Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Thursday, July 31, 2008

The Natural Realm Implies Naturalism

One of Ray Comfort's little evangelistic tricks is his use of the word "creation" to describe the universe itself, which both sides can agree exist, so that he can (1) define God into existence, and (2) belittle atheists for not seeing the "obvious." It's a meme that all of us Raytractors have come across repeatedly: "Creation implies a creator."

But consider this: we could just as easily call the universe "the natural realm," which defines metaphysical naturalism into existence, and belittle Ray for not seeing the obvious.

(Ray might respond that the word "universe" means "one word," which implies the existence of a Speaker. But when using the word "universe," I no more mean to say "that which is spoken by God" than Ray, when saying "bless you" to someone who has sneezed, means to say "you appear to have the Black Plague, please keep your distance.")

So we can both do a service to our respective theories depending on what term we use for the universe. Ray can say it implies a creator, I can say it implies naturalism. But who's actually correct? Whose theory does the universe we observe confirm?

To answer that, let's look at what each of our theories predicts and compare those predictions to what we observe, keeping score along the way.

Christianity predicts: A universe in which Earth and humans are the main feature, the basic reason for it existing in the first place.
Naturalism predicts: A universe in which neither humans nor their homeworld are anything special in the grand scheme of things.
What we observe: A universe in which humans and their world are lost among countless trillions of stars; not only are we not the center of the universe, we can't even see the center of the universe, being so far away.
Score: Ray 0, atheists 1.

Christianity predicts: A universe in which the beginning of the universe and the beginning of humans are seperated by a matter of days.
Naturalism predicts: A universe in which the beginning of the universe adn the beginning of humans are seperated by vast periods of time, millions or billions of years, it taking that long for life to develop from inanimate matter through natural processes.
What we observe: A universe that has been around for about 14 billion years, but a human species that has only been around for several thousand.
Score: Ray 0, atheists 2.

Christianity predicts: A human race created by as simple and efficient a means as an extremely powerful spiritual essence could manage.
Naturalism predicts: Life arising, if at all, through some sort of chemical "code" which copies itself and is subject to mutation so as to be able to change form from inanimate to animate matter.
What we observe: Billions of years of evolution, and DNA.
Score: Ray 0, atheists 3.

Christianity predicts: Intelligent minds which, being made of spirit (whatever that is), exist and function completely independently of any physical body.
Naturalism predicts: Any mind which exists is made of the same stuff as the universe and biological life, and therefore suffers from the same limitations and drawbacks as that stuff.
What we observe: Intelligent minds are produced by a physical machine, the human brain; by altering the physical state of this brain, we can change the mind itself.
Score: Ray 0, atheists 4.

Christianity predicts: The existence of a being who is powerful enough and knowledgable enough to prevent human suffering, and who loves them and cares about them enough to do so.
Naturalism predicts: No such being necessarily exists.
What we observe: The existence of enormous amounts of unprevented suffering.
Score: Ray 0, atheists 5.

Christianity predicts: The existence of a being who has a specific and vitally important message for mankind, namely the gospel message, and is powerful enough to deliver that message individually to each and every human.
Naturalism predicts: No such being necessarily exists.
What we observe: Widespread unawareness of the gospel message, and equally widespread reasonable nonbelief therein.
Score Ray 0, atheists 6.

With some creative work, any theory, including Christianity, can be modified to become compatible with these observations, but that proves nothing unless the modifications themselves are independently proven. For example, Joe killing Steve is inconsistent with the proposition "Joe is a morally good person." A Joe-apologist could modify that theory to state that Steve had a nuclear bomb, was about to detonate it in the middle of a city, and that killing him was the only way to stop him. But the fact that the theory is able to be modified in such a way is, by itself, insufficient to salvage the "Joe is good" theory; we would have to have independent confirmation that Steve had a nuke, that he was about to detonate it, and that Joe's only option was indeed to kill Steve.

Therefore, if the Christian wanted to solve the problem of, say, the vast size of the universe by saying that God had some important reason for creating trillions upon trillions of light years of apparently empty space for a universe created especially for humans, that would not prove anything -- not unless the Christian could prove, to the same standard of proof as the original question, that such a desire on God's part actually exists. He can't.

Similarly, any attempt to make God compatible with suffering by citing, say, free will fails unless accompanied by (1) a logical proof that a world in which all beings freely make choices that avoid suffering is impossible, (2) some sort of proof of the existence of Satan or whatever malevolent entity is responsible for natural suffering, and (3) some sort of proof of the existence of a desire on God's part that all beings have free will, and that his desire that this obtain is greater than his maximal love for us. These must all be proved independently -- both from one another and from the original theory that God exists in the first place -- and to within the same standard of proof as the original theory. Needless to say, this has not been done.

So there you have it. The natural realm implies naturalism -- and this is so obvious that Ray and the Raybots are fools for not seeing it. Now let's look at how this meme defeats Ray's meme:

Q: Doesn't a builder imply a builder?

A: Is there any building in New York City that was built by a discorporeal spirit? In Chicago? In Moscow? Tokyo? Sydney? Cape Town? Bellweather, CA? Of course not -- all buildings were built by physical beings who arose by natural processes.

Q: Doesn't a painter imply a painter?

A: Was the Mona Lisa painted by a ghost? Starry Night? The Last Supper? No, they were all painted by humans. Physical beings. Natural beings.

Q: Doesn't creation imply a creator?

A: Christians and atheists disagree on whether the universe is a creation -- in the sense that it was created by an intelligent being -- but there is a set of objects -- buildings, painters, cars, etc. -- that we do agree are creations. Can the Christian name one of those objects, just one of them, that was created by something other than a finite physical being? Of course he can't!

So if the universe is a creation by an intelligent being, then all the evidence suggests that the creator of the universe is some sort of finite physical being as well, and none of the evidence suggests the contrary.

Therefore, the universe was caused to exist either by a natural person or by impersonal natural processes -- consistent with the predictions of naturalism, contradictory to the predictions of Christianity.

Score: Ray 0, atheists 7.

The natural realm implies naturalism. QED.

11 comments:

  1. Just wanted to point out that the word "Universe" meaning "one word" or "spoken word" is a common creationist myth.

    The word actually comes from the Latin word "unvorsum" meaning (in the original context) "everything rolled into one, everything combined into one".

    Even the dictionaries state that it derives from the combination of words "to turn" and "into one".

    ReplyDelete
  2. A very well written piece.

    I think if you were to keep an overall tally, the score would be much, much higher though.

    Of course, it won't make a jot of difference to those who make the claims in the first place; some people just will not see reason.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sometimes I wonder, see, If a God exists...How would it be so hard to miss him?

    Seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ranting:

    We miss God because we love our sin and want to keep sinning. Where have you been?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, but what do you think about abortion?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rufus, you're right. We love sin so much we are blinded to the grace of the lard your Gawd.

    John,
    What are your views on same sex marriage?

    ReplyDelete
  7. That's a lot of good points. I wonder what Ray will say.

    Not gonna lie, I'd have to be rooting for Ray on that conversation. Not out of assurance, mind you. More out of hope that he'll stop and think for a second.


    In the first point, the main assumption is not addressed at all; God's existence.

    Yes, Naturalism does assume that we are nothing special, but Christianity doesn't just assume that we are special. It assumes that we are special to God, and therefore assumes that God exists. The Naturalism observes only the cosmos here, and therefore assumes that Earth and Man are not anything special to the cosmos. It doesn't really discount the Christian assumption at all.

    Christianity assumes that Mankind is the center of God's universe.


    The second and third points are all details about how the universe came to be. Though some Christians have that point of view, I think it's equally as reasonable to say "Look, the Genesis creation story has the same writing style as an ancient Hebrew Poem..."


    In the fourth point, I'd say I halfway agree. The mind and Body are connected. We know that because, if we whack some one in the head with a hammer, their mind begins to function differently.

    Take, for instance, a person who has a psychological addiction. It's not like substance abuse; it's something like Gambling. The poker table doesn't touch their brain. However, the stuff changes their brain chemistry in long-term ways.

    The mind can change the brain in the same way that the brain can change the mind. Gambling isn't even a thing that is physical in nature, like food or sex. It's not physically manipulating the brain, like drugs do, so what is it manipulating?

    I believe that the brain and mind are separate, but not independent.


    The fifth point is all about free will. I suppose you've had that conversation many many many times, so I won't bore you with a re-hashing unless you want to talk about that. ^_^


    As for the gospel message, I do not believe that it's lack of spreading to some areas does not disprove God's existence, nor the importance of that message.

    I believe that God is the kind of guy who takes risks. Not a traditional view, but there it is any way. It's a major part of open theism.

    Any way, I believe that God took a huge risk in trusting us with this important message, and the only reason that there are people who haven't heard it is because there are Christians who haven't been faithful.

    I will admit, however, that there is no basis to that belief other than my assumptions concerning God and Spiritual matters.


    The last point about how cars, buildings, paintings, etc. all have finite creators is pretty good. Not gonna lie.

    However, if we change the focus from the finite or infinite nature of the thing to a comparison between the intelligence and complexity of the creation and the creator, then the painting/painter model has a little more ground to stand on.

    As for what method the creator used to bring everything into being, whether by untraceable supernatural means or by a big bang and evolution, I'm not sure that such a detail is really important in the long run as much more than mind candy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dave, this is good food for thought. I look forward to reading more posts by you.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Excellent post Dave, really.

    I thoroughly enjoyed your comparisons.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @Rob
    It's not physically manipulating the brain, like drugs do, so what is it manipulating?

    I believe that the brain and mind are separate, but not independent.


    I do not agree. Certain situations cause the release of certain chemicals in the brain. The resulting feelings can become addictive.

    The mind is the brain. There is no independence. Take away the brain and the mind goes with it.

    Christianity assumes that Mankind is the center of God's universe.

    But that makes God very small with respect to the Universe. Our little planet is an insignificant little speck of dust in the Universe. Why is the Master of the Universe so hung up on a rather fragile carbon-based lifeform with a short lifespan? Why does he want us to worship him? That is the bit I don't get. According to some Christians, we are put on Earth as a sort of training ground for an eternity spent praising God.

    Let's for arguments sake say he exists. We die, we loved Jesus so we get a free pass, and we get into Heaven, where there is no more sin, sickness, etc. and everyone is like Ned Flanders. Then what? We stand around all day saying what a great guy God is for creating us? Just how long is that likely to go on for before someone goes and eats a peach and God gets really mad with us again?

    ReplyDelete
  11. @ John Doyle:

    I do not agree. Certain situations cause the release of certain chemicals in the brain. The resulting feelings can become addictive.

    The mind is the brain. There is no independence. Take away the brain and the mind goes with it.


    But the situations don't touch the brain. They don't do anything to the brain like a chemical does. It's the idea. What chemical makes up the idea of gambling? We know what is associated with it, but the idea is not material. It's not doing anything to the brain, but the mind.

    People think in words, sounds, and images. How do chemicals make that up? We know what chemicals are associated with them, but that's it.

    The brain and the mind, though extremely dependent on each other, can't be one in the same.


    But that makes God very small with respect to the Universe. Our little planet is an insignificant little speck of dust in the Universe. Why is the Master of the Universe so hung up on a rather fragile carbon-based lifeform with a short lifespan? Why does he want us to worship him? That is the bit I don't get. According to some Christians, we are put on Earth as a sort of training ground for an eternity spent praising God.

    If Prince Charming wants to spend his life with Cinderella, does that make the Prince less of a Prince, or does it make Cinderella more of a Princess?

    I don't think it makes God smaller. I think it makes us bigger.

    Of all the cool things in the universe that God could hang out with, he chooses us.


    As for earth being a training ground for eternity, I dunno about that. How would training here make a difference if we're going to be made perfect before that time?


    Let's for arguments sake say he exists. We die, we loved Jesus so we get a free pass, and we get into Heaven, where there is no more sin, sickness, etc. and everyone is like Ned Flanders. Then what? We stand around all day saying what a great guy God is for creating us? Just how long is that likely to go on for before someone goes and eats a peach and God gets really mad with us again?

    Now now, every one knows that the tree of knowledge of good and evil is an apple tree... ;)

    I doubt that every one there will be like Ned Flanders. I doubt that he and the apostle Paul would get along very well. Paul's too hard core.

    I don't know if that will happen again. The Bible (as far as I know) seems to imply that it won't.

    ReplyDelete

Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.