RE: RE: Duncanryan

Once again Greg and I have filmed a video response to Duncan Ryan’s comments on my posts.This time is is addressing the comments made on my ‘Why follow your God?’ post I made a few days ago.

Again, we look forward to his response, as well as anyone else who wishes to join in on the discussion!

Links:

Dawkins transcript:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed

Biology YouTube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

Here are the comments that have taken place between now and my last video:

Duncanryan:

Gentlemen,
Firstly let me say a genuine thanks for taking so much time to try and refute my comments. I was somewhat surprised in the number of directions you launched into (who would have expected a refutation of Noah’s ark to come up?) but I think you’re still a little bit quick to dismiss some of the big issues. I am more than happy to discuss further any of the matters you raise (bats being birds, goats milk, insects on the ark, Conservatives destroying the planet or Adam and Eve) but I think perhaps we should try and stay on one or two subjects, and maybe add that by saying “science proves” or “science is pretty conclusive” actually proves nothing – if we have ‘proof’ then let’s produce it rather than merely allude to what we think is out there.

Belief in the existence of God is neither foolish nor irrational. We live in a world which exists – this in itself provides evidence for God; the general consensus of science is that because the universe is expanding it is not something which has just always been there but rather had a beginning. If we concede the “Big Bang theory” for the moment (which seems to be astrophysicists best guess) why would it be rational to conclude that all of these things could spark into existence without some cause behind it? Why would it be rational to think that something materialised out of nothing? Moreover, one of the dimensions of this universe is time and so time must have commenced with the beginning of the universe. What sort of force could have brought these things into existence? One which is intelligent and one which is outside of time – sounds like a prominent Bible character to me.

Moreover, anyone who has done high school biology knows the simple law of biogenesis. That is, life can only come from life. However, the atheist tries to convince me that it is rational to believe that life could come from no life…indeed that life could come from something which came from nothing. We have clever men like Francis Crick (co-discoverer of the structure of DNA) who, though an atheist, got around this biogenesis problem by proposing that aliens must have planted life on earth. I have also heard Richard Dawkins (another clever man) say that a “…civilisation evolved…to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility and I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer”. This is one of the leading atheist thinkers who is so sure there’s no God, yet concedes that a higher life form may well have designed and put life on earth – makes me feel a little less irrational. What happens when we ask where the aliens came from?

If I may, I’d also like to return to this concept of evil which you refer to a few times (because I think it’s related). The point I was trying to convey is that if there is no God, then there’s no such thing as evil because there’s no such thing as objective morality. If there’s no God, all our morality is subjective and is actually an illusion. If our morality is some product of evolution coupled to our social conditioning then nothing about our morality has any objective basis whatsoever. Some behaviours may be disadvantageous (from an evolutionary standpoint) but there’s no basis at all to say they are ‘wrong’ behaviours. Without God morality would be arbitrary – we’re just another species on earth but we have some delusion about concepts such as good/bad, right/wrong. However, I have yet to meet someone who believes that there is no such thing as objective morality; there are things which are always wrong (‘evil’ if you prefer). If there is such a thing as objective morality you have no choice but to accept that there is a higher moral authority.

Thanks for reading and discussing.

My Reply:

‘Belief in the existence of God is neither foolish nor irrational. We live in a world which exists – this in itself provides evidence for God.’

If you use this logic, and think it is sound, then you would have to agree that because the sea exists then that itself is proof that Poseidon exists. Do you agree with this? If you don’t then you pretty much have to retract the previous statement.

As for your arguments about biogenesis, just because there are many opinions on the matter (Such as Dawkins and Crick’s) does not make them cancel each other out; it does not make God to be the best answer. Science still has a long way to go, and to make up some reason as to why the universe was created such as God created it would be immature. Science is growing, not all the answers are there yet. The issue of the Big Bang will most likely never be resolved because we weren’t there to prove it. The reason scientists stick with the Big Bang theory is because by their calculations it seems very plausible; if you read about Hubble’s Law and other aspects, just do a Google search and find a trustworthy website on the issue.

You act like Dawkins is our God, and because he has some outlandish claims and observations that the whole of science and arguments from non-believers are less credible. Personally, I don’t know enough about biology and science to say how life started; I’ll have to let someone else make that point.

The reason we have things that are ‘wrong’ in the eyes of morality is completely up to society, so that is not subjective to us because things like killing for no reason are bad for society. It causes grief and fear in some, and anger for revenge in others. It could lead to more bloodshed and this would just be terrible for many aspects of that society. Therefore, the general consensus is that murder is wrong, it is morally evil, unless you’re killing someone who has killed others and has a high potential in killing more; killing him eventually leads to less bloodshed. Or of course just throwing him in prison, which I’m all for.

We as a species know that murder is wrong, for the same reason as a child, if you bump your head on something and it makes you cry, you know that is a bad thing, and you know it would be bad to do to someone else. You most likely do it, but more out of curiosity to confirm that fact or because you’re a little dick a kid, like I was. Nevertheless, just because we weren’t handed down our morals from God doesn’t mean they are any less concrete, they come from the betterment of society. What constitutes evil is generally something that stands in the way of letting a society prosper evenly, or stands in the way of happiness for many, or some.

Excuse my grammar or spelling, I literally just woke up!

Duncan Ryan:

You’ll notice that there is a world of difference between the word EVIDENCE and the word PROOF. Moreover, I deliberately tried to keep to ‘big picture’ ideas and so when I say “We live in a world which exists – this in itself provides evidence for God” (N.B. ‘evidence’). Because the sea exists it does not provide ‘proof’ that Poseidon exists, but it does provide evidence that something caused it to exist. I’m not even getting so narrow as to speak about the God of the Bible here – all I’m saying at this point is that our existence is evidence of a force required to bring us into existence (that is still the case whether we hold to Big Bang or whatever our theory is).

I can’t imagine anyone would uphold Dawkins as their god (not very easy to worship), but I’ve done exactly what you suggested. You say you don’t know enough about biology – well I’m letting the ‘experts’ talk. Such is the bizarre corner that the leading geneticist of his time and one of the leading evolutionary biologists of our time have backed themselves into they have to acknowledge a higher life form may well have originated and designed life on earth. Despite what ‘the word of me’ wrote there is still no conceivable way in which we can make life from dead matter without pre-programming some genetics. Moreover if we believe the first cell came to life in a primordial soup or whatever it was, then it should be a reasonably straightforward process to replicate – but no, all our complex equipment and experimental conditions and the best we can do is create a few amino acids. Again the only point I’m trying to make is that the existence of life on earth (whatever your theory of how it developed) could not have come into existence without a cause – thus we have EVIDENCE for a Creator.

(I have to put in a quick aside, ‘the word of me’ was very bold in saying “You can go to any college or university in the world (that is not run by religious orders) and check into their Archaeology, Paleontology, Geology, Biology, or any of the earth sciences classes or professors or the textbooks and the proof is there for all to see and learn. Fundamentalist religion doesn’t believe any of it…but, we can prove our position …and they can’t.” Presumably by ‘fundamentalist religion’ he had me in mind. It certainly by no means makes me more ‘right’ or more worthy of being listened to, but I have obtained a PhD in Neuroscience and have worked in the research departments of a reasonably significant university (not run by religious orders) for a number of years. This has given me opportunities to read textbooks and listen to professors and this ‘proof’ that you speak of on these big issues has so far eluded me.)

My point on morality is that assuming there’s no God (of the Bible or otherwise) then our morality is a human invention, entirely subjective and arbitrary. Please note, I in no way said that people who don’t BELIEVE in God have no morality, my point is that for OBJECTIVE morality to exist, a higher moral authority must also exist. That is simple reasoning which ‘the word of me’ has alluded to: “Who needs a ‘Higher Moral Authority’? I/we always have choices.” This is exactly my point, a truly atheistic stance would recognise that morality is only ever about human choices and is an entirely subjective thing.

There were others joining on on the discussion too, you can read their replies by viewing the comment sections of my posts.