Currently Questioning Religious Beliefs

[polytropos]

Some remarks by Peter van Inwagen are relevant and worth quoting at length:

The preferred universe of the Enlightenment was constructed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It is infinite in space and time, and it consists entirely of matter in motion. This universe was incompatible with the content of nineteenth-century science, even at the beginning of the century, and science became less and less hospitable to it as the century progressed. Nevertheless, this universe–that is, this picture of the universe–persisted in the popular imagination (which is what it was designed for) throughout the century, and it can be found in some circles even today. Today this picture is simply impossible. Present-day science gives us a universe that began to exist a specific number of years ago and may well be spatially finite; it is moreover governed by laws that contain a lot of apparently arbitrary numbers, and if these numbers were only a bit different, there would be no life: only a vanishingly small region in the space of all possible sets of physical laws is occupied by sets of laws that permit the existence of life, and the one universe there is is governed by a set of laws that falls within that minuscule region. It is of course possible to explain these things in terms other than those of theism. My point is that the Christian is right at home in such a universe, whereas the adherent of the Enlightenment would much prefer the universe of nineteenth-century popular science. That, after all, is the universe that was constructed by the imagination of the Enlightenment when the facts still allowed that imagination free play. But it is the universe that was constructed to fit the imaginations of Christians (unless its source was actually in divine revelation) that turned out to be consistent with what science has discovered. …

Coming down to more modern times, cosmologically speaking, what the Enlightenment would really like is a universe bursting with life, and chock-full of rational species. But no one knows anything to speak of about the origin of life on the earth except that it is at present one of the great scientific mysteries. There is, therefore, no scientific reason to think that life is something that happens “automatically.” It is pretty certain that there is no life elsewhere in the solar system, and the gleanings of the “Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence” have not been very encouraging to those who would like to think of the Orion Spur (our own little galactic neighborhood) as festooned with technological civilizations like ornaments on the Christmas tree it rather resembles. When these facts are combined with the fact that rationality has evolved only once on the Earth (as opposed to forty times for vision and four for flight; and each of these evolutionary inventions is spread over hundreds of thousands of species, while rationality’s meager score is one), and the fact that this event would not have happened if a comet or asteroid had not happened to cause the mass extinctions of sixty-five million years ago, it begins to seem unlikely that the Enlightenment will get what it wants in this area. The Christian, on the other hand, is right at home in a universe in which humanity is the only rational species, or is one of a small handful of them.

The Enlightenment would like it if humanity were continuous with other terrestrial animals, or at least very much like some of them. The Enlightenment would like this so much that it has actually managed to convince itself that it is so. It has even managed to convince itself that modern science has proved this. I remember reading a very amusing response made by David Berlinski to Stephen Jay Gould’s statement that modern science was rapidly removing every excuse that anyone had ever had for thinking that we were much different from our closest primate relatives. Berlinski pointed out that you can always make two things sound similar (or “different only in degree”) if you describe them abstractly enough: “What Canada geese do when they migrate is much like what we do when we jump over a ditch: in each case, an organism’s feet leave the ground, it moves through the air, and it comes down some distance away. The difference between the two accomplishments is only a matter of degree.” I am also put in mind of a cartoon Phillip Johnson once showed me: A hostess is introducing a human being and a chimp at a cocktail party. “You two will have a lot to talk about,” she says, “–you share 99 percent of your DNA.” I’m sorry if I seem to be making a joke of this, but … well, I am making of joke of this. I admit it. Why shouldn’t I? The idea that there isn’t a vast, radical difference, a chasm, between human beings and all other terrestrial species is simply a very funny idea. It’s like the idea that Americans have a fundamental constitutional right to own automatic assault weapons: its consequences apart, it’s simply a very funny idea, and there’s nothing much one can do about it except to make a joke of it. You certainly wouldn’t want to invest much time in an argument with someone who would believe it in the first place. (Quam Dilecta)

Not hugely charitable at the end there. But the point holds: science can reveal a universe hospitable to theism, but specific discoveries will not prove the existence of God to the satisfaction of someone opposed to believing. (Though science can also uncover general regularities rooted in the nature of the universe, which just provides grist for the Fifth Way’s mill.)

EDIT: OP, I am also thinking that van Inwagen’s essay probably speaks to a lot of what you are thinking about now. It is a good read.

 

[balto]

I remember being in the OP’s position a couple of years ago. Here’s another book that got me started in understanding classical arguments for God’s existence: New Proofs for the Existence of God. Some of them aren’t actually “new” proofs but are versions of various proofs from Aquinas’ Five Ways restated in modern terminology.

If your concept of God is that of some anthropomorphic, cosmic designer or some cosmic programmer and the universe is the Matrix, then you have the wrong idea. Fr. Spitzer’s book mentioned above helped me to at least get on the right track as understanding God as not one being among many, not even a supreme being, but Being Itself, He whose nature it is to exist, who is necessary for grounding every contingent thing in existence. It also helped me to understand that God is not exceedingly complex (a common erroneous view), but metaphysically simple (not composed of parts in any way) and unchanging. I second polytropos’ recommendations as well. Eventually you’ll need to get into philosophy and will want to understand Aquinas and his metaphysical framework. A daily dose of Prof. Feser’s blog will help with that.

 

[opusAquinas]

Re-read the New Testament. Re-read the gospel of John. Does does this sound like a lie?

 

[Sochi]

Re-read the New Testament. Re-read the gospel of John. Does does this sound like a lie?

Of course not. Not any more than a good historical novel is a lie, or a good movie “based on actual events.”

 

[Sochi]

… A daily dose of Prof. Feser’s blog will help with that.

It would seem to me that those sorts of “proofs” are in the mind of the beholder who wishes corroboration for what they already have a propensity to believe, as distinct from know. The fantasy of ID is a good example of this. They for sure are not proofs in the sense that geometric axioms or mathematics have proofs irrefutable and used by anyone, regardless of belief. Any “proof” of a god fails the test of universal applicability. This is primarily because they start with faulty premises that have subtext assumptions. The closest that something might come to a “proof” is an individual discovery based on a specific methodology of introspection. And that last line suggests that belief might well be dependent on a daily dose of medication. Hardly something that is self evident and self sustaining, yes?

 

[polytropos]

It would seem to me that those sorts of “proofs” are in the mind of the beholder who wishes corroboration for what they already have a propensity to believe, as distinct from know. The fantasy of ID is a good example of this. They for sure are not proofs in the sense that geometric axioms or mathematics have proofs irrefutable and used by anyone, regardless of belief. Any “proof” of a god fails the test of universal applicability. This is primarily because they start with faulty premises that have subtext assumptions. The closest that something might come to a “proof” is an individual discovery based on a specific methodology of introspection. And that last line suggests that belief might well be dependent on a daily dose of medication. Hardly something that is self evident and self sustaining, yes?

This seems to me to be a variety of the genetic fallacy. And unless you endorse philosophical nihilism and regard all philosophical projects as basically hopeless, then it seems to me like it is probably inconsistent.

There are virtually no philosophical problems with “universally applicable” resolutions. None. Take any debate in philosophy: realization physicalism versus supervenience physicalism, realism versus nominalism, theism versus atheism, mathematical platonism versus instrumentalism, etc.

People believe and defend what they believe. The goal is to offer sound arguments for one’s position, if it is indeed correct. Lack of consensus does not imply that proofs are in the mind of the beholder; it implies that there is disagreement that is tough to settle.

 

[orang]

Sadly, if the phone is never picked up and a number dialed there will be no God relative to the understandings. If there is no dial tone then just plug it in. Unfortunately not saying your prayers is not not saying your prayers but ignoring the phone and sometimes pulling the plug right out of the wall. Life is not a simple thing but there is one thing man knows, the most in-interfered with state of existing, free from all the distracting surviving competing nonsense “within the living out in the species, the youngsters” have no problem at all understanding and hearing the dial tone. Its as simple as that, don’t say your prayers and its left with the immediate material survival. Nothing we can do about it as far as discourse…That there is a Creator or God of a mysterious nature isn’t a possibility, it is apparent.

 

[balto]

It would seem to me that those sorts of “proofs” are in the mind of the beholder who wishes corroboration for what they already have a propensity to believe, as distinct from know.

I’m not sure why you are trying to convince us that we’re wrong if “proofs are in the mind of the beholder.” To which objective standard are you appealing?

The fantasy of ID is a good example of this. They for sure are not proofs in the sense that geometric axioms or mathematics have proofs irrefutable and used by anyone, regardless of belief. Any “proof” of a god fails the test of universal applicability. This is primarily because they start with faulty premises that have subtext assumptions. The closest that something might come to a “proof” is an individual discovery based on a specific methodology of introspection.

False. Aquinas’ First Way is predicated on the reality of change in nature and that things undergo change because there something in their nature that allows for potential change and an external actualizing agent that reduces this potentiality to act, leading to the necessity of an unchangeable Changer that is the ultimate cause of all change. The Second Way is predicated on the self-evident fact that contingent realities do not come into existence from nothing and for no reason. What are the subtext assumptions here? If you want to deny these arguments, fine, but simply arguing generically that they have faulty premises without actually identifying any doesn’t cut it.

And I’m not sure why you mentioned ID theory except to try to malign the theist’s position. I am not an ID theorist and neither is Feser. There is good reason to believe that Aquinas would not have been one either. Classical theistic arguments are not probabilistic arguments like ID theory.

And that last line suggests that belief might well be dependent on a daily dose of medication. Hardly something that is self evident and self sustaining, yes?

Seriously? The OP asked for recommendations to combat scientific skepticism. And I used an obvious metaphor suggesting that s/he should become familiar with classical thinking on the subject by reading Feser’s blog. And what, are you suggesting that the only reason someone would adhere to theism is because we’re in some kind of drug-induced paranoia?

 

[oldcelt]

This seems to me to be a variety of the genetic fallacy. And unless you endorse philosophical nihilism and regard all philosophical projects as basically hopeless, then it seems to me like it is probably inconsistent.

There are virtually no philosophical problems with “universally applicable” resolutions. None. Take any debate in philosophy: realization physicalism versus supervenience physicalism, realism versus nominalism, theism versus atheism, mathematical platonism versus instrumentalism, etc.

**

People believe and defend what they believe. The goal is to offer sound arguments for one’s position, if it is indeed correct. Lack of consensus does not imply that proofs are in the mind of the beholder; it implies that there is disagreement that is tough to settle.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Throughout my life, I have been a faithful and devout Catholic. However, for the past few months, I have been questioning my beliefs. I am more leaning towards Agnosticism now. By nature, I like the scientific process, and have found many theories that explain the universe in a way that does not require religion. I feel like I am losing my belief in a higher power. Not necessarily going against it, but rather remaining neutral on the existence of God(s).

Being a scientist does not require that you give up belief in God, or even set God aside as an unknown. Many great scientists have seen in science a path to the mind of God.

SCIENTISTS ON RELIGION

Nicolaus Copernicus Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System
“The universe has been wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator.”

Johannes Kepler Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motions
“[May] God who is most admirable in his works … deign to grant us the grace to bring to light and illuminate the profundity of his wisdom in the visible (and accordingly intelligible) creation of this world.”

Galileo Galilei Laws of Dynamics
“The Holy Bible and the phenomenon of nature proceed alike from the divine Word.”

Isaac Newton Laws of Thermodynamics, Optics, etc.
“This most beautiful system [the solar system] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

Benjamin Franklin Electricity, Bifocals, etc.
”Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the creator of the universe. That he governs by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped.

James Clerk Maxwell Electromagnetism, Maxwell’s Equations
“I have looked into most philosophical systems and I have seen none that will not work without God.”

Lord William Kelvin Laws of Thermodynamics, absolute temperature scale
“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.”

Charles Darwin Theory of Evolution
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).

Louis Pasteur Germ Theory
“The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.”

Max Planck Father of Quantum Physics
“There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other.”

J.J. Thompson Discoverer of the Electron
“In the distance tower still higher peaks which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects and deepen the feeling whose truth is emphasized by every advance in science, that great are the works of the Lord.”

Werner Heisenberg Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

Arthur Compton Compton Effect, Quantum Physicist
“For myself, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man.”

Max Born Quantum Physicist
“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

Paul A.M. Dirac Quantum Physicist, Matter-Anti-Matter
“God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.”

George LeMaitre Father of the Big Bang Theory,
“There is no conflict between religion and science.” Reported by Duncan Aikman, New York Times, 1933

Albert Einstein Special and General Theories of Relativity
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”

Please don’t trade God for a pot of atheist stew.

 

[ngill09]

Isaac Newton Laws of Thermodynamics, Optics, etc.
“This most beautiful system [the solar system] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

And of course Newton was wrong - the mathematics for modeling perturbations didn’t exist in his time, so he couldn’t mathematically understand the stability of the solar system, and in his ignorance he invoked God in exactly the same way intelligent design people do today. However, a hundred years later, Laplace came up with the math to understand what Newton was lacking, and published in his Traité de Mécanique Céleste how the solar system was stable using only physics. The story goes that Napoleon read his work, and asked him what role God played within it, to which Laplace replied “I had no need of that hypothesis”.

From Herve Faye “Here, I believe, is what truly happened. Newton, believing that the secular perturbations which he had sketched out in his theory would in the long run end up destroying the solar system, says somewhere that God was obliged to intervene from time to time to remedy the evil and somehow keep the system working properly. This, however, was a pure supposition suggested to Newton by an incomplete view of the conditions of the stability of our little world. Science was not yet advanced enough at that time to bring these conditions into full view. But Laplace, who had discovered them by a deep analysis, would have replied to the First Consul that Newton had wrongly invoked the intervention of God to adjust from time to time the machine of the world (la machine du monde) and that he, Laplace, had no need of such an assumption.”

I’ve seen you use this quote before, and this is strange, because it is an amazing example of how God of the Gaps and Intelligent Design are flawed.

James Clerk Maxwell Electromagnetism, Maxwell’s Equations
“I have looked into most philosophical systems and I have seen none that will not work without God.”

Maybe the double negative confused you, but this quote seems to say the opposite of what you think it does. No philosophical system will not work without God.

 

[polytropos]

Maybe the double negative confused you, but this quote seems to say the opposite of what you think it does. No philosophical system will not work without God.

That quote is very bizarre. To say “No philosophical system will not work without God” seems to be equivalent on a plausible interpretation of “not working” to saying that “No philosophical system will fail without God” – clearly a false claim.

I couldn’t find that quote by googling, so I’m not sure where it is from. Maxwell seems to have been a Christian, so I assume it is a misquote.

 

[josh987654321]

Throughout my life, I have been a faithful and devout Catholic. However, for the past few months, I have been questioning my beliefs. I am more leaning towards Agnosticism now. By nature, I like the scientific process, and have found many theories that explain the universe in a way that does not require religion. I feel like I am losing my belief in a higher power. Not necessarily going against it, but rather remaining neutral on the existence of God(s).

At times, I feel like my religious beliefs may inhibit certain scientific theories and social progress (although this by no means affects my beliefs in general).

So why am I here? I’ve heard a lot of irreligious commentary on the subject. But before I make up my mind, I want some members of the Catholic community to offer me some insight. Are there any thoughts? Thank you.

May I ask, is there anything in particular that is causing you to doubt most?

In any case, I hope you don’t mind if I share with you some quotes that I have really enjoyed.

I believe without God, the words true or false simply become meaningless, so the question I ask the atheist, is if there is no God, why do you believe it to be true?

C.S. Lewis explains it well I believe.

*“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” *- C.S. Lewis

The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words ‘true’ or ‘false’. C.S. Lewis

*If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset. *- C.S. Lewis

John Lennox also explains it well I believe

*I believe in God because I believe there is evidence for God, for example, in the very fact that we can do science, we believe that the universe is rationally intelligable. Why does a scientist believe it is rationally intelligable? Atheism tells us that the human mind is the human brain and it’s the end product of a mindless unguided process, why should I believe anything it tells me if thats the case? Whereas theism tells me that there is intelligence behind the universe and behind the human mind which fits perfectly with science. So part of the evidence for God would be the fact that we can do science.

Infact the rise of science in the 16th and 17th century came about because people expected law in nature, because they believed in the Law giver (God). So science and faith in God fit perfectly together.* - John Lennox

Thus I believe it’s not science and theism that are in conflict as most atheists like to claim, it’s actually science and atheism that are in conflict, because atheism cannot trust the cognitive faculties we use to do science, as C.S. Lewis say’s atheism and science is like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.

Thus I believe by denying God, the honest skeptic becomes skeptical of his skepticism.

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from above post -

I also greatly enjoyed this quote from Anthony Flew in his book ‘There is a God’ (How the worlds most notorious atheist changed his mind).

*"Some have said that the laws of nature are simply accidental results of the way the universe cooled after the big bang. But, as Rees has pointed out, even such accidents can be regarded as secondary manifestations of deeper laws governing the ensemble of universes. Again, even the evolution of the laws of nature and changes to the constants follow certain laws. 'We’re still left with the question of how these “deeper” laws originated. No matter how far you push back the properties of the universe as somehow “emergent,” their very emergence has to follow certain prior laws.'1 So multiverse or not, we still have to come to terms with the origin of the laws of nature. And the only viable explanation here is the divine Mind.” *- Anthony Flew

*"Although I was once sharply critical of the argument to design, I have since come to see that, when correctly formatted, this argument constitutes a persuasive case for the existence of God.” *- Anthony Flew

And this one by Ravi Zacharias -

However you section physical reality, you take the physical universe how you see it, how ever you slice it down to its most minute form, the fact of the matter is you end up with a physical entity or quantity that does not have the reason for its existence in itself. Ultimately the physical universe reduced in any form, cannot explain its own origin, it has to expand its explanation outside of itself, which means the first explanation of a universe as we see it, has to have something that is non physical as a first cause. - Ravi Zacharias

And this one from C.S. Lewis -

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?.. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if i did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning. - C.S. Lewis

And this one from Peter Kreeft -

Someone once said that if you sat a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance. But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don’t wonder whether it came from chance and monkeys. Why then does the atheist use that incredibly improbable explanation for the universe? Clearly, because it is his only chance of remaining an atheist. At this point we need a psychological explanation of the atheist rather than a logical explanation of the universe. - Peter Kreeft

I would also like to share with you some Eucharistic miracles I have come accross that might also help with your doubts.

*What are Eucharistic Miracles? Throughout the history of the Catholic Church, Jesus has proven beyond any doubt that He is truly present in the Holy Eucharist. Why did He have to prove this to us? It is because at certain times in history, there were heresies that denied the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. On other occasions, some priests doubted the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. And yet, on other occasions, the Holy Eucharist was abused by believers and non-believers alike.

What follows are some of the Eucharistic Miracles that took place throughout the history of the Catholic Church. All of these have received the full approval of the Catholic Church. Please follow the following link *- catholicdoors.com/misc/eu…icmiracles.htm

I would also like to share with you this youtube video called “Science tests faith” which contains a very recent Eucharistic Miracle in Buenos Aires, Argentina in 1999, where Pope Francis, then known as Archbishop Jorge Bergoglio, sought a scientific investigation into.

Science Tests Faith - youtube.com/watch?v=-kuxEJXgGSI

I hope I have helped, please feel free to reply/refute anything I have said.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Kmon23]

Recently I enrolled in a Math course to upgrade my skills. It struck me after starting to realize the beauty and perfection of mathematics, that it’s unthinkable (to me) that any mathematician could be agnostic/atheist.

In any case, concerning social progress, when you consider it deeply there exists objective morality. How do we explain the existence of it without a loving and all-knowing God?

It’s the same for me. The mathematical equations, especially the simple ones, that can explain the physical universe is itself baffling. Even in things based on probability, there are mathematical explanations and certain kind of ordered understanding to it. if anything, the design of the universe is a testament to God and His power. Hence, it is one of the things one can realize as a physics major.

 

[ngill09]

Josh, the reason an atheist might trust his/her mind is because the human brain evolved to be able to interact consistently with its environment. However, that trust has its limits. The human brain is certainly fallible and susceptible to all kinds of cognitive biases, and that makes sense given its humble origins, but not so much with divine origins. Naturalism does just as well of a job of accounting for the efficacy of the human brain as theism, and does a much better job of accounting for its limitations. The human brain is not an accident like a jar of spilled milk. But that doesn’t mean it’s manufactured.

Most of the other arguments are complete non sequitors. They make sense to the theist because they are eager to make the jump, but to someone who is looking at the arguments objectively, the conclusion simply doesn’t follow from the premises.

 

[josh987654321]

Josh,

Hi ngill09,

the reason an atheist might trust his/her mind is because the human brain evolved to be able to interact consistently with its environment. However, that trust has its limits. The human brain is certainly fallible and susceptible to all kinds of cognitive biases, and that makes sense given its humble origins, but not so much with divine origins. Naturalism does just as well of a job of accounting for the efficacy of the human brain as theism, and does a much better job of accounting for its limitations. The human brain is not an accident like a jar of spilled milk. But that doesn’t mean it’s manufactured.

May I ask, do you believe we are nothing more than a make up of chemical compounds?

 

[ngill09]

Hi ngill09,

May I ask, do you believe we are nothing more than a make up of chemical compounds?

I believe that the term “nothing more” in your phrasing underestimates chemistry, physics, and biology. People who need to suppose the supernatural don’t realize that those who believe in nature alone aren’t getting rid of any of the meaningful things you attribute to the supernatural. They attribute it instead to the natural. And the difference between the supernatural and the natural, as I see it, is that the supernatural is just a way to explain away things without explaining anything.

 

[josh987654321]

I believe that the term “nothing more” in your phrasing underestimates chemistry, physics, and biology.

I don’t mean to underestimate anything, I thought all naturalists believed that we were nothign more than a make up of chemical compounds, that the idea of a ‘spirit’ ‘soul’ or ‘something more’ was laughable to some.

People who need to suppose the supernatural don’t realize that those who believe in nature alone aren’t getting rid of any of the meaningful things you attribute to the supernatural. They attribute it instead to the natural. And the difference between the supernatural and the natural, as I see it, is that the supernatural is just a way to explain away things without explaining anything.

May I ask are you alluding to God of the Gaps here? (God of the Gaps is the naturalists way of saying that theists postulate a God to explain the scientific gaps that science can’t explain yet and the theory is that as science improves, the gaps will close until there is no room for God).

*‘I am not postulating a “God of the Gaps”, a God merely to explain the things that science has not yet explained. I am postulating a God to explain why science explains; I do not deny that science explains, but I postulate a God to explain why science explains.’ *- Richard Swinburne

I believe John Lennox explains it really well in his book ‘God’s Undertaker, Has Science Buried God?’ I hope you don’t mind if I quote it for you.
Extract from John Lennox's book 'God's Undertaker':

In some quaters the very success of science has alos lead to the idea that, because we can understand the mechanisms of the universe without bringing in God, we can safetly conclude that there was no God who designed and created the universe in the first place.

However, such reasoning involves a logical fallacy, which we can illustrate as follows.

Take a Ford motor car. It is conceivable that someone from a romote part of the world, who was seeing one for the first time and who knew nothing about modern engineering, might imagine that there is a god (Mr Ford) inside the engine, making it go. He might further imagine that when the engine ran sweetly it was because Mr Ford liked him, and when it refused to go it was because Mr Ford disliked him. Of Course, if he were subsequently to study engineering and take the engine to pieces, he would discover that there is no Mr Ford inside it. neither would it take much intelligence for him to see that he did not need to introduce Mr Ford as an explanation for it’s working.

His Grasp of the impersonal principals of internal combustion would be altogether enough to explain how the engine works. So far, so good.

But if he then decided that his understanding of the principals of how the engine works made it impossible to believe in the existance of Mr Ford who designed the engine in the first place, this would be patently false - in philosophical terminology he would be commiting a category mistake. Had there never been a Mr Ford to design the mechanisms, none would exist for him to understand.

It is likewise a category mistake to suppose that our understanding of the impersonal principals according to which the universe works makes it either unneccessary or impossible to believe in the existance of a personal creator who designed, made, and upholds the universe. In other words, we should not confuse the mechanisms by which the universe either with it’s cause or it’s upholder.

The basic issue here is that those of a scientific turn of mind like Atkins and Dawkins fail to distinguish between mechanism and agency.

When Sir Issac Newton discovered the universal law of gravitation he did not say, “I have discovered a mechanism that accounts for planetary motion, therefore there is no agent God who designed it.” Quite the opposite, precisely because he understood how it worked, he was moved to increased admiration for the God who had designed it that way.

“All my studies in science have confirmed my faith” - Sir Ghillean Prance FRS

Hope I have helped

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[ngill09]

I do not say that science disproves God, merely that God is not a meaningful explanation of anything outside of a particular faith paradigm. I do not think the idea of a soul or spirit is laughable, I just think it’s not useful.