CONVERSATION WITH AN ATHEIST

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

The heavens declare the glory of God; the sky displays his handiwork. Day after day it speaks out; night after night it reveals his greatness. There is no actual speech or word, nor is its voice literally heard. Yet its voice echoes throughout the earth; its words carry to the distant horizon.
Psalm 19:1-4 NET

The following is an email conversation between Spike Psarris, a believing Astronomer, and an atheist.

It all started with an email message from someone. Here’s what he said:

“Just when I thought that the world had enough dumb in it, this site
appears.

Please explain how you were able to secure the arrogance to ignore
all of 20th & 21st century (testable & reproducable) physics and
replace it with the largest (untestable) appeal to magic I have
ever witnessed.

I'm waiting...”

Now I get lots of messages from atheists.

Most are profane, blasphemous, or nonsensical, so I ignore them.
This one though was semi-courteous, so I wrote back.

How would you have replied to something like this? At only three
sentences long, his message doesn't give much to discuss -- or
does it?

Here's the answer I sent him:

“Hello [his name],

Actually, it was because of testable and reproducible physics that
I abandoned the atheistic view.

I assume you believe the Big Bang model. If so, you yourself
believe in a long list of "appeals to magic":

-- the Universe popped into existence from nothing (in violation of
the 1st law of thermodynamics)...

-- it then arranged itself into a very low-entropy configuration
(in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics)...

-- along the way, inflation suddenly began (which nobody can
explain)...

-- then it suddenly stopped again (which again, nobody can explain).

-- Most of the Universe consists of "dark energy", which is
completely unknown to science.

-- Most of the rest consists of "dark matter", which is also
unknown to science.

-- Hydrogen and helium gas, when given billions of years,
eventually turn into people (think about it).

I could go on. And that's not even addressing the multiple failures
of more specific aspects of the model. Example: the solar nebula
model predicts that the gas giant planets cannot exist. (Obviously,
they do.)

To me, it is far more rational to believe that a Universe of
breathtaking beauty and majesty, which contains marvels of
engineering design that far surpass man's best efforts to
comprehend (never mind to equal), was created by an intelligent
being.

To say that it all created itself, requiring lots of hand-waving
and many apparent miracles that contradict known physical laws, is
hardly "testable, reproducible physics."

I assume you're an atheist, or perhaps an agnostic. I was an
atheist until my late 20s.

I knew the evolutionary model inside and out, and believed it 100%.
It wasn't until a Christian acquaintance challenged my beliefs that
I started to examine them critically, and found them very wanting.

I invite you to do the same. Or is it "arrogance" to question a
model, just because the majority believes it?

I'm sure you know that the history of science is replete with
paradigms that "everybody" knew were true, until they were
completely overthrown.

Why should the Big Bang be immune from such scrutiny?

To imply that it is, is to treat it as a religious belief rather
than science. I'm sure you wouldn't want to do this.

Best regards,
Spike Psarris

P.S. Have you thought about the fact that you're using inherently
theistic assumptions to argue for an atheistic worldview? This
approach is self-refuting.

For example, you accused me of arrogance. You said this in a
disparaging way. Thus you are assuming several things, among them:

1. It is possible to be arrogant.

2. To be arrogant is bad.

3. Both of us are capable of perceiving and understanding the
concept of arrogance, and applying it to ourselves or each other.

All of these assumptions refute the atheistic worldview.

I don't have time to explain fully. I'm sure you're intelligent
enough to work it out yourself (I'm not being patronizing or
sarcastic).

Here are some questions to get you started:

1. What is arrogance? If the materialistic worldview is correct,
we're all just bags of chemicals, formed by random processes over
eons of time. How can a bag of chemicals be arrogant?

2. How can arrogance be bad? In an atheistic worldview, there is no
God to set absolute standards, and no such thing as "bad".

3. How can we understand the concept of arrogance? Our thoughts are
merely electrical impulses, occurring in a glob of protoplasm that
originated by random processes. How can protoplasm perceive
anything? And how can bags of chemicals be self-aware?

As a Christian, I believe in a God who created us as intelligent
beings. I believe in a God who defines good vs. bad, proper
behavior vs. improper, true perceptions vs. illusions, etc.

Therefore, as a Christian, I can logically discuss concepts like
right (or wrong), humility (or arrogance), self-awareness, etc.

As an atheist/materialist, you can do no such thing.

Since you use these concepts anyway, you're conceding the argument
to me before you even begin.

Have you thought about this?”

So that was my reply.

Here is what he sent back to me:

“Spike,

Thanks for your reply!

I do not mean "arrogance" in a disparaging way at all. Arrogance
can be good and definitely has its place in challenging paradigms.
However, with it, comes a huge intellectual responsibility. I asked
the question in earnest... where is your complete departure from
physics coming from? In your reply, you illustrate what you
perceive as glaring holes in modern physics which is interesting,
but does not present any new information.

Oddly, your argument attempts to focus on me which is 100%
irrelevant as I make no claims other than the obvious... that you
have departed from the consensus view (which again is fine.) I
could be a 90 year-old Islamic fundamentalist or an 18 year-old
atheist; my beliefs do not affect your extremely bold claims in any
way. It is you that must present new and testable information, not
me.

You cannot prove your position correct by attacking another. This
tactic does nothing but present a negative argument and offers no
alternative ideas or material to test. The mysteries that remain in
the current model are interesting and do certainly cast doubts as
to whether our modern interpretation is correct or simply in flux
awaiting more data.

The questions that you pose are why super colliders are built and
why people continue to seek a science education. If our current
model was relying on "magic" or claimed that it had it all figured
out (which you imply over and over) there would be no need to study
any of the very mysteries you point out. Physics would close up
shop and announce that we now know everything. However, both you
and I know that this is not happening. The arguments you bring up
regarding physics and cosmology are NOT finalized and are
constantly being challenged from both inside and outside of
physics. If what you say about your career is true, you know this
better than most people on this planet.

If you have actual data illustrating that the current model is
incorrect instead of pointing to acknowledged mysteries, why are
you not producing papers and seeking grants to forward your new
model? More importantly, why have you chosen to present a purely
negative argument to a couple thousand lay-people instead of
rocking the physics world (which has been done repeatedly) with
counter information?

Please note that I do not challenge your beliefs or even attempt to
guess at them as they are unimportant. My points and questions are
unswervingly focused only on your scientific claims.”

And here's what I sent back to him.

He asked: Where is your complete departure from physics coming from?

“You’re making some of the same mistakes I used to make.

First, you're confusing physics with a model of origins.

Physics is testable, reproducible science. Origins is an attempt to
explain what happened in the past.

Whatever we observe through science occurs in the present, not the
past. The past is non-observable and non-reproducible.

As an example, you mentioned supercolliders. I agree that these can
perform good science. We can learn a lot from experiments and
devices like these. They can tell us a great deal about particles,
and how they behave and interact at high temperatures today.

However, they tell us nothing about the origins of the Universe,
unless you *assume* the Big Bang happened.

Since the Big Bang model violates testable reproducible physics in
many ways, the assumption that it occurred is invalid.

Therefore, particle interactions (and other experiments) cannot and
do not tell us anything about origins. They merely tell us about
the operations of the Universe in the present day.

That's the first mistake. Next, you're demanding I account for my
departure for the consensus model.

But this assumes that the consensus model is the authority by which
all other models are measured.

However, as I pointed out in my last message, the consensus model
is denied by science in many different ways.

Thus, it has no authority. And I'm under no obligation to adhere to
it.

Thus, your demand for adherence is purely arbitrary.

I could just as well demand that you explain your departure from
the Biblical model. From where do you get the arrogance to deny the
Bible?

And my demand would have better grounds than yours, for two reasons:

1. As the Word of God, the Bible actually *does* have inherent
authority, and

2. The Biblical model is more consistent with science than your
chosen model is.

No doubt you disagree with the first point above. We could talk
about that separately if you wanted. So we'll set that aside for
the moment.

As for point #2, whether you acknowledge it or not, you're adhering
to a model which requires a series of miracles (violations of known
scientific principles).

At the same time, you criticize me for adhering to a model
requiring a different set of miracles.

At least the Biblical model is explicit in its acknowledgment of a
supernatural Creator.

Conversely, the Big Bang model requires a series of supernatural
events *while denying that any can occur*.

Which model is consistent both internally and with testable,
reproducible science?

It's not the one you're promoting.

If you have actual data illustrating that the current model is
incorrect

I do have such data. It's the same data you believe in.

I have the same data, the same evidence, the same laws of physics
as you do.

These laws tell me that something doesn't come from nothing,
hydrogen gas doesn't turn into people, and frogs don't turn into
princes, regardless of how long you wait for these events to occur.

It's not a question of who has the better data. We all have the
same data -- evolutionists and creationists alike.

It's a question of which interpretation is the better one.

I prefer the one that's consistent with testable, reproducible
science.

Oddly, your argument attempts to focus on me which is 100%
irrelevant

Yes, I did ask questions about you. And no, it's not irrelevant,
for several reasons.

First, your arguments reveal an adherence to both scientism and
logical positivism.

I'm not criticizing you for this, nor am I surprised by it. It's
very common today.

As a hard-headed engineer, I was not only taught the same approach,
I had no clue that any other approach was even possible.

I tend to use this approach myself when talking to people (such as
yourself) who think in this way.

But logical positivism was abandoned decades ago, even in the
secular community. It's not a valid way of looking at the world.

Science is 'theory-laden'. (Look up the word if you're unfamiliar
with it.) Your beliefs can and do influence how you interpret
scientific data.

Therefore, your beliefs are 100% relevant to this discussion,
whether you realize it or not.

As a Christian, I'd go even further. I've come to believe that many
hard-core atheists and anti-Christian authors are self-deceived.

The knowledge of God is right in front of them, but they deny it.
They don't want to be responsible to a Creator.

Brilliant men and women, who do amazing work in other areas,
suddenly start promoting ridiculously fallacious and
logically-flawed arguments when trying to disprove Christianity.

I have personal experience with this. I actually became a
creationist before becoming a Christian.

After studying this issue for a long time, I could see so many
reasons why the Universe could not have formed by itself, and why
the Bible was an accurate record of its creation, and who the
Creator was.

Problem: I didn't like that Creator.

As the Creator, He has the authority to set standards for my
behavior. And I had/have willfully rebelled against those
standards.

My rebellion -- my sin -- against an infinitely holy God required a
price that I could not pay.

That's why I didn't want to accept Him.

Finally I realized that although this Creator hates sin, He has
provided salvation through His Son. When I realized how much that
salvation cost Him, my resistance melted. And I turned my life over
to the Lord.

You're going to stand before your Creator someday. Deep down
inside, you know this is true.

Otherwise you wouldn't have bothered to send me a snide email.

If you really believed in materialism, then why waste time talking
to me about truth? What is truth, anyway? How can two bags of
chemicals formed by random processes (our brains) perceive anything
at all, never mind truth?

And why should it matter if I'm "arrogant'" or not? A century from
now, you and I will both be dead. Nobody will care about either one
of us, what we did during our brief lives, or what we believed or
didn't believe.

Nevertheless, you were affected emotionally by hearing me speak
about a Creator. Why is that?

Your reaction is inconsistent with the viewpoint you've promoted as
being authoritative.”

So that was my reply.

The conversation didn't go very far after this. He seemed oblivious
to the larger issues of bias and interpretation, and the inherent
inconsistencies of his position. Instead, he started insisting I
publish my creation model in the secular literature.

(I didn't bother pointing out how futile that attempt would be.)

__________________________________________________

Thanks to Spike Psarris for this conversation. For more creation truths in astronomy, go to: www.creationastronomy.com