JRRZZ Blog

Following up on the recent discussions around the post from Scott Pruett on LifeWay and the Antichristian Phenomenon’s rebuttal, here’s my input. I’m very sorry for the late reaction, I have been busy lately.

The overwhelming consensus of science is that the entire cosmos (including space and time) came into existence at a finite point in the past. All of our observations, equations, and physical laws testify to a point of origin for this universe.
In light of the troubling evidence for a beginning, and that we may not even be able to find a natural cause in principle, what explanation is given to the questions, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” and “Where did it all come from?”

I’m sorry, but I can’t match your findings with those of the scientific communities. The only thing most of the scientists agree on is that we can’t determine what has happened before the big bang, based on our current evidence. The conclusion that this must be the beginning of time and space is premature. The only conclusion valid at this point might be that the big bang is the beginning of time and space that we know of. As long as there is no insurmountable evidence in support of the claim, there is no consensus.

The past several decades have added profoundly to our knowledge of chemistry, physics, and cosmology. It has become increasingly clear that we live in a universe finely tuned for the support of complex life. This fact is so universally acknowledged that even secular scientists have coined the term “Anthropic Principle” to describe it.
How is it that we live in such an exquisitely fine-tuned universe? Even assuming that the universe could have popped out of nothingness, why should it have been such an orderly and hospitable one? Is there a scientific, testable answer for this question that does not simply appeal to imagination?

No, this is not universally acknowledged at all. The very assumption that this universe exists to support human life is ridiculous. You are confusing cause and effect. Human life is merely a link in the vast universal process of causality. Carbon based life forms have been adapting to their surroundings for billions of years on this planet. The process of evolution simply made them more adept to their surroundings. Now, after all these years, mankind is the result. We’re not perfect just yet. There are many potentially lethal things we encounter every day. People die every day during these encounters. This universe isn’t finely tuned, we are in the process of tuning ourselves to better fit this universe.

The problem of abiogenesis (the origin of the first lifeform) is one of the thorniest and most intractable issues in chemistry. Our increasing knowledge of microbiology and earth history has only added to the complexity of what needs to be explained. The simplest life is equivalent to modern bacteria, which is loaded with complex activity, information, and molecular “machines.” The fossil record does not give evidence that there was a “prebiotic soup,” or that there were any biological precursors to the first organisms, or that the atmosphere was the ideal mix to yield the necessary molecules, or that there was the expected long period of time between when the Earth could support life and when it actually appeared. Evolutionists regularly segregate the abiogenesis problem from the issue of evolution because (1) it is a challenge they’d rather not be saddled with, or (2) it is the most logical point for possible divine intervention. However, for the atheist there is no escaping this issue; they are obliged to seek out some purely natural explanation.
What hope for an explanation do you have? Are you satisfied to have problems like this that are unanswered, or even unanswerable?
In telling the tale of life on earth science writers often unconsciously use the word “miracle” for the appearance of the first organisms.

Indeed, this is a hard one. At this moment, everything is possible. Something isn’t immediately true when someone says so. Until there’s proof of what happened at the very first stages of life, all we have is conjecture. Every theory, including divine intervention, is still in the competition. Most theories are way more plausible than an improvable event, but until there’s real proof everyone gets the benefit of the doubt. Nobody gets to claim the truth just yet. So the theistic stance of “I’m right until proven wrong” doesn’t have any merit in this intellectual arena.

This is one of many riddles we still have to solve. Riddles like these make life interesting, don’t you think?

What kind of evidence is needed before we are to actually accept that something like this really is a miracle?

Come on, please re-read your question. A miracle is an event without a scientific explanation, without real evidence. A scientist would never accept such nonsense.

Logic and mathematics are abstract principles that have been discovered rather than invented. We cannot do science, communicate, or navigate this world without them. They appear to stand outside of nature to describe and measure it. As Albert Einstein said, “The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.”
What is the source of math and logic? The existence of this remarkably fine-tuned universe aside, how is it that we have these “languages of reality” to so elegantly describe and interact with it?

This question is exactly the same as your first question. These methods for describing our surroundings are merely abstractions from our highly developed pattern recognition skills. We can observe, discover patterns and reproduce these discoveries. Even ants can do this, for example.

Another transcendent entity that is a problem for atheism is morality. With no divine author or judge there is no reason to think that there should be any moral laws that we are obliged to recognize and keep, except for self-serving reasons. And yet, morality aligns with our deepest intuitions: we expect others to recognize it; we urge our kids to exercise it; therapists get rich repairing the effects of its abuse; we judge criminals insane if they do not recognize it; and all cultures affirm it in common principle if not in individual application.
Do you deny objective morality; that the difference between Mother Teresa and Hitler is not just a matter of preference, like chocolate vs. vanilla ice cream? If not, then how do you ground morality; how do you explain where it came from and why we ought to be moral tomorrow?
Skeptics often bring up the “problem of evil” as evidence against God, i.e., if there is a good and all-powerful God, then why is there evil in the world.
Do you think that this is a valid objection? If so, are you admitting that there is evil in the world? What is “evil,” and do you not admit its opposite: “good?”
The problem of evil objection only makes sense if such things as good and evil are objectively real, not just preference statements.

Good and evil are purely subjective. So yes, Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler can bot serve as moral guidelines. Morality is a complex matter, constructed out of our primal instincts, subconscious and higher cognitive skills. During the course of our evolution, species that grouped together had a better chance of survival. Groups needed extra skills to be effective, from which social interaction is a crucial one. Of course groups operate better when the group members agree not to kill each other. This is also exactly the difference between your theistic explanation and that from evolution. If objective morality is indeed divine, why is it limited to one’s group?

But I said morality is purely subjective. The conscious mind eventually gets to decide the meaning of good and evil. In other words, you decide. Most people adhere to group instincts with little real individuality. Some people are exactly the opposite and naturally become outcasts. The balance of influences on you morality eventually defines your personality.

In the atheist worldview we are products of time, chance, and blind forces – there is no objective meaning and value to our human existence. Yet our deepest longing is for our lives to count for something. We intuitively know that humans have rights and dignity.
Does life really have no point other than what you pretend for your own sake? Will you say, like atheist philosopher Albert Camus, that the only serious question is “suicide?” What values and purpose will you instill in your children? Will you be honest with them, or will you borrow ideas from some non-atheistic belief system so as not to disappoint?

This is not something I can answer for all atheists. It’s a personal thing, this meaning of life. I live by the words of two bright people, Anton Szandor LaVey and Arjen A. Lucassen. Arjen is a musician and a fellow Dutchman. He once wrote in one of his songs “the meaning of life is to give life meaning”. It’s not the spoils that count, it’s the hunt I’m living for. Seeking for the right thing to do for me is the right thing to do. When I’m (old and) dying, I’d like to look back at my life with a smile. That’s where what LaVey has taught me comes in handy. He wrote about gaining immortality in the memories of others. In other words, if I make a positive attribution to people’s lives and when I’m remembered for it, my life has had meaning.

In the world of atheism, where there is no soul or transcendent “self,” humans are simply biological machines, and our minds are just computers made out of meat. With this in view there is really no room for something like freewill, since we are all just operating according to our “programming” and our environmental influences. And there are great difficulties in conceding that chemistry can produce something as abstract as “consciousness,” or at least anything qualitatively different from what we ourselves might ultimately produce using computer technology.
Are you prepared to accept the idea that no one is really morally responsible for their bad behavior and, conversely, that virtuous behavior is not commendable? In what way will you seek to convince me that I am really not a conscious and self-aware being; that it is just a complex biochemical illusion? Can you accept that computer programs may one day be just as much “persons” as you, yourself?

I believe I’ve answered your question in this post and this post on the ACP website.

Every known time and culture is rich with stories of near death experiences, ghosts, angels, demons, prophetic dreams and visions, and miraculous healings. While some of these are certainly spurious or not well documented, others have reasonable experimental support. In addition to this, humans seem to be incurably religious; the idea of God and the spiritual is deeply entrenched in the human psyche, if not in its actual experience.
What are we to make of all this? If man is simply an adapted biological organism, then how is it that we did not manage to adapt to our natural environment in this area – why are we not “naturalists” rather than theists? Can’t any of this be a hint toward reality, or must we think that the bulk of humanity flirts with insanity?

I honestly don’t know why people believe such irrational an illogical things. I’m still puzzled how seemingly perfectly sane people can find intellectual comfort in fairytales and conjecture. And frankly, yes, I believe this is a mental illness. The vaccine is readily available too. It’s called education. Maybe you’ve heard about it. It isn’t that popular in the theistic nations around the world.

The case for the Jesus of Scripture is extremely compelling. There is good evidence that the New Testament was written in the generation of the Apostles. We have thousands of copies of these documents in their source language, some of which go back inside of 100 years after Jesus’ death. There is no evidence of significant corruption in the known manuscripts. There is no motivation and evidence for fraud among the apostles and church fathers – most died martyr’s deaths. The trend of archaeology is toward validation, not denial, of what it is possible to confirm in Scripture. Even non-biblical manuscripts support various key details of Christian theology.
The burden of proof is generally on the one seeking to deny historical records.
What alternative explanation do you offer to the New Testament documentation and the tradition of the church, and what support do you have for your theory?
Is it because of the miracles that you doubt the Scriptures? If Jesus really were God in the flesh, how would you expect Him to confirm that fact?

The bible is a collection of fairytales, nothing more. The Jesus character in the new testament is a copy of Horus, an Egyptian fairytale’s character. The biblical texts are not historical records. The amount of contradictions and lies is simply too staggering to deny. There’s no evidence of corruption, but there’s no evidence of the opposite either. The literal texts have never been found, only fragments that vaguely resemble some of the stories. There’s just no hard evidence of Jesus ever being alive, only of some so-called saviors through the years. There are two people in Amsterdam I know of who both claim to be the savior, but that doesn’t prove the second coming of Christ. The burden of proof is still with the Christians, since there’s just no hard evidence to refute. If that Jesus character really is a god, he can strike me down right now. The fact that you’re reading this proves that he isn’t.

Christians are often accused of being simple-minded, superstitious, or irrational.
Is it so unreasonable for us to believe that the universe had a beginning because it actually was created; the laws of physics are so fine-tuned because it had a designer; people are preoccupied with good and evil because they are real things; we long for purpose and meaning because they exist to be had; life from non-life really is miraculous; consciousness and freewill seem real because they are; people are incurably religious because there is actually something real in religion; and the historical case for Jesus is so tenacious because it is actually true?
If there really is no meaning or purpose to life, no objective good or evil, and the existence of “truth” itself is open to debate, by what standard will you condemn the beliefs of Christians?

By my own standards. They’re the only standards I know and the only standards I can judge by. In this last question you’ve simply stated that you’re right because you think your right, and that you question my right to refute that. Yes, I’d call that simple-minded, superstitious and irrational.