How to combat Atheism?

[wanerious]

Huiou Theou:

Umm… Aren’t the programmers who copy the code, intelligent?
I mean, humans are the designers of programs, after all.

Yes, but that misses the point, which is the gradual accumulation of essential interdependencies in an evolutionary framework. Sure, the method of natural selection in software is a person judging the fitness of a particular piece of code and designing it for a particular purpose, but that is tangential. There just must be some arbiter of fitness at work, whether it be a person or, in the biological world, competition with other organisms for limited resources.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

wanerious:

Yes, I appreciate the distinction between creation science and Behe et al, with whose arguments I am familiar. I just strongly disagree with the axiom of irreducible complexity as applied to the biological sciences. This might be a good seed for a separate thread, or perhaps this is a good place for a discussion since, as you point out, the subtext of the intelligent design movement is to posit some kind of designer, which is certainly one way to “combat” atheism. My own opinion is that bad science will do a very poor job of rightly convincing anyone of one’s positions.

Without agreement on an axiom, discussion becomes futile.
Logic, for all its power, requires one to asume a good - axios.
That is the primary reason that the atheists were having such a heyday on this thread. They were simply showing that any axiom is unprovable, and taking glee in calling any axiom a fallacy, begging the question, etc – its a selective doubt.
That doesn’t mean every axiom is wrong, but it does mean it is unprovable in our present (finite) condition.

Without God, what is Good or Bad? There are no moral values. “It just is”, Faith in the status quo, in world subject to chaos.

There is a subtle argument here, since BAD (in the sense of non-rigorous) appears to be what is meant in the quote, then it should not be a surprise that people are convinced by bad science all the time. Who but God could know when the test has been run rigorously enough to be CERTAIN.
A counter example is a way to disprove a hypothesis, but science never proves one. :twocents:

Having said that, what reason is there to disagree with the axiom of irreducable complexity?
Is irreducable complexity really not an axiom, then?
eg. can someone prove that:
Even if something actually is irreducably complex, God still does not exist?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

wanerious:

Yes, but that misses the point, which is the gradual accumulation of essential interdependencies in an evolutionary framework. Sure, the method of natural selection in software is a person judging the fitness of a particular piece of code and designing it for a particular purpose, but that is tangential. There just must be some arbiter of fitness at work, whether it be a person or, in the biological world, competition with other organisms for limited resources.

In essence, the argument has two possibilities?
The arbiter may be intelligent (ID).
Or the arbiter must have the characteristic of choosing the same thing as an intelligent designer would.

How does anyone rule out the former, then.

 

[wanerious]

Huiou Theou:

Having said that, what reason is there to disagree with the axiom of irreducable complexity?

Because it is, depending upon the system, demonstrably false. The canonical example is Behe’s irreducably complex mousetrap. All we have to do is imagine a mousetrap composed either of fewer parts or slightly different parts than he proposes (as long as it can still, however imperfectly, catch mice), and then we render the original trap reducibly complex.

 

[wolpertinger]

Huiou Theou:

Without agreement on an axiom, discussion becomes futile.

You seem to misunderstand the nature of axioms. They are propositions that are asserted true; if they can be proven from the rest of a worldview, they are redundant and don’t deserve axiomatic status.

The reason why we don’t grant you ID/IC as an axiom is because doing so would beg the question. It is up to you to show IC without resorting to an axiom that presupposes its validity.

 

[wanerious]

Huiou Theou:

In essence, the argument has two possibilities?
The arbiter may be intelligent (ID).
Or the arbiter must have the characteristic of choosing the same thing as an intelligint designer would.

How does anyone rule out the former, then.

You assume that the present state shows evidence of design by restricting the choices to those either attributable to or indistinguishable from a designer.

Neither can be ruled out. We simply can’t decide on any ulterior motivations other than the readily observable effects since we don’t know the ultimate purpose. Systems are held to the fitness test, whether divinely or environmentally applied, and either are more or less successful than competing systems. We don’t know what an intelligent designer would choose, we being ignorant of the plan.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

God is Spirit and Life. Both are concepts not so quantifiable by the physical sciences, yet in discussions of existence and atheism the physical sciences always seem to get dragged into the debate (usually kicking and screaming at being abused into a role that is not their proper place).

Catholicism is the acceptance that Love is God. The place to seek out and work with atheists is the heart. If we live by Faith, then science is fruitless for the direct proof an atheist is looking for. What is the most perfect way to live? Who lived it? Why? What makes life the most meaningful? What makes life most livable (hint: I recommend The Sinner’s Guide for that one)?

Just another in my endless supply of 2 cents…
peace

 

[Huiou_Theou]

wanerious:

Because it is, depending upon the system, demonstrably false. The canonical example is Behe’s irreducably complex mousetrap. All we have to do is imagine a mousetrap composed either of fewer parts or slightly different parts than he proposes (as long as it can still, however imperfectly, catch mice), and then we render the original trap reducibly complex.

There are two seperate issues here:
The Axiom, is a rule in this case:

1. All systems which are irreducably complex are intelligently designed.

The rule itself is either valid or invalid.
To have a problem with the axiom is to say that the rule is invalid (or possibly unsound). Only good rules are supposed to be called axioms.

Behe’s mouse trap has nothing to do with the supposed axiom (1).
The reason is simple, the axiom only applies to items which are irreducably complex. Since Behe’s mouse trap fails this test, then the axiom has absolutely nothing to say about the mouse trap.

Also, even though the mouse trap is reducably complex, it might still be intelligently designed. Intelligent people do design reducably complex items.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

wolpertinger:

You seem to misunderstand the nature of axioms. They are propositions that are asserted true; if they can be proven from the rest of a worldview, they are redundant and don’t deserve axiomatic status.

The reason why we don’t grant you ID/IC as an axiom is because doing so would beg the question. It is up to you to show IC without resorting to an axiom that presupposes its validity.

Prove that there is no intelligence in the universe then.
Are you intelligent?

Axioms, by their nature are not proven.
They are assumed valid.
Hence the need for agreement between discussing parties.

 

[Riley259]

wanerious:

No, I’m not an atheist (I’m protestant).

For one thing, intelligent design (ID) is a metaphysical hypothesis, not a physical one. It does not purport to explain any mechanism behind observable behaviors nor any additional phenomena that would be predicted if it is valid. In this sense it is really not a theory, but an assertion. The fundamental issue is whether one can imagine valid evolutionary processes that eventually result in a given biological structure or process. The refutation then is easy — we need only, for each supposedly irreducibly complex phenomenon, to posit a valid evolutionary scenario. The following reference, for example, itself has a reference #7 (a Nature article from last year) in which just this sort of refutation is documented.

ID refutation link

Even if this strategy fails us for a particular example, it is possible that it is only a failure of imagination or a limitation of current biological knowledge instead of positive evidence for design.

A common and generic rebuttal comes from the world of software. One may examine the source code to a particular program and remark that it must have come into existence in final form, since the network of subroutine calls and functional dependence is very fragile and would break with some arbitrary change of functions. This neglects to appreciate the evolutionary process of software development, where subroutines and classes are routinely borrowed from other programs and possibly slightly modified for a new purpose. These changes are then a dependent condition for subsequent modules, and we eventually arrive at an irreducibly complex product that has, indeed, evolved from a prior condition.

ID is bad science only in the sense that it is championed as scientific when it is really metaphysical. It also lacks some rigor in that particular systems are identified as having been designed, but the null is never clearly shown; we don’t have clear evidence of non-design for a system. If we are brave enough to admit that we will never successfully model the evolution of a process, are we brave enough to assert that we do have a complete model of another process we are sure is not designed? Otherwise, we just shrug our shoulders, say everything is designed at some level, and we’re right back where we started. We must be able to draw that distinction.

Ok, so you don’t buy ID as outlined by Behe et al. Yet you must believe in some form of intelligent design or else you wouldn’t be a believer. How do you respond to atheism? Why do you believe in God? I’m not trying to be a jerk but given your scientific background I’m just curious why you believe since some of your answers sound to be in the same vein as our atheist friends in this forum.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

wanerious:

You assume that the present state shows evidence of design by restricting the choices to those either attributable to or indistinguishable from a designer.

Neither can be ruled out. We simply can’t decide on any ulterior motivations other than the readily observable effects since we don’t know the ultimate purpose. Systems are held to the fitness test, whether divinely or environmentally applied, and either are more or less successful than competing systems. We don’t know what an intelligent designer would choose, we being ignorant of the plan.

Fine, but the axiom under consideration is irreducable complexity is the critirion to decide ID/IC.
This being assumed (if it is not, the argument is futile).

We do know some plans which are intelligent for we are intelligent, and we do plan.

(Devils dictionary: … the best way to achieve an accidental result ).

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I did not restrict the possibilities, the possibilites are prefixed by a question. Those two were obvious possibilities, you could add to them.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

As a Faith filled Catholic, I have to say:

If jumping rope is all fun, then is all fun jumping rope?
If God is all Love, then is all Love God?

Excessive love of oneself is called pride.

We worship more than just love, at least in the way that word is used today.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

And to be complete, we love what we worship.

 

[Mike_O]

Mr. Kanatous, you really have done a fantastic job of confirming my perspectives about atheists; pompous, arrogant, and above all, with a supreme faith in your own perceived marvelous intellect.

The problem, of course, is that I have detected in your posts (and I address you because of the other atheists who have posted, some lack even a basic understanding of the Catholic religion or, for that matter, of their own professed non-belief, wallowing about in spiritual self-contradiction) is that you have failed to present any cogent, valid, and logical series of proofs for your atheism.

You are like a nihilistic leech who survives only by cutting down the beliefs of others–trying to, at least, but failing spectacularly.

You have negation, but no affirmation. You live by making negatives of other concepts.

You express your constant “amusement” when someone else shoots down your illogical arguments, trying to obscure your non-beliefs in complex sounding language which states precisely nothing. I have read a great many witty little statements which perfectly capture the atheist and which you have illustrated perfectly.

Your emotional insecurity is as clear as it could possibly be; when someone tries to engage you in debate, you regurgitate rehearsed barbs: “Ah, you are asinine!” Do you fancy you will help some of the younger posters brush up for their SAT’s then?

It still escapes me why you waste your time visiting this board, because it is surely a waste of time. You have not and will not convince anyone of your miserable philosophy, of which no valid, logical proof exists because it is a falsehood in every way.

I saw your bumbling attempts to respond to John Mortell’s proofs posted in another thread. You offered nothing and reinforced the certainty that atheism passes itself off as the faith of the pseudo-intellectuals. You are no more intelligent than any theist.

So I encourage you to find another board. Find some place where people will agree with you.

You accomplish nothing here and infect the board with pessimistic nihilism.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Huiou Theou:

As a Faith filled Catholic, I have to say:

If jumping rope is all fun, then is all fun jumping rope?
If God is all Love, then is all Love God?

Excessive love of oneself is called pride.

We worship more than just love, at least in the way that word is used today.

Yup. God is Love; Love is not God. My bad. My poor writing skillz again.

As a matter of fact, I prolly shoot my mouth of too much. These concepts are so large that lil sentences can have BIG errors. As I proved.

 

[wolpertinger]

It appears that there’s no charity left in this thread and I’ll excuse myself now. Should I owe somebody an answer, please contact me via IM.

 

[wanerious]

Huiou Theou:

There are two seperate issues here:
The Axiom, is a rule in this case:

1. All systems which are irreducably complex are intelligently designed.

Ah, I think we’ve been talking past each other. No, the fundamental idea I disagree with is merely the existence of biological structures or processes that are “irreducibly complex” — natural processes that could not have evolved via natural selection.

It was probably wrong of me to invoke the word “axiom”, as this is really the primary idea to be shown, and not necessarily assumed a priori.

Also, even though the mouse trap is reducably complex, it might still be intelligently designed. Intelligent people do design reducably complex items.

I absolutely agree, though a reducibly complex system is certainly not, of itself, evidence of design.

 

[wanerious]

Riley259:

Ok, so you don’t buy ID as outlined by Behe et al. Yet you must believe in some form of intelligent design or else you wouldn’t be a believer.

I think you’re right. I’m a firm believer that the scientific method is the best tool we’ve got to investigate this Universe we’re embedded in, and I have a great respect for scientific theories honed by the life work of brilliant minds applied to the task. I bristle at the thought of “armchair scientists” capriciously calling generations of peer-reviewed conclusions into question without bothering to become familiar with the fundamentals in the field.

Having said that, I cannot escape the admiration for the majesty of Creation and the wonder that we have minds able to model some workings of it with reasonable success. This is some simple evidence of Grace. I have no explanation for the origin of the physical laws that govern interactions, and no explanation for the existence of matter or thought.

That is a lame attempt to explain something that is more a feeling than a certainty of the existence of God. As to the relation between God and His creation, I think I started by asking myself what a completely good person would be like, and if the Creator cared for His creation, what would be the nature of that interaction? I then assumed the (at least) spiritual truth of the scriptures, and attempted to mold my worldview around them. I have only recently been baptized — this was a very long process, and I passed through atheistic and agnostic stages. I’m afraid I honestly still have those feelings from time to time, so this spiritual awareness is still a struggle.

How do you respond to atheism? Why do you believe in God? I’m not trying to be a jerk but given your scientific background I’m just curious why you believe since some of your answers sound to be in the same vein as our atheist friends in this forum.

Given the above, I really don’t respond to atheism much. My own journey consumes enough mental energy, so I don’t feel much qualified to coerce others.

 

[Riley259]

Great, heartfelt reply - I admire you. I know I’m opening myself up to attack again but for what it’s worth, here’s another book recommendation: “God, chance and necessity” by Keith Ward. Although the author’s not a scientist, he takes on the atheistic materialists (Dawkins, Denkins, et al) and convincingly refutes their assertions. Although a Christian (Anglican), he sticks to the concept of a transcendent God’s existence without getting denominational. Memo to atheists: Neither believers nor unbelievers will ever definitively prove the existence or nonexistence of God respectively but from my perspective, there’s enough solid evidence for the existence of God and that’s good enough for me. Add faith to the mix and you’re on your way to a joyful, hope-filled life. Can you atheists say the same - what do you have to look forward to? Your own self-important ability to survive on your own (“I did it my way”), squeeze as much pleasure as you can get, and then look forward to total inihilation? If that satisfies and fulfills you, then go for it but I’m still going to pray for you anyway.