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.
Lust, the problem with theistic evolution
Sin. That’s the problem with theistic evolution and progressive creationism. For simplicity, let’s focus on sexual lust. Sexual lust, defined in the Ten Commandments as coveting your neighbors wife, is clearly a “natural” phenomena. Just look at the rut of the whitetail deer, some bucks don’t even take time to eat when the does are in heat! They battle other males and chase does in a frenzy of lust. Of course, this scenario is repeated throughout the animal kingdom. Interestingly, the Bible also refers to sin as “natural”:
But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth. This wisdom is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, natural, demonic (James 3:14-15, NAS).
I am aware that there are ways that this can be reconciled with old earth creationism or theistic evolution. Perhaps the story of Adam and Eve refers to the time when god made man aware of himself and his will, and that is when lust became sin.
If lust occured before the fall, even in pre-humans, then we lust, not because of the fall, but because of our physiology, and because of millions of years of evolutionary genetic conditioning. We sin, not because of the fall, but because it has been part of us forever. We sin, not because we have inherited a “sin” nature, but because we were made that way. Sin entering the world then refers only to the commandment entering the world. This hardly seems the Biblical picture. Did God come to man and proclaim that what he had always done ammorally was now to be considered immoral? Did God come to already lustful creatures, so conditioned by millions of years of habit, and condemn them because they could not overcome the conditioning, conditioning that he oversaw? Or did he suddenly reveal to man the immorality of their nature, and proclaim that if he could not overcome it, he would be condemned?
This is the quagmire into which we plunge with theistic evolution and progressive creationsim. Only young earth creationism, Biblical literalism, can save us from this fate. God made Adam innocent, with the true ability to choose, without lust, and yet he turned to it. And lust, which had theretofore existed only in satan and the demons, entered the world, and spread to the animals.
Muad’dib and terrible purpose
Paul Atreides of Herbert’s Dune trilogy felt hemmed in, moved by some terrible purpose. He wondered if his prescience foretold the future, or made the future…
“At some faraway instant in a past which he had shared with others, this future had reached down to him. It had chivvied him and herded him into a chasm whose walls were growing narrower and narrower. He could feel them closing in on him. This was the way the vision went.”
Is this how it is with all of us? It is, if Camus is right. If we should live in such a way so as to maximize our own sense of fulfillment and minimize our own negative feelings, then we are constrained, confined by our past and its influence on our personality. Our decisions today will be determined by the events of our past and the imprint they have left on us. If I was brought up in a Judeo-Christian system, then I must make my decisions accordingly, or else face my own dissatisfaction and feelings of guilt or dishonor. If I act according to my conscience, then I feel fulfilled. Of course, this is an oversimplification. There are also basic natural impulses that come into play, but all of these fit together to fix the course that my life “should” take, if I live for for no higher purpose.
In fact, my life emerges from nothing, like a termite mound, its shape reflecting the balance of forces in my psyche and environment, and those forces emerging from the same process. And all is without true purpose. It is self-organizing, self-created. Alone. Pointless. But growing, advancing, like fate. It is fate, I suppose.
Meursault’s Meaning, Camus’ Conundrum
I just finished listening to The Stranger by Camus. It has moved me a bit closer, I think, to clarity on this whole issue of meaning. The main character, Meursault, is clearly reduced to an animal by his philosophy. He lives only for the sensual, the immediate. How is this different from the animal, the beast?
This much is clear from the book. This does not match the analysis which followed. In interview with an “existentialism scholar” followed the book. He tried (in vain) to explain Camus ethic and his “positive” outlook on life, how Camus believed that the search for meaning was the problem, and that “life” is found in coming to grips with the absurdity of life. I still can’t grasp this. Sure, I can imagine living for today, for the feelings, but I cannot see how this is better than the alternative.
Strange, what Solomon wrote…
I said to myself concerning the sons of men, “God has surely tested them in order for them to see that they are but beasts (Eccl 3:18, NAS).
