Home » Need help responding.

nigelTheBold's picture

Quote:>>I guess it sounds

Submitted by nigelTheBold on April 10, 2008 - 10:54am.

Quote:
>>I guess it sounds good if you want to forego logic, but Mr. Harris should be reminded that naturalism/materialism is a religion that requires faith as well. Reason alone is non-sense because reason pre-supposes faith. Defense of reason by reason is circular, therefore worthless. His own arguement makes the same mistake he insists theists make and thus his statement self-destructs. [WTF?]

"Forego logic?" Them's fightin' words.

First, they must express exactly the precepts of faith on which naturalism rests. Otherwise, they are merely making unfounded assertions. Then ask how reason presupposes faith. (I've seen this in another thread, with Paisley, and it didn't make sense there, either. Where did this meme arise?)

Defence of reason by reason might be circular, but defence of reason by observation is not. Science, which is a combination of observation and reason, has provided us with a coherent ontology that is congruent with reality. There is no other epistemology that can make similar claims. So, for now, the scientific method is the only way we can attain knowledge with any degree of certainty. (There's never 100% certainty with science, but we can approach 100% asymptotically.)

Finally, "nature" is comprehensive of all that is in the universe, by definition. What do they propose that is outside the universe, and by what epistemology did they arrive at that knowledge?

Quote:
>>When you study the information that we have concerning our existence it is clear that the odds of the existence of this world are beyond astronomical (no pun intended) and in fact would be deemed a miracle...... and that naturalism of course cannot provide any answer.

And what information have they studied?

The odds of existence of our world were incalculable just a couple of years ago. We had no data concerning the distribution of planets in various solar systems. We now have much better data, and it turns out that planets are very common. Consider: we have only surveyed a couple of hundred solar systems, and have found dozens of planets. As you pointed out, there are 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone. So the odds of the existence of our world, even if a billion to one (which we now know is extremely pessimistic) would still give our planet excellent odds for existence.

As far as the chances of us evolving -- sure, if you think about evolution having a "goal" (that is, us), then it's damned near impossible without some guiding force. Once you understand evolution is a mindless, directionless process that wanders wherever the genetic raw materials and the lathes of environment take it, you realize that chance didn't make us. Evolution made us. We aren't here because we were a  goal. We only think we're special because we observe us, and think we're somehow special. (And maybe that thought itself makes us special.)

The other thing to consider: we're not done. If mankind survives, we will continue to evolve. The only difference is, we might guide our own evolution. And that is a scary, wonderful thought.

In the end, their assertion is just plain, flat-out, incontrovertibly wrong.

Quote:
>>The simple fact that science states before time, matter and space exploded into being there was nothing. It doesn't take a great deal of logic to conclude that those properties coming from nothing and coming together in a life sustaining manner is in fact a miracle. We can debate the meaning of the word for all time but it wouldn't change the meaning for the majority. The card analogy does not match up because it is not making an equivocal comparison. To make such a comparison we would first have to determine how the cards already exist then explain why they have logical designed principles to create such sequences. The universe will continue to "work" regardless of anyone's philosophical beliefs. Herein lies why naturalism/materialism self-destructs because if there was no transcendent God and creator then the naturalist world has the burden of explaining how this world exists at all. Not only can "science" not explain the why, but it can't explain the how either. If everything is material then how did it come from nothing? Beyond the existence, naturalism can't even explain the species as bacteria has never been observed to mutate into anything, it stays bacteria. Time + matter + chance doesn't equate to new species because it has never been observed and time creates disorder, not order. The Second Law of Thermodynamics makes this clear in the principle of entropy. Darwinism self-destructs. All of this requires the naturalist to have a great deal of faith and this is just one reason why I don't have enough faith to be an atheist. 

They really like explosion metaphors, don't they? ("Self-destructs." Hah!)

Science does not state that matter and space exploded from nothing. Scientists believe that is one possibility, but we know relatively little about the first few picoseconds of the universe, let alone the state of the universe before time even existed. (And can something "exist" before time?)

But even more mind-boggling than nothing existing before the universe, is the concept that God existed before the universe, If the chances of mankind evolving are astronomical, what are the odds of God even existing? Way beyond astronomical. If mankind is complex and therefore improbable, God is infinitely more complex, and therefore infinitely more improbable.

So the existence of God self-destructs.

And as far as the second law of thermodynamics: these guys haven't studied physics, have they?

Applies to closed systems. Sun provides massive energy gradient. Blah blah blah.

Quote:
>>How can someone honestly search for truth if they've already discounted a possible conclusion? That is what is happening when a naturalist dogmatically asserts that life arose spontaneously from it's non-living chemical components. Richard Lewontin confessed that materialism "cannot allow a divine foot in the door." This is pure, ideology giving way to unsupported theories. For the thinking Christian, based on the laws of logic and the observation of the evidence it requires more faith to believe in naturalism. There is such a thing as good science and bad science. Just as an example, bad science is believing in macroevolution JUST becuase microevolution can be observed. Unfortunately this sort of "science" is lumped into what is taught to the public as the only science and the public has unknowingly accepted it as truth. I come to my conclusions that best answers what we can logically determine based on observation and forensic evidence and is why I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

Jeeeee-zus on a unicycle.

As has been stated (but I must state again, because I'm OCD that way, and I want to yell at them directly), macroevolution has been seen among bacteria. It's been observed in viruses, too (though viruses aren't "alive" ). And the only people who draw a distinction between "macroevolution" and "microevolution" are those who wish to confound the issue.

What makes the theory of evolution through natural selection "bad science?" The "proof" of a theory lies in deduction. A theory must describe new knowledge. It must tell us something about our world we didn't know before. And that knowledge must be verifiable against observation. The theory of evolution through natural selection did just that. It made bold, bizarre predictions that have all turned out to be congruent with reality. From basic biology, through sociology, to medicine, and genetics, and anthropology, and dozens of other disciplines, the theory of evolution through natural selection has made many predictions, and all have turned out true.

That is the epitomy of good science. I'd say the only theory that has been more thorougly tested is Newton's laws. And even those laws turned out to be valid only within certain relative parameters.

What do your friends have to offer that comes close? What do they have that has produced a coherent ontology that is congruent with reality?

 

Sorry. I know I repeated a lot of what's already been said. I just had to vent.

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Textual smileys will be replaced with graphical ones.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <p> <span> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <img> <map> <area> <hr> <br> <br /> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <table> <tr> <td> <em> <b> <u> <i> <strong> <font> <del> <ins> <sub> <sup> <quote> <blockquote> <pre> <address> <code> <cite> <embed> <obj
  • You can use BBCode tags in the text, URLs will automatically be converted to links.

More information about formatting options