Its All About the Evidence…Evidently!
Posted by DonaldM | Filed under Atheism, Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Theology
In many discussions across the blogoshere about the existence of God or supernatural entities, the claim is often made that there’s no reason to think that such things exist because there simply is “no evidence”. Those who do think such entities exist are either “delusional” a la Richard Dawkins, or holding such beliefs “without evidence”. In either case, the theist has somehow failed in his or her epistemic duties to retain such beliefs, especially in our modern, scientific world.
But what precisely is the problem? Is it really a case of “no evidence”, meaning that no observation or phenomenon has ever or could ever provide evidence for the existence of God?
If that is what is meant, it would seem to be reasonable to ask for evidence that such a claim is true. But what that evidence would even look like isn’t at all clear. Or maybe what is meant is that there may be some observations that could be seen by some as evidence for the existence of God, but that there are no known principles that can connect that evidence to the conclusion. In its stronger forms, it is added that no one has ever or will ever know of such principles. What evidence there is for such a claim isn’t clear either. Read the rest of this entry »
Methodological Naturalism: Is it Necessary for Science?
Posted by DonaldM | Filed under Atheism, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Philosophy
I’ve recently had the “privilege” of discussing some of the implications of so-called methodological naturalism (MN) on one or two blogs. For Darwinists, especially Darwinists who take philosophical naturalism (PN) as true, MN is an absolute necessity for scientific practice.
Thus MN becomes an extension of PN, and has the effect of making science a correlate of PN. Now, many defenders of MN would argue that isn’t the case at all and that MN is quite separate from PN and in no way implies its truth or even demands that PN be followed. But is that possible? Given what MN says and how it operates within science, is there a principled way to distinguish between it and full-blown PN?
I don’t think there is. Read the rest of this entry »
Intellectually Fulfilled Theism
Posted by derudo | Filed under Atheism, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Theology
Isn’t it interesting that 19th century (the great “death of God” era) Darwinian “science” made it possible for Dawkins to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist, but that late 20th century science has made faith and theism more rational and reasonable than ever before in human history (in my opinion)? It’s an interesting turn of events. The “science” in which Dawkins put his atheistic faith turned out to be bogus.
It turns out that the universe did not always exist, and that it began in a flash of light (high-frequency gamma rays, but that’s electromagnetic radiation, just like light, only much more highly energetic). And who would have expected in Darwin’s time that life was not fundamentally based on chemistry, physics, and probability, but on information, information processing, and nano-technology super-machines?
Paul had it all figured out 2,000 years ago when he pointed out in the book of Romans that we are without excuse to disbelieve, because God has made Himself evident in things that are made (i.e., designed), and these things are all around us, especially us, who are fearfully and wonderfully made.
ID, Darwinism, and Divine/Fallen Human Uniqueness
Posted by derudo | Filed under Atheism, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Theology
Dear Teleological Folks,
I posted the following over at UncommonDescent.com but it is undoubtedly long lost in the comments. I thought it might be of interest here. As some of you may know, I used to be a militant, Dawkins-style atheist. All that changed in 1994 after I bought my five-year-old daughter a cartoon video entitled The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. Everything went downhill from there as I apostatized from my former religion of atheism. 
(Yes, it is a religion!)
***
The gap between humans and all other forms of life on the planet — in so many categories that one would have to write many books on the subject — is so profound that it represents the ultimate discontinuity in nature, which is characterized not by seamlessness, but by discontinuities. This is the antithesis of Darwinian philosophy.
As a former atheist, I would suggest that the great divide is not between Catholics and Protestants, but between materialists and those who recognize the uniqueness of humankind (this includes our great capacity for good, and our great capacity for evil). It is only by recognizing our divine origin — which seems increasingly difficult to deny, in my view — that we have any hope of cultivating the good and suppressing the evil. But this requires brutal self-honesty, which is antithetical to the fallen part of our nature referenced above.
These are ultimate issues, and are ultimately the only ones that really matter, because they affect and reflect upon all areas of our lives, which is why the (ID/Darwinism) debate is so heated.
Science and Reality
Posted by inunison | Filed under Philosophy
Stephen Jones has a very interesting post here.Â
Just one snippet that I found quite interesting:
“Let us begin with a crucial point. The laws of science are not inviolable. They represent a constantly changing logical complex, changing from decade to decade, and even from year to year. Lest this may surprise you let me remark that the world of science is not identical with the physical world itself, with the real world if you like. Science is a model of the real world that we construct inside our own heads. The model is arranged by us to work according to a set of prescribed rules. These are the laws of science. And when we speak of comparing our scientific theories with observation we mean that a comparison is being made between our model and the events that comprise the real world.” (Hoyle, F., in Stockwood, M., ed., “Religion and the Scientists: Addresses Delivered in the University Church, Cambridge,” Lent Term, 1957, SCM Press: London, 1959, p.55).
Philosophy First Science
Posted by DonaldM | Filed under Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Theology
Sal’s recent OP about setting up a YC discussion blog got me thinking about the influence and role that philosophical presuppositions play in how one views science and scientific findings, or even in how one defines what science is. As I follow discussion after discussion on various blogsites regarding YEC v OEC v Naturalism, it becomes more and more clear that ones philosophical, theological or metaphysical presuppositions about the world play a very large and defining role is how one arrives at any conclusions about these matters, or even how one views evidence for or against these views. Unfortunately, it also seems to be the case that few will admit to these presuppositions, and try to make the case that they derive their position “purely” from the science itself. However, it doesn’t seem to me that a good case can be made for that position. Read the rest of this entry »
Richard Dawkins Gives Humility Lessons
Posted by DonaldM | Filed under Atheism, Humor, Theology
In a howling funny ironic letter to the editor of the London Times our favorite foil Richard Dawkins tries to commit humility while accusing theologian Alistari McGrath of hubris and dogamtism. After picking myself up off the floor where I was rolling in laughter, I thought I’d share this little tid-bit with you all here at TB. I don’t know whether to file this under “humor” or “sarcasm”. Either will do. Here’s a little tid-bit from RD’s (humble) letter: Read the rest of this entry »
SNIP SNIP If You Disagree With Dawkins
Posted by DonaldM | Filed under Atheism, Darwinism, Philosophy
As if we needed any more evidence of just how disingenuous Richard Dawkins is, check out this little tidbit I got from a friend of mine.
Richard Dawkins: 4 December 2006
Richard Dawkins You Ask The Questions
Question: Why have you not engaged in public debate with Alister McGrath, Mary Midgley, Michael Ruse, Keith Ward, or indeed anyone else who would present you with a serious challenge? JAMES RADFORD, By e-mail
RD: The producers of my Channel 4 documentary [Root of All Evil?] invited the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster and the Chief Rabbi to be interviewed by me. All declined, doubtless for good reasons. I don’t enjoy the debate format, but I once had a public debate with the then Archbishop of York, and The Observer quoted the verdict of one disconsolate clergyman as he left the hall: “That was easy to sum up – Lions 10, Christians nil.” Read the rest of this entry »
Intellectual Barbarians
Posted by inunison | Filed under Darwinism, Philosophy
Over at UD Francis Backwith said:
No longer can we assume that our most accomplished scholars in a particular field are truly educated, that they are able to understand and communicate in an even rudimentary way the most important questions with which their civilization has wrestled for millennia. What we have produced are intellectual barbarians, deeply knowledgeable of their subject, but unwise about the intellectual patrimony of the universities they inhabit.
You can read the whole discussion here.
Science and Revelation: a Working Relationship
Posted by inunison | Filed under Philosophy
Few thoughts by Leonard R. Brand on relationship between science and religion, which I think, is quite relevant at present. I would appreciate your comments?
With Christianity there are many different attitudes toward the authority of the Scriptures, but this paper is built on a conviction that there are many lines of evidence indicating that the prophets do indeed speak for a loving and all-knowing God whom we can trust, and whose prophetic messages we can trust. Within that framework, an effective working relationship between science and revelation can result if we proceed through the following steps in our attempts to understand truth:
1. The accumulating data from scientific research suggest new ideas or hypotheses that we might not have thought of if the research had not been done.
2. If the new idea involves a subject that we think the Bible may speak about, we would examine all relevant Bible texts, comparing Scripture with Scripture, and using the Bible as its own interpreter. In doing so, it is important to make use of all the latest information that helps us to research a correct understanding of the original meaning of the words used in the biblical manuscripts. In this way, we attempt to understand exactly what the Bible does or does not say about our new idea. Is the idea compatible with the Bible or not? Do the relevant Bible statements say what we thought they said, or have we been incorrectly reading something between the lines?
3. We then make one of the following decisions, or some appropriate variation of one of these:
a. It is evident that revelation does not speak to this issue at all, and does not help us in our research.
b. We conclude that revelation does address this topic, but does not say anything against the new idea; there is no biblical reason not to accept it as a valid possibility. We then proceed with further scientific research to rigorously test it. This research may give us increased confidence in the idea, or it may lead to even better hypotheses which would also need to be compared with the Scriptures.
c. Our study indicates that revelation clearly contradicts the new idea, thus telling us to go back and do some more research because there is something wrong with our interpretation of the data.If we follow this process, the Bible is maintained as the standard for religious doctrines, and yet science and the Bible shed light on each other. Science suggests ideas that may help us to recognize that we have been reading some preconceived idea into the Bible that really is not there. In other cases the Bible can help us to recognize incorrect scientific theories, so that we can turn our efforts toward developing more accurate interpretations of the data.
The whole article can be found here.
Epistemology, Teleology, Originology, Eschatology — Scripture as Specified Complexity
Posted by scordova | Filed under Theology
Doubt and Certainty
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Philosophy, Theology
In light of some of our recent discussions, I thought this is interesting.
Alister McGrath
Doubt and the Vain Search for Certainty
2006 –Å“ SummerWe cannot see God; we cannot touch him; we cannot demand that he give a public demonstration of his existence or character. We know of God only through faith. Yet the human mind wants more. “Give us a sign! Prove it!” It is an age-old problem. Those who heard Jesus’ teaching wanted a sign (Matthew 12:38)– something which would confirm his authority, which would convince them beyond any doubt.
Read the rest of this entry »
The Stillborn Atheist
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Darwinism, Philosophy
This is not a post to critique the different forms of Atheism. I want to address specifically PZ Myers’s definition of Atheism.
As I was puzzling over how to answer such an odd question, I realized why I thought it was odd. The scientist and atheist positions are the same. It doesn’t matter which hat I’m wearing, the answers won’t change.
The emphasis is his. Most likely Myers is not even aware that he is resurrecting a form of logical positivism. Logical positivism was originally forwarded by men such as Moritz Schlick and A. J. Ayer to eliminate metaphysics. Logical positivism is the idea that anything outside of sense perception is not real and therefore meaningless. If an idea or thing can not be subjected to empirical testing and verification then it is meaningless. Does this sound familiar? Essentially logical positivism is making a truth claim through tautology.
PZ Myers on Godless Science
I do think that the processes of science are antithetical to the processes of religion — personal revelation and dogma are not accepted forms of evidence in the sciences … The whole philosophy of critical thinking and demanding reproducible evidence arms its proponents with a wicked sharp knife that is all too easily applied to religious beliefs
PZ Myers Shows His Ignorance Again
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Darwinism, Philosophy
Posted by: David Harmon
Do you think that science sometimes erodes those non-rational, non-objective human relationships that are, I suppose from your description, also not part of the scientific worldview?Posted by: PZ Myers
No, not usually, because they generally do not contradict science, and are instead apart from it. Similarly, people can adopt some ethical philosophy like Buddhism or Taoism, or that Deism that was popular in the early days of the Enlightenment, fairly easily — that kind of stuff coexists independently of science.
The problem lies in beliefs that demand you accept the existence of invisible immortal superbeings that nonetheless manage to impregnant young women, for instance. That should make a mind used to thinking scientifically sputter and choke and seize up…so you have to really maintain a dichotomous way of thinking.
PZ Myers continues to show his ignorance and his inability to form a coherent and consistent thought process. In the same breath that he criticizes the beliefs in miracles and “immortal superbeings”, he accepts Buddhism, Taoism and Deism as not contradictory to science?
How much more ignorant of religion and science can you get? I would like to see Myers reconcile the conflict between the reincarnation of Buddhism, or the casting of spells and incantations of Taoism with the scientific methods. Even Deism accepts that there is a super being or intelligence inherent in nature that was or is involve at some point in the creation or workings of the universe. Is Myers now acquiescing Intelligent Design?
The problem with atheists is they are incapable of reconciling the reality of the intangibility of existence with their dogmatic worship of materialistic naturalism. This kind of self-contradicting logic from Myers is enough to cause any scientific mind to convulse in epileptic seizure.
Keith Miller on Evolutionary Theory And Continuous Creation
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Darwinism, Evolution, Theology
Mike Gene makes a good argument against Keith Miller’s article Evolutionary Theory And Continuous Creation. However, I think the argument against Miller’s thesis is much simpler than that. But before I get into my rebuttal, am I the only one who is noticing the TE are on the rise to bash ID? You have people like Kenneth Miller, Francis Collins, SC Morris, and now Keith Miller, all advocates God uses Darwinian evolution as a method of creation.
Let’s take a look at Keith Miller’s theological reasoning.
I accept the Bible as authoritative and true in what God intends it to communicate. … The question for the Christian is then – What is the best interpretive framework for any given passage of scripture? I am convinced that the best interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis is a literary one in which neither time nor chronology are part of the intended message.
On what textual basis does he make that determination. Certainly, Genesis contains many literary techniques, including symbolism, metaphors and documentary devices. Although it does not contain specify dates and length of time it does specify the order of creation. There is no indication the creation account is metaphorical. Just as there is no indication to think this paragraph of mine is anything but a straight forward account of my critique of Miller’s quote. The question is why he chose that framework for interpretation. Is it based on his vast knowledge of ancient manuscripts and literary styles and techniques of documents in that period? Or is it base on his commitment to Darwinian evolution and in fear for a crisis in his faith? Read the rest of this entry »
Why Is AiG So Much More Holier than Thou?
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Intelligent Design, Theology
Denyse O’Leary just posted on some YEC’s criticism of ID. Well, having had first hand experience with the strident attack from young earth creationists, I can say their criticism toward ID is mild by comparison. I wonder if the strident attack that YEC have toward other Biblical Creationists is not due to an inferiority complex. They have established themselves as the Pope of Biblical Orthodoxy. They will readily acknowledge that many OEC like myself is Biblically sound in many (if not all) other doctrines except the day/age interpretation. For that we are Bible compromisers and adhere to heresy. Although not calling OEC heretics but just promoting heresies, is a distinction without a difference. AiG claims that this is just an inconsistent interpretation of Genesis. Now who is being inconsistent? Doesn’t AiG know (or purposely ignore) that this strident rhetoric will produce a group of young earth followers that makes ‘big bang’‚ adherence the test of orthodoxy? I know. I’ve been questioned about my salvation due to my acceptance of the big bang theory.
The problem with the YEC charge that OEC are Bible compromisers is arrogant to say the least. They would acknowledge many OEC like John Ankerberg, J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, Gleason Archer, and Walter Kaiser is faithful defenders of the Bible other than their inconsistent interpretation of the word YOM in Genesis. YEC can legitimately disagree with these scholars without resorting to name calling. Considering preeminent scholars like Walter Kaiser and Gleason Archer, both knowing eight to ten Old Testament languages.
The creation of the universe is dated in Genesis 1:1 as being “in the beginning.”‚ Of that we can be as certain as we are of revelation itself. The creation of Adam came six “days”‚ later, but one must be warned that right there in the first chapters of Genesis the Bible uses the word day with three different meanings: (1) daylight (Gen 1:5), (2) a twenty-four-hour day (Gen 1:14) and (3) an epoch or era, as we use the word in speaking of the “day”‚ of the horse and buggy or Abraham Lincoln’s “day”‚ (Gen 2:4; compare the RSV’s “In the day”‚ with the NIV’s “When”‚ ). I would opt for the day-age theory, given all that must take place on the sixth “day”‚ according to the Genesis record. Incidentally, this day-age view has been the majority view of the church since the fourth century, mainly through the influence of Saint Augustine. — Kaiser, W. C. (1997, c1996). Hard sayings of the Bible (Page 103)
You can disagree with it and you can criticize it but to refer to people like this as Bible compromisers? Read the rest of this entry »
Christianity and ID
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Intelligent Design, Theology
I will make my comment to Krauze’s post here. I think between the YEC and TE, there is a spectrum of Christian positions on ID. Hugh Ross is a OEC with progressive underpinnings. There are also those who are OEC that does not subscribe to progressive creation. Where we stand in that spectrum is less important than how we view Scripture.
As a fundamentalist I view the Bible as the authoritative and inerrant Word of God. The problem comes from how we interpret that Scripture. Do we interpret it willy-nilly or do we apply certain hermeneutic principles to the perspicuous understanding of that Scripture. In other words, the Scripture was written to be understood and followed by its adherents. In that sense it follows the same construct and literary principles of all other ancient documents. Read the rest of this entry »
Extraordinary Claims
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Philosophy
Per DonaldM’s suggestion
Most likely we’ve all heard the oft quoted mantra “extraordianry claims require extraordinary evidence.” When it comes to the ID/evolution debate, the question is, what is the ‘extraordinary’ claim? Of the two claims below, which is the extraordinary one and why? What would constitute the ‘extraordinary’ evidence to support it and why?
1. An all powerful supernatural being with both the knowledge and the will purposefully brought all things into existence, including life on planet earth through means that we have not yet discovered, may never discover and do not understand, but did leave behind hallmarks of this intelligent design in the bits of nature we can observe, most notably CSI and IC in certain kinds of natural artifacts.
2. The blind purposeless forces of matter and energy, acting over eons of time through chance and necessity (or their combination) produced all the bits of nature we can observe, including all life on planet earth through the means of random mutation and natural selection.
Stargate SG-1 Joins the Attack on Christianity
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Theology
ID critics have long prevaricated ID as Creationism. The Darwinian PR campaign is certainly effective with the initiates. There are many fronts to the Darwinian PR campaign. We’ve seen their deception in the mainstream media and in pop culture TV programs.
Since I believe that Darwinian evolution is essentially an atheistic philosophy and not real science, the current ID debate has prompted certain ancillary criticism on Christianity. A recent example of such an attack was promoted in the science fiction series Stargate SG-1. This post is intended to defend against such attacks raised by the Stargate SG-1 program.
In season 9 of the Stargate series, it has introduced a race of Ascended beings called the Ori. The Ori are extremely powerful beings that once had physical bodies but now have evolved to an incorporeal plane of existence, giving them a godlike quality. (For more information on the Ori follow the above link.) The Ori are evil beings because they deceive their followers to worship them for their own benefits, in essence they gain strength from the worship of their followers. Anyone who refuses to worship them would be killed. The Ori also give false hope to its’ followers of the promise of Ascension, which provides immortality and enlightenment.
The worshippers of this Ori are portrayed as dupes who reject science and rationality. The worshippers would blindly annihilate an entire planet full of people at the whim of the Ori. These worshippers have been brainwashed to fear and obey the Ori with unquestioning loyalty and contrary to all moral discernments. Read the rest of this entry »
Origins, Atheism, Theism, and Faith
Posted by derudo | Filed under Philosophy, Theology
The subject of origins inevitably brings up questions about where we came from, why we are here, and what the purpose of life is (if such a thing exists). When it comes down to it, these are the only questions that are ultimately worth asking or seeking answers for.
When people ask why the unsolved mysteries of chemistry and physics are not the subject of debate when it comes to public education, I ask myself, What planet are these guys living on? These questions have no bearing on anything of ultimate significance.
If the atheistic/materialistic worldview is correct, there is no reason why one should not commit suicide when things get tough. Once you are dead and the biochemical processes in your brain shut down, there are no consequences, there is no accountability, there is no memory.
One day our sun will become a red giant and its outer atmosphere will expand beyond the orbit of the earth. When that happens, the earth’s atmosphere will be stripped away, the oceans will boil away, the sands will fuse into glass, and our planet will be sterilized of all life for all eternity. There will be no record of anything that anyone has ever done.
If the atheistic/materialistic worldview is correct, life is ultimately absurd. And the worst part is, this tragic, nihilistic, dark, cold, depressing philosophy doesn’t even make sense, and requires an unreasonable amount of blind faith. My favorite definition of reasonable faith is, “putting your trust in that which you have reason to believe is true.”
I have come to the conclusion that atheism/materialism requires blind faith, and that theism only requires reasonable faith. In order to be an atheist one must believe that nothing produced everything for no reason, that inert matter spontaneously generated life, that the personal came from the impersonal, that consciousness came from unconsciousness, that the equivalent of typographical errors turned rocks, atmospheric gasses and unspecified liquid concoctions into Chopin in 1017 seconds (and this list could be expanded). It seems to me that this is “unscientific,” magical thinking if ever such a thing existed.
I don’t have enough blind faith to be an atheist.
I do not propose that atheism makes people bad, but that it is destructive because it logically destroys any ultimate sense of purpose in life. Without a sense of self-sacrificial purpose, life loses meaning, and at that point untold miseries are destined to abound.
