Why Are So Many Unconvinced by the Evidence?

In recent times, some prominent scientists have come out and explained how only theism seems to explain their data regarding the fine-tuning of the cosmos and the complexity of life.
Nevertheless, there remain many scientists who are not convinced of theism. Why is this the case? Why do some look at the same data and come to a different conclusion?
In this video, I attempt to answer this question and give a practical application.

[@douglascutler1037]

Apologetics always sounds to me like beginning with a conclusion and constructing arguments accordingly. We call that rationalization. We we really want is reasoning and not rationalization. With critical reasoning you begin with a suspended conclusion, gather all relevant evidence, systematically test the evidence for weakness, seek new evidence where possible and then form a hypothesis which best accounts for all evidence. This is, in fact, how scientific reasoning works. Obviously, it is more work which helps explain why it is not used more.

[@johnpatmos1722]

Apologetics is simply the defense of a stated position, or conclusion, as you say. But that says nothing to how one arrived at that conclusion for oneself, which is the process of discovery. Nor does it proscribe how the apologist will raise his defense to his fellow interlocutor.

[@kinggenius930]

Or, there just simply isn't sufficient evidence for intelligent design?

[@truthseeker9454]

What would be sufficient?

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

@@truthseeker9454 I'm not the OP, but I'll tell you what would work for me. Show me the designer. I do not mean tell me a fantastic story filled with mysticism and mythology about some hypothetical creator and then falsely claim that you showed him to me. I mean have the creator show up and converse with me like he is an architect that wants to design a building for me. Allow me to visit some of his work that is in process so that he can show me how he is doing it. Just like what would happen if I was a real estate mogul hiring an architect to build a building. Of course, if we were both being honest, we would have to admit that this will not and cannot happen. Tell me, what kind of god would want people to "just believe" without reason and evidence? It certainly would not be a benevolent god with good intentions.

[@nolanbalzer1796]

@@truthseeker9454testable, repeatable knowledge that allows us to make reliable predictions about our environment.

[@ahgflyguy]

@@truthseeker9454Well, what predictions had ID made that are different from the predictions of evolutionary theory? All of the differences that I’ve heard of that we have the evidence to check on, the evidence refutes ID quite soundly. What is the ID response to the fused human chromosome (I believe it’s chromosome #2)?

[@z08840]

@@ahgflyguy it's not about positive predictions but negative ones - ID "predicts" anything - which equal to predict nothing at all - for theory to have predictive power it should meet Popper's criterion

[@asyetundetermined]

I can answer this. It’s because the aim of apologetics is not to be persuasive to the non-believer. It’s an effort of validation and retention of the already initiated. Asking this is like wondering why people don’t use spoons to cut their steak.

[@truthseeker9454]

That is not totally correct from a linguistic or biblical perspective. Some say that apologetics is inwardly focused and propaganda is outwardly focused. Actually, apologetics comes into English from the Koine Greek word apologētikos [from apologeisthai "to defend" + logos "speech or word"]. So it generally means "to give a reasonable explanation or defense." It would be used in a secular context to describe someone answering charges against them. That isn't simply preaching to the choir. 😀 You can see it for yourself used in several ways in the New Testament. I'll post two here for your convenience: 1) Acts 26: 1-23 So Agrippa said to Paul, “You have permission to speak for yourself.” Then Paul stretched out his hand and made his *defense*: 2 “I consider myself fortunate that it is before you, King Agrippa, I am going to make my *defense* (apologeomai) today against all the accusations of the Jews, 3 especially because you are familiar with all the customs and controversies of the Jews. Therefore I beg you to listen to me patiently. 4 “My manner of life from my youth, spent from the beginning among my own nation and in Jerusalem, is known by all the Jews. 5 They have known for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that according to the strictest party of our religion I have lived as a Pharisee. 6 And now I stand here on trial because of my hope in the promise made by God to our fathers, 7 to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly worship night and day. And for this hope I am accused by Jews, O king! 8 Why is it thought incredible by any of you that God raises the dead? 9 “I myself was convinced that I ought to do many things in opposing the name of Jesus of Nazareth. 10 And I did so in Jerusalem. I not only locked up many of the saints in prison after receiving authority from the chief priests, but when they were put to death I cast my vote against them. 11 And I punished them often in all the synagogues and tried to make them blaspheme, and in raging fury against them I persecuted them even to foreign cities. Paul Tells of His Conversion 12 “In this connection I journeyed to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. 13 At midday, O king, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, that shone around me and those who journeyed with me. 14 And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ 15 And I said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. 16 But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, 17 delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles-to whom I am sending you 18 to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’ 19 “Therefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20 but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance. 21 For this reason the Jews seized me in the temple and tried to kill me. 22 To this day I have had the help that comes from God, and so I stand here testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass: 23 that the Christ must suffer and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles.” (ESV) 2) 1Peter 3:15-17 - Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? 14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, 15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a *defense* (apologia) to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, 16 having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. 17 For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil. (ESV) I hope that helps! 😀

[@asyetundetermined]

@@truthseeker9454 I’m defining it as it is used in practice, not how it is presented in your book. In practice it is a salve to quell potential doubts and reassure the flock that the dopey things they believe aren’t really all that dopey. Apologetics has no practical value in persuading someone not already buying the narrative it sells. As the gentleman in the video illustrates. He was a believer, flirted with atheism in college, then had his prior beliefs reaffirmed through some flimsy argumentation. That’s why it exists. The person of unreasonable skepticism outlined by the speaker is merely a person who lacks any and all debasement from religious instruction during formative years. You will never sway this person with these arguments and as such that is not the aim. Edit: I mistook you for the uploader

[@truthseeker9454]

@@asyetundetermined So you make up your own definitions of words? That's amusing. Your definition may be satisfying to you "in practice" but unless others recognize that and share it you won't be communicating anything by using it. Language is fluid, but if everyone made up their own meaning for the words they use very little would actually be accomplished by using them. It's a simple fact that many words came into the English language from other languages, and often they are simply transliterated. Apologetics is one of them. I studied Koine Greek in undergraduate and graduate school, and one of my professors was a linguist. So I posted the origin of the word, and the most widely accepted definition, for anyone who is interested in enlightenment. Those who prefer narcissism can make up whatever they want.

[@asyetundetermined]

@@truthseeker9454 I didn’t insult you in my response to you. It’s telling that you resorted to personal attack in your response to me. Congratulations on your impressive educational background. Apologetics is a defense of faith. I’m highlighting that in practice such rationalizations are used to defend the already converted against the corrupting influence of observed reality. Its primary focus is not outreach, it is retention. Practical application is a greater determining factor of utility than is some notion of prescribed meaning. You can feel free to disagree and that’s fine. I do not have words to express how little interest I have in engaging with you on some linguistic tangent. Have a good one.

[@truthseeker9454]

@@asyetundetermined Oh? "In practice it is a salve to quell potential doubts and reassure the flock that the dopey things they believe aren’t really all that dopey." Then neither did I insult you. It's telling that you accuse me of doing so. I asked you a question, and made a statement that allowed you to choose to identify with it or not. You evidently did. So neither of us is insulted. As for the balance of your reply, you don't have to justify to me your imagined definition of words; your proclamations have absolutely no relevance to the many tens of thousands of people who have been persuaded by Christian apologists to follow Jesus -- many of whom had identified themselves as atheists and I've met quite a few. I hope you have a good one, too.

[@farrex0]

To answer the title, because apologists often, if not always, conflate evidence with arguments. Fine tuning is not evidence, it is an argument. Something being complex doesn't mean it has been fine tuned. The Mona Lisa is extremely easier to recreate and paint, than a Jackson Pollock painting... yet, one is fine-tuned, and the other is not. And even if true, that doesn't prove your specific brand of God is the God. It could be anything, the Universe might be a conscious being in it of itself, like many people believe. So the universe could have fine-tuned itself. Or it could be one of the thousands of Gods that exist, and people believe. Or it could even be many Gods. It could also be a God, that has not even presented himself to us and is just observing. We could even be one of many creations. The possibilities are endless. Christians arrive to the God of the bible, because they presuppose that God exist. Instead of following the evidence, you start with the conclusion in mind and try to find ways to prove you right. Without thinking of all the other possible alternatives. So even if true, the only thing it proves is your bias. And even then, I am not convinced the Universe is even fine-tuned. If creating life and more specifically, us, was the purpose of creation, then why is it 99.9999999999% of the Universe exists when it is utterly unnecessary for our existence, it is all just fluff if we are the purpose for it. That doesn't like something that was fine tuned. But now, let's look at what is actually out there, in the Mily Way galaxy alone, there are around 60 billion planets that are capable of supporting life.... 60 BILLION PLANETS THAT ARE CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING LIFE! 60 BILLION PLANETS! Does that sound fine-tuned to you? It is extremely likely if not almost guaranteed that there is in fact life in at least 1% of them. That means that around 60 hundred million planets, are extremely likely to have life in them. I ask again, does that sound fine-tuned to you? And even then, look at life, you have life that thrives inside active volcanos and life that thrives in the coldest of waters at several kilometers under water (they have never seen light, they have never experienced heat), some life can be frozen and thawed and they would survive, we have trillions of organisms living inside our body. Look at the variety of life, and how can life adapt and thrive on anything. How can you say things are fine tuned, when the constant of life is adaptation and thriving even in the most extreme scenarios. That is not fine tuning at all.

[@stevemeisternomic]

Actually the real reason is that atheists are aware that their arguments are invalid, but they will still disagree for the sake of arguing. Take the fine tuning argument you refer to. It is absolutely proof that this universe is not the product of chance, which leads to the only other answer. It is without any shadow of a doubt a deliberate action that brought us into being. You arguing about it being proof is more of a reflection of your attitude than a negation of it. Many other arguments are just as strong but will be resisted to the death because you will have to face reality.

[@anthonymorris5084]

The only way to show evidence of any kind of God, is to redefine and corrupt the term "evidence".

[@biedl86]

2:10 This is revealing on so many levels. Some who comes from a naturalistic perspective is someone who comes without an additional claim that there is more than what meets the eye. So, there is no place for God. You have to add that place by invoking a supernaturalistic perspective to make room for God. This is just kicking the can further down the road. _Why do they not believe in God?_ as opposed to _Why do they not believe in the supernatural?_ And then you say they are less *willing* to believe in God. Like, that's literally the issue, putting the cart before the horse. Nothing I believe, I believe solely because I want to. That might be an addition, but it's not the exclusive starting point of any of my beliefs. I had 2 private debates with an 8th semester theology student. And he said that too, like all the other Christians I was talking to over the last years. He wants to believe in God, so he is looking for reasons that make it work. And it often sounds just like _"no matter how bad, at least I found some reason"._ That's apologetics. And that's why it works only for those who already believe. Because all they do is substituting very bad reasons for still bad reasons. Like, no. Not doing so has nothing to do with being a skeptic. Doing so has to do with gullibility, with putting the cart before the horse, with straight up voluntarily applying the confirmation bias, with a simple disregard for truth. The things I want to believe, no matter what they are about, they make me *more skeptical,* they make me do more rigorous research, they make me tackle my biases even more. This is not a high level of skepticism, that's just proper epistemology. 2:52 And this is just disingenuous. Like, an ad hom is a proper consideration for you guys. _They are just prideful. So, of course they lie._ Ridiculous. Let's reverse that, for you to see how disgusting of a point that was: _No Christian believes in God. They just became convinced as a child. It's a useful lie for parents, because God watches whether they behave, even if the parents aren't around. At least they believe that as kids. As adults, it's just pride, the being incapable to admit that they were wrong, it's a sunken cost fallacy. At best, they just lie to themselves._ This is literally what you are saying about people who do not share your belief. Get some manners Mr. Accessing Objective Moral Truths.

[@NoBSMusicReviews]

"Intelligent Design" - If you believe in this, I have some great oceanfront property to sell you - in Arizona!

[@scrumpymanjack]

There isn't ANY evidence for "intelligent design".

[@truthseeker9454]

Have you searched the universe and examined ALL evidence?

[@scrumpymanjack]

@@truthseeker9454 What do you think?

[@truthseeker9454]

@@scrumpymanjack I would imagine the answer is no, so your claim is overstated. Unless you're omniscient.

[@scrumpymanjack]

@@truthseeker9454 Oh, so I haven't explored every single nook and cranny of the universe....therefore God. That's some very strange logic. From planet Earth (where else!), there is no evidence to support a God, no reason to think one exists, no need for a God to understand how the universe works.

[@truthseeker9454]

@@scrumpymanjack "Oh, so I haven't explored every single nook and cranny of the universe....therefore God. That's some very strange logic." I agree -- you supplied that straw man. I did not formulate that syllogism. Weak attempt. "From planet Earth (where else!), there is no evidence to support a God, no reason to think one exists, no need for a God to understand how the universe works." So you tried to restate your original claim and fell into the same hole (of your own making). You claim is simply naive and overstated. Even from planet earth, you have not read all books, examined every reason, reviewed all scientific literature, etc., etc. _Unless_ you also claim to be omniscient. Now if you want to appear reasonable and not sophomoric you might claim something like this: "I have not found any convincing evidence of the existence of God." Or, "All the arguments I know of I find unsatisfying." That's a far more nuanced and intelligent claim to make. I studied science at the graduate level from several professors, one who had two PhDs and a Masters of Divinity. There is a great deal of information you are not aware of (and neither am I), and it is growing exponentially. I suggest you should be wise enough to admit that. When you unilaterally declare "no evidence exists" for anything you look simple. Keep asking, seeking, and knocking, and may you find joy.

[@work3753]

People very rarely come to belief the first time from apologetic type arguments. If we look at human history we can see that most deity concepts were polytheistic with very little interaction, and that there is really only 1 monotheistic (and all of its children offshoots being called the Abrahamic religions). So its not like monotheism is the "default" of deity concepts for humans. And I think most people that are highly skeptical of a monotheism claim, either have spent a lot of their life examining their beliefs and changing them or have been surrounded by enough religious culture that they had to put in work just to defend their decisions. People don't move from middle of the road agnosticism to an apologetic argument and get convinced of a god, youre more likely to miraculously survive something traumatic and be convinced by that.

[@truthseeker9454]

For anyone interested in what Jesus said on this question, here is one example: Matthew 13: 1-23 *The Parable of the Sower* 13 That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat beside the sea. 2 And great crowds gathered about him, so that he got into a boat and sat down. And the whole crowd stood on the beach. 3 And he told them many things in parables, saying: “A sower went out to sow. 4 And as he sowed, some seeds fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured them. 5 Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where they did not have much soil, and immediately they sprang up, since they had no depth of soil, 6 but when the sun rose they were scorched. And since they had no root, they withered away. 7 Other seeds fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked them. 8 Other seeds fell on good soil and produced grain, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. 9 He who has ears, let him hear.” The Purpose of the Parables 10 Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” 11 And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: “ ‘ “You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.” 15 For this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.’ 16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. 17 For truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it. *The Parable of the Sower Explained* 18 “Hear then the parable of the sower: 19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is what was sown along the path. 20 As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, 21 yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away. 22 As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. 23 As for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty.” (ESV)

[@BroddeB]

For a lot of scientists the Christian indoctrination has not been that successful to start with. And since the scientific method does not help convince anyone that a god exist (at least not yet), they would need some major event to occur for them to suddenly believe on faith. Perhaps a mental episode, depression, grief, psychosis etc. Or some kind of trauma, or major hallucination or similar might work. I hear a lot of conversion stories that include some kind of major event that fits in these categories.

[@kevconn441]

Why is he asking a kid?

[@rafaelgonzalez4175]

The evidence is misleading. Start with energy is coherent. God.

[@billwilliams7285]

It is very simple, man wrote the bible, man has written everything, man thus created his own god! To explain what they dont understand and 2 to control.the populius with fear!

[@z08840]

because they are not the evidence but logical fallacies

[@marcomclaurin6713]

I'd like to present observable material evidence that points to transmutation by electrical process of genetically superior creatures in my video 'Begining of understanding ' My channel is dedicated to giving examples of this

[@yeshuaisjoshua]

Reading the Bible makes atheists, the Bible is historical fiction, yhwh is a fictional character.

[@fredriksundberg4624]

Perhaps because they're being shit?