Response to a Comment

On my recent post on whether assumptions of god are rational a commenter named "mdeltoro" has brought up quite a few questions. I figured that I could not fully answer them all and do the answers justice in a blog comment, so I've promoted the answers to a full blog post. Below is a response to those comments.

mdeltoro's first complaint to my argument is this:

You secularists stake everthing on your ability to observe emperical evidence...But this assumes that the information conveyed to our brains by our senses is an accurate representation of the things "out there" in the world, which our senses are supposed to be observing. This is undemonstrable other than by . . . empirical evidence.

On first blush, one might think that this poses a significant problem, although wouldn't it pose a problem for both atheist and theist alike? Except that it's not an assumption of naturalists to assume that our senses are accurate. We sense that the sun moves around the Earth, but this is not accurate. The idea of using empirical study and the scientific method is to remove the inaccuracies that can come from our senses. And, of course, it's highly pragmatic - simply put, it works. It's not an assumption, but a conclusion that empirical results, once verified and tested over and over, and held provisionally until new data comes along and overturns our conclusions in favor of new, better ones, is simply superior to any method that has yet been devised, especially any religious method.

Next, mdeltoro has argued that it's an assumption to believe that other humans can understand my blog. I argued that this is a demonstrated reality, in that we were having a conversation, which was met with an argument about postmodern literary interpretations:

Many a literature professor would disagree with your notion that this is a "demonstrated reality," as attested by the fact that so often the question has become NOT "What did the author mean?" but "What does this mean TO YOU?"

Yet, this misses the mark by a bit. We can both ask what the author of a piece means and what it means to us, they are not mutually exclusive, nor is this any sort of answer to the demonstrated fact that we are having a conversation via this blog and our meanings (not always fully conveyed, but enough for the purposes of answering this challenge) are being comprehended.

So, now we get to the meat of it:

What I am saying is that, on the basis of your worldview, none of these assumptions can be justified.

Hmmm, let's explore that. So far, none of the supposed assumptions that naturalists hold are actually assumptions. So, let's see where this goes.

In a universe moved along by random chance (which secular evolutionists assure us is THE key to explaining how things came to be as they are), it actually makes just as much sense to affirm as to deny that the sun will not rise tomorrow, that our brains may not have sufficient continuity of process that we really understand each other, or that gravity will shut off tomorrow.

OK, so yeah, in a universe where everything is determined by a roll of the die, it wouldn't make sense. But, that's a strawman representation of the naturalist's position. Do random factors play into how the world works? Of course. Randomly mutating genes of animals provide the change that allows natural selection to select the critters that will propagate their genes, but who said that that is a random process? Answer: no one except creationists.

Let us put the question this way: "Why does the fact that things have 'always' operated in a certain way imply that they will continue to operate in the same way?" How can a secularist answer this question? To say, "We know by empirical observation that things have consistently operated this way in the past" is to (1) assume the basic reliability of our senses (unjustified on a secular worldview, we've already noted) and (2) to beg the question.

I'm confused here. Isn't it a good indicator of how things work that they seem to be consistent? In no way do I have to assume the reliability of my senses or beg the question to conclude that it is highly likely that the sun will continue its pattern of rising in the morning (or more properly that the Earth will continue to rotate in such a way that my senses tell me the sun is rising). Does this mean it will? No, it does not, but it would take a major catastrophe (in which case we'd all be dead) or a violation of the working models that we have of the universe...which leads me to mdeltoro's next argument.

I've argued that if one believes in a god that can and does perform miracles, then one can not conclude that the sun will necessarily rise tomorrow, that natural laws will not be violated, etc. We know that this god (if the Bible is correct) has made the sun stand still in the sky, which would be a violation of physics. Believing in a god that can do and does do these things at any time means that one can not be confident that miracles will not occur and can't assume an orderly universe. mdeltoro's response to me follows:

I know this is a sacred cow of secular science, but it is simply neither historically nor logically demonstrable. Theistic and Christian scientists have made and continue to make valuable scientific discoveries, because they are seeking to discover the universe and the laws which God created.

So, I'm failing to see what "historical" demonstration would look like, nor how it is relevant. Logically, it's pretty sound. If you believe that an entity exists that can violate physical law, then how can you believe those laws are inviolate? And, as an aside, this has nothing to do with whether scientists who are Xians can do science. Of course they can. The problem for mdeltoro is that in order to do science they must check their religion at the door.

From a logical point of view, affirming that God can and has done miracles is not the same as affirming that He does them willy-nilly or does them all the time.

This is true, and it's a good point, but it doesn't address my point, which is that if this god exists, then the potential exists at any and all times for the laws to simply change or be violated at the will of this deity.

If the purpose of Christian scientists is to discover the laws God made that normally govern His universe, no harm is done in affirming that God can and at times has acted outside those laws.

And, here's the crux - this is the problem that arises. All data is called into question once one assumes a god that can change anything and everything on a whim. How can we be certain of the data that leads us to a conclusion, when it might be an anomaly of this god's whim?

None of this, of course, refutes the fact that the god assumption is irrational and that using this assumption and then arguing to a conclusion does not make the conclusion rational. In fact, I think this actually supports my arguments. In order to perform science, we have to check our religious assumptions at the door. We have to ignore the religious conclusion that any or all of our data could be faulty due to god's interference. We have to ignore that a god such as the one in the Bible could very well change physical laws at any time and make anything happen, regardless of what we've previously observed (i.e. the sun may not rise tomorrow morning and yet we would not be dead).

Absolute Morality

Does absolute morality exist?

I don't know. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. What I do know is that many religious claim that it does and claim that it comes from god. But, is that the case?

Most Xians claim that god gives us our morality and that he has set up absolute morals for us to follow. god is further the absolute arbiter and perfectly moral. An easy rebuttal to this is Euthyphro's Dilemma, which points out that if morality is absolute, then why do we need god? And, if morality comes from god, then god could order that rape and torture are moral and we would have to abide. To bring this back to the idea of absolute morality, the first version would hold to it, while the second would not. Holding to absolute morality would mean that we can discern what it is independently of god, since it is an absolute that is outside of god.

For the Xian, however, this simply will not do. How can our morals not come from god? One potential answer has been given to Euthyphro's Dilemma in that morality is not from outside of god, but simply a part of his nature. This really only moves the question back one level and doesn't really answer the question, but let's explore one way in which it ultimately fails. Let's actually look at god's nature.

Is it really the case that god's nature conforms to an absolute morality? The answer is plainly no. Apologists try endlessly to come up with ways to apologize for god's evil deeds (genocide, ordering genocide, ordering rape, etc.) as us not having all the information, but we don't need all the information if morality is absolute. Further, after god wipes out almost all life on the planet in the Noachian flood, he basically says, "My bad." If he has not done anything morally wrong, then why does he feel repentant?

This is a serious blow to the apologists assertions to having an answer to Euthyphro and the existence of absolute morality given by god. If god can not even follow his own moral rules, then god can not be absolutely moral, and the only choice we have left is that absolute morality may exist, but it exists independently of god.

Reconciliation? (Part Two)

In my previous post (Reconciliation) I mentioned that Giberson had a couple questions in his response. I now want to focus on his other main question, which is as follows:

Empirical science does indeed trump revealed truth about the world as Galileo and Darwin showed only too clearly. But empirical science also trumps other empirical science. Einstein's dethronement of Newton was not the wholesale undermining of the scientific enterprise, even though it showed that science was clearly in error. It was, rather, a glorious and appropriately celebrated advance for science, albeit one not understood by most people. Why is this different than modern theology's near universal rejection of the tyrannical anthropomorphic deity of the Old Testament, so eloquently skewered by Dawkins? How is it that "science" is allowed to toss its historical baggage overboard when its best informed leaders decide to do so, even though the ideas continue to circulate on main street, but religion must forever be defined by the ancient baggage carried by its least informed?

First off, I want to point out that in his very first sentence, he explicitly admits that science is a better than revealed truth. Period. I'd also like to point out that his assertion of Einstein "dethroning" Newton is not quite correct. Newton's laws are correct, so long as one is within the correct regime for them to function properly. Once you leave that regime, quantum mechanics is needed to more accurately represent the natural world. It's a mistake, however, to claim "that science was clearly in error," in this instance. Never-the-less, science has been in error before, so we can proceed to his actual question.

So, why do we allow science to evolve and get better, but not extend the same "courtesy" to religion? Once again, the answer is really quite simple. Science is an iterative process, while religion is not. When scientists go through the process of the scientific method, they search for data, refine hypotheses, re-test, etc. As more and more data are gathered, science can better explain and predict natural events (more accurately). When god comes to you and gives you revealed "truth" about the world, however, what iterative process would one use? god has essentially come down from on high and given the final answer.

Further, when modern theologians reject the god of the OT for the sadistic, cruel beast that he is, they claim to have better theological knowledge, but from whence does it come? Did they do experiments to figure out that god is kind? Did they gather data of any kind? No, they simply proclaimed that this is what they believe. Once again, I'm left wondering how their beliefs are any more authoritative than the beliefs of those who still hold to the god of the OT.

This argument also leads to a certain kind of philosophical arrogance as well. Does Giberson think that he understood the revealed message of god better than the person that it was revealed to? What does this say about god that he can't put forth a message that the recipient can follow as well as someone thousands of years hence? Or, is Giberson saying that god put forth a message that was cruel and vindictive to those people because that's all they would understand (hence the extreme arrogance of this position, as it assumes all the people then were barbarians that could not be otherwise - and once again what kind of god forms people like that and then tries to give them a moral code?) Or, maybe Giberson is saying that god intended his message to evolve over the ages to the modern ideas we have now about morality. But, this suffers from (at least) two problems. The first is that if god's morality is dependent on our own evolved morality, then what do we need god's rules for? We are basically making our own morality in this situation. The second is that it puts god in the position of allowing immoral laws and practices.

So, we see that Giberson's complaints are both easily shot down and not very good arguments. Science and religion are very different things, and it's folly to complain that they receive different treatment because of those differences.

Reconciliation?

Can science and religion be reconciled? That's the question that Jerry Coyne posed at The Edge recently. I do have thoughts on this question, but I wanted first to focus on one of the answers given.

Karl Giberson is one of the authors that was initially reviewed that brought up this question. In his response to the question, he brings up a couple questions that I thought I might address. The first of which follows:

Coyne, who affirms Dawkins's approach, speaks of "theologians with a deistic bent" who inappropriately presume to "speak for all the faithful." The implication is that the "faithful" are the more authentically religious and the theologians are an aberration. This seems unfair to me. The great unwashed masses of these "faithful" should be juxtaposed with the great masses of people who "believe" in science but are not professionals...What do you suppose "science" would look like, were it defined by these "believers"? The physics would be Aristotelian; astrology and aliens would accepted as real; General Relativity would be unknown; quantum mechanics would be perceived as a way to influence the world with your mind. And yet all of these people would have had far more education in science than the typical religious believer has in theology. Science as "lived and practiced by real people" is quite different than the science promoted by the intellectuals in this conversation.

So, why do we attribute real science to what science actually says and seemingly not do the same for religion when theologians disagree with the rank and file theist? The answer is actually quite simple, and it has to do with the fact that comparing science to theology is like comparing apples and oranges.

Science is the study of the natural world and relies on empirical facts. If two people get into an argument about what science says or what the empirical facts are, they can research the question, they can run experiments, they can empirically verify who is right and who is wrong (speaking simply). We don't equate what science is/says to the rank and file person who doesn't know science, because we can often find the empirical or "correct" answer.

Let's contrast this with theology, shall we? If two people get into an argument about some aspect of god's nature, how will we ever resolve it? What method will we use to figure out who is right and who is not? What measure can we use to elevate one person's opinion over the opinion of the other? The ramification of this is that there is no necessity to accept the proclamations of the theologian over the average person. Both of them are making proclamations based on their own interpretations and their own subjective opinions. So, the complaint holds no weight unless one makes the mistake of assuming that theologians hold some sort of advanced knowledge of god, which they don't. Theology is the study of making stuff up, and what average Joe makes up in his mind is just as good as what scholar Joe makes up.

Mental Health

Is god belief good for your mental health, or bad? From the standpoint of self-esteem, I think a good case can be made (actually, it has been made) that Xianity in particular is bad for your mental health. Let me explain.

Xians are taught that we are all evil, that we are all not good enough, that we all deserve hell. This is a teaching that is going to have a negative effect on one's self esteem. True, many Xians mistakenly feel that god loves them, which should make them feel better, but should it? god supposedly loves them in spite of their failings. This is not a positive for humans, but a positive aspect of god, that he's willing to love even though we fail time and time again. We are still pretty worthless and undeserving - except that we deserve hell.

I'm sure we've all seen the cliche of the athlete after winning the big game, turning and giving all glory to god. This is merely a manifestation of this practice. Xians are conditioned to give away their best and attribute it to some external entity. It wasn't the hard work and skill and teamwork that got you the victory, it was some other entity that bestowed it upon you. You don't deserve the victory, god does. While, at the same time, Xians are taught to internalize all of our (humans) faults. When something goes wrong, do Xians ever blame god or look to god? No, they blame humans and themselves.

As an atheist, I don't have this problem. Sure, I err from time to time, and I can look at myself and realize that I did err, but I also can look at myself in triumph when I do something right and feel good about myself, because I know that I don't have to externalize all my accomplishments to some other entity. It's a good feeling and a better way to live.

Glory

Many Xians assert that god created us in order to glorify himself. Apart from being a vain, self-centered, egotistical, and immoral thing for god to do, this begs the question as to why a perfect being would do such a thing.

Shouldn't a perfect being already have perfect, maximum glory? How can the creation of humans increase the glory that a perfect being already possesses? If this is possible, then god is not and can not be perfect. The very act of god creating us to glorify himself means that god is not and can not be perfect.

Bring Your Sunday Best

Following up on yesterday's post, we always hear that there are wonderful arguments for god and tons of evidence. Ask about either of these, however, and the only sound you invariably hear is crickets chirping. So, how about it? Theist readers, bring your evidence and arguments for god. Bring the good ones that I keep hearing about. Dust off your arguments from C.S. Lewis, Aquinas, or Plantinga and astound us. I'm an open-minded fellow and if your argument is good enough you could convert a heathen!

UPDATE (5/11/08): It's been almost 2 weeks and after 18 comments there have been zero arguments for god or Xianity presented, zero evidence presented, and a whole lot of anger from Xians. One Xian commenter has had the intellectual honesty to admit that (s)he has no evidence, and for that I applaud her/him. Where are the great arguments for Xianity I'm always hearing so much about?

Theology

Theology. Where do I begin? Why is this even a subject? Almost every religious apologist ever has claimed I do not have the knowledge to dismiss their claims.

Our origins and behaviour should be studied by scientists and philosophers; religion is the alchemy which preceded chemistry, an explanation by the ignorant.

To which information other than a dusty book full of mistakes does any cult have access to?

Free Will?

Is it even possible to have free will? Supposedly, it's OK that god allows/causes evil, because we have a choice in what we do. Apart from the fact that our choices don't make it OK for god to damn us, isn't He omnipotent and omniscient? Doesn't that make free will logically impossible?

Think about this. When god created the universe, even before he started creating, he knew what all of us would do, down to the smallest detail. He knew what we would think, feel, act upon, etc. Knowing all of this, he set the universe in motion. Had he wanted it to be different, he would have set up the universe to work differently; but he didn't. Since god knows all that I will do, say, think, feel - and has known it from the beginning - my path has been determined since god willed the universe into existence. If he didn't want me to be an infidel, then why did he make me one?

Default

This is my first post here and I'd like to thank Mr. X for giving me an opportunity to share some of my thoughts. I'll just jump right in.

Why do theists - usually those who reject evolution - consider god to be the default condition? A recent commenter asked whether man can create life from dirt (only the Bible says it did); so to prove evolution dirt has to be made. I assume that this means he'll keep his god belief until such time, but why? Why is god belief the default for theists? If science has an unanswered question, is it god? This is fallacious reasoning surely?

To address this specific example, we know how the Earth formed - which has nothing to do with evolution. Why is this not enough? Should forensic scientists have to kill someone in the lab to prove that a murder happened? Of course not, so why should scientists have to re-create the universe in order to prove that the Earth isn't 6000 years old?

Noah

I said I'd get to this sometime. When Noah was SIX HUNDRED YEARS OLD God told him that, although the rest of civilization were full of sin, Noah was perfect; thus, Noah was instructed to build a 450-foot boat. With eight people.

When the Ark was ready, two of each species were loaded on. (Where he got penguins in Israel I don't know. Presumably he took the smallpox virus with him as well.) Then God made it rain for forty days and forty nights. Which would make quite a puddle. Whether the entire Earth would be swallowed up by that is doubtful. Where Noah got water for all the animals I don't know either.

My point is that the Bible shows large marks of human creation. Although hardly anyone believes this story, my question is why anyone believes the other ones.

Chance

Here's a gem I found on a Christian website:

"Cancer is not wasted when it is healed by God. He gets the glory and that is why cancer exists."

God?

If God doesn't mean there to be starvation then he's not omnipotent; if God does mean there to be starvation then why worship the bastard; if only man is made in the image of God and only man sins then why is there so much pain, starvation and suffering in the animal kingdom?

If God only sends those who acknowledge him to paradise then why create those who are prone to infidelity and why so much evidence against himself? Why send one Jewish person to tell the 'truth' when he could've just made everyone Jesus. A whole planet full of Christs.

See how he never exerts his wrath on the gentiles anymore? We had a bit of rain down in England but "two cats soaked" hardly compares to "everyone except Noah." They didn't even think about abortion in Gomorrah. They weren't even that liberal three thousand years ago.

I think God's given up and moved somewhere more conservative. When they stopped stoning people in Alabama that was it for Jesus.

Earth?

I'll make the minor assumption for this post that God created the Earth and Heavens in seven days. Strange that it took only 24hrs to create approximately 1000000000000000000000000 stars and their respective planets, whereas the humble Earth took a week - but I'll let that pass for now.

Surprisingly, though, modern Christians don't seem to have much respect for his installation. "A nuclear war would involve nothing more than the transition of many millions of people into the love of God, only a few years before they were going to find it anyway": coming from the Archbishop of Canterbury. This begs the question regarding the necessity of us being here in the first place; couldn't Jesus use his omnipotence to judge us and then place the good in Heaven (which must be better anyway).

Why are we here then. If anyone has the answer I'd love to hear from you.

The problem with religion...

The problem with a belief that: inside one of the countless billions of galaxies in the universe, on a tiny isolated planet, you are individually being monitored by a loving deity that has your interests at heart; is that it does not favour modesty. The self-absorbed smiles on any religious person will tell you that.

For a faith that supposedly favours the meek (it depends which page of the bible you read) Christianity teaches us to ignore the work of countless generations of scientists because of one bronze-age source. So the Earth is six-thousand years old. Well I never.

If you take Noah literally, email me NOW!!! I want to hear from you.