John wrote on Feb 21, 2008 10:55 PM: to Ronald Hutchison, re God says gay marriage is wrong: Please quote (Chapter and verse) Jesus' position on homosexual marriage. Of course Jesus approved heterosexual marriage! In the ideal situation, the husband is the bread-winner, while the wife provides home=schooling for the children. How does that compare with the actuality that, in all too-many cases, husband and wife are both bread-winners and day-care or nannies are the home-schoolers? Off-hand, I can't see a homosexual couple doing worse than any heterosexual couple.

3D wrote on Feb 21, 2008 10:59 PM: The first paragraph of Ronald Hutchison's letter opens with the claim that "America is currently the greatest of nations because we have been blessed by God" and the second with "I believe God has abandoned America because we have abandoned his truth."
I think Ronald needs to make up his mind: are we "currently" being blessed or abandoned?
He then goes off on one of his famous rants about homosexuality, causing us to wonder why he is so fixated on other people's private lives. Most of those who moralize most vociferously usually end up having closer affinity to the subject of their obsession than even they ever wanted to admit.
Hutchison doesn't quite explain WHY he feels so threatened, or just exactly how extending the blessings of marriage or intimacy to anyone else harms his own marriage or intimate relationship, unless he was already predisposed to undermining it, in which case the official status wouldn't really make much difference, would it?

John wrote on Feb 21, 2008 10:59 PM:to Ruminator: You're right, Kellogg is trying wriggle out of answering. I'm not going to let him. I'll hammer him in every letter I write.

3D wrote on Feb 21, 2008 11:01 PM: Rick Kellogg's letter simply dismisses the direct and explicit contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2, probably because he really doesn't have much to say on the subject but stubbornly resists admitting anything that could be construed to be an error in the Bible.
Kellogg has been around long enough, and active enough in this letters forum, to know full well that this has been examined in great detail and that he has not addressed those details. His suggestion that evolutionary development imitated the Biblical order of creation begs the question, since it is the very order of creation that forms the core of the contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2 and Rick knows this! So please answer us, Rick, what was created first: plants, then animals, then humans (Genesis 1), or humans, then plants then animals (Genesis 2)?
Rick states that "John himself could not provide us with any new alleged contradictions," thus further pretending that, in all the years he has participated here, that he has not seen a litany of many other specific, explicit Biblical contradictions, with website links to hundreds more, as these are allowed in the letters appearing in the print edition, even if not in these online comments.
Oh, but if "John himself" wasn't the one who enumerated them, then I guess that technically didn't count.
Rather disingenuous, I would say.

Ruminator wrote on Feb 22, 2008 6:39 AM:____TO JOHN: re: "Kellogg is trying wriggle out of answering. I'm not going to let him. I'll hammer him in every letter I write."

No prisoners!

Jessie wrote on Feb 22, 2008 9:11 AM:To Rick Kellogg: You claim evolutionist need to trash the bible in order to support evolution (as you trash John Terrell and others to support creationism). The evidence of evolution was acquired by thousands of dedicated scientists (working in diverse fields of science) for over 100 years. Each piece of this evidence was subjected to peer review, and each successful study can easily be found in these science journals. What we know about evolution comes from these studies (documented in these science journals), not letters to the Faith and Values section of the NCT. I challenge you to identify from the countless peer reviewed papers in science journals (related to evolution) any papers which trash the bible, let alone trash the bible as a means of supporting the theory of evolution. And while you’re at it, find peer reviewed papers which identify evidence disproving or questioning evolution, and/or identify evidence in support of creationism. Your silence will speak for itself. As usual, you make things up to suit your naïve and dishonest arguments. If your God celebrates (or chuckles about) these ridiculous creationist tactics, I’m sorry hear about your God’s fall from grace.

jessie wrote on Feb 22, 2008 9:30 AM:To Ronald Hutchison: How does the United States celebrate gay sex? I fully support human rights for individuals of any sexual orientation, but I care less about (let alone celebrate) the bedroom behaviors of Ronald, my neighbors, lesbians or whoever. As others have asked above, why do you care so much about the sexual behaviors of others? Sorry, but your comments creep me out a lot more than the expressed love between two individuals in the privacy of their home. Given that the world is being greatly impacted by exploding human populations, I wouldn’t want to force homosexuals to have heterosexual sex simply because it pleases Ronald.

John wrote on Feb 22, 2008 9:47 AM:to Ruminator, re post of 2/22, 6:39 AM: Absolutely! Now that Kellogg has responded, I've formulated an appropriate offense (that he should find truly offensive). Regards

John wrote on Feb 22, 2008 10:04 AM:Re: "Major U.S. churches report declines" This article in the paper today indicates just how destructive obsession with homosexuality is. And it is a homophobic obsession: How many times have you seen protesters carrying placards saying "Gluttony is an Abomination" or "Hypocrisy is an Abomination"?

Ruminator wrote on Feb 22, 2008 10:14 AM:____TO JOHN: Here's a letter of mine that was printed in the NCT on 12/22/2006:

Creationists have a fear of reality

Anyone unclear on Rick Kellogg's credibility on evolution need only compare the letters from both of us in Faith & Values on Dec. 8. He claims I "can't handle an intelligent designer," yet my letter reiterates my often-stated view that science supports an excellent case for a creator. This proves conclusively that he makes baseless accusations. Unsurprisingly, he repeats the same logical fallacy explained in my letter. He also says I'm afraid of science, but that's hardly surprising because he thinks the scientific establishment, Nobel Prize winners included, is afraid of science. Having taught logic and the philosophy of science to university students, I know something about those subjects.

I used to think Rick was a liar, but I've since realized that he's simply incapable of grasping common logical distinctions and unable to distinguish fact from fantasy. His robotic repetition of slogans and his unrepentant boorishness illustrate perfectly why creationism embarrasses science-literate Christians.

The tone of Rick's letter tells me that fear of a reality check is strong in him, but faith beyond falsehoods is there for him if he has the courage and the humility to seek it.

3D wrote on Feb 22, 2008 10:21 AM: With great respect for some of my fellow progressives in this forum, I need to say I am just a tad troubled by the tone in some of this morning's comments.
John at 10:59 p.m.: "I'll hammer him...."
Ruminator at 6:39 a.m.: "No prisoners!"
John at 9:47 a.m.: "I've formulated an appropriate offense (that he should find truly offensive)."
I am all for an extremely aggressive debate on the merits of IDEAS, and I am hoping optimistically that the above comments are merely a metaphor for that vigorous exchange of IDEAS. I certainly try to engage fully on that level (and certainly would not rule out the possibility of having gotten carried away and crossed the line into making things personal a few times in my life), but it distresses me if I start to consider that we might be getting dragged down into the level of personal vitriol that is anathema to serious intellectual discussion - getting dragged down to the same thoughtless, visceral, emotional, primitive level of bravado that we decry.
Again, I'm going to assume the above is metaphoric, but also encourage all participants to try to keep the discussion one of ideas and evidence - an intellectual level that the liberal outlook can take pride in.
We must remember that there cannot be hatred or disdain for those whose views differ from us. Many of us came from exactly that background ourselves. I cannot hate the people who are just like I used to be, and remain similar to many friends and relatives whose relationships I still cherish despite our differences.

John wrote on Feb 22, 2008 11:06 AM: to 3D, re post of 2/22, 10:21 AM: Let me put your mind to rest: My "offensive" attack will be a relentless presentation of fact directed at the issues: I haven't and don't engage in ad hominem attacks -- they are definitely discussion-enders. Regards

Ruminator wrote on Feb 22, 2008 12:12 PM:____TO 3D: re: your message of Feb 22, 2008 10:21 AM.

I always favor keeping dialog productive if possible and I have tried to do that here, but let's not forget that Rick K. has repeatedly impugned the motivations of those of us defending science and has demonstrated a chronic lack of intellectual integrity by any standard I can imagine.

Your message of Feb 11, 2008 10:23 AM included the line "If Richard M had been born in Saudi Arabia he would be one of those pounding his head, jumping up and down, and yelling "la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la" in a high-pitched voice."

I'd say that's personal and ad hominen except that I enjoyed reading it too much. :-)

Tony wrote on Feb 22, 2008 1:58 PM:I asked this question before but never received a response. Why did this Intelligent Designer, create the mosquito. A pesky, dangerous insect that has killed millions of people through the ages by spreading various diseases, malaria being the most common. Is this God that you adore, merely a evil ogre that enjoys killing people, be it by floods, fire or disease? Why do you get down on bended knee and pay homage to this sadistic killer that you believe exists somewhere up there in the clouds? Intelligent Designer---what an oxymoron.

Jessie wrote on Feb 22, 2008 3:19 PM:Come on Tony. We all know mosquitoes were at first butterflies fluttering happily around the Garden of Eden. Then darn Adam had to go an eat that apple -- next thing you know butterflies are mutating into mosquitoes, God is sacrificing his son, we're forced to spend our lives on our knees (except during Lost or the Superbowl) begging forgiveness for our sins, and we’re surrounded by evil evolutionists who are after nothing else but our souls. If only I could go back in time and toss Adam a Twinkie just prior to his stumbling upon those sweet apples, I'd be a hero, we’d all be back in Oz, peace and love would fill the earth, and most important, evolution, homosexuality, liberals and rock and roll would be evil words and thoughts we never knew. Come to think about it, I hate apples even more than I hate evolution.

