My bad and my apologies!
You’re correct that I didn’t read as I should have and as a result totally misunderstood your intentions! Sorry about my angry rant!
Merv
Apology accepted. I’ve done the same.
2 Likes
It would be interesting to know what he was thinking when he said that.
In Finland, forested lands are not classified based on trees, they are classified based on the low vegetation that indicates the type of soils. The assumption is that if the growing conditions and the regional species pool do not change, long-term development of the vegetation leads to a site-specific climax community. Humans may cut the trees and plant tree seedlings but after decades or centuries of development the same type of vegetation will dominate the site.
This kind of prediction of the long-term dynamics have worked well for the needs of forestry planning. The problem with this kind of thinking is that it assumes that everything else stays the same. The regional and site-specific climate, soil nutrients (at the general level), the regional plant species pool and all the other external variables.
Your example of the invasive plants is good in the sense that it shows that the long-term dynamics is sensitive to changes in the regional species pool. Climate change is another example of factors that can lead the dynamics of vegetation towards a novel end point.
If we consider what happens during very long time periods, such changes in external conditions are the rule. Every time when there happens significant changes, the local natural selection filters change. That redirects the local evolution towards directions that can be novel and perhaps even lead to speciation ([sub]populations that become reproductively isolated). So, no long-term stability, unless the external conditions and the regional species pools are frozen to a particular state. Even in that case, the imaginary stability only applies to the so called climax community.
1 Like
Perhaps the point is that, having prayed over the pipes the 1st plumber can still use science to find the fault, but with more confidence that he will find it. Christians do not just ignore science or practicalities. Christianity is as much about practicalities in life as it is about faith in God
“Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition” was a refrain during the Great War.
We know that miracles are the exception, not the rule, and that we cannot demand them or perform them at will. Often the solution is within our own capabilities or from within the human community. If I need a plumber I do not call a priest or a faith healer.
Richard
2 Likes
I am not aware of anyone doing research on the divine origins of life. Are you aware of any such research? How would you conduct such research? What experiments would you do?
At the same time, people can do both research into naturalistic origins AND include divine considerations at the same time. This is essentially what theistic evolution and evolutionary creationism are. However, I don’t see any way of testing the hypothesis “God did it” in isolation. If there is a way I would sure like to hear about it.
I don’t see how this has any relevance.
2 Likes
I thought a goal of Philip Johnson’s ID project as outlined in the Wedge Document, was to replace “materialistic science” with “theistic science” in ~20 years. We’re well past that delivery date. It still has made no headway among conventional science and exactly how one might do ‘theistic science’ in a manner distinct from current science remains unexplained.
Then again, maybe conventional science, much of which arose from the systematic investigations that branched out of natural theology, is already as close to a workable version of theistic science that you can get. So, perhaps Phillip Johnson wanted something else that was already considered and discarded a while ago.
2 Likes
To abuse Romanes’ 1882 essay once again:
I think that is a great illustration of how theology and science interact. Science studies the immediate causes in nature, but science has no way of investigating theological claims of ultimate causes. I would argue that atheist and theist scientists have no problem navigating these differences in 99.99% of cases. In my experience and in the experiences of many Christian scientists here, atheist and theist scientists are able to find massive areas of agreement with little to no friction related to religious beliefs. Like any group of humans there are jerks in the scientific community, but on the whole scientists really don’t care about the religious beliefs of their peers at a professional level.
As one example of what I am getting at, if someone says that an antibiotic AND God saved them from a life threatening infection I don’t see this as impinging on science at all, or calling the efficacy of antibiotics into question. It is once again the difference between immediate and ultimate causes. Christians do, and should, seek out medical treatment that’s based on naturalism. That doesn’t mean they have to believe God plays no role in their health.
5 Likes
It’s completely true but two wrongs don’t make a right.
This is accurate but shouldn’t be abused. Christianity presupposes a natural world. Supernatural itself means beyond natural. But that means the natural is there and that is the way it has always been in Christianity. But that doesn’t mean every explanation we seek must be natural. And all potential gaps where one might insert God are not created equal. It is entirely sloppy, lazy and a straw man to think they are. It’s like assuming since one political argument is bad, all political arguments are bad. I have laid out the case on why life itself might be plausible place for a “God did it.” We are made in God’s image. Life is special, sacred, Holy. It is categorically different from everything else (life vs non-life). Again, it’s quite plausible to me there may be no actual scientific answer for cell or abiogenesis. If we find one, great. If not, great. If the ID crowd shows its extremely improbable life arose on its own, great. If they don’t, great. I personally don’t go in knowing the answer to this question beforehand. The question of life itself isn’t exactly the same to me as asking “why is this pipe leaking.”
I certainty don’t see life like Sagan or Crick:
Sagan: “I am a collection of water, calcium, and organic molecules called Carl Sagan.”
Crick: “You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.”
It is not a dumb statement. Materialistic atheism naturally leads to nihilism. If we can’t say it is objectively wrong to play catch with babies using bayonets then a worldview is broken. Who cares if someone believes in bad science in that framework? Atheism doesn’t provide any real motivation for anything and it doesn’t even allow for any sort of moral growth because that assumes some good standard one is moving towards. So certainly, atheism is a science stopper. Christians have every reason to study God’s world. It is filled with purpose, meaning and love. But inserting “God did it everywhere” is also a science stopper. Both are harmful to progress. That doesn’t mean gaps that God must fill are not possible or even likely in places in our universe.
It’s not a false trope. It’s an inconsistency. Materialism as a worldview naturally leads to nihilism. But materialists can choose to not be nihilists and many do. Not to mention God is intimate in His creation so even when people choose not to believe in him (intellectually), there is still going to be a natural influence from general revelation. When people point out atheism is incompatible with morality, most are not saying atheists are not moral individuals. I’m not. This is about their worldview and philosophical outlook. It’s not personal, but defending T seems to be for you so you took it that way. Christians are interested in actual truth or reality. That doesn’t mean we need to water down our beliefs in the face of modern pluralism and pretend atheism is a good thing. A rejection of God is not a good thing nor is it anything to celebrate.
Agreed. So any specific model proposed would be a possibility but not a scientifically falsifiable position. We could never test it. Only show it’s possible. I am okay with that. It seems @St.Roymond is not.
And no one said not to look. I have said to look over and over again. I just decry the hidden scientism that already assumes there is an answer. For me, it’s monotheism itself, and not atheism or materialism which tells us to look. As James Barr wrote in an online course:
I love that quote from Kepler.
Well, the ID crowd tries to do this by showing it improbable life arose on its own. Aside from this, we would seemingly need to know a lot to justify such a negative but for some there are other paths to truth outside science. It would require arguments and thinking that go beyond scientific discourse.
Conjecture that is not testable and for which there can be no evidence for is not science proper. I am not saying it’s irrational to believe in such a model but science is science.
I model a super-intellect, namely God, as creating the underlying constants of our universe with the goal of carbon-based life evolving given their extremely high degree fine-tuning. I can safely say that model is extremely compatible with scientific knowledge to a very large number with a high exponent. Is it science?
So it can never be a proper scientific model or theory. It’s just a tentative idea. That is a springboard for doing science but it can never be a scientific theory or testable hypothesis. Without testability or falsification it doesn’t get the label science from me. And superstring theory looks more like pseudo-science to me than real science. Mathematical masturbation in my mind.
Vinnie
2 Likes
Except that it doesn’t. Atheists can accept materialism and still choose to have purpose and meaning in their lives.
What is wrong is that morality has to be objective in order to be important.
Not playing golf and not believing in Nessie also don’t provide any sort of moral growth or good standards. Atheism is just a lack of belief in deities. Atheists are more than what they don’t believe in. They are also what they believe in, and many of those beliefs are centered on morality, purpose, and meaning. They just don’t derive from a belief in deities.
It really doesn’t. You may want this to be true, but it just isn’t.
They are just wrong. You don’t have to believe in a deity in order to have emotions, empathy, wants, and needs. These are the basis of morality. Atheist and theist alike all have the same inner sense of morality.
I can show that winning the lottery is improbable, and yet people win all of the time.
3 Likes
Most of us as Christians don’t consciously feel that belief in God is required to love our neighbor, wife, or children; or do what is right or wrong.
Also see even the evangelical book, “Who’s Afraid of Relativism,” by James K A Smith (I have not read it, but reviewed the author’s description, and feel it’s relevant–from Calvin University).
Randal Rauser does a great job of addressing many of these, too, as a Christian with a sympathetic outlook–“Is the Atheist My Neighbor,” and “Conversations With My Inner Atheist,” and critiques of Frank Turek’s strawmanning.
Thank you.
2 Likes
I do understand why some theists can’t understand how atheists can find meaning in their life. It’s somewhat like the old saying, “when you’re a hammer, all you see is nails”. If your belief in God is central to how you find meaning and purpose it isn’t strange to wonder how anyone can do the same without that belief.
There are two blog posts that really resonated with me.
These blog posts definitely lean atheist, so I don’t expect anyone here to give them a glowing review. However, I do think they do a good job of stripping morality down to it’s most basic which is the very subjective wants and needs of humans in society. I would even go as far as to say that people choose a nominally religious based objective morality based on how well it fits their own subjective sense of morality. As an example, many westerners do not want to be subjected to Sharia law, even though it is an objective moral system nominally handed down from God.
If I have the chance and gumption, I will definitely check out the books you list. I do find it fascinating to hear what theists have to say about atheists.
2 Likes
Some excellent and fair discussion here of philosophical implications of theism and atheism, especially @Vinnie. My primary point is that in both cases the “science stopper” assertion is rubbish.
Both a Christian and an atheist can be excited about figuring out how things work. Our explanations of why we are excited will differ. A Christian can argue that our curiosity comes from God and that we should expect to find order from an intelligent agent. An atheist can argue that evolution has somehow endowed us with minds and curiosity in a universe that happens to work, and we have found a process for investigation which often yields good results.
I’m more interested at this point in trying to prevent the ridiculous straw man “theism is a science stopper” argument from coming up. It’s rubbish and it’s always rubbish, so let’s stop.
Nonetheless, I appreciate the philosophical give-and-take.
There is another dimension that causes trouble related to this. When a scientist begins making philosophical statements compatible with anti-theism, and theists (or even other atheists) call them out on it, it’s not unusual to hear the response, “Ah, I see you’re anti-science.” Fact is, scientists often make truly lousy philosophers. They don’t even know they are speaking philosophy! Hawking, one of the most brilliant minds of the last century: “Philosophy is dead.” But that’s a sophomoric self-defeating philosophical statement!
Marty
2 Likes
Hi Marty.
I didn’t realize you were a Masshole like myself! 
I don’t think theism, per se, is a science stopper and I don’t think that was what @T_aquaticus’ was saying. Miracles and some potential forms of divine intervention, depending on how they are defined, can be problematic. Actually, I wish the YEC community would come around to the notion that they should invoke numerous miracles, and I think that will be the end game after exhausting most other routes. “I can’t say how, I just have faith it happened this way” is an honest position. This is a bit different from “I can’t say how, but I suspect it happened this way.” Also honest but displaying less certainty in the faith department and perhaps more open to new information.
2 Likes
I need to update my profile! I abandoned MA 5 years ago.
I agree that some arguments of divine intervention are “problematic.” Some people have faith in one thing, some in another. @T_aquaticus has faith that there were no divine interventions. OK.
The quote I took issue with was:
My impression from this sentence and past posts by @T_aquaticus is a broader tendency to lump all divine discussion into the same category.
But determining the likelihood of agency using science is a common practice. SETI and CSI are obvious examples. A conclusion of agency is necessary before a death becomes a murder.
For those who believe Jesus walked on water, we don’t believe it’s a miracle because of some gaps in our knowledge, but precisely because we know a LOT about gravity and water. So if the testimony is true, it’s miraculous because of science. The ancients knew about water and gravity also, though they could not explain it the way we do today.
The same can be applied to Origins of Life. Looking at the problems LUCA would have been required to solve, I do not find it probable that we will find a naturalist pathway. Required DNA mechanisms encoded in the DNA (repair, replication, protein synthesis, etc.), RNA is even more fragile than DNA and needs to be folded to function and unfolded to replicate (challenges to an RNA world hypothesis), … Coacervates work for the same reason membranes work, but cell membranes need membrane proteins (selectively permeable) which requires protein construction which requires DNA (with homochiral D-deoxyribose and L-amino acids). There’s many more.
I’m thrilled we are studying basic cellular processes. Perhaps invoking “Origins of Life” helps get grants. But we are studying waterfalls to understand a grist mill. It looks to me like an agent put it together. That’s my tentative conclusion from the science, not from gaps. But that’s a far cry from suggesting that we should stop study! Indeed, the study shows the incredible brilliance of the mind behind it. I want to know more!
Hope that all helps!
Marty
3 Likes
Yowzah! That would’ve been an interesting time to move. For myself, I would like to retire where there’s snow. But being able to drive up to watch rocket launches would be attractive.
Thanks for the clarification.
I’m doubtful we can unwind the history of life to the first steps… at least probably not for 4-10+ decades, beyond which I don’t think I’d feel comfortable about any of my predictions in scientific progress. I was surprised we could root eukaryotes among the Archea within my lifetime – I wouldn’t have been surprised if there had been insufficient ‘signals’ remaining.
Barely? Especially today. Someone who works on ‘trans-splicing of mRNA’ should probably be worried that their grant request might get flagged for ‘wokeness’. It’s really bad out there…
2 Likes
Material atheism doesn’t lead anywhere except away from religion.
We can say that, since there are objective moral codes that are not based on religion.
Of course it doesn’t. No-one expects it to, since it’s a rejection of the worldviews of others, and not a worldview itself.
Atheism definitely does allow for moral growth, because moral standards have been developed that do not have religious underpinnings. Even moral standards founded on religious ideals can be striven for while rejecting their religious roots.
Atheism is not a science stopper, which is obvious since many atheists are enthusiastic about science.
Again, atheism is a rejection of the worldviews of others, and includes no worldview itself. Whatever worldview an atheist adopts may be a science stopper, but that would be a result of their actual worldview, not a result of their atheism.
You are. You just said that “Atheism … doesn’t even allow for any sort of moral growth”.
This isn’t the first time you have made false claims about atheism, and probably won’t be the last, though it would be if you had the sense to stick to espousing your own views and stop make unfounded claims about a view you don’t hold and don’t understand.
Coyne is generally not good on philosophy or religion. Although starting with reasonably detailed definitions is good, the reasoning in coelsblog is not so good. It is true, as Hume noted (and Ecclesiastes, much earlier) that one cannot reason from the “here’s how the world is” of science to “ought” of morality. But that does not prove that morality is merely subjective human preferences. The blog assumes the false dichotomy of those being the only options. But the argument is self-defeating. The blog, and naive atheism generally, says that you ought to accept its claims about right and wrong because there is no right or wrong. He’s assuming that you ought to accept logical arguments. I doubt he’d be a fan of subjectivity when it comes to whether it’s OK to lie about science or OK to beat him up and take his wallet. Likewise, Sharia institutes double standards. Of course, we all are tempted to support standards that are in our own self-interest, exceptions to the rules for ourselves, etc. The main implausibility in the scenario of all humans approving of something that is in fact objectively wrong is the idea of all humans agreeing, not the idea that we all could be wrong. Dawkins is not being consistent when he disapproves of those who were inspired by his atheism to set up the Enron fraud. He’s not being consistent in claiming that Stalin wasn’t really an atheist, nor in criticizing Stakin for choosing his own moral standards. If there are no objective moral standards, then there’s no basis for criticizing creation science.
Atheists can have high moral standards, but philosophically justifying them or expecting others to follow them is problematic.
3 Likes
I think the philosophers contemplating morality (religiously given or not) are not likely to solve the issues and find themselves out of a job anytime soon. Nobody seems to have managed to “connect the dots” to synthesize a coherent root for ‘morality’. I suspect sociology, psychology and game theory will be better at modeling the rules for how humans behave than philosophers might posit from first principles.
2 Likes
For those who claim life originated supernaturally and did not involve natural processes, they have already found their answer. They aren’t curious. James Tour has grown quite famous in creationist circles because he argues vociferously that life could not originate naturally, or at least that is how his arguments are understood by creationists. I don’t foresee James Tour starting a research project to find how life originated. I don’t foresee the Discovery Institute spending money on looking for a natural pathway for the origin of life.
I didn’t say that. What I am saying is “God did it” (i.e. it can’t happen naturally) is a science stopper.
If I have given that impression then that’s my fault. It is not the impression I am trying to give.
That’s a bait and switch. SETI isn’t looking for supernatural activities. SETI is looking for natural processes, namely an intelligent species buidling and using a radio transmitter.
So what research do you propose scientists do? What experiments should they run to find positive evidence for the pathway you think is most likely?
The issue for science is that your conclusions isn’t scientific. It’s your subjective opinion of what something looks like. I’m not saying unscientific conclusions are automatically wrong, only that there isn’t a way for science to work with your conclusion.
3 Likes
Are you sure you read the same blog post?
None of the six reasons is “because there is no right or wrong”.
He is arguing that we have come to the conclusion that lying about science and stealing are immoral based on our subjective needs and wants as human beings.
What you describe in the quote above is exactly what the blog post is arguing for. When it comes to morality we ask “how would you feel if . . .?”. That is an appeal to our subjective wants and needs as human beings.
1 Like