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 6 of 8)
76.
See, we're not at an impasse. You claim we're at an impasse, but we aren't. I can't seem to get this into your head. Nobody is asking you to have blind faith in the theory, we have supplied plenty of evidence to you. You've blinded yourself to impartially looking at that evidence and weighing it's merits. See, I know what you're trying to do, because I've seen numerous Creationists try to make this argument before: You're trying to write it off as a belief by being willfully ignorant of all the evidence supplied to you, and then stating that because you do not acknowledge that evidence and thus do not "believe" in the theory, it must be a belief to support it. What's missing from this argument? Why, it's all the evidence that's supplied to you to suggest that it is true!
There is an element of belief in all science: We have to believe that we actually exist at all or that there are certain laws of the universe which cannot be broken. Galileo "believed" the Sun was the center of our solar system, not because it was some crazy idea he dreamed up, but because everything he could naturally observe suggested that was the case: He had a lot of evidence to back up his "belief".
Can he compress the universe into a tiny box so you can see the Earth rotating around the Sun? Can he make an entire solar system in a lab without relying on scaled models? Why is it you are capable of allowing for the fact that the scale of space is beyond human replication, but not the scale of time? This is where your argument falls apart.
Peter at 9:46PM on Jun 16th 2007
77. "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."
I don't see your point. Evolution happened. Please consider the link that I presented.
"And, both are built upon presumptions, which one must believe in order to assert that the evidence therefore fully proves the theory."
I don't know what you mean by that. What "presumptions?" Either bacteria evolved into elephants or it didn't. And it did. Please consider the link I provided.
"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)."
What "presumptions" are you talking about?
"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."
What do you mean "the theory of intelligent design?" Self-replicating molecules that were on earth evolved into all the complex organisms that have lived on earth. Please consider the link.
Wes at 9:57PM on Jun 16th 2007
78.
Also I never said I was trying to disprove God. I believe some sort of God created the universe. I think scientists are a lot closer to understanding the nature of that God than someone who just made up whatever they wanted to about him to either soothe their fears in life or instill their version of a moral code in a society. They are closer precisely because they don't have any specific agena other than to understand the natural processes of our universe, and perhaps by understanding and acknowledging those processes we will better understand the purpose behind them all, and not have to just make up a purpose that suits us.
Peter at 9:57PM on Jun 16th 2007
79. Your argument continually falls apart by trying to compare certain theories that have been already proven by space travel etc (the setup of the Milky Way etc) to the theory of how the earth began.
To clarify, our impasse is as follows:
1) Much of science is not as "simple" as people like Wes would like it to be. Especially the science surrounding the origins of the earth, as each theory is built upon presumptions. For example, we could say that increased or decreased caloric intake by a human will result in an increase or decrease in body mass. That is a rule. However, that rule presumes that no other condition is present in the body. The presence of diabetes mellitus, however, changes things -- some humans with type 1 diabetes could exponentially increase their caloric intake, and still starve to death. Our understanding of various rules/ laws in the body, even basic ones that are reproducible in the lab, continues to evolve based on our understanding of other elements/ conditions in the body.
2) You and I view "science" differently. I view it as the human way of exploring the universe around them, including the human body itself, and trying to understand it and put it in terms human understand. My presumption is that it is already beyond human understanding and therefore *some* of our current theories, or perhaps some of the presumptions they are based upon, are fallible. Clay expressed this much more eloquently than I ever could. You chose to believe the presumptions your theory is based upon, and therefore entirely accept the scientific evidence that theory produces. In turn you call my questioning of the presumption (which is based on a different view of science) as "blind rejection."
We cannot go anywhere from here because although I value science -- I love it! -- I do not view it in the same manner you do. My earlier points about junk science were that science, at any point in time, is based on human understanding at the time. Wes keeps bringing up the earth on the back of the tortoise thing. If we lived in 1200s or so, I imagine he might be fighting to defend that very theory. Humans developed the scientific method. Humans put together scientific theories/ hypotheses and try to prove them. If humans are all there are, we must be forced to accept what the "smartest" humans can give us in regards to science as fact. But if you chose to believe that there is a more intelligent force than humans that existed or still exists, you cannot help but look at the universe, including science, in a different way.
So, it all goes back to belief.
eM at 11:23AM on Jun 17th 2007
80. eM wrote: "Your argument continually falls apart by trying to compare certain theories that have been already proven by space travel etc (the setup of the Milky Way etc) to the theory of how the earth began."
I don't see your point. 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 link I posted.
"So, it all goes back to belief."
My belief that self-replicating molecules evolved into all the complex organisms that have lived on earth is a belief that I know to be true. Please see the information at the link I presented.
Maybe you don't like the word "know." OK. It is, at the very very least, overwhelmingly probable that self-replicating molecules evolved into all the complex organisms that have lived on earth is a belief that I know to be true. Please see the information at the link I presented.
Wes at 12:58PM on Jun 17th 2007
81. eM wrote: "You chose to believe the presumptions your theory is based upon, and therefore entirely accept the scientific evidence that theory produces."
What "presumptions" are you talking about? Also, it not my theory. But bacteria evolved into elephants.
Wes at 1:00PM on Jun 17th 2007
82. “We cannot go anywhere from here because although I value science -- I love it! -- I do not view it in the same manner you do. My earlier points about junk science were that science, at any point in time, is based on human understanding at the time.”
But sometimes humans get things right. Sometimes humans know that a given belief is true. The earth is not a flat disk that rests on the back of a giant tortoise. I know that a particular person gave birth to me. I know that the moon is not made of cream cheese. So sometimes humans are right. And I’m right that self-replicating molecules evolved into all the complex organisms that have live on earth.
“Wes keeps bringing up the earth on the back of the tortoise thing. If we lived in 1200s or so, I imagine he might be fighting to defend that very theory.”
Some have thought that the earth is shaped like a pancake. In fact, some people do think so. But I know they are wrong. That’s life.
“Humans developed the scientific method. Humans put together scientific theories/ hypotheses and try to prove them. If humans are all there are, we must be forced to accept what the "smartest" humans can give us in regards to science as fact.”
No, sometimes the smartest humans get things wrong. But sometimes humans get things right. And I’m right that bacteria evolved into elephants. Please see the link I presented.
“But if you chose to believe that there is a more intelligent force than humans that existed or still exists, you cannot help but look at the universe, including science, in a different way.”
Well, first millions and millions of people who believe that there are one or more Gods also realize that bacteria evolved into elephants. Second, bacteria did evolve into elephants.
Wes at 1:06PM on Jun 17th 2007
83. Wes:
From Wikipedia, which I think is the link you provided:
"Somehow, in the energetic chemistry of early Earth, a molecule (or even something else) gained the ability to make copies of itself–the replicator. The nature of this molecule is unknown, its function having long since been superseded by life’s current replicator, DNA."
I chose not to believe in the initial concept of "somehow." You do.
Also : "All this continued for a very long time, with reactions occurring more or less at random, until by chance there arose a new molecule: the replicator. This had the bizarre property of promoting the chemical reactions which produced a copy of itself, and evolution began properly. Other theories posit a different replicator. In any case, DNA took over the function of the replicator at some point; all known life (with the exception of some viruses and prions) use DNA as their replicator, in an almost identical manner (see genetic code)."
I also choose not to believe in "by chance." You do. I choose to believe DNA has existed from the beginning -- and yes it does replicate, but usually when it doesn't replicate exactly as it should, bad things happen (genetic abnormalities, creation/ strengthening of diseases, birth defects, retardation, death in general of every single human being). Anyone who has studied statistics knows how improbable (especially considering the second law of thermodynamics, which yes I am presuming to be in place since the beginning of the universe) it is that replication would "start" on its own by chance.
However, that is the belief you choose, and based on those initial presumptions, you agree with the science produced by that theory.
I choose a different belief.
eM at 1:56PM on Jun 17th 2007
84.
The exact process through which an inorganic microbe can turn into a living cell is not known, but considering every living thing in the world is carbon-based and relies on water to perpetuate itself, it's not a stretch to imagine it had something to do with carbon and water. It doesn't matter if it's improbable, because it's not impossible. If it is possible, considering the scale of the universe and the time and space available for incomprehensible numbers of different interactions throughout the universe, the ol' "too complex" argument pretty well falls to pieces.
It's amazing that you're still not getting it. All science starts with a presumption, sure. Then evidence is brought forth either supporting that presumption or suggesting it is wrong. The more evidence that supports it, the more likely it is to be true. What you're doing here is taking the initial presumption of evolution, ignoring -all of the evidence- that supports it and not even acknowledging the lack of evidence to suggest it is wrong, and stating that because it started with a presumption in the first place all the evidence that supports it is immediately no more valid than your claims which have -no evidence at all- to suggest they are correct. That's entirely contradictory to any understanding of the Universe, or any scientific methodology, so I don't think you "love it" like you say you do. You love it when it is convenient for you to love it, and disregard it when it doesn't fit with your ideas which are based on nothing at all.
Peter at 2:22PM on Jun 17th 2007
85. "...considering every living thing in the world is carbon-based and relies on water to perpetuate itself, it's not a stretch to imagine it had something to do with carbon and water. It doesn't matter if it's improbable, because it's not impossible."
I'm not trying to prove that it's entirely impossible. But the same statement could be made about my theory -- it's improbable, but not impossible. And, if one accepts the condition of the involvement of an intelligent being, it becomes more possible.
Therefore, at the core, both beliefs are similar. One rejects intelligence and looks to the elements of earth as a source (except for the folks who think we came from space or something). The other rejects the elements of earth as its own source and looks to an intelligent source.
It's especially curious to me that you accept the concept of God as possibly putting into place the existence of the gases, etc., that eventually formed the planet/ solar system, but reject the thought of his involvement in the creation of life on the planet itself. In that sense, Wes's arguments seem more straightforward to me. Yours requires a sort of peculiar belief -- there was a God but he only started the process and has held back from that point, especially when it comes to life on the planet earth.
eM at 3:22PM on Jun 17th 2007
86. eM, I don’t know exactly which series of events resulted in the first cell forming on earth. But that I don’t know exactly which series of events caused one event does not enable me to determine that I don’t know what caused every subsequent event. For example, I don’t know exactly what caused the onset of the matter and space that is the known universe, but I know that my existence was proximately caused by a particular person giving birth to me. So that I don’t know exactly which series of events resulted in the first cell forming on earth does not enable me to determine that I don’t know that bacteria evolved into elephants.
Wes at 5:12PM on Jun 17th 2007
87. eM, here is Ernst Mayr on what humans and currently understand and don't currently understand about which series of events resulted in the first cell forming on earth:
"The first serious theories on the origin of life were proposed in the 1920s (Oparin, Haldane). In the last 75 years, an extensive literature dealing with this problem has developed and some six or seven competing theories for the origin of life have been proposed. Although no fully satisfactory theory has yet emerged, the problem no longer seems as formidable as at the beginning of the twentieth century. One is justified to claim that there are now a number of feasible scenarios of how life could have originated from inanimate matter. To understand these various theories requires a good deal of technical knowledge of biochemistry. To avoid burdening this volume with such detail, I refer the read to the special literature dealing with the origin of life (Schopf 1999; Brack 1999; Oparin 1938; Zubbay 2000).
"The first pioneers of life on Earth had to solve two major (and some minor) problems: (1) how to acquire energy and (2) how to replicate. The Earth’s atmosphere at the time was essentially devoid of oxygen. But there was abundant energy from the sun and in the ocean from sulfides. Thus growth and acquisition of energy were apparently no major problem. It has often been suggested that rocky surfaces were coated with metabolizing films that could grow but not replicate. The invention of replication was more difficult. DNA is now (except in some viruses) known as the molecule that is indispensable in replication. But how could it ever have been coopted for this function? There is no good theory for this. However, RNA has enzymatic capacities and could have been selected for this property, with its role in replication being secondary. It is now believed that there may have been an RNA world before the DNA world. There was apparently already protein synthesis in this RNA world, but it lacked the efficiency of the DNA protein synthesis.
"In spite of all the theoretical advances that have been made toward solving the problem of the origin of life, the cold fact remains that no one has so far succeeded in creating life in a laboratory. This would require not only an anoxic atmosphere, but presumably also other somewhat unusual conditions (temperature, chemistry of the medium) that no one has yet been able to replicate. It had to be a liquid (aqueous) medium that was perhaps similar to the hot water of the volcanic vents at the ocean floor. Many more years of experimentation will likely pass before a laboratory succeeds in actually producing life. However, the production of life cannot be too difficult, because it happened on Earth apparently as soon as conditions became suitable for life, around 3.8 billion years ago. Unfortunately we have no fossils from the 300 million years between 3.8 and 3.5 billion years ago. The earliest known fossiliferous rocks are 3.5 billion years old and already contain a remarkably rich biota of bacteria" (What Evolution Is, p. 42 - 43).
Wes at 5:17PM on Jun 17th 2007
88. "I also choose not to believe in "by chance." You do. I choose to believe DNA has existed from the beginning -- and yes it does replicate, but usually when it doesn't replicate exactly as it should, bad things happen (genetic abnormalities, creation/ strengthening of diseases, birth defects, retardation, death in general of every single human being)."
Most mutations are not reproductively beneficial. But some are. And mutations are ubiquitous. Analougously, a tiny percentage of the space of t he known universe is occupied by stars. But there are billions and billions of start in the known universe. Moreover, mutations aren't the only kinds of events that contribute to differences among organisms. For example, sex contributes to differences among many organisms. So, that most mutations are not reproductively beneficial is irrelevant to whether I know that bacteria evolved into elephants.
"Anyone who has studied statistics knows how improbable (especially considering the second law of thermodynamics, which yes I am presuming to be in place since the beginning of the universe) it is that replication would "start" on its own by chance."
What do you mean "by chance?" Do you mean without an intelligent being intervening and causing the first replication? Well, it is overwhelmingly likely that it did. For one thing, we have no correlations of deities or extraterrestrials causing biological events. And we know that trillions and trillions of events have been caused by events other than the acts of deities or extraterrestrials.
Wes at 5:24PM on Jun 17th 2007
89. Here are links to some of the research that humans are doing to try to determine exactly which series of events resulted in the first cells forming on earth:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/217054.stm
http://www.scripps.edu/news/press/100704.html
Wes at 5:26PM on Jun 17th 2007
90. eM wrote:
"Anyone who has studied statistics knows how improbable (especially considering the second law of thermodynamics, which yes I am presuming to be in place since the beginning of the universe) it is that replication would "start" on its own by chance."
On the second law of thermodynamics, entropy increases when energy is not added to a system. But the formation of the first self-replicators on earth did not occur in a closed system. For instance, the sun is bombarding earth with energy. Thus, that entropy increases in closed systems is irrelevant to whether I know that cells formed on earth.
Wes at 5:31PM on Jun 17th 2007