Why atheists can’t get dates …

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 14, 2014

Atheism, Intelligent Design, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Potential dates get wise too soon?

Closing out our religion news coverage for the week:

We learn from The Atlantic:

There aren’t many serious atheists, mostly geeky young men:

By numbers alone, American atheists really aren’t that big of a group. According to a 2012 Pew report, atheists make up only about 2.4 percent of the population. Even agnostics, whom you could maybe call atheistic-ish, only account for an estimated 3.3 percent of Americans. Although both groups have grown somewhat since 2007, the bigger change has been among those who identify as “nothing in particular”—roughly 13.9 percent of the population, which is an increase of 2.3 percentage points over five years.

So your social life might be limited. It gets worse.

Richard Dawkins, one of the keynote speakers, encouraged attendees to “ridicule” people’s faith. Not all atheists take this tone toward faith, but it’s a somewhat common posture, especially among some of atheism’s most vocal advocates, including Dawkins and people like PZ Myers and Bill Maher.

Think about it: They are encouraged to centre out your friends, neighbours, relatives, customers, clients, and guests for ridicule. Soon you might not have a social life at all.

Date? If you need a person in your life who alienates almost anyone who has ever cared about you, seek help. Honestly.

It’s a classic signpost: Trouble ahead. We’ll let the counsellor explain in more detail. For example:

There are also downsides to these kinds of anonymous online [atheist] communities. In a 2011 incident referred to as “redditgate,” a 15-year-old girl posted an image of herself holding a book on atheism she got for Christmas; a number of commenters replied with sexually explicit remarks. Other instances of sexual harassment in the atheist community have raised questions about how friendly it is for women.

So we’ve heard …

Also, hostile to each other. It’s a pattern. Their friends try to discourage their destructive behaviour but… they get lawyers involved, and … it hits the fan.)

Based on what we have seen over the years, if you are thinking of getting involved with new atheism, especially if you are a girl, do seek help first.

Whether or not there is a God, if the universe were really as destructive as these people sound, it would have died out a long time ago.

See you tomorrow. Lotsa science news coming up.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

@rvb8
The overwhelming majority of marriages in the US are done in the sight of god, I have heard up to half end in divorce. Atheists on the other hand, who make up a tiny percentage of the pop have much stronger figures, their marriages lead to divorce far less frequently.
In kf's case you have to look at interfaith-marriages. According to this article:
In the course of her research, Ms. Schaefer Riley found that interfaith couples were less satisfied than same-faith couples. The more religiously active one or both of the spouses, the unhappier the marriage would be. According to 2010 statistics, over 50% of the marriages between evangelicals and non-evangelicals ended in divorce. The divorce rate was as high as 61% for evangelicals married to a spouse with no religion.
JWTruthInLove_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

rvb8
I do know with absolute 100% certainty, that you, nor anyone else living or dead, knows either.
You've reached absolute 100% certainty about something that you can't prove. How do you deal with evidence that contradicts your point of view? If you're 100% absolutely certain, then you simply can't be open to contrary evidence.Silver Asiatic_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT}

Oh don’t worry Kairos, the generation of young women coming up are no better than the young men; maybe even worse. Go find a bar near a major university on a Thursday, Friday, or Saturday night; you’re in for a very rude awakening as far as the next generation of young women is concerned, many of which would consider themselves to be “religious.”AVS_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PDT}

I am not ashamed of my inability to understand QM, I am more than certain however, that despite his constant referral to the subject, neither does BA. He seems to think that the mathematics which describes the truly weird sub-atomic world, in some way points to not only god, but probably his own flavour of god. WJM: "Why would truth matter to atheistic materialist." I don't know about the 'materialist' part, but certainly the atheist part. Why would truth matter? Because I prefer my world to not be chaotic, and truth is an important part in reducing chaos. Was that a serious question? kairosfocus: The overwhelming majority of marriages in the US are done in the sight of god, I have heard up to half end in divorce. Atheists on the other hand, who make up a tiny percentage of the pop have much stronger figures, their marriages lead to divorce far less frequently.rvb8_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PDT}

@ rvb8 #6 'Quantom mathematics is an area of study so far above my intellectual capacity as to be quite scary. You seem at home with it.' (snip) 'Could you display some of your confidence and produce a few calculations? I won’t know if they are accurate but I will be able to see if your confidence in this highly specialised subject which is understood by less than 0.001% of the population, is deserved.' Duh... We have a new jester. The last sentence is a classic! What a poster boy for atheism. He can't vouch for the accuracy of the calculations (surely with calculators and computers, the easiest part for anyone familiar with the mathematical notations involved), but he has such a mastery of the methodologies employed in the mathematics of that 'highly-specialised subject', quantum physics, 'understood by less than 0.001% of the population', and of which he clearly stands in the greatest awe, that he'll be able to appraise the merits or otherwise. He even explicitly prefaces his challenge with a hilariously disingenuous disavowal of his own intellectual capacity to make head or tail of Q.M., while presuming to 'mark your papers', as an Examiner! Incidentally, apparently Tolkien used to harass Lewis to read new passages of his 'oeuvres', as and when he wrote them. These 'oeuvres' bored the pants off Lewis, though I'm not sure whether it was Lewis or a critic who saw in them nothing much more than a factitious, quaintly archaic-sounding patois, evidently an adaptation of medieval English, of which I believe he was a scholar. The hilarious ultra disingenuous intro of rvb8 sounds uncannily like that of the Christian forums poster, whose post I gave a link to in a thread, yesterday. The clearly-feigned humility of both is so extreme as to represent high farce.Axel_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

RVB8: Pardon, there is strong reason to doubt that atheistic, a priori evolutionary materialism is true, or that it even provides a basis for our being reasonable and truth capable beings. But more to the point, truth is important but so is civility or even what my culture would term broughtupcy. And the point Mrs O'Leary is giving, is that there is a major civility problem here for such atheists of the new atheist ilk especially, that needs to be faced and dealt with. The context that many atheists would not be good prospective sons in law is a significant facet of that wider problem. I for one would not trust a teen age daughter to such as too many I have seen on a date much less give blessings to a marriage with such. (But then, I am seriously concerned on a much wider basis that we have a generation of young men coming up that are letting down the side badly. [As an index, when two upstanding young ladies jointly booked my son for prom night on graduation two years ahead, that speaks volumes and sends a clear message; yup a double date for prom night.]) KFkairosfocus_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

rvb8, in post 8 'you' also state:
"So no maths then."
rvb8, contrary to what 'you' seem to believe, your ability to do math is something that supports the belief that you have soul/mind which is transcendent of the material realm, and your ability to do math is not something that supports your belief that 'you' are merely your material brain/body:
An Interview with David Berlinski - Jonathan Witt Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time …. Interviewer:… Come again(?) … Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects. http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/found-upon-web-and-reprinted-here.html
In fact, Alfred Russell Wallace, the co-discoverer of Natural Selection who had far more field work than Darwin did, held that our ability to do math was proof that humans have a soul/mind:
"Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation." Alfred Russell Wallace, New Thoughts on Evolution, 1910
As well rvb8, you seem to think that if you had a complete mathematical description of something then you would have a complete understanding of the phenomena in question. Yet, Godel, in his incompleteness theorem, has shown that any equation specific enough to have the counting numbers in it is necessarily 'incomplete'. More simply, that is to say that any mathematical equation specific enough to have the counting numbers in it can not have 'the truth' within itself but is dependent on something outside itself in order to derive any truthfulness that the math may describe:
Kurt Gödel - Incompleteness Theorem – video https://vimeo.com/92387853 Godel and Physics - John D. Barrow Excerpt (page 5-6): "Clearly then no scientific cosmology, which of necessity must be highly mathematical, can have its proof of consistency within itself as far as mathematics go. In absence of such consistency, all mathematical models, all theories of elementary particles, including the theory of quarks and gluons...fall inherently short of being that theory which shows in virtue of its a priori truth that the world can only be what it is and nothing else. This is true even if the theory happened to account for perfect accuracy for all phenomena of the physical world known at a particular time." Stanley Jaki - Cosmos and Creator - 1980, pg. 49 http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0612253.pdf
Moreover, Kurt Godel, like Wallace, also believed that man's ability to do math was 'proof' for the existence of the mind/soul:
"Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine" Kurt Gödel Kurt Gödel and Alan Turing - Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition - video https://vimeo.com/92387854
Thus rvb8, far from the confidence you seem to have that mathematics somehow supports your materialistic worldview, i.e. the belief that you have no soul/mind, you should instead be very humbled by the fact that our ability to do mathematics gives us 'proof' that we have a soul/mind: Music and Verse:
O, Holy Night by Chris Tomlin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMSrZYA9gv0 Colossians 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him.
of supplemental note to invisible ‘higher dimensions’ above the space-time matter-energy of this universe: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/reasonable-faith-on-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe/#comment-519052bornagain77_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT}

