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 5 of 8)
61. I had the feeling that eM was thinking of an argument as a discussion and a circular argument as one which is going nowhere.
pboyfloyd at 1:53AM on Jun 15th 2007
62. Oops there is a clitch... at newsbloggers... my comments did not seem to be getting through.
pboyfloyd at 2:00AM on Jun 15th 2007
63. It is so difficult it seems to deal with the nontemporal in temporal terms, using temporal concepts as the standard for encompassing and trapping reality in some "bottle" or box. For God to be part of an indefinite or infinite chain of causation is to leave open the notion that reality is infinite. We just don't feel disposed to call reality God. On the other hand, when people advocate God as omnipotent, perhaps they make the mistake of comparing God when perhaps God by God's very nature is incomparable. When one advocates that God is in control, one asserts that God can't be defined or boxed into the temporal but is all encompassing. Since people may be disappointed with the idea that evil may exist and God knows good and evil and lets evil exist, perhaps we are expressing disappointment with God's policies and with this disappointment, deluding ourselves into exalting the temporal over the nontemporal as the sole relevant standard by which all things should be judged.
Clay Edwards at 10:30PM on Jun 17th 2007
64. a) When you speak about peer review, you are talking about peer review of scientific theory. Yes, that is the basis for what we come to accept as "science" at any given point in time. But "science" in and of itself also involves experiments that predictably provide evidence supporting a theory. Neither intelligent design nor evolution (from self-replicating cells) can give bullet-proof evidence of the origins of the universe. One can use scientific theories of currently known natural causes to hypothesize about the origins, but we cannot observe an experiment proving the origins of the universe itself.
And, I don't deny that some variations on "evolution" are currently the most popular and currently accepted scientific theories for the origins of the universe. But, to invoke Wes' earlier statements, just because many people chose to believe that scientific theory does not make it true.
Interestingly, phrenology was subjected to peer review, and it *was* deemed scientific at the time. It was especially touted by the scientists in Ivy League schools in the U.S., and a few Europeans. It has since been disproven, and the single benefit from it was that it was really the start of exploring that personality traits came from the brain (the skull bumps and size thing was eventually disproved). My point is that the concept of science itself is evolving because really it is the human exploration and search to understand the laws and dynamics of the universe in which we live. I work in biopharma... much of the "science" that occurs is really a lot of research and development.... that is still developing our understanding of our own bodies. It's a very exciting field. Many scientific theories have an element of truth in them, but are not *the* truth in and of themselves. For example, of course we can observe genetic mutations. This is a truth, and it can be repeated in a lab. We can see links between certain species. But that does not mean we have now "proven" that we all came from the same cell. THAT is a theory, based on a scientific observation.
I tend to like National Geographic, and here is an article that might help explain what I am talking about here:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0427_050427_intelligent_design.html
We are at an impasse here of sorts, because you want more proof of evidence of a God or intelligent being, and I want more evidence of a cell that can turn itself into a universe.
Now, some of what is brought up really often here -- how old the universe is, etc. I really wish everyone would stop using that as some sort of "aha" evidence of where the universe came from. I know that there are "creation scientists" who believe the earth is very young, but there are also "creation scientists" who believe the universe is very old. I don't pretend to know enough about it to theorize myself -- I think "intelligent design" scientists estimate the earth's age in different ways. I'm not a big Bible scholar, but I do know that it says in there somewhere that to God "one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." So even if I try to make a "literal" interpretation of the BIble (which I almost agree with you in some ways Peter -- some people do think they are "literally' intepreting it when may be they are "misinterpreting it), does that mean the earth was created in 6 days or 6,000 years? My brother is a zoologist who also believes in intelligent design, followed by some form of evolution, and he knows a lot more about it than I do ... he is one who thinks the earth is a bit older than some of the "young earth creation science" theorists believe. I really don't claim to be an expert, but I do base my belief in intelligent design in reason and plausibility of science.
I guess what I am saying here is that there surely is a lot of truth in both theories (or all -- I think there are more theories than strictly "creation" and "evolution") -- however, what we're struggling with is a production of satisfying evidence. We cannot physically observe it, like we can the birth of a child or the "death" of a star. That part of it goes back to belief, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
eM at 2:04PM on Jun 16th 2007
65. Well said, Clay.
eM at 2:08PM on Jun 16th 2007
66. eM wrote:
"Interestingly, phrenology was subjected to peer review, and it *was* deemed scientific at the time. It was especially touted by the scientists in Ivy League schools in the U.S., and a few Europeans. It has since been disproven, and the single benefit from it was that it was really the start of exploring that personality traits came from the brain (the skull bumps and size thing was eventually disproved).”
This is ridiculous. Self-replicating molecules that were on earth about 3.8 billion years ago evolved into all the complex organisms that have lived on earth. Please consider the information at the link I provided.
That people have been wrong about something does enable you to determine that they have wrong about everything. For example, I’m quite sure that the earth is not a flat disk that rests on the back of a giant tortoise. Thus, if phrenology is wrong, that does not enable you to determine that evolution is not right.
Wes at 5:01PM on Jun 16th 2007
67. My point is that the concept of science itself is evolving because really it is the human exploration and search to understand the laws and dynamics of the universe in which we live. I work in biopharma... much of the "science" that occurs is really a lot of research and development.... that is still developing our understanding of our own bodies. It's a very exciting field. Many scientific theories have an element of truth in them, but are not *the* truth in and of themselves.
But evolution is true. Self-replicating molecules that were on earth about 3.8 billion years ago evolved into all the complex organisms that have lived on earth. Please consider the information at the link I provided.
Wes at 5:02PM on Jun 16th 2007
68. eM wrote: "For example, of course we can observe genetic mutations. This is a truth, and it can be repeated in a lab. We can see links between certain species. But that does not mean we have now "proven" that we all came from the same cell. THAT is a theory, based on a scientific observation."
That humans have observed mutations does not, by itself, enable me to determine that a cell evolved into an elephants. By that humans have observed mutation is not the only relevant information to me. Please consider the information that I linked to. One reason that has helped me determine that self-replicating molecules evolved into elephants is that nearly every known organisms is very similar anatomically to at least one known organisms that is older than it and relatively close in age to it. See, for instance, the sequence from less complex bacteria to more complex bacteria; from cnidarians to fish; from fish to amphibians; from amphibians to reptiles; from reptiles to early mammals; from Pakicetus to whales; and from apes to humans. Moreover, no organism that humans no of is hugely different anatomically than every known organism that is older than it. For example, there are no rabbits that are 1 billion years old. This is important in terms of my knowing that a cell evolved into an elephant, because when organisms reproduce the offspring always is fairly similar anatomically to its parent(s). I'm fairly similar to my mother.
Wes at 5:10PM on Jun 16th 2007
69. eM wrote:
I guess what I am saying here is that there surely is a lot of truth in both theories (or all -- I think there are more theories than strictly "creation" and "evolution") -- however, what we're struggling with is a production of satisfying evidence. We cannot physically observe it, like we can the birth of a child or the "death" of a star.
No person has physically witnessed a population of fish evolve into mammals. But that no person has witnessed an alleged event does not enable you to determine that it is not plausible than not that it occurred. No person has witnessed a living T-Rex, and I'm sure some T-Rexes drank water. No person witnessed planet earth 65 million years ago, and I'm quite sure it existed then. No person has witnessed 1 miles below the surface of the moon, and I'm quite sure the moon is not made of cream cheese. Thus, that no person has physically witnessed a population of fish evolve into mammals does not enable you to determine that it is not plausible than not that it occurred.
That part of it goes back to belief, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
eM, we've gone over this before. What's wrong with you? Of course, I believe that self-replicating molecules evolved into all the complex organism that have lived on earth. And I'm also right that this occurred!!! Sometimes people make warranted inferences. Sometimes people get things right. I'm right that known universe is not less than 10,000 years old.
Wes at 5:14PM on Jun 16th 2007
70. eM wrote: "We are at an impasse here of sorts, because you want more proof of evidence of a God or intelligent being..."
I didn’t say I wanted "proof of evidence of God." My point is that it is probable that there is no God.
eM wrote: "...and I want more evidence of a cell that can turn itself into a universe."
A cell did not, and as far as I know cannot, "turn itself into a universe." I don’t even know what you mean by that. But a cell that was on earth about 3.8 billion years ago evolved into all the complex organisms that have lived on earth. Consider the information that I linked to.
Wes at 6:21PM on Jun 16th 2007
71. eM wrote: "he is one who thinks the earth is a bit older than some of the "young earth creation science" theorists believe. I really don't claim to be an expert, but I do base my belief in intelligent design in reason and plausibility of science."
First, what do you mean by "intelligent design?" No being turned inert matter (or "nothingness") -- poof! -- directly into the first two elephants that have lived on earth. Self-replicating molecules that were on earth about 3.8 billion years ago evolved into all the complex organisms that have lived on earth, including all the elephants.
Wes at 6:24PM on Jun 16th 2007
72. eM wrote: "I guess what I am saying here is that there surely is a lot of truth in both theories (or all -- I think there are more theories than strictly "creation" and "evolution") -- however, what we're struggling with is a production of satisfying evidence."
No, there isn't. First, what do you mean by "intelligent design?" As I said, a being did not turn dust -- poof! -- directly into the first two elephant that lived on earth. Self-replicating molecules that were on earth about 3.8 billion years ago evolved into all the complex organisms that have lived on earth.
"We cannot physically observe it, like we can the birth of a child or the "death" of a star."
That I haven't observed a cell evolved into an elephants is not necessary for me to know that it happened. Please see my earlier posts.
"That part of it goes back to belief, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future."
I been over this with you many times. I BELIEVE that a cell evolved into an elephant. And it is the case that a cell evolved into an elephant. That happened. That is life!!!!!
Sometimes people get things right. That's life. Don't bring this up again!
Wes at 6:28PM on Jun 16th 2007
73. Clay wrote: "It is so difficult it seems to deal with the nontemporal in temporal terms, using temporal concepts as the standard for encompassing and trapping reality in some "bottle" or box. For God to be part of an indefinite or infinite chain of causation is to leave open the notion that reality is infinite. We just don't feel disposed to call reality God. On the other hand, when people advocate God as omnipotent, perhaps they make the mistake of comparing God when perhaps God by God's very nature is incomparable. When one advocates that God is in control, one asserts that God can't be defined or boxed into the temporal but is all encompassing. Since people may be disappointed with the idea that evil may exist and God knows good and evil and lets evil exist, perhaps we are expressing disappointment with God's policies and with this disappointment, deluding ourselves into exalting the temporal over the nontemporal as the sole relevant standard by which all things should be judged."
I'm not sure what your point is. My point is that there probably is no God. Because I've never experienced anything remotely similar to a being that caused, or is capable of causing, a universe to exist.
Wes at 6:30PM on Jun 16th 2007
74.
eM-
See this is what you're not getting. There is a lot -more- evidence to suggest evolution is true than there is to suggest that Creationism is true. In fact the Creation story as it is written in the Bible has been proven utterly false, for more reasons than I can list here. They are not equally valid just because science has been wrong in the past. By that logic science is wrong about everything, or at least those theories you object to for religious reasons. You are not looking at the science impartially and drawing your own conclusions, you've already made up your mind and decided to discredit science to support your belief. I have looked at the science supporting Creationist theories impartially, and it does not stand up to scrutiny. There has not been one study, not -one-, from a Creationist "scientist" that disproves the theory of evolution, and lord knows they've tried. That is why none of those studies are submitted for peer review, because they are immediately torn to shreds and exposed as the manipulated, specious pseudo-science that they are.
There are a lot of holes in evolutionary -history- which science is in the process of filling, but there are no real holes in the theory itself, and it is very likely it will stay that way considering how much evidence has been presented which supports it's merits.
Speciation has, in fact, been replicated in a lab on numerous occasions (I can link the results if you want), so evolution -into a new species that can mate with it's own species, but not it's ancestor species- is proven. So with the concept of evolution into new species proven, extrapolate that speciation out over hundreds of millions of years, and the creation of the diversity of life on Earth is not so impossible. In fact, that's the best explanation for it, if you accept that the world is 4 billion or so years old.
Peter at 7:31PM on Jun 16th 2007
75. a) It is not up to "intelligent design" theory or "creationism" to disprove evolution. Similarly, it is not up to evolution to prove or disprove creationism. As a scientific study, using the scientific method, the point would be to prove their own theories. And, both are built upon presumptions, which one must believe in order to assert that the evidence therefore fully proves the theory.
b) Therefore I'm not trying to re-create the Scopes trial here. I'm not even trying to be the spokesperson for intelligent design. All I'm saying is, one must believe in the presumptions each theory is based on in order to beleive the "science" that each one follows. There are a lot more intelligent and informed people who can discuss these issues. I also learned about evolution, but I also take into consideration the possibility of the fallacy of accepted science based on presumptions (which all theories about the origins of the earth are based on).
c) Because I take these theories with a grain of salt, and I do refuse the so-called "blind acceptance" of the theory, which I have been accused of, I also consider other factors when accepting the theory of intelligent design. Consider this excerpt from C.S. Lewis (the former atheist who by established logic determined that he could not longer belief in the non-existence of an intelligent power):
"If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents, the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists’ and astronomers’ as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts, i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents."
Once again, ALL I am saying (please, no more Scopes-esqe debate, we are at the aforementioned impasse) is that each one is built upon belief.
And I had to say that again, just because I know Wes loves it so much. :)
eM at 8:20PM on Jun 16th 2007