At the bottom of this page you can make comments
So we hear about:
Delusion of God. What delusion!
Delusion of Mankind through increased knowledge.
Delusion of Individual.
Who is in charge, God, Chance, Mankind, People, No one.
I have put below articles from Richard Dawkins and I have also made a few comments myself. As my usual practice I will not talk about the articles themselves because they explain themselves.
Have a read and think about what is being said.
The greatest issue I always have is with people who die the billions who have died and people such as Dawkins and others have no answer except to say, people are gone. That is obvious to me, but a not knowing what happens when you die is a big issue particularly you when you are about to die.
So God, Jesus gives you a life when you die. But of course people say I am talking about delusion.
This page is about Delusion, being deluded.
There is a lot to read below, I am sure most people skim read, so I want to make a few points before you disappear down the page.
I want you to think about the Universe, the Earth, Countries, Peoples, Cultures, Languages.
When you look at the world what do you see?
You see a world where there is very little Justice and Equity. Millions of people are killed. People are treated as being disposal by leaders of many countries. The cruelty of people to each other is mind blowing. Every single person is important and as we know millions of people simply disappear and often they have been mistreated.
That tells you the earth is not full of Justice and Equity and many people who should be brought to account never are and this would have happened right through history. We are dealing with millions of people, if not billions people who never see Justice.
If you say there is no over arching event that will bring people to account you would have to say life is unjust.
Two areas I will discuss, People, Universe, and then you can read down.
1/ You do need to think about the millions of people who have their lives hijacked because they were born into a family and then start living their lives. If there were no external forces that family would just want to have a life free from fear and starvation. All they want is a prosperous life.
Unfortunately it does not take long to see often there are external forces, such as corrupt leaders, Government leaders start interfering people’s lives and in many areas their whole life and others have their complete life destroyed such as the conflicts around the world.
Think about Syria, why should millions of people be disposessed of their Village, Cities, Houses? All happens because the Government leaders decided keeping their structures in place, Leaders, friends, patron for their favored groups.
So up to present something like 200 000 people have died in Syria, 2014.
That is Syria and if you look all around the world other areas of conflict it moves into millions of people killed in a year. If you then go back in History it is almost impossible to believe millions upon billions have been killed.
So there are millions of people are killed unjustly. Just happening because their life and circumstances has been unfortunate.
If you think about the extermination of the Jews during WW 11 innocent people exterminated just because of circumstances, being Jews.
The thought here is, if life has been taken from so many people is there no justice for these people.
If people are correct in saying there is no over arch to bring people to justice then it is true life sucks, The world would be an unfortunate place and the strong have a good life, but the powerless are trodden under foot
So Delusion happens when people think they can do what ever they want and if they get away with it, that is great for them. The truth is a person does exist and he (God) has said that the sum total of life is to fear God do what he wants you to do. What God wants you to do in the main is to look after people in equity. When people die they front up and give an account of what they did while on the earth. This also leads you to believing that people who are absolutely responsible for heinous acts will receive harsher judgment and that is the case. Jesus said about Judas who betrayed him, it would be better he was never born. That I believe is the case, for many people it would be better they were never born.
If you think about the world and what is happening with people you would have to ask, “Why are people so cruel to each other?”
So there is a problem with inside of people that they would hurt each other so badly. The answer is that inside people have a choice to do good or evil and many people choose the evil acts.
So now it really makes you happy somebody is keeping track of what people are doing.
That is God. Like it or not there is a God and we will give him an account.
Take God’s out, what a mess the world is in and no way to level the ledger of good vs evil.
So delusion is real for those who say there is no God. You cannot say God does not exist when he does.
Additional the proof of God existence is shown in the Universe.
There is no doubt here concerning the Universe and Evolution the greatest delusion has happened. In fact God himself said about people often they have deluded their minds and what they say is coming out of their mind. Their preposition is almost silly to the extreme in their effort to kick God out of their thinking so lets look at the Universe and a few comments about Evolution of life starting in the ocean crawling onto the shore and evolved into the people we see today. I am sure God who cares about all people and that people who disown him is saying, “See I exist, have a look particularly at the Universe. Can the Universe stay in place without me? If I took my power away from the Universe chaos would happen and you will not even exist on the earth. Just start looking for me from the heart and you will find me as millions of people have found and who found the truth.”
Let us look at the Universe a proof that God must exist.
- It is interesting to hear people say you cannot prove God exist and yet the very proof God exist is in peoples face. Look at the earth. Look at the sky. Look at the Universe. Look at how everything stays in place, days, seasons, planets, stars. Look at how big the Universe really is.
- Is it possible that all about the Universe is by chance? The odds do not exist. It is impossible the Universe came into being by itself. Yet many people say, The Universe evolved by chance, not by design which is the opposite to what God has said.
- In the same way the Jewish leaders saw Jesus doing miracles in front of them, they saw it and then decided to kill Jesus and said Jesus was not from his father God and that is what is happening today. Knowledge is exploding over the earth which is great and yet in this knowledge mankind has decided, there is no God.
- That thinking and wiping God out is absurd and stupid. So you die, you say there is nothing. God has said you will give an account to me. People still say no way, God is not real.
- God says, “Ok, you think what ever you like and lets see who is right, you, or me.”
- Let us look at people, a proof that God must exist.
- You probably think I will have a lot to say about the origin of life on this planet, but I think Dawkins does a good job in his articles below. and I notice his statement if my conjecture is right at evolution is the only explanation for life in the universe, so says Hawkins.
- There is no doubt here you have to make your own decision as to which paradigm you are going to follow. The Bible explanation of how the earth came into being or the other. You have to decide how mankind came into being. The Bible in Genesis chapter 1 and 2 of the creation of the earth cannot be taken chronological because we know where God says let light exist in verse 3 yet in verse 14 God said let there be lights in the firmament and sun is included. Yet we know there could be no light in verse 3 unless the sun already exists because their is no light without the sun. So this explanation is simply saying things happened but the timing is no here.
- I believe the scientists are correct in saying the Universe is billions of years old and that it is expanding, so what happens after the Big Bang it is up for conjecture and could be correct or not. Scientists can be correct in some areas but wrong in others.
- What I am clearly saying is that the world was designed, guided by God and it was not by chance. With the Christian Bible making a few statements we know God brought the world into being. At one time it did not exist and God brought that which did not exist into being, such as matter. The detail how it happened we do not know and as scientists look for answers we can find a lot of answers as to how the earth was formed. The only pity is that mankind try to cut God out. If scientists were to start with God then maybe how the universe was formed may be truer to what God did. For example for the earth to be such there are seasons, days, tilt of the earth, gravity, the firmaments, the clouds the rain, Moon and its place such as tides in oceans and the list just goes on, for all these by chance makes no sense at all. So I put my lot with God, Bible.
Let us spend a few minutes talking about Charles Darwin that is Darwinism that is a paradigm in todays world and excepted by majority of the thinkers.
A short statement is below about Darwinism. I believe that Darwinism is typical of where mankind has taken a theory that suites them because it cuts God out of the picture. So once again you are going to make a decision whether to take not of your Bible or mankind knowledge in this area. You have to decide it is plausible by chance that life stated in the ocean, then crawled onto the bank and then finally we became a monkey and from that we evolved into people we see today. To me this I think is fairy tale because mankind, Women, Men were made by God and mankind is made with God’s likeness and image and with the ability to make a decision so to follow God or not. Right from the beginning Adam and Eve decided to disobey God. Now I am going to show you that mankind did not start from the ocean and evolved simply using Jewish History. Genealogy. There are two Family Trees in the Gospel message. 1/ Shows Abraham start and then up to Jesus Christ. Matthew chapter 1:16. The reason genealogy started here is because it is the start of the journey with Faith as we are told not all Jews are true descendants of Abraham, but those by Faith we see the true descendants of Abraham and that makes us the descendants for Abraham by Faith.
2/ This next genealogy starts with Jesus Christ and notice it finishes the son of Adam the son of God. So we see a real person Adam and from Adam we see God is the place where God made Adam. So that proves mankind was not evolved but mankind came into being by the normal way except some one had to bring mankind into being. Adam in the same way God had to create the world Universe
I have put this genealogy for you to see Adam is the son of God. So mankind did not crawl onto the bank and evolve. Last verse is in red to highlight what I am trying to say.
As I have said to you before you need to do the research and make up your own mind who you believe. As I have also put my lot with God and the Bible in the same way other people say the God, Bible is rubbish. To me that is fine. You need to remember in a few years you will be gone from the earth and I hope you have not made a mistake if you have ignored God, and decided the lot with mankind, when they will be gone, but God will still be there. There is a small Video next to my photo at the top. And I have put the text at the bottom, click here to go straight to the text
23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism Photo Charles Darwin 1868
Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual’s ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory. It originally included the broad concepts of transmutation of species or of evolution which gained general scientific acceptance when Charles Robert Darwin published On the Origin of Species, including concepts which predated Darwin’s theories, but subsequently referred to specific concepts of natural selection, the Weismann barrier or in genetics the central dogma of molecular biology. Though it usually refers strictly to biological evolution, the term has been used by creationists to refer to the origin of life, and has even been applied to concepts of cosmic evolution, both of which have no connection to Darwin’s work. It is therefore considered the belief and acceptance of Darwin’s, and his predecessors, work in place of other theories including divine design and extraterrestrial origins.
The term was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in April 1860, and was used to describe evolutionary concepts in general, including earlier concepts such as Spencerism. Many of the proponents of Darwinism at that time, including Huxley, had reservations about the significance of natural selection, and Darwin himself gave credence to what was later called Lamarckism. The strict neo-Darwinism of August Weismann gained few supporters in the late 19th century. During this period, which has been called “the eclipse of Darwinism“, scientists proposed various alternative evolutionary mechanisms which eventually proved untenable. The development of the modern evolutionary synthesis from the 1930s to the 1950s, incorporating natural selection with population genetics and Mendelian genetics, revived Darwinism in an updated form.
While the term has remained in use amongst scientific authors when referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been argued that it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory. For example, Darwin was unfamiliar with the work of Gregor Mendel, and as a result had only a vague and inaccurate understanding of heredity. He naturally had no inkling of yet more recent developments and, like Mendel himself, knew nothing of genetic drift for example. In the United States, the term “Darwinism” is often used by creationists as a pejorative term in reference to beliefs such as atheistic naturalism, but in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a shorthand for the body of theory dealing with evolution, and in particular, evolution by natural selection.
It is always interesting to read well written articles such as Richard Dawkins and even though I serve the living God that Dawkin’s says does not exist in God’s world and in my thinking as well each person has the right to say what they think and Richard Dawkins is the same so he has written what I think is interesting to read. Often I have repeated that each person should be able to speak their mind without hypocrisy. That is what they say and write is the true person. So I am also happy to have my say on the subject of the “Delusion of God” and also “There’s Probably No God.” What is even more interesting is the fact that over thousands of years people have made comments about there is no God and in the same time people are also saying there is a God. Keith Ward had his say in “Why There Almost Certainly Is a God” So we have people doing their best to comment what they say is true.
God, Jesus Christ probably has the best approach in discussing about God. God does not force his view on other people. God has simply made comments and as his trait is, each person can listen to God or not, contrasting people on the world saying if people do not listen to their view and accept their view, it starts fights and wars.
America, founded in secularism as a beacon of eighteenth century enlightenment, is becoming the victim of religious politics, a circumstance that would have horrified the Founding Fathers. The political ascendancy today values embryonic cells over adult people. It obsesses about gay marriage, ahead of genuinely important issues that actually make a difference to the world. It gains crucial electoral support from a religious constituency whose grip on reality is so tenuous that they expect to be ‘raptured’ up to heaven, leaving their clothes as empty as their minds. More extreme specimens actually long for a world war, which they identify as the ‘Armageddon’ that is to presage the Second Coming. Sam Harris, in his new short book, Letter to a Christian Nation, hits the bull’s-eye as usual:
Does Bush check the Rapture Index daily, as Reagan did his stars? We don’t know, but would anyone be surprised?
MMy scientific colleagues have additional reasons to declare emergency. Ignorant and absolutist attacks on stem cell research are just the tip of an iceberg. What we have here is nothing less than a global assault on rationality, and the Enlightenment values that inspired the founding of this first and greatest of secular republics. Science education – and hence the whole future of science in this country – is under threat. Temporarily beaten back in a Pennsylvania court, the ‘breathtaking inanity’ (Judge John Jones’s immortal phrase) of ‘intelligent design’ continually flares up in local bush-fires. Dowsing them is a time-consuming but important responsibility, and scientists are finally being jolted out of their complacency. For years they quietly got on with their science, lamentably underestimating the creationists who, being neither competent nor interested in science, attended to the serious political business of subverting local school boards. Scientists, and intellectuals generally, are now waking up to the threat from the American Taliban.
Scientists divide into two schools of thought over the best tactics with which to face the threat. The Neville Chamberlain ‘appeasement’ school focuses on the battle for evolution. Consequently, its members identify fundamentalism as the enemy, and they bend over backwards to appease ‘moderate’ or ‘sensible’ religion (not a difficult task, for bishops and theologians despise fundamentalists as much as scientists do). Scientists of the Winston Churchill school, by contrast, see the fight for evolution as only one battle in a larger war: a looming war between supernaturalism on the one side and rationality on the other. For them, bishops and theologians belong with creationists in the supernatural camp, and are not to be appeased.
The Chamberlain school accuses hurchillians of rocking the boat to the point of muddying the waters. The philosopher of science Michael Ruse wrote:
A recent article in the New York Times by Cornelia Dean quotes the astronomer Owen Gingerich as saying that, by simultaneously advocating evolution and atheism, ‘Dr Dawkins “probably single-handedly makes more converts to intelligent design than any of the leading intelligent design theorists”.’ This is not the first, not the second, not even the third time this plonkingly witless point has been made (and more than one reply has aptly cited Uncle Remus: “Oh please please Brer Fox, don’t throw me in that awful briar patch”).
Chamberlainites are apt to quote the late Stephen Jay Gould’s ‘NOMA’ – ‘non-overlapping magisteria’. Gould claimed that science and true religion never come into conflict because they exist in completely separate dimensions of discourse:
This sounds terrific, right up until you give it a moment’s thought. You then realize that the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science. A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. God could clinch the matter in his favour at any moment by staging a spectacular demonstration of his powers, one that would satisfy the exacting standards of science. Even the infamous Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis – by funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients. It didn’t, of course, although a control group who knew they had been prayed for tended to get worse (how about a class action suit against the Templeton Foundation?) Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.
To see the disingenuous hypocrisy of religious people who embrace NOMA, imagine that forensic archeologists, by some unlikely set of circumstances, discovered DNA evidence demonstrating that Jesus was born of a virgin mother and had no father. If NOMA enthusiasts were sincere, they should dismiss the archeologists’ DNA out of hand: “Irrelevant. Scientific evidence has no bearing on theological questions. Wrong magisterium.” Does anyone seriously imagine that they would say anything remotely like that? You can bet your boots that not just the fundamentalists but every professor of theology and every bishop in the land would trumpet the archeological evidence to the skies.
Either Jesus had a father or he didn’t. The question is a scientific one, and scientific evidence, if any were available, would be used to settle it. The same is true of any miracle – and the deliberate and intentional creation of the universe would have to have been the mother and father of all miracles. Either it happened or it didn’t. It is a fact, one way or the other, and in our state of uncertainty we can put a probability on it – an estimate that may change as more information comes in. Humanity’s best estimate of the probability of divine creation dropped steeply in 1859 when The Origin of Species was published, and it has declined steadily during the subsequent decades, as evolution consolidated itself from plausible theory in the nineteenth century to established fact today.
The Chamberlain tactic of snuggling up to ‘sensible’ religion, in order to present a united front against (‘intelligent design’) creationists, is fine if your central concern is the battle for evolution. That is a valid central concern, and I salute those who press it, such as Eugenie Scott in Evolution versus Creationism. But if you are concerned with the stupendous scientific question of whether the universe was created by a supernatural intelligence or not, the lines are drawn completely differently. On this larger issue, fundamentalists are united with ‘moderate’ religion on one side, and I find myself on the other.
Of course, this all presupposes that the God we are talking about is a personal intelligence such as Yahweh, Allah, Baal, Wotan, Zeus or Lord Krishna. If, by ‘God’, you mean love, nature, goodness, the universe, the laws of physics, the spirit of humanity, or Planck’s constant, none of the above applies. An American student asked her professor whether he had a view about me. ‘Sure,’ he replied. ‘He’s positive science is incompatible with religion, but he waxes ecstatic about nature and the universe. To me, that is ¬religion!’ Well, if that’s what you choose to mean by religion, fine, that makes me a religious man. But if your God is a being who designs universes, listens to prayers, forgives sins, wreaks miracles, reads your thoughts, cares about your welfare and raises you from the dead, you are unlikely to be satisfied. As the distinguished American physicist Steven Weinberg said, “If you want to say that ‘God is energy,’ then you can find God in a lump of coal.” But don’t expect congregations to flock to your church.
When Einstein said ‘Did God have a choice in creating the Universe?’ he meant ‘Could the universe have begun in more than one way?’ ‘God does not play dice’ was Einstein’s poetic way of doubting Heisenberg’s indeterminacy principle. Einstein was famously irritated when theists misunderstood him to mean a personal God. But what did he expect? The hunger to misunderstand should have been palpable to him. ‘Religious’ physicists usually turn out to be so only in the Einsteinian sense: they are atheists of a poetic disposition. So am I. But, given the widespread yearning for that great misunderstanding, deliberately to confuse Einsteinian pantheism with supernatural religion is an act of intellectual high treason.
Accepting, then, that the God Hypothesis is a proper scientific hypothesis whose truth or falsehood is hidden from us only by lack of evidence, what should be our best estimate of the probability that God exists, given the evidence now available? Pretty low I think, and here’s why.
First, most of the traditional arguments for God’s existence, from Aquinas on, are easily demolished. Several of them, such as the First Cause argument, work by setting up an infinite regress which God is wheeled out to terminate. But we are never told why God is magically able to terminate regresses while needing no explanation himself. To be sure, we do need some kind of explanation for the origin of all things. Physicists and cosmologists are hard at work on the problem. But whatever the answer – a random quantum fluctuation or a Hawking/Penrose singularity or whatever we end up calling it – it will be simple. Complex, statistically improbable things, by definition, don’t just happen; they demand an explanation in their own right. They are impotent to terminate regresses, in a way that simple things are not. The first cause cannot have been an intelligence – let alone an intelligence that answers prayers and enjoys being worshipped. Intelligent, creative, complex, statistically improbable things come late into the universe, as the product of evolution or some other process of gradual escalation from simple beginnings. They come late into the universe and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it.
Another of Aquinas’ efforts, the Argument from Degree, is worth spelling out, for it epitomises the characteristic flabbiness of theological reasoning. We notice degrees of, say, goodness or temperature, and we measure them, Aquinas said, by reference to a maximum:
That’s an argument? You might as well say that people vary in smelliness but we can make the judgment only by reference to a perfect maximum of conceivable smelliness. Therefore there must exist a pre-eminently peerless stinker, and we call him God. Or substitute any dimension of comparison you like, and derive an equivalently fatuous conclusion. That’s theology.
The only one of the traditional arguments for God that is widely used today is the teleological argument, sometimes called the Argument from Design although – since the name begs the question of its validity – it should better be called the Argument for Design. It is the familiar ‘watchmaker’ argument, which is surely one of the most superficially plausible bad arguments ever discovered – and it is rediscovered by just about everybody until they are taught the logical fallacy and Darwin’s brilliant alternative.
In the familiar world of human artifacts, complicated things that look designed are designed. To naïve observers, it seems to follow that similarly complicated things in the natural world that look designed – things like eyes and hearts – are designed too. It isn’t just an argument by analogy. There is a semblance of statistical reasoning here too – fallacious, but carrying an illusion of plausibility. If you randomly scramble the fragments of an eye or a leg or a heart a million times, you’d be lucky to hit even one combination that could see, walk or pump. This demonstrates that such devices could not have been put together by chance. And of course, no sensible scientist ever said they could. Lamentably, the scientific education of most British and American students omits all mention of Darwinism, and therefore the only alternative to chance that most people can imagine is design.
Even before Darwin’s time, the illogicality was glaring: how could it ever have been a good idea to postulate, in explanation for the existence of improbable things, a designer who would have to be even more improbable? The entire argument is a logical non-starter, as David Hume realized before Darwin was born. What Hume didn’t know was the supremely elegant alternative to both chance and design that Darwin was to give us. Natural selection is so stunningly powerful and elegant, it not only explains the whole of life, it raises our consciousness and boosts our confidence in science’s future ability to explain everything else.
Natural selection is not just an alternative to chance. It is the only ultimate alternative ever suggested. Design is a workable explanation for organized complexity only in the short term. It is not an ultimate explanation, because designers themselves demand an explanation. If, as Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel once playfully speculated, life on this planet was deliberately seeded by a payload of bacteria in the nose cone of a rocket, we still need an explanation for the intelligent aliens who dispatched the rocket. Ultimately they must have evolved by gradual degrees from simpler beginnings. Only evolution, or some kind of gradualistic ‘crane’ (to use Daniel Dennett’s neat term), is capable of terminating the regress. Natural selection is an anti-chance process, which gradually builds up complexity, step by tiny step. The end product of this ratcheting process is an eye, or a heart, or a brain – a device whose improbable complexity is utterly baffling until you spot the gentle ramp that leads up to it.
Whether my conjecture is right that evolution is the only explanation for life in the universe, there is no doubt that it is the explanation for life on this planet. Evolution is a fact, and it is among the more secure facts known to science. But it had to get started somehow. Natural selection cannot work its wonders until certain minimal conditions are in place, of which the most important is an accurate system of replication – DNA, or something that works like DNA.
The origin of life on this planet – which means the origin of the first self-replicating molecule – is hard to study, because it (probably) only happened once, 4 billion years ago and under very different conditions from those with which we are familiar. We may never know how it happened. Unlike the ordinary evolutionary events that followed, it must have been a genuinely very improbable – in the sense of unpredictable – event: too improbable, perhaps, for chemists to reproduce it in the laboratory or even devise a plausible theory for what happened. This weirdly paradoxical conclusion – that a chemical account of the origin of life, in order to be plausible, has to be implausible – would follow if it were the case that life is extremely rare in the universe. And indeed we have never encountered any hint of extraterrestrial life, not even by radio – the circumstance that prompted Enrico Fermi’s cry: “Where is everybody?”
Suppose life’s origin on a planet took place through a hugely improbable stroke of luck, so improbable that it happens on only one in a billion planets. The National Science Foundation would laugh at any chemist whose proposed research had only a one in a hundred chance of succeeding, let alone one in a billion. Yet, given that there are at least a billion billion planets in the universe, even such absurdly low odds as these will yield life on a billion planets. And – this is where the famous anthropic principle comes in – Earth has to be one of them, because here we are.
If you set out in a spaceship to find the one planet in the galaxy that has life, the odds against your finding it would be so great that the task would be indistinguishable, in practice, from impossible. But if you are alive (as you manifestly are if you are about to step into a spaceship) you needn’t bother to go looking for that one planet because, by definition, you are already standing on it. The anthropic principle really is rather elegant. By the way, I don’t actually think the origin of life was as improbable as all that. I think the galaxy has plenty of islands of life dotted about, even if the islands are too spaced out for any one to hope for a meeting with any other. My point is only that, given the number of planets in the universe, the origin of life could in theory be as lucky as a blindfolded golfer scoring a hole in one. The beauty of the anthropic principle is that, even in the teeth of such stupefying odds against, it still gives us a perfectly satisfying explanation for life’s presence on our own planet.
The anthropic principle is usually applied not to planets but to universes. Physicists have suggested that the laws and constants of physics are too good – as if the universe were set up to favour our eventual evolution. It is as though there were, say, half a dozen dials representing the major constants of physics. Each of the dials could in principle be tuned to any of a wide range of values. Almost all of these knob-twiddlings would yield a universe in which life would be impossible. Some universes would fizzle out within the first picosecond. Others would contain no elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. In yet others, matter would never condense into stars (and you need stars in order to forge the elements of chemistry and hence life). You can estimate the very low odds against the six knobs all just happening to be correctly tuned, and conclude that a divine knob-twiddler must have been at work. But, as we have already seen, that explanation is vacuous because it begs the biggest question of all. The divine knob twiddler would himself have to have been at least as improbable as the settings of his knobs.
Again, the anthropic principle delivers its devastatingly neat solution. Physicists already have reason to suspect that our universe – everything we can see – is only one universe among perhaps billions. Some theorists postulate a multiverse of foam, where the universe we know is just one bubble. Each bubble has its own laws and constants. Our familiar laws of physics are parochial bylaws. Of all the universes in the foam, only a minority has what it takes to generate life. And, with anthropic hindsight, we obviously have to be sitting in a member of that minority, because, well, here we are, aren’t we? As physicists have said, it is no accident that we see stars in our sky, for a universe without stars would also lack the chemical elements necessary for life. There may be universes whose skies have no stars: but they also have no inhabitants to notice the lack. Similarly, it is no accident that we see a rich diversity of living species: for an evolutionary process that is capable of yielding a species that can see things and reflect on them cannot help producing lots of other species at the same time. The reflective species must be surrounded by an ecosystem, as it must be surrounded by stars.
The anthropic principle entitles us to postulate a massive dose of luck in accounting for the existence of life on our planet. But there are limits. We are allowed one stroke of luck for the origin of evolution, and perhaps for a couple of other unique events like the origin of the eukaryotic cell and the origin of consciousness. But that’s the end of our entitlement to large-scale luck. We emphatically cannot invoke major strokes of luck to account for the illusion of design that glows from each of the billion species of living creature that have ever lived on Earth. The evolution of life is a general and continuing process, producing essentially the same result in all species, however different the details.
Contrary to what is sometimes alleged, evolution is a predictive science. If you pick any hitherto unstudied species and subject it to minute scrutiny, any evolutionist will confidently predict that each individual will be observed to do everything in its power, in the particular way of the species – plant, herbivore, carnivore, nectivore or whatever it is – to survive and propagate the DNA that rides inside it. We won’t be around long enough to test the prediction but we can say, with great confidence, that if a comet strikes Earth and wipes out the mammals, a new fauna will rise to fill their shoes, just as the mammals filled those of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. And the range of parts played by the new cast of life’s drama will be similar in broad outline, though not in detail, to the roles played by the mammals, and the dinosaurs before them, and the mammal-like reptiles before the dinosaurs. The same rules are predictably being followed, in millions of species all over the globe, and for hundreds of millions of years. Such a general observation requires an entirely different explanatory principle from the anthropic principle that explains one-off events like the origin of life, or the origin of the universe, by luck. That entirely different principle is natural selection.
We explain our existence by a combination of the anthropic principle and Darwin’s principle of natural selection. That combination provides a complete and deeply satisfying explanation for everything that we see and know. Not only is the god hypothesis unnecessary. It is spectacularly unparsimonious. Not only do we need no God to explain the universe and life. God stands out in the universe as the most glaring of all superfluous sore thumbs. We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can’t disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can’t disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable.
Richard Dawkins is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society, and the author of nine books, including The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker and The Ancestor’s Tale. His new book, The God Delusion, published last week by Houghton Mifflin, is already a NEW YORK TIMES bestseller, and his Foundation for Reason and Science launched at the same time (see RichardDawkins.net).
A friend of mine who died August 2014.
Norm over the years was always been concerned about people who did not know Jesus Christ.
|Norm Hutchison the same as others cannot imagine the time when we leave the earth and that is exactly what happened to Norm. My time will also come. Your time will also be a reality as hard as it to imagine.As I pen this Tribute Norm was still to be buried at Warialda NSW Australia. Norm’s son Danny rang to say he had died and it was a few months before he died that I visited him.
I knew Norm from a Christian point of view which meant most of the time when I visited we talked about what happened in the Christian World and particularly we talked about the Bible the Word of God.
Our Unity in Christ was there because we both knew we were the true blue Christians, and we knew we both followed the Lord Jesus Christ.
I suppose if Norm was titled about his views he was a of the Reform Stream what ever that means. Norm loved Christian Authors and he was always immersed in his books and looking for insights from the writers who also were Christians. So he loved his books. When he moved into Retirement Home his books needed to be culled, but right up to his death he had dozens of books in his room.
So Norm Hutchison you have died, but as a friend I know you have joined all the other Christians who are in the Kingdom of God. Your true life, your destiny has been achieved and I look forward to being with you.
If you wish you can make a Comment click here there is a Blog page of the material here about Norm.
This is your Tribute Norm and I know thousands of people will visit you.
You may have left us, but your ministry will continue for many years.
Cheers, a friend
To know about my Journey up to 2009 read the introduction of www.revelationyoucanunderstand.com down the page and from 2009 I am going to discuss what has happened to 2014 here.
Currently my hope is to keep developing www.youmustrepent.com and also I hope to have meetings in Glen Innes which is 40 kilometres South of Deepwater. These meetings will be revealed in January 2015 when I Launch my E-Book, Online Book January 2015.
If I could make a comment to you, it would be that time is short and do not waste your time. Do not be lazy. Do not not spent time with Jesus Christ. If you are in a church do what you can to help the church blossom. Be known in your church as being a dynamo. Eager to do the work and serve Jesus Christ. Never be happy with the status quo. As a Christian seek out knowledge of Jesus Christ about God and his Kingdom. Have you though about Revelation chapter 21 about Jerusalem. Size 1500 miles long, 1500 breadth and 1500 high this is Jerusalem in the new world, new heaven, new earth, simply amazing.
There is so much to learn about God’s Kingdom and a lot of it is hidden manner and if you please God he will give you the hidden manner.
Think about this as well:
For us it is important to understand the world does not recognise God, Jesus Christ and yet God, Jesus has said, “Preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” That is our job and that is my job and our life is to be a blessing to people in the world and not judge people.
Now if I am new to you you can find about me in three areas. www.revelationyoucanunderstand.com and look at the introduction there where my journey with Jesus Christ is written. I also have www.youmustrepent.com information Videos, singing and teaching. I am clearly an Evangelist I have known right from the beginning in my life with Jesus Christ. My call is clearly from God himself and Evangelistic work is what I do. My personal site I also have my personal work hendrik de jong I have added info for years so there is a lot to see. My income comes from www.gleninnesindex.com I am a Web Site Developer catering for small businesses
This page still to be edited, structure and grammar.
More next time.
Bible, God’s Word, Holy Bible, New Testament, Old Testament,
Adam , Eve, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Israel, David, Solomon, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Genesis, Exodus,
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, Revelation.
Jesus, Jesus Christ, Paul, Holy Spirit,Atheist in Glen Innes.
You say there is no God
Sin is not real all this about God Jesus Holy Spirit is pure rubbish.
Sin is maybe maybe not all this about Hell Damnation is wrong. God is a God of love.
Jesus is about love and forgiveness.
You say there is no Salvation in Jesus Christ
Glen Innes Church Warialda, Moree, Inverelles
Glen Innes Catholic Church Warialda, Moree, Inverell
Baptist Church Warialda, Moree, Inverell at Glen Innes.
Glen Innes Presbyterian Church Warialda, Moree, Inverell
Jehovah Witnesses at Glen Innes. Kingdom Hall
Glen Innes Pentecostal Church Warialda, Moree, Inverell.
Uniting Church Warialda, Moree, Inverell at Glen Innes
Glen Innes Anglican Church Warialda, Moree, Inverell
Non Denominational Church Warialda, Moree, Inverell in Glen Innes.
Glen Innes Seventh Day Adventist Church Warialda, Moree, Inverell
Glen Innes Salvation Army
Brethren Church Warialda, Moree, Inverell Glen Innes
Assemblies of God in Glen Innes
Glen Innes Community Church Warialda, Moree, Inverell
New Life Apostolic Church Warialda, Moree, Inverell
Glen Innes Christian Life Centre
Calvary Christian Church Warialda, Moree, Inverell
Church Warialda, Moree, Inverell of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Church Warialda, Moree, Inverelles of Christ
Trinity Church Warialda, Moree, Inverell
Reformed Church Warialda, Moree, Inverell.
Any town and country