I try not to belabor the point, but belief that the scientific method is wrong would be ludicrous. I was just talking to someone from my religion class, someone who is a strong believer. The worst kind of believer because in the face of rational thought processes they still clutch to their dogma. Which is the same as clutching your ears to block sound and screaming "NANANANANA!" Beyond that it shows a supreme ignorance, moreover a decision to ignore the way things are because they have the word "science" attached to them. I cannot explain the scientific method right now, but I was just talking to Kevin about water. Which reminds me of a religious argument Uncle David had with Kevin. Until Kevin said:
Water is amazing. It is 3 elements: Oxygen and two hydrogen (H2O). Hydrogen is highly reactive (research Hindenburg for more info) and has a slight positive charge. Oxygen on the other hand has a slight negative charge (also Florine). Opposites attract. Hydrogen is bonded to oxygen but still attracts another water molecule by oxygen. This is called a hydrogen bond.
It allows trees to exist by allowing water to be pulled up from the roots to the leaves without breaking the flow or stream of water because each molecule holds another. Water likes to join with itself which is why it boils so hot for being so small a molecule.
These hydrogen bonds occur at 46 degree angle. Don't bust out your protractor, just trust me. If this did not occur, water could not exist. Too great an angle and the hydrogen bond breaks. When you boil water the molecules move around so much that the angle is increased too far, breaks and is converted into steam. You can play with magnets to see how this works.
Likewise oxygen bonds with hydrogen at a 105.45 degree angle to make water. If this angle is stretched too far water does not exist. If it is pushed together too close it doesn't exist, it can't exist.
When you take a balloon of oxygen and a balloon of hydrogen, tape them together and pop them at the same time water falls down. I have not created something from nothing, I have merely joined two groups of atoms that when so joined make water. No trickery, no mysticism, just simple chemistry.
I put it to you that the water molecule exists in this configuration because it cannot exist in any other configuration. It will always be that way. Travel a million worlds through parallel universes and you will find water in identical configuration. This configuration of microscopic parts makes up water. Water is essential to our bodies and indeed the vast majority of organisms throughout this planet.
Water exists because that is the nature of the universe. Put oxygen and hydrogen together and you get water no matter where you do it, or when. Put one proton with one electron you get hydrogen, etc.
The universe is made of those same tiny particles that simply fit together in specific configurations because they cannot exist in any other way.
There is no need to explain "the divinity" or "the perfection" of this with God. It just IS because it cannot BE any other way. Likewise planets are formed, stars created, solar systems, organisms, you name it they exist totally without a "divine maker" to make them. You take protons and electrons and put them together you can make anything you want. YOU can be God if you want to.
Ultimately a creator is unnecessary because the atoms only fit one way.
to which uncle David replied: That's because God made the rules for the universe.
And Kevin just left...
HA! Just kidding, Kevin would never leave. Instead he fixed him with a dubious look and scrunched face that said, "you must be joking"
uh anyway go to class now.
Dreading it... another update
8 years ago
6 comments:
i don't agree with kevin. i think belief in a creator is a perfectly natural and congruous reaction to the perfection of the universe, and water, and atoms, and planets, and animals, and amoebas. to me, it isn't a question of "needing" to say that it's been created by a god. it's simply awe, expressed using the word "God," which can mean any number of things to any number of people - not necessarily the god of any particular religion or any religion at all. but to marvel at the natural world and to have it point you toward a belief in God is - not illogical, and not wrong, and not bad - it's, to my mind, a perfectly sane response. to me, when i learn things about science, specifically natural science - scientific facts about the natural world - the more i learn, the more the mystery and wonder and awe of God deepen for me. perhaps the trouble is that someone is telling kevin that if this is not his response then he's wrong.
Kevin responds: "The universe is far from perfect. Expressing awe can be done without a creator, because there isn't one. Faith is inherently illogical and irrational because there is no evidence to support such a claim. There is just a belief without evidence-- faith. A sane mind can believe untruths. A rational mind cannot. For one could believe the world is flat. They would be totally incorrect, but they need not be insane to believe that. Likewise a belief in a creator is just that, a belief.
You want God to take responsibility for the trillions of broken planets and collapsing stars and failed solar systems and exploding galaxies as well as a tiny little planet that can support SOME life on SOME of its surface SOME of the time?
The majority of the universe is chaos that creates black holes 99.9999999% of the time with only the tiniest percentage resulting in a barely inhabitable rock for life to struggle upon for eons at the mercy of tectonic plates and seismic/meteorological phenomena.
99% of all the creatures that lived are now extinct. Some creator. If I failed 99% of the time I would be fired, the laughing stock of everyone who knew. If there is a creator he doesn't care, or is lazy at best."
But I would say: "Perhaps you are right Erin."
Gahahaha.
Kn'amsaying.
I scrolled down two sentences into your comment and read Matioses and giggled.
Kevin: I never claimed that expressing awe cannot be done without a creator. Why put words in my mouth and then argue against them?
My whole thing is, I think there's a spectrum, or continuum, of people who are less comfortable and more comfortable with things that aren't strictly logical and rational. I suspect that Kevin falls on one of the far sides of that spectrum. I think of myself as being halfway between the halfway point and the comfortable-wth-the-illogical side, most of the time. I think people who fall on either ends of the spectrum tend to hate each other. That's what I've noticed.
As for the rest of it... I don't know, the tone of the words makes my blood boil a little, which makes me not want to respond. But I'd say that a creator who allows so many animals go to extinct is a creator who's that much more interesting. Not a failure. Not lazy. In those descriptors I sense a definite anger. And I don't feel like it's directed at me. I feel like it's directed at someone Kevin does not believe exists.
Also, it's frustrating sometimes - because to me, knowledge about the natural world, and faith, are not enemies. (I know those commas are incorrect but they help clarify.) And there are many Christians who see them as mutually exclusive things - hence people who believe the earth was created six thousand years ago and cover their ears and hum when presented with information that contradicts that. And there are many irreligious people who see them as mutually exclusive things as well - hence some atheists who become angry and frustrated with people who aren't bothered by things that fall outside the scope of logic and rationality. And I know, already, I know, that you'll say there isn't anything that falls outside that scope. But. That's fine. I think it's cool that people's perspectives differ so wildly. And I like conversations about these things for that reason. It's why I don't think of these conversations as a debate I can win or lose, but as like - like what if it were possible for me articulate what green looks like to me, and for you to articulate what green looks like to you? And we find out there's as many shades of green in the world as there are people. And it's awesome. That's what I seek from these types of conversations.
Well maybe I'll put you and Kevin in a room together and you can talk. I'll be the stenographer. Oh wait.. that wont work. He doesn't argue so much as denounce religion with precise encyclopedic references. I talked to him about this once, he said that he feels it is his duty to stamp out irrational ... things. And he is a sharp philosopher/logician which can make things worse because the people he gets all huffy about don't know how it works and can't form and argument and don't know what a fallacy is. So when he call it, it means nothing to them. He would also suggest you look up the words you use before you use them. "God is illogical and irrational by definition. To say he isn't is false"
I'd like to toss my 3 cents in here.
I think a belief in a creator is indeed natural, a natural progression of humanity as it struggles to make sense of a world beyond control/in chaos. I am not sure that makes something true. What I do know is the world IS a certain way. How people grasp for meaning to explain it is interesting to me, no matter what side of the continuum.
And I think what Kevin has a problem with is not what you believe Erin because no crusades were fought, no inquisition would have taken place if people believed what you do, but it's the zealots that make his blood boil. The I am right and you are wrong because my book says so neener neener kinds of people.
Addendum: I don't believe in the supernatural, (and I like to think I am very open minded and don't hate people that are strong in their convictions--though I use to.) rather I think of them as toothfairy-agnostic. Meaning they are all on par, but if I ever find some evidence of anything supernatural that will be different. No ghosts, no demons, no vampires and no gods. But I smile and nod when I hear that other people do. As long as they don't preach, teach my kinds, run my country et al., do whatever they like.
Post a Comment