Chasing the Wind

News. Faith. Nonsense.

The Convergence of Science and Religion

In 1966, Charles Hard Townes published “The Convergence of Science and Religion” about his thoughts on the relationship between religion and science.

“They are much more similar than people generally accept,” Townes says. “Science has faith. We make postulates. We can’t prove those postulates, but we have faith in them.”

Earlier this week, Charles Hard Townes won the Templeton prize for progress or discoveries about spiritual reality, which includes a cash prize of $1.4 million. He already held the 1964 Nobel Prize in Physics for his research that led to the maser and the laser.

“I don’t think that science is complete at all. We don’t understand everything and one can see, within science itself, there are many inconsistencies,” [said Townes]

More recently, scientists and religious leaders have disagreed over everything from the big bang theory of the origin of the universe to the teaching of evolution in schools to the debate over stem-cell research.

But even in these often discordant worlds, Townes has found little difficulty in reconciling his Christian faith with the empiricism of scientific inquiry.

“I don’t think that science is complete at all,” says the 89-year-old physicist. “We don’t understand everything and one can see, within science itself, there are many inconsistencies. We just have to accept that we don’t understand.”

Within the great unknowns of the universe, Townes argues there is ample room for faith in God and His presence in human experience.

For all his interest in scientific inquiry, Townes says it has never led to a crisis of faith. He exhibits a strong sense of rationalism in his approach to both science and religion.

As an engineer, I see no conflict between my faith and fact. Usually, it’s the other way around – I see something so complex and yet simple at the same time, like the structure of a leaf or how the eyeball works or a DNA strand or some space nebula, and amazed that God created something that beautiful. It’s wonderful to see Nobel prize winning physicists also don’t see any conflict.

* Via a tip from Michelle Malkin.

, ,
, , ,
Michael's avatar

Posted by:

Michael

Follower of Jesus, conservative, freedom-loving patriot.

28 responses to “The Convergence of Science and Religion”

  1. Dennis Keller Avatar
    Dennis Keller

    “As an engineer, I see no conflict between my faith and fact….”

    Well, you should!

    Well-educated types are just as capable of compartmentalizing as others. Intelligence is only one requirement for right-thinking; courage, honesty and other qualities of character matter just as much.

    There is no reason, nor is there any evidence to believe there is a supernatural being, and the “argument from authority” is not the least bit persuasive to those who are truly informed.

    The good character I stressed above is exemplified by those who acquaint themselves with the overwhelmingly superior rebuttals to the common points you and Townes (and so many others) make. You can all do better! The fact that you *prefer* to keep your warm fuzzy beliefs along with reality does not give you reason to claim they are not in conflict!

    Like

    Reply
  2. Michael Avatar
    Michael

    Superior intellect should be address a fundamental question: what makes you think everything in the universe can be detected through your five senses? In other words, your belief there is no God has no proof.

    Albert Einstein believed in God.

    Like

    Reply
  3. Dennis Keller Avatar
    Dennis Keller

    So let me get this straight: there are things in the universe which our 5 senses may not be able to detect. And that, therefore, is an argument FOR the existence of a supernatural being?! Of course not! So, it would seem that NOT believing something exists until reason or evidence arises would be the default position, which could easily be changed if new information came to “our senses”. Do you have any new info?

    My belief that there is no god REQUIRES no proof! It is proportioned to the evidence, and is amenable to change if new facts warrant it. Only true believers require absolute certainty, and this is what is doubly odd about it, because believers have neither any proof nor any line of reasoning to support their belief, which is why they lean upon faith. We nonbelievers are content with the best we can do, which is based upon the evidence we see, a considerable amount of solid reasoning, and therefore a high degree of PROBABILITY that our understanding is correct.

    How perverse that we, with superior case, are criticized for our view, but believers with no case nevertheless hold unyielding conviction IN SPITE of the evidence! And they continue, with stunning predictability, bringing up tired points which have been refuted so many times one would have to simply be in denial not to accept!

    As a matter of fact denial is exactly what believers are in. Case in point — your mention of Einstein. Please read the following quotes from the man himself, and please, believers everywhere, stop dragging him into this in support of your view simply because he made a few misinterpreted, ill-advised comments about the nature of existence! He did not intend to feed you such ammunition and made that clear many, many times.

    Einstein:

    “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
    Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 43.

    “The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve.”
    Albert Einstein in a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, December 17, 1952; Einstein Archive 59-797; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 217.

    “It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems.”
    Albert Einstein, 1947; from Banesh Hoffmann, Albert Einstein Creator and Rebel, New York: New American Library, 1972, p. 95.

    One last point: even if the man DID believe, that would not be sufficient reason to conclude a supernatural being existed. “Authorities” are still required to make a case. See my original post, and the reference to the flawed “argument from authority”, which you nevertheless proceeded to use with your Einstein comment! Please look up the definition.

    “A lie… systematically repeated.” Remember what I said about character?

    Like

    Reply
  4. Michael Avatar
    Michael

    My belief that there is no god REQUIRES no proof!

    My point was that if you believe your 5 senses alone give you all the proof you need that God does not exist, then you must believe that 5 senses are all that’s necessary to detect everything. What makes you think 5 senses are enough?

    If your response is that your belief requires no proof, then you are acting on faith, same as me. And my examination of the evidence leads me to believe that a universe as complex as ours with stars and planets and novas and intricate, complex life forms with skin cells and blood vessels and the way photosynthesis works and so on and so on is far more likely to be evidence of an omnipotent intelligence than evidence that we are all some sort of randomized quantum fluctuation.

    I have faith He does exist, that He is living and active. And since I have witnessed personal miracles in my life that are evidence to me of God’s benign gift of life, I have my proof. You cannot convince me God does not exist; I have personal evidence.

    Why do you not have evidence as a non-believer? Ephesians 4:18 says you will not because you are not seeking Him. “They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts.”

    I concede the point on Einstein; I confess I did no research, believing the popular rumor. Einstein could actually be categorized as either agnostic or a deist, as he later said, “I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.” In other words, an impersonal god instead of a personal God, and various quotes from Einstein show he strongly opposed atheism. I’ll stick with example of the Nobel prize winning scientist Charles Hard Townes mentioned in my post that exceptionally intelligent people can and do believe in God.

    I remember your point about character. I ignored it as it seemed a back-handed attempt to impugn my character if I won’t renounce God. Fat chance. 😛 Biblical studies on truth and love all build strength of character in the Christian; Galations 5:22, “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.”

    Like

    Reply
  5. Al Lang Avatar
    Al Lang

    “In other words, your belief there is no God has no proof.”

    So? Anyone can claim anything exists and then challenge people to prove them wrong. It’s impossible to do so as you can’t prove a negative. Do you believe that Invisible Hot Dogs exist? If not then I challenge you to prove to me they don’t.

    “My point was that if you believe your 5 senses alone give you all the proof you need that God does not exist, then you must believe that 5 senses are all that’s necessary to detect everything. What makes you think 5 senses are enough?”

    What other senses are there for us to use to detect anything?
    Are there Invisible Hot Dogs or not? It is (remotely) possible that someday we may develop other senses or invent a machine that can detect them. Do we wait until then so we have a definitive answer? Or do we make a decision now based on what our senses, intelligence and reasoning tell us is probable?
    And I’m just wondering, if 5 senses aren’t enough, what “secret senses” are required to detect god or Invisible Hot Dogs for that matter?

    “I have faith He does exist, that He is living and active. And since I have witnessed personal miracles in my life that are evidence to me of God’s benign gift of life, I have my proof. You cannot convince me God does not exist; I have personal evidence.”

    I have faith They do exist, that They are tasty and yummy. And since I have witnessed personal eating in my life that is evidence to me of Invisible Hot Dogs’ delicious gift of food, I have my proof. You can not convince me Invisible Hot Dogs do not exist; I have personal evidence.

    Unless you’re willing to accept the concept that everything and anything you can and can’t think of, exists, this is a silly argument to make. Personal evidence means nothing.
    Can I claim you’re a criminal and have you sent to prison based on personal evidence and faith?

    One comment about this post that some may find amusing. I tried to write this twice already. Both times in the middle of writing it, I lost power and also lost what I had written. Maybe it was god’s handiwork?….nahhhh.

    Like

    Reply
  6. Michael Avatar
    Michael

    Well, of course not. There is no historical, independent record of Invisible Hot Dogs performing miracles and rising from the dead. I’m not aware of any invisible hot dogs claiming to be deity, ot thousands of people sacrificing their lives to bring the message of love of invisible hot dogs to the underprivilaged.

    I’m not asking you to believe in God – that’s up to you. I’m just pointing out those that believe there is no god because they haven’t seen any proof are not being open minded. There is no reason to believe we have all the senses necessary to detect everything in the universe. I find it easier to understand people who doubt (agnostic) than people who are so sure God does not exist.

    If you want to believe in invisible hot dogs, feel free to trust your salvation to them. Me, I’d find it more plausible that God pulled the plug on you while you were typing. 😛

    Like

    Reply
  7. Stephen Avatar
    Stephen

    Doh!

    Like

    Reply
  8. Dennis Keller Avatar
    Dennis Keller

    The point Al was making has nothing to do with whether there is a historical record, whether anyone has sacrificed their lives, or anything else like that.

    It has to do with your claim: “I have faith He does exist, that He is living and active. And since I have witnessed personal miracles in my life that are evidence to me of God’s benign gift of life, I have my proof. You cannot convince me God does not exist; I have personal evidence.”

    He is simply demonstrating the logical consequences of private truths; anything can be true if the only requirement is “personal evidence”!

    Read what Al says: “Unless you’re willing to accept the concept that everything and anything you can and can’t think of, exists, this is a silly argument to make. Personal evidence means nothing.
    Can I claim you’re a criminal and have you sent to prison based on personal evidence and faith?”

    As is usually the case with believers it comes down to “personal evidence”. Evidence which points to nothing outside of your mind. Perhaps I should ask you as I have asked countless others: What is your evidence? And before you give us an answer, ponder whether it is the type of evidence that would or should convince others.

    As for the other “proofs” you cite for a god, no critical thinker would accept any of the ones you suggest. There may be no hot dogs claiming to be a deity, but you are correct when you imply that humans have. In fact, many humans have, and I trust you know where this line of reasoning is going.

    Historical, independent record? Of miracles? I’m tempted to respond as Stephen did: “Doh!”

    Can you not understand that this “record” is a bit, shall we say, in dispute?! Cases for anything are never made by claiming that some people somewhere a long time ago said something.

    In sports, it is often said that you fall to the level of the competition, and debating believers is very difficult because you always have to sort out and untangle all of the poor assumptions, childish reasoning and astonishing examples of what they think passes for evidence. Then, of course, you get tagged as arrogant, or an elitist, and worse! Heck, I bet that happened before Michael finished this paragraph!

    “As an engineer, I see no conflict between my faith and fact….”

    As an engineer. Note the implication that an intelligent person is speaking and that we should therefore take what they say seriously, nevermind that they will proceed to prove otherwise. Einstein was asked for marriage advice, and the Beatles were asked about the war, and the meaning of life.

    No, Michael! You meant to say “As a Christian….”

    I could go on and on, given the high mistake-to-word ratio of your posts, and that is why most nonbelievers walk away in frustration. But I’ll ask one last question: What would I need to do to “seek Him”? And in your answer, note the implication that there IS a Him to seek, telling us why we should accept an implication without reason or evidence! Please make sure the evidence cited is sound. Oh, and then make sure to explain why it is you think that we who don’t “seek Him” would want to deny the existence of something you have shown to be so obvious. Please try to be original here because the standard issue replies are weak.

    Like

    Reply
  9. Courtney Avatar
    Courtney

    Just a word of advice to Dennis Keller- it helps to present your argument without talking down, calling names, or antagonizing the opposing party. While not a believer myself, I do think everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I expect respect for my personal views, I extend the same courtesy to others.

    Like

    Reply
  10. Dennis Keller Avatar
    Dennis Keller

    Courtney,

    You may expect respect for your views, but you will not get them from me, unless they are worthy!

    You make the classic mistake of confusing rights with reasons. That people have a RIGHT to their opinion is not in question. What I am challenging is their reasoning, or more accurately the lack of it.

    There are many nonbelievers like you who parrot the “respect” line even as we sink further and further into the Bush faith-based mess that has made America the laughing stock of the world. Nonsense is emboldened, and we still have Dukakis-like “just-don’t-get-it” types preaching about not antagonizing anyone!

    I prefer to speak up, and call nonsense by it’s proper name. No person anywhere, at any time, should believe in a god or gods, or in tooth fairies or any other man-made myth. I only want for others what I want for myself, which is the ability to tell the difference between legitimate ideas and ones which are an insult to our intelligence. And there is nothing wrong with wanting others to believe what you believe.

    Lack of respect for bad ideas, including your oft-repeated “everyone is entitled to their own opinion”, is good! Lack of respect for human beings is not so good, and you should not confuse the two.

    I also disagree with your concern about the tone of the discussion. A little heat is not a bad thing. (Was it Mark Twain who said “One good bellylaugh is worth a thousand syllogisms.”?) If you are passionate about your views, bring it on, but leave me out if the discussion devolves into one about who is being nice. The “names” I have used were in the context of describing the reasoning of believers and were not arbitrary mudslinging.

    I think everyone should enjoy discussions using reason and evidence, and not concern themselves with the heat unless people are being truly and gratuitously insulting, which is clearly not the case here.

    Like

    Reply
  11. Dennis Keller Avatar
    Dennis Keller

    Or as Martha puts it:

    We may be confused about the distinction between tolerance and the refusal of evaluation, thinking that tolerance of others requires us not to evaluate what they do.
    Martha Nussbaum
    –Cultivating Humanity

    Like

    Reply
  12. Courtney Avatar
    Courtney

    The way to win people with your views is not to attack and belittle. I’m not talking about being nice, I’m talking about getting people to listen to your side. Name call and they get defensive and don’t hear what you are trying to say. However, I have not seen any convincing evidence to support your view point.

    As far as parroting, I think for myself, and I express my own opinion. I think many of the problems in our country and the divisions that come between us can be attributed to people placing themselves in opposite corners. Republican versus democrat, christian versus non-christian, conservative versus liberal. We’d all be much better off to drop our “labels” and start seeing each other as humans and individuals with lives which don’t fit into a neat, little box.

    Like

    Reply
  13. Al Lang Avatar
    Al Lang

    “Well, of course not. There is no historical, independent record of Invisible Hot Dogs performing miracles and rising from the dead I’m not aware of any invisible hot dogs claiming to be deity, ot thousands of people sacrificing their lives to bring the message of love of invisible hot dogs to the underprivilaged.”

    It’s funny. You said that all that was needed was personal evidence for god. But now you’re saying that we need a historical, independent record for Invisible Hot Dogs. Why? Why am I required to give this evidence but you’re not?

    So which is it? Do we need independent evidence or is personal evidence enough?

    Also I made no claim of miracles or rising from the dead. All I claimed was that Invisible Hot Dogs exist. That’s it. Miracles and rising from the dead are much more extraordinary than what I claimed. Therefore they should require much more objective, verifiable, evidence before being accepted as truth. Evidence that I certainly CAN NOT provide regarding Invisible Hot Dogs. That’s why I didn’t make the claim.

    And no claim was made to Them being deity either, nor to anyone sacrificing their lives to bring Them to anyone. Interesting that you would infer this stuff.

    Again the only claim I made was to Their existence. Since you’ve offered no proof that They don’t exist, and I have personal evidence, I’m justified in believing in Them right?

    Using your own argument here, what makes you think that you have all the senses to detect the Invisible Hot Dogs? Since you don’t have the senses, of course you’re not aware of Them.

    “If you want to believe in invisible hot dogs, feel free to trust your salvation to them.”

    Again I find this interesting. I never claimed that Invisible Hot Dogs are deity nor that I trusted my salvation or anything elso to Them. All I’m claiming is that They exist. Until you prove to me that They don’t, your argument about no proof for the non-existence of god has no validity.

    “I’m not asking you to believe in God – that’s up to you. I’m just pointing out those that believe there is no god because they haven’t seen any proof are not being open minded. There is no reason to believe we have all the senses necessary to detect everything in the universe.”

    As I stated before, unless you’re willing to accept the concept that everything and anything you can and can’t think of, exists, this is a silly argument to make.

    “Me, I’d find it more plausible that God pulled the plug on you while you were typing.”

    And I wouldn’t find that even the slightest bit plausible.
    Invisible Hot Dogs are far more likely.

    Now onto the debate about respecting others opinions.

    “Just a word of advice to Dennis Keller- it helps to present your argument without talking down, calling names, or antagonizing the opposing party. While not a believer myself, I do think everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I expect respect for my personal views, I extend the same courtesy to others.”

    I agree with Dennis here. I refuse to respect the opinions or ideas of others unless they’re deserving of respect. Bad ideas and opinions should be treated as such.

    For example, I don’t respect the idea that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote or the opinion that there should be separate facilities (schools, restaurants, restrooms) for blacks and whites. I don’t think anyone should. If someone offered those opinions or ideas to me, not only would I not be polite, I’d be downright hostile.

    However these ideas were once accepted by many people and had a long history behind them. It took a lot of very brave people to speak out against them and demand change.
    What if no one said anything and instead just respected these ideas and opinions?

    Nonsense should be called nonsense.

    Like

    Reply
  14. Courtney Avatar
    Courtney

    Al, I have to agree with your point of segregation and women’s rights. And I should have been more specific. My philosophy on life, if it doesn’t hurt others, people have a right to do it. I do vehemently disagree with legislation that is religion based, as that affects those who do not choose to follow those beliefs. One example would be the rights of gays. Who am I to say what’s right and what’s wrong? And before anyone responds by saying that hurts others, I can’t accept that as an argument. It’s a prejudice, religious based or not, that would cause people to say that. If I don’t follow the teachings of the bible, what would make me believe it’s wrong?

    Like

    Reply
  15. Dan Avatar
    Dan

    “You may expect respect for your views, but you will not get them from me, unless they are worthy!”
    Dennis,
    For what it’s worth, this same line of thinking also afflicts large numbers of Christian conservatives. Don’t fall prey to being judgemental; at least respect the person if not their views.

    Like

    Reply
  16. Al Lang Avatar
    Al Lang

    Dan, Scroll up a bit and you’ll find this quote from Dennis:

    “Lack of respect for bad ideas, including your oft-repeated “everyone is entitled to their own opinion”, is good! Lack of respect for human beings is not so good, and you should not confuse the two.”

    Like

    Reply
  17. Michael Avatar
    Michael

    That’ll teach me to go away on a honeymoon. :/

    I’m just going to hit a couple of big points from above –

    a) Post #8: Dennis, I came to faith, and after that I’ve treasured the miracles in my life. I don’t expect you to use that as a basis to question your own beliefs, but merely to explain why my faith is unshakeable. If you’re looking for outside evidence, there is an historical record – you may question that history, but you cannot deny that it exists. My mission, as explained in the bible, is not to *make* you believe anything. My mission is to enjoy the peace that comes with Christ and to live my life as a living witness of that peace. You are free to accept or reject Christ as you see fit. But rejecting it simply on the basis of “I’m too smart to believe” doesn’t cut it. This thread contains links about a Nobel laurate and Albert Einstein that believed in (a) God. And since you asked, “What would I need to do to seek Him?,” I’d start with the one of the gospels, preferrably John, and read it. People at that time accepted those miracles as fact, that a living God was in their mist.

    b) Post #9: Thanks, Courtney. While you and I don’t have any similarities in faith, I enjoy a frank, respectful discussion with you. You know I try not to preach. 🙂

    c) Post 10: “You may expect respect for your views, but you will not get them from me, unless they are worthy!” I would like to suggest, Dennis, that you have misinterpeted the word “respect.” I respect the fact you do not believe in God, though I do not believe you are correct. That’s respect, regardless of whether your belief is “worthy.” I won’t insult you for that belief. I would appreciate the same consideration. And your “No person anywhere, at any time, should believe in a god or gods, or in tooth fairies or any other man-made myth” would lead to a atheistic-theocratic secular society. If we had to mandate a single belief system in the US, it would overwhelmingly vote Christian, not atheist. Wouldn’t you be offended if I said, “Every person anywhere, at any time, should believe in God.” You’d ask by what right I had to impose that on you. You’re saying the same thing to me.

    d) Post 13: Al, I use both. Personal evidence and historical, independent evidence. The “personal evidence” that comes with accepting Christ was only to show why *my* faith is unshakeable. Christians believe that every good thing comes from God, and what many to be fantastic coincidences are actually miracles. If you have personal evidence that “invisible hot dogs” are directly impacting your life, great. I’ll email you some hot dog buns. Just because I believe in God does not mean I have to believe in every intangible being. Only God has had an impact in my life and has documented and independent historical record. And as for “I refuse to respect the opinions or ideas of others unless they’re deserving of respect. Bad ideas and opinions should be treated as such,” how would you feel if I felt the same about your opinions? I treat atheists, Hindus, wiccans, and Muslims that are not currently trying to kill me with respect, even though I do not agree with their beliefs. Why do you not extend the same courtesy?

    e) Post #15: Exactly, Dan. I recognize that conservative Christians can come across as being judgmental. That character trait, though, is not limited to Christians. When Christians do it, though, we’re hypocritical. When atheists do it, there is nothing hypocritical about it, but that doesn’t mean it’s right.

    Like

    Reply
  18. Al Lang Avatar
    Al Lang

    “And as for “I refuse to respect the opinions or ideas of others unless they’re deserving of respect. Bad ideas and opinions should be treated as such,” how would you feel if I felt the same about your opinions? I treat atheists, Hindus, wiccans, and Muslims that are not currently trying to kill me with respect, even though I do not agree with their beliefs. Why do you not extend the same courtesy?”

    As Dennis stated before, don’t confuse not respecting the opinion with not respecting the person. They’re completely different.
    Also don’t confuse the right to have the opinion, with respect for the opinion.
    Does everyone have a right to their opinion? Yes of course, and I will defend their right to it.
    Respect humans (even those that I disagree with) and their rights? Absolutely. But I still won’t respect your opinion unless it’s worth respecting.

    How would I feel if you didn’t respect my opinions? Well I certainly wouldn’t take offense. Quite the contrary. I’d want to know why you didn’t respect them. Much more importantly, I’d want you to point out the flaws in my reasoning that led me to that opinion. Not only do I invite this, I often seek it out.
    I want people to critique my ideas. I want my opinions to be challenged. That’s how I get better at thinking. My opinions and ideas are always subject to change. I don’t want to stagnate.

    You said that all you needed was personal evidence for god. I don’t respect that opinion. Nor should you or anyone respect my opinion that I have personal evidence for Invisible Hot Dogs. It’s flawed reasoning. That’s what I was trying to show. Personal evidence is not enough. If it were, then anything goes.

    That’s all I have time for right now. I’m sure I’ll comment more later.

    Like

    Reply
  19. Michael Avatar
    Michael

    Al, I understand that. After my own due diligence, I find it would be harder to believe in atheism than in *some* sort of God. A universe that creates itself out of nothing or is some sort of spontaneous burp that leads to birds and plants and water and an ecosystem requires a leap of faith. The 2nd law of thermodynamics essentially says everything tends toward disorder. And orchid is too pretty to believe that it’s random disorder. It’s easier to believe that *something* is behind it.

    And I believe our God the creator is it, based on what I perceive in our world with my own eyes, historical records of Christ’s miracles and the disciples that were crucified in His name, the peace that I see in true believers and the personal miracles I’ve seen in my own life.

    Like

    Reply
  20. Dennis Keller Avatar
    Dennis Keller

    Wow! Where does one begin? Oh, well. I’ll just pick something and get rolling. There is so much to respond to!

    As you can see in this little discussion, both believers & nonbelievers, liberal & conservative, seem to have problems understanding that the free expression of opinions, including the opinion that any one idea is better than others, is not in any way hostile to the RIGHTS of individuals to hold them.

    Wouldn’t we all be rich if we had a dollar for every time we heard someone say someone has “a right to their opinion”?! Well, you will never hear me say that!

    But you will hear me say this: “I have a right to YOUR opinion too!”

    And you will hear me say this: (Part 1)”Everyone, everywhere, should believe what I believe or else I will conclude they are mistaken…”

    Now, I can just see the hair on all of your backs raising as you read what you think is one of the most arrogant statements you’ve ever seen. But of course, it is no such thing, because it is exactly the position everyone, everywhere should take if they truly care about ideas. It is the position that private truths are invalid because anything would be permitted, and it is the position that is intellectually honest, which can be demonstrated fairly easily.

    If you believe something because you think it is true, then on what grounds would you not want others to believe it? Again, I remind you to fight the urge; no one is telling you you MUST believe it – where people get the idea that oughts and shoulds are fascistic laws is baffling (or as Michael said: ‘And your “No person anywhere, at any time, should believe in a god or gods, or in tooth fairies or any other man-made myth” would lead to a atheistic-theocratic secular society.’ Yikes, Michael! Where do you get this stuff?! Now, I would certainly like to get to a secular society, but I’d prefer to get there by successfully raising public understanding to such heights that enough people were reasonably good critical thinkers to see rubbish for what it is! I want better ideas to win!)

    Now, of course, if you have what you think is a better idea, then you must present it as the one all of us should consider, assuming you can support it with reasoning and evidence which is of higher quality than that in support of conflicting ideas. This is where part 2 of my arrogant statement comes in, with part 1 in front: “Everyone, everywhere, should believe what I believe or else I will conclude they are mistaken, UNLESS I can be convinced that *I* am mistaken.” It is simply logically necessary that we should all strive to be compelled by the best ideas rather than preferring comforting fictions and getting insulted when they are criticised. The best way to grow is by WANTING & INVITING criticism, by jumping the highest hurdles presented, by reading the best presentations of opposing views, by daring your ideas to survive; NOT by having unshakable convictions and “personal” evidence combined with a total lack of understanding of other views, and certainly not by *preferring* a certain view to the extent you dismiss or are willfully ignorant of better ideas!

    So you can see why the question Michael asks– “how would you feel if I felt the same about your opinions?” — does not present the problem he thinks it does. As Al explained, that is exactly the way we want Michael and anyone else who disagrees with us to feel! We want our bad ideas refuted, dissected, and replaced with better ones. Ours are NOT unshakable; if new and better information comes along we revise our views. We are amenable in principle to new lines of reasoning and understanding that we may not have considered.

    And it is precisely by using this type of thinking that we have arrived at our disrespect for the hollow and ill informed case that believers present. When it comes to the religious question, the difference in the opposing sides is stark. As Michael has so richly, but unintentionally illustrated, there is no case whatsoever for a reasonable person to believe. However, as to whether he or anyone else in this discussion can or will take the time to avail themselves of the abundant information proving this, it is beyond our control.

    Many millions of people believe things which are not true. Many millions of people all over the world are not trained to think critically. This is why they hide behind personal truths and faith.

    I’d like to suggest a book entitled “How To Think About Weird Things” by Theodore Schick & Lewis Vaughn. I don’t know if it is still in print, but it is worth trying to find.

    Again, I could go on with a line-by-line demolition of the numerous mistakes above, but I’ll cite just a few:

    – Michael has trouble believing in a universe without a god but does not think about the added complexity of accounting for where this being came from. Here is a quote from British scientist Richard Dawkins concerning that: “For a long time it seemed clear to just about everybody that the beauty and elegance of the world seemed to be prima facie evidence for a divine creator. But the philosopher David Hume already realized three centuries ago that this was a bad argument. It leads to an infinite regression. You can’t statistically explain improbable things like living creatures by saying that they must have been designed because you’re still left to explain the designer, who must be, if anything, an even more statistically improbable and elegant thing. Design can never be an ultimate explanation for anything. It can only be a proximate explanation. A plane or a car is explained by a designer but that’s because the designer himself, the engineer, is explained by natural selection.”

    – Michael thinks we’re suggesting an orchid came about by “random disorder”, showing a complete misunderstanding of the evolutionary process, which is NOT random. Here is another quote from Dawkins: “This is a spectacular misunderstanding. If it was random, then of course it couldn’t possibly have given rise to the fantastically complicated and elegant forms that we see. Natural selection is the important force that drives evolution. Natural selection is about as non-random a force as you could possibly imagine. It can’t work unless there is some sort of variation upon which to work. And the source of variation is mutation. Mutation is random only in the sense that it is not directed specifically toward improvement. It is natural selection that directs evolution toward improvement. Mutation is random in that it’s not directed toward improvement.

    The idea that evolution itself is a random process is a most extraordinary travesty. I wonder if it’s deliberately put about maliciously or whether these people honestly believe such a preposterous absurdity. Of course evolution isn’t random. It is driven by natural selection, which is a highly non-random force.”

    Of course Michael and other believers *prefer* that all good things like orchids were put on this world by some well-intentioned being for our benefit, but the idea is childish! And I suppose he is right when he says it is easier to believe that *something* is behind our creation (which explains why that is the more common view), so I suggest he not take the easy road, do the hard work, and improve his understanding! It is not easy, but it is worth the effort and truly liberating!

    Like

    Reply
  21. Courtney Avatar
    Courtney

    What a boring place this would be if we all thought the same.

    Like

    Reply
  22. Michael Avatar
    Michael

    I thank you for the discussion, though I do not agree on your assessment that I “so richly, but unintentionally illustrated [that] there is no case whatsoever for a reasonable person to
    believe.” I’ve given two examples of prominent, intelligent people who believe (Charles Townes and Albert Einstein), as well as my reasons. Just because *you* don’t believe doesn’t mean reasonable people can’t.

    And as long as you’re into book recommendations, I’d suggest “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist.” There’s a book graphic link on the sidebar you can click. Among other things, it points out Hume’s fallacy that argue against God can often be argued against atheism. Hume himself fell into dispair [David Hume, Treatise on Human Nature, ed. L.A. Selby-Bigge (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951; first published in 1739), p. 269.], saying “Where am I, or what? From what causes do I derive my existence, and to what condition shall I return? Whose favour shall I court, and whose anger must I dread? What beings surround me? and on whom have I any influence, or who have any influence on me? I am confounded with all these questions, and begin fancy myself in the most deplorable condition imaginable, inviron’d with the deepest darkness, and utterly depriv’d of the use of every member and faculty.” Clearly, atheism wasn’t working for him either.

    I reject the “natural selection …giving rise to fantastically complicated and elegant forms.” It violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics which leads to disorder, and so now you have two conflicting rules of science. Regardless of the way you resolve it, it doesn’t ask who created the laws of thermodynamics, who created natural selection, and who can resolve the inherent conflict between the two.

    Your last paragraph was insulting. I am neither childish nor uninformed about my faith. On the contrary, I study nearly daily. If study alone is necessary to become enlightened, then I considered a learned theologian to be the most enlightened.

    Like

    Reply
  23. Dennis Keller Avatar
    Dennis Keller

    “What a boring place this would be if we all thought the same.”

    Yeah. Sure is boring all this agreement, like on gravity, for example. Wish somebody would come up with a more interesting take on why objects fall to the ground. We need some “diversity”!! I, mean, like, it doesn’t really matter if its true or not; just, you know, like, different.

    And Michael! Either you don’t pay attention, and repeat things as if they had not been addressed, or you simply don’t understand what is being said. And you are grossly ignorant of science. Ideally, facts should serve as the basis upon which you build your beliefs; clearly in your case and those of believers I talk to, your beliefs predispose you to misinterpret the facts. You can and should do better!

    I wish you both well. You have a lot to learn, but first you must learn to want to learn. As Marks & Kammann said, “Our beliefs are not automatically updated by the best evidence available. They often have an active life of their own and fight tenaciously for their survival.”

    Like

    Reply
  24. Michael Avatar
    Michael

    Straw man argument. I never disagreed that gravity exists. I merely asked who created gravity in the first place.

    While most of your tone is polite, please don’t denigrate your host. I pay attention, I understand. You do not agree with me, and salvation issues aside, I have no problem with you choosing not to believe in God. Call me “grossly ignorant” again or impugn my intelligence and your posting privileges will be removed. Faith and intelligence are not contradictory.

    While my beliefs affect my view of the facts, so do yours. You are predisposed to see no evidence of God, and therefore you don’t.

    Ephesians 4:18. “Their closed minds are full of darkness; they are far away from the life of God because they have shut their minds and hardened their hearts against him.”

    Like

    Reply
  25. Dennis Keller Avatar
    Dennis Keller

    The gravity comment was a response to Courtney. My guess is she is on the young side, as her comments consistently reflect the views of someone at an earlier stage of philosophical growth; well-meaning but naive. She can do better and probably will.

    She also describes herself as a nonbeliever, then comments to me “However, I have not seen any convincing evidence to support your view point.”

    Uhhh, Courtney? Aren’t >believers

    Like

    Reply
  26. Dennis Keller Avatar
    Dennis Keller

    Oh well. Wrote some great stuff but it apparently got lost.

    Like

    Reply
  27. Michael Avatar
    Michael

    I’ll take your word for it. 😛

    Like

    Reply
  28. Michelle Malkin » “WHERE SCIENCE AND FAITH COEXIST”

    […] Chasing the Wind […]

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment

About Me

Michael, a sinner saved by grace, sharing what the good Lord has shared with me.

Solomon, in the book of Ecclesiastes, said, “I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.”

If you’re not living for the glory of God, then what you’re doing is meaningless, no matter what it is. Living for God gives life meaning, and enjoying a “chasing after the wind” is a gift from God. I’m doing what I can to enjoy this gift daily.

Got questions? I’m not surprised. If you have any questions about Chasing the Wind, you can email me at chasingthewind@outlook.com.

Recent Posts

  • The Gifts of the Magi, the Gift of Our Savior
    I.             Introduction: How Did the Magi Know? Back in 2015, I traveled a lot more than I do today, and in December 2015, I found myself in the grand metropolis of Otley, UK.  Now in the UK, I don’t know if they know what a warm sunny day is, but that weekend, the rain had… Read more: The Gifts of the Magi, the Gift of Our Savior
  • Giving Thanks at Thanksgiving
      I.      Introduction The air is filled with the warm aromas of a hearty feast, families gather around tables laden with dishes like roast turkey, sweet potatoes, and green bean casserole. Expressions of gratitude echo through the air during this festive season, as traditions like cranberry sauce and dressing bring family and friends together.  Beyond… Read more: Giving Thanks at Thanksgiving
  • God Knows Us Intimately
                 I.      Introduction Psalm 139 Today I want to take a moment to reflect not on headlines or controversies, but on the foundational truth that every life is known and loved by God.  In Psalm 139, David meditates not on theological jargon, but on the overwhelming reality of God’s personal involvement with His creation. Psalm… Read more: God Knows Us Intimately
  • Blessings for Those Who Fear the Lord
    The content reflects on Psalm 128, emphasizing that true success is found in reverence for the Lord, rather than societal measures like wealth or titles. It illustrates how blessings extend from individual faith to family and community, advocating for a life focused on God’s guidance. Happiness arises through obedience and faithful living.
  • Trust in the Lord
                 I.      Introduction Initial Discussion:  Do you ever get discouraged? What situation have you been in that discouraged you—job loss, health issues, family matters? When my last company a few years back started downsizing, the days were discouraging.  I said goodbye to co-workers daily.  They stop by my office, shake my hand, say it’s been… Read more: Trust in the Lord

Newsletter