Help! My Engineer Son turned into an atheist

[Kay Cee]

Originally Posted by Paulmski

Hi, I need some help finding resources to help my son.
He is a junior in electrical engineering and believes that God has been used to 'fill in the gaps' that science couldn't answer years ago.

If this were my kid, I would ask for proof for that statement using only the scientific method or a philosophy no more than 10 years old. Can he fill in the gaps that science hasn't answered now?

He believes that any theology or philosophy from even 10 years ago is irrelevant due to all the latest discoveries not being taken into account.

Wow, the use of syllogisms is irrelevant? Again, I would ask for proof of the above statement, again using only the scientific method or a philosophy no more than 10 years old. (Hint: Always make him use his own criteria for proving statements to prove his own statements.)

We had a discussion about spirit, so I showed him Frank Sheed's Theology for biginners chapter 2 on Spirit....he said the latest discoveries in brain neurology debunk his supernatural explanations for spirit.....
Sooo, I need some good, 'modern day' scientists whose books or papers may be able to help answer his questions, or guide him through this highly scientific world and all its amazing discoveries.
Someone who can speak to his generation.
That's a tall order.
I am desperate
I am not argumentative with him. Our discussions are very calm. And I tell him I am only trying to answer his questions/arguments against God, and I do not want to frustrate him. So far so good their, but I am not educated enough to argue his points.
please help me help my son..
paul

I suggest arming yourself by getting a copy of Peter Kreeft's Handbook of Christian Apologetics and paying very close attention to chapter 2: "Faith and Reason." You also might be interested in chapter 3: "Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God."

I also asked my daughter, who just graduated summa cum laude with a degree in chemical engineering about this and she said, "There is much science hasn't figured out yet. And even if he thinks science has figured it out, later discoveries sometimes prove earlier theories wrong. Science isn't perfect, and every scientist should know that. Scientific knowledge is incomplete, and there is so much to know that it will probably never be complete. Science and religion are not incompatible since both are a quest for the truth."

And this should help: She says she saw something on a blog that scientists have simulated a spiritual experience by stimulating areas of the brain. This, however, does not disprove God's existence. She believes it strengthens the argument for the existence of God since He has wired our brains to be receptive to Him. All it means is that we know better how God reveals Himself to us. Can science explain why our brains should be wired in this manner?

[snarflemike]

Originally Posted by Kay Cee

If this were my kid, I would ask for proof for that statement using only the scientific method or a philosophy no more than 10 years old. Can he fill in the gaps that science hasn't answered now?



Wow, the use of syllogisms is irrelevant? Again, I would ask for proof of the above statement, again using only the scientific method or a philosophy no more than 10 years old. (Hint: Always make him use his own criteria for proving statements to prove his own statements.)

Spot on! I especially like the part about not being able to use any philosophical method of reasoning more than 10 years old.

And this should help: She says she saw something on a blog that scientists have simulated a spiritual experience by stimulating areas of the brain. This, however, does not disprove God's existence. She believes it strengthens the argument for the existence of God since He has wired our brains to be receptive to Him. All it means is that we know better how God reveals Himself to us. Can science explain why our brains should be wired in this manner?

Indeed! If we are products of evolution and nothing else, what is the evolutionary advantage of being wired to believe things that are not true? What is the evolutionary advantage of pouring time, treasure and talent into something that is not true? What is the evolutionary advantage of living a life based on a lie?

And when he offers the "usual suspect" theories, require proof that the theories are correct. Because otherwise he is just making statements based on...cough, cough...faith!

[sw85]

Originally Posted by Paulmski

Hi, I need some help finding resources to help my son.
He is a junior in electrical engineering and believes that God has been used to 'fill in the gaps' that science couldn't answer years ago. He believes that any theology or philosophy from even 10 years ago is irrelevant due to all the latest discoveries not being taken into account. We had a discussion about spirit, so I showed him Frank Sheed's Theology for biginners chapter 2 on Spirit....he said the latest discoveries in brain neurology debunk his supernatural explanations for spirit.....
Sooo, I need some good, 'modern day' scientists whose books or papers may be able to help answer his questions, or guide him through this highly scientific world and all its amazing discoveries.
Someone who can speak to his generation.
That's a tall order.
I am desperate
I am not argumentative with him. Our discussions are very calm. And I tell him I am only trying to answer his questions/arguments against God, and I do not want to frustrate him. So far so good their, but I am not educated enough to argue his points.
please help me help my son..
paul

If he's open to some reading on the topic, encourage him to read Edward Feser's Aquinas. It is a very dry and academic take on the issue of God's existence, the soul, the natural law, etc., which also refutes some errors of scientism and atheism. For a more polemically anti-atheist take, Feser's The Last Superstition would do.

The lattermost book converted me when I was a recalcitrant sinner. I simply read it, concluded that it contained everything I had needed to know, and went to Mass the next day. Haven't missed it since, except once or twice due to illness. That was almost a year ago.

[mafh]

Hi,

I'm probably a weird sort of person to answer your question because I'm a physicist as well as an athiest/agnostic type.

First of all, I would strongly discourage you from trying to use the scientific literature to support any proofs of God (or the non-existance of God). You just won't find anything in the reputable literature that says anything about the matter at all. Science works by the assumption of scientific materialism; in other words, when reputable scientists do science, they set aside their religious beliefs and say 'lets do science as though the natural world is the only thing there is, and that it is fully understandable'. This is because one of the main goals of science is to increase our knowledge of the natural world. Progress would be significantly hampered if every time we came up against something that we don't understand, we said 'Oh, that must be God'. Also, using science-based evidence of God is bad for theism, because the argument for theism would be damaged every time science comes up with a natural world explanation for something that prevously thought to be due to divine intervention. I think this is what is happening in your discussions with your son.

Anyway, because science says nothing whatsoever on the subject of whether or not there is a God, scientists hold all sorts of positions on the subject. Like most of the general population, most of them believe in some sort of God and practice some organized religion, though some are also athiests or agnostics like myself.

As to resources you and your son might find helpful:

The Catholic Encyclopedia
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/

As you may know already, this is a very scholarly, well-written description of many philosophical positions. I find the entries on atheism, materialism, etc. very helpful. I always used to describe myself as an atheist, but after reading many entries in this encyclopedia, I came to realize that I'm probably more of an agnostic or (maybe) even a Deist.

Mere Christianity
C. S. Lewis

This seems to be the first book most people recommend for atheists to read. I actually just finished reading it. I found it very thought-provoking, though not fully convincing.

A Philosophy of Religion course from his university

These courses generally don't focus on a particular religion, but on arguments for the existance or non-existance of God based only on pure reason and logic. I took a course like this as an undergrad, and while it didn't change my opinion, I did come away with the idea that both atheism and theism are logically tenable ideas.

It's possible that any of these resources might hurt your case more than help. But in my case, I can say that they have ever so slightly shifted my position from one of hard atheism to one that allows for the possibility of a kind of God.

I do think, however, that if he returns to the Catholic faith, his faith will be much stronger because of this period of athiestic thought. A lot of people who are born into a religion never subject it to critical thought, which is probably a very weak sort of faith. Someone who goes from Catholicism to Athiesm and back to Catholicism has probably given their faith a tremendous amount of in depth thought and will be fully convinced in its truth.

[buffalo]

Point out to him that science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe as it is limited by our 5 senses, 3 dimension and time, as well as flawed and limited human reasoning. Those that exclude the supernatural have painted themselves into a corner.

[buffalo]

Get him a copy of - Signature in the Cell

[edwest2]

Also, get him a copy of Programming of Life by Donald E. Johnson. As an engineer, I think he'll really be able to relate to it.


http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Li.../dp/0982355467




Peace,
Ed

[Non sum dignus]

It is a common problem for people to assume that theology is interested in answering the same question as science. People caught up in this fallacy often say things like, "We no longer need God to explain how such-and-such occurs." Theology, however, is concerned much more with why than how. Theology is a study of purposes, not mechanical means.

[rdscheirer]

Since he's an engineer he's also a scientist-
Albert Einstein when asked to explain God and if there is a God said (I paraphrase)

There has to be. Can we measure darkness- no only light, can we measure silence- no only noise,can we measure cold- no only heat, we can only measure the positives that help us survive. There has to be a God.

[Jehannette]

Introduce him to Miracle of the Sun:

http://www.fatima.org/essentials/facts/miracle.asp

Here are some arguments which I have complied against atheism:

Atheism is stupid.

To be an atheist (either strong/positive or weak/negative) one must assert (at least implicitly) the following:

1) The Universe came from nothing by nothing. As the Protestant apologist Dr. William Lane Craig has so eloquently argued (his denial of Catholic dogma notwithstanding), "nothing" cannot create something. No matter how one slice's it (quantum singularities, fields, and/or foam, cosmic strings, etc.) at least something has to start things out. For Catholics, of course, (and everyone else) that "Something" was the One and Triune God.

2) The Universe is infinitely old and infinite in extent. Again, as Dr. Craig has shown (borrowing heavily from Saint Thomas and other scholastics), something that begins to exist must have a cause. Since the Universe began to exist (it's finite in age), it must have had a cause. Likewise, since actual infinites cannot exist in Nature, the Universe can neither be infinite in age or extent. (See Dr. Craig's "Hilbert Hotel" for an example of this.)

3) No human free will. "You" are nothing more than "molecules in motion," the simple firing of neurons in a mammalian brain, the product of billions of years of mindless evolution, your conscience "self" the physical product of electrons transitioning from one quantum state to another. You have no free will nor do you have volition of any kind. Your mind is an illusion and does not really exist. And, when you die, you will cease to exist. It will be as if you were never born (unless, of course, there are infinite number of you!) Here are some examples of "molecules in motion":

A mother weeping at the death of her newborn, molecules in motion.
A newly married couple joyfully having sex lost in each other's arms, molecules in motion.
A man on trial for murder, molecules in motion.
Tears running down a priest's face at the Elevation, molecules in motion.
You, me, and everyone else typing at our computer keyboards, cell phones, iPods, Wiis, etc., molecules in motion.

Evolution is materialistic and says that you and I are all "molecules in motion," nothing more. This is why evolution is stupid. Minds do not exist, free will is an illusion, just the random firing of electrons in an advanced mammalian brain. Death is annihilation. Of course, we all know better, don't we? If you doubt this, just consider the testimony of the late Pam Reynolds. Since consciousness can survive the death of a physical brain, such is testimonial evidence (the best kind of evidence) that the immaterial soul does exist, which Darwinian evolution could not have produced.

4) Objective moral values do not exist. Rape is evolutionary advantageous -- lions "do it," so do tigers (what are left of them), and so do lots of other animals. It's "wrong," according to atheism, because the culture says so. Most academics and intellectuals in the days of Nazi Germany supported Hitler (as did scores of young women), but today academics disavow him, because he lost. Pope Pius XII, of course, commanded that Catholics pray for Hitler, and we know now that there was a reason for that. (By the way, what else could the Pope do??)

I read Dawkins' book The God Delusion several times. His whole argument is in a section called "The Poverty of Agnosticism" (pages 43 to 51) where he gives his 7-point scale of belief, 1 being you are 100% convinced that God exists (strong theism) and 7 being that you are 100% that God does not exist (strong atheism). Keep in mind that earlier in the book Dawkins says that "Deism is scarcely more probable than theism." In The God Delusion, Dawkins says that he is "in Category 6 (de facto atheism) but leaning towards Category 7." In a few interviews, he has said that he is a 6.8; in another interview he said that he is a 6.9.

So, let's analyze Dawkins position, shall we? Converting his equal-interval "1 to 7" scale to a ratio scale, we subtract 1; hence, Dawkins is a 5.85 (taking the average of his statements) on a 0 to 6 scale. Given this, Dawkins thinks that there is a 5.85 out of 6 chance that God does not exist, which means he thinks that there is a 0.15 out of 6 chance that God does exist. Computing an "odds-ratio," this means that Dawkins believes that there is a 39:1 chance, given our present evidence, that God does not exist.

Now, here's a nice little article on calculating horse racing odds:

http://horseracing.about.com/cs/hand...aoddschart.htm

So, a 39:1 odds means that if you bet $2, you get $80 back (the $39-bet, plus the $2 you spent on the bet.) So, what does Dawkins offer us, assuming that his "odds" are correct:

Bet on Dawkins: get nothing, once you're dead, your dead.
Bet on "some" God (see my other posts on Baptism): the hope to get everything.

Okay, of course, this is Pascal's Wager, which Dawkins & Friends love to bash. Their flaw is, of course, in not understanding Pascal's theology (who was, of course, Catholic.) If God exists, then He (pardon the pronoun, for those secular readers among us) is either indifferent to belief (deism) or is not, and if it is the latter, it is more reasonable than not that those who seek Him will find him, even if they are born into the "wrong" religion. Even in Father Feeney's theology, the idea of "salutary repentance" is accepted, whereby God will grant mercy to those who sincerely seek Him, as evidenced by the fact that He raised people from the dead so that they could be Baptized. This means that theism, whatever its stripe, will always be a better "bet" than atheism.

Now, if Dawkins is correct (God forbid!), then atoms, even in groups, do not think or posses free will. This is what Dawkins believes. If he is correct, how can he be critical of believers? We are just soda cans fizzing. Perhaps Dawkins is Pepsi, and I am Coke. Maybe you are Mr. Pibb, others readings this blog are perhaps Mello Yello. In any case, we are all the equivalent to soft drinks, molecules in motion. Now, how one soft drink can be critical of another is beyond me?!

The "trick" to Dawkins and the New Atheists philosophy is this:

Atheism only makes sense if you presume the existence of God.

That's right! Every time Dawkins is critical of believers and our supposed "lack of intelligence," he is borrowing from our philosophy! He is assuming that minds exist!! But, if minds truly exist (something for you married couples to think about the next time you are with your beloved one), then how can minds be nothing more than the arrangement of molecules? For molecules, like billiard balls, are deterministic (even if the outcomes are statistical per quantum mechanics), just simply interacting with other according to the Laws of Conservation of Energy, Momentum, and Angular Momentum, nothing more. (Play a game of pool to see this in action!) No, minds if they exist, must be spirits, they must be souls, immaterial and non-corporeal.

The fact that the brain can interact with the soul, even severely impair it, does not eliminate the you -- "you" are still there, when when you have been drinking heavily (God forbid), suffer a concussion, or have Alzheimer's. Perhaps your conscious self is sometimes lost within your defective, even dying, brain, but it is still there, even if we cannot "see" it or interact with it, that is, you. As Pam Reynold's and many, many others' testimonies of veridical life-after-death experiences teach us, your spirit will survive the death of your brain, either to everlasting bliss or everlasting suffering.

In short, your existence, your mind, proves the existence of God, the ultimate mind. QED.

The "argument" from evil.

Because there is evil in the World, God does not exist, or so goes the "argument." Of course, with the Fall of Adam & Eve, death and suffering entered into the World for human beings. As for natural evil and suffering, such resulted from the Fall of Angels, which occurred long before the Creation of the Cosmos.

You shouldn't even exist, but you do!

We have already seen that the Cosmos must be finite. Now, consider this:

http://i.imgur.com/Dub8k.png

The probability that you should exist is infinitesimal, which means that in a finite universe, you must have been created. QED.

[Jehannette]

Cont'd:

Doesn't modern science and scientific findings contradict Genesis and the Bible?

Yes, but so what? A fundamental flaw is in the minds of those (such as Dawkins) who embrace scientism:

The One and Triune God is not subject to the physical laws of nature, which He, after all, created.

The existence and creation of Adam & Eve were miracles -- two fully-grown individuals do not appear ex nihilo possessing thought and speech. Only a miracle could explain such an event. It should come as no surprise that modern genetic evidence and evolutionary theory could not "account" for the existence of Adam & Eve any more than such theories could explain how Christ could have been conceived and born of a Virgin, turn well-water into wine, walk on water that was deeper than the length of his body, or be clinically dead for no less than 36 hours and return to life in a resurrected body that was able to pass through solid matter, appear and disappear, and rise to Heaven on its own volition out of the gravity well of the Earth. As with Adam & Eve, such things are scientifically and medically impossible, which is why such events are referred to as miracles.

It should come as no surprise to anyone as to why modern genetic evidence contradicts the fact that all human beings descend from two original individuals, Adam & Eve -- the children of Eve were also miracles, in that they had DNA completely distinct from both that of their parents. No doubt if a modern geneticist tested the DNA of Eve's children, he/she would find that they were "not" the offspring of Eve, and not only were they "not" her biological children (even though she gave birth to them), but that they were "not" even related to each other! This would explain the modern genetic diversity that is seen today while retaining the absolute fidelity to the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.

As for the Deluge, it was one of the grandest miracles of all time. As with the Miracle of the Sun, the One and Triune God wiped-out life on the surface of the Earth (not the oceans, of course) and then brought it back. Think of this miracle as simply "suspending" the Cosmic program, running some other programs, and then resuming the former program.

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by Non sum dignus

It is a common problem for people to assume that theology is interested in answering the same question as science. People caught up in this fallacy often say things like, "We no longer need God to explain how such-and-such occurs." Theology, however, is concerned much more with why than how. Theology is a study of purposes, not mechanical means.

A lot of people do not believe that. In fact, the Church makes pronouncements on scientific matters. And because the Church knows that some are concerned with mechanical means, it has published documents addressing "mechanical" issues.

"Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms."

From Communion and Stewardship which was approved for publication by Cardinal Ratzinger.


The how and why statement has become a slogan that does not clarify but separates. The Church is very aware of what people are talking about in the scientific realm.



Peace,
Ed

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by Mathblue

Yeah, it baffles me when some people learn about the inner workings of gods'universe via science,and think they some how have license to justify atheism with this, when the ability to question(free will) is also a gift of God, as is science.
It seems that pride is an unfortunate side effect of science, what do you think?

There is evidence that points to this being true with leading scientists.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html




Peace,
Ed

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by mafh

Hi,

I'm probably a weird sort of person to answer your question because I'm a physicist as well as an athiest/agnostic type.

First of all, I would strongly discourage you from trying to use the scientific literature to support any proofs of God (or the non-existance of God). You just won't find anything in the reputable literature that says anything about the matter at all. Science works by the assumption of scientific materialism; in other words, when reputable scientists do science, they set aside their religious beliefs and say 'lets do science as though the natural world is the only thing there is, and that it is fully understandable'. This is because one of the main goals of science is to increase our knowledge of the natural world. Progress would be significantly hampered if every time we came up against something that we don't understand, we said 'Oh, that must be God'. Also, using science-based evidence of God is bad for theism, because the argument for theism would be damaged every time science comes up with a natural world explanation for something that prevously thought to be due to divine intervention. I think this is what is happening in your discussions with your son.

Anyway, because science says nothing whatsoever on the subject of whether or not there is a God, scientists hold all sorts of positions on the subject. Like most of the general population, most of them believe in some sort of God and practice some organized religion, though some are also athiests or agnostics like myself.

As to resources you and your son might find helpful:

The Catholic Encyclopedia
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/

As you may know already, this is a very scholarly, well-written description of many philosophical positions. I find the entries on atheism, materialism, etc. very helpful. I always used to describe myself as an atheist, but after reading many entries in this encyclopedia, I came to realize that I'm probably more of an agnostic or (maybe) even a Deist.

Mere Christianity
C. S. Lewis

This seems to be the first book most people recommend for atheists to read. I actually just finished reading it. I found it very thought-provoking, though not fully convincing.

A Philosophy of Religion course from his university

These courses generally don't focus on a particular religion, but on arguments for the existance or non-existance of God based only on pure reason and logic. I took a course like this as an undergrad, and while it didn't change my opinion, I did come away with the idea that both atheism and theism are logically tenable ideas.

It's possible that any of these resources might hurt your case more than help. But in my case, I can say that they have ever so slightly shifted my position from one of hard atheism to one that allows for the possibility of a kind of God.

I do think, however, that if he returns to the Catholic faith, his faith will be much stronger because of this period of athiestic thought. A lot of people who are born into a religion never subject it to critical thought, which is probably a very weak sort of faith. Someone who goes from Catholicism to Athiesm and back to Catholicism has probably given their faith a tremendous amount of in depth thought and will be fully convinced in its truth.

I think your advice is good, but I'd like to see a reference that confirms "A lot of people who are born into a religion never subject it to critical thought..." I think, especially today, they have to. What with scientists railing against God more today than when I was in Religion class in my Catholic school in the 1960s. And we were always told about Catholics who studied all aspects of human thought, including as it regarded faith in general.

The strength or weakness of someone's faith is not analogous to their having or lacking a critical look at it. That is why we have the Bible and the teaching authority of the Church which not only guides us in spiritual matters but also in practical matters concerning how we should respond to the world, including the realm of science.






Peace,
Ed

[mafh]

Originally Posted by edwest2

I think your advice is good, but I'd like to see a reference that confirms "A lot of people who are born into a religion never subject it to critical thought..." I think, especially today, they have to. What with scientists railing against God more today than when I was in Religion class in my Catholic school in the 1960s. And we were always told about Catholics who studied all aspects of human thought, including as it regarded faith in general.

The strength or weakness of someone's faith is not analogous to their having or lacking a critical look at it. That is why we have the Bible and the teaching authority of the Church which not only guides us in spiritual matters but also in practical matters concerning how we should respond to the world, including the realm of science.

Point taken. I should have quit while I was ahead. I'm not very knowledgable about faith -- I'll leave that one to other people such as yourself. =)

I also don't have references to offer to support that statement I made.. it was just based on personal observation that people who convert from one faith to another are often more knowledgable about and steadfast in their new faith than people who are born into the faith. But, I have no statistics to back it up, and anecdotal evidence is really only valuable for.. well.. antecdotes. So, I'll cede the point.

Anyway, my only real purpose for that statement was to try to give the OP some hope -- to find the silver lining in the situation, etc.