tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post9048170377624468883..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: On Richard Dawkins Refusing to Debate William Lane CraigUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20534016350048536942009-12-16T14:42:31.398-05:002009-12-16T14:42:31.398-05:00I wonder why Craig doesn't "destroy"...I wonder why Craig doesn't "destroy" Dawkins with the written word.<br /><br />Mind you, he would have to try harder than the libellous video attacking Dawkins' views on child abuse in chapter nine of the God Delusion.<br /><br />I wonder. What would Craig do if he were to discover that his Muslim neighbour had sliced off the clitoris of his (the Muslim neighbour) daughter?<br /><br />Seemingly, for Craig seems to be against state intervention in matters of child abuse, Craig would just say "Oh, what the heck do I care about child abuse of Muslim children?"Galactorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07918879026128556588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-19720621414528176342009-12-15T11:30:04.937-05:002009-12-15T11:30:04.937-05:00K,
The preponderance of evidence suggests that wh...K,<br /><br /><i>The preponderance of evidence suggests that whatever state the universe was in prior to the BB, and the cause of the BB, specifically <b>defies</b> all natural laws and processes as we understand them.</i><br /><br />"Currently not well understood" does not mean that it defies any "natural laws" (and weren't you just writing that the natural/supernatural distinction was bogus?). This is a popular way to weasel God into a gap but is fallacious and misguided.<br /><br /><i>1) a scientist’s philosophical or theological beliefs do not prevent them from being great scientists, and conversely, great or credible scientists are not ipso facto atheistic naturalists.</i><br /><br />Agreed, though your examples reveal important details: <br /><br />* the more modern the scientist, the more likely they are to be atheistic and if religious, the more likely to be liberal<br /><br />* all of those religious scientists used MN in their work<br /><br />It also confirms what I'd said earlier, that MN isn't an a priori necessity to science any more than Newton's mechanics are, but both are virtually fundamental because they led to so many successes and rejecting them has led to nothing.<br /><br /><i>I’m not so sure it’s fair to lump those of the intelligent design movement, who use credible scientific methods in their reasoning, together with those, who “seek to undermine its methodology and conclusions.”</i><br /><br />I'm not aware of anyone that would fit these criteria. Behe and Dembski have tried to present the best facade of a positive argument but they're at best quantifying a negative argument. This has been repeatedly demonstrated to fail yet they refuse to adapt. Behe has gone so far as to try to redefine "science" in order to allow ID in yet, by his own admission, the definition would be so broad as to accept astrology!<br /><br />Remember that "cdesign proponentists" isn't a made-up attack to imply that ID is a thin cover for creationism, that was an actual quote from an ID textbook draft. You don't have to scratch even the most prominent ID supporter to find an anti-science Creationist.Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694840174170043470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33163421746427022832009-12-14T23:42:24.322-05:002009-12-14T23:42:24.322-05:00Finally, some thoughts about your comments on &quo...Finally, some thoughts about your comments on "naturalism" and "supernaturalism". I think it best to do away with this dualistic idea that the two are mutually exclusive concepts.<br />1) If God is, in fact, real, then this Ultimate Being would surely be, of all things, quite “natural”. Conversely, all things “natural” would, in fact, be quite “supernatural” to the “modern” way of thinking.<br />2) Continuing with the overly simplified definition of MN, as those things that can be explained by natural laws and processes, there are many scientific discoveries that cannot be explained by MN, but are rather, under the MN framework, quite supernatural. Two examples:<br /> a) The Big Bang Theory: The preponderance of evidence suggests that whatever state the universe was in prior to the BB, and the cause of the BB, specifically defies all natural laws and processes as we understand them. Since this prevailing theory maintains that our known universe has a pre-nonexistense (singularity) and we cannot use our known naturalistic observations and processes to assess it, it can be defined as supernatural. A very legitimate question then, would be, “what” or “who” caused the BB, since we cannot possibly preclude that one or the other could not be the case. (“The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep… then God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light” – Genesis 1:2-3)<br /> b) Atomic matter: The study and application of