Subscription Center
Jun 3, 2010 02:15 PM | 94
In a post on Asperger's syndrome, my fellow blogger Karen Schrock manages to knock both religious believers and nonreligious rationalists in just a few paragraphs. Kudos, Karen! People with Asperger's, a mild form of autism, tend not to attribute events in their lives to a "higher power or supernatural force," Karen reports. Conversely, the tendency of supposedly healthy people to see "intention or purpose" behind random events may stem from an overactive "theory of mind," the innate ability to sense perceptions, emotions and intentions in others. Faith is a pathology, and so is the lack thereof. Basically, we're all nuts. Who could disagree?
The linkage of religion to theory of mind strikes me as particularly plausible. The anthropologist Stewart Guthrie floats a similar hypothesis in his book Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion (Oxford University Press, 1995), which attributes religion to anthropomorphism, "the attribution of human characteristics to nonhuman things or events." Our anthropomorphism is an inborn, adaptive trait, Guthrie contends, which enhanced our ancestors' chances of survival. "[I]n the face of chronic uncertainty about the nature of the world, guessing that some thing or event is humanlike or has a human cause constitutes a good bet," Guthrie explains.
If a Neandertal mistook a tree creaking outside his cave for an assailant, he suffered no adverse consequences other than a moment's panic, Guthrie argues. If the Neandertal mistook an assailant for a tree, the consequences might have been dire. As natural selection bolstered our anthropomorphic tendencies, Guthrie writes, they extended to all of nature, and we persuaded ourselves that "the entire world of our experience is merely a show staged by some master dramatist"—that is, God.
Another intriguing theory of religion—or, more specifically, religious or mystical experiences—has been proposed by the radiologist Andrew Newberg. Using single-photon emission computed tomography, a variant of the better-known positron emission tomography, or PET, Newberg has scanned the brains of praying Catholic nuns and meditating Buddhist monks, and he has found some overlap between their neural activity and that of sexually aroused subjects (scanned by other researchers). The correlation makes sense, according to Newberg. Just as sex involves a rhythmic activity, so do religious practices such as chanting, dancing and repetition of a mantra. Like orgasms, religious experiences produce sensations of bliss, self-transcendence and unity; that may be why some mystics describe their raptures with romantic or even sexual language.
Consider this description by the 16th-century nun Saint Teresa of Avila of her vision of Christ: "I saw in his hand a long spear of gold, and at the iron's point there seemed to be a little fire. He appeared to me to be thrusting it at times into my heart, and to pierce my very entrails; when he drew it out, he seemed to draw them out also, and to leave me all on fire with a great love of God."
The theories of Guthrie and Newberg imply that religion originated as what the biologists Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin call a "spandrel." Spandrel is an architectural term for the space between an arch and its surrounding structure. The spandrel does not, at least initially, serve any function; it is just a by-product of the arch. Gould and Lewontin borrowed the term to refer to accidental by-products of evolution. Perhaps religion is a spandrel piggybacking on adaptations such as the orgasm or theory of mind, both of which serve obvious biological purposes.
Now, just because a trait originated as a spandrel does not mean that it never acquires any value. As William James pointed out in his classic book The Varieties of Religious Experience, the biological origin of religious beliefs has no bearing on their truth and value or lack thereof, because all our perceptions, thoughts and beliefs—including the belief that religion is bunk—are traceable to biology. A 1997 report in The Journal of Neuropsychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences suggests that religious icons such as Saint Teresa, Saint Paul, Joan of Arc and Mohammed may have suffered from epilepsy or other brain disorders. But this diagnosis does not invalidate the faithful's insights, any more than the illness of an artist like Van Gogh or a scientist like John (A Beautiful Mind) Nash detracts from his achievements. As James insisted, religious visions must be judged by their fruits, not their roots.
And of course, if a spandrel is defined as something intrinsically purposeless, then everything is a spandrel, including humanity, life and the entire universe.
Photo of 17th-century sculpture of Saint Teresa in Santa Maria della Vittoria in Rome. Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Tags:
religion
More Cross-check:
Next: Watch power: Israeli raid on Turkish boat and BP oil spill show upside of ubiquitous surveillance
Previous: Craig Venter has neither created--nor demystified--life
See what we're tweeting about
BoraZ :-) RT @mistersugar: New blog post: Handshake from a master chef - with photo by @boraz. http://t.co/1PJzKAC07L
johnrplatt Deadly Snakes, Ugly Critters, Leonardo DiCaprio and Other Links from the Brink | #Extinction Countdown http://t.co/pbQGYG5G26 #sciamblogs
tvjrennie For a contrasting review on Grandin's new book, read @David_Dobbs: http://t.co/ofoFUEgOcv
Deadline: Aug 31 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Geoffrey Beene Foundation Alzheimer’s Initiative (GBFAI) is launching the 2013 Geoffrey Beene Global NeuroDiscovery Challenge whose
Deadline: Jul 15 2013
Reward: $5,000 USD
SciBX: Science-Business eXchange, a joint publication from the makers
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
94 Comments
Add CommentAs regilion is man's explanation. Thus a spandrel is man's definition of a relationship he cannot have with out Christ.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's right, everything is purposeless. Isn't it Great? Enjoy it while you're here!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthese speculations suffer from three general faults.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe first is use the term "religion" without specifying exactly what the term refers to -- belief, or practice, or what exactly? prayer, guilt, transcendental vision, messianic certitude, conformity to dogma, moral code, fasting and penance, gender stereotypes, creation myths, priestly hierarchy, institutional administration, sacred texts? i find it very hard to see any connection between the process that allows us to misidentify clouds or sounds in the night, and the process that produces holy wars and consuming feelings of guilt or shame.
the second fault is attributing to religion a single function that is its "adaptive purpose". early on, religion probably provided continuity across time -- a framework for oral history and heritage practices of control, in particular in medicine, hunting, and agriculture. thereafter, in the agricultural societies, religion provided the overarching authority for mass organization -- civil codes, priestly administration, criminal punishments, and social control through fear. still later, religion becomes an independent institutional force relying on the perpetuation of superstitions such as salvation and heaven, against which first kings, then elites, and finally societies as a whole have struggled to liberate themselves.
finally, the correlation of religion with specific patterns of brain activity is a fool's errand. any human practice that spans such a long history and such a wide variety of social practices and psychological expressions is obviously not a unitary process.
it's also counterproductive. we should be studying why individuals are susceptible to religious belief, and how this is transmitted in preadult development, so that we can understand how to eradicate this blight from human affairs.
In other words: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFace it, folks: every god that is, has ever been, and ever will be part of human culture is a homunculus.
Have there been good things to come from the philosophical musings of religious thinkers? Sure! But it's been a shotgun affair, more lucky than accurate. Physics of old surely saved lives along the way, but Washington wasn't the only one by far to be hastened to death by bloodletting, etc. Likewise religious thinkers have, while promoting such things as peace, mercy, and charity along the way, preached many a holy war, crusade, or witch hunt.
Drollere,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"so that we can understand how to eradicate this blight from human affairs".
Good thinking, if we are talking about religion as a community activity that tends, usually, towards prejudice against "the other" - and frequently results in conflict between groups of people. Formal and informal versions of the Christian, Jewish and Muslim religions are prime examples of this kind of religion that humanity would be better off without.
On the other hand, personal practices that may have 'spiritual', 'mystical' or mind altering effects - leading to relief of pain, suffering, etc. - without resulting in harm to others - seem to me to be, at worst, harmless.
Oh you're gonna hear it now. Religion AND evolution AND sex? (Gasp!)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisperhaps one of the most famous thinkers with asperger's syndrome, temple grandin, has a lot of interesting things to say regarding her belief in a supernatural or higher power...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisone of the most well known living thinkers with asgerger's, temple grandin, has many interesting things to say about her belief in a supreme being/ higher power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe child does not intuitively look to religion or a god for an explanation being sought. The child looks to the parent or an older "wiser" figure if not a parent. "Why?" "How?" "Who?" These are questions the human mind seeks answers to. Humans want to know, or think they know the answers. "Because." is not a sufficient answer. So in the end the answer is found in religion, or more appropriately, a god.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe make great strides when a person comes along that won't accept the answer of god, religion or god works in mysterious ways. Even one that believes in god (e.g., A.E.)
What a load of pop-psych horseshit! Even if evolution has essentially "hard wired" religious tendancies in humans, it doesn't change the fact that it was all born of ancient, ignorance, superstition and fear. Its prevalence today is simply due to modern ignorance, superstition and fear. Religion hasn't changed, why should the reasons for having it? The only real connection between religion and sex (the criminal foibles of Catholic priests notwithstanding) is the orgasmic gasping of "oh God, oh God, oh God, oh GOOOOODDDD!!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAtheism is a stupid belief in my opinion... I am not religious myself but I tend to anti-atheism because I find it immensely stupid how atheists see they world (their fundamental disbelief). An example is that atheists believe that life has no purpose and is a result of accidental "natural selection".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you think about it logically however it is sertain that everything in the universe can't come from accidental events. Because if everything would be here by coincidence then it would mean there is an even chance nothing would exist. So this belief can be negated fast.
The physical can't be the source of itself, it is as simple as that. Life strives to more then what already is: survival. This means it can't be a product of random events in the building blocks.
The future is pre-striven, not predetermed, and that is why people feel there is a bigger plan behind everything. But surely it really is, because if it wouldn't, we wouldn't be there tomorow. It takes unforseeable renewal to get to tomorow.
Not a person wants to die, but still we die after 80-100 years.
Nobody can look into the future and 'know' what will be needed tomorow for succesful survival. Everything in the universe serves one main purpose: striving for stability in eternity. The finite reality we perceive is really infinite in time. Time is a perception of our part in a proces that is a result of this "core" principle.
In order to succeed in life we need to 'want' to be a better man tomorrow, and that is where our essential desire for religion comes in. Infinity can't be counted, it is immeasurable. Theoretically it is impossible to understand what it is that makes us exist. Atheism doesn't want to accept anything that can't be understood by its fundamental disbelieve which is why it will lead to destruction. Religion provides people with that belief that life has purpose in order to reach beyond of what already is.
Thus not like atheists do it "just enjoy your life", but "fight to be here better tomorrow because it is NEEDED". Nobody can 'know' why we should, so why would you? But religion can make people perform in such way that best serves our future, beyond just enjoying themselfs 'for while they are here'.
Or, maybe "religion" represents a fundamental and transcendent truth about the universe. Maybe there's more to this than mere psychology!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut not in Scientific American...
Freud has been reincarnated!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile certain ecstatic religious experiences might be compared to a sexual experience, to say that religion is a side effect of sex is as over simplistic as religion itself.
so .. if the brain evolves to become aware of something - that means that something doesn't exist?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisArjan D... Huh?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If you think about it logically however it is sertain that everything in the universe can't come from accidental events. Because if everything would be here by coincidence then it would mean there is an even chance nothing would exist. So this belief can be negated fast."
I repeat... huh?
Your own statements simply don't pass any test of coherent logical thought.... It as if you are saying, "since 1+1 isn't 3 then apples can't have more than coconut stems on the average butterfly."
" Atheism doesn't want to accept anything that can't be understood by its fundamental disbelieve which is why it will lead to destruction. "
Huh? Are you randomly pulling words out of the dictionary and stringing them together?
mijj... you also get a "huh?".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is the ability to reason in a straight line from A to B so hard to come by? The conclusion you reach from apparently reading the article " if the brain evolves to become aware of something - that means that something doesn't exist?" is nothing short of ludicrous.
Think of it like this:
If you say 'Eggs come from little fairies that deposit them magically under chickens during the night.'
then someone studies it and finds that the chicken's actually lay the eggs.... you would then say "then how do you know blue fairies didn't plant the egg in the chicken and tell it to squirt it out?"
The point is that as we learn more about the brain ... how it developed and how it works, we discover some of the roots of what tricked humanity into inventing so many myths about gods. As we understand better how we got into this foolishness (and why we continue to stick with it so doggedly), we'll hopefully find ways to move further from the superstition and closer to reality.
"If you think about it logically however it is sertain that everything in the universe can't come from accidental events. Because if everything would be here by coincidence then it would mean there is an even chance nothing would exist. So this belief can be negated fast."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think this statement might be the most inane statement ever to appear in response to an SA blog. Let's grant that there was an even chance that nothing would exist. Then let us make a single observation of any kind. This will lead to the immediate and indisputable conclusion that things actually do exist. The only thng that negated by this statement is any form of logic!
@ArjanD, " Atheism is a stupid belief in my opinion... ", Atheism is not a belief but a position. So I would say that it is stupid to not only have an opinion about something you know nothing about but to express it with such authority in a forum where there are likely people who actually know what atheism is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If you think about it logically" based on your diatribe I would have to say that thinking logically is not something you have ever done.
" Nobody can look into the future and 'know' what will be needed tomorow for succesful survival. Everything in the universe serves one main purpose: striving for stability in eternity. The finite reality we perceive is really infinite in time. Time is a perception of our part in a proces that is a result of this "core" principle." what a complete load of crap. You would actually appear smarter by parroting the idiocy of organized religion rather than sharing your personal nonsense with the world.
In your long winded rant you have clearly demonstrated that you don't understand atheism, religion, science, evolution, humanity, the English language, reason and reality. What are you doing reading a science journal when you don't know the first thing about science? Are you just some moronic troll looking for a soap box?
Actually, a short aside to the web lets us know EXACTLY what Temple Grandin thinks about religion: " (the)importance of religion (is) as a moral ordering code for empathic, just behavior."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligion is the side effect of the ability to conceptualize. The biological brain functions perfectly when it's geared only to enhance actual sen-sate experience e.g.like fixing a machine. Most creatures survive without conceptualizing, they only store the original experiential sen-sate memory and the feelings (instinctual passions all animals inherit - humans included) combined with it. They don't have the visualizing neo-cortex higher primates are evolving (although some mammals do have the rudimentary beginnings of one).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis 'slowly' awakening third brain enables us to retrieve (from our memory cells) past sen-sate experiences in the form of mental images and manipulate them by embellish them with *any imagined feeling* we wish/wish. IOW we can now mentally manipulate our imagination as deftly as neanderthals with flint tools. We can psychologise all stored and manipulated memories as the private possessions of a 'self'. As a result we are (at this early stage) struggling to tell difference between a belief and a fact (or even wanting to) and can therefore imagine faces in clouds and enemies (our own 'non-tangible' malice) in others.
Rome - Please no more generalizations regarding who and what constitutes Asperger syndrome characteristic 'symptoms', which are highly individualistic. To my knowledge, Temple Grandin does not speak for or represent any category of people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCategorization and classification are another symptom of 'neurotypical' thinking, which allows the presumption of others' characteristic properties without identifying or confirming any actual specific details, as in 'they're religious'.
Rather than see the human predilection to understand (find meaning) as a spandrel, perhaps it is a fundamental aspect of consciousness. Supernatural belief was one method of trying to understand, which culturally evolved into power-based organizational ways (just as do other forms of political systems). As a species we now have better methods for aiding understanding and the supernatural not only gets in the way, but retards our abilities to truly understand (and be awed by) the universe. Aspberger's is one of many brain wiring patterns that stop or shunt information from entering a brain, which produces some spectacular brain feats, but reduces overall understanding.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou presuppose there is no God Are you free to look around?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAncient heathen Greek philosophers found ,from order and functionality there must be a Creator of it
Sex is a beautiful example of order and clever invention It is one of the many proofs of the reality of God
When a child sees a watch it knows it was made by someone without explanation from adults When a watch is opened a child will understand how it works. But no professor doctor can explain the working of a leaf We know what it does when but we ignore how it works.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfactoidjunkie -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Aspberger's is one of many brain wiring patterns that stop or shunt information from entering a brain, which produces some spectacular brain feats, but reduces overall understanding."
It's truly spectacular how you so completely understand Ausberger's and everything. You really should explain it all to those with neurotypical brain wiring who suffer retarded abilities to truly understand the universe and everything.
Personally, I find such ludicrousl generalizations concerning my 'disabilities' offensive.
Actually you made some good points, but I'd suggest that acceptance of supernatural explanations of events does allow the individual to move along without excessive contemplation over unknown causations, avoiding potential immediate dangers. In this way a magical method of explaining events offers enhanced survivability.
Having long ago survived Viet Nam, in generally less threatening environments I find my ability to focus on difficult problems extremely useful in determining their effective resolution.
I like a comment from my Indian friend - if you accept God created the World, the next question is who created God.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese are unknowables we do not need to concern ourselves with, ergo you don't need to worry about the existence of God.
Real experience is what happens when you treat someone badly or well - there's 100% benefit in considering that stuff.
What's gonna happen after your dead - you've got a 50% chance of being wrong - in short, less worth worrying about.
The Apostle Paul had a few insights about the intellectual climate of our time regarding God. Said Paul, "Professing to be wise they become fools.... ever learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth." The wide spread religious instinct has always been a problem for atheists and a scientific establishment drowning in the dogma of philosophical naturalism, Darwinism and atheistic materialism; which has turned the "tentative" nature of the scientific method on its head, asserting that all reality is now simply "matter in motion", to the total exclusion of God broader realities. While such unverifiable naturalistic dogma now forms the sole basis of science and all reality, such scientism has its feet planted firmly in mid air, because all of science is founded on realities for which there is absolutely no naturalistic answer, and this includes the origin and existence of the appointed 'gatekeeper' of the scientific method, natural laws itself, for which there is absolutely no naturalistic answer. Thus we have an unidentified alien guarding science and planet earth, to keep all unidentified alien out, particularly God. As a consequence, naturalistic based historical theory has become an illusionary paradigm immersed in subjectively based presuppositions, conjecture, inferences, and sheer speculation. A world were "science by explanations" is the prevailing mindset regarding unobserved, unverifiable, and unrepeatable past events. Central to this is the evolutionary Wonderland, where the impossible happens all the time, and always in reverse. Where an effect is not only far greater than the cause, but actually opposite to the cause: chaos itself produces order; natural law from lawless matter; no information produces information; life comes from no life; consciousness from non-consciousness; and mind from mindless matter. In short, from goo to you, and from earth to Einstein. All these 'natural' events supposedly occurred without a miracle worker, which one would have to concede is "really" miraculous. What is even more miraculous is that a blind, mindless localized natural selection process, that hasn't the foggiest notion of were anything and everything is evolving to, or even why, is granted all the attributes and perspectives of deity. And further endows humanity with a religious instinct, namely the need for the vast majority of humanity to believe in transcendent gods or God that don't actually exist. Thus, natural selection, which in evolutionary terms only preserves the useful, preserves the utterly useless
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for the who created God issue. Science and reality tells us that every “dependent effect” ultimately necessitates a “non-dependent” first cause, otherwise there would be no basis for existence, only an infinite regress of “dependent” causes where nothing is ever capable of bringing itself into existence. Thus, we would never ever have any basis for why anything exists, and none of us would be having this conversation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEverything ever observed on earth and in the universe is DEPENDENT on something preceding it to explain its existence. Children need parents, who in turn need grandparents, and so it goes for all things. No one has ever observed anything in existence with the capability to bring itself into existence, and the ultimate Nobel Prize awaits any scientist who makes such a discovery.
That the universe itself is dependent is affirmed by the reality that the universe is dying, running down towards maximum entropy and heat death. If the universe had the capability to bring itself into existence, or keep winding itself up again, it would not be running down towards heat death. The fact that the universe is incapable of preventing itself from running down affirms its dependence on something external to explain both its beginning and its existence. The cause of this universe, parallel universe, bubble universes, or whatever, must be either itself dependent, or like God, non-dependent and self-existing. To even ask the question as to who made God, forces one again into the infinite dependent regress dead end, where nothing ever has the capability of bringing itself into existence. Thus, the reality of a self-existing first cause is the only ultimate philosophical and scientific option.
Noted atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, P. Z.Myers and others repeatedly use the flawed argument that something as complex as the universe would necessitate a cause even more complex than the universe itself. This cause would be much more complex and therefore more difficult to explain than the complex universe itself, so we may just as well just accept the the universe is its own explanation, rather than try to explain something far more complex such as God. The problem with this argument is that a dependent universe cannot be its own cause. Nor can anything within this dependent universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe argument used by Dawkins and other atheists is comparable to suggesting that our "car maker", whom we are not likely to ever meet, would be much more complex than the car, and therefore far more difficult to explain than the existence of the car itself. So we should just assume that the car made itself, rather than try to explain where the more complex car maker came from. The problem with such arguments is that everyone instinctively knows that a car, or anything else ever observed in the dependent universe, cannot bring itself into existence. As such, a "car maker" is both a philosophical and scientific necessity. And this reality applies to the dependent universe and all biological life forms.
The complexity based argument is fatally flawed - logically, philosophically, and scientifically. It is logically flawed because anything that is DEPENDENT in nature cannot at the same time also be non-dependent and self-existing. This is true of the car, the universe, and everything ever observed.
And anything in the process of becoming, such as an evolving universe, is still a work in progress and therefore limited. And anything that is limited or finite cannot be self-existing. To be self-existing, a non-dependent "first cause," must be unlimited and infinite, which is exactly what the God of Biblical revelation is declared to be.
On the contrary, many biologists have written about the benefits of SEX, SEX being an intelligent design Therefor SEX is a proof of the existence of an Intelligent Designer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho can disagree. The only reason scientists can apply intelligence, reason and predictability in science is because we of necessity live in a universe that clearly manifests intelligence, reason and predictability. And if any scientist has trouble with this reality, one can only ask on what basis they do their science, and what imaginary universe they live in. Seemingly, one in which no intelligence is allowed. Someone should warn these brights that they are sawing off the limb both they and science are sitting on. Brilliant!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article seems to have been written by an ignorant to insult believers and to please some atheist while hiding his philosophical and scientific ignorance. Normally atheists are more polite.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Atheists are more polite" What imaginary world do you live in. Just address the issues. Attacking the man rather than the argument will not wash, especially here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProbably, one of the reasons most people tend to accept the existence of God as an uncreated cause or creator is on the way human mind handles causality, a word identified in some old languages with our concept of guilt. The mind gets its cause analysis ended at this origin, and stops wandering. The negation of the existence of the uncaused omnipotent cause, may impair some basic aspects of brain performance. Regarding the connection of sex and religion, it seems clear that some religious ceremonies contain a bit of sex-sustitutive action, but many persons that followed the catholic mystic path, tell that in the early phases in the way to higher divine experiences, a great augmentation of sexual desire is clearly seen. The tantric Buddists, a group having connections with the hindu Shiva -the destroyer, the destroyer of love- cult, but, although Buddists have a doctrine, a philosophy, a way to approach the issue of mind self-preservation and welfare, have temples, monks and nuns, ceremonies and some appreciation of the existence of spirits, it is not easy considering them a religion, as they have no god. The word religion comes from latin religare, binding back men and God, it is the reanudation of a previously existent but broken tie.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTantra is a cult or philosophy having a deep involvement in sophisticated sex
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe "dependent effect" argument is itself dependant on time, since cause always "precedes" effect. Given a realm (for want of a better word) in which time does not exist, the "dependent effect" argument would be rendered meaningless. If the universe emerged out of a timeless realm (whatever that might be), the concept of the infinite regress of causes would be moot (and founded upon nothing other than our time-biased view). We don't know that this is the case, but the "dependent effect" argument depends on its not being true. As such, the "dependent effect" argument cannot be asserted except by employing an unsubstantiated assumption.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPatoChip, appreciate your input. Good to have meaningful feedback in this important aspect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe issue is not ultimately about whether of not the cause of the universe is “timeless” or not, or whether it is a realm or an entity. It’s about the NATURE of the timeless cause. And as you concede it is a timeless “something” (realm) then the dependence issue cannot be avoided, as that “something” would be either itself dependent, or self-existing.
The alternative is a “timeless nothing”, which turns out to be logically and philosophically absurd. It amounts to absolutely nothing creating absolutely everything. And in going from nothing to absolutely everything would necessitate a transition point where something existed and not existed, and was both timeless and timely. In which case one violates a fundamental law of logic, the law of non-contradiction. Anyway, you have already conceded that “something ” (a timeless realm) existed, so we won’t go down that track.
As we are talking about THIS universe, and as this universe did have a beginning in time, and is incapable of preventing itself running down towards heat death, and has nothing internal to wind itself up again or restore itself to a state of minimum entropy, we need a cause. The universe is "dependent". And anything dependent cannot be its own cause, and is therefore incapable of explaining itself. (If anyone knows of anything within the universe that is self-existent and not "dependent" you should tell us, and the Nobel Laureate committee.)
Not only does the universe need a cause, it needs an intelligent cause, as is self-evident in the mathematical regularity and predictability of the universe and its fine tuning, and a host of other realities, including the "information" reality . And we can logically conclude that whatever brought the universe into existence first possessed these qualities, and more. As you already acknowledge that, "cause always proceeds effect" (and as the universe is a dependent effect), this takes us right back to the issue of dependence. You cannot avoid the dependency issue.
The bottom line is this: Was the timeless something, or "realm", that existed before the universe; and the source of the universe, itself dependent, or a self-existing first cause, which like the creator God of Biblical revelation, is timeless and outside of time.
(p.s.I have been batching for a couple of days, and enjoying the time to mess about and blog. My wife flies back in tomorrow, so back to the routine, but will watch and respond as time allows.)
johnhei, the alternative is not a timeless nothing. It is a timeless something. In that timeless something, cause would not be a meaningful concept. I think you missed this point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said, "not only does the universe need a cause, it needs an intelligent cause, as is self-evident in the mathematical regularity and predictability of the universe and its fine tuning, and a host of other realities, including the information reality." This is a comment, not an argument. All you have done here is to have made a claim that your view is self-evident, which it most certainly is not.
Later, you asked, "Was the timeless something, or realm, that existed before the universe; and the source of the universe, itself dependent, or a self-existing first cause". Here again, you commit the error of using words like "before", "dependent" and "cause" when discussing a realm in which there is no such thing as time. Those words (concepts) are only meaningful within the context of time.
The point here is that the rules of the realm (which is shorthand for: "that from which the universe emerged"), would have to be different than the rules OF the universe. You are drawing all of your conclusions about the origin of the universe by reference to the rules OF the universe. You can’t do that.
V.I. Lenin used trying the spread of communist ideas, and the growth of CP power by inviting the members of the party cells to bring some selected people to join the party. In Spain the Opus Dei, a catholic organization with some traits of a secret society, called the people attending the "circles", its basic indoctrination and social unit, to bring some new candidate attendants every week or month. As a criterium for the choice of whom to address the proselitism efforts, they suggested talking "for example", first to people having clean and polished shoes (In certain places, people tended to wear leather shoes rather than sneakers). Clean and polished shoes is a signal that his/her user has sexual interest. Why does an organization that later invites his/her members to absolute sexual abstinence choose people with interest in sex?. Is it that the others are just satiated of or not interested in sex? Any duly founded explanation will be appreciated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suppose one consequence of this issue of different groups of people having a tendency for either religious belief or non-religious belief is that we are - once again - prisoners of our biology. For example, assume the following whimsical hypothesis for human behavior: (i) there is a biological basis for the tendency in humans to view events (random or otherwise) as the result of some kind of mind ; (ii) that this tendency is strong in some and weak in others; (iii) this division causes human behavior to fall along a continuum of possible belief systems and that generally it causes people to be divided into four distinct groups (the first, those with an extreme tendency to view both human based events and nature based events as being caused by a mind; second those with a moderate tendency to engage in this behavior ; third, those with a moderate tendency not to engage in this behavior; and fourth, those with no tendency to engage in this sort of behavior); and (iv) because of the biological predisposition to engage in one of these belief systems a human's ability to look "outside of themselves" and have any sort of initial sympathy for another system or to view it in any way favorable is difficult in the extreme. If this hypothesis were true it would certainly explain a lot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnder this concept each group would view how they see the world as correct because it confirms their basic biological predisposition. This is an important point because it makes the first tendency among any particular group to view something as true, not because there is some type of empirical evidence to support it, but because biology has essentially created a confirmation bias. The corollary to this would also be true; that is, a group would have a tendency to view another group as anywhere from moderately off track (if the "other group" is adjacent to them on the continuum) to being wildly off track to the point of being delusional (for "another group further along the continuum then an "adjacent group").
Further, this proposition seems to track what is actually going on, on the ground. If you take examples of the extreme ends of the continuum and their comments on those in the middle the situation becomes fairly clear. To this end let me suggest three individuals: Dr. Sam Harris, Dr. Francis Collins and evangelist John MacArthur. All three of these men are highly educated (in the case of MacArthur it must be pointed out, however, that this education is almost exclusively through the American Evangelical educational system), and within their particular sphere appear to be intelligent and good spokesmen for their respective positions. Nevertheless, all three arrive at a vastly different view of the world.
Dr. Harris is the example of someone who would only view events caused by humans or at least some moderately intelligent animal as being caused by a mind. Dr. Francis Collins, while probably further to the right of the middle of the continuum, in that he appears to have a strong belief in a divine "mind", would nevertheless be a good candidate for someone the general public would believe somewhere in the middle of the continuum. Finally, John MacArthur is the furthest right on the spectrum - and radically so. MacArthur is an American evangelist and appears to believe that all things are ultimately caused by a divine mind and that if you do not believe this then you are being seriously deceived by a competing "evil mind" - the devil.
So how do these individuals interact? In the case of Collins' appointment by Obama as the director to the National Institute of Health, Harris argued that Collins was not qualified because of his religious belief. In other words Harris, while having an understanding that Collins' education and administrative background was more than adequate for the position, viewed religious belief is such a bizarre aberration that reality cannot be reasonably assessed by someone subscribing to its tenants. On the other hand someone like MacArthur has virtually equal disdain for the belief in evolution by someone like Collins. MacArthur, who warmly wrote about Collins conversion in his book Reasons To Believe, nevertheless concludes that Christians who take the view that evolution is a fact are deceived. In other words MacArthur has such a strong view that all things are in the control of what he believes is a divine mind that any deviation from this orthodoxy is a deception.
Further, when it comes to MacArthur viewing someone like Harris or Harris viewing someone like MacArthur, there is not even the hint of any recognition of any connection to reality. Harris would simply conclude that MacArthur is completely lost in a make believe world that MacArthur could, using his rational senses, easily extricate himself from. While MacArthur would conclude Harris is simply a deluded pawn in a spiritual war between his divine "mind" and an evil competitor.
Does it make sense to say that the only basis for this division in thought is that of education and background? Does that make sense given the enormous bias in favor of religion by the vast majority of people in the world? Or does it make sense to say that there is also something biological going on here? That in fact, Harris, Collins and MacArthur may have some type of biological based confirmation bias causing them to emphasize certain facts over others (and in the case of MacArthur this bias is so strong that it creates a radically different view of the world then the other two). One final note, I am not suggesting relativism - evolution, as well as other scientific concepts, are either facts or not (and in the case of something like evolution the evidence is overwhelming). What I am suggesting is that an understanding of why people behave can lead to a better dialog, at least for those groups that are somewhat close to each other along the continuum.
So saying someone has Asperger's syndrome is "knocking" them or calling them "nuts"? Thanks, John Horgan. You've just shown how much you actually know about Asperger's. Very nice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPotato chip, appreciate your further feedback. Just thought I would have a quick look before I head for the airport. So, couldn't resist a brief comment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is you that has missed the entire point. The issue is about dependency. Whether the source of the dependent universe is self-existing or not. And as you have already acknowledged that something exists, a timeless REALM or whatever, as we both acknowledge, the question of dependency or self-existing is the issue here, unless you believe that the dependent universe made itself.
And to ignore the reality that we both live in a finely tuned universe that clearly manifests regularity, predictability, information and intelligence, and say that this is not self-evident, causes me to wonder what kind of universe you live in. Particularly, when this reality is the foundation of all of science (as I earlier stated), and an intelligent cause is demanded by "information" theory, for reasons outlined here http://cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm and elsewhere. This may not be self-evident to you, but is clearly evident to the vast majority of people on this planet. As earlier pointed out in a New Scientist feature article, people "instinctively" associate the design in nature as necessitating a cosmic designer and first cause. Which perhaps tells us why atheists will always be in the minority.
Take care. appreciate your input.
johnhei, I can see that this is headed nowhere, especially when you include a link to a site that is obvious nonsense. You reject science at the same time that you use it to bolster your non-argument. It is simply not possible to parse, let alone respond to unashamed gibberish.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrs026 a lot of meat in your posting, which I would dearly love to later comment on, if time permits.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs someone who has spent a lifetime in systems design and IT, I long ago concluded that evolution was a delusion of mass proportions. As earlier stated, for a localized natural selection process, with absolutely no way of knowing where anything and everything was evolving to, or even why, and no way of ever knowing what's out there in broader environment, to produce the greatest show on earth would necessitate the skills of a master conductor, with all the capabilities and perspective of deity.
For a localized blind evolutionary process, with no broader perspective, to put this whole show together would be akin to a bunch of chimps in white coats designing and building the CERN particle accelerator. Not likely!
PotatoChip True, we both know were this is heading. As you have chosen to attacking the man rather than the argument. So, we will just leave it at that. Appreciated your comments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMarianLibrarian - Not to defend John Horgan or any statement made in this article, but I suspect from your comment that you missed the previous article he was referring to. If so, you can find it by following the link in the first sentence of this article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with John that the article, "People with Asperger's less likely to see purpose behind the events in their lives" is insulting, along with many statements made by commentators who obviously have no comprehension of the limitations or capabilities of those exhibiting any of Asperger's s diverse characteristics.
One thing that many fail to realize is that diagnosis of AS began in 1995. Since its symptoms are most noticeable in children, very few adults with AS have been diagnosed. Generalizing that those with AS cannot, for example, comprehend the ideas intentions of others or consider teleological explanations of events is ludicrous, even if they choose not to adopt or incorporate unreasonable conventional wisdom.
While those conclusions may be justified when examining AS affected children, all children who are not intellectually impaired tend to develop as they mature. Drawing similar generalizations of the intellectual abilities of 'normal' 'neurotypical' adults based on their social behavior as children would be absurd, wouldn't it?
tharriss,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with you.
It's not fun for some people to add 2+2 and find 4 boring.
So they embellish by inventing foolishness.
I'm sure the "aroma therapy" used in many churches over the years helped to "spice" it up a bit.
jtdwyer'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI like what you say. We would never learn anything new if we all thought the same.
Two quotes I always remember...from a pastor friend. (I'm not a church person, but I hope if there's a chance I would like to thank God for everything)
I was VERY ANGRY about something, and after I expressed myself....he said "So..." I was never so mad! After my brain cooled down, I thought about it and he was right. Really, the problem wasn't worth more than a "So...".
Second one..."Weird people say weird things." Most of us are smart. We will understand that we made a mistake and correct it ourselves. It just takes a bit of time.
Morp,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSex proves nothing... big deal, most every living thing has it too.
What part of that is Godly! Messy yes...Godly...NO WAY!
Make a list of life: plants, animals, fungus and viruses that do not have SEX~ You'll be writing for a very very long time. Try not to leave anything out. I KNOW that you can not make a total list.
Also on a day to day level.
It's your "responsibility to take care of the garden"! (earth)
The Intelligent Designer could do something more useful like make a laundry detergent that gets the resistant goo, and stains off without pollution. If it was so smart... it would help the good souls like you from wasting so many of our limited natural resources. Global Swarm...sex sex, check out the earth's population...where's the food coming from?
Take some time to think about what you are saying. Have you noticed the climate lately... Look it up.
Have you watched some of the other life forms that have sex too.
Bops - Thanks. Yeah, if we all fit right into some social group (there is no singular 'society') what would psychologists have to think about?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRather than focusing on the distinct thought processes of subgroups created by psychologists' definitions (isn't that cheating?), wouldn't it be more productive of them to analyze the fundamental behavioral differences between males and females? I find that subject far more interesting and still misunderstood by most people. If only men & women could better understand each other, or at least interact more cooperatively!
jtdwyer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you so much!
You just brought to light three of my most favorite subjects.
It's late and my spelling is not the best...
Yes, psychologists' focus on definitions. It's fine for spelling in a dictionary. People are far more complicated and interesting. There needs to be a better way to define male and female differences.
From my life experiences behavior is the key. Why?
I'm a x-graphic artist, 26 years, a Lefty, who loves to read science, limited math skills, bakes, recycles, and tries to help people. I work and live with a Right-handed, Very Smart, Gifted in Math and (maybe in Physics too), and Part-time High School Sports Referee (Lacross, Football and Wrestling).
We don't just think different, we agree more less on right and wrong, some foods, not religion, not politics, or most of the environment issues. I do everything totally different...thinks he's the boss...but, I am the Queen. (I better get my way if it's important to me.) Most times, I try to give him his way because he needs it more than me.
We have a cat that thinks she's the real boss, and owns a 55 gallon fish tank and two slaves. She gets her way more than I do.
I think we interact very cooperatively in spite of all the differences. I read everything I find on the subject, to learn as much as I can. There are so many important differences we have noticed.
It's fun...boss says I talk too much...I think he just doesn't want to empty the trash sometimes. He's a good guy.
I checked the e-mail responds if there's a reply.
Have a good day and don't let people who do not understand
ruffle any feathers. Most healthy people when they learn something new, that they don't like, take a while to adjust before they come around to the truth. Others can't for some reason. We try to focus on the ones that we can change.
How many people that you know had a boyfriend break up with them because they believed in evolution? It took a few weeks to resolve the issue. Not a problem now. There's other FUN issues to solve now. On top of all that..
We paint and wallpaper together (since 1997) for a small apartment complex. We are still alive after thousands of wallpaper jobs. Painting is not really a problem. Because of his math skills...and the me a lefty, him a righty, we never want to start in the same place. NEVER. Goes to show the power of something...maybe love, it just seems too hard to believe.
We paint and wallpaper together for a small complex... almost 20 years and have not killed each other over a wallpaper job, yet.
johnhei,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've read your comments several times
and I just don't see where your words fit
into any common understanding..
Who cares about self-existing, it's like sex it happen, DNA!
What are you really talking about?
You wander all over words that lack meaning.
And you go on and on, about what? What is your point?
Atheists are not bible people.
They are not in the minority.
Most are above wasting the time to reply
to the silly remarks that you are making.
And Yes... I do believe in God.
We UNDERSTAND the stance scientists have when it comes to science and religion. Keep it to yourself. IF someone WISHES to know what 'scientists' THINK religion IS they will ASK someone who is NOT a 'scientist'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are TOO MANY atheist scientists and not ENOUGH agnostic scientists.
One might think the sheer number of scientists who ARE atheist as opposed to agnostic would therefore MAKE scientists spending alot of time on religion when their 'specialty' IS in FACT .. science.
The overlap of the two arguably doesn't exist BUT when it comes TO proving religion DOESN'T exist scientists sure think THEY have something to say about it.
Can't have it both ways.
Imho ..
Bops - Ha! I'm not sure what you were saying but it did make me smile - thanks! Keep working!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisP.S. PatatoChip; You said: “Here again, you commit the error of using words like "before", "dependent" and "cause" when discussing a realm in which there is no such thing as time. Those words (concepts) are only meaningful within the context of time.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere may be no such thing as time, but there is something, which you called a REALM (for want of a better word). So this “something” was the cause of the dependent dying universe. The alternative is that the dependent dying universe created itself, and nothing dependent can at the same time be self-existing, this would be logically and philosophically absurd. And has no basis in science or reality.
Thus, THIS universe had a CAUSE, be it a timeless realm, or otherwise. And this timeless REALM (the cause of the universe) must, of necessity, be either SELF-EXISTING or DEPENDENT. And because in your own words “before”, “dependent”, and “cause” do not apply, we are left with the only remaining option, a SELF-EXISTING something. Which of course is exactly what theists declare God to be. Little wonder you never addressed my posting.
You also stated: “You reject science at the same time that you use it to bolster your non-argument.” You might tell us precisely which science is being rejected and provide us with the verifiable empirical evidence supporting your generalized assertion. And moreover, explain to us exactly why the site I referred to is “obvious” nonsense. Making unsupported generalized statements won’t wash here, or anywhere.
johnhei said, "There may be no such thing as time, but there is something, which you called a REALM (for want of a better word). So this something was the cause of the dependent dying universe."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo. Here again, you commit the error of using the word "cause" when discussing a realm in which there is no such thing as time. Cause precedes effect, which means that the principle of "cause and effect" requires time. If there is no time, then nothing can precede anything (no cause can precede any effect). In a timeless realm, you would need to use a different paradigm to discuss how the universe emerged; you can’t use cause and effect. You call it God. That’s okay. You’re allowed to believe that. But it is incorrect to say that there is an infinite regress of caused events (I don’t think those were your precise words, but it conveys the idea). That’s why physicists sometimes use the word causeless when they discuss the origin of the universe. It’s not because they proclaim that it emerged out of truly nothing, but because whatever it emerged from can’t be assessed and analyzed using the constraints and characteristics of our space-time realm. You claim to know what that realm is, but the truth is that we don’t know anything about it.
You made it clear that you reject evolution by means of natural selection and you used phrases like, "unverifiable naturalistic dogma now forms the sole basis of science", "scientism has its feet planted firmly in mid air" and "all of science is founded on realities for which there is absolutely no naturalistic answer". But then you rely on issues such as the "finely tuned" aspects of the universe, which come to us only because of the very scientific method that you discount so vehemently. You trust physicists to come up with the right calculation for the energy value of the quantum vacuum, but you discount the prominent evolutionary biologists at the prominent colleges and universities (from Harvard to Berkeley to Oxford - it’s a long list). How do you know, for example, that our universe is dying? Could it be that you believe the physicists? That’s what I meant when I said that you reject science at the same time that you use it to bolster your non-argument. You’re welcome to reject science if you want to. But then you pretend that it’s on your side when you make the fine tuning argument.
How do I know that the site you referred to is obvious nonsense? It’s self-evident. If you don’t like that mode of argument, then stop using it yourself.
Don't let the downside of religion or limitations of reductionism blind you from the Truth of Spirituality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHorgan is correct to say that there is some kind of organic connection between religion and sex. But he gets it back to front.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts not that religion hi-jacks the neurological system that generates sexual pleasure, although it may do that. Evolution is always a lazy handyman willing to use the most convenient tool at hand.
Its that religious groups administer the sociological system that regulates sexual selection. Religion is therefore a fundamental Darwinian selection agency.
Religious institutions authorise a form of group sexual selection. No, that does not mean that one can have "group sex" if one is religious. It means that religious churches offer group legitimation for the regulation of sexual selection. Thats a powerful way of making sure that the right people mate in the right way and produce the right number of off-spring.
Darwin argued that sexual selection was the way in which adaptive features were distributed in competition <i>within</i> a breeding population.
He also argued that group selection was the way in which adaptive features were distributed in competition <i>between</i> breeding populations.
Obviously religions have a crucial influence on sexual selection within a breeding population, regulating both the quality of mates and the quantity of off-spring.
And clearly, within history, religions were critical as cultural identifiers of breeding populations in competition for resources, including converts or conquests.
It follows that religions are the groups that admnister sexual selection for competitive breeding populations. With the most adaptative religious institutions breeding or bringing the most people into the fold.
This explains traditional religions notorious interest in sexual morality.
It is astounding to me that evolutionary biologists have not picked up on the obvious connection between religion as both a group selection identifier and a sexual selection regulator. <a href="http://andrewnorton.info/2009/12/26/the-publics-view-of-religion-and-politics/#comment-82375">I have been pointing this out</a> for some time.
But then most evolutionary biologists seem to be died-in-the-wool atheists so perhaps this conclusion is not politically correct for them.
It is possible to be completely rational (though not mathematically so) about how religiosity and religious organizations and traditions work and did (do) arise partly as a means of exploiting environmental procreation promoting opportunities and partly as means (psychophysiological functions) of coping with insidious conditioned-in aftermaths of adverse environmental factors (predicaments or ordeals 'consisting of' both or either adverse "environmental absences" and/or ditto "environmental presences") that for individuals affected by them are neither physically inescapable nor possible to eliminate (or fight-off) and that either way may be said to precariously negate the "primal" (instinctive) needs of individuals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause such a most encompassing plotted theory of religions and religiousity (and by theoretical implication of any other kind of addictive habits) will inevitably involve attention/associations to facts of life with fear-evoking and painful personal resonances, VERY few people (apparently not yet even including any of those who in widely disseminated speeches and writings debunk religions!) will be able to persevere with the painting and learning to perceive this (above hinted at) kind of 'effectively philosophy terminating' religiosity-dissecting picture.
On the other hand, such a rational analysis would most rationally and once and for all nail down an insight into why THE most significant and prominent - YET, symptomatically and typically, almost never perceived or paid much attention to - characteristics of religiosity IS its NAIVETY.
None of these account for the historical claims of religion: God speaking to the Israelites out of the mountain, Jesus' resurrection, the out of body experiences or levitation experienced by meditating monks etc. These events do explain an organizing or rationalizing element of religious belief and practice rather than explaining the origins of religion itself (since all peoples seem to naturally express some element of religion or spirituality).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps the latter question (universality of religion) is the evolutionary/anthropological one, while the former (specific events in history for specific religious and ethnic groups) is a historical and sociological question.
Without addressing those specific historical claims of religion, I don't think you do anything to disprove religion by developing theories of origin for spirituality.
PatatoChip said: “No. Here again, you commit the error of using the word "cause" when discussing a realm in which there is no such thing as time.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain you missed the entire point. It’s got nothing to do as to whether the cause of this universe is outside of time, or timeless, as I will show. It has everything to do with whether a CAUSE of THIS UNIVERSE "exists". So we will take this one step as a time. My first question is this.
Do you believe THIS dependent UNIVERSE had a CAUSE. Or are you actually asserting that the dependent running down dying universe is self-existing and created itself? In which case your earlier claim that a timeless realm cause exists is self-refuted.
Please first address this question.
johnhei, I’m not the one who is making an assertion. You are. You are the one who claims to know. My position here is that you don’t; if you had never made your assertion, I wouldn’t have responded. In my previous post, I said (regarding the realm out of which the universe emerged), "we don’t know anything about it." The point (and this IS the entire point) is that causation as we understand it within the context of our space-time realm would not apply in a timeless realm out of which our space-time realm emerged. Your assertion (your continued attempt to argue for the necessity of an intelligent creator based on an antiquated notion of cause and effect) is based on the misguided notion that cause and effect would apply in a timeless realm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNote also that you asked a question that presents a false dichotomy. You asked whether I think 1) the universe had a cause or 2) whether it is self-existing and created itself. You left out, at a minimum, 3) causeless and not self-existing and not self-creating.
PotatoChip said, "But then you rely on issues such as the "finely tuned" aspects of the universe, which come to us only because of the very scientific method that you discount so vehemently."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour statement is self refuting. How can I reject the scientific method while at the same time accepting the reality that science gave us the "finely tuned" aspects of the universe.
Furthermore, you state that, "Cause precedes effect, which means that the principle of "cause and effect" requires time. If there is no time, then nothing can precede anything (no cause can precede any effect). In a timeless realm, you would need to use a different paradigm to discuss how the universe emerged; you can’t use cause and effect."
I suggest you go back and read my earlier statements with more discernment. Cause and effect DOES apply to the origin of THIS universe. And that's the first issue that need you to address, and we will then discuss the options emerging from your response to the question posed.
PotatoChip said, "You made it clear that you reject evolution by means of natural selection and you used phrases like, "unverifiable naturalistic dogma now forms the sole basis of science", "scientism has its feet planted firmly in mid air" and "all of science is founded on realities for which there is absolutely no naturalistic answer". But then you rely on issues such as the "finely tuned" aspects of the universe, which come to us only because of the very scientific method that you discount so vehemently."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou need to understand the difference between EMPIRICAL based science, and the Empirical & Scientific Method, and HISTORICAL based theory, based on "unobserved" and unrepeatable past events, that happened when no one was around to see whether it happened a particular way, and no other way. As such, evolutionary theory is, of necessity, based on "subjective" presuppositions, inferences, conjecture, explanations and sheer speculation.
The advantage of the Empirical & Scientific Method is that it is repeatable, testable and publicly verifiable to the point that everyone is forced to accept its conclusions,in spite of their presuppositions and religious beliefs. I was happy to jump up anywhere, anytime, to empirically verify the theory of gravity (or the laws of motion), but in all the years I have never ever observed any evolutionists publicly change one life form into another of a different kind. I have never seen a frog turn into a prince, or earth turn into Einstein.
No breeder or scientist in all of history has ever PUBLICLY witnessed one life form change into a life form of a "different" kind Not only does natural selection, genetic drift, variation and adaptation work to PRESERVE a particular life form as such (bacteria in,bacteria out) , but every breeder that has ever existed knows that there boundaries to any particular life form, be it sub species or hybrids. The fact that widely "divergent "sub species cannot reproduce prevents even further divergence in support of the evolutionary continuum. In short, virus in,virus out; finch in, finch out; dog in,dog out. Indeed, while any given genetic pool allows for a wide variation within any life form, there is a natural boundary, and every breeder knows what that boundary is. There exists not a single piece of evidence that I am aware of that conclusively establishes the evolutionary "continuum" as a publicly verifiable fact, allowing no alternative interpretation, including God. If you know of any let me know, and we will test the objectivity of your claims.
johnhei, you have made it abundantly clear that there is no point to this discussion. If you are going to say things like, "I have never seen a frog turn into a prince, or earth turn into Einstein", then there just nothing more to say. You’re welcome to reject evolution theory if you want, but you simply will not be taken seriously. I will NOT debate evolution with you. I would never even dream of sinking that low.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... at worst, harmless"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, there is the problem of believing in something because it is what it is, because it is what it is = stop thinking.
johnhei: "I have never seen a frog turn into a prince, or earth turn into Einstein."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course not - but what has that to do with evolution?
Now, if you start by reading a simple non-religious textbook on the subject evolution, you will understand where you got it wrong.
It's all about the closely coupled (ability+possibility) a.k.a. (mutation+natural selection) acting together.
PotatoChip said,"You trust physicists to come up with the right calculation for the energy value of the quantum vacuum, but you discount the prominent evolutionary biologists at the prominent colleges and universities (from Harvard to Berkeley to Oxford - it’s a long list). "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSurely you know that truth and progress in science is NEVER a matter of counting heads and dividing by two, or appealing to authority. It is about individuals, or even a single individual on occasions, challenging the prevailing mindset or paradigm, such as Einstein and any number of others. And there are specialists in every field of science who now increasing reject evolution because it cannot ultimately deliver the goods, for reasons I will be more than happy to discuss at full length (let me count the ways).
PotatChip says, "How do you know, for example, that our universe is dying? Could it be that you believe the physicists? That’s what I meant when I said that you reject science at the same time that you use it to bolster your non-argument."
Once again you attempt to confuse the facts, not deliberately I hope. The reason I accept that the universe is dying is not only because that's what physics and the Empirical & Scientific Method tells me, but because I see confirmation of this reality all around me on every side, and at every level. Not only in the increasing entropy of the universe, but also in the fact that I have to continually paint my house and cannot recycle the spent fuel back to the petrol tank to reuse again. So stop confusing the issues and using straw man arguments. Stick to the facts.
PotatoChip said, "How do I know that the site you referred to is obvious nonsense? It’s self-evident."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally! Then you will have no trouble explaining to us exactly why it is self evident, and in doing so hopefully move beyond your mere unverified assertions. There is nothing more enjoyable than a trip into Information Theory.
jstahle said, "Of course not - but what has that to do with evolution?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe connection is that the evolutionary CONTINUUM is a myth, and has no publicly verifiable empirical basis in reality. All historical based theory is ultimately based on subjective presuppositions, inferences, conjecture, explanations and speculation. And you will have to eventually face that reality, for some of the reasons already outlined in previous postings. Your statement "Of course not", is a start in the right direction.
PotatoChip said, "you have made it abundantly clear that there is no point to this discussion. If you are going to say things like, "I have never seen a frog turn into a prince, or earth turn into Einstein", then there just nothing more to say."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, its now evolution "by insistence" that I'm wrong, without a shred of real empirical evidence in support of the evolutionary CONTINUUM, which was the point of my statement, though perhaps a bit too jarring for true believers like yourself.
PatatoChip said, "You’re welcome to reject evolution theory if you want, but you simply will not be taken seriously. I will NOT debate evolution with you. I would never even dream of sinking that low."
Really! You will NOT debate evolution! Fortunately, we are free to engage or not engage on this forum, and that is your choice. As for your high handed "I would never even dream of sinking that low" I will excuse that as an over the top reaction. (You need to sit back and relax a little, its only a blog site for heavens sake. Your taking this far too seriously). We are supposed to enjoy trading ideas, with a little humor on the way. I have appreciated your input to this point and sincerely hope you will reengage. The choice is yours.
PotatoChip said, "I’m not the one who is making an assertion. You are. You are the one who claims to know. My position here is that you don’t; if you had never made your assertion, I wouldn’t have responded. In my previous post, I said (regarding the realm out of which the universe emerged), "we don’t know anything about it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut we do know something about it. We know that it EXISTS (be it a timeless realm or entity or whatever) and is the CAUSE of the UNIVERSE, which means your statement "we don’t know ANYTHING about it" is wrong. You have certainly had a lot to say about something we “don’t know anything about.” After all, you state that it is timeless, uncaused and not dependent. Which, of course, fits in beautifully with the standard theistic model. And the fact that you believe that something exists beyond the universe, and caused the universe, shows that you are not an atheist, as they believe nothing exists beyond the universe.
PotatoChip said, “Your assertion (your continued attempt to argue for the necessity of an intelligent creator based on an antiquated notion of cause and effect) is based on the misguided notion that cause and effect would apply in a timeless realm.”
Wrong again! It has nothing to do with cause and effect. It has everything to do with CAUSE, and everything to do with the fact that all of science functions on the reality that we can only apply intelligence and reason to the universe because we, of necessity, live in a universe that clearly manifests intelligence, regularity and mathematical predictability. So my question to you is, What is the basis of your science, is it an “unintelligent” universe?
It appears that everything I’ve said here has been in vain. I’m going to try to remember next time to not respond to nonsense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've read almost every one of the past 60 comments and I see a lot of discussion about self-existing, dependent, and time. I'm not sure where this fits in, but don't religious people claim that humans have a soul? And don't they claim that that soul is timeless, infinite, self-existing, cannot be measured or weighed or located in your brain, yet this timeless infinite soul manages to live inside a timeful, dependent human body for a brief spec of infinity. Seems to me that religious people are the ones that want it both ways. Supposedly something cannot be both dependent and self-existing. Does anyone see a conflict there? If we have timeless souls that have no beginning or end (hence you'll live eternity in hell if you cross the evil spiteful narcissitic childish christian god), how does that fit in to living inside a physical body. Also, if our souls are timeless and have no beginning or end, aren't we each a god?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe Religion and the privileged planet:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“Many astronomers have gone to extremes by saying we are simply a "zero" in this large cosmos. After all, there are 100,000 million stars in our Milky Way galaxy. That can make us feel very lonely and unimportant in the light of all the immensity. Yet a simple study shows the opposite is true.
The universe has not always existed. It had a definite beginning. Our early universe expanded at just the critical rate to avoid recollapse. Galaxies and stars then formed, but one must realize that half the stars in the night sky are members of binary or multiple star systems and are therefore unable to support life. (No stable planetary orbits could exist around such star systems.) Of the remaining half there are about 30 parameters which must be met in order for them to support life. With billions and billions of stars, it is improbable that all the conditions which must be met for the existence of life exist elsewhere. I would not be surprised if we were the only intelligent life species in the entire universe. In fact, leading evolutionists, such as Dobzhansky and others have agreed that there has not been enough time for mankind to have assembled spontaneously within the time span of our universe.
We've astronomical evidence that demands a verdict. And I've examined this evidence, not from an emotional point of view, but from a logical point of view. We've got historical evidence that Jesus, the Jew, lived and died and rose again from the dead. When Albert Einstein was asked by a reporter if he accepted the historical existence of Jesus, he responded, "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."
The above words are those of Dr. David Block is Professor of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy at the multiracial University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa. Elected as a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society of London at the remarkable age of nineteen. He has a Bachelor of Science degree in applied mathematics and computer science, a Bachelor of Science Honors degree in applied mathematics, a Master of Science degree in relativistic astrophysics and a Doctor of Philosophy degree in astronomy dealing with "The Morphology of Spiral Galaxies." He has been a visiting astronomer at the European Southern Observatory near Munich. David Block is held in the highest esteem in international astronomical circles, and spent time with and interviewed noted physicists Stephen W Hawking. He is the only South African astronomer to have had his research featured twice on the front cover of the prestigious scientific journal, Nature.”
This question in a scientific paper is a proof of the degradation of the human species .From our earliest ancestors humans always believed in the existence of dimensionless timeless beings ,watergosts, thundergods etc. By evolution ancestors found natural laws.When you drop a sstone it will fall always , etc. The many kinds of timeless beings were replaced by one etc. Now the evolution of the human species tends to reverse.A kind of human species, called atheists, believes there is no god.They replaced the science, developed by our ancestors,by junk science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA dropped stone will no more always fall. there will only be a probability he will fall the other probability being he will fly to the moon.
The oscillations of an oscillator they call now"Transition probability". They invented a law of incertitude.
But atheists do not believe what they say . They use spectroscopes in all kinds of science and of industry.They use the certainty of the high precision
atomic oscillations but call it transition probability because they can not read the labels that the Creator stamped on each element. they are mentally impaired.Only theists can read the labels and explain how and why they are there
The question if SEX causes the unimpaired believe that God not exist.On the contrary. Biologists say Sex was an intelligent invention of the Creator.Therefor SEX is a proof of His existance
Heh... so funny how a religious topic can bring the crazies out of the woodwork.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ johnhei
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, cells do self assemble. You're standing proof of it, beginning with the food your mother ate (proteins, amino acids etc) You start out as a single cell (which is in turn made of proteins) and then divide and continue dividing to become a fully grown human, using genetic information.
This is not a matter of religion - it's something that can be observed in everyday life. You know Darwin's name (actually a trained theologian), but did you know that the groundwork for modern genetics was done by a priest, Gregor Mendel?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel
As for where do the proteins come from, they may self assemble also:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=cooper&part=A90
The premise that religion is an outcome of sex is an extremely odd view! Religion is what happened to the truth after the church got through with it. Sex is the activity that most humans choose to be satisfied when they out of touch with the more subtle form of the life force. The human species was meant to evolve into a higher consciousness and the church was supposed to keep and protect a subtle formula of meditation that enabled just that. When the Christian church formed the Bible during the Second Council, they eliminated the esoteric teachings that provided that subtle formula. At this point a seeker of this truth has to go on faith rather than being provided a way to experience it personally.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWambly
(1st Christian apologetics. 2nd science).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCulture has produced both science and religion, and somehow they both must have arose from physics. They are both 'true' to nature in that regard. I would like to respond to the people who make blanket assertions that 'all religions are bad'.
I get the feeling that this is a reactionary response by those irked by fundamentalist-evangelical Christians. If that sub-set is your focus, please say so. Although this is the fastest-growing section of Christianity and the most involved in the political right, it is largely an American phenomena. For many countries Catholicism is the norm.
Despite Catholicism's many historical failings, it sits today quite comfortably with science, accepts evolution... the Pope recently praised Craig Venter's new technology. Apart from the colourful Tradition, Catholic theology focuses on the teachings of Jesus: to love God & your neighbour as yourself, to be slow to judge, and to give preferential option to the poor. Most formulations put emphasis on social justice (including the rights of the unborn).
I fail to see how people can criticize this moral philosophy of love. It stands tall with Buddhist, Hindu and other respected moral philosophies. It is not crap; it is the product of ages of wise men pondering on how we should live on this earth. Atheism is devoid of value and provides no such impetus for how we should live. Humanism is in many accounts as much of a religion as Buddhism.
Institutional Christianity - apart from its Platonic form of moral code - is indeed often corrupt and responsible for great evils. Institutional Christianity is also responsible for instilling in people a world outlook that has provided much charity to the world - and not just small gestures. Catholic Charities are the second largest social service provider in the US (if Wikipedia is to be trusted).
Furthermore, organized religion stands as a convenient way to mobilize people to protect the common good, such as being good stewards of the earth. Despite the prosperity doctrine of many Americans, most Christians feel a (socialist?) need to help the poor.
Technology is neither good nor evil. The end to which it is used is the responsibility of the user. The moral philosophy of love is not evil, but can be used to rally one side against another.
Instead of bashing beautiful philosophies, please bash the institutions that misuse these philosophies.
Interestingly, the theory of mind and our mirror neuron system go far explaining compassion, arguably the heart of religion.
One more thing: the heading "if religion is a side effect of sex..." is ridiculous; I find it hilarious that Saint Teresa is now under the rubric of 'sex sells'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder if the ecstasy that mystics often experience has to do with the generativity aspect of religion. Sex, taking care of your babies and your neighbour by living according to common values are ways of creating a peaceful, prosperous society.
Diametrically opposed is TMT (sorry if another poster has already mentioned this, I haven't read them all). It is stands for Terror Management Theory. It also incorporates the theory of mind. Its argument is that people alone are conscious of our own death; we create world views to manage the terror that our death brings. Their empirical evidence is worthy of perusal for those of you interested in this subject.
Religiion has connection with humanity which in turn has connection with socializing and sex. Correlation between the growth of me and my identical twin does not mean that I grow because of him or he grows because me nor is it a nonsence correlation.Both of us have correlation to teritiary factors these are the common geans we inherit from our parents and same time of birth. God on the other hand is a entity either created by us or is there in us by default.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately we many times misintrept sex. I recommend that we should use word progeny instead of sex then the meaning becomes more clear. After progeny their are issues like nurturing offsprings and creating environment for our future generations. Regarding some saints I would like to say that in some species of ants workers do not reproduce at all but their aim is still continution of the gene of their own kind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately we many times misintrept sex. I recommend that we should use word progeny instead of sex then the meaning becomes more clear. After progeny their are issues like nurturing offsprings and creating environment for our future generations. Regarding some saints I would like to say that in some species of ants workers do not reproduce at all but their aim is still continution of the gene of their own kind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately we many times misintrept sex. I recommend that we should use word progeny instead of sex then the meaning becomes more clear. After progeny their are issues like nurturing offsprings and creating environment for our future generations. Regarding some saints I would like to say that in some species of ants workers do not reproduce at all but their aim is still continution of the gene of their own kind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt doesn't in any way prove or disprove God's existence. It says nothing about it, other than there is a predisposition to believing in one found in some humans.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou know why this whole discussion and all of your
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscomments are pointless? There are many reasons. Let me
enumerate a few...
1) You're human. THat's a huge strike against you right
off the bat. It's not like you're a super intelligent
1,000 I.Q. universe traveling alien. Instead, you're
little more than barely consious pond scum which does not
qualify you to have a worthwhile opinion on anything.
Look at the bandwidth of your consciousness for example.
You cannot even process more than one miniscule thought at
a time. Your brain filters out 99% of what comes in
through your senses because your puny consious bandwidth
cannot handle it. Try listening to a book-on-tape while
also reading a book, and see if you can tell me what both
were about when you're finished.
99.9999% of the humans on this planet are so friggin stupid they won't even produce a single technological, scientific, or noteworthy invention in their entire life.
After tens of thousands of years of evolution, we still
cannot establish a definition of what life even is, or how
to identify it. You think you're smart? Gimme a break.
So now that we've established you're pretty darn stupid,
lets move to the next point.
2) Assume their is a God. So what. That doesn't mean
that you have an eternal soul. Your still a steaming pile
of flesh that will evaporate into nothingness after you
die.
3) Assume that there is life after death. So what. That
doesn't mean there is a God or creator. It simply means
you've moved to another state that you're not familiar
with and cannot establish anything about it's source or
purpose.
4) You incorrectly assume that life has inherent value.
That completely rediculous ludicrous invalid false premise
starts you down the path to a whole pantload of other
false conclusions. I'll leave it to your small mind to
figure out what those are.
To SmellmyFinger. Enjoyed reading your blogs. The reasonings is a bit mixed up and messy, but a good read. As the soul (whatever that is) came into existence along with us if cannot be either eternal, nor self-existing or timeless.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only way we could have life after death, is with outside help, And if that outside helper is God, than the buck stops there, and so do we. A timeless, self-existing creator is ultimately the only option. For reasons already stated.
You said, You incorrectly assume that life has inherent value . And you just assume it hasnt.
To SmellMyFinger. p.s. I wouldn't bother with all the evolution related nonsense you go on about, as evolutionary theory itself is utter nonsense. (And if you have any real empirical based evidence to conclusively establish the evolutionary continuum and prove me wrong, you will be the very first.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is often argued by those opposed to theism that the cause-effect argument does not apply to whatever caused the universe; because whatever caused the universe would be outside the space-time realm and therefore "timeless" and "uncaused". And the infinite "cause-effect" dependency regress would not apply. However, they are caugth in the classic "Catch 22"situation, whatever way they turn. For in seeking to escape the "intelligent Cause" theistic implications of the fine tuning of our universe, they have unknowingly affirmed theism. For in affirming that the CAUSE of the universe is TIMELESS and UNCAUSED, and not dependent on anything preceding, they have in fact AFFIRMED the classical "theistic" worldview. For theism itself is based on the premise that the CAUSE of the contingent universe is timeless, uncaused, non-dependent and self-existing first cause. So in seeking to escape theism, they have in fact affirmed theism. Thus, the anti-god presuppositions of philosophical naturalism and atheism have their feet planted firmly in mid air.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe real debate is the one between Aristotle's theology and Plato's theology. Is there a physical universe, or is the physical universe an aspect of something bigger, or simpler. What we know today, is that if the brain works like a digital machine, then we might need to move back on Plato, and the coupling mind/matter originates from numbers. Unfortunaly, 1500 years ago, theology has been stolen by 'political powers', and has never come back to the academy, where such questions should be handled with the modest and doubting attitude of the inquirer. For a (neo)platonist, atheism is but a slight variant of christianism. It is mainly the same Aristotelian conception of reality. A fake debate hides the genuine question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we get right results from wrong beliefs what is so bad about it. Problem arises only when these wrong beliefs hinder our progress and then we have social reforms and scientific revolutions. Worshipping of divine signifies giving up of control rather than taking control of things. Sometimes giving up of our control from logical-conscious centre to pre-evolved unconscious centre works better. So evolution is like learning unlearning and relearning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShrinking of some parts of brain does not necessarily mean anything wrong. It could mean that the bag is opening to get filled then shrink again just like our electronic chips are shrinking for optimisation.
Many living animals are highly evolved with smaller brains the real thing to see is that what is their idea of God/spirituality with semi-conscious brains.
Anyway for any logical being with faith in divine she/he needs to answer the questions like:
a)What she/he means by the term God?
b)If God is the creator then who created the creator and the creator's creator and so on.
c)If no one created the creator then why are we creating Him?
Anyway female brains are smaller does that mean they are less capable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrajnish, you ask good question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyway for any logical being with faith in divine she/he needs to answer the questions like:
a)What she/he means by the term God?
Answer: Truth (and if we are machine, arithmetical truth is enough)
b)If God is the creator then who created the creator and the creator's creator and so on.
Answer: No one can create truth, we can only search it or be confronted with it. We cannot assert it publicly, but we can make assumptions.
c) If no one created the creator then why are we creating Him?
Answer: we don't.
We don't.