Arguing about the morality of a thing with an atheist is pointless
| July 13, 2011 | Posted by Anthony under apologetics, atheism, Blog, evolution, General, Holocaust, human rights, Jesus, Love, Malthusians, morality, philosophy, Secular Humanism, theism |
Everyone has heard the charge: God is a moral monster. Indeed, Christians themselves have often struggled to reconcile the goodness of God with some of the actions recorded in the Scriptures, not to mention the bloodiness of human history. I have myself struggled with this. What thoughtful person hasn’t? Unfortunately, as soon as you open your mouth to charge God with evil conduct, you have proved he exists, and also that he is good, because unless there exists a good God, all moral statements are nonsensical.
Granted, how you get from one to the other requires some intermediary steps. It is not my purpose to speak to them here.
My purpose is to point out that it is almost a complete waste of time to argue about whether something is moral or immoral- including whether a putative God is moral or immoral- with an atheist because atheism logically entails moral relativism. Most of the atheists that I’ve debated with have actually asserted this. Some have argued differently. I understand there is some diversity. However, I’m not really trying to capture what atheists think, only explain why in my view dialoging on the morality of something is pointless. And I think that atheism logically entails moral relativism, which makes any discussion about the ‘rightness’ or ‘wrongness’ about something (anything!) no more or less a discussion- according to the atheist- over one’s favorite flavor of ice cream.
So there you have the first hint at why the debate is useless. Between the two of us, the only one who can be held to any kind of objective standard is ME. That puts the atheist in the enviable position of being able to criticize my views or conclusions forever and ever while leaving themselves insulated from any challenge that their views are not consistent with objective standards… for the obvious reason that they don’t believe there are objective standards. Likewise if they criticize the morality of something God is alleged to have done. God is supposed to be omni-benevolent… and the atheist knows just what that would look like in order to find God wanting! while simultaneously believing that such assessments are societal constructs, evolutionary artifacts, or whatever they tell themselves.
Allow me to try to illustrate.
Let’s say we were arguing about this equation: a+b+c(d*e)=(f-g)+x. I believe in absolutes and objective standards and my counterpart does not, but still believes that when I say x=20 I’m wrong. So we argue. We identify what all the variables are. For example, let’s say we determine that a=10. The atheist nods his head and the calculation continues. Eventually we get to the end of the solution and solve for ‘x’ and aha! ‘X’ does equal 20! The atheist is ready, “Ah, but ‘a=10′ is merely a societal construct. It could just as easily be 9. In fact, I don’t think there is any right value for ‘a’.”
It’s like Lucy pulling the football out when Charlie Brown goes to kick it. The atheist is free to speculate until kingdom come and never take a stand of his own while holding Christians mercilessly to their own standards, and decrying them as moral hypocrites if they fail to live by those standards… as if hypocrisy is objectively bad.
In one very important sense, then, one need not ever give a lick what an atheist believes is moral or immoral. Their own position deprives their assessment of any substance. Treat their assessment as inconsequential rubbish and you’ll still be giving it more consideration than its due.
Ah, but the atheist insists that their moral calculations and pronouncements be taken seriously!
Well, brother, that is proof positive that you do not buy what you’re selling. You live your life every day as though certain things were objectively true, as though there were truly good and bad actions and outcomes. In short, you live every day as though there was a God without being willing to match your mouth with your life. Put another way, you are as much a hypocrite as any Christian you’ve ever taken aim at. Not that there is anything objectively wrong about hypocrisy, right?
In my view, it is pointless to debate the morality of anything with an atheist until he is willing to admit that moral assessments imply the existence of the immaterial and transcendental realities that must exist if those assessments reflect anything more than one’s favorite flavor of ice cream.
Of course, we have already proved in this post the existence of transcendental and immaterial realities the minute I employed logic and reason, eg, in the algebraic formula. The formula could makes use of abstractions such as variables and addition and multiplication and the axiom that one isn’t allowed to change the values of variables on the fly if one doesn’t like a world where X=20. But let’s set that aside.
I am being careful in my language. It’s ALMOST a complete waste of time. As a Christian I believe that all humans are made in God’s image and it is precisely because of this that we all have our intrinsic sense of right and wrong and fair play. The atheist sits around making moral judgements every day because he was created to do so just like everyone else. Hence, while in the abstract it is plain silly for an atheist to make an accusation of hypocrisy* and given their general views not worth the time of day, in objective truth and reality, the charge may actually be legitimate and if so, it would genuinely be wrong. So it matters that we Christians strive to uphold our moral code and likewise strive to ensure that it conforms to objective reality. Not that I think many atheists would be happy even then. But there are many varieties of atheism and degrees of disbelief and other kinds of disbelievers. We need not sit around wondering if today Richard Dawkins will miraculously make his first sane comment, but there are others who may be watching who might be moved one way or the other.
Does this mean that I do not argue about the morality of things with my atheist friends? No. I do. All the time. But when I do, it is always with the goal of pushing it and pushing it and pushing it and pushing it all the way back to where they must come face to face with whether or not I should take their moral assessment as reflecting real facts about the world or if its just them telling me- with as much passion as they can muster- that the BEST flavor of ice cream is chocolate.
* hypocrisy is just one moral assessment I’m using as an example. Any and all moral assessments are meant to be included for the purpose of this post.
This is the default footer layout. You can easily add or remove columns in the footer.
obviously on a YEC point of view, the fossil record is not regarded as a chronological telling of earth’s history.
Excuse my ignorance. Why can the fossil record not be interpreted chronologically, according to YECs? Understand: I grew up in a country where there are many Christians, but exceedingly few YECs, so I am not very familiar even now with their arguments.
Do you, yourself, consider it to be reasonable to interpret the fossil record chronologically?
No, I would not regard the fossil record as a chronological history of the earth. There is no reason to take this into a debate about YECism or OECism, but make it strictly geological: I believe the evidence supports the view that the earth’s geologic features should be interpreted in catastrophic terms. That is a technical term, and in the 1700s and 1800s it was regarded as a ‘mainstream’ position. In particular with Lyell, uniformitarianism became the mainstream view.
Please understand: I do not reject uniformitarianism because the Bible tells me so. I believe the geologic evidence itself flies in the face of it, and I don’t accept as a counter argument: “A bunch of smart people think you’re wrong.” Those same smart people happily integrate catastrophism into their interpretations on a daily basis. It isn’t my fault that they refuse to apply it consistently.
Now, you probably didn’t follow much of that and perhaps didn’t see how it was connected. You may think of it simply this way. Consider this scene: a floor with marbles scattered about and broken chards of glass near one edge.
The uniformitarian thinks he can calculate how the room came about by assuming that each marble arrived separately, and so by counting the marbles and making some calculations about how long he thinks it takes for a marble to get there, he can make some assessments about chronology. The catastrophist does not think that chronological calculations are impossible, nor will he reject the possibility that the marbles did in fact arrive one at a time over a long time period. But, looking at the broken glass, he is willing to consider the hypothesis that what actually transpired was that a jar of marbles fell to the ground and broke, dumping out the marbles.
The two hypotheses are mutually contradictory and must be taken on their own terms. If the uniformitarian believes an event happened at the 100th marble, that’s fine, but he cannot deploy that against the catastrophist who is positing that the marbles were all dumped at once. I believe the evidence calls for a hypothesis that begins with a catastrophe ie, that the fossil ‘record’ itself is best explained by a catastrophe.
I am explaining this to you out of courtesy and because you asked, not because I mean to argue it. I encourage you to dig deeper, and to skeptically regard each perspective on their own terms, in their own words.
“Macro-evolution could be falsified if, for example, a fossil of a rabbit were discovered in Pre-Cambrian rock, or that of a human in Cenozoic-era rock.”
Your dodging the question – If you hold that evolution is “scientific” can you admit the alternatives are “scientific” as well, in order for evolution to be falsifiable?
As for that method “disproving” macro-evolution, I doubt that. I’m sure some half-baked theory would be used to explain it away, and it would be considered legitimate because it maintains the status quo (and of course we’re unable to look into the distant past to verify it). There’s already an admission in regards to some animals that there’s very little change throughout the fossils (crocodiles), and I’m sure something similar would be employed (they’d likely call it a “missing link” or such).
That’s the problem when so much of macro-evolution is based more on assumption and speculation than on observation and experimentation. When it comes down to pure imagination, humans can imagine anything they like.
“They never, ever are found, and each time they are not found adds weight and credibility to the theory of evolution as currently understood. If we didn’t have fossils as a guide, we would indeed be able to know almost nothing about life on Earth before man appeared.”
heh. Not so much as a guide when fossil interpretation relies more on assumption and speculation than anything else, as I already said. And there’s a reason I mentioned the Cambrian explosion. The fact that they can’t find “missing links” doesn’t really add to it’s credibility. Which is why your suggestion would probably be spinned as ‘further proof’ than evidence against it.
Hi End Bringer,
The alternatives are scientific if they can be falsified. Your theory cannot be falsified (you mentioned time travel!), and so is not scientific.
Let’s say that a genetically modern rabbit were discovered in the Cenozoic. It would not be likely to disprove that such a thing as the Cenozoic era existed (otherwise, how to explain all the other apparently Cenozoic-era fossils?), but it would inevitably radically unsettle either our notions of how animals evolve or our understanding of how fossils come into being. That doesn’t mean that all scientists would instantly accept Young Earth Creationism; they would try to come up with alternative explanations of various kinds, because that’s how scientific careers are made; but they would no longer be able to adhere to the current scientific understanding of prehistory, and so the current scientific understanding is falsifiable.
You glibly argue that “fossil interpretation relies on assumption and speculation”, so shall we chalk this up as an addition to your long list of Sciences End Bringer Personally Does Not Believe Are Properly Scientific? So far we’ve got archeology, astronomy, climatology, geology, physics, statistics, and now paleontology too. Any more, while we’re at it? And will there be anything left of science when you’re done?
“The alternatives are scientific if they can be falsified. Your theory cannot be falsified (you mentioned time travel!), and so is not scientific.”
Then neither is evolution if it can’t be falsified due to no other alternative. Seems in your attempt to denounce other beliefs, you’ve made evolution as “immunized” as you accused me.
“Let’s say that a genetically modern rabbit were discovered in the Cenozoic. It would not be likely to disprove that such a thing as the Cenozoic era existed (otherwise, how to explain all the other apparently Cenozoic-era fossils?), but it would inevitably radically unsettle either our notions of how animals evolve or our understanding of how fossils come into being.”
Like SJ, I don’t give much credence to fossils being a method of chronological history. Because, like macro-evolution, it’s based more on assumptions than observation. And as mentioned, there is already an explanation of why “living fossils” today are found so-called ‘millions of years ago’. So I wouldn’t put much stock in your assertion that it would ‘disprove’ or even unsettle evolutionary theory. Because it’s proven so malleable it can account for anything, without being disproven.
“…but they would no longer be able to adhere to the current scientific understanding of prehistory, and so the current scientific understanding is falsifiable.”
Yeah, that’s pretty much my point. They wouldn’t throw evolution out the window. They’d just tweak it to account for anything “unsettling”. As such nothing would disprove it, so much as change it a little bit. That’s not being falsifiable as much as is being endlessly malleable.
“So far we’ve got archeology, astronomy, climatology, geology, physics, statistics, and now paleontology too. Any more, while we’re at it? And will there be anything left of science when you’re done?”
You seem to confuse general fields of study with my taking issue with specific topics.
Then neither is evolution if it can’t be falsified due to no other alternative.
???
I don’t think you understand falsification. The point is that it is possible to prove our current understanding of evolution to be false. I’m not required to come up with a new and alternative theory in order to make the current theory meet the criterion of falsifiability; falsifiability is based on the evidence that one might be able to find, not on the theory one might be able to advance to explain the evidence if it does get found. Evidence first, theory afterwards.
I imagine that were such evidence ever to be discovered, such as a modern rabbit in very old sediments, the scientists who find the new evidence would be delighted to come up with new theories on the basis of whatever they find.
A good example of how scientific thinking on this changes is the account of how the dinosaurs died off. It used to be thought that continuous changes in climate killed the dinosaurs. Now the prevailing theory is that the changes wrought by a massive asteroid impact killed them off. What changed scientists’ thinking was the discovery of a sedimentary layer at the exact point where the die-off appears to occur, which was very high in elements like iridium that are much more typically found in asteroids than in Earth’s geology. Oh, and also the discovery of a hitherto unknown large crater in the Yucatan that was of exactly the right age and size to account for the sedimentary layer.
You see? Based on newly found and measurable evidence, scientists changed their conception of a key event in Earth’s prehistory, and are now refining and challenging that theory in its turn to see how well it holds up. The previous theory of gradual climate change did not fit with the evidence that was discovered, and so, rather than reinterpreting the evidence to fit their theory (as Young Earth Creationists have done), they changed their theory to better fit the evidence. That is scientific.
You allege that evolution is “infinitely malleable”. It is not. It’s simply that the amount of physical fossil evidence that has been collected that shows that macro-evolution has been happening is by now so enormous that the only thing I can imagine shaking it is something that entirely undermines the notion of being able to date fossils on the basis of the imputed time of formation of the particular sediment in which they were found.
That would plunge the entire field into the kind of random indeterminacy that Anthony appears to already think it is in, and it would concomitantly no longer be possible to use fossil evidence to come up with any theory of prehistory at all, whether Young Earth, Old Earth or Earth Created Yesterday in the Imagination of God.
You seem to confuse general fields of study with my taking issue with specific topics.
What you dispute within those fields is basic to those fields, namely and in order:
- the datability of layers (undermines archeology, geology and paleontology)
- the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum (undermines astronomy and physics)
- the ability to use computers to model planetary and larger systems (undermines climatology and astronomy)
- the ability to make statements accurate to a certain level of confidence about a population based on taking a random sample from that population (undermines statistics)
Without the datability of layers, what kind of archeology, geology or paleontology do you think it is possible to do? How easy do you think oil companies would find it to find oil if they didn’t know to look in layers dating to specific geological periods?
Without the constancy and unbreakability of the speed of light, the entire structure of Einsteinian and quantum physics is left without a foundation, and we would be back to Newtonian physics alone; without that constant, we would be unable to measure the distance of stars from Earth with nearly the level of accuracy that we now can.
Note carefully. The problem is not that you’re making objections. The problem is that you’re making objections without presenting any evidence as to why anyone should believe your objections to have merit.
…or, more accurately, “without suggesting why the evolutionary explanation is a poor fit for the evidence that exists, or why the theory on which scientists rely when assessing the evidence (the datability of layers in which fossils are found) is not reliable”.
“I don’t think you understand falsification.”
I understand it perfectly well.
-In order for something to be considered robust science, it needs to be falsifiable.
-Modern evolutionary theory is usually presented so that it entails unintelligent operations.
-To falsify the claim that something is driven by unintelligent forces one would have to show how intelligent forces were at work.
-Evolutionary apologists insist (with heapings of derision) that such a showing is outside the bounds of science.
-But if showing design is outside the bounds of science than there is no reliable and objective way to conclude scientifically that something is not designed.
-Therefore, macroevolutionary theory cannot be scientifically falsified at the point that it is the result of unguided natural processes since they reject as unscientific the very things that could falsify it.
-Consequently, at one of its most controversial points- that it is unguided- macroevolutionary theory is shown to be scientifically unfalsifiable on the evolutionist’s own terms.
“Evidence first, theory afterwards.”
And what you fail to realize is that ID and Creationism is based on the same evidence. As SJ pointed out in his scenerio of marbles, the two theories are based on the same situation. But somehow the two are excluded as being unscientific, making evolution safely immunized.
“You allege that evolution is “infinitely malleable”. It is not.”
It’s been seen dozens of times when evolution hit a problem. First it was believed evolution only went ‘upward’, but now evolution can go in any direction. It was said evolution was ‘slow’, but with the mass extinciton ’65 million years ago’, it can now occur relatively ‘fast’ as needed (Gould). It was said ‘altruism’ was a problem for evolution in Darwin’s day, but now ‘altruism’ and even morality itself, is simply a by-product of evolution.
So no. It’s not falsifiable. It is, in fact, endlessly adaptible, as it can be tweaked to accomidate any problem. The theory itself will never be proven incorrect, just our “understanding” of it.
“What you dispute within those fields is basic to those fields,”
No, what I dispute is a flawed method of gathering evidence, that seems to be the only way to reach these controversial issues. If a house is built on shifting sand, I’m not at all abash to point it out.
“How easy do you think oil companies would find it to find oil if they didn’t know to look in layers dating to specific geological periods?”
Pretty easy, since the label and depth of the specific layer is all that’s needed. I don’t think they would at all care if a layer was changed from 65 million years to 75 million years to a thousand years ago. I doubt it’d make the oil any deeper.
“Without the constancy and unbreakability of the speed of light, the entire structure of Einsteinian and quantum physics is left without a foundation, and we would be back to Newtonian physics alone; without that constant, we would be unable to measure the distance of stars from Earth with nearly the level of accuracy that we now can.”
You mean, people’d be faced with the fact that they were wrong?! Oh-Boo-hoo-hoo. *rolls eyes* And like I said earlier the supposed speed of light has already proven to be not so constant.
“Note carefully. The problem is not that you’re making objections. The problem is that you’re making objections without presenting any evidence as to why anyone should believe your objections to have merit.”
*snort* I don’t need to. I’m confrontingin these issues on their own terms. If they’re flawed on their own terms, I don’t see why one should adhere to them simply because you personally find the alternatives ridiculous. That’s like finding a corpse in a room and saying it MUST be a suicide, simply because you find the hypothesized suspect to be ridiculous, while ignoring the broken door and loss of a TV.
“…or, more accurately, “without suggesting why the evolutionary explanation is a poor fit for the evidence that exists, or why the theory on which scientists rely when assessing the evidence (the datability of layers in which fossils are found) is not reliable”.”
Why? The reason is the same as you would have if someone suggested that the Sphinx and pyramids were created solely by unguided wind erosion. It’s a proven natural process that requires no intelligence (and thus seems to be the standard of “science” these days), but you’d likely out-right laugh at the very notion.
Well, I have the same incredulitiy with the idea that the brain (a single organ far more complicated than the Sphinx) was develpoed purely by unguided natural processes as well. And that’s just with the brain. Don’t even get me started on the inter-dependancy of the rest of the organs.
The difference is, when we get to any issue where God is involved, evolutionist’s/atheist’s/whatever-you-are’s incredulity gets chucked out the window, while I remain consistent in my behaviour.
All you’re saying here is that you find evolution inherently ridiculous. In much the same way, people used to find the idea of the earth rotating around the sun ridiculous – look, the moving sun is rising above a still horizon, dumbass! Mere common sense does not constitute evidence; it represents exactly the kind of accumulated prejudice that the scientific method is meant to systematically analyze.
Evolutionary theory presumes that the process of mutation and natural selection is unguided because no evidence yet found logically necessitates a guide. To falsify this, all you have to find is evidence that does logically necessitate a guide. Creationists have tried to do this in many ways, challenging how the eye or the whale could have evolved, to take two famous examples. I appreciate the fact that creationists have mounted this challenge, because it has forced scientists to think more carefully about how eyes and whales could have evolved in unguided ways. The National Geographic had a terrific article this year on whale evolution, which I heartily recommend:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/08/whale-evolution/mueller-text/1
It has proven possible to articulate a process that is unguided whereby eyes and whales could have evolved, and to support those hypothesized processes with evidence from the natural world of intermediate developmental stages in both cases.
You are right that when evolution was first conceived of, it was thought of as an “upward” process with “more evolved” creatures coming later and “less evolved” creatures coming earlier. As scientists have examined the fossil record better, they have found that it is less and less helpful to think of evolution in that way, and they now tend to talk about a process of adapting to an ecological niche rather than in terms of upward or downward movement. I think that this represents an improvement to the theory, and they are hardly to be criticized for improving their theory over time in this way or in others.
See, the fact that scientists’ best understanding changes over time is a feature, not a bug; science, unlike theology, has an inbuilt mechanism for detecting mistakes and building knowledge up systematically over time through the testing of previously received wisdom.
if showing design is outside the bounds of science than there is no reliable and objective way to conclude scientifically that something is not designed.
Well, there has to be evidence that it is designed before scientists will accept it. However, both you and Anthony have been busy on this site heaping derision on me for the very idea that we could use scientific experiments to assess whether God has involved Himself in the physical world (on the matter of prayer in our case). What you seem to want is for scientists to accept a prior, non-scientific presumption that things have been designed by a designer, for no better reason than that it’s what you believe to be true. Why criticize them for refusing to accept your views without scientific evidence to support them?
It’s not that evolutionary theory cannot be falsifiedr. It’s that you yourself believe that science cannot prove your specific alternative theory that there is a designer guiding the process. It’s not scientists’ fault or a defect in their theories that no scientific experiment turns up evidence of God.
ID and Creationism is based on the same evidence.
No; by their nature, they make the prior presumption that the process is guided by a designer, and then proceed to reject the validity of chronological fossil evidence because if they accepted it, it would undermine their prior assumption.
I should have specified, with regard to the speed of light, that it appears to be a constant in a vacuum; and if you’re going to decide unilaterally that Einstein and his successors for the last hundred years have been wrong, you’d really better be able to explain why. What ground do you have for supposing that physicists and astronomers have gotten the speed of light wrong?
“All you’re saying here is that you find evolution inherently ridiculous.”
Ah, so you find the idea that the sphinx was made from random and unguided wind erosion not inherently ridiculous? Or that your attitude of Creationism isn’t the exact same?Riiiight, you’re REALLY rational and consistent. *rolls eyes*
“Evolutionary theory presumes that the process of mutation and natural selection is unguided because no evidence yet found logically necessitates a guide. To falsify this, all you have to find is evidence that does logically necessitate a guide.”
I think the whole level of complexity for the brain alone, meets the logical necessity of an intelligent guide. But like I said, since that leads to a conclusion you’ve arbitrarily decided from the beginning can’t be true, your left to believe it was made by an unguided processes, yet you believe something far less complex like the Sphinx wasn’t.
Because in the end, the problem isn’t evidence. It’s this wholely inconsistent behaviour of evolutionists that shows an inherently closed-mind and circular reasoning.
“I think that this represents an improvement to the theory, and they are hardly to be criticized for improving their theory over time in this way or in others.”
So, your rebuttal that evolution is unfalsifiable is to…confirm how it isn’t falsifiable? That when faced with any problem it won’t be thrown out, just “improved”? Again, are you arguing with me, or agreeing?
“It’s not that evolutionary theory cannot be falsifiedr. It’s that you yourself believe that science cannot prove your specific alternative theory that there is a designer guiding the process. It’s not scientists’ fault or a defect in their theories that no scientific experiment turns up evidence of God.”
True. But I don’t claim my beliefs need meet the standard of the scientific process. I say there are other standards of investigation more suited to answer the issue. YOURS, however, does make the claim. And if we are inherently left with no other alternative than to believe in an unguided process, than that by definition makes it unfalsifiable.
Face it. You’re simply trying to have your cake and eat it too. You can not claim only a single theory to be considered scientific out of one corner of your mouth, then maintain it as falsifiable out of the other. That’s as inherently contradicting as saying ‘square-circle’. It’s simply not going to fly, no matter how much you assert otherwise.
“Well, there has to be evidence that it is designed before scientists will accept it. However, both you and Anthony have been busy on this site heaping derision on me for the very idea that we could use scientific experiments to assess whether God has involved Himself in the physical world (on the matter of prayer in our case).”
How’s that our dilemma? We are saying unguided macro-evolution isn’t scientific. Not necessarily claiming that design is. Again, YOU are the one making the claim and are obligated to meet a specific standard. If you want unguided macro-evolution to be scientific then you have to allow the alternative to be scientific in order for it to be falsifiable. If you find the alternative unscientifc, then you have to concede unguided macro-evolution isn’t either (like we’ve been saying).
Since we’re not the one’s saying things can only be known through science, it’s no skin off our backs if ID and Creationism isn’t regarded as purely scientific. We just object to you including yours purely because you believe in it.
“No; by their nature, they make the prior presumption that the process is guided by a designer, and then proceed to reject the validity of chronological fossil evidence because if they accepted it, it would undermine their prior assumption.”
Oh the irony! Yeah, they make the prior presumption that the process is guided. Just like macro-evolution works on the presumption it’s unguided, then proceeds to raise up chronological fossil evidence by pressuming it IS chronological evidence. Because their theory would fall apart if it wasn’t, and no one can observe the events in question! Too rich, Alex.
“I should have specified, with regard to the speed of light, that it appears to be a constant in a vacuum; and if you’re going to decide unilaterally that Einstein and his successors for the last hundred years have been wrong, you’d really better be able to explain why.”
Again, I think that little thing called ‘gravity’, would throw a wrench in to that whole notion of “constant speed” even in a vacuum. One would think that a “humble” person would remember many such theories about space and such were being developed just when mankind was BEGINNING to study the galaxy, and thus were also made on a fair amount of assumptions rather than many years of observation and experimentation.
Photons are massless, End Bringer. Gravity, as far as I am aware, does not affect the speed of things that do not have mass. Perhaps what you’re referring to is gravitational lensing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens), which does not change the photons’ speed.
I’m afraid that much as you dislike the notion, it is more scientific to not start from the position that there is a designer than to start from the position that there is one. When you’re trying to determine what causes smallpox, you’ll be less successful if you start off by saying, “God”, than if you start off by saying, “Let’s study this and find out”. The problem with starting with God is that God is an all-service explanation for absolutely everything. Why are the markets down? God. Why did my wife leave me? God. Why do earthquakes happen? God. Why is this fossil in this stratum? God. If God is your first explanation, scientific investigation becomes impossible.
The only reason why you doubt the chronological nature of any fossil evidence is that, quite by accident, it turned out in the nineteenth century to threaten the theory that the earth was six thousand years old. You place what the Bible says above what the evidence says, in just the same manner as the Catholic authorities who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope because it might reveal things that might threaten their faith.
If you want unguided macro-evolution to be scientific then you have to allow the alternative to be scientific in order for it to be falsifiable.
What falsifies a theory is not another theory, but evidence. I was perfectly happy to describe the kind of evidence that would falsify evolution. But you have chosen, for reasons best known to yourself, to not take up the challenge and to explain why fossil chronology is not to be relied upon, and instead to rail at me for being a hypocrite.
What are you afraid of? Come out into the light, End Bringer, instead of nailing the windows shut and declaring it to be sunny inside. A little fresh air will do you good.
“Photons are massless, End Bringer. Gravity, as far as I am aware, does not affect the speed of things that do not have mass.”
Then something is indeed wrong with your understanding, because gravity DOES affect light. As you are the one who brought up Einstein, you should know his theory of general relativity goes into this matter. So regardless of HOW, it can’t be disputed that light isn’t such a constant element in space, but is more prone to be affected by other elements. Thus making any theories based on the assumption shakey at best.
“I’m afraid that much as you dislike the notion, it is more scientific to not start from the position that there is a designer than to start from the position that there is one.”
Because you simply declare it so? Pleeease. Frankly, I think it’s more reasonable to start from an entirely neutral position. To be agnostic and let the evidence say whether or not it’s designed or not. Starting with the assumption that it’s not, simply means you’re starting off question-begging and will ignore any evidence that points to the contrary.
Sadly for you there IS plenty of evidence of design in both biology, ecology, geology, astronomy, etc. It’s why even staunch atheists/evolutionists like Dawkins has admitted there is the APPEARANCE of design. But since it’s started off from the beginning assuming there is no designer, all such evidence is dismissed, simply because it leads to a conclusion you’ve closed-mindedly excluded from the beginning.
Which again, highlights the actual problem being personal attitude/prejudice, than evidence.
“The problem with starting with God is that God is an all-service explanation for absolutely everything.”
I’m finding evolution to be generally no different.
“The only reason why you doubt the chronological nature of any fossil evidence is that, quite by accident, it turned out in the nineteenth century to threaten the theory that the earth was six thousand years old.”
Nope, I doubt the chronological nature of fossil evidence, simply because it’s based on a question-begging assumption rather than repeated observation. One, I see no reason why I should adhere to simply because it’s required for evolution to be tenable.
“What falsifies a theory is not another theory, but evidence.”
Evidence that points to another theory. Thus for a theory to be falsifiable, an opposing theory must indeed be equally viable. Again, you’re simpy trying to have your cake and eat it too, by demanding ONLY unguided causes be considered, then maintain unguided causes are falsifiable. The contradiction (and blindness) is all too blatant.
“But you have chosen, for reasons best known to yourself, to not take up the challenge and to explain why fossil chronology is not to be relied upon, and instead to rail at me for being a hypocrite.”
I’ve explained many times. You have simply ignore it, and are the only one who keeps bringing up the Bible and YEC in this discussion, because like a typical Liberal you think you no the “real” reasons regardless of whatever I say. Which makes me wonder why you’re even continuing this argument if you think you’ve got me all figured out.
General relativity talks about the speed of light being a constant. However, extremely strong gravitational fields, like those around stars, distort space-time sufficiently such that the time experienced by the light photons in the field and the time experienced by the observer diverge. From the perspective of the photons themselves, they still travel at the same constant speed; from the perspective of an observer on Earth, however, light that has passed through a strong gravitational field is delayed in its arrival.
Here’s an analogy. A car is driving on a rubber road at a constant 60mph. Half way along, a strong gravitational field starts to stretch the rubber on the road. The car continues on the road at the same constant speed, but from the perspective of the flagman at the end of the road, it takes longer to go from the start to the end of the road than he might have initially expected, on account of the gravitational field.
Einsteinian physics predicts this outcome, and it has been tested (it’s called the “Shapiro effect”). This effect does have to be taken into account when measuring the distance to the stars, but since it is measurable and testable, it can be accurately accounted for.
Nope, I doubt the chronological nature of fossil evidence, simply because it’s based on a question-begging assumption rather than repeated observation.
Bull. Even if that were true, which it’s not, it clearly doesn’t bother you to base your own thinking on a full-service magical explanation. Doing so bothers you only when it’s a magical explanation you disagree with.
Here we have the truth. You sit there and declare chronological fossil evidence to be wrong because the Bible, and then tell me that you’re basing things on “repeated observation”? You might as well say, “because the Qur’an”, or “because it’s sunny outside”, and it would make no better sense if you did. Your ignorance on this, and on science in general, is both invincible and unworthy of further discussion.
“General relativity talks about the speed of light being a constant. However, extremely strong gravitational fields, like those around stars, distort space-time sufficiently such that the time experienced by the light photons in the field and the time experienced by the observer diverge. From the perspective of the photons themselves, they still travel at the same constant speed; from the perspective of an observer on Earth, however, light that has passed through a strong gravitational field is delayed in its arrival.”
So in other words, it’s useless to make assumptions based on our perspective of it’s speed, since our perspective is distorted. Still doesn’t change the fact that light being constant is only assumed, and yet it’s still proven to be changible.
“Bull. Even if that were true, which it’s not, it clearly doesn’t bother you to base your own thinking on a full-service magical explanation. Doing so bothers you only when it’s a magical explanation you disagree with.”
See? It doesn’t matter in the least what I say. Because like a typical Liberal/atheist you think you know what I’m “really” all about in spite of anything I’ve said. So why are you even bothering to argue if you think you’ve got all the answers? You’re clearly too closed-minded and “invincibly certain” on the matter, to change your view.
No, in other words, you completely misunderstood Alex’s point.
Which part of “since it is measurable and testable, it can be accurately accounted for” did you not understand?
“Which part of “since it is measurable and testable, it can be accurately accounted for” did you not understand?”
Which part of “the time experienced by the light photons in the field and the time experienced by the observer diverge”, didn’t you?
Like I said before – speed of light being constant (‘in space’ since you’re so uptight about the implicit) is more an assumption than a repeated observation when dertermining the age of the universe. And it’s only one of many as it’s noted time and space aren’t so constant either (I think Big-Bangers call it “the horizon problem”). Then there’s the whole problem with synchronization (light traveling one way can’t be measured, only a round trip). So it’s by no means a concrete piece of evidence.
Like I said, again, much of the ‘billions of years old’ theories were based on assumptions caused by initial observations just when scientists were appreciably studing the universe. As time and understanding have progressed ‘distant starlight’ has become less and less of a problem for YEC. And since many other evidences here on Earth can be pointed to support the belief, it’s not unreasonable to view problems in space as due mainly to our ignorance of the galaxy than anything else.
Anthony, your initial post- excellent.