How Logic (and Google) Saved My Pants

Posted By: Adam 21 Comments

This post is going to be about religion, and it's no secret that I'm what you might call a steadfast Atheist. So if you're not interested in such discussion, or easily offended, it would be best to skip this one. Last January, I asked you to post comments with questions and I would answer them — no topic, within reason, was off limits. For the most part, this resulted in a lengthy discussion on my spiritual beliefs and understanding of the historic aspects of the Bible with my sister in law, Susan (who for the record is [correct me if I'm wrong!] an Evangelical Christian). Despite what you might read on that page, and what conclusions you might draw based on that, I think that this discussion has not only NOT driven us apart, but brought us closer, in that we have both come to understand more of what the other believes, and why. We both think the other is wrong, by definition, but respect their right to believe what they see fit. The conversation shifted from back and forth comments on that blog post to email, and eventually we decided that it would be best if we left the explaining to the experts and each suggested a book for the other to read, and then sat down to discuss our thoughts on the books. I suggested The God Delusion, and she suggested The Case for Christ. However, I found it difficult to get and stay interested in this book, so we've since switched to I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist, which I'm finding to be more my style and despite my frequent disagreement, I would even call it "a real page-turner," if that makes any sense at all. I've come to my beliefs over the course of the last 8 years or so through my personal experience with church (mostly Presbyterian and Catholic), a Christian youth group, and friends who were believers; and on the flip side of the coin, a lot of credit goes to the teachers and professors that cultivated my critical thinking skills. Prior to ~8 years ago, I had attended church occasionally and even did some community service with my local church, but at the time I was more or less ignorant on the matter and happy to be so. At some point, I started to realize that I had never been shown a reason to believe the things I had been told were true. So I decided not to, and to see where that would take me. (Here I am! Tada!) But let's not get too far off course — what I really want to write about is a particular passage from I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist.

Perhaps more than any other person, David Hume is responsible for the skepticism prevalent today. As an empiricist, Hume believed that all meaningful ideas were either true by definition or must be based on sense experience? Hume asserted that propositions can be meaningful only if they meet one of the following two conditions:
the truth claim is abstract reasoning, such as a mathematical equation or a definition (e.g., "2+2=4" or "all triangles have three sides"); or
the truth claim can be verified empirically through one or more of the five senses
While he claimed to be a skeptic, Hume certainly wasn?t skeptical about these two conditions?he was absolutely convinced he had the truth.

In a nutshell, this is the core of my belief system as I understand it. The authors then go on to explain how in a college course, one of them did a report on this topic:

At the beginning of the next class, the professor said, "Mr. Geisler, we'll hear from you first. Keep it to no more than twenty minutes so we can have ample time for discussion." Well, since I was using the lightning-fast Road Runner tactic [being mindful of self-contradictory statements], I had absolutely no trouble with the time constraints. I stood up and simply said, "The principle of empirical verifiability states that there are only two kinds of meaningful propositions: 1) those that are true by definition and 2) those that are empirically verifiable. Since the principle of empirical verifiability itself is neither true by definition nor empirically verifiable, it cannot be meaningful."

Setting aside for just a moment the fact that he hadn't given any justification for his claim that the principle cannot be empirically verified, this terrified me. I almost wet my pants when I read it. And you have to admit, when you think about it briefly, the principle does sound a tad self-defeating. Was it that simple? Did my whole world just crumble in on itself? It sure felt that way, and that's precisely what I wrote in my notes. This was something that required more research. I do believe that a simple mistake has a simple resolution, but this just didn't sit right with me. I had some pretty great help in checking this out; Google be thy name. As it turns out, the principle isn't a proposition. It is the definition of a meaningful proposition. If you wanted to empirically verify the principle itself you'd have to derive it from the definitions of the constituent words, which leads to an infinite series of definition. This is, of course, the short answer. Once I realized that the dismissal of the principle was bullocks (whew!), I started to realize that it wasn't so much what the authors were attempting to explain, but why. Left intact, the Principle of Empirical Verifiability can be applied to any religious discussion to render the issue of faith irrelevant. This leads to inner turmoil along the lines of, "If that's true, then my beliefs are false, so it must not be true!" This is a logical fallacy known as Appeal to Consequences, and is likely what caused the authors to be so dismissive without exhaustive research. I said that this was the short version. The long version is something I found on a blog called Evangelical Realism. This author goes into great detail of exactly why the Principle is not self-defeating, and does so with sound reasoning, even if he does come off as a bit sanctimonious. (Maybe intentional irony?) But if you still feel that the Principle of Empirical Verifiability is self-defeating, I suggest you read that entire post. He does a much better job explaining it than I could hope to. This is obviously something I feel strongly about, and given some of the awful things done in the name of this religion or that, I think it merits the effort. I should end by saying that I am not through reading the book. I'm only up to chapter 4. In all honesty, it is possible that I will believe in God at the end of the book, because I am reading it with as objective a viewpoint as I'm capable of, and if the evidence supports it, then it will be an easy decision to make. (Though I've yet to see any such evidence.) So did anyone actually read all of that? Does anyone disagree?

21 responses to “How Logic (and Google) Saved My Pants”

That was about the most confusing post I think you have ever written. Of course, my brain is mush right now.

I think that you and Susan have a great relationship that allows you to discuss differences and grow from them.

You married Megan, but you also married her wonderful family :) Something special all the way around!

MomT ~ Aug 4, 2008 at 9:58 PM
Susan also left that book with me to read. I confess I didn't read it as diligently as you apparently are doing. Even so, my conclusion, and what I wrote to Susan was that most civilizations over history have said anything they can't explain was caused by God. As we have learned more and more about the world, and universe we live in, fewer things are ascribed to a God. I also stated that ascribing human characteristics and the ability ro intervene in a physical situation to their God and was something I couldn't believe in. Sue requested a clarification of my statements. I responded with an e-mail, and the exchange has ended there. Like you, I have no intention of telling Susan that her beliefs are wrong. Further, I hoped she would not try to convince me that I should believe the same way she does. Good luck in your discussions and attempts to find a path. (I respectfully disagree with your Mother about the clarity of your post.)

Granddad B ~ Aug 4, 2008 at 9:58 PM
Searching for something to believe in is what people do.

I think in many ways, the root of religion has been an effort to answer these simple questions:

What is the meaning/purpose of life? Not just each of ours, but of all life?
Why are we here?
Is this all there is?

When people couldn't find facts to answer the questions they started making up their own answers to fit the facts - and requiring acceptance of that which could not be explained.

I'll be interested to follow your thoughts on this subject in the future.

DadT ~ Aug 4, 2008 at 9:58 PM
I guess I should add that I accept there are things I can't / won't understand, so I don't pursue answers I expect can't be found.

I do believe that our existance (and all life on Earth before we got here) came from somewhere. If that defines a religion then I am religious, but I don't think I could be classified into one of the faiths that I know about so far.

DadT ~ Aug 4, 2008 at 9:58 PM
Note to DadT: A while back, you asked me a question through Adam's blog about how the Hebrews became enslaved in Egypt. Here's your answer:

Jacob (also known as Israel) lived in Canaan (present-day Israel) had 12 sons. His "favorite" son, Joseph, was sold into slavery by his brothers becuase they were jealous of his Father's favoritism. Joseph, through a series of events, became the Pharoh's right-hand-man. Joseph predicted a famine was to strike the land. When it did, it struck the entire region. However, under Joseph's authority, grain and other rations were stored for the years leading up to the famine. Joseph's brothers, thinking Joseph was long dead, went to Egypt to find food. When Joseph found that they had changed their evil ways, he revealed who he was, forgave them, and brought his whole family (the hebrew people) to live in Egypt.

The hebrews stayed for generations. As one pharoh after another died off, so did the story of Joseph and the arrangement he and the pharoh (Ramses II) had with the Hebrews. The hebrews' population had grown so high that the then-current pharoh ordered them enslaved so as to not allow them to overpower Egypt. Eventually, Moses was born, was raised by a pharoh's daughter, recognized the oppression of the hebrews, accepted God's calling to have them freed and eventually led them out of Egypt.

Any questions, let me know!
Ed

Ed ~ Aug 4, 2008 at 9:58 PM
@DadT --

RE: Searching for something to believe in is what people do.
I believe in the truth. Nothing more, nothing less. Search over!

RE: the root of religion has been an effort to answer these simple questions
These are philosophical questions, the first one likely without an answer. I don't disagree that religion attempts to answer them, but I think that the effort is wasted because (a) there may be no answer, or it may be beyond our capacity for understanding, and (b) philosophers would be better suited to guide us to the answers, if they existed.

RE: When people couldn?t find facts to answer the questions...
I agree with the sentiment, but would rephrase. I would say that when answers were not found in the facts, superstition filled the gaps so that people didn't have to deal with the fact they didn't have the answer. As we discover more facts, that superstition was either lucky enough to have been interpretable as correct, or has to be reinterpreted, or worse, just looks foolish.

My religion is the search for truth. No plausibly deniable answer will do. Black and white, cut and dry. I am 110% comfortable with, "I don't know... yet." Better that than an unverifiable supernatural being.

Adam ~ Aug 4, 2008 at 9:58 PM
To Adam:

Many things in life are accepted but can't be proven. To me it seems a waste of time to search for a concrete explanation based on the laws of physics unless I had specific need for that explanation.

Also, some things we all accept are simply based on common agreement. Why does 1 + 1 = 2? Because we all agreed that a common method for accounting (keeping track) was neccessary, and so basic numbering systems were designed. The only truth in math is that we all accept the rules that have been created to to always explain circumstances the same way - provided you use the same rules.

There is more meaning here than just the words. Think about it...

To Ed:

Thanks for the update on the Hebrews. I know the story of Joeseph (and his coat) but have not previously heard that the Jews were only enslaved after becoming too much of a burden on Egyptian culture (previously their semi-willing hosts).

Where does this explanation come from? I spent many years in church as a kid and don't remember anything about this.

Thanks again!
DadT

DadT ~ Aug 4, 2008 at 9:58 PM
@DadT -- I haven't met a Christian (or similar) yet who wouldn't have you believe that this question is the most paramount you will ever face. What question deserves more time and effort to discover the truth? After all, this is your eternal destiny we're talking about here.

1+1=2 is true by definition. Why is blue blue? By definition. We agree that the color I see as blue is to be called blue, even though it may be represented in your brain by the color that I recognize as red -- but no matter, you know it as "blue," so even though we both recognize it differently, we give it the same name, and can communicate about it. (I sometimes wonder if this affects certain people's ability to coordinate colors [like their clothes]). Numbering systems and Math in general are just a way of representing naturally occurring phenomena in a way that makes them communicable.

A circle is a good example. It has a circumference, diameter, area, and so on; and these measurements will always be in precise proportion to one another -- as well as some constants that occur in other places, like Pi. So circumference is the concept that describes the length of a circle's perimeter in proportion to its other properties. This is exactly the same way you explain a concept like 1+1=2, except that the 1+1=2 concept is so simple and yet so much a part of everything we know that most people are flabbergasted with the idea of explaining it.

Adam ~ Aug 4, 2008 at 9:58 PM
@GranddadB - (I just saw your post). No disrespect taken. I am in the middle of 3 classes and working a lot of overtime. Sometimes its hard for me to think clearly in what I think is a "deep" discussion. Truly, my mind is "mush" if I dont force concentration at times.

When I go back and re-read this post, I understand it more. Having been raised in a non-religious family (my mother was raised strict Catholic, but then ex-communicated because she married Protestant), I am not privvy to the nuances of the language and stories of the Bible. Having no background, I believe, puts me at a disadvantage in understanding conversations such as this. Normally I'd do a bit of research and bring myself up to speed so I can take part, but I'm too overwhelmed with everything else going on to take part.

I am, tho, enjoying reading everyone else's thoughts on the matter.

MomT ~ Aug 4, 2008 at 9:58 PM
To DadT:

The story about the israelites' oppression is found in the 1st chapter of the book of Exodus. Here's a link. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%201%20;&version=31;

I asked the same question several years back. I had 12 years of Catholic education and do not recall ever hearing this explanation. But, Catholics are famous for not reading the Bible. :-p

--Ed

Ed ~ Aug 4, 2008 at 9:58 PM
I also will second DadT's remarks around "Many things in life are accepted but can?t be proven." If God exists, and if God did create the universe, wouldn't God be, by definition, above the univers and the science therein? I wholeheartedly believe that there is more to it than just rational, scientific thought. Proverbs 3:5-6 reads, "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and don't lean on your own understanding. in all your ways acknowledge Him and He will make your paths straight."

If God needs to be scientifically proven, I find it hard to believe that there would be millions of sentient people, myself included, believing that Truth lies in God and that all other truths (like science) flow forth from Him. I don't believe that these millions, myself included, are deluded. I believe some do ride the coattails of their upbringing without truly making their faith their own. But that's not everyone.

To those people who feel they need to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists, you're missing out. (OK, I'll get off my soapbox now.)

--Ed

Ed ~ Aug 4, 2008 at 9:58 PM
@Ed -- So what about the millions of Buddhists? Muslims? Jews? Are all of these people deluded? If your argument that God exists because millions of people believe in him is true, then -- by definition -- these people are deluded, because if your God exists, then they are wrong.

However, isolating the believer count argument, how do we decide which is correct? Whoever has the most believers wins? That seems fair based on your argument that God needs no proof because of his believer count. But that would mean it could change over time. God may not need proof this week, but next week there's a surge of Muslim conversion and now Muslims outnumber Christians 3:1. Does God now need proof?

None of this makes any sense anyway, because if God needs no proof, then Buddha needs no proof, and Allah needs no proof. And if none of them need proof, then they are all to be accepted as true. But they can't all be true, by definition. So the argument is invalid.

Number of believers means nothing. What percentage of the population believed the world was flat? Did that make them right? Certainly it was a fair theory for the time, but was it beyond questioning based simply on popularity?

Adam ~ Aug 4, 2008 at 9:58 PM
RE: "To those people who feel they need to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists, you?re missing out."

Honestly, I'd just like to see some evidence that I believe that has no other explanation than God -- even if it can't prove existence beyond a shadow of a doubt. So far (in the book) I've seen them bring up lots of questions that have no definite answer, and since science can't yet answer the question, they automatically ascribe it to God. That's jumping to conclusions, and accomplishes nothing.

Adam ~ Aug 4, 2008 at 9:58 PM
Uncle.

Ed ~ Aug 4, 2008 at 9:58 PM
Hi all, I've been thinking about jumping in on this discussion, but somehow time to have a sane, rational thought has been at a premium at our house lately between all the coughs and fevers, and ear infection, and antibiotics and pink eye and hives and more pink eye and more antibiotics and more hives and more Benedryll... you get the picture. So, we're a mess here, but hangin' in! I think everyone got good sleep last night, so that's a good start to the day!

Ok, here are my thoughts, such as they are... I think that when you start with the assumption that no supernatural explanation would be sufficient to answer your question then you are automatically biased in your thought process. If you start out by ruling out any explanation that is not scientifically observable, measureable, etc then, of course you're not going to ever come to the conclusion that God (a supernatural being by definition) was responsible. You can't expect to be able to use natural means to prove or disprove something that does not even claim to be natural. That being said, I don't believe that the authors of the book in question are attempting to 100% prove the existance of God. What they are attempting to accomplish is to demonstrate that any world view requires faith. An atheist is not able to 100% prove the NON-existance of God, therefore their belief system also requires faith. The authors of the book make the argument that it takes MORE faith to be an atheist than to be a theist. I did not get the impression that they automatically plugged God in to fill in the "gaps" of their understanding. In fact they specificaly state the "God of the Gaps" argument and explain why they disagree with that philosophy. What they do, is consider the supernatural as a possble explanation along with the natural - not ruling anything out until there is a reason to rule it out. And their arguments explain why, at times, the supernatural explanation requires less of a leap of faith than the natural one.

I think that in order to truly examine the claims of the Bible that you have to consider the possibility that a supernatural God pre-existed our natural world, designed it in such a way that there would be natural laws and therefore created the science that we put so much faith in today. If you step inside this world-view for a moment, does it not cease to make sense to use science and only science to attempt to prove or disprove the existance of the one who created science? I'm not trying to use this argument to give evidence for the existance of God. Rather, I'm trying to make the point that one can not fully and seriously consider the claims of the Bible until you consider the supernatural as an equally viable explanation.

For me personally, one of the most convincing "proofs" for the God of the Bible is the person of Jesus. For no other religious figure in no other religion is there as much historical and scientific evidence as the evidence that exists for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I think this is the crux (literally) of the issue. You can't ignore Jesus and you can't explain Him away. What do you do with Jesus?

I'll end by reiterating that I too, am enjoying these discussions. As each of you readers, I have a very definite opinion on these issues. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my beliefs and hope that, if nothing else, I can put the kaibash on the idea that all Christians are people who are deliberately ignoring evidence and rational thought in order to continue to delude themselves into believing in something just to make themselves feel good. As always, I continue to love and respect each of you and your right to your own beliefs.

Susan ~ Aug 4, 2008 at 9:58 PM
ADAM:
@Ed ? So what about the millions of Buddhists? Muslims? Jews? Are all of these people deluded? If your argument that God exists because millions of people believe in him is true, then ? by definition ? these people are deluded, because if your God exists, then they are wrong.
ED:
I NEVER said that God exists because millions of people believe in him. There is a HUGE difference between delusion and misinformation/lack of exposure/lack of experience. I actually take offense to this, Adam.

ADAM:
However, isolating the believer count argument, how do we decide which is correct? Whoever has the most believers wins? That seems fair based on your argument that God needs no proof because of his believer count. But that would mean it could change over time. God may not need proof this week, but next week there?s a surge of Muslim conversion and now Muslims outnumber Christians 3:1. Does God now need proof?

ED:
No one should ever argue from the point of complete number count. That would be completely irresponsible and unfair. When I quoted ?millions? I was merely making a point.

ADAM:
None of this makes any sense anyway, because if God needs no proof, then Buddha needs no proof, and Allah needs no proof. And if none of them need proof, then they are all to be accepted as true. But they can?t all be true, by definition. So the argument is invalid.

ED:
Again, misinformation and lack of exposure/experience. I believe that the proof of God vs. Buddha, Allah, Krishna, Vishnu, etc., has been thoroughly vetted out by over a millennium of argument and research. This proof lies with the historicity and argument, not science. You have made the choice that only a scientific argument is valid, correct? If so, could you ever be convinced otherwise? I think you have your answer.

ADAM:
Number of believers means nothing. What percentage of the population believed the world was flat? Did that make them right? Certainly it was a fair theory for the time, but was it beyond questioning based simply on popularity?

ED:
Again, you are reading something that you want to read in my post that was never stated or intended.

In the end, Adam, I think you need to know that I am extremely emotionally invested in this argument. My faith has been put through a refiner?s fire of experience, prayer, and other things that you do not yet know about which are not appropriate for this forum. I will go on record saying that your overt inference through our many discussions on this blog (not just this one) that I, my family, and those with whom I worship are deluded is rather insulting. I think you need to give a little more credit to people like me? Christians. Accusations of delusion do not

Ed ~ Aug 4, 2008 at 9:58 PM
The last line of the above post should read:
Accusations of delusion do not come across as respectful.

Ed ~ Aug 4, 2008 at 9:58 PM
@Susan -- I'm working on a response for you too, but I ran out of time. Hopefully that will come later tonight or tomorrow.

@Ed -- I do apologize for offending you. No disrespect is meant, whatsoever. However, it's only fair that I get to further counterpoint:

I NEVER said that God exists because millions of people believe in him. There is a HUGE difference between delusion and misinformation/lack of exposure/lack of experience.
You are 100% correct, on all counts. However, this is based on a typo I made. Where I wrote, "If your argument that God exists because millions of people believe in him is true, then..." I should have written, "If your argument that God is above questioning because millions of people believe in him is true, then...", which is how I interpreted your statement: "If God needs to be scientifically proven, I find it hard to believe that there would be millions of sentient people, myself included, believing that Truth lies in God and that all other truths (like science) flow forth from Him." If I am mistaken, then what is meant by that passage? (A lot of what I'm about to write is based on this interpretation, so if I am mistaken, then the rest will need to be updated before it can be fairly scrutinized.)

No one should ever argue from the point of complete number count. That would be completely irresponsible and unfair. When I quoted ?millions? I was merely making a point.
My point exactly! What, if not that God is beyond subjecting to scientific questioning because of the number of his believers, was the point you were making? It would indeed be irresponsible and unfair, and that's why I said what I did. I'm playing the part of the Devi's Advocate (pun intended).

I believe that the proof of God vs. Buddha, Allah, Krishna, Vishnu, etc., has been thoroughly vetted out by over a millennium of argument and research.
I think we both already knew this, but it's worth pointing out that I think we're interpreting the results of the research differently. You believe that history points to a supernatural power creating everything, and I believe that there is no more evidence for your supernatural power than there is for any other supernatural power (Just because we don't know what caused the universe to come into existence (and with it, time, space, and reality) does not mean that there ARE NOT natural causes, so while supernaturality -- if it exists -- can be an option, it is not the only option). For example, what makes God more believable than a psychic, or tarot card reader? I would suspect that you would, just as I would, realize that psychics and tarot card readers are ordinary people who claim extraordinary (supernatural) abilities; but we both probably suspect them of engineering the situation to gain information covertly, and then using it to sound extraordinarily informed. If God is supernatural, yet I claim not; what's to say that psychic's aren't real and you and I are wrongly accusing them of social engineering (God, that would be frustrating!)? That is, if God can be supernatural (lets say, a supernatural rating of 100) why can't there be people with a little bit of supernatural ability (say, a rating of 12)? I don't believe anything above a 0 exists.

This proof lies with the historicity and argument, not science.
That's where you're wrong. The suggestion lies within history and argument, and the rest you take on faith. I don't think it takes any faith to believe in a natural cause for the disappearance of a body, given the scientific repeatable fact/observation that it happens with some level of regularity (mostly, I'm guessing, as body-snatching). Give me proof of the resurrection and I'll back down on this one... and believe in God, to boot!

You have made the choice that only a scientific argument is valid, correct? If so, could you ever be convinced otherwise? I think you have your answer.
<a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=2&oi=define&ei=3yLkR_2zDJCggwTPntGuBw&sig2=BdXqAmbHmr6Dyyqs1UasIA&q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science&usg=AFQjCNGMd-hcs8HpdHoAO1rWSp6bKc5TMA"; rel="nofollow">"Science, in the broadest sense, refers to any system of knowledge which attempts to model objective reality. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research."</a>
If you'll allow me to slightly paraphrase: I will only accept a scientific proof as valid. Arguments are then built around that scientific proof using logic. If you'll allow this paraphrasing, then yes, I believe this to be true. On the other side of the coin, would it be fair to say that you will accept an unproven -- nay, unprovable -- assertion, because of your faith that it is true? If so, could you be convinced otherwise?

Again, you are reading something that you want to read in my post that was never stated or intended.
I don't think so. Again, based on my interpretation of what you wrote: God is above questioning because of the number of people who believe in him. I would estimate that a larger percentage of the world population was on board with the world-is-flat theory then than the global percentage of Christians today. Whether or not I'm correct on the statistic doesn't really matter, because what I'm illustrating here is that hindsight proves that even the vast majority can be wrong, and that my belief is that one day, either they (Christians) will be proven wrong, or they will be proven right (and I want to clearly state that: it is a possibility, however minute!); but for right now, my money is on "wrong."

I will go on record as saying that I have never accused you of being any more deluded than you have I; however I understand that you mean no disrespect or insult by it, and I hope that you can see that I don't either. It has to work both ways: If you can tell me why you believe I'm wrong, I can tell you why I believe you're wrong. And if you're right, you'll be better off for having had the experience anyway, so what's to be bitter for?

Further, as Geisler and Turek state in the book, the Bible tells you to "know your faith ... with all your mind" (forgive me for not having the verse number handy), which they interpret as putting it to scrutiny, because they believe, as you do, that it will only strengthen your faith. By that reasoning, is what I'm doing not a good thing?

Still further, I find it interesting and compelling that you haven't once tried to disprove my argument about what Geisler and Turek wrote in Chapter 2 of their book (the original post). Is that because you agree with me, or for some other reason? With all due respect, this is what I expected the most backlash from: "Left intact, the Principle of Empirical Verifiability can be applied to any religious discussion to render the issue of faith irrelevant." And yet, I don't think it's even been mentioned.

Adam ~ Aug 4, 2008 at 9:58 PM
@Susan --

when you start with the assumption that no supernatural explanation would be sufficient
I don't assert that supernaturality is impossible; and further I welcome it with open arms, but I do not do so blindly. If it can be proven, even indirectly as (to the best of my recollection) Geisler & Turek (G&T) claim they will do in their book, then I will accept supernaturality as A possibility; but unless it is otherwise proven, I doubt -- based on what I've read so far -- they will convince me it is the only possibility.

A perfect example is how G&T ascribe the big bang to God. Essentially, they say that objective scientists and religious philosophers all agree that the big bang happened all at once, with no natural cause (which I agree is impossible: the big bang created time, space, reality, and causality as we experience them), and with great speed and precision. And since there can be no natural cause, it must be supernatural, therefore a supernatural cause exists, and it must have been God who did it. WOAH! Slow down there, boys. Just because our concept of time, space, matter, etc all came into being with the big bang does not mean that there isn't some other form of time, space, matter, etc that we have no clue about, that our universe exists and could be caused in. You haven't disproven this; so it needs to be held against the God theory as a possible alternative. As an abstract sort of example, after years and years of research and failed attempts, we have the ability to cause nuclear fusion and fission. What if (remember, this is just an abstract), every time we fuse 2 atoms together as in fusion, we are creating a tiny little universe inside that new atom? Would any life that came to be inside that universe have the ability to recognize where it came from? (Answer: Unknown. It's just a thought experiment. We'd have to first observe the creation of such a universe before we could answer that question.) But it stands that there is more than one viable theory, so the big bang cannot prove the existence of God.

The authors of the book make the argument that it takes MORE faith to be an atheist than to be a theist.
(Because we have not proven the non-existence of God) On the other hand, Christians believe in something that hasn't been proven either (hence religious faith). I think that we can agree that there are far fewer god-like proven truths (my opinion: none, yours: at least one), than there are scientifically proven truths (billions of trillions), meaning that statistically, it is more likely that there is a scientific explanation for things that are ascribed to God and less likely that God is accountable.

As I mentioned in my reply to Ed, hindsight is 20/20. Just as <a href="http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Galileo_disprove_the_Bible"; rel="nofollow">Galileo disproved the Bible's assertion that the Earth was the center of the universe</a>; as time progresses, I believe that more and more of the teachings of the bible will be overturned, until eventually it won't have a leg to stand on. Of course, this is a slow process and I'm sure there will still be a Christian majority when my children's children's grandchildren are around.

For no other religious figure [Jesus] in no other religion is there as much historical and scientific evidence as the evidence that exists for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I think this is the crux (literally) of the issue.
Can you remind me what evidence there is for the resurrection of Jesus, besides the fact that he wasn't there the next morning (or whenever it was that they checked on him), despite there being guards assigned to the door which -- thinking back to our discussion -- you said had been sealed shut with a boulder or something of that nature, correct?

Based on my experience that all men before me have died, and that none of them have come back to life; as well as my experience that there are no other generally accepted supernatural phenomena (I don't believe in ghosts and find the idea laughable), I find it far more likely (however, admittedly not provable beyond a shadow of a doubt) that the guards fell asleep or were paid off, the rock was moved, the body was removed, the and the rock was replaced -- Or alternately, that whoever had the body entombed and posted the guards was "in" on the removal of the body as well. Would you agree that statistically, this has a much greater chance of having occurred than the resurrection? Bodies have disappeared before, cops posted outside of hospital rooms have lost their charge before. So, without further evidence (which is what I'm asking for) to persuade one way or the other, I have to side with the statistics and draw the conclusion that in all likelihood, there was no resurrection; even with the circumstantial evidence of the missing body.

Statistically speaking, I think it takes less faith to be an Atheist. My faith tells me that there is a natural cause for everything, regardless of whether or not we know or understand it. Living in a natural world, it seems obvious to me that it takes less faith to believe in the natural than the supernatural.

Adam ~ Aug 4, 2008 at 9:58 PM
Something else along the lines of "commonly acceptable truths" you might want to consider.

Time is relative. As we know it, time is generally measured by astrological occurances, specifically the Earth's rotation (day/night), the Moon's phase (months) and our travel around the Sun (years).

Any point of reference other than from Earth would have a dramatically different foundation of time, possibly on a scale so different from ours that we would have a difficult time understanding it.

I accept it's possible a life form could exist where a fleeting moment of their time could be the equvalent of 1,000,000 Earth orbits around our sun. I also accept other forms of life could transend 1,000,000 generations while I blink my eyes.

The big-bang is believed to have happened instantly, yet in a different definition of time it could have taken millions of "our" years to have happened. At odds with the "instant" theory are the competing ideas of an expanding (or collapsing) universe.

I've often wished science would look inward rather than outward. If we spent the money and time to study living tissue at a sub-atomic level would we find a lot in common with our universe? If we found intelligent life at the sub-atomic level could we also accept that we could be sub-atomic players inside another being? Could we ever communicate in either direction. My guess is probably not.

Taken to extemes, was our big-bang just the moment in time (at whatever scale) that chromosomes split, and the expanding/collapsing universe be nothing more that time playing out on a scale that incorporates us as nothing more than a chemical-like influence?

Religion is about accepting that which can't be proven. Different religions would have you believe their own views about existance, purpose, values, etc. That there are so many views of existance proves mostly that we don't know enough - and yet we have the need to understand.

I'd guess thousands of religions have grown and declined since intelligence began demanding explanations for life. Learning to speak and then to write is how ideas spread, and the better we've gotten at spreading our "truths" the easier it has been for reglions to become more dominant.

We're not at a point wher a handful of religions have gained critical mass. Each religion believes the others to be false and converting non-believers to their own faith is vital.

I accept that finding "the truth" is a human need and that until unequivical proof is found we are all sorting our lives as best we can. We should all expect the right to our own beliefs and to question any information available to us.

Healthy debate is the foundation for learning so I'm happy to see so many differing views. I'm learning from each of you as I also express my opinion.

And it's worth every penny of what you paid for it.

DadT ~ Aug 4, 2008 at 9:58 PM
I clicked a couple of links from Adam's reference to Gallileo and came across this page.

Essentially it states that evolution can't be proven any more than religion. It extrapolates to imply that if you can't disprove religion then it has to be right but we've already gotten past that argument (right?).

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/645/

Also, my previous post conjectured "we're not a point" and it should have been "we are a point".

DadT ~ Aug 4, 2008 at 9:58 PM

TuttleTree.com

How Logic (and Google) Saved My Pants

21 responses to “How Logic (and Google) Saved My Pants”

On Flickr

On Twitter

Categories

Archives By Month

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

About This Site