Not So 'Bright'

COMMENTARY: The Wall Street Journal ^ | October 6, 2003 | DINESH D'SOUZA

[OESY]

"We have always had atheists among us," the philosopher Edmund Burke wrote in his "Reflections on the Revolution in France," "but now they have grown turbulent and seditious." It seems that in our own day some prominent atheists are agitating for greater political and social influence. In this connection, leading atheist thinkers have been writing articles declaring that they should no longer be called "atheists." Rather, they want to be called "brights."

[Hank Kerchief]

Just so we're clear, you're claiming that proofs of negative statements do not exist.

No, I think you've misunderstood me. I mean, it is quite possible to prove something that does exist does not have this or that attribute, if it doesn't. I also pointed out I do not agree with the generally assumed statement that it is impossible to prove something does not exist. This is what it means to say it is impossible to prove a negative. Again, I do not agree it is universally true, for reasons already explained.

I am not sure what you thought I meant by your expression, "you're claiming that proofs of negative statements do not exist." As stated, I would certainly never claim that. If someone says, "the cat is not in the closet," that statement would be pretty easy to prove simply by looking in the closet.

But at a deeper level, please note that you've completely excluded the use of attributes in the realm of negative proofs -- which is both artificial, and absurd. It's difficult to see how one can prove that "something" doesn't exist without having access to the attributes that make it "something."

Well that is exactly right, and that is exactly my point. My argument is, as soon as you assign attributes to something, it very well may be disproved, and most of the things that people say cannot be disproved depend on the keeping them intentionally vague.

However, Occam's razor is nothing but an assumption that the simplest explanation is the correct explanation

If there is an explanation for something, how could a more complex one be more correct, or, if it contradicts the simple explanation, how could they both be true. I do not understand how there can be an objection to Occam's razor. It does not assume the explanation is correct because it is simple, but that the simplest explanation that is correct is the best one, because the addition of complexity does not add any information.

I think all of us have seen cases where the "simplest" explanation is incorrect, for any number of reasons...

If it is incorrect it isn't the explanation. Occam's razor only applies when the explanation is correct, and known to be.

Hank

[Heartlander]

The atheist does need to prove a ‘positive’; life, the universe and everything came from mindlessness.

They must prove mindlessness subsumes consciousness.

Unfortunately, IMHO, this truth would invalidate truth.

[Hank Kerchief]

If I postulate the existence of gnorixes, for example, who control the rate of corrosion on pennies, can you prove they don't exist? Particularly if I'm fast enough with the soft shoe routine to add any facts you may deduce about penny corrosion to the gnorixes catalog of behavior?

While Occam's razor points us in the right direction, I think proving gnorixes don't exist could be a lifetime effort with no guarantee of success.

I think you are quite correct. You also seem to have nailed down the process in religion which is usually called apologetics.

Hank

[Hank Kerchief]

The atheist does need to prove a ‘positive’; life, the universe and everything came from mindlessness.

I think you must prove this is necessary. Necessary for what?

I am not defending the atheist position, but whatever one seeks to prove must begin with the facts, that is, with the way things are. Well, the way things are is a real perceiveable material universe, with real material living organsims, some of which are conscious, and some of which (though much fewer) are volitional beings, required to live by conscious choice, which requirement makes knowledge and reason both possible and necessary.

Since conscious rational volitional beings are here in the materially existent world, it is obvious they are possible to such a world. Why is there any necessity to demonstrate the exact method by which they got here. And exactly how do you know they weren't always here?

Hank

[Heartlander]

The atheist believes that it is all here due to mindlessness.

The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design
by Richard Dawkins

The deist/theist states we are here by design and the atheist states we are here due to mindlessness. There is a burden of proof on both. If you do not believe it is important “to demonstrate the exact method by which they got here” then heck, Hank… why are we discussing this issue? Beyond this, if you believe consciousness beings’ were always here… Are we talking about turtles all the way down?

Heart

[Jason Kauppinen]

"After realizing this, the only logical thing for an atheist to do is go to a country where it isn't founded upon principles that depend so heavily upon the world view of a deist. The next choice is to do as you have, swallow the inconsistency and move on, so to speak."

Not true. An atheist can agree with the principles and conclusions of the founders with respect to Law and Government. The atheist just disagrees with some parts of the process the founders used to arrive at those conclusions.

[scott7278]

"If the existance of God could be proven, everyone would believe."

In one of the Apostle Paul's sermons (addressed to the Jews, God-fearing Gentiles, Epicureans, Stoics, and whoever else happened to be present) he said,

"The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and of earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said,

"For we also are His children."

Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.

Therefore, having overlooked the time of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead" (Acts 17:24-31).

The proof of God's existence and His demands to repent have been shown through the resurrection, and yet all men have not believed upon Him. That is not surprising, because the Lord Jesus Christ attributed it to man's sinfulness and taught it through the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.

We're told by Jesus in Luke 16:19-31 that a rich man went to Hades, and Lazarus went to Abraham's bosom. The rich man pleaded with Abraham and begged him to send Lazarus to his father's house to warn his five brothers, so that they would "not also come to this place of torment."

Abraham told the rich man that they had Moses and the Prophets (the OT), and they should listen to them. The rich man doesn't think this is good enough, and says, "No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent (v.30)!"

What was Abraham's response? "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead (v.31)."

Biblical faith is not a blind faith, "hoping" that God actually exists. It is rooted in the reality of the resurrection, which is a historical fact. God has furnished the proof -- that proof is either to be accepted or rejected.

Humbly submitted,

Scott

[xm177e2]

Think of black holes. You cannot perceive them, so why should you recognize that they exist?

Scientists can perceive them indirectly, through their effects on other celestial bodies. There is no way to perceive a deity, directly or through supposed actions and alleged miracles.

If I cannot perceive "god," I can't recognize his actions, then I have no reason to believe he exists, and absolutely no reason to alter my life in any way if he does indeed exist as a being that will never interact with me in any way, even indirectly (or if he did, I would have no way of knowing it). How can I know what god wants, let alone whether or not he exists?

[scott7278]

Thank you for this post. I agree with it to a point, along with your statement, "I don't care if you believe in God, or Allah, or Ra or whoever."

For the record, I do care whether someone believes upon God, Allah, Ra or whoever. Since the resurrection occured, that is the proof that all men everywhere must repent in order to be saved. Because of the resurrection, I am evangelistic, and unashamedly so (Romans 1:16,17).

But I respect religious freedom, and the right for someone to tell me I'm wrong about my belief in Jesus Christ and to reject my message. Likewise, I believe that the right to pray and witness in schools is not a Christian right, but an American right. If a Muslim wants to share his faith, he should be free to do so. The same with a Hindu, a Taoist, or whoever else I could name.

I think it's terrible for someone to desecrate religious artifacts and symbols "in the name of God" or "in the name of Allah," simply because "it's not what I believe." That's offensive and disrespectful.

I have major doctrinal issues with another church in the area (I'm a pastor), and yet I'm reverent when I enter the church for a Ministerial Alliance meeting. I treat the pastor with respect. I would do the same in a synagogue or a mosque. I would never make fun of someone's faith, because it means something to them.

I'm glad that you have the freedom to be an atheist. I really am. The New Birth comes "not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:13). In other words, no one can force you, or attempt to try to force you, to become a Christian.

I truly hope that I haven't offended you in any way, and I apologize if some "Christian" in the past has tried to "force-feed" you the Gospel.

It goes back to freedom...the freedom to accept or reject the message.

[Squantos]

The Pepper and Salt Association wants to turn the
English language outside in, wants phrases changed
kaboodle and kit. People should listen to roll 'n'
rock, eat butter and bread, and travel fro and to.

Why? Because what this country needs is a sense of
wrong and right, fair play and justice, order and law.
There are cons and pros, but true believers will
consider it a matter of death and life, a swim or
sink proposition.

[RinaseaofDs]

I'm not sure that is possible.

You can't easily separate one from the other. I'm not sure which of the founding fathers pointed this out, but the American experiment depends heavily on a people sharing a common set of moral values. Those values are most commonly held and evidenced in people who have an abiding faith in God, and not the opposite.

Khomeini's grandson recently spoke somewhere, and he pointed out that the US could have chosen not to free Iraq. He pointed out that if the US was bent on the control of oil in the world, there were likely easier ways to have achieved it than invading Iraq. He pointed out that a major reason why the US did it was simply to free a people in desperate need of help - in other words, it was the right thing to do.

The Laws of this country are based on the commandments, which was the basis of common law carried over from England.

I would think that it would be extremely difficult for an atheist to reconcile the end with the means - being at peace with the laws, traditions, institutions, societal standards, common values of the US while having problems with their basis in the Judeo-Christian faith.

I think Godless or Faithless government was tried in the USSR and it failed miserably.

[PigRigger]

Until someone can tell me how all of the universe can appear from nothing I will take my chances believing in God (I am the Alpha and the Omega).

Without God's hand in creation how is this explained?

Explanations such as "it just was" or "we just don't know yet" don't cut it with me.

Seems most of our science dictates that this is just not possible (that is a non-creationist universe where this amount of matter appears from nothing).

IMHO

[Conservative Me]

I am not offended in the least. I don't feel you are trying to force-feed anything, only state your beliefs. How could I find fault in that?

Honestly, I find atheists who try to force-feed their beliefs on to others just as offensive as theists who force-feed their beliefs. Those who do that are the minority, although they seem to get the most attention (including the atheists who would like to be considered "brights").

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I wish you well.

[Hank Kerchief]

The atheist believes that it is all here due to mindlessness.

I have no idea what this means, or what atheist might say such a thing. I'm sorry.

It sounds like, "art is due to tastelessness." Certainly there is art, and certainly there is tastelessness, but neither is the cause of the other.

Certainly there is existence and certainly there is mindlessness, and neither is the cause of the other, except that before there can be mindlessness (or anything else) there must first be existence.

If, perhaps, you mean that everything came from nothing and since there was nothing there were no minds either, this would be the creationist view, not the atheist, it would seem to me. It is creationists that teach everything was created ex nihilo (out of nothing), not atheists."

Hank

[Hank Kerchief]

Until someone can tell me how all of the universe can appear from nothing ...

Who said it did appear from nothing?>

Oh, that's right, it's those Biblical ceationists and their absurd doctrine of ex nihilo (out of nothing).

If you hadn't swallowed that nonsense you wouldn't have any problem. You weren't born believeing the world came out of nothing, someone had to teach you that. So, check your premises. Why does the world have to come out of nothing? You certainly don't believe there was ever nothing, do you?

(I hope this does not offend you. I don't mean it that way. I am curious about your reaction to this idea that most people just never consider. Of course, you may already have considered it and may have an interesting answer to it. To be fair, that last question is a trick.)

Hank

[PigRigger]

"Who said it did appear from nothing?"

No offense taken.

Doesn't science teach us that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, it just changes state. This theory dictates that matter has always existed; my question is where did it come from, what form was it before the universe came to be?

Human science can't answer these questions. The best we can say is that it was just there, because it is impossible to concieve of otherwise. Science is not always based on undeniable fact, they have faith in their beliefs. Sounds similar to religious faith in many ways doesn't it?

My theory, which can't be disproven by science, is (as preached in scripture) God is ifinite in time and knowledge. He was there in the beginning when the heavens were created, He will be there at the end when they are destroyed. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.

He has always been, thus there never was nothing.

[Heartlander]

Hank,

I said mindlessness not nothingness. Again, the deist/theist states we are here by design and the atheist states we are here due to mindlessness i.e., no design. Our universe is designed or just a mindless, dumb luck occurrence.

Is consciousness subsumed by mindlessness i.e. lack of design and intelligence?

Certainly there is existence and certainly there is mindlessness, and neither is the cause of the other, except that before there can be mindlessness (or anything else) there must first be existence.

What is existence and where did this ‘existence’ come from? If our consciousness did not come solely from a mindless, purposeless, moral less, and unintelligent universe – than where or ‘what’ did it come from?

Cause and reason, or cause and no reason – but there must be cause for our reasoning.

Heart

[Hank Kerchief]

...there must be cause for our reasoning.

I think you must mean something other than what you have said here. "Reasoning," cannot be caused. The problem is that "caused" things are "determined." That is, if something has a cause, that thing must be what it is, because its nature is determined by whatever caused it.

But this is just what reason cannot be. If our reason, that is, our thoughts have a cause, whatever thoughts we have are determined by whatever causes them.

But if reason is not more than so many caused events, there is no basis for assuming they have any more meaning than any other caused events, like water running downhill or a flame consuming fuel.

The one thing reason cannot be is caused. The one absolute necessity for reason is volition. Volition, by definition, cannot be caused.

Hank

[PatrickHenry]

Volition, by definition, cannot be caused.

A quibble here. This would make more sense to me if you said: "Volition, by definition, cannot be caused determined." I assume we agree that there is a cause for everything.

[Hank Kerchief]

I am pleased I did not offend you. I had some apprehension about the language after I posted.

And I'm glad you weren't taken in by my insipid little "trick." Of course a theist doesn't believe there was ever nothing for the very reason you stated.

Doesn't science teach us that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, it just changes state. This theory dictates that matter has always existed; my question is where did it come from, what form was it before the universe came to be?

Your question, "where did it come from," cannot apply to matter that can neither be created nor destroyed, because it would always have to have been. I am not sure most scientists actually hold the "conservation of matter or matter/energy" in just they way you have stated it any longer. I do, however. That also means, a "before the universe came to be," is something I do not believe has meaning, and it would require rigorous reasoning and evidence before I would accept it.

Human science can't answer these questions.

First, I am not sure what you mean by "human science." I was not aware there was any other kind.

I would be very surprised if science could answer these questions, since I do not regard the questions legitimate. Since time has meaning only in the context of a physical universe, what would "before" the universe existed mean? How can there be a "before" where there is no time?

Science is not always based on undeniable fact, they have faith in their beliefs...

Science is always based on undeniable fact. If you have an example of something that you think is "science" that is based on anything else, please let me know. (Only be sure it is really science, and not what someone claims is science. If you have questions about what science really is, see If They Believe That - Science, which is a critique of science, but has a very nice discussion of what genuine science is at the beginning. Notice the four objective tests of a true science.

As for scientists having, "faith in their beliefs," (which is a bit confusing since "faith" and "belief" have almost the same meaning), there is nothing objectionable about belief. Belief only means what one holds to be true. It is not believing something is true that is dangerous, but the basis or reason one believes something is true. If I believe oxygen supports combustion because I have studied chemistry and understand the nature of the chemical elements, compounds, valences, etc. that "belief" is a totally rational one. If I believe holding a stone in my hand and saying some "holy words" puts me in communication with spirits from another world because it says so in some book, that belief is superstition.

The difference is, the first belief can be experimentally tested, the second cannot. The difference is, the first belief is based on reason, the second is based on "simply accepting," called credulity.

And it is not "what" is believed that determines if one's beliefs are rational beliefs or superstitious beliefs, but how one comes to those beliefs. Some scientists believe some facts about science because they just believe whatever science says is true. That so-called scientific belief is as superstitious as anything any third world mystic believes. On the other hand, C.S. Lewis provides elegant rational arguments for his belief in God, which do not require any credulity at all. His belief in God is as rational as any scientists belief in the first law of thermodynamics.

I do not agree with Lewis, but I do not regard him a mystic.

He was there in the beginning when the heavens were created, He will be there at the end ...

Well, you may believe this. I would be interested in how you know there is a beginning and end. Most scientists believe there is a beginning (based on cosmological hypotheses, such as the big bang) and most believe there will be an end (most believe it is entropic), but these are all only hypotheses, and not actually science (since they are neither verifiable by repeatable experiment, nor can a test for falsifiability be devised).

Genuine science does not hold that the universe has a beginning or end. Philosophy frankly precludes it. Most theology actually denies it, at least that there is an end.

Hank