Question From High School Student

[MarcAC]

Not knowing the parameters defining the origin of the Universe I find speculation as to its probability rather silly.

I find it fun. Anyway, we can look through time and infer meaning. We don't need the original parameters of the universe. Without God there can be no true meaning; no truth.

Rather it would be god < god + not god. That is there would be something is greater than god, specifically that which encompasses god and that which is not god.

Cole Grey added something else that should not be missed in all this. Ahh the joys of math. And also Infinity + 1 = Infinity. I don't even have a problem with what you're stating up there as long as that which is not God is created by God; may we keep Cole Grey's addition in mind.

 

[spidergoat]

On an idea about specifically Christian ID advocates motivations:

I only agree with this statement tentatively . . .

. . .or with a modification.

Aren't you motivated by the fear that Evolution renders unnecessary a specific idea and set of beliefs in God?

I happen not to think evolution and God are incompatable ideas, and I have no idea why Christians make such a fuss, except that they are too rigid in their thinking. Does an comprehensive explanation of how the stock market works, for instance, mean that you can't wish for a windfall? Evolution is how God works. He doesn't assemble things from some generic matter according to a prearranged plan. He lets things happen, that's why you have a choice about how you behave.

I can understand how creationism would seem like a sensible idea 500 years ago, because we didn't know about how living things work. Just the discovery of DNA, or the microscope for that matter, should have forced a radical reevaluation of our situation.

To think living things evolved gradually over billions of years seems more probable than a sudden creation event, because complexity builds on complexity, and life made the earth evolve as much as conditions on earth made life evolve, so it must have happened slowly. I know people are subject to supernatural explanations for things, but when investigated, there is always a natural explanation revealed.

 

[cole grey]

Spidergoat says, "Aren't you motivated by the fear that Evolution renders as unnecessary the idea of God?"

I'm not. This is a misconception based on false assumptions and some specific definitions of God that are not necessary for theism. Or, conversely, it is the creation of meaning from meaninglessnes, through an oversimplification of the word "meaning". "Meaning" is not just identification of patterns.
And to say that life doesn't need meaningfulness, is true, but the life without meaning (other than that imparted by struggle for survival), is a life devoid of art.

EDIT- obviously, you don't have that misconception, as shown by the post you made while I typed that.

 

[Raithere]

I find it fun. Anyway, we can look through time and infer meaning. We don't need the original parameters of the universe. Without God there can be no true meaning; no truth.

How do you figure? For truth, all we need is reality. For meaning, all we need is something that conceives and something to conceive.

Cole Grey added something else that should not be missed in all this. Ahh the joys of math. And also Infinity + 1 = Infinity.

You keep inserting infinity where it's not warranted. I'm talking about totality or unity, not infinity. You can have greater and lesser infinities. If god is infinite yet does not compass everything there is a larger infinity that encompasses god. Ergo, there is something greater than god; the realty that encompasses god and that which is not god.

~Raithere

 

[cole grey]

You keep inserting infinity where it's not warranted. I'm talking about totality or unity, not infinity. You can have greater and lesser infinities. If god is infinite yet does not compass everything there is a larger infinity that encompasses god. Ergo, there is something greater than god; the realty that encompasses god and that which is not god.

I would suggest, again, that you can add to something and, by doing so, can make it smaller, or less than. This concept might apply to the definition of God.

 

[§outh§tar]

§outh§tar,

Sorry for the delay in response. It was a busy week.

I really wasn't addressing this, I was discussing what you had to say about empiricism but let's see what we can do.

"But you and I both know, that claiming that science is "MORE objective" than *insert faith* requires substantiation. This is all I have been asking for."

This depends partly upon how you are using the word "faith". Typically, I'd use one of these definitions in context. "2 a (1) : firm or unquestioning belief in something for which there is no proof." or " b : CONFIDENCE; especially : firm or unquestioning trust or confidence in the value, power, or efficacy of something".

