Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Atheism Delusion: The Destructive Power of Materialist Indoctrination

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I was an atheist, brainwashed by the establishment, into my 40s. I got a triple dose of indoctrination: from the public schools, from the secular environment in which I grew up (a small college town, surrounded by intellectual university types), and from the university itself. There was no doubt in my mind that God was a human fabrication and that we were the product of purposeless Darwinian mechanisms. In retrospect, however, I realize that I accepted these conclusions completely uncritically, which is ironic, because educated intellectual types supposedly take pride in critical thinking.

I was once debating “evolution” with a friend, and I was spouting all the platitudes I had been taught. He said, “Look, rather than debating me, why don’t you read a book, Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton”? I assumed that it would be some nonsensical religious hogwash, but I was in for a big surprise.

I devoured the book in a couple of days, and when I was finished I slapped myself on the forehead and thought, “I’ve been conned all my life!” My atheism was quickly unraveling.

This is what the hysterical anti-ID folks fear: Once the evidence of modern science is evaluated without the blinders of a passionately materialistic worldview, design screams at us from every corner.

Since 1994 my Christian walk has been the most rewarding experience of my life, and I can’t imagine life without it. Sunday morning is the highlight of my week. Contrary to what Richard Dawkins thinks, our Calvary Chapel ministry has produced nothing but good. I’ve seen nothing but positive influences in people’s lives. I’ve seen marriages and families healed, drug addicts liberated, and people serving and supporting each other in many ways. Safe Harbor, an international relief organization, was founded through our church and pastor Gary Kusunoki. I play keyboards in the praise band, and our worship team has been active in Teen Challenge, a Christian drug-rehab program that has an 85% longterm success rate, unheard of in the secular world. I mention all this in support of my claim in the title of this post, that materialist indoctrination is destructive, and deprives people of all the gifts, opportunities and rewards I’ve listed above.

And the destruction continues. The son of our praise band bass player, a freshman in high school, came home a couple of weeks ago and announced to his dad that science has proved that we are the product of “evolution” and that he no longer believes in God. His dad told me that his son really respects me and asked if I would talk with him. The son, who inherited his dad’s natural musical ability, asked if I would teach him piano, and I said yes. I’ve decided to make it my personal mission to teach him music and attempt to undo some of the damage that has been done by the public schools, which is an absolutely unconscionable travesty.

Last night I took the son to the Case For A Creator conference at Biola university. It was an amazing event with clips from the new Illustra Media DVD, Case For A Creator, and presentations by Lee Strobel, Jay Richards, Steve Meyer, JP Moreland, and more. I think it had a big impact.

The irony is that, especially based on what we now know from modern science, materialism is the irrational and illogical conclusion, yet this is what is promoted in public education. Furthermore, atheism is way too much trouble. It takes a tremendous amount of effort to explain away all the blatant evidence for the existence of God.

Comments
Bob, I will not respond to a link to the TalkOrigins propaganda site. However, if you want to discuss your own theory or opinions of how information can be produced without a mind I’ll do my best to respond to it. A question for you: Do you believe it is possible there may be a God?shaner74
December 11, 2006
December
12
Dec
11
11
2006
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT
58. mike1962 I don't know. Not very good for keeping the discussion alive, huh? ;)kvwells
December 11, 2006
December
12
Dec
11
11
2006
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT
55. Bob OH The sort of evidence would be something that materialism couldn’t explain. There is the problem here of the necessity of overthrowing the ad futurum loophole which is a major doctrine of materialism. This argument is a non-sequitur as well: "materialist science has answered many questions, therfore it will answer all questions." But, alas we are required to make our decisions based on the information available, not what we have on request--it may never arrive. BTW- How is it the materialist model for what a God-created cosmos would look like seems often less than childish? "It seems the world is not a flannelboard church school lesson, therfore God doesn't exist!"kvwells
December 11, 2006
December
12
Dec
11
11
2006
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
Bob, OH said, The sort of evidence would be something that materialism couldn’t explain.The problem is that materialism offers the hope that everything will, in time, be explained by materialism. Thus anything offered as evidence will be explained one day by materialism.Jaz
December 11, 2006
December
12
Dec
11
11
2006
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT
"Emergence" is just a Darwinian faith term that means nothing more than "we don't know" just like "randomness." It is explains precisely nothing and you may as well substitute the word "miracle" when you see it. When people don't know something, why can't they just say "I don't know."mike1962
December 11, 2006
December
12
Dec
11
11
2006
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
Bob OH --The sort of evidence would be something that materialism couldn’t explain. The existence of energy/matter.tribune7
December 11, 2006
December
12
Dec
11
11
2006
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
Oh dear. Bob OH, every student of Informatics will tell you that it is nonsense you are linking to at talkorigins. You'd be better off reading and contemplating this book: "In The Beginning Was Information" by Werner Gitt provides a rigorously formal presentation of most of the information concepts , and his book is well worth reading. Gitt’s argument is summarized in the following 8 theorems: (1) No information can exist without a code. (2) No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention. (3) No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics [note: apobetics is Gitt’s term, referring to the fact that there can be shown to be a will and a larger objective behind all instances of intent]. (4) No information can exist in purely statistical processes. (5) No information can exist without a transmitter. (6) No information chain can exist without a mental origin. (7) No information can exist without an initial mental source; that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity. (8) No information can exist without a will. These theorems are similar to the laws of gravity and the laws of thermodynamics, in that no counterexample has ever been found. No one has ever been able to point out an exception. Numerous rebuttals to Gitt’s theorems have been made, but in each instance, every one ignores or dismisses semantics and intent, properties that are essential to all forms of communication. Unless / until a contradictory example can be found, these theorems are taken to be universally true.Srdjan
December 11, 2006
December
12
Dec
11
11
2006
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
Srdjan -
I am interested to know, what type of evidence would Bob OH accept that will show Materialism as false?
I thought I'd tackle this in a separate comment: the other one's too long anyway. And I agree that this is an interesting question. The sort of evidence would be something that materialism couldn't explain. One example would be a miracle (e.g. someone walking on water) that was repeatable enough that it could be tested and prodded around from all sorts of perspectives, until it was confirmed that it couldn't be explained (and even then I might hold out hope!). Of course, if the miracle was a large guy with a long beard popping up throwing round either thunderbolts or presents, I might ask for a little less precision in the experiments... The other thing that might work would be with consciousness: having that two identical processes, one conscious (i.e. a person), and one not conscious (e.g. a computer) giving different results. How you would set the experiment up, I don't know. I'll leave that as a challenge to you lot. BobBob OH
December 11, 2006
December
12
Dec
11
11
2006
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
Seconds out, round - err - whatever shaner74 -
Bob wrote: “1- Universe is not eternal Huh? I can’t see how this would be evidence either way.” Why not? When the universe was thought to be eternal, many atheists said that a universe with a beginning would be proof of a creator, so what’s changed?
Nothing? Obviously athiests weren't of a single opinion then, and perhaps aren't now. We can disagree amongst each other just as much as Christians can.
“3- Information rich and irreducibly complex biological systems I don’t see why information rich systems are evidence against materialism” Again, why not? The only place we know of information coming from is a mind, period.
Really? Crandaddy -
Therefore, if one has two thoughts in succession and the first causes the second, the causation must be by virtue of the physical properties and not the meaningful (propositional) content of the first thought.
This is only a problem if it is not possible to represent thoughts materialistically. I offer what I am typing now as a dis-proof of your explanation.
BTW, I think I’ll take a stab at this one too:
If you have to provide evidence that a materialist description of consciousness is impossible.
A materialist description of consciousness does appear impossible. To see why, let’s consider what consciousness is. Consciousness is first-personhood; it is experience, itself. In order to offer a materialistic account of it, one would have to offer a third-person account which fully encapsulates the concept of first-personhood. But how is this possible in principle? I can see no way that it is. OK, but that could just be your lack of imagination: you're only using an argument from incredulity, which ain't going to work. If you can't see that something is possible in principle, but you also can't see any demonstration that it isn't, then better to leave it as an open question. BobBob OH
December 11, 2006
December
12
Dec
11
11
2006
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
50. Chris Hyland However a lack of a natural model for abiogenesis is in no way evidence for a non-natural model. You are correct, but it does remove any and all grounds for dogmatism on the subject. This is the point. In the U.S. many of us are concerned that our children are the subjects of dogmatic indoctrination concerning materialism. Now the neccessity for the actual occurence (not just the possibilty) of abiogenesis is the root of materialism and NDE. Yet we are told there are such difficulties in OOL that a coherent model may not be worked out for a long time, if ever. "We know abiogenesis is possible, because we know it happend, because we know life was not created, but we're having the deuce of a time coming up with anything at all evidentially. But have no fear, kiddies, we'll come up with something convincing pretty soon. Remember our motto: 'Ad Futurum!'"kvwells
December 11, 2006
December
12
Dec
11
11
2006
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
At the risk of tooting my own horn just a bit too much, allow me to add my two cents' worth to the discussion. In my novel, Wonderboy and the Black Hole of Nixvy Veck, the novel's central figure, a former PhD student in astronomy (identified only as "Tex"), undergoes a personal journey from atheism to theism after considering the Huxleyan argument: an infinite number of monkeys banging randomly upon typewriters, given an infinite amount of time, will eventually produce the entire works of Shakespeare. Tex realizes that Huxley's argument simply doesn't wash. An infinite number of monkeys will NEVER produce the works of Shakespeare, no matter how long they work at it. (The works of Shakespeare incorporate complex, specified information, which is ALWAYS the product of intelligence.) Additionally, Tex realizes two other important facts: 1. There is no such thing as an infinite number of monkeys. 2. There is no such thing as an infinite amount of time, which refutes the materialists' appeal to an infinite number of chance events (brought about by an infinitely old universe) to explain an ordered universe. Ultimately, Tex realizes that it takes far more faith to be an atheist than a theist.TerryL
December 11, 2006
December
12
Dec
11
11
2006
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
"The most interesting was about the avian lung and its unique structure, and how it’s impossible to get it by intermidiate forms starting from reptiles ending with birds." There are several extinct reptiles (Im not sure about living reptiles), which appear to have more avian like systems than mammal like systems. This was discovered after Denton wrote his book i think. "I am interested to know, what type of evidence would Bob OH accept that will show Materialism as false" Personally I don't think it can be proven false or true, so I am agnostic on the issue. I should point out thought that ID does not necessarily violate materialism in my view. "Bob, what bothers me the most when it comes to ToE, materialism, uniformitarianism & atheism is that those doctrines are promoted and thought in schools all around the globe WITHOUT presenting to the kids that all these have major problems defining life and providing clear, scientific evidence and/or models for the origins of life on this planet." I had a fairly typical state school education in the UK and I was taught Christianity as absolute truth up until about age 9, and in high school was taught that we most certainly do not have a good model for the origin of life. However a lack of a natural model for abiogenesis is in no way evidence for a non-natural model. Dave. Question 1: If you are referring to the origin of transcription itself as far as I am aware neither statement is a particularly strong inference at the moment. 2. No in my opinion, but a lot of ID supporters as well as ID detractors would disagree with me. 3 & 4. Sure it's possible and the who isn't important. What is important is the how. 5. 1Chris Hyland
December 11, 2006
December
12
Dec
11
11
2006
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT
dopderbeck, Thanks for the link. I have not had time to check out the book yet but plan to. I too find the idea of the mind as an emergent property a strong proposition and not inconsistent with the Bible depending on one's view of the relationship or existence of mind and soul. And yes, Christians have historically put themselves in difficult postions by 'overplaying our hand' begining with claiming the earth must be the center of the universe based on strict literal interpretations of a few verses.devilsadvocate
December 11, 2006
December
12
Dec
11
11
2006
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
@Bob Bob, what bothers me the most when it comes to ToE, materialism, uniformitarianism & atheism is that those doctrines are promoted and thought in schools all around the globe WITHOUT presenting to the kids that all these have major problems defining life and providing clear, scientific evidence and/or models for the origins of life on this planet. As we all know, the origin's questions are still pending. No scientist has ever been able to: - present a scientific, validated model of the primordial earth ground & atmosphere conditions (chemical compounds, pressure, temperature & similar stuff); - present an experimentally validated scientific model which will demonstrate that the inorganic "simple" chemicals can create complex organic chemicals (proteins, for example); - present a scientific model that would allow for the complex organic molecules (aminoacids) to organize themselves in order to able to code INFORMATION that is used by a cell to feed, function and multiply - by the way, Information would - IMHO - immediately mean PURPOSE; - present a scientific model/experiment in which we will be able to observe the INFORMATION came into existence from other source than a MIND. You see, all these items are in the core of understanding the life's origins, yet they are still unresolved by the atheistic scientists. However, materialistic point of view is presented in schools as a fact, which is - at this point - a lie. Going further, if you forbid the criticism of a world view, you attend directly to the human rights and you are destroying the core of the current human civilization: you destroy democracy itself.Sladjo
December 11, 2006
December
12
Dec
11
11
2006
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
Srdjan: "I am interested to know, what type of evidence would Bob OH accept that will show Materialism as false?" That's a very interesting question...Sladjo
December 11, 2006
December
12
Dec
11
11
2006
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT
Lots of interesting and thought-provoking comments, but here's my take: In the end, one must put feet to his faith (and we all have faith, of one kind or another, in something) or it's all empty philosophy. I'm certainly no saint. I just appreciate the opportunities I've been given through our church to be of service to others. This is the kind of thing that gives life ultimate meaning and purpose.GilDodgen
December 10, 2006
December
12
Dec
10
10
2006
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT
devilsadvocate -- sounds like a great class! Wish I could be there to take it! On the TE side, I'd suggest the volume edited by Keith Miller, "Perspectives on an Evolving Creation." I don't exactly hold the position that book advocates, but it is a good source for understanding it. There also are many excellent articles from a variety of perspectives (including ID) on the ASA website, http://www.asa3.org. On the question of materialism, consciousness, and knowledge: I think we need to be careful not to overstate our case here. I agree that the Christian worldview provides a more coherent understanding of the mind and of knowledge than a materialist view (though, honestly, I think Moreland's dualism isn't quite the right approach). However, it's certainly not impossible to argue for the existence of mind from a materialist perspective. The idea that mind is an emergent property of the physical structures and chemical messages of the brain and nervous system is a powerful idea. Personally, I lean towards a non-reductive physicalist position, which I think is consistent with this scientific theory of mind as well as more consistent with the Hebrew-Biblical unified view of the person than the strict Greek body / soul dualism that others propose. So, not only is the notion that mind is rooted in physical structures (matter) scientifically grounded, it's also consistent with Christian theology. The strong reductionst view -- that mind is entirely reducible to matter -- I agree is circular and self-defeating, because it results in an absolute determinism that doesn't really allow for pondering things like "what is mind." However, I think that among materialists and atheists, this is not the majority view. As to knowledge, I think the argument that evolution couldn't produce reliable noetic equipment is unpersuasive. Evolution certainly would produce noetic equipment that has enough reliability for the organism to survive. It is true that evolution would not likely produce noetic equipment that would allow an organism to know "perfect" "absolute" truth, but that is merely a statement of the limitations of human perception -- limitations that we as Christians grant as a matter of our originally created condition (our thoughts are not God's thoughts and the extent of our knowledge does not even approach God's) as well as because of the noetic effects of sin. Re: Denton: I think we also need to be careful about relying too much on his early work (including "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis." In later work, Denton has softened some of the criticisms he raised in that book as a result of developments in genetics.dopderbeck
December 10, 2006
December
12
Dec
10
10
2006
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT
For consciousness please see David Chalmer's website. He is a leading philosopher on the subject.Collin
December 10, 2006
December
12
Dec
10
10
2006
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
It seems like Denton's book had great effect. It was the book that first made Behe suspect evolution too. I haven't read all of the book, however I've seen some parts of it. The most interesting was about the avian lung and its unique structure, and how it's impossible to get it by intermidiate forms starting from reptiles ending with birds. I didn't read any response from the darwinist side, so are there any convincing responses to this issue? or only the usual "just-so" story?IDist
December 10, 2006
December
12
Dec
10
10
2006
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT
Bob wrote in comment #32:
CranDaddy - I’m aftraid I can’t understand your argument. I hit this and can’t work out where it comes from:
But if materialism is true, then reasons-explanations cannot be causes-explanaitons.
Okay, I'll try to clarify. If materialism is true, then all that exists is physical matter and energy, and no cause can occur unless it is a physical cause. Therefore, if one has two thoughts in succession and the first causes the second, the causation must be by virtue of the physical properties and not the meaningful (propositional) content of the first thought. Reasons (logical and mathematical principles) do not exist and can have no causal influence on mental events if materialism is true. BTW, I think I'll take a stab at this one too:
If you have to provide evidence that a materialist description of consciousness is impossible.
A materialist description of consciousness does appear impossible. To see why, let's consider what consciousness is. Consciousness is first-personhood; it is experience, itself. In order to offer a materialistic account of it, one would have to offer a third-person account which fully encapsulates the concept of first-personhood. But how is this possible in principle? I can see no way that it is. Consciousness is an intentional state which means it possesses the quality of being of or about something. But how can one material state be of or about any other material state? How can any material state have any intrinsic meaning at all? The very notion of meaning, itself, loses its meaning if materialism is true. I fail to see how materialism does anything but completely and utterly implode as a coherent rational belief.crandaddy
December 10, 2006
December
12
Dec
10
10
2006
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
I am interested to know, what type of evidence would Bob OH accept that will show Materialism as false? You'd think the evidence that shows Bob OH, the person, doesn't really exist would do the trick. Matter and energy don't have personalities - unless you assume that they do just so you, the person, doesn't cease to exist by the time you reach the end of your materialist argument. The god of empirical science has spoken: There is no "you", only matter and energy. If the materialist wants to include personalities in the material world then let science prove it first.Lurker
December 10, 2006
December
12
Dec
10
10
2006
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT
I am interested to know, what type of evidence would Bob OH accept that will show Materialism as false?Srdjan
December 10, 2006
December
12
Dec
10
10
2006
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT
Fifth question: Choose the better description. 1) Explanations given by the scientific method are based upon upon logical connections between bits of empirical evidence. 2) Explanations given by the scientific method are based upon upon illogical connections between bits of empirical evidence. [ ] 1 [ ] 2DaveScot
December 10, 2006
December
12
Dec
10
10
2006
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
dopderbeck, I strongly agree with your point and to address the problem in my own church I am teaching a Sunday school series called- Interpreting General Revelation: the Relationship between Science and Faith. I am on the third part of a five part series. My focus is to present significant scientific theories and discuss their philisophical and theolgical implications. So far it has been well-received but I have only gone over definitions of terms and the heliocentered universe/Galileo trial. Next Sunday's plan is laws of motion, atomic theory, 2nd law of thermodynamics, relativity, and quantum theory- a lot of material I know but I try to address only the aspects of theories that have philisophical/theological relevance. The last two classes will be cosmology and evolution (I expect to run into more trouble here). Any help with references or expert commentary for all aspects, scientific, philisophical or Biblical, would be appreciated . Bob OhH A point CranDaddy alludes to is that if explanations created through logical reasoning and observation are merely the product of chemical reactions(and at the same time are produced by those thoughts/ observations) and that beliefs based on faith or anything else for that matter are also the product of chemical reactions then we have no reason to prefer or find superior/more true one chemical reaction over another. Logically, if materialism is true it can not support itself through either logic or empiricism.devilsadvocate
December 10, 2006
December
12
Dec
10
10
2006
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
Question four. Intelligent agency is observed in one instance in the universe. Choose which possibility is better supported by this: 1) no other instance of intelligent agency yet to be observed is possible 2) other intelligent agencies yet to be observed are possible [ ] 1 [ ] 2 DaveScot
December 10, 2006
December
12
Dec
10
10
2006
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
Question three. There is only one scientifically established class of intelligent agency capable of creating complex digital code driven machinery. That class is humanity. Does it logically follow that no other class of intelligent agency with that capability ever existed? [ ] yes [ ] noDaveScot
December 10, 2006
December
12
Dec
10
10
2006
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
Second question: The world today is filled with two classes of complex digital code driven machinery. The origin of one class is known to be the result of natural intelligent agency using understood laws of physics. Does it logically follow that the other class of machinery where the origin is unknown must is confined to one of only two possibilities: devoid of intelligent causation or supernatural? [ ] yes [ ] noDaveScot
December 10, 2006
December
12
Dec
10
10
2006
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
Pop quiz for Bob OH. 1) The process of random mutation + natural selection is observed and imagined as being capable of creating complex digital code driven machinery. It is inferred this is how the machinery of life came to exist. 2) The process of intelligent design is observed creating complex digital code driven machinery. It is inferred this is how the machinery of life came to exist. Mark the stronger inference. [ ] 1 [ ] 2DaveScot
December 10, 2006
December
12
Dec
10
10
2006
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
Bob wrote: “1- Universe is not eternal Huh? I can’t see how this would be evidence either way.” Why not? When the universe was thought to be eternal, many atheists said that a universe with a beginning would be proof of a creator, so what’s changed? That would be like me saying an eternal universe is not evidence for atheism. “3- Information rich and irreducibly complex biological systems I don’t see why information rich systems are evidence against materialism” Again, why not? The only place we know of information coming from is a mind, period. It may be shown at some point that the mind itself is a material process, which came about through Darwinian processes. That hasn’t happened yet, and I wouldn’t hold your breath. “and there are plenty of explanations for how IC systems can evolve.” Sure there are Bob, but they are stories , not proof. In the end there is only one right explanation. I think at some point you need to stop and think about all the things you have to account for by saying: “we don’t have an explanation for this right now, but rest assured materialism will provide it someday” Either you must admit the possibility of a creator, or admit that atheism might not be correct.shaner74
December 10, 2006
December
12
Dec
10
10
2006
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
Bob OH there are plenty of explanations for how IC systems can evolve You mean there are plenty of imagined ways. There's only one known way. It's the way the IC system you just used to transmit your comment "evolved". DaveScot
December 10, 2006
December
12
Dec
10
10
2006
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply