Here is my quandary: Where did "energy" come from?
It seems there are four possible answers:
1) Energy does not exist
2) Energy is eternal = no beginning and no end
3) Energy appeared spontaneously from nothing
4) Energy was created by intelligence (God is a possibility here)
For the sake of making the argument soundly we must define FAITH!
Faith is the evidence of things not seen or the evidence of things not KNOWN or SEEN.
None of the previous points, or any combination of thereof, can be proven by facts, logic, reason, or scientific inquiry or reproduction. Therefore all four points or any combination of them are purely philosophic. So yes, all four points or any combination thereof are based upon faith.
Knowing this it seems apparent that none of these points or any combination of them should be taught in a science class. Instead, these points should be taught in a philosophy class as "faith-based" concepts.
PROBLEM: Science tells us that energy cannot be created or destroyed. So what then is the "Origin of Energy" or the "Singularity" or the "Big Bang" that science so readily presents as fact? The same question could be asked about other scientific notions which are likewise assumed by science such as time, space, and motion.
While I applaud the faith of my atheist, humanist, naturalist and Darwinian friends, I still marvel at their utter inability to understand their own faith-based system of thought. OK...so maybe they don't get it because they believe that one day science will prove all their basic assumptions to be true...yet that again falls clearly within the realm of faith.
More honesty is needed in the dialogue about origins, so here is my honest approach to the subject:
Any of the four points above, and possibly an infinite number of points after that can explain the existence of energy and matter in the universe. I must concede here that I stand firmly on the notion that everything must come from something. That something, in my worldview is GOD.
Consider the following. Which of the following statements explains the origin of God?
1) God has always existed
2) God was created from another being
3) God was created from the consciousness of man (not a joke; this is a popular view)
4) God was created from nothingness
What do you think the answer is???
Possibly the best answer is, "I don't know what, when, where, or how the origin of energy occurred." The same answer could be given in reference to God.
Anyone who is truly intellectually honest must agree that the origin of energy ideas presented by science must fall within the realm of theory and thus are no different than faith-based ideas found within philosophical arguments. That is why I argue that much of science belongs in the philosophy classroom...not the science classroom. If they were honest, most naturalists would have to admit that they "HOPE" or "BELIEVE" that Quantum Physics or Quantum Mechanics will someday have the answer for them. Interestingly, Creationists have hope and faith that someday GOD will reveal the answers to everyone to see once and for all.
Here is a little more perspective for our Western mindsets to consider:
Some people really do not believe the physical world exists. Others, like the Hindus, believe that everything is eternal--no beginning and no end. Still others believe everything came from nothing, spontaneously without the help of an intelligent power. This last concept seems the most insane to me (though not believing in the physical universe seems pretty crazy too...just saying). It seems to me that sane thinkers allow their minds to conform to reality, whereas insane thinkers allow reality to conform to their minds. Ahhhhh...and there lies the rub.
If we are being truly honest...the modern Darwinian naturalist must see the Christian as insane and the modern Christian must do likewise. So, in reality someone in the equation may truly be crazy...LOL.
In the end...I applaud your faith...no matter what side of the argument you find yourself standing with...and that is the point of this little mental blogging exercise...to show how everyone--even those who demand that they are not--are persons of faith. Of what faith are you??? Peace today!
13 comments:
You said: "I don't know what, when, where, or how the origin of energy occurred."
...and that is what science says, and we proceed to look for the answer. This particular question interests me little since I expect our species extinction before being able to make any headway...but I digress.
What does interest me is that some think this question supports the theistic position, but it is merely an argument for the deistic position. It is one thing to say that there was some actor that created the universe. It is quite another to say that the god of Abraham created the universe.
you are right...it is a totally different thing to believe the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob created the universe...that is Judaism and Christianity.
And, it is also another thing to believe that Jesus is Lord of heaven and earth...and as the Gospel of John says..."was in the beginning" and "created all things"...that is the Christian faith.
My point is that the existence of the universe really is a non-starter for a discussion of any theistic narrative. Deism and every other theistic narrative (both dead and current religions) have their creation truth claims.
As an engineer/scientist and non-believer, I have zero problem with the position of deism (that being that some higher power created the universe and now just sits in his recliner watching the show with). While I don't find the ceding of credit to the supernatural intellectually satisfying; that position conflicts with no empirical evidence.
The critically important distinction is that it is a non-sequitur to use deism to demonize or subjugate or harm another person or people. As propagators of the Christian narrative that works at inculcating our youth and making particular truth claims; then I feel it incumbent upon clergy to demonstrate that biblical Christianity is true to the exception any other theistic narrative.
As someone who fully understands what constitutes 'evidence'; I find that the religious often have an abysmally low bar as to what they consider evidence.
If by religious you mean "Christians" then I can have this discussion no problem. If, however, you wish to pile on all the other religions of the world into the discussion then, for me, this is a non-starter.
Please understand that my biblical view offers the reasons for lies and inconsistencies rests in the reality that there is a deceiver at work on the earth. This may sound too convenient for some, but you must know that reason why there are so many "false religions" in the world is simple...the deceiver (the devil; fallen angel; Satan, etc...) is smart as the biblical record suggests clearly and consistently throughout a 1,400 year period of record keeping, and he knows as well as you and I that the very best lie is the lie which is closest to the truth. Cults which break off from Christianity are some of his very best works...but probably most impressive today is Islam. The Quran is a book rich with an OT and Jewish foundation, with a mix of Mohammed's life struggles plus a plan of militarism to ensure the viability of the faith. It appears to be a work of genius in its effectiveness throughout the past 1300 years.
It is disingenuous to imply religion as some sort of plague on the earth and then lop all the worlds religions into that same plague filled basket. I agree with those who argue religion is a plague, if they are willing to admit there are many false religions.
Also, you say you are "someone who fully understands what constitutes evidence," yet you also seem vehemently opposed to the concept of miracles.
So, how do I explain it when a man (Ed Silverman, August 2009) has cancer one day throughout the bones in his body, and none the next day?
And, what am I to think when his doctors are scratching their heads, amazed at what they are seeing?
What am I supposed to think when the doctor says, "this is impossible?"
Do his test results count as evidence? Isn't that scientific?
If scientific evidence is what you seek then I believe you are simply looking in the wrong places...the truth IS out there.
peace
I am only vehemently opposed to anecdotes being held up as irrefutable proof. Not knowing all the specifics of Mr. Silverman's case; I will make some basic assumptions...
You say: "[he] has cancer one day throughout the bones in his body"
More properly, we should say "he has a radiological test the results of which present themselves as possibly being cancer to the doctor reviewing them"
You may not know, but such tests (and their interpretation) are 'wrong' surprisingly often. We might like to think that all our medical technology is error free and void of human error...it is not. X-Rays and such vary greatly based on the settings of the technician performing them and the interpretations of the doctors looking at the results. That is what additional tests and second opinions are for.
Another blogger whose site I sometimes participate at [JohnShore.com] detailed, in a series of posts, how his wife probably had cancer that would kill her in weeks. The initial diagnosis pointed to the worst. Additional tests showed that it was nothing.
Indeed; a test and a doctor (in Mr. Silverman's case) are PART of the scientific method...but only part. Science demands repeatability and falsifiability. It doesn't become scientific until additional tests, different technologies and different interpreters get involved.
As far as his doctor saying "this is impossible" (if, indeed, this is an accurate recounting from the doctor to Mr. Silverman to you to me)...
It could merely indicate that the doctor was quite married to his original [erroneous] diagnosis. We are all vulnerable to latching onto ideas and convincing them of their truth...but I can't spend time to relate the frailties and biases of the human mind here.
