CNN linked it.
So did FOX.
Drudge had a link for a time.
Didn't check the other networks.
Just didn't have the desire to, especially since the whole shebang is a set up.
Evolution VERSUS Creationism.
The Bible VERSUS We don't know.
Gimme a break.
I've done a lot of study in this arena. I've read Dawkins (and Hawking) for good measure. Brilliant scientists. Not so good on the philosophy, though or actually finding logical conclusions to their given premises. Still, well worth the respective reads only so you know where they are coming from.
I've also listened to and read numerous Christian scientists and mathematicians: Francis Collins, Ian Hutchinson, John Lennox, Troy Vorhees, and others. Top notch stuff, especially from a Christian worldview. None, and I mean NONE of these thinkers see any conflict between science and faith.
Of course, there are those who want there to be a conflict.
Read that again. And again. And again.
A lot of money and air time goes to those who want there to be a conflict. "It's either/or!" they shout, without realizing both/and works really, really well.
Science is incomplete. It will always be incomplete. It rests upon certain fundamental assumptions which cannot be proven or disproven. (For proof of this, read Goedel's proof.)
Faith rests upon certain fundamental assumptions which cannot be proven or disproven. (See Hebrews 11)
The conflict comes from folks who are so dead-set in their own particular worldviews that they cannot allow for any sort of truth outside those particular worldviews. It makes for great television/drama (not), but makes it awfully difficult for any sort of real reconciliation and dealing with some of the real problems in the world.
Science and faith, working together can accomplish much. They actually need each other. "Debates" and attention grabbing headlines don't help.
Showing posts with label evolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evolution. Show all posts
Thursday, February 6, 2014
Thursday, November 7, 2013
More Amazing Stuff on Evolution and Life
I found this thought exercise applying Moore's Law for computer science to biology to be fascinating.
If you read this article, you will see that in doing so, the evolution of life as we know it should have taken 10 billion years. The interesting issue is, the earth is only 4.5 billion years old.
Now, this study assumes one can actually apply Moore's law to biology. It's a huge, huge assumption--one that would actually take quite a bit of study to confirm. This is why the researchers themselves call it a thought experiment.
Given this though, the thought experiment actually does confirm something biologists have known--natural selection and genetic mutation are not adequate to describe the evolutionary process. The process has been too fast even given the age of the earth.
See, as a paleontologist described the events on earth:
For 2 billion years, there was no life. None. Zip. Nada.
Then, we had bacteria form. Pond scum was how he described it.
Pond scum reigned for 2 billion years.
Then, in the space of 500 million years--a cosmological blink of an eye, we go from pond scum to human beings. Of course, this leaves out the complexity of the dinosaurs and the 99% of species who once roamed the earth which are now extinct.
Even Moore's Law cannot account for such complexity arising out of, well, nothing.
Cosmic chance evolution is so rapid? Guided evolution?
Chance isn't reasonable.
Perhaps there are other mechanisms at play that science hasn't discovered yet. When they do...if they do...I am sure they will be absolutely amazing and fascinating and give one more display of God's handiwork in creation.
If you read this article, you will see that in doing so, the evolution of life as we know it should have taken 10 billion years. The interesting issue is, the earth is only 4.5 billion years old.
Now, this study assumes one can actually apply Moore's law to biology. It's a huge, huge assumption--one that would actually take quite a bit of study to confirm. This is why the researchers themselves call it a thought experiment.
Given this though, the thought experiment actually does confirm something biologists have known--natural selection and genetic mutation are not adequate to describe the evolutionary process. The process has been too fast even given the age of the earth.
See, as a paleontologist described the events on earth:
For 2 billion years, there was no life. None. Zip. Nada.
Then, we had bacteria form. Pond scum was how he described it.
Pond scum reigned for 2 billion years.
Then, in the space of 500 million years--a cosmological blink of an eye, we go from pond scum to human beings. Of course, this leaves out the complexity of the dinosaurs and the 99% of species who once roamed the earth which are now extinct.
Even Moore's Law cannot account for such complexity arising out of, well, nothing.
Cosmic chance evolution is so rapid? Guided evolution?
Chance isn't reasonable.
Perhaps there are other mechanisms at play that science hasn't discovered yet. When they do...if they do...I am sure they will be absolutely amazing and fascinating and give one more display of God's handiwork in creation.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
The Probability of Life
I've had an interesting month or so when it comes to discussing the origins of life and its probability.
Last week's final post on God in school elicited a response from a friend who is a science teacher, and is someone I respect tremendously. She outlaid what I knew to be true but didn't articulate clearly in my post.
Many teachers are forced to teach certain curriculum and have no say in how it is presented.
I think that is unfortunate, particularly when covering evolution and the origins of life.
Please understand this important point: I adhere to evolutionary theory as an explanation as to how life evolved on our planet. I do not dispute this at all. What I dispute is unguided evolution based on the probability of life originating and then evolving as rapidly as it has.
Please allow me to explain using the origin of life on our planet: DNA.
There is little dispute among the biological community that the first forms of life on our planet were simple bacteria. There is little dispute that the building blocks of these bacteria are proteins composed of the DNA molecule. There is little dispute regarding the DNA molecule and how it is in a double-helix shape composed of nucleotides. These are composed of nucleobases (guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine), recorded using the letters G, A, T, and C. (Don't worry, I'm not going to get into anymore detailed scientific terms. Please bear with me. I think this is extremely important.)
Now, in the simplest of bacteria, there are hundreds of thousands of nucleobases. This is important. The human DNA has over 3 billion base pairs, dwarfing bacteria. So, we are talking about the very, very basics. Simple, correct? And with the trillions of planets that must exist in our universe, life should be a slam dunk? Correct?
Richard Dawkins, noted biologist and atheist gives the origins of life a one in a billion chance. As such, he is a firm believer in the existence of life throughout the universe. But I wonder where he got that one in a billion figure? Is it that small? And yes, I believe it is too small.
Interestingly enough, in a debate between Dawkins and John Lennox, who is a mathematician, Lennox states that he cannot believe that life developed randomly. Dawkins, either sympathetically or condescendingly says, "I know that." I think Dawkins would do well to study some mathematics and try to understand why Lewis says what he says.
I think I get it, and here is why:
The first nucleotide would be either a G,A,T, or C. It has a one in four chance of being the correct one or 25%. Not too bad a chance. But let's extend that down to ten places. Each place has a one in four shot, so we get 1/4 x 1/4 x 1/4.... or 1/4^10. That's a 1/1,048,576 chance that all 10 would come together. The odds are getting much smaller--already passing Dawkin's one in a billion chance. So, let's extrapolate down another 10 spots. 1/4^20 or 1/1,099,511,627,776. Those odds are essentially nil, zero, not a snowball's chance in h-e-double hockey sticks, and we are only to the 20th nucleotide. Would you ascribe such a coming together of chemicals to chance? Even if you have hundreds of billions of planets out there, do you really believe that number comes even close to lessening the odds? Statistically, not a chance. At all.
Somehow in the primordial soup that was our planet nearly 3 billion years ago, life emerged as these chemicals came together to form it. You can say that it happened by chance that these chemicals somehow did this on their own, but that's not exactly a very rational statement in light of the math. It's possible that it could have happened in such a fashion, but it is definitely more rational to believe that it didn't just happen on its own.
So, once again, we are left with three options presented to us regarding the origins of life:
1. Pure chance--mathematically laughable.
2. In an impossibly large number of parallel universes, we happened to be in the one that was just right--not evidence based as there is no way to measure or observe some sort of parallel universe by definition. One must adhere to this option purely by faith.
3. Life was create--the most probable of the three given the numbers along with the fact that our universe began out of nothing and is finely tuned.
In our school systems, when it comes to teaching biology and the origins of life, #1 and #2 can be freely taught without repercussion despite the known difficulties. I am of the persuasion that option #3 needs to be added as an option in our educational system. It seems the most rational position.
Last week's final post on God in school elicited a response from a friend who is a science teacher, and is someone I respect tremendously. She outlaid what I knew to be true but didn't articulate clearly in my post.
Many teachers are forced to teach certain curriculum and have no say in how it is presented.
I think that is unfortunate, particularly when covering evolution and the origins of life.
Please understand this important point: I adhere to evolutionary theory as an explanation as to how life evolved on our planet. I do not dispute this at all. What I dispute is unguided evolution based on the probability of life originating and then evolving as rapidly as it has.
Please allow me to explain using the origin of life on our planet: DNA.
There is little dispute among the biological community that the first forms of life on our planet were simple bacteria. There is little dispute that the building blocks of these bacteria are proteins composed of the DNA molecule. There is little dispute regarding the DNA molecule and how it is in a double-helix shape composed of nucleotides. These are composed of nucleobases (guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine), recorded using the letters G, A, T, and C. (Don't worry, I'm not going to get into anymore detailed scientific terms. Please bear with me. I think this is extremely important.)
Now, in the simplest of bacteria, there are hundreds of thousands of nucleobases. This is important. The human DNA has over 3 billion base pairs, dwarfing bacteria. So, we are talking about the very, very basics. Simple, correct? And with the trillions of planets that must exist in our universe, life should be a slam dunk? Correct?
Richard Dawkins, noted biologist and atheist gives the origins of life a one in a billion chance. As such, he is a firm believer in the existence of life throughout the universe. But I wonder where he got that one in a billion figure? Is it that small? And yes, I believe it is too small.
Interestingly enough, in a debate between Dawkins and John Lennox, who is a mathematician, Lennox states that he cannot believe that life developed randomly. Dawkins, either sympathetically or condescendingly says, "I know that." I think Dawkins would do well to study some mathematics and try to understand why Lewis says what he says.
I think I get it, and here is why:
The first nucleotide would be either a G,A,T, or C. It has a one in four chance of being the correct one or 25%. Not too bad a chance. But let's extend that down to ten places. Each place has a one in four shot, so we get 1/4 x 1/4 x 1/4.... or 1/4^10. That's a 1/1,048,576 chance that all 10 would come together. The odds are getting much smaller--already passing Dawkin's one in a billion chance. So, let's extrapolate down another 10 spots. 1/4^20 or 1/1,099,511,627,776. Those odds are essentially nil, zero, not a snowball's chance in h-e-double hockey sticks, and we are only to the 20th nucleotide. Would you ascribe such a coming together of chemicals to chance? Even if you have hundreds of billions of planets out there, do you really believe that number comes even close to lessening the odds? Statistically, not a chance. At all.
Somehow in the primordial soup that was our planet nearly 3 billion years ago, life emerged as these chemicals came together to form it. You can say that it happened by chance that these chemicals somehow did this on their own, but that's not exactly a very rational statement in light of the math. It's possible that it could have happened in such a fashion, but it is definitely more rational to believe that it didn't just happen on its own.
So, once again, we are left with three options presented to us regarding the origins of life:
1. Pure chance--mathematically laughable.
2. In an impossibly large number of parallel universes, we happened to be in the one that was just right--not evidence based as there is no way to measure or observe some sort of parallel universe by definition. One must adhere to this option purely by faith.
3. Life was create--the most probable of the three given the numbers along with the fact that our universe began out of nothing and is finely tuned.
In our school systems, when it comes to teaching biology and the origins of life, #1 and #2 can be freely taught without repercussion despite the known difficulties. I am of the persuasion that option #3 needs to be added as an option in our educational system. It seems the most rational position.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
God in School
I wish I had a better title than the above for I do not believe it does this post justice. Nothing better came to mind to kind of pull together the thoughts roaming around in my head.
Let's start with Miley Cyrus. Not only did she grab attention at the VMA's, but the next thing you know, she is featured in a music video riding a giant wrecking ball naked (with hands strategically placed) seductively licking a sledge hammer. I've read more than a few opinion pieces analyzing, criticizing, and supporting her behavior. And I ask, "Is it surprising?"
Let's then move to Anthony Weiner. I posted about a shouting match he had the other day with a fellow Jewish New Yorker. New York voters soundly rejected him as a mayoral candidate particularly after he was found to be sexting even after losing his congressional seat for doing the same thing. One of his sexting partners showed up at his election party. After all was said and done, Weiner flipped the bird at reporters showing little contrition for anything he had done or was doing. And I ask, "Is this surprising?"
We move now to violence and the horrendous murders we have seen taking place in the news--particularly those with a racial overtone. I find it interesting how the different news networks have begun dealing with such matters after the George Zimmerman trial. Suddenly, each time a black person harms or kills a white person, there is a racial overtone and vice-versa. There seems to be a concerted effort to highlight violence that occurs between people of different color/race/ethnicity. And I ask, "Is such violence surprising?"
Now, we head toward the widening gap between the wealthy and the poor. I saw several stories in the past few days highlighting the fact that the wealthy keep getting more wealth while the poor remain in poverty. The few are lording it over the many, and there are cries rising up about the injustice of it all. But I ask, "Is it really surprising?"
I mean, I think all of these things have something in common. There is a common thread that actually binds it all together.
Think about what we teach now in school regarding human beings and how they came into existence. In our science classes we teach that man descended from apes. Man is simply another animal who evolved--there is nothing special about him. And how did that evolution occur? Through natural selection and genetic mutation. Now, we know we have little control over genetic mutation. This happens when our genes fail to make exact replicas either by a mistake in the replication process or from some sort of mechanism including being affected by radiation from the sun. It really doesn't matter--it's out of any control that we exert.
Ah, but natural selection--that's another story. For natural selection is all about the survival of the fittest. Death and disease wipes out the lesser and the weaker leaving the strong to thrive and survive. Passing on one's genes means rising to the top of the food chain, striving to be the highest on the ladder to ensure survival of one's genetic lineage. It means attracting the alpha of the opposite sex as well to ensure a good genetic bond. And protecting one's genes from those considered lesser is paramount! When a threat arises to challenge our status, it must be met and put down decisively. This is the natural way of things. Nature isn't some kind of Eden where everything gets along. It's fight, flight, freeze, and reproduce to pass on one's genes and ensure the survival of the species.
Sure, we talk about tit for tat and kindness being a part of the evolutionary process. We talk about how one species can be kind to ensure its survival--particularly if it's effective for a weaker beta male or female. But this is merely descriptive--it is not proscriptive.
This what we teach in school. Plain and simple. And we offer no sort of corrective to this in our science classes at all. Most high schools that I am aware of do not have the resources to offer philosophy or theology classes, and so most students are taught that this is what makes us tick--as the animals we have evolved to be.
And God forbid that we invoke any thought of a Creator in the educational process for that violates the separation of church and state. That is establishing a religion, and we simply cannot have that.
But we have no presented ourselves with a major conundrum. For science isn't capable of getting us from what is to what ought. And as a society, we have walked away from any sort of universal ought when it comes to morals and actions--in short we have walked away from any sort of religious foundations for morals and ethics.
And because of that, we are left with evolutionary thought guiding our behaviors and thoughts. The very stuff we taught in school. And it surprises me that many get so upset when people act like evolution has bred us to act:
When Miley Cyrus uses sexuality to make herself desirable and wealthy, she is simply using what nature gave her to climb the ladder and pass on her genes.
Anthony Weiner does the same thing from a male point of view.
Interracial violence mirrors what goes on in nature when different colors of fur cause species to attack one another from within.
Garnering more wealth is simply a way of garnering more power and prestige--rising to the top of the evolutionary ladder.
And even though kindness is shown in nature, there is nothing--nothing at all--there to take us from is to ought. There is nothing which says kindness ought to be the rule instead of fight, flight, freeze, or reproduction.
Only religion offers a foundation to take us from is to ought. Only faith gives us a foundation to go against many of the evolutionary instincts which drive us.
A failure to recognize this means we will simply keep teaching the same things and expecting different results. Perhaps God does indeed need to be reintroduced in school--not as a means of forcing religion upon anyone, but by helping folks understand:
We are more than animals.
Let's start with Miley Cyrus. Not only did she grab attention at the VMA's, but the next thing you know, she is featured in a music video riding a giant wrecking ball naked (with hands strategically placed) seductively licking a sledge hammer. I've read more than a few opinion pieces analyzing, criticizing, and supporting her behavior. And I ask, "Is it surprising?"
Let's then move to Anthony Weiner. I posted about a shouting match he had the other day with a fellow Jewish New Yorker. New York voters soundly rejected him as a mayoral candidate particularly after he was found to be sexting even after losing his congressional seat for doing the same thing. One of his sexting partners showed up at his election party. After all was said and done, Weiner flipped the bird at reporters showing little contrition for anything he had done or was doing. And I ask, "Is this surprising?"
We move now to violence and the horrendous murders we have seen taking place in the news--particularly those with a racial overtone. I find it interesting how the different news networks have begun dealing with such matters after the George Zimmerman trial. Suddenly, each time a black person harms or kills a white person, there is a racial overtone and vice-versa. There seems to be a concerted effort to highlight violence that occurs between people of different color/race/ethnicity. And I ask, "Is such violence surprising?"
Now, we head toward the widening gap between the wealthy and the poor. I saw several stories in the past few days highlighting the fact that the wealthy keep getting more wealth while the poor remain in poverty. The few are lording it over the many, and there are cries rising up about the injustice of it all. But I ask, "Is it really surprising?"
I mean, I think all of these things have something in common. There is a common thread that actually binds it all together.
Think about what we teach now in school regarding human beings and how they came into existence. In our science classes we teach that man descended from apes. Man is simply another animal who evolved--there is nothing special about him. And how did that evolution occur? Through natural selection and genetic mutation. Now, we know we have little control over genetic mutation. This happens when our genes fail to make exact replicas either by a mistake in the replication process or from some sort of mechanism including being affected by radiation from the sun. It really doesn't matter--it's out of any control that we exert.
Ah, but natural selection--that's another story. For natural selection is all about the survival of the fittest. Death and disease wipes out the lesser and the weaker leaving the strong to thrive and survive. Passing on one's genes means rising to the top of the food chain, striving to be the highest on the ladder to ensure survival of one's genetic lineage. It means attracting the alpha of the opposite sex as well to ensure a good genetic bond. And protecting one's genes from those considered lesser is paramount! When a threat arises to challenge our status, it must be met and put down decisively. This is the natural way of things. Nature isn't some kind of Eden where everything gets along. It's fight, flight, freeze, and reproduce to pass on one's genes and ensure the survival of the species.
Sure, we talk about tit for tat and kindness being a part of the evolutionary process. We talk about how one species can be kind to ensure its survival--particularly if it's effective for a weaker beta male or female. But this is merely descriptive--it is not proscriptive.
This what we teach in school. Plain and simple. And we offer no sort of corrective to this in our science classes at all. Most high schools that I am aware of do not have the resources to offer philosophy or theology classes, and so most students are taught that this is what makes us tick--as the animals we have evolved to be.
And God forbid that we invoke any thought of a Creator in the educational process for that violates the separation of church and state. That is establishing a religion, and we simply cannot have that.
But we have no presented ourselves with a major conundrum. For science isn't capable of getting us from what is to what ought. And as a society, we have walked away from any sort of universal ought when it comes to morals and actions--in short we have walked away from any sort of religious foundations for morals and ethics.
And because of that, we are left with evolutionary thought guiding our behaviors and thoughts. The very stuff we taught in school. And it surprises me that many get so upset when people act like evolution has bred us to act:
When Miley Cyrus uses sexuality to make herself desirable and wealthy, she is simply using what nature gave her to climb the ladder and pass on her genes.
Anthony Weiner does the same thing from a male point of view.
Interracial violence mirrors what goes on in nature when different colors of fur cause species to attack one another from within.
Garnering more wealth is simply a way of garnering more power and prestige--rising to the top of the evolutionary ladder.
And even though kindness is shown in nature, there is nothing--nothing at all--there to take us from is to ought. There is nothing which says kindness ought to be the rule instead of fight, flight, freeze, or reproduction.
Only religion offers a foundation to take us from is to ought. Only faith gives us a foundation to go against many of the evolutionary instincts which drive us.
A failure to recognize this means we will simply keep teaching the same things and expecting different results. Perhaps God does indeed need to be reintroduced in school--not as a means of forcing religion upon anyone, but by helping folks understand:
We are more than animals.
Saturday, July 13, 2013
Personal Experience, Proof of God, and Richard Dawkins
In the midst of writing my book, I came to the realization I would need to read Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion. I had seen Dawkins debate Christian philosophers and scientists on Youtube, but I had yet to read his works. Necessity drove me to finally purchase the book.
I have managed the first quarter of the book so far, and there is much to discuss--too much to manage in a blog post. Dawkins' book actually received scathing reviews by many, and it is no surprise. What perhaps is surprising is Dawkins' apologetics in dealing with those reviews in the Kindle Edition. Basically, as I read him, he believes his critics are simply delusional--as is anyone who believes in God.
Whether or not I am delusional, along with the majority of the world's population remains to be seen. And I am currently writing a book to argue to the contrary; however, there is one item in Dawkins' book which I believe needs to be addressed: his rebuttal of the "Argument from Experience" for the existence of God.
Dawkins writes:
Many people believe in God because they believe they have seen a vision of him--or of an angel or a virgin in blue--with their own eyes. Or he speaks to them inside their heads. This argument from personal experience is the one that is most convincing to those who claim to have had one. But it is the least convincing to anyone else, and anyone knowledgeable about psychology. (Kindle Location 1397)
What makes Dawkins say such things?
The human brain runs first-class simulation software. Our eyes don't present to our brains a faithful photograph of what is out there, or an accurate movie of what is going on through time. Our brains construct a continuously updated model: updated by coded pulses chattering along the optic nerve, but constructed nevertheless. (Kindle location 1414)
...[The brain] is well capable of constructing 'visions' and 'visitations' of the utmost veridical power. To simulate a ghost or an angel or a Virgin Mary would be child's play to software of this sophistication. And the same works for hearing. (Kindle location 1431)
That is really all that needs to be said about personal 'experiences' of gods or other religious phenomena. If you've had such an experience, you may well find yourself believing firmly that it was real. But don't expect the rest of us to take your word for it, especially if we have the slightest familiarity with the brain and its powerful workings. (Kindle location 1471)
It may surprise you that I will not argue with Dawkins' commentary on the way the brain works. My own studies through Bowen Family Systems Theory confirms exactly this phenomena of the brain. In fact, it is well known that we all have a blind spot in each eye. Yet, if we close one eye, no such spot appears. Our brains fill it in!!!
Yes, indeed, our brains are capable of producing a model of reality, and they do it all the time.
But Dawkins has a problem here. A big problem which he doesn't seem to grasp. He uses this phenomena to argue against any sort of religious phenomena without admitting that his brain is running a model on the observations he too is relating to us about biology and evolution. He may try to argue that he is subjecting his observations to rigorous methodology, but it is still being processed by his own simulator in his own brain. And he certainly cannot argue that others have run the simulation and come up with the same results thereby confirming his own simulation because he admits: "Religious experiences are different only in that the people who claim them are numerous." (Kindle location 1403)
So, applying Dawkins' own argument to his works invalidates them, correct? I hardly think he would agree, yet, this is the logical conclusion.
There is more to be said; however. For Dawkins' only deals with the "simulation software's" ability to add things in. What he does not delve into--either by choice or by ignorance--is that the simulation software in our brain also OMITS things. Yes, you heard me correctly. The simulation software omits things--especially when there is a bias attached; and there is always a bias attached.
Please watch the following video as illustration:
If you are like me, you rewound it just to make sure there wasn't some sleight of hand.
Did you see that your brain omitted something important? Did you see how your simulation software omitted the obvious?
Perhaps Professor Dawkins knows this. Perhaps he does not. If he does and refused to include this important fact, I think he is guilty of major confirmation bias. Why?
Well, if one admits that one's brain simulation software omits things based upon a particular bias...
And Dawkins' particular bias is a singular hatred (believe me, that's not too strong a word) of all things religious...
Then it is not only quite possible, but quite likely his brain omits and overlooks religious experiences that may be happening in his own life. It is possible, even likely, Dawkins is missing something that is obvious to the rest of us: religious experience.
What Dawkins fails to recognize is the trustworthiness of the source. It is quite possible to dismiss religious experiences as false among those who are indeed mentally ill and unbalanced. It is quite another thing to dismiss them among people who live lives full of sanity, regularity, and normalcy (whatever that might be). Dawkins lumps them all together, and in doing so--along with omitting a very important detail in how our brains work--falls far short of offering a dismissal of religious experience as proof of God's existence.
I have managed the first quarter of the book so far, and there is much to discuss--too much to manage in a blog post. Dawkins' book actually received scathing reviews by many, and it is no surprise. What perhaps is surprising is Dawkins' apologetics in dealing with those reviews in the Kindle Edition. Basically, as I read him, he believes his critics are simply delusional--as is anyone who believes in God.
Whether or not I am delusional, along with the majority of the world's population remains to be seen. And I am currently writing a book to argue to the contrary; however, there is one item in Dawkins' book which I believe needs to be addressed: his rebuttal of the "Argument from Experience" for the existence of God.
Dawkins writes:
Many people believe in God because they believe they have seen a vision of him--or of an angel or a virgin in blue--with their own eyes. Or he speaks to them inside their heads. This argument from personal experience is the one that is most convincing to those who claim to have had one. But it is the least convincing to anyone else, and anyone knowledgeable about psychology. (Kindle Location 1397)
What makes Dawkins say such things?
The human brain runs first-class simulation software. Our eyes don't present to our brains a faithful photograph of what is out there, or an accurate movie of what is going on through time. Our brains construct a continuously updated model: updated by coded pulses chattering along the optic nerve, but constructed nevertheless. (Kindle location 1414)
...[The brain] is well capable of constructing 'visions' and 'visitations' of the utmost veridical power. To simulate a ghost or an angel or a Virgin Mary would be child's play to software of this sophistication. And the same works for hearing. (Kindle location 1431)
That is really all that needs to be said about personal 'experiences' of gods or other religious phenomena. If you've had such an experience, you may well find yourself believing firmly that it was real. But don't expect the rest of us to take your word for it, especially if we have the slightest familiarity with the brain and its powerful workings. (Kindle location 1471)
It may surprise you that I will not argue with Dawkins' commentary on the way the brain works. My own studies through Bowen Family Systems Theory confirms exactly this phenomena of the brain. In fact, it is well known that we all have a blind spot in each eye. Yet, if we close one eye, no such spot appears. Our brains fill it in!!!
Yes, indeed, our brains are capable of producing a model of reality, and they do it all the time.
But Dawkins has a problem here. A big problem which he doesn't seem to grasp. He uses this phenomena to argue against any sort of religious phenomena without admitting that his brain is running a model on the observations he too is relating to us about biology and evolution. He may try to argue that he is subjecting his observations to rigorous methodology, but it is still being processed by his own simulator in his own brain. And he certainly cannot argue that others have run the simulation and come up with the same results thereby confirming his own simulation because he admits: "Religious experiences are different only in that the people who claim them are numerous." (Kindle location 1403)
So, applying Dawkins' own argument to his works invalidates them, correct? I hardly think he would agree, yet, this is the logical conclusion.
There is more to be said; however. For Dawkins' only deals with the "simulation software's" ability to add things in. What he does not delve into--either by choice or by ignorance--is that the simulation software in our brain also OMITS things. Yes, you heard me correctly. The simulation software omits things--especially when there is a bias attached; and there is always a bias attached.
Please watch the following video as illustration:
Did you see that your brain omitted something important? Did you see how your simulation software omitted the obvious?
Perhaps Professor Dawkins knows this. Perhaps he does not. If he does and refused to include this important fact, I think he is guilty of major confirmation bias. Why?
Well, if one admits that one's brain simulation software omits things based upon a particular bias...
And Dawkins' particular bias is a singular hatred (believe me, that's not too strong a word) of all things religious...
Then it is not only quite possible, but quite likely his brain omits and overlooks religious experiences that may be happening in his own life. It is possible, even likely, Dawkins is missing something that is obvious to the rest of us: religious experience.
What Dawkins fails to recognize is the trustworthiness of the source. It is quite possible to dismiss religious experiences as false among those who are indeed mentally ill and unbalanced. It is quite another thing to dismiss them among people who live lives full of sanity, regularity, and normalcy (whatever that might be). Dawkins lumps them all together, and in doing so--along with omitting a very important detail in how our brains work--falls far short of offering a dismissal of religious experience as proof of God's existence.
Friday, April 19, 2013
The Non-Living Became Living
"The dead cannot come to life."
This argument might present a Christian with a big problem--especially when spoken by someone who approaches a person of faith from the standpoint of reason and science.
Our usual defense is, "We take such things by faith and not by sight or by reason or by science."
This statement is true on our part, but may I suggest another tact.
First, see if those who say this will modify their statement to, "The non-living cannot become living."
If they agree to this premise, then ask the following:
Do you believe that scientists tell us that the earth was once a part of a bi-nary planet system and that those to planets collided? The remains of that second planet are actually our moon. Do you concede that because of this collision, the earth was once one giant ball of molten rock?
If they concede the point, ask them if they believe this rock was non-living or living.
If they are true to their logic, they will have to say that it was non-living.
Continue: And then, somehow, this planet, which was entirely non-living, molten rock somehow brought about living organisms? Correct?
They must concede the point.
Therefore something that was non-living actually produced something that was living. The non-living became living. It happened once. Isn't it possible it could happen again?
This argument might present a Christian with a big problem--especially when spoken by someone who approaches a person of faith from the standpoint of reason and science.
Our usual defense is, "We take such things by faith and not by sight or by reason or by science."
This statement is true on our part, but may I suggest another tact.
First, see if those who say this will modify their statement to, "The non-living cannot become living."
If they agree to this premise, then ask the following:
Do you believe that scientists tell us that the earth was once a part of a bi-nary planet system and that those to planets collided? The remains of that second planet are actually our moon. Do you concede that because of this collision, the earth was once one giant ball of molten rock?
If they concede the point, ask them if they believe this rock was non-living or living.
If they are true to their logic, they will have to say that it was non-living.
Continue: And then, somehow, this planet, which was entirely non-living, molten rock somehow brought about living organisms? Correct?
They must concede the point.
Therefore something that was non-living actually produced something that was living. The non-living became living. It happened once. Isn't it possible it could happen again?
Monday, April 15, 2013
Another "Ask the Pastor" Response
A few months back, I addressed an "Ask the Pastor" question from the ELCA Living Lutheran Website where I believed the responses given were a bit inadequate. Today, I sense the urge to do so once again.
Today's question is a very important one raised by Bob Lawrence from Chicago:
It’s evident that violations of the laws of nature do not occur in our universe. Christianity depends on the existence of events that violate those laws. How can an intelligent human being be a Christian?
The responses given by fellow clergy are predictable and do little to actually further the discussion. Essentially, they say, "We live by faith not by science or the laws of nature." or "We don't understand or know all the laws of nature." Admittedly, these statements are true; however, they will not convince Bob or anyone else who comes with Bob's premise to give faith a shot.
A congregation member of mine, Rick Shilling, is very prominent in the world of heat exchange engineering. He is a tremendous person of faith as well as a very, very good scientist. He and I have written the following response. Rick's additions are distinguished by being in red print :
An excellent question, Bob, but I would like to challenge the premise a bit. Which laws of nature are you referring to? The laws of Quantum Mechanics or the Laws of General Relativity? I hope you are aware that these two theories dominate the discussion of the way the world works. Quantum Mechanics deals with the subatomic world and General Relativity deals with large objects. They both work very, very well; yet, we also know they are incompatible. You cannot extend General Relativity's laws into the Quantum world, because they do not work well there and vice versa. This has troubled scientists, and, at least for a time and quite possibly still, the Holy Grail of science was a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) which brought these two areas into accord. It still hasn't been found, and, in fact, it is quite possible that it will never be. Why?
One must take up the study of mathematics for a little while, particularly the proof of a German mathematician by the name of Kurt Goedel. He wrote a rather short paper On Formally Undecidable Propositions in Principia Mathematica and Related Systems I where he proved the limitations of all but the simplest of systems of thought and logic. Goedel wrote the paper in such a way that its implications spilled over into the realms of not only mathematics but science and philosophy as well. Long and short of it, each and every system of thought is limited. It cannot cover all of the bases. Exceptions will always arise. Let that sink in a moment. (I direct your attention to Stephen Hawking’s book The Grand Design, where if you can overlook his poor attempts to play philosopher in the name of atheism, you can find a good intro explanation of a new concept in physics called “m-theory” where specific sets of scientific “laws” are used only within defined length scales since their inaccuracies are too great outside of these length scales.)
It is because of Goedel that the term scientific law has basically been abolished. (Ever wonder why Einstein’s theory of relativity is still called a theory after more than 100 years of successful testing, more than most any other accepted scientific theory had undergone in the past before being called a scientific law ?)The term is kept around out of respect for Newton and others who first formulated the concept; however, science does not talk in terms of certainty any longer because we have discovered that no law is always true at all times and in all circumstances. Again, take a moment to let that sink in.
When it comes to dealing with interactions in the world, scientists now talk in terms of probability. There is high probability and low probability. There are even cases of extremely minute probability--for instance the probability of a person being resurrected from the dead. It is highly improbable, but it is not impossible--at least according to science. In engineering, where scientific laws are applied to development of real world technologies, the use of probabilities and/or safety factors in design are always included to protect the public.
This means, Bob, unfortunately, your premise is flawed. However, the confusion is understandable and common.
First of all, the secondary education system performs a disservice to its students by teaching the "laws of physics" as if they were immutable truths instead of very accurate approximations best suited for use within certain limits. This "new" understanding became widespread in the practicing scientific community in the early decades of the 20th century but, unfortunately did not filter down to the masses. In addition, universities avoided teaching the full implications of Godel since they did not wish to sow uncertainty among their students who were struggling under heavy course loads. Nowadays, many university professors have never learned that much of Godel and proceed merrily along as if all things were determinant.
Secondly, there are some Christians who adopt a simplistic understanding of what they read in the Bible that cannot easily be defended. This is because as human beings we always "fill in the blanks" of everything we read in our attempts to understand. For most children, the Bible is understood as God performing a series of magic tricks without realizing that the magic tricks are their additions of what they have read to try to understand it. If a reader has not learned how to separate his "filling in of the blanks" from the actual written text, this reader can incorrectly misinterpret new learning as in conflict with what he believes is written in the Bible. Unfortunately, the public protests of some of these Christians get disproportionately high exposure, sometimes drowning out the majority of Christians who do not see any conflicts and are quite comfortable with both science and Christianity.
Thirdly, there are some in the atheistic community who cannot accept the fact that atheism is also a choice. This has to be troubling, if one believes in the infallibility of man or science and then discovers some of the limitations of science or of human thought. Often, some write a protest in defense of atheism by trying to use science and a childlike understanding of Christianity to prove their point. This has always failed and probably always will because neither science nor mankind is completely infallible. There are always choices that must be made.
The Christian faith does not rest upon the necessity of natural laws to be broken. In fact, it is quite compatible with what we have come to understand as the way the world works.
And as those of us who believe in God begin to understand more and more about how the world works, we marvel at God's handiwork. Far from a "God of the gaps" approach, we see intricacy and wonder. We are stupefied by the physical constants and how they are just right to support intelligent life. We marvel at how evolution brought about thinking, intelligent beings out of primordial, unthinking sludge. Far from dismissing what science has shown us about the natural world, we embrace what science has shown us about the majesty of God. It's not that difficult to be an intelligent person and believe in God--even the Christian God. Just ask Francis Collins who headed up the Human Genome Project.
Today's question is a very important one raised by Bob Lawrence from Chicago:
It’s evident that violations of the laws of nature do not occur in our universe. Christianity depends on the existence of events that violate those laws. How can an intelligent human being be a Christian?
The responses given by fellow clergy are predictable and do little to actually further the discussion. Essentially, they say, "We live by faith not by science or the laws of nature." or "We don't understand or know all the laws of nature." Admittedly, these statements are true; however, they will not convince Bob or anyone else who comes with Bob's premise to give faith a shot.
A congregation member of mine, Rick Shilling, is very prominent in the world of heat exchange engineering. He is a tremendous person of faith as well as a very, very good scientist. He and I have written the following response. Rick's additions are distinguished by being in red print :
An excellent question, Bob, but I would like to challenge the premise a bit. Which laws of nature are you referring to? The laws of Quantum Mechanics or the Laws of General Relativity? I hope you are aware that these two theories dominate the discussion of the way the world works. Quantum Mechanics deals with the subatomic world and General Relativity deals with large objects. They both work very, very well; yet, we also know they are incompatible. You cannot extend General Relativity's laws into the Quantum world, because they do not work well there and vice versa. This has troubled scientists, and, at least for a time and quite possibly still, the Holy Grail of science was a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) which brought these two areas into accord. It still hasn't been found, and, in fact, it is quite possible that it will never be. Why?
One must take up the study of mathematics for a little while, particularly the proof of a German mathematician by the name of Kurt Goedel. He wrote a rather short paper On Formally Undecidable Propositions in Principia Mathematica and Related Systems I where he proved the limitations of all but the simplest of systems of thought and logic. Goedel wrote the paper in such a way that its implications spilled over into the realms of not only mathematics but science and philosophy as well. Long and short of it, each and every system of thought is limited. It cannot cover all of the bases. Exceptions will always arise. Let that sink in a moment. (I direct your attention to Stephen Hawking’s book The Grand Design, where if you can overlook his poor attempts to play philosopher in the name of atheism, you can find a good intro explanation of a new concept in physics called “m-theory” where specific sets of scientific “laws” are used only within defined length scales since their inaccuracies are too great outside of these length scales.)
It is because of Goedel that the term scientific law has basically been abolished. (Ever wonder why Einstein’s theory of relativity is still called a theory after more than 100 years of successful testing, more than most any other accepted scientific theory had undergone in the past before being called a scientific law ?)The term is kept around out of respect for Newton and others who first formulated the concept; however, science does not talk in terms of certainty any longer because we have discovered that no law is always true at all times and in all circumstances. Again, take a moment to let that sink in.
When it comes to dealing with interactions in the world, scientists now talk in terms of probability. There is high probability and low probability. There are even cases of extremely minute probability--for instance the probability of a person being resurrected from the dead. It is highly improbable, but it is not impossible--at least according to science. In engineering, where scientific laws are applied to development of real world technologies, the use of probabilities and/or safety factors in design are always included to protect the public.
This means, Bob, unfortunately, your premise is flawed. However, the confusion is understandable and common.
First of all, the secondary education system performs a disservice to its students by teaching the "laws of physics" as if they were immutable truths instead of very accurate approximations best suited for use within certain limits. This "new" understanding became widespread in the practicing scientific community in the early decades of the 20th century but, unfortunately did not filter down to the masses. In addition, universities avoided teaching the full implications of Godel since they did not wish to sow uncertainty among their students who were struggling under heavy course loads. Nowadays, many university professors have never learned that much of Godel and proceed merrily along as if all things were determinant.
Secondly, there are some Christians who adopt a simplistic understanding of what they read in the Bible that cannot easily be defended. This is because as human beings we always "fill in the blanks" of everything we read in our attempts to understand. For most children, the Bible is understood as God performing a series of magic tricks without realizing that the magic tricks are their additions of what they have read to try to understand it. If a reader has not learned how to separate his "filling in of the blanks" from the actual written text, this reader can incorrectly misinterpret new learning as in conflict with what he believes is written in the Bible. Unfortunately, the public protests of some of these Christians get disproportionately high exposure, sometimes drowning out the majority of Christians who do not see any conflicts and are quite comfortable with both science and Christianity.
Thirdly, there are some in the atheistic community who cannot accept the fact that atheism is also a choice. This has to be troubling, if one believes in the infallibility of man or science and then discovers some of the limitations of science or of human thought. Often, some write a protest in defense of atheism by trying to use science and a childlike understanding of Christianity to prove their point. This has always failed and probably always will because neither science nor mankind is completely infallible. There are always choices that must be made.
The Christian faith does not rest upon the necessity of natural laws to be broken. In fact, it is quite compatible with what we have come to understand as the way the world works.
And as those of us who believe in God begin to understand more and more about how the world works, we marvel at God's handiwork. Far from a "God of the gaps" approach, we see intricacy and wonder. We are stupefied by the physical constants and how they are just right to support intelligent life. We marvel at how evolution brought about thinking, intelligent beings out of primordial, unthinking sludge. Far from dismissing what science has shown us about the natural world, we embrace what science has shown us about the majesty of God. It's not that difficult to be an intelligent person and believe in God--even the Christian God. Just ask Francis Collins who headed up the Human Genome Project.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)