Dr. David Wilbur: Power and Illusion: Religion and Human Need. Part 3
by Ervin Taylor
This is part 3 of the summary of Dr. Wilbur’s book. It should be emphasized that all of the text in this series of blogs in bold font in the body of the text of the chapter summary has been kindly provided by Dr. Wilbur. If there are any of my own comments they will follow in regular type. I will comment on the quotation from Heraclitus in Part 4.
Summary for Chapter 2: Religion’s Usefulness: The Human Refuge
Religion is a disease, but it is a noble disease.
Heraclitus
This chapter opens with a discussion of alternate perspectives for looking at usefulness. This may include the concerns of clergy, aristocracy and the typical layman. Alternatively one may look at the different aspects of human culture that seem to get support from religion such as exclusivity, hierarchy and nihilism about the everyday world. For our presentation we will however focus on a series of aspects of religious practice/function that seem to be highly valued by many devotees.
Social cohesion: That We May Love and Care for Each Other. The sociologist Emile Durkheim was convinced that the primary explanation for religion was its social function and my own personal observations support this. Our greatest happiness seems to come from our interactions with other people. Our primary evolutionary heritage is probably in the context of small hunter gatherer groups. A religion becomes for many people a safe refuge in the midst of a larger impersonal world—a return to a village home.
Power Satisfaction: That Some Men May Be God. The claim that you know the mind of a God and represent His interests in the world may allow you to act with arrogant disregard for the interests of those who disagree with you—or with a selfless concern for others.
Existential Relief: That Men May Never Die. Most religions promise some form of life beyond existence in this world. This is a great relief for those who fear an eternal dissolution or simply hope for greater accomplishments or reconciliation with the universe in a second or future life.
Meaning Making: That We Might Know Our Importance in the Universe. Most religious people feel that their religion tells them where they came from, why they are here and where they should be going. The Abrahamic religions say all believers are made in God’s image and important to him thus certifying their individual value.
Personal Validation: Our Parental Substitute. Many or even most of us have a lifelong need for parental approval. Religions acting for a “divine parent” are usually eager to fill this role in exchange for devotion especially gifts to the organization.
Comfort in Distress: That We May Know That We Are Not Alone. A significant number of religious people, especially within the Abrahamic religions, trust that there is some divine power in charge of the world and responsive to their needs and hopes. Thus they attempt to relieve their anxieties by putting things in “God’s Hands.”
Acculturation of the Young: That Our Children May Be Good Like Us. Almost every religious group seeks to indoctrinate its children in its belief system both within the family and in a formal schooling if possible. It is considered the most important way of teaching the values of the community—often along with claims that other groups or religions are inferior.
Identification of Cooperators: That We May Avoid Being Cheated. Religious groups with their social interconnections are often considered by members as relatively safe places to search for non-cheating providers—of everything from dental care to car repairs.
Prayer, Meditation and Problem Solving. Reviewing our problems and attempting to clearly explain them to someone else, even to an imaginary interlocutor, may lead us to understand them better and thus to make better decisions.
Religions get power from the illusion of being founded by some divine act or acts reaching the human world. Their continuing success however comes not from supernatural action but from the helpful ways they fill many human needs. Some would say a religion is a way of framing a human life; of giving it context and meaning.
Yet another summary loaded with possible implications!
Here's one that strikes me: "Religions get power from the illusion of being founded by some divine act or acts reaching the human world. Their continuing success however comes not from supernatural action but from the helpful ways they fill many human needs." emphasis suplied.
One does not have to look far to confirm the defintion of illusion as "a false idea", a "deceptive appearance or impression" etc. mmm
It will be really interesting to see where Wilbur takes this, because at face value such a basis would be hard put avoiding conclusions that sound like "the god delusion" is real.
Perhaps the last part tells us why religion is not about to go extinct: Its power to help fill many human needs is confused by adherents as the activity of the supernatural or divine. Thus the deception is multiplied!
What evolutionary advantage does an "imaginary interlocutor" provide?
All the above. Just like little children have imaginary friends, the true believer
relies on the illusion of "someone out there" that cares, that can be counted on,
and most importantly, assures me that death is not real. If those aren't illusions, another word would need to be coined.
The rather biased criticisms of religion in the list above is an illusion itself. The no-God delusion perhaps.
Darrel,
You ask: "What evolutionary advantage does an "imaginary interlocutor" provide?"
Perhaps an equivalent question would be "What evolutionary advantage does a placebo effect provide?"
Such an effect is well documented. One would wonder what role a placebo effect would be intended for in a "good", or "perfect" creation with no death, disease, suffering. OTOH, can you imagine (oops bad word) the power of placebo, or an imaginary interlocutor, in the battle for survival? Just read the Illiad, and you will see how these are played out in the heat of battle and life in the interactions and interplay between gods and mortals.
The fear of pain and death and the desire for safety are innate in every living thing and has been the force driving survival. (again, what were these doing in a "perfect" world?) When humans reached a point of creative, analytical intelligence, it should be no surprise they used their power of imagination and creativity to create belief structures to reduce these fears and offer a sense of safety, hope, or power over others etc.
Yes Chris and Elaine, but I have seen much more a “nocebo” effect in regard to magical thinking. Depending on a non-existant being or a deux ex machine will prevent a half-wit creature from developing the skills of survival. One can think of arrested congnitive development (lamarckian time wasted) in depending on occultic powers.
The religious quest for God is rather an item, like man's ability to understand higher math, music, art,
beyond simplistic evolutionary explanation. Understanding physics, quantum fields and God are perfectly useless for survival of genes! Sex, eating and killing–Yes! Spiritual Realities-NO!
I think Darrel raises a interesting point. Here's a question: are agnostics and atheists more adept, less adept or evenly adept at survival and procreating their genes?
Hi Darrel
Not quite so sure you are right on the survival value of understanding physics. If understanding physics is one of the things we need for inter space travel and potential colonization of other anthropic parts of our galaxy, then understanding and mastering physics may be an excellent survival tool.
Does not physics play a significant role in enhancing medicine and medical technology? Does that not better our chances of survival? ( ever watch an embryo's heart beating on an ultrasound machine?)
hello avenger, you are right that understanding physics is valuable in the 'world we have created.'
But we would not have created this environment if it were not for our ability to master math and physics. My point is that for survival at the supposed time when we were four legged whatever, we would survived just fine with large fangs. Physics (understanding it) would never be naturally selected, because there is no benefit.
Darrel, I think you underestimate the power of the mind in guiding the interaction of the person within the world it occupies. Re the deux ex machina – you have the cart before the horse. We are not talking about a half wit creature who has no skills of survival. We are talking about creatures that already have them. We could also say the dawning of an intelligence creative enough to reason in this way is adding to, not hindering its development.
Your deux ex machine certainly saved Isaac!
Apart from your qualification "higher" maths, maths, music, and art, are absolutely not beyond simplistic evolutionary explanation. (And even the higher math is playing a role in humanities evolution today!)
Tell the Cheetah that his ability to calculate size, distance, speed do not contribute to his survival. Tell the birds which use song and sound to court their mate that it is of no value. Tell the bee as he dances intricate, artistic shapes describing distance, location, and content of distant flowers that dance and art do not help.
Tell the early human that being able to communicate things usefull for survival through drawing, speech and math did not help. I suggest it did. Likewise the power of belief in its explanatory power of the world around them, and the ability to use it for some of the things listed in the blog above can indeed be seen to have value for survival. Remember, if one hides from a thunderstorm because they think the gods are angry or for no better reasons than does a mouse – one still hides. Caveman or not.
"Religions get power from the illusion of being founded by some divine act or acts reaching the human world. Their continuing success however comes not from supernatural action but from the helpful ways they fill many human needs."
I would be interested in knowing whether or not Dr. Taylor subscribes to this philosophy.
Jean,
This website presents ideas that are not held unanimously by any group but to afford the opportunity to explore ideas and current events in the religious world.
Everyone has an opportunity to learn about these and present a personal opinion.
For many, this is the only forum for open discussions as church and SS are not appropriate places. If you enjoy this forum or dislike it, you can also give your opinion.
Oh my, the wonder of evolution! I forget that there is nothing "absolutely beyond simplistic evolutionary explanation." I must go to a re-education camp soon. As Karl Popper and Chomski have stated, this thing is un-falsifiable.
Chris, you do realize that the Cheetah doesn't actually do the math or even understand it, right? You know the bees or birds don't actually crunch the numbers on their navigational marvels, right? I think you have missed my point. I suppose there is a clever evolutionary story about how these creatures were 'gifted' with these automated systems, But my point was that we "actually understand these things." Why?
Darrel, I don't think I missed the point. My point was precisely that there is a progression of the experience of these things. Of course the Cheetah does not understand it in the way we do. And, yes: We do.
I'm sure you would like me to answer your question "why" this is so, with the idea that it points to a designer. Sorry; it may, but does not have to, and if it did or does, we must not forget that these same animals were "gifted" with some brutal killing, hunting, blood letting systems too. So much so that they point to a bloody mean designer if we are to allow all their "auotomated systems" equal weight! It is too easy for us to select the system we think points to a designer we like, but ignore, or worse, excuse away, other equally significant pointers which would suggest a designer we don't like.
We do understand, (mind you, we are sometimes more automated than we like to think) but it is a progression from the animals to us, not a sharp dividing line.
Thank you Chris, what raise is an important theological question.
Given the scientific evidence we now have regarding the immensity of the cosmos (and the estimates grow each year), it becomes almost infinitely unlikely that the universe does not somehow contain life more advanced, and potentially capable of creating or at least seriously influencing, life as we know it here. In stark terms, the mathematics of it all argues more and more persuasively for the existence of such life, or a life form, more advanced than our own.
That human beings seem to have a script on their personality slate that encourages belief in a creative, Higher Power could indeed be, as a prominent author titles his book, a biologically positive "necessary illusion." On the other hand, the instinctual perception that there is a personal and creative vastness above and beyond our sphere (literally) could exist precisely because there is indeed a reality beyond us.
I have am willing to enthusiastically dignifiy the intelligence of those who in this posting speculate on the hypothetical merits or folly of an illusion of divinity in the human psyche. But it does bear repeating that in the sense of the vastness of the university as we perceive it , it appears overwhelmingly likely that there is life out there capable of doing that which we devotionally attribute to God. We need not apologize—any of us—for believing that someone out there is watching and caring about what is happening to the human race….
Edwin,
I'm not sure I understand why our growing understanding of the immensity of the cosmos renders it more likely that a creating or influencing entity exists. The very same growing understanding of the immensity of the cosmos includes a growing understanding of the extremely chaotic elements within it that seem to have been involved in its shaping over time. In the face of chaos, immensity becomes a weak voice for a creative life form.
Your middle paragraph is a balanced point: either reality is possible. In the absence of seeking further, verifiable evidences, choosing either view would be nothing better than a subjective response.
You note: "…it does bear repeating that in the sense of the vastness of the university as we perceive it , it appears overwhelmingly likely that there is life out there capable of doing that which we devotionally attribute to God.
This puzzles me. What precisely is it about the "vastness of the universe" that makes it appear overwhelmingly likely there is a life out there?
Further to that. You indicate possibly, a life form, more advanced than our own. That would make that "life form" also within nature or the cosmos, not outside of it; therefore not supernatural.
I do not ask for your apology for believing that someone out there is watching and caring about the human race. That is a subjective interpretation of vastnesss, which while bordering on incredulity, is a personal interpretation you are free to make. However, I think apology (defence) is demanded if you make claims for that "someone" which are either not verifiable by observation, or even worse, are in denial of verifiably observable facts/data. For example, that that someone is supernatural and (highly? or even somewhat?) interventionist! Or that that someone made the world in a weeks work 6000 years ago!
We are discussing a hypothesis that the existence of faith and belief is a product not of the actual existence of God, but of human psychological/sociological need.
Though I have not seen the view expressed here on atoday.org, in discussions with highly educated Ph.D.-types I have discovered a somewhat patronizing attitude that one who believes even in the remote possibility of a transcendant Reality such as God is somehow not quite developed enough in thought or intelligence to mingle with the elite.
I realize that the argument of "immensity" proves nothing specific; however, that we exist as sentient life in a universe so large that the earth by comparison is but a molecule of sand on the celestial shore, would suggest that as life forms the chances that we are the highest/best/pre-eminent/self-creating/self-sustaining singularity of life in the universe would appear to be exceedingly remote. Belief in the existence, or at least probable existence, of a companion life form greater than ourselves therefore seems not altogether improbable. This does not address the question of special creation or evolution—it's entirely a question of the probability of humanity and its surrounding life being a one-planet singularity.
Edwin, my point about a more advanced life form was not intended to disagree with you. In fact, I think we must allow the possibility. How high or low it is may not be so clear.
My point was that "a companion life form greater than ourselves" is not the same as a "tanscendant Reality such as God".
Even if we were to demonstrate/identify "companion" life forms, it would not address the transcendant question. In fact, it may mitigate against it, particlularly if they were in some way different forms to us.
I think the "patronizing" if it exists, is a response to the frequent mixing here on AT of scientific and theologically based claims. I have to admit I have to work hard to avoid getting prickly when people trot out with statements that are purely subjectively based and try to pass them off as science, fact, proven, or truth.
If this site was dedicated to maths, and I was to wax eloquent about some mathematical "fact", yet because of my ignorance, be totally wrong: Should I consider it patronizing when someone pointed out my error? And if I kept on doing it, should I be offended when they got prickly and tired of my ignorance?
There are people on AT highly qualified (not me) to comment on many of the claims made here by some. When they do, or even perhaps get prickly, they are at risk of being called patronizing. If it were maths, I submit no offence would be taken when corrected. Because we are dealing with "belief", much of which is purely subjective, people get up in arms. Nonsense is nonsense, whether in maths or indefensible claims.
Here's a quote that gives pause for thought:
"…All that we know of the universe is that it is undistinguishable from a universe without god, and without any need for a god." http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/design.htm
Obviously, vastness and immensity are not interpreted equally by all.
Just six numbers govern the shape, size, and texture of our universe. If their values were only fractionally different, we would not exist: nor, in many cases, would matter have had a chance to form.
Astronomer Martin Rees points out that six numbers related to basic physical constants (for example, the relative strengths of the gravitational and electromagnetic attraction) determine how the universe developed. In addition, he shows how, if these numbers were only slightly different, stars and galaxies would not form, complex chemistry would not be possible, and life could not evolve. This raises the interesting philosophical question, Why? One could dismiss the question by saying that, if it were otherwise, we wouldn't be here to ask or that there is some underlying theory as yet unknown that would show that these values must be what they are. However, the facts speak for themselves- these numbers were arbitrarily set before the big bang. They could have been anything.
Cosmic development was highly sensitive to the values of these numbers and that if any one of them were 'untuned' there could be no stars and no life. These six are: The first is a ratio of the strength of the electrical forces that hold atoms together divided by the force of gravity between them. It is very large, about 1036, and were it a few zeros shorter, only a short-lived miniature universe could exist and there would be no time for biological evolution. The second number is also a ratio and is the proportion of energy that is released when hydrogen fuses into helium. This number is 0.007, and if it were 0.006 or 0.008 we could not exist. The third number, also a ratio, relates the actual density of matter in the universe to a 'critical' density. At first sight this number appears to be about 0.4. If this ratio were too high the universe would have collapsed long ago: if too low, galaxies or stars would not have formed. The fourth number, only recently discovered, is a cosmic 'antigravity' and appears to control the expansion of the universe even though it has no discernible effect on scales less than a billion light years. The fifth number is the ratio of the energy required to break apart a galaxy compared to its 'rest mass energy' and is about 10-5. If this ratio were smaller the universe would be inert and structureless: if much larger the universe would be so violent that no stars or sun systems could survive. The sixth number, surprisingly, is the number of spatial dimensions in our world (3). Life could not exist if this was 2 or 4.
An avoidance approach to the question would be 'we could not exist if these numbers weren't adjusted in this special way: we manifestly are here, so there's nothing to be surprised about.’ This is a Que Sera, Sera cop out. Logic is that the 'tuning' of these numbers is evidence of a beneficent Creator, who formed the universe with the specific intention of producing us.
Hi Darrel
Good comments. However if you read Hawkings: The Grand Design, the idea of a metaverse where an infinite type of universes have formed and will continue to form, negates the concept of anthropic ID Creator of this universe. This universe may be may be one of an infinite number where chance allowed for the factors you have cited. Aren't we lucky to live here!
Darrel
I agree
You mentioned only six numbers I believe there are about in the excess of 30 other constants that would render life imposiible if changed or if they were not what they were.
Hi Tapiwa, yes the number keeps growing as we understand more.
Darrel,
As you are into reading, you may find the chapters on the link I posted above of interest. Here it is again. This is not the first chapter. I suggest flicking back to the start.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/design.htm
Chris, thank you for the link. This is one of the major
incorrect views of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design
does not state the "Order can not come from disorder."
Specified Complexity (not order) is the positive evidence
for Design. For example, material processes do not
write computer code. The specific complexity of genetic codes
and the protein machines to read, translate and execute the programs
irrefutably the products of Design. Much more than just 'order.'
*sigh*
Intelligent Design is no different — literally no different — than a parallel theory that suggests that everything happened by magic. Why, oh why, do people cling to such a thing?
This is where the ID team kicks the ball back and says, "well, like, isn't the Big Bang magic too?"
…at which point any reasonable person counters by stating the fact that although we do think that roughly 13.5 billion years ago the universe was compressed into a singularity, that we don't yet fully understand its nature does NOT — I say again last, does NOT — mean that the singularity must therefore have formed automagically. That there are boundaries to our current understanding does not mean that what lies beyond those boundaries must be magical. Eeeeeeeeeeeeevery little thing throughout human history that we've attributed to magic / divinity has been overturned, without exception. "ID" is simply the same weak thinking writ large.
I know your "faith" tells you that ID is the real deal, but do you have any idea how much time and energy you're wasting with a failed theory? It's like clinging to the notion that the Earth is flat in spite of all the evidence to the contrary for your entire life, only to see as you lie dying in a hospital bed that it was, in fact, round all that time. What a terrible, terrible waste.
/rant
Tim, if you feel that natural material forces have and can write computer code, then would that not be magic.
Computer code? Oh sure, probably.
Now ask me whether I think "magic" is a suitable explanation for the progressive evolution by way of natural selection across what we now believe to be approximately 3.5 billion years wherein collections of bonded amino acids came to hold the intricate functionality we see and interpret today to be genetic encoding.
And for the love of all things great and small, please don't reply with something that purports to plug the gaps in our understanding with magic. I don't tend to respond to that sort of thing very well.
Are you defining as magic, or assigning to magic, anything that happens outside of either the physical laws you know to exist, or your understanding of what you know to be humanly possible (which may be the same thing); and dismissing it?
If so, you gotta be kidding; right?
I have brought this up before, but given its vastness, what are the mathematical chances that we are the only self aware beings in the entire universe; much less the most intelligent (which would then, of course, make you one of the most intelligent beings in the entire universe)?
It is impossible for you, or anyone, to deny that it is a mathematical certainty that other ‘intelligent’ life forms exist.
(It likewise doesn’t seem possible for genetic information to exist without having an informer.)
Besides how smart are we in reality? We invent tools with which to kill ourselves and we are not smart enough to figure out how to live indefinitely.
Wait a minute, scratch that last one.
Terminology aside, Darrel, I would not bow my knee at Dembski's alter, or other proponents of Specified Complexity:) There are far too many valid criticisms of specified complexity etc out there. Even a simple read of Wiki about Dembski on this offers criticisms that seriously undermine his stuff. It does not stack up.
I agree, the criticisms are "out there."
Quoted: All that we know of the universe is that it is undistinguishable from a universe without god, and without any need for a god."
Response: All that we know of this universe shows in reality that life is impossible unless seeded.
Ask Watson and Crick.
Classical Darwinism, Darwinism 2.0 the Modern Synthesis, has now been shown to be false, and modern evolutionary theory discredits it in all but lingering respect for the noted Charles D. who was first to make a godless universe sound plausible. But natural selection of random mutations is now quite falsifiable as a plausible mechanism for what life does exist.
There is no real universe we know without any need for some sort of originating god.
Chris's quote is so wrong as to be outrageous, in my somewhat informed opinion.
What Chris is correct about, however, is that a theology of the nature and character of that god remains at issue.
The universality of religion instead of showing it to be an evolutionary nostrum for our ills, may be understood quite differently. It may instead be a testimony that all men everywhere at all times have always understood that this real universe is incomprehensible without a god. The valid question we must all struggle with is not, is there a god, but what kind of god is it?
For me this remains the task of 21st century Adventism: can we offer the world a God capable of answering all the charges of indifference, immorality, and cruelty leveled against him by those who would prefer not to believe in him, rather than accept that kind of divinity that a true story of creation and development of life shows.
Adventism had a pretty good system to explain away a 6,000 year old earth. This is why our conservatives hold so tightly to it. The question now that this short age of life can not be sustained is: Can Adventism reapply our insights to a 13.7 billion year old universe and a 4.7 billion year old earth, with creation stages instead of creation magic days?
Hi Jack
My question for you which you have not yet answered is how is your belief in the ressurection of Christ not preferential? Does Science offer any proof that people who are dead can rise. Or how about the fact that science tells us about gravity so my question is did Jesus ascend to the heavens? Did Jesus actually turn water into wine? Science has a lot to tell us about chemical reactions and they are yet to show us how water instanteneously turns to water.
Were Adam and Eve real people? Were they the first people? Or they evolved from lesser life forms. Do you believe in a literal devil? Did the sanke actually talk to Eve? Or it is also allegorical?
I am still convinced that theistic evolution is antithetical to christianity itself and that it is a self contradictory concept and an irrational one. I actually agree with Cliff that logically you can be an adventist or an evolutionist but not both!
Jack,
Let's try to clarify re the quote and your points.
First, it seems a bold claim to say that what we know about the universe shows life is impossible unless seeded. Seems to me the possibility of "seeding", if that is what was needed(?), is infinitely more likely than that a God of Biblical proportions should just be.
Watson and Crick? Can you give me the source for that quote, if that's what is was? It seems rather dated.
Now, you suggest that quote I posted was outrageous. To ascertain that this is so, perhaps we could approach the quote from the other end.
How should this universe look if there is/were a God of the following proportions:
1. "Seeding proportions", but nothing more.
2. "Intelligent Designer", but not interventionist in any other form than stepping in at stages.
3. "Intelligent Designer", who intervenes somewhat.
4. "Creator" who intervenes as described in the Bible.
I will be interested in how you think it should/would/could look to reflect the existence of any of these for "levels" of god/God. For that quote to be outrageous you would need to have, what? the same universe? With, what? Nothing more than the "possibility" of interpreting life through ID eyes? And a supposed divinity that seems for all intents and purposes totally non interventionist?
In line with your point: What kind of divinity does a "true" story of creation and development show? What kind of God can you offer the world that is not open to the charges of indifference, immorality and cruelty? Mine is pretty thin on the ground if I try to avoid those charges!
Just a quick question: Are guys like these (Dr. David Wilbur) preaching in Adventist pulpits in America?
To Mr. October: I would certainly hope that people like Dr. Wilbur are preaching in Adventist pulpits in America. Adventist congregations need constant reminders of a real world out there, not the projections of our dreams. (Opps, I forgot that classcial Adventism owes a lot to the visions and dreams of a 19th century religious figure.)
An infinite number of universes
Rolled out by a dice playing god
Why do we think our current one
To be so anthropically odd?
Avenger, you realize that the idea of a multiverse has
NO evidence at all, none. But let's use this argument,
do you realize that at least one of those universes
that are spit out would contain a Creator who created
everything in 6 24 hour days? That silly concept
would make ALL possible realities real- in one of those
universies!
"silly concept"meaning the multiverse.
Once some really wacky people proffered a "silly concept" that the Earth in fact orbits the Sun, and not the other way around.
I seriously doubt you have anything approaching the level of education and expertise in astrophysics and mathematics to declare the ideas of men who DO have those things to be "silly."
So you fight against an supposably unseen undetectable wwith an unseen undetectable?
First, the word is "supposedly," not "supposably." Second, I literally haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
Okay, I stand humbled after looking up "supposably" and finding that it is, in fact, a recognized, perfectly legitimate word. And this after 32 years of looking down on people for using it. I'll take my lumps for that doozie.
But… I still have no idea what you're referencing. 🙂
Jack, "The valid question we must all struggle with is not, is there a god, but what kind of god is it?" On the money! Chris, many of most of your objections are theological, not scientific. For example , (these) "point to a bloody mean designer if we are to allow all their "auotomated systems" equal weight! It is too easy for us to select the system we think points to a designer we like, but ignore, or worse, excuse away, other equally significant pointers which would suggest a designer we don't like."
A friend of mine, Dr, Paul Nelson has written a paper on the amount of theology mixed in with the scientific literature on origns. Of course, I myself have no objection to looking at all the implications (theological and psychological) of science, so long as we can keep clear which is which.
So Chris, I am not saying your point is not valid, but it does not effect the logic of design itself.
Darrel, I personally don't think there is much logic in "design" theories. BUT, let's say there is. You say my objections are thoelogical, not scientific! They are BOTH, and it has everything to do with the logic of design. IF design is logical AND scientific then its proponents should not, would not, and could not extrapolote from it and apply its findings in divinity/deity/or theism. The moment they do so they are making theological claims.
What I am saying in my objections above is that, effectively, the moment they do that THEY are in effect making theological cliams. I am then saying that if they do this then the designer they point to must fit the observable systems which they used to point to design at the outset.
If design is logical (and scientific) then please stop using it to go beyond itself with theological applications and claims which cannot be justified by the origincal observations, or worse, make (theological) claims that are mitigated against by other evidence within nature which are of equal or greater weight!
Chris, I don't believe science is the only road to reality.
We have history/prophecy we have human experience.
We have pure logic and prayer
The Apostle Paul mentions from the things made
We see the Creators 'divine nature and power.' Not much
real theology here. But other ways to know Him take over
Number One. The Revelation in Christ – The Way!
Ok…whatever… You may as well admit when you are pushed into a logical corner you are happy to resort to "God says it, I believe it". So why start with, or pretend to start with, science in the first place? Beats me….
Tapiwa first–since nature/science shows me a system of intelligence and design, then nothing in the Bible, ventrilloquist donkeys and snakes, pinapeds behaving in a way to rescue Jonah, is antireason or impossible in concept. I am aware enough to realize that inspired humans wrote what they honestly thought happened, so I am not bound to accept that God punished Job as the agent of his sorrows, as his friends uninformed of the Liar/Adversary/Satan did. I don't have a problem with the Bible being true/honest even when it is not correct. The Bible stories introduce truth, they don't restrict it. So although I don't know how Jesus made water into wine in Cana, that is a trick he performs every year in Walla Walla, so to do it quickly is really not more miraculous to me than to do it annually. And by definition miracles are singularities, and not to be expected to be reproduced in a lab at will.
A created first Adam different than all the created humanoids before him/her is not impossible if you accept the possibility of a creating God. (And I am not sure but that my Bible shows of other humanoids outside of the garden of Eden, for the sons of God quickly became interested in the daughters of men.) Genetically there is an Eve, so who am I to doubt her, unless I really did believe that no God is necessary in this universe, which I don't find possible.
Answer: I am expanding and rethinking my understanding of the Bible stories, but nothing in science makes any of them impossible. To say, dead men can't live again, therefore there is no resurrection, is similar to the little Russian Cosmonauts of my youth declaring that they had circled in their tin can a few miles above the suface of the earth and didn't see God, so there was none!
I have had my own little Theophenies where I have personally and one on one encountered spiritual powers and interventions not explicable otherwise. They are not evidences for you, but they are for me. We deal with unseen powers and realities that answer all the needs of an explanation of life as we find it.
This week I listened to Winston Churchill's History of the English Speaking People, where he offered advice to all skeptics and doubters. Paraphrased he says, "Is the Illiad, the Odyssey, and the Old Testament true? Of course they are true, every word of it. And if they are not, they ought to be, and more besides."
That's my position, and I wish my evolutionist brothers and sisters could join me on it.
My Bible stories have moved out of the sandbox, but they have not moved out of a larger and more wonderful reality.
Jack I don't know what "inspired" humans really means. What are they? That said any individuals anecdotal experiences while "true" for them are not necessarily evidence of something existing or not. After you discuss your "Theopenies" you then state what appears to be fact that we "deal with unseen powers…" Really? I don't. How would I "know" if I am dealing with these unseen powers? The beginning of your argument makes sense but then it diverges into pleadings and personal experience which cannot provide evidence or sound argument for your beliefs.
Well said and agreed, Doctorf.
I hope it isn't too tangential, but.. as it doesn't strike me as such, I offer a quick clip of a man with severe temporal lobe epilepsy, whose very real neurophysiological disease induces him to believe in a very real way that he's experiencing unseen powers and spiritual oneness with the universe, magicka, etc. Quite fascinating, really, and it puts a pretty squarely placed 50 calibur bullet hole through any notion that certainty of subjective experience necessarily implies unseen magic or spirit forces.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpLZ3Cf2I_s
Jack,
Your perspective on the Bible stories makes a lot of sense as one learns more and more. It appears people try so hard to believe in the literal story that they completely miss what it means to them and all its spiritual lessons and how it points to Jesus. It's as if they would lose their faith if the story didn't happen exactly as described. I see this as a shallow religion. I am not saying that they didn't happen, only that is not the most important truth about them.
As for those who can prove by math or science that there is no God, I find that the height of arrogance. We are such a tiny particle in the cosmos and yet pretend to know so much. Our math and science must be laughable to the Almighty. We stand here less than an ant on the globe and pretend to know what exists in the trillions and trillions of worlds and universes out there. I recently read from one scientist on line that perhaps it was all an illusion or a hologram. That makes about as much sense as saying there is no being who created this world or humans. A real scientist is one who admits that he or she does not know and respects and listens to the beliefs of others. And sometimes learns! I learn a lot from contemporary science, and it usually fits in well with my faith and expands it. But then I begin with a Creator.
Macro-evolutionists remind me that those who take a stand on a belief are something like political parties–nothing can change their minds (maybe their hearts). Admittedly it is the same with religions. However, religion is not promoted by the government and all our academic institutions. Therefore, these folk communicate and learn only from those who believe as they do. They all (must) agree. Thankfully we have independents in the political world and they may still listen. Just an observation, because humans are subjective no matter what they claim.
I look forward to reading Dave's book as I knew him in years past. He is a brilliant scholar and physician and a caring person. I want to see what he has to say about the subjectiveness of religion and and hope he includes other belief systems as well, such as mainstream science. His scholarship will no doubt be influenced by his own experiences.
To Darrel
A 'silly' concept that some say there is some evidence for, see links below
http://phys.org/news/2010-12-scientists-evidence-universes.html
So, is it possible in a multiverse that there could be a universe created in six days? It is possible but do the observable laws of this universe give evidence to that effect? That's the empirical question my friend.
Dear Avenger, what is it you avenge anyway?
Dear Darrel
My own lack of humanity
RE: Adventist congregations need constant reminders of a real world out there, not the projections of our dreams. [Dr. Ervin Taylor]
Dear Dr. Taylor
Adventist congregations [are] fully aware of the [wicked] real world out there. That is why they find that God in Christ Jesus offers the reasonable best [only] solution for them. Ellen White may have had dreams and visions – yes; but her writings and words always pointed to a real Christ, a real Saviour, a real Lamb which was for sinners slain – and therefore the real hope of all mankind. The reality is that the blogs so far on Dr. Wilbur's work up to part 3 (chapter 3?) speaks of almost everything else [except] Christ.
PS. Just in case you may have thought my previous question to you was just a dream, I'll ask it again. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is God?
22oct…
mmm What difference does it make what Dr Taylor believes about Jesus being God? Does his position validate or invalidate the propositions within the blog? Not that I can see!
Rather, I suspect you are just looking for a hook upon which to justify your prejudicial rejection of all and any claims, positions, or suggestions that do not fit your narrow minded truth position.
Why is it that evolutionists can deal with the nature of complexity, but wish to not even consider ID. Is
it because they would then have to deal with a creator? i have a mechanical design background. i find it most difficult to seperate complexity/ID. In complexity, life forms don't just have a few parts. We know that even the simplest life forms have billions plus parts, that work synergistically under everchanging environmental variations. Back to the Big Bang, happenstance, or God, or?? It just doesn't wash. There is complexity caused by design.
Just a brief response to Mr. Calahan’s very reasonable question regarding Intelligent Design (ID). As far as I can tell, the reason that the vast majority of mainline scientists can’t accept ID is a simple one. Modern science is based on the assumption that the only reality is a physical reality. The principle of methodological naturalism is a key concept. By definition, there can be no supernaturalism used to explain natural processes. ID brings into the equation a non-physical cause, the “Intelligent Designer” which is clearly just another name for God. We may philosophically not like that assumption but that is how the modern mainline scientific enterprise is done. Most mainline scientists understand this. Most fundamentlist YECs and YLCs apparently do not. Most mainline scientists understand the difference between existential naturalism and methodological naturalism. Existential naturalism is a philosophical position that says the physical world is, in truth, the only thing that exists. That is not a “scientific” proposition, it belong to metaphysics.
Are philosophical naturalism and existential naturalism the same thing? That’s not a trick question Dr. Taylor; I’m just asking for information?
My philosopher collegues tell me that, yes, philosophical and existential naturalism are essentially talking about the same thing. That view is that the so-called supernatural does not exist. Science takes no position one way or another since that is a philosophical concept. Science operates by methodological naturalism. Some may not like it, but that is an important reason why the scientific enterprise has been and continues to be so successful.
I know I can't argue macro-evolution (without a God) with those so well-versed in it. But I am still trying to figure out why the believer is so mocked for believing that something can't exist without someone making it. I can see the existence of something or someone that has always existed outside our time, but to say without observation in human time, to claim that we made ourselves is like saying that my computer made itself. Where is the logic here?
Ella,
I don't claim that humans "made themselves." But I also leave things I cannot know and not worry. We should simply enjoy life without trying to determine exactly how our earth and fellow humans who are also inhabitants. There are so many things that we are able to study: the entire origin from conception is a fascinating study of embryology, but "how" is not something we have been able yet to know.
No one can even begin to know only a tiny fraction of what is yet to be known.
There is too much to study that CAN be known, and it's like searching for the end of the rainbow to know what we cannot know. Had God wanted us to know, don't you believe he would have told us?
Edwin, i admit that i can't swim w/the elite. However the elite can be equally wrong in their theories. No one knows with certainty the answers to lifeforms,or even non-life matter.The psychological/social need of Earth's inhabitants shouldn't be scoffed at as it provides comfort in a world without certainty. A crutch, if you wish. Patronizing is of course arrogancy. i can cope with those of greater knowledge & IQ, and am thankful for their sharing, but have difficulty with those who express that some views or submissions are impossible, or insinuate "how dumb can you be". Yep, however i have yet to detect dumbness here among our conferees, although some rigidity,lol.
I'm simply grateful and happy that I am able to enjoy life and all it brings. Many are not in positions to enjoy life as most of us here. Those of us who have such advantage should be willing to extend a hand to the less fortunate.
Dear cb25
Dr. Taylor is a founding member of AToday and a keen supporter of Dr. Desmond Ford's views. Knowing his position regarding whether he believes Jesus Christ is God will help me understand his views better and evaluate the role AToday plays in this type of forum as they carry the name Adventist. For some weird reason it is very noticeable (at least to me) that Dr. Ford's teachings are held by numerous commenters and bloggers here on this site. I do recall that he (Dr. Ford) does believe that Jesus is God and I only want to confirm if Dr. Taylor holds the same view.
Look – I'll be honest and confess that I believe that Jesus Christ is God.
If Dr. Taylor feels uncomfortable about answering a simple question then he would have easily said that himself, unless you have been appointed as proxy.
Mr ij. i also follow in Desmond Ford's camp. Glacier View was a kangaroo court. A shame a brilliant
leader was rode out of town on a rail. The Sda tent isn't large enough to include or suffer any potential
differences to tradition. There are a lot of Dr Fords in the church. "This little light of mine, i'm going to
let it shine".
I Disagree Our sanctuary is not based on tradition but on solid scriptural interpretation. I have studied all ctitiques of IJ and they fall short biblically. Adventists who do not believe in investigative judgement are for all for all intents and purposes seventh day baptists who do not believe in an immortal sould and eternal hell fire. IJ is our defining pillar I find adventists who discount The IJ and still remain adventists disingenuous and simply lack the fortitude to distance themselves from an organisation to which they are diametrically oppossed. I am not chasing anyone from the church but If you do not like the doctrines, leadership the majority of members then why remain?
For the record I believe our infamous Ford was the guy who brought in a midianitish woman (false doctrine) into the church and was dealt with by Zimri (leadership) not exactly the type of love many here espouse but God approved
Organisations have the right to map out the core values ,beliefs, goals and vision. If every organisation believed anything and everything there there would not need to be need of organisational entities in the first place! Many would like to see more latitude, diversity, theological and moral ambiguity. There are already churches that offer that so why project that into adventism when we argue about the most foundational things. Creation, IJ , Gospel, existence of God etc where do we draw the line?
Noone was forced or coerced into joining this church ( I hope!) you all made vows but Why remain if you no longer subscribe to those tenents why stay?
As adventists don't we also have the right to be diverse from evengelicals, celebration churches etc?
To recount Cottrell's experience of questioning theologians in every SDA college – none were able to agree with EGW's IJ. Later five out of thirteen people waited outside the room to insure a unanimous vote regarding IJ. Wynne states "The entire concept of Adventism rests on the 'foundation' of the 2300 day prophecy of Dan. 8:14. If this 'foundation' can be shown to be non-existant, then there is no investigative judgment that began in heaven in 1844 and the Sabbath is not a "seal"."
Canright (living during EGW lifetime) recounts his awareness of leaders coming out of the Protestant Reformation being educated scholars of theology, whereas SDA leaders being un-educated. Throughout the 150 years, SDA theologians with PhD's have been rejected and the vision/inspiration in a cornfield is stedfastly held onto. Lest you think I am flippant – my children are 6th generation SDA, their paternal great-grandfather served EGW in a sanitarium in his youth. This culture has been deep – but I believe we need to dig deep and not be afraid of what the findings are.
A placebo doesn't work if the doctor tells the patient the medicine is candy
If God is a placebo do I want to know? Probably not.
So you're not interested in truth, then, is what you're saying. Given a choice, you're more interested in comforting fantasy.
I'm not trying to be a jerk — just not sure how else to interpret your comment.
Tim, you are certainly tough with people who derive comfort from their faith. None of us will escape death. Why pull the rug from under them as they cope in a tough world? If there is no resurrection they will never know it.
Because the truth matters, Earl. And because organized religion is responsible for more suffering and violence and pain in our world than words are capable of describing.
My being tough on people who derive comfort from their faith — or if we dispel the euphemism, those who cling to a comforting delusion — isn't a personal hobby. It's my duty, and yours.
Yes, truth matters. From The Demon Haunted World,
"It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money as long as you have got it. "
As Pilate said to Jesus, 'What's truth?' (John 18:38)
Stephen,
So you prefer to believe an illusion? When does it become a delusion?
How do we decide? Who do we listen to?
If God is an illusion, how would you know this?
Perhaps I did not understand Mr. Ferguson's point about not wanting to know "if God is a placebo." Is not the operative word here "if."? It seems to me that there is no public or objective way to know if there is a God behind our concept of God. Thus in this case, can a fantasy, illusion, and/or delusion be distinguished from the reality? If so, how would this be accomplished? Now if someone thinks he or she has a way around this problem, please share it with the rest of us. I kind of thought that most of us finally decided at some point that you can't prove or disprove the existence of God. Moving on . . .
Indeed. Despite attempts to discredit it, Pascal's Wager still is a powerful and wholly relevant argument. Whether or not God really exists, Dr Wilbur's book, which I have now read, at least suggests to me there is much practical benefit in religion and theistic belief. Even if it is all an illusion – who really cares? Given you ultimately can't approve or disprove God, it really is in the end a choice. I choose God, for no other reason than it makes life here on this earth better – at least in my life.
P.S. Don't confuse discussions about whether there is a God, versus the varied arguments about who or what God is exactly. They aren't the same question. Many or most people who are non-theists have had an emotionally bad experience with religion and religious people. However, that experience might make them feel a distate towards a particular view of God and religion, but that says nothing about belief in an Ultimate God.
God exists: His name is Jesus.
The problem with the assumptions of many here is that evolutionary theory fancily explains the complexities of living systems. Many have believed the lie that science supports this view. Others reject this view. Rejecting evolution as a grand theory is not confined to Creationists.
Two winters ago my family and I were traveling in Germany and we took a quick jaunt into Austria to get gas (cheaper). I wanted to go to Altenberg, but no time! In 2008, sixteen biologists from around the world convened in Altenberg, Austria, to discuss problems with the neo-Darwinian synthesis. The top journal Nature covered this "Altenberg 16" conference, quoting leading scientists saying things like: "The modern synthesis is remarkably good at modeling the survival of the fittest, but not good at modeling the arrival of the fittest," and "the origin of wings and the invasion of the land . . . are things that evolutionary theory has told us little about." Scott Gilbert, Stuart Newman, and Graham Budd, quoted in John Whitfield, "Biological theory: Postmodern evolution?" Nature 455: 281-284 (9/17/08).
According to Susan Mazur, a science journalist who covered the conference, these sixteen are not alone. She reported that there are "hundreds of other evolutionary scientists (non-creationists) who contend that natural selection is politics, not science, and that we are in a quagmire because of staggering commercial investment in a evolution industry built on an inadequate theory." Susan Mazur, The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry (North Atlantic Books, 2010), p. 55.
The year after Altenberg 16, Eugene Koonin of the National Center for Biotechnology Information stated in Trends in Genetics that breakdowns in core neo-Darwinian tenets, such as the "traditional concept of the tree of life" or the view that "natural selection is the main driving force of evolution" indicate that "the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair." "Not to mince words," Koonin concluded, "the modern synthesis is gone." Eugene V. Koonin, "The Origin at 150: Is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?" Trends in Genetics 25(11): 473-475 (2009).
One of the faltering tenets of evolution mentioned by Eugene Koonin is the "tree of life." Francis Collins snidely compared those who doubt universal common ancestry to flat-earthers; nevertheless, the revolution in DNA sequencing has provided immense amounts of data that challenge universal common ancestry. The fundamental problem is that one gene gives you one version of the tree of life, while another gene yields an entirely different and conflicting version of the tree. Numerous examples of this problem are recounted in the literature. To give a recent one, a June 2012 article in Nature reported that short strands of RNA called microRNAs "are tearing apart traditional ideas about the animal family tree." Dartmouth biologist Kevin Peterson, who studies microRNAs, lamented, "I've looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree." Peterson put it bluntly: "The microRNAs are totally unambiguous . . . they give a totally different tree from what everyone else wants." Elie Dolgin, "Rewriting Evolution," Nature 486: 460-462 (6/28/12).
It’s important to examine the current scientific skepticism towards biological and chemical evolution. Both sides need to stop pretending that there is no evidence of an old earth and stop pretending that evolution is still a viable theory.
Science is inherently skeptical, yet few of the skeptics doubt that evolution occurred across hundreds of millions of years and continues to occur. The questions mostly have to do with HOW evolution has occurred, and more is learned everyday about the genomic mechanisms and the ways genetic variability occurs and changes. Further, the advances in proteomics and discovery and description of genetic pathways and expression, along with epigenetics and more precise and comprehensive phenotypic characterization in humans and a wide range of other species, are really dramatic and revolutionary. The notion that "evolutionary theory" as conceived of by Darwin (or the "new synthesis" by Fisher, Mayr, Dobzhansky, et al.) would not be subject to continual revision in accordance with objective evidence, indacts a fundamental misunderstanding of the processes of science.
So, let's all stop pretending that there is not abundant and overwhelming evidence of an old earth, and let's stop pretending that the evidence for the occurrence of evolution is not convincing. We can and should commit to better understanding of the evidence and of the ways in which ontogeny and phylogeny occur.
No, Joe, Many are doubting evolution. Yes, HOW evolution occured is the question. Both are true.
True because it's the only game in town. Many are so afraid of the idea of God.
In this line, consider the comments of Richard Lewontin, a well-known geneticist and one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology:
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons (review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, 1997), The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.
"we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
We can't and then call it science. Scientists do not reject God; they simply cannot attribute the material to supernatural as there is no method for determining the supernatural, unless someone can offer a suggestion.
Elaine, thank you but read lewontin again.
His point is the opposite of rule.
I rely on reviews of books not previously recognized. So far, nothing I've read has tempted me to buy and read a book about demons if that is all I can judge.
I just read the reviews on Amazon. Sagan debunks myths, and I don't believe in myths as competing with science. No purchase.
Elaine,
Don't let the title fool you. It is actually quite a compelling read. The intent of the book is found in the second half of the title: ….Science as a Candle in the Dark.
The darkness created by superstition and religion!!
A powerful read.
I have it in pdf.
I'm a hard sell ;-).
Darrel,
With regard to your quote of Lewontin above. Would I be correct that you have not sourced the quote from a book/review you have read in entirety, but an excerpt from online? (For example: http://creation.com/amazing-admission-lewontin-quote) Do you understand the background of the authors and work being reviewed?
Have you carefully considered the context of the quote? Is it not within a review of Sagan's work? This context has a relationship to what Lewontin says and how he says it. imho such a quote when used in the context you are using it, is out of context and potentially does not fit the authors original intentions.
There is a usefull exchange that took place a few months after the review you reference. It gives a good insight into the fact that the way you use the quote above has nothing or little to do with the original intent.
In fact, I think we should more often employ Sagan's "baloney kit", particularly when lifting quotes from sites which are likely to be adhering to a prior agenda, as the one I reference above! (and, of course, that cuts both ways)
Here's the link for the exchange between Booth and Lewontin.
http://web.utk.edu/~glenn/Booth-Lewontin.html
Yes, Chris I have done these things. In the context of Sagan's work, he is generalizing about the odd position science is in; the irony of it that until the gaps are filled, even science must stick to the "just-so-stories." Otherwise, a Creator will be implied, and science as a materialist project will suffer.
So you have read "The Demon Haunted World..", and the full review?
I apologize for the long quotes below, but much is made of the one above and I think the context does change the meaning. The first part is to give a feel for Lewontin's view, the second is the larger context to the Quote from the review:
"Nearly every present-day scientist would agree with Carl Sagan that our explanations of material phenomena exclude any role for supernatural demons, witches, and spirits of every kind, including any of the various gods from Adonai to Zeus. (I say "nearly" every scientist because our creationist opponent in the Little Rock debate, and other supporters of "Creation Science," would insist on being recognized.) We also exclude from our explanations little green men from Mars riding in space ships, although they are supposed to be quite as corporeal as you and I, because the evidence is overwhelming that Mars hasn't got any. On the other hand, if one supposed that they came from the planet of a distant star, the negative evidence would not be so compelling, although the fact that it would have taken them such a long time to get here speaks against the likelihood that they exist. Even Sagan says that "it would be astonishing to me if there weren't extraterrestrial life," a position he can hardly avoid, given that his first published book was Intelligent Life in the Universe3 and he has spent a great deal of the taxpayer's money over the ensuing thirty years listening for the signs."
Further down in the review, here is the quote you gave above in a larger context, with the quote in bold:
"With great perception, Sagan sees that there is an impediment to the popular credibility of scientific claims about the world, an impediment that is almost invisible to most scientists. Many of the most fundamental claims of science are against common sense and seem absurd on their face. Do physicists really expect me to accept without serious qualms that the pungent cheese that I had for lunch is really made up of tiny, tasteless, odorless, colorless packets of energy with nothing but empty space between them? Astronomers tell us without apparent embarrassment that they can see stellar events that occurred millions of years ago, whereas we all know that we see things as they happen. When, at the time of the moon landing, a woman in rural Texas was interviewed about the event, she very sensibly refused to believe that the television pictures she had seen had come all the way from the moon, on the grounds that with her antenna she couldn't even get Dallas. What seems absurd depends on one's prejudice. Carl Sagan accepts, as I do, the duality of light, which is at the same time wave and particle, but he thinks that the consubstantiality of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost puts the mystery of the Holy Trinity "in deep trouble." Two's company, but three's a crowd.
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.
The mutual exclusion of the material and the demonic has not been true of all cultures and all times. In the great Chinese epic Journey to the West, demons are an alternative form of life, responsible to certain deities, devoted to making trouble for ordinary people, but severely limited. They can be captured, imprisoned, and even killed by someone with superior magic.6 In our own intellectual history, the definitive displacement of divine powers by purely material causes has been a relatively recent changeover, and that icon of modern science, Newton, was at the cusp. It is a cliché of intellectual history that Newton attempted to accommodate God by postulating Him as the Prime Mover Who, having established the mechanical laws and set the whole universe in motion, withdrew from further intervention, leaving it to people like Newton to reveal His plan. But what we might call "Newton's Ploy" did not really get him off the hook. He understood that a defect of his system of mechanics was the lack of any equilibrating force that would return the solar system to its regular set of orbits if there were any slight perturbation. He was therefore forced, although reluctantly, to assume that God intervened from time to time to set things right again. It remained for Laplace, a century later, to produce a mechanics that predicted the stability of the planetary orbits, allowing him the hauteur of his famous reply to Napoleon. When the Emperor observed that there was, in the whole of the Mécanique Céleste, no mention of the author of the universe, he replied, "Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis." One can almost hear a stress on the "I."
Thank you Chris?
When scientists tell "just so" stories about such things as "adaptive value," these should not be seen as "facts" or "truth." They should be seen for what they are, and nothing more. They are possible explanations, based on available evidence. Don't hold such explanations too tightly. There is a good chance some evidence in the future will require some revision, or even rejection. But some hypotheses are far more evidence-based than others.
Thank you for posting the larger context of Lewontin's quote. However, it does not change the fact of his presupposition that materialism must be the lens through which you interpret the world. And that is the wholel problem. The main reason some of us will never agree on these issues is because we do not agree on the assumption of materialism as the lens through which to view the world.
I Have bought Dr. Wilbur's book and am interested to see if he deals with such issues as why someone like C. S. Lewis would move from atheism to not just belief in a God but even write books seeking to show how reasonable it is to believe in the supernatural. And no one would call Lewis a dummy or an insignifcant player on the world scene.
Yesterday I visited the Estonian National Museum where two exhibits really caught my attention – and seem quite relevant to the discussion here. In one exhibit it stated that Estonia is (according to the Estonians as least) the most secular country in the world, with the highest percentage per capita of atheists and others who see themselves as non-religious. At the very next exhibit, it stated that Estonians are the least happy people in the world, citing the UN happiness index. Is there a correlation between the two – who knows – but it makes you think!
Stephen,
Here's a couple of interesting links re Happiness. I think the Estonian low one is OECD. Didn't Wilbur point out that Denmark, Sweden etc, where religion is the lowest ranked highest on the UN score. These are visible on the graph across the top of the OECD link as well.
David N, nice to hear from you again:)
Yes, materialism is the lens through which the world is interpreted, particularly within science. Otherwise it would not be science. Sagan's work is promoting the powers of science as opposed to pseudoscience as he sees it. Pseudoscience I suppose in this sense is science that has let the divine foot in the door! To quote Lewontin.
I personally think science would make a lot less objection to those of us who allow a divine foot in the door if we did not make claims for that divine foot which, at least at face value, appear contradictory to the real world. Perhaps in terms of Wilbur's book, the claims which are most easily demonstrable as illusions are what get our divine foot the biggest stomp.
To use a clear example: Allowing a divine foot the claim that this world was made from nothing 6kyrs ago is going to ruffle the feathers of the vast majority of scientists. To allow my divine foot a place in my heart as a subjective belief may barely raise a feather!
Cheers
http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/life-satisfaction/
http://earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2960
Chris. Nice to talk with you again. As you and I have talked about before on these blogs we have a challenge over the miracles in the Bible. Either they took place or they did not. If they took place then we have a divine foot in the door. If Jesus rose from the dead we have a divine foot in the door. This is the challenge of how we reconcile science and the Bible. If science is the ultimate arbiter then the Bible is really just a bunch of nice stories but of no ultimate significance. And there is CS Lewis again. Lee Strobles, the Willowcreek and now Saddleback assoicate pastor who was an atheist reporter with the Chicago Tribune with a legal background who moved from atheism to belief in God and has written a number of books revealing that it is credible to believe in a God and in Jesus and in the resurrection.
I acknowledge that the interpretations that scientists place on the scientific record (and they are interpretations, since no one was there to observe) make it impossible to accept what the Bible says about creation and miracles and sin and the need for a Savior) But as I said it has to do with the presuppostions we bring to the subject. You and many others bring the assumption that the present is the key to the past. I , on the otherhand, in trying to understand why evil and sin is in the world bring the assumption that the introduction of sin changed some of the laws that we see today. That is why I am not confident that science really has the answers. And again the challenge is like Texas A&M playing the Dallas Cowboys. Before they can play they have to agree on whether they followo College rules or NFL rules. And that is why I do not post much anymore on this subject becauswe there is no point when we have not agreed on the rules. At the same time I believe that all Christians must love and accept each other as we are, treat eveyone with the utmost courtesy, and never wall ourselves off so completely that we do not share and converse with each other.
I am somewhat surprised that my good friend and AT colleague David made the comment that "Either they []Biblical miracles] took place or they did not" as if those are the only two alternatives. There are, of course, additional options. Obviously, no one alive today was present when the event reported in the Bible as a "miracle" took place, so we are dependent on a written account. We must then make some assumptions about the nature of that written account. Fundamentalist Christians, including Adventist Fundamentlists assume that if it recorded in the Bible in narrative form, what is recorded must be literally true and factually correct. That is an assumption. It would seem from that assumption comes the statement that either Biblical miracles took place or they did not. If you do not make this assumption, there are several additional options possible which, in part, depends on how much we understand today how those living at the time and place where the event occurred.defined what we today would call "miracles." How we understand this adds complexity to how we interpret today reported Biblical miracles In any event, there are multiple options as to how a story that a miracle occured is generated. Let us, for example, assume that an event took place 2000 years ago and those present interpreted the event as a miracle and that fact was written down. What do we now know about the event? The only thing we know is that those present thought it was a miracle and then it was written down and we have the written record to read today. Was it a miracle? We do not know. All we know is that a group of individuals living 2000 years ago said that a miracle occurred and that we have a record of that belief. If anyone has a suggestion as to what more one can resaonably conclude, I would hope that he or she would share that insight with the rest of us..
We seem to have some serious difficulties in getting "on the same page" regarding the quality and credibility of information, and, really, what sorts of information constitute "facts," "interpretations," "assumptions," and "speculation." I find it difficult to see anything "spiritual" or "supernatural" as credibly established fact. On the other hand, a piece of rock is tangible and has objective existence, as does a strand of DNA. The composition and context of the rock or DNA, its molecular composition and where it is found, can be objectively described and documented and compared across independent analyses and samples. Verification processes are possible.
Analyses can, however, be faulty. Mismeasures can occur. Descriptions can be inaccurate. The descriptions of events by various observers are nororiously unreliable. In the sense that they vary in mutually exclusive ways, they cannot all be valid, and they may all be flawed, at least to some extent.
So, we have some rocks that we can analyze repeatedly, using many different methods that characterize composition and morphology. Those rocks have objective reality in the present. There is a sense in which these are the most fundamental and credible evidence. Some of these rocks are shaped like bones. Some are arranged in layers. Those are the rocks that "cry out" to us with implications of deeper meaning. Their existence is factual. Detailed measures and analyses of such specimens yield consistent, reliable data, and these studies are replicable.
Descriptions of where specimens were found and the context in which they were found can be quite careful and objective–or, not so much. The quality of that information can vary from something found on the ground by a child walking home from school to photographic and GPS documentation of specific sites and depths and stratigraphy which can be revisited and subjected to repeated and detailed evaluation. So, the descriptions of context can be more or less factual and more or less well understood.
Beyond descriptions of context, there can be careful (or not-so-careful) guesses about what the specimen is or why it is found where it is found. In fact, the guesses (hypotheses, interpretations, explanations) can be highly speculative. They can be wild excursions into fantasy, or they can be closely related to the tangible evidence and other discoveries–or anything between wild and crazy notions and careful sensible deductions. The conclusions reached regarding meaning must be weighed against the quality of the actual facts, evidence, data, contexts, and reasonableness of the assessment.
All too often, it seems to me, that here and elsewhere, people misplace the degree of confidence that is warranted by the information they encounter. There is confusion over what is factual and what is interpretation. For example, in an opinion poll regarding an election, one may be asked who they will vote for. Their answer is evidence. It is a fact that they said they would vote for a particular candidate. One cannot appropriately infer that they actually will vote or that they will vote for the candidate they say they will. One can speculate about whether their answer is based on gender, race, sexual preference, education lever, etc., but the facts are only what they report how they say they will vote and how they identify themselves regarding the various characteristics.
With regard to reports of "miracles" 2000 years ago, we are very far removed from verification of the relevant facts. One may choose to believe they occurred as described belief should probably be held quite gently, with full recognition that the extent of the "fact" is the report itself, however it can to exist or may have been altered across the years. I find it hard to see how such reports add substance to understanding or faith.
"we have a challenge over the miracles in the Bible….. If science is the ultimate arbiter then the Bible is really just a bunch of nice stories but of no ultimate significance."
This infers a group decision, but who declared it to be? It is always a very personal decision how anyone reads and interprets the Bible, excepting of course, the faithful Catholics who wait for the papal pronouncements.
This ideology would eliminate the entire Bible, but if the miracles are the most important legacy of God found in the Bible, then it is a lot of nonsense. However, there are millions of Christians who have decided that the principles
found in the Bible are what has made the Bible the only book that has for the longest time, been held up as the moral code for millions, even non-Christians.
Christians aren't believers in miracles, but believers in Christ–who, together with his apostles left us the Gospel Commission and how it should be spread.
People at that time easily accepted miracles, which does not follow that it is required of Christians today who still believe in the priesthood of all believers. Sin and salvation are religious concepts and science does not address such abstracts that are part of religion, nor should it.
David,
Presuppositions play a key role. I think presuppositions only become a barrier IF participants refuse, or fail, to allow reason to inform their position.
Recognition of presuppositions solves nothing. Allowing them exposure to reason does. If reason is not the bridge to, or changer of, presuppositions – what is?
I have researched Strobels at length.
Who's reason?
The reason God gave you. Yours.
If not, who's? God's presumably. OK, which God? The Christian one? On who's reasoning?
Chris, you reminded me of this statement by one of the founders of the scientific method.
“A little philosophy [reason] inclineth a mens’ mind to atheism, but depth in reason bringeth mens’ minds about to religion. For while the mind of men looketh upon second causes scattered; it may sometimes rest in them and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to providence and Deity.”
Francis Bacon: Essays on Atheism
Bacon certainly influenced the early development of scientific epistemology–around 400 years ago! It may be of some value for us to give his ideas due consideration. Are we being asked to accept his words as some sort of authoritative epistemological statement? The "fact" in this case is not that what he said is true, merely that he wrote that statement at some point. We do not know how long, or with what strength, he believed what he wrote at that time. And just because a smart guy wrote something 400 years ago certainly does not make it so.
All I said was, I "was reminded of his statement."
Daniel Kahneman, a psychologist who won the Nobel Prize for economics, has written a book Thinking, Fast and Slow about the gallery of the built-in biases and strategies of the mind. He asks: "How do we decide things?" We identify and search only for confirming evidence: confirmation bias which gives us the illusion of understanding, i.e, WMD in Iraq, or why the debacle in Libya, which gives us the impression that we understand a situation when we don't.
There may be the endowment effect: when we buy something, our feelings about the purchase may somewhat depend on how others evaluate it. Whether friends approve or tell us it was not a bargain it will change our feelings about our "bargain."
This is what advertisers know: Create the "need" and fear of "loss" which encourages to "buy" a certain product, or a new applicance, that we previously never knew we "needed.". Personal endorsements of our opinions encourage us to believe that we are moving in the right direction; opposition moves us away with discomfort.
All this enhances confirmation bias. We seek endorsements of our opinions, and tend to reject those that oppose those positions.
Elaine, do these "built-in biases and strategies" skew the viewpoint of people like me only?
What about others?? All good research controls for what you speak of. Bias' must be stated, peer review must be performed and rules of logic must be applied.
It's the human condition; none are immune. I wasn't referring to research but for the ordinary non-scientist, we read or hear and can "sniff" out those things that confirm our previous biases. Am I possibly the only human who does?
For example, when I know researchers have a bias one way, and they report in peer reviewed stuff that their finding give evidence toward the other side (though they might camouflage the wording) then I can measure the degree of objectivity. A recent article in Trends in Genetics for example "Causes and evolutionary significance of genetic convergence," addresses the "convergent" appearance of genes or gene sequences and how unguided evolution has difficulty explaining: this. The paper defines convergence as the "independent appearance of the same trait in different lineages." The article explains how widespread convergent evolution is:
“The recent wide use of genetic and/or phylogenetic approaches has uncovered diverse examples of repeated evolution of adaptive traits including the multiple appearances of eyes, echolocation in bats and dolphins, pigmentation modifications in vertebrates, mimicry in butterflies for mutualistic interactions, convergence of some flower traits in plants, and multiple independent evolution of particular protein properties.”
(Pascal-Antoine Christin, Daniel M. Weinreich, and Guillaume Besnard, "Causes and evolutionary significance of genetic convergence," Trends in Genetics, Vol.26(9):400-405 (2010) (internal citations omitted).)
But what causes these similar traits to appear in widely diverse organisms? It turns out that "convergent" phenotypic similarity is often based upon "convergent" genetic similarity: "studies have traced phenotypic convergence to modifications of homologous genes; in this paper such phenomena will be further referred to as convergent recruitment" (emphasis added; internal citations omitted). Or, as the abstract states:
“Accumulating studies on this topic have reported surprising cases of convergent evolution at the molecular level, ranging from gene families being recurrently recruited to identical amino acid replacements in distant lineages. (emphasis added).”
The paper of course attempts to give a kind of evolution explanation, but even hear the idea of design escapes, “ convergent phenotypic traits occur due to convergent genetic evolution, which supposedly "results from a strongly biased potential for a given phenotypic change as a consequence of mutations in different genes."
Evolution isn't supposed to be goal-directed, but some force (“a strongly biased potential”) is causing the same sequences–at the genetic level–to appear independently over and over again. "Convergent recruitment of the same gene lineage from multigene families affords an ideal system for studying the predisposition of particular genes for a given novel function."
Using known bias’ of researchers can actually can help us measure the objectivity level. Like when Professor Witland discussed the strong evidences of an old earth, going against his own grain. Knowing our bias’ and those of others can be helpful.
Darrel, can I suggest you go back to part 1 of Dr Taylors blogs on this thread topic, and read over again and again what Joe Greig has said re letting the foot in the door. Wrap your mind around it a few times, especially the last few sentences.
I note above I "reminded you of a statement". Wow. Pardon my frustration, but as wonderful as that is, what about digesting the impact of what I said in answer to your question/s. Who's reason? YOURS. Just as, for some miraculous Reason, Bacon is allowed to use his reason, within his limited, relatively scientifically baren wilderness, to make statements based on reason so are YOU. Your privelige is you no longer live in a scientific wilderness! Well, perhaps some do…by choice. (yes I know you are full of wisdom on ID relevant trivia, but imho you are looking at the leaves and are lost in the forest. Sorry, but that's how it seems to me.)
ch25
"You write Recognition of presuppositions solves nothing. Allowing them exposure to reason does. If reason is not the bridge to, or changer of, presuppositions – what is?"
Good point. The problem is which reason do we want? There are really only two presuppositions when it comes to the origin of the universe. Chance created something or something created something. Now let's try and use reason. Which is the most reaonable of the two presuppostions? Which takes more faith? Now some, to try and avoid this dilemma, might just say "I don 't know" but that is not a good answer becasue it leaves open the possibility that chance, or nothing created something. If I accept that chance created something then I still have to have a lot of faith that chaos produced order, that all the fine tunings required for this universe to exist were also "guided" by chance.
CS Lewis was an atheist unntil he was 31. But at that age he came to realize that atheism did not answer his deepest longins. He did not want to "believe" but in his autobiorgraphy Surprise by Joy" he wrote that finally he became "England's most reluctant convert." And then he spent the rest of his life writing about the validity of there being a God. He is considered one of the greatest minds of the 20th century. So I am in good company if I believe in a God and find it reasonable to believe in a God.
In the end the believer and the non believer still use reason to believe the same thing–eternity. Either a thinking being from eternity or nothing from eternity. For me it is more reasonable that intelligence guided the formation of the exquisite laws of this universe than chance.
"There are really only two presuppositions when it comes to the origin of the universe."
Where is it written that one must choose or expect the penalty–of simply not knowing? There are many things we can learn, many things we will never know. Man is a curious animal and like Eve, searches for knowledge, but although curiosity to learn was given by the same Creator that punished her and her descendats for wanting to know, we still seek answers.
Such a penalty does not discourage inquiry, but had God chosen to reveal the secrets, instead of allowing man to discover them, would He not have chosen that path? Are we willing to rest in admitting that there is no absolute answer?
We use our reason; but that has been trained to follow certain paths and dismiss others in arriving at reason. Those who have been preprogrammed to see God, will see Him; those who have been taught to use their own reasoning power may not arrive at the same answers. Who is to declare only one is the right answer who is not also prejudiced?
Chris, are you asking me which god I believe in? Can you clarify please
David,
mmm. You and I (plus others) have had this discussion before.
The two propositions you put ONLY deal with "what" or "how" the "something" began. There are several propositions about "where to", and "how it goes from there", that are possible from either of those "starting propositions".
Lewis ended up taking the presuppostion that "something created something". However, you must be aware that he then took the evolutionary path for what came from, or after, that START. He also saw the OT as little more than a bunch of stories, the NT as valid, but mythical. THE myth, if you like.
I suspect Lewis took the evolutionary path because, having begun at the "point of silence" with the "something brought about something" (God) propposition, he used his reason enough to allow empirical, observable data (science) to inform him about the train of events AFTER the start.
You may find it usefull to read my comments re a priori on Jacks thread re the "point of silence".
You say: "For me it is more reason – able that intelligence guided the formation of the exquisite laws of this universe than chance." Bold & – added.
No problem. May I suggest you also use that same reason(ing) to a posteriori evaluate just how that intelligence guided the formation of, not just those laws, but the reality we see, right down to life on this earth. You are welcome to take it back into silence and see a God, but you are not free to claim reason, as above, while at the same time ignoring the mountain of data that speaks of deep time and evolutionary processes unfolding. To do so is not reasonable:)
ch25
It seems that we have reached some agreement. Some on the AT website deny any sort of existence for God. All I have done is try and use reason, as you suggest, to try and discover which is the more reasonable way to understand origins and which takes the most faith. Can we at least celebrate for a little while that level of agreement before we go any furthe?
Chris, deep time and "a process" does equal an "naturalistic" process, correct?
David,
🙂 Yes, abiogenesis and what came before that is entering into the silent zone. What one posits for that zone is perhaps subjective. However, lest ye rejoice too much, we need to keep in mind that silence has a habit of being pushed back. The "God of the gaps" has been pushed out of many a canyon into the smallest of crevices before today. The canyon of what was before the universe may be a canyon today, and the realm of play, for a God of the gap, but for how long?
Do be careful to not interpret what can seem agreement with what may be in the silent zone as agreement of further extensions of thought about how a God may act if He is the author of the beginning.
We/you may a priori state a God began it all. We can a posteriori ascertain ways He did NOT act in the following processes! eg YEC etc. In other words, one cannot prove there is no God, but one sure can put a strong case for ways he has not acted, or does not act.
Darrel, no I'm not asking which God you believe in. I'm stating that if you want to accept God's reason, not man's reason. Then you first have to decide which God you are going to listen to. To do that you will use reason! My point being that no matter how much you deny it you are ultimately using reason to determine what process, God, etc you will follow. You cannot have it both ways.
Re deep time equall to naturalistic process. So what if it does? If I check my watch right now I am running late for lunch because I am doing this. Life runs well on naturalistic processes! You have used your brain to process all this data. It is natural and it works.
Come now let us reason together says the Lord…. And reason is suspect!?
No, beyond all the usual caveats, I do not think reasoning is suspect at all. You have spent hours on AT trying to present a reasoned case for ID. Now you tell me reason is suspect!
There are too many for whom reason becomes suspect only when if followed to its logical conclusions would take them where they do not want to go. ie Little, if no evidence for a God/god, massive evidence for evolutionary processes. Desperately scanty evidence for an interventionist God. Major evidence for a harsh and blood filled journey for millions of years and for 98% of species that are no longer with us…and on it goes.
No, reason is not suspect. What is more suspect is my humility in accepting where it may take me.
Given materialism, the foundations for reason are out the widow.
C S Lewis sought to prove that naturalism or materialism is inherently illogical. Philosopher Victor Reppert in his book C.S. Lewis' Idea: A Philosophical Defense of Lewis' Argument From Reason. He argues that Lewis' argument from reason is dangerous to naturalism because it undermines it altogether. He restates Lewis' argument, taking into account crisiticisms made against it.
1. No belief is rationally inferred if it can be fully explained in terms of nonrational causes.
2. If materialism is true, then all beliefs can be fully explained in terms of nonrational causes.
3. Therefore, if materialism is true, then no belief is rationally inferred.
4. If any thesis entails the conclusion that no belief is rationally inferred, then it should be rejected and its denial accepted.
5. Therefore materialism should be rejected and its denial accepted.
Reppert then proceeds to philosophical defend this argument against all philosophical objections. He defended his PhD dissertation on this subject before a committee who were hostile to his conclusion, but despite this he passed.
David,
An interim question. If you set out to philosophically reject reason and materialism – what is your end goal? What are you aiming to determine from the exercise?
I will rephrase my question to pick up your point clearer: If you set out to philosophically reject and materialism – what is your end goal? What are you aiming to determine from the exercise? I had the word reason in my question earlier because that is the drift I have been on. I am actually wondering where have I been talking directly about materialism, and how what you have said in those points is directly relevant to what I've been saying?
cb25
Good question. Reason is only a method and not the only method of arriving at truth. If we only use reason as our method then we invariably end up with naturalism/materialism which in the end is bankrupt as I tried to show. When we use reason how do we decide which presupposition is the most reaonable: chance produced the universe or something produced the universe?
Reason has an infinite ability to rationalize. Reason cannot tell me that I am a sinner. Reason cannot tell me that I need a Savior. Jesus told a great story that illustrates my point. Lazarus, a begger, and a rich man both die. The rich man ends up in hell and Lazarus in heaven (the opposite of prevailing wisdom). The rich man begs Abraham to send an angel to warn his brothers.
29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’” (Luke 16).
You would think that someone coming back from the dead would convince anyone but Jesus is saying that if I do not want to accept something or believe something there is always a way that I can "prove" that I am right and the other person is wrong. That is why we have had this discussion before. And why we should probably not continue much longer because the other method of understanding is faith and to those who only want to use the method of reason that method seems illogical and pointless.
The Bible clearly points out that faith is also a method along with reason. 1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. Heb 11:1-2. Notice that it is not by reason but by faith that we ultimately understand how the universe came into being. Well, I have said enough. I do appreciate your willingness to engage in discussion but like CS Lewis came to realize there are some things that reason cannot inform me on and I have to learn those other things through faith.
So Chris, is you feeling such as the following from Fransico Ayala, “Attributing ‘Nature’ to the agency of the Creator amounts to blasphemy. These proponents and followers of ID are surely well-meaning people who do not intend such blasphemy, but this is how matters appear to a biologist concerned that God not be slandered with the imputation of incompetent design.” ? Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion (Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press, 2007), 159-60.
Is this really the thing that seems "unreasonable" to you?
I don't mean to be derogatory at all. I am just attempting to clearify when we are talking about science and wnen we are talking about theology and when we are talking about logic. One can't completely tease apart these all the time. And ultimately we do not really want to, but for the sake of analysis it is helpful to separate them out sometimes.
When should reason be applied? On only some questions, but not on others? IOW, we should abandon our reason and simply let the spirit lead us? How can we be sure what spirit it is if there are believed to be evil spirits?
Erv
Erv just reminded me that I had not commented on his remark about my statement on miracles. He misunderstood what I said. I was not discussing how we know about miracles. I was simply stating that there are ONLY two options. Either miracles take place or they do not. I cannot think of any other options. It is the same as saying a man is either alive or dead. Now how we report on miracles and so on is another subject but that was not the point of my post.
David,
Miracles are in the eye of the beholder and as they are perceived when reported.
It is a false analogy to compare miracles to death or life. There is no dispute when someone is declared dead, but we all know that what may have been miracles in stories from past times very often have rational explanations. Illustrations should not be necessary, but one will suffice: One hundred years ago it would have been a miracle for someone to survive with another human's lung or other organ implanted in his body.
A cartoon in Non Sequitur this morning: two old men dressed in robes approaching a building corner from opposite directions, each bearing identical
signs:
"Mine is truth, yours is myth.
Elaine, as I have already posted you cannot force anyone to believe anything. We all have faith. It just depends what we place faith in. I choose to place faith in a supernatural being who created me and gave his life for me. Others choose to place faith in nothing, that nothing produced something. In the end when we come to ultimate realities we all live by faith. I choose to believe that there is ultimate meaning to life. Others choose to believe that there is no ultimate meaning to life. Both still require faith since we cannot prove God or disprove God.
Elaine, you wrote A cartoon in Non Sequitur this morning: two old men dressed in robes approaching a building corner from opposite directions, each bearing identical
signs:
"Mine is truth, yours is myth. That is very true. I agree completely. There is no one who is totally objective. We all look at things from subjective ways. In our house we have a saying when we cannot agree, "It's the blood." And everyone knows the meaning of that phrase.
Years ago I attended a mental health seminar at Harding Hospital in Worthington, Ohio. Dr. Harding told us this story. A patient was brought in claiming that she was dying because all her blood had gone from her body. Her relatives begged Dr. Harding to draw some blood so she could see that she still had blood in her body. Dr. Harding said that would not do any good, that we have infinite ways to justify our point of view. But finally, to satisfy the relatives he agreed to draw some blood.
As he did so the woman shrieked "See I told you I was right. There is the last drop of blood leaving my body."
We are in some ways like the Queen in Alice in Wonderland who said, "“Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
The key to discussion is still caring for each other without being disagreeable.
To continue Elaine's story:
…The two old men bumped into one another as they rounded the corner. Collecting themselves apologetically, they smiled and greeted one another, fell into conversation and sat for a coffee at a nearby coffee house.
They were in fact humble men and they agreed that either could in fact be holding the myth or the truth. They decided to find out:
Taking a big sheet of paper they drew a large diamond shape on it. The shape rested on its edge and ran across the page. They drew a line down the centre and cut the diamond in half. Next each wrote his truth, or was it myth, at the very outer point of the diamond. One on the left and one on the right….then they set to work thinking about what evidence there was for each truth claim. When they found evidence for a truth claim they wrote it down inside the half of the diamond belonging to that side. They googled on their phones, they rang scientist mates, hours passed…
Eventually, exhausted of leads, they stared at the diamond. One side was almost full of points of evidence, gleaming like diamonds themselves and lighting up the truth of the claim. The other side was almost empty. The old man whos side was near empty rose, and they shook hands in new understanding.
Change the picture…one of the old men was a Christian. He kept trying to put things in his half of the diamond that were invisible…kept saying it was a matter of faith. He never could understand why after hours of writing in his evidence, his side of the diamond was still empty! Well, he should have figured the obvious – invisible things were exaclty that. If his invisibilities became visible they would no longer have been faith.
The other old man had a half diamond gleaming with evidence. His friend smiled and said it did not count – "only faith mattered." It was, after all a valid way of arriving at truth, he said. He had reasoned that out and was absolutely sure…it was logical..wasn't it?
mmm. .
This reminds me of the little ditty:
Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
I wish, I wish he’d go away
BTW, Chris, your illustration couldn't be improved!
David, I will just pick up a point or two from your earlier reply to me.
"Reason is only a method and not the only method of arriving at truth. If we only use reason as our method then we invariably end up with naturalism/materialism which in the end is bankrupt as I tried to show."
Naturalism and Materialism are not the same thing. Showing materialism is bankrupt, if you did, has nothing to do with my points about reason, evidence empirical data etc.
As for faith being a method of arriving at truth. Are you serious? How would you demonstrate to someone that their version of faith was wrong? ie Muslim, Mormon etc? If faith is itself beyond reason you have no claim or right or method to suggest another's faith is not valid and truth. NONE.
We don't actually arrive at truth anyway. Only ever approximations to it, and such a position requires humility. Our problem as Christians is that we presuppose a God who has spoken with authority about truth claims. These in turn become "ours" and we are qualified to defend them as truth because by faith we have accepted their dictates and rule. Faith contributes little to a diamond discussion!
"Naturalism and materialism are not the same thing," ??? Chris, are you invoking 'elan vital', a kissing cousin of Ellen Whites' vital force?
Darrel, please go search up a good definition of "materialism" and "naturalism" for me…
I guess as you see it that will require only one definition?
Still waiting…?
Darrel,
You may find this interesting while you are looking.
http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/sellars-PER/2-09-why.html
ch25
Some of the challenge for both of us is our speaking in absolute terms. You write, "As for faith being a method of arriving at truth. Are you serious?" Yes, I am serious. This is the classic view. There are four basic intellectual positions about the relationship between faith and reason. We can represent them as mathematical equation where R stands for reason and F stands for faith.
R – F = M (Modernism or rationalism)
F – R = f (fideism or faith-ism)
– F – R = P (Postmodernism)
F + R = C (classic approach).
M for modernism says only reason can give you truth. F of fideism is at the opposite end where you do not need reason to understand divine things. Some forms of postmodernism eliminate any objective basis for reason or faith. It is highly relativistic, what is true for you is true for you but does not have to mean it is true for me. The classical view: faith plus reason is the one that CS Lewis used in his book Mere Christianity. On page 124 he writes: "I'm not asking anyone to accept Christianity if his best reasoning tells him that the weight of evidence is against it." Lewis believeed that there was enough evidence for Christ to lead to the psychological exclusion of doubt, but not the logical exclusion of dispute.
Scientists use faith too all the time as a method of arriving at truth. For example, no one has seen an electron. It is accepted by faith. Why? Because there seems to be evidence for such an entity but no one has actually seen one. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is accepted by faith. No one can explain how you cannot know the position and the velocity of a sub atomic particle at the same time. there seems to be compelling evidence but no one has actually seen these particles.
This the same with faith as Lewis explains. I have seen much evidence in my life and in the life of others that supernatural forces are at work. But like the electron I cannot see them but I can see enough evidence that leads me to believe that they exist.
David,
First, I think you should at least put that copied material in "". I've read that almost word for word on a site someplace.
Next, the Lewis' quote: "I'm not asking anyone to accept Christianity if his best reasoning tells him that the weight of evidence is against it."
You suggest the F + R approach. Apply that very carefully to the quote noted. At what point does Lewis allow a person should not be asked to accept Christianity? IF his BEST reasoning tells him that the weight of what is against it? EVIDENCE.
You have so far avoided my point that Lewis believed in an evolutionary process. DO you agree this is the case? Yes or no would be fine!
IF, I am correct that he did accept an evolutionary process. Why? There are ample dictates in the Bible speaking against such a position. (Just ask a whole bunch of commenters on AT and they will confirm that.)
I will suggest why. Because his best reasoning told him that the weight of evidence was against the alternative/s. That, I suggest is how he lived out any F + R. R was the final arbiter.
You hold Lewis's intellect in high esteem, as do I. However, as profound as his insights may have been on any topic, we must allow that knowledge has not stood still. If my best reasoning tells me that the weight of evidene is against any particular claim of Christianity. R will hold F to account.
It was Petrarch who suggested that God would not have bestowed intellect upon humanity without expecting it to be used to improve the human condition. It was these ideas that proved fundamental to the creative flowering of the Renaissance.
A faith that is not reasoned, or even resonable, is worshiping the invisible: It defies explanation, and can be neither explained nor proven. But Christians never cease trying to convince others that they have extraordinary powers to view in the invisible by simple reasoning.
cb25
You want me to commit myself to saying yes or no that C S Lewis was an evolutionist. I had never given this much thought so have done a little research. Lewis, it seems, did not want to get into this discussion. He explained he was not a scientist. He accepted some aspects of evolution but he also believed in Adam and Eve and the Fall as historical events. At a dinner party he was asked who he would like most to meet in heaven. Here is his reply:
Adam was, from the first, a man in knowledge as well as in stature. He alone of all men ‘had been in Eden, in the garden of God, he had walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire’. He was endowed, says Athanasius, with ‘a vision of God so far-reaching that he could contemplate the eternity of the Divine Essence and the coming operation of His Word’. He was ‘a heavenly being’ according to St. Ambrose, who breathed the aether and was accustomed to converse with God ‘face to face’.
Helen Gardner, a church-goer with a deep interest in the seventeenth century English metaphysical poets, ventured to suggest that Adam, if he existed, would be a Neanderthal ape-like figure whose conversation would hardly be interesting. Apparently, Lewis responded in a gruff voice: ‘I see we have a Darwinian in our midst."
Chris, this is really a red herring. I am not basing my beliefs on CS Lewis. And I am not debating evolution here. I am still on the issue of whether there is a God or not and the value of Christianity. I only cite Lewis as an example of someone who used reason to move from atheism to Christianity. As I said, the classic view is a combination of reason and faith. Lewis was willing to allow people to use reason not to be a Christian but he also used reason to show that Christianity was reasonable.
Then I found this wonderful quote:
C.S. Lewis on materialistic thoughts
‘If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’
C.S. Lewis (1898–1963), The Business of Heaven, Fount Paperbacks, U.K., p. 97, 1984.
Very interesting David. The story of Anthony Flew who through reason and the genetic eevidence gave up any material view, abandoned atheism to believe in God.
The evidence is really there, but some, as Darwin was, trammeled by
theological concerns. The problem of imperfection for example!
David,
You .. "only cite Lewis as an example of someone who used reason to move from atheism to Christianity."
You are welcome to use him as an example. What it proves is a diffferent matter. I am also using him as an example of someone for whom reason took him to a quite different place within Christianity than most here.
Here's another quote you might find interesting. You might prefer other terms, but I would describe this as an evolutionary process.
Lewis, in "The Problem of Pain". "For long centuries, God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself. he gave it hands whose thumb could be applied to each of the fingers, and jaws and teeth and throat capable of articulation, and a brain sufficiently complex to execute all of the material motions whereby rational thought is incarnated. The creature may have existed in this state for ages before it became man: it may even have been clever enough to make things which a modern archaeologist would accept as proof of its humanity. But it was only an animal because all its physical and psychical processes were directed to purely material and natural ends. Then, in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say “I” and “me,” which could look upon itself as an object, which knew God, which could make judgments of truth, beauty and goodness, and which was so far above time that it could perceive time flowing past….
…We do not know how many of these creatures God made, nor how long they continued in the Paradisal state. But sooner or later they fell. Someone or something whispered that they could become as gods…."(C.S. Lewis, Problem of Pain, 68-71)
I was wondering when someone would produce that quote from Lewis in which he declared that he was no fundamentlist when it came to human origins. I personally would have no problem with Lewis's view of this. I notice that he did not use the term "soul" to describe the process whereby "God caused to descend upn this organism, both on its psychology and phsiololgy, a new kind of consciousness . . ." I am especially curious if my good friend and AT colleague, David, would agree with Lewis here.
David,
I think, to get back to your point about the issue of whether there is a God or not and the value of Christianity.
Let me pick up a point I made earlier that was on topic.
You may choose a priori state a God began it all. No one can prove that wrong.
But, here is the problem. By observing nature, empirical evidence, the world around us, by reasoning the weight of evidence – we can a posteriori ascertain ways He did NOT act in the following after he began it all.
It is for this reason I believe Lewis held the OT as essentially myth, and Adam and Eve as the result of a long process. He knew the "truth" that while we can assume by faith a God began it all, we cannot with integrity to reason teach that he then acted in ways he clearly did not. eg God clearly did not do it all with a 6 day week 6 kyrs ago. The a posteriori evidence is against such claims.
My point is that, as I said before, you are welcome to make the claim there is a God. Neither you nor I are free to make claims for that God which are directly and clearly in contradiction to the evidence.
As Jack has alluded to on his thread, making such claims actually undermines the value of Christianity. So, I suggest that if you want to uphold the value of one (Christianity), don't make unjustified, or unjustifiable, claims about the other (God). That is not the same as saying there is no God!
"GOD PERFECTED the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself. " I personally don't hold this exactly, but it clearly is not a proper evolutionary view; am I wrong?
I didn't say evolutionary "view", I said "process". ie one that implies time, change, development. In the strict sense I would think an evolutionary "view" can be used to describe evolution in its full sense. What Lewis seems to be describing is a God guided evolving of his creature/s that became man. One can, I think, safely assume he saw this process reflected in nature in general, but again, God guided. I suspect folk like Jack would have little trouble with such a concept.
Didn't EGW once say that Adam was about 12 feet tall? Maybe to fight off the contemporary dinosaurs?
Elaine has done it again! Why didn't I think of that! Of course, that's the reason that Adam was about 12 foot tall — to fight off the dinosaurs! It is so logical and rational. Except . . . Hmm.
Yes, that quote on evolution by Lewis from his book on the Problem of Pain was written in 1940 but by the 1950s he was changing his tune. The quotes I gave earlier was the later Lewis when he was questioning evolution. A person can change their positions. Lewis was also weak on the atonement. He did not pretend to be a theologian. Again, my point which seems to be constantly missed. He moved from atheism to Christianity by a combination of faith and reason. That is all I am trying to say. One does not have to agree lwith everything a person writes or believes to still find some benefit. Again, I posted earlier that in a way this discussion we are having is really of not much value because I do not see anyone shifting theiri position. We play by different rules and we have infinite capacities to justify our position. Since we have never agreed on the rules for our discussion we are really talking passed each other. And we have gone over this ground in previous blogs so there is not much point rehashing it all over again.
As the old saying goes: A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. And we can keep going round and round on the same points saying the same thing with different words. Believing and experiencing God is a little like falling in love with your spouse. You cannot define exactly what happened in rational terms but you experienced a change. Your feelings changed toward the other person. Yes, your mind was engaged but you never made a list that said when a person meets these conditions I will fall in love. Love is both a principle and an experience. That is probably the best analogy I can use for experiencing God. And for Lewis, ultimately, it was the experience of finding true joy that brought him into Christianity and a relationship with God.
"Believing and experiencing God is a little like falling in love with your spouse. You cannot define exactly what happened in rational terms but you experienced a change."
So true. Despite all the intellectual arguments, in reality most of us seem to believe or not believe based on some sort of emotional experience. Rational and scientific arguments are then later used to merely justify those emotionally formulated positions.
I don't believe it a coincidence that most people who regularly visit AToday who are believers have had relatively good emotional experiences in the Church, whilst the ex-Adventists have often had pretty rotten times. I think we all use intellectual and rational arguments to hide behind deep emotional experiences.
As perhaps an extreme example, I often wonder if Dawkins would been so militant in his atheism, or an atheist at all, if he hadn't been molested by a priest as a child. Lewis own response to grief is also very interesting.
Paul probably said it best in 1 Cor. 13 when he noted the emptiness of truth and knowledge without love. It is for that reason that I would rather personally a 'God Delusion' than any supposed purported 'scientific' atheistic truth.
Thus we are to conclude that each individual is free to pick and choose what he or she will accept as true, rational and meaningful in his or her search for ultimate meaning or God, as the case may be. To my good friend and AT colleague, it is his own personal experience and he the only person who can make a valid determination if that experience is true, rational and meaningful. We finally agree on something.
David,
I appreciate Dr Taylor for his blog which has enabled us to dialogue, and it has been interesting to chat once again.
I think I have attempted to address your point/s, but, yes, wandered off from time to time. Sorry for that.
For being committed to reasonable assessment of empirical data and the world around me I make no apologies. Nor do I apologise for having a personal faith that remains subjective and therefore must fit around the vast data at our fingertips. That data speaks about what a God can, at least NOT be like, if He is. It also speaks to deep time after any causal or starting event.
So, till the next chat…cheers
FYI
The most recent exploration of CS Lewis on evolution is
The Magician's Twin: C.S. Lewis on Science, Scientism, and Society.
Edited by John G. West
(Discovery Institute Press, 350 pages, $24.95)
Review: " Lewis respected science, but he rejected the idea that it is the only reliable method of knowledge about the world. He called that error scientism. As for evolution, his skepticism about it increased over the years."
For those who are interested in the above book on Lewis, I had a read of chapter 7 (free download).
To use Darrel's illustration: The bias bar appears extremely high, and my gut feeling is that the objectivity is conversely low.
The chapter is on Lewis and ID.
Speaking as a person with little knowledge of the higher sciences, and with no hatchet to grind, also
not raised in the SDA tradition as it appears most here have been, yet i have been involved in SDA for over forty years. i feel as follows: Where angels fear to tread. My observations:
Life forms are matter/materialism, as is everything. The ghosts of the past continue to play with our reasoning, and or our faith. Solid non life forms frequently have measurable qualities that present factual evidence of age. Scientists are highly influenced by empirical evidence, and usually do not suffer any alternative that is impossible to measure, i.e. the supernatural, intell. design, & faith. Many highly educated people usually classify themselves as agnostics, believeing there may be a creator, but have no evidence there is. While others are atheistic , declaring "there is no god".
The faith based person is unable to accept the evidence of complexity without a designer, but there is
no way to measure its quality. For approx. the past 200 years this has caused a dichotomy in that the
scientific minded (evolution oriented) faction and the conservative Bible faith based group have not been able to form a consensus, and often come to loggerheads, sometimes leading to heat & ridicule.
i readily see why conservative Christians & agnostics wish to debate these themes on AT, as they
believe there is a Creator God, or there maybe. i wonder why a atheist would wish to be bothered by
such impossible suppositions? As above, J.David has stated, we continue to debate these points over & over again, using the same arguements used before, and stop only when we realize once again there
is no consensus.Well, i wish to offer another element that has received little input, and is often ridiculed. The supernatural (which can't be proved empirically). i was raised by a single mother w/4 children, a life long believer in Christ, she instructed us daily in the Lord. After leaving home, in the military, i didn't practice my mother's instruction. i had 3 incidents which were life/death scenarios, 2 were aircraft related that i survived, the other one was escaping from a Arabic mob in Libya. In each i thought i was going to be dead, but for some reason i was able to escape. When i was 41 yrs, while in the Bahamas (they drive on the right there), my wife's very high billowy hat blew off as we walked across a divided road. i turned back to fetch it, and found myself directly in the path of a fast moving bus. The brakes were screeching a high pitch, and i knew my time was up. i actually felt something move me out of the way, and the bus missed my nose by a couple inches. My wife saw no one near me, and she couldn't believe the outcome. Several weeks later i developed severe pains in my abdomen and three parasites were found, one extremely rare. Although my wife ate & drank the
same while on vacation, she was tested but no parasites. The med given me was Atabrine. It proved toxic to my brain, and i developed a deeply depressive state, it happened in a moment, and my thoughts were imminent death. For a week i struggled, and finally went to emergency/hosp. Fortunately a personal friend, MD, was on duty. He immed put me in isolation and started iv's. i was crushed with the unending feeling i was dying. i heard my name called. the voice was clear, it spoke to me, "earl, i have suffered long with you. you have had many chances. my voice will grow weaker, and you will hear me no more". The following hours were an ordeal as i struggled, in prayer pleading for forgiveness and pledging my faith to Christ. Suddenly i became aware that my head was clearing, and i knew i was saved, once again, by what i believe were supernatural events. i can never give up this faith in Christ. Were these escapes just lucky? Did i have a sudden miracle as did Saul, on the road to Damascus? Is the supernatural a dimension that is a reality that cannot be proved. Is it also a part of "the unknown" that is spiritually perceived by man?