What you relate here happens quite often. That is why doctors are supposed to be cautious with giving a grim diagnosis based on one (or one type of) test. It is infinitely more likely that you prayed for a cancer that was not even there to begin with.
Here is some info on the Scientific Method:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
I think this "more properly" language you are using here is a stubborn and shoddy argument.
Some context: I am not a doctor of medicine nor am I a cosmologist. When I talk about medicine I try to find a reputable doctor to quote. Likewise, as you see in my most recent post, when I discuss cosmology I must find reputable cosmologists to confirm my thoughts or to provide me with right thoughts.
In the case we are discussing here the doctor is Dr. Yimer. He is an expert in his field and ranked among the top 10 doctors (offices) in the nation in his knowledge of this particular form of cancer. He did a bone marrow biopsy to confirm the extent of Mr. Silvermans cancer 1 month prior to this visit. The biopsy confirmed what all of the previous cancer tests had demonstrated...Mr. Silverman had a slow growing but extremely life threatening form of bone cancer. Standard procedure is to check again just prior to the bone marrow transplant to see how much the cancer has grown/spread. This is done through blood tests and again another bone marrow biopsy (which btw are very painful and is the best way to check on this form of cancer). The second biopsy came back negative to the shock and surprise of Dr. Yimer and his associates.
As a good doctor should, Dr. Yimer has ordered another round of tests for Mr. Silverman, just as he does for all his cancer patients at monthly intervals until they are clean of cancer for 6 months after the bone marrow transplants. However, in Mr. Silverman's case the transplant has been cancelled due to this amazing finding.
Please understand...Dr. Yimer is at the top of the food chain here...Mr. Silverman has had to see several oncologists before being sent up the food chain to Dr. Yimer.
So, either multiple oncologists, including experts like Dr. Yimer, were completely wrong in their diagnosis...and their tests were all flawed, every time, in every visit for the 3 to 4 years he has been fighting this cancer...or a miracle happened.
Now, if this were the only case like this I had heard in my lifetime, then I would gladly approach your side of the argument with much appreciation. However, time and time again I have seen people recover and be healed to the shock and awe of their doctors...except where their doctors were Christians and they too had seen this many times.
peace
follow up thought and question:
most of us have limited empathy for the hungry children in Africa because we are so far removed from their plight. This is evidenced in the reality that few send money or goods to this most needy area.
Likewise, many criticize the notion of a miracle because they have limited to no experience here.
So my question is: what if it was not Mr. Silverman, but instead it were your child? What if your child had fought cancer for years and every test and scientific indicator showed they were getting progressively worse? What if you saw your son/daughter wasting away? Then, what if one day, in the midst of all this trauma, the pain, the illness, and the cancer just went away...gone? And, what if the very same month that this occurred some people from a church had started praying earnestly for your child?
Would it cause you to pause and consider...maybe, just maybe God intervened?
I don't know about you, but I feel like this has splintered into a number of different points, so I am going to conclude with my summation on my position on evidence and miracles.
In my world; things are not true unless they are demonstrably true. We are a biased, affirmation-seeking, pattern-seeking animal that can be made to believe virtually anything under the sun. The wiring in our brain makes for a very maleable organ and can be affected by input of any sort and may or may not be associated with some sort of factual truth. There are Hindus and Scientologists that believe and wholly and completely as you do. This aspect of the human brain/mind is well recognized and is not really a point of debate. As much as anything can be a fact, the unreliability of the human brain is recognized as a fact.
When recognize that weakness of our minds, we have to seek a tool that, to the extent that anything can, eliminates of minimizes the biases and emotions that affect our reasoning. To date, it is the scientific method that has been shown to best get around our mental vulnerabilities.
When we test drugs (for instance) we compare the results of administering those drugs to people who have not received them and people who THINK they received them. In well controlled studies, those administering the medication do not know if they are handing out the real deal or a placebo. We mathematically analyze whether the group that received the real medicine responded appreciably differently than those who received the placebo and those that received nothing. Only when that method demonstrates an effect can we say that the medication has played a role.
In the case of prayer and miracles, you are free to believe anything you want, but you cannot objectively demonstrate that anything supernatural has occurred...and objectivity is the key.
I merely demand that your claim can be objectively verified just as the effectiveness of my prescribed medication has been. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan
As I fell out of belief, I began looking for such objective evidence to see if I was right to walk away from belief. I found that, not only was there no such evidence, but there was evidence COUNTER to theistic religion. It has been shown that there is no statistical difference in the effectiveness of Muslim, Hindu, and Christian practices or non-theistic practices such as meditation.
Moreover; if one maintains that they do NOT have to meet the standards above, then I am OBLIGED be a roadblock to anyone promoting these beliefs to our youth because those practitioners have identified themselves as anti-reason and anti-critical thinking.
Here is another short video that well demonstrates the frailties of the human mind:
http://www.skeptic.com/downloads/ted_shermer_m_2005.mov
You said: "In my world; things are not true unless they are demonstrably true."
Do medical tests and their results count as demonstrations? And, can everything in life be "demonstrably true?" (I love my wife--is that too subjective to be demonstrably true?)
You said: "the unreliability of the human brain is recognized as a fact."
I guess that ends our discussions...how could we ever know anything with unreliable brains?
Your answer: use the tool of the scientific method to make up for our brains deficiencies
that's all fine and good but all I can think about is how flawed my brain still is...how will i ever accurately interpret scientific data with a flawed brain.
AND...the Carl Sagan quote works both ways...I'm still waiting for convincing evidence from science
where should I start? what has been a helpful book to you on your journey of knowledge?
I recommend the Gospel of John followed up with the Acts of the Apostles for starters.
Enjoying the journey...thanks for all your posts...they've been interesting and educational for me...peace
As I was writing, I knew the obvious retort to statement…but the brevity necessary when writing on the hoof (I was in a hospital waiting room at the time) and writing in the constrictive box that bloggerspot.com offers drops nuance motivated me to skip ideas that I would have hoped were obvious. Even as I write this, I am in a hospital cafeteria. So some of your criticism is fair.
Of course not everything is demonstrably true, but there are important things that demand that we can’t just say it is so based on feelings. I have no need to question your claim that your wife loves you as that claim is primarily of concern only to you and your wife. There are important questions such as ‘Where does morality come from?’, ‘How do we lead an ethical life?’, ‘Are homosexuals an abomination unto God?’, and ‘Where do we come from?’ that affect the broader society. Using the low hanging fruit of the standard Christian position on homosexuality…the Abrahamic faiths demonize a segment of society based on a belief that has no objective evidence of its truth. I don’t know about you, but unjustly demonizing a person or people is one of the great monumental wrongs. It is these type of questions that I merely ask that evidence be put forth to prove its truth.
Re: Sagan….If you are intimating that you are waiting for proof of the non-existence of God, then you need to understand argument theory 101 that shows you cannot disprove a negative in this sort of debate. I can no sooner empirically disprove the existence of God than you can disprove the existence of unicorns or elves. It is the party making the truth claim that bears the burden of presenting evidence.
As far as helpful books…I can’t point to one in particular. It is an adult lifetime of amassing knowledge of the sciences (physics, mathematics, biology, cosmology, primatology, etc).
Re: the unreliable brain:….I have studied brain science and you would be surprised what the brain can believe wrongly. Check out the book “On Being Certain” that I review on my blog. That said; if you recognize the imprecision of a tool, one can use methods to mitigate that imprecision. One lab in a physics class had us measure the precise distance between two lines using a ruler that we only marked in full centimeters. If you drop the ruler across the span hundreds or thousands of times, all you get are a series of gross measurements (i.e. 2cm, 3cm, 3cm). But with enough samples and averaging, you can get a surprisingly accurate measurement.
Post a Comment