« Does the Holy Spirit Leave? (Video) | Main | Borrowed Capital »

June 28, 2011

Comments

Metamorphosis is an all or nothing event. It seems that is likely the case. It may not be, but given what we know it is “more probable” that it is. However, if this is offered as a Gap in Knowledge in which Pure Naturalism is charged with an inability to account for what we find in the real world, then I do not believe the Pure Naturalist will be moved. For, you see, Gaps in Ability-To-Explain are, as with all Faiths, simply a sort of We-do-not-know-YET.


Pure Naturalism (Atheism) is void of the ability to explain a litany of things we find in the real world.

Dark Matter.
The Origin of Everything.
Spontaneous Biogenesis (actual; not clumps of dead, non reproducing amino acids).
A non-infinite or non-eternal universe in the face of the hard fist of Entropy -- given the failure of an “expanding and contracting” universe to account for such.


And, Biology and Physics are only the beginning. All the “stuff” that makes us Human are, within the closed system of Atheism, Nonsense, ultimately. All things start, and end, in the Blind, the Indifferent. Love that is of the Eternally-Sacrificed-Self sort, wherein Christ tells us that the Self who Dies is King, is juxtaposed to Naturalism’s Love which is at bottom a tool in the moment to foster the perpetuation of the Self; the Self who survives is King. Justice. Veracity. Moral Guilt. Moral Ought. Mercy. The Ultimate Worth of a Life. All of these are, within Atheism, accounted for on the same playing field as an itch to scratch, or vomiting, or the urge to eat, or rape. “Psychic Phosphorescence” as CS Lewis calls it.


The Atheist will tell us what the Christian (or other I.D. folks….. “ID” for intelligent design etc.) will tell us: we can’t explain it YET. The Atheist ought to be asked, “What CANT Naturalism explain” and he will answer as the ID crowd answers, “All things …..eventually.” And, also, “Why does he believe in Naturalism’s god of Atheism in-spite of such colossal Gaps?”


The butterfly does not matter because evidence does not matter in the sense that if the evidence points in the wrong direction, it is simply because we have not unearthed, YET, a full enough data set to get the “real” answer. The Atheist will believe even though his view cannot account for all that we see. And, the Atheist will believe even if the evidence points away from him.

And, like all of us, he will say that his Gaps fall into the category of things we do not know “YET” and therefore Gaps will not be seen as a reason for him to disbelieve is overall view. In his next breath he will charge the I.D. crowd with, first, Gaps, and, secondly, Gaps that ought to make the ID proponent disbelieve his view. We should not be surprised at this two-facedness, as such Intellectual Duplicity is not a Moral Fault inside of the amoral universe of the Atheist, in which the Toughest Survive. “Veracity” and “Dishonesty” all have the same Ultimate Origin, the same Ultimate Destiny, and thus the same Ultimate Worth inside of the Atheist’s reality, and thus his “hypocrisy” in this arena of Gaps is not out of synch with his worldview.


Why does the Naturalist believe in the face of such incredibly large Gaps? We must add; these are not small Gaps. They are on topics which by default utterly negate Naturalism’s view if they turn out to be other than what is “assumed”.


Is there ANY-thing the Pure Naturalist will refuse to attribute to his god of Atheism even though the Gaps cry against that god’s very existence? Of course not.


The reason he, and the ID crowd, will not do so is based in the “Why” and the “How” both of our Knowing and of our Believing. The Intellectual and the Existential BOTH weigh in here; but that is a discussion for another topic entirely.


I would urge the Atheist to dive into the simple statement of, "God is love" and follow it out to the Nth degree as, inside of that Ultimate Reality Is-Love nuance all things Human come to light. As CS Lewis says, something like, "Christ is like the sun, I do not see Him, but by Him I see all things."



Typo: "What CANT Naturalism explain” and he will answer as the ID crowd answers, “All things …..eventually.” should have read as..."It can answer all things...eventually". Etc...

@LHRM
good stuff! always appreciated, thank you

Ever notice how Creationists can pontificate forever about the divine hand in nature, but when you bring up dysteleology they go mute?

Dysteleolgy is used a few formats, some along the lines of no inherent design or purpose, and some along the lines of pain and suffering offered as a "proof" of no god and etc. I've read entire volumes on both.

"Mute" is simply, well, way, way off base when the ton-age of commentaries that exist are easy enough to find.

But, they are interesting uses.... I think about a million words on this blog alone have spoken on each....the Problem of Pain....the Intrinsic Void of Meaning within Atheism, and etc..... Good stuff....and difficult to avoid bumping into in today's word-smithing blogs and other media forms. I find it amazing you feel "mute" is accurate, given the ton-age of commentaries circulating, etc.

Difficulty explaining things is often given as a reason to disbelieve in one's world view. "Gaps". The Atheist nor the ID proponent will jeteson their own basic worldview simply b/c of "Gaps" which are not yet explainable, as per my first post here. If by "mute" you mean the unexplainable not being explained, I find far, far more within Atheism's attempt to make sense out of reality than with Theism's attempt. Coherence both Intellectually and Existentially, or rather the need for it, has driven me away from atheism.

And, worse, the Love I find within Atheism is not Love. It is something very different. Even Dark. And, yet, I know Love Is. Herein lies the bridge. Or one of the many bridges. At least the biggest bridge. For me at least.

Typo...... "I find far, far more within Atheism's attempt to make sense out of reality than with Theism's attempt" should have read I find far more Gaps within atheism's attempt....etc....

LoveHimselfRescuedMe,

I was referring to Koukl's inability to address the inverse of beauty in nature. Koukl loves science when in the context of awe-inspiring biological metamorphosis (which is exactly what evolution is, BTW). But when someone brings up flaws in nature (and I mean "flaws" in the metaphorical sense, just as science uses the word "creation" and "design" in the metaphorical sense), science takes a backseat as Koukl runs to his Bible for the explanation.

Matt yes, I know. The Problem of Pain, the Problem of Death, the Problem of Disease, the Problem of Natural Disasters, the Problem of some molecule we don't understand (...."Yet"....as the atheist and the ID proponent keep insisting....) etc. and on and on....

Volumes have been written.

Ugly, Dammaged, Broken, Evil, Sick, Twisted, Painful, Diseased, Out of Place, Ought Not Be, Should Have Been Otherwise.....and on and on....

Volumes have been written.

"mute" is simply inaccurate, given the ton-age of verbage here BOTH from the emperical and the theological. Biochemists and Physicists and PhD's and yada yada yada have weiged in from the ID side of things....


GAP's in what we currently understand. Holes, Gaps, as they are called. I refer you to my Gap-Attack comment in the above post which is copied here for your ease.....

I remind you that the list of World-View altering Gaps is much, much longer within the confines of Pure Naturalism...which can't account for the existence of anything because it can't account for the Origin of Everything. "Well, not YET!" as the Atheist will remind me.... "Yet...just give it time....just give it time...we'll get there...."

His Faith in the face of huge Gaps of Knowledge reminds me a lot of the Faith of the ID crowd.

Here's the post:


Gaps....... if this is offered as a Gap in Knowledge in which Pure Naturalism is charged with an inability to account for what we find in the real world, then I do not believe the Pure Naturalist will be moved. For, you see, Gaps in Ability-To-Explain are, as with all Faiths, simply a sort of We-do-not-know-YET.


Pure Naturalism (Atheism) is void of the ability to explain a litany of things we find in the real world.

Dark Matter.
The Origin of Everything.
Spontaneous Biogenesis (actual; not clumps of dead, non reproducing amino acids).
A non-infinite or non-eternal universe in the face of the hard fist of Entropy -- given the failure of an “expanding and contracting” universe to account for such.


And, Biology and Physics are only the beginning. All the “stuff” that makes us Human are, within the closed system of Atheism, Nonsense, ultimately. All things start, and end, in the Blind, the Indifferent. Love that is of the Eternally-Sacrificed-Self sort, wherein Christ tells us that the Self who Dies is King, is juxtaposed to Naturalism’s Love which is at bottom a tool in the moment to foster the perpetuation of the Self; the Self who survives is King. Justice. Veracity. Moral Guilt. Moral Ought. Mercy. The Ultimate Worth of a Life. All of these are, within Atheism, accounted for on the same playing field as an itch to scratch, or vomiting, or the urge to eat, or rape. “Psychic Phosphorescence” as CS Lewis calls it.


The Atheist will tell us what the Christian (or other I.D. folks….. “ID” for intelligent design etc.) will tell us: we can’t explain it YET. The Atheist ought to be asked, “What CANT Naturalism explain” and he will answer as the ID crowd answers, “Nothing; my world view will be able to answer all things …..eventually....” And, also, “Why does he believe in Naturalism’s god of Atheism in-spite of such colossal Gaps?”


The butterfly does not matter because evidence does not matter in the sense that if the evidence points in the wrong direction, it is simply because we have not unearthed, YET, a full enough data set to get the “real” answer. The Atheist will believe even though his view cannot account for all that we see. And, the Atheist will believe even if the evidence points away from him.

And, like all of us, he will say that his Gaps fall into the category of things we do not know “YET” and therefore Gaps will not be seen as a reason for him to disbelieve is overall view. In his next breath he will charge the I.D. crowd with, first, Gaps, and, secondly, Gaps that ought to make the ID proponent disbelieve his view. We should not be surprised at this two-facedness, as such Intellectual Duplicity is not a Moral Fault inside of the amoral universe of the Atheist, in which the Toughest Survive. “Veracity” and “Dishonesty” all have the same Ultimate Origin, the same Ultimate Destiny, and thus the same Ultimate Worth inside of the Atheist’s reality, and thus his “hypocrisy” in this arena of Gaps is not out of synch with his worldview.


Why does the Naturalist believe in the face of such incredibly large Gaps? We must add; these are not small Gaps. They are on topics which by default utterly negate Naturalism’s view if they turn out to be other than what is “assumed”.


Is there ANY-thing the Pure Naturalist will refuse to attribute to his god of Atheism even though the Gaps cry against that god’s very existence? Of course not.


The reason he, and the ID crowd, will not do so is based in the “Why” and the “How” both of our Knowing and of our Believing. The Intellectual and the Existential BOTH weigh in here; but that is a discussion for another topic entirely.


I would urge the Atheist to dive into the simple statement of, "God is love" and follow it out to the Nth degree as, inside of that Ultimate Reality Is-Love nuance all things Human come to light. As CS Lewis says, something like, "Christ is like the sun, I do not see Him, but by Him I see all things."

Matt hopefully the post I just put up addresses "silence" on "gaps" in that there is no silence on the whole; the "body" of "talk" is out there. Maybe you don't like Greg's side, but his is simply one part of a thousand, etc.

And, I would offer that IF you are an atheist (you may not be) then you believe in naturalism "despite" its long list of gaps which it cannot explain.

Real things. Big things. Important things.

But, you STILL know your overall world view is correct because there are "enough" dots connected to put your reason at ease, despite the long list of missing dots. You have, then, what can only be called faith: you believe in the abscence of evidence. This is NOT Faith in the Christian sense, though.

The very existence of the universe itself is a problem for pure naturalism; and when reality itself is something you can't explain, then clearly you have a belief which is grounded in something that can't explain even simply reality itself.

This is NOT "Faith" in the Christian sense, but it IS "Faith" as used in the common jargon sense.

Christ tells us to believe in Him, in Love Himself, b/c of Evidence and Actual Experience of/with Him. Faith is not "blind". Love offers Himself and we Taste, and, in tasting, we "Know".

The Atheist does not have "this Knowing" to "buttress" his Gaps against, thus, his faith IS blind, while the Christian's is not.

The inability to account for the Origin of Everything means you MUST press forward "knowing" that "one day" it will all be explained and make sense. That is the exact mindset of the ID crowd, but minus the buttress. It is "sheer" Gap, as it were, rather than Gap-And.

Pure Naturalism has huge gaps in its ability to explain crucial elements of Everything; and, yet, the Naturalist believes.

We say this is NOT Faith in the Christian sense, but it IS Faith in the common jargon sense b/c Faith in Christ is both Evidence based and Experiential; I know Him, I encounter Him and this is "Faith" in the Christian sense. Then, from there, I move over into the Physical Universe, and I trust Him (the One I know by Direct Evidence) to account for what I do not understand in the Physical Universe (what I do not yet know by direct evidence).

The Christian has Evidence of the Reality of an Explainer, as it were, or of the Primary, or of the Un-derived, and, then, indirect and incomplete evidence of the Derived universe, or of the Secondary.

The Atheist has only his list of Gaps, with no Evidence to account for Explaination-Soon-To-Come, as it were.

In this sense, the Christian is one step ahead of the Atheist, as, both have large Gaps in the Physical Universe "side of things" but the Christian has actual, concrete, evidence (via his actual encounter with Reality Himself) which accounts for WHY-Gaps-Are-In-The-Now, while the Atheist simply has Gaps and Gaps alone.

To believe in the abscence of evidence is not logical. It is "un" reasonable.

Large Gaps in ability to explain simple, core, fundamental things exist in both camps. The difference is that the Atheist refuses to admit this. He says he believe b/c of evidence, when, the very existence or the very nature of Gaps and what Gaps are proves there is not evidence in key, crucially important areas.

The Origin of Everything is pretty important wouldn't you say? An expanding and contracting universe has failed to account for an eternal universe in the face of the hard fist of Entropy. And, yet, despite the huge gap in what is a clear and fundamental violation of every law of physics we know, the naturalist continues to believe. "One day we'll understand" or "We don't know YET" or "We will discover NEW "laws" of Physics which either supercede or simply explain these "lower" laws of Physics" (like String Theory...still to be worked out...but they are hopeful). The Naturalist continues to assure us and to assure himself. Just like the ID crowd.

They have Faiths of two very, very different sorts.


I would urge the Atheist to dive into the simple statement of, "God is love" and follow it out to the Nth degree as, inside of that Ultimate Reality Is-Love nuance all things Human come to light. As CS Lewis says, something like, "Christ is like the sun, I do not see Him, but by Him I see all things."

The comments to this entry are closed.