Evidence for God from Science

Hi everyone,

I'm new to the forums though I've been reading Evidence for God on the web for some time. However, I've recently been stumped in how to address certain questions with a prominent "new-atheist" in my life. Their dissent from a protestant faith was a slow one, over the last decade, and there was a time they considered converting to Catholicism. This was quickly diminished, and it seems from that point, their dissent from any faith has been a quick one.

I myself am a cradle Catholic, having been rebellious in my early 20's in the faith, but recently re-affirming my faith and devotion to Christ and his teachings. I have been raised in a rational way, both at home, in the church and at school, and, to this person's surprise, question my faith regularly as to ascertain what it requests of me. I'm not sure WHY so many atheists believe we don't do this (I guess they ignore Thessalonians ), but "blind faith" has little to do with it. Does our Bible (not the horrid KJV of course) not say on many occasions "put it to the test"? If Christianity was indeed made up by a bunch of people, don't you think they would not suggest such a thing? If I've learned anything from my lessons about Aquinas and even Aristotle is that faith and reason are not mutually exclusive.

1. Objection: "I accept that there is no empirical evidence of where the universe came from, but just because we don't know doesn't mean we have to put God and religion in it's place"

I've heard of this objection before, but I didn't know how to respond to it.

2. If there is a God, it can't be a Judeo-Christian God; so many atrocities done in the name of religion; Christianity is all fairy-tales; the idea of eternal punishment for temporary crimes is ridiculous, etc.

These topics were all launched at me within a few sentences. My brain was imploding because it seems illogical to answer all such deep and heavy objections all at once. Seems like a lot of foundational knowledge was missing, and for someone like me, I had no idea how to begin answering them when they're so interconnected.

3. We don't need to get morality from a God. It's subjective and changes from time to time, culture to culture.

I used a really awesome quote from Chesterton to explain this one but it seems to have missed the mark. Any help?

4. Evolution explains why people love each other; we don't even have souls; it's all part of our brain

My response: <---
This one made me want to laugh and scream at the same time. Does this person not know the difference between chemical reactions that are released during lust and "puppy love" than the human rich, uncanny, profound connection of unconditional love? Yes, there are chemical processes that occur between people who are in love, or between parents and their children, siblings, etc, but I do not find love explainable by evolution. Not at all.


That's all I've got for now, but I'm sure I'll be adding to it.

The main problem I have with this is that they rely solely on empirical evidence. There's a saying (cannot remember from whom) that it only takes a little philosophy to incline a man to atheism, and that's what concerns me.
There is such a lack of understanding of the fundamentals, such an ignorance of the objections and critiques to the new values they hold. I'm also of the mind that this person is a sheep of the worst kind. Incredibly intelligent but doesn't realize they put just as much "faith" in unproven claims of science as we do of a God. I'm open to hearing anything anyone has to say in regards to these topics, or how to handle such overt stubbornness.

Lastly, is anyone else tired of being called "brain-washed" "indoctrinated" and "closed-minded" ? If I had a buck for each time...

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:


1. Objection: "I accept that there is no empirical evidence of where the universe came from (this came from a long conversation about thermodynamics and the big bang possibility) but just because we don't know doesnt mean we have to put God and religion in it's place"

I didn't know how to respond to this at all that was unbreakable in logic. Any one have an idea?

2. If there is a God, it can't be a Judeo-Christian God. So many atrocities done in the name of "him", it's all fairy-tales, the idea of eternal punishment for temporary crimes is ridiculous.

My response: I'm working on this one. I just finished reading "Is God a Moral Monster" and it is TRULY a remarkable book. I'm open to shorter, compact answers though

3. We don't need to get morality from a God. It's subjective and changes from time to time, culture to culture.

My response: I used a really awesome quote from Chesterton to explain this one, which they completely and utterly missed the point of. Again, any compact answers?

4. Evolution explains why we love each other; we don't have souls, it's all part of our brains

My response: <---literally. That face.

Hello there =D I think I have some answers for a few of those.

1. The universe had to have been created by a singularity so what else would you like to fill that niche with? If not a supreme being then what was it? And if that's the case then why do we have to fill that hole with athiesm and guesses that are somehow "scientific"?

2. We have a good page for that one http://godandscience.org/apologetics/atrocities.html

3. This one is confusing because it is worded strangely but basically there making an opinion sound like a fact and you should ignore it. For instance I could say "Most of the time pizza tastes good" but it sounds better and more correct if I say "pizza is always good. Besides that the fact that Christianity has stayed the same time to time, culture to culture should tell them something.

4.

Anyway hope that helped a little and I really want to read that book of yours sounds good I like the title. ^.^

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:Hi everyone,

Hello and welcome.

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:I myself am a cradle Catholic, having been rebellious in my early 20's in the faith, but recently re-affirming my faith and devotion to Christ and his teachings. I have been raised in a rational way, both at home, in the church and at school, and, to this person's surprise, question my faith regularly as to ascertain what it requests of me. I'm not sure WHY so many atheists believe we don't do this, but "blind faith" has little to do with it. If I've learned anything from my lessons about Aquinas and even Aristotle is that faith and reason are not mutually exclusive!

I'm a Catholic too. These stories about "blind faith" are just prejudices that originate mostly from ignorance - the very thing atheists often accuse us of. Not only that faith and reason are not mutually exclusive, but faith is a prerequisite to reason. You need faith to believe that your senses are giving you the right information, and that "reason" processes them and comes to accurate conclusions. I put "reason" under quotation marks because atheists can't account for it - in materialism, blind chemistry and physics is the only thing that exists. And since everything material is prone to the non-changing laws of physics and chemistry (where did they come from, by the way?), it makes little sense to believe that electrical discharges can think.

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:1. Objection: "I accept that there is no empirical evidence of where the universe came from (this came from a long conversation about thermodynamics and the big bang possibility) but just because we don't know doesnt mean we have to put God and religion in it's place"

The current evidence (which is unlikely to change) supports the Big Bang creation model, which requires an uncaused cause. This cause can only be immaterial, since material objects require a cause, following which would lead to infinite regression. So, it's not that we don't know, we base our faith on what we do know. Regarding the appeal to God-of-the-gaps, remind your colleague how Evolution-of-the-gaps has hindered science quite a few times - "vestigial" organs (that led to unnecessary tonsil removals, for instance), or the so-called "Junk DNA"...

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:2. If there is a God, it can't be a Judeo-Christian God. So many atrocities done in the name of "him", it's all fairy-tales, the idea of eternal punishment for temporary crimes is ridiculous.

My response: I'm working on this one. I just finished reading "Is God a Moral Monster" and it is TRULY a remarkable book. I'm open to shorter, compact answers though

Shortly and briefly, you need to have a moral standard to judge someone on the basis of morality. Atheism doesn't have one, in fact according to materialism, judging someone on the basis of morality is just like blaming an acid for reacting with a metal - there is no free will, or reason, so it makes no sense. Regarding Christianity, it teaches that humans have a sinful nature, so atrocities are, unfortunately, not surprising.

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:3. We don't need to get morality from a God. It's subjective and changes from time to time, culture to culture.

My response: I used a really awesome quote from Chesterton to explain this one, which they completely and utterly missed the point of. Again, any compact answers?

Universal feelings of right and wrong are present throughout the humanity. There are variations, of course, but only on a minor scale. It's obvious that it doesn't give us a "survival advantage", on the contrary, people often sacrifice for each other. I'm afraid I don't remember that quote from Chesterton...

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:4. Evolution explains why we love each other; we don't have souls, it's all part of our brains

My response: <---literally. That face.

...and that's where the atheist walks into a trap he made himself. Tell him that his conclusions about evolution, and there not being a God, are also a part of his brain, and therefore have no connection to the reality, presuming that one exists at all. Q.E.D.

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:That's all I've got for now, but I'm sure I'll be adding to it.

It sure won't be something we haven't seen yet though.

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:The main problem I have with this is that they rely solely on empirical evidence - a flaw so many atheists make. There's a saying that it only takes a little philosophy to change your mind, and that's what concerns me. There is such a lack of understanding of the fundamentals, such an ignorance of the objections and critiques to the new values they hold. I've even challenged them saying "you're a new kind of zealot. You're filled with anger against Christianity for some reason unbeknownst to me" to which they completely denied.

"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." --Francis Bacon

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:I'm also of the mind that this person is a sheep of the worst kind. Incredibly intelligent, but very, very easily swayed, which is interesting...They believe that Christians are an increasing breed in the world, and that atheists are less than 10% of the worlds population and that they're truly the ones who are being persecuted. Again, my face:

Well, Christianity is on the rise. Atheism was at its peak in the late 19th century, these days it survives only because there are people who want to believe it. We Christians are a majority, but a silent majority, so unfortunately, this story about "persecution" applies more to us than to them.

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:I'm open to hearing anything anyone has to say in regards to these topics, or how to handle such overt stubbornness.

PS: Anyone else tired of being called "brain-washed" "indoctrinated" and "closed-minded" ? Because really, if I had a buck for each time I did I could just buy an island away from these fools

When you see through the smokescreens they create with their arrogance, you find out that "the emperor wears no clothes", so deceiving is more or less their only strategy. Why would a person want to lie to himself, however, is another matter...

The book, Is God A Moral Monster: Making Sense of the Old Testament God, by Paul Copan, can be found here for less than $10.


Upon reading a few pages from the first chapter, which is entitled "New atheism" not only did they not have a clue what "new atheism" is (and this made me almost laugh because apparently this is something they've been looking into for 'some time'), but went on to immediately discredit the entire work, by saying "well obviously this Paul guy is biased. In the first few pages, he says that atheists don't have any morality. But I have morality, so he's clearly wrong".

It's moments like that one where I want to jump off a building, launched solely by the frustration that builds at such an exponential rate when I hear utter nonsense like that. First of all, talk about a logical fallacy. Discrediting an entire book based on a few words is such childish foolishness, it actually surprised me, since this person continuously tries to get me to shut up by throwing out other laws of logic. Guess what? Discrediting information because of who it came from? Origin bias.

La Volpe wrote: Hello there =D I think I have some answers for a few of those.

Hi!

2. We have a good page for that one http://godandscience.org/apologetics/atrocities.html

Wow, thanks for directing it to me! I spent hours upon hours on this website, reading about things I've always wanted to find answers to, and it's written in such a way that even a non-science person like myself (I hail from the more philosophical side of things) can understand it. I'm finding answers to things I am certain I'll be presented with at a later date.

3. This one is confusing because it is worded strangely but basically there making an opinion sound like a fact and you should ignore it. For instance I could say "Most of the time pizza tastes good" but it sounds better and more correct if I say "pizza is always good. Besides that the fact that Christianity has stayed the same time to time, culture to culture should tell them something.

Forgive me, I heavily, heavily paraphrased what they said, but to try and get the bottom line of all the nonsense out. We had some of this discussion over a website, so I'll actually try and find the original posting.

This is tied directly to the Chesterton quote I used;

"It is not true that the idea of right & wrong changes. The particular concentration on a certain sort of right changes; the relative toleration of a certain sort of wrong changes. Men in medieval times tolerated more ruthless punishments; men in modern times tolerate more reckless and irresponsible speculation & control...medieval man did not think mercy a bad thing; modern man does not think dishonesty a good thing".~G.K Chesterton

I will write more soon (in response to Reactionary's post because I feel like I ignored you) but I'm on my way to Mass. Thanks again for the replies and I really look forward to discussing faith and science and philosophy more with each of you!

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:I will write more soon (in response to Reactionary's post because I feel like I ignored you!) but I'm on my way to Mass. Thanks again for the replies and I really look forward to discussing faith and science and philosophy more with each of you!

Thanks, there's no need to hurry.

Just to note a few things, although you covered everything well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wa ... death_toll

It's interesting that nobody mentioned genocide, which I believe should be regarded as worse than a war, because obviously, victims of genocide are civilians. Out of 30 bloodiest genocides, turns out that 26 were done after the year 1900.

Although it's correct that the An-Shi rebellion was the biggest bloodshed in relative terms, World War II was the bloodiest in absolute terms.

Regarding the Cold War, it was the first time in history that humanity was capable of exterminating itself, which surely affected the cautiousness of the leaders, especially since it happened in the aftermath of WWII. This still doesn't mean that humanity learned its lesson, as there are still ongoing armed conflicts, none of which are harmless.

I digressed too, but still I think it's important to clear up these issues as they tell us a lot about the "evolution" of morality, which is an important part of the dialogue with atheists. Anyway, I look forward to our further discussion.

Regards

If I remember correctly, in the last few hundred years humanity has only become more peaceful if you're measuring by percentage. If you go by regular numbers there are more acts of violence then ever before. And really, let's not overestimate a few years or decades of peace... sometimes that happens. But there's also huge wars and more potential for devastating potential for destruction (and as mentioned be reactionary, I see that as one reason for caution by wars in these leaders).

You can also talk about advancements of technology and types of government. People who are willing to kill may have less opportunity in a police state, but that doesn't mean that people are "morally superior". In war fewer people die with better medical technology, which I think we can all agree is a big advantage to living in this day and age.

Reactionary wrote: Hello and welcome.

Thanks!

Reactionary wrote:Not only that faith and reason are not mutually exclusive, but faith is a prerequisite to reason. You need faith to believe that your senses are giving you the right information, and that "reason" processes them and comes to accurate conclusions. I put "reason" under quotation marks because atheists can't account for it - in materialism, blind chemistry and physics is the only thing that exists. And since everything material is prone to the non-changing laws of physics and chemistry (where did they come from, by the way?), it makes little sense to believe that electrical discharges can think.

That's truly an excellent and succinct way of explaining it. I've always fumbled for the right words to express how one absolutely requires the other.
I love that you've also noted that atheists truly CANNOT account for reason - it transcends us. I think the best they have to describe it is that it's a mental faculty we use that "evolution" gave us. What does one say to that?

Reactionary wrote:The current evidence (which is unlikely to change) supports the Big Bang creation model, which requires an uncaused cause. This cause can only be immaterial, since material objects require a cause, following which would lead to infinite regression. So, it's not that we don't know, we base our faith on what we do know.

Indeed. I'm not a disbeliever in the big bang, I simply think that's how God created the universe and that the energy required for the universe to "change state" was energy provided by him. It's so frustrating to hear atheists agree that we don't know where it got the energy from, but that we shouldn't put a powerful being in it's place. Well, what else could it be? Either the universe is an open system or it isn't. If it isn't, then HOW did it change states? Is there a "I throw my hands up" emoticon here?

Reactionary wrote:Regarding the appeal to God-of-the-gaps, remind your colleague how Evolution-of-the-gaps has hindered science quite a few times - "vestigial" organs (that led to unnecessary tonsil removals, for instance), or the so-called "Junk DNA"...

I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with both terms, though they're familiar somehow. I'll do some reading before I mention it.

Reactionary wrote:Shortly and briefly, you need to have a moral standard to judge someone on the basis of morality. Atheism doesn't have one, in fact according to materialism, judging someone on the basis of morality is just like blaming an acid for reacting with a metal - there is no free will, or reason, so it makes no sense.

So what you're saying is that I'm likely to be running around in circles with this person, because they're POSITIVE that morality is an evolutionary feature. Horray -.-
What they don't seem to realize that if logic is pointing away from subjectivity, then it's pointing to objectivity, which in turns points to something outside of our physical realm into the possibility of a God who created those rules. Why do they not see how every blank they have leads to the possibility of God? What is so wrong about that? Is it an ego thing?

Reactionary wrote:Universal feelings of right and wrong are present throughout the humanity. There are variations, of course, but only on a minor scale. It's obvious that it doesn't give us a "survival advantage", on the contrary, people often sacrifice for each other. I'm afraid I don't remember that quote from Chesterton...

"It is not true that the idea of right & wrong changes. The particular concentration on a certain sort of right changes; the relative toleration of a certain sort of wrong changes. Men in medieval times tolerated more ruthless punishments; men in modern times tolerate more reckless and irresponsible speculation & control...medieval man did not think mercy a bad thing; modern man does not think dishonesty a good thing".~G.K Chesterton

I think that nailed it, but of course, the depth of the message is lost on those who cannot understand Chesterton's genius. Perhaps that's too harsh of me. Maybe "cannot" is the wrong term. "Will not" ?

Reactionary wrote:...and that's where the atheist walks into a trap he made himself. Tell him that his conclusions about evolution, and there not being a God, are also a part of his brain, and therefore have no connection to the reality, presuming that one exists at all. Q.E.D.

Well put.

Reactionary wrote:It sure won't be something we haven't seen yet though.

And praise the Lord for that! This is all so new to me, dealing with those who are so stubborn about it; I am a sponge willing to learn from the wise ones.

Thanks for this quote:

"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." --Francis Bacon

Made me so, so happy.

Thanks, Reactionary!

narnia4 wrote: And really, let's not overestimate a few years or decades of peace... sometimes that happens. But there's also huge wars and more potential for devastating potential for destruction (and as mentioned be reactionary, I see that as one reason for caution by wars in these leaders)

Such a good point, Narnia. It really has not been that long. And what I found frustrating was the whole basis of his argument was ignoring history. History is the best indicator of future actions, and if we've marginally improved, we really shouldn't put too much stock in it. Also, I'm of the mind that if the bottom were to fall out of the market in the US and Canada (or generally most western societies), I doubt our "newly evolved peaceful species" would be so peaceful anymore. I think we're pacified more than anything else; we've become too passive as a society so unless something effects us directly, most people are likely to not give a rats patoonki.

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:I love that you've also noted that atheists truly CANNOT account for reason - it transcends us. I think the best they have to describe it is that it's a mental faculty we use that "evolution" gave us. What does one say to that?

As far as I know, there isn't a strong response to the transcendental argument. The best answer I've been given is that natural selection sharpened our cognitive abilities (by eliminating less able species and individuals) so we can accurately perceive the world. Upon this I could easily raise an objection that we know we all perceive objective facts in the same way (all right or all wrong), it's just that we may come up with different conclusions (possible evidence for free will), etc.

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:What they don't seem to realize that if logic is pointing away from subjectivity, then it's pointing to objectivity, which in turns points to something outside of our physical realm into the possibility of a God who created those rules. Why do they not see how every blank they have leads to the possibility of God? What is so wrong about that? Is it an ego thing?

Possibly. The existence of a personal God means that we're all going to answer for what we made of our lives in front of Him - a possibility not everyone is comfortable with.

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:This is all so new to me, dealing with those who are so stubborn about it; I am a sponge willing to learn from the wise ones.

It won't take long for you. As you can see, I joined this forum about 6 months ago, and since then I've learned most of what I know about these topics.

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:Thanks for this quote:

"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." --Francis Bacon

Made me so, so happy.

Thanks, Reactionary!

I'm glad I helped. You're welcome.