natural processes and laws worked quite well until the discovery of the atomic and subatomic world. With this discovery, a new way of thinking and studying needed to be applied beyond pure naturalistic observation (it defied the logic of most natural laws up to its discovery). Sir Arthur Eddington said that quantum mechanics “leaves us with no clear distinction between the Natural and the Supernatural.” (“In Him all things hold together” – Colossians 1:17)<br />John – I am not ignoring your question. I will comment soon = )Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15870806876643524748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64766691981419436852009-12-14T23:42:01.429-05:002009-12-14T23:42:01.429-05:00**…methodological naturalism is at the heart of mo...**…methodological naturalism is at the heart of modern science. That may sound backwards but it isn't.**<br /><br />If I understand your statement correctly, another way to phrase this would be that MN has become, or is at the foundation of, modern science. Agreed. (I understand your definition of MN, in the simplest of terms, to be that all effects are caused by natural processes and natural laws that can be explained.)<br />It’s popularity or prevalence, however, does not make it right (by this I am not expecting you to believe that it’s wrong, either – bear with me). By placing MN at the heart of modern science, you mistakenly connect methodologies of naturalism with the conclusion of it. What is most intriguing about MN is the premise under which it was classically formed.<br />‘Pre-Darwin’ scientists, as we shall call them, began exploring the world and the universe under the premise of an intelligent designer (“God”). They believed that an intelligent designer would produce an orderly, sensible universe. These scientists produced some of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time:<br />Sir Isaac Newton - “It is the perfection of God's works that they are all done with the greatest simplicity. He is the God of order and not of confusion. And therefore as they would understand the frame of the world must endeavor to reduce their knowledge to all possible simplicity, so must it be in seeking to understand these visions.” <br />Galileo - “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” <br />Johannes Kepler – “Geometry is unique and eternal, a reflection from the mind of God. That mankind shares in it is because man is an image of God (cf. Genesis 1:26-27)."<br />I’m sure I don’t need to remind you that you are not forced to adhere to their presuppositions or draw their same conclusions, simply because they were great scientists who believed in God. – The point is: <br />1) a scientist’s philosophical or theological beliefs do not prevent them from being great scientists, and conversely, great or credible scientists are not ipso facto atheistic naturalists.<br />2) The prevalence of or the use of methodological naturalism does not dictate the conclusion. (Although, we all like to believe that our interpretation of the evidence will bring everyone to the same conclusion ;)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15870806876643524748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-45111483688292715812009-12-14T23:40:22.690-05:002009-12-14T23:40:22.690-05:00Sorry I’ve been out of commission for a bit. Whew!...Sorry I’ve been out of commission for a bit. Whew! My head is spinning, Tyro. Maybe you should stick around ; ) (For Comments through Dec. 9, 6:14pm)<br /><br />**Both creationists in general (the group most keen to debate Dawkins) and Christians in general seem pathologically desperate to gain some scientific credibility while they simultaneously seek to undermine its methodology and conclusions.**<br /><br />I’m not so sure it’s fair to lump those of the intelligent design movement, who use credible scientific methods in their reasoning, together with those, who “seek to undermine its methodology and conclusions.” I agree that there are those who mistakenly throw the baby out with the bathwater, out of ignorance and fear, by denying valid scientific methodologies and reasoning, but they are not to be confused with those who infer “intelligent design” from valid methodologies and evidences.<br /><br />**Science as a measure of popularity? Spoken like a good apologist.**<br /><br />For clarity, I was not using an argument from popularity, I was pointing out that there are well-reasoned, credible scientists (in the classical sense) on both sides of the argument, who use valid, recognized scientific methodologies and evidences, that infer different conclusions; hence, “being a scientist does not preclude” a proper and true conclusion.<br />With all due respect, however, you argue from popularity yourself (“Science doesn't need to be naturalistic and many people throughout history have proposed supernatural theories but they've all failed. The entire process and success of science can be looked on as a gigantic meta-experiment in naturalism which gains strength every year.”) It tends to go with the territory, like conceptual leaps, as Al points out.<br /><br />**FYI: it is the methodology and the acceptance of all evidence which are the hallmarks of science.**<br /><br />I agree, and nothing I have said would suggest otherwise.<br /><br />**First, it wouldn't be a deduction but an inference…**<br /><br />Again, I agree. I appreciate someone who can recognize the difference. I do favor the latter.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15870806876643524748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-44495363428548609372009-12-14T19:21:53.155-05:002009-12-14T19:21:53.155-05:00Finally watched the clip. Hilarious smackdown of C...Finally watched the clip. Hilarious smackdown of Craig!<br /><br />Let the record show that I don't think Dawkins is a 'leading' or 'best' atheist any more than I consider him an authority on not collecting stamps. As much as I love the guy, I haven't read a single one of his books, nor did he make me an atheist.<br /><br />Yet despite Dawkins' willingness to debate Cardinals and Bishops, Christians still think Dawkins hasn't debated the 'best' of Christianity? Tells you what they think of Cardinals & Bishops, doesn't it?<br /><br />Although, to be fair, how are Cardinals & Bishops anything OTHER than professional debaters?<br /><br />In any event, the fans of Dawkins over on D.net don't see what in it for him, and clearly neither does Dawkins.<br /><br />That being said, I'd be delighted to see it happen. Why? Because the more exposure Craig gets the more words like 'charlatan' and 'lying scumbag' (quoted from the D.net thread above) will be attached to him.<br /><br />Because the beautiful thing about Craig's wins is that, if you read the atheist bloggers who say so, even when he WINS, said atheists aren't actually CONVINCED by what he's said. Craig converts no one. Excluding myself, who was an atheist before I heard of Dawkins, it is the fact that Dawkins actually reaches his audience that earns Craig’s envy and the chagrin of Craig’s fans.<br /><br />On the bright side, Criag's calendar is freeing up, isn't it Mr. Loftus?openlyatheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03799132607816184980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-44493374184321748712009-12-14T01:10:49.186-05:002009-12-14T01:10:49.186-05:00Craig, of course, ducked a suggested debate on The...Craig, of course, ducked a suggested debate on The Historical Realibility of the Gospels.<br /><br />He won't defend THAT in public.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-62380351941388630992009-12-14T00:16:09.308-05:002009-12-14T00:16:09.308-05:00Philosophy is intellectually vacuous?
Theology.<i>Philosophy is intellectually vacuous? </i><br /><br />Theology.Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694840174170043470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-82944690921171874492009-12-13T21:50:37.242-05:002009-12-13T21:50:37.242-05:00Hey, I just wanted to respond to your thoughtless ...<b><br />Hey, I just wanted to respond to your thoughtless and absurd comment that pro fighters must fight all comers lest they be called cowards. Personally I think the analogy isn't perfect since Dawkins's career is in biology and science education and has shown that he's motivated primarily by a search to learn how the world really works and now just how we want it to work. Science isn't a side-show and the winner isn't the most entertaining but the one who best describes reality. Entering into a debate with Craig of all people would abandon all of those values and for what?<br /></b><br />Whoopsie, this would be a straw man, since I did not say 'pro fighters must fight all comers lest they be called cowards' but instead I said 'holding onto the title belt and refusing to fight anyone but tomato cans is called being a coward.' Arguments are much easier to knock down when they're made of straw huh? thanks for proving you belong at this blog. If Dawkins career is in biology in science then he should be shutting up in regards to theology and religion, just like if someones area of expertise is in non contact karate, he should not be fighting boxers. Man you fail hard.<br /><br /><b><br />Right, he's the top of an intellectually vacuous profession devoted to propping up a pre-defined conclusion regardless of the evidence whereas Dawkins is a leading scientist who has devoted his life to advancing our knowledge. The contrast could hardly be starker. It seems generous to call Craig "punch drunk" since, as an apologist, he's never even read a science journal let alone published in one so he's never so much as taken a metaphorical punch. No doubt in his highly scripted field he has some notoriety. Would it be generous to compare him to Hulk Hogan, a person known to many for his entertaining if totally scripted performances? <br /></b><br />How ironic. You accuse craig of propping up a pre defined conclusion regardless of evidence, when that is exactly what dawkins does with his book, propping up pre defined conclusion (God does not exist) regardless of evidence. I also find it hilarious ironic you talk about pre defined conclusion, since it is a pre defined conclusion when you ignorant state craig has never read a science journal. Man you're really racking up the stupidity. It would be more accurate to compare him to a good boxer that continues to do the same thing because he knows his opponents (like hitchens) are too stupid to combat what he's been doing over and over and over and over again. Once again, you fail completely.<br /><br /><b><br />Loftus didn't extend the analogy, I did. Maybe check your facts. Just as he doesn't endorse your speech, he doesn't endorse mine. If you've got a problem with him, base it on what he writes not what I do.<br /></b><br />Really? please show me where I said loftus extended the analogy. Oh wait, you won't be able to because I never said it. Man, it is so easy to knock down arguments when they're made of straw huh?Theological Discoursehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11215794691420472061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-52419569400045195572009-12-13T21:20:50.727-05:002009-12-13T21:20:50.727-05:00"Right, he's the top of an intellectually..."Right, he's the top of an intellectually vacuous profession devoted to propping up a pre-defined conclusion regardless of the evidence"<br /><br />Philosophy is intellectually vacuous?Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01825630853478631690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-47847647529872616412009-12-13T10:17:32.010-05:002009-12-13T10:17:32.010-05:00Wow, you clearly show you belong at this blog with...<i>Wow, you clearly show you belong at this blog with a response like that.</i><br /><br />Hey, I just wanted to respond to your thoughtless and absurd comment that pro fighters must fight all comers lest they be called cowards. Personally I think the analogy isn't perfect since Dawkins's career is in biology and science education and has shown that he's motivated primarily by a search to learn how the world really works and now just how we want it to work. Science isn't a side-show and the winner isn't the most entertaining but the one who best describes reality. Entering into a debate with Craig of all people would abandon all of those values and for what?<br /><br /><i>Craig is the top 'fighter' for Christian apologists, he is not 'wannabe punch drunk fighter.'</i><br /><br />Right, he's the top of an intellectually vacuous profession devoted to propping up a pre-defined conclusion regardless of the evidence whereas Dawkins is a leading <i>scientist</i> who has devoted his life to advancing our <i>knowledge</i>. The contrast could hardly be starker. It seems generous to call Craig "punch drunk" since, as an apologist, he's never even read a science journal let alone published in one so he's never so much as taken a metaphorical punch. No doubt in his highly scripted field he has some notoriety. Would it be generous to compare him to Hulk Hogan, a person known to many for his entertaining if totally scripted <i>performances</i>? <br /><br /><i>Way to go Loftus. You're even more ignorant in the sport of boxing than you are in the Christianity. </i><br /><br />Loftus didn't extend the analogy, I did. Maybe check your facts. Just as he doesn't endorse your speech, he doesn't endorse mine. If you've got a problem with him, base it on what he writes not what I do.Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694840174170043470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-51035597667867464272009-12-13T09:15:18.368-05:002009-12-13T09:15:18.368-05:00Dawkins is quite right to refuse to debate Craig. ...Dawkins is quite right to refuse to debate Craig. I have published <a href="http://edthemanicstreetpreacher.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/dawkins-refuses-debate-craig/" rel="nofollow">my own take</a> on the matter on my own blog.<br /><br />Steven Carr – do you have the URL to Dawkins’ comment on Craig’s assessment of the Old Testament massacres? I searched Dawkins’ comment section on RD.net but couldn’t find any reference to Craig.<br /><br />Btw, I have also provided <a href="http://edthemanicstreetpreacher.wordpress.com/2009/09/27/william-lane-craig-holy-horror/" rel="nofollow"> my opinion</a> of Craig’s horrific views on “Divine Command Theory”.<br /><br />MSPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-69161611064165482102009-12-13T08:32:42.307-05:002009-12-13T08:32:42.307-05:00Dawkins is still very active but only fights conte...<b><br />Dawkins is still very active but only fights contenders, not sad wannabes who are so punch-drunk they slur all sentences but come to the fight with steel bars in their gloves and razors in their shorts. Their goal isn't to fight but to spray confusion and get some limelight, like a WEC wrestler coming into a boxing ring. And what is in it for Dawkins when the religious fans are (as you demonstrate) so far removed from reality that if their contender isn't actually pissing his pants when he comes on stage, he should be given the title for life.<br /></b><br />Wow, you clearly show you belong at this blog with a response like that. Craig is the top 'fighter' for Christian apologists, he is not 'wannabe punch drunk fighter.' You don't even know what you're talking about in regards to the sport of boxing nor do you know what you're talking about in regards to the 'fighters' you're referring too. I'd also like to note that someone that gets the belt without fighting any top contenders(or anyone big for that matter) is considered a paper champ. So by Loftus own analogy Dawkins is a coward and a paper champ. Way to go Loftus. You're even more ignorant in the sport of boxing than you are in the Christianity.Theological Discoursehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11215794691420472061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-21730919554217069872009-12-11T23:01:01.175-05:002009-12-11T23:01:01.175-05:00"Dawkins is still very active but only fights..."Dawkins is still very active but only fights contenders, not sad wannabes who are so punch-drunk they slur all sentences but come to the fight with steel bars in their gloves and razors in their shorts."<br /><br />Is Dawkins really a contender? Personally I think he would be destroyed by Craig.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01825630853478631690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-26038590854430000982009-12-11T22:45:25.133-05:002009-12-11T22:45:25.133-05:00"The biggest problem seems to be that by mere..."The biggest problem seems to be that by merely appearing in a debate they lend their scientific credibility to their opponent's beliefs and thus creating the false impression that the sides are equal, that there are merits on both sides, that there is any sort of scientific doubt remaining. As they say about wrestling with a pig, it makes you filthy and the pig happy."<br /><br />Such arrogance!Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01825630853478631690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-13331139146062568322009-12-11T17:27:27.805-05:002009-12-11T17:27:27.805-05:00...continued:
Are my beliefs a desperate attempt ......continued:<br /><br />Are my beliefs a desperate attempt to reconcile religion with science? I don't think so. I think this is how God works in His universe.<br /><br />Obviously, you will disagree with my beliefs, and there are a thousand points that could be discussed such as how the mind interacts with the brain, why God would choose the particular way He revealed Himself, why He allows so much suffering in the world, why He does not heal amputees, why He allows so many failures in His Church, why Christians are not better people, why there are so many religions, why He does not provide evidence of Himself that is indisputable, why He created through developmental processes and not in an instant, why the universe is so big, how God can be uncaused etc. etc. etc. <br /><br />However, I'll leave it at that for now, for reasons cited. You can have the last word if you wish.<br /><br />AlAl Moritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17422697770654047870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-32165131790675467132009-12-11T17:26:40.249-05:002009-12-11T17:26:40.249-05:00Scott,
you misunderstood me, but I probably wasn&...Scott,<br /><br />you misunderstood me, but I probably wasn't clear. I didn't say that God is not involved in the world. The phrase in my reply to Tyro: "All I wanted to do here is to point out" should have indicated that I wanted to limit the discussion to one topic. I don't see what is wrong with making one specific point and then to move on with other things. I have a lot of time and energy to invest in my work and other areas of my life; discussing at "Debunking Christianity" or other sites is really just a small part of my life.<br /><br />But since you brought it up, I'll give a brief summary of how I think God interacts with the world. <br /><br />1. God does not act <i>despite</i> of what science tells us, on the contrary, from a theistic philosophical perspective science reveals how God creates by letting His creation unfold according to natural processes which He sustains. This should be an important theological reason for believers to accept scientific facts, apart from all other reasons -- scientific facts reveal God's awesome creation, and believers obviously should be interested in that.<br /><br />From a theistic philosophical perspective, the findings of science suggest a much grander idea of God than it used to be: a Designer who laid out an elegant and self-sufficient set of laws of nature that accomplish the unfolding of his creation by inducing self-organization of the material world. I don't see how, with Tyro, this God would be a "weak" or "nebulous" one. On the contrary, I prefer to believe in a God who performs miracles when he <i>wants</i> to, not when He <i>has</i> to.<br /><br />2. I think that the human mind is more than just the physical brain; the mind uses the brain as an instrument, which explains why there is correlation between brain activity and thought, and between brain damage and functioning of the mind. The brain is also obviously necessary for interaction with the body and the outside sensory world, and for maintaining basic physiological functions. I believe that God interacts with the human mind, and can influence its thoughts and in general the "mindset" -- this is part of what living in God's grace means, for example.<br /><br />When some neuroscience researchers claim that the mind <i>is</i> the brain, then I confidently reply that they over-interpret the actual data, which do not strictly allow for that kind of conclusion. I am a scientist myself -- a biochemist -- and I cannot be fooled that easily. Not all neuroscientists believe that the mind is identical with the brain; John Eccles for example, who won the Nobel prize for his work on the synapse, didn't.<br /><br />3. I believe God has indeed revealed Himself to the world through Judaism and then Christ. I don't know about Islam, but I don't see an insurmountable difficulty here; after all, I don't believe that Christians are the only ones that can have a meaningful relationship with God and can be saved, see:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus<br /><br />heading: Roman Catholic interpretation<br /><br />4. I believe that God performs miracles, and also miracles with physical manifestations. They do not occur often, but they do occur at times. I also don't believe that all miracles are in the distant past, a quite spectacular public miracle in more recent times would be the miracle of the sun:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_sun<br /><br />Obviously, the sun did not actually move, but this is not the point of a <i>vision</i>. I don't think that any of the "skeptical" explanations of the event are rational ones, including mass hallucination and mass hysteria.<br /><br />To be continued... (length of post)Al Moritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17422697770654047870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-24578910297777002452009-12-11T09:23:06.894-05:002009-12-11T09:23:06.894-05:00Dawkins is still very active but only fights conte...Dawkins is still very active but only fights contenders, not sad wannabes who are so punch-drunk they slur all sentences but come to the fight with steel bars in their gloves and razors in their shorts. Their goal isn't to fight but to spray confusion and get some limelight, like a WEC wrestler coming into a boxing ring. And what is in it for Dawkins when the religious fans are (as you demonstrate) so far removed from reality that if their contender isn't actually pissing his pants when he comes on stage, he should be given the title for life.Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694840174170043470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-77898451842291360242009-12-11T03:54:57.789-05:002009-12-11T03:54:57.789-05:00How ironic you use an analogy about boxing to DEFE...How ironic you use an analogy about boxing to DEFEND dawkins, it betrays your complete and utter ignorance of the sport. In boxing, holding onto the title belt and refusing to fight anyone but tomato cans is called being a coward, so even by your own analogy Dawkins is a coward.Theological Discoursehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11215794691420472061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-7839631317414240642009-12-10T19:13:31.466-05:002009-12-10T19:13:31.466-05:00Al wrote: the involvement of God in the world is a...Al wrote: <b>the involvement of God in the world is an entirely different topic. </b><br /><br />Al, if God isn't involved in the world, then what value is there in saying God exists?<br /><br />A God that does nothing could exist, but he lacks explanatory power. He doesn't tell us how people how to live there lives. He doesn't make people feel special. He doesn't give eternal life, dish out cosmic justice, etc. <br /><br />I know virtually no one who defends or is searching for the existence of such a God because he would have no value. The same can be said for a God that acts randomly. <br /><br />The value of God is that he is supposedly an agent who is involved in the world. As such, any action he takes automatically inherits meaning. And this meaning spreads like a virus. <br /><br />So, while I would agree that there logically is a boundary between the existence of God and the involvement of God, I would say that are deeply entangled in a way that renders such boundary essentially irrelevant - at least in the eyes of theists.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-32443654806474878932009-12-10T17:57:11.842-05:002009-12-10T17:57:11.842-05:00Loren,
Thanks for the info.Loren,<br /><br />Thanks for the info.Piratefishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03417608807997170547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-34768351546755488272009-12-10T13:57:13.018-05:002009-12-10T13:57:13.018-05:00Tyro,
the involvement of God in the world is an e...Tyro,<br /><br />the involvement of God in the world is an entirely different topic. All I wanted to do here is to point out that for proper analytical thinking on the issues we need to keep science and philosophy separated and should not dilute the boundaries between the two. Also, conceptual leaps should be recognized as such. I am not saying that they are illicit per se (I perform them too at times out of necessity), but they are not self-explanatory either.Al Moritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17422697770654047870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-48352610431502517822009-12-10T11:26:42.747-05:002009-12-10T11:26:42.747-05:00Al,
If we assume that these theologians really kn...Al,<br /><br />If we assume that these theologians really know what they're talking about and understand the implications of evolution and cosmology (something I highly doubt) then they've ruled out any personal, loving god and accepted a deist god at most. This god is so weak and nebulous it is of no interest to me and judging by the polls in the US, I think I stand with the majority. Except for "sophisticated" theologians, few would even recognize this as a god.<br /><br />Dawkins has said about the same so if anyone wants to accuse him (or me) of unscientific or faith-based reasoning, they'll have to do much better than that.Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694840174170043470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-37176943269173992682009-12-10T10:59:51.372-05:002009-12-10T10:59:51.372-05:00Tyro:
The entire process and success of science ca...Tyro:<br /><i>The entire process and success of science can be looked on as a gigantic meta-experiment in naturalism which gains strength every year.<br /><br /><br />As Pirsig said about induction in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, if you go over a few bumps and each time you hear a rattle, you start to think that when you go over the next bump you'll also hear a rattle. We've been going over bumps for two hundred years and every time the rattle is taking us away from the supernatural. Like all good scientists, we remain open to new discoveries and evidence but MN is so embedded in science today because it has worked every time and supernaturalism has failed every time.</i><br /><br /><br />That everything works by natural processes is a concept which theology and theistic scientists have been comfortable with for a long time. Kepler wrote: 'My aim is to show that the heavenly machine is not a kind of divine, live being, but a kind of clockwork....', and: ‘We see how God, like a human architect, approached the founding of the world according to order and rule and measured everything in such a manner.’. The great Cardinal Newman – considered for sainthood in the Catholic Church – wrote in an 1863 entry in his <i>Philosophical Notebooks</i>, four years after the publication of <i>The Origin of Species</i>, that he endorses Darwin’s views as plausible and suggests he might "go the whole hog with Darwin". Newman believed that God let His work develop through secondary causes (the natural causes that science studies), and in 1868 he wrote "Mr. Darwin’s theory need not be atheistical, be it true or not; on the contrary, it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of Divine Prescience and Skill."<br /><br /><i>Suffice it to say that philosophical naturalism isn't merely an unsupported worldview equivalent to supernaturalism, but is congruent with - and strongly inferred from - science.</i><br /><br />It quite a conceptual leap from the fact that everything in nature works by natural processes to the idea that nature itself arose by natural processes. It is a conceptual leap that is neither warranted by straightforward logic nor by hard scientific evidence (evidence from observation and experiment thus, not just from mathematical models).Al Moritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17422697770654047870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-11825260501717390192009-12-10T09:37:00.246-05:002009-12-10T09:37:00.246-05:00I am surprised that you believe Dawkins would lose...I am surprised that you believe Dawkins would lose. I guess Darwinian guesses about origins, phenotypes and morphology are not arguments that can stand on their own.<br /><br />I agree with you that Dawkins would lose. The arguments used by Dawkins are easily refuted.<br /><br />The fact is that Dawkins is closed minded and depends on indoctrination to promote his worldview. I have seen enough videos of Dawkins being embarrassed by his critics. He simply does not have the facts on his side.D.L. Folkenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14088685389758373359noreply@blogger.com