Evidence for God from Science

hatsoff wrote:

Gman wrote:Like Jacques Lucien Monod? Those quotes came from renowned evolutionary scientists.

Hence my suggestion to actually read what they have to say, as opposed to cherry-picking quotations which sound vaguely favorable to your religious position.

As opposed to your religious position?

Also that last quote came from a college science book... Do you wish to oppose them?

hatsoff wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:You don't see the contradiction between these two sentences of yours? Perhaps the issue is not so much with the evidence as the approach being taken to it?

I see no contradiction. In the second quote I tell you that I think evidence is a potentially valid means of supporting a religious position. In the first quote I let you know that I don't think such a goal will ever be realized.

In other words, if you want to hit the ball out of the park, you need to swing the bat. But even if you swing, you still may not be strong enough to get it over the fence.

Then again, perhaps you're trying to play baseball at a hockey match. You've framed the question in such a manner that you've predetermined or at least predisposed yourself toward your assumed answer. That's hardly objective.

Gman wrote:As opposed to your religious position?

When it comes to religion, I am an unbeliever.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Then again, perhaps you're trying to play baseball at a hockey match. You've framed the question in such a manner that you've predetermined or at least predisposed yourself toward your assumed answer. That's hardly objective.

I'm willing to consider an alternative approach if such is available and sufficiently attractive. But this is not some unique problem of mine; everyone deals with the very same issue, whether or not they realize it.

hatsoff wrote:

Gman wrote:As opposed to your religious position?

When it comes to religion, I am an unbeliever.

We are religious animals that cannot help but think that something is divine. If you deny the authority of God, that He created all things, you haven't denied the concept of authority, you simply transfer it to something else like nature or mother nature, etc...

This is not science vs religion, this is a battle between two different fundamental philosophies. Two different world views.

What people are doing with nature is applying personal attributes to it. It's a personification of nature. We hear in our culture today about nature doing this or nature doing that, acting in some way like mother nature caused a storm today, or an earthquake, etc.. Nature by itself doesn't do anything.. Nature is impersonal, but humans try to apply their personal attributes to it. It doesn't mean that that person is not religious, it just means they have a different set of religious presumptions..

Gman wrote:We are religious animals that cannot help but think that something is divine. If you deny the authority of God, that He created all things, you haven't denied the concept of authority, you simply transfer it to something else like nature or mother nature, etc...

I understand you believe this very strongly, and it's unlikely anything I say will change your mind. Even so, I can only assure you that I have no such belief in divine authority.

hatsoff wrote:I understand you believe this very strongly, and it's unlikely anything I say will change your mind. Even so, I can only assure you that I have no such belief in divine authority.

How is that Christians and other world religions are called religious, but the secular sphere is called non-religious? Neutral?

Without God everything becomes self generated. History becomes our invention, morality becomes our invention, knowledge becomes our invention. You just transfer your authority to your own knowledge, your own experiences, your own god.. etc..

Once you believe that Darwin evolution as the ultimate source of truth and you get rid of God, there is no definition of good, the rationale for good is gone, so basically you replace God with your own god, your own belief system, your own origin of life, and your own meaning of life devoid of any supernatural God that created you…

Strictly speaking ID is not religion or Christianity, and strictly speaking Darwinism is not atheism either. But a lot of this appears to be the argument that is going on between the two.

In the words of Paul Tillich “Religion is the state of being grasped by an ultimate concern, a concern which qualifies all other concerns as preliminary and which itself contains the answer to the question of a meaning of our life.”

Milton Yinger, who wrote "The Scientific Study of Religion" stated that religion "can be defined as a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with these ultimate problems of human life." Some people deal with it by shopping or playing golf. Man is ultimately concerned about his ultimate destiny.

Anything that is seeking to probe or give answers to that question is considered a religious confession. Not just simply to those who have an outward form of worship. Everyone is capable of being religious in that sense. Your god is whatever you make it...

Canuckster1127 wrote:Yet, it appears that there is a frame of reference within our scientific community in general that tends to reduce the universe to that which is physical and can be observed and measured.

This is absolutely vital to science, though. It doesn't so much "reduce the universe to that which is physical and can be observed and measured" but rather it defines what is physical/natural as those things that can be observed and measured. It doesn't say that the observable/measurable is all that exists, just that these are the only things that the process of science can meaningfully deal with.

With respect to the existence of gods that leaves 3 possibilities:

- No gods exist, so they can never be observed/measured, science never defines them as physical.
- God/s exist, but their nature is such that they cannot be observed/measured within the universe, science never defines them as physical
- God/s exist, and their nature is such that we can observe/measure them, so science defines them as physical. The upshot of this situation would probably be new branches of science forming, and new and novel hypotheses being made, etc etc.

Gman wrote:How is that Christians and other world religions are called religious, but the secular sphere is called non-religious? Neutral?

How is it that ghosts are called "supernatural" and galaxies are called "natural"? It's just the happenstance of language development.

Once you believe that Darwin evolution as the ultimate source of truth and you get rid of God, there is no definition of good, the rationale for good is gone, so basically you replace God with your own god, your own belief system, your own origin of life, and your own meaning of life devoid of any supernatural God that created you…

Putting aside for a moment your melodramatic characterization of Darwin as "the ultimate source of truth," I must ask, is that really what you believe about morality?

Suppose for whatever reason that you became convinced God does not exist, and that all life shares a common ancestor, as indicated by evolutionary theory. In that case, would you suddenly lose your sense of morality? Would you stop behaving altruistically? And if not, why not?

Philosophers often talk about moral reasons versus prudential reasons for behavior. These terms mean exactly what they appear to mean---moral reasons are determined by societal codes of conduct (i.e. morality), whereas prudential reasons aim to satisfy our own selfish interests. You seem to be suggesting that the two spheres have little or no overlap. However, I would argue the opposite. Indeed, I have found in my personal experience that moral reasons and prudential reasons are almost always in harmony.

So, I do not need to suspend my inherent selfishness to behave morally. I am lucky enough to have an instinctual craving for peace and conformity, and I empathize effortlessly with most of my human peers. Therefore I am perfectly rational, as a self-interested entity, to seek to satisfy these desires by acting according to some kind of moral code.

Strictly speaking ID is not religion or Christianity, and strictly speaking Darwinism is not atheism either. But a lot of this appears to be the argument that is going on between the two.

I have found the evolution/creation controversy to be merely a symptom of the underlying conflict between religious and secular frameworks. It's all a big red herring, in my opinion, and I'd much rather talk about the reasons (or lack thereof) for believing in God in the first place.

Anything that is seeking to probe or give answers to that question is considered a religious confession. Not just simply to those who have an outward form of worship. Everyone is capable of being religious in that sense. Your god is whatever you make it...

You're welcome to label my skepticism of religion as "religion" itself, but I'm not going to use your label.

touchingcloth wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Yet, it appears that there is a frame of reference within our scientific community in general that tends to reduce the universe to that which is physical and can be observed and measured.

This is absolutely vital to science, though. It doesn't so much "reduce the universe to that which is physical and can be observed and measured" but rather it defines what is physical/natural as those things that can be observed and measured. It doesn't say that the observable/measurable is all that exists, just that these are the only things that the process of science can meaningfully deal with.

With respect to the existence of gods that leaves 3 possibilities:

- No gods exist, so they can never be observed/measured, science never defines them as physical.
- God/s exist, but their nature is such that they cannot be observed/measured within the universe, science never defines them as physical
- God/s exist, and their nature is such that we can observe/measure them, so science defines them as physical. The upshot of this situation would probably be new branches of science forming, and new and novel hypotheses being made, etc etc.

In the context of science what you're saying is correct, of course, as far as science itself goes. It doesn't however, require scientists to adopt a philosophic or religious point of view that then in turn reduces reality to only that which is observable/measurable. It requires them to limit their hypotheses, within the discipline of science itself, to options such as you describe.

What we're dealing with in the context of this conversation is commonly known as methodoligical naturalism (although I think it can also be referred to as scientific naturalism or naturalized epistemology). This extends beyond the scientific method within the discipline of science itself and addresses a person's worldview as to whether they accept a worldview that allows for or directly accepts reality being anything more than that which is physical or which can be directly observed and/or measured for presence or influence outside the physically observable realm.

A good example of how a scientist who is recognized as both a leader in his field and who maintains a faith in God is Francis Collins. If you're not familiar with him I would suggest a look at his background as the leader in the human genome project and his appointment in 2009 to the director of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, MD.

A good example as to how some of the scientific community in general have extended their scientific discipline beyond the realm of science itself and into the philosophic realm without allowing for the acceptance of reality being more than the material has been some of the reaction to Francis Collins by some who refer to Collins' Christian faith as evidence of dimentia (as evidenced in a column in the New York Times in October of 2009.) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/health/06nih.html

What concerns me, and I'm not necessarily directing this toward any of the individuals in this conversation, although if it happens to be applicable then I'm not apologizing for it, is when science as a discipline is extended outside of that discipline to a form of "scientism" or a dogmatic assertion that the material is the sum total of reality and that anyone who asserts otherwise, especially within the scientific community itself is then ostracized and ridiculed and in some cases barred from advancement.

This cadre of militant atheism is becoming more vocal and aggressive in their campaign in this direction. I realize that they do not represent even all of atheism as I've observed a reaction to them by some even within the atheist community who react to the dogmatism and do not define themselves as anti-religious. I've had dialogues with representatives from both sides of that spectrum and frankly I find that the dogmatism of militant atheism has more in common with the dogmatism of militant fundamentalists at some of the extreme edges of Christianity and other forms of organized theism.

If you haven't read it, I would suggest to you Francis Collins' book, "The Language of God" as evidence for how a scientist recognized as on the cutting edge of his discipline can still and does still maintain religious faith. They are not mutually exclusive.

hatsoff wrote:

Gman wrote:How is that Christians and other world religions are called religious, but the secular sphere is called non-religious? Neutral?

How is it that ghosts are called "supernatural" and galaxies are called "natural"? It's just the happenstance of language development.

Once you believe that Darwin evolution as the ultimate source of truth and you get rid of God, there is no definition of good, the rationale for good is gone, so basically you replace God with your own god, your own belief system, your own origin of life, and your own meaning of life devoid of any supernatural God that created you…

Putting aside for a moment your melodramatic characterization of Darwin as "the ultimate source of truth," I must ask, is that really what you believe about morality?

Suppose for whatever reason that you became convinced God does not exist, and that all life shares a common ancestor, as indicated by evolutionary theory. In that case, would you suddenly lose your sense of morality? Would you stop behaving altruistically? And if not, why not?

but why would there be any reason *to* behave according to *your* morality?!?! So what if that is what *you * believe to be right....doesn't mean it is!

Philosophers often talk about moral reasons versus prudential reasons for behavior. These terms mean exactly what they appear to mean---moral reasons are determined by societal codes of conduct (i.e. morality), whereas prudential reasons aim to satisfy our own selfish interests. You seem to be suggesting that the two spheres have little or no overlap. However, I would argue the opposite. Indeed, I have found in my personal experience that moral reasons and prudential reasons are almost always in harmony.

So, I do not need to suspend my inherent selfishness to behave morally. I am lucky enough to have an instinctual craving for peace and conformity, and I empathize effortlessly with most of my human peers. Therefore I am perfectly rational, as a self-interested entity, to seek to satisfy these desires by acting according to some kind of moral code.

you have revealed the weakness in you own statement ..."I am lucky enough"

Hatsoff...why is your system morally right??? Short answer, simply because you have decided it is....and right now the majority is with you....so great. But that by no means makes it so....it just means that a majority of us have, in your thinking, decided that to kill someone else is wrong, to steal is wrong...

The rest of the animal community does not adhere to this strange line of behavior...indeed other animals such as lions kill the young from other males. This behavior would most certainly have evolved to so that the genes pass down to the next generation. That is certainly not wrong for the lions...what makes it wrong for us, other than some quirk in our thinking that provided our ancestors a greater fitness?!?!??

Early models of primate evolution state that forced sexual relationships were the norm for our ancestors....yet now we deem that wrong. Other than current social convention and thinking, there is nothing else declaring this wrong....We think it so, but there is nothing inherently wrong about it. In the realm of evolutionary morality, raping to ensure reproductive fitness is equal to courtship behaviors. In the current model of the evolution of morality, our morality has simply succeeded where others have not....nothing more, nothing less.

Bower birds will consistently steal feathers, shiny objects, and other adornments form other nest simply to adorn their own bowers. And while we may chuckle over their antics, we don't consider it morally wrong....and yet stealing is considered wrong for us, why? Only because we have declared it so.

Bottomline, there is nothing inherently right or wrong about killing, fighting, stealing, deception, rape, greed, lust according to the evolutionary model alone....they are *arbitrary* labels of right and wrong that are simply the result of current evolutionary success.

We are nothing less than morality bullies, declaring those that engage in behavior that their genes dictate to be social outcasts....

zoegirl wrote:but why would there be any reason *to* behave according to *your* morality?!?! So what if that is what *you * believe to be right....doesn't mean it is!

you have revealed the weakness in you own statement ..."I am lucky enough"

Hatsoff...why is your system morally right??? Short answer, simply because you have decided it is....and right now the majority is with you....so great. But that by no means makes it so....it just means that a majority of us have, in your thinking, decided that to kill someone else is wrong, to steal is wrong...

Quite so. Indeed, that's all it ever means to say that something is "right" or "wrong"---that someone or some group has decided to label it as such. The only difference between us, here, is that you believe God exists and has thrown in his own moral preferences, whereas I do not.

The rest of the animal community does not adhere to this strange line of behavior...indeed other animals such as lions kill the young from other males. This behavior would most certainly have evolved to so that the genes pass down to the next generation. That is certainly not wrong for the lions...what makes it wrong for us, other than some quirk in our thinking that provided our ancestors a greater fitness?!?!??

We have a powerful central nervous system which enables us to reflect on our actions and consider the perspectives of others. So it is that we have developed shared codes of conduct, whereas dumb animals have not done the same.

I don't see anything "strange" about that.

Bottomline, there is nothing inherently right or wrong about killing, fighting, stealing, deception, rape, greed, lust according to the evolutionary model alone....

Indeed not, since "inherent" rightness or wrongness is an unintelligible concept. The existence of God doesn't change that, by the way.

We are nothing less than morality bullies, declaring those that engage in behavior that their genes dictate to be social outcasts....

Yes, that is so, just like the Biblical God, if he exists, is the same sort of moral autocrat, insisting that we comply with his moral decrees, and threatening eternal torture for those guilty of the slightest infraction.

hatsoff wrote:How is it that ghosts are called "supernatural" and galaxies are called "natural"? It's just the happenstance of language development.

And yet complex structures such as the bacterial flagellum or eye are not religious texts or objects.

hatsoff wrote:Putting aside for a moment your melodramatic characterization of Darwin as "the ultimate source of truth," I must ask, is that really what you believe about morality?

That it comes from God...

hatsoff wrote:Suppose for whatever reason that you became convinced God does not exist, and that all life shares a common ancestor, as indicated by evolutionary theory. In that case, would you suddenly lose your sense of morality? Would you stop behaving altruistically? And if not, why not?

Because I know that man's altruistic nature is not pure... Here's a question for you. Why hasn't the secular world embraced the Church's morality? If they were equal we wouldn't be having this conversation. They are in opposition..

hatsoff wrote:Philosophers often talk about moral reasons versus prudential reasons for behavior. These terms mean exactly what they appear to mean---moral reasons are determined by societal codes of conduct (i.e. morality), whereas prudential reasons aim to satisfy our own selfish interests. You seem to be suggesting that the two spheres have little or no overlap. However, I would argue the opposite. Indeed, I have found in my personal experience that moral reasons and prudential reasons are almost always in harmony.

So, I do not need to suspend my inherent selfishness to behave morally. I am lucky enough to have an instinctual craving for peace and conformity, and I empathize effortlessly with most of my human peers. Therefore I am perfectly rational, as a self-interested entity, to seek to satisfy these desires by acting according to some kind of moral code.

Interesting... It appears the court of law lives within you. And you are lucky enough to have an instinctual craving for peace and conformity. It's too bad that others are not lucky enough to have this instinctual craving like you do. But then it wouldn't be luck.

hatsoff wrote:I have found the evolution/creation controversy to be merely a symptom of the underlying conflict between religious and secular frameworks. It's all a big red herring, in my opinion, and I'd much rather talk about the reasons (or lack thereof) for believing in God in the first place.

It's all religion... And both can require faith or miracles in their foundation/creation. According to evolutionist George Wald, in order to believe in Darwinian evolution is time. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time the “impossible” becomes the possible, the possible probable, and the probably virtually certain. "One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles."

Even Darwin admitted this, as he stated, “To admit all this is, as it seems to me, to enter into the realms of miracle, and to leave those of science.”

I'd much rather talk about the reasons for believing in Darwinian evolution in the first place.

hatsoff wrote:You're welcome to label my skepticism of religion as "religion" itself, but I'm not going to use your label.

Would you believe philosopher James Livingston? He stated, “anthologists would agree that religion is a universal human phenomena. A pervasive and permanent reality, a human being is rightly called homo-religiosus, a religious animal.”

hatsoff wrote:Putting aside for a moment your melodramatic characterization of Darwin as "the ultimate source of truth,"

Curious... Are you familiar with the pragmatism movement of John Dewy, William James, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and Charles Peirce that began in the late 1800's?

Gman wrote:Because I know that man's altruistic nature is not pure...

I don't know what you mean by this. You seem to be saying that you would not stop behaving altruistically, correct? And, then you are also suggesting that the reason you would not is because you "know that man's altruistic nature is not pure." But what does that mean? I can't make heads or tails of it.

Here's a question for you. Why hasn't the secular world embraced the Church's morality? If they were equal we wouldn't be having this conversation. They are in opposition..

On certain matters, sure. But there is also obviously a great deal of overlap, as we all function together in the same society.

Interesting... It appears the court of law lives within you. And you are lucky enough to have an instinctual craving for peace and conformity. It's too bad that others are not lucky enough to have this instinctual craving like you do. But then it wouldn't be luck.

But others are lucky enough. Surely you would not suddenly begin cheating and stealing if you were to become convinced that God does not exist, would you? Well, the same goes for most other people.

Would you believe philosopher James Livingston? He stated, “anthologists would agree that religion is a universal human phenomena. A pervasive and permanent reality, a human being is rightly called homo-religiosus, a religious animal.”

It's not a matter of belief. Labels are not true or false; they are useful or not useful, appropriate or inappropriate, intuitive or unintuitive, etc.