วีดีโอ

Peter, first, thanks for your comments. You don't rant or rave, so I appreciate your careful presentation of your points. I'm not a scientist, so I go by what I read from others. It seems odd to me that so many non-theists agree that that fine tuning of the universe suggests a miraculous intervention by someone or something outside the universe. I have collected lots of these thoughts, from people like Paul Davies, Fred Hoyle, Freeman Dyson, Michael Denton, Antony Flew (philosopher), Thomas Nagel, Lynn Margulis, Steven Weinberg, and others.

​@@theapologistsbookshelf6067 My mother taught me to show respect for everyone until they gave me a reason not to. That's worked for me all these years. Paul Davies was a student of Fred Hoyle. So far as I know, neither of them ever suggested a theistic god creating the entire universe. Davies believed that there was an element of faith in scientific research. Dyson was a fascinating, and bizarre, man He was a professing christian who did not, however, in his words, "believing christian." He held that some immortal intelligent beings could exist. Nowhere can I find his suggesting that universal constants could vary. Michael Denton works for the Discovery Institute. He has produced almost no peer-reviewed papers, and none whatsoever in any field related to universal constants. Thomas Nagel and Antony Flew are (were) philosophers with no training in relevan fields. Lynn Margulies is a proponent of the Gaia hypothesis (James Lovelock's massive theoretical construct). Her specific views have varied, with increasing evidence, but she did posit at one time a consideration that could be interpreted as a possibly variable control of certain biochemical constants. She never dealt, except as it related to the Gaia hypothesis, with physical constants, and has not published anything in that area. Steve Weinberg has studied, among other areas, the complex problem of the cosmological constant. That's a hyper-technical discussion of the quantitative value of vacuum energy compared to the available mass in the universe. It doesn't really have anything to do with this discussion. Steve most certainly would not posit or accept any claim that there was a divine 'fine tuner.' He is best known, among philosophers and apologists alike, for coining the truism "God men will naturally do good things, and bad men will naturally do bad things. But to make a good man do a truly horrible thing, religion is required." I think you can see that he would not support your position. As far as I know, and astrophysics nor cosmology are my areas of specialty, no one has ever provided any evidentiary basis for a hypothesis that the constants could be different. If you have some cites, I would happily look at them. In any event, talking to you was a pleasant time to exercise my brain in areas I usually don't. I always appreciate the opportunity for that type of exercise.

@@petercollins7730 Thanks again for reasonable replies, Peter. There's a book out by two scientists who don't believe in God--Barrow (astronomer) and Tipler (physicist)--The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. They have over one hundred examples of fine tuning that allows life to exist. Gribbin and Rees (don't know their beliefs regarding God; they are physicists) wrote a book called Cosmic Coincidences that also says the amount of matter is well tuned for life and is not a coincidence. Then there are others like Owen Ginerich and Dean Lee who talk up fine tuning. I still think it's fair to use Davies and some of the others I mentioned before. Interesting comment by Weinberg about real evil. I wonder where he gets the idea of calling something evil--a standard must exist beyond the human race for us to call something true evil. If there's no God, all we can say is that we don't like it. When we tell someone what they are doing is wrong, they can say, "Sez who?' and we're stuck without a higher standard. Here's my review of an interesting article by Arthur Leff, Yale professor: There is a great essay by Arthur Leff (Yale Law Professor) entitled "Unspeakable Ethics, Natural Law." He is explaining the difficulty modern people are having with ethics and morality now that they have discarded the idea of God and His transcendent laws of behavior. In one part of his essay he says the following: "I want to believe and so do you in a complete, transcendent,… set of propositions about right and wrong, findable rules that authoritatively and unambiguously direct us how to live righteously. I also want to believe and so do you in no such thing, but rather that we are wholly free, not only to choose for ourselves what we ought to do, but to decide for ourselves what we ought to be." You can see the problem here according to Leff. We all want to be our own gods, setting up our own morality. But then how do we get others to go along with this arrangement? But with God out of the picture, Leff says every human becomes a "godlet" with as much authority to set standards as any other godlet. For example, if a human says "thou shall not commit adultery," he invites "the formal intellectual equivalent of what is known in bar rooms and schoolyards as 'the grand sez who?'" In other words, what gives one person the authority to prescribe what is good for another person? Here's the key question. How can we get others to obey our idea of morality if we are all gods unto ourselves? Most of Leff's essay consists of a review of all the unsuccessful attempts to establish an objective moral order on a foundation of human construction (taking God's place) - command of the sovereign, the majority of the voters, the principle of utility, the Supreme Court interpretations,… Every alternative rests ultimately on human authority. Every system fails the test of "the grand sez who." Here is the end of his essay: "All I can say is this: it looks as if we are all we have. Given what we know about ourselves, and each other, this is an extraordinarily unappetizing prospect. Neither reason, nor love, nor even terror, seems to have worked to make us "good." As things stand now, everything is up for grabs. Nevertheless: napalm in babies is bad. Starving the poor is wicked. Buying and selling each other is depraved… There is in the world such a thing as evil. [All together now: ] Sez who? God help us.”

@@theapologistsbookshelf6067 I've seen numerous arguments that there are so many constants, or they are so finely tuned, that it can't be coincidence. Again, I refer you to the first and third points I made. Until someone can demonstrate, with sufficient good evidence, that any constant could be different, the argument immediately fails. We have literally never seen any variance in these constants - why would it be expected that they could vary. And again, these constants have to have some value. Even if those values are entirely random, it is as likely that the current values would be held than that any other set would exist. The constants have never changed, so far as we know. There is literally not a bit of evidence that they could be different. hat is an insuperable point of denial. I'm sorry, but I find the claim that there must be a standard of morality imposed from above quite offensive. ( I'm not offended at you - I am offended at the idea.) Humans are an intelligent, social species, capable of logical thought. We have developed a system of ethics, which is ever-changing - to fit both the evolutionary requirements of a social species and the intellectual requirements of a logical species. The basis of ethics can be as simple as the requirement to do that which is most beneficial and avoid that which is most detrimental. That doesn't require a god; it requires no more than intelligent thought. Humans want what is best to happen to them, and want what is worst to not happen to them. It is a very short step in logic to apply that to others. Most societies in history have had some version of what you call the golden rule, going back at least as far, in recorded history, as the Analects of Confucius. Variously, it says "Do not do unto another what would be hurtful if done unto you." Once that basis is established, objective criteria can be used to decide what is ethical, what is good. Even if the standard of morality comes from your god, it is subjective - god is a subject, a sentient being. And if your standard rests on some god, then how is the good defined? Is something good because god says it is good? Or is god applying some objective standard of good? In the first case, it really doesn't base morality - it is entirely the whim of your god. In the second case, no god is needed. I see no reason to object to a standard of ethics based on human standards. We are human; why should we not set the standard for our behaviour? That argument has never made sense to me. And if the claim is made that morality is power now that god has lost, in advanced societies, most authority and power, I would reply that that is clearly historically inaccurate. The current time is vastly more moral than the past. In the time of your bible, slavery was not only accepted but encouraged, including by your god. Nowadays, virtually every person finds the idea of owning another human abhorrent. Again in your bible's time, women were routinely and officially treated as property, without any semblance of rights. This, too, is biblical. There are certainly aserious problems of ethics now, but that is largely because the basic expectation for moral behaviour is far higher than in the past. And much of the most egregious violations of accepted morality come from the followers of Abrahamic gods: the largest paedophile organization in the world is also the largest christian organization; in the recent past, the most horrific acts of brutality in war have been done for explicitly Abrahamic religious causes - the Rwandan genocide, now 30 years on; the endless war in the Mid-East; the internecine christian conflict, which has killed and maimed thousands, in Northern Ireland; Kosovo. The list is very long. The countries in the world that are ranked the happiest, the most peaceful, with the most widespread protection and support of their people are essentially atheist. Take the Scandinavian countries. They are all small minority religious, but they have very low crime, very low poverty, do not engage in endless wars, and have the highest ratings of happiness. I'm not claiming that all christians, or all religious people are evil, violent monsters. They are clearly not. Most people follow a very similar morality - they eschew murder, rape, stealing, and fraud. They value service and caring and nurturing. But I find Weinberg's thought apt - the worst of the worst seem to be, in large measure, the religious. A minority, certainly, of the religious. I'm afraid this was exceedingly long and probably more offensive than I intend. I don't think religion causes these evils, but I do believe that it, too very often, provides a basis and an excuse for the worst of behaviours.

I have read a lot about the Nazis. Hitler and most of others in charge were definitely not Christians. They despised the idea of loving enemies. They liked the idea of supermen without old fashioned morality.

@@theapologistsbookshelf6067though Hitler and the Nazis were certainly closely aligned with the Roman Catholic Church and wore belt buckles that said “god on our side” you could make the argument that they weren’t “true Christians” based on their ideology, but you’d just be guilt of the no true Scotsman fallacy. What we can say for sure, since we don’t know what were the actual beliefs of Hitler and his followers, is that they certainly recognized the use in declaring religious affiliation, and that alone should be a red flag. It does not indicate whether the beliefs are true or not, but it certainly indicated they are effective in producing unquestioning followers capable of committing atrocities.

@@MrMattSax They weren't true Christians or any other kind of Christian. Historians agree Hitler was a staunch opponent of Christianity (see Wikipedia on "Religious Views of Adolf Hitler"). We do know their actual beliefs--a tough paganism. If you look at the Bible, you can see Jesus and his teachings were the opposite of the Hitler clique.

@@theapologistsbookshelf6067 you pretty much missed the entirety of my point. Did you not read my response? And also, do you not know of the No Scottsman fallacy? How are you the gatekeeper of what is a “true Christian”? What objective claims can you make that define “true Christian” and how do you deny those that claim to be Christian but who aren’t? Plus you completely ignored my larger point which was that clearly religion can be used as a tool to make people commit atrocities. The Nazis were clearly allied with the Catholic Church. Whether they were sincere about their Christianity is almost irrelevant to the utility it provided in its alliance with the church. I could say that American MAGA Christian nationalists are not true Christians because they don’t follow the teachings of Jesus. Do you agree or do you make exceptions in that case? That’s the whole point of the fallacy, you can make subjective interpretations of what it means to be “true” but that cannot be separated from your opinion and preference.

@@theapologistsbookshelf6067way to completely disregard what the comment was saying. He makes an incredibly valid point that it doesn't matter whether Hitler was a christian or not. It is undeniable that Hitler and the Nazi party as a whole used religion in their ideologies and to make their soldiers unwavering, like MattSax said. Not to mention you claiming that since jesus "taught the opposite of the Hitler clique," there were several times in the old testament where "god' justified the slaughter and genocide of peoples, including women and children. Please try your best to open your eyes to criticism and hopefully one day you can take a genuine skeptical view of what you believe.

Hi, Paul, This is simply a report on a new book that warns people of a new movement seeking to replace the traditional Judeo-Christian principles that have been part of this country.

What was the original message of Jesus? How was it different from Paul's?