Having outlined five arguments for theism (the last five blogs), there remains at least two arguments for atheism that need to be addressed; the absence of evidence (this blog) and the problem of evil (next blog). In a debate with William Lane Craig, Victor Stenger makes the argument that if God exists, then we should have evidence for God where we do not have such evidence, and absence of this evidence is evidence of God’s absence. A seemingly strong argument on the surface, but one that is exposed as fairly weak when examined.
First of all, the type of evidence that Stenger (and all naturalists) seeks is scientific evidence. Rather than seeking enough evidence to believe (like the historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection), naturalists demand the hard scientific evidence required to know that God exists. However, if God were to bow to their command and allow scientists to put God in a test tube, this would essentially nullify the biblical doctrine of salvation by faith (Romans 3:21-26). If God exists and has chosen to save his people by their faith in Jesus’ death and resurrection, then scientifically proving it would mean that we would no longer have faith, but knowledge. If the bible really is God’s revelation of himself, and the bible describes a salvation by faith, then a scientific proof of God’s existence would nullify the means by which he has chosen to save people from their sin.
Secondly, the demand for scientific evidence carries the assumption that the only evidence that counts is scientific evidence. While science has greatly increased our knowledge of the universe and continues to do so, it’s not as if no one knew anything before science took off. Science provides a brilliant way to gain knowledge, but it’s not the only way and it doesn’t have the monopoly on reason. The move from methodological naturalism (assuming that a miracle won’t happen in a scientific experiment) to philosophical naturalism (assuming that miracles have never happened and can never happen in the future) is an over-reach of science; instead of realising that science limits itself to what can be scientifically tested, it’s declaring that the only knowledge we can have is within the realm of scientific investigation. This excludes the possibility that God could have miraculously revealed himself to us, before it considers the evidence for the case that he did reveal himself to us in history. It’s an assumption that the supernatural doesn’t exist because it doesn’t naturally occur.
Thirdly, the proposition on which this argument depends – an absence of evidence is evidence of absence – is demonstrably false: it cannot be applied to things outside of our scope of observation. No one uses the fact that we have an absence of evidence for aliens, as evidence that we are alone in the universe. This is the inherent problem with scientific induction: you never have all the evidence, and so to say that something doesn’t exist because we haven’t scientifically observed it yet assumes that it cannot exist beyond our scientific observation. This was famously observed by David Hume who argued that if you’ve only ever seen white swans, you cannot conclude that all swans are white, but only that all the swans that you’ve seen are white, because there may be black swans that you haven’t seen yet. If you’ve only ever seen the natural, then you cannot conclude that there is no supernatural simply because you haven’t seen any. The argument that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence, assumes the very thing that it’s trying to prove: that if we can’t see it then it doesn’t exist.
Fourthly, it assumes that atheism wins by default, that is, if we reject the arguments for theism, then atheism is the logical (if not the only) choice. But atheism is not the default position, agnosticism is. If believing in God were a hair colour, then agnosticism would be bald, not atheism; for agnosticism holds zero claims about God, but atheism holds the claim that “there’s probably no god”. Moreover, it’s quite hypocritical for someone who thinks that atheism should win by default to suggest that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Theists believe that God exists based on the historical evidence that God has revealed himself to us, but atheists believe that “there’s probably no god” based on a perceived lack of evidence. There is simply no reason to move from an impartial agnosticism towards a stronger (or more militant) atheism, especially if you’re seeking to follow the evidence.
The absence of evidence “argument” is an argument from silence. It’s like the argument that because we don’t have archaeological evidence of the exodus then it didn’t really happen. Despite the fact that archaeological is fragmentary at best, this argument demands archaeological evidence for a nomadic group of people who never stayed in one place for a long period of time, to have survived for over three thousand years in the brutal conditions of a middle eastern desert. If God exists, then the only way you could ever know is if he revealed himself to us. And if he is the one revealing himself to us, then we cannot demand that he reveal himself to us in a scientifically provable way. In the end, this argument is not an argument against the God of the bible, but against a god who would fit in a test tube.
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Monday, June 17, 2013
The Resurrection Shaped Hole in History
So far, my arguments from the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, the origin of life and human nature have only really been for a god of the gaps. There are significant gaps that atheism (and naturalism in particular) can’t explain and so while the existence of God can’t be proved, it would certainly explain a lot. However, even if one is persuaded that God exists, how do you know which religion is right? Many faiths claim that their scriptures are true because their scriptures say that their scriptures are true, but this is circular reasoning that leads to conclusions that are incompatible with the conclusions of other faiths that are made on exactly the same basis. Even if we are convinced that God exists, how can we possibly know what God is like? How can we ever know the truth about God?
Jesus was one of many who claimed to speak the truth about God, but why should we believe him rather than any other self proclaimed “prophet of God”? There is only one reason: Jesus’ resurrection. If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, then he can be dismissed along with everyone else who claimed to be the voice of God. But if he actually rose from the dead, after claiming that that God would raise him from the dead; then you have to listen to what he says about God, including which scriptures God has revealed himself through. Christianity itself teaches that if the resurrection is false then Christianity is a lie (1 Corinthians 15:14-15). The resurrection is the pillar on which Christianity stands or falls, if Jesus rose from the dead then he really is the Lord, if he didn’t then he’s either a liar or a lunatic.
But how do we know if Jesus actually rose from the dead? Surely such an incredible claim has an incredible burden of proof. Even some of those who followed him before his crucifixion didn’t believe that he was raised from the dead on the testimony of others (John 20:24-25). Moreover, if the bible is the only source of evidence that Jesus rose from the dead then we have returned to the circular argument that the bible is true because the bible says that the bible is true. However, Christianity is not just a philosophy grounded in a book, but a movement grounded in history. While it’s difficult to disprove the resurrection in the 21st century, the claim that Jesus rose from the dead was a very falsifiable claim in the 1st century. Early opponents of Christianity fought hard stop the movement from gaining momentum, even to the point of killing its advocates. If they could have pointed to Jesus’ body they would have stopped it dead (literally), but none did.
In the 21st century, the resurrection can’t be proved or easily disproved, but it would certainly explain a lot, so much so, that historians talk about a resurrection shaped hole in 1st century history. If the resurrection is false, how do we explain such a rapid growth of a church that was founded on the historical claim that Jesus rose from the dead, when it could have been so easily falsified, and when it was so unexpected by those who followed Jesus before he died (Matthew 28:17; Mark 16:8; Luke 24:21-23, 40-41; John 20:25). How do we explain the incredible transformation of the apostles who fled before the authorities when Jesus was with them (Matthew 26:56; Mark 14:49-50) and then stood up to the authorities shortly afterwards despite the fact that their leader in whom they had placed their hope wasn’t physically present with them (Acts 4:1-13; 5:17-32)?
The apostles were those who claimed to have seen the risen Jesus (1 Corinthians 9:1). These people were in a unique position to know for sure whether or not Jesus actually rose from the dead; if it was a hoax, they were the ones who made it up. And yet there is strong historical evidence both within the bible (Acts 7:54-60; 12:1-2) and outside of the bible (1 Clement 5:2; Shepherd of Hermas 27:2) that the apostles died proclaiming the resurrection. Who dies for something that they know is a lie? If the resurrection is false, then this is very different from martyrs who die for something that they genuinely believe in, not only would they disbelieve it but they would know for a fact that it was false, for they themselves made it up. However, those who were in a unique position to know for sure whether or not Jesus rose from the dead staked their lives on it. These people were certainly less educated than we are today, but they weren’t stupid. They knew that people don’t come back from the dead, they were so convinced of this that they had trouble believing it even when face to face with the resurrected Christ (Luke 24:41).
The other way to deny Jesus’ resurrection is to deny that he died on the cross. However, this is more tortuous to maintain since it requires that Roman soldiers, who were professional killers very familiar with death, failed to kill Jesus, mistaking injuries that only took three days to heal, for death. Despite the fact that the central claim of Christianity is so incredible, there is strong historical evidence for Jesus’ death and his resurrection. And if Jesus rose from the dead, then we have compelling evidence not only that God exists, but that he has revealed himself to us in the Old Testament that Jesus taught (Matthew 5:17-19; Luke 24:25), and the New Testament that Jesus commissioned the apostles to write (John 16:12-15). In the end, this is the sole reason that I’m a Christian; because I’m persuaded by the historical evidence of Jesus’ resurrection.
Jesus was one of many who claimed to speak the truth about God, but why should we believe him rather than any other self proclaimed “prophet of God”? There is only one reason: Jesus’ resurrection. If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, then he can be dismissed along with everyone else who claimed to be the voice of God. But if he actually rose from the dead, after claiming that that God would raise him from the dead; then you have to listen to what he says about God, including which scriptures God has revealed himself through. Christianity itself teaches that if the resurrection is false then Christianity is a lie (1 Corinthians 15:14-15). The resurrection is the pillar on which Christianity stands or falls, if Jesus rose from the dead then he really is the Lord, if he didn’t then he’s either a liar or a lunatic.
But how do we know if Jesus actually rose from the dead? Surely such an incredible claim has an incredible burden of proof. Even some of those who followed him before his crucifixion didn’t believe that he was raised from the dead on the testimony of others (John 20:24-25). Moreover, if the bible is the only source of evidence that Jesus rose from the dead then we have returned to the circular argument that the bible is true because the bible says that the bible is true. However, Christianity is not just a philosophy grounded in a book, but a movement grounded in history. While it’s difficult to disprove the resurrection in the 21st century, the claim that Jesus rose from the dead was a very falsifiable claim in the 1st century. Early opponents of Christianity fought hard stop the movement from gaining momentum, even to the point of killing its advocates. If they could have pointed to Jesus’ body they would have stopped it dead (literally), but none did.
In the 21st century, the resurrection can’t be proved or easily disproved, but it would certainly explain a lot, so much so, that historians talk about a resurrection shaped hole in 1st century history. If the resurrection is false, how do we explain such a rapid growth of a church that was founded on the historical claim that Jesus rose from the dead, when it could have been so easily falsified, and when it was so unexpected by those who followed Jesus before he died (Matthew 28:17; Mark 16:8; Luke 24:21-23, 40-41; John 20:25). How do we explain the incredible transformation of the apostles who fled before the authorities when Jesus was with them (Matthew 26:56; Mark 14:49-50) and then stood up to the authorities shortly afterwards despite the fact that their leader in whom they had placed their hope wasn’t physically present with them (Acts 4:1-13; 5:17-32)?
The apostles were those who claimed to have seen the risen Jesus (1 Corinthians 9:1). These people were in a unique position to know for sure whether or not Jesus actually rose from the dead; if it was a hoax, they were the ones who made it up. And yet there is strong historical evidence both within the bible (Acts 7:54-60; 12:1-2) and outside of the bible (1 Clement 5:2; Shepherd of Hermas 27:2) that the apostles died proclaiming the resurrection. Who dies for something that they know is a lie? If the resurrection is false, then this is very different from martyrs who die for something that they genuinely believe in, not only would they disbelieve it but they would know for a fact that it was false, for they themselves made it up. However, those who were in a unique position to know for sure whether or not Jesus rose from the dead staked their lives on it. These people were certainly less educated than we are today, but they weren’t stupid. They knew that people don’t come back from the dead, they were so convinced of this that they had trouble believing it even when face to face with the resurrected Christ (Luke 24:41).
The other way to deny Jesus’ resurrection is to deny that he died on the cross. However, this is more tortuous to maintain since it requires that Roman soldiers, who were professional killers very familiar with death, failed to kill Jesus, mistaking injuries that only took three days to heal, for death. Despite the fact that the central claim of Christianity is so incredible, there is strong historical evidence for Jesus’ death and his resurrection. And if Jesus rose from the dead, then we have compelling evidence not only that God exists, but that he has revealed himself to us in the Old Testament that Jesus taught (Matthew 5:17-19; Luke 24:25), and the New Testament that Jesus commissioned the apostles to write (John 16:12-15). In the end, this is the sole reason that I’m a Christian; because I’m persuaded by the historical evidence of Jesus’ resurrection.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Beyond the Evolutionary Good
For a long time theists have been asking naturalists (and indeed all atheists) what they can base morality on if there is no God. The argument is that without God or some other third party, morality descends into mere opinion; who’s to say if our culture’s values are right and another cultures values are wrong? Atheists often hear this as a personal attack on their moral values and point out that you can be “good without God”. This is objectively true and believers should be quick to acknowledge that unbelievers can be exceedingly good, and believers can be exceedingly bad. Christians for example, aren’t claiming to perfectly practice an objective morality, but claiming that they have one that they can point to, summed up in Jesus’ imperatives to love God and love your neighbour.
The failure of Christians to always love their neighbours gives unbelievers the valid objection that Christians don’t practice what they preach, but citing Old Testament commands to Israel gives unbelievers the invalid objection that the bible’s morality is barbaric. Jewish morality may be barbaric, but Christians are those who follow Christ, not the Old Testament law. Christian ethics are based on the life and teaching of Jesus, including his interpretation of the Old Testament law: to love God and love your neighbour. Taking commands from the Old Testament out of the context that Jesus gives them in the New Testament can form the basis of an objection against Jewish morality, but not against Christian morality. Claiming otherwise only betrays an ignorance of Christianity.
But the fact that unbelievers can be “good without God” is precisely the point that undermines naturalism. If we all got here by the strong eating the weak in evolution, then why do we cry out when the strong eat the weak in society? Richard Dawkins rightly asserts that we should not base our morality on Darwinian evolution. In a discussion on Q and A, Dawkins said: “I very much hope that we don't revert to the idea of survival of the fittest in planning our politics and our values and our way of life. I have often said that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to explaining why we exist. It’s undoubtedly the reason why we're here and why all living things are here. But to live our lives in a Darwinian way, to make a society a Darwinian society, that would be a very unpleasant sort of society in which to live. It would be a sort of Thatcherite society and we want to - I mean, in a way, I feel that one of the reasons for learning about Darwinian evolution is as an object lesson in how not to set up our values and social lives.”
Dawkins is to be commended for promoting a society that looks after the less fit rather than one that’s based on the survival of the fittest, but what logical reason does he have for doing so? If the survival of the fittest conditions us to strive to be the alpha male/female, then why are we (and especially the new atheists) so repulsed by the mentality that “might makes right”? By contrast, Friedrich Nietzsche based his philosophy on the idea that “God is dead”, and concluded that an ubermensch (alpha male) can and should rise up and dictate right and wrong to everyone else, “overcoming of traditional views on morality and justice that stem from the superstition beliefs still deeply rooted or related to the notion of God and Christianity.” If this is what evolution conditions us to do, what argument can naturalism offer to the next would be dictator who honestly believes that “might makes right”?
Evolution has often been used to explain human altruism, but it can only ever explain altruism within one’s tribe. Humans are not the only species to wage war, some species of chimpanzees also fight other tribes of the same species for resources that ensure their tribes survival. While evolution can explain why we would develop the desire to help those who are like us, and why we might fight those who are unlike us, it cannot also account for why we might have the desire to help those who are unlike us. Why do people feel sympathy when we see children who are unlike us in poverty in 3rd world countries? Why don’t we just shrug our shoulders knowing that the survival of the fittest means that the less fit won’t survive? Why don’t we rejoice that there will be more resources for our families and our tribe to thrive on? In short, why does human compassion go beyond the evolutionary good?
Christianity on the other hand, accounts for the compassion and morality of humanity (Romans 2:14-15) as well as our capacity for tremendous evil (Romans 3:9-18). The bible describes humanity as made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) but fallen (Genesis 3); crowned with glory and honour (Psalm 8) and yet deeply corrupt (Psalm 14). Unlike animals, people have an innate morality and are capable of great good, but we also display a deeply rooted selfishness that gives us a capacity for great evil. Christianity explains why unbelievers can be “good without God”, and also why believers can be the perpetrators of incredible evil; for the church is a hospital of sinners, not a museum of saints. Christians aren’t claiming to be morally superior, but that Jesus’ imperatives to love form an objective basis for morality.
I’m so glad that the compassion of theists and atheists alike goes beyond the evolutionary good. I’m also glad that so many atheists are keen to base their morality on human compassion and empathy. Unfortunately there is simply no reason to pursue compassion and empathy arising from philosophical naturalism, in fact, it’s quite the opposite. If there is no supernatural, and nature is red in tooth and claw, then what reason do we have to go against the natural? If we keep telling people that they’re animals, then they’re eventually going act like animals. How will abandoning the Christian values that have influenced western society do anything but that which Dawkins dreads; revert society back to the idea of survival of the fittest in planning our politics and our values and our way of life?
The failure of Christians to always love their neighbours gives unbelievers the valid objection that Christians don’t practice what they preach, but citing Old Testament commands to Israel gives unbelievers the invalid objection that the bible’s morality is barbaric. Jewish morality may be barbaric, but Christians are those who follow Christ, not the Old Testament law. Christian ethics are based on the life and teaching of Jesus, including his interpretation of the Old Testament law: to love God and love your neighbour. Taking commands from the Old Testament out of the context that Jesus gives them in the New Testament can form the basis of an objection against Jewish morality, but not against Christian morality. Claiming otherwise only betrays an ignorance of Christianity.
But the fact that unbelievers can be “good without God” is precisely the point that undermines naturalism. If we all got here by the strong eating the weak in evolution, then why do we cry out when the strong eat the weak in society? Richard Dawkins rightly asserts that we should not base our morality on Darwinian evolution. In a discussion on Q and A, Dawkins said: “I very much hope that we don't revert to the idea of survival of the fittest in planning our politics and our values and our way of life. I have often said that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to explaining why we exist. It’s undoubtedly the reason why we're here and why all living things are here. But to live our lives in a Darwinian way, to make a society a Darwinian society, that would be a very unpleasant sort of society in which to live. It would be a sort of Thatcherite society and we want to - I mean, in a way, I feel that one of the reasons for learning about Darwinian evolution is as an object lesson in how not to set up our values and social lives.”
Dawkins is to be commended for promoting a society that looks after the less fit rather than one that’s based on the survival of the fittest, but what logical reason does he have for doing so? If the survival of the fittest conditions us to strive to be the alpha male/female, then why are we (and especially the new atheists) so repulsed by the mentality that “might makes right”? By contrast, Friedrich Nietzsche based his philosophy on the idea that “God is dead”, and concluded that an ubermensch (alpha male) can and should rise up and dictate right and wrong to everyone else, “overcoming of traditional views on morality and justice that stem from the superstition beliefs still deeply rooted or related to the notion of God and Christianity.” If this is what evolution conditions us to do, what argument can naturalism offer to the next would be dictator who honestly believes that “might makes right”?
Evolution has often been used to explain human altruism, but it can only ever explain altruism within one’s tribe. Humans are not the only species to wage war, some species of chimpanzees also fight other tribes of the same species for resources that ensure their tribes survival. While evolution can explain why we would develop the desire to help those who are like us, and why we might fight those who are unlike us, it cannot also account for why we might have the desire to help those who are unlike us. Why do people feel sympathy when we see children who are unlike us in poverty in 3rd world countries? Why don’t we just shrug our shoulders knowing that the survival of the fittest means that the less fit won’t survive? Why don’t we rejoice that there will be more resources for our families and our tribe to thrive on? In short, why does human compassion go beyond the evolutionary good?
Christianity on the other hand, accounts for the compassion and morality of humanity (Romans 2:14-15) as well as our capacity for tremendous evil (Romans 3:9-18). The bible describes humanity as made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) but fallen (Genesis 3); crowned with glory and honour (Psalm 8) and yet deeply corrupt (Psalm 14). Unlike animals, people have an innate morality and are capable of great good, but we also display a deeply rooted selfishness that gives us a capacity for great evil. Christianity explains why unbelievers can be “good without God”, and also why believers can be the perpetrators of incredible evil; for the church is a hospital of sinners, not a museum of saints. Christians aren’t claiming to be morally superior, but that Jesus’ imperatives to love form an objective basis for morality.
I’m so glad that the compassion of theists and atheists alike goes beyond the evolutionary good. I’m also glad that so many atheists are keen to base their morality on human compassion and empathy. Unfortunately there is simply no reason to pursue compassion and empathy arising from philosophical naturalism, in fact, it’s quite the opposite. If there is no supernatural, and nature is red in tooth and claw, then what reason do we have to go against the natural? If we keep telling people that they’re animals, then they’re eventually going act like animals. How will abandoning the Christian values that have influenced western society do anything but that which Dawkins dreads; revert society back to the idea of survival of the fittest in planning our politics and our values and our way of life?
Sunday, April 7, 2013
The Origin of Life
Another area that theism wields explanatory power over atheism is the origin of life. Life is not eternal, it had a beginning. At some point something living came from something that was not living. While theism holds that life was created by God (the creator), atheism has struggled to explain the origin of life, how did the first living thing come from non-living material? This question is less avoidable than the origin of the universe, the universe could be eternal, periodically having a big crunch to the point of singularity followed by a big bang, but life could not have survived this. Life definitely had to have come from non-life. Similarly, the question of life from non-life can be pressed further than the miraculously convenient conditions for life, it's theoretically possible that there are (or have been) quadrillions of universes and we just happen to be in one where the constants are tuned to support life. But life still had to have begun at some point in the history universe, how?
At this point, a number of people confuse what is meant be "life"? Scientists have demonstrated how the proteins and amino acids necessary for DNA (the basic building blocks for life) could have come about naturally, and some think that this is enough. In debating with theists, atheists have been known to minimise the step from non-life to life as one small step in the chain from proteins to amino acid to DNA to a single cell to the most basic of bacteria and so on. However, the step from DNA to a single living cell (or a single celled organism) is no small step, and scientists have been trying to reproduce this step for decades with no success. According to the scientific definition, life grows and reproduces, as opposed to non-life (e.g. the building blocks of life) which neither grow nor reproduce. Immediately this poses a problem for philosophical naturalism, for it requires something that doesn't reproduce by definition, to produce something that does. How can non-life give birth to life, when only life is capable of giving birth to anything?
In an attempt to explain the origin of life without a creator, atheists have developed a theory called abiogenesis (a-bio-genesis = non-biological beginning). While this is a theory that assumes the origin of life from non-life, it's often held up as an argument against the theistic claim that God created life. Unfortunately abiogenesis only assumes that life came from non-life, it doesn't explain how life came from non-life. Abiogenesis is not an argument, it's an assumption, and worse, it's an assumption which we have no scientific evidence of. Until someone can create life from non-living material in a test tube, abiogenesis offers no explanatory power for how life began. It fails even to scratch the surface of explaining our observation of life in a universe which appears to have had a beginning without life. Hypotheses are accepted when they can explain our observations (without explaining any away), and rejected when they fail to explain our observations (or have to explain some away). This is simply a case where theism explains our observation of life in universe that didn't always have life, where atheism fails to do so.
At this point atheists often appeal for more time for science to discover how life could have come from non-life without a creator. This is a fair appeal, abiogenesis may have its Darwin who discovers how such a phenomenon could have come about naturally. However, this is precisely the point: an explanation for the origin of life is squarely within the realm of science, the theistic claim of creation scientifically falsifiable. Philosophical arguments for theism are often rejected for not being scientifically falsifiable (as if science were the only way that we can know things), but the theistic argument of the origin of life is one of the most scientifically falsifiable arguments there is. Scientists often prefer claims that are scientifically falsifiable, and here is a scientifically falsifiable claim for theism: the necessary origin of life requires supernatural intervention for life to come from non-life. Unlike the origin of the universe, this doesn't require one to be outside of space and time to observe the cause of space and time. Unlike the theory of the multiverse, this doesn't require one to be outside of our universe in order to observe other universes.
Science has been advancing on almost all possible fronts for decades. Scientific discoveries have increased our understanding of the universe a million fold. Science has enabled our generation to do things previous generations could scarcely imagine, and have insight into things that humanity had considered to be unknowable mysteries for thousands of years. The origin of life is an area that scientists have been trying to understand since the beginning of biology. While some biologists have mapped out the human genome, and others have cured countless diseases and conditions, those who have been working on the origin of life are yet to offer any scientific explanation for it. As a falsifiable claim, it's always possible that the supernatural creation of life will be falsified, but after decades of scientific attempts at asking how life came from non-life, we're still waiting for an answer.
At this point, a number of people confuse what is meant be "life"? Scientists have demonstrated how the proteins and amino acids necessary for DNA (the basic building blocks for life) could have come about naturally, and some think that this is enough. In debating with theists, atheists have been known to minimise the step from non-life to life as one small step in the chain from proteins to amino acid to DNA to a single cell to the most basic of bacteria and so on. However, the step from DNA to a single living cell (or a single celled organism) is no small step, and scientists have been trying to reproduce this step for decades with no success. According to the scientific definition, life grows and reproduces, as opposed to non-life (e.g. the building blocks of life) which neither grow nor reproduce. Immediately this poses a problem for philosophical naturalism, for it requires something that doesn't reproduce by definition, to produce something that does. How can non-life give birth to life, when only life is capable of giving birth to anything?
In an attempt to explain the origin of life without a creator, atheists have developed a theory called abiogenesis (a-bio-genesis = non-biological beginning). While this is a theory that assumes the origin of life from non-life, it's often held up as an argument against the theistic claim that God created life. Unfortunately abiogenesis only assumes that life came from non-life, it doesn't explain how life came from non-life. Abiogenesis is not an argument, it's an assumption, and worse, it's an assumption which we have no scientific evidence of. Until someone can create life from non-living material in a test tube, abiogenesis offers no explanatory power for how life began. It fails even to scratch the surface of explaining our observation of life in a universe which appears to have had a beginning without life. Hypotheses are accepted when they can explain our observations (without explaining any away), and rejected when they fail to explain our observations (or have to explain some away). This is simply a case where theism explains our observation of life in universe that didn't always have life, where atheism fails to do so.
At this point atheists often appeal for more time for science to discover how life could have come from non-life without a creator. This is a fair appeal, abiogenesis may have its Darwin who discovers how such a phenomenon could have come about naturally. However, this is precisely the point: an explanation for the origin of life is squarely within the realm of science, the theistic claim of creation scientifically falsifiable. Philosophical arguments for theism are often rejected for not being scientifically falsifiable (as if science were the only way that we can know things), but the theistic argument of the origin of life is one of the most scientifically falsifiable arguments there is. Scientists often prefer claims that are scientifically falsifiable, and here is a scientifically falsifiable claim for theism: the necessary origin of life requires supernatural intervention for life to come from non-life. Unlike the origin of the universe, this doesn't require one to be outside of space and time to observe the cause of space and time. Unlike the theory of the multiverse, this doesn't require one to be outside of our universe in order to observe other universes.
Science has been advancing on almost all possible fronts for decades. Scientific discoveries have increased our understanding of the universe a million fold. Science has enabled our generation to do things previous generations could scarcely imagine, and have insight into things that humanity had considered to be unknowable mysteries for thousands of years. The origin of life is an area that scientists have been trying to understand since the beginning of biology. While some biologists have mapped out the human genome, and others have cured countless diseases and conditions, those who have been working on the origin of life are yet to offer any scientific explanation for it. As a falsifiable claim, it's always possible that the supernatural creation of life will be falsified, but after decades of scientific attempts at asking how life came from non-life, we're still waiting for an answer.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
The Anthropic Principle
The latest argument against design came from Darwin, the argument is that evolution by natural selection can explain the variety and complexity of life on earth that we used to think necessitated an intelligent designer. While this argument works in biology since life can change with every new generation, no such argument exists in the area of physics. For some time now atheist scientists have been wrestling with the apparent design of the universal constants found in physics. Universal constants like the speed of light, the gravitational constant, the weight of protons, neutrons and electrons, and the magnitude of the strong and weak nuclear forces are all exactly what they need to be for life to exist. If they deviated by one part in a million, life would not be possible. For example, if the strong nuclear force changed by 0.0001% then six protons wouldn't combine to make a stable carbon atom (required for all carbon based life). Life exists on a knife edge of universal constants.
When confronted with the incredible improbability of the universe providing the exact conditions required for life, some confuse these universal conditions with biological conditions, arguing that we evolved to suit our environment rather than our environment being designed for us. A popular version of this confusion is known as puddle theory (from the Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe). Puddle theory draws an analogy of a puddle becoming aware that the hole he occupies fits him perfectly, and so he contemplates its designer as he evaporates in the afternoon sun. However, the anthropic principle (also known as the fine-tuning argument) isn't an argument about the improbability of life existing in certain environments, it's an argument about the improbability of life existing at all. It's not the fine-tuning of life that already exists, it's the fine tuning of universal constants that are required for life to exist. Life can adapt to fit a certain environment (like a puddle in a hole), but it can't adapt from non-existence to existence. Puddle theory is an analogy for evolution, but not the anthropic principle. For puddle theory to scratch the surface of the anthropic principle, the puddle would have to become aware of something like the hydrogen bond which causes hydrogen and oxygen, which are both gases at room temperature, to combine to become a liquid (water) at room temperature.
Some have tried to use the fact that life exists on a knife edge of universal constants as an argument against design. Conceding the narrowness of the conditions for life, they argue that if the universe was designed it was an extremely inefficient design (“some design” they say) since life does not exist in the vast majority of the universe, and has not existed for the vast majority of the history of the universe. Again, this is confusing the universal conditions that make life possible in the first place, with environmental conditions like temperature, gravity and an atmosphere. Leaving this aside, their argument is against a god who is either in a hurry, or needs to be efficient (presumably because creating a big universe would be difficult), or both. If God's purpose in creating the universe was to create life on earth (especially human kind), then it is a successful design. There's simply no reason why God would have to create a universe that was smaller or younger to achieve his purpose. If God is omnipotent then creating a vast universe is not difficult for him. Unless God is impatient there's no rush to create life straight after the big bang.
Apparently the strongest counter argument against the anthropic principle is the multiverse theory: that there are as many universes as there are combinations of universal constants and we just happen to be in one where the constants are what they need to be for life to exist. Most atheist scientists put this forward as if it doesn't require more faith than intelligent design. Some even claim to have evidence for other universes from satellite pictures and measurements, however they are claiming to observe a universe that exists outside of our universe, from observations that are made from within our universe. In order to observe other universes, you would have to somehow be outside of our universe, unless this was a closed universe with a window at the end that allows us to see what's outside of our universe.
What's more disturbing is the lack of science in this theory that's put forward as scientific. Science begins with observation from which hypotheses are made and then tested. The multiverse theory did not begin with observation, it was proposed as a theory which then led to a search for observation (which has not found anything). Furthermore, there is no scientific way to test the multiverse theory, no experiments to test the theory have even been proposed let alone carried out. Without any scientific beginning or any scientific way forward, this is nothing more than a philosophical speculation disguised as a scientific theory. If there was a single shred of evidence for the multiverse it would have the potential to be a scientific theory, but until then it remains a convoluted speculation (which should really be discarded by Occam's razor), proposed in order to justify the rejection of an intelligent designer whom atheists would prefer didn't exist.
When confronted with the incredible improbability of the universe providing the exact conditions required for life, some confuse these universal conditions with biological conditions, arguing that we evolved to suit our environment rather than our environment being designed for us. A popular version of this confusion is known as puddle theory (from the Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe). Puddle theory draws an analogy of a puddle becoming aware that the hole he occupies fits him perfectly, and so he contemplates its designer as he evaporates in the afternoon sun. However, the anthropic principle (also known as the fine-tuning argument) isn't an argument about the improbability of life existing in certain environments, it's an argument about the improbability of life existing at all. It's not the fine-tuning of life that already exists, it's the fine tuning of universal constants that are required for life to exist. Life can adapt to fit a certain environment (like a puddle in a hole), but it can't adapt from non-existence to existence. Puddle theory is an analogy for evolution, but not the anthropic principle. For puddle theory to scratch the surface of the anthropic principle, the puddle would have to become aware of something like the hydrogen bond which causes hydrogen and oxygen, which are both gases at room temperature, to combine to become a liquid (water) at room temperature.
Some have tried to use the fact that life exists on a knife edge of universal constants as an argument against design. Conceding the narrowness of the conditions for life, they argue that if the universe was designed it was an extremely inefficient design (“some design” they say) since life does not exist in the vast majority of the universe, and has not existed for the vast majority of the history of the universe. Again, this is confusing the universal conditions that make life possible in the first place, with environmental conditions like temperature, gravity and an atmosphere. Leaving this aside, their argument is against a god who is either in a hurry, or needs to be efficient (presumably because creating a big universe would be difficult), or both. If God's purpose in creating the universe was to create life on earth (especially human kind), then it is a successful design. There's simply no reason why God would have to create a universe that was smaller or younger to achieve his purpose. If God is omnipotent then creating a vast universe is not difficult for him. Unless God is impatient there's no rush to create life straight after the big bang.
Apparently the strongest counter argument against the anthropic principle is the multiverse theory: that there are as many universes as there are combinations of universal constants and we just happen to be in one where the constants are what they need to be for life to exist. Most atheist scientists put this forward as if it doesn't require more faith than intelligent design. Some even claim to have evidence for other universes from satellite pictures and measurements, however they are claiming to observe a universe that exists outside of our universe, from observations that are made from within our universe. In order to observe other universes, you would have to somehow be outside of our universe, unless this was a closed universe with a window at the end that allows us to see what's outside of our universe.
What's more disturbing is the lack of science in this theory that's put forward as scientific. Science begins with observation from which hypotheses are made and then tested. The multiverse theory did not begin with observation, it was proposed as a theory which then led to a search for observation (which has not found anything). Furthermore, there is no scientific way to test the multiverse theory, no experiments to test the theory have even been proposed let alone carried out. Without any scientific beginning or any scientific way forward, this is nothing more than a philosophical speculation disguised as a scientific theory. If there was a single shred of evidence for the multiverse it would have the potential to be a scientific theory, but until then it remains a convoluted speculation (which should really be discarded by Occam's razor), proposed in order to justify the rejection of an intelligent designer whom atheists would prefer didn't exist.
Friday, February 15, 2013
The Cosmological Argument
There have been many subtle shifts in the ongoing debate of God's existence, but few that have shifted from one extreme to the other as subtly as the cosmological argument. The argument is straightforward, if there was nothing before the universe began, then how could the universe (something) have come from nothing? The very existence of the universe necessitates there to be something beyond the universe which brought it into being. If there is nothing beyond the natural universe, what could have possibly caused the universe to come about naturally?
For centuries the standard atheist rebuttal was that the universe was eternal, it has no beginning and therefore doesn't require a cause or a creator. This view of the universe (known as Aristotelian cosmology) was developed by Aristotle in the 4th century B.C. and was widely held by those who don't believe in a creator. It was only in the 20th century the big bang theory was proposed, initially by theists (especially Georges Lemaitre) and resisted by atheists because it meant that the universe had a beginning. Up until that time, atheists had argued against the creation account in Genesis 1 by claiming that the universe had always existed.
Recent decades has seen a subtle but dramatic shift among atheists about the big bang. Far from being something to defend against, some atheists are trying to use the big bang theory as a weapon against theists in the ongoing debate on God's existence. It's often assumed that Christians don't know anything about the big bang theory, and even that the big bang theory contradicts the creation account of Genesis 1, arguing that one has to choose between the scientific explanation of the big bang theory and the theological explanation of creation. However this is to confuse the agency of the origin of the universe with its mechanism. It's like asking “what created the Ford Galaxy, Henry Ford (the agent) or the Ford production line (the mechanism), CHOOSE!”
A recent attempt has been made to explain the origin of universe in purely naturalistic terms by Lawrence Krauss in “A universe from nothing: Why there is something rather than nothing”. He argues that since quantum fluctuations can bring about positive and negative charges that immediately cancel each out (which we can observe when one is pulled into a black hole before it can cancel the other one out), then quantum fluctuations could have brought about the critical mass required to trigger the big bang. His argument has been criticised for his use of the word nothing, he isn't really talking about a universe from nothing, but a universe from quantum fluctuations. His understanding of the big bang is not the beginning of space and time, but rather the beginning of matter within a space and time that has always existed. Though Krauss would deny it, there is a sense in which he is going back to the former atheist position of denying that the natural universe had an absolute beginning, for Krauss; space, time and quantum fluctuation have always existed.
Similar arguments have been mounted by atheists using speculations of what was before the big bang. To be fair, there is no real way around this, in order to develop a theory for what caused the big bang you cannot avoid making some assumptions about what, if anything, existed before the big bang. Physicists postulate that the universe as we know it has been expanding from a “point of singularity”, but no one knows with any degree of certainty what there was before this point. It's possible that a prior universe had a big crush to the point of singularity followed by the big bang of our universe. Unfortunately, as physicists unanimously declare, no information passes through the point of singularity: scientific inquiry doesn't have access to any information before the big bang. Krauss' assumption of quantum fluctuations before the big bang can only ever be a hypothetical speculation without any actual evidence.
Richard Dawkins often gives a different reply, but one that's equally destroyed by the fact that no information passes through the point of singularity. Dawkins suggests that Darwin has solved the more difficult problem of the complexity of biology, and it's only a matter of time before physics has its Darwin who solves the problem of the origin of the universe. However, if no information passes through the point of singularity, then there's no way that anyone can develop a scientific theory based on evidence about the origin of the universe. Scientific inquiry that's carried out from within the known universe cannot step outside the universe to observe its beginning. We cannot come to any real understanding about the origin of the universe by scientific observation, the only way we could ever come to such understanding is by special revelation.
For centuries the standard atheist rebuttal was that the universe was eternal, it has no beginning and therefore doesn't require a cause or a creator. This view of the universe (known as Aristotelian cosmology) was developed by Aristotle in the 4th century B.C. and was widely held by those who don't believe in a creator. It was only in the 20th century the big bang theory was proposed, initially by theists (especially Georges Lemaitre) and resisted by atheists because it meant that the universe had a beginning. Up until that time, atheists had argued against the creation account in Genesis 1 by claiming that the universe had always existed.
Recent decades has seen a subtle but dramatic shift among atheists about the big bang. Far from being something to defend against, some atheists are trying to use the big bang theory as a weapon against theists in the ongoing debate on God's existence. It's often assumed that Christians don't know anything about the big bang theory, and even that the big bang theory contradicts the creation account of Genesis 1, arguing that one has to choose between the scientific explanation of the big bang theory and the theological explanation of creation. However this is to confuse the agency of the origin of the universe with its mechanism. It's like asking “what created the Ford Galaxy, Henry Ford (the agent) or the Ford production line (the mechanism), CHOOSE!”
A recent attempt has been made to explain the origin of universe in purely naturalistic terms by Lawrence Krauss in “A universe from nothing: Why there is something rather than nothing”. He argues that since quantum fluctuations can bring about positive and negative charges that immediately cancel each out (which we can observe when one is pulled into a black hole before it can cancel the other one out), then quantum fluctuations could have brought about the critical mass required to trigger the big bang. His argument has been criticised for his use of the word nothing, he isn't really talking about a universe from nothing, but a universe from quantum fluctuations. His understanding of the big bang is not the beginning of space and time, but rather the beginning of matter within a space and time that has always existed. Though Krauss would deny it, there is a sense in which he is going back to the former atheist position of denying that the natural universe had an absolute beginning, for Krauss; space, time and quantum fluctuation have always existed.
Similar arguments have been mounted by atheists using speculations of what was before the big bang. To be fair, there is no real way around this, in order to develop a theory for what caused the big bang you cannot avoid making some assumptions about what, if anything, existed before the big bang. Physicists postulate that the universe as we know it has been expanding from a “point of singularity”, but no one knows with any degree of certainty what there was before this point. It's possible that a prior universe had a big crush to the point of singularity followed by the big bang of our universe. Unfortunately, as physicists unanimously declare, no information passes through the point of singularity: scientific inquiry doesn't have access to any information before the big bang. Krauss' assumption of quantum fluctuations before the big bang can only ever be a hypothetical speculation without any actual evidence.
Richard Dawkins often gives a different reply, but one that's equally destroyed by the fact that no information passes through the point of singularity. Dawkins suggests that Darwin has solved the more difficult problem of the complexity of biology, and it's only a matter of time before physics has its Darwin who solves the problem of the origin of the universe. However, if no information passes through the point of singularity, then there's no way that anyone can develop a scientific theory based on evidence about the origin of the universe. Scientific inquiry that's carried out from within the known universe cannot step outside the universe to observe its beginning. We cannot come to any real understanding about the origin of the universe by scientific observation, the only way we could ever come to such understanding is by special revelation.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
The Burden of Proof
It’s recently become common for atheists engaging with believers to try and escape the burden of proof for atheism while demanding that the theistic claim that God exists carries the burden of proof and should not be asserted unless it can meet this burden. The argument goes that if someone claimed that some ridiculous creature like a unicorn on mars or a celestial teapot existed, we would not believe them simply because we can’t prove that it doesn’t exist. If they want to claim that it does exist, they have the burden of proving that it does exist. They then say that it’s the same with God: the burden of proof doesn’t lie with those claiming that he doesn’t exist, but it does lie with those who claim that he does exist.
The kernel of truth in this is that the burden of proof does indeed lie with those who claim that God exists. If anyone wants to make any kind of truth claim then they carry the burden of proof for their claim. A claim that has to be believed without any evidence is seldom believed, truth claims do not have to be accepted by default. Truth claims, especially ones that require action, should be able to be justified and a healthy scepticism about truth claims keeps us from naivety and gullibility.
The absurdity of atheists trying to escape the burden of proof lies in the assumption that if God’s existence cannot be proved, then his non-existence wins by default. As if atheism is the default position if a belief in God cannot be justified. The atheist is here demanding that his atheism, which has clearly forfeited the neutrality of agnosticism, be treated as if it was the neutral position that agnosticism is. When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. Just as theists carry the burden of proof for asserting that God exists, atheists also carry the burden of proof for asserting that God doesn’t exist. Only agnosticism escapes the burden of proof for the simple reason that agnosticism doesn’t make a claim.
Atheists who try to escape the burden of proof usually (and sometimes deliberately) confuse atheism with agnosticism. While agnostics don’t believe that God exists or that he doesn’t exist, atheists make a definitive claim that God doesn’t exist, and then in order to escape the burden of proof, pretend that they’re not making a claim. This is move is often made because of their dislike of the word “believe”. While theists believe that God exists and agnostics don’t believe either way, atheists believe that God doesn’t exist, but can seldom admit that they have a belief about God (even if it is that he doesn’t exist). They prefer to speak about their lack of belief, again trying to enjoy the benefits of agnosticism, but this is to confuse the negative with the non-positive. The difference between negative numbers and non-positive numbers is the neutral number 0. If theism is a positive belief in God, atheism is a negative belief in God and agnosticism is the neutral position in the middle (the belief in 0 claims about God’s existence). Agnosticism is the default position which should win by default if either theism or atheism is rejected.
This epistemological spectrum from atheism to theism with the neutral middle of agnosticism is made clear by Richard Dawkins in the God Delusion (page 50-51). Dawkins has a scale from 1 (strong theism) to 7 (strong atheism) with the neutral middle of 4 being truly agnostic. This is a very helpful epistemological scale to point atheists to in this kind of discussion, not just because Dawkins helpfully draws the battle lines in the sand, but because most atheists respect Dawkins and will listen to an argument that’s found in The God Delusion.
Finally, something that clearly sets God apart from ridiculous creatures like unicorns on mars or a celestial teapot is the explanatory power of the God hypothesis. If a celestial teapot could explain our observance of space then it might be accepted by some, but it’s rejected by all because its existence explains nothing. The hypothesis that God exists explains the beginning of the universe, the fine tuning of the universal constants for life, the beginning of life from non-life, the fact that human compassion goes beyond the evolutionary good, and the resurrection shaped hole in history. Hypotheses are accepted when they explain what we observe. Alien unicorns and celestial teapots can be easily rejected because they have no explanatory power whatsoever. But while the existence of God cannot be scientifically proved, it would certainly explain a lot.
The kernel of truth in this is that the burden of proof does indeed lie with those who claim that God exists. If anyone wants to make any kind of truth claim then they carry the burden of proof for their claim. A claim that has to be believed without any evidence is seldom believed, truth claims do not have to be accepted by default. Truth claims, especially ones that require action, should be able to be justified and a healthy scepticism about truth claims keeps us from naivety and gullibility.
The absurdity of atheists trying to escape the burden of proof lies in the assumption that if God’s existence cannot be proved, then his non-existence wins by default. As if atheism is the default position if a belief in God cannot be justified. The atheist is here demanding that his atheism, which has clearly forfeited the neutrality of agnosticism, be treated as if it was the neutral position that agnosticism is. When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. Just as theists carry the burden of proof for asserting that God exists, atheists also carry the burden of proof for asserting that God doesn’t exist. Only agnosticism escapes the burden of proof for the simple reason that agnosticism doesn’t make a claim.
Atheists who try to escape the burden of proof usually (and sometimes deliberately) confuse atheism with agnosticism. While agnostics don’t believe that God exists or that he doesn’t exist, atheists make a definitive claim that God doesn’t exist, and then in order to escape the burden of proof, pretend that they’re not making a claim. This is move is often made because of their dislike of the word “believe”. While theists believe that God exists and agnostics don’t believe either way, atheists believe that God doesn’t exist, but can seldom admit that they have a belief about God (even if it is that he doesn’t exist). They prefer to speak about their lack of belief, again trying to enjoy the benefits of agnosticism, but this is to confuse the negative with the non-positive. The difference between negative numbers and non-positive numbers is the neutral number 0. If theism is a positive belief in God, atheism is a negative belief in God and agnosticism is the neutral position in the middle (the belief in 0 claims about God’s existence). Agnosticism is the default position which should win by default if either theism or atheism is rejected.
This epistemological spectrum from atheism to theism with the neutral middle of agnosticism is made clear by Richard Dawkins in the God Delusion (page 50-51). Dawkins has a scale from 1 (strong theism) to 7 (strong atheism) with the neutral middle of 4 being truly agnostic. This is a very helpful epistemological scale to point atheists to in this kind of discussion, not just because Dawkins helpfully draws the battle lines in the sand, but because most atheists respect Dawkins and will listen to an argument that’s found in The God Delusion.
Finally, something that clearly sets God apart from ridiculous creatures like unicorns on mars or a celestial teapot is the explanatory power of the God hypothesis. If a celestial teapot could explain our observance of space then it might be accepted by some, but it’s rejected by all because its existence explains nothing. The hypothesis that God exists explains the beginning of the universe, the fine tuning of the universal constants for life, the beginning of life from non-life, the fact that human compassion goes beyond the evolutionary good, and the resurrection shaped hole in history. Hypotheses are accepted when they explain what we observe. Alien unicorns and celestial teapots can be easily rejected because they have no explanatory power whatsoever. But while the existence of God cannot be scientifically proved, it would certainly explain a lot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)