The Scientific World Is Turning to God

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

The Scientific World Is Turning to God

HARUN YAHYA

"As people have certainly been influenced by me, I want to try and correct the enormous damage I may have done." (Anthony Flew)

The newspapers these days are echoing with these regret-filled words by Anthony Flew, in his time a well-known atheist philosopher. The 81-year-old British professor of philosophy Flew chose to become an atheist at the age of 15, and first made a name for himself in the academic field with a paper published in 1950. In the 54 years that followed, he defended atheism as a teacher at the universities of Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading, at many American and Canadian universities he visited, in debates, books, lecture halls and articles. In recent days, however, Flew has announced that he has abandoned this error and accepts that the universe was created.

The decisive factor in this radical change of view is the clear and definitive evidence revealed by science on the subject of creation. Flew realised, in the face of the information-based complexity of life, that the true origin of life is intelligent design and that the atheism he had espoused for 66 years was a discredited philosophy.

Flew announced the scientific reasons underlying this change in belief in these terms:

- www.harunyahya.com/articles/70scientific_world.html

[Cranky]

I guess that since hockey starvation has caused us to be a bit delusional and disoriented, we might as well throw in religion and politics to liven up the debate.

Just remember one thing, what sets HabsRus apart from the rest of the forums is our respect for one anothers opinion and our maturity. Nobody "wins" and no one is here to pound his opinion into others.

With that said..............

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Just testing.

[Cranky]

"The Scientific World Is Turning to God".......schlock and awe of sensationalist headlines.

I have been on the net for about five years and one of the things that I learned early on was to ask for the link to the articles posted. Why? So one can get a feel of who and what the site was all about before one put any credibility in an articles.

Harun Yahya is a religious site with headings like "The Nightmare of Disbelief", "Prophet Solomon", "Miracles of the Qur’an", "The End Times" and a few hundred other totally neutral and unbiased views of the human order.

I would be shocked if the did NOT publish an article from a man who is facing his own mortality and just discovered that it's safer to believe "just in case".

As to the content of the article? I am under the belief that most sentient beings have a desire to believe in “something” as a means of comfort and to make sense of their universe. That is fine and it harms no one as long as they do not force others follow THEIR version of the “truth”. There are also sentiant beings that do NOT believe they need somthing to believe in to make sense of the universe.

The "truth" is out there and we all hammer and form it to mean what we want of it.........

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Sorry, says atheist-in-chief, I do believe in God after all

...Darwin’s theory of evolution does not explain the origin and development of life to Flew’s satisfaction. “I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature,” he said.

Flew finds the conventional explanation that life arose out of a complex chemical brew or primordial soup “improbable”. So he is emulating Socrates and “following the argument wherever it leads. The conclusion is — there must have been some intelligence”....

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

The Sunday Times - Britain

November 14, 2004

Top scientist asks: is life all just a dream?
Jonathan Leake, Science Editor

DEEP THOUGHT, the supercomputer created by novelist Douglas Adams, got there first, but now the astronomer royal has caught up. Professor Sir Martin Rees is to suggest that “life, the universe and everything” may be no more than a giant computer simulation with humans reduced to bits of software.

Rees, Royal Society professor of astronomy at Cambridge University, will say that it is now possible to conceive of computers so powerful that they could build an entire virtual universe.

The possibility that what we see around us may not actually exist has been raised by philosophers many times dating back to the ancient Greeks and appears repeatedly in science fiction.

However, many scientists have always been dismissive, saying the universe was far too complex and consistent to be a simulation.

Despite this, the idea has persisted, popularised in films such as Tom Cruise’s Vanilla Sky and The Matrix, starring Keanu Reeves.

- www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1358588,00.html

[blaise]

I have noted that the closer people are to dying, the more likely they are to cling to religion as a seatbelt that might keep them from from being propelled into the great unknown. It reminds me of the oft-repeated cartoons depicting an aged 2004 handing things over to an infant 2005 and so forth. The world doesn't end with our passing. Think of the joyousness of the cycle of life. Our children and grandchildren go through exciting stages of emotion and discovery as we once did.

[blaise]

M. said:

The Sunday Times - Britain

November 14, 2004

Top scientist asks: is life all just a dream?
Jonathan Leake, Science Editor

DEEP THOUGHT, the supercomputer created by novelist Douglas Adams, got there first, but now the astronomer royal has caught up. Professor Sir Martin Rees is to suggest that “life, the universe and everything” may be no more than a giant computer simulation with humans reduced to bits of software.

Rees, Royal Society professor of astronomy at Cambridge University, will say that it is now possible to conceive of computers so powerful that they could build an entire virtual universe.

The possibility that what we see around us may not actually exist has been raised by philosophers many times dating back to the ancient Greeks and appears repeatedly in science fiction.

However, many scientists have always been dismissive, saying the universe was far too complex and consistent to be a simulation.

Despite this, the idea has persisted, popularised in films such as Tom Cruise’s Vanilla Sky and The Matrix, starring Keanu Reeves.

- www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1358588,00.html

We could all become solipsists and believe that nothing outside ourselves exists. If we perish, there goes the world. To digress for a momemt, one of my former professors wrote that if there were a Society of Solipsists, each member would insist that he or she was the the founding member and had admitted the others at his pleasure.

[Cranky]

Blaise said:

I have noted that the closer people are to dying, the more likely they are to cling to religion as a seatbelt that might keep them from from being propelled into the great unknown. It reminds me of the oft-repeated cartoons depicting an aged 2004 handing things over to an infant 2005 and so forth. The world doesn't end with our passing. Think of the joyousness of the cycle of life. Our children and grandchildren go through exciting stages of emotion and discovery as we once did.

Interesting analogy..........

Wearing a seatbelt all the time would be the equivilant of having some form of religion to keep one in the seat of morality. Finding religion when faced with mortality would be the the equivilant of an air bag....for "just in case".

I quess athiests are the motorcycles riders without helmets riding the storm of life...........

[Toronthab]

M. said:

The Scientific World Is Turning to God

HARUN YAHYA

"As people have certainly been influenced by me, I want to try and correct the enormous damage I may have done." (Anthony Flew)

The newspapers these days are echoing with these regret-filled words by Anthony Flew, in his time a well-known atheist philosopher. The 81-year-old British professor of philosophy Flew chose to become an atheist at the age of 15, and first made a name for himself in the academic field with a paper published in 1950. In the 54 years that followed, he defended atheism as a teacher at the universities of Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading, at many American and Canadian universities he visited, in debates, books, lecture halls and articles. In recent days, however, Flew has announced that he has abandoned this error and accepts that the universe was created.

The decisive factor in this radical change of view is the clear and definitive evidence revealed by science on the subject of creation. Flew realised, in the face of the information-based complexity of life, that the true origin of life is intelligent design and that the atheism he had espoused for 66 years was a discredited philosophy.

Flew announced the scientific reasons underlying this change in belief in these terms:

- www.harunyahya.com/articles/70scientific_world.html

Sorry for the botched post above. It follows below.


Congrats on having enough faith in mankind to dare to post such a timely and dangerous topic. People lose it over this stuff, and all kinds of nasties emerge.

It will supposedly shock few to read that I am a practicing (and it takes a lot of practice) and not particularly good or bright Catholic. I am also, when I think about it usually very grateful for this.

That said, I believe that if you see and avoid the mistake of Descartes and Kant, the existence of God is a very easy thing to prove beyond any reasonable doubt. It is in fact atheism which (as it of course shoud be) is unintelligible.

The best treatment I have found on this question is at the following "new advent" site most of which is dedicated to arguments form reason. I believe the arguments to be sound, and will happily entertain counterarguments. It is at the very least a good site to confront the key issues

I hope only a few will be insulted by my wishing anyone who wants, a Happy Easter.


www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm

[MC Habber]

The most striking fact about DNA is that the existence of the coded genetic information can definitely not be explained in terms of matter and energy or natural laws. Dr. Werner Gitt, a professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, has said this on the subject:

A code system is always the result of a mental process… It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required… There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.

This is a dishonest, circular argument. Matter cannot by itself give rise to information, therefore any example of matter as information is proof of the existence of God.

Anyone who has studied quantum physics knows that matter (and the universe as a whole) can be seen as the expression of information. Information theory is connected to thermodynamics. In the same way that matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light (although there have been recent challenges to this law), neither can information. Does this prove that God exists? I think not.

As for the argument that it is improbable that the complexity of life could have arisen by chance, consider the number of worlds in the universe, and what fraction of them contain life.... The process by which DNA is "read" to create and fold proteins that will perform specific tasks is truly amazing, and part of a system that is perhaps beyond the true comprehension of any single human being, but I don't think this rules out the possibility of "accident."

[Cranky]

No nasties will emerge on THIS forum. There is a group of man who are in charge and are ready and easily willing to suppress their beliefs and opinions for the proper governance of the forum.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One may and should believe in whatever religion one wants. Period. End of story. However, it does give that person a unique view or a special platform to render or declare atheist as “unintelligible”. If one is “intelligible” then one is of intellect thus unintelligible must be one without intellect. Believing in God does NOT make one “higher developed” or of superior intellect.

And in reverse……

Some atheist look at theists as primitives who need God and religion as support and justification for their and in their existence. They see theists as raising superstition to an art form.

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Said Benjamin Franklin.

Is either group right? Does the theist majority declare atheists as fringe group worthy of contempt?

Perhaps the agnostics are the smart ones. Questioning but ready to fall into whatever belief garden benefits them. But then, does one want to live in a world of constant and remorseless indecision?

There is one thing that I truly believe. One can run the gamut of fundamentalist to “devout” atheist and still have a moral center from which to act and live from. After all, we are born a clean slate with humanity written in our genes and enviroment will contaminated or emancipate it.

[franko]

To believe in or conversely to disbelieve in the existence of God require equal amounts of faith: it is faith in the unknowable vrs faith only in the knowable.

[Toronthab]

MC said:

This is a dishonest, circular argument. Matter cannot by itself give rise to information, therefore any example of matter as information is proof of the existence of God.

Anyone who has studied quantum physics knows that matter (and the universe as a whole) can be seen as the expression of information. Information theory is connected to thermodynamics. In the same way that matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light (although there have been recent challenges to this law), neither can information. Does this prove that God exists? I think not.

As for the argument that it is improbable that the complexity of life could have arisen by chance, consider the number of worlds in the universe, and what fraction of them contain life.... The process by which DNA is "read" to create and fold proteins that will perform specific tasks is truly amazing, and part of a system that is perhaps beyond the true comprehension of any single human being, but I don't think this rules out the possibility of "accident."

First, your characterising his argument as dishonest implies that he knows otherwise and hides it and that secondly, you understand the point he was trying to make. He is far from the first to state that (roughly) tossing the stuff of the material elements of the universe and cooking them for a very long time would nowise result in a the furthered ordered dimension of life. No great heresy here.

The study of DNA , genetic mutation and recombination says nothing about purpose or ultimate intelligent causality. It references only the ways and means and cannot ever even begin to address the question.

You speak of "accident" as though it is a kind of creative agent out there in the big beyond. Chance does not create. "Chance" is scientific shorthand for "I have absolutely no idea whatsoever: it's completely beyond my competence." not for some mysterious creative entity that calls itself "chance".

Science only provides increaingly complex descriptions. To describe is not to explain. Science explains nothing. The universe is completely and forever opaque to science. (Heisenberg and Copenhagen "63). Science except for biological sciences mostly study exclusively "efficient" causes. Efficient causes do not provide intelligiblity. (Aristotle).

To measure the weight of a girl, caloric intake, surface tension of gas, R-value of the blue double-knit sweater and energy units expended does not explain why she is in the beer store. The end or purpose of her trip does. Having measured all the efficient causes the "explanation" or principle of intelligiblity is her desire for a beer. as part of her desire for happiness.

A desire to be happy was the principal cause. Science only describes. It cannot explain.

Explanation requires philosophy and in some aspects theology.



PS A truly excellent thread

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

The It from Bit

Other philosophers call for a sea change in our very modes of thought.After Einstein introduced his theory of relativity, notes Jeffrey Bub, a philosopher at the University of Maryland, "we threw out the old Euclidean notion of space and time, and now we have a more generalised notion." Quantum theory may demand a similar revamping of our concepts of rationality and logic, Bub says. Boolean logic, which is based on either- or propositions, suffices for a world in which an atom goes either through one slit or the other, but not both slits. "Quantum mechanical logic is non-Boolean," he comments. " Once you understand that, it may make sense." Bub concedes, however, that none of the so-called quantum logic systems devised so far has proved very convincing.

A different kind of paradigm shift is envisioned by Wheeler.The most profound lesson of quantum mechanics, he remarks, is that physical phenomena are somehow defined by the questions we ask of them. " This is in some sense a participatory universe," he says. The basis of reality may not be the quantum, which despite its elusiveness is still a physical phenomenon, but the bit, the answer to a yes-or-no question,which is the fundamental currency of computing and communications. Wheeler calls his idea "the it from bit."

Following Wheeler's lead, various theorists are trying to recast quantum physics in terms of information theory,which was developed 44 years ago to maximise the amount of information transmitted over communications channels. Already these investigators have found that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, wave-particle duality and nonlocality can be formulated more powerfully in the context of information theory, according to William K. Wootters of Williams College, a former Wheeler student who is pursuing the it-from-bit concept.

Meanwhile theorists at the surreal frontier of quantum theory are conjuring up thought experiments that could unveil the riddle in the enigma once and for all. David Deutsch of the University of Oxford thinks it should be possible, at least in principle, to build a "quantum computer," one that achieves superposition of states. Deutsch has shown that if different superposed states of the computer can work on separate parts of a problem at the same time, the computer may achieve a kind of quantum parallelism, solving certain problems more quickly than classical computers.

Taking this idea further, Albert - with just one of his minds - has conceived of a quantum computer capable of making certain measurements of itself and its environment. Such a "quantum automaton" would be capable of knowing more about itself than any outside observer could ever know-and even more than is ordinarily permitted by the uncertainty principle.The automaton could also serve as a kind of eyewitness of the quantum world, resolving questions about whether wave functions truly collapse, for example. Albert says he has no idea how actually to engineer such a machine, but his calculations show the Schrödinger equation allows such a possibility.

If that doesn't work, there is always Aharonov's time machine.The machine, which is based not only on quantum theory but also on general relativity, is a massive sphere that can rapidly expand or contract Einstein's theory predicts that time will speed up for an occupant of the sphere as it expands and gravity becomes proportionately weaker, and time will slow down as the sphere contracts. If the machine and its occupant can be induced into a superposition of states corresponding to different sizes and so different rates of time, Aharonov says, they may "tunnel" into the future.The occupant can then disembark, ask physicists of the future to explain the mysteries of quantum mechanics and then bring the answers-assuming there are any-back to the present. Until then, like Plato's benighted cave dwellers, we can only stare at the shadows of quanta flickering on the walls of our cave and wonder what they mean.

- Hello, I must be going

[blaise]

Toronthab said:

Sorry for the botched post above. It follows below.


Congrats on having enough faith in mankind to dare to post such a timely and dangerous topic. People lose it over this stuff, and all kinds of nasties emerge.

It will supposedly shock few to read that I am a practicing (and it takes a lot of practice) and not particularly good or bright Catholic. I am also, when I think about it usually very grateful for this.

That said, I believe that if you see and avoid the mistake of Descartes and Kant, the existence of God is a very easy thing to prove beyond any reasonable doubt. It is in fact atheism which (as it of course shoud be) is unintelligible.

The best treatment I have found on this question is at the following "new advent" site most of which is dedicated to arguments form reason. I believe the arguments to be sound, and will happily entertain counterarguments. It is at the very least a good site to confront the key issues

I hope only a few will be insulted by my wishing anyone who wants, a Happy Easter.


www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm

Although you haven't stated it, I believe your dismissal of Descartes and Kant rests on their willingness to start from scratch (Descartes) and the questioning of certainty (Kant). But at least Kant in particular was willing to subject beleifs to epistemology, a logical process that subjected knowledge to the analysis of its limits and validity. While I admire the writings of Kierkegaard, who spoke of leaps of faith, I perceive the perilous gaps they leave. Perhaps Kiergegaard's greatest knight of faith was Abraham, who was willing to sacrifice Isaac because of it. I would consider such an action sheer lunacy, because the iconviction might have arisen from an internal aberration (or, for the religiously inclined, a false message from Satan). I would rather by guided by science, because scientists reject their theories once they are disproved empirically. The clergy would never abandon their faith no matter what c ontradictions they observe in real life. When they aver that there is a God who metes out rewards and punishments after death, I would say, "How do you know? Were you ever dead?" Descartes and Kant and Pascal and Bertrand Russell would never accept their assurances. Neither would I.

[franko]

Blaise said:

The clergy would never abandon their faith no matter what c ontradictions they observe in real life.

Actually, many in the clergy leave their vocation and numbers of those who have also have departed from the "faith". Though not necessarily because of a crisis of faith but more often a crisis in morality.

When they aver that there is a God who metes out rewards and punishments after death, I would say, "How do you know? Were you ever dead?" Descartes and Kant and Pascal and Bertram Russell would never accept their assurances. Neither would I.

Conversely, one might say that because he has not yet died he has not yet discovered the ultimate truth of the matter, and so the hypothesis remains: "I believe that there is life after death and will continue to do so until proven otherwise". Unfortunately, the only way to know is to die, in which case the "secret remains in the grave".

[franko]

M. said:

The It from Bit

I'm still trying to figure out how they get the Caramilk into the Caramilk Bar!

[Toronthab]

Mr. said:

No nasties will emerge on THIS forum. There is a group of man who are in charge and are ready and easily willing to suppress their beliefs and opinions for the proper governance of the forum.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One may and should believe in whatever religion one wants. Period. End of story. However, it does give that person a unique view or a special platform to render or declare atheist as “unintelligible”. If one is “intelligible” then one is of intellect thus unintelligible must be one without intellect. Believing in God does NOT make one “higher developed” or of superior intellect.

And in reverse……

Some atheist look at theists as primitives who need God and religion as support and justification for their and in their existence. They see theists as raising superstition to an art form.

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Said Benjamin Franklin.

Is either group right? Does the theist majority declare atheists as fringe group worthy of contempt?

Perhaps the agnostics are the smart ones. Questioning but ready to fall into whatever belief garden benefits them. But then, does one want to live in a world of constant and remorseless indecision?

There is one thing that I truly believe. One can run the gamut of fundamentalist to “devout” atheist and still have a moral center from which to act and live from. After all, we are born a clean slate with humanity written in our genes and enviroment will contaminated or emancipate it.

First. The only significant question regarding any religion or philosophical approach for that matter, is the following: Is it true

You completely misunderstand what is meant by unintelligible. Do you think I'm talking about people or even their ideas? I'm not. You obviously think that I view myself as having some sort of divinely inspired faculty of reason. It's usually good practice to argue the points and not with a charicature. Am I the first Catholic you've spoken with? If not, did others say they were above others? I've never met one like that. How about all the ones who played for the Canadians....Beliveau? Beats me.

To draw a parallel. this is the kind of thing I mean by unintelligible.

Evil is the absence of a good that should be there, like respect for instance.
As one can only have intelligence of what is, and evil is an absence, evil is unintelligible.

The same holds true in metaphysical arguments. An atheistic conception of reality is unintelligible. Ok?

I generally do not discuss religion much however, in the case of religion, it is obviously true that if there is a God, by which I mean an indefectable, and what the hell, omniscient Personal It. (God by definition can be neither Male nor Female and yes Catholics have known this fro a couple of thousand years, but I digress) If such a Personal It were to appear on earth, convince by sign and character that It was the real deal, and then proceed to inform about things a mere human intllect could not possibly otherwise know, then this would be a special type of knowledge. It would be knowledge not because it was worked out , but because of its source.

It would also not be philosophy. Are you aware that to ask the question "Does God or an entity similarly described exist" is a question that can be addressed by reason alone.

I can only assume you have acquired most of your notions concerning religious thoght from TV, or perhaps protestant sources. I can identify with virtually none of what you are referring to. No wonder. The vast preponderance of Christianity does not and never did believe that you have to be a professing christiian to "go to heaven". They would think such an idea ridiculopus and far removed from any idea of a loving god.

I guess a lot of utter nonsense via the media is for many about the only source for a lot of this goop. Creationism, believe or go to hell, etc. ugh!

For the record, almost everybody I meet is as good and better at being a human being as am I in at least one or two ways and often in all ways. THis list does not inlude driving the 401 fast, being a hockey fan or player and usually things philosophical.

Philosophy is proceeds by advancing sound arguments. I believe that sound reasoning leads to the conclusion that something a lot like the now virtually cliche idea of God exists and to return to an early point is both the reason for the intelligibility and the necessary condition for ultimate intelligibility.
Do you see my point?

[MC Habber]

M. said:

The It from Bit

Very interesting read. Thanks for the link.

[franko]

I had decided to bow out of this discussion because the fun was leaving it (and the way Mr. B. was bringing in links I was almost getting lost ).

However . . . and while not wishing to disagree with a fellow believer . . . when I read

Toronthab said:

The vast preponderance of Christianity does not and never did believe that you have to be a professing christiian to "go to heaven". They would think such an idea ridiculopus and far removed from any idea of a loving god.

I knew I would reply. And while I generalize, I would point out:

first, that the Catholic Church -- a Christian stronghold -- holds not only that Christianity is the only way to "go to heaven" but also that the Catholic church itself is the way. Vatican II notwithstanding, we Protestants are still "the departed brethren" who need to be returned to the fold; and

second, that the evangelical Protestant church -- Blaise's thorn in the flesh -- also holds that Christianity (and in particular their understanding of the faith) is the way, the true way, and the only way; and

third, the emerging church, that is, the "southern" church (as in South of the Equator, the non-white church) is even more dogmatic and traditional in doctrine and belief than the western church, calling the church itself to repentance and renewal, and calling "us" apostate and warning "us" of the dire consequences of missing the eternal reward.

Mainline Christianity is a bit more inclusive, looking to Jesus as the Son of God/Messiah who brings people to God but also allows God the final say in the matter (though in Canada the hierarchy of the United Church seems to be distancing itself from traditional Christian doctrine, which makes one wonder how Christian this Christian denomination is . . . but I digress).

From the narrower perspective, "loving God" follows through on His (I hate "it" even though you are right, God is gender-neutral) warnings that those who reject Him on earth will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

[Toronthab]

Blaise said:

Although you haven't stated it, I believe your dismissal of Descartes and Kant rests on their willingness to start from scratch (Descartes) and the questioning of certainty (Kant). But at least Kant in particular was willing to subject beleifs to epistemology, a logical process that subjected knowledge to the analysis of its limits and validity. While I admire the writings of Kierkegaard, who spoke of leaps of faith, I perceive the perilous gaps they leave. Perhaps Kiergegaard's greatest knight of faith was Abraham, who was willing to sacrifice Isaac because of it. I would consider such an action sheer lunacy, because the iconviction might have arisen from an internal aberration (or, for the religiously inclined, a false message from Satan). I would rather by guided by science, because scientists reject their theories once they are disproved empirically. The clergy would never abandon their faith no matter what c ontradictions they observe in real life. When they aver that there is a God who metes out rewards and punishments after death, I would say, "How do you know? Were you ever dead?" Descartes and Kant and Pascal and Bertram Russell would never accept their assurances. Neither would I.

Thanks for replying to this critical point. Incidentally, should the good, kind and benifiicent moderati decide to reopen the other cite I have yesterday written and would be happy to post a response to your observations. My response is civil and informed and I would hope a model of reason over passion as Trudeau or the great Saint Thomas would demand. Should a moderati wish to preview, although I don't believe I have much transgressed either civility or certainly not bigotry. You are not unique in holding opinions others might consider lacking a llittle in perspective and balance. They are all fair game however.

That said, and not at all to be argumentative...I'm not trying to hurt or insult you Blaise, I stated quite explicitly earlier that I know full well what that nice serious Catholic boy Descartes was trying to do. He aimed to set philosophy on the same kind of footing that mathematics rests upon. Further, he thought he had done so. Unfortunately he failed completely. As Frederick C Copplestone a historian of philosophy wrote years ago. "The worst moment in the history of human thought was when Descartes fell asleep in front of a warm stove, and when he woke up, forgot about the existence of the stove." I roughly quoted him by the way, but that was the gist.

He thought it was the worst moment, because ever since, those who make the same momentous and upon analysis, absurd mistake, are forever locked iniside their heads.

Perhaps you discuss matters with anti-rational fideists and llike to lump all fideists into the same camp, but I don't think you have too much in the way of grounds to insult and malign clerics as being unwilling to examen their thinking.

Descartes' boo-boo is obvious and its result inevitable.

It was thirteenth century monks most of whom were a hell of a lot better thinkers than most mortals I've ever met or read, who took the thinking of the great pagan philosopher Aristotle and mined and developped it to heights seldom, if ever met since.

They were never afraid in their "sed contra"s to address the strongest counter-arguments they could muster. Western civilization owes them for the intellectual foundation we enjoy.

As for Kierkegaard's leap of faith, this is protestant philosophical thought and while I profess no expertise faith I would argue requires no leap whatever, but is a reasoned assent made by reasoning creatures.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you but I confess to being more than a little taken with your notion that you base yourself on science. Science provides increasingly elaborate descriptions of things. It explains nothing, never did, never can. It describes only. Do you disagree with this? Is so on what basis. The worlds' scientists did not in Copenhagen in 1963. Reality is forever opaque to science. It always was marvelous as it is, it will never explain what a fly is.

Most Christain theoloigians for the folowing is a theological issue, don't think angels have wings, envison horny devils (other than at Frat parties), think God has a beard or is male for that matter, or takes delight in casting crispy non-believers into some kind of eternally smoking furnace. That's sort of a kid's cartoon notion of eschatology. Most to the contrary consider individuals turning away eternally from a loving communion with others, a kind of self-imposed isolation through a failure to love.

There are other sources of religious thought, much older and perhaps a little better developped than the kind of stuff you seem to think as reflective of reality. I would happily agree that such charicatures would sure as hell not be of much interest to anyone.

I'm going to stop now, and ask if you understand what the error of Descartes was that was so immense.

[MC Habber]

Toronthab said:

First, your characterising his argument as dishonest implies that he knows otherwise and hides it and that secondly, you understand the point he was trying to make. He is far from the first to state that (roughly) tossing the stuff of the material elements of the universe and cooking them for a very long time would nowise result in a the furthered ordered dimension of life. No great heresy here.

Given his postion I assume he does know otherwise. He implies that the "existence of the coded genetic information" is somehow unique in the universe - that there are not other instances of naturally occuring information.

You speak of "accident" as though it is a kind of creative agent out there in the big beyond. Chance does not create. "Chance" is scientific shorthand for "I have absolutely no idea whatsoever: it's completely beyond my competence." not for some mysterious creative entity that calls itself "chance".

Perhaps "accident" was a poor choice of words, but you make the *assumption* that there is some underlying cause behind chance occurences (take the emission of radioactive particles as an example). This is of course consistent with your assumption that God exists, but you are again putting the conclusion ahead of the argument. Perhaps there exist some mechanisms beyond what we have been able to observe that govern what we consider to be random events - perhaps these mechanisms obey mathematical laws (like the rest of the universe) or perhaps they are controlled by some higher intelligence. I see no convincing evidence of the latter.

Science only provides increaingly complex descriptions. To describe is not to explain. Science explains nothing. The universe is completely and forever opaque to science. (Heisenberg and Copenhagen "63). Science except for biological sciences mostly study exclusively "efficient" causes. Efficient causes do not provide intelligiblity. (Aristotle).

To measure the weight of a girl, caloric intake, surface tension of gas, R-value of the blue double-knit sweater and energy units expended does not explain why she is in the beer store. The end or purpose of her trip does. Having measured all the efficient causes the "explanation" or principle of intelligiblity is her desire for a beer. as part of her desire for happiness.

A desire to be happy was the principal cause. Science only describes. It cannot explain.

Explanation requires philosophy and in some aspects theology.

Again, this assumes that the girl can excercise free will, that she is not simply obeying the laws of physics. Your explanation is perfectly reasonable and also convenient, but it fails to prove your thesis. It is entirely possible that to describe IS to explain.

PS A truly excellent thread

I agree wholeheartedly.

[Toronthab]

franko said:

I had decided to bow out of this discussion because the fun was leaving it (and the way Mr. B. was bringing in links I was almost getting lost ).

However . . . and while not wishing to disagree with a fellow believer . . . when I read


I knew I would reply. And while I generalize, I would point out:

first, that the Catholic Church -- a Christian stronghold -- holds not only that Christianity is the only way to "go to heaven" but also that the Catholic church itself is the way. Vatican II notwithstanding, we Protestants are still "the departed brethren" who need to be returned to the fold; and

second, that the evangelical Protestant church -- Blaise's thorn in the flesh -- also holds that Christianity (and in particular their understanding of the faith) is the way, the true way, and the only way; and

third, the emerging church, that is, the "southern" church (as in South of the Equator, the non-white church) is even more dogmatic and traditional in doctrine and belief than the western church, calling the church itself to repentance and renewal, and calling "us" apostate and warning "us" of the dire consequences of missing the eternal reward.

Mainline Christianity is a bit more inclusive, looking to Jesus as the Son of God/Messiah who brings people to God but also allows God the final say in the matter (though in Canada the hierarchy of the United Church seems to be distancing itself from traditional Christian doctrine, which makes one wonder how Christian this Christian denomination is . . . but I digress).

From the narrower perspective, "loving God" follows through on His (I hate "it" even though you are right, God is gender-neutral) warnings that those who reject Him on earth will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

Hi Franko

Search as you may among documents of the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic church, you will find no authoritive or recognized teaching that holds that a person must profess christianity, Catholic or otherwise to be acceptable to God.

The good atheistic communist who explicitly rejects the very idea of God, accepts God in following the dictates of conscience according to his or her lights. The universality of conscience from which incidentally Kant tried (and failed) to prove the existence of God. This of course carries the implicit requirement to develop a consciece.

The absurdity I mention is the idea that a loving God would create millions of adorably cute little human beings with the express intention to fry them in eternity in used potato chip non-fattening, low cholesterol oil. Nice Dantesque imagery that he at least recognized as allegorical.

The Catholic church does indeed consider itself to be in direct apostolic connection to Christ and the unique and full deposit of faith, a tenet I definitely subscribe to entirley and without any reservation whatever (after years of consideration and study).


It is true that if one holds that Jesus was God "made flesh", this most upsetting notion, and if God pretty much runs the show, then it is true and held that all salvation as its called is threfore necessarily through Jesus. This is not however the same as holding that familiarity with any religion is a requirement of anything. It's not and never has been. What kind of a dumb God would that be? A librarian, a book keeper? As good old St Thomas Aquinas said, "If it is against reason, it is sinful."

I quite agree with the emerging church that the west is well-warned that they should indeed be concerned with being apostate. As I said, I don't have to be a Catholic. Faith is both a free gift, and a virtue. It can be handed back and/or lost, but for my part, due to the nature of my particular "lights" my path I would hope and expect to be that of the Catholic church. I actually think it's the best thing since sliced cosmologies.

In short, my own integrity of thought and deed, just like anyone else is the matter at hand. For me not to be a catholic would be inconsisent with waht I believe to be true. I wold be choosing non-reality, an illusion. That's a major part of hell and leads to lives of quiet desperation. i even think that religion helps me or at least encourages me to be a little less of an a$$hole. That's why I'm usually even relatively polite in responding to Blaise!! who seems to think a lot of suspect notions are a necessary part of the deal and subscribed to by all. I find most of the same things quite naturally repugnant.

By the way, Catholic web sources will usually do a better job than I at articulating her teaching, and in all cases, I defer to legitimate authority and would not in the least like to mislead anyone on anything.

[MC Habber]

Toronthab said:

I may pretend at some time to an expertise on things quantical. I am not an expert in this area. However what he seems to be saying, and its been some time since I hard or read his thought, is that while these paradigms of order obviously are here in stunning abundance and variety, considering them to be the product of a haphazard, hence unintelligable random accidental development is so imptobable as to be absurd and to be rejected buy a rational mind. This is not a dangerous new thought. He just finally saw it after 81 years.

I guess my counterargument to that point is to ask exactly how improbable it really is, in a universe of this size. This isn't something I expect anyone to put a number on, but it seems a little arrogant to say that, because something seems incredible to us, it must be due to God. Maybe we're just not as smart as we think.

[Toronthab]

MC said:

I guess my counterargument to that point is to ask exactly how improbable it really is, in a universe of this size. This isn't something I expect anyone to put a number on, but it seems a little arrogant to say that, because something seems incredible to us, it must be due to God. Maybe we're just not as smart as we think.

Existence is self-evidently probable. We are here. To suspect as almost everyone in the history of man has , that there is likely a supreme being of some sort is simply and humbly attributing a likely or probable cause commeensurate with the astounding complexity of reality. We don't have to bring epistemological vice into it.

The intellectual error you flirt with or accept is that the specific sciences, and in the case of physics, the calculator's final answer on wave theory renders waves. It of course removes almost every aspect of water and studies that. To say E=MC to the second power is not to explain what energy is. That is what I meand by naive materialism, implicit in your thesis.

[franko]

Toronthab said:

Search as you may among documents of the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic church, you will find no authoritive or recognized teaching that holds that a person must profess christianity, Catholic or otherwise to be acceptable to God.

Pope Boniface VIII in his Bull, "Unam Sanctam" (A. D. 1302): "There is one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and that outside this Church there is neither salvation nor remission of sins." This position was reaffirmed on September 5, 2000 in a 36-page document from the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and was approved by the pontiff. It states that the Roman Catholic Church is the only "instrument for the salvation of all humanity."

Dialogue continues within the Catholic Church as to her place in leadership -- some hardliners claim to be the only way; others are more open . . . but the higher the position in the church, the more likely (it seems) for a firmness of pre-eminence

The absurdity I mention is the idea that a loving God would create millions of adorably cute little human beings with the express intention to fry them in eternity in used potato chip non-fattening, low cholesterol oil. Nice Dantesque imagery that he at least recognized as allegorical.

ooh, the Wesleyan in me points to free will . . . that God does not intend any for the fires of hell but also gives all the ability to chose or reject Him . . . otoh, I do have difficulty with the very notion of hell. So we are left with universalism (abhorrent to me -- Hitler and Paul Bernardo receive equal blessing?), annihilation (any not deemed worthy are wiped out = "the second death" -- but I don't like this philosophy either -- a Creative God destroys His creation?), or a purgatoric state (though I like Rany Alcorn's description of hell Deadline, which (granted) is mere Christian fiction).

The Catholic church does indeed consider itself to be in direct apostolic connection to Christ and the unique and full deposit of faith, a tenet I definitely subscribe to entirley and without any reservation whatever (after years of consideration and study).

I'd rather go to another thread or pm to discuss this one!

[blaise]

Toronthab said:

Hi Franko

Search as you may among documents of the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic church, you will find no authoritive or recognized teaching that holds that a person must profess christianity, Catholic or otherwise to be acceptable to God.

The good atheistic communist who explicitly rejects the very idea of God, accepts God in following the dictates of conscience according to his or her lights. The universality of conscience from which incidentally Kant tried (and failed) to prove the existence of God. This of course carries the implicit requirement to develop a consciece.

The absurdity I mention is the idea that a loving God would create millions of adorably cute little human beings with the express intention to fry them in eternity in used potato chip non-fattening, low cholesterol oil. Nice Dantesque imagery that he at least recognized as allegorical.

The Catholic church does indeed consider itself to be in direct apostolic connection to Christ and the unique and full deposit of faith, a tenet I definitely subscribe to entirley and without any reservation whatever (after years of consideration and study).


It is true that if one holds that Jesus was God "made flesh", this most upsetting notion, and if God pretty much runs the show, then it is true and held that all salvation as its called is threfore necessarily through Jesus. This is not however the same as holding that familiarity with any religion is a requirement of anything. It's not and never has been. What kind of a dumb God would that be? A librarian, a book keeper? As good old St Thomas Aquinas said, "If it is against reason, it is sinful."

I quite agree with the emerging church that the west is well-warned that they should indeed be concerned with being apostate. As I said, I don't have to be a Catholic. Faith is both a free gift, and a virtue. It can be handed back and/or lost, but for my part, due to the nature of my particular "lights" my path I would hope and expect to be that of the Catholic church. I actually think it's the best thing since sliced cosmologies.

In short, my own integrity of thought and deed, just like anyone else is the matter at hand. For me not to be a catholic would be inconsisent with waht I believe to be true. I wold be choosing non-reality, an illusion. That's a major part of hell and leads to lives of quiet desperation. i even think that religion helps me or at least encourages me to be a little less of an a$$hole. That's why I'm usually even relatively polite in responding to Blaise!! who seems to think a lot of suspect notions are a necessary part of the deal and subscribed to by all. I find most of the same things quite naturally repugnant.

By the way, Catholic web sources will usually do a better job than I at articulating her teaching, and in all cases, I defer to legitimate authority and would not in the least like to mislead anyone on anything.

Most people belong to one particular church or another because they follow what their parents do and in turn are exposed to others of the same religion who attend the same churches. It would be interesting to see what would happen if everyone had to make an independent choice without parental or neighborhood influence. I suspect that any serious thoughts about theology would come only after the membership issue has been settled.

It is interesting to note that starting with the era in which Roman Catholicism was the only option there have been numerous departures. Smaller sects (e.g., the Albigensians) were largely obliterated by force. Among the major permanent schisms were the breakaway of the Eastern Orthodox, Lutheranism, and the formation of the Anglican church. There are now numerous Protestant sects. In the US, membership in older established churches, such as the Presbyterian, Methodist, and Episcopalian, has been declining in favor of the Southern Baptists and other more evangelical sects.

Another interesting phenomenon is the drift away from the Roman Catholic church in Central America and to a lesser extent in South America. One plausible explanation is that Roman Catholicism has been too closely associated with oligarchy and dictatorship as well as its own inherent authoritarianism. There are storefront Pentecostal Evangelical churches situated in predominantly Guatemalan or Honduran or Salvadorian or or other Central American immigrant communities in the US. The increasing conservatism exemplified by John Paul and his like-minded cardinals does not bode well for the further expansion of Roman Catholicism in Europe or the Americas. Liberal Catholic priests in Latin America have had the reins pulled in on them by Rome.

Since the crumbling of the Soviet Union, more and more Russians identify themselves as Orthodox Christians. This, of course, is not true of all the former republics, where ethnic Russians are leaving Central Asia in droves as the region becomes more and more Islamicized.

I struck out Pentecostal [my unthinking error, pointed out by Franko] and substituted Evangelical, which was what I intended.

[Cranky]

Toronthab said:

First. The only significant question regarding any religion or philosophical approach for that matter, is the following: Is it true

You completely misunderstand what is meant by unintelligible. Do you think I'm talking about people or even their ideas? I'm not. You obviously think that I view myself as having some sort of divinely inspired faculty of reason. It's usually good practice to argue the points and not with a charicature. Am I the first Catholic you've spoken with? If not, did others say they were above others? I've never met one like that. How about all the ones who played for the Canadians....Beliveau? Beats me.

To draw a parallel. this is the kind of thing I mean by unintelligible.

Evil is the absence of a good that should be there, like respect for instance.
As one can only have intelligence of what is, and evil is an absence, evil is unintelligible.

The same holds true in metaphysical arguments. An atheistic conception of reality is unintelligible. Ok?

I generally do not discuss religion much however, in the case of religion, it is obviously true that if there is a God, by which I mean an indefectable, and what the hell, omniscient Personal It. (God by definition can be neither Male nor Female and yes Catholics have known this fro a couple of thousand years, but I digress) If such a Personal It were to appear on earth, convince by sign and character that It was the real deal, and then proceed to inform about things a mere human intllect could not possibly otherwise know, then this would be a special type of knowledge. It would be knowledge not because it was worked out , but because of its source.

It would also not be philosophy. Are you aware that to ask the question "Does God or an entity similarly described exist" is a question that can be addressed by reason alone.

I can only assume you have acquired most of your notions concerning religious thoght from TV, or perhaps protestant sources. I can identify with virtually none of what you are referring to. No wonder. The vast preponderance of Christianity does not and never did believe that you have to be a professing christiian to "go to heaven". They would think such an idea ridiculopus and far removed from any idea of a loving god.

I guess a lot of utter nonsense via the media is for many about the only source for a lot of this goop. Creationism, believe or go to hell, etc. ugh!

For the record, almost everybody I meet is as good and better at being a human being as am I in at least one or two ways and often in all ways. THis list does not inlude driving the 401 fast, being a hockey fan or player and usually things philosophical.

Philosophy is proceeds by advancing sound arguments. I believe that sound reasoning leads to the conclusion that something a lot like the now virtually cliche idea of God exists and to return to an early point is both the reason for the intelligibility and the necessary condition for ultimate intelligibility.
Do you see my point?

No, I did not acquire my religious "notions" from electrons hitting phosphorous backed glass. In fact, I was brought up in a religious setting.

I wrote a page or two about the "how and when" about my faith but decided not to post it.

You may be a a better human beign then me, or perhaps the reverse is true. I believe it has nothing to do with religion. I believe that religion serves as a facilitator and a comforter. Further, a man may kill in the name of God or love in the name of God. In the end, it's the man who does this and has nothing to do with any devine intervention or wish.

I see philosophy as the persuit of wisdom and speculative understanding. It may help form a theory but by it's very nature, it can not be conclusive. If one has to question everything in persuit of an answers, then one has to question the answers.

That is my opinion........

[franko]

Blaise said:

Most people belong to one particular church or another because they follow what their parents do and in turn are exposed to others of the same religion who attend the same churches. It would be interesting to see what would happen if everyone had to make an independent choice without parental or neighborhood influence. I suspect that any serious thoughts about theology would come only after the membership issue has been settled.

A little different for me. One parent an Anglican; the other an RC . . . and when I became involved in the faith group I am now determined that I had been abducted by a cult. My search did not end with associating with the group, but like what it stands for and after years decided to remain within it.

People switch religious affiliation for the poorest of reasons (someone within offended me) or the greatest (in their opinion) of reasons (the faith group has become irrelevant or inward-looking).

It is interesting to note that starting with the era in which Roman Catholicism was the only option there have been numerous departures. Smaller sects (e.g., the Albigensians) were largely obliterated by force. Among the major permanent schisms were the breakaway of the Eastern Orthodox, Lutheranism, and the formation of the Anglican church. There are now numerous Protestant sects. In the US, membership in older established churches, such as the Presbyterian, Methodist, and Episcopalian, has been declining in favor of the Southern Baptists and other more evangelical sects.

The bane of any religion is institutionalism and powerful hierarchy (the Lutheran split and the Protestant Reformation) and a disagreement of policy (the formation of the Anglican Church so that King Henry could legally marry, and the beginnings of the many evangelical sects).

Another interesting phenomenon is the drift away from the Roman Catholic church in Central America and to a lesser extent in South America. One plausible explanation is that Roman Catholicism has been too closely associated with oligarchy and dictatorship as well as its own inherent authoritarianism.

When politics and power take over for the call to servanthood the church (rightly) loses its place -- and it goes for the religious right/moral majority/whatever you want to call it in the States as well. Pettigrew is wrong to suggest that religious belief should stay within the walls of a church and only be on display between the hours of 11:00 and 12:00 on a Sunday morning . . . faith should be lived out in the marketplace as well. However, as soon as church leadership wants/demands a theocracy it loses its right to speak.

There are storefront Pentecostal churches situated in predominantly Guatemalan or Honduran or Salvadorian or or other Central American immigrant communities in the US. The increasing conservatism exemplified by John Paul and his like-minded cardinals does not bode well for the further expansion of Roman Catholicism in Europe or the Americas. Liberal Catholic priests in Latin America have had the reins pulled in on them by Rome.

I disagree -- Pentecostalism is far more conservative than the Catholic Church -- smoking, drinking, dancing, and other like "vices" are forbidden, yet people still flock to the church (maybe because contraception is allowed? ;D ) Evangelicalism is more inviting because it shows some form of life and allows past tradition to enter into its rites and worship. A good read: The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity by Phillip Jenkins (though I did note that you do not have much time for much reading of books outside of your preferred discipline).