3D wrote on Feb 22, 2008 4:31 PM: Ruminator at 12:12 p.m. responds to my concern about our liberal tone by observing the valid point: "let's not forget that Rick K. has repeatedly impugned the motivations of those of us defending science and has demonstrated a chronic lack of intellectual integrity by any standard I can imagine."
Indeed, let us not forget. But let us also not let him define who we are in leading us to come down to his level. He has no choice but to go that route if he is unwilling to set his own course, as we have. We are (usually) better than that.
I would ask Ruminator not to take my comment too personally; his letters and web comments are among the highest quality and it is my desire to promote the continued effort to maintain that high standard that motivates my comments, from which, again, I do not exclude myself.
Ruminator further suggests that my post 2/11 at 10:23 a.m. was "ad hominem" because I used the line: "If Richard M had been born in Saudi Arabia he would be one of those pounding his head, jumping up and down, and yelling "la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la" in a high-pitched voice."
As I said in my post at 10:21 a.m. today, I certainly do not claim perfection or deny that I, too, sometimes cross the line, whatever my ideal might be.
But this instance was not such an example. I was making the very serious point that many people, if not most, simply acquire the beliefs they are born into, and RichardM's fierce defense of mythology that are absurd when taken literally in the modern world, fit that example. There are very few who are willing to open-mindedly examine the evidence and choose their own direction, and even fewer who have the guts to endure the life-changing social and familial ostracism for doing so.
Perhaps that is one reason I enjoy this forum, because some of us here are among the few who have been able to do just that, and are truly the captains of our own moral, philosophical and intellectual journeys.

3D wrote on Feb 22, 2008 4:50 PM: Loved the newfound ancient text reported by Jessie at 3:19 p.m.
Though I know it is supposed to be inerrant and infallible, I'm wondering if there was not one small error in the translation - where it says we are supposed to "spend our lives on our knees begging forgiveness for our sins," wasn't that supposed to be "for Adam's sins" in the original text?
One of the things I always liked best about the story of the Garden of Eden, then sin, then atonement is how we get held responsible for what someone else did before we were even born, but can have that erased because of what someone else did, also before we were born!
Justice? Morality? I never did figure out how killing an innocent man in any ways does any thing to make my sins go away, much less the sins of someone else for which I'm being held hostage.
Great parable, Jessie!

Jessie wrote on Feb 22, 2008 6:49 PM:3D: Perhaps the writers of the Garden of Eden were trapped between the need to instill guilt into future followers and the sensibility of killing your only son because some clueless, pathetic new guy (that God intelligently created) ate a stupid apple off a tree. As ridiculous as these stories are, you have to take your hat off to the biblical writers -- their promise of eternal life, along with a revengeful God, combined to make the perfect storm for suspending rational thought. The fact that so many humans today still live their lives according to these ancient stories indicates just how intelligent us humans really are. Please forgive my recollection of biblical facts. I’m running on 40 year old suppressed memories from the catholic elementary schools I attended.

John wrote on Feb 22, 2008 7:00 PM: to Tony, re post of 2/22, 1:58 PM: If you'd care for a comprehensive answer "to Life, the Universe, and Everything," the answer is 42. (reference: "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy") Regards.

Ruminator wrote on Feb 22, 2008 7:23 PM:____TO TONY: I tried to post an excerpt from something that I wrote to present an account of why I think there is intelligent design in the Universe but it hasn't gotten through. Since it was over 800 words, that might have been a deal breaker with the NCT checker. I'll see what I can do.

Tony wrote on Feb 23, 2008 2:59 AM:Again no believer comes to my aid. I guess the only thing left for me is to join the Benny Hinn crusade. Benny in his custom made Nehru suits. I look at the people in the audience who are in awe of the spirit that's there in the audience. Look at them, arms uplifted in the sky, heads rolling from side to side, idiotic smiles on their faces as if in a trance, and then the sick and afflicted come up on the stage and by Benny's mere touch, fall into the arms of one of his stooges and are cured of all of their ailments and diseases. And these fools, Christians allbeit, give this character money so that he can travel around the world duping more idiots into believing that nonsense and these are believers in the WORD just like so many of you who write into this paper..

Ruminator wrote on Feb 23, 2008 7:27 AM:____TO TONY: This is the first of a 4-part message (that I hope will get through) on my reasons for thinking there is intelligent design in the Universe. It is an excerpt from something I wrote recently as part of an ongoing project. Please try not to assume anything about its intent until you read it all.

ID #1 of 4

I have no interest in the simplistic, anthropomorphic, 200-foot-tall, benign/vengeful old man thought by some folks to be the cosmic chief who micromanages the details of the world and makes sure only good things happen in terms of what we call good. My sense of intelligent design would have all the design present in spacetime/matter/energy at the creation event in the form of pure potential, with everything else flowing from that.

The following is not about proof, it is about wondering and judging.

Here's a thought experiment: Suppose that your mind is clear but all your scientific understanding is gone and you're looking at the Universe shortly after the Big Bang. Oh, and you're also completely lacking in self-awareness. You're now looking at an immense space containing nothing but hydrogen and a little helium, which would seem indistinguishable from each other to you.

If asked for your opinion on the future prospects for this gassy space, what do you think you might have guessed? (CONTINUED IN PART #2)

John wrote on Feb 23, 2008 8:34 AM: to Jessie, re my post of 2/22, 7:00 PM: On a more serious note, I hope you've seen the efforts of most of us bloggers here to combat the Creationist's insistence on a literal reading of all the Old Testament. I can't believe that insistence is from pure ignorance. I just read about a new group - the Red Letter Christians - I'm going to see what they are all about. But as far as my belief is concerned, I'm happy to take the red letters - that is, what Jesus said - and leave it at that. Regards.

rudy wrote on Feb 23, 2008 8:44 AM:Lots of interesting stuff...no one can ever accuse any of you for not caring. I thought I'd better get something out here, as some of you are starting to debate with each other.
Question: Steve Austin of ICR in recent years submitted to a geophysical lab, a sample of the igneous rock being slowly emitted at the lava dome at Mt. St. Helens, with the intent to have it dated with the pottasium-argon method. I believe it was submitted with no information attached as to where the sample was from, and who submitted it. Is this deceitful? Dishonest? why? If the sample did yield dates in the millions of years, what can we gather from that? Let me know your thoughts. (I know, Talkorigins has a response already) thanks - an I may not have all this information correct, but conceptually it should be close.

Ruminator wrote on Feb 23, 2008 1:46 PM:____ID #2 of 4

Would you have any expectation that this cloud would begin clumping up into galaxies and stars due to its happening to have properties of gravitational attraction as well as other such properties that when enough of it was clumped together, the interiors of the singular clumps - stars - would ignite into thermonuclear fusion and that after enough of the fusionable material of the stars had been converted into helium over eons the stars would repeatedly collapse until their interiors reached even higher temperatures at which the previously fused elements began fusing into even heavier elements and that some of these stars would become unstable and explode those heavier elements into space and that later stars that contained some of that heavier material would form not only newer stars with thermonuclear interiors but smaller clumps of matter - planets - that circled these stars and that more properties of this stuff would appear on the planets in which it could combine and transform the heavier elements from the earlier stars until more complex compounds would form with the capacity to convert energy drawn from the stars around which they circled for other purposes and they would have a capacity to replicate and mutate and create newer life forms and that this process would lead to life forms that had a capability for independent locomotion, which would then be followed after a time by life forms that had the capacity to process information in ways leading to some of them at some point asking "Where did we come from?!" (CONTINUED IN PART #3)

Ruminator wrote on Feb 23, 2008 1:47 PM:____ID #3 of 4

Once again, if you had been looking at the gaseous cloud of the early Universe, what are the chances that you would have anticipated that it had the potential for anything interesting at all to happen, never mind that it had such immense upward mobility potential that it would progress through sequential and varying constructive stages as would appear if you were watching it? If I had been watching for a few years and I was betting, I would almost certainly be inclined to bet that it wouldn't amount to anything. But it did and what it became is simply astonishing, no matter what the explanation for it might be.

You are free to take the position that we have not the slightest need for anything beyond meaningless chance to explain how and why the entire process not only existed but had the potential to build up our world like this. If so, I would say that you have a very fixed disposition on this matter and I would be curious as to what empirical basis you would have for such an attitude.

Even if neo-Darwinism is correct and potentially complete, its occurrence depends on the existence of - and all the properties of - spacetime, matter, and energy. There is nothing in science that offers any explanation of why the Universe exists or why the laws of nature and the fundamental properties of matter and energy are what they are. (CONTINUED IN PART #4)

Ruminator wrote on Feb 23, 2008 1:47 PM:____ID #4 of 4

The best presentation I've seen for conveying the incredible character of the story of the Universe was the TV series "Cosmos." It's not surprising to me that there were many mystics among the great physicists of the last century, including Einstein and Heisenberg. Einstein believed in Spinoza's pantheism and Heisenberg thought the Universe was ultimately as Plato claimed 2,400 years ago. They were deeply affected by the ultimate mystery that the Cosmos represents.

My feeling is that the intrinsic characteristics of nature are so conducive to construction as to provide a prima facie case for a teleological dimension. In other words, this is a process that has been engaged in upward construction for which we could have had no expectation. I personally suspect that what was present at the moment of the Big Bang contained all the design that was needed - in terms of constructive potential - to bring forth everything we now see in our world If we were betting, my bet would be that there's more to this story and that if we somehow knew the entire story, we might find that there was an aspect of it to which we could appropriately apply at least the ancient Greek word "logos" and maybe even the word "God."

Ruminator wrote on Feb 23, 2008 2:04 PM:____TO RUDY: John would be the most knowledgeable one here on anything to do with geology but if you do this query on Google -

“answers in creation” Austin Misinterpret

There’s a good article on it at the site “Answers in Creation: Bringing the Bible and Science Together Without Conflict:”

John wrote on Feb 23, 2008 2:43 PM:to Rudy, re post of 2/23, 8:44 AM: Yes, Dr. Austin's intent was deceitful and dishonest. For info, when I was a grad student, I worked as a lab assistant for my thesis advisor, preparing samples for radiometric age dating, and also used techniques for sample preparation as my master's thesis topic. The bottom line is, it is very difficult to prepare a clean sample. If Austin made a sincere preparation effort, he failed miserably on technique. But given that samples for K-Ar dating must be at least a few million years old, the only purpose Austin could have had was to try to discredit radiometric dating. So, if he was that determined, there's really no telling what he may have submitted. I understand the only info provided with the sample was "expect low argon" Regarding TalkOrigins, I looked at Archive Claim CD013.1. There used to be a more extensive rebuttal by Dr. Kevin Henke, but I'm not able to find it now. Regards.

John wrote on Feb 23, 2008 3:15 PM:to Rudy, re my post of 2/23, 2:43 PM: I fired off the above post before checking the Links section of Claim CD013.1: the Henke article identified there is the one that used to be on Henke's own site. Regards.

Tony wrote on Feb 23, 2008 3:24 PM:To Ruminator---you have mastered the art of no speak and as such you should throw your hat into the political arena and run for president under your own party's platform. I'd vote for you if I don't have anything better to do on election day.

Ruminator wrote on Feb 23, 2008 3:25 PM:____TO JOHN & RUDY: The Google query that I gave earlier -

“answers in creation” Austin Misinterpret

...gets its first hit on the Henke article at Answers in Creation.

Ruminator wrote on Feb 23, 2008 3:57 PM:____TO TONY: Am I to understand that your message at 3:24 PM represents your reaction to the 4-part message on ID?

Jessie wrote on Feb 23, 2008 4:02 PM:Ruminator: If we hadn’t heard of disease who would guess one person with ebola could kill a million others. Your story is based on knowing nothing, but that obviously doesn’t mean no understandable mechanisms exist (only that we are clueless about them). According to your suggestion you would be unaware of gravity, nuclear forces and the nonrandom way molecules form (e.g. H and O react to form water, but H and Li don’t react at all – i.e. it’s not all random chance as you at least in partimply). Knowing these things (and others) you would be able to predict events following the big bang. Without knowledge of these it would all be magic, and easily attributed to some supernatural being (plan). The events of the big bang are still under way (as are events of evolution), and astronomers can predict ongoing events of the big bang. As there is obviously much to learn, thus far I know of nothing in any branch of science that has been found to be without natural explanations (not to confuse unknown with unexplainable). Do you? I always appreciate your letters, but I can see nothing of substance with your latest letter, other than it being an unsupported thought exercise, which is fine, but as a response to Tony’s (and my own) nonmagical (ID, whatever) views, I don’t see what Tony has to hang his hat on here that’s different from any other religious claim (unsupported faith). Regards.

Ruminator wrote on Feb 23, 2008 4:44 PM:____TO JESSIE: What is your deepest assessment of why the Universe exists and why it is as it is?

jessie wrote on Feb 23, 2008 4:49 PM:Rudy: While John already answered your question, I’m curious why you appear to assume (or at least entertain the notion) that scientists would be so dishonest and or so blind that they wouldn’t know about these lava deposits dating at an inaccurate age using the method Austin used (given the fact they have aged countless lava flows across the planet for many years now). When one scientists (especially one from the ICR, with a history of being dishonest) apparently discovers what thousands of highly trained and competitive scientist have been apparently blind to, it’s either worthy of Nobel prize (not a little paper in the IRC library) or great suspicion on the part of the lone scientist. As John stated, in this case the lone scientist was the one who was wrong (and intentionally deceptive). I don’t know if you can answer this, but I always wonder why creationists apparently fail to consider that if any of the creationist’s claims were in fact true (e.g. no transitional fossils, no beneficial mutations, no reliable radiometric dating techniques, no chronological fossil record, etc.) that any one of these discoveries would be nothing short of being an earth-shattering discovery that would revolutionize those particular areas of science. Do they just assume it’s all an international conspiracy involving many different branches of science (and if so, do they consider just how impossible such a conspiracy would be to maintain – it would make OJ’s defense scenario look absolutely logical). Do they consider the fact that most scientists are independent, competitive and possessed by large egos, and that for any scientists to disprove a major theory (or technique) is the fastest track to the science hall of fame. If you (Austin, or anyone) could show that radiometric dating is in fact flawed, you’d be on Ophra the day before you took over the Geophysics Dept. at Harvard. You’d would be “the man” when it comes to radiometric dating. Thanks Rudy for being so good natured about all of this.

jessie wrote on Feb 23, 2008 6:03 PM:Ruminator: First, sorry to everyone for taking up so much space. One more to answer Ruminator's question. I do not know why the universe exists, anymore than I know the relationship between gravity and the strong force, or the ultimate cure for cancer. But my ignorance of why the universe exists (assuming it needs a reason to exist) does not make me assume it must have a supernatural explanation, as opposed to a natural one. If I may – assume my neighbor Johnny steals my newspaper every morning for 8 years in a row. When I wake up tomorrow to discover my paper is missing my assumption is that Johnny took it. I understand I may be wrong, and other than being surprised that someone else took it, I really wouldn’t care, as long as I knew who took it. As I mentioned earlier, there is nothing (literally nothing) I know of that has been studied so far in any branch of science that demands a supernatural explanation (i.e. that can’t be explained by natural mechanisms). To accept your story I have to assume (for no reason at all) that someone else stole my paper. I’d be perfectly happy to learn that a supernatural something designed the universe, but I’d also be “happy” to learn that there is a Golden Retriever stuck in the middle of the moon (or as Dawkin’s may say, happy to know there are really fairies in my garden). Suggesting possibilities does not make them real. I’m not opposed to the supernatural, I just have absolutely no reason to suspect it is there. I asked if you knew of anything in science thus far that can’t be (not hasn’t been) explained by natural mechanisms. If nothing so far, what would make you assume the Big Bang (or anything) is an exception? This appears nothing more than the God of the gap argument used in ID. Looking for new possible answers (e.g. perhaps a supernatural being set the universe in motion) is a good thing, but possibilities are only possibilities until convincing evidence is found in their favor.

John wrote on Feb 23, 2008 6:17 PM: to Jessie, re post of 2/23, 4:49 PM: Well said! I was tuned in on Mt. St. Helen's because last year Peabody issued a challenge to prove Dr. Austin was wrong. Which I did. In the course of that, I provided a reference to the US Geological Survey and a direct quotes: "Literally thousands of dated materials are now available for use to bracket the various episodes in the history of the Earth within specific time zones” and, “Precise dating has been accomplished since 1950.” Peabody was too embarrassed to admit defeat -- he claimed the USGS was in on the conspiracy, but he didn't bring Mt. St. Helens up again. It's unfortunate, but the "amazing discoveries", like Dr. Austin's, play well to the uneducated public. Regards.

OLD NEWS? wrote on Feb 23, 2008 6:43 PM:Gospel, old news -- yes. Received -- no.

3D wrote on Feb 23, 2008 7:07 PM: The series of four posts from Ruminator between 7:27 a.m. and 1:47 p.m. are excellent and, not surprisingly, thought-provoking ("consider the source" - meant in a complimentary way).
I am also a big fan of Carl Sagan's "Cosmos."
Regarding the collisions of atoms igniting into stars and galaxies after the "Big Bang," of course, these are all explained by natural laws, with the force of gravity in large bodies strong enough to ignite into stars, while the force is insufficient in smaller bodies which become planets, asteroids, etc.
Most of what occurs after the "Big Bang" is all explained by current physics.
But the real question, beyond science, as to the question of the "Big Bang," goes back to, what was BEFORE the "Big Bang" and what caused it to explode.
The Creationists (or "ID" people to be "politically correct) say that something cannot exist without having been created by someone or something, i.e., a "First Cause."
Those doubting the "First Cause" say that, no matter how far back you go, you can't escape the intellectual dilemma of how the "First Cause" got there so, since something had to be there first, save one step (one level of complexity) and eliminate the "First Cause," especially if there is no externally verifiable evidence.
However, when we look at physics and the nature of "existence" in the Cosmos, physics tells us that this "existence" is manifest as both "matter" and "energy" and, under the right conditions, they are interchangeable, that is, matter can be converted to energy and, reciprocally, if the conditions are just right, energy can be manifest as matter.
So if you look at "existence" prior to the "Big Bang," and try to determine what existed first, being both he first "existence" (not "created" by anything else) and the "First Cause" that created everything else, what seems most feasible (from pure speculation, of course; not observable) as the nature such form would most likely take, "matter" (inert) or "energy" (active)?
Again, this is speculation, NOT SCIENCE (it is beyond the capacity of the scientific method to address), and no claim of authoritative knowledge, but it does seem plausible to consider (especially if one does perceive credible anecdotal "evidence" of interactions with a "higher power") that whatever existed first, and generated everything else, was a form of ENERGY, out of which MATTER could subsequently be proliferated.
If there is any viable way to incorporate a "First Cause," perhaps it might originate from the interchangeability of matter and energy.
However, ultimately, this is not knowable by human capabilities of empirical, replicable standards of observation.

Jessie wrote on Feb 23, 2008 7:44 PM:Tony: I don't know if you ever listened to Pat Condell ... if not I suspect you'll like him.

John wrote on Feb 23, 2008 7:57 PM: to Jessie: I don't believe that there will ever be scientific proof, or even a likely inference, of the existence of God. That leaves open the question: Is there any other way? I noticed there's an article on the F&V page reporting that the John Templeton Foundation is funding a 3-year, $4 mil study addressing "whether belief in a divine being is a basic part of mankind's makeup." I'd like to get more detail on the effort. It seems to me that there might be two parts to the question: why does mankind believe, and why does mankind feel the need to believe? In my case, I know what I do: it might be interesting to know why I do it. Regards.

John wrote on Feb 23, 2008 8:15 PM: to OLD NEWS?, re post of 2/23, 6:43 PM. Welcome to the blog. There's been a lot of dialog this week -- I almost missed your brief post. I don't know if you read thru all of the posts, but the Old Gospel has been received, and accepted, by some, but not all of us. I believe we are engaged in an open, positive interchange of ideas here and welcome anyone who wishes to contribute. Regards.

Ruminator wrote on Feb 23, 2008 8:19 PM:____TO JESSIE & 3D: Some good content! In fact, I’ll have to read the messages more carefully in the morning because I’m being prodded to get back to the movie we’re watching.

My point in the 4-part essay wasn't to prove anything. It was intended, as 3D noted, to be thought provoking. It was a thought experiment, as stated. One point it attempted to make was that in spite of the remarkable expansion of scientific understanding, it remains a mystery as to why the Universe exists and why it is as it is. After all, why isn’t it just an inert vapor cloud?

A second point of the message was in response to Tony's request for an intelligible account of how there could be ID in the Universe, since he categorized the idea of an intelligent designer as an oxymoron.

An intention of the thought experiment was to avoid simplistic, anthropomorphic ideas and present more of a metaphysical theory - as the term 'metaphysical' is understood in the Western tradition of philosophy, as opposed to some new age silliness.

Jessie said, '…my ignorance of why the universe exists (assuming it needs a reason to exist) does not make me assume it must have a supernatural explanation, as opposed to a natural one.'

Agreed, but dismissing all metaphysical explanations is no more justified than assuming one to be true, unless there is further data. For some people, looking at the miracle of the world around them is sufficient data to believe. For others, seeing that there are mosquitoes and other apparently defective aspects to the world seems sufficient to dismiss a higher explanation. I’m not in either of these camps.

3D is right that 'this is speculation, NOT SCIENCE…', but the flip side of this is that these remain fundamental mysteries that can’t simply be dismissed, and if someone chooses to think that there is meaning or design to it, they are at least as justified as someone who wants to insist that it is all meaningless chance and that all religious and spiritual expressions are due either to a failure of intellect or character.
_

Ruminator wrote on Feb 24, 2008 9:34 AM:____NOTE: I am about to post a 500 word message as part of our dialog on ID. If you don’t see that appear shortly after this message, that is probably because our invisible friend who screens the messages judged it to be too large. If so, I will try to break it into two parts and post those.

Ruminator wrote on Feb 24, 2008 9:44 AM:______Isaac Newton's 'Principia' was first printed in 1686. As some of you probably realize, it defined the foundation of classical mechanics, introduced the theory of universal gravitation, and invented calculus, However, Newton said that, 'I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.'

Newton's humility in this regard is admirable and the centuries since he expressed that thought have supported his assessment. The world of modern physics and astronomy have revealed a Universe far stranger than anyone could have imagined. However, unlike Newton, the level of confidence in the current scientific paradigm on the part of some persons over those centuries has sometimes gone far beyond any empirical justification for such confidence. But if we ask ourselves what surprises another million years of scientific progress cold bring, we might be able to achieve some of Newton's humility.

Jessie said, '...there is nothing (literally nothing) I know of that has been studied so far in any branch of science that demands a supernatural explanation (i.e. that can't be explained by natural mechanisms).'

Yes, but the boundaries of what is considered 'natural' have sometimes expanded to include things that would previously have been rejected as being unnatural or even supernatural. The scientific consensus of a century ago was that the Universe had no beginning. When the Big Bang theory was first proposed it was rejected automatically by some because it was seen as an attempt to bring the supernatural into science. Since it was first proposed by a priest, Georges Lemaitre, many saw that as sufficient ground on which to dismiss the idea as mythology. Nevertheless, there is now overwhelming empirical support for Lemaitre's hypothesis and the Big Bang has become a centerpiece of foundational theory. Who would now reject this theory because it brings the supernatural into science? As science progresses, our understanding of what is considered 'natural' doesn't remain fixed; sometimes the boundaries expand.

3D said, 'Most of what occurs after the 'Big Bang' is all explained by current physics.'

That is true if by 'explained' you mean described and predicted, but the laws of nature are discovered not explained - those laws have one form rather than another and the reason why they have that particular form is not explained. The Universe could instead have been, as far as we know, just an inert vapor cloud. But because the laws of nature are as they are, we have the amazing world that we inhabit.

The dream of centuries of alchemists was the transmutation of elements. All these attempts failed for just as many centuries and many took that as proof that the dream was an illusion. However, scientific inquiry provided a deeper level of understanding that allowed at least some of the dreams of the alchemists to be realized in the form of atomic fission and fusion. Once again, what surprises might another million years of scientific progress bring? Could it be that other ideas now rejected out-of-hand as unnatural or even supernatural could become part of science in the future? If the past is any guide, probably so.

Jessie wrote on Feb 24, 2008 9:53 AM:Ruminator: I understand your comments were expressed as a thought experiment (although I believe in the past you had stated that this is your belief – what you would bet on). My point was that asking someone to replace their disbelief at one level (e.g. organisms were created by a God) for belief at a higher level (e.g. the universe was created by a creator) offers them nothing to hang their hat on. My disbelief is based on known evidence (and the lack of evidence), your argument seems to be based on amazement, not evidence. I have amazement, I just need evidence.
If the universe were an inert vapor cloud we’d all be wondering (if gas could wonder) why it wasn’t in some other form (such as a universe with galaxies and such). I don’t dismiss metaphysical explanations. I understand why people can look at a baby, a black hole or the entire universe and “believe” in some type of supernatural creator (as is evident by the world’s ~ 20,000 religions over time). A mosquito does not disprove a supernatural designer (I don’t think anything can disprove a supernatural creator, thus the valid argument that creationism isn’t science). Equally, our amazement of natural phenomena (at any level) offers absolutely nothing (in my opinion) to answering questions about whether or not there is a supernatural creator. I’m amazed by tectonic forces, but my amazement isn’t evidence of a supernatural creator, no matter what mental experiment I perform. I partially agree that since science has no clear explanation for why the universe is here, suggestions of design (or anything for that matter) can’t be dismissed. My point was that since everything we do know so far about the universe has natural explanations (without a single exception), why should we assume supernatural explanations for things we don’t understand at this time (or things we may never be able to understand). History has repeatedly shown that what was once believed supernatural (mental illness, plagues, droughts…..) ended up having natural explanations. Certainly we should move forward with open eyes and open minds, and assume our little brains may in for a surprise at every new corner (be it a supernatural surprise or not), but for me supernatural explanations will remain on the bottom of my possibility list for the simple fact that at this point in time there is absolutely no evidence in their support (again, I have as much reason to believe that there is a Ford Mustang in the middle of the moon as I have for there being a supernatural creator). If I had to bet everything on whether or not natural explanations will be found for every single new scientific discovery over the next 20 years I wouldn’t hesitate for a microsecond on making that bet. Sure I could be wrong, as I could be wrong betting that that the sun will rise tomorrow. Regards

Jessie wrote on Feb 24, 2008 10:16 AM:Ruminator: I sent my last post prior to reading your most recent. I’d only add that regardless of the paradigm shifts (e.g. Big Bang) in no single case was the supernatural actually found to be the cause of a natural phenomena. Surely scientists have dismissed ideas because of their origin, but facts have the tendency to eventually trump bias. We do have the Big Bang, we do have Mendelian genetics and the like. Your argument is missing a single example where the supernatural has been identified as the cause of a natural phenomena. There are many religious scientists out there, why haven’t they identified a single example? There is more to know than we know (as you implied), but regardless of how massive the unknown is, it is only a measure of our human limitations to know, it is not evidence of a supernatural being.

Jessie wrote on Feb 24, 2008 10:37 AM:John: If I had to pick the single thing that most intrigues me it would be how one person can believe in God, and another such as myself can’t. I know some like to assume it’s a choice, but it is not (at least not for me). I don’t think I’m better than believers, but I am different for some unknown reason. There is honestly not a single thing within me that makes me believe. I’d be as phony as a 3 dollar bill if I ever pretended that I believed (it would be like asking a cat to bark). If it were genetic it would make all the sense in the world for me. There could be very strong selective advantages for genes that lead to behaviors related to “believing”. I live next to a very large church, which has thousands of visitors every Sunday, and they are in many ways one large supportive family. My family and group of friends is pathetically small in comparison. Transfer us all back in time and the thousands united around a single faith could destroy my tribe in the blink of an eye. I agree, it would be very interesting to know why we each believe or not. I’m not sure I trust the Templeton Foundation on this, but it’s better than nothing.

Ruminator wrote on Feb 24, 2008 10:54 AM:____TO ALL THOSE READING THE ID THREAD: Please understand that I am neither proselytizing nor being pointlessly contentious. These issues are of interest to me relative to something on which I am currently working, although they are secondary to that project. I appreciate all the input that is being contributed.

Ruminator wrote on Feb 24, 2008 11:10 AM:____TO JESSIE: re: "I have as much reason to believe that there is a Ford Mustang in the middle of the moon as I have for there being a supernatural creator."

This gets the heart of the matter. Based on our understanding of the world, we can put the chance of there being a Mustang in the middle of the Moon at something like 0.000000%. That estimation is based on an immense record of continuity and consistency in our experience of our world and our understanding of how it works and of what the past has been like.

Suppose we could somehow learn the full explanation of the Universe. Consider that we might either find - or fail to find - in that explanation something that could, on some relevant definition, qualify as being considered a higher power or creator or some such thing.

Before the introduction of other considerations into this situation, our expectation on which way this would go would be defaulted to 50% either way, with any movement from that neutral point being based on further data.

Your above statement implies that you put the probability not at 50% but at effectively the same 0.000000% as the chance that there is a Ford Mustang in the middle of the moon. However, I see nothing in your argument to lower the probability from the 50% default to effectively zero. Put another way, your position amounts to the statement that any such claims are certainly false and I see no grounds for the nearly complete rejection of that possibility.

Thanks for the very substantive input, by the way, Jessie!

Ruminator wrote on Feb 24, 2008 11:26 AM:___My previous note "TO ALL THOSE READING THE ID THREAD" should have been addressed "TO ANYONE STILL READING THE ID THREAD."

Jessie wrote on Feb 24, 2008 1:13 PM:Ruminator: Why do you assume there is a 50% chance of the universe being created? We have lots of evidence of natural mechanisms causing natural phenomena, however, we have no evidence of a creator causing natural phenomena. If we knew some natural phenomena had natural explanations and some had supernatural explanations I’d understand the high probability (50%) you assigned to the universe being created. But that is not the case. If the sun only came up on the average of every other day I’d agree that tomorrow there is a 50% chance of the sun coming up. However, the facts obviously dictate that the odds greatly favor the sun rising (as the odds favor natural mechanisms over supernatural ones for the same reason). The only way your argument makes sense to me is if we assume (for some unknown, but good reason) that everything we do not know at this time has a 50% chance of being created. If this were in fact true we should be teaching and applying creationism (of some flavor) in every branch of science. But there is no valid reason to make such an assumption (at least that I know of). Also, if humans created the notion of a creator (i.e. assume one really doesn’t exist in nature) than your 50:50 odds are a fabrication based on the false assumption that the alternative to natural mechanisms is a creator of some type. This is akin to creationist arguments that if evolution is false, creationism must be true. At what point would you say the odds favor natural explanations for natural phenomena, as countless years go by and we continue to reveal that every single study identifies natural explanations, without a single exception. I’d let go of my assumptions the second a supernatural cause was identified, when would you let go of your assumptions? Bye for now Ruminator.

Visa Resident wrote on Feb 24, 2008 3:59 PM:One indication that God exists are healings performed by Jesus and others in the Bible and many others since then. Jesus performed works that have no natural explanation. Jesus crossed a body of water in an instant, fed a multitude out of practically nothing, and walked on water. Jesus attributed his ability to do these things to his oneness with an intelligent, powerful, good, and loving spiritual creator or source (father).

Today, some doubt that Jesus existed or that the resurrection occurred. But, then why did his disciples risk their lives to spread Jesus's words and a description of his works? His disciples were obviously very fired up by something that they had personally witnessed.

boz wrote on Feb 24, 2008 4:28 PM:Back to Ron H's letter:

I challenge your belief that God chooses which nations God will favor, but then decides "Naw, I'm gonna pass up these others".

Do you really believe God would be so petty as to like some people better than others because of national origin????????

I think that's a human predisposition, not a divine predisposition. Because humans have such a hard time imagining what God is and isn't we tend to ascribe human characteristics to God, even figuring that God favors certain sports teams over others.

It is basic to so many faith traditions that God loves all and all equally. It is the choice of humans how close or far away we want to be from God. But God is always here for all, sinner and saint alike.

Reardon wrote on Feb 24, 2008 4:30 PM:My layman’s analysis is that there is probably as “belief” gene, much as there is at least a genetic proclivity toward alcoholism or homosexuality. The “belief” gene
Has been reinforced by thousands of generations of humans and their experience. In the beginning, individuals understood nothing, so they (naturally) assumed that an unseen supernatural force raised the sun in the morning, and made the rivers flow downhill. Moving from family structure to village structure reinforced the reliance on the supernatural through communication, and some bright nascent con-artist determined that they could work less by convincing more. Several thousand years ago As science began to explain more things without the unseen supernatural, the “priests” held their position through fear instilled in an illiterate population, but more and more questions diminished the prevalence of the “belief gene.” Today, with a still more literate population, the intensity of that “belief gene” is diminished and diminishing (much like the little toe or the appendix), but social pressures still remain The “belief gene” remains, less intense, and in more advanced technological societies the social pressures are also less intense. Was there a supernatural force that began the whole process? That is unknown, and unknowable. Is there a heaven and hell? That is unknown and unknowable. As science explains more, those things that are unknown and unknowable remain the purview of witch doctors and priests. This is not to argue that bright people cannot be “believers.” It is simply to argue that their genetic proclivity has overcome knowledge, education, science and rationality. That is why almost everyone who is brilliant, rational, and educated can also be strong believers.

John wrote on Feb 24, 2008 5:28 PM: to Visa Resident, re post of 2/24, 3:59 PM: I appreciate your input. I am a Christian, and one of the compelling bolsters of my faith is the zeal of Jesus's disciples. As you aptly asked: "...why did his disciples risk their lives to spread Jesus's words and a description of his works? But I can understand that a person may disbelieve, or his faith can falter, as did Thomas's. According to John 20:25, "The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe." Fortunately, Thomas was able to do just that. What I' trying to say is that different people have different levels of confidence they require before believing. I expect we'll keep discussing that point here. Regards.

Ruminator wrote on Feb 24, 2008 6:48 PM:____TO JESSIE: I was dragged off for other purposes for a while and couldn't respond but I'm back!

re: "Why do you assume there is a 50% chance of the universe being created."

I wouldn't put it that way, since it posits the Universe as an object and suggests that its creation was the result of an event caused by an outside agent. The Big Bang was not an explosion IN time and space - it was an explosion OF time and space. I prefer the more generic statement that 1) we lack an explanation of why the Universe exists and is as it is but 2) if we knew the answers to those questions, we might find in that explanation something that merited the title God - a term that could be taken very generically as something exhibiting the potential to resolve the mystery but was something more than mindless quantum foam.

Re: "We have lots of evidence of natural mechanisms causing natural phenomena, however, we have no evidence of a creator causing natural phenomena."

But there has been no suggestion that this is about events within nature; it is about nature itself as a whole, which is a gross fact for which we have no explanation.

Re: The only way your argument makes sense to me is if we assume (for some unknown, but good reason) that everything we do not know at this time has a 50% chance of being created.

I can't determine what this means.

Let me come back to what I see as the central issue. You seem entirely certain that if we had the complete explanation of why the Universe exists and why it is as it is, there would be nothing in that explanation meriting the title God or some related designation. Is that a correct representation of your position? If so, I'm positing uncertainty and you're positing certainty. What I don't understand is how you can have such a high level of certainty about something like that. Your certainty seems to match the certainty of the true believers.

Re: "I'd let go of my assumptions the second a supernatural cause was identified, when would you let go of your assumptions."

If I somehow learned the explanation and could see that there was nothing in it that could reasonably be labeled God or some related designation I would simply accept that answer. I have no commitment or need in this.

Thanks again for engaging on this, Jessie.

Ruminator wrote on Feb 24, 2008 7:11 PM:____TO REARDON: A few years ago I would probably have dismissed the idea of a 'belief gene', but after almost three years of debating creationists, I'm much more receptive to the idea. :-)

Ruminator wrote on Feb 24, 2008 7:24 PM:____TO 3D: re: your comment of Feb 23, 2008 7:07 PM: “…it does seem plausible to consider (especially if one does perceive credible anecdotal "evidence" of interactions with a "higher power") that whatever existed first, and generated everything else, was a form of ENERGY, out of which MATTER could subsequently be proliferated.”

I suspect that something like this is as close as we have yet come to confronting what underlies this world. If I was betting on particular explanations, my money would be on something like Hegel, in spite of the shakiness of many of his claims.

John wrote on Feb 24, 2008 8:07 PM:Re: Reardon post of 2/24, 4:30 PM: I'm somewhat inclined to think there's a belief gene. It would have survival value, by acting as a unifying force among the people -- particularly so for monotheism. If you look at monotheism and the other elements of Mosaic law, they were pretty well crafted to eliminate discord, allowing the group to act with single-mindedness of purpose.

Regarding "priests" - then and now - it has all too often been about power. In government, business, and the "business" of religion, power corrupts. Jesus particularly directed his ire at the Scribes and Pharisees - hypocrites all. To paraphrase,"Sin is only skin deep, but hypocrisy goes all the way to the bone."

Lastly, regarding "those things that are unknown and unknowable remain the purview of witch doctors and priests." I agree except I would add "not exclusively" their purview. There are those few who choose to pursue their spiritual journey either alone or without an intermediary. Regards.

Jessie wrote on Feb 24, 2008 8:26 PM:Ruminator: I agree, if we ever discover the explanation of the universe it could be connected to something which merits the title God. Then again we may find that it does not. My point has been that since everything we have revealed so far has natural explanations, what reason do we have to assume (not deny) supernatural explanations (especially at the 50:50 level you assigned earlier). And you do not know that the whole of nature isn’t just its parts (i.e. that which is “within nature” is nature – I’m not a physicists but I believe it’s very possible, based on the little I know, that the answer lies within each of us, that being the atoms that make us and the universe up – perhaps we’ll learn that to know one, is to know them all (i.e. the universe, and its history)). I never stated I’m certain that there is nothing out there meriting the title of God. I’m actually certain of very little, but that does not mean I see all things as being equally possible. I stated that why should I assume (not deny) supernatural explanations when there is not one single shred of evidence in support of the assumption. Sure God is possible, but so is the Mustang in the middle of the moon. I’m as uncertain as you are, because like you and everyone else, I do not know the answer. We appear to differ in that I hedge my bets based on the history of substantial scientific research of the natural world, which has yet to reveal even a single hint of supernatural involvement. I have no reason to suspect that trend will change tomorrow, be it in physics, chemistry, biology or whatever. I’m not denying a God, I just have no reason to assume one is there. I have to challenge your statement that my level of uncertainty matches the certainty of believers. This appears to imply that I’m guilty of being equally irrational. If I disbelieve in tooth fairies as strongly as someone else believes in them does that imply I’m being equally irrational. What would be irrational is for me to adopt a middle of the road assumption that there is a 50:50 chance of tooth fairies, simply because someone suggest they may really be there, or because I don’t know with absolute certainty whether or not they exist. Sorry if my tone is antagonistic, it’s not intentional.

Ruminator wrote on Feb 24, 2008 9:10 PM:____TO JESSIE: It might be that this subject could be pursued further to some effect, but I'd say we've largely mined what was of most value in it and have reached diminishing returns.

I'm currently reading "The Age of American Unreason" by Susan Jacoby. Her theme is reflected in the title and one of the first subjects that she goes into is creationism, which I hadn’t anticipated but it hardly surprised me. Another theme that she discusses is that American culture has become not merely irrational but has simply lost interest in engaging in dialog. She notes that when people disagree these days they often simply throw knee-jerk insults at each other and don’t even bother to consider what is actually at issue. You, 3D, and John are exceptions to this. Hell, even Rudy is an exception! Maybe the sort of people who take the trouble to show up in places like this simply care more than most others.

In any case, thanks again for engaging on this. I have gotten real value from it that I will be able to use that in what I am doing. Later!

Ruminator wrote on Feb 25, 2008 6:36 AM:____TO JESSIE: While writing on the conversation that we’ve had on ID, it occurred to me that I hadn’t gotten entirely clear on your position. Just to make sure, I wanted to ask one more question that’s a variant on what I’ve asked before. Does the following correctly represent your opinion:

You are as certain that there is no meaning or purpose to the Universe as a whole as that there is no tooth fairy.

This might seem redundant but I wanted to be sure. Thanks.

Jessie wrote on Feb 25, 2008 2:20 PM:It seems you want me to say I’m pretty certain there is no supernatural creator. I can’t be certain about something that I have no way of knowing if it exists or not (as I can’t deny there is a planet orbiting a yet to be discovered star). My point is that there is no evidence of a God, as there is no evidence for Mustangs inside the moon or for fairies. Until evidence of the supernatural is identified I do not entertain it as an explanation for anything. This is different than saying I deny it. Why should I seriously entertain it? Why do you? There are infinite suggestions (possibilities) humans generate (e.g. astrology, spoon bending, reincarnation, endless creation myths, a spaceship hidden behind Hale-Bopp……). Why should I give your claim of a supernatural designer of the universe any more consideration than any of the other infinite claims? I can’t deny that the Heaven’s Gate folks really did board a spaceship hiding behind Hale-Bopp after they committed suicide, but I waste little of my time considering it as a likely explanation because there is no evidence in its support. God appears more deserving of our consideration than the Hale-Bopp claim not because the evidence of a God is any stronger than the Hale-Bopp scenario, but only because God is mentioned every day, year after year, for thousands of years (along with other things such as astrology). As 3D partially stated, this is why religions have geographical boundaries, because in each culture you grow up hearing the same thing every day (be it God, sun God, Apollo, Buddha….) until it becomes an assumed reality. This repetition of the supernatural (and public acceptance of it) is most critical (harmful in my opinion) when exposed to young children, whose perceptions of the world are being firmly established. Besides a possible “belief” gene I suspect we have genes that allow us to tell and learn from stories as a way of perpetuating vital information, very adaptive for learning when the rains come and where the buffalo are, perhaps not so beneficial when our brains lock onto fictional stories. One of the irritating survival mechanisms of the paranormal is their demand that nonbelievers need to prove them wrong (e.g. prove there is no God, or prove there is no Hale-Bopp spaceship, or prove Sagittarians really aren’t more independent)). No, they need to prove themselves right (prove there is a God, or least provide some glimmer of evidence). As Sagan said, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Until there is evidence of a supernatural creator it’s just another of the endless stories humans peddle as being factual, when it fact they are not (thus our need for science). So no, I would not agree there is a 50:50 chance that the universe is either created by a God or is the result of natural mechanisms. And no, I do not deny there is a God that created the universe, but this God possibility doesn’t get a fast track ticket to the top of the possibility line simply because its mythology is so ancient and so well accepted (at least in this corner of the globe). I don’t want my human desire to seek order, meaning and purpose in the universe to overwhelm my ability to think rationally. I’m very open to evidence, I’m tolerant of guesses and I despise guesses peddled as evidence (e.g. which appears to be the general state of the religious movement in America today). So that’s my long-winded answer to your brief and simple simple question ;) Thanks Ruminator, this dialog with you helped me shape some thoughts that needed shaping.

jessie wrote on Feb 25, 2008 2:51 PM:Ruminator: Sorry. I just wanted to clarify my reponses relative to your questions ("You are as certain that there is no meaning or purpose to the Universe as a whole as that there is no tooth fairy"). I assumed your reference to "meaning or purpose" implies a reference to some intelligent and creative thing (God for lack of a better term). That's what I was replying to.

Jessie wrote on Feb 25, 2008 4:59 PM:Ruminator: NTC didn’t print this so I’ll try again by splitting it into 2 parts: Part 1: It seems you want me to say I’m pretty certain there is no supernatural creator. I can’t be certain about something that I have no way of knowing if it exists or not (as I can’t deny there is a planet orbiting a yet to be discovered star). My point is that there is no evidence of a God, as there is no evidence for Mustangs inside the moon or fairies. Until evidence of the supernatural is identified I do not entertain it as an explanation for anything. This is different than saying I deny it. Why should I seriously entertain it? Why do you? There are infinite suggestions (possibilities) humans generate (e.g. astrology, spoon bending, reincarnation, endless creation myths, a spaceship hidden behind Hale-Bopp……). Why should I give your claim of a supernatural designer of the universe any more consideration than any of the other infinite claims? I can’t deny that the Heaven’s Gate folks really did board a spaceship hiding behind Hale-Bopp after they committed suicide, but I waste little of my time considering it as a likely explanation because there is no evidence in its support. God appears more deserving of our consideration than the Hale-Bopp claim not because the evidence of a God is any stronger than the Hale-Bopp scenario, but only because God is mentioned every day, year after year, for thousands of years (along with things like astrology). As 3D partially stated, this is why religions have geographical boundaries, because in each culture you grow up hearing the same thing every day (be it God, sun God, Apollo, Buddha….) until it becomes an assumed reality. This repetition of the supernatural (and public acceptance of it) is most critical (harmful in my opinion) when exposed to young children, whose perceptions of the world are being firmly established. Besides a possible “belief” gene I suspect we have genes that allow us to tell and learn from stories as a way of perpetuating vital information, very adaptive for learning when the rains come and where the buffalo are, perhaps not so beneficial when it comes to fictional stories.

Jessie wrote on Feb 25, 2008 5:01 PM:Part 2: One of the irritating strategies of the paranormal is their demand that nonbelievers need to prove them wrong (e.g. prove there is no God, or prove there is no Hale-Bopp spaceship, or prove Sagittarians really aren�t more open-minded)). No, they need to prove themselves right (prove there is a God, or least provide some glimmer of evidence). As Sagan said, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Until there is evidence of a supernatural creator it�s just another of the endless stories humans peddle as being factual, when it fact they are not (thus our need for science). So no, I would not agree there is a 50:50 chance that the universe is either created by a God or is the result of natural mechanisms. And no, I do not deny there is a God that created the universe, but this God possibility doesn�t get a fast track ticket to the top of the possibility line simply because its mythology is so ancient and so well accepted (at least in this corner of the globe). I don�t want my human desire to seek order, meaning and purpose in the universe to overwhelm my ability to think rationally. I�m very open to evidence, I�m tolerant of guesses and I despise guesses peddled as evidence (e.g. which appears to be the general state of the religious movement in America today). So that�s my long-winded answer to your brief and simple simple question Thanks Ruminator, this dialog with you helped me shape some thoughts that needed shaping.

Ruminator wrote on Feb 25, 2008 6:39 PM:____TO JESSIE: Thanks for the input and have a great week!

Ruminator wrote on Feb 26, 2008 9:11 AM:____TO JESSIE: THIS IS THE FIRST OF A 4-PART MESSAGE

I hadn’t seen your major message of Feb 25, 2008 5:01 PM when I posted one on Monday night but I was quite gratified to see what you had written. One of the best things that can come out of a dialog is that the participants come away feeling that they have gotten value from it. Let me say first that we have more points of agreement than disagreement. Let me also say that I adhere to no particular doctrine on anything related to this issue and I consider myself to be a philosopher in the Western tradition. Sagan said that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence but that idea came the philosopher David Hume. I should mention that I agree with it. Here are some things I didn’t say before.

I like to use the gambling analogy because it can correlate well with a person’s underlying sense of probability for something. If we were given $10K and told that we would have to place a single bet on something, the pick we would make could be expected to be quite revealing of how we really felt. The following is a brief account of the way I would have bet on the question of there being something higher at different points of my life.

When I was very young I listened to my parents arguing on several occasions about whether there was a God. I had a sense of the issue but if I was going to bet then, I would have taken even odds on either side, since I had no reason to move the probability needle either way. I subsequently saw much hypocrisy in the name of religion and the doctrines seemed conflicting and not credible. Also, the Catholic masses that I was forced to attend were in a language that had been dead for about 1,500 years and seemed to be meaningless rituals to me. Before I reached high school I found myself retracing the skeptical path of Descartes, which was that I came to think that the only thing of which I could be certain was the existence of my own mind. At this point, I would probably have needed at least 3 to 1 odds that any of the religions of the world was true. If I had been betting on a higher purpose or power in the Universe in general, I would have put that at maybe 40%, ( 3 to 2 odds against). CONTINUED IN PART #2.

Ruminator wrote on Feb 26, 2008 9:11 AM:____PART #2 While I was in the USAF I had conversations with a number of persons on religion, including ministers, priests, and evangelists, but nothing I heard affected my attitude. When I went back to college I first majored in physics and astronomy, which was where my probability needle moved for the first time in more than a decade.

The ideas that I’ve mentioned in previous messages about energy, Einstein, and Spinoza affected me and moved the probability needle to over 50% for there being a higher purpose or power, since modern science seemed clearly to be vindicating the a priori speculations of a 17th Century philosopher on reality. When I learned about the evolution of stars and galaxies and the history of the Universe in general, I was amazed at how the story resembled a construction project in which the stars were like cosmic furnaces fusing the heavier elements that would be used later in planets and in the emergence of life. The progression from what would have seemed like an inert vapor cloud through all these stages to the emergence of consciousness impressed me sufficiently that it probably moved the needle up to nearly 70% on the side of something going on at a more fundamental level and it was riding around that point for a number of years.

3D mentioned the problem of the First Cause” earlier. When I was a kid I used to lie around in bed at night absolutely stunned that the world existed. I simply couldn’t believe that it could be true. After all, what could possibly explain why there was anything at all? How could anything have gotten started? This was my encounter with Aristotle’s First Cause issue, which is intrinsic to the workings of our understanding. The paradox was nicely explored by Immanuel Kant in the “Critique of Pure Reason”, which is one of my favorites. CONTINUED IN PART #3.

Ruminator wrote on Feb 26, 2008 9:12 AM:____PART #3:

This fundamental mystery of existence was like a hole in my understanding. I mean, I could see that there was the Big Bang and that science could explain everything from that point forward based on principles of nature that could be established empirically, but why did any of it happen in the first place and why did it look so much like a construction project?

In the summer of 1987 I went to Sidney, Australia as a consultant for Apple Computer and was staying at a motel on a beach of the Tasman Sea. I was moving around the room at the motel when I slipped into a very subtle yet distinct experiential state that was different from anything I had ever known before - and I don’t think it was jet lag, since I had been there for almost a week at the time. In this state I felt as though I was seeing straight through the world around me in such a way that the paradox of existence simply evaporated and I had the clear sense that there was really no problem at all. Remember, this paradox was like a knot that had been in my mind since I was about 10 years old.

If you’ve spent time working with mathematical proofs, you probably know the feeling of looking at something and having that moment of seeing clearly how the proof is complete and clear from end to end. That was how the world appeared to me in that moment – the gap in understanding of why anything existed simply dropped away and in my mind I was thinking something like, “of course”, as though the mystery were resolved and the proof was clear. This entire experience lasted for probably no more than 15-20 seconds but it was such a remarkable event that I called my wife in California to tell her about it. CONTINUED IN PART #4.

Ruminator wrote on Feb 26, 2008 9:12 AM:____PART #4

The kicker is that the next morning I was riding with some Apple Australia folks down to their office when one woman said that she had just heard on the radio that the previous night 2,000 people around the world had been touched by God and those people would come to change the world. Of course, being the skeptical person that I am, I can easily dismiss it all and it certainly doesn’t prove anything in a scientific sense to anyone reading this, including myself,. But who knows? I certainly don't. Nevertheless, the experience is part of the landscape of my experience and I do not merely dismiss it.

I would say that this experience moved the probability meter for me from around 70% to near 80% and that’s pretty much where it still stands. In other words, if I were betting now and we had the envelope with the correct answer to the question as to whether there was any meaning or purpose or higher power or whatever behind the Universe, I’d place the $10K on ”Yes” if given odds of a $2,500 return or better. That would be my best guess on how to maximize on the $10K.

If there is any point to this story it is that none of us has all the answers and that openness can make you available to possibilities you might otherwise reject in knee-jerk fashion. If someone doesn’t want to see something, they can make sure that they don’t see it. That’s what some creationists do. I’m still trying to figure out what’s going on at bottom.

Jessie wrote on Feb 26, 2008 11:24 PM:Hi Ruminator: You’ve had some rich and interesting experiences, which is not surprising. Please understand that while I disagree with you on this issue, I respect your intelligence, knowledge, honesty and good nature. I’ve enjoyed this discussion (in part because I love to argue). We obviously have a very different perspective on this specific topic, and it appears we could discuss this from now until the next Big Bang and we’d be right back where we started from. Your odds on the presence of a God (of some type) have gone from zero (at birth) to 80% today. Based on what you’ve described I’d have to honestly conclude that your confidence increased totally independent of evidence. It appears you thought, reasoned and felt your way to this 80 percent level of confidence. There is nothing wrong with this (we all do it), but at the end of the day it offers no evidence of a God, just your reasons for believing in one. As for what would I be willing to bet? Without any hesitation I’d take your bet. In fact, I’ll bet you (real money or a gentleman’s bet) that each and every single discovery over the next 10 years in any branch of science will be found to have natural explanations, and not a single one will indicate supernatural cause. I’d go beyond 10 years but I may not be here to collect (or pay up). You only need one discovery (out of thousands) to win, whereas I need every single one in order to win. I suspect you would not be willing to take this bet (as I wouldn’t if I were you). If true, this is somewhat curious given the fact that you are 80% confident that supernatural explanations exists. And I think you’d agree that the next 10 years in physics (and other branches of science) should reveal much about what we don’t currently understand. How long without a glimmer of supernatural evidence (100 years, million years, billion years), or how many unknowns have to be revealed without supernatural cause, before your confidence level would start to fall below 80 percent? That’s the problem with suggestions which can’t be falsified, they have no judgment day, they live forever, and the longer they live the more people seem to believe in them. Bye for now.

Ruminator wrote on Feb 27, 2008 8:49 AM:____TO JESSIE: A couple weeks ago I decided to slip away from this message section to focus on my current project, but this dialog is directly productive to that effort in a way that I couldn't have gotten from writing on my own, at least not on this particular topic. Your views represent a significant and influential position among the educated population and they have particular value to me because of that. Here are a few more items I wanted to follow up on. Most are clarifications based on your comments from last night -

Re: "Your odds on the presence of a God (of some type) have gone from zero (at birth) to 80% today."

Remember, probability on any proposition for which we have no data one way or the other is 50%. If I ask you what are the chances that some blorfs are goobly, that should be 50% awaiting further input. I went from a neutral 50% to a 'lean' of 80%.

Re: "...it offers no evidence of a God, just your reasons for believing in one."

As a technical point, I believe in nothing. On a strong definition of the word 'belief', I don't even believe I live on the planet Earth. Everything for me is based on operational assumptions.

Re: "In fact, I'll bet you (real money or a gentleman's bet) that each and every single discovery over the next 10 years in any branch of science will be found to have natural explanations, and not a single one will indicate supernatural cause.

I wouldn't take the bet because I make no claim that there is a dualism in which there is nature on one side and some agency outside nature on the other side that intervenes into nature and changes the course of specific processes in ways that violate the laws of nature. One of the reasons that I'm so adamant in my opposition to the creationists is that I see no reason to think such things happen. In my personal expectation of what is going on, that doesn't happen, nor do I expect it to happen. If there is "something more" at work in the Universe than meaningless matter in motion, I would expect it to be found in other aspects of this reality rather than in some entity separate from this reality. The word 'immanence' probably captures it well.

I have more but I won't have enough time until later. Later!

Ruminator wrote on Feb 27, 2008 4:14 PM:____TO JESSIE: This conversation has been a very useful resource to me in exploring this particular topic, since you're educated, intelligent, articulate, and courteous. I'm asking a lot from you to respond to all these questions and I'm quite appreciative that you're so generous with your time. If you're interested, I will treat you to dinner at any place in North County.

Re: "That's the problem with suggestions which can't be falsified, they have no judgment day, they live forever..."

I was amused recently when I saw a message, I think it was from the creationist Dembski, claiming that ID was falsifiable but Darwinism wasn't. It seems clear to me that Darwinism is falsifiable but I also suspect that most, if not all, explicit statements of an ID theory are potentially falsifiable in some way to honest judges.

The claim that there is teleology in the Universe, even the abstract version that I've presented, could potentially be falsified by something like the 's-matrix' theory suggested by Heisenberg. In such a theory, 'nothing' is impossible, meaning that something must exist due to an intrinsic 'restlessness' of reality such that you can't prevent Universes from coming into being. Such a theory is certainly imaginable (at least Heisenberg thought so) and could be of such character as to eliminate any need for a teleological agency in explaining anything. There are already some grounds for making such a hypothesis on the basis of quantum instability.

Ruminator wrote on Feb 27, 2008 4:16 PM:____TO JESSIE:

QUESTION: If you looked at two different universes and one was an unchanging, inert cloud while the second was the universe we have, would you say that our universe is more likely to be the result of teleology than the first case? If not, what would a universe have to be like to lead you to think there was teleology underlying it?

QUESTION: When a creationist says that there's no evidence for evolution, they're simply denying the evidence presented. They can say that we've never seen any species change into another species and that all the cases proposed depend on inferences that they reject. For example, the fossil record provides, in my mind, an undeniable case for a succession of species through time that can only be explained credibly through an evolutionary process. However, their response is that we see that pattern because we want to see it but if we don't want to see it we will realize that a non-evolutionary explanation can also be used to explain what we see. I know how I would respond to that but how would you respond?

Ruminator wrote on Feb 27, 2008 4:27 PM:____TO JESSIE: When we use the phrase 'natural explanations', that suggests that we can specify the boundaries of what is natural. But that's much easier said than done and our definition can be expected to be a function of the current scientific conception of nature. If we had asked a physicist from 200 years ago to define the scope of the natural, he might have written out a specification such that if he saw cell phones, lasers, computers, etc., his specification would probably entail that those were outside the boundaries of what he had defined as natural and would be more appropriately characterized as magic.

The case that I referenced on the Big Bang was somewhat relevant to this because while many in science rejected it because they thought it introduced mythology into science, the fact that it is now mainstream science is assumed to provide not the slightest support for the Universe exhibiting anything beyond non-teleological materialism. In the same way, someone could say that we never encounter anything beyond the natural because anything that shows up would then be categorized as part of the natural.

QUESTION: What would qualify as an example of something that could be categorized as not being natural?

Jessie wrote on Feb 27, 2008 9:01 PM:Ruminator: in response to your QUESTION: "If you looked at two different universes and one was an unchanging, inert cloud while the second was the universe we have, would you say that our universe is more likely to be the result of teleology than the first case?" No, I’d consider they were in different stages (e.g. expansion-contraction) or the physics of the two universes were different. I would consider teleology only if physicists determined the systems were unexplainable, leaving no explanation but something beyond the laws of nature.” If a God is there fantastic, but what reason do I have to assume a God is there. If not, what would a universe have to be like to lead you to think there was teleology underlying it?" That’s like asking what color hair would I expect fairies to have. I don’t know, and I have no reason to suspect they exist at all. Taking a stab at this question it could be a system in which phenomena occurred independent of the laws governing them (i.e. the mechanisms, once identified, were incapable of explaining the system). Like dinosaur fossils occurring in sediments prior to the first vertebrates, or suns appearing from a void of energy and matter, or mountains forming without any geological explanation, or a God appearing before my eyes, or God’s signature encoded in DNA, or a people walking on water. If there is a God there is probably infinite ways he (it) could make his presence known. Yet we have none of these expressions, we only the wishes and desires of humans who so dearly want a God, they have created one (actually thousands of them), and some even go as far as to speak for God (as if they know his thoughts), or see him in the complexities of nature (as we see faces in clouds). The bible is another possible answer to your question – if I saw people walk on water, turn a single fish into thousands of fish, rise from the dead or the stop the sun in the sky I’d be thinking supernatural, but only after I first checked to see if Las Vegas style magic show trickery involved (and I’d be willing to bet anything before researching it that trickery was involved). I enjoy human thought, although I don’t see it as a source of evidence. I’m not one who believes in things that are not supported by convincing evidence. I guess I’m not in such a hurry for answers that I have to sacrifice evidence for desire, even if I die before the answers arrive. I’ll try to respond to your other questions when I get the time.

Ruminator wrote on Feb 28, 2008 6:44 AM:____TO JESSIE: Please don't feel obligated to respond to anything further unless the spirit moves you to do so. You've already provided me with a substantial volume of thoughtful content. Have fun!

Jessie wrote on Feb 28, 2008 8:10 AM:How would I respond to the creationist claim “that we (science) sees the pattern of evolution because we want to see it, but if we don't want to see it we will realize that a non-evolutionary explanation can also be used to explain what we see.” --- First, while this argument is valid given the limitations of human understanding, i.e. we can be wrong, our perceptions (and biases) may prevent us from knowing reality. However, it is science that embraces the notion that all understanding is tentative, and it is creationist who embrace the belief in absolutes (e.g. the bible is a literal truth, end of story), meaning creationists are much more likely to be married to false ideas (and more likely to “see their explanations in things” even when the evidence doesn’t support them). Second, evolution is falsifiable, and creationism is not. Thus, if evolution is actually false we can discover that it’s false. On the other hand, if creationism is actually false we can never discover that it is actually false. Thus, creationism gets a free pass, where everything is possible and nothing is impossible. Third, using the theory of evolution we can (and frequently do) make and test predictions (e.g. if tetrapods evolved from fish, there has to be transitional fossils showing this, and not only that, but they must occur in sediments of the specific time period during which tetrapods first show up in the fossil record). Creationism is incapable of making predictions, thus the oxymoron, creation science. Fourth, we know the mechanisms that cause evolution, we can measure (observe) the process occurring today, and all the evidence indicates it also happened in the past (evidence such as the chronological fossil record, biogeography, comparative studies of anatomy, physiology, genomics…). Creationists have no mechanism, they are clueless as to whether or not their unidentified (perhaps nonexistent) mechanism is occurring today or has occurred in the past. Their arguments have as much supporting evidence as arguments that fairies have red hair. And yet the public politely tolerates it (so much for critical thought). My response to your 80% confidence in a creator, and the argument that perhaps we don’t see the creator because we are not looking for one is similar to what I’ve stated above (although I understand you don’t agree with many of the claims of creationism, you seem to for some – e.g. the complexity of the universe and its origin requires a God of some type). In addition, I’d add there is no shortage of believers who try to see the creator in everything (the opposite of your claim that because science doesn’t consider a God, it may overlook Gods presence). So if God is there I don’t agree that we may fail to detect it simply because we are not looking for it, because there are more people looking for God in everything than there are for those who are not. No one needs a license to study physics, biology or whatever.

Ruminator wrote on Feb 28, 2008 10:27 AM:____TO JESSIE: Very good content in your 8:10 AM message on science versus creationism!

A few points:

Creationism understood as the view that life didn’t evolve is not only falsifiable but has been falsified. Such a view does entail predictions - it's just that the predictions are overwhelmingly false. A prime example is that their account would imply that the fossil record should exhibit a random distribution of species, which it doesn't. Their explanations for this failure sounds like a spoof.

I don't think the complexity of the Universe _requires_ a God. I only think it is suggestive of the possibility of an explanation that entails something outside of normal causal explanations.

Later!