Here’s a clip from an old (1998) debate between William Lane Craig and atheist Peter Atkins. Atkins, after touting scientism, is lectured by Craig on five things that cannot be justified by science but are nonetheless rational to believe: Beautiful! Here’s the YouTube link: click here.
Michael Dowd, the guiding light behind evolutionarychristianity.com, praises the new atheists: “Religion is about right relationship with reality, not the supernatural.” “The wisdom of antiquity—in all its forms and drawn from all regions of the world—could not possibly be up to the task of serving us now. Ancient, unchanged scriptural stories and doctrinal declarations are inadequate for meeting modern challenges.” “In a way, the New Atheists have come to our rescue. They are shouting at us to collectively awaken to the dangers of revering texts and doctrines on no sounder basis than tradition an authority. Because the New Atheists put their confidence (not faith) in an evidentially formed and continuously tested view of the world, these critics of religion are well Read More ›
A friend writes to say that he has a “very anti-Christian friend” who seems to have gotten herself high on “evolution” (= a fool for Dawkins). She wanted to know if any of my books would help. I recommended this one and this one, but ended by saying Re evolution: Do reassure your friend that it is okay to be an atheist and doubt current accounts of evolution. Many now do. Reviewing current accounts of evolution is like watching sausages get made, and hearing the details spelled out. It could throw you off meat altogether or else cause you to be much more selective in what you consume.
A friend writes to advise me of a “vicious” review by Scott Atran of Sam Harris’s latest book, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values in the most recent issue of National Interest, which – he tells me – otherwise focuses on foreign and defense policy. Atran, an anthropologist connected with U Michigan, doesn’t like Harris anyway, I gather, because the latter wouldn’t dismiss the effects of laboratory research into telepathy and telekinesis. Atran, for his own reasons, doesn’t think that “science” is in any position to determine morality. Harris tells us: “I find reasons for hope” because “moral progress seems to me unmistakable. . . . Consider the degree to which racism in the United States has Read More ›
My good friend Frank Turek is organizing a conference for training apologetics instructors this August. The dates have just been nailed down and I’ll be speaking there on, what else, ID. Frank’s best known book, co-authored with Norm Geisler, is I DON’T HAVE ENOUGH FAITH TO BE AN ATHEIST. It’s an insightful and fun book. ID is clearly a factor here in undermining faith in atheism. For conference details, go here.
… it turns out that Jerry “whyevolutionistrue” Coyne doesn’t like Elaine Ecklund, a Templeton author on faith and science*: Elaine Ecklund is making more hay out of her Templeton-funded research than I would have thought possible. Author of the book Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think, she has spent her post-publication time distorting her findings as loudly and as often as possible, and spinning them to claim that they show the need for a consilience of science and faith. Templeton could not have gotten more bang for their bucks. Her latest piece, “Science on Faith“, is in The Chronicle of Higher Education. (It’s behind a paywall but I got it from the library.) Once again Ecklund emphasizes the many Read More ›
In “Professors group accused of anti-religious bullying”, Charles Lewis reports (National Post, Feb. 8, 2011) on the underbelly of the Canadian Union of University Teachers:
A group of academics has launched a campaign defending Canadian Christian universities against what it terms anti-religious bullying by the country’s leading university teachers’ federation.”What we have here is an academic union ganging up on these smaller Christian universities, and I thought it was high time that people from the public universities take a stand,” said Paul Allen, an associate professor of theology at Concordia University in Montreal.
The protest is a direct response to reports that the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) issued against Trinity Western University in British Columbia more than a year ago, Crandall University in New Brunswick in July and Winnipeg’s Canadian Mennonite University in October.
“It bothered me that this is anti-religious ideology masked as supposedly an academic freedom issue,” said Mr. Allen, who has started a petition to warn about CAUT’s actions. “This was an opportunity in the current [secular climate] to go after religion.”
The petition, which now has 140 signatures, said the investigations are unwarranted and invasive.
Mr. Allen and many others who signed the petition are members of CAUT, which has 65,000 members. Academics at the schools that were investigated are not members.
In each case the investigation concluded that true freedom was being denied to academics because of the requirement to sign a statement of Christian faith. CAUT believes that by agreeing to terms of Christian principles, academics will be hemmed in by a narrow set of doctrine. The association was also worried about the future employment of academics who might sign a document but later change their personal beliefs.
At Trinity Western, for example, teachers must acknowledge there is one God, the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and that Christ is God incarnate.
However, there were no complaints about any of the targeted schools before the probes were launched and none has made a secret of its requirements for hiring.
Read more here:
Okay, you want to live in the world of the Darwinists and their Christian supporters, you’d better get ready for stuff like this.
Of course there were no complaints! But that doesn’t matter, you see. Read More ›
Recently, distinguished professor Hundert Fundert at Thunderjug University, editor emeritus of the Analytical Encyclopedia of Correct and Incorrect Humour, professed not to know whether I was kidding about the supposed link between atheism and obesity. He probably didn’t get the memo: The link between atheism and obesity is about as plausible in detail as that between traditional religions and violence. No, most atheists are not beer bellies with feet they can’t even see – and most traditionally spiritual people are not violent either. The difference is that journals flirt with the latter claim. So I thought – hey, the Internet’s a free market – I’ll indulge some guy’s fat rap, just for variety. Maybe later, I’ll strike out on my Read More ›
Here’s Richard Dawkins, as a friend puts it, “coming out … as a religious bigot” in analyzing the Martin Gaskell case (“potentially evangelical” astronomer settles for $100K+): The University of Kentucky has caved in and agreed a settlement, out of court, with the allegedly creationist astronomer Martin Gaskell. …[ … ] If Martin were not so superbly qualified, so breathtakingly above the other applicants in background and experience, then our decision would be much simpler. We could easily choose another applicant, and we could content ourselves with the idea that Martin’s religious beliefs played little role in our decision. However, this is not the case. As it is, no objective observer could possibly believe that we excluded Martin on any Read More ›
Man demonstrates the ease of proving the existence of French fries. Photo by James Heilman, MD Along the lines of religion and health, a friend absolutely insists that I write about this: From a medical perspective, an obese person has accumulated enough body fat that it can have a negative effect on their health. If a person’s weight is at least 20% higher than it should be, he/she is generally considered obese. If your Body Mass Index (BMI) is between 25 and 29.9 you are considered overweight. If your BMI is 30 or over you are considered obese.[6] The term obese can also used in a more general way to indicate someone who is overweight.[7] Two of the major risk Read More ›
Of the 25 most influential atheists featured at a student homework help site, it’s curious how many are best known or widely known for pushing Darwinism.
(I’m sure Larry Krauss, at #11, is as solid a brass-footed fish as you could hope for. But he is best known for preaching the end of all things, including science, so he’s not in tonight’s lineup.)
How about, instead:
#1 Richard Dawkins (“Darwin’s Rottweiler”, ‘nuff said)
#4 Daniel Dennett (winner of Darwin look-alike contest) and the Darwinist education award: “If you insist on teaching your children falsehoods- that the earth is flat, that “Man” is not a product of evolution by natural selection-then you must expect, at the very least, that those of us who have freedom of speech will feel free to describe your teachings as the spreading of falsehoods, and will attempt to demonstrate this to your children at our earliest opportunity.”)*
#7 Michael Shermer (skeptical of everything except Darwinism, I gather, but as Dennett would assure him, Darwin answers all needs)
#12 Edwin O. Wilson, prophet of Social Darwinism, oops, make that sociobiology, no wait, “evolutionary psychology”is the new brand name. To see the reason for continual rebranding, see #4 above.
Note: Wilson apparently describes himself as a provisional deist. I’d call it “true agnostic”, but see the combox below for a discussion of terms.
This past Christmas, there was nothing new under the sun. The folks below, who make evolution their singular mantra, have not evolved the discussion of evolution to include and invite Intelligent Design advocates to the table to discuss science, evolution, or Christianity. I would’ve thought that, since the argument is always made by ID opponents (who are normally apologists for evolution) that ID is creation in a cheap lab coat, in other words, a thin cover for Christianity, ID advocates would’ve at least been invited to discuss Christianity. This co-option of evolution into Christianity reminds me of the co-option of Eugenics into Christianity in the early part of last century, a bad idea that will pass.
This Christmas, Christianity evolves
• Rev. Michael Dowd convenes diverse Christian leaders who see science as sacred
• EvolutionaryChristianity.com to host free podcasts and seminars
DECEMBER 22, 2010 – This Christmas season, bestselling author and evolutionary evangelist Rev. Michael Dowd is having an online revival of sorts, and pitching what may be the biggest tent yet for fellow Christians who embrace evolution and honor science: EvolutionaryChristianity.com.
As a sequel to his breakthrough book Thank God for Evolution (Viking/Plume), Rev. Dowd is hosting and producing a living library of free podcasts and live panels with preeminent Christians on the leading edge of science and religion, where mythic beliefs and measurable reality collide.
» View schedule and bios
» View live panel schedule
» View speakers grouped by affiliation
“The New Atheists and scriptural literalists are not the only games in town,” says Dowd. “In contrast to Richard Dawkins’ God-less universe, tens of millions of us in the middle celebrate both Jesus and Darwin. For us, religious faith is strengthened by what God is revealing through science.”
UD blogger Denyse O’Leary just coined a term on her cognitive science blog (The Mindfulhack): “neuroatheists.” It’s a good term and precisely describes a significant segment of the new atheists. Here’s where she introduces the term: http://mindfulhack.blogspot.com/2011/01/influential-neuro-atheists-leading-race.html The list of “influential atheists” that inspired the term “neuroatheism” has some interesting non-neuroatheists. Have a look (see any familiar faces?): http://www.superscholar.org/features/influential-atheists
We have all heard of the NCSE, but the National Science Teachers Association [of the US], NSTA, has proposed a new definition of the nature of science, in a declaration signed off by its Board of Directors, as long ago as July, 2000. Excerpting: All those involved with science teaching and learning should have a common, accurate view of the nature of science. Science is characterized by the systematic gathering of information through various forms of direct and indirect observations and the testing of this information by methods including, but not limited to, experimentation. The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts . . . . Read More ›
In 1959, the physicist-novelist-UK science policy advisor CP Snow gave his famous Rede Lecture at Cambridge, where he canonized ‘the two cultures’ , a long-standing and — to his mind at least — increasing distinction between the mindsets of those trained in the ‘arts’ (i.e. humanities, social sciences) and the ‘sciences’ (i.e. natural sciences, engineering). Even back then, and certainly more so now, there was another ‘culture’ that was increasingly set adrift from the rest of academic knowledge — theology. For example, it would be interesting to learn whether most academics believe that theology constitutes a body of knowledge — and, for that matter, whether most theologians themselves believe that their knowledge applies to more than just fellow believers. After Read More ›