Atheists are raising all kinds of interesting questions these days, and I'm glad to see those being debated in the public square. After a while it is tiresome to debate politics, politics, politics. We could use a broadening of the national agenda.
One question raised by the neo-atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris is: who made God? After all, one of the traditional arguments for God is that the chain of causation in the universe points to a first or ultimate cause. This argument was given its most clear expression by Aquinas.
Dawkins and Harris raise the problem of infinite regress. Why can't the chain of causation stretch back infinitely? Or if God made the universe, then who made Him? The neo-atheists think they have scored a very clever point. Take that, Aquinas!
In my Townhall column this week, I explore whether this critique of Aquinas works. Actually it does not. But to assess all this fairly you have to consider the arguments with an open mind. You can read more about the Aquinas-Dawkins showdown here. Hint: Aquinas retains the title.
Reader Comments ( Page 4 of 8)
46. I was addressing Wes' response to my post about unbelief -- I was not ignoring his points.
I didn't say it was "unbelief." I have a BELIEF that no intelligent being contributed to the existence of the known universe. And my BELIEF is REASONABLE. In fact, it is more PLAUSIBLE than the belief that an intelligent being contributed to the existence of the known universe.
eM, you've got to focus. You can do it. Just relax and focus.
Wes at 8:37PM on Jun 14th 2007
47. Your first post: Your examples are historic... how long the earth has existed, if T-rexes lived, if Washington fought in the Revolutionary War. I was referring to science. While the creation of the earth and its intelligent life does involve history (it happened a very long time ago), it also involves science. First argument of effective debate, Wes: use relevant examples. Comparing apples to oranges exposes a weakness in your own argument.
Your second post: I never said your belief was unreasonable, and I do not say it now... just that it was a belief. And it is not more plausible than my belief. Simply because belief is a factor in both, the argument becomes circular at a certain point.
And I think we've hit that point.
eM at 8:47PM on Jun 14th 2007
48. Your first post: Your examples are historic... how long the earth has existed, if T-rexes lived, if Washington fought in the Revolutionary War. I was referring to science. While the creation of the earth and its intelligent life does involve history (it happened a very long time ago), it also involves science. First argument of effective debate, Wes: use relevant examples. Comparing apples to oranges exposes a weakness in your own argument.
Either I share common ancestors with fish or a I don't. And I do.
Wes at 8:52PM on Jun 14th 2007
49. And it is not more plausible than my belief.
Yes, it is. No human knows of any event that has been caused by a deity, and humans no of trillions of events have known to have been caused by events other than the acts of deities. Similarly, No human knows of any event that has been caused by a vampire, and humans no of trillions of events have known to have been caused by events other than the acts of vampires. And it is very probable that there are no vampires.
Simply because belief is a factor in both, the argument becomes circular at a certain point.
What do you mean by that? And why do you say that.
I believe that the universe is older than 10,000 years old. I BELIEVE that. And I'm right. There is nothing circular about it. The premises do not include the same meaning as the conclusion.
Wes at 8:56PM on Jun 14th 2007
50. I wrote: "Similarly, No human knows of any event that has been caused by a vampire, and humans no of trillions of events have known to have been caused by events other than the acts of vampires."
I meant no human knows of any event that has been caused by a vampire, and humans know of trillions of events that have been caused by events other than the acts of vampires.
Wes at 8:58PM on Jun 14th 2007
51.
eM -
...So your argument then is that challenging the validity of some beliefs leads to a circular argument? In what way? It is only circular if you are ignorant to the evidence presented to you to disprove your beliefs.
A lot of people believe an Icthyosaur lives in lake Loch Ness. In exchange, I "believe" that there would need to be a large population of that creature to have survived since the Jurassic period in the lake. I also "believe" that that population would need a large supply of fish or other creatures to get the caloric intake such a large creature would need to survive, which Loch Ness lacks. I also "believe" that any such large population of these enormous creatures would not be able to avoid even the most casual sonar sweep of the lake. Is there a possibility I am wrong, and an Icthyosaur has managed to survive despite all of this? Possibly, but not very likely. So are my beliefs only equally as valid as theirs? No! Because I have natural laws on my side to support my beliefs, and they've only got a few people who thought they saw something that really could be anything.
Peter at 9:24PM on Jun 14th 2007
52. *sigh*
Once again, we have a comparison of apples to oranges... the comparison of the physical (Loch Ness) to the ethereal/ spiritual. Sonar is wonderful tool which has allowed us to look into the entire lake, and view no such suspected creature.
But we're not looking for a physical creature here. And, just as I'm not opposed to the use of sonar to prove the existence or non-existence of a physical creature, it's not unreasonable that I wait for the recreation "through scientific experiment a planet with multiple forms of intelligent life that have used their power/intelligence to make changes to the surface and atmosphere of the planet" (to quote my previous post) before I stop believing in an intelligent source.
It's not an unreasonable belief, and not any less plausible than saying "because we can't see or understand it, it did not exist." And, because I have a right to question some of the tenets of the type of science that *could* end up in the pile of "junk science" (see earlier post on phrenology, which no one addressed), some people view it as narrow-minded. I find it might be narrow-minded to decide that that particular scientific theory (such as self-replicating molecules that we cannot observe as they take form into an intelligent-life supporting planet) is fact, and that is that.
And it all goes back to D'Souza's original post. The neo-atheists really think they've hit on some big point here. If no one created God, he can't exist! ah HAH!
Does someone/ something have to create the theoretical Creator?
eM at 10:46PM on Jun 14th 2007
53. eM wrote: "But we're not looking for a physical creature here. And, just as I'm not opposed to the use of sonar to prove the existence or non-existence of a physical creature, it's not unreasonable that I wait for the recreation "through scientific experiment a planet with multiple forms of intelligent life that have used their power/intelligence to make changes to the surface and atmosphere of the planet" (to quote my previous post) before I stop believing in an intelligent source."
I don't know what you mean by "intelligent source." A being did not turn dust -- poof! -- directly into the first two humans to live on earth. Self-replicators formed on earth about 3.8 billion years ago, and evolved into all the complex organisms that have lived on earth. Here is a link to some of the kinds of reasons that have enabled some people to determine this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
There are also a couple books I can recommend. Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is. And Richard Cowen's The History of Life.
Planet earth formed without any intelligent being intervening to cause it to form. Planets form all the time without any intelligent being intervening to cause them to form, and we don't know of any instances of intelligent beings using powers to cause large rocks to form and orbit around stars. There are most certainly billions and billions of planets in the known universe. And we have a pretty good understanding of how planets form.
Wes at 11:58PM on Jun 14th 2007
54. eM wrote: "But we're not looking for a physical creature here. And, just as I'm not opposed to the use of sonar to prove the existence or non-existence of a physical creature, it's not unreasonable that I wait for the recreation "through scientific experiment a planet with multiple forms of intelligent life that have used their power/intelligence to make changes to the surface and atmosphere of the planet" (to quote my previous post) before I stop believing in an intelligent source."
I don't know what you mean by "intelligent source." A being did not turn dust -- poof! -- directly into the first two humans to live on earth. Self-replicators formed on earth about 3.8 billion years ago, and evolved into all the complex organisms that have lived on earth. Here is a link to some of the kinds of reasons that have enabled some people to determine this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
There are also a couple books I can recommend. Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is. And Richard Cowen's The History of Life.
Planet earth formed without any intelligent being intervening to cause it to form. Planets form all the time without any intelligent being intervening to cause them to form, and we don't know of any instances of intelligent beings using powers to cause large rocks to form and orbit around stars. There are most certainly billions and billions of planets in the known universe. And we have a pretty good understanding of how planets form.
Wes at 11:59PM on Jun 14th 2007
55. eM wrote: "But we're not looking for a physical creature here. And, just as I'm not opposed to the use of sonar to prove the existence or non-existence of a physical creature, it's not unreasonable that I wait for the recreation "through scientific experiment a planet with multiple forms of intelligent life that have used their power/intelligence to make changes to the surface and atmosphere of the planet" (to quote my previous post) before I stop believing in an intelligent source."
I don't know what you mean by "intelligent source." A being did not turn dust -- poof! -- directly into the first two humans to live on earth. Self-replicators formed on earth about 3.8 billion years ago, and evolved into all the complex organisms that have lived on earth. Here is a link to some of the kinds of reasons that have enabled some people to determine this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
There are also a couple books I can recommend. Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is. And Richard Cowen's The History of Life.
Planet earth formed without any intelligent being intervening to cause it to form. Planets form all the time without any intelligent being intervening to cause them to form, and we don't know of any instances of intelligent beings using powers to cause large rocks to form and orbit around stars. There are most certainly billions and billions of planets in the known universe. And we have a pretty good understanding of how planets form.
Wes at 11:56PM on Jun 14th 2007
56. eM, here is a quote from Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is. Mayr was one of the great biologists of all time. He died recently.
"Astronomical and geophysical evidence indicate that the Earth originated about 4.6 billion years ago. At first the young Earth was not suitable for life, owing to the heat and exposure to radiation. Astronomers estimate that it became liveable about 3.8 billion years ago, and life apparently originated about that time, but we do not know what the first life looked like. Undoubtedly, it consisted of aggregates of macromolecules able to derive substance and energy from surrounding inanimate molecules and from the sun’s energy. Life may well have originated repeatedly at this early stage, but we know nothing about this. If there have been several origins of life, the other forms have since become extinct. Life as it now exists on Earth, including the simplest bacteria, was obviously derived from a single origin. This is indicated by the genetic code, which is the same for all organisms, including the simplest ones, as well as by many aspects of cells, including microbial cells. The earliest fossil life was found in strata about 3.5 billion years old. These earliest fossils are bacterialike, indeed they are remarkably similar to some blue-green bacteria and other bacteria that are still living" (p. 40).
Wes at 11:58PM on Jun 14th 2007
57. eM: "I find it might be narrow-minded to decide that that particular scientific theory (such as self-replicating molecules that we cannot observe as they take form into an intelligent-life supporting planet) is fact, and that is that."
Whether one finds it narrow-minded or not, that's what happened. Please consider the article at the link I provided.
Wes at 12:10AM on Jun 15th 2007
58.
eM=
I suppose I would need to know which scientific assertion you are specifically challenging to argue "apples with apples" but if it's evolution you're going after, I can absolutely prove you wrong, because speciation events in fact have been replicated in laboratory settings. If you are asking for humans to replicate 4.5 billion years of time, well then that's obviously going to take 4.5 billion years....so that sounds like a cop out to me. Extrapolation of data based off of all available information to us does not make that data false if no better explanation is offered through that evidence.
Phrenology was never science in the first place. It was a popularly accepted viewpoint at the time due to racist sensibilities in various cultures, but it never adhered to the scientific method and therefore it is unfair to attribute to it the label of "science". Science must be submitted to peer review by -anyone-. Meaning that if a Christian scientist came along who could disprove the concept of evolution and all of the evidence supporting it submitted to scientific journals they are welcome to do so. This has not happened as of yet, and it is very unlikely anything will come forward to disprove the concept of evolution.
That said, has science been proven wrong in the past? Absolutely. But what we consider to be "scientific" has come a long way since the old days, and there are strict criteria for proving your claims. If you believe science has an agenda that can be disproven, all real scientific studies are submitted to review by everyone and if your results can conflict with those presenting the studies you disagree with (and your results hold up to scrutiny themselves) you are not only welcome to present those conflictions but encouraged to do so. The dominant theories in science are those which have the most evidence to support them, and clearly most of the evidence points away from your series of events in the universe or other scientists would have refuted the current results. Amazing how Christians do not grasp the concept of peer review...That is exactly why these studies are valid, because all conflicting viewpoints are welcome to submission and double, triple, quadruple (etc.) checking for accuracy from other scientists. Phrenology has no such safeguards at all, that argument is ludicrous.
Peter at 1:03AM on Jun 15th 2007
59. I had the feeling that you guys were talking different word meanings here.
eM seemed to be thinking that an argument is a discussion between some people and a circular argument is him saying one thing and somebody else saying the opposite thing over and over.
If I'm right, I suppose that eM feels that a 'reasonable' argument would be one where he has his reasons, which might be rational, logical or even conciliatory... but they would be HIS reasons, basically his opinions.
Not only that eM probably thinks that he has a strong theory that God is real and the fact that there are two billion others who have that theory probably outweighs, pound for pound, Darwin's Theory.
It's apples and oranges, all right... just not the way either of you are thinking.
pboyfloyd at 1:44AM on Jun 15th 2007
60. I had the feeling that eM thinks that an argument is a discussion and a circular argument is one that is going nowhere.
pboyfloyd at 1:49AM on Jun 15th 2007