Question from Anisa:
Is there any observable evidence of Darwinian evolution where there is a CHANGE OF KIND? By ‘KIND’, I mean from monkey to human etc. Not adaptation. CHANGE OF KIND.
Answer by SmartLX:
“Kind” in this context is used only by creationists as a pseudo-scientific term adapted from its use in the Book of Genesis, and a very inconsistently defined term at that. It has no place in actual biology, and nor does the Hebrew version “baramin”.
Regardless, there is plentiful evidence of the common descent of all living things, which means that no matter how you group them as separate “kinds” they are all descended from the same organisms, and their “kind” is irrelevant. Wikipedia has a comprehensive list here, ranging from geographical to genetic to morphological evidence, so I won’t cover it all redundantly.
You did ask the right question; “kind” seldom groups animals below the level of genus (except in the case of humans which are separated even from other apes in the genus Homo), so changes of that magnitude take far too long to be observed in a lifetime or even over all of recorded history. It is the evidence that is observed, not the full-scale phenomenon itself. That said, there have been many instances of observed speciation, where one species becomes two. You would dismiss such events as “adaptation”, as for instance a mouse becomes another kind of mouse, but there is no observed barrier to this process repeating and accumulating changes over sufficient time until the differences between relatives are greater than any “kind” could encompass. That a “kind” is a self-contained and somehow limited family is nothing more than an ill-informed assertion.
Deism by way of Michio Kaku
Question from “Alex the Deist”:
This last month, there has been some news about the existence of God proved by Michio Kaku, who asserts that the universe is perfectly ordered, “it could have been chaotic”, but it is not. He says that with this we could understand the mind of God. The ultimate argument for design.
Now, I know that Kaku is agnostic or pantheistic like Einstein, and that this is poetry, but nonetheless, it has theological implications. The first is that this would practically rule out the existence of personal gods, but this I think, makes deism stronger than atheism.
Consider the following case:
The universe is ordered / design.
The universe is ordered / blind chance.
We should expect that if there is a design behind the universe, this would be ordered. But we could not expect the same of blind chance. So, order gives a higher plausibility to design than to chance.
_____
On the other hand for example, Dennett says that we as rational beings find useful to think of things as involving a purpose, this makes easier to understand natural phenomena. Which is true, I accept that. But I think, that if we accept that; we should accept it is possible that a mind responsible for the universe exists, and that our understanding expresses cognition about it.
If we accept that this order is objective and not an invention of our minds (as I think every rational person would accept) we should be able to tell that such order expresses also some kind of objective rationality, that it is true that: we as rational beings can comprehend such order because/and it expresses rationality.
_____
This two things being said, I think deism has an extremely greater plausibility than atheism. How do you respond to this from an atheistic frame?
Answer by SmartLX:
It’s not really news that the universe appears to be entirely ordered in some sense. The laws of physics and the fundamental constants have so far seemed universal and unchanging, with nothing behaving contrary to them. It can be said, and I agree that no one would seriously argue, that there is at least some order in the universe, which leads into the rest of your argument. Thing is, people have been arguing that the existence of order demonstrates design and therefore a god for centuries, so it hasn’t been the most successful of arguments and Kaku is unlikely to change that.
You avoid affirming the consequent (a common fallacy) by restricting yourself to a probabilistic claim that design is more likely than chance, but nevertheless there is no way to establish the absolute or relative probability of either your hypothesis or the opposite. Minds are constantly observed to create local order, yes, but so are chance and undirected determinism. Rocks are worn smooth, sunflowers and pineapples follow Fibonacci patterns, a roughly shaken container will sort its contents according to size and density. A mind is not automatically more likely to have created universal order just because the majority of order we notice is the product of minds.
With the two sides now on murky but level ground, a major difference between your hypothesis and non-deistic alternatives is that you are required to posit the prior (or timeless) existence of another extremely ordered entity for which there is no available, substantial evidence, whereas natural explanations leave open the nature of the progenitor, if any. I wouldn’t dispute that a creator god is possible as we have no means to rule it out (an agnostic atheist leaves room for any possibility), but that’s as far as it’ll go. It’s perilous to argue that one possible explanation is more likely or “stronger” because of what we “should expect” when it comes to the whole universe, because our intuition is woefully inadequate for this purpose.
The World of Leftover Energy
Question from Andrew:
Why do atheists like Stenger say that the universe can be eternal, when this does not hold?
Stenger argues that the universe can be eternal, non-created, extrapolating the law of conservation of energy-mass before the planck time, he says that because we do not see a violation to this law, the universe can perfectly be eternal.
But this is a fallacy as William Lane Craig exposed once. If the energy were eternal there would be no useful energy right now, it would have become useless, complete entropy an infinite time ago, and because we do not see this, the only conclusion is that the universe and the energy began a finite time ago. Where we Christians think, the best explanation is the creation by God.
Answer by SmartLX:
Even according to you, Stenger only said the universe can be eternal, not that it definitely is. If it isn’t, then God is only one possibility among who knows how many: spontaneous emergence (more on that in a sec), a previous universe, a deistic rather than theistic (let alone Christian) god and so on.
Anyway, there are at least three straightforward ways in which there can still be useful energy now after an eternity of existence. There might be others, but even one possible way is enough to keep someone like Craig from ruling out the possibility entirely.
1. There is infinite or potentially infinite energy as well as infinite time.
Our universe as we see it has existed for a finite amount of time since the Big Bang with a certain amount of matter and energy, but what if that only contained one portion of the available material of an endless universe or multiverse? Or can matter emerge regularly and spontaneously from the quantum foam as much as it likes, as long as the same amount of antimatter accompanies it and the total amount of “positive” energy stays constant? As Lawrence Krauss says, something can come from nothing if “nothing” is unstable.
2. The energy is periodically reclaimed.
Entropy doesn’t destroy energy (hence Stenger’s point), it only ends up radiating it towards the edges of the universe where it’s no use to anyone. If Big Bangs are regular rather than one-off occurrences, then there’s a long-standing hypothesis that the universe is first drawn together in a Big Crunch. The new singularity contains not only all the matter and energy of the crushed universe, but all the space as well. Whatever was lost to entropy is dragged back to a mathematical point, just like at the point of our own Big Bang, and the cycle can begin again.
3. The amount of available energy decreases exponentially.
The less energy there is, the slower it dissipates, the way a gush becomes a trickle when you tip out a bucket of water. Say that every billion years, the amount of available energy decreases by half. If so then a billion years ago there was twice as much, and two billion years from now there’ll be a quarter as much, but there will never, ever be none. It will approach zero (or, importantly, a non-zero constant) asymptotically, which is to say it will get closer and closer without ever reaching it. Perhaps the amount of energy we’re used to seeing in the world is practically nothing compared to the intense heat, light and motion that was everywhere in times gone by, with the universe in a state of near-saturation (perhaps asymptotically again). Without past reference points from before the Big Bang, which are probably impossible to attain, you can’t make a judgement that there can’t be this much energy now.
One final point: be very careful about expressions like “the best explanation” when discussing cosmology. If quantum mechanics have taught us anything, it’s that reality can be counter-intuitive, and the truth might well strike one as ridiculous. If there’s evidence for a claim then it’s a supportable claim, but if all it does is sound right then it’s worthless.
Kevin’s letter to his parents.
I received an interesting email from Kevin. I wasn’t sure if he wanted me to answer this in private or if he wanted me to post it here because it seemed so private. However after I asked him, he said that he wanted both. So here’s his email, and my response afterwards.
Hello,
I was hoping that if you had the time, you would be willing to review this letter I have written for my parents. They already know about my atheism but have not accepted it. Therefore, I wrote this letter for them in the hope that they will understand. FYI, I am 16 and live with them. I read your blog everyday and enjoy it immensely. Keep up the good work. Thank you in advance.
With regards, Kevin
Letter:
Dear Mom and Dad,I would like you to know that I love you very much and I hope you love me. Recently, we have come into disputes of a religious nature. You may not like my disbelief; I really do not mind. When I told you, I was hoping to be relieved of a great burden. Unfortunately, the burden remains because my loving parents have not accepted me. The only thing I want for Christmas this year is your complete acceptance, not being forced to participate in something I do not believe in. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. If you cannot accept my beliefs or myself as a person, how sad that you cannot accept your own child for whom he is. Does your god not teach acceptance and tolerance of others, regardless of their faith (or lack thereof)? It is my hope that through this letter, you will reexamine the validity of your actions and realize they are not helping anyone and may even be detrimental to your goal and my well being.
Love,
Kevin
Well Kevin, first I think your letter is straight and to the point. You’re asking to be treated as an individual with a right to your personal autonomy, and that’s to be commended. You didn’t insult or bash their faith, and it seems you are trying to illicit a bit of respect that you think you deserve. I commend you on your efforts.
Now with that said, allow me to give you some insight to what your parents may be thinking. Obviously I don’t know for sure this is their thought process. I can only give you my insight as being the father of a teenager.
Adolescence is about discovering who you are. It’s about playing around with different perspectives and pushing your own boundaries in order to figure out the type of person you want to be in the future. Your parents know this. They expect it. So because of this they may not take your change as serious as you do. They expect you to one day feel one way and then the next day feel another. Their jobs as parents is to help you navigate this time in your life. So my advice to you would be this, give them the letter if that’s what you feel you need to do but don’t count on it changing anything. Their perspective isn’t something that you can change with just words. You have to show them that you are serious about this. That means studying not only the works of other atheists, but read the bible as well. Show them that this isn’t just a phase that you are going through. Keep in mind that you will find them being adversarial about this as well. They are probably afraid you are going down the wrong path and will want to set you straight. Don’t get upset with this. It’s a sign that your parents care about you. Respect that even if you don’t agree with their methods. If they want you to go to church, go to church. If they want you to talk to a minister, talk to one. Show them that you are open minded. The more you fight them, the more they will work harder on “fixing” you. Arm yourself with knowledge and ask lots of questions. Ask questions that get them to ask questions. Ask question after question after question. Eventually they will not only respect you for doing as they asked, but even better, they will be able to relate to you through their own questioning. Don’t bash them, instead get them to understand you.
I don’t know if that will help but I hope it does. Hopefully others will read this and give you some more advice in the comments. Thanks for sharing Kevin.
Eternal Imperative Redux
Question from Rick:
In previous discussions it appears that we have come to rational conclusions:
– Two positions of understanding exist: everything came from absolute nothingness or there is an “eternal imperative”. Most “thinking” people know that an “eternal imperative” is most logical.
– Science, thanks to people like Lawrence Krauss are close to proving that nothing within the Physical Universe was responsible for “everything”
– In conclusion: it appears that the most logical position is that there is in fact an eternal imperative and that eternal imperative is responsible for the existence of the Physical Universe.
In light of the above considerations SmartLX rightly states that the fact of an eternal imperative does not prove the persistence of an eternal imperative. This fact does shift the discussion from “is there a god” to “who is/was God”? It also shifts SmartLX’s position from atheism to deism.
Adam admittedly is going to believe what Adam believes regardless of Science or Philosophical discussions.
Rohit is still committed to Science (because it is simpler) and he believes Science will discover how everything came from absolute nothingness.
Erick just doesn’t know!
So SmartLX, why don’t you create a site “Ask the Deist”, so our conversation can continue?
Answer by SmartLX:
Oh dear, where to begin.
The Eternal Imperative, the hypothetical thing which had existed forever and was responsible for everything else, either did or didn’t exist. In its place could have been not just “nothing within the Physical Universe” but actually nothing at all, according to Krauss, so it’s futile to try to bend his work towards supporting the idea of a god. Another alternative we didn’t discuss was an infinite number of finite “imperatives”, for example an endless series of lone universes. Until the relative mechanics and more importantly probabilities of the three (and any other) options can be calculated, it’s not logical to assume that any one of them is factual. Nor is it wise to go with the option that superficially makes the most sense to us personally, because if quantum mechanics teaches us anything it’s that reality can be counter-intuitive.
Yes, if there was an Eternal Imperative that doesn’t mean it’s still there. But if there isn’t one now, it doesn’t mean there ever was one, only that there’s a potential excuse for lack of evidence for one. If despite what I’ve just said everyone asserts an Eternal Imperative (and not just the party who really wants there to be one) then the discussion becomes about what the Eternal Imperative is. It only becomes about who/what God is if you totally conflate a creator God with the Eternal Imperative, and you haven’t even begun to argue that it’s God – besides pointing out similar qualities in two hypothetical objects, which is at best circumstantial and at worst a blazing logical fallacy. Did you really think you’d be able to slip the existence of a god into an argument with atheists as a starting premise and go unchallenged?
Even capitalising the name “Eternal Imperative” is a subtle implication that it’s a title for a person, not a thing. It’s why Prime Mover and Uncaused Cause are written that way. Mind you, after a quick look around it seems like it’s only you using it to mean what you think it means, here and in the other forums where you appear to be either calling in reinforcements or trumpeting your imminent victory. Among evangelicals and Baptists an eternal imperative usually means an eternal command, for instance to worship or to proselytise. So points for two words’ worth of originality, I suppose.
René, Alvin and EAAN
Question from Josh:
How can atheists be sure of the reliance of their cognitive faculties?
As Descartes and Plantinga proved, if naturalism is true, there cannot be reliance on our cognitive faculties. Only if our senses and brain were designed with the PURPOSE of revealing us the world, we can have such reliance upon truth values.
So, how can an atheist be sure of what her senses tell, if they were produced by blind evolution?
Can naturalists, evolutionists and atheists alike, respond properly to Plantinga’s EAAN [Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism]?
Answer by SmartLX:
They can indeed respond, and they frequently have. The reference section of the Wikipedia page on EAAN (for ease of reading, imagine I’m pronouncing it like the first name Ian) contains links to no less than a dozen academic responses, many of which are summarised in the article. Just Google “EAAN response” and you’ll be up to your neck in atheists. I’ll now contribute my response to your own expression of the argument.
Not only can we not be sure of what our senses tell us, we can be pretty sure that our senses are lying to us, and often. We all have literal blind spots, which we can demonstrate to ourselves by making small marks on paper disappear while moving our eyes. Our mental faculties are just as dodgy; we forget, we hallucinate, we jump to conclusions. That what we perceive is nowhere near reliable isn’t news to anyone, so deliberate design isn’t needed to explain any kind of incredible accuracy because it’s just not there.
EAAN makes a bolder claim: that without a system deliberately designed to perceive the world, we cannot know whether anything is true outside of our own existence. As bold as this sounds, it’s easily outdone by the idea of “hard solipsism”: that there is no sure way to know whether anything we perceive is real, regardless of the origin of our senses. Even if God made us, perhaps He made us as brains in jars having dreams of each other. So even claiming that our senses perceive some of reality because they were designed falls at the first hurdle, because maybe we don’t perceive ANY of reality. With this uncertainty, arguing that our senses are designed to be accurate because that means we’re happily living in the real world is an appeal to consequences, a common logical fallacy.
With that avenue explored, let’s assume for a while that we do perceive some real things which help us to live our lives together in a real world with real consequences. Why would this automatically mean that our senses were designed to work? Is it entirely impossible that they simply developed, by natural selection for example, precisely because accuracy confers practical benefits which translate into survival advantages? Quite the contrary, it’s impossible to rule out even if you think it’s unlikely.
EAAN takes this into account though, and makes the point that without assuming deliberate design we can never be sure that our senses are at all reliable. Well, hard cheese. We’ve known that ever since the claim of solipsism, because we haven’t been able to effectively refute that either. That our senses are reliable has always been an assertion. This assertion is constantly backed up by sensory evidence, such as feeling that an object is there when we reach out to grab it, but since the same senses are picking up this evidence it only supports the idea that the world we perceive is consistent, whether or not it’s real. However, this is enough for most of us to confidently live our lives AS IF we’re in a real world, and control our destinies within that world as best we can. Whatever our true circumstances are, it’s easy enough to imagine that our senses could naturally develop at least this consistency. If instead you believe in design, you dismiss all of the little uncertainties in favour of one big uncertainty, and good luck to you.
Josh, this response is not worded in the same formal terms as the actual argument, and there’ll be a great deal about the complete form that I haven’t addressed, but as I said I’m addressing your specific expression of it. As shown, there are plenty of other responses which do the terminology, the probability expressions, the whole enchilada. If there’s an unexplored aspect of the argument you think strengthens it, then I’ll wonder why you didn’t include it in the first place but go ahead and add it in a comment (in your own words, so I at least know you understand it yourself).
How to tell your date that you’re an atheist.
Taylor asks….
Name: Taylor
Message: So here is my question. I’ve been an atheist now for 4 or 5 years and I’ve just got back recently on the dating scene. I live in the stereotypical southern town where most everyone here and anywhere around me are very much ultra religious. I’ve had a few dates now with some girls and one of the first things they ask is where I go to church at. I answer truthfully bu it seems every time I tell them I am an atheist they are immediately judgmental. It seems the word atheist scares them more than what it really means. AKA Voldemort scares people more so than he who must not be named to people in harry potter. ( yes it’s a terrible comparison I know.) Is there anything I can say that conveys me being atheist with out implicitly telling as such?
Hi Taylor. There are of course different words you can use other then “atheist”. You could say “non believer” or “humanist” for example. If “atheist” is such a damaging word where you live then what you have to do is show people that you’re a decent person before you drop the A bomb on them. You could also try a different response. For example when asked what church you go to, you could reply with “I don’t go to any church right now because I haven’t found one that makes sense to me yet.” She will probably ask you what it is about it that doesn’t make sense and without bashing her faith, you can turn this into an opportunity to explain why you don’t believe yet. There’s a reason I used the word “yet” there.
When I used to work in sales one of the first things I learned was the “boat strategy”. The idea is that if you can get the other person to think that you are in the same boat that they are in, that they will be more open to listen to you. By using the word “yet” it allows the other person to think that at the very least that you are open minded and are willing to discuss the topic (which you should be). This in turn gives you the ability to ask questions of them (socratic form of argumentation) in order to lead them to your way of looking at things and not having them feel like you are attacking their faith. At the worst this may encourage your potential partner to preach to you constantly (which should be a warning sign anyway) or at best it will allow the two of you to discuss theism with a mutual respect ( a keeper!).
Remember that the best way to combat the bad rap that the word “atheist” seems to have with some people isn’t by presenting good arguments as to why you’re an atheist, it’s by being a good person. So make sure that you project yourself in a way that people will look at you with affection and respect. Go the extra mile to be kind. Do things like open doors for the elderly, use your manners, give of yourself without expecting reciprocation. This way when people find out that you’re an atheist it wont be, “OH! You’re an atheist?” but instead will be “Oh, YOU’RE an atheist??”
Thanks for the question Taylor. Feel free to reply using the comment section below, and to any other atheists out there, what would be your advice to Taylor? Any personal examples out there?
No atheists?
George asks an interesting question…
Name: George Thomas
Message: Hello there. I have a teacher that always says “There are no atheists” because anytime anyone’s life is at stake, they are gunna say “oh god or god please help.” It really annoys me that he says this. The way I see it is that it’s kind of like a common expression to say “god.” What do you think about this?
First, how does he know what people say when their life is at stake? From what my military friends have told me the most common words used under fire are, “shit” and “fuck”. Some people run when their life is at stake. Does this mean no one is brave? Even if there are atheists who call out to a god when they are scared, how does this mean that there are no atheists? Using his logic there are no christians because they fear death when under attack and a true christian would welcome the chance to be with his lord. Your teacher is ridiculous and prejudiced. Next time challenge him. Ask him how he knows what he claims? Ask him to show you proof of his claim.
Let us know how it goes. Thanks for the question!
Memories: Brain vs Soul
Question from Marie-Denise:
If memories and thoughts completely come from one’s brain and not from a person’s soul, then why do we keep our memories even though we know every cell in one’s brain is regenerated every few years? Thanks.
Answer by SmartLX:
Quite simply, they’re passed on.
Memories are stored in the brain as electrical patterns, which don’t reside in individual cells but travel around certain areas of the brain as needed, for instance when you’re figuring out where you left your keys. If a brain cell dies while hosting part of a memory, that part can often be recreated by the rest of the brain, or else there’s another copy in there somewhere, so the impact on your overall memory is minimal. (Daniel Dennett is fond of saying, “Every time you read it or say it, you make another copy in your brain.” He then repeats this twice.)
Actually, brain cells aren’t replaced like the other cells in the body. Glial cells are, but the all-important neurons hardly regenerate at all. Therefore maintenance of memory is not really a matter of tagteaming from old cells to new cells, but rather a process of shuffling between existing cells. The brain is only too happy to do this, because it’s by transferring memories and other thoughts from cell to cell that we “think” about them.
The idea that the soul is the source of certain thoughts carries its own conundrums, chiefly the fact that every known mental process can be permanently impaired or completely disabled by sufficient brain damage. If an ethereal soul is solely responsible for any observable function, that function should be impervious to physical injury, and this has never been observed. If instead the brain functions as a conduit for every “action” of the soul, there is no evidence for the existence of an independent soul. Don’t feel put-upon though – believers in an incorporeal “mind” independent of the brain have the same kinds of problems when justifying their view, so this is not purely a matter of theology.
Post-Quantum Cosmological Apologetic
Question from Andrew:
What if Quantum Mechanics are wrong?
What if the supposed undetermined, random events in quantum mechanics are actually under some kind of law and causality? Wouldn’t this be a stronger reason to think the cosmological argument is true?
Do atheists have other arguments to argue against the main premise of the cosmological argument for God; the existence of causality?
Answer by SmartLX:
Short answers: so what, no, and plenty.
As I mentioned in my original response to the cosmological argument (where you’ll find some other, unrelated objections), the behaviour of particles according to quantum mechanics suggests a possible contradiction to the argument’s premise that whatever begins to exist has a cause. If a cause is discovered for this phenomenon then we lose the contradiction, but this hardly matters because the premise has never been demonstrated in the first place.
We’ve never had evidence of anything physically “beginning to exist” in the way that the universe is supposed to have done. Every object which exists now is made up of material that existed before it, and simply came together to form something we then saw fit to quantify and name. As far as we know the matter that comprises you, me and everything we see has existed since the beginning of the universe, if any, and we have no idea how it first began to exist. Therefore there is no basis for the premise that whatever begins to exist has a cause, because the only available precedent is the very thing for which the argument is trying to establish a cause. Without an unrelated instance of creation or emergence ex nihilo with a known cause, the cosmological argument works by assuming its own conclusion or “begging the question”.
Quantum mechanics actually does suppose that certain particles emerge from “nothing”, but again, no cause is known. If a cause were discovered, then the beginning of the universe would be theorised to have not just A cause but THAT particular cause. Furthermore, if the nature of the cause allowed it to be discovered by science in the first place, it would likely not be a god.