The nano-ice double-helix molecule may take a lot of the guesswork out of the details of how life is imbedded in the matrix of existence:
Posted on 01/04/2007 9:31:34 AM PST by hocndoc
I checked out the link, hocndoc. Which side of the debate was you? :^) As for whether it's possible to "measure a universe without God": I'm simple-minded; so I just look at it this way.
Many scientific materialists a/k/a/ "physicalists" or "methodoligical/(metaphysical) naturalists" are committed to the idea of the evolution or development of the universe by means of a more or less random process involving "matter." ("Matter" itself has yet to be rigorously defined; but no matter!)
Now what I want to know is, if this is so, then where did the universal laws of nature come from? Where did reason come from? Where did logic come from? If "accidental matter" supposedly produced these things via the evolutionary process, then why should we trust them? I mean, if they're "yesterday's or today's accident," then maybe "tomorrow's accident" will change them into something other than what they are. (I.e., they wouldn't be universals, but just other parts of contingent, finite nature and thus ill-suited to be "measuring rods" by which we may discern the truths of reality.)
If these "measuring rods" of the universe are the products of random processes, again, why should we trust them? And if we can't trust them, then why should we trust science itself -- which is preeminently a grand edifice raised on the foundations of law, reason, and logic?
Now consider that one of the Names of the Son of God is Logos -- which provides the etymological root for the English word "logic." This is no accident! God tells us He created the universe by speaking His Logos, His Word of Truth, "in the Beginning." By His Logos, His Son, were all things made, in heaven and on earth. Thus the universe itself is shot through with divine law, and logic, and reason -- which is why the universe is understandable to those beings who also possess reason and logic, and have begun to discover that there really are laws embedded in the natural world that did not have a "natural" origin.
If matter and "natural" have become associated in many minds today (as seems to be the case), then to the extent that we recognize that law, logic, and reason are not material entities, then we would have to say they are "super-natural."
And I do say that! FWIW
Thanks so much for writing, hocndoc, and for the link!
"Me thinks the lady doth protest too much." and all that, eh? I've always thought it takes quite a lot of faith to be an atheist.
The fact that athiests are obsessed with God (and all things of God) and in doing away with his existence is more proof in my book that he exists.
P.S. My book is the bible.
"Dawkins simply can't imagine a God that big."
Exactly. Someone once said "a rabbit can't comprehend/understand the number 4" (or something along that line).
I've seen the tagline "Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
I had a co-worker who, as an athiest, got magazines devoted to athiesm and would energetically denounce all religion.
Indeed, athiesm is a religion - when one exerts great effort in analyzing, justifying, and promoting the concept. Not collecting stamps is indeed a hobby when one revels therein.
--Do you doubt your hypothesis by your use of a "?" mark?--
No, I was asking you a questions. Nevermind. The answer is obvious.
A minor correction of impression: I'm not suggesting we not tolerate the unbeliever, but questioning why we should tolerate an unbeliever telling us that belief is absurd. Wouldn't it be great if the grace of God were to penetrate Dawkins' iron-encased heart?! But why should anyone take seriously his ramblings about faith when he has never entered into a position of faith? Again, he speaks of what he does not know.
Russell was that, fer shure.
Early in his career he was a racist, advocating birth control for non-whites, and was pro-eugenics. He lived long enough to begin the crusade against the Jewish state after the 1967 war. For all his celebrated nonconformity, he seems to have had many of the prejudices and behaviors of his class.
--Dawkin's argument cannot stand because there is no scientific protocol by which he is able to dismiss God.--
I think you misunderstand Dawkin's arguments.
This is nothing new. Dawkins has been an inflammatory bigot for years now.
--Dawkin's argument cannot stand because there is no scientific protocol by which he is able to dismiss God.--
I think you misunderstand Dawkin's arguments.
__________________________
Your use of the diminutive dismissive in this and your prior post leads me to believe that you do not understand mine.
The nano-ice double-helix molecule may take a lot of the guesswork out of the details of how life is imbedded in the matrix of existence:
Science assumes a rational universe. Science got the idea from Christianity, which, intellectually speaking, is a blend of Hellenism and Judaism. Islam. by the way, reduces it all to God's WILL. Hence, it could not produce science.
Two particularly provocative books, in fact, hit the top of Publishers Weekly's religion bestseller list in December. No. 1, "The God Delusion," by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, and No. 2, "Letter to a Christian Nation," by writer Sam Harris, are no-holds-barred, antireligion polemics that call for the eradication of all manifestations of faith.
"I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented," declares Dr. Dawkins, the famed Oxford professor who wrote "The Selfish Gene."
I've said it before in this forum, and I'll say it again. Dawkins, while he might be a passable literary popularizer of science, is at base a second rate mind propelled in his campaign against religion by emotion and personal disdain, not by well informed, powerful and rational argument.
Just the other day I caught him on C-SPAN. He was giving a talk in what looked like a hall on the campus of some American university. Mockery and invective are the basic tools of his polemic. He should have been downright embarrassed to hear the boorish hoots and hollers from his fans in the audience as he offered meagre, sophomoric complaints about religion, as if he was the first one to think of such complaints and as if those complaints hadn't been confronted by some very good religious thinkers for two thousands years or more. But he wasn't embarrassed, and neither was he sensitive to the much more impressive demeanor and kindness shown by the small group of Christians who respectfully questioned him. In fact he took considerable delight in putting the Christians down.
That's who he is. He's a very little man.
In short, only complicated objects can design simpler ones; information cannot flow in the other direction, with simple objects designing complicated ones. But that means any designer God would have to be more complex —and thus even more improbable— than the universe he was supposed to explain.That's the brilliant, devastating argument?
I see the problem just that way too, RobbyS.
To "reduce it all to God's WILL" is to say that God refuses to covenant with Man so to establish a truthful order that both parties agree to observe (this is completely unnecessary for God, but through His Son Jesus Christ He freely enters into this covenant out of His boundless love for us).
Islam, on the other hand, posits a wholly transcendent God that has no relations whatsover with His creation other than the master-slave relation. That is, all human applications of reason directed to Himself or His creation are exercises in diminishing His transcendent glory -- and He will not stand for this "treason," but will punish willy-nilly any who impugns His absolute Otherness.
Christianity is about FREEDOM. Islam is about SERVITUDE -- the latter supposedly "VOLUNTARY" (or you get your head cut off).
What a madhouse our world has become! I imagine this may be because we have lost our connection to our Father in heaven, whose LOGOS made us, and all of the rest of the universe.
Then again, you never know where or when "the next shoe will drop." Christian faith is all about faith, and HOPE, and love.
And then, you leave the rest up to Him.
Thank you so very much for writing, RobbyS.
P.S.:
You're right about systematic science not rising in the Eastern cultures. They had no foundation for that, given their philosophy of a god immanent in and coextensive with the physical universe. They couldn't even call it a "creation," for that would imply a beginning in time -- a notion which Eastern philosophies for some reason find uncongenial. What is lacking in such a system of thought is the idea of the Person -- a concept stressed by Judeo-Christian theology. It is only because God is "Person" (times three) that a man can be "a person."
Just think about that when you get the chance. And have sweet dreams this night!
And just why would God be more improbable simply because He's more complex? Does Dawkins give a reason for that bizarre statement?
Thanks for the ping, bb.
I understand that you don't understand.
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.