I am deeply convinced of the evil and misery of a sinful state, of the vanity of creatures,
but also of the sufficiency of Christ.
When thou wouldst guide me I control myself,
When thou wouldst be sovereign I rule myself.
When thou wouldst take care of me I suffice myself.
When I should depend on thy providings I supply myself,
When I should submit to thy providence I follow my will,
When I should study, love, honour, trust thee, I serve myself;
I fault and correct thy laws to suit myself,
Instead of thee I look to man's approbation, and am by nature an idolater.
Lord, it is my chief design to bring my heart back to thee.
Convince me that I cannot be my own god, or make myself happy, nor my own Christ to restore my joy, nor my own Spirit to teach, guide, and rule me.
Then take me to the cross and leave me there.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Monday, November 23, 2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Baptist, Catholic and Atheist Discuss Science and God
Mark
"We are not now looking to the physical world for hints of God's existence but to God's existence as an aid for understanding why things have developed in the physical world in the manner they have." John Polkinghorne - Belief in God in an Age of Science.
John
I understand so that I don't need to believe -- John
Jeff
I like this quote. I would say Mr. Polkinghorne understands the scripture in Hebrews 11:3 which states, "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what is visible". It's quite beautiful, really. Without faith, it's impossible to please God. Mr. Polkinghorne now goes one step deeper with his question does he not? The awesome thing is one need not spend a wrestless night pondering the answer to his question.
John
You might find it interesting that I have had dinner with Polkinghorn and been to his office in Cambridge (England). He is a very interesting guy--although I don't much agree with his perspective on this topic, since God doesn't exist other than in the imagination of humans.
In any case, the best part of our meeting was that he allowed me to walk across the grass with him in the quadrangle at his college at Cambridge, which is strictly prohibited by students, but allowed for faculty. That was more than twenty years ago.
Jeff
Hey John! That's fascinating! I have an interest in the British and their views on faith. They have such a rich heritage--especially with respect to the Anglican church. A certain Dr. Richard Turnbull, Principal of Wycliffe Hall at Oxford, came and spoke at my school just last week. His lecture too, was fascinating. John, what is your story? Could you tell me about yourself and your views? I would be sincerely interested in hearing your thoughts :-)
John
Hi Jeff, I'm a professor of religious studies and anthropology. I would argue that all societies have a rich heritage when it comes to religion (I would not use the word "faith" as it does not apply to many non-Western societies, although is appropriate for Britain). My views would take more than the space possible here to write. But the short of it is that I would argue that there is no evidence for any kind of god; rather there is strong evidence that all human societies have developed some concept of a deity and that this is often used to explain things that can't otherwise be explained or to provide a means of coping with difficult situations, such as death.
Jeff
John, I am now a graduate student at a Theological Seminary. My time in college was pivotal in showing me how selfish I was in pursuing a career that had nothing to do with what I believe God wanted for my life. Now I am a student of the gospel and am pursuing an M.M. in church music. I would very much like to get to know you better. I would like to know why you believe there is no God. How would you like to proceed?
John
My reason for not believing in any god is quite simple: there is no evidence for the existence of any supernatural being. From my perspective stating that one believes in God is no different from stating that one believes in Santa Claus. They are both characters in stories created by humans to help in understanding their world or to provide meaning to the world. Humans create many fantastic stories and beings to do this; the god of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam is one of them.
Mark
I think it comes down to chosing one of two conclusions. You can see the world and say we're simple lucky to have this "free lunch" or you can realize that there must be more then dumb luck at play. Using John Leslie analogy involving a fishing apparatus that will only accept a fish exactly 23.2576 inches long. Upon casting my rod into the lake I immediately have a catch which is simply my good luck-without thinking anything more on the matter.
Is that really all there is to life, just dumb luck? Sorry, but I don't think so.
John
Given the virtually unimaginable size of the universe, I think there is good reason to think that we are the product of random processes. Random in the sense of origin; once the process of evolution began, there were parameters in which the process unfolded. If this only happened once in the universe (which I doubt), then we are the 23.2576 long fish.
Jeff
John, I apologize for not getting back to you earlier I had to get some sleep before class this morning. I'm heading out as I write this to you. My question to you is if this is all a random set of occurrences (evolution being the explicative device), then how do you explain the existence of love? No, I do not mean that infatuated feeling one gets at the onset of a relationship. I mean true, unadulterated, unconditional, agape love. To further clarify, if the world is all about evolution and natural selection, then actual unconditional love is completely superfluous and irrelevant to evolution's purpose. Yet, it exists. Why? Is this a human weakness we all share? Why can't we "evolve" past it? I'd like to ask you a question about your previous note to me later. Have a wonderful day, John!!
John
I didn't really state that all of this is random. Rather, the starting point was a random event. Following that, evolution occurs in a context of restraints. Evolution is about the reproduction of genes. Emotions such as love seem to me to be an adaptive trait that would help in insuring that one's genes not only get passe on, but get protected so that they can also produce offspring. I would not argue that love (unconditional or otherwise) is a weakness; it is a trait. Furthermore, evolution is not a matter of moving "past" anything. It is a process of change in which organisms that are well adapted to a given context produce more offspring than those that are not as well adapted. For modern humans, society is part of the environment in which we operate. Love may be adaptive in terms of dealing with other humans. Nothing about natural selection would make love superfluous.
Jeff
John, I believe the insinuation of evolution is that life is an accident. That all of this is random is an extrapolation of that supposition to which you admit subscribing to. John, I am speaking of love as an action, not as a trait or an emotion. Unconditional love is (and should be) free of emotional bias, and per my point of view is not intrinsic to our nature. It [the act of loving unconditionally] is the result of an inner transformation which manifests itself in the lifestyle of a human being--namely a Christian. I believe that the Bible is quite explicit about how we don't love out of our own strength, but because Christ first loved us. If you desire, you may find that in 1 John 4:19. Speaking practically to your position on love, evolution, and the passing on of genes: Why is it that a human being would exercise the action of unconditional love toward a person of lesser evolutionary potential? Does that not violate the principal of evolution--to breed one's race up?
Jeff
P.S. > I'm very glad you don't think natural selection predicates an unfavorable view of love. It would seem by your testimony that you believe in love. Would it sound unusual to you that I have felt compassion on your behalf despite having met you just last night?
John
Jeff, I'm afraid that you do not have a good understanding of evolutionary theory. First, evolution has absolutely nothing to do with species (I think you mean this by using "race") success. It is only about the success of individual organisms relative to their environments. As for love as an action, I'm not sure what you mean, but all actions are generated by states of the brain, so it would remain a fundamentally biological trait of human beings. As for the Bible, it is irrelevant in this discussion because it is a work of fiction. While it is at times a very profound and interesting work of fiction, it remains nothing more than a conglomeration of stories. You ask why a human would excerise an action of unconditional love toward a person of lesser evolutionary potential. How would we identify another person's evolutionary potential? But that really isn't the point. The point is that from an evolutionary perspective we act on the basis of self-interest, which is complex.
Even altruistic behavior may have underlying motivations related to self-interest. As for the issue of randomness, yes the emergence of life was a random event. On the PS, natural selection is completely neutral when it comes to love or any other emotion. Love is a characteristic feature of human behavior--nothing else. I do not believe in love; it is a fact of human biology and an important structural component of human cognition and of many human societies. However, love does not mean the same thing for all humans--it varies in relation to cultural context. As for compassion, since you have stated that you are a Christian, your comment is predictable. THus, I would not find it unusual.
Mark
As my quote from John Polkinghorn alludes to, there is nothing about science that proves God does not exists and cannot act in the world, perform miracles, answer prayers and not upset the laws of nature; as some phycist will want you to believe. Likewise, if you place your faith in the opinions of some evolutionary biologist, they will try to persuade you that natural causes prove God doesn't exist because of the heartless nature of evolution. But this is because they don't understand the God that we know. They don't know that God is love, or the freedom He has granted His creation and that search for God is the search for truth about His awesome creation.
If we can get past these opinions (or what I would even call the theology of atheism) then we can begin to have meanful dialogue about if God exists. If not, then which one of us is acting rational and who really has blind faith?
February 20 at 6:21pm · Delete
John
No, evolution is neutral on the issue of any god. Evolution is a way of explaining variation in the organisms that exist on this planet. It works and it has been observed in nature. The issue of the existence of any god is unrelated to the fact of evolution. Science neither proves nor disproves the existence of a god. I choose not to believe in any deity not because I understand and accept evolution, but because there is no evidence that any sort of deity exists. The Christian god, like all gods, is a product of human imaginations. It is real, in the sense that it is part of human cultures; but it is not an ontological fact.
Jeff
John, nice to talk to you again :-D I'll have to try to write this one as quickly I can because I'm doing wedding preparations with my fiance today. I beg to disagree with your statement about the neutrality of evolution toward the existence of a deity. Evolution is a religious philosophy claiming we are the result of random chance. The American National Association of Biology Teachers drafted a mission statement which states "The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modificationtion that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contengencies, and changing environments". Richard Lewontin of Harvard freely admits that "materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door". My friend, academia refuses to admit there is a God and purposes to disallow any knowledge of Him in favor of that which is material. Evolutionary biology is all about disproving God... Read More’s existence. That you could deny that self-evident truth is, to be honest, humorous. Your god isn’t the God of the universe; it is the theology you’ve constructed around the basis of denying His existence. When push comes to shove, naturalism (of which evolutionary thought is akin to) can only measure the observable universe. The truth is, the limitations of science to explain the unexplainable become the limitations of reality. Viruses existed long before they were observable, yet that did not disprove their existence. By that same token, Macroevolution is not observable at all. It is not measurable. It is not provable. My friend, if you call yourself a scientist, then surely you must realize that naturalism is bad science. You say there is no evidence for the existence of God. I challenge you to find one thing on this earth that does not scream His name—pointing back to Him who create created all things. If you can prove our God is not alive and actively working in Mark’s life, my life, and billions of others (including yours), then you will be the smartest man on the earth. I already think you have a faith FAR greater than mine. After all, you’re operating on blind faith.
Mark
Random processes can be scientifically random but not actually random at all. For instance when we transmit information using more state-of-the art modulation techniques the information is spread across the spectrum (spread-spectrum modulation) in a manner that it appears to look like noise. If you recall the squak of a dialup modem as it tries to synchronize with the host. It would create various noises that would first sound as tones (r,e,a,e,r,etc) and then it would sound like "ssshhhhh". The "ssshhhh" sound is the actual transmission of information. To the ear, is sounds like white noise or static. These are scientific words for random. But using the proper transformation, we can reconstruct a coherent message from the seemingly random bits of information on the other end of the channel.
Mark
Another example of random signals comes from a pseudo-random number generator as calculated by a computer algorithm. The computer uses an alogorithm to produce a random list of numbers. The sequence meets the criteria for random (equal probability of occurance without predictability of events) but is not actually random because if we know the seed we can predict the next number accurately 100% of the time. Which is why we typically have to randomize and random-number generator to make it harder for someone to predict the sequence.
Mark
These "random" events coupled with our understanding of Chaos theory allows God to effect changes in His creation through therandom macroevolutionary process as understood by naturalists so He can't be detected. The reason why He would do this is love. God is not a dictator, but a loving God who want His creation to have free-will. Let's assume we could decode the message and find a proof for God existence. Would we be free? No, we would be forced into a form of slavery. But God has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ, and we rejected Him.
This does not and I do not offer a proof of His existence. Because God is Love, none exists. So what good is it to believe?
John
Jeff, If this is going to degenerate into the "if you call yourself a scientist" type of comments, then I'm out. For the record, I have a Ph.D. in anthropology and a great deal of training in evolutionary theory.
Mark
Tal Ben-Shahar, Author of "Happier" and teacher of Harvard university's most popular course, has studied how to become happier. He finds that people are the happiest when they are in the "flow". We are most happy when we are doing what we are very good at and time just flys by, which paradoxically happens for most people when they are at work. But another ingredient to this is feeling as if you have a purpose in life and doing the work that you feel you are meant to do.
Purpose, Meant to do? I ask you, "How can an atheist believe in purpose?" Logic may appear logical, except when it is taken to the extreme. And the logical conclusion of atheism taken to its extreme is death, despair, and unhappiness. Tell me stories of someone who has turn themselves from drugs, prostitution, depression because they have found, "no god.".
But I can tell you, if you are interested, my story of how I turned myself around because I found God. For I am a witness to His truth.
John
I had to run, but will now finish my above comments. Jeff, I'm afraid that you really do not understand evolutionary theory. You pick on a few scholars and argue that they speak for all evolutionary biologists--they don't. Evolution is about one thing--change. The change is related to the expression of phenotypes to the environment, which in turn influences the transmission of genes through reproduction. I don't know what "macroevolution" is--evolution is a decidedly micro event. Mark, the only random event I have mentioned is the original formation of life--once that has happened, evolution takes care of itself.
John
Mark In response to your last comment, how do you define "happy?" I can state that it varies significantly from one culture to another. I don't think there is any universal form of happiness. I have absolutely how you get to the idea that the logical conclusion of atheism is death, despair, and unhappiness. I have no experience of despair or unhappiness; we all will experience death, whether we are happy or not. However, by your argument, then belief in a god is simply a tool to help people delude themselves into believing that there is a higher power around which they need to align their lives. I can see where there is a great deal of utility in this idea in terms of social control--which is precisely why churches have been so powerful. Tell the people a bunch of lies about how their god is all-knowing and all-powerful and that they will burn in Hell eternally if they don't believe it, and you have a fantastic formula for mind-control and social manipulation.
John
Not all religions do this, but many do. I should amend the above by stating that I have "no idea" how you get to the conclusion that atheism = death, despair, and unhappiness. All people experience unhappiness at times, but it does not come from being an atheist. In fact, I think I am quite happy in the knowledge that there is no all-knowing, all-powerful being who gets irritated and destroys the world because he doesn't like his creation. I find that quite comforting, actually. Let me end by stating that your argument suggests that only people who find your god can turn their lives around (assuming that they need turning). This simply is not true. Many people in many parts of the world find ways of improving their lives without turning to your god, or to any god. My guess is that we are not going to find common ground, so it is probably best to stop the discussion here.
Jeff
If that is what you desire, John. I empathize with how you feel, and won't pursue this beyond your desire to talk about it. I have no interest in winning an argument, or bludgeoning you to a new understanding. Based upon my beliefs, I made the choice to engage you in dialogue for the single purpose of telling you I do not want to see you spend ... Read Moreeternity apart from God. The way to know Him is through His Son, Jesus Christ, who loved you so much He died for you--an atonement for your wrongs, mine, and every other human being that has ever walked this planet. For what it is worth to you, I do love you. I shall continue to pray for your salvation.
February 23 at 11:57am · Delete
John
Actually, bludgeoning others into accepting your belief system is exactly what you are doing. The world is far more complex than you are aware; perhaps as you grow older, you will see that.
I have no interest in "knowing" something that does not exist other than as a fairy tale. Sorry, but your position is highly ethnocentric--it ignores the beliefs and ideas of billions of people. You can pray for whatever you want, but I do not need salvation. Nobody died for me and the only person I have to face in terms of the things I do right and wrong in this world is myself--I find that a far more powerful judge than any imaginary god.
Jeff
John, if you feel you are being asked to move outside of where you want to be, I cannot take responsibility for that. I don't desire for you to go where you don't want to go. That would be antithetical I am attempting to share with you. In short, the message of Christ demands a radical change in a person's life, but only you can make that decision. If you take issue with me sharing my faith with you, your real argument is with God, not I.
John
OK, so if I take issue with your position, then I am taking issue with God--I get it--you are God. Good to know. In the future, if I need to find God, I'll just drop you an email. Can't have an argument with something that does not exist.
I think the biggest problem I have is with the overwhelmingly condescending tone you take in your "argument... Read More". The idea that you ever could take responsibility for what I want or do is absurd, just like the assertion that you love me. And they are both staggeringly condescending. This started out as a discussion about the existence of God and, pretty much as I predicted it would, turned into you trying to convert me to your religion. It ain't going to happen.
I'm sure you will reply so that you can get the last word in--go ahead, but I'm done with this. It is not a productive use of my time and you are not going to listen (or understand) the points I have made because your mind is not open to alternative positions.
John, I want to understand how an atheist can achieve the happiness in a relative sense of someone who believes in a higher power; regardless of Christianity or any of the worlds belief system. As Tal Ben-Shahir acknowledges and you stated, happiness is relative and what happiness means varies for different cultures.
Mark
I am asking from the logical conclusion that atheism means that there's no meaning. Without meaning and purpose in life, you can't achieve the relative happinsess people who believe in some higher power. No doubt you're happy, you have success, you're a self-made man.
What of someone who is overcome with addiction or has trouble coping with injustices of the world; someone's child is killed senselessly. A higher power that creates meaning out of the madness as you said serves as a useful utility. Without this hope comes despair. As a general rule, I feel, antheism cannot achiieve the hope, optimism and appreciation (who does the atheist thank?) for life as those of the faithful.
John, Please don't take this as a personal attack on you. Likewise you've stated that people of faith are liers. I assume you are not speaking about me personally, so no offense taken. But do you really mean that all the Saints and Sages of the times are liers?
John
Mark, these are interesting and important questions. Let me see how I can address them. First, I would not agree that atheism = a lack of meaning. It does however suggest a lack of ultimate meaning. I see meaning as something constructed by humans--in that sense, you are right that the lack of a god means that the universe and existence have no intrinsic meaning. There is meaning in the world, but it is variable and varied in relation to culture, context, history, etc. In terms of ultimate meaning (perhaps what Tillich would refer to as Ultimate Concern), there is really nothing other than what humans generate. Ultimate meaning also varies from one culture to another.
Mark
I don't think we'll convert each other, but we are sharpening each others position, and I am really enjoying this exchange with a dear old friend! (I hope you are enjoying this as much as I am.)
John
Now let me turn the tables and ask you a question: Why should I thank anyone? I'm happy to be alive and love my family deeply and am happy that they exist. I suppose if I had to thank someone, it would be my ancestors and their ancestors for having procreated. I love my children and am happy with them and I am very glad that my wife and I ... Read Moredecided to have them. As for my children, I would most thank my wife for going through the pain of giving birth and for being a good and loving mother. I disagree that without the artificial creation of meaning, despair is the only possible outcome. I have hope for the future of my children; that hope is based upon the idea that humans can improve their world (for example stop fighting wars and stop polluting) if they decided to do so. I have optimism that we can, because I see evidence that we have made steps in that direction (the UN, our environment is vastly cleaner than it was 75 years ago),
Mark
Tillich... Ultimate Concerns. Seems I've got a new book to read. Any suggested text is appreciated.
John
And I can appreciate the beauty of nature or other lives without appeal to any higher meaning or power. They are beautiful because I live in a human context that helps me to define and appreciate beauty.
I, too, enjoy this type of exchange--it makes one smarter and one can learn from different ideas. I would never take such an exchange as personal, regardless of how different are our opinions. I respect your position and your intellect; I do not respect attempts at conversion or attempts to tell others that there is only one way to see the world and only one possible way to think about the world.
Now, let me clarify. I did not mean that people of faith are liars. Rather, I believe that institutions that promote narrow-minded beliefs and paint a picture of all those who disagree as evil, damned, pitiful, in need of salvation, etc. as lying to their constituents. I see those approaches as an attempt at mind control--one that works quite well.
John
I have far less difficulty with institutions that are confident in their ideas and open to explore other ideas. Individuals and institutions that demand single, narrow adherence to the one and only truth, are basically extremely insecure, because they cannot admit the possibility that their position will be undermined or challenged by different perspectives.
Mark
John, Doesn't your definition of happiness transcend the natural world and speaks of a higher power? God is nature, he is in everything and in all circumstances and people you are thankful for. I going to think we have common ground now and for that we should give thanks.
Thank your time and hope to see you soon.
John
Tillich wrote a lot. I think there is one book with the phrase ultimate concern in the title. There is another book called The Courage to Be, which is quite good. I'm not as ill-informed as your son-in-law thinks. In fact, he might be stunned to know that I have a degree from Yale Divinity School. I've taken courses in New Testament, Psalms, religious ethics, etc.
John
We get into a fuzzy area here. If we want to define God as Nature, then there may be a point of convergence. The universe seems to be infinite; thus, it is all things, all circumstances, all people. I don't want to call that "God" because it invokes imagery of power and intelligence. If the universe has intelligence, then it is us (and whatever other intelligent beings are out there). If you want to go that route, then we are God--which makes some sense to me, but doesn't seem to be a very elegant way of thinking about things.
I think the difference for me is with the concept of "higher." I don't think it is higher; it is right here in front of me. So I would shy away from ideas such as transcendence and simply state that it just is. Am I thankful? Yes, in a way. But not thankful TO anyone; just generically happy since I happen to be here and like what I experience for the most part.
I'm not thankful in a transcendent way, but in an immediate way. If the universe were not here, I would not be thankful because I would not be here to know about what wasn't here in any case. In other words, it's nice that we are here and having this conversation; but it wouldn't make any difference if we were not because we wouldn't know it.
I feel like I'm writing in circles here; it is difficult to convey the point. A short answer would be if God = Nature, then why not give up God and just focus on Nature?
Mark
Because I, like you, don't think everyone in the Church are liars. Some told the truth. When I allowed myself to try on this way of thinking the world makes sense. My asthma was healed, I became ecstatic with joy. I too (like the disciples) became witness to this joy, this love; God had spoken to me.
Atheism just looks at all the wonder in the world and tries not think anything more about. Like anyone seeking the truth, I can't ignore the evidence at hand.
I am curious what would you give up to be Christian?
John
Isn't it possible that your asthma was healed as a result of the placebo effect? My interpretation is that you healed yourself.
I can't ignore the evidence at hand either, which is interesting because the evidence says to me that there isn't a god. I'm not sure what "Christology" means, but I have never been a Christian. I have long been interested in religion, but not in being religious.
What would I give up to become a Christian? In terms that would make sense from your perspective, I would give up my soul. Since I don't believe in a soul, I would say that I would give up my sense of self and my trust in rationality and logic. I would also give you my integrity and honesty. You asked...
I should probably add that the biggest problem I see with Christianity (aside from its lack of accuracy) is that it demands that its adherents believe that all people of other faiths or beliefs are misguided, damned, lost, stupid, whatever. You indicate that you don't want to drop God and focus on nature because you don't think that all in the ... Read Morechurch are liars. Are all Buddhists liars? All Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians? What about Wicans, participants in shamanistic religions, etc.? The problem is that Christianity demands denial of all other ways of representing "truth", religiosity, spirituality, etc. That is something I find quite abhorrent in Christianity. I have the same problem with Islam.
THat should read I would give UP my integrity and honesty. Not sure how I would give you or anyone else those things. And I should pre-empt the obvious critique of my above comment in that I indicate I have a trust in logic and rationality. My trust is based upon pragmatic results, thus I would not consider it a faith. Logical and rational ... Read Morethinking work well in describing the world. The other point I might add here, it is probably coming out in all of this that I am a radical materialist. I do not believe that there is anything other than the physical world...
Mark
I have the same problem with Christians (not Christ) as you do, that they have stomped on the traditions and values of other cultures. I enjoy yoga, practiced Transcendental Meditation and read Tao Te Ching. There's truth and wisdom I have found in those traditions. But still nothing compares for me the intellectually stimulating concepts and ... Read Morefeatures found in Christ. And although I wouldn't want to make any culture less then what they are, I also wouldn't want to keep them from knowing the love of God. Can't they still be Japanese, Chinese or whatever and partake in Christianity? Am I any less American, because I'm Catholic?
Mark
I find the comment "radical materialist" rather disturbing. Sten Odenwald, "Patterns in the Void" a physicts, scientist and atheist said that the Universe is more thought then matter. I think it was Niels Bohr once said, that those that don't find the result of these experiments bizzarre don't understand them. Is it really fair to say there's nothing more then the material world when the most leading scientist are so perplexed by it?
John
The question for me is why should someone give up their own traditions to take on a foreign one. Why should a Japanese person want to be a Christian? Some do, but the vast majority don't. I see the attempt at conversion among Christians as a form of imperialism.
I suppose radical materialist is a bit strong, but the point is that I really don't think there is anything beyond the material world. By that I don't think that there is only matter; there is also energy. What I am saying is that I do not believe there is a spirit realm, nor do I think that humans have minds that are separate in any way from their bodies. The consequence of this, of course, is that death is the end of consciousness.
The results of QM are certainly odd, but I prefer to refrain from postulating an unseen realm to explain things that are odd. I'm ok with them being odd until we figure them out.
John
One thing that I might add is that, in fact, it is difficult to be Japanese and be Christian. A central part of Japanese identity is related to memorialization of ancestors--something that Christians see as idol worship. To give that up is to give up a core element of what it means to be Japanese. Some do this, but it is not to be taken lightly.
Mark
There are many in the scientic community that don't think we can ever "figure it out". Godel theorem has been used to show that we cannot determine all truths with a given domain, unless you can look from the outside into the domain. (or something to that effect.) Which implies there is an outside to this universe and an observer can and perhaps would need to see it within. This is stretch to Godel's theorem, but nonetheless a very interesting concept.
Mark
I know you are intimately familiar with the Japanese culture, so I won't attempt to dispute your claim. I would comment on my experience as a Catholic who is seen by other Christians as one who is an idol worshiper. I would think given more modern sensabilities, the Church should be more understanding and accomodating of the Japanese culture, if they are not already, they should be.
Mark
I also wanted to comment on your placebo affect. I suppose you could explain it as you have, and believe me I have considered it. The circumstances however indicate that this is not so for me. I have known for most of my adult life that asthma can be psychosomatic. I have tried to ride myself of it without success. It wasn't until my Doctor who was involved with my journey of becoming born-again, suggested I try just getting off the meds, was I able to do so.
John
What a boring universe it would be if we could figure it all out. As soon as we figure out one thing, a new question arises. That uncertainty is, in principle, wonderful. Godel's work is fascinating and important. I know many "Christians" who do not view Catholics as "Christians". Actually, the one group that has had modest success in Japan is the Mormans, probably because they have a strong interest in ancestors. I still think you cured yourself. The journey was a framework through which you willed your own health. We humans are very powerful, indeed.
John
Mark, in thinking about this I believe I have an idea of where we really differ. For you, the mystery of the universe (existence, life, etc.) needs an answer and that answer is found in the Christian theology. For me, the mystery is simply something to be explored. With each answer we get, a set of new questions and new mysteries emerge. For me THAT is the journey. Basically, I don't want there to be an answer in the form of a god or anything else. The beauty of existence is found in the never-ending path of questioning and exploring.
Mark
Science is the pursuit of finding an explanation for our world and since we believe this explanation needs to be rational and logical, it cannot contain the will of God. Which is why I am in agreement with an atheist that says science should not let God have a foot in the door.
When Maxwell came up with his equations for electromagnetic theory, there was a big hole in the equations. The existance of anti-matter filled the hole and the equations now look correct. But why should they look correct? Why do we think things should be symetrical? Well, it has a useful utility doesn't it? We continue to find things that some scientist question whether or not they exist, or just exist because we are looking for them. Whoa.
Mark
So does God exist, if we look for Him? Well, it seems to make sense and is consistant. If you believe if God, you'll find Him. If you don't you wont. (Heaven : Hell and Hope : Despair) But Hell has been defined as simply the absence of God. So in the end, we may just actually create our own reality.
John
Amen. I do think we just create our own reality. Right on the mark, Mark.
Mark
There has also been a lot of speculation about the importance of an observer in the universe; i.e. Schrodinger's Cat. There are new theories that has tried to remove the significance of the observer but it replaces it with a theory that involves an exchange of energy from the universe; i.e. from the heavens. There is also a relationship between the size of the universe and the boltzmann constant. We just keep running into these phenomenum that involves exterior influences to explain nature. You've got to ask, where does all this lead to? We can't touch it, but there's more to this then the material realm.
Mark
Well then if that is the case, why not take Pascal's wager?
John
I still don't see the need for exterior influences to explain nature. I think that reality is something that is created out of the interaction of human mind/brains and the world. In other words, the observer is necessary for reality to exist. This does not, however, point to any observer other than us.
Mark
I have really enjoyed this exchange and feel I know you very well indeed. I read over the entire exchange again last night and realized I missed something import you were trying to tell me.
You put into terms I'd understand when you said, you'd loose your soul (or sense of self) if you believed in God. I think that is good reason to remain atheist and good reason for me to remain Christian. It tells me you do get Christianity too, and all its subtleties. I hope you realize by now I get you too.
Although I believe in God, I believe we don't have a clue when it comes to His will, except to say that God wants us to make straight our paths and seek righteousness. This is the message of the Cross.Wars in the name of God, are not his wars. This isn't the message of the Cross
Mark
I understand your point that religion makes people choose sides. I tried practicing God without religion once, but I couldn't accept the relativism inherit to this idea. If I had to choose something other then Catholocism, I would choose Atheism. I like it's objectivity, the importance it places in sciences and rational thought it claims to manifest. I am curious, what you would choose as the next best thing to atheism?
I am wary about people who have a stake in any such belief system. These people cannot remain impartial to new concepts and ideas, should they present themselves through any of the sciences or studies of Theology. I want to be open-minded and not entrenched in my beliefs even willing to give up my stance should this occur. But there must be single truth in the end, and only with this attitude can we ever hope to find it.
John
We have a lot in common in our thinking. What would I choose if I were not an atheist? I have thought about that at times. My guess is that I would be a Buddhist/Shinto person along the lines of the Japanese. It makes sense to me because they emphasize ritual over belief and do not demand any specific acceptance of dogma--you don't even have to believe there are deities. Japanese religions become a framework for expressing ultimate concern without really passing much of any judgment on what the ultimate concern ought to be.
"We are not now looking to the physical world for hints of God's existence but to God's existence as an aid for understanding why things have developed in the physical world in the manner they have." John Polkinghorne - Belief in God in an Age of Science.
John
I understand so that I don't need to believe -- John
Jeff
I like this quote. I would say Mr. Polkinghorne understands the scripture in Hebrews 11:3 which states, "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what is visible". It's quite beautiful, really. Without faith, it's impossible to please God. Mr. Polkinghorne now goes one step deeper with his question does he not? The awesome thing is one need not spend a wrestless night pondering the answer to his question.
John
You might find it interesting that I have had dinner with Polkinghorn and been to his office in Cambridge (England). He is a very interesting guy--although I don't much agree with his perspective on this topic, since God doesn't exist other than in the imagination of humans.
In any case, the best part of our meeting was that he allowed me to walk across the grass with him in the quadrangle at his college at Cambridge, which is strictly prohibited by students, but allowed for faculty. That was more than twenty years ago.
Jeff
Hey John! That's fascinating! I have an interest in the British and their views on faith. They have such a rich heritage--especially with respect to the Anglican church. A certain Dr. Richard Turnbull, Principal of Wycliffe Hall at Oxford, came and spoke at my school just last week. His lecture too, was fascinating. John, what is your story? Could you tell me about yourself and your views? I would be sincerely interested in hearing your thoughts :-)
John
Hi Jeff, I'm a professor of religious studies and anthropology. I would argue that all societies have a rich heritage when it comes to religion (I would not use the word "faith" as it does not apply to many non-Western societies, although is appropriate for Britain). My views would take more than the space possible here to write. But the short of it is that I would argue that there is no evidence for any kind of god; rather there is strong evidence that all human societies have developed some concept of a deity and that this is often used to explain things that can't otherwise be explained or to provide a means of coping with difficult situations, such as death.
Jeff
John, I am now a graduate student at a Theological Seminary. My time in college was pivotal in showing me how selfish I was in pursuing a career that had nothing to do with what I believe God wanted for my life. Now I am a student of the gospel and am pursuing an M.M. in church music. I would very much like to get to know you better. I would like to know why you believe there is no God. How would you like to proceed?
John
My reason for not believing in any god is quite simple: there is no evidence for the existence of any supernatural being. From my perspective stating that one believes in God is no different from stating that one believes in Santa Claus. They are both characters in stories created by humans to help in understanding their world or to provide meaning to the world. Humans create many fantastic stories and beings to do this; the god of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam is one of them.
Mark
I think it comes down to chosing one of two conclusions. You can see the world and say we're simple lucky to have this "free lunch" or you can realize that there must be more then dumb luck at play. Using John Leslie analogy involving a fishing apparatus that will only accept a fish exactly 23.2576 inches long. Upon casting my rod into the lake I immediately have a catch which is simply my good luck-without thinking anything more on the matter.
Is that really all there is to life, just dumb luck? Sorry, but I don't think so.
John
Given the virtually unimaginable size of the universe, I think there is good reason to think that we are the product of random processes. Random in the sense of origin; once the process of evolution began, there were parameters in which the process unfolded. If this only happened once in the universe (which I doubt), then we are the 23.2576 long fish.
Jeff
John, I apologize for not getting back to you earlier I had to get some sleep before class this morning. I'm heading out as I write this to you. My question to you is if this is all a random set of occurrences (evolution being the explicative device), then how do you explain the existence of love? No, I do not mean that infatuated feeling one gets at the onset of a relationship. I mean true, unadulterated, unconditional, agape love. To further clarify, if the world is all about evolution and natural selection, then actual unconditional love is completely superfluous and irrelevant to evolution's purpose. Yet, it exists. Why? Is this a human weakness we all share? Why can't we "evolve" past it? I'd like to ask you a question about your previous note to me later. Have a wonderful day, John!!
John
I didn't really state that all of this is random. Rather, the starting point was a random event. Following that, evolution occurs in a context of restraints. Evolution is about the reproduction of genes. Emotions such as love seem to me to be an adaptive trait that would help in insuring that one's genes not only get passe on, but get protected so that they can also produce offspring. I would not argue that love (unconditional or otherwise) is a weakness; it is a trait. Furthermore, evolution is not a matter of moving "past" anything. It is a process of change in which organisms that are well adapted to a given context produce more offspring than those that are not as well adapted. For modern humans, society is part of the environment in which we operate. Love may be adaptive in terms of dealing with other humans. Nothing about natural selection would make love superfluous.
Jeff
John, I believe the insinuation of evolution is that life is an accident. That all of this is random is an extrapolation of that supposition to which you admit subscribing to. John, I am speaking of love as an action, not as a trait or an emotion. Unconditional love is (and should be) free of emotional bias, and per my point of view is not intrinsic to our nature. It [the act of loving unconditionally] is the result of an inner transformation which manifests itself in the lifestyle of a human being--namely a Christian. I believe that the Bible is quite explicit about how we don't love out of our own strength, but because Christ first loved us. If you desire, you may find that in 1 John 4:19. Speaking practically to your position on love, evolution, and the passing on of genes: Why is it that a human being would exercise the action of unconditional love toward a person of lesser evolutionary potential? Does that not violate the principal of evolution--to breed one's race up?
Jeff
P.S. > I'm very glad you don't think natural selection predicates an unfavorable view of love. It would seem by your testimony that you believe in love. Would it sound unusual to you that I have felt compassion on your behalf despite having met you just last night?
John
Jeff, I'm afraid that you do not have a good understanding of evolutionary theory. First, evolution has absolutely nothing to do with species (I think you mean this by using "race") success. It is only about the success of individual organisms relative to their environments. As for love as an action, I'm not sure what you mean, but all actions are generated by states of the brain, so it would remain a fundamentally biological trait of human beings. As for the Bible, it is irrelevant in this discussion because it is a work of fiction. While it is at times a very profound and interesting work of fiction, it remains nothing more than a conglomeration of stories. You ask why a human would excerise an action of unconditional love toward a person of lesser evolutionary potential. How would we identify another person's evolutionary potential? But that really isn't the point. The point is that from an evolutionary perspective we act on the basis of self-interest, which is complex.
Even altruistic behavior may have underlying motivations related to self-interest. As for the issue of randomness, yes the emergence of life was a random event. On the PS, natural selection is completely neutral when it comes to love or any other emotion. Love is a characteristic feature of human behavior--nothing else. I do not believe in love; it is a fact of human biology and an important structural component of human cognition and of many human societies. However, love does not mean the same thing for all humans--it varies in relation to cultural context. As for compassion, since you have stated that you are a Christian, your comment is predictable. THus, I would not find it unusual.
Mark
As my quote from John Polkinghorn alludes to, there is nothing about science that proves God does not exists and cannot act in the world, perform miracles, answer prayers and not upset the laws of nature; as some phycist will want you to believe. Likewise, if you place your faith in the opinions of some evolutionary biologist, they will try to persuade you that natural causes prove God doesn't exist because of the heartless nature of evolution. But this is because they don't understand the God that we know. They don't know that God is love, or the freedom He has granted His creation and that search for God is the search for truth about His awesome creation.
If we can get past these opinions (or what I would even call the theology of atheism) then we can begin to have meanful dialogue about if God exists. If not, then which one of us is acting rational and who really has blind faith?
February 20 at 6:21pm · Delete
John
No, evolution is neutral on the issue of any god. Evolution is a way of explaining variation in the organisms that exist on this planet. It works and it has been observed in nature. The issue of the existence of any god is unrelated to the fact of evolution. Science neither proves nor disproves the existence of a god. I choose not to believe in any deity not because I understand and accept evolution, but because there is no evidence that any sort of deity exists. The Christian god, like all gods, is a product of human imaginations. It is real, in the sense that it is part of human cultures; but it is not an ontological fact.
Jeff
John, nice to talk to you again :-D I'll have to try to write this one as quickly I can because I'm doing wedding preparations with my fiance today. I beg to disagree with your statement about the neutrality of evolution toward the existence of a deity. Evolution is a religious philosophy claiming we are the result of random chance. The American National Association of Biology Teachers drafted a mission statement which states "The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modificationtion that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contengencies, and changing environments". Richard Lewontin of Harvard freely admits that "materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door". My friend, academia refuses to admit there is a God and purposes to disallow any knowledge of Him in favor of that which is material. Evolutionary biology is all about disproving God... Read More’s existence. That you could deny that self-evident truth is, to be honest, humorous. Your god isn’t the God of the universe; it is the theology you’ve constructed around the basis of denying His existence. When push comes to shove, naturalism (of which evolutionary thought is akin to) can only measure the observable universe. The truth is, the limitations of science to explain the unexplainable become the limitations of reality. Viruses existed long before they were observable, yet that did not disprove their existence. By that same token, Macroevolution is not observable at all. It is not measurable. It is not provable. My friend, if you call yourself a scientist, then surely you must realize that naturalism is bad science. You say there is no evidence for the existence of God. I challenge you to find one thing on this earth that does not scream His name—pointing back to Him who create created all things. If you can prove our God is not alive and actively working in Mark’s life, my life, and billions of others (including yours), then you will be the smartest man on the earth. I already think you have a faith FAR greater than mine. After all, you’re operating on blind faith.
Mark
Random processes can be scientifically random but not actually random at all. For instance when we transmit information using more state-of-the art modulation techniques the information is spread across the spectrum (spread-spectrum modulation) in a manner that it appears to look like noise. If you recall the squak of a dialup modem as it tries to synchronize with the host. It would create various noises that would first sound as tones (r,e,a,e,r,etc) and then it would sound like "ssshhhhh". The "ssshhhh" sound is the actual transmission of information. To the ear, is sounds like white noise or static. These are scientific words for random. But using the proper transformation, we can reconstruct a coherent message from the seemingly random bits of information on the other end of the channel.
Mark
Another example of random signals comes from a pseudo-random number generator as calculated by a computer algorithm. The computer uses an alogorithm to produce a random list of numbers. The sequence meets the criteria for random (equal probability of occurance without predictability of events) but is not actually random because if we know the seed we can predict the next number accurately 100% of the time. Which is why we typically have to randomize and random-number generator to make it harder for someone to predict the sequence.
Mark
These "random" events coupled with our understanding of Chaos theory allows God to effect changes in His creation through therandom macroevolutionary process as understood by naturalists so He can't be detected. The reason why He would do this is love. God is not a dictator, but a loving God who want His creation to have free-will. Let's assume we could decode the message and find a proof for God existence. Would we be free? No, we would be forced into a form of slavery. But God has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ, and we rejected Him.
This does not and I do not offer a proof of His existence. Because God is Love, none exists. So what good is it to believe?
John
Jeff, If this is going to degenerate into the "if you call yourself a scientist" type of comments, then I'm out. For the record, I have a Ph.D. in anthropology and a great deal of training in evolutionary theory.
Mark
Tal Ben-Shahar, Author of "Happier" and teacher of Harvard university's most popular course, has studied how to become happier. He finds that people are the happiest when they are in the "flow". We are most happy when we are doing what we are very good at and time just flys by, which paradoxically happens for most people when they are at work. But another ingredient to this is feeling as if you have a purpose in life and doing the work that you feel you are meant to do.
Purpose, Meant to do? I ask you, "How can an atheist believe in purpose?" Logic may appear logical, except when it is taken to the extreme. And the logical conclusion of atheism taken to its extreme is death, despair, and unhappiness. Tell me stories of someone who has turn themselves from drugs, prostitution, depression because they have found, "no god.".
But I can tell you, if you are interested, my story of how I turned myself around because I found God. For I am a witness to His truth.
John
I had to run, but will now finish my above comments. Jeff, I'm afraid that you really do not understand evolutionary theory. You pick on a few scholars and argue that they speak for all evolutionary biologists--they don't. Evolution is about one thing--change. The change is related to the expression of phenotypes to the environment, which in turn influences the transmission of genes through reproduction. I don't know what "macroevolution" is--evolution is a decidedly micro event. Mark, the only random event I have mentioned is the original formation of life--once that has happened, evolution takes care of itself.
John
Mark In response to your last comment, how do you define "happy?" I can state that it varies significantly from one culture to another. I don't think there is any universal form of happiness. I have absolutely how you get to the idea that the logical conclusion of atheism is death, despair, and unhappiness. I have no experience of despair or unhappiness; we all will experience death, whether we are happy or not. However, by your argument, then belief in a god is simply a tool to help people delude themselves into believing that there is a higher power around which they need to align their lives. I can see where there is a great deal of utility in this idea in terms of social control--which is precisely why churches have been so powerful. Tell the people a bunch of lies about how their god is all-knowing and all-powerful and that they will burn in Hell eternally if they don't believe it, and you have a fantastic formula for mind-control and social manipulation.
John
Not all religions do this, but many do. I should amend the above by stating that I have "no idea" how you get to the conclusion that atheism = death, despair, and unhappiness. All people experience unhappiness at times, but it does not come from being an atheist. In fact, I think I am quite happy in the knowledge that there is no all-knowing, all-powerful being who gets irritated and destroys the world because he doesn't like his creation. I find that quite comforting, actually. Let me end by stating that your argument suggests that only people who find your god can turn their lives around (assuming that they need turning). This simply is not true. Many people in many parts of the world find ways of improving their lives without turning to your god, or to any god. My guess is that we are not going to find common ground, so it is probably best to stop the discussion here.
Jeff
If that is what you desire, John. I empathize with how you feel, and won't pursue this beyond your desire to talk about it. I have no interest in winning an argument, or bludgeoning you to a new understanding. Based upon my beliefs, I made the choice to engage you in dialogue for the single purpose of telling you I do not want to see you spend ... Read Moreeternity apart from God. The way to know Him is through His Son, Jesus Christ, who loved you so much He died for you--an atonement for your wrongs, mine, and every other human being that has ever walked this planet. For what it is worth to you, I do love you. I shall continue to pray for your salvation.
February 23 at 11:57am · Delete
John
Actually, bludgeoning others into accepting your belief system is exactly what you are doing. The world is far more complex than you are aware; perhaps as you grow older, you will see that.
I have no interest in "knowing" something that does not exist other than as a fairy tale. Sorry, but your position is highly ethnocentric--it ignores the beliefs and ideas of billions of people. You can pray for whatever you want, but I do not need salvation. Nobody died for me and the only person I have to face in terms of the things I do right and wrong in this world is myself--I find that a far more powerful judge than any imaginary god.
Jeff
John, if you feel you are being asked to move outside of where you want to be, I cannot take responsibility for that. I don't desire for you to go where you don't want to go. That would be antithetical I am attempting to share with you. In short, the message of Christ demands a radical change in a person's life, but only you can make that decision. If you take issue with me sharing my faith with you, your real argument is with God, not I.
John
OK, so if I take issue with your position, then I am taking issue with God--I get it--you are God. Good to know. In the future, if I need to find God, I'll just drop you an email. Can't have an argument with something that does not exist.
I think the biggest problem I have is with the overwhelmingly condescending tone you take in your "argument... Read More". The idea that you ever could take responsibility for what I want or do is absurd, just like the assertion that you love me. And they are both staggeringly condescending. This started out as a discussion about the existence of God and, pretty much as I predicted it would, turned into you trying to convert me to your religion. It ain't going to happen.
I'm sure you will reply so that you can get the last word in--go ahead, but I'm done with this. It is not a productive use of my time and you are not going to listen (or understand) the points I have made because your mind is not open to alternative positions.
John, I want to understand how an atheist can achieve the happiness in a relative sense of someone who believes in a higher power; regardless of Christianity or any of the worlds belief system. As Tal Ben-Shahir acknowledges and you stated, happiness is relative and what happiness means varies for different cultures.
Mark
I am asking from the logical conclusion that atheism means that there's no meaning. Without meaning and purpose in life, you can't achieve the relative happinsess people who believe in some higher power. No doubt you're happy, you have success, you're a self-made man.
What of someone who is overcome with addiction or has trouble coping with injustices of the world; someone's child is killed senselessly. A higher power that creates meaning out of the madness as you said serves as a useful utility. Without this hope comes despair. As a general rule, I feel, antheism cannot achiieve the hope, optimism and appreciation (who does the atheist thank?) for life as those of the faithful.
John, Please don't take this as a personal attack on you. Likewise you've stated that people of faith are liers. I assume you are not speaking about me personally, so no offense taken. But do you really mean that all the Saints and Sages of the times are liers?
John
Mark, these are interesting and important questions. Let me see how I can address them. First, I would not agree that atheism = a lack of meaning. It does however suggest a lack of ultimate meaning. I see meaning as something constructed by humans--in that sense, you are right that the lack of a god means that the universe and existence have no intrinsic meaning. There is meaning in the world, but it is variable and varied in relation to culture, context, history, etc. In terms of ultimate meaning (perhaps what Tillich would refer to as Ultimate Concern), there is really nothing other than what humans generate. Ultimate meaning also varies from one culture to another.
Mark
I don't think we'll convert each other, but we are sharpening each others position, and I am really enjoying this exchange with a dear old friend! (I hope you are enjoying this as much as I am.)
John
Now let me turn the tables and ask you a question: Why should I thank anyone? I'm happy to be alive and love my family deeply and am happy that they exist. I suppose if I had to thank someone, it would be my ancestors and their ancestors for having procreated. I love my children and am happy with them and I am very glad that my wife and I ... Read Moredecided to have them. As for my children, I would most thank my wife for going through the pain of giving birth and for being a good and loving mother. I disagree that without the artificial creation of meaning, despair is the only possible outcome. I have hope for the future of my children; that hope is based upon the idea that humans can improve their world (for example stop fighting wars and stop polluting) if they decided to do so. I have optimism that we can, because I see evidence that we have made steps in that direction (the UN, our environment is vastly cleaner than it was 75 years ago),
Mark
Tillich... Ultimate Concerns. Seems I've got a new book to read. Any suggested text is appreciated.
John
And I can appreciate the beauty of nature or other lives without appeal to any higher meaning or power. They are beautiful because I live in a human context that helps me to define and appreciate beauty.
I, too, enjoy this type of exchange--it makes one smarter and one can learn from different ideas. I would never take such an exchange as personal, regardless of how different are our opinions. I respect your position and your intellect; I do not respect attempts at conversion or attempts to tell others that there is only one way to see the world and only one possible way to think about the world.
Now, let me clarify. I did not mean that people of faith are liars. Rather, I believe that institutions that promote narrow-minded beliefs and paint a picture of all those who disagree as evil, damned, pitiful, in need of salvation, etc. as lying to their constituents. I see those approaches as an attempt at mind control--one that works quite well.
John
I have far less difficulty with institutions that are confident in their ideas and open to explore other ideas. Individuals and institutions that demand single, narrow adherence to the one and only truth, are basically extremely insecure, because they cannot admit the possibility that their position will be undermined or challenged by different perspectives.
Mark
John, Doesn't your definition of happiness transcend the natural world and speaks of a higher power? God is nature, he is in everything and in all circumstances and people you are thankful for. I going to think we have common ground now and for that we should give thanks.
Thank your time and hope to see you soon.
John
Tillich wrote a lot. I think there is one book with the phrase ultimate concern in the title. There is another book called The Courage to Be, which is quite good. I'm not as ill-informed as your son-in-law thinks. In fact, he might be stunned to know that I have a degree from Yale Divinity School. I've taken courses in New Testament, Psalms, religious ethics, etc.
John
We get into a fuzzy area here. If we want to define God as Nature, then there may be a point of convergence. The universe seems to be infinite; thus, it is all things, all circumstances, all people. I don't want to call that "God" because it invokes imagery of power and intelligence. If the universe has intelligence, then it is us (and whatever other intelligent beings are out there). If you want to go that route, then we are God--which makes some sense to me, but doesn't seem to be a very elegant way of thinking about things.
I think the difference for me is with the concept of "higher." I don't think it is higher; it is right here in front of me. So I would shy away from ideas such as transcendence and simply state that it just is. Am I thankful? Yes, in a way. But not thankful TO anyone; just generically happy since I happen to be here and like what I experience for the most part.
I'm not thankful in a transcendent way, but in an immediate way. If the universe were not here, I would not be thankful because I would not be here to know about what wasn't here in any case. In other words, it's nice that we are here and having this conversation; but it wouldn't make any difference if we were not because we wouldn't know it.
I feel like I'm writing in circles here; it is difficult to convey the point. A short answer would be if God = Nature, then why not give up God and just focus on Nature?
Mark
Because I, like you, don't think everyone in the Church are liars. Some told the truth. When I allowed myself to try on this way of thinking the world makes sense. My asthma was healed, I became ecstatic with joy. I too (like the disciples) became witness to this joy, this love; God had spoken to me.
Atheism just looks at all the wonder in the world and tries not think anything more about. Like anyone seeking the truth, I can't ignore the evidence at hand.
I am curious what would you give up to be Christian?
John
Isn't it possible that your asthma was healed as a result of the placebo effect? My interpretation is that you healed yourself.
I can't ignore the evidence at hand either, which is interesting because the evidence says to me that there isn't a god. I'm not sure what "Christology" means, but I have never been a Christian. I have long been interested in religion, but not in being religious.
What would I give up to become a Christian? In terms that would make sense from your perspective, I would give up my soul. Since I don't believe in a soul, I would say that I would give up my sense of self and my trust in rationality and logic. I would also give you my integrity and honesty. You asked...
I should probably add that the biggest problem I see with Christianity (aside from its lack of accuracy) is that it demands that its adherents believe that all people of other faiths or beliefs are misguided, damned, lost, stupid, whatever. You indicate that you don't want to drop God and focus on nature because you don't think that all in the ... Read Morechurch are liars. Are all Buddhists liars? All Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians? What about Wicans, participants in shamanistic religions, etc.? The problem is that Christianity demands denial of all other ways of representing "truth", religiosity, spirituality, etc. That is something I find quite abhorrent in Christianity. I have the same problem with Islam.
THat should read I would give UP my integrity and honesty. Not sure how I would give you or anyone else those things. And I should pre-empt the obvious critique of my above comment in that I indicate I have a trust in logic and rationality. My trust is based upon pragmatic results, thus I would not consider it a faith. Logical and rational ... Read Morethinking work well in describing the world. The other point I might add here, it is probably coming out in all of this that I am a radical materialist. I do not believe that there is anything other than the physical world...
Mark
I have the same problem with Christians (not Christ) as you do, that they have stomped on the traditions and values of other cultures. I enjoy yoga, practiced Transcendental Meditation and read Tao Te Ching. There's truth and wisdom I have found in those traditions. But still nothing compares for me the intellectually stimulating concepts and ... Read Morefeatures found in Christ. And although I wouldn't want to make any culture less then what they are, I also wouldn't want to keep them from knowing the love of God. Can't they still be Japanese, Chinese or whatever and partake in Christianity? Am I any less American, because I'm Catholic?
Mark
I find the comment "radical materialist" rather disturbing. Sten Odenwald, "Patterns in the Void" a physicts, scientist and atheist said that the Universe is more thought then matter. I think it was Niels Bohr once said, that those that don't find the result of these experiments bizzarre don't understand them. Is it really fair to say there's nothing more then the material world when the most leading scientist are so perplexed by it?
John
The question for me is why should someone give up their own traditions to take on a foreign one. Why should a Japanese person want to be a Christian? Some do, but the vast majority don't. I see the attempt at conversion among Christians as a form of imperialism.
I suppose radical materialist is a bit strong, but the point is that I really don't think there is anything beyond the material world. By that I don't think that there is only matter; there is also energy. What I am saying is that I do not believe there is a spirit realm, nor do I think that humans have minds that are separate in any way from their bodies. The consequence of this, of course, is that death is the end of consciousness.
The results of QM are certainly odd, but I prefer to refrain from postulating an unseen realm to explain things that are odd. I'm ok with them being odd until we figure them out.
John
One thing that I might add is that, in fact, it is difficult to be Japanese and be Christian. A central part of Japanese identity is related to memorialization of ancestors--something that Christians see as idol worship. To give that up is to give up a core element of what it means to be Japanese. Some do this, but it is not to be taken lightly.
Mark
There are many in the scientic community that don't think we can ever "figure it out". Godel theorem has been used to show that we cannot determine all truths with a given domain, unless you can look from the outside into the domain. (or something to that effect.) Which implies there is an outside to this universe and an observer can and perhaps would need to see it within. This is stretch to Godel's theorem, but nonetheless a very interesting concept.
Mark
I know you are intimately familiar with the Japanese culture, so I won't attempt to dispute your claim. I would comment on my experience as a Catholic who is seen by other Christians as one who is an idol worshiper. I would think given more modern sensabilities, the Church should be more understanding and accomodating of the Japanese culture, if they are not already, they should be.
Mark
I also wanted to comment on your placebo affect. I suppose you could explain it as you have, and believe me I have considered it. The circumstances however indicate that this is not so for me. I have known for most of my adult life that asthma can be psychosomatic. I have tried to ride myself of it without success. It wasn't until my Doctor who was involved with my journey of becoming born-again, suggested I try just getting off the meds, was I able to do so.
John
What a boring universe it would be if we could figure it all out. As soon as we figure out one thing, a new question arises. That uncertainty is, in principle, wonderful. Godel's work is fascinating and important. I know many "Christians" who do not view Catholics as "Christians". Actually, the one group that has had modest success in Japan is the Mormans, probably because they have a strong interest in ancestors. I still think you cured yourself. The journey was a framework through which you willed your own health. We humans are very powerful, indeed.
John
Mark, in thinking about this I believe I have an idea of where we really differ. For you, the mystery of the universe (existence, life, etc.) needs an answer and that answer is found in the Christian theology. For me, the mystery is simply something to be explored. With each answer we get, a set of new questions and new mysteries emerge. For me THAT is the journey. Basically, I don't want there to be an answer in the form of a god or anything else. The beauty of existence is found in the never-ending path of questioning and exploring.
Mark
Science is the pursuit of finding an explanation for our world and since we believe this explanation needs to be rational and logical, it cannot contain the will of God. Which is why I am in agreement with an atheist that says science should not let God have a foot in the door.
When Maxwell came up with his equations for electromagnetic theory, there was a big hole in the equations. The existance of anti-matter filled the hole and the equations now look correct. But why should they look correct? Why do we think things should be symetrical? Well, it has a useful utility doesn't it? We continue to find things that some scientist question whether or not they exist, or just exist because we are looking for them. Whoa.
Mark
So does God exist, if we look for Him? Well, it seems to make sense and is consistant. If you believe if God, you'll find Him. If you don't you wont. (Heaven : Hell and Hope : Despair) But Hell has been defined as simply the absence of God. So in the end, we may just actually create our own reality.
John
Amen. I do think we just create our own reality. Right on the mark, Mark.
Mark
There has also been a lot of speculation about the importance of an observer in the universe; i.e. Schrodinger's Cat. There are new theories that has tried to remove the significance of the observer but it replaces it with a theory that involves an exchange of energy from the universe; i.e. from the heavens. There is also a relationship between the size of the universe and the boltzmann constant. We just keep running into these phenomenum that involves exterior influences to explain nature. You've got to ask, where does all this lead to? We can't touch it, but there's more to this then the material realm.
Mark
Well then if that is the case, why not take Pascal's wager?
John
I still don't see the need for exterior influences to explain nature. I think that reality is something that is created out of the interaction of human mind/brains and the world. In other words, the observer is necessary for reality to exist. This does not, however, point to any observer other than us.
Mark
I have really enjoyed this exchange and feel I know you very well indeed. I read over the entire exchange again last night and realized I missed something import you were trying to tell me.
You put into terms I'd understand when you said, you'd loose your soul (or sense of self) if you believed in God. I think that is good reason to remain atheist and good reason for me to remain Christian. It tells me you do get Christianity too, and all its subtleties. I hope you realize by now I get you too.
Although I believe in God, I believe we don't have a clue when it comes to His will, except to say that God wants us to make straight our paths and seek righteousness. This is the message of the Cross.Wars in the name of God, are not his wars. This isn't the message of the Cross
Mark
I understand your point that religion makes people choose sides. I tried practicing God without religion once, but I couldn't accept the relativism inherit to this idea. If I had to choose something other then Catholocism, I would choose Atheism. I like it's objectivity, the importance it places in sciences and rational thought it claims to manifest. I am curious, what you would choose as the next best thing to atheism?
I am wary about people who have a stake in any such belief system. These people cannot remain impartial to new concepts and ideas, should they present themselves through any of the sciences or studies of Theology. I want to be open-minded and not entrenched in my beliefs even willing to give up my stance should this occur. But there must be single truth in the end, and only with this attitude can we ever hope to find it.
John
We have a lot in common in our thinking. What would I choose if I were not an atheist? I have thought about that at times. My guess is that I would be a Buddhist/Shinto person along the lines of the Japanese. It makes sense to me because they emphasize ritual over belief and do not demand any specific acceptance of dogma--you don't even have to believe there are deities. Japanese religions become a framework for expressing ultimate concern without really passing much of any judgment on what the ultimate concern ought to be.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Finding God's hand in Evolution
Evolution constitutes the scientific explanation of the fossil record. Scientists from the Institute of Creation Research (ICR) are not disputing the fossil record. The fossil record shows that simple organism existed before more complex ones. The fossil record shows that complexity and variety of organisms and species kept building slowly over time. The fossil record shows that somehow some species ended while new ones resulted when the slightly similar ones disappeared.
They are not arguing this, because the fossil record is reality, it is fact. At one time, however, some creation scientists did argue for a young earth viewpoint. They lost their credibility, and I will also show they caused many to loose faith, so they had to re-invent themselves. And so along came Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design. They keep fine tuning their arguments while the real scientific community, if they wish to indulge themselves, continues to defeat their claims. A short history of how creation science has attempted to dismantle real science is next.
When creation science young earth theories didn't work, they came up with a new theory. A new theory that would give them more credibility, called Irreducible Complexity. This claim stated that certain systems are irreducible, like the mouse trap or motor used in the Flagellum bacteria. It didn't work either. Real scientist showed how a mouse trap is reducible and still functional as a mouse trap. They also identified another bacteria that contained a static sensor instead of a motor. It looks completely like the Flagellum bacteria, but the sensor/motor didn't rotate. The bacterium clearly shows how the Flagellum, the poster child for creation science, did in fact evolve.
Most people in the scientific community and people in general accept the most logical explanation for the behavior of the universe and for the fossil record. To look at the big picture and be told that some things cannot be done through natural causes alone makes a case against God, when science proves otherwise. Every time the church or creation science creates this drama between science and faith, people find reason to loose faith. Creation science wants us to worship a phony god, a god-of-the-gaps. Whenever something that science can't explain they say these gaps require God's intervention. When scientist defeat their claims, it causes some people to make a choice. To believe in something real or something phony. So now creation science wants us to believe that some amino acid need God's special intervention to come into existence.
A proper understanding of evolution should enhance our faith not destroy it. If creation science would stop trying to make a case against what they think "Natural Causes" means, it would help people gain a stronger faith in God. Instead creation science reinforces its stance with another argument, a statistical argument called Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design actually went on trial in 2005 and was struck down by the courts as part of the creation science movement. It was deemed not science and could not be taught in the classrooms as science. How many people lost faith due to this very public trial against god, i.e. creation science god-of the-gaps?
My faith, at one time, questioned the truths of evolution. My faith needed God to have a hand in creation. But while reading articles for creation science, I came to realize that creation science was making a silly argument and led to belief in a ridiculous god. A god who after forming the galaxies and stars and planets had to tweek here and there to keep things going.
Recently I've come to accept that evolution is God. The theory of evolution by natural causes has an active almighty God involve throughout it. Furthermore evolutionary scientists are discerning and discovering Gods truth every day. They do so in a public form, discerning His truth, in an open and painfully thorough way; allowing God to reveal himself to them, but only if they are open-minded and accept His world as it is.
The issue concerning amino acids and chirality is being discerned right now in laboratories across the world. Like all explanations through natural causes, these scientists will be blessed with a new truth as revealed by God himself. A truth that transcends man, a truth that will show that Easter Sunday always follows Good Friday; after death there is a resurrection. One species evolves into another in a on-going and endless story called the Epic of Evolution. One that we are all part of, one we are blessed to know. A story about a trusting and loving God in the center of it all, in the center of evolution.
A long time ago, the earth suffered a major biological catastrophe. Organisms that produced oxygen from CO2 used up all the CO2 in the air. They almost all died, until evolution (God) created an organism that used oxygen and exhaled CO2. He turned this catastrophe around. When the dinosaurs went extinct, 3 out of 4 species went with them. God turned this around with another Easter; allowing mammals to evolve into man.
This is the God I worship. Not some remote tinkerer, but one who is still creating and revealing Himself to us through science. Creation science resorts to a god-of-the-gaps argument. It leads nowhere and pits the faithful against God Himself.
We don't have all the answers on how species evolved into another. But evolution does not define a random, godless process that is left to chance alone. At one time one mammal decided to stay and fight while another fled. That choice resulted in the Rhinoceros and the Gazelle.
So how do we find common ground and live together in peace as God wants? Scientist who promote atheism must realize that faith in God is not going to go away, so they need to stop using science to prove He doesn't exist. Likewise people of faith must see reality much more clearly. We must agree on the evidence at hand and come together, realize that God is not done yet. His revelations will continue and the scientific community, Atheist, Muslim, and Christians can agree on the Whole Truth, that is God
We must also realize that private revelation will always be disputable. Did God reveal himself to the apostles 2000 years ago? Did God die on the cross? Did God really talk to Mohamed? We can't prove these things and we don't have to, to love God. It's a matter of faith. "God will not be put to the test." But God is revealing truth to us through science and evolution. You can't love God and distort His facts. Science is the explanation of the Ultimate Truth; i.e. God. Did God revealed all there is to know in the Bible, over 2000 years ago, and then go silent about his creation since then? Evolution enhances our love for God, it does not diminishes it. Many evolutionary scientist have tremendous love for God, and His creation. They worship Him and please Him by studying His creation. These ICR scientist do not have strong faith. By making this claim they're holding onto a reality that doesn't exist. In the end, it will corrupt their faith and many who are led by their arguments.
Suggested Further Reading:
Thank God for Evolution - Michael Dowd
Finding Darwins God - Kenneth Millar
The Blind Watchmaker - Richard Dawkins (Although Dawkins is an atheist, his explanation of evolution contains an excellent rebuttal to amino acids and chirality. This explanation involves natural scaffolds for forming complex chemical compounds.)
They are not arguing this, because the fossil record is reality, it is fact. At one time, however, some creation scientists did argue for a young earth viewpoint. They lost their credibility, and I will also show they caused many to loose faith, so they had to re-invent themselves. And so along came Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design. They keep fine tuning their arguments while the real scientific community, if they wish to indulge themselves, continues to defeat their claims. A short history of how creation science has attempted to dismantle real science is next.
When creation science young earth theories didn't work, they came up with a new theory. A new theory that would give them more credibility, called Irreducible Complexity. This claim stated that certain systems are irreducible, like the mouse trap or motor used in the Flagellum bacteria. It didn't work either. Real scientist showed how a mouse trap is reducible and still functional as a mouse trap. They also identified another bacteria that contained a static sensor instead of a motor. It looks completely like the Flagellum bacteria, but the sensor/motor didn't rotate. The bacterium clearly shows how the Flagellum, the poster child for creation science, did in fact evolve.
Most people in the scientific community and people in general accept the most logical explanation for the behavior of the universe and for the fossil record. To look at the big picture and be told that some things cannot be done through natural causes alone makes a case against God, when science proves otherwise. Every time the church or creation science creates this drama between science and faith, people find reason to loose faith. Creation science wants us to worship a phony god, a god-of-the-gaps. Whenever something that science can't explain they say these gaps require God's intervention. When scientist defeat their claims, it causes some people to make a choice. To believe in something real or something phony. So now creation science wants us to believe that some amino acid need God's special intervention to come into existence.
A proper understanding of evolution should enhance our faith not destroy it. If creation science would stop trying to make a case against what they think "Natural Causes" means, it would help people gain a stronger faith in God. Instead creation science reinforces its stance with another argument, a statistical argument called Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design actually went on trial in 2005 and was struck down by the courts as part of the creation science movement. It was deemed not science and could not be taught in the classrooms as science. How many people lost faith due to this very public trial against god, i.e. creation science god-of the-gaps?
My faith, at one time, questioned the truths of evolution. My faith needed God to have a hand in creation. But while reading articles for creation science, I came to realize that creation science was making a silly argument and led to belief in a ridiculous god. A god who after forming the galaxies and stars and planets had to tweek here and there to keep things going.
Recently I've come to accept that evolution is God. The theory of evolution by natural causes has an active almighty God involve throughout it. Furthermore evolutionary scientists are discerning and discovering Gods truth every day. They do so in a public form, discerning His truth, in an open and painfully thorough way; allowing God to reveal himself to them, but only if they are open-minded and accept His world as it is.
The issue concerning amino acids and chirality is being discerned right now in laboratories across the world. Like all explanations through natural causes, these scientists will be blessed with a new truth as revealed by God himself. A truth that transcends man, a truth that will show that Easter Sunday always follows Good Friday; after death there is a resurrection. One species evolves into another in a on-going and endless story called the Epic of Evolution. One that we are all part of, one we are blessed to know. A story about a trusting and loving God in the center of it all, in the center of evolution.
A long time ago, the earth suffered a major biological catastrophe. Organisms that produced oxygen from CO2 used up all the CO2 in the air. They almost all died, until evolution (God) created an organism that used oxygen and exhaled CO2. He turned this catastrophe around. When the dinosaurs went extinct, 3 out of 4 species went with them. God turned this around with another Easter; allowing mammals to evolve into man.
This is the God I worship. Not some remote tinkerer, but one who is still creating and revealing Himself to us through science. Creation science resorts to a god-of-the-gaps argument. It leads nowhere and pits the faithful against God Himself.
We don't have all the answers on how species evolved into another. But evolution does not define a random, godless process that is left to chance alone. At one time one mammal decided to stay and fight while another fled. That choice resulted in the Rhinoceros and the Gazelle.
So how do we find common ground and live together in peace as God wants? Scientist who promote atheism must realize that faith in God is not going to go away, so they need to stop using science to prove He doesn't exist. Likewise people of faith must see reality much more clearly. We must agree on the evidence at hand and come together, realize that God is not done yet. His revelations will continue and the scientific community, Atheist, Muslim, and Christians can agree on the Whole Truth, that is God
We must also realize that private revelation will always be disputable. Did God reveal himself to the apostles 2000 years ago? Did God die on the cross? Did God really talk to Mohamed? We can't prove these things and we don't have to, to love God. It's a matter of faith. "God will not be put to the test." But God is revealing truth to us through science and evolution. You can't love God and distort His facts. Science is the explanation of the Ultimate Truth; i.e. God. Did God revealed all there is to know in the Bible, over 2000 years ago, and then go silent about his creation since then? Evolution enhances our love for God, it does not diminishes it. Many evolutionary scientist have tremendous love for God, and His creation. They worship Him and please Him by studying His creation. These ICR scientist do not have strong faith. By making this claim they're holding onto a reality that doesn't exist. In the end, it will corrupt their faith and many who are led by their arguments.
Suggested Further Reading:
Thank God for Evolution - Michael Dowd
Finding Darwins God - Kenneth Millar
The Blind Watchmaker - Richard Dawkins (Although Dawkins is an atheist, his explanation of evolution contains an excellent rebuttal to amino acids and chirality. This explanation involves natural scaffolds for forming complex chemical compounds.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
