The challenges that materialist atheism cannot face effectively

markf says,

I see no mention of Bill Dembski’s Refrigerator in posts 38, 70 or 79.

Ah, the atheist has suddenly shut off his faculty of imagination, which was previously running full steam. I wonder why. Post 35 says God is an invisible gremlin. Post 45 says God is a giant cockroach. Post 50 insists that God is a giant cockroach. Post 55 and 64 say that God is a green cockroach. Post 70 says that God is a superman with a white beard (Darwin?). Post 74 says that God is a WWII bomber. Post 76 says that God is Bill Dembski's refrigerator. Fair enough. But why specifically disbelieve in one refrigerator, Bill Dembski's? What about all the other refrigerators, including your own? Shouldn't an atheist disbelieve in the existence of those too? Is there something special about Bill Dembski's refrigerator as opposed to his other kitchen appliances? What about his blender or waffle-iron? The level of evidence for the nonexistence of all those appliances is roughly the same. It seems somewhat arbitrary for an atheist to deny the existence of Bill Dembski's refrigerator, but not his waffle-iron or egg-beater. Vladimir Krondan

think you should read Superjer’s beautifully concise post more closely. He said these are fascinating topics. You can be fascinated by such topics without believing you know the answer and without needing to know the answer to get on with living. No question. But that's not where the bridge stops for most of your most prolific atheist or Doubting Thomas.com type sites that spend volumnes of print criticizing theology or what not. One assumes they have a competing supplantation in mind. As to morals, even WITHIN certain faiths we have statements like the apostle Paul (who KNEW the old Jewish law more than any other entity besides Moses and God), who said circumcision is nothing and not doing it is nothing. Rules and covenants change. Most people are not actually believers in any meaningful sense of the word, at least not in the orthodox(with a little "o") sense of the word. You commonly hear both faithful types and atheist types scolding the "bible belt" or bolstering it or using the term "christian nation" for better or for ill. It is a mixed bag. Dave Scott asks how can we be so advanced technologically and be a nation so religious? He means to ask, of course, if the hard core nontheists think relgiousity is detrimental to the advancement of science, why is the US the top top. Two observations: Most of your "top dog" researchers and universities and most other foundations that process the latest findings on anything hardly have many of the faithful in them. A quick scan of the NAS, the NSF, and similar organizations shows little religious thinking among the top brass science careers. Second, America is not a "Christian nation"---in the sense of the word commonly meant. We are a nation of mouthiness about religion. Ask your average parishoner to give you a rundown and justification of the Faith or works of the church fathers. Not doable--by most. Atheists don't like our religious nature and want us to be something along the lines of Sweden. Faithful types point to the "believes in God" stats as proof we are a "religious people." Some disappointment to all above. We are provisionally atheistic. That's how we live and work unless we witness tragedy or whatnot. As apologist Darek Barefoot has said, many people mumble "God talk" and sprinkle it on their meals like ground pepper, but few Americans would qualify as having a relationship with a diety of any type. The Wiccans might even come the closest more so than your average Bible thumper attendee of First Church in small towns. Notions, or mere notions, about God or faith are not the same thing as "being a believer" in any meaningful sense of the word. Provisional atheism (how we ACT in our everyday lives) to the effect that God's existence is not even noteworthy, is the rule of thumb. S Wakefield Tolbert

Vladimir Please be a bit more explicit. I assume stands for Bill Dembski’s Refrigerator? I see no mention of Bill Dembski’s Refrigerator in posts 38, 70 or 79. markf

markf said,

I am not aware that atheists in general have expressed any opinion on this subject.

In post 38 you said you don't believe in BDR, though you were careful to add that you have no incontrovertible proof that BDR does not exist. In post 70 you assert there is no convincing evidence for BDR, which contradicts what you said earlier about Bill Dembski's Refrigerator. In post 79, superjer, an atheist, declares that BDR strikes him as fantasy. Vladimir Krondan

RE 80 it DOES seem that many atheists and agnostics are fascinated by theology, the origin of life, the origin of mind, and the evolution of morals. I think you should read Superjer's beautifully concise post more closely. He said these are fascinating topics. You can be fascinated by such topics without believing you know the answer and without needing to know the answer to get on with living. On morals. Our ideas on good and evil are a fascinating and complex blend of what we derive from our culture and fundamental human motives such as compassion and desire for fairness (probably evolved to allow us to function effectivly in society). It is the second element that stops morality being entirely relative. Religion is part of our culture and actually part of the relative element. That's why one religion will approve circumscision and another will not - but the vast majority of humanity independent of religion will accept the argument"that's not fair" markf

So why do atheists insist that BDR does not exist? Vladimir I think I am missing some context here. Does Bill Dembski's refridgerator have some special significance? I took it quite literally. I think it extremely likely he has one - because most American households do. I am not aware that atheists in general have expressed any opinion on this subject. markf

markf said,

There is quite overwhelming independent evidence for BDR

So why do atheists insist that BDR does not exist? Vladimir Krondan

Hi Superjer: Well, if you're serious here, then my response to all THAT would be that while it is not necessary to explore ANY topic while holding ANY kind of belief system (or as you claim, lack therein), it DOES seem that many atheists and agnostics are fascinated by theology, the origin of life, the origin of mind, and the evolution of morals. Michael Shermer and the prolific Richard Dawkins among many certainly have things to say about all the above, as do the web stalkers like George Smith, as did the late Madeylyn Murray O'Hare. Some have tried to make an entire philosophy of life out of such notions that includes everything from politics to what you should eat and whether apes and dogs should be used in research. Presumably such notions have to have SOME kind of starting point to a discussion of morals. You are outgunned and outnumbered in the realm of nontheists who think non of the above has any relevence to your life. As to your take on the word "evil", while SOME things are common to most civilizations both past and present, the application of the laws regarding this is not consistence, and varies by culture as much as the definition of other items we think are "evil." How do you decide? Atheists commonly say "think for oneself". Not a problem--and a great idea. But are not most of what we think about "good and evil" (except for general "feelings" from the human conscience, which is another matter) derived from society--or culture? And just rehashed versions of what people learned in Sunday School? S Wakefield Tolbert

Hi, I'm an atheist. And this article is ridiculous. Your 4 challenges to atheism: 1. Origin of the universe 2. Origin of life 3. Origin of the mind 4. Origin of morality Atheism is not INTENDED to answer any of these questions. It is intellectually dishonest to fault atheism for not doing something it is not even intended to do. I'm an atheist and that means: every God I've ever heard of strikes me as fantasy. That's it. That's the sum of my atheism. My beliefs about 1-4 are unrelated to atheism. On 1-3: I don't know. Interesting topics, certainly, but I don't require knowledge of these to live. How would life even be different if we all knew exactly how the universe started? On 4: This one is easy. Don't be evil -- it works! superjer

Vladimir An atheist has the liberty to substitute whatever he likes for the word ‘God’, be it flying spaghetti monsters or pink unicorns or whatever. Atheists, being fair-minded, will no doubt extend that freedom to others. And so, God is Bill Dembski’s Refrigerator (the BDR). Atheists either do not believe in the existence of BDR, or they strongly deny the assertion ‘BDR exists’. Therefore, atheists are lunatics. I don't get your point. There is quite overwhelming independent evidence for BDR which does not apply to God or Pink Unicorns. markf

markf: "There are also other problems in the idea of the cause of the beginning of the universe. Causality is logically tied to time - a cause precedes an effect - but there is no time outside the universe. I could go on - but can you at least see that the idea is not ludicrous?" The fact is that a cause could be simultaneous with its effect (at least this is a possibility) and there is some philosophical work being done on Eternal-Temporal Simultanaeity (Stump and Kretzman (sp?)) The fact is that it is not obvious that a cause always precedes its effect, however, that point is otiose since we are talking about the beginning 'of' time and not a time before time. It seems perfectly consistent that if an Eternal being like the theistic God exists he can cause the beginning of time/space without any changes to our notion of causality. JT75

geoffrobinson said,

Just occurred to me: atheism is like “Waiting for Godot”. Always arriving, never arrived.

The 4th century theologian St. Gregory Nazianzen once remarked that pagan learning is like a woman forever in labor, never giving birth. Borne said,

Atheism is a system of denials of reality... Nothing in atheism can be proven.

An atheist will tell you that atheism is by definition the absence of particular beliefs from his mind. This is what he wants you to believe makes him what he is, an atheist. But this is a descriptive statement about the contents of someone's mind. It has nothing to do with anything else. An atheist will put forth many assertions about God, morality, man, Christianity, the universe, the meaning of life or lack thereof, and when called to defend these, he will point to his head and say 'atheism means there is no such-and-such property in my mind, that is all'. And therefore you must believe, contrary to common sense, that because of this, the atheist is not making any assertions at all. But this is much like North Korea defining itself to be democratic, or like a Marxist defining himself as someone who lacks capitalistic beliefs, or defining a dog to be an absence of cat, and so on. You will notice that much of the argumentation with atheists (even between atheists) revolves around the definition of atheism. See wikipedia for a hilarious example of definitional agony. That is so because how atheists insist on defining themselves has no congruence to what they actually are. And everyone knows this. Borne then said,

Of course they always come back with idiocies like, “can’t prove there are no invisible pink unicorns either so they must exist too?”

An atheist has the liberty to substitute whatever he likes for the word 'God', be it flying spaghetti monsters or pink unicorns or whatever. Atheists, being fair-minded, will no doubt extend that freedom to others. And so, God is Bill Dembski's Refrigerator (the BDR). Atheists either do not believe in the existence of BDR, or they strongly deny the assertion 'BDR exists'. Therefore, atheists are lunatics. Vladimir Krondan

Markf said, in part: The quote from CS Lewis is the argument from morality not the cosmological argument. Yes, but that, I think, is the REAL gist of what usually passes for "argument" about the "way things are" in the Cosmos. Something is bad. Something is "off"--the world is just "unseemly" at times. For those who've suffered great loss I frequently hear the comment to the effect that "THAT was the living end of God for me" and that "even IF His works are manifest in the products of nature, He dosen't care much for living creatures.", etc. Even humorists like PJ O'Rourke picked up on this saying in jest that God is a country club Republican and its kinda hard to get a piece of His real estate. More so than scientific arguments that all sides admit have to fine-tweak the very definitions of things to see if the Cosmos is even the KIND of place where a design parameter can be detected against background chaos, the MORAL side of things stands out the most--in MOST people's minds. That may be fair or unfair (yet another question). But so what. There it is. Lewis is simply saying that were it not for the rule of opposites and contrasts, we would not have a definition of love were it not for evil, nor of light if not for dark. Not of peace and harmonization if not for chaos and filth. Nothing of satisfaction if not for striving and suffering. And so on... As to the micro-world of particle duality, this is the apparent look of things, and in any case even if the case there is no real translation to the MACRO level. Particles that pop around probably still have some essence that allows this apparent contradiction of common sense, just as the famous separation experiments where a spin can be imparted on a particle from miles away so long as you have part of it closeby to be manipulated. Universes don't have a sample size more than one to test the notion of "popping out" from nothing anyhow. The MACRO does not necessarily follow the micro S Wakefield Tolbert

Borne All sorts of interesting things in your post. Yes but saying “I don’t know” makes one an agnostic. Not an atheist Not exactly. You don't have to have definitive proof that something doesn't exist not to believe in it. You have no idea what is on Titan's (at least until the results of the Cassini-Huygens mission are published). You don't have definitive proof there isn't a world war II bomber there. But I bet you don't believe it or describe yourself as agnostic on the issue. But your universe without a cause is still ludicrous. There is no such thing as an event without a cause. I wish I had your confidence. In the last 100 years we have found that time passes differently depending how fast your are going some things can be both particles and waves at the same time the entire universe began in a singularity Our preconceptions and ideas of "what must be so" are shattered at regular intervals. As Lewis Wolpert says "Science is unnatural because the world just happens to be built in a way that does not fit with common sense" My quantum science is pretty ropey but I think that many physicists already accept some events at the quantum level do not have causes. What causes a lump of radioactive matter to emit an alpha particle at a given moment? I believe the theory is that it is unpredictable. It just happens. There are also other problems in the idea of the cause of the beginning of the universe. Causality is logically tied to time - a cause precedes an effect - but there is no time outside the universe. I could go on - but can you at least see that the idea is not ludicrous? The quote from CS Lewis is the argument from morality not the cosmological argument. I could write an essay about that too - but it would take far too long. Rgds markf

markf: "nothing irrational, dishonest or inconsistent with saying “I don’t know” in response to these questions." Yes but saying "I don't know" makes one an agnostic. Not an atheist. Saying, "No one can know." or, "No one knows" is something no one has sufficient knowledge to say. But your universe without a cause is still ludicrous. There is no such thing as an event without a cause. "To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, 'I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge'" -- Ravi Zacharias Are you really denying the law of cause & effect? If so you may as well go all the way and deny your own existence - the ultimate human idiocy. One can only deny cause & effect in flagrant contradiction of reality and, in the end, at the expense of sanity. Sorry but you cannot get out of it with vain philosophical meanderings around nonsense ideas. "... believes in a solution to these big questions based round some human attributes: consciousness, intention, morality etc. " Only partly true. Not based on human attributes. But on observation of the real world - cause & effect, action/reaction, the existence of logical absolutes, coded information, etc. etc. etc. - i.e. the obvious. Your view is far too narrow. Consider this observation by an ex-atheist:

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

-- C.S. Lewis As for agnostics: "The agnostic is gutless and prefers to keep one safe foot in the god camp." - O'Hair M.M., "Agnostics" - of course she was a radical, Dawkinsish type. Borne

Good point IDist. I mean, why would atheists rule out the possibility of Mind as the be-all and end-all of things? It's just as valid as supposing that a non-Mind (materialistic) is the ultimate cause of everything. I mean we have to face two obvious truths: there are conscious and unconscious things. Of the two, which do you think has the more capacity to bring about the other? Logic tells me it's the former. You cannot will anything if you are not conscious. On the other hand, you can conceive of anything (and if you have the power, will them into existence) if you are conscious. It would be a lot easier to defend the materialistic stance if there is actually no such thing as consciousness/mind/intelligence/will. But then again, if that's the case, there would be no "mind" to defend it. Materialism is a dead-end philosphy IMHO. skwayred

The theist rates humanity far more highly The theist sees himself as part of humanity. The atheist almost always sees himself above it. When the atheist wishes for a plague of ebola he never sees himself as among the victims. tribune7

JT75 I am not an atheist in order to gain intellectual satisfaction. That makes it sound like a sort of cognitive viagra. I am an atheist because I cannot see any convincing evidence for any of the many variations on God that I have come across. Actually that's a simplification. Under some descriptions I don't see evidence for a divine being, other descriptions just seem meaningless. The attributes of divine beings seem to fall into two categories: * the obviously false e.g. is basically superman with a white beard * the meaningless e.g. necessarily exists I thought about this as I was walking the dog this morning. For the atheist humanity is a miniscule and unimportant part of the universe that does not and cannot comprehend much of it. The theist rates humanity far more highly and believes in a solution to these big questions based round some human attributes: consciousness, intention, morality etc. Which is more pleasant? Which is more plausible? markf

markf: Follow up comment, I think agnosticism could possibly be intellectually satisfying if one could prove that we 'could not' have knowledge of the divine, but not in the weaker form that one just 'does not'. JT75

markf: sure there is nothing dishonest in saying "i don't know." Granted, but is it intellectually satisfying? JT75

JT75 You have not always existed. You came into existence at some finite point in the past and it is possible for you to not exist. What keeps you from not existing? Any answer that you might give pointing to another contingent being (finite cause) leads to an infinite regress up to the cause of the universe (which is also contingent, it might not have existed). To halt the regress you must advocate a being that is the cause of all other being, that contains all being in itself and has the power to cause the existence of all that does exist. This type of proof rests on the undeniable evidence of understanding your own existence. As I am sure you know this is a well worn argument with well-worn objections and counter-objections. There is quite a good summary on Wikipedia. I see little point in going over the arguments again. I just want readers to accept that there is nothing irrational, dishonest or inconsistent with saying "I don't know" in response to these questions. markf

Davescot: "why not carve the Ten Commandments onto the face of the moon and remove all doubt about their source? If anyone then chose to ignore that I’d consider it really likely they’re defying God" It might be better to go back to Adam and Eve and ask why God would take leave, and allow a talking snake to tempt the two. But then temptation seems to have been the point of it all. Apparently God isn't here "in person" because there is some kind of test going on. And isn't this what the story of Job indicates? Yahweh allows an adversary to throw all kinds of blows at Job to show everyone in Heaven what Job was made of? Job had no idea of the reason for it all. And when he asks Yahweh about it, Yahweh declines a clear answer. But everyone in "heaven" knew the reason, and could see Job was a man of integrity in the face of near total loss. mike1962

markf, Let's put the discussion in terms of being and existence. You are saying that the universe began existing without any cause for its beginning to be. Can this be held as a consistent view of causality? You have not always existed. You came into existence at some finite point in the past and it is possible for you to not exist. What keeps you from not existing? Any answer that you might give pointing to another contingent being (finite cause) leads to an infinite regress up to the cause of the universe (which is also contingent, it might not have existed). To halt the regress you must advocate a being that is the cause of all other being, that contains all being in itself and has the power to cause the existence of all that does exist. This type of proof rests on the undeniable evidence of understanding your own existence. That is, unlike other evidence you have what has been termed incorigible knowledge of your own existence. DaveScot (54): "I agree with your sentiment here. Why does an omnipotent creator have to use men to record His revelations? Why not carve the Ten Commandments onto the face of the moon and remove all doubt about their source?" I find the "why didn't God do it different" approach to questions unhelpful. It asks for information to which we don't have direct access. Christianity has traditionally held that the nature of Nature and the Moral law within provide sufficient "natural" witness to God's existence. Beyond this there is his recorded communication with man. If you found out the Bible really was true, could you still say that God hasn't told us enough to believe? I doubt it, therefore the real question is Is the Bible true? The answer to which involves excursions into history, archaeology, manuscript evidence, etc. As for other religions, we can take them to task just like we can Christianity. I have found that Mormonism and Islam don't have credible historical documentation, Buddhism results in a vicious epistemological circle (how does one begin the pursuit of enlightenment without any degree of enlightenment?)and seems to ignore a realistic understanding of the will (similar to ancient Stoicism), Hinduism's pantheon seems ultra-mystical and does not provide a philosophically satisfying metaphysical framework (there cannot be 300 million infinite beings that contain all being there can only be numerically one and if the Hindu dieties are not infinite then they are finite, if they are finite they need a cause (see the above notion of causality). The point is that if one of the world's religions is true/consistent with Reality, then one can ask scientific, historical, philosophical questions and demand intellectually satisfying answers. IMO only Christianity satisfactorily passes all the tests. JT75

IDist You are saying that you cannot prove that the god/gods isn’t green cockroach. No - I am saying what I wrote and nothing else. You used an argument to try and make the case that the cause of the universe might be conscious. I am simply pointing out that the identical argument can be used to make the case the cause has the attributes of a green cockroach. You have not yet even tried to show why the argument does not work in the case of the green cockroach but does work for consciousness. I suggest leaving the word "God" out of this as it is not relevant. Borne in 62. You make lots of statements about me. "What you really mean is..." "an adequate cause will always be needed and you know it" "you're just skirting round the obvious". There is really no way for me to respond except to say these statements about me are not true. I genuinely believe that the universe may not have a cause and genuinely have no idea what "adequate" means in this context. Things that appear obvious to you are not obvious to me. I find the universe bewildering and breathtaking. That is my brand of atheism. It is not some kind of perverse self-denial. The information argument is of course the whole basis of ID and I don't find that obvious either. markf

markf: "Because there is no evidence for this thing and it doesn’t solve any of the problems that bewilder me." What you really mean is, "there is no evidence I wish to acknowledge". You yourself are evidence. And your roach thing is ludicrous and ID could never come close to supporting anything like it for reasons I already gave. "I have no idea what would be adequate for causing a universe. It is unobservable and unimaginable." Wishful atheist thinking. An adequate cause will always be needed and you know it. Space, time, matter, information and energy do not just pop out of nothing. And, you have not touched on the information problem. It's so obvious what the implications of information and especially coded information are. I feel you're just skirting around the obvious like atheists always do. Denial. That's it that's all, just denial. Borne

Jerry said, in part: The argument that was most persuasive with me about the hidden God is the free will argument and that the more empirical evidence there is the less value our lives would be. Aye--and that is to be considered also. The question becomes then "what parameters" and "what evidence" leads to the assumption of Higher Causes. But we have not even touched on, except partially maybe with DS,s comments, WHAT KIND of God this might be, and what the interaction with humans should be, etc. Thanks, --SWT Atlanta Ga S Wakefield Tolbert

My only point was that IDist’s argument supports the green cockroach theory just as strongly as the conscious entity theory. You are saying that you cannot prove that the god/gods isn't green cockroach. The has nothing at all to do with my argument. As I told you before, the nature of this god has nothing at all to do with my argument. Different religions and philosophers have different views of gods, but what they all agree upon for some cause to be "god" is that it is personal, and creator. So green cockroach, giant old bearded man, a being with lion head and hore body, or whatever. These have nothing at all to do with my argument. Thanks IDist

Wakefiled, The argument that was most persuasive with me about the hidden God is the free will argument and that the more empirical evidence there is the less value our lives would be. For example, suppose the 10 commandments were written in stone on the moon as in the example Dave brought up or suppose every Friday a voice in the sky announced who had sinned that week and punished them accordingly. Or suppose a more subtle thing was that only good things happened to good people or in other words there was no theodicy problem. How long before everyone obeyed the 10 commandments, did nothing wrong each week because they didn't wanted to be punished on Friday or there only were good people. There would be no free will because no one would step out of line. No one would take any action except those sanctioned. If we think the college campuses are infested with thought police now, what would the entire society look like if such a situation existed. Not believing in God would be a sign of insanity in such situations. I once had a conversation with a Jewish adjunct professor who was my office mate for a semester when I was teaching and we had a conversation about faith. He said faith has no meaning unless there is doubt. There is no moral value in believing in something that was certain. It is believing in something that is uncertain that can have value. What we call virtue has no value if you know for sure there is a definite pay-out for doing it. It is the doing and not knowing that there is a return that is virtue. I don't want this to get into a long discussion of faith or other religious beliefs or the meaning of free will because that would be never ending and such discussions have been going on for thousands of years by far more intelligent people than visit this site. I just wanted to say that obvious empirical evidence of God could be paralyzing and actually rob us of one of our uniquenesses which is persons with free will. jerry

Is it supposed to “help” in some manner? I thought going where the evidence leads is just something that intellectually honest people do as a matter of course whether where it leads helps or not. I am sorry - "helps" was a cryptic way of expressing myself. To be more long-winded - I don't find the possibility of a loosely defined thing which is conscious reduces my bewilderment. Because there is no evidence for this thing and it doesn't solve any of the problems that bewilder me. markf

markf I just don’t find the possibility of a loosely defined conscious “something” helps. Is it supposed to "help" in some manner? I thought going where the evidence leads is just something that intellectually honest people do as a matter of course whether where it leads helps or not. Sometimes the evidence leads to a brick wall that cannot be seen over, around, or through. That's just the way cookie crumbles. I don't disbelieve in the big bang or black holes just because they end in just such a brick wall. If intelligent design by an unidentified and possibly unidentifiable designer is the best explanation for certain phenomena then that's just the way it is. Have the courage to change those things you can change and the wisdom to recognize the things you can't change. Not knowing what's inside black holes, what's beyond the edge of the observable universe, or what came before the big bang are things I can't change. I'm not so certain I can't know the immediate origin of life on earth, one way or another. DaveScot