Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Nothing New under the Sun: Another Failed Attempt to Explain God Away
Breakpoint with Charles Colson ^ | January 25, 2006 | Charles Colson

Posted on 01/25/2006 11:00:41 AM PST by Mr. Silverback

For a long time now, secularists have been trying to come up with reasons why people believe in God. If you take a strictly naturalistic view of the world, after all, it can be pretty difficult to understand how anyone would put their faith in an invisible supernatural being. And yet, generation after generation continues to hold to do just that. It’s a question that has puzzled and fascinated some of the most prominent minds of our time.

Now there’s an intriguing new explanation for religious faith. Paul Bloom, a Yale professor of psychology and linguistics, argues in the Atlantic Monthly that belief in God is a biological accident.

Basically, Bloom’s theory goes like this: Human beings are naturally dualistic. Studies show that from a very young age, we can tell the difference between the physical world and the psychological world. That is, we understand that rocks and trees do not have thoughts and feelings, but that humans do. Our brains use one system to understand the physical world, and another to understand the psychological world.

As Bloom sees it, “Both these systems are biological adaptations that give human beings a badly needed head start in dealing with objects and people. But these systems go awry in two important ways that are the foundations of religion. First, we perceive the world of objects as essentially separate from the world of minds, making it possible for us to envision soulless bodies and bodiless souls.” And Bloom continues, “This helps explain why we believe in gods and an afterlife. Second, as we will see, our system of social understanding overshoots, inferring goals and desires where none exist. This makes us animists and creationists.”

In other words, we humans look at inanimate objects and tend to see evidence of design and purpose in them—evidence that Bloom says just isn’t there. Essentially, we are using the wrong part of our brain to interpret them. And we make the same mistake when we assume that human bodies have souls that live on after death. Because we have powers of reasoning, thinking, and feeling, we naturally tend to think of ourselves as something more than just bodies. But, Bloom says, it is all the result of a mistaken way of thinking—as I said, he calls it a biological accident.

Well, all this may impress some scholars, but I think there are a few big holes in his argument. For example, I would submit to Professor Bloom that even if human brains have a tendency to infer design, that is not evidence that design does not exist. Maybe we infer it because it is so. It would be a biological accident only if you accept Bloom’s premise that the universe is a closed system with no possibility of supernatural intervention. And Bloom, like many scientists, does not attempt to prove this very important point—he just takes it for granted, just like evolutionists do, which makes science hostage to their philosophy.

So Bloom’s scientific studies, carefully conducted as they seem to be, prove only what he wants them to prove if one starts from a materialist point of view—the same materialist point of view that has tried and failed to disprove religion for so many years. When it comes to tempting “new” theories to explain away religion, it looks like there really is nothing new under the sun after all.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: biology; breakpoint; charlescolson; crevolist; faith; psychobabble; psychology; religion; theory
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-103 next last
To: Mr. Silverback
So Bloom’s scientific studies, carefully conducted as they seem to be, prove only what he wants them to prove if one starts from a materialist point of view—the same materialist point of view that has tried and failed to disprove religion for so many years. When it comes to tempting “new” theories to explain away religion, it looks like there really is nothing new under the sun after all.

Right on target. Excellent point, thanks.

41 posted on 01/25/2006 8:20:34 PM PST by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: chesley
But you get the idea. If I can't, and scientists can't, understand these things, why are we entitled to understand God?

I don't see where Colson is saying we can understand God, only that we can reasonably assume He exists.

42 posted on 01/25/2006 8:58:51 PM PST by Mr. Silverback (GOP Blend Coffee--"Coffee for Conservative Taste!" Go to www.gopetc.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tokra; Vicomte13
However I read a treatise a few years ago by a doctor who studied Near-Death expereinces and he said that the people who experienced them were merely reliving the birth experience: going through the dark tunnel, coming out to a bright white light where people were waiting for them.

The problem with this theory is that there is NO WAY a baby being born sees anything remotely like the visual experiences reported by NDE patients. The child's face is pressed against the forward (forward if the mother was standing up) wall of the birth canal, and the amount of light coming in through the vaginal opening would be negligible anyway.

43 posted on 01/25/2006 9:07:33 PM PST by Mr. Silverback (GOP Blend Coffee--"Coffee for Conservative Taste!" Go to www.gopetc.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
If the complexity of creation necessitates a Creator, then the correspondingly greater complexity of the Creator necessitates an even greater Creator and so on ad infinitum.

Tell Him that when you meet Him. I think He'll be amused.

Seriously, what you're saying is like saying that before you can build a boeing 707 you need to have a 747. God is of a different stuff than the Universe, just as the Boeing engineers are of a different stuff from their planes. He has set up rules in this universe, but that doesn't mean He is bound by them any more than the guy who invented Monopoly has to pay rent every time he walks down Indiana Avenue in Atlantic City.

44 posted on 01/25/2006 9:25:27 PM PST by Mr. Silverback (GOP Blend Coffee--"Coffee for Conservative Taste!" Go to www.gopetc.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: IronJack; muir_redwoods
It also arises in yours.

Hear hear. "Where did God come from" is a valid question, but "Where did the Universal 'seed' for the Big Bang come from" is every bit as valid. Muir, for you to claim that "He always was" is deus ex machina may seem like good argument, but a Universe that arose from nothing is hardly logical.

45 posted on 01/25/2006 9:31:18 PM PST by Mr. Silverback (GOP Blend Coffee--"Coffee for Conservative Taste!" Go to www.gopetc.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
"It also arises in yours."

Perhaps but you have yet to demonstrate it.

46 posted on 01/26/2006 2:24:01 AM PST by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
"God is of a different stuff than the Universe,

Not proven, merely asserted. If the nature of G-d is something you can demonstrate conclusively and logically please do so. Otherwise we are simply dealing with conjecture.

47 posted on 01/26/2006 2:27:22 AM PST by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
I do not assert that the universe arose from nothing. If you find the concept of a timeless G-d that always was supportable, I see no reason not to accept that the universe as it is arose from a big bang (or some approximation) and will end either by a near infinite attenuation or a cosmic collapse followed by another expansion. To see it as an infinite series of such cycles bothers my sense of logic not at all.

To see it as the product of a Creator bothers my sense of logic not at all either. I make no case for either because my sense of logic sees no evidence in creation for either. That was and is my point in all of this discussion. To attempt to say there must be a G-d because the universe is so complex is faulty because the supposed complexities are all logical when properly viewed. Remember, the mind of man is the measure here and if the complexity astounds us it may say more about our limits than it says about the universe.

One cannot, it seems to me, prove the existence of G-d logically. Aquinas failed and I've seen no better effort.

48 posted on 01/26/2006 2:36:19 AM PST by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
Perhaps but you have yet to demonstrate it.

What is it I'm supposed to demonstrate? Your intentional vagueness on the origin of the universe doesn't give me any place to start. But evasion is not the same as persuasion.

Let's save some time. You're going to have to go back to some nebulous theory of a "cosmic egg" to explain a Big Bang. And that poses the same thorny dilemma that you've pointed out arises in my deo-centric theory. So in that sense, your argument is no stronger than mine. In fact, at its highest level, it's essentially the same argument.

49 posted on 01/26/2006 5:30:28 AM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
I make no case for either because my sense of logic sees no evidence in creation for either. That was and is my point in all of this discussion.

Then you may ignore my previous post. I misunderstood you to be elevating the Big Bang argument over creationism due to the former's imagined logical superiority. If your measure is the ABSENCE of logic in both arguments, then my criticism is invalid.

To attempt to say there must be a G-d because the universe is so complex is faulty because the supposed complexities are all logical when properly viewed.

The fact that a universe appears logical does not defeat the notion of a Creator. How ELSE would an intelligently designed universe appear?

To return to logical parsimony, the Big Bang embraces all the shortcomings of the creationist theory (e.g., prime causes). But it adds one more logical burden that creationism doesn't: randomness. Therefore, Occam's Razor suggests that the least burdensome construct -- creationism -- is the correct one.

I am also troubled by your qualification that the universe be "properly viewed." That assigns a propriety to the perspective, and that requires a point of reference. From a logical standpoint, no one can claim that position with any degree of authority.

50 posted on 01/26/2006 5:39:19 AM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
For example, I would submit to Professor Bloom that even if human brains have a tendency to infer design, that is not evidence that design does not exist.

But Bloom is arguing from emotion not reason.

51 posted on 01/26/2006 5:48:33 AM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback

All I hafta say is that I am going back to school so I can change careers. I'm in an A&P class right now and we're discussing atoms, cells and cell division, etc. I asked the Prof the other day about the exchanging of electrons between atoms so one atom become stable and said it was like a mystery and he even acknowledged that "yes, a lot of this stuff is a mystery." The entire process of mitosis is so amazingly complex. If anything, my faith gets stronger and stronger every day while I learn more and more of life and how it works.

These bozos can believe whatever they want but boy are they going to be in for the shocker of their post-earthly lives when they get that little tap on the shoulder to come to the Principal's office.


52 posted on 01/26/2006 10:30:34 AM PST by Paved Paradise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde

Those were AWESOME! I'm in an A&P class now and all of this stuff just convinces me more and more not only of God's existence but of his total awesomeness and matchless creativity.


53 posted on 01/26/2006 10:32:12 AM PST by Paved Paradise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Paved Paradise; Albion Wilde

My wife is an RN. She was a committed creationist before that, but A&P and some of the chemistry classes opened up a whole new world for her. Just the (Boy I hope I'm not screwing this up) ATP cycle is too complex to be non-designed, in her opinion.


54 posted on 01/26/2006 12:39:39 PM PST by Mr. Silverback (GOP Blend Coffee--"Coffee for Conservative Taste!" Go to www.gopetc.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback

No you have it right Mr. S. I'm learning about ATP right now, though not on the level yet that it seems your wife went through. It's just cool is all I can say. I think God is cool too for designing things with complexity (He surely could have made things as simple as He wanted) so that we could use the minds He gave us to not only learn but be amazed.

Thanks for the comment. It's nice to know a lot of other people are as excited about this stuff as I am.


55 posted on 01/26/2006 1:01:55 PM PST by Paved Paradise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: brushcop
Beautiful, fantastic images. A believing scientist once said that the more we magnify God's creation, the finer and more intricate it is but the more we magnify something that man created, the cruder it is. He said it better but this is the gist of his statement. He also said that it was this point that caused him to turn to his creator and eschew the lie of evolution.

Wow, marvelous observation. Thanks!

56 posted on 01/26/2006 1:08:50 PM PST by Albion Wilde (America will not run, and we will not forget our responsibilities. – George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Paved Paradise

Science is cool, and as my wife says, "God created science."


57 posted on 01/26/2006 1:12:48 PM PST by Mr. Silverback (GOP Blend Coffee--"Coffee for Conservative Taste!" Go to www.gopetc.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
Not proven, merely asserted. If the nature of G-d is something you can demonstrate conclusively and logically please do so. Otherwise we are simply dealing with conjecture.

That's why it's called faith. We know it's unprovable by materialist standards. I can't speak for others, but I have learned to trust through 1. reading the scriptures and 2. revelations received during meditation and prayer. These are experiential, and cannot be replicated, since God is part of the consciousness of each unique individual. There is no substitute for looking within your own mind for answers instead of demanding them from others. If you have already determined the answers, no amount of proof will satisfy you, nor will you hear the "still, small voice."

58 posted on 01/26/2006 1:16:08 PM PST by Albion Wilde (America will not run, and we will not forget our responsibilities. – George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
"Your intentional vagueness on the origin of the universe doesn't give me any place to start. But evasion is not the same as persuasion."

I have no idea of how the universe began. That lack of information doesn't drive me to accept a superstition nor does it equip me to understand anyone who would.

59 posted on 01/26/2006 2:29:55 PM PST by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past; ohioWfan; Tribune7; Tolkien; GrandEagle; Right in Wisconsin; Dataman; ..
ping


Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info

60 posted on 01/26/2006 2:31:48 PM PST by wallcrawlr (http://www.bionicear.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-103 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson