A Creator God cannot be a Reasonable Explanation
October 5, 2010
Religious people can try to rationalize a belief in God, but that belief fails any minimal standard of ordinary rationality. Common sense is enough to expose supernaturalism’s failures.
Atheists often ask me for sharp ways to deflate God-talk with believers without having to explain scientific theories first. Atheists are widely interested in science, but it isn’t easy to keep advanced science straight. Explaining evolutionary details about the fossil record or genetics, or current big bang theories, is often best left to scientists. Besides, many religious people accept science and suppose that supernaturalism is a supplement rather than a competitor to science. Is there a more direct way to apply critical thinking for raising atheist objections to God?
In an earlier essay, I described SIX BASIC RULES of ordinary rationality that we apply to explanations in everyday life. If an "explanation" violates one or more of these rules, it really isn't an explanation at all, but just a fraudulent and failed rationalization.
1. Don’t accept mere mystery: Reject an “explanation” that consists simply of putting a label on something beyond human conceptualization or comprehension.
2. Don’t accept contradiction: Reject an “explanation” that requires a logical contradiction, since that creates another mystery.
3. Don’t accept repetition: Reject an “explanation” that requires the prior truth of the explanation, since that repeats the mystery.
4. Don’t accept mysterious causes: Reject a “causal” relationship between two things that have absolutely nothing in common, since that creates another mystery.
5. Don’t accept arbitrary justification: Reject an “explanation” where reasons given in its support can equally support rival explanations, since that leaves more mystery.
6. Don’t permit unjustified exemptions: Reject an “explanation” that requires special exemption from a rational principle used to support the explanation, since that increases mystery.
To apply these rules to religion some more, let’s consider religious believers who think that their belief in God is reasonable, because their God is needed to explain where the universe came from.
The Creation Argument for God
Supernaturalism proposes that the universe needs an explanation, and offers a Creator God as a good explanation for the universe’s origin.
Why does the universe need an explanation? The universe may need an explanation, if it is an event in time with an origin. Saying that the universe could come from Nothing doesn’t satisfy reason. If it did, then we could hardly fault religious stories for imagining a God conjuring up our world from Nothing. Fortunately, science doesn’t offer pure Nothing as an origin. It instead describes initial conditions and natural laws that can generate our universe of Something. There is a big difference between saying that natural laws can produce Something and saying that absolutely Nothing can produce Something. Although Stephen Hawking speaks of the universe’s origins from nothing , he doesn’t confuse the philosophical distinction between a physical nothingness and some theological Nothingness.
Theologians typically want to depict the universe as originating at some moment in time. That’s how they encourage the idea in believers that something supernaturalistic must exist “before” the universe. However, as scientists and philosophers have pointed out, our universe may have had no origin in time, if time originated with the universe, or perhaps time may not be an essential feature of the universe as a whole. Perhaps Hawking is right that only natural laws (themselves timeless and without an ‘origin’) are needed for a full explanation of our universe. Alternatively, some eternally older Nature might lie beyond our universe. Our universe may have sprung from some other universe (and that universe sprang from another universe, etc.), or our universe came from an initial quantum inflationary flux. Some cosmologists are taking these ideas seriously enough to attempt to develop them into testable hypotheses.
Scientific cosmology will explore such potential hypotheses at its own pace; we need not predict any winning explanation now. It is enough to say at this point that the supernaturalist is too hasty by giving up on naturalistic explanations for the universe. Unable to first show that our universe or Nature as a whole requires an explanation, supernaturalism’s God “explanation” is not needed.
In any case, a supernatural God could not cause nature to exist. Such an “explanation” violates several Rules of Reason. This God would itself need a creator, and so on, unless a special exemption for God is demanded (but that demand only violates Rule 6). That is why theology always tries to depict God as existing beyond all ordinary time. However, proposing a timelessly eternal god makes matters worse. How is an eternal God any less of a mystery than an infinitely existing universe or an infinite series of universes? – such a mysterious God violates Rule 1. Asking that a timeless God creates a universe at some moment of time is asking for a violation of Rule 2. Also, supernatural and natural properties are too different for any causal relation between them (violating Rule 4). Finally, a God could not create nature from Nothing either (violating Rule 4).
We should not credit religion with offering a serious explanation for the universe. Science may show that no explanation is needed in the first place, or science will figure out how entirely naturalistic explanations are quite sufficient. A supernatural God could not be any sort of rational explanation even if science seemed to need supplementation. An “explanation” involving a supernatural creator would require too many violations of common sense rationality.
Comments:
#1 JeffBro on Tuesday October 05, 2010 at 11:38pm
Article:
“Theologians typically want to depict the universe as originating at some moment in time. That’s how they encourage the idea in believers that something
supernaturalistic must exist “before” the universe.
However, as scientists and philosophers have pointed
out, our universe may have had no origin in time, if
time originated with the universe, or perhaps time may not be an essential feature of the universe as a whole. Perhaps Hawking is right that only natural laws (themselves timeless and without an ‘origin’) are needed for a full explanation of our universe.
Alternatively, some eternally older Nature might lie
beyond our universe. Our universe may have sprung from some other universe (and that universe sprang from another universe, etc.), or our universe came from an initial quantum inflationary flux. Some cosmologists are taking these ideas seriously enough to attempt to develop them into testable hypotheses.”
—So scientist have no real knowledge of the origin of the universe. Appearently they are not even sure if space-time is entertwined or independent, last I heard, space-time were inseperable.The universe sprung from some eternaly older universe? Well that solves nothing. So where did the first one come from? This just has an odd way of avoiding the issue and pointing out the problem at the same time. Even Hawking makes no claims of knowing where our universe originated from, or what caused it.
The article says to reject anything that creates another mystery. Every hypothethis/theory/explination any man has come up with creates more mystery, no matter how scientific or supernaturalistic. Even this article creates more mystery than solves. Nevermind that supernatural explinations lay no claim to scientific verification, those who deny the supernatural insist it cannot be, because of lack of scientific explination. I may not be very well educated, but I am somewhat intelligent and see some serious flaws with this thinking.
How can one claim to base their beliefs in pure science when science has more questions then answers. The only way that statement does not hold ground is if you stop asking questions.
-“Scientific cosmology will explore such potential
hypotheses at its own pace; we need not predict any
winning explanation now. It is enough to say at this
point that the supernaturalist is too hasty by giving up on naturalistic explanations for the universe. Unable to first show that our universe or Nature as a whole requires an explanation, supernaturalism’s God “explanation” is not needed.”
—So all of mankind is supposed to wait for science to, at it’s own pace, go through the entire process of elimination, processes that man may not even be aware of yet, to first eliminate all naturalistic
possiblities, then it’s ok to suggest a supernatural
explination? Thats just weak. Thats kind of like a one sided conversation that will not likely end for a very long time. Thats one side endlessly listening while being told to shut up and pay attention. The problem is, people who think like this will never stop looking/yapping beyond science. This is just a long winded way to say ‘shut up, we refuse to listen, even though what we base our decisions on has no more basis in fact than any other possble explination.
-“However, proposing a timelessly eternal god makes
matters worse. How is an eternal God any less of a
mystery than an infinitely existing universe or an
infinite series of universes?”
—Thats easy, The 2nd law of thermodynamics demands that all matter will decay, therefore a universe that existed an infinite amount of time ago, will have decayed an infinite amount of time ago. These
properties would not be applied to a supernatural
being.For claiming to being so grounded in science, a lot of atheistic people sure do ignore the hell out of this simple science based fact.
-“such a mysterious God violates Rule 1. Asking that
a timeless God creates a universe at some moment of
time is asking for a violation of Rule 2. Also,
supernatural and natural properties are too different for any causal relation between them (violating Rule 4). Finally, a God could not create nature from Nothing either (violating Rule 4).”
—Supernatural and natural properties are different
enough that we can’t explain the supernatural with the natural. And thats an end of that. We can not say it the other way around because we do not know that the supernatural can not explain the natural, or create it for that matter. Try accepting the possibility of Gods existence before you try to define what this God can or cannot do. Thats violating common sense. Say there is no God then define His limitations, weak.-“We should not credit religion with offering a serious explanation for the universe.”
—Even though science has none either!
-“Science may show that no explanation is needed in the first place,”
—Even though atheism generaly claims scientific
explination as the basis of their non-belief,
scientific explination may show us that scientific
explination is not needed. What a crock! Funny that, if scientists can’t figure it out then we are all
supposed to accept that there is simply no
explination needed? Thats just stupid!
-” A supernatural God could not be any sort of rational explanation even if science seemed to need
supplementation. An “explanation” involving a
supernatural creator would require too many violations of common sense rationality”
—So even if science suggests the need for an “explanation” involving a supernatural creator, common sense says it is not rational? So much for your scientific method.If science points to God, just ignore that tidbit? Science is no longer your friend? Seems somebody just is not looking for truth. Just looking for an excuse for not havng the nads to admit there might be a God.
This entire article defies common sense rationality.
This is simply one of the worst, weakest attempts I
have seen to try denounce the possible existence of a God. This article claims to be sandwich but is barely two pieces of bread with nothing inbetween. It looks like a sandwich but when you bite into it theres just nothing there. The bread is a bit stale as well. Anyone taking this article seriously is not looking for truth, the fact is science cannot disprove God and that is all this article is trying to do. Fail!#2 VeridicusX on Wednesday October 06, 2010 at 5:51am
JeffBro #1,
You said: ”—So even if science suggests the need for an “explanation” involving a supernatural creator, common sense says it is not rational? So much for your scientific method.”
Science relies on Methodological Naturalism, that is, Physical Evidence And Reasoned Logic (PEARL).
So science couldn’t suggest magic or superstition as an explanation.
Proposing a baseless and unnecessary conjecture as an “explanation” for anything, has the probability of “1/n as n goes to infinity” of being correct, that is, limit 0 - virtually no chance whatsoever. This is because there are an infinite amount of baseless unnecessary conjectures and your favorite is only one of them.
Supernatural means non-physical.
<ul>
<li>Non-physical means no potential or actual mass, energy or dimensionality.
<li>No dimensionality means having no temporal or spatial properties - not existing anywhere relative to us past, present or future.
<li>No mass-energy means no potential or actual activity or reactivity, information or properties - information is energy.
</ul>You said: ”—Supernatural and natural properties are different
enough that we can’t explain the supernatural with the natural.”Given the above, non-physical is a non-concept.
Aside from these problems the idea of a creator god is self-refuting.
Assume a creator god [apophatic or otherwise].
The fact of this god’s existence is something independent of its volition. It would have had to exist before it existed in order to create itself.
So, the entire fact of reality, its properties and possibilities, exists independently of this “creator god” or of any other being.
In fact, everything that is possible, probable, necessary and contingent exists without the “free will” intervention of any being ... every possible state of affairs or “possible world”, including this actual one.
Thus analysis of the creator god conjecture refutes the idea of “creators” in the divinely originating sense, “free will” in the religio-magical sense, gods in the supernatural sense and indeed, the supernatural in any sense, leaving only the sublime mystery and power of nature.
#3 Rochester_Ted (Guest) on Wednesday October 06, 2010 at 7:23am
You are not advocating a naturalistic explaination of the universe but an “Infra-Natural” explaination.
A “Natural” explaination will include the world as it is lived and experienced. Subjectivity, creativity, mystery, incompleteness, etc all need to be included.
But an “Infra-natural” explaination takes the world as experienced, and seeks to replace that with an explaination or mechanism that is actually the “true” reality underlying the perceptions and experience of the world. So the “Real” world actually lays below the experienced one - and is therefore “infranatural” (or perhaps “subnatural”). Its “turtles all the way down”.
But from mathematics as well as philosophy, we know that reality is grounded not from below, but from above. The “firmament” of the middle ages was located above humanity, not below humanity. For example, mathematics cannot be grounded from within exisiting mathematics - Russells attempt of grounding math from logic was a failure. We know that the only way to mathematically define the number 3 is to first postulate 4. We cannot know finite numbers without first knowledge of infinite numbers.
the Reductionist or “Infranatural” is a tendancy that exisits in religions as well as aetheisms.
#4 Oleman Runin (Guest) on Wednesday October 06, 2010 at 9:54am
God is a name, symbol.
A word. “...and the word was God”
A three letter string - g o d.It(He) garners emotion, a vehicle for conveyance, a natural process.
It(He) aligns our cognition for creativity.
It(He) is real.
It(He) is about Social Intelligence, community.
It(He) is the foundation of health and well BEing.
and now…
Intuition? Where do propositions come from?
I guess we could say He’s the creator of “our” personal universe.
#5 Jim, Religion is Bullshit on Wednesday October 06, 2010 at 10:34am
At Jeffbro:
Science offers an explanation that can be verified. Secular knowledge is vast because it offers no absolutes. It therefore can bend with new information.
A god idea in logically unverifiable; it cannot be falsified. It gets tossed.
It isn’t that difficult to understand.
Religion fails.
#6 Olemanrunin (Guest) on Wednesday October 06, 2010 at 10:51am
The human soul… God’s interface
God is about spiritual, soul, emotional—- wholistic; humanity. What is sacred?
Check out—-
Tim Jackson studies the links between lifestyle, societal values and the environment to question the primacy of economic growth.
#7 JeffBro on Wednesday October 06, 2010 at 8:41pm
#2 VeridicusX on Wednesday October 06, 2010 at 5:51am
JeffBro #1,
You said: ”—So even if science suggests the need for an “explanation” involving a supernatural creator, common sense says it is not rational? So much for your scientific method.”
Science relies on Methodological Naturalism, that is, Physical Evidence And Reasoned Logic (PEARL).
So science couldn’t suggest magic or superstition as an explanation.
—That was in response to this paragraph, a direct quote from the article:
A supernatural God could not be any sort of rational explanation even if science seemed to need
supplementation. An “explanation” involving a
supernatural creator would require too many violations of common sense rationalityI actualy read that wrong initially, Ironicaly, my reply still works. It still says the same thing, just in a different manor than I first percieved it to.
If science or any naturalistic evidence (science) needed a supplemental explanation, what other possible explanatiion might there be? This paragraph certainly infers the potential for non-scientific explanation. For science to need supplementation, that supplementation would have to exist outside of the scope of science. Funny that. What other supplement could there be outside of science but God? Everything else should have a scientific explanation.
Supernatural means non-physical.
<ul>
<li>Non-physical means no potential or actual mass, energy or dimensionality.
<li>No dimensionalityThis article clearly equates God to supernatural. What this means is this article is not limiting the supernatural to your specific definition, or this article is using the word supernatural to be deliberatly misleading.
The fact of this god’s existence is something independent of its volition. It would have had to exist before it existed in order to create itself.
What is more believable, that a God or a physical universe fit that description? I guess it’s just a matter of what one wants to believe since there is no evidence to prove either. Niether can be said to be logical as well.
#5 Rem on Wednesday October 06, 2010 at 10:34am
At Jeffbro:
Science offers an explanation that can be verified. Secular knowledge is vast because it offers no absolutes. It therefore can bend with new information.
A god idea in logically unverifiable; it cannot be falsified. It gets tossed.
It isn’t that difficult to understand.
Religion fails.
We, to date, are unable to verify any explanation of the origin of the (Big Bang) universe. It is possible that verification is beyond the scope of achievable science and we may never be able to explain our origins. Therefore we should toss nothing until a definate undeniable explanation is found. Any scientist worth his/her salt will not just toss out unknowns. Only a ‘scientist’ looking to fulfill a personal agenda would do that.A God explanation is infinitly more vast than any secular explanation. With all this talk about science, which I have a lot of respect for, I keep hearing about Methodological Naturalism, being, Physical Evidence And Reasoned Logic.
Logic would tell you to not toss any possible explanation until all possible attempts are made to verify said explanation.
#8 JeffBro on Wednesday October 06, 2010 at 11:39pm
It is enough to say at this point that the supernaturalist is too hasty by giving up on naturalistic explanations for the universe. Unable to first show that our universe or Nature as a whole requires an explanation, supernaturalism’s God “explanation” is not needed.
A supernaturalist gives up on science too hastily…
Science may show that no explanation is needed in the first place…
Sooo… Gives up on science too hastily, science shows no explanation is needed… Is that not giving up on science to hastily?
Science may show that no explanation is needed in the first place, or science will figure out how entirely naturalistic explanations are quite sufficient
We are to withhold judgement until we have evidence but the author is willing to call belief in God an “Illogical and fraudulent rationalization” Thats making judgement without evidence. To not believe is one thing, To flat out call believing fraudulent is clearly making judgement without evidence. The author is clearly a hypocrite
#9 olvlzl (Guest) on Thursday October 07, 2010 at 4:20am
And yet Stephen Hawking seems to believe that gravity existed before the universe did. Makes you wonder how.
Reason is the product of human experience, it is derived from our experience of the physical universe. The typical materialist, also being a reductionist, believes that the ultimate expression of reason is found in science when it’s, actually, the other way around. The only reason that anything in science makes any sense is because it’s in accord with our normal experience. I suspect that’s why Feynman notably doubted that anyone understood quantum physics. It’s no less of a mystery what the ultimate source of logic and mathematics is than it is what the origin of the physical universe is. And, in the most trendy topics in theoretical physics, all the rage among new atheists of my acquaintance, the results aren’t much different from theology.
Your cartoon of the panorama of theological thought is absurd reduction out of opportunism and self-service. Any religious person with any level of sophistication would have no problem pointing out that it doesn’t have much to do with what they really believe, though I’m sure it satisfies the self-regard of new atheists.
#10 VeridicusX on Friday October 08, 2010 at 1:02pm
JeffBro #7
I said:
<blockquote>
“Assume a creator god [apophatic or otherwise].The fact of this god’s existence is something independent of its volition. It would have had to exist before it existed in order to create itself.”
</blockqoute>You said:
<blockquote>
“What is more believable, that a God or a physical universe fit that description? I guess it’s just a matter of what one wants to believe since there is no evidence to prove either. Niether can be said to be logical as well.”
</blockqoute>What you or I want to believe is irrelevant. Start where you will, with nature or gods. I started here with an unnamed “creator god”.
This simple argument logically excludes all supernatural gods. This is not a matter of private opinion or of waiting for any gods to be proven.
It is here simply shown that nature precedes personal beings and that all personal beings are contingent and subject to the ways of nature.
Here it is again ...
The idea of a creator god is self-refuting.
If we conjecture a creator god we must accept that it has properties - “existence”, “deity”, “personhood”, “creativity” - that it did not create. It would have had to exist before it existed in order to create them!
This means that what is possible, probable, necessary and contingent exists “in some sense anterior to”[1] or independently of this creator god.
Therefore, reality and its modal properties is necessarily independent of any beings.
Reworded, the bare fact of reality and all its possibilities is necessarily independent of any being.
Just to be clear, every possibility exists without the intervention of this creator god or of any other being.
In other words, “Every possible state of affairs exists without the “free will” intervention of any being - every possible world including this actual one.”
So, analysis of the *“creator god”* conjecture refutes the idea of “creators” (in the theistic sense), “free will” (in the religio-magical sense), “gods” (in the supernatural sense) and indeed the supernatural in any sense. The logic also excludes the “personhood of reality”, leaving only the sublime mystery and forces of nature.
[1] A form of words used by Bertrand Russell.#11 Jim, Religion is Bullshit on Friday October 08, 2010 at 3:40pm
@Jeffbro:
As god ideas stand, there is no possible way for a scientist to consider it. God ideas are not falsifiable.
When you can present a way to test your god idea, let me know.
Until then, I suggest you learn the difference between rational argumentation and irrational belief.
You christians: you want to use science to prove your position and get frustrated because you can’t. Thus, you attack science. Do you think its not completely obvious what your kind does?
#12 JeffBro on Friday October 08, 2010 at 5:08pm
#9 olvlzl (Guest) on Thursday October 07, 2010 at 4:20am
And yet Stephen Hawking seems to believe that gravity existed before the universe did. Makes you wonder how
I’ll wait until he proves it to wonder how it could be.
#10 Rem on Friday October 08, 2010 at 3:40pm
@Jeffbro:
As god ideas stand, there is no possible way for a scientist to consider it. God ideas are not falsifiable
Thats just ignorant, there are many scientist that are unwilling to rule out the possibility of Gods existence.
When you can present a way to test your god idea, let me know.
Science could potentialy have no other explanation through a process of elimination. Although that would not be absolute proof, it could certainly be a strong indicator.
Closer to reality in the near future, the fact is, God will not be proven by science. Alternatly, you will never prove his existence to yourself if you are not willing to look. It can be very difficult to find some things when you are not looking for them.
Until then, I suggest you learn the difference between rational argumentation and irrational belief.
You are quick to call my argument irrational (it’s not) but are quite willing to ignore the irrationalality of the author. All you are doing here is running your mouth. Why don’t you at least address the points I made that you disagree with, in some sort of intellegent manor.
You christians: you want to use science to prove your position and get frustrated because you can’t. Thus, you attack science. Do you think its not completely obvious what your kind does?
Running your mouth again/still, I seriously doubt you actually have a clue what my ‘position’ is. So don’t try to catagorize me with your narrow little descriptive abilities.
Attack science? Now your stupid is showing. If you have the ability to understand the written word and have taken even the slightest time to read what I have stated, you would make no such comment.
I respect science as much as anyone. More than the author of this twisted article does. Science is constantly finding thing man could not have imagined it would or could ever find. There is no way for man to predict what science will find in the future. To just toss out God on the grounds that is illogical, irrational, and even go so far as to call the belief in a God outright fraudulent goes way beyond just stateing God makes no sense to the author.
I have no problem accepting the author, or anyone else who claims to not believe because it makes no sense to them. To insist science, or any other means will never point to a God, or even if science does point to the need for non-science supplementation. is contradictory and hypocritical.
True there are an endless array of irrational people that call themselves fundamentalist, but there are irrational people everywhere. If you are so bothered by irrationality, you should learn to decipher what is irrational? Ah well, there are plenty just like you amongst ‘your kind’.
#13 JeffBro on Friday October 08, 2010 at 5:15pm
Interesting how some of you have no actual point to make on the topic, and just imagine yourselves to know my science hating kind. Idiots.
#14 olvlzl (Guest) on Saturday October 09, 2010 at 2:29am
You christians: you want to use science to prove your position and get frustrated because you can’t. Thus, you attack science. Do you think its not completely obvious what your kind does? Rem
Well, I don’t happen to be a Christian but I do know that this is the kind of phony scenario that the new atheist faith loves to create in order to dispose of a straw man “Christianity” that doesn’t really exist. That kind of thing goes back at least to Bertrand Russell who, I’d guess, developed it from his reading of Thomas Huxley. What we get today is a dime store version of the same dishonest stereotyping which impresses a group of ignorant people whose greatest faith is in their superiority and genius.
Other than the part of creationism that pretends to do that, the attempts to use science to prove faith was never widespread and pretty much died out by the early 19th century. That is except for the atheistic faith tradition that constantly points to the latest unprovable theory of some theoretical physicist or assertion of figures in the pseudo-science of evo-psy or the latest image from Hubble and claim it as the proof positive of their materialist-scintistic true religion. Staking their claim to owning science in the process. That annoying assertion is one of the most popular superstitions of the new atheists, even hoodwinking some otherwise intelligent scientists who seem to be stunningly ignorant of the history of science and even some of the scientists who new atheists also claim, in complete disregard of the real record.
I look at the new atheist blogs and blog comment and see the only extensive abuse of science in faith outside of the ID industry and the likes of Chopra. Sometimes irony is more effective than falsifiability in determining the validity of a faith tradition.
#15 olvlzl (Guest) on Saturday October 09, 2010 at 2:42am
I’ll wait until he proves it to wonder how it could be.Jeffbro
I think the universe is scheduled to run out by that time.
He’s declared that theoretical physics, at least his branch of it, doesn’t need confirmation in physical evidence which appears will always remain inconveniently unavailable. He also seems to believe they should get an exemption from logic as well. I’d imagine his co-author and those who have endorsed his latest book concur in these assertions of the new, no-evidence required, science. Putting that together with evo-psy which depends, fundamentally, on evidence of behaviors of early humans and animals which is forever lost and can’t be recovered, it appears the new atheists of science are rather unenthusiastic for that evidence stuff, at least other than as a requirement to be made of religious belief. Which is one of the most surprisingly undiscussed aspects of the new atheism.
Holding religious belief to a higher standard of evidence than science, exempting physics from addressing the physical universe. And yet they still tell us we must (dis)believe or we’re unenlightened.
#16 Jim, Religion is Bullshit on Saturday October 09, 2010 at 11:10am
At Jeffbro:
You keep avoiding the question. How would you rationally use a god idea in science. God ideas cannot be falsified; they cannot be tested.
Although some scientists believe in a god or many gods, they do not use them to scientifically explain nature.
There are those who use intelligent design, but as the Dover Case clearly shows, intelligent design is not science, it is religion.
When you can provide a way to falsify a god idea and then provide a way to test a god hypothesis, let me know.
I suspect, however, that you will just continue to rant and provide absolutely no evidence. Go figure.
#17 olvlzl (Guest) on Monday October 11, 2010 at 2:53am
I don’t read anything in JeffBro’s comments that indicate support for the ID industry as exposed in the Dover case. Unless he is and is a proponent of introducing the topic of God into formal science, the use of Dover and ID would appear to be one of those over sited straw men that new atheists are in the habit of hallucinating at their convenience.
I thought the argument made about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was an interesting one which I’m going to look at more. That’s another one the new atheists are always making recourse to so seeing how consistently their faith holds to it could be quite a window into the fad.
If you’re going to live or die by falsifiability you’d better dump Dawkins, Dennett and, sadly, especially Hawking because they peddle huge masses of unfalsifiable assertions and Hawking seems to want to discontinue that theory of scientific validation. NOT that I’m waiting up to see the new atheists achieve logical integrity.
#18 Jim, Religion is Bullshit on Monday October 11, 2010 at 12:18pm
@olvlzl:
The ID comment was made because Jeffbro stated that there are scientists who are believers. His implication was that the use of a god in science is therefore established. The only scientists I know of who use a god in their “science” are creationists and id.
This was a perfectly reasonable inference and counter argument. It seems to me that you’re making the straw man. Surprise there, a christian using a straw man argument.
As to Dawkins, I agree that where he attempts to use science to disprove a god idea is bad science. A god idea is not falsifiable. A god idea also provides no way to test it. Mr Dawkins should just dismiss it as anyone would dismiss the tooth fairy as an explanation for missing teeth.
However, Mr Dawkins is a great biologist. His biological science is sound and important. He has greatly contributed to his profession.
#19 olvlzl (Guest) on Monday October 11, 2010 at 2:36pm
REM, I think the implication comes from you for purposes of convenience, though if JeffBro wants to make that point for the first time he has certainly had the chance. No scientist can “use god” in science any more than they can philosophical materialism or atheism. If you do that you’re not producing science.
My opinion of Dawkins’ work in biology matches Richard Lewontin’s. Story telling isn’t the same thing as finding and analyzing data. Not a single assertion made about the entirely undocumented and forever lost behavior of our ancestors or the ancient species preceding them, is falsifiable, verifiable or having a status more lofty than a convenient guess. Every word of that is made up creation myth. His fall back career in anti-religious bigotry is far less useful than E.O.Wilson’s second career promoting the protection of diversity. The ultra-adaptationists depend on narrative, which suits Dawkins’ talents but the results are just stories.
#20 Jim, Religion is Bullshit on Tuesday October 12, 2010 at 11:10am
olvlzl,
Dawkin’s biology books are great. “The Blind Watch Maker” is a classic, so I have no idea what you’re talking about. I haven’t read,“The Greatest Show on Earth” yet, but I hear it is one of the best synopses on the state of the science of evolution to date.
As to your comment about Jeffbro, it is confused. I have no idea what you’re talking about. That idiot repeatedly complained that scientists aren’t allowed use a god. When I asked him how one would do that given that science requires empirical, testable, falsifiable evidence, I never got an answer. I got waffling from both of you about how scientists don’t use falsifiable data in evolution.
To be clear here, if a human fossil were found in the pre-cambrian, that would pretty much destroy evolutionary theory as we know it. That is one example of why evolution is not logically unverifiable.
When you can provide such an example for a god idea, get back to me. Otherwise, I suggest you go to some idiot creationist site where the participants are less informed and more amenable to your position.
christian = anti-intellectual
#21 olvlzl (Guest) on Tuesday October 12, 2010 at 11:41am
Christian = anti-intellectual.
You seem to have overlooked a number of centuries of Western culture. I’d love to know what the new atheists would do without William of Ockham, for a start.
Your statement about evolution is so bizarre that it’s pretty sure that you don’t know much about it, which, on reflection, shouldn’t surprise me. Evolution is the single most documented phenomenon in all of science. It’s massively documented in the fossil record, in the study of genetics and just about every other possible way. To think that the ideas scientists have developed about the enormous time span of live on Earth, including an incomprehensibly large number of individual animals and the far larger number of pertainant incidents and factors in the lives of those individuals, is anything like complete after the mere hundred fifty years of the formal study of it is absurd. If we don’t end up killing ourselves with science, technology and commerce evolutionary science will almost certainly look little like it does today, Richard Dawkins will probably be an obscure footnote about a once fashionable dead end in that study.
#22 Jim, Religion is Bullshit on Tuesday October 12, 2010 at 1:13pm
olvlzl:
You might want to remember some basic historical facts:
It was the christian emperor Justinian I, with the encouragement of the christian church, who closed Plato’s academy in 529.
It was Urban VIII who forced Galeleo to recant.
These are just a few examples of profound christian anti-intellectualism.
As to my comment on evolution, if you don’t understand falsification or logically unverifiable ideas and their relationship to science, then you’re not going to be able to engage in any intellectual discussion.
#23 olvlzl (Guest) on Wednesday October 13, 2010 at 3:08am
Rem, I see you’ve been reading the product of Prometheus.
If it wasn’t for their preservation by Islamic and Christian scholars what we have of the ancient Greek culture wouldn’t be here. The actions of one Roman emperor doesn’t negate that fact, though I’m not an enormous fan of Platonism, in any case. I’m surprised at its popularity with many new atheists, considering it’s essentially metaphysical content, though I expect they mostly are quite ignorant of that, using the words but signifying only as much as they’ve gained from the popular polemics they’ve digested.
Galileo’s development of the Copernican system was the product of a Catholic scholar and scientist developed from the product of a Catholic scholar. I’d imagine you wouldn’t know that because you’ve never, actually, bothered to look at the biography of Galileo or his writings pertinent to his thinking on the relationship between science and religion.
William of Ockham was a Franciscan of the strict observance, his razor, or at least the phrase “Occam’s razor” is one of the favorite, generally badly cited, phrases of the new atheism.Science, mathematics, logic, literature, music, philosophy, etc. in the Western tradition, are largely the product of religious Christian and Jewish intellectuals. A line that continues up to this day.
But I generally find that the new atheists, believing they’ve found the one, true religion, can’t be bothered with little things like accurate history, biography, etc. It is a shallow, bigoted, intellectual fad that, in its rigid ideology, is quite anti-intellectual, itself.
#24 olvlzl (Guest) on Wednesday October 13, 2010 at 3:33am
REM, about the theory of scientific knowledge and the position of falsifiability in it, go read something outside of the polemics if the new atheism on it. It’s a theory that has never had 100% agreement, even among scientists with established careers or even all philosophers of science.
I’m not aware of the strongest, informed, proponents of the idea believing that it was applicable to all of life, most of which hasn’t been or will never be the subject of real science, though the so-called sciences are always pretending they can do that. I’d love to watch the rigorous attempt to apply principles of falsifiability to the social sciences and the invasion of that muddle into the real science of biology. I’ll make you a bet that absolutely nothing of evo-psy would be left at the end of a rigorous application of that other mainstay of the new atheist erudition, such as it is. And neither would much of the most fashionable newest theoretical physics. Which is why some of the most intelligent of those making a living off of it want exemptions from evidence and, stunningly enough, logic. Physics that isn’t about the physical universe, if you’d thought you’d seen it all already.
#25 JeffBro on Wednesday October 13, 2010 at 10:47pm
#18 Rem on Monday October 11, 2010 at 12:18pm
@olvlzl:
The ID comment was made because Jeffbro stated that there are scientists who are believers. His implication was that the use of a god in science is therefore established. The only scientists I know of who use a god in their “science” are creationists and id.
Not even scientist who are believers use God in their science. God is not a physical being, that would make no sense.
You said:
As god ideas stand, there is no possible way for a scientist to consider it. God ideas are not falsifiableI replied:
Thats just ignorant, there are many scientist that are unwilling to rule out the possibility of Gods existence.Just made a simple statement. You seem to think that all scientist must disbelieve in the possibility of a God. You also seem to believe that my stating otherwise implies that said scientist use God for science. That is simply not true.
Try to leave the wacky tobaccy alone before you read Rem. I made a statement about scientist who believe in a God. I never stated a single thing about them using God in their science. Nor have I suggested that science could prove an existence of God.
I would not be surprised to find out that God is a rather creative scientist though. As I have previously stated, I have no disrespect for science. No matter how we got here, there had to be a mechanism.
I did suggest that if we could prove present scientific (physical) theorys to be false, a God would then become much more believable to present Atheists.
I suppose you believe astronomers have found planets in other solar systems? Nobody has ever seen them. How do we know they are there? By indirect observations. We use science to come to the conclusion that the solar systems star is wobbling because of rotating planets, we have learned enough science to rule out other possibilities.
In much the same sense, If we can prove the universe could not have always existed, and that the mass and gas that makes up the universe could not have been introduced from nothing, with no outside influance, then we would certainly have to consider the event may have been the creation of a non-physical infinite being. If we come to the conclusion that the universe could not exist without the creation of God, God has become falsifiable.
A god idea is not falsifiable. A god idea also provides no way to test it.
Not falsifiable?
Quote from Wiki:For example, “no human lives forever” is not falsifiable since it does not seem possible to prove wrong. In theory, one would have to observe a human living forever to falsify that claim. In contrast, “All humans live forever” is falsifiable: the presentation of just one dead human could prove the statement wrong. Importantly, we may never find a dead human if that claim is true, but regardless that claim is falsifiable because we can at least imagine a finding that would prove it wrong. Some statements are only falsifiable in theory, while others are even falsifiable in practice (i.e. testable). For example, “it will be raining here in one billion years” is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically so.
Falsifability is not a absolute, though you seem to hang on to it like it’s the only big word that you know. Falsifiablity changes with knowledge and scientific method, through either increase or decrease thereof.
Don’t matter, God is falsifiable. It is testable, we are testing it right now, don’t know how long it will take to get the results but one day the results will be in and we will know. You yourself have proven man can imagine what it would be like if God were not real and feel so much so that you can state that there is definatly no God.
You and others like you have already proved God falsifiable, and have gone so far as to claim him false. Just as the author of this artical has done, determined God as fraudulant. How the hell much more falsifiable do you want?
As to your comment about Jeffbro, it is confused. I have no idea what you’re talking about. That idiot repeatedly complained that scientists aren’t allowed use a god
You are confused. You have no idea because it is you that is an idiot. Point out where I complained that scientists aren’t allowed use a god. When you can’t, just shut up. I never stated anything of the sort. Do not put words into my mouth.
Thats just a convenient way to avoid the fact that you have no intelligent response.That idiot repeatedly complained that scientists aren’t allowed use a god. When I asked him how one would do that given that science requires empirical, testable, falsifiable evidence, I never got an answer. I got waffling from both of you about how scientists don’t use falsifiable data in evolution.
I have repeatedly addressed that question, here it again:
If we can prove the universe could not have always existed, and that the mass and gas that makes up the universe could not have been introduced from nothing, with no outside influance, then we would certainly have to consider the event may have been the creation of a non-physical infinite being.
If that is too difficult to understand, I can’t make it any easier. So just try to read it slowly, and don’t smoke anything before you do…
No wonder you are thinking about waffles.about how scientists don’t use falsifiable data in evolution
Never stated this either. You are clearly grasping at those straws. If you can’t address what I have actually stated, do not reply to my posts. You just look stupid when you evade my points, grasping at straws with lies about what I have posted.
#26 JeffBro on Wednesday October 13, 2010 at 10:52pm
I stated:
Try to leave the wacky tobaccy alone before you read Rem. I made a statement about scientist who believe in a God. I never stated a single thing about them using God in their science. Nor have I suggested that science could prove an existence of God.Edit:
The last sentence is not completely accurate. I should have stated: Nor have I suggested that science could ‘directly’ prove an existence of God.#27 olvlzl (Guest) on Thursday October 14, 2010 at 7:58am
I would agree that people are within their rights to interpret what they can learn from science to support their belief. Religion is far larger than science, it can encompass all of science but science can’t encompass religion because of its formal requirements. As Eddington pointed out even the most pious businessman who believed their fortune was divinely granted wouldn’t include God in their balance sheet. But it’s no different for religious people to use science to support their beliefs than for materialists to use science to support their beliefs. But in either case they’ve ceased to do science when they do it and in neither case should they be surprised when people without their personal experience don’t see it the same way.
What is shocking and scandalous is to see the deliberate attempt by fundamentalists on both sides of the belief question trying to pretend their faith is the same thing as science. And especially to see figures in science who don’t realize the difference.
#28 Jim, Religion is Bullshit on Thursday October 14, 2010 at 2:11pm
@olvlzl and jeffbro:
Suggesting that I’m stoned isn’t much of a defense.
Evidently you haven’t thought through what I wrote.
I wrote that with a god idea being falsifiable or with a god idea that doesn’t have any way to test it, how would a scientist use a god idea to explain the behavior of matter.
I would like to point out that neither of you answered this question.
As to religion being larger than science, that is just a bunch of bullshit.
Science has allowed us to grow more crops, fight disease, travel to the moon, etc.
What has religion done except for making people anti-intellectual and rather dumb.
I suggest any secularist to ignore your claims. All you do is whine.
When you can provide a way for science to use a god idea, let us all know.
Until then, gripe on a creationist site; that is where both of you belong.
#29 Jim, Religion is Bullshit on Thursday October 14, 2010 at 2:11pm
That should have read, that a god idea can’t be falsified.
#30 JeffBro on Thursday October 14, 2010 at 10:31pm
Suggesting that you are stoned is not my defense, suggesting that you are stoned is a suggestion for your defense, as to why you can’t understand anything. If you are stateing that you are not stoned, then you have no excuse other than just being an idiot.
I wrote that with a god idea being falsifiable or with a god idea that doesn’t have any way to test it, how would a scientist use a god idea to explain the behavior of matter.
Who the hell is asking a scientist to use a God idea to explain the behavior of matter? First you want us to explain how science can be used to explain God, when science is unable to directly prove anything outside of the physical. Now you twist it around and attempt to make us believe you have been asking how a God idea can explain the behavior of matter.
Perhaps if you were not so flustered about losing your patheticaly weak little argument using the one big word you know, you could keep your delusions straight.
What has religion done except for making people anti-intellectual and rather dumb.
You mean besides being the dominate figure with mankind since the beginning of recorded time? You are not looking so smart yourself.
I suggest any secularist to ignore your claims. All you do is whine.
You haven’t got a single intelligent thing to say on the topic but yet have the nerve to expect others to ignore all that, and then ignore the truth.
The truth is, no origin of the universe is any less or any more falsifiable than another by science as we know it at this moment. We barely know the basics of the workings of our Sun. Science can’t even agree wholey on how the Grand Canyon was formed.
The truth is, John Shook is a hypocrite who claims to demand evidentiary proof of everything and then flatly calls the unwillingness to deny the possibility of a God without proof fraudulent. Then goes on to say something stupid like “When God comes calling, don’t answer”
Now let me get this straight. If it is God calling, not answering would be flatly ignoring indisputable proof of Gods existence. John Shook is a fraud. He is actualy begging people not to believe in God even if there is indisputable proof of God because he can’t face his own denial alone.
When you can provide a way to falsify a god idea and then provide a way to test a god hypothesis, let me know
You claim there is no God, then try to put limitations on God. It is easy for you to spew out the only ‘argument’ you know, falsifiability, because you keep trying to limit God to physical manorisms. How are you going to try and limit something you claim to not believe in? talk about illogical and irrational.
You like to think of yourself as an intellectual, you are no more than a blind puppet of a fraud.
#31 olvlzl (Guest) on Friday October 15, 2010 at 3:46am
REM, I didn’t speculate on why you were making no sense, I just pointed out that you are uninformed, which is typical of those following the new atheist fad.
You, as have a number of the big names associated with CSICOP and its many descendents, set up a phony intellectual scheme to try to apply the contemporary standards of proof that are supposed to be used in science- though as my examples show, aren’t really universally followed in what gets called science, especially by the big wigs of the new atheism—in order to mock and allegedly dispose of peoples’ belief in God.
“God” has been used to mean a huge array of ideas. Just for example, everything from the super human but still very human “god” of fundamentalism to the entirely non-human “god” of the least fundamentalist of believers. And, in any case, all you can dispose of are ideas that people have about God, God being, by definition, uncontainable in human experience. It’s possible to come up with an effective refutation of some kinds of assertions made about God, but you haven’t disposed of God anymore than disposing of ideas within evolution overturns the massively obvious fact that evolution happens.
Given sufficient evidence available and depending on what a specific religious believe holds, you can use science to investigate a limited range of things asserted as religious belief. Nothing that falls outside of the requirements to do science and for which you can’t maintain a chain of logical address cannot be disposed of with science or any of the other processes that the new atheists pin their hopes on. It’s very possible to discredit the idea of traditional biblical creationism with science, and that has been done. But the use of Genesis as a science and history text wasn’t the universal practice of religious people anyway. Not all religious people idolize the book in the way that became common among some branches of protestantism. There are other beliefs, the Virgin Birth, as an example of one I don’t believe in, which are defined in such a way that it is impossible to use science to dispose of it. There is no physical evidence to look at, it is defined as a unique event so the common contemporary dodge using parthenogenesis can’t touch it (though it’s useful to weed out the new atheists who don’t know what parthenogenesis means) and it is not held to have happened within the normal course of the natural universe. All of which put it out of reach for science, though interesting comparisons can be made out of history and literature. But since the cultists of scientism disdain the use of other forms of scholarship, they’re not satisfied with that.
The new atheists, like all fundamentalists, have a character flaw that makes them intolerant of other people who have ideas that aren’t the same as theirs. They seem to be stuck in the mindset of a three year old bent on having everything their way whereas most people grow out of that and can accept that other people can have their own ideas unanswerable to them. Since you wanted some kind of analysis of why I think you’re wrong, that’s it.
#32 olvlzl (Guest) on Friday October 15, 2010 at 3:57am
What has religion done except for making people anti-intellectual and rather dumb. REM
I’m beginning to find the irony machine that the new atheism is mildly funny. You, clearly, are as ignorant about what creationism is as you are about evolution. Your typical new atheist skims a book by Carl Sagan and figure they’re a power ranger of logic. They look at one by Dawkins and think they’ve moved on into an even loftier region of thought and they’ve mastered some imaginary universal refutation of religion. They might look at Harris and Hitchens and believe they’ve mastered history. Indeed, I’ve recently been saddened to see an eminent physicist I used to respect endorse just that curriculum. But they’re just a bunch of post adolescents in a rather nasty high school style clique. I’ve known many atheists who would probably agree with much if not all of what I just wrote.
#33 Jim, Religion is Bullshit on Friday October 15, 2010 at 11:25am
@olvlzl and jeffbro:
I suspect that you two are one in the same person. I guess pretending to be two people makes you feel smart. Hey, whatever works; you definitely need the confidence.
As to christianity being anti-intellectual, besides the closing of the academy by Justinian and Urban threatening Galileo, there was the Scopes Monkey trial, where christians tried to keep evolution out of the schools and succeeded. More recently, there is the christian school board in Texas that is trying to get Thomas Jefferson out of the history books; they’re rather irked that he coined the term separation of church and state. There was Dover trial, where idiot creationists tried to get intelligent design taught as science. Then, or course, my favorite: the flat earth society, which persisted until the 1980s.
As to the Muslims spreading secular knowledge: for a brief period, muslims spread Greek philosophy. But, ultimately, secular knowledge was abandoned and only religious knowledge was allowed. Typical: any theocratic state(s) end up outlawing knowledge that contradicts religious beliefs.
As to insulting my education, I have an undergraduate and graduate degree in history. I’m well read and actually understand the scientific method. Too bad you don’t.
As to misunderstanding creationism: what is to misunderstand? It’s a bunch of religious opinion that has no scientific foundation. Every time creationism or its twin, intelligent design, goes to the courts, it is found to be a religious belief, not science.
Anyway, if you haven’t noticed, this post is now dead. You have thrown your fit and no one really cares. On a site for secular humanists, how many here do you think care about your ideas. I would estimate a big zero.
Your kind are no different than the flat earthers: they whined and whined that science had misled the public. You see, according to the bible, the earth is flat. Since this book is never wrong, all of those observations about a spherical earth revolving around the sun must be wrong.
You are no different.
Go ahead and rant some more you idiot. I don’t care. The West is becoming ever more secular, and no one of intelligence cares about what your kind thinks.
This will be my last post on this thread. You will, no doubt, use both of your identities and write some stuff as lame as before.
Best in your endeavors,
Rem#34 olvlzl (Guest) on Friday October 15, 2010 at 12:56pm
REM, read a few books that aren’t by the Bright lites of the new atheism. That’s just a really sad display of the regurgitation of ignorance.
#35 JeffBro on Friday October 15, 2010 at 10:15pm
#33 Rem on Friday October 15, 2010 at 11:25am
@olvlzl and jeffbro:
I suspect that you two are one in the same person. I guess pretending to be two people makes you feel smart. Hey, whatever works; you definitely need the confidence.
Ha, wrong, but thanks for the compliment. I am competely surprised that you would think highly enough of my statements to be on a level of someone who is so obviously better read than I. One of the differences between olvlzl and you, is that olvlzl actually understands what olvlzl has read and can differentiate reality from fantasy.
As to christianity being anti-intellectual, besides the closing of the academy by Justinian and Urban threatening Galileo, there was the Scopes…
Your point? No one has denied the radical extremists of fundamentalism, or of any other belief. Pointing this out is but smoke and mirrors. It has nothing to do with the topic of discussion. Although I understand you can’t seem to follow the topic.
Then, or course, my favorite: the flat earth society, which persisted until the 1980s.
From wiki:
The modern organization was founded by Englishman Samuel Shenton in 1956,[4] and later led by Charles K. Johnson, who based the organization in his home in Lancaster, California. The formal society was inactive after Johnson’s death in 2001, but was recently resurrected by its new president Daniel Shenton.[5]...Appearently The Flat Earthers are still around. More misinformation from you.
I’m well read and actually understand the scientific method. Too bad you don’t.
Wrong again. I understand scientific method, again, no one is disputing scientific method. Enough of the strawman ‘arguments’, and you want to be taken seriously!
As to misunderstanding creationism: what is to misunderstand? It’s a bunch of religious opinion that has no scientific foundation. Every time creationism or its twin, intelligent design, goes to the courts, it is found to be a religious belief, not science.
The courts say abortion is not murder too. Sorry but a fertilized egg is a human being. It is fertilized, therefore human. Being: To exist. Therefore a human being. The court does not decide what is and is not, the court decides what is law, right or wrong. The court will not decide if God exists or not.
Creationism, intelligent design, the courts find it to be religious belief, not science. That is a irrational and illogical argument, not to (again) mention irrelevant. The courts are full of idiots (see ridiculous lawsuits), the courts don’t know their ass from their head, though thats understandable since the two are often in the same place.
Anyway, if you haven’t noticed, this post is now dead. You have thrown your fit and no one really cares.
And yet more misinformation, the post is NOT dead. No one is commenting because they must realize they have nothing to counter the points made against the irrationalization and illogic of atheism. So long as this post is not deleted this post will live, for people to read and contemplate, you are again wrong.
On a site for secular humanists, how many here do you think care about your ideas. I would estimate a big zero.
You like to speak for others? That is not wise. This site is all cozy and calm so long as nobody with an opposing viewpoint comes along, then you get all defensive and well, irrational.
Anyone truly looking for truth will welcome opposing viewpoints and willingly discuss the points, then offer counterpoints. Instead you are stuck in a pathetic cycle of ignoring points made, misquoting said points, then spewing out strawmen arguments. Typical behavior of someone who has already lost an argument but refuses to admit it.
Your kind are no different than the flat earthers: they whined and whined that science had misled the public.
Damn, more misinformation, This article (Atheism) is using science in an attemt to convince that God belief is irrational, illogical, and fraudulant. Again, it is one thing to state your beliefs and to explain why you believe it. It is another thing altogether to call opposing belief fraudulant. That is using science (and fraud) to mislead the public. Get your accusations straight.
You see, according to the bible, the earth is flat.
Care to point out where The Bible states anything of the sort. More misinformation. You are just an endless stream of lies and misinformation.
Go ahead and rant some more you idiot. I don’t care. The West is becoming ever more secular, and no one of intelligence cares about what your kind thinks
It does not bother you that you publicaly state such blatently ignorant rubbish? No one of intelligence? Certainly no one of YOUR intelligence! Your intelligence must be that of a small child to think that. More misinformation…
what you must mean is that no one of YOUR limited intelligence is capable of understanding what I think. Otherwise, how do you explain your continuous refusal to even attempt to address my points? Oh, yeah thats right you have no answers so you evade.
This will be my last post on this thread. You will, no doubt, use both of your identities and write some stuff as lame as before.
This is based on what I believe to be an accurate translation of the above quote:
So you are finally taking my advice to stop posting because you can not intelligently address opposing points. It is good that you can finally admit you do not know the answers. If you don’t know, just say you don’t know, that is so much smarter than continuing with an argument you are ill equipped to argue.#36 Tristan (Guest) on Tuesday October 26, 2010 at 9:28am
I just thought that I would bring attention to the spread of science and preservation of ancient Greek texts through the Arab Caliphates (mainly the Abbasids), and say that the ideas of math and science that were introduced by the arabs at that time were more directly taken from observation of Indian sciences of the time and that systems of higher education that were created and acceptance of these scientific methods came through the expansion of the Abbasid empire into Central Asia where a large Buddhist population came into contact with and spread ideologies with the Arabs who lived there. (Beckwith, 2009) I’m not really saying this to dispute anything, just to say that these ideas were not so much spread by religious people or due to religion, but rather due to the melange of cultures and varying philosophies that the Eurasian continent experienced in the Early Middle Ages.
#37 Tristan (Guest) on Tuesday October 26, 2010 at 9:31am
What I meant by not dispute anything is I’m not disputing God or science’s legitimacy but just clarifying connections between peoples and intellectual movements.
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
dimanche 5 juin 2011
A Creator God cannot be a Reasonable Explanation | Center for Inquiry
Inscription à :
Publier les commentaires (Atom)
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire