Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Category

theism

Why do some biologists hate theism more than physicists do?

British physicist John Polkinghorne thinks that biologists see a more disorderly universe: I think two effects produce this hostility. One is that biologists see a much more perplexing, disorderly, and painful view of reality than is presented by the austere and beautiful order of fundamental physics. . . . There is, however, a second effect at work of much less intellectual respectability. Biology, through the unravelling of the molecular basis of genetics, has scored an impressive victory, comparable to physics’ earlier elucidation of the motions of the solar system through the operation of universal gravity. The post-Newtonian generation was intoxicated with the apparent success of universal mechanism and wrote books boldly proclaiming that man is a machine. Dan Peterson, “Why Read More ›

Steve Meyer’s new book: Return of the God Hypothesis

Media personality and author Eric Metaxas interviews philosopher of science Steve Meyer, author of Darwin’s Doubt and Signature in the Cell: According to a nationwide survey, more than two-thirds of atheists and one-third of agnostics believe that “the findings of science make the existence of God less probable,” while nearly half of self-identified theists believe “the findings of science are neutral with regard to the existence of God.” But what if there is another option? What if the discoveries of science actually lend support to belief in God? What’s really interesting is that in an era of elite virtue signals, oblivious to reason, a significant number of people want to know where the evidence points. The vid has gotten nearly Read More ›

“Lousy” science dedicated to making kids from pious families look stupid

Wayne Rossiter: If the first story was one a religious kid would trust because it involves a known biblical character (Joseph) and God’s miraculous work, that will affect subsequent stories about Joseph. Read More ›

Logic spaghetti: Who created God?

Tapscott: What are the most difficult questions to answer? Solid candidates are those which by virtue of how they are posed eliminate the only logical and correct answers. (Introducing mathematician John Lennox) Read More ›

Atheist public intellectual John Gray separates the atheist wheat from the chaff

Graham McAleer: This book should put to rest the canard that atheism is free thinking, and oh so much more broad-minded and gentle than what is on offer from the dull and cramped-spirited God-fearing types. Read More ›

New Pew Survey creates a huge middle on evolution

Actually, it’s not surprising at all. Pure naturalist atheists are not that common once you get off campus and a safe distance from the raging Woke. Most people would rather you think they were creationists (provided you don’t push it too far), which likely accounts for the drop in the second set, when a clear alternative for theists is provided. Some of us think this change in question is long overdue. Read More ›

How can a naturalist atheist believe in the existence of evidence?

A naturalist atheist's problems are not just with religion but also with philosophy. we can't believe that our brain is shaped for fitness, not truth, and still expect to have a chance at discovering truth. Read More ›

The phony war of science vs. religion pales in the face of the “social justice” assault on Darwin

Coyne is right. Atheists got hold of science. But the atheists’ opponents have traditionally been theists who are scientists who believe that truth is important. And much that is claimed to be “science” in Coyne’s own field is questionable but is defended because it supports atheism. But now, along come the social justice warriors... Read More ›

No, life cannot have meaning in a random universe. Next question?

In an excerpt from his recent book, Finding Purpose in a Godless World: Why We Care Even If the Universe Doesn’t, a psychiatrist explains how we can have meaning even though we don’t: People assume that our human sense of purpose is dependent on the universe having a purpose, and without such purpose they assume that life has no meaning. This is a wholly unsubstantiated assumption. Our purposeless universe has become infused with local pockets of purpose, and this has happened through entirely natural, spontaneous processes. Purpose emerged in the universe with life itself. Purpose and meaning (and morality too) can be entirely explained as natural phenomena, emergent from a random, material universe. All living creatures are purposeful. Simple creatures Read More ›

Moshe Averick: When does a “gap” point beyond conventional science?

Rabbi Moshe Averick, author of  The Confused World of Modern Atheism (Mosaica Press, 2016) addresses the “God of the Gaps” – the claim that the intersections between the material and the immaterial in nature are just “gaps” waiting to be filled in (with special reference to the origin of life): The first thing I would bring to your attention – although not the essential point – is that when we discuss the Origin of Life we are not talking about a “gap” in scientific knowledge. A gap implies some acceptable and tolerable missing piece of the puzzle that we expect to fill in within some reasonable amount of time. What we actually see is more like the ocean between the coast Read More ›