Every atheist, if he is to be respected, must offer a naturalist response to the following truths (taken from The Wonder of the World by Roy Abraham Varghese):
- The scientific method assumes that the world is understandable – and also rational in the sense that its operations can be categorized under laws and theories.
- Science assumes that all events and phenomena have an explanation, that every effect has a cause, although in the quantum realm, cause and effect can only be identified at a probabilistic level.
- The world revealed by modern science is a world that (a) obeys fundamental mathematical principles, (b) resembles computational systems with their elaborate information processing and mapping of symbols, and (c) confirms our assumption that it’s intelligible and rational.
- The laws of nature describe certain regularities in the universe. But these laws are not just descriptions of the regularities. Rather, the laws cause the regularities.
- The laws of nature, particularly in relativity and quantum theory, can be understood and structured in the most complex and logical thought-form known to the human mind, that of mathematics. Scientists have been stunned by the one-to-one correspondence between the ‘program’ of nature and the programs of independently discovered and developed by the mind. Since symbolic thought and data processing are peculiar to minds as distinct from particles or force fields, it seems reasonable to assume that the laws of nature are manifestations of a sophisticated mind. No wonder then that the quantum physicist Paul Dirac said, “God is a mathematician of a very high order.”
- The paradigm of infinite Intelligence expressing itself through a hierarchy of manifestations immediately makes of the most diverse phenomena in our experience: rationality, intention, intelligence, beauty, and love. The denial of this paradigm comes at a heavy cost: we have to explain away the most obvious realities; the laws of nature cannot be explained and the apparent correlation between cause and effect, phenomenon and explanation is simply an illusion or at best a coincidence; there is no such thing as consciousness or intention or thought; finally, everything that seems ordered and intelligible is actually random and irrational.
Einstein said it best with his stunning declaration that anyone seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men.”
To this point, I have seen no satisfactory answers offered by atheists to the above points. I’m waiting and I have a feeling I’ll be waiting for awhile…
5 comments:
So, as Varghese says, “There has to be intelligence in the laws of the universe or it would not exhibit the kind of rationality shown by the success of science… In a word, there’s some underlying structure about the way the world is made. And if it’s astonishing that the world exists at all, it’s just as astonishing that it’s a world with a structure.
you are simply assuming in your argument that order and structure require mind/intelligence.
There is, so far as I can tell, no reasonable basis for making this assumption and therefore no problem for the atheist in the idea of an orderly universe.
Until you actually present an argument for this central assumption (which you, so far, have not), you have done nothing to establish theism or refute atheism.
The world revealed by modern science is a world that (a) obeys fundamental mathematical principles....
More accurately one would say that the world is mathematically describable.
But then, can there be ANY system that it would not be possible to model mathematically? Even a highly random system can be modelled mathematically.
The laws of nature describe certain regularities in the universe. But these laws are not just descriptions of the regularities. Rather, the laws cause the regularities.
I dont think one could find many competent scientists who would agree with that statement.
david,
You disagree that order and structure require mind/intelligence. A few questions: When you open a book, what do you assume? It was produced by intelligence. When you walk into your local auto dealer, what do you assume about the vehicles in the show room? They were produced by intelligence. When you walk into the Mall of America and see Lego Land, what do you assume? It was produced by intelligence.
How can you look at the human cell (with 3.5 billion nucleotide bases and more information than three complete sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica) and not see that intelligence produced it?
How can you look at the human brain, which can rightly be called the most complex physical structure in the universe (it comprises about one hundred thousand million neurons, which is on the same magnitude of the number of stars in our local galaxy, with no two of them having the same shape, along with one hundred thousand million other cells providing metabolic functions and structural support) and not see that intelligence produced it? I don’t believe supercomputers arose without intelligence. Why would I believe that something that can do 1 million million million computations a second (which is a hundred million times faster than the fastest supercomputer) arose without intelligence?
How do you explain this?
Can you provide one example of complex order arising without intelligence?
You have asked for me to present an argument to prove that intelligence/mind produces order. Isn’t the fact that my mind produced the order you’re reading an argument in itself? And aren’t our experiences everyday an argument? Doesn’t the burden of proof rest on you? Everything we know and see and live says that intelligence/mind produces order. I mean, how often do you walk into Manhattan and conclude, “Wow, a tornado assembled the Brooklyn Bridge!”
In order for me to reject everything I see and live by everyday, I’m going to need some pretty hefty evidence from the atheist. Show me how order can arise without mind/intelligence.
You disagree that the laws of nature cause the regularities we see in the universe (and that the world obeys fundamental mathematical principles). Ok, how does the electron know what to do? Why do all photons follow the same pattern of behavior? Why does the law of conservation of mass-energy apply across the universe? If the laws of nature don’t cause these regularities, what does?
You disagree that order and structure require mind/intelligence. A few questions: When you open a book, what do you assume? It was produced by intelligence. When you walk into your local auto dealer, what do you assume about the vehicles in the show room? They were produced by intelligence. When you walk into the Mall of America and see Lego Land, what do you assume? It was produced by intelligence.
All of which are simply examples of orderly things I know from experience to be created by human beings.
Unlike, for example, snowflakes which I know from experience to be produced by natural processes and not meticulously carved by master artists huddled over magnifying glasses from tiny blocks of ice.
Which, in turn, is unlike paper cutouts of snowflake shapes which I would, on the other hand, expect to have been created by human beings---since I have no experience of them being produced by natural processes but plenty of observations of humans making them.
How can you look at the human brain, which can rightly be called the most complex physical structure in the universe ..... and not see that intelligence produced it?
We have plenty of observation of human brains being produced by natural processes (its called reproduction). Its simply cellular and chemical activity doing what it does with no intelligent being having to supervise the process.
There is no evidence that any intelligent being, anywhere, ever, has been sufficiently smart as to be able to design and build a brain. The evidence indicates that its required the sheer scale and profligancy of natural processes over vast periods of time working in small increments to do that.
david,
You mention snowflakes being “produced by natural processes and not meticulously carved by master artists huddled over magnifying glasses from tiny blocks of ice.”
Two things:
1)how did the “natural processes” come about in the first place?
2)Snowflakes are complex, but they aren’t specified. There’s a big difference between a book full of abcabcabcabcabc and a book of specific and complex information (like War and Peace). For more on this, check out William Dembski’s Intelligent Design.
You say, “We have plenty of observation of human brains being produced by natural processes (its called reproduction). Its simply cellular and chemical activity doing what it does with no intelligent being having to supervise the process.”
First, you haven’t answered the question. In reproduction two human brains produce one human brain. Intelligence is still involved. Second, where did reproduction come from? Where did cellular and chemical activity come from? How did the cell evolve?
You say, “There is no evidence that any intelligent being, anywhere, ever, has been sufficiently smart as to be able to design and build a brain. The evidence indicates that its required the sheer scale and profligancy of natural processes over vast periods of time working in small increments to do that.”
Here you really amaze me. I agree that no human being is smart enough to design and build a brain, but wouldn’t it be more reasonable to conclude that a Mind of infinite intelligence built the most complex structure in the universe than to suggest that mindless, directionless processes did? Really, that is incredibly far fetched! I’m more prepared to believe unicorns exist than that mindless, directionless processes produced the human brain!
Besides, there isn’t a known evolutionary process or mutation on the planet that has ever been shown to increase genetic information (which is a must for Darwinian evolution). If you know of one, please share – and be sure it increases genetic information, not duplicates existing info.
1)how did the “natural processes” come about in the first place?
I don't know why all the properties of physical reality as we observe it are as they are.
I'm not, after all, omniscient.
But since there is no reason to suppose that "natural processes" wouldn't exist if atheism is true that doesn't present any problem for atheism.
In reproduction two human brains produce one human brain. Intelligence is still involved.
Human intelligence is only involved in human reproduction in the most oblique manner---in the sense of the ability to decide to have sex.
And in the reproduction of dandelions and bacteria, intelligence is involved not at all.
Here you really amaze me. I agree that no human being is smart enough to design and build a brain, but wouldn’t it be more reasonable to conclude that a Mind of infinite intelligence built the most complex structure in the universe than to suggest that mindless, directionless processes did?
Not when:
A. There is no credible for the existence of disembodied minds---much less ones of infinite intelligence.
B. There is abundant physical evidence for evolution.
C. The design of living beings shows clear indications of the jury-rigged, incremental nature inevitable if evolution did it but unnecessary for a diety.
D. The designs are, in some characteristics, simply so bad. If an intelligence designed living beings it was one with a rather shoddy sense of workmanship.
Besides, there isn’t a known evolutionary process or mutation on the planet that has ever been shown to increase genetic information
Define genetic information and how you are measuring it.
You apparently aren't defining it as the size of the genome since duplication (which you reject as an increase in information) would increase it.
I'm not going to waste my time debating a topic on which the central concept is left and open to multiple interpretations.
Its funny, you gave these example of BUILT things as evidence that complex things can't come about through natural processes when the most complex things in our experience are GROWN things that occur naturally with no intelligent direction going on.
And then conclude that complexity can't possibly be the result of "merely" natural processes.
The flaw in your thinking is obvious:
You're simply inserting a metaphysical assumption (complexity and order can only result from intelligence) for which there is not the slightest shred of evidence and which we have vast amounts of evidence to be false (in the evidence for the evolutionary process).
Post a Comment