Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God


Nerian

Recommended Posts

Article: Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God

http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself.

I probably shouldn't be shocked by this article, but it's hard for me to place myself in the mind's of those who cling to the supernatural. Maybe Peikoff is right. Maybe the rise of religion is the real threat of the 21st century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article: Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God

http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself.

I probably shouldn't be shocked by this article, but it's hard for me to place myself in the mind's of those who cling to the supernatural. Maybe Peikoff is right. Maybe the rise of religion is the real threat of the 21st century.

It won't fly. Suppose the cosmos has always existed in some form or another. That is logically possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the May, 1962 edition of The Objectivist Newsletter

by Nathaniel Branden:

Question: Since everything in the universe requires a cause, must not the universe itself have a cause, which is god?
Answer: There are two basic fallacies in this argument. The first is the assumption that, if the universe required a causal explanation, the positing of a "god" would provide it. To posit god as the creator of the universe is only to push the problem back one step farther: Who then created god? Was there a still earlier god who created the god in question? We are thus led to an infinite regress - the very dilemma that the positing of a "god" was intended to solve. But if it is argued that no one created god, that god does not require a cause, that god has existed eternally - then on what grounds is it denied that the universe has existed eternally?

It is true that there cannot be an infinite series of antecedent causes. But recognition of this fact should lead one to reappraise the validity of the initial question, not to attempt to answer it by stepping outside the universe into some gratuitously invented supernatural dimension.

This leads to the second and more fundamental fallacy in this argument: the assumption that the universe as a whole requires a causal explanation. It does not. The universe is the total of which exists. Within the universe, the emergence of new entities can be explained in terms of the actions of entities that already exist: The cause of a tree is the seed of the parent tree; the cause of a machine is the purposeful reshaping of matter by men. All actions presuppose the existence of entities - and all emergences of new entities presuppose the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. Nothing does not exist. causality presupposes existence, existence does not presuppose causality . There can be no cause "outside" of existence or "anterior" to it. The forms of existence may change and evolve, but the fact of existence is the irreducible primary at the base of all casual chains.

Existence-not "god"-is the First Cause.
Just as the concept of a causality applies to events and entities within the universe, but no to the universe as a whole - so the concept of time applies to events and entities within the universe, but no to the universe as a whole. The universe did not "begin" - it did not, at some point in time, "spring into being." Time is a measurement of motion. Motion presupposes entities that move. If nothing existed, there could be no time. Time is "in" the universe; the universe is not "in" time.

The man who asks: "Where did existence come from?" or "What caused it?" is the man who has never grasped that existence exists. This is the mentality of a savage or mystic who regards existence as some sort of incomprehensible miracle - and seeks to "explain" it by reference to nonexistence.
Existence is all that exists, the nonexistent does not exist; there is nothing for existence to have come out of - and nothing means nothing. If you are tempted to ask: "What's outside the universe?" - recognize that you are asking; "What's outside of existence?" and that the idea of "something outside of existence" is a contradiction in terms; nothing is outside of existence, and "nothing" is not just another kind of "something" - it is nothing. Existence exists; you cannot go outside it; you cannot get under it, on top of it, or behind it. Existence exists - and only existence exists: There is nowhere else to go."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Existence-not "god"-is the First Cause.

Just as the concept of a causality applies to events and entities within the universe, but no to the universe as a whole - so the concept of time applies to events and entities within the universe, but no to the universe as a whole. The universe did not "begin" - it did not, at some point in time, "spring into being." Time is a measurement of motion. Motion presupposes entities that move. If nothing existed, there could be no time. Time is "in" the universe; the universe is not "in" time.

The man who asks: "Where did existence come from?" or "What caused it?" is the man who has never grasped that existence exists. This is the mentality of a savage or mystic who regards existence as some sort of incomprehensible miracle - and seeks to "explain" it by reference to nonexistence.

Existence is all that exists, the nonexistent does not exist; there is nothing for existence to have come out of - and nothing means nothing. If you are tempted to ask: "What's outside the universe?" - recognize that you are asking; "What's outside of existence?" and that the idea of "something outside of existence" is a contradiction in terms; nothing is outside of existence, and "nothing" is not just another kind of "something" - it is nothing. Existence exists; you cannot go outside it; you cannot get under it, on top of it, or behind it. Existence exists - and only existence exists: There is nowhere else to go."

What abut an infinitely regressing chain of causes? Turtles all the way down. Big Bangs all the way back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This Wall Street Journal column is a relatively slick scam by the experienced religious con artist Eric Metaxas. I read thru over a hundred of the comment letters, and not one of them persuasively refuted his essay. I find the astronomically-unlikely/miraculous "Goldilocks" theory of life and existence, which he posits, to be relatively interesting intellectually. I hope real scientists, physicists, and cosmologists will address this idea soon, especially as he presents it here. But if he wants science to seriously come to the aid of religion he's going to need a few more miracles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1962 Nathaniel Branden wrote:

"This is the mentality of a savage or mystic who regards existence as some sort of incomprehensible miracle - and seeks to "explain" it by reference to nonexistence."

No, this is the mentality of the honestly philosophically ignorant dealing with a non-obvious and difficult series of ideas. Branden's is the mentality of the religioso and cultist who attempts to intellectually intimidate and silence the innocent and good by wildly unjustly calling them "mystics" and "savages". Branden is immorally attempting to cut off discussion and debate in mindless and malicious fealty to the cultist version of the philosophy of Objectivism. And even 52 years later, and from the grave -- he's doing a really good job of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1962 Nathaniel Branden wrote:

"This is the mentality of a savage or mystic who regards existence as some sort of incomprehensible miracle - and seeks to "explain" it by reference to nonexistence."

No, this is the mentality of the honestly philosophically ignorant dealing with a non-obvious and difficult series of ideas. Branden's is the mentality of the religioso and cultist who attempts to intellectually intimidate and silence the innocent and good by wildly unjustly calling them "mystics" and "savages". Branden is immorally attempting to cut off discussion and debate in mindless and malicious fealty to the cultist version of the philosophy of Objectivism. And even 52 years later, and from the grave -- he's doing a really good job of it.

Nathan might have gotten the term "savages" from Rand. She often used that term in her writings.

-J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1962 Nathaniel Branden wrote:

"This is the mentality of a savage or mystic who regards existence as some sort of incomprehensible miracle - and seeks to "explain" it by reference to nonexistence."

No, this is the mentality of the honestly philosophically ignorant dealing with a non-obvious and difficult series of ideas. Branden's is the mentality of the religioso and cultist who attempts to intellectually intimidate and silence the innocent and good by wildly unjustly calling them "mystics" and "savages". Branden is immorally attempting to cut off discussion and debate in mindless and malicious fealty to the cultist version of the philosophy of Objectivism. And even 52 years later, and from the grave -- he's doing a really good job of it.

It is certainly a non-sequiteur, but that doesn't mean that the man who asks it isn't a mystic or a savage. It all comes down to whether there is honesty or dishonesty behind the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is certainly a non-sequiteur, but that doesn't mean that the man who asks it isn't a mystic or a savage. It all comes down to whether there is honesty or dishonesty behind the question.

The question "Why does anything exist" can be quite honestly asked, But it is a futile unanswerable question. Any question that has an answer requires the existence of some domain from which the answer flows. If anything exists then something must exist and there is no why.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK… but with galaxies like grains of sand, once we of the inquiring mind open the metaphysical door, someone wants us to accept that this "god" entity cares who rules at Jerusalem, who shook Peter's hand, cares which temples Sikhs take from Hindus and on and on… If it were just the ontological question mark, no one would be blowing themselves up - which would be fine, perhaps, but they kill other people in the process.

How come the students of Einstein do not bomb the Bierstuben where Heisenberg's students hang out? When human chromosomes were found to be 46, not 48, as previously thought, no one declared 46 anathema and called a fatwah clinging to 48 as the only right number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is certainly a non-sequiteur, but that doesn't mean that the man who asks it isn't a mystic or a savage. It all comes down to whether there is honesty or dishonesty behind the question.

The question "Why does anything exist" can be quite honestly asked, But it is a futile unanswerable question. Any question that has an answer requires the existence of some domain from which the answer flows. If anything exists then something must exist and there is no why.

Ba'al Chatzaf

It can be honestly asked for sure, but it can't be honestly sustained. My experience, generally, with Christians faced with contradictions in their beliefs is that they revert to "Who are we to know God". I haven't really found a fully honest Christian yet. It seems to be the same pretty much with Socialists. Their evasion might not constitute the act of a savage, but it does ultimately lead to the ascension of savagery. It would help to determine just what it takes to be a savage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How come the students of Einstein do not bomb the Bierstuben where Heisenberg's students hang out?

Michael,

Unfortunately, go broad and metaphorical a little and this happens all too often.

Get a bloody dictator to pay wages and grants to a "student of Einstein" and said student will invent massively destructive weapons, enhanced delivery mechanisms to increase mass death, delivery routines and procedures to make the intended death reliable, and, if needed, will help in the delivering.

A "student of Einstein" is easily capable of wreaking far more death than any suicide bomber. And some do.

That's an improvement over "savages" who try to follow a fictional storyline?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A "student of Einstein" is easily capable of wreaking far more death than any suicide bomber. And some do.

That's an improvement over "savages" who try to follow a fictional storyline?

Michael

For example the crew of scientists and engineers on the Manhattan Project. As Robert Oppehheimer said: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds" and Enrico Fermi was said so have said: "Now I am become a son of a bitch".

These folks were not bad, but they ended up with blood on their hands, right up to their armpits.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article: Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God

http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself.

I probably shouldn't be shocked by this article, but it's hard for me to place myself in the mind's of those who cling to the supernatural. Maybe Peikoff is right. Maybe the rise of religion is the real threat of the 21st century.

The article is behind the WSJ paywall, but I found a summary and discussion here: http://www.biznews.com/thought-leaders/2014/12/31/eric-metaxas-wsj-article-showing-how-science-now-supports-the-existence-of-god/ And you can find more of Metaxas's works online.

The assertion suffers from two flaws.

First, the more we learn about the world, the farther away heaven gets. We no longer expect angels sitting on clouds just out of Nimrod's bowshot. (Just to note, Medieval astronomers computed the sphere of Saturn's motion as being one billion miles away; the fixed stars were the next sphere; and beyond them was Heaven.) Now, God is beyond the galaxies or out in trans-dimensional space-time.

Second, I can accept that the Earth was created; that life was put here to unfold. After all, how must ants perceive our homes? But any such creators would only be another class of natural entities, not One Supreme Supernatural Being. I think of the line in Cosmos, where Ellie Arroway asks how the wormholes were built, and her guide says, "They were here when we found them." Tales of the Spaceport Bar or Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, we can imagine much - but prove less.

You could make a religionist claim for miracles in medicine. Why do plagues and epidemics not kill everyone? During the Great Influenza of 1918, in the USA alone over 100,000 people died. Everyone would have died, but God miraculously intervened. Then quote a medical doctor who said, "The recovery was miraculous. Thank God."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoyed this article by Derek Parfit on the subject,

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v20/n02/derek-parfit/why-anything-why-this

Bill Vallicella has a good discussion of the Objectivist "arguments" against God -

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/07/allan-gotthelf-on-ayn-rand-on-the-existence-of-god.html

-Neil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article: Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God

http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself.

I probably shouldn't be shocked by this article, but it's hard for me to place myself in the mind's of those who cling to the supernatural. Maybe Peikoff is right. Maybe the rise of religion is the real threat of the 21st century.

The article is behind the WSJ paywall, but I found a summary and discussion here: http://www.biznews.com/thought-leaders/2014/12/31/eric-metaxas-wsj-article-showing-how-science-now-supports-the-existence-of-god/ And you can find more of Metaxas's works online.

The assertion suffers from two flaws.

First, the more we learn about the world, the farther away heaven gets. We no longer expect angels sitting on clouds just out of Nimrod's bowshot. (Just to note, Medieval astronomers computed the sphere of Saturn's motion as being one billion miles away; the fixed stars were the next sphere; and beyond them was Heaven.) Now, God is beyond the galaxies or out in trans-dimensional space-time.

Second, I can accept that the Earth was created; that life was put here to unfold. After all, how must ants perceive our homes? But any such creators would only be another class of natural entities, not One Supreme Supernatural Being. I think of the line in Cosmos, where Ellie Arroway asks how the wormholes were built, and her guide says, "They were here when we found them." Tales of the Spaceport Bar or Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, we can imagine much - but prove less.

You could make a religionist claim for miracles in medicine. Why do plagues and epidemics not kill everyone? During the Great Influenza of 1918, in the USA alone over 100,000 people died. Everyone would have died, but God miraculously intervened. Then quote a medical doctor who said, "The recovery was miraculous. Thank God."

The "God of the Gaps" is fast running out of space to hide in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now