Does Intelligent DEsign Belittle God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“I’m not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the language in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.” Albert Einstein in Max Jammer’s Einstein and Religion.

“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).

The notion that neither Einstein’s nor Darwin’s philosophical views were informed by their scientific discoveries clearly will not wash.

This is why science can participate with religion and philosophy in finding those points where the ultimate truths intersect.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
I will set aside as unworthy of reply some statements you made that are based on sheer ignorance (such as your unfounded assertion that Einstein was a pantheist and Darwin was an atheist – let’s see the quotes).
Click to expand...
Let’s consider Einstein first. In this manner, you can respond to each issue individually. I will present a quote from historian of science, Stanley L. Jaki’s essay “Reflections on Einstein’s Theories.”

"In a letter written four years before his death to his life-long friend M. Solovine, Einstein insisted that it was not possible to go beyond the universe to its Creator. The letter was a reassurance given by Einstein to Solovine that Einstein, the cosmologist, had not become a believer in a personal God and Creator. He foresaw that his cosmology would be exploited by priests and theologians. “It cannot be helped,” Einstein wrote to Solovine. “I add this, Einstein continued, “lest you think that weakened by old age I have fallen into the hands of the priests.””

Confer letter of March 30, 1952 in Einstein’s *Lettres a Maurice Solovine. *For extended excerpts in English from this letter and Einstein’s previous letter to Solovine, see Cosmos and Creator, by Stanley L. Jaki.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
“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).
Click to expand...
You are naively taking this quote at face value. This quote did not appear until the second edition of the Origin. Darwin had been persuaded to insert a text about God to help promote his theory and avoid excessive public backlash. Later, in a letter to Thomas Huxley, Darwin expresses his regrets in this matter for having “truckled” to public opinion.

Hence, the quote above does not represent Darwin’s actual views. In Darwin’s early Notebooks he refers to human thought as a secretion of the brain, and entertains himself with the fact that he is such a materialist. In fact, *The Descent of Man, *presents a thoroughly materialistic view of the mind of man and the human moral sense. There is no place for the human spiritual soul, natural moral law, or a Creator in Darwin’s world view.

Darwin followed a policy of dissimulation. He made the effort never to reveal how much of a materialist he was. He speaks of this policy in his Notebooks. Hence, taking a quote about God from the Origin only proves how dissimulating Darwin was in this matter.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
A philosophical question only? How would anyone be able to answer such a question without drawing on what is visible to the eye or evident to common sense, two methods even science does not shy away from.
Click to expand...
Your statement reveals the crux of your difficulties. It appears that you have no idea what philosophy is and how it differs from the particular sciences.

You speak as if a strictly philosophical question does not involve sense perception or consider common sense. Nothing could be further from the truth. St. Thomas Aquinas is probably looking on in utter amazement at your statement.

The material object of philosophy is everything that exists. The formal object, or that under which philosophy considers it subject matter, are ultimate causes. Philosophy is grounded in common sense and gives philosophical explication and justification for such. Philosophy also takes into account the findings of the particular sciences.

Philosophy is a universal science and deals with the ultimate or remote causes of its *material objects *or subject matter. As such, whether the universe is ultimately random and physical is a philosophical question. It is not a questions any of the particular sciences are competent to judge.
 
"In a letter written four years before his death to his life-long friend M. Solovine, Einstein insisted that it was not possible to go beyond the universe to its Creator. The letter was a reassurance given by Einstein to Solovine that Einstein, the cosmologist, had not become a believer in a personal God and Creator. He foresaw that his cosmology would be exploited by priests and theologians. “It cannot be helped,” Einstein wrote to Solovine. “I add this, Einstein continued, “lest you think that weakened by old age I have fallen into the hands of the priests.””

In what way does this quote prove your point? No one disputes that Einstein did not believe in the Catholic Church. This quote certainly does not prove that Einstein was a pantheist, as you argued above.

Do you understand the difference between a personal God and an impersonal God?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
"In a letter written four years before his death to his life-long friend M. Solovine, Einstein insisted that it was not possible to go beyond the universe to its Creator. The letter was a reassurance given by Einstein to Solovine that Einstein, the cosmologist, had not become a believer in a personal God and Creator. He foresaw that his cosmology would be exploited by priests and theologians. “It cannot be helped,” Einstein wrote to Solovine. “I add this, Einstein continued, “lest you think that weakened by old age I have fallen into the hands of the priests.””

In what way does this quote prove your point? No one disputes that Einstein did not believe in the Catholic Church. This quote certainly does not prove that Einstein was a pantheist, as you argued above.

Do you understand the difference between a personal God and an impersonal God?
Click to expand...
If Einstein’s God is not the Creator of the cosmos, what kind of God do you think Einstein believed in?
 
You speak as if a strictly philosophical question does not involve sense perception or consider common sense. Nothing could be further from the truth. St. Thomas Aquinas is probably looking on in utter amazement at your statement.

Siger of Brabant announced the doctrine of the twofold truth, one for religion, one for science. Aquinas trounced that notion, as Chesterton points out here.

Siger of Brabant said this: the Church must be right theologically, but she can be wrong scientifically. There are two truths; the truth of the supernatural world, and the truth of the natural world, which contradicts the supernatural world. While we are being naturalists, we can suppose that Christianity is all nonsense; but then, when we remember that we are Christians, we must admit that Christianity is true even if it is nonsense. In other words, Siger of Brabant split the human head in two, like the blow in an old legend of battle; and declared that a man has two minds, with one of which he must entirely believe and with the other may utterly disbelieve… It was not two ways of finding the same truth; it was an untruthful way of pretending that there are two truths.

Religion and science can intersect. There cannot be two opposing statement that are equally true. So I think Aquinas is smiling on one of us. :rolleyes:
 
edwest2 said:
Intelligent Design, as a scientific concept, need not include God.

Ed
Click to expand...
If this is so, then why are there many threads, in which you were involved, supporting the idea that intelligent design proves God. If aliens created the universe, then so what?
The fact is, you support design because you mistakingly think that science has more authority in terms of truth, and thus you want to promote the idea that science has proven God.
 
*If Einstein’s God is not the Creator of the cosmos, what kind of God do you think Einstein believed in? *

It’s not for me to think. It’s what Einstein thought … and said:

“My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.” Albert Einstein

If anything Einstein’s God appears to be the Intelligent Designer.

If Einstein’s God is not the Creator of the cosmos …

How do we know Einstein’s God was not also the Creator of the cosmos? Before LeMaitre came along Einstein believed there was no Creation as such. But after Hubble and certainly by the time of Einstein’s death there was abundant scientific proof that the universe did not always exist. I don’t know why there are not an abundance of quotes to show that Einstein’s God was a Creator as well as a Designer, unless it was that he botched relativity to the point of denying a created universe. He always referred to that fact as the biggest blunder of his career, a blunder that had to be corrected ultimately by a Catholic mathematician/priest (LeMaitre) who, because he believed in Genesis, had no objection to a finite and created universe.

The Big Bang does not contradict Scripture. This may have been a hard pill for Einstein to swallow, since he despised traditional religion.

But this is all conjecture … I’m not pretending to read Einstein’s mind. :newidea:
 
MindOverMatter said:
If this is so, then why are there many threads, in which you were involved, supporting the idea that intelligent design proves God. If aliens created the universe, then so what?
The fact is, you support design because you mistakingly think that science has more authority in terms of truth, and thus you want to promote the idea that science has proven God.
Click to expand...
Science has more authority? I don’t think that. What I am always responding to is the prevailing bias toward knowledge from science here. God is rarely mentioned. If the Bible is mentioned, it becomes symbolic or mythological, as if Jesus never walked the earth.

I’m not promoting the idea that science has proven God, the Church is. In the New York Times article, Finding Design in Nature, Cardinal Schoenborn is very clear: denying actual design in nature is ideology, not science.

So, this idea did not originate with me.

In fact, there are some here who believe Man created God or that a covert assault on the public school classroom is currently underway. I watched a youtube video of a gentleman from Rally for Reason speaking out against the Creation Museum. Apparently, exposing people to even the tiniest possibility that man and dinosaurs coexisted would lead to some great, but vague, catastrophe.

No, I don’t need science to prove God, but the Church tells me that all knowledge flows from one source. I work in the media and monitor it almost daily. For nihilism and indifference and paganism to thrive, people must believe they are just accidents or just animals or just biological robots. There are no absolute truths and you must absolutely believe that. Can you see the deception?

Peace,
Ed
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Yes, there is such a thing as Catholic science. For example, if you are a Catholic you must believe that the world was created and not that it always existed.
Click to expand...
You have confused what we can know through natural science with what we know only by Revelation. Science cannot prove creation *ex nihilo. *We know that the world had a beginning in time, only because it has been Revealed.

Creation, thus, is a subject for metaphysics and theology, not for the natural sciences. For the Catholic perspective on this issue you can consult the* Summa Theologica *of St. Thomas Aquinas, as well as study this article by William E. Carroll entitled “Aquinas and the Big Bang” at Catholic Education Resource Center.
Charlemagne_II said:
A hundred years ago you could say that was not proven or provable by science, but as a Catholic scientist you would believe it to be so, and you would be guided by that belief in searching for the evidence, as George LeMaitre was guided by it when he conceived what later came to be known as the Big Bang…
Click to expand...
It is a mistake to equate the Big Bang with Creation. In fact, LeMaitre had to remind the pope of that fact.

Regressing in cosmic time we reach a point in which the laws of physics and time as we know it breaks down. Scientific knowledge and reason can proceed no further, and certainly not to the metaphysical point of creation.

I re-assert that there is no Catholic natural science.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
You speak as if a strictly philosophical question does not involve sense perception or consider common sense. Nothing could be further from the truth. St. Thomas Aquinas is probably looking on in utter amazement at your statement.

Siger of Brabant announced the doctrine of the twofold truth, one for religion, one for science. Aquinas trounced that notion, as Chesterton points out here.

Siger of Brabant said this: the Church must be right theologically, but she can be wrong scientifically. There are two truths; the truth of the supernatural world, and the truth of the natural world, which contradicts the supernatural world. While we are being naturalists, we can suppose that Christianity is all nonsense; but then, when we remember that we are Christians, we must admit that Christianity is true even if it is nonsense. In other words, Siger of Brabant split the human head in two, like the blow in an old legend of battle; and declared that a man has two minds, with one of which he must entirely believe and with the other may utterly disbelieve… It was not two ways of finding the same truth; it was an untruthful way of pretending that there are two truths.

Religion and science can intersect. There cannot be two opposing statement that are equally true. So I think Aquinas is smiling on one of us. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Good point, but it is not relevant to the matter at hand: You speak as if a strictly philosophical question does not involve sense perception or consider common sense.
Try staying on topic and address the above.
 
itinerant

It is a mistake to equate the Big Bang with Creation. In fact, LeMaitre had to remind the pope of that fact.

Where is your source for this? My reading of the incident was that LeMaitre did not want Pius to jump the gun because all the evidence was not yet conclusive. Within the next 8-9 years after the Pope’s death, the argument was substantially more conclusive and LeMaitre learned that just before he died.

He certainly was not telling the Pope that the Big Bang had nothing to do with the creation of the universe. That would have been preposterous. In fact, the idea of a created universe that LeMaitre’s math argued was the single most threatening thing that Einstein did not want to hear.
 
itinerant

*I re-assert that there is no Catholic natural science. *

Then why does the Vatican employ an astronomer? 😃
 
itinerant
*
You speak as if a strictly philosophical question does not involve sense perception or consider common sense.*

I haven’t the slightest idea what you are talking about. Please identify the offending passage.

I’m going to bed. Night all!
 
In answer to the question being asked, in short, yes. And I would add that it belittles the intelligence of man too.

I would say to the fundamentalists, God can create the universe in any way He wants.

Rove
 
MindOverMatter said:
If this is so, then why are there many threads, in which you were involved, supporting the idea that intelligent design proves God.

You’re far too good of a philosopher and apologist to make a wild claim like that. The point is as it stands – ID theory is about identifying the evidence of Intelligent causes in nature and the universe. It does not claim to “prove God” – never did. Nobody – not one – zero – of the people I’ve seen supporting ID theory ever said that it proves the existence of God. It is evidence that can be used to support belief in God, certainly. This is basic stuff – St. Thomas said it hundreds of years ago, and St. Paul’s Epistles say it also. In fact, it is enshrined as de fide Catholic teaching – there is intelligent design in nature and human beings can detect it. Now St. Thomas and St. Paul used the Design Argument as proofs for God (so why shouldn’t we) but ID theory takes a less ambitious view and merely points out that unintelligent, unconscious physical laws and randomness cannot produce the variety that is seen in nature (or the origin of life, or the origin and sustinence of the universe). There is evidence of a supreme intelligence at work in nature.

That really shouldn’t be something that you argue against and I wonder why you’re so opposed to that concept. ???
If aliens created the universe, then so what?
Click to expand...
Again, I think you’re over-reacting and claiming something that has not been said.
Click to expand...
 
roveau

I would say to the fundamentalists, God can create the universe in any way He wants.

Good for you. I would say the same to Richard Dawkins, Inc.

*In answer to the question being asked, in short, yes. And I would add that it belittles the intelligence of man too. *

Why does Intelligent Design belittle God and Man?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top