Richard Dawkins on the Wonder of the World
In this well produced and narrated video, atheist Richard Dawkins marvels at the fine-tuned wonder of the world. What does it all point to? Raw data cannot tell us because all data must be interpreted. In other words, one cannot do science without philosophy. So how one interprets the fine-tuned beginning and existence of this amazing universe may be the result of certain philosophical presuppositions that artificially restrict one’s interpretation. Since Dr. Dawkins philosophically rules out God, intelligence, and the supernatural in advance, he’s left with using a word like “luck” as if it’s some kind of cause.
In his defense, he seems to be using the word “luck” to cover what he thinks is ignorance about the cause (see page 157-159 of “The God Delusion” for more). Fine. But given the available evidence that spacetime and matter–all of the natural world– exploded into being out of nothing with extreme precision, the most reasonable cause appears to be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, intelligent and personal– that is, beyond the natural world, or supernatural. To quote former atheist turned theist, Antony Flew, that’s simply the philosophical principle of “following the evidence where it leads.”
January 24th, 2010 at 10:42 pm
By Dawkins’ philosophy, he is nothing more than the byproduct of an extremely fortunate sequence of random genetic mutations - just a complex system of chemical reactions and molecules “dancing to his DNA.” Yet here he is marveling and wondering and searching for meaning in the universe. I wonder if he has ever wondered how the atoms and electrical discharges that make up his brain ever got the capacity to wonder to begin with. If God didn’t create the universe, then that means the universe is just an accident and just matter and energy behaving according to the laws of physics and chemistry (wherever they came from). In my view, the universe is ultimately meaningless in this case, and yet here it has produced creatures like Dawkins searching for meaning. How sad that a man can admire God’s handiwork and yet not acknowledge the One whose handiwork it is. I pray for God to work in his mind and heart to give him a supernatural revelation. Frank, you’ve written an excellent book that gives more than enough evidence to convince the willing mind that Christianity is true. But as you also point out in your book, there are some who will not be convinced regardless of the amount of evidence presented, because they simply don’t want to believe. The change in the pattern of living would cost too much. I’m afraid that Dawkins and several others I have read in the postings fall into this category. Alas, some seed falls by the wayside and it does no good to linger in vain over it while plenty of fertile ground still awaits.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:44 am
“I wonder if he has ever wondered how the atoms and electrical discharges that make up his brain ever got the capacity to wonder to begin with.”
He has. Try reading his books.
January 25th, 2010 at 10:58 am
Hello all,
I have two questions.
One is more intended for everyone including Dr. Turek. Dr. Turek says “spacetime and matter–all of the natural world– exploded into being out of nothing.”
He bases this on the big bang theory, but does the big bang theory begin with a “singularity” or with “nothing?”
I am genuinely confused by this point, as I mentioned in another thread.
The second question is more specifically for Dr. Turek.
You said: the natural world– exploded into being out of nothing with extreme precision.
Is precision not a measure of how closely something matches an intention or design? (For example, .05mm pencil leads which actually range from .044 to 0.55mm are less precisely made than those which range from .048 to .052.)
So terrible designs can be precisely made and not function at all, while good designs can lack some degree of precision, but function just fine.
Are you using this word differently than I understand it? What specifically do you mean by it?
If you are using it in this sense, how do you gauge the scientific intention of the designer?
Thanks,
Luke
January 25th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
My continued problem(s) with “luckests”, to coin a nickname: We are being asked to believe that the human “species” -the one that came from apes and or chimps- was better served to develop its intellect to the exclusion of its physical development, even though the species of its origin continues on, flourishing, still, millions of years later with, animalism and brute strength as their “selected” means of survival. AND, all other life is best served going on as mindless, evolutionarily programmed robots that merely exist within the reality of reacting to the various stimuli in their environment (you know, like the one we came from). But hey, that’s how they even believe we developed our minds and, somehow, even all of this useless postulating, itself, is not only a result of evolution, it is a necessary part of our development to the “next level” as we all know it would have been “naturally selected” out of us centuries ago once existence “figured out” that said postulating was not “advancing the species”. Now that’s funny.
Don’t you guys realize that presumed within your own theory, is the existence of intelligence? In a lifeless, purposeless universe where was the “push for” life to begin with? Why must life even exist, in the first place and, once it did, what “law” dictated that it survive? All of your arguments presuppose that the freak occurrence of life “happening” would be simultaneously coming into existence with new laws demanding that this new construct of matter would NECESSARILY “select” for its survival. What part of the elements of life -as they exist independently before “assemblage”- contains the capacity to “select”, to survive, to procreate? As mind boggling as it is to suppose life could occur at all, free of intelligence, it is actually more so to me that this new, self created, form of matter would automatically have the required traits necessary to continue in the first place. It makes no sense. We know everything it takes to assemble life. “Everything” that is but how to animate those assembled parts. If it happened by chance in the sterile beginnings of our cooling planet, it would be easy as punch to do it now. Especially considering that there are scientists working day and night -by benefit of billions of tax payer dollars- to try and accomplish a formula for life and, last I checked, they aint even close.
They always say things like, “This trait continued as it advanced the species (why “must” the species advance) and this trait died out because it did not. -Why? what law dictates that life live?
These assumptions beg the question. it is a subjective construct of the mind that life should succeed rather than crash and burn. For, to crash and burn takes just as much “meaning”, “intent”, “direction”, “purpose”, “need”, etc. as does not crashing and burning. “Crash and burn” is just as much a “success” as life continuing. And, considering that crash and burn is so much more likely and, if the occurrence of a repeating event constitutes “success” that will (MUST, yes?) produce more of the same, then “life” -were it to happen at all- should be a never ending series of “crashing successes”. Think about it, you are saying, after an almost endless series of hopeless “efforts” by life to establish itself (***???????***), the result of all this “trial and error” (double ***???????***), or utter failure, is (fanfare please, maestro)SUCCESS”!
WOW! I admire your faith!
January 25th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
“the human “species”-the one that came from apes and or chimps-”
No one says that humans came from apes or chimps. That’s just ignorance repeated by those that don’t read what’s really being said. Actually there was a common ancestor that was neither ape or man that hit a fork in their family tree. Down one path went primates and to the other went humanoids. So your first paragraph needs revision.
“In a lifeless, purposeless universe where was the “push for” life to begin with? Why must life even exist, in the first place and, once it did, what “law” dictated that it survive?”
There is no “push for life”. You’re presupposing something wanting there to be life. You’re inserting your ideas of deity into the idea of a deityless universe. “Why must life even exist?” In a deityless universe the question wouldn’t be why MUST life exist it would be simplified to why does life exist. there would be no MUST to it. and the means to find out how life came into existence should be answerable through science. The question of “why” in a deityless universe only applies if you actually mean HOW. “Why” on a “what’s it all about man” need not apply.
I think a little review of evolution might answer some of your questions. all of the why this, why that.
I’ll post a link after this, who knows when it will ever been moderated, but the same article can be found by typing “life’s first spark recreated in a laboratory” into google. It’s an article from last may.
I’ve always wondered why a deistic universe is supposed to be so much more special than one that’s not. The hubris alone for considering that the entire universe was made for mankind is quite astounding. A universe in which the life is here by luck is a much more special thing than being put here to slather worship on some ultimate egotist. If we truly are here by luck then our lives are super valuable because we only get one. If you go on about “where’s the meaning and purpose and blah blah blah” then you must realize that the meaning of life is what we give it and put into it. You find your own meaning. And if one can’t do that on their own then they must not have much worth living for.
January 25th, 2010 at 7:55 pm
“You’re presupposing something wanting there to be life.”
Missing the point, which is: You assume that life actually exists -something you can not “know”, as you are just an assemblage of random materials via random events- and then you assume that it can not exist but by your faith based means. Hence, my point that you ignore: “We know everything it takes to assemble life. “Everything” that is but how to animate those assembled parts. If it happened by chance in the sterile beginnings of our cooling planet, it would be easy as punch to do it now.”…and…they even close.
“In a deityless universe the question wouldn’t be why MUST life exist it would be simplified to why does life exist.” (emph. mine)
Thank you for including would in that sentence, since your theory is as phantasmagorical as any out there, it is only appropriate that you should say would.
“No one says that humans came from apes or chimps.”
Again, missing the point: You say we originated from something even lower than an ape. Then you postulate about things you “know” -utter absurdities based in faith w/ NO hard evidence to back it up- showing your willingness to be bamboozled for sake of maintaining your prefabricated, unfounded, self contained fairy tale. THAT is the point.
“…how life came into existence should be answerable through science”
Thank you for making my point. To wit, science should be able. But it is NOT able. You want science to find the answers that only God knows (in detail anyway) and it comes up horribly short every time. So, what does science do? It fills the gaps with presuppositions borne of tragically faulty circumstantial evidence. Kind of ironic, huh?
The following two sentences crystallize why our two sides will never understand each other without “becoming” the other: “I’ve always wondered why a deistic universe is supposed to be so much more special than one that’s not.[which is inexplicably followed by]- The hubris alone for considering that the entire universe was made for mankind is quite astounding.” (emphs. mine)
The fact that the universe was made for me, doesmake me pretty special. Special in the eyes of the maker, to whom I am eternally grateful. That is not “hubris”, unless you consider it hubris to think that man came from something more “special” than the primordial muck.
And then, “If we truly are here by luck then our lives are super valuable because we only get one.” (emph. mine)
This point always leads me to ponder why (WHY - OH - WHY!) would a “finite” creature such as yourself waste even one, infinitesimally small portion of such a precious commodity trying to “save” another self contained, end in himself, bag of “evolutionarily developed special chemicals” when you could be out there NOT wasting it by doing stuff for the betterment of…of…wait, you could be gone in the next instant, you need to get out there and start living right now! For your legacy. Because other bags of chemicals need someone to pattern themselves after on the road to Shangri-La.
Man, I sure hope you’re wrong because, it would be embarrassing, were you and I to be buried next to each other, w/ me thinking “Golly, where’s God”, while you are rotting away, smugly, knowing how right you were.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
Raw data cannot tell us because all data must be interpreted.
That’s pointless deconstructionist nonsense; by the mere act of observing or experiencing something, you are interpreting it in some sense. So by this rationale, even if god *did* exist you wouldn’t be able to know that because you would have to first “interpret” his existence. Thus you’re forever removed from that knowledge.
January 26th, 2010 at 4:00 am
(funny side note: Not intended to make anyone’s explode, just thought it was funny)
Not positive, but I think that the music playing was also played in a scene from a mini-series that played on hbo many years ago. In it, there was a scene of WWII era Germans cleaning up there bombed out town as musicians played on. I could swear it was this piece. Could be wrong, but just couldn’t resist the irony. “Oh great! now Dawkins has made a doc w/ the music from a show portraying nazi’s after the fall of “der faderland”. Way to go, Dick!”
Hysterical! Had to pass that on
January 26th, 2010 at 9:00 am
I should point out to all readers here that the video wasn’t made by Dawkins and is in fact a set of disconnected paragraphs from the first chapter of his book Unweaving the Rainbow. I’d recommend reading the whole chapter (and book in fact) in context if you wish to come to conclusions about his argument.
“Oh great! now Dawkins has made a doc w/ the music from a show portraying nazi’s after the fall of “der faderland”
The soundtrack is a centuries-old Bach composition and has been used in hundreds of films and shows. However, that to you it’s just ‘that music from the Nazi doc’ (as far as you can remember) IS quite funny. Didn’t you already admit you couldn’t find any connection between Nazis and Darwinism?
January 26th, 2010 at 11:23 am
Hi Luke,
The singularity represents the beginning of the spacetime and matter. Ontologically prior there was no spacetime or matter. Thus the cause must be spaceless, timeless and immaterial.
The precision involves scores of constants about the universe, any of which were slightly different would result in no expansion of the universe (the BB would have collapsed back on itself) or no life. For example, as Stephen Hawking pointed out, If the expansion rate of the universe was different by one part in a thousand, million, million a second after the big bang, the universe would have collapsed back on itself or never developed galaxies. So this is not analogous to your pencil lead example.
Tim,
The fact that all data must be interpreted is not deconstructionist non-sense (although I agree that there is deconstructionist nonsense). You admit that there is interpretation going on in the process of observing. My point is that scientific conclusions, such as the origin of the universe and the origin of life, require one to make rational inferences to the best explanation. That requires philosophical commitments and assumptions such as whether or not we will be open to both natural AND non-natural (i.e. intelligent or supernatural) causes. Dawkins, and perhaps yourself, rules out the latter philosophically. That is not a matter of the brute scientific evidence, but of the interpretation of that evidence driven by philosophy.
Blessings,
Frank
January 26th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
This is a test. It seems I am unable to post.
January 26th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Well, since I am unable to post what I wrote I will try again.
First of all, I really appreciate your time and your willingness to explain this to me. Unfortunately, I still don’t really understand, and I hope you can help with a follow up.
You said: The singularity represents the beginning of the spacetime and matter.
I thought the Big Bang represented this? Is that not correct?
Thanks,
Luke
January 26th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
For a bit more detail. The big bang as currently understood is the ‘explosion’ of some singularity into the universe we now know (right?). So there had to be something there to explode, correct?
(Or is there evidence that it both came into existence and exploded simultaneously?)
January 26th, 2010 at 6:48 pm
Oh great! now Dawkins has made a doc w/ the music from a show portraying nazi’s after the fall of “der faderland”. Way to go, Dick!”
How is that “funny?”
The singularity represents the beginning of the spacetime and matter.
Spacetime, maybe. Matter? Not so much.
The fact that all data must be interpreted is not deconstructionist non-sense
It is. Any and all forms of interpretation are subjective and therefore subject to the same limitations you attribute to naturalistic explanation. I don’t see what allowing for the supernatural does that makes it any more credible overall than not allowing for the supernatural….in fact, I’d say that allowing for the supernatural will, in 99% of cases, make things more confusing and less clear.
For example…if we allow for the supernatural in all cases, then this will lead to some confusion (and possibly false belief) with regard to things that actually don’t have a supernatural explanation but that we once thought did (or that we think do today). That’s a weakness that, to me, more than accomodates between that philosophy and not allowing for the supernatural. Not allowing for the supernatural simply means that, before supernature is accepted as the true cause, all other possibilites must be ruled out first. It must be the only possible explanation, because by its nature a natural explanation is more likely than a supernatural one. That’s not philosophy so much as demonstrable science….even if there was a magical first cause and it was verified to have been brought about supernaturally, that would be ONE verified instance of supernatural intervention, up against hundreds of millions of instances of consistently non-supernatural occurrences.
Of course, in order to prove that incorrect you would simply need to provide one instance of something which has been verified (not theorized) to have a supernatural origin/nature that we once thought to have a natural origin/nature. If you could do that then it would show that you were correct. But you can’t because the process of verifying something is scientific, which means that it relies on the assumption that something does not have a supernatural nature.
January 26th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
I thought the Big Bang represented this? Is that not correct?
I just kind of assumed he meant big bang. I didn’t notice he actually said Singularity….0.0
[/bad reading comprehension]
January 26th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
“The question of “why” in a deityless universe only applies if you actually mean HOW. “Why” on a “what’s it all about man” need not apply.”
Not trying to be mean but, if “how” (life came to be) is the ultimate question, how does one find meaning?
Your origin: random chance.
Your development or “selection”: the same
Your ancestors: mere sign posts in your biological “family tree”
Of course, guess there is some “comfort” in knowing one is -TRULY- a beginning and end in oneself….Or is there?…
January 27th, 2010 at 7:41 pm
Comment on earlier post which read, “A universe in which the life is here by luck is a much more special thing than being put here to slather worship on some ultimate egotist. If we truly are here by luck then our lives are super valuable because we only get one.”
Sorry I disagree. If we’re just accidental byproducts of evolution inhabiting an accidental planet lost in a vast mindless accidental universe and are headed towards oblivion at death, I see no intrinsic value or meaning to the human race. We’re just meat computers that happen (for the moment) to occupy the highest rung on the evolutionary ladder on this planet. If I truly believed this, I would feel no more guilt in killing another human being than I would stepping on an insect (remember what was written on Eric Harris’ t-shirt?). Why not get rid of the “undesirables” if there is no final accountability after death and no absolute right or wrong? And who cares about man’s legal system if men are just the result of time + matter + chance? As long as I don’t get caught and thrown into prison, why not do anything I want? Also, suicide would become a very viable option when life became too tough. But I know in my conscience that there is an absolute right and wrong and that every human being has worth because they have a soul made in the image of God. I don’t need the Ohio revised code to know that it’s wrong to go into a shopping mall and start shooting people. You take children and indoctrinate them with godless philosophies and eventually you wind up with godless societies of selfish people who view others as just objects (which is exactly what we’re seeing- read the newspapers). I could run an atheist over with my pickup truck and he would have nothing better than his own opinion that what I did to him was wrong. He could say I broke the law, but what do I care about the law if it’s just the result of overgrown bacteria and I’m destined for non-existence anyway? I believe the only way we have intrinsic worth and value is if God created us in His image. Otherwise, we’re just dust grains in a dead universe and life isn’t really worth the hassle. But I believe this life is worth the living because Christ lives and there’s an eternal life to come! Praise God Almighty!
January 27th, 2010 at 9:45 pm
@ Rod
Right on… Life only has meaning and value if there is someONE to value it. After the eventual heat death of the athiest universe there will be nothing and noone to value what once existed. If there truly is a eternal God-creator the probability that he cares for his creation is very high and we as his creatures have eternal value because He is eternal.
January 27th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Mark:
“Not trying to be mean but, if “how” (life came to be) is the ultimate question, how does one find meaning?”
I don’t think there is an ulitmate question.
“Your origin: random chance.”
Yeah, so? How fortunate for that chance.
“Your development or “selection”: the same”
Yeah, so? How very fortunate for that chance.
“Your ancestors: mere sign posts in your biological “family tree””
Yeah, so?
“Of course, guess there is some “comfort” in knowing one is -TRULY- a beginning and end in oneself….Or is there?…”
And what do you mean “beginning and end in oneself”?
Rodney: “If we’re just accidental byproducts of evolution inhabiting an accidental planet lost in a vast mindless accidental universe and are headed towards oblivion at death, I see no intrinsic value or meaning to the human race.”
Is a bible the only thing between you and mass murder? I certainly wouldn’t feel comfortable being near you if you think that the only thing keeping you from random murder was walking into a building with a cross on top of it every sunday.
“You take children and indoctrinate them with godless philosophies and eventually you wind up with godless societies of selfish people who view others as just objects (which is exactly what we’re seeing- read the newspapers).”
really? What newspapers? What articles?
“But I know in my conscience that there is an absolute right and wrong and that every human being has worth because they have a soul made in the image of God.”
I’d phrase it as this:
I know every human being has worth because I enjoy my life, I enjoy my family, I enjoy learning, I enjoy challenges, I enjoy so many things and knowing this about myself, about my experiences, gives me the greatest respect for others, and i’d never harm them or otherwise interfere with their enjoyment of the one life they have. and if by sending money to haiti or a local charities or even by paying my taxes that support welfare programs I can help anyone else, then let me do so.
Notice I don’t want to go out and murder people on whims. Or get rid of “undesirables”. Or off myself because, oh gee, there doesn’t seem to be any meaning at all in this life in which I’m incredibly lucky to have lucked into! Oh darn that luck!
January 27th, 2010 at 10:10 pm
@Tony
“Life only has meaning and value if there is someONE to value it. After the eventual heat death of the athiest universe there will be nothing and noone to value what once existed. If there truly is a eternal God-creator the probability that he cares for his creation is very high and we as his
creatures have eternal value because He is eternal.”
If god is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial then he/she isn’t a someone. really, you couldn’t describe it at as anything because it wouldn’t be anything.
So . . . are atoms and molecules of less value than something that can eat and sleep?
Perhaps he/she/something-that-isn’t-something-because-it-is-nothing-describable made the universe because it liked the way heat death looks. (if in fact there is heat death).
January 28th, 2010 at 2:01 am
Man, Toby, I was lovin’ that sarcasm until you went all flat on Tony. More of the other kind please, my sardonic “wit” can relate to that. (amazing! the kid reminds me of me when I was in my youth -whoa! let’s see obama get 4 self references in one sentence like tha…what’s that? he does it 50 times a day?…232 “I”s in a 24 minute speech? impressive!)
Narcissists for Obama in 2012!
January 28th, 2010 at 7:33 am
The accusation here is that atheism = a belief that our lives are completely random, or at least that we owe our existence to a random series of events. That’s a decent enough charge, and one that Dawkins accepts and addresses in the book the video is taken from.
However, I don’t see how believing in a God ’solves’ this problem of randomness. Dawkins says each of us owes our existence to being the successful single $perm out of millions, and in turn that each of our ancestors stretching back millions of years had to successfully bear children, who in turn had to bear children, until we arrived.
Now, surely that is true whether you believe in God or not?
Perhaps the answer is that if there’s a God, then he removes the random element by ‘fixing’ everything to turn out in a certain way, to a master plan. However, this raises problematic issues just as the random view point does. If my parents had no choice but to marry each other and give birth to me, and similarly for their parents, and so on, then what has happened to free will?
If the very circumstances that brought them together were pre-ordained, couldn’t have happened any other way, then it suggests we are all automatons, just acting out a path determined long before we were born. Is that what Christians here believe?
How is the idea that I had no choice but to marry my partner and have a child with her at that exact time, any more comforting than believing that out of billions of people, we chose each other?
I met my wife because we were introduced by my flatmate (only because he thought it would help HIS chances with her. Too bad for him). If my wife and I meeting wasn’t random, then it follows that we HAD to be together. And that means my flatmate had no freewill in introducing us - he only did it to fulfill God’s plan.
So it seems to me that living in a random world, and coping with the ramifications of that, is the price one pays for having free will. You can’t get rid of the randomness without losing grip on the idea that you have free will.
(NB, of course, some atheists argue that atheists can’t believe in free will either. Daniel Dennett and other prominent atheists have argued against this, others have argued for it. But that doesn’t really make difference to my point)
January 28th, 2010 at 7:39 am
I’m with TobyR - I find it quite disturbing when theists infer that their ‘love of God’ is the only thing that stops them going on a huge killing spree.
Once again, if it was true that Christianity leads to valuing life and atheism leads to sociopaths murdering people that get in their way, we’d expect to see this backed up by stats on murderers and their religious beliefs. In fact we see that atheists are far less likely to commit murder than Christians.
The message people give out here is that their love of their fellow man is a result of their love of their God. Their love of God though is a kind of full stop - it isn’t thought to require an explanation. They don’t say ‘my love of God is a result of loving x’. If that is so, why does the love of your fellow man need to spring from loving another entity?
Christians often explain their love of God as being similar to their love of their parents - the reasons are often very similar - he brought me into this world, he helped to raise me. If that is the case, why do atheists need additional explanations for why they love their parents?
If ‘they brought me into this world and raised me’ is insufficient to explain why I love my parents, why is it sufficient to explain why you love your God?
January 28th, 2010 at 11:44 am
“In fact we see that atheists are far less likely to commit murder than Christians.”
That’s “funny”, he must have missed that whole Hitler, Lennon, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, North Korea, etc., etc. thing leading to hundreds of millions dead last century.
That’s okay, you’re young. Still time to learn. Also, I dare say that most “Christian” murderers are not “in the spirit” as I -or anyone- know it when they kill. Rather, they are EXISTING IN THE ESSENCE of what would be apart from the Christian God at that moment…oops, just realized that you’re probably talking about muslims. Forgot how you guys always rail against them for being the ones involved in the murder of thousands of innocents yearly…oh wait…
January 28th, 2010 at 11:58 am
I am not sure that Rodney et al are saying that they would go shoot people if they didn’t believe in Jesus. Rather, I think that they’re saying that they don’t do this because they have a conscience — that they have the laws of right and wrong written on their hearts (as many phrase it).
They believe that this conscience — these laws written within us — could not exist, and there is no way to explain them without G-d.
(Many evolutionary scientists disagree, but I think that’s the point these posters here are making. It’s not their religion itself that causes them to value man. It’s the fact that most of us naturally value other people — even from early childhood — that gives evidence for G-d and makes “random existence” illogical in their view.)
I think that’s what they’re saying anyway. Sorry if I’m wrong.
Dr. Turek,
I hope you will have time to address my questions regarding the BB.
Thanks,
Luke
January 28th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Mark, look at the murder statistics for the US or the UK - the Christians commit proportionately more murders than the atheists. Atheists are overwhelmingly UNDER-represented in US prisons too. And that’s if you look at ‘religion on entry’ to prison, so it’s not just because lots of people convert once they’re inside.
Unsubstantiated claims about Hitler’s religion or lack of it (and we’ve seen before that they are very unsubstantiated) do nothing to refute the above. Neither do speculation of my age. Our respective ages have no bearing whatsoever on the actual statistics.
“Also, I dare say that most “Christian” murderers are not “in the spirit” as I -or anyone- know it when they kill.”
You may well dare to assert it. But it’s another ‘no true Scotsman’ response that has nothing to do with the point I was responding to - that without God there’s no reason not to go round killing everyone. If this were true one would expect atheists to be more likely to commit murder, when the facts show that atheists are LESS likely to commit murder. Unless you can address this, you don’t have a relevant response to my point.
January 28th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Mark,
The only historically significant person named Lennon was murdered and not a murderer.
January 28th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Luke: “Rather, I think that they’re saying that they don’t do this because they have a conscience — that they have the laws of right and wrong written on their hearts”
We all agree we have this sense ‘written on our hearts’. Theists can explain it through God, non-theists can say we evolved this feeling. Theists in turn can say that if it evolved, that doesn’t make it ‘right’. But they are begging the question - why does God writing it on your heart make it any more right? That’s no less an is/ought fallacy than saying it’s ‘right’ because it evolved.
January 28th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Dr. Turek’s book is very good, i can’t believe what some darwinists believe,my friend nathan is an athiest, but he has more common sense than the darwinists. Me and him are the smartest people in our school, not counting religious beliefs. Peace and love.
January 28th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Thanks Luke,
Because we all know, if there was a mispilling at Nurumborg, it would have negated the reality of the nazis war crimes. Thank you for alerting us to that. PARDONS FOR ALL! Pardons for all says, ye.
January 28th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Nathan,
I think you’re right. I was just trying to be fair and clarify their position.
Mark said: if there was a mispilling at Nurumborg
Hey, that’s actually funny. Good work Mark.
January 28th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Emily,
I would just encourage you to keep studying and working hard and not rest on your laurels, even if are already the smartest person in your school. Remember that you can never learn too much.
Luke
January 28th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Nathan,
I had a longer post written about the problem you mention of Christians being overrepresented in the incoming jail population. Do you know if this issue has ever received serious academic treatment by a sociologist? It would be interesting to read.
I will try to rewrite a possible hypothesis to this, but one simple one is that this may be a simple correlation. There may be some factor or combination of factors which make someone more likely to commit a crime, but also to become Christian.
January 28th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
I agree Luke. I don’t think being Christian makes you more likely to commit crimes.
I cited the stat to
a) show the dangers of trying to make a point regarding cause/effect using stats (as Frank does in the ‘gay’ thread he and I both just posted on), and
b) to show that there simply isn’t evidence to support the idea that being an atheist makes one think “Hey ho, I might as well commit some crimes”.
January 28th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Nathan,
Like I said I think a serious academic treatment would be interesting.
My second hypothesis, which I will try to post at some point actually did posit an explanation for why a Christian might be more likely to commit crime based upon their belief. (It’s a hypothesis that I am throwing out there for discussion. It’s not necessarily something I think is true, before anyone freaks out.) I will try to post it shortly.
January 28th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Man, Toby, I was lovin’ that sarcasm until you went all flat on Tony. More of the other kind please, my sardonic “wit” can relate to that. (amazing! the kid reminds me of me when I was in my youth -whoa! let’s see obama get 4 self references in one sentence like tha…what’s that? he does it 50 times a day?…232 “I”s in a 24 minute speech? impressive!)
Narcissists for Obama in 2012!
I’m continuously amazed by your ability to start with a single point and then rant until you end on another point that’s completely unrelated to the one you started on. It’s both disturbing and amazing, like reading the diary of a sociopathic killer as he tries to justify his hatred of people and society.
If the very circumstances that brought them together were pre-ordained, couldn’t have happened any other way, then it suggests we are all automatons, just acting out a path determined long before we were born. Is that what Christians here believe?
Looking at it that way, it seems that we’re more “robotic” under the Christian worldview than we are under the “we’re all just atoms” worldview. Interesting
That’s “funny”, he must have missed that whole Hitler, Lennon, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, North Korea, etc., etc. thing leading to hundreds of millions dead last century.
You mean Hitler, that famous Christian who killed all those Jews?
Hey, that’s actually funny. Good work Mark.
Ten bucks says one of those mistakes was unintentional.
(…nah, I kid, I kid…)
January 28th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
“Looking at it that way, it seems that we’re more “robotic” under the Christian worldview than we are under the “we’re all just atoms” worldview. Interesting”
Thanks, I was rather pleased with myself when I thought of it!
No response on it, you’ll notice.
“You mean Hitler, that famous Christian who killed all those Jews?”
Oh God, don’t start that one up again!
January 29th, 2010 at 3:13 am
“I’m continuously amazed by your ability to start with a single point and then rant until you end on another point that’s completely unrelated to the one you started on. It’s both disturbing and amazing, like reading the diary of a sociopathic killer as he tries to justify his hatred of people and society.”
And that is why I am genuinely fond of you, Tim. Everyone else ignores me , yet you give “the crazy old roller” the time of day. And don’t think your efforts go unappreciated….seriously….that is what we are all here for, isn’t it? * FINE! Leave me hanging out here on my personal petard.
*okay, not Dr. Turek. but he’s the exception who proves the rule.
January 29th, 2010 at 4:19 am
Tim said, “Looking at it that way, it seems that we’re more “robotic” under the Christian worldview than we are under the “we’re all just atoms” worldview.”
Check this out: Look at all of space, matter and energy as the materials for Gods’ -instantaneous- painting, and that His’ “canvas” is time. When God made it, it was done and all events, decisions, etc. were complete in that instant. Because He knew/knows -was/is in- all time at once, He can act according to our decisions so as to affect all things to His glory or, “…work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose.” That is how you can be called, but not selected (”pre” or otherwise).
In that singular “moment before time”, He knew what you were going to do and acted accordingly. It’s as if there’s a non preset domino affect that God has already “adjusted” to, so to speak. He didn’t harden Pharaohs’ heart against his will. He merely saw that Pharaoh chose to be the way he was and used it to His glory. Same thing w/ Judas Iscariot. The man was a thief. “So”, you might say, “What about the thief on the cross, the publicans, Saul/Paul, etc., etc.?” Same thing as with us all: We choose/chose the destination (eventually, and He knows/knew it), and He guides us there in the way that fits His plan. Or: He gave us a choice of destinations, and we choose the path/paths to the end of our choosing. Since He knows what we will ultimately chose, He has mercy on us while we’re figuring it out, and He uses our actions -faithful or not- to His ends. (”head ‘em off at the pass” answer to the question you’re probably thinking: He shows mercy to those He already knows will NOT choose Him too because, as Jesus’ life stands as an example for how we all should live, God, in whatever form He takes, is all about feeding His sheep. We don’t know the things He does so, we must minister -AS SHOWN IN JESUS’ WORK THROUGH TO CALVARY- with mercy and grace for one and all and, let Him judge.)
Now, for Him to move on a more temporal plane, He could be looking at His canvas -in time as we know it- and reacting to what we chose. In that case, everything would have to be interconnected literally (including our complete “memory” -both conscious and subconscious) so as to allow for unknown changes after the fact. example: A man assassinates a world leader causing events that God has not willed. God steps in “after the fact” and saves said leader by making him unavailable for his date w/ destiny, “before” it “happened”. As in the first scenario, He could do this w/o interfering in mans’ will, but the basic concept breaks down -in my mind- as it puts a major dent in Gods’ omniscience / sovereignty. Same result though.
Just throwing that second one out there for amusement or if anyone wants to start a pool (no actual wagering, PLEASE!). The first is my best understanding of how things are. In a nutshell, that is. Things like innocent humans’ suffering is something else all together. Perhaps some other time when I’m not still smarting from one of Tims’ heartless, totally unprovoked, out of left field attacks on me.
note: this is a slightly edited concept I (yes, I, no giggling from the peanut gallery, please!) posited elsewhere but can’t tell where else THIS post be banished to the gloomy pergatory known as “you know what-ing” “you know-ation”. [/ttfn]
January 29th, 2010 at 8:07 am
And that is why I am genuinely fond of you, Tim. Everyone else ignores me , yet you give “the crazy old roller” the time of day. And don’t think your efforts go unappreciated….seriously….that is what we are all here for, isn’t it? *
Trolls live for attention
I’m not completely heartless, every now and then I throw ‘em a bone.
In that singular “moment before time”
1) There cannot be a “moment before time;” the concept of “before” presupposes that time already exists.
2) If there is one way that things will be, and that way will not change (which is how it must be for god to see the one choice that anyone will make at any given moment in time), then there is only one predetermined path that each of us takes, and therefore free will is an illusion.
January 29th, 2010 at 9:10 am
Luke,
This was probably posted before you got here, but you may want to check this regarding “Who made God?:” http://www.crossexamined.org/blog/?p=45
Take a look at that post and consider these two quick points:
1) There has to be an uncaused first cause. One cannot go on an infinite regress of causes. The best evidence shows the universe is not eternal and thus had a cause. That cause must be something spaceless, timeless, and immaterial (i.e. something outside the space-time continuum we call the universe).
2) Even if the creator of this universe needed a cause, we could still know he created the universe. If I asked you, who wrote “The God Delusion”? and you rightly said, “Richard Dawkins,” I wouldn’t falsify your answer by saying, “Who made Richard Dawkins?” You would still be right, and then we could investigate the question of who made Richard Dawkins.
Blessings,
Frank
January 29th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Dr. Turek,
Thanks for the answer.
I think you were responding to the question(s) I posed in the other thread, and I appreciate it.
As I said in that question: “you’re absolutely right” about the first cause and to say that philosophically G-d does not need to have a cause.
My question(s) were actually intended to be about something else, but perhaps I didn’t state it well.
Thanks,
Luke
January 29th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
“…every now and then I throw ‘em a bone.”
That’s why you are, “Lord of the trolls”.
“1) There cannot be a “moment before time;” the concept of “before” presupposes that time already exists.”
That’s funny (i.e. odd, b*ll, etc.), in the first thread I ever engaged you, Lord, I was mocking Hitchens “suit case” theory and pointed out -quite clearly I thought- that ANY notion of ANY matter or time being in existence before the BB (or whatever you guys suppose was the “beginning of it all”) is absurd. Hence, the logic of a spaceless, timeless, immaterial being outside the confines of His universe (in every way imaginable). To which you (”you guys”) always respond w/ something like, “Of course you know, that this timeless, spaceless such and such (i.e. “His inexplainableness”) must conform to my limited and oh so very finite understanding of things. I am the Lord over all that is within my purview after all.”
(Maestro, hit the irony theme, please.)
“…and therefore free will is an illusion.”
Your willingness to misrepresent is why I don’t complain about your whining about my alleged actions in the same vain elsewhere. It would have no affect. After all, must there ever be a change in direction (repentance) by any Lord? Even one who dwells exclusively amongst the kingdom of his own making? Sorry, but not equipped to answer that one - Have to leave it to, The Lord.
he said for his own amusement…[/amusingexerciseinfutility]
January 29th, 2010 at 7:44 pm
That’s why you are, “Lord of the trolls”.
I wouldn’t call myself a lord, per se, but I do seem to have this strange power to set trolls off on insane, barely-comprehensible rants with just a couple of words. I don’t mean to, but it’s an awesome power all the same.
:/
Wait, are you worshiping me as an idol by calling me “lord?”
That’s funny (i.e. odd, b*ll, etc.), in the first thread I ever engaged you, Lord, I was mocking Hitchens “suit case” theory and pointed out -quite clearly I thought- that ANY notion of ANY matter or time being in existence before the BB (or whatever you guys suppose was the “beginning of it all”) is absurd.
So you agree that your above statement (relating to “before time began”) is ludicrous?
After all, must there ever be a change in direction (repentance) by any Lord?
(…I’m not even really sure where you’re going with this…)
To which you (”you guys”) always respond w/ something like, “Of course you know, that this timeless, spaceless such and such (i.e. “His inexplainableness”) must conform to my limited and oh so very finite understanding of things. I am the Lord over all that is within my purview after all.”
Perhaps you could link me to that? I don’t quite remember all the details of that particular conversation. Although I do remember a similar one wherein you said that god was timeless, and then you claimed that his actions can cause change from outside of time. To which I said that this was impossible, because there could be no “before time” unless we trivialized the idea of time by introducing multiple parallel dimensions of time (”god time” versus “our time”), in which case god could not truly be ‘timeless.’ Was that perhaps the conversation you were thinking of?
February 2nd, 2010 at 12:56 am
Bottom line is that there either there is a god (or gods) or not.
The only one with any evidence to support it so far is: no god.
The religious books were written by humans for humans and no matter how you interpret them it will not lead you to any further understanding of the world. (Just whatever you want them to mean)
Science will move us forward in understanding. Religion will not.
Ask any religious person about what is god, where did he come from or how did he create the world out of nothing etc etc and you will not get any answer that makes sense.
Science has found out that the world is round and goes around the sun in our solar system within our galaxy. We would know none of this if we followed religion.
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:23 am
“So you agree that your above statement (relating to “before time began”) is ludicrous?”
No. God is much greater than a suit case. And I don’t think that’s ludicrous at all!
This guy says what I want to, he just has better words, that’s all (stupid smarty!):
http://www.onenesspentecostal......essity.htm
And please, Tim, no giggling. yes, he believes in God, but try to forget that for a moment and LISTEN to what you read. (Dr. Turek says stuff like this all the time, just thought -for those w/o the time/inclination to read his book- this might capsulize things for ya.)
February 2nd, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Mark.
The concept of action (forced or intentional change) is defined by an intersection of time and space — there must be a place for the object to exist, and a time period in which the change occurs. If there is no time, there is no change and therefore no action. I just don’t know how to make it any simpler.
With regard to your link, nothing I said had anything to do with whether or not existence is necessary. I don’t really think existence is necessary or “not” necessary, and for the sake of this discussion I’d say it’s irrelevant one way or the other.
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:49 pm
Here is something from sciencedaily.com Feb 3rd which Mr Dawkins won’t find wonderful.
Something really hard to swallow.
http://pandasthumb.org/archive.....oupPPR.jpg
William Martin, an evolutionary biologist from the Insitute of Botany III in Düsseldorf says “But soup has no capacity for producing the energy vital for life.”
Lion (IRC)
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:52 pm
http://pandasthumb.org/archive.....oup-1.html
February 4th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
William Martin, an evolutionary biologist from the Insitute of Botany III in Düsseldorf says “But soup has no capacity for producing the energy vital for life.”
Lion (IRC)
Wait, wait.
Another scientist somewhere has a different opinion on something?!
STOP THE PRESSES!
:/
February 4th, 2010 at 8:31 pm
If I had empirical evidence that something was true I would have no need for the word opinion.
Maybe thats why the word “opinion” never appeared in the sciencedaily.com article. Not even once.
The statement is emphatic. …”has no capacity for producing”…
Scientists would do well to start their sentences with… “as far as we know.” or “based on what we have observed so far”.
Lion (IRC)
February 5th, 2010 at 1:49 am
Personally, I like this article.
http://www.answersingenesis.or.....ally-a-god
February 5th, 2010 at 7:34 pm
If I had empirical evidence that something was true I would have no need for the word opinion…the statement is emphatic. …”has no capacity for producing”…
Oh. So I can make the statement that “abiogenesis is a viable, possible theory for the origin of life as we know it” and that makes it true because it’s an emphatic statement. Kay thanks for clearing that up
Scientists would do well to start their sentences with… “as far as we know.” or “based on what we have observed so far”.
It’s science. That much is at the very least implied, given that it’s part of, you know, the definition of science.
February 9th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Dr. Turek,
To return to the idea of the big bang, which I said above, I still don’t fully understand.
The big bang as currently understood is the ‘explosion’ of some singularity into the universe we now know (right?). So there had to be something there to explode, correct? Or am I misunderstanding?
To put it another way. Which of the following statements is more correct, scientifically speaking?
a. the universe exploded into being out of nothing
b. the universe exploded into being out of a singularity
Thanks,
Luke
February 15th, 2010 at 6:32 pm
When something makes a great IMPACT people know one of 3 things:
1. It is false/fiction because it has been passed down as fiction, ex: Harry Potter, Santa Clause, Tooth-fairy.
2. Believable… it could have happened… ex: Islam… Muhammad could have gotten a revelation from an angel… people claim to get revelations from God all the time.
3. It happened. So if it is not known to be false, and it is NOT believable (resurrecting from the grave is NOT believable, this would be a super-natural act since it isn’t natural)…. THEN it happened. So in the case for Jesus Christ… it happened… because for something so incredible and empirically verifiable… (someone could verify if Christ actually rose or not) to have caused such a GREAT impact… could only come about if it actually happened…
——————————————————————————————
“People back then were stupid and gullible” argument:
Now check this… people back then did not have T.V. You know what 8 year old Hebrew kids did back in the day? They would memorize the entire Old Testament (Torah) by heart. You know what 8 year old kids are doing today??? Playing video games. You know what kids did back then? They planted crops, gathered water, cotton, etc…. you know what they do now?? Click a button so the T.V. turns the channel….
So if anything.. the human brain TODAY.. is much weaker than it used to be… people back then did math in their brains and didn’t have calculators….
I talk to people all the time that are influenced by scary movies and think ghosts are real… people back then didn’t have T.V. or special effects…. so my point is that NOW people are more gullible than they were back then because they used their brain more and SAW the natural world as it was instead of watching T.V. all day and playing video games.
Christ is King!
——————————————————————————————–
Luke God exploded everything into being out of nothing… God is the efficient cause of all that exists…
Or to put it another way God caused the first cause for everything that exists.
This is a good video Dr. William Lane Craig makes on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0ii7sh6W0c
Hope discussions are going well!
-Andrea