In April last year I wrote unfavorably about some videos I had not seen. Or, rather, I wrote to discredit Dr. Jobe Martin, trying to show that he had no background to evaluate the evolutionary origins of various species and traits. Of course writing about something I haven't seen is objectionable, and people did note this in the comments and in emails. Consequently, last week I received a courteous email from Dr. Martin's daughter, Mirren, who asked for my address so that she could send me the videos, because, as she said, "I believe it sure would make your position more credible if you could say that you had viewed these and we are offering them to you for free." Indeed. I received the package today containing four DVD's a three books. I will watch the videos as soon as possible (though I note that I am trying to write my thesis), and then I will write about my experiences with that here.But I won't let you leave empty-handed today. Among three books were The Ultimate Proof of Creation: Resolving the Origins Debate, by Dr. Jason Lisle. Here's my review of the heart of the book, chapter three:
The ultimate proof is given in the beginning of chapter three, and goes like this.
[W]e know that biblical creation must be true because if it were not, we could not know anything at all. [p. 46]I kid you not! That is all it is. There are of course explanations of what this means, and analogous examples, but the whole argument is captured in this one sentence. Lisle is even explicit that it is just this one sentence.
The example is air. To even make the argument that air doesn't exist, air is needed. Belief in air is not necessary, but air is. Similarly, Lisle contends, a Christian worldview is necessary to make an argument at all against creation.
So why is that? What is it about the Christian worldview and biblical creation that is so imperative for even making an argument in the first place?
Well, according to Lisle, the laws of logic stem from God, so without God, there can be no rationality, and thus arguments cannot be made at all.
Why, then, does logic lie with God, and the Christian God only?
In short, because it says so in the Bible. Again, I kid you not!
Rational reasoning involves using the laws of logic. There, a rational worldview must be able to account for the existence of such laws.The delusion here is so immense that I don't think that I can sort it out. But, the bottom line seems to be that because it says so in a book that God is unchanging, etc., then the laws of logic could not exist without him. And again, that goes for everyone (refer to the 'air' argument), even those who also claim to be able to make the exact same argument based on different scripture, as I am sure both some Jews and Muslims would.
(...)
The Christian can answer these questions. For the Christian there is an absolute standard for reasoning; we are to pattern our thoughts after God's.
(...)
Laws of logic are God's standard for thinking. Since God is an unchanging, sovereign, immaterial Being, His thoughts would necessarily be abstract, universal, invariant entities. In other words, they are not made of matter, they apply everywhere, and at all times. Laws of logic are contingent upon God's unchanging nature. And they are prerequisite for logical reasoning. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God.
Lisle continues:
Only in a biblical worldview can we know that contradictions cannot occur in reality; only the Christian has a basis for the law of non-contradiction, or laws of logic in general.Lisle's thesis that logic (and uniformity of nature, and absolute morality) cannot be had without God, and without logic one cannot refute that logic, ergo the Christian God as described in the Bible, fails to persuade me, and most likely anybody else who isn't already leaning heavily towards being a believing Christian in the first place. Christians ought to be laughed out of the auditorium, as I am sure they would be if they had the nerve to present Lisle's ultimate proof of creation.
Heh, his contention that the universe is epistemically useless without God reminds me of a recent SMBC comic:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1889#comic
He doesen't remember Aether in space? Caloric Fluid and the Miasmas and Essences that were certain to be the root of disease?
ReplyDeleteAll these things must be 'real' by his logic.
His argumentation is surely weak.
ReplyDeleteIt is easy to prove Christianity wrong. It says that Torah is true, but Torah invalidates Christianity. Christianity also contradicts history and archealogy. Read more in www.netzarim.co.il
I recommend you all to read an article in my blog (http://bloganders.blogspot.com/2009/08/proof-of-existence-of-intelligent-and.html). It contains a formal logical proof, based on scientific premises, that proves the existence of an Intelligent and Perfect Creator of this universe (i.e. the Prime Cause of this universe (the cause of Big Bang)); and it also proves that His instructions are found in Torah, and that His purpose of humankind is for us to practise those Instructions in Torah.
As it turns out, I have already thoroughly addressed Anders' proof.
ReplyDeleteAnders, if you are still reading this, the most disturbing thing about what you are saying is that you seem to think that the Torah is the oldest religious writing on record. UMMMMMMmmmmmm...... No.
James, that was a really great read. "One fallacy per five words." Heh.
ReplyDeleteHere is my observation of both sides without picking a side:
ReplyDelete-Both sides are flawed in their arguments.
-Both sides beg the question quite frequently.
-Both sides will try anything to "convince."
I personally believe in the God of Christianity to be the one and only God. I believe this because I see his creation daily and it is self-evident. Whether or not some form of evolution even exists doesn't matter. It will never, in the end, prove that God does not exist or that the Bible is a lie. I think that science will only get closer to proving God in the end. I feel that everyone has the opportunity to see God through his work in their life and for many reasons people will look for ways around it to benefit their own worldly desires. When you're alone, and you talk to yourself and cry out in fear because you doubt...stop and listen. God WILL speak to your soul and guide you. Remember that He is beyond our understanding, that is why people doubt. Step outside of what you know and try to imagine if you were powerful enough to create all of this and then logically and philosophically work through it all. If you do it without leaning to one side you may find that things look differently.
- Both sides are flawed in their arguments.
ReplyDeleteTell me how I am flawed in my arguments, please.
-Both sides beg the question quite frequently.
Where do I do that?
-Both sides will try anything to "convince."
No, i will only speak the truth as far as I know it. Integrity is a lot more important than convincing anyone.
I believe this because I see his creation daily and it is self-evident.
Then have you not picked a side? This is one of those two sides, isn't it?!
Also, you don't seem to know a lot about either the Bible or science: "I think that science will only get closer to proving God in the end." Check out Jerry Coyne's post about whether Adam and Eve were real.
And, you have a foregone conclusion: "It will never, in the end, prove that God does not exist or that the Bible is a lie."
God WILL speak to your soul and guide you.
How do you know such a thing? From personal experience? How do you know it wasn't something in your brain and not God that spoke and guided you?
Serosly.
The delusion here is so immense that I don't think that I can sort it out.
ReplyDeleteThat's about it. There's no arguing these people out of their delusion. It's pointless even to try. I wish dealing with them were as simple a matter as laughing them out of the auditorium, but unfortunately, they're intent upon establishing a theocracy and nothing less will satisfy them.
I couldn't help but notice that you made no attempt to logically refute Dr. Lisle's argument. Instead, you claimed that it didn't make sense to you, and assumed that most of your readers would agree. Interestingly, those that have the same starting-point (shall we say, "worldview?") as you would most likely agree, yes. But is this logical?
ReplyDeleteThe question still remains, Bjorn: can you explain the existence of laws of logic without appealing to the Biblical worldview?
So far, you have not.
The question still remains, Bjorn: can you explain the existence of laws of logic without appealing to the Biblical worldview?
ReplyDeleteYes, that part is very easy. I could say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the laws of logic. Or the flying teapot did. Or Xenu. Or Allah.
But these are non-starters, because I don't think existence can be had without logic, and that existence includes Yahweh, FSM, etc.
I cannot explain the laws of logic, no. Why is it that 1+1 is always 2, and why is it that both A and not-A can't be true? I don't know.
But, crucially, saying that some god made it so adds absolutely nothing.
Not to mention that there may very well be universes in which the laws of physics are completely different. Nothing in our current understanding precludes it.
ReplyDelete"Can you explain the laws of logic without appealing to the Biblical worldview?"
ReplyDeleteUm. So, first things first... can you explain the laws of logic with appealing to the Biblical worldview? "Because God fucking said so" makes a piss-poor logical framework. It's essentially useless, because even if we presuppose the existence of an omniscient omnipotent giving-us-all-the-answers deity, we still have to use our fallible human intellects to figure out what this magic sky daddy is actually telling us. Even from a strictly theistic viewpoint, we need to have some evaluative mechanism external to God, else we can get nowhere anyways. "Everything God says is perfect and right" buys you jack-shit if you have no rhyme nor reason for figuring out what God is saying.
Okay, all of that bullshit out of the way, a related and actually-interesting question is, "What is the most parsimonious way you can justify the basic laws of logic?" It's a very interesting question, with arguably the first comprehensive (though quite flawed) attempt mounted by David Hume.
Bjorn, I have to strongly disagree with your assertion that "existence can['t] be had without logic", because I think "logic" as applied to existence, as fundamental as it may seem, is more of an approximation of macroscopic phenomena -- albeit at an incredibly abstract level, but seeking to model observational reality nonetheless. And I think it is fair to say that "logic" in just about any sense of the word starts to perform poorly as you approach the quantum level of fundamental particles, and it most certainly performs poorly as you approach singularities, in particular the pre-symmetry-breaking singularity circa the Big Bang.
(Which, by the way, is why logically based arguments for a cause ex nihilo may be hopelessly flawed: Our rules of logic aren't particularly useful or applicable in the picoseconds after the Big Bang, so a logical argument that there must have been an uncaused cause to start it all is likely based on false premises.)
Why is it that 1+1 is always 2? Well, if you are a fan of Bertrand Russell, you only need to decipher 397 pages of inscrutable squiggles, and you will be rewarded with a rather exacting and specific answer! (And no Jeebus required!!!) Of course, Godel had to go and fuck it all up for the rest of us with his whole incompleteness theorem, but even still... it's a much more satisfying answer than anything in the Bible. Yeesh!
Why is it that both A and not-A can't be true? Hell, that's just an arbitrary convention of first-order logic. There's a whole world of formal systems out there to challenge that notion, eh?
Perhaps a more fundamental question is, why are the laws of physics what they are? Nobody really knows the answer to that one, and in fact, a cipher hints at, it could just be that the "reason" is the same as the "reason" why I was born in America, i.e. there are many different possibilities, but any given instantiation has to be bound to one of them.
There's no fundamental law that makes my street address what it is; that's just where I live. Could be the same for the laws of physics. Or, there could be more to it. Nobody knows. Maybe science will figure it out one day; maybe it won't. But one thing is for damn sure: religion won't figure it out at all, because any fundamental knowledge derived solely from a book, without any observational corroboration, invites an infinite regress problem.
I think "logic" as applied to existence, as fundamental as it may seem, is more of an approximation of macroscopic phenomena
ReplyDeleteNo, I agree. Indeed, as you say, logic breaks down at certain scales and events, and clearly there is existence.
Thanks.
I'll merely add that the Buddhists also confronted the problem of infinite regression, and arrived at a conclusion very different from that of Western philosophers and theologians. Their view is that as any phenomenon must have a cause, a creator would also require one, therefore a creator can't exist. In their system, an Unmoved Mover is logically inconsistent. As James points out, cause and effect, which we seek to systematize as "logic", break down at the quantum level and as you approach a singularity, so their answer is no more valid, but it does demonstrate that God's existence isn't a logical necessity, provable by anyone who cares to analyze it without an "atheistic bias". Christians love to bandy about "Existence exists, therefore God", as though it were self-evident. It isn't, and it certainly doesn't follow that "Existence exists, therefore Jesus".
ReplyDeleteJames, you're correct in that in the end, all they really have is "Because God fucking said so." All the rest is window dressing.
Somewhat coincidentally, I've been reading the old collection of Stephen Hawkins essays Black Holes and Baby Universes, where he's arguing against the idea of a literal singularity. In any case, it doesn't make a big difference to this argument, because even though Hawking is arguing that there are no singularities where physical laws break down, our intuitive notions of logic and such still aren't very useful at that scale.
ReplyDeleteUm. So, first things first... can you explain the laws of logic with appealing to the Biblical worldview?
ReplyDeleteah...the ole sidestepping "tu Quoque" fallacy. "I can't explain it but neither can you!" Actually, within my worldview, I can. I believe that the bible is the end all, be all, instructional, historical document. Genesis says that God created Adam in His image and that we are created in Adam's image. We are given an infintesimally small glimpse into the mind of the Lord. Our mind is created after this mold with logic and reason and senses, etc. God promises that He will uphold these universal laws and characteristics. The fact that you refuse this explanation is irrelevant. The point is that my worldview accounts for these laws. Does yours? How can billions of chemical accidents and mutations result in intangible, universal laws that will be consistent and true for everything that will ever exist in that universe? You have no basis for logic and therefore have no basis for reason. Without reason there is no knowledge and, consequently, no science.
I think "logic" as applied to existence, as fundamental as it may seem, is more of an approximation of ma....
This means nothing. A and NOT A will never both be true. Any resonable person would agree with this. Otherwise, on what basis do you make scientific deductions? If there are formal systems that will disprove this simple logic what good is science? You might base an experiment on a set of laws but I could find an inconsistency in the fundamental law making your experiment irrelavent. See, in your worldview, the world has happened by accident with no order or design, so, there couldn't possibly be a uniform and consistent natural world. The laws could change tomorrow. There would be no consistent controls in which to test scientific hypotheses in an ever-changing, evolving universe.
Perhaps a more fundamental question is, why are the laws of physics what they are? Nobody really knows the answer to that one, and in fact, a cipher hints at, it could just be that the "reason" is the same as the "reason" why I was born in America, i.e. there are many different possibilities, but any given instantiation has to be bound to one of them.
You've inadvertently (I assume) disproven your entire argument. You don't know because you're worldview doesn't account for it and never will, making it false. You have to assume biblical principles (logic, morality, uniformity in nature, etc) to even argue your worldview. These laws exist because God made them that way and tells us this in the bible; a historical, inerrant document. You were born in America because of a series of choices that many people made over many, many years. These laws of physics could not have been chosen by man or evolved naturally (they are not part of the physical universe). Universal laws have to be set by someone with the authority over the universe.
religion won't figure it out at all, because any fundamental knowledge derived solely from a book, without any observational corroboration, invites an infinite regress problem.
No observational corroboration? Look around you! The universe is an infinitely amazing and complex place! There is so much order in the universe that I don't believe that you think it's an accident, in your heart of hearts. A simple cell is infinitely more complex than anything we've ever dreamed of creating. Every part of the universe depends on another part. The closer we look at the smaller and more microscopic, the more complex it gets!
I base my worldview and belief in the Christian God of the bible. He has given us all an innate sense and this amazing universe around us to prove that He exists. His Word has never been disproven and is the single most descriptive and accurate historical document anywhere. At least I have a book to refer to....what do you have?
Tommy
His Word has never been disproven and is the single most descriptive and accurate historical document anywhere. At least I have a book to refer to....what do you have?
ReplyDeleteTommy (okay, not really speaking to Tommy here, because my bets are that absolutely nothing anyone anywhere can say will make people who argue the way he does see things from a non-biblical perspective, ever*), the Bible is not inerrant at all. It contradicts itself on several occasions (e.g. the two genealogies of Jesus) and contradicts science all over the place. We, who do not believe the Bible has anything to say about how the natural world came to be, have nature to look at, and the evidence we have gathered from that source so emphatically does too contradict the Bible on how we got here, and what is out there.
* I mean, just take a look at Tommy's second to last paragraph:
No observational corroboration? Look around you! The universe is an infinitely amazing and complex place! There is so much order in the universe that I don't believe that you think it's an accident, in your heart of hearts. A simple cell is infinitely more complex than anything we've ever dreamed of creating. Every part of the universe depends on another part. The closer we look at the smaller and more microscopic, the more complex it gets!
In other words, the Universe is very, very complex and amazing, so therefore the Bible is inerrant. It's so beside the point that it's neither here nor there, really. Making headway with people who argue like this (indeed, who even think this is an argument) is just impossible.
I believe that the bible is the end all, be all, instructional, historical document.
ReplyDeleteTommy, you could have just stopped right there. Everything afterward was irrelevant.
His Word has never been disproven and is the single most descriptive and accurate historical document anywhere.
This is incorrect. There are any number of sources available that would demonstrate this for you, if you were at all interested - which you aren't.
my bets are that absolutely nothing anyone anywhere can say will make people who argue the way he does see things from a non-biblical perspective, ever*)
Bjørn, you're absolutely right. Their belief is all that matters, to the extent that they are perfectly willing to see everyone else suffer eternally (millions even anticipate it, eagerly). The only thing that matters to them is that they get the ontological security blanket for the few brief decades they're here. It is the most selfish belief system ever devised, masquerading as the least selfish.
ah...the ole sidestepping "tu Quoque" fallacy. "I can't explain it but neither can you!"
ReplyDeleteNo, it's not a "tu quoque" fallacy in this case, for two reasons:
First, because you originally challenged us to explain it without appealing to a Biblical worldview, there was a clear implication that you thought you could. And I wanted to hear you try, because I thought it would be quite entertaining.
Second, I went on to discuss in detail the difficulties of explaining the laws of logic, whether they really require explanation, etcetera. It would only be "tu quoque" if I refused to address the original issue. I was not trying to distract from the original issue -- in fact, eight paragraphs of a nine paragraph post were directed towards the original issue, without any attempt at redirection -- but rather, since your initial statement implied that these difficulties were unique to my worldview, I felt it was important to dispel that implication.
However, I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time typing this, because you also wrote:
I believe that the bible is the end all, be all, instructional, historical document.
Sui generis. Without justification.
Well that's just retarded. As cipher observed, you could have just stopped right there. And I will too. Have a nice (ignorant) life.
Heh! Argumentum ad retardum!
ReplyDeleteClaiming God explains the laws of logic presumes the conclusion - that logic can be used to explain its own origin (even if we call that origin "God".) I think we're missing some fundamental point to think that's even a well-framed question, let alone it having an answer.
ReplyDelete