Here are some questions I'd love to ask an atheist... not because I'm desperate to 'prove them wrong' but because some aspects of atheism just don't make sense to me.
1. The God-of-the-gaps argument works as follows: there is a gap in scientific knowledge, and that gap must therefore be evidence of the existence of God. But couldn't the argument be turned on its head? Couldn't atheism be described as follows: there is a gap in theological understanding, and that gap will probably be explained by science and is therefore evidence of atheism?
2. If the atheistic position on the origin of life is correct, does that make Occam's Razor a fallacy? (Because it seems that life being created by a 'supreme being' - or God - is a much simpler explanation than the complexities of evolutionary biology... and atheists seem to suggest that the notion of God was made up by people from a more intellectually simple society.)
3. Are atheists aware that due to the nature of God being spiritual and not physical, scientific arguments against His existence is a total fallacy? Arguing for or against God's existence is, by nature, spiritual and philosophical: not scientific.
4. Scientific accuracy seems to depend on whether or not the research is accepted by the scientific community. Given that the majority of the scientific community are atheists, could it not be the case that research which supports a creationist position or a deity will simply be rejected by the community despite being scientifically accurate?
5. Given the ridiculously small percentage of the universe which we understand (and accepting that we're talking about the known universe and that current scientific research is 100% correct), isn't there the chance that scientific research just isn't yet mature enough to give a verdict on the existence of God?
6. Just how does something come from nothing? Or, to use classical philosophy, what is the scientific first cause? (Note: turning this question on its head by asking Who created God? neither negates the question nor disproves the existence of a deity. It serves only as an avoidance technique; a distraction or a diversion. The Christian God is uncreated and exists outside of time. Although this might seem impossible, as hinted in question 1 above, God is not fully understood, which is why a lack of explanation is not evidence for non-existence.)
7. If the scientific method involves the processes of observation, hypothesis, evidence and conclusion, how can this possibly be applied to the origin of life on a planet, without observing or causing a planet to be created and life to begin? Surely this would imply that any supposed scientific theory regarding the origin of life is not scientific and is merely a theory? Especially considering data for such scientific experimentation has only been collected over the past few hundred years and has to be extrapolated backwards in order to invent such a theory.
8. If life has just happened to adapt to the environment of the planet Earth, why isn't there any evidence of life having evolved on other planets (and adapting to those conditions)?
9. Assuming, for a moment, that the evolutionary theory is true, are there any current scientifically observable cases of an evolutionary mutation which would serve to 'advance' the human race? Because, if these mutations are so minute that they are unobservable, wouldn't that give the theory the same credence (or less) than scientific evidence for God?
10. If there really are genetic mutations which advance the human race, doesn't this effectively create an elitist society, with democracy becoming the privilege of the 'advanced humans' and everyone else becoming 'evolutionary waste' and treated as irrelevant? (Richard Dawkins has already made a comment along those lines.)
Note: an answer to the effect of, Well, we just don't have enough information (or done enough research) at the moment to be able to fully answer that question, should only serve to show that science is only ever a working theory until more evidence turns up. Scientists should be very wary of prematurely calling a theory a fact, which is exactly what has happened regarding evolutionary biology and the origin of the universe.
1. The God-of-the-gaps argument works as follows: there is a gap in scientific knowledge, and that gap must therefore be evidence of the existence of God. But couldn't the argument be turned on its head? Couldn't atheism be described as follows: there is a gap in theological understanding, and that gap will probably be explained by science and is therefore evidence of atheism?
2. If the atheistic position on the origin of life is correct, does that make Occam's Razor a fallacy? (Because it seems that life being created by a 'supreme being' - or God - is a much simpler explanation than the complexities of evolutionary biology... and atheists seem to suggest that the notion of God was made up by people from a more intellectually simple society.)
3. Are atheists aware that due to the nature of God being spiritual and not physical, scientific arguments against His existence is a total fallacy? Arguing for or against God's existence is, by nature, spiritual and philosophical: not scientific.
4. Scientific accuracy seems to depend on whether or not the research is accepted by the scientific community. Given that the majority of the scientific community are atheists, could it not be the case that research which supports a creationist position or a deity will simply be rejected by the community despite being scientifically accurate?
5. Given the ridiculously small percentage of the universe which we understand (and accepting that we're talking about the known universe and that current scientific research is 100% correct), isn't there the chance that scientific research just isn't yet mature enough to give a verdict on the existence of God?
6. Just how does something come from nothing? Or, to use classical philosophy, what is the scientific first cause? (Note: turning this question on its head by asking Who created God? neither negates the question nor disproves the existence of a deity. It serves only as an avoidance technique; a distraction or a diversion. The Christian God is uncreated and exists outside of time. Although this might seem impossible, as hinted in question 1 above, God is not fully understood, which is why a lack of explanation is not evidence for non-existence.)
7. If the scientific method involves the processes of observation, hypothesis, evidence and conclusion, how can this possibly be applied to the origin of life on a planet, without observing or causing a planet to be created and life to begin? Surely this would imply that any supposed scientific theory regarding the origin of life is not scientific and is merely a theory? Especially considering data for such scientific experimentation has only been collected over the past few hundred years and has to be extrapolated backwards in order to invent such a theory.
8. If life has just happened to adapt to the environment of the planet Earth, why isn't there any evidence of life having evolved on other planets (and adapting to those conditions)?
9. Assuming, for a moment, that the evolutionary theory is true, are there any current scientifically observable cases of an evolutionary mutation which would serve to 'advance' the human race? Because, if these mutations are so minute that they are unobservable, wouldn't that give the theory the same credence (or less) than scientific evidence for God?
10. If there really are genetic mutations which advance the human race, doesn't this effectively create an elitist society, with democracy becoming the privilege of the 'advanced humans' and everyone else becoming 'evolutionary waste' and treated as irrelevant? (Richard Dawkins has already made a comment along those lines.)
Note: an answer to the effect of, Well, we just don't have enough information (or done enough research) at the moment to be able to fully answer that question, should only serve to show that science is only ever a working theory until more evidence turns up. Scientists should be very wary of prematurely calling a theory a fact, which is exactly what has happened regarding evolutionary biology and the origin of the universe.
No comments:
Post a Comment