Today at the Forum: Thou shalt keep fighting

Monday, September 24, 2007

Thou shalt keep fighting

Should the Ten Commandments be displayed in the Rowan County Courthouse in eastern Kentucky? A federal judge ruled last week that the display doesn't violate the Constitution. The display is part of a "Foundations of American Law and Government" exhibit in the courthouse. In 2001, the American Civil Liberties Union sued, claiming the display was unconstitutional.

The display also includes the Mayflower compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta. Thus, U.S. District Court Judge Karl Forester said the display isn't endorsing a particular religion. The ACLU says the display is just a device to get the Ten Commandments in front of the public. Maybe so, but theTen Commandments are a legitimate part of what influenced the legal system we know (and sometimes respect) today.

But I'm bored and annoyed by these endless battles. How much time, energy and taxpayer money have been spent in these fights throughout Kentucky between social conservatives and the ACLU?

In that spirit, I looked up a few facts about Rowan County. Despite the presence of Morehead State University, you wouldn't define Rowan County as economically prosperous. Its population of about 22,000 is stagnant. Median household income is more than $13,000 under the national average. Its per capita income of $13,889 lags Kentucky and national averages significantly. Educational attainment is below average. More than 21 percent of residents live below the poverty line.

So, maybe there should be a new commandment for public officials and the ACLU: Thou shalt pick important battles. Arguing about Biblical references in the local courthouse doesn't make my list.

35 Comments:

at 8:36 PM, September 24, 2007

Anonymous said...

Amen. I've never understood why these holy-rollers need to see the Ten Commandments everywhere they go.

Look, if you can't seem to remember all ten of them, maybe you could get a Ten Commandments keychain or something. That way you can remind yourself of them anytime you need to.

at 8:51 AM, September 25, 2007

JohnDWoodSr said...

Dennis, the Ten Commandments do not influence the legal system except in the most incidental way. Our system is based on English Common Law and the Magna Carta. That is a purely secular document which, for the first time, recognized individual rights and provided citizens protection from the government. The Ten Commandments codify moral rules of behavior, and the two are not related. This becomes clear when you consider that of all the Commandments, only two carry legal penalties when broken (stealing and killing--and even those are iffy). Blurring this distinction, as you have so carelessly done, lends credence to the mis-perception that we are a "Christian nation". Other groups of law-abiding citizens, large and small, do not accept the Ten Commandments as the moral guide in their religious beliefs, and the Commandments cannot be granted a status which grants them authority over any other. Our country is not set up that way. The "establishment clause" makes clear that no religion can be legally favored, no matter how many happen to follow it. Including the symbol of Christian moral law in a courthouse (or school) display, regardless of the stated rationale, is a subterfuge to unconstitutionally promote the authority of one religion. The ACLU is not taxpayer funded, and while they can seem to be a pain in the butt, is right to sue, and they are consistent in their efforts. If the Wiccans, for example, argued for the display of a pentacle, the ACLU would sue them, too, and for the same reasons. This has never happened. As far as I know, it's only the Christian extremists (social conservatives??) who use this tactic to promote their brand of Christianity. I would suggest that if you are tired and annoyed by the constant legal battles, your barbs would be better aimed at those groups which repeatedly attack the Constitution, not those which work to protect my liberties. And yours.

at 9:22 AM, September 25, 2007

Anonymous said...

The ACLU activists are not fools and never pick frivolous battles. Critical future legal judgments are created, based on the accumulation of past bodies of works. When activist judges can't cite a passage in the constitution to support their law-writing-rulings, they often cite seemingly unrelated earlier meaningless court rulings and passages as precedence for their current judicial activism. This has been the trend for 50+ years.

Don't be naive. ACLU persistence has an agenda and has proven to be successful.

at 10:23 AM, September 25, 2007

Anonymous said...

the right wing extremists and neocons are relentless in their battle to turn america into amerika. they have proven that by aligning themselves with the social conservatives that they can build a base of sheeple who will vote against their own best interests. their fight to pave the earth with displays of the ten commandments is disingenous and simply a tactic to stir up the base. thank god (the rational kind, not the fundamentalist kind) we have the aclu to slow these nuts down.

at 2:07 AM, September 26, 2007

Anonymous said...

Hey 10:23 lefty. Like it or not in liberal shangra-la worker's paradise, we live in a time when those who hate America and liberty and freedom of religion, assembly, press, right to bear arms, and all the other features that make our nation a destinanation of hope seek to DESTROY it, or at least sell it the rope to hang itself.
Best part of living in this land is that "neocons" and "progessive libs" usually grind out a synthesis that moderates the extremist venom with reasonable values and tolerance.

at 2:31 PM, September 26, 2007

Anonymous said...

i give, how does not wanting a religion shoved down my throat translate into i hate america?

freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

at 11:56 AM, September 27, 2007

Anonymous said...

