3 Scientists, 3 Awful Arguments for God

what you're listening to son I don't think you like it well why not I like this new generation of music science has in fact discovered God and you can talk to the hardline atheist and they will say it looks like science has indeed discovered God it's all toilet sounds scientists are usually less religious than the general population and that makes sense given that the foundational ideas of many religions aren't exactly evidence-based and scientists are trained to base their conclusions on hard evidence still though many scientists hold some kind of faith sometimes even highly credentialed and accomplished scientists are very religious but does that make them right of course it doesn't but given their intelligence and education shouldn't no scientists have some strong rational arguments for their faith well in the case of three scientists that's what we're about to find out we'll start with an argument for the biblical God's existence from Gerald Schroeder a Jewish physicists with a doctorate from MIT if you take the trouble of going to the web and and they're typing WMAP the initials for it for a satellite it's a diagram that shows the development of the universe from the creation over time it's a timeline every word on that diagram comes from the NASA site it is the condensed knowledge of the scientific community of how the universe created and how it got to where we are today we see here most amazingly that on the extreme left edge it shows a beginning to the universe so look what science is discovered we can create the universe from absolute nothing provided we have the the forces of nature now the laws of nature the forces of nature aren't physical they act on the physical so if they create the universe that means they predate the universe so now we have a set of forces we call them the laws of nature that are not physical that are able to act on the physical they create the physical from absolute nothing and they predate the universe which means they predate our understanding of time put that together it sounds very familiar if you haven't noticed it that's the biblical definition of God what's so special about these forces and this God that allows them to be equated so finnaly that proving the existence of one proves the existence of the other is it that the biblical God Yahweh is the only religious concept which has these qualities it can't be because the vedic concept of brahman possesses all of these traits is it that yahweh is the first spiritual entity described this way it can't be again because brahman was being written about at least a few hundred years earlier ultimately though the reason this argument should not lead us to believe in Brahman or Yahweh is that it commits an association fallacy it makes an irrelevant Association in order to say that the qualities of one thing are necessarily the qualities of another it makes the mistake of granting that any conceivable entity that possesses some of the qualities of this set of forces possesses all of the qualities of this set of forces including existence necessitated by science by that logic though any entity we just make up which we say possesses the qualities of this set of forces exists this argument just leads to absurdities and does not prove any God's existence unfortunately dr. Schroeder seems pretty convinced by it even with its blatant flaws the next argument we'll look at is defense of Christianity against the problem of evil or specifically suffering it comes from John Lennox a well-known professor of mathematics so not technically a scientist sorry at Oxford University in case you need a refresher the problem of evil is wrapped up in this quote from Epicurus is God willing to prevent evil but not able than he is not omnipotent is he able but not willing then he is malevolent is he both able and willing then whence cometh evil is he neither able nor willing than why call him God first of all it seems to me a theism doesn't solve it it solves it in an intellectual sense that people say like Dawkins the universe is just like you'd expect it to be for the bottom there's no good no evil no justice and we just have to face it well if that is correct of course it means you solve the problem you've removed it in some sense but what you haven't removed is the suffering in the pain so I find that philosophically a disaster but now in order to respond to it as a Christian I have to come down to the heart of the Christian faith now this is the very short answer at the heart of the Christian faith or stanza cross and if that really is God there then it tells me that God hasn't remained distant from this problem but has himself become part of it and the cross and the resurrection together seem to me to do what atheism z' solution to this problem doesn't do they give us grounds for hope and I face a universe as Michael does that presents a mixed picture but I would say this we will never solve the problem philosophically of what a good god should word might could etc have done so we've got a problem and there's a mathematician if you can't solve one problem you ask a different one and the different question for me is granted that it's like that is there anywhere in the universe evidence that there's a God that we could trust with it and I believe there is as revealed in Jesus Christ that's my short answer Lennox's right to say that atheism solves the problem philosophically but the point he goes on to make does not help Christianity's case and respect to this issue the fact that atheism does and says nothing about suffering in the world doesn't make it less of a solution to the problem of evil conversely Christianity trying to alleviate some suffering in the world makes it no better of a solution to the problem if it both proactively and retroactively Lee eliminated all suffering in the world it would solve the problem but it doesn't do those things it doesn't matter whether Christianity gives one grounds for hope the fact remains that when it comes to the problem of evil Christianity doesn't hold up now dr. Linux seems to acknowledge that Christianity can't solve this problem but he admittedly goes on to believe in a God which is logically incoherent I obviously can't say for sure but it seems to be an emotional decision if that's the case I wish he'd just be more upfront about it next up we have an argument for God's existence by Francis Collins who is undeniably brilliant and accomplished he's a physician and geneticist who led the human genome project as director of the National Human Genome Research Institute he's been elected to the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences and has received the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the National Medal of Science he's also an evangelical Christian so let's see how he argues for God's existence and interestingly some of the pointers to God had been in front of me all along coming from the study of nature and I hadn't really thought about them but here they were here's one which seems like an obvious statement but maybe it's not so obvious there is something instead of nothing no reason that should be why should mathematics be so unreasonably effective in describing nature hmm there's the Big Bang the fact that the universe had a beginning as virtually all scientists are now coming to the conclusion and of course that presents a difficulty because our science cannot look back beyond that point and it seems that something came out of nothing well nature isn't supposed to allow that so if nature is not able to create itself how did the universe get here another thing I began to realize by a little more reading is that there is this phenomenal fine-tuning of the universe that makes complexity and therefore life possible you can't look at that data and not marvel at it it is astounding to see the knife edge of improbability upon which our existence exists so what's that about well I can think of three possibilities first of all maybe theory well someday tell us that these constants have to have the value they have that there is some a priori reason for that most physicists I talked to don't think that's too likely there might be relationships between them that have to be maintained but not the whole thing a second possibility perhaps we are one of an almost infinite series of other universes that have different values of those constants and of course we have to be in the one where everything turned out right or we wouldn't be having this conversation so that's the multiverse hypothesis and it is a defensible one as long as you're willing to accept the fact that you will probably never be able to observe those infinite series of other parallel universes so that requires quite a leap of faith the third possibility is that this is intentional that these constants have the value they do because that Creator God who is a good mathematician also knew that there was an important set of dials to set here if this universe that was coming into being was going to be interesting so take those three possibilities and which of them seems most plausible apply Occam's razor if you will which says that the simplest explanation is most likely correct while I come down on number three essentially what dr. Collins does here is compiled some observations about the universe there's something said of nothing math works effectively the universe has a beginning and the physical constants of the universe exists in such a way which allows for life as we know it he then submits a hypothesis as an explanation behind all of those things a god the way he defends it is to compare it to other hypotheses and apply Occam's razor there are a couple of problems with this one he says that the simplest explanation is one that invokes an omnipotent being with creative will and intent rather than saying that there's a force or law which simply had sufficient power and opportunity not will to bring all this about to he engages in special pleading to justify his choosing God over the other explanations mentioned what he says about the multiverse hypothesis should be applied to the god hypothesis as well but it's not so that's the multiverse hypothesis and it is a defensible one as long as you're willing to accept the fact that you will probably never be able to observe those infinite series of other parallel universes so that requires quite a leap of faith like the good scientist he is dr. Collins should realize that his hypothesis is not actually testable so acting as if it's confirmed is not justifiable just like it's unjustifiable to act as if the multiverse hypothesis is confirmed it seems that for some reason dr. Collins is using different standards and methods to determine God's existence in researching for this video I didn't just want to find ways to discredit all these arguments I wanted to understand why scientists believe in God at all and I found that dr. Collins actually sheds light on this issue but faith in its proper perspective is really asking a different set of questions and that's why I don't think there needs to be a conflict here the kinds of questions that faith can help one address or more in the philosophical realm why are we all here why is there something instead of nothing is there a god isn't it clear that those aren't scientific questions and that science doesn't have much to say about them but you either have to say well those are inappropriate questions and we can't discuss them or you have to say we need something besides science to pursue some of the things that humans are curious about for me that makes perfect sense he's right that there are questions out there that science can't answer and will probably always remain philosophical but certain elements of scientific thought and practice can carry over into the examination of some of those questions the god question being one of them we can still require claims to be well evidenced or at least testable before we accept them we can recognize confounding factors which undermine the reliability of our personal feelings and experiences we can check our work against the collective knowledge of logical fallacies science can't answer every question but that's no reason to be any less critical or exacting when examining questions outside of science I suspect that a key factor which contributes to the religiosity of scientists is one that contributes to the religiosity of the general population that being our ability to compartmentalize to put certain ideas or beliefs into mental compartments sometimes where they remain unaffected by new information ideas or beliefs this allows us to hold one belief say a belief in a creator god that remains unaffected while we extol contrary ideas such as skepticism of untestable hypotheses if it's not apparent enough already compartmentalizing even core beliefs doesn't make you stupid the men we've talked about here are all brilliant just mistaken everyone does this people who laugh at anti-vaxxers for denying science yet are themselves young earth creationists people who understand why personal anecdotes are not reliable data yet are convinced of their own religious experiences people who scoff at cult leaders and snake oil salesmen yet believe the words of ancient prophets I myself used to do all of things and I'm not any smarter now that I don't my point to all of this is to say that being right doesn't make you smart and being wrong doesn't make you stupid the consistent cordial approach to a variety of topics on my channel exists to help smart people break down some of the compartments in their mind so they can be more rational across the board I'm also here to help people smart or not realize that being right doesn't make them superior and if they want to remain consistently rational they'll have to take that idea out of its compartment and engage cordially with the rest of us thanks for watching I've been drew of genetically modified skeptic if you want to hear the story of how I stopped compartmentalizing my religious beliefs and became an atheist I covered that in my fourth ever video on YouTube and I still think it's actually a pretty good watch so the link is in the description as always praise me unto Adam my top patron and personal Lord and Savior for making this video possible go ahead and subscribe check out my patreon follow me on Twitter and Facebook at James skeptic join my discord and until next time stay skeptical you

Channel: Genetically Modified Skeptic

Views: 202,581

Rating: 4.8861432 out of 5

Keywords: atheism, atheist, agnostic, skeptic, skepticism, genetically modified skeptic, scientists believe in god, does god exist, science proven god, science proves the bible, religious vs science, does science disprove god, john lennox, francis collins, Christianity, religious scientists, apologetics, fine tuning argument, problem of evil, prove god exists, bad arguments for god, awful arguments, believe in God in 5 minutes

Id: 79J1fzRgoR8

Length: 14min 30sec (870 seconds)

Published: Sat Sep 22 2018

Reddit Comments

[u/Guru_with_a_moo_mooo]

I know this. I know that. Therefore; this = that.

[u/myops_rock]

The king of the hill clip was good. But I couldn’t even make it through the first guy’s half baked argument. It was an embarrassing exercise in intellectual dishonesty.

[u/waldocalrissian]

I'm sure John Lennox is a brilliant mathematician, he must be to teach at Oxford. But he's a blithering idiot when he starts into his apologetics.

[u/Scientismist]

That third guy, Collins, wrote an amusing book in which he described his Trinitarian Christian epiphany one morning when out camping and he saw a frozen waterfall with a three-part cascade. He also made what he claimed was a Bayesian argument for God that told me only that he didn't understand at all how Bayesian reasoning works. He may be a good project administrator for big science (his greatest claim to fame is the human genome project), but I don't see any "brilliance." I don't know him or his other work, but on the strength of his popular book, I would want to carefully check him on questions of experimental design if I was working with him.