Is strict atheism a barrier to knowledge and truth?

[Starboard Tack]

In Iris Fry's book The Emergence of Life on Earth, she makes a statement that demonstrates a common, and possibly defective view of knowledge. The preamble to this statement is a complaint against people she refers to as "Creationists" who, in her opinion, pervert science to further their philosophical arguments. The context to the statement is that instead of billions of years for chemicals to self organize into life on the primordial earth, research has shown that the window has shrunk to around 10 million years, prompting those pesky "Creationists" to note that this isn't enough time for a purely naturalistic explanation for life's beginnings. The statement is this:

Notice the paradox that the findings of scientific research are seen fit, under the circumstances, to serve as evidence against science (by creationists). (page 125).

What is intriguing here is that the research simply argues against a long period of time for life to appear, and says nothing about the value of science. However, by noticing it, apparently the theists are guilty of being anti-science. This is a classic illustration of the topic I'd like to explore.

By adopting the view that a belief in God's existence and his involvement in his creation is a priori off limits, Dr. Fry believes that any suggestion that naturalistic explanation may lack explanatory power and be wrong is by definition anti-science. But is it?

God either does, or does not exist. In what form he/she/it exists is another topic, but is it not a given that there is at least a possibility, even if rejected, that he/she/it does exist?

And if it is a possibility, then by excluding supernatural involvement as a matter of philosophic dogma when trying to understand intractable problems doesn't the scientist who insists on pure naturalism guarantee that he or she may never be able to find the truth? In other words, if the existence of God is even the remotest possibility, isn't the rejection of that possibility without consideration itself anti-scientific? Directed panspermia is taken as a scientific proposition for life's origins, proposed by Nobel prize winners. Is that more scientific than the belief that the causal agent who brought the universe into existence is a personal being?

I can think of examples where scientific advancement has been stultified as a result of an insistence on a purely naturalistic understanding of the world. If so, doesn't it behoove scientists to entertain the possibility of supernatural intervention, even if only to be able to rule it out when a naturalistic explanation is found?[/i]

[nygreenguy]

God either does, or does not exist. In what form he/she/it exists is another topic, but is it not a given that there is at least a possibility, even if rejected, that he/she/it does exist?

Yes.

And if it is a possibility, then by excluding supernatural involvement as a matter of philosophic dogma when trying to understand intractable problems doesn't the scientist who insists on pure naturalism guarantee that he or she may never be able to find the truth?

Perhaps, although we have found that all the "unanswerable" question get answered eventually. It is all a matter of time. If there is a "God variable" somewhere, it hasnt been made apparent.

In other words, if the existence of God is even the remotest possibility, isn't the rejection of that possibility without consideration itself anti-scientific?

As it stands, no. So much of this depends on WHAT "god" is. If god is supernatural, than god is, by definition, beyond science. We couldnt explain how a god works or operates. We cant predict a gods behavior. We cant predict HOW a god would work. The entire concept is unscientific. The only thing the consideration of a god could/would do is to either distract from "hard" natural solutions or insert an infinite amount of uncertainty in what we believe to be the truth.

I can think of examples where scientific advancement has been stultified as a result of an insistence on a purely naturalistic understanding of the world.

To do this would require that you first prove the supernatural AND that knowing the supernatural would have somehow solved this predicament.

If so, doesn't it behoove scientists to entertain the possibility of supernatural intervention, even if only to be able to rule it out when a naturalistic explanation is found?

If we consider the supernatural, we can never confirm naturalistic explanations. How can a naturalistic explanation have any effect on the probability of a supernatural agent? This is very much like the "Last Thursdayism" argument. How is it more probable that I actually existed last Thursday vs. God creating me last thursday with all my memories and feelings.

How is, or how can, the supernatural (god) ever be falsified? It seems to me like god can essentially explain anything, which means it explains nothing.

[Starboard Tack]

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 485#410485]

And if it is a possibility, then by excluding supernatural involvement as a matter of philosophic dogma when trying to understand intractable problems doesn't the scientist who insists on pure naturalism guarantee that he or she may never be able to find the truth?

Perhaps, although we have found that all the "unanswerable" question get answered eventually. It is all a matter of time. If there is a "God variable" somewhere, it hasnt been made apparent.

Aren't there many things that we attribute scientific validity to that are invisible and unmeasureable? We have ample evidence from entangled particles that multi-dimensional reality most likely exists, yet we can't hope that they will become 'apparent'. Isn't God possibly like that, and deserving of the same consideration as super symmetry?

In other words, if the existence of God is even the remotest possibility, isn't the rejection of that possibility without consideration itself anti-scientific?

As it stands, no. So much of this depends on WHAT "god" is. If god is supernatural, than god is, by definition, beyond science. We couldnt explain how a god works or operates. We cant predict a gods behavior. We cant predict HOW a god would work. The entire concept is unscientific. The only thing the consideration of a god could/would do is to either distract from "hard" natural solutions or insert an infinite amount of uncertainty in what we believe to be the truth.

Again, aren't many things we assume are valid scientific theories currently 'beyond science'? For example, the multiverse is taken seriously, yet General Relativity dictates that we cannot ever interact, measure or observe these other universes, yet papers on the multiverse are widely published. What is different about God?

I can think of examples where scientific advancement has been stultified as a result of an insistence on a purely naturalistic understanding of the world.

To do this would require that you first prove the supernatural AND that knowing the supernatural would have somehow solved this predicament.

Not at all. The proof for this is far more mundane. Based on the evolutionary prediction that non-coding DNA are useless leftovers from evolutionary ancestors, their function has largely been ignored. However, a theistic model would argue that God would not have put so much useless junk into a cell and advised their examination. That didn't happen because of evolutionary, naturalistic orthodoxy. The result has been that pharmaceutical compounds have been less effective in fighting disease because supposedly junk DNA was ignored that was later found to be active in the disease process. Now that we realize that the evolutionary prediction on this subject is invalid, we are saving lives that were lost when evolution dictated the research assumptions of the scientists.

If so, doesn't it behoove scientists to entertain the possibility of supernatural intervention, even if only to be able to rule it out when a naturalistic explanation is found?

If we consider the supernatural, we can never confirm naturalistic explanations. How can a naturalistic explanation have any effect on the probability of a supernatural agent? This is very much like the "Last Thursdayism" argument. How is it more probable that I actually existed last Thursday vs. God creating me last thursday with all my memories and feelings.

That last is always a possibility. However, the idea that presuming God might be real and involved thwarts scientific discovery is clearly wrong. After all, for centuries, science was the discipline of figuring out how God did it, and clearly science advanced. If we approached current questions from the same sound perspective, what we would find are naturalistic processes created by God 99.9% of the time, but not remain hopelessly ignorant with the other .1% that involve direct intervention.

How is, or how can, the supernatural (god) ever be falsified? It seems to me like god can essentially explain anything, which means it explains nothing.

Not a problem, since the same can be said for evolutionary theory. When nothing happens over long periods of time it is due to evolution. When something happens, it is due to evolution. We take evolution seriously, even though it precisely fits the definition of a theory that explains everything. In Dawkins' words, it is the "universal solvent", and he considers himself a scientist.

[nygreenguy]

Aren't there many things that we attribute scientific validity to that are invisible and unmeasureable? We have ample evidence from entangled particles that multi-dimensional reality most likely exists, yet we can't hope that they will become 'apparent'. Isn't God possibly like that, and deserving of the same consideration as super symmetry?

Many of those concepts are still on the edge of science. They are pretty new ideas and the concepts are still "flushing" out. The reason they are postulated is because they have mathematical support BECAUSE they are still based on some known principals. As for God, nothing is known. The "god possibility" is as valid as Bertrand's teapot. We cant fully logically dismiss is, but to speculate on something totally unknown simply isnt practical.

Again, aren't many things we assume are valid scientific theories currently 'beyond science'? For example, the multiverse is taken seriously, yet General Relativity dictates that we cannot ever interact, measure or observe these other universes, yet papers on the multiverse are widely published. What is different about God?

Many things we assume? As stated above, these ideas are still on the frontiers of science. What about that VAST majority of other stuff in science?

Not at all. The proof for this is far more mundane. Based on the evolutionary prediction that non-coding DNA are useless leftovers from evolutionary ancestors,

Im not sure who made this prediction? I know there is SOME functionless non-coding DNA, but we know not all is functionless.

their function has largely been ignored.

Even the "functionless" parts are heavily studied. I have done just this. Population geneticists rely on these non-coding functionless areas to study populations. If these areas were functional (and therefore affecting fitness) we wouldnt be able to do these types of studies because the genetics wouldnt behave in the way they do (conserved, semi-conserved, unconserved, etc...).

However, a theistic model would argue that God would not have put so much useless junk into a cell and advised their examination.

That right there speculates on the nature of God. How can one speculate what a deity might do? You are anthropomorphizing God. With as large as the universe is, and as small as we are, it seems illogical to conclude that god would, or should, posses human characteristics. For all we know, we could be the most minor lifeform in the universe and the deity much more resembles some other higher lifeform.

That didn't happen because of evolutionary, naturalistic orthodoxy.

I would love to see the papers that show this.

The result has been that pharmaceutical compounds have been less effective in fighting disease because supposedly junk DNA was ignored that was later found to be active in the disease process.

Even before the term "junk dna" was coined, people know about functional non-coding regions. We know some has function, some does not.

Now that we realize that the evolutionary prediction on this subject is invalid, we are saving lives that were lost when evolution dictated the research assumptions of the scientists.

I would say this conclusion is based on a strawman argument as I dont recall where anyone ever said all non-coding DNA is junk (and presuming you also mean regulatory sequences and the like are a part of coding dna). There is a lot of literature that shows there are indeed large parts of the genome which are functionless.

That last is always a possibility. However, the idea that presuming God might be real and involved thwarts scientific discovery is clearly wrong.

How do you know this? It cant be disproved so certainly it must be entertained as a possibility.

After all, for centuries, science was the discipline of figuring out how God did it, and clearly science advanced. If we approached current questions from the same sound perspective, what we would find are naturalistic processes created by God 99.9% of the time, but not remain hopelessly ignorant with the other .1% that involve direct intervention.

This is just god of the gaps. There has been PLENTY we WERE totally ignorant about where people would have claimed it was intervention, yet in time, we answered those questions. Until you can describe and show the mechanism by which god operates, claiming intervention when we face a problem isnt a solution, it is an appeal to incredulity. Once you claim intervention, all investigation stops because you claim to have found the solution but since god is unknown, the solution is useless.

Not a problem, since the same can be said for evolutionary theory. When nothing happens over long periods of time it is due to evolution

This is another strawman. No one has ever claimed this. They HAVE said evolution can operate in spurts (punctuated equilibrium)

When something happens, it is due to evolution.

ibid.

We take evolution seriously, even though it precisely fits the definition of a theory that explains everything.

Absolutely not. There is a lot it doesnt explain, like continental drift, gravity, weather patterns, etc... When I say god can explain anything, I literally meant EVERYTHING. Natural selection is confined to living organisms on earth and its predictions and claims have been repeatedly tested and verified and it is easily falsified. So I would argue your analogy fails.

In Dawkins' words, it is the "universal solvent", and he considers himself a scientist.

When it comes to life, it is. Just as gravity is for nearly everything in space, just as relativity is for anything involving light and matter. Having broad explanatory power is not the same as being able to insert it anywhere because it is fundamentally unfalsifiable.

[Adurumus]

In my opinion, a thorough Christian researcher is more likely to come to useful conclusions than a thorough secular researcher. The idea that "There might be a god variable" is more useful to science than the idea that "There is no god variable". The problem, then, is the line of work Christian scientists get in to. If all biologists were looking for the same info, then we're good. But they typically try to seek info such as "There isn't enough evidence to conclude there is no God, so there is" rather than "Let's seek info until we can't find any more, and make temporary conclusions later."

[McCulloch]

In my opinion, a thorough Christian researcher is more likely to come to useful conclusions than a thorough secular researcher.

Too bad that the facts contradict your opinion. The secular approach to science has been significantly more useful than the religiously biased one.

[Adurumus]

In my opinion, a thorough Christian researcher is more likely to come to useful conclusions than a thorough secular researcher.

Too bad that the facts contradict your opinion. The secular approach to science has been significantly more useful than the religiously biased one.

Aye, which is why I'm satisfied saying "opinion" rather than "historical experience." Anyone, of any faiths, can pursue knowledge and present it to the scientific community for scrutiny. The catch is you're only called a "Christian scientist" if you're doing something related to faith, or something that perceptively challenges faith. In that case, it gets rather muddled... My point is, anyone can say "there's no need for a god to explain this", but it's more convincing to hear it from someone who believes in a god in the first place. Not because their word weighs more, but if someone is anti-abortion and says "Well, this is a good reason to be pro choice" it's a strange sort of satisfying.

[brotherhoodofmen]

Is strict atheism a barrier to knowledge and truth?

In my opinion, a strict atheist who has a settled faith that there is no God is no different from a creationist-fundamentalist who has a settled faith in the literal inerrancy of the Bible. Extremism is a barrier to the advancement of knowledge and truth.

[Starboard Tack]

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?

The reason they are postulated is because they have mathematical support BECAUSE they are still based on some known principals. As for God, nothing is known. The "god possibility" is as valid as Bertrand's teapot. We cant fully logically dismiss is, but to speculate on something totally unknown simply isnt practical.

All space time theorems provide mathematical proofs that some kind of causal agent is responsible for the universe. Crossing off a personal agent is a purely unscientific and philosophical choice, is it not? Doesn't the mathematical proof of these theorems represent something that at least might be said to be known about God since a personal casual agent cannot be ruled out? Russell's teapot is not a good analogy since if it exists, it does so within the universe and the causal agent creating the universe exists outside the universe. That would be a red herring, I think.

Many things we assume? As stated above, these ideas are still on the frontiers of science. What about that VAST majority of other stuff in science?

I'm not suggesting that the default position should be God dunnit, but rather that it is counterproductive to exclude God as a possibility simply because the concept makes you uncomfortable. Hoyle excluded the possibility that the universe was past finite because it made him uncomfortable, what with pointing to God and all. Einstein introduced his cosmological constant for the same reason. neither could see the truth as a result of their insistence that the God of the Bible (Hoyle was a bit of a Hindu) must not be allowed to be reality. The default position should be, in my view, always a naturalistic explanation, but scientists should not put on blinders when considering intractable problems that cannot seemingly be explained naturalistically.

Im not sure who made this prediction? I know there is SOME functionless non-coding DNA, but we know not all is functionless.

From Wikipedia: Pseudogenes are dysfunctional relatives of known genes that have lost their protein-coding ability or are otherwise no longer expressed in the cell. Because pseudogenes are generally thought of as the last stop for genomic material that is to be removed from the genome,[4] they are often labeled as junk DNA. Pseudogenes are characterized by a combination of homology to a known gene and nonfunctionality.

Functionless pseudogenes are expected in evolutionary biology. You don't need the bits that coded for gills anymore, but it takes a long time for that gene to disappear, so the assumption is that the pseudogene is the left over non-functional gene on its way to the scrap heap as described above.

their function has largely been ignored. Even the "functionless" parts are heavily studied. I have done just this. Population geneticists rely on these non-coding functionless areas to study populations. If these areas were functional (and therefore affecting fitness) we wouldnt be able to do these types of studies because the genetics wouldnt behave in the way they do (conserved, semi-conserved, unconserved, etc...).

I think you are illustrating my point. You say you can't do population studies tracing evolutionary development if these areas were functional. Scientists approach these investigations under the assumption that the evolutionary paradigm must be correct, in fact is dogmatically correct, so a lack of functionality in the majority of a cell's DNA makes sense. Here is a paper that illustrates a case where a pseudogene assumed to be functionless has function. There are cancer drugs that target the activity of the expressed gene described, but are less effective than they should be because the similar functionality of the pseudogene was not suspected and the drug was not targeted at the presumed functionless pseudogene. My only point is that junk DNA is a concept core to evolutionary biology, but would not be expected in a world created by a personal intelligence. The trend of research is to continue to discover function for these supposedly junk areas, which is consistent with the theistic perspective, but not the evolutionary perspective.

That right there speculates on the nature of God. How can one speculate what a deity might do? You are anthropomorphizing God. With as large as the universe is, and as small as we are, it seems illogical to conclude that god would, or should, posses human characteristics. For all we know, we could be the most minor lifeform in the universe and the deity much more resembles some other higher lifeform.

It is possible that the Bible is wrong while God does exist, or wrong and God does not exist. Granting however, that it might be right, then we are taught that we are created in the image of God. From a theistic perspective, the machinery we observe in a cell bear remarkable resemblance to machinery man builds. Man designs sub-optimal systems that achieve optimum functionality, and we observe the same systems in cells. There is no particular reason not assume that if God exists, there wouldn't be a vast amount of junk non coding DNA in cells.

I would love to see the papers that show this.

See above. There will be no perfect examples of the point. However, you must acknowledge that the trend in biochemistry has been to find function in DNA that has previously been assumed to be useless, and that presumption has slowed down understanding of cellular function.

Even before the term "junk dna" was coined, people know about functional non-coding regions. We know some has function, some does not.

In a designed system, one would expect less, not more functionless apparatus lying around. What has been the trend in biochemistry? To find more function or to affirm a lack of function? Which trend is consistent with evolutionary expectations? Lots of functionless DNA left over from ancestral genomes, or genomes predominately containing DNA that has specific function for the current life form?

How do you know this? It cant be disproved so certainly it must be entertained as a possibility.

Many scientists no doubt share your attitude, but as can be seen from Fry's quote and the position of the National Academy of Science Education, the allowance of even the possibility that God exists is forbidden in terms of whether such a thing could be taken into consideration when studying scientific problems is widespread. Is that view harmful?

This is just god of the gaps. There has been PLENTY we WERE totally ignorant about where people would have claimed it was intervention, yet in time, we answered those questions. Until you can describe and show the mechanism by which god operates, claiming intervention when we face a problem isnt a solution, it is an appeal to incredulity. Once you claim intervention, all investigation stops because you claim to have found the solution but since god is unknown, the solution is useless.

Not true on all counts. Science progressed quite nicely and rapidly for centuries when the focus was on how God did it, so your statement that all investigation stops when God is considered is clearly wrong. And I am not pointing to a God in the gaps phenomena, but a Science in the gaps phenomena. It is quite true that many problems have been solved by looking for purely naturalistic explanations, which should always be the first line of inquiry. However, there are problems in science where continued investigation simply makes the gap of understanding get wider, not narrower. Those are perhaps the areas where a consideration of divine intervention may be warranted while still looking for the naturalistic explanation.

An example of science is the gaps can be found in origins of life research. Sagan opined that life evolved over at least a billion years. We now know you have only about 10 million years for the inanimate to organize into the animate. The response of the "no God at all costs" contingent? Well, life must have evolved at lightning speed because it appeared so quickly. Science in the gaps with no mechanism provided on how this could ever happen.

Regarding evolution as a theory that explains everything, the reason why Daddy Long legs of 300 million ago look identical to Daddy Long legs today is explained by evolution. The reason cyanobacteria looks identical to cyanobacteria of 3.5 billion years ago is explained by evolution. The reason why mass speciation events occur with the creation of radical new life forms in a handful of millions of years is explained by evolution. It explains why things don't happen, and why they do. As I said, the universal theory at least as it relates to living systems. The question is, does militant adherence to a model that does a poor job of predicting what is observed serve the interest of science and the pursuit of truth?

[McCulloch]

All space time theorems provide mathematical proofs that some kind of causal agent is responsible for the universe.

Thank you for that assertion. I was unaware that this had been proven. Please provide support.

Crossing off a personal agent is a purely unscientific and philosophical choice, is it not?

It does not have to be. Is there any evidence that the creative agent is personal? Wouldn't Occam's razor imply a non-personal agent?

I'm not suggesting that the default position should be God dunnit, but rather that it is counterproductive to exclude God as a possibility simply because the concept makes you uncomfortable.

It is counterproductive to exclude any option simply because the concept makes you uncomfortable. Are you asserting that atheist philosophers and scientists exclude God for reasons of comfort?

Hoyle excluded the possibility that the universe was past finite because it made him uncomfortable, what with pointing to God and all.

Yes, that is a form of bad reasoning. Not because there actually is a God, but because the fear of supporting the idea of God clouded his judgement.

The default position should be, in my view, always a naturalistic explanation, but scientists should not put on blinders when considering intractable problems that cannot seemingly be explained naturalistically.

The problem with this approach is defining what is an intractable problem. Should scientists simply throw in the towel, when something gets difficult and fall back on "Goddidit".