Thank you for acknowledging that you have a choice to not participate in religion. But your logic fails when you believe this same freedom is a right by you to prevent the rest from practicing their chosen religion in a civil public manner. This is the big distinction you atheists ignore.

at 12:54 AM, September 28, 2007

Anonymous said...

Hey 2:31 anon :"Freedom of" and "Freedom from" are NOT the same. They are the philosphical train wreck that fuels these discussions. "Freedom of" is an active means of exercising choice.
"Freedom from" is a limiting, passive means of regulating "freedom of". You may not like my exercise of freedom of speech, religion, press, public assembly, or petition of redress against the govt. You cannot limit my freedom just because you don't happen to like or agree. The principle of tolerance applies as well.
Nice logical fallacy with your question "how does not wanting a religion shoved down my throat translate into i hate america?"
in response to my thought that "we live in a time when those who hate America and liberty and freedom of religion, assembly, press, right to bear arms, and all the other features that make our nation a destination of hope seek to DESTROY it, or at least sell it the rope to hang itself." I was specifically referring to terrorists and Fascists, Communists, and other groups opposed to 1st Amendment and Constitution, I would hope you are not a member of those groups...those who oppose freedom tend to hate America.
Nowhere did I imply that not wanting religion means that one hates America. One's religion has nothing to do with one's love (or hate) of country in America.

at 9:37 AM, September 28, 2007

Anonymous said...

Don't assume that just because you aren't associated with an organized religion means you are an atheist. Religion does not equal God. God did not create religion, man did. I believe in "a god" but "he" is not associated with any religion because the god I know would not pick and choose his favorites among his people according to their religion. He would be fair and impartial to all despite their beliefs.

at 12:38 PM, September 28, 2007

Anonymous said...

You may not like my exercise of freedom of speech, religion, press, public assembly, or petition of redress against the govt. You cannot limit my freedom just because you don't happen to like or agree. The principle of tolerance applies as well.

true to a limited extent. but when you insist on posting your superstitions on common ground and insisting that meetings can't start until we thank your concept of a diety or that i can't do something because your god wouldn't approve you overstep your bounds. you can believe whatever silly stuff you want to, just keep it to yourself.

at 12:34 AM, September 29, 2007

Anonymous said...

hey 12:38, pretty smug and reactionary of you to attack those who believe in a higher power. How intolerant and insensitive to belittle those who would appeal to a higher power or deity, given the horrors perpetrated by mankind over the centuries.

You can choose to believe / not believe, have faith, not have faith, or whatever rational concoction you come up with.
Just don't tell me what not to believe, based on your opinions !
"I said so" may work if you are the Clermont County prosecutor: the rest of us need evidence, logic, and scholarly analysis.

How do you answer these questions: 1.How did the structure or generation of DNA occur?
2.How do you explain the 2nd law of thermodynamics ?

If the cosmos is "everything that ever was or is or ever will be," as Dr. Carl Sagan was so fond of saying, nothing could be added to it to improve its order or repair it. Even a universe that expands and collapses and expands again forever would die because it would lose light and heat each time it expanded and rebounded.The atheist's assertion that matter/energy is eternal is scientifically wrong.

I present to you Thomas Aquinas' words for you to ponder

God is simple, without composition of parts, such as body and soul, or matter and form.
God is perfect, lacking nothing. That is, God is distinguished from other beings on account of God's complete actuality.
God is infinite. That is, God is not finite in the ways that created beings are physically, intellectually, and emotionally limited. This infinity is to be distinguished from infinity of size and infinity of number.
God is immutable, incapable of change on the levels of God's essence and character.
God is one, without diversification within God's self. The unity of God is such that God's essence is the same as God's existence. In Aquinas's words, "in itself the proposition 'God exists' is necessarily true, for in it subject and predicate are the same."

at 4:19 PM, September 30, 2007

Anonymous said...

"God" is, nonsense.

Religion has no place in a rational society and mental defectives who believe in the tooth-fairy or whatever have no business in government nor presiding over civil or criminal proceedings.

We need people of reason and intellect, not superstition deciding such matters.

It's a pity that the ACLU still has to fight these battles in this day and age.

at 5:46 AM, October 01, 2007

Anonymous said...

Such hatred from all sides. Put the declarations of all religions on public display to include those who do not beleive in a power higher than themselves.
Historically the Ten Commandments are part of the founding of this country and should for no other reason, be displayed.
Historic veiw, not religious.

at 11:29 AM, October 01, 2007

Anonymous said...

Historically the Ten Commandments are part of the founding of this country.

phooey. that is nothing more than a right wing fundamentalist myth.

at 2:47 PM, October 01, 2007

Anonymous said...

Thank God for John D Wood Sr. for the reminder that the founders formed a civil society of god fearing men.

Will our current culture war, the legacy of the 1960s, never end?! Although it bifurcated our society, it was a necessary correction and a time of expansion, exploration, and yes, unfortunately, the introduction of some very unhealthy things into our society which must now be weeded out (drugs, for example).

