Theism v Atheism Compared

I’ve heard people refer to the crusades, witch-burning, inquisition, Galileo, terrorism, abortionist murderers as reasons why religion is dangerous and without it there would be a lot less death and suffering in the world.

The facts and figures tell a different story, however.

Below are three pie charts comparing democide (this includes genocide, politicide, and mass murder, but not war-dead) with war-dead, atheist regime murder and the Black Plague. The first is Pre 20th C, the second is Post 20th C and the third combines all of history.

The atrocities from religion are inexcusable. The death of one person is tragic, and these numbers are so huge they lose all meaning. What should be learnt from this that getting rid of religion will certainly not spell the end of war, genocide and political murder.

Source: pettifoggery.tumblr.com

Why Human Cloning Is So Frightening

Reports of the first successful human cloning were broadcast on several major news media services on Thursday, January 18, 2008, in the United States. Whether the report from California researcher Dr. Samuel Wood of the first successful human clone is true or not, we know, tragically, that it is not a matter of “if” but “when.”

It is said that the scientists who successfully cloned the sheep “Dolly” warned fellow scientists not to try cloning techniques for producing a human being. In the process of arriving at Dolly, there were so many bizarre and freakish aberrations of a sheep that it indicated that the effects of using similar trial-and-error techniques to clone humans would have grotesque results. But many scientists are not listening.

Human cloning represents the final rejection of God the Father. We can kill human beings without him through abortion and euthanasia, and now we can create human beings without him—or can we?

God has seen fit, in his mysterious ways, to infuse a soul into a body conceived through the perverse acts of rape and incest, and even through unnatural methods such as in vitro fertilization where human sperm and egg are united in a laboratory dish.

But what about infusing a human soul into a human cell scientifically manipulated to generate into a type of “human xerox?” In this case, there is no union of human sperm and egg at all, but rather simply the regenerating of human cells and human DNA to produce a body that looks human.

What exactly am I saying? I’m saying that no scientific process of DNA manipulation can produce a human soul. Only God can create and only God can infuse a human soul, with the powers of universal knowledge and authentic free will, as well as a true human conscience. Is God obliged to infuse a human soul into a man-made human body? I believe the answer might well be, “No.” No, God doesn’t have to infuse a unique personal, immortal soul into a human cloned body. No, God doesn’t have to cooperate with human efforts to replace him as Creator, as if humanity, on its own, has the capacity of creating beings with immortal souls. No, I think God will not tolerate this latest and greatest act of human pride, arrogance, and presumption, which we call human cloning.

The possible result of man’s effort to clone human persons may prove to be something quite inhuman. Science can reproduce the human body, but without God infusing a human soul, what might the end result be? We could have creatures that look human, that perhaps can mirror human behavior, and can even distinguish acts for which they can be rewarded from others acts for which they can be punished. But they may not be human beings.

Apes, dolphins, dogs and cats can be trained to perform these functions. Only the human person is truly free. God has given him the capacity to know on the universal, abstract level the good, the true, and the beautiful, and then to either freely choose them or to freely reject them. But no animal can perform these human functions. No animal has a human soul with the powers of abstraction and volition.

What then might a cloned human be? He might be a soulless creature, without human intellect, human will, human conscience. He might appear human on the outside, but contain no immortal human soul on the inside and the unique, transcendent faculties that can only be given by God. Can you imagine the moral, psychological, societal and spiritual dilemmas that would surround the appropriate response and care for a humanlike creature minus the one component that ultimately makes a human person a human person—a human soul?

Hypothetically, it might be difficult to tell if a cloned human-resembling creature had an eternal soul. Take for example, an unborn child or a severely mentally impaired person incapable of communicating, neither of whom appear to exhibit reason or conscience but who are fully human and possessing a rational soul. The essential moral issue remains does man have the right to generate human life in this way, if it is human life? This raises supplemental ethical dilemmas, such as if science can produce this human-type creature, can it be used for the harvesting of body parts or for menial tasks such as those farm animals perform? Perhaps in light of potential misuse and harm of human cloned creatures we should err towards assuming that God would infuse a human soul. But this does not in itself change the significant possibility that he may not.

There is simply no guarantee that God will infuse a human soul into a human copy and cooperate with man’s idolatry of himself.

The cloning of humans is an unprecedented step in contemporary man’s attempt to usurp the rights and the authority of God. God forgive us. God stop us.

Source: markmiravalle.com

Darwin & Intelligent Beginner (A Letter)

Letter – C.R. Darwin to James Grant, March 11, 1878

In this letter to Sir James Grant, a Scottish explorer of South Equatorial Africa interested in botanic and microbiology fields, Darwin says that the strongest argument for the existence of God is the intuitive feeling that there must have been “an intelligent beginner of the universe.” The question remains unsolved when we ask whether such intuition is trustworthy and true.

Dear Sir,

I should have been very glad to have aided you in any degree if it had been in my power. But to answer your question would require an essay, and for this I have not strength, being much out of health. Nor, indeed, could I have answered it distinctly and satisfactorily with any amount of strength.

The strongest argument for the existence of God, as it seems to me, is the instinct or intuition which we all (as I suppose) feel that there must have been an intelligent beginner of the Universe; but then comes the doubt and difficulty whether such intuitions are trustworthy.

I have touched on one point of difficulty in the two last pages of my “Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication,” but I am forced to leave the problem insoluble.

No man who does his duty has anything to fear, and may hope for whatever he he earnestly desires.— Dear sir, yours faithfully,

Ch. Darwin.

Down, Beckenham, Kent, March 11, 1878.

Source: Inters.org

Math believes in God

Lecomte de Nouy, ​​renowned scientist among scientists, said “those who, sincere and honest, do not support the need for a transcendent organizing force is limited to say I do not know. But refrain from influencing others. Those without evidence consistently strive to destroy the idea of ​​God, act in a vile and unscientific “and said that we can make use of probability theory to prove mathematically impossible to explain the beginning of life on earth by chance.

Nouy professor, based on the calculations of Charles Eugene Guye, explains his assertion, which amounts to the following.

Imagine you have a thousand grains of white powder and a thousand black dust grains located in a transparent glass tube, whose diameter is slightly greater than the grains. These grains are placed in the tube so that we see the 1,000 black grains at the bottom, and on them were 1000 white grains. The tube half shows two colors: white and black. The degree of dissymmetry is total, or 1, mathematically speaking: all white beads are then blacks together and equally without mixing. See one half black and half white is, wholly or dissymmetry.

Now the tube, by a closure which prevents the grains fall is attached to a ball-shaped container made of glass.

Say you open the lock and mixed grains fall in the crystal ball. Once there, shake the ball and black and white grains are mixed randomly, giving the appearance of gray. We return to open the tube and we enter the grains, after having agitated. It will be highly unlikely that, again, we obtain the initial result that all whites and blacks are together also, keeping the two initial colors, although the possibility exists, but is negligible.

If we repeat the operation many times, each time stirring the grains, is very unlikely to return to get the total initial asymmetry, but not impossible.

Applying the statistical calculation, we found that the possibility of a return to the original position after each attempt dissymmetry is of 0.489 x 10 to about 600. Obviously, these exponents greater than 100, they lose all human significance. As an example, we know that the distance from the earth to the sun, expressed in microns (thousandths of a millimeter) is only 15 x 10 to 15 (since we are talking of exponential quantities, see the difference with the power increase to 600). As another example of such magnitude that is, it is considered that the age of the earth would be 2 seconds x 10 to 17.

A single protein molecule has a degree of dissymmetry of 0.9, and at least constitute not two but four disimétricamente ordered elements such as carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, as well as copper, iron or sulfur .

One of the simpler molecules, egg albumin, has a molecular weight of 34,500, with a degree of dissymmetry 0.9. Well, to simplify the calculations, we take as simple molecular weight protein like 20,000, and that its elements were only two. The possibility that by chance were combined and appropriately be dissymmetrical of 2.02 x 10 to the minus 321, and so to achieve a single protein, not a whole egg.

Obviously, if we had enough material to mix, and in sufficient time for mixing, shaking eventually end long shot, but the volume of necessary substance that could be given that probability would be that of a sphere whose radius will bring to light to get through 10 to 82 years light, ie over the entire volume of the universe, ie a volume of one sextillion sextillion sextillion larger than the Einsteinian universe.

On the other hand, the probability that a single molecule is formed 0.9 dissymmetry randomly with existing material on earth, would require 10 to 243 thousand million years, but the age of the sun is only 5 x 10 to the 20 seconds. Therefore, under the circumstances, it is impossible for a single molecule of albumin is created randomly, and if, for these things to chance, the opportunity was given to the principle of “the runs”, we would have only a single molecule albumin, no life on earth. Life on earth could only appear after it had cooled, which leaves only 1 x 10 ^ 9 years. Obviously there is not enough time to wrought chance, even giving the best possible conditions.

There are means, above all, we are talking about a single molecule, and that there is a living cell would need to be combined properly million molecules. Needless make probabilistic calculation of what this means to be able to give up the chance.

How we are not all mathematicians, would suffice intuitively realize that if we see a clock there is a watchmaker that created it. Who in their right mind would argue that the clock has been set at random, spontaneous combination of the materials of the universe?

Much more complex than a watch life and yet, there are still fools who say there is no God: “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Psalm 53).

If there are things that are, by force must be something that has always existed and has in itself the reason for its existence, aseity, for without this being “who is”, there is nothing back there, and today nobody state that brings inert matter itself the reason for its existence, while at the same time, we know that living things, either.

We only have God, right?

Why, then, there are some who argue that God does not exist? Very simple, as Virchow said, great biologist who lived in the former USSR, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation, but although spontaneous generation is not scientific and never will be evident, since on principle reject God, accept spontaneous generation. Virchow was tributary to the society in which he lived, but that recognition of God, conversely, is very significant.

Source: Jesús Fernández-Pedrera Correa (serviciocatolico.com)

Does science make belief in God obsolete?

As an experimental physicist, I require hard evidence, reproducible experiments, and rigorous logic to support any scientific hypothesis. How can such a person base belief on faith? In fact there are two questions: “How can I believe in God?” and “Why do I believe in God?”

On the first question: a scientist can believe in God because such belief is not a scientific matter. Scientific statements must be “falsifiable.” That is, there must be some outcome that at least in principle could show that the statement is false. I might say, “Einstein’s theory of relativity correctly describes the behavior of visible objects in our solar system.” So far, extremely careful measurements have failed to prove that statement false, but they could (and some people have invested careers in trying to see if they will). By contrast, religious statements are not necessarily falsifiable. I might say, “God loves us and wants us to love one another.” I cannot think of anything that could prove that statement false. Some might argue that if I were more explicit about what I mean by God and the other concepts in my statement, it would become falsifiable. But such an argument misses the point. It is an attempt to turn a religious statement into a scientific one. There is no requirement that every statement be a scientific statement. Nor are non-scientific statements worthless or irrational simply because they are not scientific. “She sings beautifully.” “He is a good man.” “I love you.” These are all non-scientific statements that can be of great value. Science is not the only useful way of looking at life.

What about the second question: why do I believe in God? As a physicist, I look at nature from a particular perspective. I see an orderly, beautiful universe in which nearly all physical phenomena can be understood from a few simple mathematical equations. I see a universe that, had it been constructed slightly differently, would never have given birth to stars and planets, let alone bacteria and people. And there is no good scientific reason for why the universe should not have been different. Many good scientists have concluded from these observations that an intelligent God must have chosen to create the universe with such beautiful, simple, and life-giving properties. Many other equally good scientists are nevertheless atheists. Both conclusions are positions of faith. Recently, the philosopher and long-time atheist Anthony Flew changed his mind and decided that, based on such evidence, he should believe in God. I find these arguments suggestive and supportive of belief in God, but not conclusive. I believe in God because I can feel God’s presence in my life, because I can see the evidence of God’s goodness in the world, because I believe in Love and because I believe that God is Love.

Source: William D. Phillips, a Nobel Laureate in physics, is a fellow of the Joint Quantum Institute of the University of Maryland and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Montefiore argument for God existance

Montefiore lists eleven features of the physical universe whose values had to be ‘just right’ if life and ourselves were to be possible. The details are not germane to our present discussion but the bare the list serves to focus our awareness of how formidable is the array of evidence. It is as follows:

1. The distribution of gases in the early universe.
2. The expansion in all directions of the primeval gases had to be uniform to within.
3. The heat of the universe.
4. The weight mass of neutrinos.
5. The mass of the universe.
6. The neutron mass.
7. The relative weight of neutrons, protons, and electrons.
8. The balance between the forces of gravity and electromagnetism.
9. The magnitude of the strong nuclear force
10.The magnitude of the weak nuclear interaction.
11. Conditions for the production of carbon dioxide.

Without the coincidence of all these features there would have been no universe and no life in it. Does the convergence of all these very remarkable properties make the case for God overwhelmingly probable? Accordingly we need to consider the chance of what has occurred on each of the possible hypotheses on offer. In the simplest formulation there are just two: God exists or he does not. If an all-powerful God exists who intended to create a world such as this he would have been able to ‘fix’ all these properties ‘as a package’. We can then reasonably conclude that the probability that he would be successful would be virtually one. Next we have to consider what that probability would be if there is no God. This is much more difficult. If there was no directing hand it seems incredible that even one of these coincidences would have occurred. The chance that eleven would have all occurred simultaneously is then beyond belief. Even if some are linked so that they are not completely independent the position is not significantly altered——the probability of things being what they are is negligible. If we were to stop here and were to compare the likelihoods the chance of the universe as we know it is immeasurably more plausible on the theistic hypothesis than on the random—happening scenario. We know that if we turn this likelihood ratio into a posterior probability ratio we have to introduce the prior probabilities. But here note that the prior presumption of atheism would have to be extremely strong to counterbalance the overwhelming evidence the other Way provided by the likelihoods.

Rationality And Faith in God

To explain man’s situation in the world, Plato came up with an allegory, the so-called allegory of the cave. In its simplest terms, it looks like this: human beings are sitting in a windowless cave. They sit in chains, facing a wall. A play of shadows is projected onto the wall; it is a cave-theater. Behind the backs of those who are chained
is an artificial light source, in front of which figures are moved back and forth, and their shadows are cast on the wall. The people have never known any other situation but this one. They are unable to see one another, or even themselves, but only the play of shadows.

For them, therefore, this play represents the only reality there is. They argue over this reality, they speculate about what will happen next in the drama, they come up with theories and make prognoses. Of course, there is a rumor floating around that there is such a thing as a true world outside of the cave, and that it is possible to get free
and make it out there. But it is also known that there were some who had in fact gone outside and whose eyes were blinded by the light of the sun, so that they would not have been able to see anything at all if they did not have the patience to let their eyes grow accustomed to it. Thus the cave dwellers resist hand and foot if someone from the outside comes back to set them free. By means of this allegory, Plato intends to present the world of ideas as the true reality and the material world as a mere image of
reality. But we are able to modify the allegory a bit without distancing ourselves very much from Plato’s intention. The sun, for Plato, is the image of the substantial Good, the highest Good, which motivates all the striving in the world as the final end, and which the Church Fathers later equated with God. And this is not far from correct, since Plato says that the Good itself is the ground not only of the reality of things, but also of their knowability and truth. In my modification of the allegory, we ourselves are not only spectators in the cave-theater, but also co-actors in the film. Our reality owes itself in every moment to the light of a creative projector and its band of film. I call it creative because it projects things and beings that are actually alive and even free within a certain framework to move themselves in this or that way. If the light were to go out, then the film and all of its figures would disappear into the darkness.

They would not die, for indeed dying is still an event in the film and has causes that for their part belong to the film: disease, accident, murder, etc. The cutting short of the film is not a part of the film. But within the film, there is also a past that we extrapolate. We know that a child, whom we see, not only has parents, whom we also see, but also grandparents and great-grandparents, like any other child. And on the basis of observations made within the film, we are also able to develop extensive physicalistic theories about the world’s past and its causal laws. The projector with the film band, which is in fact the cause of the whole thing, does not of course appear in the film. The Big Bang, for example, and perhaps even that which preceded the Big Bang, is still part of the film. But the projector never appears in the chain of causes, not even at the beginning. It is rather the ground and cause of the entire chain and of every single one of its links. The word “cause” does not have the same meaning, but is used analogously, when we refer it to prior conditions within the world and when we refer it to God. What I am describing here is an image of what the word “creation” means. It does not mean an initiating event within the earthly reality, an event that we might stumble upon perhaps at some point in our investigations. Instead, it means that the entire process of the world and each of the tiniest events that take place within it have their true ground in a creative will that lies outside of this process.

Source: Robert Spaemann (2005) “Rationality and Faith in God” Communio 32(4)