Atheist exclusivism and moments in atheist history.

Atheists wonder why there is prejudice against them. I try to suggest some rational reasoning about history and why keeping out ID from the science classroom is an activator of fear for the theist.

Evolution Vs. Creation debate

I am placing here some of my posts I have made to other sites as a way to share and preserve my musings…

–Dembski’s work on specified complexity hasn’t withstood much scientific criticism, so if it is science it isn’t quality science.

And here is where there is a form of faith based absolutism.  Dembski is not a Christian and yet he is really not doing himself any favors is he.  There are atheist absolutist who are invested in Dembski being wrong.  For that mater there is a science community that will have contempt for any Christian or critical thinker who does not take the absolutist party line that all was built from the ground up.  There is NO good answer for the Cambrian explosion.  Sure there have been some attempts but the naturalist who is invested in evolution having no significant defeaters hanging around is under an absolutist effort to prove out there faith.  And I point out that the faith I talk of will no longer be needed once the naturalist atheist absolutism is buttoned up good and tight.  You may ask what is the nature of this faith?  This is faith and works the same as any religious faith works.  And the faith is based on evidence and the hope that there will continue to be new and additional evidence for narrowing down all the gaps.  This is also a faith that all of the wealth of evidence for God can be soundly refuted.

We both have our faiths that we are invested in.  As a believer in bottom up godless evolution the investment is so strong that there is no end to the Internet defenders for evolution.  And the same goes for other faiths as well.  But how is this faith different for the atheist who is strongly invested in evolution being absolutist truth?  Could we both not be arguing from ignorance?  Yet most atheists I encounter on the Internet don’t claim an absolutist truth.  It would seem that the problem of proving a negative is a real challenge in spite of the investment in naturalistic evolution science.  A problem of one absolutist religion clashing with other absolutist religions all invested in there points of evidence.  And even if I might wish for some fair minded atheists to admit that there is some evidence for God that does have some weight to it I am not likely to get that kind of provisional acknowledgment because of this strong absolutist faith investment in evolution.  I on the other hand have no problem admitting that evolution is a good solid point of evidence in favor of the atheist even if I don’t now see that it rules God out of the picture.

Atheist can’t be absolutist about inability to prove a negative regarding God.  But the absolutism is strong in the realm of the naturalism sciences.

But what does this mean?

It means that any critical thinking about evolution like what Dembiski and Plantinga are doing is career suicide.  Richard Dawkins and his boys are not going to let this kind of critical thinking in to this absolutist atheist-scientist only club.  Any whiff of an ID or Creationist pov and you are going to get hammered within this he-man religionists hatters club.  The irony of this religious zeal for not letting in any opposing view is in a sense pay back time.  After all there is some revenge to give out is there not?

One good evidence for this absolutist faith is exhibited in the Cambrian explosion.  There was a much richer variety of species during the Cambrian era.  Not a lot of hard bits to fossilize and then bang something was going on.  Was it punctuated equilibrium? What about that peanut butter monster?  Could we not have a peanut butter booger jump out at us in a very rare case of “discrete variable speedists,” you can’t rule it out?

So ultimately you have the two sides in a show down.  All manner of Deists have evidence for God from the cosmological argument down to over 300 specific biblical prophecies for the coming of Jesus Christ right down to the lineage.  The cosmological argument is science based and powerful evidence for a God being much more likely then not for a host of fine tuning that is scientifically evident and critical to life being possible much less a coherent structure to the universe.  Even dark matter and dark energy are in the right proportions.  Like I said powerful points of evidence that maybe don’t stand alone as good as they stand together as the aggregate wealth of evidence for God.

Here: http://www.williamlanecraig.com/ and Here: http://www.bethinking.org/ Just two sources for the wealth of evidence for God.

Yet my Atheist/agnostic naturalist brothers and sisters insist that none of it is “good enough.”  Ok the dividing lines are reasonably clear.  Atheists don’t want to have the appearance of absolutism but I have yet to hear any atheists give some weight to any of the apologetic arguments.  Absolute insistence and or contempt prior to investigation of these apologetic arguments is self evident.  And the open contempt prior to investigation is clearly evident in some that I have encountered.  Yet few Atheists are going to acknowledge that they have any absolutism at all.  Few atheists want to acknowledge a standard of truth or even an intellectually honest burden of proof.

But hey…  Evolution does narrow it down in regard to God does it not?  Here you have the empirical sciences and the stricture of science method.  Narrows it down a bit more.  Regardless of the implicated argument from ignorance I will give credit to some of the atheists points of evidence having some weight. Significant advances in research on abiogenesis narrows it down a little more.  Yet like my biased atheist brothers and sisters I have faith that my points of evidence still trump those of the atheists.  Both groups use faith even if one side does not like the usage of the word.  Evolution is often the atheists dogma of choice. Regardless if atheists bristle and think the word dogma is a pejorative.  Atheists are smart, shrewd, and think they are right despite the skittishness regarding there absolutism.

And with all the arguments from both sides there is a kind of stasis. Both sides keeping the other relatively honest. And this with so few atheists who are out of there hiding.  But both sides are evolving…

And another post:

While I personally don’t see a big step from methodological naturalism (which is a cornerstone of science) to philosophical naturalism (which implies atheism), I don’t think science is pushing the latter. Science is both a method (or tool, if you prefer to call it that) and a body of knowledge. That evolutionary theory contradicts a key tenet of Biblical literalism is coincidental. As Gould would say, it is an example of religion trespassing into the magisterium of science.

So what you are saying is that the magisterium of science is bigoted against anything it deems to not be science.

For example if the theory of Evolution is falsifiable then the ability to make it false is a key ingredient to making it true.  Yet in the bigoted magisterium one can not teach how to falsify evolution.  Religion must not trespass into science because science is considered to have this philosophical magisterium bounded by the Philosophy of science.

So if something is considered true and the act of any counter factual piece of evidence having the potential to negate a theory makes that theory more substantial by the absence of that falsifier being present.

Popper claimed that the central feature of science was that science aims at falsifiable claims (i.e. claims that can be proven false, at least in principle). No single unified account of the difference between science and non-science has been widely accepted by philosophers, and some regard the problem as unsolvable or uninteresting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

So when it comes to evolution you want the classroom to teach a false-tautology by reason of the bigotry against all that is not considered science.  The bigotry of the magisterium that will not let something like ID be part of the curriculum because it is provisionally not to be considered science because it’s not falsifiable.

Do you see how good this is for the religion of naturalism/atheism?

You don’t allow anything that is not falsifiable because it teaches evolution is not what it appears to be.  Example: Mankind was built from the bottom up and not from the top down.

I bet you don’t see a problem in this.  The bigotry of the Magiserium.

And this does not even get into how evolution has to deal with how it could be a “Correlation does not imply causation” problem.  Keep up the barriers of the Non-Overlapping Magisteria and this evolution protecting regime acts against any critical view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_is_not_causation

This is quite handy in deed!

No problem with the fossil record having possible Spurious relationships because of the paucity of available fossils.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spurious_relationship

To teach Intelligent Design would endanger the franchise right?

You can’t possibility teach the idea that there is no free lunch when it comes to building complexity out of the simplicity of previous generations.

Look at this:

“In response to a given problem situation (PS1), a number of competing conjectures, or tentative theories (TT), are systematically subjected to the most rigorous attempts at falsification possible. This process, error elimination (EE), performs a similar function for science that natural selection performs for biological evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

But in this case you have the non-overlapping Magistiria act as a natural selection function to eliminate any belief that does not fit evolution as the origin of all living beings.

All conjectures or tentative theories under this bigoted contempt would act as a filter to a fully open and bias free process. The contempt a prior restraint against tentative theories getting out of hand.  The flaws in the error elimination process would naturally act as a buffer so that falsification is only performed under the illusion that these attempts are rigorous.  Contempt prior to investigation the insurance policy for the teaching of evolution and it’s survival in the face of evidence for God.

In fact I may be making a mistake in pointing this foundational error out to anybody.  It may be more harmful to Christians if ID is taught comparatively as part of any biology class.  This could end up producing more Atheists then the other way around.  Yet the dilemma now is that atheists think that the bigotry against the falsifiers for evolution will produce more atheists.  Atheists have certainly built up there protective walls of cognitive dissonance so that this error built in ignorance will have to result in a consequence of some kind.

and just a touch more:

Could you explain how the idiom “correlation does not imply causation” relates to evolution?

Let’s use your example of irreducible complexity. (with a subtle twist)

IR claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex; later investigations showed that it was reducible.

Now ask if all of neo-Darwinian evolution is testable. If there are parts that are not testable for lack of sufficient evidence then that is a gap. Ask if your own desire or need for Evolution to fit your world view is a confirmation bias. We can both have confirmation bias. But any clear evidence against evolution and reality of irreducible complexity can be muddied and obscured in rhetoric and misrepresentation. And Christians can be guilty of some of those same tactics. But how vital is evolution to fitting your own world view. How invested do you think neo-Darwinian scientist have been to the naturalist ideal of bottom up natural selection, genetic drift, and chance. Science is finding ever more complexity as it is better able to access some of the wondrous mysteries on this little backwater planet.

Can you fill in all the gaps?

Could you explain how the idiom “correlation does not imply causation” relates to evolution?

Again can ALL of evolutionary theory be tested or falsified? How do you know you have correctly correlated all the fossil record. And in some cases there is a paucity of fossil specimens. Are they correlated correctly. Did all the scientist work with all due diligence in all of there published pier reviewed publications. Is the honesty and integrity of every published scientist beyond reproach?

Think about this again.

In its use in the domain of logic, however, ‘to imply’ means ‘to invariably lead to’. And while correlation does not necessarily mean that there is a causal relationship between, there is no other way to suggest a causal relationship between two things unless those things are correlated.

So every time some argument against evolution or questioning of the evidence what does it invariably lead to? Has there EVER been a point of evidence given in regard to IR that has not been responded to with the invariably lead to conclusion that it is not correct.

Not one time that IR has been pointed out and the neo-Darwinian science community would say something like. This is compelling evidence of IR and this will stand until more evidence if found to rule it out.

Has that ever happened?

Is there and inevitable correlation each time?

Under Poppers idea of falsifiability does it not also lend some truth to an idea if it was considered falsified until proven otherwise.

The irreducible complexity of things has been pointed out about more then just eye-balls and Bacterial Flagellum.

Look at this youtube page :

Is there an inevidable correlation to good solid youtube post on IR and some of the 5,558 comments that are purely vitupirations.

I don’t know of an IR idea ever being accepted until better evidence. One Hundred and fifty years of science and not once is there a pause to say hold up here we may be wrong. We are going to have to give credence to this particular IR evidence UNTIL more information suffices. Just one case? Can you point me to it?

It would seem that Poppers philosophy, and that is all it is, would not also withstand a provisional falsification becoming a real falsification in regard to all the science done. Not even and instance that then had the falsification latter falsified?

Not one time?

I guess evolution science is that powerful and trough or there is a HEAVY investment in ALL being inevitably correlated with a naturalistic explanation.

[Excerpt - In expressing why natural selection is believed to find creative designs/solutions to all these kinds of intermediate problems]: “Natural selection is uhmmm..uhhh.. well, I suppose that is a sort of matter of faith on my part.” – Richard Dawkins

I have faith as well and faith means trust. So to test faith you test your trust in the information. You test your trust that it is the truth.

But some faith is blind. Some of it does not get tested. But it is better when you test your faith.

A reply to an atheist regarding the unlikly chance of naturalism

The question: “do you think our evolution without a designer is like so many pennies landing on their edges because you know anything about the chemistry and physical constants at work or do you think that because somebody else said so and you were happy to adopt the idea?”

the short answer is both…

My understanding is growing along with a belief in evolution and how it does not conflict with a Creator and designer of the universe.

Science can be a way to grasp a better understanding of God. Yet science is by definition opposed to anything supernatural and can not grasp the supernatural.

For instance if I say there is a multiverse and an innumerable number of universes yet I can not go outside this universe to observe this, would you take this on faith? I could only possibly hope for some indirect evidence. I can’t really substantiate a multiverse with a certainty unless I can access other universes.  The idea that this cosmologicaly fine tuned universe is just one of the infinite permutations is a proposition that takes an astounding amount of blind faith.  Not to mention the infinate regress problem.

So why must there be objection to the cosmological proof of a Designer who had to manage the construction of this universe so as to support life? We can know a great deal about what had to happen in the early seconds of the big bang in order for there to be the universe we so clearly observe directly. We even find new constraints in the form of dark energy and dark matter to add to the complexity of this universe and how fine tuned the mixture MUST be in order for me to type this response.

In other words the long shot odds of getting the fine tuning just right may exceed the number of atoms in this uniquely fine tuned existence we all can observe directly.

So the numbers and probability can certainly point to a Creator Higher Power that is outside of any limitations in this universe.

But we don’t only have the cosmological argument as a point of evidence for a Creator. Yet if this is all a natural occurrence and has no intelligence behind the fine tuning means we are all lottery winners already.

Then you add biology…

http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=d5082c909684c57107e7

If you watch the video you should at the minimum come away as a deist. We have not only a fined tuned universe but also a process of evolution that requires simplicity be ever more complex by genetic drift and natural selection. A presuppositional affinity for emergence and ever greater complexity despite the greater entropy of thermodynamics. You have to take on faith the idea that from the very FIRST mitosis life was ready to replicate in a way that got all the bits just right and then continued to get it right time and time again (with only about 3.5 billion years to try hitting all the needed bulls-eyes) when it comes to the current complexity. An affinity to emergence in the face of the entropic pull.

Our current complexity is a good indication that we are in a garden that was tended by a Gardener. It would be a strong faith in deed to think that all this complex interdependency is an act of pure natural processes with no directed intelligence behind them. Meaning that I get those five pennies to land on edge without any Intelligent directive influences. And have to have subsequent casts of the pennies replicate the same result or near statistical inprobablity.

Yes what I am saying is noting new or uniquely my own. There is a multitude of indirect and direct evidences for God. Understanding molecular and chemical affinities only adds to the points of evidence.

The analogical use of the five pennies example was my idea on expressing what would need to happen on several fronts to bring us to our current complexity.  Naturalism would say that a godless force is fine tuning the processes and affinities without any intelligence to direct the proses.

An atheist might argue that there is a natural affinity to having those pennies land on edge. Even in the first picoseconds of the big bang. It was blind random chance in other words. A continued natural affinity for life to happen from non-life. And another natural affinity for chordates making it as far up the evolutionary lader as they have today. For all the affinity there had to be a limit to how many tries you get before hitting the sweet spot. There may be times that fewer pennies landed on edge. But to say this is ALL a godless process is to in some way deny reality in the face of indications that something supernatural is at work. Science by its nature blind to the supernatural. Science is in a box of limitations. But we (humanity) are an interesting gestalt that would indicate more than just blind random luck with natural selection mixed in.

Again the wealth of evidence for even an Aristotelian God is out there for any self aware conscientiousnesses to grasp. The greater faith is to say all happened in a godless way. Just like the idea of a multiverse takes blind faith that has no access to anything outside this universe. Just like the blind faith required for Darwinian evolution being the correct and exact model of how all life has evolved to this point. Look at the chances that had to take place regardless of affinity for certain outcomes. We don’t have a time machine to go back and get all the proofs needed to fill all the gaps that do exist. Blind faith that the phylogenetic tree has all the relationships right without any genetic sequencing to really test accuracy. Blind faith that pakicetus is the ancestor to whales when we can’t sequence the genetic code sufficiently for irrefutable proof. Bind faith that science has ALL the answers given sufficient time and the right questions. There is a greater amount of blind faith required of the atheist then is required for even an Aristotelian First Cause to all things view or deistic watchmaker.

Even my Biblical view of God requires that there be doubt and free will. One can doubt the existence of God and even God honors our free will to reject God. God may even be cruel and playing a malicious joke yet less faith is needed in even that unlikely proposition.

But the atheist often insists that there is no evidence for God. Or no sufficient evidence. This is the blind faith I am talking of. The idea that all is a consequence of natural forces. That all can be explained inside the limiting box of science. No God and no gaps that God can hide in. Or one can go on a personal journey and KNOW God and see the abundant evidence for a caring loving God. Both the atheist and theist proposition require a measure of faith. But the atheist one needs the greater exercise of trust that defines what faith is. Because the atheist has only the solipsist view to rely upon and that reason is why the atheist faith is the bigger and more blind faith. One could even say that the atheist is willfully blind and thus only trusts in themselves and what ever they can derive from that selfish internalized and inward facing view.

For me I have to look outside myself and put trust in things that are outside of myself. This small trust is the faith that grows with more evidence. The faith that is tested, questioned, and thirsty for more evidence that will grow that faith like a mustard seed. A faith that has to deal with a measure of doubt built into the process so that one does not go it alone or only focus inwardly. A Christian faith that grows in the nutrient of Gods love for us all.

Question…

The Passion of the Atheist

Oh the passion!

The solipsist wager:

“Agnostic/Atheists Wager – Whether or not you believe in God, you should live your life with love, kindness, compassion, mercy and tolerance while trying to make the world a better place. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will have made a positive impact on those around you. If there is a benevolent God reviewing your life, you will be judged on your actions and not just on your ability to blindly believe when there is a significant lack of evidence of his/her existence.” [1] [ 2]

A wager on the wages of sin: Atheist have a powerful faith in what they know and as such should indeed live a life with love, kindness, compassion, mercy and tolerance while trying to make the world a better place. It’s true that one can lose nothing in this life by doing these laudable things. Atheism would seek to deny their gift of eternity for the finite world of flawed humans. Know that God has given us all a pardon thru Jesus Christ because He is a compassionate God. Atheist claim significant lack of evidence for many things from Moral Absolutes on up to the Creator.
Rhetoric that the Creator is evil because of perfect knowledge of the future is a comfort to them as they attack all religions as harmful. The fallacy in there logic is incorporated into there doctrine. God gave us freedom of choice. While atheism would deny choice as an illusion, God has given all of us that precious and perilous gift. Just as there are moral absolutes so is there choice. A quantum gate of possibility that becomes fixed only when it’s state is observed. Sin is a choice and we are all predisposed to sin as it is our nature. In that choice is where evil can and does come from. God did not create evil but if choice has not aligned it’s self with God’s law the result is not from God. If one denies the existence of God you have made a choice that a benevolent God is going to honor. Eternity with God would hardly be a fun place for even the most moral and upstanding Atheist.
Psychology is a science of human nature and through this scientific method there is proof of what I am saying. Moral absolutes are a nature and nurture process we want to follow them unless we find it hard or think it oppressive. We all at one time or another fall short or want to outright disobey. Jesus asked us to love one another as we do ourselves. Do people tend to unconditionally love others, much less ourselves? With Gods law inseparably incorporated within us this would be no problem yet because of Adam that can only be restored at the return of the Messiah. The Atheist mantra of logic, scientific method, and evolutionary programing is flawed in that there is no perfect knowledge of everything. While theory is a strong explanation by known testing and observational method that understanding can and does evolve through new observations and discovery. While God is easy to discover in the heart and minds of Christians there is also a method to deny that existence.
The solipsist wager: Everything is relative to what can be proven and then tested though the lens of personal perspective and bias. Upon that bias is the absolute that there is always bias and so there is always a significant lack of evidence. Evidence can not be bias if it’s backed up by scientific theory while bringing modification to that theory as more is discovered by bias pursuit of absolutes.


The Atheist and Freethinkers meet Entropy

In a room with a door that says Knowledge are quite a few Atheist and free thinkers who ruminate as to the state of the lock on the door.

A child of God walks in and before anyone could say a word the door opens and the child walks through.

Now it is a room of quite a few atheist and free thinkers who question if reality can be fixed to subjective observation regarding the door.

Suddenly one of the free thinkers rise up to approach the door. Joy appears on his face as the door opens and they go through it.

Now part of the room are fixed on the question of transcendent joy, part on subjective observation and part on the purpose for the word knowledge inscribed on the door.

One has concluded that they are satisfied enough with there evidence and commits suicide.

Now the room is a buzz with ruminations on subjective observation, door locks, reality, the unlikelihood of transcendence and a putrefying odor of death.

Suddenly a few of them are aware that there are four people at the corners of the room who hold with them the light source they need to be able to see the door at all.

A small few in the group want to go for the door. But this time it does not open and none want to put down what is in there hands to grasp the knob with.

Hands full of the riches they had did not seem to buy them any way to open the door without loss of there goods.

Now there are those standing around the door smelling the bad odor and peering at the door knob mechanism while ruminations on all the reality around them continued.

A lamp holder approaches the door and some drop all and go through the door with the light bearer.

There now seems to an appeal by the cult of the dead one that adding to the stench is preferable to smelling it.. Observation tells them that one can not exit carrying anything. It’s soundly denied that the ones who go through the door appear to be naked as the child who first went through.

Order in the room is now approaching panic as two more lamp holders are missing and so absorbed in debate a time for critical analysis can not be given to what happened.

Now the room has focused on how little light there is upon which to study the nature of what seems to be happening. some want to declare they see just fine while others are in a committee of fear and loathing about the door.

As all the rational events are being documented under the appalling light conditions those who see into the room make out with greater clarity what is on the other side. Most of these rush though the door.

The final light bearer leaves and the darkness blinds everyone. Then it is herd there are those who have had lamps with them but now can not see to find the fuel. Cries of confession are heard in the utter darkness as the lamp bearers are found out as not being prepared to light the room.

In a pitch black room of white noise, entropy clams dominion.

Father Jack Hackett

Bishop Brennan:

What would the following words suggest to you: “Jack”, “sleepwalking” and “bollock naked”?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.