Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Molecular biologist discovers the weaknesses of assuming that “science” has all the answers

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Quite the story:

Breaking free was a slow process, akin to chipping away at a dungeon door with a dull spoon. Early on in life, my curiosity led me to ask questions. I saw contradictions in some of what I had been taught. If humans were a blind product of evolutionary chance, with no special purpose or significance, then how could the stated goals of socialism—to advance human dignity and value—make sense? And if religion, particularly Christianity, was really such a terrible historical evil, then why were so many Christian clergy members involved in the civil rights movement? …

I was disturbed to learn that, according to science, some things are actually unknowable. It is impossible to know, for instance, the position and speed of an electron simultaneously. This is a critical feature of quantum mechanics, even though it makes little rational sense. If the uncertainty principle is true (and it must be, since so much modern technology is based on it), then how valid is the idea of a purely deterministic and predictable world?

Sy Garte, “I Assumed Science Had All the Answers. Then I Started Asking Inconvenient Questions” at Christianity Today

Sy Garte, meet Chaitin’s number The unknowable number.

Give up on materialism.

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

Comments
EDTA/11
And as a bonus, those who advocate strongly for materialism will offer to take away a Christian’s hope, if that were possible, so even more people will be left without any. Some people actually need a transcendent source of hope to get through this life, but the materialist has no way to console them.
Does materialism take away a Christian's hope? Why couldn't God or heaven be physical in nature?Seversky
January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT
Bornagain77/5
Funny how Seversky, without even batting an eyelid, jumps straight from the fact that science does not have all the answers to pointing out the obvious deficiencies in materialism as a coherent philosophy and/or worldview.
Where is the inconsistency between the limitations of current science and materialism? Materialism is not a philosophy itself but a position on the nature of observable reality. There are any number of philosophies that are compatible with materialism. Does the Bible deny the materialistic nature of this world? If we observe this world to be materialistic in nature then, for a Christian, that is how it was created by their God. What would you say of a Christian who denied the nature of God's creation?
FYI Seversky, Materialism does not now, nor has it ever, equaled science. In fact, contrary to popular opinion, It is impossible for science to ever be based on the philosophy of materialism.
Science is based on investigating the nature of observable reality. It cannot be based on anything else. That nature is material or physical. If your God exists then He may alos be material or physical.
One of the greatest lies taught in Colleges to today is the falsehood that in order to be ‘scientific’ you must assume materialism and/or naturalism as a starting philosophical assumption. Nothing could be further from the truth.
On the contrary, that is exactly where science must start. If there is nothing there to investigate then there is no science. What else is there but the physical?
The fact of the matter is that all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism and/or materialism.
Completely wrong. Science can investigate the nature of the Universe without presupposing any sort of intelligent agency. A great scientist can hypothesize an attractive force called gravity to account for the observations that objects always fall to the ground unless something prevents them without presupposing any sort of intelligent agency.
Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature.
Nobody has ever denied that human beings are intelligent designers but whether they are themselves designed is more problematical. I can't speak for you but I'm pretty sure I was not designed. I came about through the natural process of human reproduction. If humanity came about through the natural processes we call evolution then you could argue that our scientific instruments are also an end product of natural processes.
Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism
Methodological naturalism doesn't exclude the possibility of intelligent design, it just doesn't require it.
Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.
The boilerplate answer to your boilerplate text is that observable reality is what we hold on to and where we start.Seversky
January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT
First, I'll point out that if anyone, be they materialist or Buddhist or Jew or Hindu, were to convince a Christian that Christianity were false, then the Christian would lose the hope offered by Christianity. It is not the view that materialism is true that is the problem, it is the view that Christianity is false, which is held by lots of different kinds of people. Second, EDTA you say, "At bottom, a worldview has to be true in order to provide any benefit–if it is capable of providing any benefit at all." But, all the different worldviews can't all be true, and yet all the various believers all think their worldview has benefits. One explanation for this is that believers of every worldview believe their view is true, and all the others false, which is a view that contributes to a lot of tension in the world. Another view is that none of the various worldviews are true in the ontological sense: they are not truly about what is. Rather they are all different ways that have been developed in provide a cultural and psychological framework for understanding the ontological mysteries that we cannot in fact approach. They are human affirmations of chosen ways to look at the world, but their truth exists in those personal and social affirmations. They are not about things that we can actual confirm as true. This doesn't mean all worldviews are the same, or that one shouldn't evaluate them as one explores what one wants to believe. Just like all our other choices, the situation is complex and multi-faceted, and we can discuss our choices with people who have different worldviews. But in my opinion discussing which is true is not the correct way to go about this: rather to me what is important is the answer to the question "how shall we live?"Viola Lee
January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT
Oops.u EDTA didn't say anything about compassion: he said the materialist had no way to console them. That is different, and I apologize for my mis-reading.Viola Lee
January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT
Perhaps that was too broad of a statement. Let me rephrase: If the materialist were successful in convincing a Christian that Christianity was false, i.e., bringing them over to the materialist's worldview, then the Christian would lose their source of hope. At bottom, a worldview has to be true in order to provide any benefit--if it is capable of providing any benefit at all. I encounter those who condescendingly say, "Well, if you need that crutch to get through life, then fine. But don't think it's true for anyone but you." But that view would destroy any chance of the Christian worldview helping someone. It's only good if it's true.EDTA
January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT
I don't think it would be correct to to say the materialist has no compassion. Materialists are human beings and probably are in general as compassionate as others. I am not a materialist but I don't believe in the things that give Christians a transcendent sense of hope. I don't think being a person who doesn't believe those things (which is true of billions of people in the world who have other religious beliefs) makes me at all responsible for taking away a Christians source of hope. Obviously, it seems to me, it is the Christians sense of faith that is the important ingredient here, not the fact that not everyone is a Christian.Viola Lee
January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT
>Materialism is not a faith. It offers no moral guidance. It does not promise a life after this one...It does not offer a benign father-figure... And as a bonus, those who advocate strongly for materialism will offer to take away a Christian's hope, if that were possible, so even more people will be left without any. Some people actually need a transcendent source of hope to get through this life, but the materialist has no way to console them.EDTA
January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
Mahuna, you don’t know what you are talking about. Your brand of ignorance gives ignorance a bad name. I am a Celt. Born in Belfast. Point one We had no Shamans - there were druids of whom we know almost nothing. They left no writings. Point two we had a developed legal system. Even came up with the concept of copyright. Point three. The romans left Ireland alone, what they ‘knew’ of Ireland was mostly wrong. They did zip with swordpoints. Don’t apologise for your ignorance, it is curable, but don’t spread it.Belfast
January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT
@ bb77 Thank you for taking care of that zeitgeist crackpot conspiracy crap that mahuna put up Trent Horn did a really good job tearing all of that apart to nearly 6 years ago on Catholic answers I mean it’s only been refuted like thousands of times Why it keeps coming up is mind blowing Like thousands of scholars have shut down that nonsense the closest thing they have is Gilgamesh’s epic to Noah’s Ark and even that has been shot down. It actually lend credence to the fact that there was a flood in that area of the world at the time I mean really the Osiris Jesus stuff it’s just irritating at this pointAaronS1978
January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
23 Reasons Why Scholars Know Jesus Is Not A Copy Of Pagan Religions. - 2015 Excerpt: 1. Professional scholars unanimously reject the claim that Jesus is a pagan copy. 2. Experts in the field unanimously agree that Jesus lived and that we can know things about him. This is very unlike the many pagan gods. 3. We actually know very little about these pagan secretive religions. 4. Most of what we know of secretive pagan religions comes after Christianity, not before it. 5. The Jewish were a people who refrained from allowing pagan myths to invade their culture. 6. The New Testament canon is history unlike much of the pagan secretive mysteries. 7. Unlike the pagan secretive religions, Jesus is an ancient figure we can actually know about, what he thought of himself, and what he did as a historical figure of history: 8. The Jesus of history does not fit the profile of someone that would be a myth. 9. Much of these secretive pagan religions have little to do with concrete history. 10. Evidence of dishonest pseudo-scholar work – Dorothy Murdock: 11. None of the mythicists are actual scholars in the relevant fields of expertise. 12. Jesus’ virgin birth is unique. 13. Jesus’ death had a radical impact on his disciples; a feat that no pagan god can boast. 14. Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is unique. 15. The notion that Jesus is a copy parallel of Mithras is rejected by scholars. 16. That Jesus is a copy of Horus is rejected by scholars. 17. That Jesus was a copy of Dionysus is rejected by scholars. 18. That Jesus is a copy of Krishna is rejected by scholars. 19. That Jesus was a copy of Attis is rejected by scholars. 20. That Jesus was a copy of the Buddha is rejected by scholars. 22. That Jesus was a copy parallel of Zoroaster is rejected by scholars. 23. Jesus’ crucifixion in comparison to other alleged deities is unique. https://jamesbishopblog.wordpress.com/2015/01/19/23-reasons-why-scholars-know-jesus-is-not-a-copy-of-pagan-religions/ Are There Other Resurrection Myths? - Dr. Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSmykWnFOS0 Was Jesus a copycat Savior? - video playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FR08QtvapM&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TVOYpPpjYhTUHXycJrY6P2I Was Jesus a Myth? Part 1 - Dr. James White - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=00WOGeGcjYo#t=1951sbornagain77
January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
Oh Goody, the easily refuted myths of Isis and Osiris is offered once again in rebuttal to the rich apologetic history of Christianity. As Pauli would have said, that is 'not even wrong'. And I might add that it is also VERY intellectually lazy!
Jesus and the Story of Osiris and Horus Dr. Craig https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=10155725681608229 Sir Edward Clark — a prominent lawyer in Great Britain “As a lawyer, I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. To me, the evidence is conclusive; and over and over again in the high court, I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection I accept unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts that they were able to substantiate.” Canon Westcott — for years a brilliant scholar at Cambridge University “Indeed, taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it.” Thomas Arnold — Professor of History at Oxford University; author of a 3-volume history on ancient Rome “I have been used for many years to study the history of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them; and I know of no fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than that Christ died and rose again from the dead.” http://www.awordfromtheword.org/what-if.htm “I humbly add I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of the world and am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.” - Sir Lionel Luckhoo. A British lawyer knighted for his work. He won 245 consecutive murder cases. “Let [the Gospel's] testimony be sifted, as it were given in a court of justice on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth.” Simon Greenleaf from his book “Testimony of the Evangelicals”. Greenleaf was one of the founders of the Harvard Law School who wrote the book “A Treatise on the Law of Evidence”. He was an atheist until some students challenged him to examine the evidence for the resurrection of Christ. “One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate.” Skeptic, Bart Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted (2008) pg. 162 "The historian... cannot justifiably deny the empty tomb", because using standard historical criteria, "the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty." Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1992), p. 176. "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ." Gerd Lüdemann - Skeptical historian (and atheist), What Really Happened to Jesus?, trans. John Bowden (Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), p. 8.)
bornagain77
January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
ORGANIZED Religion is about creating a bureaucracy to scare people into paying them not to perform any USEFUL work. Organized Religion is linked to the replacement of tribal councils by dictatorial kings. See almost anything by Dan Quinn. The Celts had a perfectly good shamanic religion going until the Romans showed up "converted" (at sword point) everybody to the bureaucracy of Roman Catholicism. The Church then banned all kinds of secular parties (birthday parties, funeral parties, party parties...) because it was suddenly both a civil offense and a "sin" to hold ANY gathering not administered by a priest. The HUGE holes in Christian history and theology can ONLY be sidestepped by the COMPLETE control of the discussion by clerical bureaucrats. Ya might wanna start your self-education with the ancient Myth of Isis and Osiris...mahuna
January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
Sev states, "Scientists, above all others, should be well aware that science does not have all the answers. Materialism is not a faith. It offers no moral guidance.,,, etc.." Funny how Seversky, without even batting an eyelid, jumps straight from the fact that science does not have all the answers to pointing out the obvious deficiencies in materialism as a coherent philosophy and/or worldview. FYI Seversky, Materialism does not now, nor has it ever, equaled science. In fact, contrary to popular opinion, It is impossible for science to ever be based on the philosophy of materialism. One of the greatest lies taught in Colleges to today is the falsehood that in order to be 'scientific' you must assume materialism and/or naturalism as a starting philosophical assumption. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is that all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism and/or materialism. From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place. Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism. Moreover, although the Darwinian atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science, (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that Darwinists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to:
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM
Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
bornagain77
January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT
If he thinks modern tech is based on Quantum Quackery, he's not done chipping yet. Quantum is just a rather unhelpful way of explaining things like transistors, which were developed by gradual experimentation and improvement in materials and manufacturing, not by theory.polistra
January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT
Well said, BobRyan.Truth Will Set You Free
January 24, 2021
January
01
Jan
24
24
2021
01:28 AM
1
01
28
AM
PDT
Materialism offers nothing other than misery. To believe one has no value is to be a miserable person. Free will in humans has been proven several times over, yet materialist refuse to accept the evidence.BobRyan
January 23, 2021
January
01
Jan
23
23
2021
10:53 PM
10
10
53
PM
PDT
Scientists, above all others, should be well aware that science does not have all the answers. Materialism is not a faith. It offers no moral guidance. It does not promise a life after this one, that we will live forever and be reunited with all our loved ones who have already passed. It does not offer a benign father-figure who loves us above all other things. Small wonder that a human being who is looking for such comforting promises will turn towards religion.Seversky
January 23, 2021
January
01
Jan
23
23
2021
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply