Reflections on a Flawed Assumption in Atheism

Recently I've had an atheist take me to task over a post I wrote regarding Creationism and Evolution being the wrong issue to debate.  It's interesting to see the common errors held which are blind spots, and may sound reasonable on the outside but are not.

The issue I wish to reflect on is an argument made from probability.  In this case, it is argued as:

Science doesn't prove things in the sense that it provides absolute knowledge. Science is a process of observation and experimentation that provides a best guess about how things work. By the same token, we except the scientific method because through the process of observing and experimenting with different methods, it seems to be the one which works best. Science is only a best guess, but it is the best guess.

From this it is commonly argued by atheists that the knowledge of science disproves religion by providing a more "likely" explanation than the existence of God.

The problem is this argument presupposes that Theist = creationist.  This of course would be a surprise to many religious scientists who accept the idea of evolution yet retain their religious beliefs.  We see here a condescending and patronizing view from one atheist: Christians are ignorant of science or they would be atheists.

Problems with this Reasoning

I would of course object to his reasoning.  A scientific guess is no better than a guess that it was "done by elves" if the guess is wrong.  A scientific "guess" would be good or bad to the extent it was "true."  So a belief in ether, a belief in phlogiston, a belief in a geocentric universe, a belief in the transmutation of lead to gold were all errors which were scientifically the "best guess" of the times… yet they were errors which were a false turn which required undoing, and did not lead to the advancement of science, but the hindrance of the proper understanding.

The point is, science can sometimes err, and scientists can sometimes err.

The Ramifications of Erring Scientific Theories

If they can err, this does not of course mean "all science is bunk."  However, it does mean we do need to be wary about the social and moral conclusions drawn from science.  Evidence and experiments do need to be reviewed to see whether they prove what is alleged.

The argument which claims that there is no proof from science for religion, therefore it is probable there is no God is in fact against the requirements of science.  Since Science is done with things observable and experimental, the question is, what sort of experiments can be done to test the supernatural, from a strictly natural standpoint when by definition the supernatural is above the natural order?

This is the error the atheist makes about science, thinking that science can say anything (positive or negative) about the existence of God.  It is like using a telescope to try to see microbes… using a tool that is not designed to carry out the task.

Proof and Lack Thereof… and what it means

Atheism, or the quasi-atheistic agnosticism of today assumes that an absence of physical proof of something is de facto positive proof there is no God.  The charge is that science alone can explain what happens in nature, therefore a god is unnecessary.  The problem is that whether or not the best guess of science can find out the physical causes of certain events, it cannot find out the supernatural causes of events.

To argue that the non existence of God can be deduced through probability through what we now know of science is illogical.

To "prove" their point, the atheist has often sought to provide a false analogy making use of some mythical creature, saying "we can't disprove the existence of a flying spaghetti monster either, but we can be fairly sure it does not."

The reason this does not work is that the invention of a story about one fictional construct does not mean all things which cannot be observed physically do not exist.  To say it is probable the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not God exists.

The atheist who argues that because science does not directly show a god in the physical observations of the material realm it does not exist fails because of this: That we do not have knowledge of something does not the lack of existence of something. 

Atheism, to avoid abusing science, has to demonstrate that what we do know and what we will know in the future will in fact be everything which exists.  A thing exists or does not exist regardless of whether it is known.  If nobody had discovered Mt. Everest, it would have remained the tallest mountain in the world in actuality, even if we misidentified another mountain as "the tallest."

What Do We Know, What Can We Know and What Bearing Does it Have On Actual Existence

So for atheists to claim that God cannot exist, even when hedging bets by using the word "probability," requires a knowledge that everything that exists (B) falls into the category of things that are or will be known in the future (A). In other words, A=B.

Since we do not even know everything which will be known, we cannot reasonably say we know what will fall into group A. Since we do not know this, we cannot know whether A=B.  We could discover in the future that all our research into AIDS or Cancer was a waste.  Alternately we may discover things we thought impossible were true.  The point is we neither know all there is to know or that whether all that exists ever will be known

Therefore we cannot say God does not exist based on what we know by science.  We can only say Science cannot speak to whether or not God exists.

God in the Gaps?  Or Science in the Gaps?

It is about here the atheist trots out the "God of the gaps" argument.  This claim is a straw man argument which holds that Christians explain away what they can't explain by saying "God did it."  This is false however.  It is not incompatible with Christianity to believe that the actions of science are set into motion by God.

We believe God can act directly or He can set natural things into motion.  If God can set natural things in motion, one can believe in God without believing in "gaps."

Unfortunately, atheists who use science do fall into the idea of "Science in the gaps" where anything pertaining to a miracle or the like will eventually be explained away by science.  What is the basis of this?  Nothing more than a belief that there is no God and no miracles so there must be a physical and natural cause.

This is of course begging the question.  The unspoken assumption needs to be proven, but the problem is we do not know what science will discover in the future.  I have no doubt science will discover many things of course.  But some of our areas of investigation may come up blank.  The claim that someday science will find answers to these things is based on the assumption there is a natural cause and that it will be knowable.

The Error of The Enlightenment

For an atheist who mocks the faith of Christians, this is irony indeed.  They profess faith in Science, and do not base their claims scientifically.  Indeed, if one were to apply the same standards the atheists apply to Christianity to the beliefs of atheists, we would soon see that their claims have no scientific basis, and would have to be considered in terms of philosophy, truth, data, methods of knowledge and so on.

The problem with the atheistic use (or more accurately abuse) of science is that it is artificially limited to the actions of the Enlightenment, which in effect decreed (irrationally) that only that which could be observed physically could be known.  In other words, All Knowledge is Scientifically verifiable.

To test this, try to prove the beauty of Mozart's works through Science.

We can indeed have experience and knowledge which cannot be verified by science, but exists.  For example: Take your height.  Are you aware of the fact of your height?  OK, now, are you aware of the awareness of your height?

Good, now prove that awareness exists, scientifically.

Not the Argument from Silence

The atheist may object here that this is an argument from silence.  That we are saying "You can't disprove the existence of God, therefore He exists."  We are not.  We are at this stage merely pointing out that to claim that only scientific knowledge is knowledge is false.  For the Christian to point out the limitations of science is not the proof of God.  We are not even at that stage yet.  We are on chapter 1 and that is around chapter 20.

In pointing out the limitations of science, the Christian apologist does not seek to deny science or the value of science.  Rather he or she wishes to point out that it is irrational to insist on scientific proof for something science cannot measure.

Once we grasp that, we can move on to what we can know.

What This Indicates

What this indicates is that the atheist who seeks to browbeat the believer "In The Name of Science" has no basis for his claims.  Quite frankly the Emperor has no clothes here.  The atheist's point is not proven to be true in terms of logic, and if it is not proven, it is not irrational to hold a belief in God.

Of course, as I said above, this does not mean the work of the Christian is done.  We have yet to show the truth of the faith.  We have only pointed out why atheism is not a reasonable belief, and we do have to show why the faith is rational.

However, before this can be demonstrated to the atheist, the atheist needs to recognize the errors of his personal interpretation of science to make it say what it cannot say.

Reflections on a Flawed Assumption in Atheism

Recently I've had an atheist take me to task over a post I wrote regarding Creationism and Evolution being the wrong issue to debate.  It's interesting to see the common errors held which are blind spots, and may sound reasonable on the outside but are not.

The issue I wish to reflect on is an argument made from probability.  In this case, it is argued as:

Science doesn't prove things in the sense that it provides absolute knowledge. Science is a process of observation and experimentation that provides a best guess about how things work. By the same token, we except the scientific method because through the process of observing and experimenting with different methods, it seems to be the one which works best. Science is only a best guess, but it is the best guess.

From this it is commonly argued by atheists that the knowledge of science disproves religion by providing a more "likely" explanation than the existence of God.

The problem is this argument presupposes that Theist = creationist.  This of course would be a surprise to many religious scientists who accept the idea of evolution yet retain their religious beliefs.  We see here a condescending and patronizing view from one atheist: Christians are ignorant of science or they would be atheists.

Problems with this Reasoning

I would of course object to his reasoning.  A scientific guess is no better than a guess that it was "done by elves" if the guess is wrong.  A scientific "guess" would be good or bad to the extent it was "true."  So a belief in ether, a belief in phlogiston, a belief in a geocentric universe, a belief in the transmutation of lead to gold were all errors which were scientifically the "best guess" of the times… yet they were errors which were a false turn which required undoing, and did not lead to the advancement of science, but the hindrance of the proper understanding.

The point is, science can sometimes err, and scientists can sometimes err.

The Ramifications of Erring Scientific Theories

If they can err, this does not of course mean "all science is bunk."  However, it does mean we do need to be wary about the social and moral conclusions drawn from science.  Evidence and experiments do need to be reviewed to see whether they prove what is alleged.

The argument which claims that there is no proof from science for religion, therefore it is probable there is no God is in fact against the requirements of science.  Since Science is done with things observable and experimental, the question is, what sort of experiments can be done to test the supernatural, from a strictly natural standpoint when by definition the supernatural is above the natural order?

This is the error the atheist makes about science, thinking that science can say anything (positive or negative) about the existence of God.  It is like using a telescope to try to see microbes… using a tool that is not designed to carry out the task.

Proof and Lack Thereof… and what it means

Atheism, or the quasi-atheistic agnosticism of today assumes that an absence of physical proof of something is de facto positive proof there is no God.  The charge is that science alone can explain what happens in nature, therefore a god is unnecessary.  The problem is that whether or not the best guess of science can find out the physical causes of certain events, it cannot find out the supernatural causes of events.

To argue that the non existence of God can be deduced through probability through what we now know of science is illogical.

To "prove" their point, the atheist has often sought to provide a false analogy making use of some mythical creature, saying "we can't disprove the existence of a flying spaghetti monster either, but we can be fairly sure it does not."

The reason this does not work is that the invention of a story about one fictional construct does not mean all things which cannot be observed physically do not exist.  To say it is probable the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not God exists.

The atheist who argues that because science does not directly show a god in the physical observations of the material realm it does not exist fails because of this: That we do not have knowledge of something does not the lack of existence of something. 

Atheism, to avoid abusing science, has to demonstrate that what we do know and what we will know in the future will in fact be everything which exists.  A thing exists or does not exist regardless of whether it is known.  If nobody had discovered Mt. Everest, it would have remained the tallest mountain in the world in actuality, even if we misidentified another mountain as "the tallest."

What Do We Know, What Can We Know and What Bearing Does it Have On Actual Existence

So for atheists to claim that God cannot exist, even when hedging bets by using the word "probability," requires a knowledge that everything that exists (B) falls into the category of things that are or will be known in the future (A). In other words, A=B.

Since we do not even know everything which will be known, we cannot reasonably say we know what will fall into group A. Since we do not know this, we cannot know whether A=B.  We could discover in the future that all our research into AIDS or Cancer was a waste.  Alternately we may discover things we thought impossible were true.  The point is we neither know all there is to know or that whether all that exists ever will be known

Therefore we cannot say God does not exist based on what we know by science.  We can only say Science cannot speak to whether or not God exists.

God in the Gaps?  Or Science in the Gaps?

It is about here the atheist trots out the "God of the gaps" argument.  This claim is a straw man argument which holds that Christians explain away what they can't explain by saying "God did it."  This is false however.  It is not incompatible with Christianity to believe that the actions of science are set into motion by God.

We believe God can act directly or He can set natural things into motion.  If God can set natural things in motion, one can believe in God without believing in "gaps."

Unfortunately, atheists who use science do fall into the idea of "Science in the gaps" where anything pertaining to a miracle or the like will eventually be explained away by science.  What is the basis of this?  Nothing more than a belief that there is no God and no miracles so there must be a physical and natural cause.

This is of course begging the question.  The unspoken assumption needs to be proven, but the problem is we do not know what science will discover in the future.  I have no doubt science will discover many things of course.  But some of our areas of investigation may come up blank.  The claim that someday science will find answers to these things is based on the assumption there is a natural cause and that it will be knowable.

The Error of The Enlightenment

For an atheist who mocks the faith of Christians, this is irony indeed.  They profess faith in Science, and do not base their claims scientifically.  Indeed, if one were to apply the same standards the atheists apply to Christianity to the beliefs of atheists, we would soon see that their claims have no scientific basis, and would have to be considered in terms of philosophy, truth, data, methods of knowledge and so on.

The problem with the atheistic use (or more accurately abuse) of science is that it is artificially limited to the actions of the Enlightenment, which in effect decreed (irrationally) that only that which could be observed physically could be known.  In other words, All Knowledge is Scientifically verifiable.

To test this, try to prove the beauty of Mozart's works through Science.

We can indeed have experience and knowledge which cannot be verified by science, but exists.  For example: Take your height.  Are you aware of the fact of your height?  OK, now, are you aware of the awareness of your height?

Good, now prove that awareness exists, scientifically.

Not the Argument from Silence

The atheist may object here that this is an argument from silence.  That we are saying "You can't disprove the existence of God, therefore He exists."  We are not.  We are at this stage merely pointing out that to claim that only scientific knowledge is knowledge is false.  For the Christian to point out the limitations of science is not the proof of God.  We are not even at that stage yet.  We are on chapter 1 and that is around chapter 20.

In pointing out the limitations of science, the Christian apologist does not seek to deny science or the value of science.  Rather he or she wishes to point out that it is irrational to insist on scientific proof for something science cannot measure.

Once we grasp that, we can move on to what we can know.

What This Indicates

What this indicates is that the atheist who seeks to browbeat the believer "In The Name of Science" has no basis for his claims.  Quite frankly the Emperor has no clothes here.  The atheist's point is not proven to be true in terms of logic, and if it is not proven, it is not irrational to hold a belief in God.

Of course, as I said above, this does not mean the work of the Christian is done.  We have yet to show the truth of the faith.  We have only pointed out why atheism is not a reasonable belief, and we do have to show why the faith is rational.

However, before this can be demonstrated to the atheist, the atheist needs to recognize the errors of his personal interpretation of science to make it say what it cannot say.

Thoughts on Jefferson and the so-called Wall of Separation

I notice articles by atheists tend to run in themes: "Islam is bad, so religion is bad," "Science disproves religion" and so on.  One of the recent themes is on Thomas Jefferson and his calling for a "Wall of Separation," citing the Danbury Letter.

The key point of this letter is:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

The argument tends to be "Jefferson said we need to keep a wall between Church and State.  Religions are trying to change laws.  Therefore religion needs to be controlled."

The problem is twofold.  First, the Danbury Letter is not  legally binding document or the like.  Second, the modern interpretation is one of bifurcation: "Either we control religion or religion controls us," which simply is not the case.

The letter Jefferson was responding to (from the Danbury Baptists) expressed a concern that certain sectarian groups might seek to attack members of the government being "irreligious,"  based on their own views.  Now this is a legitimate concern.  Certainly Catholics in Maryland in the 17th and 18th century before the founding of America knew of groups which, once in power, sought to strip them of their rights to religious freedom which they granted to others.  However, we remain with the problem of a wall of separation properly understood.

Now the first amendment to the Constitution does tell us:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This means of course that the state may not impose any specific religion on the people true, but it also forbids the prohibiting of the free exercise of religion.  It seems the dangerous part of Jefferson's letter is when he says:

I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties

The dangerous part of this sentiment is this potentially opens the door to the negation of the First Amendment if misapplied.  It's not completely wrong of course: The Church holds that freedom is not license to do what we wish, but rather the freedom to do what we ought before God, for example.  The problem is when the state decides a certain group acts contrary to undefined "social duties" not because of actual acts which are unlawful but because they practice a religion which is not well received.

As the old saying goes, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  If the state defines what is intrusion on the Establishment of Religion, what prevents it from defining social duties in such a way to harass a religion or the like?

This is the problem of the modern understanding of the separation of Church and State.  The claim is that something benefits religion in general is a violation of the separation of church and state.  The problem is such a view de facto defines religion as being in opposition to social duties when it speaks out against the state.

We do need to remember that the view of atheism also falls under this criteria.  The atheist who seeks to remove public expression of prayer or the like is in fact violating this so-called wall of separation in a way which denies the rights of the first amendment.

The atheist who wishes to cite the Danbury Letter as excluding religion from political life needs to remember that the first amendment also grants to citizens the rights of the freedom of press, speech,  to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

This of course means that a Church has a right to speak out in word and in print about the ways the nation is bringing harm to members or harm to itself.  Yet churches do not have this right.  If a church wishes to say "What this government official is doing is wrong," they cannot without legal repercussions.

It is a paradox of course set about by a phrase with no legal bearing.  Separation of Church and State means a state cannot dictate how an individual may practice religion or to infringe of the practices of a religion, and certainly this is what popes like Leo XIII praised about the American way.  However, on the other hand, going from "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" to "Religion shall have no say in government" is certainly a contradiction, because it denies or limits members of religion their right to free speech, press, assembly and redress.

Things like the Danbury Letter or claims like saying "The Founding Fathers were not Christians" is in fact a Red Herring.  Certainly the Declaration of Independence shows that the understanding of America had some understanding of God, who had an authority above the state:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In other words, these are not rights the state can arbitrarily give and take away.  Rather they are things people possess which are beyond the ability of the state to regulate.   We now come to a problem with the claims of the atheist over America.  If we do not hold that our rights come from a creator, from what do they come from?  What makes them binding so that tomorrow Obama cannot say "I'm taking away your right to the free press"?

The choices for where our rights come from are: God, or Nothing. If they come from God, then no person can take them away from us… certainly a government can compel us so we cannot exercise our rights, but in doing so, they act in an unjust manner.

However, if they come ex nihilo (out of nothing), they are not rights, but tolerances from the government, as what one man can say is good for him, another might disagree with.  One government administration might decree we have the right to property, another which follows the first might claim we exploit people by the existence of private property and it may not be allowed.

Some atheists and agnostics do not like where this leads.  They recognize that some actions are wrong, but reject the idea as the source of what is good, so they seek to find a source which is not absolute to give us these rights, such as instinct or some undefined sense of justice.

The problem is our rights are only as absolute as the source which grants them. What binds a nebulous force like "justice" or "instinct" to do something we must obey?  What part of it prevents a Hitler or a Stalin from saying "I reject these values and replace them with another which I find superior for me."

Either we recognize that our rights as human persons come from a binding force outside of us (which, if one does not call it God, must define what it is) or we are forced to concede that we have no rights at all, but merely the tolerance of a government.

This latter view of course would be against the Constitution, and this is the paradox of Jefferson's Danbury Letter

Thoughts on Jefferson and the so-called Wall of Separation

I notice articles by atheists tend to run in themes: "Islam is bad, so religion is bad," "Science disproves religion" and so on.  One of the recent themes is on Thomas Jefferson and his calling for a "Wall of Separation," citing the Danbury Letter.

The key point of this letter is:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

The argument tends to be "Jefferson said we need to keep a wall between Church and State.  Religions are trying to change laws.  Therefore religion needs to be controlled."

The problem is twofold.  First, the Danbury Letter is not  legally binding document or the like.  Second, the modern interpretation is one of bifurcation: "Either we control religion or religion controls us," which simply is not the case.

The letter Jefferson was responding to (from the Danbury Baptists) expressed a concern that certain sectarian groups might seek to attack members of the government being "irreligious,"  based on their own views.  Now this is a legitimate concern.  Certainly Catholics in Maryland in the 17th and 18th century before the founding of America knew of groups which, once in power, sought to strip them of their rights to religious freedom which they granted to others.  However, we remain with the problem of a wall of separation properly understood.

Now the first amendment to the Constitution does tell us:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This means of course that the state may not impose any specific religion on the people true, but it also forbids the prohibiting of the free exercise of religion.  It seems the dangerous part of Jefferson's letter is when he says:

I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties

The dangerous part of this sentiment is this potentially opens the door to the negation of the First Amendment if misapplied.  It's not completely wrong of course: The Church holds that freedom is not license to do what we wish, but rather the freedom to do what we ought before God, for example.  The problem is when the state decides a certain group acts contrary to undefined "social duties" not because of actual acts which are unlawful but because they practice a religion which is not well received.

As the old saying goes, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  If the state defines what is intrusion on the Establishment of Religion, what prevents it from defining social duties in such a way to harass a religion or the like?

This is the problem of the modern understanding of the separation of Church and State.  The claim is that something benefits religion in general is a violation of the separation of church and state.  The problem is such a view de facto defines religion as being in opposition to social duties when it speaks out against the state.

We do need to remember that the view of atheism also falls under this criteria.  The atheist who seeks to remove public expression of prayer or the like is in fact violating this so-called wall of separation in a way which denies the rights of the first amendment.

The atheist who wishes to cite the Danbury Letter as excluding religion from political life needs to remember that the first amendment also grants to citizens the rights of the freedom of press, speech,  to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

This of course means that a Church has a right to speak out in word and in print about the ways the nation is bringing harm to members or harm to itself.  Yet churches do not have this right.  If a church wishes to say "What this government official is doing is wrong," they cannot without legal repercussions.

It is a paradox of course set about by a phrase with no legal bearing.  Separation of Church and State means a state cannot dictate how an individual may practice religion or to infringe of the practices of a religion, and certainly this is what popes like Leo XIII praised about the American way.  However, on the other hand, going from "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" to "Religion shall have no say in government" is certainly a contradiction, because it denies or limits members of religion their right to free speech, press, assembly and redress.

Things like the Danbury Letter or claims like saying "The Founding Fathers were not Christians" is in fact a Red Herring.  Certainly the Declaration of Independence shows that the understanding of America had some understanding of God, who had an authority above the state:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In other words, these are not rights the state can arbitrarily give and take away.  Rather they are things people possess which are beyond the ability of the state to regulate.   We now come to a problem with the claims of the atheist over America.  If we do not hold that our rights come from a creator, from what do they come from?  What makes them binding so that tomorrow Obama cannot say "I'm taking away your right to the free press"?

The choices for where our rights come from are: God, or Nothing. If they come from God, then no person can take them away from us… certainly a government can compel us so we cannot exercise our rights, but in doing so, they act in an unjust manner.

However, if they come ex nihilo (out of nothing), they are not rights, but tolerances from the government, as what one man can say is good for him, another might disagree with.  One government administration might decree we have the right to property, another which follows the first might claim we exploit people by the existence of private property and it may not be allowed.

Some atheists and agnostics do not like where this leads.  They recognize that some actions are wrong, but reject the idea as the source of what is good, so they seek to find a source which is not absolute to give us these rights, such as instinct or some undefined sense of justice.

The problem is our rights are only as absolute as the source which grants them. What binds a nebulous force like "justice" or "instinct" to do something we must obey?  What part of it prevents a Hitler or a Stalin from saying "I reject these values and replace them with another which I find superior for me."

Either we recognize that our rights as human persons come from a binding force outside of us (which, if one does not call it God, must define what it is) or we are forced to concede that we have no rights at all, but merely the tolerance of a government.

This latter view of course would be against the Constitution, and this is the paradox of Jefferson's Danbury Letter

Evolution vs. Creation: The Wrong Battle Waged

Someone notified me recently I was being cited as a source against the claims of an atheistic individual who holds to Evolution and rejects Creationism.  While I am flattered that someone considers me authoritative, I think it is important to spell out what I do hold, lest someone think I am championing a cause I do not.

As I have stated in the title, I do believe the laying out of battle grounds between evolution and creation is the wrong battle for Christians to fight, putting some allies on the "enemy" side of the fence.  The issue is not whether to take the account of creation in Genesis literally or figuratively.  The issue is whether the creation of the universe is on account of an uncontrolled undirected cause or on account of God.

Unfortunately I think some Christians choose to fight the wrong battle on account of believing that science (as opposed to some erring scientists) must teach in opposition to the Christian faith.  The problem is the confusing a belief that God could work through evolution as His means of creation with the atheistic belief that claims of science means God does not exist.  The Christian who fights the "evolution vs. creation" battle when they think they are fighting the "God vs. atheism" battle do not assist in the battle against atheism.

The result of this wrong battle being fought is we see certain groups of Christians accusing other Christians who accept the possibility of evolution as the means God used to create as being heretical or being secret atheists or being deceived by atheists.

This is the fallacy of bifurcation.  Arguing that unless a man believes in creationism, the man is not a believer ignores the possibility of a faithful Christian who does not hold a fundamentalist view of Scripture.  The argument in this case is missing the point.

The point is whether or not God created the universe or whether the universe came together by chance.  If it was created by God, there is indeed purpose in the universe, and life has meaning.  If it was created by chance, there is no meaning to the universe and it is a matter of indifference whether we live in a manner called evil or a manner called good.

The issue of evolution is misused by the atheist to argue that because evolution happened, God is not necessary and therefore does not exist.

The problem is, the evidence pointed at to claim evolution is true does not prove the non-existence of God.  The other side of this coin is to show that the cell or the embryo is complex beyond imagining does not mean it could be done by God only through directly acting.

Now the problem with relying on the physical explanation of evolution alone and denying the existence of a creator is it cannot provide proof to explain certain steps (which is Begging the Question):

• From no life to life
• From single cell creatures to multi cell creatures
• from creatures without organs to creatures with organs they did not need before but now cannot exist without
• From non-sentience to sentience

The law of casualty holds that we cannot get a result which is greater than the sum of causes.  For example, we do not simply go from Acorn –> Tree.  We have acorn + water + soil + nutrients + sunlight –> Tree.  The believer tells us God –> Universe (with the "—>" being whatever means of creation used).  The atheist needs to explain: no life –> Life, Single Cell –> multi cell and so on, and why the law of casualty does not apply (or how it does apply).

Thus going from the so-called "primordial soup" to a single cell animal cannot be explained.  (The amino acid experiment was based on a false idea on what the primordial atmosphere was based on).  The evolution theory can say it did happen, but the atheistic view does not say how it happened.

Really this is the issue here.  If the atheist wishes to assert evolution sans God is true, the question is how do we know it is true, given the practical impossibility of proving a universal negative and the lack of scientific evidence showing these transitions taking place?

The syllogism of the atheist is:

1. God does not exist
2. The Universe exists
3. Therefore the Universe was not created by God.

This is where I come in to the dispute.  Science is claimed to be logical and reasonable.  Religion is accused of being irrational and illogical.  Yet the claims of scientists who argue science proves there is no God cannot put together a logical and rational argument to establish their claim.

The argument that since God cannot be studied scientifically means there is no God is in fact a bad logical argument.  It is based on the unproven assumption that only that which is observable exists.  (All A is B).  The problem of course is that no matter how much we know about A (things that are observable), it does not prove there is not B (something that exists) which is not in B.

As a syllogism:

1. All things which are observable exists (all A is B)
2. God is not observable (Not A)
3. Therefore God does not exist (Therefore not B)

We can show the error of this argument by replacing what A and B stand for:

1. All people in Los Angeles are in California (All A is B)
2. Bill is not in Los Angeles (Not A)
3. Therefore Bill is not in California (therefore not B)

(If Bill lives in San Francisco, the argument is false)

In this case "All A is B" does not mean "All B is A." (All people in Los Angeles are in California does not mean all people in California are in Los Angeles).  In fact (going back to the syllogism of existence and observation), since we do not know what we will be able to observe in the future, we cannot even say we know everything currently in A (things observable) is all that will ever be in A

To challenge this is the "Emperor has no clothes" comment we should be presenting to the world against atheism.  In contrast, to argue the "Creationism vs. Evolution" is a distraction from the truth to be evaluated at this time.  Whether one believes in Creationism or Evolution as a Christian, the individual is still saying "God did this."  (Not as a way to avoid complex explanations as Dawkins so ludicrously put it, but because if the existence of God is true, we will eventually wind up with the "Uncaused cause" of Thomas Aquinas). In contrast atheism says "All this was set into motion by purely physical causes," with no basis but a faith that someday science will find the answer.

Science can validly look at evolution from a purely physical point, without being wrong per se, when it asks "how it works."  However when it looks at the purely physical and says "this is all there is," it goes beyond what Science can say and the proponents of such a view are in fact leaving reason and logic behind.

Evolution vs. Creation: The Wrong Battle Waged

Someone notified me recently I was being cited as a source against the claims of an atheistic individual who holds to Evolution and rejects Creationism.  While I am flattered that someone considers me authoritative, I think it is important to spell out what I do hold, lest someone think I am championing a cause I do not.

As I have stated in the title, I do believe the laying out of battle grounds between evolution and creation is the wrong battle for Christians to fight, putting some allies on the "enemy" side of the fence.  The issue is not whether to take the account of creation in Genesis literally or figuratively.  The issue is whether the creation of the universe is on account of an uncontrolled undirected cause or on account of God.

Unfortunately I think some Christians choose to fight the wrong battle on account of believing that science (as opposed to some erring scientists) must teach in opposition to the Christian faith.  The problem is the confusing a belief that God could work through evolution as His means of creation with the atheistic belief that claims of science means God does not exist.  The Christian who fights the "evolution vs. creation" battle when they think they are fighting the "God vs. atheism" battle do not assist in the battle against atheism.

The result of this wrong battle being fought is we see certain groups of Christians accusing other Christians who accept the possibility of evolution as the means God used to create as being heretical or being secret atheists or being deceived by atheists.

This is the fallacy of bifurcation.  Arguing that unless a man believes in creationism, the man is not a believer ignores the possibility of a faithful Christian who does not hold a fundamentalist view of Scripture.  The argument in this case is missing the point.

The point is whether or not God created the universe or whether the universe came together by chance.  If it was created by God, there is indeed purpose in the universe, and life has meaning.  If it was created by chance, there is no meaning to the universe and it is a matter of indifference whether we live in a manner called evil or a manner called good.

The issue of evolution is misused by the atheist to argue that because evolution happened, God is not necessary and therefore does not exist.

The problem is, the evidence pointed at to claim evolution is true does not prove the non-existence of God.  The other side of this coin is to show that the cell or the embryo is complex beyond imagining does not mean it could be done by God only through directly acting.

Now the problem with relying on the physical explanation of evolution alone and denying the existence of a creator is it cannot provide proof to explain certain steps (which is Begging the Question):

• From no life to life
• From single cell creatures to multi cell creatures
• from creatures without organs to creatures with organs they did not need before but now cannot exist without
• From non-sentience to sentience

The law of casualty holds that we cannot get a result which is greater than the sum of causes.  For example, we do not simply go from Acorn –> Tree.  We have acorn + water + soil + nutrients + sunlight –> Tree.  The believer tells us God –> Universe (with the "—>" being whatever means of creation used).  The atheist needs to explain: no life –> Life, Single Cell –> multi cell and so on, and why the law of casualty does not apply (or how it does apply).

Thus going from the so-called "primordial soup" to a single cell animal cannot be explained.  (The amino acid experiment was based on a false idea on what the primordial atmosphere was based on).  The evolution theory can say it did happen, but the atheistic view does not say how it happened.

Really this is the issue here.  If the atheist wishes to assert evolution sans God is true, the question is how do we know it is true, given the practical impossibility of proving a universal negative and the lack of scientific evidence showing these transitions taking place?

The syllogism of the atheist is:

1. God does not exist
2. The Universe exists
3. Therefore the Universe was not created by God.

This is where I come in to the dispute.  Science is claimed to be logical and reasonable.  Religion is accused of being irrational and illogical.  Yet the claims of scientists who argue science proves there is no God cannot put together a logical and rational argument to establish their claim.

The argument that since God cannot be studied scientifically means there is no God is in fact a bad logical argument.  It is based on the unproven assumption that only that which is observable exists.  (All A is B).  The problem of course is that no matter how much we know about A (things that are observable), it does not prove there is not B (something that exists) which is not in B.

As a syllogism:

1. All things which are observable exists (all A is B)
2. God is not observable (Not A)
3. Therefore God does not exist (Therefore not B)

We can show the error of this argument by replacing what A and B stand for:

1. All people in Los Angeles are in California (All A is B)
2. Bill is not in Los Angeles (Not A)
3. Therefore Bill is not in California (therefore not B)

(If Bill lives in San Francisco, the argument is false)

In this case "All A is B" does not mean "All B is A." (All people in Los Angeles are in California does not mean all people in California are in Los Angeles).  In fact (going back to the syllogism of existence and observation), since we do not know what we will be able to observe in the future, we cannot even say we know everything currently in A (things observable) is all that will ever be in A

To challenge this is the "Emperor has no clothes" comment we should be presenting to the world against atheism.  In contrast, to argue the "Creationism vs. Evolution" is a distraction from the truth to be evaluated at this time.  Whether one believes in Creationism or Evolution as a Christian, the individual is still saying "God did this."  (Not as a way to avoid complex explanations as Dawkins so ludicrously put it, but because if the existence of God is true, we will eventually wind up with the "Uncaused cause" of Thomas Aquinas). In contrast atheism says "All this was set into motion by purely physical causes," with no basis but a faith that someday science will find the answer.

Science can validly look at evolution from a purely physical point, without being wrong per se, when it asks "how it works."  However when it looks at the purely physical and says "this is all there is," it goes beyond what Science can say and the proponents of such a view are in fact leaving reason and logic behind.

On the Errors of Obama

Source: The White House - Press Office - Remarks by the President at Human Rights Campaign Dinner

Many people are of the impression that Obama is really friendly and willing to listen to people of faith.  Then Obama does something which shows this faith in this impression is groundless.  That what he really stands for is light years away from what the Christian faith requires.

In this address, posted on the White House web page and not on some right wing blog, Obama tells the audience that those of us who believe in the authenticity of Christian teaching are the intolerant bigots which he is trying to save America from.

He starts off by telling his audience:

Thank you so much, all of you. It is a privilege to be here tonight to open for Lady GaGa. (Applause.) I've made it. (Laughter.) I want to thank the Human Rights Campaign for inviting me to speak and for the work you do every day in pursuit of equality on behalf of the millions of people in this country who work hard in their jobs and care deeply about their families -- and who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. (Applause.)

For nearly 30 years, you've advocated on behalf of those without a voice. That's not easy. For despite the real gains that we've made, there's still laws to change and there's still hearts to open. There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors, even loved ones -- good and decent people -- who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; who would deny you the rights most Americans take for granted. And that's painful and it's heartbreaking. (Applause.) And yet you continue, leading by the force of the arguments you make, and by the power of the example that you set in your own lives -- as parents and friends, as PTA members and church members, as advocates and leaders in your communities. And you're making a difference.

The fact is, homosexuals have the same rights as Heterosexuals in America.  They can vote, can own property, can hold jobs.  They can even marry… people of the other gender.  The issue of course is what marrying someone of the same gender means.

Obama makes use of a logical fallacy right off the back, that because an argument is old, it is invalid.  This is a false and dangerous way of looking at things.  What matters is whether the argument is true.  Obama is operating under the following reasoning:

1. Marriage is about sex
2. There is no difference between enjoying heterosexual or homosexual activity
3. Therefore anyone opposed to homosexual marriage does so out of intolerance of homosexuality.

Except the proponents of traditional marriage would reject proposition #1.  Marriage is not about sex.  It is about family and unity of two spouses.  Laws about marriage are to protect the institution of the family, the right of the spouses to generate life from each other and to raise children according to their beliefs.

The so-called "Homosexual marriage" carries none of these elements.  Without an outside third party, procreation is not even biologically possible (which differs from the infertile heterosexual couple who can at least perform the act of procreation as it was intended to be), which means both the elements of procreation and unity of spouses would be absent in a homosexual "marriage."

St. Thomas Aquinas recognized the fact that the marriage act required marriage to be valid:

Now the marriage goods are the cause of rectitude in the marriage act. Therefore the marriage act cannot be excused without them.

Further, the aforesaid act does not differ from the act of fornication except in the aforesaid goods. But the act of fornication is always evil. Therefore the marriage act also will always be evil unless it be excused by the aforesaid goods.

I answer that, Just as the marriage goods, in so far as they consist in a habit, make a marriage honest and holy, so too, in so far as they are in the actual intention, they make the marriage act honest, as regards those two marriage goods which relate to the marriage act. Hence when married persons come together for the purpose of begetting children, or of paying the debt to one another (which pertains to faith) they are wholly excused from sin. But the third good does not relate to the use of marriage, but to its excuse, as stated above (A3); wherefore it makes marriage itself honest, but not its act, as though its act were wholly excused from sin, through being done on account of some signification. Consequently there are only two ways in which married persons can come together without any sin at all, namely in order to have offspring, and in order to pay the debt. otherwise it is always at least a venial sin. (Summa Theologica: Supplement Q49 A5)

We would be wise to consider the 13th century, and not make the fallacy of the argument from time as Obama does.  Certain acts, such as Rape, Child Abuse, Prostitution and fornication etc. do indeed involve the same physical act as the marriage act but they are not under the same meaning of the marriage act.  St. Thomas Aquinas tells us that what makes these acts good are the openness to life (one cannot help if one is infertile, but one needs to be open to the possibility of life) and as an act of love for the spouse (which is what "marriage debt" means).  Acts of lust, using one's spouse for sexual gratification etc, are an abuse of the marriage act.

Obama acts under the assumption that opposition to homosexual marriage is the same thing as opposition to the civil rights of racial minorities in America, but this is a false analogy.  The racial laws of America were unjust because they denied to a person of a different ethnicity to do the same things as another ethnicity.  It is quite possible for a white man and a black female to marry and to raise a family, and laws denying this are in fact unjust.

However, Gender is not the same as race and homosexual marriage is not the same thing as interracial marriage.  Whether a man be Caucasian, Asian, Hispanic or Black, he is still a man.  Whether a woman be Caucasian, Asian, Hispanic or Black, she is still a woman.  A man of one race and a woman of another race are still a man and a woman.  Two women "marrying" or two men "marrying" are not a man and a woman.

As I said above, homosexuals are free to vote regardless of their sexual orientation.  However during America's racial discrimination, blacks were not free to vote.  The opposition to interracial marriage was unjust because it restricted which men could marry which women.

A ≠ B

Since A does not equal B, Obama's attempting to equate opposition to homosexual marriage to opposition to civil rights is fallacious.

The problem we as Christians now face with Obama is that he stands in opposition to what we in fact believe.  Now he is free to reject the teachings of the Christian faith of course.  But since he has set himself in opposition to what we believe, we do need to stand up for our faith as Christians and withstand him to his face.

We believe that what God commands, He does not for a sense of being nasty or petty but for our own good.  We believe that what God commands is rational, and can be understood from reason.  We must pray for his conversion of course, but we must also be willing to suffer for the truth.  If Obama calls us intolerant, if he equates us with segregationists, it is of course a slander of us.  We may be persecuted, or we may not.  However, we know who our Lord and Master is, and our duty is to Him first, and to the state only to the extent that the state does not contradict God.