An Empirical Theory Of God (2)

[quatona]

FYI, ultimately neither do I, or at least I would admit it's not a best barometer of 'truthiness'.

Glad we got that settled.

 

[Michael]

Glad we got that settled.

Me too.

 

[lucaspa]

Don't atheists have the freedom to "lack belief" in God and define that lack of belief anyway they want?

Not necessarily. Ideas are independent of the people who advocate them. Once an idea gets stated then that idea is "out there". We use particular terms to refer to ideas and we agree on the definitions. Sometimes definitions are used to disguise the idea, not illuminate it. One example is how some creationists (Phillip Johnson, for instance) define creationism to mean "God created". That's not an accurate definition.

Another example is that "lack belief". Atheism is a belief, not a "lack belief". Everywhere else where we use language, to state "lack belief" is to state "believe the opposite". Examples are:
I lack belief that human life begins at conception. Any pro-life person is going to hear that as "I believe human life does not begin at conception" (and they are going to be correct).

I lack belief that the Vikings will go to the Superbowl this season. Any other Vikings fan is going to hear that as "I believe the Vikings will not go to the Superbowl this season. And again they will be correct.

"Lack belief" is a way to hide that atheism is a belief and an attempt to give atheism a greater epistemological value than it has.

 

[Eudaimonist]

"Lack belief" is a way to hide that atheism is a belief and an attempt to give atheism a greater epistemological value than it has.

Whoever said that atheism has epistemological value?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[lucaspa]

That's a profound question. There would have to be evidence of God in order for anyone to be an expert. Too bad there isn't any.

That is not true. There is evidence of the existence of God. It's just that not all people consider that evidence to be valid.

All evidence is personal experience. Including scientific evidence. There are millions of people who claim to have personal experience of God. Some of that experience is written down in the Bible. See below for a description of that personal experience.

The people who really do have experience of God don't come forward as "experts". Partly this is because, although they are convinced that the experience is of God, they also realize how much they don't know about God.

When evidence is based on personal experience that is not intersubjective, we can legitimately disagree on whether the experience is valid. By "intersubjective" it is meant that the experience is the same for everyone under approximately the same circumstances. Very little of our experience is actually intersubjective.

For instance, what does Brussels sprouts taste like? Many, many people say Brussels sprouts taste "sweet" and they enjoy the taste. If that were not the case, stores would not sell them. However, many, many people say that Brussels sprouts taste bitter (or worse) and they hate the taste. Who is right? Both. Neither.

What I mean by "personal experience of God"

"Therefore, before proceeding further, we shall give the floor temporarily to those who claim they have experiential evidence of God, and allow them to clarify what they mean by such evidence. ... However, when it comes to the nature of experience of the presence of God, there is an astounding degree of consensus. The following statements, in order to keep us as close to the source as possible, come not from the past but from our contemporaries, from persons with whom I have spoken directly. They are, however, echoed throughout the history and literature of religion.
"The experience is usually not 'spooky'. It sometimes, though definitely not always, might be termed 'mystical'. It doesn't for the most part consist of events which by their nature overturn or challenge the laws of science. (I've heard only one first-hand account of an event which, if it really happened, would be very difficult to explain by any process presently known to science.) The experience doesn't establish a hot-line to God, by which all questions are answered, all doubts set aside, and complete understanding is reached. ... People are quick to point out that, though they think their experience really is of God, it is, even at its clearest and best, only a partial, human, inadequate view of what God really is and what God is really doing. Experiential evidence sometimes comes in a flash, but it's more often the accumulation of more subtle experiences over a period of time.
"John S. Spong .... 'I do not mean to suggest that I have arrived at some mystical plateau where my search has ended, where doubts are no more, or that I now possess some unearthly peace of mind. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have only arrived at a point where the search has a validity because I have tasted the reality of this presence, if ever so slightly.'
"As to finding God initially, some say they came rather gradually to a realization that the God they'd learned about in books, songs, and from other people, is real. Others on the contrary battered the gates of heaven .. with very sceptical demands for answers, IF such a heaven existed. Their uncompromising intellectuality led them to try to pin God to the wall in ways that might be expected to elicit a lightning bolt rather than blessing. Their requirements for evidence and proofs were seldom met exactly as specified, but there was a moment in the process when they realized to their astonishment that they were wrestling with a real being who couldn't be contained in human descriptions or standards, not a concept or an abstraction. This God was something out of their control, something not fashioned in the image they had formed in their mind ...
"The testimony is of God's leadership being requested and and received at turning points where human foresight and knowledge were inadequate, and of God's leadership turning out to be exactly on target, though perhaps not in the direction one would have preferred. ... God has stopped some persons dead, when they did not want to be stopped, on the brink of serious mistakes. God has changes some in ways human beings can't change themselves even with allthe help of psychotherapy. God has made it possible for them to love the unlovable, forgive the unforgiveable. ... Has all this been 'spritual' help? Not according to these witnesses. God is a powerful and active God, interveining wherever, whenever, and through whatever avenue he pleases. The phrase 'the insidiousness of God' comes from a woman Episcopal priest. God's intervention is not always kind, gentle, or pleasurable. He refuses to play by human rules or indulge our desire to plan ahead. ... God does not always come at our calling, give us what we want, or even shield us from terrible pain or grief ... but God's forgiveness and love know no limits whatsoever.
"Some direct quotes: 'My relationship with God has been by far and away the most demanding relationship in my life." "The Lord has been my strongest support, but also my most frustrating opponent." 'If I didn't absolutely know this is the only game in town, I'd sure as hell get out of it!' "The best evidence isn't some 'wonder' or 'miracle', and it certainly isn't success, happiness, or the peace of having my prayers answered in ways which suit me. It's the extraordinary, topsy-turvy, interesting course my life has taken since I've engaged in this -- once begun, virtually inescapable -- dialogue with God." Kitty Ferguson's The Fire in the Equations, pp 248- 251

 

[lucaspa]

Whoever said that atheism has epistemological value?

Some atheists. Ask Richard Dawkins or PZ Myers, for instance.

However, can you give us another reason to use "lack beleif" for atheism rather than "belief God does not exist"?

 

[lucaspa]

We're evidently still talking past one another. From the perspective of pure physics (and only physics) there are only two physical choices in theism, pantheism and panentheism.

How do you figure that? Pure physics allows classical theism.

Even *IF* we all agreed that God is the physical universe, we would NOT be likely to agree on other "attributes" of God.

IF God is the physical universe, what attributes would God have other than the physical universe? Therefore we would indeed agree on the "attributes" of God as we learned about the physical universe.

But I think you are failing to understand Judeo-Christianity and are working on the fallacy of god-of-the-gaps. You have done so before with your proclamation that there is no way to get life from non-life. In Judeo-Christianity, of course. the physical universe is a creation of God.

 

[lucaspa]

Actually you have no evidence that awareness and intelligence can spontaneously arise from inanimate matter. You simply have faith that it did without any evidence.

As Eudomonist pointed out, the claim is that intelligence arose in living organisms by evolution. And yes, there is considerable evidence for that claim. Some of that evidence is in the book The Origin and Evolution of Intelligence ed by Arnold B. Scheibel and J. William Schopf.

Well, you atheists like to claim God cannot be scientifically tested therefore there is no reason to believe He exists. But then you claim dark energy exists and is expanding the whole universe, despite not being able to test it. To me it looks like a double standard.

First, it is scientists who claim that God cannot be directly tested by science. This includes scientists who are agnostic or theist:
" To say it for all my colleageues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists." SJ Gould, Impeaching a self-appointed judge. Scientific American, 267:79-80, July 1992. Stephen Jay Gould "Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge," 1992

It's a limitation of science called "Methodological Naturalism" and arises from how we do experiments.

Second, dark energy has been tested. The expansion of the universe was first observed with the redshift of galaxies. That expansion would have arisen from the Big Bang, but it should be either constant or slowing down. Testing the expansion with supernovae in distant galaxies showed that the expansion was accelerating. The name for the cause of the acceleration is "dark energy", simply because that is easier to say than "the force that is causing the acceleration of the expansion of the universe". That "dark energy" (accelerating expansion of the universe) exists has been tested by different observations:
7. J Glanz, Exploding stars point to a universal repulsive force. Science 279:651-652, 30 Jan. 1998. New data indicates the cosmological constant is back.
7a. J Glanz, No backing off from the accelerating universe. Science 282: 1249-1250, Nov. 13, 1998. As the title says, 2 independent and competing groups continue to get data that agrees.
13. M Livio, Cosmic explosions in an accelerating universe, Science 286: 1689-1690, Nov. 26, 1999.
13a. Web sites for expanding universe
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9802/...ating.universe/
http://www.space.com/scienceastrono...celerating.html
Redirection Page | U.S. DOE Office of Science (SC)
4. J Glanz, Microwave hump reveals flat universe. Science 283: 21, Jan 1, 1999. Data on microwave background radiation indicates that universe is flat. Means there must be the cosmological constant.

There are different candidates for being "dark energy", such as the Casimir effect. Those candidates get tested.

Now, I know I have explained this to you at least once. Others have also done so. Nor am I an atheist. Yet you keep repeating the same misrepresentation. As a fellow Christian, I feel I need to remind you of the 9th Commandment.

 

[lucaspa]

I was more under the impression that that´s what mainstream Christianity keeps claiming.

It's what science claims. The reason is a limitation that arises from science, not from Christianity.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Some atheists. Ask Richard Dawkins or PZ Myers, for instance.

I'm afraid that I don't know either of them personally. When have they ever said that atheism has epistemological value? What did they say?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

It's what science claims. The reason is a limitation that arises from science, not from Christianity.

Ok. Whenever I´ll meet a Christian claiming that God cannot be scientifically tested (and there are countless Christians around here who keep doing that) I´ll send them to you so that you can explain to them that that´s not what they believe.

 

[Michael]

How do you figure that? Pure physics allows classical theism.

Could you explain how to me why you believe that panentheism isn't "classical theism", albeit with a more 'scientific' sounding wrapper?

IF God is the physical universe, what attributes would God have other than the physical universe?

Personality? Then again I guess if God is the Universe, the Universe has a personality too.

Therefore we would indeed agree on the "attributes" of God as we learned about the physical universe.

Do you agree that God is able to "physically manipulate" our physical universe? If so, how? Might we "measure the force"?

But I think you are failing to understand Judeo-Christianity and are working on the fallacy of god-of-the-gaps. You have done so before with your proclamation that there is no way to get life from non-life.

Well, I didn't actually assert that, I simply noted that it's never been done thus far. If that actually happens, I might still assume that "awareness" is a integral part of physical reality, and therefore it's an intrinsic property of all things.

In Judeo-Christianity, of course. the physical universe is a creation of God.

I believe if you go back and check, panentheism falls into that category.

 

[Michael]

Not necessarily. Ideas are independent of the people who advocate them. Once an idea gets stated then that idea is "out there". We use particular terms to refer to ideas and we agree on the definitions. Sometimes definitions are used to disguise the idea, not illuminate it. One example is how some creationists (Phillip Johnson, for instance) define creationism to mean "God created". That's not an accurate definition.

Kinda like the "Patriot Act".

Another example is that "lack belief". Atheism is a belief, not a "lack belief". Everywhere else where we use language, to state "lack belief" is to state "believe the opposite". Examples are:
I lack belief that human life begins at conception. Any pro-life person is going to hear that as "I believe human life does not begin at conception" (and they are going to be correct).

I lack belief that the Vikings will go to the Superbowl this season. Any other Vikings fan is going to hear that as "I believe the Vikings will not go to the Superbowl this season. And again they will be correct.

"Lack belief" is a way to hide that atheism is a belief and an attempt to give atheism a greater epistemological value than it has.

That is actually food for thought. More often than not it seems as though the majority of the atheists I meet "lack belief" in a specific theistic concept, typically the one they were first indoctrinated into. That's not true of ALL atheists of course, but I think you're on to something with "lack of belief" aspect. One's "lack of belief/not believe" does typically seem to come with a lot of individualized baggage.

 

[Nostromo]

Another example is that "lack belief". Atheism is a belief, not a "lack belief". Everywhere else where we use language, to state "lack belief" is to state "believe the opposite". Examples are:
I lack belief that human life begins at conception. Any pro-life person is going to hear that as "I believe human life does not begin at conception" (and they are going to be correct).

Well in that instance "I believe human life does not begin at conception" is what you actually meant, then you inverted it into "I lack belief that ...". Of course it's going to mean the former if that's what you intended it to mean.

I lack belief that the Vikings will go to the Superbowl this season. Any other Vikings fan is going to hear that as "I believe the Vikings will not go to the Superbowl this season. And again they will be correct.

Do you believe Leeds United will be promoted this season?

 

[Michael]

As Eudomonist pointed out, the claim is that intelligence arose in living organisms by evolution. And yes, there is considerable evidence for that claim.

Where did 'awareness' come from? For instance, why does single cell animal 'hunt' for food? How does it even become "aware" of food without a 'brain' of any sort?

I'd be willing to agree that "intelligence" seems to 'increase' over time, but it also seems to me that all genetic mutations and features are designed to serve and facilitate "awareness" in living things.

It seems to me that "awareness" is an integral part of physical reality, and it simply finds various ways to manifest itself inside microscopic organisms of ever increasing complexity over time.

 

[lucaspa]

Ok. Whenever I´ll meet a Christian claiming that God cannot be scientifically tested (and there are countless Christians around here who keep doing that) I´ll send them to you so that you can explain to them that that´s not what they believe.

Excuse me? I did say that science cannot directly test for God. However, it is not a "belief", but a conclusion from science. So why would you think I should tell them they are wrong?

What happens with God and science is that God is sneaked into the back door. A material method that God is said to work by is proposed, and then that material method is tested. Let me give you 2 classic examples and the results.

1. Flood Geology. God is proposed to cause a world-wide flood, and then the Flood causes geological features. Originally, up until 1790, the Flood was proposed to cause every geological feature. YECs today (such as Whitcomb and Morris' classic YEC book The Genesis Flood) still claim that today. In history, by 1790 it was recognized that the Flood could not explain most of the geological record. By 1823 when Rev. William Buckland wrote Reliquiae Diluvia, the Flood was said to only account for the uppermost gravels and morraines. Even that was falsified by 1831. Now, was God falsified? No. A world-wide flood was falsified.

2. Intercessory prayer. Beginning in 1988 a series of papers documenting a statistically significant effect of intercessory prayer (IP) in various settings were published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature by a number of independent groups of scientists. God is said to answer prayers. Is God "proved"? NO! As one of the papers stated:
"Although we cannot know why we obtained the results we did, we can comment on what our data do not show. For example, we have not proven that God answers prayer or that God even exists. It was intercessory prayer, not the existence of God, that was tested here." WS Harris, M Gowda, JW Kolb, CP Strychacz, JL Vacek, PG Jones, A Forker, JH O'Keefe, BD McCallister, A randomized, controlled trial of the effects of remote, intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients admitted to the coronary care unit. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159:2273-2278

Now, I find the reactions of different groups to the scientific data interesting. Instead of recognizing the limitations of what the science shows, people attack the science. YECers reject the science that falsifies Flood Geology and young earth. My interactions with Hentenza in a different thread are my latest experience with that.

OTOH, atheists reject the science in the IP papers! On www.skeptics.org you can find the most outrageous and wrong criticisms of the IP papers. You will also find absolute acceptance of the Benson et al. paper, even tho a reading of the whole paper will show:
1. It did not have the statistical power to detect an effect of IP in the whole study.
2. In a subset of patients who have critical complications (the vast majority of complications of CABG are minor and easily correctable), there was indeed an effect of IP.

So, when it comes to belief about the existence of God, most people -- both theists and atheists -- will happily throw science under the bus if they perceive the findings to conflict with their beliefs.

 

[lucaspa]

Where did 'awareness' come from? For instance, why does single cell animal 'hunt' for food? How does it even become "aware" of food without a 'brain' of any sort?

Chemistry. In the most primitive form in unicellular organisms, there are receptors on the cell surface for different chemicals -- food. When the chemical that is the "food" (such as glucose) binds to the receptor, it causes a physical change in the protein that is the receptor. That physical change is linked to other chemicals within the cell such that a chain of events is started that results in movement of the cell in the direction where the chemical is detected. Many human cells do this. It is called "chemotaxis" and I have published 2 papers on that phenomenon. Basically, a cell can detect a chemical gradient by the number of receptors bound by the chemical on the side of the cell in the direction of the higher concentration.

I'd be willing to agree that "intelligence" seems to 'increase' over time, but it also seems to me that all genetic mutations and features are designed to serve and facilitate "awareness" in living things.

1. There is a "tail" in the distribution of "intelligence" that extends further and further. But, in general when looking at all organisms, there really isn't any increase overall in intelligence.
2. All traits come with costs as well as benefits. If nothing else, it takes energy to make a protein. If a trait is not useful in a particular environment, then an organism becomes more efficient, and thus more competitive, if it no longer makes that trait. Even when the trait seems, to us, to give "awareness". For instance,
6. J Diamond, Evolving backward. Discover 19: 64-71, Sept. 1998. Discusses loss of eyes in the blind mole rat.

Here there is a loss of sight. Why? Because it is not needed and the cost of forming an eye is much greater than the benefit.

It seems to me that "awareness" is an integral part of physical reality, and it simply finds various ways to manifest itself inside microscopic organisms of ever increasing complexity over time.

The microscopic organisms are not necessarily more complex than their ancestors. For instance, the tuberculosis bacterium is losing complexity as it becomes more an more an obligate parasite. Viruses evolved from unicellular organisms. They are quite a bit less complex.

 

[lucaspa]

Well in that instance "I believe human life does not begin at conception" is what you actually meant, then you inverted it into "I lack belief that ...". Of course it's going to mean the former if that's what you intended it to mean.

What I am saying is that some atheists mean "I believe God does not exist" but they invert it to "I lack belief that God exists" as a means of avoiding admitting that atheism is a belief/faith. What I am pointing out that it means that to the hearers. You missed that. In all other cases, when we say "lack belief", what we mean is "I believe (the opposite)".

However, some atheists (usually the militant ones), have made the equation that faith/belief = wrong. They have done so by theism admitting it is a faith, and those atheists insist theism is wrong. It appears that, for them, it is important that atheism not be a faith, because that would be saying it is wrong.

Do you believe Leeds United will be promoted this season?

I don't know. There you have a true neutral position. I, pardon the phrase, "lack information" to formulate a belief.

 

[lucaspa]

Could you explain how to me why you believe that panentheism isn't "classical theism", albeit with a more 'scientific' sounding wrapper?

There are several different forms of panentheism. Classical panentheism is that the universe is somehow in God. Some forms of panentheism have the universe as a manifest part of God. Classical theism has the universe separate from God.

Here, I'll let a statement by a panentheist explain part of the difference:
"Theism denies that the world (including us) shares in God's being. Panentheism recognizes that everything shares God's being (or becoming) but that God's being operates from innumerable relatively freely-choosing centers or perspectives of existence." http://websyte.com/Alan/pan.htm

Bahai panentheism is very close to classical theism.

However, I don't see anywhere in panentheism where God either 1) intervenes in human history or 2) communicates with individual humans. If you can provide references about that, I'd appreciate it.

In both Western and Eastern Christianity, the belief is that God sustains the universe. The universe continues to exist only because God continuously wills the universe to exist. I have seen this relationship described as "panentheism". If that is the case, then there isn't a need for the separate word "panentheism".

Personality? Then again I guess if God is the Universe, the Universe has a personality too.

It does not follow that, if pantheism is true, then God has a personality. There is no requirement for the universe to have a personality. It appears that you are grafting the separate idea of theism onto pantheism. That God/universe has a personality is something that must be demonstrated under pantheism. It cannot be assumed.

Since experience of the universe is intersubjective (the same for everyone under approximately the same circumstances), then the "personality" of God would be perceived the same by everyone. Just as gravity, the double helix of DNA, embryonic stem cells, or anything else of the universe is perceived the same by everyone.

Do you agree that God is able to "physically manipulate" our physical universe? If so, how? Might we "measure the force"?

I believe this is the case. What we can possiby do is measure the effect, but not necessarily measure the force. The reason I say "possibly" and emphasize it is because, in Judeo-Christianity, God sustains the universe. If God withdraws His will momentarily and in singular instances from part of the universe, how do we measure that? Science is set up to measure repeated phenomenon, such as the force of gravity or the strong nuclear force. The singular manipulation of the Resurrection is not open to scientific measurement, for instance.

Also, God can manipulate in ways that are undetectable in the background. For instance, Richard Dawkins (of all people) has pointed out that God could have (and continue to do so) particular mutations in order to guide evolution. It is not difficult for God to guide a particular cosmic ray to interact with the genome of an individual to produce a particular mutation. However, we cannot possibly detect that among all the non-manipulated mutations. It's a signal vs noise detection problem.

Well, I didn't actually assert that, I simply noted that it's never been done thus far. If that actually happens,

Life from non-life has been done. I described how and provided references. Do you want me to do it again? So, now that it has "actually happens", what does that do to your assumption?

I might still assume that "awareness" is a integral part of physical reality,

Please detail for us the "awareness" of a pebble beside the road. Or detail for us the "awareness" of a drop of rain. Thank you.

 

[Non sequitur]

What I am saying is that some atheists mean "I believe God does not exist" but they invert it to "I lack belief that God exists" as a means of avoiding admitting that atheism is a belief/faith. What I am pointing out that it means that to the hearers. You missed that. In all other cases, when we say "lack belief", what we mean is "I believe (the opposite)".

I may not understand "god" well enough to say one way or the other. Or I may lack enough information to test any claims. Or I may simply not care enough to think about it.

Lack belief =/= I believe.

Logically speaking, mere disbelief in the truth of a proposition cannot be treated as equivalent to the belief that the proposition is false and that the opposite is true.

However, some atheists (usually the militant ones), have made the equation that faith/belief = wrong. They have done so by theism admitting it is a faith, and those atheists insist theism is wrong. It appears that, for them, it is important that atheism not be a faith, because that would be saying it is wrong.

I don't know. There you have a true neutral position. I, pardon the phrase, "lack information" to formulate a belief.

How did you get from thinking theism is wrong, to atheism being a faith?

You seem to be saying "opposition against something" is now a faith, merely because it opposes something. Which it isn't.

It is important not to go throwing around words, with specific connotations and criteria, on everything.


I think SpaghettiO's smell like vomit, yet some people like them.

Which I think is wrong.

If someone then placed me in a faith "group" of people, because of that, I would find it odd and unnecessary.