Sunday, October 09, 2016

Is Science one Gene away From Defeating Religion?

  photo genetics-at-work2_zps99d2db59.jpg


Colin Blakemore (Neuroscience, Oxford) argues that Science is just one gene away from defeating religion.[1] Despite his great advancement in that scientific field he demonstrates a very callow understanding of religion. Thus we must once again assume that is just another case of the golden ghetto. Or perhaps the ivory ghetto. A very advanced person in a scientific field is not necessarily qualified to apply scinece to religion. This post modern age reveals more and more the tower similarities between culture and the tower of Babel story.

Blakemore reveals in his opening paragraph that he says the relationship bewteen religion and science as "a ches match." It's adversarial, it's a combat. Thus advances in science are automatically viewed as detraction for religion. He intimates this when he says that the discoveries of Watson and Crick were a defeat for religion because previously life was a mystery that implied spiritual magic. So this guy is not on bard with understanding religion in modern terms. He wants to see it as some long ago thing that scinece is beating up on. This is obviously ideological. Just the frame in which he views the topic is an ideological framework.

 What really strikes me as amaturish in Blakemore's thinking is his assertion that Darwin destoryed the reason to believe in God:

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution was certainly a vital move in that chess game - if not checkmate. In an interview for God and the Scientists, to be broadcast tonight in Channel 4's series on Christianity, Richard Dawkins declares: "Darwin removed the main argument for God's existence."[2]
 Of course it's Dawkins that prompted him to think this way. He admits that wasn't Darwin's intention. He's probably thinking religion means fundamentalism, inerrancy, conservative views.

 Science has rampaged over the landscape of divine explanation, provoking denial or surrender from the church. Christian leaders, even the Catholic church, have reluctantly accommodated the discoveries of scientists, with the odd burning at the stake and excommunication along the way.[3]
 He defines anything that is a scientific advancement as a victory over religion weather it disproves anything or not. He barely hides his utter contempt for relgion:

The process of Christian accommodation is a bit like the fate of fieldmice confronted by a combine harvester, continuously retreating into the shrinking patch of uncut wheat.
Ten days ago, on Darwin's birthday, Richard Dawkins, Archbishop of Atheism, and Richard Harries, former Bishop of Oxford, conducted a public conversation in the Oxford University Museum, where Bishop Sam Wilberforce and Darwin's champion, Thomas Henry Huxley, had debated Darwin's ideas in 1860. The two Richards were more civilised. But inevitably, Richard H claimed for religion a territory that science can never invade, a totally safe sanctuary for Christian fieldmice. Science is brilliant at questions that start "how", but religion is the only approach to questions that start "why". Throughout history, human beings have asked those difficult "why" questions.[4]
I am sure the Christian filed mice are snug in their pretend sanctuary where they refuse to worship scinece as he does. Does he ever actually get down to business about the genetic thing? His segway is that he tires to connect the universality of religion to the universality of language. Language is genetic and universe. so therefore the universal nature of religion must also be due to genetics.[5] That does not follow logically, it's a argument from sign. It doesn't follow scientifically either but we will check in on that in a minute. The problem with the argument he's setting up is that it's a straight assumption that God can't work through genetics. Any religion gene is a disproof of God becuase it removes the only reasons to believe in God, which according to him seems to be unexplained naturalistic phenomena. The only kind of God he can figure out people believe in is the God of the gaps. In other words he's never read a major theologian and he has no sophistication in dealing with religion.

Now he recognizes the obvious answer as being that God can use genes. Yet he has an answer for this. We are social animals. We feel that we are in charge of our actions but more and more those who study the brain are coming to believe that we are not. Which in fact is a Non sequitur because it doesn't answer the issue of genes as a disproof of God or arguemnt from sign. But Blakemore's reticense is incapsulated in the final paragraph of his article:
I'm dubious about those "why" questions: why are we here? Why do we have a sense of right and wrong? Either they make no sense or they can be recast as the kind of "how" questions that science answers so well.
When we understand how our brains generate religious ideas, and what the Darwinian adaptive value of such brain processes is, what will be left for religion?[6]
So He's admitted that he doesn't' understand the basis for religious thinking but we are still supposed to assume he's right about it being disproved by these things that he can't prove are disproofs? The basic argument appears to be that if there's a gene for religion then our religious ideas are coming from genes, we have choice in thinking of them, that's supposed to disprove God. Actually I think it proves a Calvinistic God pretty well. With Calvin we are predestined. That would fit the bit about we don't think up our own ideas. Again the atheist/scientism agenda fails to offer real disproof. All if offers is another stab at deflating the fundamentalist view of God.

Science reporter Nicholas Wade offers insight into the real arguments for genetically based religion. The basic argument is the evolutionary nature of religion. Religion begins in the preparative states of humanity and grows up with the species become more sophisticated and various junctures from simple agricultural dances and decoration sophisticated astronomical observations.[7] So the advocates of the gentic basis for religion are making ideological assumptions about the nature of social evolution. They are assuming that all behavior is genetic and anything that becomes more complex with man must be the result of genes. That's still arguemnt from sign. No real proof exists for that view it's only tenable if you are a determinist. Moreover it's not really a disproof of God in any way.

Isn't there some science magic that you work in a laboratory wearing a white coat and you look into a test tube and it turns blue and you "yes it's evil reilgion gene alright." No that is not. It's far too complex to do that. It's all about theorizing and the theories for religious gene are largely concocted by people who want to destroy religion, such evolutionary psychology adherents.Dean Hamer tries to make an argument for God gene identifying a specific gene, VMAT2;[8]  There has been stiff scientific criticism of this claim even from people who one would think would support it. Atheist guru P.Z. Myers (who is a big named biologist) rejects it on the grounds that VMAT2 is just  "...a pump. A teeny-tiny pump responsible for packaging a neurotransmitter for export during brain activity. Yes, it's important, and it may even be active and necessary during higher order processing, like religious thought. But one thing it isn't is a 'god gene.[9]

There are two basic counter arguments that take care of this assumption about a religion gene:



1: no basis for religious gene

Blakmore himself tells us that our brains "light up" (respond by beginning to work more) when we hear God talk. That's really the basic idea, along with the universality issue, of proving a God gene. But that is not proof of a gene.

There are plenty of scientists who do not think that religion is an adaptation. The adaptations it view is one school, it is not a done deal. The counter argument among evolutionary theorists is that religion is a “spandrel” or a side effect of genetic structure but not produced by a gene for that behavior. There are plenty of scientists who disagree with the data on the “God pod” and don’t believe that there is a “God module” or that religious behavior is inherited through a specific gene or a part of the brain. Lee A Kirkpatrick, director of graduate studies in psychology at William and Mary, tells us:

In sum, the moderate habitability of religion, like the identification of a particular brain region, associated with religious experience, tells us virtually nothing about weather religion is the result of an adaptive evolved mechanism designed to produce it. In particular neither should be construed as evidence for an adaptive religion mechanism or system.[10]

According to Kirkpatrick it's way too early to claim there's a God Gene. There's no way to sort out that it's a real gene or just a combination of other genetic traits. Even if there is such a gene that is not a defeat for religion.
One of the main problems with arguing for a God gene is that the kinds of explanations often used to justify it are piecemeal and don't work in terms of genetic theory. For example a common one is cooperation. Religion makes people  more cooperative. So people cooperate and that is why they adapt becuase it's an advantage. Or gives hope it gets them through the winter.
 Considerable debate has surrounded the question of the origins and evolution of religion. One proposal views religion as an adaptation for cooperation, whereas an alternative proposal views religion as a by-product of evolved, non-religious, cognitive functions. We critically evaluate each approach, explore the link between religion and morality in particular, and argue that recent empirical work in moral psychology provides stronger support for the by-product approach. Specifically, despite differences in religious background, individuals show no difference in the pattern of their moral judgments for unfamiliar moral scenarios. These findings suggest that religion evolved from pre-existing cognitive functions, but that it may then have been subject to selection, creating an adaptively designed system for solving the problem of cooperation.[11]
 That sort of makes one think of genes as little guys holding committee meetings in your head and planning strategy. If it's that cut and dried why not just make a gene for cooperation and cut out the religious mumbo jumo? If it's just an alteration of existing function, then individual conscious decisions may be involved after all. Or, were we provided those functions that we might discover God? The kinds of explainations that require a purpose are counter to the nature of adaptation anyway. As Kirkpatrick explains: "Natural selection is blind to purely psychological effects because being happy in itself does not cause more copies of happiness causing genes to dominate subsequent generations."[12] They can't show adaptability because they can't show it enhances gene frequency. After all some aspects of religion counter to gene frequency such as celibacy?

 2: Religious Gene is good argument for God

Nicholas Wade tells us neither side is threatened by a God gene:

But the evolutionary perspective on religion does not necessarily threaten the central position of either side. That religious behavior was favored by natural selection neither proves nor disproves the existence of gods. For believers, if one accepts that evolution has shaped the human body, why not the mind too? What evolution has done is to endow people with a genetic predisposition to learn the religion of their community, just as they are predisposed to learn its language. With both religion and language, it is culture, not genetics, that then supplies the content of what is learned.[13]
So the explainations fall apart, the big coincidence is looming: the thing the atheists and evolutionary psychologists hate the most and seek to destroy with their worship of science is the one best answer to why there would be a gene for God: God put it there. It's counter to the nature of adaptation. Genes can't contrive to plan how to make us more cooperative or give us warm fuzzies to get us through the winter. The nature of adaptation is not a committee of homunculi that seeks to make human life happier and more efficient. Nor can genes understand concepts. We are not born with innate knowledge, that has been considered a primitive and false concept since the seventeenth century. We are born with instincts but that is not the same as innate knowledge. Evolution cannot plant ideas in our minds. So our brains reacting to God talk as they do is totally unexplained and constitutes a good reason to take as a hint the basic idea of a God designed aspect of human nature.

 Andrew Newberg, one of the pioneers in researching neural activity of religious experience and God talk tells us that none of the research disproves God, in fact it can't.


…Tracing spiritual experience to neurological behavior does not disprove its realness. If God does exist, for example, and if He appeared to you in some incarnation, you would have no way of experiencing His presence, except as part of a neurologically generated rendition of reality. You would need auditory processing to hear his voice, visual processing to see His face, and cognitive processing to make sense of his message. Even if he spoke to you mystically, without words, you would need cognitive functions to comprehend his meaning, and input form the brain’s emotional centers to fill you with rapture and awe. Neurology makes it clear: there is no other way for God to get into your head except through the brain’s neural pathways. Correspondingly, God cannot exist as a concept or as reality anyplace else but in your mind. In this sense, both spiritual experiences and experiences of a more ordinary material nature are made real to the mind in the very same way—through the processing powers of the brain and the cognitive functions of the mind. Whatever the ultimate nature of spiritual experience might be—weather it is in fact an actual perception of spiritual reality—or merely an interpretation of sheer neurological function—all that is meaningful in human spirituality happens in the mind. In other words, the mind is mystical by default.[14]


This article is a good indication of how ideologically laden the internet is with ideological babble from a social movement that seeks to destroy all forms of knowledge that it does not control. There is no basis for the assertion that neuroscience is destroying religion and yet scientism proclaims itself victorious over all religion merely becuase it exists. At the same time sound reasons exists in the same material assumed to destroy religion which supports beilef in God yet that possibility is totally ignored.




Sources

 [1] Colin Blackemore, "Science is Just One Gene Away from Defeating Religion." The Guardian.  Originally from the Observer. 21st of Febuary, 2009. On Line:
 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/feb/22/genetics-religion 
accessed 10/29/13.
 Colin Blakemore is Professor of Neuroscience at the Universities of Oxford and Warwick. He is a member of the UK Drugs Policy Commission, but the views expressed here are his own.

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Nicholas Wade, "The Evolution of the God Gene," New York Times: Week in Review. Nov 14 (2009). On linehttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?_r=1&
accessed 10/29/13
Nicholas Wade is a science reporter who writes about genetics.

[8] Dean Hamer, The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into Our Genes. New York:Anchor Books Edition, 2004, 56-119.

[9] P.Z. Myers,  "No god, and no 'god gene', either". Pharyngula.(2005-02-13) Retrieved 2012-01-29.
http://web.archive.org/web/20090512101759/http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/no_god_and_no_god_gene_either/


[10]Lee A Kirckpatrick, “Religion is Not An Adaptation,” in Where God and Science Meet: How Brain and Evolutionary Studies Alter Our Understanding of Religion Vol I: Evolution, Genes, and Religious Brainm .Patrick McNamara (ed). London, Westport Connecticut: Praeger. 2006. 159-180, 164.
Kirckpatrick is associate professor of psychology at William and Mary.

[11] Ilkka Pyysiäinen and Marc Hauser, "The Origins of  Religion: Evolved Adaption or by Product." Science Direct: Trends in Cognitive Science, Volume 14, Issue 3, (March 2010), 104-109.
 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661309002897

[12]Kirckpatric Op cit, 167.

[13] Wade, Op Cit.


[14] Andrew NewbergWhy God Won’t God AwayBrain Science and the Biology of Belief. (New York, Ballentine Books), 2001, 37,


10 comments:

Anonymous said...

... he says the relationship bewteen religion and science as "a ches match." It's adversarial, it's a combat. Thus advances in science are automatically viewed as detraction for religion. He intimates this when he says that the discoveries of Watson and Crick were a defeat for religion because previously life was a mystery that implied spiritual magic. So this guy is not on bard with understanding religion in modern terms. He wants to see it as some long ago thing that scinece is beating up on. ...

Okay, I see what you are saying, but I am not sure that really addresses the point. Sure, modern religion has distanced itself from creationism and all that stuff, but by doing so it is giving up on more and more territory to science.

You intimate that life was [i]not[/i] a mystery that implied spiritual magic. Is that a serious claim on your part? I appreciate you do not hold to that, but I think it pretty certain that religion has made that claim, and for many it still does.

What really strikes me as amaturish in Blakemore's thinking is his assertion that Darwin destoryed the reason to believe in God:

Before Darwin, there was no explanation as to how mankind came about other than God did it. That made being an atheist very tricky. Suddenly that is explained. We do not need God to explain why mankind is here; science can do that. So yes, Darwin destroyed the necessity of believing in God. Sure, you have your mystical experiences, but even you admit they are merely a warrant for belief, not a necessity.

He defines anything that is a scientific advancement as a victory over religion weather it disproves anything or not.

No he does not.

I am sure the Christian filed mice are snug in their pretend sanctuary where they refuse to worship scinece as he does.

What do you think "worship" is? Do you worship "God"? Do you really think this guy worships science in an analogous manner?

So He's admitted that he doesn't' understand the basis for religious thinking but we are still supposed to assume he's right about it being disproved by these things that he can't prove are disproofs?

In reality, he is a lot less dogmatic in the article that you would have us think. But hey, you have an axe to grind.

Pixie

Joe Hinman said...

thanks for your comments Px


Okay, I see what you are saying, but I am not sure that really addresses the point. Sure, modern religion has distanced itself from creationism and all that stuff, but by doing so it is giving up on more and more territory to science.

You are only looking at it that way because fundies made such a big deal out of creationism. In Darwin's own day there were ministers who said that his theory proves Genesis and that's it';s in line with the Bible.It's only giving up ground if you think that is its proper ground, I don't. Darwin did not invent evolution because he wished to destroy Christianity.


You intimate that life was [i]not[/i] a mystery that implied spiritual magic. Is that a serious claim on your part? I appreciate you do not hold to that, but I think it pretty certain that religion has made that claim, and for many it still does.

Merta:What really strikes me as amateurish in Blakemore's thinking is his assertion that Darwin destroyed the reason to believe in God:



Before Darwin, there was no explanation as to how mankind came about other than God did it. That made being an atheist very tricky. Suddenly that is explained. We do not need God to explain why mankind is here; science can do that. So yes, Darwin destroyed the necessity of believing in God. Sure, you have your mystical experiences, but even you admit they are merely a warrant for belief, not a necessity.

That's BS. Evolution does not explain where the universe came from It doesn't explain how live began, theories are not proof--even aside from that fine tuning also means you can't explain the success or evolution without an anthropic bias.

yes ME means we don't need to mess with origins in order to have a reason to believe in God, Scioenitism can only understand science oriented reasons, but we don;'t don;t nee that,




Meta:He defines anything that is a scientific advancement as a victory over religion weather it disproves anything or not.

No he does not.

yes he does he essentially said it


MetaI am sure the Christian filed mice are snug in their pretend sanctuary where they refuse to worship science as he does.

What do you think "worship" is? Do you worship "God"? Do you really think this guy worships science in an analogous manner?


obviously a hyperbolic statement: you science guys need to learn literary devices


MetaSo He's admitted that he doesn't' understand the basis for religious thinking but we are still supposed to assume he's right about it being disproved by these things that he can't prove are disproofs?

In reality, he is a lot less dogmatic in the article that you would have us think. But hey, you have an axe to grind.

I don't so

Anonymous said...


You are only looking at it that way because fundies made such a big deal out of creationism. In Darwin's own day there were ministers who said that his theory proves Genesis and that's it';s in line with the Bible.It's only giving up ground if you think that is its proper ground, I don't.

That is not quite the point. At one time religion "explained" all the strange stuff, from why are we here to what is lightning via why are there rainbows. Nowadays science dores it so much better. Religion has lost that territory, and the the respect that goes with it.

Darwin did not invent evolution because he wished to destroy Christianity.

Of course not, and the article specifically says that. Virtually no scientist wants to destroy Christianity, they want to do good science. They go where the evidence leads.

That's BS. Evolution does not explain where the universe came from It doesn't explain how live began, theories are not proof--even aside from that fine tuning also means you can't explain the success or evolution without an anthropic bias.

Not sure what you are saying about fine-tuning, but evolution explained a huge amount about the world, and especially about its complexity. No, it does not explain where the universe comes from and nor does it explain abiogensis, but suddenly it was reasonable to suppose these things could be explained with having to invoke God.

Worth pointing out that religion cannot explain where God comes from - or at least any explanation can as readily be applied to a non-intelligent universe generator.

yes ME means we don't need to mess with origins in order to have a reason to believe in God, Scioenitism can only understand science oriented reasons, but we don;'t don;t nee that,

Atheists see it a different way. We think that there is no reason to believe in God, given MEs can be explained in other ways.

obviously a hyperbolic statement: you science guys need to learn literary devices

Right. When you say he worships science, that is a literary device, and yet when I say the guy who runs a blog and forum on this stuff, oh and has published a book too, has an axe to grind, then it is taken literally. If I say there is a beam in your eye, it is a metaphorical beam.

Pixie

Joe Hinman said...

MetaYou are only looking at it that way because fundies made such a big deal out of creationism. In Darwin's own day there were ministers who said that his theory proves Genesis and that's it';s in line with the Bible.It's only giving up ground if you think that is its proper ground, I don't.

That is not quite the point. At one time religion "explained" all the strange stuff, from why are we here to what is lightning via why are there rainbows. Nowadays science dores it so much better. Religion has lost that territory, and the the respect that goes with it.


That is exactly the point. The unnaturally anti-religious Brits are pitting two forms of knowledge against each other even though they don't compete. It is only an historical accident that religion and science can be opposed this way. Religion came first and was used to explain everything because they had not yet discovered segmentation of knowledge. Now we know about that so there's no reason to see them competing. Only the hyper anti-religious Brits who hate nuns and want to destroy religion.(yes I say that party tounge in cheek)


MetaDarwin did not invent evolution because he wished to destroy Christianity.

Of course not, and the article specifically says that. Virtually no scientist wants to destroy Christianity, they want to do good science. They go where the evidence leads.

I am not arguing with scientists but with atheists who think science is part of atheism




MetaThat's BS. Evolution does not explain where the universe came from It doesn't explain how live began, theories are not proof--even aside from that fine tuning also means you can't explain the success or evolution without an anthropic bias.

Not sure what you are saying about fine-tuning, but evolution explained a huge amount about the world, and especially about its complexity. No, it does not explain where the universe comes from and nor does it explain abiogensis, but suddenly it was reasonable to suppose these things could be explained with having to invoke God.

Not if God is real., Science does nothing to suggest God is not real. There is no reason
to assume that, God is still real and so it's not as though we can explain him away.





Worth pointing out that religion cannot explain where God comes from - or at least any explanation can as readily be applied to a non-intelligent universe generator.

God doesn't have origin because he's eternal. God is eternal because he's the standard the basis of reality. he is the origin of all things thus has no origin himself. he's off scale.



Metayes ME means we don't need to mess with origins in order to have a reason to believe in God, Scioenitism can only understand science oriented reasons, but we don;'t don;t nee that,

Atheists see it a different way. We think that there is no reason to believe in God, given MEs can be explained in other ways.


It can't be.that is want my book is about, The tie breakers prove it can't be.I disprove alternative causes in the book




Metaobviously a hyperbolic statement: you science guys need to learn literary devices

Right. When you say he worships science, that is a literary device, and yet when I say the guy who runs a blog and forum on this stuff, oh and has published a book too, has an axe to grind, then it is taken literally. If I say there is a beam in your eye, it is a metaphorical beam.

your hatred of religion is so deep you have forgotten religion ks not the only ax or the only that clouds your objectivity. Blackemore is not objective in his hatred of religion it's not as though not literally worshipping science makes him objective or means he has no ax to grind.


Anonymous said...

That is exactly the point. The unnaturally anti-religious Brits are pitting two forms of knowledge against each other even though they don't compete. It is only an historical accident that religion and science can be opposed this way. Religion came first and was used to explain everything because they had not yet discovered segmentation of knowledge. Now we know about that so there's no reason to see them competing. Only the hyper anti-religious Brits who hate nuns and want to destroy religion.(yes I say that party tounge in cheek)

So originally religion explained everything, now it explains much less. That is exactly the retreat the article talks about. Centuries ago, God could be seen in snowflakes and rainbows, now he hides away in so-called mystical experiences that most people never actually experience.

You do not see that as a retreat because you are looking at religion after the retreat had happened. Sure it is not a retreat now. Now it is religion cowering in the basement, licking its wounds.

I am not arguing with scientists but with atheists who think science is part of atheism

Do you know any who do that? Or can we chalk this up to hyperbole again.

Not if God is real., Science does nothing to suggest God is not real.

Sure. But what it does do is strip away all the reason we used to have for thinking he is real.

God doesn't have origin because he's eternal. God is eternal because he's the standard the basis of reality. he is the origin of all things thus has no origin himself. he's off scale.

And the entirely naturalistic, non-intelligent thing that actually engendered the universe does not have an origin because it is eternal. It is eternal because it is the standard the basis of reality. It is the origin of all things thus has no origin itself. It is off scale.

It can't be.that is want my book is about, The tie breakers prove it can't be.I disprove alternative causes in the book

So to be clear, you are saying you can prove MEs come from God? This is not hyperbole, right? This is not merely a warrant to believe it, but actual proof?

Pixie

Joe Hinman said...

Meta:That is exactly the point. The unnaturally anti-religious Brits are pitting two forms of knowledge against each other even though they don't compete. It is only an historical accident that religion and science can be opposed this way. Religion came first and was used to explain everything because they had not yet discovered segmentation of knowledge. Now we know about that so there's no reason to see them competing. Only the hyper anti-religious Brits who hate nuns and want to destroy religion.(yes I say that party tounge in cheek)

So originally religion explained everything, now it explains much less. That is exactly the retreat the article talks about. Centuries ago, God could be seen in snowflakes and rainbows, now he hides away in so-called mystical experiences that most people never actually experience.

In addition to explaining thing it really explains it was also used to explaimn thing it really didn't explain but it was all they had,then they discovered science. God is still imn snow flakes. science has not God disproving validity. I feel that God is either the strong force or at least exerts the strong force so he's inanimately involved with everything at once without being creation itself,


You do not see that as a retreat because you are looking at religion after the retreat had happened. Sure it is not a retreat now. Now it is religion cowering in the basement, licking its wounds.

that's part of your them vs us mentality. That's a phony and self aggrandizing way to look at thin"winner" if everyone came to believe a lie in science's name I see that as humanity's loss. Knowledge is about truth not about empire,



Meta:I am not arguing with scientists but with atheists who think science is part of atheism

Do you know any who do that? Or can we chalk this up to hyperbole again.

you mean other than you? lot's of atheists I have seen express such things


Meta:Not if God is real., Science does nothing to suggest God is not real.

Sure. But what it does do is strip away all the reason we used to have for thinking he is real.


No. I just it doesn't. what it does is eliminate a reason you see as the only reason,you can only understand reasons science implies.you can't see a non scientific reason as valid or important I do., I'm not into scientism,


Meta:God doesn't have origin because he's eternal. God is eternal because he's the standard the basis of reality. he is the origin of all things thus has no origin himself. he's off scale.

And the entirely naturalistic, non-intelligent thing that actually engendered the universe does not have an origin because it is eternal. It is eternal because it is the standard the basis of reality. It is the origin of all things thus has no origin itself. It is off scale.


doubingi t "naturalistic" is meaningless here because you use that term with reference to the flase concept of SN, God is SN nothing else is,


Meta:It can't be.that is want my book is about, The tie breakers prove it can't be.I disprove alternative causes in the book. Nor is the phrase unintelligent" meaningful. Thoughtful it's true God couldn't have an IQ it couldn't be measured but it's uncertain what you mean by the phrase, I suspect you mane non-aware not knowing that is false

So to be clear, you are saying you can prove MEs come from God? This is not hyperbole, right? This is not merely a warrant to believe it, but actual proof?


I am warranted imn believing they are experiences of God's presence

Anonymous said...

In addition to explaining thing it really explains it was also used to explaimn thing it really didn't explain but it was all they had,then they discovered science. God is still imn snow flakes. science has not God disproving validity.

The problem for religion is that all the things it can still explain, it trots out the same the same explanation that it did for all the things science can explain better. And that makes a lot of people wonder if religion can actually explain anything.

I guess that is something you could tell us. What does religion explain? You have just stated you believe it really does explain some things, how about a couple of examples?

Please do not just say what it explanations, but outline the explanation too. It is one thing to say that religion explains why we are here, quite another to present that explanation.

And if you are up to it, give some reason why we should think the explanation is right.

I feel that God is either the strong force or at least exerts the strong force so he's inanimately involved with everything at once without being creation itself,

Thank is frankly bizarre. Why the strong force, and not gravity?

that's part of your them vs us mentality. That's a phony and self aggrandizing way to look at thin"winner" if everyone came to believe a lie in science's name I see that as humanity's loss. Knowledge is about truth not about empire,

Most of science is not about that. Most of science does not give two hoots about religion. However, if you trawl the internet looking for articles where scientists slag off religion, I suppose you could get that impression.

Of course knowledge is about truth. Science is well supported by evidence. A scientific explanation gets adopted because we have good reason to think it is right.

Can the same be said of your religious explanations? We shall see when you present them.

doubingi t "naturalistic" is meaningless here because you use that term with reference to the flase concept of SN, God is SN nothing else is,

I used "naturalistic" to contrast with God. Something outside our universe, but lacking all the qualities generally associated with God, such as purpose, love and goodness.

I am warranted imn believing they are experiences of God's presence

Right, so when you said "The tie breakers prove it can't be" you meant in your opinion. I am getting used to this hyperbole.

Pix

Joe Hinman said...

Right, so when you said "The tie breakers prove it can't be" you meant in your opinion. I am getting used to this hyperbole.

they don't have to propve the existence of God directly to prove that It's not just a naturalistic cause by itself.

Anonymous said...

So you are saying you have proof that MEs are caused by something outside the natural universe?

Pix

Joe Hinman said...

define proof