Evidence for God from Science

Wasn't sure exactly where to place this topic, so apologies if it doesn't fit here.

I read a blog post on an atheist site (http://godlesspaladin.wordpress.com/201 ... education/) after being linked to it from elsewhere. I read through it and it sounded like a standard atheist blog without a whole lot of new information.

Something that caught my eye though was this idea that I keep seeing more and more that was prevalent here: that Christians are basically idiots. That "Christian intellectuals" are merely a byproduct of chance and that the vast majority of intellectuals are not Christians. I have -never- seen data to back up this claim and I am only led to assume that its a claim with its 'evidence' based on the idea that the more times its repeated, the truer it becomes. I found it particularly interesting that the guy who runs the blog is apparently a history buff, but seemed ignorant on the intellectual movements in the history of Christianity (for instance, oddly enough, science). The other thing that bothered me about this guys views on things was his opinion which is basically that homeschooling is merely a way to prevent people from being exposed to other ideas. Granted, it -could- be used for that, but I've met a lot of homeschooled people and they generally reach a college-level intellectual capacity before their public school peers. It just gets tiresome sometimes to have an endless torrent of anti-Christian ideology (and its amazing how people like this find every single aspect of Christianity and religion and general to be worthless, sinister, and evil), being spewed without any data backing it up.

Just wanted to get everyone's opinion on it. Anyone have hard evidence to refute/confirm any of this?

Intellectuals who are Christians are a "byproduct of chance?" New one for me, although I suppose from an atheistic perspective intellectuals of any time, along with existence of humans or existence of any matter whatsoever, is chance or illusory.

I'm afraid this is all too common for atheists, rather than engage Christians on an intellectual level they just call them stupid. There are so many like this, if I meet a guy in person I'll try to talk to him but on internet blogs I wouldn't even bother trying to "refute" this nonsense. The burden is on him to provide complete information on why intellectual Christians is an "accident", that homeschooling hampers childrens will statistics say the exact opposite, and any other sensational ill-conceived ideas he's thought up to try to discredit Christians without having to engage with their arguments.

I'm actually growing quite bored of the anti-theist nonsense that is being thrown around. Human arrogance knows no bounds, that these "freethinkers" feel they alone are intelligent enough to see past religion, and anyone else is simply too foolish . Many of them end up fashioning their own religions every day from personal ideologies anyways, whether they see it or not.

For every christian an atheist can point out that doesn't properly understand scripture or philosophical arguments for/against god I can guarantee you I can find an atheist who has "objections" against god that are grounded soley in fallacies and emotional arguments. Statements like "christians are stupid" are absurd.

One of the most intelligent people I know is a christian, I would never make such a ridiculous assertion as this.

What was interesting though that if we are soo stupid why is it in general that secularisation has lead to a breakdown of moral values and families in society. I believe in general religious families are stronger units and their offspring are brought up with better respect for their peers. Being a teacher I have seen this first hand.

In the UK, a very secular country where there is increasingly less accountablility people around me seem to be getting more selfish. Maybe I am being cynical - but that certainly seems the case. The majority of Christians, especially in my Church are genuine and put themselves way down the list and there is a real sense of extended family. One example is when my daughter was born we literally had to buy nothing as it was all given to us my members of our church. If that is what happens when we are all stupid then I will happily be classed as that. However - I am not stupid. I am a Teacher of Computing and have 2 degrees so these people can stick it. (In Christian love of course )

That "Christian intellectuals" are merely a byproduct of chance

Did he actually use those words? If so he should be made to eat them, since for an atheistic evolutionist every person and position is merely a byproduct of chance.

jlay wrote:

That "Christian intellectuals" are merely a byproduct of chance

Did he actually use those words? If so he should be made to eat them, since for an atheistic evolutionist every person and position is merely a byproduct of chance.

jlay wrote:

That "Christian intellectuals" are merely a byproduct of chance

Did he actually use those words? If so he should be made to eat them, since for an atheistic evolutionist every person and position is merely a byproduct of chance.

Sorry... it was a summary on my part. He wrote "(Yes there are highly educated conservative and religious people, but the data shows that these people are anomalies)". I figured all he meant was that when you have enough people, statistically (by chance) some are going to be these 'anomalies'. Its funny, because any actual information I've ever seen on intelligence and belief system just shows that you are -more likely- to be an atheist and/or liberal the more of an education you have. The majority still are conservative/religious. But granted, having more worldviews exposed to you does increase the possibility that you may adopt a worldview, since you'd otherwise never hear of one. Although, considering current trends, I think it might be atheism and agnosticism that are going to fall into the lower end of intelligence eventually, since its heading towards a point where they'll be the de facto religious view (thanks in part to our education system not teaching -ANY- Christian history), and so people will not have heard other ideas (like Christianity) to choose over no belief system.

Well, first he'd have to actually show this statistical evidence rather than just talk about it, but the stats I have seen haven't backed it up. Statistics available on this very website (I'm thinking of stats that show the percentage of scientists with "unbelief" in God) don't back that up. So that's one problem with this.

Another problem- how do you define "intellectual". Theologians and pastors are people I would define as "intellectuals", and that group is exclusively religious. Not to mention that some of the top schools in the country are almost exclusively religious. One thing I've seen in the past, some atheists seem to live in their own little world where, if there aren't religious instructors where they are, then there can't be any anywhere! Never mind the fact that there are entire groups of exclusively religious scientists or universities like Notre Dame with very high academic standards. Although chances are this guy defines intellectual as "someone who doesn't believe in God", which would make his job easier for him.

Another problem is- what does this prove? As far as I know it doesn't prove anything, it's just a way to avoid engaging with Christian intellectuals and what they have to say. There was a time when most intellectuals WERE Christians. If most today AREN'T (something I have NOT seen proven), well, let's not confuse correlation and causation. Is the reason many aren't Christians because they've had some sort of anti-religious revelation or proven God doesn't exist, or is it because schools have been increasingly anti-Christian and those who are likely to be considered "intellectual" are increasingly likely to come from environments that aren't religious. Elitist snobbery is all this is.

Finally, there is a growing Christian intellectual movement, I was just looking at some research about it that's going to be released soon. Calling it an "anomaly" is a ridiculous explanation that no one other than atheists looking for easy ways to demean Christians would believe.

I actually ran into a discussion (well, its been pretty awful, so discussion seems to lofty of a term to use) with some people on Facebook about prayer today, and this 'smarter-than-thou' attitude was abundant. It was about prayer: two ardent unapologetic atheists tried to suggest that prayer is worthless (or at least no better than doing anything else meditative).

The thing I'm sick of most though is Christians not standing up and proving this stuff wrong. We should be intellectually aggressive (lovingly) with people on these issues, not defensive and misleading. I'm hoping the intellectual side of Christianity bursts out like never before in the near future. The world certainly needs it, and it would certainly help tone down the arrogance I've encountered in some of these atheists.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:I actually ran into a discussion (well, its been pretty awful, so discussion seems to lofty of a term to use) with some people on Facebook about prayer today, and this 'smarter-than-thou' attitude was abundant. It was about prayer: two ardent unapologetic atheists tried to suggest that prayer is worthless (or at least no better than doing anything else meditative).

The thing I'm sick of most though is Christians not standing up and proving this stuff wrong. We should be intellectually aggressive (lovingly) with people on these issues, not defensive and misleading. I'm hoping the intellectual side of Christianity bursts out like never before in the near future. The world certainly needs it, and it would certainly help tone down the arrogance I've encountered in some of these atheists.

Why would you expect them to think otherwise regarding prayer? It isn't like they believe in God. As for intellectuality, I don't think something personal like prayer fits that criteria.

Kurieuo wrote: Why would you expect them to think otherwise regarding prayer? It isn't like they believe in God. As for intellectuality, I don't think something personal like prayer fits that criteria.

That could be. I guess what's frustrating is they'll ask for 'scientific proof' of spiritual things and when its offered, they'll suggest that you can't use science to show anything supernatural. Its like the ultimate form of putting one's fingers in their ears - having a requirement before you believe something but then refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the requirement when its met. It's kind of funny how profoundly they missed what prayer actually was, too... (they suggested simple wish-fullfillment)

I was kind of unclear in my last post too... when I referred to "Christians" in general it wasn't people on this board or elsewhere where there's a lot of thought going into this stuff. It's mainly a reference to the abundance of people I know who don't want anything to do with defending their faith. It would just be awesome in my mind if they started spending time in that area.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: Why would you expect them to think otherwise regarding prayer? It isn't like they believe in God. As for intellectuality, I don't think something personal like prayer fits that criteria.

That could be. I guess what's frustrating is they'll ask for 'scientific proof' of spiritual things and when its offered, they'll suggest that you can't use science to show anything supernatural. Its like the ultimate form of putting one's fingers in their ears - having a requirement before you believe something but then refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the requirement when its met. It's kind of funny how profoundly they missed what prayer actually was, too... (they suggested simple wish-fullfillment)

Get them to define "supernatural" without any just-so statements or circularity. How is it they define "supernatural" so as to exclude the "supernatural" from what is "natural". Is this not ignorance? That is, "I don't understand it, so it must be supernatural, mystical or what-have-you. I will just pretend nothing I don't fully comprehend exists. Please let me bury my head in the sand in peace."

Supernatural is just an extension of what is in fact "natural". Just because we do not understand what we term "supernatural" does not mean such is not explicable naturally. God is infact probably the most natural entity in the world, and everything is thereby an extension of what is natural.

We do not need to offer evidence of what is spiritual. I think such is evident enough. Lead them as we may, we can not make the horses drink water. However, they (Atheists) do need to offer evidence for their definition of what is "natural" or reasoning behind the limits they place on their definition. Kind of turns everything on its head eh?

I've tried getting them to admit that supernatural things are required if one believes there are things beyond the realm of science (isn't that a definition of "supernatural"? To be super-natural?) The big thing for me is existence itself. I can spend days (and have probably actually spent weeks, collectively), thinking about existence and the concept of nothing... the fact there is something when there should have been nothing if at one point nothing ever existed. Supernatural things become for me at that point not just a belief but a reality - just as real as my senses. And so, like you said, the 'supernatural' really becomes the most natural thing I can comprehend, and I guess in that sense really is super natural, as opposed to lesser natural things. (Sorry for using that term so much... I feel like its easily confusing).

To go back to the debates, when I bring up that point, the subject always gets changed or I'm informed that my position is no better than any other. I suppose at that point a good way to go would be to discuss the fact that it would be pointless, true enough, to use purely natural methods to talk about supernatural things. The tools just aren't up to the task. But I definitely disagree with their assumption that the supernatural is thus without merit of discussion. We just need different tools. Thankfully, my Christian faith provides an abundance of those. That's one of the reasons that I get so annoyed when I hear discrediting of Christians. There's a lot more reason and intellectual rationale going into our beliefs than people often give us credit for.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:I've tried getting them to admit that supernatural things are required if one believes there are things beyond the realm of science (isn't that a definition of "supernatural"? To be super-natural?)

I think you're missing the point. What does "beyond the realm of science" mean? And would you classify multiverse theories as "supernatural"?

What is the logic behind justifying a natural/supernatural distinction. Where is the line drawn, and why is such a line drawn? The reasoning seems quite arbitrary to me.

I see your point and agree with you; I think my wording is just different. The line drawn is artificial and to me just represents the difference between things that can be studied with science and those that can't quite as much. So yeah, multiverse theories to me appear as supernatural by this definition - and its why I can't quite grasp the basis for debates about whether God exists or not on the basis that He is "supernatural" and thus not measurable by science. To me, just because something isn't always scientifically measurable doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it isn't true, and based on theories like the multiverse, neither do a lot of atheists, and yet they make it out to sound like the opposite is true.

I don't mean to read into what you're saying (so, please correct me if I misinterpret), but it seems like your suggesting that I should avoid the distinction because acknowledging it 'justifies' it. I can see the logic there, and also the benefit of making it clear when debating people that I don't really believe in a true distinction - the only distinction I acknowledge at that point being the Creator/Creation side of things.