h1

Is God Tricking Us With “Naturalism” Or Is “Naturalism” Tricking Us With God?

February 20, 2011

I’ve heard it said so many times in Evolution debates, and always on the part of the Evolutionary naturalist of course, that if there is a God then he must be tricking us because all scientific inquiries just scream unintentional processes and purposelessness. The quintessential example is when someone will say “junk DNA has no purpose, so that proves there’s no intelligent designer”. Luckily, God gave me a brain and I’m able to think way beyond this myopic reasoning unto his glory.

If we were to compare things which appear to have no purpose to the things which apparently do have a purpose, then the things which have a purpose would far outweigh the other. “Naturalism” would be tricking us that there’s a God in the fact that “purpose” is even a reality. The whole concept of “purpose” goes beyond mere cause and effect, which if mindless, intention-less, “natural” processes were the only things ultimately manning the universe then the reality of “intention” wouldn’t comport. With “Naturalism”, something only happens to be useful, it wasn’t intended to be. The latter would assume real intelligence, not merely the illusion of intelligence, if something is really intended.

In addition, “naturalism” is tricking us way, way, WAY more then God is supposedly tricking us. If “naturalism” is the case then it’s ticking us with DNA coding, the human eye, sexual organs, the 4 finely tuned forces at the atomic level, a finely tuned universe, real morality, and the fact that we know we shouldn’t contradict ourselves, just to name a few.

Since “nature” is tricking us WAY more then God is supposedly tricking us, then we need to remind “naturalists” of this fact when they bring it up out of a desperate attempt to not acknowledge their Creator. Some will say “why would God create it this way or do it this way when it makes no sense to me?” The thing we need to keep in mind is that the things that do make sense far outweigh the things that don’t make sense, not the other way around.

Advertisements

12 comments

  1. Junk DNA is not junk after all:

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/junk_dna_darwinisms_last_stand021061.html

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/04/when_junk_dna_isnt_junk_farewe019981.html

    Also, another popular argument is that the appendix has no purpose, or that it is a remnant from our ‘ape’ days. As it turns out, the appendix houses bacteria that it can reintroduce into our bodies after we recover from being very sick to reboot our systems with the healthy bacteria our bodies need. If you no longer have an appendix due to surgery, yogurt can help with this as well.

    Just because we don’t fully understand the purpose of something doesn’t mean it has no purpose. The passing of time and new discoveries reveal this fact over and over again.


  2. Cool, thanks Gary. It’s interesting how the “naturalist” always gives the promissory note, “we’ll have “natural” explanations for it someday”, yet we could just as well give the “intention promissory note” in that since this universe screams intention and purpose in everything, don’t be surprised if complex things eventually reveal their purposes.

    At the same time, even if some complex things DIDN’T have a purpose behind them, intelligent design advocates still win in a land slide on was is more prevalent in the known world, purpose, as opposed to non-purpose or the mere illusion of it. If “naturalism” is true, then “nature” is tricking us way more with God, then God would be tricking us with “naturalism”!


  3. So your whole argument here is “More things appear designed and purposeful than don’t, therefore, God. QED.”

    If your god designed all of reality for its purpose, by your logic, anything that has a purpose must also have a designer. Therefore, who designed your god and imbued it with purpose?


  4. I never said “therefore” God in this thread. In this thread I’m saying therefore “naturalists” have inconsistent thinking and assumptions. They run themselves through with their own bad ideas with no help from me. I’m just pointing it out. I’m here to help people who don’t think to the end of their thought on “naturalism”.

    Scripture teaches that God is eternal, not finite. If another god created another god, then I’d skip to the chase and point to the eternal God who’s the eternal starting point. So when I say “God” you can assume that’s how I’m defining him, and that I’m skipping to the chase. Nice try. If you believe the universe is finite, which most scientist today do, then you also must ask what caused it, and what caused it, etc, until you get to a starting point. Again, I cut to the chase and say God, as he is the eternal starting point.


    • “Scripture teaches …” Irrelevant.

      “Again, I cut to the chase and say God, as he is the eternal starting point.” How do you know this? Where is your evidence? You have none other than your incredulity, your faith and your book. You have no defense against someone else saying “My god created your god, so therefore He is the Eternal Starting Point. It says so in my book of Holy Scriptures.”

      There is far more evidence for the absence of a designer than just junk DNA. Take the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve; the human eye with its backward design; the human sinus drainage tubes pointing upwards; wisdom teeth; the pouch of the koala (which lives in trees) pointing downwards. None of these are examples of design by a perfect designer.

      PS. There is only one law of gravity, which doesn’t work at the atomic level.


      • You’re the one who brought up an argument about the supposed problem with having an infinite regress. Even if you don’t believe in Scripture, you’re still conceding to the argument. Again, we all must begin with a starting point. Scripture comports with that reality.

        Again, the things in this universe that make sense, far outweigh the things that don’t. Thus, your examples aren’t arguments. You’re beating the wrong dead horse. Nice try.

        There are 4 finely tuned forces within the atom. That’s what I was referring too. If you’re so smart you would have realized that. But I’ll change the wording on my thread. Thanks.


  5. Again, we all must begin with a starting point.

    Agreed. But there is no proof that that starting point is a god, or any intelligent agent.

    Again, the things in this universe that make sense, far outweigh the things that don’t.

    So what? That still isn’t evidence for a god or intelligent designer. It just means we understand through our own efforts to do so.

    …your examples aren’t arguments…

    Yes, they are. Why would a perfect designer create such badly designed things?

    If you’re so smart you would have realized that.

    I did. That’s why I pointed out your mistake.

    The whole concept of “purpose” goes beyond mere cause and effect…

    Does it? And what do you mean by this? What is beyond cause and effect?

    Nature isn’t tricking us because it has no intention; it is made of mindless natural processes. It is humans who have tricked themselves into thinking that there is ‘purpose’ to the universe, because we are purposeful creatures, and, in our ignorance, we projected that sense of purpose onto the natural world around us. Now that we are no longer so ignorant, we know better.


  6. You’re committing the common atheist fallacy. If one scratches the surface of it, it becomes clear that you simply have a selfish bias behind an arbitrary standard for rejecting God.

    You choose to say there’s no proof. There is proof. What you really mean is no proof that meets your selfish and inconsistent standards. You can’t seek to know all things only by empiricism or by your 5 senses because you can’t even prove that you can only know things with your 5 senses, by your 5 senses. It’s an inconsistent arbitrary standard, thus because you hold to it, it evidences 1. your inconsistency, and 2. that you are fulfilling Scripture by suppressing the truth in unrighteousness as Rom 1:18-20 says the unbeliever will. You do believe that consistency is a sign of truth right? I hope so.

    So what? That still isn’t evidence for a god or intelligent designer. It just means we understand through our own efforts to do so.

    So what? You’re without an argument, that’s what. You being without an argument is a big deal. All I simply did was point out to you that that argument doesn’t work because the things in this world that do make sense FAR outweigh the things that don’t.

    Things having teleos, intention, design, purpose, etc. leans away from naturalism. You’re the one who has a hard time proving naturalism in the face of these things. Alfred Wallace, the co-founder of Evolution along side Darwin, was a naturalist who became a theist because of these facts.

    Yes, they are. Why would a perfect designer create such badly designed things?

    You’re assuming that God should design everything “perfect” according to your own standard of “perfect”. That is a theological and subjective claim. Humans are the most amazing creatures in the universe. We have symphonies, relationship, art, creativity unlike anything in the universe. What you do for entertainment is evidence that you’re entertained by what God has designed. Nice try.

    I did. That’s why I pointed out your mistake.

    Sorry, nice try. You’ve already lost the argument. Your assumptions have been challenged and you haven’t offered anything new.

    Does it? And what do you mean by this? What is beyond cause and effect?

    Nature isn’t tricking us because it has no intention; it is made of mindless natural processes. It is humans who have tricked themselves into thinking that there is ‘purpose’ to the universe, because we are purposeful creatures, and, in our ignorance, we projected that sense of purpose onto the natural world around us. Now that we are no longer so ignorant, we know better.

    If naturalism were true then nature is tricking us. The things that appear to have been guided and directed to come about far outweigh the things that don’t. As you admit, nature doesn’t have intention. Naturalism doesn’t comport with a world that is extremely fine-tuned for our life. If you just want to dismiss the clear evidence by saying “it’s stupid intelligence” or “it’s just the appearance of design” then go ahead. What’s your proof that it’s only the appearance of design? Until you have that, you’re proving that you’re arbitrarily arguing on my blog with me about it!

    Further, you don’t know what “nature” even ultimately is. You don’t know where it starts, stops, what it can do, what it can’t do, etc. If by “nature” you mean “ultimate reality”, then God could be most “Natural” if he is ultimate reality.

    It’s not a matter of “no longer being ignorant”, but a matter of what I first brought up, namely, Christ changing one’s heart to accept the clear truth. Until that, you are still willfully ignorant and can’t account for morality, logic, and teleos with naturalism. Even Einstein held to spinozas god and asked himself “if I were God, how would I create the universe?” for the last 30 years of his life in order to try to find a theory of everything.

    The new atheism movement had it’s glory years out of the Enlightenment and up to our modern time. Now all evidence is going to the end of its thought and taking us away from naturalism and back to a Creator. You had your supposed glory years, but now they’re fading away quick. Sorry.


  7. Alfred Wallace, the co-founder of Evolution along side Darwin, was a naturalist who became a theist because of these facts.

    Citation please.

    …it becomes clear that you simply have a selfish bias behind an arbitrary standard for rejecting God.

    How can I reject something I don’t believe exists?

    What you really mean is no proof that meets your selfish and inconsistent standards.

    No. What I really meant is that there’s no proof. Please provide some.

    It’s an inconsistent arbitrary standard…

    It’s an entirely consistent standard based on what we can perceive about the world, because it’s been shown to produce results that work.

    You do believe that consistency is a sign of truth right?

    The Lord of the Rings is consistent.

    You’re without an argument…

    No I’m not. You’re stating that this is obvious evidence for your god. I’m saying that it’s not. That is an argument–that you don’t have enough evidence to convince me of the veracity of this statement, hence my comment of “So what?”

    What’s your proof that it’s only the appearance of design?

    The burden of proof is on you to show that everything was designed by an intelligent agent. There is currently no evidence of this. Repeating that “more things appear designed than don’t” or “more things make sense than don’t” is simply an argument from incredulity.

    There’s at least 70% of the world that we can’t live on, which hardly suggests that it’s fine-tuned for us. Expand this to the universe and the percentage which we can survive becomes vanishingly small. Again, hardly fine-tuned.

    Humans are the most amazing creatures in the universe. We have symphonies, relationship, art, creativity unlike anything in the universe.

    You know this, how? Surely, you’re not using the argument from beauty?

    …you don’t know what “nature” even ultimately is. You don’t know where it starts, stops, what it can do, what it can’t do, etc. If by “nature” you mean “ultimate reality”, then God could be most “Natural” if he is ultimate reality.

    Why are you equivocating–“if”, “could be”? And are you telling me that you do know what nature is? Because if you’re not, then it’s also entirely possible that “ultimate reality” (whatever that means) is not your god (whatever that means!


    • So you decided after a year to continue the conversation? Why is that?

      “Theism completed Wallace’s evolutionary worldview. He saw theism, in terms of intelligent design, as providing an account of the emergence of those human traits he deemed inexplicable by natural selection and necessary for the possibility of future human progress. Wallace came to regard intelligent design as guiding certain aspects of the development of the nonhuman organic world as well.”

      Alfred Russel Wallace: A Rediscovered Life, pg.86

      Here he’s quoting Historian Martin Fichman. The book will have the exact reference to this quote by Fichman.

      I’ll respond to these statements, and in doing so will cover all the other ground.

      The Lord of the Rings is consistent.

      Is this really your response? This has nothing to do with my original statement.

      The burden of proof is on you to show that everything was designed by an intelligent agent. There is currently no evidence of this. Repeating that “more things appear designed than don’t” or “more things make sense than don’t” is simply an argument from incredulity.

      Saying that more things appear designed than not isn’t my main support of ID. It is actually atheists whom usually try to use example of things having a lack of design to disprove ID. 1. A lack of design doesn’t actually preclude design. 2. My point is that if they’re going to use this as a standard then they only set themselves up to lose the argument, because far more things have the appearance of design, and a complimentary or contingent nature, than those that don’t.

      In addition, I never said that “everything” indicates intelligent design. This is why arguments against puddles being designed only shows ignorance on the part of the dissenter. The point is that 1. original life, logic, contingency in nature, and fine tuning of the universe do, and 2. such things are better explained by an intelligent cause rather than a mind-less mechanism, or chance. Even Darwin sought to make an inference to the best explanation. Ocam’s Razor would even tell us that ID is a better explanation.

      You are an intelligent designer because you are designing your reply back to me. We have plenty of experience and knowledge of ID. Thus, we can better account for much of the phenomenon in the world with this cause, as opposed to other options, thus it is not an argument from incredulity, but from what we actually understand. We have actually never seen, nor can we even theorize, how non-life or non-logic can give rise to life and logic, thus the naturalist’s bias is actually one of incredulity.

      There is nothing fantastical about inferring ID. Methodological naturalism is fully capable of inferring ID. Agnostics even understand this. It’s atheists whom are forcefully against the notion, and try to strike fear into any whom say otherwise by use of condescension and supposed authority. This is popular in the West and you are a byproduct of it. An agnostic approach would be far more consistent.

      Your approach is actually one of incredulity because your bias is to not allow ID to ever be a possible cause of things like original life, logic, contingency in nature, and the fine tuning of the universe. You have a confirmation bias towards philosophical naturalism, and a confirmation bias against ID. This is not a quest to actually be scientifically un-bias, but rather a quest to further spread the lie that science must be inherently atheistic.

      Read my posts on ‘Is Science and Religion Compatible‘, and ‘Horrible Arguments Against Intelligent Design‘.


      • Um. Yeah. I read your links. It’s blatantly apparent that you have a profound misunderstanding of science, of what a logical argument is, of what constitutes evidence. It’s also evident that you find it difficult to stick to the topic at hand and your posts and replies become a mish-mash of nonsense, half-truths, half-understood ideas, unsupported hearsay and personal opinion touted as fact. This makes it incredibly difficult to debate you because there’s so much that needs correcting, and quite frankly, I can’t be bothered.

        The only real evidence you have provided is the reference to the Wallace biography, for which I thank you.


      • You just proved that ID is natural because you intelligently designed your reply back to me and you are natural.

        But everything you just said you asserted without giving me an example. Vagueness isn’t an argument. A real argument would require logic.

        Thus, it sounds to me like you’re just posturing as some kind of authority on what constitutes science and what doesn’t and leaving it at that. I run into this all the time with those whom aren’t used to having their confirmation bias challenged. It is scary to accept ID. Not because of the rational arguments, but because of guilt by association promulgated by the prevalent scientific dogma that the universe is purely mechanistic.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: