Creationism - the anti-science.

[Johane Derite]

Have you ever wondered, if All Mighty God can create a rock so big that even he can't lift?

Even when I was more atheist I really disliked this question. It's too loaded and presupposes way too many things about the concept of "God" and what it means to be powerful or omnipotent.
A truly omnipotent God would not concern himself or his will with petty things like that for even a millisecond (he would consider it an abuse or misuse of his power). Also a god who doesn't contain his own limits within himself would be a groundless, immediate, perpetually self-feeling subject and therefore insufficiently concrete and real with respect to what the concept of "God" should require.

I have a question. If everything is all an accident and none of existence has any original meaning. Why does life, which comes from matter, strive so hard to keep living and not want to go back to being lifeless matter? where does this will come from?

This is also a bit too easy to counter from the perspective of the Atheist corner. If there was life that came from matter that did not strive then the process of evolution obviously would have had plenty of time to negate it out of existence much easier than life that strived. Also, Freud actually argued convincingly that in humans the will to return to lifeless matter exists (Death Drive) and is responsible for man's self destructive behaviour.

 

[srdceleva]

This is also a bit too easy to counter from the perspective of the Atheist corner. If there was life that came from matter that did not strive then the process of evolution obviously would have had plenty of time to negate it out of existence much easier than life that strived. Also, Freud actually argued convincingly that in humans the will to return to lifeless matter exists (Death Drive) and is responsible for man's self destructive behaviour.

The very beginning of life had to be based on a drive to reproduce and the most basic forms of life are only concerned with living. I'm not speaking about human psychology which can long to die as an escape from suffering. Where does this will come from at all. Why is life concerned with living at all when everything is all an accident and there is no point?

 

[Johane Derite]

The very beginning of life had to be based on a drive to reproduce and the most basic forms of life are only concerned with living. Why is life concerned with living at all when everything is all an accident and there is no point?

Any primitive life form, no matter how basic, that did not have the drive to reproduce and ensure its genes survival, would have been negated very easily out of existence.

I'm sure there existed "melancholic" basic life forms that had no will to exist or reproduce, and just out of luck even managed to survive a couple of generations. But without the drive to survive/reproduce were very quickly annihilated. Autopoietic self-correction.

 

[Angela]

No statement stroke me as blasphemous,... yet.


Thomas Aikenhead was the last man sentenced to death (at the age of 20) in Britain for blasphemy. The year was 1697.
He was a medical student.
https://web.archive.org/web/2011100...a.org/uuhs/duub/articles/thomasaikenhead.html


The charges were that for more than twelve months Aikenhead had blasphemed against God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Scriptures, and all revealed religion. Five student 'friends' appeared as prosecution witnesses. Aikenhead was accused of having said that theology was "a rhapsody of feigned and ill-invented nonsense" and made up of "poetical fictions and extravagant chimeras". It was reported that he had called the Old Testament "Ezra's Fables" and the New Testament "the History of the impostor Christ who learned magic in Egypt and picked up a few ignorant blockish fisher fellows". The 'friends' told the court that Aikenhead rejected the Trinity as "not worth any man's refutation", scoffed at the incarnation as contradictory, professed pantheism, and denied creation.


Blasphemy is still illegal in few countries (including EU ones).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy

The authorities in power in various religious denominations claim that anything they don't believe in is blasphemy. So, the Catholic Church denounced Luther as a heretic. He promptly turned around and denounced other preachers as heretics and what they preached as blasphemous. The same thing happened with the Puritans in England, who went to the Netherlands and then the New World because they were being condemned and persecuted as heretics for their beliefs. Once they were established in the Massachusetts Bay Colony they exiled anyone who had contrary ideas, like Anne Hutchinson, who was pregnant with her umpteenth child at the time. She had to walk through the snow to Rhode Island Colony. The Catholics in their turn were persecuted in England, and had to come to Maryland for religious liberty. And so it goes....

As for the attitude of Roman Catholic authorities toward certain discoveries in science, it depends on the time, the Pope in power, the local church authorities etc. Galileo was certainly censured and in deep trouble. He recanted in order to get away from the grip of the Inquisition. It may be apocryphal, but he is said to have muttered as he left the room, "And still it moves".

Others met no or mild opposition, and some discoveries, although condemned originally, were later accommodated. One size doesn't fit all.

I absolutely don't think that belief in God or the dogmas of certain religions at all means that the person who holds such beliefs is stupid or illogical. I've met too many brilliant people who are believers. A lot of it has to do with personality type, some of it has to do with the type of religious instruction they received. Many supposed Catholics, for example, never received any rigorous theological training whatsoever, and so they were woefully unprepared for debate about these matters. Then, some people break with their faith as the result of life experiences. Again, I really can't generalize.

Sometimes, with some people, all these attempts to keep people away from "blasphemous" works has the opposite effect. I didn't know what the "Index" of forbidden works was until I was about 15. As soon as I heard about it I looked up the list and used it to attempt to read every single book on it. They shouldn't have bothered; my quarrel with the Church has nothing to do with theological matters.

 

[Bergin]

The authorities in power in various religious denominations claim that anything they don't believe in is blasphemy. So, the Catholic Church denounced Luther as a heretic. He promptly turned around and denounced other preachers as heretics and what they preached as blasphemous. The same thing happened with the Puritans in England, who went to the Netherlands and then the New World because they were being condemned and persecuted as heretics for their beliefs. Once they were established in the Massachusetts Bay Colony they exiled anyone who had contrary ideas, like Anne Hutchinson, who was pregnant with her umpteenth child at the time. She had to walk through the snow to Rhode Island Colony. The Catholics in their turn were persecuted in England, and had to come to Maryland for religious liberty. And so it goes....

As for the attitude of Roman Catholic authorities toward certain discoveries in science, it depends on the time, the Pope in power, the local church authorities etc. Galileo was certainly censured and in deep trouble. He recanted in order to get away from the grip of the Inquisition. It may be apocryphal, but he is said to have muttered as he left the room, "And still it moves".

Others met no or mild opposition, and some discoveries, although condemned originally, were later accommodated. One size doesn't fit all.

I absolutely don't think that belief in God or the dogmas of certain religions at all means that the person who holds such beliefs is stupid or illogical. I've met too many brilliant people who are believers. A lot of it has to do with personality type, some of it has to do with the type of religious instruction they received. Many supposed Catholics, for example, never received any rigorous theological training whatsoever, and so they were woefully unprepared for debate about these matters. Then, some people break with their faith as the result of life experiences. Again, I really can't generalize.

Sometimes, with some people, all these attempts to keep people away from "blasphemous" works has the opposite effect. I didn't know what the "Index" of forbidden works was until I was about 15. As soon as I heard about it I looked up the list and used it to attempt to read every single book on it. They shouldn't have bothered; my quarrel with the Church has nothing to do with theological matters.

Loved Umberto Eco's ' The name of the rose' on the topic.

Did you know that blasphemy is still a crime in Italy, Germany, Greece, Poland and Ireland? Penal crime, not just administrative in some.
I was heavily surprised when I saw it today. At least something useful from this thread.

 

[LeBrok]

very popular riddle used by communists in Czechoslovakia.

I have a question. If everything is all an accident and none of existence has any original meaning. Why does life, which comes from matter, strive so hard to keep living and not want to go back to being lifeless matter? where does this will come from?

Oh it is "striving hard" to be dead. All the ill mutations of DNA kill all life. As for the people, all the parents without kids are the dead end of life. All the kids who die before adulthood are the dead end of life too. Till 20th century 50% of kids died before adulthood. They died and became lifeless matter. Half if not majority of life on earth dies without offspring.
But when any life fulfils these three "commandments", eat, survive, multiply, the life goes on. God is not needed for this "miracle".

Plus, what Johane Derite said.

 

[LeBrok]

You can deny it all u want, modern science stemmed from very religious people who cited their faith many times as an inspiration for their research and never considered it a hindrance or a contradiction to what they were doing. They were highly educated and enlightened individuals, they weren't just cradle Christians who never considered their faith and indoctrinated robots. Any one who doesn't agree with atheists is indoctrinated and can't think on his own....

How do you expect scientists to be atheists when everybody believed in god back then, when scientist could have been kicked out of church and university for heresy and couldn't continue science anymore without funds? Go, try to find atheistic scientists in Saudi Arabia!
Perhaps, you would love to answer a question why today most of scientists are atheists and agnostics, unlike general population with 25% of such people?
Are scientists more open minded and more intelligent than general public?

And no, today's science and whole enlightening movement, comes from going away from religious dogma and old traditions. Here is how little of current European Culture has to do with christianity.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26958-Is-modern-Europe-product-of-christian-values

 

[Johane Derite]

How do you expect scientists to be atheists when everybody believed in god back then, when scientist could have been kicked out of church and university for heresy and couldn't continue science anymore without funds? Go, try to find atheistic scientists in Saudi Arabia!

Without sufficient evidence it is revisionism to imply they faked religosity so they could continue their careers when it comes to well documented religious scientists. Newton is a good example: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton

 

[LeBrok]

The very beginning of life had to be based on a drive to reproduce and the most basic forms of life are only concerned with living. I'm not speaking about human psychology which can long to die as an escape from suffering. Where does this will come from at all. Why is life concerned with living at all when everything is all an accident and there is no point?

You can't imply human-centric concepts to all nature. You will get nowhere doing so. Simple bacteria doesn't think, doesn't understand, doesn't feel and yet it lives and has offspring on and on and on for billions of years. It is a biological machine that has a knowledge how to eat, survey and multiply. That's all.
Pretty soon we will have robots, which will make new robots, which will make new robots, on and on and on. It even doesn't matter, if you call them alive or not, they will prove a concept that "life" or existence of machine can continue just by mechanically making a copy of itself. Pretty much till the end of world. Heck , even today this concept is already proved in computers and internet, where simple programs, viruses and malware can multiply endlessly and spread through internet. They could live "forever", as long as internet and computers exist, their world.

 

[LeBrok]

Without sufficient evidence it is revisionism to imply they faked religosity so they could continue their careers when it comes to well documented religious scientists. Newton is a good example: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton

Most didn't, but it is hard to imagine that among thousands of scientists, of these times Europe, all were proper christians. Right? I'm sure if we dig long enough in archives, which I don't have to do right now, or even in wikipedia, we will find interesting horror stories about persecution of these few brave atheists or agnostics in science. Check post 56 for similarity, ending in execution of a student.

 

[Bergin]

Without sufficient evidence it is revisionism to imply they faked religosity so they could continue their careers when it comes to well documented religious scientists. Newton is a good example: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton

Johane,
I mentioned earlier a young medical student that was hanged in 1697 for blasphemy.
https://web.archive.org/web/20111001...aikenhead.html

Newton was a contemporary of this kid. So clearly here was quite some pressure and a drive to survive.

And also:
In June 1661, he was admitted to Trinity College, Cambridge as a sizar—a sort of work-study role.[6] At that time, the college's teachings were based on those of Aristotle, whom Newton supplemented with modern philosophers such as Descartes and astronomers such as Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler.

 

[Johane Derite]

Most didn't, but it is hard to imagine that among thousands of scientists, of these times Europe, all were proper christians. Right?

Of course they weren't.

I just meant that in relation to srdceleva's reference of Pascal, Descartes, Newton, Mendel.

 

[Bergin]

Descartes:

Despite frequent moves,[30] he wrote all his major work during his 20+ years in the Netherlands, where he managed to revolutionize mathematics and philosophy.[31] In 1633, Galileo was condemned by the Catholic Church, and Descartes abandoned plans to publish Treatise on the World, his work of the previous four years. Nevertheless, in 1637 he published part of this work in three essays: Les Météores (The Meteors), La Dioptrique (Dioptrics) and La Géométrie (Geometry), preceded by an introduction, his famous Discours de la méthode (Discourse on the Method). In it, Descartes lays out four rules of thought, meant to ensure that our knowledge rests upon a firm foundation.


The first was never to accept anything for true which I did not clearly know to be such; that is to say, carefully to avoid precipitancy and prejudice, and to comprise nothing more in my judgment than what was presented to my mind so clearly and distinctly as to exclude all ground of doubt.


In 1663, the Pope placed his works on the Index of Prohibited Books. In 1666 his remains were taken to France and buried in the Saint-Étienne-du-Mont. In 1671 Louis XIV prohibited all the lectures in Cartesianism.

 

[davef]

Which statements strike you as blasphemous? I have to confess that where certain threads are concerned I don't read them unless I get a complaint or notice in the activity thread either a question or a particularly egregious comment.

What is allowed is pretty broad, as you can see once you've been here a while. What I'd really like is the ability to give infractions or bans for abject stupidity and ignorance, for which I don't have the tolerance you seem to possess, but alas, I don't have it.

People make mistakes and do stupid things at some points throughout life. After a rough day, my mind is fried and more prone to a "brain freeze"...hopefully you're not going to give me an infraction for a simple flaw in reasoning (assuming you have the power to punish people for saying something stupid). But if someone says something outlandishly lame such as claiming descent from 8 foot tall conquerors who took over half the planet or denying something obvious to an 8 year old, well...that's different.

And if people with low intellectual capacity bother you, how so? That's how they were born, they're that way through no fault of their own. It's your responsibility as an advisor to help them out.

To be fair, I'm not assuming they do bc I don't know what you mean by abject stupidity.

 

[srdceleva]

You can't imply human-centric concepts to all nature. You will get nowhere doing so. Simple bacteria doesn't think, doesn't understand, doesn't feel and yet it lives and has offspring on and on and on for billions of years. It is a biological machine that has a knowledge how to eat, survey and multiply. That's all.
Pretty soon we will have robots, which will make new robots, which will make new robots, on and on and on. It even doesn't matter, if you call them alive or not, they will prove a concept that "life" or existence of machine can continue just by mechanically making a copy of itself. Pretty much till the end of world. Heck , even today this concept is already proved in computers and internet, where simple programs, viruses and malware can multiply endlessly and spread through internet. They could live "forever", as long as internet and computers exist, their world.

obviously a tiny cell has no thoughts lol. Im speaking about the inherent drive that is already present in the tiniest life forms. Regardless of genetic defects which make surviving harder it still strives to survive. Children who died before adulthood were still striving to survive, and even if I admit that maybe some life didnt strive to survive it doesnt answer my question as to why life strives at all to survive if there is zero point to anything, and your robot example only proves my point. Even if we create robots who have a will to reproduce and survive its because of our will. This will didnt come from no where.

 

[srdceleva]

Most didn't, but it is hard to imagine that among thousands of scientists, of these times Europe, all were proper christians. Right? I'm sure if we dig long enough in archives, which I don't have to do right now, or even in wikipedia, we will find interesting horror stories about persecution of these few brave atheists or agnostics in science. Check post 56 for similarity, ending in execution of a student.

please read the actual writings of pascal and descartes. There is a plethora of proof that they devoutly believed in God and their faith, and obviously many people back then may have been christian only in name, but their views were still clearly visibile in their own writings. Would da vinci be a devout Christian today? probably not. doesnt change the fact that a massive amount of the scientists who gave us modern science were devout Christians and actually believed in what they were writing.

As for the attitude of Roman Catholic authorities toward certain discoveries in science, it depends on the time, the Pope in power, the local church authorities etc. Galileo was certainly censured and in deep trouble. He recanted in order to get away from the grip of the Inquisition. It may be apocryphal, but he is said to have muttered as he left the room, "And still it moves".

Others met no or mild opposition, and some discoveries, although condemned originally, were later accommodated. One size doesn't fit all.

this book is an interesting book about the topic, and written by an athiest. http://strangenotions.com/gods-philosophers/

 

[srdceleva]

Im a theist and so are many modern scientists today (around 40%) because we dont have the same understanding of God and religion as many Atheists do. I dont view God as an old man sitting somewhere on a cloud with a beard, ready to throw lightning bolts at people. I just find it hard to believe that matter somehow became a tiny living cell, then evolved into a complex creature like humans, and that now this matter(dirt and rocks) can contemplate its own existence, and that this is all an accident. As John lennox has said many times in his debates with atheists, you cant take mechanisms like evolution or gravity, which describe a certain process in the universe and then use this mechanism as an explanation as to why God doesnt exist. Describing how laws work doesnt change the fact that we dont know why they exist in the first place or what is the purpose of their existence.

I also find it hard to deny that this life in many ways seems very spiritual. Some months ago I remember speaking to a priest, who is a good friend of mine, who was telling me how he just came back from exorcising someones house. The people who came to him were non practicing Catholics who hadnt been to church in ages and didnt have any real belief in God (like a lot of modern europeans) yet after they had played some sort of new age game with friends trying to contact the dead, had been then having problems with strange things happening in their house, like objects flying around, strange voices etc. I also was just speaking to a Catholic who converted from atheism ( and was a vehement atheist) because of a similar experience. Though im a naturally skeptical person, its very hard for me to not aknowledge that there is a spiritual aspect to this life.

One can take this as he likes but I dont find any basis for the smug, and honeslty arrogant claim that atheists somehow are the only people who think scientifically and logically. Its an attitude that was not common to the founders of modern science, and one which hinders creative thinking. Many people didnt want to believe Georg Lemaitres theory of the big bang because they thought it supported theism too much, including Einstein. Close minded thinking from both sides only leads to less progress.

 

[LeBrok]

obviously a tiny cell has no thoughts lol. Im speaking about the inherent drive that is already present in the tiniest life forms. Regardless of genetic defects which make surviving harder it still strives to survive. Children who died before adulthood were still striving to survive, and even if I admit that maybe some life didnt strive to survive it doesnt answer my question as to why life strives at all to survive if there is zero point to anything, and your robot example only proves my point. Even if we create robots who have a will to reproduce and survive its because of our will. This will didnt come from no where.

Again, you use your feelings in understanding of the world. The will to survive, striving to survive, is only in you and creatures with higher brain functions. It is hardwired into a brain to help humans multiply. Similar goal as with love, hunger or sexual drive, and comes with complexity of living matter.
There is no will to survive in bacteria, DNA or computer program. In these cases we have programs that make them multiply itself. This is an automatic function. We know that in certain combination of codes and atoms, self replication will occur. Without feelings, will, or a creator.

Other phenomenon might be explained by a will of feelings is "why matter always want to clamp together", creating stars and planets. Big bang or stars explosions alway scatters atoms away with big force, but atoms stubbornly stick back together to create another star or a planet. The bare truth is that it all happens mechanically according to laws of phisics.

 

[srdceleva]

Again, you use your feelings in understanding of the world. The will to survive, striving to survive, is only in you and creatures with higher brain functions. It is hardwired into a brain to help humans multiply. Similar goal as with love, hunger or sexual drive, and comes with complexity of living matter.
There is no will to survive in bacteria, DNA or computer program. In these cases we have programs that make them multiply itself. This is an automatic function. We know that in certain combination of codes and atoms, self replication will occur. Without feelings, will, or a creator.

Other phenomenon might be explained by a will of feelings is "why matter always want to clamp together", creating stars and planets. Big bang or stars explosions alway scatters atoms away with big force, but atoms stubbornly stick back together to create another star or a planet. The bare truth is that it all happens mechanically according to laws of phisics.

Again a computer program is designed and given a purpose. I'm not speaking about a will as in a feeling I'm speaking about an inherent trait that all life has. Obviously the question is a bit philosophical but if u just look at life as a bunch of chemical reactions and physical laws then ull be like a person staring so closely at a picture he can't even see what the image is about.

Sent from my KIW-L21 using Tapatalk

 

[Bergin]

Some months ago I remember speaking to a priest, who is a good friend of mine, who was telling me how he just came back from exorcising someones house. The people who came to him were non practicing Catholics who hadnt been to church in ages and didnt have any real belief in God (like a lot of modern europeans) yet after they had played some sort of new age game with friends trying to contact the dead, had been then having problems with strange things happening in their house, like objects flying around, strange voices etc.

So basically what you are saying is:

Certain New Age games can modify the laws of physics.
Exorcism can restore the laws of physics.


Another option is:
Continuous use of certain hallucinogenic drugs leaves permanent brain damage, so do tumors.
A psychiatrist should be able to tell us more.