The galactic census data is in! According to an Associated Press article released last weekend: “Scientists have estimated the first cosmic census of planets in our galaxy and the numbers are astronomical: at least 50 billion planets in the Milky Way.”
When I would hear that kind of thing when I was an atheist, I’d muster up my most condescending facial expression and turn to the nearest believer to say: “You still believe all that Bible stuff now?” To my way of thinking back then, the vastness of the universe debunked the Christian worldview. Obviously we’re nothing special in the grand scheme of things. Obviously there’s not some Creator out there who values us over everything else—otherwise, why would he have bothered messing around with making all this other stuff? Why create the Triangulum Galaxy and the Horsehead Nebula and the 50 billion other planets here in the Milky Way if you’re mainly concerned about the goings on at tiny little planet Earth?
It’s too bad I hadn’t read Chesterton. He addresses that kind of argument with his typical wit when he writes in Orthodoxy:
Why should a man surrender his dignity to the solar system any more than to a whale? If mere size proves that man is not the image of God, then a whale may be the image of God; a somewhat formless image; what one might call an impressionist portrait. It is quite futile to argue that man is small compared to the cosmos; for man was always small compared to the nearest tree.
Exactly. What I was missing back then was an openness to contemplating just what kind of God we might be talking about. I pictured that Christians believed in a man with a flowing white beard who lived off in the clouds somewhere. Sort of like my uncle Ralph, but with magic powers. With this limited, facile view, it’s no wonder I couldn’t get past the vastness of the universe. Uncle Ralph wouldn’t waste his time creating a bunch of planets no one was ever going to use, so, presumably, neither would this supposed God.
What I see now is a universe that gives us an ever-present reminder of who and what God really is. The vastness of the universe is unfathomable; to try to contemplate every detail of every object in existence is an exercise in futility. The human mind has nowhere near that kind of capability, and that understanding should inspire us to humility about our own intellectual powers. And so it is when we contemplate God.
It’s a perfect plan, really: the smarter we get, the more we can know about the universe around us. Yet the more we study and measure and chart the heavens, the more we realize how incredibly tiny we are, how very much there is that we will never, ever know. We get a glimpse of the reality that the sum total of human learning cannot ever scratch the surface of what there is to know. We see that we are surrounded by an unfathomably wonderful creation; which points to an unfathomably wonderful Creator.
“As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:9).
Comments
Post a Comment
“Obviously we’re nothing special in the grand scheme of things.”
Even from a non-religious perspective, that’s obviously not the case. All you need to do is to look at genetics at the molecular level. Not, just the series of letters you see in a text book, but the actual molecules and particularly the mechanics at the molecular level during gene duplication. You’ll see how fantastic and detail oriented the universe is, even at this level. We have a God of detail and grand design. That this God cares for us is no stretch of the imagination since he shows his care at all levels of creation. The Bible merely fills in the details of what we would not be able to figure out on our own.
Does the Cosmic Census Bolster Atheists’ Claims?
No it doesn’t, the bible and every other religious text does.
It doesn’t prove there aren’t any gods, but it doesn’t indicate there are either. There still isn’t any good evidence for gods, and that’s what justifies not believing in any gods.
I wonder how many atheists set up alerts so that they can swoop in on any article, any statement that suggests that they might be wrong and give oh such clever rebuttals as the ones that DKeane and John D have here provided. Obviously they are right, they must be right. Their responses are so well backed with reason and insight that any clear thinking person must see that they are right… Oh wait, that’s right, they simply made statements that expressed their personal opinions.
—
The Universe is vast, its also old, but it also had a beginning. Now, I will grant that applying a God of the gaps to the creation of the Universe is not very convincing, but at the same time, one has to wonder about how the Universe came to be in the first place. Science has so far not been able to explain what started it all; yes they have some hypothesis, but those hypothesis, like God are unprovable by modern science.
—
Also, why are we capable of understanding the Universe? Why should creatures evolve who can even attempt to understand how it works. Why should it follow any sort of logical rules at all. Now granted, if our Universe should be but one of an infinite number of Universes, each different from each other, then it would be all but inevitable that a Universe like ours should exist; on the flip side, if we are the only Universe (and so far we are the only one we know exists), then the existence of such a Universe suggests purpose behind it.
—
John D made a reference to “good evidence”. By that reference he implicitly acknowledges that there is evidence for God. It simply doesn’t reach his standard to be accepted as “good”. Of course that does raise the question, is the evidence really not good or is John simply too picky? If I said I saw my brother today, no one will doubt me; they will accept what I said was true. If I say that I saw God today, they will question my sanity and most likely reject what I am saying without ever actually determining whether or not I am sane. In other words, they will never test my testimony because they are predisposed to reject it. Hence lack of “good” evidence.
Have you read Pascal’s Pensees? He said very much the same thing, back when everyone thought revolutionary scientific discoveries like Isaac Newton’s universal laws of physics blew traditional religious belief out of the water. Whether we contemplate the vastly small (microscopic) or vastly large (cosmic) realities, he said, it should humble us and remind us of God’s greatness.
Alright, let’s suppose the universe turned out to be the same as your god supposedly described in your bible. It would be a flat plane with a hard shell (the firmament) over it. Above this shell would be an infinite ocean of water, since, after all, your god separated the waters above from the waters below. The sun, the moon and the stars would be nothing but lanterns carried across the inside of this shell by (one supposes, although the text doesn’t say) angels.
If we’d found that ridiculous, tiny world, would you say it disproved god because it was too small, not impressive enough? Of course you wouldn’t.
Do you think your god is either grossly incompetent or a bald-faced liar for describing his handiwork so poorly? Of course you don’t.
You don’t really think about your beliefs; you just assert them as a tribal marker. If you claim to believe these ridiculos things, you have the safety of being in a majority and license to condemn an out-group (atheists now, although you Catholics got plenty of mileage against the Jews. How did that work out again?.)
Not that it matters. Now that the Catholic Church can no longer kill those who question its bizarre dogma, it will melt away to little more than a tourist trap.
Duke
Duke York: Wipe your monitor, you’ve got spittle everywhere. Have you ever heard the expression “Scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist”? Your contempt and ignorance regarding the cosmology of the ancient Hebrews sounds a lot like a Fundamentalist talking about evolution. The natural world is a lot more interesting and complicated than Fundamentalists suppose, and the Bible is a lot more interesting and complicated than you suppose. But condescending caricatures are a convenient way for the complacent to reinforce to themselves the pointlessness of venturing outside their comfort zones.
What amazes me most about atheists is when they have this magic ability to tell me what I believe and what I think (or have thought). What is even more remarkable is I haven’t ever recalled believing or thinking those things. These atheists truly must have mystical powers to understand my mind better than I do.
—
The Bible was inspired by God but written by man. The Church has a long history of questioning reading the Bible as a text book on Natural History (including by St. Augustine). They haven’t always been perfect about it, but then again, we are just men.
—
One last thought, you claim that we are attacking an out group (Atheists), but it is the atheists who have swooped onto this forum to attack the Church. It is the atheists who are getting attention in the media via Dawkins, Hitchens and the like.
“The Bible is a lot more interesting and complicated than you suppose.”
Oh, I know the bible is interesting. It’s interesting, though, in the same way as the Epic of Gilgameh or the Illiad; as a historical document. My observations that the universe described in the bible is nothing like the universe we see now stands. The plain text reading shows firm dome over a flat plane with oceans above and below.
Just because the truth is inconvenient to you doesn’t mean you can disregard it. The bible was written by ignorant men and not your god.
MarylandBill - You assert that atheists make assumptions about xtians, and then go and do the very same thing to atheists :)
As an atheist (and I only speak for myself), I have decided that it is important that the things I believe are true and are supported by evidence. Therefore when people say things like:
“The Bible was inspired by God but written by man”
“Whether we contemplate the vastly small (microscopic) or vastly large (cosmic) realities, he said, it should humble us and remind us of God’s greatness.”
I would ask that you show me your evidence. As you have probably guessed, I find the evidence presented by theists to be unconvincing to the point that I will not take what they say seriously with respect to how I plan to live my life.
I need something concrete along the lines of the Theory of Relativity or evolution which allows my GPS to work and vaccines to be effective (respectively), not a bunch of hand waving about how we can’t understand the universe and therefore some god is responsible. The complexity of the universe is real, but of the almost limitless number of ways we could have arrived at today, the proposition that a super intelligence (which would have to be more complex than the universe) created it has the least amount of backup to it. Additionally, it just puts off the problem because no one can say how god arrived on the scene. If we say it was always around, then why not just say this about the universe and leave gods out of it?
Additionally, atheists do not “attack” anyone - in most instances you are looking at comments that point out the logical issues associated with believing in a supreme being on public forums. Please reserve the term attack for an assault for people that fly airplanes into buildings.
“My observations that the universe described in the bible is nothing like the universe we see now stands.”
Here’s another perspective:
“If I had no other data than the early chapters of Genesis, some of the Psalms, and other passages of Scripture, I would have arrived at essentially the same picture of the origin of the universe as is indicated by the scientific data.”
—Arno Penzias, Nobel laureate (1978) for his co-discovery of the cosmic microwave background, which was the clinching piece of evidence in the confirmation of the Big Bang.
“What amazes me most about atheists is when they have this magic ability to tell me what I believe and what I think (or have thought).”
No magic. I know what you think because you’re a Christian. If you’re a Catholic, you literally have no choice about what you believe. That choice would make you a heretic, which, after all, comes from the Greek for “choice”. If you’re choosing, you’re doing it wrong.
“The Bible was inspired by God but written by man.”
So your god inspires falsehoods. Right. Good to see we’re on the same page.
“One last thought, you claim that we are attacking an out group (Atheists), but it is the atheists who have swooped onto this forum to attack the Church. It is the atheists who are getting attention in the media via Dawkins, Hitchens and the like.”
Commenting on a public news story is an attack? So thin-skinned! Once you Christians lose the ability to burn people at the stake, you just can’t deal with commentary, can you?
If you don’t want a public conversation, don’t publish in public. I’d probably recommend this, seeing how poor the Christian arguments are.
Duke: I make no assumptions, but rather inferences from the statements you yourself made. In addition, the problem from providing evidence is that sometimes the person the evidence is provided too is incapable of perceiving it, and nothing I or anyone else can do can rectify that situation. For example it would be impossible to prove the existence of visible light or sight to a man who was blind since birth as he would be incapable of perceiving the evidence.
—
DKeanse, if you had bothered to actually check a dictionary, you will see attack is a term that applies not just to physical assult, but also to rhetoric and debate. However, if we insist on physical attacks, can I add the persecution and often martyrdom of tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of Russian Orthodox priests that occurred at the hand of Russian Marxists?
“Here’s another perspective:”
Wow. An argument from authority. This is what I mean about not sharing in public idea that can’t stand public scrutiny.
The man is a wrong and a bit foolish. We know this because people who had nothing but “the early chapters of Genesis, some of the Psalms, and other passages of Scripture” believed the earth was the center of the universe, the universe was made in 4,004 BC, and that cannonballs travelled in straight lines. The bible is the big book of multiple choice; any bigotry any superstition, any vice can be supported in its pages. The fact it can occasionally be used to support true beliefs is a surprise, but even a stopped clock…
Perhaps there is a god. But discoveries like this show that the relevance of any god to the physical world is negligible at best.
You can have your impotent god , who keeps receeding into the background with each scientific discovery. I’ll reserve my attention for stuff that actually has an effect on my life, like science.
Oops…just a small reply so I can check the box to be notified of replies
Duke: I have no objection to your Epic of Gilgamesh analogy, as far as it goes. But any ancient document needs to be read in terms of how it relates to the larger cultural context in which it took shape. The first question is not “What sort of universe is implied by a plain reading of the first chapter of Genesis?” That is how Fundamentalists read the Bible. The first question is, “What can we say about the ancient Hebrews’ worldview based on all the available literary and historical evidence, and how does that inform our reading of, say, Genesis 1?”
Reading Genesis 1 in isolation could lead to misleading impressions of what the author of Genesis and his intended audience believed. You only have to get to Genesis 2 to start to get a modified picture, and once you take in all the available evidence—including the creation myths of other ANE cultures, and the extent to which the Genesis account interacts with and critiques them—it becomes clear that the author of Genesis is dealing with fundamentally different issues from modern science, except perhaps insofar the current state of scientific investigation tends to support the hypothesis that the universe had a beginning.
“For example it would be impossible to prove the existence of visible light or sight to a man who was blind since birth as he would be incapable of perceiving the evidence.”
Really? Do you really think this? You can’t think of a way to prove the existence of light to a blind man?
I suppose we should blame the schools.
“However, if we insist on physical attacks, can I add the persecution and often martyrdom of tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of Russian Orthodox priests that occurred at the hand of Russian Marxists?”
So an overwhelmingly Christian country, Imperial Russia, overthrows the priests who were deeply complicit in the oppression of the serfs. Once out of power, the priests are treated as those priests had had the people treat the Jews.
What point did you think you were making?
If Christianity were true an could make people good, the Russian Orthodox priests would have had nothing to fear, since they were in charge of Russia’s moral education.
Duke: I didn’t say electro-magnetic radiation, I said visible light. If you actually know a way to prove it, I welcome you to explain it to the rest of us.
—
Now, regarding the actions of the Marxists/Atheists in Russia. Let me see if I get this straight, you are justifying the persecution of Orthodox Priests by Atheists on what some of the priests did to the Jews in the past? In that case, the Christians should be excused because the Jews persecuted the Canaanites first! Oh, and BTW, what is the excuse for the other 20 millions Russians the Marxists killed as well?
—
No doubt too many people have let loose their worst impulses and then claimed they did it for the greater glory of God. My point however was to refute the claim that atheists don’t attack anyone. They do, and some of them can be just as violent and destructive as any religious person ever was (While the opposite was implied in the post I was rebutting).
—
Scott: With respect, I would submit that few Christians subscribe to the God of the Gaps. I don’t see God just in the areas that can’t be explained by science (though I do see him there too), I see him in the very fabric of the rules that govern the Universe. Each knew discovery that makes the Universe seem larger to me only shows how much greater God is than we imagine.
MarylandBill
Thank you for focusing of the dictionary definition of “attack” and not addressing any of my more substantive points.
While I do not concede that somehow atheism is responsible for the death of the orthodox priests in Russia (marxism was, and the two are not the same), body count discussions do not get to the point of whether something is true or not.
Duke, The Penzias quote was not an argument from authority, just an illustration that Genesis is read differently by most believers than the literalist interpretation you insist on using. Of course, I admit that it is easier to tell your opponents what they mean than it is to listen to them. Literalism suits your predetermined purpose, so you insist on it, even though we don’t.
DKeane: I am sorry, I didn’t realize I had to address every single point you made. I will try to be more diligent in the future.
—
With respect, we weren’t talking about atheism, we are talking about atheists, the two are distinct. You made the claim that “atheists do not attack anyone”. Marxists (if they are good Marxists anyway) are by definition atheists. Marxists definitely did attack people (religious and otherwise), therefore, your statement about atheists is false.
—
While I cannot know what you actually intended, it seems logical to infer, that your reference to flying planes into buildings was meant to score a cheap point about how violent theists are (even though the theists referred too were not Christian). I am simply pointing out that Atheists can be just as violent. To deny this is to simply to show your world view has no basis in reality.
Seems to have gotten off-track a bit. Meh. To go back to a sense of wonder…sure, envisioning a god can make you full of wonder. Evidence, as “marylandbill” suggests? There’s no “good” evidence for transubstantiation either. Sure there’s plenty of bad evidence that my oh-so-snarky brain snobbishly dismisses…like testimony. For instance “I know that transubstantiation is real, because I really really believe it…no wait, I really really really believe it”. Sorry, but personal testimony does not make good evidence, especially when a person is expressly stating that they want this to be true. Take a magic cracker into the lab and see if there’s any discernable difference pre versus post- transubstantiation. That’s offensive to you, maybe? Because you know what they would find. Nothing. If you thought for one instance that after a priest says some magic words that there would be real and detectable differences in the “host”, Catholics would beat down the doors of labs to show just that. You could say that, “well you can’t detect God”. I would agree with you. And that right there is why there is no “good” reason to believe, if by “good” we’re referring to evidence and justified belief.
And in regards to testimony, you are right again…I will believe you when you say you saw your brother today, assuming I don’t suspect your integrity for other reasons. However, when you say you saw an invisible, magical, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent entity the other day; I’m justified in concluding that you are lying, mistaken or delusional. You said about atheists swooping in with clever rebuttals: “Oh wait, that’s right, they simply made statements that expressed their personal opinions.” Pot, meet kettle.
@Duke- The Bible was indeed written by men and not God (unlike other scriptures ie. the Koran which claim to be dictated by God). That is Catholic teaching, thank you for affirming it. They were inspired not to write down scientific texts (in the way you erroneously interpret Scripture) but the revelation of God which ultimately is concerned with the things that science cannot prove. For the sole reason that they were not 21th century scientists, you may call them “ignorant”, but what can be more inane than that kind of accusation?
@DKeane- I love it when atheists talk about how everything they believe in is supported by evidence, because it is proof of how disconnected their thoughts are from reality. Can you imagine a world where there are no such thing as leaps of faith? Can you imagine a world where you wouldn’t talk to someone before they proved their value as a friend? Pretty much everything good and valuable in our lives is attained by things we are not sure of to begin with and that we hope for often _despite_ the evidence. The most important things, relationships, are not built on evidence, but on faith, on trust. As a scientist, I am willing to attest tot the fact that the ONLY thing in my life that I approach scientifically is, well, science. It would be stupid to apply scientific thinking to my values (something has to prove its value before it has value?) and my earthly relationships, how much stupider is it to apply that kind of thinking to our relationship with God?
An excellent article, Ms. Fulwiler!
Again, my point was not that atheists aren’t violent - humans are violent. My question was, please present some evidence that a universal intelligence is responsible for constructing the universe we live in as opposed to the infinite number of other possibilities (of which there is some evidence).
Kephas
Umm, no what you are talking about is trust based upon previous experiences. If I have evidence that a jihadist would kill me because I am an atheist, I am not going to take a leap of faith and start palling around with them. But as far as loving my family, I have a ton of evidence that we love each other and want to spend the rest of our time together.
When atheists talk of evidence, we want to know if the biblical reasoning that the use of condoms is worse than death by AIDS is based in evidence. I will not take the leap of faith that I need to do certain things in this life because a super-intelligence that will eventually kill me thinks that it is important that I don’t lift heavy objects on the weekends.
“But any ancient document needs to be read in terms of how it relates to the larger cultural context in which it took shape.”
And I have no objection to your statement that the Christian god, if he exists, is incapable of giving people true facts about the world.
Think about it. We know your god could have used the actual facts of the universe to inspire Judeo-Christian faith. We know this because you have such beliefs. The fact that the bible uses blatantly wrong facts about the physical world is excellent evidence against any god recognizable as the Christian god.
If you say that your god had to work through the preconceptions of the people he was talking to, think about what you’re claiming. Your omnipotent deity was _limited by people’s minds_. He created the vast scope of space, the genes thatade their bodies, but he was limited by their minds. I can’t see that this makes sense, but maybe that’s because I’m an atheist.
So far no one has found a planet like earth and therefore it is special.
On the other hand if it is not special than atheist like Duke are not special either. Who cares what they think?
The latest BS in scientific mythology is multiverse; there are infinite number of universes out there giving birth to each other in order to circumvent the problem of origins of our universe; it is a infinite regress in all directions( past, present and future)and intellectually satisfied atheist like Dawkins are prepared to believe in it.
Duke- your understanding of the Genesis story in the Bible does not rise above the kindergarden level.
“Duke: I didn’t say electro-magnetic radiation, I said visible light. If you actually know a way to prove it, I welcome you to explain it to the rest of us. “
Well, I would prove the existence of visible light to the blind in the same way we proved the existence of invisible light to the sighted; through phenomenon that can only be explained through hypothesizing what we call visible light.
As a start, if I were blind, and a wide cross-section of people could reliably detect the number of fingers I was holding up while not feeling my hand, I would be forced to grant the existence of something I couldn’t detect and others could.
The atheist argument on the vastness of space is at best a false dilemma (“either God exists and the Universe is not grand, or the Universe is grand and God doesn’t exist”) and at worst a red herring (“God doesn’t exist because the Universe is grand”).
Blessed be God our Creator.
(c)
Unless one knows that a grand Creator can create a grand creation, and knows that He can create such a creation after His Own Grandness, than one cannot make a good argument on God, whether it is for or against God.
“Literalism suits your predetermined purpose, so you insist on it, even though we don’t.”
The only reason you eschew literalism is you realize the bible is a melange of barbaric, superstitious nonsense.
And, of course, you’re a hypocrite; if you like the verse, if it’s useful to you, suddenly it becomes literally true. Or do you hold a metaphorical interpretation of John 3:16? Do you think the resurrection accounts are just-so fables told to illustrate a hidden moral?
Every time I get on a religious web page there are more comments from atheist than religious folk. I wonder why so many atheist cruise the religious web pages? Anyway, the comment section always ends up an endless battle between believers and non believers, with never a conclusion. Well, I am a person of logic and science, and I believe there is a logical answer.
Billions believe in the spiritual world, many others do not. To the atheist, lets work through this logically. Many who believe only do so because it is the way they were raised, in a way you could say they don’t truly believe, they are only following tradition. Some “believers” are mentally unstable, some are delusional. After discounting these folks, there are still many many believers. These believers are of the full spectrum of intelligence, so we can’t form any opinions based on their intelligence levels. We can’t say they are all insane, there numbers are so great that if they were insane the world could hardly function. There is only one logical answer.
The answer is they truly feel, see, experience something you are incapable of feeling, seeing, and experiencing. The logical answer is there is truly a world of the supernatural, you just can’t see it. This logical conclusion best explains our different opinions. Why do some people see and some are blind? Who knows, I don’t. My own guess is that some people have a soul and some are born without a soul. But that’s just a guess.
Anyway, to the atheist, I hope this answers your questions. Perhaps now that you realize that logic dictates that you were only confused because you are a blind and most likely soulless individual, you can quit cruising the religious sites and go back to cruising porn sites.
“On the other hand if it is not special than atheist like Duke are not special either. Who cares what they think?”
People who find my words persuasive or threatening (as you do) care what I think.
“The latest BS in scientific mythology is multiverse; there are infinite number of universes out there giving birth to each other in order to circumvent the problem of origins of our universe; it is a infinite regress in all directions( past, present and future)and intellectually satisfied atheist like Dawkins are prepared to believe in it.”
The mulitverse wasn’t proposed to circumvent anything.
In any case an infinite regress of more universes like ours is better, in my opinion, than an infinite regress that has buttocks and likes barbecue.
“Duke- your understanding of the Genesis story in the Bible does not rise above the kindergarden level.”
No; I simply reject the story as not saying anything true or even vaguely insightful about the universe or human nature. I don’t feel the need to prevaricate to keep it respectable. Since you need to “be Christian” for social reasons, you’ve come up with new intrepetations because you know the story is false. .
