Collins: How a scientist can believe in God

[A_Wanderer]

I’ve been thinking about this and some of what A_Wanderer said throughout the day. Then this an idea came to me and led me to do a little research. I found that up to 60 percent of the human body is water, the brain is composed of 70 percent water and the lungs are nearly 90 percent water. About 83 percent of our blood is water.
In comparison, most fruits and vegetables contain up to 90 percent water.
However, anyone can see when you compare the human body to a tomato, the differences are staggering.

Fruits and vegetables don't have brains, beating hearts, sex organs, an incredible feeling that comes with sex, the capacity to love, a built-in moral compass, the capacity to heal physically on their own, the ability to see, hear and feel, cognitive thought, the ability to move out of their own will, the ability to cry tears based on emotional feelings, the ability to laugh after emotional feelings, the ability to feel pain, the ability to have babies, the ability, for some of us, to breastfeed important nutrients to the baby (which many scientists say can't be reproduced), the ability to breath, and, among many other things, the ability to taste and enjoy, chew and swallow, digest and obtain necessary nutrients from, and poop and pee the left over stuff (probably largely water) from fruits and vegetables. A tomato is just a tomato (no matter how you say the freaking word).

Then, on top of it all, there's the questions as to why fruits and vegetables exist and how they're able to be grown from seed to the end result. It seems as if their existence and our existence together, and how one needs the other (or food in general) to exist, has something behind it other than chance.

I guess my point is this: I don't understand why asking "why" is any less important than asking "how." I would argue it's more important. If there is no reason to ask "why" then, really, there's not much of a reason to ask "how," ultimately. It's all chance, so so what. I then have as much value as a freaking tomato. (Which, I know can be used in everything from ketchup to salsa, so there’s hope for me.)
However, if there is a reason to ask "why," there has to be value in asking it . . . and discovering what the "why" is.

It’s been my experience that doing this reveals a “Who.”

Higher plants didn't exist alongside the first animals, they would have fed on what was abundant - bacterial slime mats. It's worth pointing out that photosynthetic algae have existed for over 3 billion years and were there before the organisms that ate them existed. The perfect match that we see between higher plants and the animals that consume them are the product of an evolutionary race of predation. That not only explains what we see in the world today, it explains what we see as the world changes.

The concept of chance is taken poorly because you don't use the idea of selection. Say that I have a bag containing one hundred marbles of many different colours and I pick them out into another bag, but as I do so I only select for red marbles. At the end you will only be left with red marbles in the second bag; and that was the product of chance and selection. So in an evolutionary context say that each marble represents a a variation and instead of you selecting it is whether the variant organism survives. After selection has taken place you will only be left with successful variants.

Asking why is based on the assumption that there is a why, you will need to fit the evidence to suit your paradigm; so instead of seeing a tomato as a means of seed dispersal and reproduction for a plant it becomes something more. Now I agree that tomatoes represent creation because they were, they were created by people through selective breeding (artificial selection) to be pallatable, large and of use. Different types of tomatoes that you buy at your grocery didn't just come from the wild.

The division between plants and animals goes way back in deep time; if you want to get into the messy connections then take a look at something like slime moulds - your examples of a modern tomato and a modern human are organisms billions of years removed by decent. The interactions between plants and animals however have been things that shape the evolutionary fitness of each and drive change.

 

[coemgen]

no, it developed -- i.e., evolved -- due to necessity.

OK, then. If that's the case, what's allowed it to do so? How does everything have the ability to do so? Again, to me it seems like a bigger leap of faith to just accept this.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Anything that is capable of replicating, having emergent variation and transmitting that variation into offspring is capable of evolution.

It's not a leap of faith to view the world as the sum product of innumerable mechanistic and observable interactions - trying to drag the other side into the mud because faith can never win in the real world is flawed.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Oh, I agree with you. The natural world is a thing to marvel at. Not just humans. I'm a fan of nature and wildlife. (You're not talking to Jerry effing Falwell here.)
However, there's still something special about human kind. A monkey may be close to us in its makeup, but it can't play guitar like the Edge. A cheetah may be beautiful and fast, but it can't design a Mac. Etc. Etc. There's something special going on here that separates us, even though we're part of the natural world, too. At least I think so.

Yes higher intelligence, something that we see rudimenary examples of in other animals but we today seem to be the pinnacle. If all those other high up homonids weren't wiped out this argument would probably be moot.

 

[popsadie2]

faith can never win in the real world....this sounds loaded...would you care to explain what you mean by this comment?

 

[A_Wanderer]

If an occurance is due purely to natural cause then it can be unraveled and explained in a manner congruent with the rest of reality. If we introduce the concept of the supernatural then it ceases to be explainable in a uniform manner and in a sense becomes unknowable. So in the real world where magic doesn't exist faith is a very bad means of explanation.

 

[Irvine511]

OK, then. If that's the case, what's allowed it to do so? How does everything have the ability to do so? Again, to me it seems like a bigger leap of faith to just accept this.

why does there have to be an explanation/purpose that makes sense to us?

i think it's snappy to say that disbelief in God is as much a leap in faith as belief in God, but that's a bit incomplete to me when we're discussing science, and it's a very human-centric way of looking at things, i.e., there must be an order and logic to begin with.

 

[A_Wanderer]

In many ways I think that it is because in the absence of faith they think that science must fill that void for emotional fufilment; which as a philosophy or system of investigation it doesn't and cannot deliver.

It seems that so much faith rests on the fear of death; that we will cease to think and exist. But as hard a truth as our inexistence is it is no worse than the world before we were born and to just wish it away with so much flotsam in life seems rather wrongheaded.

Do you have to dwell on the implications of mortality when paradise is promised through faith?

 

[Liesje]

If an occurance is due purely to natural cause then it can be unraveled and explained in a manner congruent with the rest of reality. If we introduce the concept of the supernatural then it ceases to be explainable in a uniform manner and in a sense becomes unknowable. So in the real world where magic doesn't exist faith is a very bad means of explanation.

But faith would never WANT to explain a natural occurrence, so how does that even matter? IMO, people who use faith to attempt to explain scientific phenomena are pretty nutty and using their faith as a front for their own nuttiness. So set aside the assumption that "faith" and "crazy Fundies" go hand-in-hand because that's a pretty limited scope of what faith is and what purpose it serves. Faith doesn't "win" or "lose" like scientific theory is either factual or false. Faith is just faith.

 

[Liesje]

Do you have to dwell on the implications of mortality when paradise is promised through faith?

IMO, the concepts of paradise, immortality, faith vs. works = heaven, etc are more specific theological distinctions and aren't exactly relevant for this type of debate. You can have a faith in something larger than yourself that has nothing to do with the Christian concept of Heaven.

 

[anitram]

I'm only speaking for myself, but I think none of what's said on this thread except maybe Liesje's posts really correlate with me as a person of faith. I'm not religious per se, not interested in sitting in a Church on a Sunday (or any other day), and don't miss mass/services in the slightest. That said I firmly believe there is something greater than us out there, and I have no proof for it nor do I think about it. It is just a feeling I have, I don't sit there and ponder it or try to rationalize it or legitimize it. What for? It is what it is: something inside me that feels this way, and I don't give it more thought than this.

Maybe other people of faith sit there and think about the magnificence of God's creation - I really don't.

 

[trevster2k]

http://atheistdelusion.cf.huffingtonpost.com/

Scientist freaks!!

 

[yolland]

I'm not religious per se, not interested in sitting in a Church on a Sunday (or any other day), and don't miss mass/services in the slightest. That said I firmly believe there is something greater than us out there, and I have no proof for it nor do I think about it. It is just a feeling I have, I don't sit there and ponder it or try to rationalize it or legitimize it. What for? It is what it is: something inside me that feels this way, and I don't give it more thought than this.

Despite the fact that I do practice a particular religion and love studying its theology, what you said pretty much sums up how I feel about it as well. I'm not interested in proofs or absolute revealed truths or trying to convince anyone else, never have been.

 

[maycocksean]

I'm convinced that we as humans turn to faith (or away from faith for that matter) when whatever we've got isn't "working" for us anymore--whether it's an atheistic worldview or allegience to a particular theology--When it stops "working" emotionally, mentally, we look for something else. And as long as whatever we believe (or don't believe in) seems to work for us, we've little interest in changing.

That seems to be Collin's story.

As a Christian, I really don't see atheism as that "problematic". If someone just doesn't "get" faith, they don't get it. As someone who believes in a God that exists outside of our belief in Him or not, I imagine God understands that. Of far more concern are those who jack up the world in His name.

 

[A_Wanderer]

http://atheistdelusion.cf.huffingtonpost.com/

Scientist freaks!!

Can't argue with that, im stumped

 

[A_Wanderer]

IMO, the concepts of paradise, immortality, faith vs. works = heaven, etc are more specific theological distinctions and aren't exactly relevant for this type of debate. You can have a faith in something larger than yourself that has nothing to do with the Christian concept of Heaven.

And the concept of an immortal soul or spirit goes far beyond Christianity, ritualised burial of the dead to prepare them for an afterlife has happened in lots of different cultures.

 

[yolland]

I think her point was more that there isn't an automatic connection between the two; you can believe in a God, or 'something greater than us' as anitram put it, while being agnostic on the question of an afterlife and quite disinterested in it.

 

[A_Wanderer]

But by the same token is most peoples faith built on such existential feelings; or the religious institutions to begin with? Death is a far more universal condition than reflecting on the order of the universe.

 

[Liesje]

I'm a Christian and I "believe in science" insofar as I don't recall ever refusing to accept scientific theory because my faith got in the way or something. I don't dwell on death or afterlife, regardless of what other cultures do or assume Christians do. The Christian creation narrative in Genesis speaks of death as a completely natural, cyclical process. As a Christian, I simply believe that I am better off in life following the example of Jesus Christ, who showed compassion to ALL people. Jesus did not dwell on death or the afterlife; he taught people how to behave towards each other while living. I'm not sure why you're thinking death and faith in general are so inextricably linked that they have to decide how someone feels about one or the other. If I wasn't a Christian, I'd probably feel the same about death - it's a natural, cyclical process. What I think or believe about any sort of afterlife is not informed or refuted by any scientific claim, so it doesn't really matter.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Your theology informs your life choices in society, but I still think that faith is a reasonable escape from either uncertainty or certain inexistence; I think that belivers that have so much trouble with atheism in general believe that without such hope nihilism and moral decay are the only outcomes.

As far as science goes it is a philosophy of investigation that should make an observer strive for objectivity, it is far removed from faith; which is at least in part emotional and subjective - problems don't arise from non-overlapping theology and reason but from theology that requires the material world to be twisted around it to be affirmed.

 

[Liesje]

Your theology informs your life choices in society, but I still think that faith is a reasonable escape from either uncertainty or certain inexistence; I think that belivers that have so much trouble with atheism in general believe that without such hope nihilism and moral decay are the only outcomes.

As far as science goes it is a philosophy of investigation that should make an observer strive for objectivity, it is far removed from faith; which is at least in part emotional and subjective - problems don't arise from non-overlapping theology and reason but from theology that requires the material world to be twisted around it to be affirmed.

I don't disagree with either statement. As for the first one, that is NOT at all how I feel and I can't stand people that do think that way, but I'm aware of just how many people are like that.

You've continued to bring up very specific problems that can arise when reconciling faith and science, but it doesn't mean one can't have faith in something AND be objective and support science. I mean, you can take any sort of debate and come up with specific circumstances where some people will make unreasonable conclusions for whatever reason. I prefer to look at it more generally. In general, I don't see why it's so hard for people to have a faith and believe in science. I don't think it's fair to say that if people are subjective in one area of their life, they're doomed to be entirely subjective towards everything else. I'm known for being a very objective, rational, practical, and analytical person and one reason why I value my personal faith so much is that it is one area of my life that allows me to challenge myself to be more subjective. Reality is very subjective, let's face it.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Human comprehension of reality is subjective; reality itself not so much.

 

[LJT]

Human comprehension of reality tends to inform what reality is...reality for the majority of the human populace is how they live their lives and interact with other people, not how particles may interact, or how the universe may be slowly expanding etc

Reality does tend to be very subjective, because how we interact with it, influences how real it is to us.

This just gets messy

 

[LJT]

ahh just to clear up what I was saying....reality to most people isn't the science and hard facts...its a jumble of emotions and feelings that people deal with

 

[A_Wanderer]

Well they damn well should learn to cut away human connection and become for all intensive purposes a machine. I know that I can't trust my perceptions to give me an accurate picture of reality, but that isn't to say that makes reality an inherently subjective concept.

 

[popsadie]

"Well they damn well should learn to cut away human connection and become for all intensive purposes a machine. I know that I can't trust my perceptions to give me an accurate picture of reality, but that isn't to say that makes reality an inherently subjective concept" .wanderer...that is a ridiculous thing to say. Emotion is as important of a factor of human definition as so called 'objective logic' is. 'Love' is not objective and I know for sure that it is one thing I wouldn't want to live without.

 

[Liesje]

I agree, popsadie and LJT. I'm not sure how one can assume that reality even exists without ANY human perception. Do we not use our own senses to make assumptions about reality vs. perceived reality to being with? Yes, everything exists and functions tangibly at some level, regardless of how it is perceived, but so what?


It reminds me of the age-old debate - does a tree fall in a forest if no one hears it?

 

[LJT]

Well they damn well should learn to cut away human connection and become for all intensive purposes a machine. I know that I can't trust my perceptions to give me an accurate picture of reality, but that isn't to say that makes reality an inherently subjective concept.

Ain't never going to happen and shouldn't...that's just a dystopia waiting to happen. No offence is meant Wanderer but sometimes from your posts, you seem to have a too academic view of life, while your knowledge and general scientific approach to things I find extremely commendable, you do tend to take it to extremes.

 

[INDY500]

So much reason in the universe...but no reason for the universe?

 

[Vincent Vega]

You believe God is the reason for the universe, I believe that we just don't know why the universe exists, and what was before the big bang.

I don't believe in god, and if I get proven wrong, fine. If not, fine.