Why atheism is impractical
I have been thinking a lot lately about how to build an atheistic ethic. Sure, I can see how one could try to live so as to maximize one’s own pleasure or sense of fulfillment, and one could argue that a traditional ethic is the best way to do this, etc., etc. But I’m just not seeing it. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think so. If there is no God and no immortality, then I cannot see a way to develop a satisfying ethic, a meaningful rule of life.
It seems to me that things like honor, justice, and love disintegrate without God and immortality. They become the motions of atoms and molecules. I have even tried to imagine how they might be more than that in a materialistic universe. Perhaps, I have thought, they “emerged” from materialistic processes, but have become something more, a higher order, higher level law, but this to is unsatisfying. I don’t find it compelling that I should be “ethical” because some impersonal higher law demands it.
Granted, I may want to be ethical if that is the way to live with the most fulfillment or pleasure, but that is where it stops and that is all there is to it. For some reason I find an ethic that arises from a personal creator who will reward me in this life and the next for ethical behavior, and with whom I can have a personal relationship, to be much more satisfying.
Of course, none of this proves or disproves atheism and theism, but neither is it without value in considering the options.
Presuming Atheism?
It is no wonder that the scientific community eschews Intelligent Design. Nor is it any wonder that they find no “evidence” for God through “science”. The current scientific paradigm is founded upon the presupposition of naturalism/materialism. Naturalistic explanations are always seen as preferable to supernatural, no matter how far-fetched the natural explanations are. In fact, the supernatural can never be invoked, it is ruled out by definition.
This has a couple of consequences. First, a person devoted to the current paradigm will never see evidence of God. Secondly, the seeker of God should not expect to find evidence using the current scientific paradigm. This is not to say there can be no evidence, only that the current scientific system rules it out by definition.
The Bible claims that there is “evidence”, but certainly does not endorse the “scientific” worldview.
What does this mean? The scientist looks at some event or object and is restricted by his paradigm to seek a naturalistic explanation. he may claim that he would believe in a supernatural one if it were impossible to find a natural one, but this is simply not true. He would never believe this, because the current paradigm of science seeks only naturalistic explanations, and any failure to find one only results in a patient wait for a future success. Thus, there can never be any evidence for God. Likewise, if some event in his life seems to indicate the touch of a personal being on his life, he will of course suppose it to be mere coincidence or a psychological phenomenon. he must do this, if he is committed to the paradigm.
The “natural” is really just code for “not-supernatural”, or rather, not caused by a divine person.
Thomas Jefferson on the fruit of science…
I was listening to Bennett’s “Our Sacred Honor” this morning. He quotes from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams that contains Jefferson’s musings on the value of science:
As for France, and England, with all their preeminence in science, the one is a den of robbers, and the other of pirates, as if science produces no better fruits than tyranny, murder, rapine and destitution of national morality. I would rather wish our country to be ignorant, honest and estimable as our neighboring savages.
I feel the same way, and I do not doubt that those evils listed by Jefferson are indeed the fruits of science.
Expelled!–due out April 18th!
The new movie starring ben Stein hopes to expose the bias and censorship in the mainstream scientific community. I hope that many will see it and realize that science has not disproved religion, but replaced it. Check out their website. I especially like the “Big Science” concept–very appropriate. From the website:
At Big Science Academy we take our motto seriously: “No Intelligence Allowed.”
And this year, we are proud to report that in every subject but Science, students and faculty are free to challenge ideas, and seek truth wherever it may lead.
But Science is different. In Science, there is no room for dissent, for dissent is dangerous. That is why we at Big Science simply refuse to allow it. Like dancing, “dissent” can lead to other things.
I think Thomas Kuhn would agree. In discussing science education, he remarks:
Of course, it is a narrow and rigid education, probably more so than any other except perhaps orthodox theology (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, p. 166).
In fact, according to Kuhn, science insulates itself from views that lie outside of the currently accepted paradigm. The current scientific paradigm determines the questions that can be asked, and on that basis the scientific community decides whether new scientists will be accepted into the fold. This is exactly what is happening in the case of Intelligent Design. ID does not fit the current scientific paradigm, but a paradigms are not forever.
What if we were all wrong?
What if our current scientific view is all wrong? It’s happened before. James Clerk Maxwell once wrote that “the ether was the best confirmed entity in the whole of physical theory (Polkinghorne, John. Quantum Theory: A Very Short Introduction, p. 4)”.
In fact, there is no assurance that science provides an accurate picture of reality at all, or that it “progresses” toward a clearer and clearer picture of “reality”. Science works from within the prevailing paradigm of the day, a paradigm that dictates the questions that are allowed to be asked, and the methods used for solving them (Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). The progress of science toward clearer and clearer pictures of reality is an illusion created by the fact that the scientific community believes this. The scientific community perceives itself as ever progressing toward the “truth”, and so whenever changes in methodology or theory become accepted by the community, they are seen as progress.
If, for example, I accept quantum mechanics as the only way to find truth about atoms and sub-atomic particles, then anywhere the quantum mechanical method seems to be leading will appear as progress. QM will delimit the scope of inquiry, identify the problems to be solved, and dictate the methods acceptable for solving them. When QM successfully solves such problems, “progress” occurs. When QM overcame classical mechanics, it appeared to be progress because it opened up a broad new area of inquiry, and addressed problems that were outside the scope of classical mechanics. The illusion was strengthened by the fact that it could be made to fit with the now defunct, but still useful, classical theory. QM “works” not because it is closer to the truth, but because it is a package, complete with its own problems to be solved. And don’t forget, the Ptolomeic system of astronomy worked as well as the Copernican (Polanyi, Personal Knowledge), even the phlogiston theory of combustion worked well for many applications.
And as far as “working” is concerned, that really has more to do with the engineers than the scientific theory. I don’t think it was physicists who got us to the moon, but engineers. If scientists are involved in such processes, such as the Manhattan project, then they are doing engineering, not science. They develop equations and methods that work, regardless of how “true” they are.
So, it is quite possible that our current scientific understanding is all wrong, and this includes our understanding of evolution and the history of the earth. The truth may entail a very different paradigm.
The Parable of the Robot: More Musings on Meaning
There was were two robots, in two separate worlds. Both could feel, love, experience pain, heartache, joy. Both sensed honor and justice, good and evil. One was created by chance, by a machine. The other had been created by a human being, for the purpose of enjoying his fellowship.
The first robot made the best of what he had, and enjoyed the pleasures of life, seeking those circumstances which brought the most pleasurable feelings. He enjoyed his time with the other robots in his world, also made by chance and machine. Love and justice brought him a sense of fulfillment and pleasure, dishonor and hatred brought pain. Yet he knew that it was all just chance and machine. Thus he lived.
I am a robot, and my love and pain are the workings of a machine. My life is the operation of a mindless machine. Relationships between persons are the workings of a machine. The machine is fundamental.
The second robot lived much the same way, seeking to enjoy life, but he did so in the context of a relationship with his maker. Love and pain and justice and honor were not the chance productions of a machine, but the creations of his benefactor and friend. Thus he lived.
I am created by a person. I know this person. As I live and love, I have fellowship with him, and he with me. I am a person like him. My life is fundamentally a relationship between persons. Personality is fundamental.
Nehamiah’s Wall, Revisited
When I wrote my first post regarding Nehemiah’s Wall, I lacked a few interesting details. From Daniel 9:24-26 (NAS):
“Seventy ’sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy. ”Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ’sevens,’ and sixty-two ’sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. After the sixty-two ’sevens,’ the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing.
Taking the “sevens” to be seven years, Daniel says that there will be 483 years from the issuing of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem to the time when the Messiah is killed. Since the Jewish calender consisted of 12, 30-day months, this is equivalent to 476 of our years.
Nehemiah 2 records the decree of Artaxerxes, issued in that king’s twentieth year:
And I said to the king, “If it please the king, let letters be given me for the governors of the provinces beyond the River, that they may allow me to pass through until I come to Judah, and a letter to Asaph the keeper of the king’s forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the fortress which is by the temple, for the wall of the city and for the house to which I will go ” And the king granted them to me because the good hand of my God was on me.
Atrazerxes’ reign began in 464 B.C. (according to the Harper Atlas of the Bible, 1987), which puts the decree at 444 B.C. This decree is not to be confused with that of Cyrus, who decreed the reconstruction of the temple in Jerusalem at an earlier date (586 B.C.?).
The 444 B.C. date for the decree puts the date of the Messiah’s death at 32 AD, or right about the time of Christ’s crucification.
The book of Daniel was found among the famous Dead Sea scrolls, and cannot be dated after 125 B.C., even by critical scholars (Price, Randall. 1996. Secrets of the Dead Sea Scrolls). Of course, conservative Biblical scholars claim it is from the sixth century BC, which is what the book itself seems to claim. Liberal scholars cannot accept such an early date because they cannot accept the existance to true prophecy. Daniel contains detailed prophecies about the empires of Persia, Greece, and Rome. In any case, it predates the coming of Christ by more than 150 years.