In opposition, science would be " 4 : a branch of study that is concerned with observation and classification of facts and especially with the establishment or strictly with the quantitative formulation of verifiable general laws chiefly by induction and hypotheses"

I am pretty sure not only assuming an objective reality, but assuming that it can be known, falls under (a). Unless of course it can be shown otherwise that such an assumption is any less a "firm or unquestioning belief in something for which there is no proof". As for practicality, we don't have very many options asides from the assumption that human knowledge can potentially be trustworthy/objective.

Philosophically speaking (and this is where religion comes in), such an assumption is the root for both science and faith. Both rest on the SAME assumption: knowledge is trustworthy. As follows, any claim that science is more objective than faith assumes that science and faith rest on different fundamental assumptions. If they do rest on the same assumption (and they do), then such a claim cannot possibly be 'objective' in any matter, for it would itself fall circularly in the same definition given under (a).

Two branches. The same root. Saying one branch is more natural than another, well, it begs the question.

Given these definitions (and that objectivity exists in the first place, albeit founded on certain assumptions)

Good.

I find the qualification that science is more objective rather self evident. The methodology of science is specifically designed to eliminate a subjective bias. Faith has no methodology and is strictly subjective interpretation.

~Raithere

As I said earlier, the claim that science is more objective must necessarily assume that the fundamental premises of science are more 'objective' than those of faith. But as I said earlier, this is not at all true, for they are of the same root. Simply different branches.

Perhaps we can say that science has given us more tangible results than faith. But again, to conclude from this that science is 'more objective' would a non sequitur.

Unless of course science is to be arbitrarily designed as the objective basis for the knowledge of this so-called 'reality'. In which case, I need not argue.

Did I mention the very assumption of an objective reality "has no methodology" either? I wonder how that is supposed to be any different from the assumptions of faith. But of course, we are speaking in terms of philosophy and not 'reality'.

 

[Raithere]

Philosophically speaking (and this is where religion comes in), such an assumption is the root for both science and faith. Both rest on the SAME assumption: knowledge is trustworthy.

Excepting certain mystical approaches, I agree.

As follows, any claim that science is more objective than faith assumes that science and faith rest on different fundamental assumptions. If they do rest on the same assumption (and they do), then such a claim cannot possibly be 'objective' in any matter, for it would itself fall circularly in the same definition given under (a).

If both approaches rest on the same assumption then we can make a case for greater or lesser objectivity under the agreed upon premises.

Premise 1: An objective reality exists independent of the mind.
Premise 2: Objective reality is knowable.
Premise 3: Sensory experience is a more or less reliable conduit for knowing things about this objective reality although it is prone to certain errors.

Given these premises, we can found that science is a more reliable methodology for knowing an objective reality. Repeated observation, controlled variability, hypothesis testing, experimental control, etc. are designed to eliminate subjective bias, erroneous observational data, and unknown variables.

Faith has no such methodology to correct for error. It relies purely upon subjective interpretation of the available data. Articles of faith are commonly found to be largely in error when scientific controls are put in place. The efficacy of "faith healing", for instance, has been repeatedly demonstrated to be statistically non-existent or a sham. Religion then relies upon anecdotal evidence and ignorance to sway an emotional appeal.

Did I mention the very assumption of an objective reality "has no methodology" either? I wonder how that is supposed to be any different from the assumptions of faith.

In a purely logical analysis, it isn't. The best argument I have here is that the alternative assumption is nonsensical.

~Raithere

 

[QUEST EONS]

Faith: The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

God: A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

Human Nature: Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans: a mistake that shows he's only human; human frailty.



It's funny how the Christian version of GOD.. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, expects HUMANS, Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans: a mistake that shows he's only human; human frailty. To believe in him by FAITH: The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

 

[MarcAC]

How do you figure? For truth, all we need is reality. For meaning, all we need is something that conceives and something to conceive.

A consistent, objective reality and consistent "objective" meaning. If it were as you state then humanity would have no problems with regards to objective truth and its existence - in fact, in such a case, for humanity, truth may as well not exist unless we continue in the faith that science may one day become a "constant".

From where I stand objective truth and meaning can only exist referenced to a First Cause (not reality). I work with what I perceive. One can almost instantly recognise an "artificial" object when it is seen. It was created; by man or some beast. I recognise structure and purpose (rules) working in the universe - I assume the same - First Cause.

Not necessarily? Sure, but I am justified in believing that just as any may be not believing it if not more so - and this is speaking from a purely rational perspective. What one experiences is another factor but then it makes no sense bringing that up in such a discussion as stated before thus I won't.

You keep inserting infinity where it's not warranted. I'm talking about totality or unity, not infinity. You can have greater and lesser infinities. If god is infinite yet does not compass everything there is a larger infinity that encompasses god. Ergo, there is something greater than god; the realty that encompasses god and that which is not god.

But what are the consequences of this really? The, (infinity + 1 = infinity = infinity - 1), an analogy, simply shows that such a "greater" is particularly inconsequential and I really don't see why "unity" has to be a factor. It all depends on how you would view things; say god could start from (0 = 1 - 1), creation from nothing, another analogy. In this case it's simply (infinity + 1 - 1) i.e. creation is (0 = 1 - 1) and god = infinity. The empty set is a subset of every set; nothing encompasses god.

 

[§outh§tar]

Raithere

Thanks. I think you understand (whether or not you realize it) what I was trying to say.

 

[Raithere]

If it were as you state then humanity would have no problems with regards to objective truth and its existence

Sensory perception is not always reliable and our modeling is not always precise. This is why it's important to test out various models and hypotheses.

From where I stand objective truth and meaning can only exist referenced to a First Cause (not reality).

I see a couple of problems with this. First, how can you be certain you have properly defined what the "First Cause" is? Second, how do you implement such a reduction? (Give a practical example, for instance). Frankly, I find this an idealistic and not really truthful assertion.

I work with what I perceive. One can almost instantly recognise an "artificial" object when it is seen. It was created; by man or some beast.

I contend that you can only recognize what is "artificial" against a background of what is "natural". There is no such background for the Universe itself. You have nothing to contrast it with.

I recognise structure and purpose (rules) working in the universe - I assume the same - First Cause.

The assumption is that "purpose (rules)" must be a result of intelligence. But again, there is nothing to found this upon. Order appears to be intrinsic to the Universe; whether or not there is a first cause or whether or not that first cause is intelligent seems to me a moot point.

Not necessarily? Sure, but I am justified in believing that just as any may be not believing it if not more so - and this is speaking from a purely rational perspective.

I have no problem with the base assumption itself. But religion cannot seem to leave it at that. Definition is almost always asserted, without any foundation. Even accepting your argument for order and first cause.

The empty set is a subset of every set; nothing encompasses god.

In which case god must encompass everything. Ergo, nothing is not god. Which is what I was saying.

~Raithere

 

[Al hussein]

I can understand how creationism would seem like a sensible idea 500 years ago, because we didn't know about how living things work. Just the discovery of DNA, or the microscope for that matter, should have forced a radical reevaluation of our situation.

To think living things evolved gradually over billions of years seems more probable than a sudden creation event, because complexity builds on complexity, and life made the earth evolve as much as conditions on earth made life evolve, so it must have happened slowly. I know people are subject to supernatural explanations for things, but when investigated, there is always a natural explanation revealed.

Actually with the idea of creationism God shows man of his existence.With the thought of "the gradual development of man" people will start thinking(which they have) that if something so intellegent as man could come from an animal gradually, then tht animal came from something lower and so on, to the point they will say that life on earth came gradually bcoz of the conditoins of the earth blablabla.
And so the concept of God is destroyed,
which brings the rise of atheisem.

 

[Silas]

And so the concept of God is destroyed,
which brings the rise of atheisem.

And that's bad...... why, exactly?

In (undoubtedly far too late to be any use) answer to the High School Student's question, I would say the following.

As a well established part of the sum of human knowledge, of course evolution should be taught, and taught as fact, too.

But it's no longer just a matter of "it's part of the sum of human knowledge". This is the 21st Century, and our approach to healthcare and other fields such as nutrition and agriculture, is now increasingly based upon fundamental understanding of the mechanisms of life. 52 years ago the structure of DNA was worked out by Watson and Crick, and on that basis have burgeoned new sciences, microbiology and genetics. It can not be doubted that advances in these technologies are primary to our survival as a species - not only the abolition of disease, but the feeding of the starving of the world. And as such they are important contributors economically to a nation's prosperity. And the fundamental basis for these sciences is an understanding of the process and history of evolution in the development of life. It is dangerous irresponsibility to close down one area of human knowledge for reasons of religious (or political!) dogma.

Imagine a world in which The Origin of Species has been banned and destroyed. A youngster who has no conception of evolution, having been taught that all the species were created in a single act by God, gets interested in science and starts working in the field of microbiology and genetics. She studies the way genes affect different parts of the development of an organism, and how minor the differences in gene plans between similar species are. She realises that since no copying mechanism is absolutely perfect, it is possible for mutations to occur. Thinking about this on her own, she has a blinding flash of inspiration - what if a minor mutation made an organism more likely to survive in a hostile environment? If enough of these good mutations accumulated (bad mutations causing or contributing to death prior to reproduction, and neutral mutations not being as good at avoiding death), ultimately a new species would arise, absolutely by natural means with no intervention from God? In fact a great deal of research actually already seems to take place in the field of generating mutations and seeing what happens to populations (of bacteria, drosophila and the like), on top of which there is the long history of the appearance of new diseases resistant to human-developed palliatives such as penicillin. Excitedly she takes the idea to older colleagues who shake their heads and say, "In fact we've known this for 150 years, but the teaching of it is banned by law." Some Protestant sects like to teach about the travails Galileo suffered at the hands of the all-powerful Catholic church, but it seems to me that the Protestant Fundamentalism which seeks to deny an important, nay essential, part of the totality of human learning is entirely guilty of the same thing.

A few years ago Bill Bryson wrote (from memory):

Everybody remembers the Scopes "monkey" trial about the teaching of Evolution as a huge triumph for Clarence Darrow, but in fact they are wrong. Darrow lost the Scopes trial, and in fact the law prohibiting the teaching of evolution was only repealed as recently as 1967. Now there are calls in Tennessee to re-introduce the law, which would imply that the biggest problem for Tennesseans is not so much that they are descended from apes, but that they may soon be overtaken by them.​

 

[Silas]

IMO, it holds merit. However, I am also an advocate of Evolutionary Theory (not of the Darwinian sense, however).

I tried to argue above the way that the Darwinian theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is the natural, logical outcome; of the fact that development of life is based on the contents of ones genes, that genetic copying is subject to error in the copying process, that some "errors" would in fact be better for the new organism than the old one, that the implacable force of Death would eliminate mutations which caused detrimental effects more of the unmutated than those with the beneficial mutation (after all a beneficial mutation is simply one that is better at avoiding death, so the beneficial ones are de facto the ones you are left with).

After Darwin, there were a variety of different theories of mechanism, but nearly 150 years later it is still Darwin that rules supreme. One early theory was "mutationism", which assumed that the direction of evolution was forced by mutation in some way, but this actually has semi-mystical elements and rapidly fell away. Some modern theories regarding the evolution of species such as neutralism and the theory of punctuated equilibria are depicted in the media as "anti-Darwinian", but in fact they are not, and Darwin had scarcely a greater champion than one of the co-authors of that theory, the late Stephen Jay Gould.

The way that anti-Darwinians depict the theory of evolution is almost as if the process of Natural Selection is some devious anti-God that scientists postulate as responsible for the development of species for the express purpose of denying the existence of God. It's not like that. It is simply a natural outcome of the life processes that we see. Species exist in populations, they compete with other species and with the environment, genes offer the opportunity for variation and change and hovering over the whole is the quite unavoidable spectre of Death. The large number of individual creatures in a species population (up to billions in the case of insects, for example), multiplied by the number of births in a year (almost as many in the case of some species), multiplied by the number of years possible for this entire process to take place (at a conservative estimate, about a billion), means that what would otherwise be low probability individual events start to actually dominate the outcome - it's a numbers game.

If you postulated any kind of entity (which wouldn't have to be alive, you could do it with computer sprites) which reproduced with errors, and those errors had some effect on whether the next entity would exist long enough to reproduce or not, and postulated enough numbers of these entities and reproduction events and enough time, evolution would take place and the entities at the end of that time would seem utterly different from the ones at the start (which might only be a single pixel). Because of this, Richard Dawkins has postulated about what we might discover about an alien species, were we to ever meet one. There's no particular reason that an alien life form would be carbon-based, as we are, would involve proteins, enzymes or amino acids as ours does, would have its reproduction mechanism based on deoxyribonucleic acid as ours does - who knows the infinite varieties of Chemistry, after all? But, he said, whatever the chemical basis for the life, the complexity of it will have evolved through Darwinian processes.

 

[MarcAC]

I see a couple of problems with this. First, how can you be certain you have properly defined what the "First Cause" is?

Certainty is not secure, but it may be ascertained from what is seen in creation now if you consider cause and effect. Look at us; endeavouring to create humanoids. The creation must feature the creator in some sense.

Second, how do you implement such a reduction? (Give a practical example, for instance). Frankly, I find this an idealistic and not really truthful assertion.

Well just look around this site; many have come to the "truth for you" conclusion. But then, what is truth? How can truth be truth if it has two (or six billion) different values at once? So some have come to the "no truth" conclusion. It's the same with meaning. As stated before, science may never make the bold claim of being truth. I create with a purpose in mind. If my existence has some purpose associated with it then some source must be behind it. That's how I see the world now; just "extrapolating".

I contend that you can only recognize what is "artificial" against a background of what is "natural". There is no such background for the Universe itself. You have nothing to contrast it with.

Exactly that but the artificial exists via creation by man or "beast". You see something artificial, you say; "I'm not the only one who's been around here." I assume the same for that which is against it. Some may be willing to leave it at that (it's there and there's nothing more to be said), but then it all becomes meaningless (re: above).

The assumption is that "purpose (rules)" must be a result of intelligence. But again, there is nothing to found this upon. Order appears to be intrinsic to the Universe; whether or not there is a first cause or whether or not that first cause is intelligent seems to me a moot point.

Heh; it is partially founded upon our functioning and the way things work with us; we are "intelligent". We work with what we have and what we can. That is the basic scientific method if one should look back. That's why the earth was once at the centre of the universe. Who knows? Maybe it 'still' is. It may seem to be a moot point, but it's not that easy. Purpose and rule are not entirely synonymous. Within humanity we can say a purpose lies behind a rule. Science may never assign a purpose to existence. Strange isn't it? It attempts to tell you how but not why; both equally important in my mind.

Definition is almost always asserted, without any foundation.

There are asserted foundations; whether you accept them as such or not is another matter. We have to start somewhere.

 

[spidergoat]

Actually with the idea of creationism God shows man of his existence.With the thought of "the gradual development of man" people will start thinking(which they have) that if something so intellegent as man could come from an animal gradually, then tht animal came from something lower and so on, to the point they will say that life on earth came gradually bcoz of the conditoins of the earth blablabla...

That's true, but no one really knows where the universe came from, there is still room for a creator, if you must. Babies develop gradually, does that make it any less of a miracle?
Evolution is like:

It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his garden; and it grew, and waxed a great tree; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it.
The Bible

And so the concept of God is destroyed,
which brings the rise of atheisem.

Why must a logical understanding of nature destroy the concept of God? Perhaps our concepts were incomplete in the first place.