My letter to my athiest brother

[Alan McDougall]

A letter to an atheist by Alan McDougall

Is there a reason for living that goes beyond that of our earthly mortal life on earth? I say there is, how you can be so sure that there beyond life. Why not just try to consider that there just might be a god. Life after death is unfortunately something neither I nor someone else can ever prove to

I, however, strongly believe we continue to exist in some form or other in dimensions of purpose, reason, beauty and that our consciousness continues to exist eternally after death. Otherwise our earthly fleeting life is nothing but a cruel joke of nature

Have you ever thought that to be an absolute atheist takes more faith and is more difficult to rationalize than one like me who believes there is a creator? How could nothing evolve from nothing and become everything?

This logic demand that dark nothing morphed into everything, nothing created energy time matter and finally life out of inanimate energy. I see this as a ridiculous assumption; I am left to believe that all existence including mysterious life evolved without reason or purpose. Do you really believe this as a fact?

Let us consider, what life is, how could the unimaginable almost infinitely complex molecule DNA of life came into existence so quickly in relation to cosmological time. Life existed on the primordial earth just a moment after its creation, again in cosmological time?

The universe is unimaginable complex and sustains itself by exact precise fundamental constants, if this harmony differed in the infinitesimal fraction we would simply not exist; indeed the earth itself would not exist.

A billion trillion googolplex monkeys typing for eternity would not produce even one of Shakespeare sonnets. Another analogy, if we took a billion airplanes, filled them with water, concrete and bricks and dumped the whole continuously on the earth for a billion years, would it magically and randomly form the beautiful Taj Mahal or the Sydney Opera house? But you insist I must accept the beautiful universe a of unimaginable precision came into existence this illogical way

When life needs to evolve due to changing circumstances, does it tell itself to alter its own DNA for the new conditions or could there be a watch maker resetting the watch
I see god adjusting the DNA overlooking his own experiment if you like

Our breathtaking beautiful is expanding and anything that expands must have a beginning. Can you prove there is no god of course you can’t, can I of course I can’t, but at least I can offer circumstantial evidence... Atheism is a faith belief system just like anything that requires belief without evidence.

As an amateur astronomer leaves me with an unshakable belief that am awesome intellect created the universe and everything else

Look out the sparking water that quenches your thirst, the fruit that feeds you, and invigorated your body. There is beauty everywhere and you must search for real ugliness. Go outside on a moonless night and reflect on the wonder of the cosmos that sparkles above you. the great snow capped mountains and streams, the blue sky and the rise of the sun at dawn and its golden glow as it sets.

In the early morning go and listen to the sounds of nature, birds chirping like tiny electrons in the mind of god. The wind that you breathe the precious nourishment supplied by mother earth.

Then explain to me how chance can bring this all about. To me there is a wonderful creative behind all this glory if only we would look at it.

Like all things the universe has a beginning and this demands a creator, for nothing can exist with a prime cause. The universe will end but for that we will just have to wait

Even atheism scientists say our universe is precise, ordered with beautiful mathematical constants. One great astronomer said the universe was less like a great well oiled machine and more like a beautiful ongoing thought

I believe in God, what you believe is your right but to me a godless creation is bleak and cold

What do you people believe, No god or God


Alan McDougall 24/6/2008

[Dave Allen]

Alan, I think most of the objections you raise and arguments you propose can be summed up under a few categories.

1. THE GOLDILOCKS HYPOTHESIS
Often when arguments are proposed for design or god it is asserted as to how beautiful life is, how many delicate factors orchestrate together to make the environment in which we live habitable.

Such things are termed the Goldilocks Hypothesis based on the famous bowl of porridge - not too hot, not too cold - just right.

However, if the atheistic view of the universe has as much (if not more) going for it than the theistic things would not need to be any different.

So if hydrogen atoms fuse to form stars and if bands of habitable space exist around many stars, as physicists propose, and if theories of abiogenesis and natural selection work as biologists and chemists suppose then we should expect to end up with life on certain planets, and that life should be very well adapted to that environment otherwise it would have died out.

So the fact that we find much regarding our lives in our environment convenient and beautiful isn't a good argument for a supernatural designer. What we understand about physical forces alone could well lead to living creatures that, if sapient, would surely remark on the beauty and convenience of the environment that sustains them.

2. THE WATCHMAKER ARGUMENT
It seems a tautology that created things must have a creator and that something cannot arise from nothing. What we understand about quatum physics, both personally and culturally, is in its infancy - but it does point to the fact that matter seems to pop into existence on a quantum scale.

What we never see is the spontaneous conjouring of anything complex - such as humans from clots of blood, or pure water giving birth to fish or fowl. However, this assumption is made by many theists. Even those who do credit the gradual appearance of complexity insist that "you cannot have a watch without a watchmaker" (see point 4).


The idea that a creator need be necessary strikes me to come as a result of human egotism. We are immensely arrogant creatures who want to credit the universe to "something like us, in some way". God is an anthropomorphic figure imposed by humans on what we don't understand or feel no power over.

• Does something need to be sapient in order to create?

Well, no. Chimps create tools, Ants create farms and Corals create cities that can be seen from space.

• Does something need to be sentient, or recognisably purposeful in order to create?

Well, no. Volcanoes create crystals, igneous and volcanic rocks and minerals, complex geological formations, they also rain down biblical destruction on towns and countryside. They are created in their turn by tectonic forces.

Stars create all the chemical elements aside from Hydrogen.

So whilst no one knows what first cause was, the assertion that it is some sort of anthropomorphic (and/or purposeful) principle worthy of worship strikes me as human chauvanism. The archetypal "primitive" islander who worships a volcano or the sun has just as much to go on as a sophisticate monotheist, really.

When we talk of "God" or "gods" we are painting a picture of our conceptions of our highest (and lowest) selves to take the place of whatever mystery it was that came before, or outside, our currently understood conception of space-time. We do this for no better apparent reason than to sate our own ignorance and arrogance.

This habit might be metaphysically comforting (though I don't find it so myself - for example I find the idea of a supernatural creature with agency over the very idea of myself who claims benevolence but sanctions eternal judgement really quite disturbing) but there's no real logic behind it.

A creative principle need be no more like a human than it need be like an ant, coral, volcano or sun.

3. ATHEISM DENIES THERE WAS FIRST CAUSE
No - as a gestalt it simply throws it's bet in with the likelihood that first cause isn't a foregone conclusion, and need not be what is commonly conceived as a "God". Some zealous athiests might decalim that they KNOW there is no God - I think they're being mildly hubristic even though I suspect they are right.

4. EVOLUTION AND SIMILAR PROCESSES ARE RANDOM CHANCE

As I said earlier, a popular argument for theism is the watchmaker - complexity being seen as resulting solely from design. Yet many theists refuse to accept evolution as a watchmaker because they claim it is too "random" to produce anything worthwhile. Is the evolution of humans from simple chemicals a random process akin to dropping building materials from a plane to have them assemble a Taj Mahal? No. If you think it is it's because you haven't understood the theory.

• Organisms replicate themselves (the Taj Mahal is not an organism).
• The replications are not perfect - there are always variations (there are a huge number of variables involved in this process - to the extent where it is often called random for practical purposes - in fact it is predictable, based on finite chemical chains and well understood).
• Some variations are better than others at surviving in their environment (not random).

So the Taj Mahal analogy, or the more famous Boeing 747 assembled by a hurricane in a junkyard, is pretty weak. Abiogenesis explains why it is LIKELY that self-replicating molecules will form under certain chemical conditions - and the theory of evolution by natural selection explains how it is LIKELY that those self-replicating molecules will go on to develop greater complexity and carry more information.

5. ATHEISM IS BLEAK
All I would say to this is that if your appreciation of the wonder, mystery and beauty of life hangs on purpose assigned by a thrid party, and/or supernatural agency then I would say it was a pretty shallow appreciation to begin with. Some people may just require myths to justify existence - some clearly don't.

A butterfly is as beautiful as it appears whether it was invoked by God or adapted to billions of years of natural selection. A crystal is as beautiful as it is whether the motions that set the physical processes which led to its creation up were supernatural or mundane in character.

6. ATHIESTS HAVEN'T GENUINELY TRIED FINDING GOD.
Maybe - but no more than theists haven't genuinely tried doing without.

[jeeprs]

It is true that the original posting here can be destroyed pretty effortlessly by a skilled logician. However I do respect the sentiment.

The argument that 'life will inevitably arise as an outcome of the interaction of forces and chemicals' is however not a scientific hypothesis in any sense of the word, it is simply wishful thinking. We might, perhaps, in some remote future be able to test and or verify this idea but it is disputed by a great many respected and non-religious biologists. I will come back to this point.

Problems with the idea that 'life developed by chance', from an article on the Evangelical Philosophical Society:

"Many proponents of the origin of life by chance do not bother to perform the mathematical calculations which render their conclusions highly improbable. Stephen C. Meyer calculates that to generate a single functional protein of 150 amino acids exceeds: "1 chance in 10 to the power of 180," and comments "it is extremely unlikely that a random search through all the possible amino acid sequences could generate even a single relatively short functional protein in the time available since the beginning of the universe..."

We have come a long way in our understanding of life since Ernst Haeckel described cells as "homogeneous globules of plasm" in 1905. As Overman observes: "the difficulties in producing a protein from the mythical prebiotic soup are very large, but more difficult still is the probability of random processes producing the simplest living cell which represents an overwhelming increase in complexity".


David Swift comments: Biologists have become increasingly aware that the real stumbling block to the origin of life is its complexity - complexity in terms of the interdependence of molecules and biochemical pathways within cell metabolism, and complexity at the molecular level of individual components. The combination of complexities at these different levels presents insurmountable difficulties to getting anything that is remotely life-like... the complexity of even the simplest forms of life, a bacterium is much closer to a human being than it is to any cocktail of organic compounds in some putative primeval soup... the core of the problem is the considerable complexity of even the "simplest" forms of life, or even of some notional system that is stripped down to the theoretical bare necessities of life.

Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross report that: "Theoretical and experimental studies designed to discover the bare minimum number of gene products necessary for life all show significant agreement. Life seems to require between 250 and 350 different proteins to carry out its most basic operations." The simplest existing self-reproducing organism known outside the laboratory is the bacterium Mycoplasma Genitalium, which has 482 genes (two thirds of which have been shown to be necessary to its survival in the laboratory). Outside of the laboratory Mycoplasma Genitalium is "unable to sustain itself without parasitizing on an even more complex organism... Therefore a hypothetical first cell that could sustain itself would have to be even more complex." Rana and Ross argue: the minimum complexity for independent life must reside somewhere between about 500 and 1,500 gene products. So far, as scientists have continued their sequencing efforts, all microbial genomes that fall below 1,500 belong to parasites. Organisms capable of permanent independent existence require more gene products. A minimum genome size (for independent life) of 1,500 to 1,900 gene products comports with what geochemical and fossil evidence reveals about the complexity of Earth's first life. Earliest life forms displayed metabolic complexity that included photosynthetic and chemoautotrophic processes, protein synthesis, the capacity to produce amino acids, nucleotides, fatty acids and sugars [as well as] the machinery to reproduce. Some 1,500 different gene products would seem the bare minimum to sustain this level of metabolic activity... neither enough matter nor enough time in the universe exist for even the simplest bacterium to emerge by undirected chemical and physical processes."

As for the 'Golidlocks Hypothesis', the facts of the argument are beyond dispute, it is the interpretation that is controversial. But as the interpretation involves a value judgement, this too as a matter which is beyond the purview of science.

Scientists, or, should I say, those who for ideological reasons believe that Science should displace religion and philosophy as the final arbiter in the questions of morality and value, are naturally inclined to dismiss any religious or spiritual intuitions regarding the source and nature of creation. However surely from even the viewpoint of utility, it would be preferable to live believing that the Universe is a product of a grand design, and that we each have a part to play in it, than that everything just arises out of stupid matter by dumb luck and means nothing. After all, if one is correct in saying that, the grand prize is only nothingness which is kind of a hollow victory, I would have thought.

[Alan McDougall]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

It is true that the original posting here can be destroyed pretty effortlessly by a skilled logician. However I do respect the sentiment.

The argument that 'life will inevitably arise as an outcome of the interaction of forces and chemicals' is however not a scientific hypothesis in any sense of the word, it is simply wishful thinking. We might, perhaps, in some remote future be able to test and or verify this idea but it is disputed by a great many respected and non-religious biologists. I will come back to this point.

Thank you both for your comments, but does chance let such attributes below evolve out of nothing but elements and energy if you like?

Commitment
Generosity
Serenity
Courage
Peacefulness
Humor
Respect
Honesty
Power
Empathy
Fairness
Helpfulness
Independence
Interdependence
Loyalty
Patience
Pride
Resourcefulness
Intentionality (Motivation)
Openness

[jeeprs]

Well to be fair to the scientist's view of the argument of origins, Richard Dawkins (for one) does not propose chance as the sole agent which gave rise to the sophisticated life forms we see (and are). He proposes natural selection, within which, although chance plays a role, incremental increases in complexity over vast aeons give rise to adaptions which appear purposeful.

While I don't dispute the material facts of the evolution of species, I do differ with such evolutionary reductionism in the interpretation of its meaning. I believe that it is reasonable to see a purpose driving the evolutionary process, whereby the qualities you have indicated above are made manifest through the appearance of the higher species. I firmly believe that life is evolving towards higher and higher stages of consciousness (and we're not done yet!).

Have a look at Simon Conway Morris.

[Alan McDougall]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

Well to be fair to the scientist's view of the argument of origins, Richard Dawkins (for one) does not propose chance as the sole agent which gave rise to the sophisticated life forms we see (and are). He proposes natural selection, within which, although chance plays a role, incremental increases in complexity over vast aeons give rise to adaptions which appear purposeful.

While I don't dispute the material facts of the evolution of species, I do differ with such evolutionary reductionism in the interpretation of its meaning. I believe that it is reasonable to see a purpose driving the evolutionary process, whereby the qualities you have indicated above are made manifest through the appearance of the higher species. I firmly believe that life is evolving towards higher and higher stages of consciousness (and we're not done yet!).

Have a look at Simon Conway Morris.

I had a look I find him interesting. I dont dispute evolution I dispute it happening on its own , I prefer what I call driven evolution

Something like we did as kids with our ant farms, the creator , using biologic life as an ongoing experiment and we sublimely think it in natural selection

God could be doing the same with silicone life, just like we humans are trying to evolve computers into intelligent entities. Who knows we might just be a SIMS children computer game, to the child of godlike being so advanced compared to us, that for all means and purposes we would not be able to distillery it from our present idea about the Almighty of our religious understanding. Which like it or not is ingrained into each of us by human history to conform to objective beliefs, even if we claim to be unneffected eaffect by it to .

Who knows maybe we do have a god, and beyond it higher god and extending upward if you like infinitely.

What I mean is maybe our god is not the real UNCAUSED CAUSE

Guys peace to you!!

[xris]

Excellent post jeeprs.This imagined formula that created life can it be replicated?We have the choice that this complex formula that caused sustainable, replicative life was either a one of or it can occur when ever similar circumstances arise.I would like for the confirmed atheist to give their opinion on what is most likely.

---------- Post added at 06:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:45 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Alan McDougall

I had a look I find him interesting. I dont dispute evolution I dispute it happening on its own , I prefer what I call driven evolution

Something like we did as kids with our ant farms, the creator , using biologic life as an ongoing experiment and we sublimly think it in natrural selection

God could be doing the same with silicone life, just like we humans are trying to evolve computers into intelligent entities. Who knows we might just be a SIMS children computer game, to the child of godlike being so advanced compared to us, that for all means and purposes we would not be able to distillery it from our present idea about the Almighty of our religious understanding. Which like it or not is ingrained into each of us by human history to conform to objective beliefs, even if we claim to be unneffected eaffect by it to .

Who knows maybe we do have a god, and beyond it higher god and extending upward if you like infinitely.

What I mean is maybe our god is not the real UNCAUSED CAUSE

Guys peace to you!!

Alan, i think ive said it before ,im happy looking for the footprints but finding the creature that made them is out of my imagination.Thanks xris

[Alan McDougall]

Hey Guys

The brother I wrote this essay to is my sibling "Roger McDougall", he is 65 years of age and is presently riding his bicycle across the USA.

He left San Francisco some 35 days ago and hopes to reach the east coast unshaided by 80 days

He despises religion and is a fervent atheist

Check him out on his website below

crazyguyonabike.com: Bicycle Touring: 80 Days Across the US, by Roger McDougall, David Penny and Ray Shine



Alan

[xris]

Originally Posted by Alan McDougall

Hey Guys

The brother I wrote this essay to is my sibling "Roger McDougall", he is 65 years of age and is presently riding his bicycle across the USA.

He left San Francisco some 35 days ago and hopes to reach the east coast unshaided by 80 days

He despises religion and is a fervent atheist

Check him out on his website below

crazyguyonabike.com: Bicycle Touring: 80 Days Across the US, by Roger McDougall, David Penny and Ray Shine



Alan

It shows a balanced upbringing when two brothers can disagree on fundamental issues.Lucky man to be fit and able to attempt such a ride.Wish him well from me Alan,may god protect himxris...

[Alan McDougall]

Hey XRIS I keep making silly key errors in my posts

Hey Guys

The brother I wrote this essay to ("is") my sibling "Roger McDougall", he is 65 years of age and is presently riding his bicycle across the USA.

He left San Francisco some 35 days ago and hopes to reach the east coast unshaided (unaided) by 80 days

He despises religion and is a fervent atheist

Check him out on his website below