Over the past couple of weeks an especially determined atheist has been writing me, offering me $1000 if I can make God appear to Him in such a way that he can see and touch Him. The atheist just finished reading my book What's So Great About Christianity and it disturbed him, because it challenged his assumptions. Still, he demands unquestionable empirical confirmation. If I can only make God show his face, my correspondent sarcastically suggests, he would be happy to join the ranks of the believers.
In some ancient religions, where gods were considered to be made of the same material substance as other matter, this would be a reasonable (or at least a meaningful) challenge. But all the great religions, and certainly the Abrahamic ones, regard God as an immaterial spirit. If the atheist is willing to consider the possibility that such a God exists--as all open-minded atheists must do--then the question becomes: how can we know of the existence of immaterial things?
Scientists believe in immaterial things. How about gravity? I should write back my betting friend, offering him $1000 if he can make gravity appear to me in such a way that I can see and touch it. But of course he would indignantly reply that gravity is a force, and the existence of forces cannot be verified through direct sensory experience. Rather, their existence must be inferred through their effects. We know that something is making objects plummet to the earth. We know that something is causing the light from the sun in certain cases to bend. That something we call gravity.
Or consider dark matter and dark energy. I haven't seen them, and I bet you haven't either. In fact, no one has. The reason they are called "dark" is because they don't emit light. So how can we reasonably believe in such invisible, immaterial things? The existence of dark matter is inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter. The existence of dark energy is inferred from the accelerated rate at which galaxies are flying away from each other. Scientists reason that something is holding galaxies together, and something else is causing them (and space itself) to fly apart. These somethings we call dark matter and dark energy. Interestingly scientists believe that dark matter and dark energy make up more than 90 percent of all the matter in the universe.
Applying the same mode of reasoning, I would argue that some immaterial force caused the universe to come into existence. Here is the proof: a) All material things that have a beginning must have a cause, b) We know from the Big Bang theory that the universe (not just matter but space and time itself) had a beginning, c) Therefore the universe has a cause.
Now that cause can be natural or supernatural, but we can rule out a natural cause since the universe encompasses all of nature. It is simply ridiculous to say that nature, which once did not exist, somehow caused itself to come into existence. Some people like to talk about "multiple universes" or even an infinity of universes but they have to admit that they are just making those up: there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that any universe exists except our own. Much of this kind of talk seems to be a desperate way of trying to get around the idea of God. It's faith-based atheism.
It's must more reasonable--and, invoking Occam's razor, much more intellectually parsimonious--to believe that the universe came into existence because of a non-natural or (as theists would say) supernatural cause. That cause we call God.
Reader Comments ( Page 32 of 33)
466. Dani
It wouldn't be a bad idea to push for an anthropology class for middle school children.
They can learn about natural man drawing in caves and creating stone tools in the Paleolithic age before the gods were worshipped.
They can learn how the Neolithic age was the beginning of modern man. How drastic climate change and population growth developed religious institutions that influenced natural man into performing communal tasks required to establish and maintain a society.
A child can really benefit from a class that teaches human behavior, social evolution and where some of the earliest inventions came from, how our mind and conscious learned cause and effect and how a creative mind can reach beyond the cosmos.
We do need to improve the curriculum in the public schools and it should start with the sciences
goddess1prevail at 3:57PM on Jan 30th 2008
467. GHB
You were the laughable JC & Dark Lord?
You've sure got some sense of humor...LOL
goddess1prevail at 4:01PM on Jan 30th 2008
468. Goddess
I agree with you completely. I think the entire educational system needs revamping. I try to supplement at home, but to me , homeschooling would rob them of the social interaction that is significant to their personal development. Unfortunately, the private schools in our area are all Christian affliliated. That is not an option, seeing that the goal here is to raise their IQ not lower it.
There is so much more out there for them to learn than what they are being taught. It is one thing to teach a child, another to teach them to THINK!
dani at 6:14PM on Jan 30th 2008
469. So basically then, what Dinesh is saying is that, somehow, the *all powerful* creator of the universe completely *lacks* the ability to become something material like a person or a talking rock or an animated toaster? I've never seen anyone argue so hard to strip a god of one of his essential (and Biblically recorded) properties just to weasel his way out of a bet! What a dishonest cheapskate!
Reverend AtheiStar at 7:08PM on Jan 30th 2008
470.
I agree, dani.
My husband and I have always said that a child should be taught HOW to think and not WHAT to think.
FL Chick at 7:11PM on Jan 30th 2008
471. My husband and I have always said that a child should be taught HOW to think and not WHAT to think.
FL Chick at 7:11PM on Jan 30th 2008
The inference being that people only believe in God because they are forced to when they are kids? Pretty wacky idea to think that the knowledge of God is only alive because of a perpetual, worldwide hoax forced on children.
STaylor at 9:19PM on Jan 30th 2008
472. The inference being that people only believe in God because they are forced to when they are kids?
---------
Or if they're of weak mind as an adult and fall in with the wrong crowd. Yes. That's what we're saying. It's a psychosis. You only are conditioned to think of it as good. That's part of it. That's why it's a mental illness.
Godless Heathen Brian at 12:44PM on Jan 31st 2008
473. STaylor
You're correct in that it is a hoax. It's not necessarily forced on
children, it's just that they are easier to convince that fairy tales
are true. (Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Toothfairy, leprechauns, a
big bully in the sky that will strike you down if you're not good)
Adults just have to be simple minded.
It's a hoax in that you are taught not to think for yourselves. And
the knowledge of God is still alive because the world is full of
ignorant people.
dani at 3:08PM on Jan 31st 2008
474. 473.
It's a hoax in that you are taught not to think for yourselves.
dani at 3:08PM on Jan 31st 2008
But based on what you say and what I've read from the other bloggers we are not anything more than an instinctive animal that has evolved self awareness and nothing is real except what you can stick your hand out and touch. There has to be more to this position because it's not very credible, I'll have to admit that you're all very talented at making it sound good, but the more I think about it the more incredible it becomes. Sort of like evolution, which is currently being discredited because it's bad science and will end up on at the same level as the flat-earthers soon.
STaylor at 5:01PM on Jan 31st 2008
475. "462. 461. I would love a ban on all religions being taught to children under the age of say 15. Especially outside of the home. No children allowed in a church or in a school that teaches religious dogma. Let the kids be taught logic and science and morals and open mindedness. Let them be taught to make educated assumptions about the world around them, then you could introduce religion, when they are older and they can't be programmed so easily - I wonder how popular it would be then."
TJ at 2:04PM on Jan 30th 2008
-------------------
"It would die. Nobody would fall for it.
They would laugh at it for being so silly and childish.
The sane response."
Godless Heathen Brian at 2:15PM on Jan 30th 2008
Not true. Many Christians come to their faith as adults. This is what distinguishes Christianity from belief in "Santa Clause," the most common example used to disparage Christian belief. No adult ever comes to believe in Santa Clause as an adult; plenty of Christians, however, become Christians as adults. And many of them find their faith after having been atheists, and after having been well educated in science. A simple example will suffice: Alister Mcgrath was raised in Ireland, and developed a viceral dislike and distrust of religion as a child and a young teen, for obvious reasons, given his place of birth. He went on to study molecular biophysics at Oxford, and was awarded his phd in the field. His study of science, at one of the world's best universities, with some of the world's best scientists, augmented his emotional reaction against religion by providing him with what he at the time thought to be rational arguments against religious belief. But something happened. His studies emphasized the power of reason, but when he turned his reason against the arguments he had used to justify his atheism, he found them to be seriously wanting. Gradually, he made the move from atheism to Christianity, and he did so on rational grounds. He then went on to earn a second phd from Oxford, in theology, and is a professor at Oxford today. So here we have an example of a man who moved, by way of reason, from hatred of religion, and from a strong scientific background (much stronger, I think it's fair to say, than anyone who has ever posted on this blog), to Christian faith; and he did this as an adult.
Mike Valente at 5:11PM on Jan 31st 2008
476. STaylor
"But based on what you say and what I've read from the other bloggers we are not anything more than an instinctive animal that has evolved self awareness and nothing is real except what you can stick your hand out and touch." STaylor
These are not my views at all. You can not lump all atheists' and agnostics' beliefs together. We have no handbook to tell us what to think. We think for ourselves. We are all individuals.
I don't profess to know how we got here, or to know if a god exists or not.
I do believe however, that if God does exist, he is nothing like they portray him in the Bible.
Once I had children, and experienced what true love, unconditional love, feels like, it dispelled everything that I had been taught throughout the course of my life about God.
You have to come to your own realization about God. You can't just believe what you are fed.
dani at 6:49PM on Jan 31st 2008
477. If god is supernatural then she/it/he is immaterial.
Doesn't it therefore apply that supernatural is word and concept man made up to explain unexplainables.This immaterial supernaturalness has been personified and fashioned to reflect a particular culture,its mores and beliefs. Once codified it was turned into "worship""religion."
And to make it more tangible they fashioned images of men, women and animals (and combinations thereof)to represent the spiritual, the supernatural, the undefined, the unknown power that regulated life. Man made up religion and god. How many times do I have to remind you,Dinesh, that god is an a-theist!
boredwell at 6:56PM on Jan 31st 2008
478. Mike Valiente
Your example does not suffice.
This is more spoonfed nonsense that you are regurgitating.
Alister Mcgrath was born in 1953. In 1966 (at the ripe old age of 13) he became a pupil of the Methodist College in Belfast.
In 1976, (now just 23) he studied for the Oxford University Final Honour School of Theology while also studying biophysics.
In 1978, he left Oxford and moved on to Cambridge where he studied for ordination into the Church of England.
When exactly was he an atheist Mike? Age 12, or 14? Do you consider this an adult?
So, does this really sound like a scientist that turned theologian, or a theololgian that studied biophysics?
He has made his living as an author and public speaker promoting theology.
Either you were trying to blatantly lie here, or you are just so gullible that you believed the lies he told to sell you his book.
This is exactly what we are talking about. Buying into what you are told, hook, line and sinker. Without an actual thought of your own.
Pathetic
dani at 7:30PM on Jan 31st 2008
479. 476. STaylor
These are not my views at all. You can not lump all atheists' and agnostics' beliefs together. We have no handbook to tell us what to think. We think for ourselves. We are all individuals.
dani at 6:49PM on Jan 31st 2008
You're right, that is unfair.
STaylor at 8:50PM on Jan 31st 2008
480. Dani, I love to examine arguments. I love to evaluate them, to determine their strengths and, when necessary, show their weaknesses. You've just given me one hell of an opportunity to expose an incredibly silly argument, supported by some even worse research.
Let's look at the argument you're making. First we'll state your conclusion.
Your conclusion is that Mcgrath couldn't have been an atheist after the age of 14, and that he was a theologian studying science, and not a scientist studying theology. Here are your words:
"When exactly was he an atheist Mike? Age 12, or 14? Do you consider this an adult? So, does this really sound like a scientist that turned theologian, or a theololgian that studied biophysics?"
What reasoning supports this conclusion? Well, none, to be accurate. But I believe in the principle of charity (as logicians call it), which says that you're supposed to take your opponent's argument and give it the best possible interpretation. In your case, the best possible interpretation is, to use your word, "pathetic." There's my assertion; now I'll back it up. Here's the best possible interpretation of your argument:
----------------------------------------------------
Premise: Mcgrath studied at Methodist College at the age of 13. (You left out the fact that he majored in pure and applied mathematics, physics and chemistry there, but that wouldn't have helped your argument much, so I see why you left it out.)
Premise: In 1973, at the age of 23, he studied for the Oxford University Final Honour School of Theology while also studying biophysics. (You left out the fact that he earned First Class Honours in Chemistry in 1975, and that he subsequently began to study molecular biophysics. In 1976, he *began* -- important word -- to study theology, at the age of 23. He himself has said that he only began to study theology *seriously* while at Cambridge, at the age of 25. He was awarded his dphil, or phd, in molecular biophysics in 1977, at the age of 24.)
Premise: In 1978, he left Oxford and moved on to Cambridge where he studied for ordination into the Church of England.
Conclusion: Mcgrath was only an atheist before the age of 14, if at all.
----------------------------------------------------
Phew. Even if we ignored your -- what's that word again? -- "pathetic" wikipedia-quality research, or your selective use of the facts, we could dismiss this argument on purely logical grounds.
First, you seem to suppose that attending a school with the term "Methodist" in the name necessitates religious belief on the part of the student; if not, why suggest that he could only have been an atheist between the ages of 12 -- before he attended the school -- and 14 -- after he had been at the school for only a year? Your reasoning here is patently absurd. He was majoring in pure and applied mathematics, physics and chemistry; this is entirely consistent with what I had said, and supports my position much better than yours, which rests on (pardon me while I chuckle) the school's name! So you in fact have no evidence that he was a theist while attending this school.
Second, we must move on to 1976 when he began -- began! -- to study theology, while continuing to study, and publish in, molecular biophysics. Here, you mistakenly assume that only theists study theology. This is obviously false, and if the study of theology isn't sufficient to establish religious belief -- and only a moron would claim that it is -- then you are without any evidence that Mcgrath was a theist before the age of 23. I may be wrong here, but I believe that 23 year olds are considered to be adults.
Third, in 1977, at the age of 24, he was awarded his dphil (phd) in molecular biophysics. In 1978, at the age of 25, he was awarded his degree in theology. That same year, he began studying for ordination in the Church of England. So, it is here, at the age of 25, that we have our first concrete piece of evidence that Mcgrath was a theist. Is it just me, or is there a world of difference between a person aged 12-14, and a person aged 23-25? In other words, is the former a child, and the latter an adult, at least as we commonly use and understand those terms?
So, Dani, your own argument only establishes that Mcgrath was a theist at the age of 25 -- an adult -- after having earned a phd in molecular biophysics -- which is to say, when he was also a scientist. Sounds to me as if my argument is still standing, and yours has been obliterated. Now that I've done the job using nothing but logic and easily obtainable facts -- I think I've used at least one "thought of my own" here, and apparently you could've used a few of my thoughts too, since yours are so obviously "pathetic" -- I'll proceed to provide some incontrovertible evidence.
One of my favorite quotes goes something like this: "I'm the world's foremost authority on what *I* believe." Let's see what Mcgrath himself has to say about his atheism.
"When I was growing up in Belfast, Northern Ireland, during the 1960s, I came to the view that God was an infantile illusion, suitable for the elderly, the intellectually feeble, and the fraudulently religious. I admit this was a rather arrogant view, and one that I now find somewhat embarrassing. My rather pathetic excuse for this intellectual haughtiness is that a lot of other people felt the same way back then. It was the received wisdom of the day that religion was on its way out, and that a glorious, godless dawn was just around the corner.
Part of the reasoning that led to my conclusion was based on the natural sciences. I had specialized in mathematics and science during high school, as preparation for going to Oxford University to study chemistry. While my primary motivations for studying the sciences were the insights they allowed into the wonderful world of nature, I also found them a convenient ally in my critique of religion. Atheism and the natural sciences seemed to be coupled together by the most rigorous intellectual bonds. *And there things rested, until I arrived at Oxford in October 1971.* [Wow! Mcgrath just said that he was an atheist until the age of 18! We're making progress! My argument moved us well beyond your conclusion of 12 to 14, and Mcgrath's own words have just moved us to the age of 18, the commonly accepted first year of adulthood. Your argument now has nothing to stand on. But perhaps you'll read on and learn a thing or two.]
Chemistry proved to be intellectually exhilarating. As more and more of the complexities of the natural world seemed to fall into place, I found myself overwhelmed by an incandescent enthusiasm. I chose to specialize in quantum theory, and found it to be mentally demanding, almost to the point of pain-yet rewarding. Although the quantum universe fascinated me, I was increasingly drawn to the biological world, intrigued by the complex chemical patterns of natural organisms. In the end, I decided to research advanced physical methods of investigating biological systems, under the supervision of Sir George Radda, who later became chief executive of the Medical Research Council. In the midst of this growing delight in the natural sciences, which exceeded anything I could have hoped for, I found myself rethinking my atheism. [Pay attention, Dani! He began rethinking his atheism here, which he says happens in the midst of his studies, and continued while he was studying with Radda; he started to study with Radda in 1975 at the age of 22. So he was still an atheist at 22, an atheist who was reconsidering his atheism, but an atheist nonetheless.] It is not easy for anyone to subject his core beliefs to criticism; my reason for doing so was the growing realization that things were not quite as straightforward as I had once thought. A number of factors had converged to bring about what I suppose I can reasonably describe as a crisis of faith-or lack thereof.
Atheism, I began to realize, rested on a less-than-satisfactory evidential basis. The arguments that had once seemed bold, decisive, and conclusive increasingly turned out to be circular, tentative, and uncertain. The opportunity to talk with Christians about their faith revealed to me that I understood relatively little about their religion, which I had come to know chiefly through not-always-accurate descriptions by its leading critics, including British logician Bertrand Russell and German social philosopher Karl Marx. I also began to realize that my assumption of the automatic and inexorable link between the natural sciences and atheism was rather naïve and uninformed. One of the most important things I had to sort out, after my conversion to Christianity, was the systematic uncoupling of this bond. Instead, I would see the natural sciences from a Christian perspective-and I would try to understand why others did not share this perspective.
In 1977, I read renowned biologist Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, which had appeared the previous year. It was a fascinating book, brimming with ideas and showcasing a superb ability to put difficult concepts into words. I devoured it, and longed to read more of his work, but I was puzzled by what I considered to be a rather superficial atheism, not adequately grounded in the scientific arguments that undergirded the work. [Read carefully, Dani! It appears that we can reasonably conclude that Mcgrath's rethinking of atheism continued to 1977, at the age of 24.] Atheism seemed to be tacked on with intellectual Velcro rather than demanded by the scientific evidence Dawkins assembled. A brilliant scientific popularizer, Dawkins seemed to be propagandizing an aggressive atheism. And there is no doubt that his lucid and hard-line atheism-especially evident in his recent book, A Devil's Chaplain-has done much to shape public perceptions of the credulousness of Christian faith. Belief in God, he argues, is like believing in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy: It cannot be sustained when we grow up and learn the realities of the scientific method... I began serious research in Christian theology at Cambridge University, and was eventually drawn back to Oxford."
How should I end this post, Dani? How about like this:
Pathetic.
Mike Valente at 11:14PM on Jan 31st 2008