“Every time I get on a religious web page there are more comments from atheist than religious folk. I wonder why so many atheist cruise the religious web pages?”
I think it’s because the vast majority of the world just doesn’t care about religion enough to look at it carefully. If someone does look at it carefully, they see it doesn’t doesn’t work and so become atheists. They retain their in religion, so they keep reading on it.
“Perhaps now that you realize that logic dictates that you were only confused because you are a blind and most likely soulless individual, you can quit cruising the religious sites and go back to cruising porn sites.”
Ah, yes. That’s my favorite beatitude. “Blessed are the catty, for they shall look like gits.”
“The atheist argument on the vastness of space is at best a false dilemma (“either God exists and the Universe is not grand, or the Universe is grand and God doesn’t exist”) and at worst a red herring (“God doesn’t exist because the Universe is grand”).”
Actually, it more a reply to the theist’s argument on fine tuning.
“If these dozen values were even the slightest hair different,” the theist says, “human life could not exist. Therefore my particular version of god.”
“But the vast majority of time and space is completely uninhabitable to human life,” says the atheist. “Therefore the universe is not fine tuned for human life. Therefore I lower my assessment of the probability of your god’s existence. “
I just thought your like a non-strawman version of the argument you’re rejecting.
When I was little, the neighborhood kids always wanted to play in the yard that was the best-est and the biggest-est. We are discovering that this is the kind of yard that God has given us. It is big. It is amazing. It is best. There is much to be discovered. It should be fun.
The narrative implies a power greater than us put together. I have always known that believers have something like a gene over non believers to see…
MarylandBill
The interesting question is why atheists spend so much time and effort making comments on religious blogs. Do they think that it achieves something? Or is it that they are so insecure in their belief that there is no such thing as God that they have to criticise all and any articles which are religious? Do some Christians spend the same amount of time and effort responding to atheist/secularist blogs? I somehow doubt it. They’ve got better ways of spending their time. There just seems to be something in the atheist psyche which impels them to behave in this way. Poor souls.
“As a start, if I were blind, and a wide cross-section of people could reliably detect the number of fingers I was holding up while not feeling my hand, I would be forced to grant the existence of something I couldn’t detect and others could.”
They’re using echolocation, not sight. FTW
I find it extremely interesting and somewhat amusing that atheists like to use ‘logical’ arguments to disprove that God exists.
Logic is based on the fundamental concept that ‘truth’ exists. Every ‘logical’ argument presupposes ‘truth’, yet has anyone actually provided proof that there is such a thing as ‘truth’?
Absent that, all reason and logic starts with the leap of faith that ‘truth’ exists!
“The interesting question is why atheists spend so much time and effort making comments on religious blogs. Do they think that it achieves something?”
My primary reason is enjoyment. I enjoy discussing these topic as an intellectual exercise. I have similar conversations about Star Wars, Harry Potter and Cthulhu. The fact I might be helping reduce the pernicious effects of religion and speaking up for a despised minority to which I happen to belong is icing.
“Do some Christians spend the same amount of time and effort responding to atheist/secularist blogs? I somehow doubt it. “
You really need to get out more before you make unfounded assertions like that. Every atheist blog has a few Christians “sharing the good news” on their own hateful way. If you think I’ve been rude for questioning your particular superstition, you should check out your co-religionists. It’ll make your hair curl.
“There just seems to be something in the atheist psyche which impels them to behave in this way. Poor souls.”
This sort of tone deaf condescension is just how many of the Christians start on Atheist blogs. It’s called “Concern Trolling”. Thank you for proving my proving in advance.
These combox debates are always hilarious. Pointless & fruitless but always good for a chuckle.
Duke York,
Even if it is a reply to fine tuning, it is still a fallacy. And if fine tuning is a fallacy, a better and more logical reply should be made. There are good, even mathematical, replies from atheists to theistic arguments on God, but the argument from the vastness of space is not among them.
Duke York, I’m shocked and dismayed. You say I’m “catty” for saying you are probably soulless and blind to anything spiritual. I’m just trying to be polite, as an atheist I’m sure you agree that you are in fact soulless. Shows where good manners gets you with atheist.
Actually, it more a reply to the theist’s argument on fine tuning.
“If these dozen values were even the slightest hair different,” the theist says, “human life could not exist. Therefore my particular version of god.”
“But the vast majority of time and space is completely uninhabitable to human life,” says the atheist. “Therefore the universe is not fine tuned for human life. Therefore I lower my assessment of the probability of your god’s existence. “
how is the fact that the universe is (according to you) not fine-tuned for human life evidence that God’s existence is not as probable? DO you mean that the fact that human beings (and other life forms) exist is more a coincidential event given the vastness of the universe? but even so, it does not seem to prove much.
“If you say that your god had to work through the preconceptions of the people he was talking to, think about what you’re claiming. Your omnipotent deity was _limited by people’s minds_. He created the vast scope of space, the genes thatade their bodies, but he was limited by their minds. I can’t see that this makes sense, but maybe that’s because I’m an atheist. “
Hmm… maybe an analogy will help in understanding, though I do not expect it to persuade you at all. How is it that people teach children certain concepts? possibly through stories (for moral values) or in case of subjects like mathematics, they simply begin with how to count. Do you think that telling a five year old about complex ethics or something like the quadratic formula would result in successful understanding on their part? of course not! Therefore, we start with the basics, whether through allegorical tales, or through repating the numbers with them, and then proceeding on to addition and subtraction, so on and so forth. Eventually, children will also learn concepts on their own as well as through the guidance of their parents.
Humanity in general is much the same way. Most of the total knowledge we have gathered was at one point not known, and yet, it is all based on the basics (now how we know the basics, such as the fact that there is truth, that truth is knowable, that 1+1 = 2, etc. is a rather intringuing question, would you not say?). For unlike God, we live in time, and therefore grow, coming to know more in time. God, more than anyone else, knows what we are capable of, and therefore will only give us that which we can handle, much like a parent would teach his child according to his capacity.
This does not prove the existence of God, I will be the first to admit that, but I hope it gives an illustration of one of the ways this poor, ignorant college student views God’s method of revelation…
In all kindness, I cannot help myself but point out two more terrible thinking flaws in the atheistic perspective:
1.) A complete and willing ignorance of all verifiable miracles and spiritual phenomena (incorruptibles, stigmati, mass visions such as the famous example of Fatima, Eucharistic miracles, exorcisms, etc etc..) Personally, I don’t need such miracles to confirm the obvious fact that the universe has an intelligent source, but I also cannot deny them as compelling evidence of things unseen.
2.) In addition, it is hard not to comment that the complete literalism of the atheist perspective (just look at some of the juvenile readings of scripture in the above posts) betray a terrible lack of poetic imagination. You say “show me,” but God himself could “show you,” and it probably wouldn’t matter. To such literalists—demanding impossible proofs within impossible proofs—the bureaucratic gene is too strong to allow for the perception of universe as spiritual metaphor within spiritual metaphor, no matter how perfectly it all lines up.
“I know what you think because you’re a Christian. If you’re a Catholic, you literally have no choice about what you believe.”
That’s hardly true. There are all those Cafeteria Catholics you know, such a pro-abortion Catholics and pro-euthanasia Catholics and so on….
Then there are those Catholics who make rational decisions and base their belief on logic. Some of us have considered atheist points and found them intellectually wanting. And there is the rather unscientific notion that a person may not cognitively consider the arguments of his opponents, that for some reason religious peoples’ minds go blank and only their dogma stands. So follows that all historians of Adolf Hitler must be closet Nazis. Do you have some scientific proof to show me that a person may believe one thing but not consider the point of view of others? If you don’t have such proof, and it applies in all cases, would you not say you’re making an unsubstantiated assertion? You know - ‘magic’. And of course there is also that ridiculous idea that perhaps Catholic arguments on things such as morality make at least some sense. They’re long and full of Latin words and so complicate matters but once you crunch through them they’re quite logical.
“That choice would make you a heretic, which, after all, comes from the Greek for “choice”. If you’re choosing, you’re doing it wrong.”“
A Catholic can consider anything I assure you. Some of us even work in evolutionary biology and cosmology. We don’t even look for God there, since the Catholic view holds that God is not another material object in the universe. We just do the work out of curiosity and for money.
Of course partaking in certain things such as lying, engaging in extra marital sex and viewing pornography are frowned upon so yes, you do have an advantage there over strict Catholics and I am assuming you have no reservation against those experiences, at least not on religious grounds, since those are some of the things Catholics should choose against. It follows that a pro-feminist man, who likewise avoids making sex objects out of women would also be in similar disadvantage the way most strict Catholics are. He is obviously an intellectual dimwit for not engaging in wife swapping.
“So your god inspires falsehoods. Right. Good to see we’re on the same page.” Many Biblical assertions have been proven by archaeology. Take for instance the silly notion that Pontius Pilate was once Prefect of Judea. Unthinkable. Then there is the matter of allegory, even if we really are made out of ‘dust’ (i.e. elements found on earth) and the earth really is ‘suspended’ (by laws of gravity).
“Commenting on a public news story is an attack? So thin-skinned! Once you Christians lose the ability to burn people at the stake, you just can’t deal with commentary, can you?”
But we’re to love love our enemies and shake the sand off our sandals when we face folks who don’t want to hear the message. The burning at the stake has been vastly exaggerated and the Church has apologised for it. Some of my Catholic ancestors with backing from Pope Innocent IV even gave Jews equal protections under the law in 1264. The Church did many good things.
“If you don’t want a public conversation, don’t publish in public. I’d probably recommend this, seeing how poor the Christian arguments are.”
Surely you should recommend it if the arguments are strong? Do you only argue against weak arguments? Where’s the intellectual challenge of that?
“Duke York, I’m shocked and dismayed. You say I’m “catty” for saying you are probably soulless and blind to anything spiritual. I’m just trying to be polite, as an atheist I’m sure you agree that you are in fact soulless. Shows where good manners gets you with atheist.”
I’m sorry to have offended you. I should have included a smiley indicating a poor attempt at humor on my part.
And while I agree you and I are both “soulless” (for sufficiently defined “soul”) I’m not blind to spiritual things. What an odd assumption to make, almost like yore accusing me of being less than human, isn’t it?
I’ve been moved to tears in church, been confirmed as a Missouri Synod Lutheran, felt the ineffable oneness that comes through meditation, even astrally projected. I’ve gone farther, though, and found those experiences to better explained by physical changes in my brain than an impossible “soul”.
I’m open to change my beliefs. Are you?
DKeane,
Atheist regimes have killed many more people than Christian regimes.
Please don’t say that Marxists (many of whom joined the Communist and Bolshevik parties and became Marxist AFTER becoming atheist) were not true Scotsmen… I mean atheists because there is nothing against ‘killing for political ideology and atheism’ in the definition of atheism. Most Communists were atheists.
In fact atheism is incompatible with Catholicism or Christianity as it posits man as the sole arbiter of other men’s lives based on man’s law entirely. This point is counter to actually thinking that maybe God did not want us to kill 20 million people to make the socialist utopia possible.
And yes pure body counts should not impact morality but that’s not at issue. What is an issue is the idea that:
1. These atheist regimes murdered people in the 20th century as opposed to some Inquisitions which ended 300-400 years ago and for which the Church apologised. In other words, those events are more remote. Each year the influence of religions becomes less and the influence of the secular world becomes greater. It is therefore not logical or reasonable to harp against religion and speak of morality while being silent against secularist and even atheist murders of other human beings.
2. When religion is removed (and in Russia many if not most of the intelligentsia became atheist prior to the Revolution) the outcome is far worse than when it’s at its most superstitious.
It should also be pointed out that only 6% of all wars fought since recorded history were religious in nature. For the true humanist thus remains much work.
“The interesting question is why atheists spend so much time and effort making comments on religious blogs.”
For me, it’s mostly entertainment. I enjoy discussing these ideas, and I will have similar conversations regarding Harry Potter, Cthulhu or many other mythologies as unreal as the Christian one. The fact that I am possibly weakening the pernicious influence of religion and standing up for a despised minority I happen to be a member of is icing on the cake.
“Do some Christians spend the same amount of time and effort responding to atheist/secularist blogs? I somehow doubt it.”
Then you really should get out more. Every atheist blog with any readership gets multiple Christians coming by and disrupting conversation. I’ve at least been on topic and marginally polite. Some of what you Christians say on atheist blogs would make your hair curl.
But that’s OK, right? No matter what they do, they’re already forgiven, right?
“There just seems to be something in the atheist psyche which impels them to behave in this way. Poor souls.”
And this sort of condescending supercilious malarky is called “Concern Trolling”. You see it from many of the Christians on atheist blogs. You should go over! You’d be right at hom!
“They’re using echolocation, not sight. FTW”
For The Win? You think that’s winning? You went to a school where everyone got a trophy, even if all the did was eat paste, right?
“Here, Mr. Blind Man, put your hand in this mason jar. It’s transparent to your echolocation, and the “sight” will still see your fingers.
Duke
Duke, don’t sweat it, you didn’t offend me. I’m just goofing around with these posts. You see, I don’t take the dialogue seriously because, no offense meant, I don’t take atheist who cruise Catholic pages seriously. Once again no offense meant, but I think of them as “sad sacks” and not being a Saint I amuse myself bantering with them.
As far as explaining every experience by change in the brain, isn’t that kind of a definition of an atheist? Everything is about me, never looking outside yourself to the Glory outside of you?
As far as open to changing my beliefs. I’m not as young as I type. I’ve looked for answers in the woods, on bar stools, in brothels and jails. Darn tooting I’ve changed my beliefs. When you’ve danced with the devil, if you are lucky(graced), you learn to know God as God and not as a “change in your brain”.
“I’ve gone farther, though, and found those experiences to better explained by physical changes in my brain than an impossible “soul”.
I’m open to change my beliefs. Are you?”
Interesting… How about an impossible “mind”? Do you have one of those?
“Atheist regimes have killed many more people than Christian regimes. “
This is caused by two things. First, there were so many more people alive when you had “atheist regimes”. At the turn of the first millennium (and the start of the First Crusade, to pick a period at random), there were only 300 million or so people alive (about the population of the United States, to put it in context). At the start of second world war, the population was over two billion, six or seven times larger.
More importantly, the atheist regimes had access to technology to kill people more efficiently; if the Catholics had had mustard gas during the Albigensian Crusade, they wouldn’t have hesitated to use it, based on their comments at the time (“Kill them all! God will know his own!”).
Really, both of these are saying the same thing. When the Christians were in charge, they were simply incompetent. They couldn’t keep their people (and more importantly their children) alive long enough to reach large populations, and they couldn’t design weapons of war effective enough to kill those large populations.
If you want to say these things are atheism’s fault, I’ll gladly credit atheism with technological advancement.
“Once again no offense meant, but I think of them as “sad sacks” and not being a Saint I amuse myself bantering with them.”
Great! We’ve reached a detente! I feel the same way about you guys!
“As far as explaining every experience by change in the brain, isn’t that kind of a definition of an atheist?”
Um… No?
An atheist is one who lacks a belief in god; nothing more or less. Classical Buddhists are atheists because they lack a belief in a transcendent, despite the fact that they have many other spiritual beliefs.
You can’t even say that’s a definition of naturalist, since many naturalists, such as Chalmers, maintain a sort of dualism that I’ve never been able to get.
It sums up my beliefs, though, so great.
“[H]ow is the fact that the universe is (according to you) not fine-tuned for human life evidence that God’s existence is not as probable? DO you mean that the fact that human beings (and other life forms) exist is more a coincidential event given the vastness of the universe?”
No: the Christian’s god says he is uniquely concerned with human life, and claims to have set up a world where humanity is the center and pinnacle of creation. Also, the Christian god cannot lie or misrepresent himself.
The world we see does not have humanity at its center; far smaller universes could have contained all of mankind while still providing the same benefits.
Therefore, the Christian’s god seems less likely to me, on the balance of the evidence.
“Hmm… maybe an analogy will help in understanding, though I do not expect it to persuade you at all. How is it that people teach children certain concepts?”
How would you teach children if you could make them as intelligent as you wanted?
Seriously; your god is not limited to our base forms. He could make everyone precisely intelligent enough to understand whatever he wanted. Instead, he kept everyone as dumb as we evolved to be and let his Word split into hundreds of sects and religions.
“This does not prove the existence of God, I will be the first to admit that, but I hope it gives an illustration of one of the ways this poor, ignorant college student views God’s method of revelation…”
Does the fact god’s revelation is so poorly understood give you pause? Wouldn’t an omnipotent being that cares about what he says be more capable of communication?
It’s wonderful that we’ve reached a detente. Now, with a detente reached, you may go away from the Catholic web page.
“. . . far smaller universes could have contained all of mankind while still providing the same benefits.”
By which Duke demonostrates that if he had been God, things would have been different. To which we can all agree.
“Instead, he kept everyone as dumb as we evolved to be . . .”
By which Duke demonstrates that if he had been God, he would have rigged life to make it easier . . . evidently because he likes things easy.
“. . . and let his Word split into hundreds of sects and religions.”
By which Duke demonstrates two things: one, he is unfamiliar with the Catholic concept of indefectibility; two, he has not thought much about free will.
Duke states “At the start of second world war, the population was over two billion, six or seven times larger.”
Comparing death totals, adjusting for the increase in population, what do you think the results would be, Duke? A rough estimate is that deaths caused by Christian rulers over a 500 year span resulted in about 1% of what Stalin-Hitler-Mao were able to rack up in just a few decades. And that’s just three of them.
ooh. He’s called ‘Victor’ for a reason, I think.
“the Christian’s god says he is uniquely concerned with human life, and claims to have set up a world where humanity is the center and pinnacle of creation. Also, the Christian god cannot lie or misrepresent himself.”
I am sorry that is NOT true.
Perhaps some ‘evangelical Christian fundamentalists’ believe that (but they are a minority), but the Church does not exclude the possibility of ‘aliens’.
So your whole argument and all arguments that say ‘if aliens exist then (theChristian) God doesn’t’ are complete nonsense. Sorry.
“Does the fact god’s revelation is so poorly understood give you pause? Wouldn’t an omnipotent being that cares about what he says be more capable of communication?”
Everyone can refuse the truth. Even self-evident truth.
If we are free to act we are also free to reject the truth.
No matter how clear a message is, you can always misunderstand it, especially if such misunderstanding is voluntary.
Get educated Mr. York, you have no idea of what you are talking about. You are bashing at straw man.
Those closing the door on God choose the devil.. and yet believe in neither. No clue regarding the impending peril from the evil one until their days are over - how easily he fools them.
Then judgement happens, and as they denied God in life, Jesus will deny them. And they then will take up permanent residence in eternal darkness and suffering in the prison of the evil and terrifying spirit that they can now see..thirsting for one chance, one day, one hour, one minute in life to instead search for God so that God might respond back.. but it will be too late, for they were so sure that there was only nothingness after death, and bragged about it to others in an effort to convince them. But instead they will learn that how they used their first life determined what punishment or reward would happen in their second. no rest..only pain and regrets..no escape..forever. how tragic..
” The fool says in his heart there is no God…such do abomnibale things..” The comments above ( by no means unique in our ” enlightened ” times) are common in the new media. It confirms my conviction that is useless to argue with an athiest. Disbelief begins, I am convinced, with a personally perverse life. The devil slips unnoticed through any crack in personal morality - perverted sex, drugs, pride, etc. Then, after a time God abandons us to our perversion and disbelief. From that point, I am convinced one must descend to the depths of peversion and depression before they can be reached. God never abandons us totally. At some point He will give us one final ” wake up call.”
Wow Victor…..I mean…...WOOOOW, what a takedown!
If you want to read some interesting writing about atheist scientists who have accidentally converted themselves in the course of their research, try reading “Fingerprints of God” by Barbara Bradley Hagerty. She is a Christian Scientist, and presents some compelling scientific evidence for the existence of God. Of course, it is interesting to read for those of us that try to “walk by faith…”, as well.
God bless.
Duke, do not kid yourself. I am not threatened by your dull comments. I would recommend 1 mg of Ativan po g6h for you for the start.
Personal Testimony is worthless evidence? Really? wow! maybe I ought to tell law enforcement this so they will stop wasting time on that silly practice of questioning witnesses.
Duke, in my clinical practice I have encountered situations that modern science cannot explain. If you know anything about the history of science you know that the scientific god’s of today are tomorrow’s ghosts.
Science corrects itself but those who were affected by thalidomide in the past find little consolation in this statement.
I personally find that the scientific discoveries, including astronomy enrich my faith and lead me to believe that life has a meaning and purpose.
Have you ever considered a possibilty that all that happened in our universe since its creation was necessary for you and I to have this exchange today?
God, by virtue of being God does not create the way we humans create things.
To me, the atheists’ arguments are rather simplistic. True the scriptures describe a rather primitive picture of the universe. They were written when everyone had a primitive idea of the universe. I seriously doubt that a description of the universe in terms of quantum mechanics and unified field theory would have made much of an impression on desert nomads who thought fire was a big deal. The scriptures tell of the relationship between man and God - all else is irrelevant. The relationship of God and the universe is summed up in the Talmud - “God is so vast the universe is contained within Him, yet so discrete He is contained within a single mustard seed”.
To paraphrase a greater mind…
“...Methinks Mr. Duke doth protest too much…”
The greater we see the universe, the Greater is the Glory of God. Reading Genesis I seems like an excellent description of the “big bang” if it were described by an uneducated person from 4 thousand years ago…
+JMJ+
Thanks, Jen!
Never mind the unconstructive arguments happening in the comment space: it was a great post and I look forward to reading more.
To those without faith, no defense is adequate. To those with faith, no defense is necessary.
“A complete and willing ignorance of all verifiable miracles and spiritual phenomena”
Let’s say a disbelief that physics can be violated.
“a terrible lack of poetic imagination”
Hilarious. Read science fiction.
Depends which authors you read… while I love Clarke and Asimov, I would say both of them tend to prove the statement rather than disproving it. Now if you are talking Gene Wolfe?.... but then again he is Catholic :).
Well-said.
The more I learn about this universe, the more amazed I am, and the more I respect God for creating it. You remarked as to the size of our galaxy, and 100 billion galaxies - is hard to grasp.
For those who think there is no evidence, I wonder if you have sincerely looked into it, or if you made your mind up a long time ago, so no evidence would matter?
/Brad Strong
www.evidencetoconsider.com
Earl, you’ve got a lot of courage even posting here, after the “philosophical” basis of your entire world view has been decimated time and again on these boards. Take for instance:
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/4-tips-for-placing-yourself-in-the-presence-of-god/
There, you were exposed as a solipsistic nihilist who could not identify any coherent grounds for truth even existing under an atheistic world view.
Also, here:
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/why-love-is-the-secret-to-conversion/
In this exchange, your atheism led you to such an extreme form of nihilism that you were forced to deny that basic words have any objective meaning. You announced that there was no “evidence” for the supernatural, but when presented with a legally recognized definition of “evidence” that necessarily encompassed all sorts of support for the supernatural, you arbitrarily redefined the term. If words have no objective meaning, how can there be any objective truth under your world view? Exactly my point….
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.