Atheistic Scientists Deny Cosmological Evidence for Religious Belief, Author Says

  • Bookmark and Share

Astronomers and physicists who feel motivated to rationalize their way out of the religious implications of  the “Big Bang,” typically conjure up unsubstantiated theories divorced from the scientific rigor they claim to champion.

This disconcerting assessment is forcefully presented in a series of essays published as part of  a new book authored by David Berlinski, a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute and a noted mathematician. The same atheistic impulses at work within cosmology are evident throughout the scientific community, he argues.

 “The Deniable Darwin” identifies a narrow and often oppressive orthodoxy that has taken hold within the scientific community at the expense of honest debate and open inquiry. Berlinski’s book coincides with the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species,” which outlines evolutionary theory.

In a series of mind-bending essays, Berlinski offers criticisms not only of Darwinism, but of intelligent design as well. Each section is replete with engaging reactions from scientists, academics and colleagues.  

Despite the emergence of evidence that appears to confirm rather than deny the possibility of a creator, too many scientists place a greater emphasis on debunking religious thought than they do on advancing human knowledge in a meaningful way, Berlinski said in an interview.

“In the U.S. you have the separation of powers that keeps different branches in check, but this is not true for science, where there is now a lot corruption,” he observed. “Science needs its own critics. The same skepticism that is used in research now needs to be turned back onto science itself.”

Berlinski also suggested that scientists have a vested interest in clinging to Darwinian thought, even when theory breaks down, because their positions, status and grant money are tied in with evolutionary assumptions.

This would at least partially explain why the scientific community reacts so vociferously against research that bolsters religious conviction.“The attack on traditional religious thought marks the consolidation in our time of science as the single system of belief in which rational men and women might place their faith, and if not their faith, then certainly their devotion,” he has written.

But there is nothing wrong in principle with scientific endeavors that are infused by faith and a sense of humility toward larger possibilities, Berlinsk said. 

 “We are not going to adopt sharia law because an astronomer who is open to these ideas begins to make important discoveries,” he observed.

Although Berlinski is not himself a proponent of intelligent design, he strongly objects to the mistreatment and censorship of other scientists who have been identified with this concept.  

Their stories figure prominently in a documentary released last year entitled “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," which is narrated by the multi-talented Ben Stein. The film includes interviews with scientists and academics on all sides of the debate, including Berlinski.

Guillermo Gonzalez, who previously served with the Department of Physics and Astronomy, at Iowa State University, was denied tenure because colleagues objected to his views, according to documentation obtained by the Discovery Institute.

 “Expelled” features Gonzalez and other scientists who have been persecuted and ostracized for expressing views at odds with Darwinian thinking. Berlinski describes Gonzalez as a “brilliant observational astronomer” who has made important contributions in his field. 

In his book “Privileged Planet,” Gonzalez comments how the earth is ideally positioned for observation and discovery in the Milky Way Galaxy and that the planet occupies a special place in the cosmos.

“He [Gonzalez] made no grand claims or pronouncements in his book,” Berlinksi said. “What he wrote was suggestive but within bounds of reasonable inquiry. It was certainly no more speculative than what I see from other scientists who do not share his perspective.”

Berlinski is also the author of  “The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions.” This earlier book details the convergence between cosmological discoveries, traditional religious belief and the discomfort this has caused for secular scientists.

“The  hypothesis of God’s existence and the facts of contemporary cosmology are consistent,” he wrote.  In many respects, evidence for the “Big Bang” actually confirms much of what the Catholic theologian and philosopher Thomas Aquinas had asserted back in the 13th Century, Berlinski tells readers.

This reality does not sit well with atheists who hold sway within the scientific academy, as Berlinski explains. 

“If the Big Bang expresses a new idea in physics, it suggests an old idea in thought: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” he wrote. “This unwelcome juxtaposition of physical and biblical  persuaded the astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, an ardent atheist, to dismiss the Big Bang after he had named it. In this he was not alone. Many physicists have found the idea that the  universe had a beginning alarming.”

Berlinski poses readers with a series of questions in “The Devil’s Delusion” that expose the limits and pretensions of contemporary science and the “New Atheists” who sit in insulated academic settings.

Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence?

Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?

Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?

Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? 

—Kevin Mooney is a freelance investigative reporter specializing in environmental and government corruption issues.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Everyone understands the

Everyone understands the theory of eveloution....we just are waiting for some proof.

 

Edhenry, You can't

Edhenry,

You can't "prove" scientific theories - you can only come up with evidence to support them.

Einstein's Relativity is also a "theory", as is Quantum Mechanics. And despite being backed by a mountain of empirical evidence, neither is "proven".

  Belief in a 'God' is a

  Belief in a 'God' is a much more rational explanation than what is a childlike attitude of everything 'just is'.  To assume that there is no greater intelligence (or existance) than what we can imagine is well, not very imaginative.  Too often people confuse a belief in God with being religious.  However, religion is an intellectual or emotional response to accepting the idea of a God and that our lives have an order and a purpose to life.   Religion provides the structure around which people can organize their lives and further their connection to themselves, others and their place in the cosmos.

MidAmerica, Yea - belief

MidAmerica,

Yea - belief in an all knowing, all powerful father-like being for which humans have accumulated exactly zilch verifiable, reproducible empirical evidence over the last couple of thousands of years sure sounds like the more "rational" explanation to me.

And science doesn't go about asserting everything "just is". That's a straw man argument if ever I read one. If that's all that scientists did, then what exactly is all that work and research they do about?

Christian - Atheist - Agnostic - Christian

Explaining the existence of a creator to my children is as simple as picking up a rock and asking, "Where did this come from?"

Having dabbled in atheism before realizing it is complete idiocy to believe everything comes from nothing, I wonder how any scientist can rationalize atheism?  My children get it; many academics do not.  Of course my children are brilliant so maybe I shouldn't be too hard on the eggheads.

SimJim, Individual people

SimJim,

Individual people might rationalize atheism. That fact that some of them might be scientists is irrelevant.

Science says nothing about religion or God. If a scientist is an atheist and tries to suggest that science supports that standpoint, he is full of crap. 

Atheists are more Dogmatic in thought

Atheists are more Dogmatic in thier thought processes than many Christan Fundamentalists. I have tried on many occasions to have a reasonable debate on various issues and they always retreat to name calling and the like. I they base thier "BELIEFS" on ratioanl thought this name calling tactic does not do thier side any favors.

I always go to the Big Bang. It is widely accepted that our Universe began with the Big Bang, which is not contrary to most religious thought. I wonder what caused it. Why, if this singularity of such immense mass and gravity existed which I do not doubt, did it blow up?

Time as we understand it could not exist in the singularity so there would be no before or after, yet there is an after. A real paradox which physics really does not like. It would also imply that there is something outside what we understand as the universe. Some mechanisim or action must have caused the Big Bang or it could not have happened with our current understanding of physics, yet none of our understanding even contemplates an outside impulse or action.

It is also interesting that within the first words of the creation story God said "Let there be Light". That would actually be the very first external evidence of the Big Bang. The rest of the Creation Story is actually in the right order if you understand the meanings of the words the Bible was written in. Is this merely coincidence or is there something more at work? To not even try and address these real questions is to be closed minded and not open to new exiting information.

I'm happy to discuss atheism

I'm happy to discuss atheism with you, without the name calling.

→ Zat Chew Drupal?

Hardly recognized you.

LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

Ted's dead.  The name just

Ted's dead.  The name just morphed into something more appropriate.  

† ADK

Yup, your name (changes) are the gift that keep on giving. :)‡

"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest

Is that a scar on your chin?

Is that a scar on your chin?

really?

Can you suggest a plausible theory of any kind for the origins of existence that doesn't include an infinite regress?

I'm a big supporter of the

I'm a big supporter of the big bang.

but that's just one more elephant

And the infinitessimal point of near infinite energy that 'banged'.... from whence did that come?

Not that my faith rests on the (non)-answerability of that line of questioning -- it's just that the way people (whether they believe in God or not) approach this subject tends to reveal a lot about their underlying disposition to believe or not...

In fact, I'm eagerly

In fact, I'm eagerly awaiting the results of that very study.

Actually I can't say too much, because I have not studied the big bang theory all too closely.  Nor have I studied the bible either, so what conclusion does that lead us to? 

→ Drupal

By definition?  Ignorant.

BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAA

ACORN - creating or saving votes since 1970 

Tex, most people are

Tex, most people are ignorant about most things in this world.  

→ Drupal

I don't know what you mean.  What does that say about me?

ACORN - creating or saving votes since 1970 

I thought I was rather

I thought I was rather clear.  By definition, any subject that a person knows little or nothing about makes them ignorant.

♟ ADK, STILL NO TRANSITIONARY FOSSILS.


Never half a feather

You either get a fossil with a feather, or no
feather. But never half a feather.


What point are you trying to

What point are you trying to make?  I'm understanding it as, since we don't know all of the answers, we should stop looking?  We don't entirely know the origins of the galaxy, so we should assume what we do know is the whole story?  If that's the case, I disagree.  It was only a few hundred years ago that we still knew the earth was flat.  And aside from a small population of Flat Earth Society members, man knows the earth to be round.

~Actually

People knew the earth was round over 2,000 years ago. Didn't your geometry teacher talk about Eratosthenes?

His calculations (made around 220 B.C.) of the earth's circumference were off by about 100 miles.

I'm impressed. Mine were off by, like, 150 miles.

In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.

http://themessengerdontshoot.wordpress.com/

choselife3x, Thanks for

choselife3x,

Thanks for pointing that out - it always bugs me when I hear folks say "well, everyone thought the Earth was flat until a couple hundred years ago".

Nope. Not even close.

~Hydro

I was surprised you hadn't pounced on that already!

In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.

 

choselife3x, I know. I

choselife3x,

I know. I didn't see this until today.

I tell ya, it seems like whenever one of these posts comes up, it's on a day when I'm not around.

I think it's a conspiracy.

If these are the things

If these are the things keeping you up at night...

Another, I was, of

Another,

I was, of course, being flippant.

But the whole science thing is sorta my shtick around here and I've managed to show up late for the last two posts that dealt specifically with science and religion.

I find it interesting that a

I find it interesting that a science and religion thread has led us to debating how long the earth has been known to be spherical.  

2500 years actually.  But

2500 years actually.  But it was only confirmed in 1492 by Columbus.  Magellan later proved it in the 1500s by actually circling the earth.

Wasn't it Pythagoras and not Eratosthenes?   

Another, Yea, but that

Another,

Yea, but that isn't what you said originally. You said:

It was only a few hundred years ago that we still knew the earth was flat.

That isn't accurate. Your suggesting that the roundness of the Earth wasn't confirmed until people actually circumnavigated the globe is like suggesting the Moon's existence wasn't confirmed until we landed on it.

Okay then.  The GENERAL

Okay then.  The GENERAL POPULATION still believed the earth was flat until approximately 500 years ago, when Columbus proved definitely otherwise.  Philosophers suggested the earth to be round 2000 years prior, but during the dark ages much of this information went "forgotten."  

Another, lololol.. So the GENERAL POPULATION, covers it ea?

Woah Consensus dude, moon landing denier, what else do you have?
The dark ages? that was the http://science.jrank.org/pages/4184/Maunder-Minimum.html
Dark because of world wide cloud cover!
 

State controlled health care ! music video.

Are you paying any attention

Are you paying any attention to this thread?  I have no idea what you're even talking about anymore.  Moon landing?  Huh?

Hey, you win! The time was

Hey, you win!

The time was 19:46 before an adult conversation about atheism and science turned to name calling. 

~Pythagoras

Proposed a spherical earth purely on aesthetic grounds, I do not recall that he ever hypothesized about it's circumference. (I'd have to do a search to confirm that)

He is mostly famous for the Pythagorean Theorem--

In a right triangle the square of the length of the hypotenuse equals
the sum of the squares of the lengths of the other two sides.

And he was heavily into a sort of numerology cult thing.

Eratosthenes was the first to take measurements by which the Earth's circumference could be extrapolated. Claudius Ptolemy later made a similar estimate based on stellar measurements made some years before by a guy by the name of Marinus of Tyre.

As I recall.

In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.

You and your stinkin'

You and your stinkin' photographic memory!

But if you ever want to get into Star Wars trivia, I'm your man. 

~Yeah, but can you speak Wookie?

I can.

Both dialects.

In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.

http://themessengerdontshoot.wordpress.com/

HA!!!  There are THREE

HA!!!  There are THREE wookie dialects, sucka!

Or was that a trick question? 

~Totally

Here's a refresher for ya.

In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.

 

Now THAT'S a fantastic link.

Now THAT'S a fantastic link.

Another, What was the

Another,

What was the number of Princess Leia's cellblock in the Death Star?

1138. Gotta get tougher than

1138. Gotta get tougher than that.

But where did he get 1138

But where did he get 1138 from?

→ Do tell

Not from Arthur Lipsett

ACORN - creating or saving votes since 1970 

Another, One of Lucas'

Another,

One of Lucas' first films. 

Come on - all us geeks know that.

Apparently Tex didn't know.

Apparently Tex didn't know.  THX-1138.  Part of the 6 films Lucas directed.  But can anyone name the other 5 without IMDBing it?

→ I didn't know

I saw one of the episodes, where Luke got his hand chopped off by a surgeon trying to make an extra $30,000.

ACORN - creating or saving votes since 1970 

It was actually much more

It was actually much more sinister than that.  In short, it was nothing more than a vicious custody dispute.

→ David Allen Coe

I can't help it, I look like Marlon Brando
And I sound a lot like James Earl Jones
So I'll hang around as long as you will let me
And you'll never find me standing in the rain

But you don't have to call me darlin . . . darlin
You never even call me by my name.

ACORN - creating or saving votes since 1970 

Another, Without looking

Another,

Without looking it up? 

American Graffiti

Star Wars: A New Hope (I don't think he directed the others)

And at this point - I draw a blank.

I yield to you, sir.

Right... Right... ...and the

Right...

Right...

...and the prequels, episodes 1-3 make up the rest.  It was a common misconception that he directed all 3 of the originals.  In fact, he didn't even fully write all 3 of the originals.  Larry Kasdan, who George and Stephen hired to write Raiders of the Lost Ark, co-wrote Empire with George.

choselife3x, See - now I

choselife3x,

See - now I had to go look up if it was Eratosthenes who did the thing with the well and using shadows to measure the Earth's circumference. Which is sad since years ago I actually taught that topic in an astronomy class.

I guess it's true what they say - as you get older, you start to lose two things. Your hearing and, um ... um ...

~I'm 29 today

So the memory is still hanging in there.

I did, however, see a silver strand in my hair when I brushed it this morning, I tell you no lie. I'm calling it a fluke, as my family grays late, but it sure threw me for a loop.....

I blame Obama.

In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.

http://themessengerdontshoot.wordpress.com/

Chose, that's pretty

Chose, that's pretty interesting timing for your first "silver" strand, don't you think?

~Someone has a sense of humor

If you know what I mean.

It was shiny silver (that's how I spotted it) and ultra-fine, I could hardly get a hold of it to pluck it out...can't leave something like that around to be a bad influence on the others..

What is this thread about, again?

In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.

 

Science, atheism,

Science, atheism, religion...all completely relevant topics when discussing Star Wars and human biology (gray hair).

big bang

Glad for your reply -- I was beginning to wonder whether I was supposed to call you a name to stop the discussion before that point or something.

Actually the line of discussion doesn't really start to get interesting until it shifts from the realm of physics into metaphysics, when we start focusing on the origins of forces, powers, and principles... and eventually we have to ponder the potential origins of the principle of existence, itself. Everything in our universe has some immediate cause, which will itself have some cause, and so on (the infinite regress, or as philosophers were wont to say, 'elephants all the way down').  There has to be some kind of FIRST cause that itself has no preceding cause.  Some physicists tried to finesse that for the big bang by encapsulating the whole thing as a repeating cycle (the bang begins expansion of space and time, which eventually slows down, reverses itself, and culminates in a 'big crunch' that becomes the next 'big bang').  But then one must ponder the origins of the cycle itself.  There simply is no rational answer to the question of a first cause that doesn't entail something supernatural.

'Thomistic' metaphysics (i.e. from Thomas Aquinas) started to make sense of these things, and the 'Transcendental Thomism' of Karl Rahner provided a completeness to it that also bridges the gap between objective reality and our individual subjective experiences of it.  As someone who was originally trained in science and engineering, I found the whole concept fascinating (and the lines of reasoning quite convincing).  And that's just to get to the point where people can agree that belief in God is plausible.  To move from there to 'proof' requires a jump from the realm of reason to that of relationship.

kono, Sorry for butting

kono,

Sorry for butting in but ...

Your assertion that there has to be a first cause is strange given that the idea of "cause and effect" is a theory invented by man. Nature doesn't have to follow it just because we say it does.

But if we want to stick with the idea of cause and effect, a possible theory to explain where the universe came from might suggest that our universe is just a subsystem of a larger system. Granted, you could then ask where that system comes from but a system outside of our universe doesn't necessarily have to follow any of the rules the entities in our system seems to follow - science or logic or anything - so the questions of its origin might simply make no sense.

Do I honestly believe this? I don't know. But it is a possibility.

self-defeating line of thinking

If you're really going to dismiss the principle of cause and effect, you throw out the entirety of natural science, rational logic, and empirical observation with it (which means we have nothing to talk about here but the supernatural and the speculative).

But that's cool.  If that floats yer boat, have fun.

kono, No, I'm not

kono,

No, I'm not dismissing cause and effect as a valuable principle within our universe. I'm pointing out that if we are talking about an event that is outside of our universe - like its very creation - there is no way to know if cause and effect applies to that event.

It might very well be that any attempt to explain any event outside of our universe is completely pointless since our way of understanding things (logic, cause and effect, etc...) is based within our universe. Go outside that - and who knows.

On top of that - you must know that certain aspect of our world seem to exhibit non-causal behavior - particle decay is an example.

non-causality

I get your point, hydro, and agree that in the multiverse model the potential exists for a multitude of universes with a different number of dimensions, radically different physical constants, and even perhaps a reverse arrow of time.  Causality is a principle that goes beyond physics, though, and ensnares anything that has existence.  We can posit the existence of something that has no efficient cause; but if we want to apply the same argument to the immaterial principles of existence and relation, we enter the realm of 'subsistent forms', which starts to overlap the ways we talk about God.  The cause without a cause, the unmoved mover, etc.

As for particle decay, there's a difference between chaotic and non-causal.

kono, Your assertion that

kono,

Your assertion that cause and effect goes beyond physics is just that - an assertion.

The notion of cause and effect is (I think) fundamentally derived from observation and so is a physical theory and so is not absolute. Even if you think cause and effect is something like an a priori empirical principle, it's still linked to us.

Just because we have trouble thinking about situations without causal relations doesn't invalidate it as a possibility.

And particle decay isn't "chaotic" - it has a non-causal element in the sense that given a group of unstable particle, we can accurately predict/describe the statistical behavior of the decay process, but we cannot determine when an individual particle will decay. Some argue that there is no fact of the matter about when a particle will decay - that it's an inherently statistical process. That means it has a non-causal feature.

invalid

Sounds like the departure point you're using for this argument is one of universal skepticism, in which anything can be doubted, including your own existence.  The abstract concepts of existence and relation do transcend the physical, into the purely conceptual realm of nonmaterial forms.

Concepts, themselves, are immaterial, and abstract relationships between them are likewise immaterial.  We think of causation in a physical sense, probably because that's where we encounter it most consciously.  Abstraction is an essentially non-causal relation between immaterial concepts, which might be better categorized as entailments.  But causation extends conceptual relation from the material to the immaterial in the form of reason/logic, which allows conceptual derivations. (In fact, if we disallow causation, we remove the basis we have of knowing or verifying anything at all -- permitting nothing but speculation and skepticism.)

As for particle decay, what you're describing is a stochastic system.  The chaotic behavior at the quantum level makes the system essentially non-deterministic; but here you confuse unpredictibility uncontrollability with non-causality.  Randomness (and even pseudo-randomness) pushes the unfolding of events beyond prediction or direction; but it can't eliminate the underlying causal relationships between them.

Then it would be

Then it would be interesting to see a definition of cause you use.

Anyway what is at place is not universal skepticism but skepticism about the way we perceive the universe and skepticism about the concepts we invent to describe it. Both is deeply connected to ourselves being humans. So calling something a cause for something is a human description of a sequence of events, which we as observers connect. This thinking has been useful in the macrocosmic world but the consistency of the concept is questionable when you look into the microworld (i.e. quantum mechanics).

 

ambiguity

Sorry for the unresolved ambiguity.  Scientific notions of cause and effect inherently imply a temporal before/after relationship.  'Cause' in a metaphysical sense has more to do with entailment and contingency -- that one thing depends on another for its existence.  In the conceptual sense, logical derivations have causes (the assertions and rules of inference) and effects (the derived outcomes), f'rinstance asserting A and using (A->B) to get B.... saying 'B' is contingent on the observation or premise of 'A' and the derivation 'A implies B'.

Existence (versus nonexistence) is a power or attribute we can possess only if something (or someone!) else having that power or attribute has conveyed it to us.  All things that have existence derive that existence either directly or indirectly from God, who is the foundation of absolute being.  Nothing except God has existence of itself, but receives it from elsewhere. Plus, there is the notion of a 'formal cause' and 'final cause', which relates to things being a certain way 'because' that's the way things like them are (e.g. animals die, because it's in their nature to have limited lifespans) and things evolving toward a certain direction, because they're drawn toward the fulfillment of their 'end' or 'purpose'.  These are also 'causes', though not in the same fashion as science treats the word.

So 'cause' for me in this argument has to do with relationship / dependency / contingency, and has less to do with attributes like time or space.  From a crass, materialistic standpoint, the Second Law of thermodynamics dictates that in a closed system energy is neither gained nor lost. So anything that exists can be traced back to the immediate cause of its existence and state.  Whether there are hard temporal aspects to that is less interesting to me than the question of being, itself.

Probably ten times the verbiage you wanted and less than half the answer you hoped for, but that's as well as my brain's language centers will be able to say it today... Peace.

kono, Slight correction -

kono,

Slight correction - the Second Law of Thermo deals with entropy. I think your thinking of the First Law of Thermo, which is basically just a version of the Conservation of Energy within a thermodynamic context.

By the way, how exactly to you know these things you assert about God?

chastened

I sit corrected.  You're right about the 2nd Law -- closed systems evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium and never decrease in entropy.

Even if we talk about multiverses, by definition each universe is divided or isolated from the others, meaning we can take any given universe as a closed system.  The question stemmed from the 1st Law (thank you) -- if energy is neither created nor destroyed, where did the energy for the Big Bang originate?  (And if we consider a multiverse, how did the conditions arise for that arrangement to be?)

As for your question....  The only place so far that I've strayed from the purely philosophical parts of the argument is where I asserted that all things have being either directly or indirectly from God.  The necessity for a Source of being (an un-originated First Principle of Being) was a foundational part of Greek philosophy since the time of Plato and Aristotle, though.  We identify that Source of being with God; but you can call the Source whatever you like.

I would have preferred to begin with Johannine Christology and the
pre-existent Word -- "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."  But discussing that pre-supposes
agreement that God actually exists, and it seems like we're still debating that
part... :)

kono, I understand your

kono,

I understand your point of view regarding the apparent necessity of a first cause (or Source or whatever) but your argument is basically a philosophical one and, as much as I dig philosophy, that area has a pretty long history of getting things wrong when it comes to the empirical world.

Just think about what Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have done to completely change the way we view things like time, space, causality, the notion of properties and a host of other things which philosophers have debated about for centuries and been pretty much wrong about for most of those.

On top of that - you are making use of a principle (Conservation of Energy) which was developed within the context of our universe. There is no way to know if that principle applies outside of it (which is basically my main point regarding all of the laws and principles we view as fundamental or, at least, empirically valid).

And on top of that - since I'm an agnostic, any argument that's predicated on the existence of God doesn't really hold much water for me. Since that seems to be an important part of your argument, inevitably (as you point out), this discussion would have to evolve (devolve?) into an argument about the existence of God.

devolving

I grok -- I spent decades wavering between agnosticism and proselytizing atheism.

A natural consequence of agnosticism is a fundamental doubt about the validity of any claim of knowledge.  There is just too much proof that our senses are limited in power and fallible in action.  How can we know anything if we can't fully trust our senses?   What an infinitessimally small portion of the available sense information we're even present to, in the first place!  Systems of thought built on a foundation of empiricism eventually unravel into subjectivism and skepticism.

But hey, if metaphysics is too old-fashioned for your taste, how about epistemology?  The topics raised there are directly applicable to cog sci and certain disciplines of biotech.

kono, You misstate my

kono,

You misstate my position. I'm not pushing a pointless skeptical position. What I'm saying is that our understanding of empirical reality is fundamentally tied to this universe and the way it seems to operate. There is no way to know if any of the things we take for granted in this universe (logic, cause and effect, the connection between math and empirical reality, ...) apply outside of it.

I think I understand your point about concepts and abstraction.  In a nut shell, just because I can assert the idea of non-causal events doesn't mean that such events actually obtain (correct me if that isn't what you were getting at).

However, non-causal events do seem to exist in nature. You suggest that the stochastic nature of radioactive decay is the result of a lack of knowledge, not a lack of cause. OK. But considering the confirmation of Bell by folks like Aspect, many believe that the probabilistic character of Quantum Mechanics doesn't reflect an ignorance of causes (i.e. hidden variable) but actually reflect the way nature is. But, of course, it's an issue open to debate.

By the way, I initially rejected your use of the word "chaotic" in the context of particle decay since, as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), particle decay doesn't fall within the realm of chaos theory.

First off, my apology for

First off, my apology for taking so long to respond.  I left the office early yesterday to get home and watch game 5.  Priorities, right?

Second, I'm glad you let it be known that you trained in science and engineering.  I was beginning to question your dedication to this thread topic.   While you make some good points, I still have to question the plausibility in the existence of god.  While the big bang theory and the beginning of the universe are based on extensive and continuing scientific study, the existence of god faith based.  In other words, it is a conclusion reached by a lack of evidence pointing otherwise, rather than evidence proving a theory.  

This is not to say that neither or both will ever have scientifically conclusive proof.  I'm just still waiting for the evidence I can believe. 

 

provability

I was trained in science well before theology, but am almost equally comfortable in both.  Part of the difficulty in discussing these things is that the disparate conditions for validity.  The requirement that something be deterministically repeatable in a controlled environment tightly constrains natural science to things that 'submit' to our control.  (One practical upshot being that the vast majority of scientific 'truth' is, by its own criteria, 'theory' that's logically consistent and broadly accepted, but really unproven.)  Science places highest value on 'truths' based on empirical observation.  Theology places highest value on revealed 'truths' -- what science would dismiss as imagination, insight, or even delusion.  (I use quotes around 'truths' becuse the two disciplines treat the word somewhat differently; and while both disciplines test their 'truths', each does so in a different manner.)

We might infer the existence of God from natural things; but we can't prove anything about God purely from empirical observation and natural reason. Some famous efforts to 'prove' God's existence are almost embarrassing in their abuse of reason (as are some famous efforts to 'prove' God's non-existence).

The plausibility of belief in God is a topic Peter Kreeft addresses far more effectively than I can.  C.S.Lewis is almost as good as Kreeft.  (Both are very readable, too.)  Having spent much of my life bouncing between atheism and agnosticism, though, I must concur that believing that the universe and all that's in it simply came into being by itself (or simply exists of itself) takes a far greater leap of faith than believing that it has a pre-existent and all-powerful creator.

I can't expect to convince you, since no human persuasion was able to penetrate my skepticism.  I do want to thank you (and hydro) for the discussion, though. I'm used to getting condescending insults and accusations as replies long before the topic gets this far, and I haven't had to exercise these particular synapses so much in five or more years.

Feel free to resume the banter about wookie dialects and other Star Wars trivia now.   The progressively-narrower text boxes will soon leave only enough room for terse/sarcastic comebacks and dismissive polemics on this subthread.

Kono, it's been a real

Kono, it's been a real pleasure discussing this topic with you.  You continue to bring up many good points, and I appreciate how well informed and respectful you are towards all of us here.  You may have even convinced me to pick up one or two of the works by the authors you mentioned.  I look forward to bumping into you again on another topic one of these days, and I thank you again for your contributions to this thread.  

And my apologies as well for the Star Wars tangent.  It just...kind of...happened... 

big banged

PS: As for big bang theory being based on extensive and continuing scientific study, it's been enlightening to watch the theory undergo several major revisions since it was first hatched.  And some proposed replacements have been nothing short of wild.

Every question that's answered seems to beget two or more other questions, making the beast of doubt more hydra-like every time.  Rahner devoted a lot of time and space to the way truth recedes with every step we take toward it, and some of his most compelling writing reflects on what he calls the horizon of absolute being.  (It seems easier to reconcile quantum theory with that than with general relativity, and the only lingering problem with 'missing mass' relates to sleeping-in on Sunday, not the elusiveness of the Higgs Boson.....)

Ditto...

"I have tried on many occasions to have a reasonable debate on various
issues and they always retreat to name calling and the like."

 Although there are few out there who do willingly debate like adults, I have seen so much of this and actually just recently had a debate on Fox News discussion board on facebook about the earth being less than 10,000 years old. There were 2 or 3 who I would try to debate certain topics and when I gave them an answer would often mock my belief instead of debating it. 

__________

Shazbot!

richb313, First,

richb313,

First, according to current understanding, the Big Bang represents the creation of space and time and all the energy within our universe - there wouldn't have been any mass at that point.

Second, the paradox you suggest doesn't exist within physics. Granted, we don't really have a solid understanding of time in all of its uses, but to suggest that the idea of the creation of time (within our universe) at the time of the Big Bang results in some type of philosophical problem or inconsistency in physics isn't correct.

And as I pointed out in another post on here - your assertion that there has to be a cause for the Big Bang is just that - an assertion. Cause and effect is a human made theory use to help explain the empirical world. It was developed within the context of our universe. There is no way to know if that theory applies to the creation of our universe.

“The same skepticism that

“The same skepticism that is used in research now needs to be turned back onto science itself.”

It should always have been.  But, in stead of being simply a way of acquiring knowledge, "science" became a new religion from which the secular authority must accept its leadership cues.

Hence, the Prophet Algore speaks, and we all must act or be condemned as heretics.

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork." - Ps. 19:1

Oops, double post. "The

Oops, double post.

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork." - Ps. 19:1

"The  hypothesis of

"The  hypothesis of God’s existence and the facts of contemporary cosmology are consistent"

That is true for every cosmology, no matter what it states. Also and this is more important for the ID crowd: Every scientific theory must also be consistent with the hypothesis of God's inexistence.  

Ben Stein and "Expelled"

I would highly recomend watching the Ben Stein movie/documentary, "Expelled".  It is a little heavy handed at times but it does a great job at debunking evolution as science.

it is not a science

That is the first mistake constantly repeated by God-based people of closed mind.

Evolution is a theory. It is backed up in bits and pieces throughout the flora and fauna. Where it clashes is with the closed mind that sees literal Bible verses that restrict God to no more than a lab assistant relative to a truly Omniscient, Omnipotent, etc., God. We do not have a full record for many lines of decendents on the tree of life. That does not 'debunk' evolution. Far from it. It merely is a work in progress and always has been. It is our onus to fill in the blanks. God has set us a truly grand task!

Cosmology and the evolution of the visible universe is based on theories. Some are proven. Others are unproven but accepted for now until something better comes along because they work to explain what we 'see' with all our science.

The beauty of science is that it is never a static thing. The idiot Senator that wanted to shut down the Patent Office lives in ignominy for stating that everything's already been invented (1886). Whooops. Life goes on. We learn more each day. Cool.

Evolution is a theory. It

Evolution is a theory. It is backed up in bits and pieces throughout the flora and fauna. 

Bzzzt.  Sorry.  -1

And no, I'm not going to explain it.  Folks should do their own research for a change.

 

خال

secular humanism is a religion onto itself

Many posts in this thread are the perfect example of the religion that is called atheism or secular humanism.

dogma:  evolution is not a theory, it is fact. (same could be said for AGW - interchageable depending on the demand)

saints:  Algore, BJ Clinton, et.al.

messiah:  BHO

god:  Darwin

blood sacrifice:  abortion

motto:  "If it feels good, do it!"

bible: at the moment: a 2,000 pg. gov't. takeover of healthcare.  their bible changes to adapt to whatever they feel guilty about at the moment.

 What a sad, shallow, cold and un-fulfilling religion.

"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the Plain Meaning of Words!" ~Sam Adams

  D’Souza reveals:

 

D’Souza
reveals:

  • Why
    Christianity explains the universe, and
    our origins, better than atheism does

  • Why
    Christianity and science are not
    irreconcilable, but science and atheism
    might be

  • Why
    the alleged sins of Christianity—the
    Crusades, the Inquisition, the Galileo
    affair—are vastly overblown

  • Why
    atheism is a demonstrably dangerous
    creed—and a cowardly one

  • Why
    evolution does not threaten Christian
    belief

  • Why
    atheists fear the Big Bang theory

  • Why
    Christianity is the ultimate defense of
    man’s free will

  • Why
    ultimately you can’t have Western
    civilization—and all we value from
    it—without the Christianity that gave it
    birth

Provocative, enlightening, a
twenty-first-century successor to C. S.
Lewis’s Mere Christianity, Dinesh
D’Souza’s What’s So Great About
Christianity
is the perfect book for the
seeker, the skeptic, and the believer who
wants to defend his faith.

State controlled health care ! music video.

ya got my vote

I have never believed that science clashes with Christianity. But then, my God is the real deal. He knows so much more than I can imagine and do so much more than I could postulate that all this Big Bang and the long, long road to here and now is truly in His power. We just haven't seen enough and mentally matured enough to see it yet... or maybe never. Only God knows the answer to that.

In the meantime, science marches on and our knowledge of this wonderful universe keeps increasing. Cool.

 

If it's true...

that ID is not tied to any particular religious belief as IR proponents have been recently suggesting, they should have no problem with Hindu, Native American or old Roman creation stories being mentioned along side the JudeoChristian explanation.

Where did it come from?

Catholics are not bound to a strict seven-day (as we know it) interpretation of creation.  Nor are we obligated to eschew all mention of evolution, because such adaptation can be - and is - part of the design of nature. 

The only demand we are obligated to meet is to believe we are created in the image and likeness of God, insofar as the question "Where did we come from?" goes...

That being said, I don't know how it's more rational or intelligent to say something (earth and all its creatures, the planets, etc.) came into being out of nothingness than it is to look at the highly ordered, neatly designed structure of nature and human physiology and decide that we came from something (someone - God) who is eternal, was, is, and always will be.

If the "Big Bang" is correct, where did those first particles of dust come from?  Who started the big bang?

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

limits of reason

When it comes to defending belief in God, there can be no rational proof -- only plausible evidence.  Because ultimately the mystery of God and existence boils down to a matter of relationship, rather than reason.

Prove it...

and it's corollary, disprove it, are the foundation stones of real science.

There is fully enough room for any and all theories. Until we prove or disprove God, then in science He's a theory. And it's a welcome one, as is the theory that there is no god (or godess, or whatever).

One can then see if any of what we discover helps to prove or disprove any theory. In the meantime, proponents of each theory can live on faith. That's why they keep trying to prove the theory. duh!

This whole humanism idiocy of current regimes is purely aimed at personal and societal license. Most every religion of note has a book of laws based on a moral society of one sort or another. This was developed over centuries of trial and error (see Hobbes and Locke). Moderns want to toss that all out in favor of infantile immediate satisfaction of whatever pops into their heads. See the fall of the Roman empire for where that leads. duh!

 

wizardjr, So how exactly

wizardjr,

So how exactly do you incorporate the idea of God into a scientific theory in a way that actually allows you to make predictions in a consistent manner?

I ask, since as far as I know, God is a supernatural entity and so doesn't have quantifiable empirical properties. That's sort of a problem for physicists and chemists whose theories rely on being able to translate empirical observables into those types of properties.

hydro, You are in love aren't you? Or have been.

Well if you are, my friend.
Tell me, how much does love weigh?
And in what 3-d space does it occupy?
After all.. God Is Love
The ghost in the machine, and all the trimmings.
Life...
No worries, no rush on an answer...

 

State controlled health care ! music video.

upcountrywater, I think

upcountrywater,

I think you are confusing what exists with what can be described by science. Those two things are not the same.

The topic here is how to incorporate something like God in a scientific theory. God may indeed exist, but that doesn't mean science can effectively use its methods to describe such an entity.

hydro, Some scientists are working on finding HIM


Large Hadron Collider

Physicists the world over are hoping that Atlas will help unlock some
deep scientific mysteries and perhaps even lead to discovery of the
Higgs boson, sometimes called "the God particle" because it is believed
its discovery will refine the understanding of exactly how the universe
came to be and how it functions, and how mass came to be in the first
place.

I'm waiting for the following to happen.

The Large Hadron Collider also could lead to better understanding of
the fourth fundamental force -- gravity -- in terms of particle
interactions, and help solve the puzzle of why gravity, while perhaps
most recognizable to a lay observer, is the weakest of the fundamental
forces.

Maybe it's fixed now?

The test beams were fired at a small percentage of the LHC’s maximum power,
around 450 million electron volts (eV). It is hoped that the accelerator
will eventually reach seven billion eV, with the particles hurtling around
the ring at up to 99.9999991 per cent of the speed of light. 

This would be great to have an answer to this...

In particular, it is hoped that it will reveal the theoretical particle the Higgs
Boson
, which is believed to give other particles mass.

 

 

upcountrywater, This is

upcountrywater,

This is one of those posts where I honestly have no idea if the poster is being serious or not.

If you are being flippant, then I can appreciate the reference to the so-called "God particle".

If you are actually being serious then, first off - wow.

And second - I hate to break it to you but that silly name - "God particle" - has absolutely nothing to do with God. It was just a name adopted by an author of a layperson's book on particle physics to emphasize the importance of the Higgs within the context of the Standard Model (which is the central theory of particle physics).

Sigh...

I love NewsBusters, check the website several times a day. I've gotten others hooked on it as well. However...

I get tired of the notion that one cannot be an atheist and conservative at the same time. One can be a very staunch conservative and still not believe in God. Just ask agnostic George Will.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.