Tuesday, November 21, 2006
I want to bring the comment string from my last post onto the main page. We like to believe that evidence speaks for itself, however that is not true. It is the philosophical platform from which we view the evidence that drives most of our conclusions. I don't have the exact quote before me, but Sir Francis Crick was the one who said (this is a paraphrase) that the appearance of design is so prevailant in nature the scientist must continually remind himself that it is not designed. If I find the time I will look up the exact wording.
In my last post I stated the universe owes it's existence to something other than itself. That is what the evidence points to and is the reason many in the scientific community did not accept the big bang theory when it was first posited. Even now Steven Hawking is trying to find a way around it because (by his own admission) he wants to find a way for the universe to come about without God.
The evidence seldom speaks for itself. Richard Dawkins wrote the Blind Watchmaker back in the mid-eigthies in which he makes the bold claim; "We wanted to know why we and all other complicated things, exist. And we can now answer that question in general terms, even without being able to comprehend the details of the complexity itself." That is a statement of faith not evidence. The book is an interesting read, but fails to deliver on the promise of explaining why we exist. The one thing Dawkins makes clear is that he finds any reference to God being involved in reality as unsatisfactory; his words not mine.
OK, these examples (with the exception of Crick) are more recent than my decision to embrace Christianity, but they partially illustrate a point. We tend to handle facts subjectively based on our vantage point. That is why during my R&D days we had a review process for experimental design conducted by a third party. We had too much riding on the outcome to trust the lead scientist or engineer's sole judgment on whatever study was being undertaken.
In my last post I presented factual, read that observable, evidence that the universe exists because of some cause outside of itself. We have no way of discovering the cause using the laws of physics. Why, because the laws of physics apply to the physical world that did not exist before the beginning. (OK, that almost does not make sense - before the beginning - wrapping your mind around that one is like counting sheep, snoozer time)
My skeptism was born of that inability to explain our origin. Dawkins limits himself by stating(Blind Watchmaker page 15); "The kind of explanation we come up with must not contradict the laws of physics. Indeed it will make use of the laws of physics and nothing more than the laws of physics." That is a philosophical position.
Enough of that stuff. My point is this. Rejecting the supernatural is not a rational position and cannot be claimed to be supported by evidence. Neither can we just state there is a supernatural realm without evidence. The question is what constitutes evidence?
In my last post I stated the universe owes it's existence to something other than itself. That is what the evidence points to and is the reason many in the scientific community did not accept the big bang theory when it was first posited. Even now Steven Hawking is trying to find a way around it because (by his own admission) he wants to find a way for the universe to come about without God.
The evidence seldom speaks for itself. Richard Dawkins wrote the Blind Watchmaker back in the mid-eigthies in which he makes the bold claim; "We wanted to know why we and all other complicated things, exist. And we can now answer that question in general terms, even without being able to comprehend the details of the complexity itself." That is a statement of faith not evidence. The book is an interesting read, but fails to deliver on the promise of explaining why we exist. The one thing Dawkins makes clear is that he finds any reference to God being involved in reality as unsatisfactory; his words not mine.
OK, these examples (with the exception of Crick) are more recent than my decision to embrace Christianity, but they partially illustrate a point. We tend to handle facts subjectively based on our vantage point. That is why during my R&D days we had a review process for experimental design conducted by a third party. We had too much riding on the outcome to trust the lead scientist or engineer's sole judgment on whatever study was being undertaken.
In my last post I presented factual, read that observable, evidence that the universe exists because of some cause outside of itself. We have no way of discovering the cause using the laws of physics. Why, because the laws of physics apply to the physical world that did not exist before the beginning. (OK, that almost does not make sense - before the beginning - wrapping your mind around that one is like counting sheep, snoozer time)
My skeptism was born of that inability to explain our origin. Dawkins limits himself by stating(Blind Watchmaker page 15); "The kind of explanation we come up with must not contradict the laws of physics. Indeed it will make use of the laws of physics and nothing more than the laws of physics." That is a philosophical position.
Enough of that stuff. My point is this. Rejecting the supernatural is not a rational position and cannot be claimed to be supported by evidence. Neither can we just state there is a supernatural realm without evidence. The question is what constitutes evidence?
