Trackbacks & Pings

1. The ist, and the isn’t » Blog Archive » Why I Am Not An Agnostic on 21 Jul 2007 at 10:23 pm

   […] to take? After all, you don’t really claim to know, do you? You’ve already said that almost all belief is subject to doubt; surely this applies to beliefs about God, if anything? So why aren’t you an […]

Comments

1. Mick wrote:

   Faith

   M-theory brought forth resurgence in the potential for parallel universes – infinitely many, each with perhaps its own law of physics. Lisa Randall (Harvard University) combined these ideas to offer an explanation for the relative weakness of gravity w.r.t. the other forces (e.g., electromagnetic force). Effectively she stated that our universe or membrane experiences the diluted effect of gravity leaking from another membrane in which, perhaps, gravity is a strong force. Others have applied M-theory to resolve the issue of the Big Bang, working backwards in time with the singularity resolved as the collision between two membranes – physics and mathematics provide a solid foundation for these concepts.

   As physicists and mathematicians unravel the complexities of the universe(s) in which we live, can one not make rational arguments for the probable existence of God? For example, with an infinite number of membranes floating through the fabric of the 11th dimension, is it impossible that at least one of these membranes exists within the context of a set of physical laws allowing for the existence of God? For reference, that membrane will be denoted Heaven. If Heaven exists, then as surely as gravity leaks from one membrane into ours, can not the influence of it (i.e., Heaven) do the same? At this point, one may counter that while there is evidence for the existence of a force in our universe we label gravity, no evidence can be found in our universe for the existence of Heaven. What evidence does a rational mind require? One cannot “see” gravity, only its affects. What does one, for example, label the inexplicable remission of a terminal illness? Such events have been witnessed and recorded. If one can rationally argue for the probable existence of Heaven, and one can rationally argue for the probable existence of a parallel universe in which gravity is a strong force manifesting itself in our universe in diluted form, then why can one not rationally argue that miracles do in fact exist as the influence of Heaven on our universe?

   Physicists now believe that it is – at least theoretically – possible to create a universe. Perhaps there is a physicist known as God living in the Heaven membrane that successfully carried out such an experiment about 15 billion years ago.

   It seems there is room for faith in an interactive multiverse. Moreover, faith need not be burdened with Intelligent Design, arguments against evolution, dogmatic insistence on inerrancy, or any other religious argument readily refuted by established scientific principles. In fact, asserting that an interactive multiverse provides a rational (albeit untestable) argument for the existence of God is contrary to the beliefs of literalist Christians.

   Not all faith walks with a white cane.

   Posted 20 Jul 2007 at 5:13 am ¶

2. Marcus wrote:

   It’s certainly possible that God dwells somewhere in the 11th dimension, and that Heaven is a brane floating through the multiverse. But does that mean there’s actually any good reason for believing it’s so? It’s also possible that the observable universe rests on the back of a humongous turtle.

   As for inexplicable remissions of cancer and the like, it seems to me that, rather than providing any evidence for God, these kinds of events are a product of our incomplete knowledge. Biology, after all, is very complex - much more so than physics. Besides, if inexplicable good things, like remissions, constitute evidence for God, then why don’t inexplicable bad things, such as the fact that a two year-old gets cancer in the first place, constitute evidence against?

   Posted 20 Jul 2007 at 3:06 pm ¶

3. Mick wrote:

   In an infinite mutliverse it is indeed possible that the observable universe rests on the back of a humongous turtle. Is there any evidence to suggest that is the case? None that I know of; so, to employ that possibility as an argument seems inconsistent with the premise that lack of faith is merely the acceptance of that which is observable and rejection of that which is not. As for a two year old being stricken with cancer – although tragic – it is not inexplicable within the bounds of known physical and biological processes within our own universe. Such afflictions can be attributed to genetic defects, environmental influence, disease, etc, and therefore require no “Hell” brane to explain. So, we are back to the inference question: if one accepts M theory, and one accepts that gravity as a weak force in our universe is the effect of gravity leaking from another in which gravity is a strong force, then is it not possible for a “Heaven” brane to exist whose influence we observe as inexplicable “miracles?” Of course, medical “miracles” might one day be attributed to a hitherto unknown genetic disorder, mutation, or environmental cause; however, is it valid to assert that one conjecture must be wrong because the other might be correct?

   It is indeed wise to question everything that is not completely understood. I agree that these questions are formulated within the confines of our current knowledge and many will likely remain unanswered until gaps in our current understanding of the physical and biological properties of our universe are filled. However, I am not convinced that God is just a synonym for incomplete knowledge. On the other hand, I suppose one could argue they are in fact the same thing, for to know everything is to know the mind of God.

   Posted 21 Jul 2007 at 12:20 am ¶

4. Marcus wrote:

   Your comments are well–taken. I’ll respond point-by-point to a few of them:

   “In an infinite mutliverse it is indeed possible that the observable universe rests on the back of a humongous turtle. Is there any evidence to suggest that is the case? None that I know of…”

   That’s just the point: there’s precisely as much evidence that the universe rests on the back of a turtle as there is that God dwells in the 11th dimension. So you can’t rationally prefer one hypothesis to the other.

   “…if one accepts M theory, and one accepts that gravity as a weak force in our universe is the effect of gravity leaking from another in which gravity is a strong force, then is it not possible for a “Heaven” brane to exist whose influence we observe as inexplicable “miracles?””

   Again, it’s possible, for sure. But as you say, “is there any evidence”. The fact that something is merely possible in no way argues for its actual existence.

   On M-theory: M-theory is Ed Witten’s version of string theory. There’s not just one M-theory, but many thousands. All these theories contain some very elegant mathematics, I’m told (not that I’ve delved into that mathematics myself). But all so far have been hobbled by the fact that they make no empirically testable predictions. Physicists had hoped that, by imposing reasonable conditions, the multiplicity of string theories could be reduced to one theory which made testable predictions. That has so far not proved to be the case. Prominent physicists today, including former string theorists such as Lee Smolin, are arguing that string theory has had its chance, and should be abandoned in favor of other approaches for unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics.

   All this aside, and even if string theory turns out to be right, I’m fairly suspicious of attempts to ground religion in physics. Physics is about how the universe works. Religion addresses (among other things) a more fundamental question: why does the universe exist in the first place? I happen to think this question is non-sense. But Physics certainly couldn’t address it, even if it made sense.

   “As for a two year old being stricken with cancer – although tragic – it is not inexplicable within the bounds of known physical and biological processes within our own universe. Such afflictions can be attributed to genetic defects, environmental influence, disease, etc…”

   And yet you’re saying that so-called “spontaneous” remissions are fundamentally inexplicable in terms of “known physical and biological processes”? I don’t see any reason to think this is the case. Researchers often don’t even know the mechanisms by which certain anti-cancer drugs work (”non-spontaneous remission”). Does that mean that the effectiveness of these drugs is a “miracle”, attributable only to God? Of course not. We simply don’t currently understand their mechanism of action, but we eventually will, as our knowledge of biology increases. Similarly, so-called “spontaneous” remissions will eventually be seen as the result of “known physical and biological processes” as well.

   Even if you’re right as far as cancer is concerned, I don’t think you can argue that all “inexplicable miracles” are beneficial. And if “inexplicable evils” exist, then at the least we can conclude that God, if He exists, can’t be both all good and all powerful.

   Posted 21 Jul 2007 at 12:57 pm ¶

5. Mick wrote:

   Valid points also, however (you in quotes first followed by me):

   “That’s just the point: there’s precisely as much evidence that the universe rests on the back of a turtle as there is that God dwells in the 11th dimension. So you can’t rationally prefer one hypothesis to the other.”

   When evidence is defined by those arguing against the possibility of God, of course. That was not my point anyway. I was agreeing that it is rational to request evidence to support a belief – regardless of the nature of the belief.

   “Again, it’s possible, for sure. But as you say, “is there any evidence”. The fact that something is merely possible in no way argues for its actual existence.”

   Again, we are in agreement. I never said something necessarily exists because it might exist. I simply asked to concede the possibility.
   “But all so far have been hobbled by the fact that they make no empirically testable predictions.”

   Absolutely, I even conceded that the predictions are untestable in a previous post.

   “That has so far not proved to be the case. Prominent physicists today, including former string theorists such as Lee Smolin, are arguing that string theory has had its chance, and should be abandoned in favor of other approaches for unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics.”

   Jesus also had his disciples, but Jesus wasn’t looking to publish and acquire research grants.

   “All this aside, and even if string theory turns out to be right, I’m fairly suspicious of attempts to ground religion in physics. Physics is about how the universe works. Religion addresses (among other things) a more fundamental question: why does the universe exist in the first place? I happen to think this question is non-sense. But Physics certainly couldn’t address it, even if it made sense.”

   Yet again, we are in agreement. I don’t believe I have used the word religion in any of my points. I have not asked why the universe exists. My only question has been is there room for God in the multiverse? And again, a question, not an assertion.

   “And yet you’re saying that so-called “spontaneous” remissions are fundamentally inexplicable in terms of “known physical and biological processes”? I don’t see any reason to think this is the case… Similarly, so-called “spontaneous” remissions will eventually be seen as the result of “known physical and biological processes” as well.”

   Actually, I continued to say, “Of course, medical “miracles” might one day be attributed to a hitherto unknown genetic disorder, mutation, or environmental cause;…” And later said, “and many will likely remain unanswered until gaps in our current understanding of the physical and biological properties of our universe are filled.” My original point was that spontaneous remission might be attributed to the influence of forces external to our universe. I don’t think I said they are attributed to same. My point was, restated, “…is it valid to assert that one conjecture must be wrong because the other might be correct?”

   “Even if you’re right as far as cancer is concerned, I don’t think you can argue that all “inexplicable miracles” are beneficial. And if “inexplicable evils” exist, then at the least we can conclude that God, if He exists, can’t be both all good and all powerful.”

   Again, I never characterized God as good, bad, powerful, or whatever. I simply offered one example - that can be characterized as good - that one might use to argue for the possible influence of God on this universe.

   “Does that mean that the effectiveness of these drugs is a “miracle”, attributable only to God? Of course not.”

   I never made that assertion.

   “We simply don’t currently understand their mechanism of action, but we eventually will”

   Sounds like we are both persons of – faith.

   Posted 21 Jul 2007 at 6:22 pm ¶

6. Marcus wrote:

   Good stuff. I’ll keep my reply short:

   - we do agree on lots of things
   - I’m not arguing against the possibility of God. I’ll allow that God, suitably defined, is possible. What I’m arguing against is the actual existence of God, as He’s commonly understood in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition.
   - If I’m exhibiting a kind of faith, in science, or rationality, you have to admit that it differs in one key respect from the faith of a committed believer: I gladly admit to the possibility that my faith may be mistaken; in other words, I know my opinions could be wrong. Contrast this with the faith of the True Believer, which is “unassailable”.
   - For more on my take on the argument that atheism is a kind of “faith” in its own right, see my post Beyond Belief

   Cheers — M

   Posted 21 Jul 2007 at 9:45 pm ¶

7. lon wrote:

   I, despite being a highly religious person, was in strong agreement until this point:

   “Contrast this with the religious point of view: there is a certain set of absolute truths, which mankind has been in possession of since pre-history, and which are fixed and immutable. Doubting these truths - something even the most committed believer can’t help but do from time to time - is most emphatically not an avenue towards enlightenment. Rather, it is the road to hell.”

   Imagine me, a religious person, being in total agreement with the previous points, and then seeing something totally alien to my beliefs being set forth as if they were indeed “the religious point of view” and then used to lampoon all religion as a whole.

   No. Really. Let’s break this one down, and see the logic used by someone who claims to cherish it:

   1) some religions claim absolute truth
   2) some religions believe in hell
   3) doubt is unavoidable
   4) some religions believe that doubt leads you to hell
   *) therefore, this is the point of view for all religions.

   Can we see the logic error here, boys and girls? Sure. I knew you could. Although, interestingly, the irrevelant point provided can be used to prove something else. Namely, that some religions believe that hell is unavoidable. Hmm. Can’t find that one in my compendum o’ religious beliefs. Unavoidable hell? Nice work putting in an assertion which appears on the surface to be obvious, trivial, and irrevelant in the mix which has the subtle effect of actually claiming the exact opposite of religous belief in general. A for effort.

   Anyway, that’s not the religious point of view, unless you deny that Deism, generic Theism, Paganism, Quakerism, Universalism, and Buddhism are religions. If you have a beef against fundamentalists, some Christians, some Jews, and some Islamics, then pick your fight with them, not with all religions. As soon as you put the shotgun and grenades away, you’ll find a LOT of people in the other religions you unthinkingly besmirch who are more than willing to join you in your fight against the raving fanatics of the world.

   “As for me, I can very easily describe evidence that would convert me into the most devout believer: a heavenly choir of angels, levitating approximately 3 feet above my front lawn, would do the trick quite nicely, for instance. Or perhaps the discovery that the text of the New Testament is encoded in the junk DNA of human beings.”

   So you admit to be willing to worship anybody who happens to have advanced holographic-like technology? Willing to trade your mind for a cheap trick played upon you by suitable application of technology you don’t understand? Make no mistake, Jesus’ words were stronger evidence of his divinity than any shady reports of seeing him walking around after he died, regardless of whatever that preacher you’re mad at said.

   Posted 27 Jul 2007 at 3:25 pm ¶

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.