Purpose in the Universe: Do People "See" What They Want to See?

That last post by "Steve",

"Those people who are willing to say “I don’t care what other people think of me, the evidence points to x” are the true researchers."

Was not the same guy as Steve G. (The one having the big discussion with Bob.)

Not that there is anything wrong with the other "Steve"'s idea.

To lessen confusion, I will start going by Steve Gann (My whole name).

Thanks again to Bob for the wonderful dialog.

Bob, I did misread your comment some... I personally think of science as deductive (the proven parts of it, like the laws of physics), but it progresses by induction. We theorize with inductions, and then we test and observe etc... in order to construct scientific knowledge.

But what do we make of the induction that materialists make? With the arrival of 'Expelled' at the box office this week, let me ask you in the context of design.

In this instance, the assumption is an inductive process that says that if 'some phenomenon' have natural causes; then, 'all phenomenon' have natural causes.

In another discussion, I brought up the fact that such a conclusion does not follow from the premise. One gentleman reminded me that, 'though this method is inductive, a stone will fall a thousand times if dropped'. He went on to say that it is still possible that the next stone will not, but he will put his money on the stone falling again. In other words, he is arguing that we have found many natural causes for things previously considered ‘supernatural’’, so we must assume that this is the case once again.

I concede that point, but it is really the other way around with regard to information. If a thousand times information is found to have causation that is not merely material but intelligent, then when confronted with the information in DNA we must put our money on intelligence once more. We would never compose a hypothesis on the properties of tannins, pulp, glue, granite, etc… and postulate as yet unknown properties in the laws of physics or material universe to explain the origin of a newspaper or cave drawing.

Information is not unnatural... i.e. a book is not unnatural. But it isn't natural either. A written work is a perfect example of the obvious evidence of the supernatural in my opinion. The supernatural is not all that astonishing. It's so base, that we simply take it for granted. And the same goes for our own reasoning. The logos is the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by Him.

Logical reasoning is not only our 'right mind', but the mind of Christ that ordered the heavens and the earth so that we could come to comprehend and 'discover' (not create) His genius.

That's how I see it anyway...

Dear Rob,

"So since you’ve admitted that induction is what science is, ..."

I am just curious. Can you read my comments to Steve, or is only Steve able to see those? Because it really confuses me that you believe I "admitted" such a thing.

Hi Bob, as for the question, 'how can an atheist account for reason', you have a point. I think you can use reason without knowing its source, (as you said... just like your liver).

But unless you are an empiricist or strict materialist, you are only advocating that reason is valid; that it reflects what actually is.

The materialist has a problem as the atheistic professor Haldane noted: "For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.

In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter." (J.B.S. Haldane / When I am dead)

When we say reason, I assume we mean 'logic' (non-contradiction). Our inductions lead us along unexplored lines, and we test them by looking for contradictions as we progress.

So since you've admitted that induction is what science is, and that reason is valid, then what do you make of the induction that 'since all known digital information prior to the discovery of DNA has an intelligent source, then DNA has an intelligent source as well'?

I heard Rush Limbaugh mention his private screening of 'Expelled' a couple days ago, and Richard Dawkins is asked by Ben Stein if there is a natural explanation for DNA I think... (but perhaps life in general). Dawkins says, 'no... well... maybe... just maybe aliens had something to do with it'.

That is not a quote, but it was the force of Dawkins' answer. We'll all know exactly what was said in a week.

The point is, that in the end Dawkins invokes design and tries to slip in a material designer. I personally think it is one of the more 'reasonable' things Dawkins has said.

Those of us who know the alien designer personally, by way of alien contact throught the Holy Spirit are not at all suprised. And we understand the only thing alienating humanity from Him is our sin and desire to exist autonomously from Him.

I have heard arguments against design that say that we are not very well designed if God is so good, powerful, and omniscient. But God never designed physicality to be autonomous apart from spirit. He said that man shall not live on bread alone, but from every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. His word says elsewhere that no flesh shall glory in His presence.

Physicality apart from the spirit is not living, breathing, or thinking, it is only matter. Matter is only an incarnation of the quantum (and I believe that is the spiritual foundation). But a life only of flesh, will always frustrate, because it cannot affirm itself because it is inseparable from that heavenly realm.

Reason (the logos) is the way the truth and the life. Our alien author of llife is not an alien in the extraterrestrial sense, He is our creator in the heavenly sense.

Dawkins is far more right than he knows, and need only listen to himself as to how we must keep our minds open for life 'other' than our own:

"When astronauts voyage to distant planets and look for life, they can expect to find creatures too strange and unearthly for us to imagine." ( The Selfish Gene" / Richard Dawkins, p191 )

What about the astronauts looking for life on planet earth? Is Jesus too strange for them to recognize?

Dear Steve,

You keep saying that "science is an inductive process." Why do you keep saying that? It really robs the richness of what science is and how it works (not why it "works"), and why it provides a much more trustworthy reflection of the real world than the ancient aberrations inculcated by religion and its virtue of faith. As I said above, science is based in objective and repeatable observations of the real world, it is collaborative, it is subject to peer review by other scientists who have no invested interests, it invites and encourages skepticism, and it discourages faith in any and every thing not demonstrated.

I am familiar with the problem of induction; but I am completely puzzled why you believe you are immune to it! One cannot truly justify inferring from a limited set of observation the truth of a statement pertaining to the whole of like observations, even if he believes in his heart, "God says so." Hence, observing North American swans as white, inferring that all swans are white, and then being humiliated when Australia reports the existence of black swans. Like I said before, science is not just based on induction. Humans are natural inductivists, however. That is why I can get up every morning, or cross the street.

I think it is funny you show a high sensitivity to circular reasoning, but previously you say "I see that the biblical details of science, archeology, history, and prophecy are correct and infer the general principle that the rest of the Bible is correct also. That is induction and it is completely reasonable." Of course included in the Bible is "The Bible is true." So the Bible must be true if it says it is true! I loved the "and it is completely reasonable" part. Labeling it must make it so.

"How can an atheist account for reason?"

It is almost like you are saying, "You have no business using your liver until you can accurately explain where it comes from."

As a theist, naturalism just does not reflect the reality I see. I can’t make sense of this reality under a naturalistic paradigm. Nor do I like the consequences I see to a naturalistic philosophical perspective of what life is all about.

That being said, I don’t know how you “prove” the supernatural except by disproving the natural as plausible given the evidence of the reality we see.

I think it’s clear from these discussions that’s not going to be good enough for the naturalist. This is a natural world, all we can test and study is the physical natural world we live in. From a naturalistic perspective, what we see and observe doesn’t have to make sense, we can see it is “real”.

While the naturalist might argue the supernatural cannot be disproved and therefore is not valid science, he doesn’t recognize his own definitions of science do not allow for “naturalism” to be disproved. He gets away with this self deception by claiming specific naturalistic theory can be disproved, but only to be replaced by a new naturalistic theory.

Having someone of a different perspective may help us better understand our own, but in any case, truth is what it is. We can debate it philosophically, but truth isn’t the product of philosophy or human reason. We can create whatever vision of reality we choose, and establish whatever definitions we want, but it won’t change what the truth is.

My only concern is, if science excludes the supernatural, it is banking that naturalism is true and it stifles the debate. I don't see how that will help the advance of knowledge.

Nice job describing the cell phone - I agree. In fact, the "fruit of the Spirit", as you described regarding believing - i.e. it's the way I "feel", the joy, the peace, are reasonable: If one used your analogy of the cell phone - when it is running properly, the screen lights up properly, the beeper sounds at the right time, so, when one is filled with the Holy Spirit, one is functioning properly - properly oriented (not back-bighting), one is at peace - in a sense, "peace", or "Shalom" is the homeostasis brought about by the Holy Spirit; whereas when the cell phone has a problem - roaming signal takes you into Canada, and someone starts speaking with you in French, or there's something wrong with the screen - the message will not show up properly, that is like life outside of the Spirit.

Another analogy is when a car is run on the wrong fuel, or motor oil - it runs poorly; whereas it is at "peace", or runs smoothly and "joyfully", when properly tuned, and running on the correct fuel. In other words, there is an objective basis for those "feelings".

When we are running properly - properly oriented towards God through Jesus Christ, we find ourselves at peace in a way not otherwise possible. We have joy - the smoothly running engine, and other such qualities, rather than addictively and selfishly holding on to one thing or another that does not last - this is a joy that does not leave us. This does not deny an objective basis, but points us in the right direction, and confirms what we can grasp through other means, such as those employed by RTB, namely, that "The heavens declare the Glory of God".

Bob,

I found it. It was an article from the first quarter of Connections 2008. Scientists used string theory to test whether or not a subset of solutions (which contain an infinite number of solutions) could produce the inflationary epoch that is observred in our universe. The answer, a great big NO. So at least in the one critical area of fine-tuning we have an infinite number of SAMPLE SPACES.

Since there is nothing that mandates any more than a universe and given that the space-time theorems of general relativity show us that matter, energy, space and time had an actual beginning, it seems to me that we can comfortably conclude that a transcendent God exists who created this universe.

Bob, "Why does the Christian, so proud in extolling humbleness, insist that the purpose of the universe is himself, and that the creator of the universe is preoccupied with his thoughts and actions?"

The Christian thinks this way about all humanity not just ourselves. Christians worship a God who is super personal. God loves us all and wants us to have a relationship with Himself. If we come to Him through Jesus He will forgive our sins and adopt us as His children.

Did God create the universe and earth for us? "For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, But formed it to be inhabited), 'I am the LORD, and there is none else.'" Isaiah 45:18

The universe was not only created for us to live in, it was created to help us know God. "The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. 2) Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge. 3) There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard. 4) Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world." Psalm 19

Whether or not you are right about probability theory (although you should call Creation Update and ask Hugh directly) the very fact that the list of fine-tuned characteristics is 500+ and growing is evidence enough that someone must like us a lot. This is also evidence that God is personal.

Is the sample size only one? I am trying to locate the show where, I believe, Dr. Zweerink discussed the testing of a huge subset of multiverse. I'll have to ask, but it seems to me that we have gone far beyond one.

I recently found an interesting thesis by Michael Bumbulis, Ph.D about Christianity’s influence on the birth of science. He explores the reasons why modern science had its birth under the Christian World View rather than other belief perspectives.

That, along with some recent discussions involving the concepts of absolute truth and relative truth in my family's blog site led me to an obvious conclusion, that many of us probably recognize.

Under a concept of absolute truth, truth is hierarchal, not relative. It flows down from the ultimate truth of God. This creates an entirely different perspective of what life is about which leads to entirely different, often opposite, views from politics to science. We literally do not see the same reality.

In our family blog we were discussing the example of two people in the same room with the same temperature and environment, one feeling cold and the other hot.

It seems to me if an individual accepts a concept that truth is relative, it ends there. This proves, truth is relative, and there is no need to go any farther.

However, for the individual who holds to a concept of absolute truth, this doesn’t make any sense under the law of logical contradiction. Something cannot be both hot and cold at the same time. So it doesn’t end there. The truth behind the feelings is pursued. What is found is that temperature and environment are only part of the equation, there is more to the story, ultimately you reach that “absolute truth” which explains what’s happening and is consistent under all possible scenarios.

I think Michael Bumbulis has it right. It's no accident modern science had its birth under the Christian World view concept of truth.

