Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Atheism Delusion: The Destructive Power of Materialist Indoctrination

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I was an atheist, brainwashed by the establishment, into my 40s. I got a triple dose of indoctrination: from the public schools, from the secular environment in which I grew up (a small college town, surrounded by intellectual university types), and from the university itself. There was no doubt in my mind that God was a human fabrication and that we were the product of purposeless Darwinian mechanisms. In retrospect, however, I realize that I accepted these conclusions completely uncritically, which is ironic, because educated intellectual types supposedly take pride in critical thinking.

I was once debating “evolution” with a friend, and I was spouting all the platitudes I had been taught. He said, “Look, rather than debating me, why don’t you read a book, Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton”? I assumed that it would be some nonsensical religious hogwash, but I was in for a big surprise.

I devoured the book in a couple of days, and when I was finished I slapped myself on the forehead and thought, “I’ve been conned all my life!” My atheism was quickly unraveling.

This is what the hysterical anti-ID folks fear: Once the evidence of modern science is evaluated without the blinders of a passionately materialistic worldview, design screams at us from every corner.

Since 1994 my Christian walk has been the most rewarding experience of my life, and I can’t imagine life without it. Sunday morning is the highlight of my week. Contrary to what Richard Dawkins thinks, our Calvary Chapel ministry has produced nothing but good. I’ve seen nothing but positive influences in people’s lives. I’ve seen marriages and families healed, drug addicts liberated, and people serving and supporting each other in many ways. Safe Harbor, an international relief organization, was founded through our church and pastor Gary Kusunoki. I play keyboards in the praise band, and our worship team has been active in Teen Challenge, a Christian drug-rehab program that has an 85% longterm success rate, unheard of in the secular world. I mention all this in support of my claim in the title of this post, that materialist indoctrination is destructive, and deprives people of all the gifts, opportunities and rewards I’ve listed above.

And the destruction continues. The son of our praise band bass player, a freshman in high school, came home a couple of weeks ago and announced to his dad that science has proved that we are the product of “evolution” and that he no longer believes in God. His dad told me that his son really respects me and asked if I would talk with him. The son, who inherited his dad’s natural musical ability, asked if I would teach him piano, and I said yes. I’ve decided to make it my personal mission to teach him music and attempt to undo some of the damage that has been done by the public schools, which is an absolutely unconscionable travesty.

Last night I took the son to the Case For A Creator conference at Biola university. It was an amazing event with clips from the new Illustra Media DVD, Case For A Creator, and presentations by Lee Strobel, Jay Richards, Steve Meyer, JP Moreland, and more. I think it had a big impact.

The irony is that, especially based on what we now know from modern science, materialism is the irrational and illogical conclusion, yet this is what is promoted in public education. Furthermore, atheism is way too much trouble. It takes a tremendous amount of effort to explain away all the blatant evidence for the existence of God.

Comments
Gil, you incorrigible creationist! Didn't you know that MET explains everything? It all happened one day in a far, far away land...Srdjan
December 13, 2006
December
12
Dec
13
13
2006
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
Over at teleological.org it has been questioned whether or not Denton later repudiated much of Theory in Crisis, in particular with the publication of Nature’s Destiny. As far as Denton’s current thoughts, check out the video interview below. I believe it is reasonably up to date, and I know for sure that it took place after the publication of Nature’s Destiny since this is mentioned in the abstract. As near as I can tell Denton does not repudiate anything significant in his original critique of Darwinian theory. The main page is: http://uctv.tv/library-human.asp?seriesnumber=28 The Denton interview is here: http://webcast.ucsd.edu:8080/ramgen/UCSD_TV/6467OnDarIntWit.rmGilDodgen
December 13, 2006
December
12
Dec
13
13
2006
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
The question is not the uniqueness of the avian lung, but how you get from a bellows-type breathing system to a circulatory breathing system in small, incremental steps without fatally flawed, nonfunctional intermediates.GilDodgen
December 13, 2006
December
12
Dec
13
13
2006
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
"There are several extinct reptiles (Im not sure about living reptiles), which appear to have more avian like systems than mammal like systems. This was discovered after Denton wrote his book i think." Is this the only response available? because that's exactly what I call just-so stories.IDist
December 13, 2006
December
12
Dec
13
13
2006
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
Gil, I neglected to thank you for this post. God Bless your efforts with the kid. I went thru a similar path starting in 7th grade down a path of materialist delusion. It is an atheist interpretation only that is allowed. Haeckels drawings were utilized as well as Artistic conceptions of monkey to man, etc., and it was never challenged that evolution had any problems. Miller-Urey experiments were discussed as if they gave fact to abiogensis being fact. This continued thru high school and into college where Christians were looked down upon, mocked and scoffed at by Professors and students alike, including myself joining in at times. This explains much about people like PZ, Krause and the like. Or course their entire life worth is tied up in scientism. It was not until my late 30's that I started questioning these larger "facts" in life at a cursury level. Finally, early 40's I began serious inquiry. The more I searched for truth, the more it led me to Christ. Looking closer at evolution opened my eyes that there were severe problems of molecules to man theory. It appears to be falling apart now. All of this was a result of curiosity both for truth in meaning and truth in science. I've continued to grow in knowledge and wisdom as a result of accepting Christ. It was prior to this, that I was blind. And our public school systems during my time were nothing but indoctrination to materialistic teachings of evolution. And it does not matter how well you teach your children outside of school. When they are told by authority figures God is dead, then it impacts young minds severely. And not everyone has the ability to attend an evangelical university. Nor does every parent have the time to provide rebuttals to science teachers when their child comes home and tells them we don't need God. Look at the book. This is changing somewhat now thanks to the internet and sites like these getting the word out that not all is kosher in evolution theory. But parents are still ruled against by erroneous decisions like that of Judge Jones who copied an ACLU(Communist inspired) document.Michaels7
December 13, 2006
December
12
Dec
13
13
2006
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
Sladjo wrote: “Do you agree ?” In short, yes I do. I too believe information only comes from a mind, and life (the physical side of it at least) is overflowing with information.shaner74
December 13, 2006
December
12
Dec
13
13
2006
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT
Hi Bob, re your post #82 Sorry, but I can't follow... I believe we were talking about information, not about consciousness... Your reply (#74) was related to Srdjan's post (#68)... No consciousness related issues discussed there...Sladjo
December 12, 2006
December
12
Dec
12
12
2006
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PDT
Hi shaner74, RE your post #79... Of course, discussing this topic (regarding the infinity of space & tame, with or without origin) may go on and on almost forever...And it is an interesting topic, no mistakes about that. And yes, I would acknowledge that the question of life origins is related to Universe's origin, so we normally cannot split them... But, IMHO, if I would to solve the OOL problem, I would take a closer look on the things which are going on on this planet... I would take a closer look on living cells/organisms. And what we can see there? We can see information... As I have stated above, information appears to be a "controversial" entity, with a lots of meanings and definitions that sometimes contradicts each other... But, as we are living in an information era, I think we can agree that what we understand as information is always a product of a mind. For example, if we compare processes that are going on in complex or simple electronic control devices used in automations for all kind of applications, and processes that are going on in a living cell or organism, we simply must admit there are a lot of similarities. And I think that's the key that opens the secret room of life origin: information theory and "process control" within the cell/organism... Here Darwinists don't have a single chance, no matter how much time we suppose they might have available... Do you agree ? BR, Sladjo.Sladjo
December 12, 2006
December
12
Dec
12
12
2006
11:39 PM
11
11
39
PM
PDT
crandaddy - I think you've shown my point very well: you can't see how to imagine describing first-personhood. Given that, I don't see how you can assert that there therefore can't be a material cause for consciousness. Better to just admit ignorance. Oh, hang on, am I arguing from incredulity now? BobBob OH
December 12, 2006
December
12
Dec
12
12
2006
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT
If the human mind has a physical ontology, and if it can affect actions, then thought can affect actions (e.g. I think “I want a beer”, and I wander off to the bar). That looks pretty causal to me.
Yes, I agree, but I don't see how this has any relevance to my argument. It seems that at least one of us isn't understanding something.
Your other argument is still an argument from incredulity. I’m very much with mike1962 on this:
When people don’t know something, why can’t they just say “I don’t know.”
The whole point that I'm trying to make with this consciousness/intentionality stuff is not only do i not know, but the concept itself seems nonsensical. Concepts such as objects materializing out of nothingness and spontaneously levitating in the air may or may not be physically possible, but at least I can conceptualize them in my mind and describe them in my language. Trying to describe first-personhood in the third-person seems to be like trying to describe a square circle. Come up with a coherent third-person account of an intentional state, and then we'll talk about evidence and arguments from incredulity. (BTW, it's finals week, and I'm blogging on time that I don't have. Any further comments that I may make here will have to wait 'till Friday.)crandaddy
December 12, 2006
December
12
Dec
12
12
2006
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
Bob, no offence, but this argument/comparison is hilarious… Internet is designed, is it not ?… :-)
Yes, so? You didn't specify that the designer was important. If you want to talk about designers of information bearing contents, feel free. But that wasn't what we were discussing: the problem of what consciousness is is separate from how it arose. Bob P.S. There has been some discussion about this thread at "the other place", including (Shock, horror!) some serious comments. Alan Fox has set up a page on his blog for anyone who wishes to engage the other side on neutral territory.Bob OH
December 12, 2006
December
12
Dec
12
12
2006
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
Is this air I am breathing?Srdjan
December 12, 2006
December
12
Dec
12
12
2006
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
“the internet is an example where all of these processes are involved” I don’t see how the internet can be an example of anything but intelligence designing and implementing a method of information sharing.shaner74
December 12, 2006
December
12
Dec
12
12
2006
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT
Hi Sladjo, you wrote: “Explain, please…” In reference to my comment: “But anyway, an eternal material universe in which intelligence is an emergent property does not need a God to sustain it or create it.” In thinking about this more, I think there may be a little wiggle room to claim God is still required; for example, as an eternal reflection of His Being. However, *if* the universe was eternal, existing as it does now forever and ever, and everything we see in it including mind could be explained as epiphenomena of matter, then there would be no reason to believe in a God, or to throw God into the mix. The universe would not need a creator, since it wasn’t created, and since it wasn’t created it wouldn’t depend on anything for its existence. Unfortunately for atheism science tells us an eternal universe just isn’t the case.shaner74
December 12, 2006
December
12
Dec
12
12
2006
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
The BBT made it possible for the atheist to have a view of cosmology that was not (at least in this respect) essentially impossible. We now have an escape from the problem of infinite regress of cause and effect along an infinite timeline. This solves the problem for the infinite regress fallacy concerning the existence of God, as well.kvwells
December 12, 2006
December
12
Dec
12
12
2006
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
Bob: "On this basis, there seems to be no necessity for intelligence to be involved: the internet is an example where all of these processes are involved, without any necessity for conscious intervention." Bob, no offence, but this argument/comparison is hilarious... Internet is designed, is it not ?... :-)Sladjo
December 12, 2006
December
12
Dec
12
12
2006
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
"Ah, that would be the Christmas edition then." Irony is not a scientific argument, I suppose... :-)Sladjo
December 12, 2006
December
12
Dec
12
12
2006
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
When you talk about OOL, you have two versions: a christian/religious view based on the Holly Book, ...
Ah, that would be the Christmas edition then. BobBob OH
December 12, 2006
December
12
Dec
12
12
2006
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
Srdjan - (on the definition of information)
What’s important here: 1) information always involves a sender and a receiver; 2) an encoding / decoding mechanism; 3) a convention of symbols (”code”) which represent something distinct from what those symbols are made of.
On this basis, there seems to be no necessity for intelligence to be involved: the internet is an example where all of these processes are involved, without any necessity for conscious intervention. BobBob OH
December 12, 2006
December
12
Dec
12
12
2006
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
"When you talk about OOL, you have two versions: a christian/religious view based on the Holly Book, that is not scientific, and a you have a theory that is calling itself scientific, but it’s also not scientific. Why ? Because it fails to demonstrated by scientific standard the abiotic origin of life. In other words, we have two ideas, two hypothesis that are both based on faith and that are both non-scientific." I consider OOL research to be a protoscience, and know many scientists that think it's a waste of time. However it's proponents do actually come up with hypothesis (however stupid some people may think they are), and perform experiments to test them. Having said that I do not agree with people who say it's a done deal so my own personal opinion at the moment is 'we don't know'. "I personally would forbid teaching ToE in schools, because in my personal opinion it has a lot of imoral implications." I think what is needed is to teach the scientific method properly from an early age so no one can make philosophical conclusions and claim that thats what the theory says. If someone wants to interpret it as saying that there is no God and we all should turn into Nazis thery're free to but a scientific theory can say no such thing. Comment 19 is very similar to my views about the relationship between evolution and religion. I would be very interested to know what imoral implications you think evolution has. "BUT if we teach a theory that has no clues about OOL - by scientific standards - we MUST present this to the kids, otherwise, we are talking about indoctrination, about (scientific) ignorance and about totalitarianism. Do you agree, Chris ?" I wouldnt say that we has no clue about OOL, and I also think its important to stress that evolution is not a theory of the origin of life. But yes if it is mentioned it should be mentioned as an unsolved problem.Chris Hyland
December 12, 2006
December
12
Dec
12
12
2006
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
"But anyway, an eternal material universe in which intelligence is an emergent property does not need a God to sustain it or create it." Explain, please...Sladjo
December 12, 2006
December
12
Dec
12
12
2006
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
avocationist wrote: “Personally, I think the Big Bang theory may be in trouble, but I am just layperson so I can’t argue much. But I do not see why an eternal or steady state universe in any way supports atheism. It mayappear to be less dramatic, but causelessness is a divine characteristic.” From what I’ve seen the evidence for the big bang continues to grow. I think the BB is stronger now than it’s ever been. But anyway, an eternal material universe in which intelligence is an emergent property does not need a God to sustain it or create it. Now, by “causelessness” are you referring to action outside of time or no action at all? The latter would describe an eternal universe as more of an “emanation” or “manifestation” of God, existing with Him as Him from all eternity. In that case we could only imagine an eternal universe as being perfect. But that’s just my $.02.shaner74
December 12, 2006
December
12
Dec
12
12
2006
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
The problem of defining information is quite interesting. Information - according to Wiki - can be viewed from different angles and may have different (sometimes, apparently, antagonist) meanings. Thus, you can read there: "Information is any represented pattern. This view assumes neither accuracy nor directly communicating parties, but instead assumes a separation between an object and its representation, as well as the involvement of someone capable of understanding this relationship. This view seems therefore to require a conscious mind." However, if you scroll down a little bit, you can read: "Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns. In this sense, there is no need for a conscious mind to perceive, much less appreciate, the pattern. Consider, for example, DNA. The sequence of nucleotides is a pattern that influences the formation and development of an organism without any need for a conscious mind." The second definition I think can be applied to SW/HW systems. They have patterns built in (memory cells, databases, instructions) and they react to the inputs by applying the pre-loaded patterns. And they are highly designed structures, products of minds...Sladjo
December 12, 2006
December
12
Dec
12
12
2006
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT
“We continue to wait on the Darwinist or Materialist theoreticians to propose a workable model and show convincing evidence for how coded information can arise by chance!” A swept sidewalk can’t arise by chance, nevermind self-replicating machines. Oh yeah, now someone will complain about me using the word “machine” because machines are designed.shaner74
December 12, 2006
December
12
Dec
12
12
2006
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT
Bob OH, the dictionary definition (computer science case in particular) will suffice: "Processed, stored or transmitted data." or you can use definition at Wikipedia. What's important here: 1) information always involves a sender and a receiver; 2) an encoding / decoding mechanism; 3) a convention of symbols ("code") which represent something distinct from what those symbols are made of. My posting of Prof. Dr. Gitt's theorems had a purpose of showing you that nonsense at TalkOrigins site is just that, nonsense. The true issue, that of what coded information, such as found in DNA, human speech and the bee dance, is and how it could have arisen by chance, is simply ignored. We continue to wait on the Darwinist or Materialist theoreticians to propose a workable model and show convincing evidence for how coded information can arise by chance!Srdjan
December 12, 2006
December
12
Dec
12
12
2006
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT
Sladjo's post: “Bob, what bothers me the most when it comes to ToE, materialism, uniformitarianism & atheism is that those doctrines are promoted and thought in schools all around the globe WITHOUT presenting to the kids that all these have major problems defining life and providing clear, scientific evidence and/or models for the origins of life on this planet.” Chris's comment: "I had a fairly typical state school education in the UK and I was taught Christianity as absolute truth up until about age 9, and in high school was taught that we most certainly do not have a good model for the origin of life. However a lack of a natural model for abiogenesis is in no way evidence for a non-natural model." Well, I don't know your age, but I was thought in high school that the origin of life is abiotic... I'm 33, by the way... Of course, they showed us some Miller-Urey stuff, "worm little pond" theory, some phylogeny and so on. Off course, no laboratory validated experiment that would generate a living being from simple chemicals was presented. Maybe Christianity point of view is true. There are (scientific) evidence that at least some parts of the Bible are according to historical/archeological findings. When you talk about OOL, you have two versions: a christian/religious view based on the Holly Book, that is not scientific, and a you have a theory that is calling itself scientific, but it's also not scientific. Why ? Because it fails to demonstrated by scientific standard the abiotic origin of life. In other words, we have two ideas, two hypothesis that are both based on faith and that are both non-scientific. So, in other words, lack of a natural model means literally WE DON'T KNOW. I personally would forbid teaching ToE in schools, because in my personal opinion it has a lot of imoral implications. But first, none would ask ME what we have to teach in schools :-) , 'cause I'm not an authority in the filed, and second, it's not democratic to forbid this kind of things... BUT if we teach a theory that has no clues about OOL - by scientific standards - we MUST present this to the kids, otherwise, we are talking about indoctrination, about (scientific) ignorance and about totalitarianism. Do you agree, Chris ?Sladjo
December 11, 2006
December
12
Dec
11
11
2006
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT
[i]Well call me crazy but for starters, a universe that “poofs” into existence with all its laws and time itself is good one. That little bit of scientific evidence caused the good ole’ atheist favorite, the “eternal universe” to go “poof” as well.[/i] Personally, I think the Big Bang theory may be in trouble, but I am just layperson so I can't argue much. But I do not see why an eternal or steady state universe in any way supports atheism. It mayappear to be less dramatic, but causelessness is a divine characteristic.avocationist
December 11, 2006
December
12
Dec
11
11
2006
11:16 PM
11
11
16
PM
PDT
Crandaddy -
Even if they do exist but the human mind has a physical ontology, they can play no causal role in thought.
If the human mind has a physical ontology, and if it can affect actions, then thought can affect actions (e.g. I think "I want a beer", and I wander off to the bar). That looks pretty causal to me. Your other argument is still an argument from incredulity. I'm very much with mike1962 on this:
When people don’t know something, why can’t they just say “I don’t know.”
I challenged Gil to provide his "blatant evidence" against materialism, and all I'm getting back is arguments from incredulity. At one level I don't mind that: we all have to make a commitment at some point, but making that commitment based on faith is not the same thing as having evidence for what you've committed to. BobBob OH
December 11, 2006
December
12
Dec
11
11
2006
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT
Srdjan - This is easy to disprove:
(4) No information can exist in purely statistical processes.
Define a state space which includes information. Then create a Markov chain in which all states communicate with all other states. Of course, you managed not to define information, and I was assuming that you were using the usual scientific definitions, so we might be talking past each other. Bob BobBob OH
December 11, 2006
December
12
Dec
11
11
2006
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT
This is only a problem if it is not possible to represent thoughts materialistically. I offer what I am typing now as a dis-proof of your explanation.
I don't see how this helps you. Representations of mental states in the external world are irrelevant. My argument addresses the causation of mental events. Logical and mathematical principles do not exist if physicalism (materialism) is true. Even if they do exist but the human mind has a physical ontology, they can play no causal role in thought. Physicalism cannot countenance unreduced rationality, but a rational inference that has been reduced to nonrational causes loses its rationality altogether. For reason to be present at all, it must occupy an irreducible ontologial category.
OK, but that could just be your lack of imagination: you’re only using an argument from incredulity, which ain’t going to work. If you can’t see that something is possible in principle, but you also can’t see any demonstration that it isn’t, then better to leave it as an open question.
I never claimed to offer proof, but think about what we're talking about here: objective, third-person observation and explanation of material states which are intrinsically (as opposed to derivatively) of or about something. There are even materialists who question the possibility of doing this. The impossibiliy of a materialist description of consciousness does not entail the impossibility of a materialist ontology of consciousness, but it does at least provide ammunition to the nonmaterialist.crandaddy
December 11, 2006
December
12
Dec
11
11
2006
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply