A: We are both superfluous.
Possibly both irrelevant. I saw an ad for a book billed as 'the most controversial book of the year' which sadly was not titled 'Shirley Temple's Pussy' or anything actually controversial, but instead it was 'The Genisis Enigma'. There's also a high profile book called 'The Case for God'. Both seem centered around the 'definitional retreat' logical fallacy which in my book is an admission of defeat.
Of course the slew of books promoting Atheism that came out last year, I happily admit was overkill. 'The God Delusion' was thorough enough to necessitate a few decades of responses without needing 'Adams vs. God' 'Letter to a Christian Nation', 'Irreligious', 'God is not Great' etc. Arguably, The God Delusion was the first response necessary after Bertrand Russell's 'Why I am not a Christian'.
The thing is, I've reached a point where for close to 10 years now I haven't been interested in whether god exists or not, that isn't I feel the productive debate. From what we can observe, I think the real question is 'does it matter if God does exist' and I think it an uncontroversial finding to say 'it doesn't'.
Now I'll break it down like Chapelle Corby's mental health.
Part 1: What science is.
Christian Science is an oxymoron. I'm not being facetious, ironic, vindictive or synical. I am using the strict technical definitions to say accurately that Christian Science is an oxymoron.
See what is perpetually ignored by supporters of creationism, intelligent design, theology, supreme beings, and spiritual realms is that the scientific method is a formal system. It is a mechanical process. It isn't sentient, it isn't an organisation, it's non-heirarchical, it isn't democratic. It is mindless, blind if you will.
It isn't that science doesn't want to support intelligent design it's that it can't
it motherfucking can't and still be called science.
So what is the scientific method?
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2] One of the first to clearly outline the specifics of a scientific method was John Stuart Mill.[3][4]
taken from wikipedia.
Of particular note is the 'observable, empirical and measurable evidence' this is why it is true to say that one can create a 'Big Bang Theory' and a 'God made the Heavens and the Earth' theory and science
can descriminate between which one gets taught in public schools.
It is because, there is objective empirical evidence for 'The Big Bang Theory' in the form of ancient radiation, that has been floating around the universe since its creation. They actually have recreated images of 'The Big Bang' occuring, Steven Hawking recieved a medal or some shit from the Vatican for figuring out how the big bang occured accompanied by objective empirical evidence along with a request to stop investigating it.
This applies to a broad range of miracles performed by God, for which no evidence of any sentient interference has ever been produced. For example, you or I can feel 'hot' we can also feel 'the presence of a higher power' you can measure 'hotness and coldness' by observing its effect on mecury particles in a glass tube for example. It's objective, somebody making the claim that they are in the presence of 'heat' can be proved using the same method, the same observation, the same experiment every single time.
You cannot observe the 'presence of a higher power' by any known objective means, the ectoplasmic detector from Ghostbusters does not exist, the presence of higher powers has been somewhat erroniously been given the definition of 'supernatural' whilst I feel 'subnatural' or 'non-natural' would suffice functionally simply because they are not natural phenomena that can be measured any way shape or how.
To put all that in lay terms, I'll tighten a conventional definition of 'experience' to 'an experience is any phenomena that acts upon the human nervous system.' if you can see, touch, hear, taste or smell something, it is natural phenomena, and you can detect them using instruments like a thermometer or something. Anything else is not natural phenomena and cannot be experienced.
This isn't to say that some mysterious being effects outcomes of experiences in real life that are beyond detection by any instruments or people's nervous systems. But because they can't be detected, predicted or documented in any objective way, they aren't science, and not worth worrying about, because, any information pertaining to these 'miracles' is of no help to predicting future miracles at all.
Bertrand Russell encapsulated this exact argument in this excerpt from 'The Analysis of The Mind':
There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago.
Which is logically true, but operatively it doesn't matter if this is the case, because if it is it's beyond our control, thus since we can act on an accurate but unreal remembered history even if it didn't exist, it simply doesn't matter if it is the case.
2. The Problem of Knowledge.
Which is to go from Bertrand, to Bertrand. There is a limitation of science in for example that it's much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much harder to know something
is, than to know something
isn't.
This was much of the subject of Taleb's book 'The Black Swan' pointing out that the apocryphal anecdote was one where prior to European colonization/discovery of the Australian continent, Europeans could have observed over and over again that 'All swans were white' and defined it as pretty much a law of nature. They could have written in their ornithology texts that 'This holds to be true: That a defining characteristic of the Swan is that its plumage is white in pigmentation.' and could have proved that with scientific methodology.
Then one day Sir Joseph Banks or someone stumbled upon a Black Swan in Australia somewhere and invalidated hundreds of years of scientific conclusions in one single observation.
That is the problem of knowledge, you only know something until disproven, thus in an infinite universe its entirely probible that simply everything exists.
Does this then mean that we should give scientific knowledge license to provide for the existence of purple swans? swans with tusks? Green swans with multiple heads? gigantic swans the size of the solar system?
No.
Again, the problem of knowledge is that tucked away in some corner of our infinite universe could be a sentient being with the means and capabilities to destroy our planet with a wall of fire, hear and comprehend our thoughts and answer our prayers if it so chooses, create life as we know it and whatever other 'powers' we ascribe to the various gods worshiped on earth. But since no such being has been detected, it has to be left out of science.
You see when supporters and members of the SETI program tell you that 'there's probably other intelligent life' out in the universe, they can actually calculate a reasonable probability based on observed phenomena by things like the hubble space telescope and the conditions that support life on earth.
They then calculate the distribution of potentially life sustaining planets relative to the uninhabitable planets and systems and conclude that there's so many of them, one of them is bound to have intelligent life on them.
But they don't know it. They just have faith based on what they do know.
So at the moment, scientific knowledge has it that homo-sapiens are the only creatures capable of transmitting encoded messages into space, manufacturing their own satellites or interplanetary transportation.
That's all we know.
Now, this problem of knowledge is two fold, there is A) stuff we think we know, but could be disproved with a single observation. and B) stuff we don't know.
The tradition has been to insert an un-scientific explanation into B. Then to use the possibility of unknown potential observation that could be made ie. God actively doing something, to try and discard A.
Doing the latter is kind of wasteful, for the sheer practical reason that until anything actually happens there isn't much use worrying about it. The former is the most troublesome, and has become increasingly troublesome for organised religion. The reason being that the bogus explanations keep getting refuted as the body of observed and explained natural phenomena gets larger.
So you go from Lightning bolts being forged by Hephaestus and hurled down by Zeus, to electrically charged particles accumulating under a variety of conditions, many involving friction, being discharged into the ground after making connection with a stream of positively charged ions.
Likewise you go from God making the earth 'in the dark' to quote Ricky Gervais, to a singularity exploding and expanding, superheated mass cooling to form stars which throw out different chemical elements that attract similar masses that gather and cool into planets that are then drawn into orbit around various other masses creating a complex web of 'heavenly bodies' that form the spiral galaxies, nebulas etc. that comprise what is known as the Universe.
Yes, to my knowledge, science doesn't know what the fuck the initial singularity was floating in. Apparantly people who know much much more physics and mathematics than I do, have theoretical proofs for string theory that suggests all reality is some type of membrane or some shit, and the probable cause of the big bang where two of these parallel membranes or 'universes' colliding.
Here is what is funny for a 'Christian Scientist' this 'membrane theory' is treated as 'more probable than a divine creator' in the abstract science of mathematics. Neither are known.
3. Explanation
Dawkins' used in his book terminology that I admit threw me off because I am an NBA fan. He talked about 'Cranes' vs 'Sky-hooks'. To me a sky-hook is where Kareem Abdul Jabbar gathers a basketball under his chin lines his shoulder up with the basket, bends his body like a straw, leaps as high as he can, extending his shooting arm upwards and tossing the ball primarily from the wrist moment down towards the basket. Exploiting the goal tending rule which says you cannot block a basketball shot during its downward arc towards the funnel of the basket, this shot was virtually indefensible.
That indefensibility is about all it has in common with 'Sky-hook' as applied to explanations. Here I'm more or less regurgitating exactly what I understand Dawkins to be saying in his book.
If you interpret these terms literally, as opposed to via pop-culture references, a 'Crane' is an explanation that is 'grounded' a crane sits on a huge stilt, based on the earth, has a huge arm with a system of motorized cables and pullies that can be used to lift construction materials from the ground to quite formidable heights.
A crane therefore is an acceptable explanation as to how someone could construct a skyscraper high rise building.
A 'sky-hook' is a mysterious hook that floats in the sky suspended by nothing observable that could be used in much the same way as a cranes hook can and thus could also suffice to 'explain' how a skyscraper was created.
The problem is that there is a functional difference between the explanation 'The petronus towers were built with the use of a crane' and 'the petronus towers were built with the use of a sky-hook'.
For one, somebody would probably accept the crane explanation at face value, its not a controversial explanation, because if that person has been in cities before, they would have seen cranes in action at some point in their life. It isn't improbable that someone may never have seen a crane, thus if they do ask 'what's a crane' it is easy to then
explain exactly how a crane works. You can even, if you have an engineering degree, explain it right down to the tensile strength of the trusses in the scaffolding and why they are welded and riveted in a particular way.
Someone though would be quite right to ask you 'what's a sky hook' because unless they are an NBA fan of the Show-time era Lakers, they would never have seen one. And Kareem Abdul Jabbar lobbing steel-trusses into place is about as plausible as a mysterious magical hook suspended in air by nothing, floating down and picking up the same steel cross beams and concrete mixers.
The point being that at the first level - explaining the presence of a skyscraper, both explanations appear to suffice. At the second level, explaining the presence of the explanations, it becomes a very different story.
What does this have to do with God? Well science only allows explanations that in themselves can be explained. But it does it in such a way as to allow an explanation to persist even if we don't wholly understand it, just so long as it can be observed. It doesn't allow explanations that can't be explained, or are harder to explaine than the gap in knowledge that they explain.
Thus thusly, you can explain the presence of the Universe/Reality (Something to my knowledge we don't understand) by saying it was designed by some intelligence. Except, then going a step further to explain how that intelligence came to be is actually far more complex than employing it as a 'simple' explanation.
For example, you could say that Computer Game - 'The Sims' was designed by the intelligent being 'Will Wright' but explaining the creation of Will Wright, is far more complex than the creation of 'The Sims'. You have to explain his education, his motives, the technolgical developments, his ancestry, the evolution of his species, the creation of the habitat in which his species evolved, the creation of the universe that contains the habitat, the zeitgeist for that universe being created etc. etc.
A lot of this can be done, thanks to the accumulation of scientific-knowledge, such that you get a pretty sturdy Crane explanation for how 'The Sims' title came to be.
God though, remains a sky hook, that as Dawkins points out 'even if life on earth was designed and seeded by an intelligent designer, you would then scientifically be stuck with having to explain how that intelligent designer came to be, and the simplest and most probable explanation is that that designer came to be through a process of evolution.'
Put simply, religious, or non-scientific explanations, are not explanations. They are generally eliminated by science as hypothesis, because under the principles of the scientific method, you can't just imagine up an explanation that can't be detected or explained itself.
4. Definitions and Interpretations
The key to both 'the case for God' and more relevantly 'The Genisis Enigma' as I stated is using a definitional retreat. Keeping in mind that the book of Genisis was
translated into English and that numerous translators and bodies of officials holding positions in Churches, Academia etc have consistently chosen words that have common use definitions.
Most notably is a word like 'day' as in they didn't choose to use the word 'era' or 'aeon' or 'phase' they chose day, consisting of a period of 24 hours. As in 'On the First Day god created the earth and the heavens' or whatever. A definitional retreat is to say 'well of course Genisis doesn't
literally mean days it means millions of years' which is necessary because Genisis is controverted by the presence of million year old trilobyte fossils on top of Peruvian mountains, not to mention dinosaurs.
Of course it seems simple to me to just throw out Genisis as invalid or obsolete as an explanation, but unfortunately many feel the simplest course of action is to simply redefine the terms.
But they see no danger in that. You see for something like a holy-text or structered religion to espouse universal truths whilst employing subjective interpretation the whole thing becomes a waste of time.
One could call it a supermarket mentality, that is you head down an aisle of religion and pick out stuff you like eg. Thou shalt not kill, and ignore stuff that is inconvenient or undesirable to you eg. thou shalt not make an engraven image.
I mean the ten commandments if you truly sit back to appreciate them, are truly some of the least inspiring moral guidance you have ever heard.
But the point being if it's okay to say that 'days' means 'aeons' then why isn't it okay to say 'kill' means 'hurt' and to 'lay with a man' means to ride a horse? That 'thou shalt worship only me' really means thou shalt worship anyone worthy? and so on you go. What I'm saying is that if there are bits of the bible you can't trust, and bits you can and only science tells you what you can and cant trust, why start with the bible in the first place?
Furthermore, moral behaviour
has been shown to be universal, via empirical scientific research right down to Amazonian tribes with no exposure to outside religions. Ethical behaviour is internally ingrained in our genetic structure, ironically one thing that can contravene the pull of our intrinsic moral compass is actually religion, as evidenced by the disproportionate representation of devout christians on death row in the US, vs the disproportionate representation of athiests researching moral philosophy at the Ivy league schools in the US.
Once 'the word of God' is subject to interpretation by individuals, it has no worth as spiritual guidance, because it is ultimately the message of a subjective human interpretation not some devine entity.
It is physically impossible for the concept of god to be transmitted through human beings. The only way God could be effective is if he talked to us directly. Even then to an observer outside yourself, your representations of God's will are in effect the same as you just making shit up.
Until you can invent a device that allows
anyone to hear the messages transmitted by God to you as a transistor radio allows one to hear radio station transmissions, science
has to assume you are making it up, because that is what science is.
5. So why all the controversy and arguments.
As far as Science is concerned God does not exist. You simply are not allowed to assume God exists and then call it science. You have to observe the effect of god in a controlled scientific environment.
You can't for example toss a coin let it drop to the ground as an experiment and record as the results 'Midway through it's decent it is possible God froze time then transported that coin 3 times around the earths atmosphere before returning it to its exact position, unfreezing time and allowing the coin to hit the ground as per business as usual. Nobody was able to observe or detect the event caused by God, but in the interest of science I am recording the possibility.'
It isn't allowed by science. God may or may not exist, but the point is that because nobody has ever detected God in a controlled scientific environment and only ever detected the laws of physics, science isn't allowed to entertain the thought.
Science doesn't attack the Church per se, it may hurt or disprove unscientific claims the Church or any religion has made without scientific basis (such as a model of the Solar System). But it isn't a malicious attack.
People get their heckles up over 'Intelligent Design' simply because it is unscientific.
God is a highly illogical and irrational concept, it needs artificial reinforcement since God can't speak for itself. Children need to be raised under a religious belief because unlike a belief in Gravity, it isn't reinforced by phyical nature. The opportunities to not experience God seem infinite.
But that science doesn't provide for God is about as uncontroversial as science not providing for One-Eyed-One-Horned-Flying-Purple-People-Eaters, there's no evidence of either. That people believe something exists is not evidence in the same way as a Channel 9 newspole is not submissible as evidence of Chappelle Corby's innocence.
Science is insensitive to people's beliefs because its mechanical.
The controversy is simply because 'believers' need to feel that the systems of their belief are somehow relevant to reality, Science just goes on explaining things and empowering people to take charge of their own lives, scientific discoveries and endeavor seek to leave no stone unturned and are incredibly useful and consistent. For example, the US has the very real capacity to destroy the planet earth several times over in their nuclear arsenal, something made possible through Einsteins theory of relativity that has finally been proven by computers but also in practical experimentation. This power was traditonally ascribed to God in christianity in the book of Revolations or something, God has diminished in standing in this capacity, he is as capable of destroying humanity or less, than humans are themselves.
God has always been free to show up at any time. Even if he did, his existence is irrelevant. Because as is argued in 'The Case for God' he is completely transistent, omnipotent and omnipresent, whatever God is going to do, God is going to do and I have no control. If he chooses to punish me for my actions, it is the same as someone choosing to kill a hostage because I didn't listen to their demands. The law finds the person that enforced the killing responsible, not the person that refused to negotiate.
God presumably can choose whether to punish someone like me or not, and if he chooses to punish me because I reject his existence through my ascribed faith in science, then God is bad.
If god thinks I should obey him simply because he is relatively more powerful than me, then why do 'democracies' tell us it's right to depose Saddam's Regime just because he uses his relative power to dominate his people?
I see no consistency and I see no relevance as to whether God exists or not. I'm not going to devote energy to avoiding lightning strikes.
He simply, when you think about it, is not that important.
The idiots that keep devoting time and energy to insisting he is though, are important to refute. Even if all this arguing is superfluous.