Bob L. Sturm,

Thank you for clarifying your position. I appreciate that you wrote me back. My intention here is to respond to the reasons you have given for trusting science. I promise I will reply to the Christian hypothesis question in another post.

My original question was "...Can they [atheists] account for why science works and be consistent in their worldview?" Your response and further clarification demonstrate (beautifully) that the answer to that question is "no".

Here is why.

You responded with statements like "Science is both inductive and deductive.", "...science is collaborative, subject to peer review by other scientists [no invested interests, skeptical of things not evidenced or reproducible]...", and "Evidence and reproducibility are essential aspects of Science, and because of all these things Science can and should be trusted above all other things as an honest reflection of the real world." These are all very good reasons to trust science. I wholeheartedly agree with all those statements. But, there is one very serious problem in the way you used them. It is the problem of induction.

As you know, induction is reasoning from detailed facts to general principles. You have stated that science, in part, is an inductive process. Why does science work? You say, amongst the reasons is the skeptical collaborative method used to sift out the poorly evidenced and/or non-reproducible ideas. Why is this method good? Because it has worked so well in the past. This peer review process has worked so well that that we now have things like cell phones. It has worked to make science so trustworthy that next to it "the greatest fruit of Christian progress is humiliatingly impotent for describing aspects of the real world in a consistent way that 'works.'" In other words, you have inferred from the past that science's inferences are trustworthy. Bob, you used induction to justify induction. That is question begging...a circular argument. Both David Hume and Bertrand Russell lamented that, for the atheist, there is no way out of the problem of induction; and so, no way to justify trust in science (they did not turn from atheism though). This is because atheism presupposes that the universe is here by accident. What I mean by accident is that the universe is not here on purpose. No intellect intended the universe to be. The atheist is stuck trying to explain why induction works in a universe that has no reason to be orderly.

On the other hand, I do not have this problem. My worldview presupposes the existence of an intellect that made an orderly universe. Induction works because the intellect made the universe in such a way so that induction would work. Science works because induction works because the universe was made so that induction would work. Skeptical collaboration is a good idea because I infer it has worked in the past more times than it has failed.

In order for an atheist to make sense of induction, they have to borrow from my worldview. The universe is an orderly place! Induction works because of this order...how does an atheist know this? It can't be because they have inferred induction works, that would be circular. Instead they must presuppose it is orderly. But why is it orderly if it wasn't ordered?

Once again I appreciate dialoguing with someone of your caliber. Talk to you later. BTW, how close are you to getting your degree?

Well Nick, I would say that there are just some things that the Bible does not speak to. You could ask your friend to make a specific prediction of the LHC findings based on biology or maybe botany. Oh wait, those are unrelated fields also. The findings will likely confirm that there is a tremendous amount of fine-tuning, but that's about as close to specific as I would expect. According to the way I read Genesis one, day three being before day five, there should be the discovery of precambrian land plants. There is work being done on this topic this spring. Maybe my prediction will be proven true. On the main topic, Dr. Antony Flew was an atheist who converted to deism based on the scientific evidence for God. I believe that we can discover truth when we follow the evidence instead of trying to guide it.

Dr. Lawrence Krauss and the Bible agree that the universe had a real beginning and is destined for a real end; and that everything in between is unfolding in a marvelously complex yet remarkably comprehensible way. This represents more common ground than ever before. His recent SciAm article, The End of Cosmology, really got me thinking. It graphically describes a "Big Rip" scenario, as dark energy overtakes gravity and pulls apart the universe down to the last atom. Then, what? Silence. He never really goes beyond that, settling instead for an eternal stasis, utterly lacking in meaning or purpose - and lending a tone of despair even to this present age. (If so, I pity the poor physics students studying the cosmos. What's the point? Who cares?) He is willing to close the article with an eternal nothing rather than even hint of God, Who alone is eternal and can make sense of it all. One wonders why brilliant minds deliberately choose to stop short of a divine inference after admitting that this universe, while it exists, is so perfectly parametered in its complexity at all levels, as all the exciting discoveries (as Krauss calls them) demonstrate. The exquisite fine-tuning, for life now, of the cosmic expansion-to-contraction rate ratio alone is enough to infer that it just can't be a fluke of nature. This beats any silly "signage in the sky" as proposed in the blog article. Atheism is, at best, an incomplete response to the data Krauss himself presents, and explains ...nothing at all. There has got to be a better way to end such a mindbending article - and there is. A Bible-friendlier approach on Dr. Krauss' part would open the door to understanding our present universe in a wider context and not exclude (as documented on his web link) non-atheists who agree with him on so many critical points. There is much common ground here, Dr. Krauss! I appreciate Dr. Hugh Ross' responses to Dr. Krauss' paper in RTB's MAJESTY OF THE MAKER final DVD segment. I also find the scholar team's columns and talk show insights about multiverse theories very helpful in responding to Krauss' ultimate doomsday scenario. To me it all sounds very biblical - except that the Bible, not SciAm, said it first, millenia ago. There we find that Love conquers all. In the birth, life, passion, death and resurrection of Jesus we see worked out the entire grand scheme in this one God/Man. We even discover a lovely new creation when this one is gone forever. Is there no place for such love in a Kraussian universe? Dr. Krauss also thinks we may be at the end of a golden era of discovery - but also that the Large Hadron Collider may open the door to new physics. Before the LHC comes on line this May, CAN ANYONE, USING THE BIBLE, PREDICT, IN A FALSIFIABLE AND SPECIFIC WAY, JUST HOW THE LHC MIGHT AFFIRM OR DENY WHAT WE CAN EXPECT FROM READING THE BIBLE? I know this was a previous topic here but no one addressed this angle. No fair pointing to scripture after the LHC findings are published and saying "see, that's just what the Bible said would happen." State your hypothesis then (let CERN) run the experiment. (This challenge was posed to me by an agnostic friend with whom I have had a running dialogue for over a year. We met through the Alpha course.) Can anyone help with this? - Nick drt

Bob L. Sturm,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my question. I appreciate you taking this question seriously. Your criticism of my jumping to conclusions is warranted and I apologize.

I read with great interest your answer to why science works. If I could boil down what you said into a generalization it would look something like this (please correct me if I misstate your meaning)...Science is an inductive process and we have reason to trust this process because different scientific enterprises work so well together to make things like functioning cell phones. To elaborate, we can trust science because it is based on things that are easily demonstrable to any person. At this time I am not interested in evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of this position; instead, I just wish to get the position correct. Please let me know if I am understanding your position correctly.

To respond to your last paragraph, you should know that though some Christians might respond as you have quoted, that is not the best response available. Is this really what you have personally heard? A word you may not be familiar with is "Pistis". It is the Greek word for faith used in the New Testament. It means to put your trust in something that has proven itself to be reliable. I (and others at RTB) hold the position that because the Bible has proven itself reliable on scientific grounds, archaeological grounds, historic grounds, and prophetic grounds we can have pistis in what it says about sin and the effects sin has on our eternal destiny. I am sorry, but your "the greatest fruit of Christian progress is humiliatingly impotent..." claim is a strawman.

Dear Steve, I have two points.

1) My argument that you reference has nothing to do with "naturalism." I am not arguing for or against an intelligent designer, and I am surprised that many of those who expound on their careful reading of one particular text, are clearly incapable of correctly reading and comprehending another. The thesis of my argument is much more modest than you claim: RTB abuses probability theory to create the deception that science supports the belief in God. That is all my thesis is; it is not an argument for or against the existence of God.

2) Science "works" (e.g., to explain and predict aspects of the world that are consistent with objective observation) because science comes first and foremost from objective observation of a cosmos that appears to be consistent (i.e., non-contradictory, at least at our macroscopic level of existence -- not quantum). When you construct something from pieces that are consistent within a consistent world, what you get is consistency at the top, i.e., something that actually works and can be clearly demonstrated to work. Take for instance my favorite example of the mass convergence of disciplines: the cellular telephone. Associated with this "miraculous" device in no minor way are all of the following disciplines: analog and digital signal processing, analog and digital communications, probability and estimation theory, information theory, solid state electronics, electromagnetism, materials, chemistry, etc. If any one of these disciplines were not consistent then the cellular telephone would not work. The cellular telephone is thus some incredibly powerful evidence that science works (e..g., to explain and predict aspects of the world that are consistent with objective observation) and that it is consistent with (e.g., does not contradict) the real observable world.

Now compare this to the greatest and most powerful "hypothesis" to result from dozens of centuries of Christian thinking and development: "The only way to obtain everlasting life is through Jesus." And the evidence for this claim? "I feel it in my bones," "God speaks to me," "My parents believed it," and "The Bible says so." Next to your cellular telephone that is beeping because you have a low battery, and blinking because you missed a call, the greatest fruit of Christian progress is humiliatingly impotent for describing aspects of the real world in a consistent way that "works."

I think I can hear the next question, "How do you account for the consistency in the universe!? There must be a divine consistency giver!"

People will see what God has purposed them to see at this time. There are very smart (worldly smart) people who see things completely different than other very smart people. This also goes for those with average intellect. People will remain blind of the evidence for God until they are called to see it. Furthur, the called will remain blind of the truths of God until they are drawn by God to His truths. This is all scriptural.

Charles, I think you nailed it...

People fear men, because they do not know God. And without knowledge of God, the majority (or culture) of man is implicitly a god substitute even if only subconsciously.

If God is not God, then the multitudes of men (the multiheaded beast) becomes god. I think that is why Churchill said something to the effect of 'democracy being the worst form of govenrment. Except for all the others".

I was recently engaged in a vigorous debate , and at the end of it, the final comment from the [so-called] moderator tells the tale...

He said, "If there's any lesson from this debate, it's that the value of one's ideas isn't how convincing they are to you, but how convincing they are to others."

Seriously... if that were true, then a teacher's ideas are not of value if the student 'refuses' to learn.

Certainly, we must be able to communicate a message in terms the student can understand, but we cannot control the will of the student. Mankind often insists upon us reworking the message, but no matter what we say, he is not inclined to believe it. Mankind does however, seem to enjoy watching us give him so much attention, and seems puzzled by the fact we care with such zeal. Mankind must get the impression that 'we actually believe'.

This is the most frustrating aspect of evangelism... how do you tell people the 'good news', who refuse to hear it based on existential objections rather than intellectual?

Here is a fine example if you have the time to read it: http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=8&t=166&m=91#96

In 1958 Psychologist Solomon Asch did an experiment in which he asked a group of students, one at a time, to tell him which of three lines on one card matched the length of a line on another card. The task was repeated several times with different cards. In fact, all students in the group except one were collaborators of the experimenter and sometimes unanimously chose the wrong line. It was usually clear to the one “naïve subject” that everyone else was wrong, still 37 out of 50 naïve subjects conformed to the majority at least once and 14 of them conformed on more than 6 of the 12 trials. Asch concluded, "The tendency to conformity in our society is so strong that reasonably intelligent and well-meaning young people are willing to call white black." Interviewed afterwards, most “conformers” confessed that they actually saw correctly but went along with the group when reporting. However as the experiment was frequently repeated, it unearthed a few subjects strongly maintaining their (incorrect) perception. Conclusion: although it may be true that (to some small extent) we actually see what we want to see, to a much larger extent our reports of what we see will conform to the group. (http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/social/asch_conformity.html)

Christians, of all people, should be more than willing to have their Foundational Presupposition fully exposed and since the just live by faith the revelation of I Am for all to see will be the last day.

Just in Jesus, Steve