Philosophy Lounge

April 17, 2013

Contra the Moral Utility of Belief in a Soul

Filed under: critique of religion — Tags: , — jbernal @ 3:22 pm

Juan Bernal

A few weeks ago while discussing people’s belief in an immortal soul I declared that there wasn’t any evidence or good rational ground for affirming that belief.  An email correspondent  — who had previously asserted that there was good evidence for soul’s survival of the body’s death –- asked me, “Why did so many people, in the past and present, believed in soul?”  He also stated that nobody had any good grounds for thinking that people in the past, who believed in the reality of immortal souls, did not have any rational grounds for such belief.  He declared that, after all, we weren’t there when ancient cultures and peoples of past centuries adopted belief in souls; so we really could not say anything about the reasons, evidence underlying such belief.

By happenstance this very issue came up in another setting.  A book discussion group,  of which I’m a member,  has been looking at Steven Pinker’s recent book, The Better Angels of our Nature – Why violence has declined.   In chapter four (pp. 129-188), Pinker takes up what he calls the humanizing process in Western Europe and in the USA which mainly ended the routine brutality and killing of human beings that marked ancient and medieval periods.

In leading up to his account of the humanizing process that occurred in much of Western Europe starting the late 18th century, Pinker takes time to describe the incredible violence and bloodletting that often was based on irrational superstitious thinking and on religious doctrine.  These early sections of the chapter are titled “Superstitious Killing: Human Sacrifice, Witchcraft, and Blood Libel,” and   “Superstitious Killing: Violence against blasphemers, heretics, and apostates.”   Here Pinker recounts the genocides that resulted from the Catholic Crusades, and the great number of deaths that resulted from various long, bloody religious wars between European states and principalities; the high number of deaths brought about by the persecutions, tortures, and executions of non-believers by religious authorities —- all adding up to millions of people slaughtered, tortured, and executed, by the various “Reformations” (Catholic and Protestant); by the Inquisitions in Spain, Italy, and the New World.

Considering that all of this took place at a time when belief in an immortal soul was nearly universal, we surely are struck by a paradox.  Given all that brutality and bloodletting were  perpetuated by believers in an immortal soul, the question arises:  “Why do people think that belief is a good thing?  What ethical or moral value can such belief possibly have if cultures and ages in which that belief prevails are so bloody and violent, and dangerous to life and limb?

Pinker has some interesting things to say relevant to those questions. In his attempt to understand why people finally began to break the cycles of violence and death in the 17th century, and finally began to tolerated those who preferred to dissent from the prevailing religious doctrines, such as that concerning the value of an eternal soul.  He writes:

“What made Europeans finally decide that it was all right to let their dissenting compatriots risk eternal damnation and, by their bad example, lure others to that fate? Perhaps they were exhausted by the Wars of Religion, but it’s not clear why it took thirty years to exhaust hem rather than ten or twenty. One gets the sense that people started to place a higher value on human life. Part of the newfound appreciation was an emotional change, a habit of identifying with the pains and pleasures of others. And another part was an intellectual and moral change: a shift from valuing souls to valuing lives. The doctrine of the sacredness of the soul sounds vaguely uplifting, but in fact is highly malignant. It discounts life on earth as just a temporary phase that people pass through, indeed, an infinitesimal fraction of their existence. Death becomes a mere rite of passage, like puberty or a midlife crisis.

The gradual replacement of lives for souls as the locus of moral value was helped along by the ascendancy of skepticism and reason. No one can deny the difference between life and death or the existence of suffering, but it takes indoctrination to hold beliefs about what becomes of an immortal soul after it has parted company from the body. The 17th century is called the Age of Reason, an age when writers began to insist that beliefs be justified by experience and logic. That undermines dogmas about souls and salvation, and it undermines the policy of forcing people to believe unbelievable things at the point of sword (or a Juda’s Cradle).”  [Page 143]

 

Of course, Pinker is not the first to so describe the nature of religious doctrine concerning the immortal soul.  Decades ago (1950s), the American philosopher, Walter Kaufmann, remarked  in various books  that the other-worldly nature of Christian doctrine de-valued human life on this earth, or turned attention away from the brutality, suffering, death, and gross injustice that characterized most lives when the grand other-worldly religion dominated, with its dogma of the immortal soul.

———————-

So my reply to my email colleague’s question  –  Why do I think ancient people adopted the belief in an immortal soul?  —  is that the ancients and medieval people were generally  indoctrinated to believe the dogma of an immortal soul, along with other dogma about the fate of the soul after death.  In the Christian period, when they were not so indoctrinated or resisted the indoctrination, they were terrorized into believing (or at least outward assent to the belief).

Thus, I reaffirm my conviction that belief in an immortal soul is just the product of particular religious cultures and ages, and has never been grounded on rational evidence.

March 20, 2013

A Dialogue on the Limits of Science and Transcendent Possibilities

Filed under: critique of religion,science and philosophy,Science and Religion — Tags: , , — jbernal @ 2:14 pm

Juan Bernal

I had a long dialogue with a correspondent philosopher [“Otro”] on the issues of what we can know and the limits of scientific knowledge.  It started when I [“Moi”] tried to clarify our basic assumptions:

Moi:  Let me assume that all humans are physical, biological beings with a facility for intelligent language.  I suppose that this imposes limits on the possibilities; for example, it implies that you’re not a disembodied, eternal, spiritual being.  Am I safe in making those presuppositions, or should I leave open the possibility that I’m communicating with a transcendent spirit?

Am I safe in assuming that we’re just flesh-and-blood persons?  Are we in agreement here, or do you wish to think that you might very well be much more (oh so much more!) than a physical, biological being with an over-active brain?

———————————

Otro:  I’m sorry that I did not explicitly answer your question. If you had left out the word “just,” I would be able to agree. I agree that we are flesh and blood persons etc. I do not agree that we are nothing more than that. A book by John Hick (The Fifth Dimension) spells out the alternative to that view, and I generally agree with the alternative as Hick describes it. The following quotation is from the first page of The Fifth Dimension. This might help you to understand the point of view from which I respond to your question. The book presents a more developed and nuanced understanding of what people like me and John Hick think about the idea that we’re just flesh and blood persons.

 We are finite, fallible, fragile fragments of the universe. But because we have an inbuilt need to find meaning we inhabit the universe in terms of a conception of its character – a big picture – either consciously adopted or unconsciously presupposed. In so doing, we are always, whether we realize it or not, living by faith, that is, moving in an immensely important area in which there is no certain knowledge and in which we cannot avoid the risk of being seriously mistaken.

To most of us within our highly technological western culture it has come to seem self-evident that a scientific account of anything and everything constitutes the full story, and that the supposed transcendent realities of which the religions speak must therefore be imaginary. Since at least the beginning of the twentieth century this naturalistic assumption has been an integral part of our culture, and any contrary hopes, dreams, intuitions, senses of transcendence, intimations of immortality, or mystical experiences have been overshadowed by its pervasive influence. But it is a fundamental error to think that the assumptions that our culture has instilled into us, and which we take for granted, are necessarily true. . . . The beginning of wisdom is to become aware of our own presuppositions as options that can be examined and questioned. Otherwise we are wearing mental blinkers without even being conscious of them.

—————————–

Moi:  Thanks, this does give an idea of what you guys believe, but there’s nothing here that is totally new to me. However,  I will point out some ideas that John Hick and others (including you?) often express  which are erroneous.

I don’t believe that naturalistic thinkers and most scientists claim that it “self-evident that a scientific account of anything and everything constitutes the full story.”

As I noted in another email to you, the work of science and empirical inquiry are works-in-progress.  Nobody who reflects carefully on things would say that science has given the “full story.”  This is part of the effort by people like Hick to set up a Strawman argument against science and naturalism.  But even the admission that science does not give the full story does not show the viability of any philosophy (theology?) that asserts those “transcendent realities” which Hick and you so much desire.  The work of science can go on indefinitely (gaining more and more information about the universe and ourselves) without ever showing one shred of evidence for “transcendent realities.”  So this reference to the “full story” and implication of an “incomplete story” is really a red herring.

Another mistake arises with the notion of necessary truth:  that my common-sense assumption is necessarily true.  I never said that it was a necessary truth that we are physical, biological beings; I said it was a presupposition that we all take for granted.  Denying that it is a necessary truth does not you’re your case for supernatural possibilities.  If we’re in a speculative mood and want to muse about transcendental possibilities, we can engage the exercise of “examining and questioning” such presuppositions.  Nobody prohibits such an exercise.  But remember that this is all that’s going on; we’re just indulging a speculative exercise about possibilities.  It has always seemed to me that this is all what  John Hick others like him do amounts to: speculation about possibilities.

Finally, I find it rather bizarre to read the assertion that our common-sense presupposition that we’re physical, biological beings existing in a physical world is a case of having “mental blinkers,” as if you idealists had already established the viability of the transcendental realm from which you could look on the merely physical world as a limited, obscure reality.   This is just the old practice of religious transcendence parading as critical philosophy!

————————————-

Otro:  John Hick wrote,

“To most of us within our highly technological western culture it has come to seem self-evident that a scientific account of anything and everything constitutes the full story, and that the supposed transcendent realities of which the religions speak must therefore be imaginary.”

He seems to say that because we think of the scientific account of everything is complete, we infer that “the supposed transcendent realities of which the religions speak must be imaginary.”

But which is the more likely interpretation of what he is saying about the scientific account? Is he saying that we have come to think of it as full in fact, or is he saying that we have come to think of it as full in principle?

————————————

Moi:   My problem with  ”the supposed transcendent realities of which the religions speak ..”  has nothing to do with the belief that science does or does not provide a “complete story” of everything.  I don’t believe this but there no implication that follows which lends comfort to the supernaturalist.

So I find much of what you quote from John Hick to have little relevance.  As you point out it
is not even clear what is meant by the “complete story” given by science.

My skepticism concerning all claims of transcendent existence or transcendent, spiritual
aspect (essence?) of human reality arises from other considerations. It arises from the observation
that there are no objective, publicly verifiable grounds for concluding that there are such
transcendent realities.

Even if we allow, for the sake of argument, some of those claims as hypotheses, we would have a tough time selecting the candidates to select and likely find that they contradict each other. There are so
many and so varied! There are no obvious criteria (agreeable to all) for selecting good candidates.

—————————————-

Otro:  I’m skeptical about your explanation of your skepticism. I think there are probably a lot of things you believe in even though you lack objective, publicly verifiable grounds for them. So other than the fact that it lacks objective, publicly verifiable grounds, there must be something else about the transcendent reality claim that provokes your skepticism.

Assuming as I do that empirical information is ambiguous, one reason why many people reject explanations of empirical data that involve the notion of a transcendent reality is that such explanations are not as effective as naturalistic explanations in stimulating or leading to further progress in science. You seem to put a very high value on science and scientific progress, so maybe that has something to do with your skepticism concerning all claims of transcendent existence.

—————————————

Moi:   So now you’re in the business of psycho-analysis, stating what my reasons can and cannot be for something I hold to be the case?

I stated briefly why I’m skeptical about your claims that transcendental realities should not be ruled out.  I stand by those reasons and have little to do with my recognition of the progress brought about by the sciences.  It has more to do with the fact the sciences are by far the best instrument for gaining knowledge of our world that humans have.  It also has much to do with the completely incoherent world that results when we allow that your transcendental possibilities might be real along with the thousands of alternative transcendental possibilities that others dream up.

Of course, there’s much that I believe for which I don’t have objectively, verifiable grounds (as do all people).  But these are very different from belief in a transcendental realm of transcendental beings beyond the reach of science and empirical experience.

Mostly what I hear from you is reminder of possibilities that remain after we consider the limited knowledge that the sciences provide.  I hear from you and people like the Hick the refrain that since the sciences are do not explain everything (are not the full story), the possibility remains that your preferred fantasies of the supernatural can be fact.  Again, that is just relying on rather questionable notions of possibilities to hold on to that which is dear to you.  (Allow me to do some psycho-analysis of the motives for your views.)

——————————————–

Otro:   May I take this as an admission that the knowledge that science provides is limited, and beyond that knowledge lie possibilities which have yet to be explored? If so, do you similarly admit that

  1. science does not at present offer a theory of reality,
  2. and may never do so, since
  3. there may be realities that are forever inaccessible to the methods of science?

Among the realities that could be forever inaccessible to science, one is human reality. The evidence I presented in my previous email about Dr. Parnia’s research on after-death experience suggests mind-body dualism. But, given the inevitable ambiguity of empirical evidence, it may be beyond the ability of science to clinch the case for or against mind-body dualism. Nevertheless, the issue has practical importance. What we believe about it makes a difference to how we live our lives. Either we do or do not live with some sort of expectation of a life after death. So people in effect make a decision about it whether consciously or unconsciously by living their lives in one way or the other. The decision they make could be described as “a preferred fantasy of the supernatural.” Your preferred fantasy of the supernatural portrays the supernatural as empty of anything real. But what right do you have to consider your fantasy better than its alternatives? Is that a conclusion you can support with presupposition-less logic?

————————————–

Moi:   You ask whether I admit that “the knowledge that science provides is limited, and that beyond that knowledge lie possibilities which have yet to be explored?”   Of course, I said as much.  My quarrel with you concerns that inference that you draw from this notion of an incomplete science.

Let me use the analogy of human high jumping.  Although the height that human high jumpers have achieved has risen dramatically in recent decades (now over 8 feet), there is a limit (a physical limit to how high a human can jump).  So possibilities of yet higher jumps remain.  But the book is not wide open on these possibilities, as long as we’re talking about human physiology.  You won’t see anyone ever high jumping 50 feet!  But maybe someone will someday achieve a jump of 9-10 feet.  The same thinking applies to the limits and possibilities of scientific knowledge.  Yes, scientific knowledge is not a completed story.  Yes, more remains to be told (discovered).  But what remains, when it is disclosed, will come under the category of nature as we now know it.  There is no reason for claiming that among those possibilities not yet disclosed are supernatural realities (the sort you yearn for).  That would be like claiming that because human high jumpers are still setting new records, one will eventually jump over a 100 foot barrier unaided!

You also ask whether I admit that

  1. science does not at present offer a theory of reality,
  2. and may never do so, since
  3. there may be realities that are forever inaccessible to the methods of science?

The sciences are not in the business of advancing “a theory of reality.”   Even the scientific theorist is concerned only with proposing specific theories of some aspect of nature (e.g. theories in physics, chemistry, biology, paleoanthropology) and having those theories tested by practicing scientists, who devise experiments to test the theory.  If anyone is in the business of presenting “a theory of reality,” it is the philosopher, or someone taking on that function of philosophy.  But some of those philosophers can offer a theory of reality based on the work and knowledge gotten by the sciences.  I don’t see any reason for supposing that a theory of reality based on scientific knowledge can never happen, since it happens already.

Your third item (“realities forever inaccessible to the methods of science”) just asks for a bit of speculation.  Who knows?  Who cares?  This question may be of interest to someone inclined to imagine a transcendental perspective on reality (a god’s eye view). But for the humanist perspective, which science represents, this question is limited interest.  An affirmative answer (“Yes, Lyle, there such entities forever inaccessible …”) does not have the cash value you imagine it to have.

With regard to your final paragraph, I don’t even know what it means to say that “science clinches the case for or against mind-body dualism.”  Are asking for a deductive proof?   Science has built a very strong case (and continues to do so) against that dualism.  Despite the dualist grasping for straws (a desperate search for anything that might save dualism), there isn’t any established scientific basis for positing a spiritual-mental entity that operates alongside (independently of) the human organism.

Of course the issue has practical importance for many people, in and outside of religious faith, who believe in such non-corporeal existence.  But the fact that people base their lives on that belief and religions carry on their business in terms of that belief does nothing to show that the belief is scientifically (or even rationally) viable.

I don’t think that my flat-footed belief that humans are evolved biological creatures, animals with a large brain, is a “preferred fantasy,” unless you dismiss (as well you might) all the biological-genetic sciences as “preferred fantasies.”

You see as my preferred fantasy of “the supernatural portrays the supernatural as empty of anything real.”  You’re making too hasty a jump here by assuming we can even talk intelligently and coherent of a supernatural realm that may or may not contain real entities.  As usual, you help yourself to the reality of fantastic realm (“SUPERNATURAL REALM”!) and then challenge your interlocutor to prove there’s nothing in it. (?!)   This sounds like one of those ineffectual games which traditional students of metaphysical philosophy love.

With regard to your last question:  What in the world is ” pre-suppositionless” logic unless it is just logic as a formal system?  I could outline the “logic” by which I reach my conclusions, but they surely involve some presuppositions (I have been referring to one of them in this long discussion).  All human arguments do, including those which you concoct based on presuppositions regarding highly questionable (even fantastic) possibilities.

 

September 25, 2012

A Brief Statement of the Irony of Early Christian History

Filed under: critique of religion,Irony,philosophy history — Tags: — jbernal @ 11:19 am

Juan Bernal

2010   1/20

It is difficult to overstate this fact: The Christianity that we know today results from the Gentiles’ transformation of what was probably the message of a Jewish Sage from Galilee.  In fact, the Hellenized version of “Jesus” was first developed by Paul of Tarsus and John (of the Fourth Gospel).  This Hellenized philosophy has little or nothing to do with teachings of the person known as Yeshu or Yeshua, the flesh-and-blood person who is likely the basis for the Gospel Jesus, which develops the image of Jesus promoted by the evangelists, who were not the immediate followers of Yeshua.

 

When we try to get to facts concerning Yeshua from Galilee we have to dig through numerous layers of doctrine and popular myth.  Even for the critically-minded, educated historian-scholar, the flesh-and-blood person who walked the hills of Galilee and Judea is lost in the fog of subsequent doctrine, events and political drama (e.g., the need of the early Christians to distance themselves from the Jews and gain the sympathy of the Romans).

 

1/24   Historical Ironies:

Paul’s missionary  work and his teachings were a major factor in the early development of Christian doctrine; yet Paul’s teachings had little to do with the message of Yeshua, the Galilean teaching.

Early in the fourth century AD, the Roman emperor Constantine was primarily responsible for the fact that Christianity became the major religion in the Roman Empire and eventually became a major world religion. Yet, Constantine was not by any measure a Christian man.

The teachings of a Jewish sage are transformed into a Hellenized, somewhat mystical philosophy and eventually Christian doctrine over the course of a few decades.  After a few centuries, the Christian doctrine becomes a Roman institution.

1/27

To say that the Roman Emperor Constantine experienced a religious conversion is to speak in a very misleading way. Did he embrace Christianity as his faith and philosophy of life?  Did he come to accept the teachings in the Gospels and accept the risen Christ as his savior?  Any cursory reading of the history and actions of Constantine, before and after his alleged ‘conversion’ will surely yield an emphatic negative answer to each of those questions.

Yet, Constantine was probably most responsible for the fact that Christianity went from being primarily a minority cult to becoming a religion of universal significance.

 

May 29, 2012

A Naïve Look at Basics of Theism, Atheism, Agnosticism, & Burden of Proof

Filed under: critique of religion — Tags: — jbernal @ 4:08 pm

by Juan Bernal

Statements of fact:

There is a great variety of belief in G-d.  There isn’t any general consensus on the claim that G-d is real.

There is a great variety of non-belief in G-d.  There isn’t any general consensus on the claim that G-d is fiction or non-existent.

In short, these are facts that do not require supporting argument.

————————————————————————-

On the question – Does G-d exist?  -  there are three general orientations:

1  Neutral view         -    Who knows?  He might or might not.

2  Affirmative view  -   Yes, G-d exists.

3  Negative view      -   No, likely He does not exist.

1 – Neutral View    Generally, this is the attitude that a deity may or may not exist; often this is associates with an attitude of not caring or worrying about it one way or another.

(It can be a mere psychological state without a theory of reality.)

This can be the position that does not imply any theory of reality, i.e., a metaphysics.

Sometimes this is the agnostic view:  we simply don’t know whether a deity exists and don’t have any rational grounds for the belief that G-d exists.

Example:  Jack omits belief in G-d, i.e., Jack stays neutral and simply does not think about G-d.  Jack does not commit to a theory of reality, i.e., a metaphysics.

Non-Neutral Positions

But if you opt to take a position on the issue of a deity, then there are two alternatives.

2 – An Affirmative View  -   One affirms that G-d exists.   This general view comes in several versions:  for example,

Cases in which .  . .

a)      …Enrique affirms that G-d is objectively real (i.e., there really is a G-d).  He has the burden of making a positive case (argument) for G-d’s existence.

b)  ..Jill believes in G-d.  Jill proceeds as if there was a G-d (she has faith in or personal reason for believing in G-d.)

c)…Teresa claims that G-d’s reality is a unique reality, not subject to proof or disproof. G-d is a reality of faith, a mystical reality.

3 – A Negative View  -   One doubts or denies that G-d exists. This view has several versions, and in some cases is compatible with agnosticism:    For example, cases in which . .

d)…Thomas asserts that there is no G-d, i.e., there is no such objective reality.  He has the burden of making a case for his conclusion: There is no G-d.

e) …Jeronimo does not belief in G-d, i.e., Jeronimo proceeds as if there were no G-d (He may think about the possibility of G-d, but does not believe in a G-d.)

f)…Lorenzo holds that the proposition that G-d exists does not have a clear, unequivocal meaning, and that the whole business of trying to prove or disprove G-d’s existence is a questionable enterprise.

————————————————————————-

Sometimes people take on the philosophical burden of making a good case for G-d’s reality.

Sometimes others take on the philosophical burden of making a good case for G-d’s nonexistence.

Some versions of positions 2 and 3 call for argument, i.e., have a philosophical “burden of proof”

With Enrique (a) and Thomas (d) there definitely is a “burden of proof.”  To make good on their respective views, each would have to present arguments or evidence to support his view.

In some cases, Jeronimo’s view (e) may not require that he argue against the reality of a deity, although he might occasionally take up the cause against deity.  He could also be an agnostic, emphasizing that nobody knows that G-d exists.  Likewise, Jill’s faith (b) does not require that she try to make a good, rational case for the existence of G-d, although she might take up the cause of arguing for G-d’s existence.

In short, certain varieties of belief or non-belief in deity may have a philosophical  “burden of proof.”

Others do not.

For both Lorenzo (f) and Teresa (c) there is no rational test for G-d’s existence, since they explicitly rule out the relevance of argument for or against the reality ‘G-d’.

=================================

When we attempt to show either that G-d exists or the contrary, that G-d does not exist we might think of ‘proving’ our proposition in terms of one of these analogies.

  • Proof in logic or mathematics:   Logically prove your conclusion
  • A Hypothesis in science:   Pose your hypothesis and attempt to confirm it
  •  Police Detective work: Seek evidence for concluding that E did or did not happen.
  •  Court of law:  Work out a good case, by legal argument, for a legal client
  •  Ordinary Experience:  I say that X is true and try to show reasons why others should concur.

Question: When you try to show that G-d exists or the contrary, that G-d does not exist, which type of ‘proof’ do you have in mind?

May 28, 2012

A Strange and Confused View of New Atheism

Filed under: critique of religion,Logical fallacies — Tags: — jbernal @ 1:01 pm

By Juan Bernal

An acquaintance, call him Bradley, argued along these lines:

I have found that many atheists today subscribe to a new definition of atheism and have rejected the historical and classical definition.  This newer definition goes something like this,

“Atheism simply means that a person lacks a belief in any god.”

This new definition actually weakens the atheist’s position, making it virtually impossible for the atheist to engage in any philosophical discussion regarding reality from his atheistic position.

 

Bradley then stated that according to the new definition of atheism,  “atheism” simply means that a person lacks a belief in gods; atheism has no theory of reality.   Then he stated that   given this new definition, the “atheist” is making no statements about reality, but a statement about his subjective beliefs; it is a statement about his present psychological make-up. This is a passive statement. The person holding to the new definition of atheism is not discussing the nature of reality, but merely sharing his subjective thoughts, his lack of a belief in any god.

.  .  .  .

He summarizes this case concerning the new definition of atheism:

  • It does not negate the primary claim of theism concerning reality.
  • It does not make any claims about reality.
  • It does share with us part of the person’s psychological make-up and that is all.

The new definition of atheism has taken a once robust opponent of theism and drained it of its vigor. It has ripped it from the arena of ideas and placed firmly on the psychologists couch.

————————————————————————

Critique: 

 

The core of Bradley’s critique of atheism (a version of ‘atheism’) is contained in the following:

“Atheism simply means that a person lacks a belief in gods; atheism has no theory of reality.”

.. This is because, given this new definition, the “atheist” is making no statements about reality, but a statement about his subjective beliefs; it is a statement about his present psychological make-up. This is a passive statement. The person holding to the new definition of atheism is not discussing the nature of reality, but merely sharing his subjective thoughts, his lack of a belief in any god

————————————–
If we agree that the proposition that ‘atheism has no theory of reality’ follows from the stated definition that ‘atheism simply means that one lacks belief in God,’ then we must accept Bradley’s characterization of the definition as restricting itself to a statement of the psychological state of the atheist, and nothing else.

I  contend that the statement of one’s lack of belief in a God (a supernatural being) does not have to be understood as merely stating what one’s psychological state is, although it may do that in addition to doing more.

I don’t see why we should deny that one way of stating my view of reality is merely to say “I lack belief in God or any god.” I’m not just telling you what my psychological state is or giving you my preference in psychological states. I am telling you that, insofar as I have a theory of reality, my idea of reality omits all putative supernatural beings. As far as I can tell there are no such beings found in the world that I occupy (nor do I find any viable grounds for claiming some kind of supernatural or transcendent contact with that world).

There is no convincing reason for asserting (as Bradley does) that the statement “my view of things omits belief in God” does not imply a basic view of reality. The statement is a qualified statement of what the person takes as reality, without his making the full-blown metaphysical declaration that the non-existence of God can be proven. Both the theistic declaration and the qualified a-theistic statement are statements about reality; one is simply more modest than the other. The statements that God exists and the contrary one that God does not exist (strong a-theism) are less modest. But we surely do not have to understand my statement of omission as one that merely describes a subjective psychological state, as if I were merely telling you that I feel an itch in my middle, upper back.

———————————–

Suppose we’re discussing rumors of teenage predators roaming our neighborhood at night and I tell you that I don’t believe there are any such intruders at all, that it is just a rumor made up by nervous people. I have said that my thinking omits such a belief. But here I have surely told you what my view (‘theory’) of the night time, neighborhood situation is: there aren’t any such predators. I have not simply described my subjective state of mind to you.

Now suppose that, in reference to the same rumor, I said that I was not at all worried about that possibility (that teenage predators are out there at night). Here we could say that what I have done is merely describe my subjective state to you, namely, that I don’t experience any worry about such things. My tranquil state of mind (no worries at all) is consistent both with the actual presence of the predators or their absence. In other words, my tranquil state of mind (and my report of that state of mind) does not affirm anything about the actual situation that exists in our neighborhood at night. We could say, my lack of worry does not affirm any ‘theory’ of the neighborhood situation at night.
———-

The contrast between these two situations (I “don’t know X” and I “don’t worry about X”) illustrates the confusionn behind Bradley’s thesis with respect to his version of the new definition of “atheism.” The statement that I don’t believe in God (or that such belief is omitted from my view of things) surely affirms a ”theory’ of reality, one that does not include a deity. However, Bradley has confused “I don”t know X” with “I don’t worry about X.” Had I said that I don’t worry about a putative God, I would just describe my mental state, and such mental state is consistent both with the existence and the non-existence of a deity. The ‘don’t worry’ statement can be understood as not affirming a ‘metaphysics’; but the “don’t believe” statement does. It seems that these kinds of contrasting statements have been overlooked by Bradley in his argument concerning the “new atheism.”

————————————–

Suppose that I admit, as many non-believers do, that I cannot be completely certain that God does not exist because I cannot prove that God’s existence is logically impossible. It surely does not follow that I admit that God’s existence is probable (has a reasonably high probability). In other words, we can consistently admit that we cannot logically disprove God’s existence while arguing on the basis of evidence available that mostly likely there is no God. The logical possibility of God is consistent with a metaphysics or view of reality which omits God or any deity. As far as I can determine, this is the view of many so-called “new atheists” (such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Victor Stenger,  Daniel Dennett and others).

Contrary to what Bradley argues, the new atheists and those who subscribe to a philosophy of naturalism do not define atheism so that God is a real possibility, even highly probable. Such non-theists, which include many humanists, hold that the God of Christian theism and theology is highly improbable. Even saying this much allows that the concept is a coherent, clear concept as applied to a putative real being who has some interaction with human history and human society. Some non-believers, such as myself, will even argue contra that premise; but that is a subject for another discussion.

Presently, I will just emphasize that Bradley’s tactic (in line with Medieval theology) of defining God as either a necessary being or an impossible being (after ruling out the alternative of contingency); and then inferring that, in as much as the atheist does not rule out the possibility of God, he must admit to the necessity of God — simply will not work. It does not show any real implications of the new atheists’ position; it merely shows what follows logically from the adoption of a specific concept of deity, one that rules out contingency and any arguments contra God’s existence based on our contingent human conditons. This is a mere game-playing with logic, artificial definitions and concepts, a tactic best left in the Middle Ages.

Re. Bradley’s “new” definition of atheism: It is strange to hold that a person who considers himself an atheist would assert an ‘atheism’ that turns out to be only a report of his subjective, mental state and that he would admit that an existent deity is a real possibility. Besides being a rather bizarre view of atheism, one is left really puzzled as to which atheists take such a view. Richard Dawkins certainly does not. After all, Dawkins takes the view that God is a delusion.

———————–

Generally, statement of belief makes reference to the object of belief, which is not a mere psychological state.  Although belief often involves some state of mind, the object of most of our beliefs is something other than our psychological state of mind.  For example, when I tell you that I don’t believe that our water will last another hour, I may say something about my state of mind (worry); but I surely say something about an objective state of affairs; namely, our water supply is low and will not last another hour.

May 24, 2012

Some Remarks on the “GOD” Belief

Filed under: critique of religion — Tags: , — jbernal @ 11:27 am

by Juan Bernal (a half-hearted a-theist)

 From a perspective of morality, the important question is not ‘Do you believe in God?’  Rather the questions to ask are: ‘How do you conduct your life?’  ‘How do you treat other people?’  ‘What values do you try to express and put into action?’

Among believers (in a god) you find both morally conscientious people and immoral or amoral people; likewise among non-believers. A person’s moral character seems to come before his particular religious perspective. (There’s a sense in which belief in God is transparent.)

By including the commandment requiring belief in the one God, the Ten Commandments include more than we need as a set of moral/ethical imperatives.  For in many cases (maybe most cases), a person’s belief or lack of belief in a deity is separate from his moral behavior.  Only persons with immature ethical mentality behave in a morally good way only because “God” demands it and will punish them if they do what’s wrong (in a moral sense of “wrong”).

With regard to personal interaction, likely there is not much difference between persons who believe in a god and non-theists (atheists, agnostics, humanists). They all share the same world; most interact peacefully and count as morally decent people. They can all be good citizens (of earth, of our nation, of our community) and can all contribute positively to common, social goals.

Each in his/her way can work to express his vision of moral good, truth, and beauty.  They can all be godly people.

From a historical and philosophical perspective. belief in or lack of belief in a god seems irrelevant to the issue of good and evil in the world. Many good and excellent people have believed in a god. However, many good and excellent people have not believed in any god. The same can be said for people who have been predators, exploiters, oppressors and murderers.

Of course, many people in our society claim a consciousness, even awareness, of a god. They might say “There is some(one) or some(thing) that I talk to and pray to in times of need. This is what I mean by “God.”  Such persons may go on to add that “the reality of God is one that is psychologically undeniable; it is a reality that comprises the background of all my thoughts and actions; it is the basis for any significance I find in my existence.”

[Note: in many cases this perspective is a personal, private matter that may have little or nothing in common with the theological doctrines of established religions.]

Another thought is that ‘God’ or any benevolent power that may be found in the universe is big enough to accept all human views on question of a ‘god’ or ‘gods’:  believers and non-believers – theists, atheists, agnostics, humanists.

The theism in question could be very personal: “my God understands, even has empathy for agnostics and secular humanists. This deity has such an intellect and such a moral character that he/she would never condemn heresy or atheism, and certainly would never dream up anything as morally primitive as a hell of eternal torment (for nonbelievers).”

[Note: That G is an undeniable ‘reality’ for a subset of human beings by itself is not evidence for the objective reality of G.  For example, my claim that Yeshu is an undeniable reality in my existence says more about my mind (my values, assumptions, ideas, attitudes) than it says about objective reality. It tells you much about me, but cannot reasonably be seen as evidence for the actual existence of Yeshu. It says much about how I see the world  or what I believe is the nature of reality, and establishes nothing about the nature of the world that exists independently of the way I see it. Here we’re referring to values and a person’s perspective on the world.]

Consciousness of God or belief in God is a matter of spiritual orientation, but it is not an awareness of objective truth. It is a personal, moral and spiritual orientation. It should have nothing to do with a reach for power, greed, exclusivity, claims to special knowledge or privileged access.  It is a way of looking at certain aspects of existence.

Historically, much misery and suffering could have been avoided if people had recognized that the nobler forms of religion deal with values and spirituality, not with doctrines or dogma about objective reality, and not with a supernatural being who includes certain groups and excludes, even condemns, other groups.

[Belief in a god should not be a crutch (an excuse for lack of initiative or effort on our part), nor a bully club (an excuse for excluding and oppressing others who do not share the belief), nor a skyhook (an ad hoc or “deus ex machinus” type explanation of existence).]

Sometimes belief in a god takes on the tone of mystery:  Belief in a god is sometimes an acknowledgment that there is much that is beyond the scope of our intellect, much mystery,  wonder and terror. There are powers, forces, realities, etc. that are vast and incredibly greater than we are. There is something greater than humans and the world of disclosed by human faculties. This is not necessarily a claim about supernatural reality, but could simply be a statement of awe and wonder in the face of the power and vastness of the universe.  Maybe others such as Plato (his talk of the “Good”), or the Buddha (his search for Nirvana), or Spinoza (his intellectual love of God), or the mystics (who find an inexpressible, profound union with …..) are getting at something akin to this godliness.  Some may find it in the Great Spirit of Native Americans or the nameless, hidden God of reform Judaism.

March 18, 2012

Does the ‘Special Status’ of the Christian God not make him immune to scientific critique?

Filed under: critique of religion — Tags: , — jbernal @ 10:10 am

By Juan Bernal

Some people defend theism by arguing that theism represents a reasonable philosophy because it is consistent with the prevailing scientific picture of reality.  Such defenders of theism claim that the sciences (i.e., the relevant sciences) have not proven beyond all doubt that a belief in God is false.  Sometimes they add that despite all our accrued scientific knowledge of the physical and biological world, God, as conceived by Western theology and areas of Western theistic philosophy, could exist somehow and somewhere behind the scenes, beyond the scope of the sciences and critical, rational inquiry.  In short, according to the defenders, belief in God has not been refuted by any of the sciences.

Prima facie, this appears to be a very weak position, arguing that something is reasonable just because it could (possibly) be true:

That p could be the case despite the fact that the body of evidence available fails to support p is a very weak basis for belief in p.   Most people, in their rational moments, would agree that for just about any value of p, ‘that p could be true’ is a very weak (even non-existent) basis for asserting the truth of p.   The same can be said regarding the fact that not-p has not been logically demonstrated.  None of these support the assertion that p is true,   To take the contrary position is to open the gate to the ‘truth’ of a large set of myth, fiction, fantasies and such.  After all, the sciences do not concentrate on refuting every creature of human myth and fantasy, but very few take seriously the hypothesis that such creatures of myth and fantasy are real.

However, there are some philosophers who exempt this rational skepticism when the value of p is a particular, venerated belief in God.  Among these philosophers and students of philosophy we find such people as the Christian philosopher, Alvin Plantinga and my e-mail correspondent, Pablo. For these people, the concept of God developed by Western theologians and theistic philosophers is special, categorically different from other mythical and fictional entities that the sciences don’t bother to refute.

This philosophy comes out in Plantinga’s insistence that belief in God is consistent with science and with evolutionary science in particular.  According to him, the sciences and even Darwinian’s theory of evolution do not deny the possibility that God may have acted behind the scenes in guiding evolution at key points.  He admits that scientists do not assume this to be true, but points out that they don’t explicitly deny it.  God could have guided evolution.  According to him, the claim by “naturalists” that evolution is a blind, unguided process is a philosophical claim, not one having a scientific warrant.  (I believe that Pablo also holds to this view.)

Opponents like Daniel Dennett (with his Superman character) and my fellow skeptic,  Chuckles (who once satirically promoted the mythical Greek god, Poseidon, as a competitor to the Judeo-Christian version of “God”), counter these theistic tactics by turning the table and making similar claims for their candidates for theistic supremacy, Superman and Poseidon. The theists shut them down by insisting that the cases are very different because the concept of God favored by the theists is a very special concept, not at all one that compares with ideas and images of mythical, fictional entities such as Superman and Poseidon.

Why do Plantinga, Pablo, and other defenders of theism allege that the cases are so different?  The reasons given take various forms.  Plantinga at one point mentions that, contrary to Dennett’s superman character, God is a necessary being.  He also stresses that, whereas God could have guided evolution, Dennett’s Superman character could not.   Pablo on occasion has argued that the concept of God has been developed and refined to a fine point — which is internally consistent and affirmed by millions of theists — something which we cannot claim for any of our alternative candidates, whether Dennett’s Superman or Chuckle’s Poseidon.

So how effective are these claims?  For the skeptic, it is not at all obvious that the theistic belief in and concept of God establishes any kind of priority.  With respect to the theological notion of “necessary Being,” it is a longstanding philosophical counter-argument that you cannot establish the reality of X merely by declaring X to be a necessary being. It is not even clear that the concept of necessity (as in mathematical or logical necessity) even applies to real existence. Plantinga’s statement that his God is a necessary being, whereas alternative candidates for godhood and designer of evolution are not, looks to be nothing more than special pleading.

When we turn to the argument that Western theology and theistic philosophy somehow establish a priority for a specific concept of God, we find that the argument fails on several key points:  there is no single concept of God which is accepted by all major schools of theology and all theistic philosophers who write on the subject.  Even when we limit ourselves to Western theism, we find a variety of God concepts held by different theologians, philosophers, and churchmen.   Selecting one of these as the official version, as Pablo does, and arguing that this concept of God should be given favorable status will not do as an effective argument that such a God has a better claim to reality than any alternative candidate. Arguing that p is likely true just because honorable theologians have struggled for centuries to refine the concept and show that p is true is not an effective argument that the proposition p has a better chance of being true than any competing propositions, r,s,t,…

Given that neither the great Alvin Plantinga nor the honorable Pablo have made a good case for their claim that the god concept familiar to Western theologians and theistic philosophers is special and has ontological priority, neither one has a basis for denying that the same could-be-true tactic can also apply to alternative candidates for godhood that we might care to promote.   Just as the sciences have not proven that the Christian God does not exist, they have not proven that Superman or Poseidon do not exist.   If we allow the reasonableness of belief in God on the basis of his could-exist status, we must allow the same type of ‘reasonableness’ to belief in Superman or in Poseidon.

Hence, the Plantinga’s claim that his God could be real despite the naturalists view that theism gets no support whatsoever from the sciences completely fails as a way of showing the special status and reasonableness of his Christian theism.

Thinking further on this little exercise, we might conclude that in either case (Plantinga’s Christian God and Superman/Poseidon) we’re just playing around with mythical, fictional notions.  That’s all that is happening, folks!  And such musings on myths and fantasies have nothing to do with a scientifically-based, well-reasoned view of reality.

 

February 28, 2012

Life: “It’s scientifically too improbable; therefore God must have done it”

Filed under: Biological Evolution,critique of religion — Tags: , — jbernal @ 10:31 am

By Charles Rulon

Improbability arguments re: design in nature

Creationist: “Look, if I found a watch on the beach I would obviously know that all of its parts didn’t fly together by accident.  I would know that there had to have been a watchmaker.  Well, the human eye is much more complex than a watch.  So is a beautifully camouflaged butterfly, plus millions of other species. All of this design obviously proves the existence of an unbelievably intelligent and enormously powerful designer.” 

Response:  It sure looked that way….until 1859.  Then came along Charles Darwin and On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.  Over the years that followed, scientists increasingly demonstrated that God was no longer required as an explanatory factor for all of the design in nature.  Instead, life on Earth turned out to be a four billion year old story of random genetic errors followed by an automatic, blind selection of the more fit and extermi­nation of the less fit.  With this natu­ral selection pro­cess, all the so-called “design” in nature was not purposeful design, but instead came about through a no fore­sight automatic sifting process.

Today, rejecting our biological evolution is like rejecting the fact that the sun gives off heat.  It requires rejecting major chunks of biol­ogy, anthro­pology, geol­­ogy, bio­chem­istry, genetics and phy­sics, plus essentially the scientific method, itself.  Every major sci­en­­tific organi­­za­tion in the U.S. and in most of the world has published state­­­ments support­ing the fact of our evolution.  That roughly 40% of Americans still reject evolution in favor of ancient creation stories speaks volumes.

Improbability arguments re: cows turning into whales

Creationist: “Based on a few fragments of bone, evolutionists are now claiming that whales evolved from cows or hippopotamuses.  What could be more ridiculous or scientifically impossible?”  (In the 1960s and 70s, creationists would show a cartoon slide of a half-whale-half-cow to the audience to loud laughter.) 

Response:  Since the 1970s an ever increasing number of fos­sils have clearly documented the evolu­tion of whales from a four-legged land mam­mal.  In 1989 a 45 mil­lion year old whale fos­sil with small hind legs and feet was found in the sands of Egypt.  A short time later a 50 million year old semi-aquatic pre-whale fos­sil named Pakicetus was found in Pakis­tan with both mammalian fore­arms and hind­ limbs.  Molecular evidence now indicates that the closest living relative to the whale is the hippo, with the whale lin­eage splitting off from the hippo lineage about 54 mya.  A quick web search reveals many sites documenting numerous fossils and the story of whale evolution.

Improbability arguments re: the origin of life

Creationist: “The probability of amino acids randomly hooking together to form even the sim­plest enzyme protein is so small as to be essentially impos­sible. No enzymes, no life.  There­fore, an Intelligent Designer was essential for the creation of life.”

Response: First, since no one can know how life actually began or what form it took, all such improbability arguments by creationists are meaningless nonsense.  Second, “im­pos­sibil­ity” claims of amino acids hooking together to form functional proteins was actually proved wrong over 50 years ago.  Amino acids spon­tan­eously attach to one another in a some­what non-ran­dom fashion and form small chains as determined by their individ­ual molecular structures.  Furthermore, once these small chains have formed they will often automatically self-replicate and double in length.  Indeed, many of the mole­cules found in living organisms today bear evi­dence of having evolved in exactly this way.

In the mid-l950s, Dr. Sidney Fox, a spe­cialist in pro­tein biochem­istry at the Univer­sity of Miami, and his colleagues heated a mixture of amino acids.  The amino acids automatically hooked together to form chains of from 30 to l00 amino acids long.  These “pro­tein­oids,” as Fox named them, were strik­ingly similar to true proteins and, according to Fox, could have served as the raw material from which life evolved.  Furthermore, when these proteinoids were exposed to water they automati­cally formed little spheres which have many properties similar to living cells.  Today there are num­erous published research­ed reports showing that many modern proteins appear to have been derived from a few such ancestral proteins. The error made by creationists is to require that a specific protein enzyme form all at once and give perfect results.  They omit the gradual improve­ments of usable, but imperfect en­zymes by natural selection and the fact that many amino acid sequences may give the same enzyme function.

Improbability arguments re: the existence of living cells

Creationist: “Living cells are the simplest components of life.  Yet, they are much too complex to have evolved, for unless all of the cell components are present at the same time, cells can’t function.  The probability of this happening is vanishing small without intelligent intervention.”

Response: First, microscopic fossil evidence indicates that ancient cells were far simpler than most cells found today.  Second, cells are not the simplest components of life.  In fact, there never has been a clear-cut distinction between what is obviously alive and what is not.  Instead, a continuum exists.

For example, there are viroids which are just short circles of genetic material. Then there are viruses, which consist of genetic material surrounded by a protein coat.  Viruses are not considered alive by most (but not all) scientists.  Recently there was the discovery of a truly monstrous virus known as Mimivirus and which is much more genetically complex than a number of parasitic bacteria.  With the Mimivirus, the boundary between viruses and bacteria became officially blurred.  There is now considerable evidence that viruses were involved very early on in the evolutionary emergence of life.  Most of the genetic material on this planet is viral. Their ability to interact with organisms and to move genetic material around makes viruses major players in driving the evolution of new species.

In addition to viruses, there is a major branch of life composed of an ancient line of microbes without a nucleus known as the Archaea.  The Archaea may make up as much as one-third of all life on earth.  Then there are simple bacteria without a nucleus and more complicated bacteria with a nucleus.  By 1993 scientists had succeeded in creating “creatures” that looked and acted very much like living organisms.  They grew, ate, repro­duced, mutated, fought with each other and died—and they did all this spontane­ously, with­out inter­ference or help from their human creators.[i]  The scientific evidence currently supports the hypothesis that life gradually appeared through an accumulation of genetic typos committed by hordes of mindless microscopic “replication machines”.

Furthermore, the more scientists have learned about liv­ing things, the clearer it has be­come that all of life’s processes, from fertili­zation to the evo­lu­tion of the human brain, appear to be based entirely on chem­ical and physi­cal laws.  No laws of nature have been bypassed or bro­ken. No extra mira­cles or “vi­tal forces” seem to be required.  It just doesn’t seem neces­sary (and hasn’t for a long time now) to posit super­natural inter­ven­tions for the origin of life, or for that matter any aspect of human evolution.[ii]

Improbability arguments from irreducible complexity

Creationist: “All living cells contain complex micro­scopic biochemical machines which have many parts that must all be present at the same time for these machines to work; they can’t function if even one part is missing.  Since the parts do not have any survival value by themselves and since they could not possibly have come together all at once through any known natural evolutionary means, these biochemical machines must have been abruptly designed by an Intelligent Designer.”[iii] 

Response:  All of the examples of supposed irreducible com­plexity have been scientifically refuted.[iv]

In conclusion

People who make the exist­ence of their gods stand or fall based on improbability arguments regarding still unanswered scientific mysteries risk having their gods destroyed in the wake of scientific advances.

—————————————————————————————

Charles Rulon is an Emeritus, Life Sciences, at Long Beach City College

————————————————————————————-

[i]Levy, S., Artificial Life: The Quest for a New Creation -1993.

For current updates, see: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-real-promise-of-synthetic-biology

Also follow Craig Venter’s progress: http://biosingularity.wordpress.com/2010/01/31/craig-venter-talks-about-creating-synthetic-life/

[ii] Key web sites for progress on the origin of life problem: <users.aol.com/chinlin3/home.htm>: Devoted to the astro­nom­ical, chemical and biological aspects of the origin of life problem. <eis.jpl.nasa.gov/origins/index2.html>: This is NASA’s “Origins” program page.  <www.sciam.com/askexpert/biology/biology15.html>: A “Scientific American–Ask the Experts” site where concise, up-to-date information on what we know about the origin of life is given.

[iii]Behe, Michael, Darwin‘s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evo­­­l­­u­tion (1996)

[iv]Why Intelligent Design Fails by physicists Mark Young and Taner Edis (Editors).  For extensive web material dealing with the flaws of Behe’s argument, see: <www.world-of-dawkins.com/catalano/box/behe.htm>.  Also <www.miller andlevine.com /km/evol/DI/Design.html> and  <www.antievolution.org>

February 27, 2012

The Universe: “It’s scientifically too improbable, therefore God must have done it”

Filed under: critique of religion — Tags: , — jbernal @ 11:51 am

By Charles Rulon

Even if it looks to our limited minds that the only possible answer to some current mystery regarding life or the universe is that “God must have done it”, it’s arguably bad theology to claim as much.  This is because the strength of one’s faith now depends on whether or not scien­tists can fill this gap in our knowledge.  Since science has been extremely suc­cess­ful over the last few centuries in replacing “God did it” answers with fruitful naturalistic explanations, the risk of one’s faith being undermined is quite high.  The following are four such examples from the non-living realm.

Planetary orbits

Theist: Our solar system is very stable, with all the planets orbiting the Sun in the same direction and in roughly the same plane.  It’s highly improbable that this could have happened just by random chance, since there are no laws of physics that would have prevented the planets from revolving every which way around the Sun with disastrous effects.  Even Issac Newton believed God was needed to keep the planets from eventually flying away into space or falling into the Sun.  Isn’t this evidence that our solar system had to have been designed and finely tuned by an intelligent creator? 

Response:  But then along came Pierre-Simon de Laplace a century after Newton.  Laplace demonstrated mathematically that our solar system didn’t need God’s intervention to remain stable after all.  In addition, modern theories of solar system formation explained away all of this so-called miraculous planetary motion.  Our planets formed from a pancake-like disk of material that orbited the early Sun.  Conser­vation of angular momentum also explains why such pancake-like disks are so common throughout our universe.[i]

Besides, to make matters worse for the “God did it” folks, the structural details of our solar system are sloppy from an engineer­ing perspective, but just what one might expect if only the blind laws and forces of nature were involved. Plus, modern studies have even demonstrated that contrary to Laplace’s claim the orbits of our planets may eventually become chaotic after all.

The “Big Bang”

Theist: Our universe couldn’t have exploded into existence from nothing.  Therefore, it had to have had a creator.

Response:  According to Einstein’s theory of relativity, the energy of a gravitational field is negative and the energy of matter is positive.  Calculations adding up all the matter and all the gravity in the observable universe come out to equal zero.[ii]  As one cosmologist put it: “The universe could come from nothing because it is, fundamentally, nothing.”[iii]

Furthermore, writes physicist Victor Stenger, the laws of physics are those that would be expected to exist if the universe arose mostly by chance from no matter, no energy, no structure and, most significantly, no infor­mation.[iv]  And cosmologist Lawrence Krauss, author of the book, A Universe from Nothing, writes: “The discoveries of modern particle physics and cosmology over the past half century allow not only a possibility that the universe arose from nothing, but in fact make this possibility increasingly plausible.  Every­thing we have measured about the universe is not only consistent with a universe that came from nothing…, but in fact, …makes this possibility ever more likely.”  “The old idea that nothing might involve empty space, devoid of mass or energy, or anything material, for example, has now been replaced by a boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles, popping in and out of existence in a time so short that we cannot detect them directly.”  Krauss further adds that “nothing”, meaning no space, no time, no laws of nature, is an unstable state and would collapse into something.  “Modern science has made the something-from-nothing debate irrelevant… Empirical discoveries continue to tell us that … ‘something’ and ‘nothing’ are physical concepts and therefore are properly the domain of science, not theology or philosophy. (Indeed, religion and philosophy have added nothing to our understanding of these ideas in millennia.)” [v]

Cosmological coincidences

Theist: Our universe is exquisite­ly fine-tuned for the evolution of life.  In fact, the famous astronomer Fred Hoyle even commented that our uni­verse looks like a “put-up job,” as though some­body had been “monkey­ing with the laws of physics.”  An apt comparison is a safe which can only be opened by registering a complicated series of numbers.  The mathematical odds against opening the safe by randomly spinning the dial are astronomical.  This is strong evidence for an intelligent creator of the universe.

Response: As cosmology and astrophysics continues to advance, a naturalistic expla­nation for all of this apparent fine-tuning has emerged.  It is the multiverse, a gigantic number of universes, each with differ­ent randomly appearing fundamental constants and, therefore, differ­ent proper­ties.  Our uni­­verse just happens by chance to be one of these universes in which the evolution of carbon-based life was pos­sible.  No supernatural designer is now needed; no “amaz­ing coinci­­dences” now need to be explained.

Of course, many theists see the multiverse hypothesis as merely a desperate attempt by atheists grasping at straws to explain away all the amazing cosmological coincidences.  But according to astronomer William Jefferys, the proposed existence of a multiverse is not a response to the apparent fine-tuning of our universe, but a consequence of the current leading theory in cosmology — a theory best supported by the evidence — the theory of chaotic inflation.  One possible consequence of inflation is that the universe contains an infinitely of regions that have each inflated into expanding universes much like ours, but perhaps with physical constants different from ours.  As further evidence, the concept of a multiverse is consistent with a leading model of string theory, which suggests that there could be 10500   possible universes, all with different self-consistent laws and constants.

When asked if scientists will ever be able to prove that the multiverse is real, physicist Andrei Linde responded that nothing else fits the data.  He explained that physicists don’t have any other explanation for the dark energy, or for the mass of the electron, or for the many properties of various particles.  Besides, if nature can produce one universe, why couldn’t it produce many universes? Indeed, it might even be expected.  Physicists know nothing in principle to prevent it.

The “fine-tuned” Earth

Theist: There is a staggering amount of evidence that Earth is not some average planet, but is exquisitely fit to support life.  This amazing evidence all but proves the existence of an intelligent designer.[vi]

Response: In 2010, Geoff March, an astronomer at the University of California, Berkeley estimated that, judging from his observations, our galaxy may contain tens of billions of planets roughly the size and mass of Earth.[vii]   Thus, with so many planets it’s not surprising that here or there is a planet friendly to life.

Besides, how human-friendly is Earth in the first place? After all, it took over two billion years for even simple multi-cellular life to evolve.  Then it took another two billion years for humans to evolve, an event that included so many accidents and contingencies of history that, were evolution to start over, the big money is on space-age intelligent beings never evolving again.  In addition, catastro­phic events such as meteor impacts, gigantic volcanic eruptions, ice ages and plate tectonic movements tearing apart entire continents have devastated Earth’s surface for eons, resulting in at least five major mass extinctions over the last 600 million years.  Surely there might be other planets much more suited for the evolution of advanced species than Earth was.

Has science disproved God?

There are still a number of cosmologists who believe that the arguments for a multiverse are questionable.  Also, they observe that the “multiverse answer” still leaves ultimate questions unresolved, such as did the multiverse come into existence through necessity, chance or purpose?  Furthermore, they point out that proof of other universes radically different from our own may permanently lie beyond the domain of science.[viii]

Perhaps modern science is not incompatible with the idea that there could be some kind of “higher mind or intelligence or purpose” behind our universe’s existence.  But so far no such purpose or “intelligent designer” seems apparent or necessary.  Besides, as Krauss, Dawkins and numerous other non-theistic scientists have emphasized, there is no logical connection between some kind of “intelligence” behind the universe and the interventionist, genocidal, sin-punishing, prayer answering God of the world’s major religions.

Besides, if humans actually are central to some kind of master plan then, skeptics ask, why is our universe so unfathomably huge and old and violent?  Black holes suck in entire star systems.  Gigantic explosions at the center of galaxies destroy millions of worlds.  Also, why does this “master plan” have our universe expanding faster and faster, only to eventually once again become “nothing”?

Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize winner in physics, sees no evidence for God in our universe and observes: “If we were to see the hand of a designer anywhere, it would be in the funda­mental principles, the laws of nature.  But contrary to some assertions they appear to be utterly impersonal and without any special role for life.” [ix]

Of course, many major scientific questions remain and always will.  Of course, scientists can only attempt to answer empiri­cally testable questions.  Of course, just because a phenome­non can be explained naturally doesn’t mean that some kind of “god” had nothing to do with it.  Yet, as scientific know­ledge has continued to advance over the last 400 years, supernatural explanations for events have con­tinued to retreat and retreat….and retreat. Today all relevant scientific evidence—from astrophysics, evolutionary biology and bio­chemistry, to the lack of any solid evidence for the existence of paranormal or supernatural events—strongly supports the conclusion (at least in the minds of non-theists) that there never were any gods in the first place, certainly not in any kind of mani­festation that is of interest to the overwhelming majority of Christians, Muslims, Jews and other religious folk.

———————————————————————-                                                Charles Rulon  is an Emeritus, Life Sciences, Long Beach City College

———————————————————————————

 

[i]See “A Universe of Disks” by Omer Blaes in Scientific American, October 2004, p. 50+.

[iii] Lemley, Brad. “Guth’s Grand Guess”, Discover, April 2002.

[iv] Stenger, Victor; God: The Failed Hypothesis—How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist. <http://www.colorado.edu/ philosophy/vstenger/VWeb/Home.html>.  Also: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html

[vi]For example, see the 2000 book Rare Earth by Ward and Brownlee and the 2004 book The Privileged Planet by Gonzalez and Richards.

[vii] Discover, Jan./Feb. 2011, p. 34

[viii] Ellis, George. “Does the Multiverse Really Exist?”; Scientific American, August 2011.

[ix]Weinberg, Steven, 2001, A Designer Universe?  Skeptical Inquirer, Sept./Oct. 2001.

February 21, 2012

Six reasons for avoiding “God did it” answers to scientific questions

Filed under: critique of religion — Tags: — jbernal @ 10:07 am

by Charles L. Rulon

 

 ”God did it” answers have historically yielded to scientific explanations

Repeatedly, super­natural explanations for physical events (such as comets, eclipses, earth­quakes, lightning, plagues, design in nature, Cambrian fossil explosion) later turned out to be scientifically explain­able. Even questions surrounding the origin of our universe, its apparent fine-tuning and the origin of life are yielding to scientific investigation. As scientific know­ledge continued to advance over the past 400 years, supernatural explanations for events con­tinued to retreat and retreat.  Many scientists faced with such a consistent trend have extrapo­lated to the conclusion that all of our earthly gods are non-existent and our holy books merely human creations.

 Today, some Christian, Jewish and Islamic theologians still reject all scientific findings that disagree with a literal reading of their holy books.  Others spend considerable time re-defining and reinter­preting words and phrases in their holy books to try to make the Genesis creation stories, Noah’s Ark and other miraculous events fit established scientific discoveries.  Still others have accepted the findings of science, but still see God as somehow intimately and actively involved in all natural processes.  But the efforts of these theologians are all one-sided; it is they who are continuously reacting or adjusting to scientific advances, not the other way around.  If some supernatural intelligent entity does exist, this entity seems to be working strictly through the laws of nature.

“God did it” is bad science

 Scien­tists don’t fall back on supernatural interventions to explain mysteries about the physical universe, not because they are closed-minded or non-theists, but simply because “God did it” answers are dead ends.  Such answers don’t open doors to new discoveries, new pre­dic­­tions, or productive research.  We’ll never get closer to discover­ing how life and the universe work by rubber stamping our gaps in scientific knowl­edge with “God did it” proclamations.  By insisting on natural­istic answers our reliable scientific knowledge has exploded. Over one million scientific research papers are now being pub­­lished yearly.

“God did it” is bad theology

 Even if it looks to our limited minds that “God did it” is the only possible answer to some physical aspect of our existence, it’s still bad theology to claim as much.  This is because the strength of one’s faith now depends on whether or not scien­tists can fill this gap in our knowledge.  Since scientists have been extremely suc­cess­ful over the last few centuries in replacing “God did it” answers with fruitful naturalistic explanations, the risk of one’s faith being undermined is quite high.

“God did it” answers can border on blasphemy

 Some liberal Christians have written that it borders on blasphemy to claim that their all-loving God would personally and purposely place His favorite creations on a planet destined to experience catas­trophic disasters that can even result in global mass extinctions.  Or consider our biological evolution.  Rejecting evolution is like rejecting the fact that the sun gives off heat.  It requires rejecting major chunks of biol­ogy, anthro­pology, geol­­ogy, bio­chem­istry, genetics and phy­sics, plus essentially the scientific method, itself.  Today, every major sci­en­­tific organi­­za­tion in the U.S. and in most of the world has published statements support­ing the fact of our evolution.  Yet, roughly 40% of Americans still reject evolution in favor of ancient creation myths.  Such widespread denial not only speaks volumes regarding our educational systems, but also borders on blasphemy.  Consider:

It borders on blasphemy to claim that God would purposely deceive liter­ally hundreds of thous­ands of dedicated scientists by making it look in every last detail as though evolution has occurred over the last several billion years.  It borders on blasphemy to claim that an all-wise, all-good God would have purposely created the overwhelming majority of all His species to be deadly parasites, which they are.  It borders on blasphemy to claim that God specially created us to have dozens of what appear to be poor engi­neering designs and anatom­ical defects, including our human brain with enough serious defects to fill neurology and psychi­atric text books and is now endangering our entire biosphere.  Prominent evolutionary biologist (and theist) Francisco Ayala had this to say regarding all of our apparent designer defects: “Not only can natural selection account for the ‘design’ of organisms, but also it amounts to blasphemy to attribute it to God’s special action.”[i]

“God did it” answers encourage the rejection of rationality

Another problem in fostering belief in “God did it” answers to scientific questions is that humans then find it much easier to reject the scientific method, take leaps of faith and believe in an amaz­ing diversity of disproved or highly question­able para­normal and super­natural things such as demons, angels, hell, purgatory, auras, virgin births, resur­rec­tions, faith healings, exorcisms, voices from Atlantis, omens, spirit signals, reincarnations, judg­­ment days, astro­logy, voodoo, fairies, vampires, zombies, witches, telekinesis, warlocks, ghosts, poltergeists, tarot cards, ouija boards, num­er­ology, and on and on and on.  

Also, once we grant the possibility of “God did it” answers to the workings of the universe, then we’ve strengthened the possibility of God’s miracles being in everything all the time.  For example, perhaps this god really did create the world only 6,000 years ago, but made it appear exact­ly as if it had evolved natu­rally over bill­ions of years, fossils and all.  Or maybe the earth is flat after all, according to the Flat Earth Society’s reading of selected biblical passages (see Dan. 4: 11, 20; Rev. 7:1; Is. 41: 5 and 40:28), but God makes us believe otherwise to test our faith.

“God did it” answers buttress justification for atrocities

 Throughout history humans have used their gods to justify slavery, the oppression of women, holy wars, inquisitions, crusades, jihads, the torture and burning of witches and homo­sexuals, the stoning to death of non-virgin brides and those caught work­ing on holy days, and even the extermi­na­tion of entire heathen cult­ures and inferior races.  Maybe God even manipulated events and people so that the United States would go to war with Iraq and then Iran in order to speed along the Apocalypse.

——————————————————————–

Charles L. Rulon,    Emeritus, Life Sciences,       Long Beach City College

——————————————————————–

[i] “Arguing For Evolution” by Francisco Ayala, The Science Teacher, February 2000 (vol. 67, no. 2), pp. 30-32. Ayala is in the Department of Ecology and Evol­u­tion, University of California, Irvine.

Older Posts »
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes

Powered by WordPress