ArthurDent's Journal: Science and God

Another article on evolution on /. leads to another post making fun of creationism. Some people on here seem to think that one couldn't possibly be a rational person and believe that God created the world. Come on people. Think about what religion is: A way to answer the unanswerable questions.

In this case, the unanswerable question for me is this:

"How does one explain the amount of order and complexity that we see around us?"

You see, evolution by itself doesn't do it for me. It seems unbelievable to me that we're all just here by chance. Give me a break. What is the likelyhood of pure chance bringing out a human from an ameoba as straight evolution would suggest? Seems pretty darn small to me. Doesn't it seem possible that there is some over-arching force guiding evolution toward a particular destination? Could it not be that God is the one who decides when and how creatures evolve?

There is a fair amount of evidence for evolution. I can't see a way for us to prove given the information at hand that it happened, but it seems to be pretty clear in my mind at least that evolution or something like it did occurr. Does that leave God out of the equation? No! People tend to forget, that Darwin himself didn't believe that this all happend by chance. Even he believed that God guided evolution to bring about His purposes!

I guess my question for /.ers is how can you *not* as a rational thinking person not look at creation and wonder how this could have come about by chance? It's astonishing to me that saying that Someone created all this is thought to be irrational.

Ben

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

good question

[pyrrho]

first... I am a civil person. But I'd also rather not have to pull punches. I mean, why not be blunt in this case. A few blunt words are nothing, compared to the killing done by creationist of atheists in the past... I'm not blaming you for that, but let's just get the history right and realize strong words are appropriate in comparison. I won't make fun, but I can't guarentee that my comments will seem gentle. Frankly, I tend to value people with value systems, whatever they are. I have seen many God believing people use their religion far better than atheists use their own value systems. So here:

you say: "Think about what religion is: A way to answer the unanswerable questions. " Well, you just trivialized religion. You can't answer unanswerable questions, right? If religion is an attempt to do the impossible, what else but ridicule could it expect. But I'll stop here because I think you just mispoke, really. Questions lead to answers and more questions. The question you give as an example, for instance, is not unanwerable just because it leads to more questions. My own belief is that there cannot be an end to the question yeilded by answering older questions. I don't expect that. So religion is trying to answer questions, and it's not limited to the unanswerable.

Here by chance. Evolution does not say we are here by chance. In fact, evolution is driven by the choices of animals. Personally, I don't buy the idea that even the mutations are random, I think they are controlled, but whichever, the process of evolution is conciously controlled. Evolution admits this. What you say? Animals decide, through locomotion, for example, what environments to move to. When animals migrate to colder climates, their evolution goes in the direction allowing them to survive in a colder climate. By choosing and manipulating your environment, your evolution is directed. IOW, perhaps there does need to be a conscious force for evolution, but it doesn't have to be an outside force, it can be the inside force of consciousness. So here is the question, "what is the nature of consciousness?"

The error, imo, which leads people to call evolution totally random is the old idea that animals are thoughtless automotons, which to me is no more likely than other people being thoughtless automotons. I mean, I can only really be sure that what I feel as free will is what I mean by free will, but it sure looks like other people and creatures exhibit free will. This is an example of my answer leading to just another question. But it's a deeper question. It's a question more to the point.

finality: the real problem with Godism and Creationism is the finality of the answers. The dogmatic philosophies share the same problem/error. Instead of a world where one question leads to a few answers and a few more questions, it yields an answer with no more investigable questions. The answer, "God Did It", does lead to questions, about God, which truly are unaskable, because at that point the questions themselves are out of reach, behind God, if you will. Philosophy and investigative reasoning work best when the next question is another question with an answer that can be partially tested and played with. I reduced the question of Evolutionary Chance to the question of What is Consciousness. You can answer the latter with some ideas, something that can be checked out. Think it's the function of part of the brain? Check in people/beings without that part. But if you answer, "It's God speaking within us", again you go untestable.

I don't want to accept an answer that stops further questions, as that stops further knowledge. I don't expect knowledge to be complete, and don't want to stop it when we still know so little.

I'm open to the idea that I might be wrong, maybe there is philosophical atomism (I really really don't think so, but...), and if so, the burden is on the person to exhaust other possibilities because it doesn't appear that way now. The God Answer has been used for thousands of years, and a lot of useful questions were smothered beneath it, and it's reputation is tarnished thereby. I think that's fair.

In fact, if there should be a traditional god, or even some godlike supernatural force... I think the trend of it's communication patterns are such that it doesn't WANT us to stop asking questions. It has provided answers without theism. a-theism. a=without theism=GodBasedAnswers. It does not require us to say, "b/c of God", the beautiful picture of nature makes more sense than that, as it should if it was created by a hypothetically omnipotent and omniscent being.

Let me end with the notion that seen this way: God is probably an atheist.

Re:good question

[ArthurDent]

> You can't answer unanswerable questions, right?

Sure you can. What I mean is the question is unanswerable given the knowledge that we have scientifically and experientially, or (and here's why religion still is involved in the "How Did I Get Here" debate) a person cannot accept the scientific answer because it does not mesh with how they understand and view the world.

Myself, I cannot imagine how evolution could have happened by chance. I also have great difficulty with your idea that the choices of the less evolved lead to the development of the more evolved. Your arguement is basically a variant of the chance arguement. Sure, an animal could choose to migrate to another climate, but what would lead the animal to do so? Does the amoeba have enough sentinence to make a decision that beneficially affects the evolutionary process? I don't think so.

Now, I've just explained to you why the scientific options don't work for me. However, there is something that does work. By introducing the idea of Someone larger than myself who controls how things in this universe work, all of my issues go away. I don't have to rule out the scientific results, because my problem with them is removed by the idea that God actively controlled the evolutionary process making it come out for his purposes. If you were to follow the evangelical Christian way of thinking, the purpose of creation is to bear witness to the fact that there is a God who created us and loves us enough to give His life for us.

Questions about God *are* unaskable! You're absolutely right! That's because they are a matter of faith. Because I cannot reconcile what I see into something that makes sense, I choose to believe in what is unseen. If something were discovered tomorrow that had nothing to do with Evolution or Creationism, but was able to convince me that that was really what happened, then I wouldn't need religion to answer that question any more. "God did it" is only needed as an answer when we don't have a better answer in some sense. That doesn't make us stop looking for the answer, it only gives an explination until such time as we do. (In the case of evolution I'm not sure we ever will know for sure.)

Thanks for taking the time to respond. A rational discussion helps all parties to crystallize their thinking even if no one is convinced of the other way.

Ben

free will, will, chance and determinism

[pyrrho]

Myself, I cannot imagine how evolution could have happened by chance.

The phenomenon of "free will" is evident in ourselves and all around us. There are proponents with compelling arguments on all sides of this issue, it may be illusive (just seeming free), it may be sublime. Why is it more reasonable for you to think that it's an outside force at all. Perhaps the willing "not-chance" ingredient is merely the free will we see around us?

I also have great difficulty with your idea that the choices of the less evolved lead to the development of the more evolved.

the choice doesn't have to conscious. An animal does not think, "I would like to grow a thicker coat, I'll move north to a colder climate." It moves to the north, and over generations the ones with thicker coats statistically do better. He might have pursued a deer north, he might have gotten in a quarrel in his group and been expelled. But there is an element of free will, the choice was made to leave rather than fight, to hunt in a northward direction, etc. etc. That plus time seems sufficient.

Does the amoeba have enough sentinence to make a decision that beneficially affects the evolutionary process? I don't think so.

that is exactly how much sentience it has, it has little senses and little motor abilities and it is just sentient enough to manipulate those to, for example, go in the direction it "smells" a sugar gradient. It's sentients is limited to a very small set of relevant details.

Now, I've just explained to you why the scientific options don't work for me.

The scientific options have a spectrum of interpretations available, it's not to be simply characterized. You seem to think and element of chance is automatically scientific. It's not. Einstein did not believe in chance. 'God does not play dice' he said. Scientifically it's not really clear if it's chance or determinism or will power.

I think it's fair to say the issue isn't chance but what the active agent is... is this sufficient, is an outside entity necessarry? Personally, if God is the "greatest power" why not this idea. Our free will is the will of got, and put all together it sums to the combined will of the universe. Is this a reasonable model of a God?

If you were to follow the evangelical Christian way of thinking, the purpose of creation is to bear witness to the fact that there is a God who created us and loves us enough to give His life for us.

the scientific view is essentially that the universe itself is living, that life arrises as a chemical process. That doesn't denegrate life, it's not something demanding explanation, really. I think of the stars and the natural chemicals as fertile, able to sprout life. That too is a directed loving force, entirely compatible with science.

the only reason the external god is not part of science is because of a lack of any experimental way to produce verifiable evidence. That's how the hobby works, that all, that's it's trick. Galileo started checking, and it made a great difference. Aristotle, who created the form, just made stuff up and didn't check, why bother, he already "knew".

at any rate, I find this issue particularly interesting.