The Falsehood of
Intuition
Intuition is the
believing in
things based
upon previous
experience.
While this may
work in most
instances, it is
not reliable
when talking
about things
outside our
normal
experience.
Reliance upon
intuition has
resulted in the
following:
Believing the
earth is flat.
Believing the
earth must have
to set upon
something.
Believing the
earth is the
center of the
universe.
Believing the
brain has to
flip the
upside-down
image on the
retina right
side up.
Achieving
proper
orientation is
actually just a
learning
process, the
brain flips
nothing.
Believing
that insects are
enormously
strong for their
size.
Insects are
able to lift
great weight in
relationship to
their body
weight not
because they are
amazingly
strong, but
because they are
small. As
an object
decreases in
size, its volume
(weight)
decreases twice
as fast as its
cross-sectional
area (general
strength), thus
it appears to
get stronger and
stronger.
If an ant were
the size of a
human, it
wouldn't even be
able to lift its
own weight.
Believing that
astronauts are
weightless in
orbit -- that
there is no
gravity in
space.
Astronauts in
orbit are not
weightless, they
are in a
constant state
of free-fall.
The vectors of
the pull of
gravity
downwards plus
the vector of
their forward
velocity combine
to create an arc
long enough to
circumvent the
earth. Only
being in deep
space, far away
from any
gravitational
forces could
render a person
to be truly
weightless.
Believing a
design requires
a designer.
Technically
yes, but are
structures in
nature, designs?
A beautiful
sunset is
clearly not
designed, nor
are crystals
that grow
according to
initial
molecular shape.
If a design
requires a
designer, and
God is a
designer, then
why doesn't God
make a watch?
Actually
structures in
nature are
patterns, not
designs.
While a true
design may
require a
designer.
Patterns do not
necessarily
require a
pattern maker.
Patterns can be
formed
naturally.
Believing that
time in linear.
It may be that
time just must
be perceived as
linear because
that's the only
way we can use
it. There
may in fact be
simultaneousness
to time.
This article
provides
interesting
reading.
Semi-Linear Time
The
Misunderstanding
of Cause and
Effect
Most Christians
believe that
determinism,
behaviorism, and
in general the
principal of
cause and
effect, is
counter to
accountability,
having a free
will, and making
true decisions
and choices.
First, it isn't
rational to
reject something
just because you
don't like the
implications.
Determinism is a
reasonable
concept, and If
human thinking
and behavior is
not due to cause and
effect, then what? Ask
a Christian to
explain
an alternative,
and what you
will get is:
"It's difficult
to explain, it's
hard to find the
right words,
I mean there
must be a real
you that makes
decisions apart
from cause and
effect, etc."
Determinism and
Crime and
Punishment
The fact is, of
course,
all behavior
including
thought
processes is the
product of cause
and effect.
We hold people
accountable and
punish them
because
punishment
itself is just
another
antecedent cause
to bring about a
different
behavior
pattern.
Punishment is
ultimately about
changing
behavior, not
about casting
blame, or
finding ultimate
causes.
Many Christians
like bringing up
the Clarence
Darrow defense
of Leopold and
Loeb.
Darrow used a
strongly
"deterministic"
defense of the
killers --
arguing it was
their upbringing
that was at
fault, not the
defendants
themselves.
However,
contrary to what
many Christians
assert, he was
not
successful.
"Caverly [the
trial judge]
said that his 'judgment
cannot be
affected'
by the causes of
crime and that
it was 'beyond
the province of
this court' to
"predicate
ultimate
responsibility
for human acts.'
Nonetheless,
Caverly said
that 'the
consideration of
the age of the
defendants' and
the possible
benefits to
criminology that
might come from
future study of
them persuaded
him that life in
prison, not
death, was the
better
punishment."
So, as we can
see, the judge
himself stated
that it was not
its province to
cast ultimate
blame.
Punishment is
not about who or
what is actually
responsible.
Also, Darrow
pled Leopold
and Loeb guilty,
so how then can
anyone assume
that Darrow felt
they were
without fault.
Darrow was only
attempting to
spare their
lives, not
relieve them
from all
responsibility
in the murder;
and it was not
the
deterministic
aspects of
Darrow argument
that was
successful, it
was only his
arguments as to
their age and
benefits there
may be in
keeping them
alive to study
that were
successful.
Was Clarence
Darrow wrong in
arguing that the
lives of Leopold
and Loeb be
spared?
While in
confinement
Richard
Loeb and
Nathan
Leopold
reformed
the
prison's
educational
system
and
convinced
authorities
to allow
for
secondary
course
work in
the form
of
correspondence
courses.
In 1936,
Loeb was
slashed
and
killed
by
another
inmate.
Leopold
continued
on and
taught
in the
prison
school,
mastered
twenty-seven
foreign
languages,
worked
as an
x-ray
technician
in the
prison
hospital,
reorganized
the
prison
library,
volunteered
to be
tested
with an
experimental
malaria
vaccine,
and
designed
a new
system
of
prison
education.
In the
1950's,
an
elderly
and
retired
Robert
Crowe
[the
state's
prosecuting
attorney]
reportedly
offered
to write
a letter
to the
Illinois
Parole
Board
urging
his
release.
In 1958,
his
fourth
appeal
was
pleaded
by the
poet
Carl
Sandburg,
who even
went as
far as
to offer
Leopold
a room
in his
own
home. In
1958,
after
thirty-four
years of
confinement,
Leopold
was
released
from
prison.
Leopold
migrated
to
Puerto
Rico. He
earned a
master's
degree,
taught
mathematics,
and
worked
in
hospitals
and
church
missions
and
dedicated
much of
his time
to
helping
the
poor. He
wrote a
book
entitled
The
Birds of
Puerto
Rico.
He also
married.
He died
on
August
30,
1971.
He had
willed
his body
to the
University
of
Puerto
Rico for
medical
research.
The next
morning
his
corneas
were
removed.
One was
given to
a man,
the
other to
a woman.
He also
openly
expressed
great
remorse
for his
misdeeds
throughout
much of
his
life.
What
Are Creationists
Afraid Of?
Determinism and
Free Will
The question
concerning a
free will
shouldn't be
whether we have
one, it should
be whether such
a thing is
possible.
We must ask
ourselves, "Free
from what?" A
mind free from
all motivating
factors would
have nothing to
base decisions upon.
There is just no
such thing as an
uncaused choice. Our minds are a
product of the
interaction of
an extremely
complex network
of millions of
neurons.
When those
neurons process
information
based upon past
and present
experiences --
that's what a
decision is --
that IS the real
person coming to
a conclusion
about things.
Christians want
to believe that
thoughts occur
before brain
activity, and
that a decision
is comparable to
the actions of a
librarian in a library, in
that there is
something akin
to a little man
inside our
brains that
makes decisions
not influenced
by cause and
effect, but just
accesses our
knowledge base.
Christians just can't
reconcile that
the cause and
effect in the
mind IS SELF --
that's us making
a decision. When cause and
effect becomes
extremely
complex, it
takes on a new
meaning beyond
just what
action-reaction
implies, and
words like
"decision" are
used to describe
the process.
Everyone is
unique, with
different
genetic traits
and experiences
that can cause a
nearly endless
assortment of
decisions.
I would not go
fishing this
weekend because
my experiences
have taught me
that it's not
enjoyable, but
someone else
might jump at
the opportunity. A
free will is
not logically
possible, but
we have a mind
with more
possible choices than lower
animals because
we have more
complex brains
that gives us
more options.
Determinism vs.
Self-Determinism
Many people,
religious and
secular alike,
wonder if cause
and effect
ultimately means
that everything
in the universe
including human
behavior is predestined,
bound to happen,
or
predetermined.
When we speak of
the possibility
of behavior being
predetermined, we
should ask by what?
Does the
universe care?
Was there intent
way back when
the first
subatomic
particle bumped
into another one
and got things
going? The
answer to these
questions is "No."
Without a
governing
design, method,
or purpose
outcomes are
random,
thus should not
be considered
predetermined,
determined, or
inevitable; despite the
presents of
causality.
We are not made
to do things by
cause and effect
-- we are PART
of cause and
effect -- we
make ourselves
do things.
The cause and
effect that goes
on in our minds
is what
constitutes
SELF, and our
particular
cause-effect
process is
manifestly
different from
what we normally
think of cause
and effect; we remember
our past, and
direct our
actions
to bring about
specific results
to satisfy
feelings of need
and desire --
something random
causality cannot
do. What
else in nature
can bring about
an effect based
upon a cause
that happened in
the past as if
it were
happening now?
Imagine a
billiard
ball
remembering
how it was
struck a
year ago and
every time
since,
imagine now
that when
you hit it
with the cue
ball it
doesn't
react just
according to
how you hit
it, but
according to
how you hit
it and all the
previous
hits.
Now imagine
that all
those hits
are not just
added
together,
but added
together in
a way
according to
something
intrinsic in
the ball
that makes
it want to
do
something,
like help
you win.
If it could
also have
the physical
ability to
guide its
own
direction,
its memory
and
intrinsic
properties
would always
allow it to
roll into
a pocket.
There would
still be
cause and
effect, but
a far
different
kind from
the cause
and effect
of a normal
billiard
ball.
Our
intelligence
turns random causality
into directed
causality,
and does so in
such a complex
way that we
spawn
chains of cause
and effect
events that are
only
superficially
related to the causes that
caused us.
Only
intelligence can
determine or
predetermine
anything specific
because only
intelligence can
have intent.
This is the
reason why
nature produces
so many dead
planets, and why
humans produce
things that all
have uses.
What we do isn't
random. The principle of
universal determinism just
has no valid
application,
though it may be
mechanistically
valid to say
everything is
cause and
effect, and in a
purely
theoretical
sense,
predictable.
Nothing that
caused the
initial chain of
events was doing
any predicting,
nor had anything
in mind. In
going back to
the nature of
our will, we don't have a
free will; we
have a
"purposeful"
or "purposive"
will.
The
Misapplication
of "Entropy"
Believing that
evolution
violates the
second law of
thermodynamics
and the process
of entropy.
In fact,
evolution
depends on it.
Click
here
for a full
discussion.
The Confusion of
Numbers
I'll start with
my personal
favorite:
"What
if
gravity were
stronger
proportionately,
so that the
number has only
39 zeros (10 to
the 39th power)
[instead of 10
to the 40th
power]
'With just this
tiny
adjustment,'
continues
Breuer, 'a star
like the sun
would find its
life expectancy
sharply
reduced.'
And other
scientists
consider the
fine-tuning to
be even more
precise."
~ Is There
a Creator Who
Cares About You?
p.18. Watchtower
Bible and Tract
Society.
Oh brother! a
tiny
adjustment???
Removing one
zero is a factor
of 10! It
would be like
saying "You
don't mind if I
make a tiny
adjustment to
your paycheck do
you? I'm
just going to
remove one zero
and pay you
$100.00 instead
of $1000.00."
Or, using a big
number "We need
to make a tiny
reduction in the
world
population.
We need to
reduce it from
6,000,000,000
to a 6 with just
8 zeros:
600,000,000.
Going from 6
billion to 6
hundred-million
would be a
reduction of the
world population
to just twice
that of the
United States.
No matter how
many zeros there
are: two, forty,
or a thousand,
it makes no
difference --
one zero is
always a factor
of 10.
Changing from 40
to 39 zeros
is no tiny
adjustment!
A friend once
told be that it
was only 1
chance in 6
billion that we
should have ever
met, so it must
have been fate.
Well, it's only
1 in 6 billion
that I would
meet any
particular
person on the
earth, so I must
assume that it's
a miracle that I
ever meet
anyone! :)
The wealthy tell
us they pay a
disproportionate
amount in income
tax, that the
upper 10 percent
of earners pay
58 percent of
all income tax.
Sounds like a
reasonable
argument, but
what they fail
to tell us is
that the upper
10 percent make
90 percent of
the wealth, so
58 percent isn't
even a fair
share.
Many Christians
give huge odds
against something
complex being
able to come
together by
chance.
How do we get
complexity?
|
Like
a
safecracker,
evolution
cheats
by
solving
complex
problems
one
step
at a
time.
- To open this combination lock by guessing the complete combination is very hard (chance of guessing combination is 1 in 10,000,000,000).
- But, we can crack each wheel in turn. On average it will take ten spins to get one wheel, so 100 random trials will find the right combination.
|
Beyond odds?
Many Christians
give impossible
odds that the
things required
for life could
have all come
together here at
one place
without the help
of an
intelligent
being.
What they don't
ever mention
that there are
70 sextillion
stars in the
universe and
perhaps 5 to 10
times that
number of
planets.
70 sextillion is
a 7 with 22
zeros and
represents a
number 10 times
larger than all
the grains of
sand in all the
desserts and
beaches of the
earth.
Now, what do you
think the odds
are of things
coming together
here and there
that are needed
for some type of
intelligent
life? If a
designer was
needed to bring
all those things
together here on
earth that are
required for
life, then what
are we to make
of all those
other stars and
planets.
Intelligent
designers don't
make uncountable
mistakes before
having one
success.
Abiogenesis
The picture
creationists
paint and what
really happens?
The
Falsehood
of the
Teleological
Argument
Question: "What
is the
Teleological
argument for the
existence of
God?"
http://www.gotquestions.org/teleological-argument.html
" Answer:
The word
"teleology"
comes from "telos"
which means
"purpose" or
"goal." The idea
is that it takes
a "purposer" to
have purpose,
and so where we
see things
obviously
intended for a
purpose
something had to
have caused it
for a reason.
Design implies a
designer in
other words. We
instinctively do
this all the
time. The
difference
between
the Grand Canyon
and Mount
Rushmore is
obvious - one is
designed, one is
not.
Great, this
person has just
stated that
something in
nature was NOT
designed by God.
The Grand Canyon
was clearly
formed by
non-rational,
natural
processes,
Ok, so things in
nature do not
require design.
You would make a
good atheist.
whereas
Mount Rushmore
was clearly
created by an
intelligent
being - a
designer.
Yes, true.
This
person, so far
has proven
atheism to be
correct.
When we are
walking down the
beach and see a
watch we do not
assume that time
and random
chance produced
it from blowing
sand around.
True.
Why? Because it
has the clear
marks of design
- it has a
purpose, it
conveys
information, it
is specifically
complex, etc. Absolutely
correct.
In no scientific
field is design
considered to be
spontaneous,
Where do
scientists say
that?
it always
implies a
designer, and
the greater the
design, the
greater the
designer. Thus,
taking the
assumptions of
science the
universe would
require a
designer beyond
itself (i.e.
supernatural)."
Oh, brother,
this argument
has just stated
several times
that nature does
not require
design, but then
somehow when we
get to the
universe taken
as a whole and
it all of a
sudden requires
a designer.
How
contradictory
can anything be?
It would be like
saying the watch
is intelligently
designed, while
at the same time
believing that
its parts could
be
"formed by
non-rational,
natural
processes,"
as is what is
said above about
the Grand
Canyon.
These types of
arguments are
always
completely
self-defeating.
The very fact
that the watch
or whatever is
discernable from
its natural
surroundings
amply shows that
the surroundings
must not be
intelligently
designed (a
point which the
author points
out himself
several times)
which is exactly
opposite to what
the person wants
to prove about
the universe
taken as a
whole. This
argument even
sometimes has
the watch being
found in a
forest, so the
unwitting
implication is
that the trees
are not
intelligently
designed --
obviously just
the opposite
from what is
intended.
See "Why Intelligent Design and the
Privileged Planet are Flawed"
|