Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Materialists retreat? Of course.

arroba Email

Barry mentioned this fact. Now let’s ask:

What has materialism ever given to science? How about:

How about insane theories about the origin of the universe? Anybody who thinks that we are a hologram should ask what we are a hologram of?

If only, Barb! Unfortunately, it's just the pot! Axel
5for, That's not necessarily the Christian version. God is transcendent. Nature is not. Nature does wonders and we can find explanations for life and existence by studying nature because God IS; not despite God. iIn my view, without belief in God, we miss something very important about nature. We don't get nature without God. There's still a mystery to it that I find very enchanting. It allows me to think of the cosmos in ways that are more outside the box, because behind it all is a being who has no limits, even though nature does. It makes learning about the cosmos all the more interesting to me. CannuckianYankee
CY, one person's mundanity is another person's enchantment I guess. I find the naturalistic explanation for where the atoms that make up my body come from (forged in the centre of star and then erupted into the universe when the star explodes) way more enchanting than the Christian version - "God made them". 5for
Humans are wired for a fascination with enchantment. especially as children, we enjoy the presence of mystery and not having every answer be something that is as mundane as "nature did it." Materialists are not immune to this deficiency. They just invent new enchantments they believe are more in line with their thinking; things like multiverses, and magical mutations, because they can't stand to live in a material universe that is entrapped by their own metaphysical assumptions. Carl Sagan must have been one of the saddest materialists, because he understood the vacuous nature of what he believed. "The Cosmos is all there is...." You can't yell for help, 'cause there is none. CannuckianYankee
Good point, Barb. Carl Sagan made it sound like this was some great and terrible discovery. But, as a matter of fact, it's simply an unsupported assumption on par with the one that about our ultimately being able to understand Science. Notice that Stephen Hawking's multiverses would now be at odds with Sagan's concept . . . Querius
By asserting that "the cosmos is all that ever was, is, or will be" (paraphrasing Carl Sagan), all materialism has done is to cut off scientific inquiry. Lewontin clarified the point further, stating that scientists have an a priori commitment to materialism and therefore cannot look elsewhere for the answers. What's ironic is the fact that while some atheist scientists decry religion and its dogma, they are blinded to the dogma of materialism as part of the scientific process. Pot, meet kettle. Barb
Of related note: Digital Physics Argument for God's Existence - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Xsp4FRgas Digital Physics Argument Premise 1: Simulations can only exist is a computer or a mind. Premise 2: The universe is a simulation. Premise 3: A simulation on a computer still must be simulated in a mind. Premise 4: Therefore, the universe is a simulation in a mind (2,3). Premise 5: This mind is what we call God. Conclusion: Therefore, God exists. Related notes: Is God No Better Than A Special Computer? - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xinwkb_b4k4 Quantum Computing Promises New Insights, Not Just Supermachines - Scott Aaronson - December 2011 Excerpt: And yet, even though useful quantum computers might still be decades away, many of their payoffs are already arriving. For example, the mere possibility of quantum computers has all but overthrown a conception of the universe that scientists like Stephen Wolfram have championed. That conception holds that, as in the “Matrix” movies, the universe itself is basically a giant computer, twiddling an array of 1’s and 0’s in essentially the same way any desktop PC does. Quantum computing has challenged that vision by showing that if “the universe is a computer,” then even at a hard-nosed theoretical level, it’s a vastly more powerful kind of computer than any yet constructed by humankind. Indeed, the only ways to evade that conclusion seem even crazier than quantum computing itself: One would have to overturn quantum mechanics, or else find a fast way to simulate quantum mechanics using today’s computers. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/science/scott-aaronson-quantum-computing-promises-new-insights.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=science bornagain77

Leave a Reply