It is absolutely astounding how many so-called "former atheists" are turning up these days! About every day all one has to do is turn around, or flick on the tube, and 3, 4 more pop up like so many whacka-moles from their respective holes. Are any of these guys serious? Who knows? But one thing you may be sure of in Capitalist Christian Amerikka, any time there's money to be made - especially off bupkisses who believe in nonsense (like guys living inside whales for 3 days, or talking snakes), being a "former atheist" and carrying grist to the religious mill will pay off.
A case in point is Lee Strobel. A former journalist, he now occupies much of his time and energy trying to piss on atheism, or secularism- without much effect, since basically he's only playing to the choir. But when one examines his past, it's clear (like so many others) he was never a sincere atheist in the first place.
I actually thrashed this out for months back in the mid-1990s in Mensa's ATHSig Newsletter, when I made the solid case (over three issues) that though there were no "litmus tests" for atheists, there were certain principles all genuine atheists went by. One of the most important is that scientific naturalism is the base philosophy or outlook by which we assess the reality of the world around us. Not to do so is to give in to superstitious bunkum, or fall into a persistent trap of ignotum per ignotius fallacies - always invoking the least understood baloney to try to explain phenomena that were merely difficult to understand.
Anyway, let's look at what I call Strobel's atheist tropes, which are in fact scientific tropes: or oft circulated but erroneous verbal giblets about atheists are alleged to think. These are:
1. Nothing produces everything
2 . Non-life produces life
3 . Randomness produces fine-tuning
4 . Unconsciousness produces consciousness
5 . Non-reason produces reason
------------
Of course, superficially these will appear plausible to most non-scientific audiences, simply because they lack the scientific background to interpret them, or see the fallacies where and when they occur.
Let's take each of Strobel's tropes in turn:
1. "Nothing produces everything"
In fact, NO serious scientist or cosmologist says this! What is said, based on already published work in serious, peer-reviewed physics journals (e.g. Physical Review D, Vol. 28, No. 4, p. 756.) is that a conformal quantum vacuum, filled with negative energy, incepted the Big Bang. That's all! And I reiterate here, the "Big Bang" cannot be conflated with "everything" for the simple reason that its initial temperature (at some 10 trillion K) was too hot for any matter, period. Material particles couldn't have formed until at least 300,000 years after the initial explosion (matter-radiation decoupling) and the end of the radiation era. Then, cooling and particle (pair) production from the energy background would've led to the first matter. This would then be shaped by gravitational and electrostatic forces.
The diagram of Fig. 1 helps to make sense of the Big Bang concept, by extrapolating backwards in time using the fact the universe is observed to expand now. As we work back we eventually arrive at a point of zero radius R, which is identified with the inception point, since the mass-density is highest. That is, the stage of zero volume and 'infinite mass'. This is merely another way of saying we’ve arrived at the point of cosmic origin, otherwise known as the 'Big Bang'.
Clearly, with all the mass-energy of the present universe packed within it, this point of origin must have been extraordinarily hot: a temperature so high that no matter existed, only radiation. However, within the first nanosecond (billionth of a second) cooling would have begun and continued right up to the present. In the 1940's a trio of physicists in fact, predicted what this cosmic bang would have cooled to by now ('now' meaning the current era of the cosmos): 2.73 degrees Kelvin.
In 1965, two Bell Laboratories’ astronomers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson detected an unexpected background ‘buzz’ in every direction they pointed their radio antenna. Analysis of many radio records from different directions disclosed that the source was consistent with the background radiation predicted in the 1940's using basic physical laws. The relic radiation of the big bang had been discovered! In 1978, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to them for this discovery, something that never would've been done if not valid.
2. " Non-life produces life"
This is yet another trope because it discounts the evidence we have that indicates an actual basis. The consensus of current research is already fairly clear about the nature or form of the first primitive organisms. They were prokaryotic autotrophs[1]. More specifically, they were suspended colloidal micro-spheres capable of exchanging energy with their surroundings. To get energy, these self-sustaining coacervate droplets could use one or two basic reactions involving adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and adenosine diphosphate:[2]
L*M + R + ADP + P -> R + L + M + ATP
ATP + X + Y + X*Y -> ADP + X*Y + X*Y + P
In the above, L*M is some large, indeterminate, energy-rich compound that could serve as ‘food’. Whatever the specific form, it’s conceived here to have two major parts capable of being broken to liberate energy. Compound R is perhaps a protenoid, but in any case able to act on L*M to decompose it. Concurrent with the first reaction is the possibility of a second, entailing autocatalytic molecules designated X*Y. These molecules can accelerate their own formation, using ATP.
On the basis of the chemical reactions, the hypothetical coacervate would consist of the combination: X*Y + R. Now, what properties might we expect for any such primitive life form? They’d include: simple organization, ability to increase in size, and ability to maintain itself over extended intervals. Does the coacervate meet these conditions?
Well, it has a very simple organization consisting of the molecules X*Y and R. It can increase its size by synthesizing more of X*Y, growing until unstable. Finally, it can maintain itself over indefinite intervals, so long as it can extract the chemical components it needs. What about replication? We expect that this is feasible when it splits into ‘daughters’ after growing too large. Then, so long as each has some of the protenoid R there is the capacity for replication.
A logical question is whether there is anything that can remotely compare to the theoretical construct above. In fact, there is, and it’s called a pleuro-pneumonia like organism or PPLO for short. The PPLO is as close to the theoretical limit of how small an organism can be[3]. Some figures clarify this. It has about 12 million atoms, and a molecular weight of 2.88 million Daltons[4]. Compared to an amoeba, it weighs about one billions times less.
The PPLO also tests the very limits of the definition of what it means to be "living" since it ordinarily wouldn't be regarded as such if casually observed- say by a former atheist turned fundie using an electron microscope! The reason is simple: it's behavior and properties are not quite like watching the puppy next door bark, roll over, eat his chow, then crap!
3. "Randomness produces fine-tuning"
This is a huge piece of horse manure, because of course, "fine tuning" is a myth. The problem is that it's been peddled so much by so many know -nothings, that trying to counter the myth now is like trying to hold back an avalanche with a shovel and a pail.
Fine tuning basically claims that some 34 different physical ratios and constants are magically adjusted specially for humans to inhabit the universe. Were these adjustments not present, the argument goes, we'd not be able to survive - hence it follows (never mind it's a non sequitur) that something must have "designed" the cosmos for us.
I don't plan to go through all 34 constants and ratios, just a few - but bright readers should get the idea.
We take first the ratio of the number of electrons to the number of protons, or: N(e)/N(p)
The basic claim is that if the above were larger than it is, then electromagnetism would dominate gravity and no galaxies or planets would ever form. If smaller than it is, gravity dominates and chemical bonding doesn't occur - so no life, no organisms! (Made of complex carbon bonds). Escaping the fundie critics like Strobel is that there is a definite tendency for more electrons to form than protons over time.
So what happens? Well, a natural process called pair annhiliation enters, wherein any time the excess electron materializes, it is snuffed out by an antimatter counterpart called a positron. Where do these come from? Well "God" doesn't magically send them down! They arrive from all over the cosmos, gamma ray bursters, supernovae explosions....galactic nuclei exploding..you name it. Point is, there will always be a positron (positive electron, with + charge to the electron's (-)) somewhere to snuff it out, meaning convert it to a photon.
In effect, the number of electrons equals the number of protons for a pretty elementary reason: the universe is always electrically neutral (+ = - charges) because a process called pair annihilation is always at work to remove excess electrons, via natural interactions, to convert them to photons and maintain N(e) = N(p).
Another illustration is the expansion rate of the universe, d(R)/dt where R is the radius, and d(r) denotes a constantly increasing scale. The claim is made by religionists that if dR/dt is too large no galaxies would ever form and hence no planet that would support life. If dR/dt is too small, the universe will collapse.
But it is really basic physics, not metaphysics, that determines the expansion rate! In this case, the rate is simply determined by the fact that the potential energy (associated with gravitation or gravitationally bound systems) is equal to the kinetic energy of matter.
Thus: E(total) = K + V = m (HR)^2 / 2 - G m r (4 pi R^2/ 3)
where K = kinetic energy, V = potential
which can be simplified to give: H^2/ 2 = G r (4 pi / 3)
where H is the Hubble constant. G is the Newtonian gravitational constant:
6.7 x 10^-11 Nm^2/kg^2
When one computes different dR/dt over time, using the fact the Hubble constant H = 1/t (or the age of the universe) then one finds dR/dt ~ k (constant).
