Category: Science, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology
|December 14, 2017||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Food for thought, Logic and First Principles of right reason, Mathematics, Philosophy, Science, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society, theism|
In a recent thread, the Kalam Cosmological argument family was challenged on the issue: can an actual infinity exist? If not (presumably due to Hilbert’s Hotel-like absurdities), then God could not be an infinite being as such is impossible of being. A thread of discussion developed, and I thought a summary intervention may be helpful. […]
|December 1, 2017||Posted by kairosfocus under Logic and First Principles of right reason, Science, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society, Stirring the pot (tentative thoughts/explorations)|
Origenes, has put up an interesting argument that we need to ponder as food for thought. It’s Friday, so this should be a good thing to start our weekend on: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ORIGENES: Here I will argue that self-prediction cannot be accommodated by materialism. In daily life we all routinely engage in acts of self-prediction — […]
|November 26, 2017||Posted by kairosfocus under Food for thought, Logic and First Principles of right reason, Philosophy, Science, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology, Selective Hyperskepticism, warrant, knowledge, science and belief|
Sometimes, exchanges at UD come down to truly basic (and hard) issues. This is one such time, where Origenes has challenged prolific objector Critical Rationalist in the Personal Incredulity thread: >>100 Origenes November 25, 2017 at 7:01 pm CR What is your definition of valid knowledge?>> I have thought this worthy of responding to and […]
|July 13, 2017||Posted by News under Cosmology, Intelligent Design, Multiverse, Science, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology|
You know, string theory leads to a multiverse. As described by Columbia mathematician Peter Woit at Not Even Wrong: There’s an interview with Nima Arkani-Hamed here. His talk at the recent PASCOS 2017 conference (real title is second slide “What the Hell is Going On?”) gives his take on the current state of HEP, post failure of the LHC to […]
|May 3, 2017||Posted by Eric Anderson under Atheism, Evolutionary materialism's amorality, Logic and First Principles of right reason, Science, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
Weak materialists do not necessarily reject the idea of non-material realities. As a result, many arguments against strong materialism do not directly address the viewpoint of the weak materialist, resulting in a disconnect in the debate over free will and morality.
|January 28, 2017||Posted by johnnyb under Naturalism, Philosophy, Science, Science, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology|
While these statistics get recompiled continually, I was pleased to wake up this morning and find that our new book, Naturalism and Its Alternatives in Scientific Methodologies is currently the #1 Hot New Release in the Scientific Research category, the #2 Hot New Release in epistemology, and the #1 Hot New Release in Psychology research.
|October 25, 2016||Posted by Steve Fuller under Ethics, Intelligent Design, Of General Interest, Philosophy, Science fiction, Science, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
We started by assuming that Pilate made a mistake of world-historic proportions when he condemned Jesus to death. However, as Pilate in Purgatory explores the alternative histories that would result in a better world, he may come to discover that each of those alternatives would have resulted in a worse world because they would have also prevented the Resurrection of Jesus, which is the cornerstone of the Christian faith
|July 13, 2016||Posted by johnnyb under Intelligent Design, Naturalism, Philosophy, Science, Science, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology, Video|
In the next installment of videos from the AM-Nat conference, Jim LeMaster discusses Francis Bacon and David Hume, and shows their issues with teleological thinking in science, and why the arguments against analogies don’t measure up. We have a conference coming up in November focused on biology, and another in February focused on business and […]
|July 10, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Cosmology, FYI-FTR, Logic and First Principles of right reason, Science, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society, Selective Hyperskepticism||
Video: embedded by Embedded VideoYouTube Direkt (This is supplementary to the discussion thread here started by HeKS, as he only linked the debate. Onward discussion is invited there in the thread.) END
|July 6, 2016||Posted by HeKS under Atheism, Big Bang, Cosmology, Fine tuning, General interest, Logic and First Principles of right reason, Philosophy, Science, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology|
Recently, a debate was held in London between theist philosopher Rabbi Daniel Rowe and atheist philosopher A.C. Grayling. The subject under dispute, unsurprisingly, was God’s existence. It’s a very interesting debate to watch. I’d never heard of Rowe before, but I was familiar with Grayling, who is sometimes referred to as the Fifth Horseman of […]
|April 13, 2016||Posted by johnnyb under Naturalism, Philosophy, Science, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology|
This is an online conference, so anyone can attend from anywhere in the world. Convert time zones.
Is Barker right (or at least in possession of responsibly justified belief) in his book title: “God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction”?
|February 13, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Science, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society, Selective Hyperskepticism|
It seems atheist Dan Barker has built on a notorious remark by Mr Dawkins and has published a book bearing the title as headlined. The question immediately arises: is he right, or is he holding a responsibly justified belief even were it in error? A glance at the Amazon page for the book gives the […]
|February 1, 2016||Posted by DonaldM under Christian Darwinism, Darwinism, Design inference, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Naturalism, Philosophy, Religion, Science, Science, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology|
Before I put the issue with the United Methodist Church and Discovery Institute to rest, I want to make one last comment on the UMC’s Statement on Science and Technology, which I wrote about the other day. One of the most significant assertions in the statement is “We preclude science from making authoritative claims about […]
In the current UD thread on Darwinism and an infinite past, there has been an exchange on Spitzer’s argument that it is impossible to traverse an infinite past to arrive at the present. Let me share and headline what is in effect the current state of play: DS, 108: >>KF, DS, ticking clocks meet dying […]
|January 14, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Fine tuning, Science, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
Ran across this clip at Christian Post: Atheist author and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins says the best argument for God he’s ever hard has to do with a deistic God as the fine-tuner of the universe . . . . Dawkins prefaced his answer by making it clear that he is not “in any sense […]
|October 12, 2015||Posted by niwrad under Intelligent Design, Science, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology|
Some Aristotelian Neo-Thomists (E. Feser call them “A-T philosophers”) accuse intelligent design (ID) of being an expression of the modern mechanistic reductionist quantificationist mindset, and of denying an immanent teleology in nature. I would argue that the difference between internal and external teleology shouldn’t divide ID and A-T. ID doesn’t deny immanent teleology in nature, […]
|July 24, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Free Speech, Intellectual freedom, Laws, Religion, Science, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
Carpathian, sadly but predictably, in the face of remonstrance has continued his attempts to support ghettoising, stigmatising and silencing the voice of the Christian in public; making himself a poster-child of a clear and present danger to liberty in our time. For example: >>Religious activities should all be private. Any prospects for religious conversion should […]
|July 23, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Education, Ethics, Religion, Science, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
Justice, classically, is often portrayed as a blindfolded lady carrying scales and a sword. This represents the challenge of impartiality and responsible and fair evaluation of cases in light of facts, rights, value and values that must consistently lie behind the unfortunate reality that the state and its officers must wield the sword in defence […]
|January 28, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Science, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
Here: embedded by Embedded VideoYouTube Direkt In this video, Dr Craig argues that we have good reason to accept the objectivity of ought, and from that we see that there is a credible ground of such, God. In slightly more details, if one rejects the objectivity of the general sense of OUGHT as governing our […]
In this video, Dr Craig argues that we have good reason to accept the objectivity of ought, and from that we see that there is a credible ground of such, God.
In slightly more details, if one rejects the objectivity of the general sense of OUGHT as governing our behaviour, we are implying a general delusion.
Where, as there are no firewalls in the mind . . . a general delusion undermines the general credibility of knowledge and rationality.
And in practice even those who most passionately argue for moral subjectivity live by the premise that moral principles such as fairness, justice, doing good by neighbour etc are binding. That is, there is no good reason to doubt that reality.
OUGHT, credibly, is real and binding.
But if OUGHT is real, it has to be grounded in a foundational IS in the cosmos.
After centuries of debate, there is still only one serious candidate, the inherently good Creator-God, a necessary and maximally great being.
Essentially, the being we find referred to in the US Declaration of Independence of 1776 (which also shows the positive, liberating historic impact of such a view):
When . . . it becomes necessary for one people . . . to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 – 21, 2:14 – 15], that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . . .
(Readers may wish to see this discussion in context as well.)
By way of contrast, on the evolutionary materialist perspective, we may for instance see Dawkins, in as reproduced in “God’s Utility Function” in Sci Am in 1995:
Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This lesson is one of the hardest for humans to learn. We cannot accept that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous: indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose . . . . In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference . . . . DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. [[ “God’s Utility Function,” Sci. Am. Aug 1995, pp. 80 – 85.]
. . . or (adding overnight), Michael Ruse & E. O. Wilson in the 1991 form of the essay, “The Evolution of Ethics”
The time has come to take seriously the fact [[–> This is a gross error at the outset, as macro-evolution is a theory (an explanation) about the unobserved past of origins and so cannot be a fact on the level of the observed roundness of the earth or the orbiting of planets around the sun etc.] that we humans are modified monkeys, not the favored Creation of a Benevolent God on the Sixth Day . . . We must think again especially about our so-called ‘ethical principles.’ The question is not whether biology—specifically, our evolution—is connected with ethics, but how. As evolutionists, we see that no justification of the traditional kind is possible. Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will … In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding… Ethics is illusory inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological position. [= evolutionary materialist philosophical premise, duly dressed up in a lab coat . . . ] Once it is grasped, everything falls into place. [Michael Ruse & E. O. Wilson, “The Evolution of Ethics,” Religion and the Natural Sciences: The Range of Engagement, , ed. J. E. Hutchingson, Orlando, Fl.:Harcourt and Brace, 1991.
. . . and Provine in his Darwin Day address at U. Tenn 1998:
With Sir Francis Crick backing up in an inadvertent self-refutation:
. . . that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” [–> But Sir Francis, what does this imply about your own responsible freedom and ability to choose to think reasonably?] This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing. [Cf. dramatisation of unintended potential consequences, here.]
So, it seems that if we are inclined to accept evolutionary materialist scientism and to reject God, we do end up in a want of foundation for morality. Which carries the onward implication of a general delusion and breakdown of the credibility of rational mindedness and responsible freedom.
Thus, reductio ad absurdum.
At least, that is how it looks from where I sit and type. Thoughts? (And if the thoughts are evolutionary materialistic, how do you ground credibility of mind and morals on such? For surely, blindly mechanical computation is not contemplation.) END
PS: I think it worth adding (Jan 29) a Koukl lecture: