Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Newsweek: How Science Stopped Backing Atheists and Started Pointing Back to God

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Stephen Meyer, Director of the Center for Science and Culture, writes:

Headlines lately have not been encouraging for the faithful. A Gallup poll shows that the percentage of Americans who believe in God has fallen to 81 percent—a drop of 10 percent over the last decade and an all-time low. This accelerating trend is especially pronounced among young adults. According to a Pew Research Center poll, 18-29 year-olds are disproportionately represented among so-called “nones”—atheists, agnostics and the religiously unaffiliated.

Pastors and other religious leaders have attributed this trend to many factors: young people being raised outside the church, an unfamiliarity with liturgy and church culture, even COVID-19.

We found another answer in our national survey to probe the underlying reasons for this growing unbelief: a misunderstanding of science.

Perhaps surprisingly, our survey discovered that the perceived message of science has played a leading role in the loss of faith. We found that scientific theories about the unguided evolution of life have, in particular, led more people to reject belief in God than worries about suffering, disease, or death. It also showed that 65 percent of self-described atheists and 43 percent of agnostics believe “the findings of science [generally] make the existence of God less probable.”

It’s easy to see why this perception has proliferated. In recent years, many scientists have emerged as celebrity spokesmen for atheism. Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Bill Nye, Michael Shermer, the late Stephen Hawking, and others have published popular books arguing that science renders belief in God unnecessary or implausible. “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if, at bottom, there is no purpose, no design… nothing but blind, pitiless indifference,” Dawkins famously wrote.

God
ISTOCK

Yet, between message and reality, there is a major disconnect. Over the last century, important scientific discoveries have dramatically challenged science-based atheism, and three in particular now tell a decidedly more God-friendly story.

First, scientists have discovered that the physical universe had a beginning. This finding, supported by observational astronomy and theoretical physics, contradicts the expectations of scientific atheists, who long portrayed the universe as eternal and self-existent—and, therefore, in no need of an external creator.

Evidence for what scientists call the Big Bang has instead confirmed the expectations of traditional theists. Nobel laureate Arno Penzias, who helped make a key discovery supporting the Big Bang theory, has noted the obvious connection between its affirmation of a cosmic beginning and the concept of divine creation. “The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses…[and] the Bible as a whole,” writes Penzias.

Second, discoveries from physics about the structure of the universe reinforce this theistic conclusion. Since the 1960s, physicists have determined that the fundamental physical laws and parameters of our universe are finely tuned, against all odds, to make our universe capable of hosting life. Even slight alterations of many independent factors—such as the strength of gravitational or electromagnetic attraction, or the initial arrangement of matter and energy in the universe—would have rendered life impossible. Scientists have discovered that we live in a kind of “Goldilocks Universe,” or what Australian physicist Luke Barnes calls an extremely “Fortunate Universe.”

Not surprisingly, many physicists have concluded that this improbable fine-tuning points to a cosmic “fine-tuner.” As former Cambridge astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle argued, “A common-sense interpretation of the data suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics” to make life possible.

Newsweek

Comments
JVL@28, there is also the negative influence of televangelists fleecing the desperate and gullible by instilling fear. ‘Buy this vial of holy water and your prayers will be answered”. Young people see through this charlatanry, especially when they see loved ones falling for it. Young people are also very savvy on the use of social media. They see the unjustified hatred online expressed towards LGBQ in the name of god. They see freedom of religion being used as an argument to deny a marriage licence to a same sex couple, and a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription for the birth control pill to a 16 year old, and a baker and florist refusing to provide their services for a same sex marriage. And young people are smart enough to realize that these are attempts to force their twisted version of their religion on others.JHolo
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
JVL, you just gave why I gave up on the media and chattering classes. The pivotal issues are already there on the table but you have chosen to further enable the rhetoric of polarisation; something much wider than the toxic side track you wish to push. That speaks volumes and we are facing the parable of the ship of state. KF PS, Ship of state, a lesson for our time:
It is not too hard to figure out that our civilisation is in deep trouble and is most likely headed for shipwreck. (And of course, that sort of concern is dismissed as “apocalyptic,” or neurotic pessimism that refuses to pause and smell the roses.) Plato’s Socrates spoke to this sort of situation, long since, in the ship of state parable in The Republic, Bk VI:
>>[Soc.] I perceive, I said, that you are vastly amused at having plunged me into such a hopeless discussion; but now hear the parable, and then you will be still more amused at the meagreness of my imagination: for the manner in which the best men are treated in their own States is so grievous that no single thing on earth is comparable to it; and therefore, if I am to plead their cause, I must have recourse to fiction, and put together a figure made up of many things, like the fabulous unions of goats and stags which are found in pictures. Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain [–> often interpreted, ship’s owner] who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. [= The people own the community and in the mass are overwhelmingly strong, but are ill equipped on the whole to guide, guard and lead it] The sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering – every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer [= selfish ambition to rule and dominate], though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them [–> kubernetes, steersman, from which both cybernetics and government come in English]; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard [ = ruthless contest for domination of the community], and having first chained up the noble captain’s senses with drink or some narcotic drug [ = manipulation and befuddlement, cf. the parable of the cave], they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them [–> Cf here Luke’s subtle case study in Ac 27]. Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain’s hands into their own whether by force or persuasion [–> Nihilistic will to power on the premise of might and manipulation making ‘right’ ‘truth’ ‘justice’ ‘rights’ etc], they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer’s art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling. Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing? [Ad.] Of course, said Adeimantus. [Soc.] Then you will hardly need, I said, to hear the interpretation of the figure, which describes the true philosopher in his relation to the State [ --> here we see Plato's philosopher-king emerging]; for you understand already. [Ad.] Certainly. [Soc.] Then suppose you now take this parable to the gentleman who is surprised at finding that philosophers have no honour in their cities; explain it to him and try to convince him that their having honour would be far more extraordinary. [Ad.] I will. [Soc.] Say to him, that, in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to be useless to the rest of the world, he is right; but also tell him to attribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not use them, and not to themselves. The pilot should not humbly beg the sailors to be commanded by him –that is not the order of nature; neither are ‘the wise to go to the doors of the rich’ –the ingenious author of this saying told a lie –but the truth is, that, when a man is ill, whether he be rich or poor, to the physician he must go, and he who wants to be governed, to him who is able to govern. [--> the issue of competence and character as qualifications to rule] The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him [ --> down this road lies the modern solution: a sound, well informed people will seek sound leaders, who will not need to manipulate or bribe or worse, and such a ruler will in turn be checked by the soundness of the people, cf. US DoI, 1776]; although the present governors of mankind are of a different stamp; they may be justly compared to the mutinous sailors, and the true helmsmen to those who are called by them good-for-nothings and star-gazers. [Ad.] Precisely so, he said. [Soc] For these reasons, and among men like these, philosophy, the noblest pursuit of all, is not likely to be much esteemed by those of the opposite faction [--> the sophists, the Demagogues, Alcibiades and co, etc]; not that the greatest and most lasting injury is done to her by her opponents, but by her own professing followers, the same of whom you suppose the accuser to say, that the greater number of them are arrant rogues, and the best are useless; in which opinion I agreed [--> even among the students of the sound state (here, political philosophy and likely history etc.), many are of unsound motivation and intent, so mere education is not enough, character transformation is critical]. [Ad.] Yes. [Soc.] And the reason why the good are useless has now been explained? [Ad.] True. [Soc.] Then shall we proceed to show that the corruption of the majority is also unavoidable [--> implies a need for a corruption-restraining minority providing proverbial salt and light, cf. Ac 27, as well as justifying a governing structure turning on separation of powers, checks and balances], and that this is not to be laid to the charge of philosophy any more than the other? [Ad.] By all means. [Soc.] And let us ask and answer in turn, first going back to the description of the gentle and noble nature.[ -- > note the character issue] Truth, as you will remember, was his leader, whom he followed always and in all things [ --> The spirit of truth as a marker]; failing in this, he was an impostor, and had no part or lot in true philosophy [--> the spirit of truth is a marker, for good or ill] . . . >>
(There is more than an echo of this in Acts 27, a real world case study. [Luke, a physician, was an educated Greek with a taste for subtle references.] This blog post, on soundness in policy, will also help)
Down such a road lies civilisation level disaster. PPS, BTW, were I to require of you public proof of perfection or silence, would you be able to speak? We have seen good times and bad for many institutions of our civilisation and the message is there is a moral hazard of being human. Which leads to the vital necessity of moral government starting with the very first duties so many have derided, side lined, dismissed or ignored. But that is the only true road to what is doable, responsible reform. Which does not come from polarisation and manipulation.kairosfocus
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
ChuckDarwin: One can hardly blame young Americans for eschewing an institution wracked with scandal, bigotry, greed and hypocrisy. Or, in fact young people everywhere. My own son has been so appalled by the reporting of child abuse within and covered-up by the Catholic and Anglican church (as reported on the BBC) it's impossible to get him to see any good in the faith whatsoever. That's not my fault or the atheists' fault or the materialists' fault; that's the fault of the churches themselves for not policing their own clergy. It's what is called in England an own goal. And no, please don't tell me how he needs to be better educated regarding all the good the church has done; the church failed its congregations. Many times. They have a lot to answer for. Have they cleaned the stables? Have they put into place measures which will make sure the documented abuse won't happen again? I don't think this is about faith, it's about the church. But young people . . . they just think the whole system is corrupt. Clean up your own house before you criticise others'.JVL
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
As usual, the materialists/atheists carefully avoid arguing the science of ID (because of course they will lose), and instead focus on the narrow Christian doctrinal issues unfortunately espoused by a number of ID proponents. They hope such misdirection techniques (beloved by magicians) will work. Sorry - we see through the sham.doubter
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
"Things started to change with regard to religion when the women’s movement pointed out the blatant misogynistic teachings of Christianity, and when LGBQ became more open and started fighting for the rights and benefits of society that the rest of us enjoy." And now that those repressive shackles of Christianity are finally thrown off, by golly, now we don't even know what a women actually is! :)
What Is A Woman (Dr. Forcier interview) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOK8xPTcbYk
Of course, in reality, denying the reality of what a woman actually is is a giant step backwards for women rights,,, but hey,, everybody knows that those misogynistic Christians, (and especially Republicans), never did anything right for women,,, right???,, right???
Christianity: The Best Thing That Ever Happened to Women – 2005 Excerpt: The Low Status of Women in Jesus’ Day Some feminists charge that Christianity, the Bible, and the Church are anti-female and horribly oppressive to women. Does God really hate women? Did the apostle Paul disrespect them in his New Testament writings? In this article we’ll be looking at why Christianity is the best thing that ever happened to women, with insights from Alvin Schmidt’s book How Christianity Changed the World.{1} “What would be the status of women in the Western world today had Jesus Christ never entered the human arena? One way to answer this question,” writes Dr. Schmidt, “is to look at the status of women in most present-day Islamic countries. Here women are still denied many rights that are available to men, and when they appear in public, they must be veiled. In Saudi Arabia, for instance, women are even barred from driving an automobile. Whether in Saudi Arabia or in many other Arab countries where the Islamic religion is adhered to strongly, a man has the right to beat and sexually desert his wife, all with the full support of the Koran. . . .{2} This command is the polar opposite of what the New Testament says regarding a man’s relationship with his wife. Paul told the Christians in Ephesus, ‘Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.’ And he added, ‘He who loves his wife loves himself.’{3} Jesus loved women and treated them with great respect and dignity. The New Testament’s teaching on women developed His perspective even more. The value of women that permeates the New Testament isn’t found in the Greco-Roman culture or the cultures of other societies. In ancient Greece, a respectable woman was not allowed to leave the house unless she was accompanied by a trustworthy male escort. A wife was not permitted to eat or interact with male guests in her husband’s home; she had to retire to her woman’s quarters. Men kept their wives under lock and key, and women had the social status of a slave. Girls were not allowed to go to school, and when they grew up they were not allowed to speak in public. Women were considered inferior to men. The Greek poets equated women with evil. Remember Pandora and her box? Woman was responsible for unleashing evil on the world.{4} The status of Roman women was also very low. Roman law placed a wife under the absolute control of her husband, who had ownership of her and all her possessions. He could divorce her if she went out in public without a veil. A husband had the power of life and death over his wife, just as he did his children. As with the Greeks, women were not allowed to speak in public.{5} Jewish women, as well, were barred from public speaking. The oral law prohibited women from reading the Torah out loud. Synagogue worship was segregated, with women never allowed to be heard. Jesus and Women Jesus’ treatment of women was very different:,,, etc.. etc… https://bible.org/article/christianity-best-thing-ever-happened-women Dinesh D’Souza: The secret history of the Democratic Party – 2016 Excerpt: Interestingly enough the GOP is not merely the party of minority rights but also of women’s rights. Republicans included women’s suffrage in the party’s platform as early as 1896. The first woman elected to Congress was Republican Jeanette Rankin in 1916. That year represented a major GOP push for suffrage, and after the GOP regained control of Congress, the Nineteenth Amendment granting women’s suffrage was finally approved in 1919 and ratified by the states the following year. The inclusion of women in the 1964 Civil Rights Act was, oddly enough, the work of group of racist, chauvinist Democrats. Led by Democratic Congressman Howard Smith of Virginia, this group was looking to defeat the Civil Rights Act. Smith proposed to amend the legislation and add “sex” to “race” as a category protected against discrimination. Smith’s Democratic buddies roared with laughter when he offered his one-word amendment. They thought it would make the whole civil rights thing so ridiculous that no sane person would go along with it. One scholar noted that Smith’s amendment “stimulated several hours of humorous debate” among racist, chauvinist Democrats. But to their amazement, the amended version of the bill passed. It bears repeating that Republicans provided the margin of victory that extended civil rights protection both to minorities and to women. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/dinesh-dsouza-the-secret-history-of-the-democratic-party
One further note, atheists often like to portray Christianity as being a extremely repressive religion that takes away our freedoms, but as someone who has been 'set free' from decades of alcoholism and drug abuse, and over a decade of homelessness, I have found Christianity to be extremely liberating. I literally was a 'slave to sin' and was 'set free' by the truth of Christianity. Verse and testimonies
John 8: 34-36 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. Such Were Some Of You - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKSFPdyH8x4 “Such Were Some of You” (A Documentary) was inspired by the passage in 1st Corinthians 6:11 that declares that in Jesus’ day there was a population who had been so transformed by their relationship with Him that they were no longer “same-sex attracted” or at the very least, actively homosexual. They had found such a measure of healing from the brokenness and strongholds associated with what we now call homosexuality that they no longer considered themselves homosexual, nor did they act in that way. “Such Were Some of You” features interviews with a “cloud of present-day witnesses” who testify to the same life-transforming power of Jesus Christ. They describe the development of their same-sex attractions, what the gay lifestyle was like, what their conversion process was like, and the various ways that Jesus has brought healing to their broken places. “Such Were Some of You” lays out the facts about healing homosexual confusion and rejoices in the reality that Jesus Christ can heal anyone from anything while providing grace for the journey. Extended Interviews with 29 former homosexuals who are now Christians GUESTS – THE EXTENDED INTERVIEWS - videos - Extended Interviews with 29 former homosexuals who are now Christians https://www.restoredhopenetwork.org/such-were-some-of-you
bornagain77
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
CD: Noticeably absent from Meyer’s explanations for the decline in religiosity in the US is the role of religion, in particular, Christianity, itself</I
Based on my own experience and observations, I would agree with you. When I was young, I didn’t “know” any LGBQ” individuals. Not because they didn’t exist, but because they kept hidden because of the persecution and stigmatization they would suffer if they made their sexuality known. And this persecution and stigmatization can be laid squarely at the steps of the various churches. Things started to change with regard to religion when the women’s movement pointed out the blatant misogynistic teachings of Christianity, and when LGBQ became more open and started fighting for the rights and benefits of society that the rest of us enjoy. Once the LGBQ became more visible we all realized that they are the same as the rest of society with regard to their goals, desires, values, etc. and more and more people are questioning the church’s role in their persecution over the centuries. A questioning of their religious teachings is a natural outcome.JHolo
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
PPS, the number one sign of moral and intellectual breakdown is the promotion of the ongoing slaughter of our living posterity, now amounting to 1.4+ billion globally, rising at another million per week, across 40+ years. Blood guilt is of course the most corrupting single influence, worse than mere greed or sensualism. If anyone cannot get this one right -- there is a fundamental and self evident right to life without which there are no other rights, that undermines associated thought, through the crooked yardstick effect.kairosfocus
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
CD, different from or significantly worse than any other longstanding institution with a history of at least a century or two -- most of which, are not therefore scorned as discredited? I would suggest instead that the first issue is loss of regard for foundational truth, leading to living in light of reality. Then, secondly, self-defeating scientism -- as opposed to real science -- has been promoted as monopolising knowledge and thirdly radical hyperskeptical secularist humanism has been established as anti-church, leading to marginalisation and increasingly slander laced scapegoating and demonisation of the despised other. Meanwhile, the on the ground reality continues, largely unreported: responding to God i/l/o the gospel . . . which is still well-warranted, thank you . . . is life-rescuing and positively transformative, also materially contributing to the socio-cultural capital that buttresses lawful, constitutional democracy. Should the radical secularists prevail, the BATNA of lawfulness will erode leading to crisis and collapse into lawless ideological oligarchy. Of this, there are already all too many signs that should long since have been heeded. KF PS, as for the now usual shopping lists of fashionable disordered and often seriously health damaging or outright dangerous behaviours and habits, their promotion is a sign of breakdown of core moral knowledge due to ill warranted ideologies that have now reached the point of promoting confusion about the result of the XY chromosome sex determining system. A sign of our intellectual and moral breakdown.kairosfocus
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
Noticeably absent from Meyer's explanations for the decline in religiosity in the US is the role of religion, in particular, Christianity, itself. One can hardly blame young Americans for eschewing an institution wracked with scandal, bigotry, greed and hypocrisy. In survey after survey it is shown that young Americans are significantly more tolerant than prior generations, including their parents, on gender equality, LGBTQ equality, racial equality, non-marital sex, abortion, birth control--the list is almost endless--all issues upon which Christianity is or has been on the wrong side of history. Meyer's bogyman, science, no doubt has historically played a role in the decline of belief, but I think his (and his colleagues at DI) obsession with the influence of science is grossly overstated.chuckdarwin
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
F/N: Those who sense that there is an improper burden of proof shift gambit backed by selective hyperskepticism at work are correct; especially as these matters have been cogently engaged here at UD over many years, as aspects of the wider issue of design thought. First, the issue is not, whether current Evangelical or Catholic etc understandings of God are correct, the issue is first ontological root of reality containing creatures such as ourselves, which constrains possibilities for that root. Thus, we find that logic of being is pivotal, especially as informed by possible worlds speak. First, we live in a temporal-causal, thermodynamically constrained world, one that needs to be explained on a causal root. Can that be [quasi-]infinite in the past? No, as a finite stage causal temporal succession cannot traverse the implied transfinite. There is a finitely remote root of reality, root of this and other possible worlds. (This was hammered out across three years of exchanges here at UD.) Can there be a retrocausal, circular self causing of the world? No, again, as this would be a world from non being. Non being has no causal powers, and so were there ever utter non-being -- the true nothing -- such would forever obtain. That also automatically eliminates a world popping up from utter non being. Where, too, the sort of "nothing" being discussed by Krauss et al is in fact not non-being, it is a quantum foam quasi physical world, but one that is implicitly causal-temporal and thermodynamic, so it cannot be the ultimate root, it cannot have had a past without finite limit. Logic of being, constrains being and its considerations are evidence. So, we cannot find a transfinite past chain of contingent being, we need a necessary being world root. Where, a contingent being can exist in some possible worlds but would not in others, due to want of antecedent causal factors. A necessary being is part of the fabric for any world to exist and has no dependence on onward antecedent enabling, on/off causal factors. If you doubt, consider the simple case, try to imagine a world without two-ness in it, or one where it ceases to be or could cease to be. Two, will rapidly show itself to be a necessary entity, framework to any distinct possible world. Going beyond, while the evident design epitomised by finding in the cell coded strings bearing algorithmic code for protein assembly can be explained on a molecular nanotech lab some generations beyond Venter et al, the fine tuning of the cosmos to support c-chem aqueous medium cell based life points to extra cosmic, deeply knowledgeable and powerful designer capable of causing worlds. And the fine tuning evidence is a significant consideration for any serious thinker. So, the real issue is, what is the finitely remote, necessary being world root adequate to account for our world and us in it. Where -- just to be able to credibly argue, warrant and know -- we must be responsible, rational, significantly free and so morally governed creatures. This chain of reasoning leads to [parallel thread] there being first principles, first duties and first law built into our nature, which as first principles, are branch on which we all sit first truths, self evident and inescapable on pain of utter, instant absurdity. To wit:
1st – to truth, 2nd – to right reason, 3rd – to prudence [including warrant], 4th – to sound conscience, 5th – to neighbour; so also, 6th – to fairness and 7th – to justice [ . . .] xth – etc.
An easy way to see this, is to observe how, invariably [we have seen this for many months here at UD] objectors are forced to appeal to these principles just to lend their objections against such somewhat persuasive. Self-defeating. So, now, we have a bill of requisites for a causally adequate world root: enormously powerful to explain a world, high knowledge to design a fine tuned world fitted for C-Chem aqueous medium cell based life, necessary being to be a root of reality, inherently good and utterly wise to ground rational, responsible, significantly free and morally governed creatures -- us -- in a post Euthyphro, post Hume world. In this context, we raise generic ethical theism and its key actor, God as serious candidate necessary being who fulfills these requisites. Notice, no one has a good argument that God is not a serious candidate necessary being. But, instantly, that exposes the burden of warrant shift game: a serious candidate necessary being is either impossible of being as a square circle is, or else is possible of being thus present in at least one world and by being fabric to reality, actual in all worlds. In this light, atheism and hard agnosticism are found wanting, as they have no good reason to reject the possibility of God as a being. The former preferred argument, evil, collapsed decades ago i/l/o Plantinga and long since was not able to account for the good. If someone disagrees, let him or her advance a convincing reason as to why the God of ethical theism is impossible of being: _______ Prediction, that blank is and will remain unfilled. Prove me wrong, if you dare and can. Going further, such logic of being and world root considerations now point to a framework to understand God, as the One who is the inherently good, utterly wise creator of this and all worlds, a necessary and maximally great being; one, worthy of our loyalty and responsible, reasonable service in light of our evident, morally governed nature. This picture of God is instantly recognisable from Hebraic and Christian theology informed by scripture, and is articulated through systematic theology. As to direct warrant for the gospel, that pivots on the prophesied, witnessed by 500, resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, serious candidate messiah. Such an onward debate does not properly belong here at UD, but there are many places readily accessible on the Internet where that can be explored. Brief remarks and links are enough for here. So, it seems the claim that there is little or no evidence that warrants belief in God is a selectively hyperskeptical exaggeration of the actual balance on the merits. Which, Seversky, a long time commenter here at UD must know. KFkairosfocus
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
It occurs to me now some of the more religiously certain commenting in these threads remind me of my childhood
You will not find a civil discussion on any thread with those who are 100% certain of their views. There is a common phenomenon that I call the 12 o’clock/6 o’clock reaction. Someone sees something basically wrong and their reaction is that the opposite must be best. In the process they never consider that 11:30 or 12:30 may be optimal. That is what I am finding with the ID debate. Abhorrence at some religious ideas/people/practices sends people off in an equally incoherent advocacy. That is what sent Darwin off in his wild speculations as truth. In Darwin’s case, there was a small bit of truth in his wild speculations. People then glommed onto these inconsequential truths as major dogma, as major as all the religious dogma they objected to. In the mean time, truth suffers. And the ironic thing, science which is supposed to support the 6 o’clock position actually supports the 11:45 position. Aside: as typical, currently a lot of the energy in on a code/non code that is essentially irrelevant given the bigger question. But as I said, this is typical here. People are here to hold forth and constantly tell you the world is round or some other obvious triviality.jerry
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT
Seversky at 4: "Meyer can try to talk his book up all he wants but the evidence (for God) has been wanting for over two thousand years and is no better today." Per unmitigated poppycock. Just from the last 120 years or so, the evidence from modern science has confirmed several major Theistic presuppositions and, in the process, falsified several major Atheistic presuppositions In short, Atheistic Naturalism and Theism make, and have made, several major, and contradictory, predictions about what type of scientific evidence we will find. These contradictory predictions, and the evidence that is now found by modern science, can be tested against one another to see if either Atheistic Naturalism or Theism were true in their primary presuppositions. Here are a few comparisons:
1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted space-time energy-matter always existed. Theism predicted space-time energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago. 2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence. Theism predicted that God upholds this universe in its continued existence. Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics reveal that this universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence. 3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is an ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicts consciousness precedes material reality and therefore, on that presupposition, consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality. - 4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe. Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9) - 5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind. Scientists find the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. Moreover it is found, when scrutinizing the details of physics and chemistry, that not only is the universe fine-tuned for carbon based life, but is specifically fine-tuned for life like human life (R. Collins, M. Denton).- 6. Naturalism/Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe. Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex organic life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe (G. Gonzalez; Hugh Ross). - 7. Naturalism/Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11). Geochemical evidence from the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth indicates that complex photosynthetic life has existed on earth as long as water has been on the face of earth. - 8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple. Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth. The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) - 9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas. - 10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record. Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. - 11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo’) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)– 12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the separation of human intelligence from animal intelligence ‘is one of degree and not of kind’ (C. Darwin). Theism predicted that we are made in the ‘image of God’- Despite an ‘explosion of research’ in this area over the last four decades, human beings alone are found to ‘mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities.’ (Tattersall; Schwartz). Moreover, both biological life and the universe itself are found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis. 13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. - 14. Naturalism/Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) - 15. Naturalism/Materialism predicted morality is subjective and illusory. Theism predicted morality is objective and real. Morality is found to be deeply embedded in the genetic responses of humans. As well, morality is found to be deeply embedded in the structure of the universe. Embedded to the point of eliciting physiological responses in humans before humans become aware of the morally troubling situation and even prior to the event even happening. 16. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that we are merely our material bodies with no transcendent component to our being, and that we die when our material bodies die. Theism predicted that we have minds/souls that are transcendent of our bodies that live past the death of our material bodies. Transcendent, and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created or destroyed), ‘non-local’, (beyond space-time matter-energy), quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to matter-energy space-time, is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale (in every DNA and protein molecule). defense of all 16 predictions https://docs.google.com/document/d/15i87oT7IkCI0W0Hxg5mZ_8FP23MG_GTFrR0zvgKH9zU/edit
As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy (methodological naturalism), from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of the Atheist’s materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. - In fact, modern science, (particularly with the closing of the 'freedom of choice' loophole in quantum mechanics), even points us to Christianity as the correct solution to the much sought after 'theory of everything'.
Jesus Christ as the correct "Theory of Everything" - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpn2Vu8--eE
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test all things. Hold fast to what is good.
bornagain77
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT
The fact remains that design is everywhere. Without design, there is only chaos that does not exist in the universe. The laws of physics are not random, but govern without being able to violate them. To deny God is to deny everything we know to be true. Free will does exist. Firemen head into burning buildings and forests every day. Animals run away. Man chooses to go into the danger. Energy exists. Can anyone claim something that cannot be created does not exist. Without God, you must say it does not exist, since it cannot be created. To deny God is to deny reason. Mind over matter for man does exist. People walk on hot coals on purpose. Animals do not. To deny God, denies morality. There is no morality for animals. It is not wrong for chimps to kill chimps, but it is wrong for humans to murder humans. Chimps cannot murder. That is purely under the realm of man. Where is the evidence to support anything without God. There is no evidence that exist. Speciation has never been witnessed by anyone. The laws cannot randomly create themselves. Life cannot come from no life. To deny God is to deny your own uniqueness in the world. Only man has God-given abilities that are unique to each person. To deny God is to deny writers have a talent for writing.BobRyan
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
03:12 AM
3
03
12
AM
PDT
Perhaps it is just because children are smart and when they question the existence of god they find the evidence wanting.
This was certainly my experience as a kid. My local reality bore no resemblance to the stories I was being told. I also learned to avoid questioning authority figures who often seemed to fall far short of the standards of belief and behaviour they demanded of those under their control. Voicing questions or doubts produced no good outcome but often condescension, mockery, dismissal. It occurs to me now some of the more religiously certain commenting in these threads remind me of my childhood.Alan Fox
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT
Without God, there are no laws of physics. The laws are designed, not something that randomly comes about.BobRyan
July 16, 2022
July
07
Jul
16
16
2022
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT
@11 nice troll @sshole kabuki theater is actually entertaining, your crap is notAaronS1978
July 16, 2022
July
07
Jul
16
16
2022
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PDT
Sev you also made a claim that there is no God based on your unsophisticated analysis of things, which you are also required to provide some burden of proof that there isn’t a God of any kind in existence. Your personal opinion doesn’t make your claim correct or the standard This is an amateur tactic taught in most debate classes to put your opponent on the defensive and in your control They can be right and still lose the debate because you put them on the defensive And much like every amateur atheist I’ve met you will simply dismiss any proof presented to you because nothing is good enough, putting your opponent in an endless cycle of trying to prove to you that something exists that you are willfully unwilling to believe as a reality of any kind So you know where you can put your “burden of proof” tactic up, right? Presenting God too you is like presenting pearls to a swine. It’s waste of time, you wouldn’t understand, and you’ll just scatter the pearls to the mudAaronS1978
July 16, 2022
July
07
Jul
16
16
2022
09:36 PM
9
09
36
PM
PDT
The black knights never disappoint...they stick to the dodging of the burden of proof from their ivory tower of ultimate knowledge and faith in "science" to discover a natural reason for something creating itself and random genetic processes to assemble masterpieces far greater than anything man has ever made. I do not have enough faith to be a materialist. I think it is interesting that the attacks are usually against christianity and they always want to debate theology...not the scientific evidence. Here is all the evidence there is no intelligent designer:zweston
July 16, 2022
July
07
Jul
16
16
2022
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT
Relatd: God knows who you are. Again, you make the mistake of reducing God to a human level.
Oh joy, we are playing biblical Jeopardy.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
JHolo
July 16, 2022
July
07
Jul
16
16
2022
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
Or perhaps Kabuki Theater, or Theater of the Absurd.....chuckdarwin
July 16, 2022
July
07
Jul
16
16
2022
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT
Seversky at 9, God knows who you are. Again, you make the mistake of reducing God to a human level. Isaiah 55:8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD."relatd
July 16, 2022
July
07
Jul
16
16
2022
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
Relatd/7
Galatians 6:7 “Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.”
Are you saying that the Creator of all that is, the God in which you believe, has an ego so fragile that He takes mortal offense at mockery or even doubt in His existence?
1 Corinthians 1:18 “The message of the cross is foolish to those who are headed for destruction! But we who are being saved know it is the very power of God.”
What message? A mortal body died on the cross but the being who inhabited it for a while was and is immortal. According to your belief He still exists today. Mere humans have no power to harm him let alone destroy Him. He or His father could have put a stop to that trial and execution at any time they chose. So how was it anything other than assort of street theater?
Seversky
July 16, 2022
July
07
Jul
16
16
2022
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT
Caspian/6
JHolo and Seversky, What evidence are you aware of that points away from the existence of God? Or what evidence for God have you sought after but found lacking?
I was raised a Christian and in my early years believed in the existence of God without question. Roughly when I entered my teens I became increasingly aware of inconsistencies and even contradictions in Biblical accounts to the point where I no longer found it persuasive. I cannot rule out the possibility of a Creator but the burden of proof rests with those who claim there is one. I understand how important their faith is to those who believe in the Christian God but I'm not persuaded such a being exists. I could be wrong but at this point I don't think I am.
Seversky
July 16, 2022
July
07
Jul
16
16
2022
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
JH at 3, A human-centered response. Galatians 6:7 "Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap." 1 Corinthians 1:18 "The message of the cross is foolish to those who are headed for destruction! But we who are being saved know it is the very power of God."relatd
July 16, 2022
July
07
Jul
16
16
2022
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
JHolo and Seversky, What evidence are you aware of that points away from the existence of God? Or what evidence for God have you sought after but found lacking?Caspian
July 16, 2022
July
07
Jul
16
16
2022
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
There isn't any evidence that nature produced life and its diversity. If there was then Meyer couldn't say what he does. It is NOT our fault that no one can put forth a scientific explanation for our existence that doesn't include an intelligent designer.ET
July 16, 2022
July
07
Jul
16
16
2022
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
Meyer can try to talk his book up all he wants but the evidence has been wanting for over two thousand years and is no better today.Seversky
July 16, 2022
July
07
Jul
16
16
2022
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
Pastors and other religious leaders have attributed this trend [decreased belief in god] to many factors: young people being raised outside the church, an unfamiliarity with liturgy and church culture, even COVID-19.
Perhaps it is just because children are smart and when they question the existence of god they find the evidence wanting.JHolo
July 16, 2022
July
07
Jul
16
16
2022
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
I wonder if the black knights of the holy grail are getting warmed up... "I've had worse"zweston
July 16, 2022
July
07
Jul
16
16
2022
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT
Science has never pointed away from God. Scientists lying about it has. There has never been any evidence to support the denial of God. Any one who claims otherwise is either willfully lying about the lack of evidence being evidence, or willfully ignorant of what a real theory is.BobRyan
July 15, 2022
July
07
Jul
15
15
2022
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT
1 4 5 6

Leave a Reply