4. . "Unconsciousness produces consciousness"
This again, is reflective of just a parochial or provincial scientific background, which alas, most Americans have compared to other nations. (In the latest science test surveys for high school students, the U.S. placed 21st amongst the 30 advanced nations.) Rather than rehash here all the arguments showing how consciousness can arise from a Materialist basis, I refer readers to these earlier blogs:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/02/materialist-model-of-consciousness-i.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/02/materialist-model-for-consciousness-ii.html
and:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/02/materialist-model-of-consciousness-iii.html
5. "Non-reason produces reason"
This is also addressed in the preceding links, particularly the last one.
At root, Strobel's tropes 4 and 5 are a direct result of a very antedated and simplistic view of humans, which doesn't incorporate quantum dynamics in the brain potentials. Excluding these, of course one would question how "consciousness can arise from matter" and how "matter produces reason".
But to be fair, there IS a more profound jump from simple consciousness to reason. We know that Julian Jaynes, in his ground breaking work ('The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind', 1976 )showed individuated consciousness didn't arrive until relatively recently in human history. Probably no sooner than the end of the Stone Age, after the human brain had evolved to its newer, larger cranial size. This larger size made possible cooperative agriculture (and the likely establishment of moral-ethical norms) but also abstract reasoning. It is within the bounds of abstract reasoning, based in the neocortex (the outermost newer brain layer) that reasoning abides.
We also know that - based on Jayne's meticulous work, modern humans are more advanced reasoners than earlier humans. This is because the brain activity of ancient people lacked the sense of metaphor, irony and individual identity that characterizes a more advanced mind. It also lacked self-reference and introspection, a facility which enables modern man to not only think but think about his thinking. Ironically, the fundamentalist - of all stripes, whether Christian, Muslim or Jewish- also appear to lack this. This may well be why arguing with them never gets anyplace. Like a scratched record, they simply jump back to what they played before.
So, akin to all such earlier paradigms, we won't be surprised if Lee Strobel or his enablers come right back with a whole new slew of tropes!
[1] A prokaryote has one chromosome only, dispersed in its cytoplasm. An autotroph is an organism that doesn’t depend on others for nutrition.
[2] See, e.g. Zindler, Frank: 1989, How Did Life Begin- Part III, The American Atheist, April, 1989, page 42.
[3] Viruses are smaller, of course, but they’re not regarded as free living organisms. That is, they require a host in order to live, replicate.
[4] One Dalton: roughly the mass-weight of a hydrogen atom or 1.66 x 10-27 kg.
A case in point is Lee Strobel. A former journalist, he now occupies much of his time and energy trying to piss on atheism, or secularism- without much effect, since basically he's only playing to the choir. But when one examines his past, it's clear (like so many others) he was never a sincere atheist in the first place.
I actually thrashed this out for months back in the mid-1990s in Mensa's ATHSig Newsletter, when I made the solid case (over three issues) that though there were no "litmus tests" for atheists, there were certain principles all genuine atheists went by. One of the most important is that scientific naturalism is the base philosophy or outlook by which we assess the reality of the world around us. Not to do so is to give in to superstitious bunkum, or fall into a persistent trap of ignotum per ignotius fallacies - always invoking the least understood baloney to try to explain phenomena that were merely difficult to understand.
Anyway, let's look at what I call Strobel's atheist tropes, which are in fact scientific tropes: or oft circulated but erroneous verbal giblets about atheists are alleged to think. These are:
1. Nothing produces everything
2 . Non-life produces life
3 . Randomness produces fine-tuning
4 . Unconsciousness produces consciousness
5 . Non-reason produces reason
------------
Of course, superficially these will appear plausible to most non-scientific audiences, simply because they lack the scientific background to interpret them, or see the fallacies where and when they occur.
Let's take each of Strobel's tropes in turn:
1. "Nothing produces everything"
In fact, NO serious scientist or cosmologist says this! What is said, based on already published work in serious, peer-reviewed physics journals (e.g. Physical Review D, Vol. 28, No. 4, p. 756.) is that a conformal quantum vacuum, filled with negative energy, incepted the Big Bang. That's all! And I reiterate here, the "Big Bang" cannot be conflated with "everything" for the simple reason that its initial temperature (at some 10 trillion K) was too hot for any matter, period. Material particles couldn't have formed until at least 300,000 years after the initial explosion (matter-radiation decoupling) and the end of the radiation era. Then, cooling and particle (pair) production from the energy background would've led to the first matter. This would then be shaped by gravitational and electrostatic forces.
The diagram of Fig. 1 helps to make sense of the Big Bang concept, by extrapolating backwards in time using the fact the universe is observed to expand now. As we work back we eventually arrive at a point of zero radius R, which is identified with the inception point, since the mass-density is highest. That is, the stage of zero volume and 'infinite mass'. This is merely another way of saying we’ve arrived at the point of cosmic origin, otherwise known as the 'Big Bang'.
Clearly, with all the mass-energy of the present universe packed within it, this point of origin must have been extraordinarily hot: a temperature so high that no matter existed, only radiation. However, within the first nanosecond (billionth of a second) cooling would have begun and continued right up to the present. In the 1940's a trio of physicists in fact, predicted what this cosmic bang would have cooled to by now ('now' meaning the current era of the cosmos): 2.73 degrees Kelvin.
In 1965, two Bell Laboratories’ astronomers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson detected an unexpected background ‘buzz’ in every direction they pointed their radio antenna. Analysis of many radio records from different directions disclosed that the source was consistent with the background radiation predicted in the 1940's using basic physical laws. The relic radiation of the big bang had been discovered! In 1978, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to them for this discovery, something that never would've been done if not valid.
2. " Non-life produces life"
This is yet another trope because it discounts the evidence we have that indicates an actual basis. The consensus of current research is already fairly clear about the nature or form of the first primitive organisms. They were prokaryotic autotrophs[1]. More specifically, they were suspended colloidal micro-spheres capable of exchanging energy with their surroundings. To get energy, these self-sustaining coacervate droplets could use one or two basic reactions involving adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and adenosine diphosphate:[2]
L*M + R + ADP + P -> R + L + M + ATP
ATP + X + Y + X*Y -> ADP + X*Y + X*Y + P
In the above, L*M is some large, indeterminate, energy-rich compound that could serve as ‘food’. Whatever the specific form, it’s conceived here to have two major parts capable of being broken to liberate energy. Compound R is perhaps a protenoid, but in any case able to act on L*M to decompose it. Concurrent with the first reaction is the possibility of a second, entailing autocatalytic molecules designated X*Y. These molecules can accelerate their own formation, using ATP.
On the basis of the chemical reactions, the hypothetical coacervate would consist of the combination: X*Y + R. Now, what properties might we expect for any such primitive life form? They’d include: simple organization, ability to increase in size, and ability to maintain itself over extended intervals. Does the coacervate meet these conditions?
Well, it has a very simple organization consisting of the molecules X*Y and R. It can increase its size by synthesizing more of X*Y, growing until unstable. Finally, it can maintain itself over indefinite intervals, so long as it can extract the chemical components it needs. What about replication? We expect that this is feasible when it splits into ‘daughters’ after growing too large. Then, so long as each has some of the protenoid R there is the capacity for replication.
A logical question is whether there is anything that can remotely compare to the theoretical construct above. In fact, there is, and it’s called a pleuro-pneumonia like organism or PPLO for short. The PPLO is as close to the theoretical limit of how small an organism can be[3]. Some figures clarify this. It has about 12 million atoms, and a molecular weight of 2.88 million Daltons[4]. Compared to an amoeba, it weighs about one billions times less.
The PPLO also tests the very limits of the definition of what it means to be "living" since it ordinarily wouldn't be regarded as such if casually observed- say by a former atheist turned fundie using an electron microscope! The reason is simple: it's behavior and properties are not quite like watching the puppy next door bark, roll over, eat his chow, then crap!
3. "Randomness produces fine-tuning"
This is a huge piece of horse manure, because of course, "fine tuning" is a myth. The problem is that it's been peddled so much by so many know -nothings, that trying to counter the myth now is like trying to hold back an avalanche with a shovel and a pail.
Fine tuning basically claims that some 34 different physical ratios and constants are magically adjusted specially for humans to inhabit the universe. Were these adjustments not present, the argument goes, we'd not be able to survive - hence it follows (never mind it's a non sequitur) that something must have "designed" the cosmos for us.
I don't plan to go through all 34 constants and ratios, just a few - but bright readers should get the idea.
We take first the ratio of the number of electrons to the number of protons, or: N(e)/N(p)
The basic claim is that if the above were larger than it is, then electromagnetism would dominate gravity and no galaxies or planets would ever form. If smaller than it is, gravity dominates and chemical bonding doesn't occur - so no life, no organisms! (Made of complex carbon bonds). Escaping the fundie critics like Strobel is that there is a definite tendency for more electrons to form than protons over time.
So what happens? Well, a natural process called pair annhiliation enters, wherein any time the excess electron materializes, it is snuffed out by an antimatter counterpart called a positron. Where do these come from? Well "God" doesn't magically send them down! They arrive from all over the cosmos, gamma ray bursters, supernovae explosions....galactic nuclei exploding..you name it. Point is, there will always be a positron (positive electron, with + charge to the electron's (-)) somewhere to snuff it out, meaning convert it to a photon.
In effect, the number of electrons equals the number of protons for a pretty elementary reason: the universe is always electrically neutral (+ = - charges) because a process called pair annihilation is always at work to remove excess electrons, via natural interactions, to convert them to photons and maintain N(e) = N(p).
Another illustration is the expansion rate of the universe, d(R)/dt where R is the radius, and d(r) denotes a constantly increasing scale. The claim is made by religionists that if dR/dt is too large no galaxies would ever form and hence no planet that would support life. If dR/dt is too small, the universe will collapse.
But it is really basic physics, not metaphysics, that determines the expansion rate! In this case, the rate is simply determined by the fact that the potential energy (associated with gravitation or gravitationally bound systems) is equal to the kinetic energy of matter.
Thus: E(total) = K + V = m (HR)^2 / 2 - G m r (4 pi R^2/ 3)
where K = kinetic energy, V = potential
which can be simplified to give: H^2/ 2 = G r (4 pi / 3)
where H is the Hubble constant. G is the Newtonian gravitational constant:
6.7 x 10^-11 Nm^2/kg^2
When one computes different dR/dt over time, using the fact the Hubble constant H = 1/t (or the age of the universe) then one finds dR/dt ~ k (constant).
4. . "Unconsciousness produces consciousness"
This again, is reflective of just a parochial or provincial scientific background, which alas, most Americans have compared to other nations. (In the latest science test surveys for high school students, the U.S. placed 21st amongst the 30 advanced nations.) Rather than rehash here all the arguments showing how consciousness can arise from a Materialist basis, I refer readers to these earlier blogs:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/02/materialist-model-of-consciousness-i.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/02/materialist-model-for-consciousness-ii.html
and:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/02/materialist-model-of-consciousness-iii.html
5. "Non-reason produces reason"
This is also addressed in the preceding links, particularly the last one.
At root, Strobel's tropes 4 and 5 are a direct result of a very antedated and simplistic view of humans, which doesn't incorporate quantum dynamics in the brain potentials. Excluding these, of course one would question how "consciousness can arise from matter" and how "matter produces reason".
But to be fair, there IS a more profound jump from simple consciousness to reason. We know that Julian Jaynes, in his ground breaking work ('The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind', 1976 )showed individuated consciousness didn't arrive until relatively recently in human history. Probably no sooner than the end of the Stone Age, after the human brain had evolved to its newer, larger cranial size. This larger size made possible cooperative agriculture (and the likely establishment of moral-ethical norms) but also abstract reasoning. It is within the bounds of abstract reasoning, based in the neocortex (the outermost newer brain layer) that reasoning abides.
We also know that - based on Jayne's meticulous work, modern humans are more advanced reasoners than earlier humans. This is because the brain activity of ancient people lacked the sense of metaphor, irony and individual identity that characterizes a more advanced mind. It also lacked self-reference and introspection, a facility which enables modern man to not only think but think about his thinking. Ironically, the fundamentalist - of all stripes, whether Christian, Muslim or Jewish- also appear to lack this. This may well be why arguing with them never gets anyplace. Like a scratched record, they simply jump back to what they played before.
So, akin to all such earlier paradigms, we won't be surprised if Lee Strobel or his enablers come right back with a whole new slew of tropes!
[1] A prokaryote has one chromosome only, dispersed in its cytoplasm. An autotroph is an organism that doesn’t depend on others for nutrition.
[2] See, e.g. Zindler, Frank: 1989, How Did Life Begin- Part III, The American Atheist, April, 1989, page 42.
[3] Viruses are smaller, of course, but they’re not regarded as free living organisms. That is, they require a host in order to live, replicate.
[4] One Dalton: roughly the mass-weight of a hydrogen atom or 1.66 x 10-27 kg.
No comments:
Post a Comment