If we are searching for the potential existence of god, how are we likely to find him?
A strong philosophical worldview should be where any real journey toward truth starts, as it is important to consistently view all information through the same lens. How can we be truly objective, for instance, if we use different criteria to judge different sides of an argument? Forcing consistency ensures that all facts are being evaluated in a similar manner, standardizing comparisons between different sets of observations. This is not to say that worldviews can never change – this should be both expected and encouraged – but when they are changed, they should void all previously held conclusions. If we have very well defined models, identifying and compensating for a change will be straightforward as we can simply follow the logical chain of reasoning. If our models are more ambiguous however, we will drift along like a boat without an anchor, making no real progress toward any meaningful answers. Although there are many different areas of philosophy, I break down my own personal worldview into pillars focusing on the nature of the universe, the fundamentals of existence, and the nature of truth/knowledge.
The first supporting pillar of my worldview focuses on the essential essence of the universe. In other words, what is behind the vastness and complexity that we see all around us? The question to ask here is: “When we get down to the fundamental truths of the universe, are we dealing with natural or supernatural explanations?” Do we expect to find the same physical truths under every rock, or do we eventually hit a point where we have to look outside of our universe for an explanation? At first glance, it might seem impossible to answer this question without first addressing the existence of the supernatural – the very question I am setting out to answer. After all if god does not exist, then considering anything but natural explanations is a wasted exercise. The problem here, of course, comes in the absolutist phrasing of my question, allowing for only two mutually exclusive answers. Be very careful with philosophy in this regard, as things are rarely so clear cut. If a certain way of thinking tends to illicit such unrealistically polarized conclusions, the weakness most likely rests with the model itself, not the facts used within it. Anyone claiming that their particular philosophy is ‘absolute truth’ has to struggle with subsequently disproving every other philosophy that came before it. The intangible nature of logical models makes this an almost impossible task, as contradictory ideas can literally spring up overnight. Even if absolute certainty is not possible, we still have to fight the very human tendency to try and see the world via clearly delineated categories. Water is either hot or cold, the light is either on or off, and the sun has either risen or it has set. It would be strange to say that the water is 63.4°F or that the sun has reached 22% of its apex, even though we would be communicating far more information than before. We are less inclined to think of things in shades of grey, and we are left with an internal struggle to be comfortable with uncertainty. In the The Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan revealed just how dependant on certainty we really are:
“Humans may crave absolute certainty; they may aspire to it; they may pretend, as partisans of certain religions do, to have attained it. But the history of science — by far the most successful claim to knowledge accessible to humans — teaches that the most we can hope for is successive improvement in our understanding, learning from our mistakes, an asymptotic approach to the Universe, but with the proviso that absolute certainty will always elude us.”
While we cannot legitimately speak about certainties, we can still talk about things in terms of probability. I personally believe that all of the universe can be explained through natural means, a belief called Metaphysical Naturalism, but I cannot prove this fact. I have not personally witnessed all that there is to witness, and there are explanations that elude even our greatest scientific minds. If I were to base my conclusions off of Metaphysical Naturalism, I would be making the same faith-based leaps that theists make when discussing god. Without conclusive evidence, I cannot construct a properly skeptical worldview with Metaphysical Naturalism at its heart. Instead, I must compromise a bit and adopt the weaker form of Naturalism called Methodological Naturalism. Put briefly, it is my view that natural explanations should be expected for all observations, and any investigation should start there first. I believe that even if we cannot provide a good natural explanation, one should be expected at some point in the future. Those who believe in supernatural explanations, in my opinion, need to demonstrate that there will never be any potential natural models before they can defend their position. In The Language of God, Francis Collins, leader of the Human Genome Project and devout Christian, warns that:
“…caution is needed when inserting specific divine action by God in this or any other area where scientific understanding is currently lacking. From solar eclipses in olden times to the movement of the planets in the middle ages, to the origins of life today, this “god of the gaps” approach has all too often done a disservice to religion (and by implication, to God, if that’s –possible). Faith that placed God in the gaps of current understanding about the natural world may be headed for crisis if advances in science subsequently fill those gaps. Faced with incomplete understanding of the natural world, believers should be cautious about invoking the divine in areas of current mystery, lest they build an unnecessary theological argument that is doomed to later destruction.”
Simply pointing out a gap in our understanding is not enough. Believers must also be able to demonstrate why that particular gap can never be filled by science. If a gap has a chance to be filled, as in a natural answer could be found, then there is simply no need to add the further complexity of including the supernatural. This pillar will help keep my conclusions fact-based while still leaving god as a potential answer.
Although Naturalism provides guidance on how the universe works, we still need a model to describe its constitution. When existence is broken down into its smallest parts, what kind of substances do we find? Can consciousness, sentience, cognition, matter, energy, and light all be defined with the same set of physical components, or are there more ethereal elements of existence that are not readily observable? The answer to this particular question is important because it sets boundaries around what we are allowed to consider. As with Naturalism, I hold the personal belief that the entirety of existence can be broken down into an interaction of physical matter with physical phenomena. This particular philosophy is called Materialism, and it is as equally improvable as Metaphysical Naturalism. As before, I have to sacrifice my personal belief and adopt the much more open-ended worldview of Dual-Aspect Monism. Dual-Aspect Monism simply states that the mental and physical are both two aspects of the same substance. This philosophy does not try to say whether that common substance is natural or not, just that consciousness – or the human condition, if you will - can be explained with the same techniques used to describe physical phenomena (like electrical impulses and cell structure). While not ruling out the supernatural entirely, Dual-Aspect Monism forces logical consistency between biological facilities and mental experience. If consciousness was completely separate from its physical machinery – if it were surreptitiously placed there by god, for instance – then it would not be affected by changes to the brain. Anyone who has ever taken prescription drugs, alcohol, or suffered head trauma will speak to the power that the physical state of the brain has over how we experience the world. Whatever explanation is lurking behind sentience needs to be explained with a model that takes this physical dependency into account.
With a model for explaining both the makeup and nature of existence in place, we now need to ensure that we have a consistent way of evaluating the arguments made within this framework. When faced with tough decisions, we all have different standards that we use to determine what conclusion best fits our view of the world. Are observation and experience the only appropriate tools to use, or can intuition, revelation, and a priori reasoning be used as well? It should come as no surprise that I tend to side with observable and externally verifiable statements, which is referred to as Empiricism. I do not completely rule out intuition, revelation, or personal authority as potential sources of truth, but the imprecise nature of these claims makes them less reliable than their rigorously tested counterparts. It is also important to note that the amount of evidence required to substantiate a claim should scale in direct proportion to both its probability and significance. If I want to know the score of a football game, I would have no problem trusting the word of a complete stranger on the street. After all, the risks are low in this case and the information is not significant enough to warrant further research. When it comes to buying a house or some other major life decision though, I want to see it for myself and even the word of trusted friends is usually not enough (on its own) to ease my mind. In a similar vein, while it is easy to believe the stranger with the football score, what if he also claimed that aliens attacked the stadium at halftime? The sheer improbability of this new claim would make you instantly doubt his word, and you would either disregard his testimony outright or seek out corroborating evidence. If god truly exists, then the stakes of finding out the truth cannot be greater. God would represent a magnificently complex and singularly important entity and the ramifications of his potential existence require very compelling evidence to support it. Whenever I am given personal testimony, revelation, or intuition as evidence, I will always ask for externally verifiable ways to stress the validity of those claims.
I assume that anyone holding opposing worldviews will now start accusing me of rigging the game against god. There is some validity in this, as the natural, physical, and observable slant to my models puts the burden of evidence squarely on the supernatural side of the argument. Unless I find compelling evidence to move toward a supernatural explanation, I will always default to a natural one. This is both intentional and appropriate, in my opinion. Those claiming to know god are the ones who are making extraordinary claims and they should be held accountable to build a supporting case. If the evidence presented is not compelling, why should I believe in god? There is the tendency among believers to want to flip this argument around, asking for a reason not to believe (see Pascal’s Wager). Just like the strangers claims of an alien attack at the football game, it is not our job to explain why he is wrong. We are naturally skeptical at first, and it is his job to present a case compelling enough to make us listen to his story. All I ask is that we take a similarly prudent look at the evidence for god. If the case is not strong enough, there is simply no reason to believe in his existence.
38 comments:
There are larger and more dubious flaws in Pascal's Gambit.
The most obvious is that it is not merely a two-sided coin to flip. It is not a wager of "If I believe in god, and you do not", but "If I happen to have picked the right god to believe in, and you have not", which expands the invalidity of Pascal's Gambit. We must also take into account the fact that most major world religions say that mere belief is not enough to claim whatever eternal reward there is. It is similar to a slot machine in a casino - some might say the only way to ultimately win is to just not play.
That is, allowing for a materialistic worldview. Did you know that the concept of "worldview" is an entirely Modern concept, Bri? Some would call it a metanarrative. If you haven't noticed yet, I don't have one.
I will try to be succinct, but I tend to only have time to respond to particular thoughts and passages one at a time.
A strong philosophical worldview should be where any real journey toward truth starts, as it is important to consistently view all information through the same lens. How can we be truly objective, for instance, if we use different criteria to judge different sides of an argument? Forcing consistency ensures that all facts are being evaluated in a similar manner, standardizing comparisons between different sets of observations. This is not to say that worldviews can never change – this should be both expected and encouraged – but when they are changed, they should void all previously held conclusions.
As I said in my previous comment, I reject the notion of a metanarrative. I am much more comfortable in a search for truth that involves multiple interweaving stories than one, overarching story. In the same way that a fanatical, zealous, unshakable belief in god that disregards any evidence or rational argument to the contrary tends to border on (if not firmly manifest itself into) the absurd, a worldview that validates external observations based solely on the empirical is highly susceptible to confirmation bias. That is not to say that either the rational or the irrational ought to be discarded out of hand, but simply that they are capable of informing one another. This is why I find it difficult to be discrete as it pertains to holistic philosophies. No one's nailed it, not even the postmoderns.
Now, you may find that materialism takes you quite a long way, but in the same way that those who realize their brand of religious dogma is entirely indefensible will vehemently and sometimes violently react when their beliefs are challenged, materialists are capable of using their nihilistic explanation for any and every phenomena as a cudgel. I've come to the conclusion that in order to honestly seek truth, I cannot establish a higher order of veracity for those claims that have merely been verified by senses that I know to be suspect. Thus, I think it is self-defeating to assert that your entire worldview has to be deconstructed and rebuilt every time a new truth is discovered that is seemingly contradictory, or at best non-complementary. This is a road that many French guys much brighter and better read than I am went down, a road on which people who think and perceive the same way I do squarely lay the blame for such atrocities as the holocaust. If your worldview cannot be questioned without being deconstructed, it is not worthy of any further scrutiny. It is unworkable. But that's just my opinion :)
“That is, allowing for a materialistic worldview. Did you know that the concept of "worldview" is an entirely Modern concept, Bri? Some would call it a metanarrative. If you haven't noticed yet, I don't have one.”
With respect to a worldview, of course you have one, we all do. Whether or not you choose to give it a name or not is entirely different, but you have a worldview. Even choosing not to have a worldview is a type of worldview, although one that is not particularly well equipped to hold any stance for any amount of time. Think of the label as a way of revealing how your brain naturally processes information. Even if the label didn’t exist, your brain would still continue to function in a similar way.
The human brain (especially the old brain) is exceptionally proficient at creating statistical models. These models are what allow the brain to rapidly filter down all of the sensory information it is getting to pick only that which is relevant at the time. These models are automatically created as part of the brain’s normal functions, and the net result of all of these models working together is what I would call a natural worldview. This natural worldview is undisciplined and subject to all of the biases that plague human cognition. It is not governed by any overarching rational concepts and tends to drift along with our experiences. These undisciplined worldviews are what are responsible for most blind faith, in my opinion. People go with what feels right, and their unanchored worldview drifts further and further down a rabbit hole until they cannot remember how they got there. Some may call this the transforming power of belief, but it is far closer to the gradual breaking down that we see in mental conditioning. The only solution, in my opinion, is to be so aware of your own worldview that you are consistent in how you approach your analysis. Think of it as another way of identifying personal bias.
As I said in my previous comment, I reject the notion of a metanarrative. I am much more comfortable in a search for truth that involves multiple interweaving stories than one, overarching story.
This is still a worldview, just a more flexible one. Unless, of course, the term metanarrative has some specific meaning that I am unaware of.
materialists are capable of using their nihilistic explanation for any and every phenomena as a cudgel. I've come to the conclusion that in order to honestly seek truth, I cannot establish a higher order of veracity for those claims that have merely been verified by senses that I know to be suspect.
I couldn’t agree more, which is why I was forced to adopt the weaker forms of Naturalism and Materialism. It is impossible to seek the truth if you put a box around the possibilities that you are allowed to consider. While I will tend to expect natural explanations, I cannot do so at the cost of ignoring potential supernatural ones. If I did, I would be guilty of the same zealotry that blind faith requires. I do feel justified in adopting a more physically slanted view though, as I have better evidence in the existence of the natural than the supernatural.
If your worldview cannot be questioned without being deconstructed, it is not worthy of any further scrutiny. It is unworkable. But that's just my opinion
I didn’t say that you cannot question your worldview, I just said that if you change it, you must adjust all of your previously held conclusions that depended on it. In other words, if I were a strict Materialist that suddenly was convinced of the supernatural, I would have to rethink any ideas that depended on my Materialism. My only point here is that we should be very careful to differentiate between questioning what we see versus how we interpret it. People rarely ask the how questions, and as a result, they have no real understanding of why they believe what they believe.
The worldview argument is one of semantics, so it's really not worth pursuing further. That said, I would like to clarify what I consider to be misperceptions of how I think about the concept of worldview.
I view the words worldview and metanarrative to be synonymous. The net-net, for me, is that "worldviews" are incapable of changing. I'm not forced to ever deconstruct my positions on truth or the unknowable, because I don't have any. When I have discovered truth, or that which I know is knowable, it is true. But the chief distinction in how I view truth and how someone with a well-constructed worldview views truth is that I make a concerted effort not to allow my accepted truths to impinge upon my perceptions of new truths. Again, I think this is merely a flaw in the imperfect language in which we communicate, I don't think we have a disagreement except in terms or how we've chosen to frame our respective quests for truth. You have chosen a basis (the empirical) upon which to move forward. I have chosen all known bases, and yet none at all. The foundation of my truth is incapable of being compromised, because it is everything; the culmination of all truth that I can possibly know. It is also nothing, at the same time.
I was actually about the write the same thing. I just did a little reading on meta-narratives and the way I am using worldview is not interchangeable with it. What I am referring to is the internal engine we use, not any universal or overarching principles.
I did have a question though. How can you possibly have consistency in your evaluation of truth if you have no clear method for weighing the value of information? For every worldview that exists, there is a counter-view that essentially renders it useless (Materialism versus Idealism, for instance). If you are truly accepting of all worldviews, how can you ever do anything but stand still? You will either have to break the mutual-exclusion by choosing some views over others, or you cannot make any decision about anything at all. Since you believe in the Judeo-Christian god, you have obviously have chosen to reject certain views over others. For example, your belief means that you categorically reject Materialism. What criteria did you use to reject this in favor of other views? I can fall back on Empiricism (even while being skeptical of it as an absolute truth), but I am not sure that your relativism leaves you with a similar option.
One other thing, as a Christian, how can you reject meta-narratives? Isn't God the ultimate meta-narrative?
Nice blog. Sorry for the long answer. A real search for truth is an admirable quest, and one that is attainable, some would say whether you figure anything out or not.
That leads me to an assumption inferred in your opening statement (although sometimes challenged in your thinking), that truth exists and is knowable.
”…as it is important to consistently view all information through the same lens. How can we be truly objective, for instance, if we use different criteria to judge different sides of an argument? Forcing consistency ensures that all facts are being evaluated in a similar manner, standardizing comparisons between different sets of observations.”
A consistent view through the same lens does not ensure objectivity, and in fact, may guarantee the opposite. A right methodology in determining truth is imperative though.
You mentioned “logical chain of reasoning”; could you define that for me? My understanding is that logic is a methodology in identifying what is possibly real, not actually real (negative test for truth). For example, a triangle has 3 sides. Logically that is true, if a triangle exists it must have three sides, whether it exists or not cannot be determined by logic.
“The question to ask here is: “When we get down to the fundamental truths of the universe, are we dealing with natural or supernatural explanations?””
Good question, are you looking at this objectively or through your worldview lens?
“it might seem impossible to answer this question without first addressing the existence of the supernatural”
Yep.
“Anyone claiming that their particular philosophy is ‘absolute truth’ has to struggle with subsequently disproving every other philosophy that came before it.”
Can’t they just prove theirs is true?
“Even if absolute certainty is not possible, we still have to fight the very human tendency to try and see the world via clearly delineated categories.”
“Humans may crave absolute certainty; they may aspire to it; they may pretend, as partisans of certain religions do, to have attained it. But the history of science — by far the most successful claim to knowledge accessible to humans — teaches that the most we can hope for is successive improvement in our understanding, learning from our mistakes, an asymptotic approach to the Universe, but with the proviso that absolute certainty will always elude us.” – Carl Sagan
Are you both sure of this, absolutely sure?
“I personally believe that all of the universe can be explained through natural means, a belief called Metaphysical Naturalism, but I cannot prove this fact. I have not personally witnessed all that there is to witness, and there are explanations that elude even our greatest scientific minds. If I were to base my conclusions off of Metaphysical Naturalism, I would be making the same faith-based leaps that theists make when discussing god.”
It seems strange that you “believe” this but in the same breath tell us you don’t live by it. How did you come to this belief? Do you think this belief impacts your worldview? Can you really remain objective and disconnected from this view as you think through these things? As you live out your life?
“construct a properly skeptical worldview with Metaphysical Naturalism at its heart”
This statement throws objectivity out the window. Objectivity can only be realized when it is discovered (no predetermined ideas) or if one is omniscient (knowing everything). Constructing implies intentionality. (I am assuming you are not claiming omniscience).
“Those who believe in supernatural explanations, in my opinion, need to demonstrate that there will never be any potential natural models before they can defend their position”
Do naturalists need to prove that there will never be any potential supernatural models? Can the super-naturalist believe in both the natural and supernatural?
“Simply pointing out a gap in our understanding is not enough. Believers must also be able to demonstrate why that particular gap can never be filled by science. If a gap has a chance to be filled, as in a natural answer could be found, then there is simply no need to add the further complexity of including the supernatural. This pillar will help keep my conclusions fact-based while still leaving god as a potential answer.”
LOL, convenient!
Your blog is long, good, but long. I’ll have to add more later. Thanks for sharing your thoughts publically!
Sounds like we have another postmodern whose begun reading your blog Bri.
:)
Ugh, I never make grammatical errors.
I meant to use the contraction "who's" above.
Anonymous,
No worries on the long answer...as you can see, I tend to be long-winded myself :-)
That leads me to an assumption inferred in your opening statement (although sometimes challenged in your thinking), that truth exists and is knowable.
I have my doubts about our ability to actually know about anything that exists outside of our little universe. Whether or not there is an absolute truth that weaves all of existence together, it seems hard to imagine that there is a lot we can do to understand it. As you implied though, the journey to find that truth has merit even if real conclusions remain forever out of reach.
A consistent view through the same lens does not ensure objectivity, and in fact, may guarantee the opposite. A right methodology in determining truth is imperative though.
Consistency does not ensure accuracy either. My reason for insisting on consistency in this case is an attempt to keep my variables fixed. It would be difficult for me to weigh the validity of two different arguments if I used different methods for evaluating them. Objectivity is another discipline altogether, and it exists independent of your particular worldview.
You mentioned “logical chain of reasoning”; could you define that for me? My understanding is that logic is a methodology in identifying what is possibly real, not actually real (negative test for truth). For example, a triangle has 3 sides. Logically that is true, if a triangle exists it must have three sides, whether it exists or not cannot be determined by logic.
In that context, I was referring to deductive reasoning. My point was that if a major aspect of your worldview changes – or in logical terms, a premise to a previously concluded deductive proof was altered – you need to refactor all conclusions that depended on it. The only way you can do this is if you had a good understanding of why you believe what it is you believe.
With regards to logic being used to demonstrate the existence of your triangle (or the supernatural), the best we can do is use inductive reasoning to speak in terms of probability. Any discussion about the supernatural eventually leads to inductive proofs, regardless of whether or not it started as deductive. God cannot be conclusively shown to exist, so the best we can do is try and get enough ‘signposts’ that point us in toward one conclusion or another.
Can’t they just prove theirs is true?
You can’t prove an absolute, just like you cannot count to infinity. The best you can do is show that no other options are workable. This is why science focuses more on the concept of falsifiability rather than provability. If you were to make the statement that something is absolutely true, you are also making the statement that every other options that that can be conceived is absolutely false. Since we function in the sphere of the limited – never knowing all possible options – we can never claim to know that anything is absolutely true.
It seems strange that you “believe” this but in the same breath tell us you don’t live by it. How did you come to this belief? Do you think this belief impacts your worldview? Can you really remain objective and disconnected from this view as you think through these things? As you live out your life?
When I use the term believe here, I am referring more to the kind of answer I would give to the hypothetical ‘gun to your head’ situation. If I was forced to make my best educated guess, I would choose Materialism and Naturalism. These philosophies are the most compelling to me at the moment, but they have not met the burden of proof yet to cross the threshold to real belief. I came by this belief as a result of both study and self-reflection, but as I said, it would be presumptuous of me to wholeheartedly embrace them without giving other options similar consideration. This is why I am engaging theists in discussions about their belief. I have doubts, but do not have the perspective to accurately test those doubts on my own.
This statement throws objectivity out the window. Objectivity can only be realized when it is discovered (no predetermined ideas) or if one is omniscient (knowing everything). Constructing implies intentionality. (I am assuming you are not claiming omniscience).
I respectfully disagree. You are correct that objectivity cannot be contrived, but at the same time, not everything we do is objective. In this case, I discovered skepticism with no predetermined ideas, and it is this discovery that has fueled my journey. My attempts at constructing a reasonable worldview is an attempt (albeit fumbling at times) to try to both harness and moderate this skepticism. My worldview is certainly not objective, but we are not objective beings. The closest we come to true objectivity is when we recognize our own biases and actively work to counter-balance them. This is why I try my best to be transparent when it comes to my internal thought processes. The best shot I have at genuinely discovering the truth is to constantly keep my biases out in front of me, giving people all of the ammo they need to shoot me down if I lapse into intellectual laziness.
Do naturalists need to prove that there will never be any potential supernatural models? Can the super-naturalist believe in both the natural and supernatural?
Yes, Naturalism has the same burden of proof that Supernaturalism (is that a proper term?) in that Naturalists must conclusively demonstrate that there are no super-natural explanations. This is similar to my point above regarding the proving of an absolute. Not having absolute answers does not prevent us from considering which is more reasonable though. Since both philosophies assume the existence of the natural, it does not seem unreasonable to ask for good reasons to move beyond it. This is all that Methodological Naturalism says.
LOL, convenient!
Yes, yes…he is rigging the game against god…There are areas where god is an appropriate potential answer and there are areas where he is just unnecessary overhead. Some believers keep trying to shove god in as the answer to every situation, and this approach is logically weak. Any belief structure built off of unanswered questions runs the risk of being taken down when the answer becomes known.
What is your particular worldview? I do not want to ask you to compromise your anonymity if you are not comfortable, but it helps to know what perspective people bring to conversations. I would also encourage you to post with a pseudonym (rather than anonymous) so that I can identify you in future posts. It just gets tough to develop a rapport if more than one person starts posting anonymously.
Thanks for sharing!
Does God exist? "Chance" or "natural causes" are insufficient explanations.
The alternative to God existing is that all that exists around us came about by natural cause and random chance. If someone is rolling dice, the odds of rolling a pair of sixes is one thing. But the odds of spots appearing on blank dice is something else. What Pasteur attempted to prove centuries ago, science confirms, that life cannot arise from non-life. Where did human, animal, plant life come from?
Also, natural causes are an inadequate explanation for the amount of precise information contained in human DNA. A person who discounts God is left with the conclusion that all of this came about without cause, without design, and is merely good fortune. It is intellectually wanting to observe intricate design and attribute it to luck.
This is not to say that if enough people believe something it is therefore true. Scientists, for example, have discovered new truths about the universe which overruled previous conclusions. But as science has progressed, no scientific discovery has countered the numerical likelihood of an intelligent mind being behind it all. In fact, the more science discovers about human life and the universe, the more complex and precisely designed we realize these to be. Rather than pointing away from God, evidence mounts further toward an intelligent source. But objective evidence is not all.
There is a much larger issue. Throughout history, billions of people in the world have attested to their firm, core convictions about God's existence -- arrived at from their subjective, personal relationship with God. Millions today could give detailed account of their experience with God. They would point to and specific, amazing ways God has met their needs, and guided them through important personal decisions. They would offer, not only a description of their beliefs, but detailed reports of God's actions in their lives. Many are sure that a loving God exists and has shown himself to be faithful to them. If you are a skeptic, can you say with certainty: "I am absolutely right and they all are wrong about God"?
What is it about atheists (I am not saying you are one) that they would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that thay don't believe even exists?! What causes them to do that? As they challenge those who believed in God, they may be deeply curious to see if they could be convinced otherwise. Part of their quest may to become free from the question of God. If they could conclusively prove to believers that they were wrong, then the issue is off the table, and they would be free to go about my life.
Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God pursuing us.
Why Jesus? Look throughout the major world religions and you'll find that Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Moses all identified themselves as teachers or prophets. None of them ever claimed to be equal to God. Surprisingly, Jesus did. That is what sets Jesus apart from all the others. He said God exists and you're looking at him. Though he talked about his Father in heaven, it was not from the position of separation, but of very close union, unique to all humankind. Jesus said that anyone who had seen Him had seen the Father, anyone who believed in him, believed in the Father.
He said, "I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."8 He claimed attributes belonging only to God: to be able to forgive people of their sin, free them from habits of sin, give people a more abundant life and give them eternal life in heaven. Unlike other teachers who focused people on their words, Jesus pointed people to himself. He did not say, "follow my words and you will find truth." He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me."
No offense, anonymous, but I would appreciate your own thoughts, and not someone elses http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html.
PT2
Continuing from before…
“I personally believe that all of the universe can be explained through natural means”
“I believe that even if we cannot provide a good natural explanation, one should be expected at some point in the future”
“Those who believe in supernatural explanations, in my opinion, need to demonstrate that there will never be any potential natural models before they can defend their position”
“…why should I believe in god?”
“I hold the personal belief that the entirety of existence can be broken down into an interaction of physical matter with physical phenomena.”
“It should come as no surprise that I tend to side with observable and externally verifiable statements”
Hence, the problem. In your opening statement you spoke of the importance of a worldview. Additional you responded to Drew “With respect to a worldview, of course you have one, we all do.”, you didn’t spell out the fact that, because we all have a worldview, there is a perception problem. Not a problem with consistency, everyone remains “true” to their own worldview, whether they think about it or not and regardless of logical coherency. In my first response I spoke of objectivity (you responded to this) saying “it exists independent of your world view”. I suggest an even stronger statement, they are mutually exclusive! Your larger, and correct point, that we need to have an objective and consistent methodology in determining “facts” (I would add, that is clear and agreed upon) is essential to any philosophical discussion. This leaves us in a tough predicament with some arduous work ahead. Your current approach of defaulting within your worldview (you have openly admitted this and refuted it at the same time –“It is impossible to seek the truth if you put a box around the possibilities that you are allowed to consider. While I will tend to expect natural explanations, I cannot do so at the cost of ignoring potential supernatural ones. If I did, I would be guilty of the same zealotry that blind faith requires. I do feel justified in adopting a more physically slanted view though, as I have better evidence in the existence of the natural than the supernatural. “) will successfully bring us all to conclusions that align to your worldview. Perhaps we could use methodologies which test the veracity of truth claims made by any worldview (or non-worldview – Drew) and then examine the worldview that seems most reasonable. My recommendation would be to use undeniability as the test for the truth of a worldview and unaffirmability as a test for the falsity of a worldview. Once a worldview has been chosen (doesn’t matter which one), we can apply systematic consistency within that worldview to see if it is homogeneous and livable. Just suggestions, I guess it is your blog after all…
Note: Drew, my grammatical skills are severely lacking and I ask for your forgiveness in advance.
Anonymous, that was somewhat cheesy...honest discussion deserves a little more that cut and paste.
Brian, this is an example of the assumptions that happen within a worldview, people can't help it.
Also, thanks for the heads up on the anonymous thing, I wouldn't want that type of response (cut & paste) attributed to me. At the same time I make no claims that my thoughts are original
There are 2 errors for you Drew!!!!
Ha!
I don't act the Grammar Nazi unless asked to do so (notice the "do so" added in order to prevent a dangling participle?). With regard to my own writing; That is another matter altogether, though.
(the semicolon is a posthumous tribute to the late, great Kurt Vonnegut)
I know that it's not your original work, but it's so incredibly rife with fallacy, assumption, and outright irrationality that I just have to address it.
Does God exist? "Chance" or "natural causes" are insufficient explanations.
The alternative to God existing is that all that exists around us came about by natural cause and random chance.
Very nice assumption that you've used to create a false dichotomy. Your premise is flat out wrong. There is nothing "random" about natural selection. If a particular species, genetic trait, mutation, predisposition, etc. is selected, it is selected for good reason. And why bring the origin of anything into this? We're not searching for a first cause here, and debunking your assumptions completely and utterly is far beyond the scope of this concise blog entry (thanks for keeping it to bite-sized chunks Bri).
If someone is rolling dice, the odds of rolling a pair of sixes is one thing. But the odds of spots appearing on blank dice is something else. What Pasteur attempted to prove centuries ago, science confirms, that life cannot arise from non-life. Where did human, animal, plant life come from?
Anecdotal, argument from ignorace. You said it yourself "centuries ago". Do you know what's so great about science? It's rigorously tested in every imaginable way, that's what makes it science! Theories change. Pasteur didn't prove or disprove anything, as that is not even the job of science. To speak otherwise displays a gross misunderstanding of the role of science.
Also, natural causes are an inadequate explanation for the amount of precise information contained in human DNA. A person who discounts God is left with the conclusion that all of this came about without cause, without design, and is merely good fortune. It is intellectually wanting to observe intricate design and attribute it to luck.
How, exactly, is it intellectually wanting? I think you've got your argument a bit reversed. It's intellectually wanting - nay, intellectually bankrupt - to observe something too complex for its origin to be immediately apparent and say "Well, god must have done it." (lowercase god because I'm not assuming the observer worships the Judeo-Christian God, though I do myself)
This is not to say that if enough people believe something it is therefore true. Scientists, for example, have discovered new truths about the universe which overruled previous conclusions. But as science has progressed, no scientific discovery has countered the numerical likelihood of an intelligent mind being behind it all. In fact, the more science discovers about human life and the universe, the more complex and precisely designed we realize these to be. Rather than pointing away from God, evidence mounts further toward an intelligent source. But objective evidence is not all.
I don't really even think I need to address this, as it's entirely anecdotal. To my previous point though, you do mention the dynamic nature of science and scientific thought, bravo.
There is a much larger issue. Throughout history, billions of people in the world have attested to their firm, core convictions about God's existence -- arrived at from their subjective, personal relationship with God. Millions today could give detailed account of their experience with God. They would point to and specific, amazing ways God has met their needs, and guided them through important personal decisions. They would offer, not only a description of their beliefs, but detailed reports of God's actions in their lives. Many are sure that a loving God exists and has shown himself to be faithful to them. If you are a skeptic, can you say with certainty: "I am absolutely right and they all are wrong about God"?
You mistake a skeptic's intentions. A skeptic would never make such a statement. A skeptic would be much more prone to say "ok, show me in a demonstrable way."
What is it about atheists (I am not saying you are one) that they would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that thay don't believe even exists?! What causes them to do that? As they challenge those who believed in God, they may be deeply curious to see if they could be convinced otherwise. Part of their quest may to become free from the question of God. If they could conclusively prove to believers that they were wrong, then the issue is off the table, and they would be free to go about my life.
Again, a misunderstanding of intention. No one's claiming to have answers here, except you.
Drew,
That was a very well stated response to the copy/paste. I couldn’t have said it any better myself, so I won’t try. Just wanted to let you know that I think you are spot on.
Artist,
I think we are saying the same thing, and I probably did a poor job of clarifying what I was trying to say. I am not suggesting that we work within a worldview to see if it can remain logically consistent. As you correctly pointed out, we stay true to our worldview regardless of whether it is true or not. Our individual ‘lens’ has been crafted over a lifetime of experiences, and we all carry that baggage no matter how hard we try to strip it away. If our goal is to be truly objective, we must first identify what that baggage is and how it biases our views. By openly pointing out my own personal biases, I am effectively arming you with the ammunition you need to call me out if I succumb to intellectual laziness. It would be far better to simply not be biased at all, but the human brain does not operate in this manner. Since objectivity requires us all to act outside of our own nature, we must be very deliberate when it comes to measuring the effectiveness of our individual worldview.
In my first response I spoke of objectivity (you responded to this) saying “it exists independent of your world view”. I suggest an even stronger statement, they are mutually exclusive!
I am not so sure I would go as far as to say that they are mutually exclusive, but they are certainly opposed. The more we try to be objective, the more likely we are to question our worldview. The more we choose to live within our worldview, the less objective we will be. The trick is to balance the two so that we can make truth claims while being skeptical enough to know where our arguments are weak.
“Perhaps we could use methodologies which test the veracity of truth claims made by any worldview (or non-worldview – Drew) and then examine the worldview that seems most reasonable.”
I completely agree, and this is what my larger goal is. I am not trying to say that my current worldview is the truth; it is just how I happen to see things at the moment. Since definitive answers for the ‘big’ questions will always remain out of reach, the best we can all hope for is a philosophical framework that is good enough. That true framework should never be contrived, but most of us will not be fortunate enough to naturally start there. In my case, I am starting with what makes sense to me and working from there. My worldview has already been shaped in this process, and the continual challenges that these discussions produce are shaping it further. I can only hope that I am being skeptical enough to ensure that these changes are all moving toward something meaningful.
Greetings fellow bloggers.
It has been a while since my last post because it takes me a while to assimilate all the conversations into my limited understanding. However, please indulge me for a few minutes, I would like to make one proposition and ask one question.
My proposition is this. I believe that it is almost mathematically certain that the blogger now dubbed “cut and paste” was in fact the original author Marilyn Adamson.
I will explain the logic behind that proposition. I will begin by saying that what inspired this idea was reading material published by atheist and naturalists.
1. I would estimate that there are about 6 billion people on earth and a generous estimate is that maybe 4 billion of them have access to a computer. That makes the odds 1 in 4 billion that the original author actually cut and pasted her own article on this site. (Seems like long odds till you consider what’s next)
Atheists and naturalists have MANY theories as to how life began, I will explore only a few.
Multi-Universe.
This theory is one that Richard Dawkins among others propose. When looking for mathematical odds on this theory the best I could come up with was the following quote from Paul Davies, professor of natural philosophy at the Australian Center for Astrobiology. “Credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification.” His opinion also reflects that of Francis Collins who says this theory is “virtually a mathematical impossibility”.
Purely Natural Formation of Life. This is also a theory that Dawkins and other propose. I must admit that I am about to cut and paste a short excerpt from a much longer article.
“The odds of getting 101 amino acids to join together randomly and have only peptide bonds would be 100 factorial. This number is huge. It is equal to 10^158. How big is 10^158?
It is 10 with 158 zeroes after it. This is a really serious problem. The estimated total number of atoms in the entire universe is only 10^80. This number has only about half the zeroes of our number representing the odds against getting a small enzyme without a spurious side chain” WOW if this is a “possible” explanation to the begging of life.
I guess my proposition about Mr/Mrs cut and paste is a certainty.
Francis Collins talks about the improbability of life, and especially of human life, as having occurred just by chance. Several scientific constants were necessary. Gravitation was one of them, and if it had been off by just “one part in a hundred million million, then the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang would not have occurred in the fashion that was necessary for life to occur.” WOW, another number that make 1 in 4 billion almost certain.
Please indulge me one last time with a “cut and paste” article.
"Reading 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Richard Dawkins was a pivotal experience for me After wading through all the hyperbole, I was stunned by the ideas put forward by Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker. The core ideas did not support the idea that natural selection could account for the origin of life and the meaningful complexity of organisms."
“What Dawkins is suggesting is that a very large group of proteins, none of which is functional, can be acted on by natural selection to select out a few that, while they do not quite do the job yet, with some modifications via mutation, can do the job in the future.”
“At this point, evolutionists often say that “Time is the hero of the plot.” That’s what I used to say to my students. “Sure, the odds are low, but there’s all that time, nearly 5 billion years!” But 5 billion years is only about 1017 seconds, and the whole universe contains fewer than 1080 atoms.
So even by the wildest “guesstimates,” the universe isn’t old enough or big enough to reach odds like the 1 in 103,000,000 that Huxley, an evolutionist, estimated as the odds against the evolution of the horse”.
Let's look at the odds for evolution within other biological processes:
Odds calculated using probability theory associated with the evolution of the gene that encodes:
• The lens in the vertebrate eye = 1 chance in 2 x 1086
• One of the many proteins required to convert food to energy = 1 chance in 1.7 x 1048
• A protein required for cell locomotion = 1 chance in 1x10177
Ok enough said, I believe that the author DID in fact post her own article on this site based on the mathematical “possibilities” that are required for some of the atheists and naturalists views.
http://www.creationtruthoutreach.org/Pamphlet/3-7.html
http://www.creationtruthoutreach.org/
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E1DE153BF931A25757C0A9659C8B63
http://www.stanford.edu/group/religiouslife/docs/sermons/2008/sermon_03-02-2008_McLennan.doc
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/standish.asp
Now for my question.
It is clear to me as I read the dialogue between the people who post on this site that all of you are people with good minds and the ability to communicate your ideas in an articulate manner.
However, even with all that brain power on display, it appears to me that you keep missing the mark as to undeniably the most important question we need to answer.
Why did the whole world stop and recognize the birth of some guy named Jesus born 200years ago?
Why will the whole world again stop and recognize the death (and resurrection) of this same man in a few months?
I have asked the question before on this site and it has received on a couple of cursorily comments, but here I go again.
WHO IS THIS MAN CALLED JESUS? I would enjoy a healthy dialogue on this issue. I respect the time and intelligence of the posters on this site and would take pleasure in an open discussion on this most important question.
Greetings fellow bloggers.
A good day to you, sir. Before I respond everyone reading this ought to know that I'm a believer in Jesus Christ. A Born Again Christian, whatever your term of choice is for one who believes in the historicity and the deity of Jesus Christ and subscribes to the tenets set forth in The Apostles' Creed.
It has been a while since my last post because it takes me a while to assimilate all the conversations into my limited understanding. However, please indulge me for a few minutes, I would like to make one proposition and ask one question.
My proposition is this. I believe that it is almost mathematically certain that the blogger now dubbed “cut and paste” was in fact the original author Marilyn Adamson.
I will explain the logic behind that proposition. I will begin by saying that what inspired this idea was reading material published by atheist and naturalists.
1. I would estimate that there are about 6 billion people on earth and a generous estimate is that maybe 4 billion of them have access to a computer. That makes the odds 1 in 4 billion that the original author actually cut and pasted her own article on this site. (Seems like long odds till you consider what’s next)
Actually it's closer to 600 million or so, believe it or not (knowing those sorts of numbers is what I do for a living :) ).
Atheists and naturalists have MANY theories as to how life began, I will explore only a few.
Indeed they do, yet none have heretofore been mentioned. Well, Mr. or Mrs. Anonymous did mention them, but we were fairly quick to see the baiting and assumptive path down which he or she was leading, which is why the copy+paste didn't really get any sort of rhetorical treatment. Since I know you're a real person and these are your original thoughts, I'll always do you the courtesy that my previous brevity disallows. I would caution you in bringing up questions that are at best still in the periphery of this conversation. I am more than happy to continue down the "question of Jesus" path, but Brian never mentioned origins, nor ought we to before establishing some more solid footing upon which to posit our own answers; Just my opinion.
Multi-Universe.
This theory is one that Richard Dawkins among others propose. When looking for mathematical odds on this theory the best I could come up with was the following quote from Paul Davies, professor of natural philosophy at the Australian Center for Astrobiology. “Credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification.” His opinion also reflects that of Francis Collins who says this theory is “virtually a mathematical impossibility”.
More answers without questions, I think. The key difference between a theory like the Multiverse Theory and something like, say, Intelligent Design is that the Multiverse Theory is at least plausibly falsifiable. No one needs to accept any theory on faith. The evidence for a scientific theory is there for all to examine. If a theory lacks evidence, there is no need to accept it. This is the nature of Science and the Scientific Method. If the Multiverse Theory lacks evidence, or evidence is found to the contrary, then it ought to be modified in order to better corroborate with the evidence, or discarded outright. There is no need to accept or reject a Scientific Theory (capitalized on purpose, as there is a difference between the way scientists use the term and the way it is thrown about in the vernacular) on faith - it ought to stand on its own with evidence and testing that thus far has been unable to disprove it. I'm not in disagreement that theories that make extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but we aren't talking about a process that takes a few days, weeks, months, or even years here.
Purely Natural Formation of Life. This is also a theory that Dawkins and other propose. I must admit that I am about to cut and paste a short excerpt from a much longer article.
“The odds of getting 101 amino acids to join together randomly and have only peptide bonds would be 100 factorial. This number is huge. It is equal to 10^158. How big is 10^158?
It is 10 with 158 zeroes after it. This is a really serious problem. The estimated total number of atoms in the entire universe is only 10^80. This number has only about half the zeroes of our number representing the odds against getting a small enzyme without a spurious side chain” WOW if this is a “possible” explanation to the begging of life.
I guess my proposition about Mr/Mrs cut and paste is a certainty.
These assertions leave natural selection out of the picture. It's often the way people are led to think and believe by our educational system, I'm afraid. Take, for instance, how most people think it's very "risky" to start a small business, as the odds are that only 1 in 10 will succeed. Well, all you need is the one! If you've started 3 failures already, your odds are very good that the next one will succeed (provided you've learnt something). Natural Selection has no use for the odds. If a mutation is beneficial (as determined by the organism's environment), then it stays around. You must also take into account several other facts about the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection that I think these quotes are intentionally misleading about. For one thing, you can have more than one organism capable of reproducing and mutating at a time. For another, "all you need is one" (there you go Bri :) ). The life spans of cingle-celled organisms can be and often are measured in seconds, minutes, hours, or days. They are capable of evolving very quickly.
Francis Collins talks about the improbability of life, and especially of human life, as having occurred just by chance. Several scientific constants were necessary. Gravitation was one of them, and if it had been off by just “one part in a hundred million million, then the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang would not have occurred in the fashion that was necessary for life to occur.” WOW, another number that make 1 in 4 billion almost certain.
He fudges the numbers here. I'm not going to say on purpose because I have a great deal of respect for Francis Collins, but you simply cannot do math the way he is trying here. Probability is tossed out the window when you realize that for every improbability you add a probability. E.g. the highly improbable nature of our universe manifesting itself from nothing raises the probability that there have been a staggeringly huge number of universes before ours that have failed. You can't put your observations into a box in the way that Francis seems to do here (when it suits his ends).
Please indulge me one last time with a “cut and paste” article.
"Reading 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Richard Dawkins was a pivotal experience for me After wading through all the hyperbole, I was stunned by the ideas put forward by Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker. The core ideas did not support the idea that natural selection could account for the origin of life and the meaningful complexity of organisms."
“What Dawkins is suggesting is that a very large group of proteins, none of which is functional, can be acted on by natural selection to select out a few that, while they do not quite do the job yet, with some modifications via mutation, can do the job in the future.”
“At this point, evolutionists often say that “Time is the hero of the plot.” That’s what I used to say to my students. “Sure, the odds are low, but there’s all that time, nearly 5 billion years!” But 5 billion years is only about 1017 seconds, and the whole universe contains fewer than 1080 atoms.
So even by the wildest “guesstimates,” the universe isn’t old enough or big enough to reach odds like the 1 in 103,000,000 that Huxley, an evolutionist, estimated as the odds against the evolution of the horse”.
Let's look at the odds for evolution within other biological processes:
Odds calculated using probability theory associated with the evolution of the gene that encodes:
• The lens in the vertebrate eye = 1 chance in 2 x 1086
• One of the many proteins required to convert food to energy = 1 chance in 1.7 x 1048
• A protein required for cell locomotion = 1 chance in 1x10177
Ok enough said, I believe that the author DID in fact post her own article on this site based on the mathematical “possibilities” that are required for some of the atheists and naturalists views.
This is anecdotal, but I'm trying to shake it up a bit and I tire of essentially saying the same thing in different words over and over. I wonder why these people never apply their math to the possibility of the existence of a deity. They seem to have no problem at all applying finite math to numbers that even those of us who accept what Science has to say on the subject aren't sure of in order to call Scientific Theory into question. Why not calculate the probability that God exists? It's an equally laughable mathematical goal.
Now for my question.
It is clear to me as I read the dialogue between the people who post on this site that all of you are people with good minds and the ability to communicate your ideas in an articulate manner.
However, even with all that brain power on display, it appears to me that you keep missing the mark as to undeniably the most important question we need to answer.
Why did the whole world stop and recognize the birth of some guy named Jesus born 200years ago?
Why will the whole world again stop and recognize the death (and resurrection) of this same man in a few months?
I have asked the question before on this site and it has received on a couple of cursorily comments, but here I go again.
WHO IS THIS MAN CALLED JESUS? I would enjoy a healthy dialogue on this issue. I respect the time and intelligence of the posters on this site and would take pleasure in an open discussion on this most important question.
Afraid I don't have terribly much to say to this. I could share my own personal belief, or I could look up a lot of research into the historical person of Jesus. Neither of those things is really central to this discussion. I realize that my belief in Jesus (as a deity) requires faith. I also realize that my "belief" in the veracity of scientific claims requires no faith at all. I think that's probably a key difference between me and a lot of people who've reached different conclusions. You can prove historical facts about Jesus until you're blue in the face. You can even try to rectify accounts of miracles using some sort of Biblical/historical timeline, I've seen people do it. I don't consider either of these pursuits very worthwhile. Either you believe that The Bible is true (meaning its interpretation can bring about spiritual enlightenment and lead to an understanding of God), or you don't (meaning you think it's a valuable work as an ancient text, containing both historical account and fiction).
As to why people stop on December 25th to celebrate the birth of Jesus - I don't mean to be crass and I understand the intention of your question, but the answer is that the pagan holiday of Yule (celebration of the Winter Solstice) used to be held on this day. There are also striking similarities to pagan holidays, beliefs, and rituals that began hundreds of years before Jesus. For instance, the Persian god Mithras was born of a virgin on December 25th, known to his 12 disciples as "the Son of God", and he was resurrected 3 days after his death. That was 600 years before Jesus' birth by all historical accounts.
It strikes me as well that many of the comments here assume a very teleological approach to the nature of existence.
I think it's worth mentioning that I approach these matters (and it seems to me that Brian does as well) without any sort of assumptions about causality, ethics, or any other distinctly synthetic concepts. When speaking of origins, we have to realize that the idea of "purpose" is something the we humans invented. It's also something that Thomas Aquinas was quite a fan of - he said that everything has one, and that anything that circumvents said purpose is sinful. That sentiment has guided the Catholic Church for centuries. Huge assumption. I'd be comfortable in stating that it's also an assumption that at least slightly shades every single one of our worldviews as humans.
We like to ascribe purpose to things that needn't have any to exist. I think this puts the cart before the horse, which is why I take exception to allowing teleology into any debates or discussions that don't directly involve ethics. A teleological approach to ethics is great. The end is the first cause. Super. Fits will with a Christian worldview. It fits with my worldview, in fact.
I would be doing an earnest seeker of a truth a disservice by expanding that teleological worldview I have to include things like the origin of the Universe. The underlying assumption throughout every reply I have seen by other Christians is that purpose exists. We don't know the Universe has a purpose, we don't know that our existence has a purpose, and trying to apply mathematical equations to them will only hold water if they indeed do.
Happy-Merry ...insert personal celebration here... to all!
“I can only hope that I am being skeptical enough to ensure that these changes are all moving toward something meaningful.”
A skeptic being skeptical of his skepticism…scary!!!
Brian, from your response to my last post I assume it is acceptable to proceed with my recommendation…the groundwork will be somewhat tedious but it is necessary.
2 Tests for Truth –
Unaffirmability as a test for falsity = self-defeating statements
For example:
“I cannot express myself in words” and “I don’t exist”
The above statements are false in that by the very claim they make, they prove opposite. These are examples of direct unaffirmability.
“I came to the conclusion that I know everything intuitively” and “I know that no one can know anything about reality”
The above statements are false due to the process in which they are arrived at. These are indirectly unaffirmable.
Undeniability as a test for truth = Statements that cannot be refuted
“A triangle has 3 sides” – While this cannot be denied, it has no affect on reality (does not prove the existence of such an object). This is definitional undeniability.
“I exist” - This cannot be denied and has a direct affect on reality. This is existential undeniability.
I believe using the methodology above we can objectively evaluate the primary ways in which we view reality. The primary views include the following: Deism, Pantheism, Panentheism, Atheism and Theism (Polytheism is a subcategory here). Did I miss any? We can tackle any one of these, objectively and consistently. I believe this is what you were looking for. Pick a view, any view…
Drew, the question of purpose (or non-purpose) can only be tackled within a world view and therefore does not come into play with the above approach.
wow....thats all. Wow!
Greeting
I must begin with an apology of sorts.
When I posted the proposition that the original author (Mr/Mrs cut and paste) posted their article on this site and then proceeded to give mathematical comparisons to a couple of naturalists and atheists arguments for the beginning of life, I indented it to be tongue and cheek. However, Drew I did enjoy reading your response and I truly appreciate the fact that you did not mention my grammatical errors or the fact that I had Jesus being born 200 years ago. Although this post is a direct response to Drews post on January 2, I invite all bloggers to join in the discussion.
Drew you began your post with this statement.
"A good day to you, sir. Before I respond everyone reading this ought to know that I'm a believer in Jesus Christ. A Born Again Christian, whatever your term of choice is for one who believes in the historicity and the deity of Jesus Christ and subscribes to the tenets set forth in The Apostles' Creed."
Although many who read this blog may know what the Apostles Creed says I thought it best to copy it here.
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Maker of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried;
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost;
the holy catholic church;
the communion of saints;
the forgiveness of sins;
the resurrection of the body;
and the life everlasting.
Drew thanks for addressing the real question I wanted to open up for discussion. That being; “Who is Jesus”.
It would seem by your response that you have concretely decided that Jesus is Lord and that God created the universe. “I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:”
This conclusion is the same one that I have arrived at as well. With that being said, would it not be fair to say that your views (and mine) have been shaped and formed by our belief in a Creator and a Savior? The reason I ask is because you also say the following in that same post.
"I think it's worth mentioning that I approach these matters (and it seems to me that Brian does as well) without any sort of assumptions about causality, ethics, or any other distinctly synthetic concepts. When speaking of origins, we have to realize that the idea of "purpose" is something the we humans invented. It's also something that Thomas Aquinas was quite a fan of - he said that everything has one, and that anything that circumvents said purpose is sinful. That sentiment has guided the Catholic Church for centuries. Huge assumption. I'd be comfortable in stating that it's also an assumption that at least slightly shades every single one of our worldviews as humans."
Is it not fair at say that anyone who believes in the "tenets set forth in The Apostles Creed" would naturally believe that God created the universe?
I am also a seeker of truth and I approach these kind of discussions with as an open a mind as I can, but also with my life experiences and faith as I believe we all do as the” Author formally Know As Anonymous” seems to be trying to remind us.
Indeed I do have faith that God created everything.
I allow for the possibility that I'm quite wrong though.
I've reconciled this fact from the following three realities:
If I'm right, praise God. My experiences and choices in this life led me to the correct conclusions!
If there isn't anything more than this life, well then I'm worm food. Oh well.
If I'm wrong and I happened to pick the wrong god, whichever spiteful and petty god sends me to eternal torment for happening to pick the wrong flavor of deity is wholly unworthy of my worship in the first place.
(I'm writing this on a cell phone, so fogive the inevitable mistakes)
Drew,
I have enjoyed watching these last few exchanges from a third party perspective, but your last post left me with one big question. That is, if you really rationalize your faith in the manner you outline above, why bother worshipping any god at all. According to your logic, if the Christian god is really worth worshipping (as in he is the one true god) then he won't punish you for not believing in him. In the mean time, you are spending precious energy, money, and attention on a gamble with no upside. Your eternal reward is either secured because god is worthy, or it isn't and your are powerless at the hands of an arbitrary and unjust god. If that were reality, and your terrestrial investments never have any eternal significance, why bother playing faith roulette at all? You logic makes the odds of salvation the same regardless of what individual choices we make, so doesn't it make more sense to just ignore the issue entirely (apart from an amusing philosophical topic)?
Perhaps my approach is overly pragmatic, but I have to be honest with myself.
The reason I have faith in the things I do is because of a journey that's brought me to this place, but the journey doesn't fit conveniently into bite sized chunks (a la blog comments). My own revised version of Pascal's Gambit has little bearing on my faith. You really oughtn't try to rationalize a thing like faith, so I try to strike that delicate balance between the danger of positively blind faith and the danger of the other extreme, that is blind skepticism.
I think that many people do have blind faith because it "feels good". People who've thought it through realize that The Universe cares not how it makes you feel, and wanting something to be true does not make it so. Our culture puts a large emphasis on the importance of having "faith" in *something*. I'd almost rather people not have any faith at all than to arrive at premature and ill-thought-out conclusions.
My rational, materialistic mind that understands so much of how things work finds it very unlikely that there's a god at all. There's no empirical evidence for anything like a deity, and as is often quoth - "Extraordinay claims require extraordinary evidence". The existence of any sort of mystical, magical deity that is outside the human-observable realm is indeed an extraordinary claim. But my rational mind recognizes the validity of not just my empirical reality but also my experiential reality, and in order to be fully honest with myself I had to wrestle with the reality of two seemingly disparate truths for a long time. I've still not fully rectified the two realities, but I am getting there, and I am content in the journey and the pace that I've established.
So I apologize if my last post gave the impression that my reason for worshipping a god at all is entirely rational. I don't see a way that it could be. I recognize that the most probable explanation for any and every religion is that they were beneficial to human evolution since they introduce an external set of moral guidelines and give a sense of solidarity to the tribe/clan/etc. I realize that, and yet that other part of my self has convinced me, after long introspective evaluations of past experience and some soul-searching that each person has to do for himself, that there are things in which faith is warranted.
Greetings Fellow Bloggers
The past few posts have unearthed a theme, which in the opinion of this writer, seems to be prevalent on this site. So I will deviate from my invariable question of “Who is Jesus” Because at least for the moment two of the contributors’ on this blog have already declared their belief that Jesus is in fact God.
I would now like to address the issue of “faith”.
I get the distinct impression that when it comes to matters that require faith; the writers on this site appear to, at the very least down play its validity, or even write it off as an uneducated, irrational, approach to various matters. I will copy a sampling of what I am alluding to.
“So I apologize if my last post gave the impression that my reason for worshipping a god at all is entirely rational. I don't see a way that it could be.”
“If that were reality, and your terrestrial investments never have any eternal significance, why bother playing faith roulette at all?”
“My rational, materialistic mind that understands so much of how things work finds it very unlikely that there's a god at all”.
It is my opinion that everyone of us exercises faith every day of our lives without any hesitation or question. For example;
1. You get into a new car drive off the lot and press the brake expecting “by faith” it is going to stop the vehicle.
2. You go to a restaurant and order a meal, then “by faith” you eat it after it is put before you, believing the cook did not poison it.
3. “By faith” you go to the store and buy cold medicine open the bottle and take some, not positive that the manufacture did not taint the product.
4. “By faith” you may hop on an airplane, never knowing if the pilot is drunk or if the airline has done needed maintenance on the craft.
Need less to say I could give hundreds, if not thousands, of examples that we demonstrate faith every day in our lives. So why is it that when we get to issues such as creation and the beginning of life that many want to throw out the concept of faith as meaningless? Drew you brought up Pascal’s wager which I believe says that it is always a better to believe (have faith in) in God, because the expected value to be gained from believing in God is always greater than the expected value resulting from non-belief.
I think that many, perhaps even most, of the greatest minds that have ever lived were people of faith. I do not think that because faith is involved in the equation that it diminishes its value, or for that matter, even its probability.
Faith is part of the human experience (I believe that is exactly the way God intended it to be) Therefore, I would suggest that we need not be cornered into making excuses for our faith or be considered uneducated or uninformed because we declare faith in a Creator and a Savior
When I posted my comments, for some reason it did not attribute it to me. I wanted you to know the prior post is from DAD
Not to disagree with you, but it should be noted:
1. You get into a new car drive off the lot and press the brake expecting “by faith” it is going to stop the vehicle.
Actually it doesn't require faith. It does require belief, but there is evidence for the belief. You can have a reasonable degree of certainty that the brake pedal, when pressed, will apply the brakes simply from numerous other experiences with such things.
2. You go to a restaurant and order a meal, then “by faith” you eat it after it is put before you, believing the cook did not poison it.
3. “By faith” you go to the store and buy cold medicine open the bottle and take some, not positive that the manufacture did not taint the product.
4. “By faith” you may hop on an airplane, never knowing if the pilot is drunk or if the airline has done needed maintenance on the craft."
These are all much the same. Faith is not simply belief that the same thing that has always happened is going to happen this time around. Faith is a belief in spite of lack of evidence, or in direct defiance of evidence to the contrary.
I'm not saying that I don't understand what you're getting at, simply that I think the comparisons are not wholly fair.
Drew thanks for your written response.
Brain also responded verbally to my last post with a similar opinion as yours; that most of the things I mentioned required belief, not necessarily faith. He also stated that the difference is that belief requires evidence while faith dose not. And you additionally expounded that; “Faith is a belief in spite of lack of evidence, or in direct defiance of evidence to the contrary.”
I would agree that perhaps I could have spent a little more time on presenting every day examples of faith expressed by all of us. However, I do appreciate your response that gives me a forum to go into a little more detail.
First let me point out that the Bible gives us an excellent definition of faith, Hebrews 11:1 says: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Therefore, we have a solid foundation of what faith is with relation to the Christian faith. Words like” substance” and “evidence” suggests to me something tangible; something which even though is not seen with a physical eye do not require blind adherence.
Our faith is not without evidence. Thankfully God has not required us to have blind faith. We have received revelation of the person of Jesus, many saw Him in His glory, and millions have received inward confirmation of His reality throughout history.
Than we experience everyday of our lives His supernatural influence, change in our character and personality, change in our circumstances for example physical healing and I am not talking about fake healings but the ones which are true. As I have stated before the vast majority of medical doctors have “faith” in God. They have seen things they can’t explain any other way. The article pasted below is a good example of this.
http://www.goodnewsblog.com/2007/04/11/study-shows-more-doctors-mix-faith-medicine
When something is fake it doesn’t mean that there are no true examples of it, on the contrary, why would you have false banknotes if there are no true ones?
Jesus never expects from people blind faith and submission such faith is mere belief which cannot withstand any serious tests and be sure that the tests will come. Therefore, I must disagree with your premise that faith, or at least Christian faith, “is a belief in spite of lack of evidence, or in direct defiance of evidence to the contrary.”
Now back to everyday faith. In your response, I did not get a sense that you were disagreeing with my premise that all of us exercise faith every day in our lives, as mush as pointing out the flaws in my examples.
With that being said I want to return to faith expressed in every day situations with out any hesitation or reservation on our part. However when we then think about and ponder the requirement of faith with regard to religion many people put a whole new standard on what exactly is required.
It is my “belief” that God put faith in our DNA in a sense. That we were created with the possibility to employ faith as needed with very little stress or worry. I see that being played out in people’s lives on a continual basis. However, I assume since the fall of man, that when this element of faith applies to God a whole new level of expectations and questions arise. My closing statement is that I do not “believe” that there is much difference between Christian faith and a worldly view of belief
You seem to be leaving time out of this article. You have described looking at a set of objects and proposing that property dualism might arise but how would such dualism apply over a whole action by an individual? Would it be correlated with the action and if so would it be physically connected to the action and hence not dualist at all?
Can truth exist if time does not exist? If time exists does "mind" necessarily exist? See Simultaneity and mind for a brief consideration of time and mind.
I don't wish to argue with anything you've asserted, Bri's Dad.
All I really have left to add is that my observations tell me that faith is indeed a key component of human nature. I think that humans innately understand that it is much easier and more natural to posit belief in something than to rise above your natural human predispositions and attempt to be more than your nature. I think this is why there are so few atheists. If a person gives himself entirely over to his intellect, I find it very hard to believe such a person could ever find fulfillment in any sort of religion. Fortunately, our intellect is not all there is to us, and I think there are very few people alive or who have ever lived who are capable of answering these questions satisfactorily for someone who has honestly taken the time (and I'm talking about years and decades here, not a few hours reading Nietzsche and Derrida) to dwell on these things.
To the author known as “Thoughts”
I think you should stop watching the movie “The Matrix” It is having an effect on the way you think (that is if time exists)
Oh by the way “What is that thing with numbers stamped under you comment?
Greetings to all,
It has been fun catching up on what i missed. And i will do my best to have no gramatical errors:)
I do agree there is a key difference between faith and belief. I am also pretty sure any of us are going to discover a "logical" argument that will convince they whole world that Christianity is the way to go. So i speak from my experience this past week. Like most people in America, there are financial concerns. I am no different. My wife and I have spent the past weeks praying and discussing possible answers. We found one that was kind of toooooooo good to be true. We prayed and started to plan how to discuss the possibility with those who could make it happen. The part for me where God stepped in and made his proof to me tangible was two days ago. They came to me and offered exactly what we were praying for without my wife or I saying a word. I give God the praise.
Maybe you don't like this part of the discussion, but if anyone is going to change their life completely and "gamble their time, energy, and money." Then, at some level, each of us needs to experience "God" in our own way.
Then comes the discussion of who exactly we follow and how we follow them. But we are still not there in this discussion.
Whatever you believe
God bless you all
Oh by the way “What is that thing with numbers stamped under you comment?
I think it's an arbitrarily defined set of characters that we humans use as descriptive language for a concept we don't entirely grasp.
;)
Hey Brian,
I plan on posting something relevant to the conversation at some point, but I wanted to say that I like what I see, both from you and most of the others.
Brian,
Hope you are well man. I havent talked to you in a while...or written. I'd love to hear from you. Hit me up.
mwchewning@yahoo.com or mchewning@storr.com
I sincerely hope that your doing well. Holla at me man.
matt
Post a Comment