Comments on: Biblical Bloopers: A Two-Dimensional God

By: Andrew Bernardin

Andrew Bernardin — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 21:41:46 +0000

I have, Brent. When they first came out I sent the whole lot of papers to my printer so I could give them a careful read. Seeing the line-up, I had great expectations. Can’t say I was impressed or swayed by any of the arguments for the “pro-god” position.

By: Brent Croker

Brent Croker — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 20:33:05 +0000

Andrew, just curious if you had seen the position papers on the Templeton Foundation website re: the issues of science and belief in God. There were some great discussions there.

http://www.templeton.org/belief/

By: Brent Croker

Brent Croker — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 17:04:44 +0000

Thank you for the respectful debate, Andrew. I do appreciate your sincere reflections and thoroughness in considering the issues. Just a couple of final points and then I’ll rest and agree to disagree. I do agree that countless times, people over the millenea have subsituted ideas (related to deities but also to non-god related practices) for unexplained phenomena – the sun god, the rain god, etc. but also phrenology and the medical practice of blood letting, just to name a couple. We as humans seem very uncomfortable with the unknown, finding the need to explain the unexplained and plug in the gaps. Good science has plugged in the intellectual gaps of the material world in many places previously filled with faulty science, superstition, or belief in concrete gods. I argue, though, that the explanation of how the universe exists does not rest solely in one “truth” continuum in which the gaps previously filled by religion are now filled by science. Science is science and only valid scientific findings can account for the scientific gaps in the material world you speak of. Religion cannot take the place of science and inappropriately hope to fill in the gaps of physical universe knoweldge within a space-time continuum. But neither can science explain phenomena outside of the space-time continuum. Instead of the car analogy, to describe the god of the gaps logic, I would say let’s play the general manager of the Yankees in place of the pitcher and see if we win. The GM stunk as a pitcher so let’s get rid of him. The bottom line is the GM, who is great as an executive, should have never played on the field. But he still has much value. The same thing can be said of trying to plug God in where he (for lack of a better term) does not belong. In parting, the unknown could be something amazing.

By: Andrew Bernardin

Andrew Bernardin — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 13:43:39 +0000

Oops. Ordering is okay. I just noticed that you had commented on my comment.

By: Andrew Bernardin

Andrew Bernardin — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 13:42:43 +0000

@Brent –
Seems the date/time ordering of the comments is off . . .
A few things:
1) I am not absolutely certain that no god exists. I do find the idea very, very, very unlikely. One of my favorite quotes goes something like this: “Most people don’t believe in the majority of the gods ever conceived. I just go one god further.”
2) I am skeptical of my atheism. And I am aware of hazards such as the confirmation bias — the tendency to seek out and heed information that confirms our beliefs, but to ignore and overlook information that challenges it. A few years ago I intentionally sought out 3 highly reviewed “reasons there is a god” books and carefully read them. As an honest challenge to my thinking. What I discovered is reflected in your comments.
3) A bulk of the arguments for a god generally boil down to “arguments from ignorance” (a logical fallacy) — ‘because I don’t understand X, the answer must be Y.’ In a sense, this is a non-sequitur. That science cannot provide an answer to a question, or that it boggles the mind, and the validity of an answer proposed by religion are two separate issues.
Others describe this tendency — to inject a god into the gaps of what we know, as the “god of the gaps” phenomenon. Again, because there is a gap does not provide argument for the existence of a god. This is akin to claiming that because Fords are lousy cars, then Chryslers are good.
I invite you to consider this: In terms of the history of human knowledge, how many times has a gap in what we know been closed with naturalistic/scientific elements? A ton of times. How many times has a gap been closed with a god or supernatural element? Not once. So why would this pattern not continue?
One last time: the unknown is the unknown. It has no special meaning.

By: Brent Croker

Brent Croker — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 02:56:09 +0000

(continued from previous message)

…The complexities of DNA, evolution, etc. are beyond my words to describe – how amazing these vehicles for life are. Andrew, based on your comments and how you express yourself in writing, you seem to be a very smart man, probably much more so than the average person. But there are some things that neither you, nor I, nor anyone else for that matter that is a human being, knows or may ever know. We are finite beings and as such, cannot possibly know everything there is to know about all things, everywhere, for all times in the universe (or universes). To claim that we do is fallible logic and untrue. I’m not sure why questioning atheism is not grounds for a critical thinker such as yourself when questioning the certainty of God (in its many forms of belief) is fair game. At this time, science based on limited human knowledge (although remarkable), can neither prove nor disprove the existence of an all encompassing creative force (my view of God). I don’t think science can prove what I know to be beautiful or that I love my daughter, either. To claim atheism in the face of all that exists around us, in the face of the extremely small odds that these things could exist, seems illogical. The truth is, with our limited brains, we do not know the answers to these questions of creation outright and to claim that we do is a leap of faith no matter which stance you take.

By: Brent Croker

Brent Croker — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 02:00:17 +0000

Andrew, some other thoughts after reflecting further on what you said, from what I see posted here, your argument is between which is true, science or religion, truth or myth. Through science, we have discovered amazing things and I am a firm believer in science, which is why I cannot buy a religious fundamentalist point of view. I do not believe in a god that sits up on a throne in the clouds, passes judgment on each small action that passes, etc. Many people do. This is a concrete notion of god and what it appears you are poking fun at through tongue in cheek humor. That’s fine. That’s not what I’m talking about. I am not a Christian fundamentalist and do not believe Christianity holds THE corner on the truth (although I do believe that Christianity does hold some truths, as do some other religions and views in spirituality, that are important in our lives). But neither do I believe that science can explain EVERYTHING. We can fairly well agree that neither you nor I have seen or heard the Loch Ness Monster and if we drained Loch Ness, we would probably not find anything there based on our own perceptions. Agreed. The concept of the Loch Ness monster is a finite entity, though. You mentioned that the existence of “god” is very very unlikely, ludicrously unlikely. Let me ask you, though, a billion years ago, what were the odds that just the right conditions would come together to form the billions and billions of cells massed together to form your body, to make up who you are today, that you exist and were created in the form you are in with your unique thoughts and personality? What were the odds? We might not be able to compute how astronomically small those odds were at that time, how very very unlikely it would be that you (or I) would exist today. But you are here. Life, which scientific discoveries have supported, is truly remarkable and complex, and for lack of a better term, a miracle. It’s amazing that we even exist. The complexity…

By: Brent Croker

Brent Croker — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 22:00:38 +0000

Yes, I agree, the Bible is not a perfect guide to the truth. But to dismiss it outright as not holding any truth based on a few quotes (cherry-picked, to use your term) is akin to fundamentalists using quotes taken in isolation to prove their own points. I disagree with religious fundamentalists who claim that the Bible is all literal. To me, it is ridiculous to claim the earth was made in 7 days, is 6,000 years old, and that Eve was taken from the rib of Adam. My point with the worm I believe you missed – I agree 100% that we know what I worm can perceive through science. I am a firm believer in science, and what we can learn from the world by science. I believe in evolution. My point with the worm was that there are things we know (yes, by science) that a worm cannot perceive. So, how do we know whether or not there are things that WE, as humans, cannot perceive? I believe that it is highly LIKELY that there are things in the universe that are beyond our limited sensation and perception, possibly the existence of a creative force. You seem to be saying that something cannot or is very highly unlikely to exist because we cannot perceive it in the way that you might be expect (through sight, touch, taste, etc.). That was my point. I might be setting up the agnostic viewpoint, but to me that is more valid than an atheist viewpoint, which also takes a leap of faith. My argument is not with agnostics. My argument is with those who say with certainty that god cannot exist AND with fundamentalists that try to ram “truth” down your throat in the face of good science.

By: Andrew Bernardin

Andrew Bernardin — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 13:26:40 +0000

Brent,

A few things:

First, the charge of cherry-picking – My purpose of the post was to show that the Bible is not a perfect guide to truth. I find your calling some content “symbolism” to be a bit of a dodge. Many fundamentalists will tell you it is all true. Eve was indeed created from Adams rib, etc. For those who don’t take all of it literally, please inform me where I might find the key to what is symbolism and what is not? My guess is that the key changes from generation to generation, shaped by the advance of more modern, secular, scientific thinking.

Centuries ago I’m sure many of the pro-slavery verses (or at least slavery-neutral) were not considered symbolic. Today many apologists maintain they are.

I wonder, did the ancient writers get only some of it wrong? If they got some of it wrong, doesn’t it throw all of the writings into question?

Second, you mention a worm being unable to perceive color. How do we know this? Not by faith, but by scientific thinking and real-world discovery. If humankind has a pressing need to know something, to the best of our abilities, the smart bet is to turn to science.

And finally, the question of god or no-god (and “don’t know about god”) is not the same thing as absolute certainty for “god” or absolutely certainty for “no-god.” That’s a bit of a straw man. It also sets up the agnostic position quite nicely. Absolute answers have no place in science. Rather, the designations are more akin to plausibility or degrees of confidence in a claim, hypothesis or theory. My conclusion on this issue happens to be that the existence of a god is very, very unlikely. Ludicrously unlikely. Same could be said for my conclusion that the Loch Ness monster exists. But to say I’m agnostic because I don’t fall into either absolute certainty camp would be equivocating. Which is something, as a critical thinker, I prefer not to engage in.

By: Brent Croker

Brent Croker — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 19:16:34 +0000

It’s more than a little ironic that a “free thinker” such as Mr. Bernardin would apprently base much of his certainty that a universal, all-encompassing, eternal, and creative force (or my conception of God) does not exist based on his interpretation of text taken out of context from the Bible. This is no different that religious fundamentalists taking similar quotes out of context to prove a narrow point of view to condemn others. Personally, I believe that similar to other great works of life’s truths, there is much symbolic language in the Bible. And yes, roughly 2000+ years ago, those who transcribed this text based on their life experiences at the time did so within the context of limited scientific understanding compared to today’s knowledge. In claiming that you know for sure that there is no divine creator or God, you must have a tremendous amount of faith and claim to know everything there is to know in the universe. A worm cannot perceive vivid color images like you or I can. Does that mean that these images do not exist? No, it just means that the worm cannot perceive them. Just becuase you do not perceive God, does that mean that God does not exist? Are there greater things that could be perceived with our continual evolution? Perhaps. To say that these things do not exist is limited and narrow thinking, exactly the kind of thing Mr. Bernandina argues against. Why not say that you don’t know? The creative energy or God that I believe is likely to exist is much greater than the concrete god you know for certainty does not exist.