But, I sure wish I wasn't living through the backlash....

at 1:58 AM, October 02, 2007

Anonymous said...

Hey 4:19 anon.
How do you account for the second law of thermodynamics ?

How did the structure/composition of DNA occur ?

(hint: it wasn't the tooth fairy !)

George Wald, a prominent Evolutionist (a Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate), wrote, "When it comes to the Origin of Life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous Generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!"

Should I believe that you are somehow intellectually superior just because you because you say so ?

Associating "reason" and "intellect" with atheism is as relevant as associating light with blindness, sound with deafness, or evidence with opinion.

A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.
C.S. Lewis

Men occasionally stumble over the truth,
but most of them pick themselves up
and hurry off as if nothing had happened.
Winston Churchill

The loneliest moment in life is when you have just experienced that which you thought would deliver the ultimate, and it has just let you down.
Ravi Zacharias

I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use.
Galileo

The atheist can't find God for the same reason that a thief can't find a policeman.
Author Unknown

at 6:40 AM, October 02, 2007

Anonymous said...

LOL! Drugs have been with us for at least a millenium! The 60's didn't bring us opium dens, only acid, which, of course, isn't exactly a pressing problem for society.

Religious mental defectives and fascists love drug laws. Of course, drug laws cost society much, much more than even totally unrestricted drugs might.

More to the point, such laws show just how philosophically and morally bankrupt conservatives and liberals alike are. Relying upon childish religious "rules" like the 10 commandments is part of the problem.

Reason and rational morality are such rare things, alas.

at 9:27 AM, October 02, 2007

Anonymous said...

1:58 blathered:
"Hey 4:19 anon.
How do you account for the second law of thermodynamics ?"

Why would I need to account for it" It's a "law" based upon scientific theory and observation of the facts of reality. Duh!

"How did the structure/composition of DNA occur ?"

Which DNA? I believe that the current thinking is that DNA was derived from RNA through some variety of exposure to radiation. I fail to see the relevance, however. Certainly whatever the current theory on the origins of DNA, it provides no excuse to be irrational and make up "supreme being" fantasies.

"(hint: it wasn't the tooth fairy !)"

I'll buy that! There is no such thing as the tooth fairy, nor is there such thing as God.

"Should I believe that you are somehow intellectually superior just because you because you say so ?"

Well, the fact that you believe that a fantasy is reality is prima facia evidence of your intellectual inferiority. That I do not is evidence of my superiority.

"Associating "reason" and "intellect" with atheism is as relevant as associating light with blindness, sound with deafness, or evidence with opinion."

If one is fully rational, one does not believe in irrational fantasies, like God. Such fantasies and the irrationality that they support have been an unmitigated disaster for mankind.

Once you relinquish reason, you can justify doing ANY horror. It's not rational atheists blowing up children in the middle east. It's not rational atheists who have been blowing up innocents in Ireland. It's not rational atheists who enslaved black folk. It's not rational atheists who subjugated and murdered Jews for millenia. It's not rational atheists who cut off girls 'clitorises. It's not rational atheists who shoot doctors and nurses at reproductive clinics. Need I go on?

Religion is a disaster. An insult to mankind and the greatest threat to life on this planet.

at 12:15 PM, October 03, 2007

Anonymous said...

Hey atheist 9:27
Your reactionaary drivel makes my point. Using logical fallacy and straw dog arguments (It's not rational atheists who subjugated and murdered Jews for millenia. It's not rational atheists who cut off girls 'clitorises. It's not rational atheists who shoot doctors and nurses at reproductive clinics. Need I go on...) only proves your vitriolic hate for all things religion. Why the smarmy disgust ? Facts regarding the 2nd law of thermodynamics point to an expanding universe, yet science can only explain finite systems that have life cycles. Care to open your petty closed mind, or is it safer to lob the "duh" like an ignorant 6th grader ? Retake physics, you self righteous arse !
I'll stand beside Galileo, Thomas Aquinas, and the billions of others who acknowledge a supreme geing.

You and the "reasonable humanists" can count your days and be done.

at 12:40 PM, October 03, 2007

Anonymous said...

Amen, 9:27. Religions have been around for 1000's of years but have yet to solve the moral dilemmas of the world. Shoving it down our throats even further will still make it stuck in our throats. I don't need a list of rules to run my life. My commandments come from my own God-given common sense.

at 12:35 AM, October 04, 2007

Anonymous said...

at 8:58 AM, October 04, 2007

Anonymous said...

Common sense and a moral compass don't come from religion...they comes from within. It's society that corrupts. (Humans aren't born bad.) And I'm not an athiest. I believe in "God", just not a dictatorial, judgemental, religious one.

at 9:08 AM, October 04, 2007

Anonymous said...

Hey atheists; Your "common sense" was shaped by thousands of years of religious values. Don't let the corrupt perversions of the few destroy the positive contributions that Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, Taoists, and others have given to the advancement of civilization.

My common sense is sort of irrelevant. My rationality is shaped by the facts of reality and reason. Prior philosophers have nothing to do with that. They do have something to do with the existence of civilization, for better AND worse, but just as mindless beasts had a lot to do with our evolution, I see no reason to emulate the faults of the past.

Reason is what makes man kind great. Faith, which requires relinquishing reason abnegates everything that allows us to live AS mankind.

It's not religion, per se that's evil, it's the irrationality that leads to evil and there's no possible way to be religious and not be irrational (because you're believing in childish fantasy).

Now, I may sound harsh, but you religious sorts have been getting a free pass from your betters. You need to be called on the carpet from time to time to remind you that your silliness is deeply flawed, whatever good you may accidentally do. Certainly proper morality should (and need) have nothing to do with religion.

at 9:21 AM, October 04, 2007

Anonymous said...

only proves your vitriolic hate for all things religion. Why the smarmy disgust?

Just disgust for the destructive embrace of irrationality. You and your ilk, if you continue on said path, can justify doing ANYTHING in the name of your god. That's just the way it is and it disgusts me.

Facts regarding the 2nd law of thermodynamics point to an expanding universe, yet science can only explain finite systems that have life cycles.

LOL!

"The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."

What does this law say about an expanding universe? LOL! You kill me! It's only loosely related at best, which you would know if you'd ever really studied physics or had a grasp of the law.

Amazingly, you wildly assert that science can only address "finite systems that have life cycles". Where did you get that nonsense? Ken Ham? Science can address anything that exists or has left evidence of having once existed. That's what science does.

Care to open your petty closed mind, or is it safer to lob the "duh" like an ignorant 6th grader ? Retake physics, you self righteous arse !

Don't hate me because I'm smarter than you! LOL!

My mind is open. It thinks, unlike yours. I use reason consistently, unlike your ilk. Further, I'm intellectually honest, unlike your ilk. You spout utter nonsense obviously from ill educated religious zealots, and you expect to get away with it. I'm calling you on it. You don't know the first thing about astrophysics nor the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You probably think it somehow "refutes" the theory of evolution, too!

Man, we have GOT to improve educational standards in this country...

at 5:08 PM, October 04, 2007

Anonymous said...

Hey 9:21 arrogant smarmy excuse for an educated individual.
You blather
"Amazingly, you wildly assert that science can only address "finite systems that have life cycles". Where did you get that nonsense? Ken Ham? Science can address anything that exists or has left evidence of having once existed. That's what science does." Do you have any response for the concept of infinity ? How do you account for a scientific explanation of anything outside of your "rational" comprehensions ?
I'm assuming you are a professor of physics or at least a PhD in some discipline to have the gall to lecture anyone on the 2nd Law of thermal dynamics.
The implications of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics are considerable. The universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining. We logically conclude the universe is not eternal. The universe had a finite beginning -- the moment at which it was at "zero entropy" (its most ordered possible state). Like a wind-up clock, the universe is winding down, as if at one point it was fully wound up and has been winding down ever since. The question is who wound up the clock?

The theological implications are obvious. NASA Astronomer Robert Jastrow commented on these implications when he said, "Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence." (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 1978, p. 16.)

Jastrow went on to say, "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (God and the Astronomers, p. 116.) It seems the Cosmic Egg that was the birth of our universe logically requires a Cosmic Chicken... Implications of the Laws of Thermodynamics, much more than other concepts, have sparked fierce debate about the very origins of the universe. The Laws of Thermodynamics leave some popular scientific theories in serious doubt. The fact that matter can neither be created or destroyed, according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, raises questions about where all of the matter in the universe came from. Interestingly, there are those who shrug off disagreements between the Laws of Thermodynamics and certain popular scientific theories. While the fundamental laws of matter and energy, the Laws of Thermodynamics, are used to measure truth in every other discipline, some scientists ignore these laws as they pertain to their theories. Since the Laws of Thermodynamics define the rules of the natural universe, how do we explain things that those Laws say are not possible? If matter cannot be created, where did it come from? It is certainly here, and nothing natural can create it. This makes a supernatural source more than just a possible conclusion - it makes it the only conclusion that fits the Laws of Thermodynamics. If something exists when natural laws say that it cannot be created, then something or someone operating outside of those laws must be responsible. The Laws of Thermodynamics lead us not only to greater knowledge of the natural universe, but they point us toward answers outside of that universe as well.
Sorry to trouble your closed mind with a rational argument!
Sorry to insult 6th graders by insinuating that you are smarter than they !

And true apologies to anyone who feels that morality and philosophy are independent of anyone or anything that came before. Self -serving nihilism..yeah , that's the legacy for the future.

BTW, I am not "defending" religion, on the existence of a supreme being/force

at 5:13 PM, October 04, 2007

Anonymous said...

BTW,9:21, I studied astrophysics under Dimitar Sasselov.

Who is your source for your vast knowledge of astrophysics ?

at 12:53 PM, October 07, 2007

Anonymous said...

I went to one the finest universities in the nation.

I am NOT an astrophysicist. I am, however, your intellectual better, with a broad liberal arts education and vast professional experience within one field of science.

You're engaged in a bunch of hand waving. There is no scientific evidence for your silly, infantile fantasy of "God". Using the Second law of Thermodynamics is intellectually dishonest. Science deals with reality and the theoretical that is CONSISTENT with reality. NOT silly primitive fantasies.

Now, it might be improper to say that the CONCEPT of morality and philosophy didn't build upon prior knowledge, after all, ALL human understanding has some debt to the learning that came before, however, incomplete or silly.

But certainly, the best and brightest and most moral need not and SHOULD NOT draw upon the irrational musings of primitives. The facts of reality and reason are ample for us to properly exist as the moral creature of reason that man qua man is.

Any belief in god requires the abnegation of reason. That way leads to evil. Inevitably, because once you willfully turn away from reason, you can justify ANYTHING.

at 2:33 PM, October 07, 2007

Anonymous said...

I wrote:
"Amazingly, you wildly assert that science can only address "finite systems that have life cycles". Where did you get that nonsense? Ken Ham? Science can address anything that exists or has left evidence of having once existed. That's what science does."

Then Anon 5:08 wrote:

"Do you have any response for the concept of infinity?"

Uh, what does that have to do with your infantile and unsupported beliefs?

Do you have any evidence to support your silly assertions? You never did support your crazy assertion above. All it does is show you to be ignorant.

Then Anon 5:08 wrote:

"How do you account for a scientific explanation of anything outside of your "rational" comprehensions ?"

What, pay tell, is beyond my comprehensions? The easter bunny? The boogie man? Bigfoot? What?

Only reality exists. Trying to cherry pick some philosophical ramblings about the import and limitations of science at some high level is just handwaving. In fact, if I WERE among the "faithful" I'd be offended at your silly attempts to misuse and misrepresent science in order so (somehow) bolster your irrational and indefensible position.

at 2:02 AM, October 09, 2007

Anonymous said...

Wow, 12:53 and 2:53, shameless impudents, atheists who show themselves to be bitter fools as well as otiose boasters who claim what they do not have.
I listed my sources and my mentor: care to name yours, or are you so cloaked in intellectual dishonesty that you resort to name calling and logical fallacy because you CAN'T refute my reasons ?

The alternative to God existing is that all that exists around us came about by natural cause and random chance. If someone is rolling dice, the odds of rolling a pair of sixes is one thing. But the odds of spots appearing on blank dice is something else. What Pasteur attempted to prove centuries ago, science confirms, that life cannot arise from non-life. Where did human, animal, plant life come from?

Also, natural causes are an inadequate explanation for the amount of precise information contained in human DNA. A person who discounts God is left with the conclusion that all of this came about without cause, without design, and is merely good fortune. It is intellectually wanting to observe intricate design and attribute it to luck.

I was an atheist at one time. And like most atheists, the issue of people believing in God bothered me greatly. What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don't believe even exists?! What causes us to do that? When I was an atheist, I attributed my intentions as caring for those poor, delusional people...to help them realize their hope was completely ill-founded. To be honest, I also had another motive. As I challenged those who believed in God, I was deeply curious to see if they could convince me otherwise. Part of my quest was to become free from the question of God. If I could conclusively prove to believers that they were wrong, then the issue is off the table, and I would be free to go about my life.

I didn't realize that the reason the topic of God weighed so heavily on my mind, was because God was pressing the issue. I have come to find out that God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we would know him. He has surrounded us with evidence of himself and he keeps the question of his existence squarely before us. It was as if I couldn't escape thinking about the possibility of God. In fact, the day I chose to acknowledge God's existence, my prayer began with, "Ok, you win..." It might be that the underlying reason atheists are bothered by people believing in God is because God is actively pursuing them.

I am not the only one who has experienced this. Malcolm Muggeridge, socialist and philosophical author, wrote, "I had a notion that somehow, besides questing, I was being pursued." C.S. Lewis said he remembered, "...night after night, feeling whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all of England."

Chew on this...the idea of infinity has always been problematic since there is a distinction between a possible infinite and actual infinite. A figure can increase towards infinity but will never get there (since numbers are limited). We can therefore say this process is indefinite rather than infinite. Students of calculus will recognise this for the example of the function f(x) = 1/x. If one increases x indefinitely, one increases it without limit, and as x becomes very large, the function f(x) becomes very small. The graph of the function (a hyperbola) provides a straight line that is tangential to the curve at infinity, nevertheless,

this will never be actualised; it will never be the case. A line on a graph that tends towards infinity will edge closer to the axis (towards a possible infinite) but will never get to the axis let alone cross it (actual infinite). Even Aristotle argued against an actual infinite; a fact which the Arab philosopher Al-Kindi famously used against him in his refutation.

Georg Cantor, perhaps the greatest mathematician of the 19th Century, initiated the mathematics of the infinite (along with Weierstrass and Dedekind) known as transfinite arithmetic. Though the discipline aims to deal with the paradoxes of infinity ‘it offends common sense at every point’ (Monk, 1997). Even if we acknowledge that real numbers are greater than natural numbers (because natural numbers are a sub-set of the reals) and that there is no such thing as the next point in a continuous series of points can there really be ‘higher infinities’?

While Cantor argued for higher infinity he denied actual infinity and his work on set theory is fundamentally problematic for supporters of actual infinity. Set theory can be understood utilising the examples of axes. All things that can be used to attack others can be placed in a collection or set called ‘weapons’. The set called ‘weapons’ has subsets such as swords, guns and axes.

To a set theorist the sentence ‘all axes are weapons’ is really saying ‘the set of axes is a subset of weapons’. In other words ‘every member of the first set (axes) is a member of the second (weapons)’. A dilemma arises when we discover that Cantor proved that for any set, another set with more members (the original set’s power set – consisting of all its subsets) is constructible. If a set has n members then there will be at least 2n subsets of it and 2n is always greater than n.

This leads us to the Cantor Paradox that states that a set of all sets cannot exist since each attempt at a total set would immediately produce a larger one. Thus there is no greatest set (cf. Zuckerman, 1974) and no infinity.

Even David Hilbert, perhaps the greatest mathematician of the 20th Century, has similarly argued against actual infinity:

“…the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea”. (Hilbert, 1964, p. 139)

However despite these concerns let us examine the claim in the best traditions of debate and discourse. If the universe has always existed then the claim is that there has been an unlimited, infinite length of time before now; this known as regressus ad infinitum or infinite regression, which means continual subtraction by one. It is helpful in this instance to think of time as a chain of events. Things happen in sequential order, one moment after another so an infinite length of time can be equated with an endless chain of events. The claim that the universe has always existed is a claim that the universe has always existed up this moment. This means an eternity has passed up to this moment. This means we are currently at the end of an endless chain of events. This is impossible.

If an endless chain of events had to occur before this point we would never exist since an endless chain could never finish. I would not be writing these words and you would not be reading them now. This is so because the event in the unlimited chain of events immediately preceding our current actions (indeed our very existence) would depend upon the one before it and the one before it but this chain would never get to this moment as it is eternal and endless.

Since we do exist, I am writing this chapter and you are reading this chapter the contradiction of the claim of infinite regression should now be apparent.

This can be thought of like reserving a book from the university library that is in heavy demand (for the sake of argument let us agree this is the only copy available). If there were four people in the queue before you for the book then you would have to wait for the four to finish before using it for your assignment. Similarly if there were four thousand people in the queue before you for the book then you would have to wait for the four thousand to finish before using it. If an unlimited, infinite (i.e. endless) number of reservations stood between you and the book you would never receive it as an endless number sequence would never end.

The same example is often illustrated by reference to a sniper requiring an instruction from his superior in his chain of command to open fire. Of course his superior has to wait till his own superior directs him and so on up the chain. If the chain of command were only ten minutes long the sniper would have to wait ten minutes for the command to fire. If it were one hundred years long the sniper would take one hundred years for the command to fire. If the chain were unlimited, it would be infinite, endless and the sniper would never receive the order to fire. It is not possible for an event to exist at the end of an endless chain of event thus we cannot exist at the end of infinity. The universe has not always existed.

Many thinkers and philosophers from John Philoponus to Al-Ash‘ari to Al-Ghazali to Kant proposed similar arguments. Aquinas partially assimilated the work of Averroes (Ibn Rushd) - who believed in the eternity of the universe - to offer his own variant refutation known as the ‘traversal of the infinite’. Unlimited time before now means an infinite series of events has been completed. This means an endless journey across infinity has ended (infinity has been travelled across/traversed). Traversal requires both a beginning and end like any other journey but any start point we can think of for our journey is only a finite amount of time ago. Thus infinity cannot have been traversed since that is the whole point of infinity. It therefore cannot be true that the universe has always existed.

We must also be aware that saying the universe has always existed leaves one open to contradiction. If one said it then repeated a year later this implies infinity has just increased by a year. This contradicts the work of Ibn Hazm on the temporality of the universe when he stated that infinity cannot increase (reductio ad absurdum, third proof). This would mean the time elapsed from the beginning of time to the Norman Conquest of 1066 is also the same as the time elapsed from the beginning of time to the Fall of Saigon (Vietnam War) in 1975 and so on until today.

Others have questioned whether we could exist within an infinite chain of events, which is tantamount to proposing there is an infinite sum of finite events. Let us suppose we are exactly half way within the infinite chain of events. Infinity would have then been halved. If we were to picture the same with matchsticks then we select the median matchstick (the one exactly in the middle) of an infinite number of matchsticks. The infinite number of matchsticks is halved. Both halves add up to infinity but are infinite themselves. In fact any fraction of the infinite sum of matchsticks would equal infinity. This then produces apparent contradictions that the part is equal to the whole and that there could loads of infinities.

Now let us remove three matchsticks from the infinite sum. We have established that any fraction of the infinite sum is equal to infinity but we can be sure that three matchsticks do not add up to infinity. Thus something cannot be infinite and finite at the same time, because of this and many other contradictions it is absolutely clear that the sum of finite events must be finite. We can thus conclude that we could not exist within an infinite chain of events.

Also after removing three matchsticks would both halves still add up to infinity or have we actually reduced the number of matchsticks? If one were to argue that removing three matchsticks would not reduce the amount from infinity then this is tantamount to arguing we have an infinite number of matchsticks no matter how many are removed. Now let us propose that we remove all the matchsticks. Do we still have an infinite number or just no matchsticks? Remember infinity cannot be reduced. We must point out here that whether we remove three or all we are still reducing the amount of matchsticks and this contradicts infinity since infinity cannot be reduced.

The second answer i.e. that limited things bought other limited things into existence if true would mean there was no need for a Creator but it contradicts reality. Could a limited thing bring itself into existence without need of something else? Could it survive and subsist without dependency on other things? Could a limited thing have always existed? Could a limited thing bring other things into existence from nothing?

These notions flatly contradict the previous information we possess on limited, dependent things. The previous information we have is that limited things do not and cannot bring themselves other things into existence and that there is always some dependency. This is part of the definition of a limited thing.

Arguing that the original limited object could have always existed (without a cause) means it is not limited, rather it is unlimited. This is the same as the first assertion that there was no start point and the universe has always existed. In effect it is another claim for an unlimited chain of events before this point and we have already refuted this.

The third answer was that all limited things depend upon each other in an unlimited cyclical chain of mutual dependencies. The proposal is that all limited things manage their dependencies in a flawless system whereby each limited thing supports another in some intricate web. Therefore the claim is there is no need for a Creator, as this web would mean no requirement for a beginning or a cause. While is suggests that all limited things would continue to exist forever due to the support each limited thing receives from others this clearly is not the case as things die out, fade and deteriorate constantly. Instead it is often illustrated with other examples such as when humans are buried where they become fertiliser for the trees and plants so they can themselves eat the plants before being buried. The most famous example is the water cycle where for water to exist it depends upon rain and for rain to exist it depends upon clouds and clouds depend upon evaporation of water.

The flaw here is that nothing in the cycle can exist until something initiates the cycle. We know A depends upon B and B depends upon A, this is a form of mutual dependence. So for A to exist B needs to exist but B doesn’t exist until A exists, therefore nothing would exist. This simple demonstration proves that things cannot depend upon other things in the form of a cycle i.e. mutual dependence without something external first initiating the cycle.

If it is agreed that these three options have been rebutted then we arrive at the fourth and final option, which was that limited things were bought into existence by an unlimited first cause (Creator). This cause has to be eternal, without bounds otherwise it would be limited and dependent. The Creator is something unlimited and independent that every other thing ultimately depends upon. For this independent force to exist then it must be other than limited, i.e. other than quantifiable and definable. Therefore this independent thing must be unlimited. This necessitates that this unlimited, independent force chose to create and was not forced to create. Choice signifies will and intelligence. As a result we come to the rational conclusion that a limitless, infinite, intelligent force created the universe.

This is the proof that there is a Creator.

This unlimited cause (Creator) can only be one. If there are two or more then none of these causes can be unlimited. If the causes can each be separated, isolated and counted then they cannot be unlimited. The cause can only be unlimited if it is one, alone without partner, all-powerful, without beginning or end.

We can conclude this section by adding that the greatest question can be answered conclusively without resorting to emotion or by stretching the scientific model into realms it cannot deal with. Belief does not have to be emotional. In fact if it is built on rational thought, then is inherently built upon the greatest faculty of humanity, the mind.

Why can we not sense the Creator?

From the rational method we know we can only think about reality. Our senses can only pick up on reality so the question is whether the Creator is a reality within the reach of our senses? This can be understood in another way. Can a limited being ever conceive of the unlimited?

Follow the words of Freeman Dyson - and smile !
“ Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but they look out at the same universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect.
Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious dogma or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance. The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations that treat science with respect, or the fact that the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions."

at 9:00 AM, October 09, 2007

Anonymous said...

First of all, Anon 2:02, even though it's a lot of cut and paste, that's a heluva post. I will offer a handful of thoughts. The first is that on it's face, the whole thing is reminiscent of religious philosophers arguing about angels and pin heads. It seems like you want to go to the edge of your capacity to understand and when your grasp fails, you claim that there must be a god because you no longer understand. The logical fallacy is that every day mankind reaches that point, and then makes the leap to the next level of understanding. No god required.

Further, if you speak to any credible theologian, you should find that scientific "proofs of God" are impossible and insulting to the faithful. Talk to a real scientist about such and they'll just laugh at you.

Now, to more cogent points. you wrote:

The alternative to God existing is that all that exists around us came about by natural cause and random chance.

This is a fallacy. One often trotted out by creationists. The facts of the natural world lead to many NON-random things. And, if one is looking at near infinite or at least practically infinite "iterations" "random chance" becomes virtual certainty. That's not super natural, it's just the law of very large numbers. Things aren't so random as you might think, from a scientific standpoint.

If someone is rolling dice, the odds of rolling a pair of sixes is one thing. But the odds of spots appearing on blank dice is something else.

Indeed it is. "Spots appearing" is supernatural. Men, as a function of billions of years of evolution and then 10's of thousands of years of cultural development chose, in a non-random fashion to PUT those spots there.

What Pasteur attempted to prove centuries ago, science confirms, that life cannot arise from non-life.

That is not consistent with the science of today. What somone did 100 years ago is sort of silly, given what we know now. In point of fact, we know that it is quite theoretically possible for life to arise from non-life. You can't quote credible, peer reviewed science that "proves" otherwise.

Where did human, animal, plant life come from?

A number of complex reactions that resulted in some varieties of RNA which managed to develop into primative DNA which then began evolving. No magical being required!

Also, natural causes are an inadequate explanation for the amount of precise information contained in human DNA.

That's absolutely incorrect. It's more than adequate. The theory of evolution is unchallenged and clearly showed that there are ample ways and ample time for massive amounts of precise information to be coded to DNA. You're no doubt pulling information from someone who's faith is so frail that he needs to misrepresent science in order to support it.

A person who discounts God is left with the conclusion that all of this came about without cause, without design, and is merely good fortune.

I can't speak for other atheists, but for myself. The natural world naturally builds toward LIFE. The cause is life and the environment, chance, and evolution, dictate design. It's not good fortune, especially for all the quadrillions of plants, critters and people who's DNA petered out. But, the fittest for the environment survived and here we are. It's not random, it's a direct function of our nature and the facts of reality.

It is intellectually wanting to observe intricate design and attribute it to luck.

It's intellectual dishonest and infantile to observe intricate design in the context of our vast understanding of evolution and yet attribute such to some magical being.

It's not an act of God that man exists. It's the product of billions upon billions of years of natural progression. Non-random progression. Chaotic? Certainly, but certainly not random. Each step builds upon the last. And not just billions upon billions of steps but billions upon billions of steppers.

Mankind is not a chance happenstance, but rather may be a near mathematical certainty. That's what the science and the facts of reality suggest.

Meanwhile, every day, I can live knowing that MY choices define how I interact with reality and that I'm responsible for making it better, not some magical being.

at 9:41 AM, October 09, 2007

Anonymous said...

(Yawn....)

If there's a hell, this is it.

Yes, indeedy, "Thou Shalt Keep Fighting".

at 2:17 PM, October 09, 2007

Anonymous said...

Hey, the atheists can live by a commandment or two as well. :D

Especially it it's fun. AND, if it's a healthy intellectual exercise. Note how this tread markedly differs from the Slaby witch hunt.

at 5:16 PM, October 09, 2007

Anonymous said...

logical fallacy is that evolution is unchallenged. Natural evidence suggests age of universe 13-15 billion years. What existed prior?
Universe not infinite ! Uncaused cause is argument for creator that science cannot address.

at 6:54 PM, October 09, 2007

Anonymous said...

anon 5:16

Do you know what a logical fallacy is? There is no credible science that challenges the theory of evolution. There is some that challenges minor aspects, which is good and all part of the game, but there is zero science that challenge the theory. None.

That we don't know what came before the start of the universe is no argument for the existence of God. You're saying that ignorance is a cause for faith. And, I might add the correllary is that you no longer have to learn if you abandon reason and believe in God. No doubt some one will tell you all you need to know. Trust them!

What makes God a better answer than Nothing? There's no difference. Since the former has no factual or logical support, why accept it? The latter is at least consistent with the facts as we know them.

at 3:18 AM, October 11, 2007

Anonymous said...

"Facts as we know them". That is the definition of logical fallacy.
Believe that you know what you don't, and can prove what you can't.

Seeking the truth is an ongoing concern , both of the scientist and the philosopher.

"No doubt some one will tell you all you need to know." Is this your idea of a logical argument against belief in God ?

Something cannot come from nothing.
Show me scientific proof to the contrary: you seem to view science as the "god' in this argument.

Previous Posts

Monday, September 24, 2007

Thou shalt keep fighting

35 Comments: