I agree with this 100%. To me Science is simply a way of comprehending the world god created, of learning how to it works. The two do not prove or disprove one another in any way. Very nice video
If only a majority of other theists would share your views, I can honestly say that the main reason I am annoyed with religious people is how completely robbed they are of science.
explaining that some smart people believed in God, does not mean anything. Thats like the Muslims came up with the numerical system and creating algebra and allot of science. Does that mean they are right in believing in Allah? No! It has NOTHING to do with faith. If you invent a teleporting system, it doesn't matter is you are a crazy person, who believe in a monster under your bed. You still invented a new thing. If you kill people, does it change? NO! It doesn't rely on faith ffs!
This video says, a real scientist can have real faith in the God of the Bible. I have given evidence that Galileo was a real Christian. If you don't like him as an example, what of all the other great scientists I mentioned? And what do you base the Arab/Indian founding of modern science on? You got backup for that? If you're talking about numbers, that is no where near enough to have modern science. Necessary is not the same as sufficient.
The bottom line is that science is only meant to be descriptive of reality. If reality include the act of Creation as well as the formation of life, then science cannot exclude God by definition.
We know that these are true due both to science as well as the empircally confirmed resurrection of Christ which had many witnesses in many contexts. All five senses were used by John to confirm that Jesus had rose from the dead.
Out of all these Scientists, Newton is the most notable. Newton is the most influential figure in Science, he influenced Maxwell's equations which started the industrial revolution, and Einstein's general relativity with his book 'the mathematical principals of natural philosophy". This book is considered the most influential book in Science of all time, ironically the main reason for the book was for the belief in a creator or Deity, he said so himself.Modern Science is based off beleif in God.
I sense this is leading into the philosophy of mind, so for my part I will return the favour and suggest a book I found enlightening: Donald Davidson: 'Actions, Reasons and Causes'. Other authors I would endorse: Imre Lakatos on the philosophy of science. Daniel Dennett, on free will and consciousness. And Hilary Putnam's article: "Pragmatic Realism", (in spite of able criticisms from Ernest Sosa).
Is the point of this video merely to counter atheism or actually to change science?
Do you also wish to imply that good science should not be materialistic? In your opinion, should scientists use supernatural explanations as part of their reasoning?
Both. Currently popular thinking is that the more you study science, the more likely you are to be atheist. I believe many of the greatest scientists disagree. I think we should be carefully materialistic, but humble enough to admit the weakness of our ability to observe and describe what happens in nature. Minds/free will (both God's and ours) rise above nature to affect it. Science is impossible without the ability to FREELY CHOOSE what to observe and conclude. See C.S.Lewis' book, Miracles.
Having read C S Lewis on miracles, I am interested as to which bit you mean, as I don't see how a reference to it follows from the previous sentences (perhaps my memory fails me!) Personally I don't think supernatural explanations play a part in helpful science, but that is not to say that belief in the supernatural is IRRATIONAL or can be ruled out. It is just unhelpful.
Did you read Ch.3, The Cardinal Difficulty in Naturalism? It's all about the fact that Atheistic science is self-defeating b/c it destroys the very foundation of reason. For example, "It offers...a full account of our mental behaviour; but this account, on inspection, leaves no room for the acts of knowing or insight on which the whole value of our thinking, as a means to truth, depends."(p.28 in my edition) I recommend reading it again. He's much more eloquent/able than myself on this point :)
I think that you need to define helpful. Does that mean if a miracle occurred right in front of you, that you would never admit it? Would you always explain it away as your senses playing tricks on you, hallucination? Or can you admit that a miracle occurred and that the evidence supports it? Can't it be that natural laws are consistent within our universe, but that not all the causes of all events that occur in nature are material? This goes even for the events of your sensations and thoughts!
OK: 'Helpful' = "of service or value to human individuals or communities".
You have asked a lot of other questions here. Your first question (Q1) is absurd- (of course not!). However, you need here to define 'miracle' or describe what I might see.
Q2: I wouldn't like to say 'always', but realistically, (depending on what scenario you are proposing), I expect I would have an array of more probable explanations (not just hallucination) to choose from other than 'invisible agency'.
Q3: Again, it depends on your definition of miracle. What is the evidence claimed precisely to support? The witnessing of a strange event? Or a supernatural cause for such?
Q4: Yes, but how would you tell the difference between materially caused ones and those with immaterial causes, if laws were consistent? I can accept miracles in the sense of Rev Arthur Peacocke's phrase: "events where God is seen to be especially present", or R F Holland's definition, for example.
Thanks: I've got it in my library at work. Managed to find a few minutes to go over the chapter. I can now understand what you intended to imply by the sentences that preceded the reference to CS Lewis. I suspect you are working with a different definition of 'free will' to mine. As for CS Lewis, I understand his world view, but it all seems rather a simple fantasy to me. His argument is sound in defeating 'naive' (i.e. reductionistic) naturalism. However, atheistic science need not be such.
Since you return above to talk about 'the events of your sensations and thoughts', I thought I would come back to a sentence here I meant to comment on. You say: "Minds/free will... rise above nature to affect it". This reveals a presumption that minds are not part of nature. Isn't this a rather narrow view of 'nature', if it excludes minds? It's as if minds were a kind of 'thing' (albeit not material, like a table or chair). I think, to borrow Ryle's phrase, that this is a 'category mistake'.
I agree with you that a scientific life does not lead to atheism. I would disagree with you if you said that scientific REASONING does not lead to atheism, or at least agnosticism, though. The fact that a lot of famous scientists were religious doesn't refute religion's incongruity with rational reasoning. Many, many intellectuals acknowledge that one cannot rationally back up theism with evidence, nor can one defend it logically. Belief can stem from conviction, but not evidence.
Good movie! Thanks for posting it. However, did these discoveries really need to come out of a Christian world view? Let's say that Charles Martel had lost the Battle of Tours, and the arabs had conquered most of Europe. It's likely that they would have made these discoveries even faster, considering that the Muslim Empire was advancing in fields such as literature, astronomy, and mathematics while Europe waged war on others at the whim of the Pope.
Thanks. Yes, the Arabs made many advances in knowledge, and perhaps could've given birth to modern science. By believing in one supreme God, they have some of the necessary presuppositions in place for science. However, in Christianity God is not required to create the Universe in any particular fashion. It doesn't emanate from him automatically and from eternity as neo-platonic Islamic worldview poses. This is better for experimental approach to learning about nature vs merely mathematical.
Your prejudice towards atheism is interesting. Most catholics dislike atheism, but you have gone beyond that, you loath it. I think that you have a serious chip on your shoulder regarding atheism. I disagree with you about how "god" is required for science, but I am anxious to see your ability to reason. Perhaps you do see reality in "tinted" way due to your prejudice, but I do await your response.
I honestly don't understand what you are talking about with your first statement. I made this video bc I care for people like you and want the best for you. I want you to live a life of real value and meaning, that will lead to satisfaction in the end.
So do you agree that science doesn't require Atheism? Do you agree that you can believe in the God of the Bible and the Resurrection of Christ and still be a great scientist?
i agree with all of that. but i think the two cannot be reconciled, so it would require two different kinds of thinking: reason vs. blind faith. and i believe that reason is the only part of human intuition that accurately reflects the real world.
One should live the way one thinks however if a scientist wants to believe in god that is fine. I do not really see how this can happen in light of all the occurrences where the god hypothesis fails but faith is considered something different from reality and therefore not subject to the method; this is the only explanation that would make sense to me. Having said that, I would think that most scientists would reject the idea of a personal god...
and, scientists today base their opinions on more info then old time scientists. nothing suggests that old time scientists were significantly smarter then today's scientists. today's problems are just harder to solve and it is harder to get known for making a break-through.
Pasteur and Redi put the nail in the coffin for spontaneous generation. And belief in the God who designed the universe with order is a far cry from Atheism. Even more, Pasteur was a devout Catholic. Read his essay, "reflections on my life." I never said the older scientists were smarter. Some (like Newton) might have been, but you must admit they were at least as intelligent as we are today. We have more information, yes, but none that makes God less evident. Resurrection was always a miracle.
pasteur's findings didn't disprove spontaneous genereation. miller & ulrey got amino acids out of no life - just basic chemicals that existed on early earth. from there, protein synthesis and life come easily. why are scientists becoming more atheistic then? it's b/c they have more info than old time scientists. & the info suggests that god isn't needed to explain the universe, tho i know you disagree w/ that. do you agree that the universe could possibly exist w/o god? where is he necessary?
of course most scientists of the past were religious. a far greater proportion of all people were religious in the past. galileo had to lie about his science so that the church wouldn't kill him. Besides, nowadays the majority (>60%) of scientists are atheists, while less than 10% of all people are atheists. i don't think that you can argue religion using the beliefs of scientists.
The question you need to ask yourself is whether these great scientists knew what was at stake in believing in miracles and a Supernatural God. I believe that the very men who gave us the scientific method and every major branch of science have more authority to say whether science and Christianity go together than you do. About Galileo, he was a Christian debating with others claiming to be Christians about how to interpret Scriptures he believed to be true. I look forward to your response.
galileo was told not to believe in heliocentrism by the pope, not "fake" christians. this example was meant to show how people didn't really have a choice in whether or not to believe religion. they were totally disregarded or punished if they didn't. i think that if these scientists were alive today, they'd be atheists. plus, now there is much more evidence that suggests that religion is not real. i'm not too sure what you mean by "what was at stake", explain it please.
I didn't say anyone was a fake Christian, I said it was an in-house debate, not Atheism vs Christianity. People certainly had a choice in whether or not to believe. The Reformation came long before Galileo, my friend! You say these men of faith would be Atheists today? See Boyle's book, Christian Virtuoso, Pascal's Pensees, and the volumes Newton wrote about theology and the Bible! They were very passionate about God. And what is this new evidence suggesting that religion is not real?
when everybody else believes in something, you're more likely to believe in it, & not b/c it's more likely to be true. since old times, there have been many scientific discoveries that suggest the the universe can be explained without religion. i.e.: quantum mech, germ theory of disease, m-theory, & more (religion used to be the best answer). the % of scientists who're religious has declined a lot since old times, while the % of all people hasn't changed much.
You say there are less believing scientists nowadays. You also say what is popular is not always true. I agree with both. That is why I made the video. Are you willing to think against the grain and consider the Supernatural God? Who discovered germ theory? Louis Pasteur who said "The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator." Quantum mech. has increased belief in the Supernatural. The Universe is not closed. See Schrodinger's own works on religion. Thoughts?
when a belief is proved incorrect, the one that supersedes it is usually the right one. you're arguing for backwards thinking. and yes, i'm willing to think against the grain, but if there's no reason to (no evidence), then why continue thinking against the grain? pasteur didn't discover germ theory. one thing you have to understand about scientists references of god is that many of them mean the "god of order" and not the "god of miracles". pasteur was a confirmed deist/agnostic.
It is not backwards thinking to believe in God. Even if it was, sometimes the quickest way forward is to go back to where you took a wrong turn to get back on the right track. It's not progress to continue driving on the wrong road. And there's a ton of reasons to follow the straight and narrow road that leads to Life. How about meaning, hope, purpose, true morality, joy, etc? You need them and you definitely won't find them in Atheism.
i'm an atheist and i have meaning, hope, purpose, morality, & joy in my life. you're argument is horrible. are you saying the only reason you're moral is because you're afraid of god? i am moral because i want to live in a world where everyone is moral. there's a perfect darwinian explanation for morality. watch this:
youtube . com/watch?v=ZS9bcGEnN90
i think this talk of backwards/forward thinking isn't really getting us anywhere. & i don't really see where you were going w/ schrodinger
I don't care what religion people, are I really don't care, but I am just trying to point out the facts from the view of Christianity. And who said I am afraid of God? I have deep faith in him.
I was responding to meaningfulscience1's comment: "How about meaning, hope, purpose, true morality, joy, etc? You need them and you definitely won't find them in Atheism". this imply's that if it werent for the bible and god, he wouldn't know to act morally, would have no hope, no purpose, no joy, etc. I am saying that I have all of these w/o god. so either hes a messed up human being, or hes wrong & these feelings are actually derived from evolution. but i havent heard from him in a while.
If it weren't for God, then we wouldn't have a foundation for objective values. Without God, meaning, hope, purpose, morality, etc, become things we create for ourselves. In this event, might makes right with regard to different people or our own passions.
evolution can explain where the values of meaning, hope, purpose, and morality come from. and it does it without saying that some really complex, omnipotent guy made them. it can explain them from the molecular level, and we're pretty sure that our beliefs about the molecular level are right: technology is proof of that.
If you are consistent with your religious faith in Atheism, then you must admit that you are no more than atoms interacting with atoms. What gives one chemical reaction more meaning or value than another? Truly Darwinian morals are not based upon choice, but upon instinct and environment. If you are consistent with Atheism, then saying rape is wrong is like saying I don't like rape. It is not qualitatively different than saying I don't like ketchup on my eggs. What do you base your life on?
yes, i admit that im no more than "atoms interacting with atoms". and i find that much more beautiful than saying a guy made me. why do chemical reactions require value rankings? atheism doesn't hinge on that notion at all. about the rape thing: saying "i don't like rape" means i am much more likely not to rape than saying "god doesn't want me to rape" (even if i believed in god). atheism isnt a religion b/c religion is defined by MW as "the service and worship of God or the supernatural".
What do you base that on? I am basing my opinion on the words of those who defined science. I think Newton knew a lot more about what science is than you think you do. Thanks for watching the video.
It is commendable that this video tries to encourage religious people to take up science.
However, I find it very offensive and inappropriate that Darwin's gravestone be shown in such a manner. I suppose the implication is that he is in hell.
I guess I should not be surprised that Christians are once again trying to demonize those they don't agree with.
How did you come away with that? And why did you then jump to Christians demonizing? You are the one making unwarranted generalizations. Look, 10 out of 10 people die. You will die one day. You need to get ready. That is my point.
People used to generally be religious, that has little to do with justifying religious beliefs in modern times. Most of the quotes you gave refer to nothing more than arguments from ignorance and personal opinions. More and more, leading scientists today are atheistic and agnostic. Besides, the religious opinions of scientists is not, in itself, science.
I believe the method of science has not changed since the time of Maxwell, Joule, Carver and Kelvin. This tool (science) is the same in "modern times" as it was then. And I am not saying you have to believe in God because these men did. I am saying that the lives of these men prove that science doesn't lead to Atheism, that Christianity supports science well. Why do you believe the Atheistic worldview supports the scientific method? See my philosophy page for more. Let me know your thoughts.
That these existed and do exist scientists that are religious does not necessarily mean the two areas (science and religion) are compatible; after all, scientists are still humans who err. Further, religion has at times impeded science (see evolution). The point of science is to explain the way the world works without explaining the unknown with goddidit. otherwise, science is useless. Also note that the vast majority of NAS members today are nonbelievers; same for Royal Society.
Scientists are fallible. These great scientists were open-minded and free-thinking enough to consider the possibility that a Supernatural God could exist and that there is more to reality than matter in mindless motion. When you examine the evidence, how much do you limit yourself to Naturedidit? Truth is the goal, not natural explanations. Most often the natural explanation is the truth, but it isn't always. There is a difference between the method of science and bringing Atheism into science.
How about your ability to reason about this stuff? Do you believe you have genuine free will to think as you please? An atheist has no support from natural science alone for believing in these extremely important faculties. If we are merely material machines, then free will goes out the window. To do meaningful science you have to believe that a scientist can transcend nature in order to manipulate it and draw conclusions about it that aren't just reflexes. You are made in God's image, friend.
i don't see why you conclude that people couldn't reason or have free will w/o a god. this explains it without calling on a complex god to complicate things: we evolved naturally with the ability to reason and not just act on reflexes because reason gave us a selective advantage in our darwinian past. if we hadn't developed the ability to think freely and reason, we would have died out. also, why would god have or even need an image? isn't he outside of the universe?
The simplest explanation is God. An Atheist has to believe many more independent and unrelated things by faith in order to do science than a Christian does. Be more specific. To just say that we evolved reason because if we hadn't we would've died out is an argument from ignorance, on the same level as God did it supernaturally. You don't have a mechanism that is powerful enough for the kind of specified complexity or information that is the human brain. It is the most complex thing in nature.
no, the simplest explanation is not god. calling god into the equation complicates things a lot more. and no, you can't just claim that he is outside of needing explanation, that makes no logical sense. if the brain is so complex, why do you think you can explain it so simply w/ god? i dont claim to know how it works. but my theory is based on real, testable evidence, and it makes a lot of predictions that can actually be verified.
you said: "To just say that we evolved reason because if we hadn't we would've died out is an argument from ignorance, on the same level as God did it supernaturally." except to say that god did it is grounded in nothing. quick question: do you understand evolution? do you understand how it explains how humans evolved from single-celled organisms? or do you want me to explain? what part of "mental capacity to reason was selected for in humans" do you not agree with? where wouldn't that work?
God didn't need to create man in His own image. It is a gift. You didn't have to be born with the ability to think, reason, question, and love, but you were. Don't take it for granted, my friend. It won't last forever. Use it well. The Creator of the Universe made you with these things that you might know Him and have a lasting relationship with Him. Sincerely call out to Him just to see what happens.
all this assumes that gods real. i used to be catholic but i never heard god talk to me. turns out mother teresa didnt even hear him. i dont think anyone ever has. how can i have a relationship w/ god if i cant talk to or see him. schizophrenics make up people in their heads & talk to them. this is the same kind of thing, except gods ok, right? & im the 1 who thinks life wont last forever. you think youll live forever in paradise. i have the incentive to make the best of this life, you dont
I am assuming God is real. I need to assume He is real to have a justification for real morality, meaning, purpose, hope, and Truth. Like Lewis said, "I believe in Christianity like I believe in the Sun, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." And you too believe in lots of things you can't sense with your five senses. Mathematics, logic, moral values, truth, etc. You believe in these things not b/c you sense them, but b/c you see how they affect things.
none of the things you listed are in the least bit like religion. math and logic are non-selfcontradicting sets of rules. religion contradicts itself & logic many many times. morals can be explained by evolution. meaning, purpose, and hope can also be given an evolutionary explanation. a few questions: are you a science teacher or something? did you go to college? where do you live?
Stay on topic. My point is, why do you believe in the laws of logic or in mathematics? Can you sense them with your five senses? You have faith in them. It's okay. We all have faith in something, even Atheists. The sad thing is, Atheists don't often realize or want to admit that they have real faith in anything. Also, true self-sacrifice in acts of love are not evolutionary advantages, especially when the acts are done for unrelated strangers. There are no natural accounts for this.
logic is how our minds work, we don't need faith in it b/c its all we can use to do anything. and then math is just logic in numbers. there is a much higher probability that math is true than that religion is true. the two cant be likened like youve done. about acts of kindness. 1st, we've learned to disregard many of our evolutionary behaviors (ie contraception), but they still had purpose in our past. plus these acts can have positive effects on a person that you arent taking into account
I agree we need logic to communicate about anything. That's my point. And why do you know about and believe in logic and mathematics? You say we don't need faith in them? Why? If you don't have an explanation other than "it just is," then it's by faith that you believe. They're properly basic beliefs to be technical. And how can you say that math is more probable than religion? Probability is math, that's what is in question! Try to step outside of yourself to ask these questions honestly.
what im saying is that any type of thinking other than logic/math is wrong. how do i know this? b/c math and logic can be tested in the real world (ie quantum physics uses math to predict things that have have been proven to be correct to very great accuracy). you're religious faith cannot be tested and has no impact on the real world. are you saying that you think probability could be wrong? even though no experimental test has ever suggested that its wrong? we dont need to be skeptical of math
Your last statement is telling. You are using a double standard. You are not being as skeptical about your own thinking as you are about mine. You just believe in these things without question; your senses, your ability to reason, your ability to perceive logic, math, and morality, etc. God is the absolute external standard for these things. Without Him, you must believe all of these things are up for grabs and natural selection. There is no reason to just assume they are reliable.
why would we need to be skeptical of math? it has NEVER been wrong, EVER. when something is right 100 % of the time, or is as accurate as something like quantum mech, you MUST take it seriously. religion explains NOTHING that science does not explain, and science explains many more things than religion. im afraid youre the one with the double standard: you dont require evidence of religion, whereas science is all about evidence. and youre 2nd to last sentence makes absolutely no sense
Don't take my word for it, listen to this famous atheistic scientist. "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true ...and hence
I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."
Biologist, J.B.S. Haldane, in Possible Worlds, p.209
giving a quote does nothing to prove religion correct. this quote isnt even good. why would the fact that a brain is made of and operates by the motion of atoms suggest that the brain cannot formulate correct beliefs. Haldane offers no support for this wild claim. on the contrary, i believe that a brain is more than just a bunch of meaningless atomic motions and collisions. i think the existence of a brain means that it MUST be able to think correctly.
It's not that brains contain atoms, but that "it is WHOLLY by the motions of atoms in my brain." From what we know about the laws of physics, chemistry and biology, there is no reason to assume that atoms would form themselves into such an amazingly complex, willful, thinking machine. Determinism is the only logical option for the Atheist. Free will and the ability to supersede and manipulate the atoms of our brains is necessary for science and is provided for in Christianity.
and it works by magic." that explains nothing. where are you even getting this info from. can i get a source for the quote I just gave? i have NEVER heard that assertion before, & ive been studying sciences for a long time & at good schools. the correct approach is not to claim you know how the brain works in entirety, but to accept that it works in a complex manner & to try to explain it using chem, bio, and physics.
i actually said "by the motion of atoms." you said, "from... physics, chemistry & biology, there is no reason to assume that atoms would form themselves into [a brain]." yes there is. evolution explains how a brain would evolve PERFECTLY. what doesnt make sense is to say "ok, heres a brain. it isnt obvious as to how it works, so some all-powerful god must have made it
cwhite54 is right, earlier you said, "I agree we need logic to communicate about anything." and then you questioned why he believes in his ability to perceive logic. arent these 2 statements contradictory? you are simply unwilling to look at it from any other point of view. we HAVE to take our ability to reason, sense, etc. as correct, it is all we have. & what does it mean for reason to be "natural selection". that makes no sense
im starting to think that you are unable to think from any other point of view other than a religious one. but this too makes sense, b/c if part of your religion is wrong, it must all be, right? im afraid science can even explain why people are delusional.
Like I said to pqrd112, don't take my word for it, listen to what the famous biologist, J.B.S. Haldane, said "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose
that my beliefs are true ...and hence
I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms." (From Possible Worlds, p.209)
And what empirical evidence can you give for your last lines? This is conjecture.
The quote is evidence in support of the argument I have been trying to convince you of all along. Here is a widely recognized and respected scientist (geneticist), someone who knows what science is and requires, and yet is an Atheist like you. If he can see the point I am making about questioning your ability to reason, then why can't you? I think you are refusing to consider the scary possibility that Atheism is self-refuting. Arguing for Naturalism is to saw off the branch your sitting on.
true, it is evidence for what you are saying, but a quote is very weak compared to evidence that draws on logic. especially considering that it is a quote that i believe most scientists would disagree with. read my recent comment below, it explains why haldane is not correct. you see, my arguments appeals to why a brain is capable of thinking correctly. your argument is that a respected guy once said that it isn't. you offer no evidence for why a brain can't think other than that haldane said it
Dude I don't think you really get your morality from the Bible do you? Do you believe that women should submit to men? That slavery is ok? That people who work on a Sunday should be stoned to death?! I would hope that you are enlightened enough to realise that the Bible contains some pretty dodgy teachings, as well as the good ones. You most probably pick out the bits of the Bible that agree with your inbuilt morality, and ignore the racist, violent, sexist bits. I hope..
I don't believe the Bible condones slavery, oppression of women, or stoning people to death for breaking the Sabbath. The Bible is made up of the Old and New Testaments. We are living after Christ came to suffer for our violations of the Law. We are to live as Christ lived with faith, hope, love, and the other fruits of the Spirit. Christian ministers used the Bible to abolish slavery in England and America in the 18th and 19th centuries and to lead the Civil Rights movements of the 20th.
I think a better question is why you would think Atheism could criticize or justify any of the above at all? Slavery, oppression, murder are all consistent with a reality made up of no more than nature red in tooth and claw. Inbuilt morality? The Law written on your heart has a Supernatural Foundation and says there are things that might not have survival value, but which make survival valuable. God made YOU and knows what it takes for you to live well. The Bible shows the Way.
You're right that I don't hear God audibly with my ears. But I hear from Him on all of life's most important issues in His word and see Him through His creation. On faith, I believe that this is enough and He has never let me down so far. My incentive for making the best of this life is to live life to the fullest (not just "wait for rapture")knowing I should work hard, enjoy the blessings, and to bring people to know God and know the peace that comes from giving your life to Him. Hope.
everything you just said reminds me of a sermon. none of it makes sense, but its said with a lot of passion. you said, "Hes never let me down so far." youre not let down by cancer, unjust death, illness, ..? you said, "My incentive for making the best of this life is to live life to the fullest." in another way (w/o changing the meaning), this means, "My incentive for living life to the fullest is to live life to the fullest." im afraid youre too delusioned by religion to really understand logic
It takes an awful lot of passion to reply to dozens of comments to try to persuade someone you've never met and probably never will. What evolutionary cause do you have for your actions? I would say you have the law of God written on your heart. And although you are wrong about what you want to persuade me to believe, you are right about caring for me.
i guess the evolutionary cause is to make others more rational so science & technology can progress faster, & i can live better. theres also the fact that i want for humans to continue as a species for as long as possible. & religion opposes these two objectives. my hope would be that you'd now try to learn about evolution & science. i think the fact that ive made many points that you cant dispute should infer this. but its hard to shake something thats was instilled in you as a child
I understand evolution as a mechanism very well. In Atheism, there is no reason or goal for anything. You have no standard for judging wants. Don't you see? "So I can live better" doesn't mean anything in Atheism. It's not necessary to the survival of your genes for the whole human race to go on surviving as long as possible. Again, you have these desires for a reason, and it's not merely by chance. You are made in God's image. You can love b/c He loved you first. See Romans chapters 1-2.
first off, atheism is just a lack of belief in god. it doesnt have a set of morals or customs. you say you understand evolution but i dont think you really do. it is in fact necessary for humans to continue in order for my genes to continue. how else will they propagate? and theres an obvious reason for it. a species that wants itself to continue will be more likely to be naturally selected. a simple example of evolution. your argument that says god did it gives no real explanation.
I agree that Atheism doesn't have a set of morals or customs. That is my point. You are using terms like "better" and "progress," but these are meaningless in Atheism. Yet you can't help but use them and believe that your are right when you do. Why is that? Could it be that Atheism is unlivable? You cannot live a life truly consistent with Atheism b/c you were created in the image of God. And Atheism is lack of belief in God, but faith in other things as I've said. You too have faith.
disregard my last comment. "better" and "progress" have meanings in atheism. the simply apply to what continues the species. name one atheistic moral that doesn't continue the species. atheism is not faith. it is based on evidence, whereas religion is based on old stories & a supernatural creator that cannot be proven or disproven. the reason i have believe in gravity is b/c i always feel it and i have never seen it violated. same with science.
the phrase "in atheism" doesnt work here b/c atheism simply means a lack of a belief in god, nothing more. what you mean is science, which doesnt make suggestions, it just states what is. evolution is what determines wants b/c how we think pertains to how well our species propagates. & it is in fact necessary for there to be billions of humans for me to propagate my genes best. it takes many to create technology. eventually earth will be unlivable & itll take science to continue the species
I'm not threatening anybody. You are being a bit defensive. It's a fact that 10 out of 10 people die. And even before we do, we might not have the ability to think well for the whole time. I have older family members with dementia and it makes me grateful for what I've got.
Explaining with "An intelligence did it." is indeed scientific. See forensic science. If you rule out natural law and chance, then only one option remains, intelligent causation. This is not an argument from ignorance. It is positive knowledge from a limited number of possibilities. To rule out some and then choose the one left behind is the basis of controlled experiments. Science itself is driven by ruling out null hypotheses and then going with the remaining explanation.
forensic science ONLY applies to crime scenes in the regard to "an intelligence did it." of course someone did it if its on the earth, near people. i dont dispute that. science predicts the same thing. science only takes the remaining possibility if it can pass rigorous skeptical analysis too (god doesnt). & do you have a reason for saying that natural law is ruled out? you cant just declare it & have it be true. ctrl'd experiments are not all driven by falsifying null hypothesis, tho some are
you forgot to mention all of the scientists of other religion besides Christianity...oh, and all of the Atheist scientists too (you'd have A LOT more examples if you made that video).
There are certainly scientists of other religions, but modern science as we know it today came out of a culture saturated with the Christian worldview. Why is that? Could it be that Christianity provides the motivations, beliefs and assumptions about reality that science requires? Does the Atheist have that foundation for science in his worldview? No. Atheistic scientists have to make many more blind leaps of faith in order to do their work everyday.
science came from a religious society b/c religion gave us an advantage when our species was evolving in middle world. faith in a leader w/ answers was crucial for social coherence. but now we no longer need it. & christianity isn't REQUIRED for science. when's the last time the church made a significant scientific breakthrough? & now it opposes stem cell research, condom use, ... why are so many scientists atheists? b/c atheism is built on science & reason. and your last sentence: ?!?!?
actually, all christianity motivates is for people to say 'god did it' instead of actually trying to figure out what's going on...oh, and don't forget christianity's greatest scientific breakthrough...the sun revolves around the earth.
that wasn't a discovery...it was a simple observation. any fool without knowledge of current science would assume, every time he looked at the sky, that the sun was moving while the earth stood still.
you miss the point...it wasn't a scientist that approved the theory...it was just commonly accepted by primitive people that the sun revolved around the earth...they simply didn't know any better. it's not even their fault...there are plenty of things that people will look back at us and think we were stupid for thinking.
Ok, I do get the pont, but you are wrong in a way. Remember this Nicolaus Copernicus was the one who discovered that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and he was Christian.
Yes. That is true. Galileo ended up being sentenced to house arrest. My point is that the story is often told incorrectly. It was not a battle between Atheism and Christianity. It was a Christian man, Galileo, arguing with some of the Catholic clergy, most notably the Pope. It was an in-house debate.
religion will lose to science only because science works.
mdgonnuscio 5 months ago
I agree with this 100%. To me Science is simply a way of comprehending the world god created, of learning how to it works. The two do not prove or disprove one another in any way. Very nice video
AndThenThereWere11 1 year ago
If only a majority of other theists would share your views, I can honestly say that the main reason I am annoyed with religious people is how completely robbed they are of science.
Ryanowning 1 year ago
explaining that some smart people believed in God, does not mean anything. Thats like the Muslims came up with the numerical system and creating algebra and allot of science. Does that mean they are right in believing in Allah? No! It has NOTHING to do with faith. If you invent a teleporting system, it doesn't matter is you are a crazy person, who believe in a monster under your bed. You still invented a new thing. If you kill people, does it change? NO! It doesn't rely on faith ffs!
sawman85 2 years ago
#1 I disagree that a scientist can be a theist. A deist, yes.
#2 I don't care if some people were Christians when they had no option or didn't know better.
#3 I don't care if any famous or known person was a Christian. There is no persuasion in this.
#4 The Golden Age established science. Plenty of material there.
#5 What are creationists trying to do?
#6 What are creationist institutes propagating?
#7 Why are most theists fighting sciences such as evolution?
#8 I agree with necessary/sufficient
StopSpamming1 2 years ago
Does this video say: if some famous people believed something we all need to, as it's true?
Appeal to authority!
Saying that Galileo was a Christian is like saying a man with a gun against his head will say only what he thinks.
Modern day science was founded by Arab Muslims and Indian Hindus, if anyone.
StopSpamming1 2 years ago
This video says, a real scientist can have real faith in the God of the Bible. I have given evidence that Galileo was a real Christian. If you don't like him as an example, what of all the other great scientists I mentioned? And what do you base the Arab/Indian founding of modern science on? You got backup for that? If you're talking about numbers, that is no where near enough to have modern science. Necessary is not the same as sufficient.
meaningfulscience1 2 years ago
The bottom line is that science is only meant to be descriptive of reality. If reality include the act of Creation as well as the formation of life, then science cannot exclude God by definition.
We know that these are true due both to science as well as the empircally confirmed resurrection of Christ which had many witnesses in many contexts. All five senses were used by John to confirm that Jesus had rose from the dead.
The evidence for Christianity is overwhelming.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
i really would like to read these comments but there just to dang long...sry...haha.
kingoftheCastle4500 2 years ago
Out of all these Scientists, Newton is the most notable. Newton is the most influential figure in Science, he influenced Maxwell's equations which started the industrial revolution, and Einstein's general relativity with his book 'the mathematical principals of natural philosophy". This book is considered the most influential book in Science of all time, ironically the main reason for the book was for the belief in a creator or Deity, he said so himself.Modern Science is based off beleif in God.
ogirv101 2 years ago
I sense this is leading into the philosophy of mind, so for my part I will return the favour and suggest a book I found enlightening: Donald Davidson: 'Actions, Reasons and Causes'. Other authors I would endorse: Imre Lakatos on the philosophy of science. Daniel Dennett, on free will and consciousness. And Hilary Putnam's article: "Pragmatic Realism", (in spite of able criticisms from Ernest Sosa).
CharlieBBoy12345 3 years ago
Dear meaningfulscience,
Is the point of this video merely to counter atheism or actually to change science?
Do you also wish to imply that good science should not be materialistic? In your opinion, should scientists use supernatural explanations as part of their reasoning?
Yours,
Charlie
CharlieBBoy12345 3 years ago
Both. Currently popular thinking is that the more you study science, the more likely you are to be atheist. I believe many of the greatest scientists disagree. I think we should be carefully materialistic, but humble enough to admit the weakness of our ability to observe and describe what happens in nature. Minds/free will (both God's and ours) rise above nature to affect it. Science is impossible without the ability to FREELY CHOOSE what to observe and conclude. See C.S.Lewis' book, Miracles.
meaningfulscience1 3 years ago
Having read C S Lewis on miracles, I am interested as to which bit you mean, as I don't see how a reference to it follows from the previous sentences (perhaps my memory fails me!) Personally I don't think supernatural explanations play a part in helpful science, but that is not to say that belief in the supernatural is IRRATIONAL or can be ruled out. It is just unhelpful.
CharlieBBoy12345 3 years ago
Did you read Ch.3, The Cardinal Difficulty in Naturalism? It's all about the fact that Atheistic science is self-defeating b/c it destroys the very foundation of reason. For example, "It offers...a full account of our mental behaviour; but this account, on inspection, leaves no room for the acts of knowing or insight on which the whole value of our thinking, as a means to truth, depends."(p.28 in my edition) I recommend reading it again. He's much more eloquent/able than myself on this point :)
meaningfulscience1 3 years ago
I think that you need to define helpful. Does that mean if a miracle occurred right in front of you, that you would never admit it? Would you always explain it away as your senses playing tricks on you, hallucination? Or can you admit that a miracle occurred and that the evidence supports it? Can't it be that natural laws are consistent within our universe, but that not all the causes of all events that occur in nature are material? This goes even for the events of your sensations and thoughts!
meaningfulscience1 3 years ago
OK: 'Helpful' = "of service or value to human individuals or communities".
You have asked a lot of other questions here. Your first question (Q1) is absurd- (of course not!). However, you need here to define 'miracle' or describe what I might see.
Q2: I wouldn't like to say 'always', but realistically, (depending on what scenario you are proposing), I expect I would have an array of more probable explanations (not just hallucination) to choose from other than 'invisible agency'.
CharlieBBoy12345 3 years ago
Q3: Again, it depends on your definition of miracle. What is the evidence claimed precisely to support? The witnessing of a strange event? Or a supernatural cause for such?
Q4: Yes, but how would you tell the difference between materially caused ones and those with immaterial causes, if laws were consistent? I can accept miracles in the sense of Rev Arthur Peacocke's phrase: "events where God is seen to be especially present", or R F Holland's definition, for example.
CharlieBBoy12345 3 years ago
Thanks: I've got it in my library at work. Managed to find a few minutes to go over the chapter. I can now understand what you intended to imply by the sentences that preceded the reference to CS Lewis. I suspect you are working with a different definition of 'free will' to mine. As for CS Lewis, I understand his world view, but it all seems rather a simple fantasy to me. His argument is sound in defeating 'naive' (i.e. reductionistic) naturalism. However, atheistic science need not be such.
CharlieBBoy12345 3 years ago
Since you return above to talk about 'the events of your sensations and thoughts', I thought I would come back to a sentence here I meant to comment on. You say: "Minds/free will... rise above nature to affect it". This reveals a presumption that minds are not part of nature. Isn't this a rather narrow view of 'nature', if it excludes minds? It's as if minds were a kind of 'thing' (albeit not material, like a table or chair). I think, to borrow Ryle's phrase, that this is a 'category mistake'.
CharlieBBoy12345 3 years ago
I agree with you that a scientific life does not lead to atheism. I would disagree with you if you said that scientific REASONING does not lead to atheism, or at least agnosticism, though. The fact that a lot of famous scientists were religious doesn't refute religion's incongruity with rational reasoning. Many, many intellectuals acknowledge that one cannot rationally back up theism with evidence, nor can one defend it logically. Belief can stem from conviction, but not evidence.
LukeFM 3 years ago
Good movie! Thanks for posting it. However, did these discoveries really need to come out of a Christian world view? Let's say that Charles Martel had lost the Battle of Tours, and the arabs had conquered most of Europe. It's likely that they would have made these discoveries even faster, considering that the Muslim Empire was advancing in fields such as literature, astronomy, and mathematics while Europe waged war on others at the whim of the Pope.
Just a thought, I'm not taking offense.
Zudenfischen 3 years ago
Thanks. Yes, the Arabs made many advances in knowledge, and perhaps could've given birth to modern science. By believing in one supreme God, they have some of the necessary presuppositions in place for science. However, in Christianity God is not required to create the Universe in any particular fashion. It doesn't emanate from him automatically and from eternity as neo-platonic Islamic worldview poses. This is better for experimental approach to learning about nature vs merely mathematical.
meaningfulscience1 3 years ago
Your prejudice towards atheism is interesting. Most catholics dislike atheism, but you have gone beyond that, you loath it. I think that you have a serious chip on your shoulder regarding atheism. I disagree with you about how "god" is required for science, but I am anxious to see your ability to reason. Perhaps you do see reality in "tinted" way due to your prejudice, but I do await your response.
moriarty9090 3 years ago
loathe
God should be capitalized out of respect, even if you dont believe.
Zudenfischen 3 years ago
replying to moriarty
Zudenfischen 3 years ago
I honestly don't understand what you are talking about with your first statement. I made this video bc I care for people like you and want the best for you. I want you to live a life of real value and meaning, that will lead to satisfaction in the end.
meaningfulscience1 3 years ago
So do you agree that science doesn't require Atheism? Do you agree that you can believe in the God of the Bible and the Resurrection of Christ and still be a great scientist?
meaningfulscience1 3 years ago
i agree with all of that. but i think the two cannot be reconciled, so it would require two different kinds of thinking: reason vs. blind faith. and i believe that reason is the only part of human intuition that accurately reflects the real world.
prqd112 3 years ago
One should live the way one thinks however if a scientist wants to believe in god that is fine. I do not really see how this can happen in light of all the occurrences where the god hypothesis fails but faith is considered something different from reality and therefore not subject to the method; this is the only explanation that would make sense to me. Having said that, I would think that most scientists would reject the idea of a personal god...
TheIndexer 3 years ago
and, scientists today base their opinions on more info then old time scientists. nothing suggests that old time scientists were significantly smarter then today's scientists. today's problems are just harder to solve and it is harder to get known for making a break-through.
prqd112 3 years ago
Pasteur and Redi put the nail in the coffin for spontaneous generation. And belief in the God who designed the universe with order is a far cry from Atheism. Even more, Pasteur was a devout Catholic. Read his essay, "reflections on my life." I never said the older scientists were smarter. Some (like Newton) might have been, but you must admit they were at least as intelligent as we are today. We have more information, yes, but none that makes God less evident. Resurrection was always a miracle.
meaningfulscience1 3 years ago
pasteur's findings didn't disprove spontaneous genereation. miller & ulrey got amino acids out of no life - just basic chemicals that existed on early earth. from there, protein synthesis and life come easily. why are scientists becoming more atheistic then? it's b/c they have more info than old time scientists. & the info suggests that god isn't needed to explain the universe, tho i know you disagree w/ that. do you agree that the universe could possibly exist w/o god? where is he necessary?
prqd112 3 years ago
great video.
darkmarkandthelight 3 years ago
Hi teacher how ya doing
heyyall242 4 years ago 2
of course most scientists of the past were religious. a far greater proportion of all people were religious in the past. galileo had to lie about his science so that the church wouldn't kill him. Besides, nowadays the majority (>60%) of scientists are atheists, while less than 10% of all people are atheists. i don't think that you can argue religion using the beliefs of scientists.
prqd112 4 years ago
The question you need to ask yourself is whether these great scientists knew what was at stake in believing in miracles and a Supernatural God. I believe that the very men who gave us the scientific method and every major branch of science have more authority to say whether science and Christianity go together than you do. About Galileo, he was a Christian debating with others claiming to be Christians about how to interpret Scriptures he believed to be true. I look forward to your response.
meaningfulscience1 3 years ago
galileo was told not to believe in heliocentrism by the pope, not "fake" christians. this example was meant to show how people didn't really have a choice in whether or not to believe religion. they were totally disregarded or punished if they didn't. i think that if these scientists were alive today, they'd be atheists. plus, now there is much more evidence that suggests that religion is not real. i'm not too sure what you mean by "what was at stake", explain it please.
prqd112 3 years ago
I didn't say anyone was a fake Christian, I said it was an in-house debate, not Atheism vs Christianity. People certainly had a choice in whether or not to believe. The Reformation came long before Galileo, my friend! You say these men of faith would be Atheists today? See Boyle's book, Christian Virtuoso, Pascal's Pensees, and the volumes Newton wrote about theology and the Bible! They were very passionate about God. And what is this new evidence suggesting that religion is not real?
meaningfulscience1 3 years ago
when everybody else believes in something, you're more likely to believe in it, & not b/c it's more likely to be true. since old times, there have been many scientific discoveries that suggest the the universe can be explained without religion. i.e.: quantum mech, germ theory of disease, m-theory, & more (religion used to be the best answer). the % of scientists who're religious has declined a lot since old times, while the % of all people hasn't changed much.
prqd112 3 years ago
You say there are less believing scientists nowadays. You also say what is popular is not always true. I agree with both. That is why I made the video. Are you willing to think against the grain and consider the Supernatural God? Who discovered germ theory? Louis Pasteur who said "The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator." Quantum mech. has increased belief in the Supernatural. The Universe is not closed. See Schrodinger's own works on religion. Thoughts?
meaningfulscience1 3 years ago
when a belief is proved incorrect, the one that supersedes it is usually the right one. you're arguing for backwards thinking. and yes, i'm willing to think against the grain, but if there's no reason to (no evidence), then why continue thinking against the grain? pasteur didn't discover germ theory. one thing you have to understand about scientists references of god is that many of them mean the "god of order" and not the "god of miracles". pasteur was a confirmed deist/agnostic.
prqd112 3 years ago
It is not backwards thinking to believe in God. Even if it was, sometimes the quickest way forward is to go back to where you took a wrong turn to get back on the right track. It's not progress to continue driving on the wrong road. And there's a ton of reasons to follow the straight and narrow road that leads to Life. How about meaning, hope, purpose, true morality, joy, etc? You need them and you definitely won't find them in Atheism.
meaningfulscience1 3 years ago
i'm an atheist and i have meaning, hope, purpose, morality, & joy in my life. you're argument is horrible. are you saying the only reason you're moral is because you're afraid of god? i am moral because i want to live in a world where everyone is moral. there's a perfect darwinian explanation for morality. watch this:
youtube . com/watch?v=ZS9bcGEnN90
i think this talk of backwards/forward thinking isn't really getting us anywhere. & i don't really see where you were going w/ schrodinger
prqd112 3 years ago
I don't care what religion people, are I really don't care, but I am just trying to point out the facts from the view of Christianity. And who said I am afraid of God? I have deep faith in him.
dancingtowers2 3 years ago
I was responding to meaningfulscience1's comment: "How about meaning, hope, purpose, true morality, joy, etc? You need them and you definitely won't find them in Atheism". this imply's that if it werent for the bible and god, he wouldn't know to act morally, would have no hope, no purpose, no joy, etc. I am saying that I have all of these w/o god. so either hes a messed up human being, or hes wrong & these feelings are actually derived from evolution. but i havent heard from him in a while.
prqd112 3 years ago
If it weren't for God, then we wouldn't have a foundation for objective values. Without God, meaning, hope, purpose, morality, etc, become things we create for ourselves. In this event, might makes right with regard to different people or our own passions.
meaningfulscience1 3 years ago
evolution can explain where the values of meaning, hope, purpose, and morality come from. and it does it without saying that some really complex, omnipotent guy made them. it can explain them from the molecular level, and we're pretty sure that our beliefs about the molecular level are right: technology is proof of that.
prqd112 3 years ago
If you are consistent with your religious faith in Atheism, then you must admit that you are no more than atoms interacting with atoms. What gives one chemical reaction more meaning or value than another? Truly Darwinian morals are not based upon choice, but upon instinct and environment. If you are consistent with Atheism, then saying rape is wrong is like saying I don't like rape. It is not qualitatively different than saying I don't like ketchup on my eggs. What do you base your life on?
meaningfulscience1 3 years ago
yes, i admit that im no more than "atoms interacting with atoms". and i find that much more beautiful than saying a guy made me. why do chemical reactions require value rankings? atheism doesn't hinge on that notion at all. about the rape thing: saying "i don't like rape" means i am much more likely not to rape than saying "god doesn't want me to rape" (even if i believed in god). atheism isnt a religion b/c religion is defined by MW as "the service and worship of God or the supernatural".
prqd112 3 years ago
great video!!!
PinkPandasrsweet 4 years ago
science is the machete that cuts through the jungle of confusion and superstition of religion like a hot knife through butter.
trevdogg100 4 years ago 2
What do you base that on? I am basing my opinion on the words of those who defined science. I think Newton knew a lot more about what science is than you think you do. Thanks for watching the video.
meaningfulscience1 4 years ago
It is commendable that this video tries to encourage religious people to take up science.
However, I find it very offensive and inappropriate that Darwin's gravestone be shown in such a manner. I suppose the implication is that he is in hell.
I guess I should not be surprised that Christians are once again trying to demonize those they don't agree with.
hallelujaallahuakbar 4 years ago
How did you come away with that? And why did you then jump to Christians demonizing? You are the one making unwarranted generalizations. Look, 10 out of 10 people die. You will die one day. You need to get ready. That is my point.
meaningfulscience1 4 years ago
People used to generally be religious, that has little to do with justifying religious beliefs in modern times. Most of the quotes you gave refer to nothing more than arguments from ignorance and personal opinions. More and more, leading scientists today are atheistic and agnostic. Besides, the religious opinions of scientists is not, in itself, science.
Fletch6 4 years ago
I believe the method of science has not changed since the time of Maxwell, Joule, Carver and Kelvin. This tool (science) is the same in "modern times" as it was then. And I am not saying you have to believe in God because these men did. I am saying that the lives of these men prove that science doesn't lead to Atheism, that Christianity supports science well. Why do you believe the Atheistic worldview supports the scientific method? See my philosophy page for more. Let me know your thoughts.
meaningfulscience1 3 years ago
That these existed and do exist scientists that are religious does not necessarily mean the two areas (science and religion) are compatible; after all, scientists are still humans who err. Further, religion has at times impeded science (see evolution). The point of science is to explain the way the world works without explaining the unknown with goddidit. otherwise, science is useless. Also note that the vast majority of NAS members today are nonbelievers; same for Royal Society.
kirk703 4 years ago
Scientists are fallible. These great scientists were open-minded and free-thinking enough to consider the possibility that a Supernatural God could exist and that there is more to reality than matter in mindless motion. When you examine the evidence, how much do you limit yourself to Naturedidit? Truth is the goal, not natural explanations. Most often the natural explanation is the truth, but it isn't always. There is a difference between the method of science and bringing Atheism into science.
meaningfulscience1 4 years ago
meaningfulscience1 : "Most often the natural explanation is the truth, but it isn't always."
Name one example of a natural explanation being the truth.
hallelujaallahuakbar 3 years ago
meaningfulscience1 : "Most often the natural explanation is the truth, but it isn't always."
Sorry for my previous err, name one example of a natural explanation not being the truth.
hallelujaallahuakbar 3 years ago
How about your ability to reason about this stuff? Do you believe you have genuine free will to think as you please? An atheist has no support from natural science alone for believing in these extremely important faculties. If we are merely material machines, then free will goes out the window. To do meaningful science you have to believe that a scientist can transcend nature in order to manipulate it and draw conclusions about it that aren't just reflexes. You are made in God's image, friend.
meaningfulscience1 3 years ago
meaningful science...i think you lack some ability to reason...your prejudice against atheist is like a tint on your world view.
C0ct0pus 3 years ago
i don't see why you conclude that people couldn't reason or have free will w/o a god. this explains it without calling on a complex god to complicate things: we evolved naturally with the ability to reason and not just act on reflexes because reason gave us a selective advantage in our darwinian past. if we hadn't developed the ability to think freely and reason, we would have died out. also, why would god have or even need an image? isn't he outside of the universe?
cwhite54 3 years ago
The simplest explanation is God. An Atheist has to believe many more independent and unrelated things by faith in order to do science than a Christian does. Be more specific. To just say that we evolved reason because if we hadn't we would've died out is an argument from ignorance, on the same level as God did it supernaturally. You don't have a mechanism that is powerful enough for the kind of specified complexity or information that is the human brain. It is the most complex thing in nature.
meaningfulscience1 3 years ago
no, the simplest explanation is not god. calling god into the equation complicates things a lot more. and no, you can't just claim that he is outside of needing explanation, that makes no logical sense. if the brain is so complex, why do you think you can explain it so simply w/ god? i dont claim to know how it works. but my theory is based on real, testable evidence, and it makes a lot of predictions that can actually be verified.
cwhite54 3 years ago
you said: "To just say that we evolved reason because if we hadn't we would've died out is an argument from ignorance, on the same level as God did it supernaturally." except to say that god did it is grounded in nothing. quick question: do you understand evolution? do you understand how it explains how humans evolved from single-celled organisms? or do you want me to explain? what part of "mental capacity to reason was selected for in humans" do you not agree with? where wouldn't that work?
cwhite54 3 years ago
God didn't need to create man in His own image. It is a gift. You didn't have to be born with the ability to think, reason, question, and love, but you were. Don't take it for granted, my friend. It won't last forever. Use it well. The Creator of the Universe made you with these things that you might know Him and have a lasting relationship with Him. Sincerely call out to Him just to see what happens.
meaningfulscience1 3 years ago
all this assumes that gods real. i used to be catholic but i never heard god talk to me. turns out mother teresa didnt even hear him. i dont think anyone ever has. how can i have a relationship w/ god if i cant talk to or see him. schizophrenics make up people in their heads & talk to them. this is the same kind of thing, except gods ok, right? & im the 1 who thinks life wont last forever. you think youll live forever in paradise. i have the incentive to make the best of this life, you dont
cwhite54 3 years ago
I am assuming God is real. I need to assume He is real to have a justification for real morality, meaning, purpose, hope, and Truth. Like Lewis said, "I believe in Christianity like I believe in the Sun, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." And you too believe in lots of things you can't sense with your five senses. Mathematics, logic, moral values, truth, etc. You believe in these things not b/c you sense them, but b/c you see how they affect things.
meaningfulscience1 3 years ago
none of the things you listed are in the least bit like religion. math and logic are non-selfcontradicting sets of rules. religion contradicts itself & logic many many times. morals can be explained by evolution. meaning, purpose, and hope can also be given an evolutionary explanation. a few questions: are you a science teacher or something? did you go to college? where do you live?
prqd112 3 years ago
Stay on topic. My point is, why do you believe in the laws of logic or in mathematics? Can you sense them with your five senses? You have faith in them. It's okay. We all have faith in something, even Atheists. The sad thing is, Atheists don't often realize or want to admit that they have real faith in anything. Also, true self-sacrifice in acts of love are not evolutionary advantages, especially when the acts are done for unrelated strangers. There are no natural accounts for this.
meaningfulscience1 3 years ago
logic is how our minds work, we don't need faith in it b/c its all we can use to do anything. and then math is just logic in numbers. there is a much higher probability that math is true than that religion is true. the two cant be likened like youve done. about acts of kindness. 1st, we've learned to disregard many of our evolutionary behaviors (ie contraception), but they still had purpose in our past. plus these acts can have positive effects on a person that you arent taking into account
cwhite54 3 years ago
I agree we need logic to communicate about anything. That's my point. And why do you know about and believe in logic and mathematics? You say we don't need faith in them? Why? If you don't have an explanation other than "it just is," then it's by faith that you believe. They're properly basic beliefs to be technical. And how can you say that math is more probable than religion? Probability is math, that's what is in question! Try to step outside of yourself to ask these questions honestly.
meaningfulscience1 3 years ago
what im saying is that any type of thinking other than logic/math is wrong. how do i know this? b/c math and logic can be tested in the real world (ie quantum physics uses math to predict things that have have been proven to be correct to very great accuracy). you're religious faith cannot be tested and has no impact on the real world. are you saying that you think probability could be wrong? even though no experimental test has ever suggested that its wrong? we dont need to be skeptical of math
cwhite54 3 years ago
Your last statement is telling. You are using a double standard. You are not being as skeptical about your own thinking as you are about mine. You just believe in these things without question; your senses, your ability to reason, your ability to perceive logic, math, and morality, etc. God is the absolute external standard for these things. Without Him, you must believe all of these things are up for grabs and natural selection. There is no reason to just assume they are reliable.
meaningfulscience1 3 years ago
why would we need to be skeptical of math? it has NEVER been wrong, EVER. when something is right 100 % of the time, or is as accurate as something like quantum mech, you MUST take it seriously. religion explains NOTHING that science does not explain, and science explains many more things than religion. im afraid youre the one with the double standard: you dont require evidence of religion, whereas science is all about evidence. and youre 2nd to last sentence makes absolutely no sense
prqd112 3 years ago
Don't take my word for it, listen to this famous atheistic scientist. "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true ...and hence
I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."
Biologist, J.B.S. Haldane, in Possible Worlds, p.209
meaningfulscience1 3 years ago
giving a quote does nothing to prove religion correct. this quote isnt even good. why would the fact that a brain is made of and operates by the motion of atoms suggest that the brain cannot formulate correct beliefs. Haldane offers no support for this wild claim. on the contrary, i believe that a brain is more than just a bunch of meaningless atomic motions and collisions. i think the existence of a brain means that it MUST be able to think correctly.
prqd112 3 years ago
It's not that brains contain atoms, but that "it is WHOLLY by the motions of atoms in my brain." From what we know about the laws of physics, chemistry and biology, there is no reason to assume that atoms would form themselves into such an amazingly complex, willful, thinking machine. Determinism is the only logical option for the Atheist. Free will and the ability to supersede and manipulate the atoms of our brains is necessary for science and is provided for in Christianity.
meaningfulscience1 3 years ago
and it works by magic." that explains nothing. where are you even getting this info from. can i get a source for the quote I just gave? i have NEVER heard that assertion before, & ive been studying sciences for a long time & at good schools. the correct approach is not to claim you know how the brain works in entirety, but to accept that it works in a complex manner & to try to explain it using chem, bio, and physics.
cwhite54 3 years ago
i actually said "by the motion of atoms." you said, "from... physics, chemistry & biology, there is no reason to assume that atoms would form themselves into [a brain]." yes there is. evolution explains how a brain would evolve PERFECTLY. what doesnt make sense is to say "ok, heres a brain. it isnt obvious as to how it works, so some all-powerful god must have made it
cwhite54 3 years ago
cwhite54 is right, earlier you said, "I agree we need logic to communicate about anything." and then you questioned why he believes in his ability to perceive logic. arent these 2 statements contradictory? you are simply unwilling to look at it from any other point of view. we HAVE to take our ability to reason, sense, etc. as correct, it is all we have. & what does it mean for reason to be "natural selection". that makes no sense
prqd112 3 years ago
im starting to think that you are unable to think from any other point of view other than a religious one. but this too makes sense, b/c if part of your religion is wrong, it must all be, right? im afraid science can even explain why people are delusional.
prqd112 3 years ago
Like I said to pqrd112, don't take my word for it, listen to what the famous biologist, J.B.S. Haldane, said "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose
that my beliefs are true ...and hence
I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms." (From Possible Worlds, p.209)
And what empirical evidence can you give for your last lines? This is conjecture.
meaningfulscience1 3 years ago
you could find a quote that supports almost anything from some famous person.
prqd112 3 years ago
i suggest you make real arguments here, and not just give quotes.
prqd112 3 years ago
The quote is evidence in support of the argument I have been trying to convince you of all along. Here is a widely recognized and respected scientist (geneticist), someone who knows what science is and requires, and yet is an Atheist like you. If he can see the point I am making about questioning your ability to reason, then why can't you? I think you are refusing to consider the scary possibility that Atheism is self-refuting. Arguing for Naturalism is to saw off the branch your sitting on.
meaningfulscience1 3 years ago
true, it is evidence for what you are saying, but a quote is very weak compared to evidence that draws on logic. especially considering that it is a quote that i believe most scientists would disagree with. read my recent comment below, it explains why haldane is not correct. you see, my arguments appeals to why a brain is capable of thinking correctly. your argument is that a respected guy once said that it isn't. you offer no evidence for why a brain can't think other than that haldane said it
prqd112 3 years ago
Yes, I am a science teacher. I teach junior high and high school science. I have a B.S. in Biology and M.A. in Christian Theology.
meaningfulscience1 3 years ago
Dude I don't think you really get your morality from the Bible do you? Do you believe that women should submit to men? That slavery is ok? That people who work on a Sunday should be stoned to death?! I would hope that you are enlightened enough to realise that the Bible contains some pretty dodgy teachings, as well as the good ones. You most probably pick out the bits of the Bible that agree with your inbuilt morality, and ignore the racist, violent, sexist bits. I hope..
LukeFM 3 years ago
I don't believe the Bible condones slavery, oppression of women, or stoning people to death for breaking the Sabbath. The Bible is made up of the Old and New Testaments. We are living after Christ came to suffer for our violations of the Law. We are to live as Christ lived with faith, hope, love, and the other fruits of the Spirit. Christian ministers used the Bible to abolish slavery in England and America in the 18th and 19th centuries and to lead the Civil Rights movements of the 20th.
meaningfulscience1 3 years ago
I think a better question is why you would think Atheism could criticize or justify any of the above at all? Slavery, oppression, murder are all consistent with a reality made up of no more than nature red in tooth and claw. Inbuilt morality? The Law written on your heart has a Supernatural Foundation and says there are things that might not have survival value, but which make survival valuable. God made YOU and knows what it takes for you to live well. The Bible shows the Way.
meaningfulscience1 3 years ago
he's my science teacher and cooler than you man
bigsewerskateteam 3 years ago
You're right that I don't hear God audibly with my ears. But I hear from Him on all of life's most important issues in His word and see Him through His creation. On faith, I believe that this is enough and He has never let me down so far. My incentive for making the best of this life is to live life to the fullest (not just "wait for rapture")knowing I should work hard, enjoy the blessings, and to bring people to know God and know the peace that comes from giving your life to Him. Hope.
meaningfulscience1 3 years ago
everything you just said reminds me of a sermon. none of it makes sense, but its said with a lot of passion. you said, "Hes never let me down so far." youre not let down by cancer, unjust death, illness, ..? you said, "My incentive for making the best of this life is to live life to the fullest." in another way (w/o changing the meaning), this means, "My incentive for living life to the fullest is to live life to the fullest." im afraid youre too delusioned by religion to really understand logic
prqd112 3 years ago
It takes an awful lot of passion to reply to dozens of comments to try to persuade someone you've never met and probably never will. What evolutionary cause do you have for your actions? I would say you have the law of God written on your heart. And although you are wrong about what you want to persuade me to believe, you are right about caring for me.
meaningfulscience1 3 years ago
i guess the evolutionary cause is to make others more rational so science & technology can progress faster, & i can live better. theres also the fact that i want for humans to continue as a species for as long as possible. & religion opposes these two objectives. my hope would be that you'd now try to learn about evolution & science. i think the fact that ive made many points that you cant dispute should infer this. but its hard to shake something thats was instilled in you as a child
prqd112 3 years ago
I understand evolution as a mechanism very well. In Atheism, there is no reason or goal for anything. You have no standard for judging wants. Don't you see? "So I can live better" doesn't mean anything in Atheism. It's not necessary to the survival of your genes for the whole human race to go on surviving as long as possible. Again, you have these desires for a reason, and it's not merely by chance. You are made in God's image. You can love b/c He loved you first. See Romans chapters 1-2.
meaningfulscience1 3 years ago
first off, atheism is just a lack of belief in god. it doesnt have a set of morals or customs. you say you understand evolution but i dont think you really do. it is in fact necessary for humans to continue in order for my genes to continue. how else will they propagate? and theres an obvious reason for it. a species that wants itself to continue will be more likely to be naturally selected. a simple example of evolution. your argument that says god did it gives no real explanation.
prqd112 3 years ago
I agree that Atheism doesn't have a set of morals or customs. That is my point. You are using terms like "better" and "progress," but these are meaningless in Atheism. Yet you can't help but use them and believe that your are right when you do. Why is that? Could it be that Atheism is unlivable? You cannot live a life truly consistent with Atheism b/c you were created in the image of God. And Atheism is lack of belief in God, but faith in other things as I've said. You too have faith.
meaningfulscience1 3 years ago
disregard my last comment. "better" and "progress" have meanings in atheism. the simply apply to what continues the species. name one atheistic moral that doesn't continue the species. atheism is not faith. it is based on evidence, whereas religion is based on old stories & a supernatural creator that cannot be proven or disproven. the reason i have believe in gravity is b/c i always feel it and i have never seen it violated. same with science.
prqd112 3 years ago
the phrase "in atheism" doesnt work here b/c atheism simply means a lack of a belief in god, nothing more. what you mean is science, which doesnt make suggestions, it just states what is. evolution is what determines wants b/c how we think pertains to how well our species propagates. & it is in fact necessary for there to be billions of humans for me to propagate my genes best. it takes many to create technology. eventually earth will be unlivable & itll take science to continue the species
prqd112 3 years ago
"Don't take it for granted, my friend"
Don't assert your views through threats, friend.
LukeFM 3 years ago
I'm not threatening anybody. You are being a bit defensive. It's a fact that 10 out of 10 people die. And even before we do, we might not have the ability to think well for the whole time. I have older family members with dementia and it makes me grateful for what I've got.
meaningfulscience1 3 years ago
Explaining with "An intelligence did it." is indeed scientific. See forensic science. If you rule out natural law and chance, then only one option remains, intelligent causation. This is not an argument from ignorance. It is positive knowledge from a limited number of possibilities. To rule out some and then choose the one left behind is the basis of controlled experiments. Science itself is driven by ruling out null hypotheses and then going with the remaining explanation.
meaningfulscience1 3 years ago
forensic science ONLY applies to crime scenes in the regard to "an intelligence did it." of course someone did it if its on the earth, near people. i dont dispute that. science predicts the same thing. science only takes the remaining possibility if it can pass rigorous skeptical analysis too (god doesnt). & do you have a reason for saying that natural law is ruled out? you cant just declare it & have it be true. ctrl'd experiments are not all driven by falsifying null hypothesis, tho some are
cwhite54 3 years ago
you forgot to mention all of the scientists of other religion besides Christianity...oh, and all of the Atheist scientists too (you'd have A LOT more examples if you made that video).
C0ct0pus 4 years ago
There are certainly scientists of other religions, but modern science as we know it today came out of a culture saturated with the Christian worldview. Why is that? Could it be that Christianity provides the motivations, beliefs and assumptions about reality that science requires? Does the Atheist have that foundation for science in his worldview? No. Atheistic scientists have to make many more blind leaps of faith in order to do their work everyday.
meaningfulscience1 3 years ago
science came from a religious society b/c religion gave us an advantage when our species was evolving in middle world. faith in a leader w/ answers was crucial for social coherence. but now we no longer need it. & christianity isn't REQUIRED for science. when's the last time the church made a significant scientific breakthrough? & now it opposes stem cell research, condom use, ... why are so many scientists atheists? b/c atheism is built on science & reason. and your last sentence: ?!?!?
prqd112 3 years ago
actually, all christianity motivates is for people to say 'god did it' instead of actually trying to figure out what's going on...oh, and don't forget christianity's greatest scientific breakthrough...the sun revolves around the earth.
C0ct0pus 3 years ago
Ask yourself this, who discovered that the sun revolves around the Earth?
dancingtowers2 3 years ago
that wasn't a discovery...it was a simple observation. any fool without knowledge of current science would assume, every time he looked at the sky, that the sun was moving while the earth stood still.
C0ct0pus 3 years ago
Ok then... but who was the main scientist who approved the theory?
dancingtowers2 3 years ago
you miss the point...it wasn't a scientist that approved the theory...it was just commonly accepted by primitive people that the sun revolved around the earth...they simply didn't know any better. it's not even their fault...there are plenty of things that people will look back at us and think we were stupid for thinking.
C0ct0pus 3 years ago
Ok, I do get the pont, but you are wrong in a way. Remember this Nicolaus Copernicus was the one who discovered that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and he was Christian.
dancingtowers2 3 years ago
and do you understand that that does nothing to verify christianity? or were you just pointing out a random fact?
prqd112 3 years ago
didn't they threaten to kill him if he didn't retract his statements? they said he was blasphemous.
C0ct0pus 3 years ago
Yes. That is true. Galileo ended up being sentenced to house arrest. My point is that the story is often told incorrectly. It was not a battle between Atheism and Christianity. It was a Christian man, Galileo, arguing with some of the Catholic clergy, most notably the Pope. It was an in-house debate.
meaningfulscience1 3 years ago