Heidi
While the deist approach to the creation controversy is surely more reasoned and rational than that of the theists, the conclusions of both stem from the same premise - belief. The theist explains the unknowable as God through their priests and requires faith as a prerequisite. The deist explains the unknowable as God through their priests (scientists) and also requires faith as a prerequisite. In each case, the resulting
belief of an eternal cause (the deist) or the intelligent design of a creator (the theist) is paramount.
Since I don't wish to discuss easter bunnies or tooth fairies I'll leave the theists POV for others to haggle with. The point is, that regardless of the reasonableness of the deist methodology, the conclusion is the same. Because we (the scientists) cannot explain our existence, therefore
something must have caused it. It is this
belief in something rather than the something itself that disturbs me. Why is it necessary to believe, rather than the evidence to show itself or be discovered? Why can we not admit to ourselves that we do not know and simply endeavor to find out? Are we so weak intellectually that we must have closure to be whole, or maybe it is our arrogance of our "knowledge", that results in the pitting of faction against faction, each having ulterior motives. I would suggest that it is a combination of these.
Thomas Paine wrote in re. atheism;
Quote:
"In the first place, admitting matter to have properties, as we see it has, the question still remains, how came matter by those properties? To this they will answer, that matter possessed those properties eternally. This is not solution, but assertion; and to deny it is as impossible of proof as to assert it.
"It is then necessary to go further; and therefore I say - if there exist a circumstance that is not a property of matter, and without which the universe, or to speak in a limited degree, the solar system composed of planets and a sun, could not exist a moment, all the arguments of atheism, drawn from properties of matter, and applied to account for the universe, will be overthrown, and the existence of a superior cause, or that which man calls God, becomes discoverable, as is before said, by natural philosophy.
"I go now to show that such a circumstance exists, and what it is.
"The universe is composed of matter, and, as a system, is sustained by motion. Motion is not a property of matter, and, without this motion, the solar system could not exist. Were motion a property of matter, that undiscovered and undiscoverable thing called perpetual motion would establish itself.
"It is because motion is not a property of matter, that perpetual motion is an impossibility in the hand of every being but that of the Creator of motion. When the pretenders to atheism can produce perpetual motion, and not till then, they may expect to be credited.
"The natural state of matter, as to place, is a state of rest. Motion, or change of place, is the effect of an external cause acting upon matter. As to that faculty of matter that is called gravitation, it is the influence which two or more bodies have reciprocally on each other to unite and be at rest. Everything which has hitherto been discovered, with respect to the motion of the planets in the system, relates only to the laws by which motion acts, and not to the cause of motion.
"Gravitation, so far from being the cause of motion to the planets that compose the solar system, would be the destruction of the solar system, were revolutionary motion to cease; for as the action of spinning upholds a top, the revolutionary motion upholds the planets in their orbits, and prevents them from gravitating and forming one mass with the sun. In one sense of the word, philosophy knows, and atheism says, that matter is in perpetual motion.
"But the motion here meant refers to the state of matter, and that only on the surface of the Earth. It is either decomposition, which is continually destroying the form of bodies of matter, or recomposition, which renews that matter in the same or another form, as the decomposition of animal or vegetable substances enters into the composition of other bodies.
"But the motion that upholds the solar system, is of an entirely different kind, and is not a property of matter. It operates also to an entirely different effect. It operates to perpetual preservation, and to prevent any change in the state of the system.
"Giving then to matter all the properties which philosophy knows it has, or all that atheism ascribes to it, and can prove, and even supposing matter to be eternal, it will not account for the system of the universe, or of the solar system, because it will not account for motion, and it is motion that preserves it.
"When, therefore, we discover a circumstance of such immense importance, that without it the universe could not exist, and for which neither matter, nor any nor all the properties can account, we are by necessity forced into the rational conformable belief of the existence of a cause superior to matter, and that cause man calls GOD.
"As to that which is called nature, it is no other than the laws by which motion and action of every kind, with respect to unintelligible matter, are regulated. And when we speak of looking through nature up to nature's God, we speak philosophically the same rational language as when we speak of looking through human laws up to the power that ordained them.
"God is the power of first cause, nature is the law, and matter is the subject acted upon."
|
Paraphrasing Paine;
"If there exist a circumstance that is not a property of matter,...without which...the universe could not exist...the existence of a superior cause...becomes discoverable."
"I go now to show that such a circumstance exists, and what it is."
"The universe is composed of matter, and, as a system, is sustained by motion. Motion is not a property of matter, and, without this motion, the solar system could not exist. "
Here, Paine is in error. Motion, in fact, is a property of matter. Because it is not detectable to the naked eye or is affected by gravitation does not negate its existense.
Matter consists of molecules, which consist of atoms, which consist of electrons, protons, etc., which consist of quarks?, which consist of any amount of enumerable particles that may yet be discovered. These minute particles are in constant motion, whereas the whole of the mass appears to be at rest. Motion is the rule not the exception. Absent the force of gravitation, motion is perpetual. Granted, there may be other forces at work, but the law of conservation of energy will still apply.
The deist (scientist) also makes the specious assertion that the universe is X years old starting with the BIG BANG. This is arrogance to the Nth degree. This is based upon the fact that upon our limited observation of the universe, the universe is expanding. This may be true relative to our particular vantage point. But if we assume that the universe is infinite in scope, is it not possible that there is another BIG BANG occuring at infintity + 1 and is expanding as well, or an infinite amount of BIG BANGS occuring?
The only constant or absolute in the universe is change. We, the human race, are mere insignificant specks in the totality of things. Would it be nice to "know", surely, if just to satisfy our curiosity. Would knowing make a difference, not in the least. But to ascribe to that which is unknowable something that is also unknown is sure folly and a monumental waste of time.
And since time is the currency we all trade in, the productive use of such should be our primary concern.
Atheism does not propose to account for the nature of the universe. It accepts what is known and unknown and doesn't try to fill in the blanks with spurious speculation. If the god of the deist exists, it will be proven in due time. If the god of the theist exists, he will also show himself, why hide behind the curtain? But in the meantime. I won't be holding my breath.
gldskr