State of Mind and Questions of design

[Ukranianlys]

Hello all, I have been with this website for almost 2 years now, I have learned many thing from this informative collection of Debates and Discussions. A few things still rattle in the back of my head and i just cant seem to find the answers for them. I have collected a vast amount of information from this site, as it has dominated my free time for (as i said) 2 Years now. I just cannot get of this subject but despite all of that i still cannot wrap my head around the concept that i cannot pin a name on, but i will give a few examples

The simplist Example being this

Plant, water and fruits are all Examples of how things may have been provided for our well being, Plants give Life-giving Oxygen, and Remove toxic impurities from the air, all the while creating sugar for themselves.

Water is the building block of life, Almost all life depends upon this, surely this is here to benefit us? and fruit is easy for Humans and animals to consume, is this another reason to say that this is here for our own benefit?

But what if Plants take in Carbon dioxide because it was plentiful? and gave off oxygen for the sole purpose to keep us alive so it could continue to produce sugar for itself? And water, is it the building block of life because it was made that way? or is it because we evolved to require it? And fruit of the plants that give off oxygen, is it just so it can spread Seeds and fufill it purpose of reproduction and survival? or because we require something to eat?

I have a few more examples that i will share on this particular subject if need be.


On to the next, Earth is a miracle of existance, a gem among coal. Nothing could ever mimic its beauty and wonderful preportions for life (in my opinion, hope im not ruffling any feathers). So did it beat the odds of existance because we needed it to live? or do we live on it because it was possible? The Universe is massive, and I believe that Nothing could ever mimic Earth, Not with all the factors that must come into play. But i still have those little tinges of doubt.

Sorry if these are Minor in your opnions, Even though i spend much time with the subject of God's existance, i still am learning. This is something i have taught myself.

The final Example is what i call "State of mind"

You all here have heard of "close minded fool" or "Im open-minded" Right? well i have two such states, I have labled them "close minded" And "open minded" but i dont know if i was correct in calling them this. I will give examples

When i feel i am "close minded" I look at things for what they are, and not the big picture, For instance i was Researching the Process of evolution from Reptiles to Birds. I Found myself losing a bit of faith as one Subject led onto another "Well mabye the birds did evolve from Reptiles, and mabye We did evolve as well" this may not impact someone as much as it did myself, you see Avian species were one of my top debate subjects that i heavily relied upon, as bird are so complex for there ability to fly (I will not bore you with the details) that there should be no way for them to have evolved.

Anyways as i thought more an more, My thought process almost took a 180 degree turn, I started thinking quickly "Well they may have evolved but look at the big picture! Evolution in itself may be a correct Subject, but it still does not accout for a creator! i may not need one but where is the Driving force that made the big Biological leap of "Mud to man" I feel in my heart that we have a reason for existance" this is what i call my 'Open minded' State. My question is, was i correct in labeling these? Could it be that in my own little world that this "open minded state" is actually what the atheists call "close minded" and is My own "close minded state" the state of mind they call "free thinker?"

It may be a odd question, and i am sorry if it is borderline Stupid. I just have no one to ask these questions. So i say thanks for your time.

[Katabole]

Hi Ukranianlys,

Well your question seems to be divided into three parts: (a)the created things and/or the naturalistic way they evolved, (b)the reasons for existence and (c)the rationality of the human mind.

My answers might crossover one another but hopefully that will be to your benefit.

The Bible does have something to say about why things exist:


Isaiah 45:18 For thus says the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he has established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

If you zone in on the part I underlined, this statement makes the claim that the things which do exist were not the result of some mindless unguided process, otherwise it would state that they were indeed created in vain. If this planet was formed to be inhabited, that would imply that there was some form of initial blueprint, the institution of that plan and then the carrying out of that plan; its establishment. This is one of the very few, (if not the only verse) in the Bible that uses the words created ,formed and made, where created and formed are utilized twice. Evidently, if God created, formed and made, he took intimate enjoyment in the creation and what we see today is a beautiful working ecosystem, which you briefly described.

Removing God from the equation, I believe the atheist is left with a series of hypothesis and if true, it is a cold reality that brings no comfort. Mainly:

1/ If life as we know it and the universe will come to an end, then there is no final meaning or purpose for them.
2/ If God does not exist, then prudential reason and moral reason can and often do come into conflict, in which case there is no reason to act morally rather than in one's self-interest.
3/ Even if life and the universe did not come to an end, there still would be no ultimate meaning or purpose because they would be the result of cosmic accidents.
4/ If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

This is really put into perspective by the British geneticist and evolutionary biologist J.B.S Haldane when he said:

"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms." When I am Dead from Possible Worlds 1927.

When you said:

Anyways as i thought more an more, My thought process almost took a 180 degree turn, I started thinking quickly "Well they may have evolved but look at the big picture! Evolution in itself may be a correct Subject, but it still does not accout for a creator! i may not need one but where is the Driving force that made the big Biological leap of "Mud to man" I feel in my heart that we have a reason for existance" this is what i call my 'Open minded' State. My question is, was i correct in labeling these? Could it be that in my own little world that this "open minded state" is actually what the atheists call "close minded" and is My own "close minded state" the state of mind they call "free thinker?"

The first thing that came to my head was a song by Bob Dylan called Ballad of a Thin Man, where Dylan writes:

You raise up your head
And you ask, "Is this where it is?"
And somebody points to you and says
"It's his"
And you says, "What's mine ?"
And somebody else says, "Well what is?"
And you say, "Oh my God
Am I here all alone?"

Frankly, I think your mental contemplation about the rationality of the human mind is similar to something I read by the atheist Bertrand Russell:


"...even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins -- all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built." From A Free Man's Worship

I humbly suggest that you read a couple of books by professor John Lennox. One is called: Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists are Missing the Target. The other is Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science, esp. appendix 5 where Lennox deals specifically with the concept of theistic evolution. Can't recommend these books enough.

I don't know if my answers were thorough enough for you. It is my experience that many times when these questions are asked, the answers are over-intellectualized to the point, where the person that asked the original question is left in an even worse state; a conundrum of confusion.

From a personal point of view, at my employers, I work with a large number of people and one of them is a devout Christian, Baptist specifically. One day a few years ago now, she met me and we were having a talk and she was explaining how she felt ostracized by others she worked with, because they knew she believed in Christ and thought she was just an idiot. But she said something very profound which has always stuck with me and I'll relate it to you. She said, " I don't know how anyone can claim they don't believe in God after they look into a new born baby's eyes". Bottom line, outside of the intellectualism, I really think it is that simple.

Hope that helps and maybe others can chime in.

[Ukranianlys]

Why thank you for the reply, I am terribly sorry for not responding sooner. The internet connection in the area i live is worse than i can describe.

Back to the point,

I agree with what you say, The earth does appear to be Designed (More so now than any time in humankinds existance),But the question still remains, I appreciate the Bible and what it says but i suppose a more scientific answer is what i am looking for. Like i had said, it appears that many things here on earth are Fit for Human existance and the animals that accompany us, but these Properties (such as Plants and there process of Photosythesis, Water and how Life cannot exist without it, How the Earth has an Atmosphere That keeps the earth at just the right tempurature, how The Tilt of the earth's Axis allows each "side" to be givin 12 hours of sunlight and then Darkness for Rest, More along side these.) Are they Here for us? Or Is it because we Evolved to Require them because they were in ready supply?

I appear to have also confused you on The states of mind point, although what you did give me was wonderful to learn, thank you. The books? Why yes, will take you up on that offer and i will search the local library to find them.

To perhaps put it more clearly I will give you an example

You are aware how Atheists say that our minds are clouded by "religious dogma, Blind faith and fairytales" correct? Also to add they claim to have an Open mind/ Freethinking? Im am just trying to say I disagree, i find that when I have no doubts and i have the utmost faith in god i find that i think clearly, take things in a different prespective. Does that make sense? if not i am sorry it is a bit difficult for me to explain.

All i am asking is if My state of mind; (In which i have the utmost faith in god, Think of the world in a deeper prespective and Find better Answers to The questions of My Skeptical Associates) Am i being "open-minded"? or am i really just in the state that is claimed to be "Clouded, blinded by faith and even dogmatic" ? Could i be Labeling them wrong and my prespective Is False and Truely clouded and i am not Looking at the proper evidence?

Sorry if this is bothersome and Repetative. Katabole, i thank you for your response and Although it did not seal the deal for these questions, it was still a great point, one that did answer one of my Other Questions that i didnt even ask yet! Thank you.

[Ukranianlys]

I appologize if some of these questions are "already answered" and almost not worth bothering with. I understand as i can see i have not earned any responses other than the kindly Katabole.

In some false hope that my questions will get answered (sorry for my impatience) i will add a few more to the table

I have found that a few of my closest and dear friends are leaning on the side of atheism, I troubled myself for a few days and eventually invited them to Lunch to discuss some of their questions and why they had claimed to me that they "were not sure that god existed" One of them told me that it stemmed from their childhood in which they always had trouble thinking it over. As it turns out the question was one of the most simple "Who made god?" I answered with a similar response that Rich had stated on the subject (on the homepage) and he was happy with the answer, my other friend; similar troubles except with the evil in the world, and after a few days i found that these simple Questions had festered inside them for so many years that it planted the seed of doubt in them. So my question is, Could it be that the atheisim that is taking some of the population of the world meerly be the Tiny seeds of doubt that had taken root in their childhood? and that they had not had them ever answered?

Has anyone encountered any similar Expirences?

Im am considering Starting up a little sunday school class for the children at the church to answer some of there questions that they may have, Teenagers included. Thoughts?

[jurek]

So my question is, Could it be that the atheisim that is taking some of the population of the world meerly be the Tiny seeds of doubt that had taken root in their childhood? and that they had not had them ever answered?

The concept of "doubt" is quite complex. I would like to recommend Os Guinness'es book Doubt, "Faith in two minds." The thing you are pointing to is covered in the Chapter "A Trojan horse," and while it explains ways in which a Christian's mind can be affected by faulty presuppositions, you can extrapolate the pattern to the context presented by you.

The process that goes exactly the opposite direction that doubt is the process of renewing the mind (Rom 12:2). Os gives the following definition: "The renewed mind is nothing less than the mind if Christ in the believer, a mind so under his authority that its presuppositions are entirely influenced and informed by the truth of God."

In this case, presupposition means the truth or assumption that must be taken as true, for the reminder of the sentence or a thought process to be true as well. The problem is that examining our presuppositions is not effortless, and most of them are held unconsciously. Thus seeds of doubt will the more effective, the less we pay attention to what they are and which consequences they bring.

[Byblos]

So my question is, Could it be that the atheisim that is taking some of the population of the world meerly be the Tiny seeds of doubt that had taken root in their childhood? and that they had not had them ever answered?

The concept of "doubt" is quite complex. I would like to recommend Os Guinness'es book Doubt, "Faith in two minds." The thing you are pointing to is covered in the Chapter "A Trojan horse," and while it explains ways in which a Christian's mind can be affected by faulty presuppositions, you can extrapolate the pattern to the context presented by you.

The process that goes exactly the opposite direction that doubt is the process of renewing the mind (Rom 12:2). Os gives the following definition: "The renewed mind is nothing less than the mind if Christ in the believer, a mind so under his authority that its presuppositions are entirely influenced and informed by the truth of God."

In this case, presupposition means the truth or assumption that must be taken as true, for the reminder of the sentence or a thought process to be true as well. The problem is that examining our presuppositions is not effortless, and most of them are held unconsciously. Thus seeds of doubt will the more effective, the less we pay attention to what they are and which consequences they bring.

That's very, very interesting Jurek but still a bit confusing (ok a lot). Could you expand on it a bit more, perhaps with some examples/analogies?