not know about unicorns and satyrs, but I do know there are Centaurs all over Woodstock.
This string is actually pretty impressive because it follows the basic arguments of the Enlightenment philosophers (as I remember them) relative to the existence of God. Here is a quote from Hegel:
“To know God is not above comprehension, it is above reason which is the knowledge of the finite.”
So if someone asserts that God exists, they should support their belief with evidence. If the person cannot provide evidence, it is fair to say they did not prove the existence of God.
However, this standard cuts both ways. If someone makes the opposite
assertion, that God does NOT exist, then they should support their assertion with evidence. If they cannot provide such evidence, then it is fair to say they cannot prove their assertion.
So this leaves two possibilities, that God exists, or, alternatively, that God does not exist. Neither case can be proven through reason.
Thus Kierkegaard’s “Leap of Faith”" which is very consistent with NC’s comment above. Either you have it or you don’t.
BTW I spotted an ad for a new “Great Course” (this an awesome cd/DVD lecture series if you have no caught onto it) called “Religion and Reason” which covers the great Enlightenment debate among the prominent European philosophers get this on my birthday list for next winter’s viewing. Just don’t tell NC as it will only encourage her prosletizing.
JTO,
Actually, I’d be interested in reading more about the Enlightenment. I’m not of the opinion that it was ‘great’ necessarily. But Jefferson was very aware of it, having spent time in Paris at the same time as St. Just. Some historians feel that’s why he made it a point to include the word “Creator” in the Declaration of Independence. It’s an important part of the backdrop to our nation’s history as well as being a philosophical movement that Christians should be aware of. Some of today’s neo-atheists borrow some of their ideas from the Enlightenment.
Does it only come in DVD form? I still like to curl up with an actual book the old fashioned way. Haven’t become a kindle fan yet…
NC you can find Great Courses on line. It is all on cd or DVD. It is a far ranging selection of the “best” lecturers on topics as varied as your college catalogue but survey course oriented. I have on my list medieval European history, Founding Fathers, but there is Mathematics, Economics, Psychology, Philosophy – the Ancients/Enlightenment, medieval China, Music, Renaissance Art, etc. They are usually 10-12 hours.
The Enlightenment philosophers and theologians debated booths sides of this issue, so you can’t plug up one ear. The CD was $70 but I find it hard to concentrate in the car, and I like the graphics, so I would go DVD. I don’t think there are books but you can check.
Ahhh Medical Miracles! What would we do without Doctors and Faith Healers proclaiming them?
John,
Fair enough. Not each and every positive medical outcome is a miracle. That’s why there will be an extensive investigation and interviews will be conducted with staff members that may not even be Catholic or be the least bit interested in a miracle as much as they just wanted to do their best work and help save a baby’s life. Medical tests will be reviewed by multiple experts.
I’m no doctor, but I wouldn’t think that anyone going for 61 hours (assuming that’s being reported correctly) without a pulse, especially a newborn, could be a good thing. Maybe it happens all of the time and we just never hear about it? I don’t know…
Can’t wait to hear the outcome.
Maybe it happened with the resurrection?
Newcomer,
It looks like the video claims the last two; bad interpretation and the meanings have changed. I’ve watched such discussions before but I don’t have the background or inclination in linguistics to really participate. I’ve always been more interested in the historical aspect.
As far as the story about a baby being unresponsive for 61 minutes; unusual but certainly not miraculous. Even if all the events in the story are true all you are left with is a classic case of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because one event follows another does not mean that one caused the other. How many other cases do you suppose happened where prayers were used with this individual without a good outcome? I’m betting it is a non-zero number. We humans love confirmation bias and to create patterns.
I’ll give you an real example. I’m a VW and Porsche guy, I always have been. It seems that every time I look at the clock, it matches a Porsche model number; 356, 550, 911, 912, 914, 924, 928, 959, etc. Whenever that happens my mind tunes right in to it. Of course the more rational part of my mind also realizes that I look at the time a lot and it comes up with totally unrelated numbers; my mind just dismisses those instances. There is no cosmic coincidence at work here where whenever I look at the clock it matches a Porsche model number. What it does illustrate is our brain’s propensity to look for patterns, even if none exist. This would seem to be particularly true of things that interest us.
Thanks,
Kevin
“post hoc ergo propter hoc” means “After this, therefore because of this” My four years of Latin finally paid off
Kevin makes an astute remark when he claims the brain’s propensity to look for patterns….(see LibDem’s new article. Admin).
This is definitely divine intervention. Sell the VW’s and buy a Porsche. I mean can’t this guy take a hint? What’s he need – an exorcist?
The non-Carrera 356, if you want to go back that far, was really a souped up VW with better suspension and brakes. But we digress…
What year?
Late 1950′s to 1962 or 1963
The 356 were around until about 1966. Doubtful is right that the single overhead cam engines were very much like the VW engines. They had similar designs and displacements. There are some differences if you know where to look: for example the Porsche case was in three parts while the VW case was in two.
The other Porsche that had a very strong VW heritage was the 914 (4). The 1.7l and 1.8l 914 engines were the exact same engines that were used in the 411/412 VW lines (and early 1970′s bay window busses). The 2.0l 914 engine however, used some parts like heads with larger valves and different pistons that differentiated them from the 2.0l Type-4 engines that VW used. The 914-6, on the other hand, was completely a Porsche engine design.
Now we’ve done it. I could geek our on this stuff all day long.
Thanks,
Kevin
Kevin, You should write your Geek story in an essay for posting….with pictures.
Kevin-
Its old now and probably no longer around, but “The Maestro” wrote very amusing and informative stuff from California about working on air cooled Porsches.