sieg's second philosophical post on atheism

[siegfriedandroy]

Since (1) my first post seemed to generate some good discussion on atheistic morality, and (2) since my aforementioned debate w/ my atheist friend continues, and (3) since Sklansky is apparently a devout atheist (which I did not know before!), I thought I'd try to get some further discussion going.

Although lately I have been semi-obsessed with the moral implications of atheism, there are some other topics I'd like to discuss as well.

1) My friend makes the common argument that science and religion are diametrically opposed. I do not believe this. In my view, this is true only if you presuppose that the supernatural is not possible. Also, I was just listening to a radio program (w/ Lee Stroebel, who was discussing his book, 'The Case for a Creator') dealing w/ atheism. The host of the show mentioned that Da Vinci, who some consider the father of modern science, believed in creation. He also mentioned that Pasteur and Newton believed in creation, and either both or one of them (cant remember exactly) even went so far as to defend the Genesis account of creation. Of course, they mentioned Pascal as well. Anyway, my point is that it seems disingenuous of my friend to merely repeat over and over that one must choose between science (i.e. enlightenment) and religion (i.e. foolish stone-age dogma). Thoughts?

2) My friend also likes to argue by asking the age old atheistic query, "Who created God?" This question likely comes in response to a cosmological type argument which argues that since everything must have a cause, then the universe must have a cause, which is the First Cause, or God. My standard response, as a Christian, is something to the effect of, "God is outside of time and space, and is eternal. By definition, God is uncaused." On the radio program, Stroebel argued something similar in response to an atheist caller. He said that the universe must have a cause, since we know it had a beginning (according to big bang cosmology). So only things that have a beginning were necessarily caused. The universe could not have come from nothing; nothing can possibly come from nothing. Since God, by definition, is eternal, having no beginning, God does not need to have been caused. The question, 'who created god', doesnt really make sense. No one created God.

3) While I haven't really discussed this issue with my atheist friend (yet), I will add it since it is interesting. Another caller on this program brought up the argument about why God would create so much unnecessary 'junk', making this incomprehensibly vast universe with billions of stars, planets, galaxies, etc.
Why would there be so much waste? I believe Stephen Hawking made a similar argument. Stroebel's answer (which made reference to the book of some scientist he interviewed, who I am not familiar with) was something to the effect that in order to create earth, and to make life for us the way it is today, much of this 'waste' in the vast universe is actually necessary and productive in supporting life on earth. Intuitively, while the vastness of the universe used to strike fear into me and make me question how my beliefs could really be true, it doesn't really bother me anymore. Who am I (one man who knows next to nothing- and I believe most all of us, despite the arrgoance in us that seems so commonplace and prevalent in our human race- know next to nothing, just like Socrates- "I know because I do not know"? So who am I to possibly have the audacity to say that God could not or would not create the universe exactly this way, or that it is a million to one shot? Who am I to say that there is no way God could or would allow evil in the world as an effect of free will? etc. etc. ad infinitum.........I am not too familiar with this third argument, so I will just stop there.

Anyway, hopefully this will lead to some further good discussion. That would be amazing if Sklansky was once again the first to respond to my post! I dont want to get my hopes up though!

[RxForMoreCowbell]

[ QUOTE ]

2) My friend also likes to argue by asking the age old atheistic query, "Who created God?" This question likely comes in response to a cosmological type argument which argues that since everything must have a cause, then the universe must have a cause, which is the First Cause, or God. My standard response, as a Christian, is something to the effect of, "God is outside of time and space, and is eternal. By definition, God is uncaused." On the radio program, Stroebel argued something similar in response to an atheist caller. He said that the universe must have a cause, since we know it had a beginning (according to big bang cosmology). So only things that have a beginning were necessarily caused. The universe could not have come from nothing; nothing can possibly come from nothing. Since God, by definition, is eternal, having no beginning, God does not need to have been caused. The question, 'who created god', doesnt really make sense. No one created God.


[/ QUOTE ]


The equivalent question to your response is: The Universe, by definition, is all that we are capable of observing with our senses. The Universe does not need to have been caused by something outside of it, as we have no way of observing what kind of laws or rules apply to things outside of the Universe. The question, 'who created the universe?', doesn't really make sense.

"1) My friend makes the common argument that science and religion are diametrically opposed. I do not believe this. In my view, this is true only if you presuppose that the supernatural is not possible."

My personal opinion is that science and Religion are seperate domains of knowledge that should be kept seperate. There are several problems with this way of looking at the problem (mainly it amounts to a gag order and many of the questions that science/rel. ask are the same) but I think there is more truth in the "seperate spheres" way of looking at it as opposed to the view that science and Religion are in constant conflict. One small caveat that most Christians or religious people would not agree with is that a literal interpretation of the Bible or any specific theology is most certainly in direct conflict with science. Put another way, your friend is wrong in saying that one must choose between science and religion, but he is correct in saying that one must choose between science and religious dogma.

2. "nothing can possibly come from nothing."....Im in way over my head here but I think the accuracy of that statement is somewhat in question right now.

3. Stroebels answer seemed to be using the same type of reasoning as that used to defend intelligent design which is quite dubious.

one other aside...the felling I get after reading Sklanskys posts is that he would take issue with being labeled an athiest, and if not, certainly a devout one. Most athiests at least would have problems with Sklanskyanitys allowances for God.

[Siegmund]

Talk about being TRICKED into reading a thread by the title... my first reaction was "wow, someone actually read something I posted," my second was "but wait, I don't remember posting anything about atheism in a long time"....

And now the third has time to sink in. Oof.

Nice meeting you, son.

[David Sklansky]

since Sklansky is apparently a devout atheist (which I did not know before!),

Why do you say that?

[David Sklansky]

"was something to the effect that in order to create earth, and to make life for us the way it is today, much of this 'waste' in the vast universe is actually necessary and productive in supporting life on earth."

Stars a billion light years away are not necessary to support life. It is true that if scientist"s explanation for life is correct it would probably also imply the existence of those stars. But supposedly God can "speak" things into existence.

[ QUOTE ]
The host of the show mentioned that Da Vinci, who some consider the father of modern science, believed in creation. He also mentioned that Pasteur and Newton believed in creation, and either both or one of them (cant remember exactly) even went so far as to defend the Genesis account of creation.

[/ QUOTE ]Didn't Newton spend some significant time late in his life on the old alchemy problem of turning lead into gold? Einstein spent (some would say wasted) the latter years of his live going down the wrong path. Stephen Hawking has recently admitted he was wrong about some theory he was previously wquite sure about. Anyway, great scientists often have these types of lapses.

[ QUOTE ]
2) My friend also likes to argue by asking the age old atheistic query, "Who created God?" This question likely comes in response to a cosmological type argument which argues that since everything must have a cause, then the universe must have a cause, which is the First Cause, or God. My standard response, as a Christian, is something to the effect of, "God is outside of time and space, and is eternal. By definition, God is uncaused." On the radio program, Stroebel argued something similar in response to an atheist caller. He said that the universe must have a cause, since we know it had a beginning (according to big bang cosmology). So only things that have a beginning were necessarily caused. The universe could not have come from nothing; nothing can possibly come from nothing. Since God, by definition, is eternal, having no beginning, God does not need to have been caused. The question, 'who created god', doesnt really make sense. No one created God.

[/ QUOTE ]Did anyone else come away from this paragraph thinking: God must be nothing?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

1) My friend makes the common argument that science and religion are diametrically opposed.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is absurd. Newton wrote 1.3 million words of theology. Bayes was a Christian minister. It is only since about Darwin that this myth has arisen. Interesting that Darwin's only degree was in theology.

[ QUOTE ]

Another caller on this program brought up the argument about why God would create so much unnecessary 'junk', making this incomprehensibly vast universe with billions of stars, planets, galaxies, etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

That guy should get together with Sklansky and the ghost of Sagan. Just exactly how many stars should there be and why?

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Newton wrote 1.3 million words of [dealing with] theology. Most of it absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fixed your post. Here is a link to his supposed 1.3 million words (looks more like about 300,000 words or so, but perhaps this link doesn't contain all the rubbish he wrote) Newton's Theology


The following is a sample of his bombastic babble, from his twelve articls on religion (from the web link):

Artic. 1. There is one God the Father everliving, omnipresent, omniscient, almighty, the maker of heaven & earth, & one Mediator between God & Man the Man Christ Iesus.

Artic 2. The father is the invisible God whom no eye hath seen or can see, all other beings are sometimes visible.

Artic. 3. The Father hath life in himself & hath given the son to have life in himself.

Artic 4 The father is omniscient & hath all knowledge originally in his own breast, & communicates knowledge of future things to Iesus Christ & none in heaven or earth or under the earth is worthy to receive knowledge of future things immediately from the father except the Lamb. And therefore the testimony of Iesus is the Spirit of Prophesy & Iesus is the Word or Prophet of God.

Artic 5. The father is immoveable no place being capable of becoming emptier or fuller of him then it is by the eternal necessity of nature: all other beings are moveable from place to place.

Artic 6. All the worship (whether of prayer praise or thanks giving which was due to the father before the coming of Christ is still due to him. Christ came not to diminish the worship of his father.

Artic. 7. Prayers are most prevalent when directed to the father in the name of the son

Artic. 8. We are to return thanks to the father alone for creating us & giving us food & raiment & other blessings of this life & whatsover we are to thank him for or desire that he would do for us we ask of him immediately in the name of Christ

Artic. 9. We need not pray to Christ to intercede for us. If we pray the father aright he will intercede.

Artic. 10. It is not necessary to salvation to direct our prayers to any other then the father in the name of the son.

Artic. 11. To give the name of God to Angels or Kings is not against the first commandment. To give the worship of the God of the Iews to Angels or Kings is against it. The meaning of the commandment is Thou shalt worship no other Gods but me.

Artic 12. To us there is but one God the father of whom are all things & we of him, & one Lord Iesus Christ by whom are all things & we by him. that is, we are to worship the father alone as God Almighty & Iesus alone as the Lord the Messiah the great King the Lamb of God who was slain & hath redeemed us with his blood & made us kings & Priests.

-Sir Isaac Newton, Puritan Wackjob.