Neil Tyson is a brilliant scientist. He uses logic and reasoning extremely well. There are numerous videos of him on YouTube that show how great a speaker he is. This following is one of my favorites: (thanks, Tommy) BTW: it kind of relates to my previous post, but I didn't see this video until tonight.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
"An entertainment district in the middle of a sewer system"
Tyson is brilliant! He's right, no engineer would do this! But god did...
Tyson is humerous, but he is rather selective in what he reviews. Richard Dawkins, during a taped interview (I have a link on my blog) with Alister McGrath notes, "it is such a privilege to be born at all" and that his and McGrath’s births were "improbable events." Even Dawkins stands in awe of the fact we are here. The difference is that he chalks it up to luck, whereas McGrath and folks like myself see something else.
One doesn't have to be a young earth creationist to believe that we have a designer. I happen to lean toward an old earth/progressive view of creation (to use Genesis-related terms). But, the more I learn about evolution, the more I see the strength of its theory. But evolution and God are not mutually exlusive concepts, as Francis Collins would point out. Nor, in my view as well as many others, does evolution conflict with the Genesis account of creation.
Check out the brief YouTube clip, located in the link below, from a debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens makes somewhat of the same conclusion as Tyson, but D'Souza gives the Cliffs Notes version of design. (Sorry...I have not yet picked up how to imbed links into comments).
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/10/24/the-dsouza-hitchens-debate-you-be-the-judge/?ncid=NWS00010000000001
Thanks for visiting my blog and leaving comments!
I love Tyson. I reviewed his latest book on my blog several months ago.
Fortunately I'm of those people that never saw a designer in nature. The theory of natural selection makes complete sense to me and would fall apart if a designer were introduced into the mix. That's not just my opinion.
Cheers!
Summer Squirrel,
Thanks for visiting and welcome!
I, too, feel that if there was an 'Intelligent Designer" he/she/it would have done a much better job at designing humans and the earth.
Lui,
RE: "evolution certainly makes God superfluous."
That is an interesting claim... please explain. As I have stated, I lean toward evolution, but to the best of my knowlwege, it only explains a process, it cannot answer why or how we are here (i.e. how life initially began).
Jeff, but that is the whole point of what Tyson was talking about. He spoke of how many great minds, when they came up against the limits of their knowledge, they invoked god to explain what they could not. Until someone came along and figured out what they could not.
As Tyson says, Intelligent Design is not a philosophy of discovery, it is a philosophy of ignorance.
Tommy,
Thanks for the admonishment to be careful of a “God in the Gaps” trap (I respond toward the end of this post). I am curious, however, about the selection of your picture. JRR Tolkien once said that Faramir was the one character in the Lord of the Rings trilogy that was most like him. Interestingly, Tolkien was the one who helped C.S. Lewis reconcile his questions about God and the Bible (Lewis at the time was an atheist and had decided that the Christian faith of his up-bringing was intellectually untenable). Anyway, back to the point at hand.
Immanuel Kant once said, “Two things fill me with constantly increasing admiration and awe, the longer and more earnestly I reflect on them: the starry heavens without and the Moral Law within.” Ironically (given Kant‘s view of God), the two phenomena that he notes above, I see as pointing to a Creator.
Morality-
God is not required for a person to make a moral judgment (there are many non-theists whose behavior/actions can be considered moral or good). But, a higher authority is required for an action to be considered inherently moral or evil. A humanistic concept of good/evil is only temporal and thus changes. I do not believe in God simply because I to not like the alternative of subjective good and evil. Quite the opposite. There are things that are intrinsically wrong (mala in se). If there are acts that are wrong, in and of themselves, how can good and evil be subjective? We can never argue that evil acts by brutal people (such as Hitler or child rapists) are good. Such evil cannot change with the times, nor should it. If there is inherent evil, the standard must be set by an entity beyond you and I.
Beauty in Mathematics and Science-
There are many constants in place on our planet and in our universe that are vital to life. Given the preciseness of the constants, some would argue that the existence of life sits on a razor’s edge.
Dr. Francis Collins notes, “Altogether there are fifteen physical constants whose values current theory in unable to predict. They are givens: they simply have the value that they have. This list includes the speed of light, the strength of the weak and strong nuclear forces, various parameters associated with electromagnetism, and the force of gravity. The chance that all of these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal…In sum our universe is wildly improbable.”
Astronomer Dr. Martin Rees once said, “The expansion speed, the material content of the universe, and the strengths of basic forces, seem to have been a prerequisite for the emergence of the hospitable cosmic habitat in which we live.” He notes that if there were the slightest tweaking of the numbers, “The universe as we know it would not be here.” Further, the mere placement of our plant within our solar system and within our universe is strikingly fortuitous (despite what Tyson notes). Along these lines, Richard Dawkins once said, "It is such a privilege to be born at all" and that his birth was an "improbable event."
Additionally, the mathematics and formulas behind many of these scientific principles are extraordinary beautiful. Some have even called them, “elegant in their simplicity.” The more we dig into science and mathematics, the more we see beauty at the most infinitesimal levels. Nobel-prize winning physicist and atheist Steven Weinberg once said, “Sometimes nature seems more beautiful that strictly necessary.”
Back to your point about “God in the Gaps,” which Dr. Collins also comments on: “Faith that places God in the gaps of current understanding about the natural world may be headed for crisis if advances in science subsequently fill those gaps…There are good reasons to believe in God, including the existence of mathematical principles and order in creation. They are positive reasons, based on knowledge, rather than default assumptions based on (a temporary) lack of knowledge.” Similarly, I would note that I let the evidence lead me to my conclusions, rather than the other way around.
Lui,
Thanks for the reply. I have to say that I am still not persuaded that evolution provides an adequate explanation as to how we got here initially…only how life evolved from less complex to more complex. Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project and certainly no right-wing Young-Earth creationist but in fact an evolutionist, retorts in a much more eloquent fashion that I have: “If humans evolved strictly by mutation and natural selection, who needs God to explain us? To this I reply, I do.” Collins feels that the “claim that science demands atheism…goes beyond the evidence…[T]hose who choose to be atheists must find some other basis for taking that position. Evolution won’t do.” As I have stated before, you do not need to defend evolution with me…I am sympathetic to what it teaches. Where we part ways are the inferences that one deduces from such a theory, including, but not limited to, that it makes God superfluous.
As to your point about the Anthropic Principle (I assume this is what you mean by the multiverse hypothesis). This is definitely an interesting hypothesis to consider and one that deserves much more research. But, to date, there is still significant debate. Many physicists even equate its tenants to having “metaphysical” implications, not to mention the fact that, as you put it, “there is no such evidence” for multiple universes. Further, what evidence do we have that there are an infinite number of universes? Even if it is shown one day that there are multiple universes, who is to say that there are only two or five or twenty-two. The entire cornerstone to your argument is that there are an infinite number, but there is no scientific basis to this presupposition. You are asking me to assume much more than a parallel universe. Here is an interesting link on the subject: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/teleo.html
I am somewhat confused by your statement that the universe (i.e. space) is “hostile” to life. Just because there are places (such as outside Earth’s atmosphere) that are dangerous to humans does not lend credibility to the non-existence of God. If humans were born with the ability to enter outer space (short of building a rocket or a shuttle), but lacked the means to survive, I would be a little more sympathetic to such an critique. Perhaps I am missing your point here. The one statement that you did mention in this section that I was most sympathetic to was your reference to disasters and why they occur. Earlier in my life, this was an issue that caused me much consternation (i.e. why God allows suffering). I touch on this subject here:
http://three15.blogspot.com/2007_08_01_archive.html
Not to get all theological here, but the bottom line, in the eyes of Christians, is that humans, through choice of our own, did not want to follow God, our creator. Such rebellion had ramifications that impacted the entire world. It had the effect of putting diesel into a gasoline engine. Such an act (sin) wasn’t meant to occur (but it allowed to occur because we have free will) and this mucked things up in the process. Water is essential for life, but causes floods. Plate tectonics serve a geological purpose, but cause earthquakes and volcano eruptions. Because of the rebellion of the human race, we see such events in our lives.
You also state that “Evolution is itself the very sort of thing one would expect in a God-less universe…” Such a statement includes a wide variety of presuppositions. For one, you assume that you know what a perfect universe would be like to compare our current existence. But where do you get your standard of perfection? It is interesting that while you militate against the concept of a god, you certainly seem to know a lot about what type of world he would create if he were real.
You also note that evolution “is indifferent to suffering and is opportunistic. It leads to ruthless exploitation, manipulation, parasitism, (please note: this is a statement of how nature is, not of how we would like it to be, and it certainly isn't a statement of how we should behave).” The question I would pose here is where you get your idea of “should behave.” Without an objective moral arbiter, we have no right to say what anyone “ought” or “should” do. While a certain act may cause harm to others, your concept of “should” does not have a leg to stand on; it is simply your opinion. Humans may have animalistic instincts, but we have the unique ability to override and suppress urges that we consider wrong, or evil. This idea of a Moral Law is what I was referring to in my earlier post. Such a Law (which you appear to elude to and we are all aware of) in my mind raises serious implications about the existence of a creator. Let me say again that God is not required for a person to make a moral judgment (there are many non-theists whose behavior/actions can be considered moral or good). But, a higher authority is required for an action to be considered inherently moral or evil.
I will leave you with this quote, ““At this moment, it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers.
The proof that man has evolved even in the slightest is reason enough for me to believe there is no God. If God (according to the Bible) is omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect... then he would have created an 'evolved man'- not an un-evolved 'caveman'.
Also, he would have created man that would not need food or water to sustain life. That man would be immune to any disease. In fact, disease would never have been created. Also, this man would be able to survive without needing to breathe oxygen and be able to withstand extreme temperatures (or God should have created Earth with non-extreme temperatures.)
If man were truly created 'in the image of God' (which no one knows what that really means), then we would not need a physical body at all. God doesn't eat, sleep, breathe, walk, talk, or see in only the visible spectrum anyway if he exists. Because the need for any of those is thrown out the window if it was only God that existed before anything else. I imagine he would be more like a thought (the best way I can think to describe it.)
See my post "Does God have Legs" to see what I am trying to say at this ungodly hour of the morning.
Harry,
You say if God existed, He would have created a perfect human being. I would agree...because He did. But, as I mention during my previous post, however, we as humans have messed everything up by following our own desires (sin). In the mind of a Christian, the introduction of sin created a whole host of problems, including many of the ones you describe. (Like diesel fuel in a gasoline tank).
As is relates to being made in the image of God and why we breath, eat, drink, etc., I think you will find the link below interesting. A local philosopher and former college professor hosts a daily radio program here in Phoenix. He recently touched on the exact subject you mention. I am sure you are aware that Pope John Paul II wrote a long series of thoughts on "The Theology of the Body." A link to the Pope's thoughts, as well as others are noted within this link.
http://andrewtallmanshowtopics.blogspot.com/2007/11/theology-of-body.html
Lui,
Family obligations and work have prevented a timely response.
Where to start…
First of all, nothing I have written has been intended to win “debating points.” Quite frankly, I could care less about “winning” any conversation with you, as if I were a member of a opposing high school or college debate team coveting a trophy to carry back to my alma mater. In my mind, conversations like ours should transcend such shallow and meaningless endeavors. I cannot speak to the encounters you might have had with Christians in the past, but obviously, some who claim to share my religion have attempted to engage you in such a selfish manner. Let me say, shame on them. My motivation is this: I see statements in the blogoshere that are false, as they relate to God. My intent is to offer up an alternative viewpoint for a person to ponder. I hope the argument (for lack of a better word) proves to be persuasive enough for them to reconsider their negative view of God -- at a minimum, to plant a seed, so to speak. Some of the greatest minds of Christianity initially came from the worldview of atheism, not the least of which is C.S. Lewis. Believers with such backgrounds add needed diversity of thought and new insights to others who may be lifelong theists and have never wrestled with the difficulties of doubt. With that said, let me get back to the subject at hand.
Your initial critique of my comments related to how evolution makes God superfluous. In my opinion, you have yet to adequately defend such a dismissive statement partly because you are requiring more from the principles of evolution (and science for that matter) than it can supply. Science was never intended to prove or disprove God, so your assumption errs from the outset. You are obviously willing to embrace in philosophical and theoretical concepts that are not grounded in 100% science (i.e. multiple universes, which I address again momentarily). But if a philosophical construct involves God, then this is not allowed. You wrestle with the concept of God as if He were something you can measure and predict based on an experiment--He is not.
Further, much of your dismissal of God lies in your notions of what a god should or would be like, despite the fact that you have no basis to judge a god’s actions other that what you think he would or would not do (there is not a god, but IF THERE WERE he would not do such and such). You also cite Ockham's razor as a reason to not bring God into the equation (interestingly, Ockham was a theist). However, you are assuming that God is more complex (“exotic” is also a term you use) than the idea of order and human cognition coming out of blind nothingness. The non-existence of God necessitates equally vast complexity, if not more so, than the idea of God. Again, because science cannot 100% prove God in such matters, it is dismissed a priori. I am flabbergasted that you would state that we must wait until we prove/disprove multiple universes before we can consider God a possibility (if such an endeavor is humanly possible). To answer another question along these same lines: While complexity follows simplicity (as you note), at the exact moment of singularity--‘the big bang’--all known laws of physics have been said to not apply. Why would Ockham’s razor apply at this incredible moment?
As I have said earlier, while science cannot prove or disprove God, it allows us to catch glimpses of our creator. From the Moral Law to the fine tuning of the universe, to, dare I even mention it, the revelation handed down via Christ and the Bible, one is on more than reasonable ground to believe a god could exist. These glimpses, while not equivalent to the flashing lights when driving into Las Vegas, are significant enough for me to ask for a better explanation than, “we are just pretty lucky.” To me, the revelation from the Bible and the historicity of Christ adds the confirmation that I need (perhaps we should save such a discussion for another day, lest we end up writing endless responses to one another that lose sight of how this conversation began).
To the subject of morality. While you note that you prefer not to engage on this subject, you proceeded to spend much of your time here. You need to be honest, however, and concede that in response to my comments you put words in my mouth that I never wrote, nor ever inferred. I did not said you, or any atheist, couldn’t be moral or good. I said that God is required for there to be an objective standard for morality and human rights. The very fact that we find there are certain acts committed by humans that are so heinous, that they violate everything we know to be good, raises questions about how such standards came to be. While you believe that our morality evolved, similar to our biology, I have seen no reasonable evidence to support this claim. If morals evolve, then anything we call good or bad is now open for discussion. There are crimes that should never be open for discussion. If there were no God, this does not mean that I would run around the next day murdering and raping. However, I would have no basis to say that that the heathen who barges into my home to do the same is evil, in and of itself (American law refers to a Latin term on this subject, mala in se). As Norman Geisler once said, "In order for moral evil to be present, a moral agent and a moral law must also exist." Who else can that moral agent be but God? Selfishness and a heard mentality may partly explain morality, but evolution does not explain why humans commit acts of kindness unknown to anyone that do not benefit us. Secondly, why do we risk our safety to help people outside of our group (as did Mother Teresa and Oskar Schindler)?
You also infer that God’s standard of right and wrong (in the eyes of a Christian or Jew) is arbitrary and capricious. This is an interesting question offered by Plato many years ago, called the Euthyphro Dilemma. Simply put, Plato asks if an act is right because God says it's so, or does God say it's so because it's right. Thomas Aquinas argued that the dilemma is false. "Yes, God commands something because it is good, but the reason it is good is that good is an essential part of God's nature. So goodness is grounded in God's character and merely expressed in moral commands. Therefore whatever a good God commands will always be good." As I stated, it important to point out that someone does not have to be religious to do "good" things, like feed the poor, although, most outreach centers I can think of that offer such assistance are part of a larger church ministry. Yes, Christianity has much to answer for, but the benefit to the world (the fruit, so to speak) has been much greater.
In closing, I must note that the quote that you criticize as “complete rubbish” relating to ‘scientists meeting the band of theologians’ was offered by an agnostic, not a theist. Robert Jastrow is a world-renowned astrophysicist and one the top minds of our time.
I have benefited our exchange, Lui. You certainly are a bright individual. Best of luck with your continued studies.
"Quite frankly, I could care less about “winning” any conversation with you, as if I were a member of a opposing high school or college debate team coveting a trophy to carry back to my alma mater."
Quite frankly, then, why are you even debating? It looks as though you have your mind very well made up , in the face of extraordinary evidence to the contrary. What you have is faith. It is a "belief".
I "believe" that there are purple flying elephants. Does that make it so? It does not follow.
I do not feel sorry for your ignorance. You are self-taught.
Binismom
Binismom,
Might I suggest reading a little further into the section I wrote rather than stopping at the sentence that you cut and pasted. My "point" is not to debate. As I noted to Lui, "My motivation is this: I see statements in the blogoshere that are false, as they relate to God. My intent is to offer up an alternative viewpoint for a person to ponder. I hope the argument (for lack of a better word) proves to be persuasive enough for them to reconsider their negative view of God -- at a minimum, to plant a seed, so to speak. Some of the greatest minds of Christianity initially came from the worldview of atheism, not the least of which is C.S. Lewis. Believers with such backgrounds add needed diversity of thought and new insights to others who may be lifelong theists and have never wrestled with the difficulties of doubt."
I hope that clarifies my intent. To your other statements, should you have something substantive to add to the conversation rather than name-calling and insults, please do so. While I might disagree with Lui, I respect him for his willingness to exchange thoughts and not trite cut-downs. To imply that I came to the position I hold via some sort of "blind faith" is a poor assumption on your part, to say the least.
Post a Comment