Marvin Olasky on theistic atheism – oops, I meant theistic evolution

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 19, 2010

theistic evolution}

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

Today’s three great cultural flashpoints are abortion, same-sex marriage, and evolution. We can hedge on them and justify our hedging: Playing it cool here will help me gain for Christ people who would otherwise walk away.

I’m not knocking such considerations. Nor am I assuming that anyone who tries to meld eternal truth and contemporary trends lacks courage: Some do so on evangelistic principle, others because they believe what they’re saying is true. But attempts to unify antitheses generally defy logic.

Over the past 15 years I’ve tried to explain some of the problems of Darwinism. Last year I raised questions about the “theistic evolution” that Francis Collins espouses, but didn’t offer answers—and several WORLD readers have pressed me for more (see “Theistic evolutionist,” July 10, 2009).

Darn. He’s on to the story of the century, and I thought I had it all to myself. He continues,

To put it in terms of an equation, when atheists assure us that matter + evolution + 0 = all living things, and then theistic evolutionists answer, no, that matter + evolution + God = all living things, it will not take long for unbelievers to conclude that, therefore, God = 0.”

Right, exactly, that is the project of “theistic” evolution, so far as I can see. Helping theists get used to a world run by atheists and their values, while still hollering fer Jesus irrelevantly somewhere.

Comments

Gaz, your explanation is no explanation at all and is the antithesis of parsimony: Cosmological Argument - The Uncaused Cause Is A Personal Conscious Being - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4813914 excerpt of description: Logic also dictates "a decision" must have been made, by the "transcendent, eternal, infinite information" from the primary timeless (eternal) reality It inhabits, in order to purposely create a temporal reality with highly specified, irreducible complex, parameters from a infinite set of possibilities in the proper sequential order. Thus this infinite transcendent information, which is the primary reality of our reality, is shown to be alive by yet another line of evidence besides the double slit experiment. The restriction imposed by our physical limitations of us ever accessing complete infinite information to our temporal framework/dimension (Wheeler; Zeilinger) does not detract, in any way, from the primacy and dominion of the infinite, eternal, transcendent, information framework that is now established by the quantum teleportation experiment as the primary reality of our reality. Of note: All of this evidence meshes extremely well with the theistic postulation of God being infinite and perfect in knowledge. "An illusion can never go faster than the speed limit of reality" Akiane - Child Prodigybornagain77_{June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

UBP (325), No, I think the problem is that you are asserting that effects needing a cause is a "law" without any proof that it is a law, even when there is evidence that it doesn't apply in all situations. Nor do I expect anyone to accept the ideas without demonstration - radioactive decay and spontaneous electron transitons, amongst others, demonstrate it. (I should add that I have no pretensions to be Einstein either - the ideas I mention here aren't originally mine, I'm sure you won't be surprised to hear).Gaz_{June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

Gaz, Restating your position does not change it. Once again you simply assert that QM has changed the law without any proofs of it, then ask if others would care to prove the law still exists. You are ass backwards on this. - - - - - - By the way, couching your comments as if this mirrors the addition of Einstien to Newton is patently incorrect. The idea that Einstien would have demanded acceptance of his ideas without demonstration is simply ludicrous. Cheers...Upright BiPed_{June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

UBP (322), The trouble is that for most of human history bar the last 100 or so years, the classical realm where every effect had a cause was all that was known. QM changed all that (as relativity changed mechanics from the Newtonian model). It meant that causality wasn't a "law" as such. And it's not my personal preference - give me cause and effect any day, it's much easier to handle - but the reality appears to be that certain effect are uncaused at the quantum level. Unless you can come up with a plausible, testable model for what causes the uncaused, I suggest we agree to disagree and draw discussions to a close.Gaz_{June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 (321), I don't see what the problem is - I'm not saying there's not a God, I'm just saying that the godoid is a more parsimonious explanation as a cause of apparently uncaused events.Gaz_{June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

Gaz,
I agree that just because something is random does not necessarily mean that it is uncaused. In fact, my view is that random events in classical physics will certainly have a cause. All I am saying is that there are phenomena at the quantum level that do genuinely appear to be uncaused. I’ll repeat the question I asked earlier – if you have a testable mechanism for these apparently unacused quantum events then let me know.
But you miss the point, your question is the one which you yourself must answer - since it is you that wishes to abandon one of the first principles of science, to wit, all effects have causes. What you have done above is no more than present a personal preference; that we have found the uncaused effect. To which others can reply with their own personal preference. The distinction will be that their personal preference is based upon the universal experience of all human discovery throughout all of recorded history. And until you answer the qustion you wish to pose to others, your personal preference will be based upon what you don't know to be true.Upright BiPed_{June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

i.e. what is your payoff Gaz? do you delude yourself into thinking separation from the living God would be a good thing? The evidence I've found indicates you are very severely mistaken!. In The Presence Of Almighty God - The NDE of Mickey Robinson - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045544 The Day I Died - Part 4 of 6 - The NDE of Pam Reynolds - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045560 It should be noted: All foreign, non-Judeo-Christian culture, NDE studies I have looked at have a extreme rarity of encounters with "The Being Of Light" and tend to be very unpleasant NDE's. The following study was shocking for what was found in some non-Judeo-Christian NDE's: Near-Death Experiences in Thailand - Todd Murphy: Excerpt:The Light seems to be absent in Thai NDEs. So is the profound positive affect found in so many Western NDEs. The most common affect in our collection is negative. Unlike the negative affect in so many Western NDEs (cf. Greyson & Bush, 1992), that found in Thai NDEs (in all but case #11) has two recognizable causes. The first is fear of 'going'. The second is horror and fear of hell. It is worth noting that although half of our collection include seeing hell (cases 2,6,7,9,10) and being forced to witness horrific tortures, not one includes the NDEer having been subjected to these torments themselves. http://www.shaktitechnology.com/thaindes.htm Hell - A Warning! - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4131476 Miracle Of Mind-Brain Recovery Following Hemispherectomies - Dr. Ben Carson - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994585/miracle_of_mind_brain_recovery_following_hemispherectomies_dr_ben_carson/ 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 Blind Woman Can See During Near Death Experience - Pim Lommel - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994599/blind_woman_can_see_during_near_death_experience_pim_lommel_nde/ Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper (1997) conducted a study of 31 blind people, many of who reported vision during their NDEs. 21 of these people had had an NDE while the remaining 10 had had an out-of-body experience (OBE), but no NDE. It was found that in the NDE sample, about half had been blind from birth. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_1_64/ai_65076875/ In The Wonder Of Being Human: Our Brain and Our Mind, Eccles and Robinson discussed the research of three groups of scientists (Robert Porter and Cobie Brinkman, Nils Lassen and Per Roland, and Hans Kornhuber and Luder Deeke), all of whom produced startling and undeniable evidence that a "mental intention" preceded an actual neuronal firing - thereby establishing that the mind is not the same thing as the brain, but is a separate entity altogether. http://books.google.com/books?id=J9pON9yB8HkC&pg=PT28&lpg=PT28 “As I remarked earlier, this may present an “insuperable” difficulty for some scientists of materialists bent, but the fact remains, and is demonstrated by research, that non-material mind acts on material brain.” Eccles etc.. etc... Methinks you should give a lot more consideration for the safety of your own soul Gaz!!!bornagain77_{June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

Gaz, your godoid is a false idol that you have very unwisely put in the place of God. But why would you choose to be so unwise?bornagain77_{June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 (318), I can give a far more parsimonious explanation than God. There is an entity that I shall christen(?) the "godoid". This is an entity that does all the physical causing of stuff that appears to be uncaused at the quantum level, but is not omnipotent, omniscient, intelligent, not creative at the macro level (hence didn't create humans), not even conscious, thus not necessarily aware of humanity and certainly doesn't answer prayers. That is much more parsimonious than the God explanation.Gaz_{June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

Gaz, since God is by far the parsimonious explanation for the uncaused cause of all the reality of this universe, then every discipline of "science", science which you said was "over" once He was invoked, only truly is "over", i.e. comes to full fruition of all its inherent knowledge of reality, when all known relevant data, of any particular sciences' discipline, is lined up to that true point of His primary and uncaused reality!bornagain77_{June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

UprightBiPed (314), I agree that just because something is random does not necessarily mean that it is uncaused. In fact, my view is that random events in classical physics will certainly have a cause. All I am saying is that there are phenomena at the quantum level that do genuinely appear to be uncaused. I'll repeat the question I asked earlier - if you have a testable mechanism for these apparently unacused quantum events then let me know.Gaz_{June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

Gaz, LOL, see you later!mullerpr_{June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

Hmm, God invoked again, so the science is over. Time to end this (again).Gaz_{June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

Gaz, An event that is random, does not by virtue of being random, also become uncaused. Just because you insist that it does (and by "insist" I mean that you repeatedly sneak it into the conversation) does not make it so.Upright BiPed_{June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

The difference between “poof” and naturalism is old-hat. What’s on the cusp is their similarity. Believers have no difficulty accounting for the excellence and complexity (and beauty) of nature. Poof! God did it. “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.” Naturalists don’t want God in nature, so they claim that nature made itself. But the more we learn about nature, the more we realize how “very good” it actually is. The more we know about the astonishing excellence and economy of the cell, for example, the less likely it seems that nature is capable of investing itself with such goodness of its own accord. Darwinists cannot show, have never shown in any degree in any lab or experiment, the natural transformation in form described by the great poet of naturalism—Natural Selection. They have never demonstrated the emergence of a complex, contingent mechanism like the cell from that which is self-contained and simple. It seems the very thing they set their minds to do is what they cannot do. But thanks be to Whomever—poof! They invoke the divine principle of Darwinism, Deep Time, and all of these troubling impediments melt away. Their touching faith in Deep Time is exactly the same thing as a believer’s faith in God, the substance of things not seen. Deep Time has transcendent properties. Just as God is, by Augustine’s famous description, above and beyond time, so Deep Time provides the Darwinist with a theoretical force of pure resistance to the meddlesome scientific entity of time itself, which makes his theory quite impossible. Poof! The impossible occurs because of the undefined mystical powers of Deep Time. It is Deep Time that makes Darwinism unfalsifiable, and Deep Time that enables our Darwinists to share the gracious freedom of Poof! with benighted believers.allanius_{June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT}

I feel I have to clarify this last point I made against my view of God, because it might be receive the wrong interpretation. Again Gaz, nothing to do with the argument. It is just how I would like people to understand my perception of the implications of my argument. I said,
"If you want to conclude that radio active decay has no beginning, in any possible reality, you effectively assume that event to be indistinguishable from …well it seems …indistinguishable from everything. (That is obviously not the case.)"
That implies that we will most probably never see/distinguish GOD as the beginningless cause of everything, however we can always be looking for His handy work and incarnation of Himself in Jesus Christ.mullerpr_{June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT}

Gaz, I am also a realist. The thing is that what you describe about "...radioactive decay, spontaneous electron transitions" does not fit into any form of breakdown of causality... at all. You implied it yourself, it only refers to the weirdness of QM. What I am saying is that there is nothing, that begins to exist, so weird that you would be warranted to expect a breakdown of causality. P.S. My definition for the "Law of Causality" is therefore. Everything that has a beginning in any possible reality, has a cause. Nothing has contradicted this law, yet. If you want to conclude that radio active decay has no beginning, in any possible reality, you effectively assume that event to be indistinguishable from ...well it seems ...indistinguishable from everything. (That is obviously not the case.)mullerpr_{June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT}

Gaz you state: Just picked up your 289 – sorry to have missed it. After reading your response it is apparent the you still missed itbornagain77_{June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT}

mullerpr (308), no, it's not anti-realism at all. I don't deny the existence of objects that can't be seen by humans or instruments - in fact I would apssionately argue for the existence of electrons, say. Nor do I agree with the instrumentalist position in your quote, saying we ddon't need to determine the existence or non-existence of X - we need such determinations to test our models (and it's what extablishments such as CERN are involved in all the time). My position really is quite simple - it's that some quantum events demonstrate a breakdown of causality (e.g. radioactive decay, spontaneous electron transitions). Now, if someone came up with a realistic and testable model for a cause for such events then I, personally, would jump for joy because frankly QM is so weird that anything that reduces the weirdness factor would be a good thing from my viewpoint. But there hasn't been, nor is there at present, any model for one. It really does seem - with regret - that these events are uncaused. If you can point me to a realistic, testable model to say otherwise then I'm all ears. But just saying "there must be a cause because of the "law of causality"" simply doesn't cut the mustard.Gaz_{June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PDT}

Gaz, It seems as if my question helped you to construct a "method to decide when to deny causality". You have to admit that it is not a good method because it falls down when you consider all indeterministic causes in the light of probability. Remember probability needs no "knowledge" about a cause it simply predict the occurrence of an effect. In fact any number of unknown causes can achieve the same effect and probability will still apply. As I said before it is much more realistic to expect a cause by default regardless of its property being deterministic or indeterministic. It therefore still seems as if your problem is not with causality but with the human observer's inability to determine the cause. Surely that level of anti-realism has, by and large, been laid to rest a long time ago. "The bird is singing in the wood regardless of the observer" (i.e. the realist view). Read section "Anti-realism in science" I think you fall in the category described in bold: Anti-realism in science
In philosophy of science, anti-realism applies chiefly to claims about the non-reality of "unobservable" entities such as electrons or DNA, which are not detectable with human senses. For a brief discussion comparing such anti-realism to its opposite, realism, see (Okasha 2002, ch. 4). Ian Hacking (1999, p. 84) also uses the same definition. One prominent anti-realist position in the philosophy of science is instrumentalism, which takes a purely agnostic view towards the existence of unobservable entities: unobservable entity X serves simply as an instrument to aid in the success of theory Y. We need not determine the existence or non-existence of X. Some scientific anti-realists argue further, however, and deny that unobservables exist even as non-truth conditioned instruments.
If you fall in this category do you have references to support this view of "Some scientific anti-realists"mullerpr_{June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
01:53 AM
1
01
53
AM
PDT}

bornagain77, Just picked up your 289 - sorry to have missed it. That equation of Boltzmann's relates to STATISTICAL mechanics -by definition, the treatment of particles in bulk, not individually. It doesn't relate at all to the decay of an individual radioactive nuclei.Gaz_{June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
12:56 AM
12
12
56
AM
PDT}

mullerpr (304), A good question indeed. Let's take the example of radioactive decay - we can't, in fact apply any theory to determine when an individual radioactive nuclei will decay, because it is "uncaused" and entirely random. We can, however, assess the probability that nuclei will decay and calculate the half-life - essentially a probabilistic measure - to determine when half of a given quantity of radioactive nuclei will decay. So given that we know some nuclei will decay, and the rate at which they decay, we can make a probabilistic assessment to determine the half-life in bulk of what is, at the level of the individual nuclei, an event without a cause.Gaz_{June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
12:43 AM
12
12
43
AM
PDT}

Clive Hayden (288), Yes, I was being humorous (trying to be, anyway). QM certainly is odd I suppose it's a question of definitions, really. I hesitate to call, for instance, virtual particles popping in and out of existence as "poof" because "poof" tends to imply that anything can happen. That's not true in QM, there are of course bounds on the extent of the change in energy and the time that the energy can be "borrowed" (as set out by Heisenberg), and of course they tend to arise in certain circumstances (e.g. a virtual W or Z boson when there is an electroweak interaction). If that's what you mean by "poof" then "poof" it is: if by "poof" you mean anything can happen, then it isn't. Let me use this opportunity to correct an interpretation I may have left with correspondents, but didn't intend: I certainly don't mean to imply that cause and effect ALWAYS breaks down in the quantum realm. There are of course instances where cause and effect applies. Let me give an example: elctron transitions between atomic energy levels can be caused AND uncaused - caused in the event of anpother particle, a photon for example, imparting energy to an electron to allow jumps between energy levels; and uncaused in the event of spontaneous transitions, e.g. in spontaneous emission of radiation.Gaz_{June 30, 2010
June
06
Jun
30
30
2010
12:14 AM
12
12
14
AM
PDT}

Gaz @283 In the discussion of QM and its reliance on probability theory, I have one more question (see IOW at the end). Probability can only be applied on the basis that there actually is a possibility for an event to happen. It presupposes a causal agency and then calculate probability of a specific effect to take place because of said cause. (This position indecently maintains the scientific principle that a cause does not need to be known... something anti-ID agents keep on insisting, without acknowledging that their insistence would stop any inquiry.) That in itself seals the fact that QM does have a cause because an event can be predicted on a probabilistic level. IOW - Who can apply probability theory to an uncaused event?mullerpr_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PDT}

veilsofmaya, Given your wide definition of ID, wouldn’t Solipsism be considered ID since everything that exists would have been “designed” by a single intelligent agent? Should I expect you to welcome Solipsists into the wide club of ID with open arms? My wide definition? I quoted Dembski. I can quote others. Every ID proponent I'm aware of concedes that ID does not prove the existence of, nor require the belief in, the Christian God. The range is broad. As for solipsism, I'll worry about that when it comes to pass that there are a lot of solipsists suggesting interpretations of quantum physics. MWI, however, absolutely makes certain that Boltzmann Brains (an infinite number of them) do come to exist. You, veils, have vastly more 'trouble' with solipsism given MWI than I do. If such an entity could omit these things, but chooses to create a eternal simulation that includes them, (which is in itself, non-sensical, as death already excludes this from being the eternal resurrected simulation Tipler is referring to) would such an entity deserve to be worshiped? This is just the classic problem of evil, restated. Back to the discussions of soul-building, fallen worlds, and so on. And regardless of whether or not you think such an entity 'deserves' to be worshiped, a god is a god. Zeus, by most accounts, was kind of a horse's rear. Was he not a god? Can someone believe in Zeus' existence yet be an atheist? An agnostic?nullasalus_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT}

@ nullasalus Given your wide definition of ID, wouldn't Solipsism be considered ID since everything that exists would have been "designed" by a single intelligent agent? Should I expect you to welcome Solipsists into the wide club of ID with open arms?veilsofmaya_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT}

I wrote:
First, this is NOT the reality Tipler claims it will create. One of his arguments of why the Omega Point is “God” is that it will resurrect us in a realty familiar to ours, but without suffering, illnesses, death, etc. Does this describe the reality we currently observe? Would any entity that intentionally created the realty we observe deserve your worshiped?
To head off any possible confusion by the classical theists in our midsts, I was specifically refereeing to what we currently observe as an infinite, wholly designed, virtual reality simulation intentionally brought about by an entity at the Omega Point. According to Tipler, the very reason we are resurrected is because, at the Omega Point (or some proximity near it), the resulting collective entity has gained the technical ability to simulate an eternity without these things. In fact, this is one reasons why Tipler concludes the Omega Point is "God." Yet, we still observe suffering, illnesses and death. If such an entity could omit these things, but chooses to create a eternal simulation that includes them, (which is in itself, non-sensical, as death already excludes this from being the eternal resurrected simulation Tipler is referring to) would such an entity deserve to be worshiped?veilsofmaya_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT}

nullasalus- What I meant was that they are trying to explain away the beginning of the universe which in fact increases the likelihood of the thing they wish to avoid. I think they would still have to come up with a reason for there being something rather than nothing, i.e. "space" for space if you know what I mean. I'm not saying that MWI wishes to explain God or something, but that it opens up the possibility for God as well as just about anything else. I mean, what's to stop, in MWI, a boulder popping into the middle of my living room? That seems like it would be a likely occurrence in MWI.Phaedros_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

nullasalus,,, Deutsch is about as atheistic and naturalistic as someone sacrificing chickens to keep a volcano dormant. 8) ROTFLOL 8) That laugh had tears 8)bornagain77_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT}

Phaedros, The thing about MWI is that it only makes the possibility for the existence of God as likely as anything else it seeks to explain, doesn’t it? Not really, if I take your question right. MWI doesn't have much to say about the ultimate start/origin of the universe. Alex Vilenkin embraces MWI, he believes that the claim that the universe had an ultimate beginning is now beyond doubt, and he still struggles with how to explain that - he does not like theism, but he briefly entertains the possibility that the laws of nature were in existence in a mind "prior to" the universe coming into being. And as Paul Davies says, embracing multiverse suggestions only shifts the whole question up a level. In those and other senses, the "God" question goes untouched. There are other problems with believing in MWI views, particularly ones which are infinite such that anything possible does in fact come to pass, and an infinite number of times at that. Especially if you view 'created worlds' as possible. Since that gets into nesting (A created world where the denizens created a world where the denizens created a world where...), and suddenly you have to ask "How likely is it that I'm on the top of any given world, given that I can exist anywhere from 1 to N on these 'levels'?"nullasalus_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply