"It seems to me to be the ultimate waste of resources."
Because maybe those "resources" really count for diddly squat?
How about you make a beaker full of gunk. Then somewhere in that gunk, at one little point, you make some little people. Then suppose it turns out that they love the gunk, think it beautiful and awe-inspiring, as it is so large compared to them and their small place in it. Now further suppose that they wonder why you chose that little insignificant part of the gunk in which to put the little dudes.
I really think you would enjoy "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist", recently published and the best book of Christian apologetics I have yet read. I have no doubt God exists for many of the same reasons you give for not believing.
"It seems to me to be the ultimate waste of resources."
Remember, God, if He exists, stands outside time, and above what we call natural law. Concepts of waste and resource finitude would not apply to such a Being. You cannot "waste" time when time does not affect you; you cannot "waste" resources when all things exist by your own choice and command.
How about you make a beaker full of gunk. Then somewhere in that gunk, at one little point, you make some little people. Then suppose it turns out that they love the gunk, think it beautiful and awe-inspiring, as it is so large compared to them and their small place in it. Now further suppose that they wonder why you chose that little insignificant part of the gunk in which to put the little dudes.
BUT! The entire purpose for making the beaker full of gunk was to create those little people, and make a contract with them that you KNEW THEY COULDN'T KEEP?
Kevin, such beliefs abound not because they make sense, but because they allow those essentially puny beings to believe they are not essentially puny beings, that they are more than special, they are the focal point of it all. If you have no need for such belief because you don't mind being what you appear to be, then it is indeed unbelievable.
It seems to me to be the ultimate waste of resources
[sarcasm]
And here I thought He just wanted a really big backyard for our little house down here...
[/sarcasm]
In seriousness, if you look at the universe and assert that, then you are assuming something that most believers (in any of the Abrahamic faiths) don't assume.
Your logic tracks cleanly from that assumption, but people who don't share the assumption view the deductions as irrelevant, deliberately obtuse, or just plain screwed-up.
It's one of the hazards of holding an opinion about the existence (or lack thereof) of a deity.
In seriousness, if you look at the universe and assert that, then you are assuming something that most believers (in any of the Abrahamic faiths) don't assume.
My assumption is based on the idea (as I was taught from childhood) that all of this - the universe and everything - was made by God for us. Earth (and humanity) is, essentially, the Center of the Physical Universe.
After watching the first third of that video, I am forced to conclude that such a concept is risible.
"Kevin, such beliefs abound not because they make sense, but because they allow those essentially puny beings to believe they are not essentially puny beings, that they are more than special, they are the focal point of it all."
I don't think so. I think it is an attempt to give purpose to an existence that otherwise seems purposeless to some. Notice that I said "to some" so as not to get into an argument about that again. :)
DJ, you completely took the words out of my mouth. Actually, I was going post something similar but I don't think I could have written it so well. I am in complete agreement with you and I am Christian, although not by the definition of those who pretend to be who this line applies to perfectly.
Kevin, DJ's line should be a quote of the day. I will probably put it my blog. Wow. Simply stunning. I have to say that my respect for you, DJ, has gone way up!
> just so he could pick one completely ordinary spiral galaxy
This a common fallacy, because our sun is ordinary (which scientists do believe), it is assumed our galaxy is too. In fact the Milky Way is considered a major spiral galaxy, one of the largest known. And that's not believed to be just because we can get a good look at it and not others, in fact the masses of millions of galaxies are known to an approximate degree, and most spirals don't come close. Our traveling companion (Andromeda) is even bigger. Have some pride in the great Milky Way!
Earth is not the center of the physical universe. Neither science nor scripture say that. Also, humans are important to God, but nothing in scripture says that we are alone in the universe.
Especially if the physical laws of this universe prohibit us from visiting those billions of other stars and galaxies.
We don't yet know how to travel vast distances in relatively short times, but that doesn't mean we won't someday figure it out.
As for waste, God created the universe from nothing. If you have infinite resources, there's no such thing as waste.
Thou knowest more than I do about such things. On occasion, I see the TV screen as my wife watches in her study. My most notable question about it to her was, "Why does such an ugly alien have such a great body?" She didn't answer.
Well, there were the intelligent (and really pissy) crystals from Home Soil, but that was a really terrible episode, so no one can be blamed for wiping it from their memories. And there was the Crystalline Entity.
As I recall, the explanation for why all life in the galaxy was variations on "humanoid" was that the first intelligent species in the galaxy seeded promising planets with their own DNA to get life going elsewhere. So in that case, "God" is a hairless ape- rather an inversion.
Yes, we are special to God. But special doesn't necessarily mean the center of all things or above all things. Children are usually very special to their parents, but, if parents do their job right, children eventually come to understand that they are not the center of the universe or above anyone else in the world.
But if it were really true, wouldn't we all look alike? Or at least resemble Charleton Heston?
I, personally, wouldn't mind if more men looked like Charleton Heston. But you've got the wrong definition for the word "image" here. It doesn't refer to the physical, but to the spiritual. God is not understood by Jews or Christians to be corporeal, so we must be like God in a non-corporeal way, i.e. we do things the other animals don't do, like think, create, love, etc. Extending the parent-child analogy, we do this with our own children: most parents try to mold their children to be like themselves in terms of values, beliefs, and sometimes even work, hobbies, and personal tastes.
Or does this explain why all the aliens on Star Trek are anthropoid?
I think it's because we humans have an exceptionally difficult time coming up with things that are genuinely new -- it's like imagining a new primary color or a new musical note. We take what we know and tweak it a little and consider it "new," which is why 90% of the alien lifeforms in sci-fi are just variations on humanoids or other earthly life-forms. Notice that the other 10% are pretty much blobs: the thing that killed Tasha Yar, the Horta, those flying fake-barf things that killed Kirk's brother, and, of course, the Blob.
That's more of a technical limitation of movies and television than a limitation of science fiction. Books, and now increasingly video games, are full of aliens that are truly inhuman in both physical design and mindset.
Sarah, my post was mostly tongue-in-cheek. But, Genesis says what it quoted, and I can't help but wonder just what the definitions of the words were to whoever authored it. Does it mean what the auther meant then, or does it mean what you rationalize it into now?
I think the current genre of Star Trek is no more than a politically correct soap opera, set in the future, and (apparently, given what tiny part of it I've seen) so devoid of plot that it's a wonder the writers can stay awake while writing it. Your analysis of it is lost on me, as I have no knowledge whatever of the whatsits you named.
I'll touch on a few different aspects here. Pretty much all of which have been commented on already.
First off, at one point in time we knew the size of the world and realized that most of it was wasted and unused. Now that's not the case. Later on, we thought the moon was unreachable. You get the idea.
Man was made in God's image, not as exact replicas of what He looks like. I can create 20 different sculptures, each in the image of a horse (even using the same horse as the model) and have them all look completely different. Okay, maybe I can't do this, but someone with actual artistic talent could. I'm pretty sure God is talented.
Oh, and for those looking for answers to this specific subject, the Mormons have it all pretty well figured out. I won't spoil the surprise or anything, but if you talk to those two clean cut young men wearing suits and knocking on doors they can help you out.
But, Genesis says what it quoted, and I can't help but wonder just what the definitions of the words were to whoever authored it. Does it mean what the auther meant then, or does it mean what you rationalize it into now?
That's a very good question. You do understand that there is consensus amongst Jews that God has no physical form, right? Therefore, "image" has to mean something other than the physical. The root of the Hebrew word for image is "shadow." That is our clue that image is not meant to be interpreted as the physical. This isn't my rationalization, this is ancient Jewish tradition going back centuries. Maimonides made a very interesting comment in his Guide for the Perplexed (12th century) that in the time of Adam there existed hominids that were like humans in form and intelligence, but lacking the "image" (the "image" of God) that separates man from the animals.
We are a shadow of God, made in His likeness -- but also in the likeness of the physical world, which is why Genesis 1:26 says "let us make man in our image... ." It is God and the earth together making man -- the spiritual and the physical.
James Taranto writes like that, using the regal "we".
Sarah, your comment reminded me of something that happened my freshman year at university.
I lived in a dorm that year with a roommate who professed to be "gung ho for JAYZUZ! It's an Oklahoma Baptist thing. He became a crusader for Campus Crusade for Christ, a local evangelical organization of students. He was gung ho enough that he flunked three classes his second semester.
I came back from class one day to find him in our room discussing Christian theology with two of his fellow crusaders. Well, that's OK, it was his room, too. They were quiet and polite, but each was absolutely, positively certain that he was right and the other two were wrong as detail after detail of dogma was dissected. Normally, I can concentrate through most anything, but as it went on and on, the humor coefficient grew and grew until I couldn't contain my laughter any longer. It was either let it go or blow spittle all over my desk.
The two cohorts were polite, but my roommate was offended, as if I had embarrased him, and demanded an explanation. I simply pointed out the nature of their discussion, without elaborating on any details, and then asked, "Why should anyone believe you're right when you can't even agree with each other on what you're right about? How can you all be certain when you're mutually contradictory?"
It was funnier in person.
It has been thus for centuries. I have heard and read lots of explanations of what this passage and others in Genesis mean. The explainers have been as certain as they have been contradictory. Each had his own "interpretation" and each thought he was spot-on.
I mean no offense, but I still find laughable the lengths people will go to in justifying belief in the stories of an unknown bronze-age tribesman. I hope it gives you as much comfort as it gives me humor.
The opening passages of Genesis is one of the few (and I think maybe only) instances of God saying "we," so the royal we thing doesn't make sense.
"Why should anyone believe you're right when you can't even agree with each other on what you're right about? How can you all be certain when you're mutually contradictory?"
I am confused by your attitude here. People argue about the meaning of everything, otherwise why would we have entire courses and papers devoted to different interpretations of literature, poetry, song lyrics, scientific papers, last words, Egyptian hieroglyphs, and, not least, our Constitution. Why is it that religion, in your mind, is necessarily exempt from this? Why must religious people be of exactly one mind when it comes to scripture? We are currently engaged in a knock-down national fight over the meaning of the words in the 2nd amendment, words written a couple hundred years ago, and yet it seems you expect Christians to agree 100% on a set of telegraphic statements made thousands of years ago. The exact sort of thing that supposedly intellectual, or at least reasoning, people find objectionable -- blind acceptance without any thought -- is the exact thing you are insisting that we religious people should be doing. You seem to be insisting on a catch-22 situation: if we exercise blind faith, it's a weakness; if we exercise some intellect over aspects of our belief, it's a weakness. This reminds me of the argument I had with some feminists over their conclusion that not raping women is itself a crime, and essentially a man is guilty of something no matter what he does, just as Christians are guilty to you no matter what they do. Do you understand that this is the hallmark of bigotry?
I'll apply your exact statement above to politics and we can see whether it makes sense. By your reasoning, we should conclude that Ahmed over there is watching the debates, observing the contention between different groups, and then saying to us: "Why should we believe the American way of governing is right when you can't even agree with each other on what you're right about? How can you all be certain when you're mutually contradictory?" And he ignores the fact that enough of us still agree on the few fundamental principles that unify this country -- just as Christians agree on the few fundamental principles that unify them in belief.
Second, I don't know if your roommates were arguing about the OT or the NT, but I rarely if ever trust any Christian interpretation of the Old Testament. I belong to a Bible study group on campus, and it's fascinating to watch the dynamics. First, the Christian members debate the meaning of OT scripture until nothing makes any sense, and then finally one of our Jewish members, who can no longer contain his annoyance, will give us the rabbinical interpretation, and suddenly there is some clarity (though even then some of the Christians will disagree). When I don't understand a passage in Jewish scripture, I almost always go to a Jewish source.
Lastly, it strikes me that people often laugh at that which they don't understand. I'm not offended by your remarks, DJ. But I do see in them an almost complete lack of curiosity and intellectual depth. I know you have read the Bible. But you, like many atheists, seem to take a very hard-line literalist view of the Bible, which is very easy to knock down and ridicule. That seems to give you a great deal of comfort, so what can I possibly tell you that will change your mind?
I attended a big astronomical conference this week in Austin. There were hundreds of astronomers from all over the world converging to discuss the latest developments in the astrophysical world. When I attended a Christian astronomers' luncheon I was surprised to meet a couple of young earth astronomers, who were actually professors at a university somewhere. What I find a little humorous is that arguing with them over scripture was exactly like arguing with you. You are a fundamentalist, DJ, albeit one without a belief in God.
My attitude is amusement at how people justify believing what they believe. It is part and parcel of why I comment here in Kevin's parlor. The dichotomy between the justification of beliefs by the left and the right is rather stark, isn't it?
"People argue about the meaning of everything, otherwise why would we have entire courses and papers devoted to different interpretations of literature, poetry, song lyrics, scientific papers, last words, Egyptian hieroglyphs, and, not least, our Constitution. Why is it that religion, in your mind, is necessarily exempt from this? Why must religious people be of exactly one mind when it comes to scripture?"
Religion is not exempt from this at all, Sarah. Religion is based on faith, which is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, and so the justifications that people give for their religious beliefs are remarkably different from the reasons they give for most other subjects. When two people would each have me subscribe to their religious beliefs, and yet their individual beliefs contradict each other and neither rests on logical proof or material evidence, well, such gives rise to the cliche that one man's dogma is another man's belly laugh.
I don't expect religious people to be of one mind and I see no reason why they should be. If two people read the plain language of the 2nd amendment, I think they should arrive at the same belief as to what it means, as it's language is brutely simple and those who wrote it and voted on it stated what it means. But when the same two people arrive at beliefs about a creator of the universe, about what this creator looks like, what it thinks, what it wants, and so on and so on, then I have no reason whatever to expect that their beliefs will square with each other. I do not complain that religious people are not of one mind. I simply point out that the fact that they are not of one mind on matters that are based on faith mitigates strongly against the notion that any of them are right.
And, I find that humorous. I always have.
"The exact sort of thing that supposedly intellectual, or at least reasoning, people find objectionable -- blind acceptance without any thought -- is the exact thing you are insisting that we religious people should be doing."
I don't accuse them of blind acceptance without thought. It is the acceptance of anything as a matter of faith that I find bizarre. My mind does not work that way.
"You seem to be insisting on a catch-22 situation: if we exercise blind faith, it's a weakness; if we exercise some intellect over aspects of our belief, it's a weakness."
I think it is a weakness, regardless of how it is done, if belief is based on premises that are accepted as true simply because someone else said they are true and are believed because that belief is emotionally preferable to non-belief. One can reason logically from false premises, and such reasoning is by no means a weakness. Indeed, I applaud the effort. It is, however, likely to produce bizarre results.
"This reminds me of the argument I had with some feminists over their conclusion that not raping women is itself a crime, and essentially a man is guilty of something no matter what he does, just as Christians are guilty to you no matter what they do. Do you understand that this is the hallmark of bigotry?"
Reset and start over, Sarah. I have argued elsewhere that one of my greatest objections to the dogma of Christianity is that it holds people guilty of sins, of violations of the rules, which were committed by others before they were born, and that such belief is utterly contemptible. Contrary to your statement, I hold Christians to be not guilty of what Christian doctrine itself holds Christians to be guilty of. Perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote, but your statement is way off the mark.
You've accused me before of being a bigot. The definition of bigot is: "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." If I were not tolerant of other people's religious views, then I would be an evangelist and try to change them. As I've stated before, I am not an evangelist. What I am also not is a sheep who believes what others believe simply because others tell him to believe it.
"Second, I don't know if your roommates were arguing about the OT or the NT, but I rarely if ever trust any Christian interpretation of the Old Testament."
Well said, and I agree, but they were arguing about the New Testament. It is quite difficult to get an Oklahoma Baptist out of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They'll tell you, flat out, that's all they need.
They, and others, go even further. Many religious beliefs are rooted in the faith, flatly stated, that the Bible is inerrant on those subjects which it addresses. As you pointed out in the quote that follows, such is easy to knock down and ridicule, but many of these people rely on nothing else.
"Lastly, it strikes me that people often laugh at that which they don't understand. I'm not offended by your remarks, DJ. But I do see in them an almost complete lack of curiosity and intellectual depth. I know you have read the Bible. But you, like many atheists, seem to take a very hard-line literalist view of the Bible, which is very easy to knock down and ridicule. That seems to give you a great deal of comfort, so what can I possibly tell you that will change your mind?"
You probably can't change my mind, Sarah. I've read and thought on this subject on and off for almost twice your lifetime. It's a subject that I'm frankly tired of, and I haven't read or heard any new arguments on it in a very long time. My mind being made up, as it were, is not bigotry and it's not stubborness, it's simply a result. Absent something new and startlingly convincing, I suspect it'll stay made up.
The fascination that remains, though, is about human nature, about why people believe what they do.
"You are a fundamentalist, DJ, albeit one without a belief in God."
I believe in reality and the laws of physics. That's a fundamental point of view, I suppose, and a belief in deities of any kind plays no part in it.
Religion is based on faith, which is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, and so the justifications that people give for their religious beliefs are remarkably different from the reasons they give for most other subjects.
No, you are wrong. People do not choose belief in God -- or any belief -- purely for reasons of faith. There is evidence involved -- you take the evidence to mean one thing, and I take it to mean another. But this neglects the fact that some of your core beliefs rest on faith just as much as those of religious people. I had this argument over at du Toit's a while back. Try proving, for instance, that individual rights are important. You can't. Quoting from that argument:
The characterization of religiousness as entirely a matter of faith and personal preference is not accurate. Faith is not what causes most people to believe. Most genuinely religious people choose their beliefs on rational grounds and understand faith as that which carries one through the times when one’s emotions conflict with reality. As for personal preference, I understand the point you’re trying to make, but there is something crucial missing from your argument, which is how one’s basic assumptions dictate what is logical and what isn’t. You and I and everyone else here obviously believe in the importance of individual rights. Given that premise, it is logically provable that an armed culture that values self-defense is superior. But can you prove that individual rights are important? What if you don’t believe in individual rights, but instead believe in the supremacy of government and the masses? Logically, an armed culture is the last thing you should have, and no amount of data will stand against that. This is why people like Kevin are doomed to failure unless they first convert people to the notion of individual rights. Problem is, there is no proof for it—it’s an exercise in religious conversion. Your job is easier, Kim, because you’re dealing with the questioning agnostics. But this doesn’t invalidate my comparison. It all boils down to the same thing.
DJ, some things you take entirely as an article of faith whether you realize it or not. As much as you would like to think that you are a man of reason and hard evidence, you are not. No one is.
I have argued elsewhere that one of my greatest objections to the dogma of Christianity is that it holds people guilty of sins, of violations of the rules, which were committed by others before they were born, and that such belief is utterly contemptible.
As Ben has pointed out here before, the Original Sin idea is not something from the Bible. Nevertheless, you don't think that children and grandchildren suffer from the mistakes their parents make? You don't think we, as Americans, aren't suffering for the mistakes our ancestors made? I can only imagine what the state of race relations in this country would be without the legacy of slavery. It's really unfair that you and I have to suffer for it, but that's the reality.
It is quite difficult to get an Oklahoma Baptist out of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They'll tell you, flat out, that's all they need.
I think they are wrong, and that's something I hope to change.
I believe in reality and the laws of physics. That's a fundamental point of view, I suppose, and a belief in deities of any kind plays no part in it.
The laws of physics are, at best, a toy model of whatever the reality is, which we humans may never fully understand.
As for the latter part of your statement, you are quite wrong. If it was not for the Judaic belief (inherited by Christianity) in linear time, we would not have the understanding of nature that we have now. Paul Davies' book About Time delves into the history of human thought on the nature of time, and explains why non-Abrahamic cultures didn't give rise to science. They believed in endless cycles, which was perfectly reasonable given that just about everything observable to them in nature operated according to cycles: the seasons, the phases of the moon, menstrual cycles, etc. These people simply could not conceive of a linear time. It took an enormous leap -- based on the Old Testament description of creation -- to go from endless cycles to belief that time has a beginning and a continuous flow toward some end, and this ultimately gave rise to a concept of time that permitted development of the laws of physics.
Second, as I mentioned in another comment thread, the father of the Big Bang, Georges Lemaitre, was a Jesuit priest who came up with the idea because it was consistent with Genesis. Einstein had developed the field equations that form the basis of the theory of general relativity; but so strongly ingrained was the idea of an eternal, unchanging universe in the scientific realm that, in spite of the fact the field equations predicted a universe that would collapse on itself, Einstein remained committed to the static universe model. Lemaitre developed the Big Bang theory, which was so compelling that he managed to convince Einstein of its validity. In what can only be described as an act of cosmic poetry, Lemaitre was on his deathbed when he learned of the discovery of the cosmic background radiation, the predicted observable evidence of the universe's fiery beginning. The realization that the universe has a beginning and has been evolving since the beginning is considered to be the greatest discovery in the history of science. So physics actually owes a great deal to religious tradition.
I know you have studied the Bible and religion for a long time, and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. What I wonder is whether you have studied anything that substantially challenges what you believe. If you ever change your mind about being tired of this topic and want to read challenging material, I have some recommendations. Gerald Schroeder (my personal hero) managed to convince Antony Flew at the age of 81 to change his mind about the existence of God, so it's never too late. ;-)
"DJ, some things you take entirely as an article of faith whether you realize it or not."
Yup. The alternative is to try to investigate everything personally, which is not possible to do and not practical to try. Remember the adages, "A man's beliefs should be proportional to his evidence," and, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
" As much as you would like to think that you are a man of reason and hard evidence, you are not. No one is."
Sigh. That's pretty lame, Sarah.
"As Ben has pointed out here before, the Original Sin idea is not something from the Bible."
No, but it is, in various formulations, part and parcel of Christian theology.
When I was young, Oklahoma was plastered with small billboards which proclaimed, "Jesus died for your sins." Now, that notion is preposterous on its face, as Jesus died nineteen centuries before I was born. It took me a long time to understand was meant by it. But without Original Sin, the idea that we are guilty of sins that were committed by others before us, Christian theology falls apart, as there is nothing for Jesus to die for. St. Augustine taught that babies were guilty of Original Sin and went to hell when they died, and Christian doctrine, including Protestants, adopted this view for centuries.
Lots and lots of Christian theology in its many flavors is not in the Bible. Its founders simply made stuff up as they went.
"Nevertheless, you don't think that children and grandchildren suffer from the mistakes their parents make? You don't think we, as Americans, aren't suffering for the mistakes our ancestors made?"
Of course children and grandchildren often suffer from the mistakes their grandparents made. Been there, done that. But I am not guilty of an offense against the rules that was committed by my grandfather simply because my grandfather committed it, and I should not have to ask for or receive forgiveness in any way from anyone or anything for his guilt. Your questions confuse the consequences and effects of an act with being guilty of committing the act.
"I think they are wrong, and that's something I hope to change."
Really? Baptists number in the millions. They just know they are right, same as you do. How would you change what they think, and why would you try to do so?
"The laws of physics are, at best, a toy model of whatever the reality is, which we humans may never fully understand."
Yup, I agree. It works nicely, though, doesn't it?
"As for the latter part of your statement, you are quite wrong."
By this I presume you mean the final sentence of my comment:
"That's a fundamental point of view, I suppose, and a belief in deities of any kind plays no part in it."
I was writing only about myself, but perhaps I should have been explicit about it. Mea culpa. I implied nothing about the history of science or the beliefs of others. What I meant was:
"I believe in reality and the laws of physics. That's a fundamental point of view, I suppose, and a belief by me in deities of any kind plays no part in it."
"As much as you would like to think that you are a man of reason and hard evidence, you are not. No one is."
Sigh. That's pretty lame, Sarah.
We are creatures of reason only up to a point. We argue about things using facts and reason, but only after we have accepted certain basic premises on faith. I think many people don't even realize this, but every one of us does it. Neither you nor I nor Kevin can prove the one premise we all agree on: that individual rights is "right" and supremacy of government is "wrong." You accept this ON FAITH, with no proof, just as I accept the existence of God with no proof. One instance of faith is acceptable to you, and the other isn't. Why?
As for the Original Sin idea, I don't yet know enough about it to say anything useful.
Really? Baptists number in the millions. They just know they are right, same as you do. How would you change what they think, and why would you try to do so?
Obviously, I'm not going to win everyone over to my way of thinking, and I'm not even going to try. But I might be able to convince enough of them to pay more attention to the Jewish tradition. The way to do this is to convince them that they are losing ground to the anti-theists through the misuse of science, and that if they aren't willing to engage science in a meaningful way, their children's beliefs are going to be co-opted.
As for why, are you serious that you don't know why I would want to do this? I don't know about you, but I think we'd be better off with more people who are scientifically literate.
"I believe in reality and the laws of physics. That's a fundamental point of view, I suppose, and a belief by me in deities of any kind plays no part in it."
That's very convenient for you. An entire culture is informed by a belief in God, which in turn gives rise to science, and this provides the rational basis for your atheistic worldview. Rather ironic.
Pardon my delay here, Sarah. I've been out and about all day. I'm pooped, too, so I hope it doesn't show.
"We are creatures of reason only up to a point. We argue about things using facts and reason, but only after we have accepted certain basic premises on faith. I think many people don't even realize this, but every one of us does it. Neither you nor I nor Kevin can prove the one premise we all agree on: that individual rights is "right" and supremacy of government is "wrong." You accept this ON FAITH, with no proof, just as I accept the existence of God with no proof. One instance of faith is acceptable to you, and the other isn't. Why?"
That is beautifully stated, Sarah. It is quite true, and the question it leads to is well posed and directly on point. I don't know that I can do it justice, but I'll try.
Step back from it all and look at it with a bit of perspective. I think that we accept a premise that we cannot prove if it makes sense to us to do so. I suggest that we can gauge how much a premise makes sense to us by the consensus of agreement on what the premise leads to. So, let's see if we can illuminate this.
Consider mathematics. The premises on which mathematics are based are relatively few in number and are overwhelmingly accepted by mathematical theoreticians. From those premises, we deduce laws, prove theorems, and, in general, manipulate numbers quite eloquently. From simple arithmetic, to differential equations, to the extraordinarily difficult mathematics of quantum theory and general relativity, it all works.
Now consider physics. The premises of classical physics are not, to the best of my understanding, in dispute. The premises of quantum mechanics and unified field theory are disputed to some extent, but I can't discuss that intelligently because I am not trained for it. As with mathematics, from those premises, we deduce laws, prove theorems, and construct models of reality which we can experiment with. Overall, our physics models work, demonstrably so, and we produce remarkable results by using them. Even quantum mechanics bats 1.000 when it is used to predict the results of experiments, regardless of what the underlying reality is that it models.
The point is that mathematics and physics make sense to us ALL. They work, and so there is an overwhelming consensus that the premises they are based on are correct. But, your point is spot-on. Those premises are accepted on faith that they are correct because they cannot be proven.
Now consider religion. Begin with the premise that "an intelligence" created the universe. Accept that premise for the purpose of seeing where it leads. Can we deduce logically anything at all about that intelligence? For example, can we deduce that it was one, or two, or any particular number of intelligences? Do we have any physical evidence, any artifacts thereof? Can we conduct any experiments to find out?
Nope. We have no consensus whatever, and we've only just begun. Go see http://www.godchecker.com/, which lists 2,850 deities as being believed by somebody.
Now, accept the premise that it was a single intelligence. Let's call it "God" so I won't have to type so much. Can we deduce logically anything at all about God? Do we have any physical evidence thereof? Can we conduct any experiments to find out?
Nope. Again, we have no consensus whatever.
Now, accept the premise that we can know, by gum, lots of things about God. In fact, let's skip the wild west chase sequence with its irritating music and see where we end up. We find a whole spectrum of beliefs, of doctrines, about the God of Abraham. We know his names, his wants, his moods, his history, what pleases him and what pisses him off, and on and on and on.
The details are not important, but the nature of it is. The nature is that it resembles a fractal image. Overall, there is no consensus about this God. If we look closer at what appears to be a consensus among a subset of believers, even they are at loggerheads with each other. If we look all the way into the picture at only two people, even two people who are trained in such matters within one tiny area of the picture, those two people can spend their whole lifetimes arguing about what they believe.
Now, let's take it further still. Should we accept the premise because what it leads to, by whatever method, is worth believing? Well, that leads to the inevitable question: How does one decide what to believe?
One can default to what one's parent's believe, and many people do. I made an engineering career that started by questioning the defaults. Defaults are not for me. I prefer to think for myself.
One can default to what one's girlfriend, boyfriend, or spouse believes, and many people do. I suspect it prevents arguments and promotes carpooling on Sunday mornings, but as with default to one's parent's beliefs, it isn't for me.
One can pick and choose among the many doctrines using whatever criteria one chooses. Perhaps this docrine makes one feel good. Perhaps that doctrine makes one feel as if there is a purpose to it all. Perhaps another doctrine provides reason and justification for sawing the head off someone who disagrees.
Or, skipping to the finish line again, one can list all the doctrines on post-its, cover the wall, and throw a dart to select one. If no one system is any more or less provable, derivable, or deducible, given the premise that God created the universe, then that is as acceptable a method as any, isn't it?
You can even make up your own doctrine. Many have. You can make millions of dollars if you do it right. That is how all of the doctrines on the wall came into existence.
The summary of such is that all of these religious doctrines are compatible with the premise that God created the universe, and yet they contradict each other unmercifully. Religion occupies the opposite end of the consensus spectrum from math and physics. To me, the overwhelming lack of consensus about what the premise leads to mitigates strongly against the premise being right. To me, it has to make sense, and it doesn't.
The premise leads wherever you want to go, and no one can show that it can't lead there. I don't find it believable.
"As for why, are you serious that you don't know why I would want to do this? I don't know about you, but I think we'd be better off with more people who are scientifically literate."
Go back to the series of questions that led to yours. I stated that Baptists will tell you that the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are all they need, and you stated that you hoped to change that. I would dearly love it if everyone was more scientifically literate, but I can't read your mind, so I didn't have any idea what you meant by it. That's why I asked.
"That's very convenient for you. An entire culture is informed by a belief in God, which in turn gives rise to science, and this provides the rational basis for your atheistic worldview. Rather ironic."
Look how science took off once the church no longer threatened people with death for pursuing it. See Galileo, presecution of. Christianity hindered science for more than a millenia. I can't help but wonder where science would be now if it hadn't done so.
I suggest that we can gauge how much a premise makes sense to us by the consensus of agreement on what the premise leads to. So, let's see if we can illuminate this.
DJ -- I've used a similar line of reasoning here before, more than once, so I get it. One nitpick, however, is that I don't think you should rely entirely on what the consensus is, but what the reality is. Consensus can be wrong.
An aside...
The premises of classical physics are not, to the best of my understanding, in dispute.
They are, actually, based on the nature of dark matter and the repercussions for gravitation. I attended a seminar about this last year -- but the arguments against them do not constitute much of a threat. Anyway...
Your line of reasoning works against your argument, because we can take the very basic premises of Judeo-Christian belief and test their validity by examining their fruits -- do they lead to anything worthwhile? The answer is yes. Christianity (which inherited much from the Jewish tradition) gave rise to individual rights, the industrial revolution, the free market, and modern science. Even Kevin has acknowledged this. How can something you assume to be utterly and completely wrong work so much better than anything else? On the other hand, you take godless systems, like those of China, USSR, Cambodia, Cuba, and North Korea, and look what you get. There has never been an atheistic culture anywhere in the world that has produced the things you and I value. They might be able to parasitically copy a few things, like technology, but they've never given rise to things like freedom or prosperity.
As for who/what God is, what he wants, etc... that's the whole point of religious study. Of course people will differ on this. But the majority of people on this planet believe that there is only one God, just as a majority of people believe in the basic scientific premises of classical physics. As for whether we can know the answers to the questions above, Maimonides tells us that we must study physics and astronomy to understand the mind of God. I've got about 10 years worth of study that informs my opinion on that topic, which I can't possibly encapsulate here. If you are even remotely curious, you should read Schroeder.
Look how science took off once the church no longer threatened people with death for pursuing it. See Galileo, presecution of. Christianity hindered science for more than a millenia. I can't help but wonder where science would be now if it hadn't done so.
This is just so wrong, I don't even know where to begin. For one, the Galileo episode has been horribly distorted. I won't defend the Church entirely in this case, but Galileo was never threatened with death or torture as many believe. In fact, the people Galileo feared most were the secular scientists, whose beliefs were firmly rooted in the Aristotelian tradition. (The Church also held this tradition, but was by that time ready to let this go.) The Church objected -- entirely reasonably -- against Galileo's promotion of the Copernican model because there was not enough data to support it. The Church asked him to hold back until there was more evidence, because it quite rightly considered it extremely imprudent to overturn almost two thousand years of scientific wisdom on what was then a flimsy set of data. So this wasn't the Church vs. Science, this was the Aristotelian model vs. the Copernican model. The bucket-loads of exquisitely precise measurements made by Tycho Brahe favored Ptolemy, not Copernicus (who erroneously used circular orbits instead of what we now understand to be elliptical orbits), so this is what the Church believed. Furthermore, I think it was Pope Urban who said that where (good) science and scripture disagree, we must re-evaluate our understanding of scripture. What about that even remotely indicates hostility to science? We're looking back through the lens of history with 20/20 vision and not recognizing that Galileo, even though he was right, had failed to make his case. He behaved very poorly as a scientist and insisted that the model was established truth even though he had failed to support this. Galileo was brilliant, but he was a very imprudent man.
DJ, you simply don't know what you're talking about here. Science -- especially physics and astronomy -- owes its heritage to Judeo-Christian belief. Did you not read any of what I wrote above about the nature of time and the birth of classical physics? of the Jewish heritage of the greatest scientific discovery ever made? Judeo-Christian belief gave rise to science, it did not inhibit it. You are a million miles off-base here. I strongly recommend that you read What's So Great About Christianity by Dinesh D'Souza and For the Glory of God by Rodney Stark.
Things are starting to get very busy for me (new job + dissertation), so I may not have time to continue this. I really hope you don't give up pursuing this subject (and reading some of the suggested books), because once a person arrives at a point where his mind is irrevocably made up, he's intellectually dead on the topic and operating from a position of prejudice.
"One nitpick, however, is that I don't think you should rely entirely on what the consensus is, but what the reality is. Consensus can be wrong. "
That's funny, Sarah. Consensus is often wrong, but you've been telling me that we can't know what reality is. And, I offer this comment only for its humor.
"Your line of reasoning works against your argument, because we can take the very basic premises of Judeo-Christian belief and test their validity by examining their fruits -- do they lead to anything worthwhile?"
I beg to differ. You can test their utility by examining their fruits, but you can't prove their validity. You point to the history of Christianity and say, "See there?" You could also point to Islam and note that a doctrine depending on the same premise, namely the existence of the same god, has anchored its followers firmly in the sixth century.
"As for who/what God is, what he wants, etc... that's the whole point of religious study. Of course people will differ on this. But the majority of people on this planet believe that there is only one God, just as a majority of people believe in the basic scientific premises of classical physics."
Which is a superficial view of it. I stand on my analysis (such as it is).
"This is just so wrong, I don't even know where to begin. For one, the Galileo episode has been horribly distorted."
Galileo discovered, via his own observations, that Venus went through phases just like the moon, and he correctly reasoned that this could happen only if Venus was a sphere that went around the sun in an orbit between the earth and the sun. He also observed that Mars and Jupiter did not go through phases like the moon, and he correctly reasoned that this could happen only if they went around the sun in an orbit much further away from the sun than the earth. He decided that Copernicus' view that the planets revolved around the sun was correct, that the solar system was sun-centered, and that the earth moved. This was heresy, as the Bible clearly states (Psalm 104:5) that the earth is on a foundation and can never be moved.
Galileo was tried by the church, charged with suspicion of heresy, and was convicted. He recanted his teachings to avoid the consequences of that conviction. The threat was real, as the Inquisition routinely killed heretics. Now, would the Inquisition have killed him? We will never know, but he took the threat seriously enough to recant.
The point is that science was not allowed to advance in this case because the conclusions that came from it showed the Bible to be wrong.
"DJ, you simply don't know what you're talking about here. Science -- especially physics and astronomy -- owes its heritage to Judeo-Christian belief."
I don't question what it did, Sarah, rather I point out what it prevented or delayed. Christianity in its many flavors held for more than a millenia that all man needed to know could be found in the Bible, that it was a sin to try to learn beyond its teachings, indeed it was a sin even to think one could. This belief ushered in and fueled the Dark Ages. Look at the whole of its history and effects, not just the parts you like, and you'll see a different picture.
"Things are starting to get very busy for me (new job + dissertation), so I may not have time to continue this."
Please don't continue. Seriously. I recall when my wife was working on her dissertation, and she wasn't employed at the time. If it doesn't consume you, then you aren't doing it right. You have much more important things to do than this, things which you stand to gain by, so I suggest you go do them.
You know DJ, it isn't in the least surprising that you, as a [fellow] secularist, should leap to this.
Contemporary mathematics is the modern equivalent of medieval theology - the 'word of God' so to speak.
Why did anyone even conceive of "dark matter" and "dark energy" in astro-physics? Because without them, the damned equations won't work.
So there we are, the bean-counters of the universe.
Mathematics? Feh, may as well depend on Aquinas. [Note: this is not to dispute the value of math as a tool - but only to dispute it's value as an arbitrer of "Truth".]
"Mathematics? Feh, may as well depend on Aquinas. [Note: this is not to dispute the value of math as a tool - but only to dispute it's value as an arbitrer of "Truth".]"
Mathematics is indeed is a marvelous tool, but note that I didn't offer it as an arbiter of "Truth". As with logic, if you put garbage in, you get garbage out.
Read my comment about it again, quoted here with emphasis:
"The point is that mathematics and physics make sense to us ALL. They work, and so there is an overwhelming consensus that the premises they are based on are correct. But, your point is spot-on. Those premises are accepted on faith that they are correct because they cannot be proven."
DJ -- One last word on this topic, because you still have the Galileo thing all wrong.
Yes, Galileo's observations were entirely consistent with a sun-centered model. However, one (1) piece of contradictory evidence is all it takes to destroy a theory. At the time, the rather large discrepancies between detailed observations and the Copernican predictions for the motions of the planets were more than enough to put the brakes on the theory. At best, the Copernican model could be called a hypothesis at the time. The Church therefore asked, quite reasonably, that Galileo be balanced in his treatment of the Aristotelian model vs. the Copernican model, which he apparently failed to do. However, as I mentioned before -- and this article explains in more depth -- Galileo's real opponents were the secular scientists. These were devoted Aristotelians who despised the Copernican model, and were responsible for Galileo getting into hot water more than anyone else.
The twisting of the facts years later is a deliberate attempt to malign the Church and make this whole affair into a Church vs. Science thing when, as I said before, it was a war between two competing scientific philosophies.
OK, for real, I'm done on this topic. As you say, I need to concentrate on my work, and I don't think the excuse "a black hole ate my dissertation" will get me out of trouble if I don't submit it in time. ;-)
Why did anyone even conceive of "dark matter" and "dark energy" in astro-physics? Because without them, the damned equations won't work.
OK, ok, one last word, and that's it.
I'm not sure if the above was meant as criticism of DM/DE or just an observation, but the argument for DM is pretty strong. It's based on three entirely distinct sets of observations -- rotation curves of galaxies and galaxy clusters, hot x-ray emitting gas in galaxy clusters, and gravitational lensing. Either everything we know about physics is wrong, or there's dark matter. There isn't very much data on DE yet, so it's much more contentious.
Either everything we know about physics is wrong, or there's dark matter.
The "why" everything we know may be wrong is based predominately on the math (or lack thereof). There just isn't enough stuff for the cosmic equations to balance without DM. That says more to me about the equation(s) than the observation(s) - yet we postulate something NOT observable to preserve mathematical correctness. And, my observation [and not a criticism per se - though getting close] that the mathematics are 'sacrosanct' - absent a new set of equations to replace the old ones (which is still bowing to the almighty '=').
And DJ, I wasn't making a criticism of what you said, just an observation on the role mathematics so often plays in resolving scientific disputes. Mathematics is the language of the Platonic Ideal. Oddly, it often runs counter to Occam's Razor, in that more convoluted and arcane equations replace simpler ones.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/01/its-beautiful-video-but.html (48 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
"It seems to me to be the ultimate waste of resources."
Because maybe those "resources" really count for diddly squat?
How about you make a beaker full of gunk. Then somewhere in that gunk, at one little point, you make some little people. Then suppose it turns out that they love the gunk, think it beautiful and awe-inspiring, as it is so large compared to them and their small place in it. Now further suppose that they wonder why you chose that little insignificant part of the gunk in which to put the little dudes.
See? It's just a bunch of gunk.
Kevin,
I really think you would enjoy "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist", recently published and the best book of Christian apologetics I have yet read. I have no doubt God exists for many of the same reasons you give for not believing.
Love your blog.
Noel
(Thanks, Noel)
Edited By Siteowner
Especially if the physical laws of this universe prohibit us from visiting those billions of other stars and galaxies.
This is actually the reason why I believe we will eventually find a way to do just that :-)
There are several promising avenues of research, so I hear.
"It seems to me to be the ultimate waste of resources."
Remember, God, if He exists, stands outside time, and above what we call natural law. Concepts of waste and resource finitude would not apply to such a Being. You cannot "waste" time when time does not affect you; you cannot "waste" resources when all things exist by your own choice and command.
How about you make a beaker full of gunk. Then somewhere in that gunk, at one little point, you make some little people. Then suppose it turns out that they love the gunk, think it beautiful and awe-inspiring, as it is so large compared to them and their small place in it. Now further suppose that they wonder why you chose that little insignificant part of the gunk in which to put the little dudes.
BUT! The entire purpose for making the beaker full of gunk was to create those little people, and make a contract with them that you KNEW THEY COULDN'T KEEP?
This makes sense to you? ;)
Kevin, such beliefs abound not because they make sense, but because they allow those essentially puny beings to believe they are not essentially puny beings, that they are more than special, they are the focal point of it all. If you have no need for such belief because you don't mind being what you appear to be, then it is indeed unbelievable.
Yup. My point exactly.
It seems to me to be the ultimate waste of resources
[sarcasm]
And here I thought He just wanted a really big backyard for our little house down here...
[/sarcasm]
In seriousness, if you look at the universe and assert that, then you are assuming something that most believers (in any of the Abrahamic faiths) don't assume.
Your logic tracks cleanly from that assumption, but people who don't share the assumption view the deductions as irrelevant, deliberately obtuse, or just plain screwed-up.
It's one of the hazards of holding an opinion about the existence (or lack thereof) of a deity.
In seriousness, if you look at the universe and assert that, then you are assuming something that most believers (in any of the Abrahamic faiths) don't assume.
My assumption is based on the idea (as I was taught from childhood) that all of this - the universe and everything - was made by God for us. Earth (and humanity) is, essentially, the Center of the Physical Universe.
After watching the first third of that video, I am forced to conclude that such a concept is risible.
"Kevin, such beliefs abound not because they make sense, but because they allow those essentially puny beings to believe they are not essentially puny beings, that they are more than special, they are the focal point of it all."
I don't think so. I think it is an attempt to give purpose to an existence that otherwise seems purposeless to some. Notice that I said "to some" so as not to get into an argument about that again. :)
DJ, you completely took the words out of my mouth. Actually, I was going post something similar but I don't think I could have written it so well. I am in complete agreement with you and I am Christian, although not by the definition of those who pretend to be who this line applies to perfectly.
Kevin, DJ's line should be a quote of the day. I will probably put it my blog. Wow. Simply stunning. I have to say that my respect for you, DJ, has gone way up!
> just so he could pick one completely ordinary spiral galaxy
This a common fallacy, because our sun is ordinary (which scientists do believe), it is assumed our galaxy is too. In fact the Milky Way is considered a major spiral galaxy, one of the largest known. And that's not believed to be just because we can get a good look at it and not others, in fact the masses of millions of galaxies are known to an approximate degree, and most spirals don't come close. Our traveling companion (Andromeda) is even bigger. Have some pride in the great Milky Way!
More Milky fandom, from: http://lithops.as.arizona.edu/~jill/EPO/Stars/galaxy.html
"There are about 200 billion stars in the Milky Way, making it one of the largest galaxies in the Universe."
Hoorah!
Earth is not the center of the physical universe. Neither science nor scripture say that. Also, humans are important to God, but nothing in scripture says that we are alone in the universe.
Especially if the physical laws of this universe prohibit us from visiting those billions of other stars and galaxies.
We don't yet know how to travel vast distances in relatively short times, but that doesn't mean we won't someday figure it out.
As for waste, God created the universe from nothing. If you have infinite resources, there's no such thing as waste.
DJ/Mark,
We are puny beings. What God gives us is not an inflated sense of stature, but purpose. That's all I want in life.
What makes you think any of it is wasted? Just because humans aren't using the rest of the universe, doesn't mean it isn't being used.
If there are a few hundred billion other intelligent species, each with multiple contracts, does that cancel out any aspect o the Abrahamic faiths?
"I don't think so. I think it is an attempt to give purpose to an existence that otherwise seems purposeless to some."
Ben, your statement is in perfect agreement with mine. So, why don't you agree with it?
"Notice that I said "to some" so as not to get into an argument about that again."
Duly noted.
Not to get into an argument about that again? I thought my watch said "theists v. atheists time" next to the date setting. :)
"We are puny beings. What God gives us is not an inflated sense of stature, but purpose."
Well, lessee now ...
"Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness ..."
"Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image ..."
Sounds pretty special to me. But if it were really true, wouldn't we all look alike? Or at least resemble Charleton Heston?
Or does this explain why all the aliens on Star Trek are anthropoid?
Well, except for the Horta.
Oh, and Redjac.
And whatever it was that made Sulu take his shirt off and fence with a foil.
But the Horta is the only corporeal intelligent species I can remember that wasn't bipedal and had bilateral symmetry.
Thou knowest more than I do about such things. On occasion, I see the TV screen as my wife watches in her study. My most notable question about it to her was, "Why does such an ugly alien have such a great body?" She didn't answer.
Well, there were the intelligent (and really pissy) crystals from Home Soil, but that was a really terrible episode, so no one can be blamed for wiping it from their memories. And there was the Crystalline Entity.
As I recall, the explanation for why all life in the galaxy was variations on "humanoid" was that the first intelligent species in the galaxy seeded promising planets with their own DNA to get life going elsewhere. So in that case, "God" is a hairless ape- rather an inversion.
My knowledge is limited only to TOS. But there was that "pool of oil" thing from TNG that killed Tasha Yar...
And all of the beings of pure energy from the later series...
> hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars,
Nah. There are only about a hundred stars. What there are hundreds of billions of are *mirrors*.
DJ,
Sounds pretty special to me.
Yes, we are special to God. But special doesn't necessarily mean the center of all things or above all things. Children are usually very special to their parents, but, if parents do their job right, children eventually come to understand that they are not the center of the universe or above anyone else in the world.
But if it were really true, wouldn't we all look alike? Or at least resemble Charleton Heston?
I, personally, wouldn't mind if more men looked like Charleton Heston. But you've got the wrong definition for the word "image" here. It doesn't refer to the physical, but to the spiritual. God is not understood by Jews or Christians to be corporeal, so we must be like God in a non-corporeal way, i.e. we do things the other animals don't do, like think, create, love, etc. Extending the parent-child analogy, we do this with our own children: most parents try to mold their children to be like themselves in terms of values, beliefs, and sometimes even work, hobbies, and personal tastes.
Or does this explain why all the aliens on Star Trek are anthropoid?
I think it's because we humans have an exceptionally difficult time coming up with things that are genuinely new -- it's like imagining a new primary color or a new musical note. We take what we know and tweak it a little and consider it "new," which is why 90% of the alien lifeforms in sci-fi are just variations on humanoids or other earthly life-forms. Notice that the other 10% are pretty much blobs: the thing that killed Tasha Yar, the Horta, those flying fake-barf things that killed Kirk's brother, and, of course, the Blob.
...which raises a question I've long wondered: would we even recognize a truly alien life form if we encountered one?
That's more of a technical limitation of movies and television than a limitation of science fiction. Books, and now increasingly video games, are full of aliens that are truly inhuman in both physical design and mindset.
Sarah, my post was mostly tongue-in-cheek. But, Genesis says what it quoted, and I can't help but wonder just what the definitions of the words were to whoever authored it. Does it mean what the auther meant then, or does it mean what you rationalize it into now?
I think the current genre of Star Trek is no more than a politically correct soap opera, set in the future, and (apparently, given what tiny part of it I've seen) so devoid of plot that it's a wonder the writers can stay awake while writing it. Your analysis of it is lost on me, as I have no knowledge whatever of the whatsits you named.
I'll touch on a few different aspects here. Pretty much all of which have been commented on already.
First off, at one point in time we knew the size of the world and realized that most of it was wasted and unused. Now that's not the case. Later on, we thought the moon was unreachable. You get the idea.
Man was made in God's image, not as exact replicas of what He looks like. I can create 20 different sculptures, each in the image of a horse (even using the same horse as the model) and have them all look completely different. Okay, maybe I can't do this, but someone with actual artistic talent could. I'm pretty sure God is talented.
Oh, and for those looking for answers to this specific subject, the Mormons have it all pretty well figured out. I won't spoil the surprise or anything, but if you talk to those two clean cut young men wearing suits and knocking on doors they can help you out.
:)
But do I have to wear magic underwear? ;)
I think I would need magic underwear and more, perhaps a bottle of 1800 Reserve.
But, Genesis says what it quoted, and I can't help but wonder just what the definitions of the words were to whoever authored it. Does it mean what the auther meant then, or does it mean what you rationalize it into now?
That's a very good question. You do understand that there is consensus amongst Jews that God has no physical form, right? Therefore, "image" has to mean something other than the physical. The root of the Hebrew word for image is "shadow." That is our clue that image is not meant to be interpreted as the physical. This isn't my rationalization, this is ancient Jewish tradition going back centuries. Maimonides made a very interesting comment in his Guide for the Perplexed (12th century) that in the time of Adam there existed hominids that were like humans in form and intelligence, but lacking the "image" (the "image" of God) that separates man from the animals.
We are a shadow of God, made in His likeness -- but also in the likeness of the physical world, which is why Genesis 1:26 says "let us make man in our image... ." It is God and the earth together making man -- the spiritual and the physical.
"let us make man in our image..."
James Taranto writes like that, using the regal "we".
Sarah, your comment reminded me of something that happened my freshman year at university.
I lived in a dorm that year with a roommate who professed to be "gung ho for JAYZUZ! It's an Oklahoma Baptist thing. He became a crusader for Campus Crusade for Christ, a local evangelical organization of students. He was gung ho enough that he flunked three classes his second semester.
I came back from class one day to find him in our room discussing Christian theology with two of his fellow crusaders. Well, that's OK, it was his room, too. They were quiet and polite, but each was absolutely, positively certain that he was right and the other two were wrong as detail after detail of dogma was dissected. Normally, I can concentrate through most anything, but as it went on and on, the humor coefficient grew and grew until I couldn't contain my laughter any longer. It was either let it go or blow spittle all over my desk.
The two cohorts were polite, but my roommate was offended, as if I had embarrased him, and demanded an explanation. I simply pointed out the nature of their discussion, without elaborating on any details, and then asked, "Why should anyone believe you're right when you can't even agree with each other on what you're right about? How can you all be certain when you're mutually contradictory?"
It was funnier in person.
It has been thus for centuries. I have heard and read lots of explanations of what this passage and others in Genesis mean. The explainers have been as certain as they have been contradictory. Each had his own "interpretation" and each thought he was spot-on.
I mean no offense, but I still find laughable the lengths people will go to in justifying belief in the stories of an unknown bronze-age tribesman. I hope it gives you as much comfort as it gives me humor.
DJ,
The opening passages of Genesis is one of the few (and I think maybe only) instances of God saying "we," so the royal we thing doesn't make sense.
"Why should anyone believe you're right when you can't even agree with each other on what you're right about? How can you all be certain when you're mutually contradictory?"
I am confused by your attitude here. People argue about the meaning of everything, otherwise why would we have entire courses and papers devoted to different interpretations of literature, poetry, song lyrics, scientific papers, last words, Egyptian hieroglyphs, and, not least, our Constitution. Why is it that religion, in your mind, is necessarily exempt from this? Why must religious people be of exactly one mind when it comes to scripture? We are currently engaged in a knock-down national fight over the meaning of the words in the 2nd amendment, words written a couple hundred years ago, and yet it seems you expect Christians to agree 100% on a set of telegraphic statements made thousands of years ago. The exact sort of thing that supposedly intellectual, or at least reasoning, people find objectionable -- blind acceptance without any thought -- is the exact thing you are insisting that we religious people should be doing. You seem to be insisting on a catch-22 situation: if we exercise blind faith, it's a weakness; if we exercise some intellect over aspects of our belief, it's a weakness. This reminds me of the argument I had with some feminists over their conclusion that not raping women is itself a crime, and essentially a man is guilty of something no matter what he does, just as Christians are guilty to you no matter what they do. Do you understand that this is the hallmark of bigotry?
I'll apply your exact statement above to politics and we can see whether it makes sense. By your reasoning, we should conclude that Ahmed over there is watching the debates, observing the contention between different groups, and then saying to us: "Why should we believe the American way of governing is right when you can't even agree with each other on what you're right about? How can you all be certain when you're mutually contradictory?" And he ignores the fact that enough of us still agree on the few fundamental principles that unify this country -- just as Christians agree on the few fundamental principles that unify them in belief.
Second, I don't know if your roommates were arguing about the OT or the NT, but I rarely if ever trust any Christian interpretation of the Old Testament. I belong to a Bible study group on campus, and it's fascinating to watch the dynamics. First, the Christian members debate the meaning of OT scripture until nothing makes any sense, and then finally one of our Jewish members, who can no longer contain his annoyance, will give us the rabbinical interpretation, and suddenly there is some clarity (though even then some of the Christians will disagree). When I don't understand a passage in Jewish scripture, I almost always go to a Jewish source.
Lastly, it strikes me that people often laugh at that which they don't understand. I'm not offended by your remarks, DJ. But I do see in them an almost complete lack of curiosity and intellectual depth. I know you have read the Bible. But you, like many atheists, seem to take a very hard-line literalist view of the Bible, which is very easy to knock down and ridicule. That seems to give you a great deal of comfort, so what can I possibly tell you that will change your mind?
I attended a big astronomical conference this week in Austin. There were hundreds of astronomers from all over the world converging to discuss the latest developments in the astrophysical world. When I attended a Christian astronomers' luncheon I was surprised to meet a couple of young earth astronomers, who were actually professors at a university somewhere. What I find a little humorous is that arguing with them over scripture was exactly like arguing with you. You are a fundamentalist, DJ, albeit one without a belief in God.
"I am confused by your attitude here."
My attitude is amusement at how people justify believing what they believe. It is part and parcel of why I comment here in Kevin's parlor. The dichotomy between the justification of beliefs by the left and the right is rather stark, isn't it?
"People argue about the meaning of everything, otherwise why would we have entire courses and papers devoted to different interpretations of literature, poetry, song lyrics, scientific papers, last words, Egyptian hieroglyphs, and, not least, our Constitution. Why is it that religion, in your mind, is necessarily exempt from this? Why must religious people be of exactly one mind when it comes to scripture?"
Religion is not exempt from this at all, Sarah. Religion is based on faith, which is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, and so the justifications that people give for their religious beliefs are remarkably different from the reasons they give for most other subjects. When two people would each have me subscribe to their religious beliefs, and yet their individual beliefs contradict each other and neither rests on logical proof or material evidence, well, such gives rise to the cliche that one man's dogma is another man's belly laugh.
I don't expect religious people to be of one mind and I see no reason why they should be. If two people read the plain language of the 2nd amendment, I think they should arrive at the same belief as to what it means, as it's language is brutely simple and those who wrote it and voted on it stated what it means. But when the same two people arrive at beliefs about a creator of the universe, about what this creator looks like, what it thinks, what it wants, and so on and so on, then I have no reason whatever to expect that their beliefs will square with each other. I do not complain that religious people are not of one mind. I simply point out that the fact that they are not of one mind on matters that are based on faith mitigates strongly against the notion that any of them are right.
And, I find that humorous. I always have.
"The exact sort of thing that supposedly intellectual, or at least reasoning, people find objectionable -- blind acceptance without any thought -- is the exact thing you are insisting that we religious people should be doing."
I don't accuse them of blind acceptance without thought. It is the acceptance of anything as a matter of faith that I find bizarre. My mind does not work that way.
"You seem to be insisting on a catch-22 situation: if we exercise blind faith, it's a weakness; if we exercise some intellect over aspects of our belief, it's a weakness."
I think it is a weakness, regardless of how it is done, if belief is based on premises that are accepted as true simply because someone else said they are true and are believed because that belief is emotionally preferable to non-belief. One can reason logically from false premises, and such reasoning is by no means a weakness. Indeed, I applaud the effort. It is, however, likely to produce bizarre results.
"This reminds me of the argument I had with some feminists over their conclusion that not raping women is itself a crime, and essentially a man is guilty of something no matter what he does, just as Christians are guilty to you no matter what they do. Do you understand that this is the hallmark of bigotry?"
Reset and start over, Sarah. I have argued elsewhere that one of my greatest objections to the dogma of Christianity is that it holds people guilty of sins, of violations of the rules, which were committed by others before they were born, and that such belief is utterly contemptible. Contrary to your statement, I hold Christians to be not guilty of what Christian doctrine itself holds Christians to be guilty of. Perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote, but your statement is way off the mark.
You've accused me before of being a bigot. The definition of bigot is: "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." If I were not tolerant of other people's religious views, then I would be an evangelist and try to change them. As I've stated before, I am not an evangelist. What I am also not is a sheep who believes what others believe simply because others tell him to believe it.
"Second, I don't know if your roommates were arguing about the OT or the NT, but I rarely if ever trust any Christian interpretation of the Old Testament."
Well said, and I agree, but they were arguing about the New Testament. It is quite difficult to get an Oklahoma Baptist out of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They'll tell you, flat out, that's all they need.
They, and others, go even further. Many religious beliefs are rooted in the faith, flatly stated, that the Bible is inerrant on those subjects which it addresses. As you pointed out in the quote that follows, such is easy to knock down and ridicule, but many of these people rely on nothing else.
"Lastly, it strikes me that people often laugh at that which they don't understand. I'm not offended by your remarks, DJ. But I do see in them an almost complete lack of curiosity and intellectual depth. I know you have read the Bible. But you, like many atheists, seem to take a very hard-line literalist view of the Bible, which is very easy to knock down and ridicule. That seems to give you a great deal of comfort, so what can I possibly tell you that will change your mind?"
You probably can't change my mind, Sarah. I've read and thought on this subject on and off for almost twice your lifetime. It's a subject that I'm frankly tired of, and I haven't read or heard any new arguments on it in a very long time. My mind being made up, as it were, is not bigotry and it's not stubborness, it's simply a result. Absent something new and startlingly convincing, I suspect it'll stay made up.
The fascination that remains, though, is about human nature, about why people believe what they do.
"You are a fundamentalist, DJ, albeit one without a belief in God."
I believe in reality and the laws of physics. That's a fundamental point of view, I suppose, and a belief in deities of any kind plays no part in it.
Religion is based on faith, which is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, and so the justifications that people give for their religious beliefs are remarkably different from the reasons they give for most other subjects.
No, you are wrong. People do not choose belief in God -- or any belief -- purely for reasons of faith. There is evidence involved -- you take the evidence to mean one thing, and I take it to mean another. But this neglects the fact that some of your core beliefs rest on faith just as much as those of religious people. I had this argument over at du Toit's a while back. Try proving, for instance, that individual rights are important. You can't. Quoting from that argument:
The characterization of religiousness as entirely a matter of faith and personal preference is not accurate. Faith is not what causes most people to believe. Most genuinely religious people choose their beliefs on rational grounds and understand faith as that which carries one through the times when one’s emotions conflict with reality. As for personal preference, I understand the point you’re trying to make, but there is something crucial missing from your argument, which is how one’s basic assumptions dictate what is logical and what isn’t. You and I and everyone else here obviously believe in the importance of individual rights. Given that premise, it is logically provable that an armed culture that values self-defense is superior. But can you prove that individual rights are important? What if you don’t believe in individual rights, but instead believe in the supremacy of government and the masses? Logically, an armed culture is the last thing you should have, and no amount of data will stand against that. This is why people like Kevin are doomed to failure unless they first convert people to the notion of individual rights. Problem is, there is no proof for it—it’s an exercise in religious conversion. Your job is easier, Kim, because you’re dealing with the questioning agnostics. But this doesn’t invalidate my comparison. It all boils down to the same thing.
DJ, some things you take entirely as an article of faith whether you realize it or not. As much as you would like to think that you are a man of reason and hard evidence, you are not. No one is.
I have argued elsewhere that one of my greatest objections to the dogma of Christianity is that it holds people guilty of sins, of violations of the rules, which were committed by others before they were born, and that such belief is utterly contemptible.
As Ben has pointed out here before, the Original Sin idea is not something from the Bible. Nevertheless, you don't think that children and grandchildren suffer from the mistakes their parents make? You don't think we, as Americans, aren't suffering for the mistakes our ancestors made? I can only imagine what the state of race relations in this country would be without the legacy of slavery. It's really unfair that you and I have to suffer for it, but that's the reality.
It is quite difficult to get an Oklahoma Baptist out of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They'll tell you, flat out, that's all they need.
I think they are wrong, and that's something I hope to change.
I believe in reality and the laws of physics. That's a fundamental point of view, I suppose, and a belief in deities of any kind plays no part in it.
The laws of physics are, at best, a toy model of whatever the reality is, which we humans may never fully understand.
As for the latter part of your statement, you are quite wrong. If it was not for the Judaic belief (inherited by Christianity) in linear time, we would not have the understanding of nature that we have now. Paul Davies' book About Time delves into the history of human thought on the nature of time, and explains why non-Abrahamic cultures didn't give rise to science. They believed in endless cycles, which was perfectly reasonable given that just about everything observable to them in nature operated according to cycles: the seasons, the phases of the moon, menstrual cycles, etc. These people simply could not conceive of a linear time. It took an enormous leap -- based on the Old Testament description of creation -- to go from endless cycles to belief that time has a beginning and a continuous flow toward some end, and this ultimately gave rise to a concept of time that permitted development of the laws of physics.
Second, as I mentioned in another comment thread, the father of the Big Bang, Georges Lemaitre, was a Jesuit priest who came up with the idea because it was consistent with Genesis. Einstein had developed the field equations that form the basis of the theory of general relativity; but so strongly ingrained was the idea of an eternal, unchanging universe in the scientific realm that, in spite of the fact the field equations predicted a universe that would collapse on itself, Einstein remained committed to the static universe model. Lemaitre developed the Big Bang theory, which was so compelling that he managed to convince Einstein of its validity. In what can only be described as an act of cosmic poetry, Lemaitre was on his deathbed when he learned of the discovery of the cosmic background radiation, the predicted observable evidence of the universe's fiery beginning. The realization that the universe has a beginning and has been evolving since the beginning is considered to be the greatest discovery in the history of science. So physics actually owes a great deal to religious tradition.
I know you have studied the Bible and religion for a long time, and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. What I wonder is whether you have studied anything that substantially challenges what you believe. If you ever change your mind about being tired of this topic and want to read challenging material, I have some recommendations. Gerald Schroeder (my personal hero) managed to convince Antony Flew at the age of 81 to change his mind about the existence of God, so it's never too late. ;-)
"DJ, some things you take entirely as an article of faith whether you realize it or not."
Yup. The alternative is to try to investigate everything personally, which is not possible to do and not practical to try. Remember the adages, "A man's beliefs should be proportional to his evidence," and, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
" As much as you would like to think that you are a man of reason and hard evidence, you are not. No one is."
Sigh. That's pretty lame, Sarah.
"As Ben has pointed out here before, the Original Sin idea is not something from the Bible."
No, but it is, in various formulations, part and parcel of Christian theology.
When I was young, Oklahoma was plastered with small billboards which proclaimed, "Jesus died for your sins." Now, that notion is preposterous on its face, as Jesus died nineteen centuries before I was born. It took me a long time to understand was meant by it. But without Original Sin, the idea that we are guilty of sins that were committed by others before us, Christian theology falls apart, as there is nothing for Jesus to die for. St. Augustine taught that babies were guilty of Original Sin and went to hell when they died, and Christian doctrine, including Protestants, adopted this view for centuries.
Lots and lots of Christian theology in its many flavors is not in the Bible. Its founders simply made stuff up as they went.
"Nevertheless, you don't think that children and grandchildren suffer from the mistakes their parents make? You don't think we, as Americans, aren't suffering for the mistakes our ancestors made?"
Of course children and grandchildren often suffer from the mistakes their grandparents made. Been there, done that. But I am not guilty of an offense against the rules that was committed by my grandfather simply because my grandfather committed it, and I should not have to ask for or receive forgiveness in any way from anyone or anything for his guilt. Your questions confuse the consequences and effects of an act with being guilty of committing the act.
"I think they are wrong, and that's something I hope to change."
Really? Baptists number in the millions. They just know they are right, same as you do. How would you change what they think, and why would you try to do so?
"The laws of physics are, at best, a toy model of whatever the reality is, which we humans may never fully understand."
Yup, I agree. It works nicely, though, doesn't it?
"As for the latter part of your statement, you are quite wrong."
By this I presume you mean the final sentence of my comment:
"That's a fundamental point of view, I suppose, and a belief in deities of any kind plays no part in it."
I was writing only about myself, but perhaps I should have been explicit about it. Mea culpa. I implied nothing about the history of science or the beliefs of others. What I meant was:
"I believe in reality and the laws of physics. That's a fundamental point of view, I suppose, and a belief by me in deities of any kind plays no part in it."
"As much as you would like to think that you are a man of reason and hard evidence, you are not. No one is."
Sigh. That's pretty lame, Sarah.
We are creatures of reason only up to a point. We argue about things using facts and reason, but only after we have accepted certain basic premises on faith. I think many people don't even realize this, but every one of us does it. Neither you nor I nor Kevin can prove the one premise we all agree on: that individual rights is "right" and supremacy of government is "wrong." You accept this ON FAITH, with no proof, just as I accept the existence of God with no proof. One instance of faith is acceptable to you, and the other isn't. Why?
As for the Original Sin idea, I don't yet know enough about it to say anything useful.
Really? Baptists number in the millions. They just know they are right, same as you do. How would you change what they think, and why would you try to do so?
Obviously, I'm not going to win everyone over to my way of thinking, and I'm not even going to try. But I might be able to convince enough of them to pay more attention to the Jewish tradition. The way to do this is to convince them that they are losing ground to the anti-theists through the misuse of science, and that if they aren't willing to engage science in a meaningful way, their children's beliefs are going to be co-opted.
As for why, are you serious that you don't know why I would want to do this? I don't know about you, but I think we'd be better off with more people who are scientifically literate.
"I believe in reality and the laws of physics. That's a fundamental point of view, I suppose, and a belief by me in deities of any kind plays no part in it."
That's very convenient for you. An entire culture is informed by a belief in God, which in turn gives rise to science, and this provides the rational basis for your atheistic worldview. Rather ironic.
Pardon my delay here, Sarah. I've been out and about all day. I'm pooped, too, so I hope it doesn't show.
"We are creatures of reason only up to a point. We argue about things using facts and reason, but only after we have accepted certain basic premises on faith. I think many people don't even realize this, but every one of us does it. Neither you nor I nor Kevin can prove the one premise we all agree on: that individual rights is "right" and supremacy of government is "wrong." You accept this ON FAITH, with no proof, just as I accept the existence of God with no proof. One instance of faith is acceptable to you, and the other isn't. Why?"
That is beautifully stated, Sarah. It is quite true, and the question it leads to is well posed and directly on point. I don't know that I can do it justice, but I'll try.
Step back from it all and look at it with a bit of perspective. I think that we accept a premise that we cannot prove if it makes sense to us to do so. I suggest that we can gauge how much a premise makes sense to us by the consensus of agreement on what the premise leads to. So, let's see if we can illuminate this.
Consider mathematics. The premises on which mathematics are based are relatively few in number and are overwhelmingly accepted by mathematical theoreticians. From those premises, we deduce laws, prove theorems, and, in general, manipulate numbers quite eloquently. From simple arithmetic, to differential equations, to the extraordinarily difficult mathematics of quantum theory and general relativity, it all works.
Now consider physics. The premises of classical physics are not, to the best of my understanding, in dispute. The premises of quantum mechanics and unified field theory are disputed to some extent, but I can't discuss that intelligently because I am not trained for it. As with mathematics, from those premises, we deduce laws, prove theorems, and construct models of reality which we can experiment with. Overall, our physics models work, demonstrably so, and we produce remarkable results by using them. Even quantum mechanics bats 1.000 when it is used to predict the results of experiments, regardless of what the underlying reality is that it models.
The point is that mathematics and physics make sense to us ALL. They work, and so there is an overwhelming consensus that the premises they are based on are correct. But, your point is spot-on. Those premises are accepted on faith that they are correct because they cannot be proven.
Now consider religion. Begin with the premise that "an intelligence" created the universe. Accept that premise for the purpose of seeing where it leads. Can we deduce logically anything at all about that intelligence? For example, can we deduce that it was one, or two, or any particular number of intelligences? Do we have any physical evidence, any artifacts thereof? Can we conduct any experiments to find out?
Nope. We have no consensus whatever, and we've only just begun. Go see http://www.godchecker.com/, which lists 2,850 deities as being believed by somebody.
Now, accept the premise that it was a single intelligence. Let's call it "God" so I won't have to type so much. Can we deduce logically anything at all about God? Do we have any physical evidence thereof? Can we conduct any experiments to find out?
Nope. Again, we have no consensus whatever.
Now, accept the premise that we can know, by gum, lots of things about God. In fact, let's skip the wild west chase sequence with its irritating music and see where we end up. We find a whole spectrum of beliefs, of doctrines, about the God of Abraham. We know his names, his wants, his moods, his history, what pleases him and what pisses him off, and on and on and on.
The details are not important, but the nature of it is. The nature is that it resembles a fractal image. Overall, there is no consensus about this God. If we look closer at what appears to be a consensus among a subset of believers, even they are at loggerheads with each other. If we look all the way into the picture at only two people, even two people who are trained in such matters within one tiny area of the picture, those two people can spend their whole lifetimes arguing about what they believe.
Now, let's take it further still. Should we accept the premise because what it leads to, by whatever method, is worth believing? Well, that leads to the inevitable question: How does one decide what to believe?
One can default to what one's parent's believe, and many people do. I made an engineering career that started by questioning the defaults. Defaults are not for me. I prefer to think for myself.
One can default to what one's girlfriend, boyfriend, or spouse believes, and many people do. I suspect it prevents arguments and promotes carpooling on Sunday mornings, but as with default to one's parent's beliefs, it isn't for me.
One can pick and choose among the many doctrines using whatever criteria one chooses. Perhaps this docrine makes one feel good. Perhaps that doctrine makes one feel as if there is a purpose to it all. Perhaps another doctrine provides reason and justification for sawing the head off someone who disagrees.
Or, skipping to the finish line again, one can list all the doctrines on post-its, cover the wall, and throw a dart to select one. If no one system is any more or less provable, derivable, or deducible, given the premise that God created the universe, then that is as acceptable a method as any, isn't it?
You can even make up your own doctrine. Many have. You can make millions of dollars if you do it right. That is how all of the doctrines on the wall came into existence.
The summary of such is that all of these religious doctrines are compatible with the premise that God created the universe, and yet they contradict each other unmercifully. Religion occupies the opposite end of the consensus spectrum from math and physics. To me, the overwhelming lack of consensus about what the premise leads to mitigates strongly against the premise being right. To me, it has to make sense, and it doesn't.
The premise leads wherever you want to go, and no one can show that it can't lead there. I don't find it believable.
"As for why, are you serious that you don't know why I would want to do this? I don't know about you, but I think we'd be better off with more people who are scientifically literate."
Go back to the series of questions that led to yours. I stated that Baptists will tell you that the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are all they need, and you stated that you hoped to change that. I would dearly love it if everyone was more scientifically literate, but I can't read your mind, so I didn't have any idea what you meant by it. That's why I asked.
"That's very convenient for you. An entire culture is informed by a belief in God, which in turn gives rise to science, and this provides the rational basis for your atheistic worldview. Rather ironic."
Look how science took off once the church no longer threatened people with death for pursuing it. See Galileo, presecution of. Christianity hindered science for more than a millenia. I can't help but wonder where science would be now if it hadn't done so.
I suggest that we can gauge how much a premise makes sense to us by the consensus of agreement on what the premise leads to. So, let's see if we can illuminate this.
DJ -- I've used a similar line of reasoning here before, more than once, so I get it. One nitpick, however, is that I don't think you should rely entirely on what the consensus is, but what the reality is. Consensus can be wrong.
An aside...
The premises of classical physics are not, to the best of my understanding, in dispute.
They are, actually, based on the nature of dark matter and the repercussions for gravitation. I attended a seminar about this last year -- but the arguments against them do not constitute much of a threat. Anyway...
Your line of reasoning works against your argument, because we can take the very basic premises of Judeo-Christian belief and test their validity by examining their fruits -- do they lead to anything worthwhile? The answer is yes. Christianity (which inherited much from the Jewish tradition) gave rise to individual rights, the industrial revolution, the free market, and modern science. Even Kevin has acknowledged this. How can something you assume to be utterly and completely wrong work so much better than anything else? On the other hand, you take godless systems, like those of China, USSR, Cambodia, Cuba, and North Korea, and look what you get. There has never been an atheistic culture anywhere in the world that has produced the things you and I value. They might be able to parasitically copy a few things, like technology, but they've never given rise to things like freedom or prosperity.
As for who/what God is, what he wants, etc... that's the whole point of religious study. Of course people will differ on this. But the majority of people on this planet believe that there is only one God, just as a majority of people believe in the basic scientific premises of classical physics. As for whether we can know the answers to the questions above, Maimonides tells us that we must study physics and astronomy to understand the mind of God. I've got about 10 years worth of study that informs my opinion on that topic, which I can't possibly encapsulate here. If you are even remotely curious, you should read Schroeder.
Look how science took off once the church no longer threatened people with death for pursuing it. See Galileo, presecution of. Christianity hindered science for more than a millenia. I can't help but wonder where science would be now if it hadn't done so.
This is just so wrong, I don't even know where to begin. For one, the Galileo episode has been horribly distorted. I won't defend the Church entirely in this case, but Galileo was never threatened with death or torture as many believe. In fact, the people Galileo feared most were the secular scientists, whose beliefs were firmly rooted in the Aristotelian tradition. (The Church also held this tradition, but was by that time ready to let this go.) The Church objected -- entirely reasonably -- against Galileo's promotion of the Copernican model because there was not enough data to support it. The Church asked him to hold back until there was more evidence, because it quite rightly considered it extremely imprudent to overturn almost two thousand years of scientific wisdom on what was then a flimsy set of data. So this wasn't the Church vs. Science, this was the Aristotelian model vs. the Copernican model. The bucket-loads of exquisitely precise measurements made by Tycho Brahe favored Ptolemy, not Copernicus (who erroneously used circular orbits instead of what we now understand to be elliptical orbits), so this is what the Church believed. Furthermore, I think it was Pope Urban who said that where (good) science and scripture disagree, we must re-evaluate our understanding of scripture. What about that even remotely indicates hostility to science? We're looking back through the lens of history with 20/20 vision and not recognizing that Galileo, even though he was right, had failed to make his case. He behaved very poorly as a scientist and insisted that the model was established truth even though he had failed to support this. Galileo was brilliant, but he was a very imprudent man.
DJ, you simply don't know what you're talking about here. Science -- especially physics and astronomy -- owes its heritage to Judeo-Christian belief. Did you not read any of what I wrote above about the nature of time and the birth of classical physics? of the Jewish heritage of the greatest scientific discovery ever made? Judeo-Christian belief gave rise to science, it did not inhibit it. You are a million miles off-base here. I strongly recommend that you read What's So Great About Christianity by Dinesh D'Souza and For the Glory of God by Rodney Stark.
Things are starting to get very busy for me (new job + dissertation), so I may not have time to continue this. I really hope you don't give up pursuing this subject (and reading some of the suggested books), because once a person arrives at a point where his mind is irrevocably made up, he's intellectually dead on the topic and operating from a position of prejudice.
"One nitpick, however, is that I don't think you should rely entirely on what the consensus is, but what the reality is. Consensus can be wrong. "
That's funny, Sarah. Consensus is often wrong, but you've been telling me that we can't know what reality is. And, I offer this comment only for its humor.
"Your line of reasoning works against your argument, because we can take the very basic premises of Judeo-Christian belief and test their validity by examining their fruits -- do they lead to anything worthwhile?"
I beg to differ. You can test their utility by examining their fruits, but you can't prove their validity. You point to the history of Christianity and say, "See there?" You could also point to Islam and note that a doctrine depending on the same premise, namely the existence of the same god, has anchored its followers firmly in the sixth century.
"As for who/what God is, what he wants, etc... that's the whole point of religious study. Of course people will differ on this. But the majority of people on this planet believe that there is only one God, just as a majority of people believe in the basic scientific premises of classical physics."
Which is a superficial view of it. I stand on my analysis (such as it is).
"This is just so wrong, I don't even know where to begin. For one, the Galileo episode has been horribly distorted."
Galileo discovered, via his own observations, that Venus went through phases just like the moon, and he correctly reasoned that this could happen only if Venus was a sphere that went around the sun in an orbit between the earth and the sun. He also observed that Mars and Jupiter did not go through phases like the moon, and he correctly reasoned that this could happen only if they went around the sun in an orbit much further away from the sun than the earth. He decided that Copernicus' view that the planets revolved around the sun was correct, that the solar system was sun-centered, and that the earth moved. This was heresy, as the Bible clearly states (Psalm 104:5) that the earth is on a foundation and can never be moved.
Galileo was tried by the church, charged with suspicion of heresy, and was convicted. He recanted his teachings to avoid the consequences of that conviction. The threat was real, as the Inquisition routinely killed heretics. Now, would the Inquisition have killed him? We will never know, but he took the threat seriously enough to recant.
The point is that science was not allowed to advance in this case because the conclusions that came from it showed the Bible to be wrong.
"DJ, you simply don't know what you're talking about here. Science -- especially physics and astronomy -- owes its heritage to Judeo-Christian belief."
I don't question what it did, Sarah, rather I point out what it prevented or delayed. Christianity in its many flavors held for more than a millenia that all man needed to know could be found in the Bible, that it was a sin to try to learn beyond its teachings, indeed it was a sin even to think one could. This belief ushered in and fueled the Dark Ages. Look at the whole of its history and effects, not just the parts you like, and you'll see a different picture.
"Things are starting to get very busy for me (new job + dissertation), so I may not have time to continue this."
Please don't continue. Seriously. I recall when my wife was working on her dissertation, and she wasn't employed at the time. If it doesn't consume you, then you aren't doing it right. You have much more important things to do than this, things which you stand to gain by, so I suggest you go do them.
Consider mathematics.
You know DJ, it isn't in the least surprising that you, as a [fellow] secularist, should leap to this.
Contemporary mathematics is the modern equivalent of medieval theology - the 'word of God' so to speak.
Why did anyone even conceive of "dark matter" and "dark energy" in astro-physics? Because without them, the damned equations won't work.
So there we are, the bean-counters of the universe.
Mathematics? Feh, may as well depend on Aquinas. [Note: this is not to dispute the value of math as a tool - but only to dispute it's value as an arbitrer of "Truth".]
"Mathematics? Feh, may as well depend on Aquinas. [Note: this is not to dispute the value of math as a tool - but only to dispute it's value as an arbitrer of "Truth".]"
Mathematics is indeed is a marvelous tool, but note that I didn't offer it as an arbiter of "Truth". As with logic, if you put garbage in, you get garbage out.
Read my comment about it again, quoted here with emphasis:
"The point is that mathematics and physics make sense to us ALL. They work, and so there is an overwhelming consensus that the premises they are based on are correct. But, your point is spot-on. Those premises are accepted on faith that they are correct because they cannot be proven."
DJ -- One last word on this topic, because you still have the Galileo thing all wrong.
Yes, Galileo's observations were entirely consistent with a sun-centered model. However, one (1) piece of contradictory evidence is all it takes to destroy a theory. At the time, the rather large discrepancies between detailed observations and the Copernican predictions for the motions of the planets were more than enough to put the brakes on the theory. At best, the Copernican model could be called a hypothesis at the time. The Church therefore asked, quite reasonably, that Galileo be balanced in his treatment of the Aristotelian model vs. the Copernican model, which he apparently failed to do. However, as I mentioned before -- and this article explains in more depth -- Galileo's real opponents were the secular scientists. These were devoted Aristotelians who despised the Copernican model, and were responsible for Galileo getting into hot water more than anyone else.
The twisting of the facts years later is a deliberate attempt to malign the Church and make this whole affair into a Church vs. Science thing when, as I said before, it was a war between two competing scientific philosophies.
OK, for real, I'm done on this topic. As you say, I need to concentrate on my work, and I don't think the excuse "a black hole ate my dissertation" will get me out of trouble if I don't submit it in time. ;-)
Why did anyone even conceive of "dark matter" and "dark energy" in astro-physics? Because without them, the damned equations won't work.
OK, ok, one last word, and that's it.
I'm not sure if the above was meant as criticism of DM/DE or just an observation, but the argument for DM is pretty strong. It's based on three entirely distinct sets of observations -- rotation curves of galaxies and galaxy clusters, hot x-ray emitting gas in galaxy clusters, and gravitational lensing. Either everything we know about physics is wrong, or there's dark matter. There isn't very much data on DE yet, so it's much more contentious.
Best of luck, Sarah, and remember that luck is when preparation meets opportunity.
Either everything we know about physics is wrong, or there's dark matter.
The "why" everything we know may be wrong is based predominately on the math (or lack thereof). There just isn't enough stuff for the cosmic equations to balance without DM. That says more to me about the equation(s) than the observation(s) - yet we postulate something NOT observable to preserve mathematical correctness. And, my observation [and not a criticism per se - though getting close] that the mathematics are 'sacrosanct' - absent a new set of equations to replace the old ones (which is still bowing to the almighty '=').
And DJ, I wasn't making a criticism of what you said, just an observation on the role mathematics so often plays in resolving scientific disputes. Mathematics is the language of the Platonic Ideal. Oddly, it often runs counter to Occam's Razor, in that more convoluted and arcane equations replace simpler ones.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>