Interesting post both sad and humorous in some ways.
By numbers alone, American atheists really aren’t that big of a group. According to a 2012 Pew report, atheists make up only about 2.4 percent of the population.
I think it's good that most of our dialogue here on UD is with atheists and agnostics. It's important to keep the numbers in perspective, and also balance them. Yes, only 2.4% of the population, but in academia and many professions that proportion can go up considerably.
Think about it: They are encouraged to centre out your friends, neighbours, relatives, customers, clients, and guests for ridicule. Soon you might not have a social life at all.
I find that to be a powerful insight that is difficult to use in an argument, but it remains true. It's not just neighbbors and family members, but you have to take a position against human culture itself -- virtually all of history. It's especially difficult for things like public memorials and ceremonies honoring the dead, at funerals, or remembrances of civic or local heroes.
Date? If you need a person in your life who alienates almost anyone who has ever cared about you, seek help. Honestly.
There are new atheistic associations and groups forming now - atheist churches, volunteer groups and social clubs. So I guess that should help with dating. But most of those groups are male-dominated, so far, anyway. It's probably a sexist thing but I think, in our culture anyway, women are more attuned to spirituality and even when it's non-theist, there doesn't seem to be as black-and-white division between belief and non-belief, or not as much a hard-core materialism among women. It's an admirable feminine quality that there's openness to the mystery of life and the unknown and generally an unwillingness to shut out spiritual possibilities. This might have to do with motherhood and bringing human life into the world - not sure. There are exceptions, of course. I don't know how else to explain the dominance of men in the atheistic world. I also think, regarding getting a date, in our culture - romance is often matched with mystique. Cupid's angels bring couples together. They see the serendipity and invisible "chemistry" (not of the bio-molecular sort) and they find "the one" or the "soul mate". We were "meant to be". Everything is couched in theistic or spiritual terms in the world of dating and romance. I don't know how materialists deal with that. I guess it's just "evolution brought us together for reproductive success". Even if someone got a date it wouldn't seem like there's much of a conversation that can flow from that. Maybe a date is just to go to a sci-fi movie, eat at a fast food place without talking, do some role-playing games, or each do some facebook updates on their own cell phones, looking up occasionally to see if the other person is still there. If so, then that's a good date.Silver Asiatic_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT}

Rvb8 said:
So truth is unimportant as long as you are popular.
Why would truth matter to an atheistic materialist?William J Murray_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT}

keith s at 11: London, Ontario, then Toronto. The idiom was more prevalent in London, grades 7 up. I had never heard it in the Yukon. It was perhaps used only among girls - but then I wouldn't know if guys of a similar age ever used it among themselves, would I?. (the Jane Austen principle)News_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT}

rvb8,
“You don’t have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.” George MacDonald - Annals of a Quiet Neighborhood - 1892
rvb8, since "you" do not believe that "you" are a mind and/or a soul, then when "you" refer to the "I" that rvb8 is 100% certain exists, exactly what part of your material brain/body are 'you' referring to?
A.I. Has Grown Up and Left Home - Dec. 19, 2013 Excerpt: some patients with their Broca’s area destroyed can still understand language, due to the immense neuroplasticity of the brain. And language, in turn, is just a part of what we call “thinking.” If we can’t even pin down where the brain processes language, we are a far way from locating that mysterious entity, “consciousness.” That may be because it doesn’t exist in a spot you can point at. http://nautil.us/issue/8/home/ai-has-grown-up-and-left-home Case for the Existence of the Soul - (Argument from Divisibility at 38:20 minute mark) - JP Moreland - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWjkbNkMiMo&feature=player_detailpage#t=2299 Self-awareness in humans is more complex, diffuse than previously thought - August 22, 2012 Excerpt: Self-awareness is defined as being aware of oneself, including one's traits, feelings, and behaviors. Neuroscientists have believed that three brain regions are critical for self-awareness: the insular cortex, the anterior cingulate cortex, and the medial prefrontal cortex. However, a research team led by the University of Iowa has challenged this theory by showing that self-awareness is more a product of a diffuse patchwork of pathways in the brain – including other regions – rather than confined to specific areas. The conclusions came from a rare opportunity to study a person with extensive brain damage to the three regions believed critical for self-awareness. The person, a 57-year-old, college-educated man known as "Patient R," passed all standard tests of self-awareness. He also displayed repeated self-recognition, both when looking in the mirror and when identifying himself in unaltered photographs taken during all periods of his life. "What this research clearly shows is that self-awareness corresponds to a brain process that cannot be localized to a single region of the brain,",,, http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-08-self-awareness-humans-complex-diffuse-previously.html
And rvb8, if "you" instead, to try to avoid the problem of divisibility, believe that your whole brain is "you", instead of just part of your brain being "you", then if half of your brain were removed should not "you" be only ‘half the person’, or at least somewhat less of a 'person', as "you" were before? If that is your position then why, in the case of hemispherectomies, does the ‘whole person’, the "you", stay intact even though the brain/body suffers severe impairment:,
Removing Half of Brain Improves Young Epileptics' Lives: Excerpt: "We are awed by the apparent retention of memory and by the retention of the child's personality and sense of humor,'' Dr. Eileen P. G. Vining; In further comment from the neuro-surgeons in the John Hopkins study: "Despite removal of one hemisphere, the intellect of all but one of the children seems either unchanged or improved. Intellect was only affected in the one child who had remained in a coma, vigil-like state, attributable to peri-operative complications." http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/19/science/removing-half-of-brain-improves-young-epileptics-lives.html Strange but True: When Half a Brain Is Better than a Whole One - May 2007 Excerpt: Most Hopkins hemispherectomy patients are five to 10 years old. Neurosurgeons have performed the operation on children as young as three months old. Astonishingly, memory and personality develop normally. ,,, Another study found that children that underwent hemispherectomies often improved academically once their seizures stopped. "One was champion bowler of her class, one was chess champion of his state, and others are in college doing very nicely," Freeman says. Of course, the operation has its downside: "You can walk, run—some dance or skip—but you lose use of the hand opposite of the hemisphere that was removed. You have little function in that arm and vision on that side is lost," Freeman says. Remarkably, few other impacts are seen. ,,, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-when-half-brain-better-than-whole Miracle Of Mind-Brain Recovery Following Hemispherectomies - Dr. Ben Carson - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zBrY77mBNg Dr. Gary Mathern - What Can You Do With Half A Brain? - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrKijBx_hAw The man with the missing brain - 17 Aug 2014 A medical recovery that is baffling science - and giving hope to head injury patients Excerpt: Doctors deemed his cognitive function so low it was untestable – that is, an IQ below 50. It was likely, they said, that he would have to rely on others for even the most menial of tasks for the rest of his life.,,, When he was sent to her, in October 1995, his IQ had climbed significantly to 89, just a point below the lower edge of “normal” (between 90 and 110) on the Revised Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. But when she was finished with him in February 1997 – after three sessions a week, with gaps for the occasional surgery – Lewis had an IQ of more than 151, close to so-called “genius” levels,,, Lewis is missing a third of his right hemisphere,,, - per The Telegraph
related notes
The Case for the Soul - InspiringPhilosophy - (4:03 minute mark, Brain Plasticity including Schwartz's work) - Oct. 2014 - video The Mind is able to modify the brain. Moreover, Idealism explains all anomalous evidence of personality changes due to brain injury, whereas physicalism does not explain mind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBsI_ay8K70 Memory transference in organ transplant recipients – April 2011 Case 3: murder mystery involving donor is solved by an organ recipient An eight year-old girl, who received the heart of a murdered ten year-old girl, began having recurring vivid nightmares about the murder. Her mother arranged a consultation with a psychiatrist who after several sessions concluded that she was witnessing actual physical incidents. They decided to call the police who used the detailed descriptions of the murder (the time, the weapon, the place, the clothes he wore, what the little girl he killed had said to him) given by the little girl to find and convict the man in question (2). http://www.namahjournal.com/doc/Actual/Memory-transference-in-organ-transplant-recipients-vol-19-iss-1.html
bornagain77_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

RVB8:
I have no idea as to whether universes can or cannot spontaneously create themselves . . .
H'mm, perhaps we need to remind ourselves that nothing means non-being, not matter, energy, space, time, mind etc. Nothing, non-being has no causal powers. Next, that which does not yet exist is a case of non-being. That is, an entity cannot cause itself to begin to exist. Likewise, if nothingness -- utter non-being -- ever was the case, that would forever have been the case. Which means there is that which always was and is the causal ground of all else. Such, is a necessary being. The real, reasonable discussion is on the nature of that ground of the contingent reality we experience. And, to engage it, we need to refer first to first principles of right reason, including our power to inquire into sufficient reason for being. Which will rapidly lead us to distinguish being and non-being, and to recognise possible vs impossible [square circle] candidate or actual beings. Thence also, contingent and necessary being and the significance of cause . . . especially on/off enabling causal factors. (Cf. here on.) In short, the notion of universes causing themselves to come into existence, stumbles coming out the starting gates. KFkairosfocus_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT}

Denyse, I'm very interested in unusual idioms like these. Out of curiosity, in what part of Canada did you attend high school?keith s_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
10:27 PM
10
10
27
PM
PDT}

KeithS at 9, I grew up with "centre out" - it was more of a high school girl thing, I expect: Becoming the focus of unwanted public attentionNews_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PDT}

Denyse:
They are encouraged to centre out your friends...
cantor:
Is that a Canadian idiom? In the US we usually say “single out”
It appears to be a Denysism, not a Canadianism: "centre out"keith s_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PDT}

So no maths then. 'I' is 'me', and until you (that would be 'you') or anyone else can prove otherwise 'I' and 'me' will remain confidently 'myself', without any doubt or absurd metaphysical nonsense. I like Coyne mostly, although he does have a rather narrow view on Israel, he remains an innovative scientist doing genuine publishable, useful research. My hobby is evolution, and though I am no scientist, I do enjoy reading these hard working productive people, and sharing in their advancement of human knowledge. I (that would be 'me') am certain you (that would be the physical you, not the spiritual you, whatever the hell that means)do not enjoy the way science constantly erodes god; am I 'me,myself' correct?rvb8_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT}

as to: "but 'I' do know with absolute 100% certainty," Since I'm fairly certain that you, as an atheist/materialist, do not believe that you have a soul or a mind, Just who is this 'I' in your materialistic worldview that is claiming to be 100% certain?
The Confidence of Jerry Coyne - 2014 Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?_r=0
Moreover, as an atheist/materialist, what makes you think that you have the free will necessary to affirm the truthfulness of any logical proposition that I may offer?
The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It: Sam Harris's Free Will Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html
bornagain77_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT}

I have no idea as to whether universes can or cannot spontaneously create themselves, but I do know with absolute 100% certainty, that you, nor anyone else living or dead, knows either. The certainty of your knowledge frightens me. You are so absolutely positive, and this surety is based upon...? Quantom mathematics is an area of study so far above my intellectual capacity as to be quite scary. You seem at home with it. Could you display some of your confidence and produce a few calculations? I won't know if they are accurate but I will be able to see if your confidence in this highly specialised subject which is understood by less than 0.001% of the population, is deserved.rvb8_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT}

"Gravity is something, I think we can all agree," Actually that is the whole point. Despite what atheists want to believe, Gravity is not 'something' that has causal adequacy within itself. Gravity is not a ‘mechanism’ that has ever ’caused’ anything to happen in the universe but is merely a mathematical description of a law-like regularity within the universe. The early Christian founders of modern science understood this sharp distinction between 'law' and 'lawgiver' quite well,,, Not the God of the Gaps, But the Whole Show – John Lennox – 2012 Excerpt: God is not a “God of the gaps”, he is God of the whole show.,,, C. S. Lewis put it this way: “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.” http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-god-particle-not-the-god-of-the-gaps-but-the-whole-show-80307/ Perhaps the most famous confusion of a mathematical description of a law and the causal agency behind the law is Stephen Hawking’s following statement: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.The universe didn’t need a God to begin; it was quite capable of launching its existence on its own,” Stephen Hawking http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/09/the-universe-exists-because-of-spontaneous-creation-stephen-hawking.html Here is an excerpt of an article, (that is well worth reading in full), in which Dr. Gordon exposes Stephen Hawking’s delusion for thinking that mathematical description and agent causality are the same thing. BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: ,,,The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,, Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.,,, Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/bornagain77_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

Why on earth do you persist in attaching deep significance to natural phenomena. Do I know what gravity is? No! But I know what it does and I know that at the surface of the earth it is a wonderful 9.81m/s2, as close to 10 as makes scrupulous engineers call it 10, and give themselves design leeway. Ooops I said the 'D' word what will you read in to that? You shouldn't quote C.S so much, he fell out of friendship with Tolkien in the 1930s because Tolkien, correctly, thought his Narnia stuff was a confused mishmash of Greek, Latin,and Nth European mythologies with clear allegories; Tolkien loathed allegory, as do I, you appear to thrive upon it. This professor you so admire seems pleased with mystery, as am I, he also seems blithely content with his ignorance, as I am not. Gravity is something, I think we can all agree, and being human we like to understand and describe things, 'laws' is a useful and descriptive word, far better than the esoteric befuddlement of your professor.rvb8_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT}

rvb8, In my concern that you get more dates :) ,,, I would hope that you would be willing to give this talk a fair listen: A Professor's Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist - 2012 talk University of Wyoming J. Budziszewski http://veritas.org/talks/professors-journey-out-nihilism-why-i-am-not-atheist/?view=presenters&speaker_id=2231 Of particular interest A Professor’s Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist – University of Wyoming – J. Budziszewski Excerpt page12: “There were two great holes in the argument about the irrelevance of God. The first is that in order to attack free will, I supposed that I understood cause and effect; I supposed causation to be less mysterious than volition. If anything, it is the other way around. I can perceive a logical connection between premises and valid conclusions. I can perceive at least a rational connection between my willing to do something and my doing it. But between the apple and the earth, I can perceive no connection at all. Why does the apple fall? We don’t know. “But there is gravity,” you say. No, “gravity” is merely the name of the phenomenon, not its explanation. “But there are laws of gravity,” you say. No, the “laws” are not its explanation either; they are merely a more precise description of the thing to be explained, which remains as mysterious as before. For just this reason, philosophers of science are shy of the term “laws”; they prefer “lawlike regularities.” To call the equations of gravity “laws” and speak of the apple as “obeying” them is to speak as though, like the traffic laws, the “laws” of gravity are addressed to rational agents capable of conforming their wills to the command. This is cheating, because it makes mechanical causality (the more opaque of the two phenomena) seem like volition (the less). In my own way of thinking the cheating was even graver, because I attacked the less opaque in the name of the more. The other hole in my reasoning was cruder. If my imprisonment in a blind causality made my reasoning so unreliable that I couldn’t trust my beliefs, then by the same token I shouldn’t have trusted my beliefs about imprisonment in a blind causality. But in that case I had no business denying free will in the first place.” http://www.undergroundthomist.org/sites/default/files/WhyIAmNotAnAtheist.pdf C.S. Lewis humorously stated the point like this: “to say that a stone falls to earth because it’s obeying a law, makes it a man and even a citizen” - CS Lewisbornagain77_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT}

So truth is unimportant as long as you are popular. Wow Denyse that is an excellent way to show shallowness. Being popular and successful is more important than following a difficult road and being ridiculed. I thought that is what Jesus did.rvb8_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT}

They are encouraged to centre out your friends,
. Is that a Canadian idiom? In the US we usually say "single out" .cantor_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply