Those blind and stubborn scientists!

[Spock]

They just can’t get over their ridiculous obsession to find natural explanations for natural phenomena. They simply disregard the best, most economical and simplest “explanation” of all: “An unknowable being, using inexplicable means made everything somehow happen”. And how could anything be “natural”, if everything was created? We have a perfectly valid word: “artifical”, which is the one we should use for created things. “Natural” things would “simply” exist. But they are just a figment of our imagination.

Even those scientists who are otherwise deeply religious suffer from this misguided approach just like their atheistic peers. They shamelessly conduct their research as if there were no God, as if they would gain anything by closing their eyes and pretending that there is a nature, and there are laws of nature. Of course we know that they are just fooling themselves. As it is stated in the infallible dogmas: 69: God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.) If God’s attention would wander for a split second, the whole Universe would crumble into nonexistence. There is no “gravity”, of course. If God would not meticulously keep the planets on their orbit, they would just wander off into some random direction. Those beautiful snowflakes! What an intricate design they exhibit. How could some random, blind, purposeless process come up with such perfect symmetry? And not two of them are the same!

Poor, blind scientists. Oops… wait. Does not the word “explanation” imply understanding? Imply an insight into “how” something happens? Obviously not according to those (quite numerous posters) who scorn “physicalism” and “materialism”, who repeatedly say that scientists are intentionally stubborn to even contemplate the idea of God.

Are you one of them? I hope not.

 

[tskrobacz]

Real science reveals the glory of God in creation and places us all in awe of a marvelous and mysterious universe that continues to create anew from that which is created. Science is not opposed to religion…in fact our ability to know and be conscious of the evolutionary nature of nature is itself a mystery that continues to be revealed in science

 

[Sair]

Real science reveals the glory of God in creation and places us all in awe of a marvelous and mysterious universe that continues to create anew from that which is created. Science is not opposed to religion…in fact our ability to know and be conscious of the evolutionary nature of nature is itself a mystery that continues to be revealed in science

Presumably, though, if this is the case, ultimately the very existence and nature of God will be susceptible to scientific investigation, and there will no longer be a need for religious believers to protest that science and faith are “different ways of knowing”. And there will no longer be a need for such vague poetic language as “God-breathed” or “God spoke creation into existence” - ultimately we will arrive at detailed explanations of precisely how God, being non-physical, interacted with physical substance in order to create a physical universe, and thus there will no longer be a need for serious doubt. Is this not so?

 

[tonyrey]

Presumably, though, if this is the case, ultimately the very existence and nature of God will be susceptible to scientific investigation, and there will no longer be a need for religious believers to protest that science and faith are “different ways of knowing”. And there will no longer be a need for such vague poetic language as “God-breathed” or “God spoke creation into existence” - ultimately we will arrive at detailed explanations of precisely how God, being non-physical, interacted with physical substance in order to create a physical universe, and thus there will no longer be a need for serious doubt. Is this not so?

According to that argument there is no need for the molecules of which the brain is composed to understand how they are capable of understanding! There will no longer be a need for such vague poetic language as “A person thinks” or “A person created a computer”. Ultimately we will arrive at detailed explanations of precisely how inanimate molecules produce conscious persons and there will no longer be a need for serious doubt about the fact that only molecules exist…

 

[Sair]

According to that argument there is no need for the molecules of which the brain is composed to understand how they are capable of understanding! There will no longer be a need for such vague poetic language as “A person thinks” or “A person created a computer”. Ultimately we will arrive at detailed explanations of precisely how inanimate molecules produce conscious persons and there will no longer be a need for serious doubt about the fact that only molecules exist…

In fact, I think there will always be a need for poetic language - mastery of expression is a thing of beauty in itself. However, just as we are coming to understand such processes as are encompassed by a phrase such as “a person thinks”, is it equally likely that, as scientific enquiry progresses, we will have even half an idea what is meant by a phrase such as, “God created the universe”? Or will it remain as a way to gloss over the incomprehensible (or the nonexistent)?

 

[danserr]

They just can’t get over their ridiculous obsession to find natural explanations for natural phenomena. They simply disregard the best, most economical and simplest “explanation” of all: “An unknowable being, using inexplicable means made everything somehow happen”. And how could anything be “natural”, if everything was created? We have a perfectly valid word: “artifical”, which is the one we should use for created things. “Natural” things would “simply” exist. But they are just a figment of our imagination.

Even those scientists who are otherwise deeply religious suffer from this misguided approach just like their atheistic peers. They shamelessly conduct their research as if there were no God, as if they would gain anything by closing their eyes and pretending that there is a nature, and there are laws of nature. Of course we know that they are just fooling themselves. As it is stated in the infallible dogmas: 69: God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.) If God’s attention would wander for a split second, the whole Universe would crumble into nonexistence. There is no “gravity”, of course. If God would not meticulously keep the planets on their orbit, they would just wander off into some random direction. Those beautiful snowflakes! What an intricate design they exhibit. How could some random, blind, purposeless process come up with such perfect symmetry? And not two of them are the same!

Poor, blind scientists. Oops… wait. Does not the word “explanation” imply understanding? Imply an insight into “how” something happens? Obviously not according to those (quite numerous posters) who scorn “physicalism” and “materialism”, who repeatedly say that scientists are intentionally stubborn to even contemplate the idea of God.

Are you one of them? I hope not.

Was there a point to this absurd rant? Or was it just to pat yourself on the head about how open-minded you are about “science” (as long as it confirms your biases) and narrow-minded you are about religion?

Since you accept science, do you then accept the conclusions of science that provide evidence for the teleological argument, namely scientific evidence of the fine-tuning of the universe for life?

That is to say if even one of a dozen or so qualities and constants (such as the gravitation constant) were off by even a hair, no life could exist.

As Robin Collins points out:

1. The fine tuning of the universe for life is highly improbable on atheism.
2. the fine tuning of the universe for life is not highly improbable on theism.
3. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe for life confirms theism over atheism.

or in another version:

1. The fine tuning is due to chance or necessity or design.
2. it is not due to chance or necessity
3. it is due to design.

Isn’t science wonderful?

 

[Spock]

Was there a point to this absurd rant?

Yes, there was… maybe you missed it.

That is to say if even one of a dozen or so qualities and constants (such as the gravitation constant) were off by even a hair, no life could exist.

Empty speculation, nothing more. And even if it were true (which cannot be substantiated) it would simply mean that we won a cosmic lottery. It is still an argument from incredulity. It is very unlikely that on the roulette red will come out 20 times in a row. Yet it happens. Does that mean that the hypothesis: “God ‘nudged’ the ball” is all of a sudden credible? Of course not.

 

[danserr]

Yes, there was… maybe you missed it.

Empty speculation, nothing more. And even if it were true (which cannot be substantiated) it would simply mean that we won a cosmic lottery. It is still an argument from incredulity. It is very unlikely that on the roulette red will come out 20 times in a row. Yet it happens. Does that mean that the hypothesis: “God ‘nudged’ the ball” is all of a sudden credible? Of course not.

What do you mean, “even if it were true?”, the fine-tuning is currently widely accepted, and I don’t know of any scientist who denies it.

Not really empty speculation, simply the logical extrapolation from what we already know, namely that the fine-tuning is highly improbable on atheism, but not highly improbable on theism. You have not denied either of these facts, therefore, you are committed to the conclusion (since the argument is valid) that the fine-tuning of the universe for life confirms theism over atheism.

I’m afraid the red roulette example doesn’t come close to doing justice to the sheer improbability of the fine-tuning. Let’s suppose we took a million, million, million white ping pong balls. Let’s then suppose that we take a dozen (or a couple dozen if you like) black ones and mix them in. I then propose a bet:

• I will draw 12 balls at random from the mix.
• For every white ball I draw, I will give you ten thousand dollars, while for every black ball I draw, you give me 10,000 dollars.
• I draw 12 black balls in a row. Would you calmly agree this is the result of chance, or would you accuse me of cheating and break my nose?

I’m afraid the only one making an argument from incredulity is you: 'I can’t believe God did it, so he must not have done it." That doesn’t sound very scientific to me.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Even those scientists who are otherwise deeply religious suffer from this misguided approach just like their atheistic peers. They shamelessly conduct their research as if there were no God, as if they would gain anything by closing their eyes and pretending that there is a nature, and there are laws of nature. Of course we know that they are just fooling themselves. As it is stated in the infallible dogmas: 69: God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.) If God’s attention would wander for a split second, the whole Universe would crumble into nonexistence. There is no “gravity”, of course.

Gravity, and laws of nature in general, do not exist because God keeps all created things in existence? This is one of the theologically most uninformed and asinine arguments that I have ever heard.

Empty speculation, nothing more. And even if it were true (which cannot be substantiated) it would simply mean that we won a cosmic lottery. It is still an argument from incredulity. It is very unlikely that on the roulette red will come out 20 times in a row. Yet it happens.

Empty speculation? It is famous atheist cosmologists who strongly affirm the apparent fine-tuning of the laws of nature. Ask folks like Hawking, Susskind, Tegmark, Smolin for example. And they also reject the lottery argument because the odds are so ridiculously low.

---

Obviously, if I would know as little about science, theology and philosophy as you do, I would be an atheist as well. However, I am well informed about all those areas, and have thought things through much better than you obviously do. That is why I am still a theist, even though I am a die-hard evolutionist and have written an article on the origin of life by natural causes on the leading evolution and anti-creationist website Talkorigins.org (google origin of life, it will come up on the first page).

And yes, I am a Catholic scientist.

 

[Spock]

What do you mean, “even if it were true?”, the fine-tuning is currently widely accepted, and I don’t know of any scientist who denies it.

It is still an empty speculation. No one can know what kind of universe would come out if those values would be different.

I’m afraid the red roulette example doesn’t come close to doing justice to the sheer improbability of the fine-tuning. Let’s suppose we took a million, million, million white ping pong balls. Let’s then suppose that we take a dozen (or a couple dozen if you like) black ones and mix them in. I then propose a bet:

• I will draw 12 balls at random from the mix.
• For every white ball I draw, I will give you ten thousand dollars, while for every black ball I draw, you give me 10,000 dollars.
• I draw 12 black balls in a row. Would you calmly agree this is the result of chance, or would you accuse me of cheating and break my nose?

You don’t know a lot about probability theory, do you? I happen to be a mathematician who happened to be lecturing the subject for a long time. You are pulling out numbers from thin air. But the principle is the same. I can show you an event which was much more improbable than your measly “12 in a bunch of quadrillions”.

During the years that roulette was around, at least a few million games have been played (let’s be conservative and say one million). In every game there are 37 possible outcomes. Therefore in a million games there were 37^1000000 possible outcomes. A number so incredibly huge that it defies comprehension. If the whole Universe would be filled back-to-back with electrons, the number of electrons would be incomparably smaller than the the number presented. So the probability of the actual sequence (which came out) is 1 in 37^1000000. Yet it happened. If only just one roll of the ball would have been different, the sequence would be different. From your “reasoning” (which is the result of your ignorance) it would follow that this sequence “must have been” directed by God, since it was so improbable. Better learn a little probability theory before you wish to argue about it. A hint: the probability of the outcome was 1, since it happened. The probability to predict the outcome would be that incredibly small number.

I’m afraid the only one making an argument from incredulity is you: 'I can’t believe God did it, so he must not have done it." That doesn’t sound very scientific to me.

Since there is no need to assume God, I do not assume it. No incredulity here.

 

[Spock]

Gravity, and laws of nature in general, do not exist because God keeps all created things in existence? This is one of the theologically most uninformed and asinine arguments that I have ever heard.

It is what the dogma says, loud and clear. It is just another form of the “sustaining cause” argument. Catholicism rejects the deistic concept that God simply started the ball rolling, and then stepped back to “admire” his handiwork (apart from a few “miracles”). I would not dare to call the dogma “asinine”, even though I disagree with it.

Obviously, if I would know as little about science, theology and philosophy as you do, I would be an atheist as well. However, I am well informed about all those areas, and have thought things through much better than you obviously do.

I am happy for you that you are so very satisfied with yourself.

That is why I am still a theist, even though I am a die-hard evolutionist and have written an article on the origin of life by natural causes on the leading evolution and anti-creationist website Talkorigins.org (google origin of life, it will come up on the first page).

And yes, I am a Catholic scientist.

And in that article, did you refer to God? Or did you consider the “dirty” physicalist and materialist approach - which, incidentally - is the topic of this thread? And I hope you made a differentiation between evolution and abiogenesis.

 

[Equites_Christi]

What all of it boils down to is this:

Some people believe that everything which is true can be proven or known through scientific means.

Some people do not believe that everything which is true can be proven or known through scientific means.

So instead of rollicking in the aftermath where we’ve already made different founding assumptions and therefore are not really communicating with each other, we may as well discuss this.

 

[Spock]

What all of it boils down to is this:

Some people believe that everything which is true can be proven or known through scientific means.

I am NOT one of these.

Some people do not believe that everything which is true can be proven or known through scientific means.

I am one of these.

And the subject of this thread is different. The topic you talk about is ongoing in the thread titled “Supernatural epistemology”. See you there.

 

[buffalo]

Yes, there was… maybe you missed it.

Empty speculation, nothing more. And even if it were true (which cannot be substantiated) it would simply mean that we won a cosmic lottery. It is still an argument from incredulity. It is very unlikely that on the roulette red will come out 20 times in a row. Yet it happens. Does that mean that the hypothesis: “God ‘nudged’ the ball” is all of a sudden credible? Of course not.

It is an argument from odds. Every additional fine tuned constant found ups the odds by magnitudes.

As you well know the only way out is the multiverse. One must consider then, fake universes as well as one with a God.

 

[buffalo]

It is still an empty speculation. No one can know what kind of universe would come out if those values would be different.

You don’t know a lot about probability theory, do you? I happen to be a mathematician who happened to be lecturing the subject for a long time. You are pulling out numbers from thin air. But the principle is the same. I can show you an event which was much more improbable than your measly “12 in a bunch of quadrillions”.

During the years that roulette was around, at least a few million games have been played (let’s be conservative and say one million). In every game there are 37 possible outcomes. Therefore in a million games there were 37^1000000 possible outcomes. A number so incredibly huge that it defies comprehension. If the whole Universe would be filled back-to-back with electrons, the number of electrons would be incomparably smaller than the the number presented. So the probability of the actual sequence (which came out) is 1 in 37^1000000. Yet it happened. If only just one roll of the ball would have been different, the sequence would be different. From your “reasoning” (which is the result of your ignorance) it would follow that this sequence “must have been” directed by God, since it was so improbable. Better learn a little probability theory before you wish to argue about it. A hint: the probability of the outcome was 1, since it happened. The probability to predict the outcome would be that incredibly small number.

Since there is no need to assume God, I do not assume it. No incredulity here.

The game of roulette is designed.

 

[davidv]

They just can’t get over their ridiculous obsession to find natural explanations for natural phenomena. They simply disregard the best, most economical and simplest “explanation” of all: “An unknowable being, using inexplicable means made everything somehow happen”. And how could anything be “natural”, if everything was created? We have a perfectly valid word: “artifical”, which is the one we should use for created things. “Natural” things would “simply” exist. But they are just a figment of our imagination.

Even those scientists who are otherwise deeply religious suffer from this misguided approach just like their atheistic peers. They shamelessly conduct their research as if there were no God, as if they would gain anything by closing their eyes and pretending that there is a nature, and there are laws of nature. Of course we know that they are just fooling themselves. As it is stated in the infallible dogmas: 69: God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.) If God’s attention would wander for a split second, the whole Universe would crumble into nonexistence. There is no “gravity”, of course. If God would not meticulously keep the planets on their orbit, they would just wander off into some random direction. Those beautiful snowflakes! What an intricate design they exhibit. How could some random, blind, purposeless process come up with such perfect symmetry? And not two of them are the same!

Poor, blind scientists. Oops… wait. Does not the word “explanation” imply understanding? Imply an insight into “how” something happens? Obviously not according to those (quite numerous posters) who scorn “physicalism” and “materialism”, who repeatedly say that scientists are intentionally stubborn to even contemplate the idea of God.

Are you one of them? I hope not.

The truely blind and stubborn scientists are those that blindly insist that the only things that exist are those that can be examined by the scientific method. No out-of-the-box thinking here!

 

[buffalo]

The truely blind and stubborn scientists are those that blindly insist that the only things that exist are those that can be examined by the scientific method. No out-of-the-box thinking here!

To believe that all that exists is empirically provable is irrational. Those scientists have painted themselves into a corner. It is anti-science by definition as science is -
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

 

[danserr]

It is still an empty speculation. No one can know what kind of universe would come out if those values would be different.

Actually yes. This is precisely the point, it is widely accepted among even all atheist cosmologists that in the absence of fine-tuning, no life would be possible. In the absence of fine-tuning, not even atomic matter would exist!

You don’t know a lot about probability theory, do you? I happen to be a mathematician who happened to be lecturing the subject for a long time. You are pulling out numbers from thin air. But the principle is the same. I can show you an event which was much more improbable than your measly “12 in a bunch of quadrillions”.

During the years that roulette was around, at least a few million games have been played (let’s be conservative and say one million). In every game there are 37 possible outcomes. Therefore in a million games there were 37^1000000 possible outcomes. A number so incredibly huge that it defies comprehension. If the whole Universe would be filled back-to-back with electrons, the number of electrons would be incomparably smaller than the the number presented. So the probability of the actual sequence (which came out) is 1 in 37^1000000. Yet it happened. If only just one roll of the ball would have been different, the sequence would be different. From your “reasoning” (which is the result of your ignorance) it would follow that this sequence “must have been” directed by God, since it was so improbable. Better learn a little probability theory before you wish to argue about it. A hint: the probability of the outcome was 1, since it happened. The probability to predict the outcome would be that incredibly small number.

Unfortunately, you seem not to understand the argument, which probably explains why you ignored mine. In the situation I gave, would you seriously think that occurred by chance?

To the fine-tuning argument, you have essentially replied: "Well, obviously very improbable things have happened, so the improbability of the fine-tuning is not sufficient to indicate design.

First, objection only applies to the version of the teleological argument that says:

1. the fine-tuning of the universe is either due to chance, necessity, or design
2. it is not due to chance or necessity
   3 therefore, design.

It does not apply to my version:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe for life is highly improbable on atheism
   2,. the fine-tuning is not improbable on theism
2. therefore, the fine tuning strongly confirms theism over atheism

Second, your attempted argument fails even against the first version of my argument because you have constructed a straw man. In the first argument, I am not arguing that the improbability alone indicates design; rather the issue is improbability plus independent pattern, that is, specified complexity. So your roulette example is dis-analogous to the task at hand.

An example:
A classroom of a hundred students. Each is asked to write down a number at random without consulting the others. A professor, then goes around the room in order asking them to tell the numbers.
Situation A: the numbers are called out: 5, 56, 987, 43, 5/6, 382, 129893, 85…
Situation B: the numbers are called out: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12…99, 100.

Now, both numbers are equally improbable, but in situation A, we would rightly conclude that A occurred by chance, but be strongly inclined to suspect that in B, some tinkering (design) was going on. Situation A is comparable to your roulette example, and so obviously misguided as applied to the fine-tuning. Situation B, however, shows why the specified complexity of the universe makes the existence of a designer probable. The issue is not only improbability, but improbability plus independent pattern. Would you seriously think B was the result of chance?

A hint: the probability of the outcome was 1, since it happened. The probability to predict the outcome would be that incredibly small number.

-Your first statement is nothing but the unhelpful tautology that “the fact that A happened means it is certain that A happened.” ok, so what? I would almost think you are trying to claim that “the fact that event A happened means it is probable that it would have happened,” which is obviously absurd. But then you acknowledge that the probability it would have happened it very tiny. So I suppose we agree on this.

1. The universe is finely tuned for life, therefore it is 100% certain the universe is finely tuned for life. Which is just the useless statement: “the universe is finely tuned for life, therefore the universe is finely tuned for life.”
2. “It is highly improbable the universe would be finely tuned for life.” Since I assume we agree on statement 2, the fine-tuning requires explanation, as the teleological argument above shows.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…Does not the word “explanation” imply understanding? Imply an insight into “how” something happens?

If your argument is true, then the explanations you disagree with are as much an understanding and an insight into how something happens as the explanations you do like. So the mere implication of the words is an insufficient basis to claim that the explanations that you assert are rational in the context of our discussions.

 

[tskrobacz]

Presumably, though, if this is the case, ultimately the very existence and nature of God will be susceptible to scientific investigation, and there will no longer be a need for religious believers to protest that science and faith are “different ways of knowing”. And there will no longer be a need for such vague poetic language as “God-breathed” or “God spoke creation into existence” - ultimately we will arrive at detailed explanations of precisely how God, being non-physical, interacted with physical substance in order to create a physical universe, and thus there will no longer be a need for serious doubt. Is this not so?

It is not so…you are assuming that the finite (us) is capable of fully knowing the infinite. I best heard it said that God is infinitely knowable through our science…ie there is ALWAYS more to be known.